KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Casinomeister]

I wouldn't call it extortion. Definitely a whine, and definitely I understand where the player is coming from - but rules are rules.

Okay, extortion is a little strong. How about finagle?

 

[soflat]

I think King Neptunes was in the right.

But the player deserves credit for trying to make the most of the initial bonus, which is good because their reload offers are super weak (scratchcards? yuck!)

 

[Slotster!]

I think that's dead mean...

You wander into a casino, mess about on a few games, hit lucky and then DOH!

Like I say, yeah she shoulda read the LATEST T&C's... but she didn't, and is paying the price.

When viewed from a non-experienced perspective - It's scenarios like this that add to the whole online casino's are bad argument; and why they're still a million miles away from land based in terms of customer management.

Totally agreed on the signup bonus thing - shouldn't be allowed. Mind you, whilst casino's include such seemingly non-sensical and never ending T&C's, it'll only be the dedicated that stay interested - and the casual lot that lose out.

 

[bpb]

As for criticisms on the game choice, I think the operators know which games are being hammered and which aren't. These people (like Micki) have been successfully operating casinos for years, and they know the patterns of bonus play better than any sharp player.

No, they really don't. They take reactive, instead of proactive steps to prevent advantage play. They restrict the last game hit by advantage players, and don't put any thought into protecting themselves against future advantage play. All it really takes is a bit of 6th grade level math to construct bonus terms that are fair and attractive to recreational players, yet unprofitable for bonus whores.

This is why advantage play has been and will continue to be obscenely profitable, while casinos will alienate their potentially most profitable customers in trying to deter their most unprofitable ones.

And a comment for Spearmaster

My comments are based on arguments founded in logic and reason, as are the comments made by many posters in this thread. Feel free to disagree, as God knows we may all be totally wrong, but please don't insult us by suggesting that we're saying these things just because we feel that "The player is always right ... the casino is always wrong"

 

[soflat]

I don't understand why you guys are criticising the casino for not cracking down on advantage players. Why's it so important to you?

 

[spearmaster]

My comments are based on arguments founded in logic and reason, as are the comments made by many posters in this thread. Feel free to disagree, as God knows we may all be totally wrong, but please don't insult us by suggesting that we're saying these things just because we feel that "The player is always right ... the casino is always wrong"

No one disagreed with your logic nor insulted you.

However - this is the logic I apply and it OUGHT to be common sense.

The casino has the right to offer - or exclude - ANY game it chooses to for ANY reason. It also has the right to bar the player from playing.

However, they may not do so "at their discretion" - if they make an offer to the player, it MUST be honored as long as the player has met the terms and conditions.

If the player has NOT met the terms and conditions, the casino has every right to void all play and return the deposit.

In most offers I read, online, offline, whatever, there is always a clause which states "We reserve the right to modify the terms of this offer at any time without prior notice".

This is what we call "buyer beware" - always, ALWAYS - get a copy of the contract before you buy, and make sure it is dated - if you are not sure, check with the cashier or the manager FIRST.

This has nothing to do with advantage play. It is the casino's right to exercise the terms and conditions it laid out before the player entered into the contract.

If the term or condition is unfair, of course, they may challenge it before the fact - but not afterwards.

 

[sirius]

King Neptune maybe should employ someone who knows what they are doing regarding their promotions. There are other games they should be excluding and certainly there is no reason to void winnings for playing the games excluded from the wagering requirements. Instead they react monthly to play that happened in previous months. What sort of way to run a casino is that? As others have mentioned, there are other games that should be excluded from the start.

It makes the casino look a bit stupid to exclude one game but miss others that are more obvious. The casino should also remove the term that allows them to void winnings as it serves no legitimate purpose and alienates new players. The player can as easily build a large bankroll in allowed high house edge games such as slots. By allowing themselves to void the winnings they may be saving themselves a small amount of EV but that is if they actually exclude all the games they should which they haven't.

The EV difference is so small that it is not worth alienating new players by banning the games completely. Slots at Microgaming return around 96% and obviously have a high variance so I'm not sure why they think players can't win big on these games with almost as high EV as playing the others they are completely banning. They should just be excluded from counting towards the wagering requirements.

