CIRRUS: attempted theft of $7500.

[caruso]

(I posted this at WOL, and I crave indulgence from Bryan for posting it here as well. It'll give you a decent insight into the workings of RTG pondlife scum if you read the bullshit from Christine Jennings, CS manager at Cirrus, about "active accounts".

Also, kudos to the Casinomeister software for accepting everything in one post - it took a total of three at WOL.)

My apologies for a very, very long post. The length is mainly due to the fact that Im copying in all relevant live chats in their entirity; however, for the sake of the faint-hearted Im including a brief summary of each chat before the whole chat is pasted in.

Let me say from the outset that this matter was mediated and brought to a successful conclusion by Cindy Carley manageress of the GPWA and webmistress of www.videopokerjunkie.com (and various others).

Thanks, Cindy all 7.5 Ks worth.

In mid-January I logged into Cirrus and read on the scrolling banner at the top of the lobby an interesting offer: a 200% promotion from $4000 up to $40,000. It was advertised as fully cashable. I Emailed to check that blackjack games were not exempt, got a positive reply, deposited and played. After an hour or so I had a total balance of $15,000 - $13,000 over my deposit. (On a side note: I subsequently (and recently) discovered that they have a cashable cap of $500 for any promotion, so my actual cashout entitlement was $11,500 - a win of $9,500.) I got onto live chat with Christine Jennings (CS manager) to check that I was OK to cash out. No problem. I was told that Id receive 2K per week, as per their max withdrawal terms.

I live-chatted once more when the first week was up to check that the first payment was on course to be delivered soon, was told it was, and I did receive it shortly afterwards.

That was my deposit back.

I live chatted again the following week to check that the next installment was to be sent. It was - but something came up in that chat that set the alarm bells ring: I was told me to maintain an active account.

Before going on, take a look at this web page, from last years archives no mention of any of this nonsense:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

That was how the page looked in mid-January as well I kept a copy before I played.

Now take a look at the latest version voil, theyve added the rule: For withdrawals over the weekly withdrawal amount player is required to keep an active account, meaning that he must wager at least the amount of his balance through that period.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) (I removed the direct link to avoid any unneccesary click throughs)

(Side note: this rule in itself is just about the most absurd piece of online casino nonsense Ive ever seen. Basically, if your finishing balance is anything greater than $2000, you must wager that excess at least once through every week! Say for example, youre a slot player, you deposit $1000, hit a nice jackpot and cashout $30000. It will take fifteen weeks to receive any money you have remaining after youve wagered a total of around $400,000 29000*15. And this is for both bonus and non-bonus related play. If you win big you must wager a GARGANTUAN sum to receive your winnings. This is the most insane rule I have EVER encountered.)

I lost the first page of the chat where this was first first mentioned; basically, keeping an acive account, before they actually posted the rule on the website, meant wagering a bit every now and then. I summarized at the start of the next page, so it should be pretty clear. To summarize the chat:

Christine tells me that to avoid DELAY, I should keep an active account; I press her on whether or not this actually means that failure to so do would result in FORFEITURE of my remaining cashin; Christine so, no, absolutely not they may delay it one day, lets say. But you will ALWAYS get your money; I say I probably will NOT keep an active account in that case Ill wait and see what happens:

Chat 1:

