Bogus Complaint INETBET Don't pay

[Captain Chaos]

I'm confused. If the winnings have been derived from the 80 euro deposit then I would understand, as the terms were clearly broken for that deposit. However, if he has subsequently played and lost that deposit and further deposits are within the terms then how has the winnings generated been confiscated? The winnings have been generated by a bonus played within the terms and therefore the player should be paid.

This is like going back through someone's play history and saying "ah ha! You broke term X last week on a bonus which is no longer active! Remove the winnings for this active and unbroken bonus, now!"

As far as I am concerned, given that once you make a new deposit the previous bonus is declared null and void (I've never been able to deposit and top-up a bonus, as soon as I deposit the previous bonus is cancelled and all bonus balance with it) then I cannot see how you can impose this term on the player for that bonus. The bonus, once a player has re-deposited, is no longer active. If it's no longer active then that's that. The terms should only apply for the current and active bonus.

It's almost as if the casino has stacked the bonuses. Against the player! Am I missing something here?

 

[KasinoKing]

As for the fact of having a higher figure than necessary I would like to clarify one thing: with the deposit of € 80 I lost, I did not get any benefit from this loss for which the subsequent deposit of € 30 and its winnings are completely independent.
For iNetBet means having grossed more deposit.

If I won € 80 by depositing then you would absolutely right.
It 'a way not to pay the winnings.

That's just ridiculous - you can't make up your own rules to suit yourself!
You DID get a benefit with the €80 - you got a bonus.

The only thing I'm not happy about here, is why the casino LET you deposit more than you were allowed, and let you go on to claim more on the same coupon afterwards. Surely it's not rocket science for the software to block such activity?

KK

 

[bonuskeeper]

That's just ridiculous - you can't make up your own rules to suit yourself!
You DID get a benefit with the €80 - you got a bonus.
KK

Yes KK but I lost everything, The deposit (80) and The bonus.

The next deposit and The bonus are totally independent of The previous payments

What I have won has nothing to do with deposit if 80

 

[bigjohn]

Yes KK but I lost everything, The deposit (80) and The bonus.

The next deposit and The bonus are totally independent of The previous payments

What I have won has nothing to do with deposit if 80

All these 'LINK' bonuses are surely considered one whole promotion. If you break the terms of any part of it you broke the terms of the entire promotion.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This reminds me of a case years ago when Virtual group used a similar (not identical) set of arguments that meant rules and restrictions from past bonuses carried on to future deposits even when said past deposit and bonus had been lost.

The infamous case of Mystic vs Palace of Chance was one where Virtual argued that an RJ derived from a clean deposit of $25 should be capped at around $150 (I think was the figure) because a prior deposit and bonus that was lost came with a 5x max cashout. The difference here is that it's a different rule that applied to a prior deposit that was lost (a max deposit rule, rather than max cashout), and that the later deposit was not "clean", but came with another bonus.

There was no question then of it being considered that Virtual had a legitimate case in carrying over rules from bust deposits into fresh ones, yet here it is being argued that the casino has a very good case in doing so.

As for the argument that stacking bonuses is advantageous for the player, it's bollocks, it ties the player into completing the cumulative WR of all bonuses if they hit big. The best tactic is to deposit small and often, aiming to bust out or hit big with only a small amount of WR to complete. Granting 5 separate goes at LINK 5 with small deposits is better for the player than requiring ONE use with ONE deposit for the whole weekend.

Seems to me that the OP simply had a "brain fart", and double doubled the initial 20 to 80, rather than realising that the figure of 40 he had in his head was already double the initial deposit.

I have had similar "brain farts" when depositing for a bonus, but thankfully it was not at iNetBet, and the only consequence for me has been that I have either deposited too little or too much to maximise the benefits of the offer in terms of bankroll and net percentage of bonus to deposit.

