3Dice Casino - Confiscation of 40 Euro for playing too little

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I'm pretty much sure there are many bonus users, but if you play within a casino's terms and conditions, it's not bonus abuse. And Markus's issue had nothing to do with bonuses.

I would think that lawnet's post was meant to highlight there are not bonus abusers. The casino sets the terms, if you abide, you are not an abuser, despite not "playing in the spirit a bonus was meant". The casinos set the terms, how do we know what they "mean".

The pen is mightier than the sword.
you have done 700 post an you don't know this?

get real



Cindy
 
I would think that lawnet's post was meant to highlight there are not bonus abusers. The casino sets the terms, if you abide, you are not an abuser, despite not "playing in the spirit a bonus was meant". The casinos set the terms, how do we know what they "mean".
That's exactly right. You know for a very long time I did used to believe there was such a thing as bonus abuse, but over the last few years I've come to realise there is not. All there is, is player abuse by casinos.

If casinos are too lazy-arsed or incompetent to write rules which expressly forbid any 'abusive' play they don't like, then they fully deserve to get flocks of players turning up, playing without breaking any black & white rules, and making good with bonus money.
2c [/derail]

I don't really feel I have much more to add on the Markus saga - it's all been said by others.
He tried it on, got caught, paid the penalty.
Now let's all move on...

KK
 
I would think that lawnet's post was meant to highlight there are not bonus abusers. The casino sets the terms, if you abide, you are not an abuser, despite not "playing in the spirit a bonus was meant". The casinos set the terms, how do we know what they "mean".
I agree, but the same principle should be applied in my case with 3 Dice Casino, shouldn't it?
I have made a deposit and played within the objective part of their terms & conditions. After that I have requested a withdrawal and then they called me an abuser of their banking system. How am I supposed to know that this would be abusive?
 
I agree, but the same principle should be applied in my case with 3 Dice Casino, shouldn't it?
I have made a deposit and played within the objective part of their terms & conditions. After that I have requested a withdrawal and then they called me an abuser of their banking system. How am I supposed to know that this would be abusive?

bull crap you wasnt a bonus abuser you was using 3Dice to launder money a penny a spin for what 200 spins a total of like $2 for what you deposited

give it a rest you was wrong an you know it:thumbsup:

3Dice was 100% right in your case
You have deposited first 250 (to withdraw 249) - we did not stop you on that one, then 500 (withdrawing 499) with a total stake generated of less than $2. This is clearly abuse of the 3Dice financial system and trying to make 3Dice pay for the credit card costs you have when depositing directly into moneybookers. 3Dice is not a money moving facility and using it as such is deemed abuse. Abuse of our financial system is clearly specified in our T&C and this is a schoolbook example. Mind you that we are not even charging you the full cost of the transaction. You have via email clearly been told that you have to either accept the cost of these transactions (after which your account will indeed be suspended) - or generate at least a minimum amount of play.

Cindy
 
you have done 700 post an you don't know this?

get real

I'm very serious.

I read your post and you mentioned 'bot users and bonus abusers'. It's obvious what a 'bot user' is - somebody that uses bots to play for them (although detection is I think quite difficult).

But 'bonus abuser' is as far as I can tell a meaningless term and is just a way for casinos to confiscate people's winnings on a whim.

So if you're going to use it you should be able to define it.

Definition please.
 
I agree, but the same principle should be applied in my case with 3 Dice Casino, shouldn't it?
I have made a deposit and played within the objective part of their terms & conditions. After that I have requested a withdrawal and then they called me an abuser of their banking system. How am I supposed to know that this would be abusive?

Quite clearly you were 'abusing' 3Dice's casino to get money into Moneybookers on the cheap. By anybody's definition you were 'abusing' them for this purpose.

Now as I've said, I find the term 'abuse' rather unsatisfactory, and I don't think it's justification for confiscation of funds.

BUT, as 3Dice have pointed out already 'if 3DICE.COM has grounds to believe that you are using the site for purposes other than those for which it was intended', they have the right to 'deduction of eventual processing fees'.

Quite plainly you were using the site to try and save a few dollars in fees, and therefore they have the right to deduct your processing fees.

