Inetbet complaint

[jod5413]

Here ya go, GM. I will gladly lend you mine!!

 

[greasemonkey]

Here ya go, GM. I will gladly lend you mine!!

Thank you.

 

[gloria460]

I am afraid that as per our terms and conditions all linked accounts will have to be closed and any play void.

We will not be confiscating your deposited funds, only voiding play. The deposits made will be returned to your MypaylinQ account.There are no funds to return on the linked account as they withdrew more than had been deposited.

So is Inet returning the deposits or not? I'm a little confused...lol anyways it's always best to represent yourself honestly bc you will be found out. There are many seasoned players in here and I try to give the player the benefit of the doubt due to so many players being taken advantage of.

 

[Kenny Lingus]

So, by your rules, if someone steals your credit card, uses it to deposit at an online casino, and wins, they should get paid. After all, the casino took their deposit right???

Any online casino or business for that matter who employed this "one free shot for scammers" rule wouldnt last a week. Every crook and scumbag would be signing up in droves!!

I really have to wonder what planet some people are on sometimes

It seems as though you are tying to discredit my point by changing it.

My main assertion is to have online casinos verify a deposit before play begins, in order to accept it as legitimate, or to deny it at that point. Simply put, I believe that online casinos should have sytems in place that would not allow play from dubious deposits. These should be rejected outright when made, and all other deposits should be considered legitimate with any winnings paid, period.

The abuse that comes from verifying accounts at withdrawal rather than at deposit is that casinos stand to profit from those cases where the questionable deposit was lost by the player, but cannot lose when the player wins as the withdrawal will not pass the verification process. Yes, sometimes "bad guys" try to put one over on the casinos, but in many cases (such as this one, it seems) the mistake is rather innocent and does not give the player an advantage. Why should the casino benefit from those instances?

It would seem to me that if casinos can profit in this manner, this can be motivation to create more rules and regulations designed to delegitimatise winnings in order to increase profit margins. Then what you get is rogue behavior hidding behind the legitamacy of confiscation for "breaking the rules". This is why I support up-front verification of accounts and deposits.

I'll bet that there are casinos out there that use these types of tricks to cheat players out of winnings all the time. Does anyone doubt that this actually happens?

Furthermore, this is not a way to give scammers a "free shot". With this system, those scammers would get caught before they were allowed to gamble, not only if they won and tried to withdraw funds.

I really have to wonder what drugs some people are on sometimes

 

[jod5413]

What planet indeed.

This guy didn't have his credit card stolen nor cheat the casino. They should check PRIOR to accepting the deposit and allowing him to play. Once they start accepting bets it should be on them. Check prior to accepting the bets and this isn't an issue. Clearly they were checking and looking for a loophole not to pay.
All problems solved if they want to check then check prior to accepting deposit and play.
How some people think this is ok is beyond me. I would put a little sarcastic eyeroll here but that has been used up ad nauseam by yourself.

It has been mentioned hundreds of times here on Casinomeister over the years. The consensus is that if players had to be security screened when they first sign up, no one would like that. Us gamblers are impatient people and want to play WHEN we want to play and not wait while their docs are approved.

Some of you really do not think that these two people acted wrong. I can not fathom that way of thinking. I am so dumbfounded I don't know how else to say it. You all can toss your thoughts out as much and as often as you want. Bottom line? Inetbet acted correctly. Catching cheaters is what casinos have to do to stay open. As long as you are honest, you will never have a problem at any accredited casino.

 

[Kenny Lingus]

It is virtually impossible for an operator to scrutinize every single transaction on every single account, which is exactly what they would have to do to detect something like this. Do you want to wait a month to have a cashout even looked at by the cashier?? Well that would be the effect. Do you also want to have a faxback form sent EVERY time you deposit which must be signed and returned before you can even PLAY it??

After re-reading the thread, I have a couple of questions for Nifty regarding the paragraph above:

Nifty, why is it that an outfit like MyPaylinq can verify my credit cards and bank accounts efficiently and effectively so that each time I make a deposit to the casino it only takes a matter of minutes, but you insist that it is too much to have casinos pre-verify each deposit in the same manner?

And why is it that I can access my online bank account several times a day to move funds around the world, all without reproving my identity each time, but you insist that I would have to submit a faxback form for each deposit I make should I expect casinos to completely approve my deposits before I play?

The fact is that multiple online ID verification services that are instant and affordable are available. You can check out one of those here:

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

And I wonder if all some of the supposed fraud that casinos experience could be eliminated by using these types of certifications up-front? What do you think, Nifty?

