Bogus Complaint Intercasino does not pay me

Tobster

Banned User - Violation of rules 1.10, 1.11
PABnoaccred
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Location
Germany
The thing with Wayback is that it is flaky. That's my own statement by the way, the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it.

As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

So, Wayback. As long as Wayback has been around it has been a great resource but it has never been advertised nor promised as a full, formal and reliable copy of the pages it archives. Graphics are missing, links not preserved, pages not spidered correctly, etc.

The bottom line with Wayback is that if you can find the thing you are looking for and it's there before your eyes then yeah, there's a good chance it's worthwhile evidence. But if what you are looking for is not there, as in it is missing or broken or somesuch, then Wayback isn't particularly useful BECAUSE of it's well known history of problems. Are you looking at the full and complete page as it was on the date specified or is it a partial fubar'd copy? No way of telling and there are no guarantees made.

Years ago I contacted Wayback to ask about a page I thought was f'd up. They thought it was a joke that I had the brass to complain about it. "It's a free service," they told me, "what you see is what you get" and made no apologies for it.

So no, Wayback is not a particularly reliable resource. Interesting and often enlightening but NOT to be taken as iron-clad 100% proof of anything.


I understand what you mean. I agree that the waybackmachine is no 100% proof since it could be broken or the site not working correctly maybe, however we both agree i guess that it is way more likely that its not broken, works like its supposed to and the terms actually havent been there in june and july like shown in the waybackmachine like im said since the beginning, right? And im talking about significantly more likely, hard to put it in numbers, but like 99% the machine actually works fine and 1% the website doesnt funtion right etc, sth like that. I saw it with my own eyes when i signed up, those terms just werent there, i know my personal opinion doesnt matter, but i hope u can understand why im so persistent about this.

On another hand i never confirmed that i used vpn. When they asked me what internet service provider and type of connection i use, this is what i answered:

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


After i sent that email saying i might have used vpn, their answer was directly your account has been terminated, you violated the terms and conditions. They took it as a fact right away that i used vpn, even tho i never said i actually did! Yes it is more likely that i used vpn, but theres still a decent chance i didnt, since it happened many times before that i forgot to turn on the vpn before opening the browser.

Immediately terminating my account based on the fact I may have used a VPN, seems, at best, a ridiculously harsh line to take. would the casino have taken this line if I had lost? or I had a small amount in my account? it seems to me the casino took this line because my account was a significant (to me) amount and this was enforced purely to benefit/profit the casino. they asked me for all kindsof IDs, upto notarised documents, which I took the time to go and get AND PAY FOR, before this decision was taken. I truly, wholeheartedly appreciate the effort the guys at CM have taken into looking into this for me, please don't think I am ungrateful. I quote Max: "the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it." - it really strikes me that a casino with such an apparently good reputation can take such a stern line over what was an honest answer to what I felt was an innocent question. if I was devious, or a "poor fraudster" I would obviously have known to say "no I did not use a VPN". I did not. I answered honestly and said I wasn't sure.

and now I think about it: why did they ask me this particular question about the VPN AFTER asking me to get (and receive and review) my notarised documents? Surely a request for notarised documentation should be the final request, considering the customer has to take time, effort and money to acquire this. I feel like they were just setting me up at every turn so they could find ANY reason to terminate my account and default my winnings.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The thing with Wayback is that it is flaky. That's my own statement by the way, the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it.

As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

So, Wayback. As long as Wayback has been around it has been a great resource but it has never been advertised nor promised as a full, formal and reliable copy of the pages it archives. Graphics are missing, links not preserved, pages not spidered correctly, etc.

The bottom line with Wayback is that if you can find the thing you are looking for and it's there before your eyes then yeah, there's a good chance it's worthwhile evidence. But if what you are looking for is not there, as in it is missing or broken or somesuch, then Wayback isn't particularly useful BECAUSE of it's well known history of problems. Are you looking at the full and complete page as it was on the date specified or is it a partial fubar'd copy? No way of telling and there are no guarantees made.

Years ago I contacted Wayback to ask about a page I thought was f'd up. They thought it was a joke that I had the brass to complain about it. "It's a free service," they told me, "what you see is what you get" and made no apologies for it.

So no, Wayback is not a particularly reliable resource. Interesting and often enlightening but NOT to be taken as iron-clad 100% proof of anything.

They must also have been absolutely certain that they were in the right, else it would have been a big risk on their part to bluff and think the OP or yourself would fold, rather than contact the LGA for the formal date stamped copy.

