Casinocruise doesn´t pay > 12K

[Nammy]

Why are you trying to punish the player even more? Isn't it enough that he (probably) will get his winnings confiscated?

I'm not trying to punish him. I'm highlighting a mistake he made, not in doing anything against the terms but in giving himself a rod for his own back. In fact, he appears to have done two silly things:

1) Self excluded.

2) Changed bet size in a potentially nebulous area.

You don't need to self-exclude to stop playing. Just uninstall the software. Again, you're creating a potential problem. Of course, if he wants to, so be it. But why take the chance of running into issues with sister casinos? since he's not a problem gambler, there is nothing to gain and potentially everything to lose - as we're now seeing.

He can change his bet size if he wants to, and if the casino then says "hey, you broke the terms by increasing your bet size with a bonus in play", he can come back with "but the bonus wagering was complete, show me the logs to prove I broke the terms", at which point the casino might provide selective logs which don't help, at which point the player can say "hey, these logs are wrong..." etc. etc., until such a point that the whole thing collapses in confusion. Or he gets paid - maybe.

The alternative scenarios as per my suggestions would be:

1) Uninstall the software already. Don't self-exclude.

and

2) Play the bonus, finish the wagering and cash out. Don't look to tempt fate.

In the future, I hope he follows my suggestions. I won't labour the point further.

On the face of the evidence here, and regardless of these two rather calamitous matters, he needs to be paid.

 

[Tirilej]

On the face of the evidence here, and regardless of these two rather calamitous matters, he needs to be paid.

Sorry but you're dreaming. I can understand how it may look in your eyes since you're not an online gambler yourself. In time you might see it differently

The only evidence there is in this matter, is given to the player now, and I highly doubt that they would claim the player had broken their rules if it wasn't the truth.
I hope he comes back and tell us what he have found and that will probably be the end of this issue, or he will PAB.

 

[AnnaTS]

I'm not trying to punish him. I'm highlighting a mistake he made, not in doing anything against the terms but in giving himself a rod for his own back. In fact, he appears to have done two silly things:

1) Self excluded.

2) Changed bet size in a potentially nebulous area.

You don't need to self-exclude to stop playing. Just uninstall the software. Again, you're creating a potential problem. Of course, if he wants to, so be it. But why take the chance of running into issues with sister casinos? since he's not a problem gambler, there is nothing to gain and potentially everything to lose - as we're now seeing.

He can change his bet size if he wants to, and if the casino then says "hey, you broke the terms by increasing your bet size with a bonus in play", he can come back with "but the bonus wagering was complete, show me the logs to prove I broke the terms", at which point the casino might provide selective logs which don't help, at which point the player can say "hey, these logs are wrong..." etc. etc., until such a point that the whole thing collapses in confusion. Or he gets paid - maybe.

The alternative scenarios as per my suggestions would be:

1) Uninstall the software already. Don't self-exclude.

and

2) Play the bonus, finish the wagering and cash out. Don't look to tempt fate.

In the future, I hope he follows my suggestions. I won't labour the point further.

On the face of the evidence here, and regardless of these two rather calamitous matters, he needs to be paid.

So basically you are saying people shouldn't have the right to close their account because they no longer want to play at that casino nothing else not maybe the casinos should offer better options when a person wants to close their accounts because maybe if the casinos offer better options this issue wouldn't be happening.

This whole thing about when are person ups their bet after meeting wagering requirements then the casino says you broke the max bet rule is ridiculous because if the money is cashable it's no longer bonus money if this was the case every person who cashed out after meeting the wagering requirements owes the casinos the money back so if that was the case why haven't we seen casinos taking everyone to court to get the money back from people who cashed out after meeting wagering requirements because they know it's no longer bonus money hence why you are able to cash it out.

Anna

 

[Nammy]

The only evidence there is in this matter, is given to the player now, and I highly doubt that they would claim the player had broken their rules if it wasn't the truth.

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

So basically you are saying people shouldn't have the right to close their account because they no longer want to play at that casino nothing else not maybe the casinos should offer better options when a person wants to close their accounts because maybe if the casinos offer better options this issue wouldn't be happening.

