Accredited Casino "VIP Casinos"; Resolved

[chuchu59]

Contrast this to the case where some Microgaming casinos exclude Jacks-or-better or Jacks-or-better-type games, making no mention of Deuces Wild. That's a different situation. In this case you've got a RTG software that offers a gazillion different video poker games, and if they left one out but excluded all the others, CLEARLY their intent is to exclude video poker.

Players are always advised to read the Terms and Conditions when taking out a bonus. In this case, the player takes out a bonus and understands that Deuces Wild is not among the excluded games for meeting the WRs. Now you say that the intention was to exclude all video poker games. I dont think we should go and guess the casino's intentions. If its written in the Ts and Cs, the player should comply. Otherwise, the casino has made an omission and it is only right that this is not reckoned as an excluded game.

I was thinking that if a casino has 10 VP games and lists 9 of them as excluded games, wouldnt it be their INTENTION to single out the 10th as being not excluded? It can always be argued both ways.

 

[gaming_mouse]

I was thinking that if a casino has 10 VP games and lists 9 of them as excluded games, wouldnt it be their INTENTION to single out the 10th as being not excluded? .

That was exactly how I interpreted it. Since I thought it was possible they might have made an error of omission, I confirmed it with CS. Once they confirmed the game was allowed, all doubt was removed.

And in any case, not listing the game is the casino's error. They should take responsibility for it, no matter what their intention was.

 

[Linus]

Welcome to the world of casino-logic, gaming_mouse.

What's important to remember, is that although casinos reserve the right to confiscate any amount of money from you - the player - for violating any one of their terms and conditions - no matter how seemingly meaningless or insignificant - it's too much to ask casino employees to understand the terms and conditions themselves.

No doubt more representatives of the industry will be along to remind you of that, presently.

 

[bpb]

I was thinking that if a casino has 10 VP games and lists 9 of them as excluded games, wouldnt it be their INTENTION to single out the 10th as being not excluded? It can always be argued both ways.

In this case, VIP had several video poker games not listed as excluded. Deuces Wild wasn't, and Joker poker still isn't excluded.

If they wanted to exclude video poker, why not just say that. There is a clear video poker tab in the RTG interface. It is very easy to say that all video poker games are excluded, and it is very clear what games they are referring to. By listing 3/4 of the available video poker games, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the other 1/4 are unrestricted.

 

[bpb]

Clearly this group did not intend for video poker to be played for bonuses. Perhaps they should have just said in plain English "no video poker". But your playing deuces wild there for a bonus is just as dumb as some people playing roulette for bonuses. Why leave yourself open and invite trouble?

After reading their list of excluded games, I drew the conclusion that clearly SOME video poker games were alright. If they had wanted to exclude all video poker games, they would have just said so. But by only listing 3/4 of the games (this is clearly not a case where they mistakenly omitted 1 out of 20 games, they omitted several variations), I don't see your logic.

 

[Zoozie]

I have seen several examples where just one or a few video poker games are allowed and it was intended this way. So I do not agree that the player
should have realized it was a mistake.

The most common example is MG sign-up bonuses where only single line Dueces Wild is allowed. A few MG casinos (Fortune Lounge etc.) has this as in their sign up-bonus half a year ago. The reason is that this game has payout at 96%.

But I have seen several other examples, and also others where Dueces Wild was one of the few allowed video-poker games.

According to their T&C Dueces Wild was NOT excluded. And if they meant all video poker games was excluded I would expect them to write that instead of a long list. So it was not an obvious mistake.

If it was a mistake - pay the player (peanuts) and change the T&C to what you mean (allready happened I can see).

What boggles me most is that the case came this far. The casino make a minor mistake in the T&C and tries to scam 1 player for a few $ winnings, breaking the most sacred bond between the player and the casino - the T&C - made by the casino themself. And now the world knows about it.


I have been in a similar situation at Roxy casino due to special bonuses and conflicting T&C. Roxy agreed it was not clear and ruled to my favor. That is why I still play there.

Zoozie

 

[paul1]

Hey y'know what, if the terms say you can play roulette after all WR are met, I'm STILL not going to do it. Because I've seen how sticky things can get in these situations.

Do you think the OP might have had even a tiny hunch that he had found a "loophole"? If I was him, I would not have played DW unless I was absolutely sure it was ok.

My hunch is the OP shot an angle. Either way, I'm a betting man. And I bet this casino makes things right.