you: OK, to summarize this:
you: I cashed out $15,000 six days ago. Is it effectively the "casino policy" that in order to receive my full cashin amount, I am required to reverse parts of that cashin / play more / deposit more? I would be happy to deposit / play again, but preferrably AFTER I'm paid. I'm not happy to be held to rules I knew nothing about when I deposited - I'm sure you can understand that.
Christine: that is not a rule
you: OK
Christine: just trying to help you getting all money on time
Christine: biut it is up to you
you: LOL, I understand, Christine.
Christine: I always try to help players, cannot lie... sorry about that!
you: I think you're saying that in your experience the casino might decide to not pay if I don't do as you suggest, ie. reverse my cashin and play more. This is a bit confusing for me.
you: ...and I'm unclear how to proceed at this point.
Christine: no way!
Christine: they always pay
Christine: though they may delay it one day, lets say, if there are other regular players waiting for a large amoubnt
Christine: but you will ALWAYS get your money
you: OK, Christine, I'm not trying to give you a hard time here.
you: I'm just trying to get it clear in my mind.
you: So, tell me if this is correct from your point of view:
you: I should receive my full cashin amount. However, it would be your advice that, rather than wait until they do that, I should reverse my cashin and play some more. If I simply WAIT, and do NOT play again, I might run the risk of NOT receiving my cashin, based on your knowledge of the accounting folk.
you: Is that a fair summary?
Christine: not really
Christine: you will always receive your win
Christine: but to PREVENT it for being delay you should keep an active account
Christine: this does not mean that it will be delayed only that it might
you: OK. For example, in the event that it IS elayed, how long might that delay be?
you: delayed, sorry.
you: I'm already looking at $2000 over a period of seven weeks, followed by one more week for the remaining $1000.
you: Two months, in all.
Christine: one or two days
Christine: notthat much
Christine: but I just do not like it to happen...
you: OK, gotcha.
you: LOL, me too.
you: OK, so for the time being I'm going to wait and see. In all honesty, I have to say that if "keeping an active account" means reversing / depositing / playing etc etc BEFORE receiving my cashout, I won't be doing that. I've played, then played again, then played again etc at many casinos - always receiving payment before playing subsequently. So, I'm going to wait and see (hope, LOL) if they do pay. It would be rather nice, because this is my biggest ever win - by quite a long way.
you: And it'd be good PR for the casino.
Christine: do not worry I will make sure that you get all your money on time
Christine: BTW, I am Christine Jennings, Casino Manager


This business about active accounts made me uneasy, however. It wasnt mentioned anywhere in the terms and seemed that it could be applied very loosely. How much? How often? How big? I was unwilling to risk any of my large cashout, but I thought Id play ball anyway, and wager a few dollars occasionally to keep them sweet. Between then and the receipt of my next cashout, I played a couple of hands of five-dollar pontoon a couple of times a week. I received my second $2000 installment about ten days after the first one, so they seemed happy enough: total $4000 now paid, $7500 remaining.

I live chatted again when number three was due. Basically, no problems, and I was due for payment that day:

Chat 2:

Christine: Hi!
Christine: can I help you?
you: Christine, sorry to bother. Can you approve my next $2000 installment today? The last one you did I think it seven days ago now.
Christine: hi
Christine: would love to but I cannot
Christine: must wait until accountng manager comes as he is the oly one who can actually approve withdrawals
you: Oh, I thought you "approved" them, then he sends them?
Christine: I decide which will be approved and which will not and send him a list on a daily basis
Christine: then he goes ahead and approve them... though sometimes he declines some if he does not agree with me
Christine: then they have to send them out
you: OK. When's he in next, do you know?
Christine: sometime in the afternoon
Christine: he's out - meetings
you: Fair enough. Is my (latest) installment on today's list?
Christine: yes, it is is


Great so no problem. Since Christine ostensibly decided who would receive what herself, this business about the accounting manager not always agreeing seemed bizarre, but that wasnt my major concern. Installment due to be paid, so no probs.

But it never arrived.

So I chatted again, and this is where the matter ground to a halt. The casino was not going to issue any more payments.

(Remember that 1) keeping in active account was mentioned nowhere in the rules back then, 2) failure to keep an active account would only result in DELAY, not FORFEITURE, and 3) nonetheless, I HAD kept my account active!)

Summary of chat it's a long one: Christine tells me that since Ive not been playing I will not receive any more payments; I remind her that this was never given as an possible reason for forfeiting winnings, but simply delaying them; I KEEP repeating this fact; I remind Christine of her previous assurances that I would always receive my full cashin, and that non-activity would only delay things a bit, not cause any loss; I point out that to hold me to terms I knew nothing about before playing and that are not actually written anywhere is extremely unfair, and to then claim that I didnt hold to those unwritten terms when in fact, I DID comply, is completely absurd! Christine repeats, over and over, you didnt keep an active account and then terminates the chat. She does not respond to any of my points. She does not respond to my question about HOW MUCH wagering is needed to stay active obviously not, since the answer would be until you lose everything.

