InterCasino Incident - What is your opinion? (warning: REALLY long)

[jetset]

I don't see where 4 of a Kind erred here, to be honest. Everything that he noted had been freely and openly disclosed by JHV, who seemed almost proud of the way he handled his gambling affairs.

4 of a Kind's post referred to these points (which as an aside I also felt were alarming indications of a possible JHV problem) as he made a very genuine, sympathetic and mature attempt to offer advice based on his own experiences.

Kudos for that!

We have seen problems related to gambling discussed here before in a constructive and helpful way, and this particular conversation fell well within the boundaries imo.

[Rusty]

I don't see where 4 of a Kind erred here, to be honest. Everything that he noted had been freely and openly disclosed by JHV, who seemed almost proud of the way he handled his gambling affairs.

4 of a Kind's post referred to these points (which as an aside I also felt were alarming indications of a possible JHV problem) as he made a very genuine, sympathetic and mature attempt to offer advice based on his own experiences.

Kudos for that!

We have seen problems related to gambling discussed here before in a constructive and helpful way, and this particular conversation fell well within the boundaries imo.

Good grief could I have made it any clearer this was not about 4ofakind erring in anyway?
I really did try to make it very clear this was about my personal view and as I stated there is no real right and wrong of it.
I understand your position about open discussion and respect your opinion just as I respect 4ofakinds post.

I personally would like to think any open discussion about problem gambling was either impersonal or included the consent and participation of the person with the problem in order for it to be constructive.

I thought it was worthwhile mentioning that and that is the last I will say on this.

[chayton]

I think most of us have hit max bet by mistake and occasionally it's a lucky thing but most of the time it isn't. I've also done it the other way, playing some game and betting high (for me) and getting nowhere, then lowering my bet to extend my play and BOOM - first spin I hit something good. I've also got caught at 3Dice going in and spinning a few times and wondering why it's not paying and then realize that the game has defaulted to one line.

However, I've never expected compensation from the casino whenever anything like that happens, because it's up to me as a player to realize what I'm doing. Besides, I know that most casinos would just laugh in my face anyhow.

All of Intercasino's games default to a specific bet size - that's the way it's set up. If you play there more than once you're aware of it, and when you go to a new game, you learn to check the bet size first before making any wagers. If you close a game and open it right back up again, it's reset to the default, and I'm sure it's the same if you get disconnected.

That being said, the OP is obviously in a very different league from a lot of us in terms of bankroll (among other things ) and I don't doubt that most casinos would bend over backward to have him continue to throw money their way. But from the casino's point of view, if they pay him what he thinks he's owed what kind of precedent would that set? Then anyone who wins on a low bet can complain that what they MEANT to do was bet higher....and the ones who lose on max bet can complain that they MEANT to bet lower - and the casino has to compensate everyone?

[deltoid]

wow.

intercasino FAILS.

Lesson? If you're a whale, don't play online, sad to say.

[vinylweatherman]

I recall one incident with an online casino where a player with a long history at a certain casino hit a max bet (or maybe was the game defaulted to $20) on a slot and did not notice for 5 spins. He had NEVER bet over $2.00, and the casino DID give him a $100 free chip as a good will gesture, because this was a player they chose to retain. He was a long time member here, and forum support for him was strong as well.

I've made a larger bet than I've intended at Intercasino because of the way their default bets work after returning to game.

IMO Intercasino had no legal or moral obligation to compensate JHV in any way. But I would have thought a player in that league would be worth retaining, and the condescending tone of their response would irritate even me. Especially the "bend the rules" comment...I'm sure there are lower depositors that belong to their VIP club. JMO.

This is where I feel the argument that defaulting to a low coin is there to protect the player is wrong. If Intercasino intended this as a player protection measure, then they would protect us players where we REALLY need it, on their slots which can default to a very HIGH bet, and players have to keep remembering to LOWER it (unless they are a whale). The way they have set up the VP games seems completely different, with a more modest coin size used, even if not the lowest.

