Big thumbs up to Shark casino

[elscrabinda]

I'm not usually motivated to actually praise a casino and on occasion feel that the majority of my posts are overly negative (not my fault that most casinos are so scummy!) but today I did feel moved to post some positive feedback.

After a small misunderstanding (my fault) I was trying to resolve the issue on Live chat and although the agent was very helpful and polite he was not able to help me. I was beginning to get a little annoyed but then my mobile rang and it was the manager of Shark on the line. He'd heard I was having some problems and wanted to help in any way he could. I explained the issue and he was very understanding. Within minutes everything was resolved and for once a casino went out of their way to do the right thing rather than hide behind obscure terms and conditions as is often the case.

With all the bad press the other apparently reputable RTG sites are getting on these forums it might be worth giving Shark a go

 

[tantalos]

Coolcat and Highrollers (RTG casinos) have made me rather sceptical when it comes spending my money over there...

I guess I'll have to check Shark sometime - how did you do there by the way?

 

[elscrabinda]

Made $300 odd playing high stakes BJ. I don't think the fairness of RTG software is ever in question, just the people who run the casinos usually.

 

[bpb]

I'll also give a big thumbs up to Shark. Prompt payouts and very fair bonuses.

 

[Macgyver]

Only problem I have with Shark is that if you win more than you deposited, they'll not let you redeem any more bonus coupons.

But they sure will still send you the weekly emails, even if you ask them to take you off the list when every coupon you try to redeem is denied.

 

[suzecat]

Just Wondering............

Hi, found this post about Shark Casino and was wondering about my recent win there. I redeemed SEP13th coupon (good for $13) and deposited match of $13. Played video poker and on third or fourth roll I HIT A ROYAL FLUSH!!! Finished playthrough and requested cashout. It was denied; they said I needed to play more. I did and even played way over what was needed and requested another cashout (for more than the original one). I filled out and emailed my faxback and other docs. Now it's time to receive win, right? Their site says they pay same day as cashout received, but so far that has not been done. What do you think about this? BTW, I have been playing there since April of this year and this is my first cashout. Never chargedback anything or did anything else that would be considered "bad."

 

[elscrabinda]

Their support are very helpful and if you have any problems ask to speak to the manager.

Congrats on the win btw! (you've double checked you were playing an allowed game right?)

 

[Agamemnon]

Congrats on the win btw! (you've double checked you were playing an allowed game right?)

Warning: Rant
"allowed game? double check you're playing an allowed game?"
I know the score as much as most people in this forum and I realise elscrabinda that you're trying to be helpful and I'm sure you're correct to make the point you're trying to make -so I'm not ranting regarding you or shark casino- but,
Hello? Isn't this a sign the industry is skewed beyond reason?
I'm trained in Law and for the last few years it's served me when dealing with casino issue arguments. This should not be the case. Don't you all find needing to point at disclaimers peculiar?
I'm not offering a solution but I can tell you that at some properties I play at, I've totally thrown out bonuses -in spite of my playing slots and hence easily met WR. To have these properties take off all bonuses has required quite a lot of waiting and email exchanges, and why?
Because I'm simply tired of having to calculate whether what I'm playing is really mine, whether I've won or whether I'll get shafted on the way to the withdrawal. I don't want to know about "allowed games".
Example: A novice friend of mine took up the Platinum Play 100 spins bonus a way back. They clearly stated this was good for spins. Good for them. As he was given credits and not any further instructions he was let loose on the lobby with 100 credits. Not sure what to do he wondered outloud to me if these "credits" could be used in other games. Before I could warn him he played one (1) hand of video poker and won .40 cents to my horror (as I knew what was going to happen). He proceeded to make the 100 credits work up to 350 dollars which he requested to withdraw. He deposited some amount they then requested (I'm a bit hazy on the details), and was told that due to his circumstances he was not allowed to take out the winnings.
You know what? The casino was right. They'd given 100 bucks out of the blue so they had every right to insist in their terms.
What I'm arguing is this:
How fun was all this hassle? What point did it achieve? Why not make absolutely clear from the outset that you should not play any other games OR ELSE? Even better, set up the software to disallow wagers in other games. When in vegas if your complimentary wager coupon isn't good at a table they simply inform you, they don't take away your money. Why not check his status before asking for the 20 bucks or whatever they asked?
I am suggesting that this was typical service in this industry and in fact on the back of a very good bonus.
Obviously Casinos should have t&c regarding their bonuses but they should not be legal documents in complexity and forget that they're really there for the player's sake.
So,
In conclusion,
"Allowed games? Senor, I don't want to hear about no steenking Allowed games"

End of rant

 

[suzecat]

Quote from Elscrabinda: Congrats on the win btw! (you've double checked you were playing an allowed game right?)


