Complaint about Casinomeister

[Bencuri]

Maybe I won't have a long history after this here, but what would be the use anyway, when mostly I become disappointed again again while chasing for the experience of the spirit of the 'Mesiter Mission'.

From the moment of my first activity here, I found the 'Meister's Mission' is not real, at least not on the level that I belong to as a player. It is disappointing, considering that before I signed up here I thought: 'finally I found a place that is really for the protection of players'. And sadly, on and on, I face this disappointment again and again. The last thing that finally made me to write this was this complaint about Quatro casino, so if you had a suspicion about what initiated this thread, you were right. But before you would think of anything false: I don't want to continue the debate here whether a person is a fraudster or not, instead, I would like to make a notice of something different that also appeared in that particular thread, just as it had already happened before several times, and I don't think it corresponds to the 'Meister's Mission':

So let me start this at the begginning:

I started my activity here to make a PAB on Casino Rewards. I deposited at Lucky Emperor in faith of that I will receive 100 Euro bonus that is a big money for me. The Live Chat operator confirmed minutes before my deposit that I am eligible for the bonus. Yet, after I deposited I didn't receive the bonus. I played with my deposit however I lost it, so the casino had profit on my deposit. Later it revealed the bonus went to my comp points account (or reward points account as called in that casino). As that reward account is locked for me, I cannot use that bonus money.

The disappointment happened when I initiated a PAB, and MAX reported to me that in the end he supports the casino side, because accoarding to the rules I am a bonus abuser, that's why my bonus is locked.

Now, why do I think this is not in correspondance to the Meister's Mission? Simply because I am not an abuser. Firstly, it is not a usual practice online that a bonus is credited to a comp balance. Secondly, up to that point, even when my reward account was locked, I received deposit bonuses, so why should I had to worry about that I won't receive the 100 when the Live Chat confirmed it, too. Thirdly, why should I stay away from the group and not deposit because of a locked reward account? Why should I think they will cheat because of that? I don't think based on my experience that you should worry if you are restricted on comps. Moreover the support was always helpful at CR, so why should I have stayed away from depositing? I had no reason. The support was okay, my reward account was locked, but why worry about that when the whole reward system is operating on a different page? Why should I have thought that this separate page has any connection with your Casino balance. Yet, in spite of all this MAX took the casino's side, and he explained this with a rule that is in the terms at Lucky Emperor, that says I can be excluded from promos because of bonus abuse:

'In the event that Lucky Emperor Casino deems a Player to have misused a casino account for the exploitation of promotional offers, without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play, the redemption of all such promotional offers, including but not limited to sign-up bonuses, will be suspended until such times as the Player demonstrates a playing history whereby a risk of personal funds is periodically demonstrated at the Casino.'

This conclusion of MAX is problematic in already 2 aspects. Firstly, how could MAX cathegorize my case as 'excluded from promos' when the bonus was credited? Not to the Casino account, but to the Reward account, okay, but the fact is true that it was credited somewhere. So the case is not about that I was denied a bonus because I am an abuser. I was denied the ability of redeeming points, but there was no notice about deposit bonus ban from the casino in form of a letter informing me, or anything similar. And here comes the second thing that makes the whole case interesting: the terms at Lucky Emperor also say that the first deposit bonus is credited to the CASINO account, and not the reward account (just as in every previous cases, that happened at the same time my reward account was on lock). So? Can you see why MAX's conclusion is problematic? He supports the casino because of a rule on bonus abuse, but he excludes the rule that says the first deposit goes to the casino account. I deposited in this faith, that's why I didn't worry about that my money can get stuck in the reward account. And all this after the confirmation of the Live Chat operator, who said I will receive the bonus. I asked the casino operator, he was viewing my casino balance, and made his confirmation that way, so if there was a bonus ban on my casino account, too, and not only on my rewards account, he could see it. You can say, okay, he didn't see my rewards, account, and that's why he was not correct. But we are talking about the casino account here that he was looking at, the rules are talking about crediting to the casino account, yet the operator didn't report any problem about the casino account minutes before my deposit. Yet MAX blames me because of abuse, but he doesn't blame the casino because of violating their own rule. Moreover he also excluded their own mission statement. The 'Meister's Mission' includes:

'Advantage players are players who use bonuses and other legal ways in order to gain a mathematical advantage while gambling. Some casinos label these players "bonus abusers" which is a misnomer. Players can't be considered an "abuser" if the bonus has been legitimately offered to them. If casinos don't want bonus "abusers" then they should not offer these individuals bonuses. If a casino feels that a player is taking advantage of their "generosity" - pay the player and then stop offering bonuses.'

All the bonuses I received at Casino Rewards was offered and credited to my balances (rewards or casino balances) by the Casino, and every redemption was in correspondance with the terms. There are no rules about the use of no deposit chips either, ones like appear in RTG terms, that say you cannot use them in consequence. There is not a line in the terms about how you should use bonuses, but it is written that you will be titled as an abuser if the casino thinks you didn't use the bonuses in the siprit of the bonus. This is unfair.

And notice this in the 'abuse' rule, too: 'without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play'. I fulfilled the opposite of the rule, because I deposited and played from the very beginning, so I cannot be deemed abuser by this rule. This rule says: 'any', I fulfilled the 'any' degree of playing. It doesn't say: little, much, it says any. Yet Max wrote a summary about my PAB that is still accessible in the PAB history, that says:

'Player reported that they were an active player at the casino, didn't like that they had been bonus banned. Player had a history of hooving up bonuses but depositing very little. Closed.'

Closed, however the rule required 'any', and not much. On the base of little this rule doesn't refer to me. And read it again:

'without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play'

I cannot be deemed an abuser on the lack of serious intention to play. The rule is faulty here, because if you make it a requirement to prove serious intention to play, you cannnot be satisfied with 'any' degree of play, only 'much'. Moreover it says 'OR', this 'or' this, not this 'AND' this. If you fullfil one part, it is enough, and you cannot be deemed abuser. But as you see, the second part of the rule is an error if it appears along with the first part, so there is no need to go that deep in it.

So to summarize: the casino deemed me abuser, when I was not accoarding to the rule, Max approved the Casino's decision, and presented a PAB summary that was faulity and not even corresponding their own mssion statement, and didn't either care about that the Live Chat lied and that the casino violated their own rule abut bonus crediting. Thumbs up for you, MAX!

So with these things considered, even my firsts steps here at Casinomeister was disappointment, and this didn't improve during the years. I experienced that there are cases when there is a rule in the terms of a casino, the players don't read the terms, or forget them, and then they loose money because of violation of the terms. Then the Meister balmes the casino, on the base of being unethical. I say: it is okay, there are ethics, and there are rules or practices that can be unethical, and I like the idea to emphasize it and protect the players based on this. But when we arrive to cases when a rule is written in the terms, the player acts accoarding to that, and the player turns out to be cheated, interestingly the Meister supports the casino's side. Excuse me, but I am unable to discover the siprit of the 'Meister's Mission' in this.

And the same thing happened it the Quatro case. The player was deemed fraudster, he was banned, the rep who said untrue things could stay and was washed clear immediately. No problem that the group she represents behaves the way I presented, and is one of the biggest spammers and scamers in the industry. Don't misunderstand me, I don't want to discuss here if that guy is a fraudster or not, I want to show how unfairly the 'Meister's Mission' prevails in varios cases.

So as a consequence of the disappointing experiences, I thought it is time to post this 'feedback'. In summary: I am disappointed by particular practices here, and I don't think that the 'Meister's Mission' always prevails on every level. Maybe you say: well we cannot deal with peanuts. Okay, peanuts for you, but peanuts are still big things for some. A slice of bread is 'life' for a man who is starving, but just garbage for a rich man. And even if we are dealing with peanuts, the attitude should remain the same in how we are dealing with it.