 

[spearmaster]

King Neptune maybe should employ someone who knows what they are doing regarding their promotions. There are other games they should be excluding and certainly there is no reason to void winnings for playing the games excluded from the wagering requirements. Instead they react monthly to play that happened in previous months. What sort of way to run a casino is that? As others have mentioned, there are other games that should be excluded from the start.

It makes the casino look a bit stupid to exclude one game but miss others that are more obvious. The casino should also remove the term that allows them to void winnings as it serves no legitimate purpose and alienates new players. The player can as easily build a large bankroll in allowed high house edge games such as slots. By allowing themselves to void the winnings they may be saving themselves a small amount of EV but that is if they actually exclude all the games they should which they haven't.

The EV difference is so small that it is not worth alienating new players by banning the games completely. Slots at Microgaming return around 96% and obviously have a high variance so I'm not sure why they think players can't win big on these games with almost as high EV as playing the others they are completely banning. They should just be excluded from counting towards the wagering requirements.

You are missing the point. The casino may exclude ANY game it likes at its discretion. Whatever logic they apply is up to them.

Do I think VP should be excluded? Of course not. Frankly I'd prefer that no game be excluded - but I can't always have things my way, and it's their business so they can run it how they like as long as they don't screw the player after the fact - and in this case it is very clear that they were well within their rights.

 

[soflat]

The advantage players are going to boycott KN because they don't restrict advantage player-friendly games?

 

[bpb]

and in this case it is very clear that they were well within their rights.

Everyone in this thread has agreed with this, so I don't think anyone here is missing this point.

 

[spearmaster]

This thread is so, so weird... just like the other thread...

In this thread:

Players make mistakes, and it is a mark of a truly reputable, fair and professional group that they do not exploit them.

In the other thread, I said "people make mistakes".

Here we have players asking casinos to forgive mistakes. In the other thread we have players saying that mistakes are unforgivable.

I was complaining to some of the other mods that it must've been a full moon a couple of weeks ago... there was so much heat on this board I could have fried an egg.

Maybe it's a full moon now - there's just as much heat - for the exact OPPOSITE reason.

WTF?

 

[Sodax77]

..."The player is always right ... the casino is always wrong"...

Or... "The casino don't make mistake... the player do"

From: "Lyris ListManager" <lyris@tridentegroup.com>
To: [removed]
Subject: all error mail
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:00:06 -0400

The following members on list all have been placed on hold because of
their inability to receive email:

[~ 2500 email addresses - removed]

And

From: "Trident Entertainment Group" <support@tridentegroup.com>
To: [removed]
Subject: Apologies
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:46:01 -0400

Dear [removed],


Last night, you may have received an e-mail that contained
various e-mail addresses.

We profusely apologize for any inconvenience this e-mail has caused.
We can assure you that we are dealing with this incident very
seriously.

We have recently upgraded our mail systems and are currently
fixing this problem - to ensure that this does not happen again!

We appreciate your patience and understanding regarding this matter.

Regards,


The Management and Staff
King Neptunes Casino
Trident Entertainment Group

 

[lydia]

I thought about that. But problems occur with ALL bonuses.

What they should do instead is increase loyalty or cashback payouts without wagering requirements exceeding 1x. And no restricted games, since EVERY game has a house edge.

That's exactly what I've been waiting for a very long time. No bonuses - no disputes and bad feelings and no confusion with W/R, T/C & Co. Loyalty points for proved players - is the best solution IMHO. Everybody would be happy!

 

[Slotster!]

The advantage players are going to boycott KN because they don't restrict advantage player-friendly games?

The opposite... Honest everyday players like me, who'll throw thousands at an outfit and often lose it (Just ask 32RED/Spin Palace etc ))

I don't think we're in the minority either by any means... Just we don't get the same press, because we don't have a problem trying to get our balances to 0.01p over the wagering requirements... Just quietly pour money into the coffers of online casinos. Just not this one.

