They labeled me a serious bonus abuser without any reason. Didn't even get a chance to deposit.
Them saying they have enough material to back the accusations up would probably mean Playtech's network wide bonus ban/ listings...sorry, Integra, probably a false positive cause those Playtech listings are total bs.
Well, this is interesting in itself. This is a NEW casino, and has no sister sites. They MUST have received this information from a "Playtech bonus abuser blacklist", there is no other logical explanation.
Playtech have always denied the existence of any such blacklist, but the language they have used is slightly vague in that they don't say no such list exists, but that "Playtech do not operate such a blacklist", leaving open the possibilty that a subsidiary organisation has been created to operate such a list "at arm's length" from Playtech, so that Playtech have "deniabilty" when accused of operating an "abuser" list that shares information between all Playtech operators.
I would speculate that this list is operated by the same outfit in the Phillipines that every player who is placed under extra scrutiny is asked to "post notarised copies of...." to. It seems everyone assumed these were Playtech's own offices, but it turns out this company is "nothing to do with Playtech" other than it provides "security" services for all Playtech operated casinos.
The rep has decided to LIBEL Max & Bryan over at GPWA by trying to make it seem that Bryan rogued them without allowing them any opportunty to put their side to him.
This may have been as a result of a number of webmasters over at GPWA posting that they have decided to pull their Grand Duke banners over this issue, something that started when the bogus "system" excuse was revealed, and BEFORE the roguing.
They have also libeled the OP by stating that this was an "abusive player" they were dealing with, and implying that they have lied here in order to get Bryan to rogue the casino.
Unfortunately, their choice of excuse cannot be denied, and this has not entirely worked for them, even at the GPWA.
Webmasters are STILL saying that despite what the operator is saying, the fact that they used this "system" argument over online Blackjack to void winnings, rather than a "spirit of bonus" or "abuse" argument, means that they are STILL concerned that players they refer will suffer similar treatment if they just happen to hit a lucky streak, and clearly they don't want their websites to suffer a bad rep for promoting the casino.
Grand Duke are being challenged to disclose the REAL reason behind this decision, but if they do this in order to appease the webmasters, they will have to admit that they LIED to the player in the first place, and it was merely a case of "didn't want to pay" an unusually lucky player so early on, and before they had made enough money from them.
This may just turn out to be a badly designed promo (they are new), and they are trying to limit the cost of their poor planning by finding reasons not to pay players, rather than because they are aware that the software is vulnerable to "systems".
