Inetbet being unreasonable

[mitchy11]

Hi,

What do you all think of this scenario?

I registered at Inetbet. I heard they were a fine establishment. I claimed their first deposit coupon YYR88. I deposited $300. This is an after-wager bonus meaning I never receive any bonus funds upfront. Only after I finish the wagering do I receive a bonus. I played a bit and lost $105 of my own funds. I decided I did not want to finish the wagering to receive a bonus.

I ask that the bonus be canceled an I be allowed to withdraw. Both the cs and the rep. here are telling me I need to finish the wagering for the bonus. I replied I have not been given any bonus, don't want any bonus and have lost some of my own funds.

The rep. has been factually incorrect about this a few times, claiming I am trying somehow to take advantage of them by playing a bit, winning and then withdrawing. I have not won in fact. I have lost some of my own money but this seems to have eluded them.


Is this normal and fair behavior? I did not take any of their bonus funds. I never received any of their bonus funds. I played and lost my own funds. I now want to cancel the after-wager bonus that I never received. All I want is my own $195 back.

 

[LaHutti]

Well...that sounds like bs to me, since their T&C's clearly says that :

quote:
If coupon is applied to larger deposits coupon will become void. (amended Feb 2008)
/quote.

So actually you didn't request a bonus ... or rather your request for a bonus became void, because you deposited $300.
So they should just give you your remaining money back imo.

 

[chuchu59]

Mitchy11,

Just two questions. In the cashier section, did it state that the balance was withdrawable. If not, what were the wagering requirements stated there.

 

[mitchy11]

Hi chuchu,

All the balance is shown as withdrawable. There are no wager requirements shown. There never were because I never received any bonus. What do you think? Are they being unreasonable?

 

[mitchy11]

Further, the rep. has said the reasoning for not allowing me to withdraw was because I was "up." I pointed out that I was not in fact up but down $105. The rep. ignored this correction. Instead the rep. responded:


-You claimed a bonus no diasagreement there.

-You now do not want to meet the wagering that you agreed to when claiming the bonus.

-The rules are very clear

-You will not be allowed to withdraw until you meet the wagering.


Huh? The rep. is acting as if I actually received a bonus and now don't want to meet the wagering. The rep. seems to conveniently forget the I never received any bonus, played with any bonus, lost any bonus or want this bonus.

Can anyone explain to me how I am gaining an edge on a casino by playing with my owns funds, losing them, and then wanting to withdraw my own lesser funds while forfeiting a bonus that I never received? I asked this if the rep. but again the person had no response.

It seems they are locking me in out of greed only.

 

[LaHutti]

ok...It's been brought to my attention, by a rep on here, that my statement is incorrect, and I have to agree, after rereading the bonus part of their website.
Your bonus is NOT void, since you can get bonused up to a $400 deposit.
Sorry about that, and thanks to the rep, who kindly mad me aware of my mistake..
Now that also changes things, as you deposited and put in the code to get the bonus. Now since you lost some of your own money, you're saying you don't want the bonus anyway, and you want your (remaining) money back.
I really don't think they're being unreasonable, in asking you to keep your part of the deal. The deal is really crappy, if you ask me. The bonus should be paid before you wager anything, to NOT end up in a situation like this, imo ...I see you putting in the code in, for a bonus, as a contract, that before you started losing, you had every intention of filling your part, and the casino still have every intention filling their part.
It all seems a little weird, asking you to fill the requirements before you get the bonus...but there are a lot of weird things out there, and that's a different story, but you accepted to take the deal, so..... guess you're just gonna have to eat it.

 

[LaHutti]

It seems they are locking me in out of greed only.

Lol...that's a funny statement...why the h... else would they ?
I'm afraid that's not only this casino, but every single one of them. They're businesses, and wanna drag as many people in, and make as much monnies as possible, in every way they can ( Bonusses being a pretty big part of that, judging from the amount of promotions they throw at us ).

 

[mitchy11]

Lol...that's a funny statement...why the h... else would they ?
I'm afraid that's not only this casino, but every single one of them. They're businesses, and wanna drag as many people in, and make as much monnies as possible, in every way they can ( Bonusses being a pretty big part of that, judging from the amount of promotions they throw at us ).

Yes but in doing such actions against one person they may lose the custom of some others thereby actually hurting the business in the long run.

 

[mitchy11]

ok...It's been brought to my attention, by a rep on here, that my statement is incorrect, and I have to agree, after rereading the bonus part of their website.
Your bonus is NOT void, since you can get bonused up to a $400 deposit.
Sorry about that, and thanks to the rep, who kindly mad me aware of my mistake..

