GAMBLING FEDERATION: rules adhered to but winnings stolen

[ChristopherB]

Casinomeister,

I hope this is far from a decided case. I hope you will get the full story from them and if you need more info from me, see my PAB (or e-mail me).

[Casinomeister]

Gotcha. I'll make contact with their CEO to see what's up.

[GFED3]

The rules state (and have for quite some time):

Players can receive free money at registration only once in GFED Games Software Powered Casinos

Player may only operate one (1) active account with GFED Games Software Powered Casinos at any time. Players opening multiple accounts without first voiding their existing account are subject to being excluded from the Casino with all funds forfeited

The Casino reserves the right to limit or cancel any Players account due to abusive behavior on promotional bonuses or Gfed points at the Casino's own discretion. The Casino management reserves the right to withhold any funds if it suspects any foul play or manipulation with the Casino. It is recognized and agreed to by the Player that, in the case of any discrepancy whatsoever, management's decision on all matters will be final.

All promotional offers are only valid for one player per household

These are all posted on the websites and have been for quite a while, although "G-FED Games Software Powered Casinos" has recently been added instead of "Gambling Federation family of casinos".

The rest have been there for at least several months, before April.

[daywalker]

Well in my opinion GFED casinos have always been dodgy and are definitely one company to avoid.

[caruso]

The rules state (and have for quite some time):

So: first it was "multi accounts"; then you realized this wouldn't wash, so you concocted this "scheme" nonsense that we talked about extensively on the GPWA board. Now THAT one doesn't hold any more, so we're onto the third excuse.

Basically, you'll go on and on churning out excuses until you find one you can make stick, right?

[caruso]

Right, I dug out a screenshot:

First one: the GF bonuses rule, as posted on the affiliate site on May 22nd. The ONLY mention is "no deposit" bonuses. THere is NO mention of DEPOSIT bonuses.

Second one: the same page, taken today. Updated to include "...and three initial deposit bonuses" (note: there is not even a mention of just one, but THREE.)

Yes, this is *only* an affiliate site, but it is THE number one Gambling Federation affiliate site and the PAGE from which the player downloaded. According to the rules posted here, he is entitled.

Third one: a post from an earlier Gambling Federation complaint thread. Although this player was looking to be cheated (again) because of "multi-accounts", once this was established to be incorrect, the player was paid. Note:

Second, I wanted to took advantage of their bonuses that is clear, I know their terms well and there is no problem to claim more than 3 deposit bonus, the system allow you to do it and also in the terms you see nothing which ban you from doing that.

The deposit bonuses are allowed because u risk money and I risked I lost the full balance in 9 of them and at the 10th one I was lucky and won 6072 Euro playing 400 a hand and 200 a hand riksing my money.

xxxhttp://www.gpwa.net/forum/showthread.php?t=163804&page=3&pp=10

THIS player did almost exactly the same thing, playing high stakes blackjack rather than roulette - he was paid. Now this player should not be? On what basis?

And AGAIN I say: if this was the reason, why did you have Cindy and Brian banging on about "schemes" and the "abuse of the spirit of the promotion"? If you figured you had this ace up your sleave, why not actually MENTION it at some point? Wouldn't a straightforward contravention of the rules put an end to the matter without all that "scheme" BS?

The answer is obvious enough: this is the latest ruse you've come up with. If this one doesn't hold, you'll come up with another one.

Your bonuses are deliberately designed as traps for the player. You (now) bury a "one bonus only" clause in the official terms, award the bonuses automatically notwithstanding the (now) "illegailty" of those subsequent bonuses - then when the player loses you keep his deposit, and when he wins, you...keep his deposit.

You owe this player. Pay him.

[Casinomeister]

The rules state (and have for quite some time):

Players can receive free money at registration only once in GFED Games Software Powered Casinos

Player may only operate one (1) active account with GFED Games Software Powered Casinos at any time. Players opening multiple accounts without first voiding their existing account are subject to being excluded from the Casino with all funds forfeited

The Casino reserves the right to limit or cancel any Players account due to abusive behavior on promotional bonuses or Gfed points at the Casino's own discretion. The Casino management reserves the right to withhold any funds if it suspects any foul play or manipulation with the Casino. It is recognized and agreed to by the Player that, in the case of any discrepancy whatsoever, management's decision on all matters will be final.