 

[Cleveland]

You should take this up with Max instead of posting here. Probably would go a lot smoother if you open another dialogue with him and explain what you went into great detail here.

On a side note: Since you did post here it seems your complaint boils down to a I'm right because of x reason. Well lets assume you are, I doubt Max would intentionally screw you just for the hell of it. So in the case that you are right and he was wrong in his decision one could only conclude that we as people make mistakes. Your accusations in your post or misguided. It's hard for anyone in a position of authority to always choose the correct answer.

What I'm trying to say is, if you feel you were wrong by Max I'm guessing it was probably a mistake and not intentional. Therefor you should take your case up with him, instead of here. Lets start with the premise that those in charge of casino meister are truly here to help. Based on the information given to them they thought you were in the wrong. You now won't them to change their findings based on the fact that you feel you are right. Every player who truly is out to defraud a casino could use your arguments. What should they do then, just side with the player because he argues his point passionately and says he is innocent? So the best recourse would be to email Max and repetition. Bring up all your points and fight your case. But I would be slow in losing faith in their system and then posting here.

 

[Bencuri]

On what base do you want to suggest I am an abuser? The casino defines the abusers by rule, if there is no rule, no abuser. The rule clearly defines what an abuser is, I don't fall into that cathegory. So please, stop suggesting I am abuser. Accoarding to the terms of the casino, I am not an abuser. I deposited nearly an equal amount to the amount I received in bonuses. Do you think this is the behavior of an abuser? I am not an abuser, neither by behavior, nor accoarding to the rules, nor accoarding to the Meister's Mission. That's all. If you suggest I am an abuser, it is a slander.

When MAX closed the PAB, I gave him response, he didn't reply.

When the similar things happened with other players, I tried to direct the attention of the Meister to this case, and there were the case of others along with it at the same time, yet: indifference.

And don't you find it interesting that MAX knows the Mission Statement, yet, he defines me an abuser, when this definition is opposition the the Mission Statement. That is more than an unwanted mistake, it is more than a honest mistake.

And why is it a problem for you that I brought this up here. It was MAX who stopped sending e-mails, then only indifference in similar cases through the years, what could I do if I don't find it rightful? I write this feedback. I think I had the base for a feedback, and in this forum there is a place for a feedback. So why is it a problem for you, then? I had the feeling that 'Meister's Mission' doesn't prevail every time, not even in the points that are described in it, so I make a feedback about that I find it interesting that the staff here deems me abuser, when it is even also the 'Meister's Mission' accoarding to that I cannot be. I think it is more than enough for a feedback.

 

[Nifty29]

Bencuri

It's a very long time since I've seen a member be so inappropriate and ungrateful.

Your experience with casino.rewards is the same as many others here, and everyone except you has voted with their feet and moved on.....they aren't going to change for you or anyone else.

I'm truly disgusted with the way you have somehow turned things around to make it Casinomeister's fault. What a nerve. You took advantage of a FREE service and you lost.....just like everyone else in your situation. Instead of accepting this and moving on, you wait for another complaint to surface about the group and turn your guns on Max and Bryan. It's obvious from your statements that you support the fraudster purely out of spite, and you have dragged it on and on and now you have posted a frivolous and pointless rant instead of dealing with it privately. Of course, you did this deliberately for effect.

Personally, I hope your membership is terminated as you obviously don't respect the site and its staff and you refuse to listen to any advice or information you are given.

 

[Temperance Fox]

For sure, everybody who wins there is an abuser. A friend of mine won in a CR casino about 2000 euros and they treated her like abuser dening sign up to the others casinos of this Group and she cannot use her comp points. She wrote ecogra for help, but they gave reason to the casino.Not clear this behaviour of ecogra.

I tried Zodiac first , they gave me the sign up, played 150 , won 1500. I've been cut off like abuser, too.I cut off CR group, but I still have their promo mails

 

[jod5413]

First of all, your timing really sucks. This is officially the "weekend", when the workers that keep this forum going are wanting to take a couple days off.

Second, bitching and whining interspersed with outright nasty innuendos makes this post completely offensive to most of your fellow members here, I am sure.

Right or wrong, no one makes their case through belligerence and verbal stabs at whoever they are trying to get to help them.

And last of all, you are acting like a spoiled child and no one takes a spoiled child with any sense of seriousness.

If ever there was a chance that Bryan and Max wanted to help you, this nastiness you have shown could seriously negate any resolution of your problem.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Temperance Fox]

Bencuri



I'm truly disgusted with the way you have somehow turned things around to make it Casinomeister's fault. What a nerve. You took advantage of a FREE service and you lost......

Wait wait wait...let's talk about the free service.I think that the owners of this site didn't make it for charity, cause if I join a casino using their links, they have something about my money.Isn't so? That's right.
But it's normal to ask for a little more work about this matter, just because interests many players who are CM members

Sorry, but that's my opinion

 

[Bencuri]

Bencuri

It's a very long time since I've seen a member be so inappropriate and ungrateful.

Your experience with casino.rewards is the same as many others here, and everyone except you has voted with their feet and moved on.....they aren't going to change for you or anyone else.

I'm truly disgusted with the way you have somehow turned things around to make it Casinomeister's fault. What a nerve. You took advantage of a FREE service and you lost.....just like everyone else in your situation. Instead of accepting this and moving on, you wait for another complaint to surface about the group and turn your guns on Max and Bryan. It's obvious from your statements that you support the fraudster purely out of spite, and you have dragged it on and on and now you have posted a frivolous and pointless rant instead of dealing with it privately. Of course, you did this deliberately for effect.

Personally, I hope your membership is terminated as you obvious don't respect the site and its staff and you refuse to listen to any advice or information you are given.

I am 100% sure I will be banned, because I presented the truth here with facts, facts and truth about that this site and it's staff doesn't even follow it's own mission, and such mistakes are disturbing the staff. So be sure I will get banned.

Anyway, you are wrong. If MAX keeps e-mails, he can search for the last e-mail I sent to him and to that he didn't reply, in that I told him I am not disappointed because of the unsuccesfullness of the case, but because of that it is astonishing that he is supporting the casino's side, and the finds the abuser rule as a good reason for it. This act is not in correspondance with the Meister's mission, so this act was astonishing. I thought he is doing something that is not correct, and since when is it a sin to express your feelings if you find something is not correct? As far as I know you can defend yourself if you find you were treated unrightfully, and in this case all the charges against me were unrightful. And MAX, by accepting the casino's point, agreed on these charges. And in this case, I find it rightful to defend myself. He had the chance to reply to my last e-mail, he didn't do, didn't change his opinion, an opinion that I think is incorrect. Let's say these 2 years that passed was time I gave for the case to turn out to be unfair. It almost happened, because there are other cases appeared like mine, yet the same indifference from the Meister. Well, indifference alone is not a problem, but not in case they join the group that has unrightful charges against me. I feel in such a case, I am rightful in case I make a summary. Don't try to present this post as purely a case complaint. It revealed that there are peoblems around the Meister's mission, so I think I am correct if I feel this case has reached the 'feedback suitable' cathegory.

And just a poetical question: Why should I regret I will get banned from a place that doesn't even respect it's own mission?

 

[jod5413]

I think you might be mistaken, Fox. I believe that Casinomeister sells advertising, different from an affiliate that makes money by clicks to the casino through his website.

If I am wrong, I am sure someone will shortly correct me. Even if I am wrong, how can you defend the actions and language of this complaining member? If he was my kid, he would be grounded for 6 months, and been put on bread and water until he apologized.

 

[jod5413]

Ben, it is not the fact that you complained, it is the way you have chosen to complain. Your language and attitude screams "nut job", in my opinion.

You get farther in life if you choose to be respectful with people you are dealing with. Whether you agree or not, people will think better of a polite and rational post than a wandering, vicious, and obnoxious post.

Again, my 2 cents.

