iNetBet does not want to pay my winnings!

[bpb]

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.

Whatever.

The rule exists to prevent bonus abuse. The player can provide ID from both parties to demonstrate that this isn't the case.

The letter of the law blows when it ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY contradicts the spirit of the law.

Pardon my french.

 

[KasinoKing]

Absolutely.
The only reason for the only rule Fagluc broke is to stop bonus abuse.
And the only reason iNetBet brought this rule into play is because he won a large amount of money.
If he had broke-even or lost, I very much doubt this rule would have even been mentioned.

 

[tencardcharlie]

As much as I understand the points made above, I have to disagree...

Sure, its sad that the casino couldn't stop the second signup before, and I really feel for the OP who made an expensive mistake.

On the other hand, the whole situation could easily have been avoided if the players had read the T&C and played from different computers or fired an email to support asking "hey, were two guys who wants to play from the same computer, can you make an exception from the same computer rule in your T&C?".

Also, if this was anything like the T&C tricks the more perverted casinos use:
some sneaky, poorly written catch-all clause that the player have to find out by heating up the invisible ink on a small note in a locked chest in the secret cellar where the casino manager keeps all his angry snakes, that would have been one thing. As I understand the situation, this was not the case here.

When it comes to bonus abusing, even if documents from the other player can be provided, it doesn't prove that bonus abusing has not occured. If I had multiple accounts I'd probably open the second in a friends name, to be able to provide docs if requested. The betting size doesn't prove much either, since it wouldn't change the value of the bonus (if I have understood the whole bonus abusing deal correctly )

I also don't think that accepting the second deposit was done by purpose to trick the player into depositing and losing since the potential cost of a thread like this, is far higher than the benefit of the player busting his deposit.

Sure. I agree that it would be nice if the OP got paid, but I don't think we should be so hard on the casino for enforcing this rule. Just imagine a situation where a 'bonus whore' comes to the board, complaining about not getting his bonus paid even though he followed the T&C to the letter - and the casino rep answers:

The letter of the law blows when it ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY contradicts the spirit of the law.

We wouldn't like that would we? I fear that we run the risks that fewer reps will listen to our opinions if we demand them to always follow their terms to the letter, and then critizise the casino for asking the same in return from the players.

Just my 2 cents

 

[caruso]

Whether or not you consider it "draconian", the player violated the terms. I recently lost about $1700 (elsewhere) through not reading terms. It was my fault, so I sucked it in and accepted it. Then a few months ago, I lost a bonus at a Playtech through the same negligence. I accepted it - but another player, having done exactly the same thing, insisted he should be paid!

The casino would be under no obligation to refund his deposit if he lost - he would have broken the stated rules just the same and would not be entitled to any consideration. It would also set a fine precedent: deposit for multi-bonuses; if you win, pray you fall under the radar and get paid, and if you lose, claim your deposit back on the basis of rule-violation! I don't think so.

If you want casinos to respect their own terms to the letter when those terms favour you, you need to allow them to do it when it goes against you. It has to work both ways.

 

[tim5ny]

I must agree with the above posting. Anyone could open multiple accounts and have a friend vouch for them. They can't be flexible on this rule because it would come back and bite them in the ass when the scammers all start opening second and third accounts on the same computer using a friends identity.

 

[bpb]

I must agree with the above posting. Anyone could open multiple accounts and have a friend vouch for them. They can't be flexible on this rule because it would come back and bite them in the ass when the scammers all start opening second and third accounts on the same computer using a friends identity.

An actual scammer would have the good sense to use different MAC addresses and IPs. The rule busts the chops of the casual user who doesn't know better, and does NOTHING to stop the professional fraudster.

 

[Bruce Hamilton]

I played at my friend's computer who advised this casino, and the casino said that they have a "one bonus per computer" rule

Question - Did you create your account on your computer, or a friends?

If you created the account on your computer and logged into your account on a friends computer, you were playing on your account and not his, and they have no basis for not paying you. If you created your account on his computer, you're SOL.

 

[tim5ny]

An actual scammer would have the good sense to use different MAC addresses and IPs. The rule busts the chops of the casual user who doesn't know better, and does NOTHING to stop the professional fraudster.

