Captain Cooks group in trouble?

[Casinomeister]

WARNING SHOT
18 March 2005

Integrity Casinos group takes a stand

Industry observers were this week interpreting a press release from the established and successful online casino group Integrity Casinos as a clear warning that the management has no intention of doing business with so-called *sharp* players, and intends to do something about it.

The consensus seemed to be that the release was a definite warning for the itinerant population interested only in taking advantage of bonuses: get out of Dodge as far as the group's online casinos are concerned.

Captain Cooks Casino, Kingdom Casino and the more recent Classic Casino are all part of the group.

The release reveals that staff are methodically and thoroughly carrying out a full inspection of every account - a formidable task given the likely size of this popular group's gambler base.

The objective is to identify the small percentage of gamblers with whom the group is no longer interested in doing business, and the intention is to enforce right of admission and refusal to contract with those it deems to be more interested in touring for bonuses than an ordinary gambling entertainment based relationship.

Although the group has not put a specific name to the category it is about to exclude, it probably covers whatever are loosely identified as "advantage players, smart players, professional gamblers, math players, bonus hunters or percentage players. "

The release states: "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."

In enforcing the new policy, the group will be returning deposits and winnings to excluded players, but apparently disqualifying any bonuses. Once locked out, the players will be permanently excluded in terms of right of admission.

Ordinary players will be unaffected by the moves, and will encounter no obstacles to their gambling at the casinos other than experiencing response delays for the short period staff are dedicated to this "...arduous task."

The policy illustrates a growing frustration with time consuming bonus policies and disputes among industry operators, and will be watched with interest as it is progressively applied.

But any retroactive disqualification of bonuses will cause a major row in the player community and could be extremely difficult to justify.

https://www.casinomeister.com/static/news/march2005.html

 

[Vesuvio]

I see this is flagged as a "warning", which should be ok, but then the text (apart from the final sentence or two) implies it's a warning from the casino, rather than about the casino, which doesn't really make sense. It's interesting to see how these articles are produced, but I would question in this case the way "industry observers" seems mainly to mean Jetset, from whose post on here a large chunk of the vocabulary's been borrowed. The overall views of industry observers on this thread and others have been rather different.

WARNING SHOT
18 March 2005

The consensus seemed to be that the release was a definite warning for the itinerant population interested only in taking advantage of bonuses: get out of Dodge as far as the group's online casinos are concerned.

The e-mails sent out - some confiscating funds, some saying the casino didn't have sufficient Neteller funds, others saying players could forfeit the bonus AND winnings - don't suggest a warning at all. They suggest a casino in trouble and taking desperate measures, even to the point of blackmail. They can, and have, upped wagering requirements so there's no point in going near their bonus. If they wish they can ban anyone they like.

None of this requires freezing funds or an audit.The only advantage of that seems to be short term and financial, in so far as they can take money from players who met their terms and conditions. Like everyone else I don't know the truth here, but this opinion is at least as much a consensus view as those of Jetset (who came up with the "get out of Dodge" phrase) and one or two others.

The objective is to identify the small percentage of gamblers with whom the group is no longer interested in doing business

This is another example of taking Jetset's post rather than the casino's own comments (it's better PR than the casino came up with). They talk about large numbers of accounts & a significant amount of suspect wagering, not about a small percentage of gamblers. The people affected by this audit surely constitute a large number, if not majority, of the new casino's clientele.

But any retroactive disqualification of bonuses will cause a major row in the player community and could be extremely difficult to justify.

I'm glad you included this sting in the tail. It might also have been worth questioning the fall out if they try to justify removing money on the basis that the players played with the aim of making money rather than "entertainment".

I understand it's extremely difficult to report an issue like this and be seen to be objective, so I apologise if this seems like excessive nitpicking, but I do think you failed in this instance to accurately reflect the reality of the situation.

 

[Vesuvio]

This is the post I meant above so no-one needs to go hunting through the earlier pages. It may be that you just share journalism and press releases, but this isn't made clear:

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.

 

[Casinomeister]

The people affected by this audit surely constitute a large number, if not majority, of the new casino's clientele.

Then why hasn't anyone lodged a complaint? Sure we have a heated debate here in this thread - but that's about it.

 

[sMeller]

Then why hasn't anyone lodged a complaint? Sure we have a heated debate here in this thread - but that's about it.