The OP could always do this, and prove either way whether the wayback machine got it wrong, or whether the casino bluffed it's way through a lie. Casinos know full well the consequences of lying to Max or Bryan, and getting caught, so this is why I believe they must have been 100% certain to have simply dismissed the evidence from the wayback out of hand.
 

patricius

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Location
Portugal
Timing is all and bellow Tobster sentence resume it well:

"and now I think about it: why did they ask me this particular question about the VPN AFTER asking me to get (and receive and review) my notarised documents? Surely a request for notarised documentation should be the final request, considering the customer has to take time, effort and money to acquire this. I feel like they were just setting me up at every turn so they could find ANY reason to terminate my account and default my winnings. "

Even the classification of the complaint as "bogus" disturbs me regarding the word meaning:

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



A non-accepted complaint or not ending in favor of the OP should be called other thing: reserved, unnacepted, lost, closed, etc.


And if presented solely the fact of the LGA ( or any away/distant jurisdiction regulator ) is any kind of "assurance" for me is not enough ( just google players complaint and malta government enquiries to LGA itself to take your conclusions ). In gambling ( and in particular online gambling ) there are no sacred cows.

So as a gambler ( online and B & M ) this case was a valuable lesson.

Thanks to all.
 

petro

Dormant account, per user request
PABaccred
PABnoaccred2
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Location
Narnia
I saw it with my own eyes when i signed up, those terms just werent there, i know my personal opinion doesnt matter.
I wouldn't classify that as "personal opinion." I would define an opinion as something that is without evidence. (Seems to be the best definition.)

If you saw it with your own eyes that is evidence. But it's only evidence for you.
Your word as well counts for something; it's evidence.

Have a look at this thread here: Link Outdated / Removed
Unless I'm hallucinating the spins on Red Hot Devil did.

It would be good if someone else could confirm what I'm saying.

Usually our senses are pretty reliable evidence but they are not infallible.
I'm not saying you didn't see what you saw. I'm only pointing out the possibility that you could be mis-remembering like I did in that thread.

They must also have been absolutely certain that they were in the right, else it would have been a big risk on their part to bluff
I was going to mention this as well except I would have left out the "absolutely certain" part as I'm pretty sure that's not possible. ;)
 

Tobster

Banned User - Violation of rules 1.10, 1.11
PABnoaccred
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Location
Germany
Dear Max/Casinomeister

I am respectfully asking that you remove "Bogus Complaint" from the title of this thread. I don't feel there's anything bogus about it and that I have a geniune complaint:

I complied with all of Intercasinos requests which were quite long, including a request for notarised documents which I paid for. Only after they reviewed and accepted these documents did they ask this question about whether I was using a VPN, which I answered honestly and said I didn't know. Why are they asking for notarisation and pictures of ID and everything if their plan was to ask this question and void my account anyway? As soon as I sent this answer my account was immediately closed and balance witheld. That seems a little heavy handed for an "I don't know", doesn't it? Especially since all of my info had already been reviewed and accepted.

Is this really a bogus complaint, or fair? They asked for everything short of my DNA, and when I answered one question honestly without either an affirmative or negative statement they jumped on it. They just refused to talk to me about it and all and basically gave me the middle finger, all over an answering a question with an I don't know? Looking back now, it really looks to me look they were just hoping to catch me on anything.

Im just really amazed I have been dealt with so harshly, but I guess it's because I got "lucky" and won so much. I am really trying to be respectful but I am quite upset and angry and just looking for help
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
My vote is that your request be declined.

I don't believe you used a VPN accidentally, I don't believe that the Terms were fubar'd when you signed on, I don't respect the way you gave selective information from Wayback, and I don't give much credence to your complaints about the documents. I am responsible for the "Bogus Complaint" prefix on your thread, I believe it is appropriate and I believe it should stand.

My suggestion would be for you to use "Report Post" on your request and leave it to Bryan to make the final call.
 

Tobster

Banned User - Violation of rules 1.10, 1.11
PABnoaccred
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Location
Germany
My vote is that your request be declined.

I don't believe you used a VPN accidentally, I don't believe that the Terms were fubar'd when you signed on, I don't respect the way you gave selective information from Wayback, and I don't give much credence to your complaints about the documents. I am responsible for the "Bogus Complaint" prefix on your thread, I believe it is appropriate and I believe it should stand.

My suggestion would be for you to use "Report Post" on your request and leave it to Bryan to make the final call.

Max, I am disappointed you don't believe anything. How did I give select info on wayback? I just gave all the information I could find on wayback around the timeframe i signed up, i thought those were valid, i would never have imagined that someone would call this proof non valid because the site might be broken. I HONESTLY don't even know if I used a VPN and i never said anything about accidently, i often use vpn intentionally while in the internet, because my friend, who is a programmer, advised me to do so to protect myself while online. I dont know anything about this stuff, but if he says that it must be true. I don't know what I can do to prove my case about this. I am also unsure what is actually being implied here. if I was lying, I would've said I wasn't using one, surely? You don't give much credence about complaints about documents? I'm not sure I fully understand (I'm german my English isn't 100%) but you're saying it doesn't matter they asked for notarised stuff that I went out and paid for, accepted them, then asked more questions?

