Resolved iNetBet has confiscated my winnings!

[Stovetopp]

They did... To play the correct games...

OK Its over now! INET implicitly acknowledge their error and refunded cash and bonus.....So lets all be happy!

I still think though it was easdier to state that ALL T&C applies rather than makingt a conspicuous exception

 

[maxd]

How can you be an honest broker for both parties?

Here we go again! How can I be honest to both parties? Easy, I'm not!

I don't work for the casinos! Neither do I work for the players.

I work for Bryan and my work needs to satisfy and is judged only by Bryan. The casinos are not part of my equation because I never have to take orders from them, directly nor indirectly, because I never take money from them directly enough for their influence to be an issue.

I know you have a history of getting people their money. But you also have a history of siding with the casinos ....

Oh, but which is it? Do I get people their money, or do I side with the casinos? Or maybe it just turns out that sometimes it goes one way and sometimes the other way. When it goes the player's way I "got them their money". When it goes the casino's way "I have a history of siding with the casinos". Maybe, just maybe, it's both and neither. Maybe that's just how it goes when you handle 250+ cases a year.

If you think you've got the juice to do a better job than I am doing I suggest you send Bryan your resum. I don't know if he's looking for a new point man on the PABs, I have no particular reason to believe he is, but you'll find out quickly enough.

If I worked for the people. By no means would i accept monies from their competition.

I don't "work for the people". I work for Bryan, as previously stated. He is the one who evaluates my work performance, not the player and not the casinos. Frankly I think that's best for all concerned but you're certainly entitled to your own opinion as long as you're not using it to damage the reputation of Casinomeister which it rather appears to me you are. What, if not that, is your point?

... you find some of them guilty and close their account here. And we can't get their closing aruments.

Years ago I worked in high tech and on one occasion I found myself in a meeting where the tech folks were pretty determined to tell the management folks how a certain management-related thing should be done. They had some muscle and they knew it because they were certainly trying to use it on that particular day.

The head of the company, by then a multi-millionaire (it was the early 80s), listened to the discussion, and then the argument, rage on for a couple hours. Eventually it was obviously his turn to weigh in on the subject. He waited and when the yackers had finally figured out it was time to be quiet he spoke.

"This is not a democracy," he said, and that was it! He glanced very meaningfully at the managers and in about ten seconds they got the message.

So the managers made their decision, we techs implemented it ... and you know what? The sky did not fall in! The thing worked itself out pretty well in the end and ... blah blah blah.

My point? It's not my job to present the PABs to you or anyone other than my aforementioned boss for approval, acceptance or even comment.

If the person involved in a PAB has final comments relevant to the case they can be heard. I always offer to forward any final comments or statement they might have to the casino or to Bryan as they choose. Few do. Why? Because it is business, it is treated professionally, and it most certainly is not fodder for the message boards.

If we ban someone it's because we think it is the right thing to do. We never do it spitefully or casually. We are always cautious in using that power. And it is most certainly our right to exercise that power without your approval, or the approval of the general membership.

In the odd case where something has gone amiss there are clearly avenues the wronged person can pursue to correct them, as has recently been demonstrated in the Casino Club case (see Casino Club - robot or...).

Again, you have better ideas? I'm sure you know Bryan's email address and/or how to send him a PM.

I will tell you this though. If you persist with your "Casinomeister sucks" stuff you're not going to be very welcome here. Your criticism is constructive you say? How so? What is your point?

And last but not least I have this to offer: I've been in this business doing the forums-related job for over ten years. In that time I have often heard this "you take money from the casinos so you are obviously in a compromised situation and can't do your job properly" argument.

I suppose if you ignore the layers that separate me from the casinos and are ignorant of how the business really functions then in theory I suppose your line of reasoning appears to have merit. But it is only an appearance. In practice that line of thought has very, very little to do with the reality of the situation.

Sceptical? Just take a poll of how many industry people have spoken to me directly or could even pick me out of a line-up. Precious few I assure you. My distance from the industry folks is considerable, possibly even to my detriment.

If I have misunderstood your meaning or intentions please accept my apologies and feel free to clarify.

