Giantvegas & Royaldice stiffed me for over $7000

[henryVIII]

1. Its a DEPOSIT bonus. That they to chose to send an email after the deposit was made is, firstly, highly suggestive that they knew ther T & Cs were not as they wished. But most importantly, the terms stand for when the player deposited. To ammend them by email afterwards is obviously not on.

2. It doesnt say playing an excluded game was prohibited or would would lead to loss of funds. It could have done very easily. They chose not to. Therefore, the player should be paid.

It is not the players concern to try and guess or infer what the casino really means. That is just going too far in favour of the casino.

That is not to say the player hasnt tried to take advantage of the opportunity. i appreciate that.

But casinos MUST play by their own rules.

Why should the player always lose out for the casinos mistakes (English harbour, Mansion, Neptune's to name recent ones)?

 

[thelawnet]

The heck with the screenshots - or maybe I'm missing something, casperfix states from the beginning he played games that were not to be played - period.

That's not what you quoted here:

Casperfix admits these terms were there when he signed up:
Originally Posted by casperfix
When I played, the terms stated that Three Card Poker counted towards
the completion of the wagering requirements. The terms also stated
that roulette could be played but that it would not count toward the
wagering requirements. NOWHERE did the terms say that roulette could not be played!

The casinos sent me an email AFTER I made my deposits, indicating that
if I wished to play any exluded game I should notify them.

Have you msiread 'roulette could be played' for 'roulette could not be played?

'Roulette does not count towards the wagering requirements' is not the same thing as 'if you play roulette we will confiscate your money'.

Clearly, if they say 'don't play excluded games', then you don't play them.

But they didn't say that. They said they don't count towards the wagering.

Let's have a look at another casino, Golden Palace:

"By claiming this promotion, Craps, Roulette, Baccarat, or Sicbo can be played but will not count towards fulfilling your wagering requirement."

That's more explicit, but it's the same thing

(1) certain games don't count towards the wagering
(2) but you can still play them if you want

Unless they say 'xxx games do not count the wagering, and you are not allowed to play them at all', it's not reasonable for the casino to construe them as such.

 

[chuchu59]

As long as the terms and conditions do not forbid betting on roulette before wagering requirements are met, I do not think that the casino should deny the player's winnings. After all, he could have lost his whole bankroll without meeting a single dollar of WRs. It's his own decision. However, what really does need to be clarified is whether the terms were altered after Casperfix deposited. What did the Playtech dispute Team say on this and what was the casino's stand? The e-mail is really irrelevant because if it was different from what you read at their website, it's their mistake for not correcting it earlier whereas if it simply repeats what is originally there, you dont have a leg to stand on.

So Casperfix, can you kindly tell us what the responses from Playtech and the casinos were on the dates of amendment of the Ts and Cs?

 

[casperfix]

Iris Toledano from Playtech tried to help but it seems she has no power at Playtech. She stopped answering to my emails.



Iris Toledano <Iris@playtech.com> wrote:
Dear xxxx
This case have been forwarded to our legal department. I felt I needed their advice, as I was not sure the casinos decision was the right one.

I am away on a business trip this week. When I get back I will try to speed things up.

I am sorry it takes so long, I just want to be sure that we are doing the right thing here.

I thank you for you patience,
Iris Toledano

----------------------------------------------
iris toledano
marketing director, playtech
work: +972-3-613-9990 ext 126
mobile: +972-545-594-231
fax: +972-3-613-9989
icq: 91117065

 

[scrollock]

ALL I WANT IS THEM TO BE BLACKLISTED THEN THEY PAY ME.

if they've been balcklisted, why the fVck would they would want to pay you ?


2 things to say about your case

a) technically i agree your in the right

b) morally i dont


simple rule of life, if your going to take the pi$$, make sure it goes the drain first without compliants before you take the second one

 

[casperfix]

Scrollock, It was a stupid note of mine because I was mad(the black list quote). Of course the first thing to do is to try to solve things without the forums.

Just to let you know, I had been waiting more than a year (this no pay is from June last year) before I went to the forum.

By that time I sent 41 emails(Just finished to count) trying to solve this issue without forums.

It seems that the Casinomeister and other has other important issues of no pay without bonuses so I had no choice but to come with it AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR to the forums.

 

[scrollock]

Scrollock, It was a stupid note of mine because I was mad(the black list quote). Of course the first thing to do is to try to solve things without the forums.

Just to let you know, I had been waiting more than a year (this no pay is from June last year) before I went to the forum.

By that time I sent 41 emails(Just finished to count) trying to solve this issue without forums.

It seems that the Casinomeister and other has other important issues of no pay without bonuses so I had no choice but to come with it AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR to the forums.

casperfix, without reading the thread again, i agree that you deserve being paid and if you give bryan enough time (if hes not quick, he is effective), i think you should be paid, however the point i made earlier and i hope you adhere to it from now on, is wait to you are paid from one before playing the other. beleieve me if someone is a bad payer then if you have a cash from them, you will have more than 2 times the job getting paid

 

[Casinomeister]

Casperfix, from what I have from you and the casino shows me that your intent was to try and get over on them. In your original PAB you stated, You see I took a screen shot of all of the terms because I have had problems in the past with online casinos not honoring their terms - okay red flag for me. I have been handling complaints from players for years. Most legitimate complaints come from players who have had misunderstandings with the T&Cs, or there are communication problems between them and the casino, or some other ONE TIME problem. When players have had multiple problems, then there is a red flag to consider.

