greasemonkey VS Club Worlds Alladin's Gold

[Brooklyn]

This is going to be an interesting thread. :eat:

I am curious to see how this turns out myself..

 

[greasemonkey]

This is going to be an interesting thread. :eat:

@ Mr Grease Monkey: I hope you are correct.

stop hoping. I just AM correct. Period. I haven't even been playing online as long as they claim here.. 2007? nope (did they have different names back then or diff software or anything?). 2009? heck no I didn't have a deposit method until this calendar year. I no nothing about some of these casinos they listed so....... relax, I am sure it will all come out in the wash soon and hopefully I at least get an apology or name clearing post of some sort.

 

[maxd]

So you are telling me that you have no accounts at the following casinos:....

Buckle up folks, I believe we are heading into the 'bonus round'. oke:

 

[Casinomeister]

stop hoping. I just AM correct. Period. I haven't even been playing online as long as they claim here.. 2007? nope (did they have different names back then or diff software or anything?). 2009? heck no I didn't have a deposit method until this calendar year. I no nothing about some of these casinos they listed so....... relax, I am sure it will all come out in the wash soon and hopefully I at least get an apology or name clearing post of some sort.

Could you please provide me with your user name at the casino - feel free to PM this to me. Thanks!

 

[greasemonkey]

Could you please provide me with your user name at the casino - feel free to PM this to me. Thanks!

It has been sent now to you via PM. Thank you.

 

[Casinomeister]

Okay, I've just got off the phone with Club World, they had confused Greasemonkey's complaint with an ongoing PAB (where the guy has accounts at all properties). They thought it was a UK player who had an issue - but I corrected them indicating that Greasemonkey is in the States.

So yes, Greasemonkey you are owed an apology - the casino said they'll be contacting you privately to make amends.

This goes to prove everybody can make mistakes.

Now where were we? Ah yes, subjective language, no?

 

[Casinomeister]

...when you find that I am completely correct you can buy me a nice phat German beer

PM me your address and I'll see what I can do (if you're 21 or older)

 

[vinylweatherman]

Okay, I've just got off the phone with Club World, they had confused Greasemonkey's complaint with an ongoing PAB (where the guy has accounts at all properties). They thought it was a UK player who had an issue - but I corrected them indicating that Greasemonkey is in the States.

So yes, Greasemonkey you are owed an apology - the casino said they'll be contacting you privately to make amends.

This goes to prove everybody can make mistakes.

Now where were we? Ah yes, subjective language, no?

So, why did Greasemonkey have to go to such extreme lengths to get his name cleared, didn't the casino make this BASIC of checks of country of residence before preaching their gospel that Greasemoney was guilty as charged, and punished as fit.

Everybody makes mistakes, so casinos should NOT assume they got it right, and summarily dismiss any protestations of innocence.


Now, the question is whether the fact that Greasemonkey was NOT the player who had accounts at the other properties makes any difference to the determination that his play at Aladins was deemed abusive.

Has MY "bonus ban" there been down to a similar kind of mix-up between my account, and that of a different player.

 

[maphesto]

Does that mean that every detail in this issue is solved? Was all things from the first post a misunderstanding from the casino?

No bait and switch? Betsize limits?

 

[clubworld]

The mistake here was informing Bryan that Greasemonkey held accounts with other casinos in the group when in fact he does not. Unfortunately we got our wires crossed with another outstanding issue and I do sincerely apologise for the error.

Kind Regards
Tom

 

[Kenny Lingus]

What difference would it make if Greasemonkey did have accounts at the sister casinos?

I do not see how that fact, if it had been true, would make any difference in regards to the casino's stance, pro or con.

 

[slotjunkie]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!!!!!!

STOP!!!

This is WROOOOOOONG my friends. Something is definitely "up" here alright.

Yeah, Bryan, I CAN swear to it and I WILL swear to it!!