This has also revealed that these terms ARE ambiguous in the sense that the meaning of "double the LINK 1 deposit" had to be discussed because there were two interpretations, one being that it was the cumulative total over all 5 goes of LINK 5 that had to be capped at double the LINK 1 deposit, and the other being that double the LINK 1 deposit could be used 5 times in the 5 allowed uses of LINK 5.

Such complex promotions are designed with the "smart player" in mind, so iNetBet are "asking for it" when players pit their wits against the "game" as a whole, rather than simply deposit, claim, and mostly lose on an unconnected series of coupons.

 

[chuchu59]

All these 'LINK' bonuses are surely considered one whole promotion. If you break the terms of any part of it you broke the terms of the entire promotion.

I beg to differ. If each deposit is counted on its own merits as is seemingly the case breaking the terms of a previous deposit has no bearing on subsequent deposits. We have been told that slots are totally random and the outcome of play on slots at a previous session has no affect whatsoever on subsequent deposit play albeit being part of the same promo. Say the player played table games in an earlier deposit. Sure, he broke the terms but he lost everything so if he wins at a subsequent deposit he should be given his winnings if he hadn't broken the terms. Since Tom has stated the deposits are not to be combined then it should work out exactly that way ie each deposit is ndependent of each other.

Tom is free to comment and I hope he does.

 

[aceking123]

not that this is going to help but will defend inetbet on this promo , heres my weekend at inetbet (euro ) pretty simple i take this offer not every week but sometimes i shall make two deposits like i do with some other casinos , i had taken link1 , a 100 euro deposit which gave me 60% bonus playthrough 30x , i did not clear it account was zeroed out , had another go the following day this time i had to take link 2 , so i deposit 50 euros which gave me a 65% bonus , i cleared this with some funds left over i hit the cashout button ,i havnt broken any of there terms as my first deposit was at 100 , so i could of just played all of the five links at 100 without breaking any rules there no max cashout on any of the links at all , there all standard 30x wagering , i was paid out today without any problems )

 

[mimi26]

I really feel for the OP here, this bonus is ridiculous IMO, I dont play at this casino and never will, waiting over a week for a reply of the rep then only receiving one in this thread is bad CS at its best, shameful!!

 

[Tirilej]

I really feel for the OP here, this bonus is ridiculous IMO, I dont play at this casino and never will, waiting over a week for a reply of the rep then only receiving one in this thread is bad CS at its best, shameful!!

I wouldn't judge so fast. This CS is not the same as the us-version.
We don't know how many emails was sent, or if the rep even was here last week.
I also believe that sometimes that kind of email exchange can go on forever since one side of course isn't pleased with the outcome.

I feel for the OP too, but for me it is clear that he broke the rules so not much more to discuss.

 

[Googobucs]

I feel for the OP too, but for me it is clear that he broke the rules so not much more to discuss.

I think it's clear that he broke the terms on one of his deposits. I don't think it's clear at all that he broke the terms on subsequent deposits, including the one he won on.

Are they bundling all of their bonuses and if you break the terms at any time for any bonus, then all bonuses are in default? That does not sound right to me. Each deposit and bonus should be look at on it's own merit.

 

[Tirilej]

Are they bundling all of their bonuses and if you break the terms at any time for any bonus, then all bonuses are in default?

Since it is a promotion that are connected to earlier deposits then yes, they see it as you must follow all rules all the time.
This rule is what the casino is going after no matter what some of us think or not.

''The deposit used to claim each link must not be more than double the amount deposited to claim LINK1''

Fair or complicated or whatever it's their decision.
I don't love Inetbet but I do understand them in this case.

 

[whodatrec]

One thing i cannot understand on this forum is that the most of the users here seams more interested in protecting the casino rather than the player.... Everytime someone has an issue with a casino its the same story, either he is a fraud, bot user, broke terms and so on..

Seams to me the casino is never at fault?

