- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Location
- Malta
The support team would have informed him that he had not yet met the wagering requirements which would have meant that he would not have lost his 17K and they would have advised him about the situation.
/Martin
Casino Plex not paying my big win out
- Thread starter Bladefury
- Start date
The support team would have informed him that he had not yet met the wagering requirements which would have meant that he would not have lost his 17K and they would have advised him about the situation.
/Martin
Unfortunately the support team was not available when i clicked on chat.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Location
- Malta
If the live chat is not available, then we do offer e-mail support which you used as well. Yet you didn't wait for our reply.
The terms and conditions came into force when you initiated the withdrawal!
/Martin
Yes, as I've said nothing i can do about it now.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Thanks Martin and I see no difference between now and then. Its just a bit of impatience on the part of the OP and it makes no sense other than pure greed on the casino's part to wipe out the whole $17k just because he didn't bother to wait. This sort of behavior relates to the rogue breed of casinos who try to confiscate winnings on the slightest technical error. So the guy didn't wait. So what? You guys haven't lost a dime for his impatience yet you chose to pounce on him like a pack of wolves. The restatement of winnings to allow him a chance of completion would be the right thing to do. Have it your way but some members may wish to bump this thread every now and then to show what sort of a casino yours is.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Well, why the hell does it matter. Why not just return the errant withdrawal back to the account and tell the player to wager some more. There is absolutely no advantage for the player in it being dealt with in this manner as they would still not get their money, and would still have to complete the same WR.
The ONLY advantage is for the casino, instead of the player being told to wager some more, which would probably mean they end up getting a decent chunk from such a big win, the casino gets to void the lot.
What was the text of this "warning message", as the OP claims the only "warning" was that upon withdrawal, the 100 bonus itself would be removed but the balance paid.
This kind of thing would never fly in the real world because consumer focussed regulators would get involved. It seems the internet based businesses will push the envelope as far as they can get away with as there isn't really anyone to curb them. The only real defence is to attack such behaviour from the grass roots, the players, and make it far to inconvenient for the business to carry on behaving badly towards it's customers.
This is a purely unnecessary term when it comes to keeping "naughty players" in check, it functions only as a trap for the unwary and impatient.
Given the high reliance of players having to contact support rather than having things like the removal of WR on tiny balances automated, how come "live chat is unavailable" is an acceptable level of service.
The ONLY advantage is for the casino, instead of the player being told to wager some more, which would probably mean they end up getting a decent chunk from such a big win, the casino gets to void the lot.
What was the text of this "warning message", as the OP claims the only "warning" was that upon withdrawal, the 100 bonus itself would be removed but the balance paid.
This kind of thing would never fly in the real world because consumer focussed regulators would get involved. It seems the internet based businesses will push the envelope as far as they can get away with as there isn't really anyone to curb them. The only real defence is to attack such behaviour from the grass roots, the players, and make it far to inconvenient for the business to carry on behaving badly towards it's customers.
This is a purely unnecessary term when it comes to keeping "naughty players" in check, it functions only as a trap for the unwary and impatient.
Given the high reliance of players having to contact support rather than having things like the removal of WR on tiny balances automated, how come "live chat is unavailable" is an acceptable level of service.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2004
- Location
- Haverhill
I'm not surprised that the casino isn't paying out.
I'm slightly surprised that there are people who think it's reasonable to confiscate 17,000 because 1.30 was left in an account and a withdrawal request was made. Common sense is completely absent in this industry, all around.
I'm slightly surprised that there are people who think it's reasonable to confiscate 17,000 because 1.30 was left in an account and a withdrawal request was made. Common sense is completely absent in this industry, all around.
Why are you guys jumping on the casino? The casino exercised its right within it's own terms and conditions, that the OP agreed too.
The OP himself ADMITS he was WRONG and broke the terms. "From my stand point, i probably should have taken the time to read everything," "Ignorance on my part played alot here," "I just hope others can learn from my mistake."
This is a case of the OP not reading and not having patient. Based on the terms and agreement of the casino. What term did the casino break?
The casino needs to make it more clear to players, not everybody will read these things and it needs to be made a lot clearer. Even so how are people suppose to know that you need a zero balance to clear 17 000 Euro from a previous bonus? some of these terms are just ludicrous. The way you talk on these forums one would think you actually work for the industry and support any miss doings, in any case what about loosing 17 000 Euros by a click of a button seems fair to you? terms or no terms?
You keep defending them, which to me makes absolutely no sense. Really its getting a bit much now.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2012
- Location
- England
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. I am on your side with regard to this issue but we should respect others' opinions and not blind ourselves with rage. Zero tolerance towards others will not strengthen your case. Rather, it could have the opposite effect.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2004
- Location
- Haverhill
Sweet electrical Jesus
We're not talking about the OP getting screwed in a divorce settlement.
We're not talking about the OP getting screwed in a used car purchase.
We're not talking about the OP getting screwed on financing for a house.
We're talking about the OP getting screwed in what's supposed to be a customer service oriented entertainment industry.
Answers like "well, he should have fully understood the 37 pages of T&C that he agreed to" are appropriate in the first three scenarios. Not this one. I'm sorry that some of you can't see the difference.
Some of you also apparently can't tell the difference between a term that is necessary for the casino to protect itself from fraud and abuse, and a term designed solely to avoid payouts and increase margins. The first may unfortunately screw over some unsuspecting players who aren't careful, but it is necessary and unavoidable. The second is predatory and should be universally shunned by all players and watchdogs. Anyone defending CasinoPlex's actions here does the entire industry a great disservice.
