Dear Fortune Lounge Management

[Stanford]

As for my original post, Wim (Fortune Lounges VP) was very helpful in solving it.

Looking forward to your resolution.

I still wish FL would address the generic issue here. Changing bonus rules retroactivly is a very serious charge. Fixing it for you, doesn't mean the policy is fixed.

I listed a few open questions from previous posters to make it easy for FL to see all the players questions. And I keep returning to this thread to see if they have answered. I don't know if they just don't see it with all the other post regarding wins and losses or they are ignoring it.

Any thoughts from the other players?

stanford

 

[Adde]

I think you should start a new thread for this, with an eye-catching subject.

 

[Stanford]

I think you should start a new thread for this, with an eye-catching subject.

You may be right, but I hope that isn't required.

Maybe since FL isn't here, CasinoMeister will tell us what he thinks.

CasinoMeister, is it persmissable for a casino to change their terms retroactively? If you say no, I think we pretty well have our answer.

I am still puzzled why FL won't answer a very simple generic question. Maybe they just are not noticing the thread.

Jetset you posted "I don't think Wim or Chad will let this one go - let's see how long it takes for them to arrive and sort it out."

They have not shown up yet and I confess it worries me they are not forthcoming about a fundamental concept. Jetset, you thought it was just a CSR training issue. Do you still feel that way? Do you think ECOGRA would give a seal to a casino that as a matter of policy changed their rules retroactively?

Well its all speculation at this point. I am curious as to what our watchdogs think.

Stanford

 

[jetset]

I think that you are an exceptionally tenacious poster, Stanford and that FL are ill-advised not to address your questions in an open and forthright manner.

The start date on this thread is over a week back and despite the long Easter break these guys should have answered your legitimate questions by now. I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt in recognition of the many issues that Wim has resolved on this and other boards, but like you my patience is rapidly running out. This is no way to treat customers.

And in answer to your presumably rhetorical question....no, I don't think retroactive application of bonusing or for that matter any other rules is acceptable at any time.

Finally, you bring eCOGRA into your dispute, so for the record if you study the process at www.ecogra.org/disputes you will see that the organisation will investigate all complaints pertaining to their seal holding casinos provided that an honest attempt has been made to resolve the issue with casino management first. This provision is no doubt to ensure that casinos and players alike have the opportunity to amicably resolve an issue before the big guns start firing.

Any player here with a dispute with an eCOGRA seal holder who has been ignored or treated unfairly by the management should immediately use the link above in order to launch an official complaint.

 

[The Dude]

Maybe since FL isn't here, CasinoMeister will tell us what he thinks.

CasinoMeister, is it persmissable for a casino to change their terms retroactively? If you say no, I think we pretty well have our answer.

I am still puzzled why FL won't answer a very simple generic question. Maybe they just are not noticing the thread.

In my opinion, changing terms retroactively and enforcing these terms is unacceptable. That's a no brainer. I will contact FL today in hopes of having all of this cleared up.

Jetset's right, this thread has been simmering way too long without concrete answers.

 

[The Dude]

Jetset's right, this thread has been simmering way too long without concrete answers.

But I should also note that the initial posting was taken care of, it's just that this thread has developed into other things and conversations as well.

 

[fortunelounge]

I realize that I did not deal with the issue surrounding the "retroactive" application of wagering requirements in my previous posting and I apologize for that. The fact is that we do not apply bonuses or wagering requirements retroactively.

Any bonuses added before the wagering requirements changed are subject to the wagering requirements at the time of issue. Any bonuses added thereafter are subject to the new wagering requirements.

I am aware of certain cases where we did not apply this calculation correctly and would appreciate it if players, who feel that we have applied this wagering requirement incorrectly in their cases, could contact me directly and I will investigate / rectify the issue.

We sincerely apologize for creating the confusion and aggravation.

VP Operations
Fortune Lounge

 

[Stanford]

Well done FL

Thanks FL. Didn't want to be a pain but I didn't want the question to slip through the cracks. I didn't think you would do anything like that.

Jetset I always appreciate your involvement and input.

Casino Meister thank you shining the light. If you had said "don't worry about it", that would have been good enough for me. Ringing up FL was even better.

BTW - FL, I tried to consolidate some player questions that I think are relativly minor but if could give a look, it would be appreciated. But this retroactive application was the main one. Again, thanks.

Stanford

 

[jetset]

Contacting eCORGA and alerting them to this thread was my input, so I can't claim any more credit than that, Stanford. Tex Rees, the Fair Gaming Advocate at eCOGRA took it from there...and fast!

 

[fortunelounge]

Thanks FL. Didn't want to be a pain but I didn't want the question to slip through the cracks. I didn't think you would do anything like that.