I will definately do that if they after this audit refuses to pay out all of the money that they owe me.

 

[dekeons]

I also plan to complain

I am in the same boat with Casino Classic and plan to lodge a complaint if it is not resolved soon. I am trying to be fair in giving them time to complete their audit and hopefully make the right decision. I also believe that there are many who are doing this exact same wait and see approach before pitching a bitch from what I have seen on many other message boards.

 

[Vesuvio]

Then why hasn't anyone lodged a complaint? Sure we have a heated debate here in this thread - but that's about it.

I think the last two posters represent the tip of an iceberg, judging by other message boards. There's no point complaining until seeing if Casino Classic goes ahead with its threat in the e-mails (which Willy seemed to confirm), that they're going to take money from players who met their terms and conditions.

As I said before, I hope the casino steps back from the brink and pays out all funds owed to players who haven't engaged in fraud. Then hopefully you won't receive any complaints. The absence of complaints at this stage in no way suggests that this is a minor issue affecting only a handful of players.

 

[dekeons]

My first ever autoplay

Casino Classic was the first time I had ever tried autoplay bj and form their emails to me, I feel as this is the main reason they locked my account. Once I played autoplay and figured out it played alot better than I did, since it does not make the same stupid emotional decisions that I would personally make, I decided to play a good bit of the between 15,000 & 20,000 wagering requirments on autoplay. At this time this was completely allowed under their terms & conditions. I do not understand why a casino would ever add a thing like autoplay that plays perfect strategy, but I will not accept being stole from just because I was a winner and followed the t&c completely, but they dont like the method I used to win!

 

[Vesuvio]

I do not understand why a casino would ever add a thing like autoplay that plays perfect strategy

It plays perfect strategy very quickly, so people lose money quicker despite the lower house edge. It leaves something of a loophole with the bonuses, but that's why they brought in inhuman wagering requirements. Oh, and they also have autoplay for slots!

 

[Timer]

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.

I was going to "pitch a bitch," but the process was intimidating, so I thought I would just wait and see how things played out. I'll make this post first and see what transpires.

I'm brand new to this forum and to casino wagering, and I learned a tough lesson very quickly.

So here's what happened.

A friend of mine told me about this casino (Captain Cooks) and that they had cool software, autoplay, and a great bonus offer. In fact, they were made up of three casinos, and you could play at all of them if you wanted to.

I was very skeptical, but I played poker online, and he said he won money there and was paid, so I thought what the hell, I'd give it a shot.

I made 100 deposit at Captain Cooks and got a 200% bonus offer! Wow! But you had to play x number of hands in your bonus account and then transfer that to your real money account and play x more number of hands. But you only have a week to clear the bonus. It is impossible to play 10,000+ hands in a week without using autoplay. So I did. After all of that I ended up winning 150! Not bad!

I didn't cash out because I wanted to keep on playing without using autoplay so I could learn basic strategy for my next casino visit. Then, one day my account was "locked." I assumed it was some kind of a computer glitch and shot them an e-mail. They reset my password and I got in no problem. In the meantime I had downloaded the software for Casino Classic, where they were offering a bonus of I believe 100% for 150, so I deposited 200, by mistake, but I didn't worry about it. I knew I would have to play more hands to clear the bonus, but I didn't care too much.

They started my bonus account with 150 and I started playing. They never even hinted that you couldn't try and win the bonus or that you couldn't use autoplay. They never said I couldn't play on Casino Classic because I had an account at Captain Cooks. But this time I started off losing and kept on losing. I was down to about 39 of my 150 when my account was locked. My Captain Cooks account was locked again too. Then they sent me the famous e-mail saying they were going to do an audit, but you could elect to get your deposit back if you sent them an e-mail to that effect. I did this for Casino Classic, and all I got was the run around. Then they said it would be no problem for me to cash out. All I had to do was log into my account and cashout. My account is locked, I told them and you know that. Oh, OK, sorry, but the accounts department is closed for the weekend try again on Monday. Closed for the weekend? This is when I really started to worry. I e-mailed them on Monday of this week and received no response. Actually about seven e-mails were traded back and forth. I felt like I was being stalled.

I did nothing wrong. I followed the T&C on their website. If these casinos don't want to honor bonuses or those using autoplay THEN WHY ON EARTH DO THEY OFFER THEM?