So if I were going to make a second account on my computer, then I would have to change my ip address as you say to be a good scammer. This is not possible. My internet provider assigned me an ip address and I wouldn't begin to know how to alter it..... or if it can be done. Your average bonus abuser is not necessarily good with computers either. They're just trying to get something for nothing.

 

[spearmaster]

Changing your MAC address is not as easy as you think... LOL... an actual scammer would probably have to be a sharp computer tech in order to change the MAC address without changing hardware...

 

[bpb]

So if I were going to make a second account on my computer, then I would have to change my ip address as you say to be a good scammer. This is not possible. My internet provider assigned me an ip address and I wouldn't begin to know how to alter it..... or if it can be done. Your average bonus abuser is not necessarily good with computers either. They're just trying to get something for nothing.

Any bonus abuser with half a brain would be able to ensure that their multiple account signups could not be directly linked by either MAC address or IP (using a proxy server or an ISP with dynamic IPs). Therefore, this one IP per account signup is only catching the bonus abusers without half a brain. In doing so, they are also branding anyone who ever signs up a friend on their own computer as a dirty bonus abusing scumbag. The reality is, casinos should be thrilled to death that people are introducing their friends to online gambling. Instead, they exhibit an irrational fear that everyone and their mother is out to fleece their crappy bonus program.

NB - the half a brain comment is because anyone intelligent who decides to defraud a casino through multiple accounts is going to realize that if the casino traces the signups to the same machine they will be busted. Therefore, they will put in the effort to learn how to avoid detection, using information readily available on the internet.

 

[bpb]

Changing your MAC address is not as easy as you think... LOL... an actual scammer would probably have to be a sharp computer tech in order to change the MAC address without changing hardware...

There are simple registry entries that can be modified to change the MAC on many network adapters. Changing the MACs on routers is even easier.

The information necessary to do this is readily available to anyone who wants to avoid detection. Any hardcore fraudster will almost certainly put in a little effort to figure out how.

 

[Simmo!]

Death to the sign-up bonus! All hail the Loyalty bonus :notworthy

 

[Bruce Hamilton]

Death to the sign-up bonus! All hail the Loyalty bonus :notworthy

Loyalty bonus? Spend $10 to get 1 point... 500 points is worth $5!

I want the signup and second deposit bonuses, when I cash it out I'm off to the next casino. If you offer a decent welcome back bonus I'll take it, but giving me a few loyalty points along the way is insulting. Show me the money!

 

[spearmaster]

There are simple registry entries that can be modified to change the MAC on many network adapters. Changing the MACs on routers is even easier.

The information necessary to do this is readily available to anyone who wants to avoid detection. Any hardcore fraudster will almost certainly put in a little effort to figure out how.

There are not many people out there willing to mess with their registry, or have access to their router. Plus, MAC IDs are supposed to be hard-coded into the network adapter. So in many cases, changing the MAC ID in your registry will have no permanent effect. And, changing it incorrectly could result in the failure of your network adapter to work properly.

In any case, IP and MAC spoofing will often not work - and in fact, when discovered, it will 100% finger you as a bonus abuser. Any smart scammer wouldn't even try this method.

 

[scrollock]

i dont think my view is going to be popular here, but i think the casinos actions, although harsh, are correct.

in the complaints section we scream T+C's this & T+C's that all day long.but as we have come to learn the T+C's are our protection and its by a casinos adherance to its own T+C's that we distinguish between the rogues and non rogues. However we must never forget the level bonus abuse and fraud that happens in this business and that a casinos terms are for its own protection aswell.

the term about about winnings and bonus being void are there for good reason, for the simple fact is that a abuser could sign upto this casino in the knowledge that he would be caught but would still keep his winnings otherwise, if that was the case then the abuser could then still employ a simple "sticky" bonus tactic and would still benefit from the bonus despite having the bonus removed on cashout.


however there should always be room for discretion, ive managed a betting shop and know that if i stuck to the rules 100% of the time i would of quickly had an empty shop after a period of time, but likewise if i gave in to every stranger who walked through the door i would of quickly had a busy but bankrupt shop. so i would give benefit of the doubt to those customers who were my regulars, but very rarely to strangers because the vast majority of them had came through the door to do what they had done for the purpose of defrauding me.

