Baptism by Fire Metroplay - old

[BMWSTACK]

If MetroPlay do not honour my winnings and refund my full money due I will complain to Alderney Gambling Commission, but how inpartial are they going to be?? They have issued MetroPlay with a gambling licence but have been paid a fee of a minimum of £35000 per year to do so(the fees are listed on their site) so how can they arbitrate in a fair manner when they have a large financial interest in MetroPlay-are they really going to take their licence off them or go against them and lose a large licence fee?? Who is over Alderney Gambling Commission-they in turn must be answerable to somebody higher up??

Now your reading into it way too far. Do you really think just because they pay 35000 a year they have a right to do whatever they want? The Gambling commission isn't that desperate foe the money, and actually will make more money if the access fines for problems.

 

[luke.metroplay]

Good afternoon,

Now that the dust has settled, I felt it is important to share the facts with you all in regards to our Free Spins Promotion that ran last week and why we have closed a number of accounts and how we are resolving the matter:

We permanently closed a number of customers accounts, exercising our right under clause 15.2 of our T&C’s.

The reason for the closure of these customers accounts is due to breaches that relate to Clause 13 of our General Bonus T&C’s.

Specifically, we have determined that these customers have adopted a ‘low risk or risk free betting strategy’. Our T&C’s provide customers with useful and practical examples of what we constitute acceptable or unacceptable behaviour.

I am now in a position to specifically state the key breaches these customers have committed;

• ‘operating multiple and/or linked accounts,’
- Significant proportions of customers were operating multiple accounts themselves. As you will know spreading risk across multiple accounts can significantly reduce the risk taken by an individual.
- Furthermore, our promotions are always limited to one per person (unless otherwise specified).
- Whether or not an individual operated multiple accounts themselves, each effected customer is linked and colluded in an attempt to unfairly take advantage of this promotion. We have extensive evidence that shows these customers are part of an organised group, with substantial levels of communication between these individuals, all focused upon taking an unfair advantage of operators promotions and employ risk reduction strategies, this time targeting Metro Play.
• ‘Bonuses offered by Metro Play are intended for genuine recreational players only.’
- All individuals effected are either directly members of or are related to a bonus abuse forum.
- The published strategy of this forum is profiteering from Gambling websites by using strategies such as, but not limited to:
• Running multiple and or linked accounts
• Seeking loopholes in operators promotions or terms and conditions
- All of the above are in direct opposition to recreational play and not in the spirit of why we offer genuine customers promotional offers.
- Furthermore, any individual who has operated multiple accounts is in breach of clause 6.5 of our T&C’s, which states ‘You may not have multiple accounts. Only one account is permitted per customer.’

Now that we are clear on the facts, here is how we are fairly resolving this issue:

• Firstly, we have honoured this promotion with all genuine customers, which for the record is the vast majority of individuals who opted in.
• The only customers effected by these actions are individuals who have broken the rules.
• We have communicated to all customers who we have identified as breaching our T&C’s that we will AS A GESTURE OF GOODWILL AND WITH NO ADMISSION THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED CUSTOMERS ARE NOT IN BREACH OF OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS refund deposits for this promotion (£75). As a result no customer will be out of pocket in any way.
• As a further gesture of goodwill, any customer who won money as part of their game play, will receive those winnings.
• We will not be honouring the free spins promotion to these customers due to the nature of their intentions and the fact that a number of our T&C’s as stated above have been breached.
• All these individuals account will remain closed permanently and they are not welcome to operate directly or indirectly an account with Metro Play.

To summarise, rules have clearly been broken by a number of customers in relation to this specific promotion.

We have honoured this promotion with the vast majority of genuine customers. Due to the breaches of our T&C’s that are clearly set out above and on-site we have had to close a number of accounts.

As a gesture of goodwill and with no admission that the aforementioned customer are not in breach of our T&C’s, not only are we refunding all deposits for this promotion (£75) any customer who won money as part of their game play will receive their winnings.

Due to the serious nature of this incident, it may take up to 30 days for customers to receive their refund and winnings, however we do not envisage it taking this long.

