Whine and Moan InterCasino Incident - What is your opinion? (warning: REALLY long)

[silverfox38]

from reading this very long post one thing

Isnt it blatantly obvious chaps if the poster had played max coins that hand
he would not have got pat quads?

The poster played huge amounts of hands at full coins and then played one hand at 5 cents via default and up came pat quads!!!!!!

In this huge thread no-one mentions it, all the hands you guys play has no-one noticed this before?

Try noticing where these casino businesses are registered and see in Law what remedies you have against them, why do you think they are in obscure offshore places. They take your money but just try and recover it by legal means and see how far you get... You have no recourse!!!

 

[Scooter7]

from reading this very long post one thing

Isnt it blatantly obvious chaps if the poster had played max coins that hand
he would not have got pat quads?

The poster played huge amounts of hands at full coins and then played one hand at 5 cents via default and up came pat quads!!!!!!

In this huge thread no-one mentions it, all the hands you guys play has no-one noticed this before?

Try noticing where these casino businesses are registered and see in Law what remedies you have against them, why do you think they are in obscure offshore places. They take your money but just try and recover it by legal means and see how far you get... You have no recourse!!!

What I believe to be blatantly obvious is that you've just registered and made your first ever post by calling up an older thread and accusing the casino of cheating.

Can you please provide some supporting documentation for your claim?

InterCasino and Cryptologic (their software provider) are not perfect, but they do have one of the best reputations in the business for trust/fairness of games.

 

[JHV]

InterCasino and Cryptologic (their software provider) are not perfect, but they do have one of the best reputations in the business for trust/fairness of games.

Was a large part of the reason why I was playing there. I'm too weary to attempt to convince anyone who isn't already acknowledging that InterCasino were simply in the wrong here, but I think perhaps some people assume I was exaggerating about the wagering completed from Spin 1 to Spin 15,000 or whatever - EVERY SINGLE SPIN at max coin.

Then the software crashed (routine and commonplace at InterCasino for me), when I returned down the track, for the first time the coins had reverted to Min 5c (100x less than my previous 15,000 or w/e spins - ALL MADE AT MAX COIN with $6,000,000 wagering in total).

I mean, seriously? I have a fairly acute and innate ability to assess what is 'right' or 'fair' or, if you don't want to hold online casinos to ethical standards, what is in their 'best interest' - and how anyone cannot see that they were wrong on all 3 counts stuns me and makes me wonder if I fail at communicating or something...

Perhaps I didn't explain adequately how InterCasino have TWO policies for coin size when you lose connection. If you're in the middle of a spin, when you reload and log back in, you're automatically placed on your previous coin value. However, if you're in between spins and lose connection, you're automatically placed at MIN coin value. I lost connection many times over the previous few days, and I guess each time I was mid-spin. The first time I was in between spins and lost connection...was insanely coincidentally a $25,000 pat Quads hit when software defaulted to Min Coin for first time that I had ever seen.

I genuinely believe that all of this is incredibly moot, however. 15,000 spins from 1 - 15,000 at MAX. A single (1) accidental spin at min after a software d/c. Come on, these numbers speak a simple language. I got screwed.

Upon reflection, I also got screwed by the language used in the (coincidentally delayed?) investigation whilst I continued to play, safe in the knowledge that there was 0% chance InterCasino would attempt to profit unfairly from this insane single accidental spin at 5c - with so many mitigating factors in play.

The language she used in her response (fully aware that I was continuing to play) was such that she implied fully that she was waiting for confirmation of my entire wagering logs to check my claim that I had made 15,000 or so spins at MAX, then a single accidental spin at MIN - this fully implies that, upon confirmation that I was not talking out of my ass, that they would send me my rightful winnings. Otherwise, waiting for the wagering logs is completely redundant.

If, upon receipt of the wagering logs (which took 2-3 days apparently - lol), the logs show that I was 100% correct and not lying (as they clearly did), she ruled against me and paid the spin at MIN - what, in god's name, was the point in waiting for the logs? The entire waiting process for those logs (which had zero bearing on her decision) was completely and utterly redundant and pointless - except that she was well aware I was continuing to wager $1250/spin at MAX coin during all that time, and losing 6 figures, whilst she waited for these logs which had zero bearing on her decision.

If anyone cannot see that there is tomfoolery and skulduggery afloat here, I fail at communication or you fail at logic - in my opinion, it's that simple.

She says she's waiting for the REDUNDANT and 100% UNNECESSARY FOR HER DECISION wagering logs THREE times in her email - hilarious!

Originally Posted by Assistant's Response Email
Dear J,

Account Number: *snip*

I hope this email finds you well.

Your account was passed to me in order to investigate your queries further.

I have raised my questions to back office and am expecting answers within the next 24 hours in order to assist my to resolve this issue.

Just to cover some of your points below:

1) I am waiting for a copy of your game logs in order to see the pattern of your wagering.

