KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Simmo!]

Simmo, where's that pic of that dead nag you had?

LOL. Post #320 - "Flogging a Dead Horse":

Link Outdated / Removed

 

[tennis_balls]

But there is NO RISK to the casino from players playing excluded games

there is some risk and that's why some casinos choose to exclude certain games for bonus players. if you play deuces wild (especially 4-handed), you will see how crazy the swings can be. KN has probably determined that a player is more likely to build a bankroll playing Deuces Wild than with other games and so they have chosen to exclude it.

I think it's pretty wimpy of King Neptune's to exclude this game. If I'm gonna gamble, I want a casino that doesn't mind a little gamble. Still, it is their right to exclude any game they want for the bonus.

 

[Simmo!]

TB: I wish you'd change your avatar...everytime I see it it makes me want to fire up and play - lol

 

[soflat]

I think they should have voided the winnings on excluded games, but not non-excluded games.

If she won $5k from Deuces Wild, then remove $5k. But they went so far as to carefully analyze her play to justify confiscating winnings from non-excluded games. Some might see that as an intention to do right, but it is kind of pathetic in my opinion.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Maths Graduates

there is some risk and that's why some casinos choose to exclude certain games for bonus players. if you play deuces wild (especially 4-handed), you will see how crazy the swings can be. KN has probably determined that a player is more likely to build a bankroll playing Deuces Wild than with other games and so they have chosen to exclude it.

I think it's pretty wimpy of King Neptune's to exclude this game. If I'm gonna gamble, I want a casino that doesn't mind a little gamble. Still, it is their right to exclude any game they want for the bonus.

I expect we have university Maths graduates to blame for all this.
Last year, it was the "bet it all on one hand of Blackjack or Roulette". Easy to understand how a series of such bets with 100% bonuses gives the player an edge in the long term.
Not so sure about the Video Poker, especially the DW, where the only big positive swing is a hit on 4 Deuces, not all that common.

Bonus rules are now so technical that the Wizard is right, they attract the Bonus Players/Maths graduate. but actually could put off the casual gambler, especially one who has never tried it before.

Interestingly, Microgaming HAVE come up with a solution, but KN have decided not to use it as it allows weighted wagering on ALL games, no mistake possible, AND a clear display of what is players money and what is unearned bonus money.
I have found the reputable PLaytech group on Casinomeister have dealt with this in a far better manner. Their terms also have a list that includes Blackjack and VP games as "restricted". Instead of confiscation, ANY wager found to be present on a restricted game increases the WR by a factor of 2 or 3 on the allowed games. This is the way forward, get rid of straight confiscation, but adjust the rules to counterbalance the additional perceived risk of bets on restricted games. This will become unnecessary when the software provides for such restrictions to be set on an individual account basis.
The calls for the removal of bonuses will not happen, as this is how they get new players drawn in, they would only change if an alternative lure had the same, or better, results.

 

[Linus]

Put yourself in the casino's shoes. Heck, put yourself in a storekeeper's shoes when the customers make a run on him because he honored a coupon that had expired just 22 hours ago.

If you try to use a coupon that's expired at a store, the clerk says, "Sorry, this coupon has expired."

He does not reach into your wallet and take all your money.


Simmo - It's not just a question of "reasonable" or "unreasonable." It's also a question of where a customer wants to spend her money.

If you like having your winnings confiscated, King Neptune may be a good choice for you. If you'd prefer to risk your money at the tables, rather than over changes in the terms and conditions, you might consider playing somewhere else.


I have no interest in putting myself in a casino's shoes. When they share their profits with me, perhaps I'll reconsider. Until then, I'd prefer a casino that puts itself in my shoes, instead.

 

[Linus]

I expect we have university Maths graduates to blame for all this.
Last year, it was the "bet it all on one hand of Blackjack or Roulette". Easy to understand how a series of such bets with 100% bonuses gives the player an edge in the long term.
Not so sure about the Video Poker, especially the DW, where the only big positive swing is a hit on 4 Deuces, not all that common.

