1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. 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!

Bonus Complaint Gala Confiscated my funds

Discussion in 'Casino Complaints - Bonus Issues' started by incestuart81, Jun 26, 2016.

    Jun 26, 2016
  1. incestuart81

    incestuart81 Dormant account PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    Builder
    Location:
    Bristol
    I opened an account with gala and got a deposit bonus. But when I withdrew they confiscated my funds saying I bet too much. But I never bet more than 5 pounds. I used the gambling feature, but that was part of the same bet wasn't it?
     
  2. Jun 26, 2016
  3. osulle

    osulle Ueber Meister CAG mm4 mm1

    Occupation:
    life
    Location:
    Northern hemisphere
    Most casinos don't allow usage of the gambling feature while on a bonus so that could be your problem right there.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Jun 26, 2016
  5. brianleeporter

    brianleeporter Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    Butcher
    Location:
    liverpool-England
    Read the T&C's some casinos do not let you use the gamble feature unfortunately.

    If this is in there T&C's then you don't have a leg to stand on am sorry.

    Was it a big withdrawal?
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Jun 26, 2016
  7. babyjoker

    babyjoker Senior Member mm3

    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    UK
    The gamble feature in a game is a separate bet to the initial spin. Bet £1, win £6 then gamble, it's a £6 bet so there's your mistake more than likely
     
    2 people like this.
  8. Jun 26, 2016
  9. Daniel L

    Daniel L Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    Full Time
    Location:
    London
    Ah - the gamble feature, I wonder how many times this has saved them from paying...

    Unfortunately as others say you would of broke the T&C's if that is the case though, painful.
     
  10. Jun 27, 2016
  11. Deeplay

    Deeplay New World Order CAG mm1 webmeister

    Occupation:
    Works For Self
    Location:
    The biG Eu
    Its the gamble feature which is not allowed. So dont think you will see a penny on your winnings afraid to say. Any bet over the max no matter how you get there will void the winnings. And Gala from what I recall when I used to play there are not flexible when it comes to bonus terms at all.
     
  12. Jun 27, 2016
  13. Jasminebed

    Jasminebed Closer to 100 than Birth

    Occupation:
    Not in workforce
    Location:
    Ontario
    You should, however, be entitled to your deposit back, even if your winnings were validly confiscated for breaking terms.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Jun 28, 2016
  15. ThePOGG

    ThePOGG Meister Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Casino Affiliate
    Location:
    UK
    We're seeing loads of complaints coming through about this at the moment. In every case the player insists they've adhered to the rules and the Gamble/Double feature isn't restricted so they've played it. When questioned they usually admit they've been betting WAY over the maximum bet limit (we're talking between 20-200x the maximum bet limit) on the Gamble feature. Worryingly, many of these complaints are coming in from a similar geographic region. I don't know whether there's a geo-specific site that's giving out bad information or whether there's something more sinister a play, but it's frustrating giving the same explanation again and again.

    Gamble features are an entirely separate bet. They may only be offered at the end of a round of play from another game but the wager is placed independently of the original bet and is decided by an completely different event. On top of this, in terms of mathematical analysis, to determine fairness you have to look at the main game and the Gamble feature separately.

    TP
     
  16. Jun 28, 2016
  17. Daniel L

    Daniel L Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    Full Time
    Location:
    London
    I was going to say, how does the gamble feature actually work? What I mean is say I lose x80 bet size on a slot, but then rolled in a x8 win, gambling upto x64, would I then be x16 down on this slot, or still x72 down & x56 up on the 'gamble feature'? Like how does this actually work for the slots RTP?
     
  18. Jun 29, 2016
  19. ThePOGG

    ThePOGG Meister Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Casino Affiliate
    Location:
    UK
    If the gamble feature functions properly it's a zero House Edge proposition. It's 50/50 whether you win or lose depending on the bets on offer, but the bets offered normally provide odds that make the House Edge zero. As such they have no impact on the RTP of a slots game. All this does is increase variance.

    The fact that they can make for very high (but controllable) variance and have zero House Edge is what makes these features attractive to players who are looking to gain an edge over the house.
     
