Resolved iNetBet has confiscated my winnings!

[maxd]

... I'm not sure that they have looked at what I sent to them at all.

Of course I can't say whether this is or is not true, but I can say that in my experience once a casino has made a decision about a case it does generally take something out of the ordinary to refocus their attention to it.

This can easily be the mistake of just one support person. However, for the player, the support person represents the casino.

Yes, I think that this may well be the case here. In private communications there has been no claims one way or the other.

But didn't they apply these terms retroactively?

Not sure I follow: the terms say they can update things. They (may have) updated things, for clarity I assume. The original interpretation of the Terms remains unchanged. One could argue that they simply made the change to help clarify the situation, not to change the rules of the game as it were.

 

[vinylweatherman]

"All rules, regulations, and payoffs contained herein are subject to change and revision by the management without prior written notice."

But didn't they apply these terms retroactively?

This seems the case.

I am afraid I have little confidence, because iNetBet have DONE IT AGAIN

They have launched a "Thanksgiving" promo, similarly structured to the former Halloween one, and it is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR what the problem is,

The opening line refers to "trick or treat coupons", even though this is the "turkey shoot" thanksgiving promo. Further, they state that all the coupons carry 15x WR, whereas in fact NONE of them do, as EACH ONE has a different WR, between 20x and 25x.

The ONLY damn thing they have got right this time is that they have worded the general exclusions as ..... Multi hand Video Poker, Video Poker.....

I can't accept that it is fair for them to nit-pick the finer points when it comes to confisating winnings because players "should have noticed.....", when they cannot even reach the standard of a competent school student when it comes to checking their work before "handing it in for marking".

One has to wonder what other minor mistakes are around, and they are not so minor if they are resorting to confiscation of winnings.

As far as I am concerned, they peaked a while back, and are now "stale", they will soon vacate my PC in favour of one of the Rushpod venues, more likely after Christmas, once they have Neteller working for both deposits and withdrawals.

 

[winbig]

Not sure I follow: the terms say they can update things. They (may have) updated things, for clarity I assume. The original interpretation of the Terms remains unchanged. One could argue that they simply made the change to help clarify the situation, not to change the rules of the game as it were.

Max, of course they can update their T&C, I have no problem with that. But, unless there is something else to this case that's not out of the open, I see it as iNetBet changing the T&C after the player started playing. IIRC, the OP even has screenshots of what T&C were in place, for this particular promotion, before they were changed.

The bottom line as I see it is: fine, change the T&C, but honor the T&C that were in place once a player claimed a bonus and played.

 

[Casinomeister]

This is a real frustrating issue since this may have been solved as a PAB.

The OP had submitted a PAB explaining his problem. Max contacted iNetbet, and the manager pointed to the terms and conditions that are linked to the bonus offer page. It is "assumed" that when one accepts a bonus, he or she agrees to have read ALL terms and conditions. It is stated on the bonus page:

Terms and conditions:

With trick or treat coupons players must adhere to all of our

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

.

This is the first sentence of the T&Cs - and it could be logically assumed that the player had clicked this before going on further and read this in its entirety. This is a logical argument. It also could be argued that the player assumed that the games mentioned in the offer were the ones that could be applied to this, but shouldn't he have read the first link first?

It goes around in a circle, and Max wasn't done with this yet. As soon as he forwarded the initial response from the casino manager to the OP, he received this:

I would like to see other people's opinions on this issue so I plan to start a thread on this, however, first I'd like to solve this privately. So, I'll wait patiently if you say that there is still a small chance that you can convince them to return my winnings, even if they are not "obligated" to do so.

So what the hell is this? This player started this thread right after Max received this. The player derailed the PAB before Max or I could go through the proper chain to have this resolved in a fair and logical manner. Side note: Max never said that he could "convince" the casino to reverse its initial decision, but he was never given a chance to present any debate to the casino's chain of command.