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying but if you are taking their word for it then it is like taking a tobacco company's word that nicotine is not addictive. Have a look for yourself at the rules. I did.


Here is what is says about the bonus I took:

*Limitations for initial deposit bonuses:

*50% Deposit bonus: This offers applies only to your first deposit with iNetBet and your bonus will be credited to your account once the total of all your bets is twenty times your initial deposit. For example if you deposit $100 and play Tri-Card Poker at $10.00 per hand, you must play at least 200 hands ($2000) before you can redeem your full bonus.

Bonus must be turned over 20 times before cashing out. Maximum bonus allowed is $200.00.

Wagering requirements are increased to twenty five times for Video Poker, thirty times deposit and bonus for all play on War and Multi-Hand Video Poker and sixty times for all Blackjack and 21 related games (amended 2nd Oct 2006). All wagering must be completed prior to any withdrawal being made.


As you can see it says BONUS must be wagered 20 times. It says nothing about my DEPOSIT needing to be wagered a certain amount before requesting a withdrawal of my deposit only. Their own rules say that once you get the bonus it must be wagered a certain amount of times before withdrawing. They mention nothing about not being able to withdraw your deposit while forfeiting the bonus. I agree that if I had actually receive a bonus I would be bound by the terms. I did not though.


Some will no doubt point to the last sentence which says, "All wagering must be completed prior to any withdrawal being made." However, it's placement within the paragraph about the wagering AFTER the bonus is received will lead many readers to think it applies ONLY to the bonus. I never had any bonus and it is not applicable to me.


The rep. is now hiding under the "rules are rules" barrier. But in this case the rules lean toward my side of things I think not the casinos. First the rep. said I could not have my deposit back because I was up. I proved otherwise. Then the rep. said I could not have my deposit back because I would gain an advantage. I asked exactly how that would be and received no reasoning. Now the rep. says "the rules are the rules." What rules? I have shown the rules are ambiguous at best and if read strictly actually lean toward me.

A casino can't declare that a player abide by the rules when the rules don't pertain.

 

[chuchu59]

In the true spirit of a contract, there must be consideration from both sides. The act of claiming the bonus through a code is not consideration but the deposit is. This is now complicated because the wagering must be completed before the bonus is given. Before the wagering is complete, the casino does not need to give the bonus so in all fairness, if the wagering has not been completed the player should not be bound to finish them especially since there is no loss or consideration on the casino's part. Put it in another way, if the casino has not fulfilled the part of the deal, why should the player? It is all future tense and tilted favorably in favour of the casino.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is an apalling deal

20x is virtually IMPOSSIBLE at RTG, and it is unlikely it would be completed before going bust. Worse still, going bust does NOT even get you the bonus, you have to deposit again and complete the WR, and THEN even when you get the bonus you have another near impossible WR to even get your money back.

Far better to deposit without this offer, and then use the newsletter codes and Tempting Tuesday offers as a regular player.

 

[lauram]

Wish some of the casinos would change the rules for us regulars on bonuses also. I mean was it prime casino at one time had 80x playthrough. Also seen a few others i read and think are you kidding me playthrough 20x deposit and bonus cashout is 5 times your deposit not even worth going in there if you have to jump through hoops to get a few min longer play time you may as well deposit at one of the better online casinos with no bonus if you double your money cashout the better ones are just 24 hours to pay you in.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Wish some of the casinos would change the rules for us regulars on bonuses also. I mean was it prime casino at one time had 80x playthrough. Also seen a few others i read and think are you kidding me playthrough 20x deposit and bonus cashout is 5 times your deposit not even worth going in there if you have to jump through hoops to get a few min longer play time you may as well deposit at one of the better online casinos with no bonus if you double your money cashout the better ones are just 24 hours to pay you in.

Prime have just announced here that they have lowered WR from 80x to the MG standard of 30x. They have also changed the weightings to include more games.