  20. Jun 29, 2016
  21. EbeeDog

    EbeeDog Senior Member MM

    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Akron OH
    Am I just naive?

    So the OP opened an account.

    So he goofs, violates some convoluted bet rule, and gets his winnings confiscated.

    Seems the casino would be better off saying, "Hey, you goofed. Here's your winnings this time because you're new but don't do it again."

    Then they have a player that's happy and could become a regular depositor.

    As it is they look like cheapskates, and given the choices in the U.K., the player likely going to go elsewhere after being twisted up on his very first deposit.

    Yeah yeah, bonus hunters, fraudsters etc. etc., casino has to watch out for their interests too - I understand all that but sometimes just common sense makes more, well....er....sense.
     
    1 person likes this.
  22. Jun 29, 2016
  23. ThePOGG

    ThePOGG Meister Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Casino Affiliate
    Location:
    UK
    Some operators will do that and other operators won't. I've personally had an experience at one very well known property that we rate well (before my affiliate days) where I realised my mistake, immediately contacted support and rather than reset the balance was told to keep the balance and just stick to the rules in future. It was really nice and made me feel very positive about that operator.

    However, in most of these cases the operator isn't going to do that unless they see this as a genuine mistake. If you've been betting £5 a spin and gamble up to £30 or £40 then that's not made a big difference to your overall balance and this doesn't look overly suspect, but in the cases I've reviewed to date (not saying anything about this specific case atm) the violations aren't small at all. They tend to see the player betting well into the 3 figure range, running up their balance significantly, usually to the low to mid four figure range but sometimes higher, then reverting to low bets on slots to grind the remainder of the wagering requirement out. Where operators choose to enforce the rules it tends to be the case that the player has made a very clear statement with their play that they're not a profitable customer for the operator and as such good will gestures are out of the question.
     
    4 people like this.
  24. Jun 29, 2016
  25. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Why not simply disable the gamble game when a bonus is being used, it would remove the need to figure out the difference between a normal player having a couple of gambles and a player who gambles nearly every win as far up the ladder as possible in an attempt to beat the bonus.

    It's also a concept that many players don't understand, they see it as "part of the game", no different to getting free spins where their original bet is multiplied during the free spins.

    Too many casinos also say "gamble feature does not contribute towards WR", rather than "use of the gamble feature to gamble a win greater than xxxxxx is prohibited when a bonus is in play". Why not make it absolutely clear, rather than use a vague statement, one that might actually cause them to LOSE if such a case went to the small claims court.
     
    1 person likes this.
  26. Jun 29, 2016
  27. ThePOGG

    ThePOGG Meister Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Casino Affiliate
    Location:
    UK
    Regarding the auto-restrictions - I couldn't agree more. The same should be done with restricted games and betting limits. It should happen and that would pretty much put services like CM and TP out of business. On that I can't argue.

    The rest not so much. How many non-APs here actually use the Gamble feature to place bets in the £500+ range when they were wagering £5/spin on slots? These players haven't simply misunderstood the restriction, they're smart players who know exactly the betting strategy they're looking to employ. I don't have a problem with that, but you have to play by the rules and these players are more than educated enough to understand what they're doing. The betting strategy alone tells you that. The last case I dealt with the player went on to live chat and asked if this was okay, after not getting the answer they wanted they came back again later on and got a live chat rep to make a mistake.

    More than this though, the bet is simply a different bet. There's no need to take it, it's all or nothing and it's decided by an totally different event. Just like any bet in real life where after a win/loss you say "double or nothing", you're placing a new bet. I can see that there's some ambiguity for someone who really isn't familiar with gambling, though I wouldn't have any confidence in that misunderstanding being considered the operator's fault if a case like this was challenged legally as they clearly stipulate what the maximum wager is, but the argument doesn't hold water when the player also uses a betting pattern that not only deviates significant from the normal player, but deviates in a manner that's consistent with an educated player.

    And as I stated previously, in cases where either it genuinely looks like a mistake, or even where the violating bets haven't made any difference to the results (loss/push) the operators I've encountered are inclined to explain to the player their mistake and ignore the violation.
     
