GAMBLING FEDERATION: rules adhered to but winnings stolen

[caruso]

Right, I dug out a screenshot:

First one: the GF bonuses rule, as posted on the affiliate site on May 22nd. The ONLY mention is "no deposit" bonuses. THere is NO mention of DEPOSIT bonuses.

Second one: the same page, taken today. Updated to include "...and three initial deposit bonuses" (note: there is not even a mention of just one, but THREE.)

Yes, this is *only* an affiliate site, but it is THE number one Gambling Federation affiliate site and the PAGE from which the player downloaded. According to the rules posted here, he is entitled.

Third one: a post from an earlier Gambling Federation complaint thread. Although this player was looking to be cheated (again) because of "multi-accounts", once this was established to be incorrect, the player was paid. Note:

Second, I wanted to took advantage of their bonuses that is clear, I know their terms well and there is no problem to claim more than 3 deposit bonus, the system allow you to do it and also in the terms you see nothing which ban you from doing that.

The deposit bonuses are allowed because u risk money and I risked I lost the full balance in 9 of them and at the 10th one I was lucky and won 6072 Euro playing 400 a hand and 200 a hand riksing my money.

xxxhttp://www.gpwa.net/forum/showthread.php?t=163804&page=3&pp=10

THIS player did almost exactly the same thing, playing high stakes blackjack rather than roulette - he was paid. Now this player should not be? On what basis?

And AGAIN I say: if this was the reason, why did you have Cindy and Brian banging on about "schemes" and the "abuse of the spirit of the promotion"? If you figured you had this ace up your sleave, why not actually MENTION it at some point? Wouldn't a straightforward contravention of the rules put an end to the matter without all that "scheme" BS?

The answer is obvious enough: this is the latest ruse you've come up with. If this one doesn't hold, you'll come up with another one.

Your bonuses are deliberately designed as traps for the player. You (now) bury a "one bonus only" clause in the official terms, award the bonuses automatically notwithstanding the (now) "illegailty" of those subsequent bonuses - then when the player loses you keep his deposit, and when he wins, you...keep his deposit.

You owe this player. Pay him.

 

[Casinomeister]

The rules state (and have for quite some time):

Players can receive free money at registration only once in GFED Games Software Powered Casinos

Player may only operate one (1) active account with GFED Games Software Powered Casinos at any time. Players opening multiple accounts without first voiding their existing account are subject to being excluded from the Casino with all funds forfeited

The Casino reserves the right to limit or cancel any Players account due to abusive behavior on promotional bonuses or Gfed points at the Casino's own discretion. The Casino management reserves the right to withhold any funds if it suspects any foul play or manipulation with the Casino. It is recognized and agreed to by the Player that, in the case of any discrepancy whatsoever, management's decision on all matters will be final.

All promotional offers are only valid for one player per household

These are all posted on the websites and have been for quite a while, although "G-FED Games Software Powered Casinos" has recently been added instead of "Gambling Federation family of casinos".

The rest have been there for at least several months, before April.

I think the GFED rep was just making a general statement. It doesn't apply to this player's specific claim directly - it's merely a clarification.

GFED - Please hold off making any further postings until this player's issue has been finalized. Thanks!

 

[Casinomeister]

Final update:

Final update:

I have been in touch with GFed's CEO and the managers who were handling this problem. We agree on some things - but disagree on others. One thing we agreed upon is that casinos need to protect themselves against what they consider "abusive" gameplay by stating specifically what this gameplay is. I am under the firm belief that most players play to win, and will do so at any legitimate means at their disposal. This industry should be a player-centric industry; casinos need to understand this. And it's the successful ones -- the good ones that understand this. These are the casinos that will put their competition out of business.

Anyway, GFed and I have a differing view on this. They do agree however that the player was not wrong by opening several accounts (which was pointed out earlier). And they feel that the player deserves his deposits back (sorry Cindy), which he should have received by now.

I still feel that the player should have been given the benefit of the doubt, and warned of his abusive play. He risked his funds by placing his bets, and was under no obligation to make a profit for the casino. It not clear to him beforehand what style of play would be deemed unacceptable or "abusive".

In conclusion, players need to be wary on what may be sending red-flags to casino security people, and casino operators need to be specific on what gameplay is abusive and make sure players know about this before they play.

 

[caruso]

Thank you, Bryan - we seem to be in agreement on the principles here, and I figure the deposits themselves amounted to at least a four-figure sum all told, so it's something.

And if the player had lost his deposits in their entirity? Would he have had them refunded because his "abusive" style negated all his play?