To protect players, they should set slot defaults to something much more modest, a level that most online gamblers use, perhaps between $1 and $5 per spin at the most. Currently, it seems to set to £1 per line, leading to stakes per spin of $25 and over.

There is probably NO benevolent logic at all, maybe someone just chose a number, and used it as a default variable for slots, and picked different default numbers for other game classes.

Things seem to have improved recently though, and I have noticed that the revamped slots, such as Native Treasure, no longer open at the likes of $30 per spin. Either they are staying where I left them, or are using the same 5c default coin as the VP games seem to be using.

[silverfox38]

from reading this very long post one thing

Isnt it blatantly obvious chaps if the poster had played max coins that hand
he would not have got pat quads?

The poster played huge amounts of hands at full coins and then played one hand at 5 cents via default and up came pat quads!!!!!!

In this huge thread no-one mentions it, all the hands you guys play has no-one noticed this before?

Try noticing where these casino businesses are registered and see in Law what remedies you have against them, why do you think they are in obscure offshore places. They take your money but just try and recover it by legal means and see how far you get... You have no recourse!!!

[Scooter7]

from reading this very long post one thing

Isnt it blatantly obvious chaps if the poster had played max coins that hand
he would not have got pat quads?

The poster played huge amounts of hands at full coins and then played one hand at 5 cents via default and up came pat quads!!!!!!

In this huge thread no-one mentions it, all the hands you guys play has no-one noticed this before?

Try noticing where these casino businesses are registered and see in Law what remedies you have against them, why do you think they are in obscure offshore places. They take your money but just try and recover it by legal means and see how far you get... You have no recourse!!!

What I believe to be blatantly obvious is that you've just registered and made your first ever post by calling up an older thread and accusing the casino of cheating.

Can you please provide some supporting documentation for your claim?

InterCasino and Cryptologic (their software provider) are not perfect, but they do have one of the best reputations in the business for trust/fairness of games.

[JHV]

InterCasino and Cryptologic (their software provider) are not perfect, but they do have one of the best reputations in the business for trust/fairness of games.

Was a large part of the reason why I was playing there. I'm too weary to attempt to convince anyone who isn't already acknowledging that InterCasino were simply in the wrong here, but I think perhaps some people assume I was exaggerating about the wagering completed from Spin 1 to Spin 15,000 or whatever - EVERY SINGLE SPIN at max coin.

Then the software crashed (routine and commonplace at InterCasino for me), when I returned down the track, for the first time the coins had reverted to Min 5c (100x less than my previous 15,000 or w/e spins - ALL MADE AT MAX COIN with $6,000,000 wagering in total).

I mean, seriously? I have a fairly acute and innate ability to assess what is 'right' or 'fair' or, if you don't want to hold online casinos to ethical standards, what is in their 'best interest' - and how anyone cannot see that they were wrong on all 3 counts stuns me and makes me wonder if I fail at communicating or something...

Perhaps I didn't explain adequately how InterCasino have TWO policies for coin size when you lose connection. If you're in the middle of a spin, when you reload and log back in, you're automatically placed on your previous coin value. However, if you're in between spins and lose connection, you're automatically placed at MIN coin value. I lost connection many times over the previous few days, and I guess each time I was mid-spin. The first time I was in between spins and lost connection...was insanely coincidentally a $25,000 pat Quads hit when software defaulted to Min Coin for first time that I had ever seen.

I genuinely believe that all of this is incredibly moot, however. 15,000 spins from 1 - 15,000 at MAX. A single (1) accidental spin at min after a software d/c. Come on, these numbers speak a simple language. I got screwed.

Upon reflection, I also got screwed by the language used in the (coincidentally delayed?) investigation whilst I continued to play, safe in the knowledge that there was 0% chance InterCasino would attempt to profit unfairly from this insane single accidental spin at 5c - with so many mitigating factors in play.

