Is any of this acceptable or am I being ignorant? Prime Gaming

[ianbeale]

Hi all,

So I have a withdrawal/bonus issue with a member of the Prime Gaming collective.

I was given a £10 free chip for my loyalty and losses.

There was a max cash out of £100 on this chip.

I got lucky and cashed out £200, they retained £100 of it and put the £100 cash back in my account, fair enough.

This was portrayed as Real Money balance in the cashier page. So I played on.

I managed to reach £750 and then went down to £500 at which point I cashed out, again this £500 was showing as Real Money balance.


I spoke to Live Chat to confirm that the withdrawal would be processed the following day and asked if I needed to submit any further ID. (I was told that all of my ID had previously been approved yet I still received further requests for ID as time went on.

I was told that it would be processed to PayPal the following day subject to no further ID requests, great I thought.

However, yesterday morning 04/03/15, I received an email to say my withdrawal had been cancelled.

I followed up with a phone call and was told as per T&C's that even after the wager has been met on a free chip, any winning from that money afterwards but be voided and I should have cashed it out.

Supports answer was that Live Chat reps do not know how a balance is made up and it will only be checked once it gets to the Payments Team.

Also they ignored the point that the cashier page is clearly misleading in that it states you have a Real Money balance even though that is clearly not the case.

So, my questions

1) Is it fair for a casino to represent/suggest you have a Real Money balance even though that is not the case, but you cant find that out until it has already been sent to the Payments Team for processing as Live Chat do not have access to this information?

2) Is it fair for Live Chat reps to give out incorrect or misleading information to stand behind T&C's rather than accept liability for an error/incorrect information being given by two different sources?

3) Is it normal for a casino to say "you should have cashed out the £100 and then re-deposit to continue without restriction"? I would have thought this was pointless and costly for the casino as they would spend time and resources processing the withdrawal and then a new deposit. I had "Real Money" in my account so it was treated as such.

4) Is it normal for a casino to suggest I contact the UK Gambling Commission rather than the Maltese where they are licensed? I am happy to do this as at least the UK Commission might actually look into it unlike the Maltese who have fobbed me off before and stood by the casino without even investigating.


Any comments are welcome.

Thanks all.

 

[paul7388]

It is perfectly acceptable.

You had a free chip with max cashout of £100. The money always shows in real balance.

You tried to cash out more but they returned the £100 to your balance for you to cash out. Instead of cashing out you kept playing needlessly and got your balance up. You then tried to cash it out which they refused correctly.

As you were playing a free chip with a Max Cashout until you either bust or cashout the Max withdrawal will always be £100 no matter how much you win after wagering.

This time the casino is perfectly correct.

 

[Jono777]

Yup! Paul is spot on!

Very similar instance happened to missues with Prime, free chip max £100 cashout.

However her balance was around £300 but as soon as W/R was met it jumped straight down to £100 automatically.

A quick email later confirmed that no matter what cashier showed or what she did with the remaining £100 would not matter as the fact stood she could only W/D the £100

.......so she blew the lot tut!

 

[vinylweatherman]

It is perfectly acceptable.

You had a free chip with max cashout of £100. The money always shows in real balance.

You tried to cash out more but they returned the £100 to your balance for you to cash out. Instead of cashing out you kept playing needlessly and got your balance up. You then tried to cash it out which they refused correctly.

As you were playing a free chip with a Max Cashout until you either bust or cashout the Max withdrawal will always be £100 no matter how much you win after wagering.

This time the casino is perfectly correct.

This is the bit that is unacceptable. The player had already cashed out, so this request should have been honoured, with the excess being deducted and the remaining £100 being sent out. Putting it back into the players' account without offering an explanation is a deceptive practice, and places the casino in a no lose situation regardless of what the player does next. They are hoping the player will be tempted to play on and either lose the money, or win more than can again be confiscated and presumably £100 returned to the players' account for a second time without explanation.

As this is Prime, who recently got busted for a DELIBERATE dodgy practice of hiding an important term through clever web page coding, this is just another expected dodgy practice that has been brought to light. There are probably a few more, designed specifically to catch out the unwary or inexperienced player. Experienced players are less likely to get caught out by this simple ruse, many will simply withdraw the £100 a second time and then be a little more wary in the expectation that another hoop will be tossed in their direction, such as the excuse that they need certain documents despite not having asked for them for however long it took for the player's patience to finally crack to the extent that they ask CS why there has been no progress on their payment.