Bonus rules are now so technical that the Wizard is right, they attract the Bonus Players/Maths graduate. but actually could put off the casual gambler, especially one who has never tried it before.

Interestingly, Microgaming HAVE come up with a solution, but KN have decided not to use it as it allows weighted wagering on ALL games, no mistake possible, AND a clear display of what is players money and what is unearned bonus money.

The new "Clearplay" system also allows wagering on all games - including Blackjack, Roulette, and Video Poker. Sorry, I don't know what all casinos are using it. But it doesn't involve confiscation clauses.

I have found the reputable PLaytech group on Casinomeister have dealt with this in a far better manner. Their terms also have a list that includes Blackjack and VP games as "restricted". Instead of confiscation, ANY wager found to be present on a restricted game increases the WR by a factor of 2 or 3 on the allowed games.

The Cryptos - Intercasino, William Hill, etc. - also have restricted games (Roulette, Baccarat, and Craps), but play at restricted games simply doesn't count. It doesn't result in confiscation.

This is the way forward, get rid of straight confiscation, but adjust the rules to counterbalance the additional perceived risk of bets on restricted games. This will become unnecessary when the software provides for such restrictions to be set on an individual account basis.

Casino software is what casinos want it to be. If they can warn you about hitting on a twenty, they could warn you about restricted games - if they wanted. Confiscation clauses are more profitable, though. ("If you lose, we win. If you win... we win anyway."

The calls for the removal of bonuses will not happen, as this is how they get new players drawn in, they would only change if an alternative lure had the same, or better, results.

 

[spearmaster]

If you try to use a coupon that's expired at a store, the clerk says, "Sorry, this coupon has expired."

He does not reach into your wallet and take all your money.

LOL.

The terms and conditions which the player read were expired, period. The point, however, is that a merchant cannot be expected to make an exception when it is clear that the customer did not meet the conditions under which he/she made a purchase. Making that exception, on the other hand, opens the merchant to possible abuse on the pretext that "well, you made an exception for so and so, why can't you make an exception for me? Besides which only 15 hours had passed, not 22...?

If, on the other hand, the customer had already made the purchase but the merchant was unable to validate the offer right away, it can then be assumed that the merchant would honor the offer.

Keep in mind the purchase and play was some 20+ hours after the terms and conditions (or offer) had expired. The player did not register the account, make a purchase, and start playing before the terms expired.

If you like having your winnings confiscated, King Neptune may be a good choice for you. If you'd prefer to risk your money at the tables, rather than over changes in the terms and conditions, you might consider playing somewhere else.

This is unfair. King Neptunes has rarely, if ever, had to exercise its right to declare winnings null and void - you make it seem as if this is the norm, when in reality it is far from common practice.

Until then, I'd prefer a casino that puts itself in my shoes, instead.

Believe it or not, that's what Micki did - she went to the trouble of validating the play and basically left some room for an exception to be made even though she was WELL within her rights to simply void all play and winnings. Despite that, the player then lost the entire deposit and bonus on her first legitimate play - end of story.

 

[soflat]

Believe it or not, that's what Micki did - she went to the trouble of validating the play and basically left some room for an exception to be made even though she was WELL within her rights to simply void all play and winnings. Despite that, the player then lost the entire deposit and bonus on her first legitimate play - end of story.

Huh?

She went looking play-by-play trying to find a way to void winnings from non-excluded games.

I was in favor of the casino until it was found that they voided winnings from non-excluded games.

 

[spearmaster]

Huh?

She went looking play-by-play trying to find a way to void winnings from non-excluded games.

I was in favor of the casino until it was found that they voided winnings from non-excluded games.

No.

She went from the start looking for where the player started playing allowed games. She then tried to determine if the player would have met the new terms and conditions by playing allowed games - but unfortunately the player lost the entire starting amount on her very first play of an allowed game.

 

[soflat]

Excuse me, but as I understand it, the player had net winnings on non-excluded games and they were confiscated.

