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:

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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?

 

[The Dude]

...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?

 

[The Dude]

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

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[maphesto]

This is an issue of a casino not wanting to give the player anymore bonuses as per their terms and condition.

No, this is not that kind of issue. You are mixing this thing up with a regular bonus ban.

Please don't!

Unlimited times during 7 days and no limit of total amount of bonuses during these 7 days.

Change the whole welcome promotion instead of banning the player in the middle of the promotion.

And what about the changed betsize limit?

The debate is whether or not a casino should give the player a reason why they are bonus banned.

When reading greasemonkey's first post I can't find this there.

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.

Perfect!

As we have discussed at another place, many casinos don't want these things in the software because they earn money by hiding it in their T&C:s.

In this particular issue the casino offers a promotion which is absolutely brilliant.
The losing player can continue to lose unlimited times during 7 days with either 100% bonus on tables or 200% bonus on slots.

If the casino in some way find a player who actually seems to win, they can cut him off in the middle of the promotion.

What are they doing next? When they see that a winning player soon makes his WR they cut him off and returns his deposit? As per the terms and conditions.

To change a promotion for a winning player in the middle of it is bad casino practice. Maybe not roguish, but bad!

But if the reason for it is fraudalent behaviour, Aladdin's Gold made the correct decision.

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

Yes!

To me KK is absolutely rational here. It's all about bonus rules. Many decent casinos have T&C:s which actually tells the player he is not allowed to play certain games during bonus play.

There are:

betsize limit rules

autoplay rules

restricted games rules

All these three things can be software controlled. But many casinos don't want this to be fixed.
The so called lose-lose customers is lost then.
The lose-lose customer signs up and plays in a restricted way and loses. He/she doesn't even know that he never could have won anyway.

But the casino can happily earn money from these ones. Yes, the player has to read T&C:s. But it can be software controlled instead.

At Purple Lounge and Dash there are a betsize limit during bonus play and yet there are other Microgaming casinos who claims that this cannot be done within software without limit bet for all players.

Guess what, these casinos have a betsize rule in their T&C..

 

[Tengil]

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

Agreed 100%.

MG software allows to restrict betsize during bonusplay yet basically no casino use that feature. And Im sure MG would add the option to block excluded games if the operators would show any intererst in it.

And apparently RTG casinos can design their coupons so that excluded games cant be played, one (!) casino uses that opportunity. AFAIK Rival casinos do this, just dont know if all of them does it.

Same criticism applies to Playtech. Rival has got much shit lately (most of it deserved) but at one point they have beaten the "big ones". You cant simply break the rules of the bonuses.

And on a sidenote I really cant understand how people get so riled up about being bonusbanned. As long as they pay and then bonusban you I really see no problem. I have been bonusbanned at a few Netent and Playtech casinos and I know exactly why. Plus many "multiple" SUBs only allow you to win once, has been so for a long time.
Bonusbanning a slotplayer for getting lucky may be a bad business decision but there are others who will happily take your deposits and only look at playing patterns when deciding whom to bonusban.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yes!

To me KK is absolutely rational here. It's all about bonus rules. Many decent casinos have T&C:s which actually tells the player he is not allowed to play certain games during bonus play.

There are:

betsize limit rules

autoplay rules

restricted games rules

All these three things can be software controlled. But many casinos don't want this to be fixed.
The so called lose-lose customers is lost then.
The lose-lose customer signs up and plays in a restricted way and loses. He/she doesn't even know that he never could have won anyway.

But the casino can happily earn money from these ones. Yes, the player has to read T&C:s. But it can be software controlled instead.

At Purple Lounge and Dash there are a betsize limit during bonus play and yet there are other Microgaming casinos who claims that this cannot be done within software without limit bet for all players.

Guess what, these casinos have a betsize rule in their T&C..

Because some casinos have now implemented this, we now KNOW the rest are lying, before we just SUSPECTED.

Purple Lounge may have implemented this feature, but they didn't do it PROPERLY, and confiscated winning from a player because the player trusted the software features to be working properly, and they weren't. The PLAYER got shafted because the CASINO didn't properly implement the feature. This is WORSE than not having it at all.

Purple Lounge was removed from the accredited section over this, and didn't seem to care, preferring to keep the benefit of the flawed implementation, rather than act with honour.

If these features are implemented, the casino must stand by them, and NOT punish the player if they fail to implement it properly.

The long list of terms will then contract to this (or similar).

