Captain Cooks group in trouble?

[jetset]

Snakes and bushes

Misrepresents the situation? How? Be specific, please as this is an unpleasant accusation.

You seem intent on finding a snake in every bush here, Vesuvio so let me assure you there is nothing sinister or even conspiratorial involved in Casinomeister deciding to post one of our bulletins which he receives on a regular basis as part of our service to Casinomeister News. He's done it before where appropriate.

This week's news roundup included the piece, which is relevant to this thread. So Bryan posted it for the interest of his members in this highly topical discussion in which you have been so active.

I am trying to understand exactly what there is about the information and opinions in this story that has you on your high horse?

Do you contend that I am lying when I report the interpretation of several industry observers as similar to my own on this matter?

Do you dispute the fact that ICL are embarking on a policy of deciding with whom they wish to do business and that certain accounts will be closed?

Do you refute their rationale for the audit as part of that process to identify those to be excluded? If so on what grounds?

Do you have anything to back up your repeated allusions to possible financial trouble and imminent business problems at Integrity?

Do you disagree with the position that greater clarity is required on Integrity's intentions regarding bonuses?

Do you have sufficient internal information to back your allegation that the percentage of excluded players will be significant rather than small?

Surely you accept that any retroactive disqualifications of bonuses will be extremely difficult to justify?

 

[Timer]

Are you serious? You are in the USA and play in pounds (?) so it is obvoius
you are looking for the biggest bonus.

Whether I am or I am not, what is the problem with that? Nowhere on their website did I read that this was wrong or not allowed. I received no e-mails telling me this is inappropriate action. At no time was I led to believe that my behavior was unaceptable. My friend told me to deposit in GBP so I did.

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!!

No. This is because THEY LOCKED MY ACCOUNT, WHICH SCARED THE HELL OUT OF ME. I had no intention of asking for anything back. I was ENJOYING playing. What don't you seem to get ? A new player gets his account frozen when he is LOSING! Then I get an e-mail saying I can get my deposit back, if I want to go that route, so yes, I want to go that route with this account, of course. I had finished clearing the bonus on the other account so why should I go that route there? What have I done wrong? I followed all rules. What am I supposed to think?

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?

Yes, you are wrong. (100 deposit + 150 winnings in the Captain Cooks account) The way I read the T&C is that if you lose the money in your bonus account you still have to play x number of hands in the real money account to have a chance of getting any of that money out. This is the price you pay, the gamble you take, to try and win the bonus. I accepted those risks. You can't just play off the bonus money, lose it, and then say oh well, give me my deposit back. I'm also quite sure, but I have no data to prove it, that this is exactly what happened to many players. They lost their bonus money, and then they lost some, if not all, of the money in their real account playing off the required number of hands. Are they getting an offer to recoup their original deposit? I hardly think so. Isn't this what the casino really wants? They want people to lose don't they? Can they have it both ways? Can they collect the money from those that lose, but not have to pay those who win even though all parties used the very same promotion?

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.

What is a newbie supposed to think anyway? First time in an online casino and the funds are frozen and you are subtly accused of something inappropriate. But I can rest easy now. Whew, I'm glad there is no problem. I can stop worrying. I was concerned over nothing. Thanks for putting my fears to rest.

 

[sirius]

Timer, I may have got the amount of the deposit wrong, but the email seemed to offer you the chance of getting your deposit back even though you lost most of the bonus. You had lost most of the bonus money in the bonus account but I suspect you hadn't touched your deposit yet in the real account. I don't think it's a bad deal but they probably didn't intend it that way. Are they still not replying to your emails about this? This is a quote from the email:

You may elect for an immediate refund of
deposit(s) made to claim signup bonuses up to the amount of your player
current account balance or withdrawal, however, in doing so you will
forfeit any amounts in your accounts/withdrawals above and beyond your
deposit(s). If you wish to elect for this option of deposit refund please
respond to this email with "BJ play return deposit" in the subject line
and we will attend to your query immediately.

Normally you'd have to wager your deposit again x times in the real account to withdraw!

 

[sirius]

I think this group are upset after losing money but what did they expect to happen with the ever changing terms? I mentioned years ago that if bonus terms are set too high, casinos would only have bonus hunters playing them.

A few days ago they increased the terms yet again and disallowed blackjack and this caused some confusion again and I've heard of players having their withdrawels reversed and CS telling them they'd have to play under the new terms even though they signed up under the old terms!

