English Harbour Group Warning

[jetset]

I am truly surprised that, as the person who actually benefitted from this event you are still determined that it was a "red-faced turnaround" instead of at least having the courtesy to recognise a genuine review instigated by a respected member of this board, DD. Perhaps that member would come forward and tell the board what he was told by eCOGRA regarding the results of the review?

It seems that you are a difficult person to please.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

I wouldn't put it that I benefited from the review - more that I was cheated by the initial decision.

The fact of the matter for me was that I was dissapointed that the casino came up with the decision that it did - that was to confiscate the bonus that I had wagered for using the 'we reserve the right' rule. I was then amazed eCOGRA came up with the initial decision that they did and backed the casino.

They then only proceeded to do an about turn once I'd posted it on here and it was obvious to anyone that I'd complied with the terms for the bonus. To me that pretty much equates to a red faced turn around.

You mention that I'm a hard person to please - not at all, all I simply want is that casinos follow their own terms and conditions without trying to confiscate winnings and bonuses by using the 'we reserve the right' rule. I don't think that's too much to ask do you? If they do try to do this then they deserve all the bad publicity they get.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Oh and by the way, I do actually totally appreciate what eCOGRA are trying to do by bringing some regulation etc to the industry - I've possibly come over as anti-eCOGRA in my posts on this thread which is totally not the case.

It's great to see them, RTG and now Playtech setting up mediation services. It's precisely what the industry needs and can only give added security to the player.

 

[Tdoggy]

I agree

If you play at an online casino and are following the terms and conditions than they should pay you. It's very sad that there are casions out there that scam. If you make a deposit and are following the rules and you win cash then they shoud have to live up to their end of the deal and pay. It's scary that there are so many casino complaints these days. Casinos trying to figure out a way to screw the player out of winnings because the player beat there casino fair and square and they just plain and simple don't want to pay.

 

[elscrabinda]

I wouldn't put it that I benefited from the review - more that I was cheated by the initial decision.

Exactly. Why players should somehow be grateful that a casino or a regulatory board actually plays by the rules escapes me.

 

[caruso]

Jet, if it's "casino hate" then sobeit. I would call it, rather more specifically, hatred of rascals masquerading as "reputable". That much I hate. I hate the two-faced duplicity.

Until such a time as EH come out and offers an alternate justification as to why they about-faced, they are rascals masquerading as "reputable". If there was a "security flag", WHY is there no longer? WHAT caused the change?

Of course, we know what happened: public pressure, followed by a word from Bryan - and they u-turned. They u-turned because they tried it on with nothing, and were caught.

And on our age-old disagreement: what you say is correct, but it's simply another slant on the same fact, based on your intimate knowledge of Ecogra. I could take exactly the same stab at it with this EH business:

"A player complained to English Harbour, who ruled against him. One of the more responsible and practically public spirited posters here then wrote to the casino manager, suggesting a review at a more senior level. The review was carried out and the decision overturned in favour of the player, who was then paid out. The reason for the reversal (which was correctly based on the fact that the player had complied with the terms of the T&C at the time he wagered) was given, I believe."

Follow me? Whoever did whatever they did, the decision was reversed as result of public pressure. You, me, Bryan, Stanford, or whoever made the first move, the ball started rolling, and rolled into the player's corner, because of public pressure. Lake Palace tried it on and got caught, just as EH just have. We can even factor Ecogra out of the equation, because the casino was always going to pay up. The fact that Ecogra happened to be first port of call doesn't affect the ultimate result - Microgaming would never have allowed such blatant and straightforward robbery on the part of one of their licensees.

EDIT: In case this "parallel matter" under discussion is throwing anyone off kilter, here's the source. It's long one, but the first page is REQUIRED READING and very pertinent:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ra-says-casino-is-right-to-do-so.6854/?t=6854

 

[jetset]

Ah well, I suppose I was hoping for a little too much to find some balance and credit where credit is due here these days.

I find it remarkable that you, DD remain determined to believe that posting brought the review and reversal about rather than a fair, fast and professional response to an intelligent appeal for a sound case.