Please point to the bit where I said people "didn't have the right" to so do. Though having quoted me as saying...

You don't need to self-exclude to stop playing

...I'm not sure where "you are saying people shouldn't have the right..." etc came from, as I clearly wasn't. He has the right. And if he wants to potentially create problems down the line, he should. I've seen blackjack players double on hard 17. I know how uniquely masochistic many gamblers are.

My suggestion to this player is that he just uninstall the software. Saves the hassle of whatever "closing the account" entails, and he can then safely play anywhere else knowing he isn't going to trip over some self-imposed exclusion policy from the dim and distant past, and risk not getting paid. What's not to love?

This whole thing about when are person ups their bet after meeting wagering requirements then the casino says you broke the max bet rule is ridiculous because if the money is cashable it's no longer bonus money if this was the case every person who cashed out after meeting the wagering requirements owes the casinos the money back so if that was the case why haven't we seen casinos taking everyone to court to get the money back from people who cashed out after meeting wagering requirements because they know it's no longer bonus money hence why you are able to cash it out.

Commas help .

But I got your point in the first two sentences.

No, not at all. Of course, go back another day for another bonus. But if you do successfully fulfil whatever the requirements might be, just cash out. Keep your session clear of potential problems. The casino may simply see the too-big bets in the same session as the bonus, and say "you broke the rules" without clearly checking. They may have made an honest mistake. But a problem has emerged which didn't need to emerge. There is no sense in sailing so close to the wind. Just cash out already. Then when you get paid, go back in a blitz 'em with the big bets.

 

[AnnaTS]

I have absolutely no idea what that means.





Please point to the bit where I said people "didn't have the right" to so do. Though having quoted me as saying...





...I'm not sure where "you are saying people shouldn't have the right..." etc came from, as I clearly wasn't. He has the right. And if he wants to potentially create problems down the line, he should. I've seen blackjack players double on hard 17. I know how uniquely masochistic many gamblers are.

My suggestion to this player is that he just uninstall the software. Saves the hassle of whatever "closing the account" entails, and he can then safely play anywhere else knowing he isn't going to trip over some self-imposed exclusion policy from the dim and distant past, and risk not getting paid. What's not to love?

Then if you are saying people have the right to close their account then why are you posting saying people shouldn't close their accounts using self exclude if that is the only option the casino offers instead of giving the options the casinos should offer the client in different ways to close their account ?

The option you gave would of benefit the people who see this thread which i doubt is total amount of people who gamble online and why the casinos should offer the clients more options to close their accounts.









Commas help .

But I got your point in the first two sentences.

No, not at all. Of course, go back another day for another bonus. But if you do successfully fulfil whatever the requirements might be, just cash out. Keep your session clear of potential problems. The casino may simply see the too-big bets in the same session as the bonus, and say "you broke the rules" without clearly checking. They may have made an honest mistake. But a problem has emerged which didn't need to emerge. There is no sense in sailing so close to the wind. Just cash out already. Then when you get paid, go back in a blitz 'em with the big bets.

Then if you are saying people have the right to close their account then why are you posting saying people shouldn't close their accounts using self exclude if that is the only option the casino offers instead of giving the options in ways the casinos could possibly offer the client to close their account ?

The option you gave would of benefit the people who see this thread which i doubt is total amount of people who gamble online and why the casinos should offer the clients more options to close their accounts.

The casinos can easily see when bets are made when a bonus has finished just like they can see when they have been made when a bonus is active just like a player can easily check when they have met the wagering requirements.
so if a player knows the bonus is no longer active and is having fun then they should be able bet as much as they want because they are no longer tied to the bonus terms.

I do find it strange how you seem to be saying what the player should do but not what the casino should be doing as if the casino couldn't be at fault.

Anna

 

[Senfpott]

Hi there,

the PAB is already done, so I don´t want to say much more here in this thread. Casinocruise did send me the whole gamelog an Friday in a detailed pdf-document and I´m still in contact with LloydApter in this case. So nothing to complain about the communication so far.

Senfpott

 

[Nammy]

Then if you are saying people have the right to close their account then why are you posting saying people shouldn't close their accounts using self exclude if that is the only option the casino offers instead of giving the options in ways the casinos could possibly offer the client to close their account ?

