Captain Cooks group in trouble?

[Black21Jack]

Bryan...idea: why don't you break this forum into two: one for "bonus" related complaints and one for "other" complaints.

I think this is a great idea.

 

[Casinomeister]

I think this is a great idea.

But that will mean I'll have to start reading all of these threads - ha ha just kidding.

Good idea. But sometimes it's a combination of bonus and half-witted CSRs. Perhaps if I have some time this week, I can can check this out.

Back to this issue. It's not a cash flow problem; I can assure you of that. It's a true audit of players' accounts because of bonus behaviour. CCC should be giving out more details shortly.

 

[Vesuvio]

When I see threads like this, i look for the word "bonus" in the first post or two and if spotted, take everything else with a pinch of salt. I'm with Black21jack on this...bonuses will always cause controversy.

Even if I wasn't a bonus player and saw the e-mails CC have been sending out I'd be worried. As it's an MG casino with a previous good reputation things will probably work out ok in the end, but if it was, let's say, an RTG casino, I think you'd be mad to deposit there with or without a bonus.

I don't see the point of separating bonus or non-bonus complaints. Bonus complaints are a pretty good indication of the overall reliability of a casino. If you're playing without a bonus of course only a truly idiotic casino wouldn't treat you well (seeing as you're very likely to earn them money), but I wouldn't be so sure you'll be ok at a dodgy casino if you hit a big jackpot & it's suddenly in their interests to cheat you rather than treat you as a VIP.

 

[Simmo!]

Even if I wasn't a bonus player and saw the e-mails CC have been sending out I'd be worried.

Yes i agree Vesuvio. My first reaction was well if youere a "loyal" player then why need to audit your account? Sounded like a stalling tactic to me.

Anyway...

I don't see the point of separating bonus or non-bonus complaints. Bonus complaints are a pretty good indication of the overall reliability of a casino. If you're playing without a bonus of course only a truly idiotic casino wouldn't treat you well (seeing as you're very likely to earn them money), but I wouldn't be so sure you'll be ok at a dodgy casino if you hit a big jackpot & it's suddenly in their interests to cheat you rather than treat you as a VIP.

In some instances I'd agree, but often you see a thread title like "Blahblah casino ripped me off" or "Don't play blahblah casino" when it turns out that its just a bonus term that the poster didn't like, or something silly like that. A lot of people may not read, or (newbies) even understand, what this means and therefore mentally heed it as a warning that this is a bad casino which, to make the assumption based on this alone, is wrong IMHO.

At least if these are clearly seperated from true issues of trust, compliancy and player management it's less confusing and more obvious for everyone. After all, how would you or I feel if you ran a casino and to put off the bonus abusers you asked for x40 WR, only to then see people who didn't like it posting that you are a rip-off merchant on popular boards like CM. That's what happens all-to-often.

In fact there was a rather worrying post here last week or so about a casino and an x45 WR and the whole thread would have made newbies seriously worry about the casino's integrity (i forget which casino it was) when in fact there was nothing to suggest that they were anything other than a fair operator who just didn't want people to take them for a ride.

Cheers

Simmo!

 

[Vesuvio]

In fact there was a rather worrying post here last week or so about a casino and an x45 WR and the whole thread would have made newbies seriously worry about the casino's integrity (i forget which casino it was) when in fact there was nothing to suggest that they were anything other than a fair operator who just didn't want people to take them for a ride.

I agree people are often too quick to complain about casinos when they've just failed to read the t&cs or don't like the bonus terms. I've defended Captain Cooks from such attacks on a few occasions.

In the case of the x45 WR, though, I think it's useful to warn newbies what they're getting themselves into (even if that's not the same as saying a casino's 'rogue'). It's newbies who're likely to get a very nasty surprise when playing at, in this case, the Casino Action group. They might well not realise that the 'free' bonus needs to wagered perhaps 150x in total - and that if they hit a royal flush in the bonus account they've landed themselves a truly massive wagering requirement.