I want my deposit back from Casino Classic, and I want my deposit plus winnings back from Captain Cooks. If all I can do is get my deposits back from both of them, then I will settle for that, but I believe I'm entitled to the money I won at Captain Cooks. Of course if the rumors are true about them being insolvent, then I'd be thrilled just to get back what I invested.

I still have no earthly idea what is going on.

 

[Vesuvio]

I want my deposit back from Casino Classic, and I want my deposit plus winnings back from Captain Cooks. If all I can do is get my deposits back from both of them, then I will settle for that, but I believe I'm entitled to the money I won at Captain Cooks.

Please don't let them get away with not paying your winnings. This is unprecedented for a "reputable" casino and that people are even considering it shows the underhand nature of this e-mail and the whole "audit" story.

If they fail to pay your winnings you should definitely pitch a bitch on here - you've done nothing wrong. I would recommend going to Ecogra if they were registered with them, or contacting the regulatory authority, if it wasn't an obscure group of islands in the South Pacific...

 

[profiler]

Then why hasn't anyone lodged a complaint? Sure we have a heated debate here in this thread - but that's about it.

Well Casinomeister, you drove me to finally actually join a forum and contribute, instead of just reading them and staying up to date. By the way, congratulations on this excellent site and on your achievements.

As far as the subject matter is concerned, i do think that it is correct that there are a lot of players out there who have been affected by the audit, but who are waiting for a decision in their case, before they react. This idea comes from my personal observations of different fora.

Note that the above waiting strategy is actually in harmony with the idea that the casino should not be prejudged and that it is the right of the casino to take a 7 day period to audit the player base for T&C compliance.

As for myself, if i understand the recently laid out casino policy correctly, i have a GBP 240 interest in the outcome of the audit, the GBP 240 being the amount transfered from the Casino Classic bonus account to the deposit account after the WR in the bonus account had been fully met.

I should add that i am indeed a ''sharp'' player, which means that i play when i think i have at least a 50% chance of winning, and that there should thus be no reason for me to play a casino house game if it were not for a bonus.

 

[sirius]

I was going to "pitch a bitch," but the process was intimidating, so I thought I would just wait and see how things played out. I'll make this post first and see what transpires.

I'm brand new to this forum and to casino wagering, and I learned a tough lesson very quickly.

So here's what happened.

A friend of mine told me about this casino (Captain Cooks) and that they had cool software, autoplay, and a great bonus offer. In fact, they were made up of three casinos, and you could play at all of them if you wanted to.

I was very skeptical, but I played poker online, and he said he won money there and was paid, so I thought what the hell, I'd give it a shot.

I made 100 deposit at Captain Cooks and got a 200% bonus offer! Wow! But you had to play x number of hands in your bonus account and then transfer that to your real money account and play x more number of hands. But you only have a week to clear the bonus. It is impossible to play 10,000+ hands in a week without using autoplay. So I did. After all of that I ended up winning 150! Not bad!

I didn't cash out because I wanted to keep on playing without using autoplay so I could learn basic strategy for my next casino visit. Then, one day my account was "locked." I assumed it was some kind of a computer glitch and shot them an e-mail. They reset my password and I got in no problem. In the meantime I had downloaded the software for Casino Classic, where they were offering a bonus of I believe 100% for 150, so I deposited 200, by mistake, but I didn't worry about it. I knew I would have to play more hands to clear the bonus, but I didn't care too much.

They started my bonus account with 150 and I started playing. They never even hinted that you couldn't try and win the bonus or that you couldn't use autoplay. They never said I couldn't play on Casino Classic because I had an account at Captain Cooks. But this time I started off losing and kept on losing. I was down to about 39 of my 150 when my account was locked. My Captain Cooks account was locked again too. Then they sent me the famous e-mail saying they were going to do an audit, but you could elect to get your deposit back if you sent them an e-mail to that effect. I did this for Casino Classic, and all I got was the run around. Then they said it would be no problem for me to cash out. All I had to do was log into my account and cashout. My account is locked, I told them and you know that. Oh, OK, sorry, but the accounts department is closed for the weekend try again on Monday. Closed for the weekend? This is when I really started to worry. I e-mailed them on Monday of this week and received no response. Actually about seven e-mails were traded back and forth. I felt like I was being stalled.

I did nothing wrong. I followed the T&C on their website. If these casinos don't want to honor bonuses or those using autoplay THEN WHY ON EARTH DO THEY OFFER THEM?

