Tons is confiscated by Europa casino and Tropez

[spearmaster]

If as a result of a boycott the 'good' playtechs start putting pressure on Playtech to clean up their act then it does some good. Of course South African athletes during apartheid or Israeli orange farmers today don't personally deserve action taken against them but if it changes the bigger picture then it can be completely justified.

The problem with South African athletes, for the most part, is that they were representing the government and the country during apartheid. As far as I am aware, no South African athlete was discriminated against for being from South Africa, provided that he/she did not claim to represent the country. And after all, they didn't ban all of Africa either for the good of the continent...

Don't know about Israeli orange farmers, though... not exactly one of my areas of knowledge

 

[Suited72]

3-4 weeks ago I got ripped by Monaco Gold for $1k and since then ive been on this site. In that time iv'e seen complaints for :

Acropolis, Monaco, Europa, Tropez, Casino Las Vegas, Casino king, Giant Vegas & Swiss.

I can say for sure that Playtech must be giving advice of T&C loopholes - either that or they all have the same operators else they wouldnt all be coming up with the same thing over and over again. For example :
Playtech casinos all that i have checked have right now in their T&C's "we reserve the right to withhold any withdrawal amount from your account which will be in excess of your original deposit"

Thats rogue to me because it gives them the option to not pay any winnings. I cant find a playtech casino that doesn't have that line in.

Playtech casinos all have the same T&Cs (slightly altered layout between casinos) The same run of customer support telephone numbers. The same methods of witholding winnings.

Move the situation offline. Would you expect voided winnings in a land based casino for the excuses ive been seeing? Shit no you wouldnt. Playtech would be closed down. The authorities wouldnt care that 9 of the 60 casinos were presumably ok.

 

[elscrabinda]

How about a campaign to have playtech casinos remove any and all vague terms (such as the one highlighted above) which they then use to justify their confiscations (theft is such a nasty word). That way theres no need for legitimate operations to be caught up in a platform wide boycott as there's no excuse for them to retain such abusable terms.

It would certainly be a nice gesture on the part of the casinos listed here to remove this term. That is unless they intend on using it in the near future

 

[paul02085]

Hopefully enough players will quit Playtech and cause them to see the light. In the meantime players should continue to speak out against the rogue Playtech casinos to help new players keep from being fleeced!

 

[Suited72]

The terms & conditions aren't vague though. They say exactly what they will do. The problem is that players expectations of a casino is relative to a land based casino. In its own title it suggests that its somewhere you go to throw a bit of money at it and hope for a win. To get that 1 in 10 win and then get told you've still lost is a load of shit.

It would be cool if someone from one of the few playtech casinos that bryan has contact with could point out the relevance of the T&C i pointed out above. That particular casino may or may not choose to enforce it, the point is, why is it there?

And if it is an enforceable term (which all of the rest are) then all playtech casinos are rogue... or they aint casinos.

 

[jetset]

I think it should be understood here that those posters who oppose boycotts do so on the basis that they regard such practices as indiscriminate, unjust to operations that are on the level and therefore intrinsically unfair...not that they support Playtech.

Based on the actual cases that have been reported, the bum Playtech casinos should be widely exposed and strongly condemned as best avoided in the absence of any policing or remedial action from Playtech. That in itself is likely to hurt both Playtech and the casinos concerned, but player self-protection, not vindictive commercial damage for revenge should sensibly be the driving force.

I'm pretty sure that the more ethical Playtech licensees will already be pressuring that company to get it's policing act together, if only for self preservation.

I don't believe you can use that lawyer's catch-all phrase as a rationale for including the *good* Playtech casinos in a boycotting action - using that logic there would be few online gambling venues for players to use anyway because most of them have this sort of T&C in one form or another. That's because lawyers usually draw up the original T&C and their objective is to cover the casino against all eventualties up to and including the Apocalypse.

The *rogue* element definitely kicks in when operators actually started using these iniquitous and downright silly clauses when they don't have any real grounds for taking punitive action against a player - that's true ROGUE conduct.

"Move the situation offline. Would you expect voided winnings in a land based casino for the excuses ive been seeing? Shit no you wouldnt. Playtech would be closed down. The authorities wouldnt care that 9 of the 60 casinos were presumably ok."

I agree with you at the start of this passage, but I don't think this can be applied here.

First off, the land authorities would be taking action against an individual land casino or group - not the provider of their equipment. Other casinos using that equipment but operating honestly would therefore not be involved.