40 on 500 sounds about right to me, these instant services I believe tend to charge about 9%. So you really have nothing to complain about.
 
Quite clearly you were 'abusing' 3Dice's casino to get money into Moneybookers on the cheap. By anybody's definition you were 'abusing' them for this purpose.
What would you say if casino confiscates your winnings and says "Quite clearly you were 'abusing' our bonus"? It's absolutely subjective, isn't it?

BUT, as 3Dice have pointed out already 'if 3DICE.COM has grounds to believe that you are using the site for purposes other than those for which it was intended', they have the right to 'deduction of eventual processing fees'.
If you follow this kind of logic then this rule to confiscate the winnings of "bonus abusers" would also be valid:
"If it appears that a player is participating in strategies that the casino in its sole discretion deems to be abusive, the casino reserves the right to revoke all winnings"

I understand the position of 3 Dice Casino here but it's not my fault that this has happened, because I have completely followed their T&C. In my opinion it would be better if they had paid me the 499 Euro and then update their T&C instead of forcing me to do a 251 Euro bet.

Same thing with bots, there are casinos out there which have no rules that forbid bots but they don't allow bots anyway, I hate this. I'm not a mind reader if they don't want me to use bots in their casinos then they have to tell me in their T&C.

Quite plainly you were using the site to try and save a few dollars in fees, and therefore they have the right to deduct your processing fees.
Once again: This is not true! I have already said that there is absolutely no reason for me to do this, because I can make free and instant deposits into my Moneybookers account any time.
 
Everyone please settle down, thanks... no more mudslinging.

Markus - large deposits which are not played through would be seen as abuse in 99% of cases, regardless of whether a bonus was given or not - do keep in mind that the processor will charge on the entire amount deposited or withdrawn.

Your intent, or lack of intent, to abuse the system is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the casino had to pay fees based on your transactions and it is not fair to expect them to bear those charges on the miniscule amount of activity you gave them, which didn't even begin to approach 1x playthrough.

This thread is about to reach a natural conclusion, so say whatever it is you need to say before I close it.
 
In my opinion it would be better if they had paid me the 499 Euro and then update their T&C instead of forcing me to do a 251 Euro bet.
Come on Markus, give this up now will you?
No one "Forced you to make a 251 Euro bet" - that's just more bull's dropping & you know it.
You could have wagered the amount requested by Enzo playing $1/hand blackjack, or something like that, with a good chance of losing less than 251 Euro. OK it would have taken quite a while, but probably not as long as typing out more protestations of innocence which are only going to fall on deaf ears here now anyway...

It's over. Get over it. Move on.
Sheeesh!
 
Come on Markus, give this up now will you?
I only wanted to make my opinion clear for one more time. But you are right I just have to accept now that the Casinomeister community has another opinion then I have.

No one "Forced you to make a 251 Euro bet" - that's just more bull's dropping & you know it.
You could have wagered the amount requested by Enzo playing $1/hand blackjack, or something like that, with a good chance of losing less than 251 Euro. OK it would have taken quite a while, but probably not as long as typing out more protestations of innocence which are only going to fall on deaf ears here now anyway...
I have offered Enzo zu wager my deposit 5 times in Blackjack, but instead he asked me to either win 50% or to lose 50% of my deposit (see this post)
 
I'm very serious.

I read your post and you mentioned 'bot users and bonus abusers'. It's obvious what a 'bot user' is - somebody that uses bots to play for them (although detection is I think quite difficult).

But 'bonus abuser' is as far as I can tell a meaningless term and is just a way for casinos to confiscate people's winnings on a whim.

So if you're going to use it you should be able to define it.

Definition please.

found thru Google

Bonus Abuse
Due to the large amount of money casinos make available through bonuses they are obviously keen to protect that investment and this is why bonus whores and bonus abuse is an important aspect of online casino play.

Bonus abuse is when a player signs up with a casino with the sole intention of cashing out the various bonuses that are offered by the casino. A bonus abuser, or bonus whore as they are often known, often targets the first deposit bonus as this requires the least amount of commitment on their part.