The language she used in her response (fully aware that I was continuing to play) was such that she implied fully that she was waiting for confirmation of my entire wagering logs to check my claim that I had made 15,000 or so spins at MAX, then a single accidental spin at MIN - this fully implies that, upon confirmation that I was not talking out of my ass, that they would send me my rightful winnings. Otherwise, waiting for the wagering logs is completely redundant.

If, upon receipt of the wagering logs (which took 2-3 days apparently - lol), the logs show that I was 100% correct and not lying (as they clearly did), she ruled against me and paid the spin at MIN - what, in god's name, was the point in waiting for the logs? The entire waiting process for those logs (which had zero bearing on her decision) was completely and utterly redundant and pointless - except that she was well aware I was continuing to wager $1250/spin at MAX coin during all that time, and losing 6 figures, whilst she waited for these logs which had zero bearing on her decision.

If anyone cannot see that there is tomfoolery and skulduggery afloat here, I fail at communication or you fail at logic - in my opinion, it's that simple.

She says she's waiting for the REDUNDANT and 100% UNNECESSARY FOR HER DECISION wagering logs THREE times in her email - hilarious!

Originally Posted by Assistant's Response Email
Dear J,

Account Number: *snip*

I hope this email finds you well.

Your account was passed to me in order to investigate your queries further.

I have raised my questions to back office and am expecting answers within the next 24 hours in order to assist my to resolve this issue.

Just to cover some of your points below:

1) I am waiting for a copy of your game logs in order to see the pattern of your wagering.

2) I am happy to advise that we do in fact have some VIP slot games which you could try, they are more than 5 lines but you may enjoy the betting limits that bit more.

3) I will await your game logs but will make a note and follow up on your suggestion for 4 colour decks and Auto hold.

4) Out system does have an automatic reset by default when a new session starts, every time a game is launched it defaults to the set default limit for that game.

5) Again I will await you game logs

6) I appreciate your points but can only once again assure you that we do have a default on bets and this would need to be changed as required at the start of every session. I am also awaiting on a server update to determine if there were any issues.

I hope my points are not to brief and frank for you and rest assured that I will be investigating this and will get back to you as soon as I have my findings.

Kind regards

Sharon

Assistant to Ryan
Head of Customer Satisfaction
Intercasino

--------

The software and server connection was buggy and jitterish often. And I'm certain it was not at my end, because of the dozen or so times I was disconnected from their server - my overall internet connection (with dozens of programs connected) remained 100% online. Looks to me like the Missing Link Variable there is fairly easy to spot.

Here are some random example screenshots of the buggy software and server disconnections:

Below: Example of game just freezing up completely (this happened multiple times). Note the green DRAW button is depressed but nothing is happening. Every time, I would have to kill the client and reload and login - and, of course, the coin was always at MAX so I got in the habit of knowing I didn't need to raise the coin value to my desired size.



Below: Fairly common occurrence. Each time this happened until the single fateful hand, I must have been mid-spin as I never remember EVER having to raise up the coins with 10 mouse clicks from 5c to $5. I think that's something I'd remember having to do, it would be an annoying process and as such, memorable.



Below: Another kind of common (but different) server connection problem. Again, I must have been mid-spin every time (note: it's VASTLY more likely that one would be in mid-spin than in the fraction of a second between spins).



----

But you know, whatever. lol....if a few players read this and realise InterCasino stiffed me good and don't deserve their reputation and take their gambling elsewhere as a result, I will have considered my efforts here to not have been in vain....

Ryan Hartley - if you see this, you KNOW in your heart and your brain that what happened to me was not cool. The incident itself was harmless, yet the stalling for days whilst I played (and lost) huge volume for reports that apparently had zero bearing on the decision...that's NOT cool and you know it.

The patronising tone and downright deceitful response (days after the incident, and after the meaningless logs were eventually found and analysed and dismissed as they never were needed for the final decision) was rude and unethical and NOT cool. And you know this also.

You should not have it as casino policy to lie (even little lies) to your players. She did not have to "pull strings" to get me into a VIP program with my 6 million wagering in a few days. That's a lie and we both it. And we both know it's NOT cool.

