Dasistcasino a new type of term to avoid paying winners?

kavaman

Senior Member
PABnononaccred3
PABnononaccred3
MM
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Location
finland
This is from their terms and conditions:

12. Max win on deposit bonuses depends on deposit ranges.

If a player deposits less than 30 Euro in equivalent, the max win from the issued for the deposit bonus is limited to 250 Euro in equivalent.
If a player deposits more than 30, but less than 200 Euro in equivalent, the max win from the from the issued for the deposit bonus is limited to 1000 Euro in equivalent.
Casino can consider any repeated betting pattern as game manipulation and will confiscate winnings at its sole discretion. Repeated betting patterns are any 10 or more identical bets

Ok, first about these max win caps that depend on deposits pretty horrid in itself, but the term of identical bets is what get me sick to my stomach, they basicly put in a term that they can use on their own discretion to avoid paying large winnings, because i have never heard of a slot player that does not make identical bets...............

Anyway i would not consider playing any casino that restricts a win on DEPOSIT bonuses, but more importantly, i would never ever consider playing any casino with a term like this.
 
Last edited:

Jasminebed

Game old gal
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Location
Ontario
Only people that don't read terms would ever play there.

I'll flat bet for a long time on a slot game, and even when I don't, play long enough with a bit of luck to have made ten identical bets (e.g. $1) over a period of time, or on more than one game.

FU clause at it's finest.

Bet if you vary our bets too much, there's some clause to consider that irregular too.

Want to tell us what weekly withdrawal limits are? I'm not even going to go look.
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
That's a new rule obviously invented to prevent people from getting their money. I saw a complaint at AG the other day where they used that rule to deny a guy his winnings. Retroactivly, since he had played there and won the month before.

That is rogue behaviour and I really hope they make this right and remove this new rule before they are blacklisted everywhere.
I also wonder what will happen if someone from Sweden win. The new rules isn't in there for them :rolleyes:
 

lct

Banned User: Forum Rule violations, general ignora
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Location
the moon
That's a new rule obviously invented to prevent people from getting their money. I saw a complaint at AG the other day where they used that rule to deny a guy his winnings. Retroactivly, since he had played there and won the month before.

That is rogue behaviour and I really hope they make this right and remove this new rule before they are blacklisted everywhere.
I also wonder what will happen if someone from Sweden win. The new rules isn't in there for them :rolleyes:

Let me guess, AG said it was fine as it was in the T&Cs?
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
Let me guess, AG said it was fine as it was in the T&Cs?

No, they are suppose to be presented with evidence. In this case I know that AG can't rule in the casinos favour.
I also must say that AG often is very fair, and like when there are pab's here we are not allowed to see all the evidence. In this case there can't be any.

This casino must really struggle with money if they feel they need to implement such rules.
 

RichyJ75

Has been a very naughty boy ...
PABnonaccred
Joined
Apr 3, 2015
Location
Kent
Boy do I hate that term 'confiscate winnings'. Just screams out bad losers who are looking for ways of not paying.

Think they need to rename from DasistCasino to DeceasedCasino!
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Dasist? Shouldn't it be 'desist? Desist from operating.

Numerous complaints at AG, 'licensed' in Cup-o-cocoa, surprise surprise. :rolleyes:

Another for all to avoid like herpes.
 

lct

Banned User: Forum Rule violations, general ignora
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Location
the moon
No, they are suppose to be presented with evidence. In this case I know that AG can't rule in the casinos favour.
I also must say that AG often is very fair, and like when there are pab's here we are not allowed to see all the evidence. In this case there can't be any.

This casino must really struggle with money if they feel they need to implement such rules.

I've seen AG rule in favour of casinos that have a T&C that you can't bet more than certain percentage of your last deposit. There's nothing in place to stop you betting over that percentage, just a predatory t&c used to retroactively confiscate winnings (of course if you bet it and lose they probably don't void the bet). Anyway the point being that predatory behaviour like this is ruled in favour of a casino because it's the T&Cs the player signed up for. They could blacklist casinos for that kind of thing but that wouldn't be as profitable for them.
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
I've seen AG rule in favour of casinos that have a T&C that you can't bet more than certain percentage of your last deposit. There's nothing in place to stop you betting over that percentage, just a predatory t&c used to retroactively confiscate winnings (of course if you bet it and lose they probably don't void the bet). Anyway the point being that predatory behaviour like this is ruled in favour of a casino because it's the T&Cs the player signed up for. They could blacklist casinos for that kind of thing but that wouldn't be as profitable for them.

You sound like you don't like AG and that's fine. I don't like them much either, but I'm happy that they are helping a lot of players.
In this case they can't agree with the casino. I know those rules are very very new, but we'll just wait and see, and hope for the best for the player.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
I've seen AG rule in favour of casinos that have a T&C that you can't bet more than certain percentage of your last deposit. There's nothing in place to stop you betting over that percentage, just a predatory t&c used to retroactively confiscate winnings (of course if you bet it and lose they probably don't void the bet). Anyway the point being that predatory behaviour like this is ruled in favour of a casino because it's the T&Cs the player signed up for. They could blacklist casinos for that kind of thing but that wouldn't be as profitable for them.