 

[Stanford]

This isn't good

QUOTE 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. UNQUOTE

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"

It sounds to me like they are ready to bolt on their terms if they have smart players. This is a rogue casino if they do that.

Part of the entertainment is deciding the best way to play a given promotion.

I will be watching for the smart player who has lost. When they refund the losses, I will consider them legitimate. Otherwise, we are cutting them to much slack and sending the wrong message.

I draw attention to Position 3 from Integrity's own statement:

QUOTE
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.

I have won considerable money in the bonus account and then transferred it into the regular account. This casino group has no right to be removing either the bonus or the money won in the bonus account from these cashins. We have a word for this in Texas - we call it "cheating".

I hope all watchdogs will take a strong stand in this respect. And I hope players will stand together for as long as it takes to keep these threads at the top of every major forum until this is resolved. I am very disappointed that this group has resorted to such action - by their own admission.

Any players suffering from this new policy of recanting and confiscation should certainly PAB. And you have my support; it could have easily been me.

imho,
Stanford

 

[Vesuvio]

Jetset, I wish you'd waited after my last post. I just got in and saw your post commenting on mine, but missed the whole long section that was all contained within a "quote". All I saw was the last two lines of unwarranted speculation on my motives. I wouldn't have replied as I did (as you already answered my question) if I'd seen it first, but then didn't have time to write any more.

I understand now how your wording found it's way into a statement which I took to be from Casinomeister. My point relating to that news story was mainly that Bryan seemed to be taking your interpretation as representative of the whole spectrum of views on here. As it is in fact your statement there's no issue! I don't entirely agree with your interpretation, and I'll try and say why, but I respect your opinion.

 

[Vesuvio]

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.

It's hard to know how best to put this, but I think my main disagreement with your press release is the positive spin it gives - suggesting that these casinos have decided to take a brave and bold step against bonus hunters. I don't see anything innovative here. Casinos are always deciding who they want to play with them and have always banned players they don't want at their casinos. This is very old hat and acceptable. It would have been logical, perhaps, for the casino to look at old accounts at their casinos and decide this before sending out e-mails to all their players advertising a sign-up bonus at Casino Classic.

What is unusual here is deciding to freeze funds and send out alarming e-mails, some of which may scare players (especially inexperienced ones) into forfeiting funds unnecessarily. I don't think I've been scaremongering to suggest that this audit is a drastic step which suggests something's not quite right with the casino group. I still think the most reasonable explanation would be that they were losing money (at whatever rate, and whether or not it placed their business at any risk) so decided they didn't have too much to lose from this action.

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.

Yes, we're in agreement over this, though I do think you understate the reaction it's going to bring. I would expect ill-feeling industry-wide, rather than just from the players involved, but that's just the idealist in me.

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.

I was only really bringing this up again because I thought it odd that Casinomeister used it as well - but as I've said I understand now this was your press release. My point was simply that the casino said this matter involved a large number of players. I agree, neither you nor I knows, so I was suprised your press release, rather than reporting what the casino said, decided it was a small percentage.

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.

If their definition of *undesireables* is people who autoplayed bonuses on BJ, then it's undoubtedly a very large number of players, whatever it may be percentage-wise. If the casino was losing money to this group, and especially if it was losing money overall, then I can imagine it might embark on this course, despite the number involved.

As to your point about waiting to see what happens - I'd rather discussion on this thread helped to persuade the casino not to go ahead with actions which should see them automatically rogued i.e. removing funds from the accounts of players who met the terms and conditions of a bonus while not refunding players who took up the same bonuses and lost their deposits.

This is what stands out in their e-mails and their representative's comments, and perhaps deserved central billing in a press release on this issue rather than being relegated to a footnote. If they just pay out their players and then ban those they don't wish to play with them any more that's utterly standard practice and no-one will have any issue with them.

I apologise if my previous posts have come across as personal attacks (mainly through a misunderstanding). I accept you see this matter differently, and of course have every right to.

 

[Timer]

Timer, I may have got the amount of the deposit wrong, but the email seemed to offer you the chance of getting your deposit back even though you lost most of the bonus. You had lost most of the bonus money in the bonus account but I suspect you hadn't touched your deposit yet in the real account. I don't think it's a bad deal but they probably didn't intend it that way. Are they still not replying to your emails about this?