In their current form the bonus accounts at these casinos (and Captain Cooks) are mainly a trick so the casino can give apparently generous bonuses they don't need to worry about the vast majority of players ever cashing in. It's particularly blatant with the CC monthly bonuses where they give perhaps $25 in the bonus account, but you need a minimum of $50 to transfer anything to your real account.

There's a fine line between a casino not wanting to be taken for a ride & a casino taking players for a ride

 

[GrandMaster]

I should add that Casino Kingdom is the only casino that ripped me off in my online gambling career. I was sent a bonus offer with WR only 10xB stated in the e-mail, but when I wanted to cash in, they insisted that the terms on the website which stated that WR is 10x(D+B) overrule the e-mail. This made the difference between a small profit and busting out. This is clearly rogue behaviour.

 

[Lurkio]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn - same blind defence of any casino actions showing almost no knowledge of the industry except for the frequency of affiliate payments.

I agree they've been a good operation with a good reputation (& I hope they'll pull through this and return to that), but their reputation's not being damaged by me or other posters - it's being damaged by their own actions and the e-mails they're sending out. If, as it seems, they're short of money and are trying to claw it back by refusing to pay out to players who met all their terms and conditions, then that's simply the action of a rogue casino. It's up to them to prove to us all that they're not.


As Dirk mentioned we're not just talking about that initial e-mail, but also the one confiscating players' winnings. The 'audit' e-mail also reads for me like an attempt to scare players into forfeiting winnings (though others may disagree). Why not wait 7 days? Because this is a serious issue which needs to be addressed by the casino & should clearly be highlighted on here. It might also help them pull back from the brink. This is a very unusual situation for an MG casino - not something run of the mill as you seem to think.

Not blind defence...this casino has a good rep..and you are jumping to conclusions , on a public forum, so you are damaging them..without knowing the truth..but that happens all day here so I guess its de rigeur.

Arent they innocent until proven guilty..or are they subject to the usual "kangaroo court"

Lots of words like "seems" and "certainly" used in this thread..and really, noone knows jack...and they imho opinion should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Why do they need pulling from the brink? ..because you think you put them there?..I doubt that mate.

There are also good reasons why MGS casinos dont usually get this sort of grief..and its not because they are all cashed up, snowywhite operators either.

I would also venture that the reason they are offering deposits back would be to try and flush out those who think they are going to get caught... by claiming their money back they also alerting the casino as to who they may be.

Disclaimer; Im guessing.

 

[Lurkio]

Then as I read more on the internet and on various forums I decided to never use a bonus and that I could make a lot more money without them. The fact that I get paid twice as fast with no hassles was the main reason I did not want to use bonuses. The reason I knock bonuses all the time is because of the hassles. All the posts in the complaints section are bonus related. The answer to your question is yes I think they should be paid, but I also think that a reputable casino with no track record of ripping players off must have a good reason to request a 7 day period to check something out..

Smart post.

 

[pixie11]

Amazing how one email can generate so many theories on it's intent. Clearly, if you read the email, it states that those cashing out after playing BJ is the issue. If a sudden change in policy regarding audits and cashouts has been instituted, especially for those who played BJ, doesn't that indicate that there must have been a major problem with bonus abuse/BJ/Cashouts.

Additionally, if players are having their bonuses confiscated and/or accounts locked, surely that tells you something. The email gave the player the "option" to retain the bonuses given or cashout quickly. I can only imagine how many accounts need to be audited after the opening of a new casino.

It seems unfair to jump to conclusions of financial instability; pushing members to forfeit winnings; recouping money; about a group of casinos that have only had a solid history of paying winners, offering numerous bonuses, and great customer support. Changes made (at any casino) are often the result of problems with players.

 

[Casinomeister]

Not blind defence...this casino has a good rep..and you are jumping to conclusions , on a public forum, so you are damaging them..without knowing the truth..but that happens all day here so I guess its de rigeur.

I think what has sparked the initial alarm is the term "audit". Many players relate "audit" to "we have no more money - we're stalling hoping for more deposits - goodbye", since many casinos in the past (mostly RTG or no-named software provider casinos) have used this as a BS excuse to stall payments. Fortunately, this is not the case in this situation. It's a real audit which will possibly delay some payments. At least they are tyring to be upfront about it.