Bonus terms,

1) The software will determine what games are allowed with this bonus, and will reduce some maximum bet limits until WR has been met.

2) Your overall wagering will be tracked by the software, and the details of this, and the various game weightings, can be checked by clicking on ...................

3) Until you have completed WR, the withdraw function within the cashier will be disabled.

4) With some bonuses, the deposit function will also be disabled. In order to be able to deposit again, you must either complete the WR for the current bonus, or reach a balance of zero.

 

[Nate]

I suppose if the T&C's are so vague, that the casino may cite bonus bannings for whatever reason they deem necessary - All the more reason to have a Super Accredited list that conforms (on agreement) with excluding these phantom issues...

The Casino's always only act within THEIR best interests... If it wasnt for a forum like this with open debate, players like greasemonkey would have to conform to their phantom T&C's and even if they were willing to debate it, he would still be accused of being somebody he is not...

Clarity and communication are the keys here.. be specific and you wont have such upheaval from your players...

 

[maphesto]

Agreed 100%.

MG software allows to restrict betsize during bonusplay yet basically no casino use that feature. And Im sure MG would add the option to block excluded games if the operators would show any intererst in it.

According to another player Dash and Purple Lounge have changed betsize within software during bonus play. Maybe not all bonus play.

 

[Tengil]

According to another player Dash and Purple Lounge have changed betsize within software during bonus play. Maybe not all bonus play.

Spin Palace used(?) to do it for some players on reload bonuses.

And saw that thread too, the rep not surprisingly didnt come back when she was asked some "tough" questions.

 

[maxd]

Sorry guys but IMO the notion that legit casinos write their Terms specifically so they have lots of nice ways to screw players is fundamentally flawed and a gross distortion of reality, regardless of how popular this notion may be with the player base.

Generally speaking such a thing is completely unnecessary because their games are all designed to make them the real winners anyway. 'House edge' anyone?

Secondly, at least in my experience having done about 900 PABs (literally!), the players very seldom actually get boned in this way. We're talking 5% of the cases, give or take, and remember that's cases from _all_ casinos out there, the good the bad and the ugly. Compared to player fraud which is running somewhere around 30%+ these days it's a pretty small slice of the pie.

Finally, and I believe most significantly, the real purpose of many Terms is to cover the casino's ass. Being legalese it's going to end up convoluted and full of wiggle room for the casino. All of which means it plays directly into the player perception that they're being set up to take a hit.

So why don't the casinos enforce the Terms in software? Cost mostly. The more complicated you make your system the more expensive it is to build, the more difficult it is to maintain, and perhaps most important, the more likely it is to have serious bugs. Since we're talking about money here that translates into significant potential costs/losses to the casino for something that from their point of view can pretty much be covered in text of the Terms. I promise you the text route is very Very VERY much the more attractive option.

Anyway, doesn't this idea that 'the Terms are written to screw me' strike any of you as just a little too 'black hat VS white hat' to take seriously? Remember, I'm talking legit casinos here, not the dodgy places which there are all too many of.

Nevermind, I know what some of you are going to say. "Max hates players" or "casinos pay you to say that" or whatever. As you wish, have it your way. If you ever want to actually start seeing the real picture though you might want to give it some thought.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sorry guys but IMO the notion that legit casinos write their Terms specifically so they have lots of nice ways to screw players is fundamentally flawed and a gross distortion of reality, regardless of how popular this notion may be with the player base.

Generally speaking such a thing is completely unnecessary because their games are all designed to make them the real winners anyway. 'House edge' anyone?

Secondly, at least in my experience having done about 900 PABs (literally!), the players very seldom actually get boned in this way. We're talking 5% of the cases, give or take, and remember that's cases from _all_ casinos out there, the good the bad and the ugly. Compared to player fraud which is running somewhere around 30%+ these days it's a pretty small slice of the pie.

Finally, and I believe most significantly, the real purpose of many Terms is to cover the casino's ass. Being legalese it's going to end up convoluted and full of wiggle room for the casino. All of which means it plays directly into the player perception that they're being set up to take a hit.

So why don't the casinos enforce the Terms in software? Cost mostly. The more complicated you make your system the more expensive it is to build, the more difficult it is to maintain, and perhaps most important, the more likely it is to have serious bugs. Since we're talking about money here that translates into significant potential costs/losses to the casino for something that from their point of view can pretty much be covered in text of the Terms. I promise you the text route is very Very VERY much the more attractive option.