What I think is that your argument contained in the above blurb is specious and purposefully misleading.

Then again, I wouldn't expect anything different from an online casino apologist such as yourself.....

 

[chayton]

I am afraid that as per our terms and conditions all linked accounts will have to be closed and any play void.

We will not be confiscating your deposited funds, only voiding play. The deposits made will be returned to your MypaylinQ account.There are no funds to return on the linked account as they withdrew more than had been deposited.

So is Inet returning the deposits or not? I'm a little confused...

There were 2 linked accounts, the OP (player A) and the OP's wife (player B) - player B played and cashed out a couple thousand - and then player A won, when he tried to cash out, that's when the multiple account issue was discovered. So iNet is refunding the deposits made by player A but not paying him the withdrawal. They're not refunding the deposits to player B who already had a withdrawal of more than they deposited.

That's how I understand it anyhow...

 

[Kenny Lingus]

It has been mentioned hundreds of times here on Casinomeister over the years. The consensus is that if players had to be security screened when they first sign up, no one would like that. Us gamblers are impatient people and want to play WHEN we want to play and not wait while their docs are approved.

Some of you really do not think that these two people acted wrong. I can not fathom that way of thinking. I am so dumbfounded I don't know how else to say it. You all can toss your thoughts out as much and as often as you want. Bottom line? Inetbet acted correctly. Catching cheaters is what casinos have to do to stay open. As long as you are honest, you will never have a problem at any accredited casino.

Two comments for you, jod:

First of all, I would like pre-screening. So please leave me out of the generalizations you need in order to make your point seem valid. But it isn't, and neither is the assumtion that such screening would be overly cumbersome. These are just a few more things that the casinos want you to believe so they can mantain the advantage over you by not pre-approving your deposits.

Second of all, I don't think I or Greasemonkey said that the OP was completely guiltless in this situation. It doesn't look like he tried to hide anything though, nor did he gain an unfair advantage through what he did, so I would maintain that Inetbet's response in this situation was harsh, particularily for a patron of 5 years. Now you and your ilk can scream all you want about each specific instance that a screwed player should have "read the rules", but the bottom line is all we are asking is that a casino verifies each account and deposit up front, to avoid these situations and the rogue like advantage they get from selectively enforcing the rules only when withdrawals are requested.

As posted above, should anyone want to check out an online verification service, here is one that is available:

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

And jod, as far as being dumbfounded over my thinking, I would say you have it half right.

 

[Nifty29]

What planet indeed.

This guy didn't have his credit card stolen nor cheat the casino. They should check PRIOR to accepting the deposit and allowing him to play. Once they start accepting bets it should be on them. Check prior to accepting the bets and this isn't an issue. Clearly they were checking and looking for a loophole not to pay.
All problems solved if they want to check then check prior to accepting deposit and play.
How some people think this is ok is beyond me. I would put a little sarcastic eyeroll here but that has been used up ad nauseam by yourself.

It's been gone over before. It's totally impractical to check every single deposit and every single id before play commences. What's to stop you depositing via some other method than the one you originally said you were going to? Would you be happy to wait a day or two AFTER the casino took your deposit to be able to play with that deposit to allow time for verification? Come on. It's ridiculous to suggest this would work. The minute an operator started doing it, they would go broke as most players would say "blow this" and go somewhere that they could deposit and play instantly.

Whether we like it or not, the rules were there, they were agreed to upon signup, and they were broken. What we think should have been the rule or whatever is a seperate argument.

Insofar as the stolen credit card example goes, I'm fully aware that the OP is not in that situation and never suggested they were. I was pointing out but one example out of many that shows how flawed the idea of "accept the deposit pay the winnings" is when it comes to playing online. Chips in Vegas? Absolutely, but not in cyberspace where operators are exposed to fraud on a constant basis.

The ewallets such as mypaylinq etc are not familiar to me, hence its impossible for me to comment with any precision really..:but I will say that ewallets are just as prone to fraud as casinos. When they verify a visa deposit, they don't actually verify that you're the card owner, just that you have the pertinent details at hand. It's the same with bank account deposits. Do they call you personally each time you deposit? Get you to sign a faxback? No. Why? It's impractical, yet its the only way to 100% ensure it is actually you making the deposit from your own card/account. The ewallets still take risks for the sake of expediency - which is what people want. Do you want to wait days to transfer your deposited funds? I doubt it.

Of course, honest players who bother to read and follow the rules have nothing to fear from reputable operators like inetbet and club world etc and never will.