The bigger picture is that lengthy and complex withdrawal procedures are designed such that there is plenty of opportunity for players to cave in to temptation and play the money, which in most cases will result in them losing it.

 

[paul7388]

This is the bit that is unacceptable. The player had already cashed out, so this request should have been honoured, with the excess being deducted and the remaining £100 being sent out. Putting it back into the players' account without offering an explanation is a deceptive practice, and places the casino in a no lose situation regardless of what the player does next. They are hoping the player will be tempted to play on and either lose the money, or win more than can again be confiscated and presumably £100 returned to the players' account for a second time without explanation.

As this is Prime, who recently got busted for a DELIBERATE dodgy practice of hiding an important term through clever web page coding, this is just another expected dodgy practice that has been brought to light. There are probably a few more, designed specifically to catch out the unwary or inexperienced player. Experienced players are less likely to get caught out by this simple ruse, many will simply withdraw the £100 a second time and then be a little more wary in the expectation that another hoop will be tossed in their direction, such as the excuse that they need certain documents despite not having asked for them for however long it took for the player's patience to finally crack to the extent that they ask CS why there has been no progress on their payment.

The bigger picture is that lengthy and complex withdrawal procedures are designed such that there is plenty of opportunity for players to cave in to temptation and play the money, which in most cases will result in them losing it.

Maybe that is slightly unacceptable but the point is that the bonus has strict cashout of £100 MAX. If the players ask for the withdrawal they are allowed then there will be no problems. But if a player asks for a larger withdrawal than they know is allowed then why shouldn't the casino put the money back into their account to withdraw properly. If they then blow it or try to win more and ask for a larger withdrawal again then its their fault not the casinos.

In the end its clearly stated how much is max withdrawal if players cant follow that correctly then that's not casinos fault. As a player is requesting a certain amount to be withdrawn its not right for a casino to process part of it. They return the funds so the player can do correctly what they should have in first place.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Maybe that is slightly unacceptable but the point is that the bonus has strict cashout of £100 MAX. If the players ask for the withdrawal they are allowed then there will be no problems. But if a player asks for a larger withdrawal than they know is allowed then why shouldn't the casino put the money back into their account to withdraw properly. If they then blow it or try to win more and ask for a larger withdrawal again then its their fault not the casinos.

In the end its clearly stated how much is max withdrawal if players cant follow that correctly then that's not casinos fault. As a player is requesting a certain amount to be withdrawn its not right for a casino to process part of it. They return the funds so the player can do correctly what they should have in first place.

Simple, the player MUST clear their balance as they are not supposed to both withdraw the allowed £100 and play the rest. It beggars belief that they have to do it the way they did due to technical limitations of their system. They choose to do it this way in an effort to confuse the player into making a bad decision.

If you were in a shop to buy something for £10 and only had a £20 note, you do NOT expect the shop keeper to take your £20, give you back two tenners, and then ask you for one of them back. Instead, they do the whole transaction in one move, giving you back the £10 change. If a shop keeper could do this in 1965, then a casino can do it in 2015.

1) player withdraws whole balance, zeroing account.
2) casino removes surplus over £100 from pending transaction.
3) £100 is then sent for payment.


The convolution is there to mislead players, and the deception is simple. It is based on the concept that the player has made the WR and has "ended the contract" by making a whole of balance withdrawal on the understanding that £100 is his to keep, whilst the rest belongs to the casino. The casino then shows it has "ended the contract" by removing it's own amount. This then leads the player to believe that the £100 that remains is their own real money, no strings attached.

If the player paid the withdrawal in one move like the shopkeepers from 1965, there would be zero chance of the player having any further win from it confiscated, and there would be LESS chance of the player being tempted to play the money back to zero.

For the wise player who realises that all they have to do is withdraw and then immediately redeposit the £100 in order to avoid this trap, this is not going to catch them out, but for the casino it's an extra £10 of completely unnecessary overhead because of the two transactions. At the same time, the hypocrites moan about players who cost them unnecessary transaction fees by depositing and withdrawing frequently, and not playing enough on their deposits to allow the casino a chance to make back even the transaction fees. If they were genuinely concerned about transaction fees, they would be glad of players who did not withdraw and redeposit purely to mark the end of a bonus contract that they had made the WR on.