 

[maxd]

OK Its over now! INET implicitly acknowledge their error and refunded cash and bonus.

My bolding there to point out that that's not what happened at all. The casino refunded deposit and bonus very early in this process, long before the PAB or this thread appeared.

In other words it was not an "implicit" admission of anything, it was just their original response to the player's complaint, in effect saying "sorry, you are mistaken, please play per the T&Cs".

 

[Jufo]

OK Its over now! INET implicitly acknowledge their error and refunded cash and bonus.....So lets all be happy!

I understood that they confiscated player's winnings though. Which is wrong, since the player played a game specifically allowed in the promotion terms. If they acknowledge their error, then at least they should let him complete the updated WR without confiscating his previous winnings.

 

[vinylweatherman]

General Terms apply UNLESS OTHWISE STATED

YES, but there WERE terms "otherwise stated", which were SPECIFIC to that Halloween cauldron bonus page.

iNetBet REPEATEDLY make a complete Dog's Breakfast of these kinds of promotions, they have conflicting sets of T & C all over the place. Although they have the general terms, they frequently have these coupons with special terms, and this is what caught out MORE than the OP, RESPECTED Casinomeister members seem to have been caught with this error.

It would be far better to have ALL T & C on ONE PAGE, and just have LINKS to it from all the various promos. This would get rid of all these confusions.

The thing that made me angry is iNetBet digging it's heels in over such a small amount, given that a minor typo by the person setting up this special promotions page was what mislead the player in this case, this is not the iNetBet I expected, and reinforces my opinion that it has been slowly going downhill this year.

It seems that it has been assumed that the OP was an experienced advantage player, who saw, and exploited a minor error for all it was worth, and who should have known that it was a typo - is there evidence for this.

I hope the saving of $300 was worth all this bad PR.
I can hardly understand these coupons half the time, and it's not as if you can simply PHONE them for instant clarification - if you want to play NOW, you just have to believe what is written in front of you. Not ALL players just like slots, perhaps this player LIKES VP, and was simply selecting a coupon, the ONLY one, that appeared to allow at least the single line variety - yet this is being taken as though he was just out to "screw" the casino through a sneaky loophole.

It seems to me that all the staff with brains have left the industry to use their talents elsewhere, and a load of new staff have taken their place that are in need of training.

I say again, if the casino writes ambiguous rules, they should abide by BOTH interpretations for all players who took part BEFORE a correction or clarification was made.

Casinos need to get this idea out of their heads that EVERY player is a "bonus abuser" out to exploit them, and that there has to be some GIVE with the take.

 

[CasinoKidd]

The fact that inetbet has not admitted to changing the page makes me want to vomit. The page with the terms says that he could play video poker. So I dont know how there is an argument here. Pay the guy.

I will not be trusting inetbet in the future - hooray clubworld!

 

[The Dude]

Admin Warning: making troll-like statements and bogus accounts

...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...

This is utter bullshit.

One more out of line comment like this and you'll find this thread locked.

And for what it's worth, I've suspended the OP's account for violating rule 1.9:

1.9 - Do not register an account fraudulently. Fraudulent accounts are defined as accounts created specifically to flame others (hiding behind a mask of anonymity), or accounts opened primarily to spam the board or to act as shills. Do not register more than one account in the forum. Additional accounts will be deemed as bogus, and you may find yourself out on the sidewalk lying on your back staring at the stars.

The OP has two accounts - both of which have been used to submit complaints. This is not cool. As soon as he gets back to me with an explanation, I'll review the circumstances and decide whether or not to let him back in.

 

[Stovetopp]

I just joined this forum in July of this year although I have been a browser for years.

I can't see slamming anyone here who tries to help us with the right casino to play at......AND its all done FOR FREE!!!!!As a matter of fact, this site may have saved more monies than usual in pointing out the rogue sites that
will not pay .
I personally want to thank Casinomeister and MAXD(are they one and the same) for all the work they do for me and others with no obligation. THANKS AGAIN ! AND I DON;T HAVE TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT NOT PURCHASING ANYTHING!!

 

[silcnlayc]

I think I was feeling the same thanksgiving in having someone looking out for all of us too reading this..and pssst..no, they are not one and the same...they really are 2 people Thanks guys...

