Bogus Complaint Betfred Casino Issue: player account suspended pending investigation.

[AlexanderK]

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: The player's gameplay was analyzed by an independent third party, and it was determined that the player used a computer program to assist in his game play. In other words, he used a bot.

Betfred Casino offered a promotion entitled "Blackjack 7s Special" which is described here.

www.betfred.com/gg/casino/blackjack-special


In short, BlackJack players were offered different prizes for winning hands consisting of the three sevens. For the three unsuited sevens the prize was 10xBet, for the three sevens of clubs, hearts, or spades the prize was 100xBet, and for the three diamond sevens the prize was a a new Jaguar XF or a price equivalent of GBP 29,940, regardless of the bet amount.

The term "blackjack" was never explicitly defined; the promo text simply said "Play Blackjack at Betfred Casino" while the terms further specified the exceptions: Duel Blackjack, Blackjack Surrender, Lucky Blackjack and Blackjack scratchcards. Sometime around August 14th they added Blackjack Switch to the list.

From the remaining BlackJack games I chose Pontoon as the one having the lowest house edge. It was in the "Blackjack" menu, but I decided to clarify it with the customer service rep in chat. The representative confirmed that as long as it was not listed as an excluded game, it was valid. So I hit the tables. And on August the 17th I hit the three diamond sevens

When I contacted the support I was told I did not win the prize as Pontoon was not a Blackjack game. When I asked for an explanation, weird stuff started happening. They made some changes to their web site, including the instant play casino. In the download version they removed pontoon alltogether! Apparently, they were not able to simply move it away from the BlackJack menu and so they had to have it disappear. As of writing this message, the game was still not available. Here is the proving screenshot.

Unfortunately I have not screenshot it when it was available. But you can check any other Playtech casino. Wherever the "blackjack menu" exists, Pontoon is in there. Wherever the search exists, Pontoon is subtitled "BlackJack" when found. Not a "blackjack game", or "blackjack like game", just "blackjack". Here are some screenshots.

Additionally, while cleaning their web site of the "pontoon evidence" Betfred missed some of the important traces. For example the wagering contribution table from the high roller bonus table

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

has the following line:

Blackjack (all varieties, excluding Pontoon, Blackjack Switch and Blackjack Surrender)

if Pontoon is not a blackjack game to begin with, why list as an exception in the blackjack line? This was among the other questions I asked them on August the 19. They took a pause and then on August 20th I got another email from them. Now it did not mention the Pontoon issue. Instead, they said... I was using a bot. Which they concluded based on my gaming patterns. And therefore my winnings are void and my account is locked.

This was ridiculous.Yes, I was playing a lot - for hours. One needs to play a lot to see a rare event like this. The promo was limited in time. They kept excluding the games. So I was playing and playing. But my play never went beyond the human capacity. I will be more then happy to repeat it by playing the same amount of time without stopping, while observed by a Betfred authorized agent in person. Also it should be noted that immediately after hitting the 3 sevens I stopped playing, took a screenshot and started talking in a chat. Can that be also done by a bot?

After asking them these questions I was presented with another surprise. I was informed that Canadian players are ineligible for the promotion according to the terms and conditions, and therefore I am not allowed to play and win. However, Google cache still shows the old terms

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

and I kept the screenshot of the old terms as well:

Thank you for reading through the end. In summary I would like to say that Betfred is applying hideous tactics and otherwise going out of their way to find a reason not to pay a prize they offered. So at very least there is no way Betfred should be given the "accredited" status.

And of course I want my 30,000 GBP I honestly won.

If required, I am ready to provide the full screenshots, transaction histories, timestamps as well as any identification documents necessary.

 

[rainmaker]

Hi!

Welcome to this great forum. I see it is your first post.

I just wanted to give you the link to Betfred's casino manager. As you may know, they are accredited here on Casinomeister. You should send him a private message.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/

You also have the opportunity to later do a pitch a bitch which is described here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/help/pab-rules/


I do not know whether you have a case or not, as I only read through your post very quickly. But I would advise you not to continue discussing your case openly in the forum at this point (in case you need to do a PAB later). But first, send the rep a private message and wait for his reply. He is very helpful.

 

[Seventh777]

Contact Aaron via a PM https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/ Give him time to respond and take it from there.

