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 | 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!

GAMBLING FEDERATION: rules adhered to but winnings stolen

Discussion in 'Online Casino and Poker Complaints - old section' started by caruso, Jul 13, 2005.

    Jul 13, 2005
  1. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    I followed closely, and contributed my opinion to, this matter on the GPWA players' board. Since it's now been definitively closed there, and the thread locked for good measure (go figure), it needs wider exposure - so here is a summary of the facts:

    The player deposited in quick succession at a handful of Gambling Federation casinos, playing agressively and busting out on many deposits, but hitting on two and ending up with about $7000 in winnings.

    The player had his winnings - and, I believe, his deposits on those winning hits - stolen.

    Two reasons were given - one after the other: First, the player had multiple accounts. This was subsequently disproved. Second, that he was guilty of a "scheme" which was contrary to the rules of the casino. Although details of the "scheme" were slow to come through, the player enlightened us (see above) and it was confirmed by the powers that be - high stakes wagering, with bonuses, going for a big hit or a bust.

    Most importantly, there is nothing in any of the rules which states that any particular wagering style - small bets, big bets, whatever - is reason to confiscate winnings. The playing style was legitimate. However, it was also intimated that this "scheme" went further, and that the player was "working" in tandem with others, with a view to...err...winning. Again, as long as the account in question is a LEGITIMATE account, then there is no reason to not pay him. He can be barred afterwards, but payment needs to come first. Come to that, if ALL the accounts are also legitimate, THEY need to be settled first and barred second.

    There was much talk about the "morality" of this behaviour, and we even got a Blast From The Past - the "abuse of the spirit of the promotion" found its way into the discussion.

    Morality nothing: Gambling Federation are perfectly capable of writing their promotions in such a way as to avoid such apparent "schemes": make them slots only; put a cap on the maximum / minimum bet that can be placed, initially or otherwise; dress them up for maximum sucker play and cream the players - it wouldn't be difficult. Gambling Federation choose to not do this, as it would have an impact on their customer base - they want their BJ / VP / roulette players. Unfortunately, they don't want those players WINNING.

    The fact is that this player followed the rules to the letter. Clearly, he was looking to maximise his chances with the bonuses; he may even have been playing in "tandem" with other players (can't say for sure, but seems likely). None of this has any relevance to the fact that the RULES WERE NOT INFRINGED. The "spirit of the promotion" and any other such pre-21st century casino con-job cop-out to screw players does not hold water in today's game.

    If you follow the rules you are PAID. Period. This player has been robbed.

    I encouraged him, via PM at the GPWA board, to complain to Bryan. I don't know that Bryan has any influence on Gambling Federation after the rogue listing from the malware incident, but all avenues should be pursued, and this matter deserves publicity. I would post it at WOL, but cannot for obvious reasons.

    For the full, now locked, discussion: (remove the xxx)

  2. Jul 13, 2005
  3. phynqster

    phynqster Dormant account

    los angeles, ca
    The one question I had was the players method of deposit. I have seen this type of pattern before where a player makes a number of deposits quickly and bets big usually at roulette. If they do not hit they than charge back if they used a credit card. If this player was not using a credit card than there should be no argument about paying.
  4. Jul 13, 2005
  5. eek

    eek Dormant account

    My take is that he signed up multiple accounts at 'different' casinos, took multiple sign up bonuses before it was specifically disallowed, played the entire wedge of each one on a spin of roulette, then went to the slots to meet the wagering requirements if he won the roulette spin. (doesn't state the level of risk taken 3/1 35/1 etc)

    I always thought that you could only get the bonus at one GF place, and that was standard knowledge amongst players.

    There will be some ancient threads at WOL about the GF bonus system and its pitfalls.

    I always thought GF was really a single casino with a zillion affiliate portals and a few superaffiliate portals who had some autonomy.

    Had a peek...it's been a looong time...
    Yup, its them.
    ....it's ages since I've been to their site and yet that registration page STILL defaults to arabic for me... :D
    man, talk about dej v...
    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    one other thing, wasn't GF the place where no-one ever got an RF at VP?

    ...I'll put my hard hat on now... :D
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2005
  6. Jul 13, 2005
  7. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    That's not even the current rulling, which is a maximum of three bonuses across the GF stable. This play occured BEFORE this rule was put in place, on may 8th. The "only three" was put up on May 22nd - I have a screenshot from Cindy's site.

