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)
xxxhttp://www.gpwa.net/forum/showthread.php?t=164272&page=1&pp=10
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)
xxxhttp://www.gpwa.net/forum/showthread.php?t=164272&page=1&pp=10
