external image

Rochester Casino refuses to pay my winnings

Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Location
Quebec, Canada
Four months ago, on February 7, I deposited at Rochester Casino and won a substantial amount (3000$), but since then the casino has been refusing to pay me.

What happened is this : on that day I deposited 500$, received a 1250$ bonus (non cashable, with 30 times deposit + bonus to wager), hit the blackjack tables and brought my balance to 4750$ in over 52500$ of wagering.

Before cashing out, I contacted Live Chat and Moe, one the CSRs, explicitly confirmed to me that I had fulfilled the wagering requirement for the bonus and he even congratulated me (I still have a copy of that chat session).

Two days later, the casino denied my cashout. They said blackjack did not count towards the wagering requirement, even though when I played there was no such rule. They added the rule restricting blackjack AFTER I played and cashed out.I checked the rules before playing and there was no rules restricting blackjack. There is no way I would have missed it since, once the rules appeared, it was in plain view at the top of the Rules & Reg. page. Also, I have been in contact with another player who was explicitly told that blackjack counted and he was told that AFTER the time of my cashout. I contacted Janet Evans from customer care and she maintained that the blackjack rule was not modified.

At that point, I made some efforts in getting the issue resolved but I wasn't successful.

On March 20, I lost patience with the whole thing and, in the hope of ending the problem, I logged into my casino account and hit the baccarat table. Bacarrat is one of the games which counts now (and counted at the time of my original deposit) towards the rollover for my bonus.

I started my wagering all over again and wagered over 52500$ of mostly 50-200$ hands of baccarat. At the end of this session, I had won and additional 47$ which took my balance to 4797$. I thought that my troubles were over, but apparently I was wrong.

Right after wagering, I asked Linda from Live chat to confirm my rollover for the day. She said 46,915$. At this point I logged back into my casino account, opened my play history and proceeded to manually count every single bet I had made that day. The total was near 53k, which closely matched my own data, but was 6k over the rollover they told me.

Linda was supposed to inquire the discrepancy and come back at me shortly, but she did not. Later on I chatted with Pablo who promised someone would look into it but it would take 24 hours. The next day I heard nothing from the casino, so I opened a chat and spoke with Duke. Duke said he would get my real rollover total in a few minutes. After a while he came back to the chat and told me all my baccarat play was worthless, because of my blackjack playing back in February! This makes no sense at all since blackjack was never EXCLUDED. The rules, even the present rules, merely mention that blackjack does not count towards rollover. Nothing more. The rule goes like this : "The games Roulette, Casino War, and Blackjack (any variation) do not count on rollover requirements." This is the rule that appears on the casino's website today. It has not been changed since appearing there a couple of days after my original playing session in February.

I emailed the manager Rob Marshall about the outrageousness of this but he did not reply.

A few days later I emailed support with a fresh request for my total baccarat rollover. The reply came from Janet Evans from the accounting dept. She failed to give my baccarat rollover, but she wanted me to forfeit my winnings on the basis of my blackjack playing. The english in her email was so bad that it was barely readable, but that's what I understood of it.

I showed some good will by wagering another 53k on baccarat on top of the disputed blackjack play. I accepted to dismiss all my blackjack play in order to solve a dispute and in response they bring forward an artificial, undefendable reason to deny my winnings. I think this is extremely dishonest of them.
 
Did you happen to take a screenshot of the site T & C at the time, where blackjack was not excluded? I doubt it would help much since this is clearly a stiff joint, but if you have no proof, you're sunk. The word of a CSR isn't sufficient.

Welcome to the lovely world of online casinos.

Hopefully Bryan can help, but I can't see there being too much backup with a place like this.

EDIT: From closer reading, I see you didn't take a screenshot. I see no way you will get paid on this one, very sorry indeed. The casino will say the blackjack clause was always there.

EDIT AGAIN: However, as you say, blackjack play is not prohibited, merely not included in the rollover. They don't say "any play on blackjack will result in all winnings being voided". As per their own rules, you are entitled to your money.

I've taken a dated screenshot.
 
Last edited:
Correct.

I called Rochester and they confirmed with me that I could play Blackjack to my heart's content, although it doen't count towards requrements, as long as did meet the wagering requirements in allowed games.