2) I am happy to advise that we do in fact have some VIP slot games which you could try, they are more than 5 lines but you may enjoy the betting limits that bit more.

3) I will await your game logs but will make a note and follow up on your suggestion for 4 colour decks and Auto hold.

4) Out system does have an automatic reset by default when a new session starts, every time a game is launched it defaults to the set default limit for that game.

5) Again I will await you game logs

6) I appreciate your points but can only once again assure you that we do have a default on bets and this would need to be changed as required at the start of every session. I am also awaiting on a server update to determine if there were any issues.

I hope my points are not to brief and frank for you and rest assured that I will be investigating this and will get back to you as soon as I have my findings.

Kind regards

Sharon

Assistant to Ryan
Head of Customer Satisfaction
Intercasino

--------

The software and server connection was buggy and jitterish often. And I'm certain it was not at my end, because of the dozen or so times I was disconnected from their server - my overall internet connection (with dozens of programs connected) remained 100% online. Looks to me like the Missing Link Variable there is fairly easy to spot.

Here are some random example screenshots of the buggy software and server disconnections:

Below: Example of game just freezing up completely (this happened multiple times). Note the green DRAW button is depressed but nothing is happening. Every time, I would have to kill the client and reload and login - and, of course, the coin was always at MAX so I got in the habit of knowing I didn't need to raise the coin value to my desired size.

Expired Image

Below: Fairly common occurrence. Each time this happened until the single fateful hand, I must have been mid-spin as I never remember EVER having to raise up the coins with 10 mouse clicks from 5c to $5. I think that's something I'd remember having to do, it would be an annoying process and as such, memorable.

Expired Image

Below: Another kind of common (but different) server connection problem. Again, I must have been mid-spin every time (note: it's VASTLY more likely that one would be in mid-spin than in the fraction of a second between spins).

Expired Image

----

But you know, whatever. lol....if a few players read this and realise InterCasino stiffed me good and don't deserve their reputation and take their gambling elsewhere as a result, I will have considered my efforts here to not have been in vain....

Ryan Hartley - if you see this, you KNOW in your heart and your brain that what happened to me was not cool. The incident itself was harmless, yet the stalling for days whilst I played (and lost) huge volume for reports that apparently had zero bearing on the decision...that's NOT cool and you know it.

The patronising tone and downright deceitful response (days after the incident, and after the meaningless logs were eventually found and analysed and dismissed as they never were needed for the final decision) was rude and unethical and NOT cool. And you know this also.

You should not have it as casino policy to lie (even little lies) to your players. She did not have to "pull strings" to get me into a VIP program with my 6 million wagering in a few days. That's a lie and we both it. And we both know it's NOT cool.

You should not have it as casino policy to intentionally and maliciously imply that an investigation in wagering logs is underway over multiple days when that wagering info can probably be pulled and assessed in minutes. And you should not have it as casino policy to stall an investigation based on arrival of logs which have no bearing on the decision. That's not cool, not cool at all.

I have not lied, deceived or twisted the truth at any point during this process - and if I was incorrect on something, feel free to point out such an error. Let's hope it's more relevant than the logs, which took days to arrive as I wagered on naive to the upcoming screwing, and which proved my wagering was exactly what I said it was - yet which had zero bearing on the decision. Let's hope for something that is real, and not shrouded in (extremely convenient) deceit and redundancy.

Fin.

 

[Mouche12]

I believe I said this somewhere earlier, I fully agree with basically everything you say. Why have you not sought the advice of a lawyer?

 

[JHV]

I believe I said this somewhere earlier, I fully agree with basically everything you say. Why have you not sought the advice of a lawyer?

It's not really that easy (InterCasino is licensed in Malta). In actuality, my legal case for the actual $25,000 is not incredibly strong. I would need a very sympathetic judge and, depending on the factors he takes into account when handing down his decision, could actually be a 'legally' poor decision if he ruled in my favour.

The law is not, and should not be, about pure fairness. Legally, InterCasino did nothing wrong. That's not what I'm arguing. I arguing they were extremely unethical and immoral (or, if you don't hold online casinos to those high standards, then I argue they acted very stupidly and not in their own self-interest).

However, this is not entirely true upon reflection. Perhaps they acted not only in their own self-interest, but even brilliantly so. And THIS is where I could have a very strong legal case (at least in Australia or the UK).

I tried to withdraw about $105,000 some time before the crazy event of that server disconnect and single spin when software automatically, and not in parity with previous coin sizing upon reloading, defaulted to 100 times less than my normal coin size after an insanely huge sample of 100% max coin betting. They wouldn't let me withdraw the $105,000 at once as I wished to do. They only let me withdraw $10,000. I was actually quite angry about this, and the InterCasino support phone records will show my anger when I asked for the reason and was (of course) not given one.