Believe it or not, most players never have problems. And when they do, it's usually because of the above mentioned. There is clearly no misunderstanding on your part - you admitingly took screenshots anticipating a problem.

So that's mistake number one.

Mistake number two - there's another player who did the exact thing you did - took screen shots, played three card poker and roulette. Odd isn't it - do you know one another? This player doesn't seem to know you. I find this hard to believe.

I played for the first time at giant vegas and git a bonus of 200 for 200 deposit. I checked the terms of the bonus and played tri card and roulette. Roulette was mentioned as a game which doesnt contribute thru the wagering but nothing more, it didnt say you cant play roulette not for the wagering. i completed the rollover in Poker Three or tri card as required.The casino refuse to pay claiming they sent an email after the first deposit was made, an automated email which said that roulette is not allowed to play. First I havent found any email stating that but even if yes there are terms in the website and right after you register you deposit and play and dont check your email.I have a screenshot of all pages of the terms and condition if needed

That sound familiar? Hmm, that's the other guy's complaint - not yours. But it's yours nearly word for word. And you deposited during the same time period.

Red flag number two.

And mistake number two - conspiring with other players to try and get over on a casino.

This is what you did:

Royal Dice

• The player deposited $200 on the 18th of June

• She was given a $200 Free Bonus + an additional $30 for utilizing an alternative form of payment = $230 Free Money

• This equates to 115% Bonus.

• She took the entire $430.00 and placed it on one outcome on the Roulette wheel

• She won $3,600.00

• She then immediately started to play Tens or Better Video Poker

• She did not play any other game and eventually ended up with a balance of $2,550.00 which incorporated our non redeemable bonus.

Giant Vegas

• The Player deposited $200 in Giant Vegas on the 18th of June

• She was given a $200 Free Bonus + an additional $30 for utilizing an alternative form of payment = $230 Free Money

• This equates to 115% Bonus.

• She took the entire $430.00 and placed it on one outcome on the Roulette wheel exactly as she did a few minutes earlier in Royal Dice

• She won $4,140.00

• She then immediately started to play Three Card Poker

• She did not play any other game and eventually ended up with a balance of $5,540.00 which incorporated our non redeemable bonus.

The casino had posted in their website "roulette did not count towards wagering requirements", and they emailed both you and your friend that if you were to play roulette, that you were to notify them ahead of time so they could REMOVE the bonus.

If you wish to play any of these excluded games, please contact support@giantvegas.com to have your bonus removed before playing these games (please include your Username in the email).

So what's the deal? The deal is that all indicators point at you trying to scam a casino in their eyes. Check out term from your screenshots #5:

The Casino reserves the right to review transaction records and logs from time to time, for any reason whatsoever. If upon such review, it appears that the player is participating in strategies that the casino in its sole discretion deems to be abusive, the casino reserves the right to revoke the entitlement of such player to the promotion.

I don't think they mean "abusive" black jack strategies but ways in which players use their bonus funds.

What you should have done is either a) NOT take a bonus and done the same play - bonuses are not obligatory. Personally, I rarely take them - and I've done good without them.

b) act like it was an honest mistake. Oops - didn't read the terms and conditions, could you please overlook this this one time. Oops - my server went down and I didn't receive your email. Oops, I temporarily lost my mind. Oops - that was roulette? You'd be surprised how often casinos forgive and forget - they want a loyal player base.

But when it is obvious to a casino that you are trying to get over on them - they'll invoke their "the casino reserves the right..." clause. If it's posted in their terms and conditions, then you've agreed to this statement.

It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that this was an intentional attempt on your part to either find a loophole or start splitting hairs. So they have invoked their "F.U" clause.

Let me make myself perfectly clear to everyone. If you try to scam over a casino, you won't get paid. Most casinos have some version of an F.U clause. When they choose to invoke this, that's their decision. The question that many of you have is probably, did they casino have enough reasons to invoke this.

Those of the bonus whoring persuasion would probably argue "this is rogue behaviour - how dare the casino invoke this clause!" Others may feel this is an understandable way to protect one's business.

Me? The amount of time I spend on crap cases like this mind blowing. This is absolutely stupid. Makes me question whether or not I should consider PABs that deal with bonuses. I've spent nearly the entire morning on this when I should be spending time on the relaunch - or dealing with other more important player issues.

 

[thelawnet]

Casperfix, from what I have from you and the casino shows me that your intent was to try and get over on them. In your original PAB you stated, You see I took a screen shot of all of the terms because I have had problems in the past with online casinos not honoring their terms - okay red flag for me. I have been handling complaints from players for years. Most legitimate complaints come from players who have had misunderstandings with the T&Cs, or there are communication problems between them and the casino, or some other ONE TIME problem. When players have had multiple problems, then there is a red flag to consider.