Elscra: Yep, I checked available games before I began play! Learned the hard way some time ago that you must do that!

Aga: Thanks for the rant! Boy do I agree!

I guess Shark is no different than any other casino: if you win $4000 off a $13 deposit, they don't like it! BTW, I called them today and was told they received my docs and would process withdrawal tomorrow.

Anyone want me to continue after today?

 

[suzecat]

Great Advice!

Their support are very helpful and if you have any problems ask to speak to the manager.

Congrats on the win btw! (you've double checked you were playing an allowed game right?)

Elscrabinda: That was great advice! I did call and speak with the manager AND WAS PAID THE NEXT DAY!

 

[guesswest]

Warning: Rant
"allowed game? double check you're playing an allowed game?"
I know the score as much as most people in this forum and I realise elscrabinda that you're trying to be helpful and I'm sure you're correct to make the point you're trying to make -so I'm not ranting regarding you or shark casino- but,
Hello? Isn't this a sign the industry is skewed beyond reason?
I'm trained in Law and for the last few years it's served me when dealing with casino issue arguments. This should not be the case. Don't you all find needing to point at disclaimers peculiar?
I'm not offering a solution but I can tell you that at some properties I play at, I've totally thrown out bonuses -in spite of my playing slots and hence easily met WR. To have these properties take off all bonuses has required quite a lot of waiting and email exchanges, and why?
Because I'm simply tired of having to calculate whether what I'm playing is really mine, whether I've won or whether I'll get shafted on the way to the withdrawal. I don't want to know about "allowed games".
Example: A novice friend of mine took up the Platinum Play 100 spins bonus a way back. They clearly stated this was good for spins. Good for them. As he was given credits and not any further instructions he was let loose on the lobby with 100 credits. Not sure what to do he wondered outloud to me if these "credits" could be used in other games. Before I could warn him he played one (1) hand of video poker and won .40 cents to my horror (as I knew what was going to happen). He proceeded to make the 100 credits work up to 350 dollars which he requested to withdraw. He deposited some amount they then requested (I'm a bit hazy on the details), and was told that due to his circumstances he was not allowed to take out the winnings.
You know what? The casino was right. They'd given 100 bucks out of the blue so they had every right to insist in their terms.
What I'm arguing is this:
How fun was all this hassle? What point did it achieve? Why not make absolutely clear from the outset that you should not play any other games OR ELSE? Even better, set up the software to disallow wagers in other games. When in vegas if your complimentary wager coupon isn't good at a table they simply inform you, they don't take away your money. Why not check his status before asking for the 20 bucks or whatever they asked?
I am suggesting that this was typical service in this industry and in fact on the back of a very good bonus.
Obviously Casinos should have t&c regarding their bonuses but they should not be legal documents in complexity and forget that they're really there for the player's sake.
So,
In conclusion,
"Allowed games? Senor, I don't want to hear about no steenking Allowed games"

End of rant

Obviously casino's have to have allowed and disallowed games, if they didn't you could just, for example, bet on pass/don't pass, black/red etc and claim free no risk money.

Casino's that have you forfeit a bonus when playing a disallowed game - that's a more tricky one. Normally I'd agree it's just a ruse to claim your money, as playing a game with negative expectation not contributing to WR is likely to be a hinderance not a help. There are a few exceptions tho with sticky bonuses which bonus players try to double thru on before playing out the WR, etc.

In any event, if allowed/disallowed games and whether playing such games will cause a forfeit are clearly laid out in T&C's I have little problem with it. There's enough casino's don't keep to their own T&C's without having to worry about the ones that do.

 

[caruso]

I'll also give a big thumbs up to Shark. Prompt payouts and very fair bonuses.