Now, at the time I didn't realise it, but obviously I had a gambling problem. This limiting withdrawals nonsense is evil - it's brilliant business, I'll give them that, but it's unethical and it's evil. It would not be allowed in Australia and I'm sure would not be allowed in the UK. In fact, I believe there are specific laws stating the casinos cannot take wagers for which they cannot immediately pay out on should they lose. I believe a casino in Australia got into a lot of trouble for pushing a high roller to accept a portion of his cashout in chips, which he of course lost on his way to the exit door.

So InterCasino brilliantly forced the money to stay in my account, and to add a little spice into the soup, they made me furious about the 10k max withdrawal issue. I thought I was smarter and more in control and not the type to fall victim to such an obvious, crafty play - but well, we all know how that usually ends for someone with a gambling problem. There are no reasons to limit max withdrawals, except for obvious brilliant (but arguably evil) business strategical reasons. So there is that aspect that might hold some weight in a court (probably not a Maltese court where Malta relies heavily on the tax revenue generated by the online gaming industry there).

Were I to fight this in court, I could theoretically have an argument to get $100,000 back based on the support emails where a decent barrister would easily tear the poor girl apart on the witness stand (I have no idea if that's how these things even go - I've been to court once as a spectator watching a friend argue a frivolous parking ticket "on principle" and most of the courtroom was just laughing the entire time as my friend rambled on about liberty and god-knows-what until the [quietly amused] judge had to cut him off and ordered him to pay the fine plus extra fees - my friend, stared down the judge with mock horror and said: "This is an outrage. You have dealt a vicious blow to justice today, a blow from which she may never recover. I shall never come here again. Good day!" and stormed out haughtily to some more giggling and laughter.

The long stalling whilst supposedly waiting for wagering logs which did not impact in any, way, shape or form on the final decision to not pay my winnings...in an Australian court, I'm certain the judgement would not only be in my favour, but I could probably successfully sue for subsequent losses sustained whilst gambling if I could prove those losses were linked to the actions of InterCasino. An Australian judge ruled that Crown Casino (Australia's largest land-based casino) had a prima facie case to answer over Harry Kakavas' allegations that casino management enticed him to play even though they knew he had a gambling problem. Kakavas was suing for $30 million. I honestly cannot find the actual final verdict online (unbelievably - can anyone better at Googling find it pls?), but I think he lost as his case in the end. Kakavas was pretty unpopular in Australia and there was a lot of outrage at what was perceived to be an attempt for a man who gambled to lost to "cheat the system" and claim vicimisation.

To be honest, I'll honestly admit I felt the same way. I was all about personal responsibility and self-discipline and he had gambling debts in Vegas and I just got the feeling he was desperate and taking advantage of Australia's strict Control Act. I'm actually really interested in reading the judgement now, as I have a lot more empathy for him now than the Australian public and I had for him at the time.

There were some things that smelt fishy about his behaviour (from memory). I mean, whilst I have zero doubt that Crown VIP staff did everything in their power short of kidnapping him to entice him back to Crown from Vegas (jets, 20% cashback offers, VIP tickets to stuff, the usual crap), I believe his claim rested on the premise that he had an uncontrollable gambling addiction and they exploited it. Yet he carried a concealed recording device to record Crown Casino managers enticing him back - didn't sound like a man suffering from a gambling addiction to me at the time. It smelt like a bit of scam really to me, too rational. Now, I'm not so sure. I mean, the man bankrupted himself and lost tens of millions in casinos all over the world - that's pretty obvious evidence that he had the worst kind of gambling problem (uncontrollable addiction).

Anyway, for a judge to rule that Crown had a prima facie case to answer was pretty huge. I think Crown might have dodged a bullet with that one - it was a very complex case (as these cases tend to be), with lots of allegations, counter-allegations, denials and so on. From my experience with listening to Jupiters VIP 'enticement' staff laugh about what they'd be prepared to do to "snag a whale", and from some level of understanding of how this whole shebang works, I do not doubt Crown VIP really went out of their way to take advantage of him.

It's a complex issue, the whole where to draw the line on "personal responsibility" vs "taking advantage of someone with an addiction". For most of my life, even having seen the power of addiction firsthand, I was (for the most part) in the accept the consequences of your own mistakes camp. But if a casino can be proved to be really being unethical (as InterCasino behaved in this case), they should probably be sued or punished - and if I were to do it, maybe I pledge any compensation to charity to show that it was not about personal gain (and also because I believe I should be punished, even though clearly I was not thinking rationally at the time and possibly not even in control of my actions).

I wouldn't even know how to begin the process if I felt like doing it. I wouldn't bother if the case had to be heard in a Maltese court - but I have no idea if you can have it heard in a UK court? (I'm wondering if UK possible due to Malta being White Listed, although it seems like a tenuous link)

One thing I found interesting was the below:

"Lawyers for Harry Kakavas claimed that he was told by casino chiefs that Mr Packer would "kill us'' if he found out about incentives being gifted to the..."