Believe it or not, most players never have problems. And when they do, it's usually because of the above mentioned. There is clearly no misunderstanding on your part - you admitingly took screenshots anticipating a problem.

So that's mistake number one.

Mistake number two - there's another player who did the exact thing you did - took screen shots, played three card poker and roulette. Odd isn't it - do you know one another? This player doesn't seem to know you. I find this hard to believe.



That sound familiar? Hmm, that's the other guy's complaint - not yours. But it's yours nearly word for word. And you deposited during the same time period.

Red flag number two.

And mistake number two - conspiring with other players to try and get over on a casino.

This is what you did:

Royal Dice

• The player deposited $200 on the 18th of June

• She was given a $200 Free Bonus + an additional $30 for utilizing an alternative form of payment = $230 Free Money

• This equates to 115% Bonus.

• She took the entire $430.00 and placed it on one outcome on the Roulette wheel

• She won $3,600.00

• She then immediately started to play Tens or Better Video Poker

• She did not play any other game and eventually ended up with a balance of $2,550.00 which incorporated our non redeemable bonus.

Giant Vegas

• The Player deposited $200 in Giant Vegas on the 18th of June

• She was given a $200 Free Bonus + an additional $30 for utilizing an alternative form of payment = $230 Free Money

• This equates to 115% Bonus.

• She took the entire $430.00 and placed it on one outcome on the Roulette wheel exactly as she did a few minutes earlier in Royal Dice

• She won $4,140.00

• She then immediately started to play Three Card Poker

• She did not play any other game and eventually ended up with a balance of $5,540.00 which incorporated our non redeemable bonus.

The casino had posted in their website "roulette did not count towards wagering requirements", and they emailed both you and your friend that if you were to play roulette, that you were to notify them ahead of time so they could REMOVE the bonus.

If you wish to play any of these excluded games, please contact support@giantvegas.com to have your bonus removed before playing these games (please include your Username in the email).

So what's the deal? The deal is that all indicators point at you trying to scam a casino in their eyes. Check out term from your screenshots #5:

The Casino reserves the right to review transaction records and logs from time to time, for any reason whatsoever. If upon such review, it appears that the player is participating in strategies that the casino in its sole discretion deems to be abusive, the casino reserves the right to revoke the entitlement of such player to the promotion.

I don't think they mean "abusive" black jack strategies but ways in which players use their bonus funds.

What you should have done is either a) NOT take a bonus and done the same play - bonuses are not obligatory. Personally, I rarely take them - and I've done good without them.

b) act like it was an honest mistake. Oops - didn't read the terms and conditions, could you please overlook this this one time. Oops - my server went down and I didn't receive your email. Oops, I temporarily lost my mind. Oops - that was roulette? You'd be surprised how often casinos forgive and forget - they want a loyal player base.

But when it is obvious to a casino that you are trying to get over on them - they'll invoke their "the casino reserves the right..." clause. If it's posted in their terms and conditions, then you've agreed to this statement.

It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that this was an intentional attempt on your part to either find a loophole or start splitting hairs. So they have invoked their "F.U" clause.

Let me make myself perfectly clear to everyone. If you try to scam over a casino, you won't get paid. Most casinos have some version of an F.U clause. When they choose to invoke this, that's their decision. The question that many of you have is probably, did they casino have enough reasons to invoke this.

Those of the bonus whoring persuasion would probably argue "this is rogue behaviour - how dare the casino invoke this clause!" Others may feel this is an understandable way to protect one's business.

Me? The amount of time I spend on crap cases like this mind blowing. This is absolutely stupid. Makes me question whether or not I should consider PABs that deal with bonuses. I've spent nearly the entire morning on this when I should be spending time on the relaunch - or dealing with other more important player issues.

I think you're a little harsh. Both players playing roulette and 3 card poker is similar but not proof of anything. One is in arixona and one in germany. I'm sure you've seen plenty of complaints here about players playing roulette for bonuses in the past. I'm sure you don't believe they are all the same guy.

And 3 card poker I guess was the game with the lowest edge that wasn't banned. So obviously they both would play that game.

Is there anything to connect them, other than their very standard wagering pattern?

As for taking screenshots, he's clearly a sharp operator, but that doesn't give the casino the right not to pay him does it? If I was going to do a strtegy that would win me several thousand I'd do it too. Just being a bit sharp is no crime - if it were, it would justify players charging back from the likes of cirrus, just because they are a bit sharp as well.

And do you really think its acceptable to post some of your terms on your website and some in an email the player might not read till several days later, but still rely on the email?

 

[Vesuvio]

Bryan, I understand this sort of thing's a pain in the neck for you, but you've gone way over the top. On the basic issue: if the casino did send out the e-mail saying you couldn't play excluded games then they've probably got themselves covered, though it's shoddy behaviour to have different terms on the website. As others have said, if a casino says a game won't count towards the wr that means just that - it won't count, but you're free to play it if you like.

There is clearly no misunderstanding on your part - you admitingly took screenshots anticipating a problem.

