Yet Another Roxy Palace Horror Story: £1.5k LOST!

[Batman]

I am aware of everything you mentioned, and I entirely agree with you;


However, I'll try giving you another example, a better one, to prove my point and my personal opinion on the matter:

Claim a tenner, free sign up bonus, with a max cash out of $100.
Play, win $200, ask for a withdrawal of the $100, go play progressive with the rest.
(you made no deposits so far with that specific casino)
Win Mega: $3 mil.
At this point, I believe the casino won't pay. Or pay only a part of the winning to keep your mouth shut.
(This is my personal opinion, developed in time, after lurking and being a part of many, international, casino-related forums / blogs / chat / all)

I might be wrong, and I truly hope this won't EVER happen to anyone.
I personally am a very cautious person / player, and this is why I usually steer clear of Progressive slots.

 

[brianmon]

I am aware of everything you mentioned, and I entirely agree with you;


However, I'll try giving you another example, a better one, to prove my point and my personal opinion on the matter:

Claim a tenner, free sign up bonus, with a max cash out of $100.
Play, win $200, ask for a withdrawal of the $100, go play progressive with the rest.
(you made no deposits so far with that specific casino)
Win Mega: $3 mil.
At this point, I believe the casino won't pay. Or pay only a part of the winning to keep your mouth shut.
(This is my personal opinion, developed in time, after lurking and being a part of many, international, casino-related forums / blogs / chat / all)

I might be wrong, and I truly hope this won't EVER happen to anyone.
I personally am a very cautious person / player, and this is why I usually steer clear of Progressive slots.

There wouldn't be any 'rest', once you make a withdrawal, that other £100 is voided and disappears from your account

 

[Batman]

There wouldn't be any 'rest', once you make a withdrawal, that other £100 is voided and disappears from your account

You can ask for a withdrawal of £100 and play the rest, there usually is a pending period in all MG casinos.

You can do whatever you want usually with the rest.
That's not the issue tough.

You can keep the £100 in your balance and play, you'll have the same reply from the casino:
That you can only get the £100, because that's the max cash out, the rest (£3 mil.) will be voided.

 

[Casinomeister]

I'm still waiting for a better response from the casino concerning the OP's submitted PAB. As it stands now, I don't see how the removal of the winnings was justified. I'm waiting for an answer.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I am aware of everything you mentioned, and I entirely agree with you;


However, I'll try giving you another example, a better one, to prove my point and my personal opinion on the matter:

Claim a tenner, free sign up bonus, with a max cash out of $100.
Play, win $200, ask for a withdrawal of the $100, go play progressive with the rest.
(you made no deposits so far with that specific casino)
Win Mega: $3 mil.
At this point, I believe the casino won't pay. Or pay only a part of the winning to keep your mouth shut.
(This is my personal opinion, developed in time, after lurking and being a part of many, international, casino-related forums / blogs / chat / all)

I might be wrong, and I truly hope this won't EVER happen to anyone.
I personally am a very cautious person / player, and this is why I usually steer clear of Progressive slots.

You're thinking of Playtech, and yes they would allow their operators to do this, and have done on several occasions. This, however, is Microgaming, and so far they have a clean sheet when it comes to allowing the confiscation of progressives. Microgaming have everything to lose by allowing a first case of a multi million progressive being confiscated purely because a player won it from their first, rather than second, third, etc deposit.

However, in order to stay safe the player should NOT withdraw and then play the surplus, but play down to the max limit BEFORE withdrawing. This term only kicks in when a withdrawal is submitted, so until the player does so, they can play on as much as they like. At worst, the casino might deduct the original non progressive surplus from the eventual payout, but if you have just hit Mega Moolah, it is unlikely that you would argue over the $100.

The position with the Minor and Mini jackpots is less clear. They are technically progressives, but hit frequently enough that players have a good chance of hitting them in any one session. Depending on how they are treated, this could provide a neat loophole around this term for ordinary players simply by converting their non progressive surplus into a series of Mini and Minor jackpot wins and arguing that as per terms, they are all exempt from the 6x restriction.

