KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

Status
Not open for further replies.
As many of you know, I rarely post on any public forum as I strongly believe the forums should be kept for players to discuss various issues openly with each other. Having said that this is one of those rare times when a player has brought their grievance to an open forum and I need to respond.

Our sign up T&Cs stated quite clearly March 1-31 (just as for May it currently states: Eligibility is limited to New Players who register a Real Money Account at King Neptune's Casino between May 1st, 2006 and May 31st, 2006. )

If the player read the T & Cs when she claimed her welcome bonus, she would have known what games were and were not excluded from play. To arrive at the Excluded games section, she had to pass the Eligibility section which includes the Promotion T & Cs start and finish date range. The website was actually updated with all of the April promotions between 10:15 and 10:45pm on March 31. XXX did not register, deposit or claim her bonus until after 9:00pm on April 1, nearly 24 hours later. (All timings are Eastern Time).


We went through all of her play very carefully before reaching the decision to void her play on the excluded games returning her balance to $200 deposit and $200 bonus to give her the opportunity to play on the permitted games. As of this morning, the $400 is still available in her account balance

Our decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of money involved, had her play been legitimate we would have happily paid her.
Micki
 
Last edited:
that sounds reasonable to me. And that should in my opinion be accepted as a not only correct but even good decision.
 
Micki,

You mentioned that you went through the player's play very carefully before the decision to void all play on the excluded games. What about play on 'non-excluded games'? Why were they also voided? There is no mention of this. The bonus and deposit is still in the player's account and he can now play on 'non-excluded games'. We are told that the additional winnings on non-excluded games previously played were also voided because the player had used funds accumulated from winnings on excluded games to achieve this. Does this mean that the player had lost his deposit in the process and thus only used the winnings to generate additional winnings. Otherwise, at least a portion of his additional winnings are legitimate and should be paid.
 
Micki, your response adds nothing to what we already know.

Noone doubts that the terms cover you and that you are allowed to do it. What I want to know is WHY exclude games with a house edge instead of just not counting them towards wagering and WHY of all the games to ban choose Deuces Wild with (for Video Poker) an obscenely high house edge?

I want to play at a casino where I don't have to have my lawyer present to make sure that you are not going to confiscate winnings for the flimsiest of reasons. I used to trust your casino, now I do not. I'm sure the same applies for many people on here.
 
elscrabinda said:
I want to play at a casino where I don't have to have my lawyer present to make sure that you are not going to confiscate winnings for the flimsiest of reasons. I used to trust your casino, now I do not. I'm sure the same applies for many people on here.
How are clear terms and conditions considered "flimsy"? How could you not trust a casino that is clear and concise and has reviewed this thoroughly?

The only reason we're having this discussion is because a player failed to read the terms and conditions when she signed up. This is the player's responsibility and no one else's.
 
I was talking to someone last night about this, and mentioned that in my mind a fair resolution would have been to have the deposit plus bonus returned to the player's account, and allow them to have another "kick at the can". I didn't know that this had already been done, I was under the assumption that all funds had been confiscated. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I have no problem with this resolution. I guess it's a hard lesson, and something I don't do myself, but when you signup at a new casino, you need to read the T&C's WHEN you make your deposit.

Those links that Winbig posted are a very good idea as well.
 
minority report

Pinababy69 said:
I was talking to someone last night about this, and mentioned that in my mind a fair resolution would have been to have the deposit plus bonus returned to the player's account, and allow them to have another "kick at the can". I didn't know that this had already been done, I was under the assumption that all funds had been confiscated. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I have no problem with this resolution. I guess it's a hard lesson, and something I don't do myself, but when you signup at a new casino, you need to read the T&C's WHEN you make your deposit.

Those links that Winbig posted are a very good idea as well.

Maybe minority - but we are at least two of us (see my post above)
 
kenneth2816 said:
Pina, the player's original post said the account "was zeroed out", which needed clarification. In this case, the casino made the only decision it could make.

Which explains why I "assumed" that ALL funds had been confiscated. Thanks for the clarification. I'm gonna have to start reading threads a couple of times before posting.
 
Pinababy69 said:
I was talking to someone last night about this, and mentioned that in my mind a fair resolution would have been to have the deposit plus bonus returned to the player's account, and allow them to have another "kick at the can".
It's one of my pet peeves when people make statements like, "you got the deposit back so you're not out any money". This is usually said when the player had met the casino's terms and so the money was his - as soon as terms are met there's no such thing as "bonus money" anymore, just the player's balance.

This situation is different, of course, and it's probably as much as the player can expect. Casinos will always use any terms they can to void large payouts. It's still a bit offensive to suggest restoring the deposit and bonus is an act of generosity, though - the player's instantly losing 7600, and probably 8000 in the end as of course the chances are he'll lose the deposit (some people are talking as though playing deuces wild somehow meant the player could make 1000s risk-free).
 
She has her deposit AND bonus waiting for her to have another go at it - as far as I know.
 