We're not talking about the OP getting screwed in a divorce settlement.
We're not talking about the OP getting screwed in a used car purchase.
We're not talking about the OP getting screwed on financing for a house.
We're talking about the OP getting screwed in what's supposed to be a customer service oriented entertainment industry.
Answers like "well, he should have fully understood the 37 pages of T&C that he agreed to" are appropriate in the first three scenarios. Not this one. I'm sorry that some of you can't see the difference.
Some of you also apparently can't tell the difference between a term that is necessary for the casino to protect itself from fraud and abuse, and a term designed solely to avoid payouts and increase margins. The first may unfortunately screw over some unsuspecting players who aren't careful, but it is necessary and unavoidable. The second is predatory and should be universally shunned by all players and watchdogs. Anyone defending CasinoPlex's actions here does the entire industry a great disservice.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Location
- United Kingdom
In a case like this where that slot/roulette/blackjack or whatever has paid out a large amount as in 17k or whatever and the casino keeps the winnings because of rules - isn't the RTP of that slot etc now messed up? as in it thinks it has paid out a ton of money that has actually gone nowhere?
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
I sent an email to the casino and this is their reply:
Thank you for contacting us.
The player in the mentioned post did not meet the conditions for the bonus and therefore lost all his winnings according to our bonus terms. Whenever player accepts a bonus, the player can check how much he or she needs to wager the bonus before he or she should make the withdrawal.
As long as you have read our bonus terms, then you will not experience the same problems and of course if you have any doubts you can contact us at any time during the day.
I just sent another email informing them that their software indicated that the player had met his WR and could make a withdrawal... It's obvious that no player would ever make a withdrawal when he/she still has to complete the WR. Awaiting the casino's reply.
Thank you for contacting us.
The player in the mentioned post did not meet the conditions for the bonus and therefore lost all his winnings according to our bonus terms. Whenever player accepts a bonus, the player can check how much he or she needs to wager the bonus before he or she should make the withdrawal.
As long as you have read our bonus terms, then you will not experience the same problems and of course if you have any doubts you can contact us at any time during the day.
I just sent another email informing them that their software indicated that the player had met his WR and could make a withdrawal... It's obvious that no player would ever make a withdrawal when he/she still has to complete the WR. Awaiting the casino's reply.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Location
- United Kingdom
I am confused why would the casino e mail with you about somebody elses complaint? Forgive me if I am missing the obvious as I am getting old!!
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2004
- Location
- Haverhill
No, that's not how slots work. Every spin is independent, and the results of the prior spins are completely irrelevant.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Location
- Location, Location!
Unless the OP PAB and something new develops from it. I humbly suggest this thread find it way toward closure. He was refunded all his deposits. Lesson learned from this ordeal...'READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS'. Whether if they are predatory or not, they are there. If members of CM decides not to play there in the future. That's their right also. CASE CLOSED IN MY BOOK.
BTW, Lets say the rule was in place that you forfeit all winnings on a bonus. If a player withdrawal early. So the player goes ahead not reading the terms and withdrawals any ways. Lets say the casino mistakenly pays the players. After a brief audit, realized it paid in error. The casino in question contacts the player and ask for refund because they paid avoid winnings. What would be the right thing for the player to do, keep the money or return it to be voided?
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
This is how I view it.
It certainly WORKS as a means to inflate margins, but it is not necessary to protect the casino from anything other than paying out when players win.
It also leads to a disproportionate response to a very minor mistake made by a player at 4 in the morning, who perhaps felt they wanted to go to bed rather than stay up in the hope that they would receive a quick reply.
How would the rep feel if their employer confiscated a month's pay because he arrived 10 minutes late for work, and said "tough, it's in your contract of employment, so you just have to grin and bear it".
I have now placed this casino on "Hypocracy watch". It seems their view is a strict adherence to the absolute letter of the terms, no matter how unnecessary, disproportionate, ridiculous etc it is in a particular circumstance. This should be applied fairly, so when the CASINO makes a minor mistake in designing a promo, and a hoard of advantage players give them a good hiding, but within the terms, they will all get paid with the casino eating the loss because "it's in the terms and conditions that we set and agreed to be bound by, and bind our players by".
Even more worrying is this:-
Had the OP declined the offer of the €100 bonus, and reached the same balance after the same play, they would STILL have had the winnings confiscated as according to the rep "you had only wagered the first bonus for €14,526.25", a WR that was being carried and added to from one deposit to the next. When withdrawing, the winnings would STILL have been confiscated due to the original issue of the €1.30 left over from the first bonus, and the fact that "terms are terms, no exceptions" is the attitude from the casino.
Having declined the bonus, the OP would not have even thought that bonus related terms were relevant, and would have had no reason to read them.
Whilst players can contact CS and ask for old WR to be removed, they have to first realise that it has been carried for the sake of €1.30 in the first place.
Given that the OP was accused of being impatient, it would be interesting to know to what degree, so exactly how long did CS take to reply to the email he sent, but then didn't hang around waiting for a reply from?
If it is a routine formality for CS to remove WR from a balance of the order of €1.30, there is surely no need to hang around for a reply in any case, as it would always be the same.
We still haven't heard why it is "impossible" for a more player oriented approach of returning the withdrawal back to the account to be adopted. How exactly have advantage players been able to exploit such a system?
Players should be equally intolerant of mistakes made by the casino, shouldn't we. "Sorry" is not enough, we need redress that really hurts, even for the most minor error. It sounds ridiculous, yet it is the standard of perfection they are holding players to.
