Casino La Vida - cashout without the standard 20£ deposit?

[RobWin]

This was the ND Bonus offer in the pic below that PaaskeDKnowUK used. If you look at item #7 in the second pic you can see that it says "General Terms and Conditions Apply"

And then just right below that it says "Standard Terms and Conditions Apply"

So we go and look at these General & Standard Terms and Conditions here Old / Expired Link

Now when you scan about 3/4 of the way down the page you will see the heading titled:

No Deposit Bonus (where offered) Terms And Conditions
* No deposit bonuses (where offered) are only available to new Real Players.
* Because NO purchase is required the total winnings on all NO-DEPOSIT bonuses are limited to $/£/€/AUD/CAD250 (or local supported currency) maximum. Should the player win in excess of $/£/€/AUD/CAD250 the excess will be removed from the players account before fulfilling the cashin.
* Minimum initial bonus wager requirements and minimum cashin requirements apply.


That's it...it states nothing there about any minimum purchase of $20 required at all but as you can see in the offer in the pic below it does state this...

So the point being here is the simple fact that the offer refers the player to the "General & Standard Terms and Conditions" at the bottom of the offer as you can clearly see in the pic below BUT these terms are also very conflicting with one another, I think anyone can agree on that fact.

The player made his deposit, that's a fact now...Casino La Vida needs to honor this bonus offer and pay this man and STOP acting like one of the Rogue Virtual Casinos!


Old Attachment (Invalid)

Old Attachment (Invalid)
____
____

 

[Bencuri]

4. In such a case as the player taking advantage of his or her casino account for promotional offers only, and not demonstrating any intention to play or personal risk with his or her funds, the offers of bonus offers and promotional offers (including but not limited to sign up bonuses) will be withdrawn and withheld. This will remain in place until such time as the player demonstrates a significant purchase history within the casino.

I think defining the player as an abuser accoarding to this rule in this case results in an ambiguous outcome. Because if you do that, the casino becomes a 'cheater' as well. They advertise ND money. In case you use this rule to confiscate winnings from a player, because he didn't pay to cash out from a no deposit promo, the ND marker doesn't stand. You cannot advertise something as ND when that thing requires a risk of your funds. If you accept that the player can be claimed as an abuser accoarding to this rule, than you should blame the casino as well for a fake promo.

Depositing for verification is okay. But it is not the same as needing to deposit to risk funds.

I think it is totally a mistake to blame players accoarding to such rule. Personally I find this rule just as irritating. If a casino claims a player abuser accoarding the way he used the no deposit promos (not violating excluded game rules, but considering how many times and how much he used them, how much he deposited, etc.) doesn't stand. As it is in its name, you are not required to make a deposit for this bonus, so on what base do you deem players abusers for using such a promo? In case you deem somebody abuser for using only no deposit bonuses, then the fact is that your bonus is a deposit bonus, a deposit bonus in long term. And simply because in case you don't make a deposit, but use only the ND, you will be closed out.

It is okay if the casino has rules for how much ND you can use. But then let they make them accessible in the terms. Like in case of RTGs. Until it is only a personal decision whether somebody will be deemed abusive or not because of a passage of rules, that can be ineterpreted very subjectively, we cannot talk about that the casino can be seen as objective an fair either. In this case the casino had a rule that can be intertpreted accoarding to the current taste of the owner. If he wants, he can deem a player abusive for using 2 ND consequently, if he wants only the next week after using 3. In my opinion this is not a customer friendly practice. If you want rules on ND usage, make them available clearly in the terms. If not, don't complaim about that a player uses to many ND. There are casino groups where you can use as many NDs as you want consequently. It is not a problem, simply because the system credits them, and why would they blame you when you use a bonus that they credit for you and welcome you to use them? It is a totally different case when you add the coupon yourself, like at RTG. But they have the rule available in the terms about this.

Confiscating a winning based on such a rule in this case means simply: for La Vida using one ND promo is enough to be closed out for bonus abusing. Isn't it a bit crazy?

 

[winbig]

Casinos should just do away with ND bonuses (for new players) and be done with it...lol

(Vicodin talking, don't lynch me.)

 

[funeral979]

Sorry, had to make another comment here.

I know Max said this argument was silly about 3 pages ago but I just need to restate....how can a customer put their funds at risk or show that they will become a depositing player based on claiming a ND coupon??