 

[chuchu59]

This is utter bullshit.

One more out of line comment like this and you'll find this thread locked.

And for what it's worth, I've suspended the OP's account for violating rule 1.9:

1.9 - Do not register an account fraudulently. Fraudulent accounts are defined as accounts created specifically to flame others (hiding behind a mask of anonymity), or accounts opened primarily to spam the board or to act as shills. Do not register more than one account in the forum. Additional accounts will be deemed as bogus, and you may find yourself out on the sidewalk lying on your back staring at the stars.

The OP has two accounts - both of which have been used to submit complaints. This is not cool. As soon as he gets back to me with an explanation, I'll review the circumstances and decide whether or not to let him back in.

Bryan,

I have been here long enough to see for myself that both you and Max are way above these accusations of you siding with the casinos or Inet in this case. However, while Mario has rightly been given a holiday for violating rule 1.9, we should still address this problem. Frankly, if I were a newbie I would have taken Upset's stance as it really does seem that even though Inet has clearly erred, you have not taken them to task.

The coupons that InetbetPromos have listed are specific coupons used to play VP. How is it possible to omit something in the specific coupon and then blame the player for not reading the General Ts and Cs. The reason advanced that the system does not count VP as WRs is hogwash. This can only be known after you have played so it would be too late wouldnt it? Furthermore, if Inet really insists that they are right and that all winnings from VP played with a bonus should be void then so should losses incurred from playing VP while playing with a bonus. This is the bottom line to show that Inet is not taking advantage of the situation.

 

[hippo925]

I've been following the thread and if it means anything, here's my thought on the issues.

First of all, everything that bryan, maxd, and the moderators (simmo) do are simply invaluable.... and that's that.

Also, Inet has had a very solid reputation and a good history to back up that reputation.

With that being said...

I have to say that from an objective stance, it is quite easy to see how a player could have thought that video poker was allowed using this particular coupon. I honestly am confused why the coupon would even list prohibited games if the general t and c's covered it since anything specific in the coupon would be considered more "correct" from a player's point of view. The fact that the coupon's restrictions were "updated" means the casino acknowledged the fact that it was unclear or incorrect in the first place.

I know this may be a silly example, but here goes:

You go to the ice cream parlor and there's a sign outside that says "strawberry, vanilla, and chocolate are not available at this time." You go inside and there's a big sign where you order that says, "sorry, chocolate and vanilla are not available at this time." I GUARANTEE you that many people will think strawberry might be available. What i wouldn't expect is the cashier to tell me "are you an idiot, didn't you see the sign outside?"

My response would be "why don't you have the SAME sign inside that you do on the outside? Are you just trying to confuse people?"

Simple, i know, but it demonstrates how important it is for the casino to have clear and precise requirements if they want their players to have a clear and precise understanding in return.

 

[maxd]

I personally want to thank Casinomeister and MAXD(are they one and the same) ....

Nooo! Check out Bryan's videos (here). In the recent ones he pops in a still of me and you'll see that we ain't no way, no how the same fella (I'm the scruffy one that looks like a fat hobbit on Skid Row).

You go to the ice cream parlor and there's a sign outside that says "strawberry, vanilla, and chocolate are not available at this time." You go inside and there's a big sign where you order that says, "sorry, chocolate and vanilla are not available at this time." I GUARANTEE you that many people will think strawberry might be available.

Ok, that got a good chuckle. But I think the outside sign should read "Strawberry is never available unless explicitly stated otherwise". In which case the cashier would be spot on, IMHO.

 

[jas2587]

Btyan is the one that
looks like he has bleached
blonde hair in the webcast

Cindy

 

[RobWin]

In the recent ones he pops in a still of me and you'll see that we ain't no way, no how the same fella (I'm the scruffy one that looks like a fat hobbit on Skid Row).

LMAO... Too funny Max !! :notworthy

 

[hippo925]

But I think the outside sign should read "Strawberry is never available unless explicitly stated otherwise". In which case the cashier would be spot on, IMHO.

Ahhh! I see your point!

