Joyland Casino: Problem withdrawal request

[freakin]

Yeah right. What a lot of rubbish. If you

(a) refuse to correspond by email, but contact people by phone to avoid creating a paper trail
and
(b) confiscate everyone's winnings

who is happy about that?

Answer: Joyland

Freakin

 

[casinomike]

I just want to state once again, that I refuse to believe Joyland's statement that they had a computer glitch

we have had reports that their comp system was in place for up to a week. Also several players confirmed they slightly adjusted the comp rate at least once and left it that way for some hours.

It is obvious to me, that this was not a glitch. casino management on the fly, oops we were too generous with our promotion : sweep it under the rug and confiscate winnings and destroy all the records, lock out accounts
result: short term small profit. long term, reputation destroyed, closed casino etc

 

[TrixSlice]

How's this for an idea - we all get spam from playtech casinos right? I keep getting stuff from Club Dice etc anyway. How about every time you get some playtech casino spam, you click on reply, copy a link to this thread, and click on send. If we all do it they'll get the message pretty quickly, and other playtech casinos will start putting pressure on playtech to sort out Joyland.

I actually think this is a good idea. If people get other PlayTech casinos to become aware of Joylands mess, maybe they can lend some pressure? It's amazing that now this thread shows up as top hit on a search for 'joyland casino'. Maybe that'll wake 'em up. To me, it seems like they must have made a lot of money to not want to resolve this. They must have raked in a lot more cash then ever before. This sickens me. Blah.

 

[dubs22]

"The main issue revolves around the fact that there was a mismatch in the way comp points were calculated.
We reviewed the players who played at Joyland Casino and the Casino management decided to cut the winnings of players who were seen to be abusers of the system. These "abusers" were the people who saw the failure in the system and played non-risky games in order to accumulate as many comp points as possible. Joyland's fraud department then refunded the initial deposits of all those players and decided to call each one of them personally."

Weighing in on the non-risky comment, if you recall my initial post in this thread, I also deposited and was betting 40 GBP/spin (about $70) on Video Poker, and what happened to me followed the "no-risk abuser" pattern as posted by the Joyland casino rep: several thousand in winnings voided and deposit returned.

If this is indeed the entire story, than I personally would like my entire cashout because I did not play low-risk wagers to accumlate comp points - and I'm sure there are more in the same situation (a few posted in front of me.)

I am also tired of writing/calling customer service and receiving a form reply.

 

[freakin]

I think a decent definition of low-risk is needed. I can understand someone betting red/black in roulette or bank/player in baccarrat being considered a low-risk wagerer, but $100/hand in VP? Honestly. The standard deviation for that has to be huge. Regardless, using low-risk wagers is not grounds for stealing winnings. If a player complied with the T&C, they need to be paid. And saying "We can do what we feel like cause we said we could in the T&C" is always bad.

I wasn't affected by this problem, but it is a huge black mark to me for both Playtech and Crown Solutions. I have had nothing but positive experiences from both up until this point. I don't want to go near a playtech until Joyland pays out this money.

Count me in on a total Playtech boycott.

Freakin

 

[Aindreas_Daoc]

I recieved the same "stock" e-mail from Joyland today. What a crock.

In my opinion, the comp point issue was not a "technical glitch". A technical glitch is when say, the comp page says 100 points = $1, but instead pays you $5. In fact the comp system paid out exactly as they set it. My feeling is that they were too generous with their promotion, and after a week or so finally realized this. However, instead of admitting this, they started taking money and blaming a non-existant technical glitch.

What is undisputable is that their action is disgusting. There should be no transaction log alterations. Players should be paid their winnings, and quite possibly their comps as well. At the very minimum they should apologize for their ill-thought out promotion and offer some compensation. Seizing people's money without any explanation or justification is unacceptable.

It appears that the only people who were "abusive" and were playing with "no-risk" is Joyland themselves.

 

[Pinababy69]

What is undisputable is that their action is disgusting. There should be no transaction log alterations.