Chat 3:

you: Morning, Chrystal. The "Accounts Manager" apparently failed to approve my latest withdrawal installment yesterday, in spite of the fact that it was on the list you sent him - why not, do you know? Everything is OK as as far as I can see.
you: LOL, Christine, not Crystal.
Christine: hello
Christine: they said that since you have not been playing in your account no more payments will be issued until you decide to keep an active account
you: I HAVE kept it active. I've been playing.
you: That's a default excuse.
Christine: that was excatly what I was trying to prevent when I advised you to keep an active account
you: See above.
you: You said, play a bit every so often. So I have been.
you: But note, you told me by NOT keeping it active, it would only DELAY.
Christine: 2/8/2004 8:45:05 AM 2/8/2004 8:45:37 AM $1,020.00 $1,010.00 Real Download (Win32) 2 $10.00 $10.00 ($10.00)
Christine: 2/5/2004 5:43:57 PM 2/5/2004 5:45:06 PM $1,015.00 $1,020.00 Real Download (Win32) 2 $15.00 ($5.00) $5.00
Christine: 217.134.11.210 2/4/2004 9:04:35 PM 2/4/2004 9:05:21 PM $1,000.00 $1,015.00 Real Download (Win32) 4 $25.00 ($15.00) $15.00
Christine: playing $10 to $5 dollars per day does not mean that you are keeping an active account
Christine: yes, and they paid the 1st 2 times though you did not keep your account active
Christine: now they will not issue more payments as they refuse to pay to players who do not keep playing
you: Christine, 1) You told me that not keeping an account active would simply DELAY the process by a day or so. 2) I kept my account active by playing a bit. You did not say HOW MUCH, nor that it was even necessary to avoid anything more than a DELAY. Now you are saying they are voiding the winnings. The "active account" thing is NOT mentioned in the rules. I haven't broken any rules.
you: This is what we said: "So, tell me if this is correct from your point of view: I should receive my full cashin amount. However, it would be your advice that, rather than wait until they do that, I should reverse my cashin and play some more. If I simply WAIT, and do NOT play again, I might run the risk of NOT receiving my cashin, based on your knowledge of the accounting folk. Is that a fair summary?" "not really; you will always receive your win, but to PREVENT it for being delay you should keep an active account; this does not mean that it will be delayed only that it might."
Christine: do you expect them to take $5 to $25 bets as keeping an active account
you: There was only ever mention of a DELAY, by maybe a day or so - nothing else.
Christine: all I told you was what I know
Christine: this usualy happens but with smaller winnings
you: Fine: I based my action on what you told me, I don't know what applies to smaller or bigger wins.
you: So the facts in summary:
you: I currently have $11,000 waiting to be paid out. I haven't failed to follow any stated rules, and the "unstated" rule - that of maintaining an "active account" - was only required to prevent a SHORT DELAY. Nonethelss, I kept my account "active" by playing a bit, to prevent ANY delay.
There has been NO rule infringement on my part. What do you suggest we do?
you: Note that no mention was made about HOW active the account needed to be to prevent any delay, and that we are still only talking about DELAY, not actual forfeiture.
Christine: playing $5 to $25 is not keeping an active account
you: Christine, we're repeating. This was only to prevent DELAY, not forfeiture.
you: That's what you told me. There is no mention anywhere in the rules about active accounts. And if there WERE mention, which there isn't, I complied.
you: In other words, all rules - both stated and UNstated - I have followed to the letter.
you: I can't be expected to follow rules that are unstated, and then to suffer because I did not follow those UNstated rules sufficiently!
you: You said "playing $5 to $25 is not keeping an active account." LOL, how am I to know that? If you require that all winners wager their cashouts to the extent they end up losing everything you must state this in the rules.
you: Understandably, this is not mentioned.
you: So I repeat: where do we go from here?
Christine: believe that this is the first time that we tell a player that he is supposed to keep an active account and he only wagers $5 to $25 twice a week...
Christine: if you want to get your next payment I will suggest you to play some more
you: Christine, darling, I would GLADLY play some more - I had a great game. But I would really like to be paid my win FIRST. Then, I would be most inclined to play some more!
you: It's not reasonable to ask a player to play more to receive the winnings he's already won. Rather, it's a bit off-putting. I'm sure you can appreciate that.
Christine: I am really sorry.. have already discussed this with accounting and theywill not pay until they see that you play some more
you: OK, Christine. For the sake of argument, let's assume that that's satisfactory from my end. It is NOT. But assuming it WERE: how much?
you: I can't play games with these people - I've been straight-up and followed everything as you suggested and it seems I'm being held to a spiralling list of extra requirements.
you: Please tell me, from your perspective: what do I need to do to receive my remaining $11,000?
you: Remember: the "active account" was only a requirement to avoid DELAY - you told me this yourself.
you: So, assuming I hadn't been active AT ALL, I'm still only supposed to be delayed by a day or so.
you: Non-active account = DELAY.
you: Not forfeiture.
you: Christine, where do I go from here?
you: I mean, in terms of my remaining $11,000?
Christine: yu will need to play or you wll noit receive any new paymet until we verify that you have been playing
you: Again I repeat: assuming this were satisfactory - which it is NOT, because you personally told me that by NOT keeping an active account I would only DELAY the payment - please tell me HOW MUCH.
you: How much "extra" play is required to ensure payment of my remaining $11,000?
Christine: Hi
Christine: I know what told you
Christine: we should stop going over the same thing
Christine: the fact is that you will need to keep an active account otherwise they will not pay you
you: You're right, I keep reminding you that this was only a possible DELAY by a day or so, not an indefinate one, and that since you didn't specify "how much", my "extra wahering" was at the level of my choosing.
you: Can you tell me HOW MUCH extra wagering is required?
Chat session has ended.

