1. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Resolved deucebag vs Videoslots

Discussion in 'Casino Complaints - Bonus Issues' started by deucebag, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. deucebag

    deucebag Experienced Member PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABaccred

    So I received an email a month ago about a reload bonus at Videoslots.com, a Microgaming casino. I made a deposit of 200 and recieved a bonus of 100. Being an Experienced Casinomeister member :D, I know the importance of reading the terms and conditions every time. So I did, and nothing had changed since last time I played there. I took note of the fact that they still had a stupid bet size restriction of max 10% of deposited amount:


    I made sure I stayed within the rules throughout the excessive wagering requirment (and beyond). I had some good hits, and requested a withdrawal of about €3900.

    A few days later, I was notified that my withdrawal had been denied:

    At first I think they've made a mistake, but I check the terms again, and they have rather obvioulsy tacked on another sentence in the relevant paragraph:


    The time stamp at the top of the terms page had not been changed though. It remains 2011-06-22:


    This leads me to suspect they have not made a mistake, but are deliberately trying to steal my money and changed the terms hoping I had not read them (many players probably don't).

    I send a polite email with a link to the cached page, which showed the terms as they were several days after my deposit.

    They're still set on keeping my money though, but now quote a different portion of the terms:

    My largest bets were 18, and my starting balance was 300. You don't need a degree in mathematics to calculate that 18 is not the majority of 300.

    I point this out to them, but they will no longer respond.

    Videoslots.com displays the Ecogra Safe & Fair seal, and I contact Ecogra hoping they can help out with the problem. It turns out that Videoslots.com is not Ecogra approved, they are falsely displaying the Safe & Fair Seal. Ecogra said they would follow up and ask them to remove the seal.

    It appears that Videoslots.com is not as quick as one would expect from their quick and easy changes in terms and conditions. They still display the "Safe & Fair" seal.

    Videoslots.com is owned by Panda Media Ltd., 17 B Zammit Clapp, St. Julians, STJ 1440, Malta. From what I understand, this is also where they operate from. Strangely, they're not licensed in Malta, but in Curacao. Panda Media also operates Diamondbet, which has a sportsbook from Everymatrix, and casino and poker from Microgaming.

    The CEO of the company is a Swede by the name Alexander Stevendahl. Perhaps not his real name; crooks tend not to use their real names.
    10 people like this.
  2. Brooklyn

    Brooklyn Dormant account


    Interested in seeing how this plays out. Is there a rep for this casino here?
  3. Silencio

    Silencio Dormant account

    ouch, that's bad, but it's certainly a bigger problem. although not as bad as this one.
    the ecogra list is pretty damn short so there's lots of casinos out there who don't have it, including gowild. I have seen enough affiliates out there claim they are ecogra accredited. But at least they didn't claim it on their own site.
    anyhow, good luck with your problem.
  4. mn001

    mn001 Experienced Member

    Seems like casinos try to use this max bet bullshit more and more the latest months. I hope microgaming will work hard to keep their good reputation. Things can change quickly in this business.

    Ask yourself why casinos don't implement a max bet in the software set to the maximum allowed and also on allowed games only.

    Hope it get solved for OP. I think you will get paid in the end.
  5. deucebag

    deucebag Experienced Member PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABaccred

    Unfortunately, no.
  6. Seventh777

    Seventh777 RIP Roy

    Apart from the blatantly obvious reworded predatory bonus terms here i`m very interested in MGS`s response to a casino using their software and lying about being approved by Ecogra, even though this is not a mandatory condition to use their software, it surely must breach the T&C`s of being granted a licence?, have you informed MGS about this matter?.

    Good luck in getting your legit winnings ;).
    1 person likes this.
  7. Nifty29

    Nifty29 Dormant account

    If you can prove without a doubt that the terms were changed AFTER you deposited, then you should PAB as they need to cough up.

    The only way they might have you by the bollocks is if your bets ever exceeded 10% of your AVAILABLE balance which is what the last term stipulates. If you were betting $18 when your balance was lower than $180 then you're in strife.

    Good reminder for everyone to stick with accredited casinos too.
  8. deucebag

    deucebag Experienced Member PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABaccred

    Same goes if I bet 2 cents when my balance was 3 cents. :rolleyes: They have me by the bollocks alright, but that's because they're a bunch of crooks and have my money, not because they have any right whatsovever.
    1 person likes this.
  9. Slotster!

