iNetBet does not want to pay my winnings!

[Daffy]

Hi Emily

I have a question...

if Fuglac and his friend had asked permission before establishing an additional account on the same computer (agreeing to supply advance documentation)...would this have been permitted???

If the answer is "yes"...may they not satisfy that requirement now...even if the $150 bonus is unavailable/subtracted???

I'm thinking a $500 deposit to get a $150 bonus with your WR is NOT a slam-dunk opportunity for an advantage player. Not even in the same ballpark with multiple identities for a free chip.

I agree, iNetBet has always had the very best reputation...and Emily is very assessable for help. Maybe with a little more research, this withdrawl could be resolved.

As far as pre-qualifing every bonus applicant...I don't see how that is even remotely feasible until the ID technology gets more advanced..."everybody want to deposit and wait 2-3 days to play"...I don't think so.

the dUck

 

[GrandMaster]

Then they would require you to contact them via phone and then they would make you prove your identity by answering the secret questions you filled out when opening the account.

So why couldn't you just answer those questions on your computer?

Anyway, this is a different issue. In the case of the online payment company you want to prove that you are you, where in the case of the casino you want to prove that the two people are different.

GrandMaster
If your computer died you would simply be playing with a new computer address, you would not be playing under the exact same address as a person that lives nearby and plays the exact same pattern of play and wants there money sent to the same Bank.

I was responding to a different topic.

 

[FugLac]

Dear Emily,

You say: "when you break rules you suffer consequences", and that "It would make a jolly ruse to try and claim multiple bonuses from a Casino and if you get away with it, great, however if you are rumbled, no problems they give you your money back, even if you should happen to lose.".

The problem is that all that you say refers to abusers. I made a mistake but I'm not an abuser, but almost all of your sentences suggest that you can't even imagine that I didn't have an intention to defraud the casino. As KasinoKing said, it is as if I were "guilty" until proved "innocent"!

I have sent a long e-mail to the casino support with my concerns, and I waited for some weeks before I opened this thread but I have not even received an answer. Ok, I understand this approach: "Why should we waste our time for a reply to him if we are convinced that he is a "criminal"?"

Anyway, you say that your Terms & Condition are clear on this. Then please show me which section are you referring to! All that I can find is that "one bonus per computer" but it doesn't say anything about the consequences. It doesn't say that if you mistakenly give two bonuses to one computer, then the winnings will be void.

I can only repeat myself: No, I didn't received two bonuses, I received only one. The other bonus was received by my friend in last year, and not "recently", as you said in the e-mail. My winnings has nothing to do with the bonus, I risked my own money with high bets and at the time when I received the bonus, my balance was already above $1000. If you didn't gave me the bonus, my balance would be $2660 instead of $2810, and not $500.

 

[Aindreas_Daoc]

I think what KK is alluding to, and which also confuses me is this:

Clearly INetBet was able to "catch" this person, so there are methods to determining people's identity (and their computers). Why is it that much more difficult to do this before awarding any bonuses, rather than after? It seems to me doing it before would save everyone a headache.

 

[KasinoKing]

GrandMaster
If your computer died you would simply be playing with a new computer address, you would not be playing under the exact same address as a person that lives nearby and plays the exact same pattern of play and wants there money sent to the same Bank.
Emily

Can you clarify what you mean by 'the same bank'.
Do you mean to the exact same bank account?

 

[caruso]

She meant the bank he wants his money wired to is the same as his friend's.

The rule is in the terms, it isn't hidden or undisclosed. I was recently subject to a similar issue myself, unwittingly infringing terms, getting a load of offensive BS loaded on my head and losing a bunch of winnings as a result. Unpleasant as it is, that issue remains my fault - as this issue is the poster's fault. He failed to read the rules.

FugLac, don't play so ignorant. "The rules are there but please explain where the consequences are disclosed?". ????. The consequences are: winnings forfeited. What else? A slap on the backside?

 

[tim5ny]

It's easy to see why we rarely see any casino representatives posting very often unless it's to defend their casino's reputation. It's like walking into a den of hungry lions for them. Even the few good ones like Emily Hanson and Ed Ware take a beating whenever they surface. I'm as guilty as anyone else, but I think if we treated them with a bit more respect and didn't put them on the defensive right away, we'd be hearing from them alot more often. Most of them never post unless they have to.. and I can't say that I blame them. My previous posts in this thread were not in any way directed at Inetbet or Emily.. but are my perceptions of what I think goes on at the majority of online casinos.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Problem with this rule?