Land casinos are regulated by appointed and usually state or territorial bodies with the legal power and will to take action and pull a license if necessary. Before doing so there would have to be a defensible case with all the evidence before them. Some even have inbuilt appeal structures distinct from the normal Constitutional civil remedies available to any citizen. Informal boycotts don't usually have too much in the line of legal niceties like that, and instigators would probably be open to litigation.

By way of comparison, generally online gambling is not effectively regulated in a governmental sense because it transcends borders and most jurisdictions have little interest in actually enforcing their rules unless it involves non payment of the license fee(!) That being the case, the likelihood of this sort of scenario is unlikely.

 

[Webzcas]

If you want to boycott questionable operators, by all means do so. They deserve to pay for their own problems. But it is absolutely unfair to top-notch licensees like Kiwi and Acropolis, amongst others, that you should promote a boycott against them as well.

I couldn't agree more with the above posted by SpearMaster. Boycotting all Playtech Operations due to the actions of some of their Licensees is not the way to go. By roguing Playtech you would be roguing the good Playtech Operations such as Kiwi - which is very unfair as they are a good casino.

Personally as a webmaster I only promote one playtech casino which is Kiwi, but there are several others which are also good operations.

I certainly will not remove Kiwi from my site as a result of other Playtech Operations whom I do not advocate or promote, causing problems for players.

 

[whiterat1]

If you let people use your name and they pay you to use your name and then they act poorly but you still get paid from them for using your name you should be held responsible.

 

[Suited72]

Kiwi & the other acredited playtech casinos still have the line in their terms & conditions that they hold the right to withold a withdrawal in excess of the original deposit.

Playtech have made that T&C and the rest of the ones they catch everyone out with. The fact that monaco choose to uphold playtechs rules and kiwi don't says that monaco are actually doing what they are meant to and kiwi are breaking playtechs terms. Thats why regardless of how good a playtech casino might be playtech are still rogue.

Lets say i put $100 on kiwi and won $10k (yeah, right!) playtech would be fine with them voiding it on the playtech T&C. Where do i complain after that? The antigua & barbuda government?

What really takes the piss is this - playtech obviously wrote up all the T&C's for all their casinos.... and then they employ iris to look at complaints of casinos that uphold them.

Im sorry but casinomeisters first rule on the accredited casinos list is to read carefully the terms & conditions of a casino. Then below that is 9 accredited casinos with stupid terms & conditions written by playtech which other playtech casinos uphold.

 

[elscrabinda]

[Deleted by me. Shouldn't try and pick a fight]

 

[scrollock]

Any non-webmasters who oppose a boycott?

good point.


although i agree that a boycott of honest playtech is unfair, however the problems are.

1) while they give their custom to playtech, its provides no incentive for playtech to clean up its act

2) honest playtechs add legitimacy to the dishonest ones, for example from UK point of view, many UK players start off playing casinos off their favourite sportsbook, someone could start off at say bet 365,betfred or the tote, then when they see another playtech, they might end joining having gained confidence with the playtech software and customer service, only to get a nasty shock.

3) although the honest playtech are honest at the moment, the fact remains that playtech disputes is a joke, so the fact remains that should any honest playtech get tempted over to the darkside as there is no effective disputes channel for the player.

in fact having a disputes channel that doesnt work, increases the chances of a casino turning dishonest if there is no sanction against them doing so. I'm sure that some of the dishonest playtechs started off as honest operations and only turned dishonest when they realised they could get away with it.

fact is that if there was a wholescale boycott of playtech, then honest playtechs would be getting punished for no reason of their own, however while innocent players are putting their money in day after day to dishonest playtechs, then it is the innocent players who are getting punished for no reason of their own.

so as the situation stands, if the status quo is maintained, then some innoncent players are going to be out of pocket, if there is a boycott then some innocent casinos are going to be out of pocket.

i think i know which scenario i would prefer.

maybe a possible solution for those innocent playtechs is to set up there own regulatory body, firstly this would send the message to playtech that their disputes channel is not worth the paper it is written on, it would give a easily recognisable separation from the dishonest playtechs and most importantly of all give the player somewhere to go should he ever encounter a problem.

 

[caruso]

so as the situation stands, if the status quo is maintained, then some innoncent players are going to be out of pocket, if there is a boycott then some innocent casinos are going to be out of pocket.

i think i know which scenario i would prefer.