 

[Captain Chaos]

One thing i cannot understand on this forum is that the most of the users here seams more interested in protecting the casino rather than the player.... Everytime someone has an issue with a casino its the same story, either he is a fraud, bot user, broke terms and so on..

Seams to me the casino is never at fault?

I don't think that is entirely true. I think it's more to do with the cases themselves and how the person presenting their case behaves, the strength of their case and so on. The sad fact is that a high number of cases really are due to the above. I'm sure most of us can and are impartial. It's just difficult to do sometimes when you think you've heard the same story over and over again.

 

[chuchu59]

I think it's clear that he broke the terms on one of his deposits. I don't think it's clear at all that he broke the terms on subsequent deposits, including the one he won on.

Are they bundling all of their bonuses and if you break the terms at any time for any bonus, then all bonuses are in default? That does not sound right to me. Each deposit and bonus should be look at on it's own merit.

Exactly. If Tom had stated that the rule applies for all deposits under the same 'Link 5' coupon I would understand. However, he admits that each of the deposits are counted individually so why is he bundling them all up in the same promo. If that is not confusing I don't know what is.

 

[BMWSTACK]

One thing i cannot understand on this forum is that the most of the users here seams more interested in protecting the casino rather than the player.... Everytime someone has an issue with a casino its the same story, either he is a fraud, bot user, broke terms and so on..

Seams to me the casino is never at fault?

I don't think its about protecting the casino. Nobody here wants to see someone get taken advantage of, at the same time CM is really a credible source of reliable information, and I don't believe any member nor CM wants to be taken advantage of and made to look like fools. With that being said of course there is skepticism whenever a brand new member comes on here for the purpose of complaining. Also, lots of us that have been online for years, read the forums, and play the casinos where complaints are made, can foresee what may be coming such as a complaint that is not valid.

Quite honestly members being skeptical and scrutinizing the complaints, helps maintain the credibility of CM. Go take a look at other forums where people make their complaints and all the comments are "oh im so sorry for you" even when the complaint is obviously not valid. These are typically the places where rogue casino play is the norm.

On to this complaint. I have a headache reading all about LINK1 to LINK5. I see the terms say you can not make a deposit more than double LINK1 deposit.
All I have gotten from this is, THIS IS THE ONE OF THE STUPIDEST promotions I have seen. The bonus increases from 60% to as high as 80%. Why the F is the casino worried about someone depositing $20 on the 65% bonus and then deposited $200 on the 80%. Its a difference of 20%, its not like 80% is a great deal anyways especially with the 30X WR.

 

[rena35]

I see where the OP could have fell in a trap with the bonus and it is sad to have a bonus like that. I also feel like his emails could have been answered in private then after that in public. I have had the same thing happen to me from Inetbet. No matter what is said here it does not change the fact that if the rules were broken then the OP will not be paid. That is a lot of money to let slip through your fingers. Please read all terms carefully before you claim bonuses anywhere and if there is any doubt contact support. In the case of Inetbet support you might have to wait since the only communication is email but it would be better then losing a big win.

 

[whodatrec]

This is what i dont like about certain casinos. What i ment with the above statment was. Its always "he should have read the terms". But if the terms are very unclear and confusing then is it really the players fault?

If a player is down right cheating, yes then he deserves whats coming to him. But how hard can it be for the casino to implement a system where it blocks certain bonus codes so they dont breach the terms? Its downright predatory of the casino to have such terms IMO

As i have said before, it should be guidelines set by the regulators regarding bonus terms.

 

[Stovetopp]

I dont like commenting on INETBET but I for one find it difficult to "understand" the bonuses terms as the terms and conditions are confusing and AMBIGIOUS

Either INETBET needs a different writer or be more specific about their bonuses.

I cant imagine its intentional to deceive the players , but when I used to play at INET , I rarely ever take their bonuses except for those which are straight 100% deposit bonus.
I think they call it "match" bonus , and sometimes I wonder is the match after you have finished playing or what. I can't ask cause there is no chat there.

