beravek7 VS Fortune room

[ChillBill]

He had opened accounts at a number of Digimedia casinos, and did the same thing. If he lost, he didn't return and moved on to the next. Those accounts are locked, why isn't he complaining about them?

FL (Digimedia) has a dedicated fraud Department. Why was this player allowed to continue to open accounts, makes deposits and receive bonuses?

Seems to me, FL/Digimedia were OK with this player, voiding their ambiguos FU clause while he was losing! Only when he's won, does FL cry foul

 

[zanzibar]

I still don't understand how it helps if 10 of us make deposits and take bonuses and then split the profit.

Even if you've created a bonus system that can be beaten if the player follows a specific betting pattern, 10 people doing it and keeping their winnings and 10 people doing it and splitting their winnings still changes nothing.

There's nothing the player can do to change the TRTP of a slot game.

Without going into specific detail and I know it doesn't sound intuitive, but mathematically speaking the EV of a bonus generally increases with the bet size, albeit also reducing the chances of winning on a single specific bonus. The reason is the player gains an advantage by busting out and not having to complete the wagering requirements when they lose.

But obviously the amount of bonus a single player can claim is limited. However if a player and 9 of his buddies all claim the same bonus they have 10x the normal bonus to play with a as a group and many more chances of hitting a big win at high stakes which maximises EV and reduces the time needed to play through the wagering requirements.

 

[chuchu59]

But he did break the casino's terms and conditions - terms that he agreed to when he signed up.

He had opened accounts at a number of Digimedia casinos, and did the same thing. If he lost, he didn't return and moved on to the next. Those accounts are locked, why isn't he complaining about them? If he was a player playing for entertainment's sake, you'd think he'd bitch and moan about those. But I'm speculating there.

The term that is being enforced is the following:


I agree that the term is wide-sweeping, but it is clear on a few things specifically fraudulent, illegal, or collusive activity. What is subjective are terms like irregular, abusive (unless of course it's verbal abuse) and "personal entertainment". In my opinion, the 1.3.1 term should be rephrased to alleviate any question on what is disallowed activity. I've been informed by the Fortune Lounge rep that these are being revised.

They conclude that he was not a casual player because of the activity at all the other accounts. Therefore he was booted and his winnings were confiscated.

Where the fraud is concerned, I'm not fully certain, but we were informed that the player is from a syndicate based in the Czech Republic so this may be the "fraud" that eCogra is referring to - I'm not sure. There may be other details that I haven't looked into yet. If there is fraud involved, then the player is SOL on his deposits.

Bryan,

If no fraud was involved ,while the casino has the right to boot him out they shouldn't confiscate his winnings on such an ambiguous term. They should lock his accounts if he really is part of a fraud syndicate but unless his play at the casino is deemed fraudulent they can retain neither his deposits nor his winnings.

 

[chuchu59]

I want to ask a question…

Who gambles for entertainment.. When I gamble i Play to win..

If i want to be entertained i would play my x box, hell of a lot cheaper, even if i buy a new game a day

Yep,

Its real dangerous when casinos try to guess your motives/intentions. I myself play mainly for entertainment whilst hoping occasionally to win/not losing much.

 

[chuchu59]

Without going into specific detail and I know it doesn't sound intuitive, but mathematically speaking the EV of a bonus generally increases with the bet size, albeit also reducing the chances of winning on a single specific bonus. The reason is the player gains an advantage by busting out and not having to complete the wagering requirements when they lose.

But obviously the amount of bonus a single player can claim is limited. However if a player and 9 of his buddies all claim the same bonus they have 10x the normal bonus to play with a as a group and many more chances of hitting a big win at high stakes which maximises EV and reduces the time needed to play through the wagering requirements.

That makes sense and especially so if they played the same games and high variance ones.

 

[Dinahnana]

Well at least FL has agreed to rephrase term 13.1 which is something. I think they could go a bit further and rewrite the max bet term too (by defining exactly what they mean by substantial decrease in bet). But in any case at least in the future at least one of the terms will be clearer. So thanks to Bryan and Max who I am sure had a lot to do with FL listening to us here on the forum.

