Locked Account at Royal Vegas & Vegas Towers

[bossplayer]

4000 players! WTF? Some bonus whore has taken this whole thing to a 'whole, nuther, level'

[lojo]

4000 players! WTF? Some bonus whore has taken this whole thing to a 'whole, nuther, level'

I've been of the same mind. It really sucks for the casino group as well as any players who 'played funky' unwittingly.

That said, I totally respect Casinomeister's position and ultimately agree that it is a casino's responsibility to protect itself from players it doesn't want. It just sucks.

God knows how much it would cost them to pay out every claim, or how much it would cost them not to. Some of these players have created a situation, by exploiting a 'loophole', that simply is not fair.

I know my position, for what it's worth, is not popular. I'm not an affiliate and I have no financial interest in the situation - and I'm certainly not participating in the forum to get some controversy thrill. I'm just here for a free exchange of ideas. I wish the players and the casino group the best of luck.

[Vesuvio]

Some of these players have created a situation, by exploiting a 'loophole', that simply is not fair.

No, a loophole is: A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance. Here it's only the casino that's trying to avoid compliance with the terms.

The problem is FL, like most on-line casinos, think they have a God-given right to keep players' money. Sadly, they don't They just have an overwhelming mathematical probability of doing that, just as long as they only offer games with a house edge. The moment they start playing with the edge to attract players they have to accept the consequences.

FL attacking players for taking up an offer which gives them an advantage is as nonsensical as berating mould for turning up on a slice of bread you left out for a month

[cyprean]

God knows how much it would cost them to pay out every claim, or how much it would cost them not to. Some of these players have created a situation, by exploiting a 'loophole', that simply is not fair.

As Vesuvio said, you are totally off base there.

It seems like Fortune Lounge has locked out 4000 players - all who have played roulette. Some of them seem to have learned roulette strategies from affiliates that are offering easy bonus clearance strategies and at the same time promoting those sites. It should not be the players' fault if they get caught in the mess if they have followed the terms & conditions.

I'm just here for a free exchange of ideas. I wish the players and the casino group the best of luck.

This somewhat contradicts your previous posts where you told the players to go **** themselves. I might have misread you though.

[Casinomeister]

Hi, I am also a victim of them! If you really want to build a case against those m*therf*#kers you will have to group a lot of people.

Account suspended 7 days for violation of rule 1.1.

1.1 - No "Flaming": Please do not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. Abusive behavior will not be tolerated and your account may be suspended. Please refrain from potty mouth language.

This serves as a warning not to let this thread spiral into a tirade. FortuneLounge is still a member of this forum. Thanks for your cooperation.

[vinylweatherman]

I have read half of this topic since it is very long. I have 6 FL accounts. 5 are blocked. In one account I have €201 Cash Balance! In the other account I have €315 Cash Balance! This is more then €500! Excluding my Bonus Balance! I signed up at the 6 accounts cause I founded this FL webpage: http://www.fortunelounge.com/B4UGOVT...g=VTNEU_Direct FL is complaining about bonus abusers. Improve your T&C and take down this webpage!

etc...

Q.1 "You call this "bonus abuse". Firstly, their is no term describing a "bonus abuser"?"

A.1 Lets say you have a job, where every Friday afternoon there is Free Drinks after work for all employees. You decide to invite one of your friends to join you every Friday. A couple of weeks go by and nobody says anything and you decide, "why don't I invite another friend?" So for the next few weeks, your Company is unaware that you have 2 friends accompanying you and they soon find that the amount of alcohol they supply is not sufficient. They then decide to investigate the matter and find that you and both your friends are consuming all their drinks. The company decides to ban you from their drink on Fridays. The Company is offering this to it's employees and not to you and your friends. As they are offering this, they will have the right to exclude you, as what they had offered had been abused. In this example, there had been no definition of what would be considered abuse, yet looking at the story as a whole, this had been obvious abuse. What I am trying to get across, is that there does not need to be a definition of abuse and this is at the discretion of the provider which in the example is the company and in this instance is the casino.

