KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[spearmaster]

when I started playing on-line I'd meet the wr and then fiddle around with any other casino games I felt like. Naive? Perhaps, but there was never a problem.

I rest my case.

To defend the casino's actions.

Did it ever occur to you that all play must be checked in the FIRST place before the payment is approved?

Had you met the WR - your payment would have been approved - simple as that. This is a non-issue.

 

[derelict]

Man, if you thought this thread was bad before......

I cannot believe we're arguing over whether or not play on certain games voids winnings at Intercasino et al. This is lunacy.

 

[Linus]

Spear, as you can see from this screen capture, I've got bonuses stacked up at Intercasino going back to Feb. (I'm a big loser there).

If you're agreeable, we could do this right now. I deposit $500, and play one $500 game of craps. If I win, I immediately take the $1000 to Pontoon (Mmmm, Pontoon... ) and play out whatever number of hands I need to withdraw the entire amount.


Of course, I can't guarantee that I will win - in fact, it's more likely that I'll lose. But I'm 100% certain that Intercasino will not confiscate any winnings. That includes winnings on an excluded game, that has always been excluded at Intercasino, that is one of only 3 excluded games they have there, and that I know for a fact is excluded, before I begin to play.

 

[Vesuvio]

I rest my case.

Did it ever occur to you that all play must be checked in the FIRST place before the payment is approved?

Had you met the WR - your payment would have been approved - simple as that. This is a non-issue.

It strikes me as just as likely their accounting software flags up any significant win when disallowed games were played and they automatically void all winnings. Then only if the player complains and is persistent they'll have a closer look at the exact order the bets were played.

 

[Vesuvio]

Man, if you thought this thread was bad before......

I cannot believe we're arguing over whether or not play on certain games voids winnings at Intercasino et al. This is lunacy.

Can't argue with that

 

[soflat]

Originally Posted by spearmaster:
Why do you think she even bothered to check the actual play in the FIRST place?

Hmmm,

Originally Posted by Vesuvio:
To defend the casino's actions.

Bingo!

Obviously Micki did not want those winnings paid out. And she used her discretion to confiscate them and get a justification when the need arose.

 

[spearmaster]

It strikes me as just as likely their accounting software flags up any significant win when disallowed games were played and they automatically void all winnings. Then only if the player complains and is persistent they'll have a closer look at the exact order the bets were played.

I don't think their system can flag disallowed games - otherwise it would be quite simple to not allow the games to be played in the first place.

All cashouts would be checked manually if a bonus was received. And now you are really taking the mick... Everyone here at CM knows Trident's stellar reputation, and there has rarely been any complaint at all, and those rare few were immediately handled in favor of the player as well.

What on Earth (no pun intended) would even give you the impression that they act like some rogue Playtech operator?

 

[Vesuvio]

I don't think their system can flag disallowed games - otherwise it would be quite simple to not allow the games to be played in the first place.

You're just speculating like I am. I'm sure it would be simple to prevent players playing on disallowed games but that would remove the possibility of confiscating winning... & probably more significantly it would stop people wasting money on games that don't count to the wr. Just as making Playcheck useful would allow people to finish exactly at the wagering requirement. It's all about percentages in this game.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting King Neptune are at the level of the majority of Playtech/RTG outfits. I just think this particularly term is worthy of the latter.

Ok... that's my last word on this topic. Someone shoot me if I post again on this thread!

 

[spearmaster]

You're just speculating like I am. I'm sure it would be simple to prevent players playing on disallowed games but that would remove the possibility of confiscating winning... & probably more significantly it would stop people wasting money on games that don't count to the wr. Just as making Playcheck useful would allow people to finish exactly at the wagering requirement. It's all about percentages in this game.

Trust me - if they had this capability already (which they don't) we would have been howling for justice had it not been turned on. We have been asking for this for YEARS.

 

[maxlevine]

Ok... that's my last word on this topic. Someone shoot me if I post again on this thread!

LOL

Actually, Vesuvio, it was still interesting. But I think Simmo's cartoon many pages earlier says it all

Max

 

[mitch]

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

 

[tennis_balls]

bump!

 

[dalzilla]

Put this thread to rest

Been out of online gaming for a while but staying current on my "required reading"

Must agree... this thread needs to go away... use the silver bullet, stake, garlic, exorcism, whatever.

The horse is dead.

 

[henryVIII]

I think this thread is an embarrasment to King Neptunes. Losing £8,000 because a casino changed its terms overnight ... phew!! That is a very nasty way to do business. I will never play there obviously.

 

[Linus]

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.

You say she "obviously won nothing," but in fact, she won ~8000 pounds.

You say she "lost all her real money," but money won is just as real as any other kind.

The casino has not confiscated anything, there was nothing to confiscate!

You say King Neptune confiscated nothing, but in fact, they confiscated all the winnings in the player's account.

(would they have actually confiscated if the player had been a winner on allowed games? Who knows it's purely hypothetical)

But Piecar did win money on allowed games. That money was confiscated, along with the rest of it.

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.

King Neptune did confiscate winnings after the event.

That's true both in real life, and according to their own terms and conditions.

Spear says piecar's winnings were "automatically" confiscated. But that's not what King Neptune's terms and conditions say, and that's not what actually happened. Piecar's winnings could not have been confiscated until after King Neptune made the decision to confiscate them. Which didn't happen until after piecar had already won.

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?

Obviously, not you.

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

 

[mitch]

Linus

I do not know whether you are deliberately being disengenuous or are just confused.

A lot of casinos allow you to play their games with 'Play Money' their T&Cs emphasise you cannot withdraw any 'winnings'. Are you saying you would support a player who won money under these T&Cs and then asked the casino for the money?

This is the same issue, the casino said these games were excluded with a bonus, no ifs and buts about their T&Cs.

If this player had stopped after just playing the excluded games would you be argueing that she was entitled to her 'winnings'?

I can't believe any reasonable person would think so and legally it's no contest.

Assuming you are reasonable you must therefore agree she had no winnings after playing the excluded games and therefore started playing on allowed games with just her original stake and bonus.

The question of confiscation only arises if the player played excluded games and then subsequently went on to win money on allowed games.

This player didn't, she lost all her money on her first allowed game.

As I have already said, the question of whether the casino would have actually invoked its confiscation clause is purely hypothetical and a waste of this forums time.

Mitch

 

[Casinomeister]

This thread needs a wooden stake.

It keeps going because members keep introducing matters that have nothing to do with the issue raised.

Wooden stake inserted without prejudice.

Thread upgraded to closed.

Now back to the beach...