The amount of the deposit is not the point. The point is that AFTER they locked my account they OFFERED to return my deposit. What would you do? I accepted. They then asked me my preferred method to withdraw the money. Since I deposited with Neteller they suggested I withdraw using Neteller. I was unclear about their message, so I asked them if they had made the withdrawl for me. They said no, I had to go into my account to do that. The account was locked, of course and I couldn't make any withdrawl. I sent them another e-mail saying so and they said they would forward this e-mail to the accounts department, but unfortunately they were closed for the weekend. On Monday I e-mailed them again and they did not respond. I e-mailed them again today (you see I've been very patient) and they said:

"Accounts will let you know what's happening, first thing Monday (Sunday
night your time)."

So I am going to patiently wait until Sunday.

PS All of this correspondence has been with Casino Classic. I have had no correspondence with Captain Cooks save the first time my account was locked and they reset my password. Although since they are all one big corporation, I don't see what difference it makes. I have made no request one way or the other concerning my funds at Captain Cooks. In fact, I had an opportunity to withdraw those funds at one time, after they unlocked my account and I had finished clearing the bonus, but I chose not to because I wished to play some more. But since I am 150 winner on Captain Cooks I am waiting very patiently to see what happens.

 

[bonustreak]

I am amazed at how far all of this has gone to begin with, I work close with the casinos as an affiliate and I can assure you they are not running out of money or going broke. That is just absurd as Bryan has stated you do not open a new casino being broke!

As far as the players having accounts locked for a short time, if your a legit player and have not abused the system any anyway then you have no worries at all, sit back take a few days off of gambling and wait for the account to be
re-opened.

Why is Wily "sick"? All he did was state a fact, and the fact is there are people out there that do like to gamble and cannot leave their homes, what is the casino suppose to say...Gee you do not leave your home so we cannot have you as a player? Gambling is what they like to do, and as long as they are not putting themselves in danger of losing all they have then so what?
If the casino thought this was the case, they do have the resources to help anyone in need!

I personally would like to see a few bad apples gone then to have the casinos turn into a hateful group of casinos that do not care what so ever about the players, believe me there are plenty of them out there just waiting to take and take and take from players that are LEGIT!

Also since all this has happened I have cashed out with no problems and so have several of my friends, and they are BJ players.

 

[Stanford]

Integrity appears to be a misnomer

I am amazed at how far all of this has gone to begin with, I work close with the casinos as an affiliate and I can assure you they are not running out of money or going broke...

Also since all this has happened I have cashed out with no problems and so have several of my friends, and they are BJ players.

Players should be worried. We have no way to ascertain the financial condition and neither do you. I have received rumors of slow affiliate pay and that isn't a good sign. Maybe Willy can address that.

What we can ascertain is that this casino (by their own admission) is willing to remove the bonus and winnings after the fact and for cases other than fraud. If there ever was such a thing as bonus abuse, this is it - by the casino.

My conclusion is the casino is dishonest, short of funds or both.

Should they wish to abandon this policy or if they have misstated it, then that is a different matter.

There simply is no gray here. Players should avoid this casino.


imho,
Stanford

 

[bonustreak]

Even the best casino affiliates have paid late before and just because the payments are late does not mean they are broke, the aff program is run by a different support staff, and I as an affiliate am not concerned I know my money will come.

Wagershare was late by a week and a few days this month also with their payment, are they going broke? I can name several that paid late, when conventions and things of that nature are happening then payments get screwed up, we may bitch about it to one another but we do know we will be paid.

They are abusive because they are protecting themselves from shady players?

What we can ascertain is that this casino (by their own admission) is willing to remove the bonus and winnings after the fact and for cases other than fraud. If there ever was such a thing as bonus abuse, this is it - by the casino.

Go read other casinos T&C's they all have that in there, they can withdraw any winnings and bonuses or refuse to pay at anytime!

I also read that if your deemed a good quality player this will be returned to your account after they do the audits.

The casino is not being audited, players are.

 

[jetset]

Vesuvio, you are entitled to your personal opinion, too and I am more than prepared to debate your view of my bulletin although I think we should take that outside because this sort of sideshow detracts from the main thrust here and requires some restraint.