 

[butterflyboogie]

If the rep does not give you the answers you need then definately read the conditions of pitch a bitch. Max, the one that handles these is out on vacation however he will be back. He is very thorough at what he does so be sure and comply with what is required. I hope you get your money; from what I read, which was the entire thing, and viewing the pontoon listed as a bj came with other playtech casinos, it seems you should have won. Good luck to you and do not give up.

 

[Slotster!]

Thank you for a well reasoned, balanced and polite version of events - made reading a lot of information very easy.

Welcome to the forum; I hope you get paid.

 

[Nifty29]

Well on the face of it I'd say its a case of "pay the player".

I don't understand why betfred would WANT to refuse payment.....imagine the PR from "Player wins $30k from $1 blackjack!!".

I will say that pontoon is usually NOT considered blackjack, but they make it appear as though it is.

The only issue is when they changed the terms I.e. before you won or after. Since no code or entry acceptance was required, if they changed it after the promo started but before you won, you might be SOL on a technicality.

 

[KasinoKing]

Totally agree with Slotster & Nifty.
I personally would not call Pontoon Blackjack - but it is completely clear from what AlexanderK posted, that is WAS classed as such at BetFred.

Looks like the promotions team messed up when writing the rules for this bonus. Is this the players fault? NO!
Pay the player - we don't need another Betfair fiasco...

KK

 

[Redbet-Andy]

Well on the face of it I'd say its a case of "pay the player".

I will say that pontoon is usually NOT considered blackjack, but they make it appear as though it is.

I was surprised at that, as often Pontoon is considered a variant of Blackjack. Seems it depends where in the world you live...

From Wikipedia:
Pontoon is an unlicensed variant of the American game Spanish 21 that is played in Australian, Malaysian and Singaporean casinos,[1] in Treasury Casino, Brisbane, it is known as Treasury 21. In Jupiters Casino, Gold Coast, it is known as Jupiters 21, in The Reef Casino, Cairns, it is known as Paradise Pontoon, and in Tasmania, it is known as Federal Pontoon.[2]

It should not be confused with the British blackjack variant, which is also called Pontoon, found in the UK and Commonwealth, and played with regular 52-card decks.

 

[chuchu59]

A very well-written post from the OP together with good reasoning and relevant screenshots. I cannot see how Betfred can wriggle out of this but then their reputation for the past 2 years has been less than stellar.

 

[vinylweatherman]

What appears to drop Betfred right in it is the lengths it has gone to in order to make "inconvenient truths" simply disappear, rather than using an already existing term and condition. It seems every time the OP managed to shoot down one reason for not awarding the prize, Betfred came up with another, and another, even to the extent of changing the website and then claiming it had always been that way.

This is 100% PAB material, and the minor inconvenience of Max being away should be outweighed by the potential of getting the prize. Max & Bryan will spot any bullshit a mile off, and will start with the OP's PAB form. It is important to keep any evidence of these changes, along with any exchanges with CS and management. Avoid use of chat & phone, get their excuses in writing via email.

It seems the whole thing was caused when CS gave the OP a verbal assurance that play on Pontoon was OK as it was not listed as an excluded Blackjack variant. Rather than take the hit for their employees duff or lazy responce, management seemed to have tried to shift the blame to the player, coming up with every excuse they can think of to claim the hand was ineligible.

This is a very rare hand, and often the way these promos work is that the prize is not expected to be won at all, and is secured through an insurance deal. This is like those "win a car by throwing 6 dice and getting all sixes. No way can a village fete afford to give away a car every time, and if the prize were won, it would wipe out any profit from many such fetes. It is simply a lure to get people to come, and they pay a relatively small insurance premium to cover the unlikely event that the prize is won. I expect Betfred used this to lure in many players to the Blackjack tables for the unlikely chance of winning a Jag. The short timescale would lower the chance of the prize being claimed.

Unfortunately, they didn't draft the rules tightly enough, and this may have invalidated their prize insurance, meaning they would have to pay from their own pockets. Maybe they should have specified a minimum stake per hand, and rather than relying on game exclusions, should have listed specific Blackjack games that were eligible.

Playtech clearly consider Pontoon to be a variant of Blackjack, along with their other bespoke variants like switch and surrender. With this in mind, the game should qualify as it was not listed as an excluded game. The fact that they kept adding games to the exclusions list is proof that the initial design was flawed, and they were making changes "on the fly" in order to lower the odds of the prize being won. Unfortunately, they got caught out because they didn't consider Pontoon for exclusion early enough.