At this point I contacted Cindy. She emailed the casino and the next payments started coming in. They got slower and slower and Cindy got plenty p*ssed off with them, but I eventually received my total remaining $7500, about three months after cashing in. Nothing more was said about the active account nonsense although I did wager a few dollars a week on slots just for good measure.

What does this active account rule actually mean, translated from casino-speak into English, before they actually posted it on the website?

***If you cash in a win, we require you to continue wagering in order to receive your win. The amount of said wagering is at our discretion and will not be revealed to you; it may be as much as is required in order for you to 1) lose your entire winnings or 2) lose as much of your winnings as we are happy with; our CSRs will lie to you about the potential results of NOT wagering more so as to leave you believing that there will not be any grave consequences. We will, however, use this as an excuse to not pay you.***

I have now heard of many, many problems with this casino. In fact, Im not sure that Ive yet heard of ONE case in which mediation was NOT required in order for winnings to be paid. The only reason I played there myself was because I knew there were a lot of affiliates out there who carry these crooks I knew Cindy had them in a prominent position and she would probably help me out if things went as I expected, ie. they tried to steal from me.

I strongly advise all players to do their homework VERY THOROUGHLY before you deposit money into this den of thieves; make sure you know who advertises for them, and then CONTACT the affiliate and ask if they will be prepared to assist you if and when Cirrus try to steal your money. I didnt do this myself, but Cindy helped me out anyway. Also, take dated screenshots of as much of the relevant terms as possible.

Alternatively, the most sensible alternative is to not do as I did, and simply STAY AWAY from this casino. They are RTG pondlife scum of the worst order and you WILL have problems if you play here.

 

[bethug]

man, i am sorry u had to go thru all that crap. boy just readiing mad me so mad that i want to call them and curse them out. Matter fact i will

 

[Clayman]

For withdrawals over the weekly withdrawal amount player is required to keep an active account, meaning that he must wager at least the amount of his balance through that period.