It is very very simple:

a) Take net winnings from excluded games, subtract those from her balance. Those winnings are null and void.
b) Leave non-excluded winnings alone. Nothing in the T&Cs says they can confiscate them.

She did not have to go play-by-play thru the logs. But she did to confiscate winnings on allowed games. That is how she found the justification.

Bad casino!

 

[spearmaster]

Excuse me, but as I understand it, the player had net winnings on non-excluded games and they were confiscated.

All play from excluded games would automatically be void if the playthrough had not been completed on allowed games.

Her first LEGITIMATE play, she lost her deposit AND her bonus. That would empty her account. You cannot expect to use funds which were not rightfully earned to generate any further income.

Had she, on the other hand, completed her playthrough on allowed games, and then played excluded games, she would most definitely have been fully entitled to all her winnings.

And, if she had WON her deposit and her bonus on that first legitimate play, and subsequently completed her playthrough without losing her initial deposit and bonus, all earnings subsequent to that would also have been fully realized.

Up until the point of the player meeting the playthrough requirements, all play on excluded games would be voided.

 

[chuchu59]

TB: I wish you'd change your avatar...everytime I see it it makes me want to fire up and play - lol

Whoa! For a moment I had wanted to condemn you as a sxx maniac as I thought your were referring to Pina's avatar.

Back on topic, this thread has really dragged on with nothing new. It should now end. Actually, I am looking forward to a new thread initiated by a new player at KN who has lost his whole deposit on excluded games. Let's see how KN deals with this one when it comes and whether it refunds the losses.

 

[soflat]

Actually, I am looking forward to a new thread initiated by a new player at KN who has lost his whole deposit on excluded games. Let's see how KN deals with this one when it comes and whether it refunds the losses.

The T&Cs only refer to winnings on excluded games. The clause does not kick in for losses.

I think KN deserves all the criticism it got here because of its bad T&Cs and by taking the most extreme interpretation of T&Cs maximize its confiscation

They could have just "removed/confiscated [winnings from excluded games] from your account balance or withdrawals" (from T&Cs), but they got greedy and it got them a black eye.

 

[spearmaster]

I think KN deserves all the criticism it got here because of its bad T&Cs and by taking the most extreme interpretation of T&Cs maximize its confiscation

They could have just "removed/confiscated [winnings from excluded games] from your account balance or withdrawals" (from T&Cs), but they got greedy and it got them a black eye.

You gotta be shitting me. They did what they were perfectly entitled to. How is that "extreme interpretation"?

They did exactly what you suggest - removed winnings from excluded games. Where do you see winnings from allowed games - and if there were any, they were obtained by using said excluded winnings... WTF???

 

[mitch]

The Cryptos - Intercasino, William Hill, etc. - also have restricted games (Roulette, Baccarat, and Craps), but play at restricted games simply doesn't count. It doesn't result in confiscation.

Linus

As I pointed out in a previous post that is EXACTLY what the casino did in this case.

All "winnings" from the excluded games didn't count therefore when she made her first bet on a non-excluded game it was an all in £400 bet and she lost!

She now has no money to win anything with has she?

The casino has acted in accordance with what the majority of members would like them to do except that they gifted her £400 to play again, damn generous IMO.

Therefore will members please stop posting complaining and then telling the casino to do what it has already done! ( this thread is turning into the Twilight Zone)

Mitch

 

[Vesuvio]

Linus

As I pointed out in a previous post that is EXACTLY what the casino did in this case.

All "winnings" from the excluded games didn't count therefore when she made her first bet on a non-excluded game it was an all in 400 bet and she lost!

She now has no money to win anything with has she?

Your posts are normally logical, Mitch, but here you seem to be deliberately missing the point. The casino didn't follow the bonus policy of the Cryptos or most other reputable casinos. If they did then there'd be no problem building up however high a balance playing other games and then meeting the bonus requirements on games allowed for the wr. That's just normal practice.

