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

[maxd]

Although this thread is currently closed the popularity of the previous post prompts me to want to clear up a few misunderstandings regarding the nature and details of this case.

As I understand it the current perception (as indicated by the post above) is that the player was:

A) not treated like other players for this bonus and,

B) that the casino either somehow singled this player out for unfair treatment or,

C) the Terms were set up such that the player was "tricked" into messing up and was then brushed aside.

First things first, item (A): the casino has said that the bonus the other player, Mallorca, played was not the same bonus that the OP here played:

There is an older version of the bonus that had no landing page and did not require a deposit. This was scrapped due to abuse. The bonus in question does have the terms attached and has not been waved for any player.

Different bonus, different Terms, hence different ways in which the players were handled. In other words the OP's claim that he should be treated like the other player is completely unjustified: they were not playing the same bonus. The OP is subject to the Terms of his bonus regardless of what the Terms of the previous version of that bonus may have been.

So, the "someone else got payed without deposit" argument is meaningless: they got paid because they were using a different bonus. I trust that ends the debate on point (A).

Point (B), the player was unfairly singled out and that the casino "based their decision ... on whatever was said in the email exchanges".

The record of events that I have seen support this, the casino did indeed make decisions based on what the OP sent during their email exchanges. And so they should! Email is the primary form of communication with most players and is a valid part of the dealings with any player: what a player says in his emails matters, period.

In his initial emails to the casino the OP spends a great amount of time saying how he can help the casino by posting about them, etc. When it comes to cashing out he says "I know You require a 20£ deposit ... i have not got any money" and goes on to tell them other things he can do for them in lieu of the required deposit. In other words the OP is saying "I'm not going to abide by your Terms but can you pay me anyway?"

Given the nature of these emails it is perfectly reasonable that the casino take action based on them. As far as the casino was concerned the player was in violation of two Terms:

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.

9. In the event that the casino deems a player to have misused a casino account for the exploitation of promotional offers, without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play, the redemption of all such promotional offers, including but not limited to sign up bonuses, will be suspended until such time as the player demonstrates a playing history whereby a risk of personal funds is periodically demonstrated at the casino.

This brings us to (C):

"The reason he was not paid was because he failed to deposit BEFORE he requested his withdrawal??"

No, the reason he was not paid was that he made it clear he was not going to deposit. He said so in his email. This put him in violation of both the bonus Terms and the general Terms (see above). As far as the casino was concerned the player was saying "I'm not going to risk my money at your casino but please give me your money because of all the great things I can say about you on the forums, etc."

Given that, the casino decided this was a non-depositing, bonus exploiting player and not someone they wanted around. That's perfectly within their rights. And since the OP had stated he was not going to fulfill the Terms of the bonus ("You require a 20£ deposit ... i have not got any money") they withdrew the bonus offer and the winnings. Again, reasonable and justified.

A few other points:

"Where does it say....Players need to make a minimum deposit of $20 before cashing out or all winnings will be voided????"

It doesn't, but the bonus Term "you must deposit in order to cash out" plus the general Terms (see above) say that if you're not going to deposit then you can't cashout the bonus and if you're just using your account to exploit the bonus offer and show no intention to risk your own money then "the redemption of all such promotional offers ... will be suspended".

The casino assessed the OP's situation as being exactly that: non-depositing and bonus exploiting, hence the Terms are applicable and the bonus and its redemption were "suspended".

"Paaske didn't handle himself properly, and this has cost him his winnings ..."

Yes, as it should for any player who basically says "I'm not going to respect your bonus Terms and I'm not going to deposit any of my own money but look at the great things I can do for you on the forums." Any player who behaves like that deserves to be shown the door.

And ignorance is no defense: saying things like "oh, I didn't realize what I was saying was bad" is pretty feeble stuff. Too bad, you said it, more than once. You are responsible for what you say. Live and learn, know better for next time.

As to the casino violating the Accred requirements I think it pretty obvious that they did not. They applied fair rules to a player who had repeatedly expressed no interest in respecting the Terms.

Finally I'll say this: in the pursuit of this case and the presentation of various bits of the story the OP has called me a liar, twice. In both cases I have direct evidence to support what's been said and flatly refute the OP's claims. If the OP wishes to make this personal and start calling my integrity into question that is their business. However they should expect to be held to the same rules of the game.