Grandmaster - sorry to hear of your hassle. Did you ever escalate the matter beyond customer service? Please let me know, thanks!

 

[Vesuvio]

Amazing how one email can generate so many theories on it's intent. Clearly, if you read the email, it states that those cashing out after playing BJ is the issue. If a sudden change in policy regarding audits and cashouts has been instituted, especially for those who played BJ, doesn't that indicate that there must have been a major problem with bonus abuse/BJ/Cashouts.

Additionally, if players are having their bonuses confiscated and/or accounts locked, surely that tells you something. The email gave the player the "option" to retain the bonuses given or cashout quickly. I can only imagine how many accounts need to be audited after the opening of a new casino.

It seems unfair to jump to conclusions of financial instability; pushing members to forfeit winnings; recouping money; about a group of casinos that have only had a solid history of paying winners, offering numerous bonuses, and great customer support. Changes made (at any casino) are often the result of problems with players.

Pixie, can I ask what your relationship to this group is? I noticed this slightly odd post in your history: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/search

I'm not convinced by your explanation for the first e-mail. You seem to be jumping to equally wild conclusions about the players at the casino - and to continue the casino's innuendo that playing BJ is equivalent to bonus abuse. Having an "audit" and freezing funds/sending vague threats isn't that common. Most casinos are quite capable of monitoring their players on an ongoing basis without taking drastic actions.

 

[Vesuvio]

Not blind defence...this casino has a good rep..and you are jumping to conclusions , on a public forum, so you are damaging them..without knowing the truth..but that happens all day here so I guess its de rigeur.

Arent they innocent until proven guilty..or are they subject to the usual "kangaroo court"

No, I'm publicising certain e-mails that have already been posted widely on the web and which demand an explanation from the casino. They must have known the effect on their reputation of sending them out. This isn't a court of any sort, just a public discussion forum where they have every opportunity to explain what's going on.

Lots of words like "seems" and "certainly" used in this thread..and really, noone knows jack...and they imho opinion should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Seems and certainly are almost opposites aren't they? Anyway, I'm simply stating that the two e-mails sent out are cause for concern and require an explanation from the casino. Would giving the benefit of the doubt entail just ignoring something like this on the forum?

Why do they need pulling from the brink? ..because you think you put them there?..I doubt that mate.

The brink could be denying winnings to players who've played by the casino rules and met the terms of the bonuses playing BJ. I've got no interest whatsoever in putting them on any brink.

I would also venture that the reason they are offering deposits back would be to try and flush out those who think they are going to get caught... by claiming their money back they also alerting the casino as to who they may be.

A slightly underhand tactic, if that were the case. My worry is that they might scare naive new players (or new bonus hunters) into thinking that autoplaying BJ is a sufficient reason for their winnings and deposits to be retained. This could result in them forfeiting money for no reason.

Anyway, as you say, none of us know, so it's up to them to give us some more details.

 

[Lurkio]

A slightly underhand tactic, if that were the case. My worry is that they might scare naive new players (or new bonus hunters) into thinking that autoplaying BJ is a sufficient reason for their winnings and deposits to be retained. This could result in them forfeiting money for no reason.

QUOTE]


Could you or anyone else please explain the enjoyment of autoplaying anything?

I thinks it was cypher who was bitching at Dean about his threads / autoplay..I just dont get it..either you gamble because you actually enjoy it, or because you purely want to beat the system and make money..(which to me , if you use bonuses , at the end of the day..is bonus abusing )

I don't gamble..its boring to me..thats why i dont "get it"

Please explain..


btw good Shill Alert LOL

 

[Haviton]

But if the casinos didnt want people to use Autoplay with the bonus money, just put in the T&Cs that you cant use it.

Also, if the casinos dont like the Autoplay feature, why did Microgaming realease Viper.

I am quite surprised that there has been no reply to this thread by the casino rep.