Regards,

Thatch
 
Yet another Costa Rican victim. We've asked the management at this place for an explanation in the hope that this will focus their attention more fairly.
Anyone know what software these people are using?
 
Quote from their T&C
Is there anything else that I should know?

At ROCHESTER CASINO, Our goal is to make your entire GAMBLING experience the best one ever. As such, we promise that collecting your winnings will be as easy as sending funds.
ROCHESTER CASINO has based its reputation on quality service and reliable payment. We pride ourselves in professional customer care, which we constantly improve.

:lolup: Liar Liar pants on fire. Sorry I know it's childish but so is what they are doing.

I had the same thing with Mapau, but i did have a screen shot. They paid me after months of arguing.

Jetset, the software is some sort of no-download rubbish maintained by A.S.T Gaming Solutions.

Good luck getting your money.
 
Thanks - I can't recall the detail but I think these AST Gaming guys, or their predecessors were in rogueland a couple years back.
 
I was on this a couple a months ago when mothergoosebump submitted a PAB. Unfortunately, she kept hitting me up when I was heading out the door going somewhere :D

This is the response from the casino from May:

This is a long story but I'll try to make it short. Rochester Casino is fairly new, seven months old.

The player signed up on Feb 07, 2005. She made a $500 deposit the same day and got up to $4750. The player is claiming that we changed the our gaming rules and regulations after she won. However immediately after the issue with another member that comitted fraud, we decided to make the changes. In our documentation the changes to the rules and regulations page was done on Jan the 29th of 2005. And on that same day the changes done excluded black jack , casino war, roulette, and baccarat from the rollover allowed games.

The Accounting Department tried to locate the player via phone and e-mail to tell her that she has her account open,and with the total amount of money and if she covers the rollover with the permited games she will be paid instantly. But she didn't reply...

Rob Marshall
General Manager
Rochester Casino


I've responded back with a copy of her chat session that indicates that support stated she had met the wagering requirements. On another note, the management has mentioned that they removed the BJ rollover allowability because of some bonus "abuser", but if she wasn't involved with this guy, then she shouldn't be punished for it. Let's remove the horse-blinds, folks. I don't see what the big deal is. She should be paid.
 
Bryan, I am very glad to see you involved again! I'm sorry if I sounded impatient in my last emails, but, as you mentioned, communication wasn't working too well between us for a while... Let me address the message that Rochester sent you :

This is a long story but I'll try to make it short. Rochester Casino is fairly new, seven months old.

The player signed up on Feb 07, 2005. She made a $500 deposit the same day and got up to $4750. The player is claiming that we changed the our gaming rules and regulations after she

won. However immediately after the issue with another member that comitted fraud, we decided to make the changes. In our documentation the changes to the rules and regulations page was done on Jan the 29th of 2005. And on that same day the changes done excluded black jack , casino war, roulette, and baccarat from the rollover allowed games.
Until very recently, baccarat was never listed among the games that don't count towards wagering requirements. I have a dated screenshot from March 21 (I played bacarrat on March 20) on which bacarrat is NOT listed as a game that doesn't count towards wagering requirements.

I have accepted to dismiss my blackjack play because I had no proof that blackjack was allowed when I played, but as far as baccarat is concerned, this time I do have a proof. The fact they are now implying that baccarat has been excluded since January 29 shows very well how dishonest these people are.

The Accounting Department tried to locate the player via phone and e-mail to tell her that she has her account open,and with the total amount of money and if she covers the rollover with the permited games she will be paid instantly. But she didn't reply...
They say they tried to "locate" me as if to imply that I was hard to reach, which is not true at all. Rochester never personnally emailed me any offer to restart the wagering on allowed games. They called me once on the phone when I wasn't there and I emailed them on the next day. I didn't want to speak on the phone because I find it hard to stay cool and collected when I am angry as I was and also because I wanted written traces of any communications with them.

If they really invited me to restart the WR on allowed games, then how do they explain that they are still refusing to pay me even after I wagered all over again on baccarat at a time when bacarrat umambiguously counted towards rollover?