 

[Casinomeister]

On Roxy Palace acrredited page Link Outdated / Removed
is a banner offering 150% welcome bonus but on the same page it says payout limits:None
well i could easily be fooled if i was new here and signed up trough that banner
only to find out later i only get 6x my deposit on my withdrawal.
so my opinion this page should not exist as long as this term is in place.

Their bonus banners have been removed and replaced with this:

Attention: this casino has a term for its sign up bonus that reads "Where a Welcome/Sign-up Bonus has been granted to you, once all stipulated wagering requirements have been met, you will be limited to a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your first deposit amount and any remaining balance will be forfeited. Roxy Palace Management reserves the right, entirely in its sole discretion, to waive and/or modify the application of this clause in individual instances. Note: Progressive Jackpot wins are exempt from this clause."

If any player has his winnings removed because of this clause, that player ought to contact Max Drayman and file a Link Outdated / Removed with us. If we believe that there was no justification to remove winnings, or that the justification was weak, the casino will have its accreditation revoked.

Link Outdated / Removed

 

[Dinahnana]

Their bonus banners have been removed and replaced with this:


Link Outdated / Removed

Thank you Bryan. Can you do the same for Lucky247?

 

[slottymcslot]

Some people in this thread may remember that I first appeared here on CM about 18 months ago with a complaint about Ruby Fortune casino, they tried to pull this on me, paying me 6 x 150 when I completed wagering with a balance of 5000+ playing slots. Even worse, they added the term after I made a withdrawal and tried to apply it retrospectively. Fortunately this forum was on hand to catch them with their pants down.

This term was in a bunch of MG casinos even back then such as Lucky Nugget, and thru 7 layers of BS I believe most of these casinos are owned by digimedia. In some cases it's easy to see the link, others not but it is there. It is an absolutely foul term that is a catch all FU term that they can apply on anyone who hits big - if you'd hit for even 800 or so, they likely would've paid.. risk assessment/loss adjustment, call it what you will. Still, they would have a hard time arguing this in court for the simple reason that they have already stated their wagering weightings for games, and amount you must wager and you have fulfilled those black and white terms. Some unknown algorithm or forumla to assess whether or not you'll be limited to 6x, that is just not going to fly in the UK. That is where the good news starts for you and that is why I think you'll get paid. Ruby Fortune eventually paid me (in their case they had no choice), and seeing as Roxy are getting a good shaming here I would take the odds evens or above on you getting paid too.

 

[dodo]

Hello everyone (first post),

I believe the same warning is needed for their sister site, Casino Splendido. I too found out the hard way about this term. Two months ago I was denied 1600 eur from the welcome bonus winnings. Support just sent an e-mail informing me about the 6x limit term, and that the withdrawal will be processed according to it.

Aaand that was it! The term was in general t&c's, I see now they have included it in the sign-up bonus terms as well.

 

[Tirilej]

Hello everyone (first post),

I believe the same warning is needed for their sister site, Casino Splendido. I too found out the hard way about this term. Two months ago I was denied 1600 eur from the welcome bonus winnings. Support just sent an e-mail informing me about the 6x limit term, and that the withdrawal will be processed according to it.

Aaand that was it! The term was in general t&c's, I see now they have included it in the sign-up bonus terms as well.

Please do a PAB too. It's a free complaint service here. You can find the links above on how to do it. Just read the rules carefully.

Good luck! You will need it

 

[The Viking]

Hello everyone (first post),

I believe the same warning is needed for their sister site, Casino Splendido. I too found out the hard way about this term. Two months ago I was denied 1600 eur from the welcome bonus winnings. Support just sent an e-mail informing me about the 6x limit term, and that the withdrawal will be processed according to it.

Aaand that was it! The term was in general t&c's, I see now they have included it in the sign-up bonus terms as well.

