INETBET agitation

**AceMan76** · 31st March 2006, 08:50 PM

I checked the website and the T&C need to be clearer on when excluded games can be played. It only addresses playing excluded games with funds containing a bonus. However, when does the account no longer contain bonus money? Is it when WR are met or a CO is requested?

Does the player have to make a request or does the system automatically stop treating the account as containing bonus money when the WR are met?

**jpsartre** · 31st March 2006, 09:01 PM

I guess I didn't explain clearly what happened to me. Mind you this is some years back so I don't remember everything in details. A long time ago their rules said that roulette did not count towards meeting the wager-requirements. I send them an email asking whether this meant roulette could not be played at all or whether I could play it as long as I finished the wager in allowed games. I was told that the latter was the case. So I played roulette, finished wager on allowed and cashed out without a problem. Much later, maybe 6 months or so, I play another bonus at Inetbet and play roulette again. This time they confiscate the winning. I write them and say that they confirmed to me by email that I was allowed to play roulette. Unfortunately, I did not save that email so I had no proof. I believe it was Emily herself he looked into it and while she could not find the email in their end either she gave me the benifit of the doubt and restored my winnings to my account. Taking into account that I had not played much at Inetbet without a bonus at all, I found that pretty classy.

And saying that you came in here screaming bloody murder was, I admit, an exaggeration. However, it ceratinly seems to me that you immediately jumped to the worst conclusion possible before giving an honest casino the chance to look into your case. That's your choice. But it would be a shame if other players are detered from playing at Inetbet because of it.

**suzecat** · 31st March 2006, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by AceMan76

I checked the website and the T&C need to be clearer on when excluded games can be played. It only addresses playing excluded games with funds containing a bonus. However, when does the account no longer contain bonus money? Is it when WR are met or a CO is requested?

Does the player have to make a request or does the system automatically stop treating the account as containing bonus money when the WR are met?

AceMan76: Inetbet (Emily Hanson) addressed this in an earlier post in this thread:

As some of the posters here quite rightly state, once wagering requirements have been met then other games can be played.

If, as you say, the T&Cs are vague on this issue, then perhaps a clarification is in order.

I would like to add that my experience these past years at Inetbet has been very positive (games are fair, cashouts are processed quickly, support is helpful and cordial). I do not use bonuses as a general rule.

The two times I have had a problem with Inetbet an email to Emily/support cleared up the problem within a single day. It is my practice to contact them first before posting anything on a public forum (it just shows them the respect they rightly deserve IMHO).

And no, I am not a shill for RTG (or anyone else for that matter).

**Sodax77** · 31st March 2006, 09:14 PM

EU residants: Use your common sense, talk with support

USA residants: Talk with the lawyer, search mistakes/errors/etc, sue the company, make things harder, do not ask help/advice/etc. Etc, etc, etc

I'm not suprised why T&C's are nowadays what they are

**soflat** · 31st March 2006, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Sodax77

EU residants: Use your common sense, talk with support

USA residants: Talk with the lawyer, search mistakes/errors/etc, sue the company, make things harder, do not ask help/advice/etc. Etc, etc, etc

I'm not suprised why T&C's are nowadays what they are

Keep in mind that the story changed half way thru the thread, and the player admitted to the mistake.

The bottom line is that the problem is resolved and the casino got some good publicity out of it.

**silcnlayc** · 31st March 2006, 10:11 PM

I got to put in one more penny for I am cracking up in laughter at this point for NO ONE has remarked on the fact that the money was moved from one place to another....and that was my bone of contention...not that I wasn't paid...it was the illusion of meeting all the requirements..all with magic I guess....

Thank you all for making my day! Really...you'all put a smile on my face finally. For the problem I pointed out has NEVER gotten addressed...too funny IMHO..and the story never changed..the words did for the understanding of the story..too funny...

May all your jackpots be big...and your requirements be met...for if not...it might magically disappear.....

Everyone have a great weekend...

Truly ROFLMAO by now......

**soflat** · 31st March 2006, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by silcnlayc

I got to put in one more penny for I am cracking up in laughter at this point for NO ONE has remarked on the fact that the money was moved from one place to another....and that was my bone of contention...not that I wasn't paid...it was the illusion of meeting all the requirements..all with magic I guess....

That is because of the antiquated RTG software. It apparently only allows operators to input the total wagering requirement for a bonus.

For instance, I am playing at an RTG casino now after having completed $4000 in play and hitting a Royal Flush. The money is all shown as withdrawable, but I know that it is really not because the requirement is double if you play video poker. So I continue on with my manual counter in hand.

**winbig** · 31st March 2006, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by silcnlayc

I got to put in one more penny for I am cracking up in laughter at this point for NO ONE has remarked on the fact that the money was moved from one place to another

Several people have commented on this.

**suzecat** · 31st March 2006, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by soflat

That is because of the antiquated RTG software. It apparently only allows operators to input the total wagering requirement for a bonus.

For instance, I am playing at an RTG casino now after having completed $4000 in play and hitting a Royal Flush. The money is all shown as withdrawable, but I know that it is really not because the requirement is double if you play video poker. So I continue on with my manual counter in hand.

Congrats on the Royal! Way to freakin' go!

Not to mention the fact that you were able to read/comprehend the T&Cs so you know where you stand and what you can/cannot do. Add the fact that this was all accomplished without hiring an attorney...........truly awesome! Good job!

**jpsartre** · 31st March 2006, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by silcnlayc

For the problem I pointed out has NEVER gotten addressed...

Well I addressed it. I said:

"I agree that the wager-calculator should, ideally, be able to take into account which games are played. However, the fact that it doesn't does not mean that T&C can be ignored. I have not visited Inetbet's website for some time so I can't say for sure how it is now but the T&C used to be very easy to find. In my opinion the casino has not done anything wrong in this case."

For the record, I just went to the website and it clearly says that with game-specific bonuses (I assume the bonus you played was a slot-bonus?) you cannot play other games before wager-requirements are completed. Seriously, it's right there on the page where they keep the coupon-codes. It's not hidden away anywhere.

While you may find the whole thing funny I personally find it rather sad that you apparently can't take responsibilty for your mistake of not looking at the rules of the bonus, and instead try to make the casino look like the bad guy. There are enough crooked casinos out there that deserves criticism. Inetbet is not one of them.

EDIT: I actually just realized that whether the wager-calculator counts correctly or not is completely irrelevant in your case as you still broke the rule of playing BJ with your bonus-money. So I don't really see why you would bring that up at all.

DOUBLE-EDIT: And in your orginal post you don't even mention the stuff about the wager being transferred. So how can this be your 'bone of contention'.

I won't post anymore in this thread. I believe I've argued my points conclusively. For me it's case closed