The real issue here is whether it's ok for casinos to have "confiscation" terms. I'd say any code of best practice would ban them as they inevitably catch out a large number of players.

The issue of the 400 bet being her first bet with her own funds just strikes me as a hypothetical red-herring. It's not likely she'd have adopted the same betting pattern if she hadn't had a lucky win at deuces wild.

The casino has acted in accordance with what the majority of members would like them to do except that they gifted her 400 to play again, damn generous IMO.

Most members would be happy for a player to lose 8000 on a technicality? I seriously doubt it, though we can probably do without another poll!

Giving back the deposit while keeping 8000 is pushing most definitions of "damn generous". Giving the bonus as well is more a PR stunt - we all know the most likely result if you give the bonus & the player accepts it is that the casino gets to keep the deposit as well.

 

[rreevy]

Mitch, I think Linus meant that play at restricted games doesn't count towards the WR, not that it doesn't count as a legitimate bet. If you play excluded games at said Crypto casinos and win, you'll have to meet the WR on games that count but when that's done you'll keep your winnings.

Sorry spearmaster, when I said the casino runs no risk for play on excluded games, I meant in the long run, for all the play on the game in question. In the long run the casino will get its 2-3% - whatever the edge for Deuces Wild is - and this will be a pointless play from a bonus point of view, as the player is on a loser but these games aren't counting towards the WR. How big the swings are in the meantime doesn't really matter for a casino with lots of players. Yes, some games are surely easier to build a bankroll on, but the more you can win as a multiple of your bet, the more losing plays you'll have, in the long run, before you hit that win.

Not sure if the maths graduate remark was directed at me - I'm actually an English Lit. graduate I am pretty sure, though, that the confiscation clause is unnecessary from a maths perspective.

Maybe if KN employed a maths graduate they wouldn't have had that rule in the first place. Just a thought ;-)

(Sorry, Vesuvio, looks like I was replying to Mitch's post at the same time as you).

 

[spearmaster]

The issue of the 400 bet being her first bet with her own funds just strikes me as a hypothetical red-herring. It's not likely she'd have adopted the same betting pattern if she hadn't had a lucky win at deuces wild.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the rules. You can't go place a sum of money like that elsewhere and then, after you lose, claim you didn't mean to do so.

The casino didn't follow the bonus policy of the Cryptos or most other reputable casinos.

Since when is any casino required to follow the policy of the Cryptos? And since when do most other "reputable casinos" share the same terms and conditions?

There is no hypothetical situation that needs to be considered here. We are dealing with a real situation, with real issues, and we have already shown, AND the player has agreed COMPLETELY, that she was at fault.

End of story!

 

[Vesuvio]

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the rules. You can't go place a sum of money like that elsewhere and then, after you lose, claim you didn't mean to do so.

She never claimed that, did she?

Since when is any casino required to follow the policy of the Cryptos? And since when do most other "reputable casinos" share the same terms and conditions?

Did I say casinos had to follow the Crypto policy? Look at Mitch's post - it's responding to Linus mentioning the Cryptos but misses the point. That's all. Reputable casinos don't have to share the same terms, but there are reputable and disreputable terms.

There is no hypothetical situation that needs to be considered here. We are dealing with a real situation, with real issues, and we have already shown, AND the player has agreed COMPLETELY, that she was at fault.

End of story!

But the casino's assessing whether the player deserves any winnings on the basis of a hypothetical situation... Anyway, that's by the by. Yes, the player fell foul of the terms here and can only rely on good will from the casino. It's not the end of the story, though. The real story is the general existence of confiscation terms - which certainly isn't going to go away unless all of the MG casinos move over to something like the EZbonus or get rid of the terms.

 

[spearmaster]

She never claimed that, did she?

What did you expect her to say? "Oops! I only meant to bet 40, not 400?"

She made her bet and she lost. As far as the casino is concerned she lost her deposit and her bonus - but they STILL gave it back to her to start again!

As I was saying - try that somewhere else and see how far you get.