All promotional offers are only valid for one player per household

These are all posted on the websites and have been for quite a while, although "G-FED Games Software Powered Casinos" has recently been added instead of "Gambling Federation family of casinos".

The rest have been there for at least several months, before April.

I think the GFED rep was just making a general statement. It doesn't apply to this player's specific claim directly - it's merely a clarification.

GFED - Please hold off making any further postings until this player's issue has been finalized. Thanks!

[Casinomeister]

Final update:

I have been in touch with GFed's CEO and the managers who were handling this problem. We agree on some things - but disagree on others. One thing we agreed upon is that casinos need to protect themselves against what they consider "abusive" gameplay by stating specifically what this “gameplay” is. I am under the firm belief that most players play to win, and will do so at any legitimate means at their disposal. This industry should be a player-centric industry; casinos need to understand this. And it's the successful ones -- the good ones that understand this. These are the casinos that will put their competition out of business.

Anyway, GFed and I have a differing view on this. They do agree however that the player was not wrong by opening several accounts (which was pointed out earlier). And they feel that the player deserves his deposits back (sorry Cindy), which he should have received by now.

I still feel that the player should have been given the benefit of the doubt, and warned of his “abusive play”. He risked his funds by placing his bets, and was under no obligation to make a profit for the casino. It not clear to him beforehand what style of play would be deemed unacceptable or "abusive".

In conclusion, players need to be wary on what may be sending red-flags to casino security people, and casino operators need to be specific on what gameplay is abusive and make sure players know about this before they play.

[caruso]

Thank you, Bryan - we seem to be in agreement on the principles here, and I figure the deposits themselves amounted to at least a four-figure sum all told, so it's something.

And if the player had lost his deposits in their entirity? Would he have had them refunded because his "abusive" style negated all his play?

This is pure win/win for the casino. It's even more extraordinary that your intervention caused a DEPOSIT REFUND - as if this shouldn't have been AT LEAST directly parr for the course! Isn't it great that they "feel" he should be paid his deposits? - And that, until you contacted them, they apparently felt quite at liberty to steal EVERYTHING - winnings and deposits?

Although you don't say so directly, I'll take a guess from the general tone that your opinion is that this player is owed his full cashouts - which he clearly has now lost all chance of ever collecting. Assuming I'm calling it right, I thank you for this stance.

Gambling Federation is the scourge of the online casino industry. They hacked their customers' computers, they steal with impunity and they will not even refund your DEPOSITS on a disputed claim until pushed by a high-ranking mediator.

I wish the hell they'd get the hell out of the industry.

And, no offence Cindy, but I wish the hell you'd stop promoting them. Contentious remark though I know it is, there comes the point where it just needs saying.

This player was owed.

[Vesuvio]

Good post, Bryan, though I think you could go even further. Casinos have to understand that they can't, as they're desperately attempting to do at present, claim that playing a bonus in the most advantageous way possible is "abuse". It's like allowing people to play Blackjack but claiming they're abusers if they follow basic strategy.

If a casino offers a bonus that gives the player an edge they simply have to accept some players will play it in an optimal manner with the aim of making a profit. They're no more abusers than the people also aiming to make a profit but playing the bonus in a manner that gives the casino an edge. If the casino's reputable, attracts a good cross-section of players, and sets the terms sensibly the optimal play should only eat into a percentage of the profits. Casinos can't expect to offer promotions and attract players at no cost.

I disagree with the comments about not setting off "red-flags" for casinos. As long as players aren't committing fraud there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't play at as many casinos as they wish, in whatever time frame they wish, playing whatever allowed games in whatever manner they wish. Any casinos trying to claim any of the above as evidence of "abuse" are simply rogue and shouldn't receive the slightest sympathy or understanding.