KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Linus]

What I'm saying is there's no "winnings from winnings" rule in their terms and conditions. They could easily have put that rule in their terms if they wanted - but they didn't.

If it's the player's responsibility to read and understand the terms that are actually there, surely it's the casino's obligation to actually write the terms they intend to follow, isn't it?


As far as whether such a rule would "stand to reason" - piecar wasn't playing with canadian quarters or slugs - she was playing with real American money (sorry Canadians - I know your money is "real" too - in Canada). Money the casino had accepted, and intended to keep, had she lost.

And I don't understand why you and KN assume the money she lost was her deposit. It could just have well been money from the excluded game. Isn't this a purely arbitrary?



Edit: IOW, it's not the player's responsibility to read into the contract terms that aren't actually there, especially rules that might make sense to the casino, but don't make sense to a player.

re-edit: Just remembered she was playing with pounds. Oh well. It was still real money, that the casino was happy to accept.

 

[spearmaster]

What I'm saying is there's no "winnings from winnings" rule in their terms and conditions. They could easily have put that rule in their terms if they wanted - but they didn't.

If it's the player's responsibility to read and understand the terms that are actually there, surely the casino has an obligation to actually write the terms they intend to follow, isn't it?

I think it's common sense - but there's no reason why that can't be written into the T&Cs as well.

As far as whether such a rule would "stand to reason" - piecar wasn't playing with canadian quarters or slugs - she was playing with real American money (sorry Canadians - I know your money is "real" too - in Canada). Money the casino had accepted, and intended to keep, had she lost.

LOL.

The money is virtual, hardly greenbacks... and the first legitimate bet she placed, she lost all of those funds.

And I don't understand why you and KN assume the money she lost was her deposit. It could just have well been money from the excluded game. Isn't this a purely arbitrary?

It stands to reason that none of her money was legitimate except for the deposit plus the bonus, until she made that first bet on an allowed game - so no, I wouldn't call that arbitrary. One can also presume that the winnings were automatically considered void upon the conclusion of each bet on a disallowed game - and thus she had no right to use these funds, only the funds which she was legitimately entitled to in the first place - and she lost it all on one bet.

Oh - and by the way, she was playing with pounds, not dollars

 

[Linus]

I think it's common sense - but there's no reason why that can't be written into the T&Cs as well.

You're right, it could have been written in. But - it wasn't.

LOL.

The money is virtual, hardly greenbacks...

The bottom line is that it was real money - not slugs.

and the first legitimate bet she placed, she lost all of those funds.

All the bets were legitimate, in the sense she was playing with real money, which she could have lost. Had she lost, none of the bets would have been considered "illegitimate," at least not by King Neptune.

It stands to reason that none of her money was legitimate except for the deposit plus the bonus, until she made that first bet on an allowed game - so no, I wouldn't call that arbitrary. One can also presume that the winnings were automatically considered void upon the conclusion of each bet on a disallowed game - and thus she had no right to use these funds, only the funds which she was legitimately entitled to in the first place - and she lost it all on one bet.

Oh - and by the way, she was playing with pounds, not dollars

"common sense"
"It stands to reason"
"One can presume"

You seem to have switched from being a strict constructionalist, to an activist.

The bottom line, though, is that the casino can't just assume and presume terms into existence. Especially since they're the ones who get to write them in the first place.

Would you be ok with players presuming terms that weren't there?


And I have to ask: "Automatically considered void" - by whom? Certainly not by the player. No player willingly plays a game where her winnings are void, but her losses are real.

If the casino had actually voided them (rather than just "considering" them void) there's no way piecar would have kept playing.

 

[spearmaster]

"common sense"
"It stands to reason"
"One can presume"

You seem to have switched from being a strict constructionalist, to an activist.

LOL.

Is what I said *not* common sense?

The bottom line, though, is that the casino can't just assume and presume terms into existence. Especially since they're the ones who get to write them in the first place.

Would you be ok with players presuming terms that weren't there?

And I have to ask: "Automatically considered void" - by whom? Certainly not by the player. No player willingly plays a game where her winnings are void, but her losses are real.

She willingly played the game, no matter how you look at it LOL. The T&Cs say that any winnings on excluded games may be declared null and void. So once the game is played, and resolved, it can be declared void.

If the casino had actually voided them (rather than just "considering" them void) there's no way piecar would have kept playing.

