For people who play at 3Dice.

[bb28]

When you accuse me of abusing the system or manipulating the system it is an insult. I did neither. When you continue to accuse me of it over and over in spite of how many times I've explained to you exacty what I did then I have to wonder if you do read what I'm typing. Either you are not reading it or you are purposely ignoring it. And when you accuse anyone of cheating (abusing or manipulating the casino is cheating) and then ask when you insulted him then yes, I have to wonder if you're even reading what you're typing.



I don't know if you've noticed (again, I'm wondering if you're reading any of this) I never once said that 3Dice shouldn't change the rules. I said I would like to have been informed of them. That's when you and BB started accusing me of all kinds of things with absolutely no reason. So yes, I complained once (sort of) that 3Dice should have made players aware of the changes.





You can ask Enzo anything you like. According to their own rules they're not allowed to discuss other people's accounts anyway. Not that it makes any difference because it does not matter if I have never deposited at 3Dice in my life.

Funny how you are twisting things around. I asked you a simple question but you didn't answer but then I later went back and copied Enzo's post which clearly states you did NOT make a deposit this month. That is the whole crux of the matter isn't it? You didn't make a deposit to remain vip and thought you had outsmarted 3 d in how to remain vip without depositing. You can stamp your feet and insult all you like, but Enzo said it just as tactfully as possible. It's quite clear.

You didn't like that he shut you out of the vip tourneys for the above reasons, so you came here and hemmed and hawed and tried to get people to see it your way without presenting the facts. You are still doing the same thing, filling your posts with fluff instead of what is the real issue. Not a nice thing to do to your fellow members, now is it?

It was a gift from another player. Gifts are deposits. Money won with gifts is real money. Money wagered with that money is real money wagers. And up until the day this thread started money deposited from the safe to a players current balance counted as a deposit.

If Enzo wanted to go hunting for players abusing the system that's perfectly fine with me. It makes no difference. How many times does it have to be explained to you that NO ABUSE TOOK PLACE? I did exactly the same thing I've done and countless other players have been doing for years.

I am seriously not explaining this again. You two are either incapable of understanding this or purposely refusing to but all you're doing by making me repeat the same very simple concepts and events over and over is making yourselves look silly.

edit - When Enzo said "gifts from other players" I'm pretty sure he meant "gift" from other players because there was only one since my last deposit. Jas sent me a surprise fiver quite a while ago which was very kind of her and lasted about 4 minutes (lol). And the last one before that is beyond my memory. So we can stop pluralizing the word gift.

see bolded

 

[blonde]

Is it me or IMO make a real money deposit with one of the deposit methods play and be done with it. This sums it up for me, anyone else?

 

[nisosbar]

And you have no idea what the casino wants to do or what they studied so the rest is just what you think might have happened.

You are rude, and this will be my last response to you for the time being.

I sincerely doubt any legitimate players have been impacted by this rule (we've verified who was going to be impacted before this was implemented) - and even if that were the case, I know for a fact that my support team is quite capable of assessing the situation and make manual adjustments where needed.

Regards,

Enzo

Note: "...before this was implemented"

 

[Nifty29]

When you accuse me of abusing the system or manipulating the system it is an insult. I did neither. When you continue to accuse me of it over and over in spite of how many times I've explained to you exacty what I did then I have to wonder if you do read what I'm typing. Either you are not reading it or you are purposely ignoring it. And when you accuse anyone of cheating (abusing or manipulating the casino is cheating) and then ask when you insulted him then yes, I have to wonder if you're even reading what you're typing.



I don't know if you've noticed (again, I'm wondering if you're reading any of this) I never once said that 3Dice shouldn't change the rules. I said I would like to have been informed of them. That's when you and BB started accusing me of all kinds of things with absolutely no reason. So yes, I complained once (sort of) that 3Dice should have made players aware of the changes.





You can ask Enzo anything you like. According to their own rules they're not allowed to discuss other people's accounts anyway. Not that it makes any difference because it does not matter if I have never deposited at 3Dice in my life.

It was a gift from another player. Gifts are deposits. Money won with gifts is real money. Money wagered with that money is real money wagers. And up until the day this thread started money deposited from the safe to a players current balance counted as a deposit.