unless you have worked in the gambling industry in any of its forms, you will not realise the amout people out there who are after a quick buck and to give benefit of the doubt to all first time customers would just create open season yourself.

now back to this case, should discretion be used or not ? well i dont think the issue of wheter it is 2 people or not is relevant, what is relevant is if the 2nd player was a "genuine" player and not a bonus hunter. i guess the best way to judge this would be to ask, did the first player who player at inetbet return after his first cashout a year ago ? if the answer is not, then it's probable the player only played here the first time for the purpose of the bonus, which makes it most certainly that the 2nd player played for the bonus aswell.

in which case why should the casino be "flexible" with its rules ?

 

[Simmo!]

Loyalty bonus? Spend $10 to get 1 point... 500 points is worth $5!

I want the signup and second deposit bonuses, when I cash it out I'm off to the next casino. If you offer a decent welcome back bonus I'll take it, but giving me a few loyalty points along the way is insulting. Show me the money!

LOL. Not quite what i meant Bruce I mean like at somewhere like 32Red, you hang around, stay loyal and play regularly and the Club Rouge bonuses are far far more lucrative for someone like me than trawling around the sign-up bonuses would ever be, not that thats my thing anyway.

Plus the withdrawal terms are much easier (in fact, if you have made $3.5k of wagers already in the month they are non-existant!) cos they know you aren't an abuser and there's never any hassle - no game restrictions either.

This month alone approximatley 20% of my starting-balance there has been bonus money one way or another and thats about the average i'd say.

Roxy Palace is also quite good on regular deposit boneses and small handouts. Again I probably get about 20% a month bonuses back from them too.

That's more like what i meant and if more casinos did schemes like that that kept regular players happy there'd be so many less problems.

Plus of course, by trawling around you always hit the bad eggs, slow-payers, hassles of installing and registering, spam email, ridiculous WR terms, game-restrictions and of course the hassle of sending ID if you do win.

 

[KasinoKing]

i dont think my view is going to be popular here, but i think the casinos actions, although harsh, are correct.

in the complaints section we scream T+C's this & T+C's that all day long.but as we have come to learn the T+C's are our protection and its by a casinos adherance to its own T+C's that we distinguish between the rogues and non rogues. However we must never forget the level bonus abuse and fraud that happens in this business and that a casinos terms are for its own protection aswell.

Although I'm totally sick of this thread, I think everyone needs a little reminder!

I strongly agree that the casinos must stick to their T&C's, but within reason.

Suppose a player opened a second account at a casino for a 100% bonus on say $100 deposit, with blackjack allowed in a WR of x20. He then proceeded to just low-risk minimum flat-bet the whole WR on BJ, finish up with $160 and withdraw.
That is 100% bonus abuse - no question.

Fuglac deposited $500 for a very small 30% bonus of $150.
He played hands of up $100 each which could easily have wiped out his whole balance in 10 hands or less.
He took his balance to $1000+ before he even got the bonus.
That is 110% NOT bonus abuse - no question.

At the very least the casino should pay him the amount he had before getting the bonus. But in light of the fact the 'dual accounts' looks like a genuine error, they should just remove the bonus and pay all the rest.

Im not saying the casino is stealing from the player only that the punishment does not suit the crime. They have the complete right to apply this particular rule, but to me it seems (in this particular case) to be totally unreasonable & highly unfair.

 

[FugLac]

The Casinomeister mentioned the Montana Overseas website. Who are they and how can they help the players? Is this site operated by RTG?

 

[scrollock]

Although I'm totally sick of this thread, I think everyone needs a little reminder!

I strongly agree that the casinos must stick to their T&C's, but within reason.

Suppose a player opened a second account at a casino for a 100% bonus on say $100 deposit, with blackjack allowed in a WR of x20. He then proceeded to just low-risk minimum flat-bet the whole WR on BJ, finish up with $160 and withdraw.
That is 100% bonus abuse - no question.

Fuglac deposited $500 for a very small 30% bonus of $150.
He played hands of up $100 each which could easily have wiped out his whole balance in 10 hands or less.
He took his balance to $1000+ before he even got the bonus.
That is 110% NOT bonus abuse - no question.