Software limitation, unfortunately. I'm sure this will be resolved in the future when Microgaming get serious about giving operators these necessary options.

The alternative would be to check after each play - manually - which does neither the casino nor the player any favors.

Anyhow, theory works both ways - you can find arguments to support the player just as easily as you can find arguments to support the casino. But under the circumstances, the casino is still within its rights to enforce a term which was clearly stated up front - so there isn't really much point of discussing the ifs and hads and whatnot in hindsight.

I do hope that they will take many of the recommendations in here and where possible implement the necessary changes to show that they do listen to players.

 

[Linus]

LOL.

Is what I said *not* common sense?

I don't think it's common sense to say the first time she lost any money, that money was somehow automatically the money she'd deposited, and not the money she had won.

But under the circumstances, the casino is still within its rights to enforce a term which was clearly stated up front - so there isn't really much point of discussing the ifs and hads and whatnot in hindsight.

I do agree it doesn't really matter.

Whether they took the money because of what's in their T&C's or because of "common sense" - either way it's gone.

Hopefully other players won't make the same mistake piecar made.

Had she been playing at Intercasino or 32Red, instead of King Neptune, she'd be 8000 pounds richer right now. Both of those casinos offer nice monthly bonuses, in addition to not confiscating players' winnings.

 

[spearmaster]

I don't think it's common sense to say the first time she lost any money, that money was somehow automatically the money she'd deposited, and not the money she had won.

That's not what was said. The first time she had a legitimate play, she lost. Had she won, she obviously could have continued to finish the playthrough requirements and she would have had a very strong claim to her winnings - and I bet that she would have then been paid.

Hopefully other players won't make the same mistake piecar made.

I hope so too. There must be a better and easier way of doing these things.

Had she been playing at Intercasino or 32Red, instead of King Neptune, she'd be 8000 pounds richer right now. Both of those casinos offer nice monthly bonuses, in addition to not confiscating players' winnings.

Honestly, I wouldn't be too sure of that. I don't know if it was ever established that she did in fact meet the playthrough requirements on allowed games anyhow.

As for monthly bonuses - Trident had a very nice CashCard system which unfortunately ended May 31. I lost track of how many times I turned these CashCard bonuses into winnings...

 

[piecar]

Hi,

I am getting correspondence from Micki and she is accusing me of blackmailing and threatening King Neptunes. I apologize to her if I came across that way. All I am doing (and all I am able to do) is to tell my story to the public both here and through word-of-mouth. I will let the public come to their own conclusion on the matter.

Call it synchronicity--here's something I found at wizardofodds.com:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

One more thing, shouldn't I be entitled to at least the winnings for my play at King Neptunes slot machines, cyberstud poker, and tri card poker? How can they confiscate those winnings as well?

This whole situation stinks. Why can't they just pay me and get on with life?

 

[Pinababy69]

This whole situation stinks. Why can't they just pay me and get on with life?

Why can't you accept that you are NOT going to get paid, and get on with life? I was very sympathetic to your case originally. I sided with the casino, but I did feel bad for you, and felt that you had made an honest mistake. However, with what you just posted, you have lost any good feeling I may have had. I agree with Micki wholeheartedly, what you are doing IS bordering on blackmail. This thread is 30 pages long, enough is enough. If you want to see true sleaze in living colour, check out the Jackpot Factory thread.

Whoever believes that Neptune's was wrong in this case, then take Slotster's advice, and just don't play there. To allow this to go on is just plain silly, IMO.

 

[chuchu59]

Hi,

I am getting correspondence from Micki and she is accusing me of blackmailing and threatening King Neptunes. I apologize to her if I came across that way. All I am doing (and all I am able to do) is to tell my story to the public both here and through word-of-mouth. I will let the public come to their own conclusion on the matter.

Call it synchronicity--here's something I found at wizardofodds.com:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

One more thing, shouldn't I be entitled to at least the winnings for my play at King Neptunes slot machines, cyberstud poker, and tri card poker? How can they confiscate those winnings as well?

This whole situation stinks. Why can't they just pay me and get on with life?