A* - If FL attitude were applied to this, it would not end there, the friends have already consumed the drinks, the ban applies to FUTURE Free drink events. In FL terms, not only would the friends and employee be banned, but the friends would be summoned by force to have their stomachs pumped to retrospectively recover the drinks they had "cashed out" before being identified by the "security" as abusing the offer.

Q.2 "Secondly, if I would be this "bonus abuser" I would try to meet the play through requirements right away?"

A.2 The trends of bonus abusers differ and their patterns are determined by our Player Security Company. Bonus abusers would often change their patterns, to "throw" the casino's off track. A bonus abuser would thus be determined by the play and not the play-through period.

A* - This is so open ended that ANY player who plays by ANY STYLE could be locked simply for winning - it would be determined by secret trial with no opportunity for the player to defend themselves, nor even see the evidence, which would be purely circumstancial anyway.

Q.3 "If one company of supermarkets would offer €50 free of shopping on your first visit. Everybody would be visiting different shops of the same company in the area. If the store doesn't like that is has to make a rule which exclude this shopping behavior. Just like your casino has to make a term like I said before about excluding this behavior."

A.3 In the event the company states in the offer, that it has the right to remove the offer or not offer the promotion to a certain player or person, then they would be able to offer this once, regardless if you visit any or all of their stores.

A* In the first case, the shop would use a voucher system so that the shopper handed over the voucher at the checkout in order to redeem the offer. If they only intended it to be used once, they would only send one voucher to the shopper. The FL exit popup from the website effectively gives the "shopper" all 7 vouchers to use, in fact, rams the offer down their throat even if they visit the site out of curiosity, or have already used the offers.
When the "shopper" has been found to have used all 7, the casino can decide they "don't like it", and issue a ban.
In the case of a supermarket, where they allowed a shopper to redeem this at, say, 7 stores, they could decide that the shopper was using the offer at too many stores with no intention of shopping regularly at his "local". However, unlike FL, they would probably ban the shopper from using store promotions, they would NOT even consider sending bailiffs round to recover the excess shopping from his house that they deem was "bought" purely to take advantage of the free shopping offers.

Q.4. "Make a term which only allows a person to sign up a max 2 casino's of the fortune lounge group or like I said before, you can make a term that says that no wager greater than a certain value (maybe something like $20 on a 100% match up to $100 bonus) can be done while playing with bonus?"

A.4 The terms & conditions of the casino, followed by the policies of our Player Security Company determine which players are abusing us. By agreeing to the terms & conditions, which you have to agree to before opening any account at our group, you agree to what is stated in those terms.

A* - Jackpot Factory have a term limiting players to 2 sign up bonuses over the group as a whole. Trident Lounge specifically prohibit the "big bet on bacarrat" method when the player has the sign up bonus, other casinos have other terms that prohibit a pattern of taking the bonus in all group properties before a second deposit or more has been made to an existing account where a bonus was given on the first deposit.

Roberto, I am confident that the casino has acted well within it's rights as stated in the Terms & Conditions. You have requested a reason as to why you were considered a bonus abuser and I have answered that as best I could. I would like to ask you a question, "Has the casino and the Fortune Lounge Group, acted outside of it's rights?"

A* - Of course FL acted "within their rights", they gave themselves the right to do absolutely anything they liked, so it would be impossible for them NOT to have acted "within their rights".
In the real world, the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe, etc acted within the law of their respective contries, but as dictators, or single party state leaders, they made the law up so that they were able to do what they felt they had to, disagreement was not tolerated, with anyone speaking up sent to places like Siberia. The "real world" considered these leaders to have given themselves unreasonable rights (understatement - they were branded as "evil", "rogues", etc), and acted accordingly. Two have been discracred, and one is struggling to remain in power. Similarly, if big companies give themselves unreasonable rights in contract, the courts can overturn the unreasonable clause and require the company to comply. If FL were regulated in a PROPER juristiction, they would be ordered to pay all these players because the "F U Clause" would be struck out, the court would tell FL that they had to specifically state what they consider as "undesirable play", so that players were fully aware of their obligations before parting with their money.

[Ferretktf]

It will shake out as it does. Regardless of the Meister's ruling, let this thead be notice to exploiters. If you can't beat the house or enjoy the game for it's intrinsic fun go fex yourselves. You are not welcome at good houses.

