Resolved iNetBet has confiscated my winnings!

[RobWin]

Well, after a 2 hour and 40 min wait, I got a response to my email linking me to the FRONT page of the promotions. I read all that, and still had a question.
It's only $5, but this was not very helpful.

It's midnight now, I think I will just go to bed.

I've been a gambler for more than 30 years, and this is starting to get ridiculous. Even in the last 9 months since I have been a CM member, there seem to be more and more problems with online casinos.

That's exactly the point we all were making in the other thread about the benefits to the players of having a live chat facility or phone service but there was no response there from INetBet regarding that...

 

[maxd]

I just cannot agree with you here ... it would obviously be felt by most that this would override the General Terms and Conditions otherwise it would serve no purpose in repeating most of the disallowed games.

I understand that you disagree, I suspect most players will ... and most casino peeps won't. "Pow-tay-toe" VS "pow-tat-o". Whatever, the crux of the issue is that "would obviously be felt by most" does not make it so.

If you read my post you'll see that I agree that the casino's terms on the bonus were not as clear or specific as they could have been. No argument from me, or them it would seem since they apparently updated the terms.

However, we're talking about shades of gray here: "most would think" and "could have been better" are not legally binding terms. The casino's T&Cs pretty much are.

As far as I can tell the terms specific on the bonus are basically a courtesy since the main T&Cs are binding unless otherwise stated. So it comes down to the casino having been less than 100% thorough in wording their courtesy description of the bonus. Ok, bummer, but not a Rogue-able offense if you ask me.

In fact, if you get right down to it I think this one boils down to splitting hairs. And once you get into that territory you've got to start falling back to the T&Cs for clarification. And you already know how I read these T&Cs so I won't repeat that again.

And yes I know, I am Satan and in league with devils.

 

[silcnlayc]

MaxD: If there was some question in their mind as to whether the standing rule excluding VP had changed then the proper course of action would have been to ask the casino, which they did not.In other words this particular bonus offer, or any other, does not apply to VP unless they specifically say it does, which they did not

This is also what I stated earlier. The base exclusions are always there unless they say they are overidden by the additional new ones for that coupon.

I agree with Max on this..that is why I stated what I did...it is there in black and white....and thats why coupons suck....there is always a catch to them..All card games always have a percentage used for the requirements...that should have been a tip off to the T&C's reverting to the base ones of the casino (the general ones from get go) Since this one did not state any terms on single hand VP, knowing a percentage is always applied to the WR for ANY card game, this should have been checked out BEFORE playing IMO.

I am not a VP player at all, but I did read these things a long time ago because of my love of blackjack...so it stuck in my mind...about the percentages applied...





.

 

[Jasminebed]

As far as I can tell the terms specific on the bonus are basically a courtesy since the main T&Cs are binding unless otherwise stated.

They were otherwise stated in this case. That is was an error on the casino's part is unfortunate, but the casino's error, not the player's.

 

[Jasminebed]

All card games always have a percentage used for the requirements...that should have been a tip off to the T&C's reverting to the base ones of the casino (the general ones from get go) Since this one did not state any terms on single hand VP, knowing a percentage is always applied to the WR for ANY card game, this should have been checked out BEFORE playing IMO.

Many casinos allow certain games with increased WR's, but that is not the issue here. It was not a failure to meet WR that resulted in a WITHDRAWAL being denied, but WINNINGS being denied.

 

[chuchu59]

They were otherwise stated in this case. That is was an error on the casino's part is unfortunate, but the casino's error, not the player's.

Yes, it was obviously otherwise stated in this case. A list of excluded games was mentioned in the Ts and Cs for this promo. How could this have been interpreted in any other way? I would love to see Inet showing an example of a coupon which included otherwise stated terms to differntiate between the 2.

 

[Zoozie]

In other words this particular bonus offer, or any other, does not apply to VP unless they specifically say it does, which they did not.

The original terms of the bonus did mention some games that were excluded but said nothing specific about Video Poker, hence the general exclusion of VP stands.

Sorry Max, this is not correct. Casino T&C does not work this way. INetBet always mention disallowed game and not allowed games. With this logic they could never ever have a video poker bonus or in fact other game that was general excluded list. And they have offered bonuses in the past where video poker and other games was allowed. And with this bonuses they still list BJ etc. at disallowed.

The worst part of this incident is that they changed the T&C and lie about it. Also why would they change the T&C if they believed every bonus term was perfectly clear?
This fact alone should be something that you put on your TODO list, Max... Besides what about RobWin and all the other players that also played single-line VP, but did not win ?

The truth is they simply forgot to mention video-poker and later tried to change it after players had started playing.