It is this kind of ruse that has ensured that casinos see players withdrawing their balances only to come back again a day or two later to redeposit and play. Some operators have queried what it is that makes players unwilling to leave a balance in the casino overnight, or for a couple of days, if they are going to come back and play again. Well this thread should give them the answer, it's driven by players wanting to ensure they have a "hard termination" of any bonus contract, or indeed any other promotion, by having a zero balance, and then starting afresh in a new session by making a deposit into an account with a zero balance.

This player really only had a "soft termination", and the casino used it against him when he won. I am sure no mention would have been made of it had he lost back the £100.


Rather than fighting the problem by adding 24, 48, and greater "pending periods" to withdrawals, casinos should allow a definitive "hard closure" of a promotional contract without the need for a player to go through the motions of withdrawing and redepositing their balance. Unfortunately, to be effective, the practice would have to be industry wide, else even those casinos that did not require a withdrawal to end a bonus would find that players would be "safe rather than sorry" and withdraw anyway.


The lesson that is learned here is that players should ALWAYS withdraw everything once they have made WR from a bonus or other promotion, and it must be a full withdrawal back to their external deposit method. Casinos will have to accept that this will mean additional overheads, but will have to also accept that players have to adopt some kind of simple and unified approach that will ensure they do not stumble blindly into the pitfalls that some operators would rather like them to.

A similar concept applies if you bust out on a bonus. Do NOT leave anything behind, not even a few pennies. The account should be played down to zero, and then logged off. The next deposit should be in a new session that starts with a zero balance. This is the safest way to steer clear of unintentional carry over of WR, and an often lengthy battle with CS to get the problem fixed.

 

[redsfan]

Spin it the other way.

Why did the player withdraw £200 when he knew the max withdraw was £100? If he had withdrawn the maximum as he knew it was, £100, how do you know he wouldnt have been paid

 

[ianbeale]

Simple, the player MUST clear their balance as they are not supposed to both withdraw the allowed £100 and play the rest. It beggars belief that they have to do it the way they did due to technical limitations of their system. They choose to do it this way in an effort to confuse the player into making a bad decision.

If you were in a shop to buy something for £10 and only had a £20 note, you do NOT expect the shop keeper to take your £20, give you back two tenners, and then ask you for one of them back. Instead, they do the whole transaction in one move, giving you back the £10 change. If a shop keeper could do this in 1965, then a casino can do it in 2015.

1) player withdraws whole balance, zeroing account.
2) casino removes surplus over £100 from pending transaction.
3) £100 is then sent for payment.


The convolution is there to mislead players, and the deception is simple. It is based on the concept that the player has made the WR and has "ended the contract" by making a whole of balance withdrawal on the understanding that £100 is his to keep, whilst the rest belongs to the casino. The casino then shows it has "ended the contract" by removing it's own amount. This then leads the player to believe that the £100 that remains is their own real money, no strings attached.

If the player paid the withdrawal in one move like the shopkeepers from 1965, there would be zero chance of the player having any further win from it confiscated, and there would be LESS chance of the player being tempted to play the money back to zero.

For the wise player who realises that all they have to do is withdraw and then immediately redeposit the £100 in order to avoid this trap, this is not going to catch them out, but for the casino it's an extra £10 of completely unnecessary overhead because of the two transactions. At the same time, the hypocrites moan about players who cost them unnecessary transaction fees by depositing and withdrawing frequently, and not playing enough on their deposits to allow the casino a chance to make back even the transaction fees. If they were genuinely concerned about transaction fees, they would be glad of players who did not withdraw and redeposit purely to mark the end of a bonus contract that they had made the WR on.

It is this kind of ruse that has ensured that casinos see players withdrawing their balances only to come back again a day or two later to redeposit and play. Some operators have queried what it is that makes players unwilling to leave a balance in the casino overnight, or for a couple of days, if they are going to come back and play again. Well this thread should give them the answer, it's driven by players wanting to ensure they have a "hard termination" of any bonus contract, or indeed any other promotion, by having a zero balance, and then starting afresh in a new session by making a deposit into an account with a zero balance.

This player really only had a "soft termination", and the casino used it against him when he won. I am sure no mention would have been made of it had he lost back the £100.