 

[maphesto]

Where the fraud is concerned, I'm not fully certain, but we were informed that the player is from a syndicate based in the Czech Republic so this may be the "fraud" that eCogra is referring to - I'm not sure. There may be other details that I haven't looked into yet. If there is fraud involved, then the player is SOL on his deposits.

They wrote "play behaviour", the person who wrote that is incompetent when it comes to gambling.

IF this "syndicate" exist, why didn't we hear about that in the first place? Instead, we heard about that FU clause which is too wage. Again, decrease from 10 to 3.14 bets is what it is about.
That man or woman who came up with the syndicate thing probably realized that the FU clause woldn't be ok for the player community here. That's my guess.

He had opened accounts at a number of Digimedia casinos, and did the same thing. If he lost, he didn't return and moved on to the next. Those accounts are locked, why isn't he complaining about them? If he was a player playing for entertainment's sake, you'd think he'd bitch and moan about those. But I'm speculating there.

If a player deposits and lose, why should he bother with a closed account if they stole 150€ from him in another? Of course he wants his winnings and at least his deposits back. They have every right to close his accounts, that's in their T&C's.

The real issue in my opinion is the removal of terms that accredited casinos shouldn't have.

Bryan, you have the right to change your standards for accreditation (make them even more precise) or make them lose their accreditation here because of their FU clause. No one else!

IMO they do not meet your current standards for accreditation.

 

[skiny]

Without going into specific detail and I know it doesn't sound intuitive, but mathematically speaking the EV of a bonus generally increases with the bet size, albeit also reducing the chances of winning on a single specific bonus. The reason is the player gains an advantage by busting out and not having to complete the wagering requirements when they lose.

But obviously the amount of bonus a single player can claim is limited. However if a player and 9 of his buddies all claim the same bonus they have 10x the normal bonus to play with a as a group and many more chances of hitting a big win at high stakes which maximises EV and reduces the time needed to play through the wagering requirements.

I agree 10 people taking a bonus have more chance of hitting a big win than 1.

Which means if a casino offers a bonus and 10 people accept it there is a greater chance that someone will hit something big while playing it than if 1 person takes it.

The only difference is the ten will split the profit rather than the one keeping it all.

If 10 people take this bonus and one of them wins something the casino has to pay it regardless of whether or not the player keeps the money or shares it with 9 other people.

It might change the EV of the bonus for those 10 people but it changes nothing for the casino. From the casino's perspective it is still just 10 people making deposits, claiming the bonus and playing slot games.

And after 10 million spins the TRTP of the slot game earns the casino the same profit regardless of what the players do with the money after they're paid.

 

[Casinomeister]

Hopefully by Monday I'll have more on this whole situation.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I am shocked that eCogra thinks it OK for casinos to keep deposits. This goes beyond the scope of the terms, where it clearly states that "winnings will be void" when it sets out the consequences of a breach. This could also end up being highly embarrassing for eCogra as if they did this to a UK player who then went to court, or perhaps via trading standards, and won the case based on the Consumer Protection laws, it would show that eCogra themselves are not acting in accordance with the laws of their own jurisdiction when adjudicating complaints against their members.

If casinos are going to do whatever they like if they think they have a legal leg to stand on, they need to remember that players are likely to do the same. There is a moral code amongst players that they should not charge back against casinos, even when legally they are on safe ground. This means that instead of using a simple remedy available under the law, players are expected to fight their case in every other conceivable manner, which is often hard work.

Chargebacks are a big problem for operators, and this is because legally the dice are loaded in favour of cardholders, however it is generally accepted that it is morally wrong to use these legal rights simply because "you didn't like how the games played".

If there was data showing the OP had done this several times, how come this data did not cause a refusal to accept the application to register until the OP eventually won?

It is also well overdue that these problems are addressed at the software level, not dealt with by relying on terms that are open to interpretation.