If they had written video-poker was disallowed, you could argue that multi-hand video is video-poker. But it was the OTHER way around. They only stated multi-video poker is not allowed. Single-line (normal) video poker is NOT multi-video poker. Besides why would they even write multi-video poker again IF it was allready on the general list?

Also INetBet often uses different pay table for same VP variant in single-linie and multi-line versions. Therefore it is not even obvious that they had
made a mistake.

Rival used to (changed recently..) also have bonus where eigther normal or multi-video poker was allowed. And MG casinos has often also allowed 4-hand dueces wild, while not allowing single-hand dueces wild. (due to different paytables).

The standard term for not allowing any forms of VP is surprisingly:
All forms of video poker are not allowed.

And this does not give rise to any mistakes.

 

[maxd]

Sorry Max, this is not correct. Casino T&C does not work this way.

Not to be blunt about it but "says who?" I've got my read on it, others have theirs. Given the way the Terms are worded and what the player understood the usual Terms to be I don't see that the casino should be taken to task for this.

I could go on but ... ugh! I've said my piece.

 

[CasinoKidd]

I feel like the player should be paid. He followed the terms listed. He should at the very least recieve his money back.

 

[maxd]

He should at the very least recieve his money back.

I believe he did. The bonus and deposit were applied back to the account for him to fulfil the wagering correctly.

 

[chuchu59]

Given the reaction here, cant Inet simply supply us with a copy of a past promo that qualifies under the 'unless otherwise stated' tag.

 

[iNetBet Promos]

Hi Everyone,
I dont really want to get too involved in a lenghty debate here as this issue has been dealt with by other parties.

I do however know that at no stage did any monies become withdrawable. The reason being the coupon itself was set up not to allow VP so at no stage did Mario77's wagering requirements reduce. This in itself would clearly show VP was excluded.

The players deposit and bonus were returned to their account.

ChuChu59: Here are a couple of examples of prior coupons which allow usually excluded games:

Expired Image

Here is another example:

Single Hand Video Poker Coupon

Valid until January 22nd
Deposit between $10 - $50
Enter coupon code: WRNVH
Play through deposit and 20x at Single Hand Video Poker
Receive 25% Bonus
(non match bonus)

 

[Upset]

I say, like the american public keep telling congress. NO BAILOUT! Let them fail. If these casinos wants to make you wager 20X their petty $50. On games they know you have a slim to none chance of fulfilling. Let them FAIL! How in the hell, can you expect to give a person $50 and tell them they must turn it over 20X on just slots? I can not do it without the help of Blackjack or some other card game. One would have a better chance of depositing $50 and placing their entire bankroll on Red or Black in roulette. They have a 50/50 chance of doubling up. And them using that $100 without any outragous requirements.

The OP followed the rules. I don't care what Max says, the casino is wrong here. Even Rob stated he thought it was okay to play Video Poker. To the OP: If you haven't started to wager, the returned funds yet. Get your deposit back and the hell with these juke junks. They aren't worth it. I've went back to playing Texas Hold'em and doing really good the last couple of days.

To make one wager silly amounts on $50 is robbery. The odds are already in their favor and then they want you to jump thru hoops over $50. If I deposit another $ with Inetbet it will be a cold day on the SUN! Accredit or Not, Wrong is Wrong! You can take it or let it alone.

 

[thelawnet]

My position in this case was based on the general exclusion found under the casino's

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

which reads as follows (my bolding):

Unless otherwise stated offers do not apply to Craps, Roulette, Sic Bo, Multi-Hand Video Poker, Video Poker, Blackjack/21 variants or Baccarat play. Any play on these games using a balance that includes any bonus or part thereof, will result in all winnings becoming null and void.

In other words this particular bonus offer, or any other, does not apply to VP unless they specifically say it does, which they did not.

The original terms of the bonus did mention some games that were excluded but said nothing specific about Video Poker, hence the general exclusion of VP stands.

This offer says:


"Offers do not apply to Craps, Roulette, Multi-Hand Video Poker, Blackjack/21 variants or Baccarat play"

Compare that with

"Craps, Roulette, Sic Bo, Multi-Hand Video Poker, Video Poker, Blackjack/21 variants or Baccarat play"

All of the games excluded from the player's promotion were already excluded by the normal rules.

So the reasonable assumption is that Sic Bo and non-multi-hand video poker WERE allowed.

Otherwise what's the point of listing these excluded games at all, when they are ALL already banned?

Basically, they f***ed up, misled the player, and should pay-up.

 

[Jasminebed]

Well, at least Inetbet returned the deposit and bonus to the player's account. Perhaps the OP would like to request the bonus be removed so he can play the games he enjoys without restrictions.

