iNetBet does not want to pay my winnings!

[KasinoKing]

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.

I never said that!

 

[Daffy]

Were you thinking it???

LOL

Sorry dude...could not resist.

the dUck

 

[FugLac]

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

I created my account on his computer and played there. Next to the "Login" button, there is a "New Account" button which suggests that there's an option of creating a new account on the same computer.

incidentally it was not a year ago, it was the early part of this year.

My friend (who is not me!) keeps every single e-mail since 1995, so we could track that he received the bonus and started playing at the end of December 2004. The withdrawal was requested at the beginning of January 2005 but we were talking about the bonus. I never said that it was a year ago. I said that it was in last year.

I don't understand why you keep repeating that we claimed the exact same bonus code. There's only one sign-up bonus and the code is QFKHF, so every player need to use the exact same bonus code if they would like to claim the sign-up bonus.

I also don't understand what you mean by saying "same play style". I played basic strategy.

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.

I disagree - it was not fair at all. I can only repeat myself: I'm not an abuser and I made my winnings by risking my own money.

In an earlier post, I wrote:

Anyway, why I think that this is highly unfair is that they had the option of simply not giving me the bonus, but instead, they let me play. Their "strategy" can be described as this: "We can see that he playes in the same computer as someone else but let him have the bonus and let him play! If he loses, great. If he wins, we will call him an "abuser" and seize his winnings. In this way, we have no risk at all and we can only win." From my point of view, it is that I had the option of losing my deposit but I didn't have the option of winning. The correct strategy would be that they simply don't give the bonus or they remove it after they gave it by mistake. In this case the situation would be the same as if I didn't receive the bonus. I say again, the bonus value is $150 but my winnings is $2310 which I have made by risking my own money, and not by risking the bonus.

I must add that I received the bonus 2 days later after I made my deposit. It's interesting that this 2 days were not enough for them to detect that the computer is the same but when I requested a withdrawal, they were able to detect it immadiately. It seems that they had the option of doing the right thing at the beginning: not giving two bonuses to the same computer. Instead, they chose this "win-win" game and they didn't inform me that something is not okay until I made my withdrawal. No, this is not fair at all.

 

[scrollock]

I must add that I received the bonus 2 days later after I made my deposit. It's interesting that this 2 days were not enough for them to detect that the computer is the same but when I requested a withdrawal, they were able to detect it immadiately. It seems that they had the option of doing the right thing at the beginning: not giving two bonuses to the same computer. Instead, they chose this "win-win" game and they didn't inform me that something is not okay until I made my withdrawal. No, this is not fair at all.

fuglac yes it is a win-win situation for the casino, that is undeniable, however for them not to enforce such a rule would create a win-win situation for the bonus hunter, if they tried to claim the bonus & failed they would still get their winnings, hence still a win for the abuser.

thus the rule, although is fairly harsh, is the only way the casino can deter the bonus hunter, as there has to be a deterrent.

on the point of them picking you up on sign-up, i agree the casinos should do a better job of picking people up at this point, however no system is foolproof, as soon as a casino implements a detection system to catch mutliple accounts, the abusers find a way around them. Also you should bear in mind it is not the casino responsibilty to prevent mutliple accounts from the same PC its your own.

fuglac i can sympathise with your situation, especially since you built up your winnings before getting the bonus, however you must realise that in the world of online casinos, there is only a few indicators a casino can go on to detect someone who is bonus abusing, unfortunatly you fulfilled most of these. every online casino has to draw the line somewhere and with this casino you have fallen on the wrong side of where this line is.

 

[caruso]

I disagree - it was not fair at all. I can only repeat myself: I'm not an abuser and I made my winnings by risking my own money.

A casino is entitled to enforce reasonable rules. That is what they're doing here. What you are or aren't, or did or didn't do, is not an issue.

Respect their rules and you're entitled to expect the same treatment in return.

 

[bpb]

fuglac i can sympathise with your situation, especially since you built up your winnings before getting the bonus, however you must realise that in the world of online casinos, there is only a few indicators a casino can go on to detect someone who is bonus abusing, unfortunatly you fulfilled most of these. every online casino has to draw the line somewhere and with this casino you have fallen on the wrong side of where this line is.

What about the fact that there are 2 people with 2 separate sets of information corroborated by their 2 IDs.

This whole duplicate IP thing is total crap. Good bonus abusers can easily avoid it, and honest players who wouldn't think there's any problem with signing up a friend at their home computer get screwed.

Again, I would think casinos would be thrilled that people are pulling their friends into the degenerate world of online casino gaming.

I can name 20 microgaming casinos that wouldn't have had a problem in this situation once the "offending" parties sent in ID demonstrating that they were in fact two different people.

I can't wrap my head around this insistence that the duplicate IP thing is a fair and reasonable rule. It's a rule meant to trap players. The OP got trapped good.

 

[johnsteed]

About the friend...

Emily

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.

Just a side-note, but I'd love to know how "said" friend did. Did he make a killing playing at INetBet? You got their styles down (exact same play style), but didn't the "innocent newbie" play just a few big hands and come out ahead?

bpb

Again, I would think casinos would be thrilled that people are pulling their friends into the degenerate world of online casino gaming.

Excellent point here, that seems to be overlooked. One has to wonder if any casino (don't want to just pick on INetBet here) would truly have a problem with some guy introducing all sorts of friends, and different members of his family to any specific online casino and playing off the same computer IF it was generating that casino a handsome profit. Would casino's decide to wave the rule, to fit their own needs? Just a thought...

 

[spearmaster]

Let's cut out the bit about duplicate IPs. This has never been, and is not, a reliable indicator of anything on its own. However, in tandem with other identifiers, this could be considered as a factor.

The plain fact here is that, clearly stated in the terms and conditions, only one account per computer will be allowed, if I am not mistaken. This itself is reason enough for a casino to close an account.

Also, same country/town can be safely ignored as you have already identified that it is the same computer.

Same game is not a reasonable method of detecting anything other than a liking for the same game and must be discarded.

Same bonus coupon - well, I think if what Fuglac says is true, and that it is the same coupon for new signups, then this can also be discarded.

Same bank - how about same account? We can't ban all players who have accounts at Bank of America, now, can we? This can be discarded.

Same play and wagering style - this would depend much on exactly what style we're talking about. If the player had a habit of betting $1 each hand, that would pretty much match up with every grandmother I have ever seen play blackjack And if both knew basic strategy, you could hardly call that a factor in identifying bonus abuse.

So only one significant factor - same computer - and as this is clearly stated in advance, you cannot expect the casino to make an exception just for you, even if you are a legitimate new player. You also cannot expect to break the law anywhere and then ask them to make an exception for you because you are not a local and don't know the local laws. That sucks too. But that's life.