These chips are given out for potential customers to try out the casino. But lets face it....99% of the customers have played MG, RTG, Rival software before. They are essentially trying out the customer service and, if they should be so lucky, the withdrawal process. Don't the casinos realise this? They should bend over backwards to pay a winner who has used a welcome chip....that will pretty much guarantee a repeat customer. But screw around with their withdrawal? Well basically then you are giving out free money to someone who will never return. Thats why I can never understand why a casino would stall a welcome chip winner....its just counter productive....and stupid.

At Vegas Regal I must have claimed about 40 free chips before I finally won (and before I ever deposited there).....at this time I didnt have a usemywallet account...so I had no way to receive my winnings....Robwin actually helped me open one finally, so I couldn't make my verification deposit until a week or 2 after I made the withdrawal. Well I was paid, of course....and even though I wasn't a big fan of Rival, it became the ONLY Rival I ever played at....made about 30 deposits after that.

See the difference?

 

[winbig]

At Vegas Regal I must have claimed about 40 free chips before I finally won (and before I ever deposited there).....at this time I didnt have a usemywallet account...so I had no way to receive my winnings....Robwin actually helped me open one finally, so I couldn't make my verification deposit until a week or 2 after I made the withdrawal. Well I was paid, of course....and even though I wasn't a big fan of Rival, it became the ONLY Rival I ever played at....made about 30 deposits after that.

See the difference?

not to shill, but hell, I won on back to back ND chips at VR before I was able to deposit. I was going through money issues at the time, too, but they still let me deposit weeks later (I took the welcome bonus & lost) and wd what money I won.

They never said "hey, he's abusing the nd chips, let's take his money" nor did they figure after a couple weeks that I wasn't going to deposit and took the $....

 

[maxd]

I know Max said this argument was silly about 3 pages ago but I just need to restate....how can a customer put their funds at risk or show that they will become a depositing player based on claiming a ND coupon??

Is there some particular reason why you chose to completely ignore what I said then in response to this exact same question?

If you say "why the hell is going on?!?" and someone explains and then you say "why the hell is going on?!?" to the exact same issue you're either not listening or you don't want to listen.

 

[Bencuri]

At Vegas Regal I must have claimed about 40 free chips before I finally won ............. Well I was paid....

Hehe, would you have tried this at Casino Rewards. They would have banned you forever. They also has this rule about bonus abusers that Casino La Vida has (and maybe all other Micros), and they ban players generally based on that. Renée, their representative here commented it: 'The casino is not a charity fund.' It makes me laugh. Maybe she thinks we are as stupid as that we don't see it? But in case there are no clear rules on ND usage, where the hell should we know how to use it, how frequently, etc.? Even Vegas Regal has such loose rules on ND, and there are other casinos, too, if I am used to that practice why should I think about doing violation for using some multiple free chips at a place where it is not written clearly how many times I can use them to prevent being defined as an abuser? I think these are not us who are stupid and don't realize that casinos are not charity funds, but the operators, who doesn't publicate the clear rules, in a circumstance, where anyway we are not used to being indentified as abusers for using some free chips anyway...

 

[funeral979]

I, for one, find this argument pretty hard to take seriously. Repeating it makes it seem sillier IMHO. I should think it pretty obvious that the casino is referring to making a deposit, any deposit, presumably with the intention to play it.

This is the only response that you made in reference to me asking how someone can demonstrate the intent of risking their own funds on a ND offer. Why would someone play a deposit without first seeing if they are going to be paid on the first offer? The terms don't say you have to play the verification at all.

Is there some particular reason why you chose to completely ignore what I said then in response to this exact same question?

If you say "why the hell is going on?!?" and someone explains and then you say "why the hell is going on?!?" to the exact same issue you're either not listening or you don't want to listen.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this so I will let it be. Real classy though of their rep coming in here and thanking your post while disregarding many of the other points brought up.

 

[maxd]

Why would someone play a deposit without first seeing if they are going to be paid on the first offer? The terms don't say you have to play the verification at all.

I'm having some difficult seeing what the problem is here but the Terms say they want players to deposit and demonstrate some willingness to play with their own funds.