With all due respect to Bryan, Ted, Webcaz and Jetset, who are of opposing opinions on this subject generally, I also support the idea that if it's a choice between innocent players or innocent casinos getting caught in the fallout, then innocent casinos are preferable.

One way or another Playtech needs to do something about the substantial rogue element. They are doing nothing. If the dispute service is having ANY effect at all, I have to say I haven't seen any evidence - my one thoughtful, considered communication to date has been TOTALLY ignored, and I've seen nothing from anyone else.

I would have to have to encourage players to think twice before depositing at Playtech casinos. I'm probably going to get it in the neck again for saying that, but the greater good is more important, and I do believe there is value to be had if the "forum ten percent" votes with its feet. If my meeting with Iris had any value, it was her acknowledgement that it's a very valuable ten percent that Playtech cannot do without.

I'm sure that if Playtech pulled their socks up as a result, the good Playtechs would see an increase in business with the generally renewed player confidence in the brand. That way, although there might be an initial downturn in business, they would be most likely well compensated subsequently.

 

[spearmaster]

I'm sure that if Playtech pulled their socks up as a result, the good Playtechs would see an increase in business with the generally renewed player confidence in the brand. That way, although there might be an initial downturn in business, they would be most likely well compensated subsequently.

This is simply unjustified in the real world - what if Playtech do not "pull their socks up?" Then you would be actively promoting action against a casino which has been an upstanding member of the community up to now, and has taken good care of its players... and by driving them the wall you take the risk that they too go under - leaving you with less good casinos to play at, and thus encouraging other rogue casinos to keep doing what they're doing in order to survive.

Nope. Can't support this at all. While I encourage people to vote with their feet and avoid patronizing operations which are less than stellar, I cannot possibly recommend an action in which the innocent are hurt as well as the guilty - I'm not going to draw the real-world war comparisons here but I think you can safely figure out what I am talking about - ahem - which is why many of us are being burdened by bullshit like the Patriot Act...

Your greater good concept simply does not work in this scenario.

 

[Casinomeister]

[Deleted by me. Shouldn't try and pick a fight]

busted!

 

[caruso]

I said if they did. I wasn't even thinking about the "didn't".

I read into your post that you are pessimistic about Playtech ever doing anything, since you focus on this eventuality. I would second that, it being the case. I have detailed knowledge of one substantial case that has been dragging on...forever. Nothing, stress NOTHING, is happening. PLAYTECH IS DOING NOTHING.

Who is best protected, players or casinos, if there is a choice - the only choice? How can you justify innocent players over innocent casinos? I'm not saying it would definitely work, as you suggest. But it would be an option.

Ted, you got any better ones, any more effective ones, fire away.

 

[jetset]

[Deleted by me. Shouldn't try and pick a fight]

As a non-webmaster who disagrees with the indiscriminate boycott in principle I'm glad you had the sensibility to do so, Elscrabinda - implying that this is a player-industry people faction issue is not productive.

 

[spearmaster]

You don't justify innocent players over innocent casinos - both are innocent and do not deserve to be wrongly treated.

What it comes down to is this. Support those casinos you know are good, and stay away from those you know which aren't. If people would listen and read more often instead of rushing into things, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

There is absolutely no way a boycott can be supported against the software provider and its operators - but plenty of reasons why you should boycott those casinos which are unfair.

Don't bother trying to play the "innocent" angle here - you know as well as I do that no innocent party should be injured, AND that there are better ways to deal with this than what you are proposing - throwing dynamite in a pond and hoping to collect all the fish is not productive.

 

[jetset]

"Who is best protected, players or casinos, if there is a choice - the only choice? How can you justify innocent players over innocent casinos? I'm not saying it would definitely work, as you suggest. But it would be an option."

But there is not a sole choice here. So how about the principle of what is fair rather than trying to decide who is the most appropriate party to punish regardless of guilt?

The ones on which pressure is required are those who are injuring the player, and the players can legitimately apply that as Spearmaster suggests - by denying their individual business to those establishments and warning other players of the dangers attendant on playing at these rogues. I doubt that anyone would have an argument with that, because it is an action based on self-protection.

I think posters here should perhaps put themselves in the shoes of one of the honest casinos for a moment - how would you enjoy this sort of conversation, having presumably already pressed Playtech to do something about the situation and strived to consistently deliver a good gaming experience to your players?

And how good for healthy player-casino relationships is this sort of proposal, academic though it may be, when viewed from the perspective of some of the decent and helpful casino reps who have long been members of this board? Not exactly a motivator, I would guess.