The truth is that the only "offer" I ever got from them was an email invitation to forfeit my winnings before either getting my deposit back, or restarting the whole wagering with original deposit and bonus. I did not reply to that "offer".
 
Last edited:
Here's a funny (maybe not so funny when you think of it :() thing about Rochester :

They are the only casino that I know or have heard of that has a seperate email or chatline (chatline in this case) specifically attributed to "disputes". It has appeared recently. Just open a chat and you will see.

This is something else than Montana Overseas, for example, who manages disputes for a huge number of indepently owned casinos. This is a dispute line for a single, obviously small, casino.
 
Last edited:
paul02085 said:
These people are rogues. They will probably go bust if they pay a $5k winner. Geezus.

Just in case anyone would be tempted to take pity on them, I'd like to point out that Rochester Casino offers slots games at the 5$ coin level with 3000 coins payout (and that's just one machine that I checked, there might be bigger jackpots). They also offer multi-line 5$ coin videopoker.

And right now their latest explanation for not paying me is that I won too much. What will they do when someones hits a 15k slots jackpots? or a pat royal at their 5$ multi-line machine?


By the way, they have locked my account today. :(
 
Heck, they won't let you take your money out if you don't play at all:

Withdrawing Funds

All initial deposits and winnings must remain in the account for one week before you can cash it out.

All Requests are processed within 12 hours. Customers must have some kind of activity in the account in the 2 weeks prior to the withdrawal request in order to apply for the redemption
 
And they still have not responded to requests for an explanation on this crooked conduct. It all adds up to a very bad picture of questionable integrity and low money reserves as far as I am concerned, and this outfit should clearly be given a very wide berth.
 
Vortran has issued a warning about them on yesterday's webcast:
Casinomeister's Podcast Archives 2005

I was a little reluctant on letting him do so wanting to give the management a bit more tiime to respond, but I thought "oh, what the hell" and let the robot have at it :D

Management has hunkered down into a silent mode., so full-blown roguedom is on the horizon. Sorry Mothergoosebumps, but it doesn't look too good.

Of course, they might be re-examining this situation and come straight. Only time will tell.
 
Last edited:
vixen said:
They will not pay, I have 2 players that were owed money, thousands and I was ignored and then blocked all around from contacting them.
vixen, I am one of those two players who got ripped off by Rochester after signing up though your board (The Winning Streak). Have you forgotten already?

If you hadn't showered the casino manager with personal insults as soon as I notified you that they were giving me trouble, I would have had greater chances of getting paid.

Also, if you hadn't explicitly VOUCHED for this casino like you did, implying that the casino's manager was a personal friend (which we later learned wasn't true at all), I wouldn't even have played there to begin with.

In part, it's irresponsible forum and portal admninistrators like you that make it possible for shady operations like Rochester to be and stay in business.
 
Last edited:
mothergoosebumps, I almost signed up at Rochester around last Feb. but then I saw your complaint at the Winning Streak and I didn't deposit.

Unfotunately, as you have learned the hard way, those ezboard forums will advertise just about anybody.

I hope you get paid, although it doesn't look good.
 
Unfotunately, as you have learned the hard way, those ezboard forums will advertise just about anybody.
Lets rephrase that, shall we! Numerous ezboards, just as any ,owned, board webmaster will place any old casino up and don't care as long as they make a dollar, NOT all ezboards!!

I work hard at checking and searching on casinos before becoming an affiliate, and so far (knock on wood), non has 'turned' bad, and hopefully they won't, but the best can be rogue tomorrow.

And I own a little ezboard, for now!
 
Sportsbook involvment

It's put to our attention that Rochester also deals with a sportsbook.

Attention handicappers! Do not play there if you ever want to get paid!



From their "Sportsbook", copied yesterday:

1 Free Western Union Payout per month

Whenever you decide to collect your winnings, BIG WORLD SPORTSBOOK will pay your Western Union fee once a month absolutely free.

All bonus money is credited immediately but is yours to keep only after you have wagered your deposit amount, bonus amount, and transfer fee amount four times and actively wagered for a minimum of 30 days from each deposit. Otherwise, bonus amounts and/or transfer fee amounts will be deducted from your account prior to any withdrawal being processed.

