Casino Plex not paying my big win out

[mrmark21]

I'm retracting my previous posts on this thread in hindsight they were hypocritical of me. Balthazar is right intent should matter.

Casino Plex should be rogued.

 

[Nifty29]

False statement. I don't always think the casino is ripping the player off. I think what Casinoplex did here is tantamount to theft.

The casino freerolled the player. They acted as those who chargeback do. End of.

If the term was not listed in plain English, I would agree. If the term was added after the fact, I would agree.

Awful term which the player was happy to be bound by as evidenced by their acceptance of the bonus. Ignorance is not a defence.

Its a very simple issue really. One either believes that if one agrees to a set of terms and conditions they should be bound by them, or one doesn't. If one changes ones view based on the amount involved or other factors, then one is being totally hypocritical and throwing their credibility down the toilet.

Freerolling would entail the casino never intending to pay under any circumstances. I don't see any evidence of that at all. Plex must be the stupidist freerollers in the industry, considering they provide popups and a real time WR counter to allow players to make an informed choice.....not to mention listing the term clearly.

 

[Mouche12]

The OP claimed that the pop-up only told him that he would lose his bonus, not his entire winnings. THIS should be investigated. No player in his right might would opt to lose his entire balance, now would they?

 

[Nifty29]

The OP claimed that the pop-up only told him that he would lose his bonus, not his entire winnings. THIS should be investigated. No player in his right might would opt to lose his entire balance, now would they?

No player in their right mind would take a bonus without reading any of the terms, now would they?

 

[Mouche12]

No player in their right mind would take a bonus without reading any of the terms, now would they?

The bonus rule is only part of this story. There is the issue of pop-ups that should effectively warn the player that he's forfeiting ALL of his winnings. If the player decides to play with massive WR attached to a small bonus (because of previous bonuses and small outstanding balances) - that's his choice, but he definitely did not choose to lose all his balance.

Also, the casino broke its OWN bonus rules by giving the OP a second bonus whilst he WAS NOT entitled to it, because he still had an outstanding balance in his account.

Come on Nifty, we all know very well that this matter stinks big time.

 

[Temperance Fox]

Fox,

They might have been nice to you.

They were quite dishonest to the OP here.

They have excuses of "tecdhnically we were allowed to steal your 17k win"


Technically justified stealing. that it is.


Other players must be aware. these guys cannot be trusted. you fully depend on their goodwill.

Especially with a big win. Just give them the slightest excuse and your money is gone.

I didn' t say mine is the Truth, I've only reported my experience of two-years-playing there. Just in the same way others reporte their at others casinos.That's all

 

[vinylweatherman]

The OP claimed that the pop-up only told him that he would lose his bonus, not his entire winnings. THIS should be investigated. No player in his right might would opt to lose his entire balance, now would they?

Of course not.

This case is NOT about the terms, but the very underhanded way the casino's back end systems carried WR from earlier deposits, something that was key to their argument as to how the player had broken the terms.

I believe the casino have acted in bad faith here, knowing that their systems have failed to properly handle the WR carry over in this case, but also knowing they can rely on the terms to support their action, and that there is no way to prove one way or the other who is right about the pop up and other presentations at the point of withdrawal.

The only way to settle this would be to recreate the situation the OP faced, and then record via screenshots how the cashier handles an attempt to withdraw.

The rep has also dodged an important question, and that is whether it is PURELY the carry over that created this situation, with the player having fully met the WR that would have applied to a deposit of 500 with a 100 bonus. It is key because not only does it clarify whether the player met the WR he KNEW would apply, but because if it was solely down to the carry over, it is possible that he DID see a misleading pop-up during withdrawal because the system was only looking at the WR for the 100 bonus, rather than any carried forward from before.

Casinos should be careful, because sometimes something they think can never be proven DOES get proven eventually, just ask Absolute Poker and their cheating spree that only got busted because of a silly screw-up made by a lowly CS agent who was not "in the loop", and so failed to ensure that the correct "doctored" logs were sent out, instead of the full logs.