Piecar,

The casino was always within their rights not to pay you for winnings on excluded games and their exercised these rights. As for winnings on other games, from day one I have been asking how the winnings on these can be voided as well. With Micki's reply that your first bet amounting to $400 which coincidentally amounted to your full deposit and bonus was lost so in theory, you shouldnt have any more funds to bet with since the balance in your account was won on excluded games. So they are not confiscating the winnings. It's only that they are not winnings in the first place. Of course you might argue why it should be your deposit and bonus that was used for that very first bet of $400. However, if you consider that your winnings on excluded games had been voided that would have left you only $400 to start with.

Micki,

I hope you are reading this. Unless Piecar threatened that she will continue posting until you pay, I believe that stating she is blackmailing the casino is a bit over the top. This thread has attracted posters to both sides more than what I have seen before at this site and shows that it is not a one-sided issue. What the casino should probably do now is to set the terms straight ie voiding all play instead of winnings on excluded games and doing everything possible to give prior notice players of impending changes to the terms and conditions.

 

[Linus]

Hi,

I am getting correspondence from Micki and she is accusing me of blackmailing and threatening King Neptunes.

I wouldn't worry about Micki. She's King Neptune's representative.

It's her job to try to justify what they've done. Or, failing that, to cover it up.

I apologize to her if I came across that way.

I don't think you owe anyone an apology. Most folks - having had 8000 pounds confiscated - would be much more angry about it than you have been.

All I am doing (and all I am able to do) is to tell my story to the public both here and through word-of-mouth. I will let the public come to their own conclusion on the matter.

You're doing the right thing. You can't control what King Neptune does, or doesn't do, but at least other people will have the benefit of knowing what has happened to you.

Call it synchronicity--here's something I found at wizardofodds.com:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

One more thing, shouldn't I be entitled to at least the winnings for my play at King Neptunes slot machines, cyberstud poker, and tri card poker? How can they confiscate those winnings as well?

I'd like to see you get at least your winnings from the non-excluded games.

This whole situation stinks. Why can't they just pay me and get on with life?

 

[spearmaster]

I am getting correspondence from Micki and she is accusing me of blackmailing and threatening King Neptunes.

Well, is it true or not?

I know Micki well enough to state that she is not a bullshitter and that she would not unjustly accuse someone of something if it wasn't true - so I am inclined to believe that this is more than just a little bit of smoke.

 

[elscrabinda]

Good to see the Wiz has picked up on this. Would be great to have a ticker counter running to show how much business they've lost from this sorry episode. Impossible of course but it would give me a great deal of morbid entertainment

 

[Linus]

Well, is it true or not?

I know Micki well enough to state that she is not a bullshitter and that she would not unjustly accuse someone of something if it wasn't true - so I am inclined to believe that this is more than just a little bit of smoke.

I think it's kind of sad, that King Neptune is reduced to accusing her of blackmail, because she won't just be quiet about it.

You'd think she was the one who took the money from them.

 

[spearmaster]

You'd think she was the one who took the money from them.

???

She is the one trying to take money from them. She was wrong, knows it, admits it, yet she STILL wants the money.

 

[silcnlayc]

She is the one trying to take money from them. She was wrong, knows it, admits it, yet she STILL wants the money.

Ditto to all of the above...

 

[mitch]

This case is simple isn't it?

Follow the bets.

Player starts with £400, makes a bet on a game which is excluded. Player wins but the winnings are automatically voided still leaving the player with £400. This sequence of bets continues and the player obviously never builds up any 'pot' of winnings they are being voided one after the other.

Finally, the player plays a non excluded game, she still has the £400 she started with and bets it all on the first play, she loses, she now has nothing.

Anything that happens after this event is irrelevant, just play money after this I am afraid.

Two things also bother me about this case. She denies being aware of the T&Cs but plays in GBP. The sort of thing only clued up players do in a serious hunt for bonus money. Then on the first play on a non-excluded game bets exactly her deposit and bonus money in one go. If this wasn't the table max (and I don't know this) then what are the odds that this was just a coincidence? Any of you gamblers out there like to lay odds on this happening by accident.

The Casino has subsequently given the player a gift of £400 to play again and the player comes whinging to the board. Is she jokeing this is a kind offer by the Casino IMO.

Mitch

 

[soflat]

One more thing, shouldn't I be entitled to at least the winnings for my play at King Neptunes slot machines, cyberstud poker, and tri card poker? How can they confiscate those winnings as well?

Hi Piecar,

Just curious, how much did you win on excluded games, and what was your ending balance?

Also, did you win or lose overall on the non-excluded games?

 

[Linus]

This case is simple isn't it?

