KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[spearmaster]

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.

How many times must I explain this simple matter?

Bet $100. Win $100. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400
Bet $150. Win $150. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400

...

Play on excluded games is VOIDED. It does not count. No matter how you word it, she is NOT entitled to anything for these plays regardless of what amount is shown in her account. Any winnings derived can be considered to have been obtained by deception, if you ask me - and thus subject to a lot more serious problems than just being voided. But casinos simply void plays because they have the luxury of being able to track the play - and it is entirely within their rights.

 

[Vesuvio]

Spear, there's clearly no point trying to reason this with you. Every single one of your responses cries out for a rebuttal, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

p.s. if I take up your offer at William Hill I can guarantee you we're going to be very old men before I win 8000 at deuces wild (or roulette or whatever the other non-wr games are)

 

[spearmaster]

Spear, there's clearly no point trying to reason this with you. Every single one of your responses cries out for a rebuttal, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

LMAO.

You can rebut all you like - but it still boils down to whether the casino exceeded their rights or not - and they didn't even come close.

p.s. if I take up your offer at William Hill I can guarantee you we're going to be very old men before I win 8000 at deuces wild (or roulette or whatever the other non-wr games are)

Worth a try... LOL... if you win and get paid, your deposit is doubled as a bonus from me!

 

[Vesuvio]

You can rebut all you like - but it still boils down to whether the casino exceeded their rights or not - and they didn't even come close.

Last, last word This is the whole problem - you're not actually responding to what I'm saying. No-one disputes the casino's within their rights not to pay this player.

 

[soflat]

When it says winnings from excluded games will be removed from the balance or withdrawal, that doesn't mean they have to take non-excluded game winnings. They didn't have to treat it as if they had voided excluded games winnings either (they did void them, but after the fact).

Those are very clever T&Cs and an outstanding job of using them to their fullest to avoid paying winnings on non-excluded games.

I would have just subtracted off the excluded games winnings (like the T&Cs allow for). I would never make it as a casino operator.

 

[spearmaster]

When it says winnings from excluded games will be removed from the balance or withdrawal, that doesn't mean they have to take non-excluded game winnings. They didn't have to treat it as if they had voided excluded games winnings either (they did void them, but after the fact).

Those are very clever T&Cs and an outstanding job of using them to their fullest to avoid paying winnings on non-excluded games.

I would have just subtracted off the excluded games winnings (like the T&Cs allow for). I would never make it as a casino operator.

Ok.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that ALL of the winnings were derived from excluded games, and that playing the allowed games actually resulted in a loss.

Would you then agree that they were within their rights?

There is NO mention at all that there were ANY winnings from allowed games. What I'm trying to say is that I fear you're chasing a point which is moot.

 

[soflat]

Ok.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that ALL of the winnings were derived from excluded games, and that playing the allowed games actually resulted in a loss.

Would you then agree that they were within their rights?

Absolutely!

I believe Mikki said the player built her balance up to $5-6k initially from Deuces Wild (excluded).

The player claimed there were net winnings from non-excluded games.

Casino rep also stated they were within their rights to confiscate deposit and bonus after the $400 wager.

If there were $1500 or $2000 in net winnings from non-excluded games, they should have paid that and the player probably would have been happy.

 

[GrandMaster]

King Neptunes should provide a detailed calculation to explain how they arrived at this result.

 

[spearmaster]

Absolutely!

I believe Mikki said the player built her balance up to $5-6k initially from Deuces Wild (excluded).

The player claimed there were net winnings from non-excluded games.

Casino rep also stated they were within their rights to confiscate deposit and bonus after the $400 wager.

If there were $1500 or $2000 in net winnings from non-excluded games, they should have paid that and the player probably would have been happy.

OK. Let's try another scenario, since you've accepted this one.

Let us assume that all excluded play took place before allowed play. Would you agree that the player was only entitled to her initial deposit and bonus amount when starting to play allowed games? And if she lost her deposit and bonus during this time, would she be allowed to create winnings from those funds she was not entitled to?

 

[spearmaster]

King Neptunes should provide a detailed calculation to explain how they arrived at this result.