What I have seen in dealing with this case is a player who has repeatedly manipulated the truth, made several accusations that proved to be groundless, denied evidence that has been presented in black and white, and basically tried anything and everything to distort the truth and manipulate the situation to their advantage. This includes manipulating the readership.

Go back, look at the evidence, look at groundless accusations, the manipulations and denials. Weigh all this in light of the facts that have been presented and I believe you'll see that the player has not been treated unreasonably. Their case has been presented, seen more than its fair share of debate and the conclusions have been justified again and again. By all rights this issue should be well and properly put to rest, it has seen its day.

FYI, the casino's response to the post above is as follows:

The facts in this case is very clear and was in the end being avoided by the OP.

The player made it clear that he wanted to cash out without making a deposit as per the terms. The player was very much aware of the fact that he had to make a deposit before cashing out. The player actually sent the terms with his first communication.

With that said posters are under the impression that the player made a mistake which based on the evidence is not true. The customer support agents explained this numerous times.

The casino had no choice as per the Standard Terms and conditions [but] to remove the balance, as the player demonstrated that he would not become a casino customer.

In conclusion bonuses are offered to players to experience the casino and have to have these terms to prevent abuse.

Exert from the terms:

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.

 

[The Dude]

reopening the thread since it still seems to be a popular topic

 

[funeral979]

Going over this thread again, Max has stated on more than one occasion that it was CLEAR that the OP had no intentions of ever making a deposit (presumably in the email exchanges). In the emails I see here, I don't really see that. He did say he didn't have any money this current month....thats about the only thing I see where this conclusion could be drawn. Are there more emails that we are not privy to? The OP did state that they registered a credit card when they signed up....certaintly this implies that they could possibly have the intention of depositing at some point down the road. I believe he also said he now had money in his Moneybookers account, ready to deposit...

Also, as the OP pointed out earlier....how does one risk their own funds on a no deposit offer? Remember that this was NOT the original reason for not paying him. They originally said, sorry, you didn't go directly from point A to be B....we are not going to give you a second chance to try and do it correctly. Only when this was picked apart as a ridiculous and unfair term, did they bring up this deal about "not demonstarting any intention to play or personal risk with his or her own funds"

 

[maxd]

Going over this thread again, Max has stated on more than one occasion that it was CLEAR that the OP had no intentions of ever making a deposit

The OP said on more than one occasion that he did not have any money. Instead of describing how he was going to satisfy the Terms he went on and on about what he could do for them on the forums. It is not unreasonable to conclude that he was offering alternatives to the required deposit in Terms of forum posts, etc. The casino was not interested in that and took action on the OP's stated plans to make no deposit.

Remember that this was NOT the original reason for not paying him. They originally said, sorry, you didn't go directly from point A to be B....

Not as far as I've seen thusfar or heard in the course of the PAB. The OP said he had no money, repeatedly offered his "services" on the forums, and the casino shut him down. The "A to B" theory is your own creation afaik.

Also, as the OP pointed out earlier....how does one risk their own funds on a no deposit offer?

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.

 

[funeral979]

The OP said on more than one occasion that he did not have any money.

I rarely have any money, yet I manage to deposit almost on a daily basis.

I just need a cheaper hobby

 

[maxd]

I rarely have any money, yet I manage to deposit almost on a daily basis.

I hear you and know how it feels but be careful who you tell that to. Joking on the forums is one thing, telling it to your casino Rep when you're trying to get a withdrawal out of them and a deposit is required is, clearly, a different kettle o' fish.

 

[Tengil]

These terms that were quoted is for future promotions. So "brake" them and you wont qualify for future promos. They talk about withdrawing offers not money. So in this case he would have disqualified himself from future offers.

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.


9. In the event that the casino deems a player to have misused a casino account for the exploitation of promotional offers, without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play, the redemption of all such promotional offers, including but not limited to sign up bonuses, will be suspended until such time as the player demonstrates a playing history whereby a risk of personal funds is periodically demonstrated at the casino.

 

[maxd]

These terms that were quoted is for future promotions.

