thelawnet said: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
thelawnet said: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?
120sam said: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.
What is undisputable is that their action is disgusting. There should be no transaction log alterations.
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.liatk said: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.
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 JOKEAll 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 seeYou 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.
scrollock said: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.
scrollock said: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.
TrixSlice said: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 said: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.
jetset said: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 Gunslinger said: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
jetset said: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.
caruso said: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.
120sam said: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.