 

[Casinomeister]

Formal Statement issued by Integrity Casinos Limited (ICL).

Integrity Casinos Limited (ICL) is releasing a formal statement in response to recent speculation regarding their player account audit.

In early March, three of the casino brands operated by Integrity Casinos (Captain Cooks Casino, Casino Kingdom and Casino Classic) were found to have suffered a significant amount of suspect wagering.

A large number of casino accounts (displaying suspect wagering behavior) have now been identified, warranting casino management to take immediate action. This action involves Integrity Casinos undertaking a complete review of the identified accounts a process that is both time consuming and labor intensive. Once complete, accounts will have been classified into one of three possible positions. The following outlines the actions that will be taken:

Position
1) Proven to be a legitimate player without suspect wagering.
Result
These accounts will be unlocked and players advised.
Position
2) Wagering has a high probability of being suspect, and the Real Account has a zero balance.
Result
These accounts will be closed and
players advised.
Position
3) Wagering has a high probability of being suspect, and the Real Account has a balance greater than zero.
Result
These accounts will have any amounts transferred from their Bonus Account removed, and players advised they can continue wagering with their deposits and any remaining winnings, under the terms and conditions that existed at the time the deposit was made.

If any suspect account has cashins pending, these will be paid but transfers from the Bonus Account to Deposit Accounts will be deducted first. Cashins for non-suspect accounts will be honoured in full.

These actions are all designed to ensure that Integrity Casinos is known to operate brands where players who look for genuine gaming entertainment based around playing against the rules of the games fairly, are welcomed and treated with respect and courtesy.

Players who do not fall into this category detract from the ability of Integrity Casinos to reward the genuine and legitimate players for their continued patronage of our brands, and will not be tolerated.

 

[120sam]

Will they also be releasing a definition of "suspect wagering"?

 

[mucullus]

In which way have those players accused of "suspect wagering" breached the t&c's of the casinos? I really don't understand the term "suspect wagering", it sounds like bj autoplay rather than severe player fraud like a multiple account thing.

 

[jetset]

QUOTE These actions are all designed to ensure that Integrity Casinos is known to operate brands where players who look for genuine gaming entertainment based around playing against the rules of the games fairly, are welcomed and treated with respect and courtesy.

Players who do not fall into this category detract from the ability of Integrity Casinos to reward the genuine and legitimate players for their continued patronage of our brands, and will not be tolerated. UNQUOTE

I would say that the interpretation here is that this established and successful group of casinos is taking a strong stand on whatever we want to call "advantage players, smart players, professional players, math players, bonus hunters, percentage players etc"

I think this is a definite warning shot for the itinerant population interested only in taking advantage of bonuses to get out of Dodge as far as Integrity Casinos are concerned before your accounts are closed. Note that in terms of this policy the apparent intent following this audit is to apply the casinos' right of admission, paying out deposits and winnings, but not bonuses.

And it looks as if they are methodically going through their player base to identify those players that they do not want - probably a relatively small percentage of the total.

It's likely to cause a furore, but it will probably save a lot of future bonus dispute hassles.

 

[willy]

Grandmaster

Hi Again All,
We are going to be addressing concerns in general regarding the issue that has initiated this thread. We can't deal with the multitude of individual observations and theories thrown up since our audit process started. I can assure everybody that , in good time , we will respond accordingly.
I'm compelled to post here now by a different issue...that being the incident described by Grandmaster above. Any long time player with Integrity Casinos will recognise the contradictions in this complaint and I'd like to look into this for you. If you like you can contact me privately and I will follow up ...or you can post details here...whichever suits.
I'd just like to add tho', ... you can contact me via the private email box here if you have legitimate concerns regarding any issue with us.
Thanks , and I look forward to hearing from you .
Willy

 

[Vesuvio]

Willy, since you're around how about telling us what you mean by "suspect wagering"? As far as I understand your formal statement the assumptions that were made on the basis of your earlier e-mails seem to have been proven correct - you intend to retrospectively remove money from accounts that have met all the terms and conditions of your bonuses (while not refunding players who played in the same manner and lost their deposits).

