iNetBet does not want to pay my winnings!

[caliban]

KasinoKing, a Casino can hardly alter its rules when it comes to some individual player, who broke the "same computer" rule, but on the other hand seemed like a guy who really maybe isn't an abuser after all. It has nothing to do with if he seems to be an abuser or not, he (they) broke the "one computer" rule.

Caliban

 

[bpb]

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???

No, I bellieve my own resullts, where after over one hundred thousand RTG hands, my results have fallen within 1 standard deviation of expectation.

Based on this, I have no reason to believe that the cards come out in any way other than completely randomly.

And I trust Michael Shakleford's (the wizard of odds) derivations of the house advantage for blackjack, pontoon, 3 card and any other table game.

 

[bpb]

KasinoKing, a Casino can hardly alter its rules when it comes to some individual player, who broke the "same computer" rule, but on the other hand seemed like a guy who really maybe isn't an abuser after all. It has nothing to do with if he seems to be an abuser or not, he (they) broke the "one computer" rule.

Caliban

I think that rigid, unwavering application of the rule is excessive. The rule is there to prevent bonus abuse. When you have someone who has broken this rule, but doesn't exhibit any other signs of abuse (and I don't buy the same bank branch as being a sign of abuse), then you are busting someones chops on a technicality.


Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that iNetBet is convinced that this person is a bonus abuser who created multiple accounts with the intent to defraud them by claiming a 2nd bonus they weren't entitled to. Several of us in this thread have pointed out evidence (or specifically lack thereof) suggesting that this was not likely to have been the OPs intention.

iNetBet's opinion is the only one that matters though.

 

[Daffy]

aha!!!

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.
*********************************************************
bpb,

You have personally verified the wizard's casino blackjack advantage based on your experience with 100,000+ hands.

This still does not guarantee similar results at 130 or 1,300 hands.

My whole purpose was to illustrate that the $150 bonus is NOT as easy to capture as Emily's post suggested.

If you disagree with this...I guess we will be stuck in disagreement.

My own opinions regarding the "randomness" of the RNG set aside.

the dUck

 

[FugLac]

KK said:

"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?"

1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. I give permission to Emily to confirm these.

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

No, there's an assumption: the assumption is that I'm an "abuser".

Of course you can say that I don't have to be an "abuser" and that the fact that we played on the same computer is enough reason for not paying me, and you have the right to do so but you can see that many people think that it is highly unfair.

 

[KasinoKing]

Of course you can say that I don't have to be an "abuser" and that the fact that we played on the same computer is enough reason for not paying me, and you have the right to do so but you can see that many people think that it is highly unfair.

Being busted on just one very minor detail?
Yep, that is highly unfair and a very expensive lesson learned for you.

At least you got your deposit back, so you can use it to go on and play at some much better casinos.

Tip 1: Always read & obey the T&Cs, otherwise accept the risks of not doing so.
Tip 2: RTG = Rip-off The Gamblers = safer to just avoid them all.

Good luck in your future endeavours

 

[elscrabinda]

The last couple of weeks have been a real eye opener. I was gradually coming round to the idea that hey maybe Playtech and RTG aren't as bad as I always thought them to be but apparently they are. I'd echo KK on this- best to avoid them all.

 

[jpsartre]

What is common knowledge to experienced gamblers, that you should never open a second account from a computer, is something that many newbies do not think about. I've shown several friends how to play online and sometimes they want to do the craziest things, like giving false name and address. The most common response I get when I show them how you can get a bonus when you sign up is: 'So basically I can just do that again and again and get the bonus everytime?'. Then when you try to explain that they have to get a Neteller-account, that they can't play roulette, that they have to play a certain amount before being allowed to withdraw and that they may have to send copies of passports and utility-bills after withdrawing they look at you like you are crazy.

Sometimes I wonder how many newbies sign up without reading the T&C, get a bonus and then go on to break the rules without actually meaning to do so. These are the players who have never heard of Casinomeister and who does not pursue their confiscated winnings so we'll never hear about them. The worst part is that these players will be confirmed in their prejudicies against online casinos and that they will tell their friends about their experince.

 

[emily_hanson]

Tip 1: Always read & obey the T&Cs, otherwise accept the risks of not doing so.
Tip 2: RTG = Rip-off The Gamblers = safer to just avoid them all.