Rather than fighting the problem by adding 24, 48, and greater "pending periods" to withdrawals, casinos should allow a definitive "hard closure" of a promotional contract without the need for a player to go through the motions of withdrawing and redepositing their balance. Unfortunately, to be effective, the practice would have to be industry wide, else even those casinos that did not require a withdrawal to end a bonus would find that players would be "safe rather than sorry" and withdraw anyway.


The lesson that is learned here is that players should ALWAYS withdraw everything once they have made WR from a bonus or other promotion, and it must be a full withdrawal back to their external deposit method. Casinos will have to accept that this will mean additional overheads, but will have to also accept that players have to adopt some kind of simple and unified approach that will ensure they do not stumble blindly into the pitfalls that some operators would rather like them to.

A similar concept applies if you bust out on a bonus. Do NOT leave anything behind, not even a few pennies. The account should be played down to zero, and then logged off. The next deposit should be in a new session that starts with a zero balance. This is the safest way to steer clear of unintentional carry over of WR, and an often lengthy battle with CS to get the problem fixed.

Thank you for bringing some sense and understanding to the party Vinyl, appreciated.

To follow up on yours and others comments,

Vinyl is exactly right in that they should have processed the £100 withdrawal straight away when they removed the other £100 that was over the max cashout.

How do I know this?

Because that is EXACTLY what they did the 2nd time I requested a withdrawal (the £500 one, after being told by CS and shown in the cashier page that it was Real Money), but ONLY after I had received the email to say the withdrawal had been cancelled and I took it up with CS.

It was at least 6 or 7 hours after I raised the issue that they actually processed the payment to my PayPal account. I have an email timed at 9:34am to say the payment (£100) had been sent to my E-Wallet yet I also have a screen shot to show it was still in my casino account at 3pm so how is that so?

I believe this is purely because they knew they had done wrong by not processing it the first time round as per Vinyl's suggestion, combined with intentionally misleading me in stating that the funds were Real Money, again as per Vinyl's comments, it made it out that the "contract" had ended as I had completed the wager requirement of the bonus.

To the previous poster, Why did I withdraw £200 if I knew the max was £100? Well it didn't make any difference either way whether I played back the "bonus" £100 or withdrew it and they removed it. Unless you know something more than the rest of us?

I did NOT expect to get more than £100 of it so I am not sure where you gathered your ideas that I tried to claim £200 of it?

What annoys me the most about the whole situation is that players are just expected to accept that these practices go on and we should just put up with it whilst casinos that are registered in far away lands get away with dodgy practice.

This would not be allowed to happen in a high street shop in any civilized country so why is it different online?

I cant treat people like idiots when I am at work and when a mistake or deception, whether it be intentional or not happens, it is resolved no questions asked and likely to involve me being questioned as to how it happened and why I mislead a client.

Also to top off the whole shitty experience, the £500 withdrawal came from a 20 free spins bonus on Bruce Lee that paid over 1000x bet, I have only had it on one other occasion in over 6 years.

 

[ianbeale]

I also forgot to add that I requested Chat Transcripts to be sent to me via email which has not happened and I also sent a PM to the Rep here but again no response.

Needless to say I have closed my account and raised the issue with the Maltese Gaming Commission. No doubt all of the haters and casino fan boys will say I am an idiot as the casino is "right" and it is all my fault.

Can anyone with sense explain to me why I was told to take the issue to the UK Gambling Commission when the casino is licensed in Malta?

 

[ianbeale]

AND finally, it appears that the Prime Gaming Rep's account here is Dormant so I wouldn't hold out me or anyone else getting a reply to a PM. Shoddy to the end.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I also forgot to add that I requested Chat Transcripts to be sent to me via email which has not happened and I also sent a PM to the Rep here but again no response.

Needless to say I have closed my account and raised the issue with the Maltese Gaming Commission. No doubt all of the haters and casino fan boys will say I am an idiot as the casino is "right" and it is all my fault.

Can anyone with sense explain to me why I was told to take the issue to the UK Gambling Commission when the casino is licensed in Malta?

So, did you actually receive £100 as a withdrawal in the end?

The email they sent suggests that this was an internal cockup with you having been given the £100 twice, once in PayPal and again in the account.