I agree that it's simple.

Player deposits real money into her King Neptune account, trusting that they'll pay her if she wins.

She makes an honest mistake, and plays a game that had become excluded the night before.

She happens to win.

Had she lost, King Neptune would not have refunded any of her money. But because she won, King Neptune confiscates all her winnings.

Not only from her excluded game, but from all her non-excluded games as well.


King Neptune is certainly within its rights - as you guys keep insisting.

After all, they wrote the T&C's, and it's in their "sole discretion."

And it's not like there's some court out there, that piecar can appeal to.

As a practical matter, it's within King Neptune's "sole discretion" to pay piecar - or any player - whether they write that in their Terms and Conditions or not.

 

[soflat]

Had she lost, King Neptune would not have refunded any of her money. But because she won, King Neptune confiscates all her winnings.

Not only from her excluded game, but from all her non-excluded games as well.

What is the breakdown of the winnings? How much excluded game winnings did they confiscate and how much was non-excluded?

I thought she won a lot on Deuces Wild, then made a big losing bet on 3-Card Poker. Did she get on a winning streak with the non-excluded games?

 

[Simmo!]

Ever get the feeling.....

 

[Linus]

What is the breakdown of the winnings? How much excluded game winnings did they confiscate and how much was non-excluded?

I thought she won a lot on Deuces Wild, then made a big losing bet on 3-Card Poker. Did she get on a winning streak with the non-excluded games?

I don't know, soflat, you'll have to ask her.

My understanding is she got a big win on VP, but that she had winnings on some non-excluded games, as well.

 

[rreevy]

I've been following this thread for some time, and personally I believe this player should be paid. Admittedly she broke a rule, but the rule she broke does not benefit the casino in any way.

Based on the T&Cs, they clearly have the right to void the winnings. But there is NO RISK to the casino from players playing excluded games. They actually gain in the long run because the house edge chips away at your bankroll while your wagering doesn't contribute anything to the WR. The fact that this player won is (or should be) irrelevant. As has been pointed out before, many reputable casinos don't have a term allowing them to confiscate winnings on excluded games - because they simply don't need them! In the long run play on excluded games benefits the casino - that's not my opinion, it's a mathematically demonstrable fact.

I haven't read anything yet on this thread that makes me feel the rule in question, and thus the confiscation of her winnings, is really necessary. I have a lot of respect for Bryan, but I really can't understand why he feels the casino needs to invoke this term:

"If they were to say, "okay go ahead - we'll make an exception for you," then everyone and their brother would chime in and say "what about me? I played on the disallowed games as well!" Run a business like that, and you'll be run into the ground."

I can't see at all how this would be so. Am I missing something? Of course, it's possible that there's more to this than we know about...

Anyway, I won't consider playing at KN again unless/until she gets paid, or until I understand what the casino is protecting itself from by invoking this clause.

 

[spearmaster]

Based on the T&Cs, they clearly have the right to void the winnings.

End of story.

"If they were to say, "okay go ahead - we'll make an exception for you," then everyone and their brother would chime in and say "what about me? I played on the disallowed games as well!" Run a business like that, and you'll be run into the ground."

Put yourself in the casino's shoes. Heck, put yourself in a storekeeper's shoes when the customers make a run on him because he honored a coupon that had expired just 22 hours ago.

The player's problem is not THAT unique. Find some sympathy and then make a run through the gap. But in this case the casino rightfully refuses to open the hole.

 

[Simmo!]

The fact is though, the casino has acted within the rules when deciding how it bests wants to handle the issue. It's not a question of "wrong" or "right", it's a question of "reasonable" or "unreasonable".

How they responded to the situation, by refunding deposit and the bonus for the player to have another go, is up to each individual to evaluate on a fairness level.

This issue is so over IMO

 

[Pinababy69]

This issue is so over IMO

Simmo, where's that pic of that dead nag you had?

 

[Simmo!]

Simmo, where's that pic of that dead nag you had?

LOL. Post #320 - "Flogging a Dead Horse":

Link Outdated / Removed

 

[tennis_balls]

But there is NO RISK to the casino from players playing excluded games

there is some risk and that's why some casinos choose to exclude certain games for bonus players. if you play deuces wild (especially 4-handed), you will see how crazy the swings can be. KN has probably determined that a player is more likely to build a bankroll playing Deuces Wild than with other games and so they have chosen to exclude it.

