Captain Cooks group in trouble?

[120sam]

Sorry Willy, but that doesn't clarify much. Now you'll have to define those vague terms "legitimate", "ethics", "leisure" and profiteering". I'm afraid it is difficult to interpret them. Are you saying that some players who comply with your terms and conditions can still meet your definition of illegitimate and unethical and that you are justified in withdrawing their winnings? Where does it say that in your Terms and Conditions? Does "leisure" mean "losing" and "profiteering" mean "winning"? By that definition your casinos are profiteering most of the time aren't they? Does that make you illegitimate?

Sorry, just trying to get my head round this. All I, and I think many other people, want to know is whether players who have complied with your bonus terms and conditions will be denied their winnings as a result of this audit. It's a simple question, and a straight answer shouldn't be too difficult. I don't want to be sent off to interpret anything thanks.

There's more involved here than just unacceptable wagering I can assure you . Excuse me for not detailing here for you , but , as our actions will ultimatly only effect those who have been thus engaged , those people will be fully abrest of the issues.

Sorry, but I'm unable to extract any meaning from that whatsoever.

 

[120sam]

Sorry again, but I just realised I'd been distracted into forgetting the original question.

What is "suspect wagering"?

 

[jetset]

QUOTE I'm very suprised by your response, Jetset. Just imagine for a moment this had been sent out by a casino that didn't have a previous good reputation (imagine it's a dodgy RTG, for instance). You'd be up in arms with the rest of us.

There's no obligation to lose money at on-line casinos to prove you're playing for "entertainment". Even players who mainly play slots might well consider that the only chance they'd have of meeting the very tricky bonus conditions at Casino Classic would be by autoplaying a low house edge game. The bonus is there to attract deposits from players wanting to win. If the player adopts a pattern of play that gives them a chance to do so there's absolutely no justification for subsequently taking away the bonus (I suspect you're very wrong in thinking this involves a small number of players).

For what it's worth I tried Casino Classic (I'd never have deposited without the bonus) and lost the 189 bonus in my bonus account. Suprisingly I made a small profit in the real account, but if I'd lost my deposit the bonus would have served it's purpose for the casino (getting me to play and lose) & of course I wouldn't have had any complaint. If "Integrity" (!) casinos are allowed to get away with what they seem to be planning then it'll be a new low for the casino industry.

Yep, it's that brink again. Care to take a step back? UNQUOTE

I see this as an issue of admission and contract by an operator who feels he/she is being preyed upon by a certain type of player.

This is my interpretation of what Integrity Casinos mean in their press release, and you can take it or leave it as you wish Vesuvio. If you do not agree with my interpretation then feel free to give us all the benefit of your own, rather than trying to introduce a personal element into this.

I don't call the shots at Integrity - I am exercising my right here to interpret what their policy means, and who it is directed toward. That may or may not include yourself - if the cap fits then wear it...or maybe wait to receive your exclusion notice from Integrity in due course LOL.

I think the IC management are approaching this as their right of admission and their right to refuse to contract with any party. But that's just what I think - you may disagree.

As to retrospective application of T&Cs, well I'm with you there (yes, we do very occasionally share a rare view!)

I think the right way to issue these exclusion orders, once the inspection process has ended would be to set the expulsion date and then payout ALL monies owed up to that date - deposits, winnings and bonuses - earned under the T&Cs up to that point. There can be no retroactive practice in that area as far as I am personally concerned.

At the same time I would advise those identified that I no longer wished to do business with them and that I was invoking the right of admission and closing all of their accounts.

I would include a warning that if they tried by some other means to use my facilities in the future, were successful but were discovered, then all monies excluding deposit would be forfeit.

And I do not share your view that a large proportion of Integrity Casino's gambler base are likely to be affected...but then I probably know as little about that as you do.

I'm not on any brink here...are you?

 

[willy]

I'm very suprised by your response, Jetset. Just imagine for a moment this had been sent out by a casino that didn't have a previous good reputation (imagine it's a dodgy RTG, for instance). You'd be up in arms with the rest of us.

