Bonus Complaint CasinoJoy refusing to pay due to "bonus abuse" - advice?

kernow

Dormant account
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Location
UK
Hello all,
I originally posted the below message in late July when the incident took place, but almost immeditaely removed it in order to submit a PAB. Since then, maxd has been in communication with CasinoJoy but it seems they have been no more responsive to him then they were to me in the email conversation below.
I would appreciate all constructive advice and opinion. The next logical steps would be a complaint to the LGA (haha) or attempting to take them to court in Malta...any Maltese court experience would be especially appreciated. Thanks!


-- -- -- -- --
A brief description of the scenario:
CasinoJoy offered me a VIP deposit match bonus. I played the bonus on the slot Blade and had a significant win. The slot Blade was on the list of allowed games displayed when the bonus is clicked on in the promotions tab of the cashier. My play also resulted in the bonus wager percentage bar increasing in the cashier. All fine? Apparently not.
I had completed the wagering last week, but had not initiated a withdrawal or logged in since then and yesterday I received the following email:
They seem to be relying on the "bonus abuse" rule with no solid ground to do so and keep quoting from the Welcome Bonus terms, not the VIP terms. The rest of this post will be a series of emails exchanged, as this best describes the situation, please provide any advice or opinion. Thanks!

Hello, we are contacting you from CasinoJoy Support.

We are sorry to inform you that after reviewing the game logs to validate your latest winning , our records shows that after receiving the promotion you were betting in the game Blade Marvel slot, which is a 9 line slot , and therefore excluded for this promotion. Following this , your game play, promotion and winnings have been voided.



We thank you for your understanding in this matter.

From me to casino:
Well, I am shocked to receive this email.
This email is primarily for Natalie, the VIP manager, who offered me this VIP bonus. I was going to email you to say how pleased I was with this fantastic win that I had hit playing Blade on the VIP bonus you'd given me! I hope this is a misunderstanding, as this is the biggest win I have ever had in my life!
I can now see in the VIP terms that it said the 9 line slots do not count towards the wagering, but it does not say that if I play on 9 line slots you have the right to remove all my money!! Additonally, I had no cause to suspect that there was anything wrong, because all of my play on Blade was counting towards the wagering requirement in the cashier and showed up as an allowed game in the list of games when I clicked on the bonus in the promotions page. 2 clear signals that it was OK to play Blade.
I hope this is merely a mistake and that my funds are returned to my balance promptly. As you can see, I had made no attempt to withdraw and you will also see that the cashier showed that the wagering requirement had been completed successfully.

Response from casino:
We are very sorry for your dissappointment but as written in oure terms and conditions, these actions had to be taken. Please refer to this link for the full terms and conditions;
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

In your case the 2 points that you need take note of are;
•* All 9 line slots (with the exception of Millionaires Club II) are excluded from this promotion. Dino Delight is also excluded.
and
•The Service Providers reserve the right to ban any player from its casino and remove bonus monies and/or winnings associated with the bonus monies without notice if a player displays any behaviour that the Service Providers deem in their sole discretion to be an abuse of bonus monies or a breach of these terms and conditions. Bonus abuse may include, but is not limited to, claiming multiple bonuses in a month, a player wagering the bonus money on excluded games such as ‘Craps’ and/or where bets are made with the primary intention of making substantial gains solely from the bonus money provided by any of the Service Providers (as opposed to use of the bonus monies in conjunction with funds deposited by the players themselves).

Thank you for your understanding.

From me to casino:
The terms and conditions you have quoted me are from the welcome bonus, not the VIP bonus.
Please refer this matter immediately to the VIP manager.

From Casino:
I am sorry to hear of your frustration regarding the large win you had last week. Unfortunately the game you played was excluded from the promotion as it is a 9 line slot game. We are unable to exclude certain 9 line slots individually in the bonus system as they are in game categories and so that is why the Terms & Conditions are in place. You rightly say that the welcome Ts & Cs were quoted to you but as you can see, the VIP ones are the same:



Slot Games Bonus: Wagering cannot be met on 9 line slots (with the exception on Millionaires Club III). Dino Delight is also excluded from this promotion.
CasinoJoy reserves the right to ban players from the casino and remove bonus money and winnings without notice if a player displays any behavior that is deemed an abuse of bonus money.
Betting on excluded games is deemed an abuse of bonus money which is why the winnings have been removed leaving your initial €350 deposit. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

To casino:
Firstly, please let me note that I did not willingly break the terms. I had not seen the term regarding 9 line slots, and the slots Blade was explicitly listed as an ALLOWED game in the cashier. Secondly, I doubt very much that you are unable to remove games from the list of allowed games in the cashier. Other casinos using the same software as you remove games from the allowed list at will.



Secondly, those terms you have quoted below are not the same as the welcome bonus terms. The VIP terms are, as you would expect, more preferable terms than the welcome bonus terms. For example, the maximum bet allowed is 30% of the bonus amount, not 10%. So it is indisputable that the terms are different, and are more flexible to the player.

I have experience in the formation of terms and conditions and the legal position they create. I will now highlight the terms in question here and this will explain why the winnings should not have been removed:



Welcome Bonus terms:

· You may ONLY wager on the games above in order to fulfill the wagering requirements. All other games are EXCLUDED.

· * All 9 line slots (with the exception of Millionaires Club II) are excluded from this promotion. Dino Delight is also excluded.

· Players residing in Australia, France, China, Czech Republic, Japan, USA, Greece and Israel are not eligible for CasinoJoy promotional offers or bonuses.