To some extent, yes. But afaic this includes current offers and winnings thereof:

9. In the event that the casino deems a player to have misused a casino account for the exploitation of promotional offers, without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play, the redemption of all such promotional offers, including but not limited to sign up bonuses, will be suspended until such time as the player demonstrates a playing history whereby a risk of personal funds is periodically demonstrated at the casino.

However, are we really down to parsing through the Terms? I presented those because they were what the casino pointed out as their items of issue with the player. If you want to debate those Terms I suggest you take it up with the casino.

Anyway, that all came into play after the OP had already cooked his goose. In his emails the OP basically said "I'm not going to deposit but I can do some stuff on the forums for you". And he repeats this ad nauseam. The casino took exception to that for what I would hope are obvious reasons, I supported that decision, and the game is pretty much over at that point.

Many people seem to want to forget or forgive this kind of behaviour. I'm disinclined to do so, regardless of how innocent or unaware the OP claims to be after the fact. The bottom line is this: Speak Bullshit, Expect Pain. The OPs emails to the casino were full to brimming with exactly that, bullshit. The pain followed.

Neither this person nor anyone else should be exempt from what they say in their communications with the casino. I realize that that may not be the most popular stand to take on this issue but them's the breaks. I deal in what people say and do, not in how cute and fluffy their thoughts supposedly are.

 

[ksech]

I had a somewhat similar experience at a Rival, although, I fully intended to make a deposit. I never thought I would make the 50X playthrough on the free chip, was mildly surprised I made it and was able to maintain the max payout. I went to live chat and asked how long they would hold the money in my account, as I needed a few days to come up with the $20 deposit. They were going to confiscate my winnings (even though I hadn't hit the withdrawal button yet) because they thought I had no intention of following the rules. It took several emails to convince them I had EVERY intention of making the deposit. Needless to say, I made the deposit 2 days later, withdrew the funds and deleted the casino from my computer.

I realize there are players out there who thrive on scamming the casinos, but when an honest and sincere person goes to live chat or emails them about a time frame... It just doesn't seem fair that you have to be treated like second rate trash to make a withdrawal.

I've also had the experience of live chat at an accreditted casino closing my account when I asked about the terms for a bonus I didn't understand. I very seldom use a bonus (and had never used one at this particular casino before) , so I was quite upset when they informed me I was a bonus abuser and was not welcome to play at their casino anymore. When I emailed the casino rep about this, he was extremely rude and condescending. All I asked was for him to look at my deposit history and my bonus history. There isn't a free chip large enough to make me want to consider playing at that casino.

I don't feel the OP was right in trying to manipulate the casino into breaking their rules by using the forum in lieu of depositing. I did notice a bunch of discrepencies in his postings which would have caused me to question his motives, but this is just what my take on the situation was.

 

[Tengil]

Well the casino shouldnt have brought them up (terms 4 and 9) as they are totally irrelevant to the case. The offer was already redeemed.

Just another case when the casino thinks that it can interpret its own terms to suit them. But I think thats what to expect from a group that has spelling errors and FU clauses in their terms.

 

[maxd]

Just another case when the casino thinks that it can interpret its own terms to suit them. But I think thats what to expect from a group that has spelling errors and FU clauses in their terms.

Not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand but as a general complaint about this casino I think you should consider making your case elsewhere and bringing it to Bryan's attention.

As I'm sure you are aware recent events show that he's no fan of F'd-up Terms, particularly when it comes to Accred casinos.

 

[Jufo]

Given that, the casino decided this was a non-depositing, bonus exploiting player and not someone they wanted around. That's perfectly within their rights. And since the OP had stated he was not going to fulfill the Terms of the bonus ("You require a 20£ deposit ... i have not got any money") they withdrew the bonus offer and the winnings. Again, reasonable and justified.

You mention several times how this was a "non-depositing, bonus exploiting player" but you didn't mention, if I understand correctly, that he did indeed made the required deposit after all and this happened before the 250£ got confiscated. To me this invalidates many of the points you made in post #51.

 

[WayneRedreturns]

Hi All,

I thought I should clear this up.

if I understand correctly, that he did indeed made the required deposit after all and this happened before the 250£ got confiscated. To me this invalidates many of the points you made in post #51.