There's no obligation to lose money at on-line casinos to prove you're playing for "entertainment". Even players who mainly play slots might well consider that the only chance they'd have of meeting the very tricky bonus conditions at Casino Classic would be by autoplaying a low house edge game. The bonus is there to attract deposits from players wanting to win. If the player adopts a pattern of play that gives them a chance to do so there's absolutely no justification for subsequently taking away the bonus (I suspect you're very wrong in thinking this involves a small number of players).

For what it's worth I tried Casino Classic (I'd never have deposited without the bonus) and lost the 189 bonus in my bonus account. Suprisingly I made a small profit in the real account, but if I'd lost my deposit the bonus would have served it's purpose for the casino (getting me to play and lose) & of course I wouldn't have had any complaint. If "Integrity" (!) casinos are allowed to get away with what they seem to be planning then it'll be a new low for the casino industry.

Yep, it's that brink again. Care to take a step back?

Well yeh, I took a step back after reading this closely. It's negativity and lack of respect have brought a few questions to my own to mind. As a good number of posters here have said already ..Integrity Casinos does not have a reputation for being "dodgey" in any way. Why introduce that hypothetical ? and "up in arms with the rest of us" ??
What I see here is that most Players have respected our right to review the accounts of "some" Players. Unless you are very naive most Players are also aware that Casinos are severely retarded in rewarding Great Players with Great Bonuses by a very few greedy individuals.
"The bonus is there to attract deposits from players wanting to win." This statment in no way acknowledges the great many Players to whom "winning" is secondary. You seem to be tarring everybody with your own set of standards. I assure you there are thousands who simply want to Play...be they sick, bed ridden, lonely, house bound...whatever...or they just simply enjoy the experience. These are for the most part Vesuvio, the people I refer to above as "Great Players". Some Win ....some don't, regardless tho, they deserve and get the best service we can offer. We invest significant resources in meeting the standards they expect along with their Leisure Choise.

"There's no obligation to lose money at on-line casinos to prove you're playing for "entertainment".
Where is this coming from ? Winning was never the criteria that sparked this review of some accounts , I hope that you wouldn't deny the existance of people who manipulate Terms and systems to gain the most from their casino experience. The fact that they have hundreds of different casino accounts...they really...really like casinos mate.
Thanks Again
Willy
Thanks again
Willy

 

[Vesuvio]

I don't call the shots at Integrity - I am exercising my right here to interpret what their policy means, and who it is directed toward. That may or may not include yourself - if the cap fits then wear it...or maybe wait to receive your exclusion notice from Integrity in due course LOL.

Jetset, I've given my view of what their press release means. I wasn't trying to attack you at all. I more often than not agree with your views on here, so I was suprised you weren't treating this issue the way I find you usually treat similar ones. As to being excluded - I've got no money in their casinos and it wouldn't affect me in the slightest if I'm banned or not. This isn't a personal issue.

As to retrospective application of T&Cs, well I'm with you there (yes, we do very occasionally share a rare view!)

That's why I was suprised with your post overall. I agree they have every right to exclude any one they wish to, but not to take back bonuses they've used to entice deposits.

And I do not share your view that a large proportion of Integrity Casino's gambler base are likely to be affected...but then I probably know as little about that as you do.

Well, I think the casino would tell you they have a huge number of players who mainly autoplayed BJ, if that's their criteria. You're right - I can't give you figures. Willy?

I'm not on any brink here...are you?

Sorry for the confusion here - this refers to Integrity Casinos. If they do what they're threatening I don't see how they can't be rogued - but yes, that's just my opinion.

 

[Freudian]

Integrity Casinos Limited (ICL) is releasing a formal statement in response to recent speculation regarding their player account audit.

In early March, three of the casino brands operated by Integrity Casinos (Captain Cooks Casino, Casino Kingdom and Casino Classic) were found to have suffered a significant amount of suspect wagering.