As I understand it the minimum deposit is the minimum requirement. Nobody said anything about __having__ to play it, I just said that one normally deposits because one will, at some point presumably, play. Which of course is what the casino is looking for, players who will play. People who just come to soak up the ND bonuses don't qualify. This is what I presumed was clear and obvious.

 

[winbig]

People who just come to soak up the ND bonuses don't qualify. This is what I presumed was clear and obvious.

Yes, but the bottom line is that the casino is assuming that the player won't deposit. As I mentioned earlier, people can't go around assuming anything. The moral of this story is that the player never once said he wouldn't deposit, he said he couldn't. The casino assumed that he was just some bonus seeker and would never deposit in the future. They based their decision on an assumption, and not any concrete proof; and there was not one rule that was broken during this whole ordeal.

If they didn't want him as a player at their casino, then fine. Ban their account after the fact. Just because they felt that he wouldn't be a depositing player, then fine....but keep within the rules for the issue at hand. Their own rules.

Just because something legal is immoral doesn't make it illegal. The same point can be applied in this situation in regards to how they perceived the OP's actions, and the rules that they have in place.

If they were so concerned about this player never depositing, then why wasn't their account disabled at the same time that they confiscated the funds? Of course, now, they're never going to see another penny.

 

[De Beuker]

Hi Mallorca

Thank You very much for Your input
Sounds very good, at least gives me a hope that this can go trough
And i will be making lot of deposits in the future acutally from i recieve these money and when i get paid from work end of month...
Because at Thunderstruck i have allready build up something nice, so hope i can catch the 2,4 million coins on wildstorm HEHE

The OP clearly states that he's going to deposit and play at the casino as soon as he gets paid from work.
So he must have written something completely different in his emails, or there has been some MAJOR misunderstanding somewhere..
As you can see, his english is not perfect. Might be a cause?

Again, I'm not defending this players actions.
Taking this to the forum was not the right thing to do.
But I honestly think he had no 'evil intentions' in doing so, and accusing him from blackmailing, confiscating his winnings and a ban was way over the top.
Those actions should be reserved for multiple accounters and fraudsters.
Just my opinion.

 

[maxd]

Yes, but the bottom line is that the casino is assuming that the player won't deposit.

That's not the way they saw it and that's not the way I saw it during the PAB either. To us it looked like a clear case where the player was saying "can't deposit, but I can post on the forums for you."

Please note that during this phase, the beginning of this whole thing, the player never said a single word about how he was going to satisfy the deposit requirements or plans to do so. All he said was "can't deposit, but I can post".

Like I said, the casino took exception to that and I backed them on it. End of story, as far as we were concerned.

The rest of it -- promises to deposit in the future, etc -- all came __after__ the fact. Too little too late.

 

[winbig]

I'm sure we'll never see eye to eye on it, so I'll just have to agree that we're going to disagree on it.

I know we're beating a dead horse over and over again here, but my parting question to this thread will be:

What exact rule of the casino's T&C did this player break? (besides maybe a FU clause....)

 

[Deeplay]

Sorry but this thread is boring now. The player should have just deposited the 20 whatever and be done with it. Cahout im sure would have followed. Anyone can see from the players first post he was trying to use this forum as a way to try get the casino to cough up winnings without abiding by the terms. It was fre chip ffs - all he had to do was get 20- into his account. Probmlem over. And to be really harsh if you cant fund 20 usd or 20 £ into a casino then maybe a re-think if gambling is best for you at this time.

I come down firmly on the casinos side in this one. If you feel the terms and cons suck dont go there. And if you dont read em more the fool you. Now i recon its time to move on and everything be happy

 

[winbig]

Sorry but this thread is boring now. The player should have just deposited the 20 whatever and be done with it. Cahout im sure would have followed. Anyone can see from the players first post he was trying to use this forum as a way to try get the casino to cough up winnings without abiding by the terms. It was fre chip ffs - all he had to do was get 20- into his account. Probmlem over. And to be really harsh if you cant fund 20 usd or 20 £ into a casino then maybe a re-think if gambling is best for you at this time.

I come down firmly on the casinos side in this one. If you feel the terms and cons suck dont go there. And if you dont read em more the fool you. Now i recon its time to move on and everything be happy

Again, I ask, what term did he break? It seems nobody can answer this question.

Sure his tact was way off, but he didn't break any rules.

 

[maxd]

Again, I ask, what term did he break? It seems nobody can answer this question.