· The Service Providers reserve the right to ban any player from its casino and remove bonus monies and/or winnings associated with the bonus monies without notice if a player displays any behaviour that the Service Providers deem in their sole discretion to be an abuse of bonus monies or a breach of these terms and conditions. Bonus abuse may include, but is not limited to, claiming multiple bonuses in a month, a player wagering the bonus money on excluded games such as ‘Craps’ and/or where bets are made with the primary intention of making substantial gains solely from the bonus money provided by any of the Service Providers (as opposed to use of the bonus monies in conjunction with funds deposited by the players themselves).

· CasinoJoy reserves the right to ban players from the casino and remove bonus money and winnings without notice if a player displays any behavior that is deemed an abuse of bonus money.



VIP terms:

· Slot Games Bonus: Wagering cannot be met on 9 line slots (with the exception on Millionaires Club III). Dino Delight is also excluded from this promotion.

· Players are limited to one bonus at a time, claiming multiple bonuses at the same time will lead to bonus and winnings removal.

· CasinoJoy reserves the right to ban players from the casino and remove bonus money and winnings without notice if a player displays any behavior that is deemed an abuse of bonus money.







As you can see, the terms are very different in the section regarding eligible games. The welcome bonus states that "all other games are EXCLUDED" and "All 9 line slots are excluded" and then goes on to say that "we reserve the right to...remove bonus monies and/or winnings...if a player wagers the bonus money on excluded games." This is very clear, and you would be within your rights to remove the winnings had I been playing for the Welcome Bonus. But I was not. I therefore did not have to conform to these terms.

The VIP terms do not state that "all other games are excluded" they also do not state that "all 9 line slots are excluded", they state that "wagering cannot be met on 9 line slots". This different wording, coupled with the fact that the term from the Welcome Bonus stating "we reserve the right to...remove bonus monies and/or winnings...if a player wagers the bonus money on excluded games" is also not present in the VIP terms, therefore gives you no right to remove the winnings. Many casinos (and I can certainly provide many examples, along with evidence if need be) say that certain games do not count towards the wagering requirement, but this is not the same as saying that they are an excluded game that will result in winnings being removed, it means exactly what it says, that the games will not count towards the wagering but the player is within his rights to play them without risk of penalty.

From casino:
The Welcome Bonus and VIP Bonus Terms & Conditions are not the same. However 9 line slot games are excluded from both which is the point I was making. The reason the welcome bonus terms explain that ‘ALL other games are excluded’ is to show it is a slots promotion so you can’t play on table games for example. Whereas this is clearly stated for VIP bonuses, as you know yours was a slots only bonus.

The fact that 9 line slots are excluded from the wagering means that you can’t play them whilst using a bonus and/or the deposit attached to the bonus. This is bonus abuse. I can’t speak for other casinos.

On being able to remove individual games from the bonus system I can only tell you that this isn’t possible.

Once again I refer you to the relevant term in the VIP Terms & Conditions:

· CasinoJoy reserves the right to ban players from the casino and remove bonus money and winnings without notice if a player displays any behavior that is deemed an abuse of bonus money.

You have played a game that is excluded from all of our promotions and therefore you’re bonus money and winnings have been removed. The Casino Manager decision on this is final.

To casino:
Again, and for the last time, I will repeat to you that the game I played was not excluded.
The VIP terms state that: "Wagering cannot be met on 9 line slots (with the exception on Millionaires Club III). "
Nowhere in the VIP terms does it say that 9 line slots are excluded. Saying that wagering cannot be met on 9 line slots is not saying that 9 line slots are excluded, plain and simple, they are two different phrases with two different meanings. There has been no "bonus abuse".
 

Silencio

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Location
Netherlands
On being able to remove individual games from the bonus system I can only tell you that this isn’t possible.

Everything is possible..

Good luck.. hope your blood pressure wasn't too high before all of this started
I promote them so I'll keep an eye or two on this thread
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia

kernow

Dormant account
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Location
UK
Sorry Max, I didn't mean to misrepresent you. It was my understanding that they did not alter the stance that they had offered me, that, in their opinion, "wagering cannot be met" = "excluded" = "bonus abuse" and therefore they were justified in confiscating my winnings.
The result for now, unfortunately, is the same. Though I thank you very much for trying your best and I'm sure adding your voice to what will hopefully become a choir will only serve to help my cause.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Warning?

Terms this convoluted and excluding SLOTS from a bonus belong to the rogue pit. Players deserve CLEAR terms, and one thing has always been accepted before this, wagering on SLOTS is going to be OK.

To further claim that slots play is "bonus abuse" simply because the slot has 9 lines instead of 15 or 20 is BOLLOCKS. The RTP is unaffected (or SHOULD be).

Even this "simple" exclusion is further complicated by saying you CAN play the 9 line PROGRESSIVE slot, and CAN'T play "Dino Delight". If this isn't complicated enough, the cashier has these games listed as allowed, and wagering DOES indeed count.

The casino's excuse is flaccid. They can't exclude these games in the software because they were never MEANT to by design of the software developer. It is like complaining about a toaster you just bought because it won't roast a chicken for you.

Their other "examples" cover everything possible, and even the "claiming multiple bonuses in a month" is bullshit, since the CASINO is 100% in control of how many bonuses a player becomes eligible. This allows them to OFFER as many bonuses as they want when the player is losing, and void the winnings as soon as they try to withdraw because it came from their fourth bonus that month, rather than the first.

This player was clearly NOT one with a "history of bonus abuse" since they were VIP, and had a VIP host who offered them this bonus. At a GOOD casino, a VIP player would be treated well, and would be confident that if their host offered them something, it was because they knew their history, and how they played.