Ah, that sounds familiar. That poor VIP girl who didn't want to give me my winnings but pulled lots of strings to get me no match deposit bonuses with wagering requirements after I'd wagered 6 mil turnover in a week - what a nice lady, that she would go to such effort for me!

-------------

To be honest, I'm really just happy if a few more people realise InterCasino company policy is to behave in such an unethical manner. And don't play there as a result.

If there's a lawyer or someone that seriously thinks InterCasino can be punished for what they've done, I'll get involved and pledge all compensation to charity to both:
a) punish them as they deserve to be punished
b) perhaps make them think twice before they sell their souls to the devil for a bit more lucre.

I respect the play/s. But if I believed in a Hell, I am fairly certain the people responsible for those crafty and brilliant plays are going straight there when the curtain falls for them.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

JHV believe me you would have no legal success in the UK over the 'limited withdrawal facility' argument - ie you gambled it and lost because the casino wouldn't let you withdraw.

All these sorts of cases have been pretty well done to death in the UK courts and the casinos always win. The most recent was a guy in Newcastle who lost over 1m to William Hill. The guy self excluded himself saying he was an addictive gambler but later started using the account again and found the self exclusion was not working. He then went on to lose over 1m to them. He then sued WH but lost.

On the face of it that looks pretty harsh to the individual player. But the courts decided that it was not in the public interest as it could lead to a flood of claims. Also WH can afford the very best lawyers who would argue that the guy could just as easily have lost all that money at Ladbrokes, Coral or wherever.

I appreciate these judgements can look hard on the player. But for the rest of us it is not a bad thing. It would not be a good thing if these addicts got all their money back while the vast majority of players had no such recourse. Soon everybody would be using 'hey I'm an addict' argument.

You often hear the argument about slow or limited withdrawals but this is very easily refuted by the money laundering and anti terror laws. It may be true that casinos may hide behind these to an extent but no Judge is ever going to convict a casino for doing due dilligence even if it may be slow at times.

Lastly, for all the gamblers who suffer at bookies you do get situations where the bookies got royally screwed over. Obviously this applies to bookies rather than casinos. For example in the UK there was a mass gamble landed over a match involving Weymouth. There was some dispute of sorts and on the day of the match they had to play the youth team. Word got around in the town and by about 11 O'clock there were long queues round all the bookies. The bookies kept cutting the prices but the money kept pouring on as for about an hour or more none of the bookies infact knew about the substitute team.

Weymouth lost the match 9-0 and the combined bookie losses were well over 1m on this match alone. So it does happen the other way, particularly in horse racing. I think the courts recognise there has to be a lot of give and take in gambling or it would all seize up.

 

[JHV]

Yea a lot of this makes sense.

Except the nonsense about bookies. Cry me a river

The day I shed a tear over ANYTHING bad happening to a UK/Aust bookie working off 15% margin on w/e...well that day will never come.

 

[Mouche12]

I appreciate all that is said. However, I am not referring to the limited withdrawal issue (which is bad enough I give you that). I basically meant the amount of software errors (disconnection issues) in combination with the reversal to minimum bet size (which happens to be just the other way around compared to slots, which are being reversed to maximum bet size).

I am not a lawyer, but there is such a thing as the principle of fairness and reasonableness, that is also applied in courts. Given the details of this case, the volume of the total bets, (but not that you are or are not an addicted gambler, I agree that would not work), the email correspondence with CS and above all the game log showing this sudden one-time change to minimum bet size, I would say it is fair and reasonable for Intercasino to offer some compensation (to be determined by the court), also taking into account the the nuisance of all too frequent disconnections.

Why not give it a try?

 

[JHV]

I appreciate all that is said. However, I am not referring to the limited withdrawal issue (which is bad enough I give you that). I basically meant the amount of software errors (disconnection issues) in combination with the reversal to minimum bet size (which happens to be just the other way around compared to slots, which are being reversed to maximum bet size).

I am not a lawyer, but there is such a thing as the principle of fairness and reasonableness, that is also applied in courts. Given the details of this case, the volume of the total bets, (but not that you are or are not an addicted gambler, I agree that would not work), the email correspondence with CS and above all the game log showing this sudden one-time change to minimum bet size, I would say it is fair and reasonable for Intercasino to offer some compensation (to be determined by the court), also taking into account the the nuisance of all too frequent disconnections.

Why not give it a try?

At the risk of sounding insane and wankerish (but it's more laziness and the fact that I don't think judges should rule on *that* aspect of the issue), it's not really worth my time for the 25k - I would do it if I thought I could bring more public exposure to InterCasino for being unethical in lying to me about waiting for logs which had no impact on the decision (I'll admit that's really sick, and someone will go to a hypothetical Hell for that).

However, please understand that their policy (whilst incredibly confusing and could probably be made better or streamlined to be consistent in some way) - is not a bug. They just have two different policies (and there is almost some logic to having two policies regarding coin size defaults when you d/c).