I'm saying you shouldn't self-exclude full stop (unless you're a problem gambler), you should simply uninstall the software. Or why not just leave it on the computer, but simply not access it by not logging in? This thread is testimony to the fact that self-exclusion can cause problems. If you're not a problem gambler, why run the risk when there is absolutely no risk in simply uninstalling, or just not logging in?

The option you gave would of benefit the people who see this thread which i doubt is total amount of people who gamble online and why the casinos should offer the clients more options to close their accounts.

Indeed, I doubt many online gamblers actually read forums. But I dispute that casinos rationally need to offer ways for customers to close accounts, other than for problem gamblers self-excluding.

The casinos can easily see when bets are made when a bonus has finished just like they can see when they have been made when a bonus is active just like a player can easily check when they have met the wagering requirements. So if a player knows the bonus is no longer active and is having fun then they should be able bet as much as they want because they are no longer tied to the bonus terms.

It's much safer for the player, when bonus restrictions have applied but are now satisfied, to cash out and wait for payment. Then there is no risk of mistakes happening. This thread is again testimony to that.

I do find it strange how you seem to be saying what the player should do but not what the casino should be doing as if the casino couldn't be at fault.

I've said they should pay - what more can I say they should do?

That does not change the fact that players can evidently take steps to make their experience smoother. Here, the player pointlessly self-excluded at a sister operation, and made bets that it would have been wiser not to make, irrespective of the fact that he was technically allowed to make them. If he had done neither of these things he wouldn't be in the current pickle.

However, I'm optimistic that in this particular circumstance the outcome will be favourable to the player.

 

[Nammy]

the PAB is already done, so I don´t want to say much more here in this thread. Casinocruise did send me the whole gamelog an Friday in a detailed pdf-document and I´m still in contact with LloydApter in this case. So nothing to complain about the communication so far.

Reading between the lines, all sounds good.

 

[Nammy]

This complaint, in the bonus forum, looks almost identical:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/casinoadrenaline-voided-£5k.66583/?t=66583

Again, bigger bets made before full cashout (rather, after reversal), but still in accordance with the rules.

Definitely an issue with players finishing bonus rules play, then thinking they can play any way they want - which they can in theory - but ending up in a pickle.

 

[Tirilej]

This complaint, in the bonus forum, looks almost identical:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/casinoadrenaline-voided-£5k.66583/?t=66583

Again, bigger bets made before full cashout (rather, after reversal), but still in accordance with the rules.

Definitely an issue with players finishing bonus rules play, then thinking they can play any way they want - which they can in theory - but ending up in a pickle.

You must have misunderstood the issue in this thread.

The casino claims that the player broke the max bet rules before the wagering was done.

Also you shouldn't compare this casino with the other one. This casino would not have denied the winnings if the player hadn't been breaking the rules, and they didn't care about what he did after...

I hope you understand now

 

[Nammy]

You must have misunderstood the issue in this thread.

Not at all, but I think you know that already. Note I said "almost" identical.

In both cases, bets which exceeded the bonus rules but which took place after the bonus rules were satisfied have caused problems. In this case when the player carried on in the apparent same session, and in the other thread after he'd withdrawn but (sigh) reversed. The problem is essentially the same, as I said.

 

[Tirilej]

Not at all, but I think you know that already. Note I said "almost" identical.

In both cases, bets which exceeded the bonus rules but which took place after the bonus rules were satisfied have caused problems. In this case when the player carried on in the apparent same session, and in the other thread after he'd withdrawn but (sigh) reversed. The problem is essentially the same, as I said.

Again, no it's not!

If you read a little more around, you do have a few years to catch up, you will find that most casinos doesn't want you to stop playing after you have finished the wagering. They want you to continue to play.
You will even find that some have lost their rights to use bonuses for the simple reason that they have cashed out as soon as they have met the wagering.
See? It's not totally clear, and we maybe never know what each casino would like us to do.

Please don't write things like they are the truth if you don't know because it can be confusing.