Let us therefore resort to PM or email exchanges where we can really go at it. I don't believe in hiding behind anonymity when I have something to say, so my identity is always upfront. Perhaps in private we can introduce ourselves and get to grips with your offensive and unwarranted use of terms such as *spin* and *PR* and an apparent suggestion that I am promoting the casino concerned instead of interpreting its motives as an independent but informed observer.

The way I see it, you seem to be unhappy chiefly because I haven't jumped on your anti-ICL bandwagon and voice my own opinions rather than following your own. And this is an innovative event - this is the first time I have seen a major brand cleaning house openly and on this level and publicising their future business approach in a formal press release.

By the way, you persist in referring to my op-ed editorial as a "press release"- it is no such thing. A technicality perhaps, but a necessary distinction.

Back on topic. I think you are now becoming irresponsible in the assumptions you are making and the as you put it persistent scare-mongering in which I think you are indulging. You are continuing to suggest without a shred of evidence that this casino group is in some sort of financial or business trouble. I have to believe that that is deliberately mischievous because myself and others have already drawn your attention to this.

I think that instead of this you/we should be pressing for clarity on this issue by posting specific questions we want answered (as I have done earlier in this thread) or by contacting the casinos involved directly and asking specific questions instead of indulging in what looks increasingly like malicious assumption and innuendo.

I have nailed my personal flag to the mast on the question of earned bonuses and retroactive confiscation as a matter of record earlier in this thread, and I have not changed my view, nor my interpretation of what the motivation of ICL is with this policy.

The emotional speculation on the possibilities regarding bonuses to one side for a brief moment, I think the management of this group has the right to choose with whom it wishes to do business and on what terms, as long as these are fairly and honestly communicated and applied. They seem to have decided what their priorities are, and where the emphasis in their business will lie in future.

That carries the risk attendant on every important management decision, and the responsibility to assess that before implementing the decision. Presumably that has been done conscientiously.

 

[Haviton]

OK

To cut the Inuendo and Speculation

I deposit 100, receive 100 in Bonus account

I play 3500 hands of Vegas Strip Black Jack on Auto Play (35xWR)

I transfer 100 to real account

I then play 7000 hands of Vegas Strip Blackjack on Autoplay (35X WR)

I then withdraw 200


Will I be paid the 200 that I have achieved completly by playing to The casino T&Cs of the time. If the answer is Yes then there is no problem. If the answer is no, Then, IMHO, the casino should be rogued

 

[Vesuvio]

Perhaps in private we can introduce ourselves and get to grips with your offensive and unwarranted use of terms such as *spin* and *PR* and an apparent suggestion that I am promoting the casino concerned instead of interpreting its motives as an independent but informed observer.

For the record - I don't think you're doing anything other than honestly describing the situation as you see it. I'm not suggesting you're promoting the casino. I do think your editorial happens to present the casino in a better light than the casino's own statements, but that's just due to their own incompetence.

The way I see it, you seem to be unhappy chiefly because I haven't jumped on your anti-ICL bandwagon and voice my own opinions rather than following your own.

I don't see where you get this from. As I said, of course I understand you have a different opinion. You told me to explain what I felt was flawed in your editiorial and I did. It's not my bandwagon. A very large number of people are understandably concerned by these actions.

And this is an innovative event - this is the first time I have seen a major brand cleaning house openly and on this level and publicising their future business approach in a formal press release.

As I see it the press release was an attempt to cope with the bad publicity their actions inevitably created. They still haven't deigned to explain "suspect wagering".

Back on topic. I think you are now becoming irresponsible in the assumptions you are making and the as you put it persistent scare-mongering in which I think you are indulging. You are continuing to suggest without a shred of evidence that this casino group is in some sort of financial or business trouble. I have to believe that that is deliberately mischievous because myself and others have already drawn your attention to this.

I've said I don't know (do you?) and everything may be fine. All I've said is that the most logical explanation for a casino taking these actions would be financial problems. I'd stand by that and others share my view. If I was scare-mongering I wouldn't have added, as I have, that I have no doubt they can pay all their customers if they choose to.

I think that instead of this you/we should be pressing for clarity on this issue by posting specific questions we want answered (as I have done earlier in this thread) or by contacting the casinos involved directly and asking specific questions instead of indulging in what looks increasingly like malicious assumption and innuendo.

I agree - I've asked a large number of specific questions in this thread. Most remain unanswered, but a number of interesting issues have been raised that are worth discussing whether or not the casino goes ahead and carries out its threats.