*****THESE BONUSES APPLY ONLY TO FOOTBALL*****

The last word out is using the excuse that mothergoosebump has cheated using a 'robot'. Asked for proof they simply say that proof can only be obtained from her end! :confused:

Regards,
 
jinnia said:
Lets rephrase that, shall we! Numerous ezboards, just as any ,owned, board webmaster will place any old casino up and don't care as long as they make a dollar, NOT all ezboards!!

I work hard at checking and searching on casinos before becoming an affiliate, and so far (knock on wood), non has 'turned' bad, and hopefully they won't, but the best can be rogue tomorrow.

And I own a little ezboard, for now!

I'm sorry Jinnia. I was generalizing, but we both agree that many EZBoards do little or no research before deciding to advertise for a casino. I remember that around the time mothergoosebumps played at Rochester Casino, there was a thread at the Winning Streak where people voiced some suspiciousness of this new casino. Vixen, the administrator, vouched for the casino and spoke of the manager as if he was an old friend. Two people from her board got burned right after that : mothergoosebumps and another person who was screwed for around 7k (I wonder what happened to this player).

That's 10k right there, stolen by a rogue who no doubt sounded very nice when he first approached vixen.

Jinnia, you know what? I'm going to visit you board right now!
 
Sancho, I had a steer as a pet when I was in first grade with that name...grin

I know about Rochester and mothergoosebumps, still tee's me off that these damn crooks get away with their lies and thieving.

I spend about 4 days a week, and... oh gawd... several hours each day just searching, doing whois, reverse IP, etc., etc., for information. No webmaster will know when good will go bad, but to put up the bad ones and knowing they are, no excuse/reason for webmasters to do that, completely wrong!!


No need to visit my board, not much there since ezboard messed up their data base.

I'm in the process of getting off ezboard as I type. A great gal setting up the software/forum for me. Bought my domain name and for now, bought hosting until I get php set up on the servers at my home, then will host myself.

BUT, you can go say hi in main forum if you like at my ezboard .. :D
 
mothergoosebump said:
Under condition that I acknowledge the payment in public, Rochester has refunded my 500$ deposit to my Neteller account.

It's a move in the right direction, although there is still a long way to go (3040$, to be exact).

Good move mothergoosebump. Accepting a partial payment in no way nullifies the rest of the legitimate debt. Rochester now owes you your winnings!

Regards,
 
Having played and won, in order to recover just your deposit you need to post the fact here?? This is supposed to do what? Make the casino look good? They figure they'll get depositers on this basis?

"Play at Rochester Casino, and if you win you MIGHT get your deposit back if you grovel a lot."

Good f*****g grief.
 
The terms say that blackjack doesn't count towards the wagering requirement. This does not mean that blackjack play voids wins. If they want to say that, they must STATE it. They cannot state one rule and enforce another.

However, apparently they now DO enforce the "blackjack play voids wins" non-stated non-rule, as per a chat I just had:

Steven: Welcome Mr. John
Steven: How can I help you ?
john: I just found this casino. For the new player bonus, I know blackjack doesn't count towards the wagering requirements, but does blackjack play actually void wins?
john: Or can I play BJ as long as I play the "required" games as well?
Steven: No Black Jack does not count towards the wagering requirement
Steven: Is there anything else I can do for you ?
john: I understand it doesn't count towards the wagering requirement, but if I play blackjack AND the games that DO count towards the wagering requirement, is that OK, or does any BJ play void winnings?
Steven: Bj void's the winnings
john: OK, thanks.
Steven: your Welcome ....thank you!!!

It may even be that they don't understand the difference - English is clearly not their first language. However, at this point they've had plenty of time to change the wording, and the facts will have been pointed out to them, but they've done nothing. One assumes then that this is done intentionally to elicit risk-free deposits from all the blackjack players out there.
 
Caruso:

john: I just found this casino. For the new player bonus, I know blackjack doesn't count towards the wagering requirements, but does blackjack play actually void wins?
john: Or can I play BJ as long as I play the "required" games as well?
Steven: No Black Jack does not count towards the wagering requirement

This has happened to me before. I'd asked questions similar to this one, and they only answer half of the question. Therefore, if you never did repeat the important part of the question, one easily could have assumed that you could still play it. Perhaps he didn't pick-up on what point you were trying to make originally, but I highly doubt it.

