Resolved Casino LaVida

[Casinomeister]

...There is always 2 sides to every story.

Yes, there is two sides to every story - I'd just wish that some of the seasoned members here wouldn't let newbie posters get them so riled up.

The casino has already contacted me this morning and has provided some background on this issue that indicates that this player has not divulged all pertinent information concerning his issue. Unfortunately, I've got to step out for the moment to purchase some networking gear (techno issues this morning) and will be getting involved in this thread upon my return.

 

[Rens1990]

I'm very curious about what they said because I did give all the info including games played and betsizes used.. There's not anything else that I can think of that's relevant?!?

But I'll wait for your reply...

 

[spearmaster]

The casino has already contacted me this morning and has provided some background on this issue that indicates that this player has not divulged all pertinent information concerning his issue. Unfortunately, I've got to step out for the moment to purchase some networking gear (techno issues this morning) and will be getting involved in this thread upon my return.

I'm sure this is probably the case - and these things usually get resolved anyhow - but what concerns me most is the way support handled the issue.

 

[Casinomeister]

I'm sure this is probably the case - and these things usually get resolved anyhow - but what concerns me most is the way support handled the issue.

The support issue is one of the main issues here, and they are retraining this guy I guess. Anyway, from the casino:

...In light of what occurred in the live chat with the customer service agent, which we view in a serious light, we will honor the withdrawal of the player. The explanation in this conversation is incorrect and we have taken corrective action with the customer service agent. We appreciate the opportunity to resolve the issue.

So the player's withdrawal should be on it's way.

 

[Rens1990]

Wow that's great news I haven't heard from them yet but I guess I will sometime today or tomorrow..

 

[WayneRedreturns]

Hi Rens1990,

Your withdrawal has been processed and will be in your account shortly. Please accept our apology for any inconvenience.

Best regards,
Wayne

 

[trustypal]

Did you know that Lasseters casino has stopped trading.

Hey guys.. This is my first post on the board and I wish I didn't have to make it.. I've been reading on the board for the while but never really took the effort to sign up. This story made me do so anyway.

I spotted Casino LaVida in the Baptism by Fire section on the main website and decided to give it a chance. I made my deposit of EUR 100,- and got a 111 euro's bonus for making a succesfull first deposit. I played blackjack, multihanded and slots. These are the only games I played..

After making my withdrawal of EUR 677.20 I received an email with a request for documents. I send them in and got the response that they had been sent to the relevant department. After that.. silence.. So a few hours ago I decided to go into the livechat and ask about my withdrawal. Here are the most important parts of the chat, upon request I can post the entire chat history..

So they confiscate my winnings which sucks, but the why is actually fun.. Please read..



So why did they confiscate my winnings? What discrepencies did they find?!?



As I told before, I'd only been playing blackjack and slots.. I told them that I would post the story on CasinoMeister.. They're in the baptism by fire section so I thought it might help.. I was connected to the pitboss, Craig.



Now all of a sudden they refer to a different part of the T&C which could mean anything.. It's no reason to deny me my withdrawal..



The last part is absolutely rediculous.. I know what hedge betting is so I did it.. Everybody knows what murder is.. Does that make every person a killer?

Also.. How is hedge betting on blackjack even possible.. Just a lot of bullshit being played in order not to pay me..

I was hoping to get some help on the board.. Didn't PAB yet.. Should I?

yea. Lasseters id no more. I read the bonus terns of LAVIDA. All games are permitted. Even classic blackjack, which contrubutes 2 percent towards the wagering requirements.This should meen that you can use your welcome bonus on any game. Most casinos can not be trusted. If you want to get paid, then just opt out of the bonus. Microgaming software ( in my opinion) is the best. Why not try Ladbrokes and get paid in a couple of hours. I am not intending to spam, only to gove you the benefit of ten years of online casino play. I am sick and tired of wrestling with casino reps to get paid legitimate winnings. I was winning 5000 bucks a month From Miami until they adjusted their software. In Jan this year. I played free with Everest for one week testing their 10 cent blackjack. Every session was positive. I was testing how it would play with say, a 20 bucks deposit. In free play I was never more than 7 bucks down at any time. So LOL, I deposited 50 bucks and lost it on the ten cent blackjack within an hour. You can draw your own conclisuins about their RNg. free play great. Real money play a dissasster. Sorry about my spelling misstakes. This is my first post. My new years resolution wast to leave the casinos alone. I now have 500 bucks in my wallet fro playing RUMMY which I love. And chess. So dont be a mug. Do not accept a bonus unless it is listed on Casino Meister as accredited. be lucky. trustypal. xxx

 

[Rens1990]

Withdrawal received!