If you go down that road then as I understand it you should expect to be placed on a blacklist at Casinomeister and similar sites. Please let me know if I'm missing anything here.

 

[Vesuvio]

And it looks as if they are methodically going through their player base to identify those players that they do not want - probably a relatively small percentage of the total.

It's likely to cause a furore, but it will probably save a lot of future bonus dispute hassles.

I'm very suprised by your response, Jetset. Just imagine for a moment this had been sent out by a casino that didn't have a previous good reputation (imagine it's a dodgy RTG, for instance). You'd be up in arms with the rest of us.

There's no obligation to lose money at on-line casinos to prove you're playing for "entertainment". Even players who mainly play slots might well consider that the only chance they'd have of meeting the very tricky bonus conditions at Casino Classic would be by autoplaying a low house edge game. The bonus is there to attract deposits from players wanting to win. If the player adopts a pattern of play that gives them a chance to do so there's absolutely no justification for subsequently taking away the bonus (I suspect you're very wrong in thinking this involves a small number of players).

For what it's worth I tried Casino Classic (I'd never have deposited without the bonus) and lost the 189 bonus in my bonus account. Suprisingly I made a small profit in the real account, but if I'd lost my deposit the bonus would have served it's purpose for the casino (getting me to play and lose) & of course I wouldn't have had any complaint. If "Integrity" (!) casinos are allowed to get away with what they seem to be planning then it'll be a new low for the casino industry.

Yep, it's that brink again. Care to take a step back?

 

[willy]

Grandmaster

Sorry GM I reread my post and noticed that it appears to intimate that there is a contradiction in your issue . Quite the opposite and I apologise for the error.
Thanks too Jetset for your post (above). At some stage somebody from Casino groups needed to make a stand. Despit the fact that the opening of a new venue provided Players previously banned from existing sites with the opportunity to register and use the site in the manner intended , a large number chose to see this as "another gift" .That may be so , but the longer term effect on the wider community is "evolving" and it will evolve to exclude groups and individuals intent on rorting systems. Thanks Again
Willy

 

[120sam]

Willy, would you mind compelling yourself to define "suspect wagering"? It would be very helpful to people trying to decide whether this is a legitimate audit or a scam to avoid paying players who have met your bonus T&Cs and just want to withdraw their winnings.

 

[willy]

Vesuvio

We don't discourage any legitimate Player from accessing our sites. I won't get into any protracted debate regarding the ethics of the Terms and Conditions we apply to our Players. Read our Terms and Conditions and interpret the clause regarding the use of our sites for leisure as opposed to outright "profiteering" from our Bonuses.It's not difficult.
There's more involved here than just unacceptable wagering I can assure you . Excuse me for not detailing here for you , but , as our actions will ultimatly only effect those who have been thus engaged , those people will be fully abrest of the issues.
Most of our players understandand and comply with our Terms , especially if they are using our Bonuses. The few who have chosen to ignore the rest of the gambling community and manipulate our systems and rules for their own gain..., I'm sure many in the community extends those people similar sentiment to us.
Thanks Again
Willy

 

[Vesuvio]

Read our Terms and Conditions and interpret the clause regarding the use of our sites for leisure as opposed to outright "profiteering" from our Bonuses.It's not difficult.

Sorry, Willy, but if you want to justify actions that would be considered fraud and land you with heavy fines in a properly regulated industry you'll have to get a bit more articulate than that.

Do you really think you can enforce a term that says players can't take a bonus if they want to make a profit from it? That would rule out 99% of your customers.

These terms do contain some gems though:

12.7 Player acknowledges that the Game is for entertainment value only. Player acknowledges that no deposit is necessary or required to play the Game. If a player wishes to play without betting money, he/she may do so without being constrained by these terms and conditions excepting that the Player must comply with paragraph 12.3.

So if I don't bet money I'm allowed to try and win money

12.11 Player acknowledges and agrees that they shall review at least monthly these Terms and Conditions of the Company.