This is only £30K, yet Betfred seem determined not to pay it, however much bad publicity it generates. They had better come up with something much better during the PAB stage, and if they have tinkered with the website to hide the evidence, they WILL be found out when Max gets investigating.

The simplest question of all would be "how can a winning hand be classed as void on a game that doesn't exist?". This will put them in the position of having to explain to Max why they went to the extraordinary lengths of simply "disappearing" Pontoon as a game from the casino and website, rather than explaining why they considered the hand void.

 

[Slotster!]

This is 100% PAB material,

The BetFred rep has logged on and viewed the thread, so fingers crossed it will get resolved either way without the hassle.

 

[Betfred]

Hi all,

This obviously needs clarification.

The player in question did claim the Blackjack 7s top prize and Betfred did indeed reject his application for a number of reasons, many of which I can’t disclose on a public forum. I invite the player to PAB so that Casinomeister can view our reasoning and impartially mediate.

Kind regards,
Aaron

 

[Nifty29]

Hi all,

This obviously needs clarification.

The player in question did claim the Blackjack 7s top prize and Betfred did indeed reject his application for a number of reasons, many of which I can’t disclose on a public forum. I invite the player to PAB so that Casinomeister can view our reasoning and impartially mediate.

Kind regards,
Aaron

Curioser and curioser.....

I really hope that this isn't a case of a player BS'ing the members to gain support. I really hate that, and it's why I qualified my opinion with "on the face of it".

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi all,

This obviously needs clarification.

The player in question did claim the Blackjack 7s top prize and Betfred did indeed reject his application for a number of reasons, many of which I can’t disclose on a public forum. I invite the player to PAB so that Casinomeister can view our reasoning and impartially mediate.

Kind regards,
Aaron

Despite this, did you in fact make the Pontoon game "disappear" as he claimed you have done in an effort to whitewash this incident?

From his story, he was given a number of differing excuses, and from the wording of the promo, there does not seem to be any grounds for voiding the prize based on the argument that Pontoon itself doesn't count.

I also can't see any way he could have manipulated the game to produce the winning hand, unless of course it has been faked by "photoshopping".

Other players WILL want to be assured that the win was voided for valid reasons, rather than an attempt to wriggle out of paying a prize that was not expected to be won due to the rarety of the hand and short duration of the promo.

If you suspect a bot was used, this isn't something you "can't disclose on a public forum" as being the reason for voiding the prize, although bot use, provided it is suported by evidence, would void all play under the general terms.

If a player was prepared to stay awake 24/7, drink loads of coffee or take supplements, and play an "inhuman" amount in order to stand a better chance, this is NOT grounds for voiding the win. It IS possible to have a continuous session approaching 100 hours, my Nephew did it when he was a teenager playing computer games, person to person chat, and looking on Anime sites. I measured 88 hours continuous, fuelled by caffeine and the shortest loo breaks possible. He collapsed exhausted on the bed, and slept for a solid 24 hours. He said he would have carried on, but had started seeing things and couldn't see the keyboard, so was forced to quit. After the long sleep, he did another 33 hours continuous It only ended because it was time to go back home, but I had to spend 3 hours trying to surgically remove him from the PC It's ridiculous, unbelievable, yet entirely possible given enough single minded drive towards a goal.

 

[Slotster!]

my Nephew did it when he was a teenager playing computer games, person to person chat, and looking on Anime sites. I measured 88 hours continuous, fuelled by caffeine and the shortest loo breaks possible. He collapsed exhausted on the bed, and slept for a solid 24 hours. He said he would have carried on, but had started seeing things and couldn't see the keyboard, so was forced to quit. After the long sleep, he did another 33 hours continuous It only ended because it was time to go back home, but I had to spend 3 hours trying to surgically remove him from the PC It's ridiculous, unbelievable, yet entirely possible given enough single minded drive towards a goal.

Yeah yeah yeah... Your 'nephew'... Sure... What was he playing - Chavin' It Large or 'Track & Field Mouse'?

Agreed though VWM. Unless the OP is a complete out and out fraud - there are serious questions to be answered here.

 

[Jasminebed]

I think Betfred has made their position pretty clear, the OP needs to PAB. The first reply by Rainmaker provides the link for the PAB FAQ, and the OP needs to avail himself of this service.