I'm an "honest player apologist". A "people who take responsibility for their actions apologist". You say I'm a casino apologist, but you only quote the threads and posts that fit your theory. You'll have to do better than cheap shots from the losing side of an argument to prove that I am.

P.S. The OP actually DID try to hide facts, such as the fact they forged signatures and LIED to everyone about never using bonuses.

 

[Jasminebed]

The OP and his wife ran into trouble before with sharing a deposit method. I remember a thread from a player with Casino Rewards who's wife was a joint holder of a credit card, but the account was in his name and it created problems.

If I had a problem one place, I would not just assume that it would be resolved in the same fashion somewhere else, I'd realize it could be a problem, and get permission.

Inetbet's lack of better support is not at issue in this case. They didn't seek help and get impatient when they didn't get it in a timely manner.

I'm not always happy with Inetbet's level of support, but like a restaurant where the food is really good, and affordable, you might put up with a lower quality of service.

IMO Inetbet is going much further to accomodate these players and do what is fair than many other outfits would.

Usually when an invalid deposit method is used, whether fraudulent or accidental, funds are returned to the original deposit method. Since UMW is not currently available to return fund to, perhaps a PAB with a review by Maxd of the past history of deposits and withdrawals on the "joint" accounts might be in order. Inetbet is accredited, and always cooperates fully with CM.

If the OP would like to pursue a PAB, they need to not post further, and to read all of the PAB rules.

Inetbet has built its well deserved reputation of fairness, and if for them it means sticking to the letter of the rules, it's still very fair.

I don't believe that casinos always have to follow all the rules to the letter to be fair, but may judge things on a case by case basis. We've often seen such outcomes here at the forum.

But I don't really think they should be faulted if they don't make exceptions. But for loyal players, it might be a wise business decision from time to time.

 

[chayton]

First of all, I would like pre-screening.

I agree, that's why I like to send my docs in for pre-approval before making a deposit. Most casinos will do that if you ask. But do I think that people should be forced to be preapproved before playing? I don't know - I believe that we're in a minority, I think that most players don't want to bother until it's time to cash out.

Just for grins I'm going to start a poll and see.

 

[Nifty29]

I agree, that's why I like to send my docs in for pre-approval before making a deposit. Most casinos will do that if you ask. But do I think that people should be forced to be preapproved before playing? I don't know - I believe that we're in a minority, I think that most players don't want to bother until it's time to cash out.

Just for grins I'm going to start a poll and see.

Trouble is, it doesn't solve anything in regards to payments.

What could the casino ask for? ID docs and copies of credit card you plan to use or ewallet details and that's pretty much it.

It solves the ID issue which is fine. What happens if you decide to use a different payment method next time? It would have to be pre-approved all over again, which means even more delays.

Gamblers are impatient and they will just go elsewhere. The only possible way it might work is if all online casinos adopted the system.....and that is never going to happen.

We also have to consider the extra staff and costs involved in the process. Can you imagine how impossible it would be to open a new casino? Thousands of players signing up each day and someone having to manually check all the paperwork, cross-checking accounts to pick up shared payment methods like with the OP. We could be talking weeks before a player could deposit and probably longer to get paid, as someone still has to process the withdrawals and bonuses etc etc. Also, who do you think is going to cover all the extra cost? We are through lower RTP, and then watch the shitstorm from some of the same people screaming for the pre-screening in the first place.

Would I like to see pre-screening? In a perfect world, yes.....but the costs and impracticalities outweigh the benefits.

The idea is good, the implementation is unworkable.

Hence, the poll is only going to tell us who thinks it's a good idea, and I'll probably vote yes.....but it's like asking "would you like bill gates to give you $20k"...the answer of course is yes, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

[chayton]

it's like asking "would you like bill gates to give you $20k"...the answer of course is yes, but it ain't gonna happen.

too bad cause I could really use $20k right now.

 

[Mousey]

I'm wondering why they only had one account at mypaylinQ ... doesn't it require SS# to sign up? so it would be easy to have separate accounts? ... or does maypaylinQ not allow two separate accounts on one address?

I still don't 'know' that (no insult intended to the OP, but this must be considered) we have two separate players on one account. Which is one reason why two people using the same ewallet account is such a can of worms.

 

[3mptyseat]

if only the doctor would believe me...

Pure and simple back door shenanigans by inetbet. OP, would this have been one of the larger cashouts you have made from there? I imagine so..

They (INB) are hurting bc UMW went down with a tab in INB's favor... (SS, me too, I am not out stealing from my clients!)

