Casino Plex not paying my big win out

[vinylweatherman]

Particularly this part of your thread VWM hits the nail right on the head:

The rep is trying to imply that a player willingly, and KNOWINGLY, and of sound mind and judgement, pissed away 17K at the click of a mouse because they wanted their initial €1500 back right away, and did not want to risk not making WR with 17K more than €1500 in their balance.

This is a crock of shit, and if any player made such a decision, they are clearly not "of sound mind and judgement" at the time they did it.

The OP mentioned earlier in this thread that he only received a pop-up telling him that he would LOSE THE BONUS (a meagre 20%) - that's why he went ahead. Indeed, Casino Plex are desperate coming up with as many reasons/twists they can so as not to reinstate the OP's winnings. I think this really calls for an in-depth investigation. Are Gambling Grumbles able to this?

Withy out screenshots or trying to recreate a similar situation, we cannot prove 100% whether the player just saw a message about losing the €100 bonus, or a message "clearly" telling him that everything would be taken and he would only get back €1500.

The rep also suggests that the OP should have gone "on safari" looking at several sections of the website to get a picture of the true situation. This too is a crock, it should all have been there on the decision screen.

This is an illustration of why you cannot trust the Playtech white labels to do the right thing by players, rather than go after the money in a ruthless manner.

This is enough to make a Cool Cat blush.

 

[Mouche12]

Withy out screenshots or trying to recreate a similar situation, we cannot prove 100% whether the player just saw a message about losing the €100 bonus, or a message "clearly" telling him that everything would be taken and he would only get back €1500.

The rep also suggests that the OP should have gone "on safari" looking at several sections of the website to get a picture of the true situation. This too is a crock, it should all have been there on the decision screen.

This is an illustration of why you cannot trust the Playtech white labels to do the right thing by players, rather than go after the money in a ruthless manner.

This is enough to make a Cool Cat blush.

Very true - wish there were screenshots, therefore an investigation is required. Would Bryan or Max perhaps be willing to shed some light as to who could do this on behalf of the OP?
I don't know if AskGamblers or Gambling Grumblers can do this?

 

[Playforfun]

we do not need screenshots!

Casino hanging on an alleged "he got a message" to void a 17 grand win?

this is rouge behavior.

Are we going to allow the casino "the benefit of lawyer small excuses"?


This is a shame on the casino side. and a blatant way to save 17k

 

[chuchu59]

Screenshots can help in ascertaining whether or not the casino has told the truth. I agree though that this is rogue behavior and the story from the casino is incoherent and changes during the course of this thread like amoeba. Whether they like it or not its obvious they are using different excuses to wriggle out of paying. The simple solution is to reinstate the balance and let the player complete the wagering. This way, at least the player needs to stick to his side of the bargain.

 

[Nifty29]

I think it's interesting that those shouting "He should have got a warning message" earlier are, now that it appears he DID receive another warning message (when choosing his payment method), saying that it's "not enough".

Sorry, but it's almost laughable. It just proves that it's not about the facts of the case for some, but rather that the player lost $17k and they are just taking the player side because that's what they do.

I'm sure someone can think of a way to get a screenie of it. I know a way, but I'm not spending a dime to help someone else get out of a situation they placed themselves in, so someone else can do it if they really feel so passionately that the player has been ripped off. It would cost $20 at most.

What next? A phone call everyone withdraws to make sure they're sure? geez. I'm all for software functions to prevent "accidents" (although this was more ignorance than accident), but there has to be a limit. You can't stop everyone doing silly things, and if it IS the case that there was yet ANOTHER opportunity for the OP to avoid losing his money (#6 in reality, but #2 for those who don't accept the others) then I think the casino has done everything it can to stop the player making a mistake.

I also think it is odd that he lost his $17k, and then just went and cashed his comps and kept playing. Eh? Why wouldn't you wait until the issue had been resolved?

Still, the latest information to be revealed won't make a difference to the "casinos are evil" club, but a few logical and reasonable thinkers might re-visit their POV.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think it's interesting that those shouting "He should have got a warning message" earlier are, now that it appears he DID receive another warning message (when choosing his payment method), saying that it's "not enough".

Sorry, but it's almost laughable. It just proves that it's not about the facts of the case for some, but rather that the player lost $17k and they are just taking the player side because that's what they do.

I'm sure someone can think of a way to get a screenie of it. I know a way, but I'm not spending a dime to help someone else get out of a situation they placed themselves in, so someone else can do it if they really feel so passionately that the player has been ripped off. It would cost $20 at most.

What next? A phone call everyone withdraws to make sure they're sure? geez. I'm all for software functions to prevent "accidents" (although this was more ignorance than accident), but there has to be a limit. You can't stop everyone doing silly things, and if it IS the case that there was yet ANOTHER opportunity for the OP to avoid losing his money (#6 in reality, but #2 for those who don't accept the others) then I think the casino has done everything it can to stop the player making a mistake.

I also think it is odd that he lost his $17k, and then just went and cashed his comps and kept playing. Eh? Why wouldn't you wait until the issue had been resolved?

Still, the latest information to be revealed won't make a difference to the "casinos are evil" club, but a few logical and reasonable thinkers might re-visit their POV.

17K is a hell of a fine for a moment of stupidity. Seems it's OK for the wild west of the internet, but this would never happen in the real world without some serious grief from the authorities.

If it's OK for casinos to use "wild west" tactics, they should stop bleating about "advantage players" outsmarting them and getting away with the money before the casino cottons on. It's punishing Paul for the crimes of Peter for the sake of balancing the books - it's just not on.

All that is being asked, and it is VERY simple, is to unwind ONE stupid decision made by a customer who clearly didn't really understand the messages, however "clear", in that moment.

If Playtech pulled their finger out and wrote the software with players in mind, none of this could have happened. Playtech share the blame for having software that allows customers to make such silly decisions in a few seconds of madness.

We can no longer trust the "facts" from the rep, as there are now two different versions, one here, and another on askgamblers. Since these were extracted from the records of transactions and play, they should have presented the EXACT same trail of events, even if the wording was different.

Hi Mario

I have just checked your account with regards to the loss of your bonuses and winnings.
On the 26th of March at 14:41 you made a deposit of €500 where you received a bonus of €1000 which had had a wagering of 50 times = 50.000. After playing different games your end balance was €1.30 meaning that this bonus and its wagering were still active.
On the same day the 26th of March you made another deposit of €500 and received a bonus of €1000 which had a wagering of 50 times = 50.000. Your new balance was now €1,501.30.
Now since you didn’t finish the first bonus the wagering is still active and you have to clear the bonus wagering for the first bonus.
-
On the 26th March you stopped playing and ended with a balance of €31.30 still with the 1st bonus active since you had not yet met the wagering conditions.
On the 31st of March you started playing with the €31.30 and stopped by the time your balance was down to €2.50 still with the 1st bonus active as you had still not yet met the wagering conditions.
Hereafter you made a new deposit of €500 and received the weekend jackpot bonus of €100. Your total balance is now €602.50 (remember you didn’t finish the wagering from the 1st bonus yet)
You then played Roulette which has a low stake % contribution and by the time you decided to make a withdrawal where you had €17,007.50 you had only wagered the first bonus for €14,526.25.
You mentioned that you were only allowed to withdraw €1500 and the reason for this is that you made three deposits of €500 each. As per our terms and conditions only the sum of the original deposit/s or remaining balance of the original deposit will be withdrawable.