 

[Bencuri]

First of all, your timing really sucks. This is officially the "weekend", when the workers that keep this forum going are wanting to take a couple days off.

Second, bitching and whining interspersed with outright nasty innuendos makes this post completely offensive to most of your fellow members here, I am sure.

Right or wrong, no one makes their case through belligerence and verbal stabs at whoever they are trying to get to help them.

And last of all, you are acting like a spoiled child and no one takes a spoiled child with any sense of seriousness.

If ever there was a chance that Bryan and Max wanted to help you, this nastiness you have shown could seriously negate any resolution of your problem.

Just my 2 cents.

Please direct me attention to the lines or passages where I behaved in a nasty way. I will apologize if I told lies or nasty words.

So you think I am unserious, when I compiled al this feedback wile trying to sticking to understandability, logic, facts and proofs. I have proofs of all this I presented. They are already posted in various threads of this forum. Yet, you call me an unserious crying child? Well, who fulfills the level of seriousness for you, then? Who stays silent when there are problems?

 

[Bencuri]

Where is it in the rules that I cannot start a thread in the weekend? A complaint in the weekend. Man, I haven't ever thought of the aspect of opening a thread you raised here. I am just aware about one rule: Truth is truth, no matter when you present it. I follow this rule.

 

[Bencuri]

Wait wait wait...let's talk about the free service.I think that the owners of this site didn't make it for charity, cause if I join a casino using their links, they have something about my money.Isn't so? That's right.
But it's normal to ask for a little more work about this matter, just because interests many players who are CM members

Sorry, but that's my opinion

Fox, please, let us leave that issue of the money now. I am sure that even if I survive with my statements, for this the whole thread will be banned right away. The problems I wrote about are already enough. If we discuss that money issue here now as well, that can be slanderous without any proper introduction, and it will direct the attention away from the problems I noted. You see instead of replying to the particular notices I did, this debate is already in the direction to become a slander against me being an abuser, somebody who is not serious. Let us not direct the attention away from the initial thought. It will just make a mess. There is already enough coal on the fire here.

 

[jod5413]

I never said you could not post a thread on the weekend. I said it was a bit rotten to cast your aspersions when the weekend was here, since Bryan and Max both deserve their weekend time off. As opposed to coming here to sort out the trash that is piling up.

Carry on.

 

[Nifty29]

Fox, please, let us leave that issue of the money now. I am sure that even if I survive with my statements, for this the whole thread will be banned right away. The problems I wrote about are already enough. If we discuss that money issue here, that can be slanderous without any proper introduction, and it will direct the attention away from the problems I noted. You see instead of replying to the particular notices I did, this debate is already in the direction to become a slander against me being an abuser, somebody who is not serious. Let us not direct the attention away from the initial thought. It will just make a mess.

Why are you still a member here then?

Just delete your membership. You said you don't want to be a part of it, so leave.

Of course, doing so wouldn't get as much attention would it? Much better to go out as a martyr to the cause.

@temperancefox - you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Sorry. PABs are not confined to CM advertisers, so your theory is shot down right there.

I'm just astonished at how goddamn ungrateful some people are.

 

[Bencuri]

Why am I a member here? Indeed, why am I? You are right I shouldn't be.

BUT!!!

Can I have an opinion of how some cases are dealt with here? Or how my own PAB was dealt with? I think the rule doesn't say I don't. So why I am still here is for expressing my opinion on these. Not for chatting about payout of slots, or roulette systems, as you see.

 

[Cleveland]

Ben you seemed to have missed the point of the replies to your thread. Nobody is saying you're wrong. We are saying that you should contact Max and if you have then continue to contact him. Did it ever occur to you that he was busy and therefor didn't respond to your last email?

Also you're pretty much saying that casino meister as a whole sided with the casino for some sort of kick back, or benefit from the casino. Am I reading your post wrong? What "proof" have you to support this, besides the fact that you lost?

If they sided with the casino then they probably had just cause or what they felt was just cause. You disagreeing doesn't make them liars. And if you think they are then why the hell are you a member of the site? And to the fact, how much money did you give Max to look into your case? Exactly none, therefor it is a free service for you.

 

[Cleveland]

Can I have an opinion of how some cases are dealt with here?

Can I have an opinion about your opinion?

 

[Bencuri]

Ben you seemed to have missed the point of the replies to your thread. Nobody is saying you're wrong. We are saying that you should contact Max and if you have then continue to contact him. Did it ever occur to you that he was busy and therefor didn't respond to your last email?

Also you're pretty much saying that casino meister as a whole sided with the casino for some sort of kick back, or benefit from the casino. Am I reading your post wrong? What "proof" have you to support this, besides the fact that you lost?

If they sided with the casino then they probably had just cause or what they felt was just cause. You disagreeing doesn't make them liars. And if you think they are then why the hell are you a member of the site? And to the fact, how much money did you give Max to look into your case? Exactly none, therefor it is a free service for you.

Well. I am sorry if I did it wrong, but I didn't feel the importance of contacting him again. On my side this non-response purely seemed as indifference. Especially after all the facts and proofs I presented to him. There are several facts on my side, yet he makes a decision in favour of the casino, and then stops replying. What conclusion should I have drwan from this? I don't think I was wrong if I interpreted it as ignorance. Morover later when similar cases appeared by others, and I jumped in, there was the same indifference from him, and also from the Meister. So why sending more e-mails, then?

Please show me where I wrote in the starting thread that Casinomesiter gets benefit from the Casino for teaming up with them? Nowhere. What I was telling about the deeds of the staff here is what happened. You can interpret is as you wish. If I say they supported the casino's side in the PAB, it simply means they did that. MAX agreed on deeming me an abuser, and he based this on that abuser rule. So in the debate he stood on the Casino side, he supported their view. That's all. I didn't write more than this. I didn't write I suspect he received tip from the casino for this, etc. I am sorry if that has such a taste, but anything I wrote was what has happened. These are only events. That's all.

I don't know why he supported the casino, but one thing is true, and you cannot deny it. Their conclusion is not in correspondance even to the Meister's Mission. Apart form the fact that without this this whole conclusion is already unfair, with this strange aspect added, it is very much like that. I came here in the belief that the Meister's Mission prevails here. I experienced that not, at least not on my level. And I made a feedback. Not because I wanted to reflect that MAX teamed up with the casino for money, but because it is odd that Meister has a mission, and it is already the staff who doesn't care about it. I expressed this to MAX in my final letter, too. Maybe not with the same words, but I expressed him that what he did is not what could be expected from such a site.

Since when is it a rule that in case you get or participate in free things, thouse shouldn't be taken seriously? I take free things seriously too, if someone finds it a problem, then let him make the free thing paid. Or when you receive something for free, that doesn't have the same value for you as a paid thing? A gift is unserious for you? When I do something for free to others, I take it seriously, if the case requires that. Where is it written in the PAB section that: 'It is free, but we are not serious about it?' Nowehere. Until then I think it is not a sin to expect Meister is doing this seriously.

 

[bpb]

Your language and attitude screams "nut job", in my opinion.

Your response screams "nut job", in my opinion.

Casino Rewards has always acted this way. They always will. Threads like this serve to dissuade new customers from patronizing them. This is a good thing, in my opinion.

 

[RIPPED OFF]

Maybe I won't have a long history after this here, but what would be the use anyway, when mostly I become disappointed again again while chasing for the experience of the spirit of the 'Mesiter Mission'.