Hey believe me, I like video poker. I wish we could play video poker there for a bonus. Because I would. But they don't, so I won't. Btw, I think they have a pretty fair comp program, as far as online casinos go anyway. Happy hour on Fridays, double points. Sure, there are better deals to be found. But this is a decent outfit. Their sports book and race book are rated A+.

That's my 2-cents.

 

[paul1]

I was thinking that if a casino has 10 VP games and lists 9 of them as excluded games, wouldnt it be their INTENTION to single out the 10th as being not excluded? It can always be argued both ways.

Weigh the two possibilities. It's either like you just said, or someone made a mistake. Go ahead and argue it both ways, but I say it's at least reasonable to think someone writing the terms made an omission. In fact, in this case, I say it was reasonable to think that it was more likely that there was an omission.

I still say I bet they do right by this player. This is definitely one of the better casinos in cyber space.

 

[bb1webs]

Hi all,

well I think VIP really drops the ball here.

Its quite obvious the player having seen that the game they wanted was NOT listed in the DO NOT play list; and even having the savvy to contact CS to make certain there is no mistake, then given the okay to play by CS: then the clever idea to totally protect themself by getting a screenshot of what the CS agent had said ...

says to me that this is the state that OG has reached, where a savvy player not only has to make certain the terms are read ... and written correctly to the point of contacting CS for confirmation ... but then on top of that getting positive proof the CS said what they said ... and then after all that: getting shot down the way it went is ... disturbing to say the least.

Geez! What's next? apparently they're suppose to be able to anticipate what the casino may change the rules to?

What really gets me most about this is the player did everything right to the point of practically getting things written in stone that it was okay to play ... and then the rep coming in here and showing just what you come to expect from dealing with CS ... and not just here but everywhere (seemingly) where people in positions of power show such little regard as what has happened here.

That rep came in and breezed thru the thread, and then did a poor job of his homework even after it had been pointed out ... enough times that anybody who read this thread with even the half interest that I had ... (because i don't know anything about VIP) could tell the problem is simple.

player wanted deuces wild
checked T&Cs, it didn't list it as a no-play
as backup, contacted CS and got an "its okay to play"
smart enough to get screenshot
then after going back to CS to check wagering requirements is told now that deuces wild is not okay.

well there's problem 1. - player made deposit understanding they could play a game they wanted. The casino screwed up and now expects the player to be the one to pay for it.

What any quality business, in any niche would do in this case is to honor the customer's original understanding because that is the rules they put their money out for:

the rest of this is just a sad slide down a steep hill and I'm sorry to have seen the pile up at the bottom.

VIP: if you're all that you're suppose to be; get your .. selves back in here and accept responsibility for your own mistakes and stop expecting players to pay for them.

 

[henryVIII]

Hi all,

well I think VIP really drops the ball here.

Its quite obvious the player having seen that the game they wanted was NOT listed in the DO NOT play list; and even having the savvy to contact CS to make certain there is no mistake, then given the okay to play by CS: then the clever idea to totally protect themself by getting a screenshot of what the CS agent had said ...

says to me that this is the state that OG has reached, where a savvy player not only has to make certain the terms are read ... and written correctly to the point of contacting CS for confirmation ... but then on top of that getting positive proof the CS said what they said ... and then after all that: getting shot down the way it went is ... disturbing to say the least.

Geez! What's next? apparently they're suppose to be able to anticipate what the casino may change the rules to?

What really gets me most about this is the player did everything right to the point of practically getting things written in stone that it was okay to play ... and then the rep coming in here and showing just what you come to expect from dealing with CS ... and not just here but everywhere (seemingly) where people in positions of power show such little regard as what has happened here.

That rep came in and breezed thru the thread, and then did a poor job of his homework even after it had been pointed out ... enough times that anybody who read this thread with even the half interest that I had ... (because i don't know anything about VIP) could tell the problem is simple.

player wanted deuces wild
checked T&Cs, it didn't list it as a no-play
as backup, contacted CS and got an "its okay to play"
smart enough to get screenshot
then after going back to CS to check wagering requirements is told now that deuces wild is not okay.

well there's problem 1. - player made deposit understanding they could play a game they wanted. The casino screwed up and now expects the player to be the one to pay for it.

What any quality business, in any niche would do in this case is to honor the customer's original understanding because that is the rules they put their money out for:

the rest of this is just a sad slide down a steep hill and I'm sorry to have seen the pile up at the bottom.