How can any affiliate justify advertising for a casino that would have a rule like this? And you say this applies to any win, not just mostly-sticky bonus wins? Truly disgusting and exemplifies everything that is wrong with Internet gambling. An hour to win the money and months of endless hassles to get paid.

Are you assuming you were only paid because you were grandfathered and the term did not apply to you but it will apply to everyone going forward? If so, hereinafter, I hereby decree it shall henceforth be known to all across cyberspace as the "Caruso Rule". Thousands of future unpaid players shall cursedly invoke your name as to why they didn't get paid. It was that damn "Caruso rule" that got me, they will say. LOL

Kind of reminiscent of Hampton's wanting the Pirate to play more after he won. I guess they think they can just make this stuff up as they go along.

Had you played there alot previously?

I can never understand why the natural selection of the marketplace doesn't put joints like this out of business. Hopefully your rule and Cirrus casino will soon suffer a peaceful passing together. And your name shall no longer live in infamy.

Nice going on your win, BTW. Why you didn't do the "buy $20,000 get $40,000" deal, I'll never know!

 

[ueber_alles]

I never play RTG. Not only because stuff like this happens, but because it is impossible to win. I've never seen so many 5-8 hand 20 or 21. Anyway, that is probably the worst rule I've ever heard of. Some of these terms and conditions are so impossibe to understand you need a lawyer to look over them. That is if you can even find them. Even then they'll do something you don't expect.

 

[bethug]

to me rtg software is the best, i can easy win a few 100 in a hour, you have to pay at the good ones, which are few. If a casino gives high bonus i will not take them, matter fact i dont like getting bonus that much, i want to get in and out.

 

[The Dude]

Shameful, and this goes to show that some casinos will jerk you around with obscure/cryptic/seemingly unfair terms and conditions.

It's a business ain't it? Soley derived off of players' deposits.

Anyway, the affiliate manager has been notified of this posting. I know that Cirrus is going through some changes at the moment (I have been assured that these are positive ones). Hopefully this will be a kick in the ass to get their shit together - and to yank their heads out of their fourth point of contact (old paratrooper term).

Glad Cindy was helpful in this matter. Kudos for this.

 

[Ronb2nd]

I had the same problem

Hey meister you need to put cirrus on the black list man, This happened to me also. I dealt with christine and bryan and jay and all of those idiots then they locked me out. Hey I will help you to shut them down please anything I can do e-mail me. My e-mail address is ronb2nd@hotmail.com



These rip off casinos must be stopped and I will see too it that they are

 

[caruso]

Are you assuming you were only paid because you were grandfathered and the term did not apply to you but it will apply to everyone going forward?

Of course; I wouldn't have seen a cent without the assistance I received. And remember that they have only recently made this rule "official" and quantified it. Previously it was unwritten, and therefore totally at the discretion of the manager. Can you imagine that 85% of poor folk who've never heard of a message board? All those people who might occasionally hit big only to be followed by the disappointment of the realization that they'll never be paid, however much they continue to wager and wager and wager, losing not only their winnings but deposits too, and without any knowledge of the lines of contact and help via the boards and the affiliates?

And yes, there is a lot of similarity with the attempt on the part of the Hampton manager to extract $25,000,000 in wagering a month from Pirate - average loss $45,000 - in order to keep his payments coming. One assumes this is a concept originating from RTG head office, or alternatively possibly hatched up between bands of the lower level RTGs in private discussion on how to milk their customers to the maximum. Basically, keep the losers' money and make the winners wager until they also lose it all.

It would be great if all the affiliates would drop places like this and send them under, but it ain't going to happen. They have aggressive affiliate marketing tactics so evidently a very sweet affiliate programme. No way anyone's going to drop this cash cow any time soon, and no way Cirrus will stop raking in the ripped off dough. One can only spread the word

 

[Clayman]

Can you imagine ...All those people who might occasionally hit big only to be followed by the disappointment of the realization that they'll never be paid, however much they continue to wager and wager and wager, losing not only their winnings but deposits too, and without any knowledge of the lines of contact and help via the boards and the affiliates?

