32red VS Rado16 (2100 Euro dispute)

[Rado16]

what 32 red is doing is a forgery! first they tried to amend their TC. Now they do something even worse- they forge my gameplay! I realy need help on this one.

[winbig]

I repeat- I one that hand. It was a big hand- 2100 eu. So I was all attention when I bet it. i remember all the cards which the dealer dealt.
And the hand that 32red presented - it is a totally different hand. They lie!

Maybe if you took a civil approach to this you might make faster (and better) progress? Calling people liars and accusing them of forgery isn't helping your case any.

If you really think you have a case, then by all means PAB: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...?faq=cmfaq_pab and let Bryan/Max look into this themselves. To be honest, I'm not sure if they'll even take the case now because of the way you've presented yourself here in this thread out in the public...

Q: I have already, or would like to, post about my complaint on the message boards. Is that a good idea?
A: Generally speaking, no, it is not a good idea. It's a long story but it boils down to this: a PAB is a private negotiation process and it works because it gives the casino people the best possible opportunity to resolve your issue calmly and fairly in talks with professional industry people without the burden of external pressures or influence.

A message posted on the boards is quite the opposite situation in that it creates a very public public-relations issue that the casino people generally feel forced to contain, or ignore, as best they can.

Because of the pressures involved a forum post on a given issue will usually derail any PABs that are in progress on that issue, and this is why we advise that forum posts be withheld until the PAB process has had a chance to run it's course.

We reserve the right to discard any PAB that where that same issue has been posted to the boards. This relates to threads started by, or contributions to other threads by, the person who filed the PAB. This applies equally to posts made before or after the PAB was filed.

In other words in the case where the material was posted before the PAB was filed we will determine whether those posts would damage or thwart the PAB process before we decide if we will proceed with the PAB. In the case where the material was posted after the PAB was filed there is a very high probability that we will suspend or discard the PAB at that point.

Once we indicate that we are finished with a PAB the person who filed it is free to post about the issue as they see fit (all the usual Casinomeister Forum Rules are applicable).

But anyways, 32Red is a publicly traded company with shareholders...do you really think they're going to jeopardize that over a measly (to them) €2100?

[Pinababy69]

That all said, we will now take the time to resolve what is an unacceptable situation (given not only the above but the errors and time taken in getting to this stage) and I will back in contact before the end of the day with our solution.

Kind regards

Pat Harrison
Operations Director

32Red

Pat will be here to reply before the end of the day. I would hazard a guess that his reply will be a public one this time.

Good advice Winbig....bad situation, but let's see what he says, and give the guy a chance first. JMO.

[winbig]

Good advice Winbig....bad situation, but let's see what he says, and give the guy a chance first. JMO.

Of course we all want to give Pat a chance to present their side of things...but TBH I seriously doubt that the OP will listen to a word of what he has to say and this thread will continue to go nowhere.

[Darf]

Hi Radovan,

Thanks for your patience while I have been reviewing the various gaming server logs and video clips as supplied by our software providers.

According to the records on the gaming servers you connected to hand ID 2841 on 13th May 2009 at 13:15:27.207 and placed a bet of ˆ2,100 on player to win. At this point, the connection between the bar code reader on the table and the gaming server has been dropped for whatever reason (this could be for a number of things; ISP issues, cabling problems, hardware problems, etc.). So, as far as the gaming server is concerned, it didn’t generate any cards for that hand.

The video clip of this hand (attached for your reference) shows that the hand then played out to a TIE with both the Dealer and Player scoring 4. Obviously if the hand had played out without problem then you would have actually lost this bet. Under our rules the hand was made void owing to this ‘technical fault’ and the stake for your losing bet was refunded. The details of the log on the gaming server can be seen in the attached ‘word’ document

I know that this is completely at odds with the way that you believe that this hand played out but we have to rely on the integrity of the data that has been supplied by our software providers. The important and critical part of this data is that which is recorded by the gaming server, namely (in this case) that no cards were generated owing to the disconnection as previously explained.

