Captain Cooks group in trouble?

[120sam]

Will they also be releasing a definition of "suspect wagering"?

[mucullus]

In which way have those players accused of "suspect wagering" breached the t&c's of the casinos? I really don't understand the term "suspect wagering", it sounds like bj autoplay rather than severe player fraud like a multiple account thing.

[jetset]

QUOTE These actions are all designed to ensure that Integrity Casinos is known to operate brands where players who look for genuine gaming entertainment based around playing against the rules of the games fairly, are welcomed and treated with respect and courtesy.

Players who do not fall into this category detract from the ability of Integrity Casinos to reward the genuine and legitimate players for their continued patronage of our brands, and will not be tolerated. UNQUOTE

I would say that the interpretation here is that this established and successful group of casinos is taking a strong stand on whatever we want to call "advantage players, smart players, professional players, math players, bonus hunters, percentage players etc"

I think this is a definite warning shot for the itinerant population interested only in taking advantage of bonuses to get out of Dodge as far as Integrity Casinos are concerned before your accounts are closed. Note that in terms of this policy the apparent intent following this audit is to apply the casinos' right of admission, paying out deposits and winnings, but not bonuses.

And it looks as if they are methodically going through their player base to identify those players that they do not want - probably a relatively small percentage of the total.

It's likely to cause a furore, but it will probably save a lot of future bonus dispute hassles.

[willy]

Hi Again All,
We are going to be addressing concerns in general regarding the issue that has initiated this thread. We can't deal with the multitude of individual observations and theories thrown up since our audit process started. I can assure everybody that , in good time , we will respond accordingly.
I'm compelled to post here now by a different issue...that being the incident described by Grandmaster above. Any long time player with Integrity Casinos will recognise the contradictions in this complaint and I'd like to look into this for you. If you like you can contact me privately and I will follow up ...or you can post details here...whichever suits.
I'd just like to add tho', ... you can contact me via the private email box here if you have legitimate concerns regarding any issue with us.
Thanks , and I look forward to hearing from you .
Willy

[Vesuvio]

Willy, since you're around how about telling us what you mean by "suspect wagering"? As far as I understand your formal statement the assumptions that were made on the basis of your earlier e-mails seem to have been proven correct - you intend to retrospectively remove money from accounts that have met all the terms and conditions of your bonuses (while not refunding players who played in the same manner and lost their deposits).

If you go down that road then as I understand it you should expect to be placed on a blacklist at Casinomeister and similar sites. Please let me know if I'm missing anything here.

[Vesuvio]

And it looks as if they are methodically going through their player base to identify those players that they do not want - probably a relatively small percentage of the total.

It's likely to cause a furore, but it will probably save a lot of future bonus dispute hassles.

I'm very suprised by your response, Jetset. Just imagine for a moment this had been sent out by a casino that didn't have a previous good reputation (imagine it's a dodgy RTG, for instance). You'd be up in arms with the rest of us.

There's no obligation to lose money at on-line casinos to prove you're playing for "entertainment". Even players who mainly play slots might well consider that the only chance they'd have of meeting the very tricky bonus conditions at Casino Classic would be by autoplaying a low house edge game. The bonus is there to attract deposits from players wanting to win. If the player adopts a pattern of play that gives them a chance to do so there's absolutely no justification for subsequently taking away the bonus (I suspect you're very wrong in thinking this involves a small number of players).

For what it's worth I tried Casino Classic (I'd never have deposited without the bonus) and lost the 189 bonus in my bonus account. Suprisingly I made a small profit in the real account, but if I'd lost my deposit the bonus would have served it's purpose for the casino (getting me to play and lose) & of course I wouldn't have had any complaint. If "Integrity" (!) casinos are allowed to get away with what they seem to be planning then it'll be a new low for the casino industry.

Yep, it's that brink again. Care to take a step back?

[willy]

Sorry GM I reread my post and noticed that it appears to intimate that there is a contradiction in your issue . Quite the opposite and I apologise for the error.
Thanks too Jetset for your post (above). At some stage somebody from Casino groups needed to make a stand. Despit the fact that the opening of a new venue provided Players previously banned from existing sites with the opportunity to register and use the site in the manner intended , a large number chose to see this as "another gift" .That may be so , but the longer term effect on the wider community is "evolving" and it will evolve to exclude groups and individuals intent on rorting systems. Thanks Again
Willy

[120sam]

Willy, would you mind compelling yourself to define "suspect wagering"? It would be very helpful to people trying to decide whether this is a legitimate audit or a scam to avoid paying players who have met your bonus T&Cs and just want to withdraw their winnings.

[willy]

We don't discourage any legitimate Player from accessing our sites. I won't get into any protracted debate regarding the ethics of the Terms and Conditions we apply to our Players. Read our Terms and Conditions and interpret the clause regarding the use of our sites for leisure as opposed to outright "profiteering" from our Bonuses.It's not difficult.
There's more involved here than just unacceptable wagering I can assure you . Excuse me for not detailing here for you , but , as our actions will ultimatly only effect those who have been thus engaged , those people will be fully abrest of the issues.
Most of our players understandand and comply with our Terms , especially if they are using our Bonuses. The few who have chosen to ignore the rest of the gambling community and manipulate our systems and rules for their own gain..., I'm sure many in the community extends those people similar sentiment to us.
Thanks Again
Willy

[Vesuvio]

Read our Terms and Conditions and interpret the clause regarding the use of our sites for leisure as opposed to outright "profiteering" from our Bonuses.It's not difficult.

Sorry, Willy, but if you want to justify actions that would be considered fraud and land you with heavy fines in a properly regulated industry you'll have to get a bit more articulate than that.

Do you really think you can enforce a term that says players can't take a bonus if they want to make a profit from it? That would rule out 99% of your customers.

These terms do contain some gems though:

12.7 Player acknowledges that the Game is for entertainment value only. Player acknowledges that no deposit is necessary or required to play the Game. If a player wishes to play without betting money, he/she may do so without being constrained by these terms and conditions excepting that the Player must comply with paragraph 12.3.

So if I don't bet money I'm allowed to try and win money

12.11 Player acknowledges and agrees that they shall review at least monthly these Terms and Conditions of the Company.