When it comes to UK law and vague terms, the principle used by the court is that the interpretation that is the more favourable to the consumer is the one that holds. Where a business exercises it's right to refuse to supply goods or services, it is not allowed to keep the customers' money paid for said goods or services.

For disputes of substantial value, UK players would seem to be better off going to small claims court rather than relying on eCogra. There are court fees, but they are set at a relatively low level.

This issue of how we define "professional player" needs to be clarified. It seems that at the last minute, FL have brought forth the idea that this player was "professional" through being part of a syndicate. Formerly, it looked like they had a much wider definition of "professional" which basically meant "player who was good at maths", and used this ability in order to increase their chances of winning.

If players are not allowed to try and win, there is little point in playing for real money.

 

[ChillBill]

If players are not allowed to try and win, there is little point in playing for real money.

And that Sir, when everything else is boiled down and sieved off, is exactly why people gamble - to try and win money at these casinos!

If a player accepts a bonus and the casino accepts their wagers and, the players fullfill wagering requirements and, any other obsticles designed to reduce winning from a bonus, then the casino pays the player. It's that untold agreement which has been connected to gambling since day-dot. If the house accepts the bet, the house pays if the play wins, if not, the house retains the wager. Reiterating this story about the OP being in a syndicate is fiction.

Fortune Room casino locked my account and confiscated my deposit and winnings - 1354 euro (150 euro deposit).
Here is an explanation for those actions by Wim (Fortune Lounge representative) :

"This is not about playing bets more than 30%. It is about you placing 20 bets of €10 on Beach Babes and then moving to Reel Gems playing 1934 bets at
€3.18 on average in order to meet your wagering requirements. This is regarded as irregular in terms of the folowing term I already sent you:

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.

Regards

Wim"

They (FL) allowed the OP to open mutliple accounts, and watched as he played a similar game style. This was fine when the OP was losing BUT when he won, FL hits the OP with their FU clause. Clearly the OP isn't a goof! My guess, FL soon realised the FU clause wasn't going to wash with the OP or CM members, so they've upted the ante with the syndicate story.

There is a moral code amongst players that they should not charge back against casinos, even when legally they are on safe ground. This means that instead of using a simple remedy available under the law, players are expected to fight their case in every other conceivable manner, which is often hard work.......Chargebacks are a big problem for operators, and this is because legally the dice are loaded in favour of cardholders, however it is generally accepted that it is morally wrong to use these legal rights simply because "you didn't like how the games played".

And, there has always been an unwritten agreement between player and casino and visa versa... A gentleman always honours his gambling debts and a casino always pays its winners. For a casino to use an FU clause, to void paying winnings, spits directly in the face of this unwritten agreement.

It's my understanding any CM member who is found to have chargedback, is stripped of membership. If it turns out FL has crossed the line, will the same penalty be applied. Because where I'm sitting, holding players accountable for charging back and letting casinos walk, send a really bad message to other operators.

 

[Azzurri]

And that Sir, when everything else is boiled down and sieved off, is exactly why people gamble - to try and win money at these casinos!

If a player accepts a bonus and the casino accepts their wagers and, the players fullfill wagering requirements and, any other obsticles designed to reduce winning from a bonus, then the casino pays the player. It's that untold agreement which has been connected to gambling since day-dot. If the house accepts the bet, the house pays if the play wins, if not, the house retains the wager. Reiterating this story about the OP being in a syndicate is fiction.



They (FL) allowed the OP to open mutliple accounts, and watched as he played a similar game style. This was fine when the OP was losing BUT when he won, FL hits the OP with their FU clause. Clearly the OP isn't a goof! My guess, FL soon realised the FU clause wasn't going to wash with the OP or CM members, so they've upted the ante with the syndicate story.



And, there has always been an unwritten agreement between player and casino and visa versa... A gentleman always honours his gambling debts and a casino always pays its winners. For a casino to use an FU clause, to void paying winnings, spits directly in the face of this unwritten agreement.

It's my understanding any CM member who is found to have chargedback, is stripped of membership. If it turns out FL has crossed the line, will the same penalty be applied. Because where I'm sitting, holding players accountable for charging back and letting casinos walk, send a really bad message to other operators.

