Lake Palace 'do an Omni' - Ecogra says casino is right to do so

[Dirk Diggler]

Clayman - The speed of Ecogra's decision was extremely quick.

They notified me (22nd Dec) within 24 hours that they had received my complaint and were looking into it - within two hours of receiving that they replied saying:

Dear Steven,

I received a copy of your account from the casino and have done a review of your play. There is a definite pattern that emerges when a bonus is in question. Bearing this is mind, it is my opinion that the casino is within it’s rights not to credit your account with the bonus. Please note that all casinos have a clause in their Terms and Conditions (T&C’s) that informs players of their right to suspend or close any account at their discretion or to deny any player a bonus. eCOGRA do inspect these incidents during the casino review to ensure that there was a valid reason for the action taken.

I sent a reply fighting my case (Also 22nd) to which they never replied, until I chased it up yesterday. They once again confirmed they were standing by their decision.

[caruso]

The words "cash back" might be causing confusion, because casinos use them to refer to both 1) percentage refunds of lost deposits and 2) normal deposit bonuses. The promo in question is NOT a loser's refund, it's a normal deposit bonus. Deposit - wager deposit - receive "cash back", ie. bonus. Then, wager on slots and withdraw (or whatever).

The question is not the nature of the bonus nor the validity of the claim, it's the behaviour of a formerly "reputable" casino in disqualifying a player who followed all the rules (they were simple enough) and committed no wrongdoing to justify the disqualification, and also the behaviour of the "regulator" Ecogra in backing up the unfortunate and dishonourable decision of the casino.

[bethug]

How many people at Ecogra looks at this? Does one person make a decision? If they stand by this the ecogra is in trouble. We cant let a casino get away from this kind of mess it needs to stop right now.

[caruso]

Bearing this is mind, it is my opinion that the casino is within it’s rights not to credit your account with the bonus.

Of course the casino is within its rights.

Every case of casino theft that has ever been perpetuated has been "within the casino's rights".

Many rogue casinos have both lost business and gone OUT of business envoking the "right to steal".

Angelciti tried to invoke it.

Gaming Club tried to invoke it.

Warren Cloud's invoked it a lot.

Cirrus tried to invoke it.

Omni tried to invoke it.

And many others.

We can now chalk up Lake Palace and Microgaming as members of that noble-spirited club of casinos / regulators who invoke the "right to steal".

[Stanford]

However - if a player is given an offer, accepts it and plays to all the T&Cs, he or she should be paid. What the casino does about it's right of admission in regard to that player subsequently is another issue.

And please, let's not use this to take cheap shots at eCOGRA - they've done a lot of fair and sterling work, and none of us are perfect.

You are correct. He should have been paid.

One really needs to understand this promotion. The way it should be played is that a player makes one or more deposits through Saturday. He can cash in on Sunday if he likes. The bonus comes on Monday. And he must play the bonus the required amount before cashing that out.

It is set up in such a manner that it encourages players to leave their funds in the casino until a specified time. They are asking players not to cashin till the end of the week. If Dirk left his funds in with his bonus, he was simply going beyond the terms to the advantage of the casino. That would be nice of him. I don't know why he would do that. There is no way to construe a pattern of abuse from the deposit/cashout timing as they explicitly set up what they wanted that timing to be.

There is a similar promotion at Fortune Lounge. If you reverse your withdrawal they enter you into a new drawing. It would not make sense to later claim you were not eligible for the drawing because your pattern was always to reverse your withdrawal and that is abusive. It makes the promotion moot.

As to eCOGRA, this is very importent. Decisions set precedent. Allowing the "bonus abuse" label to undo other specified bonus terms is a huge misstake. It tells the player community they are subject to arbitrary judgements. It isn't a cheap shot. If true, it is a very valid criticism. I still hold out hope that it isn't true.

imho,
Stanford.

[jetset]

I agree with your sentiments regarding this ECOGRA ruling, Stanford - what I find disappointing is how fast everyone here is to condemn them on the basis of an isolated error, when they are making a useful contribution to better conditions in the industry.

Let us see how this develops before everyone shoots them down.

[cipher]

I agree with your sentiments regarding this ECOGRA ruling, Stanford - what I find disappointing is how fast everyone here is to condemn them on the basis of an isolated error, when they are making a useful contribution to better conditions in the industry.

Let us see how this develops before everyone shoots them down.

Hi Jet:

I'm not hell bent on shooting down eCOGRA just yet. But, having said that, I'm not at all convinced that this gal who's been given the responsibility of handling these matters at eCOGRA is at all qualified.

Moreover, from what I've seen of the handling of this particular case this individual appears to be nothing but of a mouthpiece for the casino. It's high time for eCOGRA to offer up someone of substance to speak candidly and directly to this SPECIFIC instance. Have a good one.

[Freudian]

Let us see how this develops before everyone shoots them down.

They have twice told the customer that they won't do anything more. So until they change their minds there is no development. It is of course possible that now it is public they will look into the case again, but until they inform us they are indeed looking into it again there is no reason not to be critical of their actions.

[jetset]

Tex Rees is no stranger to online and land gambling, I can assure you...and neither is the CEO Andrew Beveridge. They also have access to a number of knowledgeable people should a second opinion be required. Clearly that would have been useful in this individual case.

I'll say no more on this for now, preferring to see what reaction Stanford's well written letter to eCOGRA produces...or not.

[spearmaster]

I just wanted a little clarification, that's all.

I haven't offered an opinion yet because I've been too busy working on other things which are tedious and not fun... but now that I'm here... I'm of the opinion that Dirk did take advantage - but the offer is, and was, very clear and as far as I can tell he met all the T&Cs of the promotion.

Stanford - nice one. Very well considered and factual.