I want my deposit back from Casino Classic, and I want my deposit plus winnings back from Captain Cooks. If all I can do is get my deposits back from both of them, then I will settle for that, but I believe I'm entitled to the money I won at Captain Cooks. Of course if the rumors are true about them being insolvent, then I'd be thrilled just to get back what I invested.

I still have no earthly idea what is going on.

Are you serious? You are in the USA and play in pounds (?) so it is obvoius
you are looking for the biggest bonus. That isn't the problem, but the unbelievable statement is that you wanted the deposit back from Casino Classic but not Captain Cooks. This must have been because you lost most of the bonus account money there!! Of course, Integrity offered this to you (I assume your real money account still had the 200 deposit) so it seems to be their stupid mistake in offering such a deal but it seems to show their lack of understanding of their own offers! Anyone who lost their bonus funds seems to be able to receive their deposit back under this email offer. Am I wrong on this?

What is actually even more concerning is this email they sent to some players, I believe even before this lockout. It shows they have lost the plot entirely:

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

Microgaming have in the past paid players when licensees have gone bust so I don't think you need to worry about the casino being insolvent.

 

[Agamemnon]

Unravelling the thread!

Excuse me all. But I'm feeling a little in need of an Ariadne in the Labyrinth.

Forgive my need for clarifying this whole issue but
as a player who plays at these casinos I'd like to hear opinions on this issue:

Does someone actually have any indications they are on unsteady financial ground?
Is this an audit that's of the "We're out of money and we're producing lame excuses for not paying" variety or is it
" we're going to decide what constitutes bonus abusing and we're clearing the ground" kind of audit?
I know that to some players one situation leads -logically?- to the other but as I play a lot of slots and quite often don't really use the bonus it would make a big difference to me which of the two situations is the reason behind the audit.


Vesuvio, you initiated this thread and have posted so far 20 posts.
I totally respect your passion and views even when I might disagree.
Are you implying there is more here than meets the eye or am I reading more into your posts than actually exists?
Do you think there is an issue with this group's financial solidity?
or are you reflecting the Anger of an expectation that
several players might find themselves locked out of winnings by retroactive characterisation of their playing patterns?
This is a straight question because I really would like to clarify all the bruha surrounding this matter.

 

[sirius]

....
I should add that i am indeed a ''sharp'' player, which means that i play when i think i have at least a 50% chance of winning, and that there should thus be no reason for me to play a casino house game if it were not for a bonus.

Your statement is a bit confusing! Where did the 50% come from?! If you deposit $60 without a bonus and try to get to $100 you will normally have well over 50% chance of doing it even if you have no idea what you are doing.

 

[profiler]

Your statement is a bit confusing! Where did the 50% come from?! If you deposit $60 without a bonus and try to get to $100 you will normally have well over 50% chance of doing it even if you have no idea what you are doing.

Let me put it differently: the expected value of my bets needs to be at least zero.

 

[sirius]

Let me put it differently: the expected value of my bets needs to be at least zero.

You mean an expected return of at least 100% on your wagers overall. So you will play with no advantage as long as there is no casino edge?? You would play bonus requirements of 200xbonus if blackjack paid 99.5% which would mean no advantage ??

 

[universexf6]

WARNING SHOT
18 March 2005

Integrity Casinos group takes a stand

Industry observers were this week interpreting a press release from the established and successful online casino group Integrity Casinos as a clear warning that the management has no intention of doing business with so-called *sharp* players, and intends to do something about it.

The consensus seemed to be that the release was a definite warning for the itinerant population interested only in taking advantage of bonuses: get out of Dodge as far as the group's online casinos are concerned.

Captain Cooks Casino, Kingdom Casino and the more recent Classic Casino are all part of the group.

The release reveals that staff are methodically and thoroughly carrying out a full inspection of every account - a formidable task given the likely size of this popular group's gambler base.

The objective is to identify the small percentage of gamblers with whom the group is no longer interested in doing business, and the intention is to enforce right of admission and refusal to contract with those it deems to be more interested in touring for bonuses than an ordinary gambling entertainment based relationship.

Although the group has not put a specific name to the category it is about to exclude, it probably covers whatever are loosely identified as "advantage players, smart players, professional gamblers, math players, bonus hunters or percentage players. "

The release states: "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."