At the very least the casino should pay him the amount he had before getting the bonus. But in light of the fact the 'dual accounts' looks like a genuine error, they should just remove the bonus and pay all the rest.

Im not saying the casino is stealing from the player only that the punishment does not suit the crime. They have the complete right to apply this particular rule, but to me it seems (in this particular case) to be totally unreasonable & highly unfair.

i'm glad that you agree that the casino is within its rights, likewise i do agree agree that the casino must be seen to be fair when enforcing its rights.

as i said above, casinos sticking to its T+C's is what distinguishes the rouges from the non rogues, so everyone lets drop the rogues accusations.

however how a casino enforces its rules, is what distinguishes a good casino from those that are merely non rogue.

this is area where we should be discussing this situation and i think this thread has finally found it.

for example take bellerock, i consider them a good casino (yes i know, i slag them off all the time!, but thats only because they are casino i play the most), recently i was a few minutes too late claiming a promo, yet they credited it, why did they do that ? i guess despite breaking the T+C's (i.e. i claimed late) they could see there was no financial advantage in me doing so. this is in my eyes makes them a good casino, as they didnt just blindly say your not getting your money without checking out the facts.

back to this case, did the player gain a financial advantage by claiming the promo ? obviously if they bonus was honoured and he cashed out then yes, but as we all agree here (even the OP) the bonus shouldn't be honoured, this just leaves the question of his winnings.

now this leaves the question,was his play abusive in anyway? i agree that his style of play is non abusive and if it was he would have been hung,drawn & quartered by the seasoned posters on here by now, however whatever stakes you play, the "average" return is the same, its only the variance you change by playing smaller stakes. thats a consideration that isnt too much of a concern if your hitting up a bonus more than once. so i think its crucial that we know if the original player at the casino returned to the casino after the first time he played.

because

a) if the player played there regulary, then its would be a natural choice for his friend to play there aswell, so he should be paid

b) if the player only played there the once to hit the bonus, then its obvious the motivations of the second player playing there, so he shouldnt be paid

just a note for fuglac, dont get me wrong i am not saying that you shouldnt get paid and your in the wrong, for me the situation is very much 50/50

 

[caruso]

Suppose a player opened a second account at a casino for a 100% bonus on say $100 deposit, with blackjack allowed in a WR of x20. He then proceeded to just low-risk minimum flat-bet the whole WR on BJ, finish up with $160 and withdraw.
That is 100% bonus abuse - no question.

Fuglac deposited $500 for a very small 30% bonus of $150.
He played hands of up $100 each which could easily have wiped out his whole balance in 10 hands or less.
He took his balance to $1000+ before he even got the bonus.
That is 110% NOT bonus abuse - no question.

Oh purleeeease.

In the first place, the two "distinct" situations are almost identical. In your terms, they ARE identical.

In the second place, the second situation is in fact MORE "abusive" than the first, following your definition - but I'm not about to tell you why.

In the third, NEITHER scenario is actually remotely abusive. The only "abuser" would be the casino, in the event the player followed the rules and they tried to cheat him.

 

[emily_hanson]

Hello to all

I am going to answer some questions that have been raised by certain posters;

Bruce Hamilton
Question - Did you create your account on your computer, or a friends?

If you created the account on your computer and logged into your account on a friends computer, you were playing on your account and not his, and they have no basis for not paying you. If you created your account on his computer, you're SOL.

This account was created on the friends computer and his account was only ever accessed on the friends computer.

Scrollock

now back to this case, should discretion be used or not ? well i dont think the issue of wheter it is 2 people or not is relevant, what is relevant is if the 2nd player was a "genuine" player and not a bonus hunter. i guess the best way to judge this would be to ask, did the first player who player at inetbet return after his first cashout a year ago ? if the answer is not, then it's probable the player only played here the first time for the purpose of the bonus, which makes it most certainly that the 2nd player played for the bonus aswell.

No the first player made the one deposit claimed the exact same bonus code and never returned, incidentally it was not a year ago, it was the early part of this year.

KasinoKing

The only reason for the only rule Fagluc broke is to stop bonus abuse.
And the only reason iNetBet brought this rule into play is because he won a large amount of money.
If he had broke-even or lost, I very much doubt this rule would have even been mentioned.