If Enzo wanted to go hunting for players abusing the system that's perfectly fine with me. It makes no difference. How many times does it have to be explained to you that NO ABUSE TOOK PLACE? I did exactly the same thing I've done and countless other players have been doing for years.

I am seriously not explaining this again. You two are either incapable of understanding this or purposely refusing to but all you're doing by making me repeat the same very simple concepts and events over and over is making yourselves look silly.

edit - When Enzo said "gifts from other players" I'm pretty sure he meant "gift" from other players because there was only one since my last deposit. Jas sent me a surprise fiver quite a while ago which was very kind of her and lasted about 4 minutes (lol). And the last one before that is beyond my memory. So we can stop pluralizing the word gift.

Again, avoiding the question by taking jabs at bb28 and I and our comprehension, and therefore mental and intellectual, capacity. You can bang about me all you like, be we all know this is not about your current situation where you lost the $100 from your safe.....it is about what you have BEEN doing. Enzo said he COULD have implemented it weeks ago, so your insistence on making it about the $100 you lost from your safe seems like a smokescreen to divert attention away from the REAL issue.

If I said you abused or manipulated the system (don't remember that but I may have), and it is proven that you DID, then it is not an insult....it is truth, which is a complete defence.

Afaic if you make statements about what happened at a casino and misrepresent the situation or omit facts, then the casino has the right to refute them. You can't pick and choose what you want people to know when you're complaining about a casino (which you are)...especially an accredited one.

You're just upset that your free ride is over. Every other loyal player should be happy that now only REAL genuine depositing players will be contesting the vip tourneys. It just goes to show that every time an operator creates something to help players out, some people have to come along and suck it dry.

If you're REALLY serious about your innocence in this whole situation, give Enzo permission to reveal your casino history to Bryan confidentially and let him decide if you were manipulating the system or not. Seems like a fair compromise to me, since you're unwilling to share the information with the membership. If you're not willing to do either, then we can draw our own conclusions.

Of course, you can just keep on insulting everyone who doesn't share your point of view, and we can draw our own conclusions from that as well.

The ball is in your court skiny.

I don't normally play the VIP tourney, bit I think I'll go enter now that there's less players.

 

[cpdnd31]

OK Here is my next question-IF there screwing around and cheating the system why is Enzo being nice and letting these people still play at 3Dice? I don't get that as well. If it was any other casino the hint of fraud would have an account locked. Why not get rid of the cheaters?

 

[bb28]

OK Here is my next question-IF there screwing around and cheating the system why is Enzo being nice and letting these people still play at 3Dice? I don't get that as well. If it was any other casino the hint of fraud would have an account locked. Why not get rid of the cheaters?

Enzo said in his previous post that they now have a better system in place for rooting out the people who are abusing the system (in order to play vip tourneys). The key word is abusing, he didn't say fraud or cheaters.

 

[mattsgame]

I don't understand why 3Dice doesn't move to a completely playthrough-based VIP model.

Hi Guys,

Allow me to shed some light on the situation here. First off, the 3Dice VIP program is entirely
playthrough based. I

Now I find out that the 400 dollars in play I generated and the 80 or 90 dollars in safe deposits don't count toward vip anymore.

Ok, now the way I read this is that Skiny would have added to his V.I.P level with the playthrough on that $100. Regardless of what you take out of the safe, you are still contributing to your V.I.P level through playthrough.

The $50 deposit a month was a *safe guard* to those unlucky players and 3Dice gives them the minimum V.I.P level for this.

If you deposit the minimum $50 a month and are unlucky then you are at the lowest level V.I.P. If you deposit $50 and are lucky *say turn it into $200 and generate $600 playthrough* then you are likely to be on a higher V.I.P level than the unlucky player.

This is how most other casino V.I.P programs work, so I really don't see what the problem is here. 32Red, Jackpot Capital and Betfred you name it its all the same.

The $50 minimum is a *Perk* of 3Dice that allows any losing player to be a V.I.P and play tournaments etc. $50 would not make you a V.I.P at many other casinos without a lot of playthrough and luck.

 

[mattsgame]

Ok, so I did read it correctly.

Skiny this was already answered by Ellen.

1. As we discussed in support, deposits from the safe do count toward your user level, as the play generated from these deposits is the same as any other deposit. However, in the interest of fairness to our depositing players, transactions to and from the safe alone are not sufficient for VIP tournament eligibility.