Talking of casino mistakes, is "sorry" going to be enough for redress over the "rigged slots" episode, or should operators collectively forfeit ALL winnings ever derived from these games for having made the mistake of allowing the games to go live with an uncorrected error because they relied on the information provided by Playtech, and thus failed to do their own due diligence.
The outcome is yet to be decided, but I will be thinking "just deserts" if Playtech operators are subject to a draconian sanction at the end of it for what is after all a "human error" that even the best of us make once in a while.
I feel operators are in for a shock, as it seems the GRA and LGA have come under considerable scrutiny over how they are dealing with this issue, and this may force them into making an example over this incident for political reasons, rather than them feeling it to be a fair and proportionate response to what is after all a human error made years ago, and one which does not seem to have caused actual loss for players.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Location
- Cyberspace
CasinoPlex: Oh Golly, we have another HUGE Withdrawal pending - Security, can you find anything on this player... He must be a fraudster.
Security: Yes Sir - We have found that he had taken a bonus 5 days ago and left 1.30 in his balance - hahahha
CasinoPlex: Excellent - I see he has now made a Withdrawal - CONFISCATE EVERYTHING because he didn't ask live chat to zero the balance and he withdrew WITH Wagering still active from that 5 day old bonus... hehehe
Security: Done - We have refunded his deposits and saved 17k
CasinoPlex: Well done!
This makes ZERO Sense - Predatory, Roguish and everything lumped in one. I'm sorry there's a reason why Casinomeister asks us to avoid these places ... like Tropica.... Now CasinoPlex. It just baffles me that they become so trivial. There terms are there to protect them but obviously also to screw the player because they CAN. Like a few posters mentioned - It's not a case of anything else but the Greed and unethical business practice employed in Wannabe Casinos . This player did not seek to gain an advantage from 1.30 ... Like Simmo mentions - It probably played no part in him getting to 17k ... It has played a part though in him losing 17k.
How sick and opportunistic people become for $$$$... it's the world we live in ... UNREAL
Nate
Security: Yes Sir - We have found that he had taken a bonus 5 days ago and left 1.30 in his balance - hahahha
CasinoPlex: Excellent - I see he has now made a Withdrawal - CONFISCATE EVERYTHING because he didn't ask live chat to zero the balance and he withdrew WITH Wagering still active from that 5 day old bonus... hehehe
Security: Done - We have refunded his deposits and saved 17k
CasinoPlex: Well done!
This makes ZERO Sense - Predatory, Roguish and everything lumped in one. I'm sorry there's a reason why Casinomeister asks us to avoid these places ... like Tropica.... Now CasinoPlex. It just baffles me that they become so trivial. There terms are there to protect them but obviously also to screw the player because they CAN. Like a few posters mentioned - It's not a case of anything else but the Greed and unethical business practice employed in Wannabe Casinos . This player did not seek to gain an advantage from 1.30 ... Like Simmo mentions - It probably played no part in him getting to 17k ... It has played a part though in him losing 17k.
How sick and opportunistic people become for $$$$... it's the world we live in ... UNREAL
Nate
The casino loses nothing here. We pay them our money we should expect the same for them to do when and if we win anything without 10 000 technicalities.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
CasinoPlex: Oh Golly, we have another HUGE Withdrawal pending - Security, can you find anything on this player... He must be a fraudster.
Security: Yes Sir - We have found that he had taken a bonus 5 days ago and left 1.30 in his balance - hahahha
CasinoPlex: Excellent - I see he has now made a Withdrawal - CONFISCATE EVERYTHING because he didn't ask live chat to zero the balance and he withdrew WITH Wagering still active from that 5 day old bonus... hehehe
Security: Done - We have refunded his deposits and saved 17k
CasinoPlex: Well done!
This makes ZERO Sense - Predatory, Roguish and everything lumped in one. I'm sorry there's a reason why Casinomeister asks us to avoid these places ... like Tropica.... Now CasinoPlex. It just baffles me that they become so trivial. There terms are there to protect them but obviously also to screw the player because they CAN. Like a few posters mentioned - It's not a case of anything else but the Greed and unethical business practice employed in Wannabe Casinos . This player did not seek to gain an advantage from 1.30 ... Like Simmo mentions - It probably played no part in him getting to 17k ... It has played a part though in him losing 17k.
How sick and opportunistic people become for $$$$... it's the world we live in ... UNREAL
Nate
If I were the casino I would sue you for eavesdropping.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
I couldn't agree more Nate. It is disgusting to see, how low some casinos will go to make a buck, or 17K.
What's as worrying, if not more, is the fact, that some players, and members of this forum, actually encourage this kind of behavior from rogue casinos, and even fall as low as calling fellow players, and long time members on this forum names, and grouping them in to a "lynch mob", for merely adding a minimum of common sense to this, and other cases.
Nothing new under the sun though.
What's as worrying, if not more, is the fact, that some players, and members of this forum, actually encourage this kind of behavior from rogue casinos, and even fall as low as calling fellow players, and long time members on this forum names, and grouping them in to a "lynch mob", for merely adding a minimum of common sense to this, and other cases.
Nothing new under the sun though.
CasinoPlex: Oh Golly, we have another HUGE Withdrawal pending - Security, can you find anything on this player... He must be a fraudster.