Bummer

reading this thread I have to say that you sir, are an absolute muppet ... and a total shill for the Casino ... or an employee of FL


I do hope this does not fall foul of rule 1.1 but it has to be said. Either that or this guy is a total wind-up merchant, in which case his posts certainly fall foul of rule 1.1. .... "do not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle....."

[lojo]

reading this thread I have to say that you sir, are an absolute muppet ... and a total shill for the Casino ... or an employee of FL


I do hope this does not fall foul of rule 1.1 but it has to be said. Either that or this guy is a total wind-up merchant, in which case his posts certainly fall foul of rule 1.1. .... "do not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle....."

Simply my opinion. Why must it be Us and Them? What I saw occuring here was a feeding frenzy, IMO. If I'm to judge between a person who exploits and a business trying to save itself... I chose to see things from the side of the casino. Would you prefer to censor contrary opinion? I did this with limited info, and with no real interests in the outcome, other than what I considered 'the right thing'. In the final anaysis, I guess it was none of my business. I expressed my opinion - if you were offended, I apologize.

If it were some shady operators I would have kept out of it or sided with the majority. But it wasn't, they aren't. And in the end, I am just a player posting on a forum. I'm not second guessing any decisions by the owner of this forum, nor am I arguing the casino group's case for them. I will excercise the priveledge of disagreeing as long as the moderators allow me to. And I respect your excercise of opinion as well. But 'muppet', well that's... hmm.

"I am not now, nor have I ever been associated, affiliated or employed as a muppet!"

[halfday]

Simply my opinion. Why must it be Us and Them?

That would be because THEY are trying to lure you in to lose your money. They want you to LOSE YOUR MONEY.
You understand this concept correct? They are not there in a partnership with you. They want your money. Period. Its silly to think otherwise.
Now, is it reasonable to expect to get paid when you actually win against games with built in advantage to the casino? It is simple minded to think that it is a give and take. If it was then they would offer games of EVEN chance.. not built to lose. Every game would be a 50/50 proposition. I am pretty sure that they don't offer any games that give you an equal chance to win. I have never ever heard a view like this unless it was from someone trying to sell me something.

[lojo]

That would be because THEY are trying to lure you in to lose your money. They want you to LOSE YOUR MONEY.
You understand this concept correct? They are not there in a partnership with you. They want your money. Period. Its silly to think otherwise.
Now, is it reasonable to expect to get paid when you actually win against games with built in advantage to the casino? It is simple minded to think that it is a give and take. If it was then they would offer games of EVEN chance.. not built to lose. Every game would be a 50/50 proposition. I am pretty sure that they don't offer any games that give you an equal chance to win. I have never ever heard a view like this unless it was from someone trying to sell me something.

I can see how I could sound like a shill or a fool. I just look at it differently.
What I consider a fair game, and what others do may be two totally different things.

Call it two schools of thought:

1. It's okay to take any and all advantage 'legally' allowed to increase my chances against a casino.
with all it's subsets

2. Be happy to know that 95% is 95%, (or even 75% all else being equal), sometimes I win sometimes I lose.
and I'm not above utilizing a bonus now and then

I'm of the second school in this debate. Any casino I trust is my partner. We have a deal; I give them my money, they give me a chance to increase it dramatically. I can also lose all or some of it.

Sorry for the ridiculous analogy here, but If I tell my wife that there is no where in our vows against certain intimate acts with other women, (that's not sex) just because it isn't specifically prohibited, and she tells me 'we're done, thanks for the memories' I guess I just learned the reality of it.

Ridiculous analogy, I know. And you can argue that the only thing sacred in a business agreement is that black stuff on the page (none of it between the lines, is there?) And I can argue that the spirit of the agreement should supercede the text. (I would be wrong in the long run because that is a slippery slope and I understand that. But in some cases it is true)

Only thing I'm trying to sell is a point of view and if it hasn't been digested yet, it probably won't be.

I appreciate your level mind, halfday, and if you took anything I said personally I'm sorry.

Now I gotta get off this thread and do some playin