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi Rens1990,

Your withdrawal has been processed and will be in your account shortly. Please accept our apology for any inconvenience.

Best regards,
Wayne

You should also read the updated standards for being fully accredited. Your vague term no 15 needs to be replaced by something more specific. In particular, you need to explicitly define what is meant by "bet" in these multi-hand games. Without this definition, it is going to be considered to be 1 bet per SEAT at the table, and there are FIVE seats. In terms of bet per SEAT, this player's admission that he was playing at up to 40 credits does NOT break term 15, and certainly NOTHING in this breaks term 12.

What is needed is a definition of max bet that a player can calculate explicitly, such as "xx% of initial bonus balance". Alongside this, you need to specify that in multi-hand games, the bet applies to the ENTIRE field of play, not the bet per seat, line, position, etc. In table games, you can simply state "per dealer hand".

There is no doubt now, after a few similar cases, that we have a new method of "advantage play", but it is the AFFILIATES that are driving this, not all of them by any means, but that significant group that uses bonus beating strategies as their "value added service" for players coming through their links. I have checked a few such sites, and they REALLY DO post these methods, often it is the site owner themselves who posts the info, such as "LaVida is offering xxxxxx bonus - here are the terms "xxxxxxxx", and here is how you get around them for a +EV of $xxx "xxxxxxxxxxxx".
Later, these sites fill with complaints from their members that a casino has rumbled the method, and changed the rules, or refused to pay. It is then made out to be the casinos fault entirely, and the affiliate then just offers up another "victim" to the slaughter.

The problem is, these are AFFILIATES, and they are PAID BY THE CASINO. The PLAYERS get their winnings confiscated because of false marketing by the affiliate, but the affiliate KEEPS his money, and is given the green light to carry on fleecing ever more players, because the players that get in early DO generally have an advantage, but those that get in after the casino has figured out what is going on get burned, and blame the CASINO, for not honouring the deal.

Affiliate sites are SUPPOSED to be vetted, BY WHOM Which incompetents fail to weed out such affiliates, and put pressure on them NOT to mislead players into playing strategies that are going to violate the terms. The simplest way to ensure compliance is to close affiliate accounts of those affiliates who persist in misleading players into breaching casino terms and conditions. It is often the less experienced players that stumble upon one of these sites, and lured by the prospect of "guaranteed" profits if they follow the instructions, will become loyal members.

I am NOT against affiliates giving out strategies, but these MUST be within the casino's rules, such that players WILL get paid if they win following the strategy posted by the affiliate. Most players don't really understand the deal between affiliate & casino, and assume it is just an advert, constructed by the CASINO, and therefore assume any information contained is ENDORSED by the casino, so expect no problems.

This WILL happen again, and it would be worth while checking where this player came from, and then having a good look at the website to see whether it is actively encouraging players to play this multi-hand BJ strategy.

 

[Nifty29]

In light of what occurred in the live chat with the customer service agent, which we view in a serious light, we will honor the withdrawal of the player. The explanation in this conversation is incorrect and we have taken corrective action with the customer service agent. We appreciate the opportunity to resolve the issue

Well done LaVida for sorting this out.

However, from that I understand, the statement above says that the player was paid due to customer service giving the incorrect reason for the confiscation of winnings. It certainly does not vindicate the OP at all - Im pretty sure if the casino got it wrong in regards to the OP breaking the rules they would certainly apologise for doing so - but this has not occured.

I think its a reasonable question for LaVida:

Would the OP still have been paid if the live chat agent had not provided incorrect information?

The answer will go a long way to clarifying what constitutes unacceptable bonus strategy.

 

[WayneRedreturns]

Hi everyone,

Thank you for your feedback.

