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?

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.