How are clear terms and conditions considered "flimsy"? How could you not trust a casino that is clear and concise and has reviewed this thoroughly?

This particular term and condition should not exist! As no one has given a justification for its existence I can only assume that it is there only to trip up players and confiscate their winnings. A trustworthy casino should not have a pointless and pathetic term like this in the first place.
 
elscrabinda said:
This particular term and condition should not exist! As no one has given a justification for its existence I can only assume that it is there only to trip up players and confiscate their winnings. A trustworthy casino should not have a pointless and pathetic term like this in the first place.
:what: I don't follow you. They have a disallowed game. All casinos have disallowed games for their bonuses. What exactly are you referring to?
 
Micki said:
We went through all of her play very carefully before reaching the decision to void her play on the excluded games returning her balance to $200 deposit and $200 bonus to give her the opportunity to play on the permitted games. As of this morning, the $400 is still available in her account balance

In reference to Bryan's second to last post, you can see that Micki said the player has the deposit AND bonus in the account currently.

You want to rag on a casino, rag on the ones who would have just given the player back their deposit and that's it. At least this casino has given the player the opportunity to play accepted games and basically "start over."
 
Casinomeister said:
:what: I don't follow you. They have a disallowed game. All casinos have disallowed games for their bonuses. What exactly are you referring to?
Most casinos don't mind if you play the disallowed games. It just doesn't count towards the wagering requirement.

Any terms that can result in the forfeiting of winnings when you make a mistake are going to result in a lot of recreational gamblers losing their money. Bonus hunters don't tend to make mistakes.

That's why I was so hard on Fortune Lounge and thought they should have been rogued when they were forfeiting the bonus and winnings if a player made any mistake in wagering (e.g. wagered too little). To their credit they changed to a system where at least the first time they'd restore your balance and let you keep playing.
 
Vesuvio said:
Most casinos don't mind if you play the disallowed games. It just doesn't count towards the wagering requirement.


Hmm that's interesting. Not being a bonus user I didn't realise that. So I could get $200, build it to say $2k in Blackjack or a couple of big Red/Black bets in Roulette (IE: excluded games), then go use that $2k on slots to fulfill the wager requirement? Superb. I didn't realise casinos had missed that one :D
 
Simmo! said:
Hmm that's interesting. Not being a bonus user I didn't realise that. So I could get $200, build it to say $2k in Blackjack as an excluded game, then go use that $2k on slots to fulfill the wager requirement? Superb :D
Yep, though you might find turning $200 into $2k a little tricky :) The mathematically inclined casinos also didn't miss the fact that trying to build up a big balance on excluded games means more money for the casino in house edge.
 
Vesuvio said:
Yep, though you might find turning $200 into $2k a little tricky :)

The way I play Blackjack that's an understatement :D

Regards the issue at hand, I think Trident did the right thing returning deposit and bonus. Many lesser regarded casinos wouldn't have done that. At the end of the day, the terms were there, even if it was only just. And they couldn't have really done anything else as it would have set a precedent and potentially caused an even bigger furore. Kinda like the Bella Vegas case recently :)
 
Simmo! said:
And they couldn't have really done anything else as it would have set a precedent and potentially caused an even bigger furore.
I don't see why they couldn't have realised (especially after he e-mailed) that this player was just a day late playing a game which no-one would choose to play if he wasn't going by the old t&cs. If they paid his cashout would it have set a precedent or caused a furore? Of course not. The terms give discretion so there's no precedent even if someone else happened to learn what happened. There would be nothing at all on the message boards. In hindsight even the casino might think the money would have been worth it to avoid the bad publicity - and might reconsider this term as it'll keep coming back to haunt them.
 
Casinomeister said:
:what: I don't follow you. They have a disallowed game. All casinos have disallowed games for their bonuses. What exactly are you referring to?

This is what I have been saying all along. It is perfectly legitimate for casinos to state which games count towards wagering requirements and which do not. A reputable casino that wants to avoid disputes and keep customers happy however should not exclude these games entirely. Let players play what they want and if by a misreading of the terms they play the wrong game all they will have to do is complete the wagering requirement on eligible games. If someone was to play a $6000 WR on Deuces Wild it would on average cost them the full value of the bonus in house edge anyway! What advantage did the player gain??!!

The only purpose it serves is to give an opportunity to seize winnings and is asking for trouble. There is no justification for it as this game had a high house edge. The player did not gain an advantage playing it. A bonus abuser would have played only 3 card poker or similar anyway or would have picked a more generous VP game.
 
Simmo! said:
The way I play Blackjack that's an understatement :D

Regards the issue at hand, I think Trident did the right thing returning deposit and bonus. Many lesser regarded casinos wouldn't have done that. At the end of the day, the terms were there, even if it was only just. And they couldn't have really done anything else as it would have set a precedent and potentially caused an even bigger furore. Kinda like the Bella Vegas case recently :)

No. Allowing the player to continue playing out the wagering requirement on allowed games would have set the precedent that they are able to use their terms and conditions fairly and sensibly and not as a tool by which to confiscate winnings arbitraly.

