Royal Prive Issues

**jetset** · 3rd December 2011, 07:11 AM

Nope - never been an affy and I doubt I ever will.

Properly practised - in a professional, objective and ethical way with respect for the players from whom they make a living - affiliate marketing is not the easy way to earn a buck that many seem to think it is, and I have nothing but respect for the guys and gals that do it right and genuinely value and protect the player.

But like every sector it has its share of bad guys, and those are unfortunately the ones who make the headlines.

Affy's can play a serious part in identifiying and refusing to do business with bad operators.

**MommyMachine** · 3rd December 2011, 07:23 AM

Hi Steve Russo, so if you were told it was Royal Prive and that's what you are going by how did they come to the agreement to pay her? I am a bit lost.

**bb28** · 3rd December 2011, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by MommyMachine

Hi Steve Russo, so if you were told it was Royal Prive and that's what you are going by how did they come to the agreement to pay her? I am a bit lost.

I'm even more confused than I was to start with about this one. Something is really off here.

**MommyMachine** · 3rd December 2011, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by bb28

I'm even more confused than I was to start with about this one. Something is really off here.

Agreed pretty lady, agreed.

**slotjunkie** · 3rd December 2011, 09:37 AM

I am really confused as to why it is not just being viewed as a "happy ending?" Sounds like she made one(honest) mistake in the recent/far past, but because she is a loyal player at the two casinos with no other fraudulent history they decided to pay her the winnings.

What is the problem?

Am I missing something or are some of us not in the holiday spirit...?

I am honestly not trying to be funny, I am really confused as to why something is "off"?

**Steve Russo** · 3rd December 2011, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by MommyMachine

Hi Steve Russo, so if you were told it was Royal Prive and that's what you are going by how did they come to the agreement to pay her? I am a bit lost.

It is a bit complicated, but here goes:

1. The dispute was with Royal Prive.

2. When the original complaint was sent in to me, the player had no idea of why she was not getting paid.

3. I contacted the casino's rep, who, at first was also in the dark. He guessed that it had something to do with the damage caused by the attacks but promised to look into it.

4. He and I were both traveling at the time and by coincidence we would both be in Tel Aviv. We agreed to meet for dinner.

5. At dinner, he told me the problem was because of multiple accounts (which I naturally assumed to be at Royal Prive). He also said that he had asked Risk and management to look more deeply into it and see if they might change their minds about paying her. The answer was that no damage had been caused by the multiple accounts and, in view of the Christmas season, they would pay her.

6. I wrote to the player, told her the results, and she told me about how there had been two accounts from her home computer at the same casino, one being from her boyfriend. She also told me that her boyfriend's account was locked and his deposit was returned.

7. When the question was raised here, I was still under the presumption that the dual accounts were at Royal Prive, but if it did not exist a couple of years ago they must have been at Diceland, where she plays quite often.

It is not unusual for a casino to refuse to pay out because of multiple accounts at another casino. In fact, I have dealt with complaints where a casino refused to pay simply because an unrelated casino had reported the player as being "high risk".

What is unusual is that Casino Prive changed its mind and agreed to pay the $7500 -- hence, my deeming it a "miracle" in the report that I posted.

**same_old** · 3rd December 2011, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Gremmyboy

I'd always assumed you were 'Jetset Affiliates'. Saw the name mentioned here at CM and connected the two!

Sorry about that!

Cheers
Gremmy

HaHa!!

I asked Jestset the exact same thing a while back- I also thought he owned "Jetset AFF's'. I feel better knowing I'm not the only one.

**vinylweatherman** · 3rd December 2011, 03:14 PM

It should have never even got this far, and she should have been paid without quibble.

Why?

Well, when they first identified the issue, they acted by closing her boyfriend's account, but they decided to allow her account, the original, to remain open. Thus, they KNOWINGLY accepted her bets despite having discovered that her boyfriend had also opened an account, which they decided NOT to allow at the time. Since they followed this by accepting her LOSING bets over a period of time, they should NOT suddenly drag up this old issue that had already been dealt with as an excuse to void her first decent sized win. "Christmas spirit" has nothing to do with it, it is deliberately rogue behaviour to store up an old issue whilst letting the player believe it had already been dealt with, and pulling it out of the hat to avoid having to honour a later big win.

They should have closed BOTH accounts from the outset if this was to have been an issue in the future.

It is this kind of issue that shoots holes in the promises we have received from the Rome casino reps that they are not in the slightest bit "shady", and that players should not fear becoming a victim of rogue practice.

This kind of thing is what the Virtual group are known for, detecting a minor infringement of the terms, but telling the player it isn't an issue (or keeping quiet about it altogether) whilst they are losing, but making it a BIG issue the minute they try to withdraw a big win that the casino will struggle to win back from them.