"For withdrawals over the weekly withdrawal amount player is required to keep an active account, meaning that he must wager at least the amount of his balance through that period"

Made me wonder what they would do should someone with a $10K win, request one withdrawal of $2K each week for 5 weeks. After all, no individual withdrawal request would have been in excess of the weekly limit rendering the above rule inapplicable.

No doubt they will be soon be adding the Clayman clause to the Caruso rule to include "No partial withdrawal requests shall be permitted on balances exceeding the weekly withdrawal limit".

And, sadly, I suspect you're right - the more players are forced to lose, the happier the affiliates are. Do you think someone like Cindy may use her influence to get this changed? Or just next time probably say "Sorry. Nothing I can do. You should have read the rules. And thanks for your money, sucker."

 

[caruso]

Made me wonder what they would do should someone with a $10K win, request one withdrawal of $2K each week for 5 weeks. After all, no individual withdrawal request would have been in excess of the weekly limit rendering the above rule inapplicable.

LOL, it wouldn't work. If you have a 10K cashout, then 8K of that is above the weekly limit. So week 1, you have to wager an extra 8K; week 2, 6K...etc etc. Tweaking the individual withdrawals wouldn't make any difference.

And, sadly, I suspect you're right - the more players are forced to lose, the happier the affiliates are. Do you think someone like Cindy may use her influence to get this changed?

Yes; having lost her Casinomeister login info she has asked me to pass on the message to one and all that she does NOT agree with this "rule" and she's had a lot of argument with the "Christine" about it. I would guess that they'll end up ditching it, because much as they want to rip off they're customers, they're even more terrified of upsetting their affiliates. These aren't really hard core crooks like Warren Cloud, they very spineless. I don't think their heart is really in big-time skullduggery. Probably they'd be better off mugging old ladies than taking on the cyber world with an online casino scam. I might mention it to them.

 

[jetset]

Nevertheless, Cirrus sounds like a venue to avoid at all costs. Who needs all this nonsense? This is an iniquitous rule clearly designed imo to rob players of their good fortune. If they are stupid enough to apply it, they should be made to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

It's just unbelievable that they think that they can get away with this sort of rubbish. I agree with Claymen, how many innocents have been gouged on this one - probably hundreds.

"For withdrawals over the weekly withdrawal amount player is required to keep an active account, meaning that he must wager at least the amount of his balance through that period" Mark this passage Clayman posted - this is a casino to avoid.

 

[John Hartley]

Cirrus

Hi Everyone,
We have met with Cirrus Casino, and after talking to the casinomeister we both agree that honesty is the best policy. First of all the individual has been paid all funds owed to him. This in no way excuses the casino from any wrong doing, as they fully admit that they "screwed" up. This was the result of an overzealous CSR, who had a bonus structure (which has now been removed from all CSR's). As for the ridiculous rule of keeping an "active" account this has been removed and never to be implemented again. I would like to thank everyone for thier patience in this matter and apologize to the player and all players for this. We are trying to improve everything with this casino, the new marketing management is the first step towards this, and we will work vigilantly on any and all issues brought to our attention. Thank you casinomeister for your understanding of the issues.

Sincerely
John Hartley
Director of Marketing
www.silverarrowmarketing.com

 

[m249a]

Wow!!!

If they live up to what he said, you can count on me as a new client. Its refreshing to see such an agressive approach to fixing a problem. I'm glad to hear the player got paid, and I am impressed that the company took action with obvious intent to improve. I guess time will tell if the plan of action works, however this is a very impressive first step.

 

[LastDollar]

Cirrus should be blacklisted

When reading Caruso's story I got really angry. I can't understand how this kinds of casinos can countinue their business. Casinomeister, please blacklist these cheaters.

 

[caruso]

m249a - I beg your pardon??? "Wow"???