Please note that you can see your transaction, bonuses and wagering history in the casino client.

The story given here makes considerable mention of the first bonus being active throughout, and the reduction of the balance to €1.30, rather than zero, being key.


This is the response from one of the Casino reps on askgamblers.

With regards to this complaint, I, as CasinoPlex representative have checked the history of this particular player and here are my findings :
On the 26th March 2013 player deposited 500 Euro and got bonus of 1000 Euro with 50x wagering requirement
He lost all the balance less 31,30 Euro without reaching the wagering requirements which were clearly stated in this offer.
On the 31st March 2013 the player played using the 31,30 Euro in his balance and deposited 500 EUR when the balance went down to 2,5 Euro and got another 100 Euro Bonus ( 50x wagering requirement ), so he started to play again with 602.50 Euro and with a wagering requirement of min 1000 to play.
Player decided to play on European roulette where Stake % Contribution is only 5% as stated at URL Not Found / Outdated it means that he had to wager another 20,000 Euro before withdrawing winnings.
He decided to withdraw at 04:02 GMT with a balance of €17,007.50 and system automatically cut 14,407.50 of winnings + 1,000 of first bonus + 100 of second bonus
Following that, the player got 362 Euro converting comp points in real money and continued to play at BlackJack Multihand 5 and now he has 12 Euro in his balance
All is totally clear and right also because, apart from the clear rules stated on the CasinoPlex website, where rules are stated very well, player can:
1) Check, all the time in cashier menu, the status of wagering required, wagering reached , bonus balance and real balance.
2) Each time a player accepts a bonus , a pop up tells him there is a wagering requirement attached and he is free to accept or refuse the bonus
3) When a player tries to effect a withdrawal, it is clearly stated in each withdrawal method that if he withdraws without reaching the wagering required, bonuses and winnings will be deducted,
The message also invites the player to check in the bonus section in the cashier menu to see exactly how much he has to play or if reached, the wagering requirement
4) Player can check in cashier all the history, bet by bet , transaction by transaction

Firstly, all mention of the first bonus, the WR from which he never completed throughout the entire train of events. This is a pretty important omission in the submission to askgamblers, and dramatically alters the WR from being based on 2000 of bonuses, to being based on 1000 of bonuses at the point the balance got down to €2.50

In one account the WR carried, in the other, it didn't. If it didn't carry from the €1.30 in the askgamblers account, it shouldn't have carried from the €2.50 either, so only the WR from the €100 bonus should be what matters.

It is not clear whether or not this changes the calculations sufficiently that the play after claiming the €100 was more than the WR on that €100.

Next, having omitted all mention of the first bonus, the askgamblers account brings up something that was clearly irrelevant in the account given here, the comp points redemption and play. It is actually completely irrelevant, as it takes place after the account is zeroed out, and seems to have been added to make it look as though the player was unconcerned about the loss of the €17K and simply carried on playing. Why therefore fail to mention this here?

The key difference between the accounts is the WR from the first bonus, uncompleted in the first account, and not relevant in the second (so presumably zeroed due to the balance being only €1.30).

 

[chuchu59]

Nifty,

Many posters are taking the player's side because they sense grave injustice and not what you mentioned as 'simply taking the player's side'. The issu here is uncompleted WRs so the player should be allowed to complete them. If the attempted w/d has cost the casino manpower resources charge him for it eg Z$100 or so to be deducted from the eventual cashout but you cannot confiscate winnings just because he did something procedurally wrong. He still cannot cashout till the total wrs are met. For other software say MG, there is a warning that uncleared bonuses will be removed if a cashout is initiated before wrs are met and that they will not be reinstated. That, IMO , is fair but this casino is taking advantage of a procedural error to confiscate winnings. I do not see how this is relevant to the completion of wrs.

 

[Nifty29]

Nifty,

Many posters are taking the player's side because they sense grave injustice and not what you mentioned as 'simply taking the player's side'. The issu here is uncompleted WRs so the player should be allowed to complete them. If the attempted w/d has cost the casino manpower resources charge him for it eg Z$100 or so to be deducted from the eventual cashout but you cannot confiscate winnings just because he did something procedurally wrong. He still cannot cashout till the total wrs are met. For other software say MG, there is a warning that uncleared bonuses will be removed if a cashout is initiated before wrs are met and that they will not be reinstated. That, IMO , is fair but this casino is taking advantage of a procedural error to confiscate winnings. I do not see how this is relevant to the completion of wrs.

Its got nothing to do with "procedure".

The terms clearly state that if you withdraw before meeting WR, you lose the lot. The casino provided real time tracking of the WR, and at least two messages informing the player of the "gravity" of what they're about to do. Yes, its a predatory term, but the OP accepted it of their own free will....the fact that they didn't bother reading ANY of these terms is his problem.

If it was the OPs first casino experience, and if he didn't know WR from RTP, then I might have some sympathy...but this guy has been playing EIGHT YEARS. If he doesn't know that he should read what he's agreeing to by now, then he obviously doesn't really care about his money, so why should I?

Imo he should be allowed to complete the WR, but the casino is not obligated to do so as they are not breaking ANY of their own terms. Rogue them based on the term itself and their way of doing business, but they shouldn't be rogued based on their decision to apply the same terms to the OP as everyone else.

Players who accept crap terms and then make a noise when they get caught by them do not deserve recourse IMO. The time for that is BEFORE you play. Why should he receive special treatment just because he couldn't be arsed reading the terms?

My POV isn't popular, but at least it is consistent. Rules are rules are rules....as long as one isn't forced to accept them, or have then applied retrospectively, then they should be applicable to everyone without favour. The whole situation was 100% avoidable by the player, but because it is $17k, many think it is irrelevant, which makes no sense at all.

 

[Bladefury]

I also think it is odd that he lost his $17k, and then just went and cashed his comps and kept playing. Eh? Why wouldn't you wait until the issue had been resolved?

What has that got to do with anything? i was irritated and i wanted to get everything i could from them. That's why i cashed my points. You really find strange things "odd"
Nifty29, does it also state in their rules and regulations that people will get paid when the casino feels like it? Because after nearly two weeks i still haven't received my 1500 Euro.

 

[Balthazar]

The rep is trying to imply that a player willingly, and KNOWINGLY, and of sound mind and judgement, pissed away 17K at the click of a mouse because they wanted their initial €1500 back right away, and did not want to risk not making WR with 17K more than €1500 in their balance.