If you have any questions do not hesitate to DM me.

Thanks

Luke

 

[dizze]

Good afternoon,

Now that the dust has settled, I felt it is important to share the facts with you all in regards to our Free Spins Promotion that ran last week and why we have closed a number of accounts and how we are resolving the matter:

We permanently closed a number of customers accounts, exercising our right under clause 15.2 of our T&C’s.

The reason for the closure of these customers accounts is due to breaches that relate to Clause 13 of our General Bonus T&C’s.

Specifically, we have determined that these customers have adopted a ‘low risk or risk free betting strategy’. Our T&C’s provide customers with useful and practical examples of what we constitute acceptable or unacceptable behaviour.

I am now in a position to specifically state the key breaches these customers have committed;

• ‘operating multiple and/or linked accounts,’
- Significant proportions of customers were operating multiple accounts themselves. As you will know spreading risk across multiple accounts can significantly reduce the risk taken by an individual.
- Furthermore, our promotions are always limited to one per person (unless otherwise specified).
- Whether or not an individual operated multiple accounts themselves, each effected customer is linked and colluded in an attempt to unfairly take advantage of this promotion. We have extensive evidence that shows these customers are part of an organised group, with substantial levels of communication between these individuals, all focused upon taking an unfair advantage of operators promotions and employ risk reduction strategies, this time targeting Metro Play.
• ‘Bonuses offered by Metro Play are intended for genuine recreational players only.’
- All individuals effected are either directly members of or are related to a bonus abuse forum.
- The published strategy of this forum is profiteering from Gambling websites by using strategies such as, but not limited to:
• Running multiple and or linked accounts
• Seeking loopholes in operators promotions or terms and conditions
- All of the above are in direct opposition to recreational play and not in the spirit of why we offer genuine customers promotional offers.
- Furthermore, any individual who has operated multiple accounts is in breach of clause 6.5 of our T&C’s, which states ‘You may not have multiple accounts. Only one account is permitted per customer.’

Now that we are clear on the facts, here is how we are fairly resolving this issue:

• Firstly, we have honoured this promotion with all genuine customers, which for the record is the vast majority of individuals who opted in.
• The only customers effected by these actions are individuals who have broken the rules.
• We have communicated to all customers who we have identified as breaching our T&C’s that we will AS A GESTURE OF GOODWILL AND WITH NO ADMISSION THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED CUSTOMERS ARE NOT IN BREACH OF OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS refund deposits for this promotion (£75). As a result no customer will be out of pocket in any way.
• As a further gesture of goodwill, any customer who won money as part of their game play, will receive those winnings.
• We will not be honouring the free spins promotion to these customers due to the nature of their intentions and the fact that a number of our T&C’s as stated above have been breached.
• All these individuals account will remain closed permanently and they are not welcome to operate directly or indirectly an account with Metro Play.

To summarise, rules have clearly been broken by a number of customers in relation to this specific promotion.

We have honoured this promotion with the vast majority of genuine customers. Due to the breaches of our T&C’s that are clearly set out above and on-site we have had to close a number of accounts.

As a gesture of goodwill and with no admission that the aforementioned customer are not in breach of our T&C’s, not only are we refunding all deposits for this promotion (£75) any customer who won money as part of their game play will receive their winnings.

Due to the serious nature of this incident, it may take up to 30 days for customers to receive their refund and winnings, however we do not envisage it taking this long.

If you have any questions do not hesitate to DM me.

Thanks

Luke

At no point did you mention why jack hammer 2 wasnt allowed for free spins, please can you explain

As a good will gesture, you should refund ALL your genuine customers who lost their deposits, i would rather have my £120 back then measly £25 worth of free spins

I hope you fired your idiot in charge of promotions, this fiasco could have been avoided by simply putting. a wagering requirement of x20 on the free spins win.

" seeking loopholes in operators terms and conditions" this is not a valid term and condition, as you could extend it to mean anything. Please remove it if you want any chance of being accreditied

Your casino is run by clowns, heck i could even do better then your well paid managers.