Anyway, doesn't this idea that 'the Terms are written to screw me' strike any of you as just a little too 'black hat VS white hat' to take seriously? Remember, I'm talking legit casinos here, not the dodgy places which there are all too many of.

Nevermind, I know what some of you are going to say. "Max hates players" or "casinos pay you to say that" or whatever. As you wish, have it your way. If you ever want to actually start seeing the real picture though you might want to give it some thought.

What of the player that got "boned" by Purple Lounge. It was accredited at the time, but it made no difference. The player was NOT a fraud, he was a victim of being too trusting of the software features, and presuming the casino to be a good one, who would not punish him. He ONLY asked to be allowed to continue playing, he did NOT press to benefit from the botched implementation.

In the case of MGS, the feature ALREADY exists, so there are no excuses for not using it.

The casinos DO need to take this perception that they are out to screw the player seriously, and think of the cost implications of lost customers, and loss of customers that might have joined had they not read the bad PR.

Software implementation would remove the need to audit for playing patterns, and would get rid of advantage players because the methods they try to get past the casino would be blocked by the software. There would be no need to confiscate winnings because of the way a player played, and thus the focus would be more about fraud. There would be a stronger connection between instances of confiscated winnings and fraud, and confiscating winnings for fraud is acceptable to most (except other fraudsters).

Software ALREADY has bugs, but this does NOT prevent the technology from being pushed further, despite the risk of introducing further bugs.
The bugs that DO exist tend to stick around for months, years in some cases, despite the software supplier having been told about them from several sources. Clearly, they do not believe bugs in the system are that important an issue, so surely bugs in software implementation of simple measures such as max bet limits and game exclusions would only present minor issues. These simple measures would prevent the innocent players from accidentally breaking the rules, because it would be much harder to do, and any breach would more likely come from an advantage player having found one of these bugs, and a way to exploit it.

Whilst the rate of fraud is said to be around 30%, how many of these 30% have WRONGLY been accused of fraud. This figure will be too low, because many that have been wrongly accused will not have the determination to fight on, but will always believe the entire industry is one big cyber con, and will spread this view to anybody who asks about their experience.

The perception that casinos in particular are screwing the players is that they are not answerable to "proper" laws, and do NOT have to give players the consumer rights they have come to expect from business in general. Where consumer rights are violated in other industries, it is often because the company doing the violating IS screwing over it's customers, and the authorities are constantly having to intervene, shutting down many rogue businesses, and increasing the regulations for the rest.
As a whole, this has taught consumers that business is NEVER your friend, but often your "pretend friend", and will ALWAYS do what it thinks it can get away with to part the customer from as much money as they can, as fast as they can.

I don't trust ANY business, and I find that a regular squeeze of the corporate testicles works wonders. I saved myself £25 yesterday doing just that to my Home insurance provider, and I got a better product too

I have to squeeze the corporate testicles of Virgin Media on a regular basis, twice so far this year (£20 + offer of free HD PVR box). They are still pretty hopeless, and are due their third squeeze next month (no email for 2 days, intermittent internet, etc....). I plan to erect a terrestrial aerial, connect it to a DVD recorder, and THEN get their engineer round to diagnose the problems

The way to squeeze the corporate testicles of your favourite casino is to suddenly stop playing for a month or two. When they ask why, tell them what irked you, and that you started playing at one of their competitors that did not present the same irksome problem.

 

[maphesto]

We are now a long way from greasemonkey and his issue. But I have to continue.

Sorry guys but IMO the notion that legit casinos write their Terms specifically so they have lots of nice ways to screw players is fundamentally flawed and a gross distortion of reality, regardless of how popular this notion may be with the player base.

You are twisting it..

Let's say like this, even legit casinos earn a lot of money on players who break rules. The player could easily be in the lose-lose way without even knowing it.
This money wouldn't be earned if the software would prevent things like this.

Generally speaking such a thing is completely unnecessary because their games are all designed to make them the real winners anyway. 'House edge' anyone?

Yes, the house edge is enough! The house edge is honest and fair.
Unfortunately it's not enough for many casinos. Many casinos goes bankrupt. To attract players many casinos offer bonuses. And it's here the problems start..

Secondly, at least in my experience having done about 900 PABs (literally!), the players very seldom actually get boned in this way. We're talking 5% of the cases, give or take, and remember that's cases from _all_ casinos out there, the good the bad and the ugly. Compared to player fraud which is running somewhere around 30%+ these days it's a pretty small slice of the pie.