I think it's pretty wimpy of King Neptune's to exclude this game. If I'm gonna gamble, I want a casino that doesn't mind a little gamble. Still, it is their right to exclude any game they want for the bonus.

 

[Simmo!]

TB: I wish you'd change your avatar...everytime I see it it makes me want to fire up and play - lol

 

[soflat]

I think they should have voided the winnings on excluded games, but not non-excluded games.

If she won $5k from Deuces Wild, then remove $5k. But they went so far as to carefully analyze her play to justify confiscating winnings from non-excluded games. Some might see that as an intention to do right, but it is kind of pathetic in my opinion.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Maths Graduates

there is some risk and that's why some casinos choose to exclude certain games for bonus players. if you play deuces wild (especially 4-handed), you will see how crazy the swings can be. KN has probably determined that a player is more likely to build a bankroll playing Deuces Wild than with other games and so they have chosen to exclude it.

I think it's pretty wimpy of King Neptune's to exclude this game. If I'm gonna gamble, I want a casino that doesn't mind a little gamble. Still, it is their right to exclude any game they want for the bonus.

I expect we have university Maths graduates to blame for all this.
Last year, it was the "bet it all on one hand of Blackjack or Roulette". Easy to understand how a series of such bets with 100% bonuses gives the player an edge in the long term.
Not so sure about the Video Poker, especially the DW, where the only big positive swing is a hit on 4 Deuces, not all that common.

Bonus rules are now so technical that the Wizard is right, they attract the Bonus Players/Maths graduate. but actually could put off the casual gambler, especially one who has never tried it before.

Interestingly, Microgaming HAVE come up with a solution, but KN have decided not to use it as it allows weighted wagering on ALL games, no mistake possible, AND a clear display of what is players money and what is unearned bonus money.
I have found the reputable PLaytech group on Casinomeister have dealt with this in a far better manner. Their terms also have a list that includes Blackjack and VP games as "restricted". Instead of confiscation, ANY wager found to be present on a restricted game increases the WR by a factor of 2 or 3 on the allowed games. This is the way forward, get rid of straight confiscation, but adjust the rules to counterbalance the additional perceived risk of bets on restricted games. This will become unnecessary when the software provides for such restrictions to be set on an individual account basis.
The calls for the removal of bonuses will not happen, as this is how they get new players drawn in, they would only change if an alternative lure had the same, or better, results.

 

[Linus]

Put yourself in the casino's shoes. Heck, put yourself in a storekeeper's shoes when the customers make a run on him because he honored a coupon that had expired just 22 hours ago.

If you try to use a coupon that's expired at a store, the clerk says, "Sorry, this coupon has expired."

He does not reach into your wallet and take all your money.


Simmo - It's not just a question of "reasonable" or "unreasonable." It's also a question of where a customer wants to spend her money.

If you like having your winnings confiscated, King Neptune may be a good choice for you. If you'd prefer to risk your money at the tables, rather than over changes in the terms and conditions, you might consider playing somewhere else.


I have no interest in putting myself in a casino's shoes. When they share their profits with me, perhaps I'll reconsider. Until then, I'd prefer a casino that puts itself in my shoes, instead.

 

[Linus]

I expect we have university Maths graduates to blame for all this.
Last year, it was the "bet it all on one hand of Blackjack or Roulette". Easy to understand how a series of such bets with 100% bonuses gives the player an edge in the long term.
Not so sure about the Video Poker, especially the DW, where the only big positive swing is a hit on 4 Deuces, not all that common.

Bonus rules are now so technical that the Wizard is right, they attract the Bonus Players/Maths graduate. but actually could put off the casual gambler, especially one who has never tried it before.

Interestingly, Microgaming HAVE come up with a solution, but KN have decided not to use it as it allows weighted wagering on ALL games, no mistake possible, AND a clear display of what is players money and what is unearned bonus money.

The new "Clearplay" system also allows wagering on all games - including Blackjack, Roulette, and Video Poker. Sorry, I don't know what all casinos are using it. But it doesn't involve confiscation clauses.

I have found the reputable PLaytech group on Casinomeister have dealt with this in a far better manner. Their terms also have a list that includes Blackjack and VP games as "restricted". Instead of confiscation, ANY wager found to be present on a restricted game increases the WR by a factor of 2 or 3 on the allowed games.