 

[Captain Chaos]

For having multiple accounts is understandable. It's a hard and fast rule. Everyone knows you can only have one account. However I'm not sure I follow on the loopholes. If all someone has done is take advantage of an offer because they found a flaw in your terms then that's not the players fault. That's the casinos fault. If it's only that then they should be paid. Please don't do a betfair. Betfair was rogued for failing to payout players when they messed up a promotion. If you have messed up something it really is best to put your hands up and take the hit IMO.

 

[urbanmyth]

Good afternoon,

Now that the dust has settled, I felt it is important to share the facts with you all in regards to our Free Spins Promotion that ran last week and why we have closed a number of accounts and how we are resolving the matter:

We permanently closed a number of customers accounts, exercising our right under clause 15.2 of our T&C’s.

The reason for the closure of these customers accounts is due to breaches that relate to Clause 13 of our General Bonus T&C’s.

Specifically, we have determined that these customers have adopted a ‘low risk or risk free betting strategy’. Our T&C’s provide customers with useful and practical examples of what we constitute acceptable or unacceptable behaviour.

I am now in a position to specifically state the key breaches these customers have committed;

• ‘operating multiple and/or linked accounts,’
- Significant proportions of customers were operating multiple accounts themselves. As you will know spreading risk across multiple accounts can significantly reduce the risk taken by an individual.
- Furthermore, our promotions are always limited to one per person (unless otherwise specified).
- Whether or not an individual operated multiple accounts themselves, each effected customer is linked and colluded in an attempt to unfairly take advantage of this promotion. We have extensive evidence that shows these customers are part of an organised group, with substantial levels of communication between these individuals, all focused upon taking an unfair advantage of operators promotions and employ risk reduction strategies, this time targeting Metro Play.
• ‘Bonuses offered by Metro Play are intended for genuine recreational players only.’
- All individuals effected are either directly members of or are related to a bonus abuse forum.
- The published strategy of this forum is profiteering from Gambling websites by using strategies such as, but not limited to:
• Running multiple and or linked accounts
• Seeking loopholes in operators promotions or terms and conditions
- All of the above are in direct opposition to recreational play and not in the spirit of why we offer genuine customers promotional offers.
- Furthermore, any individual who has operated multiple accounts is in breach of clause 6.5 of our T&C’s, which states ‘You may not have multiple accounts. Only one account is permitted per customer.’

Now that we are clear on the facts, here is how we are fairly resolving this issue:

• Firstly, we have honoured this promotion with all genuine customers, which for the record is the vast majority of individuals who opted in.
• The only customers effected by these actions are individuals who have broken the rules.
• We have communicated to all customers who we have identified as breaching our T&C’s that we will AS A GESTURE OF GOODWILL AND WITH NO ADMISSION THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED CUSTOMERS ARE NOT IN BREACH OF OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS refund deposits for this promotion (£75). As a result no customer will be out of pocket in any way.
• As a further gesture of goodwill, any customer who won money as part of their game play, will receive those winnings.
• We will not be honouring the free spins promotion to these customers due to the nature of their intentions and the fact that a number of our T&C’s as stated above have been breached.
• All these individuals account will remain closed permanently and they are not welcome to operate directly or indirectly an account with Metro Play.

To summarise, rules have clearly been broken by a number of customers in relation to this specific promotion.

We have honoured this promotion with the vast majority of genuine customers. Due to the breaches of our T&C’s that are clearly set out above and on-site we have had to close a number of accounts.

As a gesture of goodwill and with no admission that the aforementioned customer are not in breach of our T&C’s, not only are we refunding all deposits for this promotion (£75) any customer who won money as part of their game play will receive their winnings.

Due to the serious nature of this incident, it may take up to 30 days for customers to receive their refund and winnings, however we do not envisage it taking this long.

If you have any questions do not hesitate to DM me.