How could I have played in 2009? I didn't even have an EWX account opened until 2010 1st of all. How could I------ Wait,

-------no, you know what?!!? I am not going to go into all of the obvious reasons that this is just totally incorrect. Lets do this instead, lets say that I will send you my ID and whatever you want for your proof and you compare it to whatever this casino group thinks that they have of mine and then when you find that I am completely correct you can buy me a nice phat German beer - how bout we do that? How about that I prove this is just totally false and I get a big beer and maybe a name clearing post here?!!?

I didnt name this thread CWC vs. greasemonkey - someone else did.. I did not do it because I didn't think that I was really "against" them. I mean, at least they did pay me. what I was attempting to do was warn others and bring to light the foulness of how I was treated there with bait & switch tactics.

and YES, it is bait n switch. They offered the signup then rescinded it halfway through. then they sent me an offer via email and would not honor it. They WOULD have let me deposit though!!! so they got me to the casino with a bonus offer then wouldnt honor it. PERIOD.

So, lets go do some more research here and find out that ol' greasemonkey hasn't lied, not even a little bit.

Some people are so fast to side with the casino Some of us are honest players(people)

 

[Tengil]

The mistake here was informing Bryan that Greasemonkey held accounts with other casinos in the group when in fact he does not. Unfortunately we got our wires crossed with another outstanding issue and I do sincerely apologise for the error.

Kind Regards
Tom

A picture that fits in well

 

[vinylweatherman]

The mistake here was informing Bryan that Greasemonkey held accounts with other casinos in the group when in fact he does not. Unfortunately we got our wires crossed with another outstanding issue and I do sincerely apologise for the error.

Kind Regards
Tom

Was this mistake purely in the communications between the casino & this site, or was his account itself mistakenly "linked" to these other accounts, causing you to determine the play to be abusive.

Are ALL "table" players considered "abusive" simply because they shun the bigger slots bonus and go only for the table game ones?

It does seem that a disproportionate number of table game players get labelled as "abusers", even though table game bonuses are NOT the same as slots bonuses, being a lower percentage, and often a far greater WR.

Currently, the impression being given is that CWC policy is to bonus ban players who get ahead beyond a certain profit threshhold, regardless of how they play, how many bonuses they take, or how many accounts they have across the group (one per casino, naturally).

 

[greasemonkey]

PM me your address and I'll see what I can do (if you're 21 or older)

As I mentioned in a PM, please don't send me anything LOL.

I was just joking and you obviously do more for the online gambling community than just about anyone and I would feel horrific actually taking something from you for trying to help a situation.

I will be offended if you do send me anything so just know that I am thanking you for vindicating my name here and for using your pull to help so many online players and casinos.

Thanks but do me a favor and enjoy the beer you would have sent me

 

[jod5413]

You know, I am usually a fence straddler in some of these situations, but this one was really upsetting. This poor guy went through "Forum Hell" trying to convince folks he was not a fraud.

When Max posted this...

CWC records show otherwise:

Casino.....Account opened...Last date played
CWC USD....14.12.2007.......31.7.2009
Aladdins....25.3.2009.......31.7.2009
Lucky Red.. 31.5.2009.......31.7.2009
Manhattan....6.2.2010.......21.6.2010
All Star....10.6.2010.......10.6.2010
Club Euro..14.12.2007.......22.7.2009


No one even mentioned that his complaint was "now" in 2010, and the Aladdins account was from 2009.

I am happy to see he was redeemed, but there must be a better way to clear players than by treating them like they are guilty until proved innocent. There just has to be better communication between the casino and the accused player. This behavior of saying "you are a fraud" and then not interacting with player after that has to be causing many honest players to lose, simply because they do not have the nerve to fight for themselves, like greasemonkey did. Not a particularly good thought, in my opinion. It makes me revise my opinion of many casinos I trusted.

It has nothing to do with Casinomeister, Bryan, or Max, they come in after the fact and try their best to sort things out.