  28. Jun 30, 2016
  29. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    The problem is that the casino is allowed to make up a limit where the bet is small enough to not affect the long term judgement, and not all operators will be reasonable about it. They have to draw the line somewhere, and wherever they do those who fall just above it will argue the case, but they may not necessarily be the educated players, but the risk taking average player who fancies the double or nothing climb and has the courage to push it further than most. This is where they will fall over in court, the law does not allow this kind of situation whereby the business can operate a set of hidden terms and decide on a case by case basis whether or not they have been violated. They would have to argue on the basis of their published £5 limit, but if the player can produce evidence that they have not applied this rule to other customers, they can argue that it shouldn't be applied to them either, putting the casino's lawyer on the spot to demonstrate that they are still treating the claimant "fairly" by applying a term they often waive for others. An educated player may well know enough to beat the casino in court on the matter, whereas the average player may not construct the best of arguments in their favour, and might lose the case.

    We also have the Blackjack argument, where the natural run of the game produces situations where the player should double or split, and whether or not the player should have to suffer the consequences of a poor outcome simply because the bet limit does not allow them to play the optimal strategy for that hand. In the blackjack case, casinos often claim the double is NOT a different bet, but part of the same bet. This interpretation could be used to undermine their argument that the in-game double up is a separate bet, rather than an in-game process based on a multi stage resolution of the initial (and valid) spin bet.
     
    1 person likes this.
  30. Jun 30, 2016
  31. ThePOGG

    ThePOGG Meister Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Casino Affiliate
    Location:
    UK
    You're creating issues that don't exist by envisioning hypothetical situations that simply aren't reflective of the cases actually occurring.

    The cases I've seen aren't in any way borderline - as I've pointed out several times already. These cases aren't a little over the limit, they're massively over the limit. They aren't cases where the player's lost while violating the limit and won another way. They player's won the vast majority of their balance from the violating bets and has used the Gamble feature to a level that is not vaguely concurrent with the way they bet when playing the main game.

    More to the point, your argument about court cases is redundant. You'd be right if the term was vague. The term isn't in any way vague. You're not allowed to bet more than X. If the operator chooses to disregard that restriction due to circumstance this isn't the same thing as a vague rule that is enforced based on a unknown criteria. Justifying fair treatment based on preferential treatment of other customers would challenge the very concept of VIP treatment, a well established protocol in all industries. There are always customers who due to their higher volumes of play will receive a higher match, lower wagering requirement, be allowed to waive win limitation, be allowed to play otherwise restricted game or - yes - be allowed to exceed maximum bet limits. Judgements in these situations comes down to the assessment of the value of the player and while I'm no lawyer somehow I doubt that the courts are likely to overturn the fundamental right of a business to offer a less restrictive deal to a preferred customer.

    And as far as the Blackjack argument, it's essentially irrelevant to the conversation though I do understand why you'd think otherwise. Yes, there is an ambiguity with max bet terms with relation to Blackjack doubles/splits, but to date I've only encountered one complaint that involved this issue. That single issue was resolved when the operator decided to pay the player. The reality about the Blackjack double/split is that most operators don't care about you betting 2-8x (assuming up to 4 splits with a double on each) the maximum bet limit on a 1 to 1 payout on a few occasions where there is some ambiguity. They care when you exceed the maximum bet at all when playing a game that offers significantly higher than 1 to 1 odds (slots, video poker etc) or when you vastly exceed the maximum bet playing a 1 to 1 bet (Blackjack, Roulette Red/Black or Gamble). Operator's care when a significant balance has been generated specifically due to a violating wager/s. They care when a significant balance is generated solely because the player has wagered more than the limit. Happening to win between £5 and £40 extra on a couple of rounds simply doesn't result in an balance that most operators would argue over. And suggesting that this is happening "often" simply isn't played out by the 500+ complaint sample I've dealt with.