There is a problem with this rule. The player may not know that someone had previously opened an account on his/her computer if it was obtained second hand. Also they could have just moved house, and the previous owner was an avid online player. There is no way a person can check this, indeed it is illegal here in the UK for a company to disclose the activity of a previous occupant. There should be flexibility in this rule to take into account these problems. In this case I blame the friend, who, as an experienced player, recommended the casino to his friend, and let him play on his computer. The friend should have been aware of this and told him to use his own computer to play.
The responses from Emily & others are taking the predetermined view that this was player abuse rather than stupidity. More advice needs to be given in the FAQ of casinos to assist the novice player to determine if there is a problem. Such as contacting support if you bought the computer second hand or have just moved house. I note that some groups DO indeed advise potential players to contact support before opening an account if there is a chance that someone else has "used up" their account opening privileges before. There should be a "time-out" where a new account will not cause problems where the last activity on the old duplicate was x years ago.

Given the size of the win, you & your friend could fly out and meet Emily in person and prove beyond doubt that you are two different people surely.

Perhaps sign-up bonuses should be got rid of and replaced with decent loyalty offers - casinos will no longer be hit by "one night stand" players. Certain groups do this, the loyaly bonuses and promotions far outclass the sign-up once a player has been there some time. I have become VIP at a few groups now, and the promotions as VIP are better than scrabbling around for a few dollars in "expected value" from sign-up bonuses. If I join a new site now my concern is "how good are the ongoing promotions & tournaments". Large sign-ups often lead to poor ongoing promotions.

One possible reason for this seemingly inflexible approach could be a fraud known as "identity rental". An advantage player rents a friend or relatives identity and plays multiple bonuses in each name. The friend is paid a fee or cut in winnings in return for JPEG images of all the required credentials and use of their accounts to receive winnings. I suspect that this is what is being assumed in this case, and proving you are two different people may not help. The same thing has been going on for ages in the credit industry, usually with a stolen, rather than rented, identity.
Allowing one account per address/computer goes some way to make this type of fraud difficult, but not impossible - you just need different computers and houses available!
Players can help themselves by recording all accounts they have registered, even when not used any longer, and check against it if another household member/friend wishes to indulge on the same PC and address. Do not take a promotional invitation to open an account as permission to do so. I continually get Casino Rewards promotions for new player bonuses on casinos I have already played in the past - it's not all spam, it comes from their own support!!
Reading T & C is fine, but they need to be translated from "lawyer speak" to the players native tongue. Not everybody knows the jargon about shared connections and static/dynamic IP addresses and can relate it to their own circumstances. A bedsit, while an individual residence, may appear as a shared "college campus" when checked on cash-out due to the way the services are provided to each of the units. Certain private rented accomodation can fall into this trap also, where an old and large house has been converted into apartments occupied by independent households.
I see many posts about players falling foul simply because a spouse or offspring has been gambling online at the same venue but kept it quiet.

 

[maaster]

i had EXACTLY the same problem...
i deposited and turned it into 4000!! $ but i played one time at a friends computer.. so i was a abuser of something and i still getting no response
I played at Connect To Casino

never go there!

 

[slotchik]

I dont think this rule is fair at all!!!!

I have an account at INETBET. When I go to Alabama, I play online on my friend's computer there.
Why is that such a damn problem?????
Why shouldn't I be able to play where and when I please??
That is TOTALLY not fair...

This rule stinks, Emily...

If they can PROVE they are two different people with different ID's and bank accounts, why is this a problem??? They can PROVE it right????
The ID alone would set the story straight now wouldn't it???
I'm very upset with this rule about the same computer crap....
What if my sister wanted to play online at my house on my computer? What if she didn't know I played as well???
How would she know??!! Does that make her a fraudster??? I LOVE INETBET. They are indeed the best RTG out there...but why can't they help the player...by checking the situation out...getting ID, validating things?

 

[emily_hanson]

Slotchik

The example of you playing on yours friends computer in Alabama has no bearing or similarity to the facts of this particular case.

