Fortlip VS Nedplay/32Red

[Fortlip]

Late in January, after I heard the exciting news that Nedplay had switched to the dependable and trustworthy hands of 32Red, I navigated over to their refurbished website and downloaded the casino. I had in mind a safe, wholesome experience that would provide me with worry-free entertainment. Especially after reading the horror stories about Nedplay posted here, about players waiting weeks to get paid, in contrast to the venerative honours awarded to 32Red, I felt confident I had made an intelligent decision to come to them to play.

I had a wonderful time playing at Nedplay, and after winning in excess of 1600 pounds, the winnings were subjected to 100x in additional playthrough, surrounding what is meant by "individual bets" in an ambiguous term allowing a maximum bet of 25% of the bonus value,

In the interests of fair gaming, players may not place individual bets equal to or in excess of 25% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the playthrough requirements for that bonus have been met. Any winnings derived from bets placed to the value of 25% or more of the bonus before playthrough requirements for that bonus have been met will initiate a further playthrough requirement of 100 times the amount won.

From what support said by telephone prior to when I played, only each bet on 5 seats at a Multi-hand table was counted. None of my bets at the multi-hand table exceeded this 25% value. I noticed in a positive review posted on the boards, a user posted part of a chat in which this explanation was confirmed (http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...e-nedplay.html),

Paul: it means you cannot place 1 bet to greater than value of 25% of your bonus amount
Paul: but if you play multi hand BJ
Paul: each bet is for each hand
Paul: not combined total

On February 3rd after I played, the term was clarified for future players when the staff at 32Red added a sentence on all of their affiliate websites,

For the purposes of this rule a bet is one roulette spin or one dealer's dealt hand in any table game, or one deal in any Video or Power Poker game (this includes Multi-Hand/Play games).

Pat Harrison, their respected and exceptionally polite director of operations, claims he cannot find either the phone call or the chat in the records, and for that reason alone, he has upheld the decision by Dale Williams in the payments department to reverse my withdrawal and add 100x in playthrough, effectively voiding not only my winnings, but my deposit as well. 32Red's claim is that the term has always counted Multi-hand bets as a single bet, and that the sentence was added purely to make that obvious. In his explanation he discusses how 5 bets summed together make an individual bet,

For the purposes of clarity, with the Welcome Bonus of £250 that was claimed the maximum bet size allowed (under the Terms and Conditions of this Bonus that were in place when the Bonus was credited) was £62.50. In playing 5 hands against the dealer’s single hand on a Multi-Hand table this would mean that your initial bet on each of your 5 hands could not exceed £12.50.

One of the operational standards for an Accredited casino on Casinomeister is that it "Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons." In my opinion, with or without an explanation from support, applying this term in its original form citing "individual bets" is wide open to interpretation as far as whether doubles or splits or multi-hand seats count together; it is unclear for any newcoming player.

Throughout the past week, dealing with Pat and even during a short back and forth with Ed, their CEO, I believe all parties involved have been candid and as straightforward as possible. Nonetheless, in hindsight this experience was a great deal less than I expected coming to the coveted "Casino of the Decade".

As a final note, ironically, had Nedplay remained in the hands of its previous owners without the term, despite the nuisance of waiting weeks or months to be paid, and the much abhorred inferior service, this problem may have been entirely avoided.

[Pinababy69]

There is a thread dealing with almost the identical issue here:

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...d-grounds.html

However, that player has pitched a bitch...so it's gone dormant. I was undecided about that one, and pretty much the same here. I really think it's open to interpretation, and any advantage player is going to JUMP on it...if it's not spelled out precisely in the terms what is allowed re: Multi-Hand games such as Blackjack.

I'm really on the fence about the whole issue...I can see both sides. I do find disturbing the fact that you say they couldn't locate either your chat or your phone call. That is certainly not like them. Did they locate ANY chat or phone call that took place at the times you said they did? Or is there just absolutely zero record on the logs?

I would strongly suggest you use the PAB service, and allow Max access to ALL the relevant info, from both parties. And while the PAB process is ongoing, you should cease to post any further on the issue. I'll be curious to see the outcomes of both these cases.

[vinylweatherman]

This looks like there has been a new "advantage play" method doing the rounds. It exploits the ambiguity of "a single bet" when it comes to multi-hand games where there are separate seats for the player, but only ONE dealer hand. This loophole allows the player to post 5x25% per dealer hand in an attempt to circumvent the 25% rule.
Many casinos simply confiscate the winnings, giving them a 100x extra WR does at least give the player a chance to redeem themselves by playing within the terms from then on WITH the winnings gained by the initial breach. This same approach was taken by Lasseters casino under strict Australian regulation, they added extra WR rather than confiscating winnings.