Based on your feedback we will be amending the bonus terms and conditions. We will make it clear as to what constitutes promotional abuse or advantage play. Placing maximum bets on every hand of blackjack is in violation of term 15. As this constitutes a significant portion of the bonus. The OP in this case would not have been paid if the situation was handled correctly by the customer service agent.

I would appreciate it if you guys would look at the addition to the bonus terms and give me feedback or suggestions to assist players in this regard.

Best regards,
Wayne

 

[WayneRedreturns]

New term:

15. Other practices of playing behaviour which may lead to the casino withholding cashins and/or confiscating all winnings include, but are not limited to, placing single bets whereby the wager consists of the majority of the total available balance and the bonus balance contributing to a significant portion of that balance. The placing of single bets that are equal to or in excess of 30% of the bonus that is credited to your account in order to meet wagering requirements for the bonus is considered as irregular play, and can result in any eventual winnings being confiscated. Should the casino deem that practices such as this have been utilized, the casino reserves the right to withhold any cashins and/or confiscate all winnings.

 

[Nifty29]

The OP in this case would not have been paid if the situation was handled correctly by the customer service agent.

As I thought - thanks for clearing that up Wayne

So the OP was using typical bonus abuser/advantage player methods to get around the rules and the 'spirit' of the rules that the rest of us are happy to abide by.

So, I would like to thanks Rens1990 for contributing to the continual increase in wagering requirements, tighter game restrictions, maximum cashout limits, and the reduction of available bonuses to the average player.

Next time anyone wants to grumble about bonuses and their terms, just remember why they were implemented in the first place. Its a simple fact of life - as soon as something good is made available to people, there are always a group determined to exploit it and spoil things for everyone else.

Once again Rens.....thankyou.

(Big kudos to Wayne for being upfront and honest)

**
@Wayne - in that new term, I would specify that a 'single bet' in multi-hand blackjack means the sum of all bets placed in all positions for that deal.

 

[WayneRedreturns]

Thanks Nifty29, adding it as well. It will be up as soon as it has been translated.

Best regards,
Wayne

 

[spearmaster]

the majority of the total available balance and the bonus balance contributing to a significant portion of that balance

Not acceptable. If the total available balance is $1 and I am playing a slot in excess of 50 cents per spin, I violate the rule.

"Significant" is also open to interpretation.

 

[RobWin]

Not acceptable. If the total available balance is $1 and I am playing a slot in excess of 50 cents per spin, I violate the rule.

"Significant" is also open to interpretation.

Agreed! This was the same issue as was discussed in the Palace thread that I posted about earlier in this thread from last year.
____
____

 

[vinylweatherman]

Not acceptable. If the total available balance is $1 and I am playing a slot in excess of 50 cents per spin, I violate the rule.

"Significant" is also open to interpretation.

This is what got the Palace Group in trouble, although the player was using a similar strategy on 3 card poker, they voided his win based on his LAST bet, which was only half the size of his first due to the fact that he had lost the previous bets, and it was all he had left. Spearmaster's example is the logical end point of any rule running from CURRENT balance, and if interpreted literally means that a 51c bet from the last $1 violates it just as much as the 201 bet from a 400 balance.

The clarification of "single bet" for the multi-hand games is EXACTLY the loophole that is being exploited. In Playcheck, this is recorded as a single game, but is presented as 5 SEPARATE bets on different PLAYER hands. The advantage strategy works because the player hopes for a dealer bust, essentially offering the same as were they to place everything on a single hand of ordinary blackjack, which is a clear violation, even of the subjective terms.
"Majority" of something DOES have a clear meaning, unlike "significant". ANY amount over 50% of something is it's "majority". "30% of bonus credited" is ALSO quite clear in meaning, an exact figure the player can work out and stick to during the session. All that is needed is to close off any loopholes.

It's a great pity that the perfectly reasonable idea of using the software to forcibly implement these max bet rules is constantly falling on deaf ears. It makes players think that casinos are using the terms as a trap for the unwary, and smart advantage players, whereas enforcing the rule through the software would mean NO player could breach the rules, and there could therefore NEVER be a valid confiscation of winnings for breaching a max bet rule.