This is pure win/win for the casino. It's even more extraordinary that your intervention caused a DEPOSIT REFUND - as if this shouldn't have been AT LEAST directly parr for the course! Isn't it great that they "feel" he should be paid his deposits? - And that, until you contacted them, they apparently felt quite at liberty to steal EVERYTHING - winnings and deposits?

Although you don't say so directly, I'll take a guess from the general tone that your opinion is that this player is owed his full cashouts - which he clearly has now lost all chance of ever collecting. Assuming I'm calling it right, I thank you for this stance.

Gambling Federation is the scourge of the online casino industry. They hacked their customers' computers, they steal with impunity and they will not even refund your DEPOSITS on a disputed claim until pushed by a high-ranking mediator.

I wish the hell they'd get the hell out of the industry.

And, no offence Cindy, but I wish the hell you'd stop promoting them. Contentious remark though I know it is, there comes the point where it just needs saying.

This player was owed.

 

[Vesuvio]

Good post, Bryan, though I think you could go even further. Casinos have to understand that they can't, as they're desperately attempting to do at present, claim that playing a bonus in the most advantageous way possible is "abuse". It's like allowing people to play Blackjack but claiming they're abusers if they follow basic strategy.

If a casino offers a bonus that gives the player an edge they simply have to accept some players will play it in an optimal manner with the aim of making a profit. They're no more abusers than the people also aiming to make a profit but playing the bonus in a manner that gives the casino an edge. If the casino's reputable, attracts a good cross-section of players, and sets the terms sensibly the optimal play should only eat into a percentage of the profits. Casinos can't expect to offer promotions and attract players at no cost.

I disagree with the comments about not setting off "red-flags" for casinos. As long as players aren't committing fraud there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't play at as many casinos as they wish, in whatever time frame they wish, playing whatever allowed games in whatever manner they wish. Any casinos trying to claim any of the above as evidence of "abuse" are simply rogue and shouldn't receive the slightest sympathy or understanding.

 

[Casinomeister]

I disagree with the comments about not setting off "red-flags" for casinos. As long as players aren't committing fraud there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't play at as many casinos as they wish, in whatever time frame they wish, playing whatever allowed games in whatever manner they wish. Any casinos trying to claim any of the above as evidence of "abuse" are simply rogue and shouldn't receive the slightest sympathy or understanding.

Yeah but, try getting paid by a rogue casino

Casino operators are paranoid as it is, and as we're beginning to bear witness - some of them are applying the "escape" clause in their terms and conditions which players rarely read.

Why cause a hassle when you don't need to? Why skirt the borderlines of the rules when it's not necessary? It's not you'll be able to knock on their door and say "You never answered my email. Where're my winnings?"

 

[Vesuvio]

Yeah but, try getting paid by a rogue casino

Point taken

Casino operators are paranoid as it is, and as we're beginning to bear witness - some of them are applying the "escape" clause in their terms and conditions which players rarely read.

I think players read it, but since I've followed on-line casinos the received wisdom is that only rogue casinos ever invoke the clause, so you can safely ignore it. Having said that, when I started "bonus abuse" was a term used for genuine abuse, i.e. fraud. It's a slippery slope... but a situation in which players don't know if they'll be paid isn't any good long-term for the casinos anymore than it is for players.

 

[jetset]

QUOTE: It's a slippery slope... but a situation in which players don't know if they'll be paid isn't any good long-term for the casinos anymore than it is for players.UNQUOTE

I absolutely agree...but I don't think GF management have a long term view on anything!

 

[caruso]

I disagree with the comments about not setting off "red-flags" for casinos. As long as players aren't committing fraud there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't play at as many casinos as they wish, in whatever time frame they wish, playing whatever allowed games in whatever manner they wish.

Seconded. If the terms don't disallow, it's OK. If it's OK, casino pays. To go down the route of looking out to not do this, that or the other because of how the casino might or might not view it is going down a very slippery slope. This was my one disagreement with Bryan's summary.

 

[mary]

Thirded.

A bonus offer is a contract. Casinos need to honor their contracts. If they are allowed not to, we're just going to keep seeing sloppier and more deceptive practices.

There's lots of wonderful mathematicians and English majors who need the work. Hire them to run sims and vet text.

 

[Casinomeister]

What I meant by my "red flag" comment, is that if you draw attention to yourself - you're going to get it (that attention). And sure, you may be adhering to the casinos T&Cs, but a rougish operation may not see it that way.

Jo Blow Player opens 20 accounts (legally), the casino will be scrutinizing him and perhaps find something they don't like. The player is creating a hassle for himself that doesn't need to be.

Picture this: you're on the freeway, and the speed limit is 65. There's a cop ahead of you doing 63 - are you going pass him? If so, I hope you don't have a bag of weed stashed under your seat.