2. The play that was generated from the gift he received did earn cps and does count toward the 3Dice user level

So why is this in your opening post?

I just had a chat with Ellen.

Now I find out that the 400 dollars in play I generated and the 80 or 90 dollars in safe deposits don't count toward vip anymore.

Your trying to make it sound worse than it actually is mate. The only thing that has changed is that a fresh deposit ($50 every 30 days) is required for a player to be considered for the lowest level V.I.P.

This sounds reasonable and fair to me.

Edit: Just to add and put it into perspective.. Skiny you have contributed to your V.I.P and will keep some sort of V.I.P status because of the playthrough you acquired during play.

Would you seriously be happy if I had $50 in my safe and on the 1st of March I reverse it and then put it straight back into the safe to use again on the 1st of April to get the same perks you did, albeit I did not risk a cent? and you did?

 

[blonde]

I really think this discussion can go on, and on, and on. For those who agree and fully understand what Enzo has implemented I think, well I don't know what to think anymore. Ok I am just babbling on now

 

[cpdnd31]

I think I need a DRINK

 

[Casinomeister]

Thanks for the clarification on what this is all about. So we now have 9 pages of posts - several of them becoming heated (finger hovering over the "infraction" button) - yet the discussion seems to be going around in a circle.

I'm tempted to put a fork in it. Anyone else want to second the motion?

 

[cheetahwind]

Essentially my take on it, the OP played from winnings generated from free play, and now is upset because they felt scammed they don't get to keep there VIP status because the deposit hadn't been from cash. So I second the motion.

 

[zap987]

It does seem too many people fail to grasp the situation because Skiny is very bad at making it clear what happened and is more interested in fighting personal battles with other posters. I usually don't agree with Skiny but in this case he is absolutely right, when he had $100 in his safe he could have withdrawn and redeposited to be eligible for tournaments. He didn't only because he didn't know it was needed and instead moved the money from the safe and lost them. If he had indeed moved them from the safe and then back it would have been abusing the system, but he clearly states he gambled and lost the $100.

This new rule isn't protecting anything, anyone looking to qualify for cheap and play tournaments will adapt and the end result will only be more transaction costs for the casino.

 

[Jasminebed]

I'd like to put my two cents in before this thread is forked. I would have preferred to write this post while sober.

Like nisobar, I heart 3Dice.

I also heart skiny. In the interest of full disclosure, I've had the pleasure of meeting him in real life. Skiny buying me some discounted casino fish 'n chips doesn't make me a shill I hope. I've had the pleasure of meeting his brother (hi shaky) and his sister in-law, and chit-chatting with his son online. 3Dice strives to be a family affair, and a lot of that is achieved in chat. Skiny and his family are not the only families to play at 3Dice.

The first post only informed players of a change in how loyalty was handled. To be perfectly honest, for a fellow canuck like skiny, finding alternatives to putting in the safe and later redopositing are low-cost. I could have put a fiver in an envelope and mailed it to skiny for about what my gift at 3Dice cost when you consider exchange rates.

I'm being personal in this thread, because people have been personal. I'm pretty much sure that skiny is not the only player to use the safe for deposits, and if he was truly interested in maintaining VIP status without playing, he would have played 2 cent Keno to generate enough playthrough from tourney wins if he was lucky.

I'm not so sure gifts count as deposits to maintain VIP status. I know at one point quite some time ago I gifted a fellow CM member and 3Dice player via Moneybookers (a fellow canuck) because a gift at 3Dice wouldn't have kept her playing. I gifted my kid during the short time she played at 3Dice.

Skiny is definitely not the only player maintaining VIP tourney status without depositing, so it might be a dolphin caught in a tuna net. Some dolphins may speak up more than others.

I'm not faulting 3Dice for making changes, but I have to agree that changes should be upfront. If you encounter a change you were not notified of, grandfathering you in for the one time would be a good option.

The safe benefits 3Dice more than it does the players, or they wouldn't have it. My advice would be to not hamper it's use, as it's overall benefit outweighs its costs to the casino.

I've gifted a lot of players at 3Dice, and I've sponsored a lot of tourneys that were gifts, gifts to both the Casino and the player that won them. That money was MY money, and if I give a gift to someone, I don't expect to have restrictions put on it. I would expect that they would lose in line with the RTP, especially over the long haul.

