inetbet Nightmare

[Nate]

I have sent Inetbet verification documents in the past and never received a reply. I had deposited and didn't have a WD but wanted to get verified so I didn't have issues. I had to wait longer after I emailed them again to ask if they received it. They eventually replied and said they did not. The files were small because I DO NOT send large attachments as a general rule.

I never bothered asking again and later closed my account.

Nate

 

[macster]

This belongs elsewhere....

As are comments like "potty-trained". And more.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Did the OP give a thought to faxing the faxback and docs? The fax number is listed on the page you need to go to download the faxback.

This is even more archaic than email, and often leads to problems. Apart from this, who the hell has their own FAX machine at home. It would involve trying to find a public fax service, and most of these have shut down because the technology is obsolete. There have been complaints in the past where players have had to make several visits to a public fax service because when they get home and check, they are told to try again and again because of some technical problem or other. Because of this, advice has always been to use the email route, and forget about trying to fax anything. Unfortunately, in this case the email system cannot handle a data file that would normally be sent by a fax machine, nor it's newer JPEG equivalent it would seem.

It's not the players fault that the available systems are not fit for purpose. There are systems that ARE fit for purpose, and would work very well, but they have not been made available. Broadband internet is capable of transmitting a MOVIE between two parties without having a problem, and should cope with transferring a mere 10Mb in a few seconds, faster than email can transmit a one page letter.

Other casinos use email for documents, so why do we hear so much about problems at some, and virtually nothing about problems at others. The players are all going to have a similar range of facilities, it is the operators that will have a much larger variation in configurations, some of which clearly work better than others.

This should be an important consideration for new players when choosing a casino, and one that seems to get overlooked. The best approach is to get verified in advance, and refuse to buy in to the "do it now" atmosphere perpetrated by marketing that tries to get that first deposit out of you as fast as they can. If documents cause problems before deposits are made, the player can simply walk away, rather than struggle with the problem. Marketing like to get that first deposit in quickly because this is what they FEAR will happen. It is also theorised that CS are going to be making more of an effort to resolve a problem if the customer is not tied in. Once tied in, the customer loses the option to just walk away, and even if they decide to leave, they have to sort out the exit of their funds.

 

[Nifty29]

This is even more archaic than email, and often leads to problems. Apart from this, who the hell has their own FAX machine at home. It would involve trying to find a public fax service, and most of these have shut down because the technology is obsolete. There have been complaints in the past where players have had to make several visits to a public fax service because when they get home and check, they are told to try again and again because of some technical problem or other. Because of this, advice has always been to use the email route, and forget about trying to fax anything. Unfortunately, in this case the email system cannot handle a data file that would normally be sent by a fax machine, nor it's newer JPEG equivalent it would seem.

It's not the players fault that the available systems are not fit for purpose. There are systems that ARE fit for purpose, and would work very well, but they have not been made available. Broadband internet is capable of transmitting a MOVIE between two parties without having a problem, and should cope with transferring a mere 10Mb in a few seconds, faster than email can transmit a one page letter.

Other casinos use email for documents, so why do we hear so much about problems at some, and virtually nothing about problems at others. The players are all going to have a similar range of facilities, it is the operators that will have a much larger variation in configurations, some of which clearly work better than others.

This should be an important consideration for new players when choosing a casino, and one that seems to get overlooked. The best approach is to get verified in advance, and refuse to buy in to the "do it now" atmosphere perpetrated by marketing that tries to get that first deposit out of you as fast as they can. If documents cause problems before deposits are made, the player can simply walk away, rather than struggle with the problem. Marketing like to get that first deposit in quickly because this is what they FEAR will happen. It is also theorised that CS are going to be making more of an effort to resolve a problem if the customer is not tied in. Once tied in, the customer loses the option to just walk away, and even if they decide to leave, they have to sort out the exit of their funds.

You're still missing the point Vinyl.