    Slotster! I predict a riot. CAG

    Re "Terms & Conditions".

    It's clear that less than reputable operators are pretty much keeping money they don't want to pay out - then hiding behind ambiguous or outright wrong clauses that were either there originally, or they just decide to add in when it suits. The internet is good like that, you just update it and happy days.

    At least as it's Microgaming you can go back into your Playcheck and get the EXACT details - if they've not locked your account of course :rolleyes:

    It's worrying that so many of these instances are cropping up in such a short space of time...

    There's no way all these players are making mistakes - they are getting done over by dodgy operators. Simple as that.
    5 people like this.
  10. Seventh777

    Seventh777 RIP Roy

    Only if it`s a downloadable version of MGS (only seen Lad`s use this all the rest use flash).
    1 person likes this.
  11. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    It seems obvious that by adding the second term they have made a MAJOR tightening of the restriction, and it does seem to be something done in haste, suggesting they ARE reacting to a large win or two within the terms as they stood, and have added this term after auditing the play from these wins so that they can argue they are voided.

    Not changing the date of update may be careless, but may also have been a deliberate attempt to trick players into believing that term was always there, and that they just missed it.

    Email support and ask them when this term was added. They will follow the party line and claim it has always been there, and was added on the date specified for last update. If they do this in writing, you have evidence of deliberate intent to screw players, and added to the deliberate misuse of the eCogra seal, this should be enough to PAB and have them considered for entry into the pit, even though they may well stick to their guns and not pay.

    They are taking HUGE risks in order to avoid paying what seems to be a legitimate win of 3600, a tiny amount for a Microgaming casino, and out of all proportion to the risks involved in getting found out.

    It seems to suggest Microgaming themselves have relaxed their requirements on who can have a license, which damages the credibilty of the whole brand, not just one casino. Faking eCogra accreditation is FRAUD, and it should be treated as such by Microgaming, and their licensing authority.
    7 people like this.
  12. Nifty29

    Nifty29 Dormant account

    Yes, I agree it is disgraceful.

    I assume from this statement that you were in that position i.e. bet more than 10% of your available balance?

    It's a crap term, but if you did do that you did actually break the term and they can take your winnings. As I said, I don't agree with the term itself, but if you took the bonus then you accepted it and you have to follow them.

    I do hope you get paid.
    1 person likes this.
  13. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    It's a crap term that appears to have been added AFTER the player won, and deceptively so since the date of last update was NOT changed to reflect the TRUE date this term was brought in. It also seems very specifically designed to void this one player's win, as clearly he didn't break the original term, and as he took a reload bonus, this new term specifically applies this new restriction to reload bonuses, yet curiously NOT to the SUB. This means an existing player ONLY is held to such a draconian tightening, wheras a "bonus hunter" is only held to the original 10% of bonus max bet rule.

    All that happened was that he had a "suspiciously high" win of 3700 from a relatively small deposit of 200. His max bet was 18, so OK by the original term, so they added a new term that made the max bet 10 instead of 20, and retrospectively applied it. It makes one wonder that if his max bet had been 8, they would have made the new term 5% of bonus instead of 10%, as the aim is to avoid paying out 3700 from a 200 deposit.
  14. Slotster!

    Slotster! I predict a riot. CAG

    Exactly... That's what is going on here and across other complaints. They are making it up as they go along to avoid paying out. Cash flow/Bad Management whatever - that's the deal. 1 in 10 or less will find a place like this to complain about it... Frightening to think how many people get ripped off in this way and nobody ever finds out.
    2 people like this.
  15. Nifty29

    Nifty29 Dormant account

    The only term added afterwards was the 10% of the bonus rule.

    The other rule below was already there and they are using this rule to deny winnings:

    the Casino reserves the right to withhold cash ins and/or confiscating all winning from a customer when a wager of a single bet consist of the majority of the total available balance and the bonus balance contributing to a significant portion of that balance”

    It's not any better, but it gives them more leeway.

    Also, how do you know they added the term afterwards? The wayback machine doesn't have anything. Did you take a screenshot? Is it possible you may have missed the term? Unfortunately it is your word against theirs so it doesn't look good for you.
  16. DiamondGeezer

    DiamondGeezer Dormant account PABnononaccred2 PABnoaccred PABaccred

    The deposited amount was 200. That figure can't change once the deposit has been made. So the highest bet size allowed is 20.