I couldn't agree more. Even though this issue did not affect me directly, I am in the process of composing a form letter to send to all Playtech casinos that I currently hold an active account at, which will include a link to this thread. I am going to ask that all my accounts be closed, as I can no longer play at any casino supported by a software supplier that allows player transactions to be "erased." And I'd like to know why the rep that posted here just totally skipped that issue. I'd like to see someone log into Playcheck thru Micro and find no record of any play or into Cashcheck and have their withdrawal history wiped clean. Anyone here think they would get away with that?

 

[scrollock]

as mentioned earlier in the thread, this type of situation sometimes occurs with sportsbook and the in the UK a rule called palpable error is used.

there are 2 scenarios

a) the odds of a selection are 1/100 but are inputted as 100/1

b) the odds of a selection are considered to be 100/1 by others but are priced up by one firm as 150/1.

the palpable error rule is a sensible rule, because without it in case a) above the firm would go bankrupt all because of some lowly paid input operator making a typo. In this day and age of the internet typos will happen all the time, plus any reasonable person would realise that this is a mistake.

however you couldn't use it in case b) because a DECISION WAS TAKEN to give that price, and if one firm gives the best price they cant invoke this rule because they have found they have been more generous than other firms or otherwise then the next best price firm would then claim they offered the biggest price and declare their price void, and then the next firm.

to sum up you cant use it in b) because an odds complier would just declare all of his wrong calls void with the use of hindsight

Although this deals with sportsbooks, the principle of what is a fair regarding what is a reasonable and unreasonable mistake should still apply.

on first looks i would rule this problem with joyland a scenario a) situation above as the comp points were overly generous and it would appear at first glance that this is a typo type error by an operator.

however as the facts have begun to emerge in the thread it appears that this is definitly not the case. for example when it was realised that there was a problem with the comp points they were changed from a 100 to a $1 to 150 to a $1. if it had been a typo then surely it would have been changed to a 1000 a $.

the fact that it was changed to 150 shows not only was it not a typo, but also that the management had called the situation wrong because they had made the same mistake TWICE as the comp system still made some of the games advantageous to a shrewd player.

the fact they changed it to 150, shows that they realised they had made a mistake with the comp points, however it does indicate that the INTENTION was for them to be a 100 to the $ because the difference between 100 & 150 is not that much, its not as if we are talking factors of 10 or greater.

so its quite clear that this is no typo and that the promo manager made a bad call just like an odds compilers sometimes do.

on reflection the generousity of their mistake is not that great either, as i gather that the points mistake gave the shrewd player a H.A. in his favour of appox 4%, well i can go and sign upto at plenty of casinos that when the bonus is taken into account i will have a H.A. in my favour in excess of this. its hardly a cash machine spitting out money type of mistake.

the advatage for the player was 4%, this is similar to the % for some of the games, especially slots, so although some are arguing that the casino was giving money away, the fact is that if you apply the same logic to the player then he should be able to void all of his play every time he plays at a casino. the casino does not have a divine right to have the house advantage on their side. the only reason why they do have the house advantage on their side is because they provide the games, so when their games and software give a advantage to the player they should swallow it.

 

[TeddyFSB]

We reviewed the players who played at Joyland Casino and the Casino management decided to cut the winnings of players who were seen to be abusers of the system. These "abusers" were the people who saw the failure in the system and played non-risky games in order to accumulate as many comp points as possible.

No you didn't. You haven't given any evidence that you reviewed any of the players. You simply took the people who won and cut their winnings. That's not called reviewing players. There are now 15 or 20 players in this thread none of whom played non-risky games. All of this is verifiable by checking playing records, which you are now erasing? This thread might give a wrong impression that everybody (except for TheBloke and me) won. Of course, this is not the case. The people who lost their deposits to you are not posting in this thread in large numbers. It's not reasonable for them to expect you to return their deposits back. Just like it's unreasonable for you to confiscate winnings.

All players that play at Joyland Casino have to agree with the terms and conditions prior to playing where it states that the Casino Management is able to make decisions such as this. If you wish to re-read these terms and conditions please see

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

.

All players we have managed to reach over the phone were pleased, satisfied and full of understanding.