VIP: if you're all that you're suppose to be; get your .. selves back in here and accept responsibility for your own mistakes and stop expecting players to pay for them.

Excellently put.

VIP's behaviour is just bizarre. How could they ever justify it? Good job the pleyer protected himself against VIP trying this kind of thing.

 

[LinkMeistress]

I also think that BB1webs said it well.

I personally like VIP Casinos. I enjoy my play there, I have had quite a few conflicting chat sessions, but things have always been resolved.

The thing that was most disturbing to me is the reply given by a manager/representative. IMO, the manager/ representative is the overseer who has to weigh all facts - kinda like a judge. Make a decision and act upon it accordingly. I don't think that happened here.

All I can say with certainty - at least on my end is that as far as I know about their bonuses..... you can ONLY play the bonus in the RTG platform, from there, there are more restrictions. You cannot play a bonus on any of the instant play games. Not even the slots! That's about the most consistent thing that my live chat sessions have revealed.

But like I said, I still enjoy my play there, I've always been able to get things resolved and most times, I play there with no bonus. So I don't really worry too much about the WR and restricted games.

Best of luck!

LM

 

[gaming_mouse]

Thank you to everyone who took the time read my post, weight all the facts, and respond.

I now have a practical question. The casino manager registered on this site has already seen the thread, responded to it breezily, and then ducked out after his misreading of the terms was pointed out. Now a number of respected posters have noticed this as well, and think it is clear that VIP Casinos is in the wrong here.

What is my practical recourse at this point? Should I contact Bryan and ask him to look at the thread, or will this just happen? Will Bryan be able to do anything if he does look at thread and if he agrees that VIP Casinos should take responsibility for their error?

In a nutshell, what can I realistically expect at this point? I figured that since VIP Casinos is an accredited casino here that Bryan would be able to put some pressure on them to do the right thing....

Please let me know.

Thanks,
Jonah

 

[LinkMeistress]

What is my practical recourse at this point? Should I contact Bryan and ask him to look at the thread, or will this just happen? Will Bryan be able to do anything if he does look at thread and if he agrees that VIP Casinos should take responsibility for their error?

In a nutshell, what can I realistically expect at this point? I figured that since VIP Casinos is an accredited casino here that Bryan would be able to put some pressure on them to do the right thing....

Personally, I would just wait a little. I know that you've already been waiting, but the post is still quite active. It seems to have stirred some interest so just give it a little time.

I don't think that anyone could even give you any hints about what to expect from this point on except the casino representative(s) - but that's just my opinion. I am interested to see the outcome of this post and hope that they do resolve it satisfactorily.

Best of luck!

LM

 

[soflat]

I thought the manager just made a mistake as Deuces Wild was clearly not prohibited by any stretch of the imagination.

But as his only response in the last 24 hours has been to change the T&Cs on their site, I have concluded it was NOT just a mistake, but rather a bait and switch.

Even though their T&Cs allow for a bait and switch, that is not what we expect from Accredited casinos.

I think you should ask Bryan to officially weigh in on this one.

 

[Linus]

Jonah, they've already credited you with the wagers you've already made, right?

So the question is whether you can fulfill the rest of the WR playing the game you signed up to play in the first place.

In principle the answer ought to be "yes."

But if it were me, I'd want to get shut of the place as quickly as possible. And it's not like you can take this case to court, or something.

 

[gaming_mouse]

Jonah, they've already credited you with the wagers you've already made, right?

So the question is whether you can fulfill the rest of the WR playing the game you signed up to play in the first place.

In principle the answer ought to be "yes."

But if it were me, I'd want to get shut of the place as quickly as possible. And it's not like you can take this case to court, or something.

Linus,

Yes, that is all correct. And they told me that I could finish out the remaining $4000 in wagering on the other allowed games, just not any form of VP.

But I actually think at this point it might be best to have some public awareness of the case here before I do anything. I have screenshots of their promise to let my DW wagers until now count, but I've already seen that they are not above going back on their word.

Since they are an accredited casino, and since that must help their business, I think my best option is to get CM involved, so that if they try to cheat me still further they will be risking more than they will gain.

It's ridiculous, IMO, that they did not just tell me I could finish out me wagering on DW. It would be giving me like an additional $40 in EV. Their fighting me on this, aside from being unfair, also strikes me as pretty bad business.

 

[bb1webs]

Hi again,

well I know its hurt them with me. I have been thinking about listing them because of all the good things I've heard and now with their response, and more so lack of coming back in to make this right; will certainly not gain them any favors.