What customers they have left, prolly left bc of crass, curt, and cu*ty email retorts from their CSR's.


Diminished traffic, less BR. Eventually(aka now), they lack the funding to operate without BS like this.

And for shame, they lack the integrity to throw in the towel and save their (once) good name for a more prosperous date.

IMHO, of course...

oh yeah...

I really have to wonder what drugs some people are on sometimes

Not as many as I ask the Doc for. What can u do?

 

[bpb]

At the point of deposit, iNetBet should have recognized that the payment method (MyPayLinQ) was already in use by another member. That should have set off a red flag, gotten the accounts locked until the situation was straightened out. Very easy to detect.

However, they instead chose to freeroll on their customers. Had they lost, nothing would have been flagged or refunded. But they won. And iNetBet used information that they had at the time of the deposit to void the winnings.

iNetBet acted no differently than a customer who deposits via credit card and charges back when they lose.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The OP and his wife ran into trouble before with sharing a deposit method. I remember a thread from a player with Casino Rewards who's wife was a joint holder of a credit card, but the account was in his name and it created problems.

If I had a problem one place, I would not just assume that it would be resolved in the same fashion somewhere else, I'd realize it could be a problem, and get permission.

Inetbet's lack of better support is not at issue in this case. They didn't seek help and get impatient when they didn't get it in a timely manner.

I'm not always happy with Inetbet's level of support, but like a restaurant where the food is really good, and affordable, you might put up with a lower quality of service.

IMO Inetbet is going much further to accomodate these players and do what is fair than many other outfits would.

Usually when an invalid deposit method is used, whether fraudulent or accidental, funds are returned to the original deposit method. Since UMW is not currently available to return fund to, perhaps a PAB with a review by Maxd of the past history of deposits and withdrawals on the "joint" accounts might be in order. Inetbet is accredited, and always cooperates fully with CM.

If the OP would like to pursue a PAB, they need to not post further, and to read all of the PAB rules.

Inetbet has built its well deserved reputation of fairness, and if for them it means sticking to the letter of the rules, it's still very fair.

I don't believe that casinos always have to follow all the rules to the letter to be fair, but may judge things on a case by case basis. We've often seen such outcomes here at the forum.

But I don't really think they should be faulted if they don't make exceptions. But for loyal players, it might be a wise business decision from time to time.

This admission shows that the OP was not really an "innocent victim", but someone who was aware that this was a "risky" way for him & his wife to play, yet they decided that unless they got caught, they would carry on, a clear indication that they were prepared to take the risk.

Since they had managed to get away with this at iNetBet for so long, they got careless, and he had his wife sign and submit his faxback form, and this bit of "laziness" is what got him CAUGHT, as the suspicion started because his wife had signed the form, and this prompted the investigation that unearthed the fact that this was man & wife.

Having different last names, and "forgetting" to update their details every time they moved house, is what allowed them to remain undetected for so long.

Given their problems with Bodog and Fortune Lounge before, they KNEW that they were taking a risk in NOT being fully honest with iNetBet about them being married and living together, yet still having separate accounts with out of date personal details on file.

iNetBet are known for sticking to the rules, and if spinning an excluded slot with a bonus can get winnings confiscated, it is CERTAIN that a far more serious breach of the rules will get the same result.

I even have this feeling that this is ONE person using TWO identities, as this would explain why his WIFE signed his faxback form, and why he admits to switching between his and his wife's account to "change his luck". It could be the case that one spouse has no idea the other is using both their identities to play online and operate gambling related eWallet accounts.
In such a case, the BIGGEST problem faced by the player would be obtaining the signature of the other spouse without having them find out what was going on. If the other spouse can't be persuaded to sign, it has to be faked by the spouse operating the accounts.

Maybe not necessarily full blown fraud, it is a case of "taking advantage of a situation or error" inherrent in online commerce.

 

[labeled]

What's with the rule that a husband and wife can't deposit from the same account? I mean, why is that even a rule? If they are both legally able to access that account, why would a casino state it can't be done? One of our accounts is in my name, but we have two cards, one in each of our names - perfectly legal, and either of us can use the cards anywhere... except an online casino? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Papa-ya]

The US player has in recent years been dwindled down to 1 or 2 pay methods and we are probably heading for none.
If a husband and wife have played at the same casino for years, then they have established themselves as reputable players, jmo.
Now if both husband and wife have a joint bank account and only Mypayling to fund from, will this wallet allow two separate accounts with the same bank account number, or will they expect there to be only one account if there is only one bank account number?
As the previous poster pointed out, most households will have a shared bank account, but can have two separate debit cards for this one account.
Just mentioning this as I don't fully understand the problem Inetbet has with this shared account. Isn't it better if you have more than one player in a household to be spending their money exculsively with one casino then having to split with other casinos?
Maybe this should be taken into consideration for the continued livelyhood of the casino.
Or maybe larger winnings are getting to risky for casinos to process to the US, if this is the case, then it would be nice if casinos would just stop taking our business at this time.