That question has been asked and answered several times including here in this thread.

 

[winbig]

Ah well, everyone knows my views on this, and I agree, this thread is getting to be like.....

 

[Casinomeister]

This was the ND Bonus offer in the pic below that PaaskeDKnowUK used. If you look at item #7 in the second pic you can see that it says "General Terms and Conditions Apply"

...
____
____

No it's not the same offer. For the umpteenth time, that is not the offer we are referring to.

Please read my PMs and the rest of this thread - specifically the casino's, Max's, and my responses. The player is referring to the offer which is referred to in his emails. Here are the terms:

Get £10 Free with No Deposit

Download Casino La Vida and claim your bonus

1. This promotion is only available to new Real Players referred via specific web sites or promotional links

2. The offer is not available from the customer service centre

3. Players must register a valid financial account / payment method to qualify for the $/£/€/CAD10 (or local supported currency) free

4. Because NO purchase is required the total winnings on all NO-DEPOSIT bonuses are limited to $/£/€/CAD250 (or local supported currency) maximum. Should the player win in excess of $/£/€/CAD250 (or local supported currency) the excess will be removed from the players account before fulfilling the cashin.

5. Players need to make a minimum deposit of $/£/€/CAD 20 (or local supported currency) before cashing out

6. Minimum initial bonus wager requirements and minimum cashin requirements apply.

7. General Terms and Conditions Apply

Now what is not understood??

The player was given ample opportunities to deposit. He didn't. Thus the casino exercised its right in not paying him.

This horse has not only been beat to death. It's been hammered and nailed to a cross, and rolled off a cliff.

 

[Edomite_Slayer]

Is it just me or does this clause from a casino's bonus Terms strike anyone else as particularly draconian?:



I'm asking myself what could be the purpose of such a term? Obviously the system is going to deny the withdrawal anyway if the WR haven't been met, so what's with the confiscation?

Clearly the WR are pretty outrageous to begin with but hey, whatever, that's their choice. it's the confiscation that has me scratching my head.

Much Later: this poll has morphed a bit since it first went up. Max's 'Dummy's Guide To This Thread' says you should read this post if you want to cut to the chase.

I've been lurking and following this thread. It seems like a double standard here. The OP actually didn't fulfill wagering requirements by not making a $20 deposit before cashing out, and had his funds confisicated. But here you clearly states. In another thread that you started. That confiscation has you scratching your head. IMO, to take away anyone money because they cashout before meeting any requirements is beyond Rogue. This is FOUL! Any casino that does this childish practice doesn't deserve to be accredited and should be avoided by the gambling community. Red Flush should do the right thing and place the OP funds back into his account. And allow him to make the $20 deposit and cashout. If not, the gambling community should make casino with such rules. Pay for their rogue type rules. Plain and Simple! I for one im disguisted that this type of practice goes on. And a watch dog site as this will accept it. Shame, Shame, Shame!

 

[Jasminebed]

The player has since deposited as I understand, and his withdrawal is still not paid.

Seems to me that his was denied because of offering the "bribe" (not extortion) of posting at Casinomeister.

If a player had simply requested a withdrawal without making the verification deposit, and the casino had confiscated the funds rather than return them to the account with a polite email statement that a deposit was required, would Maxd have ruled the same way on a PAB?

I'm questioning your ruling in this particular case Maxd, and asking how much of your decision was based on the OP's misuse of his Casinomeister status?

 

[maxd]

If a player had simply requested a withdrawal without making the verification deposit, and the casino had confiscated the funds rather than return them to the account with a polite email statement that a deposit was required, would Maxd have ruled the same way on a PAB?

I'm questioning your ruling in this particular case Maxd, and asking how much of your decision was based on the OP's misuse of his Casinomeister status?

Excellent questions, and very much to the point.

My decision in the PAB was heavily based on two things:
- no evidence that the OP had any intent to respect the Terms.
- what I considered a clear case of, as you say, bribery regarding the OP's possible activities on the forums on behalf of the casino.

From my point of view the case was closed then and there. What the OP said or did afterwards was of no interest or consequence insofar as the PAB was concerned, IMO.

So yes, the bribery weighed quite heavily for me, and usually does. As far as I'm concerned anyone who does that is a cheat and flagrantly abusing their membership rights here at Casinomeister. I do tend to look on such things very seriously.