If I haven't had to deal with your casino already, I would suspect that someone opened a gimmick account under your name to post this. WHAT A JOKE

 

[JohnGalt]

on reflection the generousity of their mistake is not that great either, as i gather that the points mistake gave the shrewd player a H.A. in his favour of appox 4%, well i can go and sign upto at plenty of casinos that when the bonus is taken into account i will have a H.A. in my favour in excess of this. its hardly a cash machine spitting out money type of mistake.

the advatage for the player was 4%, this is similar to the % for some of the games, especially slots, so although some are arguing that the casino was giving money away, the fact is that if you apply the same logic to the player then he should be able to void all of his play every time he plays at a casino. the casino does not have a divine right to have the house advantage on their side. the only reason why they do have the house advantage on their side is because they provide the games, so when their games and software give a advantage to the player they should swallow it.

I have to say I mostly agree with your post, and with the posts of everyone else recently. Joyland's response is total BS. However, I also have to say this part of your post is totally wrong.

The reality is that you can't sign up for plenty of places and have the bonus end up a greater than 4% advantage for you. That corresponds to a very low wagering requirement, which is never offered on a cashable bonus these days. So not only is it a bigger advantage than the best bonuses, but it's also completely unlimited. It's equivalent to having the bonus on a deposit of any size, unlimited deposits. You don't think that's overly generous?

When you play slots, the house can't win more than you buy in for, but when you play with a 4% advantage you can take all the casino's money. As I mentioned earlier, in a week's time with a 4% advantage I could easily make a million dollars. So really, it is a cash machine spitting out money type of mistake.

That said, if it was a POLICY mistake, as opposed to some manual error (b as opposed to a in your example) then they should pay up and that's that.

 

[The Gunslinger]

on reflection the generousity of their mistake is not that great either, as i gather that the points mistake gave the shrewd player a H.A. in his favour of appox 4%, well i can go and sign upto at plenty of casinos that when the bonus is taken into account i will have a H.A. in my favour in excess of this. its hardly a cash machine spitting out money type of mistake.

the advatage for the player was 4%, this is similar to the % for some of the games, especially slots, so although some are arguing that the casino was giving money away, the fact is that if you apply the same logic to the player then he should be able to void all of his play every time he plays at a casino. the casino does not have a divine right to have the house advantage on their side. the only reason why they do have the house advantage on their side is because they provide the games, so when their games and software give a advantage to the player they should swallow it.

This is what I've been saying since the beginning of this thread.

I'll eat the house edge in Vegas with a smile on my face, because in Vegas what casinos are getting off of me on the house edge is paying for my drinks, hotel room, and laser tag in Circus Circus ( Like you've never played laser tag.) This is in Vegas.

In the online gaming world the player edge that is present in promotional situations (see 888.com's deals, 195% player edge, everyone got paid ... etc) pays for player loyality. This is not a new concept in the online gaming world. For so long as promotions have been around no one is nieve enough to think that casinos "Are just giving the player more money to gamble with." Bottom line, promotions are in place to give the player more money to win with. If I wanted to have more money to gamble with, I'd play free money all day long. Promotions represent a situation where the player has a chance to making money better than 50%, which is usually the opposite, when they'd have a chance of making money less than 50%. Why does this casino automatically use the fact that the player had an advantage as an excuse not to pay?

I don't know if this casino screwed up, or it was intentional, and I can sympathize with them not wanting to pay players on account of what could have been someone's mistake, or someone's lack of competance, but I certainly don't agree with it.

Joyland's fraudulent behavior has been well documented in this thread, and they will no doubt end up burried because of it, but I wanted to point out the precedent they are trying to set.

If a casino can retroactivly void winnings, promotional offerings (comp points,) AND essentially void play because of their error in judgement/competance/etc due to the eventual result of player success and get away with paying anything less then every cent the players deserve, it's going to set a dangerous precident.

The Gunslinger

 

[nublet]

I have been keeping an eye on this thread as I am also a Joyland account holder who has come out on the short end of the stick in this situation. I have recieved my deposits back, but still out $5500. This is the first time I've ever had to go through a hassle to get money out of an online casino, and i'm glad to see that i'm not alone in going up against this casino. My post has come after reading Joylands representatives post which has cleared up absolutely nothing for me and i'm sure the rest of you. This comp point scandal is the last thing I thought I'd ever have to worry about when I started playing online casinos. This is definately not a "bug in system" as I was still playing when they had changed to conversion rate to 150pts. = $1. This alone shows me that they were aware of their offering and corrected it to their liking. Not only are these casinos able to deem individual players bonus abusers, but we now must hope that we don't get emailed claiming we are comp point abusers?!? I await Joylands next explanation to this matter, I would like to see them explain what they deem as a low risk wager, explain the reasoning for altering transaction histories, and please explain why you would rather have this thread come above your own advertising within search engines rather then pay the players that put their trust into Joyland Casino and its affiliates.