I have heard of Joyland, but not this "casino joy".

I bet it's a Playtech though, even though those games first made me think it was Cryptologic because of the "Blade" slot that I remember doing well on at Intercasino a while back, and talk of allowed games in the cashier and a "wagering bar".

If I am wrong and it IS a Crypto, I will be doing three uninstalls before bed tonight.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Well F*** me:what:


I NEVER thought I would see terms like THAT coming from an ECash casino! This is the SAME company behind Intercasino!

The terms are laid out in a VERY confusing manner indeed, and full of trickery.

The headline for the welcome bonus REALLY labours the impression that players can enjoy their "great range of slots" with the welcome bonus, making it appear that it is intended for slots play.

It then says "valid on games below", and then there is NOT list of games below, but a link to "terms and conditions". yet AGAIN it starts off saying "all slot games", but further down is the nasty smallprint that excluded the 9 line category, then INCLUDES one slot from that category back in again, and then EXCLUDES a single slot from a different category.

Crypto slots are more like 90% RTP in any case, and the bonus has to be wagered SIXTY times as opposed to 30x with Microgaming's 95% RTP slots. There is also a 10% of bonus max bet rule on top. There is NO reason therefore to push the software beyond it's capabilities by messing around with the exclusions of slots, especially since the TOP NOTCH Crypto wagering tracker cannot come with this kind of extreme from an operator.

The operator (GPL) then takes ownership of the SOFTWARE, claiming that THEY, and not WagerLogic, own the intellectual rights to the source code, etc.

Another beauty is that the games play as designated under Maltese gaming laws "unless altered by GPL". This, and a couple of other terms, open the door to GPL tinkering with the game designs, paytables, and rules of play. They are more or less asking players to agree to them "rigging" the games.

I had a hard time reading this because of the "bullying" pop-up live chat window that was clearly doing the "hard sell" on me, no doubt had I engaged they would have tried to get me to register and deposit before I had a chance to go through the terms properly.

I thought Playtech terms (especially for UK players) were bad, but CasinoJoy has just trumped even those. At least UK players can play ALL the Playtech slots with the bonus, and even 50x WR on 95% games compares favourably to 60x with slot exclusions and other traps.


I DID also see a term limiting players to one bonus per month, therefore the mere act of the VIP host offering the OP another is nothing short of entrapment, and is probably what they mean by "other" bonus abuse matters as well as the play history in the case.

Now,


3 uninstalls, then TV, then a deposit into Casino Rewards before bed:p
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
Warning? Terms this convoluted and excluding SLOTS from a bonus belong to the rogue pit.

I handle PABs and issue Warnings when things turn sour. Bryan reviews those PABs and Warnings and handles Rogue Pit updates as he deems appropriate. If you think a Rogue Pit listing should be expedited feel free to let him know that.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I handle PABs and issue Warnings when things turn sour. Bryan reviews those PABs and Warnings and handles Rogue Pit updates as he deems appropriate. If you think a Rogue Pit listing should be expedited feel free to let him know that.

I am still in shock to find this is a CRYPTO casino, and one under the Ecash umbrella, the same as Intercasino. I was fully expecting to find this to be the Playtech versions of these "superhero" games, and I have seen this slot exclusion tactic pulled by a few Playtechs before.

The worst I have seen from a Crypto is the exclusion of "VIP slots", which is a clear category, and easily coped with under the Crypto wager tracking system.

I used to play at Intercasino, and took the slots bonus code. I expected the "top notch" tracking and allowed games list to be something I could rely on. I lost interest when the WR went from 18x to 25x because of the near 90% RTP nature of the game. To find it is now 60% with multiple and confusing slot exclusions, even for a VIP player, is truly shocking. It's what I saw in the rest of the terms that convinced me they were "rogue", or at best had no idea what they were doing, and a limited command of the facts.

I am sure Wagerlogic would beg to differ about the term that says that GPL "own" the intellectual property rights of the casino software, and can alter the paytables, rules, and functioning of the games at their "sole discresion".

GPL is "Gaming Portals Limited", and itself owned by "InTouch casinos". This screams "white label" to me, and may explain why things have gone so horribly wrong here. The further fact that "Ecash" operates the financial side indicates that it is the same company that operates the Intercasino brands that have spawned this white label operation, along with others that have yet to come to light.

Enough signs for me to decide NOT to start playing at ECash casinos again after installing them this month after a warning that dormancy rules were about to wipe out the value of my loyalty points.

Until I know what is going on, and how Crypto/Ecash got themselves mixed up in this "dark side", I am not going to risk it. One of my best hits was on the 9 line Blade slot, and with the monthly bonus - I got the jackpot during the free spins because of the centre wild reel. WR was 18x too, not 60x as now.
 

DiamondGeezer

Dormant account
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred2
Joined
May 12, 2007
Location
NOT Pennsylvania!!!
Another difficult case.

However I do see this one as quite straightforward in some ways. The terms were pretty clear until we get to the bit about "wagering cannot be met". Does this term mean 9 Line Slots are excluded or do they just not contribute to the wagering? Clearly it's impossible to know without further clarification. And I'm fairly sure you can find other softwares that do allow excluded games only they do not contribute to the wagering.

€18K resting on the meaning of four words. No doubt some will argue the player should have sought clarification.

This is one that could go either way if it went to court but I would make the player a narrow favourite.
 

rainmaker

I'm not a penguin
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Location
-
.

As mentioned, a difficult case.