I want to do anything to prove myself, i could even travel to intercasinos headoffice and meet with the manager, so he can see me in person if that helps.
 

stokes

Experienced Greenhorn
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Location
Springfield
My first thought after reading the thread was that thank God I don't play at Intercasino.

I have made the same mistake (I believe) several times since I have been playing online. I work from home 2 times a week and use company VPN which has IP address from other country. Sometimes during my breaks or after my work I played without logging out from VPN.

I have never had issue about it. No notarized document was ever requested and I was paid 2-4000 USD a couple of times without hassle.

Of course my casino has term against VPN usage, but I think they would only use it against any player if they had any credibility problem with the player's ID. This should not be a question here after providing notarized documents.
 

bigjohn

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Location
Northeast Coastal USA
My first thought after reading the thread was that thank God I don't play at Intercasino.

I have made the same mistake (I believe) several times since I have been playing online. I work from home 2 times a week and use company VPN which has IP address from other country. Sometimes during my breaks or after my work I played without logging out from VPN.

I have never had issue about it. No notarized document was ever requested and I was paid 2-4000 USD a couple of times without hassle.

Of course my casino has term against VPN usage, but I think they would only use it against any player if they had any credibility problem with the player's ID. This should not be a question here after providing notarized documents.

Notarized documents don't show where the playing took place. That is the point of not using any VPN service (I'm not saying the OP did) when playing on-line.

The question of what particular instances to apply the T&C's is a moot point, players should always assume that the casino will interpret their terms to the letter as they are justified in doing.

I don't know what happened in this case but the CM PAB decision has been rendered and I really don't think Intercasino has any need to hold back player winnings for no reason as the OP has suggested.
 

chayton

aka LooHoo
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Location
Edmonton Canada
As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

Actually that's an interesting tidbit of information. Personally I quite like the fact that a casino licensee can't just change the terms and fudge about WHEN they changed them. I wonder if other licensing jurisdictions have the same type of term and keep those records? If so that would settle a lot of the complaints where a player said "That term wasn't there when I played."

@ the OP, The term was obviously there before the time you played and again after. If you sincerely think you're in the right, why don't you contact the LGA? It's possible that there was a glitch when whoever uploaded that file and maybe the LGA record will prove you right.

Of course if the LGA record proves the term was there the whole time, then you'll have to suck it up and move on. But either way, you'll get your answer. There's nothing to be gained by complaining about it here, Max has done all he can, and your next step should be the LGA.
 

dusky

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Location
England
While I don't have a problem with Intercasino myself I would be absolutely furious if a casino made me pay to get notorised documentation if they had absolutely no intention of paying me.

Have they returned the players deposit?
 

Tobster

Banned User - Violation of rules 1.10, 1.11
PABnoaccred
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Location
Germany
@ the OP, The term was obviously there before the time you played and again after. If you sincerely think you're in the right, why don't you contact the LGA? It's possible that there was a glitch when whoever uploaded that file and maybe the LGA record will prove you right.

Of course if the LGA record proves the term was there the whole time, then you'll have to suck it up and move on. But either way, you'll get your answer. There's nothing to be gained by complaining about it here, Max has done all he can, and your next step should be the LGA.

From a not so distant past:

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

This pokerfuse thread is one of the reasons why i didnt go to the LGA yet. Intercasino would never shut me down completly repeating multiple times to complain at the LGA if they hadnt made sure all records the LGA got match what they re saying. Honestly, i dont trust the LGA, they have proven many times in the past that they arent what they pretend to be. But yea of course i ll try my luck, even tho i consider my chances really low.

I stand with my point,i know the term that forbids vpn wasnt there when i signed up and i never even admitted that i used vpn, still get denied payout.
 

Tobster

Banned User - Violation of rules 1.10, 1.11
PABnoaccred
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Location
Germany
While I don't have a problem with Intercasino myself I would be absolutely furious if a casino made me pay to get notorised documentation if they had absolutely no intention of paying me.

Have they returned the players deposit?


The casino is willing to return my deposit, but didnt pay for the notarization. Still working on this case, trying to find evidence at the moment by talking to computergeeks. Im surprised how hard it seems to retrieve information in the internet of the past. There must be people recording everything that happens all over the internet.

