Casinocruise doesn´t pay > 12K

[Tirilej]

The only way this can be avoided is by making sure that anyone who has closed an account on the same platform is automatically prevented from signing up to another casino sharing the platform, that way the player will know he isnt welcome to play there and it will save a lot of anger and frustration at a later stage.

I think it would be much better if the casinos are asking why the person wants to close their account.
To have this easy self exclusion where you just agree to something you don't read, because you maybe just want to get out of the casino, isn't so smart.
We all know that when there are laggings and errors constantly somewhere we just want to get away, never to see the place again. No good reason to get winnings confiscated.

Of course we should read the rules, but then there is that language question again. It's always in English.
I hadn't even heard the word self exclusion when I started to play. Many people are good in English but not that good. We do not understand the rules perfectly. We just trust the casinos.

Only emails and clear questions is what I would like to have.

 

[Matti]

The only way this can be avoided is by making sure that anyone who has closed an account on the same platform is automatically prevented from signing up to another casino sharing the platform, that way the player will know he isnt welcome to play there and it will save a lot of anger and frustration at a later stage.

That would meen that all players have to provide ID upon registration at a casino and wait to get them verified before being able to play. I wouldn't like that.

 

[LloydApter]

I think it would be much better if the casinos are asking why the person wants to close their account.
To have this easy self exclusion where you just agree to something you don't read, because you maybe just want to get out of the casino, isn't so smart.
We all know that when there are laggings and errors constantly somewhere we just want to get away, never to see the place again. No good reason to get winnings confiscated.

Of course we should read the rules, but then there is that language question again. It's always in English.
I hadn't even heard the word self exclusion when I started to play. Many people are good in English but not that good. We do not understand the rules perfectly. We just trust the casinos.

Only emails and clear questions is what I would like to have.

Hi Tirilej, our bonus terms are in German on the DE site and Swedish on the SV site, which I think helps. I'm checking out about the details relating the SE issue and will post about it soon. Thanks and have a good night!

 

[Tirilej]

Hi Tirilej, our bonus terms are in German on the DE site and Swedish on the SV site, which I think helps. I'm checking out about the details relating the SE issue and will post about it soon. Thanks and have a good night!

Yes you have that and that's good, but everyone doesn't have other languages.

Sorry Lloyd, this have gone above the OP's issue and now the discussion is more about Every Matrix and self exclusion.
I'm sure you can solve that too for us

 

[cncas123]

That would meen that all players have to provide ID upon registration at a casino and wait to get them verified before being able to play. I wouldn't like that.

I dont think that would necessarily be the case. If an exclusion exists, surely EM can have a database of user information for excluded users, and when a new account is opened at a casino on their platform the database can run a quick check? I dont think players who are experiencing these problems are trying to con the casinos or get round any exclusions, I think there is a genuine need to differentiate between closing an account and self excluding for responsible gambling reasons.

 

[Mouche12]

Take it a little easy Mouche12.
You wrote this so maybe people think that the rep for Cruise hasn't responded to the OP for 8-9 days, but that was another player.
About this issue the rep maybe don't know it exists yet. He haven't read the thread and it started yesterday.

When he does he needs more information, and if it will be a PAB then we won't get any information until it's finished.

I will give this thread to the rep for Every Matrix too though. They are the ones responsible for what is happening to some players, and something needs to be done to make it all more clear.

Maybe the only way is to stop letting people close their accounts by themselves. If they are forced to send an email, then the casinos should ask the player why he want his account closed if it's unclear from the first email.
That way both the player and the casino would know for sure, and they could give information about other Every Matrix casinos at the same time...If it's a case of self excluding for gambling problems of course.
Otherwise it doesn't matter.

I know, I was referring to the other player sending a PM to the rep and his non-responsiveness for more than a week.

I'd now like to know if the player indeed exceeded the max bet size. If he really did, nothing can be done about it, really sucks.