This is pretty interesting. Around 45 cases which you know of.

The ones you don't know about is definately much more common. And why?

That's because the house edge..remember? Even if the player breaks rules, the house edge is there.

The lose-lose player who broke rules and busted out. The casino happily received the players money and "let" him play roulette with his and their money.

And about player fraud. IMO player fraud is discusting. Some people do anything to earn money. But my guess is that different kinds of bonuses often are involved in frauds. Am I right?

To me the most common fraud is when stupid players are trying to open muliple accounts to receive more bonuses.

Or is the fraud more common among chipdumping poker players?

So why don't the casinos enforce the Terms in software? Cost mostly. The more complicated you make your system the more expensive it is to build, the more difficult it is to maintain, and perhaps most important, the more likely it is to have serious bugs.

Microgaming already have this in their software. The casinos have chose to not use it. I wonder why?

Nevermind, I know what some of you are going to say. "Max hates players" or "casinos pay you to say that" or whatever.

Bad coffee?

Please Max! Don't make this a discussion about that.

Or, I correct myself. Let's do!

KK is an affiliate. He earns money on losing players. Infact, he earns money on players who are in the lose-lose situation.

KK might even earn less money if the casinos had limits things in software.

Still he wrote as he did. Do you know why? He knows what's ethically correct.

 

[skiny]

Sorry guys but IMO the notion that legit casinos write their Terms specifically so they have lots of nice ways to screw players is fundamentally flawed and a gross distortion of reality, regardless of how popular this notion may be with the player base.

I never suggested that legit casinos are doing anything with this term to screw players but we've already come to the agreement that EVERYONE makes mistakes. This has been proven in this very thread and if any casino tells me I'm abusing the system I want a bloody good explanation how or why.

Finally, and I believe most significantly, the real purpose of many Terms is to cover the casino's ass. Being legalese it's going to end up convoluted and full of wiggle room for the casino. All of which means it plays directly into the player perception that they're being set up to take a hit.

Pretty much all the terms and conditions in these documents are made specifically to cover the casino's ass and I don't blame them one bit. But the fact that they're written to cover the casino's ass is also the very reason we, as players have to decide what terms we're willing to accept and whether or not we'll accept the way they're being implemented. For me it's not enough for someone to tell me I did something wrong. I want to know what the hell it was that I did.

Nevermind, I know what some of you are going to say. "Max hates players" or "casinos pay you to say that" or whatever. As you wish, have it your way. If you ever want to actually start seeing the real picture though you might want to give it some thought.

I've never got the feeling you hated anyone and I don't think you're the kind of guy who's going to get paid to say things you don't agree with.

Just imagine I took you to court and said "Max abused me."
The judge would ask "How did he abuse you?"
And I would answer "Well, I can't tell you that but trust me, he abused me."

I'm pretty sure at that point you would agree with the judge that without an explanation the term is pretty much meaningless.

 

[Lucky Loser]

From the very poor experience I had with CWC I am not at all surprised. They are inflexible and point to their T&Cs at every available opportunity. Seems like they have just jumped to conclusions. Casinos like this dont deserve my business.

 

[JAMES50]

I have been playing at Club World casino's primarily for the last 3 or 4 years and have had not one problem..They are good with the payouts in which I have won probably 8 to 10 rj's and they are also pretty good with there vip bonus's....In my oppinion Club world is and will be,once usa legislation is passed,a formost casino.......:

 

[winbig]

I have been playing at Club World casino's primarily for the last 3 or 4 years and have had not one problem..They are good with the payouts in which I have won probably 8 to 10 rj's and they are also pretty good with there vip bonus's....In my oppinion Club world is and will be,once usa legislation is passed,a formost casino.......:

How do you figure? As it stands now, CWC, along with most every other RTG casino; as well as certain poker rooms, won't be able to get a license if online gambling is legalized in the USA.

There was an amendment added to HR2267 for the sole purpose of excluding casinos/poker rooms that continued to accept players from the USA after the UIGEA went into effect.

But, that's for another thread...

[/derail]

 

[breakstone]

I am always reading about problems with deposit bonuses. I can not understand why anyone would even bother to take a bonus. Play with your own money. You don't have any problems when you win. Playthrough on bonuses is ridiculous and is in my mind a complete waste of time. I took 1 bonus once and won $2500.00 on my first spin, but the playthrough was $5000. Needless to say I didn't make the playthrough. Since that 1 time I have never taken a bonus. The only thing a bonus does is make your play last longer, which is fine if thats what you want to do, but if you are interested in actually winning, dont take one.