As I said before , I hardly play at INET , but do they have the same feature as the Jackpot Capital group whereby if you take a bonus,there is no way you can play VP or other restricted games until you have completed thr WR. I assume they have to since its RTG but no way for me to know

I have seen the bonus as refereered in this post and to be truthful I read it over and over and never got the gist of it and I am too lkd to dig into it
I would hate what happened to OP here happened to me where he "broke" the rules unknowingly.
I would be really PISSED!
My symathies ti you OP!!

 

[chayton]

That sucks, you'd think that if the deposit where the player actually won didn't break the term and the one they DID break the term didn't benefit them in any way...? sheesh this is why I don't like using deposit bonuses.

So basically as soon as the player broke that term, they didn't have a chance of winning on any subsequent deposits using the link5 bonus. Will those later deposits be refunded? Since the player really didn't have a chance of winning?

Cold comfort to get 70 or 80 bucks back when you're expecting 10K though.

 

[Jasminebed]

I am not convinced the player broke the terms of the bonus on the deposit and bonus that he won on.

If he broke the terms on an earlier deposit on this Link promo, he should not have been allowed to redeem subsequent coupons IMO.

Dear bonuskeeper, here's the link to the PAB (Pitch-a-Bitch) frequently asked questions... https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/help/pab-rules/

Since English is not your first language, get a friend to help you, and submit a complaint.

Maxd (a paid employee of CM) will get info from both you and the casino and reach a decision. Dispute resolution.

One of the first rules is not to talk about your case on the forum, but it is okay to say you have submitted a PAB. You have nothing to lose, and possibly 10,000 to gain.

I strongly advise you to take advantage of this free service.

 

[gokkie]

It is one of the sickest stories about confisticated winning I have read in years.

I understand the OP has made a mistake, but why doesn't the system say: "Sorry the bonus cannot be claimed because it is higher than 2x the link1 bonus. Please retry your deposit"
Also Inetbet is a business, they are there to make money and rules are rules but in this case a little bit of compassion in communication towards the player would have been nice.

It is a very expensive lesson for the OP. 10,000$ gone because of this. It is not my money, but even I feel sick about it.

 

[SlotsLover]

My analysis

I've been reading this thread with much interest and just wanted to post my opinion and analysis as it seems some of the arguments are getting mixed up and I wanted to see if people agreed with me.

1. I do not believe the terms were ambiguous in that I believe it was very clear that the players were allowed to play up to 2x link1 on link5 ON EACH DEPOSIT of link5 as long as the previous bonus was zeroed out. Inet does not dispute this and this is consistent with the way bonuses are generally structured.

2. The OP did break the rule on the $80 deposit. There is no dispute about this. But why does this affect his ability to play the other bonuses? In fact, if Inet were truly honorable, and they were unable to block the deposit, all deposits over double the allowed amount should be refunded as the player is put in a position where they cannot win, therefore it should be they cannot lose either, but I digress.

3. As mentioned in 2, I don't believe it is reasonable for the casino to disqualify all future bonus deposits because of this broken rule on a previous deposit

4. Imagine this: if a(n) (alleged) rogue like virtual casino offered a slots300 code just good for slots and redeemable an unlimited amount of times (~ like the "same promotion argument Inet is using here") and a player played table games one of his bonus deposits. He proceeds to bust out on that deposit and numerous following deposits. Then, using the same code, said player hits for 10k. What do you think the reaction of this forum would be? I can only guess, but I imagine it would be almost unanimous for "pay the player!"

In summation, I believe the OP needs to be paid in full and Inet should issue an apology for an unreasonable reading of the rules.

PS: I am not someone who always, or even often, sides with the OP and against the casinos.

 

[Tirilej]

Right now I just hope the op will PAB. Please do.

 

[Nifty29]

One thing i cannot understand on this forum is that the most of the users here seams more interested in protecting the casino rather than the player.... Everytime someone has an issue wiino its the same story, either he is a fraud, bot user, broke terms and so on..