That would be hilarious if there wasn't so much money at stake.

 

[Borgie]

I am confused :-

1. The casino have changed their story in the two responses we have seen from them . We need to know exactly what happened.

2. The OP did not tell the full story up front.

Can the OP state exactly what happened please and what warning messages he got ?

Is it possible for the Casino or someone to show us what these warning messages say?

Is it or is it not possible to deposit when you have a bonus that still has wagering requirements to be met actice?

Not sure that the Comp points bit is relevant at all?

 

[Mouche12]

What has that got to do with anything? i was irritated and i wanted to get everything i could from them. That's why i cashed my points. You really find strange things "odd"
Nifty29, does it also state in their rules and regulations that people will get paid when the casino feels like it? Because after nearly two weeks i still haven't received my 1500 Euro.

It's outrageous!! I mentioned before the possibility of filing a lawsuit and whether Bryan or Max could give some advice in that respect. Please do not give up yet Bladefury.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Its got nothing to do with "procedure".

The terms clearly state that if you withdraw before meeting WR, you lose the lot. The casino provided real time tracking of the WR, and at least two messages informing the player of the "gravity" of what they're about to do. Yes, its a predatory term, but the OP accepted it of their own free will....the fact that they didn't bother reading ANY of these terms is his problem.

If it was the OPs first casino experience, and if he didn't know WR from RTP, then I might have some sympathy...but this guy has been playing EIGHT YEARS. If he doesn't know that he should read what he's agreeing to by now, then he obviously doesn't really care about his money, so why should I?

Imo he should be allowed to complete the WR, but the casino is not obligated to do so as they are not breaking ANY of their own terms. Rogue them based on the term itself and their way of doing business, but they shouldn't be rogued based on their decision to apply the same terms to the OP as everyone else.

Players who accept crap terms and then make a noise when they get caught by them do not deserve recourse IMO. The time for that is BEFORE you play. Why should he receive special treatment just because he couldn't be arsed reading the terms?

My POV isn't popular, but at least it is consistent. Rules are rules are rules....as long as one isn't forced to accept them, or have then applied retrospectively, then they should be applicable to everyone without favour. The whole situation was 100% avoidable by the player, but because it is $17k, many think it is irrelevant, which makes no sense at all.

Bryan has done this before where a "clear" term has been deemed unethical, predatory, etc.

Most notably was Grand prive, where they used a term to screw over their affiliates. This term was clear, and in the agreement affiliates signed up to, but it wasn't left there. Grand prive got rogued across the internet and was eventually forced to back pedal and come up with a settlement.

It's no different here, the casino is using a predatory term to save itself 17K, and this player should be fought for just as Grand Prive affiliates were fought for, which is why I am doing it now.

A good result would be a "casino warning" based on this term and it's draconian application, and addition to "not recommended". If they don't like that outcome, get rid of the term. It has no function other than to let them profit from rash decisions by their players.

 

[Nifty29]

Bryan has done this before where a "clear" term has been deemed unethical, predatory, etc.

Most notably was Grand prive, where they used a term to screw over their affiliates. This term was clear, and in the agreement affiliates signed up to, but it wasn't left there. Grand prive got rogued across the internet and was eventually forced to back pedal and come up with a settlement.

It's no different here, the casino is using a predatory term to save itself 17K, and this player should be fought for just as Grand Prive affiliates were fought for, which is why I am doing it now.

A good result would be a "casino warning" based on this term and it's draconian application, and addition to "not recommended". If they don't like that outcome, get rid of the term. It has no function other than to let them profit from rash decisions by their players.

Rogue them based on the term for sure. No arguments here.

It doesn't change the fact that the casino has NOT acted outside its own terms. It has not done anything wrong in regards to this player in this case. The only one breaching terms is the player.

If one doesn't like the terms of a bonus one shouldn't accept it. If one doesn't bother reading said terms, like the OP, then that's HIS decision and HIS responsibility. No coercion took place. Tools and opportunities were provided by the operator to prevent this happening before, during and after play....even the popup you insisted they should provide seems to HAVE been provided after all, but now that's not enough all of a sudden. The OP took NO responsibility nor care in regards to their own actions and decisions, and people are calling for the casinos head on a plate as a result....makes no sense at all.

Again, the OP obviously didn't give a toss about what they were doing with their money, so why should I? You can only do so much to save people from themselves. As a politician here said once "You can't legislate against stupidity". The case has wider implications than the winnings involved.....people like yourself are now saying that players no longer need bother reading terms before playing, as if they lose their winnings as a result of those terms, they can just point out how unfair they are and whip up the crowd to make bad PR for the operator and force them to pay.

The term was bad before and its bad now, and rogue them for it, but not for insisting the player adhere to it as they agreed to do upon acceptance.

The issue should be about bonus terms, both reading and accepting and understanding, and proper and equal application of them to all players. Instead, its become about $17k lost by someone who didn't employ an ounce of common sense and took no responsibility for their own behavior. If we were talking about $100, it would be a one page thread, which shows its about something other than the principles involved.

Still, I'm wasting my breath, but I take full responsibility for that.

 

[Mouche12]

Rogue them based on the term for sure. No arguments here.

It doesn't change the fact that the casino has NOT acted outside its own terms. It has not done anything wrong in regards to this player in this case. The only one breaching terms is the player.

If one doesn't like the terms of a bonus one shouldn't accept it. If one doesn't bother reading said terms, like the OP, then that's HIS decision and HIS responsibility. No coercion took place. Tools and opportunities were provided by the operator to prevent this happening before, during and after play....even the popup you insisted they should provide seems to HAVE been provided after all, but now that's not enough all of a sudden. The OP took NO responsibility nor care in regards to their own actions and decisions, and people are calling for the casinos head on a plate as a result....makes no sense at all.

Again, the OP obviously didn't give a toss about what they were doing with their money, so why should I? You can only do so much to save people from themselves. As a politician here said once "You can't legislate against stupidity". The case has wider implications than the winnings involved.....people like yourself are now saying that players no longer need bother reading terms before playing, as if they lose their winnings as a result of those terms, they can just point out how unfair they are and whip up the crowd to make bad PR for the operator and force them to pay.

The term was bad before and its bad now, and rogue them for it, but not for insisting the player adhere to it as they agreed to do upon acceptance.

The issue should be about bonus terms, both reading and accepting and understanding, and proper and equal application of them to all players. Instead, its become about $17k lost by someone who didn't employ an ounce of common sense and took no responsibility for their own behavior. If we were talking about $100, it would be a one page thread, which shows its about something other than the principles involved.

Still, I'm wasting my breath, but I take full responsibility for that.

I beg to differ - it's a combination of factors, not just the rogue bonus term - and some facts are being represented differently.