· Slot Games Bonus: Wagering cannot be met on 9 line slots (with the exception on Millionaires Club III). Dino Delight is also excluded from this promotion.


As for the relevant VIP condition. I can agree that it is poorly written and it may lead to some confusion. But the second sentence in the text says "Dino Delight is also excluded from this promotion" with a reference to the previous sentence about 9 line slots (it indicates this: 9 line slots are excluded. Dino Delight is also excluded).

"also excluded" will in my opinion indicate that that the intention with this clause is to prohibit play on both 9 line slots and Dino Delight. I think the second sentence will count in favor of the casinos decision. If the clause did not include this second sentence, then I would agree more with you.

My conclusion is that the casino have the right to confiscate your winnings based on their T&C. I think you understood or should have understood that Blade, a 9 line slot was prohibited with this bonus. But I think the clause is poorly written, so my opinion is that the casino should pay you your winnings in goodwill and rewrite their T&C.

Good luck with your case :)
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
.

As mentioned, a difficult case.



· Slot Games Bonus: Wagering cannot be met on 9 line slots (with the exception on Millionaires Club III). Dino Delight is also excluded from this promotion.


As for the relevant VIP condition. I can agree that it is poorly written and it may lead to some confusion. But the second sentence in the text says "Dino Delight is also excluded from this promotion" with a reference to the previous sentence about 9 line slots (it indicates this: 9 line slots are excluded. Dino Delight is also excluded).

"also excluded" will in my opinion indicate that that the intention with this clause is to prohibit play on both 9 line slots and Dino Delight. I think the second sentence will count in favor of the casinos decision. If the clause did not include this second sentence, then I would agree more with you.

My conclusion is that the casino have the right to confiscate your winnings based on their T&C. I think you understood or should have understood that Blade, a 9 line slot was prohibited with this bonus. But I think the clause is poorly written, so my opinion is that the casino should pay you your winnings in goodwill and rewrite their T&C.

Good luck with your case :)

It's not just about the terms, it is about how they exceeded the software's limitations so that the promotions tracker in the cashier gave misleading information. This cashier tracker presents a list of allowed games for any bonus it is tracking, and Cryptologic never intended it to isolate certain slots from a slots only bonus, so whilst the terms excluded the slots, this was contradicted in the cashier. In fact, these slots DID contribute to wagering as far as the cashier was concerned, and the OP saw their WR being tracked.

The casino may well have covered it's ass, but the terms and software, along with the misleading "big print" material on the website about slots bonuses, and the fact that the VIP host waived the one bonus per month term for the OP, then did a U turn to claim the OP was abusing bonuses in other respects (clearly related to them just taking up the multiple offers from the main monthly bonus, and the personal invites from their host), leads to the package as a whole being predatory, and hence worthy at least of the category "not recommended".

I see absolutely NO need for any of these multiple exclusions and re-inclusions, they are ALL SLOTS, and ALL RANDOM, and with Crypto ALL of equally poor RTP when compared with the 95% to 96% on Microgaming.

The operator should work WITHIN the limitations of the software they are using, and if they wanted to be able to split slots this way, should have asked Cryptologic to include this functionality in the promotions tracker.

Even WITHOUT these complications, a 60x WR is more than enough to deliver a "walk away" signal to an experienced player.

Another option for this operator would have been to use the "reward" system rather than the "bonus" system for these promotions. This was designed by Cryptologic so that operators could issue post wagering bonuses that would get around all the concerns of "bonus abuse".

I consider that the list presented by the cashier IS a part of the terms and conditions, hence this case boils down to the fact that there are TWO differing sets of terms for this promotion depending on where the player looks. The casino has decided to use the set that works in it's favour, yet it is the other set that is most accessible to the player as it is presented by the software derived from internal settings, and NOT subject to the ambiguity caused by someone with English as a second language trying to express terms in a format that is clear in the English language.

There are other items in the terms that say something other than the operator is trying to say, and if taken literally as stated, show that the operator is laying claim to rights over the software that belong to Cryptologic, as well as laying claim to tinkering abilities that no operator has, nor SHOULD have, with such software.

What is worse is that this is Cryptologic, and Casino Joy is an Ecash white label, and I would have expected FAR better from what is, in effect, an Intercasino white label portal.

It is NOT given that the OP broke the terms considering that there are conflicting versions available for inspection by the player. There is NO term that gives precedence to one set over another that I can see, thus BOTH conflicting sets would have to be struck out, and the remaining terms said to apply.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
The main issue I have is that the OP was aware from the beginning that there was SOME kind of restriction on 9-line slots, and that the terms weren't perfectly clear.

A reasonable person would have contacted the casino for clarification, and hence avoided this whole situation. It continues to amaze me how many players just decide to play on, expecting that someone will clean the mess up afterward.

I think rainmaker had an excellent point where he highlighted the words "also excluded". If not enough to 100% convince the reader, it should certainly be enough to confuse, and hence make one seek clarification before playing.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The main issue I have is that the OP was aware from the beginning that there was SOME kind of restriction on 9-line slots, and that the terms weren't perfectly clear.

A reasonable person would have contacted the casino for clarification, and hence avoided this whole situation. It continues to amaze me how many players just decide to play on, expecting that someone will clean the mess up afterward.

I think rainmaker had an excellent point where he highlighted the words "also excluded". If not enough to 100% convince the reader, it should certainly be enough to confuse, and hence make one seek clarification before playing.

An experienced player would have steered well clear, but it is not acceptable for operators to prey on the foolish and inexperienced and get away with it, especially when foolish and inexperienced operators kick and scream when they get taken advantage of by well disciplined and experienced players.

