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.

 

[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.