Based on the bonus term and the surrounding circumstances (which still need to be fully investigated) I still think the OP would stand a fair chance in a court of law. Can anyone comment on this?

 

[Nifty29]

I beg to differ - it's a combination of factors, not just the rogue bonus term - and some facts are being represented differently.

Based on the bonus term and the surrounding circumstances (which still need to be fully investigated) I still think the OP would stand a fair chance in a court of law. Can anyone comment on this?

Nobody here is a lawyer, so your legal opinion is as valid as anyone else's. In fact, AFAIK, nobody here in this thread is even legally trained in any sense.

I know of only one lawyer member here at CM (that I know there might be more) and they are not involved in this thread, and they don't disclose the fact and generally don't give a legal opinion because their specialty is not online gambling.

We can all THINK we know what the legal position might be, but in the end it means diddly squat for the OP. Some people think watching some documentaries and reading the newspaper makes them legally knowledgeable. It doesn't.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Rogue them based on the term for sure. No arguments here.

It doesn't change the fact that the casino has NOT acted outside its own terms. It has not done anything wrong in regards to this player in this case. The only one breaching terms is the player.

If one doesn't like the terms of a bonus one shouldn't accept it. If one doesn't bother reading said terms, like the OP, then that's HIS decision and HIS responsibility. No coercion took place. Tools and opportunities were provided by the operator to prevent this happening before, during and after play....even the popup you insisted they should provide seems to HAVE been provided after all, but now that's not enough all of a sudden. The OP took NO responsibility nor care in regards to their own actions and decisions, and people are calling for the casinos head on a plate as a result....makes no sense at all.

Again, the OP obviously didn't give a toss about what they were doing with their money, so why should I? You can only do so much to save people from themselves. As a politician here said once "You can't legislate against stupidity". The case has wider implications than the winnings involved.....people like yourself are now saying that players no longer need bother reading terms before playing, as if they lose their winnings as a result of those terms, they can just point out how unfair they are and whip up the crowd to make bad PR for the operator and force them to pay.

The term was bad before and its bad now, and rogue them for it, but not for insisting the player adhere to it as they agreed to do upon acceptance.

The issue should be about bonus terms, both reading and accepting and understanding, and proper and equal application of them to all players. Instead, its become about $17k lost by someone who didn't employ an ounce of common sense and took no responsibility for their own behavior. If we were talking about $100, it would be a one page thread, which shows its about something other than the principles involved.

Still, I'm wasting my breath, but I take full responsibility for that.

So, by extension, Grand Prive did nothing wrong because all they did was enforce a term that all affiliates signed up to. Nevertheless, publicity about this, and it's consequences, did result in affiliates getting some kind of settlement rather than none at all. It is the same for a predatory term applied to a player, pressure may not achieve much, but it does show that the operators can't simply do what they like just because they have a term that could be used to justify it AND maintain the trust and respect of their business partners and customers.

Casino Plex should not have a problem with this term becoming common knowledge even to those players who do not read terms in general, after all, they insist that they have made best efforts to ensure it is clear to players. Currently, this thread is achieving something, making this term, and how it is applied, common knowledge among players who frequent forums and use search engines before signing up at new casinos.

 

[Mouche12]

Good point VWM, a similar rogue term (to which, in this case, the affiliates had agreed to upon registration) being enforced by a casino.

Nifty, I don't pretend to be a lawyer or even paralegal, that's why I already asked a few times for comments on this and if Bryan or Max know someone who is familiar with the legal intricacies of online gaming and jurisdictions. I know that under Dutch law it is possible to combat unfair clauses and T&Cs (consumer law) and that they can be declared null and void.

My sense of justice tells me that this is clearly such a case. I think we all agree on that, don't we?

I wonder why the casino is stalling payment of the OP's three deposits - are they perhaps in the process of reconsidering this issue after all or are they just plain rogue?

 

[Nifty29]

So, by extension, Grand Prive did nothing wrong because all they did was enforce a term that all affiliates signed up to. Nevertheless, publicity about this, and it's consequences, did result in affiliates getting some kind of settlement rather than none at all. It is the same for a predatory term applied to a player, pressure may not achieve much, but it does show that the operators can't simply do what they like just because they have a term that could be used to justify it AND maintain the trust and respect of their business partners and customers.

Casino Plex should not have a problem with this term becoming common knowledge even to those players who do not read terms in general, after all, they insist that they have made best efforts to ensure it is clear to players. Currently, this thread is achieving something, making this term, and how it is applied, common knowledge among players who frequent forums and use search engines before signing up at new casinos.

I wasn't aware it was part of their terms. If it was, then yes, the same principle applies. Affiliates weren't complaining about GP until a term they didn't like bit them in the arse.

GP did not HAVE to provide a settlement....they CHOSE to do so. It's great that the affys got something. If Plex does that here too, then great..it would be a good result. However, there is no obligation to do so. I didn't say nobody should put pressure on Plex or make complaints etc etc...I have just stated that there are TWO sides to this story, one of which most people are completely ignoring i.e. that the player made NO effort whatsoever to make themselves aware of the terms attached to the bonus they accepted on more than one occasion. As you say other times..."I will be watching"...and reminding those same people when another situation comes up (and it will) where they insist a player should be held to a term. The argument will be "yes well THIS one is FAIR...the other one was unfair", which is no argument at all. Either you accept a term, or you don't accept a term. Either you are bound by a term, or you aren't bound by a term. Once you accept the bonus, you have accepted the terms, and are therefore bound by them. It's really not that difficult to grasp, but people see the $$$ amount and suddenly throw common sense and logic out the window.

The problem also is that once a casino is seen to "bend the rules" for one, they are opening themselves up to a slew of players trying to blackmail the operator over this and any other term they don't like. It's like the speed camera/speeding argument. A driver is caught doing 5kph over the limit, and claim they should get some leeway as "it's only 5kph" and, as in this case, they "Didn't realise what the speed limit was". Let's say the police/court says "OK well it's only 5kph and the road wasn't terribly well signed". What's going to happen next? Someone going 7kph over is going to say "Hey well that other guy got off and I'm only 2kph over what he was doing" and so on and so on until you may as well not have a speed limit. The point also is that you cannot have a speed restriction sign every 5 metres, so people have to take some RESPONSIBILITY and use some COMMON SENSE, and take such simple precautions as assuming the limit is the lowest speed limit for that type of road until you see a sign saying otherwise. In Australia, the phrase from the police was always "On residential streets, if there's no sign, assume the limit is 50kph, on an arterial road, assume 60kph". Common sense.

Go to the magistrate after being charged with travelling 80kph in a 60kph zone with the defence of "Yeah well I wasn't watching for speed limit signs". Watch him laugh and send you away with the fine plus court costs. The issue here is the same. The OP "wasn't watching" for "signs" either, yet some are saying it doesn't matter. It's crazy.