 

[Jasminebed]

The OP and he wife had different last names, and different addresses upon registration. I'd be sure my info was current when I moved, in fact I'm annoyingly prompted for the same info frequently.

I don't use the same wallets as the OP and the missus, but I know my Moneybookers is a unique email addy, and I would think that a routine check when a deposit was made would pick that up. Apparently not.

The OP and Inetbet aside, I'd think the registration process and name and address verification should be checked against their data bank. And then when a deposit was made, that that deposit method was unique.

Again, I urge the OP to PAB to if they feel Inetbet's action for returned deposits on the non-winning account was truly unfair. It would be interesting, but won't happen, to know what the amount of those deposits were versus the $7000 withdrawal. I understand that there were withdrawals processed from prior deposit methods, so they should be deducted from the refund of deposits IMO.

I'm not management at Inetbet, and I'm not Maxd the PAB Moderator here at CM, but I do trust both these parties to be fair.

 

[greasemonkey]

What is with the CS here? Not only are they smarmy and impolite but they will just totally ignore your emails in many cases. How hard is it to hire polite people and have live chat. Its the year 2011. Live chat would be nice... and no rude attitude in the emails would be nice as well.

 

[jod5413]

Two comments for you, jod:

First of all, I would like pre-screening. So please leave me out of the generalizations you need in order to make your point seem valid. But it isn't, and neither is the assumtion that such screening would be overly cumbersome. These are just a few more things that the casinos want you to believe so they can mantain the advantage over you by not pre-approving your deposits.

Second of all, I don't think I or Greasemonkey said that the OP was completely guiltless in this situation. It doesn't look like he tried to hide anything though, nor did he gain an unfair advantage through what he did, so I would maintain that Inetbet's response in this situation was harsh, particularily for a patron of 5 years. Now you and your ilk can scream all you want about each specific instance that a screwed player should have "read the rules", but the bottom line is all we are asking is that a casino verifies each account and deposit up front, to avoid these situations and the rogue like advantage they get from selectively enforcing the rules only when withdrawals are requested.

As posted above, should anyone want to check out an online verification service, here is one that is available:

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

I do not believe I even thought of you personally, Kenny. I stated my thoughts just as you have stated yours.

And jod, as far as being dumbfounded over my thinking, I would say you have it half right.

OK, lets see, I am dumb and you are a jackass. I can learn more all the time. You will be a jackass your entire life.

And, Chayton and VWM, thank you especially for your posts. They have been well thought out.

 

[Nifty29]

I think Vinyl could be right.

It's probably one player using two identities who got caught out signing for both accounts. I mean, its interesting the other player hasn't posted here as well.

Of course, if Inetbet had Live Chat this would never have happened.......

 

[chayton]

I'm wondering why they only had one account at mypaylinQ ... doesn't it require SS# to sign up? so it would be easy to have separate accounts? ... or does maypaylinQ not allow two separate accounts on one address?

I still don't 'know' that (no insult intended to the OP, but this must be considered) we have two separate players on one account. Which is one reason why two people using the same ewallet account is such a can of worms.

I wondered the same thing, it says on the mypaylinQ site that any one person is only allowed to have one account with them and that the name on the account registration has to match the name on the credit card or other deposit method. I couldn't find anywhere that says that two people with different names could share an account (or not)

 

[chayton]

Of course, if Inetbet had Live Chat this would never have happened.......

Now you're just being silly...

 

[Nifty29]

Now you're just being silly...

LOL I just think it's hilarious that whenever anything with inetbet comes up, regardless of the actual issue, there's always someone who bellyaches about not having live chat....and what's even funnier is that in the same breath they say how horrible and rude they are. Why on earth would they want to chat to them then????

 

[chayton]

Why on earth would they want to chat to them then????

Masochists?

 

[The Viking]

Ok im not making judjement here but lets say its one player with 2 accounts but he says he only took promos for 1 account, now what is the gain having 2 accounts then ?
as a person with only 1 account at each casino just curios

I think Vinyl could be right.

It's probably one player using two identities who got caught out signing for both accounts. I mean, its interesting the other player hasn't posted here as well.

