English Harbour Group Warning

[caruso]

Jet, if it's "casino hate" then sobeit. I would call it, rather more specifically, hatred of rascals masquerading as "reputable". That much I hate. I hate the two-faced duplicity.

Until such a time as EH come out and offers an alternate justification as to why they about-faced, they are rascals masquerading as "reputable". If there was a "security flag", WHY is there no longer? WHAT caused the change?

Of course, we know what happened: public pressure, followed by a word from Bryan - and they u-turned. They u-turned because they tried it on with nothing, and were caught.

And on our age-old disagreement: what you say is correct, but it's simply another slant on the same fact, based on your intimate knowledge of Ecogra. I could take exactly the same stab at it with this EH business:

"A player complained to English Harbour, who ruled against him. One of the more responsible and practically public spirited posters here then wrote to the casino manager, suggesting a review at a more senior level. The review was carried out and the decision overturned in favour of the player, who was then paid out. The reason for the reversal (which was correctly based on the fact that the player had complied with the terms of the T&C at the time he wagered) was given, I believe."

Follow me? Whoever did whatever they did, the decision was reversed as result of public pressure. You, me, Bryan, Stanford, or whoever made the first move, the ball started rolling, and rolled into the player's corner, because of public pressure. Lake Palace tried it on and got caught, just as EH just have. We can even factor Ecogra out of the equation, because the casino was always going to pay up. The fact that Ecogra happened to be first port of call doesn't affect the ultimate result - Microgaming would never have allowed such blatant and straightforward robbery on the part of one of their licensees.

EDIT: In case this "parallel matter" under discussion is throwing anyone off kilter, here's the source. It's long one, but the first page is REQUIRED READING and very pertinent:

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...ead.php?t=6854

[jetset]

Ah well, I suppose I was hoping for a little too much to find some balance and credit where credit is due here these days.

I find it remarkable that you, DD remain determined to believe that posting brought the review and reversal about rather than a fair, fast and professional response to an intelligent appeal for a sound case.

Given your obvious contempt for the intervention of eCOGRA I wonder whether you will again use their services?

[Dirk Diggler]

Of course I would if ever required - but hopefully their casinos will stick to their own terms and conditions in future. As stated I believe the introduction of eCOGRA and the mediation services at RTG and Playtech are a great thing for players and the industry however I believe that eCOGRA failed the player in my case.

I did not appeal - it was only after Stanford wrote them an email and I presume the likes of yourself and Bryan also did AFTER I posted on here that they sent me an email stating they were re-examining the case.

Previously to that I was told TWICE that they would not aid me any further despite asking them to reconsider.

Yes it probably was the Stanford's excellently put email that caused them to do the about turn - but if I hadn't posted on here Stanford wouldn't even have known about the case.

[BCarlisle]

Originally Posted by jetset

Ah well, I suppose I was hoping for a little too much to find some balance and credit where credit is due here these days.

I find it remarkable that you, DD remain determined to believe that posting brought the review and reversal about rather than a fair, fast and professional response to an intelligent appeal for a sound case.

Given your obvious contempt for the intervention of eCOGRA I wonder whether you will again use their services?

Woah. I think contempt is going a bit far. I've read your posts on quite a range of topics now Jetset and you seem a reasonable person who tries to treat both 'sides' fairly.

I agree that the final arbitration should be something that Dirk and Caruso should be grateful with, as without it Dirk would've continued to have his money held unfairly. However, this does not change the fact that the casino is scum, and that the original arbitrator ruled unfairly in saying that the casino could do as it pleased because it reserved such a right.

Anyone who is unjustly accused or stolen from by another party should perhaps feel grateful if the good is returned or the accusation upheld, but the contempt towards the thief or accuser and those that aided the action should probably remain. As should any contempt towards those that allow it to continue through unjust rulings.

[jetset]

Hacking away at a casino with a generally good track record because it changed an unjust decision to the benefit of the player is not a constructive way forward imo, especially when those doing it are clearly not in possession of all the facts. How much encouragement to the other side does that offer? How much useful interaction from the other side does this over the top hostility engender?

The same applies to regurgitating historical issues like Lake Palace in a thread about English Harbour, at the same time taking the opportunity to apply a particular negative spin to them despite evidence to the contrary.