Thanks

Luke

How can signing up, depositing £75 and then playing jack hammer 1 and jack hammer 2 be breaching any rules? That is all I have done with your company. Not one of those breaches am I guilty of. Furthermore, the email I received made no mention of receiving my winnings, only that I will get my £75 back.

 

[PNEFOREVER2]

I feel a whole lot of PAB's coming on. Wouldn't want to be Max over the next few days.

 

[dizze]

Please can everybody leave reviews of metroplay at askgamblers.com as it is 2nd in google when searching for "metroplay casino review"(obviously leave an impartial review, no need for bullshitting)

That will make their assholes tighten abit further, me thinks

here is the email I received

 

[Casinomeister]

Admin Warning

I would suggest that aggrieved forum members follow our rules for posting complaints and submit a PAB.

At the moment, you are exploiting this forum, badgering the casino rep trying to force his hand, and turning this thread into a circus.

If anyone has a legit complaint, please submit it here:
Link Outdated / Removed

Any further violations of our posting rules (specifically flaming and harassment) will be dealt with properly.

 

[dizze]

Hello, casinomeister

My intentions are not to harass or badger the casino, i would just like a response , and i understand that luke needs time. I will comment no further until luke has enough time to post a reply.

I apologise if i overstepped the mark, thanks

 

[BMWSTACK]

Please can everybody leave reviews of metroplay at askgamblers.com as it is 2nd in google when searching for "metroplay casino review"(obviously leave an impartial review, no need for bullshitting)

That will make their assholes tighten abit further, me thinks

WTF, You cant even be serious saying something like that! First why would you even mention harrassment of the type, but then secondly and most obvioulsy why would you mention another forum in that manner in this forum. Kind of disrespectful to CM IMO.

Also if you happen to go look at the "Top US Casinos" on the site you mentioned, there are a few of them that are rogues, so how much credibility they have, I just dont know.

 

[maxd]

FWIW things haven't been looking so good in terms of MetroPlay doing what they need to do regarding player issues. I've had a PAB on the go since early March and it's still unresolved. To be fair there's been a good bit of back and forth on the issue but the bottom line is that I need some specific details from them, notified them of this well over a month ago, and to date I'm getting promises from the rep but dead air otherwise. Not good. :/

 

[maxd]

I gotta say that I am sorely disappointed in these guys and their handling of player issues. As I mentioned I've had one issue on the table for months now and there hasn't been much progress. They say (in effect) "he broke the recreational player rules" but have offered no specific evidence to identify exactly what the infraction(s) where.

I've been asking for over a month for those details. At first they said "obviously we can't disclose certain details for Data Protection reasons" which apparently meant "no details will be given": I've asked several times and nothing has been forthcoming.

Most recently I get a reply back from the rep that simply repeats that statement given over a month ago regarding "Data Protection reasons".

In other words nothing is happening and it doesn't look hopeful that anything will happen. I'm not blaming the rep because I'm sure he's a busy guy and is dependant on the casino peeps to give him actual case data. That said, thumbs-down so far regarding their cooperation on player issues.

 

[maphesto]

When reading maxd's posts I wonder why they still are in BBF. Can Bryan remove them from this or at least pause this BBF-period until they can get their act together?

Still, members from here can read the first post in this thread and follow Casinomeister's link and sign up. If Bryan is on the road atm maybe maxd can put a warning sign in the first post of this thread. Just a suggestion.

 

[maxd]

Can Bryan remove them from this or at least pause this BBF-period until they can get their act together?

Bryan is still available afaik. I'm pretty sure I flagged this late last week -- better check that -- so I reckon he'll do what he feels is best re the BBF.

FWIW I don't think the BBF should be paused. It's not unreasonable of us to expect them to either step up now or try again later when they've got their act together. Pausing just means that they'll either deal with the PAB simply to get through BBF or it will prolong the inevitable if they decide they can't be arsed.

BBF is the trial run, it's either pass or fail. IMHO.