    TP
     
    1 person likes this.
  32. Jun 30, 2016
  33. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Having your balance summarily confiscated after the fact is not the same as being denied a VIP perk. A casino can deny you entry in law, but they can't mug you on the way out because they didn't like the way you played. The argument is similar to the old fruit machine emptier, which was also advantage play to the extent that the majority of the winnings came from the emptier. In these cases, attempts to confiscate the money derived from the emptier retrospectively failed, even though the operators claimed it wasn't fair play, and could even be argued to have breached the terms of arcade entry. However, they could deny further entry to anyone they deemed "too good a player".

    Even though bets might be against the rules, once accepted by the operator and resolved, the argument shifts to the players' side in legal terms. It doesn't matter who has control of the money, although the party that doesn't have control is the one that has to bring proceedings.

    Take a look back at the Betfair fiasco, here players who took the matter to court never even had to go in front of the judge, Betfair caved right away. However, they stuck to their guns if players stopped short of court action, even when players managed to get mediators to side with them.

    The key argument for any player to win is whether or not the gamble is a separate bet, or an extension of the initial valid bet. Win this one, and the casino has no case.
     
    1 person likes this.
  34. Jun 30, 2016
  35. ThePOGG

    ThePOGG Meister Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Casino Affiliate
    Location:
    UK
    That's not an argument that's going to work. It would work if the operator were letting everyone else away with doing this and choosing to persecute you, but that's not the case. Operators are enforcing these rules as a standard and making beneficial exceptions for those customers they actually view as being accidentally and harmlessly in breach. You agree to the terms at the point you accept the bonus. If the operator choose to give you a 'vip perk' by ignoring what they perceive as a genuinely mistaken violation that's at their discretion. They are giving a perk in these instances not stripping a right away. Your starting position is not being allowed to exceed the maximum wager. The perk is having an infraction ignored.

    Which you won't win for the reasons I've already explained. It's very clearly a separate bet, both in its function and mathematically. If you don't agree with that you're welcome to your opinion, but I'm very confident that would be easily demonstrated within any courtroom environment.
     
  36. Jul 1, 2016
  37. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    It depends on the judge and how each side puts the argument. In Microgaming VP for example, the double up bet takes place from within the game, it is not "clear" that you have exited the game and entered into another wager. Consumer law in particular assumes the average consumer is not expected to have a degree in maths and an understanding of the operator's perspective. This has been designed specifically into consumer protection law as it is seen as a "David vs Goliath" battle, and this assumption of bias towards the "David" in the battle is designed to create a more level playing field so that the "Goliath" can't use it's deep pockets to hire the kind of legal teams a consumer would have no access to. It is entirely different from business law, where it is seen as a "Goliath vs Goliath" battle, and both sides are expected to have the depth of knowledge and legal advice needed to understand what they have signed up to.

    It has had some unexpected consequences for businesses as some terms and conditions, no matter how watertight and well written, have been struck out in a consumer vs business battle because they are deemed to have been unfairly implemented. This means that a business might legally be in the right, but could actually lose in court when a consumer argues on the basis of unfairness.

    If there have been 500+ complaints of extreme advantage taking of the gamble feature, it would be odd that not one would chance their luck taking this to the small claims court for a mere £60 and no costs if they lose. They are, after all, brazen enough to make a formal complaint to an ADR despite knowing full well that they are trying to exploit a loophole that the casino is certain to spot in a basic audit. These 500 must believe their arguments hold water otherwise they would not be so brazen as to make such an issue of it when they get caught.

    What I expect would happen is that if they did make a claim, they would be paid off to discontinue unless they did so in such numbers that the operator decided it was worth the risk of losing to win a case and kill all further claims, and it would include a gagging clause to prevent them from revealing what the settlement was, or how easily they got it.

    The UK banks were too scared to defend court cases over bank charges, and anyone who went that far saw the bank cave and offer them a refund of all charges just to prevent a case being lost in court. In the end, the matter was forced before a judge by the watchdog, and the banks WON, which was a surprise for many, but it proved all along that banks were in the right legally, if not morally, and had wasted millions giving out refunds before this.
    Even now, charges can still be recovered under the "consumer must be treated fairly" principle, even though the banks won the legal battle in court to specify charges in their terms, and make them binding.