More directly related to this case is a discussion about Virgin casino and a signup bonus which is also granted after meeting WR on a deposit. There are two differences though, the Virgin bonus has no further WR once it has been released, unlike the iNetBet one, and players can choose to cancel the bonus early, and just not get it, if they feel they are on an unlucky run.

iNetBet had a similar post wager offer for regular players, and I had to deposit twice to make it through, but won overall at the end of it, and was paid quickly. It exposed a problem with the RTG cashier though, as the WR is not tracked for these reward type bonuses, and players cannot simply visit the cashier to see how much more WR is needed. RTG also does not allow the use of another coupon while there is still WR to complete from the first.
RTG may have fixed this, because a new bug has been introduced into the cashier where WR is not zeroed out when a player reached a zero balance. When further deposits are made, the WR can remain, although the balance shows as withdrawable. The worst effect of this ghost WR is that it prevents the use of another coupon. CS can easily reset WR in these cases, but it means having to ask. Club World is also beset by this problem, along with pretty much every MG casino

Perhaps we need a new annual Casinomeister award, most annoying casino software bug

 

[Audioz]

because a new bug has been introduced into the cashier where WR is not zeroed out when a player reached a zero balance.

This bug should now be cleared, because even 2 weeks ago, this error doesn't appear anymore, at least on iNetBet!

 

[vinylweatherman]

This bug should now be cleared, because even 2 weeks ago, this error doesn't appear anymore, at least on iNetBet!

I have not been able to test this as I have a broken game on iNetBet. I have never had this before, and I suspect it may have something to do with the cashier bug, which itself seems to have crept in with the recent addition of new games.
Most likely, RTG were trying to fix the problem with after wager bonuses not being tracked, but somehow screwed this up.

I have decided to wait till I get a lobby update triggered, and then test for the bug having been fixed. RTG have let me down though, they used to have "a new lobby is available" pretty much daily (or so it seemed), but it now never seems to do this.

 

[Kenny Lingus]

The rep. has been factually incorrect about this a few times, claiming I am trying somehow to take advantage of them by playing a bit, winning and then withdrawing. I have not won in fact. I have lost some of my own money but this seems to have eluded them.

Is this normal and fair behavior? I did not take any of their bonus funds. I never received any of their bonus funds. I played and lost my own funds. I now want to cancel the after-wager bonus that I never received. All I want is my own $195 back.

All the balance is shown as withdrawable. There are no wager requirements shown. There never were because I never received any bonus. What do you think? Are they being unreasonable?

Further, the rep. has said the reasoning for not allowing me to withdraw was because I was "up." I pointed out that I was not in fact up but down $105. The rep. ignored this correction. Instead the rep. responded:

-You claimed a bonus no diasagreement there.

-You now do not want to meet the wagering that you agreed to when claiming the bonus.

-The rules are very clear

-You will not be allowed to withdraw until you meet the wagering.

Huh? The rep. is acting as if I actually received a bonus and now don't want to meet the wagering. The rep. seems to conveniently forget the I never received any bonus, played with any bonus, lost any bonus or want this bonus.

Can anyone explain to me how I am gaining an edge on a casino by playing with my owns funds, losing them, and then wanting to withdraw my own lesser funds while forfeiting a bonus that I never received? I asked this if the rep. but again the person had no response.

It seems they are locking me in out of greed only.

The rep. is now hiding under the "rules are rules" barrier. But in this case the rules lean toward my side of things I think not the casinos. First the rep. said I could not have my deposit back because I was up. I proved otherwise. Then the rep. said I could not have my deposit back because I would gain an advantage. I asked exactly how that would be and received no reasoning. Now the rep. says "the rules are the rules." What rules? I have shown the rules are ambiguous at best and if read strictly actually lean toward me.

A casino can't declare that a player abide by the rules when the rules don't pertain.

In the true spirit of a contract, there must be consideration from both sides. The act of claiming the bonus through a code is not consideration but the deposit is. This is now complicated because the wagering must be completed before the bonus is given. Before the wagering is complete, the casino does not need to give the bonus so in all fairness, if the wagering has not been completed the player should not be bound to finish them especially since there is no loss or consideration on the casino's part. Put it in another way, if the casino has not fulfilled the part of the deal, why should the player? It is all future tense and tilted favorably in favour of the casino.

Yes, absolutely, Inetbet is acting unfairly, especially for a CM accredited casino. Additionally, the rep you are dealing with seems to be saying whatever they can in order to justify the casino's actions. My favorite is "The rules are very clear" when they obviously are not, especially when you consider that the software indicates that the entire balance is withdrawlable.

Of a more "global" concern is the fact that they are trying to lock-in players by accepting a bonus, when in fact they don't even have to provide the bonus if you lose your stake before wagering your deposit 20 times through!!! This "bonus" is designed to lock in the player, but not necessarily the casino. Talk about having it both ways!!!

Casinomeister, IMO you need to either make Inetbet stop this aggregious bonus system or exclude them from the accredited list. This just has to be unacceptable to anybody with standards!!!