When you have a few hours to spare, check out this thread. In fact, it's a nice little history lesson for anyone currently getting over-orgasmic about Angelciti:

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

And of course here, which includes the 25,000 VP winner they tried to screw:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...nds-of-dollars-of-players-winnings.454/?t=454

Happily, the arrival of two new, key employees - now both long gone - brought the matter to a successful conclusion. How George Gutteriez managed to survive more than a week in business without them is a mystery to me.

 

[bpb]

Obviously casino's have to have allowed and disallowed games, if they didn't you could just, for example, bet on pass/don't pass, black/red etc and claim free no risk money.

Every bet on a roulette wheel has a negative expectation to the tune of 5.26% of your total wagers. (2.7% for single 0) There are no risk free bets.

For the most part, these game restrictions with a fund seizure clause are there only so that the casino can steal winnings from legitimate players who didn't read or understand the terms and conditions.

 

[bpb]

When you have a few hours to spare, check out this thread. In fact, it's a nice little history lesson for anyone currently getting over-orgasmic about Angelciti:

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

And of course here, which includes the 25,000 VP winner they tried to screw:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...nds-of-dollars-of-players-winnings.454/?t=454

Happily, the arrival of two new, key employees - now both long gone - brought the matter to a successful conclusion. How George Gutteriez managed to survive more than a week in business without them is a mystery to me.

Alright, so shark is out.

iNetBet and Grand Aces/Geisha have been seizing funds on technicalities.

That leaves, what, Bodog for RTG?

 

[guesswest]

Every bet on a roulette wheel has a negative expectation to the tune of 5.26% of your total wagers. (2.7% for single 0) There are no risk free bets.

For the most part, these game restrictions with a fund seizure clause are there only so that the casino can steal winnings from legitimate players who didn't read or understand the terms and conditions.

Yes you're right, poor choice of words on my part, I'm aware the house edge can't be changed in the long term. What I meant is this: Playing out the kind of WR you get from online bonuses at pass and don't pass etc, the chances are massive that you would make a profit in any given trial, factoring the bonus. Now granted, if scores of people did this, the casino wouldn't care, because they'd get their edge eventually. But this sort of play is fairly specific to bonus whoring types, of whom there are only so many, and the frequency of winning trials so huge that that long term might come in years (or never, bearing in mind how internet casinos come and go). I just don't think the casinos are budgeting that far ahead.

Anyways, even without that, betting on red/black, pass/don't pass - nobody does that in 'real' play, there's no point in it except bonus hunters playing thru WR, and I think casinos object to play that looks like that in it's own right.

Also, excluding certain games makes it harder for people that use betting strategies such as doubling a <100% sticky bonus to create PE etc.

But yes I agree, in most instances that clause is just there to take profit, in violation of the spirit that brought the clause about in the first place. What I'd really like to see is casino's explaining confiscating funds like that case by case, rather than robotically referencing their T&C's.

 

[guesswest]

Having posted that last comment, I immediately decided I was wrong Or at the very least had missed the central point.

I think the main valid reason for excluding certain games is that a lot of these bonuses actually DO offer positive expectation, and options like black/red, pass/don't pass offer much easier and more reliable ways of extracting that PE. That'd mean they'd attract more bonus hunters, and they're not the kind of people most casino's want to attract, as they're unlikely to return when the PE disappears. You still get PE of course from slots of whatever if its there in the bonus, but it's much more volatile, and that kind of unpredictability should be a turn off for the sort of players casinos don't want.

But yeah, it's most definitely a rule frequently abused as a way of stealing from legitimate players also.

 

[Agamemnon]

It's still bad service

Just like to point out that this still doesn't explain the logic behind not simply setting up the system track the eligibility of each bonus and allow play/inform the player in each case.
Please keep in mind that all they are doing is managing fields and databases.I respect casinos have a right to protect themselves and accordingly set out whatever T&C they wish. I am simply sure that the software could be set up in such a way as to avoid these mixups of finding out about a violation post the event or simply as a result of accidental play. Most novices grow weary of online casinos as a result of such problems. How hard would it be to disallow a player from playing a game by simply informing him that playing with said bonus is not covered by the T&C? That way both player and casino avioid the heartbreak and fight after said violation- regardless who is in the right.