From the moment of my first activity here, I found the 'Meister's Mission' is not real, at least not on the level that I belong to as a player. It is disappointing, considering that before I signed up here I thought: 'finally I found a place that is really for the protection of players'. And sadly, on and on, I face this disappointment again and again. The last thing that finally made me to write this was this complaint about Quatro casino, so if you had a suspicion about what initiated this thread, you were right. But before you would think of anything false: I don't want to continue the debate here whether a person is a fraudster or not, instead, I would like to make a notice of something different that also appeared in that particular thread, just as it had already happened before several times, and I don't think it corresponds to the 'Meister's Mission':

So let me start this at the begginning:

I started my activity here to make a PAB on Casino Rewards. I deposited at Lucky Emperor in faith of that I will receive 100 Euro bonus that is a big money for me. The Live Chat operator confirmed minutes before my deposit that I am eligible for the bonus. Yet, after I deposited I didn't receive the bonus. I played with my deposit however I lost it, so the casino had profit on my deposit. Later it revealed the bonus went to my comp points account (or reward points account as called in that casino). As that reward account is locked for me, I cannot use that bonus money.

The disappointment happened when I initiated a PAB, and MAX reported to me that in the end he supports the casino side, because accoarding to the rules I am a bonus abuser, that's why my bonus is locked.

Now, why do I think this is not in correspondance to the Meister's Mission? Simply because I am not an abuser. Firstly, it is not a usual practice online that a bonus is credited to a comp balance. Secondly, up to that point, even when my reward account was locked, I received deposit bonuses, so why should I had to worry about that I won't receive the 100 when the Live Chat confirmed it, too. Thirdly, why should I stay away from the group and not deposit because of a locked reward account? Why should I think they will cheat because of that? I don't think based on my experience that you should worry if you are restricted on comps. Moreover the support was always helpful at CR, so why should I have stayed away from depositing? I had no reason. The support was okay, my reward account was locked, but why worry about that when the whole reward system is operating on a different page? Why should I have thought that this separate page has any connection with your Casino balance. Yet, in spite of all this MAX took the casino's side, and he explained this with a rule that is in the terms at Lucky Emperor, that says I can be excluded from promos because of bonus abuse:

'In the event that Lucky Emperor Casino deems a Player to have misused a casino account for the exploitation of promotional offers, without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play, the redemption of all such promotional offers, including but not limited to sign-up bonuses, will be suspended until such times as the Player demonstrates a playing history whereby a risk of personal funds is periodically demonstrated at the Casino.'

This conclusion of MAX is problematic in already 2 aspects. Firstly, how could MAX cathegorize my case as 'excluded from promos' when the bonus was credited? Not to the Casino account, but to the Reward account, okay, but the fact is true that it was credited somewhere. So the case is not about that I was denied a bonus because I am an abuser. I was denied the ability of redeeming points, but there was no notice about deposit bonus ban from the casino in form of a letter informing me, or anything similar. And here comes the second thing that makes the whole case interesting: the terms at Lucky Emperor also say that the first deposit bonus is credited to the CASINO account, and not the reward account (just as in every previous cases, that happened at the same time my reward account was on lock). So? Can you see why MAX's conclusion is problematic? He supports the casino because of a rule on bonus abuse, but he excludes the rule that says the first deposit goes to the casino account. I deposited in this faith, that's why I didn't worry about that my money can get stuck in the reward account. And all this after the confirmation of the Live Chat operator, who said I will receive the bonus. I asked the casino operator, he was viewing my casino balance, and made his confirmation that way, so if there was a bonus ban on my casino account, too, and not only on my rewards account, he could see it. You can say, okay, he didn't see my rewards, account, and that's why he was not correct. But we are talking about the casino account here that he was looking at, the rules are talking about crediting to the casino account, yet the operator didn't report any problem about the casino account minutes before my deposit. Yet MAX blames me because of abuse, but he doesn't blame the casino because of violating their own rule. Moreover he also excluded their own mission statement. The 'Meister's Mission' includes:

'Advantage players are players who use bonuses and other legal ways in order to gain a mathematical advantage while gambling. Some casinos label these players "bonus abusers" which is a misnomer. Players can't be considered an "abuser" if the bonus has been legitimately offered to them. If casinos don't want bonus "abusers" then they should not offer these individuals bonuses. If a casino feels that a player is taking advantage of their "generosity" - pay the player and then stop offering bonuses.'

All the bonuses I received at Casino Rewards was offered and credited to my balances (rewards or casino balances) by the Casino, and every redemption was in correspondance with the terms. There are no rules about the use of no deposit chips either, ones like appear in RTG terms, that say you cannot use them in consequence. There is not a line in the terms about how you should use bonuses, but it is written that you will be titled as an abuser if the casino thinks you didn't use the bonuses in the siprit of the bonus. This is unfair.

And notice this in the 'abuse' rule, too: 'without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play'. I fulfilled the opposite of the rule, because I deposited and played from the very beginning, so I cannot be deemed abuser by this rule. This rule says: 'any', I fulfilled the 'any' degree of playing. It doesn't say: little, much, it says any. Yet Max wrote a summary about my PAB that is still accessible in the PAB history, that says:

'Player reported that they were an active player at the casino, didn't like that they had been bonus banned. Player had a history of hooving up bonuses but depositing very little. Closed.'

Closed, however the rule required 'any', and not much. On the base of little this rule doesn't refer to me. And read it again:

'without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play'

I cannot be deemed an abuser on the lack of serious intention to play. The rule is faulty here, because if you make it a requirement to prove serious intention to play, you cannnot be satisfied with 'any' degree of play, only 'much'. Moreover it says 'OR', this 'or' this, not this 'AND' this. If you fullfil one part, it is enough, and you cannot be deemed abuser. But as you see, the second part of the rule is an error if it appears along with the first part, so there is no need to go that deep in it.

So to summarize: the casino deemed me abuser, when I was not accoarding to the rule, Max approved the Casino's decision, and presented a PAB summary that was faulity and not even corresponding their own mssion statement, and didn't either care about that the Live Chat lied and that the casino violated their own rule abut bonus crediting. Thumbs up for you, MAX!

So with these things considered, even my firsts steps here at Casinomeister was disappointment, and this didn't improve during the years. I experienced that there are cases when there is a rule in the terms of a casino, the players don't read the terms, or forget them, and then they loose money because of violation of the terms. Then the Meister balmes the casino, on the base of being unethical. I say: it is okay, there are ethics, and there are rules or practices that can be unethical, and I like the idea to emphasize it and protect the players based on this. But when we arrive to cases when a rule is written in the terms, the player acts accoarding to that, and the player turns out to be cheated, interestingly the Meister supports the casino's side. Excuse me, but I am unable to discover the siprit of the 'Meister's Mission' in this.

And the same thing happened it the Quatro case. The player was deemed fraudster, he was banned, the rep who said untrue things could stay and was washed clear immediately. No problem that the group she represents behaves the way I presented, and is one of the biggest spammers and scamers in the industry. Don't misunderstand me, I don't want to discuss here if that guy is a fraudster or not, I want to show how unfairly the 'Meister's Mission' prevails in varios cases.

So as a consequence of the disappointing experiences, I thought it is time to post this 'feedback'. In summary: I am disappointed by particular practices here, and I don't think that the 'Meister's Mission' always prevails on every level. Maybe you say: well we cannot deal with peanuts. Okay, peanuts for you, but peanuts are still big things for some. A slice of bread is 'life' for a man who is starving, but just garbage for a rich man. And even if we are dealing with peanuts, the attitude should remain the same in how we are dealing with it.

 

[RIPPED OFF]

U DARE CONPLAIN BOUT THIS SITE.........GET A GRIP DUDE

CASINOMIESTER IS WORTH ITS WEIGHT IN GOLD..........CNK OUT MY NAME, WHEN I JOINED I WAS PISSED ,I HAD BEEN RIPPED OFF FOR THOUSANDS, BY MULTIPLE SITES AND OUT OF FRUSTRAITION JOINED.....EVEN HAD A ROUGE SITE I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT.......THEY GOT ME EVERY PENNY OWED,,,TYVM FROM THE TOP OF MY HEART.....WITHOUT THIS SITE I WAS FKD.......GET TO KNOW THEM BETTER BEFORE SUCH A POST.......THEY CHARGE NOTHING TO HELP AND GAMBELLING RIPPOFFS WOULD BE OUT OF CONTROLL WITHOUT THESE FINE PEOPLE...............DOESN,T ALWAYS WORK AT HELPING U BUT DAMMIT THEY DO THEIR BEST:

 

[maxd]

As someone pointed out (Jod?) Bryan and I are pretty much away from the site today, as we are most weekends (meltdowns aside). We'll be back on Monday to respond, after digging up Bencuri's case details, etc.

