GAMBLING FEDERATION: rules adhered to but winnings stolen

[caruso]

I followed closely, and contributed my opinion to, this matter on the GPWA players' board. Since it's now been definitively closed there, and the thread locked for good measure (go figure), it needs wider exposure - so here is a summary of the facts:

The player deposited in quick succession at a handful of Gambling Federation casinos, playing agressively and busting out on many deposits, but hitting on two and ending up with about $7000 in winnings.

The player had his winnings - and, I believe, his deposits on those winning hits - stolen.

Two reasons were given - one after the other: First, the player had multiple accounts. This was subsequently disproved. Second, that he was guilty of a "scheme" which was contrary to the rules of the casino. Although details of the "scheme" were slow to come through, the player enlightened us (see above) and it was confirmed by the powers that be - high stakes wagering, with bonuses, going for a big hit or a bust.

Most importantly, there is nothing in any of the rules which states that any particular wagering style - small bets, big bets, whatever - is reason to confiscate winnings. The playing style was legitimate. However, it was also intimated that this "scheme" went further, and that the player was "working" in tandem with others, with a view to...err...winning. Again, as long as the account in question is a LEGITIMATE account, then there is no reason to not pay him. He can be barred afterwards, but payment needs to come first. Come to that, if ALL the accounts are also legitimate, THEY need to be settled first and barred second.

There was much talk about the "morality" of this behaviour, and we even got a Blast From The Past - the "abuse of the spirit of the promotion" found its way into the discussion.

Morality nothing: Gambling Federation are perfectly capable of writing their promotions in such a way as to avoid such apparent "schemes": make them slots only; put a cap on the maximum / minimum bet that can be placed, initially or otherwise; dress them up for maximum sucker play and cream the players - it wouldn't be difficult. Gambling Federation choose to not do this, as it would have an impact on their customer base - they want their BJ / VP / roulette players. Unfortunately, they don't want those players WINNING.

The fact is that this player followed the rules to the letter. Clearly, he was looking to maximise his chances with the bonuses; he may even have been playing in "tandem" with other players (can't say for sure, but seems likely). None of this has any relevance to the fact that the RULES WERE NOT INFRINGED. The "spirit of the promotion" and any other such pre-21st century casino con-job cop-out to screw players does not hold water in today's game.

If you follow the rules you are PAID. Period. This player has been robbed.

I encouraged him, via PM at the GPWA board, to complain to Bryan. I don't know that Bryan has any influence on Gambling Federation after the rogue listing from the malware incident, but all avenues should be pursued, and this matter deserves publicity. I would post it at WOL, but cannot for obvious reasons.

For the full, now locked, discussion: (remove the xxx)

xxxhttp://www.gpwa.net/forum/showthread.php?t=164272&page=1&pp=10

[phynqster]

The one question I had was the players method of deposit. I have seen this type of pattern before where a player makes a number of deposits quickly and bets big usually at roulette. If they do not hit they than charge back if they used a credit card. If this player was not using a credit card than there should be no argument about paying.

[eek]

My take is that he signed up multiple accounts at 'different' casinos, took multiple sign up bonuses before it was specifically disallowed, played the entire wedge of each one on a spin of roulette, then went to the slots to meet the wagering requirements if he won the roulette spin. (doesn't state the level of risk taken 3/1 35/1 etc)

I always thought that you could only get the bonus at one GF place, and that was standard knowledge amongst players.

There will be some ancient threads at WOL about the GF bonus system and its pitfalls.

I always thought GF was really a single casino with a zillion affiliate portals and a few superaffiliate portals who had some autonomy.

Had a peek...it's been a looong time...
Yup, its them.
....it's ages since I've been to their site and yet that registration page STILL defaults to arabic for me...
man, talk about dejá vú...
http://www.gamblingfederation.com/~/P/signup.php

----------------------
one other thing, wasn't GF the place where no-one ever got an RF at VP?

...I'll put my hard hat on now...

[caruso]

Originally Posted by eek

My take is that he signed up multiple accounts at 'different' casinos...I always thought that you could only get the bonus at one GF place, and that was standard knowledge amongst players.

That's not even the current rulling, which is a maximum of three bonuses across the GF stable. This play occured BEFORE this rule was put in place, on may 8th. The "only three" was put up on May 22nd - I have a screenshot from Cindy's site.