It makes you wonder how many players have been treated this way since thos terms came into place.
as im sure many players dont know about sites like CM,etc
also this could be a first time player just saw an add on TV or in a newspaper, then get there withdrawal slashed,
but figure this must be normal and do nothing about it.

 

[onkel]

Guess I am in the minority here.

I really do not see what the casino has done legally wrong. I do not agree with the 6x max bonus as think its unfair but as the casino has it clearly visible in their terms then players signing up know what to expect.

It might not be fair but its their choice and from what I see it only applies to sign up bonus and not bonuses after.

Players can look at it and go no thanks I can get a better offer elsewhere but as you are meant to read t&cs then you will know the 6x rule is there. Why not just sign up and make first deposit without a bonus. Its maybe not idea but at least the wagering is not crazy. Its just an introductory offer like other casinos give you a free bonus to try but cap winnings to maybe £50 or something.

I think the casinos like Ladbrokes for instance are far worse when they offer crazy bonuses like deposit £50 get £10 free with 20x bonus and deposit playthrough. That's a playthrough of 120xbonus and several casinos are now doing it. To me that's worse than having a 6x withdrawal limit on first deposit bonus.

In fact I am sure their have been other casinos that offer large bonuses on deposits especially from RTG and Rival and they had max withdrawal amounts since they were offering such high bonuses. Not really any different from whats happening here.

As it only applies to the first deposit and is clearly stated in terms then I hardly feel its enough for them to lose accredited status. I know it says that management will look at it case by case and that should be removed but the actual 6x max on first deposit should not be enough to remove them. As long as players get paid and all other bonuses etc. don't have those terms then its hardly rogue behaviour as its clearly visible. Nowadays with the amount of casinos out players have plenty of choice about where to deposit.

Isn't part of the problem that this term isn't clearly visible but "hidden" in the general T&C's rather than the specific Bonus T&Cs. Can you think of a reason why the casino has chosen to not list this clause in the welcome bonus T&Cs with the rest?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Isn't part of the problem that this term isn't clearly visible but "hidden" in the general T&C's rather than the specific Bonus T&Cs. Can you think of a reason why the casino has chosen to not list this clause in the welcome bonus T&Cs with the rest?

Yes, they don't want to scare players away!

Many players may read the bonus terms, but not the general terms. If they spotted the 6x term there they may not deposit. This is bad for the casino because most of those first deposits will be lost, or beaten with the player not making a big enough profit to trigger the term. These players could then become loyal without ever knowing that they initially faced this 6x limit.

These are some CM members saying this incident has made them decide to suspend playing at Roxy Palace, despite the fact that they will never be subject to this term as they have already passed the stage of being a new player.

If anything, the action Bryan has taken is BETTER than quietly shuffling them off to the reservation, as anyone who uses the accredited list will be told about this term, even if it's nicely tucked away out of easy sight on the casino's page.

This should be done for ALL accredited casinos found to have such a term, and affected players encouraged to submit PABs in order to get to the bottom of what is behind it all.

My suspicion is that it's nothing more than a "spirit of the bonus" term, but disguised in the hope that it can skirt around the accreditation standards where the direct use of the phrase "spirit of the bonus" is a sure way to get fast tracked to the reservation or worse.

 

[onkel]

I'd be interested to know how much this clause shaves from the TRTP if playing only highly volatile games such as Game of Thrones when playing with a welcome bonus. It wouldn't surprise me if the TRTP goes down to 60% or less (as no players get to keep the rare big wins)

 

[slottymcslot]

I'd be interested to know how much this clause shaves from the TRTP if playing only highly volatile games such as Game of Thrones when playing with a welcome bonus. It wouldn't surprise me if the TRTP goes down to 60% or less (as no players get to keep the rare big wins)

with slots it is a lot. but it would be a fair bet that confiscated/voided funds don't get deducted from the RTP figure that sites quote (usually 96..97%)

there is no way to justify applying this term to one player and not another.. I think we all know that they apply it to those they think won't be profitable in the future (i.e. will drop it all back and more) and don't apply it to potential whales.. and somewhere inbetween the pitboss or whoever isn't sure if someone just got lucky or is an unprofitable player so pays 6x anyway. But then, this isn't a valid reason in a court of law

 

[slottymcslot]

Isn't part of the problem that this term isn't clearly visible but "hidden" in the general T&C's rather than the specific Bonus T&Cs. Can you think of a reason why the casino has chosen to not list this clause in the welcome bonus T&Cs with the rest?