Why not just withdraw £100 and leave the rest? Well, in another casino, and some while ago, this lead to a player being accused of "cheating", and they had their withdrawal confiscated because they had left £100 behind, but should have requested a withdrawal of the whole balance so that the casino could remove the excess and pay the allowed amount. Playing down until you reach the permitted max withdrawal has also been deemed abusive by a number of casinos, some accredited, in such a situation. Here, they say the correct procedure is to stop playing the instant you meet WR and withdraw the whole lot. Playing on gives you an advantage as whilst you can't win any more, neither can the casino, so you are clogging up their servers with real money play that is pointless (maybe it's the royalties they have to pay the software provider on this pointless play that really annoys them).

There is no standard view as to what constitutes "correct procedure" in these circumstances, so you cannot say a player has done wrong by following one accepted procedure in some casinos over a different procedure used by others. If the industry didn't have these max cashouts then these problems wouldn't arise, and they only have them so that they can make offers look better than they really are. Max cashouts ONLY limit what the casino can lose, they are only bad for players who can ONLY lose out when they have a run of good luck, but don't have their losses limited to less than their total starting balance when their luck turns bad.

 

[paul7388]

I guess I am one of the haters and casino fan boys but I will answer anyway.

They told you to go to UKGC as the casino holds a UK licence. If you have a complaint about the casino or feel they have ripped you off then it will be the UKGC that deals with it since you are playing under their UK licence.

As for the whole argument and casinos being deceptive etc. well you were the one that put in for a larger withdrawal than allowed. But I am sure if they had processed the whole amount you would have contacted them and told them they had paid you to much and returned anything above £100.

Blame the casino all you want and complain to whoever but you were the one that tried ro withdraw too much and even attempted it a second time. And if you play any casino with a max cashout or you are playing a bonus anywhere then it always shows up as real money . Whereelse would it have shown up when casino credited it back.

Not as if the casino tried to get out of paying you. They simply put the £100 back in your account so you could withdraw it properly like you should have done first time. If you had then there would be no problems. And every casino out has the same conditions. Until you withdraw then you are capped to the Max withdrawal no matter how many times you play or withdraw and reverse.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I guess I am one of the haters and casino fan boys but I will answer anyway.

They told you to go to UKGC as the casino holds a UK licence. If you have a complaint about the casino or feel they have ripped you off then it will be the UKGC that deals with it since you are playing under their UK licence.

As for the whole argument and casinos being deceptive etc. well you were the one that put in for a larger withdrawal than allowed. But I am sure if they had processed the whole amount you would have contacted them and told them they had paid you to much and returned anything above £100.

Blame the casino all you want and complain to whoever but you were the one that tried ro withdraw too much and even attempted it a second time. And if you play any casino with a max cashout or you are playing a bonus anywhere then it always shows up as real money . Whereelse would it have shown up when casino credited it back.

Not as if the casino tried to get out of paying you. They simply put the £100 back in your account so you could withdraw it properly like you should have done first time. If you had then there would be no problems. And every casino out has the same conditions. Until you withdraw then you are capped to the Max withdrawal no matter how many times you play or withdraw and reverse.

Sadly not.

Some REQUIRE that you make a withdrawal to clear the whole balance so that they can properly process the amount allowed. Leaving some behind can be viewed as "abusing the system". There is no right way, because whatever the player does can be deemed to be wrong, and there is no real way to know in advance.

If the player had only requested £100 as you suggest, this would have left £100 behind that strictly wasn't theirs, but would sit as real money in their balance, preventing them from making a clean redeposit for further play, and instead directing them to play on with the remaining £100. It would be pointless, as the allowed £100 would already have been withdrawn. However, there was a case where a player did just this, and after they had lost the remaining balance, the player switched tack by saying that it was "their" money that was played and lost, even though they had left it behind as the amount they could not withdraw.

All these complications just facilitate the ducking and diving of the casino which will reallocate the funds on the fly so as to best suit them. If you WIN, then of course it's not your money that got left behind, but the excess, therefore the win is void, but if you lose, then suddenly it's your money, and you just lost it, and what was being withdrawn was actually the excess on it's way for removal.

There is no reason whatsoever for the casino to not simply skim the surplus from the requested amount and pay the allowed max cashout in a single movement. The complications are added in the hope that players will do something that minimises or eliminates the liability of the casino to pay out. This could be ANYTHING. Even leaving your account well alone until payment has actually been received has been used against players who have then been deemed "inactive" and therefore had their withdrawals put on hold, or drip fed in tiny weekly amounts due to this "lack of activity" on the account.