If in middle of hand, the software replays the hand and your coin size is never altered for future hands.

If NOT in middle of hand, the software defaults to min coin size. There are slight improvements I would / could make to this (hell, maybe if a player has wagered 15,000 wagers on Max Coin in a row, and he's about to press min coin 5c, maybe a popup window like Chartwell has "Are you sure you want to hit on xxx" in Blackjack. I could fix the issue so that the policies are no longer confusing but InterCasino is not paying me, therefore I'm not in the (charity) consultancy business. The point is that the two policies are very confusing, as you can imagine. If every time you login, you never have to change your coin size to the one you want - it's pretty reasonable to assume that every time you login after a server d/c, it would be the same. Only later was it explained to me by CS that they have two policies for whether you're in a hand or not.

In fact, I'm fairly certain the lady herself didn't understand there were two policies. I may have worked it out on my own down the track.

---------

And, I also have a responsibility to mention they did offer 7500 or so total (? meh) in 2 or 3 small no-deposit (but with wagering requirements - not that I would have withdrawn, I was on sick tilt and chasing my 130k back) "consolation bonuses" in the end - but I found these little token 2k droppings insulting and I told them that. They console me with scraps from the table of a feast I catered for - and they console me after having lied to and effectively tricked me into losing 6 figures after they took advantage of my misunderstanding of a very complex policy system for default bets upon returning from disconnect - to actually steal my money. People won't like that strong word, but I see it as theft.

Now, the money I lost whilst they lied to me about the days waiting for reports which she led me to very much believe (if showing that I telling truth about wagering history), that was not so much stolen as craftily tricked out of me. Maybe a similar analogy would be making a bet with a REALLY drunk friend and lying to him saying you don't know the answer when you really do and he's too drunk to function as well). It's not 'theft' - but it's close. Very, very close. W.C. Fields would disagree, but I try to operate on a more humanistic moral code and will not actively contribute to a situation where I can scam someone - and I was foolish enough to assume they would be ethical as well due to their "good reputation".

I dropped out of Masters Law about 3 weeks into the course and don't know much about law at all. I had to remind myself what the definition of "prima facie" was this morning lol. But imo law, especially financial and contract law, should be very much emotionless and on face value only. The less emotion in the judicial system, the better.

Was that $25,000 rightfully mine? 100% - and anyone who cannot see it disappoints me.

Should a court rule in my favour on it? I'm not sure. Although 6 mil turnover and 15,000 bets at Max Coin can't be argued with - where do you draw the line? Who gets to draw the line? Judges can't rule on that, I don't think - judges shouldn't, imo.

InterCasino should have just NOT stolen the money. I would think they're rich enough that they don't have to take advantage of technicalities and confusing double policies purely to rip off their players.

I won't take them to court. But I will crush them as they deserved to be crushed (verbally) for the rest of my life - and whilst I'm just one rambling writer, I get around a bit. I just hope to make their decision -EV for them...as that will help players in the future.

 

[Mouche12]

Okay then, maybe it is more in your line to look for some good journalists? Although I still think that the frequent disconnections (the root of the problems occurring thereafter) are still an issue that deserve attention, first of all by consulting a lawyer. But if you don't wish to spend any time on that, okay.

There are various gambling magazines, like Gambling.com (are they still in business, I don't receive any issues anymore), maybe you would like to contact them or perhaps there is someone in this forum who knows a couple of good journalists who would be interested in this matter?

 

[JHV]

Okay then, maybe it is more in your line to look for some good journalists? Although I still think that the frequent disconnections (the root of the problems occurring thereafter) are still an issue that deserve attention, first of all by consulting a lawyer. But if you don't wish to spend any time on that, okay.

There are various gambling magazines, like Gambling.com (are they still in business, I don't receive any issues anymore), maybe you would like to contact them or perhaps there is someone in this forum who knows a couple of good journalists who would be interested in this matter?

I appreciate that you strongly (and correctly) agree with me that it was a very messed up and sick situation handled horribly, indisputably unethical and (in your opinion, arguably criminally) by InterCasino - the simple fact is that the industry has no incentive to expose or even publicise this type of incident.

These industries make a lot of money. A magazine is a vehicle for advertising / marketing the major online casinos. If they start doing expose's on InterCasino and other major casinos, they would be bankrupt very quickly. These publications, and almost all "online casino review sites" are as about as objective as a mother holding her ugly newborn child in her arms - you simply will NEVER get objective advice or even ethical advice from those sites unless they have someone editorialising who cares about ethics and delists valuable revenue sources for unethical behaviour, as I did twice when Editor of casino.pokernews.com.

Now, the above is valid, but there are some CLEAR exceptions to this rule:

1. Casinomeister.com - obviously

2. WizardofOdds - (to a lesser extent, he's not so much "watchdog" and provides other valuable services)

------------

I am no longer protecting my former "friends" at PokerNews. When Rome / Top Game fiasco occurred, resulting in my having to chargeback those funds - I sent the CM thread plus a summary email to my friends who are responsible for the site.

