GAMBLING FEDERATION: rules adhered to but winnings stolen

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by Vesuvio

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.

Yeah but, try getting paid by a rogue casino

Casino operators are paranoid as it is, and as we're beginning to bear witness - some of them are applying the "escape" clause in their terms and conditions which players rarely read.

Why cause a hassle when you don't need to? Why skirt the borderlines of the rules when it's not necessary? It's not you'll be able to knock on their door and say "You never answered my email. Where're my winnings?"

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by casinomeister

Yeah but, try getting paid by a rogue casino

Point taken

Originally Posted by casinomeister

Casino operators are paranoid as it is, and as we're beginning to bear witness - some of them are applying the "escape" clause in their terms and conditions which players rarely read.

I think players read it, but since I've followed on-line casinos the received wisdom is that only rogue casinos ever invoke the clause, so you can safely ignore it. Having said that, when I started "bonus abuse" was a term used for genuine abuse, i.e. fraud. It's a slippery slope... but a situation in which players don't know if they'll be paid isn't any good long-term for the casinos anymore than it is for players.

[jetset]

QUOTE: It's a slippery slope... but a situation in which players don't know if they'll be paid isn't any good long-term for the casinos anymore than it is for players.UNQUOTE

I absolutely agree...but I don't think GF management have a long term view on anything!

[caruso]

Originally Posted by Vesuvio

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.

Seconded. If the terms don't disallow, it's OK. If it's OK, casino pays. To go down the route of looking out to not do this, that or the other because of how the casino might or might not view it is going down a very slippery slope. This was my one disagreement with Bryan's summary.

[mary]

Thirded.

A bonus offer is a contract. Casinos need to honor their contracts. If they are allowed not to, we're just going to keep seeing sloppier and more deceptive practices.

There's lots of wonderful mathematicians and English majors who need the work. Hire them to run sims and vet text.

[Casinomeister]

What I meant by my "red flag" comment, is that if you draw attention to yourself - you're going to get it (that attention). And sure, you may be adhering to the casinos T&Cs, but a rougish operation may not see it that way.

Jo Blow Player opens 20 accounts (legally), the casino will be scrutinizing him and perhaps find something they don't like. The player is creating a hassle for himself that doesn't need to be.

Picture this: you're on the freeway, and the speed limit is 65. There's a cop ahead of you doing 63 - are you going pass him? If so, I hope you don't have a bag of weed stashed under your seat.

[caruso]

But this is an awful picture you're painting. This is into the second decade of online casinos - the bottom line cannot be how a rogue casino might view the wagering / depositing pattern, or that an operator might decide to "scrutinize" him and find something to use against him, alla Gambling Federation! If it's a choice between these supposed "realities" and what is actually CORRECT and FAIR, then the latter must be where you draw your line in the sand, not the former. To settle for the former is to set yourself tobogganing back down to square one and 1995. Do casinos want this? Hell yes - they'd love nothing more than a return to those happy days when they could do anything they liked and people tended to give up without a fight.

It's up to affiliates, industry folk and players with half a brain to make sure that doesn't happen. Not just to "improve the industry" - somehow I doubt that's realistically possible, though desirable - but because it's RIGHT.

Originally Posted by casinomeister

Picture this: you're on the freeway, and the speed limit is 65. There's a cop ahead of you doing 63 - are you going pass him? If so, I hope you don't have a bag of weed stashed under your seat.

Without wanting to labour the point:

IF it was advantageous for me so to do
IF I could so do without breaking the law, ie. exceeding 65.
IF I could prove the fact beyong any doubt

...then I'd be confident in passing him.

The absolute rule of the law, as with the police, is the benchmark to strive for.

[ChristopherB]

Hi all this is ChristopherB the one who is not being paid by the Gambling Federation. I have been away on vacation for a couple of weeks and unable to post...

I received my deposits back and I thank Brian for this.

However, I must receive my winnings.

The original reason that the Gambling Federation gave for not honoring my winnings was due to "multiple accounts" at their multiple casinos. It was verified that my accounts were opened on May 8th, at least two weeks before this ambiguous "multiple account" rule was in effect.

For the record, something has been made about the fact that I opened ten accounts at various Gambling Federation casinos on Sunday, May 8th. Actually I opened about 20 online gaming accounts on that day! I had a rare day off and spent about eight hours in front of my computer. Is this abnormal behavior? I certainly don't think so.

The Gambling Federation then found another reason not to pay me: they didn't like my "style of play," described as a "very distinguishable, singular pattern of depositing and wagering that suggested a 'scheme' or 'plan'"

Cindy from the GPWA had the nerve to compare me to a member of a Reno slot cheating ring. You can read it all here:

http://www.gpwa.net/forum/showthread...2&page=2&pp=10

This is an absolute win/win for the Gambling Federation--my "style of play" is only unacceptable when I win. It's perfectly acceptable as long as I lose. The Gambling Federation doesn't look at the play from those who lose and return the deposits because the "style of play" is deemed "abusive" or otherwise. It is an absolute win/win situation for the Gambling Federation!

As for Cindy, she has some nerve promoting the Gambling Federation on her website when this is the way they treat their winning players.

The stunt the Gambling Federation is trying to pull does not only affect the Gambling Federation--it affects the entire industry. It paints a dark cloud over the online gaming world.

Sorry if I'm rambling but I am really upset.

ChristopherB

[jamiester]

Originally Posted by ChristopherB

The Gambling Federation then found another reason not to pay me: they didn't like my "style of play," described as a "very distinguishable, singular pattern of depositing and wagering that suggested a 'scheme' or 'plan'"

Cindy from the GPWA had the nerve to compare me to a member of a Reno slot cheating ring. You can read it all here:

http://www.gpwa.net/forum/showthread...2&page=2&pp=10

As for Cindy, she has some nerve promoting the Gambling Federation on her website when this is the way they treat their winning players.

I just read the thread linked above. Verrrrrry scary stuff.

[caroline77]

Hi,
First I would like to thank Caruso for his efforts.
Gem fed own me 2654 euro back from April
I'm quite disappointed with the way Gem Fed and Cidny have treated me.
Not only that they say one thing and the next moment they are saying another it's also the fact Cidny has been ignoring my emails.
They haven't paid me back my deposits and the idea is that you have to fight very hard in order to get what is yours.
They hope people will give up on thier money and that's no way to treat clients.
I also don't accept the idea of returning the deposits. where does it come from? the casino admits the players are legitimate but refuse to pay tem the entire winnings. I just don't get it.
Regards,
Caroline.