Security: Yes Sir - We have found that he had taken a bonus 5 days ago and left 1.30 in his balance - hahahha
CasinoPlex: Excellent - I see he has now made a Withdrawal - CONFISCATE EVERYTHING because he didn't ask live chat to zero the balance and he withdrew WITH Wagering still active from that 5 day old bonus... hehehe
Security: Done - We have refunded his deposits and saved 17k
CasinoPlex: Well done!
This makes ZERO Sense - Predatory, Roguish and everything lumped in one. I'm sorry there's a reason why Casinomeister asks us to avoid these places ... like Tropica.... Now CasinoPlex. It just baffles me that they become so trivial. There terms are there to protect them but obviously also to screw the player because they CAN. Like a few posters mentioned - It's not a case of anything else but the Greed and unethical business practice employed in Wannabe Casinos . This player did not seek to gain an advantage from 1.30 ... Like Simmo mentions - It probably played no part in him getting to 17k ... It has played a part though in him losing 17k.
How sick and opportunistic people become for $$$$... it's the world we live in ... UNREAL
Nate
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
This would never happen, after all, the casino is perfect, it does not accept that there is such a thing as an innocent human error.
The moral thing would be for the player to return anything paid in error, but if we use the same standards as the casino expects of the player, it's a case of "your mistake tough, suck it up, you won't be seeing a penny back". A player can get away with this just as easily as a casino can, and for the same basic reason, it's the "wild west" at the moment, and what sticks is what you can get away with. Even if the payment went to an ewallet, the casino can't grab it back if the player is on the ball and moves it elsewhere in time.
It is also in the terms, "all transactions are final", so if it happened to me with Neteller, it would breach Neteller's terms for me to voluntarily give the money back
This is a PR disaster in the making, no wonder the casino is discussing the case with a third party who is, or could potentially be, a future player or affiliate.
This is just one example of the many traps for the unwary in the terms. Reading them is not enough, you need to understand every clause, and how the various clauses interact. You also have to know the software well, so as not to misinterpret information presented.
It would have made no difference at all had the OP declined the bonus, and the rep has more or less indicated that the winnings would STILL have been confiscated had the OP declined this latest €100 bonus because of the carried WR from the earlier €1.30 that would have been removed had the OP jumped through the right hoops in the right order. The OP almost made it, he did ask CS to remove the WR, supposedly a formality, but he didn't wait around for a reply, but instead decided to play and let it be done when CS got around to it.
This is "instant gratification", the desire to deposit and play right now when the software is open, rather than sleep on it for a while whilst CS get around to replying to a query, or pre-verify a new player before play, which many casinos argue is "impossible" as players would not tolerate having to wait for this to be done before they play, and would inevitably deposit elsewhere for their fix. Odd that the "instant gratification" argument only applies when it suits the greed of the casino (they want that deposit right now, not when the player may have had time to think about playing elsewhere instead), but in this case, it is WRONG to expect "instant gratification", and instead the player should have waited till CS could get around to dealing with their query, even though it may have meant the deposit going elsewhere. This the first strike for "hypocrisy watch", I expect more to follow.
Casinos that behave like this can't expect any sympathy from me when they get taken to the cleaners by players better at maths than they are.
In short, if there is anything, no matter how minor, in the terms that would allow for a confiscation, Casino Plex will do it.
I wonder what would happen if a player in this situation won a Playtech network progressive under these circumstances, and the terms allowed their winnings to be confiscated. We know that their winnings WILL be confiscated, but what would happen to the progressive amount from the network.
A number of rogue Playtech casinos have confiscated large network progressives, and there seems to be no further record of where this money went. One casino even said that they were "forced" to pocket the money because there was no means to return it to Playtech for placing back into the pool.
There is nothing to say that casino Plex have done this, but given their strict attitude to the terms, they would have to fundamentally change their approach to enforcement in order to NOT pocket a progressive that they had to confiscate from a player who fell foul of a technicality such as leaving 5c in their account and not asking CS to remove the WR before they deposited again. It is the same attitude that lead the other rogues to eventually encounter a situation where they were able to use their predatory terms to confiscate, and then pocket, a network progressive. It only became evident that they had the balls to go this far after the event, and at the same time it only became evident that Playtech would do nothing about it when these rogue operators got away with it.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
I received another reply from Casino Plex. I had inquired about their software's failure to indicate that the WR had actually not been met.
Their response:
The player was fully warned before making the withdrawal and could and can also see his wagering requirement in the casino. The player did at no point receive a message that he had met the wagering requirements, he will only get this message if he had actually met them.
If you go through the thread on casinomeister, you will see the full explanation of what happen.
There is no risk playing at our casino, however, as a player you need to understand our terms and conditions to avoid situations like what happen to mentioned player. The decision to play with us is your decision only!
Fully warned? I must have missed something. Are they trying to fix their lousy reputation by responding to my emails? Looks like it. I think a professional third party should look into this, really.
Their response:
The player was fully warned before making the withdrawal and could and can also see his wagering requirement in the casino. The player did at no point receive a message that he had met the wagering requirements, he will only get this message if he had actually met them.
If you go through the thread on casinomeister, you will see the full explanation of what happen.
There is no risk playing at our casino, however, as a player you need to understand our terms and conditions to avoid situations like what happen to mentioned player. The decision to play with us is your decision only!
Fully warned? I must have missed something. Are they trying to fix their lousy reputation by responding to my emails? Looks like it. I think a professional third party should look into this, really.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Location
- UK
I had something pretty similar happen at Genting Casino (also Playtech) last year.
I deposited £350 to my account and on that occasion did not accept a bonus. I played my balance up to £837 and decided to withdraw. Upon trying to withdraw I got a message saying that I could only withdraw £360 due to a bonus.