I expected Rome to be delisted within hours, if not minutes - a former Editor is saying they stole $3000 from him (in the sense that it was unrecoverable and he was forced to chargeback his card).

If I was Editor (as I was until Dec 08), I would have pulled Rome off based on a random accusation of such behaviour if it looked plausible. If I'm wrong, no foul, I'd put them back up in an hour or two once everything sorted. But you HAVE to protect players in the meantime.

I pulled two Casinos in fury during my time as Editor, and I was wrong to do so on one of them (Casino777 - who you will still see listed at 4th place - there were language barriers creating confusion and I should have been more patient, they were understanding). The other casino I can't remember who it was, I saw them on CM's Rogue List and pulled them. They were never listed again.

One month (?) after I brought my "friends'" attention to how Rome treats their customers, Rome is still listed as the 2nd Most Trusted Online Casino Room (I wrote those words 2 yrs ago) - they were not meant to sit above terrible operators like Rome.

It appears, and I'm waiting on an explanation as to why their behaviour was ignored and they are still recommended as 2nd most trusted - but it appears that my friends value $ > ethics / morals.

If that's the case, and I believe it is, they can go to the InterCasino hypothetical Hell which awaits those that would lie, and have innocents suffer as a result, just to retain / increase incoming revenue.

I'm no saint by any means, but this is disgusting behaviour to me. Disgusting.

 

[Mouche12]

Point taken, but it just struck me that you mentioned in of of your last threads that Intercasino offered you two ND bonuses of 7,500. I believe you did not mention this earlier. When exactly did they offer you that? Can this not be considered as some sort of compensation? Please elaborate once more, thanks!

 

[JHV]

Point taken, but it just struck me that you mentioned in of of your last threads that Intercasino offered you two ND bonuses of 7,500. I believe you did not mention this earlier. When exactly did they offer you that? Can this not be considered as some sort of compensation? Please elaborate once more, thanks!

They gave me like 2000 after I emptied my account of 100,000 whilst the lady waiting for those darned wagering logs to show whilst I gambled

Then they gave me like a 5000 one i think AFTER I completely tear the lady apart over her insulting lie in an email telling me she'd "pulled strings and called in favours" to get me into VIP club where I get match deposit bonuses and 1% cashback. Woot.

No, I do not consider them compensation. I consider them insults and told them I would consider them insults before the placed the token bonuses in my account - which they did anyway, busted both in minutes, so they wasted my time even more

 

[Slotster!]

This is quite an incredible thread.

Excluding 'played through/wagered' winnings - how much have you actually deposited and lost at Intercasino during this relatively short space of time?

 

[JHV]

This is quite an incredible thread.

Excluding 'played through/wagered' winnings - how much have you actually deposited and lost at Intercasino during this relatively short space of time?

I have a rough idea, but I try not to think about it - for all casinos. It's in the past. Do I wish I didn't lose so much? sure. but I also wish Natalie Portman was here, I wish I could get a decent copy of The Hangover that isn't pirated crap....that's like all my wishes right now - but my point is, wishing is a nice game to play, but I suck at it. So I don't lose sleep over it.

 

[Slotster!]

I have a rough idea, but I try not to think about it - for all casinos. It's in the past. Do I wish I didn't lose so much? sure. but I also wish Natalie Portman was here, I wish I could get a decent copy of The Hangover that isn't pirated crap....that's like all my wishes right now - but my point is, wishing is a nice game to play, but I suck at it. So I don't lose sleep over it.

I'm just trying to put this into perspective.

Taking wagering/playthrough of casino funds out of the equation - If you'd deposited, and lost, say $100k - 25% 'cashback' is a no brainer; any casino manager in the right mind would take all of the nonsense out of the equation and just drop it into your account. Similarly, if you'd only dropped $10k in but got incredibly lucky wagering 6 million quid of 'casino funds' - it'd be a much tougher decision.

Essentially - does the $25k you feel aggrieved about equate to more or less than around 25% of your net deposits from your own funds.

 

[JHV]

I'm just trying to put this into perspective.

Taking wagering/playthrough of casino funds out of the equation - If you'd deposited, and lost, say $100k - 25% 'cashback' is a no brainer; any casino manager in the right mind would take all of the nonsense out of the equation and just drop it into your account. Similarly, if you'd only dropped $10k in but got incredibly lucky wagering 6 million quid of 'casino funds' - it'd be a much tougher decision.

Essentially - does the $25k you feel aggrieved about equate to more or less than around 25% of your net deposits from your own funds.

What is the question you are trying to ask me - is it the same one as the one I politely declined to answer? Because it looks a lot like the same one.

I would ask you kindly not to ask me a third time. Thanks.

 

[Slotster!]

What is the question you are trying to ask me - is it the same one as the one I politely declined to answer? Because it looks a lot like the same one.