 

[paul7388]

While I agree with much of what you say Vinyl, many casinos operate differently but we are only talking about this casino.

The OP states that he was perfectly fine about them putting the £100 back into his account. It only annoyed him when he went on and played and won a lot more to only get told that he could still only withdraw £100.

Now while you will disagree with much I say you must admit yourself that the terms were clear that max withdrawal was £100. And like has been discussed many times on this forum if you withdraw the max then reverse it then obviously it will show as real money but playing on is no use as you are still tied to the MAX withdrawal until you actually withdraw it.

Maybe the casino should have withdrew £100 and voided the rest. Different casinos operate differently and he could have asked what to do since he was over the Max.

But in this case the casino chose to put it back in his account for him to withdraw. Maybe not the best procedure but in the end no real harm done as OP could just have withdrew it. Even yourself would admit that there is no point playing on as you cannot withdraw anymore so best to withdraw it right away. Like I said the OP was not upset about that it was the fact they didn't process the bigger win.

Unfortunately I am no legal expert like many on this forum but I am sure if you complained to UKGC about the treatment they would rule in the casinos favour. After all a player played a chip with a MAX cashout of £100. Without asking the casino what he should do to withdraw as he was at double that amount he just requested to withdraw the whole amount. The casino refused the withdrawal as it was too much and returned the whole £100 to his account and removed the rest explaining why and let him withdraw it again. The player instead of withdrawing it played on and won a lot more and tried to withdraw the whole lot a second time. The casino then told him a second time that he can only withdraw £100 as its from the same bonus.

Maybe you will not agree with me but the casino has never refused to pay the OP the correct amount if he bothered to withdraw it correctly. They have explained why the withdrawals were cancelled and how the OP can go about withdrawing the money which he got. Like already stated it wasn't the return of the £100 that upset OP it was losing the rest that he wasn't entitled to that upset him.

But like I said I am no legal expert but I am still confident enough to believe the UKGC or any other authority would find it hard to penalise the casino for any real unethical behaviour.

But I will agree to disagree and move on as many people have different opinions and mine is that the casino has not acted that badly whilst agreeing they could have just processed the first withdrawal. But as they never they still gave the OP a reason why and he could and should have just withdrew instantly.

 

[ianbeale]

Paul, the ferocious defence you put in for this casino makes me wonder if you are the awol rep.

Your point, I have to say is invalid and surely if you read the following comment by Vinyl you will see the flaws and pitfalls that arise will be against the player regardless of how you approach it.


Also, as I stated in the previous comment, they are licensed in MALTA, NOT the UK.

There is NO mention on their site of any UK license numbers or registrations.

Maybe as you so expertly predicted, nothing will come of my complaint but at least I am trying to make a point that bent business is just that. I wish I was as perfect as you as you are clearly the almighty of knowledge and correctness.

 

[paul7388]

Paul, the ferocious defence you put in for this casino makes me wonder if you are the awol rep.

Your point, I have to say is invalid and surely if you read the following comment by Vinyl you will see the flaws and pitfalls that arise will be against the player regardless of how you approach it.


Also, as I stated in the previous comment, they are licensed in MALTA, NOT the UK.

There is NO mention on their site of any UK license numbers or registrations.

Maybe as you so expertly predicted, nothing will come of my complaint but at least I am trying to make a point that bent business is just that. I wish I was as perfect as you as you are clearly the almighty of knowledge and correctness.

I have no idea if they are licenced in UK or not as I do not play here and never will i was taking it from what they said that they had a uk licence but i have no wish to check. But whatever licence they hold they have still not acted bent as you put it.

Anyway i have nothing to gain by defending the casino you asked originally for peoples input so i provided it. Reasons provided were the same as others except Vinyls who i was actually replying to and not yourself , but as they were not what you wanted to hear you were the one that resorted to calling everyone else haters and casino fan boys.

But im not one for getting into petty arguments on a forum so you can disagree with me all you wish and if it keeps you happy then believe the casino is way out of order. That's your choice but at the end of the day you got a free chip with a max withdrawal which you have received. If the casino is bent for not paying the rest in your eyes then there will be nothing i or anyone else can say to convince you otherwise.