Don't post further Alexander. Be patient (seems like you might have that quality already); as others have pointed out, the PAB manager Maxd is on holiday right now. Be truthful and cooperative, and I wish you a happy resolution.

 

[mn001]

I'm a bit slow in my brain today but is this around 1:150k or so to hit the top prize? If so that is a damn good promo if $1 bets are allowed.

 

[raj]

I'm a bit slow in my brain today but is this around 1:150k or so to hit the top prize? If so that is a damn good promo if $1 bets are allowed.

It is indeed a very good promo....expectation is it would take around 80,000 or so hands to win and expected loss on 80,000 hands at $1 a hand is only about $1,500 if my maths is right

Raj

 

[vinylweatherman]

It is indeed a very good promo....expectation is it would take around 80,000 or so hands to win and expected loss on 80,000 hands at $1 a hand is only about $1,500 if my maths is right

Raj

This might be how Betfred slipped up with the rules. The OP is using multi-hand, so each hand is 5 of those 80,000 needed, and this would make this strategy well worth taking on. Since there is nothing to say otherwise, a $1 stake would be eligible.

Excluding the multi-hand versions would have been a wise move by Betfred, along with excluding games such as Pontoon, and/or setting a minimum stake per hand needed to qualify.

It seems very much a case of the player being better at maths than the promotions manager, with the terms changes on the fly coming as a result of this dawning on management as they saw data coming in showing just how many hands were being played by players as a whole. I don't expect the OP was the only player better at maths than the promotional manager, but was the first to hit the hand and claim, thus ending the promo.

Since this "jackpot" has been won, but later declared void, what now happens? Players who hit this hand later would now become eligible, or the promotion needs to be extended to ensure that this prize is actually awarded to a player. The other option is that Betfred "pockets" this jackpot on the grounds that no-one won it, yet it has effectively been paid for by players playing and losing to the house money they would not have played had this prize not been offered.

It bears some similarity to the situation where a player hits a progressive jackpot which is subsequently voided for breaches of the terms. It is expected that the jackpot is replaced to be won again by a player with a legitimate claim, rather than be pocketed by the operator - unless of course my theory about this being an insured prize not necessarily meant to be won is close to the truth.

 

[The Dude]

@AlexanderK - Please PAB as soon as possible so we can get to the bottom of this.

I would hold back making any accusations until we know exactly what happened.

For the record, Pontoon is a version of Blackjack. According to Hoyle's Encyclopedia of Card Games, "Pontoon" is a nickname for Twenty-One. Twenty-One is synonymous with Blackjack. Hoyle, by the way, is the definitive rule book on card games.

 

[asianeyes]

Hi all,

This obviously needs clarification.

The player in question did claim the Blackjack 7s top prize and Betfred did indeed reject his application for a number of reasons, many of which I can’t disclose on a public forum. I invite the player to PAB so that Casinomeister can view our reasoning and impartially mediate.

Kind regards,
Aaron

Bookies Won't Pay Out Granny's Olympic Bet

Hi, Aaron! Here's a link from U.K. Eurosport.Yahoo.com news:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Send my regards to Gran cos in this day of the internet everything travels at light speed!

 

[Seventh777]

Bookies Won't Pay Out Granny's Olympic Bet

Hi, Aaron! Here's a link from U.K. Eurosport.Yahoo.com news:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Send my regards to Gran cos in this day of the internet everything travels at light speed!

I`ve always thought that when you lay a bet it is how it is written, unless ofc it`s a special bet that has been placed using the respective form or clear instructions on a plain betting slip Ie. x4 selections with <insert random amount here> win, e/w Yankee, she bet on her grandson winning a medal which he duly achieved, if there were certain T&C`s with this bet she should have been foretold when she placed the bet.

Like betting on a football match the result is always based on normal time unless otherwise stated.

 

[AlexanderK]

I will start the PAB submission now.

 

[Nifty29]

Of course it was a great promo. Actually it still is, for countries other than Canada. So you can try and hit it. But here is a catch 22: if you play slowly, chances are they will close your country or the promo altogether before you hit the 3 diamond 7s. If instead, you play like a maniac an hit the 777, they will tell you are using a bot and deny your winnings.




My play was not even remotely wild like this. It rather resembled a workman's shifts - that's it.

I will start the PAB submission now.

You're not helping yourself FYI.