I would ask you kindly not to ask me a third time. Thanks.

Fair enough.

That's pretty much the whole crux of the situation in terms of understanding the casino decision not to reimburse you the 25K though... Of course it's your prerogative not to share that information; consequentially the third party observer will be inclined to agree with the casino on the information provided.

 

[Mouche12]

What is the question you are trying to ask me - is it the same one as the one I politely declined to answer? Because it looks a lot like the same one.

I would ask you kindly not to ask me a third time. Thanks.
Reply With Quote[/I

Sorry, could you please elaborate what question you are referring to?
Is it similar to the one asking me about the ND bonuses amounting to 15,000 as some sort of compensation by the casino?

Thanks!

 

[JHV]

Fair enough.

That's pretty much the whole crux of the situation in terms of understanding the casino decision not to reimburse you the 25K though... Of course it's your prerogative not to share that information; consequentially the third party observer will be inclined to agree with the casino on the information provided.

I've actually shared the information, multiple times.

It's simply that the whole "crux" of the situation is not what you think it is. I'm saying my money was stolen in an unethical and immoral and 'possibly' illegal manner. That's the crux of the situation. You haven't even read the information provided - so why don't you go do that now. But first, I shall explain the little game I was just playing with you over the last few posts.

It's your obnoxious attitude clearly present from the tone in your first post I didn't like. I read people quickly. So I didn't answer your question, but I did so in a polite manner and with a flippant comment about "the past is the past"...had you asked something like "If you don't mind me asking....and I know it's not at all relevant to the issue at hand, but it might be of interest as a side-issue if you put yourself in the position of a cold, dirty casino manager with no other considerations about ethics or morals - all his decisions are made with zero emotion, he's a psychopath - he would be concerned with how much you'd won/deposited/blah blah. blah." - you might have received a different answer and a firm but polite acknowledgment that I'm not a an idiot and I understand these very simple level 1 concepts.

As I knew you would, because I read you perfectly from your first silly post - you VERY RUDELY asked again, ignoring the polite but clear dismissal of your direct and rude question.

Now, I was just playing with you a bit. I just had a read that you were a bit of a dick and wanted to test it - you'll note I tested my theory whilst remaining polite both times. I am quite flippant about how much I've lost, had you even bothered to read around a bit, you'd have a pretty good idea. But you didn't know this - you asked a question and received a classic polite "I'd rather not talk about it type of response" from the respondent.

Rather than respecting their clear stated wish that they didn't want to talk abut it, you push forward like a selfish and rude jerk after the person clearly stated they preferred not to think about it. You're despicable.

Again, I couldn't care less. I just wanted to toy with you, I continue playing my own private game - and give my best impression that I REALLY don't want to talk about it, that to do so would make me uncomfortable. And, of course, instead of apologising like a human being would, you show zero remorse for your disgustingly rude and obnoxious behaviour, and you attempt to give me a lesson in Logic 101 as if I was a stupid child that needed basic logic explained to me.

From this, I learned a few things:
a) You are either lazy or you can't read at average > better speed - or, you might even struggle with reading and don't like it at all (dyslexic, learning disorder, etc)
b) Had you read this entire thread, you would realise I hold very strong opinions as to "why" they did what they did. If you are wondering "why", you are a moron. If you think I am wondering "why", you are sorely mistaken.
c) That I don't like you because you lecture level 1 basic logic as if it's some wisdom you're handing down. If there's things I have said in my posts that have led you to believe that I am in some way requiring of someone to spell out Level 1 IDO logic to me, please point such things out to me - I would be genuinely interested in how I gave that impression.

But I'm pretty confident you have a aversion to reading - and we cannot converse because I have an aversion to brevity. We're doomed and can never be friends. I'm sorry - this hurts me more than it hurts you.

There are some people on this forum for whom your "ground-breaking" common-sense logic might wow them, but I am in not in that group.

Run along boy and I'd request not to post in any of my threads again or, if you are compelled to, please don't address your questions at me. I have no wish to converse with you again. And you'd do well to watch your manners in the future.....

 

[JHV]

What is the question you are trying to ask me - is it the same one as the one I politely declined to answer? Because it looks a lot like the same one.

I would ask you kindly not to ask me a third time. Thanks.
Reply With Quote[/I

Sorry, could you please elaborate what question you are referring to?
Is it similar to the one asking me about the ND bonuses amounting to 15,000 as some sort of compensation by the casino?

Thanks!

No Mouche, I was playing a little game with the idiot who was being rude from his first post and I toyed with him a little as I was bored. And he deserved it.

My request was in response to his disgustingly rude and obnoxious 2nd post after I politely turned the other cheek at his first.

 

[Slotster!]

I've actually shared the information, multiple times.

It's simply that the whole "crux" of the situation is not what you think it is. I'm saying my money was stolen in an unethical and immoral and 'possibly' illegal manner. That's the crux of the situation. You haven't even read the information provided - so why don't you go do that now. But first, I shall explain the little game I was just playing with you over the last few posts.

