Online Casinos - Casinomeister Logo
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: deucebag vs Videoslots

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    16,405
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    1,288
    Thanked 11,654 Times in 6,059 Posts
    Rep Power
    459
    Reputation Points: 64846
    It seems obvious that by adding the second term they have made a MAJOR tightening of the restriction, and it does seem to be something done in haste, suggesting they ARE reacting to a large win or two within the terms as they stood, and have added this term after auditing the play from these wins so that they can argue they are voided.

    Not changing the date of update may be careless, but may also have been a deliberate attempt to trick players into believing that term was always there, and that they just missed it.

    Email support and ask them when this term was added. They will follow the party line and claim it has always been there, and was added on the date specified for last update. If they do this in writing, you have evidence of deliberate intent to screw players, and added to the deliberate misuse of the eCogra seal, this should be enough to
    PAB
    and have them considered for entry into the pit, even though they may well stick to their guns and not pay.

    They are taking HUGE risks in order to avoid paying what seems to be a legitimate win of 3600, a tiny amount for a Microgaming casino, and out of all proportion to the risks involved in getting found out.

    It seems to suggest Microgaming themselves have relaxed their requirements on who can have a license, which damages the credibilty of the whole brand, not just one casino. Faking eCogra accreditation is FRAUD, and it should be treated as such by Microgaming, and their licensing authority.
    Trust me, I'm a weatherman.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Turn right, then right. then right again
    Posts
    7,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    10,070
    Thanked 8,912 Times in 3,482 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation Points: 49149
    Quote Originally Posted by deucebag View Post
    Same goes if I bet 2 cents when my balance was 3 cents. They have me by the bollocks alright, but that's because they're a bunch of crooks and have my money, not because they have any right whatsovever.
    Yes, I agree it is disgraceful.

    I assume from this statement that you were in that position i.e. bet more than 10% of your available balance?

    It's a crap term, but if you did do that you did actually break the term and they can take your winnings. As I said, I don't agree with the term itself, but if you took the bonus then you accepted it and you have to follow them.

    I do hope you get paid.

  3. Thanks Antonia1953 thanked this post
  4. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    16,405
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    1,288
    Thanked 11,654 Times in 6,059 Posts
    Rep Power
    459
    Reputation Points: 64846
    Quote Originally Posted by Nifty29 View Post
    Yes, I agree it is disgraceful.

    I assume from this statement that you were in that position i.e. bet more than 10% of your available balance?

    It's a crap term, but if you did do that you did actually break the term and they can take your winnings. As I said, I don't agree with the term itself, but if you took the bonus then you accepted it and you have to follow them.

    I do hope you get paid.
    It's a crap term that appears to have been added AFTER the player won, and deceptively so since the date of last update was NOT changed to reflect the TRUE date this term was brought in. It also seems very specifically designed to void this one player's win, as clearly he didn't break the original term, and as he took a reload bonus, this new term specifically applies this new restriction to reload bonuses, yet curiously NOT to the
    SUB
    . This means an existing player ONLY is held to such a draconian tightening, wheras a "bonus hunter" is only held to the original 10% of bonus max bet rule.

    All that happened was that he had a "suspiciously high" win of 3700 from a relatively small deposit of 200. His max bet was 18, so OK by the original term, so they added a new term that made the max bet 10 instead of 20, and retrospectively applied it. It makes one wonder that if his max bet had been 8, they would have made the new term 5% of bonus instead of 10%, as the aim is to avoid paying out 3700 from a 200 deposit.
    Trust me, I'm a weatherman.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Location, Location!
    Posts
    3,109
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    730
    Thanked 2,033 Times in 873 Posts
    Rep Power
    122
    Reputation Points: 10942
    Quote Originally Posted by vinylweatherman View Post
    It makes one wonder that if his max bet had been 8, they would have made the new term 5% of bonus instead of 10%, as the aim is to avoid paying out 3700 from a 200 deposit.
    Exactly... That's what is going on here and across other complaints. They are making it up as they go along to avoid paying out. Cash flow/Bad Management whatever - that's the deal. 1 in 10 or less will find a place like this to complain about it... Frightening to think how many people get ripped off in this way and nobody ever finds out.

  6. Thanks LaHutti, asianeyes thanked this post
  7. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Turn right, then right. then right again
    Posts
    7,690
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    10,070
    Thanked 8,912 Times in 3,482 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation Points: 49149
    Quote Originally Posted by vinylweatherman View Post
    It's a crap term that appears to have been added AFTER the player won, and deceptively so since the date of last update was NOT changed to reflect the TRUE date this term was brought in. It also seems very specifically designed to void this one player's win, as clearly he didn't break the original term, and as he took a reload bonus, this new term specifically applies this new restriction to reload bonuses, yet curiously NOT to the
    SUB
    . This means an existing player ONLY is held to such a draconian tightening, wheras a "bonus hunter" is only held to the original 10% of bonus max bet rule.