 

[Mario77]

Sure, the casino could have made life easier by explicitly repeating their exclusion of VP in the bonus offer -- which apparently they later did -- but the way I read it the Terms have them covered: the bonus does not apply to VP unless they state it does, any play on VP using any bonus "will result in all winnings becoming null and void".

But it was not simply "repetaing" the general terms, it were different terms specific to the Halloween promo that should override the general terms.

I do however know that at no stage did any monies become withdrawable. The reason being the coupon itself was set up not to allow VP so at no stage did Mario77's wagering requirements reduce.

Yes, the winnings didn't become withdrawable when I completed the WR, then I contacted support and then they confiscated my winnings.

This in itself would clearly show VP was excluded.

After my play and not before my play.

If you read my post you'll see that I agree that the casino's terms on the bonus were not as clear or specific as they could have been. No argument from me, or them it would seem since they apparently updated the terms.

But since the casino is the one who write the terms, it is their responsibility to make it clear and unambiguous. If, because of their fault, it can be interpreted in more than one ways, I think the fair approach is to decide in favor of the player who played in good faith.

And no, they never admitted to me that their terms were not clear and that they updated the page.

Quotation from one of their e-mails:
"We have changed no rules, they have been the same".

Quotation from another e-mail:
"As far as we are aware no changes have been made to this promotion"

However, Google cache and the screenshots prove the change.

It's OK that you agree that the terms were not totally clear but the casino never agreed on this.

 

[1819]

Hi Everyone,
I dont really want to get too involved in a lenghty debate here as this issue has been dealt with by other parties.

I do however know that at no stage did any monies become withdrawable. The reason being the coupon itself was set up not to allow VP so at no stage did Mario77's wagering requirements reduce. This in itself would clearly show VP was excluded.

The players deposit and bonus were returned to their account.

ChuChu59: Here are a couple of examples of prior coupons which allow usually excluded games:

Expired Image

Here is another example:

Single Hand Video Poker Coupon

Valid until January 22nd
Deposit between $10 - $50
Enter coupon code: WRNVH
Play through deposit and 20x at Single Hand Video Poker
Receive 25% Bonus
(non match bonus)

your explanation and handling of this situation is garbage.. if you are going to "default" back to the original t&c's then why print any terms on any individual coupons? i myself have played at inet for years and am very aware of the t&c's but also have noticed many confusing coupons over the years. a glance at this coupon(which did not state vp was not allowed) would lead me to believe it was. why have to read the coupon and then go and read the casino t c's again before claiming? makes no sense. one could also verify with live chat before claiming...oh that's right no live chat. not paying this player is wrong and an insult....

 

[maxd]

But since the casino is the one who write the terms, it is their responsibility to make it clear and unambiguous.

Within reason, sure. And I would say that within reason you share some responsibility in this too. You knew that VP was normally excluded. You assumed, I would say incorrectly, that it was not excluded in this case. In my view you also assumed some responsibility for the consequences of your actions, namely that your assumption about VP might be wrong and your VP might not count toward the WR. It turns out that was the case and AFAIC some measure of responsibility for that result falls in your lap.

Personally I don't buy this "the man who makes the offer must protect the person who accepts the offer from anything they might do to harm themselves" stuff. To use the McDonald's case as an example, if the coffee is too hot then be careful with it. Don't, for instance, pour it on yourself, or use it in your gas tank, or bathe your hamster in it, etc etc. Ok, I'm off into the loony part of the bin here but you get my drift.

It's OK that you agree that the terms were not totally clear ...

Ah, but that's not what I said. I said the Terms "could have been clearer". My chair could be more comfortable. My cheese could be cheesier. The moon could be more moon like. "Could" does not imply a failure of the thing to be the thing, it just says that more was possible. That is not a criticism, it is an observation, and thus no fault is necessarily implied.

 

[1819]

i know we all love inet here at casinomeister but let's be real. they were wrong. very simple. they were wrong. it is not hard to write "normal t&c's apply" on a coupon. if you go out of your way to print game exclusions on a coupon you should be damn sure they are correct. they did not do that. did they do it on purpose? of course not. they made a mistake though and should be held accountable.

 

[LaurieJim]

taking a bonus when making a deposit = nightmare to me, coupons and t/c and w/r, you almost need to be a lawyer to understand them sometimes ,i would rather play on my own money, on my own terms and if i should be so lucky as to cash out, then i know i have no worries, it was won fair and square on MY terms, not the casino's..................laurie

 

[Upset]

Within reason, sure. And I would say that within reason you share some responsibility in this too. You knew that VP was normally excluded. You assumed, I would say incorrectly, that it was not excluded in this case. In my view you also assumed some responsibility for the consequences of your actions, namely that your assumption about VP might be wrong and your VP might not count toward the WR. It turns out that was the case and AFAIC some measure of responsibility for that result falls in your lap.