Ideally, the software should be upgraded to enforce such rules, making it IMPOSSIBLE for such bets to be made in the first place, rather than having to deal with a messy argument between player and casino, often in public. These programmers at MGS can come out with all these new games, yet cannot write a piece of code to calculate 25% of a variable already known to the software, and apply the result as a max bet limitation.

[spiderlegz]

There shouldnt be any question about these kind of issues. The casinos need to pay and clearly state that multiple hands (in this case Multi-Hand BJ) are considered as a single bet.

They (casinos) have written the term very poorly. In the case of 32Red I know that players have been told in live chat that double and splits dont break the 25% rule when they infact do.

[Fortlip]

This looks like there has been a new "advantage play" method doing the rounds. It exploits the ambiguity of "a single bet" when it comes to multi-hand games where there are separate seats for the player, but only ONE dealer hand. This loophole allows the player to post 5x25% per dealer hand in an attempt to circumvent the 25% rule.
Many casinos simply confiscate the winnings, giving them a 100x extra WR does at least give the player a chance to redeem themselves by playing within the terms from then on WITH the winnings gained by the initial breach. This same approach was taken by Lasseters casino under strict Australian regulation, they added extra WR rather than confiscating winnings.

Ideally, the software should be upgraded to enforce such rules, making it IMPOSSIBLE for such bets to be made in the first place, rather than having to deal with a messy argument between player and casino, often in public. These programmers at MGS can come out with all these new games, yet cannot write a piece of code to calculate 25% of a variable already known to the software, and apply the result as a max bet limitation.

The 100x Playthrough 32Red added is applied to the winnings by itself, not the net win by subtracting the losses. In my case this amounts to £371,537.50 in PT on slots.

There is no conceivable way a player can play through this amount and cash out any part of his winnings or deposit with a balance under 2k.

My play was not an attempt to circumvent the rules; the term clearly specifies individual bets, and by looking closely at the monitor while you're playing Multi-hand games, you will notice the chips on each seat are in their own, individual, positions.

[mclee321]

I'm not really interested of the semantics of the 25% rule. I do have an a opinion though, this is not a statement of fact.

You were betting over 62.50 per round on multi hand blackjack on a bonus of 250? Lets face it, I'm not the only one here thinking you were trying to make a fast buck with bonus hunting tactics.

What is even more irritating is the original post, a relatively shallow and transparent piece of passive aggressive writing; Build up sympathy by describing the casino is glowing terms (and in a way partially heaping blame on all and sundry for giving 32Red good reviews), then attacking their rules with a display of self righteous sorrow. Gather round and defend the injured party all!!

Give me a break.

Advantage play is one of the reasons the few bonuses I get offered now have outrageous Wagering Requirements and seem set to go higher and higher. I used to enjoy extended playtime with a bonus, but apart from a few offered now (32red's club rouge monthly springs to mind), they are pointless to take.

[aldian]

Give me a break.

Just take a look at the last three complaints here (including this) and the one that has currently been resolved on GPWA to get an idea who is responsible for most of the trouble.

[chuchu59]

The OP is obviously an advantage player and a manipulator from what I have have read in the first post. There should be ways to confirm the existence of the phone call which is likely to have been recorded. However, since it has vanished into thin air, what actually transpired is anyone's guess.

What 32RED had probably done wrong was to update or rather clarify the Ts and Cs after the play by the OP. This would seem to most observers that they are trying to make amends after they goofed up. Though my experience with them in the past would indicate this is not the case, I believe that 32RED should pay up. While I dont condone the actions of the OP in placing large individual bets on Multi-Player BJ to circumvent the rules, the fact is each $62.5 wager is an individual bet and hence 5 individual risks. You can lose 3 bets and win 2, lose 2 and win 3 etc.etc.

I know why the 25% rule was introduced and believe they are right to protect themselves against advantage players. However, when introducing these new terms, more thought must be given in writing them up so as to plug any loopholes. You just got caught out by one extremely intelligent advantage player who also happens to write very well.

As a side note, the OP mentions that he believed Nedplaye (32RED) would offer him worry-free entertainment. He then places his entire bankroll on one game of BJ. Well, if that is entertainment, it could be short-lived. I would rather call it 'lavish excitement'.

[aldian]

I know why the 25% rule was introduced and believe they are right to protect themselves against advantage players. However, when introducing these new terms, more thought must be given in writing them up so as to plug any loopholes.

But please stop to moan then if you have bonus T&Cs with 48 paragraphs or so because this is the result of that.

[Fortlip]

What 32RED had probably done wrong was to update or rather clarify the Ts and Cs after the play by the OP. This would seem to most observers that they are trying to make amends after they goofed up. Though my experience with them in the past would indicate this is not the case, I believe that 32RED should pay up.

Yes, this behaviour by 32RED is drastically different than I expected from the Top Accredited Casino.