If operators want us to accept that the terms are "absolute" in such matters, they should be equally "absolute" when a player beats them WITHIN the terms. Betfair was a case in point, those players did NOT break the terms, yet in this instance Betfair decided that the terms were void because they had not been properly constructed. Here, a player broke one set of terms, but did NOT break the terms in as presented by the cashier for that promotion. The casino only has the upper hand by default, because it has hold of the money. If they had paid the player, and tried to sue for the return of the money because it was in breach of another differing set of terms on the website the court would rule in favour of the status quo because of the ambiguity.

CM standards deal with situations like this, and the way to deal with a player who is deemed to be taking advantage of too many bonuses is to pay their withdrawal, and then ban them from further bonuses. In this case, and KNOWING that this player had already been regarded as a "bonus abuser", the VIP host went ahead and offered them yet another bonus. This is entrapment, and I expect the only reason this has come to light now is that the OP had a big win. What's the betting that the VIP host had been giving this player such offers before, and he was playing in the same manner that was considered so "abusive", yet as he kept losing, the casino was happy to keep quiet because they knew they could void any big win should it ocurr, yet still have the player regularly losing up to $200 at a time.
An automated system might not have dealt with this, nor if the player was taking codes from the website, but this was coming from a host, who would have KNOWN enough about the OP's history in order for them to have been made up to VIP status and allocated their own host. Had the OP taken too many bonuses already, the VIP host would NOT (or SHOULD not) have offered yet another, but instead should have tailored something else for them, such as a reward based promotion, or even a non-cash VIP gift such as a hamper.

These all add up to signs that this operator doesn't have a clue about running a casino and it's VIP department, a criticism levelled at the many Rival white labels, and a shortfall that lead to many of them going out of business.


If someone nicks your plasma TV because you don't secure your house it's a hard lesson to learn, but it does NOT mean that the thief can justify what he did because the householder didn't bother to keep him out. The same applies to casinos who use clever devices in order to trick the naive into breaking a term, or into misreading the meanings of a term because of how it is constructed, contradicted elsewhere, etc.

I see many "devices" being used by Casino Joy to confuse what should be possible to set up as a clear and unambiguous set of rules. Most of these "devices" are designed to keep the player from seeing the details, and think the bonus is a simple "slots only" bonus, which does not normally involve convoluted terms, but simply the player avoiding any game that is not a slot. It looks like a set of terms that have been repeatedly "patched", rather than properly overhauled, which has left confusions and contradictions between the different web pages that make up the overall set of rules for this promotion. The repeated interruption by the live chat agent is yet another "device" designed to put one off from going through the website and reading all the different sets of terms before registering. It should pop up ONCE, and if closed, it should take this to mean that the player wants to browse the site this visit. It should NOT keep coming back every couple of minutes, having to be repeatedly closed just in order to concentrate on reading the terms without breaking concentration.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
An experienced player would have steered well clear, but it is not acceptable for operators to prey on the foolish and inexperienced and get away with it, especially when foolish and inexperienced operators kick and scream when they get taken advantage of by well disciplined and experienced players.

If operators want us to accept that the terms are "absolute" in such matters, they should be equally "absolute" when a player beats them WITHIN the terms. Betfair was a case in point, those players did NOT break the terms, yet in this instance Betfair decided that the terms were void because they had not been properly constructed. Here, a player broke one set of terms, but did NOT break the terms in as presented by the cashier for that promotion. The casino only has the upper hand by default, because it has hold of the money. If they had paid the player, and tried to sue for the return of the money because it was in breach of another differing set of terms on the website the court would rule in favour of the status quo because of the ambiguity.

CM standards deal with situations like this, and the way to deal with a player who is deemed to be taking advantage of too many bonuses is to pay their withdrawal, and then ban them from further bonuses. In this case, and KNOWING that this player had already been regarded as a "bonus abuser", the VIP host went ahead and offered them yet another bonus. This is entrapment, and I expect the only reason this has come to light now is that the OP had a big win. What's the betting that the VIP host had been giving this player such offers before, and he was playing in the same manner that was considered so "abusive", yet as he kept losing, the casino was happy to keep quiet because they knew they could void any big win should it ocurr, yet still have the player regularly losing up to $200 at a time.
An automated system might not have dealt with this, nor if the player was taking codes from the website, but this was coming from a host, who would have KNOWN enough about the OP's history in order for them to have been made up to VIP status and allocated their own host. Had the OP taken too many bonuses already, the VIP host would NOT (or SHOULD not) have offered yet another, but instead should have tailored something else for them, such as a reward based promotion, or even a non-cash VIP gift such as a hamper.

These all add up to signs that this operator doesn't have a clue about running a casino and it's VIP department, a criticism levelled at the many Rival white labels, and a shortfall that lead to many of them going out of business.


If someone nicks your plasma TV because you don't secure your house it's a hard lesson to learn, but it does NOT mean that the thief can justify what he did because the householder didn't bother to keep him out. The same applies to casinos who use clever devices in order to trick the naive into breaking a term, or into misreading the meanings of a term because of how it is constructed, contradicted elsewhere, etc.

I see many "devices" being used by Casino Joy to confuse what should be possible to set up as a clear and unambiguous set of rules. Most of these "devices" are designed to keep the player from seeing the details, and think the bonus is a simple "slots only" bonus, which does not normally involve convoluted terms, but simply the player avoiding any game that is not a slot. It looks like a set of terms that have been repeatedly "patched", rather than properly overhauled, which has left confusions and contradictions between the different web pages that make up the overall set of rules for this promotion. The repeated interruption by the live chat agent is yet another "device" designed to put one off from going through the website and reading all the different sets of terms before registering. It should pop up ONCE, and if closed, it should take this to mean that the player wants to browse the site this visit. It should NOT keep coming back every couple of minutes, having to be repeatedly closed just in order to concentrate on reading the terms without breaking concentration.