 

[naththo]

Bookies Won't Pay Out Granny's Olympic Bet

Hi, Aaron! Here's a link from U.K. Eurosport.Yahoo.com news:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Send my regards to Gran cos in this day of the internet everything travels at light speed!

Imo she had violated the rules. She bet on her grandson as part of family going to olympic and she bet on it. It is an illegal betting scheme. If you bet on your own team or your own family you are breaking the rules. End of story. Simple? Yes I think so! I know many of it happening around. Sorry Granny. You should know better about the legalisation of betting.

 

[jetset]

Bookies Won't Pay Out Granny's Olympic Bet

Hi, Aaron! Here's a link from U.K. Eurosport.Yahoo.com news:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Send my regards to Gran cos in this day of the internet everything travels at light speed!

The latest on this is that Betfred has folded and paid granny after discussing the issue with IBAS.

 

[naththo]

The latest on this is that Betfred has folded and paid granny after discussing the issue with IBAS.

Well thats very lucky for her but I hope she learnt a lesson for next time. Do not bet on your own team or your own family and don't do it again.

 

[LaHutti]

That had nothing to do with it .. I don't know why you keep saying the same nonsense over and over.

Well thats very lucky for her but I hope she learnt a lesson for next time. Do not bet on your own team or your own family and don't do it again.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Well thats very lucky for her but I hope she learnt a lesson for next time. Do not bet on your own team or your own family and don't do it again.

This is not illegal, although there may be terms against it. There are many cases of legitimate bets involving family members. What matters to bookies is whether there is a possibility of the person making the bet influencing the outcome, such as match fixing. Had the bet been to NOT bring home a medal, there is the chance that family could conspire to "throw" the match, or event. This kind of thing has happened, but certainly not over a trifling sum like £1000.

Besides, this is not what Betfred claimed was the reason for not paying, they claimed that team medals didn't count, but this was not specified. I suspect they were told to expect an adverse judgement from an IBAS investigation, so paid up rather than have it on record against them.

 

[raj]

As far as i can see, the offer is not a one off jackpot, but that everyone who achives 3 diamond 7's will get £30k. As i said earlier the odds are good if you have the time, know basic strategy and the funding to work it through along with plenty of caffine , pro plus and red bull

The Betfred offer is still open , at least for those not in Canada, so it wouldn't surprise me if other forum memebers took up the challenge, unfortunately I do not have the time to do this.

Raj

 

[The Dude]

PAB submitted and forwarded to Betfred.

 

[Redbet-Andy]

It is indeed a very good promo....expectation is it would take around 80,000 or so hands to win and expected loss on 80,000 hands at $1 a hand is only about $1,500 if my maths is right

Raj

Progressive Blackjack isn't prohibited according to the T&Cs and that's only 1c per hand...

Surprised there haven't been a few winners on this. You've got to sympathise with whoever came up with it as without delving into the maths it would seem like a good promo for the casino (I did something similar in the past which cost my employer quite a bundle, players liked me for it though!)

 

[Seventh777]

Imo she had violated the rules. She bet on her grandson as part of family going to olympic and she bet on it. It is an illegal betting scheme. If you bet on your own team or your own family you are breaking the rules. End of story. Simple? Yes I think so! I know many of it happening around. Sorry Granny. You should know better about the legalisation of betting.

So, by your logic race trainers cannot bet on their own horses/dogs?, jockeys however cannot bet on their rides. Let`s say for arguments sake that VWM is my brother and he is world snooker champion, his opening game is against Stevie Wonder and I lay off thousands at several bookies that VWM will lose his opener by 5 frames to nil, at odds of 10,0000 - 1, which he duly does, will these bets become void?, or honoured by the bookies unless they have indisputable proof he threw the game.

 

[naththo]

This is not illegal, although there may be terms against it. There are many cases of legitimate bets involving family members. What matters to bookies is whether there is a possibility of the person making the bet influencing the outcome, such as match fixing. Had the bet been to NOT bring home a medal, there is the chance that family could conspire to "throw" the match, or event. This kind of thing has happened, but certainly not over a trifling sum like £1000.

Besides, this is not what Betfred claimed was the reason for not paying, they claimed that team medals didn't count, but this was not specified. I suspect they were told to expect an adverse judgement from an IBAS investigation, so paid up rather than have it on record against them.