As for the comments discounting the very clear and decisive efforts of eCOGRA in bringing DD's case to a satisfactory conclusion, I find this quite unreasonable, and possibly deliberately misleading.

By all means let's go after the real rogues and crooks in this business and warn players about them, but tarring everyone with the same brush and bringing down the good with the bad is just not sensible.

[jetset]

QUOTE As stated I believe the introduction of eCOGRA and the mediation services at RTG and Playtech are a great thing for players and the industry however I believe that eCOGRA failed the player in my case.UNQUOTE

How did eCOGRA fail you, when the management were clearly prepared to reconsider your case, even if it meant over-ruling the FGA after a third party appeal, ensuring that you were paid in full?

Sorry Dirk, I just don't see that, or classifying the casino involved as "scum" based on this single dispute (I haven't seen any other complaints since about this operation)

I believe you are also, perhaps unintentionally doing eCOGRA a disservice in equating it with Montana and (forthcoming attraction) Playtech Disputes. By doing so I feel that you imply that this is all there is to it, when you are sufficiently experienced and informed to know that there is a great deal more to this initiative and its activites than that.

[Dirk Diggler]

Originally Posted by jetset

How did eCOGRA fail you, when the management were clearly prepared to reconsider your case, even if it meant over-ruling the FGA after a third party appeal, ensuring that you were paid in full?

I feel they failed me because it took me going to the message boards before they came to the obvious and correct decision. I did not expect to have to do that with eCOGRA - especially on an issue as basic as the 'casino reserves the right' rule. Even Montana wouldn't try to agree with the casino based on that one.

Originally Posted by jetset

I believe you are also, perhaps unintentionally doing eCOGRA a disservice in equating it with Montana and (forthcoming attraction) Playtech Disputes. By doing so I feel that you imply that this is all there is to it, when you are sufficiently experienced and informed to know that there is a great deal more to this initiative and its activites than that.

Fair enough - all I was trying to get accross is that all these developments are great for the players and the industry alike. I do agree though they are not to the same degree and eCOGRA is head and shoulders above the others.

Anyway I think this is all being blown out of proportion and getting away from the issue in hand - I sincerely believe and hope that eCOGRA learnt from my case and will reach the correct decisions in future cases.

Now back to English Harbour - why are they refusing players winnings and then backing down as soon as a player posts on the likes of here?

[hapaboii]

Originally Posted by KasinoKing

Good news indeed!

But please tell us - have they also given you the welcome bonus?

According to their T&C's, they should!

Nope, after wanting to cashout and being told by CS via email(twice) that I had to receive the welcome bonus since I deposited more than "$30 or $40" which would not have received a bonus, they never credited the bonus to either my English Harbour or Silver Dollar account. They were locked by that point and as they said, the accounts will remain closed.

I find it very concerning that they first told me I had to receive the welcome bonus(note: this is what prevented me from withdrawing when I wanted to, I felt that they would do the casino trick of crediting the bonus to my account and then deny my withdrawal on grounds that I hadn't completed the wagering requirements), then locked my accounts(hence no bonuses received) and intended to only refund my deposit. Then, thanks to Casinomeister and this forum, and my email to the casino that I was taking the issue to CM, they reply to me with that email that I posted earlier in this thread.

I still hope to find out why my accounts were locked and what were these "security flags," but I still don't know. But I am glad that at least my winnings were paid out. Thanks.

[caruso]

Absolutely. The casino double-talk about "security flags", followed all flags hastily whisked away and payment shamefacedly issued a few days later, needs answering. If not, I see no way this group can remotely be considered "reputable".

[maxlevine]

Originally Posted by KasinoKing

This clearly gives the player permission to play with their deposited funds, and withdraw BEFORE receiving the bonus.
The only penalty to the player, is this play does not count towards WR, which still has to be met AFTER the bonus is credited.
No-where in the T&C's does it say a player can not do what hapaboii did.

The casino should pay out his full deposit + winnings, and also give him the welcome bonus - completely in compliance with their own T&C's.

I'm a little late but you were absolutely right, KK. He was allowed to withdraw before receiving the bonus without wagering the required amount.

Happy to know you got paid, hapaboii!

Max