Did I say casinos had to follow the Crypto policy? Look at Mitch's post - it's responding to Linus mentioning the Cryptos but misses the point. That's all. Reputable casinos don't have to share the same terms, but there are reputable and disreputable terms.

He didn't miss the point at all.

but play at restricted games simply doesn't count.

If it doesn't count, how can the winnings be valid? As far as I am concerned that's exactly the same thing.

If you believe that I am wrong, why not do exactly what the player did, only at a Crypto - and see what happens (especially at William Hill)... I am willing to bet your stake that it works out exactly the same.

Note the following term in Intercasino's Monthly Match Bonus:

The Casino, WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited reserve the right to review transaction records and logs, from time to time, for any reason whatsoever. If, upon such review, it appears that end users or any one or combination of them are participating in strategies which the Casino, WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited in their sole discretion deem to be abusive, the Casino, WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited reserve the right to revoke the entitlement of such end user(s) to the promotion.

Tell me what that says in plain English... my reading of this says LOUD and CLEAR that you will not get your winnings if they, in their SOLE DISCRETION, deem your play to be abusive.

In case you don't agree, in my books "revoke the entitlement" means you get nada. It doesn't explicitly say "confiscation" but it sure as hell shouts something VERY similar to me.

But the casino's assessing whether the player deserves any winnings on the basis of a hypothetical situation... Anyway, that's by the by.

Is it me or did it escape you that the casino did not have to give the player a chance? They could simply have declared everything void because the terms and conditions explicitly stated that any play on excluded games would be null and void.

Yes, the player fell foul of the terms here and can only rely on good will from the casino. It's not the end of the story, though. The real story is the general existence of confiscation terms - which certainly isn't going to go away unless all of the MG casinos move over to something like the EZbonus or get rid of the terms.

If players would read the rules, there would be no need for confiscation terms.

 

[Vesuvio]

If you believe that I am wrong, why not do exactly what the player did, only at a Crypto - and see what happens (especially at William Hill)... I am willing to bet your stake that it works out exactly the same.

Sorry, Spear, you're completely wrong. There's absolutely no problem playing any games you like. They just don't count. Of course you'd be mad to play other games as you're better off playing the ones allowed as they count to the wr. Just as the player here wouldn't choose to play deuces wild if she knew it wasn't allowed. There are better options.

In case you don't agree, in my books "revoke the entitlement" means you get nada. It doesn't explicitly say "confiscation" but it sure as hell shouts something VERY similar to me.

As you know almost all casinos have that type of get-out clause. Those that invoke it are rogue. Intercasino don't use it to void winnings - besides which playing on other games isn't "abuse", it's just normal casino play. After all we're supposed to buy the line that bonuses are there for players to try out the games The issue here is different. King Neptune's have a clear term which they enforce which confiscates funds. If you think it's fine, that's your opinion, but don't try and confuse the issue.

If players would read the rules, there would be no need for confiscation terms.

There is no need for confiscation terms. Playing on games with a house edge which don't count towards the wr isn't doing the player any favour.

I don't disagree that players should read the terms (though it's asking a bit much of your average player to plough through it all), but back in the real world a good proportion of players aren't going to and confiscation terms are going to catch them out.

 

[Linus]

LOL.

The terms and conditions which the player read were expired, period. The point, however, is that a merchant cannot be expected to make an exception when it is clear that the customer did not meet the conditions under which he/she made a purchase. Making that exception, on the other hand, opens the merchant to possible abuse on the pretext that "well, you made an exception for so and so, why can't you make an exception for me? Besides which only 15 hours had passed, not 22...?

I don't understand the argument that paying piecar would somehow subject the casino to abuse.

Where are all these players, looking for a chance to play a newly-excluded game, so that if they win (if they win), their winning might not be confiscated?

Players are looking for a guarantee that they'll be paid if they win - not a chance they might be granted an exception.

If, on the other hand, the customer had already made the purchase but the merchant was unable to validate the offer right away, it can then be assumed that the merchant would honor the offer.