Also, by extension, some of you are saying that if a casino includes a term that ends up being too GENEROUS and a whole swag of players make a bunch of money.....remind you of any recent situation???....the casino can say "Ummmm no that term was unfair to US so we aren't going to honor it. Sorry. We should have read our terms properly but we didn't. Tough." You see, the logic being applied by people who think the OP should be let off in this thread was being used by Betfair in the other thread....and yet they were lambasted (and rightly so) for not adhering to their own terms. Here, casinoplex IS adhering to their own terms, but because players don't LIKE it, the same rules suddenly don't apply. It is hypocrisy of the highest order....many of you are saying that players can pick and choose the terms they are bound by, but the casino cannot. It's ridiculous, and it's why I say that the OP's supporters for the most part are not making this about the principle, but about 17 thousand dollars, when it should be entirely about the principle.

 

[Nifty29]

Good point VWM, a similar rogue term (to which, in this case, the affiliates had agreed to upon registration) being enforced by a casino.

Nifty, I don't pretend to be a lawyer or even paralegal, that's why I already asked a few times for comments on this and if Bryan or Max know someone who is familiar with the legal intricacies of online gaming and jurisdictions. I know that under Dutch law it is possible to combat unfair clauses and T&Cs (consumer law) and that they can be declared null and void.

My sense of justice tells me that this is clearly such a case. I think we all agree on that, don't we?

I wonder why the casino is stalling payment of the OP's three deposits - are they perhaps in the process of reconsidering this issue after all or are they just plain rogue?

The Law is seldom related to justice.

No, I don't agree that the OP has been unjustly treated. He is being correctly treated according to an unjust term, which he accepted.

I wasn't suggesting you were in any way legally trained, or that YOU were pretending to be such.

 

[Mouche12]

The Law is seldom related to justice.

No, I don't agree that the OP has been unjustly treated. He is being correctly treated according to an unjust term, which he accepted.

I wasn't suggesting you were in any way legally trained, or that YOU were pretending to be such.

Reps keep changing the story about the balance left in his account and the pop up messages - and you think that the OP has been treated justly? I think you admitted as much in your earlier threads that the bonus term was rogue??

 

[Nifty29]

Reps keep changing the story about the balance left in his account and the pop up messages - and you think that the OP has been treated justly? I think you admitted as much in your earlier threads that the bonus term was rogue??

Mouche....please read the second paragraph of my last post. I repeat myself enough as it is.

 

[Mouche12]

Mouche....please read the second paragraph of my last post. I repeat myself enough as it is.

There's more to this story than the unjust term. The explanations given by the reps at CM and AskGamblers about the circumstances surrounding the bonuses and the OP's withdrawal differ. Also, the OP has still not received his three deposits (2 weeks and counting).

 

[mrmark21]

I'm generally pro player. I do however agree with Nifty on this one. The term was there. The same term that this player who has been playing for EIGHT YEARS accepted. Some members involved in this thread sound similar to a biased jury. The player may have won allot of money but he broke the rules.

I think Chuchus right. The best thing for the casino to do would be too allow the player a second chance at completing the wagering requirements

This is a tough one though because there's another side of the coin: Does the casino state in their T&Cs that when players withdraw before completing wagering requirements that the casino will replace the money with wagering requirements? No. I don't even have to look at the terms too know that. While it would be the best thing to do they don't actually have too.

You bend the rules for one person and soon you have to do it for everyone. Dosent change them constantly changing the story though

 

[Playforfun]

Rules are there to be enforced. No question.

But there is dishonest useage of rules.


I will perfectly agree that when someone for example breaks a rule of say max bet his winnings are void. because it is not a technical clause. it is fully intended and it is there for a reason.


Our case of $17K does not justify the "this is the rule" defense. it is voiding winnings on a technicality.


Once I got a pop-up message on my ATM
"Click here to transfer all your bank balance to the bank coffers"

I clicked yes.

I got a new message "Are you sure you want to donate your $100,000 cash to the bank?"

I clicked yes.


I guess many people here would justify the bank clearing up my account and flying to the bahammas "as per my saying yes on the pop up message"

I'm generally pro player. I do however agree with Nifty on this one. The term was there. The same term that this player who has been playing for EIGHT YEARS accepted. Some members involved in this thread sound similar to a biased jury. The player may have won allot of money but he broke the rules.

I think Chuchus right. The best thing for the casino to do would be too allow the player a second chance at completing the wagering requirements

This is a tough one though because there's another side of the coin: Does the casino state in their T&Cs that when players withdraw before completing wagering requirements that the casino will replace the money with wagering requirements? No. I don't even have to look at the terms too know that. While it would be the best thing to do they don't actually have too.

You bend the rules for one person and soon you have to do it for everyone. Dosent change them constantly changing the story though

 

[bpb]

You bend the rules for one person and soon you have to do it for everyone.

No, you don't.

 

[MisterBJ]

Rules are there to be enforced. No question.

But there is dishonest useage of rules.


I will perfectly agree that when someone for example breaks a rule of say max bet his winnings are void. because it is not a technical clause. it is fully intended and it is there for a reason.


Our case of $17K does not justify the "this is the rule" defense. it is voiding winnings on a technicality.


Once I got a pop-up message on my ATM
"Click here to transfer all your bank balance to the bank coffers"

I clicked yes.

I got a new message "Are you sure you want to donate your $100,000 cash to the bank?"

I clicked yes.


I guess many people here would justify the bank clearing up my account and flying to the bahammas "as per my saying yes on the pop up message"

How is it a technicality? The OP tried and did break the terms of his contract (Agreement). Warning signs were given. The OP admitted that he didn't even read the terms. Like them or not. The terms are there. The OP broke them. The OP paid the price. It was already spelled out for him. All he had to do was, take the time to read them. If anyone don't like the terms, then don't play there. I do agree the OP should have gotten his deposit back after 2 long weeks.

 

[Bladefury]

Still no Deposit back. They keep saying they have a problem with their system, this a casino that's suppose to cater to players world wide..
That being said, i appreciate all the support from the people here on the forums, it shows there's good people out there, that actually care, much appreciated guys.

From what ever lesson learnt here, make sure you read the terms and conditions and understand them even the ones that are insane. As absurd as losing 17 000 Euros at a click of a button sounds, it happens!

 

[Nifty29]

No, you don't.

Well, after that detailed argument, I'm convinced!

 

[Mouche12]

I would never let my head down if this was happening to me. What about the pop-up message telling the OP that ONLY his bonus would be deducted from the balance? What about the concept of unfair provisions/T&Cs?

I would definitely file a lawsuit against those b***. They are laughing their heads off now, thinking that they can get away with their rogue terms and contradictory explanations of what really happened.