Firstly you are a long standing player with us and are afforded all that we can offer in the way of service and respect, it would not matter what computer you play on, as we know who you are.

Secondly sending through some documentation does not conclusively prove any persons identity.

Finally, may I put this to you, lets say your Sister wished to open an account with us for the occasions she visited you and played on your computer.

I ask you this question.Would you first send a mail into our support stating the situation or would you just let her open the account on your computer and say, well you managed to get the bonus, all will be OK. Please bear in mind this hypothetical account is an account to solely gain bonus money. I think I know the answer.

Please everyone, all the poking, digging and side stepping of the irrefutable facts with vague analogies do not alter the truth, neither do they, or will they change what is right and what is wrong.

I guarantee there is not one genuine player who would open an account at the same computer as their friend claim the exact same bonus (code), who lives in the same area, plays the exact same game and then withdraws to the not just the same Bank but the same branch, would not think this may be a problem if I attempt to withdraw.

It would seem that certain people feel that if a player manages to get around the filters we have in place for the awarding of new bonuses, that this then negates the Terms and Conditions that are clearly and openly on view.

Is this a new aspect of online gaming, do we as players now think if we can get away with erroneously receiving a bonus and we win, we can cajole and bully the Casino to pay. I am afraid this is not so, as much as every player would quite legitimately and correctly expect us to abide by our rules, we as a Casino reserve the right to invoke a rule that in my professional opinion is absolutely justifiable.

This rule is in place for a good reason, I am certain that even the most experienced of posters here would be astounded at the level of fraud and deception that we (and most online casinos) have to face on a daily basis.

Some here have quite rightly alluded to some of the various scams that are employed to gain bonus monies, renting identities is just one of many.

I repeat again, no genuine player need have any fear or trepidation concerning any of our terms or conditions. They are very simple in their format, they are not compiled to confuse or allow us an out if a player wins.

We are not looking to simply not pay someone who has won, as is borne out by the friend who was paid immediately.

In my humble opinion this thread should have received zero attention due to the undeniable fact that this player has admitted they broke a very well known and universally accepted rule.

Best regards
Emily

 

[Casinomeister]

...Please everyone, all the poking, digging and side stepping of the irrefutable facts with vague analogies do not alter the truth, neither do they, or will they change what is right and what is wrong...

Exactly, and i think iNetBet's record stands for itself. There is NO history of jerking players around nor tales of unscrupulousness. When you are right, you're right, and when you're wrong, you're wrong.

 

[KasinoKing]

I guarantee there is not one genuine player who would open an account at the same computer as their friend claim the exact same bonus (code), who lives in the same area, plays the exact same game and then withdraws to the not just the same Bank but the same branch, would not think this may be a problem if I attempt to withdraw.

You entire reply is very well worded and structured and I understand where you're coming from.
I have absolutely nothing against iNetBet or you personally, and I have no reason to think that the player is not a bonus abuser, just as you describe.

But what really worries me is 90% of your argument is based on assumption, not facts. You are saying the player is guilty until proved innocent.

Have you fully clarified the bank thing in your answer? You say the same branch, but you don't say the same account. This proves nothing.

This could quite easily be the true scenario:
These two friends from the same neighbourhood of the same town spend a lot of time together. One of them opens a bank account - he is very impressed with the bank's service, so recommends it to his friend. The friend opens an account at the same branch and both are very happy.
One day, one of them finds iNetBet casino on the internet, signs up, makes a profit from the sign up bonus, withdraws and is very happy!
So he later recommends the casino to his good buddy. His friend does not know much about gambling, but that's OK because his best mate will sit next to him while he plays and give him some advice. (That's not against your rules, is it? ).
He also wins, but when he tries to withdraw he gets this 'abuser' label, and no winnings.

There is only one thing you can PROVE, and that is that both accounts were played from the same computer. This could easily have been an honest mistake as I'm sure many many players don't read all the T&C's.
Everything else you said is supposition which would be disregarded in an instant if this case were to be held in a court of law!

OK, you are being strict and saying breaking this rule alone is enough to deny the winnings, as is your right. But many would see this as mean-spirited as these players could well be genuine.