 

[jetset]

This obervation by scrollock in what is in my opinion a thoughtful and reasonable post is worth reading again by everyone here, because it illustrates that "palpable error" was not a legitimate factor here (and in fact the casino has not used this in their explanation anyway - they probably know less about it than the players!)

QUOTE: however as the facts have begun to emerge in the thread it appears that this is definitly not the case. for example when it was realised that there was a problem with the comp points they were changed from a 100 to a $1 to 150 to a $1. if it had been a typo then surely it would have been changed to a 1000 a $.

the fact that it was changed to 150 shows not only was it not a typo, but also that the management had called the situation wrong because they had made the same mistake TWICE as the comp system still made some of the games advantageous to a shrewd player.

the fact they changed it to 150, shows that they realised they had made a mistake with the comp points, however it does indicate that the INTENTION was for them to be a 100 to the $ because the difference between 100 & 150 is not that much, its not as if we are talking factors of 10 or greater.

so its quite clear that this is no typo and that the promo manager made a bad call just like an odds compilers sometimes do.

on reflection the generousity of their mistake is not that great either, as i gather that the points mistake gave the shrewd player a H.A. in his favour of appox 4%, well i can go and sign upto at plenty of casinos that when the bonus is taken into account i will have a H.A. in my favour in excess of this. its hardly a cash machine spitting out money type of mistake. UNQUOTE

Then TeddyFSB makes the following additionally relevant post which goes to showing the bad motive of the casino here:

QUOTE: No you didn't (review the cases of all the players prejudiced in this affair). You haven't given any evidence that you reviewed any of the players. You simply took the people who won and cut their winnings. That's not called reviewing players. There are now 15 or 20 players in this thread none of whom played non-risky games. All of this is verifiable by checking playing records, which you are now erasing? UNQUOTE

Players here and elsewhere represent probably a small proportion of those affected by this winnings disqualification and transaction tampering - there are probably many more out there, making this behaviour even more disgraceful.

Another good point, made by Gunslinger:

QUOTE: If a casino can retroactivly void winnings, promotional offerings (comp points,) AND essentially void play because of their error in judgement/competance/etc due to the eventual result of player success and get away with paying anything less then every cent the players deserve, it's going to set a dangerous precident.UNQUOTE

And this one from Nublet (and btw this *mistake* went uncorrected for some time)

QUOTE:This is definately not a "bug in system" as I was still playing when they had changed to conversion rate to 150pts. = $1. This alone shows me that they were aware of their offering and corrected it to their liking. Not only are these casinos able to deem individual players bonus abusers, but we now must hope that we don't get emailed claiming we are comp point abusers?!? I would like to see them explain what they deem as a low risk wager, explain the reasoning for altering transaction histories, and please explain why you would rather have this thread come above your own advertising within search engines rather then pay the players that put their trust into Joyland Casino and its affiliates. UNQUOTE


BTW, there has been talk here of boycotting Playtech, and I should therefore exercise my right to express an opinion on this in a general sense no matter how unpopular it might be at this time and place.

I don't personally like boycotts, because they have a tendency to hurt both crooks and ordinary people alike - sort of *collateral damage* - and to me that is wrong. Playtech has decent licensees as well as arm-chancers like Joyland, and they don't deserve to be punished along with the unprofessional.

So, by all means exercise your personal right to choose where you play, but focus on those operations who have understandably angered and displeased you would be my (personal) recommendation.

 

[TrixSlice]

Jetset's last post is a wonderful summary of what's going on.

I too believe it's unfair to PlayTech and it's honest casino's to boycott them all. However I think boycotting any casino that's in relation to Joyland should be noted. Can anyone provide an easy list? Isn't Joyland part of Crown? Which was recenetly bought by a Poker site? Arn't a good handful of PlayTech casinos operated in the same building in Antigua (where Joyland is located)? If someone can compile a simple list of casinos that have a relationship with Joyland, we can spread that list so gambler's can have a more informed opinion of who to boycott.