Edit: ...and the higher bets the OP of this thread made after the wagering was done did NOT create this issue, or had anything to do with what the outcome may be!

 

[Jakestar]

This has been a good read through pages 1 to 9 for this insomniac at 3am. Time for bed now -.-

 

[Nammy]

If you read a little more around, you do have a few years to catch up, you will find that most casinos doesn't want you to stop playing after you have finished the wagering. They want you to continue to play. You will even find that some have lost their rights to use bonuses for the simple reason that they have cashed out as soon as they have met the wagering.

No doubt. I'm sure online casinos would rather players played their bonuses / deposits to extinction, in the same way land-based casinos would prefer gamblers simply hand over their wallets and cut out the middleman.

But that is nothing to do with this issue, and I don't know why you mention it. It is irrelevant to what I said about the essential similarity between these two cases, which hinges on apparent bet-size infractions where, in truth, there are none. In that sense, the cases are identical.

Edit: ...and the higher bets the OP of this thread made after the wagering was done did NOT create this issue, or had anything to do with what the outcome may be!

I think you must have missed the second issue the casino raised. First it was the fact of the self-exclusion. But secondly - and it seems to me in something of a water-muddying exercise - the casino raised the matter of the bigger bets, which appear to have actually occurred after wagering was complete:

There´s some new Information from the livechat.... Sounds not good!
Except the selfexclusion-thing they now argue to their T&C´s and that I placed bets higher than the maximum of 5EUR.

Clear on that?

In the other thread I linked to, the casino claims that again bigger bets are the issue, in that instance because they claim that the bonus remains "active", extremely bizarrely, until the player cashes out:

Next day my winnings had not been processed so I rollbacked one of my withdrawals to try to win more, and so I did, the only problem is I made some high bets since I thought I didn't have any bonus, and now the casino is claiming that the bonus is active until all winnings are withdrawn, so they voided all winnings due to irregular play!

I've emboldened the relevant bits to help.

In both cases, bigger bets were either the only issue (Senfpott) or half the issue (Joakim777). In that essential point the matters are identical. I can't make it any clearer than that. However, I think your objections are more based on a recent angst you've developed in my direction (noted patronising comments about "years to catch up", though I'm afraid forum membership longevity with thousands of posts is in no way indicative of clarity of thought, nor more than membership brevity and few posts is indicative of the opposite) rather than any actual disagreement on this matter.

The object lesson that new players such as myself, and quite possibly old players alike, can take from this is: if you've been restricted by bonus rules, play no more once the rules have been satisfied, but simply cash out. Or, if play more you must, do not change your betting pattern or the game you were playing.

 

[Tirilej]

I don't believe that you're a NEW member here.

Time will tell I guess

 

[Senfpott]

Hi there again,

because of your discussion here, I wanna review my case very shortly:

There were two things the casino complains about:

At first - after I did the withdrawal - they closed my account. Support said, that this is the case because I selfexcluded in another casino of the same network.

After two days, they mentioned in addition to that, that I broke the bonusrules by placing bets over 5 EUR while playing the bonus and therefore they confiscated all my winnings.

By now the deposits I´ve done there where charged back.

Senfpott

 

[randomiam]

At least you got back what you Putin

 

[LloydApter]

Hi there again,

because of your discussion here, I wanna review my case very shortly:

There were two things the casino complains about:

At first - after I did the withdrawal - they closed my account. Support said, that this is the case because I selfexcluded in another casino of the same network.

After two days, they mentioned in addition to that, that I broke the bonusrules by placing bets over 5 EUR while playing the bonus and therefore they confiscated all my winnings.

By now the deposits I´ve done there where charged back.

Senfpott

We have Ecogra's official statement regarding such matters and it is as follows:

The basic procedure for any account opened or accessed during a self-exclusion period is that neither the player nor the operator should benefit from play by a vulnerable person.

Therefore the player should be returned the position they were in before play commenced – i.e. refund the deposits and void any winnings.

We are pushing hard to get a solution in place that will notify the player upon registration. The current one isn't a good one - no need to go through all this wasted time and pain (talking about the player of course). Apologies Senfpott. Thanks for the update.

