Winward Casino complaint

**Sue4** · 23rd January 2008, 09:42 AM

Probably a bit of frustration on my part, but I really don't think anything is going to happen.

**vinylweatherman** · 23rd January 2008, 01:30 PM

It is clear they have used an "FU Clause" on you. Although Blackjack is allowed, you played, it seems, ONLY Blackjack. This means they consider it likely you will never come back, and have decided not to pay the winnings. This is exactly what would be expected of a rogue operation. If they didn't want players to play Blackjack, they should have excluded it in the terms and conditions, as do the majority of casinos.

The "fraudulent games" excuse is complete bullshite, all games are handled by their own software, the fact that you won has nothing to do with your play, but the fact that the RNG favoured you in your session. From my experience, such positive streaks are commonplace, as are negative streaks of similar length.

It is likely they are allowing Blackjack as a means to trap and screw over experienced players who play mainly for bonus offers. Players who try to meet WR only on Blackjack are likely to fall into this category, and despite the fact no terms were broken, they are able to spring the FU clause. If they excluded Blackjack, it would be far harder to tell the difference between bonus seekers and "quality" players likely to generate a profit for them in the long term.

Winward have a long history of targeting players who ONLY play Blackjack for WR, yet still allow it as an allowed game. Had you LOST, Winward would most likely have kept your deposit and sent you more promotional offers. If only SOME Blackjack is played, the FU clause is less likely to be sprung, unless the player was from the UK (Winward seem to have a mild paranoia about the UK, not as bad as Playtech though). My account was opened at a time they wanted to trial the UK market again after a country ban. They then decided to ban the UK again - not that I was bothered

**sdaddy** · 23rd January 2008, 05:59 PM

So where do things stand here, maxd? Do you have reason to believe the OP's complaint can still be resolved?

**Sue4** · 11th February 2008, 02:53 AM

Hi

I have a question for MissMD (Malci) about this ongoing post. Can you let everyone know on here if this can be resolved, or do you think we are holding our breath?

Sue4

**same_old** · 11th February 2008, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

It is clear they have used an "FU Clause" on you. Although Blackjack is allowed, you played, it seems, ONLY Blackjack. This means they consider it likely you will never come back, and have decided not to pay the winnings. This is exactly what would be expected of a rogue operation. If they didn't want players to play Blackjack, they should have excluded it in the terms and conditions, as do the majority of casinos.

The "fraudulent games" excuse is complete bullshite, all games are handled by their own software, the fact that you won has nothing to do with your play, but the fact that the RNG favoured you in your session. From my experience, such positive streaks are commonplace, as are negative streaks of similar length.

It is likely they are allowing Blackjack as a means to trap and screw over experienced players who play mainly for bonus offers. Players who try to meet WR only on Blackjack are likely to fall into this category, and despite the fact no terms were broken, they are able to spring the FU clause. If they excluded Blackjack, it would be far harder to tell the difference between bonus seekers and "quality" players likely to generate a profit for them in the long term.

Winward have a long history of targeting players who ONLY play Blackjack for WR, yet still allow it as an allowed game. Had you LOST, Winward would most likely have kept your deposit and sent you more promotional offers. If only SOME Blackjack is played, the FU clause is less likely to be sprung, unless the player was from the UK (Winward seem to have a mild paranoia about the UK, not as bad as Playtech though). My account was opened at a time they wanted to trial the UK market again after a country ban. They then decided to ban the UK again - not that I was bothered

You know your shit my friend, I love reading your posts, bloody awesome

**maxd** · 13th February 2008, 12:56 AM

Hmmm, looks like this one has gone a bit stale. I see that MissMD, supposedly the rep for Winward, hasn't been around in weeks.

Based on this turn of events I'm removing the "In Progress" status -- "what progress?" one might ask -- and I'll attempt to get MMD's attention once again.

**vinylweatherman** · 13th February 2008, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by maxd

Hmmm, looks like this one has gone a bit stale. I see that MissMD, supposedly the rep for Winward, hasn't been around in weeks.

Based on this turn of events I'm removing the "In Progress" status -- "what progress?" one might ask -- and I'll attempt to get MMD's attention once again.

They should be progressing to the rogue pit if they fail to offer a credible explanation. If a game is listed as "allowed" in the terms, then ANY play on it cannot be considered "fraudulent".
I expect they simply cannot justify their actions with an explanation, especially if they have to produce the playlogs to back it up.

It is back to the old "FU Clause", and it seems that the casino can simply pick and choose who not to pay without justifying the decision, and this alone should be enough for an early entry (or re-entry) into the rogue pit in order to prevent more players being sucked in by the bad faith being shown in the design and offer of this particular SUB.
Winward should have banned Blackjack long ago, as this was what made them a target for bonus hunters, and got them listed at No1 on bonus websites. Perhaps they want to keep this coverted position of said websites, and not pay selected winners, rather than have a less generous SUB, and not get any kind of exposure on such sites.

**BBKPoker** · 13th February 2008, 01:38 PM

An explanation would definitely be helpful, I almost signed up for these guys a long time ago but heard numerous complaints, and wasn't willing to risk my $500 on em no matter how good the bonus looked.

"fraudulent games?" That sounds more or less made up.