 

[Nifty29]

Of course not.

This case is NOT about the terms, but the very underhanded way the casino's back end systems carried WR from earlier deposits, something that was key to their argument as to how the player had broken the terms.

I believe the casino have acted in bad faith here, knowing that their systems have failed to properly handle the WR carry over in this case, but also knowing they can rely on the terms to support their action, and that there is no way to prove one way or the other who is right about the pop up and other presentations at the point of withdrawal.

The only way to settle this would be to recreate the situation the OP faced, and then record via screenshots how the cashier handles an attempt to withdraw.

The rep has also dodged an important question, and that is whether it is PURELY the carry over that created this situation, with the player having fully met the WR that would have applied to a deposit of 500 with a 100 bonus. It is key because not only does it clarify whether the player met the WR he KNEW would apply, but because if it was solely down to the carry over, it is possible that he DID see a misleading pop-up during withdrawal because the system was only looking at the WR for the 100 bonus, rather than any carried forward from before.

Casinos should be careful, because sometimes something they think can never be proven DOES get proven eventually, just ask Absolute Poker and their cheating spree that only got busted because of a silly screw-up made by a lowly CS agent who was not "in the loop", and so failed to ensure that the correct "doctored" logs were sent out, instead of the full logs.

See, here is where the player should be expected to apply some common sense.

If I received a popup when I attempted to withdraw saying "are you sure you want to withdraw? You will lose your bonus etc etc" I would immediately think "Why...maybe I didn't meet the WR?" and then contact support to find out what was going on. Amazingly, that is EXACTLY what the OP DID.....so actually the popup DID cause him to stop the withdrawal process right there. The HUGE and totally careless and ridiculous thing they did next was what created this whole issue....instead of WAITING for an answer from support, whom he contacted because he obviously strongly SUSPECTED he had not met the WR, he just became impatience and withdrew again anyway and completed the transaction which made his winnings disappear.

The OP would NOT have lost his winnings if he had:

1. Read the terms before play. (x3 chances)
2. Played his balance to zero OR under $1 before making another deposit/accepting another bonus (and he DID accept the bonus via a popup confirmation which ALSO lists the terms attached..he could have declined at this point) (x3 chances)
3. Checked his WR status via the software cashier section
4. Contacted support when he realised he may not have met WR and waited for a reply (he did contact but didn't wait)
5. Ceased any further action until he knew the exact position he was in

So, NINE opportunities to avoid losing his winnings. NINE.

When he received the "You will lose your bonus if you withdraw" popup, as I stated, he obviously thought he WOULD lose his winnings as well, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to contact support. So, even if the popup said "and winnings", the OP STILL would have done exactly the same thing i.e. contact support. Considering he didn't bother waiting, one would assume he wouldn't have bothered waiting in that situation either, so the result would most likely have been the same.

The term is unreasonable, but the player accepted it. Three times in fact. The casino provided FOUR avenues to prevent the situation:

1. Written terms via the website
2. Written terms via the bonus accept/decline popup
3. WR counter in cashier
4. Live chat

The carry on by those who think players should be absolved of any and all responsibility for their actions seems to focus on the argument that there should have been a FIFTH avenue (a "lose winnings" popup...and we don't know for certain it DIDN't say that BTW). Really? Really??

The best resolution IMO here is for the casino to reset the players balance to his last deposit and bonus amount and clear all historical WR. IN this way, both parties are shouldering some responsibility for what happened.

If the casino just pays up, then any player in the past who had winnings confiscated (and there would be some I'm sure) would automatically have a claim. You can see why the casino would be loathe to do such a thing.

Interestingly, I see KK promotes them on this site, so they must be solid and reputable.

 

[bigjohn]

Interestingly, I see KK promotes them on this site, so they must be solid and reputable.

Come on now, is that really necessary?

If a player plays at a site endorsed by CM and has a problem with said site CM will try to mediate a resolution. There is no promise that the resolution will be to the players liking, there is no promise there will be a resolution at all really. Just an attempt to mediate (with considerable clout of course).