Also, I think CM should issue a warning against Casino Plex. Not only because of this issue; they are also stalling payment of the OP's withdrawal for 2 weeks now. Of course, a problem with their system, makes perfect sense. He probably won't get his money (the three deposits) back either, wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[vinylweatherman]

How is it a technicality? The OP tried and did break the terms of his contract (Agreement). Warning signs were given. The OP admitted that he didn't even read the terms. Like them or not. The terms are there. The OP broke them. The OP paid the price. It was already spelled out for him. All he had to do was, take the time to read them. If anyone don't like the terms, then don't play there. I do agree the OP should have gotten his deposit back after 2 long weeks.

Technicality in the sense that this is a term there "for the sake of it", achieving nothing other than provide an opportunity for a player to make a mistake and lose a huge sum of money at the very last step. The underlying problem of enforcing WR could be done a number of other ways, such as by blocking the withdrawal option altogether, and forcing the player back into the casino to carry on playing. This too could come with an information message such as "withdrawals are not permitted at this stage, you must complete a further xxxxx of wagering before this option is available to you".

Terms are already complex enough, and operators have argued that the complexity is necessary in order to protect them from players seeking to exploit loopholes. No loophole is blocked by the addition of this term, and by all accounts it is a fairly recent addition, not something that has resulted from a need to protect the casino from some form of scam.

Many of the other terms can be explained by looking at how the casino could be exploited without such a term in place. The max bet term is one such example, providing a protection against the strategy of placing the entire bankroll on an even money roulette bet, or a similar bet on any number of other games.

The sign of a rogue is the inventing of a term that has no legitimate use in protecting the casino from a genuine exploit, but DOES provide an opportunity for the operator to profit from a simple mistake made by a player. The responsible thing to do socially is to protect others from being exploited by a predatory operator with no proper regulatory regime to do the job in place.

There are loads of casinos where the exact same set of events would have resulted in the player having no choice but to carry on playing through the WR till it was complete, or they busted out. These places are more deserving of customers, as they treat them more fairly, providing a proper service as their priority, rather than stuffing their own pockets at every opportunity.

The terms may be there, but it is the operator that controls them, and how they are implemented in the software. Players cannot use software to protect themselves from silly mistakes, as such software could be considered a "bot" by the casino.

A decent advantage player would not get caught out by such a term, it is the more naïve player that tends to fall victim. Advantage players look for loopholes, and not mere technical ones, but ones that give them an advantage. Even a beginner AV would realise that early retrieval of €1500 is a bad deal compared with completing WR with 17K still left in their balance. If they did get caught out, it would be for "grinding" after some high stakes roulette built the balance up this high, and this may involve the casino having to pull "spirit of the bonus" rather than refer to a specific term.

 

[Nifty29]

Technicality in the sense that this is a term there "for the sake of it", achieving nothing other than provide an opportunity for a player to make a mistake and lose a huge sum of money at the very last step. The underlying problem of enforcing WR could be done a number of other ways, such as by blocking the withdrawal option altogether, and forcing the player back into the casino to carry on playing. This too could come with an information message such as "withdrawals are not permitted at this stage, you must complete a further xxxxx of wagering before this option is available to you".

Terms are already complex enough, and operators have argued that the complexity is necessary in order to protect them from players seeking to exploit loopholes. No loophole is blocked by the addition of this term, and by all accounts it is a fairly recent addition, not something that has resulted from a need to protect the casino from some form of scam.

Many of the other terms can be explained by looking at how the casino could be exploited without such a term in place. The max bet term is one such example, providing a protection against the strategy of placing the entire bankroll on an even money roulette bet, or a similar bet on any number of other games.

The sign of a rogue is the inventing of a term that has no legitimate use in protecting the casino from a genuine exploit, but DOES provide an opportunity for the operator to profit from a simple mistake made by a player. The responsible thing to do socially is to protect others from being exploited by a predatory operator with no proper regulatory regime to do the job in place.

There are loads of casinos where the exact same set of events would have resulted in the player having no choice but to carry on playing through the WR till it was complete, or they busted out. These places are more deserving of customers, as they treat them more fairly, providing a proper service as their priority, rather than stuffing their own pockets at every opportunity.

The terms may be there, but it is the operator that controls them, and how they are implemented in the software. Players cannot use software to protect themselves from silly mistakes, as such software could be considered a "bot" by the casino.

A decent advantage player would not get caught out by such a term, it is the more naïve player that tends to fall victim. Advantage players look for loopholes, and not mere technical ones, but ones that give them an advantage. Even a beginner AV would realise that early retrieval of €1500 is a bad deal compared with completing WR with 17K still left in their balance. If they did get caught out, it would be for "grinding" after some high stakes roulette built the balance up this high, and this may involve the casino having to pull "spirit of the bonus" rather than refer to a specific term.

After 8 years playing online, the OP can't use "naivety" as an excuse.

Still, we'll just add that to the basketful of other facts involving the OPs irresponsible actions that are being ignored.

 

[vinylweatherman]

After 8 years playing online, the OP can't use "naivety" as an excuse.

Still, we'll just add that to the basketful of other facts involving the OPs irresponsible actions that are being ignored.

So, why the dithering over paying the agreed €1500. The casino is not so keen on adhering to terms and conditions now. Like with the player, there can be no exceptions, and I doubt "technical issues" is the real issue else we would have other players wondering why this operator has suddenly stopped processing withdrawals.

Until this €1500 has been paid, the issue is still very much open.

I should also like to remind this casino of the terms and conditions of it's merchant agreements with VISA and Mastercard. These grant players rights in law, and covered in terms and conditions, that by an unwritten common bond of honour and trust, players do not generally exercise in this industry. In fact, exercising these legal RIGHTS will get you banned from CM and blacklisted throughout the industry, yet despite this, players who do this have not actually done anything wrong, merely broken a social convention. It's the same argument that is supporting the casino, they have it covered in the terms, so have done nothing wrong.

Part of this social convention is that casinos will not act in a predatory manner, and will seek to have only those terms that are NECESSARY, and will always look at individual circumstances and intents before making a final decision.

I have yet to hear a case for this term being NECESSARY in order to protect the casino from some kind of scam or advantage tactic.

If you let someone take an inch, they will take a mile, so the saying goes. There are numerous operators in the industry, who having taken the inch and gotten away with it, go on to take the mile. What will Casino Plex take as it's "mile" if this "inch" goes unchallenged.