Given your obvious contempt for the intervention of eCOGRA I wonder whether you will again use their services?

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Of course I would if ever required - but hopefully their casinos will stick to their own terms and conditions in future. As stated I believe the introduction of eCOGRA and the mediation services at RTG and Playtech are a great thing for players and the industry however I believe that eCOGRA failed the player in my case.

I did not appeal - it was only after Stanford wrote them an email and I presume the likes of yourself and Bryan also did AFTER I posted on here that they sent me an email stating they were re-examining the case.

Previously to that I was told TWICE that they would not aid me any further despite asking them to reconsider.

Yes it probably was the Stanford's excellently put email that caused them to do the about turn - but if I hadn't posted on here Stanford wouldn't even have known about the case.

 

[BCarlisle]

Ah well, I suppose I was hoping for a little too much to find some balance and credit where credit is due here these days.

I find it remarkable that you, DD remain determined to believe that posting brought the review and reversal about rather than a fair, fast and professional response to an intelligent appeal for a sound case.

Given your obvious contempt for the intervention of eCOGRA I wonder whether you will again use their services?

Woah. I think contempt is going a bit far. I've read your posts on quite a range of topics now Jetset and you seem a reasonable person who tries to treat both 'sides' fairly.

I agree that the final arbitration should be something that Dirk and Caruso should be grateful with, as without it Dirk would've continued to have his money held unfairly. However, this does not change the fact that the casino is scum, and that the original arbitrator ruled unfairly in saying that the casino could do as it pleased because it reserved such a right.

Anyone who is unjustly accused or stolen from by another party should perhaps feel grateful if the good is returned or the accusation upheld, but the contempt towards the thief or accuser and those that aided the action should probably remain. As should any contempt towards those that allow it to continue through unjust rulings.

 

[jetset]

Hacking away at a casino with a generally good track record because it changed an unjust decision to the benefit of the player is not a constructive way forward imo, especially when those doing it are clearly not in possession of all the facts. How much encouragement to the other side does that offer? How much useful interaction from the other side does this over the top hostility engender?

The same applies to regurgitating historical issues like Lake Palace in a thread about English Harbour, at the same time taking the opportunity to apply a particular negative spin to them despite evidence to the contrary.

As for the comments discounting the very clear and decisive efforts of eCOGRA in bringing DD's case to a satisfactory conclusion, I find this quite unreasonable, and possibly deliberately misleading.

By all means let's go after the real rogues and crooks in this business and warn players about them, but tarring everyone with the same brush and bringing down the good with the bad is just not sensible.

 

[jetset]

QUOTE As stated I believe the introduction of eCOGRA and the mediation services at RTG and Playtech are a great thing for players and the industry however I believe that eCOGRA failed the player in my case.UNQUOTE

How did eCOGRA fail you, when the management were clearly prepared to reconsider your case, even if it meant over-ruling the FGA after a third party appeal, ensuring that you were paid in full?

Sorry Dirk, I just don't see that, or classifying the casino involved as "scum" based on this single dispute (I haven't seen any other complaints since about this operation)

I believe you are also, perhaps unintentionally doing eCOGRA a disservice in equating it with Montana and (forthcoming attraction) Playtech Disputes. By doing so I feel that you imply that this is all there is to it, when you are sufficiently experienced and informed to know that there is a great deal more to this initiative and its activites than that.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

How did eCOGRA fail you, when the management were clearly prepared to reconsider your case, even if it meant over-ruling the FGA after a third party appeal, ensuring that you were paid in full?

I feel they failed me because it took me going to the message boards before they came to the obvious and correct decision. I did not expect to have to do that with eCOGRA - especially on an issue as basic as the 'casino reserves the right' rule. Even Montana wouldn't try to agree with the casino based on that one.

I believe you are also, perhaps unintentionally doing eCOGRA a disservice in equating it with Montana and (forthcoming attraction) Playtech Disputes. By doing so I feel that you imply that this is all there is to it, when you are sufficiently experienced and informed to know that there is a great deal more to this initiative and its activites than that.

