LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
KK
Whilst I appreciate this may well be an interesting thread that allows you the opportunity to voice your disapproval (your prerogative) of course. I do, with the utmost respect have to reiterate that your argument is seriously flawed.
This could quite easily be the true scenario:
These two friends from the same neighbourhood of the same town spend a lot of time together. One of them opens a bank account - he is very impressed with the bank's service, so recommends it to his friend. The friend opens an account at the same branch and both are very happy.
One day, one of them finds iNetBet casino on the internet, signs up, makes a profit from the sign up bonus, withdraws and is very happy!
So he later recommends the casino to his good buddy. His friend does not know much about gambling, but that's OK because his best mate will sit next to him while he plays and give him some advice. (That's not against your rules, is it? ).
He also wins, but when he tries to withdraw he gets this 'abuser' label, and no winnings.
The issue with the bank is just one point in this case scenario, were it to be the only consideration it would have no bearing whatsoever, though it is patently not. I mention it as I am reporting the facts as they stand.
The friend who is the newbie will, in your scenario, look to the experienced gambler for advice and guidance, lets assume you are the ‘experienced’ friend’ what would you say to the newbie.
As I stated in my earlier post no one would advise a player to follow this path.
Why not a simple request to support, something we suggest in our terms if there is any uncertainty.
But what really worries me is 90% of your argument is based on assumption, not facts. You are saying the player is guilty until proved innocent.
Everything else you said is supposition which would be disregarded in an instant if this case were to be held in a court of law!
I am sorry but you are incorrect, there is no assumption here, the player has admitted himself that he has broken the rules.
OK, you are being strict and saying breaking this rule alone is enough to deny the winnings, as is your right. But many would see this as mean-spirited as these players could well be genuine.
Please read the list at the end of my post, I did a simple exercise and took from the leading Casinos T& Cs, all of the below quotes, all of which are accredited Casinomeister Casinos.
This guy could well have been trying to take advantage of your bonuses, but as many agree above, this seems VERY VERY unlikely due to the size of his deposit compared to the bonus, and the size of the wagers per hand he said he played. He also says he made all his profit without using the bonus.
Again I am at a loss to see what is so ‘very very’ unlikely about a player taking advantage of $150 bonus with only a 20 times turnover and with Blackjack allowed, playing basic strategy this would by all normal means return a healthy profit.
I notice you have completely avoided commenting on these issues in all of your replies, so I would like to ask you straight out for your confirmation or denial of what he is claiming:-
1. Did he deposit $500 and get a $150 bonus?
2. Was his balance $1000+ BEFORE the bonus was added to his account?
3. Did he really play hands of up to $100 each?
Please KK, come on now, do you expect me to discuss a players personal financial affairs via a public forum. That aside and for what it’s worth, I am at a complete loss to understand what relevance any answer, whatever it may be to the above points, would bring to the table.
What I fail to understand is the reticence of certain posters to accept, that irregardless of their propensity to side with the player (which I understand), this player has broken the most fundamental of rules.
This rule, I state again, will have no bearing or concern whatsoever for a player who is genuinely playing at our Casino for the first time and claiming an initial deposit bonus.
This is something that we payout to players seven days a week, 365 days a year without there ever being a problem.
Surely even allowing for the understandable desire to back every player irregardless (all for one against the casino) does the gambling community not realise what damage this type of behaviour does to the industry, how it creates a veritable quagmire of red tape and rules for not only the Casino to create and administer but for the player to wade through.
This player broke a rule, he has admitted to breaking the rule, not some obscure (buried in the bowels of the earth rule), a rule that we all know and we all abide to, a simple commonsense rule.
My best to all and thank you to everyone and I do mean everyone who has contributed to this thread.
Best regards
Emily
T&C samples from a cross-section of softwares
Casino 1
This promotion is restricted to one new customer per household, even if there is more than one computer retained at the address. The identity of a user will be determined on the basis of all or any combination of the following: name, mailing address, e-mail address, IP address, credit/debit card number, computer, and any other forms of identification which may be required.
Casino 2
All promotions are available only once per person, e-mail address, credit card number, and environments where computers are shared (university, school, public library, workplace, etc).
Casino 3
All promotions are available only once per person, e-mail address, credit card number, and environments where computers are shared (university, school, public library, workplace, etc).
Casino 4
Only One Real Account per player. All promotions are available only once per person, family, household address, e-mail address, credit card number, and environments where computers are shared (university, fraternity, school, public library, workplace, etc).
Casino 5
If you open multiple accounts you will not be eligible for the Sign-Up Bonus on each account. The Sign-Up-Bonus is only available once per Player and/or per environment where computers are shared and/or per e-mail address.
Casino 6
All promotions are available only once per person, family, household address, e-mail address and credit card number. The casino reserves the right to impose further limits in respect of accounts originating from environments where computers are shared (e.g. university campuses).
Casino 7
Identity of participants will be determined on the basis of all or any combination of the following: name, mailing address, email address, credit/charge/debit card number, and any other forms of identification which may be required. Where multiple participation is permitted,
Originally Posted by johnsteed
Bookmarks