Casino Plex not paying my big win out

[bpb]

I don't know if this term was recently added to CasinoPlex's terms. But its in black and white now: 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.

Completely predatory term that should be grounds for immediate blacklisting. The casino protects itself from no fraud or abuse through the use of this term. It's a cash-grab. Period.

I swear to God that some people on this board would be totally fine with a term stating "Players with a first name starting with an "S" will have their winnings and deposit confiscated upon their first withdrawal."

Hey, it's in the terms, right? Personal responsibility ... blah blah blah

 

[lnspin]

Completely predatory term that should be grounds for immediate blacklisting. The casino protects itself from no fraud or abuse through the use of this term. It's a cash-grab. Period.

I swear to God that some people on this board would be totally fine with a term stating "Players with a first name starting with an "S" will have their winnings and deposit confiscated upon their first withdrawal."

Hey, it's in the terms, right? Personal responsibility ... blah blah blah

Any withdrawals requested on Tuesdays will be Immediately confiscated.

If you try to withdraw on an odd numbered day we will take your money. lol

These casinos get more creative every day. Dont they realize how much more money they would make if they paid people quickly, and gave good service, the faster your paid the faster you deposit.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I cant believe how anyone could side with the casino on this matter.
This is equivalent to casino having button in the cashier that reads "push here"
and you lose all your balance if you push it.

The only reason the casino has this term to confiscate winnings if withdraw is intitiated prior meeting wagering,
is in order to make more money out of the careless people.
The casino would not lose anything if they just removed the term. its win-win for them.

I would say the term has been "involuntarily broken through deception".

The player was given information that indicated the WR had been completed when they visited the banking section, so as far as they were concerned, they would not be in breach of this term. Having read the term or not would have made no difference at all, it appeared as though there were no outstanding WR to trigger it and any related terms in any case.

The way Playtech software offers you a bonus just after a deposit where an offer was not expected also leads the player to just click "accept" and make general assumptions that "standard" bonus terms will apply. This method of presenting an offer deprives a player of seeing the offer prior to a deposit and taking the time to think about it, perhaps (hopefully) checking for any unexpected deviations from "standard bonus terms", and then depositing with prior intention to select "accept" or "decline" when the offer screen appears. From my experience, you are forced into making the decision there and then, you cannot log out to think about it and check the terms because you are then assumed to have declined the offer. You can't trust live chat either, as if they get involved, they will tell you what it takes to get that deposit right then, not the full picture of what you are about to accept.

Avoiding all this hassle is easy, avoid Playtech.

Hopefully, Playtech will get the message and clean up their act, particularly the white labels, and ensure that players have a means to INDEPENDENTLY and ACCURATELY verify that they have met the terms of an offer that does not involve relying on outsourced front line CS giving the correct answer, or the operator standing by the given answer if it proves to be incorrect.

The worst aspect of all is the blatant theft of progressive payouts by rogue operators who pocket the money having used vague reasons to confiscate the payout from the player, instead of at least returning the voided payout to the pool so that it can be won legitimately. Playtech are in a position to prevent this, but choose to look the other way instead.

 

[Mouche12]

I would say the term has been "involuntarily broken through deception".

The player was given information that indicated the WR had been completed when they visited the banking section, so as far as they were concerned, they would not be in breach of this term. Having read the term or not would have made no difference at all, it appeared as though there were no outstanding WR to trigger it and any related terms in any case.

The way Playtech software offers you a bonus just after a deposit where an offer was not expected also leads the player to just click "accept" and make general assumptions that "standard" bonus terms will apply. This method of presenting an offer deprives a player of seeing the offer prior to a deposit and taking the time to think about it, perhaps (hopefully) checking for any unexpected deviations from "standard bonus terms", and then depositing with prior intention to select "accept" or "decline" when the offer screen appears. From my experience, you are forced into making the decision there and then, you cannot log out to think about it and check the terms because you are then assumed to have declined the offer. You can't trust live chat either, as if they get involved, they will tell you what it takes to get that deposit right then, not the full picture of what you are about to accept.

Avoiding all this hassle is easy, avoid Playtech.

Hopefully, Playtech will get the message and clean up their act, particularly the white labels, and ensure that players have a means to INDEPENDENTLY and ACCURATELY verify that they have met the terms of an offer that does not involve relying on outsourced front line CS giving the correct answer, or the operator standing by the given answer if it proves to be incorrect.

The worst aspect of all is the blatant theft of progressive payouts by rogue operators who pocket the money having used vague reasons to confiscate the payout from the player, instead of at least returning the voided payout to the pool so that it can be won legitimately. Playtech are in a position to prevent this, but choose to look the other way instead.

I fully agree (again) VMW. Is it worthwile submitting a PAB? It's a disgrace that the OP does not at least receives his deposit back. Although I would rather see that he gets all back and continues playing to meet the WR.

I avoid Playtech like the plague having read too many unfortunate experiences...

 

[Nifty29]

FTR and for the benefit of those who can't read too well,:

1. I did NOT say that I agreed with that term. I don't like it at all, in fact. Its bordering on rogue in some ways.


2. I DID say that the term was THERE and that the OP AGREED to it.

3. If players don't WANT to be subject to such awful terms then they should READ them first and choose NOT to play. Its not obligatory to deposit, take a bonus, and then play.

4. Before Playtech bonuses are credited a popup appears with "accept" and "decline" WITH a link to the terms....so TWO opportunities exist to read and reject bad bonus terms. The OP took neither.

5. The "S" in the name term so meaningfully put forward by inspin, if it was enshrined in the terms and was agreed to by the player, would be enforceable IMO. Both parties agreed. The term itself is rogue and the casino should be rogued, BUT that is a totally seperate argument.

6. I would support the casino being "not recommended". I would not support the player being paid etc. If people can't see the distinction between the two issues, then they aren't thinking clearly. Call for the casinos head....sure.....but there are two different issues in play, and the player is responsible for the outcome of one of them.

VWM

The casino didn't force the OP to break the terms. You're applying that requirement incorrectly. The player placed HIMSELF in that position by not READING the terms in the first place. Only if the term was invented afterwards and retroactively applied would your assertions be accurate.

What's with the progressive nonsense? He didn't even play one. Honestly....youre going off on a totally irrelevant rant there (anti casino of course...who knew?)




Mouche.....you're not reading properly, and just taking a "poor player" stance as usual (understandable given your history of troubles with casinos I guess). All his deposits were refunded.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I fully agree (again) VMW. Is it worthwile submitting a PAB? It's a disgrace that the OP does not at least receives his deposit back. Although I would rather see that he gets all back and continues playing to meet the WR.

I avoid Playtech like the plague having read too many unfortunate experiences...

The OP (I believe) was offered back the deposits, but this hardly mitigates the situation.