 

[3Dice]

Ok guys,

First off, I want to make clear that implementing this rule did not save me a penny - my motivation is clearly not financial, but rather simply my responsibility to keep things fair for all of you. So I'll let you guys be the judge ..

The 3Dice VIP system is set up to be very accessible. The bronze* category specifically is setup so that it is possible for any player at any budget to reach it. To be and stay a bronze* player one needs to earn a minimum of 2 comp points every 10 days. (that's right - two comp points.). That's not a lot. In exchange for that 3Dice makes sure you can play tournaments 24/7 - a great deal imho. Also one that does not take a lot of effort to be compliant with. This is the basic rule. It used to be the only one but it happens at times that people do make the deposits for that - but have real bad luck and don't get to those 2 comp points. For those scenario's, where
the deposit over the past 30 days was 50 or more, but due to bad luck the minimum comp level wasn't reached - we added the exception that we now find is being abused.

The 3Dice safe is in the first place a responsible gambling feature - its a balance away from your balance. Our original motivation to do this came from the players. We had a bunch of good players that were withdrawing
and redepositing (using our instant methods) within minutes. Upon talking to these players it became clear that in order for their psychology to work they had to remove those larger wins from their balance - a valid form
of budget control but alas one that was generating a lot of transaction costs for 3Dice. Recognizing the validity of their strategy we decided to implement the safe. A balance away from your balance that doesn't go through any administrative checks and is instant - always and for everyone. I still think the safe is a fantastic idea and that is also the feedback we get on it.

Ok, that's just a bit of background so everyone knows what we're talking about. Back to the OP. In the past 3 groups of 10 days the OP did not earn the minimum 2 comp points. That would have been the normal scenario for the OP to retain his bronze* level. In those 30 days there are 9 non-safe transactions - 8 are tourney prizes and 1 is a gift. He had some nice hits on the gift, getting his balance up to about 4 times the original gift. When that happened the OP moved part of his balance to the safe, and less than 7 minutes later moved it back to his balance.

With the old rules that would've qualified him for the exception scenario (notice how very clearly - this is not why the exception scenario was added) - but under the new rules it doesn't. The OP's response was to post a manipulative post on the 3Dice forum, and when that did not trigger the response he wanted he hinted to my support staff that he should post it somewhere else cause 'our forum isn't very busy'. The rest of the story you know.

So tell me - should I manually override the OP's status and put him back on bronze* ?

Enzo

 

[Tirilej]

I can't seem to stay quiet anyway

Perfectly well put explanation Enzo. I do get your system now.
But as far as your last question I think that was out of line.
The only thing Skiny has been saying from the start is that he wish he had known the changes that was made, and wanted to warn other players.
It's not up to others to decide or arguing on what Vip-level he should be in now.
That's your decision.

 

[Nifty29]

I can't seem to stay quiet anyway

Perfectly well put explanation Enzo. I do get your system now.
But as far as your last question I think that was out of line.
The only thing Skiny has been saying from the start is that he wish he had known the changes that was made, and wanted to warn other players.
It's not up to others to decide or arguing on what Vip-level he should be in now.
That's your decision.

I agree with the last part.

Don't leave it up to members as the accusations of personal bias etc will start flying.

I will say that somebody moving money to their safe and then back IN SEVEN MINUTES is not doing so for any other reason but attempting to make that transaction count for something.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about skiny, it is obvious what he was doing in the past, and whilst it might technically have been allowed, it was undoubtedly an attempt to take advantage of a special exception set up for those who are UNABLE.....not UNWILLING....to generate the small amount of comp points required to qualify.

Given that skiny did lose his $100, I assume he will qualify at the beginning of next month anyway based on playthrough alone (?), so I don't think his past antics should be rewarded by basically giving him what he was already trying to get via the "back door". I think it would send the wrong message.

Lets not forget that he can still play the FREE tournaments and win real cash, so its not like he is cut off from all benefits.....just the ones that others, unlike him, genuinely risk their hard-earned to achieve. Before I am accused once again of insulting the man or calling him a cheat, I am NOT making observations about skiny personally, only about his actions. Big difference.