It's not about what should be able to happen or what could happen if they did this or that......it's about what DID happen i.e. the 4 emails, along with some other assorted emails, were not received by iNetbet. The OP could find out from their ISP what exactly happened to the emails if they wanted to...I've done it before. It is also common sense that one needs to reduce the file size of docs before sending them, especially if there are multiple attachments.

I'm amazed that anyone would think the casino would deliberately ignore someone...unless of course they think that the casino is straight out lying, in which case they should offer evidence of such or apologise. My understanding was that it was unacceptable to make accusations such as this against operators (especially accredited ones) in the forum...?

 

[swampwitch]

Yes, faxing is a pita for some people. But if I was having as much trouble as the OP claims, I'd have still given it a shot. YMMV.

 

[macster]

It's not about what should be able to happen or what could happen if they did this or that......it's about what DID happen i.e. the 4 emails, along with some other assorted emails, were not received by iNetbet. The OP could find out from their ISP what exactly happened to the emails if they wanted to...I've done it before. It is also common sense that one needs to reduce the file size of docs before sending them, especially if there are multiple attachments.

I'm amazed that anyone would think the casino would deliberately ignore someone...unless of course they think that the casino is straight out lying, in which case they should offer evidence of such or apologise. My understanding was that it was unacceptable to make accusations such as this against operators (especially accredited ones) in the forum...?

Very convenient approach, where operators can simply quote missing e-mails.

Really? I'm using a 3UK dongle. Could they tell me what happened to my sent e-mails (SMTP) that were not received? Are you sure? What if I prove you wrong?

Of course one (I) would think that! Especially when that did happen!!!

 

[greasemonkey]

You're still missing the point Vinyl.

It's not about what should be able to happen or what could happen if they did this or that......it's about what DID happen i.e. the 4 emails, along with some other assorted emails, were not received by iNetbet. The OP could find out from their ISP what exactly happened to the emails if they wanted to...I've done it before. It is also common sense that one needs to reduce the file size of docs before sending them, especially if there are multiple attachments.

I'm amazed that anyone would think the casino would deliberately ignore someone...unless of course they think that the casino is straight out lying, in which case they should offer evidence of such or apologise. My understanding was that it was unacceptable to make accusations such as this against operators (especially accredited ones) in the forum...?

inetbet apparently did not even reply to the OPs PM. I suppose that just like the emails it got lost also and it is the OPs fault? ........ Orrrrrrrrr, was inetbet actually ignoring the OP, which is the way it is appearing the more I read.


ALSO, NIFTY... please quit saying that inetbet got the email but did not get the attachments. Certainly they did. On th e 19th they wrote back thanking the OP for his documents and admitting that they were received. The problem is that they then asked for bizarre things like proof of how the OP funded their ewallet account. That is where the problem started. If they weren't trying to delay or find a reason not to pay then why would they ask for more than is usual? Why did they get the original email with the docs but not the subsequent ones? Its called BS, Nifty. Casinos just don't go around asking for such personal info like "prove to us how you fund your moneybookers account" That is complete BS tactics and they were looking for way to get out of paying the OP IMO. It is fairly obvious. It is also asking way too much for us to believe that they suddenly stopped getting emails or PMs and had no idea that the OP was responding directly and on the same day. It is way too much to expect reasonable adults to believe that junk.

 

[macster]

This has been a dilemma for quite some time concerning doc's. Requesting doc's isn't the real problem here, it's the interaction during sending and receiving of the documents.

I'm sure this group is a fine place to play as many have said but there does appear to be many members concerned about the process of sending and receiving their documents. E mail isn't secure, now further problems with file size and fax is a dinosaur IMO. Honestly can't believe any OC would ask for doc's by fax especially ID pic's.

The only way to correct all of this is the following and I've researched this for quite some time before entering into this area.

1. Gaming site's need a secure system for uploading doc's. What I don't like about this, with each site you're uploading to multiple servers and sites when one secure site, system is sufficient. Less exposure.