If I did the same at Fortune Lounge, my balance would be returned to my account and I would be told further wagering was required. In any case, the cashier would give me the CORRECT information about the current status of my obligations, and it would show that there was unfinished WR, and that I would not receive the whole balance should I insist on going ahead with the withdrawal at that stage. In many cases, where early withdrawal with loss of bonus was not allowed, the cashier would block any attempts to withdraw at this point, and the balance would not leave the casino.

The same is true of RTG where coupon bonuses are used, the balance is shown as quarantined, and withdrawable balance shows as zero.

This situation would simply not arise in many other casinos, but arises all too easily with Playtech software, along with a few other brands at the dodgy end of the market. One could easily play for 8 years and never have encountered this before, having always found the software to offer correct guidance at the point of entry to the cashier.

One reason I like Microgaming is that nearly all use Clearplay, and as such it is virtually impossible to be fooled by having the software misrepresent the current WR, as there are at least two places where it is shown, and in most cases the easy way to check is to hover the mouse over the credit display in the lobby and check the bonus balance, which if shown as 0.00 indicates no WR to be outstanding.

 

[bigjohn]

FTR and for the benefit of those who can't read too well,:

1. I did NOT say that I agreed with that term. I don't like it at all, in fact. Its bordering on rogue in some ways.


2. I DID say that the term was THERE and that the OP AGREED to it.

3. If players don't WANT to be subject to such awful terms then they should READ them first and choose NOT to play. Its not obligatory to deposit, take a bonus, and then play.

4. Before Playtech bonuses are credited a popup appears with "accept" and "decline" WITH a link to the terms....so TWO opportunities exist to read and reject bad bonus terms. The OP took neither.

5. The "S" in the name term so meaningfully put forward by inspin, if it was enshrined in the terms and was agreed to by the player, would be enforceable IMO. Both parties agreed. The term itself is rogue and the casino should be rogued, BUT that is a totally seperate argument.

6. I would support the casino being "not recommended". I would not support the player being paid etc. If people can't see the distinction between the two issues, then they aren't thinking clearly. Call for the casinos head....sure.....but there are two different issues in play, and the player is responsible for the outcome of one of them.

I like the law-and-order approach outlined here.

If everyone took the time to read and understand the T&C's and then avoided the establishments with dodgy, predatory, or vague terms those establishments would soon disappear.

By playing at any of these places with your own money you are only encouraging them to continue.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I like the law-and-order approach outlined here.

If everyone took the time to read and understand the T&C's and then avoided the establishments with dodgy, predatory, or vague terms those establishments would soon disappear.

By playing at any of these places with your own money you are only encouraging them to continue.

Unfortunately, they don't disappear, they evolve. Where players read and abide by the terms, they just find something else to use, and here we have "spirit of the bonus" that covers situations where all the terms have been adhered to, but the casino still doesn't want to pay.

In this case, the term is not the real issue, the issue is that the software mislead the player into withdrawing by erroneously displaying information indicating that WR had been completed. Reading the terms does not help in this kind of situation. It is also not obvious what the intent of such a term is until it is too late, so also too late to avoid the establishment.

The best that can be done is to ensure that such actions receive maximum publicity so that players who have not fallen into the same trap can know what to expect.

What players can know from this is that the software gives the wrong information about the state of WR, and cannot be trusted. We also know that in general terms front line CS also cannot be trusted to give the correct information, so any answer has to be in writing, not purely over the phone or live chat. Even then, not all operators will stand by incorrect information given by front line CS, and players pay the price for front line CS getting it wrong.

Determining which operators to avoid is tricky, and the best approach may be a blanket personal blacklisting. This is a problem for operators who find they get lumped in to the dodgy bracket based on the behaviours of the majority that use the same software.

A graphic example of this is the fallout after Bryan decided to toss ALL Rival casinos into the "not recommended" section, which had many operators squealing about how unfair it was to judge them purely based on them using the same software as others that had behaved badly. It seems to have lead to a breakdown in the relationship between Bryan and Rival at many levels.

Such globally predatory terms are everywhere, but reputable casinos rarely, if ever, use them. Instead, they are present as an ass covering exercise, with no intent to actually use them against a regular player. Casino Plex has used this term as it's FIRST option, so clearly they intend to use it wherever possible, rather than very rarely as an ass covering strategy.

If casinos were judged solely on the content of the full set of terms, they should all be avoided, even the accredited ones. They ALL have overly one sided sets of terms favouring themselves, and leaving the player with virtually no rights in the relationship.

 

[Mouche12]

FTR and for the benefit of those who can't read too well,:

1. I did NOT say that I agreed with that term. I don't like it at all, in fact. Its bordering on rogue in some ways.


2. I DID say that the term was THERE and that the OP AGREED to it.

3. If players don't WANT to be subject to such awful terms then they should READ them first and choose NOT to play. Its not obligatory to deposit, take a bonus, and then play.

4. Before Playtech bonuses are credited a popup appears with "accept" and "decline" WITH a link to the terms....so TWO opportunities exist to read and reject bad bonus terms. The OP took neither.

5. The "S" in the name term so meaningfully put forward by inspin, if it was enshrined in the terms and was agreed to by the player, would be enforceable IMO. Both parties agreed. The term itself is rogue and the casino should be rogued, BUT that is a totally seperate argument.

6. I would support the casino being "not recommended". I would not support the player being paid etc. If people can't see the distinction between the two issues, then they aren't thinking clearly. Call for the casinos head....sure.....but there are two different issues in play, and the player is responsible for the outcome of one of them.

VWM

The casino didn't force the OP to break the terms. You're applying that requirement incorrectly. The player placed HIMSELF in that position by not READING the terms in the first place. Only if the term was invented afterwards and retroactively applied would your assertions be accurate.

What's with the progressive nonsense? He didn't even play one. Honestly....youre going off on a totally irrelevant rant there (anti casino of course...who knew?)




Mouche.....you're not reading properly, and just taking a "poor player" stance as usual (understandable given your history of troubles with casinos I guess). All his deposits were refunded.

@Nifty - No Sirree, (un)fortunately I am my own worst enemy, never the casinos - I always read the T&Cs very carefully and if they seem unfair I contact support. Also, I would definitely not have opted for a meagre $100 bonus on a $500 deposit, but losing $17000 under these conditions? There is also the concept of 'unfair conditions' and I do believe the OP fell victim to one of those. If I were the OP I would submit a PAB.

@VWM - your quote "In this case, the term is not the real issue, the issue is that the software mislead the player into withdrawing by erroneously displaying information indicating that WR had been completed. Reading the terms does not help in this kind of situation. It is also not obvious what the intent of such a term is until it is too late, so also too late to avoid the establishment." hits the nail on the head.

I stand corrected - this seems indeed the core of this issue.