Is this another episode "If I don't get my way, I'm going public now!"? :sob:

This is tiresome and makes our job dealing with the PABs here a real pain in the ass. If you can't follow the guidelines of our terms of negotiation, then please don't use our service. As far as I am concerned, this is the player's first and last PAB.

I'm also pulling Max off of this case. From what I have, this was a 50/50 chance of a favorable outcome for the player. But due to the circumstances of the player ignoring our policies here, I will make no attempt to negotiate anything.

Sorry to seem to come down harsh, but it's not a good thing when members abuse our services here. It kind of pisses me off.

 

[Casinomeister]

Just so everyone is aware how the PAB thingy works, when Max receives a PAB he first contacts the manager. If we/he is not satisfied with the answer, then it goes on to the bossman or operator. If it's still not good to go, then we go further to the licensing agency, software provider, or rogue pit. This issue never got past the first line of defense.

 

[maxd]

I need to clarify a few things with CM.

Thread _temporarily_ closed until we get that sorted.

 

[Casinomeister]

Okay, looks like I was somewhat mistaken that this was not finalized - Max has corrected me stating he was pretty much through with this - therefore the OP decided to begin this thread. My apologies for my brainfart.

The OP is welcome to utilize the PAB service in the future.

As I mentioned before - I could look at this 50/50. We could assume that the player read the general terms and conditions since he agreed to these when accepting the bonus - or not...

What it boils down to is giving the player the benefit of the doubt, or not. Perhaps the casino chooses not to since they are privy to his play history. I dunno.

 

[iNetBet Promos]

We believe that this has gone on long enough and this discussion needs to be brought to a close. Firstly we must stress that no terms were changed retroactively. The coupon in question was set up correctly, VP was always excluded. At no time did any of the OP's play on VP count towards wagering nor did any funds become withdrawable.

In this case there does seem to have been some confusion by the OP as to which games were and were not allowed. We try to make our rules as clear as possible however in this case there may have been some misunderstandings. Having spoken with management we have instructed accounts to refund monies that were removed. May I remind all players that if they have any doubts about which games are allowed on any coupons etc please contact support prior to playing.

On a separate, but related, note I would like to thank both Bryan and Max for the work they do here. Their PAB service, in particular, is an invaluable one. There opinions truly are impartial and that is what makes this such a great service. I believe that some of the reactions Max received here were a little unwarranted. He can only make a decision from the facts as presented and although some may not always agree with these they should be respected. They do a terrific job and sometimes I feel they are not truly appreciated.

I hope that this thread can now be closed and we can move on to some more productive discussions in the forum.

 

[silcnlayc]

I hope that this thread can now be closed and we can move on to some more productive discussions in the forum.

I agree...should be closed as requested.

 

[sweiger]

i know we all love inet here at casinomeister

Speak for yourself. I for one would rather see those in charge of inetbet behind bars for a looong time, for stealing more than $3,000 from me with their ambiguous and misleading terms.
And re. this case, it seems they goofed again.

 

[Casinomeister]

Speak for yourself. I for one would rather see those in charge of inetbet behind bars for a looong time, for stealing more than $3,000 from me with their ambiguous and misleading terms.
And re. this case, it seems they goofed again.

That's one hell of a comment to make after this casino decided to make amends with this player.

No one stole anything from you. You misread the terms and conditions, and I believe you even admitted doing so.

You ought to take responsibility for your actions and quit blaming other people for your mistakes.

 

[sweiger]

That's one hell of a comment to make after this casino decided to make amends with this player.

No one stole anything from you. You misread the terms and conditions, and I believe you even admitted doing so.

You ought to take responsibility for your actions and quit blaming other people for your mistakes.

I didn't realize they'd come to an agreement. I was too rushy, when I saw the "resolved" with a thumbs down icon. Sorry, my bad. It's still a PITA, that a player has to do all this to get things right.