How does one suppose to assume? The terms did not include single hand video poker. I have played at several Playtech casinos in the past. Where multihand Video poker wasnt allow. But single was. The bottom line, MAX, is the casino failed to include single hand video poker in their terms. Clear and Simple. To assume does not cut it! I'm going to cut the chase and say what i believe some members would like to say but don't.

I find it bias that Inetbet is an affiliate here. So in terms Inetbet pays part of your salary. How can you be an honest broker for both parties? Remember No man can serve 2 masters. I know you have a history of getting people their money. But you also have a history of siding with the casinos. When they are clearly wrong. If I worked for the people. By no means would i accept monies from their competition. Much less have a slot (named after me) in honor of my work for the competition. We as the people can offer you nothing. The casinos offer you a check at the end of the month. I am nothing saying your services is not wanted. Its just not a true broker on behalf of people you suppose to represent. Especially, when you find some of them guilty and close their account here. And we can't get their closing aruments.

 

[gerilege]

Hi Everyone,
I dont really want to get too involved in a lenghty debate here as this issue has been dealt with by other parties.

I do however know that at no stage did any monies become withdrawable. The reason being the coupon itself was set up not to allow VP so at no stage did Mario77's wagering requirements reduce. This in itself would clearly show VP was excluded.

The players deposit and bonus were returned to their account.

ChuChu59: Here are a couple of examples of prior coupons which allow usually excluded games:

Expired Image

Here is another example:

Single Hand Video Poker Coupon

Valid until January 22nd
Deposit between $10 - $50
Enter coupon code: WRNVH
Play through deposit and 20x at Single Hand Video Poker
Receive 25% Bonus
(non match bonus)

With the same logic you could confiscate all winnings on the above coupon. As Zoozie wrote earlier,if general T&Cs apply, and override specific promo terms, then VP would not be allowed on a VP coupon like above, because of the general T&C. I don't feel that your argument is defenseble, and this approach is something I would not expect from Inetbet.

 

[silcnlayc]

Yes, the winnings didn't become withdrawable when I completed the WR, then I contacted support and then they confiscated my winnings.

So you did NOT meet the WR...it was telling you that...

Ok, we all know NOT to try and withdraw when the money is sitting under non withdrawlable don't we? Why didn't the player ask for his money back at this point instead of arguing over winnings that could NOT be WITHDRAWN because it was sitting there in the box where it tells you, you still have requirements to meet. Everyone knows this.

He tried to withdraw funds that were non withdrawable then proceeded to complain about it. and when the casino returned his money and bonus to play the correct games for the coupon he balked knowing what games he had to play to make it viable, then came here and complained.

Someone stated there was more to this story because of when this players signed up..and there was..

You CANNOT withdraw funds until they are transferred into the real money account on the banking page and he tried to bypass this.

There has been discussions on this system many many times and now they fixed it to not allow funds to be withdrawn if the wr are not met and they (the casino) is still wrong by the players terms....when will they ever get it right by players terms and to where the player is happy? The players demanded this change and it is in place for players not to make a mistake of withdrawing to early.

I agree the benefit of doubt should go to the player and can see both sides of this disagreement because I too was in this same positon a long time ago before they changed the withdrawable boxes on the banking page for the benefit of the player, but the money was not in the right account when he tried to withdraw by his own words...and they gave the money back to him to play correctly...and once again...that was a courtesy by the casino who did not have to do it....



.

 

[Upset]

So you did NOT meet the WR...it was telling you that...

Ok, we all know NOT to try and withdraw when the money is sitting under non withdrawlable don't we? Why didn't the player ask for his money back at this point instead of arguing over winnings that could NOT be WITHDRAWN because it was sitting there in the box where it tells you, you still have requirements to meet. Everyone knows this.

He tried to withdraw funds that were non withdrawable then proceeded to complain about it. and when the casino returned his money and bonus to play the correct games for the coupon he balked knowing what games he had to play to make it viable, then came here and complained.

We know that. The point is. Either the wagering should have counted because it wasnt written in the term. Even though they included it in the bonus code itself. Or they should have given him his full balance back to finish wagering. Instead of taken his winnings from him.

 

[silcnlayc]

Or they should have given him his full balance back to finish wagering. Instead of taken his winnings from him

They did...

Inebet: The players deposit and bonus were returned to their account.

To play the correct games...