This guy could well have been trying to take advantage of your bonuses, but as many agree above, this seems VERY VERY unlikely due to the size of his deposit compared to the bonus, and the size of the wagers per hand he said he played. He also says he made all his profit without using the bonus.

I notice you have completely avoided commenting on these issues in all of your replies, so I would like to ask you straight out for your confirmation or denial of what he is claiming:-
1. Did he deposit $500 and get a $150 bonus?
2. Was his balance $1000+ BEFORE the bonus was added to his account?
3. Did he really play hands of up to $100 each?

KK (Guilty until proved otherwise... )

 

[thelawnet]

You entire reply is very well worded and structured and I understand where you're coming from.
I have absolutely nothing against iNetBet or you personally, and I have no reason to think that the player is not a bonus abuser, just as you describe.

But what really worries me is 90% of your argument is based on assumption, not facts. You are saying the player is guilty until proved innocent.

Have you fully clarified the bank thing in your answer? You say the same branch, but you don't say the same account. This proves nothing.

This could quite easily be the true scenario:
These two friends from the same neighbourhood of the same town spend a lot of time together. One of them opens a bank account - he is very impressed with the bank's service, so recommends it to his friend. The friend opens an account at the same branch and both are very happy.
One day, one of them finds iNetBet casino on the internet, signs up, makes a profit from the sign up bonus, withdraws and is very happy!
So he later recommends the casino to his good buddy. His friend does not know much about gambling, but that's OK because his best mate will sit next to him while he plays and give him some advice. (That's not against your rules, is it? ).
He also wins, but when he tries to withdraw he gets this 'abuser' label, and no winnings.

There is only one thing you can PROVE, and that is that both accounts were played from the same computer. This could easily have been an honest mistake as I'm sure many many players don't read all the T&C's.
Everything else you said is supposition which would be disregarded in an instant if this case were to be held in a court of law!

OK, you are being strict and saying breaking this rule alone is enough to deny the winnings, as is your right. But many would see this as mean-spirited as these players could well be genuine.

This guy could well have been trying to take advantage of your bonuses, but as many agree above, this seems VERY VERY unlikely due to the size of his deposit compared to the bonus, and the size of the wagers per hand he said he played. He also says he made all his profit without using the bonus.

I notice you have completely avoided commenting on these issues in all of your replies, so I would like to ask you straight out for your confirmation or denial of what he is claiming:-
1. Did he deposit $500 and get a $150 bonus?
2. Was his balance $1000+ BEFORE the bonus was added to his account?
3. Did he really play hands of up to $100 each?

KK (Guilty until proved otherwise... )

The bank thing seems weird.....

If two people live in the same town and bank at the same bank, of course they will have the same branch.

If my friend lives in the same town as me, he is not going to get on a bus 30 miles to go to different town. Of course it will be the same branch!!!!

I don't know what the banking situation in Hungary is like, but it seems highly plausible that there would be only one bank in a given town.

Also if you are going to abuse a bonus, surely Inetbet's is the last one would you choose....

I am sure I have read posts on here in the past, where two people have used the same PC and have been paid. This seems to be standard practice for Microgaming - send in the ID and get paid.

Now if the play patterns are the same, maybe that's a little more dubious...

 

[bpb]

Just to play devils advocate to KK's post.

When someone claims a bonus, whether they've dipped below their initial deposit into the "bonus balance" is irrelevant in terms of advantage playing/bonus abusing. The bonus is there as a cushion which gives the player an overall positive expectation on their gambling. You can't ever say that someone who claimed a bonus they weren't entitled to should be paid just because they never wagered the bonus funds. If they were credited (or were going to be credited), then those bonus funds have played an integral part in the advantage player/abuser's overall gambling strategy.

Also, bet size is fairly irrelevant. If it is the player's intent to to cash out immediately after hitting the wagering requirement, it doesn't much matter if they're betting $1/bet or $100/bet. In fact, their expectation in the long run is higher with bigger bets, since whenever they bust out before hitting the wagering requirement, the remainder of that requirement is wiped out.


Despite this, I agree again with KK and think that there is very weak evidence suggesting that the OP is a bonus abuser who created two identities with the intent of defrauding iNetBet.

 

[emily_hanson]

KK

Whilst I appreciate this may well be an interesting thread that allows you the opportunity to voice your disapproval (your prerogative) of course. I do, with the utmost respect have to reiterate that your argument is seriously flawed.

