Black Widow/Grand Banks Playtech payment issue

New Casino Brand!

Race Casino Logo
Fast Pay'n Play Casino from L&L Europe..
Race Casino Review

J

joeyl

Guest
Seems to me this firm are pushing the boundaries of rule 6 of the approved Casino code of ethics to it's limits.
 
M

majsmoker

Guest
Still nothing from Black Widow or the OPA on the $2700 Black Widow refuses to pay, its been over 3 months - how can they stay on the recommended list? Is this following the code of ethics they agreed to? They still don't answer emails, just nothing. $2000 of this is my hard earned money that I deposited there. I hope the OPA will remove them from the approved list so this won't happen to other members
 

valles

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Wow! Have they really started paying players! What a nice move. Now I see why they are OPA recommended. GB/BW must be the best casinos outthere. You only have to wait 2-3 months to get paid, if ever.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Do I sense a bit of sarcasm here?

BW complicated things and virtually shot themselves in the foot with this stupid ass bonus. And when you're bleeding profusly from a gunshot wound to the foot (with bone fragments sticking out nonetheless) of course it will take you 2-3 months to pay anyone.
 

dave_r

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 6, 1999
I hope the OPA will vote to remove these guys from approved status. If they ran out of money, the least they could have done was to admit who was rightfully owned money, and to have made some sort of payment arrangements.

Instead the lied, lied and lied some more.
Every excuse on the list to cheat players.

At least when Pyramid had financial problems, they had the guts to admit it publicly on a message board. This at least showed they were willing to step up to the plate, and eventually pay everyone rightfully owed. A smart move.

Black Widow and Grand Banks tried repeatedly to scam customers. They accused numerous players of violating thier terms when these players did nothing wrong. They lied to thier customers. They lied to the OPA. And even if they did eventually pay these people 3 months later, it was done because thier hands were tied.

Why would the OPA put thier seal of approval on such nonsense. It shouldn't. This is one big reason the OPA shouldn't be doing payout verification for all Playtech sites. Playtech couldn't care didly squat about players ripped off by BW and Grand Banks. A friend of mine wrote to tech@playtech.com and then finally got the email address to a supervisor at Playtech who basically said that Playtech would eventually help after 90 days went by, but no promises would be made that the player would get even 1 red cent.

Shame, shame.
And yet the OPA has the % payout seal on these sites. What good is a % payout when the player doesn't get paid.

98% of 0 is still 0.
Where is Mike Craig?
 

spinoza

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Funny Grand Banks terms (from
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
)

All deposits of $500 or greater will be audited for fraudulent activity on the account. Activity such as requesting a bonus not offered to the player and using an industry-banned strategy such as Martingale, Anti-Martingale, dAlembert, Regression will be considered fraudulent activity.

Do these systems work after all??
 

tortex

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
What a load of crap. Martingale industrybanned??? Martingale is what keeps the industry alive..

 
M

mrjoshua

Guest
Martingale, Anti-Martingale, dAlembert, Regression will be considered fraudulent activity.

This is silly. The people at Grand Banks can't possibly be ignorant enough to believe these systems work. This is nothing more than an attempt by them to come up with some type of clause to keep player winnings.

Can you imagine any B&M casino ever using such and excuse to keep a player's winnings? No, of course not, it would never happen. As tortex has stated, these systems are what feed the casino's coffers.

This is just another example of how ignorant online casino owners are.
 
T

truegambler

Guest
The reason for banning martingale is they don't have the capital to absorb all the small wins that it creates, waiting for the large loss. Also, I suspect that the Playtech software is in fact a bit flawed and that a martinagle strategy at BJ could be highly effective if played during the right session.
 

jyde

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 12, 2001
Come on! They can absorb all the player losses can't they?
With regards to being flawed: You're basically saying that martingaling is a problem to them because the software isn't random? Is this substantiated by the results from The Online Casino Analyzer?
 
M

mrjoshua

Guest
The reason for banning martingale is they don't have the capital to absorb all the small wins that it creates

Well, if they are short on capital, they should not be in the casino business. Joints like this need to be run out of business. There is far too much of this BS in the online gaming industry.

I still think it is just a CYA type clause they've added to their T&C's so they can steal the winnings of any player who happens to dance between the raindrops and win big.

Is Grand Banks an OPA member? If so, they should be kicked out. There statement shows how incredibly ignorant they are.
 
T

truegambler

Guest
My opinion of their BJ is based on the play I have seen, not solid evidence as the OCA software does not currently support Playtech BJ. Our results on VP where we do collect data though are interesting... More on those at a later date.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top