Sorry, but this situation is completely unrelated to having your plasma TV, or anything else for that matter, stolen by a criminal.

There is no theft involved here, and no criminal activity.

The foolish and inexperienced are not usually the ones who get caught by these terms...in this case it is a VIP longtime player who should be very experienced and should know that if something is not clear it needs to be clarified before play commences. Some responsibility needs to be taken by the player in these cases.

Some members read it differently to others, but all of them can see how it could be interpreted differently as well. So, unless the OP is the odd one out, it was their responsibility to check all this out beforehand.

The reasonable or unreasonable nature of the terms themselves is irrelevant, as is what the software "says". If the terms state that 9 line slots do not count, and the WR meter registers otherwise, then the actual terms of the promotion apply. In some MG casinos for example, All Aces is excluded from Welcome bonuses, however it will still reduce WR by x% in the dollar.....but if you play it, you will not be paid. I don't see how this is any different.

There is fault on both sides here.
 

kernow

Dormant account
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Location
UK
Thank you for the helpful discussion.
I would like to clear up a couple of points. I am an experienced online casino player, yes, but one, like any, that occasionally makes mistakes. I had never heard of 9 line slots being blanket banned at a Cryptologic casino (or indeed any large group of slots at any casino, save for progressives) and certainly did not expect such a ban on a VIP bonus. I believe this casino is the only Crypto casino to do so. My mistake here was to not read the terms carefully enough before playing. Some posters on this thread seem to think I read the terms and then played without seeking clarification. This is not the case. My play was counting down the wagering in the tracker in the cashier, and the game I was playing was explicitly in the list of allowed games in the cashier. This was enough for me to continue playing without any cause for concern.
However, after the winnings were unexpectedly removed without any attempt at a withdrawal having been made and I did go through the terms I found them messy and unclear in general and dangerously misleading/incorrect in respect to the clause they had used to remove my winnings. Misleading enough to start to pursue the case to recover my winnings from what was a genuine mistake in skating so close to the edge of the ice but certainly, IMO, still skating on the ice.
 

SlotMonster

Twitch Streamer - Affiliate
webmeister
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Location
Belarus
Slots banned from promotion? That's ridiculous :eek:
Slots are the biggest money-bringers for casinos! :D
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Thank you for the helpful discussion.
I would like to clear up a couple of points. I am an experienced online casino player, yes, but one, like any, that occasionally makes mistakes. I had never heard of 9 line slots being blanket banned at a Cryptologic casino (or indeed any large group of slots at any casino, save for progressives) and certainly did not expect such a ban on a VIP bonus. I believe this casino is the only Crypto casino to do so. My mistake here was to not read the terms carefully enough before playing. Some posters on this thread seem to think I read the terms and then played without seeking clarification. This is not the case. My play was counting down the wagering in the tracker in the cashier, and the game I was playing was explicitly in the list of allowed games in the cashier. This was enough for me to continue playing without any cause for concern.
However, after the winnings were unexpectedly removed without any attempt at a withdrawal having been made and I did go through the terms I found them messy and unclear in general and dangerously misleading/incorrect in respect to the clause they had used to remove my winnings. Misleading enough to start to pursue the case to recover my winnings from what was a genuine mistake in skating so close to the edge of the ice but certainly, IMO, still skating on the ice.


This feature also forms part of the terms and conditions, as it presents the terms as coded in the software, and as such would reasonably take precedence over something that is on a webpage, written by humans and subject to all kinds of technical errors.

It's entrapment, tricking a player into making a mistake by "messing with their head", rather than them making the mistake all on their own. It is also a term that NO player would even THINK to go looking for on the off chance. Slot players expect to have NO problems with ANY bonus if they stick to the slots, rather than trying to build their bankroll on table games througyh tactics that many casinos consider "irregular play".

If this is allowed to stand, it will mean even MORE complicated rules being introduced that will make even SLOTS fans scared to load a slot game before getting legal advice or "clarification" from CS each time.

The Virtual group would not be considered rogue under this view, since they screw players by entrapment in the convoluted terms and conditions, written in such vague terms so that players are sure to make mistakes, and then only applied when the casino stands to void a huge win, so as not to draw players' attention to their mistake when it would only cost them a small amount, but make the casino have to find a different trap to spring the next time around.

These terms are not clear, and as every experienced player knows, CS often understand them LESS well than the average player. I have seen many chats posted here where players have sought clarification from CS, but who have either been given wrong information, or CS simply refuse to engage in any clarification other than to reply with the link for said terms and conditions.

Adding this casino into the pit may not make much difference to the OP, but it will protect numerous slots players from falling into the same trap, and will teach slots players everywhere that the days of being able to relax when only playing slots with a bonus are over. Recreational slots players need to examine every rule just as closely as a player trying to figure out whether their latest advantage tactic is allowed under the terms for the bonus they are about to "abuse". This thread alone will partly serve this purpose, as it should show up in a Google search on this casino, and would serve to warn players that there is a considerable list of excluded slots in the small print after "Allowed games - all slot games, ........." on the main page.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
This feature also forms part of the terms and conditions, as it presents the terms as coded in the software, and as such would reasonably take precedence over something that is on a webpage, written by humans and subject to all kinds of technical errors.