No because the 6x rule is still there. It is actually your deposit + 5 times your deposit winnings if we're being pedantic. Forget about where the term is listed because it is bullshit, end of story. It's not a no deposit bonus, you are doing a 100% deposit match at the MG sites in question,. I will repeat that, a 100% deposit match! That is not fair gaming. And if you use the law, they will always pay up before it gets to court so as not to set a precedent, as vinylman stated somewhere, that could enable players that have been unfairly trapped by this rule to come back and claim however much as been voided as people did with banks etc

 

[Deeplay]

Good now that the terms of this dreadful bonus are in Red / Bold on the CM page for Roxy Palace. So kudos to CM for that

No surprise the rep from Roxy Palace refuse to make further comments apart from the utterly insulting one they made earlier in this thread!

This whole thing stinks and on a 100% bonus! Could understand if it was 400 or 500 or % ... but come on 5xs your depo ??

Not surprised they dont offer the 100% with every deposit at those terms! So glad I did not get caught on that one and feel for those who have been royally shafted by Roxy Palace Casino on this.

 

[mattsgame]

It's probably a "sleeper" term for the most part. It's getting noticed now because two casinos have actually started using it routinely, which has lead to a sudden flurry of complaints about it.

This is the problem, Brian, affiliates and players don't see this term or notice its there until players start complaining and by then its to late.

Their bonus banners have been removed and replaced with this:


Link Outdated / Removed

Nice , but you do still have a lot of casinos whom have this term in the accredited section. I think Dunover had a list of these casinos somewhere, if not I have compiled some what of a list on the ones I know that have it. It is literally most of the MGS download casinos with the exception of the 32Red group and GoWild group.

From what I know though at this time its only Roxy, Casino Splendidio and Lucky247 who have enforced it on their players (or should I say, have players complained its been enforced). Might be worth having a thread asking players where this rule is/has been enforced.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is the problem, Brian, affiliates and players don't see this term or notice its there until players start complaining and by then its to late.



Nice , but you do still have a lot of casinos whom have this term in the accredited section. I think Dunover had a list of these casinos somewhere, if not I have compiled some what of a list on the ones I know that have it. It is literally most of the MGS download casinos with the exception of the 32Red group and GoWild group.

From what I know though at this time its only Roxy, Casino Splendidio and Lucky247 who have enforced it on their players (or should I say, have players complained its been enforced). Might be worth having a thread asking players where this rule is/has been enforced.

Which seems VERY odd indeed as this is a very unusual term, and we are supposed to believe that completely independent operators all thought it up at the same time. Maybe this has come right from the very top, higher than we can normally see, and is evidence of a connection between most of these Microgaming casinos at this unseen level. It may even have come from Microgaming themselves, perhaps as a "suggestion" for operators in some handbook.

Lucky 247 have a Facebook page, and it seems there is discontent being posted there with one player saying that they won 500 after completing WR, but only received 280 with the rest vanishing, and they have resorted to Facebook because they can't get anywhere with CS. Others are just general complaints about piss poor CS.

I have also noticed that they are doing a fair bit of 50% bonus offerings, so this term probably allows them to offer far bigger bonuses because they can shave the positive variance from the winners' withdrawals to compensate. I recall that someone here was told that a bonus to deposit rate of only 25% was "unsustainable" for loyal players, yet Lucky 247 seems to be running at around 50% on their Facebook promos alone.

