Three Royals in a week nets player $736,407.00

**nektar4d** · 16th April 2006, 05:04 PM

I have read and enjoyed and been informed from your posts many times in this great forum. I believe many other readers enjoy your participation here.
My english are just enough for basic communication.
So when I read, I try to get the meaning and the feeling behind any specific words. I am not a layer or teacher to analyse or estimate specific words.

Caruso's post, may was too much but the general meaning is at least interesting and we need such reactions. Spearmaster's answer is very logical and most probably correct. But there is no need for you to continue a word-examination.
We get the picture and I thank you both for that.

**caruso** · 16th April 2006, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by spearmaster

Your command of English should not be any worse than mine - and I'll just ignore your comment about lessons.

LOL, not quite what I meant, but I'll respect nectar4d's input and request above.

The point, at the end of the day, was that legal action was mooted. That it wasn't practically instigated is not an issue in regard to my point. It was in the offing. End of story.

**bb1webs** · 18th April 2006, 09:56 AM

Hi all

Caruso: are all baseball players guilty of taking steroids because one of their premier players has admitted to doing so?

The closest thing I can think of that all online casinos have in common .... is the fact that they are online and that they offer gambling. That truly is where it ends when comparing best to worst. In an industry which has such a gap (of overall quality) between what are the worst of the lot to what are the best ... how you can lump them all into one group is beyond me.

that said however: after hearing it who the casino in question was - that it sounds pretty familar

My first experience with them as an aff where I'd earned a whopping $70, it took them over 6 months to pay me and that was of course only after I'd sent some emails ranging from "did you forget to pay me?" to finally stating I wouldn't take the treatment lying down.

I guess they figured for $70 it was cheaper to pay than whatever bad publicity I was prepared to bring them. Anyway the point is that they ignored me until I raised a stink and then they paid me. Sound familiar?

Somebody mentioned 200 million .... and they want to risk all that over being greedy about a lousy 3/4 million? (I say lousy in respect to the size of their overall income and not trying to sound like I make those kind of numbers - I'd eat the south end of a north bound skunk for that kind of dough

)

But it is a relatively small amount when you consider that this is not like its a daily happening. Its a freak storm which they can easily afford to weather .... and in fact ... well in my mind I'm thinking if the guy was playing hands at stakes of $500 a shot: it wouldn't take all that long before the casino would make back a good portion of that loss ...

or I mean I'd be thinking that there was a good chance someone who plays at those high of stakes .... after having just taken down a small fortune ... is going to play big and quite possibly dumb ... and in the end give it back.

the smart play all the way around was to go ahead and pay the person ... but that is SO NOT what IG has proven to choose to do ... in many instances in its past.

But their choices have no effect on how other casinos (using other software) will do business.

There are plenty of reputable online casinos that pay out much larger amounts than 3/4 million on a regular basis (by that I mean regular as in when the odds say so .... sigh. for those of you following along and apparently playing the technical "he said" game)

**greedygirl** · 18th April 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by bb1webs

But it is a relatively small amount when you consider that this is not like its a daily happening. Its a freak storm which they can easily afford to weather ....

Yep...

Had the casino paid this out without hassles, they could have run this through the P.R. mill and made the money back by eager gambling hopefuls. Instead, it probably cost them twice as much, due to all the bad press. They should know better--it's not as if they haven't had plenty of bad press previously.

**gfkostas** · 18th April 2006, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by nafanny29

Just think if they had handled it the right way they could have had adverts of a smiling winner holding a cheque for 3/4 of million dollars placed all over the london underground and in every mens toilet above the urinals.

Would have made them millions I tell ya.

Exactly, especially now that uk laws permit casinos to advertise. You don't need to be Einstein to think of that but a mind which is focused on how to make more money and not on how to serve people cannot,would not see this idea

.
By the way isn't starluck part of the stanley casinos group?

**HateMG** · 18th April 2006, 05:06 PM

This is from Starluck winners webpage:

24-Jan-06 Darrell CA, US SuperJoker $731,022.03

I think this is the guy.

**cipher** · 18th April 2006, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by HateMG

This is from Starluck winners webpage:

24-Jan-06 Darrell CA, US SuperJoker $731,022.03

I think this is the guy.

Hi HateMG:

NO, THAT'S NOT THE GUY.

Have a good one.

**Casinomeister** · 21st April 2006, 06:26 PM

Finally beginning to catch up from my absence.

Rogue section has been somewhat updated...I didn't have the time to do a write up, so all I could think of was one word to sum this up - "incompetence".

**caruso** · 21st April 2006, 08:00 PM

Nice one.

If you need a write-up, I can do you a fantastic one.

**kreome** · 27th April 2006, 06:45 PM

I saw that Starluck is in the Rogue list.

Why would they care ?

Star luck is a small operation and it is part of a much bigger operation which is Partygaming.com. Also the same owners of Starluck operate Planetluck and Aceclub and even more casinos.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Why not to sue them for the money ?

If Partygaming will be at the Rogue list I bet they pay him.