We have all been so thoroughly trained by the current system in place that we fail to observe the obvious: Bonuses are supposedly there for the benefit of players and it would benefit both the player AND the casino to have the system set up in such a way as to avoid violations.
An argument was made to the effect that "enough casinos change their T&C that finding a casino that keeps its end of the bargain is acceptable". While I fully understand where the poster is coming from I submit it's not the point I raised earlier:
It's still pretty bad service. Nobody wins.

In fact a cynic could argue that there exists an ulterior motive to the effect that casinos are setting out bonuses whose rules are sufficiently arcane that they fully expect a percentage of players to run afoul them and thus balance the expenditure involved.
I'm not going down this road simply because a) I personally don't have such evidence and b) It has been my experience that stupidity rather than conspiracy is often the reason behind sinister situations.

 

[guesswest]

Well, I don't think it'd be all that easy a thing to retroactively set up, bearing in mind the myriad of different bonuses offered by any casino.. Also the fact that multiple casinos share the same externally sourced software, so aren't the ones writing it. There's so many different permutations, does WR start when bonus is credited, or from deposit, certain games count half, certain nationalities with different WR, reverse withdrawals as deposits, play on double point games etc etc. Far from impossible of course, but it'd be a pretty complex database if done right, and with the percentage of casinos that can't even send a cashout to the right place, a recipe for disaster since all the fields would be casino input. That aside, I'm sure you're right to be cynical, there's no doubt this situation is frequently advantageous to casino's, and I'm sure they're aware of it and thus unlikely to make much noise for that kind of change.

One exception to this tho, the RTG WR counter. There was a thread just before on someone being told they didn't meet WR because it wasn't set up to half-count BJ, after withdrawing when the counter showed they'd cleared WR. That is TOTALLY unacceptable IMO. If you do have something in place to count WR it has to work 100% of the time, and if it does miscount and tells the customer they can withdraw, a casino with any integrity has to honour that withdrawal. In that situation, the casino seizing winnings (not even reverting the balance back into play!) really irked me. It's theft - if you put tools into place to count WR you have to make sure they're right, or honour them when they're not, and stealing from a player on the grounds that he trusted the software provided is preposterous.

 

[emily_hanson]

BPB

Alright, so shark is out.

iNetBet and Grand Aces/Geisha have been seizing funds on technicalities.

That leaves, what, Bodog for RTG?

BPB

I would respectfully suggest you get your facts straight prior to making rash inaccurate statements.

In our approaching seven years of operations, we have NEVER seized any legitimate players funds, neither have we ever NOT PAID any legitimate player.

Whilst I am aware these one line acerbic posts create a certain titillation for some, they are however incorrect and extremely misleading, they are also a direct insult to the board owner, I am sure we do not need to remind anyone we are a recommended Casino of this board.

Firstly you are not in possession of the full facts pertaining to this particular case; secondly and most importantly bonus fraud/abuse is not a technicality it is the driving force behind 90% of the complaints that we all read about.

I repeat again, no genuine player need have any doubts or harbour any uncertainties as to them receiving their due withdrawals from iNetBet.

It is perhaps indicative of the current trend that a new player with us won 10k on Saturday and was paid within 7 hours on Sunday morning in full, they were kind enough to share this with everyone at Casinomeisters, yet their post will drop into extinction without serious comment.

However a player endeavours to break the rules and gets caught but the post draws a certain clique of posters, who in their infinite wisdom, have decided that our rules are unnecessary and draconian and are in place to steal the players winnings.

Then we read BPB s informative post stating that we should now not be considered an honest RTG Casino worthy of playing in. How dare you.


My best to all
Emily

 

[Sodax77]

IMO Shark Casino is reputable casino. I didn't like their casino long time, because they had that safebet.org logo & link in their site, but after i contacted their manager (Laura) last year, they made some changes.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/what-happened-to-safebet-org.6445/?t=6445

9th December 2004, 08:15 AM

Hi there,

I do remember you! Thank you very much for taking the time to send me
an email.

If you go to security page right now, you'll see that I have deleted
the SafeBet link and all the text that assured we were in accordance with
the standards set by this organization.

I have to send an apologize not only to you but all the players that
take the time to visit our website since I did not do anything to correct
this when you brought this to the table.

Thank You for giving us another chance and for helping us to make our
casino a better place to play...I really hope you like Shark!

Please feel free to contact me any time. I will always be here for you.

