I think you are missing the point of it being about customer service. To many of us, customer service is very important. With the time change I experience, waiting 48 hours for an answer every time is very frustrating. And this is the first time I myself, have seen cs go after a member. Though all you say may be true, calling out his screenshot seems over the top. There was no advantage to him photo shopping the screenshot. I understand his reasoning of being sure this wouldn't happen again. Whether just an anomaly with his account or if it affected others, there was no reassurance it wouldn't happen again, or that it wouldn't happen to another of us. I think this has become very heated over something that did not need to be. He stated the facts as he understood them, disregarding the time frame. What we need from you is that it was investigated and that it cannot or will not occur again. JMHO
That, is a very fair point. And as such as I said in my original post - we DID investigate internally. The result does not match what is depicted on the screen. Instead of taking it at face value of our internal systems, i asked for the game trail to be confirmed by NetEnt, for relevant games, and MG, again for relevant games. Such confirmation will validate our internal calculations which show that the system worked without a flaw, that the wagering was in fact 614.24 and not 814.24 as the OP claims and that the only problem here may be the graphic representation itself (6 appearing as an 8).
Until I receive supplier confirmation of every spin it is my duty to not take my team at their word and not take our own data as gospel. Since I don't have such confirmation yet, data is still a variable; and to offer a
guarantee that is being requested - I cannot have the data being a variable - it has to be a definitive result.
Now, the post isn't actually about wagering. It's about trusting your gut and going for the casinos you know because my establishment offered "piss poor customer service". It also finished by stating that while my establishment may have had praise in the past, also Rogue operations will find "a customer" that will like and/or praise them - effectively putting my business in the same pot with Rogue operations.
The OP stated that on a premise that he has been battling the issue and approached our establishment for a resolution for
two weeks. Considering the post is talking about non responsive CS and is offering their view on the situation for the public at large to take at face value, then in the same breath if such post was about a case that is less than 7 days old, and that it's been
2 days since the last interaction, it sheds a completely different light on the "piss poor customer" service than the original post, would you not agree?
When taking about an establishment, the least a user can do is make sure they have the facts in place. The same post, word for word, written with the correct timeline and correct response times would carry a far different weight on the scenario than what OP posted. I'm quite sure the "mistake" wasn't done in good faith. I cannot imagine how someone that has been in last contact with Daniel (CS) that Wednesday, in touch with me (CEO) since Monday, in touch with Casino Manager since Tuesday, for a case that started on Sunday, can mistakenly write about a 2-week struggle and "piss poor customer service" that same Friday and do it "unintentionally".
To me, that reasons my "heated" initial response, which upon re-read i saw as factual rather than heated, and I do and will stand by it. We put a lot of effort in ensuring a fair and rewarding experience and I openly take honest criticism and suggestion and have done so numerous times in the past, but it has to be
genuine. Facts must be right, especially when a complaint is public and it carries a wide spread effect.
Now, as for the guarantee - since customers of our business have a right to know whether the wagering panel that shows the wagering in-game works or not - I can offer the analysis done to date, based on internal systems, full breakdown of which is yet to be sent to the OP (NetEnt replied confirming the bets, waiting for MG).
Shane's Wagering Case:
(not to disclose game-play information publicly - i'll use provider and not game-name)
Part 1 - back-end system and data calculation: Testing Calculations & game result.
Customer received a £20 deposit bonus that carried a £800 total wagering requirement.
Customer started by playing on a NetEnt game at 100% gameweight, wagering :£29.5, contributed: £29.5 (confirmed by supplier)
Customer moved to different NetEnt game at 50% game weight, wagering: £98.28, contributed at 50%: £49.14 (confirmed)
Customer moved to a MG game at 100% gameweight, wagering: wagering £41.4, contributed £41.4 (as of right now, unconfirmed by MG but we expect confirmation today)
Customer changed to different MG game at 100% gameweight, wagering: £450.9, contributed: £450.9 (unconfirmed by supplier at this time, expected today)
Customer moved to final 2 NetEnt games at 100% gameweight, wagering a total of £43.3, contributed: £43.3 (confirmed)
At this point, the balance was depleted to a few cents (not sure if the balnce was said in the thread previously so i wont quote the amount). Date is 8 past midnight on the 13th. Customer approached CS regarding the issue. Bonus balance was forfeited and CS stated investigation will be made. Day is Sunday.