In enforcing the new policy, the group will be returning deposits and winnings to excluded players, but apparently disqualifying any bonuses. Once locked out, the players will be permanently excluded in terms of right of admission.

Ordinary players will be unaffected by the moves, and will encounter no obstacles to their gambling at the casinos other than experiencing response delays for the short period staff are dedicated to this "...arduous task."

The policy illustrates a growing frustration with time consuming bonus policies and disputes among industry operators, and will be watched with interest as it is progressively applied.

But any retroactive disqualification of bonuses will cause a major row in the player community and could be extremely difficult to justify.

https://www.casinomeister.com/static/news/march2005.html

Wow, they are already comparable to Crystal Palace group rethotic.
What the **** is the "professional gamblers"??? Looks like those who win
will be labelled as "professional gamblers" even though he is the complete
newbie in this industry but just got a luck. And what on the fri++ng earth
is "math players"?? If I play their BJ while doimg my homework, am I
considered to be a "math players" LOL.

 

[profiler]

You mean an expected return of at least 100% on your wagers overall. So you will play with no advantage as long as there is no casino edge?? You would play bonus requirements of 200xbonus if blackjack paid 99.5% which would mean no advantage ??

Sirius, thank you for the feedback. Yes, i am prepared to bet without any edge for either myself or the casino. I guess one could call this ''leisure'' or ''entertainment''.

If this is surprising to you, how do you feel then about people displaying wagering behaviour with guaranteed negative expected value (as Casino Classic c.s. now seems to demand).

Note that the casino actually does profit from zero expected value betting, as it means (a.o.) turnover.

On a side note, keep in mind that the standard deviation actually puts the player at a relative disadvantage even when expected value is zero, for the house has a larger bankroll.

 

[Vesuvio]

Vesuvio, you initiated this thread and have posted so far 20 posts.
I totally respect your passion and views even when I might disagree.
Are you implying there is more here than meets the eye or am I reading more into your posts than actually exists?
Do you think there is an issue with this group's financial solidity?
or are you reflecting the Anger of an expectation that
several players might find themselves locked out of winnings by retroactive characterisation of their playing patterns?

Agamemnon, I'm not implying there's anything more here than suggested by the e-mails from Integrity and Willy's posts.

I don't know if there's an issue with the group's financial solidity (hence the question mark in the thread title). My assumption is that they wouldn't take such a drastic step as freezing all funds (with the inherent bad publicity) unless they were losing money. If they were just earning a lower amount than they're accustomed to I'd have thought they'd do this all with a bit more subtlety. I doubt there's any fear of them not being able to pay players - Microgaming do, in any case, have a history of paying players themselves if absolutely necessary.

I just saw this issue discussed on other message boards, together with the clear implication that Integrity intend to remove money from the accounts of players who met their terms and conditions (Willy seems to feel the same). This needed to be flagged up on the most respected message board, & seeing as no one else had done it I started this thread. It has become a bit labyrinthine!

 

[jetset]

Yes - nit-picking is about right

I see this is flagged as a "warning", which should be ok, but then the text (apart from the final sentence or two) implies it's a warning from the casino, rather than about the casino, which doesn't really make sense. It's interesting to see how these articles are produced, but I would question in this case the way "industry observers" seems mainly to mean Jetset, from whose post on here a large chunk of the vocabulary's been borrowed. The overall views of industry observers on this thread and others have been rather different.

What I find interesting, Vesuvio is your own biased view on this, and your propensity for assumptions and (your phrase) nit-picking. As a matter of fact this is not simply my interpretation, but one shared by a number of people whether you like that or not. It doesn't happen to suit your own view, but that does not automatically make it wrong. And in fact the wording of the Integrity group's release seems to me to confirm that interpretation, as has some of *Willy's* earlier posts here.

You started this thread, and you seem to be worried about being one of those who could be excluded in terms of the new policy, but that is no justification for launching attacks on the work of others who have discussed the issue with respected and knowledgeable people before bursting into print, or in this case their interpretation of what is going on here.

You are obviously not familiar with the source of this article judging by your comments. The vocabulary is "borrowed" because I wrote the article in my InfoPowa bulletins which service Casinomeister News amongst other portals.

The e-mails sent out - some confiscating funds, some saying the casino didn't have sufficient Neteller funds, others saying players could forfeit the bonus AND winnings - don't suggest a warning at all. They suggest a casino in trouble and taking desperate measures, even to the point of blackmail. They can, and have, upped wagering requirements so there's no point in going near their bonus. If they wish they can ban anyone they like.