No,the OP made the purchase after the balance was removed.

1. The OP was aware of the terms and conditions of the promotion and included the terms in the emails that he sent to the CS.

2. The OP made it clear that he did not want to make the minimum purchase as per the terms.

3. The OP was contacted more that once by the CS and it was explained to him that he has to make the purchase to withdraw.

4. Understanding what needed to be done to withdraw the OP insisted that he did not wish to follow the terms, which led to the no deposit bonus and winnings being withdrawn.

In conclusion:

Every effort was made to accommodate the player. In the end there was one conclusion that can be drawn. The player had no intension of becoming a customer at the casino, which is the intention of the sign up promotion. Players have the ability to evaluate the casino and make a decision based on their experience to either become a regular player or not.

 

[winbig]

Hi All,

I thought I should clear this up.



No,the OP made the purchase after the balance was removed.

1. The OP was aware of the terms and conditions of the promotion and included the terms in the emails that he sent to the CS.

2. The OP made it clear that he did not want to make the minimum purchase as per the terms.

3. The OP was contacted more that once by the CS and it was explained to him that he has to make the purchase to withdraw.

4. Understanding what needed to be done to withdraw the OP insisted that he did not wish to follow the terms, which led to the no deposit bonus and winnings being withdrawn.

In conclusion:

Every effort was made to accommodate the player. In the end there was one conclusion that can be drawn. The player had no intension of becoming a customer at the casino, which is the intention of the sign up promotion. Players have the ability to evaluate the casino and make a decision based on their experience to either become a regular player or not.

Playing devil's advocate here -

Just curious - was there a time limit tied to this ND bonus? IE: If you don't deposit by......your winnings are void?

If not, then why would the winnings be removed from the account? I know that I played at another casino on a ND bonus, won, and thought that I had to make the withdrawal request before depositing. Well, this wasn't the case, and they ended up returning the money to my account until such time that I made the $25 deposit. They never once mentioned confiscating the money.

I know that my case is different, but somewhat similar to the OP. IMO, there's no reason to confiscate funds based on a feeling that CS/management gets as to what their intentions may or may not be. In a perfect world, the funds would have been returned to the players account and sat there dormant until such time that they deposited. If the casino has a rule about dormant accounts, then of course cross that bridge when you get to it; but until then, leave it be.

But if a casino simply confiscates funds based on a procedural technicality....then, well.....that's not good business, in my mind. Just like someone else brought up. If someone made a withdrawal request (even w/o a bonus) before they sent in documents, but the rules stated that you needed to send in documents before requesting a withdrawal, would it be right for the casino to confiscate their winnings, as well? I don't think so...

 

[WayneRedreturns]

Just curious - was there a time limit tied to this ND bonus? IE: If you don't deposit by......your winnings are void?

If not, then why would the winnings be removed from the account? I know that I played at another casino on a ND bonus, won, and thought that I had to make the withdrawal request before depositing. Well, this wasn't the case, and they ended up returning the money to my account until such time that I made the $25 deposit. They never once mentioned confiscating the money.

The time limit on the bonus is 3 months. However this does not apply as the player made it clear that he wanted the withdrawal without depositing.

I am sure in your case you did not contact the casino and state that you did not want to make a deposit as per the terms of the promotion.

there's no reason to confiscate funds based on a feeling that CS/management gets as to what their intentions may or may not be. In a perfect world, the funds would have been returned to the players account and sat there dormant until such time that they deposited.

The decision was not based on what the players intentions might be. The player made it clear that he did not want adhere to the terms.

But if a casino simply confiscates funds based on a procedural technicality....then, well.....that's not good business, in my mind. Just like someone else brought up. If someone made a withdrawal request (even w/o a bonus) before they sent in documents, but the rules stated that you needed to send in documents before requesting a withdrawal, would it be right for the casino to confiscate their winnings, as well? I don't think so...

In the case of any player that withdraws before they deposit or before the wagering requirements have been met, the balance would simply be returned to the account until the terms have been met.

There is no procedural technicality in this case. The decision by CS management is sound, as the player was offered every opportunity to adhere to the terms and he chose not to.

 

[Jufo]

Hi All,

I thought I should clear this up.