Makes me glad I swore off R(igged)T(oo)G(ood) casinos, though!

 

[maxd]

Casinomeister, IMO you need to either make Inetbet stop this aggregious bonus system or exclude them from the accredited list. This just has to be unacceptable to anybody with standards!!!

It's not our business to be _telling_ the casino anything. We can point out to them something that we feel is unclear or inappropriate but that's a negotiation not a dictation of terms.

Furthermore I don't see that INetBet's position here warrants the level of furor that the OP is attempting to create. While I won't disagree that I would have found the terms of the bonus unattractive, and I would not have participated in it, the OP obviously felt differently when they entered the bonus code in order to participate in that bonus offer.

As to the placement of "All wagering must be completed prior to any withdrawal being made" I think one can safely assume that it _does_ apply to you if you are participating in that bonus, whether it comes a line in the paragraph sooner or later.

If it were me reading those terms and I read "Bonus must be turned over 20 times before cashing out" I would take the amount of the bonus involved, $150 in this case if I've read the OP's statements correctly, multiply that by the WR and that would tell me how much I needed to wager. The fact that I don't actually receive the bonus until after I've done so is ... unappealing (to me) but as stated, obviously the OP thought otherwise.

In my opinion there's a lesson behind this which many players would like to avoid: it's called personal responsibility. If you agree to participate in a bonus offer then it's pretty safe to assume that the terms of the bonus _will_ apply to you. It's very simple: you read the terms and you say "this applies to me". To later start sifting through those terms in order to attempt to reinterpret them to your advantage -- no matter how creative you need to get to do so -- is not very sporting. More importantly, it's generally not going to get you very far.

So far in this case I don't see where INetBet is at fault. I personally wouldn't have participated in this particular bonus, and I generally don't like bonuses that are structured this way, but that's not a condemnable offense on their part.

Frankly the bottom line for me here is: where's the beef? Making sushi out of the bonus terms is not a legitimate complaint, especially when you voluntarily signed up for those terms in the first place.

 

[chuchu59]

Oh, this thread is still here. Just one question for Mitchy 11. Did it state in the terms and conditions for this bonus what the status would be if you did not complete the wagering requirements?

 

[Kenny Lingus]

It's not our business to be _telling_ the casino anything.....

....So far in this case I don't see where INetBet is at fault....

....Frankly the bottom line for me here is: where's the beef?

Wow! With a subtitle "Casino Watchdog and Player Advocate since 1998" on the home page of this website, I thought that this was an operation that stuck up for the players in situations like this.

But, "Where's the beef?", you ask...

1) First of all, the casino's Rep stated a different reason for the denial of the withdrawl, only falling back on "You now do not want to meet the wagering that you agreed to when claiming the bonus" when the player pointed out that the initial reasoning was not correct.

2) Second of all, IMO, the wording of the T&C is confusing. It can be read both ways. My question to you, Max, is this: Why is it fair for a casino to "lock" a player into terms of a bonus before they are required to pay any bonus to the player? This is especially one-sided if the player has never played at the casino before, as it is in this case.

Inetbet's policy here is basically "Come try us out and we'll give you a 50% bonus!!!! (yeahhh!) However, that bonus might be hard to get as you might not be able to clear the 50% wagering on just you initial deposit. But if you find that you don't like our site and want to quit before you reach the required wagering to receive the bonus, TOO BAD, as your entire deposit will be locked-in until and unless you first are able to wager enough to receive the bonus, and then wager enough to redeem it." If this is what the T&C said, I would not argue, but it didn't even come close to this admission.

So my second question, Max, is: Do you think that it is OK for a casino to be vague, or at least extremely non-explicit, when setting up the terms of a bonus? Remember, that this "agreement" has uni-lateral terms, which should favor the non-writing party should any part be considered unclear.

3) Per the player, the casino software indicates that the entire remaining balance is withdrawlable. Sounds to me like Inetbet is a litle confused by it's own promotion, too.

4) Finally, this is a new player to Inetbet. Why woulnd't they be satified with getting $105 of the player's money, and to just let them go? We're talking about a refund of $195, peanuts to a casino of Inetbet's size. Personally, I hope they lose waaaay, waaaaaay more than $195 in potential bets from others who now think twice about depositing at their site. I would serve them right for all of this bullying.

One last comment. As far as your statement "It's not our business to be _telling_ the casino anything.....", I'm confused as to what responsibility a casino has once it is allowed to be put on the accredited list. Should it not have to live up to some standards, or potentially be yanked from the list? I'm guessing the traffic that they receive from being on said list would be enough to repay that $195 many times over in just a day or two, no?

