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

 

[mcgameboy]

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)

You attempted to cashout more than the MAX cashout of £100. To me, that is an act of dishonesty. Where I come from, that is not cool.

Also be aware that the actions of a dishonest player can end up hurting the honest players in the long run.
This site is about fair play....on BOTH sides of the fence, not just the players side.

Paul highlighted the facts. You chose to disregard and belittle his contributions to this thread, you chose to question his integrity, you made
sarcastic comments.

Correct me if I am wrong, it was you who started this thread. It was you who sought opinions. You got them. But you clearly cherry picked which ones were "correct" based on what you wanted to hear. Paul didn't say anything wrong, nor did Vinyl. But it was clear that you had a problem
with nothing that Vinyl said, but had plenty of problems with what Paul said. You singled someone out. Again, not at all cool.

Tell me this, if I tossed a coin and you called heads only to find it was tails, would you blame yourself for guessing wrong? Or would you blame
me for not getting the toss right? Me thinks it would be the latter.

And I ain't no "big man about the online house attitude" that is in possession of a/the naughty stick. I don't make a habit of reporting posts.
In fact, I can count the number of posts that I have reported (in 18 months of CM membership) on one hand. The fact is this, you crossed
the line by going out of your way to discredit a member of this community. When his only "sin" was to state the truth. The problem was it was
an uncomfortable truth that didn't suit you. So you attempted to shoot the messenger. Again, not at all cool.

And as for having an argument, you didn't have one to win in the first place. If you had read, understood and stuck to the rules, then this
thread need never have been started.

I'm sorry, but you crossed the line man. The fact that you are already apologising to Paul would suggest that you are already starting to realise it.

 

[Finn]

I think at most places with no-deposit freebies that have max withdrawal limits, the sum is shown as Real Money immediately after wagering is completed like any other bonus money or bonus-locked money would be, but the max withdrawal limits still apply.

Reversing withdrawal doesn't remove the limits, whether it is done by you, or by CS as very mild, perfectly proper punishment for attempt to withdraw more than the maximum allowed for that freebie.

 

[vinylweatherman]

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

They are if you serve them with a formal data disclosure request.

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

The fact that they are refusing also shows they have something to hide. It is pretty standard that players will be sent their chat logs on request if there isn't already a facility built into the live chat to automatically request a transcript via email.

This is Prime, they have form for rogue behaviour going back some while, so we are not dealing with an accredited casino that appears to be acting rogue on the word of one complainant.

If they don't hold a valid UKGC licence they are also breaking the law by accepting your bets in the first place. I am pretty sure they do though, so maybe they just haven't made it clear enough on their site.

There is only a valid "correct procedure for making a withdrawal" excuse if they have explained what it is so that players know beforehand, and they also must stick to it.

Rogue casinos will have vague terms that will be shifted in meaning such that the casino always comes out on top. In such cases, it doesn't matter what the player does, the terms will always be against them. We may have proof of this if another case comes up where a player withdraws "properly" as per this thread, and then is told they should have done what the OP just got shafted for doing, which is to withdraw the entire balance, including the surplus above the max allowed amount.


Here is the stunt that got them thrown into the rogue pit:-

Now you see it...

...and now you don't.


Using HTML code to Hide a Crucial Link
A complaint was posted in our forum, and submitted to our PAB service concerning a super hard to find text-link that was linked to super important bonus terms. Here is the complaint as it unfolded:


I like to play with a bonus so I've signed up to just about every casino on the internet which doesn't have obviously predatory terms. I always quickly scan through the promotions page and check for feedback on Casinomeister before making a deposit; this technique has held me in good stead so far. There wasn't much mention of Prime Slots on Casinomeister (Prime Gaming are in the "Not Recommended" section, but I didn't think it was the same operation), but they did have good reviews on another gambling website which I found.

I deposited £60 at 35xB WR. The 100% match bonus wasn't added so I opened live chat and they upsold me a better bonus deal (150%) if I deposited another £10. I did, and ended up with a cash balance of £70 and bonus of £105, for a total balance of £175. I confirmed with the chat operator that the standard 35xB WR would still apply. However, they did not have any method to track the progress of the WR in the user account, which I thought strange. Instead I kept a note of how much I had wagered and gambled only in blocks of 100 to keep the maths easy.