    The moral of betting has always been that once accepted you pay up if you lose. If the bet is one you don't want to accept, you decline it, rather than take it and then refuse to honour it. Just because a computer is taking the bets rather than a human counter clerk doesn't excuse a morally questionable action, even if it can be justified on a legal basis. If a bookie has decided that they won't take bets over £10 from you, but staff make a mistake and accept your wager of £20, they are honour bound to eat the results of their mistake, even if they can legally wriggle out of paying up. It would be the same moral principle if they got rid of the staff and installed betting terminals instead, if the terminal took your bet for £20, the firm is expected to honour it, not claim that "staff error" meant that the terminal hadn't been programmed to limit bets to £10.

    In the case of casinos, their short cut is that they have failed to program their bet acceptance limits into their "betting terminal", making it possible to strike a wager over the limit, and for the software to accept the bet and produce an outcome. This is sheer laziness on their part, it's certainly possible. This too could be argued to be an "unfair business practice", which is the consumers' torpedo that can sometimes sink the most watertight consumer contract.
     
    1 person likes this.
  38. Jul 1, 2016
  39. ThePOGG

    ThePOGG Meister Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Casino Affiliate
    Location:
    UK
    Firstly I'd clear up that the "500+" wasn't '500+ cases ALL related to breaches of the maximum bet rule', it's '500+complaint managed on various issues'. Many of them have been related to this issue, though I would doubt that would exceed 50 and I would doubt that half of them right now involve gamble features.

    My point with the above is a) to be clear and transparent in what I'm saying and b) to highlight that this isn't the significant problem that's really confusing players on a large scale. It's a term that hundreds of thousands of customers managed to abide by without problem and is coming to the forefront at the moment for artificial reasons. Essentially these terms have applied to Gamble features all the long - as that's both mathematically and logically true - but in the last 6-9 months we've suddenly seen a significant rise in complaints related to breach of max bets on Gamble features. I would take an informed guess that one of 3 things has happened here - 1) given the language consistency we're seeing in the complaints that a non-english site of some size has given out bad advice about this, 2) word has made its way round the AP community that some operators have let some players away with this or 3) both 1 and 2. There's no good reason within the terms themselves that there would be such a significant increase in players not understanding this particular aspect of this term so we have to look for an explanation outside of the term itself. While there's been a consistent flow over the years of players who have failed to adhere to max bet terms, it's only been in the last 6-9 months we've really started seeing the Gamble feature becoming a regular point of contention. Previous to this period I don't think I'd seen a single complaint that specifically involved the gamble feature, though I'd have to go back and check to be sure, where now if I'm not declining 3-4 complaints a month for this reason it's unusual. These terms haven't changed their format in this period.

    This is going to sound offensive and I genuinely don't intend it to be - you're easily one of the more interesting contributors here. From what I know of you, you've never claimed any legal qualification. As such when you go down this road of argument, your points are simply conjecture. They're no more than that. This is a hypocritical point to make as I hold no legal qualification either. My point here is to draw this discussion to a close as I don't feel it's covering anything new or useful now. The disagreement can be easily summarised as follows:

    You feel that use of the Gamble bet could be challenged in court as a continuation of the main bet. I disagree entirely and feel this would be a weak argument to base a legal contest on.

    Neither of us have the qualifications or practice experience to assert with absolute confidence what would happen and tbh from what little experience I do have of the legal system you can be 100% right and still lose if your legal team does a bad job or depending on the judge that hears your case. So even if we did have the relevant experience our opinion would carry limited realistic application. Not only are we now both in territory we're embarrassingly under-qualified to offer any substantial opinion on, the realities of the UK legal system (which is the presumptive state for discussion) is that even if we did every lawyer will assert that they can win a case and close to 50% of the time they're wrong.

    That said, if someone has or wants to challenge this decision within a courtroom, I can say I'd be very interested to see the result. Legal precedent would put this discussion to bed without supper.

    TP
     
    3 people like this.

Share This Page