What result are you looking for? That there were no legitimately earned winnings? This is speculation, of course... but if it were true obviously the casino could provide an answer - though I can't see how they could divulge the individual play of a player without the player's permission...

 

[derelict]

Let us assume that all excluded play took place before allowed play. Would you agree that the player was only entitled to her initial deposit and bonus amount when starting to play allowed games?

This wasn't directed to me, but under the clause in the T&Cs, yes. However I also believe that this clause is evil and has no place in a reputable casino.

As has been said before, the house is not put at any additional risk by allowing play at a game that is normally allowed without the use of bonuses (and simply not counting it toward the wagering requirements). The only purpose it serves is as a "gotcha" clause to confiscate winnings from unsuspecting players. While acceptable under the terms, this is a rogue term and I'm shocked to see it being defended.

I know I'm late to the party and am probably beating a dead horse, but to hear some of you talk about it, you'd think the casino was doing her a damned favor by siezing the funds. For the one player who turned 200 into 8000, there are plenty others turning 200 into zero, and I assure you they aren't in a hurry to void those results.

 

[Macgyver]

King Neptunes should provide a detailed calculation to explain how they arrived at this result.

C'mon, here we go 'round the mulberry bush once again ...

Micki did give a detailed calculation in her post:

Our decision was based on:
Player deposited 200 and received 200 bonus;
Player proceded to play on an excluded game and built her balance to a approximately 6700.
Player then played 3 Card poker, she lost 400 on her first bet.

We looked at her further play (4 restricted games, 4 allowable games) ignoring the initial restricted game play, but concerntrating on her play on the allowable 3 Card Poker that played immediately after the Deuces Wild play. When she lost what would have been her total starting balance if she had not played on the restricted game, from her 2nd bet onwards she was playing with funds gained from play on an excluded game.

We would have been perfectly within our rights to not allow her to start again, but we decided to return her inital deposit and bonus permitting her to start again.

Nowhere does that state that the player played another allowed game (3 Card poker or otherwise) between the time she deposited/received the bonus and the time she lost the £400 on 3 Card poker.

The FACT is that the player did indeed bet £400 and lost an amount constituting her deposit and bonus; the HYPOTHETICAL is whether the player would have bet that £400 without having an additional £6300 from play on excluded games.

Everyone can speculate on what the player would or wouldn't have done; but all the casino can go by is what the player actually did.

Unless piecar states that there was indeed play on ANY allowed games before her £400 bet on 3 Card poker, people are basically calling Micki a liar.

 

[mitch]

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.
.

Vesuvio

As you well know that statement is only true when you are not playing with a bonus, when you are playing with a bonus the player can generate a huge advantage on certain games.

Eg. Betting the whole £200 + £200 on a single number on roulette has a very large average positive expectation, even when winnings are subsequently played out on allowed games. (Abusive players often used to work in teams to reduce the admittedly high variance)

People have often argued that casinos should pay up even if they detect such behaviour and if they don't like it should change their T&Cs to prevent this type of play with bonuses.

Well this casino has T&Cs which prevent this type of play yet you are still arguing they should pay, why? If she had made this actual play on roulette would you be arguing the casino should pay? If you don't think they should pay, why should they pay on her play on the other excluded games? They breach the casinos T&Cs to the same extent, no more and no less.

Your statements, about the varying merits of casinos T&Cs, is a completely different arguement. Players sign up or they don't dependent on what they are prepared to accept. In my case I wouldn't sign up at KN and I would sign up at Inter.

My personal preferences however, do not change the fact that the casino is completely in the right in this matter, and members should be pleased they showed some generosity in this case.

Mitch

 

[Vesuvio]

As you well know that statement is only true when you are not playing with a bonus, when you are playing with a bonus the player can generate a huge advantage on certain games.

Except that if you don't mind the variance you can always use the same approach on allowed games (essentially just upping the stakes). Adding a confiscation term makes very little difference to the advantage a bonus hunter can extract but allows the casino to make a steady income from the mistakes of casual players.