 

[caruso]

But this is an awful picture you're painting. This is into the second decade of online casinos - the bottom line cannot be how a rogue casino might view the wagering / depositing pattern, or that an operator might decide to "scrutinize" him and find something to use against him, alla Gambling Federation! If it's a choice between these supposed "realities" and what is actually CORRECT and FAIR, then the latter must be where you draw your line in the sand, not the former. To settle for the former is to set yourself tobogganing back down to square one and 1995. Do casinos want this? Hell yes - they'd love nothing more than a return to those happy days when they could do anything they liked and people tended to give up without a fight.

It's up to affiliates, industry folk and players with half a brain to make sure that doesn't happen. Not just to "improve the industry" - somehow I doubt that's realistically possible, though desirable - but because it's RIGHT.

Picture this: you're on the freeway, and the speed limit is 65. There's a cop ahead of you doing 63 - are you going pass him? If so, I hope you don't have a bag of weed stashed under your seat.

Without wanting to labour the point:

IF it was advantageous for me so to do
IF I could so do without breaking the law, ie. exceeding 65.
IF I could prove the fact beyong any doubt

...then I'd be confident in passing him.

The absolute rule of the law, as with the police, is the benchmark to strive for.

 

[ChristopherB]

Hi all this is ChristopherB the one who is not being paid by the Gambling Federation. I have been away on vacation for a couple of weeks and unable to post...

I received my deposits back and I thank Brian for this.

However, I must receive my winnings.

The original reason that the Gambling Federation gave for not honoring my winnings was due to "multiple accounts" at their multiple casinos. It was verified that my accounts were opened on May 8th, at least two weeks before this ambiguous "multiple account" rule was in effect.

For the record, something has been made about the fact that I opened ten accounts at various Gambling Federation casinos on Sunday, May 8th. Actually I opened about 20 online gaming accounts on that day! I had a rare day off and spent about eight hours in front of my computer. Is this abnormal behavior? I certainly don't think so.

The Gambling Federation then found another reason not to pay me: they didn't like my "style of play," described as a "very distinguishable, singular pattern of depositing and wagering that suggested a 'scheme' or 'plan'"

Cindy from the GPWA had the nerve to compare me to a member of a Reno slot cheating ring. You can read it all here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

This is an absolute win/win for the Gambling Federation--my "style of play" is only unacceptable when I win. It's perfectly acceptable as long as I lose. The Gambling Federation doesn't look at the play from those who lose and return the deposits because the "style of play" is deemed "abusive" or otherwise. It is an absolute win/win situation for the Gambling Federation!

As for Cindy, she has some nerve promoting the Gambling Federation on her website when this is the way they treat their winning players.

The stunt the Gambling Federation is trying to pull does not only affect the Gambling Federation--it affects the entire industry. It paints a dark cloud over the online gaming world.

Sorry if I'm rambling but I am really upset.

ChristopherB

 

[jamiester]

whoa...

The Gambling Federation then found another reason not to pay me: they didn't like my "style of play," described as a "very distinguishable, singular pattern of depositing and wagering that suggested a 'scheme' or 'plan'"

Cindy from the GPWA had the nerve to compare me to a member of a Reno slot cheating ring. You can read it all here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

As for Cindy, she has some nerve promoting the Gambling Federation on her website when this is the way they treat their winning players.

I just read the thread linked above. Verrrrrry scary stuff.

 

[caroline77]

Gem Fed is not paying

Hi,
First I would like to thank Caruso for his efforts.
Gem fed own me 2654 euro back from April
I'm quite disappointed with the way Gem Fed and Cidny have treated me.
Not only that they say one thing and the next moment they are saying another it's also the fact Cidny has been ignoring my emails.
They haven't paid me back my deposits and the idea is that you have to fight very hard in order to get what is yours.
They hope people will give up on thier money and that's no way to treat clients.
I also don't accept the idea of returning the deposits. where does it come from? the casino admits the players are legitimate but refuse to pay tem the entire winnings. I just don't get it.
Regards,
Caroline.

 

[caruso]

Caroline - if you're in the exact same position as Cristopher, ie. still out a packet of deposits, I'd urge you to contact Bryan as he did. If you can at least collect those, that's something.

 

[ChristopherB]

Hi all. The Gambling Federation still has not paid me my winnings. Sure, my deposits were returned and I can thank Bryan for that. But I am entitled to my winnings.