The affiliates that promote these strategies should also be pursued, after all, it is THEY that have made "bonus hunting" into a "mainstream" hobby for many. Most of these methods challenge the usual human perception of risk, and it would take a mathematician to understand how throwing everything on one bet when using a bonus DOES indeed offer a long term positive outcome, even though the first time (or even first few times) you try it you might lose everthing.

With these affiliates, players are told to follow the strategies, and are told to hold their nerve and they WILL work in the end. A few affiliates even offer "insurance" if players stick to the method, yet end up losing anyway. Affiliates can make a fortune running this "scam" against casinos, since the method itself involves players signing up everywhere, but in general playing only once with the SUB. The affiliate may be on a player acquisition deal, and gets paid whether the player beats the bonus or not. Often they are paid more than the player's own deposit, making it possible for the affiliate to offer "insurance" (a refund) if they use the method and lose. They know that if they refund the player his $50, he will stay with the site, and try the next method, maybe have his $50 refunded again, but the affiliate could have been paid $100 just for the signup and first deposit, regardless of the outcome.

 

[WayneRedreturns]

Hi All,

This is and will always be open to interpretation regardless of how exact the rule is. The difference is that fraud on our end is monitored by security systems and individuals that make the decisions. The casino will not confiscate winnings from a regular player that makes a 50c bet with a $1 balance. The overall betting behavior of the player is evaluated and some players will stray outside the terms. However this is not reason enough to confiscate a genuine players winnings. These rules are in place to protect the casino when a player joins the casino in syndicates or blatantly violates the rules.

The rule exists because of this type behavior.

The affiliates that promote these strategies should also be pursued, after all, it is THEY that have made "bonus hunting" into a "mainstream" hobby for many. Most of these methods challenge the usual human perception of risk, and it would take a mathematician to understand how throwing everything on one bet when using a bonus DOES indeed offer a long term positive outcome, even though the first time (or even first few times) you try it you might lose everthing.

With these affiliates, players are told to follow the strategies, and are told to hold their nerve and they WILL work in the end. A few affiliates even offer "insurance" if players stick to the method, yet end up losing anyway. Affiliates can make a fortune running this "scam" against casinos, since the method itself involves players signing up everywhere, but in general playing only once with the SUB. The affiliate may be on a player acquisition deal, and gets paid whether the player beats the bonus or not. Often they are paid more than the player's own deposit, making it possible for the affiliate to offer "insurance" (a refund) if they use the method and lose. They know that if they refund the player his $50, he will stay with the site, and try the next method, maybe have his $50 refunded again, but the affiliate could have been paid $100 just for the signup and first deposit, regardless of the outcome.

As much as we try and stop this type of affiliate marketing It still occurs. The reality is that these players exist and they will always try and find loop holes in the terms. For these players the terms will always remain open to interpretation. If it is possible to have bonus terms that stop fraud, without affecting players that want to join the casino for entertainment purposes, please post, I would like to use it.

As stated previously it is very few individuals that force these extra terms on all players. When I started in this industry 10 years ago the bonus terms were barely 10 lines of text.

This is a great thread. Thanks guys.

Best regards,
Wayne

 

[chuchu59]

Very, very smart player. Knows all the tricks of the trade and made use of this forum to coerce the casino into paying due to a mistake by the support staff. I dont believe for a second that he did not know he was in violation of rule 15 but he should have followed the Spin Palace case and thought that if he had won he had a good chance of getting his winnings by posting in the forum.

Spearmaster is correct in stating the "majority of total available balance' is too vague. Why cant it be 'x% of original balance' with the balance referring to the deposit+ bonus. This isnt rocket science is it?

 

[elscrabinda]

This is and will always be open to interpretation regardless of how exact the rule is.

Only if you choose to make it open to interpretation by using terms such as 'genuine', 'regular' and 'significant'. It is nonsense to force so-called 'genuine' players to break your terms (which is effectively what having a 50c bet from a $1 balance disallowed does) and hope that you will take pity on them and decide not to confiscate their winnings every time they do it.

 

[Tengil]

Very, very smart player. Knows all the tricks of the trade and made use of this forum to coerce the casino into paying due to a mistake by the support staff. I dont believe for a second that he did not know he was in violation of rule 15 but he should have followed the Spin Palace case and thought that if he had won he had a good chance of getting his winnings by posting in the forum.