 

[Senfpott]

We have Ecogra's official statement regarding such matters and it is as follows:

The basic procedure for any account opened or accessed during a self-exclusion period is that neither the player nor the operator should benefit from play by a vulnerable person.

Therefore the player should be returned the position they were in before play commenced – i.e. refund the deposits and void any winnings.

We are pushing hard to get a solution in place that will notify the player upon registration. The current one isn't a good one - no need to go through all this wasted time and pain (talking about the player of course). Apologies Senfpott. Thanks for the update.

Hi LloydApter,

thanks again. I do understand that. Of course disappointing for me, but it seems fair.

Time and pain.... yes!
What about a compensation for all that time and pain ... just joking....

Senfpott

 

[Mouche12]

We have Ecogra's official statement regarding such matters and it is as follows:

The basic procedure for any account opened or accessed during a self-exclusion period is that neither the player nor the operator should benefit from play by a vulnerable person.

Therefore the player should be returned the position they were in before play commenced – i.e. refund the deposits and void any winnings.

We are pushing hard to get a solution in place that will notify the player upon registration. The current one isn't a good one - no need to go through all this wasted time and pain (talking about the player of course). Apologies Senfpott. Thanks for the update.

I get it, and what a bummer for the OP. 1-0 for the casino, they should be very pleased. But why this after-the-fact accusation of exceeding max bet sizes when confiscation already occurred (and, as it turns out, justifiably so) on the basis of this self-exclusion?

I for one won't be playing at Casino Cruise, just to be safe.

 

[refre]

What are the MGA rules on this matter?
Are you bound by Ecogra guidelines?


We all agree the player should never have been allowed to play.

Due to poor system safe guards and the sharing of gaming license between seemingly different businesses, he was though.
In my opinion the player is the victim here.
He was acting in good faith.

What happens now?
Does your agreement with EM or MGA cover this?

It seems the procedure may not be set in stone.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...nt-get-closed-down-betspin-com.66774/?t=66774

Betspin refunded deposits AND winnings.
In my opinion they did the only right thing.


Freddy

 

[brianmon]

I for one won't be playing at Casino Cruise, just to be safe.

It's probably not a problem unique to Casino Cruise. These are the other white label casinos of jetbull.com who share the same licence according to the UKGC

Status: White Label

BeanBagSports.com
Bonza.com
CasinoLuck.com
Guts.com
NoxWin.com
PlayHippo.com
Slotobank.com
Superlenny.com
Thrills.com
casinocruise.com
m.casinocruise.com

secure.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/gccustomweb/PublicRegister/PRAccountDetails.aspx?accountNo=39383

 

[cncas123]

It's probably not a problem unique to Casino Cruise. These are the other white label casinos of jetbull.com who share the same licence according to the UKGC

Status: White Label

BeanBagSports.com
Bonza.com
CasinoLuck.com
Guts.com
NoxWin.com
PlayHippo.com
Slotobank.com
Superlenny.com
Thrills.com
casinocruise.com
m.casinocruise.com

secure.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/gccustomweb/PublicRegister/PRAccountDetails.aspx?accountNo=39383

So if anyone has closed an account at any of the above and subsequently opened an account at another of the above sites, they will not be entitled to any winnings? Maybe the rep can confirm this?

 

[Tirilej]

So if anyone has closed an account at any of the above and subsequently opened an account at another of the above sites, they will not be entitled to any winnings? Maybe the rep can confirm this?

It is confusing to know who are stand alones and not but I know that Next/Luck have their own licence, and so does Thrills/SuperLenny.
Guts/Betspin also.

But those 2+2+2 are sister casinos so are you self excluded at one of them you can't play at the other one.

But which casinos that Every Matrix lists, apart from those above, I don't know if we ever will find out.
Please Lloyd if you have a list then give it to us so we know which are connected to your casino

 

[brianmon]

So if anyone has closed an account at any of the above and subsequently opened an account at another of the above sites, they will not be entitled to any winnings? Maybe the rep can confirm this?

Not if you've closed an account, just if you've self-excluded
I closed my account at Guts, but have had it confirmed by the Guts rep Ben, that it was a closure, after I joined Betspin, who apparently share the licence with Guts