 

[dunover]

I gotta say that I am sorely disappointed in these guys and their handling of player issues. As I mentioned I've had one issue on the table for months now and there hasn't been much progress. They say (in effect) "he broke the recreational player rules" but have offered no specific evidence to identify exactly what the infraction(s) where.I've been asking for over a month for those details. At first they said "obviously we can't disclose certain details for Data Protection reasons" which apparently meant "no details will be given": I've asked several times and nothing has been forthcoming.

Most recently I get a reply back from the rep that simply repeats that statement given over a month ago regarding "Data Protection reasons".

In other words nothing is happening and it doesn't look hopeful that anything will happen. I'm not blaming the rep because I'm sure he's a busy guy and is dependant on the casino peeps to give him actual case data. That said, thumbs-down so far regarding their cooperation on player issues.

Is this a vague FU clause like FL had, or are the rules clearly specified like Bet-at?
Providing a stake/play report is easy enough to do and doesn't impinge on the player's Data Protection rights, surely? I'd have thought this would be an easy one to resolve being as you know the player's ID, the player has given assent for their details to be disclosed and it relates to presumably staking on bonuses? If the casino is being cussed they obviously have no real desire to cooperate with the PAB process and are using DP as an excuse. Surely they understood being compliant with the PAB process in one of the criteria essential to becoming accredited?

 

[spintee]

Problems can happen to any person & if they are not sorting it out than sorry but they have lost me as a player till than,
I mean using DP act as an excuse than ?, I mean for a few quid online you can find out aload of stuff about someone,
And there using an excuse not to show game play? I thought that was the whole idea of becoming accredited to show good faith & sort out problems,
I read about aload of sites not be aloud accredited status for them reasons (not sharing info)

If they have used the meister just to gain a good whack of players than its out of order, Lets hope they pull there fingers out and sort it

 

[maxd]

Is this a vague FU clause like FL had, or are the rules clearly specified like Bet-at?... Surely they understood being compliant with the PAB process in one of the criteria essential to becoming accredited?

No idea about the Terms because we haven't got that far yet. I'm still trying to get a specific statement on the charges against the player with supporting evidence. Standard stuff for your garden variety PAB, not sure what the hold-up is.

Well, that's not entirely true. My suspicion is that they casino's security people are used to keeping their info to themselves and aren't keen on opening their books, even a little, in order to see the PAB process through to conclusion. Obviously that's their call to make but it's a HUGE red flag afaic re the Accreditation process. Too many casinos are happy to slam the door on discussing player issues and use Data Protection as the nails to do it. Again, their choice but at the end of the day it's much more about the casino using legalese to say "piss off" than it is about protecting player's private information. That may or may not be the case here, we'll see.

... I thought that was the whole idea of becoming accredited to show good faith & sort out problems ....

Not saying this necessarily applies in this case but we have seen before where the casino's purpose in getting Accredited is the traffic they hope it will bring to the casino, no real interest one way or the other in the PAB process. I think that's part of what Bryan had in mind with the BBF process to begin with, to hang out a shingle and see if anyone or anything pops out of the woodwork because of it.

The rep says they are committed to the process. Nice to hear, let's hope the casino follows through on that in the coming days. I've set a deadline so we should see this done before week's end, one way or the other.

 

[dunover]

FYI I had a Metroplay account when they were IGT-based. No pending, 48 working hours for debit card w/d's and never had to submit KYC. They weren't at that stage interested in CM. Now they have new software, and presumably new owners - is this the reason for their attempt at BBF?

 

[maxd]

Now they have new software, and presumably new owners - is this the reason for their attempt at BBF?

Possibly, but that doesn't seem to be helping their internal communications any. This looks very much like a case of the left hand not knowing (or caring) what the right hand is doing. That's unfortunate, but their performance on the PAB has been far too shabby to over-look regardless of the excuse.

Further on that left-hand-right-hand thing there has been a question raised by their Security people about "concerns" over possible abuses of the PAB process to -- and I am paraphrasing here -- "manipulate the process and damage the reputation of the casino". I've tried three times to address this issue with them but there's been nothing but dead air in response. The problem is (a) that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the PAB process -- how can a closed and private process damage anyone's reputation? -- and (b) if they won't take a step beyond "concern" and actually discuss the thing then it's not a concern, it's a foregone conclusion that is seriously clouding their judgement of the issues involved. And that gets us straight back to the left-hand-right-hand thing: somewhere there is a disconnect in their internal communications. Nothing we do is likely to help with that much unless they are willing and able to take action themselves to address it.