Spearmaster is correct in stating the "majority of total available balance' is too vague. Why cant it be 'x% of original balance' with the balance referring to the deposit+ bonus. This isnt rocket science is it?

That would be the best option IMO. Take that "30% of bonus" rule and apply it to the 2nd deposit bonus (33%) and you see how "evil" it is.

Also if they go with the 30% rule then make that the only one that matters. Not the additional BS that Spearmaster mentioned.

And the reps reply included my favourite terms fraud and syndicate

 

[zebedy]

Not acceptable. If the total available balance is $1 and I am playing a slot in excess of 50 cents per spin, I violate the rule.

"Significant" is also open to interpretation.

Couldnt, they add.

if a players balance falls below $10 the rule would not apply
or something to that effect

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi All,

This is and will always be open to interpretation regardless of how exact the rule is. The difference is that fraud on our end is monitored by security systems and individuals that make the decisions. The casino will not confiscate winnings from a regular player that makes a 50c bet with a $1 balance. The overall betting behavior of the player is evaluated and some players will stray outside the terms. However this is not reason enough to confiscate a genuine players winnings. These rules are in place to protect the casino when a player joins the casino in syndicates or blatantly violates the rules.

The rule exists because of this type behavior.



As much as we try and stop this type of affiliate marketing It still occurs. The reality is that these players exist and they will always try and find loop holes in the terms. For these players the terms will always remain open to interpretation. If it is possible to have bonus terms that stop fraud, without affecting players that want to join the casino for entertainment purposes, please post, I would like to use it.
As stated previously it is very few individuals that force these extra terms on all players. When I started in this industry 10 years ago the bonus terms were barely 10 lines of text.

This is a great thread. Thanks guys.

Best regards,
Wayne

It is perfectly possible, but it needs MGS to get off their fat lazy asses and program the enforcements into the software. The operator can ALREADY configure the MGS bonus system with a considerable number of options, and the software ALREADY has code in place to block individual games entirely (it's used to block progressives in "fun" mode, and many games for US based players). The system could be programmed so that allocating a game as counting 0% towards WR automatically blocks that game from being played with a bonus in the account. The max bet percentage can be set by the operator as a global variable, such as 30% of bonus balance, and the table limit for each game will be calculated, and if the player tries to put too many chips down, they get the "max bet reached" message that ALREADY blocks bets greater than the house limit for that game, which again is operator configurable. I don't believe this will be an onerous task for MGS's programmers, but it would wipe out many of the advantage play methods currently doing the rounds, because it will NOT be about finding loopholes, or badly written terms missing something, the SOFTWARE would block the bet, leaving the player to take it up with CS, where they can be told the bet was blocked because it violated one of the terms.


As for these "syndicates", this is NOT necessarily the player's fault, IF a website is advertising a casino WITH THE BLESSING of said casino (usually a paid affiliate), it is not unreasonable for the player to assume that any advertising content also has the blessing of the casino, otherwise surely the casino could take pretty severe action, such as closing down the affiliate account and confiscating THEIR "winnings" for encouraging "bonus abuse" and "syndicated attacks" on a particular loophole.

There are some bonus beating websites where the casino has even made a special deal, giving members an enhanced bonus to abuse - they surely MUST have done due dilligence when offering such a special deal to what must be a select number of favoured affiliates.

Players CANNOT be assumed to be in a syndicate if the ONLY connecting factor is that they came to the casino through a site strongly advocating a particular strategy, and thus played that strategy.

There certainly seems to be "one rule for them (affiliates), and another for us (mere players)". Advantage players stand to have winnings confiscated for even a first offence, but advantage affiliates seem to merely get a "slap on the wrist", even after SEVERAL breaches of the affiliate terms, such as spamming, creating "advantage play attacks" through encouraging abuse of a loophole in terms, and even offering "no lose deals" to players to sign up, such as they get their first deposit back whatever, because the affiliate gets paid more than this just to bring a depositing player to the casino (why is THIS not viewed as fraud, surely it is risk free for both player and affiliate, and the casino loses money on EVERY player taking part through payments made to that affiliate).

Security departments can spot a fraudulent or advantage player among thousands, so I just don't buy the excuse that they can't similarly spot a dodgy affiliate portal sending in a load of advantage players.