    All that happened was that he had a "suspiciously high" win of 3700 from a relatively small deposit of 200. His max bet was 18, so OK by the original term, so they added a new term that made the max bet 10 instead of 20, and retrospectively applied it. It makes one wonder that if his max bet had been 8, they would have made the new term 5% of bonus instead of 10%, as the aim is to avoid paying out 3700 from a 200 deposit.
    The only term added afterwards was the 10% of the bonus rule.

    The other rule below was already there and they are using this rule to deny winnings:

    the Casino reserves the right to withhold cash ins and/or confiscating all winning from a customer when a wager of a single bet consist of the majority of the total available balance and the bonus balance contributing to a significant portion of that balance”

    It's not any better, but it gives them more leeway.

    Also, how do you know they added the term afterwards? The wayback machine doesn't have anything. Did you take a screenshot? Is it possible you may have missed the term? Unfortunately it is your word against theirs so it doesn't look good for you.

  8. #16
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NOT Pennsylvania!!!
    Posts
    616
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 308 Times in 192 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation Points: 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by deucebag View Post
    So I received an email a month ago about a reload bonus at Videoslots.com, a Microgaming casino. I made a deposit of 200 and recieved a bonus of 100. Being an Experienced Casinomeister member , I know the importance of reading the terms and conditions every time. So I did, and nothing had changed since last time I played there. I took note of the fact that they still had a stupid bet size restriction of max 10% of deposited amount:





    The deposited amount was 200. That figure can't change once the deposit has been made. So the highest bet size allowed is 20.

    This is not disputed by the casino.

    They are infact trying to rely on the 10% bonus term which according to the
    OP
    was added later. It's the second term they are claiming he broke, not the first.

    This looks like a new low for teh industry.

  9. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    16,405
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    1,288
    Thanked 11,654 Times in 6,059 Posts
    Rep Power
    459
    Reputation Points: 64846
    Quote Originally Posted by Nifty29 View Post
    The only term added afterwards was the 10% of the bonus rule.

    The other rule below was already there and they are using this rule to deny winnings:

    the Casino reserves the right to withhold cash ins and/or confiscating all winning from a customer when a wager of a single bet consist of the majority of the total available balance and the bonus balance contributing to a significant portion of that balance”

    It's not any better, but it gives them more leeway.

    Also, how do you know they added the term afterwards? The wayback machine doesn't have anything. Did you take a screenshot? Is it possible you may have missed the term? Unfortunately it is your word against theirs so it doesn't look good for you.
    The
    OP
    supplied a screenshot of the terms page without this term, and then with. I am assuming he is being honest about the timings.

    The "majority of balance" term isn't even on the page, even though the casino are now using this to further justify confisactation of winnings. If present, why was this term NOT with the other 4, or is it there NOW


    The wayback machine supplies dated snapshots, not a continuous history, but this can often be enough. All that is needed is a snapshot taken after the player deposited showing the term was not present, and a later snapshot of it's first archived appearance. This at least gives us an interval during which the term was added.

    A snapshot of an archived page with the SAME date of last update, but without this new term, is also evidence of rogue practice as it indicates trickery on the part of the casino, in effect an attempt to alter history to argue the term was "always there".

    They know they can get away with it because of lack of regulation, but they want to appear legitimate in their actions in order to prevent them from being blacklisted on the internet for rogue behaviour. There are two issues at stake, one is confiscating these winnings, the other is allowing them to get away with it through trickery, rather than honesty.

    Had they put an honest date of update on the site when they amended this term, it would be a matter of finding out whether the player played before or after this date. Now it looks like the casino is trying to pull the wool, and has something to hide over this whole affair.
    Trust me, I'm a weatherman.

  10. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    16,405
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    1,288
    Thanked 11,654 Times in 6,059 Posts
    Rep Power
    459
    Reputation Points: 64846
    The date of last update is now yesterday, but the bonus terms are unaltered from the state of having the additional 10% of bonus term.

    It looks like they slipped this one in VERY recently indeed, but when the
    OP
    looked, they had yet to complete the change by adding the new "last updated on" date.

    The
    WR
    is indeed HUGE.

    On the bonus in question, 200 for 100, the
    WR
    on slots would have been 35x300. A standard
    MGS
    casino would set it at 30x100 on slots, a significant difference. There are also a few non
    MGS
    slots present, but the majority of games is
    MGS
    . The first Video Slot is the 300 Shields, clearly NOT a Microgaming product.