Yup! In that case, the cashier would be spot on. I chalk it all up to a misunderstanding and i think it's unfortunate it got blown up so bad. Like i said, i think it's important to keep in mind inet's track record and hopefully this type of thing can be avoided in the future.

"I'm the scruffy one that looks like a fat hobbit on Skid Row"

LMAO! I'll never be able to think of Lord of the Rings in the same way.

 

[winbig]

Btyan is the one that
looks like he has bleached
blonde hair in the webcast

Cindy

...and looks a bit like George Clooney

 

[SteveCut]

...and looks a bit like George Clooney

Shum mishtake shurely? You must mean Wayne Rooney!

 

[chuchu59]

Shum mishtake shurely? You must mean Wayne Rooney!

Given his erractic form, Rooney probably wouldnt get one past Latvia when they meet in Euro competition;

 

[SteveCut]

My dear Chuchu, even George Clooney would score against Latvia.

 

[The Dude]

...And for what it's worth, I've suspended the OP's account for violating rule 1.9:

The OP explained the two accounts satisfactorily. He's back in.

 

[silcnlayc]

So may I ask, what was the final result?

I think I missed it somewhere....too lazy to read through all the replies...

Did the casino stand on their decision? Just curious...

 

[Mario77]

The OP explained the two accounts satisfactorily. He's back in.

Thank you Bryan.

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.

I was sure that VP is allowed so I didn't assume that I might be wrong. If I had thought that maybe VP is not okay, I wouldn't have played it. It is not worth the trouble.

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.

I understand that "could have been clearer" doesn't mean that it is not clear. But I used the "totally clear" expression. If something "can be clearer" then it might be clear but it can't be "totally clear".

But not this is my point. My point is that while you admitted that the page was changed, the casino never admitted this to me.

Even if the result was not good for me, I appreciate that you investigated the issue and explained the situation to me. But I can't say the same about the casino's support - they ignored my concerns and instead of giving explanation, they just kept repeating that VP is excluded, and denied that they changed the page.

So you did NOT meet the WR...

I met the WR, but the money was still not withdrawable.

He tried to withdraw funds that were non withdrawable then proceeded to complain about it.

No, I didn't try to withdraw, just went to the cashier when I completed the wagering and then I noticed that the money still appears as non-withdrawable.

So may I ask, what was the final result?

Nothing new. They have not returned my winnings.

 

[maxd]

... while you admitted that the page was changed, the casino never admitted this to me.

To "admit" something implies the reluctant disclosure of something one might have kept secret which is not applicable to this situation at all.

I had nothing to do with the page in question, never made any claims about it one way or the other, and certainly made no attempt to hide anything about it.

What I did see is evidence that indicated the page _had_ changed and my statements were based on that.

As to the casino's position on this I'm not at all clear as to what has and hasn't happened. I will say this though: if some random Customer Service person said something that later proved to be incorrect then a Customer Service person was incorrect. I don't believe that a conspiracy to defraud can be inferred or implied from such an incident.

Finally, as is standard with most online casinos they reserve the right to to change Terms as they see fit, per the following (see

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

):

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

 

[Mario77]

To "admit" something implies the reluctant disclosure of something one might have kept secret which is not applicable to this situation at all.

I had nothing to do with the page in question, never made any claims about it one way or the other, and certainly made no attempt to hide anything about it.

What I did see is evidence that indicated the page _had_ changed and my statements were based on that.

You're right that "admitting" is not the right expression in your case.

As to the casino's position on this I'm not at all clear as to what has and hasn't happened. I will say this though: if some random Customer Service person said something that later proved to be incorrect then a Customer Service person was incorrect. I don't believe that a conspiracy to defraud can be inferred or implied from such an incident.

I don't have any conspiracy theory - as I mentioned in post #14, it is possible that the support representative was not aware of the change of the webpage. The problem is that after I had presented them the screenshot and Google cache, they just ignored the evidences and still denied the change. It would have been enough to look at these to see that the page was indeed changed, even if they were not aware of the change before that. However, based on their replies, I'm not sure that they have looked at what I sent to them at all.

Of course this complaint is not about you, Max, you have nothing to do with the mistakes of their support.

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

 

[winbig]

"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?

 

[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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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

RIP thread