It's your obnoxious attitude clearly present from the tone in your first post I didn't like. I read people quickly. So I didn't answer your question, but I did so in a polite manner and with a flippant comment about "the past is the past"...had you asked something like "If you don't mind me asking....and I know it's not at all relevant to the issue at hand, but it might be of interest as a side-issue if you put yourself in the position of a cold, dirty casino manager with no other considerations about ethics or morals - all his decisions are made with zero emotion, he's a psychopath - he would be concerned with how much you'd won/deposited/blah blah. blah." - you might have received a different answer and a firm but polite acknowledgment that I'm not a an idiot and I understand these very simple level 1 concepts.

As I knew you would, because I read you perfectly from your first silly post - you VERY RUDELY asked again, ignoring the polite but clear dismissal of your direct and rude question.

Now, I was just playing with you a bit. I just had a read that you were a bit of a dick and wanted to test it - you'll note I tested my theory whilst remaining polite both times. I am quite flippant about how much I've lost, had you even bothered to read around a bit, you'd have a pretty good idea. But you didn't know this - you asked a question and received a classic polite "I'd rather not talk about it type of response" from the respondent.

Rather than respecting their clear stated wish that they didn't want to talk abut it, you push forward like a selfish and rude jerk after the person clearly stated they preferred not to think about it. You're despicable.

Again, I couldn't care less. I just wanted to toy with you, I continue playing my own private game - and give my best impression that I REALLY don't want to talk about it, that to do so would make me uncomfortable. And, of course, instead of apologising like a human being would, you show zero remorse for your disgustingly rude and obnoxious behaviour, and you attempt to give me a lesson in Logic 101 as if I was a stupid child that needed basic logic explained to me.

From this, I learned a few things:
a) You are either lazy or you can't read at average > better speed - or, you might even struggle with reading and don't like it at all (dyslexic, learning disorder, etc)
b) Had you read this entire thread, you would realise I hold very strong opinions as to "why" they did what they did. If you are wondering "why", you are a moron. If you think I am wondering "why", you are sorely mistaken.
c) That I don't like you because you lecture level 1 basic logic as if it's some wisdom you're handing down. If there's things I have said in my posts that have led you to believe that I am in some way requiring of someone to spell out Level 1 IDO logic to me, please point such things out to me - I would be genuinely interested in how I gave that impression.

But I'm pretty confident you have a aversion to reading - and we cannot converse because I have an aversion to brevity. We're doomed and can never be friends. I'm sorry - this hurts me more than it hurts you.

There are some people on this forum for whom your "ground-breaking" common-sense logic might wow them, but I am in not in that group.

Run along boy and I'd request not to post in any of my threads again or, if you are compelled to, please don't address your questions at me. I have no wish to converse with you again. And you'd do well to watch your manners in the future.....

That is a thing of beauty.

You are my new favourite forum contributor

 

[JHV]

That is a thing of beauty.

You are my new favourite forum contributor

And now I like you again - perhaps I am getting played. Damn genius

 

[Mouche12]

Okay then, but as I asked before, can the 15,000 in ND bonuses be considered as some sort of compensation by Intercasino or am I wrong in assuming this? Thanks for the elaboration!

 

[JHV]

Okay then, but as I asked before, can the 15,000 in ND bonuses be considered as some sort of compensation by Intercasino or am I wrong in assuming this? Thanks for the elaboration!

I answered this already dude. And it wasn't 15k. It was like "here is 2k with big wagering limits attached" - after I'd lost a fortune whilst they stalled / screwed / worked me over in a brilliant and more talented fashion that I believed possible at the time.

I told them to stick their 2k up their....they put it in my account instead. It lasted 2 spins.

When I coldly crushed the lady over the whole "you lucky guy you! I've twisted arms and pulled strings to get you a match deposit bonus - aren't you lucky!!" (paraphrased) - I ripped her apart (she deserved a lot worse than some choice words, I now believe).

In response to my verbal bashing, another promotions manager took over my account and said he was putting 5k in with wagering requirements. I told him to stick it up his...he put it in my account instead. That didn't last very long either lolz.

I think there was one more bonus but I had to deposit for it - and I was WELL into an out on control / angry at the world's lack of ethics...vortex downwards spiral by then, anyone who sent me an email probably got a deposit out of me

-----

To your question as to these piecemeal insulting bonuses....I found them insulting and said so numerous times to anyone who would listen. They would keep trying to remind me how "nice" they were being but offering me a tiny bonus here and there and I had firm ideas about where those bonuses should be placed, and was likely descriptive in suggesting where they stick could stick they bs commiserations and insulting patronising and all their endless "efforts" they would try to convince me they were undertaking on my behalf. I never withdrew a cent after they limited me to 10k when I wanted to take out 110k or so. And I put a LOT more back in after that