Just to clarify....we are NOT talking about his recent $100 loss here...it is immaterial as it will most likely qualify him for next month via playthrough method....we are talking about his almost instant movement of money from balance to safe and back to qualify under the $50 min deposit exception. I'm sorry, but considering he could have placed his money at risk and earned the comp points quite easily, there's no other conclusion to reach other than he deliberately tried to access VIP benefits almost for free....and that is poor form, and is a slap in the face to those loyal regulars who deposit and play without ever even entertaining a scheme to get something they're not entitled to.

 

[3Dice]

Hi Trillej,

Let me reiterate an important point here. When we are considering a rule-change like this we always go and look up exactly who it would impact. In this case that meant making a list of people that were bronze* but wouldn't have been if the safe didn't count for the $50 exception. We then manually look at all those accounts. Had there been one account where I felt that it was in fact a legitimate scenario - then I would have warned players about the change. In this particular case however every single of those accounts were from players that were clearly just trying to get a free VIP ride. I don't think its a good strategy to notify the people that spend their time finding loopholes in our system of the fact that one of those loopholes will no longer work.

And as to me asking the question here - don't take that the wrong way. I made my decision when I implemented this rule change. And while others in this sector get - rightfully - put on the spot here on CM for trying to fill their own pockets, this isn't the first time I'm being put on the spot for trying to protect fairness. I made my decision - in the interest off all of you - because I felt that this rule was clearly, as in the case of the OP, being abused - if you guys however don't share that feeling then I will adjust my position on this.

The OP is trying to make this about a whole bunch of things it isn't about. 3Dice withdraws not being 'your money' - please .. nobody is asking that question - we're still the #1 when it comes to cashouts. The safe deposits not 'real' ? come'on ! - we let you claim bonuses on it .. That's not what any of this is about. If this is to be discussed in the open - then only one question needs to be answered - does anyone think the OP deserves to be bronze* ?

My motivation to do this and step in comes from the fact that I'm convinced that virtually everyone that's a VIP at 3Dice wants me to make sure that the same requirements go for everyone. If I'm wrong in that assumption and you guys don't care and feel the OP should be VIP then I will be happy to change that. If this thread goes on any further let us focus on the real question.

If an unnamed player does what the OP did - do you think he should be VIP or not ?

Enzo

 

[Nifty29]

I'd like to put my two cents in before this thread is forked. I would have preferred to write this post while sober.

Like nisobar, I heart 3Dice.

I also heart skiny. In the interest of full disclosure, I've had the pleasure of meeting him in real life. Skiny buying me some discounted casino fish 'n chips doesn't make me a shill I hope. I've had the pleasure of meeting his brother (hi shaky) and his sister in-law, and chit-chatting with his son online. 3Dice strives to be a family affair, and a lot of that is achieved in chat. Skiny and his family are not the only families to play at 3Dice.

The first post only informed players of a change in how loyalty was handled. To be perfectly honest, for a fellow canuck like skiny, finding alternatives to putting in the safe and later redopositing are low-cost. I could have put a fiver in an envelope and mailed it to skiny for about what my gift at 3Dice cost when you consider exchange rates.

I'm being personal in this thread, because people have been personal. I'm pretty much sure that skiny is not the only player to use the safe for deposits, and if he was truly interested in maintaining VIP status without playing, he would have played 2 cent Keno to generate enough playthrough from tourney wins if he was lucky.

I'm not so sure gifts count as deposits to maintain VIP status. I know at one point quite some time ago I gifted a fellow CM member and 3Dice player via Moneybookers (a fellow canuck) because a gift at 3Dice wouldn't have kept her playing. I gifted my kid during the short time she played at 3Dice.

Skiny is definitely not the only player maintaining VIP tourney status without depositing, so it might be a dolphin caught in a tuna net. Some dolphins may speak up more than others.

I'm not faulting 3Dice for making changes, but I have to agree that changes should be upfront. If you encounter a change you were not notified of, grandfathering you in for the one time would be a good option.

The safe benefits 3Dice more than it does the players, or they wouldn't have it. My advice would be to not hamper it's use, as it's overall benefit outweighs its costs to the casino.

I've gifted a lot of players at 3Dice, and I've sponsored a lot of tourneys that were gifts, gifts to both the Casino and the player that won them. That money was MY money, and if I give a gift to someone, I don't expect to have restrictions put on it. I would expect that they would lose in line with the RTP, especially over the long haul.