 

[derelict]

As you well know that statement is only true when you are not playing with a bonus, when you are playing with a bonus the player can generate a huge advantage on certain games.

Eg. Betting the whole £200 + £200 on a single number on roulette has a very large average positive expectation, even when winnings are subsequently played out on allowed games. (Abusive players often used to work in teams to reduce the admittedly high variance)

There are some finer details, but if the bet does not count toward the wagering requirement, there would be no significant advantage in placing such a bet. In the case of a sticky bonus, which I'm pretty sure this isn't, there would be some advantage in being able to play games with higher limits, but other than that, this is just a kick in the nuts to players who don't read the fine print.

 

[mitch]

There are some finer details, but if the bet does not count toward the wagering requirement, there would be no significant advantage in placing such a bet

Derelict

I can see you are not a hardcore advantage player or you would not have said that.

As an exercise think about making 37 such bets on roulette and the probabilities surrounding this. When you have done this don't run off and create a betting syndicate, you just make it hard for other more sensible players. ( Vesuvio can no doubt give you the answer of the top of his advantage player head )

On a related note have members spotted that whilst roulette is a restricted game at Intercasino it is an allowed game at Intercasino UK. ( now don't start getting ideas gents!)

Mitch

 

[derelict]

I can see you are not a hardcore advantage player or you would not have said that.

As an exercise think about making 37 such bets on roulette and the probabilities surrounding this. When you have done this don't run off and create a betting syndicate, you just make it hard for other more sensible players. ( Vesuvio can no doubt give you the answer of the top of his advantage player head )

Without question I'm not as deep in the profession as some here, but I really don't know what you're getting at. Maybe you could explain how a risky bet in roulette would be more advantageous than a risky bet in another game?

 

[rreevy]

As I read it, the terms used at Intercasino give them the right to revoke entitlement to the promotion, ie. confiscate the BONUS. They don't seem to give them any right to confiscate the winnings. Even so, I doubt Intercasino would revoke a bonus already given - they just wouldn't give you and bonuses in future.

I'm pretty sure that if I took my deposit and bonus and built up a substantial win on an excluded game, Intercasino would pay, provided I met the WR on games that count before cashing out. I would try to prove it if I thought I'd ever get that lucky.

BTW:

"Eg. Betting the whole £200 + £200 on a single number on roulette has a very large average positive expectation, even when winnings are subsequently played out on allowed games."

Assuming we are playing European (single zero) roulette, betting £400 on a single number. Our number will come up, on average, once every 37 times we do this.

1 time we WIN £14,000
36 times we LOSE £400 (total £14,400)

Overall we have lost £400. We have bet £14,800 (37 x £400). The amount we have lost is 2.703% of the amount bet. So we have a negative expectation of about 2.7%, or 1/37, which just happens to be the house edge at European roulette.

There is NO way that betting on excluded games can turn an unprofitable bonus (from a bonus hunter's point of view) into a profitable one, at least not for a cashable bonus. It MAY be true for a sticky, though I doubt it makes any difference in the long run.

 

[soflat]

BTW:

Assuming we are playing European (single zero) roulette, betting 400 on a single number. Our number will come up, on average, once every 37 times we do this.

1 time we WIN 14,000
36 times we LOSE 400 (total 14,400)

Overall we have lost 400. We have bet 14,800 (37 x 400). The amount we have lost is 2.703% of the amount bet. So we have a negative expectation of about 2.7%, or 1/37, which just happens to be the house edge at European roulette.

There is NO way that betting on excluded games can turn an unprofitable bonus (from a bonus hunter's point of view) into a profitable one, at least not for a cashable bonus. It MAY be true for a sticky, though I doubt it makes any difference in the long run.

Don't you only lose 7200 since half of your bets are bonus funds?

 

[Linus]

Spear - I'm happy to take you up on your offer.

Next month, after I get my Intercasino bonus, I'll play any one of their excluded games - or all three of them, if you like.

While I can't promise to win 1000's of pounds (or any money at all, for that matter), I can promise to stop playing as soon as I have a win, and to immediately switch to one of their other (included) games to finish out my bonus.

My wager is that Intercasino will not confiscate any of my winnings.