Until then be cool, and ease up on the "I have to say this before I am banned stuff", if you please. No one is going to get banned for saying "hey, I don't think my case was handled properly". Shit happens, maybe I did screw up. Going through proper channels might have been nice but Bencuri seems serious about his complaint so no harm done, IMO.

Anyway, back to my weekend. Attach Removed (Old not found) Please keep this thread on "flame off" mode and we'll get to business on Monday.

Ooops, just remembered there is this happening Monday: Downtime Monday. So we'll pick up _after_ the maintenance stuff is done.

 

[chayton]

never mind....

 

[4 of a kind]

No one is going to get banned for saying "hey, I don't think my case was handled properly". Shit happens, maybe I did screw up. Going through proper channels might have been nice but Bencuri seems serious about his complaint so no harm done, IMO.

I'm impressed with your level headed and fair approach. Your comments above demonstrate a lot of class and patients. Job well done Max.

 

[P.V.]

I'm impressed with your level headed and fair approach. Your comments above demonstrate a lot of class and patients. Job well done Max.

I ditto that!

 

[jetset]

Me too...and I'm guessing that the end result of this is going to be interesting.

IMO we've seen this sort of thing before. Instead of a private debate on the merits of a specific PAB, the rejected complainant goes all-in with the expectation of being banned and hopefully becoming something of a martyr, in the process using the hospitality and tolerance of his host to publicise his negative views on the PAB system, the decision in his case, Max's attitude and the integrity of the owner vis-a-vis casino relationships.

Not the best way to approach the core of the complaint imo.

 

[kidice]

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it."
Benjamin Franklin...........(if memory serves correctly)

 

[P.V.]

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it."
Benjamin Franklin...........(if memory serves correctly)

Good morning.

 

[funeral979]

Personally I thought Bencuri's post was pretty rational and well thought out. Whether I agree or disagree is beside the point. And Max in turn had a rational reply. Certainty wasn't any whining or ungratefulness going on. Just a posters opinion. I highly doubt their post offended most members here.

Nut Job....that is friggin laughable.

There are 2 members here who really should have their Thanks buttons permanently disabled. It is not right to thank posts that belittle other members.

 

[Simmo!]

Wait wait wait...let's talk about the free service.I think that the owners of this site didn't make it for charity, cause if I join a casino using their links, they have something about my money.Isn't so? That's right.
But it's normal to ask for a little more work about this matter, just because interests many players who are CM members

What you are missing out Fox is that the PAB service is free to anyone - not just CM members.

It's common for players who don't get a PAB result going their way to feel hard done by as - obviously - the majority think they are in the right. That's the nature of the beast.

 

[Nifty29]

Personally I thought Bencuri's post was pretty rational and well thought out. Whether I agree or disagree is beside the point. And Max in turn had a rational reply. Certainty wasn't any whining or ungratefulness going on. Just a posters opinion. I highly doubt their post offended most members here.

Nut Job....that is friggin laughable.

There are 2 members here who really should have their Thanks buttons permanently disabled. It is not right to thank posts that belittle other members.

Nothing rational about the OP IMO. It is a giant rant if ever I've seen one.

In regards to the thanking comment, I believe there is a saying about "they who are without sin can cast the first stone".

 

[RussianRoulette]

Relax and do not jump on conlcusions

As someone pointed out (Jod?) Bryan and I are pretty much away from the site today, as we are most weekends (meltdowns aside). We'll be back on Monday to respond, after digging up Bencuri's case details, etc.

Until then be cool, and ease up on the "I have to say this before I am banned stuff", if you please. No one is going to get banned for saying "hey, I don't think my case was handled properly". Shit happens, maybe I did screw up. Going through proper channels might have been nice but Bencuri seems serious about his complaint so no harm done, IMO.

Anyway, back to my weekend. Attach Removed (Old not found) Please keep this thread on "flame off" mode and we'll get to business on Monday.

Ooops, just remembered there is this happening Monday: Downtime Monday. So we'll pick up _after_ the maintenance stuff is done.

Dear All, With all the exchange i have seen here MAX is right. Be cool and relax, in life their is an explanation for everything. And each problem has a solution. Have all a nice week end.

 

[4 of a kind]

Its threads like this that demonstrate the need for online gaming licensors to finally get with the program like land based casinos, and take control of all these issues with regulations and regulator enforcers. They could clean up the entire online gaming community once and for all.

On another note I’ll be departing within an hour to the regulated Bogata in Atlantic City for a poker tournament and some regulated gaming entertainment. I’m also certain I won’t be complaining about the free room, free food, free beverages, free entertainment, and certainly wouldn’t have any grounds to complain about my gaming outcome.

 

[Bencuri]

4 of a kind, I have already mentioned a few pages before, the complaint is not about the unsuccesfulness of the PAB. What made me keep the fire burning after 2 years in this case is that I experienced the staff here made a decision, that is way in opposition to their own mission as well. In this sense there is more in it than just cries about an unsuccesful outcome. If you noticed something that seems to have connection with the core of something, then in my opinion you are eligible for a feedback, and it is rightful. And you cannot say that my post doesn't have a feedback value.

Or summarize it:

1. I met this site. I learnt what they are for. Actually the Meister's Mission as it is is a very logical statement, that is indeed rightful, and player friendly. This is a truly good mission.

2. I ignite a process, and along the way I experience that the mission doesn't prevail in my case. I described that in detail why.

3. As it didn't prevail even at its very basic core, I got disappointed. I waited until this attitue may change. As it seems it didn't, I posted this.

I think it is not unrightful to do this in case of this course of events.

 

[ksech]

Bencuri, are you truly looking for Bryan to ban you? For what purpose would that serve? The time you have been here doesn't seem as if you have too much positive input to add. The majority of your threads are so negative, all the casinos are out to cheat you. Especially the ones you frequently use ND bonuses at...

Pamper casino - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/casinorewards-restricted-my-rewards-account.34485/
Casino Rewards (Rialto) - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/bencuri-vs-rilato-casino.35108/
TopGame (CasinoStates) - https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ame-nightmare-casino-states-doesnt-pay.35402/

Just to name a few...

You have post after post complaining about how you only play at this casino and that casino using bonuses, never jeopardizing your own funds. This is what the casinos consider bonus abuse. They want you to use your own money without a bonus on occassion. It's the free money vs. your own money ratio which determines how the casino will set up your promotions.

Concerning the QuatroCasino thread...
Did you miss this part???

Renee knew that the fraud team was in contact with MB, and she knew they were also looking at the screen shot in the thread. They said "he changed his name" but this was referring to the screenshot - this was not the MB account that the player had originally tried to make a withdrawal to. (the fraud team's English isn't that good from what I gather)

So she interpreted this as Moneybookers confirming a name change - which in fact they didn't.

But regardless of this slip up, this guy was still trying to commit fraud.
What has happened is that this guy tried to withdraw to someone else's MB account, then posted screenshots of one of his moneybookers accounts trying to make the casino look like they are trying to rip him off.

Regardless, to kind of sum up in MY peabrain...
-You are upset the PAB didn't work out in your favor and are holding a grudge against Bryan and maxd because you feel you have been slighted.
-You used the Quatro thread as an agenda to try to bias members against CasinoMeister and what it stands for.
-You are looking to get banned so you can justify your antagonistic behavior and proclaim yourself a martyr.