Hey pal, I agree with just about everything you've said here, and credit for the effort in your comments. However, can I play devil's advocate, and just arouse a response to your comments regarding FL not acting sooner whilst the op was losing. I ask out of ignorance, but would the casino only be alerted to an account, or proceed to carry out any form of investigation, once the customer makes a withdrawal and gives the casino a reason to do so? Like I said, I don't know the answer, but I just assumed a casino would have soo many clients, that individual analysis or monitoring would be too economically unviable, considering the majority are doing the right thing, and the percentage of 'advantage' activity is so slim compared to the masses. I assumed the screening would occur only once a customer requests a withdrawal, as whilst they are winning, or losing, it's not at a cost to the casino until that withdrawal is requested.

In saying all that, I definitely agree with you regarding the monitoring of multiple accounts, and see no reason why a casino wouldn't implement a system that can readily detect this on sign up. Unless of course false details are used for each individual account, making it harder to detect, however casinos have to accept some accountability in this regard, to avoid future issues, and to avoid having to then implement unrelated restrictions on those players who are doing the right thing. Unfortunately these bad apples have created a wide spread issue imo, whereby all casinos now treat all players with an air of caution, leading to sad cases of paranoid and unfair accusations in the extreme, or more commonly quick fire responses from cs teams whom just assume any complaint or query is presented as a freebie request in disguise.

I know I may have wondered off topic a little, but it's cases like these that continue to hurt player/casino relationships, and as a simple common player, I'm growing tired of cs teams engaging in a chat with a preconceived notion, which is aired after 2 or 3 lines of chat, with a 'sorry but I can't offer you a free chip'. It's sad to get this response when your reason for the contact has nothing to do with asking for a free chip, and there's definitely no evidence in any previous comments that even allude to the idea.

At least this forum gives us an opportunity to investigate and search for the truth, as if we didn't have it as a tool, we would never be able to rid the arena of these bad apples, whether it be the player, or casino, who's guilty. We all have a fair idea of which casino's can be trusted thanks to sites like this, so the chance of an accredited site suddenly turning rogue is slim, however still possible. More often then not it's the players dressed in wolves clothing wearing a sheep costume, who come on here playing the victim, only for the sympathetic members here to later find the person is a rotten scoundrel. It's the constant reading of threads like this, that make me soo angry and sick to my stomach. It's preventing the industry from growing in a positive direction, and slowly killing it as an enjoyable outlet for the honest few. Considering I have never had to stop and read pages of T&C's when entering a physical casino, it's obvious to me these faceless few are likely solely to blame for the constant problems, and growing restrictions, that ultimately affect the honest Joe.

I'm not saying the OP in this case is guilty, however, if he is, come clean and move on so the true players can enjoy this site as it was intended. Likewise, if you are an accredited casino, honor that honor, and if you are in the wrong, come clean, pay up, and reflect on whether you are in the business you wish to be in, if you are happy to take but not give legitimate winnings. Why a select few outstanding casinos can manage to get it so right, yet the others can't, is a question I use to ask. I now know the simple answer: Because they choose not to!

Sorry to turn this into a self indulgent rant ChillBill, but as I progressed, it aroused some suppressed anger I had to release. Nothing personal against you of course. Rant regarding suspected rogue behavior from players and casinos alike; over, for now.

 

[ChillBill]

would the casino only be alerted to an account, or proceed to carry out any form of investigation, once the customer makes a withdrawal and gives the casino a reason to do so?

I don't profess to know the workings of casino security Departments. Though, having chatted with a few casino managers, from what I've gathered, there are cetain flags which can be raises, even after the intial process of a player opening a new real account.

If the OP has used bona fide information, then each of these new accounts would be linked, at FL, by his email address. I can't say if all Digimedia casinos share this information, though. Because while Platinum Play, Royal Vegas et al are part of the Fortune Lounge Group, there is also Jackpot City, Gaming Club et al who are not owned by Fortune Lounge Group but share the Digimedia gaming license in Malta.

