beravek7 VS Fortune room

[skiny]

I suppose because AP isn't an exact science.
The casinos know it when they see it, even if we can't as we don't do it.
All they can reasonably be expected to do is outline broad examples, then deem whatever falls within those AP boundaries.

That's too subjective for me but then I don't take deposit bonuses anyway.

 

[Beravek7]

What was the point to remove those casinos from an accredited list? The main discussion was about that "substantially" part of their terms and 1200 euro they confiscated from me USING THAT TERM. Now they are back in the list, I am only paid about 10% of what I was owed, the vague term is still there... And yes, they did remove some wording from their terms. Something nobody actually cared about.
And I tell you how I feel: as if somebody took 1350 euro from my pocket and then returned me 150 euro. Somebody assume I should be happy with that. And I am clearly NOT.
This is my last comment in this thread. And thank you to all those who tried to help me.

 

[maphesto]

What was removed was the subject language concerning "not for personal entertainment [i.e. professional]". This is what most of us were concerned with, and what was in conflict with our accreditation standards.

The main discussion was about that "substantially" part of their terms and 1200 euro they confiscated from me USING THAT TERM.

Yes, I pm'd Bryan about this earlier today. This term is the bad one:

Placing high value bets with the single intention of increasing your balance, thereafter you substantially decrease your bet size, while reasonably not decreasing your bankroll.

There is NO explanation to what "substantially" is whatsoever!

It's very bad!

And I am no AP, this is common sense!

 

[Janek12]

:

Placing high value bets with the single intention of increasing your balance, thereafter you substantially decrease your bet size, while reasonably not decreasing your bankroll.

What other intention could there possibly be? The intention of decreasing my balance?

I think the fact that other Microgaming casinos, like 32Red, RiverBelle, Spin Palace as far as I know, do not have such a vague term shows that it is unnecessary.

I really think they should define exact figures like other casinos have in their terms - such as bets below 30 % of the bonus (RiverBelle) or maximum bets of 5 EUR (Redbet).

 

[Nifty29]

What was the point to remove those casinos from an accredited list? The main discussion was about that "substantially" part of their terms and 1200 euro they confiscated from me USING THAT TERM. Now they are back in the list, I am only paid about 10% of what I was owed, the vague term is still there... And yes, they did remove some wording from their terms. Something nobody actually cared about.
And I tell you how I feel: as if somebody took 1350 euro from my pocket and then returned me 150 euro. Somebody assume I should be happy with that. And I am clearly NOT.
This is my last comment in this thread. And thank you to all those who tried to help me.

Is that your way of saying "thanks Casinomeister"


IMO, there should be TANGIBLE limits and restrictions.

I agree that "substantially" is not measurable. I assume the casino has their own in-house tolerance levels, so why not just state them?

I think FL could have gone further to make their terms clearer. As to their accredited status.....well in my experience they are a solid outfit and always have been. Obviously they don't want APs, do why not just set the rules in such a way that APs won't waste their time in the first place. It's pretty much a given that such rules will only piss the APs off anyway, and won't bother the average player who doesn't go whoring from place to place to make a living (nothing wrong with that per se BTW..they just shouldn't expect any leeway or consideration when they don't read the rules or stick to them).

It would be nice to see Wim and FL provide more clarity with this term.

 

[skiny]

I just don't like the "includes but is not limited to..." part.

It's like saying "This is an example of how you can't bet but there are other ways we don't like either... good luck."

Why not just state the limits so there can be no argument?

 

[paul7388]

I just don't like the "includes but is not limited to..." part.

It's like saying "This is an example of how you can't bet but there are other ways we don't like either... good luck."

Why not just state the limits so there can be no argument?

Exactly as its to vague still. The way its worded means you are never completely safe when playing with a bonus. People change bet sizes depending how well they are doing. If I was playing at say 60p a spin and won then raised bets up to £1.20 and won and raised bet to £3 and had a good streak .If I then realised I would make a good cashout as I was up £500 with £100 wagering left so decided to go to a lower variance like Kathmandu at 27p a spin to complete wagering like many people would do could I get my winnings voided for dropping stake. It really needs explained better so everyone knows.

 

[Beravek7]

Half a year ago JackpotFactory group was added to Digimedia casinos (the one owning Fortune Lounge). Now see their specific terms now and compare it with the Fortune Lounge term:

Allslots: 8.11.3 Where a player places high-value bets for the purpose of increasing his or her balance, followed by significantly lowering the bet size in order to continue playing without seriously impacting the balance.

Royal Vegas (Fortune Lounge): Placing high value bets with the single intention of increasing your balance, thereafter you substantially decrease your bet size, while reasonably not decreasing your bankroll.


As we can see it is basically the same rule. Both casinos INTENTIONALLY use absolutely non-specific and subjective words (substantially and significantly) in order to confiscate money from the players. I made my complaint half a year ago and nothing changed since. Players should be warned.

 

[maphesto]

Half a year ago JackpotFactory group was added to Digimedia casinos (the one owning Fortune Lounge). Now see their specific terms now and compare it with the Fortune Lounge term:

Allslots: 8.11.3 Where a player places high-value bets for the purpose of increasing his or her balance, followed by significantly lowering the bet size in order to continue playing without seriously impacting the balance.

Royal Vegas (Fortune Lounge): Placing high value bets with the single intention of increasing your balance, thereafter you substantially decrease your bet size, while reasonably not decreasing your bankroll.


As we can see it is basically the same rule. Both casinos INTENTIONALLY use absolutely non-specific and subjective words (substantially and significantly) in order to confiscate money from the players. I made my complaint half a year ago and nothing changed since. Players should be warned.

That term wasn't there a year ago, according to Wayback Machine. Earlier this year it was there.

It's a terrible term and nothing you should expect to see at an accredited casino.

Is this rule going to be placed at ALL Microgaming download casinos?

EDIT: I checked now and the rule has been added at Red Flush as well. It wasn't there a year ago.

 

[Beravek7]

That term wasn't there a year ago, according to Wayback Machine. Earlier this year it was there.

It's a terrible term and nothing you should expect to see at an accredited casino.

Is this rule going to be placed at ALL Microgaming download casinos?

EDIT: I checked now and the rule has been added at Red Flush as well. It wasn't there a year ago.

No surprise. Both Redflush group and Jackpotfactory casinos became a part of Fortune Lounge in March this year. The same time they changed their terms. As we see they
tried to use different words to express the same meaning. Significantly is no way better than substantially. Both words mean nothing and everything at the same time. Very useful tool for confiscating player's money.

 

[Jasminebed]

My last deposit at any Fortune Lounge casino was at a time this issue was going on. I was aware of it, and to be honest it ruined my enjoyment of my play substantially. I did have a decent win on a $2 or $2.25 bet, and instead of enjoy a couple of hundred extra to play some on my favourites like IM at 60 cents a toss, I stuck to larger bets on lower variance slots so as to be sure I didn't risk confiscation.

I don't know if a 100x win on a $2 bet is significant or not even, and I don't care to play where I have to worry about it either.