SpinWin casino

**doomed4ever** · 5th March 2011, 02:23 PM

Got a spam email today with an offer of a massive bonus. With time on me hands decided to check out the site. Read the withdraw terms ... eye splitting page of endless terms and cons for a withdraw of which I have no idea what it actually means. http://www.spinwincasino.net/cashout...out-policy.htm

Anyone any info on this set up ?

**Repro** · 5th March 2011, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by doomed4ever

Got a spam email today with an offer of a massive bonus. With time on me hands decided to check out the site. Read the withdraw terms ... eye splitting page of endless terms and cons for a withdraw of which I have no idea what it actually means. http://www.spinwincasino.net/cashout...out-policy.htm

Anyone any info on this set up ?

Never seen it before and honestly i don't know why they have to make it so complicated.

Although... Maybe this is a way of making the chances of chargebacks (afterwards) smaller... Just an idea

**Nifty29** · 5th March 2011, 02:44 PM

Its just an incredibly long winded way of saying they pay cashouts back to the deposit sources first, and then whatever one you choose.

The casino is owned by Cassava so make sure you dont have an account at any other Cassava casinos or you won't get paid. It's kinda a fun adventure actually because they dont tell you which properties they own!

IMO if a casino has a strict policy like this they should CLEARLY LIST all related casinos in their terms. It is roguish behaviour to expect players to work it out themselves.

**vinylweatherman** · 5th March 2011, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Nifty29

Its just an incredibly long winded way of saying they pay cashouts back to the deposit sources first, and then whatever one you choose.

The casino is owned by Cassava so make sure you dont have an account at any other Cassava casinos or you won't get paid. It's kinda a fun adventure actually because they dont tell you which properties they own!

IMO if a casino has a strict policy like this they should CLEARLY LIST all related casinos in their terms. It is roguish behaviour to expect players to work it out themselves.

There are subtle clues - this at the bottom of the page:-

SpinWin is powered by Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Limited, 601-701 Europort, Gibraltar.

They also have "powered by 888.com holdings" above this, but rather confusingly refer to CRYPTOLOGIC right next to it.

This may be a good way to check, and assume that this casino IS excluded if the player has an account at any other "powered by Cassava" casino. This may lose the casino some players who ARE allowed to play there, but that's tough - should have been more honest about this in the first place, and players would NOT have to be so damn cautious.

**maxd** · 15th March 2011, 07:41 AM

FWIW I've had a PAB on the books regarding these guys since 11 Jan, no progress to date though I do have a fine collection of automated "Thank you for taking the time to contact the Operations Department. ... The matter has now been forwarded to the relevant Department" emails.

Unfortunately "the relevant Department" seems to be in the 11th dimension because I've heard nothing back from them other than these oh-so-not-helpful automated responses, except once when they said "yup, the relevant Department is looking into it". They've never even bothered to contact the complainant. We are not amused.

**Nifty29** · 15th March 2011, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by maxd

FWIW I've had a PAB on the books regarding these guys since 11 Jan, no progress to date though I do have a fine collection of automated "Thank you for taking the time to contact the Operations Department. ... The matter has now been forwarded to the relevant Department" emails.

Unfortunately "the relevant Department" seems to be in the 11th dimension because I've heard nothing back from them other than these oh-so-not-helpful automated responses, except once when they said "yup, the relevant Department is looking into it". They've never even bothered to contact the complainant. We are not amused.

Thank-you for the update Max.

It has been forwarded to the irrelevant department....

**takethemoney** · 15th March 2011, 11:50 PM

And 888 was being considered for accreditation? I hope not! This group doesn't seem to be worthy.

**maxd** · 16th March 2011, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by takethemoney

And 888 was being considered for accreditation? I hope not! This group doesn't seem to be worthy.

The current discussion is revolving around the question of how closely tied Cassava is to each of it's software "users", mainly the white labels.

They are currently claiming, and not without some precedent -- look at pretty much every other software provider, though there are notable exceptions -- that they just sold the software to some of these guys but have no involvement in their day to day operations and are therefore not responsible for their activities. On the surface this sounds reasonable enough and one could argue for Accreditation of those of their casinos that operate on the up-and-up and are seeking Accreditation, so far that being 888 and Reef Club.

On the other hand there's the fact that every bit of communication from those other, "hide in the shadows" Cassava-using casinos comes with Cassava's name stamped all over it. In that case it's starting to look more like a Rival situation and a fair argument could be made against Accreditation of any of them.

I believe Bryan is mulling over these very issues given the "Baptism by Fire" status of 888 and Reef Club.

**jetset** · 16th March 2011, 06:36 AM

Just an opinion, but I don't believe accreditation should be given.

It's just too easy a way around Casinomeister's good standards and efforts to shield players for 888 to say "we're just the software provider."

And in my view it sets a dangerous precedent for other questionable decisions for companies that have made the environment more dangerous for players with their white labels and concealed ownerships that offer no redress. Like Rival.

888 profits from these bastards that are screwing players over in white label operations, along with their questionable promotional activities and suspect affilates.

The licensor is often the only way to reach these concealed owners and call them to account, and I don't think that said licensor's should be given any encouragement to perpetuate a system that is definitely against a player's interests. On the contrary, I believe that at every opportunity they should be encouraged to shoulder at least some of the responsibility for the activities of operators they have supposedly vetted and approved for use of their softwares.

When 888 accepts that it will facilitate complaints against its white labels and thereby ensure players are given some protection would be a more appropriate time for them to be even considered for accreditation imo.