I thought as I hadn't accepted a bonus it was a rogue message and proceeded with withdrawing £360. This then wiped £477.
I was surprised as I didn't accept a bonus on this deposit.
I spoke to live chat who indicated I'd had no-deposit bonuses in the past, and the wagering requirement carried over over to a fresh deposit. I don't believe the T & C's stated that at the time either and I contested it.
The rep here was fantastic and arranged for a bonus credit of £477 with the remaining wagering requirement from the previous bonus (this was less than £250 so I was guaranteed money above and beyond my £360). I was happy as were Genting, I ended up winning significantly more and everything was processed smoothly.
I deposited £350 to my account and on that occasion did not accept a bonus. I played my balance up to £837 and decided to withdraw. Upon trying to withdraw I got a message saying that I could only withdraw £360 due to a bonus.
I thought as I hadn't accepted a bonus it was a rogue message and proceeded with withdrawing £360. This then wiped £477.
I was surprised as I didn't accept a bonus on this deposit.
I spoke to live chat who indicated I'd had no-deposit bonuses in the past, and the wagering requirement carried over over to a fresh deposit. I don't believe the T & C's stated that at the time either and I contested it.
The rep here was fantastic and arranged for a bonus credit of £477 with the remaining wagering requirement from the previous bonus (this was less than £250 so I was guaranteed money above and beyond my £360). I was happy as were Genting, I ended up winning significantly more and everything was processed smoothly.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
I wish this type of solution could be realised for the OP as well! I repeat what I've said before - if it boils down to applying this rogue bonus term (and not any software failure) - there is still the concept of unfair T&Cs. This can be contested.
bigjohn
Dormant account
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2012
- Location
- Northeast Coastal USA
Other foot
I always try to look at these things as if the shoe were on the other foot.
If Joe Schmoe owes me $100 and agrees to a contract to pay me by 3:00 PM on Tuesday or be hit with a 50% interest charge and he shows up at 3:01 PM on Tuesday to pay should he still be allowed to pay only $100? How about at 3:30 Tuesday? If Joe is my friend maybe I would let him slide, if it was strictly business I would say no. In that case I would expect Joe not give me anymore of his business and that is what I expect will happen in this case.
There are rogues and predators out there, it's a fact. Knowledge and research can help avoid them.
Hopefully the OP will check this site or some other advocacy sites before choosing a place to wager and do what everyone here tells everybody with a problem to do, "Stick to the accredited list."
I always try to look at these things as if the shoe were on the other foot.
If Joe Schmoe owes me $100 and agrees to a contract to pay me by 3:00 PM on Tuesday or be hit with a 50% interest charge and he shows up at 3:01 PM on Tuesday to pay should he still be allowed to pay only $100? How about at 3:30 Tuesday? If Joe is my friend maybe I would let him slide, if it was strictly business I would say no. In that case I would expect Joe not give me anymore of his business and that is what I expect will happen in this case.
There are rogues and predators out there, it's a fact. Knowledge and research can help avoid them.
Hopefully the OP will check this site or some other advocacy sites before choosing a place to wager and do what everyone here tells everybody with a problem to do, "Stick to the accredited list."
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Location
- Cyberspace
Perfectly reasonable scenario - However in this case you are the Rogue loan shark that preys on minor issues to fatten your pockets.
The Accredited lender .. lets say the bank ...would have given Joe a few days or even a month to make a payment.
Do I need to categorise where Casinoplex fall here?
Nate
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
Well said Nate. I already PMed the OP several times and urged him to submit a PAB or turn to Gambling Grumbles or AskGamblers. What's he got to lose? I would definitely try all resources out there to get my winnings if I were him!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
He has probably burned his PAB chances by dealing with the issue in the forum, so this would leave Gambling Grumbles. It might even be better having discussed this case at length here to get another discussion going at Gambling Grumbles, where unlike PABs, everything is done in public.
Even if it doesn't change a thing, it creates TWO independent threads for Google to pick up on, which in turn will help future players see that Casino Plex will always apply the most draconian terms for the slightest error on the part of the player, using the excuse that it is valid to do so "because it's there", not "because it's right".
It's the same attitude taken by hardened advantage players, who will push the terms to their limit, but not break them, in order to maximise their take from what could be a relatively minor mathematical mistake on the part of the promotions team. Funny how the argument that "the terms allow it" seldom washes when the CASINO stands to lose tens of thousands to a advantage players. Take the Betfair incident for example. What players did was well within the terms because the offer was advertised as "unlimited", so it was perfectly legit to take the offer repeatedly and mercilessly throughout the night fuelled by coffee and energy drinks, with a few players making over 30K from their initial stake. Betfair's argument was that they made a mistake, but they deserved a "do over", which they achieved by confiscating winnings from players who took too many "unlimited" runs at the offer. Players didn't like it, but Betfair got away with it.
If Betfair can have a "do over" for breaking their own terms because of "human error", then there should be an opportunity for players to do so.
If players keep on seeing this hypocritical attitude from casinos, they will be unsympathetic to casinos who fall prey to the rogue schemes of very clever players who are prepared to cross the line if they think the casino won't catch them.
If Casino Plex get ripped off for 17K because their security was "asleep at the wheel" and failed to spot an obvious scam till it was too late, I won't shed a tear for them.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Interesting Nate.
At what point does "fattening ones pockets over minor issues" become a legitimate enforcement of a mutually agreed contract? 5 mins late? 10 mins late? A hour? A day?