This could quite easily be the true scenario:
These two friends from the same neighbourhood of the same town spend a lot of time together. One of them opens a bank account - he is very impressed with the bank's service, so recommends it to his friend. The friend opens an account at the same branch and both are very happy.
One day, one of them finds iNetBet casino on the internet, signs up, makes a profit from the sign up bonus, withdraws and is very happy!
So he later recommends the casino to his good buddy. His friend does not know much about gambling, but that's OK because his best mate will sit next to him while he plays and give him some advice. (That's not against your rules, is it? ).
He also wins, but when he tries to withdraw he gets this 'abuser' label, and no winnings.

The issue with the bank is just one point in this case scenario, were it to be the only consideration it would have no bearing whatsoever, though it is patently not. I mention it as I am reporting the facts as they stand.
The friend who is the newbie will, in your scenario, look to the experienced gambler for advice and guidance, lets assume you are the experienced friend what would you say to the newbie.
As I stated in my earlier post no one would advise a player to follow this path.
Why not a simple request to support, something we suggest in our terms if there is any uncertainty.

But what really worries me is 90% of your argument is based on assumption, not facts. You are saying the player is guilty until proved innocent.
Everything else you said is supposition which would be disregarded in an instant if this case were to be held in a court of law!

I am sorry but you are incorrect, there is no assumption here, the player has admitted himself that he has broken the rules.

OK, you are being strict and saying breaking this rule alone is enough to deny the winnings, as is your right. But many would see this as mean-spirited as these players could well be genuine.

Please read the list at the end of my post, I did a simple exercise and took from the leading Casinos T& Cs, all of the below quotes, all of which are accredited Casinomeister Casinos.

This guy could well have been trying to take advantage of your bonuses, but as many agree above, this seems VERY VERY unlikely due to the size of his deposit compared to the bonus, and the size of the wagers per hand he said he played. He also says he made all his profit without using the bonus.

Again I am at a loss to see what is so very very unlikely about a player taking advantage of $150 bonus with only a 20 times turnover and with Blackjack allowed, playing basic strategy this would by all normal means return a healthy profit.

I notice you have completely avoided commenting on these issues in all of your replies, so I would like to ask you straight out for your confirmation or denial of what he is claiming:-
1. Did he deposit $500 and get a $150 bonus?
2. Was his balance $1000+ BEFORE the bonus was added to his account?
3. Did he really play hands of up to $100 each?

Please KK, come on now, do you expect me to discuss a players personal financial affairs via a public forum. That aside and for what its worth, I am at a complete loss to understand what relevance any answer, whatever it may be to the above points, would bring to the table.

What I fail to understand is the reticence of certain posters to accept, that irregardless of their propensity to side with the player (which I understand), this player has broken the most fundamental of rules.
This rule, I state again, will have no bearing or concern whatsoever for a player who is genuinely playing at our Casino for the first time and claiming an initial deposit bonus.
This is something that we payout to players seven days a week, 365 days a year without there ever being a problem.

Surely even allowing for the understandable desire to back every player irregardless (all for one against the casino ) does the gambling community not realise what damage this type of behaviour does to the industry, how it creates a veritable quagmire of red tape and rules for not only the Casino to create and administer but for the player to wade through.

This player broke a rule, he has admitted to breaking the rule, not some obscure (buried in the bowels of the earth rule), a rule that we all know and we all abide to, a simple commonsense rule.

My best to all and thank you to everyone and I do mean everyone who has contributed to this thread.

Best regards
Emily

T&C samples from a cross-section of softwares
Casino 1
This promotion is restricted to one new customer per household, even if there is more than one computer retained at the address. The identity of a user will be determined on the basis of all or any combination of the following: name, mailing address, e-mail address, IP address, credit/debit card number, computer, and any other forms of identification which may be required.

Casino 2
All promotions are available only once per person, e-mail address, credit card number, and environments where computers are shared (university, school, public library, workplace, etc).

Casino 3
All promotions are available only once per person, e-mail address, credit card number, and environments where computers are shared (university, school, public library, workplace, etc).

Casino 4
Only One Real Account per player. All promotions are available only once per person, family, household address, e-mail address, credit card number, and environments where computers are shared (university, fraternity, school, public library, workplace, etc).