Thank you KK, you have confirmed the hidden agenda that I was certain would emerge if this post continued. Is it RTG that is not paying this player or iNetBet? It does not matter either will do.

For some time I have been at a loss as to why more Casino Managers do not attempt to take an active part in the discussions on the major boards such as here at the Meisters, however I think the past few posts confirm the reasons behind their lack of presence.

Anyway please do not give it any concern; it will not deter me and I shall continue to post and to be available for all.

I shall also continue to state what is right and what is patently wrong.

My best to all.

Emily

 

[cpgator]

I have one question for Emily. If he had lost his deposit instead of winning, would you have refunded it? It seems to me that the casino is in a great position. If the player loses, you keep his deposit. If the player wins, you return the deposit, but deny his winnings because he broke the rules. If he broke the rules, his play should be voided either way, win or lose. My guess is if he had lost you would have gladly taken his money and said nothing about breaking the rules. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[elscrabinda]

Thank you KK, you have confirmed the hidden agenda that I was certain would emerge if this post continued. Is it RTG that is not paying this player or iNetBet? It does not matter either will do.

Well if you will associate yourself with such organisations its no wonder people assume the worst.

We didn't until now- being casinomeister approved does give a certain reassurance but its just a shame to add another casino to the list of fairly reputable but watch your back. Of course you have the right to do this, all casinos do thanks to the "management reserves the right to screw you over" trick, but we just hope that a select few won't excercise this right. You were on my select few list, you're not now. Simple as that and I guess other people on here feel the same.

Doesn't mean I won't play but its more fun when you can just concentrate on the cards being dealt than what trick the casino will use to avoid paying you.

 

[The Dude]

Tip 1: Always read & obey the T&Cs, otherwise accept the risks of not doing so.
Tip 2: RTG = Rip-off The Gamblers = safer to just avoid them all.

Thank you KK, you have confirmed the hidden agenda that I was certain would emerge if this post continued. Is it RTG that is not paying this player or iNetBet? It does not matter either will do.

Well I hope you don't let KK's comment (which is a bit out of line IMO) discourage you to continue to be an active member.

KK - you just dissed Bodog, iNetBet, and every outstanding RTG operator out there, and anyone who supports them. RTG has come a long way since the early days of online gaming, a lot of this is through my efforts trying to convince the powers that be that players need assurances and protection. They (RTG) have recruited a number of outstanding operators - iNetBet for one, and I'm rather surprised you are lashing out at them so.

I work my ass off trying to manage this site which brings players and casinos together. Don't screw up my efforts with off the cuff remarks like that please. Thank you.

Fuglak - sorry for your predicament, but you broke their T&Cs - so you are probably SOL (shit outta luck). If you had bothered to read the posting guidelines (All Posters Must Read: Old URL) you would have realized that either PMing Emily or going through to Montana would have been your best option. You publicly called the casino a crook (stealing your winnings) in your first post. If you feel that insulting a casino is a great tactic in resolving a complaint in your favor, I have some dire news for you - it ain't. It's a really stupid thing to do, and you're lucky to get the time of day out of them. Kudos to Emily for keeping her cool. I would have told you to eff-off

Lest we forget, she is a member of this forum - not some weirdo guest that's invited in only when there is a problem at hand. She deserves the respect of a PM if you have an issue with her establishment.

 

[thelawnet]

Well I hope you don't let KK's comment (which is a bit out of line IMO) discourage you to continue to be an active member.

KK - you just dissed Bodog, iNetBet, and every outstanding RTG operator out there, and anyone who supports them. RTG has come a long way since the early days of online gaming, a lot of this is through my efforts trying to convince the powers that be that players need assurances and protection. They (RTG) have recruited a number of outstanding operators - iNetBet for one, and I'm rather surprised you are lashing out at them so.

The problem with RTG is that for every decent casino there are five bad ones.

Why are Windows Casino still operating under the RTG banner?

Fact is, RTG has a bad reputation due to the behaviour of the majority of its casinos.

If you are a RTG casino, it's unfortunately extra-difficult for you to persuade clued-up players that you are legit, but that's part of doing business with them.

