Casino On Net will steal your deposit and winnings

[dickens1298]

They're not refusing service. They're accepting a wager, and refusing to pay when they lose.

They refused to pay AFTER they saw the "pattern of abuse".

C'mon, do you REALLY think that the $500 won is THAT big a deal to them? Last time I played there, another player was betting $100-$200 per hand on blackjack. This was the same time that I had won almost $500 in blackjack and cashed out without any problems.

 

[vinylweatherman]

dishonesty from 888??

I think the casino should have paid and then banned the player from future bonuses. It is no good accepting the wager(s), and it being within the terms, and then not paying the winnings. Taken the other way, a player deposits $200 by credit card and plays a video poker game. He plays several hands but gets wiped out and gets no better than 2 pair at any time. Player believes the game is obviously not a "proper" random VP but a "disguised slot" and the casino has abused his deposit by misrepresentation of the game. The player decides to reverse the winnings made by the casino because it did not act in good faith with the VP game - he does a chargeback on the card.
The casino appeals by saying he was just unlucky, and the game is fair. The player says his decision is final and no further correspondence will be entered into. The casino appeals to the player's bank to ajudicate, but the bank finds in the player's favour after examining the advertising.

A final point. Reef Club were causing problems before and players then appealed to 888.com to try to help. The response from 888 was that Reef Club was nothing to do with them, just as Lucky Nugget is not related to All Jackpots - only the software was shared. Suddenly, it is now convenient for the to be closely related as this enables this claim of bonus abuse to stand up to eCogra scrutiny. If they were not related, then 888 should NOT have had access to the information at Reef Club, this would be a violation of data protection rules. (I am sure this earlier thread can be dug up and the actual response denying a connection between the two can be exposed.

 

[dominique]

It would help 888's case if when you leave their website or casino they didnt have a pop-up window saying "take me to reef club for a $200 bonus"

Kind of dilutes 888's "multiple bonus abuse" excuse a bit really.

As I see it I think that 888 are in the wrong. If they dont want this sort of play then they should have a bonus where no withdrawals are permitted until the wagering requirement is met or the players account hits zero. Simple really.

While I agree this is a bonus abuser, the above statement is right on the button.

 

[Vesuvio]

The following are extracts from the casino’s Bonus Policy and Terms and Conditions respectively;

Point 10:

"In the event of abuse, Casino-on-Net reserves the right to discontinue the Member's Casino-on-Net Membership and to prevent the Member from accessing the Casino in the future."


Section 9(ii):

"In the event that the Company believes a user is abusing or attempting to abuse a bonus or other promotion, or is likely to benefit through abuse or lack of good faith from a gaming policy adopted by the Company, then the Company may, at its sole discretion, deny, withhold or withdraw from any user any bonus or promotion, or rescind any policy with respect to that user, either temporarily or permanently, or terminate that user's access to the Service and/or block that user's account."

Bearing the above in mind, it is my opinion that your dispute is invalid.

Kind Regards,

Tex Rees

That's the clearest example I've seen of eCOGRA just being a rubber stamp for the casino industry. How many times does it need to be stated:

1) If a casino considers a form of play unacceptable it must state exactly what isn't allowed in the terms (or better yet, make that form of play/transaction impossible). Making use of a cover-all "abuser" clause to deny winnings is a sure sign of a rogue casino.

2) If the terms say exactly what you need to do to cash-out a bonus, "play x amount on such and such games", then no player who meets those terms can be considered an abuser. If the terms allow withdrawing deposits at any time then players are free to do just that (the player isn't hacking the system to allow himself to play risk free - that's simply the way it's set-up). Casinos must expect players to do anything they can within the terms to try and make a profit - if they don't like the consequences the casino can change the bonus offer.

3) If you don't like the way a player played of course you can ban them from future play - but first you need to pay them.

4) This doesn't take away from the casino's ability to deal with actual fraud. If a player is using false identities or stolen credit cards etc. the casino of course has justification to retain winnings and/or deposits. Taking advantage of casino rules to maximise profits/minimise risk isn't fraud.

 

[nafanny29]

A final point. Reef Club were causing problems before and players then appealed to 888.com to try to help. The response from 888 was that Reef Club was nothing to do with them, just as Lucky Nugget is not related to All Jackpots - only the software was shared. Suddenly, it is now convenient for the to be closely related as this enables this claim of bonus abuse to stand up to eCogra scrutiny. If they were not related, then 888 should NOT have had access to the information at Reef Club, this would be a violation of data protection rules. (I am sure this earlier thread can be dug up and the actual response denying a connection between the two can be exposed.

I remember that thread and you are absolutely correct VWM. Seems that 888 say whatever is most convenient at the time hey. Glad they are rogued at CM and hope the word spreads here in the UK about how bad they are.

 

[fortuneriver]

I remember that thread and you are absolutely correct VWM. Seems that 888 say whatever is most convenient at the time hey. Glad they are rogued at CM and hope the word spreads here in the UK about how bad they are.

I couldn't resist posting again at this thread because of the new facts mentioned by some users. Here i found the thread on the Winneronlie in which Reef club management clearly states that they have nothing to do with the CON except they have same parent and that they are 2 different and separate companies:

"Please note that we are not Casino-on-net and therefore we are not obligated to conform to any previous policies made."