 

[LaHutti]

IMHO a term like that, should be enough to send them directly to the pit.
What other purpose can it possibly serve, than to try and trap players, and steal their winnings ? (Seriously I want to know).

The money should of course stay in the players account, and he should be told, that he has more wagering to do, before a withdrawal can be permitted. Anything else is simple theft.
Stealing players winnings is not ok, whether they put it in their T&C's, or not, that they're going to steal. There has to be a limit to how stupidly casinos are allowed to act, before it's considered both rogue and theft.
IMO that limit has been far exceeded here, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with a player not being adult, responsible, or in any way shape or form less intelligent than the average person. It has everything to do with a casino, that is deliberately trying to steal legit winnings from a player, for no reason what so ever, other than they can, because they, somewhere in a "term", told the player that they were going to. Not only is it rogue...it's stupid!

 

[Nifty29]

IMHO a term like that, should be enough to send them directly to the pit.
What other purpose can it possibly serve, than to try and trap players, and steal their winnings ? (Seriously I want to know).

The money should of course stay in the players account, and he should be told, that he has more wagering to do, before a withdrawal can be permitted. Anything else is simple theft.
Stealing players winnings is not ok, whether they put it in their T&C's, or not, that they're going to steal. There has to be a limit to how stupidly casinos are allowed to act, before it's considered both rogue and theft.
IMO that limit has been far exceeded here, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with a player not being adult, responsible, or in any way shape or form less intelligent than the average person. It has everything to do with a casino, that is deliberately trying to steal legit winnings from a player, for no reason what so ever, other than they can, because they, somewhere in a "term", told the player that they were going to. Not only is it rogue...it's stupid!

I agree....except you're missing one vital aspect of this particular case.

The OP admitted they did not READ the terms AT ALL. The OP had NO idea what the rules were, OR what WR was attached.....NOT because they were not provided, but because they didn't READ or attempt to read them, even when presented with them when asked to "accept" or "decline" the bonus. If the OP HAD read the terms, and understood that if he withdrew before meeting WR he would lose the lot, then this thread wouldn't exist. How anyone can say he bears no responsibility beggars belief. Even the OP admits it.

Accepting a bonus or any other promotion without even attempting to understand what you are accepting IS the very definition of irresponsible. Almost NOBODY here would get caught by this term, but most everyone here would read the terms before the accepted the bonus, OR contact support to clarify anything they don't understand.

IF the OP had asked support for the terms, and they told him that this term didn't apply or didn't exist, then it is a different story.

Yes, its a predatory term....which is 100% avoidable just by reading the terms and knowing what you're agreeing to. There is no excuse for that term, but there is no excuse for being caught by it either....it really does come down to personal responsibility.

Rogue the casino....sure. It is a totally seperate debate to HOW the player was affected by it i.e. his own carelessness and irresponsibility. I mean, who accepts anything "free" these days under ANY circumstances and doesn't check to see what the catch is...and there always is a catch. It goes far beyond online casinos. It's crazy, and irresponsible, especially when it is only a 20% bonus.

 

[MisterBJ]

The terms are there. The OP accepted them. He tried to withdrawal (Break his contract) without fulfilling the terms of agreement. Are the terms fair? Apparently they were fair to the OP when he agreed to them. It's like walking into a pawn shop. You wanna to pawn something and get it back out of pawn in a month. Well the pawn broker tells you, you got 30 days and 28% interest rate added on. If you decided to accept those terms. Both parties are expecting to satisfy those terms within 30 days. If not, you agree that the pawn broker may sell your item. The OP could have easily went to slots and wagered the remaining balance and cashed out 10K+. But instead he decided to break his agreement and in doing so. The casino exercised the conditions within those terms.

 

[LaHutti]

I strongly suggest that OP PAB this one. It's got to be one of the worst I've seen so far ....and I've seen many.
If nothing else, to get this outfit put where they belong.

If we're at a point where a casino can blatantly steal 17K from a player for this (non)reason, and hide behind an extremely rogue term, this business is going down the drain, and it deserves it in my opinion. We're not talking just a little money, that you can just shake off. This is really upsetting reading.

 

[Nifty29]

I strongly suggest that OP PAB this one. It's got to be one of the worst I've seen so far ....and I've seen many.
If nothing else, to get this outfit put where they belong.

If we're at a point where a casino can blatantly steal 17K from a player for this (non)reason, and hide behind an extremely rogue term, this business is going down the drain, and it deserves it in my opinion. We're not talking just a little money, that you can just shake off. This is really upsetting reading.

Why should the amount matter? You're saying if it was $100 you would just say "oh well its $100 live and learn". If you really believe what you're expecting me to believe, then surely its the principle not the money? IMO you've kinda diluted the strength of your argument right there.

Its difficult to see how a PAB could succeed given the only one not adhering to the mutually accepted terms is the player. Unless of course the casino relents and replaces the balance to be wagered further, which I would think they'd have done already if they were a decent operator, which they clearly aren't.

Remember, there are two seperate issues here......a player breaching a term, and a casino having a roguish term. One is the players fault, the other is not.

 

[LaHutti]

So in your opinion, it's ok for a casino to do ANYTHING, as long as they can hide behind a "term", regardless of how rogue and stupid it is ?
This is where I strongly disagree, and where I see CM come in, to help both players and casinos play fair. This is in NO way fair to the player, and he was put in this situation thanks to a roguish term, in the first place. Anyone who can't see, that this term was put in there, with only one intention, need their eyes examined.

I know your next argument will be, that he "accepted" the term, but again....how rogue terms should we let a casino come up with., before we as players, and one of the best sources for help online (CM), say enough is enough ? As I said before, in my opinion, there has to be a limit to what they can get away with, and that limit has been crossed in this case. You can not steal from people, just because you tell them first, that that's your intention. That doesn't make it legal or morally correct.

I agree that the amount is of less importance, but I figured it would be easier for me personally, to shake off 50 bucks, tell people how rotten their operation is, and not return...
but yeah, you're right. The amount is not very important.

I feel a PAB would be good, to let this casino prove themselves as a serious player, and not just a bunch of crooks, chance their terms to be fair, and do the right thing towards this player, before we fry them.

Why should the amount matter? You're saying if it was $100 you would just say "oh well its $100 live and learn". If you really believe what you're expecting me to believe, then surely its the principle not the money? IMO you've kinda diluted the strength of your argument right there.

Its difficult to see how a PAB could succeed given the only one not adhering to the mutually accepted terms is the player. Unless of course the casino relents and replaces the balance to be wagered further, which I would think they'd have done already if they were a decent operator, which they clearly aren't.

Remember, there are two seperate issues here......a player breaching a term, and a casino having a roguish term. One is the players fault, the other is not.