A small re-hash of what I put at WOL: Why was it necessary to involve Bryan? If you read my initial post you'll notice I begged his indulgence for posting on a matter which was being dealt with by another affiliate, Cindy. Very odd behaviour. What's all this "honesty is the best policy" crap about? This matter was ALREADY "resolved" before I posted - aside from 3.5K that was withheld as a "non cashable bonus", total bullshit because a player I know was paid in full, MORE than $500 of bonus funds. This affiliate manager "John" has not "resolved" anything. Also, the "active account" nonsense is STILL there. Look for yourselves. And there was absolutely NO screw up. The actions of the casino were deliberate, planned and considered. There was nothing remotely "accidental" in any of this.

Stay away from this ripoff joint, people.

 

[m249a]

HEY!!! I know what frustration is pal, you can beg my pardon all you want, it would appear you got paid. Did they make it hard for you? YES, did it take outside help for you to get your money? YES but the fact is you got PAID. The post clearly states there was a meeting of the minds between the meister and this gentleman. Some decisions were made, a plan of action was initiated, and like all thing in the business world it takes time. If you read my post you will see I said if they live up to it. They are putting their asses on the line here by posting in a public forum their plan of action. If the meister's name was used in vain, I'm sure he would be all over this issue like stink on shit. Let me ask you this...what do you think will happen if in a few days, or weeks they don't implement these changes? The forums will be jam-packed with complaints, and they will have pissed off some people it would appear they are trying very hard to please right now. Namley the meister. Again, I understand and can relate with your anger,(anger is an emotion I embraced a long time ago) however, you are a member of a forum that carries alot of clout in this industry, the simple fact that the meister does his player help for free speaks volumes. Give them a chance to rectify their problem, and if they don't, I will be right beside you screaming for their heads on a platter. One last thing, I am not kissing the meisters ass either, I would say something about his "five jump chump" status, but we won't go there will we Drill Sgt.???
(a little Airborne humor)...lol

 

[dominique]

m249a - I beg your pardon??? "Wow"???

A small re-hash of what I put at WOL: Why was it necessary to involve Bryan? If you read my initial post you'll notice I begged his indulgence for posting on a matter which was being dealt with by another affiliate, Cindy. Very odd behaviour. What's all this "honesty is the best policy" crap about? This matter was ALREADY "resolved" before I posted - aside from 3.5K that was withheld as a "non cashable bonus", total bullshit because a player I know was paid in full, MORE than $500 of bonus funds. This affiliate manager "John" has not "resolved" anything. Also, the "active account" nonsense is STILL there. Look for yourselves. And there was absolutely NO screw up. The actions of the casino were deliberate, planned and considered. There was nothing remotely "accidental" in any of this.

Stay away from this ripoff joint, people.

I am still not sure why you posted here about something Cindy had already resolved? She got your money, no?

John resolved quite a bit - he made sure this thing would not happen in the future.

 

[caruso]

I can't believe what I'm reading here.

Casino tries to rip a player off for nearly five figures by invoking an unwritten rule; player seeks mediation successfully and casino caves in; casino then puts the BS rule ("active account") in writing; player posts about his experience and casino then pulls the rule out again.

Are you two are advocating PATRONIZING this ripoff joint? Are you suggesting that the casino deserves CREDIT? Gimme a break.

I hope nobody listens to either of you. LOL, I doubt they will.

Stay away from this bottom of the barrel RTG toilet.

 

[jyde]

Yeah - let's patronize a casino that requires involvement of God knows how many 3rd parties to get paid.
Of course Caruso should share his experience with the rest of us.

 

[m249a]

Look, I'm not saying either way, its everyones choice who and for what reason they patronize a company. But, and I'll say it again, because of the fact they posted on THIS FORUM, a plan of action, apoligized for their poor business practices, and are making an effort (it would appear) to correct the problem, they deserve a shot. Am I going to rush over and drop five grand tonite to see what happens? No, am I telling anybody else to rush on over and play, for any amount? No! What I am saying is lets take a cautious approach and see if they follow thru with what they posted here. Coming from an industry, where I have employes who earn their living based upon how many sales they get, I can (in a very limited way) empathise with the whole "over zealous" csr thing. Do what you feel is best folks, its your money.