 

[cncas123]

I have never understood why people keep self excluding from casinos. But each to their own. Anyway before a player self excludes it should be their responsibility to check with the casino exactly what it means and how it affects them at other casinos.

If I close an account, it will be because I dont want to be sent endless emails from that casino to entice me back, and I try and explain that to chat, but I have found recently that some accounts that I have closed in the past are now self excluded rather than closed, even though I never self excluded. There is a huge difference between closing an account and self excluding, but casinos dont seem to differentiate between the two.

 

[Senfpott]

Hi there,

there´s some news and I want to inform you what´s going on in my case here.

LlodApter managed to get me the logs of my bets placed during playing with the bonus. Thanks for that! But I´m not happy that this is a simple and unprotected excel-sheet. So I and everbody else could simply do some modifications on that. But that should´t be the case here....
In this sheet there are about 75 bets higher than the maxbet of 5 EUR. Correct. But all other bets were excluded and not listed, means that I am not able to check if I did the needed wagering amount before placing these bets....

I really don´t want to blame casinocruise or any other casino. But after confiscating 12K EUR I really wish to have some real proove of breaking the Bonusrules.

Anyway, at this moment I´m deeply disappointed as you can imagine. I don´t see good chances to get the winning amount or even a part of it. If I really did break the rules, it´s me who´s responsible for that. I know that.... Even it was only 1 EUR I was eventually overbetting....

I will now contact cruise again to get the deposits back at least. That should be no problem.

I´m not sure if it´s a useful way to do a PAB now?!?! I´m still thinking that I didn´t break the rules but I have really no idea how to proof....

@LloydApter: Thanks for your work here! Do you personally think, that there´s a chance to get even a compensation or something for getting more than 12K confiscated? I mean loosing 12K for overbetting 1 EUR - if this is really correct - is pretty hard

Selfexclusion-Problem:
@Everyone: Feel free to discuss this problem in this threat, but maybe it´s a better way to open some new threat for discussing the problem cause it may have an affect on many, many players. So everyone should know about that.

Senfpott

 

[KasinoKing]

I´m not sure if it´s a useful way to do a PAB now?!?! I´m still thinking that I didn´t break the rules but I have really no idea how to proof....(

100% definitely YES - do a PAB.

Not just for yourself, but for all other players who may fall foul of the "self exclusion" issue in the future.
If casinos are going to confiscate anything for this reason, it MUST be written into the T&Cs, with a list (or link to a list) of ALL the other casinos within the group. Anything less is totally unfair as it puts the casinos in a win-win situation.

A PAB should also greatly encourage Cruise to supply your FULL play history. I'm sure they would like to get Accredited here; withholding this information is NOT going to help their cause in that direction.

KK

 

[Senfpott]

100% definitely YES - do a PAB.

Not just for yourself, but for all other players who may fall foul of the "self exclusion" issue in the future.
If casinos are going to confiscate anything for this reason, it MUST be written into the T&Cs, with a list (or link to a list) of ALL the other casinos within the group. Anything less is totally unfair as it puts the casinos in a win-win situation.

A PAB should also greatly encourage Cruise to supply your FULL play history. I'm sure they would like to get Accredited here; withholding this information is NOT going to help their cause in that direction.

KK

I fully agree and did the PAB right away. I hope I did fill everything in the correct way and that u´ll be able to understand my bad english ;-)

 

[Harry_BKK]

LlodApter managed to get me the logs of my bets placed during playing with the bonus. Thanks for that! But I´m not happy that this is a simple and unprotected excel-sheet. So I and everbody else could simply do some modifications on that. But that should´t be the case here....
In this sheet there are about 75 bets higher than the maxbet of 5 EUR. Correct. But all other bets were excluded and not listed, means that I am not able to check if I did the needed wagering amount before placing these bets....(

That is just plain cheeky of them, to put it politely. Sending only a part of the log with the bets above the 5$ mark

They certainly try everything to convince you that you are in the wrong. Don't give up, the PAB will help you. Just have to be patient.