Apart from that, the top two threads in here at the moment are:

1: Inetbet (recommended RTG) - not paying player who used another person's PC. This is perfectly in accordance with Inetbet's rules, but it doesn't compare all that well from the point of view of the player to the behaviour of say a Microgaming casino (King Neptunes): in this case

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...hdrawal-from-my-neteller-account.8258/?t=8258

the player was far more blatantly a fraud, playing with more than one identity on the same PC, and still even though this was clearly the case, they still offered to pay him if he could provide ID for the second player (claimed to be a cousin or some such). Of course the second player didn't exist.

But overall the approach is much more flexible - in that case King Neptunes have a far more generous bonus, and yet were still prepared to pay the player if he could provide ID (which in fact he couldn't).

Even though the casino might be out of pocket in such cases, it helps to create the image that microgaming is 'safe'. Inetbet have followed their own rules and the player can't really complain about it, and no-one can say that they are crooks for doing so, but they have demonstrated much less flexibility, which isn't necessarily going to send out positive signals to other players, in comparison with the Microgaming brand.

2. Almost below this thread is a Geisha Lounge player (also recommended casino). The player played as you would, not obsessively counting each wager, but just checking when it said 'withdrawable', and trusting that the software would be accurate. Of course, the software doesn't do what it should, and whoever wrote it didn't anticipate that there might be a future requirement to count blackjack bets half.

So the player relies on the software, and goes to play other games, and wins several thousand dollars.

Oops, sorry buddy, the software isn't capable of half-counting blackjack wagers, so when we say you can withdraw your money, actually you can't, and you should have counted the amount you had wagered with matchsticks or something.

Again, the casino is in the right, and no-one can really accuse them of being rogue or whatever.

BUT, for the player reading all this stuff, they will just think that it's much safer playing at Jackpot City or 32 Red or wherever, because they don't have those terms, and the worst they will do is send the money back to the player's account and make them wager some more.



So all in all 'rip off the gamblers', perhaps not. 'Put off the gamblers'? Yes I think so - be put off by the three dozen or more shady casinos (plus perhaps a hundred more on window domains that are the same underlying casino) allowed to operate under the RTG banner, put off by the sites with complex rules, and baffling array of chip codes (each with their own rules), wagering requirements, max cashouts, min cashouts, non cashouts, software that tells you can withdraw when you can't, etc.

So it's easy to see why people could just decide to go play at Casino-On-Net.

But then that's an image that every casino chooses to maintain.

 

[FugLac]

Fuglak - sorry for your predicament, but you broke their T&Cs - so you are probably SOL (shit outta luck). If you had bothered to read the posting guidelines (All Posters Must Read: Old URL) you would have realized that either PMing Emily or going through to Montana would have been your best option. You publicly called the casino a crook (stealing your winnings) in your first post. If you feel that insulting a casino is a great tactic in resolving a complaint in your favor, I have some dire news for you - it ain't. It's a really stupid thing to do, and you're lucky to get the time of day out of them. Kudos to Emily for keeping her cool. I would have told you to eff-off

This issue was already several weeks old when I made my post on this forum. First I tried to solve this privately as I mentioned in one of my posts, and insulting a casino is not my goal. Yes, I made a mistake when I played on my friend's computer but it was not my intention to "defraud" the casino and I simply feel that I don't deserve to be unpaid.

I see that you are in good relationship with iNetBet and I understand if you are angry because I say bad things about one of your advertisers. However, the fact that they're on the trusted casinos' list does not mean that they can't make a mistake. I'm not an "abuser". If you read the previous posts, you can see that many people think that, considering every aspect of the situation, it is really not fair if they don't pay me.

Lest we forget, she is a member of this forum - not some weirdo guest that's invited in only when there is a problem at hand. She deserves the respect of a PM if you have an issue with her establishment.

I agree but at the time when I opened this thread, I didn't know about her existence. Bpb told me later that I should send her a private message but she has appeared before I could do so.

 

[KasinoKing]

Thank you KK, you have confirmed the hidden agenda that I was certain would emerge if this post continued. Is it RTG that is not paying this player or iNetBet? It does not matter either will do.
Emily

Now youre just getting silly. I have no hidden agenda Im not that clever!