 

[Jory]

Their bonus banners have been removed and replaced with this:


Link Outdated / Removed

I followed your link from an ipad and was redirected to mobile.roxypalace.com.

I then clicked on the Terms which brought me to

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

These terms are mostly identical, but have not been updated since 2012 [Last Updated: 14-08-2012 13:00 PM] so they do not include the maximum withdrawal term.

Does this mean that any player signing up to Roxy Palace from a mobile device are not bound to the maximum withdrawal term? Even a player who reads every word of the terms will be caught out as depending on what device you sign up from, you get a different set of terms; one of which is very outdated.

 

[slottymcslot]

Which seems VERY odd indeed as this is a very unusual term, and we are supposed to believe that completely independent operators all thought it up at the same time. Maybe this has come right from the very top, higher than we can normally see, and is evidence of a connection between most of these Microgaming casinos at this unseen level. It may even have come from Microgaming themselves, perhaps as a "suggestion" for operators in some handbook.

Lucky 247 have a Facebook page, and it seems there is discontent being posted there with one player saying that they won 500 after completing WR, but only received 280 with the rest vanishing, and they have resorted to Facebook because they can't get anywhere with CS. Others are just general complaints about piss poor CS.

I have also noticed that they are doing a fair bit of 50% bonus offerings, so this term probably allows them to offer far bigger bonuses because they can shave the positive variance from the winners' withdrawals to compensate. I recall that someone here was told that a bonus to deposit rate of only 25% was "unsustainable" for loyal players, yet Lucky 247 seems to be running at around 50% on their Facebook promos alone.

Not to quote myself, but post 83. I believe all these casinos with the 6x rule have an ownership "link". I've read stuff that suggests that the link includes the owners of MG, but I think you implied that. 32Red/Dash aside, I have pretty much stopped playing on MG for this reason, the whole place stinks of something rotten.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I followed your link from an ipad and was redirected to mobile.roxypalace.com.

I then clicked on the Terms which brought me to

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

These terms are mostly identical, but have not been updated since 2012 [Last Updated: 14-08-2012 13:00 PM] so they do not include the maximum withdrawal term.

Does this mean that any player signing up to Roxy Palace from a mobile device are not bound to the maximum withdrawal term? Even a player who reads every word of the terms will be caught out as depending on what device you sign up from, you get a different set of terms; one of which is very outdated.

Legally, mobile players are bound by the mobile terms, so if the 6x isn't there, it doesn't apply to mobile play.

I have been looking through some official guidance, and it looks very much like the insistence of leaving "reserve the right" in the term without informing the consumer how to avoid "breaching" the term renders the term "unfair" and therefore "unenforceable" under UK law. The problem is that by adding "reserve the right", it makes the term discretionary, and allows the business to decide whether or not a consumer is in breach without providing any information that the consumer can use to stay within the terms. If the "reserve the right" was removed, the term would probably stand up to the fairness test, and thus possibly enforceable. HOWEVER, there are other provisions that may still cause this term to be unenforceable, and these relate to the nature of the contract, and in particular whether an overly onerous burden is placed on the consumer. In this case, the burden is placed on the consumer to play slots, but in a way that ensures they don't win more than 6x their deposit. Given that the player has no control whatsoever on the outcome, and that in general there is no bet that can be placed that can be guaranteed not to result in too large a win, it could be argued that the term places too onerous a burden on the consumer, and is therefore unfair.

The much higher max payouts seen with the bookies are easy for the punter to stay under because they can know the potential win when they place the bet at given odds, and can therefore adjust their stake accordingly. Usually, the maximum stake that a bookie will accept is too low for such a limit to be breached in any case.

This whole 6x business really needs to be tested under UK law, and it's not necessary to take it to court, complaints can be made about the term in general, not just by players who are affected. As we no longer have the OFT, it looks like "Consumer Direct", an arm of trading standards, might be the place to go.

A new and stronger set of consumer protection laws has just come into force this month, so any complaints made now will be judged against this new legislation rather than the earlier set.