Another couple of points I missed whicvh were raised by Max:

The only news I can share at this point is that (a) the casino has good evidence that the player is "non recreational" and (b) the player is therefore in violation of the casino's Terms.

As far as I'm aware the OP was only playing slots. Unlike Blackjack and other casino games where using a strategy can influence the outcome, slots are a game of 100% luck. Claiming the OP is a "non recreational" slots player, would make him what? A professional slots player

There is no such thing as a professional slot player. Slot games are designed to make you lose.

I'm not siding with the OP, FL or anyone here. All I'm doing is taking what's been said and adding my observations/opinions. I will say though, if I was the OP and received the message from Whim (view 1'st post in thread), stating why my winnings were confiscated, only to later have FL change feet and claim other reasons, then I too would probably feel somewhat wary also... just sayin

 

[vinylweatherman]

I don't profess to know the workings of casino security Departments. Though, having chatted with a few casino managers, from what I've gathered, there are cetain flags which can be raises, even after the intial process of a player opening a new real account.

If the OP has used bona fide information, then each of these new accounts would be linked, at FL, by his email address. I can't say if all Digimedia casinos share this information, though. Because while Platinum Play, Royal Vegas et al are part of the Fortune Lounge Group, there is also Jackpot City, Gaming Club et al who are not owned by Fortune Lounge Group but share the Digimedia gaming license in Malta.
Another couple of points I missed whicvh were raised by Max:



As far as I'm aware the OP was only playing slots. Unlike Blackjack and other casino games where using a strategy can influence the outcome, slots are a game of 100% luck. Claiming the OP is a "non recreational" slots player, would make him what? A professional slots player



I'm not siding with the OP, FL or anyone here. All I'm doing is taking what's been said and adding my observations/opinions. I will say though, if I was the OP and received the message from Whim (view 1'st post in thread), stating why my winnings were confiscated, only to later have FL change feet and claim other reasons, then I too would probably feel somewhat wary also... just sayin

This little nugget of information is what I find puzzling. How come a big operator like Fortune lounge doesn't have it's own license, but shares one with a direct competitor I have also noticed that Wild Jack is also now advertising itself as "Digimedia" in it's promotional emails.

It gives the appearance that these two major groups, along with Wild Jack, are really just subsidiaries of a larger parent company. Digimedia was originally the new name for Belle Rock, which moved from Gibraltar to Malta licensing.

It is starting to look like us players are being given a false picture of the current structure, particularly the degree of independence, of the casinos we play at. Information may well be shared, and in this case, a players' history at the old Belle Rock casinos will be available to Fortune Lounge. It would make it much easier to track the history of a given player through what appear to be independent groups.

 

[Dinahnana]

This little nugget of information is what I find puzzling. How come a big operator like Fortune lounge doesn't have it's own license, but shares one with a direct competitor I have also noticed that Wild Jack is also now advertising itself as "Digimedia" in it's promotional emails.

It gives the appearance that these two major groups, along with Wild Jack, are really just subsidiaries of a larger parent company. Digimedia was originally the new name for Belle Rock, which moved from Gibraltar to Malta licensing.

It is starting to look like us players are being given a false picture of the current structure, particularly the degree of independence, of the casinos we play at. Information may well be shared, and in this case, a players' history at the old Belle Rock casinos will be available to Fortune Lounge. It would make it much easier to track the history of a given player through what appear to be independent groups.

You might be right VMM these casinos are definitely connected although I find it interesting that on the Digimedia website they only list the Fortune Lounge group of casinos and not Jackpot City etc.

 

[vinylweatherman]

You might be right VMM these casinos are definitely connected although I find it interesting that on the Digimedia website they only list the Fortune Lounge group of casinos and not Jackpot City etc.

Even MORE puzzling. Digimedia first appeared as the new company name for Belle Rock around the time they moved from Gibraltar to Malta. Fortune Lounge was "Fortune Lounge", but promotional emails came from a Belize registered company "Square IT".