Re. my own case: I don't recall I admitted that I misread the terms, only that they were confusing enough to mislead me. And there were other here backing me up, if you recall. And as my thread was going, inet changed the context on their terms page by clarifying the terms on TWO separate lines, thereby admitting that the rules were NOT clear, IMO.

 

[Mario77]

Okay, looks like I was somewhat mistaken that this was not finalized - Max has corrected me stating he was pretty much through with this - therefore the OP decided to begin this thread. My apologies for my brainfart.

The OP is welcome to utilize the PAB service in the future.

Yes, I started this thread only when Max said that the issue is closed and I only went public when there was no chance to solve it privately.

I just checked my account at iNetBet and I can confirm that they indeed gave back my winnings today!! Thank you!!

 

[Simmo!]

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.

Well if there was ever a thread to highlight the problems that bonuses cause the industry, then this is surely it.

Strictly speaking, iNet and Max are right because of the "catch all" term, however even to me their promo terms were ambiguous and I'd probably have missed it. On the other side of the equation, the fact that the WR requirement wasn't moving in the cashier clearly shows that VP didn't count. iNet gave the player his winnings today which seems like a good, sensible conclusion.

At the end of the day, players have to realise that in most instances, at any casino, bonuses aren't generous gifts designed to help you make some free money, they are sales tools designed to extract a deposit and keep you as a customer.

I could never do PABs 'cos I just have zero sympathy with players looking to profit from bonuses LOL. But I also have zero sympathy with the casinos who offer them. So no-one would win. If it were down to me, I'd ban PABs that involve bonuses, especially when you see some of the abuse from people.

 

[1819]

Speak for yourself. I for one would rather see those in charge of inetbet behind bars for a looong time, for stealing more than $3,000 from me with their ambiguous and misleading terms.
And re. this case, it seems they goofed again.

lol. i was being sarcastic.......

 

[chuchu59]

We believe that this has gone on long enough and this discussion needs to be brought to a close. Firstly we must stress that no terms were changed retroactively. The coupon in question was set up correctly, VP was always excluded. At no time did any of the OP's play on VP count towards wagering nor did any funds become withdrawable.

In this case there does seem to have been some confusion by the OP as to which games were and were not allowed. We try to make our rules as clear as possible however in this case there may have been some misunderstandings. Having spoken with management we have instructed accounts to refund monies that were removed. May I remind all players that if they have any doubts about which games are allowed on any coupons etc please contact support prior to playing.

On a separate, but related, note I would like to thank both Bryan and Max for the work they do here. Their PAB service, in particular, is an invaluable one. There opinions truly are impartial and that is what makes this such a great service. I believe that some of the reactions Max received here were a little unwarranted. He can only make a decision from the facts as presented and although some may not always agree with these they should be respected. They do a terrific job and sometimes I feel they are not truly appreciated.

I hope that this thread can now be closed and we can move on to some more productive discussions in the forum.

Great to hear that the player was paid. However, that is only the first part. The second would involve Inet to be extra careful in setting the terms and conditions in the coupon. The terms of the coupon were definitely set up correctly but that is only for the cashier and not the print in the coupon.

Admittedly, some of the reactions to Max were bordering on abuse and restraint from some quarters is a must especially on someone who is trying hard to solve the issue at stake though this may no exactly be what some were hoping to hear.

Meanwhile, I think that the disucssions in this thread were very productive and as long as members continue to be cool, then more of the same are certainly welcome.

 

[silcnlayc]

Just a suggestion for bonus T&C's that a player can understand.

Put all card and table games does not count. This covers everything from video poker to blackjack..No need to list the games unless they are indeed included in play.

Or Only black jack is allowed instead of going to the extreme of listing ones that are not included where a mistake can be made.

Simple is always best to be understood. When a casino goes to the extreme it hurts everyone even the casino because thats where the mistakes start happening when they try to be too detailed.

Lump the games as one..thats just plain simple language..

Hopefully this will happen from now on..

So, this is the way a coupn should read for slots:

Slots only (do not add anything else to confuse the issue because we all KNOW video poker is not a slot game!)