Ah the quote at bottom seems to make sense to me. I can understand clearly what happened. Thanks for explaining quite more clearly for me to understand. Previously other post I wasn't sure what it really meant. I can understand there is so much complication with that certain game that someone had a great luck of triple 7. But congratulation on your winning though still triple 7 would be so hard to get in the odd. But at least I am seeing you have grab 777 and a great winner hand. Thats the best I have seen. Hopefully they pay up to you. *fingers crossed*

 

[vinylweatherman]

As far as i can see, the offer is not a one off jackpot, but that everyone who achives 3 diamond 7's will get £30k. As i said earlier the odds are good if you have the time, know basic strategy and the funding to work it through along with plenty of caffine , pro plus and red bull

The Betfred offer is still open , at least for those not in Canada, so it wouldn't surprise me if other forum memebers took up the challenge, unfortunately I do not have the time to do this.

Raj

This is another very dubious action from Betfred. A Canadian player hits the hand, Betfred say it doesn't count, then bans the whole damn country!!!! Where is the logic in banning an entire country just because ONE player hit the hand with what the casino considers a clear case of a breach of the terms. It seems they have been banning other countries on the fly too. Has this also been because players hit the hand and were told it was void due to some term?

If they will pay out on EVERY hit of 3 Diamond 7's, at odds which greatly favour the player, it seems they are either stupid, or are prepared to void other bets for dubious reasons that are not actually written into the terms and conditions.

This stinks of them changing the rules on the fly by watching and learning from players as they play. This is a case of moving the goalposts after players have deposited and risked their own money to achieve a goal. It could be considered a bait and switch because players are seeing terms that look very favourable indeed, but will find out that when they hit the diamond 7's, they have been snookered by one of these on the fly rule changes that has rendered their hand invalid for the prize.

Very unprofessional, they should have properly designed and risk assessed this promo before launch to ensure it was not too easy for the determined player. I am also surprised they have not exercised their right to terminate the promo early after realising just how good a deal it is for players, and the risk that quite a number will eventually hit this winning hand.

 

[naththo]

That had nothing to do with it .. I don't know why you keep saying the same nonsense over and over.

I give up. But I respect every rules around though still. At least I am glad she got pay up by Betfred they decided its better to pay up rather than having to go through heck of investigation is just too much for them so better off just do it before lots of pressure is coming in.

 

[Seventh777]

, then bans the whole damn country!!!! Where is the logic in banning an entire country just because ONE player hit the hand

Why not?, it`s common practice to declare war on a whole country just because a few of their religious fundamentalist extremists decide to wear a Semtex waistcoat and claim their 24 virgins (who the fck would want 24 virgins?, give me 2 sluts over 24 virgins any day of the week), even though these suicide bombers don`t come from the respective countries , maybe Betfred doesn`t like Canada`s Western decadence and their freedoms and democracy .

 

[Borgie]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman
This is not illegal, although there may be terms against it. There are many cases of legitimate bets involving family members. What matters to bookies is whether there is a possibility of the person making the bet influencing the outcome, such as match fixing. Had the bet been to NOT bring home a medal, there is the chance that family could conspire to "throw" the match, or event. This kind of thing has happened, but certainly not over a trifling sum like £1000.

Besides, this is not what Betfred claimed was the reason for not paying, they claimed that team medals didn't count, but this was not specified. I suspect they were told to expect an adverse judgement from an IBAS investigation, so paid up rather than have it on record against them.


Ah the quote at bottom seems to make sense to me. I can understand clearly what happened. Thanks for explaining quite more clearly for me to understand. Previously other post I wasn't sure what it really meant. I can understand there is so much complication with that certain game that someone had a great luck of triple 7. But congratulation on your winning though still triple 7 would be so hard to get in the odd. But at least I am seeing you have grab 777 and a great winner hand. Thats the best I have seen. Hopefully they pay up to you. *fingers crossed*



Nope I have lost the plot !

 

[P.V.]

Why doesn't the screen shot match with the data, I'm confused? The actual casino pic shows 92Q Queen on the left but the second screen shot shows 92Q, looks like a King.

What's up with the queen and King thingy? Am I missing something?

Also this isn't 1 screen shot it's 2, that seems odd don't ya think?

I'm just looking in and have no clue, I'll leave that to CM & Max but why does one screen shot show a queen and the other a King, seems odd if all information displayed came from the same hand.