Of course, if Inetbet had Live Chat this would never have happened.......

 

[vinylweatherman]

What's with the rule that a husband and wife can't deposit from the same account? I mean, why is that even a rule? If they are both legally able to access that account, why would a casino state it can't be done? One of our accounts is in my name, but we have two cards, one in each of our names - perfectly legal, and either of us can use the cards anywhere... except an online casino? Makes no sense to me.

The problem is likely to be down to the OP trying to slip this under iNetBet's "fraud radar". He only came clean after he got caught, and this was the THIRD time he had run into problems for trying to slip this setup past casinos.

Some casinos WILL allow spouses to have separate accounts from the same household, but this has to be applied for and agreed in advance of opening the spouse account. Usually, this is only allowed with some restrictions in place, usually restricting promotions to any one of the accounts, rather than both. This means they have to share the promotions between them, rather than each having a go.

32Red have an allowance in their terms for different members of a household playing at the casino, and it is that the household can have a particular promotion only ONCE on any ONE of their accounts. I believe 32Red also need to have this dispensation agreed in advance, so that they can set the system to enforce some of these restrictions, and also to verify that it really is two persons, and not just one with two IDs in use.

 

[chayton]

One casino term that I've never been able to understand is the one where you can't let someone else play in your account. So if I'm playing and I win, and I want to let Ray play some of the winnings, it's not allowed. I've never really been able to see the reasoning behind that. If I let someone else play I'm still responsible for the account, so what difference does it make who's pushing the button?

 

[vinylweatherman]

One casino term that I've never been able to understand is the one where you can't let someone else play in your account. So if I'm playing and I win, and I want to let Ray play some of the winnings, it's not allowed. I've never really been able to see the reasoning behind that. If I let someone else play I'm still responsible for the account, so what difference does it make who's pushing the button?

More to the point, how can they TELL whether Ray has slipped into your seat in front of your computer for "a go" with your winnings.

The only way they can get an indication of this is if Ray uses his own PC at his house to play your account, and he lives far enough away that it is obvious when checking IP addresses. Even then, it could still be YOU playing whilst on holiday, and they would have trouble proving this.

This term also FORCES spouses to open separate accounts, rather than share a joint account. No other business has a problem in providing a service to a "household" for all members to use, but with one named person being responsible for paying the bills.

Individual casinos stand to lose out over this, since to comply with the rules, the spouse has to play at a competitor casino, which is what casinos EXPECT, and spouses choosing to play at the SAME casino is automatically assumed to be down for fraud, rather than the spouses liking the same place.

You would never go to Vegas as a couple and find that the host tells your spouse they have to go next door to a competitor casino to play because only one of you can play here.

 

[asianeyes]

The casino is technically right, but after all, they took the deposit in the first place. Can anyone explain to me how sharing money with your spouse via deposits gives you an unfair advantage? Can you imagine a B&M casino refusing to pay on a winner because they saw your wife slip you a $100 bill before you made your bet?

What irks me is that online casinos take bets all the time without any real verification, but win and they go over your account with a fine tooth comb, looking for an excuse not to pay.

Does anyone think that if Inetbet had discovered that the OP and his wife had used the same web wallet while dropping $5000 to the house, they would have given back the money? Right!

Being an American player, I know first-hand the hassles that one has to go through in order to make a deposit before one can play; sometimes it can be 20-30 minutes of work just to get the $ into your account. Why can't the casino either accept or deny that same deposit before game play?

IMO, if a casino takes a deposit, they should pay any winnings earned with that deposit, period. Otherwise, the casino is operating in a manner that lacks credibility and integrity.

This lack of integrity is prevalent among online casinos, and is is exactly why I no longer gamble online.

I agree with you, Kenny. Online gambling sites here in the U.K. too are becoming rather questionable and even the standard sports betting i.e, racing, cricket, football and snooker have all been caught out cheating and match fixing. Even FIFA are being investigated.

To me, as far as i am concerned, online gambling is a thing of the past but at least i managed to win a moderate amount and get out while the going was good. Unfortunately, it seems inherent for mankind to always end up spoiling something that was once good.

On a lighter note, i'm going to my favourate 'landbased' casino tomorrow to spend my £££ on a BJ game where i can actually see all the cards in a six-deck shoe and best of all, when i win i get paid in CASH and there's never any T's & C's

Oh Yeah i almost forgot to mention that here in the U.K. before you can even step foot onto any casino gambling floor, you I.D. and photo must be proved in advance which is opposite of the online industry

 

[asianeyes]

It seems as though you are tying to discredit my point by changing it.