Warm regards

Laura Chacon
Casino Manager

 

[Bruce Hamilton]

Now we need to get a few other casinos to follow their lead, and remove that dead link to safebet dot org... Maybe Bryan would be interested in purchasing the domain and making it actually mean something.

 

[scrollock]

BPB

Alright, so shark is out.

iNetBet and Grand Aces/Geisha have been seizing funds on technicalities.

That leaves, what, Bodog for RTG?

BPB

I would respectfully suggest you get your facts straight prior to making rash inaccurate statements.

In our approaching seven years of operations, we have NEVER seized any legitimate players funds, neither have we ever NOT PAID any legitimate player.

Whilst I am aware these one line acerbic posts create a certain titillation for some, they are however incorrect and extremely misleading, they are also a direct insult to the board owner, I am sure we do not need to remind anyone we are a recommended Casino of this board.

Firstly you are not in possession of the full facts pertaining to this particular case; secondly and most importantly bonus fraud/abuse is not a technicality it is the driving force behind 90% of the complaints that we all read about.

I repeat again, no genuine player need have any doubts or harbour any uncertainties as to them receiving their due withdrawals from iNetBet.

It is perhaps indicative of the current trend that a new player with us won 10k on Saturday and was paid within 7 hours on Sunday morning in full, they were kind enough to share this with everyone at Casinomeisters, yet their post will drop into extinction without serious comment.

However a player endeavours to break the rules and gets caught but the post draws a certain clique of posters, who in their infinite wisdom, have decided that our rules are unnecessary and draconian and are in place to steal the players winnings.

Then we read BPB s informative post stating that we should now not be considered an honest RTG Casino worthy of playing in. How dare you.


My best to all
Emily

Emily sit down, take a few deep breaths and chill out

its par for the course of an reputable casino to be accused of "cheating" or "thieving" at some point, even the biggest and the best will have it happen to them. most of the posters on here are intelligent people and understand this, a particular casinos reputation only starts to get tarnished when we start seeing threads about them, week in & week out, then reading each complaint we see that a casino has tried to pull a fast one.

as far as i'm aware this has not happened to yours, even when there is a complaint, if you can show that either you have done the right thing or a willing to recify an injustice swiftly then your reputation will stay intact.

for example there is a complaint in the complaints section at the moment about inetbet, however i have read through the thread impartially and have come to the conclusion that you have not done anything wrong, by doing so your casinos profile has been raised with me, in fact i am going to open up my 3rd ever RTG account.

whereas before my impression has always been that bodog is the only reputable RTG out there, a belief that was recently reinforced when i read about how geisha recently tried to screw a player over, which was then further compounded by the rep from geisha making posts which could only be described as childish bitching, dont fall into that trap.

 

[cyrus7b]

Dear Caruso,
We all know, that you are on a mission and I am sure you spent hours to dig something up that would be able to show our company in bad light.
So, the best you have been able to find is a thread that is 3 respectively 4 years old? I take this as a compliment.

Kind Regards

Oliver Treumann
(Casino Manager)

 

[Daffy]

Damn good post, Oliver.

I've read you are doing a really good job, but I still miss Laura.

Welcome to the board.

(you might want to check with Brian and get put in the Casino Op registry)

the dUck

 

[thelawnet]

Dear Caruso,
We all know, that you are on a mission and I am sure you spent hours to dig something up that would be able to show our company in bad light.
So, the best you have been able to find is a thread that is 3 respectively 4 years old? I take this as a compliment.

Kind Regards

Oliver Treumann
(Casino Manager)

I shouldn't imagine he had much digging to do.

If you read the post he linked to you will see the author is, wait for it, CARUSO.

I would imagine anyone involved over several months in not being paid thousands of dollars would remember it for many years - I know I would.

I certainly don't think he had to 'find' the thread.

I think, given the circumstances of the trouble and hours of hassle that your company must have caused him, a slightly more courteous response than 'we know you're on a mission' is in order.

He did even conclude by saying that the previous problems were related to a bad manager.

I would have thought this would have been the opportunity to make a response rather more along the lines of 'Since Caruso's original post we have had three years of happy players under our new management. We of course apologise for our earlier mistakes', and less 'Is this the best you can do'.

Unless of course you want to say that the original trouble your company caused him was his own fault?