This is why jurisdiction is so vital. Cup-o-cocoa is worthless.

Now say it was a UK site and UKGC licensed, irrespective of what AG or CM or any other arbiter says, you have legal recourse.

Now this means if the casino has a ridiculous term "For withdrawals exceeding £1000 you must send us a photo of your penis crushed flat between two bricks." for example, the ADR or eCogra might disagree with the term but may feel compelled to side with the casino as you agreed with the terms.

Then you can simply take the casino to County Court and represent that the term was punitive and unfair, and if the judge agrees you get paid. In any society with a developed consumer and legal system, terms must be deemed to be 'fair' and reasonable so no business can hide behind the caveat "Tough shit, you agreed to the terms, up yours sonny!" This scenario seems only to exist in casino-world and very few other areas of commerce.

In Curacao, if there are things such as courts, they'll just be 'drop Senor Van Bastard 50 Dollars inside your paperwork for the right result' sort of places. This why players should avoid these sites in the first place.
 

kavaman

Senior Member
PABnononaccred3
PABnononaccred3
MM
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Location
finland
Some other sites with the same platform are very fair though i mean i for example have had some pretty sizeable withdrawals paid by them, but i agree that the license of curacao is not trustworhy, meaning if they (the casino) decides not to pay you, then you are well... screwed.

Bitstarz is one example of a casino with the same platform, that seems pretty fair, and there are others too. I just hope they don't copy any terms from dasist, because i think both the max withdrawal and the fu clause of 10 similar bets, is very unfair.
 

dusky

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Location
England
I would love to see their reasoning for why level stake sizes is manipulative, compared to say high stakes followed by low stakes.

Crazy.
 

kavaman

Senior Member
PABnononaccred3
PABnononaccred3
MM
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Location
finland
Just read about a complaint at another casino with the same platform called play.casino where in their terms they have this:
If a customer or group of customers are suspected to have taken casino offers for the purposes of abusing the promotion, play.casino reserves the right to void the bonus and any winnings
Abusing of the promotion means:
- Making max allowed bets on high variance games in order to increase balance
- Decreasing stake after big hit and switching to low variance game
- Making deposits with only bonus promotions without free cash deposits
- Customer bonus ratio (deposits : bonuses) is more than 50%.

At first read i did not think there is much problems with these, since some casinos do have similar terms, except the customer bonus ratio. I mean they offer bonuses every week trough email campaigns, but do not let the players know they infact are not eligible for the same promotions they email about ;). Also i think the correct place to put these terms would be in bonus terms rather then pretty hidden in the general t&c.
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
Just read about a complaint at another casino with the same platform called play.casino where in their terms they have this:
If a customer or group of customers are suspected to have taken casino offers for the purposes of abusing the promotion, play.casino reserves the right to void the bonus and any winnings
Abusing of the promotion means:
- Making max allowed bets on high variance games in order to increase balance
- Decreasing stake after big hit and switching to low variance game
- Making deposits with only bonus promotions without free cash deposits
- Customer bonus ratio (deposits : bonuses) is more than 50%.

At first read i did not think there is much problems with these, since some casinos do have similar terms, except the customer bonus ratio. I mean they offer bonuses every week trough email campaigns, but do not let the players know they infact are not eligible for the same promotions they email about ;). Also i think the correct place to put these terms would be in bonus terms rather then pretty hidden in the general t&c.

The first two you can find in accredited casinos too, so as you say more common. I wish they were more specified though.

The last two should never be a reason for voiding winnings, and as you say be put in the bonus rules, with an explanation that bonuses maybe will be restricted. Pay first then banning someone from bonuses. That I can accept.
 

kavaman

Senior Member
PABnononaccred3
PABnononaccred3
MM
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Location
finland
Seems like dasistcasino has come around, and removed all the bad stuff from their t&c, so the topic is not valid anymore. Atleast that is how i see it.
 

theapple

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Location
far far away
Seems like dasistcasino has come around, and removed all the bad stuff from their t&c, so the topic is not valid anymore. Atleast that is how i see it.

not really, today made a grave mistake and gave them another shot (only made one deposit there ages ago) and took their bonus thinking they havent tampered much since late march, so i didnt check T&C for new traps.

made a great start and i wanted to check my wagering, was sure its at least 60% but it was at 33% so i checked their terms... bonuses are not 50x anymore its 60x wagering now, with a twist too !

SoftSwiss Slots – 100%, slots of all the other game providers - 60%

so now we have it guys, probably one of the worst bonuses in existance. Its one of those bonuses where you might as well give them money without playing it through. I know there are bonuses that are bad for players, but this is taking a piss now... as if "just" 60x wagering on its own wasnt bad enough?

60x bonus with 95% of slots contributing at 60%, some providers slots cant be played at all when you have a bonus, plus theres a list of usual suspects you cant play with bonus money too. And i was wondering how come its just me and some other random guy showing in winners list.

Its odd because Direx does have some fairly decent casinos with fast payout times and wagering set around 35x - 40x or so.
 
Top