Hey jazzy

I appreciate what you're saying about skiny personally etc, but the issue isnt really about that at all. Nobody is questioning what kind of person he is or whether he is nice or not. It's always nice when members get to meet IRL, but it doesn't change any of the facts.

Also, nobody is saying others haven't done the same. However, whether or not others did it is immaterial, as again, it doesn't change any of the facts. The only relevance it has is that too many players doing it has attracted the attention of management so they all were identified. It certainly doesn't mitigate anyones actions.

I'm confused about what restrictions you feel are being placed on gifts? My take is that if you gift someone $10 every 10 days, and they generate the 2 comp points each time, they are VIP. I'm not aware of any restriction at all, apart from a situation where you might gift someone $50, they move it to their safe, and then immediately move it back to their balance and expect it to be considered a deposit. It clearly shouldn't be, as they are not putting those funds at risk, but merely moving them around to fly under the radar right into the VIP tourneys. Surely you can see how that is unfair?


@Enzo

If this were an anonymous player - NO they should not be VIP at this time. As I said, it is rewarding the behavior.

I do think it would have been prudent to at least contact the players involved to announce the change of rules, or even a general email. Jmo.

 

[zap987]

Hi Trillej,

Let me reiterate an important point here. When we are considering a rule-change like this we always go and look up exactly who it would impact. In this case that meant making a list of people that were bronze* but wouldn't have been if the safe didn't count for the $50 exception. We then manually look at all those accounts. Had there been one account where I felt that it was in fact a legitimate scenario - then I would have warned players about the change. In this particular case however every single of those accounts were from players that were clearly just trying to get a free VIP ride. I don't think its a good strategy to notify the people that spend their time finding loopholes in our system of the fact that one of those loopholes will no longer work.

And as to me asking the question here - don't take that the wrong way. I made my decision when I implemented this rule change. And while others in this sector get - rightfully - put on the spot here on CM for trying to fill their own pockets, this isn't the first time I'm being put on the spot for trying to protect fairness. I made my decision - in the interest off all of you - because I felt that this rule was clearly, as in the case of the OP, being abused - if you guys however don't share that feeling then I will adjust my position on this.

The OP is trying to make this about a whole bunch of things it isn't about. 3Dice withdraws not being 'your money' - please .. nobody is asking that question - we're still the #1 when it comes to cashouts. The safe deposits not 'real' ? come'on ! - we let you claim bonuses on it .. That's not what any of this is about. If this is to be discussed in the open - then only one question needs to be answered - does anyone think the OP deserves to be bronze* ?

My motivation to do this and step in comes from the fact that I'm convinced that virtually everyone that's a VIP at 3Dice wants me to make sure that the same requirements go for everyone. If I'm wrong in that assumption and you guys don't care and feel the OP should be VIP then I will be happy to change that. If this thread goes on any further let us focus on the real question.

If an unnamed player does what the OP did - do you think he should be VIP or not ?

Enzo

Assuming the unnamed player loses the $50 or more, then yes. There shouldn't be any difference if the money comes from a gift, Neteller or the safe as long as they are gambled and lost. If someone puts in $50, plays some low risk games for a bit and then puts it back in the safe they are abusing the system and shouldn't get in.

You've made it clear the $50 rule is there as protection for players that have bad luck and don't generate enough playthrough and then the rules should look for the bad luck and not where the money came from. Ideally Skiny shouldn't have felt the need to move the money to the safe and back, the system should recognize that he had a withdrawable balance >$50 at one point and at a later point had a $0 balance (assuming the $0, it's not completely clear from his posts), and that should be enough to get him in tournaments for a month.

 

[dionysus]

Here's my honest answer; and to be clear, this has nothing to do with one particular case, it's only addressing the question at hand...I personally don't care about other people's accounts, whether they receive VIP from gifts, deposits or at the leisure of the casino's good will. I'm only concerned about mine. This isn't cold,it's realistic. I'm not responsible for anyone's wins, losses, or relationships they have with their managers or representatives.
Of course all players aren't expected to be treated equal; that's not the reality of life. I don't expect the same perks as someone who deposits thousands more than me, online or landbased. (Like I'd ask for a free hotel after spending $100 just becaaue someone who spent 1ok last month gets one and I didn't..that's just silly)
Frankly, I'm just interested in knowing if my $50 gets me VIP or 2 comp points does, so I can deposit or earn and get on with it lol...and if my manager throws me perks or not, that's between me and my casino manager, just as someone else who gets gifts, freebs, or comps is theirs.