In another thread that you started. That confiscation has you scratching your head. IMO, to take away anyone money because they cashout before meeting any requirements is beyond Rogue. This is FOUL!

I'm sorry but I don't see what that other thread and issue has anything to do with this issue.

That case:
- player asks to withdraw before WR is complete.
- casino confiscates balance because of a Term that says "if you try to withdraw before WR is complete we will take your money".

This case:
- player completes the WR.
- player writes to casino people and says "I'm not going to respect your Terms insofar as the required deposit goes but I can post on the forums for you and say good things".
- casino invokes a "players who abuse bonuses and show no intention of risking their own money will have the proceeds of the bonus confiscated".

I see no connection between these two circumstances at all. Nothing. It's "player makes a perfectly reasonable and understandable mistake and gets stomped because of bogus Terms" on the one hand VS "player tries to cheat and bribe the casino and gets penalized for it" on the other hand. We're talking apples VS nutbars here, no connection or relation at all.

 

[chuchu59]

Whether the player had any intent to respect the terms is not relevant now especially when a deposit has already been made. Like malice, intention is difficult to prove. Say if I told the casino I rarely play MG would this mean that I wont deposit in future. I doubt it.

The second point is more arguable. This is a PAB at CM ie the OP is requesting help from Max as a moderator. At the same time, apparently he is 'bribing' the casino as can be seen from the live chat text. Call it 'sugar-coated blackmail' but to me it's still the same. So what can Max do? If he sides with the player he will be sending out a message to other players that if they are smart enough to do what the OP did, they will get favourable PAB decisions.

I do feel for the OP but there are times when you have suffer the consequences of your own actions. Just put yourself in MaxD's shoes. Would any of you arrive at the same decision given that you are a moderator of the forum that is tasked with the PAB.

PAB aside, the casino is still at liberty to decide whether to pay or not. Would paying out $250 be of any promotional value to them?

 

[winbig]

PAB aside, the casino is still at liberty to decide whether to pay or not. Would paying out $250 be of any promotional value to them?

If they made the $20 deposit, then yes.

 

[Edomite_Slayer]

Excellent questions, and very much to the point.

My decision in the PAB was heavily based on two things:
- no evidence that the OP had any intent to respect the Terms.
- what I considered a clear case of, as you say, bribery regarding the OP's possible activities on the forums on behalf of the casino.

From my point of view the case was closed then and there. What the OP said or did afterwards was of no interest or consequence insofar as the PAB was concerned, IMO.

So yes, the bribery weighed quite heavily for me, and usually does. As far as I'm concerned anyone who does that is a cheat and flagrantly abusing their membership rights here at Casinomeister. I do tend to look on such things very seriously.



I'm sorry but I don't see what that other thread and issue has anything to do with this issue.

That case:
- player asks to withdraw before WR is complete.
- casino confiscates balance because of a Term that says "if you try to withdraw before WR is complete we will take your money".

This case:
- player completes the WR.
- player writes to casino people and says "I'm not going to respect your Terms insofar as the required deposit goes but I can post on the forums for you and say good things".
- casino invokes a "players who abuse bonuses and show no intention of risking their own money will have the proceeds of the bonus confiscated".

I see no connection between these two circumstances at all. Nothing. It's "player makes a perfectly reasonable and understandable mistake and gets stomped because of bogus Terms" on the one hand VS "player tries to cheat and bribe the casino and gets penalized for it" on the other hand. We're talking apples VS nutbars here, no connection or relation at all.

This makes no sense. 1. The OP didn't say he wasn't going to respect their terms. From what I read, the OP stated he didn't have the money until a certain day. There are plenty of instances where people are unable to pay someone for service. But shows graditude by saying good things about the service. 2. No where does it says the OP has to risk his own money. This is like entering a sweepstake where no purchase is necessary.

The OP completed the task of playing and fulfilling the max cashout. Therefore no reason his money should be taken from him. The correct thing to do is. Place the money back into his account. Until the OP can come up with $20.

If the casino wanted him to risk his own money. They should have giving him a 200% bonus on $20 with max cashout $250.

I standby what i said. This is FOUL upon the casino. And shame on this watch dog group for accepting this type of behavior.

 

[Casinomeister]

Thread upgraded to "closed". Too much troll bait in this one