C'mon guys, stand up for what is fair!

 

[The Dude]

Wow! With a subtitle "Casino Watchdog and Player Advocate since 1998" on the home page of this website, I thought that this was an operation that stuck up for the players in situations like this...

Sure, but players need to understand that they need to act responsively and abide by terms and conditions that they agree to when accepting a bonus. That is what Max was getting at.

What's the problem? You don't like the terms? Fine, then don't accept the bonus.

Bonuses are not obligatory - if you find yourself at odds against them, then stop using them.

 

[maxd]

Wow! With a subtitle "Casino Watchdog and Player Advocate since 1998" on the home page of this website, I thought that this was an operation that stuck up for the players in situations like this.

Look at this page if you are in doubt as to how much "sticking up" Casinomeister has done over the years. That is not what's in question here and I'll thank you to not try and take it there.

Why is it fair for a casino to "lock" a player into terms of a bonus before they are required to pay any bonus to the player?

"Fair"? They're offering 'free' money under conditions which they have made reasonably clear: it's not about 'fair' at all, almost never is. It's about what the player needs to do to get the 'free' money. Some people will find the offer attractive -- or 'fair' if you want to look at it that way -- others won't.

If I offered a $1,000,000 bonus under the terms that the player had to play their deposit through 100,000 times I guarantee you that some people would take me up on the offer. Is it 'fair' or not? I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole but some folks would. I guess that means it's 'fair' to them and not 'fair' to me. Point is, that question has basically nothing to do with this situation.

So my second question, Max, is: Do you think that it is OK for a casino to be vague, or at least extremely non-explicit, when setting up the terms of a bonus?

Again, you're not asking a question to get an answer you're just trying to stir the ka-ka. Stir away, you know very well what the answer to your so-called question is.

Sounds to me like Inetbet is a litle confused by it's own promotion, too.

That happens from time to time. And in this case it may be the only defensible complaint the player has.

... peanuts to a casino of Inetbet's size.

How is that your right to decide, or mine for that matter. Everyone always thinks that the other guy can cough up a little cash because it's "peanuts" to them. Right, well tell you what, since it's just "peanuts" why don't you give it to the player, or maybe even part of it. It's just peanuts, right? Why don't I think the player should be holding their breath for that?

I'm confused as to what responsibility a casino has once it is allowed to be put on the accredited list. Should it not have to live up to some standards, or potentially be yanked from the list?

Yes, I think you are confused. Have you read the Accredited pages? Obviously not because the standards for Accreditation are front and center at the top of both pages (Casinos and Poker for those interested). Again, you're taking stabs because you like how it looks in the mirror. Not interested in playing that game, thanks very much.

 

[chuchu59]

Kenny,

I have been registered at CM for 4 years and there is no doubt that casinomeister is the top watchdog for the industry. You need to be aware though that there needs to be balance in the way issues are handled and that things are not necessarily tilted the players' way. There may be minor disagreements but overall this site has helped many a player retrieve winnings with the cooperation of the casinos and that is a fact.

Back to this case, I have to agree with Kenny that the casino is vague on the Ts and Cs of this promo. When it is said that WRs must be met before cashing out, it is obviously said in the context of the bonus already being given but that has not transpired yet ie this is in the paragraph following Bonus must be rolled over 20 times before cashing out. There is nothing being said about whether a withdrawal can be made before the initial wagering is complete. With hindsight, maybe they should have written that prior to receiving the bonus, the max that you can cash out is the deposit amount and that losses incurred while meeting the initial WRs cannot be refunded.

The fact that in the cashier the balance is shown as withdrawable also lends credence to Mitchy 11's case. This is a bonus system invented by RTG. If it was intended that once a deposit was made, the balance should be locked until the WRs for the bonus has been completed, then it should not be withdrawable.

Maybe we should invite the Inetbet rep to present the casino's case here although he is likely to retort by saying why these things are always put on board instead of being sorted out thru pms.

 

[Kenny Lingus]

Sure, but players need to understand that they need to act responsively and abide by terms and conditions that they agree to when accepting a bonus. That is what Max was getting at.

What's the problem? You don't like the terms? Fine, then don't accept the bonus.

It appears that the terms of this bonus are ambiguous, especially in reference to cashing out before the bonus is awarded; it also appears the player did not clearly understand the T&C in the same manner that the casino intended them. I submit that you cannot "accept" terms that are not clear.