You should not have it as casino policy to intentionally and maliciously imply that an investigation in wagering logs is underway over multiple days when that wagering info can probably be pulled and assessed in minutes. And you should not have it as casino policy to stall an investigation based on arrival of logs which have no bearing on the decision. That's not cool, not cool at all.

I have not lied, deceived or twisted the truth at any point during this process - and if I was incorrect on something, feel free to point out such an error. Let's hope it's more relevant than the logs, which took days to arrive as I wagered on naive to the upcoming screwing, and which proved my wagering was exactly what I said it was - yet which had zero bearing on the decision. Let's hope for something that is real, and not shrouded in (extremely convenient) deceit and redundancy.

Fin.

[Mouche12]

I believe I said this somewhere earlier, I fully agree with basically everything you say. Why have you not sought the advice of a lawyer?

[JHV]

I believe I said this somewhere earlier, I fully agree with basically everything you say. Why have you not sought the advice of a lawyer?

It's not really that easy (InterCasino is licensed in Malta). In actuality, my legal case for the actual $25,000 is not incredibly strong. I would need a very sympathetic judge and, depending on the factors he takes into account when handing down his decision, could actually be a 'legally' poor decision if he ruled in my favour.

The law is not, and should not be, about pure fairness. Legally, InterCasino did nothing wrong. That's not what I'm arguing. I arguing they were extremely unethical and immoral (or, if you don't hold online casinos to those high standards, then I argue they acted very stupidly and not in their own self-interest).

However, this is not entirely true upon reflection. Perhaps they acted not only in their own self-interest, but even brilliantly so. And THIS is where I could have a very strong legal case (at least in Australia or the UK).

I tried to withdraw about $105,000 some time before the crazy event of that server disconnect and single spin when software automatically, and not in parity with previous coin sizing upon reloading, defaulted to 100 times less than my normal coin size after an insanely huge sample of 100% max coin betting. They wouldn't let me withdraw the $105,000 at once as I wished to do. They only let me withdraw $10,000. I was actually quite angry about this, and the InterCasino support phone records will show my anger when I asked for the reason and was (of course) not given one.

Now, at the time I didn't realise it, but obviously I had a gambling problem. This limiting withdrawals nonsense is evil - it's brilliant business, I'll give them that, but it's unethical and it's evil. It would not be allowed in Australia and I'm sure would not be allowed in the UK. In fact, I believe there are specific laws stating the casinos cannot take wagers for which they cannot immediately pay out on should they lose. I believe a casino in Australia got into a lot of trouble for pushing a high roller to accept a portion of his cashout in chips, which he of course lost on his way to the exit door.

So InterCasino brilliantly forced the money to stay in my account, and to add a little spice into the soup, they made me furious about the 10k max withdrawal issue. I thought I was smarter and more in control and not the type to fall victim to such an obvious, crafty play - but well, we all know how that usually ends for someone with a gambling problem. There are no reasons to limit max withdrawals, except for obvious brilliant (but arguably evil) business strategical reasons. So there is that aspect that might hold some weight in a court (probably not a Maltese court where Malta relies heavily on the tax revenue generated by the online gaming industry there).

Were I to fight this in court, I could theoretically have an argument to get $100,000 back based on the support emails where a decent barrister would easily tear the poor girl apart on the witness stand (I have no idea if that's how these things even go - I've been to court once as a spectator watching a friend argue a frivolous parking ticket "on principle" and most of the courtroom was just laughing the entire time as my friend rambled on about liberty and god-knows-what until the [quietly amused] judge had to cut him off and ordered him to pay the fine plus extra fees - my friend, stared down the judge with mock horror and said: "This is an outrage. You have dealt a vicious blow to justice today, a blow from which she may never recover. I shall never come here again. Good day!" and stormed out haughtily to some more giggling and laughter.