Originally Posted by phynqster

The one question I had was the players method of deposit. I have seen this type of pattern before where a player makes a number of deposits quickly and bets big usually at roulette. If they do not hit they than charge back if they used a credit card.

Don't know. However, as long as the deposit clears there is no problem; a player can't be screwed on the basis that he MIGHT charge back.

I should add that this is not intended in any way to seem anti-GPWA - both Cindy and John have helped / offered to help me in the past, and the GPWA players' board could start to become a REAL player resource in the future, simply on the basis of their membership weight. But, the fact that the matter is now dead there doesn't mean it shouldn't be persued.

[eek]

Old WOL thread.

only one signup bonus allowed at GF.
http://mb.winneronline.com/showthread.html?p=56683

If I was going on a signup bonus orgy at GFed places I would get written confirmation it was ok before I handed over any pennies...

[Casinomeister]

I'm beginning to see a disturbing trend here; casinos that are unable to write their T&Cs well enough to protect their businesses.

If the player did not break any specific rules, then pay him and get on with it. If a casino doesn't like the style of play, then as Caruso points out, rewrite the terms and conditions to reflect the specific type of play that is acceptable.

This is a business that needs to accept the fact that players play to win. And they will use every legitimate means to do so - to win. This is why we have terms and conditions. The casino writes these conditions, the players agree to these conditions, and then hopefully abide by them.

[caruso]

eek, mate: that WOL thread is news to me, but the clones bonuses was never an issue here. Check out this other thread:

xxxhttp://www.gpwa.net/forum/showthread.php?t=163804

The player was paid because the "only three signups at all GF sites" was implemented AFTER he played. Once this was clearly established, payment was made. That was a couple of months ago. I even have a screenshot from Cindy's GF site showing that that rule wasn't in place as late as May 20th this year - it is now.

"Multi" bonuses was NEVER an issue. It wasn't even claimed as one, once it was established that the rule was implemented AFTER the player played (that rather curious WOL thread notwithstanding). The issue was a "scheme" to unfairly take advantage of the bonus.

It was ACCEPTED that he adhered to the rules - read post 23, point number 5. This is categoric:

xxxhttp://www.gpwa.net/forum/showthread.php?t=164272&page=3&pp=10

The issue was NOT rule infringement, it was much vaguer than that.

If you follow the rules, you are paid. This has to be absolute and non-"interpretable".

Maybe you can give them a prod, Bryan? - though I appreciate there can't be much love lost between you.

[mgibson99]

Wow...this is the 2nd thread in the last week about similar circumstances (how can we forget about the guy who deposited into 25 casinos in 24 hours, then was denied his winnings at the only 2 casinos he was able to win at).

Without re-hashing the previoius thread, the message here is that you really have to think how your betting will be perceived by the casinos (not whether it is right or wrong, but how it will be perceived).

This may sound harsh, but I won't have alot of sypmathy for the next person to post that he deposited into a bunch of casinos a short amount of time, collected a bunch of bonuses, placed very large single bets to meet wagering requirements, then (surprise, surprise) was labeled as a bonus abuser.

Before I get any angry responses, I totally support the fact that if you follow the rules, you should get paid. I'm just pointing out that we now know that this kind of betting strategy is fraught with potential for casinos to deny your winnings. Why even take the chance.

[Macgyver]

Originally Posted by mgibson99

Before I get any angry responses, I totally support the fact that if you follow the rules, you should get paid. I'm just pointing out that we now know that this kind of betting strategy is fraught with potential for casinos to deny your winnings. Why even take the chance.

Because of this (since Bryan already said it):

Originally Posted by casinomeister

This is a business that needs to accept the fact that players play to win. And they will use every legitimate means to do so - to win. This is why we have terms and conditions. The casino writes these conditions, the players agree to these conditions, and then hopefully abide by them.

[eek]

You're far more in tune and up to date with recent GFed stuff than I am 'russo.
I was never a GFed player, just an observer.

Hope you get a result.

edit:
It couldn't be called 'scheme abuse' because the same could be applied to other providers like Crypto, Micro and RTG when THEY used to have the same kind of bonus offers.

I believe that casino webcam has a rule to combat this low variance high stakes kind of stuff where the entire wedge is blown on a single bet.
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8694

'after the initial deposit, a minimum of 30 bets must be placed, with no one bet exceeding 25% of the initial deposit.'

So there is Casino awareness, and there are rules out there, for this stuff.