Do you see my point? Once you start bending rules for one, you have to do it for all, and you may as well not have rules. The rule at casinoplex is crap and rogue, and I wouldn't play there based on that one fact alone, but the player agreed to it....they didn't have to, and chances are very good that if they READ the terms first they would not have taken a bonus at all.
I don't understand why myself and others are copping flak when we are actually in agreement on most points. The only difference is that we are saying that the player placed themselves in a position where they could be ripped off by a predatory term. Nobody forced him to take a bonus. It wasn't awarded without specific agreement and acceptabce from the player.....in fact, as I outlined, there were actually FOUR safeguards/opportunities provided by casinoplex to PREVENT this situation occurring, and there seems to be a general ignorance of the fact that the player refused to take advantage of ANY of them.
The whole situation was created by BOTH parties in one form or another. One is having the book thrown at them by (mostly) the usual "casinos are evil" suspects, whilst the other is absolved of any and all responsibility and made out to be an innocent victim.....geez even the OP admits he's mostly to blame.
Some can bang on about a couple of words (e.g. lynch mob) or head off down Irrelevant Street (e.g. the finsoft issue
), but NOBODY has shown ANY example of the casino breaching ANY of its own terms, nor making up any in retrospect and enforcing them retrospectively. In THIS case, the casino has done NOTHING wrong.....in THIS case.In the case of the existence of the actual TERM, they most certainly have done something wrong. Its a huge red flag and anyone playing there would have to be nuts......but one would have to be even more nuts to just accept a bonus without having the first clue what terms were attached.
Is the term rogue? Yes.
Should the casino be the subject of a CM warning etc? Quite possibly.
Is the term designed to fleece players? Probably.
Should the casino return his balance for further wagering as a goodwill gesture? IMO, yes.
Did the player read the terms before playing? No.
Did the player wait for support to assist? No.
Did the player check his wagering amount before withdrawing? No.
Did the player admit fault? Yes.
Bryan has said it many times, and it especially applies to this issue:
"If you don't like the terms of a bonus then don't take it"
I also believe he has stated to the effect that if you don't read the terms and accept it anyway, you're responsible for the consequences.
The main problem I see that is causing conflict is that there are actually TWO seperate issues at play in this thread, and many are only addressing one, and some don't even believe the other even exists.
Of course, this is all coming from someone like me who is a known "rogue defender"
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
IMO casinoplex should not be discussing the OPs issue with you at the level that they have.
I also don't see the point of why you even asked them. The answers to your questions are all in this thread.....you don't need to email them etc to know to avoid them like the plague.
Its probably not helping the OPs case by emailing the casino and posting their replies in the forum. Some operators take exception to that kind of thing and might (and have) refuse to entertain the player's complaint.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
I disagree - the fact that Casino Plex replied twice to my 2 emails means that they do recognise that this little incident is very bad PR and has a roguish stink to it, and rightly so. Sure, I avoid them like the plague anyway, but I feel for the OP and that's why I emailed the casino, hoping for a positive response, and in the same spirit PMed the OP.
Casino Plex claims that the player has been fully warned. I missed that info from this thread. Was there a pop up telling him that he was NOT allowed to withdraw, or that if he did, he would lose most or all of his winnings? Not according to the OP!
Quote from the OP:
I click on withdrawal, gave me some message about bonuses being excluded from the amount, and i was ok with that because the bonus was only €100 anyway.
Next thing i know i can only withdraw €1500? after i make the €1500 withdrawal my funds go from €17000 to €0 i took some screen shots showing my played history and the amount i did have!
So, we have a bonus term telling that if players withdraw prematurely, they lose their winnings, but we also have a pop up message telling the player that only the bonus would be excluded... What is it?? To make things more complicated, there seems to be a small amount left from a previous deposit made with a bonus. In either case, the casino's software should have indicated that withdrawal is a no-no until all the WRs have been met.
In the above scenario, I would have gone ahead and made the witdrawal too. That's why I urge the OP (again) to have a third party investigate this matter.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
As with most complainants, he left out a vital step that occurred BEFORE he finalised his cashout.....he contacted live chat and asked why he could only withdraw $1500....and didn't bother to wait for a reply, and just went ahead and finalized the $1500 withdrawal which then caused the rest of his winnings to be voided. If he had waited for support to answer, he would have been told WHY he could only withdraw $1500 I.e. WR not met and we wouldn't be reading about him losing $17k. It was HIS poor choice here, and at THREE other stages, that sealed his fate. His fault and choice, not the casinos.
He didn't mention any of that....odd don't you think? He said it was 4am or something and he was impatient etc. Again, his fault and choice, not the casinos.
His WR status was available for viewing in the cashier at any time. I've used it at other PT casinos and its very detailed, and would have shown all three bonuses that were active in his account and how much WR remained for each. Had he checked this, he wouldn't have thrown $17k down the toilet. He didn't even look for this information. Once again, his fault and choice, not the casinos.
The more I think about it, the more I think that if casinoplex were all about deliberately ripping players off, they surely wouldn't provide so many safeguards to prevent it happening. Seems quite contrary, in fact.
The OP had opportunities and choices at many different stages and either made poor choices or ignored opportunities. I'm scratching my head to think of much else the casino could have done to stop it. You can't protect people from themselves at every turn.
Ignoring these facts is tantamount to saying players have no liability for their own actions, and I will read with interest the responses to similar complaints in the future and refer back to this thread.