Video poker:

Video poker only (all variants, so simple)

Card games :

all card games (except any video poker variant)

See how simple this is to understand for us laymen.?

LESS is always better!

 

[RobWin]

Just a suggestion for bonus T&C's that a player can understand.

Put all card and table games does not count. This covers everything from video poker to blackjack..No need to list the games unless they are indeed included in play.

Or Only black jack is allowed instead of going to the extreme of listing ones that are not included where a mistake can be made.

Simple is always best to be understood. When a casino goes to the extreme it hurts everyone even the casino because thats where the mistakes start happening when they try to be too detailed.

Lump the games as one..thats just plain simple language..

Hopefully this will happen from now on..

So, this is the way a coupn should read for slots:

Slots only (do not add anything else to confuse the issue because we all KNOW video poker is not a slot game!)

Video poker:

Video poker only (all variants, so simple)

Card games :

all card games (except any video poker variant)

See how simple this is to understand for us laymen.?

LESS is always better!

Exactly and basically the same thing I said back in post # 23....

I swear, it seems as though these casinos could just make it simple and say in the specific coupon that you are allowed to play this game and this game and that game and nothing else if you accept this coupon....why in the world would it be so hard to simply do this and then there would never be an issue with these coupons or the T's & C's...

 

[silcnlayc]

Exactly and basically the same thing I said back in post # 23....

Sorry Rob, got lazy and quit reading many of the posts because all it was doing was repeating the same thing...

Simple is always the best..

 

[RobWin]

Sorry Rob, got lazy and quit reading many of the posts because all it was doing was repeating the same thing...

Simple is always the best..

Yep, and you spelled it out for them well in your post there Silc...now if they will only follow our advice as players...

 

[Jasminebed]

Slots only (do not add anything else to confuse the issue because we all KNOW video poker is not a slot game!)

Do we all know that? In land-based casinos VP games are usually included in slot play with your player card, and I know that land-based casinos use the high rates of return on VP to boost their overall slot percentages.

I recently played a slot coupon at another casino. I asked if there were any max cashouts, and if all slot games were allowed. They told me no max cashout, all slot games were included. I asked "Even the progressives?" "No, not the progressives" was CS's response. Now, the coupon was Slots only, the progressives are in the pulldown menu for slots, I was not told that progressives were not allowed when I first asked if all slots were allowed. Had I not thought to ask about the progressives, I could have found myself denied winnings.

I thank Inetbet for finally making the correct decision in this case in returning the player's winnings and allowing him to complete the WR on the allowed games.

 

[KasinoKing]

I've just skimmed though this thread having only just noticed it...

We believe that this has gone on long enough and this discussion needs to be brought to a close. Firstly we must stress that no terms were changed retroactively. The coupon in question was set up correctly, VP was always excluded. At no time did any of the OP's play on VP count towards wagering nor did any funds become withdrawable.

Utter hogswash!
How do you explain the Google cache screen then?

I think all players (myself included) would play by the terms on the specific coupon. If it lists some excluded games then I think any reasonable minded person would conclude (not assume) that games which weren't listed ARE allowed.

I can't believe this descended into a 95+ post thread with arguments, suspendings, accusations, slurs and loads of other crap when all that was needed was for iNetBet to just say "OK, hands up - we made a silly mistake" and pay the player his winnings right at the outset.

In the end all we got was a 'sort of apology', but still trying to blame the players for not being psychic!

In this case there does seem to have been some confusion by the OP as to which games were and were not allowed. We try to make our rules as clear as possible however in this case there may have been some misunderstandings. Having spoken with management we have instructed accounts to refund monies that were removed. May I remind all players that if they have any doubts about which games are allowed on any coupons etc please contact support prior to playing.

This thread was an unbelievable waste of everyone's time, it really was.

 

[Casinomeister]

And me thinks I'll put this one to rest.

RIP thread