Good Luck

 

[Senfpott]

That is just plain cheeky of them, to put it politely. Sending only a part of the log with the bets above the 5$ mark

They certainly try everything to convince you that you are in the wrong. Don't give up, the PAB will help you. Just have to be patient.

Good Luck

Thanks!

I´m not quiet sure, what I´m allowed to post here after doing the PAB. So I´ll better say nothing more here in this case till everything is clear or I´m told otherwise....

Thanks to the great support here in this forum!!! :notworthy

 

[Harry_BKK]

Thanks!

I´m not quiet sure, what I´m allowed to post here after doing the PAB. So I´ll better say nothing more here in this case till everything is clear or I´m told otherwise....

Thanks to the great support here in this forum!!! :notworthy

ZIP!!!...nothing, you would only jeopardize your PAB by posting further comments.

Gruesse aus Bangkok
Harry

 

[LloydApter]

I was just updated that Senfpott has been sent a full and detailed report and explanation of the breach.

Regarding the EM SE issue - our solution for now is to refund all players who play at our casino their deposits while at the same time they are SE at another casino using the same EM platform regardless if they win of lose.

 

[kavaman]

That may be a solution, for you but its not ideal by any means. I mean most people don't even know what everymatrix is. It should be clearly listed in your t&c that if another player has a casino at another everymatrix site (including a list of which sites are em), that if your SE you guys are not paying out winnings.

Or, create something together with EM so that the accounts get locked upon creation.

Or just lose this rule. Its not for the players, i mean some players just self exclude themselves purely because they don't want to play with that particular casino anymore, not because of gambling problems. Yeah maybe 50% exclude because of gambling problems, but unless they are admitting they have gambling problem, then they are just moving on to another casino, which may or may not be EM, so they shouldn't be punished.

Do you think its ideal that player does not know he is playing another EM casino, and win's only to find out he is not going to be paid his win. This just makes angry complaining players and alot of bad publicity for the casino.

 

[LloydApter]

If a player that SEed deposits and loses they can go to the regulator and get their deposit back. All EM SE are only considered gambling issue SE.

Yes, we are working on a better solution. For now 1) check the EM site for casino partners 2) don't SE rather ask the casino to stop sending you emails or to close your account

And of course if you SE because you have a gambling problem then you should not be gambling anyway

 

[Tirilej]

If a player that SEed deposits and loses they can go to the regulator and get their deposit back. All EM SE are only considered gambling issue SE.

Yes, we are working on a better solution. For now 1) check the EM site for casino partners 2) don't SE rather ask the casino to stop sending you emails or to close your account

And of course if you SE because you have a gambling problem then you should not be gambling anyway

That's the thing. We can't check EM's site for casino partners.

It says they have 64 clients, but only 32 are told. Who are the rest?

Of those 64 several have their own licence, and don't need to follow EM on this. Who are they? Most players don't know this.

It's time this get its own thread so people will find out. I'll do that later if I have the time, or please someone who's interested. Go ahead

 

[kavaman]

Yeah i wasn't talking about myself, i never SE . I was just talking about new guys who might SE, and tirilej is right on this, EM site does not list all their partners ;(. I kinda agree , we are filling this thread with SE issues rather then the actual problem , so maybe it would deserve its own thread.

I don't have any issue with casinocruise in particular, i mean i think you guys are a quality site like all em sites.

 

[Nammy]

It's an odd way to manage a problem gambler exclusion issue.

Problem gamblers - and I've seen many in normal casinos - are people who suffer financial hardship as a consequence of gambling. The act of gambling is immaterial, it's the financial consequences that count. So here, when the problem gambler actually wins, ie. the actual financial consequences are the reverse of the usual ones and the outcome is not, happily, problematic, the casino responds by changing the win to a non-win, thus returning the problem gambler to his usual losing state. In other words, a problem gambler who almost always loses but may occasionally catch a break and win, is now condemned to forever lose, because a win will never be paid because...he's a problem gambler.