Have a nice evening

 

[paul7388]

Okay I wasn't going to reply again but curiosity got the better of me.

Firstly Prime Gaming rep was last on forum 4 days ago so its hardly a dormant account.

And secondly I checked their casinos that are licenced in Malta. if you read it it will also tell you that from 1st of November Its also got a licence for England and wales and to click here to find out more. Didn't mention Scotland tho lol but I can live with that. Point is it means a uk licence which is why they said to contact UKGC.

But as you do not believe a thing I say you wont believe that either.

But before making out people are wrong and not got a clue what they are saying then it might be good to actually check you are correct. After all I am not the one that says theres no active rep and no UK licence.

 

[ianbeale]

Well your final comment just about sums up the lack of productivity you have shown.

Firstly, you made a big point of going on about the UK license/UKGC then remarked you dont know if they have one. Worthwhile comment overall?

Second, I did not say the casino was bent did I?

I said bent business, that is the action undertaken in the sale or purchase of goods or services.

My point related to the processes carried out as part of the business transaction.

Any way, Vinyl, thanks for the input, good balanced and unbiased. I made an oversight yes but I still stand by my comment that I was mislead and misinformed.

Will I lose sleep over it? Not likely, but it does seem there is a lot more of these underhand practices going on than I realised which is a concern.

And yes Paul I have had a lovely evening thanks.

 

[paul7388]

Well your final comment just about sums up the lack of productivity you have shown.

Firstly, you made a big point of going on about the UK license/UKGC then remarked you dont know if they have one. Worthwhile comment overall?

Second, I did not say the casino was bent did I?

I said bent business, that is the action undertaken in the sale or purchase of goods or services.

My point related to the processes carried out as part of the business transaction.

Any way, Vinyl, thanks for the input, good balanced and unbiased. I made an oversight yes but I still stand by my comment that I was mislead and misinformed.

Will I lose sleep over it? Not likely, but it does seem there is a lot more of these underhand practices going on than I realised which is a concern.

And yes Paul I have had a lovely evening thanks.

Well yes it was worth it since they DO have a UK licence. PM the rep and ask yourself

 

[ianbeale]

Provisional license in the UK I believe you will find, not granted and the tag line on the reps page says dormant but yes OK I will bow down to you before you throw the toys out.

You were right from start to finish. Its gambling at the end of the day not life or death.

 

[ianbeale]

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/31314/


Are you sure Paul? Looks quite dormant to me. But again Ill accept you are right.

 

[paul7388]

Now I am not being funny here but people often look at wrong reps or reps that have left. So in case you missed the rep at moment heres the link to the current active rep so you can pm them. Hopefully they will get it sorted for you. https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/35770/

 

[mcgameboy]

To answer the question in the OP's thread title....

Yes. You are being ignorant.

You tried it on. It didn't pan out the way you hoped it would. You come here with an agenda and had the cheek to think that
people on this forum wouldn't be able to see straight through your agenda.

Paul is a well respected member on this forum. Because he talks a lot of sense. And he has also been known to be rather adept at
helping to take the heat out of some of the arguments that have broken out on threads here. He can also smell bullshit from a mile away.
He rather eloquently dismantled your argument and he didn't even need to stoop to your level by resorting to name-calling, petty
insinuations and insults.

In my opinion, you have breached posting rules and deserve to receive infractions and maybe even a ban.

I will be reporting a couple of your posts, as your conduct in this thread leaves a lot to be desired.

Oh one last thing....HONESTY is the BEST policy. Try it sometime.

 

[ianbeale]

OK MC go ahead with the reports. I havent lied at all how would you know I have lied? And if Paul did such a good job of dismantling my argument are you saying Vinyl is wrong with everything he said?

You enjoy your big man about the online house attitude hitting me with the naughty stick.


and Paul, thank you for the updated link. Appreciated and I apologise for any offence I may have caused. ( and no MC i'm not kissing arse, I'm just being decent, it wasnt your argument to have but well done)

 

[ianbeale]

Does nobody find this odd that now I cant even have access to chat logs? Verification of my point they have done wrong regardless of what rules people say I have broken


I am writing to you in regards to chat transcript.

Please kindly be informed that as our company is not obligated to send transcripts of chats to our customer, we won't sent the chat transcript.

Thank you for your understanding.

For further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best Regards,

Boyana