BTW - FL, I tried to consolidate some player questions that I think are relativly minor but if could give a look, it would be appreciated. But this retroactive application was the main one. Again, thanks.

Stanford

Stanford: My apology again for the late reply. I was unfortunately trying to catch up a work backlog after returning from leave. I know that we always try to reply as soon as possible after a posting but it is unfortunately not always possible as the monitoring of this and several other forums is just one small part of my job.

Thank you for your questions I received from Bryan. I will post the reply in the forum as soon as possible.

VP Operations
Fortune Lounge

 

[jetset]

Seven days - still no post as promised?

 

[fortunelounge]

FL,

I have been watching this thread for your response. Anything new?

As I recall the questions are:

1. Do you apply bonus terms retroactivly by using day of cashin rather than day of deposit.

2. What are you doing about your customer service who seem to not understand the difference in terms between your sign up and your weekly promotions. That is, 20% rule on blackjack/Jacks or Better only applies to the sign up, not the ongoing promotions.

3. The non carryover provision is not in the Ts&Cs of your promotion. And while I have read it relates to all the casinos you process for, it is still a little disconcerting.

4. There is a suggestion that you treat all balances under a $1 as zero so that a small error by the player doesn't cost him his entire bonus. That is because it isn't apparant where odd cents can be wagered and the customer service reps are not familiar enough with the games to advise the player. Under 25 cents would be fine as well.

I wanted to recap because I thought they might be getting lost in the thread.

Again thank you for being available to the players to make sure all is well and again congratulations on being awarded the ECOGRA seal for excellence and fairness.

Stanford

Stanford: Herewith our reply to your valuable questions. My apology for the late reply.

1. Bonus terms are applied according to when the bonus was added and not when cash-in occurs.

2. You are right. The 20% rule on Blackjack / Jacks or Better only applies to the sign up and not to ongoing promotions. As stated before, we are doing everything in our power to ensure that all our support staff are au fait with the wagering requirements. Our latest knowledge test has proved that there is already a marked imrovement in knowledge levels.

3. Our websites have been updated to reflect the non carry-over of bonuses.

4. We decided on treating any account balance under $1 as a Zero balance - to give players a bit of leeway where this is concerned.

We know there are smaller amounts that can be wagered on the Casino, and that we could decrease this amount further when classifying players as reaching their 'Zero Balance', but we do not wish to penalize players or force them to wager the smallest of increments (there are only a few games with such a low wagering increment)

I hope this answers your questions.

VP Operations
Fortune Lounge

 

[jpm]

Glad to hear this one. It will definitely help remove any confusion over what a zero balance is.

4. We decided on treating any account balance under $1 as a Zero balance - to give players a bit of leeway where this is concerned.

We know there are smaller amounts that can be wagered on the Casino, and that we could decrease this amount further when classifying players as reaching their 'Zero Balance', but we do not wish to penalize players or force them to wager the smallest of increments (there are only a few games with such a low wagering increment)

I hope this answers your questions.

VP Operations
Fortune Lounge

 

[jyde]

1. Bonus terms are applied according to when the bonus was added and not when cash-in occurs.

You'll trap some players this way. Why not when the deposit was made? Players check terms before making a deposit - it shouldn't be necessary to recheck once you decide to add the bonus. You never sent me any offers, so I'm not sure how it works - but wouldn't there sometimes be a couple of days between deposit and the bonus being credited?

 

[GrandMaster]

2. You are right. The 20% rule on Blackjack / Jacks or Better only applies to the sign up and not to ongoing promotions. As stated before, we are doing everything in our power to ensure that all our support staff are au fait with the wagering requirements. Our latest knowledge test has proved that there is already a marked imrovement in knowledge levels.

Would you also train John Hughes? He sent around an e-mail with incorrect information. Or can I rely on the more favourable bonus terms in his e-mail (10 times bonus only)?

 

[jpm]

I vote for those terms as well!

Would you also train John Hughes? He sent around an e-mail with incorrect information. Or can I rely on the more favourable bonus terms in his e-mail (10 times bonus only)?

 

[Stanford]

Thanks Again FL

Stanford: Herewith our reply to your valuable questions. My apology for the late reply....

I hope this answers your questions.

VP Operations
Fortune Lounge

Yes sir you did just fine. I think one player below wants to make sure we don't have to check terms on the day the bonus is credited and it is a good idea to reiterate that you don't change terms after the players deposit. So you might spell it out.

I really thank you for coming here and taking care of the players. It is ironic that after getting all the bonus terms clear, my weekly bonus has gone away. But you know what. That is fine. Offering or not offering is totally up to you. The character test is not if you offer, but how you live up to your offers. And I thank you for doing that.

I do believe players get a little testy from time to time when there are a lot of changes. I hope you will weather the storm and continue to listen.

Thanks again,
Stanford