It's an ironic way to treat problem gamblers.

Of course, it turns out that bonus terms may have been broken. But the casino hasn't supplied the requested evidence to show whether or not the terms actually were broken, only selective material which shows nothing, and which the casino must have known did not supply the required information when they supplied it.

This is also odd.

To the player: get your full logs. And why in the world did you create this unnecessary problem? Why not either cash out after you were done with the bonus, or carry on playing but without going into rule-breaking territory, which you did simply because "the bonus terms had been satisfied"? You pointlessly created a potential issue where no issue needed to be created.

 

[Tirilej]

Since we (the players) have a hard time figuring out what casinos are related and what rules they are following, then maybe there should be some special rules for at least the accredited ones to follow.

Dunover started a thread about that: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/clarity-of-related-casino-terms.66725/?t=66725

Please jump in with comments there

 

[Mouche12]

Quote:
To the player: get your full logs. And why in the world did you create this unnecessary problem? Why not either cash out after you were done with the bonus, or carry on playing but without going into rule-breaking territory, which you did simply because "the bonus terms had been satisfied"? You pointlessly created a potential issue where no issue needed to be created.Unquote

My understanding is that players can start wagering any bet size they please AFTER the WR (i.e. according to the bonus terms) have been met, so I don't see why this could create a potential issue.

The OP has now received a detailed report and hopefully further info will be released once this matter has been settled.

 

[Nammy]

To the player: get your full logs. And why in the world did you create this unnecessary problem? Why not either cash out after you were done with the bonus, or carry on playing but without going into rule-breaking territory, which you did simply because "the bonus terms had been satisfied"? You pointlessly created a potential issue where no issue needed to be created.

My understanding is that players can start wagering any bet size they please AFTER the WR (i.e. according to the bonus terms) have been met, so I don't see why this could create a potential issue.

It's already created an issue, so that much should be self-evident.

Example: wagering is $1000; maximum bet is $1; player plays $1 slots; player wagers $1000.

On his 1001st spin, he changes to $5, on the basis that "the wagering is complete so I can play as I like".

Sensible or misguided?

 

[Tirilej]

It's already created an issue, so that much should be self-evident.

Example: wagering is $1000; maximum bet is $1; player plays $1 slots; player wagers $1000.

On his 1001st spin, he changes to $5, on the basis that "the wagering is complete so I can play as I like".

Sensible or misguided?

So what? You can't accuse someone for what he's doing after he made the wagering.
Besides, it's none of our business. Many are doing that and I'm sure they don't expect that to be the issue.

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

 

[gokkie]

This thread caught my eye because of the self exclusion thing.
I had the same happen to me only days back (after april 6)with two every matrix connected casino's. Both accredited here.

A few days back started playing again with a casino where I had played before but a long time ago about 7 months.
I could login fine, so I played and won 1300€. I cashed out this amount as well.

I had to send in docs because my total lifetime winnings with the casino were above 2300€.
No problem, did that.

Then I got an e-mail stating my account was self-excluded and therefore blocked and doc. verification was cancelled
So I tried logging in and my account was blocked.

I was sure I was not self-excluded at this casino. Also I was unsure what would happen to my winnings.
I got an e-mail that I was self-excluded at another sister casino, so therefore they also blocked my account at this one.
However the only thing that triggered this is because I won and they had to verify my account. Then they probably found I was self excluded at their sister casino.

So now I was getting very concerned about being paid. I checked the terms and conditions of the casino I was playing at and nowhere I found any relation to the other casino.
The reason I knew they were connected is because the casino's are both accredited here and there I saw they are connected.

However I got an e-mail they were paying me my winnings anyway and two days later I received the total of 1300€
So reading this thread I feel lucky at the end it ended well for me.
I would have been sick if for this reason I would have been denied my winnings.

 

[SpinUk]

deleted

 

[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