I hope when Monday afternoon rolls around and Bryan and maxd can clear the dust from this, that you will finally be satisfied. At least give them the benefit of the weekend to get things in order (at least as maxd has stated he will do), before condemning them further...

 

[chuchu59]

Its threads like this that demonstrate the need for online gaming licensors to finally get with the program like land based casinos, and take control of all these issues with regulations and regulator enforcers. They could clean up the entire online gaming community once and for all.

On another note I’ll be departing within an hour to the regulated Bogata in Atlantic City for a poker tournament and some regulated gaming entertainment. I’m also certain I won’t be complaining about the free room, free food, free beverages, free entertainment, and certainly wouldn’t have any grounds to complain about my gaming outcome.

Now I expect you to come in the top five at least.

 

[Bencuri]

I find it very sad that you are more interested in describing me as an abuser, not discovering that I cannot be titled that even because of rules, not even because the Mission Statement of this forum. Morover you so this without knowing my casino history. Besides I sign up for free chips that is not described as not allowed anywhere, I am a frequent depositor, and in sessions a looser too (sometimes also winner). In this special case at CasinoRewards I deposited an equal amount to the amount I got in bonuses. So I don't find it rightful that you call me an abuser.

Secondly, the casinos you picked are very rougelike. Others can confirm this to you. My review on them, too. So it is not a good example, if you search the net you can see my posts about these cases, and you can see I was rightful complaining about them. And the fact I mostly post complaints is that this place is meant for that too. There are 'Casino Complaints' sections here. So why is it a problem for you, that I make complaints. Check my history anyway and you can see I contributed to lots of non-complaint related things as well.

And please stop describing me as an abuser. I am also a frequent depositor, I deposited an wagered much money at CR, too. The rules at CR clearly shows I am not an abuser, and, the most important, the meister mission, too:

'Advantage Players
Advantage players are players who use bonuses and other legal ways in order to gain a mathematical advantage while gambling. Some casinos label these players "bonus abusers" which is a misnomer. Players can't be considered an "abuser" if the bonus has been legitimately offered to them. If casinos don't want bonus "abusers" then they should not offer these individuals bonuses. If a casino feels that a player is taking advantage of their "generosity" - pay the player and then stop offering bonuses.

Advantage play should not be confused with fraudulent play. Fraudulent play is opening multiple accounts with false or misleading information, collusion, making false claims (photoshopped screenshots of bogus wins), knowingly charging back losses, and other forms of cheating behaviour. Online casinos should not tolerate such activities.'

And actually your reply is what justifes my claim about that this forum is unserious on certain levels. There is a mission statement here, yet you want me feel myself as an abuser, when even the mission describes it is a misnormer.

'-You used the Quatro thread as an agenda to try to bias members against CasinoMeister and what it stands for.'

No. And as you have seen from my case there are levels when they are already against what they stand for by themselves, no need to make efforts to make it seem like that. Anyway, no. I was insisting on continuin the debate, because there was also the rep involved, the ignorant rep, who is defending the casinos violating their own terms, and in that case such a conclusion that this thread ended in is not enoguh. In case of a fraud at 32Red or ClubWorld it may be, but in this case, it isn't. I cannot accept the conclusion that the rep walks away again without any consequences, however she behaved in aquestionable manner again, but the one who presents proof is banned right away. Okay, he may be fraudster, but if you let the rep be ignorant and defend all the time what is unrightful, then let the fraudster stay a bit, too. So to say: if you allow one fraudster be here, let the other one stay, too.

 

[Bencuri]

And it is astonishing that in the starting thread, I clearly proved that the casino uses a faulty rule, based on that nobody could be excluded from the Rewards, so we can see a group that violating its own terms to exclude and cheat players, yet this doesn't interest anybody, either. And even when I cannot be titled abuser by the terms of the casino either, you are still attacking me. You have no reason left even from the casino side to blame me, nor from the side of the Mission Statement here, yet you let yourself do this slander. It is awesome...

 

[chuchu59]

Bencuri, are you truly looking for Bryan to ban you? For what purpose would that serve? The time you have been here doesn't seem as if you have too much positive input to add. The majority of your threads are so negative, all the casinos are out to cheat you. Especially the ones you frequently use ND bonuses at...

Pamper casino - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/casinorewards-restricted-my-rewards-account.34485/
Casino Rewards (Rialto) - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/bencuri-vs-rilato-casino.35108/
TopGame (CasinoStates) - https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ame-nightmare-casino-states-doesnt-pay.35402/

Just to name a few...

You have post after post complaining about how you only play at this casino and that casino using bonuses, never jeopardizing your own funds. This is what the casinos consider bonus abuse. They want you to use your own money without a bonus on occassion. It's the free money vs. your own money ratio which determines how the casino will set up your promotions.

Concerning the QuatroCasino thread...
Did you miss this part???



Regardless, to kind of sum up in MY peabrain...
-You are upset the PAB didn't work out in your favor and are holding a grudge against Bryan and maxd because you feel you have been slighted.
-You used the Quatro thread as an agenda to try to bias members against CasinoMeister and what it stands for.
-You are looking to get banned so you can justify your antagonistic behavior and proclaim yourself a martyr.

I hope when Monday afternoon rolls around and Bryan and maxd can clear the dust from this, that you will finally be satisfied. At least give them the benefit of the weekend to get things in order (at least as maxd has stated he will do), before condemning them further...

Bryan wont fall for it and ban the op. There was a certain degree of disrespect but no inappropriate behavior or flaming. There was just too many details in the thread the op was referring to and I would rather spend my time gaming away. From my many years at this forum I have found Bryan to be a very fair person. If he has seen evidence that a player is a fraudster he/she usually is and I dont doubt the integrity of the meister. One must remember he is obliged to keep what was secretly divulged to him confidential otherwise he wont be trusted anymore. We dont know the poster momchildxxx whatever his handle so although the info presented to us may seem solid I believe in Bryan's judgment in branding that person a fraudster. This forum was not built in a day and it needs superb juggling skills to gain recognition from both players and casinos alike. The online gambling is a much better place with a site like this.

 

[Bencuri]

Guys please. Let us now stop this evaluation of Momchildobrew. I said from the quatro case it was the attitude towards casino rewards that ignited this post, so let us stick to that side of the story. I don't say I don't dare to discuss the debate whether the guy if fraudster or not, but I didn't open this thread for that purpose. There are a lot of serious things here already without that guy, too.

 

[BingoT]

Bryan & Max & many others do the best we can to help anyone we can.
Have a great weekend everyone.

Hey Bugger I have to agree with you.

Bryan wont fall for it and ban the op. There was a certain degree of disrespect but no inappropriate behavior or flaming. There was just too many details in the thread the op was referring to and I would rather spend my time gaming away. From my many years at this forum I have found Bryan to be a very fair person. If he has seen evidence that a player is a fraudster he/she usually is and I dont doubt the integrity of the meister. One must remember he is obliged to keep what was secretly divulged to him confidential otherwise he wont be trusted anymore. We dont know the poster momchildxxx whatever his handle so although the info presented to us may seem solid I believe in Bryan's judgment in branding that person a fraudster. This forum was not built in a day and it needs superb juggling skills to gain recognition from both players and casinos alike. The online gambling is a much better place with a site like this.

Casinomeister's Philosophy and Mission Statement

Established in 1998, Casinomeister has never wavered from its initial mission:

"Trust is what it's all about. Our mission at Casinomeister is to provide solid information; information that enables players to make smart choices. Since trust is spawned by information, the more players know about online casinos, the more at ease and safer they will be."
Since these words were first published, Casinomeister has proven to be instrumental in bringing trust, credence, and a level playing ground for the online gaming community. In an industry that still remains to be relatively unregulated, Casinomeister has shown that information empowers the player community in order to make wise decisions when it comes to online gaming.

The bottom line for most people in this industry is to make a profit. Unfortunately when failure or scandal occurs, it's usually the result of a profit driven philosophy. Many profit driven businesses are typically ethically challenged - especially in the online casino business.