 

[greasemonkey]

so, not to beat a dead horse or anything but did we decide that this was acceptable for them to lure you in with a bonus then take it away as you are using it? Or to rescind other bonuses they have already told you to use?

This thread got derailed with the mistaken identity thing and all that but the main issue was never really resolved was it? Is it acceptable for an "accredited" casino to use bait/switch tactics?

 

[The Dude]

... Is it acceptable for an "accredited" casino to use bait/switch tactics?

The answer is no, but I don't think this issue can be defined 100% bait 'n switch. We can argue till the cows come home whether or not the group of bonuses was one offer, or are they defined as several offers. Were you tricked into patronizing their casino? What deception took place? The casino made the decision they didn't want you as a bonus player and implemented their terms and conditions.

When you won - they paid you. And when they felt that they had given you enough bonuses, they pulled the plug.

 

[skiny]

I don't think it was a bait and switch but I haven't heard any real reason the bonus wasn't carried out as it was originally offered. If the offer was for X amount for a specific amount of days then that was a single offer.

Maybe it was more like second thoughts because the player was doing too well. If that's the case it's just too bad. That's how gambling works. You put up some games and there is supposed to be the chance the player can win.

If the terms and conditions state that the bonus can be revoked at anytime at the casino's discretion then the casino is well within their right to pull the plug and there's nothing anyone can do about it except acknowledge that this casino has a clear cut FU clause right in the middle of the document and aren't afraid to use it.

Of course we really have no idea why the bonus was revoked because all we're told is the play was abusive. Maybe if the real reason was given we wouldn't all sit around thinking it was just because the player was making a profit. Who knows?

 

[nothappy]

I'll pile on to this thread about Alladin's gold and give another reason not to play them here.

If you win they take out fees for processing to Neteller. Also, if you have more than one cashout pending on different bonuses they will deny them then lump all the money together in your account. Then if you request another withdrawal and play with the money still remaining in your account and lose it they will deduct all the bonus money as if you had succesful cashouts earlier. so they end up taking bonus monies out of your withdrawal for bonuses that you inevitably lost and never got to cashout.
Also, they don't follow their terms and delay payments. It takes at least 2 weeks for every cshout I had made in that casino.
I have read their issues at gambling grumbles also.

I don't think they are a good casino and I don't advise to ever play them. They are extremely roguish.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I'll pile on to this thread about Alladin's gold and give another reason not to play them here.

If you win they take out fees for processing to Neteller. Also, if you have more than one cashout pending on different bonuses they will deny them then lump all the money together in your account. Then if you request another withdrawal and play with the money still remaining in your account and lose it they will deduct all the bonus money as if you had succesful cashouts earlier. so they end up taking bonus monies out of your withdrawal for bonuses that you inevitably lost and never got to cashout.
Also, they don't follow their terms and delay payments. It takes at least 2 weeks for every cshout I had made in that casino.
I have read their issues at gambling grumbles also.

I don't think they are a good casino and I don't advise to ever play them. They are extremely roguish.

You play too often. Spread your play around different sites. Bonuses are easy to come by with RTG.

The rep denies charging for Neteller withdrawals, but I believe YOU that they DO, at least in some cases. Unfortunately, there are NO clear terms regarding the circumstances in which they charge for withdrawals, it is at "the discresion of management". This means they can more or less "make it up", and charge arbitrary amounts for withdrawals. There have been a number of complaints about withdrawal fees that make no sense.

I am surprised they have not simply bonus banned you like they have to ME. I did not suffer arbitrary withdrawal charges, I just stopped receiving offers when I won too much.

 

[Tengil]

Well they also added some retroperspective charges for palapaisti: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/manhattan-slots-104-withdrawal-fee-to-neteller.38865/

Also remeber that if you are a student you are not allowed to play at Club World casinos. Thumbs down to a once good group.

 

[greasemonkey]

I'm interested to know if it is the same managers at each casino or if they are handled differently. I have seen more BS from alladins than the other casinos. Maybe its just circumstance but it appears they are just a bit more maverick than the others in that CWC group. It is a neat casino, with neat graphics... to bad they treat players like doo-doo. They don't need to. They would be a very popular destination online if they would act better.

 

[Jasminebed]

Also remeber that if you are a student you are not allowed to play at Club World casinos. Thumbs down to a once good group.

