Shark Casino Owes Me $29,500

**henryVIII** · 27th September 2006, 01:53 AM

oooh ... again... more bad rep from tennis balls ... quote "worst post ever" ...

Are you an affiliate tennis balls?

Thought so.

**chuchu59** · 27th September 2006, 02:18 AM

HenryVIII,

There is a difference between casinos like 32RED/Intercasino and Shark. The former bends backwards to accomodate reasonable requests because they have a reputation to defend and they also have the financial clout to do so. Shark, I believe, falls into the middle range where they will PAY if everything is done according to their terms and conditions but if anything goes astray, the player will not be given the benefit of the doubt simply because the power of the dollar is more important than reputation or anything else. You might take a cue from their instalment payments. If they had plenty of money in the kitty why would they pay $10,000 in instalments. The line they take may be deplorable at times but certainly understandable and is necessary to allow them to stay afloat. Look no further than Club Player for a bottom range candidate where they dont even have a reason for not paying. As for your reference to judge judy, the plaintiff will need to prove that there is, under the law of contract, an offer by the player to reverse some of his money for play without being bound by the $10000 max and the casino accepted it. The 'consideration' is the $2500 and there are no qualms about that. The burden of proof will be on the player and I honestly believe that if contested in court the player will lose because it is only his unilateral thinking that his reversal is not bound by the original terms of the bonus and where the withdrawal has not been fully cashed.

Nice to debate with you. Sometimes its rather good to agree to diasagree. I like to tackle all issues without branding myself with either siding with the player or the casino. Its fairer and makes us all better people.

**Marco85** · 27th September 2006, 08:34 PM

chuchu.
you said that shark casino is care more about the money then it rep, I don't think so, cause no casino can last long without good reputation, and this kind of treatment to players do not help their's.
about the financial aspect, other casino that pay very fast do it not just for the sake of the good rep, it is because they did their homework and know what is their balance and how much they can pay. if Shark would have done the same then they should lowers thier limits, so players cannot win too much.
putting a note in the site that they can get only 2500$ every week (and pay even slower), is not an answer to thier probelm, it is just an act to prevent them from lose a lot in a certain period, and to be able to pay by the losers money "when they can"! and this is what they did here.

the correct answer is to limit the games, why did they let players play a 500$ a hand if they know they cant stand the hit?

it is like a story I once heard about portofino player who won more then 2 Millions, cause they raise him the limits, because they just wait for him to lose, this is not how things should work... (and this is what couse portofino to close their bussines).

phynqster, I still wait for an answer to my offer, I think it is quite rude that you did not comment on it! you can tell me "NO", I wont be offend, I will just keep on doing what I doing in order to get my money.
hope to get a reply soon.

Marco

**tennis_balls** · 27th September 2006, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by henryVIII

oooh ... again... more bad rep from tennis balls ... quote "worst post ever" ...

Are you an affiliate tennis balls?

Thought so.

Thought wrong! I'm a player.

**chuchu59** · 27th September 2006, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Marco85

chuchu.
you said that shark casino is care more about the money then it rep, I don't think so, cause no casino can last long without good reputation, and this kind of treatment to players do not help their's.
about the financial aspect, other casino that pay very fast do it not just for the sake of the good rep, it is because they did their homework and know what is their balance and how much they can pay. if Shark would have done the same then they should lowers thier limits, so players cannot win too much.
putting a note in the site that they can get only 2500$ every week (and pay even slower), is not an answer to thier probelm, it is just an act to prevent them from lose a lot in a certain period, and to be able to pay by the losers money "when they can"! and this is what they did here.

the correct answer is to limit the games, why did they let players play a 500$ a hand if they know they cant stand the hit?

it is like a story I once heard about portofino player who won more then 2 Millions, cause they raise him the limits, because they just wait for him to lose, this is not how things should work... (and this is what couse portofino to close their bussines).

phynqster, I still wait for an answer to my offer, I think it is quite rude that you did not comment on it! you can tell me "NO", I wont be offend, I will just keep on doing what I doing in order to get my money.
hope to get a reply soon.

Marco

I hope your prediction is true and that the scums wont last long but I still see the whereabouts of 1cnp and prism. As for portofino, I think its still there but probably under new management. I cannot answer for phynqster but I seriously doubt whether he will take up your offer. Casinos will gleefully rub their hands when players reverse their withdrawals as Simmo and many members here will attest to. In your case, its even worse as you are placed in a lose-even situation where you cannot win more but may lose the $2500 back. Be careful next time.

**henryVIII** · 27th September 2006, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by tennis_balls

Thought wrong! I'm a player.

Hmmmm ...

**Tester** · 29th September 2006, 07:14 AM

Marco,

You got a bonus.
Rules state you cannot withdraw over 10,000.
You wanted to get more than the max.

Who cares what stuff crosses your mind?
A clear rule. You cannot escape it.

I do not get it how one here can think the casino is wrong about THAT?
You can advice tell the casino that he will be wisher not having this rule, but this is missing the point.

This guy got a bonus with a clear max cashout. Why the hell should he get more than that?

**thetic** · 4th October 2006, 04:26 PM

I would like to side with the player here.

I understand that you need to be wary of the Terms & Conditions for the bonus but;

1. Nothing for the player to gain here - he is gambling in the proper spirit of the word rather than abusing any bonus. Treat him as a valued customer/gambler and you may well gain more than the $3,000 in the long run.

2. Had Shark held up their own end of the agreement and paid the $2,500 weekly as agreed, the player could then have chosen to return with his own funds. However the casino were still holding money that should rightfully have been in the players account weeks before. If the casino does not hold up their end of the agreement I would see that the money is still rightfully the players at the date it should have been paid as per the Ts & Cs. The fact that casino has not bothered to return it should not mean anything. (Although I am not naive enough to think that they will see this to be the case)

Do not hold out much hope for you here Marco, I think it is discgraceful and will not be going anywhere near Shark (not that they will be concerned) until they get house in order.

Come on Steve, pay the man!!!

**Tester** · 5th October 2006, 12:30 AM

1. I agree that sometimes terms should not be used against novice who have not managed to read paragraph 7.2.D.
This player however was welll aware to the 10K max.
He choose to play against the rule, based on his own implementation of the rule.
Rules are there to be used. Everyone agrees that his winning hsould not be paid according to the rules. Who cares about his intentions?

2. The fact that the casino did not pay exactly on schedule is against the casino.
I do not think that this makes the player eligible to break the rules and get winning thereof.

**thetic** · 5th October 2006, 10:45 AM

I'm with you to an extent Tester but it's an awful 1-sided agreement that you have no comeback if casino does not hold up it's end but the player is liable to lose if they stray even slightly from the Ts & Cs (not necessarily saying that on this occasion it is a slight stray!)

I know we are looking at Casinos here and morals don't really come into it but I would say;

1. Player is morally right
2. Casino is legally right

Let's call it a draw and pay the man half of it (my demands have dropped by 50% in a day!) in line with his previous offer. For the sake of $1,500 could have done the casino a lot of good in terms of the publicity and the new manager would have been seen to have made a statement that he was going to clean things up. However, I am also aware that Shark probably would have had thousands of similar claims if they paid this one though!

I still think the player has been very naive, I am now avoiding most RTG (& all Costa Rican based) casinos after I had to wait 3 weeks for a $2k payment from Coolcat - but reading other stories about there, Prism and Shark I was relatively lucky to get paid this quickly!!!