I guess that's a must, wherein you MUST always ask specific questions twice to solidify that you're doing everything correctly. I got screwed-over by Magic Box about a year ago, based on my playing BJ. I'd asked the same questions, and I suppose only once (instead of twice like I ALWAYS do now), but again, they weren't absolutely clear and they voided my winnings.
 
Someone with ties to Rochester casino has very recently contacted a member of the Online Players Union (the OPU is working very hard trying to get me paid), telling them that my dispute has been resolved.

That is FALSE. There was no final resolution. My deposit was refunded and nothing else. Rochester still owes me 3040$ and there will be no resolution until they pay my winnings.

When they pay my winnings, I will immediately post about it.

For Rochester to DECIDE that the refunding of my deposit was a final resolution is just keeping in line with their old thieving position.
 
OPU Strategy

mothergoosebump said:
Someone with ties to Rochester casino has very recently contacted a member of the Online Players Union (the OPU is working very hard trying to get me paid), telling them that my dispute has been resolved.

That is FALSE. There was no final resolution. My deposit was refunded and nothing else. Rochester still owes me 3040$ and there will be no resolution until they pay my winnings.

When they pay my winnings, I will immediately post about it.

For Rochester to DECIDE that the refunding of my deposit was a final resolution is just keeping in line with their old thieving position.

Perhaps you could explain what the OPU is doing to help you?
 
Last edited:
Solidarity

Hi Bag,

Ill try to answer your question as to what the union is doing. First theres the solidarity part, our members will not stand still while an innocent co-member is stiffed by rogues. Mothergoosebump was abused and alone in her ordeal. She turned many ways for help without success.

When she joined us we went out of our way to help her, in any way we could, and failed in diplomatic ways.

That left only one option: a strike. Whether this succeeds or not, it is our duty to use all thats at our disposal: Bad PR, spreading the word everywhere, giving them the reputation that they deserve, sending the rogues multiple emails, calling their toll-free line, hurting the gangsters operation as much as we can. There are 840 of us, our numbers are growing fast and hopefully we shall prevail.

We have to continue to do this until we are told to stop, or win for our member! A win meaning that she gets paid all that she is owed. We are tireless in our will.

We owe this to our member in need and we owe it to ourselves. The OPU was founded by players for players and the terms of membership dictate such measures.

Should you be a member yourself, and happen to have made a wrong choice and been ripped off, Im certain that you would appreciate the dedication of your fellow members that would go out of their way to side up with you all of the way.

I hope that you see what we try to do in a clearer way, and that you see some good in what we represent.

My regards to all,

Thatchatch
OPU Member 4113
 
Last edited:
Thatchatch said:
Should you be a member yourself, and happen to have made a wrong choice and been ripped off, Im certain that you would appreciate the dedication of your fellow members that would go out of their way to side up with you all of the way.

No, you're wrong about that. I would not appreciate the things you are doing.
 
Not that way

slotchik said:
you would not APPRECIATE if someone tried to get your winnings paid??? I hope you never have to have that happen to you then, Mr. BAG..

I would appreciate help, but not the way they are going about it. Prank phone calls will never work. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. I don't want to be attacked too.
 
Hi again,

Calling a casino and asking when player mothergoosebump will be paid, whether its one member or 800, that's not crank calls!

Of course 'variations' can be used. Going on chat and pasting the same pertinent question...

Btw we got the manager out of his shell by doing this, and he's putting his feet in his mouth as we speak, uttering obvious lies and contradicting his last convo with one of us when he mentioned that the player had used a 'robot'.

As if meister himself could be accused of using Vortran. :)

Also, our thanks to the meister for having the topic on his 'radio' show, and his considerations for considering 'crookchester' for permanent 'roguedom'. This will not be soon enough in the minds of hundreds.