 

[BJesus]

Prestige is linked to them Joyland gave me their phone number by mistake.

As for the boycott of Playtech I was thinking this was a player response to force them to get involved with Joyland.

Playtech suffer I know but we are suffering as well, we need to make them accountable for each other.

 

[thelawnet]

Jetset's last post is a wonderful summary of what's going on.

I too believe it's unfair to PlayTech and it's honest casino's to boycott them all. However I think boycotting any casino that's in relation to Joyland should be noted. Can anyone provide an easy list? Isn't Joyland part of Crown? Which was recenetly bought by a Poker site? Arn't a good handful of PlayTech casinos operated in the same building in Antigua (where Joyland is located)? If someone can compile a simple list of casinos that have a relationship with Joyland, we can spread that list so gambler's can have a more informed opinion of who to boycott.

here ya go









Try here www.antiguagaming.gov.ag

That list in full:

Christchurch Casino E-Gaming Investments Limited (pretends to be from New Zealand, licensed and run in Antigua, and has similarly poor standards of service to the rest of this bunch (see past threads)):
Kiwi Casino

Crown Solutions Gaming Ltd:
Club Dice
Monaco Gold
Joyland
Carnival Casino

Intercontinental Casinos (owned by Crown Solutions)
USA Casino
New York Casino

Prestige Gaming: (now owned by Crown Solutions, licensed in Curacao)
Playgate
Prestige
Diamond Club

Intercontinental Online Gaming:
Swiss Casino
Casino Las Vegas
Casino King
Magic Box

Imperial E-Club:
Casino Tropez
Casino Del Rio
Europa Casino
Racetrack casino
Vegas Red
City Club Casino

Sky International Casinos Ltd.:
Sky Kings

Sun Gaming Services Inc:
Casino Fortune
Mapau
Goldgate
Miami Beach


All Games Casinos:
Brandy Casino

Hailwood Gaming:
La Isla Bonita


My guess is that most of these groups are connected, possibly some of the last few are not.

Given this, it's VERY important to avoid the Crown Solutions casinos, as Club Dice, Monaco Gold, Carnival, Usa, New York, Playgate, Prestige and Diamond Club are every bit as culpable as Joyland. I would also avoid Kiwi as well - they have demonstrated on here in the past similar behaviour, although they did back down at the last minute. Imperial E-Club and Intercontinental Online Gaming are almost certainly linked too. Not sure about the rest of this bunch.

Reptable Playtechs?

Bet365, Totesport, Betfred, Action Online.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Prestige is linked to them Joyland gave me their phone number by mistake.

As for the boycott of Playtech I was thinking this was a player response to force them to get involved with Joyland.

Playtech suffer I know but we are suffering as well, we need to make them accountable for each other.

REALLY?!

Can this be substantiated? That would mean that Diamond Club, PlayGate, and Prestige were all linked to Joyland. Joyland has already been clearly linked with Carnival and Monaco Gold (I believe) and bears possible linkage to other similar Playtech Casinos such as New York and Vegas USA. If they were infact also linked to the PlayGate group of casinos that would mean that they could extend futher than I think most of us originally imagined.

I like the Playtech software, and I like the treatment that I have gotten in the past at a lot of Playtech sites, I won't lie. I've been frequently treated fairly, and given generous promotions that when the terms were followed, the bonus and winnings (if I did well) were almost always paid.

HOWEVER, with the highly ambigous lines defining who owns who and who's affiliated with who inside those Playtech casinos (espcially those all within the same licencing jurisdiction) there's really no way to tell who's who. There are obviously reputable Playtechs (such as Golden Palace, which as long as I'm not claiming a giant bonus, has never done me personally wrong-Golden Palace is licenced in Canada) but as for the rest of them where I can't really tell who owns/operates them, I'm done until this issue sees resolution. I think what is also important to note, is that Joyland screwed people essentially right out of the gate. I'm not sure Joyland hasn't been around for a long time, but it wasn't more than about a month ago that they joined the Casino Pays affiliate (I think.) A primary concern for Playtech (and if it's not, it damn well should be) is the outlook that players will have on their brand new casinos from now on. If Joyland screwed up this bad right out the gate, what's going to happen when Playtech licences UberFantastico Casino at the beginning of next year? Will anyone play there? I think not.