So that's mistake number one.

Come off it - everyone knows casinos, especially the dodgier variety, will wriggle out of paying players if they possibly can. Taking screenshots should be recommended to anyone playing at on-line casinos, as they're vital and you can't rely on the good faith of the casino. It's not like, for instance, opening a bank account in the UK, where you can be sure it's regulated and you'll have some options if it turns out a company's trying to scam you.

The Casino reserves the right to review transaction records and logs from time to time, for any reason whatsoever. If upon such review, it appears that the player is participating in strategies that the casino in its sole discretion deems to be abusive, the casino reserves the right to revoke the entitlement of such player to the promotion.”

I don't think they mean "abusive" black jack strategies but ways in which players use their bonus funds.

I can't believe you're actually quoting the catch-all terms. Players are free to use any possible strategy they can think of to wager at a casino. That's what they do. They try to win... call that "trying to get [one] over on the casino" if you like, but it doesn't turn it into fraud.

What is fraud is to accept all of a player's losing bets and then refuse to pay a winning one - which is the casino's neat scam here. All this is assuming the player doesn't have multiple accounts, isn't committing credit-card fraud, and so on - obviously in those cases the casino has some justification, but note it's absurd to say that just because players are using the same strategy they've got multiple accounts. Players share strategies for playing at casinos. Where's the big deal? (And most of the strategies shared cost them money, though you don't see the casinos complaining )

What you should have done is either a) NOT take a bonus and done the same play - bonuses are not obligatory. Personally, I rarely take them - and I've done good without them.

Again, let's not go into the realms of the absurd. If you play without bonuses at on-line casinos you'll lose the house edge over time. It's a mug's game. Do it for entertainment, if that works for you, but not to win.

b) act like it was an honest mistake. Oops - didn't read the terms and conditions, could you please overlook this this one time. Oops - my server went down and I didn't receive your email. Oops, I temporarily lost my mind. Oops - that was roulette? You'd be surprised how often casinos forgive and forget - they want a loyal player base.

I understand your approach on a tactical level, but there shouldn't be any need for players to act like idiots to get their money. Either they broke the terms and conditions (barring the rogue catch-all term) or they didn't.

But when it is obvious to a casino that you are trying to get over on them - they'll invoke their "the casino reserves the right..." clause. If it's posted in their terms and conditions, then you've agreed to this statement.

Again, casinos are there to get one over on players - players want to get one over on casinos. Most people don't have the aim of politely handing all their money over to the casino.

It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that this was an intentional attempt on your part to either find a loophole or start splitting hairs. So they have invoked their "F.U" clause.

If there's a loophole change the terms, don't steal the funds of anyone who exploits it.

 

[henryVIII]

Have I got this right?

The player has deviously enacted an effectively fraudulent and abusive strategy here.

He has quite brazenly :

1. Met every term and condition the casino has set
2. He has then very callously not played any games that were banned and only stuck to the games that the casino allowed to be played
3. Perhaps as a final insult to the casino, he has had the nerve to actually end up winning even thought the casino has had a house edge on every game played.

I have to say the "follow up" email is irrelevent. It was sent after he signed up and how many times do we have casinos saying "we sent you an email but maybe your firewall blocked it" as a response to queries. Now this casino assumes all emails are not only recieved but that players stop playing and check their inbox periodically to see if the terms have changed!!! Unbelievable.

I would also say that, in my opinion, when playing in a manner which maximises your probability of ending up winning equates to abuse then I cant agree.

Also, that the "F.U." clause is undefendable. We are not dealing in games with infinite probabilities/outcomes ... the casino must shape its clauses and terms so that they do reflect reality. That is what will and wont happen ... we are not dealing with any infinites here. Its a controlled environment. Its not hard or too much to expect is it?

This discretionary leniency for casinos to override the terms is not on. You would think they are some friendly neighbourhood casino trying to earn a crust. They arent, they are a dollars and cents business.

Isnt a "good" player one who never loses sight of probabilities, etc? I know casinos dont ... they base their businesses on such a fact (not on "having fun" or "getting lucky" but cold hard maths).

That said, i do understand Bryan's own annoyance. If the guy (girl?) had been up front and said this is what i did and this is why there is probably a problem it would have saved everyone a lot of time here.

If I was him, id be pissed off at the "Im just a regular guy and the casino has gone crazy on me" bleating.

So, while I think the casino have cocked up their terms and conditions (why else send emails after the event) as they dont cover such blind spots, I personally couldnt care less if the player is paid or not.

Case closed. (for me anyway)

 

[Casinomeister]

Well it seems you all are shooting the messenger. I'm explaining to you the realities of dealing with online casinos. And please don't treat me or the other members here like idiots - you know damn well these players tried to get over on the casino - it's clear as day. And I never said it was the same person - I pointed out that there are two (mind you only two) complaints that are identical.

Yoo hoo! Wake up and smell the coffee - nearly all casinos have F.U. clauses. If you don't like it - well, might as well take up tiddly winks. there aren't many casinos that don't have these clauses. When they choose to implement them, that's strictly subjective. We - as in the gaming community - hope they do this with discretion.