A large number of casino accounts (displaying suspect wagering behavior) have now been identified, warranting casino management to take immediate action. This action involves Integrity Casinos undertaking a complete review of the identified accounts a process that is both time consuming and labor intensive. Once complete, accounts will have been classified into one of three possible positions. The following outlines the actions that will be taken:

Position
1) Proven to be a legitimate player without suspect wagering.
Result
These accounts will be unlocked and players advised.
Position
2) Wagering has a high probability of being suspect, and the Real Account has a zero balance.
Result
These accounts will be closed and
players advised.
Position
3) Wagering has a high probability of being suspect, and the Real Account has a balance greater than zero.
Result
These accounts will have any amounts transferred from their Bonus Account removed, and players advised they can continue wagering with their deposits and any remaining winnings, under the terms and conditions that existed at the time the deposit was made.

If any suspect account has cashins pending, these will be paid but transfers from the Bonus Account to Deposit Accounts will be deducted first. Cashins for non-suspect accounts will be honoured in full.

These actions are all designed to ensure that Integrity Casinos is known to operate brands where players who look for genuine gaming entertainment based around playing against the rules of the games fairly, are welcomed and treated with respect and courtesy.

Players who do not fall into this category detract from the ability of Integrity Casinos to reward the genuine and legitimate players for their continued patronage of our brands, and will not be tolerated.

That is just pointless talking unless they define what suspect is. Judging by those who already lost their bonus it is meeting the wr with BJ (possibly autoplay).

Stealing from a player with the excuse "you are not playing for entertainment, you are playing to win" is the height of casino stupidity.

 

[Freudian]

I would say that the interpretation here is that this established and successful group of casinos is taking a strong stand on whatever we want to call "advantage players, smart players, professional players, math players, bonus hunters, percentage players etc"

I think this is a definite warning shot for the itinerant population interested only in taking advantage of bonuses to get out of Dodge as far as Integrity Casinos are concerned before your accounts are closed. Note that in terms of this policy the apparent intent following this audit is to apply the casinos' right of admission, paying out deposits and winnings, but not bonuses.

And it looks as if they are methodically going through their player base to identify those players that they do not want - probably a relatively small percentage of the total.

It's likely to cause a furore, but it will probably save a lot of future bonus dispute hassles.

And if your interpretation is correct it should earn the casino group a one way ticket to Rougueville.

 

[GrandMaster]

I'm compelled to post here now by a different issue...that being the incident described by Grandmaster above. Any long time player with Integrity Casinos will recognise the contradictions in this complaint and I'd like to look into this for you. If you like you can contact me privately and I will follow up ...or you can post details here...whichever suits.

I don't post negative comments frivolously, rather the opposite, on numerous occasions when people posted messages that such and such casino is rigged, I pointed out that their evidence is insufficient.

The incident happened in late 2003 if I remember correctly, well before bonus accounts and current wagering requirements. Unfortunately, after a lengthy correspondence with customer service, which felt like hitting my head against a brick wall, I decided that there was no point in pursuing that matter anywhere. I deleted everything and since then any e-mail from your casino groups goes into the trash unread.

 

[Vesuvio]

What I see here is that most Players have respected our right to review the accounts of "some" Players. Unless you are very naive most Players are also aware that Casinos are severely retarded in rewarding Great Players with Great Bonuses by a very few greedy individuals.

I love your choice of words! Anyway, I don't dispute your right to review accounts. As to "greedy individuals" - you're working for an on-line casino. You have almost no overheads and just run a few computer servers that steadily earn you money, ruining a fair number of the lives of "Great Players" who often happen to be compulsive gamblers. Please don't try and take up the moral high ground here.

"The bonus is there to attract deposits from players wanting to win." This statment in no way acknowledges the great many Players to whom "winning" is secondary. You seem to be tarring everybody with your own set of standards. I assure you there are thousands who simply want to Play...be they sick, bed ridden, lonely, house bound...whatever...or they just simply enjoy the experience. These are for the most part Vesuvio, the people I refer to above as "Great Players". Some Win ....some don't, regardless tho, they deserve and get the best service we can offer. We invest significant resources in meeting the standards they expect along with their Leisure Choise.