2. There needs to be a way for you, the player to know when your doc's were viewed and approved and or denied by the site in real time and also a clear line of communication if you need to send further documentation. This delays withdraws, if not a loss of your money if you should continue to play waiting like the OP.

3. Max has shared that he even has problems with email for PAB's, so clearly email has problems.

Fundamental and structural changes are are needed, in order to convince me (and those like me) that online casinos offer a safe and enjoyable gaming experience like brick-and-mortar ones. Again, let's do some comparisons, etc.

1. If you want to gain entry into a land-based casino, you go in and register (if not already a member) at reception, show some ID, then get to deposit and play. It's not, go in, play, win, try to withdraw (cash in chips), get asked for ID. By doing things this way, land-based casinos prevent minors from playing, they know who their customers are, etc. Any right-minded person would tell you that this is the approach online casinos need to employ. Why is this not the case?

2. When you play at a land-based casino (or a cruise ship for that matter), when you win, you know you'll be able to cash out your winnings. I'm sorry to say this, there is no such confidence with online casinos.

3. Requesting for docs can be a problem if what the OP says is true, in that iNet asked for non-ordinary docs, e.g.,They asked for MORE and FURTHER UNUSUAL things like proof of how I funded my Moneybookers account.... What is the standard here? Proof and ID and proof of address? More?

4. Set a time limit. If there's an issue, guarantee that it'll be solved in, say, 3 days or so. Have SLAs!


The way I see it, there are not in-company standards. There are no industry standards. How would I do it? I would start with an industry framework. Based on that framework, I will effect my own casino's operating model. I will tailor it to suit my needs and that my my customers (e.g. solving issues within a set timeframe and keeping clients aware of what was happening). I will not, e.g., say things like "I promise to look into it...", then not give any update for 5 days.

 

[vinylweatherman]

You're still missing the point Vinyl.

It's not about what should be able to happen or what could happen if they did this or that......it's about what DID happen i.e. the 4 emails, along with some other assorted emails, were not received by iNetbet. The OP could find out from their ISP what exactly happened to the emails if they wanted to...I've done it before. It is also common sense that one needs to reduce the file size of docs before sending them, especially if there are multiple attachments.

I'm amazed that anyone would think the casino would deliberately ignore someone...unless of course they think that the casino is straight out lying, in which case they should offer evidence of such or apologise. My understanding was that it was unacceptable to make accusations such as this against operators (especially accredited ones) in the forum...?

I am not saying that they are deliberately ignoring players, but not EVERY ISP has helpful CS. Mine are in Mumbai or Bangalore, and can only stick to the script. If a problem is not on their script, they don't have an initiative at their disposal. Often, they will give the wrong information, which usually means following company policy of denying any fault, and blaming any third party to the problem being encountered. In the case of a recent 6 month TV issue, they spent over 6 months blaming the BBC until some customers called their bluff and contacted the BBC and OFCOM. The fault was eventually traced to THEIR server, but they then blamed some previously unmentioned subcontractor.

I have actually made formal complaints to my ISP about all the emails that kept failing to make it through to Jackpot Factory, and every time I was "reliably informed" that the fault lay with JF or their ISP, not Virgin. It is a lottery, and there is every chance that this complainant will be told it is iNetBet's fault, and having head this from their ISP, will be more convinced than ever that iNetBet are dicking them around.

The problem with saying that the player should work with what is available is a problem because iNetBet had the player's money, and wouldn't give it back even if the player wanted to "walk away" from the situation. The player's ONLY option when backed into this corner was to fight, and if necessary "fight dirty". I am sure that if you were doing business with someone, and they told you they couldn't work with the facilities you had, you would want to leave with your money and go elsewhere.

I didn't see ANY effort in the part of iNetBet to HELP this player "reformat" his files, they just expected him to second guess what their systems would cope with and just keep trying again and again. As a result, he did just this, and when he DID "reformat" from a single large file to 4 individual emails, iNetBet said there was now a different problem, and again offered no help in getting around it. They didn't make any suggestions, or even indications of what they needed to get the sizes down to. This lead to the player thinking that whatever they did wouldn't work, and that this could be due to the issue having been "contrived" rather than real.