It's not really a whole lot different with Kasino Kings site. The quality of the casinos may differ but that is mostly subjective; if you don't mind waiting to be paid or being extra cautious with the T&C's. Have any of his sites absolutely refused to pay for no reason? BTW, I have been paid from Cool Cat and from Pamper on a free chip (unrelated to KK). This forum is filled with examples where KK has gone to bat for players regardless of whether they signed up through his site or not and he has never been stingy with his contacts or his knowledge.

You have strong convictions and I applaud you for that. I think Kasino King has shown great willingness to help out wherever and whenever possible and is deserving of high stature here, and no, were are not going out to pick out curtains together either.

I guess the little jabs may be just the way it is but IMO not deserved.

 

[Nifty29]

Come on now, is that really necessary?

If a player plays at a site endorsed by CM and has a problem with said site CM will try to mediate a resolution. There is no promise that the resolution will be to the players liking, there is no promise there will be a resolution at all really. Just an attempt to mediate (with considerable clout of course).

It's not really a whole lot different with Kasino Kings site. The quality of the casinos may differ but that is mostly subjective; if you don't mind waiting to be paid or being extra cautious with the T&C's. Have any of his sites absolutely refused to pay for no reason? BTW, I have been paid from Cool Cat and from Pamper on a free chip (unrelated to KK). This forum is filled with examples where KK has gone to bat for players regardless of whether they signed up through his site or not and he has never been stingy with his contacts or his knowledge.

You have strong convictions and I applaud you for that. I think Kasino King has shown great willingness to help out wherever and whenever possible and is deserving of high stature here, and no, were are not going out to pick out curtains together either.

I guess the little jabs may be just the way it is but IMO not deserved.

I don't totally agree, but I respect your opinion John.

The point I'm making by mentioning KK is that if affys said to plex (or other casinos) "this term is crap/predatory and we/I won't promote you until you alter or remove it" then casinos will start actually implementing more reasonable and fair terms. Promoting a casino that has predatory/ player unfriendly terms are really saying "have whatever crap terms you like...we'll still send you players".

Much is said about players voting with their wallet/feet....well its about time affiliates showed the way and did it too.

I was a supporter (financially) of KK for years when he was choosier about who he promotes. Nowadays, the only criteria seems to be "they pay", which is actually doing his players a DISservice. What ethical affys should be saying is "treat my players at xx standard or take a hike".....if affys got together and did this, the casinos who take months to pay would suddenly be doing it in a day. Players get what their affiliates settle for.

 

[bigjohn]

I don't totally agree, but I respect your opinion John.

The point I'm making by mentioning KK is that if affys said to plex (or other casinos) "this term is crap/predatory and we/I won't promote you until you alter or remove it" then casinos will start actually implementing more reasonable and fair terms. Promoting a casino that has predatory/ player unfriendly terms are really saying "have whatever crap terms you like...we'll still send you players".

Much is said about players voting with their wallet/feet....well its about time affiliates showed the way and did it too.

I was a supporter (financially) of KK for years when he was choosier about who he promotes. Nowadays, the only criteria seems to be "they pay", which is actually doing his players a DISservice. What ethical affys should be saying is "treat my players at xx standard or take a hike".....if affys got together and did this, the casinos who take months to pay would suddenly be doing it in a day. Players get what their affiliates settle for.

I have no argument with anything you are saying here.

 

[geordiecolin]

Just a shout out about my experience here. I had read reports about casinoplex that where not flattering so although I had an account with them I had never deposited there.

I was sent a free £20 NDP from them with a max £100 cash out (100x dep play through) and I achieved play through with £180 credit. I had to
make a deposit in order to withdraw (fair enough) and my docs where processed within 12 hours.
A heads up about the max withdrawal. If you manage to complete with £120 in the bank you have the initial £20 taken away to leave £100. If you withdraw with £100 then after taking away that £20 your left with £80. Long wait for the pending period before they release your withdrawal.
So it seems that they have improved from the times when there where reports of them using any excuse to not pay out.
The best thing is that they have just sent me another free £20 chip!