I am constantly amazed at how casinos will run a bonus offer and then seemingly turn around and treat players in this manner when they do everything right and God forbid: beat the system.

Even more concerning to me; is the numbers that are involved.

Honestly, if you guys can't afford to out and out comp a player the lousy ... well whatever it was, ... it sure isn't an amount that would impress me as this being a casino which has the resources to pay large jackpot wins if they're willing to piss-off a player over the amount of a bonus.

I have said this many times before and the only thing not still relevant is the amount it costs me to get a real depositing player ... (that amount I'm certain has climbed considerably) but back when I first did the math the cost was $250.

Now consider this VIP. It cost somebody, probably Brian, somewhere in that neighborhood (or its certainly worth that amount if not more) to get this player into your casino and depositing real money.

Now I'd like to say here that "in one felled swoop" but that actually isn't the case in this instant. Here, it has taken several incompetent instances followed up by a confirmation by your rep to show he stands behind the casino's incompetence to run this player off.

Further, by your rep's incompetent understanding of this matter, he has alienated many more than just this one player because guys .... you are SO wrong here a blind man could see the injustice ... and yet I still don't see anybody here to step up to the plate and do what needs to be done.

All this: over a lousy ... what? forty bucks? well whatever the amount, its a small, small price to pay to keep one's integrity and reputation in good standing.

....

what should be done at this point is somebody ought to be coming back in here with their hat in their hand trying to .... here's a thought. Don't do the very minimum to make this right. Show some darn class and really comp the player something to give them reason, and the rest of the readers ... a reason to want to believe your casino is not just willing to do the minimum ... but that it is outstanding.

When will OG learn that a little common sense and a decent comp will win the entire crowd over where as such a small offer of "well you can keep what you've gotten away with so far ..." is just a sad, sad statement on the way the rest of us can expect to be treated at your casino.

 

[bb1webs]

Hi again,

to explain: the reason this is such a sore spot with me is that online casinos have no where near the operating costs that a B&M casino.

and I understand that you're operating on the %s, but so do the B&Ms and yet they can still afford to comp everything from hotel rooms and food, to shows etc.

They pay a monthly light bill that would likely turn a tight-azz's hair white.

All that money which went towards building the casino. the parking lots. Why I bet the cost of the cement alone ... just in the parking lots would be enough to bankrupt most online casinos.

The payroll has to be much more than that of an online casino.

I could go on and on.

Yet these casinos can manage to come up with decent comps. Especially when they are wrong. Where do you think this behavior was learned to be expected? From Vegas casinos. They know how to treat a player. (though to be fair; they ain't what they used to be either unless you're a high roller, but still head and shoulders about their online counterparts).

So it just isn't believable to me when I see an online casino act like the cost of a bonus is so seriously important that they have to come to the point we find ourselves now.

If you don't like bonus chasers. Don't make offers that will bring them in. Concentrate on treating your better players better with that money instead of using it as bait to bring in customers you obviously don't want in the first place.

 

[soflat]

Show some darn class and really comp the player something to give them reason, and the rest of the readers ... a reason to want to believe your casino is not just willing to do the minimum ... but that it is outstanding.

Yeah, now you're talkin'! There were actually people posting positive experiences about this outfit early in the thread. They could have stepped up to the plate right then and scored accolades all around (and probably a few of these high-rolling, slot-spinning, Casino Meister players too).

 

[rreevy]

I always thought that bonuses were awarded on the principle that the T&Cs applied to the bonus were the ones in force when the player claimed the bonus. Period. Allowing casinos to make even minor changes to the T&C after a bonus had been credited would set a dangerous precedent.

I also think it's ridiculous to suggest that players are supposed to infer that games are supposed to be excluded, when they aren't specifically mentioned. There often appears to be little logic to the games excluded. I remember an MG casino whose sign-up bonus allowed all forms of blackjack except Vegas Strip. Vegas Strip has the lowest house edge of the BJ games normally found in MG's download software, but it's hardly different from Atlantic City (0.361% compared with 0.365% I think).

The idea of counting this player's Deuces Wild wagering only up to the point where they checked how much had been wagered, as well as being unsatisfactory, is also silly imo. Suppose the player had already met the $12,000 WR when checking how much was wagered... then it would all count, yeah?

 

[Casinomeister]

Man, this is a hell of a lot of commotion for a bonus error. I'm just getting to this thread that has gone on for five pages, and what I can tell it has stemmed from the customer service rep making an error on understanding what games were exempt.

