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. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | 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!

GRAND VIRTUAL: recent resolution of an old issue

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by caruso, Oct 18, 2005.

    Oct 18, 2005
  1. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    In mid-2001 I notched up the grand total of $102 winnings at one of the Grand Virtual clones, Casino Glamour.

    The casino messed me around for several weeks before definitively confiscating the money, claiming I was playing from a "barred partner" - apparently meaning an affiliate they didn't like for one reason or another. This in spite of the fact that no previous communication regarding the cashout made any mention of any ineligibility on my part to the winnings.

    Grand Virtual recently underwent a complete management change, and the new marketing manager, Jennifer, offered to look into and sort out my issue - see the Kahnawake thread.

    No information was available, beyond that which I'd provided, about the old GV's reasons for confiscating the money, so yesterday Jennifer took my account details and paid the missing $102 to my Neteller account.

    I'd like to thank Jennifer and the new Grand Virtual folk for stepping up to the plate on behalf of the old owners and settling my only outstanding unpaid casino debt. It's nice to have a hundred percent payment record again, particularly since I lost it four and a half years ago in just my second month of online gambling.
     
  2. Oct 18, 2005
  3. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    Good going. Glad to see that one put to rest.
     
  4. Oct 19, 2005
  5. amandajm

    amandajm Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    Watch
    Location:
    London
    The old Grand Virtual was a heaving mess of clones fighting each other for business. One was encouraged to open an account at them all, throw in as many $1 deposits as possible and hope the software gave a bonus.

    A software update and a rule change put a stop to that. The firm were okay by me.

    Then there was the links with Elka/ecashservices and Caruso's complaint which added up to rogue status.

    I am glad to say for me personally, the Grand Virtual firm are now unrogued because they have paid Caruso up and are not connected to Elka according to the lady Jennifer.

    # Hey Bryan ~ the old system of random bonuses possible on any deposit with no playthrough meant those casinos were let's say - quite busy. Maybe it cost them money, but I bet they have quite a database of European gamblers to show for it (us + canada were barred by the software).
     
  6. Oct 19, 2005
  7. thelawnet

    thelawnet Dormant account

    Occupation:
    programmer
    Location:
    UK

    That is good news.

    So often rogue casinos claim to have redeemed themselves but never pay back the old customers - 'we ripped people off before, but we're not doing it any more, so it's ok'. There are a few prime examples of this.

    So it's nice to see you got paid for a change.

    Very cheap PR for the casino too I think, $102 not $1020 or $10,200.

    I'm sure they will get several new players as a result, which is worth well more than the $102 they owe.
     
  8. Oct 19, 2005
  9. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    Yes, and this is a VERY important particular - the relatively new restriction of only ONE bonus acrooss ALL GV casinos:

    I would also like to see this rule more prominently displayed - you have to click four links to get to it from the bonus advert link, which is three too many for my liking - there should be a "bonus rules" link in proximity to the bonus ad itself.

    These "one bonus per casino family" rules are a nightmare for the player because the clause itself is invariably buried deep within the rules, and many clicks deep.

    Casinos insist that players play bonses for "entertainment only", then stick the rules that state the fact in a place finding the location of which requires a degree in accountancy.

    So it's hardly surprising that accountants are the only ones who end up playing. But then, the casino gets pissed off because they're getting the accountants and not the "entertainment" players, conveniently forgetting that the only people who can locate and understand the terms are accountants, scientists and mathematicians, and that they wrote the terms themselves and placed them there.

    I'd like to see that "bonus rules" link a bit closer to hand.
     
  10. Oct 19, 2005
  11. spearmaster

    spearmaster RIP Ted

    Occupation:
    Devil's Advocate
    Location:
    Heaven
    As far as I can recall, this has always been the policy at GV-powered casinos.

    Kudos for stepping up to the plate, Jennifer.
     
  12. Oct 19, 2005
  13. thetest32

    thetest32 Non-Gambler

    I have to say that I never had any problems with the GV casinos - in fact for a while (year or so) I played just at GV ones. They always seemed very, very fair. For example, I once did a big $50 bet on Stud Poker. Three queens and a dealer qualification game me $500. Similarly, some big bets on BJ used to win.

    That was when they were on the old software though (with the MIDI file background tunes?? Anyone remember?!). Actually, I did see their newer software recently though. Have to say I don't like it as much as the old noddy versions!!

    B.
     

Share This Page