 

[bpb]

The terms are there. The OP accepted them. He tried to withdrawal (Break his contract) without fulfilling the terms of agreement. Are the terms fair? Apparently they were fair to the OP when he agreed to them. It's like walking into a pawn shop. You wanna to pawn something and get it back out of pawn in a month. Well the pawn broker tells you, you got 30 days and 28% interest rate added on. If you decided to accept those terms. Both parties are expecting to satisfy those terms within 30 days. If not, you agree that the pawn broker may sell your item. The OP could have easily went to slots and wagered the remaining balance and cashed out 10K+. But instead he decided to break his agreement and in doing so. The casino exercised the conditions within those terms.

Yeah, it's actually nothing like your example. But whatever ...

 

[lnspin]

What if the OP requested a withdrawal when he had say only $300 left, figuring hey i dont want to lose anymore, would they return all his deposits back for breaking the terms?

 

[MisterBJ]

So in your opinion, it's ok for a casino to do ANYTHING, as long as they can hide behind a "term", regardless of how rogue and stupid it is ?
This is where I strongly disagree, and where I see CM come in, to help both players and casinos play fair. This is in NO way fair to the player, and he was put in this situation thanks to a roguish term, in the first place. Anyone who can't see, that this term was put in there, with only one intention, need their eyes examined.

I know your next argument will be, that he "accepted" the term, but again....how rogue terms should we let a casino come up with., before we as players, and one of the best sources for help online (CM), say enough is enough ? As I said before, in my opinion, there has to be a limit to what they can get away with, and that limit has been crossed in this case. You can not steal from people, just because you tell them first, that that's your intention. That doesn't make it legal or morally correct.

I agree that the amount is of less importance, but I figured it would be easier for me personally, to shake off 50 bucks, tell people how rotten their operation is, and not return...
but yeah, you're right. The amount is not very important.

I feel a PAB would be good, to let this casino prove themselves as a serious player, and not just a bunch of crooks, chance their terms to be fair, and do the right thing towards this player, before we fry them.

I remember back in 1998. I was staying at the Grand Casino in Biloxi, MS. This guy had been "Sitting" and playing Caribbean Stud Poker all night long. As he played the game, he would bet $1 on the progressive. After a while I went back to my room. I came back down around 2 AM, and the same guy was still playing. This time he was "Standing" up and playing. About 30 mins or so. He hit the progressive for a Royal Flush (Over $100,000). They didn't pay him!!! You know why? Right there on the table on the Progressive Rule Chart. YOU MUST BE "SITTING" IN YOUR SIT AT THE TIME OF PROGRESSIVE WIN. He wasn't - I felt sorry for him. But he agreed when he took his first bet. That he would be "SITTING" while playing.

 

[MisterBJ]

Yeah, it's actually nothing like your example. But whatever ...

Yeah Whatever...:clap:

 

[LaHutti]

I don't know what to make of that ... I would like a link though.

Anyways....a rule that says you must be sitting while playing a card game, doesn't seem like a rogue rule to me, but only natural.
The casino, I'm sure, would have made him aware of this, pretty fast, if that was the rule of the house.

I remember back in 1998. I was staying at the Grand Casino in Biloxi, MS. This guy had been "Sitting" and playing Caribbean Stud Poker all night long. As he played the game, he would bet $1 on the progressive. After a while I went back to my room. I came back down around 2 AM, and the same guy was still playing. This time he was "Standing" up and playing. About 30 mins or so. He hit the progressive for a Royal Flush (Over $100,000). They didn't pay him!!! You know why? Right there on the table on the Progressive Rule Chart. YOU MUST BE "SITTING" IN YOUR SIT AT THE TIME OF PROGRESSIVE WIN. He wasn't - I felt sorry for him. But he agreed when he took his first bet. That he would be "SITTING" while playing.

 

[lnspin]

I remember back in 1998. I was staying at the Grand Casino in Biloxi, MS. This guy had been "Sitting" and playing Caribbean Stud Poker all night long. As he played the game, he would bet $1 on the progressive. After a while I went back to my room. I came back down around 2 AM, and the same guy was still playing. This time he was "Standing" up and playing. About 30 mins or so. He hit the progressive for a Royal Flush (Over $100,000). They didn't pay him!!! You know why? Right there on the table on the Progressive Rule Chart. YOU MUST BE "SITTING" IN YOUR SIT AT THE TIME OF PROGRESSIVE WIN. He wasn't - I felt sorry for him. But he agreed when he took his first bet. That he would be "SITTING" while playing.

Funny, i got told this by a dealer like 2 months ago in harrahs new orleans.. Reason was i got up to get cigs out of my pocket while she was dealing

 

[Mouche12]

I think the amount does matter in this story. The higher the amount, the more tricks a casino will play, any tricks, NOT to pay out or at least delay payment. And like VWM said (which I had initially overlooked), the software indicated that the WR had been met. The OP should not fall victim to this.

I saw one complaint at AskGamblers about a player having to send a notarised document for verification by postal mail to Casino Plex. The issue was resolved in the end, but it also involved a considerable cashout and this casino was making it quite difficult for the player. The player received his winnings over the course of 1 month.

I am with Lahutte too: please submit a PAB!

 

[dionysus]

Sorry, with Nifty on this one. It'a term, he agreed, there's the end result.
I think it's a BAD term, but if the op didn't like it, he shouldn't have agreed to it. Lots of casinos and businesses offer terrible terms. When we feel that way, the smart thing is not to use those services.

 

[Slotster!]

No one is disputing that players should always read and be aware of the terms and conditions before playing.

HOWEVER

If the story here is to be taken as factual,It's the actions and the nature of the behaviour by this casino that raise cause for concern.

Simply put, regardless of terms or rules or anything like that, an organisation should treat you fairly, honestly and with transparency - that is not what has happened here. To put it another way, if a casino expects you to rigidly and truthfully follow their terms and conditions - an essential aspect of that relationship is reciprocal rigidity and openness.

Not gladly hoovering up your money then a massive FU/"read the t&c's dickhead" when you hit withdraw. Moreover, any term that involves flattening your entire balance for doing something the casino physically allows you to deserves them being thrown in the pit full stop.

 

[Nifty29]

I think the amount does matter in this story. The higher the amount, the more tricks a casino will play, any tricks, NOT to pay out or at least delay payment. And like VWM said (which I had initially overlooked), the software indicated that the WR had been met. The OP should not fall victim to this.

I saw one complaint at AskGamblers about a player having to send a notarised document for verification by postal mail to Casino Plex. The issue was resolved in the end, but it also involved a considerable cashout and this casino was making it quite difficult for the player. The player received his winnings over the course of 1 month.

I am with Lahutte too: please submit a PAB!

I don't see anywhere that the OP stated that "the software told him WR was met". Can you show where he did? VWM makes stuff up sometimes so don't rely solely on that.