I'll ignore the fact you're exploiting a number of these people, but yes, I agree not everyone is concerned with winning, but the fun and buzz of casinos does tend to come from the hope of winning something! You also probably earn a huge amount from players who think they have a system to beat you. I stand by the fact that if we took away everyone who goes into a casino hoping to win (and especially who accepts a bonus hoping to win), there wouldn't be that many players left.

I hope that you wouldn't deny the existance of people who manipulate Terms and systems to gain the most from their casino experience. The fact that they have hundreds of different casino accounts...they really...really like casinos mate.

By "manipulate" do you mean following to the letter? & isn't "gaining the most from their casino experience" one of the most common casino advertising slogans?

Of course there are players (myself included) who play bonuses to make an overall profit. It's just rational behaviour to exploit a betting situation where you have an advantage. That's why others set up casinos. You just need to take account of that and decide how best to attract players to your money spinner. If it's more profitable not to offer bonuses don't offer them (but it seems they work for most casinos). If you want to ban players by all means do that. If you decide to defraud them then don't expect an easy ride on here or elsewhere.

 

[KasinoKing]

I assure you there are thousands who simply want to Play...be they sick, bed ridden, lonely, house bound...whatever...or they just simply enjoy the experience. These are for the most part Vesuvio, the people I refer to above as "Great Players".

Jeeezus! You're the sick one mate!

So you're saying you warmly welcome the sick, weak & vunerable to come and lose in your casino for 'fun', but if any one dares come there to try to win - watch out!

You are unbelievable!

 

[willy]

ok

Jeeezus! You're the sick one mate!

So you're saying you warmly welcome the sick, weak & vunerable to come and lose in your casino for 'fun', but if any one dares come there to try to win - watch out!

You are unbelievable!

What I'm saying is we welcome any genuine players. Yours is the definition above and the conclusion. I think everybody needs to just wait for the outcome of this before going overboard with too much vitriol. Already the speculation here is out of control. The issues involved are not as simple as posted here.
Willy

 

[universexf6]

What I'm saying is we welcome any genuine players. Yours is the definition above and the conclusion. I think everybody needs to just wait for the outcome of this before going overboard with too much vitriol. Already the speculation here is out of control. The issues involved are not as simple as posted here.
Willy

Who made this hub bub?

 

[Casinomeister]

I think we need to chill a bit on this whole issue. There are a lot of accusations getting thrown around, semi-insults, etc. These will get us nowhere.

The casino group has every right to conduct this audit - and based on their conduct for the past seven years, I have no doubt that it will be a fair examination of their accounts. They have a reputation of being a very fair and honest enterprise and the implications that something dodgy is going on is a bit bogus.

As far as I know, deposits are being returned and winnings generated from these deposits are being honored. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Let the "Pitch a Bitches" pour in if they are conducting themselves in a roguish way. But so far, not a one.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

I agree - we should all sit back and see what is concluded before we start tar and feathering the casino.

If they do decide to confiscate bonuses and/or winnings due to not liking someone's gameplay then yes - they should be rogued and everything else that comes with it.

However, if they are looking into maybe seeing if there is any fraud going on by comparing players who have played the bonuses in the same way, and see if their is any evidence to prove this then fair enough. These players I'm sure we'll all agree should have bonuses AND winnings removed.

I must say though - this certainly looks like the former and nothing to do with player fraud.

Hi there XXXX,

Thanks for the email.

You have been found to be skimming our promotions and using them for financial gain or a means of income rather then for entertainment purposes. You WILL have your deposits refunded but anything above the deposit amount will be retained by the casino.


I apologise for the inconvenience.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.

Fair thee well,

Friar Theodore
Royal Clergyman

 

[universexf6]

I agree - we should all sit back and see what is concluded before we start tar and feathering the casino.

If they do decide to confiscate bonuses and/or winnings due to not liking someone's gameplay then yes - they should be rogued and everything else that comes with it.