I'm so confident, I won't even ask you to lay odds, despite the fact there's a (small) chance Intercasino will stop offering me their monthly bonus, for having done this.

How much do you want to bet?

 

[chuchu59]

It really doesnt matter why casinos choose excluded games differently and the fact they should be able to gain from house edge on these games may only be one of their many considerations. They may just as well exclude everything except scratch cards but they are perfectly entitled to do this as they are the ones to pay out when players win. If they feel that it would be in their own interests to exclude certain games then that's their decision and we should respect that. We can persuade them to think otherwise but until they do we cannot just do our maths and say Hey! You are not disadvantaged by the play on these games so cough up. If the games were excluded, then non payment on these games is certainly correct.

I dont understand why, after all this furore, it still insists in it having discretion in the confiscation of winnings on excluded games unless this is set as a booby trap for new players. The correct solution is voiding all play on excluded games until you meet your WRs unless casino was to take advantage of those who lost on the excluded games during their sessions. By voiding all play the casino stands neither to gain or lose when players, whether intentionally or not play such games. In fact, this would be similar to playing in fun mode.

 

[Linus]

How many times must I explain this simple matter?

Bet $100. Win $100. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400
Bet $150. Win $150. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400

...

Play on excluded games is VOIDED.

That's the thing, Speer. The winnings weren't voided, automatically or otherwise, until piecar tried to cash out, which was after she won playing non-excluded games.

Here's what the terms and conditions say:

These winnings may be deemed null & void and will be removed/confiscated from your account balance or withdrawals at the sole discretion of Trident Entertainment Group.

There's nothing "automatic" about confiscating winnings. On the contrary, the terms and conditions specifically say winnings "may be" voided - not that they're automatically voided.

You can argue til the cows come home that King Neptune could have automatically confiscated piecar's winnings - but that's hypothetical.

The fact is, they didn't.

 

[Linus]

I dont understand why, after all this furore, it still insists in it having discretion in the confiscation of winnings on excluded games unless this is set as a booby trap for new players.

By waiting until a player tries to cash-out, the casino gets to see whether the player wins or loses, before deciding whether to void her play. If the player wins, the casino confiscates her winnings. If player loses, the casino adds her losses to its profits. That way, the casino avoids risking any its own money.

Put yourself in the casino's shoes - well, you get the picture, don't you?

 

[spearmaster]

That's the thing, Speer. The winnings weren't voided, automatically or otherwise, until piecar tried to cash out, which was after she won playing non-excluded games.

I'll keep this one short. The play is considered void. You don't have to wait to consider it void because it was not an allowed play in the first place.

Your definition of time and mine in this case do not agree - but I think it is quite clear that play on the games is void - and thus you cannot derive any funds from a disallowed game.

 

[spearmaster]

Spear - I'm happy to take you up on your offer.

Next month, after I get my Intercasino bonus, I'll play any one of their excluded games - or all three of them, if you like.

While I can't promise to win 1000's of pounds (or any money at all, for that matter), I can promise to stop playing as soon as I have a win, and to immediately switch to one of their other (included) games to finish out my bonus.

My wager is that Intercasino will not confiscate any of my winnings.

I'm so confident, I won't even ask you to lay odds, despite the fact there's a (small) chance Intercasino will stop offering me their monthly bonus, for having done this.

How much do you want to bet?

If you want to take this up, there is one ground rule - your win better be more than a buck or two because they certainly won't bother to argue over that. And surely King Neptune's would not spend the time arguing over a buck either.

You need to win $500 or more.

And the bet was whatever your stake was - so if your match bonus is $90, then the bet is $90.

As I read it, the terms used at Intercasino give them the right to revoke entitlement to the promotion, ie. confiscate the BONUS. They don't seem to give them any right to confiscate the winnings. Even so, I doubt Intercasino would revoke a bonus already given - they just wouldn't give you and bonuses in future.

How can you possibly say that? Your entitlement is revoked. Your winnings are an entitlement just as much as any future bonus offering. Are you 100% sure of this? If you are, do what piecar did - play and hope that they don't read the riot act to you.