 

[chuchu59]

Rules are only rules when it bears relevance to an issue at stake. What the bloody hell does attempting a withdrawal before wagering requirements are met lead to confiscation of winnings? A technical error was committed by the OP no doubt. So the logical conclusion would be to allow the balance to be instated and wagering to be completed. For all the troubles caused to the casino by manually crediting the bonus back the casino could charge the player a fee say $100. I shudder when people start saying such nonsensical things as 'rules are rules' when it bears no relevance to an issue. The rule might as well say you cannot initiate a withdrawal after 6pm otherwise all winnings shall be confiscated. That's a rule and we should abide by it don't we? Pouncing on a player's error to deny rightful would-be winnings doesn't cut it really. As for the OP having played online for 8 years this isn't really a defence for the casino. Which other casino has similar confiscation rules on a technicality? Yes, a veteran would have read bonus terms carefully but then they will only read what games are allowed, the playthrough required etc.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Rules are only rules when it bears relevance to an issue at stake. What the bloody hell does attempting a withdrawal before wagering requirements are met lead to confiscation of winnings? A technical error was committed by the OP no doubt. So the logical conclusion would be to allow the balance to be instated and wagering to be completed. For all the troubles caused to the casino by manually crediting the bonus back the casino could charge the player a fee say $100. I shudder when people start saying such nonsensical things as 'rules are rules' when it bears no relevance to an issue. The rule might as well say you cannot initiate a withdrawal after 6pm otherwise all winnings shall be confiscated. That's a rule and we should abide by it don't we? Pouncing on a player's error to deny rightful would-be winnings doesn't cut it really. As for the OP having played online for 8 years this isn't really a defence for the casino. Which other casino has similar confiscation rules on a technicality? Yes, a veteran would have read bonus terms carefully but then they will only read what games are allowed, the playthrough required etc.

Virtual group for starters.

However, there seems to have been a steady proliferation of rules that do not afford protection from any actual exploit, but merely afford an opportunity to profit at the expense of an error on the part of a player. If a casino makes an error, they are allowed to say "sorry", unwind it, and maybe offer a small compensation chip. Where their error has caused no one to lose out, that has been the end of the matter. No-one loses out here either, the player doesn't dodge WR, and the casino would not face any higher chance of losing the bets than they would had the player just carried on. At worst, they would bear an administrative cost, and one similar to the "inconvenience" payments often made to players when casinos make the error.

What about when a casino accidentally paid me twice. Well, the terms and conditions are "all transactions are final", so I could keep the overpayment. However, the right thing to do (which I did) would be to inconvenience myself and put in some effort trying to cooperate with the casino to unwind the error so that they get the duplicate payment back. With the money on my side, and no effective laws actually applying, I could just as easily have decided that keeping the money was a good deal given that the worst the casino could do would be to give me the boot, and possibly place me on a software blacklist. I could even have just stopped responding to emails and uninstalled the casino. This could simply be explained away by me changing email address after deciding no longer to play there, and thus no longer bothered about there being a means of contact.

It would be a bad deal for a mere £800, but 17K might be a different matter, at least for some, knowing that once the money had been moved out of reach, there was nothing the casino could really do other than write it off to experience, the same thing that is being expected of the player here.

 

[bpb]

After 8 years playing online, the OP can't use "naivety" as an excuse.

Still, we'll just add that to the basketful of other facts involving the OPs irresponsible actions that are being ignored.

How about the mountain of facts involving the casino's irresponsible actions that you insist on ignoring?

 

[Bladefury]

After 8 years playing online, the OP can't use "naivety" as an excuse.

Still, we'll just add that to the basketful of other facts involving the OPs irresponsible actions that are being ignored.

First casino I have come across that takes all the left over balance and makes it magically disappear, the other dozen or so casinos I have played at made the players use their balance to meet WR.
Also i am finding it a bit offensive now that you keep going out about how irresponsible i was, and that the players ARE NOT allowed to make mistakes with COSTLY consequences, we aren't human, we're suppose to just know that from depositing 500 Euro, and getting a crap 100 bonus we lose 15 500. Just because its written in some rule of theirs doesn't mean jack shit to me, this is robbery.

I know i won't be getting any money from them, and at the same people should be made aware of them stealing money from players. Not DEFENDING them because of some t's and c's that are written.
The irresponsible and senseless thing is people standing for casinos like this and blaming the players. There are thousands of online casinos out there, the type like these are not needed, so there's absolutely no need to even take their side.

 

[KasinoKing]

How is it a technicality? The OP tried and did break the terms of his contract (Agreement). Warning signs were given. The OP admitted that he didn't even read the terms. Like them or not. The terms are there. The OP broke them. The OP paid the price. It was already spelled out for him. All he had to do was, take the time to read them. If anyone don't like the terms, then don't play there. I do agree the OP should have gotten his deposit back after 2 long weeks.

That's the bottom line, and although it sucks big time for the OP, it WAS his fault and he's admitted it. I can't believe there are so many people here with nothing better to do than argue and speculate about this case with well over 200 posts!

I would never let my head down if this was happening to me. What about the pop-up message telling the OP that ONLY his bonus would be deducted from the balance? What about the concept of unfair provisions/T&Cs?

He didn't actually say that.
If you go back & find the post where he mentioned that, you'll see what I mean.
(I looked - but couldn't find it!)

KK

 

[Nifty29]

How about the mountain of facts involving the casino's irresponsible actions that you insist on ignoring?

Please point the ignored facts out.

I'll save you a little typing and time, so you can still post a one-liner:

1. Term is predatory. Said that.
2. Casino should be avoided. Said that.
3. Casino should allow player to finish wagering. Said that.
4. Casino is behaving roguely by having such terms. Said that.
5. Casino should have implemented system to restrict cashout before meeting WR (although warnings WERE provided). Said that.

Now, lets here the rest of the "mountain of facts" I've ignored. I've provided the foothills.

Thankyou.

@OP. You admitted you were irresponsible and didn't take due care. You can hardly tell someone not to use facts in argument that you yourself provided. Any comments I've made are about your actions, not you personally. I don't know you, beyond your actions in this matter.

 

[Balthazar]

I'm generally pro player. I do however agree with Nifty on this one. The term was there. The same term that this player who has been playing for EIGHT YEARS accepted.

This is why the world of online casinos is majorly f*cked up, because some players support bullshit like that. The victim here didn't WILLINGLY lost 17k. INTENT SHOULD MATTERS.

Casinos are putting traps designed to VOID WINNINGS in their terms and sometimes, some poor souls do fall on them. For Christ's sake, please stop telling the players that it's their fault and they should have seen the f*cking trap.

The only problem is the trap, not the victim.

 

[vinylweatherman]

That's the bottom line, and although it sucks big time for the OP, it WAS his fault and he's admitted it. I can't believe there are so many people here with nothing better to do than argue and speculate about this case with well over 200 posts!


He didn't actually say that.
If you go back & find the post where he mentioned that, you'll see what I mean.
(I looked - but couldn't find it!)

KK

So, where's his €1500?

The rep (and the term) said this is what would be paid, but so far it hasn't. This term has cost the player 15K, yet the casino are not keeping their side of this very same term, which is that the deposit itself is returned.

The casino's reputation has been done no favours by this, as they alone seem to be using a "gaffed" variant of the cashier that incorporates this trap, whereas other casinos seem to simply block any attempt at making a withdrawal unless all WR have been completed.