Casinomeister is a informational driven business. Casinomeister's community, information, and services proceed any marketing and profit making ventures. We are not motivated by money.

This industry does not exist because of money, software, or good management or marketing skills - it exists because of the player, and casinos should never forget that.

There are several needs of a player (obviously, these are not exhaustive) which casinos should always consider when developing any aspect of their business model or introducing any promotions.

Safety: The players need to know that their private information is private. The casino software is solid and trustworthy.
Dependability: Players need to know that the casino operation will be responsive and react positively to any issues. Players need to be assured that the casino operation will be there tomorrow.
Honesty: The casino needs to be up front and fair when it comes to terms and conditions. It should not use deception to attract players.
Communicative: The casino must not be set up in a black hole. They need to responsive to players' comments, questions and problems.
Fairness: The games are fair, promotions are fair, terms and conditions are clear, and when there are problems - the outcome is fair.

These needs should be addressed by the casino in one form or another with every aspect of its operation.

Trust is what holds this industry together. If you don't have trust, you don't have anything worth dealing with. Since the online casino industry is still unregulated for the most part, players will remain cautious, cynical, pessimistic and accusatory. It is up to the casino to do battle against this negativity. The way to do this is to be upfront, honest, humble, and when you make a mistake - admit it. Admitting our mistakes humanizes us, and people relate to people this way. This is a people business.
Dealing with players:
Bonuses
If the casino makes an offer of a bonus, and the player accepts it, the casino is obligated to go through with the offer. If the player accepts this offer, the player is obliged to follow the posted terms and conditions of the bonus. If the player meets the wagering requirements, he should be paid. Simple as that.
Advantage Players
Advantage players are players who use bonuses and other legal ways in order to gain a mathematical advantage while gambling. Some casinos label these players "bonus abusers" which is a misnomer. Players can't be considered an "abuser" if the bonus has been legitimately offered to them. If casinos don't want bonus "abusers" then they should not offer these individuals bonuses. If a casino feels that a player is taking advantage of their "generosity" - pay the player and then stop offering bonuses.

Advantage play should not be confused with fraudulent play. Fraudulent play is opening multiple accounts with false or misleading information, collusion, making false claims (photoshopped screenshots of bogus wins), knowingly charging back losses, and other forms of cheating behaviour. Online casinos should not tolerate such activities.
Bot use
There has been a lot of controversy over the use of robots (bots), or computer programs that assist the player's game play. Some casinos disallow bot use - which is their prerogative. But those operators that ban bots are either naive, unschooled in casino math, or are just inexperienced. Bots will not change the game's math, nor will they foresee random numbers or predict the future. Bots only speed game play, and if the odds are in the house's favor (which in most cases they are), bots will only allow the player to lose money at a faster rate.

From Michael Shackleford - Wizard of Odds:
If I ran a casino I would fully allow bot use. If I offered a bonus or game that could be beat by a bot, then that would be my own damn fault for not protecting myself against advantage play.
Betting Systems
Betting systems are like bots, they cannot affect the math of the game. To believe otherwise is to believe in pseudoscience, snake-oil, and magic fairy dust. Reference material:

Wizard of Odds Betting systems are all equally worthless
Eliot Jacobson Ph.D. Betting Systems and the House Edge
"Spirit of the Bonus"
No such animal. If the casino offers a bonus, the casino should not assume on what grounds the bonus should be accepted. If the player wants to just play and watch the reels spin or is playing to make a profit, it is not up to the casino to enforce subjective terms like "spirit".

The Role of Affiliates:
Affiliates
Affiliates need to understand their importance and relevance when it comes to player safety and trust. Unfortunately, many don't have a clue, and they end up stumbling down a path towards the dark side. The best affiliates are the ones who are players themselves and who play at casinos known for their player focused approach. These affiliates support those casinos that subscribe to Casinomeister-like player philosophies; they would personally recommend these casinos and assist players if and when they have issues. To be an affiliate and not be a player is like being a restaurant owner who doesn't taste his own food, or a shoemaker who goes around barefoot. These people are lost puppies - they don't have a clue about what they are doing. And honestly, these lost puppies are usually the catalyst for problems:

Problem Affiliates:
Spammers
Content thieves
Black Hat SEO dweebs
Rogue pushers

The list is not exhaustive, but this covers most of the negativity that plague the online casino industry. In most cases, the webmaster is the one who introduces the global community to online casinos. There are many casinos that should not even be in business - and unfortunately the reason why these businesses linger stems from unethical or uncaring webmasters.

Webmasters who practice unethical advertising or steal others content are showcased in the Evil Webmaster section of the Rogue Pit. The casinos they promote are listed there as well and made aware of their evil webmaster. In most cases, the affiliate programs close the affiliate's account - and this is what makes this section a powerful tool to keep misguided affiliates on the right path.
Rogue Casinos
The Variances of "Rogue"
The term Rogue Casino was coined by Bryan Bailey in the fall of 2000 when it was applied to Golden Palace concerning the flagrant removal of winnings from players they simply didn't want to pay. This was "rogue" behaviour and the term was pulled from King Lear...when Kent replies to Edmund's question: "Do you know who I am?" Kent says yes, and describes what he knows of Edmund:

"A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition.


I thought it was fitting.

But there are as many levels and forms of rogue behaviour as there are terms to dish out, but the two most important categories at Casinomeister are the following:

Rogue Casino
Not Recommended Casino

And the of course there are other categories as well:
Bumbling Blunders and other screwups
Evil Software
Evil Webmasters

How does one join the Rogues?

It's easy. Just exhibit rogue behaviour and you're on a fast track to rogue town. Normally it stems from complaints in our forum, or complaints submitted via the "Pitch a Bitch" section. I rarely go looking for rogues, they usually come to me via a player issue. If a casino is "rogued" or placed in the not recommended section, communications are left open in case the casino operator wants to dig himself out. Redemption is always an option.

How does one get out of the pit?

It depends on the situation. Sometimes it's a matter of changing one's terms and conditions, or switching software providers, or something that is clear and explicit. If it's a situation of unethical behavior, then that's not so simple. My experience with dealing with rogue behaviour has illustrated that a leopard doesn't change it's spots. When a casino has an ethically challenged management or business approach, then this is something that rarely changes. Ethics are the foundations of a business; if there is something rotten in the cellar, the whole building stinks. These companies usually find themselves permanent residents of the pit.

 

[Nifty29]

I find it very sad that you are more interested in describing me as an abuser, not discovering that I cannot be titled that even because of rules, not even because the Mission Statement of this forum. Morover you so this without knowing my casino history. Besides I sign up for free chips that is not described as not allowed anywhere, I am a frequent depositor, and in sessions a looser too (sometimes also winner). In this special case at CasinoRewards I deposited an equal amount to the amount I got in bonuses. So I don't find it rightful that you call me an abuser.

Secondly, the casinos you picked are very rougelike. Others can confirm this to you. My review on them, too. So it is not a good example, if you search the net you can see my posts about these cases, and you can see I was rightful complaining about them. And the fact I mostly post complaints is that this place is meant for that too. There are 'Casino Complaints' sections here. So why is it a problem for you, that I make complaints. Check my history anyway and you can see I contributed to lots of non-complaint related things as well.

And please stop describing me as an abuser. I am also a frequent depositor, I deposited an wagered much money at CR, too. The rules at CR clearly shows I am not an abuser, and, the most important, the meister mission, too:

'Advantage Players
Advantage players are players who use bonuses and other legal ways in order to gain a mathematical advantage while gambling. Some casinos label these players "bonus abusers" which is a misnomer. Players can't be considered an "abuser" if the bonus has been legitimately offered to them. If casinos don't want bonus "abusers" then they should not offer these individuals bonuses. If a casino feels that a player is taking advantage of their "generosity" - pay the player and then stop offering bonuses.