From Gaming_mouse's chat session, they admit the error - allow the already played game play, but tell Gaming_mouse that he needs to comply with not playing that game any further. Apparently, Gaming_mouse feels this is not fair.

After the casino rep posted his response, did anyone PM him back? Just wondering.

I'll look into this.

 

[Mousey]

.....

From Gaming_mouse's chat session, they admit the error - allow the already played game play, but tell Mousey that he needs to comply with not playing that game any further. Apparently, Gaming_mouse feels this is not fair.

.....

Too many mouses in our house? substitute Gaming_mouse for Mousey ...

 

[Casinomeister]

Too many mouses in our house? substitute Gaming_mouse for Mousey ...

Done.

 

[gaming_mouse]

Man, this is a hell of a lot of commotion for a bonus error. I'm just getting to this thread that has gone on for five pages, and what I can tell it has stemmed from the customer service rep making an error on understanding what games were exempt.

From Gaming_mouse's chat session, they admit the error - allow the already played game play, but tell Gaming_mouse that he needs to comply with not playing that game any further. Apparently, Gaming_mouse feels this is not fair.

After the casino rep posted his response, did anyone PM him back? Just wondering.

I'll look into this.

Hey Bryan,

I have not played at all since that chat session. I've been waiting to see what you think and what your response will be.

Please note that what I feel is unfair is that they are refusing to comply with their posted terms. It is not simply that a customer service rep gave me erroneous info to begin with. The info that original rep gave me, when she confirmed that DW was allowed, was in agreement with their posted terms. Also note that the terms have been changed since this thread started. You need to look at Google's cache of the terms to see the terms under which I signed up -- there is a link to that cache in my OP.

So anyway, the commotion is about their refusal to stick to posted terms.... not about a rep giving me false info. If that had been the case (that is, if DW had clearly been excluded on the website, but the rep had mistakenly told me that it was allowed) I think their solution would have been fair. However, that is not the case.

Anyway, please tell me what you think. I will do whatever you recommend.

Thanks,
Jonah

 

[Casinomeister]

Hey Bryan,

I have not played at all since that chat session. I've been waiting to see what you think and what your response will be.

Please note that what I feel is unfair is that they are refusing to comply with their posted terms. It is not simply that a customer service rep gave me erroneous info to begin with. The info that original rep gave me, when she confirmed that DW was allowed, was in agreement with their posted terms. Also note that the terms have been changed since this thread started. You need to look at Google's cache of the terms to see the terms under which I signed up -- there is a link to that cache in my OP.

So anyway, the commotion is about their refusal to stick to posted terms.... not about a rep giving me false info. If that had been the case (that is, if DW had clearly been excluded on the website, but the rep had mistakenly told me that it was allowed) I think their solution would have been fair. However, that is not the case.

Anyway, please tell me what you think. I will do whatever you recommend.

Thanks,
Jonah

If you want me to tell you what I think - here goes.

Actually, I think you handled this incorrectly. If it were me, and I found that the CSR had messed up by telling me that the wrong games were allowed. I would have played out the wagering requirements and chalked this up as a casino "eff - up" shit happens. THEN I would have contacted the manager and explained how I felt. They need to ensure that this would never never happen again, and then I would contact the portal master or someone like me and explain what had happened.

This method of problem solving benefits everyone:
1. The casino not only understands that they made a serious eff-up, they would understand that you are a sincere player who would be a valuable person to retain.
2. You would have probably gotten a freebie out of this since the casino realize they made a mistake.
3. The portal operator could keep tabs on this and make sure that the casino keeps in line.
4. you won't get someone fired over this

No one contacted the casino rep when this thread started. As a forum member, please take responsibility when starting threads that are critical about one's operation; make sure the person you're complaining about knows you're complaining. It becomes just a bunch of people complaining and staring at each other. Nothing is going to happen this way.

When the thread first saw life, I asked the rep to take a look at it. He was probably as busy as me, saw it, made a quick comment, and left. Yeah sure, this left a lot of room for improvement, but no one here bothered to PM him again and say "look, we need more answers."

If I'm not responding to a thread, it usually means I'm caught up with others or I'm dealing with something else. It's not a sign of disinterest - it's a sign that I'm busy with other stuff. Please keep this in mind and be a bit more proactive (I know some of you are, and I thank you for that).

Anyway, what should have been a one page thread has turned into this. I'll wait for the casino rep to get involved before I go further.