 

[elscrabinda]

You are missing the point. The casino may exclude ANY game it likes at its discretion. Whatever logic they apply is up to them.

The only conceivable logic that they can have used is "this will give us a good opportunity to confiscate winnings". An honest reputable casino would exclude games from WR but not seize winnings when it is clear that no abuse deliberate or otherwise has occurred. Everyone agrees they are allowed to have this term. The 'frank' rule explained above is a perfect analogy. What we do not agree on is whether these are the actions of a fair and sensible casino

Let's say KN said, "Oh, don't worry about playing on the prohibited games. You signed up the day after the terms had changed, but since you won a lot of money, and this means a lot to you, congrats - we'll honor your winnings!"

Put yourselves in the operators shoes. When would this stop? When would you say - okay we'll let this player slide, but these others not. What would the criteria be? "Okay send in a picture, if you're hot - we'll let you cash out." "Oh, you're going to donate it to charity? okay, we'll let you slide." When do you say no - sorry, you generated your winnings on the wrong game(s). Without rules, you'll have chaos. This is the issue, not bonus hunting. Lest we forget the player still has her deposit and bonus funds.

Like most well run casinos, KN has made exceptions to their policies for their regular players. Maybe some of you should enlighten me on why this player should have been treated differently. Why should they have made an exception? That's all I want to know.

This whole "setting a precedent" argument is nonsense. All they would be setting a precedent for is to be able to interpret their terms fairly and sensibly. On average the player gained ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from playing this game. Noone is arguing that he should have been able to fulfill the WR from playing it. The play was wasted from a bonus clearing perspective and therefore cost him money in house edge. He could very very easily have wiped out completely and never discovered he was playing the 'wrong' game. That he happens to have hit the good side of variance is irrelevant. The play cost him money (on average) and it is not something that a casino should be punishing.

Why should this player be treated differently?

1. The rule is nonsense. It is badly thought out, solves no perceived problem and is completely unjustified. Casinos are allowed to have whatever rules they like. Players are also allowed to judge the reputability of a casino by the rules it has. This rule and the way it was used is more akin to a crappy Playtech or RTG than to a MG casino allegedly competing in the same field as 32red

2. The player looks like a regular recreational player. He was not exhibiting bonus hunting characteristics or any malign intent whatsoever.

3. The short time frame between the terms changing an him playing, whilst entirely legally binding should be taken into account when deciding whether to use their discretion one way or the other

 

[Casinomeister]

1. The rule is nonsense. It is badly thought out, solves no perceived problem and is completely unjustified. Casinos are allowed to have whatever rules they like. Players are also allowed to judge the reputability of a casino by the rules it has. This rule and the way it was used is more akin to a crappy Playtech or RTG than to a MG casino allegedly competing in the same field as 32red

Just about everyone has disallowed games. How was this rule used in a crappy way? She still has her bonus money and deposit sitting there. WTF?

2. The player looks like a regular recreational player. He was not exhibiting bonus hunting characteristics or any malign intent whatsoever.

This also shows me how closely you're reading this thread. The player is a SHE, and this was indicated early on. But besides that, I guess the British Pound is widely used in the states, because that's what she deposited.

3. The short time frame between the terms changing an him playing, whilst entirely legally binding should be taken into account when deciding whether to use their discretion one way or the other

It's already been said that if this would have happened within a few hours of the T&C change, then no problem, her winnings would have been honored. But she signed up nearly 24 hours after the change. It wasn't a short time frame, it was a day.

So these reasons to let her slide score high on the suck-o-meter. Next!

 

[Slotster!]

So these reasons to let her slide score high on the suck-o-meter. Next!

I kinda know where you're coming from, but I also kinda think the casino made a bad call here. They could've quietly retained a potentially profitable long term customer. Sure it's their call, but had they either compromised and shown good customer skills, or paid up - they wouldn't have lost the credibility of about 50% of people reading this thread. People who gamble online regularly.

I totally see both sides, I just don't agree that one day is enough to say no chance, no way, get outta here...