A friend of mine was able to attend the gaming show in Las Vegas about 10 days ago. He approched the Gambling Federation representative at the show and told her of my situation. She forwarded my complaint to Gambling Federation's management. They claim that the situation is resolved--that I had my deposits refunded and that the case is closed. This case is NOT closed. And Bryan, I hope that you do not consider it closed either. You cannot let them get away with taking advantage of their players. I have enlisted the help of others in the online gaming world to help me get my winnings and I will not stop until I am paid or until the entire online gambling community understands what kind of a sham the entire Gambling Federation is. Again, I urge all online gamblers to COMPLETELY AVOID all GAMBLING FEDERATION CASINOS. THEY DO NOT PAY THEIR WINNERS. And until I am paid what I am owed everyone will hear about it.

-Christopher

 

[caruso]

Glad to see you're sticking with this, Cristopher.

Which show are you reverring to? I can't believe Fogli and Paschini dared show their dirty faces at the CAC event, though they were with the GPWA folk. If I'd known your contact was going to buttonhole them their I'd have made a point of doing so myself as well. As it was, I totally forgot about them.

You are in the right, and you should certainly continue persuing this.

 

[caruso]

Already mentioned, but I'm updating this thread as it relates specifically to this issue.

Gambling Federation now blacklisted by Michael Shakelford, the "Wizard Of Odds".

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The first reason is non-payment of winnings. In May 2005 A player by the initials CB opened accounts at 10 Gambling Federation casinos in the same day, all with the same bonus, and played them all in rapid succession. He had large wins at two of them, for a large overall net win. The Gambling Federation refunded all ten deposits for the reason he was clearly a bonus abuser. It is a long story but in the end they site (sic) the following rule as reason enough not to pay, although other reasons were originally disputed, "The Casino management reserves the right to withhold any funds if it suspects any foul play or manipulation with the Casino. It is recognized and agreed to by the Player that, in the case of any discrepancy whatsoever, management's decision on all matters will be final." The screenshots below show the two wins that were never paid.

The reason I blame G-Fed, as opposed to just the two casinos shown above, is that the decision to not pay the winnings came from G-Fed and not individual casino management.

My own discussion about this matter with the Fogli boys can be read here in my G-Fed at ICE report, and the player posted about this outcome at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

 

[dominique]

I am going to blacklist them too.

How can a person follow a rule no one told them about?

 

[paul02085]

IMO, GF are pond scum in the online casino business. Does Cindy Carley still deal with them? She seemed to be the only one who could get anything done with them.

 

[chuchu59]

GF is being smart here by refunding all the 10 deposits and claim that the player is a bonus abuser and to a certain extent he seems to be one. If the deposits were only returned to the 2 accounts where he registered big wins, GF cannot make such claims. The fact that the player played at all the 10 casinos in rapid succession played right into their hands as they(GF) can say that they could not possibly detect bonus abuse in time for them to label this player as such before he made his deposits at so many casinos.

 

[dominique]

GF is being smart here by refunding all the 10 deposits and claim that the player is a bonus abuser and to a certain extent he seems to be one. If the deposits were only returned to the 2 accounts where he registered big wins, GF cannot make such claims. The fact that the player played at all the 10 casinos in rapid succession played right into their hands as they(GF) can say that they could not possibly detect bonus abuse in time for them to label this player as such before he made his deposits at so many casinos.

I don't agree. Playing at a number of casinos with the same software does not make one a bonus abuser.

Player finds new casino software. Plays, likes it, loses and decides to try the same software elsewhere for better luck. Wins sme, now really wants to try more.

I have played at a number of casinos with the same software on the same day. I don't even ever accept bonuses!

Just playing a number of casinos with the same software does not a bonus hunter make.

And it's the casinos responsiblty to let the player know that this is not acceptable.

 

[caruso]

I don't agree. Playing at a number of casinos with the same software does not make one a bonus abuser.

More than that: playing at a number of casinos with the same software does not make any one player less entitled to their winnings than another, whatever their "playing style". Whether they wagered 100 times their deposit on slots, or hit-and-ran at the roulette wheel, the only relevant consideration in paying them their winnings is 1) their respecting the terms and conditions and 2) the general legitimacy of their accounts, financial instruments etc. If those two considerations are in order they are owed - be they slot sucker or bonus hunter.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is the multi-account rule:

Player may only operate one active account at any time. Players opening multiple accounts without first voiding their existing account are subject to being excluded from the Casino with all wins forfeited. In order to void an account, Players must contact Customer Support.

This clearly refers to multi-accounts at ONE casino. There is NO restriction regarding multi-accounts accounts across the whole family.

We've also been discussing this at the Sucks board since I posted about it last week - it's as good a place as any for G-Fed talk as it's monitored reasonably closely by the GPWA, who have reasonable clout with Cousins Fogli.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You'll need register if you want to read the board.