That is exactly their intention, I believe - they are deciding with whom they want to do business. You keep implying that this casino group is "...in trouble and taking desperate measures." Whilst I must admit the very use of the word *audit* initially triggered alarm bells in my mind too, that's how cynical past events have made most of us.

However, having made a enquiries with contacts around the industry it does not seem to be a valid assumption. I believe this is a case of a casino owner who has made the very innovative decision to exercise his/her right of admission and his/her right to choose with whom he/she will do business - as a conscious policy.

The difficulty now comes in over this question of retroactive application of bonus disqualifications, and I have to admit that concerns me and requires clarification. And there will obviously be some ill-feeling among those who are given the chop, that's understandable.

None of this requires freezing funds or an audit.The only advantage of that seems to be short term and financial,

Again, I beg to differ - they have already said that they are giving each account a thorough examination before exercising their right to exclude certain players.

in so far as they can take money from players who met their terms and conditions. Like everyone else I don't know the truth here, but this opinion is at least as much a consensus view as those of Jetset (who came up with the "get out of Dodge" phrase) and one or two others.
This is another example of taking Jetset's post rather than the casino's own comments (it's better PR than the casino came up with).

Once again you make a somewhat uncalled for and disparaging comment about my work and my opinions - this bulletin has nothing to do with *PR* it is an editorial piece that reflects my view and that of other industry people as accurately as possible - making your sort of almost insulting comment here does not take this debate constructively forward i.m.o.

They talk about large numbers of accounts & a significant amount of suspect wagering, not about a small percentage of gamblers. The people affected by this audit surely constitute a large number, if not majority, of the new casino's clientele.

You keep harping on this question of what percentage of the Integrity group's gambler base is likely to fall into the exclusion category, and as I have commented to you before neither you nor I can know how big....or how small, this number is.

We don't have access to that information. But don't you think that a decision of this magnitude, taken by experienced operator people would have been carefully researched first? If these folks have miscalculated and their gambler base is weighted significantly toward the *undesireables* (for want of a better word) as you suggest do you think they would be embarking on this course? These are experienced online casino operators, man.

We continue to have conflicting views, so I'll tell you why I think it might be a small percentage: this group has been around, with a generally good reputation for a number of years. It has invested in professional and energetic marketing and from what I can see has usually treated its players well.

My industry experience tells me that over this period it has probably, as one of the better known brands using a top software, built up and retained a very substantial gambler base. I am also persuaded that skilled and highly experienced gamblers who use bonuses cleverly and profit significantly in their efforts are not your ordinary, average gambler - my gut feel is that they are the exception rather than the rule, although we see many of these experts on the leading message boards, where their views and experiential exchanges are much respected.

I'm glad you included this sting in the tail. It might also have been worth questioning the fall out if they try to justify removing money on the basis that the players played with the aim of making money rather than "entertainment".

I don't know what the fall-out is likely to be because again like you I don't know at this time how many people will be affected by this policy, or how this bonus question is going to be handled.

It is early days, and as Dirk and I think the 'Meister suggested earlier it may be better to take a calm and considered approach until all the detail is clear. Certainly I am not going to start participating in your style of worst possible scenario speculation until I know what's happening with certainty.

I understand it's extremely difficult to report an issue like this and be seen to be objective, so I apologise if this seems like excessive nitpicking, but I do think you failed in this instance to accurately reflect the reality of the situation.

Yes, I do see this as nit-picking, but I think it may be caused by your own resentment and perhaps anxiety in this matter.

 

[profiler]

The difficulty now comes in over this question of retroactive application of bonus disqualifications, and I have to admit that concerns me and requires clarification.

Being a law professional myself, besides being a gambler, i must say that in my opinion from a legal point of view this is the essence of the case and that ''clarification'' should entail legally valid definition of qualifications that are used to bring player behaviour under relevant paragraphs of the T&C.

It is therefore essential that each bonus disqualifying decision is motivated individually.

(And let us not take the remarks of the casino representative, as previously done in this thread, too seriously).

Also, it should be noted that questions can be asked concerning the legal validity of some of the above mentioned T&C paragraphs. These would be the paragraphs that state broad exclusionary rights, but do not clearly define the conditions under which they can rightfully be applied.