Obviously in this case it is iNetBet who is not paying this player - based on one very minor technicality. Just about everyone who has posted on this thread (except you) has agreed that FugLacs bonus size & playing pattern makes it highly unlikely that he is a bonus abuser. He just made one silly little mistake, and boy is he paying for it!

Emily, I know youve made your decision and your not going to change it. All I now ask is that you read what I (a mere player nothing more) have to say and think about it for a little while before coming back and ignoring all my key points and questions again.

As far as weve established so far, FugLac broke just one rule two accounts on one PC.
Why does your casino have this rule? There can only be one reason to stop bonus abuse. That is to say; to stop one clever player who can regularly beat the mathematical odds against him, claiming and profiting from multiple bonuses from the same casino. (Most, if not all, of those other casinos T&Cs you quoted in your earlier post said the same thing you can have multiple accounts, but you cant claim multiple bonuses). Fair enough!
If you did not offer ANY bonuses, you would not have this rule, would you? Im sure you would be delighted if 15 people all used one PC to play at your casino if bonuses were not involved. More customers = more profit for you!

This whole over-complicated thread is a nonsense! It all just boils down to one question: Did FugLac deliberately abuse an iNetBet bonus?
I personally can not see (from the facts given) how he used the $150 bonus in any way to generate his $2,160 profit. Therefore I say you should just remove the bonus he was not entitled to claim under the multiple accounts rule & pay the rest.

All Im asking you Emily, is to explain how did he use the $150 bonus to make the $2,160 profit?
This is the one question you will not answer because it is the one question you can not answer.

OK, my RTG comment may have been a little harsh, but we are all entitled to our opinions. You no doubt read the boards as well, and will therefore have also seen all the complaints against other RTG based sites. Bryan has mentioned 3 or 4 reputable ones, but what about all the others? Until RTG put their foot down and put a stop to the shady practices of a large number of their operators, Im afraid you will continue to be tarred with the same brush. *
That is not your fault I know, and you have my sympathy on that. There is very little you can do about this situation, except prove yourselves by rising above these thieves by giving great CS. And so far you have been doing just that! However, your decision in this particular case just seems so terribly unfair that is whats winding me up. Like I said before, FugLac did break one of your T&Cs, and it is completely your right to take the action you did you do what you got to do.

* Very similar to FugLac actually you could be associated with dodgy casinos just because you use the same software, just as FugLac has been associated with bonus abusers just because he accidentally opened two accounts from one PC. Neither partys position is fair IMO.

BTW I am a happy iNetBet customer myself, with no personal complaints, and I greatly appreciate your participation in the forum!

-------

Bryan, Im sure we all fully appreciate your sterling efforts in trying to promote and protect the small number of truly reputable RTGs and Playtechs, when it would have been much much easier for you to just throw up your hands and say sod it let them all go to hell!
Im sorry for any offence caused by my flippant comment, and for the distraction from the main topic here which has absolutely nothing to do with the software employed by the casino in question.

 

[tomil]

Haven't answered the following question that has been posted several times!

I have one question for Emily. If he had lost his deposit instead of winning, would you have refunded it? It seems to me that the casino is in a great position. If the player loses, you keep his deposit. If the player wins, you return the deposit, but deny his winnings because he broke the rules. If he broke the rules, his play should be voided either way, win or lose. My guess is if he had lost you would have gladly taken his money and said nothing about breaking the rules. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I saw this same post several times but haven't see an answer from Emily!

 

[guesswest]

Just a few thoughts on this:

Seems in this particular case, there's plentiful evidence to demonstrate that the two players were different people, and I assume he could produce 2 ID's to that effect also. Also this poor guy was a grand up before his bonus was even credited, seems at the very least he could be paid his balance at the time the bonus was applied.

That said, with regards to refunding deposits for players that open multiple accounts, without special circumstances like these - I have to side with the casino on this one. If you refund deposits in such cases you're giving real fraudsters a 'free shot' at trying to scam the casino, get away with it and it's a payday, don't and no problem, you get your money back.

So IMHO, what's needed is casino's to have a policy of investigating this case by case when a player makes a legitimate sounding claim. The amount of times IP matches must come up for totally innocent reasons, and without the player having any knowledge - I can think of countless circumstances where this would happen. It's a very specific situation, and it needs special attention.