No,the OP made the purchase after the balance was removed.

Really? Because the OP stated in post #35 that

"Also spoke on live chat when i deposited the other day (they gave me 111% on top of my 20£ deposit) so got 42,20£ to play with, i told in chat i did not wish to play with the bonus and kindly asked to get it removed, but Kim took them off and added them to cash balance instead, which i off course told, because would not risk any problems [...] Ive checked my account at La Vida, and can see the 250£ comes up as "work in progress" now, so maybe there is still hope? allthought because i had the small free amount i am happy about that, so its not really 250£ but 227,80£"

So if the OP is right the £250 was still there at the processing status at the time of his deposit.

The player had no intension of becoming a customer at the casino, which is the intention of the sign up promotion.

How did he have no intention of becoming a customer at the casino if he deposited £20 which he also lost?

There also seems to be the complication that upon your first deposit you will also get the 111% sign-up bonus instantly credited to your account upon deposit. Unless you ask customer support to manually remove that bonus you will have to meet the WR for that bonus as well which in turn puts your already cleared free play winnings at risk.

 

[WayneRedreturns]

Really? Because the OP stated in post #35 that

"Also spoke on live chat when i deposited the other day (they gave me 111% on top of my 20£ deposit) so got 42,20£ to play with, i told in chat i did not wish to play with the bonus and kindly asked to get it removed, but Kim took them off and added them to cash balance instead, which i off course told, because would not risk any problems [...] Ive checked my account at La Vida, and can see the 250£ comes up as "work in progress" now, so maybe there is still hope? allthought because i had the small free amount i am happy about that, so its not really 250£ but 227,80£"

So if the OP is right the £250 was still there at the processing status at the time of his deposit.

Based on the facts in the account:

"2010/05/18 03:39:33 PM" "Confiscated cash-in"

"2010/06/03 09:56:09 PM" "Purchase"

I have a transcript of the chat where the player was informed that the balance has been removed before he made the purchase. You draw your own conclusion.

How did he have no intention of becoming a customer at the casino if he deposited £20 which he also lost?

There also seems to be the complication that upon your first deposit you will also get the 111% sign-up bonus instantly credited to your account upon deposit. Unless you ask customer support to manually remove that bonus you will have to meet the WR for that bonus as well which in turn puts your already cleared free play winnings at risk.

This is moot based on the information above.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Maybe the player made the deposit ONLY when his bluff was called, and the balance removed. He was backed into a corner, and thought he had better deposit to get his money.
Now, if he had no money, where did this £20 come from once his bluff was called? Maybe he DID have money, and had tried this with success elsewhere (wriggling out of the make a deposit term).

Maybe not blackmail, but a fine example of "blagging" a freebie using skilled negotiation, which in this case didn't work, and he didn't realise this in time, otherwise he would have deposited the £20 to get at the £250.

If it lasts for 3 months, by his own evidence he would have got money "next month", so could have waited to receive the £250.

He may be a "bonus abuser", but not a particularly skilled one, otherwise he would have had his £250, and STILL never come back beyond the £20.

 

[winbig]

The time limit on the bonus is 3 months. However this does not apply as the player made it clear that he wanted the withdrawal without depositing.

I am sure in your case you did not contact the casino and state that you did not want to make a deposit as per the terms of the promotion.



The decision was not based on what the players intentions might be. The player made it clear that he did not want adhere to the terms.



In the case of any player that withdraws before they deposit or before the wagering requirements have been met, the balance would simply be returned to the account until the terms have been met.

There is no procedural technicality in this case. The decision by CS management is sound, as the player was offered every opportunity to adhere to the terms and he chose not to.

Well, what it comes down to, imo, is the fact that there's really no "rule" that he broke in order to have the funds confiscated.

Say I did the same thing. Then I changed my mind at a later date and made the deposit, only to have the funds confiscated....is that so wrong?


Talking about trying to break the rules, or get around them, is not the same as actually breaking the rules. I really hope people aren't that dense to think that their cashout would be processed even though it's clearly written that they can't withdraw without making a deposit.

I could be wrong, but I sort of believe the OP, and who knows how he came up with the money or already had it, but one thing is clear - he made the deposit. Whether he was running a bluff is beside the point.