Seams to me the casino is never at fault?

A very good example of seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest.

The forum is interested in supporting the FACTS of each case. Sadly, most often the complainant deliberately leaves out vital information (like the OP did here in concealing their earlier $80 deposit IMO), and it becomes clear when the casino chimes in that the complaint is bogus. Hence, more often than not, the membership sides with the casino based solely on the FACTS. The exception is, of course, people such as yourself who believe that the player is always right and that casinos are evil and the games are rigged blah blah (but you still deposit and play.....)

I know there are some who think I always support the casino. Again....selective reading at play. In reality, my philosophy is simple......you make a mistake, you own it and cop the consequences. I apply this to both parties. It's just that there are so many cases of players not bothering to read terms, or just deliberately breaking them, and I don't see why these players should be exempt from the rules that everyone else manages to follow.

Added to that, there are the serial offenders who just never seem to learn, even after multiple PABs. Personally, and I know others in this boat here, I have never had winnings confiscated for any reason. I guess I'm just lucky eh?

 

[bigjohn]

I have had winnings confiscated 1 time in my entire playing career and it was by this casino, and I did read and understand the terms that were presented to me. This was around a year ago.

I pointed out the problem to them, I know they know it's there and they have taken zero steps to fix it.

They are in clear violation of the accreditation standards with the way they got me and the definitive evidence is available at any time.

That is why I have a personal interest in these threads and why I chime in. I don't want anything from them but I hate seeing other players taken.

 

[Nifty29]

I have had winnings confiscated 1 time in my entire playing career and it was by this casino, and I did read and understand the terms that were presented to me. This was around a year ago.

I pointed out the problem to them, I know they know it's there and they have taken zero steps to fix it.

They are in clear violation of the accreditation standards with the way they got me and the definitive evidence is available at any time.

That is why I have a personal interest in these threads and why I chime in. I don't want anything from them but I hate seeing other players taken.

Why didn't you PAB?

If you were in the right then it would seem the correct path.

 

[rena35]

I usually read the posts and rarely comment but this is not the only complaint about the goings on of Inetbet and maybe some of these players are wrong but not all of them are. Just my 2 cents.

 

[bigjohn]

Why didn't you PAB?

If you were in the right then it would seem the correct path.

I just did, so no more from me. Sorry to leave it like that but....

 

[BMWSTACK]

Havent seen any update. Did OP PAB? If you did OP, just confirm that you did and say no more.

 

[onkel]

So OP breaks the terms by making too big of a deposit, giving iNetbet a $80 freeroll. But apparently iNetbet want more since they also won't let him win on any subsequent bonus deposits that are within the terms?

OP is lucky that Link 5 was just valid a weekend and not a year, or iNetbet could be cashing in a lot of free money..

Thievery imo..

 

[chuchu59]

If the OP had still not submitted a PAB I hope Tom can chime in to explain why a subsequent deposit's winnings can be voided due to violation of the rules from an earlier deposit.

 

[maxd]

FTR, a PAB was submitted by the OP a couple days ago. I expect to process it today.

 

[chuchu59]

FTR, a PAB was submitted by the OP a couple days ago. I expect to process it today.

Should be interesting. Opinions in the forum are quite divided on this one.

 

[chayton]

I'll be interested to see how it turns out too, and I'm glad I'm not the one to have to make the decision.

Personally I'd hope for a compromise that both the player and the casino would live with, but maybe that's asking too much.

 

[Tirilej]

I'll be interested to see how it turns out too, and I'm glad I'm not the one to have to make the decision.

Personally I'd hope for a compromise that both the player and the casino would live with, but maybe that's asking too much.

I hope for the same too.

No matter the outcome, I hope they will write the rules so that they are much more clear to everyone.
If we can't agree how to read them then they are not clear enough. It's that simple.

 

[chayton]

I hope for the same too.