Given the above statement plus the fact that the player in no way benefited from his acceptance of the bonus as no bonus funds were ever provided to the player, what is wrong to expect the casino to refund the remainder of the player's deposit?

"Fair"? They're offering 'free' money under conditions which they have made reasonably clear: it's not about 'fair' at all, almost never is. It's about what the player needs to do to get the 'free' money. Some people will find the offer attractive -- or 'fair' if you want to look at it that way -- others won't.

IMO, fair means that a "contract" was entered into by the parties in question, and that none of the parties got an advantage by ignoring or violating the provisions of the agreement.

Also IMO, in this particular case, the terms were NOT made "reasonably clear". Whether or not cashing out before the bonus was awarded is not addressed in the T&C; the phrase "All wagering must be completed prior to any withdrawal being made" is included in the paragraph that discusses wagering requirements for the BONUS MONEY.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that someone would interpret that provision as having to do (only) with the bonus funds. The fact that the software indicated the deposit itself was withdrawlable is suporting evidence that this interpretation was the correct one. And since the rules were written only by the casino and not the player (hence my previous use of the term "unilateral"), fairness would give the benefit of doubt to the player/non-author when interpreting any such ambiguousness.

The player clearly did not gain an advantage by his actions in any way. And since the provision for an "early" withdrawl is unclear, I say Inetbet should return the funds to this player; then they could go and amend this bonus' T&C so it is clear that withdrawls before the bonus is awarded are not allowed for any future depositors.

Their only reason not to do so in this case would indeed be greed-based, period.

Kenny,

I have been registered at CM for 4 years and there is no doubt that casinomeister is the top watchdog for the industry. You need to be aware though that there needs to be balance in the way issues are handled and that things are not necessarily tilted the players' way. There may be minor disagreements but overall this site has helped many a player retrieve winnings with the cooperation of the casinos and that is a fact.

Fair enough. I apologize for any negativeness that I leveled at this site by my previous statement. But I do believe that Mitchy11 is being wrong this time around, and I'd like to see someone stick up for the "little guy" in this case.

 

[mitchy11]

Oh, this thread is still here. Just one question for Mitchy 11. Did it state in the terms and conditions for this bonus what the status would be if you did not complete the wagering requirements?

Sorry, have been away for a week or so....


No chuchu, nothing in this regard was mentioned.

 

[mitchy11]

As to the placement of "All wagering must be completed prior to any withdrawal being made" I think one can safely assume that it _does_ apply to you if you are participating in that bonus, whether it comes a line in the paragraph sooner or later.

That is how you read it. Several other obviously intelligent, non-partisan people have read it another way. That should tell you it's ambiguous.

If it were me reading those terms and I read "Bonus must be turned over 20 times before cashing out" I would take the amount of the bonus involved, $150 in this case if I've read the OP's statements correctly, multiply that by the WR and that would tell me how much I needed to wager.

Well, yes plainly. This is not in contention and I don't see why you are explaining it. The issue is that I never received any bonus and don't want one after trying out the software. Sure, the wagering rules would pertain if I actually got a bonus. I did not.

In my opinion there's a lesson behind this which many players would like to avoid: it's called personal responsibility. If you agree to participate in a bonus offer then it's pretty safe to assume that the terms of the bonus _will_ apply to you. It's very simple: you read the terms and you say "this applies to me". To later start sifting through those terms in order to attempt to reinterpret them to your advantage -- no matter how creative you need to get to do so -- is not very sporting. More importantly, it's generally not going to get you very far.

What about casino responsibility? What about that lesson? The casino has failed to: 1. Outline clear, unambiguous terms. 2. Not lie to a player in a dispute. They told me I was "up" at first and this was the reason I could not withdraw. Then they told me I gained some advantage by wanting to withdraw. They could not explain how of course. I have the private messages to prove these statements.

The simple fact that they are now resorting the the "rules are the rules" excuse after trying unsuccessfully TWICE to obfuscate the issue in order to shut me up should show that they are less than above board here.

And exactly what "advantage" am I getting here by as you say "re"interpreting the terms (others have said I am simply interpreting them as they are ambiguous at best). I have lost money. I have not gotten any bonus. I don't want any bonus. Exactly where is my advantage here? Show me.

Frankly the bottom line for me here is: where's the beef? Making sushi out of the bonus terms is not a legitimate complaint, especially when you voluntarily signed up for those terms in the first place.

You are attempting to marginalize me as some persnickety whiner when actually I am the victim of unclear terms and deceiving management. That's the beef and there is a lot of meat here for a complaint.