To be clear, this is simply a debate. I'm neutral in this, and am not advocating paying the player or anything of the sort.

 

[pmhcfc]

What I can't understand in all this, is who in their right mind wouldn't deposit £20 to get £250 ? Even if there was an 'abuser' who was trying to win £250 on a freebie, surely even then they'd deposit £20 to get a 12-fold return.

Despite all what has been said, I feel the casino is wrong. Without trying to sound too rude, it may just be that the OP's IQ isn't quite as high as your average person - and he's gone around things the wrong way and/or said certain things incorrectly, perhaps being taken out of context. The casino has stuck rigidly to its 'rules' to suit themselves and there's been no leeway at all.

I happen to think the OP isn't a bonus abuser in the way he's been made out to be by the casino. He was skint at the time, needed a few quid to get his car insurance etc and would have probably returned to the casino at some point.

 

[funeral979]

Basically this boils down to a judgement call....as I don't really believe the OP made it 'clear' that he wasn't going to deposit. He did deposit......so what if it was a few weeks later?? Im sure the OP never came out and said, "no, I refuse to deposit, pay me my winnings"

Everyone goes thru tough times....he didn't have the money at the time, that is the only issue. There is nothing explicit in the terms that gives the casino the right to confiscate the winnings....they just did based on a judgement call. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

For all the casino knows, they could have become a loyal player somewhere down the road. The OP did state that they were a VIP at a number of casinos. Its all about how you handle the CUSTOMER

Im beating a dead horse here so no point in posting on this subject anymore. Just another casino looking for an excuse not to pay a lucky winner

 

[winbig]

For all the casino knows, they could have become a loyal player somewhere down the road. The OP did state that they were a VIP at a number of casinos. Its all about how you handle the CUSTOMER

Funny you should say that. Once my physical therapy is over and/or whatever it takes to get "back to normal" (hopefully) from my car accident almost 2 months ago, my lawyer and I are going to start settlement proceedings with the at-fault driver's insurance company.

But anyways, once that settlement is finished (expecting a mid 5 figure settlement, ideally, but who knows...) my first purchase, once I get my debts paid off, will be a new car - and it'll be a cash transaction. Who hasn't always wanted to do something like that?

I've always heard stories about how rich people will "slum it" when they go looking to make a major purchase, and do business with the place that has employees that treat them like a human being, no matter what they look like, what they drive up in, how they act, etc. That's exactly what I plan to do.

Sure, I'll only be looking at cars in the $10-20k range, but I plan on finding a beat-up car to drive up in, probably wear some ripped up jeans and old tennis shoes, and not shave for about a month prior, just for good measure.

And for the sales people that won't give me the time of day, right before I leave, I'm going to walk into the sales managers office, flash a stack of cash in their face and explain to them why I'm taking my business elsewhere.

Of course that's not exactly the same situation, but it's the same principle. This is just like the point funeral brought up.....how do you know that the OP isn't some huge whale that was putting the casino through a test? I learned early on in life that you can't judge a book by its cover.

 

[RobWin]

And for the sales people that won't give me the time of day, right before I leave, I'm going to walk into the sales managers office, flash a stack of cash in their face and explain to them why I'm taking my business elsewhere.

Of course that's not exactly the same situation, but it's the same principle. This is just like the point funeral brought up.....how do you know that the OP isn't some huge whale that was putting the casino through a test? I learned early on in life that you can't judge a book by its cover.

I agree! Big Mistake, BIG MISTAKE!


____
____

 

[winbig]

I forgot all about that scene. :notworthy

 

[De Beuker]

I can also understand that the OP got upset about beeing called a blackmailer here in public.
I think that was a bit harsh too.
Blackmailing, imo, goes like this:

IF YOU DO NOT PAY ME MY WINNINGS I'M GONNA BURN YOUR CASINO DOWN TO THE GROUND ON CASINOMEISTER!!
YOU HAVE 24 HOURS!

Thats blackmailing. And thats not what the OP did.
Further, the OP signed up here in Nov. 2008, not last week.
So he's not one of those hardcore bonusabusers who only use this forum to get what they want.
Still he got treated like one.

The whole thing just doesn't feel right...

 

[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.....

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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