The term is unfair. No doubt. It stinks in fact. Problem is, the OP was not forced to accept it. He did so voluntarily. In his words he "just accepted the bonus". Nothing untoward by the casino here.....the term was clearly written and the terms were offered before he accepted.....he just didn't bother reading them.

Its obvious that some members believe that ignorance is a defence. Don't bother reading the terms first.....just play the bonus and raise holy hell later when you lose your winnings due to a term you think is unfair in retrospect.

Thing is, the OP might be getting some support from the lynch mob, but its not going to get him paid.....but taking personal responsibility in future will make sure it doesn't happen again.

For those talking about adherence to terms working both ways.....the player was the only one who broke any terms, so I'm not sure how that argument is even relevant here.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I agree....except you're missing one vital aspect of this particular case.

The OP admitted they did not READ the terms AT ALL. The OP had NO idea what the rules were, OR what WR was attached.....NOT because they were not provided, but because they didn't READ or attempt to read them, even when presented with them when asked to "accept" or "decline" the bonus. If the OP HAD read the terms, and understood that if he withdrew before meeting WR he would lose the lot, then this thread wouldn't exist. How anyone can say he bears no responsibility beggars belief. Even the OP admits it.

Accepting a bonus or any other promotion without even attempting to understand what you are accepting IS the very definition of irresponsible. Almost NOBODY here would get caught by this term, but most everyone here would read the terms before the accepted the bonus, OR contact support to clarify anything they don't understand.

IF the OP had asked support for the terms, and they told him that this term didn't apply or didn't exist, then it is a different story.

Yes, its a predatory term....which is 100% avoidable just by reading the terms and knowing what you're agreeing to. There is no excuse for that term, but there is no excuse for being caught by it either....it really does come down to personal responsibility.

Rogue the casino....sure. It is a totally seperate debate to HOW the player was affected by it i.e. his own carelessness and irresponsibility. I mean, who accepts anything "free" these days under ANY circumstances and doesn't check to see what the catch is...and there always is a catch. It goes far beyond online casinos. It's crazy, and irresponsible, especially when it is only a 20% bonus.

You are in denial. Knowledge of the term is irrelevant, the software showed the wrong information. Even if the OP had read the term, he would STILL have withdrawn having seen information in the cashier that WR had been completed, and so this thread would STILL exist, even if the discussion was focussed more on the cashier giving false information.

Reading the terms on a surprise pop-up offer is NOT by any means simple. You CANNOT just bugger off and trawl for the relevant terms as you MUST make a decision there and then, and BEFORE you navigate away from the pop-up to either play, or read some terms about bonuses. It's different when you are sent the offer by email before you even open the software, or find it in the lobby, as you can go away and do some research before being presented with the decision.

The surprise popup offer is a common Playtech tactic, designed to rush the player into making a decision before they have time to think about it. This leads to "stupid" choices, like thinking a $100 phantom bonus on a $500 deposit with an unknown WR is a good offer for playing Roulette.

Declining the bonus does not always help either, especially when playing at Grand Duke who will then confiscate winnings for "using a system"

The casino is merely an "advantage casino", using clever marketing and presentation to manipulate the players into making bad decisions. They can hide behind pages of terms and conditions, but it doesn't change what they are in the same way that an advantage player sails as close to the edge as possible, but does not actually break any terms and conditions.

If you take the view that this kind of "warfare" is OK for the casino, then it is just as OK for the clever advantage player to ruthlessly exploit badly constructed terms and conditions - after all, the people who wrote them are also responsible adults, and so are those that design badly thought out +EV promotions. Funny how the casino screams "unfair" when they get tripped up by the advantage player who just happens to be better at maths than their promotions department, yet squeal that players should pay the price for their own mistakes however unfair it might be.

 

[The Dude]

Just to chime in here real quick, has anyone bothered to contact the Casino Rep? This thread is on its eighth page and no one has mentioned doing so.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/

@ the OP - it's your responsibility when posting complaints in this forum to contact the Casino Rep.

2.2 - Do not post a complaint without notifying the appropriate casino representative by either PM or email. The casino representatives are listed here.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/help/forum-rules/

There are reasons for this. #1 - so we have a full picture on the issue. There are two sides of every coin - we are only privy to your side.
#2 - so we don't have +8 pages of people bickering over scenarios imaginary or otherwise.

The complaints forum is for solving complaints. It's not just a place to vent off steam. I understand your anger and vexation, but let's get this resolved in a fair manner.

I'll make contact with the casino resp so we can get to the bottom of this.

 

[Nifty29]

You are in denial. Knowledge of the term is irrelevant, the software showed the wrong information. Even if the OP had read the term, he would STILL have withdrawn having seen information in the cashier that WR had been completed, and so this thread would STILL exist, even if the discussion was focussed more on the cashier giving false information.

Reading the terms on a surprise pop-up offer is NOT by any means simple. You CANNOT just bugger off and trawl for the relevant terms as you MUST make a decision there and then, and BEFORE you navigate away from the pop-up to either play, or read some terms about bonuses. It's different when you are sent the offer by email before you even open the software, or find it in the lobby, as you can go away and do some research before being presented with the decision.

The surprise popup offer is a common Playtech tactic, designed to rush the player into making a decision before they have time to think about it. This leads to "stupid" choices, like thinking a $100 phantom bonus on a $500 deposit with an unknown WR is a good offer for playing Roulette.

Declining the bonus does not always help either, especially when playing at Grand Duke who will then confiscate winnings for "using a system"

The casino is merely an "advantage casino", using clever marketing and presentation to manipulate the players into making bad decisions. They can hide behind pages of terms and conditions, but it doesn't change what they are in the same way that an advantage player sails as close to the edge as possible, but does not actually break any terms and conditions.

If you take the view that this kind of "warfare" is OK for the casino, then it is just as OK for the clever advantage player to ruthlessly exploit badly constructed terms and conditions - after all, the people who wrote them are also responsible adults, and so are those that design badly thought out +EV promotions. Funny how the casino screams "unfair" when they get tripped up by the advantage player who just happens to be better at maths than their promotions department, yet squeal that players should pay the price for their own mistakes however unfair it might be.

Sorry....not in denial.....never even been to Egypt or Africa....

Please quote where the OP states "the software said I had met WR". Thankyou.

Surprise pop-up....LMAO....you think there should be a pop-up telling the player there is a pop-up with a bonus coming? Seriously. Players ASKED PT to implement this very system for years so that players could accept or decline a bonus AND have a link to terms provided to stop BS bonuses being added on the sly. The OP had the terms link presented to them.....they didn't make use of it....they also had a decline button presented to them....they didn't use it. At least two clear chances to make an informed choice that they ignored. Sorry, but I don't see what else the casino could do other than call them to TRIPLE check

The only one squealing here is you. Its got nothing to do with APs or badly constructed terms blah blah...its about one case where the player broke very clear terms, as shitty as they are.