I played for the whole day, building my balance up to £350 before a bad run of luck just before the wagering was complete brought my balance just under £200. Happy days, time to withdraw, right? But when I went to the cashier to withdraw it told me that I still had over £1,800 to play through. It was after chat hours so I went to bed, angry and confused, and contacted the live chat in the morning.

The first line they spun me was that I also had to complete wagering on the £5 NDB that they gave me before I deposited (a balance which I cleared before depositing). Okay, fair enough, that's another £175 on to the WR but it didn't explain the massive gulf between my figures and the £1,800 the cashout screen thought I still had to play.

The CSR started banging on about only bets over $1 contributing to the wagering and different games having a different weighting, none of which were mentioned on the bonus policy page. When I re-visited the page I noticed a text link hidden amongst the text, in the same colour and without an underline (note: other links on the page are underlined). This links to a page that isn't linked from anywhere else, which shows all of the predatory bonus terms. The main one being that NetEnt slots only contribute 50% towards the wagering, which stacks up with the discrepancy between my calculations and the casino's.

https://www.casinomeister.com/rogue-casinos/primeslots-deceptive-casino-tricks/

If they are going to go this far, what's a bit of deliberate jerking around and confusing a player through paying a withdrawal back into their casino account as "real money" and allowing the player to be fooled into thinking it's OK to play it as such given that they had already completed WR and had the surplus removed.

The point here is that the casino had ALREADY applied the max win term by removing the excess once WR had been completed and the player had stopped playing. The remaining £100 was therefore already free from the original contract.

The casino feels that it's OK to "try it on" with a bit of sneaky HTML coding, yet they are now saying that a player has to second guess and follow a pedantic procedure lacking a clear logical pathway in order to get paid, and any deviation means that the player is "trying it on" and should therefore not be paid.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Looking through the terms, there is nothing under "withdrawals" that tells players of a "proper way" to withdraw winnings which are capped.

This is covered in the bonus terms, but even here it does not explain what the OP is supposed to do, so there is nothing to show that the OP did anything wrong either.

13.If you receive free money (no deposit bonus/refer a friend bonus/registration bonus etc’) or free spins winnings, unless stated otherwise the maximum amount that you can win or withdraw from it is £100 or two times the bonus amount. The larger amount of the two will be applied. Any winnings greater than the applied amount, including winnings subsequently won from with that money even after any deposit, will be removed from your account. In addition, no winnings accrued in connection with any Free Bonus may be withdrawn until the wagering requirements have been met.

That's it "removed from your account". It makes no mention of the player having to follow a specific sequence of steps in order to effect a withdrawal of the allowed amount and have the rest "removed from their account". If anything, maybe they should have removed the excess as soon as the WR had been met, rather than letting the player have a balance higher than £100 and then have to figure out how to withdraw their £100 "correctly".

 

[ianbeale]

So it seems that I do have some valid points. I still haven't heard from the rep. we shall see if i do.

 

[suzecat]

Hello ianbeale, I do not recall ever welcoming you to the forum . You really needn't question Paul's advice as he is usually spot on!

Should I be in a similar position as you, I would gather my strength and find a way to gently ask the casino to process the 100 max and acknowledge your understanding that your remaining balance is forfeited to Prime.

You could file a complaint with their licensor, keeping in mind this may obviate your cash out and totally tick them off. That's my opinion and what I would expect.

Finally, as to Vinyl's comments. Look we love the guy and have known him for many years. IMO Vinyl is exceedingly player friendly but casinos need a gentle touch that is not aggressive - especially when asking them for a favor.

Let's hope this sorts out well for you. .

 

[Finn]

Looking through the terms, there is nothing under "withdrawals" that tells players of a "proper way" to withdraw winnings which are capped.

This is covered in the bonus terms, but even here it does not explain what the OP is supposed to do, so there is nothing to show that the OP did anything wrong either.