Casino 5
If you open multiple accounts you will not be eligible for the Sign-Up Bonus on each account. The Sign-Up-Bonus is only available once per Player and/or per environment where computers are shared and/or per e-mail address.

Casino 6
All promotions are available only once per person, family, household address, e-mail address and credit card number. The casino reserves the right to impose further limits in respect of accounts originating from environments where computers are shared (e.g. university campuses).

Casino 7
Identity of participants will be determined on the basis of all or any combination of the following: name, mailing address, email address, credit/charge/debit card number, and any other forms of identification which may be required. Where multiple participation is permitted,

 

[johnsteed]

Having two people play off one computer, does not warrant them being called "criminals" (implied). To me, that's quite extreme.

While I'm hearing that INetBet is getting this most trustworthy label, I would never agree with that. I'll ask you this simple question. IF you were going to cash-out from one of the many online casino's on the net, would INetBet be at the top of that list? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I'll put that money with many MG casino's, and most specifically 32Red.

Emily

In my humble opinion this thread should have received zero attention due to the undeniable fact that this player has admitted they broke a very well known and universally accepted rule.

Is it a "universally accepted" rule? I would have to think that various casino's would also lift this rule, after they receive some kind of documentation or proof of who that player is. "thelawnet" had mentioned MG casino's being more fair in those regards, and I would concur.

This rule is in place for a good reason, I am certain that even the most experienced of posters here would be astounded at the level of fraud and deception that we (and most online casinos) have to face on a daily basis.

Hmmm, or the level of BS that most posters have to put up with from MANY casino's. And frankly, for the number of casino's out there, I'd have to think that it's a VERY lopsided battle in favor of those casino's. AND the casino's have that house edge, and I have yet to hear of any player who's broken "the code" on how to win all-the-time.

KasinoKing

OK, you are being strict and saying breaking this rule alone is enough to deny the winnings, as is your right. But many would see this as mean-spirited as these players could well be genuine.

This guy could well have been trying to take advantage of your bonuses, but as many agree above, this seems VERY VERY unlikely due to the size of his deposit compared to the bonus, and the size of the wagers per hand he said he played. He also says he made all his profit without using the bonus.

I notice you have completely avoided commenting on these issues in all of your replies, so I would like to ask you straight out for your confirmation or denial of what he is claiming:-
1. Did he deposit $500 and get a $150 bonus?
2. Was his balance $1000+ BEFORE the bonus was added to his account?
3. Did he really play hands of up to $100 each?

KK (Guilty until proved otherwise... )

bpb

Despite this, I agree again with KK and think that there is very weak evidence suggesting that the OP is a bonus abuser who created two identities with the intent of defrauding iNetBet.

I would also agree that it would be pretty far-fetched to call this guy a bonus abuser. INetBet, Casino Extreme, and BoDog, might all be legitimate casino's that abide by their set of rules, but they're hardly the place to go for great bonuses.

Emily

Surely even allowing for the understandable desire to back every player irregardless (all for one against the casino ) does the gambling community not realise what damage this type of behaviour does to the industry, how it creates a veritable quagmire of red tape and rules for not only the Casino to create and administer but for the player to wade through.

On the contrary, there are plenty of posters here who are very unsympathetic towards the players, and there are plenty of backers towards the casino's. LOL, I don't think KK backs every player in the complaints department. I don't get the part about the "veritable quagmire of red tape". The player isn't creating more red tape, that's only administered by the casino's. And the T&C's ARE the reasons lots of people are getting turned off by online gambling. I read them all the time, and it's annoying as hell. I also have to ask the online/telephone assistance to make sure I am walking the straight and narrow path. One of these days, I'm half expecting the online operators to lock my account, because I'm obviously bonus abusing IF I keep asking what the wagering requirements are.

For me personally, the reason to come to Casinomeister is not just to kill time, but to try and determine (subjectively) which casino's are the most legitimate. There should be an area to voice our concerns and complaints. Personally, I don't agree with every players complaint, and even moreso if it's a ridiculous complaint coming from a casino like Connect-to-Casino. Posters who come here on a regular basis should know better. But where would Casinomeister.com be (and me personally) without a complaints department.