 

[skiny]

Let's try not to confuse this with a bonus that is offered - accepted, then negated. That's a different situation. This is a situation where a player has been playing at this casino - and the casino has chosen not to give him any more bonuses - which is clearly stated in their terms and conditions.

Sure - we can argue that we don't like the term "abusive" since this is quite subjective, nor do we like any subjective language in T&Cs. And this is something we can explore further.



Here are some clauses from UK white-listed casinos:









The first three casinos are licensed in Gibraltar - the last in Alderney. These two jurisdictions are probably the most stringent when it comes to offering and monitoring gaming licenses - which includes of course reviewing and implementing terms and conditions.

Here you will notice that "subjective" language is acceptable. I believe a player like greasemonkey would have difficulties at these casinos as well, so I think it's unfair to point fingers at CWC since the entire industry is set up this way.

Having a term like this in the T&C's is an easy way to avoid adding every possible contingency to an already lengthy document. I can fully understand using it. The term however should never actually be enforced without an explicit explanation of what the problem was in the first place.

When a casino bans a player, refuses to pay or refuses to fulfill a bonus already in play with no explanation other than the player was "abusive," THAT is when a sensible rule for the obvious protection of the casino becomes a simple FU.

If casinos are allowed to excuse this behavior with "we don't give out this information because bonus abusers and advantage players will know what we look for" or other silly security reasons it gives the casinos the right to boot people out or not pay at will and never tell anybody why.

I'm not saying that any casino in particular is doing this but unless this rule is accompanied with a solid reason when it is enforced it certainly gives them the ability to.

As a member of CWC, Greasemonkey should not be banned from any bonuses without knowing exactly why. Anything less is disrespectful.

 

[jod5413]

Absolutely perfect post, Skiny. I would not have changed a thing, if I had posted.

 

[chuchu59]

The mistake here was informing Bryan that Greasemonkey held accounts with other casinos in the group when in fact he does not. Unfortunately we got our wires crossed with another outstanding issue and I do sincerely apologise for the error.

Kind Regards
Tom

It seems that you either didnt perform your due diligence or simply lied. I have encountered the same where I noticed a bug in one of the slot games and enquired about the payout. The initial I got back then was that the payouts were correct and even went as far as to invent a reason for the discrepancy. If Tom wants to know more just send me a pm and I will show you the answer from your support staff.

 

[Nate]

Omw!!!! So your documents / country of residence / name / address etc etc were not checked for them to realise that u were not the person in question?

 

[Casinomeister]

It seems that you either didnt perform your due diligence or simply lied. I have encountered the same where I noticed a bug in one of the slot games and enquired about the payout. The initial I got back then was that the payouts were correct and even went as far as to invent a reason for the discrepancy. If Tom wants to know more just send me a pm and I will show you the answer from your support staff.

It was an honest mistake - no lying here, and they are sincere with their apology as I was sincere as to sending the guy a beer. Both the operator and manager made the same mistake - confusing this issue with another current one. Nobody's perfect.

When you make mistakes - admit and move on. That's what we're doing here, members can dwell on it as much as you want, but that's getting nowhere, right?

There have been some valid comments made here concerning clauses that deal with "abuse" or other subjective language. And I think this is what should be dealt with.

All casinos - every one of them, have clauses that exempt them from having to accept certain player behavior. It's when these clauses are enforced that people freak. It's understandable because one fear of the player is being dicked around for winning too much. Enforcing these policies can feed the paranoia that the casinos will not pay legitimate winnings.

So what do we want? Not a rhetorical question I'd say. What do we want from the casinos? Do we want them to not use subjective language in their terms and conditions. Well, sure - but that's not going to change. These terms are written by the casinos' legal departments and stamped "approved" by their licensing jurisdictions. And when push comes to shove, the casinos will implement them.

Maybe the course of action is for the casino to give the reasoning behind enforcing one of these terms. That could be a possibility - and perhaps an option for the casinos to look into. "You did such and such therefore no more bonuses for you." Step up to the counter - state your order - move to the left with money in hand - no exceptions.