My main assertion is to have online casinos verify a deposit before play begins, in order to accept it as legitimate, or to deny it at that point. Simply put, I believe that online casinos should have sytems in place that would not allow play from dubious deposits. These should be rejected outright when made, and all other deposits should be considered legitimate with any winnings paid, period.

The abuse that comes from verifying accounts at withdrawal rather than at deposit is that casinos stand to profit from those cases where the questionable deposit was lost by the player, but cannot lose when the player wins as the withdrawal will not pass the verification process. Yes, sometimes "bad guys" try to put one over on the casinos, but in many cases (such as this one, it seems) the mistake is rather innocent and does not give the player an advantage. Why should the casino benefit from those instances?

It would seem to me that if casinos can profit in this manner, this can be motivation to create more rules and regulations designed to delegitimatise winnings in order to increase profit margins. Then what you get is rogue behavior hidding behind the legitamacy of confiscation for "breaking the rules". This is why I support up-front verification of accounts and deposits.

I'll bet that there are casinos out there that use these types of tricks to cheat players out of winnings all the time. Does anyone doubt that this actually happens?

Furthermore, this is not a way to give scammers a "free shot". With this system, those scammers would get caught before they were allowed to gamble, not only if they won and tried to withdraw funds.

I really have to wonder what drugs some people are on sometimes [

Spot on, Kenny! I must say i do like your "what drugs some people must be on" comment. Also i would suffice it to say that i also wonder what "vested interests" some people may have in being so blindenly "obvious" about it when trying to convince us otherwise.

Also, good catchout on the "trying to discredit" line. Again a common obvious tactic.

Sorry all about the derail as i think we should be sticking to the OP's issue and not attacking each other but alas, as stated, some of the attacks are rather obvious and thought it was worth pointing it out though i am sure i need not elaborate further

 

[asianeyes]

Two comments for you, jod:

First of all, I would like pre-screening. So please leave me out of the generalizations you need in order to make your point seem valid. But it isn't, and neither is the assumtion that such screening would be overly cumbersome. These are just a few more things that the casinos want you to believe so they can mantain the advantage over you by not pre-approving your deposits.

Second of all, I don't think I or Greasemonkey said that the OP was completely guiltless in this situation. It doesn't look like he tried to hide anything though, nor did he gain an unfair advantage through what he did, so I would maintain that Inetbet's response in this situation was harsh, particularily for a patron of 5 years. Now you and your ilk can scream all you want about each specific instance that a screwed player should have "read the rules", but the bottom line is all we are asking is that a casino verifies each account and deposit up front, to avoid these situations and the rogue like advantage they get from selectively enforcing the rules only when withdrawals are requested.

As posted above, should anyone want to check out an online verification service, here is one that is available:

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

And jod, as far as being dumbfounded over my thinking, I would say you have it half right.

 

[SlotMonster]

If player is not going to use Credit or Debit card (that will cause more security checks), I would say it will be OK if we allow player to register, submit their documents, then deposit and play WHILE we are performing verification procedures. And if player has failed to provide genuine ID or proof of identity or any requested document - their winnings will be voided and deposits returned back to e-wallet.

 

[lettingyouknow]

Rushmore just did this to me

Rushmore just did this to me, setting a limit on deps and the screen pops up must go to customer support. They stated that although I had not won I would need to send in docs and verify address, etc in order to continue to play there. It did take 3 days to approve but I was told I would not have to do it again.

My 2 cents is that inetbet stated they signed up with diff addresses? And different last names?

Ok my 4 cents also inetbet stated all deps from the acct will be returned. Since they closed 2 accts his and hers, should they not return funds from both accts?

 

[greasemonkey]

slots jungle/ winpalace will not allow you to register prior to playing. You MUST deposit before they will accept faxback and ID.

 

[luarod]

no pay

So true:

Originally Posted by Kenny Lingus
Two comments for you, jod:

First of all, I would like pre-screening. So please leave me out of the generalizations you need in order to make your point seem valid. But it isn't, and neither is the assumtion that such screening would be overly cumbersome. These are just a few more things that the casinos want you to believe so they can mantain the advantage over you by not pre-approving your deposits.

Second of all, I don't think I or Greasemonkey said that the OP was completely guiltless in this situation. It doesn't look like he tried to hide anything though, nor did he gain an unfair advantage through what he did, so I would maintain that Inetbet's response in this situation was harsh, particularily for a patron of 5 years. Now you and your ilk can scream all you want about each specific instance that a screwed player should have "read the rules", but the bottom line is all we are asking is that a casino verifies each account and deposit up front, to avoid these situations and the rogue like advantage they get from selectively enforcing the rules only when withdrawals are requested.