I would have expected the 4 smaller emails to exhibit the same error, getting through, but the 2.5Mb files still being too large to open because the reduction had not been enough. The idea that at least the "header" and "properties information" made it through the first time, yet not even this much made it through on FOUR subsequent emails does not sound believable. My suspicion is that iNetBet's own systems simply threw these 4 emails away on arrival, but kept no record nor recorded any "reason code" that would aid in diagnosing the problem. Had the problem been earlier in the chain, the sender would have received a "bounce" notification with an error code, although this could have ended up in their spam folder, a check that should be done before stating that iNetBet definitely didn't respond. Similarly, it is a check iNetBet should do before stating that the player didn't send, or they didn't receive, the emails.

It should be possible to get the size below 2.5Mb, but unless one is told HOW, it is something many ordinary users would have little idea of how to achieve, and thus would EXPECT help from a department which is, after all, called "Customer Service".

 

[greasemonkey]

Big idea to improve doc verification.

I think that I have a possible solution that everyone here would love (I think).

This is serious. How about all accredited casinos here at CM Must agree to accept a player as legit if Bryan has their docs? The infrastructure is already here with the attachment option in PM. So then if I am a member here I PM Bryan (or an employee of his) and submit my ID, utility bill, a fax form of some sort and any CC, bank or ewallet info needed for proof of my deposit. THEN it is secure and not floating around cyberspace and being "missed" by support on emails. All that you would need to do is give your username here at CM to the casino and they could contact Bryan (and Bryan could charge a fee for this service to the casino and it would actually save them time/money too) and Bryan could tell them if you are verified and current. It would be safer, we all trust Bryan a heck of a lot further than any casino operator. The fee could make it worth Bryan's time and we would all feel better about playing at new casinos as we know we would not have lost documents or falsely called a fraud or any other such crap.

I am dead serious and I would love to see something like this implemented! What another fantastic reason to be a member here that would be!

 

[Nifty29]

inetbet apparently did not even reply to the OPs PM. I suppose that just like the emails it got lost also and it is the OPs fault? ........ Orrrrrrrrr, was inetbet actually ignoring the OP, which is the way it is appearing the more I read.


ALSO, NIFTY... please quit saying that inetbet got the email but did not get the attachments. Certainly they did. On th e 19th they wrote back thanking the OP for his documents and admitting that they were received. The problem is that they then asked for bizarre things like proof of how the OP funded their ewallet account. That is where the problem started. If they weren't trying to delay or find a reason not to pay then why would they ask for more than is usual? Why did they get the original email with the docs but not the subsequent ones? Its called BS, Nifty. Casinos just don't go around asking for such personal info like "prove to us how you fund your moneybookers account" That is complete BS tactics and they were looking for way to get out of paying the OP IMO. It is fairly obvious. It is also asking way too much for us to believe that they suddenly stopped getting emails or PMs and had no idea that the OP was responding directly and on the same day. It is way too much to expect reasonable adults to believe that junk.

Just one last time...

I didn't SAY anything about the ORIGINAL docs not being recieved.....they clearly were. Nobody has revealed how large the original docs sent on the 19th were but I would bet they weren't 10MB.

The casino suspected some kind of fraud....that is why they asked for further docs (which is their right), and that is what we have been discussing...nowhere did I mention the emails of the 19th. In your haste to "expose" iNetbet as the "evil-doers" in online gambling's "axis of evil", you are inventing things and putting words in my mouth.

The subsequent email/s were too large in the first instance, and then were never received in the second instance (the 4 the OP claims to have sent).

The casino says they didn't receive them. You say it's "BS" and they are lying and deliberately stalling payment.

Evidence exists only for the former, and IMO you are out of line with your wild accusations.