    This is not disputed by the casino.

    They are infact trying to rely on the 10% bonus term which according to the OP was added later. It's the second term they are claiming he broke, not the first.

    This looks like a new low for teh industry.
  17. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    The OP supplied a screenshot of the terms page without this term, and then with. I am assuming he is being honest about the timings.

    The "majority of balance" term isn't even on the page, even though the casino are now using this to further justify confisactation of winnings. If present, why was this term NOT with the other 4, or is it there NOW:rolleyes:

    The wayback machine supplies dated snapshots, not a continuous history, but this can often be enough. All that is needed is a snapshot taken after the player deposited showing the term was not present, and a later snapshot of it's first archived appearance. This at least gives us an interval during which the term was added.

    A snapshot of an archived page with the SAME date of last update, but without this new term, is also evidence of rogue practice as it indicates trickery on the part of the casino, in effect an attempt to alter history to argue the term was "always there".

    They know they can get away with it because of lack of regulation, but they want to appear legitimate in their actions in order to prevent them from being blacklisted on the internet for rogue behaviour. There are two issues at stake, one is confiscating these winnings, the other is allowing them to get away with it through trickery, rather than honesty.

    Had they put an honest date of update on the site when they amended this term, it would be a matter of finding out whether the player played before or after this date. Now it looks like the casino is trying to pull the wool, and has something to hide over this whole affair.
  18. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    The date of last update is now yesterday, but the bonus terms are unaltered from the state of having the additional 10% of bonus term.

    It looks like they slipped this one in VERY recently indeed, but when the OP looked, they had yet to complete the change by adding the new "last updated on" date.

    The WR is indeed HUGE.

    On the bonus in question, 200 for 100, the WR on slots would have been 35x300. A standard MGS casino would set it at 30x100 on slots, a significant difference. There are also a few non MGS slots present, but the majority of games is MGS. The first Video Slot is the 300 Shields, clearly NOT a Microgaming product.

    This suggests they use the new multi-supplier platform (Quickfire?), but have taken mostly Microgaming games.

    They are licensed in Malta, a suitable venue for pulling any kind of trickery on players.

    I suspect they DID use the 10% of bonus term, and only shifted to the more vague "substantial part of bonus" rule when doubt emerged about whether the 10% of bonus term was actually present when the OP won.

    Despite having edited the website yesterday, they are STILL falsely displaying the eCogra "safe and fair" seal. It would appear they are ignoring eCogra's request to remove it. The ONLY certificate they have from eCogra is an audited payout report, which appears if you click on the seal. I think they have had to muck around with the code in order to show the wrong seal to players, as I am sure that if eCogra supplied a block of HTML to insert the payout verification into the site, it would have produced the correct seal.

    It's the same with affiliates, they can get a block of HTML to insert a banner and it's tracking link into their site. If they want to show the wrong banner, they have to mess with this HTML, rather than use it as supplied. Therefore, it has to be a deliberate act when this kind of thing happens.
  19. mn001

    mn001 Experienced Member

    wrong post edit
  20. deucebag

    deucebag Experienced Member PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABaccred

    I haven't checked whether I ever bet 50% or more of the balance I had in the account at the time, because I don't think it's reasonable to interpret the rule to mean that (it would not be a valid, legally enforcable term), and I don't think Videoslots.com intended it to mean that untill they went over their terms looking for an excuse. Why did they go through the trouble of changing the terms and use the revised terms as an excuse intially? It was only after I showed them my proof that they had changed the terms that they came up with the second excuse.

    It's seems obvious to me that they are dead-set on not paying and will grasp at any excuse.

    The funny thing is that this bonus was pretty bad. 90xbonus and only 50%. With such bad bonuses it shouldn't be necessary to have such extremely restrictive terms as max bet of 10% of bonus or deposit. The bonus is way below average, but the terms are stricter than average. I suspect this casino is another case of an underfunded Mickey Mouse operation that doesn't understand a thing about running a casino.

    I have a screenshot yes, and I emailed them a link to the google cache page (which I also have saved). The google cache page showed the terms as they were a few days aftermy deposit. (Google cache (and other search engine caches) will show the pages as they were when the search engine last crawled the page, which is anywhere from a few hours to days or weeks ago.)
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page