With that in mind, I think that fair process would dictate that when customers do query a duplicate account ruling, they're given the option of proving that they do not hold multiple accounts. I recognise allowing players to prove their innocence in cases of disputes like these would be time consuming for casinos, and that time is money - but I think that's a necessary sacrifice in the interests of ethical business practice. That is how most respectable brick and mortar businesses would operate, and hopefully that kind of approach is the future of online gaming as it becomes more regulated/accountable.

 

[FugLac]

KK said to Emily in an earlier post:

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!

This just reminded me something about which I wondered earlier. This question is not about this specific case, but in general: Suppose that a casino doesn't pay someone's legitimate winnings. In this case, can he/she take the case to the court and win? Or the casino can always say that they have the right to not pay if they want? Do the casinos really have the right to not pay even without a reason?

Can anyone answer me this question? I don't know much about legal issues, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[TrickyNicky]

Generally speaking you can't just write anything in your terms and conditions and supercede the law. The terms and conditions being tested here, would not stand up in a court of law in my opinion. The issue of 'terms and conditions' has come up a lot recently in UK law:
Some UK retailers have terms and conditions which express that if a consumer item (i.e. a tv) goes faulty after 28 days then the responsibility lies with the manufacturer, who should be contacted rather than the retailer to remedy the situation. However, this is null and void as UK law states that it is the retailer who must deal with any problem - and it is their responsibility. In the extreme, someone entering my house could sign some terms and conditions saying that they give their permission for me to thieve from them, or even murder them. That doesn't mean its legal. (it all depends where you would take the casino to court...if they had offices in the UK you could easily do it there...)
Whilst I understand where Inetbet are coming from, they have failed to get any grip on this situation. They should at the very least pay the player any money he was up before he recieved the bonus. I too would like to know if the players deposit would be returned if he lost - but in honesty we all know the answer to that.
Secondly, a more general question for Inetbet. When you calculate your payout percentages for a game like blackjack, I am presuming you include all hands played at the casino - including those you then keep the money for. A few of these medium - large size wins captured must really add to your profits...I am sure you can see where I am coming from (that your payout percentages mean jack if this is what is happening, its another way of giving you a nice house edge)
TN

 

[KasinoKing]

Tricky, Don't expect an answer from Emily anytime soon - looks like she is ignoring this thread in the hope it just fades away...

FugLac, I'm not a lawyer either, and I think you have already accepted yourself that you don't have a leg to stand on in this particular case. At the end of the day you broke the 'multiple accounts' rule which iNetBet are fully entitled to invoke. To the vast majority of us, this does not seem in any way fair or reasonable, but there's nothing we can do about it.

A quick analogy: a guy is rushing his heavily pregnant wife to hospital because she's just about to drop, when he gets pulled over by a cop for speeding. The Policeman would be completely justified in giving the guy a speeding ticket, but only a real meanie would do something like that.
That's all Emily is - a big meanie!

I'm sure you will carry on gambling, but please just make sure you read & obey all the T&C's in the future.
Have fun, be careful and good luck!

 

[FugLac]

KK: Ok, but my question is not about my case with iNetBet, but in general. I wonder if there's a law about online casinos. I mean, is it possible to take a case to the court? Or can they do anything?

 

[pstnpstn]

why they did like this disgraceful deed ?

I was disappointed with Inetbet.

Inetbet will be excluded from my casino list.

 

[plonnin]

KK: Ok, but my question is not about my case with iNetBet, but in general. I wonder if there's a law about online casinos. I mean, is it possible to take a case to the court? Or can they do anything?

I think you'd have to take them to court in the country where they're licensed. Considering court costs, travel costs, all the stress, and the fact that you might not win the case, I can't imagine many situations where this would be a good idea.

 

[elscrabinda]

I think you'd have to take them to court in the country where they're licensed. Considering court costs, travel costs, all the stress, and the fact that you might not win the case, I can't imagine many situations where this would be a good idea.

Thats probably the reason that casinos feel they can get away with pulling stunts like this. Luckily we have this forum to shame them when they do but it seems that no end of bad publicity is enough to convince some to do the right thing

 

[jpsartre]

Stunts like this? Two accounts were opened from the same computer which is a big no-no and is clearly prohibited in the T&C. There is no 'stunt' here but a simple follwoing of the rules.