Lasseters Online reserves the right to review a player's transaction record. If, upon review, it appears that a player is participating in strategies, which Lasseters Online deem to be abusive, we reserve the right to revoke any such bonus payments to the player and unsubscribe them from the mailing list.

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

Non-compliance with the above terms and conditions shall be deemed to be promotion abuse and as such will give iNetBet Management the right at its sole discretion to take the following action against such abusers. All balances/cashouts shall be considered null and void. Abusing player accounts may be terminated with immediate effect. Players found to be abusing promotions may be precluded from receiving further promotional offers at the casino.

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

All winnings on any account/s opened will be null and void and all withdrawals will be cancelled where play has been deemed abusive.

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

That's three top casinos that I'm sure most of us agree are in the major leagues when it comes with dealing with their players. How often have they implemented this policy? I don't know, but it's there - and it's something everyone should be aware of.

Lesson learned: don't try pulling stunts like these two players and expect not to be nailed.

And let me place it in big bold letters so you understand what I am saying: I'm explaining why the casino chose to revoke the players' winnings. I'm explaining to you that this casino decided - based on the evidence at hand - that they were invoking the F.U. clause. I have explained what the red flags were and what raised suspicion. I thought I was doing some of you a favor.

Some of you need to be more diligent in reading my posts.

And don't bitch at me because you don't like it. Go bitch to the casino, their affiliates, their software provider, their licensing agency, ISP, whatever. I'm just explaining to you what happened.

 

[Vesuvio]

Well it seems you all are shooting the messenger. I'm explaining to you the realities of dealing with online casinos. And please don't treat me or the other members here like idiots - you know damn well these players tried to get over on the casino - it's clear as day. And I never said it was the same person - I pointed out that there are two (mind you only two) complaints that are identical.

No-one's being treated like an idiot. I just don't see what's wrong with a player trying to use a bonus to their advantage (that's their selling point, isn't it?). You've said it yourself before - casinos have to accept that players will do everything they can, within the specific terms and conditions, to win. If you offer a bonus that tempts the player to deposit and win, and the player deposits and wins, you have to pay him. After that you can ban him from future play or burn his effigy on a pyre at Halloween. If you deny winnings it's rogue behaviour.

Yoo hoo! Wake up and smell the coffee - nearly all casinos have F.U. clauses. If you don't like it - well, might as well take up tiddly winks. there aren't many casinos that don't have these clauses. When they choose to implement them, that's strictly subjective. We - as in the gaming community - hope they do this with discretion.

What's disappointing here is that you're back-tracking on your previous position, Bryan. Yes, these clauses exist, but casinos that implement them when all the other terms have been met must be considered rogue. It's not acceptable, but that's about all we can do as a community. If you're not going to uphold that principle, and eCOGRA certainly don't look as though they're going to, then it should simply be stated loud and clear: NO-ONE SHOULD EVER PLAY AT AN ON-LINE CASINO. Any political moves to ban or make life difficult for on-line casinos should be supported, as players have absolutely no assurance of a fair deal.

And let me place it in big bold letters so you understand what I am saying: I'm explaining why the casino chose to revoke the players' winnings. I'm explaining to you that this casino decided - based on the evidence at hand - that they were invoking the F.U. clause. I have explained what the red flags were and what raised suspicion. I thought I was doing some of you a favor.

Now this is treating us all as idiots. Everyone knows why the casino thinks they might get away with wriggling out of payment. The job of the player community should be to let the casinos realise there are at least some consequences in terms of publicity if they go ahead and do that.

 

[henryVIII]

Well it seems you all are shooting the messenger. I'm explaining to you the realities of dealing with online casinos. And please don't treat me or the other members here like idiots - you know damn well these players tried to get over on the casino - it's clear as day. And I never said it was the same person - I pointed out that there are two (mind you only two) complaints that are identical.

Yoo hoo! Wake up and smell the coffee - nearly all casinos have F.U. clauses. If you don't like it - well, might as well take up tiddly winks. there aren't many casinos that don't have these clauses. When they choose to implement them, that's strictly subjective. We - as in the gaming community - hope they do this with discretion.

Lasseters Online reserves the right to review a player's transaction record. If, upon review, it appears that a player is participating in strategies, which Lasseters Online deem to be abusive, we reserve the right to revoke any such bonus payments to the player and unsubscribe them from the mailing list.

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

Non-compliance with the above terms and conditions shall be deemed to be promotion abuse and as such will give iNetBet Management the right at its sole discretion to take the following action against such abusers. All balances/cashouts shall be considered null and void. Abusing player accounts may be terminated with immediate effect. Players found to be abusing promotions may be precluded from receiving further promotional offers at the casino.

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

All winnings on any account/s opened will be null and void and all withdrawals will be cancelled where play has been deemed abusive.

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

That's three top casinos that I'm sure most of us agree are in the major leagues when it comes with dealing with their players. How often have they implemented this policy? I don't know, but it's there - and it's something everyone should be aware of.

Lesson learned: don't try pulling stunts like these two players and expect not to be nailed.