 

[CasinoPlex]

answers to your question

So i deposited about 500 Euros, and then they gave only about 100 Bonus, so played for a few hours, and finally made about 17 000 Euros, and decided to withdraw my money, next thing i know they say can only withdraw 1500 Euro, and after that my amount is showing 0 EURO, i am very upset about this! Is this normal? i had 17 000 EURO and now its not even showing after i asked to make the 1500 withdrawal?

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.

Let me know if you have further questions..

Regards,

Martin

 

[Nate]

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.

I can understand him not clearing the WR completely but he made subsequent deposits and took NEW Bonuses - Correct me here if I am wrong but because he had a €1.30 balance from the VERY first Bonus his winnings were removed??

Hmmm - I could be wrong here but this is very predatory!

Nate

 

[chuchu59]

Martin,

Thanks for chiming in though I am as confused as ever. I was not aware that the software (playtech I assume) allowed new bonuses before the bonuses in force were cleared. That would lead to confusion. Meanwhile, am I right in saying that where existing bonuses are still in force any wagering with new bonuses will be declared null and void and that the winnings were not confiscated purely because the OP made a withdrawal in contravention of your terms.

 

[Nottsogreen]

Hmmm..

Been following this with interest.

IF (and it's a big if!) this boils down to not clearing a previous WR from 2 previous bonuses that were ran down to <€5 , but the stickyness of the WR remained, then that is a different issue to NOT meeting a WR on teh €100 bonus.

If that IS the case, and it looks like it is, then i'm with Nate...This is predatory.....

 

[Nifty29]

Amazing how different things look when you have both sides.

Its common knowledge that your balance should be zero (or less than $1) before taking another bonus at just about any online casino. Its yet another careless move by the player.

Its also not uncommon for bonus WR to carry over. Personally, I don't like it, but if it is written in the terms, which it appears it is, then the player has the CHOICE to not take bonuses. The OP wouldn't know about the carry over WR because they didn't READ the terms.

The player has been adversely affected by TWO terms now, and its his own fault in both cases. The casino has enforved the terms as they are entitled to do....they have done nothing wrong.

 

[CasinoPlex]

I can understand him not clearing the WR completely but he made subsequent deposits and took NEW Bonuses - Correct me here if I am wrong but because he had a €1.30 balance from the VERY first Bonus his winnings were removed??

Hmmm - I could be wrong here but this is very predatory!

Nate

Hi Nate.

His account should have been 0 before making the new deposits as otherwise the bonus is not cleared. Even if had made a new deposit without accepting the new bonus, he would still have to continue the wagering of the bonus unless its stated the bonus is removed when making a new deposit or if he potentially contacted our support team for advice.

/Martin

 

[CasinoPlex]

Martin,

Thanks for chiming in though I am as confused as ever. I was not aware that the software (playtech I assume) allowed new bonuses before the bonuses in force were cleared. That would lead to confusion. Meanwhile, am I right in saying that where existing bonuses are still in force any wagering with new bonuses will be declared null and void and that the winnings were not confiscated purely because the OP made a withdrawal in contravention of your terms.

It depends on the set up for each casino and what kind of promotion it is. Some bonuses you cannot get until you fully cleared the wagering or you account is below -5. Therefore players should always read terms and conditions or contact support regardless of the casino they are playing on if not sure about the bonus conditions.

/Martin

 

[Nate]

Hi Nate.

His account should have been 0 before making the new deposits as otherwise the bonus is not cleared. Even if had made a new deposit without accepting the new bonus, he would still have to continue the wagering of the bonus unless its stated the bonus is removed when making a new deposit or if he potentially contacted our support team for advice.

/Martin

I hear you Martin - Some places ONLY have the WR nullified once you reach zero. Based on this case, it is evident that the OP was negligent, however; to HOLD 17 000 Euro based on a 1.30 is evident that CasinoPlex is determined to enforce this rule in order to escape paying such a big amount.

I see both sides of the Story - but unfortunately I cannot say I agree with him having to pay the price of 17 000 because of 1.30 - Its actually insane. Have you afforded him the opportunity to clear the WR? ... Or was it a case of 'Gotcha'... confiscated...

Sadly this is the difference between playing at a Trustworthy place and playing at Non - Accredited Casinos. If this were me, I'd be going mental - Then again if it were 32Red, the OP would have had his money... Sadly... It's NOT.

Nate

 

[CasinoPlex]

I hear you Martin - Some places ONLY have the WR nullified once you reach zero. Based on this case, it is evident that the OP was negligent, however; to HOLD 17 000 Euro based on a 1.30 is evident that CasinoPlex is determined to enforce this rule in order to escape paying such a big amount.

I see both sides of the Story - but unfortunately I cannot say I agree with him having to pay the price of 17 000 because of 1.30 - Its actually insane. Have you afforded him the opportunity to clear the WR? ... Or was it a case of 'Gotcha'... confiscated...

Sadly this is the difference between playing at a Trustworthy place and playing at Non - Accredited Casinos. If this were me, I'd be going mental - Then again if it were 32Red, the OP would have had his money... Sadly... It's NOT.

Nate

Hi Nate.

If the player had contacted us asking for advise regarding the balance and wagering before making a new deposit we would without hesitation have removed the wagering for the balance of 1.30 since its so small. Unfortunately he did not do this and therefore he continued wagering the same bonus as I explained earlier.

Its unfortunate that he lost the winnings, but the player did not check our bonus terms or contact us for advise and therefore the winnings are lost according to our bonus terms and conditions.

/Martin

 

[Simmo!]

I see both sides of the Story - but unfortunately I cannot say I agree with him having to pay the price of 17 000 because of 1.30 - Its actually insane. Have you afforded him the opportunity to clear the WR?

Gotta agree. If he got that low and re-deposited then there's no way that 1.30 should come into play. And even if it does, the software should warn you before you re-deposit.

If the amount remaining was more than the player's average bet then fair enough, but there's no way that applies here. I think Casinoplex should look at this again and apply a little common sense to the situation. This definitely screams predatory.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I can understand him not clearing the WR completely but he made subsequent deposits and took NEW Bonuses - Correct me here if I am wrong but because he had a €1.30 balance from the VERY first Bonus his winnings were removed??

Hmmm - I could be wrong here but this is very predatory!

Nate

This is EXACTLY what the rep is saying. The WR just built and built throughout these deposits because of this €1.30

The rep defends the instant confiscation of the 17K even though this predatory system would fool many, including those who read the terms. Again for the benefit of Nifty, even reading the terms would not have helped here, as the software does not give the correct information about the state of WR. It may not state that WR has been met, but it is indicated by the statement that if a withdrawal is made, the bonus credited will be removed, something that is routine with the completion of WR, and hence implies to the player that WR has been completed.

