greasemonkey VS Club Worlds Alladin's Gold

[vinylweatherman]

I absolutely agree with that Bryan....but curious if you heard about the UK player who was denied almost 7K in winnings simply because he had graduated University, but hadn't found a full time job as yet, so listed his occupation as student? Had I known who the player was, I would have told him to come here and file a PAB. Your thoughts?

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

They should have paid, he WAS a student, but he was NOT ENROLLED at the time, since he had already graduated.

It is common practice to give a PREVIOUS occupation in an "occupation" field when between jobs, and many forms specifically tell you to do this.

He gave the student ID card, since as a UK player WHAT ELSE could he offer having just graduated. It is often the ONLY thing someone leaving university that has their PHOTO on it. They are probably too young to drive, especially now that insurance costs them £2000 or more at that age.

He did not breach the term, he abided by the term asking for "photo ID" by giving them the ONLY "photo ID" he had at the time.

Had he been LESS honest, he would have KNOWN that mentioning he was a student would cause problems, and unless they are told, how does the casino find out whether or not someone over 18 IS a student. There is no need to give this information, and no way for the casino to find out. All the casino CAN find out is whether the player is over 18. A student can get around the rules for around £100 by getting a PASSPORT, so that they can provide a "photo ID" without using their STUDENT card, which is the ONLY way the casino can check.

Students can simply circumvent the rule by giving "not in empolyment" rather than "student" as their occupation, and getting a passport or driving licence.

Another point to consider is that if the player DID put down "student" upon registration, HOW COME HE WAS ABLE TO DEPOSIT $5000 IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Responsible gambling as an excuse is BULLSHIT. TRUE responsibility would be PREVENTING the student from squandering $5000 in the first place. What would have happened had he LOST, and carried on losing. The casino would have carried on taking his money, and I bet they would NEVER have shown "responsibility" by refunding it - after all, as far as they knew, he WAS a student at the time, and they STILL believe that to be the case.

To be TRULY responsible, they should ask EVERY player between 18 and 21 to prove they are NOT a student BEFORE allowing them to deposit A CENT. Even though any student could get around this by lying, the casino could at least claim it made every effort it could to prevent a student from playing.

 

[maxd]

They should have paid, he WAS a student, but he was NOT ENROLLED at the time, since he had already graduated.

For more on the current status of this case see Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

 

[BBKPoker]

Lol at this thread or being entitled to bonuses. Player is an obvious advantage player, was paid his profit in accordance with the terms and conditions. There's zero obligation on the casino's part to continue to allow him to deposit and fleece them. Right to refuse service and all that, he's lucky they even allowed his account to remain open regardless of whether or not they decide to exclude him from bonuses in the future. Considering he is up a good clip and was paid promptly there's literally zero grounds for complaint.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Lol at this thread or being entitled to bonuses. Player is an obvious advantage player, was paid his profit in accordance with the terms and conditions. There's zero obligation on the casino's part to continue to allow him to deposit and fleece them. Right to refuse service and all that, he's lucky they even allowed his account to remain open regardless of whether or not they decide to exclude him from bonuses in the future. Considering he is up a good clip and was paid promptly there's literally zero grounds for complaint.

Yes, this thread has digressed somewhat from the original issue. CM standards for accreditation DO allow casinos to stop offering bonuses to "clever" players who constantly beat them. Provided they honour what they HAVE offered, it will not place their accreditation status at risk.

The arguments here are down to the fact that CW are now CONFISCATING winnings from past play, something they were previously NOT known for. This means the complainants CAN'T just "move on" because they feel their rightful winnings have been "stolen" from them. CW have NEVER confiscated winnings in the past for "bonus abuse", they have either bonus banned the player, or closed their accounts. Only FRAUD has caused confiscations in the past.

This "student argument" has arisen because cases are being dealt with by confiscations, rather than the former "pay, then ban" policy. Players are having to prove they are NOT students, rather than the casino having to prove they ARE. Some have never bothered reading the terms, and have been caught out because they ARE students.

The cases featured here are from players who say they are NOT students, therefore have NOT violated this term, whether they have read it or not.

It is further clouded by the perception that CW have extended this term to include PAST students who have not yet found full time employment. Until the PAB that has "deadlocked" has been concluded, we do not know whether the complainant really HAS graduated, or is STILL a student, but one who neglected to read the terms.

 

[BBKPoker]

Yes, this thread has digressed somewhat from the original issue. CM standards for accreditation DO allow casinos to stop offering bonuses to "clever" players who constantly beat them. Provided they honour what they HAVE offered, it will not place their accreditation status at risk.

The arguments here are down to the fact that CW are now CONFISCATING winnings from past play, something they were previously NOT known for. This means the complainants CAN'T just "move on" because they feel their rightful winnings have been "stolen" from them. CW have NEVER confiscated winnings in the past for "bonus abuse", they have either bonus banned the player, or closed their accounts. Only FRAUD has caused confiscations in the past.

This "student argument" has arisen because cases are being dealt with by confiscations, rather than the former "pay, then ban" policy. Players are having to prove they are NOT students, rather than the casino having to prove they ARE. Some have never bothered reading the terms, and have been caught out because they ARE students.

The cases featured here are from players who say they are NOT students, therefore have NOT violated this term, whether they have read it or not.

It is further clouded by the perception that CW have extended this term to include PAST students who have not yet found full time employment. Until the PAB that has "deadlocked" has been concluded, we do not know whether the complainant really HAS graduated, or is STILL a student, but one who neglected to read the terms.

Why not keep individual issues to their respective threads?

There's one thread already about the whole student thing, does it really need to spill into a thread about them refusing to give a player bonuses?

Original topic is whether they have the right to refuse bonuses, they do. Seems like the discussion re: student issues should go in the threads re: student issues.

 

[BBKPoker]

Actually, there's two threads.

 

[Cabrair32]

Its not so easy.

What you are dealing with is a casino which lures you in by saying "7 days, all deposits get a bonus". Then after a day or 2 they stop allowing this.
why is this OK with some of you?
If the player goes in and deposits twice and loses then tries the bonus again but it is not allowed, how is that OK with you? The player is told 7 DAYS. So they tricked him in with false bonus offer.
It is no different if you say 7 days and allow him to play but he wins then you stop the bonus. It was still offered for 7 days and if you don't give it you lured him in with false bonus offers.
Just because you win doesnt mean you cheat does it? So if the player didnt cheat or break a rule then why should they have the welcome offer pulled while they are still using it?

 

[Cabrair32]

I also agree it is far more serious to steal players money from the account. That is just roguish in every sense of the word. You cannot keep accredited status and do that can you?

so probably not "rogue" necesarily to pull the welcome bonus while in use but not good. But stealing winnings is really bad, I agree.