It's this that makes me wonder why Playtech isn't scrambling to save it's own skin. Pretty soon you're going to see all the Playtech casinos start jumping back onboard with Cytech . If I were Playtech, I'd be preparing to sue Joyland to force them to pay it's clients, or at least suspending their software and taking action to have their licencing taken away. It is this kind of swift action that would turn masses of players' heads. For the next few years players would equate Playtech as a company willing to take the hard action to support it's players. WHY DOES NO SOFTWARE COMPANY SEE THE VALUE IN BEING TRUSTED?!

I'll tell you one thing, if Playtech suspending Joyland's software, made open statements on this board and others regarding this situation, and held accountable the casino managers for taking actions that were detrimental to it's software's reputation, Playtech would quickly climb to the top of my prefered software providers' list.

The Gunslinger

 

[thelawnet]

BTW, there has been talk here of boycotting Playtech, and I should therefore exercise my right to express an opinion on this in a general sense no matter how unpopular it might be at this time and place.

I don't personally like boycotts, because they have a tendency to hurt both crooks and ordinary people alike - sort of *collateral damage* - and to me that is wrong. Playtech has decent licensees as well as arm-chancers like Joyland, and they don't deserve to be punished along with the unprofessional.

So, by all means exercise your personal right to choose where you play, but focus on those operations who have understandably angered and displeased you would be my (personal) recommendation.

The problem is Playtech has endorsed Joyland's behaviour. They have not taken any action. Their dispute resolution mechanism has rubber stamped Joyland's mass-theft. This makes them fully culpable. This is not a Joyland issue. Playtech have a mediation channel. That mediation channel has said 'sorry, you're SOL, have a nice day'.

Even if you're playing at a reputable site, such as Totesport (which could hardly be any more reputable), you are paying off Playtech, as they obviously get substantial revenue share.

 

[thelawnet]

REALLY?!

Can this be substantiated? That would mean that Diamond Club, PlayGate, and Prestige were all linked to Joyland. Joyland has already been clearly linked with Carnival and Monaco Gold (I believe) and bears possible linkage to other similar Playtech Casinos such as New York and Vegas USA. If they were infact also linked to the PlayGate group of casinos that would mean that they could extend futher than I think most of us originally imagined.

I like the Playtech software, and I like the treatment that I have gotten in the past at a lot of Playtech sites, I won't lie. I've been frequently treated fairly, and given generous promotions that when the terms were followed, the bonus and winnings (if I did well) were almost always paid.

HOWEVER, with the highly ambigous lines defining who owns who and who's affiliated with who inside those Playtech casinos (espcially those all within the same licencing jurisdiction) there's really no way to tell who's who. There are obviously reputable Playtechs (such as Golden Palace, which as long as I'm not claiming a giant bonus, has never done me personally wrong-Golden Palace is licenced in Canada) but as for the rest of them where I can't really tell who owns/operates them, I'm done until this issue sees resolution. I think what is also important to note, is that Joyland screwed people essentially right out of the gate. I'm not sure Joyland hasn't been around for a long time, but it wasn't more than about a month ago that they joined the Casino Pays affiliate (I think.) A primary concern for Playtech (and if it's not, it damn well should be) is the outlook that players will have on their brand new casinos from now on. If Joyland screwed up this bad right out the gate, what's going to happen when Playtech licences UberFantastico Casino at the beginning of next year? Will anyone play there? I think not.

It's this that makes me wonder why Playtech isn't scrambling to save it's own skin. Pretty soon you're going to see all the Playtech casinos start jumping back onboard with Cytech . If I were Playtech, I'd be preparing to sue Joyland to force them to pay it's clients, or at least suspending their software and taking action to have their licencing taken away. It is this kind of swift action that would turn masses of players' heads. For the next few years players would equate Playtech as a company willing to take the hard action to support it's players. WHY DOES NO SOFTWARE COMPANY SEE THE VALUE IN BEING TRUSTED?!

