This thread needs a wooden stake.
It keeps going because members keep introducing matters that have nothing to do with the issue raised.
Refresh -
The player played games excluded by the casinos T&Cs. She obviously won nothing, then lost all her real money on her first bet on an allowed game.
The casino has not confiscated anything, there was nothing to confiscate! (would they have actually confiscated if the player had been a winner on allowed games? Who knows it's purely hypothetical)
This approach, of having excluded games, has been recommended by members on this forum as the way to go for casinos who consider advantage play bonus abuse, rather than confiscating winnings after the event by using their 'catch all' T&C.
Members keep posting that Inter, et al, would pay if the person had played this way at their casinos. (they would actually because they don't have excluded games they just have 'restricted' games) But who gives a f*** in the context of this casino and this player?
Start another thread about the merits of various casinos different T&Cs if your that bothered.
Casino is in the right, no doubt! ( and I know this because I have a first class honours degree in The Bleeding Obvious
)
Die thread die. (where's my silver bullet as well!)
Mitch