Players that have been around some time sometimes use the cashier to determine whether WR has been completed, as they know that withdrawals will be blocked at the last minute as the system does the calculations when it is submitted. This is the experience I had with the Playtech cashier when I first started playing, and back then it was the ONLY way (other than counting earned comps) to track wagering. Now, we are to believe that development has gone into reverse at Playtech, and this safety net no longer works.

The casino are pleading innocence, but they set the trap, put in a term to cover it, and knew that there would always be a few players that made this kind of mistake. Casinos also know that most players are not lawyers, which is why many produce pages and pages of terms, all written in a language not well understood outside of the legal profession. Do they REALLY believe that players print off the terms and have the family lawyer go through it with them, or do they know that most players accept the terms without really understanding them, but just TRUST the casino to behave honourably towards them.

It's not a level nor fair playing field, players are at a significant disadvantage in the relationship to start with, and that's before traps get slipped into the terms. These terms would never fly in the real world where consumers have government bodies set up to ensure fair play. They work only because of the nature of the internet.

Casinos seem to be ignoring the fact that governments around the world are taking an interest in regulating this industry in order to tax it as any regular business is taxed. The danger is that there are others seeking to have it banned altogether, seeing it as not a legitimate industry, but an industry hiding behind the internet and "tax haven" jurisdictions in order to fleece hapless consumers whilst being sheltered from the full force of law and not having to pay taxes.

 

[MisterBJ]

So, where's his €1500?

The rep (and the term) said this is what would be paid, but so far it hasn't. This term has cost the player 15K, yet the casino are not keeping their side of this very same term, which is that the deposit itself is returned.

I AGREE...CASINO PLEX, WHERE IS THE OP DEPOSITS? AND PLEASE RETURN IT TO HIM RIGHT NOW!!!

 

[Mouche12]

This is why the world of online casinos is majorly f*cked up, because some players support bullshit like that. The victim here didn't WILLINGLY lost 17k. INTENT SHOULD MATTERS.

Casinos are putting traps designed to VOID WINNINGS in their terms and sometimes, some poor souls do fall on them. For Christ's sake, please stop telling the players that it's their fault and they should have seen the f*cking trap.

The only problem is the trap, not the victim.

I fully agree Balthazar.

Apart from that, I am still confused about the pop-up message telling the OP that only his (20%) BONUS would be deducted upon withdrawal (which explains his subsequent action) and the reps' accounts of what happened. A full investigation is definitely required.

Good post Nifty, summing up the facts.

Added to that: the WR on previous bonuses is still unclear to me. Was the WR on the first bonus cancelled or not? It seems so, because they gave a 2nd bonus while there was still money in the OP's account. This has been discussed earlier in this thread, but the rep at AskGamblers has not elaborated his statements.

I am still waiting for CM to issue an official casino warning.

 

[Playforfun]

Most of the confusion here is smokescreen.


By all accounts:

1) casino carried old wagering from yesterday bonus for 1-2 bucks left.

(does not matter if it is first deposit bonus or you name it. Does not matter if it was 1.30 or 2.50 or 1.776 its all the same)

2) Casino voided his winnings as punishment for making a withdrawal.

3) No doubt the player did not intend to accept voiding his winnings. That is unless he is mentally ill.

(only tons of details are about which color and font was which message he got. )


4) Casino refuses to reinstate his winnings EVEN if he wants to play the wagering carried over by 1.3 cents....



Is anything here missing? (I mean unless someone REALLY cares if it is 1.3 or 2.5 etc. )

 

[Mouche12]

I would like to emphasize once more that Casino Plex could not have given a 2nd and (probably also) a 3rd bonus in accordance with their own terms:

The Second deposit bonus and Daily Bonus is given only if you have no funds in your account from a previous deposit and deposit bonus (account balance plus bonuses is less than €1) and have not requested a withdrawal.

There was more than €1 in the OP's account on two occasions. Yet, the casino gave the OP a second and third bonus and are consequently in violation of their own rules. But when it comes to reinstating the OPs winnings they are adamant about reinforcing their rogue and predatory bonus term:

Casino Plex customers requesting a withdrawal or a transfer out of their Casino Plex account, prior to the necessary wagering requirement being met, will forfeit all bonuses and winnings attributed to their account. Only the sum of the original deposit or remaining balance of the original deposit will be withdrawable.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I would like to emphasize once more that Casino Plex could not have given a 2nd and (probably also) a 3rd bonus in accordance with their own terms:

The Second deposit bonus and Daily Bonus is given only if you have no funds in your account from a previous deposit and deposit bonus (account balance plus bonuses is less than €1) and have not requested a withdrawal.

There was more than €1 in the OP's account on two occasions. Yet, the casino gave the OP a second and third bonus and are consequently in violation of their own rules. But when it comes to reinstating the OPs winnings they are adamant about reinforcing their rogue and predatory bonus term:

Casino Plex customers requesting a withdrawal or a transfer out of their Casino Plex account, prior to the necessary wagering requirement being met, will forfeit all bonuses and winnings attributed to their account. Only the sum of the original deposit or remaining balance of the original deposit will be withdrawable.

....but they are not even paying this to the OP. Why?

Technical issues that seem only to affect the OP's €1500 it seems, else there would have been a bunch of players asking why none of them have been paid for nearly a month.

 

[wobble33]

I would like to emphasize once more that Casino Plex could not have given a 2nd and (probably also) a 3rd bonus in accordance with their own terms:

The Second deposit bonus and Daily Bonus is given only if you have no funds in your account from a previous deposit and deposit bonus (account balance plus bonuses is less than €1) and have not requested a withdrawal.

There was more than €1 in the OP's account on two occasions. Yet, the casino gave the OP a second and third bonus and are consequently in violation of their own rules. But when it comes to reinstating the OPs winnings they are adamant about reinforcing their rogue and predatory bonus term:

Casino Plex customers requesting a withdrawal or a transfer out of their Casino Plex account, prior to the necessary wagering requirement being met, will forfeit all bonuses and winnings attributed to their account. Only the sum of the original deposit or remaining balance of the original deposit will be withdrawable.

yes i said this earlier. i said no way should he even had the bonuses with money still in his account..

 

[Playforfun]

Lets not forget. the wagering is no longer why he is not paid.

He agrees to play even the wagering. But the casino insists to remove his winnings because he pressed "withdraw"

can anybody imagine this being called "good faith"?

 

[Nifty29]

I seem to remember there is still some confusion about whether the bonuses he received were actually the first and second welcome bonuses. I'm fairly sure the second one was another special promo and the last one was a daily bonus.

Either way, it is not possible to make such a call as mouche12 is making at this point without knowing for sure.

The fact that he hasn't been paid should convince any reader that this lot should be avoided and that CM should throw them in the pit.

 

[CasinoPlex]

Player paid

Hi All

Sorry i've been away for some days.. I can confirm that the players withdrawal of 1500 has been paid and he will receive his money within the usual 3 to 5 banking days as this was a bank transfer.

Good day to you all!

/Martin