As has been mentioned, allowing him to do this would NOT have been in breach of their terms. Their terms state that winnings may be seized at their discretion. This is very similar to the standard playtech term "we reserve the right to screw you over". "reserve the right" does not mean "we are obliged to do it". We do not expect reputable Playtechs to use this term to seize winnings. Neither should we expect reputable MG casinos to use their equivalent.
 
elscrabinda said:
No. Allowing the player to continue playing out the wagering requirement on allowed games would have set the precedent that they are able to use their terms and conditions fairly and sensibly and not as a tool by which to confiscate winnings arbitraly.

For a regular player, a "known" entity, Yes I agree.

Look at it this way: you say to me you'll give me $100 but I can't spend it on a gun to shoot you with. So I go off to buy a crossbow, but while I'm down the shops, you think "sh*t, supposing he buys a crossbow", and you text me an exclusion notice. Only I don't get the text 'cos that hooker Pinababy fixed me up with nicked my cellphone last night. Bitch. So when I turn up at your house, holding my shiny new crossbow and a small pointy stick, do you:

a) Hold your hands up and go "fair's fair, stick it on me fat boy"
b) Call the cops and have me arrested
c) Take the crossbow from me and give me another $100 to make up for it?

:D

If I was a mate, you'd probably give me the $100 - you might even jokingly ask me to stick it on you. If you didn't know me, then apart from being stupid to give me $100 for a crossbow, you'll probably call the cops. Right?

PS. before you libel me, I'd just like to point out that I'm not a violent person and have no intention of doing that by the way...it's just British humour, for better or worse :)
 
Last edited:
Simmo! said:
Look at it this way: you say to me you'll give me $100 but I can't spend it on a gun to shoot you with. So I go off to buy a crossbow, but while I'm down the shops, you think "sh*t, supposing he buys a crossbow", and you text me an exclusion notice. Only I don't get the text 'cos that hooker Pinababy fixed me up with nicked my cellphone last night. Bitch.

First of all, I can't wait until Pina sees that you called her a "bitch." Boy, oh boy, more furor than the English Harbour incident ... (runs and hides) ;)

And are people really saying that if you have a bankroll of £400 (the OP's original deposit and bonus) compared to a bankroll of £8,194 (the OP's winnings of £7,794 which was taken added to that deposit and bonus), the player doesn't have a better chance of walking away with more money?

Let's use good ol' blackjack (assuming it's an allowed game) as an example:

1. The player starts with £400. According to the casino's website current T&C, the player would have to £6000 before withdrawing. Using a standard .05% HE for blackjack (this is an example, not based on Neptune's actual HE), the player would statistically lose £3, leaving them with a profit of £197.

2. The player starts with £8,194 and then has to complete that £6000 of wagering. Given the house edge of blackjack, the player still statistically loses £3.

This gives a profit of £7,791!!!!


Heck, take the Wizard of Odds' highest HE on a slot machine of 15%. The player statistically loses £900. That still gives the player a profit of £6,694 if he plays an allowed slot machine after racking up that initial profit on disallowed games.

If you don't like the casino's rules, don't play there. But if you do play there, it's ultimately your responsibility to know them and follow them.
 
This thread's taken a surreal turn of late. Simmo, nice analogy... well, sort of... except: I quite like the sublime paranoia of "I'll give you $100 but don't buy a gun to kill me", but it's a little lacking in motivation, don't you think? You forgot you're only giving away $100 on the condition that the other guy gives you $100 and you'll keep it all unless he "kills" you (in fact you'll kill him, I suppose... it's like the Wild West).

Trying to keep with the analogy: every single player's out to "kill" you (even the nice ones with bad aim), if not with the cross bow it'll be with the meat cleaver, or failing that the spanner you also didn't exclude.

I don't know quite what it all boils down to if you take out the weird analogy: casinos should only treat players decently if they know they'll make a profit from them?
Macgyver said:
And are people really saying that if you have a bankroll of £400 (the OP's original deposit and bonus) compared to a bankroll of £8,194 (the OP's winnings of £7,794 which was taken added to that deposit and bonus), the player doesn't have a better chance of walking away with more money?
Hmmm, no, no-one said anything of the sort :confused: Of course the player loses a fortune if the casino keeps to its guns. For what it's worth, you lose £30 at BJ, not £3, but that's neither here nor there.
 
Slotster's final word:

1) The guy, by the letter of the law, should've adhered to the terms and conditions
2) Kudos to the casino rep for responding, I wanted to see a more thorough bit of detail really, with rock solid proof why they did the right thing, but it's their perogative I guess
3) I would not, and will not play at this casino. This is a personal preference for not choosing places that, in my humble opinion, have these 'trip you up' clauses - I appreciate fully this is a personal opinion and open to debate.
5) What the hell happened to 4)?
6) I feel for the guy, and were it my outfit, assuming he didn't 'hammer' the disallowed game - I'd probably fall somewhere in the middle
7) Simmo is clearly pissed :D


Take care of yourselves... and each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top