Re: your scheme for doc verification:

Are you seriously suggesting that BRYAN be responsible for verifying players from CM for accredited casinos? Just to accommodate the tiny percentage of players who refuse to use common sense and follow things up? Do you know how much work that would entail? Or how much responsibility would be placed on his shoulders? Who is going to pay him for it? The casinos? Why would they....their current system works 99% of the time now.

I'll give you credit for actually coming up with something, but this is pie in the sky stuff and completely unnecessary and unworkable.

 

[greasemonkey]

VWM, They may have lost those 4 emails with attachments but what about the 5th that had no attachments and was just asking for verification of the other 4? Why did they "not receive" that one? Like I said earlier, it has become too much to believe. If inetbet was this clueless then they would have been out of business long ago. The PMs don't work,t he email don't work.... c'mon

 

[greasemonkey]

Just one last time...

I didn't SAY anything about the ORIGINAL docs not being recieved.....they clearly were. Nobody has revealed how large the original docs sent on the 19th were but I would bet they weren't 10MB.

The casino suspected some kind of fraud....that is why they asked for further docs (which is their right), and that is what we have been discussing...nowhere did I mention the emails of the 19th. In your haste to "expose" iNetbet as the "evil-doers" in online gambling's "axis of evil", you are inventing things and putting words in my mouth.

The subsequent email/s were too large in the first instance, and then were never received in the second instance (the 4 the OP claims to have sent).

The casino says they didn't receive them. You say it's "BS" and they are lying and deliberately stalling payment.

Evidence exists only for the former, and IMO you are out of line with your wild accusations.

Nifty, please let us be civil and not have such a nasty edge when we respond to each other. I am interested in your opinion, not an argument please.

OK, back to our topic:

What about the 5th email asking for verification? What about the PM? What about the OP is stating that he didn't just send 4 emails or 5. He sent them several times apparently. He also clearly asks for help and information and is not responded to on a number of occasions. Why is this?

Evidence exists only for the former, and IMO you are out of line with your wild accusations.

Re: your scheme for doc verification:

Are you seriously suggesting that BRYAN be responsible for verifying players from CM for accredited casinos? Just to accommodate the tiny percentage of players who refuse to use common sense and follow things up? Do you know how much work that would entail? Or how much responsibility would be placed on his shoulders? Who is going to pay him for it? The casinos? Why would they....their current system works 99% of the time now.

I'll give you credit for actually coming up with something, but this is pie in the sky stuff and completely unnecessary and unworkable.

The casinos may save money by not needing the staff. Bryan would get a fee for this from the casinos as they have to pay someone to do it anyways.
Not sure what you mean by common sense. The OP sent in his docs the day he was asked.
No, I really don't know how much work it would entail. Do you know how much work it would entail?
it would seem to simply be a file storing issue. The infrastructure for secure upload is in place.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think that I have a possible solution that everyone here would love (I think).

This is serious. How about all accredited casinos here at CM Must agree to accept a player as legit if Bryan has their docs? The infrastructure is already here with the attachment option in PM. So then if I am a member here I PM Bryan (or an employee of his) and submit my ID, utility bill, a fax form of some sort and any CC, bank or ewallet info needed for proof of my deposit. THEN it is secure and not floating around cyberspace and being "missed" by support on emails. All that you would need to do is give your username here at CM to the casino and they could contact Bryan (and Bryan could charge a fee for this service to the casino and it would actually save them time/money too) and Bryan could tell them if you are verified and current. It would be safer, we all trust Bryan a heck of a lot further than any casino operator. The fee could make it worth Bryan's time and we would all feel better about playing at new casinos as we know we would not have lost documents or falsely called a fraud or any other such crap.

I am dead serious and I would love to see something like this implemented! What another fantastic reason to be a member here that would be!

There are problems with this. The main one being legal. In order to do this, Bryan would have to register as a "data controller" where he is based, and would have considerable legal responsibilties over the handling of the documents he was managing. This would be expensive, and unless casinos were willing to pay extra, he would have to charge the players. This would no doubt leave him with significant overheads and little in the way of revenue, since those players not encountering problems would take the "free" option of dealing directly with the casino.