No matter the outcome, I hope they will write the rules so that they are much more clear to everyone.
If we can't agree how to read them then they are not clear enough. It's that simple.

Agreed, it's pretty clear that the player broke the 2x deposit term, but a multi-part promotion like that should mention something like, "Breaking a term during any deposit then nullifies the rest of the promotion and voids any possible future winnings on subsequent deposits."

If that was written in the terms then I'd definitely say that the player was out of luck. But since it isn't, I'm inclined to think the player has a chance. Unless there's something we don't know.

 

[onkel]

IMO if OP doesn't win this PAB (assuming we have all the details) then it would mean that casinos would be allowed to cancel players winnings on connected bonuses whenever a fault has been made by the player. For example if a site offers a two-part signup bonus (e.g a 100% on first deposit + 50% on second), then the casino can void any winnings on the second bonus if the player did too big a bet while they played the first bonus.

 

[Googobucs]

IMO if OP doesn't win this PAB (assuming we have all the details) then it would mean that casinos would be allowed to cancel players winnings on connected bonuses whenever a fault has been made by the player. For example if a site offers a two-part signup bonus (e.g a 100% on first deposit + 50% on second), then the casino can void any winnings on the second bonus if the player did too big a bet while they played the first bonus.

This is a good point. Many casino's offer SUB's that are taken in steps. Bonus 1 for X% and so on for maybe 5 to 10 bonuses. If you mess up one, are you now voiding every other one?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. IMO there can be no compromise. Either the player is paid or not and maybe refunded their deposits. I don't see any grey area on this.

 

[dougmanct]

A truly consumer-friendly online casino accreditation would never allow for a software provider to present a user interface which allows a player to participate in a bonus offer and make a deposit or wager that violates the terms of that bonus. Period. End of discussion.

Letting RTG and their partner casinos off the hook when it comes to the design and function of their software should not be considered acceptable to any member here. If the RTG software can't validate simple business rules on the deposit page/ the games themselves then RTG casinos have NO BUSINESS offering bonus terms the player can use in such a way that their deposit and/or winnings are confiscated. To do so is absolutely the casino acting negligent and in bad faith.

Just because InetBet has a rep on this board and pays wins that are totally free of controversy in a timely fashion does not a worthy of accreditation casino make.

Of course this is easy for a nobody end user like me with no relationship with RTG and InetBet to maintain/appease to say.

Not holding my breath for this one being decided on the side of the player.

 

[SlotsLover]

not ambiguous

I can't believe there is actually ambiguity in this case. I have played online casinos and have never had a mistake on one bonus carry over to another bonus after zeroing out and making another deposit. The player needs to be paid, it's not a poorly written bonus, the bonus is very clear.

The player broke the rule when he deposited more than double and lost that deposit. If there is a refund of simply the deposits, then the casino needs to refund every player who ever lost because of breaking rules. I've broken their rule in the specific games bonuses and lost winnings because of it. My bad, I didn't follow the rules (although software prevention would have been much better). But I took the same code again, followed the rules and cashed out.

This decision by INETBET is an unreasonable interpretation of the rules. As I mentioned in a previous post, if it were a different group there would be no doubt what the majority of the forum would say.

PAY and APOLOGIZE INET.

 

[SlotsLover]

Agreed, it's pretty clear that the player broke the 2x deposit term, but a multi-part promotion like that should mention something like, "Breaking a term during any deposit then nullifies the rest of the promotion and voids any possible future winnings on subsequent deposits."

If that was written in the terms then I'd definitely say that the player was out of luck. But since it isn't, I'm inclined to think the player has a chance. Unless there's something we don't know.

Good point, but I personally would consider that a predatory term. Terms on this promo very clear. Player won fair and square. PAY.

 

[SlotsLover]

update?

Any update on this case? Seems like a very interesting one involving an accredited casino.

 

[suzecat]

Any update on this case? Seems like a very interesting one involving an accredited casino.