Having seen this academic argument on boycotts before I am of the same opinion as Spearmaster - even assuming an effective mass boycott could be put together regardless of the rights of the innocent it is unlikely to do more than create ill-feeling on both sides, and online gambling will continue unabated.

But that's just one opinion - there are too many "what ifs" and unknowns for accurate results to be predicted.

 

[scrollock]

.

What it comes down to is this. Support those casinos you know are good, and stay away from those you know which aren't. If people would listen and read more often instead of rushing into things, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

.

true that players should do research and make an informed decision before playing at a casino, but likewise a casino should do research and make an informed decision when choosing its software provider.

just as player can decide which casino he plays at, a casino can choose which software it uses.

while in this debate a player, who gets ripped off by a rogue playtech casino is guilty of nothing, the honest casinos are guilty of providing reputation and finance to what is now undisputably is a rogue software provider who is complicit in the thefts that are going on at some of the casinos it supports.

 

[spearmaster]

the honest of casinos are guilty of providing reputation and finance

One has to remember that a considerable investment is made when choosing the software - and the PRIMARY consideration should be that the software is fair. Obviously, Kiwi has been around for quite some time now, and Acropolis chose their software based on a number of factors and recommendations from some people in the industry.

Will they change software? Yeah, could be a possibility - but I don't believe we should be burning their houses down to force them to find a new home...

 

[Webzcas]

just as player can decide which casino he plays at, a casino can choose which software it uses.

It is not quite as easy as that. In Online Casino Utopia I am sure this could be well achieved.

However to jump software is not as straightforward as flicking a switch. Time and a lot of finance are just two considerations to make.

While Playtech is underfire, why not boycott RTG as well, who in my opinion, need to get a lot of their Licensees to clean up their act as well. Just this last week I have received another two complaints regarding Connect To Casino from players.

 

[Suited72]

Those 9 accredited casinos. Can you say 100% that you would be happy in users putting there money on sites with terms which state they wont payout more than the deposit amount?

isn't this a consumer watchdog site? half of you are arguing the case for not hurting the profits of 9 casinos which are part of a group voiding possibly 1000's of individual persons money.

 

[spearmaster]

First of all, I am not talking about 9 casinos, I am talking about a few good casinos.

Secondly, they are NOT a part of the same group - they happen to use the same software. Just because hackers use Microsoft Windows doesn't mean we should boycott companies which use Windows or deploy Microsoft servers on the Net.

A consumer watchdog site is meant to educate the public in a responsible manner. It was not, and will never be, here to advocate actions which damage honest and fair operations no matter what the cause.

 

[Suited72]

It is a group because they share the same T&Cs and support staff who enforce them. If it was just software provision I dont think there would even be a problem.

"A consumer watchdog site is meant to educate the public in a responsible manner. It was not, and will never be, here to advocate actions which damage honest and fair operations no matter what the cause."

Yes I know that, which is why I asked how come a list of 9 casinos get accredited when they have a T&C which says you wont get paid out more than you put in - your saying that you would happily play a casino that enforced that term?

Im not having a go by the way. Monaco ripped me $1k they arent rogued, playtech arent rogued (and they wrote the ridiculous T&C monaco got me with) and I wanna try to save people money who play there and think they'll get winnings.

And im taking it seriously too. I put $19k through 888's pacific last year without a single bonus and im not putting another $ online until I feel confident that theres a system in place which protects me from clowns like playtech.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

The problem is we have had many good and reputable Playtech groups turn to rogue behaviour recently, so how do you know others wont follow? At Crypto and MG you know this isn't going to happen and even RTG to a lesser extent, but with Playtech you know it could easily and the software provider wouldn't care less.

The Swiss/Casino King group and the Carnival/Monaco group are prime examples.

Up until about a year ago I had never seen a complaint about any of these, and regularly played at both groups and was paid large cashouts promptly. I would have recommended them to anyone, but how wrong I'd have been.

Now how do I know that other groups (Main Street, Kiwi, Acropolis etc) aren't going to go down that route? The answer is I don't, and when the software provider isn't going to offer me any help why should I play there?

It's the same as RTG used to be. You knew to keep clear of all there licensees, even though there was a few good ones, as RTG wouldn't offer you any help. I'm sure that effected the good casino's business as well, but that was the problem they had made for themselves by choosing to use a software provider that had plenty of dodgy licensees.

The same applies to the good Playtech licensees now.