I had a horrific experience with Betroyal.
Back in March I played a promo at their casino and won a few thousands, but they confiscated my winnings because I played roulette, even though the rules merely mentioned that roulette does not count towards the rollover (I completed the rollover on other games that counted).
Since then I have discussed this issue on a few occasions with their ex-manager AJ. Just recently, AJ was supposed to discuss things with the accounting people but now he is gone. I have tried to resume discussion with James Cash today but it turned disastrous.
I know that another player on this forum (mathilda) also played roulette on a promo there a while ago and got a promise that she would get paid. I guess they were briefly open to logical thinking back then but these days are gone.
These guys, not just James Cash, others at Betroyal too, are used to the upbeat, pushy ways of the snakeoil salesman. Logical thinking and fair discussion are alien to them.
Trying to argue with them was a waste of time. I have a sceenshot that proves that the rules were changed after I played, but I could never even get Mr Cash to listen to what the rule amendment was, even though it was critical to what I was trying to explain. If at any point I could get him to listen long enough for me to begin to build an argument, he would interrupt and repeat again and again that it was pointless to discuss any further because 'I had broken the rules'. And then he would again fake to be listening only to interrupt again by hammering that I have 'knowingly broken the rules'. Countless times he threatened to close my account and seize the money still left in it, or to have me speak with his manager who is ' in no way as nice as me'. In the end I couldn't take the abuse anymore and I abruptly said goodbye and hung up. This caused him to lock my account and take away my 600$ deposit amount that they had returned to my account after seizing my nearly 4000$ in winnings.
For the record, the rule that was changed is this :
The current text :
What it was when I played :
Now why would they have added that last line unless they thought it meant something different when the line wasn't there?
I believe most people would agree that I have a good point there, but the significance of it appears to be way out of reach of the Betroyal people.
Note : I am aware that, in its current state, the rule is still ambiguous. That last line they added should appear in the middle of the paragraph, not at the end. As it is now, it seems to imply that playing video poker or blackjack will void you winnings too. Of course, it might get handy for them to make it mean exactly that when it'll suit their purpose.
Back in March I played a promo at their casino and won a few thousands, but they confiscated my winnings because I played roulette, even though the rules merely mentioned that roulette does not count towards the rollover (I completed the rollover on other games that counted).
Since then I have discussed this issue on a few occasions with their ex-manager AJ. Just recently, AJ was supposed to discuss things with the accounting people but now he is gone. I have tried to resume discussion with James Cash today but it turned disastrous.
I know that another player on this forum (mathilda) also played roulette on a promo there a while ago and got a promise that she would get paid. I guess they were briefly open to logical thinking back then but these days are gone.
These guys, not just James Cash, others at Betroyal too, are used to the upbeat, pushy ways of the snakeoil salesman. Logical thinking and fair discussion are alien to them.
Trying to argue with them was a waste of time. I have a sceenshot that proves that the rules were changed after I played, but I could never even get Mr Cash to listen to what the rule amendment was, even though it was critical to what I was trying to explain. If at any point I could get him to listen long enough for me to begin to build an argument, he would interrupt and repeat again and again that it was pointless to discuss any further because 'I had broken the rules'. And then he would again fake to be listening only to interrupt again by hammering that I have 'knowingly broken the rules'. Countless times he threatened to close my account and seize the money still left in it, or to have me speak with his manager who is ' in no way as nice as me'. In the end I couldn't take the abuse anymore and I abruptly said goodbye and hung up. This caused him to lock my account and take away my 600$ deposit amount that they had returned to my account after seizing my nearly 4000$ in winnings.
For the record, the rule that was changed is this :
The current text :
What it was when I played :
Now why would they have added that last line unless they thought it meant something different when the line wasn't there?
I believe most people would agree that I have a good point there, but the significance of it appears to be way out of reach of the Betroyal people.
Note : I am aware that, in its current state, the rule is still ambiguous. That last line they added should appear in the middle of the paragraph, not at the end. As it is now, it seems to imply that playing video poker or blackjack will void you winnings too. Of course, it might get handy for them to make it mean exactly that when it'll suit their purpose.