Mouche....re your emails. You know that you would have said the same thing if they had ignored your emails. I.e. because they knew it was rogue etc. You had them over a barrel either way, and I'm wondering if that wasn't deliberate, given your propensity to call "rogue" at the drop of a hat.
Well SAID!!! My point exactly!!!
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
If all you say is true, there is still the matter of the pop up message telling the player that ONLY his bonus would be excluded. Pfff, I don't know what the OP was thinking when he chose not to wait for support to answer (if that is really the case), but I still insist on a thorough investigation of this issue. Too many unanswered questions - and you seem to have forgotten that Casino Plex claims that the player has been fully warned (by whom? support? - apparently not - by a pop up message? evidently not, only his bonus would be excluded).
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
In addition to the bonus removal popup (which contrary to VWMs latest made up fact is NOT the same as a confirmation of WR being met), the cashier then indicated that if he continued to withdraw the most he could request is $1500. Now, it is not 100% clear whether he contacted support at that point or before he even received the popup about the bonus removal. In the end it probably makes little difference.
The information provided by the OP and the rep indicates that when the OP discovered he could only withdraw $1500, AT THAT POINT he had not finalized the cashout and his $17k was still there. Only when he confirmed the $1500 cashout (without waiting for assistance) did the rest disappear. It means that it was really down to his own impatience, which he freely admits.
You and VWM (think you two need to get a room...) are focusing on one specific safeguard (an additional popup) and ignoring the host of other safeguards that the casino DID provide. All the OP needed to add was an ounce of common sense and patience. If no other opportunities were provided, then I might agree with you, but that's clearly not the case.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
The issue has been discussed in some depth but the casino has yet to explain the reason for not reinstating the winnings for clearance of the double-decked WRs. This, imo, is rogue behavior and no different from Virtual/Rushmore. The wrong action by the OP, if we call call it that, was to initiate a withdrawal before meeting the WRs. There was no fraud, no playing of disallowed games and anything that is detrimental to the casino. What difference would it make if he had not initiated the withdrawal. With the apparent rogueness of this casino, they are likely to invoke another hidden term to deny the OP his winnings even if he manages to clear WRs. I can understand some members adopting a stance in favour of the casino but in a civilized world everything should be guided by reason and this is what is lacking right now.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
If I were guided by reason, I'd stick my $ in the bank instead of casinos each week, lol
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
What is important here is the casino's claim that the player has been fully warned. But the player has not been fully warned, regardless of what he did or did not do next. In fact, the player should have been able to rely on the pop up message that ONLY his bonus would be excluded.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Who is talking about fraud etc? Nobody.
He breached a term he wasn't aware of, as a result of his negligence. The term wasn't "hidden"( whatever that means) and there were several opportunities for him to prevent the situation occurring.
The fact that its a bad term is immaterial. He shouldn't have played if he didn't like it. Its actually very simple.
If it was $100 he lost instead of $17k most of you wouldn't even have bothered getting involved, at least not to such an extent. The fact that some are whipping it up into a "player crucifixion" shows that its not really about the facts at all, but rather the amount. If he was playing with a bonus (deposit or otherwise) with a 10xdeposit max cashout and hence lost $12k of his winnings, nobody would blink an eye, save for saying its an awful term. I've seen it many times and seen the same people saying "well that's the terms of the bonus. You really should have read it" and "its shitty but you'll know next time". However, because these same people see this term as "more unfair" or the amount too high, that POV suddenly changes and now "well that's the bonus terms" doesn't apply. I might be a lot of things, but hypocritical isn't one of them.
You either believe that terms are terms and if you agree to them voluntarily then you're bound by them, or you don't. If you don't, then your POV is obviously "just take whatever bonus you like, and if you end up losing your winnings, just make a public stink about how unfair those terms that you didn't read are, and we'll support you. Reading and understanding terms before accepting then is for squares".
Certainly, if terms are invented and applied retrospectively, then this course of action is totally correct.....but when the information is supplied and opportunities are provided to assist players to adhere to bonus terms, such as has occurred here, then there is no excuse. In VWMs favorite language, ignorance is not a defence at Law. If you break the law, it doesn't matter if you knew about it or not...if it were properly gazetted and published, then you're guilty. What's the bet that now we get the "oh but its not the law", when in every other situation involving terms it most certainly is.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
In that case, the player should have received a phone call at that moment, and at least a dozen popups after that saying "are you sure?" , "are you SURE you're sure?" Etc etc.
Honestly....at least four methods were available to prevent the player causing himself to lose $17k.....and your sole argument is that there should have been five?
Ignore the rest of the facts as you are....it doesn't make them disappear or stop being facts.
Anyway, I think a PAB would be appropriate.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Fraud? Exactly, there was no fraud or anything similar involved so why is there such a term other than a trap for the unawares. Whether a cashout was initiated or not makes no material difference to the operation of the casino or the play involved. Maybe the player should reimburse the casino with 10 bucks for their trouble in having to handle a withdrwal which is invalid due to not having met wrs. Meanwhile, this is not the Law we are talking about. As I stated in an earlier post if a consumer purchases goods that are subsequently found to be defective it doesn't matter if the receipts relieve the store of any responsibility by saying there are no refunds nor replacements once the purchase is confirmed.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
Honest to God Nifty, I don't get it.
I'll repeat my question from an earlier post:
Are we as players and an advocate of fair play supposed to just sit back, and accept anything a casino comes up with, as long as they hide behind some stupid rogue term (I don't see that anyone disagrees, that that's what this casino is trying to do). ?