Advantage play should not be confused with fraudulent play. Fraudulent play is opening multiple accounts with false or misleading information, collusion, making false claims (photoshopped screenshots of bogus wins), knowingly charging back losses, and other forms of cheating behaviour. Online casinos should not tolerate such activities.'

And actually your reply is what justifes my claim about that this forum is unserious on certain levels. There is a mission statement here, yet you want me feel myself as an abuser, when even the mission describes it is a misnormer.

The problem you describe is that exact same problem that many members here have had with Casino Rewards i.e. once you reach a point where your wins outweigh your losses, you can no longer redeem comps or bonuses.

You are making it out to be a personal thing that CR has against you.....and it isn't.

Everyone else here, when faced with this situation (which is ridiculous I will grant you), have simply not ever returned to play there again and moved on. Nobody else has accused Bryan and Max of collusion with the casinos or cheating or <insert whichever of the various insults you made against CM here> etc etc.....and that is because it is the casino's right to decide who they do and do not allow to claim their bonuses.

As ksech pointed out, you seem to like complaining about bonuses, and you obviously like to get as many as possible. Nothing wrong with that, but you have to accept it when the casinos says "enough is enough" and requests that you deposit your own money for a while. All casinos will do this at some point if you continue to play mostly freebies and match deposits, it's just that CR does it more quickly and strictly than most.

I don't believe in such a thing as a "bonus abuser". If you are eligible for a bonus and you claim it, then you should be paid. If the casino decides you are not eligible for a bonus, then it's tough cookies - there is no rules or terms at any casino that states they have to give you bonuses. I don't know where you get the idea of "violating its own terms to exclude and cheat players" from....you are way off the reservation with that one. Can you show me where that term is?? Good luck.

Your "mission" to show that CM doesn't follow his own mission statement is pretty much the same distance off the reservation. It says that if a promotion is offered and you are eligible (which you are not) then the player should be paid etc.

So you hate the way CR runs their bonus program. Join the queue. No argument here. The part I find distasteful is that you are taking aim at CM for what seems to pretty much amount to sour grapes over an issue that was dealt with quite some time ago at which time you were given a fair hearing. The mission statement stuff is just a smokescreen to blur the edges of what is a personal vendetta of sorts on your part against the parties who "cheated" you i.e. Bryan, Max and the CR group.

What you seem to want is for CR to say "OK you can claim your bonuses again" and for CM to say "Well we screwed the pooch on this one and we should have insisted that CR allow you to claim bonuses".

Neither is going to happen.

 

[Nifty29]

Guys please. Let us now stop this evaluation of Momchildobrew. I said from the quatro case it was the attitude towards casino rewards that ignited this post, so let us stick to that side of the story. I don't say I don't dare to discuss the debate whether the guy if fraudster or not, but I didn't open this thread for that purpose. There are a lot of serious things here already without that guy, too.

First you use it as an example, and then you say that we shouldn't discuss it.

 

[Bencuri]

Nifty, I think you are missing the point here:

There is a casino with a rule. Based on this rule they ban players from promos. I was 'guaranteed' such a bonus, yet didn't receive.The casinos says because of that rule. That rule doesn't have to do anything with my case, it doesn't refer to me, so the casino is violating its own rule. So to say, there is a rule in the terms that doesn't refer to me, yet the casino bans me because of that. In spite of this MAX takes their side. The fact he takes their side is already NOT in correspondance with their own mission.

These are the problems here. What you are trying to suggest are general thought about what is an abuser, what are terms for, etc. This is not what the topic is about. The topic is about a specific behavior of a casino, as proved, it is an unrightful behavior. And secondary, the disturbing fact that no matter what the mission says the staff here also agrees on that unrightful practice. Can you see: the casino bans unrighfully, and it is not a problem for the staff at all here. Please concantrate on this fact. We can discuss the general practice of how casinos follow rules or what an abuser mean elsewhere if you want, or here too, but from the aspect of my sepcific case, whether it was right to title players anyhing y the rules of THIS group.

Anyway, the casino has bonus terms, the terms guarantee the bonus for you, so if you deposit, by the rule you get the bonus. Why do you say then that the casino has no obligation to give you the bonus. It is a part of the rules that he guarantees it for you. So don't sy things that are untrue. Of course, they can deny it, but that is also in the rules. But they can only deny, if the rules fit to the case. When you register and deposit, you agree the terms. The terms include crediting welcome bonus, so please, don't say things this is not in the rules. It is.

 

[blerko1]

Casinomeister is only a partner with BIG companies...( affiliates gives money to eat to this people ) so resolving players problems is not the main problem but putting them in a direction of using accreditet section.....
Offering FREE service means that CM is NOT licensed to operate through the LAW or seriously solve player problems, this means noone know what is happening there....and im sorry for those players who, like me wanted to have some HONEST fun through internet....( with casinos ) and then feel the STRONG PAIN of SCAM ROAD....
Im ready like bencuri to be banned from this forum, agree with him and going around, because here i dont think players are treated with honestly....here players are just a VICTIM.....
All who come here and make claims are just lie their self.....
I see some players telling to LIVE CHAT OPERATORS OF CASINO i send this to casinomeister......WHO IS CASINO MEISTER.......I really doubt on a POSITIVE ANSWER......

BYE

 

[Bencuri]

First you use it as an example, and then you say that we shouldn't discuss it.

We should, from the aspect of the casino rep thing. I described it near the end of the starting thread. And I am ready to discuss it from every aspect, too, but not in this thread. Anyway, I wouldn't give too much importance to that case here. I just noted that that case ignited this complaint, because I guessed many would noted it anyway, so I felt it is adviseable to show the way in full with the very last moment how things developed into this complaint. That was the real purpose that I mentioned this Quatro thread, an I think it revelas from my post. But regarding the attitude towards casino rewards, we can discuss that thread, but from that aspect. From that sense that thread is also the part of this story.

 

[Simmo!]

It's common for players who don't get a PAB result going their way to feel hard done by as - obviously - the majority think they are in the right. That's the nature of the beast.

...im sorry for those players who, like me wanted to have some HONEST fun through internet....( with casinos ) and then feel the STRONG PAIN of SCAM ROAD....
Im ready like bencuri to be banned from this forum, agree with him and going around, because here i dont think players are treated with honestly....here players are just a VICTIM.....

Does make you wonder sometimes why CM even offers the PAB service. I seriously wouldn't have the patience...

 

[Bencuri]

Just an intersting notice regarding the 'free' aspect of this service:

You like to emphasize this very much. Actually if I think it over, this is riducuolos. Why? Simply because in case MAX had to do something very difficult to draw a final conclusion, well, well, in that case I'd understand you have a base for come up with the free aspect of the service all the time. BUT! Acutally what happened in my case was not a difficult deed. MAX was presented a rule by the casino staff, and he decided to accept it. It is nothing about anything difficult. Okay, he did background work, but this abuser rule was presented as a joly joker in my case on the casino side, and when the joly joker comes, you don't need to do anything difficult, because that is over everything. So MAX met the rule, and he found it enough to close the PAB. Well, remembering the Mission Statement wouldn't have been more difficult either. So it is quite ridiculous that you want to make it seem as if something difficlt he had to do. He had quite an easy job after he was presented that rule, because it functioned as a joker, so I don't think it is a sin then to complain about this free thing. The coclusion when that rule jumped in was not difficult either, so to say: it was FREE for him, too. He received a free joker. So I don'T understand your worries regarding this matter. Nor from the other aspects of this 'FREE' thing that I outlined before.

 

[blerko1]

PAB service is nothing because CM has nothing in his hand to force casino to solve the problem on player side....if they ( casino ) dont solve it CM put them on NON accreditet list....but who know that???....all players come after they are SCAMED,....then CM suggest to you to play on accredited section ( affiliated )............