 

[Nifty29]

Assuming the unnamed player loses the $50 or more, then yes. There shouldn't be any difference if the money comes from a gift, Neteller or the safe as long as they are gambled and lost. If someone puts in $50, plays some low risk games for a bit and then puts it back in the safe they are abusing the system and shouldn't get in.

You've made it clear the $50 rule is there as protection for players that have bad luck and don't generate enough playthrough and then the rules should look for the bad luck and not where the money came from. Ideally Skiny shouldn't have felt the need to move the money to the safe and back, the system should recognize that he had a withdrawable balance >$50 at one point and at a later point had a $0 balance (assuming the $0, it's not completely clear from his posts), and that should be enough to get him in tournaments for a month.

Agree...but remember that the $50 that is lost will only qualify them in the next month (or VIP period not sure exactly how it works for tourneys)...it is not instant. So, in skiny's case, the $100 he lost should make him eligible from April 1st anyway based on his comp points (I think).

If skiny gets the upgrade now, it is IMO rewarding his previous attempts to obtain VIP status without the playthrough that he could easily have achieved if he so wished.

You're right about it not mattering where the cash comes from, as long as it is actually wagered to generate the comp points required and not just moved around. In fact, I would think Enzo would take a dim view of a player depositing from outside the casino and moving funds in and out without sufficient wagering...it amounts to the same thing.

Enzo stated the OP has been creating smokescreens and creating issues where there are none to cover what he was actually doing, and he is right. It reminds me of some of those players who come here and complain about having funds confiscated and omit facts and refuse to reveal vital information, only to be found out later to be doing something dodgy....if it wasn't skiny I would have thought it was a fraudster at work.

 

[skiny]

I broke no rules. I manipulated no funds. I abused no system. I did exactly what the safe was designed for.

I moved the money to the safe and took it back out because I LOST what I had. The fact that I was losing it as fast as I could take it out is not my fault. I would have been quite happy to win more and put that in the safe too but that didn't happen.

Nifty, BB and Enzo can spin this in circles all day long but the reality is I did not abuse anything. They can repeat the same accusations all day long but it changes nothing. This all started because I told people about a new rule. That is all. Maybe Enzo didn't want people to know about the new rule. Maybe Enzo wanted to keep his new rule a secret so more people found out the hard way. Maybe he wanted to pick and choose who followed the rule and who didn't. I really have no idea but all I did was start a thread stating what the new rule was and the 9 page farce that followed was a result of it.

Enzo is also breaking (again) his own rules be discussing another player's account. I've been told by him and his staff that is something they can't do and yet he sits here and does it.

I don't care if he discusses my account. I have no secrets. But it is a casino rule that he simply decided he didn't feel like following so he didn't. Absolutely nothing in my past has anything to do with these transactions which were completely legitimate.

If the new rule is my legitimate gift from another player doesn't count toward vip that's fine. If the new rule is my winnings from that doesn't count toward vip that's fine. I'm following the casino rules. I always have. At least one of us is.

So go ahead Bryan, stick a fork in it because it's become no more than a childish argument between someone who has to continually repeat the same simple facts over and over and people who have no idea what they're talking about but and refuse to understand. I can't even be bothered reading everything since my last post because I know it's just a rehash of the same foolishness.

Jas, I thank you for your kind words. Choc, I thank you for being honest and understanding.

edit - One last thing. If the new rule is that I do not gain vip status from the transactions then by all means do not make me vip. I never once said I should be vip. The ONLY thing I've said right from the start was I should have been informed.

 

[ShayDrew]

No. You should not.

Ok guys,

First off, I want to make clear that implementing this rule did not save me a penny - my motivation is clearly not financial, but rather simply my responsibility to keep things fair for all of you. So I'll let you guys be the judge ..