 

[Seventh777]

Why doesn't the screen shot match with the data, I'm confused? The actual casino pic shows 92Q Queen on the left but the second screen shot shows 92Q, looks like a King.

What's up with the queen and King thingy? Am I missing something?

Also this isn't 1 screen shot it's 2, that seems odd don't ya think?

I'm just looking in and have no clue, I'll leave that to CM & Max but why does one screen shot show a queen and the other a King, seems odd if all information displayed came from the same hand.

The main screenshot shows all 5 of the players hands, the other just shows the 1st two - 92Q and triple 7`s .

 

[P.V.]

The main screenshot shows all 5 of the players hands, the other just shows the 1st two - 92Q and triple 7`s .

Not my point, see attachments.. One is a Queen and the other is a King, should show the same.

 

[Seventh777]

Not my point, see attachments.. One is a Queen and the other is a King, should show the same.

Ah, got ya now, well spotted .

 

[bpb]

I'd advise filing a complaint with the Gibraltar Gambling Commission immediately.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I will say though, after reading the section on "bonus complaints/abuse" at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

... I wouldn't expect much. Sounds like the GGC are scumbags who will accept any excuse for denying a promotional win.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Player wins big money after clarifying that Pontoon is included in promotion.

Betfred then says, "Pontoon" is not a blackjack game." Sore losers.
Then Pontoon disappears from the screens where other Playtech casinos obviously have it. Sore losers.
Then Betfred says, "Oh! A bot!" Where have I heard that before?? Sore losers.
Then Betfred says, "Oh! You're a Canadian! T&C states Canada is banned." List of banned countries changed after the fact. Sore losers.


For a once stellar casino to go this lengths to deny a winner his money means, IMO, Betfred is low on cash and could go the way of Heroes Casino. Unless the PAB shows the OP is telling lies and using dubious means to win, the Betfred needs to clean up their act. But it is hard to imagine why the random excuses to deny payment if the OP is questionable.

 

[hakapuku]

Again and again an online casino makes gamblers pay for their (casino's) mistakes.

 

[chuchu59]

Well thats very lucky for her but I hope she learnt a lesson for next time. Do not bet on your own team or your own family and don't do it again.

It seems she only wanted to make a bet to support her grandson. Family bonding ya know. Its not purely from a gambling perspective.

 

[The Dude]

So far from what I've seen, this is not an issue of what game was played, nor it is an issue of a casino not wanting to pay someone. (Betfred has deep enough pockets to dish out Jaguars and five figures of cash to those who play by the rules of the game). Unfortunately it may be a case where this player has breached certain terms. More later.

 

[vinylweatherman]

So far from what I've seen, this is not an issue of what game was played, nor it is an issue of a casino not wanting to pay someone. (Betfred has deep enough pockets to dish out Jaguars and five figures of cash to those who play by the rules of the game). Unfortunately it may be a case where this player has breached certain terms. More later.

This is a reasonable conclusion, but why all this cloak and dagger stuff

Betfred then says, "Pontoon" is not a blackjack game." Sore losers.
Then Pontoon disappears from the screens where other Playtech casinos obviously have it. Sore losers.
Then Betfred says, "Oh! A bot!" Where have I heard that before?? Sore losers.
Then Betfred says, "Oh! You're a Canadian! T&C states Canada is banned." List of banned countries changed after the fact. Sore losers.

The underlined can be verified independent of any testimony from the OP.

As for the first point, Pontoon is NOT listed as an excluded game even now.

The other problem is that whatever else has happened, the OP has evidence that his winning hand was on Pontoon, a game that no longer features at Betfred. This strongly supports the claim that Pontoon was pulled from the casino as a result of this incident, a move completely unnecessary if this is simply a case of a player breaking some other terms.

By removing Pontoon, Betfred are showing that there IS an issue with this game, even if it not as represented by the OP.

 

[KasinoKing]

Not my point, see attachments.. One is a Queen and the other is a King, should show the same.

Well I must need new glasses!
I can only see a Queen in each shot (with big white arrows pointing at them!)

The only King I can see round here... is me!

KK

 

[Redbet-Andy]

Well I must need new glasses!
I can only see a Queen in each shot (with big white arrows pointing at them!)

The only King I can see round here... is me!

KK

It's a Queen - but with a King's head. Either that or she's a proper minger.
I've been out with worse mind you.