This is it? "Similar playing style"?
1) "Similar style of play" is not indicative of the three accounts belonging to one person. Many, many, many players have a "similar style of play". I will have a "similar style" to many players. I have only one account per casino.
You have not been "frauded" when a bunch of players play in a certain way, or conspired against. You have been beaten. Handle it.
2) The accusation itself, even if it were true, is not enough. Example: the recent Cirrus case had indisputable evidence of GENUINE fraud, ie. the player signed the "wrong" name to an email and signed up all his accounts from the same home address; he was clearly, provenly guilty. "Similar style" is meaningless.
It seems to me this excuse has been shovelled out and taken at big, fat face value. Based on the evidence presented here, you owe this player.
As to the WOL thread...
...apparently, although the terms state that roulette "doesn't count", they sent out an EMAIL to the player, saying that roulette is "excluded".
Now, why would they not say that roulette is excluded in the TERMS? There is no need to send an email if the same information is simply added to them.
It's also clear at this point that the casino can differentiate between "does not count" and "excluded", and that this distinction is being used to very sharp effect by whoever's in charge here.
Nevertheless, the player is bound by the site rules he signed up under, NOT an apparent email sent AFTER he deposited. This is a smart sleight of hand by the casino, but it doesn't cut it. He is bound by your SITE RULES. Site rules cannot get mislaid in a spam folder or just plain delayed or not received. Site rules are therefore binding. Emails sent after the event are NOT binding.
In neither case do I see any evidence to suggest that both players are not owed.
1) "Similar style of play" is not indicative of the three accounts belonging to one person. Many, many, many players have a "similar style of play". I will have a "similar style" to many players. I have only one account per casino.
You have not been "frauded" when a bunch of players play in a certain way, or conspired against. You have been beaten. Handle it.
2) The accusation itself, even if it were true, is not enough. Example: the recent Cirrus case had indisputable evidence of GENUINE fraud, ie. the player signed the "wrong" name to an email and signed up all his accounts from the same home address; he was clearly, provenly guilty. "Similar style" is meaningless.
It seems to me this excuse has been shovelled out and taken at big, fat face value. Based on the evidence presented here, you owe this player.
As to the WOL thread...
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
...apparently, although the terms state that roulette "doesn't count", they sent out an EMAIL to the player, saying that roulette is "excluded".
Now, why would they not say that roulette is excluded in the TERMS? There is no need to send an email if the same information is simply added to them.
It's also clear at this point that the casino can differentiate between "does not count" and "excluded", and that this distinction is being used to very sharp effect by whoever's in charge here.
Nevertheless, the player is bound by the site rules he signed up under, NOT an apparent email sent AFTER he deposited. This is a smart sleight of hand by the casino, but it doesn't cut it. He is bound by your SITE RULES. Site rules cannot get mislaid in a spam folder or just plain delayed or not received. Site rules are therefore binding. Emails sent after the event are NOT binding.
In neither case do I see any evidence to suggest that both players are not owed.