I'll tell you one thing, if Playtech suspending Joyland's software, made open statements on this board and others regarding this situation, and held accountable the casino managers for taking actions that were detrimental to it's software's reputation, Playtech would quickly climb to the top of my prefered software providers' list.

The Gunslinger

um, golden palace ripped off lots of people in similar circumstances.

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

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

They left microgaming under a cloud, ripping off players as they left.

 

[jetset]

I don't think I would go so far as to say that Playtech has endorsed Joyland's conduct just yet, based on my own exchanges with Playtech management so far in trying to find a solution to this.

It is true that their initial handling of this issue was an inexperienced and regrettable wave-off sending players back to an uncommunicative casino, but since then they are I believe re-examining this issue in more detail and trying to find an equitable solution.

So I for one will reserve judgement regarding their alleged support for the casino's position until I see something more concrete from them.

This question of transparency on who owns a particular online casino is a recurring problem that bedevils the online gambling industry, and I understand that one of the new UK regulatory requirements will be that this information is easily available - that would be an excellent regulation imo for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it puts a name to the conduct of a casino.

I'm a little troubled by all these casinos being construed as belonging to one group (Crown Solutions etc) From recent Empire Online press releases it is clear that Monaco Gold, Club Dice, Carnival and YouBingo, together with Noble Poker are probably one ownership, but it is not clear to me where Joyland fits into this.

It could be that Crown is perhaps a holding entity of sorts that Playtech uses as a licensing vehicle? Just a thought.

 

[thelawnet]

I don't think I would go so far as to say that Playtech has endorsed Joyland's conduct just yet, based on my own exchanges with Playtech management so far in trying to find a solution to this.

It is true that their initial handling of this issue was an inexperienced and regrettable wave-off sending players back to an uncommunicative casino, but since then they are I believe re-examining this issue in more detail and trying to find an equitable solution.

So I for one will reserve judgement regarding their alleged support for the casino's position until I see something more concrete from them.

This question of transparency on who owns a particular online casino is a recurring problem that bedevils the online gambling industry, and I understand that one of the new UK regulatory requirements will be that this information is easily available - that would be an excellent regulation imo for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it puts a name to the conduct of a casino.

I'm a little troubled by all these casinos being construed as belonging to one group (Crown Solutions etc) From recent Empire Online press releases it is clear that Monaco Gold, Club Dice, Carnival and YouBingo, together with Noble Poker are probably one ownership, but it is not clear to me where Joyland fits into this.

It could be that Crown is perhaps a holding entity of sorts that Playtech uses as a licensing vehicle? Just a thought.

Well the obvious solution is for them to explain what's going on. They are part of the same affiliate network (Casino Pays). Their websites say that they are 'owned' by Crown Solutions.

The poker site Noble Poker, says it is 'owned' by Imperial E-Club, which is a different set of casinos (del rio, tropez, etc.). There are very obviously connections.

They have the same address in Antigua, same web servers, etc.

 

[caruso]

This wasn't the best organised coup, and the analogy with CON 007 isn't perfect on all front's: even way back then, CON was the market-leader. In addition, that promo was unequivocal. On the other hand, here we have a lil' ole' Playtech casino, and a "mistake". The player mustn't be made to pay for casino mistakes, but mistake it was nonetheless - of gargantuan proportions.

I would put a conservative per-player take on this, maxing out with sleeping and eating time kept to a minimum, at about $200,000 over the course of a week on this manna-from-heaven 103.5 / 104% return casino. Taking a conservative (again) estimate of the players in the group, say 15, that's $3,000,000 for the lot of them. Kudos to whichever member it was who found the "mistake" and passed it on to the other 15 or so, but this was a disaster waiting to happen. At the very least there was never going to be less than an almightily bloody fight, and even then, at this level, chances of payment were slim - maybe 5%. The amount of money involved is simply too great for even Playtech to cough up. Remember RTG and the "Pirate"? Did he get his $1,400,000? Not even close - and that WAS unequivocal, with no possible opt-out clause for the casino.

Kudos to you folks for a ballsy coup attempt in which the potential rewards MIGHT have outweighed the absurd risks, but this wasn't a wise endeavour. Best of luck to you, though.