Remember now, this is not about a player who played a bonus and had his winnings confiscated. This is an issue of a casino not wanting to give the player anymore bonuses as per their terms and condition. The debate is whether or not a casino should give the player a reason why they are bonus banned.

 

[KasinoKing]

All casinos - every one of them, have clauses that exempt them from having to accept certain player behavior. It's when these clauses are enforced that people freak. It's understandable because one fear of the player is being dicked around for winning too much. Enforcing these policies can feed the paranoia that the casinos will not pay legitimate winnings.

So what do we want? Not a rhetorical question I'd say. What do we want from the casinos?
Do we want them to not use subjective language in their terms and conditions. Well, sure - but that's not going to change. These terms are written by the casinos' legal departments and stamped "approved" by their licensing jurisdictions. And when push comes to shove, the casinos will implement them.

What we WANT and what we've been ASKING for for at least 10 years is for the Casinos to use their SOFTWARE to make it IMPOSSIBLE for a player to place any bet which the casino deems ABUSIVE!!

They won't do this because it takes away one of the ways they can refuse to pay players - those who either accidentally or purposely breach the terms.
These are win-win terms for the casinos - that's why they wont change.

Of course, the big other downside if they started using the software to prevent abuse, is that the CasinoMeister forum post-count would be halved due to no "bonus-abuse" related problems occurring and Max would have to go part-time...

KK

 

[Casinomeister]

What we WANT and what we've been ASKING for for at least 10 years is for the Casinos to use their SOFTWARE to make it IMPOSSIBLE for a player to place any bet which the casino deems ABUSIVE!!

They won't do this because it takes away one of the ways they can refuse to pay players - those who either accidentally or purposely breach the terms.
These are win-win terms for the casinos - that's why they wont change.

I can understand software being programmed for "don't play certain games". But abusive? Don't know about that. Each casino may consider differing things as "abusive".

Of course, the big other downside if they started using the software to prevent abuse, is that the CasinoMeister forum post-count would be halved due to no "bonus-abuse" related problems occurring and Max would have to go part-time...

KK

Nah, people would come here anyway to partake in the jovial jocularities. It would be a much less stressful environment, right ?

 

[vinylweatherman]

You know, I am usually a fence straddler in some of these situations, but this one was really upsetting. This poor guy went through "Forum Hell" trying to convince folks he was not a fraud.

When Max posted this...

CWC records show otherwise:

Casino.....Account opened...Last date played
CWC USD....14.12.2007.......31.7.2009
Aladdins....25.3.2009.......31.7.2009
Lucky Red.. 31.5.2009.......31.7.2009
Manhattan....6.2.2010.......21.6.2010
All Star....10.6.2010.......10.6.2010
Club Euro..14.12.2007.......22.7.2009


No one even mentioned that his complaint was "now" in 2010, and the Aladdins account was from 2009.

I am happy to see he was redeemed, but there must be a better way to clear players than by treating them like they are guilty until proved innocent. There just has to be better communication between the casino and the accused player. This behavior of saying "you are a fraud" and then not interacting with player after that has to be causing many honest players to lose, simply because they do not have the nerve to fight for themselves, like greasemonkey did. Not a particularly good thought, in my opinion. It makes me revise my opinion of many casinos I trusted.

It has nothing to do with Casinomeister, Bryan, or Max, they come in after the fact and try their best to sort things out.

Those dates may relate to the other player, and not Greasemonkey.

Having a term like this in the T&C's is an easy way to avoid adding every possible contingency to an already lengthy document. I can fully understand using it. The term however should never actually be enforced without an explicit explanation of what the problem was in the first place.

When a casino bans a player, refuses to pay or refuses to fulfill a bonus already in play with no explanation other than the player was "abusive," THAT is when a sensible rule for the obvious protection of the casino becomes a simple FU.

If casinos are allowed to excuse this behavior with "we don't give out this information because bonus abusers and advantage players will know what we look for" or other silly security reasons it gives the casinos the right to boot people out or not pay at will and never tell anybody why.