It would need to be handled by a body such as eCogra, and would have to cover all sealholder casinos. Even this would cover only a fraction of the industry, and the fraction it did cover would be the one where problems such as this are rare.

It would really take regulatory action by governments who might impose such a condition on all operators wanting access to the domestic market, with a big enough "stick" to stop those unwilling to comply from operating, perhaps by having transactions blocked in a similar manner to UIGEA in the US. With a legal framework allowing players to play at compliant operators, they would be less likely to cooperate with the kinds of trickery being used to circumvent UIGEA when tried by those not wanting to comply with the standards.

 

[Nifty29]

Nifty, please let us be civil and not have such a nasty edge when we respond to each other. I am interested in your opinion, not an argument please.

OK, back to our topic:

What about the 5th email asking for verification? What about the PM? What about the OP is stating that he didn't just send 4 emails or 5. He sent them several times apparently. He also clearly asks for help and information and is not responded to on a number of occasions. Why is this?




The casinos may save money by not needing the staff. Bryan would get a fee for this from the casinos as they have to pay someone to do it anyways.
Not sure what you mean by common sense. The OP sent in his docs the day he was asked.
No, I really don't know how much work it would entail. Do you know how much work it would entail?
it would seem to simply be a file storing issue. The infrastructure for secure upload is in place.

Who's being nasty for goodness sake? I'm not the one making accusations of dishonesty without evidence.

How is Bryan going to know if ID's etc are legit? He would have to comb through each and every doc. Casinos have teams of specially trained staff to detect fraud....but now you're saying just Bryan should do it? Given the number of fraudsters who have passed through this site, and the number of undetected ones around right now (which I'm certain there are), it would be virtually impossible for Bryan to verify the authenticity of potentially '000s of players. It really is completely unworkable.

You're sudden interest in my opinions has been noted.

 

[Nifty29]

There are problems with this. The main one being legal. In order to do this, Bryan would have to register as a "data controller" where he is based, and would have considerable legal responsibilties over the handling of the documents he was managing. This would be expensive, and unless casinos were willing to pay extra, he would have to charge the players. This would no doubt leave him with significant overheads and little in the way of revenue, since those players not encountering problems would take the "free" option of dealing directly with the casino.

It would need to be handled by a body such as eCogra, and would have to cover all sealholder casinos. Even this would cover only a fraction of the industry, and the fraction it did cover would be the one where problems such as this are rare.

It would really take regulatory action by governments who might impose such a condition on all operators wanting access to the domestic market, with a big enough "stick" to stop those unwilling to comply from operating, perhaps by having transactions blocked in a similar manner to UIGEA in the US. With a legal framework allowing players to play at compliant operators, they would be less likely to cooperate with the kinds of trickery being used to circumvent UIGEA when tried by those not wanting to comply with the standards.

Maybe Bryan could hire Vinylweatherman Q.C. to handle all the legal stuff?

 

[Casinomeister]

20 pages so far - I thought this issue was more or less resolved on page 14
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/inetbet-nightmare.46579/

An e-mail issue? This beggars belief. A time-wasting tactic? More likely. Once again, as someone new to online casinos, looking at their issues, I see very easy solutions. So why still an issue?

So you are new to online casinos...and I just jumped off of a boat from China. For a newbie poster, you sure seem to know quite a lot about online gaming and the machinations and personalities of this forum.

Nifty, I suggest you get off you high horse and offer some suggestions (as requested)...

Nifty is only stating his opinions based on his observances. I don't see any high horse he's riding on. Watch the flaming.

... Casinos just don't go around asking for such personal info like "prove to us how you fund your moneybookers account" That is complete BS tactics and they were looking for way to get out of paying the OP IMO. ...

Have you ever worked in the security/player fraud division of an online casino? If you had some more insight on what goes on behind the scenes I think you would change your opinion. Like I mentioned before, casino operators are vigilant on protecting their businesses. If a player has to jump through an extra set of hoops in order to get paid, that's what they will have to do. You can thank the multi-accounters, fraudsters, and other douchebags for this. Don't make assumptions that it's BS because it's not.