It's entrapment, tricking a player into making a mistake by "messing with their head", rather than them making the mistake all on their own. It is also a term that NO player would even THINK to go looking for on the off chance. Slot players expect to have NO problems with ANY bonus if they stick to the slots, rather than trying to build their bankroll on table games througyh tactics that many casinos consider "irregular play".

If this is allowed to stand, it will mean even MORE complicated rules being introduced that will make even SLOTS fans scared to load a slot game before getting legal advice or "clarification" from CS each time.

The Virtual group would not be considered rogue under this view, since they screw players by entrapment in the convoluted terms and conditions, written in such vague terms so that players are sure to make mistakes, and then only applied when the casino stands to void a huge win, so as not to draw players' attention to their mistake when it would only cost them a small amount, but make the casino have to find a different trap to spring the next time around.

These terms are not clear, and as every experienced player knows, CS often understand them LESS well than the average player. I have seen many chats posted here where players have sought clarification from CS, but who have either been given wrong information, or CS simply refuse to engage in any clarification other than to reply with the link for said terms and conditions.

Adding this casino into the pit may not make much difference to the OP, but it will protect numerous slots players from falling into the same trap, and will teach slots players everywhere that the days of being able to relax when only playing slots with a bonus are over. Recreational slots players need to examine every rule just as closely as a player trying to figure out whether their latest advantage tactic is allowed under the terms for the bonus they are about to "abuse". This thread alone will partly serve this purpose, as it should show up in a Google search on this casino, and would serve to warn players that there is a considerable list of excluded slots in the small print after "Allowed games - all slot games, ........." on the main page.

C'mon Vinyl.....always with the drama.

It's not entrapment. It's just poorly worded terms. Why on earth would you want to "entrap" a VIP player?? No casino is that stupid.

In reality, there has been very few situations where a casino has deliberately made terms vague to "trap" players, and they have pretty much all involved operators that we knew were dodgy anyway. In most cases, like this one, whoever wrote the terms didn't proof read them very well....I just don't see a conspiracy to ripoff a VIP player...not even a sniff of it.

It's important to note that the OP admitted that they did not read the terms before playing...they relied on the wagering counter which is not the same thing, and as I showed earlier,restricted games can reduce wagering even on MG software.
 

WB_Carter

Banned User
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Location
New York
Hey Nifty, why don't you figure out and worry about. Why you haven't gotten your own cashout. Instead of trying to dissect someone else withdrawal problems. Stop jumping on everyone's thread spewing your negativity. This is common on RTG as well. Where the terms will say BJ isn't allowed. But on the bonus detail list within the casino. BJ is allowed, sometimes counting 1/3 towards wager req.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
ahem

Just an preemptive admin warning. Be cool. Daddy's home.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
C'mon Vinyl.....always with the drama.

It's not entrapment. It's just poorly worded terms. Why on earth would you want to "entrap" a VIP player?? No casino is that stupid.

In reality, there has been very few situations where a casino has deliberately made terms vague to "trap" players, and they have pretty much all involved operators that we knew were dodgy anyway. In most cases, like this one, whoever wrote the terms didn't proof read them very well....I just don't see a conspiracy to ripoff a VIP player...not even a sniff of it.

It's important to note that the OP admitted that they did not read the terms before playing...they relied on the wagering counter which is not the same thing, and as I showed earlier,restricted games can reduce wagering even on MG software.


Because you don't want to have to part with 18K if you can find a reason not to. Not much different to how insurance companies and banks work, and unlike casinos, these two industries have taken one almighty hammering from UK regulators for what they have been trying (and often succeeding) to get away with for years. It just took enough consumer pressure to build up and the regulators and government had no choice, they could no longer afford to accommodate their "friends" as the groundswell of public opinion was such that the costs (lost seats for MPs, loss of confidence in regulators) outweighed the benefits. It happens with online casinos too, and often they WILL reconsider a policy once they realise how damaging it is to confidence in them among players, which in turn will cost them turnover.
It doesn't mean that they will roll over and do as players say, but they will find a better way to implement a policy that makes it look fairer to players.

I expect many players had no idea this policy of excluding loads of slots on a slots bonus existed ANYWHERE in casinoland, and many may well have been breaking this and similar terms because they didn't think they needed to worry about slots play ever being a problem under bonus rules. Until recently, there were NO instances of slots play being against the rules of a bonus, except for one or two places that banned network progressives. This is the FIRST case I have ever seen when a bunch of "bog standard" slot games were excluded from a general slots bonus. Players are only just getting used to the "max bet % of bonus" rule now being widely implemented, and at least know this is something they need to look for in terms.

Despite this incident, the casino have not only snubbed the PAB process, they have flatly refused to replace the unclear terms with something clearer, indicating the lack of clarity is not a mistake, but intentional. The ONLY place a player can get to see a list of individual allowed games is in the cashier, the website refers to a "list below" of games, but one isn't published.

There is no rationale for this rule either, so "common sense" does not come into it. One could just as easily play 9 lines of a 15 line clone of one of these slots, get the SAME gameplay, yet NOT be in breach of the terms. I bet if this happened the casino would simply call this generic "irregular play" and confiscate the winnings. If you played a 50 line slot, they could then claim it was "grinding", and again confiscate the winnings. They can do ALL of this under the current terms, which would also allow them to change the paytables of the games to make them 30% RTP - all within the vast and vague array of rights they grant themselves in the terms, and which the players have all agreed to.
 

DiamondGeezer

Dormant account
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred2
Joined
May 12, 2007
Location
NOT Pennsylvania!!!
C'mon Vinyl.....always with the drama.