That's it "removed from your account". It makes no mention of the player having to follow a specific sequence of steps in order to effect a withdrawal of the allowed amount and have the rest "removed from their account". If anything, maybe they should have removed the excess as soon as the WR had been met, rather than letting the player have a balance higher than £100 and then have to figure out how to withdraw their £100 "correctly".

But in this case, the casino didn't remove the winnings as penalty for not doing the withdrawal "proper way".

They removed them because they were won on the free chip and exceeded the free chip winning cap. Non-deposit win is a non-deposit win regardless whether you have completed the wagering or not. It might seem silly that you would have to withdraw and deposit rather than just continue playing. But on the other hand, under other kind of terms and conditions it is also kinda silly that huge win on the last spin before completing the wagering doesn't count, but if you get that huge hit on the first spin after that, it will count.

 

[vinylweatherman]

But in this case, the casino didn't remove the winnings as penalty for not doing the withdrawal "proper way".

They removed them because they were won on the free chip and exceeded the free chip winning cap. Non-deposit win is a non-deposit win regardless whether you have completed the wagering or not. It might seem silly that you would have to withdraw and deposit rather than just continue playing. But on the other hand, under other kind of terms and conditions it is also kinda silly that huge win on the last spin before completing the wagering doesn't count, but if you get that huge hit on the first spin after that, it will count.

The impression I got was that they cancelled the withdrawal of the allowed £100 as well as any further winnings. They also tried to confuse the player by sending an email saying he had been paid the £100, and then putting £100 into his casino account, the £100 that they should have paid as per the email they sent. This tricked the player into thinking the £100 that reappeared in his account could be played. It's certainly not the only casino that does this, but the complex and lengthy withdrawal processes many casinos have are designed to steer the player away from taking their win and walking away, and towards being tempted to play some more in the hope of increasing the win, which the casino knows actually DECREASES the players overall chances of waking away with a win.

In this case, it also frustrates the player's attempt to do the illogical but "proper" thing, which is to take the £100 right out, and then deposit it right back again. For the player to carry on playing "the right way", the casino would have to pay the £100 out as fast as possible so that the player can carry on playing on that £100 by depositing it right back again with minimal delay and whilst the desire to play on is still there.

It's certainly illogical, and actually increases the overheads for the casino, but they do it anyway BECAUSE despite increasing their overheads, they still make even more money by confusing players into doing the wrong thing, even if that is nothing more than playing on for so long that the long term house edge eventually wipes out any short term gain.

 

[ianbeale]

Vinyl, you are correct, the cancelled the whole withdrawal of £200 (my first request).

I then continued using that £100 as I was under the impression and told it was a cash balance. As you say, withdrawing then redepositing would be costly and slow.

When I requested the 2nd withdrawal of £500, it was cancelled and they told me the £100 had been paid. It hadnt, it was only paid hours later after I had kicked up a stink about misleading information.


Still no reply from the rep.

 

[PrimeGaming]

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.

Hi,

as written by PM, we will check it and get back to you.

Thanks
Prime Partners

 

[ianbeale]

Thank you for looking into it. Appreciated.

 

[spintee]

Here is my pennys worth,

Its a standard practice theses days that alot of theses have a max cash out, Yes agreed it is a bad way to do & want you to reverse the 100 only to be told if you win that max is still 100, But I must say it does state in most terms that if money is reversed than the casino has the right to only pay out the maximum amount from the ORIGINAL FREE CHIP,

I agree it should be up to you once you won it but rules are rules no mater how bad they are, There is also another sting in the tail, Alot of sites do not let you take another bonus why you have a pending withdraw, This is not the end of the world as you can just play else where but again if a withdraw was instant than there be none of these arguments,

 

[ianbeale]

Here is my pennys worth,

Its a standard practice theses days that alot of theses have a max cash out, Yes agreed it is a bad way to do & want you to reverse the 100 only to be told if you win that max is still 100, But I must say it does state in most terms that if money is reversed than the casino has the right to only pay out the maximum amount from the ORIGINAL FREE CHIP,

I agree it should be up to you once you won it but rules are rules no mater how bad they are, There is also another sting in the tail, Alot of sites do not let you take another bonus why you have a pending withdraw, This is not the end of the world as you can just play else where but again if a withdraw was instant than there be none of these arguments,

Thats the thing isnt it. You would think they would want to you play it all back and deposit again but who is going to do thst when there is the "midnight tomorrow" pending time and then if its a card refund add a couple of days.