If the casino KNOWS of this shortcoming in the software, then their use of this "one strike and you are out" is even MORE predatory than I thought.

If anything, the rep has made matters WORSE by stating that the root cause of all this is a balance of €1.30 from two deposits prior. Given that there is no way for a player to see that the WR has been carried, there is no way for them to keep track of their correct WR status over subsequent deposits, which makes this term even more predatory.

If anything, a player not noticing the repeated carry over of WR over a number of deposits would mean they faced a WR so large in the end that they may as well flush their money down the toilet.

Intercasino had a carry over of WR, but at least there was a section in the cashier that players could check, and thus immediately spot any carry over from a prior deposit.

Now if the popup has been implemented "because players asked for it", how come the cashier has not been updated to protect players from making a withdrawal too early. Why also, despite even higher demand, has a decent WR tracking indicator not been implemented?

Given these circumstances, the OP reading the terms would have made no difference at all. At best, they would have read the terms for the current bonus, managed to track their WR independently to be 100% certain they had met it, and not relied on the cashier to give them accurate information.

The critical question is how much play did the OP make after making that last $500 deposit and accepting the $100 bonus? If they had at least tracked this correctly, then they stood no chance of staying within this term as players have no access to the information the rep used in their argument that the problem was caused by a carry over cascade from prior deposits.

€1.30 is a "negligible balance", and should never be used as an argument to carry over WR to subsequent deposits. In Microgaming, it isn't. Small balances can also be hard to get rid of as many games just don't allow small enough wagers. One would need to play a slot that allowed a 10c per line bet.

The reps excuse only proves my point. Playtech are inherently predatory in nature, and should be avoided. A reputable casino would not carry over WR for the sake of €1.30, and would put the balance back for further WR at least once, accompanied by advice to the player on how to be certain they had made the WR before attempting to withdraw again.

I have a straight question for the rep.


If a player accepts an offer, how exactly do they check that they have made the correct WR before they submit a withdrawal?

I will not accept "ask live chat" as an answer, this is clearly not satisfactory after over 15 years of software development.

In order to comply with a term, a player needs enough information to allow them to assess whether they have done so.

I, personally, would not go near Casino Plex now both sides of the story have been revealed, it makes things even worse. I am already suspicious of the whole Playtech stable, and this is clearly a case of "business as usual", and only strengthens my view that Playtech is best avoided as a brand. They join Rival and Top Game in my personal "to be avoided" list.

 

[Borgie]

Hi Nate.

If the player had contacted us asking for advise regarding the balance and wagering before making a new deposit we would without hesitation have removed the wagering for the balance of 1.30 since its so small. Unfortunately he did not do this and therefore he continued wagering the same bonus as I explained earlier.

Its unfortunate that he lost the winnings, but the player did not check our bonus terms or contact us for advise and therefore the winnings are lost according to our bonus terms and conditions.

/Martin

There is no dispute that these are the rules laid down and the naughty player rightly suffers!? Martin is right. Nifty is right. Do I think it smells yucky - yes I do . Would I play there - no I would not ! I am back off to the soft sweet smelling, friendly , warm huggy safe place that is 32 red and others like them !

When I play 32 red and try to withdraw when I still have wagering requirements I can't make that withdrawal , when I play Ladbrokes and try to withdraw when I still have wagering requirements I either can't or I get a warning as to what will happen if i do. This I like , this makes me happy !!

 

[Balthazar]

Hi Nate.

If the player had contacted us asking for advise regarding the balance and wagering before making a new deposit we would without hesitation have removed the wagering for the balance of 1.30

If the player knew, he'd not have contacted you he'd have played it. It takes 2 seconds and can be done in one single spin.

Let's see here...

Was it written in the terms? Yes.
Was the player negligent not to read them? Yes.
Is it completely retarded and borderline dishonest to use a €1.30 technicality to confiscate €17,000? Hell yes!

That's as bad as the worst insurance companies out there.

 

[chuchu59]

It depends on the set up for each casino and what kind of promotion it is. Some bonuses you cannot get until you fully cleared the wagering or you account is below -5. Therefore players should always read terms and conditions or contact support regardless of the casino they are playing on if not sure about the bonus conditions.

/Martin

By crediting the bonus on a new deposit it would mean that the player has to complete the total wagering for both bonuses before being entitled to make a valid cashout. The bonus was credited by the casino and no terms are not excuses for confiscation of winnings. Same as the consumer laws over here. Department stores used to have a condition which stated that 'Once a purchase is made goods are unreturnable'. The consumer law nullified all this because it is predatory and unfair. To me, its rather similar. The least that should be done is reinstate the balance and ask the OP to complete wagering for both bonuses combined.

 

[Nate]

Hi Nate.

If the player had contacted us asking for advise regarding the balance and wagering before making a new deposit we would without hesitation have removed the wagering for the balance of 1.30 since its so small. Unfortunately he did not do this and therefore he continued wagering the same bonus as I explained earlier.

Its unfortunate that he lost the winnings, but the player did not check our bonus terms or contact us for advise and therefore the winnings are lost according to our bonus terms and conditions.

/Martin

Whats the difference now Martin? ... The difference is 17k - If you could retroactively remove the bonus then ... why not now? I think its REALLY a trivial issue and the real issue is you having to pay such a lump sum.

I'm sorry when did discretion fly out the window?

It's appalling and actually predatory - It Sends a CLEAR message to everyone. Make a stupid slip up and it WILL cost you 17k

Sorry - I do not see any justification in you holding his funds other than a free ticket not to pay 17k.

Nate

 

[MisterBJ]

Gotta agree. If he got that low and re-deposited then there's no way that 1.30 should come into play. And even if it does, the software should warn you before you re-deposit.

If the amount remaining was more than the player's average bet then fair enough, but there's no way that applies here. I think Casinoplex should look at this again and apply a little common sense to the situation. This definitely screams predatory.

LOOK, the guy with 8 years experience. Did what some newbies does, deposit and play. Never reading any terms and then getting bit in the end. $0 account balance has been the norm when taking a new bonus. Since deposit bonuses has been around. MG uses this same system today. RTG allows you to play on a new deposit bonus. Without carrying over wagering. As long as your account is below $1. But I don't take that chance. I clear my balance completely. In fact before US players couldn't play there any more. Intercasino and Intertops used to still carry over wagering, on unfulfilled bonuses. Even when the account has ZEROED. Those 2 casinos still got high praises on all the forums. The bottom line is, the OP broke 2 terms - It's his FAULT. And now some blames the casino for enforcing it's power (if you will).

 

[mattsgame]

Hi Nate.