Keep in mind the purchase and play was some 20+ hours after the terms and conditions (or offer) had expired. The player did not register the account, make a purchase, and start playing before the terms expired.



This is unfair. King Neptunes has rarely, if ever, had to exercise its right to declare winnings null and void - you make it seem as if this is the norm, when in reality it is far from common practice.


Believe it or not, that's what Micki did - she went to the trouble of validating the play and basically left some room for an exception to be made even though she was WELL within her rights to simply void all play and winnings. Despite that, the player then lost the entire deposit and bonus on her first legitimate play - end of story.

If confiscating a player's winnings at King Neptune is discretionary - which is what their terms and conditions say - and what you seem to be implying here - why do you keep insisting that confiscating winnings in piecar's case is mandatory?

 

[Linus]

No.

She went from the start looking for where the player started playing allowed games. She then tried to determine if the player would have met the new terms and conditions by playing allowed games - but unfortunately the player lost the entire starting amount on her very first play of an allowed game.

She lost 400 pounds. Her account had upwards of 8000 at that point.

There are lots of ways of accounting for commingled funds (assuming that's even an issue.). King Neptune's method happened to be the way that was most beneficial to them.


Edit - sorry, I realize I've fallen behind. I'll try not to post again until I get caught up.

 

[spearmaster]

Sorry, Spear, you're completely wrong. There's absolutely no problem playing any games you like. They just don't count. Of course you'd be mad to play other games as you're better off playing the ones allowed as they count to the wr. Just as the player here wouldn't choose to play deuces wild if she knew it wasn't allowed. There are better options.

You're welcome to take up my offer at William Hill as well as Intercasino. I double dog-dare you.

As you know almost all casinos have that type of get-out clause. Those that invoke it are rogue. Intercasino don't use it to void winnings - besides which playing on other games isn't "abuse", it's just normal casino play. After all we're supposed to buy the line that bonuses are there for players to try out the games The issue here is different. King Neptune's have a clear term which they enforce which confiscates funds. If you think it's fine, that's your opinion, but don't try and confuse the issue.

There's no confusing the issue. The Crypto terms are even more vague than the terms you are challenging, which specifically state that play on excluded games are void.

I don't see the point of arguing this any more - I cannot in any way see how you can hold up Crypto terms and tell me that they are BETTER and "more reputable" - that is absolute crap.

There is no need for confiscation terms. Playing on games with a house edge which don't count towards the wr isn't doing the player any favour.

Irrelevant. You either accept the terms or you don't - it has nothing to do with whether there is an edge or not. Restaurants have dress codes - the fact that I prefer to wear a sweat suit does not have any bearing on my ability to pay. But still, those are their rules - take it or leave it.

I don't disagree that players should read the terms (though it's asking a bit much of your average player to plough through it all), but back in the real world a good proportion of players aren't going to and confiscation terms are going to catch them out.

*sigh*

Oh well, in the real world you don't get bonuses to gamble with either. And if you do get match play coupons, they are good for ONE type of game. Not many games.

I don't understand the argument that paying piecar would somehow subject the casino to abuse.

She broke the rules - yet she expects to get paid? If she gets paid, others will go do the exact same thing and demand to get paid as well.

Why are we arguing such a simple fact? She broke the rules. Makes no difference if they went looking for a game or not - this argument is totally irrelevant. RTFM.

Players are looking for a guarantee that they'll be paid if they win - not a chance they might be granted an exception.

They can have a guarantee. Don't accept the bonus. Simple as that.

If confiscating a player's winnings at King Neptune is discretionary - which is what their terms and conditions say - and what you seem to be implying here - why do you keep insisting that confiscating winnings in piecar's case is mandatory?

Where did I say it was mandatory? Where did I even *imply* that it was mandatory?

I said she broke the rules - and King Neptune's invoked their rights. Discretion, you will notice, belongs to the casino - not the player. The player's only discretion is which ALLOWABLE games to play.