PLAYTECH: the nightmare list

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by Westland Bowl

I've heard that the exceptions to the general "avoid Playtech" rule are Bet Fred and Bet365 casinos. Supposedly they were determined to be fair and fast payers.

...and the Playtechs that are listed at Casinomeister. C'mon give these guys a break. The Mainstreet casinos payout usually within a day or two.

[caruso]

The post was only ever intended to relate to the fifteen listed casinos, lol.

Originally Posted by Simmo!

To be honest, you'll find many contracts inside and outside of the industry have wooly get-out clauses...Its just standard legal drivel that all lawyers bang into every contract to cover any eventuality that hasn't ben covered IMO Rarely is it ever exercised as every business needs to protect the reputation of its "brand".

Would that it were "standard legal drivel" that is "rarely ever excercised"; the precise point here is that it's being dishonestly and unfairly excercised, for the purpose of reneging on a contract to which one side has already fulfilled its obligations, ie. the player.

See how long your cellphone company would stay in business if they ever pulled the stunts these Playtechs are pulling.

[GI Joe]

..and I never read anything bad regarding AcropolisCasino.

They are really great.

GI Joe
www.gamblersillustrated.com

[caruso]

I met up with Iris, the lady in charge of the Playtech disputes service, on day one of the ICE. She's a very sweet little slip of a thing who looks like she'd blow away if a strong gust of wind took her unawares. I think I freaked her out slightly at the off, steaming straight into the business at hand with a vengeance and without so much as a by-your-leave. I'm afraid I was in one-directional frame of mind.

I started out asking how she thought the dispute service was fairing generally, since player-perception is unfavourable. She was not of this opinion at all, reckoning that it was moreorless on track. Following on from that, I highlighted the recent handful of cases. It would probably be asking a lot for her to have facts about specific complaints sitting at the top of her head in any event. In these circumstances, being focussed on other things totally and then being called to task on this matter, it's maybe not unreasonable that these recent cases mentioned at Casinomeister were not familiar to her at all.

Moving away from specific cases, I asked for her take on one of the apparently contentious issues: games which don't count towards bonus wagering but are not excluded, which the casino then uses as justification for winnings-confiscation. On THIS matter at least, I thought Iris played the political card a bit too much - she told me that on these matters she had to consult their legal folk and could not give a general answer, only a specific answer to a specific case. I suggested that the distinction is really pretty plain. Although unwilling to give her personal take, she did go on to say, revealingly, that other factors concerning the player history would come into the discussion: bonuses, how much wagering beyond bonus requirements etc. I asked if these "other" areas would have an impact on the final payment decision; again, only specific cases would be looked at, not general answers to general questions.

However: notwithstanding the requirements to get the legal team onto what players see as fairly cut and dry matters, Iris stated that as far as she's concerned, whatever agreement the player signs up to is binding, and that the rules as they are / were at the time of signup is the only relevant consideration. This does NOT square with the "player history" aspect that was originally thrown into the melting pot, but it was a positive.

Iris made me aware that she is only one corner of the dispute / casino / player triangle, and as such ends up with problems that are not of her own creation: casinos are varying in their responsiveness, as are PLAYERS. I concur with this: some of the posted complaints see little interest from the player in question after the first post - see the Swiss Casino complaint thread - where did he go?? If the player fails to follow through, Iris will give it a fortnight or so and then close the case. This is perfectly acceptable, since one can only tacitly accept that the player has accepted the decision. The player may then subsequently return and complain that the decision was unfair and why did he not hear more? I quite understand that this is a legistical problem for her, not of her creation. If players don't care, why should she?

Since Iris was unaware of the cases I mentioned - Giant Vegas, Swiss and Vegas Red - she asked me to email her specifics. This I am happy to do, but it's really up to the PLAYERS to follow these things through. I will, however, email her links for the threads in question.

Although there were some aspects of the initial part of the discussion that I was worried about - the possible "player history" aspect of a case beyond simple adherence to the rules - I found Iris's attitude pretty much in tune with what would generally be regarded as correct by the player community, and I think the Playtech dispute service has a good chance under her management.

I hope she recovered fast from what was a bit of a battering! Sorry Iris, but you can blame Spearmaster for this one: it was he who pointed you out to me, and he knows I don't mince words.

Oh yes, one specific: the Joyland case is considered SETTLED IN FULL, to the satisfaction of all parties. That surprised me.

[paul1]

Originally Posted by caruso

I think I freaked her out slightly at the off, steaming straight into the business at hand with a vengeance...

I find this hard to believe.

[Webzcas]

[caruso]

I forget the context, but I mentioned to Iris the low percentage of the online gambling public that actually follow the gambling boards and, as such, the limited outreach of important information.

Her response was an angle I'd never really thought about: although the percentage of industry-watchers - around ten percent - seems small overall, in a competetive market ten percent is an enormous figure, and a chunk of the potential customer-base that no casino can permit itself to do without. Lose ten percent of your market and you might lose your casino.

I remember talking to a webmistress about my Angelciti case, almost three years ago now. I mentioned the general outrage expressed at Winneronline and the sheer level of interest in the matter expressed by the community. She said that, unfortunately, these were not players the casinos really had much interest in appeasing, being by and large bonus hunter types and of generally negative value to them. This was probably true then. However, there's been a big change in the forum-composition in more recent times: time was, a slot junkie would not dare show his face for fear of the ridicule he'd receive from the sharp players who generally regard slot players with contempt. Since then, the number of sharp players on the forums has dwindled to almost nothing with the ever tightening nature of bonuses, and the number of casino-profitable players has exploded - just take a look of the slot threads at Casinomeister. Three years ago you would have seen none. That is a statement of fact and not intended to offend anyone.

In other words, although the forum readership of yesteryear was a readership casinos could possibly afford to allienate, it is no longer. That said, make no mistake: the power of the boards was considerable even then. Angelciti, Gaming Club, Forty Plus...these and many other cases were immensely fortified by forum pressure. It's simply my opinion that the composition of the forum ten percent is now such that when it votes with its feet, it has greater power. Of course, the outreach into the mainstream media of copy supplied by the likes of Bryan Bailey and Brian Cullingworth is of as much, and most likely greater, value - now as it was then. But it's heartening to be told by a casino representative that the apparently small customer base supplied by the forum readership is not a customer base to be triffled with.

[Slotmachine]

Originally Posted by caruso

time was, a slot junkie would not dare show his face for fear of the ridicule he'd receive from the sharp players who generally regard slot players with contempt. Since then, the number of sharp players on the forums has dwindled to almost nothing with the ever tightening nature of bonuses, and the number of casino-profitable players has exploded - just take a look of the slot threads at Casinomeister. Three years ago you would have seen none. That is a statement of fact and not intended to offend anyone..

None taken. Slot junkies rise to power! You gotta be nice to us now

Cheers,
SM

[GrandMaster]

Whatever the casino's opinion is about the boards and about the people who visit them, it cannot be good for business when the first hit for the casino's name on Google is the rogue list or a thread about the casino not paying.

[Slotmachine]

bump

Cheers,
SM