As posted above, should anyone want to check out an online verification service, here is one that is available:

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

And jod, as far as being dumbfounded over my thinking, I would say you have it half right.

 

[chayton]

Rushmore just did this to me, setting a limit on deps and the screen pops up must go to customer support. They stated that although I had not won I would need to send in docs and verify address, etc in order to continue to play there. It did take 3 days to approve but I was told I would not have to do it again.

My 2 cents is that inetbet stated they signed up with diff addresses? And different last names?

Ok my 4 cents also inetbet stated all deps from the acct will be returned. Since they closed 2 accts his and hers, should they not return funds from both accts?

But she already had a withdrawal that was larger than all the deposits on her account, so no they shouldn't have to return deposits to that account.

 

[Kenny Lingus]

OK, lets see, I am dumb and you are a jackass. I can learn more all the time. You will be a jackass your entire life.

Yes, you learned that I am a huge jackass when we did that show in Tijuana...

 

[jod5413]

edited because it was out of line

 

[swampwitch]

Kenny and jod...you're both going too far. I love a good snarkfest, but both of you are better than these last couple of posts. Please stop.

 

[jod5413]

You are right, Swampy. Sometimes things seem better in your head than they translate to print.

Second point, when people start on you and you do not know why, you tend to go off like a firecracker.

I apologize to any and all that were offended.

 

[footdr]

Anyone been paid by inetbet?

I am getting runaround? anyone else have problems being paid via check or being asked for new documents after being vip for years and paid previously with no problems?

Please post

 

[3mptyseat]

they closed my acct after my post here...Balance and all... They were obtuse *meanies* for awhile IMHO, but sucks that another did-pay is on the long list of no-pays...

 

[maxd]

they closed my acct after my post here...

If you are implying that they closed your account __because__ of your post I seriously doubt that. On the other hand if you used the same language with them that you've used here -- speaking of which, hold the potty mouthed stuff SVP -- then you could well expect to get handled a little abruptly.

Anyway, you guys both know the drill: if you have a problem with an Accred casino then PAB it.

This non-specific bitch-and-moan stuff does no one any good and it sure doesn't get your problem solved.

 

[fanihi]

enough for me

they closed my acct after my post here...Balance and all... They were obtuse *meanies* for awhile IMHO, but sucks that another did-pay is on the long list of no-pays...

well I guess I will not be depositing and playing at inetbet. I for one have been in the tourism/hospitality business for over 30yrs...n customer service is key ...imo....24hrs,
1 week....as long as the winnings are paid promptly , should not be the main focus. From the posts I've seen even from the rep....1 line sentences usually do not explain the important points...

 

[The Dude]

they closed my acct after my post here...Balance and all... They were obtuse *meanies* for awhile IMHO, but sucks that another did-pay is on the long list of no-pays...

I'm sure you know why your account was closed - it had nothing to do with your posting in the fora. If you need further information, please PM me.

@ everyone else - is there a point to this thread besides a bitch and moan session? Ten pages is a hell of a lot of ranting.

It's entitled Inetbet: No pay

These guys have been in business about as long as Casinomeister has, and I don't recall one instance when this casino did not pay a player who was rightly owed his/her winnings.

I'm retitling the thread to something more appropriate.

 

[secret2]

From Jod5413:


'secret2
I do not play at Inetbet anymore because their CS is deplorable.
They are quick with withdrawels...yes but I refuse to play there because the CS is just plain unfreindly and it I am still waiting on an email response from almost 2 weeks ago.....and I have a few email exchanges with CS from waay before that to support WHY I do not play there. Arrogant and lazy CS.
Yes, accredited but NO to CS....BIG NO.
Hi secret2,

I am unsure why you would make such a post when you have been playing regularly with us and still are, if you have any unanswered questions then please PM me and I will attend to it for you immediately.
Wow, poor support yet you still play there? Now That's Funny! '





I have not deposited there in quite a while! Maybe Inetbet can shed some light on the last time I actually deposited??

I played the $10 ND bonus (managers bonus). Why not?

 

[emily_hanson]

Hi Secret2

Yes most certainly, you deposited towards the end of May, right up to the time QT was in operation and have been depositing and withdrawing regularly through the year.

I am also very surprised at your comments as I see from earlier correspondence that we have only tried to assist with an issue that you had back in Feb, certainly no offence was intended.

All the best to everyone.
Emily