I think the management of this group has the right to choose with whom it wishes to do business and on what terms, as long as these are fairly and honestly communicated and applied.

Of course they do - no-one disputes that. All that's at issue here is whether they plan to remove bonuses and/or winnings from players who met their terms and conditions. If they do they should be rogued and it'll negatively impact on their future business. If they don't then we can forget this issue.

Presumably that has been done conscientiously.

You keep accusing me of making unfair presumptions, but they're no more or less out of line with the facts than your assuming the casino has thought out all their actions conscientiously. They may have, they may not have. We don't know and can only judge from appearances - & seem to come to opposite conclusions.

Anyway, I agree this back & forth between us has detracted from the overall impetus of the thread. I think we've both stated our views fairly clearly and I'd be happy to leave it at that (if you want one more post I'll agree not to reply to it).

 

[Vesuvio]

Go read other casinos T&C's they all have that in there, they can withdraw any winnings and bonuses or refuse to pay at anytime!

Yes, Vixen, but casinos that use the 'we can do anything we like' clauses in their terms and conditions end up rogued at message boards like this one.

 

[Freudian]

What I can't understand is why this groups behaviour is being described as innovative and a bold new step. This is the exact scheme of such old favourites as Virtual, Connecto and others. No difference whatsoever. Even the motivations sound exactly the same: "you are a sharp player". "you are not playing for entertainment purposes".

When a reputable group starts using scum tactics they are a scum casino. It's as simple as that.

 

[universexf6]

What I can't understand is why this groups behaviour is being described as innovative and a bold new step. This is the exact scheme of such old favourites as Virtual, Connecto and others. No difference whatsoever. Even the motivations sound exactly the same: "you are a sharp player". "you are not playing for entertainment purposes".

When a reputable group starts using scum tactics they are a scum casino. It's as simple as that.

　I completely agree. I often hear people here sometimes saying "Casinos can
do whatever they can do or change because there states their own rules and
there is no laws". But I will tell you, these casinos who try to cheat players
taking advantage of empty rules or just ruleless situation will pay in the long
run.

 

[profiler]

Have the 7 days elapsed yet?

 

[Linus]

Yes, Vixen, but casinos that use the 'we can do anything we like' clauses in their terms and conditions end up rogued at message boards like this one.

Doesn't that depend on the board?

Correct me if I'm wrong - but aren't many sites paid for by the casinos - to the extent that they're effectively partners, getting a direct cut of the casinos' wins and losses?

You wouldn't necessarily expect a fair hearing or an impartial resolution there.

Or to put it differently - because I'm far from an industry insider - I'd expect a lot of people to go to a lot of trouble to defend the casinos they make their living from.

That's the only way I can find to explain certain arguments - that the player has a duty to lose, that winning is cheating, or that your opponent has the right to retroactively change the rules when he decides (after the fact) he no longer likes them. Or, that a casino is taking a "brave stand" by cheating its players.

Or maybe it's because I come from the poker world, where those kinds of arguments would be laughed at out of hand.

I admit, if I was a casino operator, and I made my living taking money from the feeble-minded and the gambling-addicted, I wouldn't want me playing at my casino, either.

Even then, though, I wouldn't try to change the rules after the fact, or have the gall to try to paint myself out to be a victim of the people I'm stealing money from.

 

[Stanford]

Even the best casino affiliates have paid late before and just because the payments are late does not mean they are broke, the aff program is run by a different support staff, and I as an affiliate am not concerned I know my money will come. .

Thank you for confirming they have been late paying affiliates.

It doesn't mean they are broke. It is a warning sign and along with the "audit' tool is reason for concern. With the admittance to a policy of reneging on bonus and winnings, this casino group should be avoided by normal players and sophisticated players should proceed with great amount of caution.

With the onerous play through requirements, there is no need for less sophisticated players to play there in any event. Another reason they could be having problems.

"Go read other casinos T&C's they all have that in there, they can withdraw any winnings and bonuses or refuse to pay at anytime! "

Thank you for pointing that out. Those T&C's are void on their face. As others noted above, any attempt at enforcement of such terms gets one rogued at sites like this one. Not all affiliates are like this one.

I checked your profile and your affiliate site is not indicated. It would be nice if you would let players know which site is yours, so they don't make the misstake of playing through you.

The casino is not being audited, players are.