The 3Dice VIP system is set up to be very accessible. The bronze* category specifically is setup so that it is possible for any player at any budget to reach it. To be and stay a bronze* player one needs to earn a minimum of 2 comp points every 10 days. (that's right - two comp points.). That's not a lot. In exchange for that 3Dice makes sure you can play tournaments 24/7 - a great deal imho. Also one that does not take a lot of effort to be compliant with. This is the basic rule. It used to be the only one but it happens at times that people do make the deposits for that - but have real bad luck and don't get to those 2 comp points. For those scenario's, where
the deposit over the past 30 days was 50 or more, but due to bad luck the minimum comp level wasn't reached - we added the exception that we now find is being abused.

The 3Dice safe is in the first place a responsible gambling feature - its a balance away from your balance. Our original motivation to do this came from the players. We had a bunch of good players that were withdrawing
and redepositing (using our instant methods) within minutes. Upon talking to these players it became clear that in order for their psychology to work they had to remove those larger wins from their balance - a valid form
of budget control but alas one that was generating a lot of transaction costs for 3Dice. Recognizing the validity of their strategy we decided to implement the safe. A balance away from your balance that doesn't go through any administrative checks and is instant - always and for everyone. I still think the safe is a fantastic idea and that is also the feedback we get on it.

Ok, that's just a bit of background so everyone knows what we're talking about. Back to the OP. In the past 3 groups of 10 days the OP did not earn the minimum 2 comp points. That would have been the normal scenario for the OP to retain his bronze* level. In those 30 days there are 9 non-safe transactions - 8 are tourney prizes and 1 is a gift. He had some nice hits on the gift, getting his balance up to about 4 times the original gift. When that happened the OP moved part of his balance to the safe, and less than 7 minutes later moved it back to his balance.

With the old rules that would've qualified him for the exception scenario (notice how very clearly - this is not why the exception scenario was added) - but under the new rules it doesn't. The OP's response was to post a manipulative post on the 3Dice forum, and when that did not trigger the response he wanted he hinted to my support staff that he should post it somewhere else cause 'our forum isn't very busy'. The rest of the story you know.

So tell me - should I manually override the OP's status and put him back on bronze* ?

Enzo

 

[3Dice]

I broke no rules. I manipulated no funds. I abused no system. I did exactly what the safe was designed for.

I moved the money to the safe and took it back out because I LOST what I had. The fact that I was losing it as fast as I could take it out is not my fault. I would have been quite happy to win more and put that in the safe too but that didn't happen.

Nifty, BB and Enzo can spin this in circles all day long but the reality is I did not abuse anything. They can repeat the same accusations all day long but it changes nothing. This all started because I told people about a new rule. That is all. Maybe Enzo didn't want people to know about the new rule. Maybe Enzo wanted to keep his new rule a secret so more people found out the hard way. Maybe he wanted to pick and choose who followed the rule and who didn't. I really have no idea but all I did was start a thread stating what the new rule was and the 9 page farce that followed was a result of it.

If the new rule is my legitimate gift from another player doesn't count toward vip that's fine. If the new rule is my winnings from that doesn't count toward vip that's fine. I'm following the casino rules. I always have. At least one of us is.

That's not correct skiny. Any play on that gift counts towards loyalty - it always has and that's not the new rule at all. Even more so you know this all to well since you claimed the comp points that you earned on that gift .... What happened is you got lucky on the gift, and you used the safe - both of which are perfectly fine. But it doesn't make you someone who deposited and lost 100. It makes you someone who deposited the gift, got lucky on it, then lost it, and you earned comp points while doing it. That you parked your money 7 minutes in the safe somewhere inbetween doesn't make you a bigger depositor. That block of 10 days you qualified because you earned more than two comp points - you had no comp points in the two previous blocks however so you dropped one star. You don't qualify for the minimum deposit exception because you didn't deposit 100 - again you deposited the gift, had some luck of both types. Someone who deposits $100 and wins $10k then looses it doesn't qualify as someone who deposited $10k - he qualifies as someone that deposited $100 and got lucky - which in my book is equally loyal to someone who deposited $100 and loses it. The gift wasn't big enough to qualify for the deposit exception and getting lucky doesn't make you a bigger depositor.

So in short and to make sure we're clear. With this new rule in place, gifts still count towards loyalty - they always have. And if you don't get the comp points there's still an exception for someone that has deposited $50 or more. Luck + Safe just doesn't equal deposit anymore. It never should have.

Enzo.