"What x is saying is that, although we share the same parent,
Casino-on-Net is a different organization and they have their own ways
of operation. It is up to them to decide on their policies."

"I am sorry for any inconvenience you may have incurred. However, as
mentioned by Scott, we are two separate companies, and have our
individual policies. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do at this
time."

"I will have to stress again that although we do share the same technological
platform with Casino-on-Net, we are not housed in the same building and we
are not governed by the same policies. In many cases, and this one is a good
example, we also do not share each other's philosophy."

The whole thread can be found here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[crovax4444]

This is ridiculous. Fortuneriver doesn't deserve any of his money, but possiblly a ban for every casino in existance. People need to get it through their think skulls that casinos are not a charity. You cannot risk-free wager, period. Doing that is the most obvious form of bonus abuse. You don't deserve a penny of your deposit, and I believe that you should thank your lucky stars that you got a penny of your deposit to begin with.

Crovax

 

[fortuneriver]

This is ridiculous. Fortuneriver doesn't deserve any of his money, but possiblly a ban for every casino in existance. People need to get it through their think skulls that casinos are not a charity. You cannot risk-free wager, period. Doing that is the most obvious form of bonus abuse. You don't deserve a penny of your deposit, and I believe that you should thank your lucky stars that you got a penny of your deposit to begin with.

Crovax

A day will come when you will visit some casino and will play exactly by the rules of that casino. And then,no matter what are the details, you will be kicked off that casino and all your winning that you thought are yours will be taken from you, and you will come to this forum in order to complain and you will meet no sympathy. There will be only persons like you here who will laugh at you and say: hey you , you should be banned from every casino in the world!
Some clever person in this thread understand what i mean. Believe me , 500 USD for me is not that big money it is only about the principles: if you promised something you have to fulfill it no matter how stupid your promise was.

 

[Vesuvio]

This is ridiculous. Fortuneriver doesn't deserve any of his money, but possiblly a ban for every casino in existance. People need to get it through their think skulls that casinos are not a charity. You cannot risk-free wager, period. Doing that is the most obvious form of bonus abuse.

Crovax - on-line casinos aren't charities, they're enormously profitable businesses. They do anything they can to make a profit (an average Microgaming casino can make millions of dollars a month). Why shouldn't players do the same?

If you can play risk-free at a casino it's because the casino's decided that's the most profitable way to design their bonus. Remember it's not unusual for casinos to have open "risk-free bonuses" of the "we'll give you $15 free if you download" type - they assume they'll get enough people hooked to make a profit. Do you really think for a second casinos aren't aware that they're offering risk-free bonuses if they allow players to withdraw the deposit at any time? Denying winnings when people take advantage of how a bonus is designed is pure fraud. Get that through your think [sic] skull.

 

[chuchu59]

He played at Reef Club and cashed out the $200 bonus immediately after losing his deposit of $200. OK, the casino allows him to do that. Then, he goes to CON and does the same thing only to win this time around. 888 were stupid to have such wagering requirements but you did not play in good faith. As I said in my earlier post, CON should pay you for your win at CON minus the $200 at Reef. You cant win both ways. If you say that you were correct in withdrawing the $200 according to their Terms and Conditions then they can insist that you are a bonus abuser accoding to the same terms. So it's either the win at CON or the $200 at Reef IMO.

 

[Vesuvio]

888 were stupid to have such wagering requirements but you did not play in good faith.

Since when did "good faith" have anything whatsoever to do with the casino industry?

 

[rreevy]

Gee, this is an interesting one.

Depositing $200, getting a $200 bonus and cashing out your deposit when you've lost the bonus does seem like taking the mickey to me. However, most casinos specify in their T&Cs that you can't withdraw _anything_ until meeting the WR. If CON don't have such a term, then it seems they're on rather shaky ground.

I believe Bryan states that if a casino gives a bonus and the player meets the terms, they should be paid. This is a special case, but if I understand right, the Reef Club business happened before this player opened an account at CON. If so, why was the bonus credited at CON despite the earlier blatant abuse at Reef Club?

As regards 'good faith', I agree the player definitely didn't show that in this case. But with bonuses it must be about the T&Cs. Bonus hunters exploit mathematical expectations to make a profit, which is also what casinos do with the house edge. I don't think it matters how much money a player has or a casino makes: large companies and private individuals alike do things that, although perhaps unfair or exploitative, are nonetheless perfectly legal. I personally feel that bonus hunting has to be looked at in the same way.

To be honest, I don't have much sympathy for this player either, but I have even less for the casino. When issuing bonuses, casinos set the rules, and should easily be able to work out what a player who plays the lowest-edge games and stops at the minimum WR could make. It's their job to cover themselves against specific abuses: statements about 'fair play', 'good faith' etc. are too subjective IMO.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, and I'd be interested to hear any opposing views.

Rob

 

[dominique]

When issuing bonuses, casinos set the rules, and should easily be able to work out what a player who plays the lowest-edge games and stops at the minimum WR could make. It's their job to cover themselves against specific abuses: statements about 'fair play', 'good faith' etc. are too subjective IMO.
Rob

Yeppers!

My sentiments exactly.