Could you quote from their terms and conditions regarding students? I've not heard of such a prohibition before. Students come in all age groups, so other than meeting age requirements for gambling, why would students be blocked? I could see not accepting student ID as valid ID however.

 

[The Dude]

Could you quote from their terms and conditions regarding students? I've not heard of such a prohibition before. Students come in all age groups, so other than meeting age requirements for gambling, why would students be blocked? I could see not accepting student ID as valid ID however.

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino.

Full time student is the key term - and I fully agree with this. No college student ought to be spending his/her time gambling on the Internet. It's way too problematic and I'm glad this casino group takes a stand against this. That's responsible behavior on the casino's part.

 

[Tengil]

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino.

Full time student is the key term - and I fully agree with this. No college student ought to be spending his/her time gambling on the Internet. It's way too problematic and I'm glad this casino group takes a stand against this. That's responsible behavior on the casino's part.

Mostly there to weed out bonus hunters IMO. The overwhelming percentage of bonus hunters are students.

They do have it as the first term so those who "brake" it can blame themself IMO.

 

[Pinababy69]

1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino.

Full time student is the key term - and I fully agree with this. No college student ought to be spending his/her time gambling on the Internet. It's way too problematic and I'm glad this casino group takes a stand against this. That's responsible behavior on the casino's part.

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.

Aladdins Gold
A Very Expensive Mistake
by Steve Russo
September 2010

Aladdin's Gold Casino is refusing to give a British player almost $7000 in winnings because he told them he is a student -- even though he has proven that he is not.

Neither the casino nor Dan L dispute the basic facts of the case: Dan made three deposits, totaling $5000 over a period of three days, brought his balance to $11983.50, and then went to cash in.

He used a student ID card to help prove his identity and when he was asked in Live Chat what his profession is, he replied "Student".

That was a big mistake. The casino's Terms & Conditions prohibit full time students from playing. It immediately told him that it would return his $5000 in deposits but is keeping his winnings.

Gambling Grumbles feels that any casino has the right to set any rules that it wants, as long as it posts them clearly on its website, and if Dan had actually been a student when he played there we would not even have written to Aladdin's about his complaint.

That, however, was not the case.

"I was asked what my occupation was" Dan said. "Since I recently graduated from university, have been a student all my life, and not found a job yet, I said I was a student, and sent my student ID in. They then said that students were not allowed to play at the casino, refunded my deposits, and closed my account.

"In fact, I was not a student at any time when I registered, deposited or played at the casino. The student ID I sent it clearly shows it has expired, and even when I said on live chat that I was a student, I think I mentioned that I had already recently graduated (although I'm not 100% sure I did say that). In any case, I went back on live chat to clarify the situation. I explained to them that I was not actually a student at any time when I played there, so I had not breached their terms. They insisted that because in the past I had said I was a student, whatever else I say is basically not relevant. They seem to only want to pay attention to what I tell them if it suits them.

"In order to prove that I was not a student when I played there, I sent my university degree certificate (which is dated a month before I signed up at Aladdin's Gold), another certificate for an award I won, and transcripts of my degree results (all also dated a month before I signed up). Aladdin's Gold chose to ignore this clear evidence, and simply said again that because I had said in the past on live chat that I was a student (clearly a mistake, which I have since clarified and corrected), they will not reopen my account or pay me what I am owed."

Is that really what happened?

The casino's representative, Tom, does not dispute it.

"The events on this account unfold as the player describes" Tom said. After making several large deposits and requesting a withdrawal we requested ID from him. At this point and he told us that he was a student and used his student card as his proof of ID.

We cannot accept students on our site and so in accordance with our terms of use we refunded all his deposits and closed his account.

"After he found out that we do not accept students he completely changed his story and said that he was not a student. We cannot accept this kind of retraction and so the original statements he made and proof of ID he provided stands".

The key to this dispute, at least in Gambling Grumbles' eyes, is what Aladdin's Gold rules say. They prohibit students from playing there -- they do not prohibit people from saying they are students if they are not.

Of course, having said he was a student, it then became Dan's burden to prove that it was not true. The papers that he provided the casino do that.

Casinos tend to stand strictly by their posted rules. If Aladdin's Gold required someone to be a student to play there, it would not have accepted his unsupported word that he was -- it would have demanded proof in black and white. Here, where that proof supports the player's claims that he was eligible to play the casino is not interested in seeing it. Suddenly, what he said originally is all that it is interested in.