 

[thelawnet]

This wasn't the best organised coup, and the analogy with CON 007 isn't perfect on all front's: even way back then, CON was the market-leader. In addition, that promo was unequivocal. On the other hand, here we have a lil' ole' Playtech casino, and a "mistake". The player mustn't be made to pay for casino mistakes, but mistake it was nonetheless - of gargantuan proportions.

I would put a conservative per-player take on this, maxing out with sleeping and eating time kept to a minimum, at about $200,000 over the course of a week on this manna-from-heaven 103.5 / 104% return casino. Taking a conservative (again) estimate of the players in the group, say 15, that's $3,000,000 for the lot of them. Kudos to whichever member it was who found the "mistake" and passed it on to the other 15 or so, but this was a disaster waiting to happen. At the very least there was never going to be less than an almightily bloody fight, and even then, at this level, chances of payment were slim - maybe 5%. The amount of money involved is simply too great for even Playtech to cough up. Remember RTG and the "Pirate"? Did he get his $1,400,000? Not even close - and that WAS unequivocal, with no possible opt-out clause for the casino.

Kudos to you folks for a ballsy coup attempt in which the potential rewards MIGHT have outweighed the absurd risks, but this wasn't a wise endeavour. Best of luck to you, though.

That's an 'interesting' assessment.

$200,000? I don't think so.

I've gone back through this thread and here's the numbers

4029 euros
$1000
$10,000
$5,700
$356.75
$2,000
3000
$20,000 ($100 Royal Flush)
$1600
amsterdam: $??
cardsandmore: $?? ('meagre')
thebloke: lost money chasing comp points: not refunded
$200,000 is a dramatic number to pluck out of the air, but there's zero evidence it's remotely accurate. Your amusing image of people keeping sleeping and eating activity to a minimum for a week, doesn't appear to have any correlation with reality.

Calling it a coup is pretty interesting as well - casino offers favourable terms, players take advantage - not my idea of a coup.

I have no idea how much this casino lost (or now, won, having conficated the winning players' money, while keeping the losers), but to say this was a mistake is a little strange - on the one hand, claim people were playing for a week straight, and we've seen that the casino actually adjusted their comps to the still highly favourable ratio of 2.66% at one point. What kind of mistake is that? The only mistake is them offering a promotion they didn't assess the implications of, but that should not be a get-out clause.

And finally, they might be a 'lil old Playtech', but with the $40m purchase of three casinos owned by 'Crown Solutions' selling for $40m in cash, and playtech itself undoubtedly making millions per month, the numbers we are talking about are not insurmountable.

 

[120sam]

200000 seems like a wild over estimate to me, theoretically possible perhaps but there's no evidence that anyone made that much. I think 20000 is the most anyone is claiming to have made. If Joyland wanted to they could tell us how many players tried to withdraw, and how much for, their total estimated liability, plus how many extra losing players they had as a result of people telling their friends to go and try it too etc.

At least they could if the records still existed, but they've been changed, and I don't think they're claiming that that was a mistake, or addressing that issue at all. When they wiped players' transaction records did they make back-ups for themselves? Either they're keeping two sets of books now or the information has gone forever.

One issue that hasn't been mentioned yet is insurance. Can online casinos insure themselves against this kind of loss? Do they have a duty to? I don't know anything about that aspect of things but I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who does.

 

[freakin]

200000 seems like a wild over estimate to me, theoretically possible perhaps but there's no evidence that anyone made that much. I think 20000 is the most anyone is claiming to have made. If Joyland wanted to they could tell us how many players tried to withdraw, and how much for, their total estimated liability, plus how many extra losing players they had as a result of people telling their friends to go and try it too etc.

At least they could if the records still existed, but they've been changed, and I don't think they're claiming that that was a mistake, or addressing that issue at all. When they wiped players' transaction records did they make back-ups for themselves? Either they're keeping two sets of books now or the information has gone forever.

One issue that hasn't been mentioned yet is insurance. Can online casinos insure themselves against this kind of loss? Do they have a duty to? I don't know anything about that aspect of things but I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who does.

Luckily, players received automatic withdrawal emails from Joyland when they initiated their cashout. These email contain the correct amount of the withdrawal. If a player left money in their account, there is probably zero record of it.

Freakin