It's not entrapment. It's just poorly worded terms. Why on earth would you want to "entrap" a VIP player?? No casino is that stupid.

In reality, there has been very few situations where a casino has deliberately made terms vague to "trap" players, and they have pretty much all involved operators that we knew were dodgy anyway. In most cases, like this one, whoever wrote the terms didn't proof read them very well....I just don't see a conspiracy to ripoff a VIP player...not even a sniff of it.

It's important to note that the OP admitted that they did not read the terms before playing...they relied on the wagering counter which is not the same thing, and as I showed earlier,restricted games can reduce wagering even on MG software.

Nifty the OP has not admitted he didn't read the terms, what he has said is that he didn't read them 'carefully enough', which is not the same thing as not reading the terms.

The gist of his argument is that he read the terms, was a bit confused over the 9 line slots term so sought clarification through the cashier tracking system. Having checked and seen that 9 line slots were counting he concluded he was good to go. In view of the poorly worded term and the fact he sought clarification then this seems a sensible and logical approach to me. Yes you can say he should have checked with CS but I have played at Crypto for a few years and often do the same. TBH I think a lot of players rely on it as Crypto CS can be slow plus the cashier is a very reliable system.

I can't say I agree with Vinyl when he says it is entrapment but the bottom line is that if you have a term that is a bit sloppy in the terms and conditions plus can't configure your cashier correctly then if you then start to rely on the legal terms after a player wins big then it doesn't look good to me. And what really sucks is these guys are relying on the letter of the law here but the player gets no opportunity to challenge it in a court of law. I don't see it as entrapment but more a case of a big company bullying a consumer.
 

DiamondGeezer

Dormant account
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred2
Joined
May 12, 2007
Location
NOT Pennsylvania!!!
I expect many players had no idea this policy of excluding loads of slots on a slots bonus existed ANYWHERE in casinoland, and many may well have been breaking this and similar terms because they didn't think they needed to worry about slots play ever being a problem under bonus rules. Until recently, there were NO instances of slots play being against the rules of a bonus, except for one or two places that banned network progressives. This is the FIRST case I have ever seen when a bunch of "bog standard" slot games were excluded from a general slots bonus. Players are only just getting used to the "max bet % of bonus" rule now being widely implemented, and at least know this is something they need to look for in terms.


This is not quite accurate as I have seen individual slot games banned at a few places. I remember Alchamist's Lab being banned at some Playtech's and some Net Ent places have banned one or two I think.

Don't mean to point score but the point I am making is that ALL players should read the terms and conditions very carefully, especially as casinos are starting to rely on them more and more aggressively.

In general I don't have a problem over what games are excluded including slots so long as it is communicated clearly and the tracking system is set up properly. These are commercial organisations and a bonus is a privilige not a right.
 

DiamondGeezer

Dormant account
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred2
Joined
May 12, 2007
Location
NOT Pennsylvania!!!
Just an preemptive admin warning. Be cool. Daddy's home.


Wow a pre emptive strike! Hopefully not one of your old tank shells coming our way :D.

Nice Avatar :thumbsup:. I think it would be really cool to offer one of these guys in a competition one day.

Hope you had a nice holiday anyhow.

Just off to buy a tin hat in case Nifty gets his rocket launcher out :D.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
This is not quite accurate as I have seen individual slot games banned at a few places. I remember Alchamist's Lab being banned at some Playtech's and some Net Ent places have banned one or two I think.

Don't mean to point score but the point I am making is that ALL players should read the terms and conditions very carefully, especially as casinos are starting to rely on them more and more aggressively.

In general I don't have a problem over what games are excluded including slots so long as it is communicated clearly and the tracking system is set up properly. These are commercial organisations and a bonus is a privilige not a right.

Bollocks - a bonus is a MARKETING TOOL, one dreamed up by online casinos because they couldn't do what B & M casinos do, which is hide the clocks and the exit, and keep plying players with free drinks and comped rooms. If casinos limited this "privilige" to their top players as B & M casinos do with their better perks, there would be no incentive for a player to choose one casino over another.

They are now using bonuses as a trap because they know they can't do away with them altogether, so set up systems that are biased against winners. Terms, particularly ones that void bets, are NOT applied fairly. The casino picks and chooses when to apply such terms, and this tends to be after a player has won. It would be fairly simple to implement whatever complicated rules they want in the software, but they choose not to because it costs money, and it costs far less to pounce after the fact on a player that has misunderstood a term, or not bothered to check closely because they have assumed the word "all" has the same meaning as defined in the dictionary.

These operators also like to hide in jurisdictions that tend to turn a blind eye to how consumers are treated, or who can be bought off. They always specify that players have to take them to court in some foreign place, even though the customer is playing from their own country.

I am sure that this party will soon end, and proper regulation will be enforced through international agreements, and consumers will get the benefit of consumer laws over the internet just as they do over B & M transactions.

I am waiting to see what proposals the UK government come up with after they saw the Full Tilt fiasco deprive UK players of their supposedly "ring fenced" funds in a poker room overseen by one of the premier whitelisted jurisdictions. Had Full Tilt not had such a large media campaign in the UK, this would not have been such a big issue.

The "killer blow" would be if BBC Watchdog run a story on this, as it will mean the FIRST story many people hear about online casinos and poker will be one of a UK whitelisted operation "running off" with almost $200 million of players' funds worldwide. It would put many people off from trying the hobby for the first time, and the tight lipped attitude shown to enquiries so far will make them look even worse on such a program.
 
Top