 

[thelawnet]

I would also agree that it would be pretty far-fetched to call this guy a bonus abuser. INetBet, Casino Extreme, and BoDog, might all be legitimate casino's that abide by their set of rules, but they're hardly the place to go for great bonuses.

Agreed on that one.

I checked their website now, and it says:

iNetBet is currently offering the above bonus to all our new Customers.*

When you make your initial deposit you will be eligible to receive a bonus of 30%, up to $150, which will be credited to your iNetBet personal Casino Account.

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 fifteen 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 150 hands ($1500) before you can redeem your full bonus.
Bonus must be turned over 15 times before cashing out. Maximum bonus allowed is $150.00.

So you have to deposit $500, then wager $7,500, with no guarantee that you will get to this without having to redeposit, and lose hundreds of dollars in the process.

Then you have to wager $2,250 before you can cash out.

In total 65 * the bonus amount.

Although the rep says it was a 20* wager requirement? So maybe it was a different promo code..... From the sound of things, it's the same bonus since he talked about a $150 bonus on a $500 bonus.

So if this guy is a bonus abuser, he is a pretty dumb bonus abuser, as he could have found 50 or more bonuses better than this one.

 

[Daffy]

Another can of worms...

Emily posted-"Again I am at a loss to see what is so ‘very very’ unlikely about a player taking advantage of $150 bonus with only a 20 times turnover and with Blackjack allowed, playing basic strategy this would by all normal means return a healthy profit."

Wonder how long it will take to get some real gaming experience involved in online casino management/ownership.

That's the problem with bonuses...casinos are absolutely sure they are giving the bonus money away...even with a 20x WR.

The Wizard of Odds doen't even know if the RTG software uses 2 decks or 4 decks for their blackjack software. So...how does one figure the house advantage???

Okay, I'll pick a number...2%. $500+$150=$650x20=$13,000x2%=$260...I lose the bonus plus $110 of my own.

Don't agree with my equation...okay...plug in your own. Can I prove mine...no...can you prove yours??? And before you tell me what land-based is...don't bother...this is a PROGRAM...same as VP or Slots.

I'm not picking on Emily or iNetBet...I have the highest regard for both of them. Unfortunately, they perpetuate the same bogus concepts of casino "risk" that most casinos do regarding bonus money.

That's why the WR keeps going up...they don't actually know where it should be for "fair" play...but 20 is better than 15...and 40 is twice as good as 20.

the dUck

 

[thelawnet]

Emily posted-"Again I am at a loss to see what is so very very unlikely about a player taking advantage of $150 bonus with only a 20 times turnover and with Blackjack allowed, playing basic strategy this would by all normal means return a healthy profit."

Wonder how long it will take to get some real gaming experience involved in online casino management/ownership.

That's the problem with bonuses...casinos are absolutely sure they are giving the bonus money away...even with a 20x WR.

The Wizard of Odds doen't even know if the RTG software uses 2 decks or 4 decks for their blackjack software. So...how does one figure the house advantage???

Okay, I'll pick a number...2%. $500+$150=$650x20=$13,000x2%=$260...I lose the bonus plus $110 of my own.

Don't agree with my equation...okay...plug in your own. Can I prove mine...no...can you prove yours??? And before you tell me what land-based is...don't bother...this is a PROGRAM...same as VP or Slots.

I'm not picking on Emily or iNetBet...I have the highest regard for both of them. Unfortunately, they perpetuate the same bogus concepts of casino "risk" that most casinos do regarding bonus money.

That's why the WR keeps going up...they don't actually know where it should be for "fair" play...but 20 is better than 15...and 40 is twice as good as 20.

the dUck

Your numbers are too high

You can play pontoon. House edge is 0.17%.

And those numbers *are* right

 

[bpb]

Don't agree with my equation...okay...plug in your own. Can I prove mine...no...can you prove yours??? And before you tell me what land-based is...don't bother...this is a PROGRAM...same as VP or Slots.

You are way off base here.

RTG deals a fair game. That means that their online blackjack perfectly mimics a continuous shuffle land based game.

Their house edge is around .58%. That is significantly lower than the 2% you quoted.

Can I prove that their deal is fair 100%? No. But with statistical analysis on a significant enough sample size (which I've personally played at RTG) I can say that this is true with 99.9% probability.