Over the next 2 days checks were made and above information was extracted and calculated manually. Findings did not match OP's statement and screenshot for several reasons:
Total amount wagered without applying game weights was: £ 663.38
Total amount contributed to bonus wagering, after application of game weights: £614.24
Note:
Customer also stated that wagering panel showed 77% wagered, but also showed £814.24 wagered out of £800 necessary to wager, which would imply that 101.75% were wagered @ (panel would show 102% due to rounding).
*This would imply that either Wagered amount was depicted erroneously or wagering % contribution was depicted erroneously.* This part is why we asked for additional confirmation by our suppliers as secondary backup, as the statement made by the OP is functionally impossible to achieve and I will explain why.
Part 2 - Graphic Representation: Checking Wagering Calculations and Website Interface
Based on data analysis only £614.24, out of required £800, was wagered toward this bonus. The wagering % achieved is calculated by the system by: Total Wagered / Required = %
In this case that would be £614.24 / £800 = 76.78%, rounded to 77% by the Website as % depiction on the site does not use decimals.
The website itself doesn't calculate anything, it receives information every few seconds from the system and shows it on screen. Information it receives is:
Total Wagered: received in cents as a value of 61424 cents.
Required to Wager: received in cents as value of 80000 cents
% Achieved: received as a value of 0.7678, converted to 76.78%, rounded to 77%
This is what boggled our mind: The OP's statement says that % showed 77% but that wagering showed £814.24 is physically impossible. The reason why that is so is best described by quoting David, our system guru:
"From our side there is nothing further to add unfortunately. I checked the screenshot - the percentage is shown correctly, the BonusWagerRequirement (Igor: Required to wager) is shown correctly, but the BonusWagerRequirementAchieved is shown incorrectly.
It is not possible for our system in any single call to GameGetSessionStatistics (Igor: this is how system sends data to the website for players to see) to return inconsistent values for those fields. Either all would correct or all would be incorrect . The percentage on our system is a calculated field which is automatically calculated by dividing BonusWageringRequirementAchieved field with BonusWAgeringRequirement field.
There is no scenario possible that would should any of the values incorrect, but execute the formula correctly. It just isn't possible. I don't know what else to tell you. Are you sure the player didn't mix the figures? The image isn't very clear."
At this point it became clear that the screenshot needs to be investigated thoroughly. Could the player have made the mistake? Could the player have photos-hoped the screenshot? Now I understand that the community may be sensitive to this statement, but it wouldn't be the first or last time and factually "it is a valid possibility" as much as it it is a valid possibility that our system was flawed. Nowhere in my thread had i insinuated that this is definitive act by the OP, I stated its possible - which it is.
It's also possible he mixed up a 6 and an 8. As for the image, sent to us as proof, here it is in its original format:
Old / Expired Link
I loaded it on-line to ensure no re-formatting is done by the forum upload process. To me and anyone that saw it so far, it could be 6 or an 8 either way. The screenshot simply isn't legible (IMHO). Data is however, showing that this seems to be end-user mistake.
... At this point in time, to AVOID accusing a player of making a mistake I asked for each bet to be confirmed by our suppliers, exactly because the answer the OP was about to receive isn't what he would have liked to hear. I suspected that such a reply may be taken personally, as it did in this thread and i would have preferred to be backed up by game supplier data also before I reply with "There was no flaw."
While I awaited such confirmations, Daniel was in touch with the OP who simply asked for a guarantee it wont happen again. Daniel did not have information or was allowed to offer information about the case to date until I validated the game-play with my suppliers. As of yesterday, this thread was a result. Which way it should have gone, or how it should be dealt with is arguable, but fact remains that when OP posts a thread which closes with comparing my establishment and ongoing efforts of my team with a Rogue operation, any good-faith toward resolution is going to be rapidly depleted. More-so when that same post isn't factually correct.
As for the guarantee that the system works to perfection - So far all evidence would point there. Following MG confirmation, the evidence will be irrefutable and then, i'll offer my absolute guarantee.
Kind regards
Igor