Fair enough - all I was trying to get accross is that all these developments are great for the players and the industry alike. I do agree though they are not to the same degree and eCOGRA is head and shoulders above the others.

Anyway I think this is all being blown out of proportion and getting away from the issue in hand - I sincerely believe and hope that eCOGRA learnt from my case and will reach the correct decisions in future cases.

Now back to English Harbour - why are they refusing players winnings and then backing down as soon as a player posts on the likes of here?

 

[hapaboii]

Good news indeed!

But please tell us - have they also given you the welcome bonus?

According to their T&C's, they should!

Nope, after wanting to cashout and being told by CS via email(twice) that I had to receive the welcome bonus since I deposited more than "$30 or $40" which would not have received a bonus, they never credited the bonus to either my English Harbour or Silver Dollar account. They were locked by that point and as they said, the accounts will remain closed.

I find it very concerning that they first told me I had to receive the welcome bonus(note: this is what prevented me from withdrawing when I wanted to, I felt that they would do the casino trick of crediting the bonus to my account and then deny my withdrawal on grounds that I hadn't completed the wagering requirements), then locked my accounts(hence no bonuses received) and intended to only refund my deposit. Then, thanks to Casinomeister and this forum, and my email to the casino that I was taking the issue to CM, they reply to me with that email that I posted earlier in this thread.

I still hope to find out why my accounts were locked and what were these "security flags," but I still don't know. But I am glad that at least my winnings were paid out. Thanks.

 

[caruso]

Absolutely. The casino double-talk about "security flags", followed all flags hastily whisked away and payment shamefacedly issued a few days later, needs answering. If not, I see no way this group can remotely be considered "reputable".

 

[maxlevine]

This clearly gives the player permission to play with their deposited funds, and withdraw BEFORE receiving the bonus.
The only penalty to the player, is this play does not count towards WR, which still has to be met AFTER the bonus is credited.
No-where in the T&C's does it say a player can not do what hapaboii did.

The casino should pay out his full deposit + winnings, and also give him the welcome bonus - completely in compliance with their own T&C's.

I'm a little late but you were absolutely right, KK. He was allowed to withdraw before receiving the bonus without wagering the required amount.

Happy to know you got paid, hapaboii!

Max

 

[spearmaster]

The issue is NOT what prompted eCOGRA to review their decision and subsequently reverse it.

The issue IS what eCOGRA ultimately did in the end - the right thing. And I should point out that the intervening period was VERY short between the first decision and the reversal.

Those of you who can claim they never made a mistake and then rectified it are welcome to cast stones. The rest of you really ought to reexamine your positions here (that's my polite answer, you don't want to know what I really think right now).

 

[caruso]

We're all entitled to our opinions, Ted, as long as they're politely and factually presented.

Your opinion of the relevant issue is just that - your opinion. It's certainly AN opinion, but it's in no way the "definitive" opinion.

Angelciti "did the right thing in the end".

Gaming Club "ditto".

English Harbour re. Forty+: "ditto".

There are more.

What happened at the end doesn't make less relevant what happened BEFORE. In fact, the issues are entirely indepndent of each other, and each stands on its own merit - or lack thereof, in this case. In fact, the "before" is terribly significant in the overall context. "Big" organization, all the big portals behind them - and the woman at the top of the tree can't add two and two together and make four. Now THAT's relevant.

You say "Those of you who can claim they never made a mistake and then rectified it are welcome to cast stones."

There was no mistake. A decision was taken.

When a robber is caught, returns his ill-gotten gains and says "sorry, it was just a mistake", you have to ask "what mistake??"; what did he not know before? What does he know now to realize he was wrong? What changed? OK, he's sorry: why? What is different? Is he repentent? OK, THAT's a change worth considering. Are Ecogra "repentent"? Did they apologize? Did they fire Tex Rees for gross incompetence? Methinks not.

If there had been specific facts pertinent to the matter that subsequently came to light, all when and good. But that isn't the case. Nothing changed. A decision was reversed.

Casinos reverse decisions all the time. Angelciti did. Ain't no difference, my friend.