 

[Jory]

Legally, mobile players are bound by the mobile terms, so if the 6x isn't there, it doesn't apply to mobile play.

It's been a while since I played at an MG download casino, but I assumed that players can freely switch between download, instant play & mobile.

A player might stumble across Roxy Palace on a mobile device, read the terms and signup, but wait until they are at a PC to download the casino and claim the signup bonus. In those cases, which set of terms apply?

 

[Casinomeister]

...I have been looking through some official guidance, and it looks very much like the insistence of leaving "reserve the right" in the term without informing the consumer how to avoid "breaching" the term renders the term "unfair" and therefore "unenforceable" under UK law. The problem is that by adding "reserve the right", it makes the term discretionary, and allows the business to decide whether or not a consumer is in breach without providing any information that the consumer can use to stay within the terms...

Setting the UK law aside, as well as the UKGC (an untested licensing jurisdiction) this term is "unfair" in relation to common sense. What is the justification to hobble the winnings? Was it because the casino manager was having a bad day? Is the casino being hammered by advantage players? Or is there some secret algorithm that flagged this player's payout? We don't know - so it's not fair. Players are at the casino's whim. All we know is that this casino is protecting its "valued" customers.

If you offer a bonus that can be "abused", then it's a bad bonus - don't offer it.

I can understand that a casino needs to protects its business, but this is the wrong way to go about it. To not include this term on the bonus terms page (like the very first term) flies in the face of common sense and reeks of nefariousness.

I've reread the casino rep's response several times, and I am not only miffed - but flabbergasted. It's a bullshit term and should never have been approved and posted. And if the casino management had properly thought this through, they would have nipped this entire scenario in the bud and posted this term in plain site on the bonus landing page, and made an announcement from the top of the mountain that this term was there. And most importantly, they should have notified anyone advertising their casinos. This is a potential train wreck - and it's crashing in front of us in slow mo'.

As far as I can tell - the casino rep's last words on this were final; there is no indication otherwise. I gave them a heads up this morning that their listing here was pending revocation - no answer, so I guess that's it.

It's always a shame seeing a 13 year relationship get tossed into the bin.

 

[slottymcslot]

Setting the UK law aside, as well as the UKGC (an untested licensing jurisdiction) this term is "unfair" in relation to common sense. What is the justification to hobble the winnings? Was it because the casino manager was having a bad day? Is the casino being hammered by advantage players? Or is there some secret algorithm that flagged this player's payout? We don't know - so it's not fair. Players are at the casino's whim. All we know is that this casino is protecting its "valued" customers.

If you offer a bonus that can be "abused", then it's a bad bonus - don't offer it.

I can understand that a casino needs to protects its business, but this is the wrong way to go about it. To not include this term on the bonus terms page (like the very first term) flies in the face of common sense and reeks of nefariousness.

I've reread the casino rep's response several times, and I am not only miffed - but flabbergasted. It's a bullshit term and should never have been approved and posted. And if the casino management had properly thought this through, they would have nipped this entire scenario in the bud and posted this term in plain site on the bonus landing page, and made an announcement from the top of the mountain that this term was there. And most importantly, they should have notified anyone advertising their casinos. This is a potential train wreck - and it's crashing in front of us in slow mo'.

As far as I can tell - the casino rep's last words on this were final; there is no indication otherwise. I gave them a heads up this morning that their listing here was pending revocation - no answer, so I guess that's it.

It's always a shame seeing a 13 year relationship get tossed into the bin.

The larger issue is (speculation on who really owns them all aside) many, many MG casinos have this term, and in many, many of these cases it's hidden in the same way. Furthermore when you question live chat about this term BEFORE signing up/depositing, they do a merry tapdance and try to play it down saying it is only applied at managements discretion. I urge anyone to go to anyone to go to any MG site that has this term and ask. In fact, it'd be funny to see the convos c/p'ed in this forum to watch the live chat rep try to squirm their way thru it and not lose the customer.