AFAIK the PAB is pending ......... when you did a PAB did maxd ever let you down ... of course not.... patience is key.

 

[bigjohn]

Follow up on my PAB

I just did, so no more from me. Sorry to leave it like that but....

My PAB has been decided and it looks like I lost but I would like to explain. My issue was deemed, "Not a PAB issue" and "Not a breach of the Terms of Accreditation". About a year ago I played at Inetbet and took the 'Classic Slots Bonus' as advertised on their homepage.



After I entered the coupon code I was presented with the following screen;



I have circled the term in question. It clearly states that, "Some Real Series Video Slots" are excluded from the promo. In a typical RTG casino you can click that and it will tell you which specific ones are excluded, there is no option for that here. With phone or live chat support I could have easily clarified the term but there is no option for that either.

I started playing figuring the progressives were most likely the excluded games and after a short time I went into the cashier window and noticed that my wagering requirement had not gone down accordingly with my play so I stopped playing immediately and e-mailed support to try to find out what was happening. I waited about 12 hours and no reply. I e-mailed them again. Waited another 12 hours and no reply and to this day they have still never replied through e-mail to my inquiry.

After that I came here and PM'ed the rep. asking where the list of excluded real series slots for this promo could be found. Emily replied back that there was no list, all real series video slots are excluded from the promo and the only games I could play were the 'Classic Slots'. She was kind enough to re-set my bonus and balance so I could try again which I did.

I busted out, but that is not the problem.

I later returned to their homepage and found this term in what they themselves call the small print referenced by an asterisk;



When I took this bonus I had never even heard of RTG 'Classic Slots'. I thought the bonus was 'Classic' not the slots it was for. I read it like this, "Classic Slots Bonus" and not as "Classic Slots Bonus". Personally, I regard the terms in the cashier window after the coupon is entered (point of sale) as the final word on the terms of the promo as this is the final place where you still may cancel the coupon before depositing. This method has never let me down before.

Now, if what I have circled as 'Term A' is not misleading given 'Term B' and these terms are not contradictory to each other I don't know what is.

All this was not what my PAB was about. My PAB was concerning the fact that despite them having known about this for a year they have not seen fit to simply change the terms in the cashier window to reflect the terms that the player is held to.

All I wanted was to see them fix what I saw as being in breach of the Terms of Accreditation for this site. I sought no money from them but pointing out the problem to them did not work so I thought a PAB might get their attention.

I do see this as a trap because I feel if players knew what games they would be committing to they would never take this bonus and it appears they have no interest in fixing it. Also, in the process of the PAB Inetbet were being economical with the truth to Max in telling him that the terms in the cashier window accurately reflected the terms of the promo. I have to assume Max was not able to view that page himself possibly because he is not in the US.

Anyways, if you read this far I thank you.

 

[rena35]

Thanks for the explanation big john i see how someone can mis understand the terms and lose their winnings. With no response or long wait times for email response it makes it harder .

 

[MaryJean]

My PAB has been decided and it looks like I lost but I would like to explain. My issue was deemed, "Not a PAB issue" and "Not a breach of the Terms of Accreditation". About a year ago I played at Inetbet and took the 'Classic Slots Bonus' as advertised on their homepage.

View attachment 48244

After I entered the coupon code I was presented with the following screen;

View attachment 48243

I have circled the term in question. It clearly states that, "Some Real Series Video Slots" are excluded from the promo. In a typical RTG casino you can click that and it will tell you which specific ones are excluded, there is no option for that here. With phone or live chat support I could have easily clarified the term but there is no option for that either.

I started playing figuring the progressives were most likely the excluded games and after a short time I went into the cashier window and noticed that my wagering requirement had not gone down accordingly with my play so I stopped playing immediately and e-mailed support to try to find out what was happening. I waited about 12 hours and no reply. I e-mailed them again. Waited another 12 hours and no reply and to this day they have still never replied through e-mail to my inquiry.