Once again you jump to any conclusion that fuels your argument. If you had taken the time to read my earlier replies you would see I addressed that scenario, however for the sake of everyone else.

No he would not have been refunded if he had lost and if he had broken even he would have received his deposit back, which he did with us.

The fact that he won has no bearing or influence on our rules, as you well know.

As Caruso alluded, what a nice little ruse that would be, make your deposit and if you get away with it great, but if you lose you claim your money back. I dont think so.


KasinoKing

An actual scammer would have the good sense to use different MAC addresses and IPs. The rule busts the chops of the casual user who doesn't know better, and does NOTHING to stop the professional fraudster.

OK, so let me try and understand this viewpoint, because he was not as adept at disguising his computer address as you tell us certain other people have the ability to do, all must be well and he is therefore totally innocent. Quite an amazing conclusion.

I am concluding this post as I do not think I can add any further productive information, I will however repeat the facts one more time.

Same computer, same IP, same game, (not Blackjack but a derivative of 21), same bonus coupon, same town, same personal bank, exact same play style, same wagering style.

Please do not misunderstand the application of our rules, whilst I know certain posters have decided to become judge and jury as to the authenticity of this player.
Why would the assumption be that this player, who is a 'friend' of another player, should have no knowledge of the procedures.
Even though this is his first post on Casinomeister he is immediately assumed to be an innocent newbie who just happened into the Casino and thought he would give it a go and get lucky.

Thankfully many readers here do appreciate the dos and don'ts pertaining to playing on line and are aware of some of the problems that Casinos face and are keen to put forward a fair and equitable opinion and not just jump to conclusions.

Thank you to all who have contributed.
Emily

 

[spearmaster]

I have to back this opinion as well. I can't see why Inetbet would do something silly and refuse to pay winnings and ruin all that they have built up in the past - I can spot it with other casinos, but Inetbet has to the best of my knowledge walked a very straight line since its inception.

And before I get any flak myself, I have never promoted nor played at Inetbet, nor have I ever taken any advertising or any sort of consideration from them.

I'm offering my opinion because I thought I should - nothing else.

 

[scrollock]

Scrollock

now back to this case, should discretion be used or not ? well i dont think the issue of wheter it is 2 people or not is relevant, what is relevant is if the 2nd player was a "genuine" player and not a bonus hunter. i guess the best way to judge this would be to ask, did the first player who player at inetbet return after his first cashout a year ago ? if the answer is not, then it's probable the player only played here the first time for the purpose of the bonus, which makes it most certainly that the 2nd player played for the bonus aswell.

No the first player made the one deposit claimed the exact same bonus code and never returned, incidentally it was not a year ago, it was the early part of this year.


Emily

now i know that, as far as i'm concerned the casino has done the right thing here.

if the original player hasn't shown any good faith to the casino, i.e. turning up playing for the bonus & then never returning, then why should the casino show goodwill by disregarding its own T+C's to honour the winnings?

 

[Daffy]

I have already sent them a copy of my passport, my credit card (front and back), a utility bill and the faxback form! My friend told me that he made his deposit with a different bank's credit card (Erste), but requested the withdrawal to the same bank (OTP).

Plus, he told me that he played at the casino sometime in last year and not "recently", as iNetBet said in their e-mail!

Where can I find this Emily Hanson?

If this is accurate (documentation) looks like it would prove there are two players involved here. It may be a mute point...but the tone of Emily's post leads me to believe she is not convinced. ie:'friend'

We've seen a complaint...an investigation...and a decision...unless there's an appeal, I guess that's it.

Btw, on a 1-10 scale, iNetBet is an 11 with me. (might make me bias)

the dUck

 

[caruso]

Again, since a rule was broken - and a reasonable one at that, not the "we reserve the right to screw you" one, but a fair one - the casino should not be considered in any bad light for implementing the consequenses.

And then, there are sniffings of fraud here. The fact of being an incompetent fraudster wouldn't make him less a fraudster - I'm sure plenty of cerebrally challenged computer owners have opened more than one account on the same machine and tried to swing it. This may, though in no way certain, be the case here. Even if not, the rule application remains entirely fair.