    Don't know. However, as long as the deposit clears there is no problem; a player can't be screwed on the basis that he MIGHT charge back.

    I should add that this is not intended in any way to seem anti-GPWA - both Cindy and John have helped / offered to help me in the past, and the GPWA players' board could start to become a REAL player resource in the future, simply on the basis of their membership weight. But, the fact that the matter is now dead there doesn't mean it shouldn't be persued.
  8. Jul 13, 2005
  9. eek

    eek Dormant account

    Old WOL thread.

    only one signup bonus allowed at GF.
    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    If I was going on a signup bonus orgy at GFed places I would get written confirmation it was ok before I handed over any pennies...
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2005
  10. Jul 13, 2005
  11. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    I'm beginning to see a disturbing trend here; casinos that are unable to write their T&Cs well enough to protect their businesses.

    If the player did not break any specific rules, then pay him and get on with it. If a casino doesn't like the style of play, then as Caruso points out, rewrite the terms and conditions to reflect the specific type of play that is acceptable.

    This is a business that needs to accept the fact that players play to win. And they will use every legitimate means to do so - to win. This is why we have terms and conditions. The casino writes these conditions, the players agree to these conditions, and then hopefully abide by them.
  12. Jul 14, 2005
  13. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    eek, mate: that WOL thread is news to me, but the clones bonuses was never an issue here. Check out this other thread:


    The player was paid because the "only three signups at all GF sites" was implemented AFTER he played. Once this was clearly established, payment was made. That was a couple of months ago. I even have a screenshot from Cindy's GF site showing that that rule wasn't in place as late as May 20th this year - it is now.

    "Multi" bonuses was NEVER an issue. It wasn't even claimed as one, once it was established that the rule was implemented AFTER the player played (that rather curious WOL thread notwithstanding). The issue was a "scheme" to unfairly take advantage of the bonus.

    It was ACCEPTED that he adhered to the rules - read post 23, point number 5. This is categoric:


    The issue was NOT rule infringement, it was much vaguer than that.

    If you follow the rules, you are paid. This has to be absolute and non-"interpretable".

    Maybe you can give them a prod, Bryan? - though I appreciate there can't be much love lost between you.
  14. Jul 14, 2005
  15. mgibson99

    mgibson99 Dormant account

    Washington DC
    Wow...this is the 2nd thread in the last week about similar circumstances (how can we forget about the guy who deposited into 25 casinos in 24 hours, then was denied his winnings at the only 2 casinos he was able to win at).

    Without re-hashing the previoius thread, the message here is that you really have to think how your betting will be perceived by the casinos (not whether it is right or wrong, but how it will be perceived).

    This may sound harsh, but I won't have alot of sypmathy for the next person to post that he deposited into a bunch of casinos a short amount of time, collected a bunch of bonuses, placed very large single bets to meet wagering requirements, then (surprise, surprise) was labeled as a bonus abuser.

    Before I get any angry responses, I totally support the fact that if you follow the rules, you should get paid. I'm just pointing out that we now know that this kind of betting strategy is fraught with potential for casinos to deny your winnings. Why even take the chance.
  16. Jul 14, 2005
  17. Macgyver

    Macgyver Dormant account PABnononaccred

    North Carolina
    Because of this (since Bryan already said it):

  18. Jul 14, 2005
  19. eek

    eek Dormant account

    You're far more in tune and up to date with recent GFed stuff than I am 'russo.
    I was never a GFed player, just an observer.

    Hope you get a result. :thumbsup:

    It couldn't be called 'scheme abuse' because the same could be applied to other providers like Crypto, Micro and RTG when THEY used to have the same kind of bonus offers.

    I believe that casino webcam has a rule to combat this low variance high stakes kind of stuff where the entire wedge is blown on a single bet.

    'after the initial deposit, a minimum of 30 bets must be placed, with no one bet exceeding 25% of the initial deposit.'

    So there is Casino awareness, and there are rules out there, for this stuff.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2005
  20. Jul 14, 2005
  21. bpb

    bpb Banned User - repeated violations of rule 1.14 (tr PABnorogue PABnonaccred

    Because it's the only way to gamble with an edge online. There's a disgusting amount of money to be made using this approach.
  22. Jul 14, 2005
  23. mgibson99

    mgibson99 Dormant account

    Washington DC
    I don't think there is a concensus on that. There is another thread about people who don't gamble with bonuses (like me), and based on the responses, there is a very mixed opinion on whether you can really clean up with bonuses. Of course there are those who swear by bonuses as the only way to get an edge (like you), and I respect that. But there are also some (like me) who think that bonuses are more trouble than they are worth with the play through requirements and confusing T&C.