And that's the problem. If they were an eCOGRA casino we would not be having this discussion. The casino would either honor their terms or lose their seal.

imho,
Stanford

 

[DiePolizeiistda]

My five cents on this group: I made bad experiences with Captain Cook: Money transfer never credited and Casino Kingdom (received payout eight months after request which led even to an article from Jetset). It is correct that the customer service answers in five minutes, but the willingness and intellectual capacity to settle issues is lacking. I had a thread of almost one hundred emails on my problem without solution.
It is not surprising that the casino group is not member of ecogra. They would probably not pass their quality standards. It is no surprise for me either that this group uses a so-called bonus scheme of bonus accounts: a scheme that not only has outrageous bonus wagering requirements, but by its design is misleading players. I advise all fellow players to stay away from this group.

 

[Stanford]

It is not surprising that the casino group is not member of ecogra. They would probably not pass their quality standards...I advise all fellow players to stay away from this group.

It doesn't pass the quality standards of some of the better affiliates either.

I would like to salute faircasinos.com for dumping the Integrity Casino Group for not paying bonuses and winnings. Well-done Sirius.

Stanford.

 

[555YY]

I am amazed at how far all of this has gone to begin with, I work close with the casinos as an affiliate and I can assure you they are not running out of money or going broke. That is just absurd as Bryan has stated you do not open a new casino being broke!

As far as the players having accounts locked for a short time, if your a legit player and have not abused the system any anyway then you have no worries at all, sit back take a few days off of gambling and wait for the account to be
re-opened.

Why is Wily "sick"? All he did was state a fact, and the fact is there are people out there that do like to gamble and cannot leave their homes, what is the casino suppose to say...Gee you do not leave your home so we cannot have you as a player? Gambling is what they like to do, and as long as they are not putting themselves in danger of losing all they have then so what?
If the casino thought this was the case, they do have the resources to help anyone in need!

I personally would like to see a few bad apples gone then to have the casinos turn into a hateful group of casinos that do not care what so ever about the players, believe me there are plenty of them out there just waiting to take and take and take from players that are LEGIT!

Also since all this has happened I have cashed out with no problems and so have several of my friends, and they are BJ players.

and why "your" opinion or the opinion of "your friends" who cashed out with no problems have any more merit than rest of the board? If 100 people cashed out with no problem while 10 people who won big by autoplaying their bonuses have their cashout denied it is NO LESS of a problem. the policy set for the by IGC's own t&c MATTERS. if they go against their own words, be it vs. 1 player or a 1000, what's the difference? other than the fact that you still get your affiliate payments from the losers who "cash out with no problems" if they had anything to cashout?

ftr, i had autoplayed bj at IGC, i have manually played bj at IGC, I have taken frequent promotions at IGC, I usually had no problems cashing out from IGC, and I still think they're wrong and have already said i wont go back anywhere near their casinos... but then that might be b/c i don't get paid by the casinos to say good words for them

 

[pumacat]

Hangin in

I am very guilty of not understanding the whole bonus thing even though I do own a gambling website and I do try to make the bonuses offered by casinos as clear as possible when I post them. But i myself when i do play at a casino, simply call up ( live chat ) and simply ask what I can and cannot play just to cover my butt should I win.

Of all the casinos out there that have been way off with their promotions and playthrough and just plain ol scamming its players, I believe captain cooks is one of the few that i would still be willing to put my money into.

The casino ( captians ) may have had good reason to do what they did, and on the other hand, they may not have. I can not judge. But I do know that their are many people out there playing with these casinos and trying to take them for everything they got. Is this wrong? well....no..its not...If I thought I knew a way to drain a casino playing fairly, then id do it without thinking twice about it.

Its funny thought how most people have never had a problem with captain Cooks casino, and I also find it strange that they have picked out only a select few and asked them not to play at their casino.

Is there a good reson for their decision? They have never done this to me or 95% of their players. Perhaps, cause I am not part of any group who goes out of its way to create havik amongs the online casinos

In closing , I will say this, I think that any casino including captains, who agree on terms with a player during signing up, should have no right to change their terms in the middle of a person playing..that is simply not fair to the player involved.

Puma

 

[sirius]

this group is most certainly in trouble, recently they sent out an email, in which they admitted to having finacial troubles and would be unable to pay by neteller due to a cash flow problem, if you havn't done so yet,it maybe time to say goodbye to your money

Please copy and paste this email as I don't believe they would say they had a cashflow problem.