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

[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.