And let me place it in big bold letters so you understand what I am saying: I'm explaining why the casino chose to revoke the players' winnings. I'm explaining to you that this casino decided - based on the evidence at hand - that they were invoking the F.U. clause. I have explained what the red flags were and what raised suspicion. I thought I was doing some of you a favor.

Some of you need to be more diligent in reading my posts.

And don't bitch at me because you don't like it. Go bitch to the casino, their affiliates, their software provider, their licensing agency, ISP, whatever. I'm just explaining to you what happened.

OK, Im confused.

Youre first post was all over the player nailing him as an abuser, etc. Quite right the casino stiffed you, etc.

Now you seem to say 'of course the casino is wrong but what can you do?, life sucks, etc.'

Which is it?

Also, despite this, you say you are just the messenger but (as the now locked English Harbour thread showed) its a fine line between 'being the messenger' and 'being the apologist'. By which i mean either you think what you aptly call the 'F.U.' clause is wrong or its right. Its the tone of "its wrong, but fair enough they use it" bit which seems to contradict.

Do you think such a clause is right or wrong?

 

[Casinomeister]

OK, Im confused.

Youre first post was all over the player nailing him as an abuser, etc. Quite right the casino stiffed you, etc.

Now you seem to say 'of course the casino is wrong but what can you do?, life sucks, etc.'

Which is it?

Also, despite this, you say you are just the messenger but (as the now locked English Harbour thread showed) its a fine line between 'being the messenger' and 'being the apologist'.

Get a grip - I locked the EH thread because there wasn't anything new to add about that incident. If someone had posted a glowing drippy-ass report on how fantastic EH software is, I would have locked it as well. It's called forum management. To bump up threads is not condoned in most forums - including this one. Why? because it makes these threads too huge to manage. If I want to refer someone to the thread, they'll never read the entire thing.

Please be my guest and start a new thread. Simple as that.

And lest we forget, EH has been in Casinomeister's rogue section for some time now. An Apologists? I don't think so.

And pertaining to this issue, I wasn't all over this player. You'd know it if I was.

No-one's being treated like an idiot. I just don't see what's wrong with a player trying to use a bonus to their advantage (that's their selling point, isn't it?). You've said it yourself before - casinos have to accept that players will do everything they can, within the specific terms and conditions, to win. If you offer a bonus that tempts the player to deposit and win, and the player deposits and wins, you have to pay him. After that you can ban him from future play or burn his effigy on a pyre at Halloween. If you deny winnings it's rogue behaviour.

Yes, but as it was made clear - roulette was not a game that counted towards the wagering requirements. And this is where one runs into a problem. We can debate until the cows come home whether or not the casino should pay a player because the language didn't explicitly state that playing roulette voids winnings. This is not a case where a player has played a game that was not mentioned before as being disallowed (retroactive), or someone who has been pounding the casino's bonuses, and the casino locked them out. As far as I can tell, the player knowingly played a game that was disallowed/not counting/forbidden/whatever. The player knew this and tried to take a chance at splitting hairs on how the terms were written. The player also was sent an email stating that if you were to play these games, to notify the casino. Does the email count? That's debatable.

What's disappointing here is that you're back-tracking on your previous position, Bryan. Yes, these clauses exist, but casinos that implement them when all the other terms have been met must be considered rogue. It's not acceptable, but that's about all we can do as a community. If you're not going to uphold that principle, and eCOGRA certainly don't look as though they're going to, then it should simply be stated loud and clear: NO-ONE SHOULD EVER PLAY AT AN ON-LINE CASINO. Any political moves to ban or make life difficult for on-line casinos should be supported, as players have absolutely no assurance of a fair deal.

You're not being fair here. I'm not backtracking on any position; I'm telling you why this happened. For me to take a hard line stance on this, this situation needs to be much more concrete.

Now this is treating us all as idiots. Everyone knows why the casino thinks they might get away with wriggling out of payment. The job of the player community should be to let the casinos realise there are at least some consequences in terms of publicity if they go ahead and do that.

Sorry, I disagree that I'm treating some of you like idiots. But there are two sides of every coin, and some of you are failing to see this. I'm (again) trying to be as fair as possible concerning this issue. But no one has really convinced me why these players should be paid.

So convince me...

 

[henryVIII]

As far as I can tell, the player knowingly played a game that was disallowed/not counting/forbidden/whatever. ..

I cant believe this .. its not a smudgey issue. There is no hairs to be split.

To disallow a game is 100% different to forbidding a game. That is as clear as day.

The choices are that they can have a game which is disallowed but playable, which is both playable and allowed or is both disallowed and forbidden.

It is that simple.

By their own terms they chose disallowed but playble. No splitting hairs there. Its a fact.

As has already been shown, many casino manage to get their heads rounds this (to be honest) pretty bloody simple issue painlessly.

"Until the WR of any bonus is cleared, playing roulette is forbidden"

Its that easy.

They chose not to.

So, either they correctly stated they dont mind if you play roulette or they didnt bother to prepare correct terms and conditions.

Personally, I think they didnt like the terms they had the player agree to. Hence the need for a 'supplementary' email after the agreement has been made.