That all said, we will now take the time to resolve what is an unacceptable situation (given not only the above but the errors and time taken in getting to this stage) and I will back in contact before the end of the day with our solution.

Kind regards

Pat Harrison
Operations Director

32Red
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 888888888888888888

Guys, here is the reply from Pat I received today. The is only one and the most important thing which I
want to say now: they say that that problem hand was finished as a TIE. THIS IS NOT TRUE ! I don't want
to discuss the other parts of Pat's email now but only this one because this is where the misinformation is.
It was not a TIE hand!!! The cards were this: for player King and 9, for banker 10 and 7. The video
which they attached is not the right video. Please, advise me what to do now!!!

Pitch a bitch and under NO circumstances shut your mouth when this is settled. Enquiring minds want to know!

[Pinababy69]

Of course we all want to give Pat a chance to present their side of things...but TBH I seriously doubt that the OP will listen to a word of what he has to say and this thread will continue to go nowhere.

You must be psycho....ooops, psychic Winbig, lol. Just to clarify, I sympathize with the OP as far as the situation itself. It should never have dragged on like this. However, just as you stated Win.....he's not helping himself by posting PM's, and calling people liars, etc. I also think MG should get just as much heat as 32Red. If they can't keep these games working as they should, and these are the types of issues we end up with....then yank em til they DO work properly.

That being said, I'm still waiting to see what Pat has to say, and what type of resolution is being offered....before I roast anyone over the spit. Sorry, but this casino (and Pat) deserve a tiny bit of leeway here, given their track record.

[just play]

Of course we all want to give Pat a chance to present their side of things...but TBH I seriously doubt that the OP will listen to a word of what he has to say and this thread will continue to go nowhere.

Why would this thread go nowhere? 32Red changed their TC and no one said anything about that....now they give Rado a hand dealt, but no time or date on it? Other people have posted the same "technical error".

No one else thinks this is fishy?

Just because it's 32Red, doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. In my eyes they are trying to get out of something anyway they can. If it was a different casino, everyone would be going mad, it's not fair.

[Darf]

To be honest, I'm not sure if they'll even take the case now because of the way you've presented yourself here in this thread out in the public...

Right or wrong this needs addressed? Everyone at the table doesn't have manners. It needs looking at without killing the messenger.

[Pinababy69]

Why would this thread go nowhere? 32Red changed their TC and no one said anything about that....now they give Rado a hand dealt, but no time or date on it? Other people have posted the same "technical error".

No one else thinks this is fishy?

Just because it's 32Red, doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. In my eyes they are trying to get out of something anyway they can. If it was a different casino, everyone would be going mad, it's not fair.

The T&C's were changed to match up with the $32 signup bonus JP, not to pull a fast one on the player. They weren't changed to retroactively apply that term to this player....they were changed because paragraph #9 was missing. Obviously Pat had been under the impression that the term WAS there, or else he wouldn't have quoted it. They corrected their own oversight/error, nothing more.

The player won't be held to any terms that weren't in place when he signed up and played (my understanding). Should they have left the terms as they were.....even though they were incorrect?

I don't think 32Red is trying to get out of anything. They haven't even posted their resolution, or potential resolution, so how can we know what they're offering to do?

And of course everyone makes mistakes...even the very best casinos out there make mistakes. It's how they resolve those mistakes that shows us what they're all about.

[winbig]

Why would this thread go nowhere? 32Red changed their TC and no one said anything about that....now they give Rado a hand dealt, but no time or date on it? Other people have posted the same "technical error".

No one else thinks this is fishy?

Just because it's 32Red, doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. In my eyes they are trying to get out of something anyway they can. If it was a different casino, everyone would be going mad, it's not fair.

As I stated in another thread, I could care less about 32Red, as I can't play there anymore, and therefore I have no vested interest in them.

The issue here is the hand in question, not the T&C change....maybe that could be brought up in the subsequent PAB, but I don't think that it has anything to do with the €2100 issue..