I still honestly believe that 32RED wouldn't trip up a player, new or otherwise in this fashion.

 

[soflat]

I kinda know where you're coming from, but I also kinda think the casino made a bad call here. They could've quietly retained a potentially profitable long term customer. ...

I seriously doubt the customer was going to be a longterm player there. The use of British Pounds is a dead-giveaway that she was primarily after the bonus. And King Neptunes does not offer great reload bonuses.

 

[Slotster!]

I seriously doubt the customer was going to be a longterm player there. The use of British Pounds is a dead-giveaway that she was primarily after the bonus. And King Neptunes does not offer great reload bonuses.

Hmm... Yeah, I guess so. That didn't hit home to me, as I play in GBP anyway. So is that the preferred currency of the bonus hunter due to the value? Well I never. I'm going to be banned from everywhere BANNED!! BANNED I TELL YOU!!! Hold on, I do live here - so that's ok I guess.

 

[spearmaster]

I kinda know where you're coming from, but I also kinda think the casino made a bad call here. They could've quietly retained a potentially profitable long term customer. Sure it's their call, but had they either compromised and shown good customer skills, or paid up - they wouldn't have lost the credibility of about 50% of people reading this thread. People who gamble online regularly.

This is fair comment and I'm sure that the casino realizes this. Micki especially - IMHO she does not have a bad bone in her body and she always works hard to try and keep people happy - but the complaint is still invalid and she DID give the player the bonus to start over with as well.

Many other places I know of give your deposit back and say goodbye... and sometimes you have to press them hard just to get the deposit...

 

[soflat]

Hmm... Yeah, I guess so. That didn't hit home to me, as I play in GBP anyway. So is that the preferred currency of the bonus hunter due to the value? Well I never. I'm going to be banned from everywhere BANNED!! BANNED I TELL YOU!!! Hold on, I do live here - so that's ok I guess.

No you won't get banned as long as you don' try to do an 8000 GBP hit-and-run.

 

[Slotster!]

Comments taken on board about the operator Spearmaster! - Giving the deposit AND bonus back is half reasonable under the circumstances I guess..

No you won't get banned as long as you don' try to do an 8000 GBP hit-and-run.

Hold on though - you can't guarantee a 'hit and run' at a casino... Certainly not to that extent, what with the house edge... I'd be less inclined to believe this poster if they were trying to claim a grinded out 405, or something close to the deposit/bonus.

More to the point - I stand by the stupidity of the rule, the changed T&C's and the excluded game, regardless to some extent of the poster we all started talking about

 

[elscrabinda]

CM, if you consider the rule and the way it was applied to be so eminently sensible please explain how a player benefits from playing a house edge game when it doesn't count towards playthrough. Dissallow games from WR but do not disallow them completely from being played. IT MAKES NO SENSE and results in highly unfortunate threads like this.

 

[bpb]

CM, if you consider the rule and the way it was applied to be so eminently sensible please explain how a player benefits from playing a house edge game when it doesn't count towards playthrough. Dissallow games from WR but do not disallow them completely from being played. IT MAKES NO SENSE and results in highly unfortunate threads like this.

There are situations where it is reasonable to seize winnings when restricted games are played. An advantage player can bet his entire balance on one hand of blackjack, or baccarat, or pai gow, then if he wins, grind out the remaining wagering requirement on a non-restricted game, and end up with a positive expectation.


What doesn't make sense is to restrict video poker, but have no restriction on pai gow, 3 card, etc. An advantage player would simply avoid the restricted game and utilize the non-restricted games. They are reacting to past patterns of advantage play, but in doing so, they aren't protecting themselves against future advantage play. But they have laid a nice trap for recreational players to fall into, and are generating a good deal of bad feelings.

 

[silcnlayc]

This thread is so, so weird... just like the other thread...

So true and amazing how the tide shifts with each encounter of wrongdoing or mistaken attempts at plays..never see the SAME answers to the SAME problems stated differently..it's like, let see, today I will stand behind "this" and not "that" but tomorrow I will stand behind "that" but not "this"... definitely wierd...