The long stalling whilst supposedly waiting for wagering logs which did not impact in any, way, shape or form on the final decision to not pay my winnings...in an Australian court, I'm certain the judgement would not only be in my favour, but I could probably successfully sue for subsequent losses sustained whilst gambling if I could prove those losses were linked to the actions of InterCasino. An Australian judge ruled that Crown Casino (Australia's largest land-based casino) had a prima facie case to answer over Harry Kakavas' allegations that casino management enticed him to play even though they knew he had a gambling problem. Kakavas was suing for $30 million. I honestly cannot find the actual final verdict online (unbelievably - can anyone better at Googling find it pls?), but I think he lost as his case in the end. Kakavas was pretty unpopular in Australia and there was a lot of outrage at what was perceived to be an attempt for a man who gambled to lost to "cheat the system" and claim vicimisation.

To be honest, I'll honestly admit I felt the same way. I was all about personal responsibility and self-discipline and he had gambling debts in Vegas and I just got the feeling he was desperate and taking advantage of Australia's strict Control Act. I'm actually really interested in reading the judgement now, as I have a lot more empathy for him now than the Australian public and I had for him at the time.

There were some things that smelt fishy about his behaviour (from memory). I mean, whilst I have zero doubt that Crown VIP staff did everything in their power short of kidnapping him to entice him back to Crown from Vegas (jets, 20% cashback offers, VIP tickets to stuff, the usual crap), I believe his claim rested on the premise that he had an uncontrollable gambling addiction and they exploited it. Yet he carried a concealed recording device to record Crown Casino managers enticing him back - didn't sound like a man suffering from a gambling addiction to me at the time. It smelt like a bit of scam really to me, too rational. Now, I'm not so sure. I mean, the man bankrupted himself and lost tens of millions in casinos all over the world - that's pretty obvious evidence that he had the worst kind of gambling problem (uncontrollable addiction).

Anyway, for a judge to rule that Crown had a prima facie case to answer was pretty huge. I think Crown might have dodged a bullet with that one - it was a very complex case (as these cases tend to be), with lots of allegations, counter-allegations, denials and so on. From my experience with listening to Jupiters VIP 'enticement' staff laugh about what they'd be prepared to do to "snag a whale", and from some level of understanding of how this whole shebang works, I do not doubt Crown VIP really went out of their way to take advantage of him.

It's a complex issue, the whole where to draw the line on "personal responsibility" vs "taking advantage of someone with an addiction". For most of my life, even having seen the power of addiction firsthand, I was (for the most part) in the accept the consequences of your own mistakes camp. But if a casino can be proved to be really being unethical (as InterCasino behaved in this case), they should probably be sued or punished - and if I were to do it, maybe I pledge any compensation to charity to show that it was not about personal gain (and also because I believe I should be punished, even though clearly I was not thinking rationally at the time and possibly not even in control of my actions).

I wouldn't even know how to begin the process if I felt like doing it. I wouldn't bother if the case had to be heard in a Maltese court - but I have no idea if you can have it heard in a UK court? (I'm wondering if UK possible due to Malta being White Listed, although it seems like a tenuous link)

One thing I found interesting was the below:

"Lawyers for Harry Kakavas claimed that he was told by casino chiefs that Mr Packer would "kill us'' if he found out about incentives being gifted to the..."

Ah, that sounds familiar. That poor VIP girl who didn't want to give me my winnings but pulled lots of strings to get me no match deposit bonuses with wagering requirements after I'd wagered 6 mil turnover in a week - what a nice lady, that she would go to such effort for me!

-------------

To be honest, I'm really just happy if a few more people realise InterCasino company policy is to behave in such an unethical manner. And don't play there as a result.

If there's a lawyer or someone that seriously thinks InterCasino can be punished for what they've done, I'll get involved and pledge all compensation to charity to both:
a) punish them as they deserve to be punished
b) perhaps make them think twice before they sell their souls to the devil for a bit more lucre.

I respect the play/s. But if I believed in a Hell, I am fairly certain the people responsible for those crafty and brilliant plays are going straight there when the curtain falls for them.