And no thanks on the ID check services here, I have enough fires to put out already

 

[greasemonkey]

20 pages so far - I thought this issue was more or less resolved on page 14
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/inetbet-nightmare.46579/

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/inetbet-nightmare.46579/ As you can see it got a whole lot more murky and doubtful on page 18.


Bryan, if they are asking for proof of how the OP funded their MB account then that is above and beyond normal. Why would they ask for that? Did they detect fraud again? The OP wasn't using a bonus, his ID and bill must have been ok. There was not an advantage that the player was using then to get over on the casino.... why did they want more? The answer MUST be that they were actively seeking a reason not to pay. Regardless if that reason was that they thought "maybe fraud" or not. If the docs match the signup info and there is no bonus involved then they are grasping at straws to find something... ANYTHING that they can think of not to pay. All of the multi accounting and stuff that you mentioned would be irrelevant in this case. The OP wasnt using an advantage. they apparently just gambled. What could the casino be protecting themselves against? A gambler whose docs are correct? I'm not buying it.

And no thanks on the ID check services here, I have enough fires to put out already

DANG. That would be sweet though (for players).

 

[Casinomeister]

...Bryan, if they are asking for proof of how the OP funded their MB account then that is above and beyond normal. Why would they ask for that? Did they detect fraud again? ...

I have no idea - I was making a widespread comment - generally speaking of course. The issue for us was trying to figure out what went wrong, and I made suggestions to iNetBet that I hope they might consider implementing. As far as I am concerned, that's about it.

 

[bb28]

Really? We used one of the earliest available, even before the days of Pine and elm. What did you use? Also, you can find my name associated with a number of telecoms and Internet standards.


Relevant yes, but does not seem to be enough, huh? Especially when an old and outstanding issue can't be solved. But I have come to expect this now (in the short time).....

Reminds me of a time when I was managing a number of clients in the US. Was told, "You can't add value, you will only tell us what we already know, we have been doing this for a long time", etc. Something along those lines. With a bit of digging, analytics and cost transformation, ended up saving them 500m over 3 years.

Potty-trained? LOL!!! Reveals your character, maxd - or lack thereof.



The above excerpt was taken from Simmo's guide. So I ask again. Why can't ID verification be done at the outset? Why can't this be imposed on new players? Why have this "waiting-game" when it comes to withdrawals? How long ago was this guide written? Why was the player allowed to open "some 300" accounts? Did the online casino happily accept 300* deposits? LOL! Simple question. Are these online casinos obliged to pay out withdrawals? Why are such obvious and outstanding issues not sorted?

Re-read the two paragraphs - one can then get all the answers.

These things really have little to do with the issue. Ever heard of strawman arguments?

This post is one.

 

[Diane]

@ Bryan ----

I believe it's time to shut this thread down and close it. (Yes, I know I could just "ignore" and I rarely play at the site so I don't have any feeling one way or the other)

But, seriously, I think it's time to "throw in the towel" and not devote any more CM resources to replying and monitoring this thread.

Bottom line no one was harmed. Money wasn't confiscated, no one refused to pay - OP chose to play back his winnings.

Enough already.

Diane

 

[bb28]

Fundamental and structural changes are are needed, in order to convince me (and those like me) that online casinos offer a safe and enjoyable gaming experience like brick-and-mortar ones. Again, let's do some comparisons, etc.

1. If you want to gain entry into a land-based casino, you go in and register (if not already a member) at reception, show some ID, then get to deposit and play. It's not, go in, play, win, try to withdraw (cash in chips), get asked for ID. By doing things this way, land-based casinos prevent minors from playing, they know who their customers are, etc. Any right-minded person would tell you that this is the approach online casinos need to employ. Why is this not the case?