I understand this makes you angry, Ted. It makes me angry, too. It makes my blood boil. You have no idea how much.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

I've got to disagree with you there Spearmaster - how they arrived at the decision is very important. If I didn't know about the forums then I would have had 1200 stolen from me by their and Lake Palace's decision.

When Warren CLoud initially refuses to pay players labelling them bonus abusers but then does so after they post on here and PaB, does that mean his initial decision is of no consequence because he came to the right one in the end?

Similarly with English Harbour here, does it not matter that they initially tried to void this players winnings because they eventually paid out after the player complained on here and Bryan pointed them in the direction of the thread?

To me it does matter an awfull lot - until a time when there's no need for players to have to post on the likes of here to overturn incorrect decisions then this industry has far to go.

For the record it was actually well over two weeks from eCOGRA making their initial decision before they reversed it. I did appeal to them to reconsider straight after their initial decision but they informed me they were not able to help me further. They did however do an about turn pretty sharpish after it was posted on here and Stanford et al contacted them.

However after saying all that I do totally agree with your point about everyone can make mistakes etc. IIRC eCOGRA have now changed their process for decising on disputed have they not? It now has to be reviewed by a director as well doesn't it, which should hopefully mean they will come up with the correct decision in the first placefrom now on.

Once again just to make sure my overall view is understood: I believe eCOGRA is fantastic for players and the industry alike, and can only be beneficial to everyone involved in the long run. I'm not bashing eCOGRA here at all, I just happen to believe in my case they the player down.

 

[spearmaster]

I've got to disagree with you there Spearmaster - how they arrived at the decision is very important. If I didn't know about the forums then I would have had 1200 stolen from me by their and Lake Palace's decision.

Don't tell me you've never dropped the ball before, Dirk. People strive for perfection but that is an impossible dream. eCOGRA obviously missed out on some factor when they arrived at their decision.

One should note that there could have been a number of other things that might have caused them to reconsider their decision. The route you chose, the forums, worked in this instance. That does not make it the ONLY way to solve a problem.

To me it does matter an awfull lot - until a time when there's no need for players to have to post on the likes of here to overturn incorrect decisions then this industry has far to go.

For the record it was actually well over two weeks from eCOGRA making their initial decision before they reversed it. I did appeal to them to reconsider straight after their initial decision but they informed me they were not able to help me further. They did however do an about turn pretty sharpish after it was posted on here and Stanford et al contacted them.

Someone needed to call their attention to other factors - upon which, when they said they were revisiting the situation, a decision came very quickly. Until that point I can only suppose that you didn't provide them with some point or other - unintentionally, of course, but based on what they saw at the time they made a decision.

When you agree to arbitration in any industry, you agree to abide by the arbitrator's decision, whether he or she is right or wrong. You went to arbitration, lost, and some others were able to convince them that something had been left out.

Stanford's letter was one of these key factors. However, it was NOT the only factor, because your voice should have had at least equal weight if not more.

That's all I'm going to say here, other than to let you know that eCOGRA *does* listen and that they *do* learn and that they *are* growing and getting better with time.

Caruso, excuse me for saying so, but my opinion is based on a lot of experience in working with BOTH sides of the coin. To toot my own horn, there aren't that many others that really can see both sides - Jetset and Casinomeister are obviously amongst those that will look at all sides of an issue, and typically of the three I am the loudest and most obstinate because that's my nature. Jetset and Casinomeister have infinitely more patience than I do.

But together, along with some industry people, along with some players, along with some operators, WE - COLLECTIVELY - make this thing work. It's not just the players, nor is it just the operators, nor is it just my loud mouth. But this loud mouth is willing to call a spade a spade no matter WHICH side they're on. I don't just speak up for the industry, nor do I just speak up for operators.

I speak up for those I know and trust to be right even if they DO make mistakes from time to time.

Once upon a time, I played exactly the role you are playing now. Come to think of it, I still play that role, but from three different perspectives. So it's not like I don't understand where you're coming from - but with all due respect, you do NOT see the whole picture.

