Another one that doesn't believe adults should be responsible for their own actions.
I don't believe operators should have to shell out to prevent ignorant players from losing their dough. If its ok for the vast majority of players to read and follow terms, its OK for the others.
Honestly, sometimes I think you just take the players side for the hell of it, because you'll always get more high fives when you do.
I am not saying the player should be PAID, I am saying they should have the money bounced back to their account and told to wager some more before a withdrawal is allowed. The casino is not out of pocket at all.
It is no different to when a player asks CS and is told something is OK when it isn't. Where incorrect information is supplied by the casino through one of it's official channels, and the player acts upon it, it is not the players fault, adult or not, it is the casino's fault for not ensuring correct information was given.
In this case, this is a simple matter to unwind as bouncing the money back to the account does not disadvantage the casino. The term itself is predatory because it should be impossible to break.
This is a case of:-
•No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.
In this case triggered by incorrect information being given.
There is also no way for the player to obtain the CORRECT information with Playtech software, unlike the other major brands such as RTG and Microgaming where such information is presented in the cashier.
In this case, the operator is looking for reasons not to pay, rather than looking for reasons to help their customer get paid.
This situation came up before with an accredited casino (Fortune Lounge), and after a discussion here, they amended their practice so that if the player didn't get stopped by the cashier from making an invalid withdrawal, the funds would be placed back in the account and the player advised on what they needed to do. This was some time ago, and since then MGS have added functionality alongside their Clearplay system that ensures players see the CORRECT information when they enter the cashier, and can then make an INFORMED decision on whether to just get their deposit back where WR has not been completed, or return to the casino to make further play.
This is typical of the predatory nature of Playtech in general (with only a few exceptions). Another thread details a different predatory behaviour, live chat just won't leave you alone once logged in, constantly badgering you to deposit. It even happens when you visit the website, and makes it near impossible to be left in peace long enough to navigate around, and more importantly, find and read the terms. Oddly enough, despite being constantly there when not wanted, live chat just don't respond when the PLAYER tries to initiate contact to get help with a problem, unless the chat window is opened in the banking page when they respond like lightning. This only shows that this is a DELIBERATE predatory behaviour, as when launched from Banking, the player's problem is likely to be about making a deposit, so they get a quick response. It follows that there is plenty of availablilty in the live chat team, but they choose to ignore chat requests initiated from elsewhere in the software in order to ensure that they have plenty of capacity to badger players to make a deposit, or assist those who appear to have trouble making a deposit.
In this scenario, asking live chat whether a withdrawal is OK isn't going to get anywhere other than a dead chat window for many minutes, and may be why players don't generally think of asking live chat questions because it is made into such an ordeal.
An informed player like myself would avoid Playtech like the plague so as not to encounter this kind of issue. Exceptions to this would be rare, and it would have to be a Playtech casino that has not been involved with this kind of attitude in the past, and is not a "white label" run out of Manila by Paragon International Customer Care. My starting point would be the accredited list, but then I would look for any cases where they have tended to use a technicality to screw over a player, even if it is one where they have their ass covered in the terms as in this case.