Regards all,
 
I've been in contact with the manager as well. He claims that the player was given several chances to have this resolved. I'm still waiting for a response from him concerning this whole situation.
 
casinomeister said:
I've been in contact with the manager as well. He claims that the player was given several chances to have this resolved. I'm still waiting for a response from him concerning this whole situation.
Rochester's manager's statement is not false, but it is totally meaningless :
they have given me several chances of "resolving" by forfeiting my winnings for no valid reason. That is exactly what their "efforts" at resolution have amounted to from the very beginning.

They have been hammering the above statement again and again for a very long time, as if it was a proof of goodwill and generosity. It is nothing but empty rethoric.
 
Guess where we can still find promo threads for Rochester?

They IP blocked me after I expressed my opinion of their association with Royal Dutch. I seem clear now, but I'm keeping it buttoned over there just the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A moot point, but notice the 2 different T&C for bonuses on the Rochester site:

All games are allowed, but only 25% of wagers on Roulette (any variation), Casino War, Baccarat, Blackjack (any variation) and 50% on Three Card Poker will count on the wagering requirements

Bets placed in the games of Roulette (all sorts of Roulette), or Blackjack (all sorts of Blackjack), or Casino War. Do not fulfill players obligations with regards to the minimum wagering requirements.


Looks like they have it covered either way. If you happen to read the 1st T&C and play BJ to fufill a wagering requirement, they will just refer you back to the 2nd one where it is excluded.
 
mgibson99 said:
Looks like they have it covered either way. If you happen to read the 1st T&C and play BJ to fufill a wagering requirement, they will just refer you back to the 2nd one where it is excluded.

That is exactly how they work.


Today, Nancy Hennessy, my contact at AST Gaming, confirmed 100% that AST takes ZERO REPONSIBILITY as to how their licensess operate.

For a while she fooled me by giving the impression that she could do something, but in the end what she did amounts to this : she SUGGESTED to Rochester management that they solve my issue.

Note that, even though she was informed of all the details, she didn't suggest that they pay me, she only suggested that they resolve. She didn't even get involved as far as to take a position in my dispute.

Nancy also is convinced that most software companies have a similar "zero responsibilities" policy. She says she learned that from what's posted on various online gambling-related forums.
 
mothergoosebump said:
That is exactly how they work.


Today, Nancy Hennessy, my contact at AST Gaming, confirmed 100% that AST takes ZERO REPONSIBILITY as to how their licensess operate.

For a while she fooled me by giving the impression that she could do something, but in the end what she did amounts to this : she SUGGESTED to Rochester management that they solve my issue.

Note that, even though she was informed of all the details, she didn't suggest that they pay me, she only suggested that they resolve. She didn't even get involved as far as to take a position in my dispute.

Nancy also is convinced that most software companies have a similar "zero responsibilities" policy. She says she learned that from what's posted on various online gambling-related forums.

Apparently, this woman doesn't have a clue to what is happening in this industry. One of the reasons MG casinos are so successful is because of their staunch "grab the bull by the horns" policy concerning their operators. RTG has seen the light, and Playtech is getting with the program as well.

A software provider that takes a hands-off policy is doomed. Simple as that. And I'll assist the "dooming" process as much as I can.

"She says she learned that from what's posted on various online gambling-related forums."
:lolup:

I don't think I need to say anything more.
 
I couldn't agree more - if this is the official AST policy then I would strongly recommend that players stay the hell away from their licensees, for the simple reason that you cannot expect any support if you have a problem.

The days where software providers could throw their hands in the air and say "not my problem" have long gone - that's if they are reputable and professional companies.
 
Mothergoose I have never and would never claim to be good friends with a casino manager! I did not go crazy on this cheat off the bat, I gave him several chances to contact me, I emailed for weeks to get a response, I then warned all the other affiliates that promoted the casino about what happened!

Did you bother to read the thread at my site to see if i was keeping up with your problem? Did you post the entire thread here or just a snippet of the thread?

I have never claimed to be close friends with any casino manager, I maintain a polite business relationship with all my contacts and that is all!
Do you honestly think this man would have paid you reguardless if I was polite to him or not? He called me and told me your cashout was approved that was the last I heard, after that he would not call me again or answer my emails!

Here is the thread and you can all read for yourselves, as far as ez forums go we are not the norm and we do care about our players, we do not allow flame wars and we are very professional unlike most others out there!
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top