This is great news, thanks.
However does this mean that each player now needs to PAB because Betfair told me (and from what I've read plenty of other players) "we do now consider this matter closed, and shall not enter into any further correspondence in connection with it." So they won't respond to my emails about this matter.
For info, in my case they actually paid out but then put my Betfair balance to a negative balance and are demanding I deposit to clear the negative balance.
Well, I am sure YOU have some kind of "F U clause" that prohibits you from making further deposits into a casino that has tried to screw you over.
The fact that they paid players, and THEN decided to void the winnings, makes it look like there were NO actual violations of terms, but more of a case of them realising that "everybody was winning", discovering the flawed nature of the promotion, and deciding that merely to participate in a flawed promotion was itself "a violation of the standard terms".
I get the impression that SOME players were not satisfied with the more or less guaranteed profit from the low 10x WR, and DID seek to screw every cent out of this promo by "betting opposites" on French roulette, and grinding out the WR more or less exactly.
This is one tactic that DOES fall foul of even the generalised "irregular playing patterns" rule, as I am sure no-one walks into a B & M, puts $500 on Red, and $500 on black, without everybody at the table thinking WTF
This is the second case I have seen where a player has had such levels of confiscation that their balance has gone negative. The other made no mention of this being due to having already cashed out and "locked" the withdrawal from being reversed by Betfair.
I see it's OK for a CASINO in this situation to threaten and even "blackmail" a player into giving back a paid withdrawal, yet it is NOT OK for a PLAYER to exert this type of pressure on a casino that has confiscated a payout.
We also know that such threats do NOT impress casinos, and make them even MORE likely to stick to not paying. Casinos might consider that the opposite is also true, threaten a player with "recovery action" when they have been paid, and THEN deemed to have been "cheating", and said player is not only LESS likely to see the casino's side, but also LESS likely to give the money back through future deposits and play. Worse, they are MORE likely to vent in public if threatened with "recovery action" after being paid (and get more sympathy), as opposed to merely being "bonus banned" for the manner of play that won them the money in the first place.
Had Betfair paid except in CLEAR cases of violation, and then "bonus banned" all the rest who "played too smart" with a flawed promotion, their would have been a fuss, but nowhere near as bad as THIS one has turned out to be, and they would STILL have their reputation for fairness intact.
I also find it interesting that Max could get nowhere, but removal from the accredited section got their attention pretty damn quickly, and the old rep has been "posted out of harm's way" and replaced by a new one willing to communicate and receive PABs. I very much doubt the OLD rep made his original statement off his own bat, but was following what was then the "company line" (i.e. he was TOLD to say and do what he did by a higher power in the company), one quickly "U turned" upon when they realised what the repercussions of this were.