FWIW we've seen this kind of thing before -- Security departments often operate as fairly balkanised entities with a habit of not listening to outsiders -- and generally speaking things won't change until someone inside the company makes it happen. I strongly suspect their concerns about the PAB process are the result of knowing next to nothing about the PAB process but there again that's their problem to address if and when they are willing to do so. Anyone can read the Pitch-A-Bitch FAQ, few do.

As it stands the PAB looks like it is going to fail and that will mean there's a Warning against them in the mail. Only Bryan can say for sure but I doubt that having a standing Warning against them is going to do their BBF much good. If they act quickly all of this can be avoided but "acting quickly" isn't something that's been on the menu thus far.

 

[maphesto]

As it stands the PAB looks like it is going to fail and that will mean there's a Warning against them in the mail. Only Bryan can say for sure but I doubt that having a standing Warning against them is going to do their BBF much good.

This is what I mean, you have seen this and in the meantime we receive a newsletter where Bryan writes this:

We also have a few new casinos in the Baptism by Fire section. If you haven't checked them out - you should (unless you live in the US - sorry).

Then there is a link to the BBF-section where the players can click on the link and sign up to Metroplay without any kind of warning about them being nonresponsive
to player complaints.

It doesn't look well.

 

[spintee]

This is what I mean, you have seen this and in the meantime we receive a newsletter where Bryan writes this:



Then there is a link to the BBF-section where the players can click on the link and sign up to Metroplay without any kind of warning about them being nonresponsive
to player complaints.

It doesn't look well.

In all fairness Max did point out this is whats BBF is about, Theres no point having them in there than chucking them to 1 side as they have not addressed issues yet, Im sure if they do not get there act together they will not pass & in the no can do list as not sharing info, I do not think there a bad group but as I stated b4 that the whole thing I thought about being accredited was to share info & get things resolved, Again like Max stated I think they missed the point somewhere,
Unless I have

 

[maxd]

It doesn't look well.

I've reported your post to Bryan so he'll know of your concerns. As ever it's his decision if something need be done.

 

[Balthazar]

there has been a question raised by their Security people about "concerns" over possible abuses of the PAB process

Why are they asking to be accredited on CM then? Left hand right hand isn't an excuse. Is Metroplay so big that employees don't even know each other? Sometimes I'm under the impression that casinos only see CM as a free advertising platform. It isn't free, it comes with responsabilities.

 

[Balthazar]

It doesn't look well.

Indeed. It's not like they can get away with a "we trust Bryan but we don't trust Max" mentality. What if we PAB because we have an issue and they don't reply to Max? That defeats the point of being accredited IMO.

Bryan should reconsider the BBF until this is resolved, this isn't safe for us.

 

[spintee]

This is what I mean, you have seen this and in the meantime we receive a newsletter where Bryan writes this:



Then there is a link to the BBF-section where the players can click on the link and sign up to Metroplay without any kind of warning about them being nonresponsive
to player complaints.

It doesn't look well.

Indeed. It's not like they can get away with a "we trust Bryan but we don't trust Max" mentality. What if we PAB because we have an issue and they don't reply to Max? That defeats the point of being accredited IMO.

Bryan should reconsider the BBF until this is resolved, this isn't safe for us.

Thats what I thought BBF was to iron out any creases, I agree with your quote

(Sometimes I'm under the impression that casinos only see CM as a free advertising platform. It isn't free, it comes with responsabilities)

It looks so far they jumped in thinking its a free ride, Well they will find out as when the rides finished they wil either get off with a smile or felling sick
If they do not want to take the route by using the privacy act than looks like there be felling sick, Theres alot of people come threw here, Myself includded didnt sign up for years, So they no the damage if they start farting about