His account should have been 0 before making the new deposits as otherwise the bonus is not cleared. Even if had made a new deposit without accepting the new bonus, he would still have to continue the wagering of the bonus unless its stated the bonus is removed when making a new deposit or if he potentially contacted our support team for advice.

/Martin

Hey Martin,

Did the OP claim the first and second deposit bonuses through customer support or were they automatic? (before the $100 one I am speaking of)

Cheers
Matt

 

[CasinoPlex]

The player got a warning message when he initiated the withdrawal and at this point he should have contacted our support (which he did) and wait for our answer, however, the player decided not to wait for our answer and made withdrawal anyway.

The player can himself check the wagering and bonuses by simply clicking on Cashier - My Account - Bonuses.

If the player had any doubts about the promotion he should have contacted us.

The bonuses was credited automatically and the player had the option to accept or decline them and again contact our support if he had any doubts about the terms of the bonuses he was offered.

/Martin

 

[Nifty29]

This is EXACTLY what the rep is saying. The WR just built and built throughout these deposits because of this €1.30

The rep defends the instant confiscation of the 17K even though this predatory system would fool many, including those who read the terms. Again for the benefit of Nifty, even reading the terms would not have helped here, as the software does not give the correct information about the state of WR. It may not state that WR has been met, but it is indicated by the statement that if a withdrawal is made, the bonus credited will be removed, something that is routine with the completion of WR, and hence implies to the player that WR has been completed.

If the casino KNOWS of this shortcoming in the software, then their use of this "one strike and you are out" is even MORE predatory than I thought.

If anything, the rep has made matters WORSE by stating that the root cause of all this is a balance of €1.30 from two deposits prior. Given that there is no way for a player to see that the WR has been carried, there is no way for them to keep track of their correct WR status over subsequent deposits, which makes this term even more predatory.

If anything, a player not noticing the repeated carry over of WR over a number of deposits would mean they faced a WR so large in the end that they may as well flush their money down the toilet.

Intercasino had a carry over of WR, but at least there was a section in the cashier that players could check, and thus immediately spot any carry over from a prior deposit.

Now if the popup has been implemented "because players asked for it", how come the cashier has not been updated to protect players from making a withdrawal too early. Why also, despite even higher demand, has a decent WR tracking indicator not been implemented?

Given these circumstances, the OP reading the terms would have made no difference at all. At best, they would have read the terms for the current bonus, managed to track their WR independently to be 100% certain they had met it, and not relied on the cashier to give them accurate information.

The critical question is how much play did the OP make after making that last $500 deposit and accepting the $100 bonus? If they had at least tracked this correctly, then they stood no chance of staying within this term as players have no access to the information the rep used in their argument that the problem was caused by a carry over cascade from prior deposits.

€1.30 is a "negligible balance", and should never be used as an argument to carry over WR to subsequent deposits. In Microgaming, it isn't. Small balances can also be hard to get rid of as many games just don't allow small enough wagers. One would need to play a slot that allowed a 10c per line bet.

The reps excuse only proves my point. Playtech are inherently predatory in nature, and should be avoided. A reputable casino would not carry over WR for the sake of €1.30, and would put the balance back for further WR at least once, accompanied by advice to the player on how to be certain they had made the WR before attempting to withdraw again.

I have a straight question for the rep.


If a player accepts an offer, how exactly do they check that they have made the correct WR before they submit a withdrawal?

I will not accept "ask live chat" as an answer, this is clearly not satisfactory after over 15 years of software development.

In order to comply with a term, a player needs enough information to allow them to assess whether they have done so.

I, personally, would not go near Casino Plex now both sides of the story have been revealed, it makes things even worse. I am already suspicious of the whole Playtech stable, and this is clearly a case of "business as usual", and only strengthens my view that Playtech is best avoided as a brand. They join Rival and Top Game in my personal "to be avoided" list.

Thankyou for admitting that the player did NOT receive a message stating he HAD met WR. Implications are just that. Terms are concrete which is why things arent open to interpretation here.

Rep states the player DID receive a warning.....and as a result they DID contact live chat. Instead of waiting, and quite likely being told they had NOT met WR, they went ahead and withdrew regardless. LOL....sorry but how many "passes" does the player get here? This is number THREE irresponsible move by the OP.

Also, rep states the WR is available in the CASHIER for players to see themselves. The OP obviously didn't look, and would almost certainly would have been directed to it by live chat if they had bothered to wait. Lets call this player blunder number FOUR.

I just dont see what else the casino could have done. Several opportunities existed and were provided to prevent the OP from doing something stupid, and he availed himself of none of them.

If casinoplex's aim is to rip off unwary players, they sure seem to be going about it the wrong way.

 

[Bladefury]

Thanks for all the replies guys, appreciate it.

From my stand point, i probably should have taken the time to read everything, I've been playing on silversands casino for a long time, and if you haven't met the WR then you wont be able to withdraw the money, and they wont take it away from you either. So i was use to how it worked there.

Ignorance on my part played alot here, Yes 17 000 took me all night to make, and i would have so much loved to have that money right now, but if they say its in their terms and conditions then its there.
I would recommend to them that they make it more clear to players, i have also stated to them because of this i will not be coming back to ever play at their casino. It was them who contacted me through a text on my phone in the first place to go play.

I just hope others can learn from my mistake. Was a very costly one, and i am still very upset about it. The least they could have done was give me the 17 000 to try meet the WR. or even half of that 17 000 at least.

Nifty i can see what you are saying, but also understand it was 4 am in the morning, and had been playing for a good few hours, calling me stupid is a bit unfair on your part.

Thanks for the support guys.

 

[chuchu59]

Martin,

You keep saying the OP contacted support yet did not wait for an answer and initiated a withdrawal anyway. Forgive my ignorance but what difference does that make? Would support have asked him not to initiate a withdrawal till he cleared both bonuses?

 

[Simmo!]

LOOK, the guy with 8 years experience. Did what some newbies does, deposit and play. Never reading any terms and then getting bit in the end. $0 account balance has been the norm when taking a new bonus. Since deposit bonuses has been around. MG uses this same system today. RTG allows you to play on a new deposit bonus. Without carrying over wagering. As long as your account is below $1. But I don't take that chance. I clear my balance completely. In fact before US players couldn't play there any more. Intercasino and Intertops used to still carry over wagering, on unfulfilled bonuses. Even when the account has ZEROED. Those 2 casinos still got high praises on all the forums. The bottom line is, the OP broke 2 terms - It's his FAULT. And now some blames the casino for enforcing it's power (if you will).

Not disputing that. My point was that its obvious that the 1.30 residue of an intial depost played no realistic part in the accrual of 17k winnings made from subsequent deposits. We're all familiar with the term "spirit of the bonus" - well IMO, if there is clearly no intent by the (any) player to do wrong, the right thing to do would be to recognise that.