The latter is a technical legal matter, which can ultimately not be solved in this forum.

Finally, to just accept that there will remain ''ill-feeling'' among players may be making life a little too easy for the casino operators.

 

[ScurvyDog]

At its core this situation is not that complicated.

Integrity Casinos has made the business decision to freeze certain player accounts and conduct an audit of those accounts.

They can choose to make the further business decision to void all past bonuses that were given, as well as any winnings generated, returning only what remains of the player's original deposit.

Whether or not those players deposited, received a bonus, and fulfilled the terms and conditions is irrelevant. Whether they only played blackjack on autoplay is irrelevant. Whether or not they played in a currency other than that of their home country is irrelevant. It's Integrity's decision to make.

If they do decide to retroactively remove bonuses and winnings, in complete contradiction to their terms and conditions at the time, however, certain consequences will result. They will be sued, rogued, and slandered on multiple forums and boards. An enormous amount of ill will and negative publicity will be generated.

If they feel they will profit more in the long run from removing bonuses and winnings, they'll do it. If they decide the risks are too great, they won't.

 

[jetset]

Unravelling the thread!

Excuse me all. But I'm feeling a little in need of an Ariadne in the Labyrinth.

Forgive my need for clarifying this whole issue but
as a player who plays at these casinos I'd like to hear opinions on this issue:

Does someone actually have any indications they are on unsteady financial ground?
Is this an audit that's of the "We're out of money and we're producing lame excuses for not paying" variety or is it
" we're going to decide what constitutes bonus abusing and we're clearing the ground" kind of audit?
I know that to some players one situation leads -logically?- to the other but as I play a lot of slots and quite often don't really use the bonus it would make a big difference to me which of the two situations is the reason behind the audit.


Vesuvio, you initiated this thread and have posted so far 20 posts.
I totally respect your passion and views even when I might disagree.
Are you implying there is more here than meets the eye or am I reading more into your posts than actually exists?
Do you think there is an issue with this group's financial solidity?
or are you reflecting the Anger of an expectation that
several players might find themselves locked out of winnings by retroactive characterisation of their playing patterns?
This is a straight question because I really would like to clarify all the bruha surrounding this matter.

Solid post, Agamemnon - balanced and practical.

There is obviously a deal of confusion here, as well as personal differences over "interpretation" that are only serving to cloud the issue even more..

It seems to me that this is an excellent opportunity for the Integrity guys (who must surely be reading this thread) to comb through the thread and address the main questions which are troubling or confusing some of the members of this forum.

They possibly need to address in as straightforward terms as possible the following points:

1) An assurance that the audit is not, as Vesuvius seems to believe, an indication of financial weakness and impending doom. Is there some other reason for it? Or is it simply an inspection of accounts leading to (2) below.

2) A clearer indication of the intention here. Is it a policy designed to identify and permanently exclude specific gamblers with whom ICL no longer wishes to contract? Is that an internal management decision based on right of admission? Will any *definition* or description of such persons be issued? Is the number of expulsions likely to be substantial? Ball park figure?

3) The real cause for alarm - ICL has announced that deposits and winnings will be paid in full to those players with whom it no longer wishes to do business.

What about bonuses? Specifically what about bonuses that have already been earned? We're talking here (I assume) about bonus monies that have been played through as per the T&Cs in the bonus account and moved to the real account where they have been played as required by the T&Cs. These monies are presumably now defined as winnings and paid? If not, how are these treated?

What about bonus monies in the bonus account not yet played through i.t.o. the T&Cs? How will they be treated, because theoretically the player has not complied with the T&Cs? Will the player be given a final opportunity before lock-out to complete the playthru'?

Is there any intention on the part of the ICL casinos to retroactively confiscate earned bonuses?

Any other suggestions?

 

[Vesuvio]

Yes, I do see this as nit-picking, but I think it may be caused by your own resentment and perhaps anxiety in this matter.

Ok, as Bryan didn't address the issue, can I ask a direct question. Why has your post in this thread been elevated to the status of 'industry consensus'? It may just be a shared press release or reporting system I'm not aware of, but it mispresents the situation and deserves an explanation.

No, I don't feel any resentment or anxiety, but feel free to speculate about my motives if it amuses you.

* I've just realised you've included lots of comments all inside a quote so I missed it at first. I have to go out now but I'll check it again later - I'm not ignoring it.