A cashout within hours to an E-Wallet gets it back to them quicker.

 

[PrimeGaming]

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.

Thank you. This is correct.
See No 13. in the T&Cs

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

Kind regards,
Prime Partners

 

[ianbeale]

Thank you. This is correct.
See No 13. in the T&Cs

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

Kind regards,
Prime Partners

I have had a request from the Maltese Gaming Authority to provide copies of Chat transcripts, you have previously refused this as "it is company policy to not provide this information to players". This was the email reply I got from one of the support reps.

Under UK law you are obliged to provide this information.

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

. I believe you hold a UK Gambling Licence?

If there is a fee for this service, ( I believe it is £10) then I am happy to pay this.

 

[PrimeGaming]

I have had a request from the Maltese Gaming Authority to provide copies of Chat transcripts, you have previously refused this as "it is company policy to not provide this information to players". This was the email reply I got from one of the support reps.

Under UK law you are obliged to provide this information.

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

. I believe you hold a UK Gambling Licence?

If there is a fee for this service, ( I believe it is £10) then I am happy to pay this.

I have sent you all the answers in PM.

 

[ianbeale]

"- Your first withdraw request was canceled and you were informed about this. Your request was for an amount higher than the allowed 100. This is why it was canceled.
- We are only obilgated to share chat logs with the UK gambling commission
- legal information is marked on the site"

This does not answer my question, skirting around the issue.

I have already confirmed I DO NOT have an issue with fact you retained £100 from my first withdrawal request. I believe I have already made this clear.

My issue arose AFTER the £100 was put back in my account.

It has still not been addressed why the £100 was not processed as a withrawal the first time, (it was the second time so clearly there is some difference in policy when it is seen fit" I believe the £100 was put back in my account to deceive, in the hope I would play it back and they I would receive nothing.

Would it have been questioned if this had happened?

Lets say the comp points that I would have built up during this play time, would they have been invalid because I played with money I was not allowed to?

 

[PrimeGaming]

"

It has still not been addressed why the £100 was not processed as a withrawal the first time, (it was the second time so clearly there is some difference in policy when it is seen fit" I believe the £100 was put back in my account to deceive, in the hope I would play it back and they I would receive nothing.

This was already answered in Point 1 I sent you in PM.
Everything should be resolved now.

thank you.
Prime Partners

 

[ianbeale]

Please post the response you are quoting here as I do not believe this to be the case.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This was already answered in Point 1 I sent you in PM.
Everything should be resolved now.

thank you.
Prime Partners

Why are customers not allowed "by law" to have a copy of their own chat logs?

It's no good sharing them with the UKGC as they don't deal with complaints themselves, they refer the matter to dispute resolution services.

Under a different set of laws, you are also obligated to provide all data held on a player to said player for a fixed fee of £10. A formal "Subject Access Request" should shake this reluctant tree sufficient for all the fruits to fall, not just the chat logs, but everything pertaining to this player.

A company that forces a customer to have to resort to a Subject Access Request generally has something to hide. 99.9% of casinos have no problem sending chat logs to customers, it is of course a legal document in many cases, the same as a verbal contract over the phone, or an agreement made by email rather than snail mail.

The obvious here is that a major screw-up by support is being hidden, but this actually makes the situation WORSE for the casino than fessing up to the mistake and apologising to the player.

If there is a max cashout, just pay it, simple, don't run a "smoke and mirrors" policy to obfuscate the fact from the player by reversing withdrawals without explanation, misleading them as to the nature of a balance shown, or telling them something has been paid when it hasn't.

I am sure the intent here was to trick the player into playing back the £100, but it didn't quite work out, and a $hitstorm ensued, even though the player DID eventually get the £100.