In my book, I'm happy to repeat, it is NOT ok to steal $17.000 (Or any other amount for that matter), just because you write down somewhere, that you are going to do it, and call it a "term". In ANY other business than online gambling, noone would get away with that, and I strongly believe, that both the players, AND the best advocate of fair play online, should do anything they can, to make this casino aware, that what they are doing is dead wrong, and they need to correct it. NOT tell them, that ... oh well....you wrote down that you were gonna rob players, so it's ok.
As far as I can see, we all agree, that the ONLY reason they call this term in this case, is that they don't want to pay this guy his winnings (As a matter of fact there is NO other reason, to have the term at all, or in any case). Again....he did absolutely nothing, that can justify the theft of 17K nothing.. What they should do, and rather sooner than later, is reimburse his account, and tell him to finish his wagering requirement. Anything else is dishonest...I refuse to believe you disagree about that, and if you do, I'd be very interested to know why.
Every time you go on a rampage like you do in this thread, you are effectively helping crooks lik these, in saying that the player is at fault, and should get nothing (effectively LET them steal 17K, for NO reason what so ever. When you do this, yes, I choose to say that YOU are defending rogue casinos, and YOU are helping them do what they do. I'm sorry, but there is no other way to see it imo.
I'll repeat my question from an earlier post:
Are we as players and an advocate of fair play supposed to just sit back, and accept anything a casino comes up with, as long as they hide behind some stupid rogue term (I don't see that anyone disagrees, that that's what this casino is trying to do). ?
In my book, I'm happy to repeat, it is NOT ok to steal $17.000 (Or any other amount for that matter), just because you write down somewhere, that you are going to do it, and call it a "term". In ANY other business than online gambling, noone would get away with that, and I strongly believe, that both the players, AND the best advocate of fair play online, should do anything they can, to make this casino aware, that what they are doing is dead wrong, and they need to correct it. NOT tell them, that ... oh well....you wrote down that you were gonna rob players, so it's ok.
As far as I can see, we all agree, that the ONLY reason they call this term in this case, is that they don't want to pay this guy his winnings (As a matter of fact there is NO other reason, to have the term at all, or in any case). Again....he did absolutely nothing, that can justify the theft of 17K nothing.. What they should do, and rather sooner than later, is reimburse his account, and tell him to finish his wagering requirement. Anything else is dishonest...I refuse to believe you disagree about that, and if you do, I'd be very interested to know why.
Every time you go on a rampage like you do in this thread, you are effectively helping crooks lik these, in saying that the player is at fault, and should get nothing (effectively LET them steal 17K, for NO reason what so ever. When you do this, yes, I choose to say that YOU are defending rogue casinos, and YOU are helping them do what they do. I'm sorry, but there is no other way to see it imo.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Location
- Out Of Town
Martin, in your own terms it states
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.
So how was this player able to even claim that second deposit bonus. (this is assuming that it was a 1st and 2nd deposit bonus). If it was not the welcome bonus is there a different set of t&c for the bonuses the op took because the one above is from your general bonus t&c.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
I'll state right up front that I'm coming into this late and only partially informed but it looks to me like this has gone well past the PAB point: the issue seems to have been fully divulged here on the forums, the rep is responding, the dialogue continues AFAICT. That's not a judgement on the merits of the case itself, just an observation that the PAB horse has pretty much left the building.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Well, clearly the casino broke it's own terms and allowed the bonus to be claimed.
Even if the withdrawal was requested, it isn't actually finalised, but sits in pending for some time. So, how come the OP couldn't simply reverse the mistake once he noticed things didn't look right.
The popup may have said only €1500 could be withdrawn, but players are used to daily, weekly, monthly limits, so it would be reasonable to think that this was the issue, and that the rest would sit in the account till the next allowed interval.
Players don't actually need 5 different methods instead of 4 to warn them, nor even 6, they need ONE. This is the software preventing any withdrawal where WR has not been completed, and if a player still wants to go ahead and throw away the winnings just to get their deposit back, THIS is the time to force them to have to contact CS and have it done for them.
The "rigged slots" issue IS relevant, as it was the operators en masse breaking the terms of their gaming license. Why should they be allowed to get off with a "sorry, lesson learned" when a player has to pay a €17,000 "fine" merely for not being patient enough to await a reply to their email.
There is in fact in the UK a specific law about this, a business may not "fine" a customer an arbitrary amount for breach of contract, they must instead charge a reasonable amount for the extra work involved in remedying the breach. €17,000 is an arbitrary "fine", and bears no relation to the cost of having someone spend extra time manually unpicking the situation. It may be OK in whatever jurisdiction the operator is hiding in, but it won't wash in the UK.
Cases like this are what the UK government are using to argue that the current licensing regime fails to adequately protect the consumer, which is why secondary licensing and a 15% tax is "necessary in order to properly protect consumers". The GRA and LGA have a counter argument, that the consumer is already properly protected, thus the UK government's argument is invalid, and a tax argument alone is pretty weak under EU rules.
Whoever wins the argument will change the face of the industry from 2015 onwards. A UK win is good for players, but bad for the operators as they will not only face secondary licensing and a higher tax, but loads of "paperwork" to ensure they are properly accounting for the UK players and paying the correct tax, which might then encourage other EU countries to follow suit, as many have already done in some way, creating a fragmented taxation and licensing regime, and a much higher overhead for operators.
UK players will probably not be able to play at Casino Plex in any case after 2015, as Playtech is listed on the London Stock Exchange, and I can't see them allowing unlicensed operators take UK bets against the rules of the new regime.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Location
- United Kingdom