However, if they are looking into maybe seeing if there is any fraud going on by comparing players who have played the bonuses in the same way, and see if their is any evidence to prove this then fair enough. These players I'm sure we'll all agree should have bonuses AND winnings removed.

I must say though - this certainly looks like the former and nothing to do with player fraud.

　Wow, can you elaborate what happened to your account exactly? Did you
play BJ? Looks very unentertaining to me too.

 

[Vesuvio]

If they do decide to confiscate bonuses and/or winnings due to not liking someone's gameplay then yes - they should be rogued and everything else that comes with it.

Agree with that, and I've also got no problem with them dealing in the normal way casinos do with 'player fraud'.

Bryan, it's a very dangerous road to go down to suggest that it's fine for a casino to take back a bonus even if the player meets all the terms and conditions it entails. The worst rogues would be licking their lips at the prospect, so I hope I misinterpreted your post.

In any case, the aim of starting this thread was to encourage the casino to do the right thing & avoid the need to pitch a bitch or rogue.

 

[555YY]

hi willy,

i have experienced what grandmaster is referring to with casino kingdom, as recently as within the past 3 weeks. they refused to process a cashin of mine even though it met the complete t&c. it's resolved now but please don't act like this sort of happenings is a news to you

i also agree with vesuvio, you need to define what you mean by an unwanted account other than "suspect wagering", i play mainly blackjack (vegas strip in fact! ), i also lost an entire 1k deposit at ccc in 12/04, and another 1k deposit (+700 transferred from bonus) at ccc in 1/05, these announcements from your casinos worries me b/c i don't know if i would have received payment had i decided to cashout, b/c i took a promotion and gasp! autoplayed some bj. at the same time, i assume integrity?!? casino still wants my action as i receive frequent offers from them including a high-roller bonus. i will tell you one thing: unless this is resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, i WILL NOT deposit one more dime in your casinos

also, as for the reputation bit, i recall omni, gaming club, angelciti all had great past reputations, it's a good thing those 'reputable' casinos would never try an underhanded tactic....

 

[120sam]

I assure you there are thousands who simply want to Play...be they sick, bed ridden, lonely, house bound...whatever

Good of you to be so upfront about the sections of society you find easiest to exploit. Didn't you leave the poor off your list?

 

[Dirk Diggler]

　Wow, can you elaborate what happened to your account exactly? Did you
play BJ? Looks very unentertaining to me too.

Just to confirm that wasn't sent to me, it was copied from the first page of the thread - I've been a member for a number of years and have had few problems and generally good support.

 

[largeeyes]

Bryan, I have 2 questions for you:


Can you PLEASE respond to my PM regarding CA BJ tourneys? I would appreciate your view on this very much.


Do you feel that they have the right to confiscate the bonus and/or winnings if all the player did was play the T&C in the lowest possible house advantage way? ie, if they "abused" the bonus? I know in lawyer speak they do because of their T&C, but to be a reputable and recommended casino, would they be allowed to do such?

 

[555YY]

Bryan, I have 2 questions for you:


Can you PLEASE respond to my PM regarding CA BJ tourneys? I would appreciate your view on this very much.


Do you feel that they have the right to confiscate the bonus and/or winnings if all the player did was play the T&C in the lowest possible house advantage way? ie, if they "abused" the bonus? I know in lawyer speak they do because of their T&C, but to be a reputable and recommended casino, would they be allowed to do such?

in an entirely un-regulated industry, casino can do whatever the heck they want. the question should be if a casino quantifies people who follow their t&c to the letter as "abusers", are they still considered a reputable, upstanding casino?

 

[JimMorrison]

in an entirely un-regulated industry, casino can do whatever the heck they want. the question should be if a casino quantifies people who follow their t&c to the letter as "abusers", are they still considered a reputable, upstanding casino?

I would not consider them a reputable casino if that indeed happened. Casino's set the rules and can hardly complain if a player plays by the rules and wins.