I noticed another thing btw while going through all intercasinomails, i recieved an depositconfirmation email exactly 1 month after my initial deposit, even tho i never deposited again. I answered and asked why i recieved that email, they apologized and said it was a mistake.
I know that by this date one month later the terms and conditions already changed, so is there a chance that they have a mistake in their system about the actual date of deposit? Like i deposited on the 26th of july where no anti vpn term existed, but the system may show 26th august when things changed already. This depositconfirmationmail 1 month after kinda makes me wonder. This never happened to me before
 

Pansafos

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Location
Iberia
The casino is willing to return my deposit, but didnt pay for the notarization. Still working on this case, trying to find evidence at the moment by talking to computergeeks. Im surprised how hard it seems to retrieve information in the internet of the past. There must be people recording everything that happens all over the internet.

I noticed another thing btw while going through all intercasinomails, i recieved an depositconfirmation email exactly 1 month after my initial deposit, even tho i never deposited again. I answered and asked why i recieved that email, they apologized and said it was a mistake.
I know that by this date one month later the terms and conditions already changed, so is there a chance that they have a mistake in their system about the actual date of deposit? Like i deposited on the 26th of july where no anti vpn term existed, but the system may show 26th august when things changed already. This depositconfirmationmail 1 month after kinda makes me wonder. This never happened to me before

What you need to do is complain to the LGA with the evidence that you have, which is the anti-VPN term being missing in the wayback machine during those dates. The Casino is MEANT to submit their Ts and Cs to the LGA, and the LGA is MEANT to also keep track of the website as well.

Needless to say, the casino submitting their Ts and Cs to the LGA is a manual process, and as such errors/omissions can and do occur, I don't want to write more than that in a public forum.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
... I don't want to write more than that in a public forum.

Why not? Seems that would be good info for people to know.

In any case you can always contact us offline, I'm at
attachment.php
 

Tobster

Banned User - Violation of rules 1.10, 1.11
PABnoaccred
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Location
Germany
I just found another very recent case in a reputable gamblingforum, where intercasino denies a player a payout of 4411 euros saying he breached the terms, but refuse to mention which term or give more infos, they just keep saying go complain to the LGA. The other forum put intercasino on the blacklist or hall of shame like they call it, since they refused to cooperate or mention any reasons for the no pay decision. Now im not saying intercasinos no pay decision is wrong, maybe the player really did do breach the terms and conditions, what im pointing at is the terrible way they treat their costumers, shutting them down hoping for them to keep quiet and walk away silently.
Till this day i dont know if i used vpn or not, never confirmed i did and i myself know for a fact the term that forbids vpn didnt even exist when i signed up, i hope ppl can understand my frustration, it feels like a big punch in the face. However i will keep updating this situation and do all i can to prove im right.
I thought im likely not allowed to post names of forums or links, since its kinda competition of cm i guess, which i respect and understand. If im wrong and actually allowed to post those pls let me know or pm me for more info. thanks
 

jshort

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Location
Canada
I just found another very recent case in a reputable gamblingforum, where intercasino denies a player a payout of 4411 euros saying he breached the terms, but refuse to mention which term or give more infos, they just keep saying go complain to the LGA. The other forum put intercasino on the blacklist or hall of shame like they call it, since they refused to cooperate or mention any reasons for the no pay decision. Now im not saying intercasinos no pay decision is wrong, maybe the player really did do breach the terms and conditions, what im pointing at is the terrible way they treat their costumers, shutting them down hoping for them to keep quiet and walk away silently.
Till this day i dont know if i used vpn or not, never confirmed i did and i myself know for a fact the term that forbids vpn didnt even exist when i signed up, i hope ppl can understand my frustration, it feels like a big punch in the face. However i will keep updating this situation and do all i can to prove im right.
I thought im likely not allowed to post names of forums or links, since its kinda competition of cm i guess, which i respect and understand. If im wrong and actually allowed to post those pls let me know or pm me for more info. thanks

I'm familiar with that case too.

It was a player who had signed up to Intercasino through GamblingCity. Because of that affiliate sites unique offers to players who sign up to casinos through their site, its much easier for a player to gamble with an edge on almost any casino (even without accepting bonuses or breaking T&Cs). It's my belief that some casinos promoted on that site might be a tad more likely to give a player the "FU" if they've signed up through GamblingCity.
 

Tobster

Banned User - Violation of rules 1.10, 1.11
PABnoaccred
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Location
Germany
I'm familiar with that case too.

It was a player who had signed up to Intercasino through GamblingCity. Because of that affiliate sites unique offers to players who sign up to casinos through their site, its much easier for a player to gamble with an edge on almost any casino (even without accepting bonuses or breaking T&Cs). It's my belief that some casinos promoted on that site might be a tad more likely to give a player the "FU" if they've signed up through GamblingCity.

wow thats insane if true. They granted him the bonus in the first place and when he actually won something they denied payout? Like if gamblingcity offers a special bonus and players are able to get that bonus on intercasino, that means the casino agreed with gamblingcity on this right, otherwise this wouldnt be possible? like the sites have to be working together.
 
Top