After that I came here and PM'ed the rep. asking where the list of excluded real series slots for this promo could be found. Emily replied back that there was no list, all real series video slots are excluded from the promo and the only games I could play were the 'Classic Slots'. She was kind enough to re-set my bonus and balance so I could try again which I did.

I busted out, but that is not the problem.

I later returned to their homepage and found this term in what they themselves call the small print referenced by an asterisk;

View attachment 48245

When I took this bonus I had never even heard of RTG 'Classic Slots'. I thought the bonus was 'Classic' not the slots it was for. I read it like this, "Classic Slots Bonus" and not as "Classic Slots Bonus". Personally, I regard the terms in the cashier window after the coupon is entered (point of sale) as the final word on the terms of the promo as this is the final place where you still may cancel the coupon before depositing. This method has never let me down before.

Now, if what I have circled as 'Term A' is not misleading given 'Term B' and these terms are not contradictory to each other I don't know what is.

All this was not what my PAB was about. My PAB was concerning the fact that despite them having known about this for a year they have not seen fit to simply change the terms in the cashier window to reflect the terms that the player is held to.

All I wanted was to see them fix what I saw as being in breach of the Terms of Accreditation for this site. I sought no money from them but pointing out the problem to them did not work so I thought a PAB might get their attention.

I do see this as a trap because I feel if players knew what games they would be committing to they would never take this bonus and it appears they have no interest in fixing it. Also, in the process of the PAB Inetbet were being economical with the truth to Max in telling him that the terms in the cashier window accurately reflected the terms of the promo. I have to assume Max was not able to view that page himself possibly because he is not in the US.

Anyways, if you read this far I thank you.

This reminds me of when I first started playing at InetBet, I had to ask them "What are "Real Time" Slots. I couldn't see any difference either, and they were not labeled within the Lobby. At least not that I could find.

The casinos tend to forget that we do not ALL speak the same language, even when it is the same "language".

Now isn't that just about as clear as the titles--Real Time and Classic?

MaryJean

 

[SlotsLover]

Sorry you lost this PAB (sort of) Big John.

But, what has happened to the original PAB that started this thread? The one about making too high a deposit and busting out and then winning on a proper deposit. Sorry if I'm rushing this along and apologize in advance, but this seemed open and shut to me and involved an accredited casino so I thought there might be some resolution already.

 

[bigjohn]

Sorry you lost this PAB (sort of) Big John.

But, what has happened to the original PAB that started this thread? The one about making too high a deposit and busting out and then winning on a proper deposit. Sorry if I'm rushing this along and apologize in advance, but this seemed open and shut to me and involved an accredited casino so I thought there might be some resolution already.

The OP's PAB is also marked as X'ed out so it looks like he lost. His last login was 7/28 so I don't think he has seen it yet.

 

[SlotsLover]

The OP's PAB is also marked as X'ed out so it looks like he lost. His last login was 7/28 so I don't think he has seen it yet.

WOW!!!! I would be SHOCKED if that were the case and am very curious as to the explanation. Seems to me like double or even triple jeopardy here and lots of deposits with no chance of winning (and no refund if lose). Maybe there is something more here than we were told, but we did hear from both sides on this.

How much and for how long does a player have to pay for breaking a bonus rule?

 

[SlotsLover]

The OP's PAB is also marked as X'ed out so it looks like he lost. His last login was 7/28 so I don't think he has seen it yet.

I actually have a PAB marked out in X that I eventually won due to public support on this forum. Not sure why I have a red X. On that PAB, the company changed hands and voided a withdrawal and removed the funds from my account. Prior owners could not be found and PAB just reported that prior ownership could not be found to be made to explain or pay. The forum got up in arms that the new owners had to pay (or explain why withdrawal was declined and balance removed) and I was paid in full. It was many thousands, so thanks again (it's many years now) to the CM forum members that helped me in that case.