The real choker is that, if I understand you correctly, they can use what you call the "F.U." clause and basically override the agreed terms.

In which case, why not get rid of the terms all together and leave the "F.U." clause as the only one as makes a complete joke of us players reading and agreeing to terms which they then annul as they choose.

Can I ask again, do you think the "F.U." clause is right or wrong?

Finally, can I just reiterate that I agree with you that the player shouldnt be paid. Mainly because it would be as a result of using this forum when he/she has been less than honest and has clearly wasted your own time needlessly finding out things they already knew but withheld.

 

[Casinomeister]

Just one more thing, imagine signing up at a casino you felt might be dodgy (why make the screen shots then). You get the bonus - and it clearly says roulette does not count towards the WR.

For those of you that are being so quick in slamming me, answer me this.
Yes or no: would you have played roulette?

Yes or no: would you have contacted the casino before playing roulette?

 

[Vesuvio]

Yes, but as it was made clear - roulette was not a game that counted towards the wagering requirements. And this is where one runs into a problem. We can debate until the cows come home whether or not the casino should pay a player because the language didn't explicitly state that playing roulette voids winnings.

If a game doesn't count towards the wagering requirements it simply means that. It doesn't count. You play it and the wagering needed doesn't decrease. That's the logical meaning, and the way it's always worked at on-line casinos. If they want to make it so that playing the game forfeits winnings then they have to include that in the terms.

You're not being fair here. I'm not backtracking on any position; I'm telling you why this happened. For me to take a hard line stance on this, this situation needs to be much more concrete.

I accept you might need a slightly clearer case to go the extra mile to get these guys their money, but what is backtracking is to say that it's ok for casinos to ever invoke the "F.U." clause when all their other terms have been met. It's not, and I'm pretty sure you've said it's not on here before.

I'm (again) trying to be as fair as possible concerning this issue. But no one has really convinced me why these players should be paid.

So convince me...

I'm not particularly objecting to your decision on this issue, just the grounds on which you're making it (accepting the "anything goes" clause).

If you say you believe they broke the other terms (that roulette was a game that forfeits the wagering), I disagree with you (as above), but it's a judgement call. What clouds this case for me is the e-mail that might or might not have been sent (or received) containing different terms. That strikes me as insufficient to withhold payment (and an underhand tactic), but I can see some might disagree.

 

[winbig]

I think they were planning on invoking the FU clause to *anyone* that played a game (and profited) in the "Doesn't count towards WR" list. That way they can automatically sieze funds by saying their play was suspicious and/or abusive.


In answer to your question, no, I wouldn't have emailed the casino. Why would there be a reason to? It wasn't listed in the excluded games at the time he played, per his screenshot.

Edit: They allowed the game to be played with a bonus, so they should accept it, plain and simple. If they didn't want people to be playing roulette, it should have been in the terms on the website at the time he deposited and played. Whatever terms are on the website should be adhered to. Emails get lost, go unread, get filtered to the spam folder or caught in a filter and automatically deleted, etc; so even if there was one sent with different terms, I don't see how they can be enforced.

Edit: Above all, how can a player be responsible for them changing the terms *after* he deposited and accepted the bonus? If you ask me, whatever terms are in place at the time of accepting it should be the ones that need to be followed. What gives them the right to apply new terms retroactively?

 

[Vesuvio]

Just one more thing, imagine signing up at a casino you felt might be dodgy (why make the screen shots then). You get the bonus - and it clearly says roulette does not count towards the WR.

For those of you that are being so quick in slamming me, answer me this.
Yes or no: would you have played roulette?

If I thought that was the best game to play, then yes. In practice, no, as I wouldn't want that much variance.

Yes or no: would you have contacted the casino before playing roulette?

I'd never contact an on-line casino to ask about games to play. I take their terms and conditions as laying down the law - and I'll take the risk of having to go to some form of arbitration to enforce those terms.

I still think you're confusing two things here. As an arbitrator you should only be interested in whether the players met the terms and conditions (excluding the "catch-all" term - if you take that seriously the casinos can do what they like and there's no point in watchdogs, eCOGRA or any pretense of regulation). If they did, they should be paid. If they didn't, they shouldn't.

Given the nature of this forum it's fine to give an opinion on players' tactics, but that shouldn't have any influence on the position you take in your professional role (in an ideal world ), though obviously as you're doing this voluntarily it's up to you if you want to help out or not. If an organisation like eCOGRA had any teeth (or objectivity) that would be a better solution, as they'd be contractually obliged to deal with a case, whatever their opinion of the players might be.

 

[henryVIII]

Just one more thing, imagine signing up at a casino you felt might be dodgy (why make the screen shots then). You get the bonus - and it clearly says roulette does not count towards the WR.

For those of you that are being so quick in slamming me, answer me this.
Yes or no: would you have played roulette?

Yes or no: would you have contacted the casino before playing roulette?

Personally, i dont play that tactic. I dont like stickies and never had so i have never hasd this choice.

However, if I did, then yes i would have to say (if I chose) i would play roulette and I would expect to be paid.