 

[jetset]

I think there is sometimes a danger that hasty judgements can lead to almost malicious attempts to discredit an organisation that really can make for a better industry and more protection for players in my view.

That means less room for crooks to work in, and I'm all for that - no matter which side of the divide they are on. It means better standards, less opportunities to defraud and less hassles for mediators and players alike.

But repeatedly and at times with surprisingly deep hostility slagging off an organisation such as ECOGRA which is making real progress is not useful imo. Give credit where credit is due, and if they do make a mistake let's first try the reasoned approach as Stanford did before accusing them of being the devil incarnate.

Trying to kill off something like ECOGRA is sometimes done through honest cynicism based on past comparisons that may or may not really be valid, and I believe that to be the case here despite our frequent jousts on this and other matters. There are others with somewhat more ulterior motives.

I believe Spear is right in saying that a balanced and reasoned approach can get a lot more done than creating immediate bad vibes, even on boards like Casinomeister. Time to roll out the hatefests, harsh language and a few other more direct measures when that fails.

 

[caruso]

Someone needed to call their attention to other factors - upon which, when they said they were revisiting the situation, a decision came very quickly. Until that point I can only suppose that you didn't provide them with some point or other - unintentionally, of course, but based on what they saw at the time they made a decision.

Bingo.

That is EXACTLY the point I've been making all along. It's also the same point that others, like-minded, have been making - and I thank you for highlighting it.

Rationally, you suggest that there was some factor missing from the original consideration, something which subsequently came to light. Of course, there HAD to be. Without it, there would've no reason to change anything, no reason for them to turn "no" into "yes" - other than "whoops, he knows the ropes - so pay him quick".

There are two possibilities:

1) Additional information came to light (as you suggest ought to, or "must", be the case), some critical detail that made the difference and turned a flat refusal - reinforced, let's not forget, by the player's request to reconsider and the immediate and flat out denial - into payment within a couple of days.

Must have been one helluva detail.

or...

2) No additional information came to light, and there was no reason to reverse the decision. But given that the decision WAS reversed, a reason there had to be. Bereft of any alternative, one is left to conjecture that the reason was nothing more palatable than standard forum / affiliate / industry pressure - as I've suggested all along. Remember, I've seen one or two of these and I know exactly how they play out.

Until we are told WHAT "factor X" actually WAS, the alternative is valid: forum pressure and, without question in my mind, a phone call / email from Bryan.

My opinion, and that of others, is that there was no "factor X" - Ecogra just did an abrupt u-turn. Since nothing has been forthcoming it's the only rational assumption based on the facts as we know them.

And how extraordinarily coincidental, too: player TWICE complains and is rejected on both occasions; player posts on the boards; in EXACTLY that moment, Ecogra discovers "factor X" and has him paid.

In my clear opinion, there is no "factor X". I agree with you, though, that given a credible organization, there can only be such a thing. Credible organizations don't make arbitrary decisions, spectacularly incorrect ones like this, then spin around the other way so fast it'd give a ballerina a headache, based on postings from a bunch of casino malcontents on a message board. Credible organizations just don't work like that.

Next ICE, I'm going to try and get together with them and get to the bottom of this. One way or another, I want to know why they changed their minds. This is crucial information.

 

[nancyo]

I am sorry to hear what happened to you with English Harbour, but I do feel I need to say that they have always treated me well. I found a check in old paperwork last year from them when I had cashed in winings dating back to the year 2000 for 1250.00. I dont even know why I never cashed it. I called them and they immediately credited my acct with those funds to cash out......5 years later. They seem totally honorable to me, but I understand that something seems really weird with what happened to you and I would be mad also.

 

[chuchu59]

Yet another anniversary posting. What's up doc?

 

[jonevegas]

We see a few of these where the paying player fights back, it's all the ones we don't see that concerns me. There are so many naive players that have no idea how to retrieve their funds when they have been "locked out" so to speak for various reasons of which are mostly that the casino doesn't want to pay.I think a third party mediation group not affiliated with any casino's should be mandatory for all online gaming operations and a link provided at each site to access this group be compulsory.