Bellavegas(Microgaming) won't pay 20K

[scrollock]

heres an interesting link, regarding a couple of big wins and underage gamblers.

http://camelpoker.blogspot.com/2005/...ittle-bit.html

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by soflat

When the Meister recommends keeping things mellow, I think that means to put a lid on it for awhile because the topic is sensitive.

Thanks - sometimes it's hard to get people's attention when the forum overflows with emotionalism. Sometimes you have to think and act like a Vulcan.

Anyway, for anyone who has been reading this thread, and following the one at WOL, it is apparent that this is a no-win situation. A gambler who is considered underage by her jurisdiction - and a casino that accepted her bets.

I'm not going to rehash this whole damn thing, but I'm going to make a few points and move on.

True, I feel that this player knew that what she was wrong. It was clear in their terms and conditions that it was her responsibility to ensure what she was doing was 100% legit. This is where she messed up. But we can never really know what was going on in her head - perhaps she believed that by entering the casino and playing there her activity was condoned "legally."

http://www.casinomeister.com/casinos.html#newbie

Some important notes to consider before making deposits at any casino:

• Make sure you are old enough to play. If you are between the ages of 18 - 21, contact the casino support to ensure they will honor your winnings if you win. Get this in writing.

It's a bummer she didn't follow this advice from the git go. Pick up a phone, call customer support to make sure she was legit, and request them to send her an email to confirm this. If she had done this and was allowed to continue to play, we would have a different circumstance on our hands.

But that didn't happen.

Point number two. The casino failed to do it's due diligence. They have all of the power within their means to prevent this. To rely solely on their terms and conditions is unacceptable. Sure that will protect the casino financially - but underage gambling is beyond nickels and dimes, it is a behavior that is calling the Bible thumpers to man their soapboxes and preach about the evils of online gambling. It is a careless and irresponsible attitude to take. There is no excuse to have let this happen.

Point three: the casino considered this case closed last August since they turned this over to eCOGRA which understandably ruled against paying this player. Some people have riled that eCOGRA ruled in favor of the casino. I do not share this view. I would say they ruled in favor of the industry. The deposits were already returned to this player, and the under age player was not paid her winnings. There is absolutely no way eCOGRA or any other entity could consider asking the casino to honor a dime of her winnings.

OT: Whatever happened to the licensing jurisdiction? I have no idea why they weren't involved in this. Oops, I forgot. They're licensed in Kahnawake. Anyway, moving on....

After eCOGRA did what they were asked to do, the casino went on business as usual. This is the major malfunction.

The casino more or less was out a player, they were out around $5000 and whatever deposits she had made, but they were being accused of selective payments of winnings. i.e. when she won too much, they card her and "oops, she's a teenager - don't pay her". This is the furor of the public. The torches, pitchforks, and Carusos freaking on online casinoland - and I don't blame them. In the eyes of most players, casinos are crooks - you have to earn the players' trust. This whole scenario fanned these flames.

The casino failed us - those who work in this industry - by not making a bold statement to this episode. I was trying to convince them that the only way to face this would be to take this player's winnings and donate them to either a charity of her choice, or to some other organization - perhaps Gambling Anonymous. (sorry to give you the impression that you were going to get paid - this was unintentional - my apologies)

This would have nullified the notion that this casino was being selective. It would have cost them 20k. It would have (I would hope) made the player feel that her negative experience was transposed into something positive - feeding hungry kids, providing counseling to prob. gamblers, etc. It would have saved a lot of anguish for the casino. It would have illustrated to everyone that casinos will not profit from catering to under age gamblers. In short, this would have made many positive messages and provided something for the needy.

But in the casino's short-sightedness, they have chosen not to do this.

I've discussed this situation with a number of people, and I am really frustrated. I feel that this casino group has let everyone in this industry down by just letting this be and not engaging themselves in this problem. And I question how many more autumn12s are out there.

I just hope that this serves as a wake up call to operators who are not doing their due diligence on protecting their players, their casino, and the online casino industry.

http://www.casinomeister.com/rogue/index.html#nr

[caruso]

Good post, Mr. Bailey. And a well-deserved rogueing (or, not recommending).

I'm curious about one thing. When you said...

The casino has paid back her deposists since it viewed her activities as void - this was done before she began to complain about this. So she has lost not a cent. Is she going to return her winnings? Nope, I don't think so. The casino is out of this amount as well.

...did you mean ALL the Bella Vegas deposits she ever made, or only those that generated winnings? One is led to believe you mean the former, but a clarification would be handy.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by caruso

...did you mean ALL the Bella Vegas deposits she ever made, or only those that generated winnings? One is led to believe you mean the former, but a clarification would be handy.

From the casino:
-We refunded ALL purchases (on ALL accounts at ALL casinos) that this player made with our group.

She had an account at all six casinos.

[suzecat]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

From the casino:
-We refunded ALL purchases (on ALL accounts at ALL casinos) that this player made with our group.

She had an account at all six casinos.

Busy girl! Let's hope this cyberesque "unringing of the bell" is sufficient to give underage gamblers pause before they try this stunt. Even better would be for online operators to step up the due diligence. If it's a funding problem that stops them from doing so we know where there is $20k to start the pot.

[scrollock]

Originally Posted by suzecat

Busy girl! Let's hope this cyberesque "unringing of the bell" is sufficient to give underage gamblers pause before they try this stunt. Even better would be for online operators to step up the due diligence. If it's a funding problem that stops them from doing so we know where there is $20k to start the pot.

it wouldnt be that expensive for them to add a few lines of code to the software to check the age and country, jeez i could write it in basic now

10 rem check age and country
20 if country$="usa" and age<21 then print "you are not old enough to play at this casino, so f*** off"

[Casinomeister]

And then it occured to me that she was allowed to play at six of their properties. Upgraded to full roguedom.
http://www.casinomeister.com/rogue/grandprive.html

[caruso]

You covered pretty much all angles there. Still sucks for the player, but I suppose she can take some "comfort" from the fact that the casino emerges from this with its credibility and reputation around its ankles, and in as public a manner as is possible.

[scrollock]

while it is sad day to a MG rogued, i think grandprive have had this one coming to them for a long time.

long may they rot in hell.

as for ecogra, the fact that they let grandprive in at all, shows that ecogra is a joke itself.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by scrollock

...as for ecogra, the fact that they let grandprive in at all, shows that ecogra is a joke itself.

eCOGRA did what they were supposed to do - the player asked them to have the casino pay - they ruled against the player. They were firm, thorough, and fair in their response. This issue has nothing to do with eCOGRA. No need to find an opportunity to start slagging off on them.