Casinos have a set of wagering requirements for each of the bonuses they offer in order to stop as much bonus abuse as possible. Some casinos have stricter wagering requirements than others and it is often those with the weaker wagering requirements that are most susceptible to bonus abuse. Casinos can often suspend the accounts of players suspected of bonus abuse to avoid any future bonus abuse. The terms and conditions that a player must agree to in order to sign up to a casino very much favour the casino in these instances.

Casinos will usually require a player to wager at least as much as the bonus (but often more depending on the bonus) in order to qualify for it and then they will have to wager that bonus about 25 times (depending on the casino) in order to cash it out and withdraw it to their bank account. Having to wager the bonus that amount of times obviously means there is a high chance the bonus will be lost and that is exactly why they are able to offer such generous looking incentives to play.
Cindy
 
found thru Google

Bonus Abuse
Due to the large amount of money casinos make available through bonuses they are obviously keen to protect that investment and this is why bonus whores and bonus abuse is an important aspect of online casino play.

Bonus abuse is when a player signs up with a casino with the sole intention of cashing out the various bonuses that are offered by the casino. A bonus abuser, or bonus whore as they are often known, often targets the first deposit bonus as this requires the least amount of commitment on their part.

By this definition, anyone who withdraws from a casino having received a bonus is a 'bonus abuser', because if you withdraw you must have the intention to withdraw, which makes you a bonus abuser. This doesn't seem like a very good definition to me. I can't see any casino lasting very long saying that anyone who plays with the intention to withdraw is a 'bonus abuser'.

If you go to Las Vegas they don't say 'Sorry Sir, only losers are allowed here, you can't take your winnings.'

Casinos have a set of wagering requirements for each of the bonuses they offer in order to stop as much bonus abuse as possible.

This seems to be a fancy way of saying 'the wagering restrictions are so tough, that you're going to lose your money whatever happens'.

Some casinos have stricter wagering requirements than others and it is often those with the weaker wagering requirements that are most susceptible to bonus abuse.

Hmm, if you accept the definition implied above, that a bonus abuser is someone who withdraws their money from a casino, then that does make sense, because weaker wagering requirements mean fewer people will go bust and so will have money left to withdraw.

I'm not sure I like that definition very much.
 
By this definition, anyone who withdraws from a casino having received a bonus is a 'bonus abuser', because if you withdraw you must have the intention to withdraw, which makes you a bonus abuser. This doesn't seem like a very good definition to me. I can't see any casino lasting very long saying that anyone who plays with the intention to withdraw is a 'bonus abuser'.

If you go to Las Vegas they don't say 'Sorry Sir, only losers are allowed here, you can't take your winnings.'



This seems to be a fancy way of saying 'the wagering restrictions are so tough, that you're going to lose your money whatever happens'.



Hmm, if you accept the definition implied above, that a bonus abuser is someone who withdraws their money from a casino, then that does make sense, because weaker wagering requirements mean fewer people will go bust and so will have money left to withdraw.

I'm not sure I like that definition very much.

it isnt my definition so get off my back please what have i done to you for you to churn me out?
 
I have offered Enzo zu wager my deposit 5 times in Blackjack, but instead he asked me to either win 50% or to lose 50% of my deposit (see this post)

That did not mean you had to make a single bet. You just had to achieve a level 50% higher or lower. KasinoKing clearly said "at $1/hand" - which still could've caused you to reach a point at 50% higher or lower than your deposit, just over a period of hands. No one forced or asked you to make a single bet of 251 Euros.

This thread is now closed as there will be nothing gained by making further posts. You are welcome to start a bonus abuse thread elsewhere.
 
And it came to pass the hordes doth bow down hither before the chosen one, for it is written that the Spear is mightier than the sword. Forthwith they do wail, and weep and there is the sound of great moaning and negative reputation buttons being press-ed for the Moderator hath spoken. Here endeth the thread. Amen. To that.

Book of False Testimony, Chapter IV, Verse II
 
And it came to pass the hordes doth bow down hither before the chosen one, for it is written that the Spear is mightier than the sword. Forthwith they do wail, and weep and there is the sound of great moaning and negative reputation buttons being press-ed for the Moderator hath spoken. Here endeth the thread. Amen. To that.

Book of False Testimony, Chapter IV, Verse II

WTF... LOL... you still mad I'm whupping your blue hide at UTourGolf? :lolup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top