 

[vinylweatherman]

In fact there was a rather worrying post here last week or so about a casino and an x45 WR and the whole thread would have made newbies seriously worry about the casino's integrity (i forget which casino it was) when in fact there was nothing to suggest that they were anything other than a fair operator who just didn't want people to take them for a ride.

Cheers

Simmo!

OK, I posted that. I was NOT complaining about their right to change terms, but their refusal to announce the change to regular players in the way they have announced other changes, such as the removal of Vegas Strip BJ. Worse, they do not have these terms on the link regular players use to check the T & C from within the players lounge (The posh term for Casino Action). These still state that no wagering of transfers is required "it's yours to keep"
The 'How to use a bonus account' guide has yet another set of T & C!!
By all means change T & C if it proves necessary, but INFORM YOUR PLAYERS, and UPDATE YOUR WEBSITE & LINKS to reflect the change. At least captain Cooks have E-mailed their players to let them know that there is an issue!

Far better to change the extreme front loading of bonuses, and give more to players who have played and entertained themselves. Do this on an invite basis, so if the casino believes the player is playing for the bonus only, don't invite them to apply for the next ones.

Any consideration for 'rogue' status would be on how they handle a player who attempts to withdraw a bonus transfer under the terms currently displayed, but which are out of date. I do believe they are taking the risk of losing loyal players, as the competition prizes are also treated just as harshly as the sign up bonus. Other groups, like Jackpot Factory and Reef Club, treat the two types of bonus differently. Jackpot factory gives 300% or so, but it is slots only. Loyal players though need only wager their loyalty bonuses a mere 5x, and on a wider variety of games. Reef Club has 200x, probably in responce to casinorobots.com releasing the advanced BJ robot, and designing it to work ONLY at Reef Club and 888.
Perhaps it is time for the industry to take the suggestion from Bryan and think up something other than out bonusing their competitors to attract players.
Many players will cash out after meeting WR not because they have intended to strip the bonus and not return, but simply to satisfy themselves that the casino will pay up before they deposit and play in earnest. Perhaps casinos could return the deposit once WR are met along with winnings, but leave the bonus in the account for a cooling off period, where the player may still deposit & play, and will be allowed to cash in bonuses once they have reached some sort of 'bronze' VIP level. Pure bonus players will most likely look elsewhere, as they will effectively be playing with their own money. Most of these BJ schemes rely on closely following the house edge and meeting WR with the full deposit and a portion of the bonus intact. I actually noticed one casino that allowed BJ with a low WR, but stated that only bets of $10 or more per hand would count. So no robotic grinding away on 50c per hand.

 

[kavaman]

my 2 cents

If a casino offers bonus, and a player follows the rules posted on the casinos website he should be paid, no matter how he plays. As long as he has met the wagering conditions.

There is no point in making the rules or offering any new player a bonus if a casino can still basically do what it wants.

If a player meets the terms and conditions of the bonus he must be paid what is owed. After that the casino can decide on not to give the player any more bonuses, or just lock him out of the casino. But in any case, if the player follows the casino rules he must be paid.

Behavior of taking away legitimate winnings is consired rogue behaviour, and should not be tolerated in any way. I wonder what is ecogras point of view in this. Also Integritycasinos current wagering requirements are one of the highest in the industry 42x for most games. Only slots and some high advantage table games are under the 10x rule. If a person follows those rules, it is in no way some advantage play, as there is only a slim or no player advantage in any case.

If Integrity doesn't want advantage players, they should only offer bonuses to loyal members, or dont offer bonuses at all.

-kavaman

 

[jetset]

QUOTE: If a player meets the terms and conditions of the bonus he must be paid what is owed. After that the casino can decide on not to give the player any more bonuses, or just lock him out of the casino. But in any case, if the player follows the casino rules he must be paid. UNQUOTE

Quite so, Kav.

BTW ICL is not a member of eCOGRA, but I seem to recall that that organisation has covered this aspect of T&C compliance by players in more or less the same manner you describe it above - send the FGA your query and she will be able to confirm that one way or the other.