Maybe this is the evolution of a Northern hemisphere "Casino Rewards" by stealth

 

[Dinahnana]

Even MORE puzzling. Digimedia first appeared as the new company name for Belle Rock around the time they moved from Gibraltar to Malta. Fortune Lounge was "Fortune Lounge", but promotional emails came from a Belize registered company "Square IT".

Maybe this is the evolution of a Northern hemisphere "Casino Rewards" by stealth

Quite possible. There has been a trend in recent years with smaller casinos being bought by larger groups. Now the download MG is dominated by Digimedia/Fortune Lounge, Vegas Partner and 32 Red.
I kinda like the 32Red group myself and they took over casinos like Golden Lounge and drastically improved the service so that was a good thing.
This whole Digimedia/Fortune Lounge thingy is taking over already good casinos (alleged). I am not sure what it means in the long run but I sure hope we don't end up with a new CR type group.

 

[skiny]

Yesterday I sat through 80 dollars worth of 25 cent spins without a bonus feature playing an MGS slot game.

I made a small withdrawal from Bodog last month and since then I'm averaging 100 to 200 times my wager lost between bonus features. Not wagered - lost.

And casinos wonder why people try to figure out ways to take these bonuses and try to use them to their advantage?

In my opinion casinos have some nerve telling people how they should wager.

There should be absolutely no term anywhere telling people how to wager their money.

And yes, that bonus belongs to the player. The player paid for it when the deposit was made.

You don't offer someone a free desert with their meal and then stand over top of them telling them how to eat it.

If it's a slots bonus then you're allowed to play slots and you have to wager X times the deposit or the deposit plus the bonus - period.

Any casino that requires more terms and conditions than this on a slots only bonus obviously doesn't understand how their own software works.

Whether you play 10 dollars or 10 cents the odds of winning are still pretty damn slim.

My suggestion is, read the terms and conditions and if they tell you how you should wager your money go find another casino.

 

[ChillBill]

@ skiny - Whole heartedly agree with your above post

As I said in a previous post...
This term AP is to casinos, what snake oil is to grifters.

 

[redsfan]

Hopefully by Monday I'll have more on this whole situation.

Any news from Monday????

 

[maphesto]

Any news from Monday????

Actually, I was going to pick up the thread and ask the same thing right now. You beat me to it!

It's very important to address those bad terms etc. now when Fortune Lounge/Digimedia have so many new sister casinos. We don't want those terms to be spread.

 

[Casinomeister]

Removed from Accredited section

Well, it's still going back and forth between me and Fortune Lounge. I was hoping that they were making changes to their terms and conditions that weren't so nebulous, but they are still there.

I've made it clear to Fortune Lounge that their bonus terms are too vague and subjective and conflicts with our accredited casino operational standards:

Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations.

Link Outdated / Removed

It also ignores our player philosophy which is located here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/about-us/philosophy/

For me - the term the way it stands and how it's been enforced is way too subjective. "Not for personal entertainment" is way too abstract a term on which to base confiscations since "personal entertainment" can mean a myriad of things - when does the entertainment stop and become a professional activity? I cannot support this since it goes against our accred standards, and reflects poorly on the Accreditation of the casinos listed here. Like some of you have mentioned - it is not fair to those casinos that do not have terms such as these.

I have given the casino advice on how they can change their terms; the ball is in their court. As soon as they bring their terms up to standard - in line with what we expect as a Casinomeister Accredited Casino, then we can consider listing them again.

For now, they'll be in the "Reservation".

 

[Azzurri]

All fortune lounge accounts closed as of now. Informative thread.

Get your act together fortune. I advise all current players to do the same and show your support of casinomeister by voting with your cash and feet. They need us more than we need them and their dodgy terms.

 

[maphesto]

@Casinomeister

You got it wrong with EuroPalace Casino, you wrote Europa Casino.

 

[Dinahnana]

Good move Bryan. Let's hope they will rewrite the t&c's. It's a shame to see casinos that have been accredited for twelve years off the accredited list. I am now off to uninstall them.