I'm not saying that any casino in particular is doing this but unless this rule is accompanied with a solid reason when it is enforced it certainly gives them the ability to.

As a member of CWC, Greasemonkey should not be banned from any bonuses without knowing exactly why. Anything less is disrespectful.

This is stupid. The player knows how they played, BUT they may have no idea it was "wrong", after all it was fully within the terms for the bonus, so it would imply the terms were wrong. This then leads to negative opinion of the industry from the vast majority who find it hard to believe that you can "abuse" slots, or play a table game within already stringent rules regarding bet amounts and playthrough, yet still be called a "cheat".

Surely many players play to WIN, with them choosing games that they "feel lucky" with, or that are entertaining enough to make the journey to the potential "pot of gold" a pleasure.

Advantage players know all the tricks anyway, the casino would only be telling them what they knew already. For example, placing your entire balance on Red (Roulette) is considered "abusive", and a player doing this knows damn well how the strategy works. The casino refusing to admit to the player that he was deemed abusive for this bet protects nothing. How he was caught is obvious, the playlogs were audited, and the bet found - no "big secret" there, yet this is what casinos say they cannot reveal for fear of telling the player they were caught by looking at this bet. Since then, most casinos have specifically banned this kind of opening bet in the terms, making it a specific breach, rather than an "F U".

The current system allows the casinos to deem ANY kind of playing pattern as "abusive", even if it is not in the eyes of most sane people. This gives the impression that casinos equate "abuse" with "trying to win". This will make players think that winning is not supposed to happen, and this could make players realise what the casinos know already (the house always wins in the end), and give up gambling altogether, or cut back. This means less money for the casinos. It looks like this is happening already, aided by the economic crisis.

It seems that you either didnt perform your due diligence or simply lied. I have encountered the same where I noticed a bug in one of the slot games and enquired about the payout. The initial I got back then was that the payouts were correct and even went as far as to invent a reason for the discrepancy. If Tom wants to know more just send me a pm and I will show you the answer from your support staff.

This is a problem with many casinos. If the customer tries to tell them something they just don't want to hear, they close their ears and parrot the "party line". They do NOT investigate the issue brought to them, they DISMISS IT, but may PRETEND they have thoroughly looked into it.

Where an innocent player has been accused of fraud, any further protestations from them are not looked at, no matter WHAT evidence they present, or whatever they offer as additional evidence to prove the accusation wrong, the casinos' response is often to cover their proverbial ears and sing "La La Fraud La La", like a naughty child who is told by a parent to do something they don't want to.

When a player IS proved innocent after being put through the wringer like this, the casino ends up with an entire omlette on their face, and has some explaining to do. Trust is also dented, since other players will worry that they too could end up being accused of something, not know why, and not be able to clear their name without being VERY pushy indeed.

Had Greasemonkey not bothered pushing the issue, his character would have been stained by the initial post and determination by the casino that he had been "less than transparent", and any future issues he had would also be judged against this incident, and he would be thought again to have tried to hide something.

With better communications between player and casino, these cases would not have become so public. If he was told it was WRONG to take this bonus 8 times, he would know not to do this again if a similar offer was made. The CASINO was wrong for it's MISLEADING marketing of this 7 day offer as one without limits, or strings attached.

GoWild made a similar promotional blunder one weekend, 70% per £500 deposit, EVERY time, no limits. I demonstrated to them how misguided this was, and they dropped me from further promotions
I then emailed their VIP manager (I was VIP by them) to explain in more detail WHY this promotion was pretty hard to LOSE at, and how I set about demonstrating it. The £8000 was nice too

 

[maxd]

They won't do this because it takes away one of the ways they can refuse to pay players - those who either accidentally or purposely breach the terms.

Be realistic KK, it's not rational to claim that is standard practice, assuming we're talking about decent casinos.

And if we are talking about the bent casinos then they're always going to find a way to screw players, bonus Terms or otherwise.