 

[The Dude]

One last thing, I am not kissing the meisters ass either, I would say something about his "five jump chump" status, but we won't go there will we Drill Sgt.???
(a little Airborne humor)...lol

"Five jump chump" ??? I was a "master blaster" with 107 jumps - most of them at night (and no, it wasn't because I had my eyes closed )

Caruso, I'm glad you got your cash, and I'm glad you posted this information so that players can see what you experienced. But I believe this was resolved because this issue was brought to light - via your emails or whatever. I'm glad you got an affiliate involved, but I honestly don't feel that this made much of a difference mainly because the casino (as a collective self) realised what they did was wrong.

Fair is fair, and kudos to those in power to make changes for the good. I'm not endorsing Cirrus, nor am I (like m249a) telling players to run on down and start plucking their nickles into their machines, but operations who are seemingly trying to get on the path to casino righteousness deserve credit where credit is due.

Honesty and fairness is all I can hope for. Cirrus is taking on new personel, some of whom I have dealt with at other casinos - ones listed here in fact - and they know they are under a great deal of scrutiny at the moment. The next few months at Cirrus should prove interesting.

 

[caruso]

I'm glad you got an affiliate involved, but I honestly don't feel that this made much of a difference mainly because the casino (as a collective self) realised what they did was wrong.

I need to clarify this: It was after communication was definatively cut off from the casino that I got an affiliate (C.C.) involved. Only then did the payments start to flow again. I personally did not have a single subsequent communication with them, nor did I make any public comment on the matter. The only communication existed between Cindy and the casino. I was paid that subsequent $7500 (should have been $11,000 but $3500 was deemed "non cashable bonus", go figure) exclusively as a result of her assistance.

Not trying to piss in your pool, Bryan (LOL, I wouldn't dare), but those are the facts.

FTR: Another player had exactly the same experience - for a smaller amount - and enlisted the assistance of another affiliate (and poster here and at WOL), with exactly the same result. Payment was made immediately following that affiliate's intervention, after the casino, in like manner, decided that he had also "failed to keep an active account" and "disallowed" his winnings.

And on a side note: if they want to get on the "path to righteousness" then they need to start honouring the terms of their promo Emails that say a particular promo is "100% fully cashable" and paying it 100%, not stealing a full 87.5% of it. How is $4000 "100% cashable" when they remove $3500 of it? That's so damn deceiptful.

 

[dominique]

I personally did not have a single subsequent communication with them, nor did I make any public comment on the matter.

This is usually the smart way to go. (Although once in a while only noise gets attention, but that is not the norm).

Not trying to piss in your pool, Bryan (LOL, I wouldn't dare), but those are the facts

Why would that be pissing in Bryan's pool? For one thing, Bryan had a hand in this. Secondly, there is nothing unusual about an affiliate mediating. It happens quite a lot, and it usually happens quietly. And usually when the chips have fallen where the affiliate can't reach, things end up in Bryan's lap. I have reached out for Bryan's help as I know have others.

Re. Cindy and Cirrus - another piece of proof that affiliates are more likely to succeed with casinos they do business with. There is no way I would have had influence with Cirrus - I have never sent them a single player and they don't know me from Adam.

I am very pleased to see you change your stance regarding affiliates so drastically, Caruso. For days now I have seen you make glowing posts about being helped by an affiliate. It is quite refreshing.

 

[caruso]

Got a load of spam from these jerks. Check this out:

"All bonuses are fully cashable, unlimited cashout..."

What they DON'T mention in the mail is that they REMOVE any bonus in excess of $500. How is this "fully cashable"?

Duplicitous scum. Stay away.

 

[jpm]

I don't care how nice or accomodating the appear to be in the forums, I will NEVER play there. Their reputation is far too tarnished to be redeemed in my mind.