Bellavegas(Microgaming) won't pay 20K

[jetset]

The message here as I see it is that identified underage players (either under 18 in general or in terms of specific T&Cs) are not going to get paid by any responsible and professional casino management, and eCOGRA should never be seen to be encouraging such a course as a responsible body.

Underage chancers are a growing menace and there are very good and obvious reasons for excluding them wherever possible.

I believe there were contributory factors at play here which certainly do not redound to the casino's credit in any way, but the bottom line is that this player registered when she was underage in terms of the T&Cs in force at the time.

We can argue about this until the cows come home (and I for one don't have the time to constantly revisit the topic) but the fact remains that this player took a chance, she was caught (eventually) and she is clearly not going to be paid.

Prolonging these arguments that have been combed over ad nauseum is not going to change that, or the opinions of those involved.

The debate over the other issues and inconsistencies surrounding this incident will be taking place in management meetings at various companies, I'm pretty sure. Casino managements are not as dishonest, uncaring or incompetent as some players would like to believe. Hopefully something positive will come out of that for the future.

Your oblique shot at our host here is unwarranted in my view. Your aggressive response to Suzecat's post pushed the limit without personal provocation and you were shown the warning flag again by the 'Meister.

Get over it.

[GrandMaster]

Just to clarify:

and it becomes even more complex when trying to match players in the 18-21 group against the laws of hundreds of countries and states.

Problems in this department acknowledged.

It can be even more complicated. The legal age for gambling in Malta for Maltese citizens is 25, for foreigners 18.

[caruso]

Prolonging these arguments that have been combed over ad nauseum is not going to change that, or the opinions of those involved.

Did you even read what I said?

This is eCOGRA's stance on the matter (posted here at their behest):

Anyway, these are all relevant, current matters. They will be "prolonged" as long as they remain discussion-worthy.

[spearmaster]

Did you even read what I said?

Anyway, these are all relevant, current matters. They will be "prolonged" as long as they remain discussion-worthy.

Discussion is worthy. Repetitive posts which add nothing to the thread are not worthy. Not saying yours was repetitive - just making a point.

eCOGRA has stated their viewpoint. Not all of us necessarily agree with it.

Got something new to bring to the table - by all means do so. But please, let's not beat a dead horse any more than necessary.

I urge people to vote with their feet - take your business elsewhere, if you do not believe you will get a fair shake from Grand Prive. It is quite sad that they have come to this - but if you saw my graph earlier in this thread, it is pretty clear - at least in my opinion - which category they fall into.

[jetset]

Spear said: "Got something new to bring to the table - by all means do so. But please, let's not beat a dead horse any more than necessary."

I couldn't agree more, and especially if exchanges can be kept at a civil level and relatively free of histrionics.

Here's another bit of sound advice from Spear; don't forget that players hold the power of individual choice:

"....take your business elsewhere, if you do not believe you will get a fair shake from Grand Prive."

[caruso]

Got something new to bring to the table - by all means do so. But please, let's not beat a dead horse any more than necessary.

I was asked to post the section I posted in quotes, or at least make the facts known. Quoting directly the relevant bit seemed the best way.

I said I would.

I did.

[jetset]

I was asked to post the section I posted in quotes, or at least make the facts known. Quoting directly the relevant bit seemed the best way.

I said I would.

I did.

Why the "mad" icon this time?

I interpreted the moderator's gentle hint about repetitive posting of already exhaustively examined detail and opinion as a very general observation that actually (if you take the trouble to read it) did not specifically refer to you.

I quote:

"Repetitive posts which add nothing to the thread are not worthy. Not saying yours was repetitive - just making a point."

[Casinomeister]

Okay, after 16 pages of discussion, this thread took a turn into a new topic which I've separated from this one: Foreign Currency Bonus Discussion which I've created here:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...iscussion.html

Just trying to keep things organized

If you want to continue that discussion - by all means do so. But please reserve this thread for the Grand Prive underage player issue. Thanks!

[Linus]

The message here as I see it is that identified underage players (either under 18 in general or in terms of specific T&Cs) are not going to get paid by any responsible and professional casino management, and eCOGRA should never be seen to be encouraging such a course as a responsible body.

Wouldn't a better message involve not accepting an underaged player's wagers in the first place? Rather than simply taking her money when she wins?

Underage chancers are a growing menace and there are very good and obvious reasons for excluding them wherever possible.

I'm not sure underaged chancers are a menace to casinos, so much as casinos are a menace to them. At least that's the way the public looks at it. They're worried about casinos taking advantage of young people, not the other way around.

This would be a good example of what they're worried about.

I believe there were contributory factors at play here which certainly do not redound to the casino's credit in any way, but the bottom line is that this player registered when she was underage in terms of the T&Cs in force at the time.

That may be true, but she was in violation of the casino's T&Cs anyway, whether she was 19, or 119. If BellaVegas can seize Autumn's winnings, they can seize the winnings of any American who plays there.

She was, on the other hand, over 18. And this casino chooses to market itself to eighteen year olds. And, of course, she told the casino her true age - 19 - when she registered.

We can argue about this until the cows come home (and I for one don't have the time to constantly revisit the topic) but the fact remains that this player took a chance, she was caught (eventually) and she is clearly not going to be paid.

If it was clear she was not going to be paid, she wouldn't have played there.

Prolonging these arguments that have been combed over ad nauseum is not going to change that, or the opinions of those involved.

Whether anyone's mind will be changed, depends on the person's mind.

The debate over the other issues and inconsistencies surrounding this incident will be taking place in management meetings at various companies, I'm pretty sure.

I suspect the main issue in their debates will be whether or not they can get away with it. In other words, whether players will put up with casinos that will accept their wagers when they lose, but deny them when they win.

As long as players are willing to put up with it, the debate can only go one way.

Casino managements are not as dishonest, uncaring or incompetent as some players would like to believe. Hopefully something positive will come out of that for the future.

I have no doubt there's a range of people in the gambling business, just like every business. That's why it's so important that honest companies get rewarded, and dishonest ones get punished.

Your oblique shot at our host here is unwarranted in my view. Your aggressive response to Suzecat's post pushed the limit without personal provocation and you were shown the warning flag again by the 'Meister.

Get over it.

CasinoMeister has the right to moderate his board anyway he sees fit. How he chooses to use that power will determine whether the gambling community continues to take this site seriously as a "watchdog" site.

[jetset]

"Got something new to bring to the table - by all means do so. But please, let's not beat a dead horse any more than necessary." Spear - just yesterday.

So I'm not about to trawl back and forth over this ground yet again, Linus save to comment on your final paragraph, which I feel was unnecessary.

QUOTE: CasinoMeister has the right to moderate his board anyway he sees fit. How he chooses to use that power will determine whether the gambling community continues to take this site seriously as a "watchdog" site. UNQUOTE

This is in my view the best and fairest online casino and poker portal, watchdog, forum and information site in the business. That's a personal view after some years as a member here which in my experience is also held by many others on both sides of the player - casino divide.

One of the reasons for this is the huge amount of balanced work that the owner does for both sides, and the respect that his personal integrity and general sense of easy-going fairness generates.

So when you get flagged, generally you deserve it and need to back off a little.

That being the case, please do not imply that his conduct is anything less than the above in this matter, and that this might in some way endanger the regard in which his site is held.

That I don't buy. This site has been around for a long time by industry standards, and it's achieved more good things than most. I predict it will continue to enjoy wide support.

In the absence of anything new being presented in this thread, I am now going to take my own advice and move on.