 

[Daffy]

maybe

Your numbers are too high

You can play pontoon. House edge is 0.17%.

And those numbers *are* right

********************************************************
Don't buy into the hype.

We should all believe Price(I wouldn't lie to you even though the casinos pay me)Waterhouse??? Or maybe the software provider...or (lol) the casino???

My numbers might be high...might be low...I don't know for sure and neither do you.

This is a program, very easy to manipulate...up or down.

the dUck

 

[thelawnet]

Your numbers are too high

You can play pontoon. House edge is 0.17%.

And those numbers *are* right

********************************************************
Don't buy into the hype.

We should all believe Price(I wouldn't lie to you even though the casinos pay me)Waterhouse??? Or maybe the software provider...or (lol) the casino???

My numbers might be high...might be low...I don't know for sure and neither do you.

This is a program, very easy to manipulate...up or down.

the dUck

It has got nothing to do with Price Waterhouse. If you play correct strategy, statistically the game will return 0.17%. This is proveable mathematically.

This is not the same as payout rates, which depend on players playing correctly.

Now if the casino rigs their games? It's possible - but not really necessary.

 

[Daffy]

I give up

Okay I'm convinced...

Using the scenario of $500 deposit plus $150 bonus...I should just announce to the casino that I plan to wager it 20x on Blackjack using perfect strategy.

Now, since everyone involved knows I'm going to win...they should just give me $140 and save all that time.

the dUck

 

[KasinoKing]

KK...
Again I am at a loss to see what is so very very unlikely about a player taking advantage of $150 bonus with only a 20 times turnover and with Blackjack allowed, playing basic strategy this would by all normal means return a healthy profit.
?[/I]

Please KK, come on now, do you expect me to discuss a players personal financial affairs via a public forum. That aside and for what its worth, I am at a complete loss to understand what relevance any answer, whatever it may be to the above points, would bring to the table.

What I fail to understand is the reticence of certain posters to accept, that irregardless of their propensity to side with the player (which I understand), this player has broken the most fundamental of rules.
This rule, I state again, will have no bearing or concern whatsoever for a player who is genuinely playing at our Casino for the first time and claiming an initial deposit bonus.
This is something that we payout to players seven days a week, 365 days a year without there ever being a problem.

Emily,
1. I am not a blackjack 'expert', but I'm pretty sure the 'healthy profit' would not be very large (if any) if the player did what you suggested.
2. I am not asking you to discuss the details of anyones financial affairs, just to confirm that FugLac was telling the truth about his deposit/wagering claims.
3. I certainly do not always side with the players - if the guy was an obvious abuser I would say he got what he deserves.

Your post once again, was unnecessarily long and fully of loads of statements that while true and I'm not arguing with, are not relevant to this discussion. Like the others here, I have great respect for your casino and I recognise your good reputation. If you're good enough for Casinomeister, you're good enough for me!
But again you avoid answering the direct questions that are relevant.
1. Please an you point out every lie you can prove FugLac made in his posts?
2. Please tell us how many of your T&C's he broke? (I counted just 1).

I dont know why Im defending this guy so much this case is nothing to do with me, and he may well be a serial bonus abuser for all I know! Its only that it seems a particularly unjust situation.

No-one has proved that FugLac lied about anything yet (He even admitted in his first post that the two accounts were played from the same computer).
So if we were to assume he is innocent until proved guilty, and take all the players statements as genuine then what do we have?
If he is a bonus abuser, I think most people on this site would agree hes not a very clever one. Taking a small bonus (30%), wagering before the bonus hits the account, and placing very large bets with a non-phantom bonus are all pretty bad ideas. (IMHO)
If he is a genuine player, hes not a very clever one because he signed up a second account from the same computer not a good idea if hes read the T&Cs.
So weve established hes probably not very clever at internet gambling. Is that a crime? This guy could be an absolute scientific, mathematical or artistic genius for all we know. Hes clearly a very good card player judging by his results! Is that also a crime? So hes not very clever on the internet maybe hes new to it and just hasnt learned the ropes yet.

At the end of the day he made his profit playing with his own money, not with the tiny bonus. So come on, pay him his winnings and save your venom for the real bonus abusers!

Emily, you do what you got to do. That is your prerogative.