The reason for this decision would be that both both parties had agreed to this being acceptable.

And therefore, as gambling is essentially a battle of probabilities, I would factor this into my play.

That said, I apologise if you think i have been slamming you. Im not ... actually, I think the lack of sympathy for this particular player has allowed quite a good 'academic' debate on the wider issues.

Remember, im just a player, i dont have your experience on both sides of the fence. But just this smoke and mirrors stuff is probably why online gambling has a reputation slightly below timeshare home sellers or injury compensation lawyers. And why your role is much needed to denounce it.

And, FINALLY, can i slide even further off the fence and say that I do not want this player to be paid because of this.

I think his (her?) whole demeanour has been shifty from the start and I can understand how bad will has maybe led the casino to hardball them.

In principle, they are wrong but (rather like seeing two drunks fighting in the street) I couldnt care who ends up the winner. Just the principles we agree are fair is the real issue.

 

[Simmo!]

Whether the player should/shouldn't be paid I make no comment. However what is sad is that every time an incident like this crops up, bonuses get tightened even more for the legitimate players

 

[mitch]

Ah..., legalities, technicalities, principles, morality etc.

How do you weave all this together in this tale.

Casperfix is probably technically correct assuming he is telling the truth about the T&Cs on the website.

However, the casino would probably claim they are legally correct due to the self same catch-all T&C also on the website and applied to a situation many people would consider to be abusive from a morality point of view.

Casinos aren't the only business's to have catch-all get out clauses such as 'we accept no liability' etc.They can be challenged however on reasonableness grounds depending on the situation.

Lets be honest, players like Casperfix have harmed the general gaming community over time with their gross, obvious and greedy play. Not being content to play with a reasonable advantage they have to come up with the most extravagant techniques to get every last penny from the casinos.

Casinos respond with reduced offers and complicated terms that hit and confuse the ordinary punter. Doesn't affect players like Casperfix as they are very savvy and aren't going to make mistakes, they just move on.

I remember many many years ago at a football match me and my mate deliberately went and stood right behind the goals at the home supporters 'end' right amongst the home supporters and started chanting for our team (done for bravado!).
Now we were perfectly entitled to do so both technically and legally. However, the home supporters had a well known FU clause which went 'any away supporters standing here are totally fucked'!

Not surprisingly there was a 'bit of a ruck'!!

Now would anybody defend our legally and technically correct behaviour?
Or would you say "you knew the score so don't complain when you got what was coming".

I would say the same to Casperfix!

Mitch

 

[thechap]

I find it quite sickened that you refuse to condemn this casino casinomeister. If no terms (bar the FU) term have been broken this guy should be paid - it's as simple as that.

So what if he used a winning strategy, I bet you every single player on your forum trieds to use winning strategies. Infact I guarentee it, who would play to lose money, it's totally idiotic to think they would.

Ok granted some peoples strategies are cunning and well worked out, playing the games with the lowest edge to try and gain a calculated statistic edge, others play bad strategies like martingale, sweeper systems, changing tables, waiting until an outcome has happened 5 times in a row, only playing when they're feeling lucky.

So some people have clever systems and some don't, your stance to allow casinos to only punish the susceptible kind of reminds me of con men that only bother dealing ripping off old ladies. Their attitude is why bother dealing with some wiley guy who knows his house isn't falling to bits, pick on the weak old lady who's likely to blow her life savings.

Casinos are a business, if they can't get their fingers out and write watertight rules then they deserve to be punished. In industry if somebody developed a great new product, but didn't write a decent patent, their competitors would punish them, what's the difference in this situation? If they cant write legitiment watertight terms that cover their arses then they should suffer.

 

[Casinomeister]

In principle, they are wrong but (rather like seeing two drunks fighting in the street) I couldnt care who ends up the winner. Just the principles we agree are fair is the real issue.

I like that analogy - two drunks fighting in the street.

If this player made the mistake of playing the wrong game, thinking that it was ok to play roulette and it simply wouldn't count towards the wagering requirements, I would argue for the player. Hell, I've done that before on a number of occassions. But this was no mistake. The player made one single bet, won, and moved on. And she did the same at the other casino. And her friend (friend: an educated guess on my part) does the exact same thing. So it's pretty clear there was no mistake - the game was intentionally played. If this was player error, it would be relatively easy to have the casino deal with this in a manner that would make these players happy.

The "escape clause" term was there when they signed up. If it was NOT there, again it would be easier to argue for the player. But when these players signed up, they agreed to this term. Term #5.

So what am I expected to do? Rule in favor of players who knew that they were breaking one of the terms and conditions? Should we be selective and disregard #5?

Or should we take this as a learning experience? Both players and casinos need to look at this and smarten up.

However what is sad is that every time an incident like this crops up, bonuses get tightened even more for the legitimate players

This is one of the reasons I don't bother with them.

Casinos aren't the only business's to have catch-all get out clauses such as 'we accept no liability' etc. They can be challenged however on reasonableness grounds depending on the situation.

Exactly. This situation illustrates intent to scam. If the players had made an honest mistake, I would have challenged it.