NO land based casino that I've been to in the US ever asked you to register. The only time you get asked for id is a hand pay or I suppose you would if you looked underage.

2. When you play at a land-based casino (or a cruise ship for that matter), when you win, you know you'll be able to cash out your winnings. I'm sorry to say this, there is no such confidence with online casinos.

The above isn't true either, in the us you must have ID, then you get paid.

3. Requesting for docs can be a problem if what the OP says is true, in that iNet asked for non-ordinary docs, e.g.,They asked for MORE and FURTHER UNUSUAL things like proof of how I funded my Moneybookers account.... What is the standard here? Proof and ID and proof of address? More?

4. Set a time limit. If there's an issue, guarantee that it'll be solved in, say, 3 days or so. Have SLAs!


The way I see it, there are not in-company standards. There are no industry standards. How would I do it? I would start with an industry framework. Based on that framework, I will effect my own casino's operating model. I will tailor it to suit my needs and that my my customers (e.g. solving issues within a set timeframe and keeping clients aware of what was happening). I will not, e.g., say things like "I promise to look into it...", then not give any update for 5 days.

No one gives ID upon entering a casino here in the US, well except for a gambling ship. See bolded above.

 

[bb28]

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/inetbet-nightmare.46579/ As you can see it got a whole lot more murky and doubtful on page 18.


Bryan, if they are asking for proof of how the OP funded their MB account then that is above and beyond normal. Why would they ask for that? Did they detect fraud again? The OP wasn't using a bonus, his ID and bill must have been ok. There was not an advantage that the player was using then to get over on the casino.... why did they want more? The answer MUST be that they were actively seeking a reason not to pay. Regardless if that reason was that they thought "maybe fraud" or not. If the docs match the signup info and there is no bonus involved then they are grasping at straws to find something... ANYTHING that they can think of not to pay. All of the multi accounting and stuff that you mentioned would be irrelevant in this case. The OP wasnt using an advantage. they apparently just gambled. What could the casino be protecting themselves against? A gambler whose docs are correct? I'm not buying it.

Holy cows! The reason they asked for the additional info is because OP registered with the wrong country. He had moved. Seems that fact keeps getting lost here.

DANG. That would be sweet though (for players).

See above.

 

[macster]

So you are new to online casinos...and I just jumped off of a boat from China. For a newbie poster, you sure seem to know quite a lot about online gaming and the machinations and personalities of this forum.

Casinomeister, I am sure you can access my details. You will then be able to to confirm that I am genuinely new.

I have been doing a lot of reading and perusing on here. And I have seen the nature of posts by members, so I do know an inflammatory post from an informational one. Unfortunately, I am not one to back down from a debate, especially when I know I am right. You talk about "inflammatory". I am sure you will see that there were many both before and after my posts (even recent ones!). So I must ask - why did you single mine out?

Know a lot? This is nothing! Try having to understand a new client, a multi-national company (that you're not familiar with) and its issues, provide findings and recommendations for improvement, schedules to effect these improvements, etc. in a 2 week engagement. You then have to handle executives who have been with the organisation for many years, but failed to see things from a different angle. You need their buy-in though. The best salespeople are not those who "build relationships". They are those that challenge their clients with new ways to improve top/bottom lines, etc. Such people ended up being liked more by the client and thus, end up building better relationships.

This is what I do for a living, so I'm sorry if I rapidly learned about the gaming industry because I wanted to play at an online casino and not look like a fool.

Sincerely,
Macster

 

[macster]

No one gives ID upon entering a casino here in the US, well except for a gambling ship. See bolded above.

Things work differently in the UK. Since US players are banned from playing online, it makes sense to follow how things are done in Europe, especially when the main online casino gripe is about "fraud", such as multiple accounts, multiple bonuses, underage players, etc.

If you do not agree that these suggestions can reduce instances of such "fraud", then you are obviously just being stubborn as any right-minded person (with no leanings, prejudices or interests) will concur to this!


P.S. Casinomeister, check out BB28's previous post. How is that not inflammatory?