    Also, as to the specifcs of this particular incident, and the other one I mentioned earlier, I don't think you will find very many people who make a "disgusting" amount of money by trying to make a quit hit by gambling in a bunch of casinos in a short amount of time just to collect bonuses. Oh I'm sure there are some, but I suspect that they are the exception rather than the rule. I would hazard a guess that generally people that try that just end up losing money, or hassling with the casinos when they trot out the T&C as an excuse not to pay, or worse yet label them a "bonus abuser".
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2005
  24. Jul 14, 2005
  25. bpb

    bpb Banned User - repeated violations of rule 1.14 (tr PABnorogue PABnonaccred

    There's mixed opinion on everything in this world. The people who don't think you can clean up with bonuses are wrong.

    If you are playing for entertainment, then there's no question that bonuses are more hassle than they're worth.

    If you're playing to make money ... that is ... you are looking to gamble with a healthy positive expecation ... they are more than worth the hassle.

    Most people attacking these sticky bonuses are following in the footsteps of those who have already made a killing. They are following a very formulaic approach. When someone hits a brick wall (as appears the case in this GFed incident) ... word spreads quickly and people stop hitting those groups. So I would guess that the vast majority of people who try this are winning a bundle. It's the few that happen to try at a time when the casino wises up that get screwed.
  26. Jul 14, 2005
  27. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    "So there is Casino awareness, and there are rules out there, for this stuff."

    Good point - and another example of the critical importance of savvy-constructed T&Cs from a casino perspective.

    Some of this stuff is learned by tough experience, but that still doesn't excuse the use of unsupported disqualifications or catch-all clauses to effect them as a last resort.

    Imagine entering any other commercial deal and telling the opposite party "I'd like a condition inserted here that says if I even suspect something might have gone wrong I can cancel the agreement and all its rewards without producing evidence."

    If the T&C's have been met without fraudulent conduct the player must be paid. After that, apply the lesson learned to the T&Cs to prevent a recurrence, ban the player from promos or whatever. But first pay what you owe.
  28. Jul 14, 2005
  29. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    I can't seem to find this at casinowebcam.com, are you sure it was posted there? Google turns up nothing as well.
  30. Jul 14, 2005
  31. eek

    eek Dormant account

    It may have only been included in the email for a promo.
    I just used the post as a reference when I remembered it had been made, I never checked the actual site itself.

    Maybe jpsarte or casino webcam cs can shed some light.

    I notice he's from Denmark btw :D
    In the past, Danish players were not allowed bonuses at CWC.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2005
  32. Jul 15, 2005
  33. ChristopherB

    ChristopherB Dormant account

    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Hi all,

    This is ChristopherB, and I am the one having the problem with the Gambling Federation.

    I submitted a PAB to Bryan regarding this situation, so I would like some guidelines from Bryan about what to post here.

    I will tell you all that the bottom line here is that I played explicitly by the rules and I am not getting paid.

    Bryan, please let me know...


  34. Jul 15, 2005
  35. largeeyes

    largeeyes Dormant account

    North America
    Bingo. I feel like I should offer my services to all these casinos to save their butts as a proof reader of all T&C(and websites for that matter). I could save them 10x my salary.
  36. Jul 15, 2005
  37. buck

    buck Experienced Member

    Midwest USA

    GF casinos are not worth the effort to even play at. Software is poor, and least us not forget about them screwing with registers upon downloads.

  38. Jul 15, 2005
  39. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Even so, they still have a high profile. They are still promoted and portals still generate traffic for them. They still need to be answerable to someone.

    What is unfortunate, is that they are not answerable to anyone except perhaps their licensing jurisdiction Belize *cough cough.

    Some things to keep in mind:
    *Don't play at sites licensed in Belize, Venezuela, Eastern Europe.

    Prior proper planning prevents piss poor performance.

    Now, I haven't been in contact with anyone on the casino side of the fence for this situation. There are GFed reps who are members of this forum, but I don't think they'll be jumping into this thread full-swing since it already seems to be a decided case. I don't know the full story - but I can find out.

Share This Page