    This suggests they use the new multi-supplier platform (Quickfire?), but have taken mostly Microgaming games.

    They are licensed in Malta, a suitable venue for pulling any kind of trickery on players.

    I suspect they DID use the 10% of bonus term, and only shifted to the more vague "substantial part of bonus" rule when doubt emerged about whether the 10% of bonus term was actually present when the
    OP
    won.


    Despite having edited the website yesterday, they are STILL falsely displaying the eCogra "safe and fair" seal. It would appear they are ignoring eCogra's request to remove it. The ONLY certificate they have from eCogra is an audited payout report, which appears if you click on the seal. I think they have had to muck around with the code in order to show the wrong seal to players, as I am sure that if eCogra supplied a block of HTML to insert the payout verification into the site, it would have produced the correct seal.

    It's the same with affiliates, they can get a block of HTML to insert a banner and it's tracking link into their site. If they want to show the wrong banner, they have to mess with this HTML, rather than use it as supplied. Therefore, it has to be a deliberate act when this kind of thing happens.
    Trust me, I'm a weatherman.

  11. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Casino
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 96 Times in 64 Posts
    Rep Power
    53
    Reputation Points: 519
    wrong post edit

  12. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    cyberspace
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 164 Times in 74 Posts
    Rep Power
    51
    Reputation Points: 774
    Quote Originally Posted by Nifty29 View Post
    Yes, I agree it is disgraceful.

    I assume from this statement that you were in that position i.e. bet more than 10% of your available balance?

    It's a crap term, but if you did do that you did actually break the term and they can take your winnings. As I said, I don't agree with the term itself, but if you took the bonus then you accepted it and you have to follow them.

    I do hope you get paid.
    I haven't checked whether I ever bet 50% or more of the balance I had in the account at the time, because I don't think it's reasonable to interpret the rule to mean that (it would not be a valid, legally enforcable term), and I don't think Videoslots.com intended it to mean that untill they went over their terms looking for an excuse. Why did they go through the trouble of changing the terms and use the revised terms as an excuse intially? It was only after I showed them my proof that they had changed the terms that they came up with the second excuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by vinylweatherman View Post
    All that happened was that he had a "suspiciously high" win of 3700 from a relatively small deposit of 200. His max bet was 18, so OK by the original term, so they added a new term that made the max bet 10 instead of 20, and retrospectively applied it. It makes one wonder that if his max bet had been 8, they would have made the new term 5% of bonus instead of 10%, as the aim is to avoid paying out 3700 from a 200 deposit.
    It's seems obvious to me that they are dead-set on not paying and will grasp at any excuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slotster! View Post
    Exactly... That's what is going on here and across other complaints. They are making it up as they go along to avoid paying out. Cash flow/Bad Management whatever - that's the deal. 1 in 10 or less will find a place like this to complain about it... Frightening to think how many people get ripped off in this way and nobody ever finds out.
    The funny thing is that this bonus was pretty bad. 90xbonus and only 50%. With such bad bonuses it shouldn't be necessary to have such extremely restrictive terms as max bet of 10% of bonus or deposit. The bonus is way below average, but the terms are stricter than average. I suspect this casino is another case of an underfunded Mickey Mouse operation that doesn't understand a thing about running a casino.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nifty29 View Post
    Also, how do you know they added the term afterwards? The wayback machine doesn't have anything. Did you take a screenshot? Is it possible you may have missed the term? Unfortunately it is your word against theirs so it doesn't look good for you.
    I have a screenshot yes, and I emailed them a link to the google cache page (which I also have saved). The google cache page showed the terms as they were a few days aftermy deposit. (Google cache (and other search engine caches) will show the pages as they were when the search engine last crawled the page, which is anywhere from a few hours to days or weeks ago.)

  13. Thanks Nifty29 thanked this post
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. deucebag VS RedRabbit Casino
    By deucebag in forum Casino Complaints - Bonus Issues
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 31st October 2012, 02:28 PM

Bladwijzers

Bladwijzers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Legal Statements and Privacy Policy
Casinomeister.com does not intend for any of the information contained on this website to be used for illegal purposes. You must ensure you meet all age and other regulatory requirements before entering a casino or placing a wager. Online gambling is illegal in many jurisdictions and users should consult legal counsel regarding the legal status of online gambling and gaming in their jurisdictions. The information in this site is for news and entertainment purposes only. Casinomeister.com is an independent directory and information service free of any gaming operator's control. Links to third party websites on Casinomeister.com are provided solely for informative/educational purposes. If you use these links, you leave this Website.