The Cryptos - Intercasino, William Hill, etc. - also have restricted games (Roulette, Baccarat, and Craps), but play at restricted games simply doesn't count. It doesn't result in confiscation.

This is the way forward, get rid of straight confiscation, but adjust the rules to counterbalance the additional perceived risk of bets on restricted games. This will become unnecessary when the software provides for such restrictions to be set on an individual account basis.

Casino software is what casinos want it to be. If they can warn you about hitting on a twenty, they could warn you about restricted games - if they wanted. Confiscation clauses are more profitable, though. ("If you lose, we win. If you win... we win anyway."

The calls for the removal of bonuses will not happen, as this is how they get new players drawn in, they would only change if an alternative lure had the same, or better, results.

 

[spearmaster]

If you try to use a coupon that's expired at a store, the clerk says, "Sorry, this coupon has expired."

He does not reach into your wallet and take all your money.

LOL.

The terms and conditions which the player read were expired, period. The point, however, is that a merchant cannot be expected to make an exception when it is clear that the customer did not meet the conditions under which he/she made a purchase. Making that exception, on the other hand, opens the merchant to possible abuse on the pretext that "well, you made an exception for so and so, why can't you make an exception for me? Besides which only 15 hours had passed, not 22...?

If, on the other hand, the customer had already made the purchase but the merchant was unable to validate the offer right away, it can then be assumed that the merchant would honor the offer.

Keep in mind the purchase and play was some 20+ hours after the terms and conditions (or offer) had expired. The player did not register the account, make a purchase, and start playing before the terms expired.

If you like having your winnings confiscated, King Neptune may be a good choice for you. If you'd prefer to risk your money at the tables, rather than over changes in the terms and conditions, you might consider playing somewhere else.

This is unfair. King Neptunes has rarely, if ever, had to exercise its right to declare winnings null and void - you make it seem as if this is the norm, when in reality it is far from common practice.

Until then, I'd prefer a casino that puts itself in my shoes, instead.

Believe it or not, that's what Micki did - she went to the trouble of validating the play and basically left some room for an exception to be made even though she was WELL within her rights to simply void all play and winnings. Despite that, the player then lost the entire deposit and bonus on her first legitimate play - end of story.

 

[soflat]

Believe it or not, that's what Micki did - she went to the trouble of validating the play and basically left some room for an exception to be made even though she was WELL within her rights to simply void all play and winnings. Despite that, the player then lost the entire deposit and bonus on her first legitimate play - end of story.

Huh?

She went looking play-by-play trying to find a way to void winnings from non-excluded games.

I was in favor of the casino until it was found that they voided winnings from non-excluded games.

 

[spearmaster]

Huh?

She went looking play-by-play trying to find a way to void winnings from non-excluded games.

I was in favor of the casino until it was found that they voided winnings from non-excluded games.

No.

She went from the start looking for where the player started playing allowed games. She then tried to determine if the player would have met the new terms and conditions by playing allowed games - but unfortunately the player lost the entire starting amount on her very first play of an allowed game.

 

[soflat]

Excuse me, but as I understand it, the player had net winnings on non-excluded games and they were confiscated.

It is very very simple:

a) Take net winnings from excluded games, subtract those from her balance. Those winnings are null and void.
b) Leave non-excluded winnings alone. Nothing in the T&Cs says they can confiscate them.

She did not have to go play-by-play thru the logs. But she did to confiscate winnings on allowed games. That is how she found the justification.

Bad casino!

 

[spearmaster]

Excuse me, but as I understand it, the player had net winnings on non-excluded games and they were confiscated.

All play from excluded games would automatically be void if the playthrough had not been completed on allowed games.

Her first LEGITIMATE play, she lost her deposit AND her bonus. That would empty her account. You cannot expect to use funds which were not rightfully earned to generate any further income.

Had she, on the other hand, completed her playthrough on allowed games, and then played excluded games, she would most definitely have been fully entitled to all her winnings.

And, if she had WON her deposit and her bonus on that first legitimate play, and subsequently completed her playthrough without losing her initial deposit and bonus, all earnings subsequent to that would also have been fully realized.

Up until the point of the player meeting the playthrough requirements, all play on excluded games would be voided.

 

[chuchu59]

TB: I wish you'd change your avatar...everytime I see it it makes me want to fire up and play - lol

Whoa! For a moment I had wanted to condemn you as a sxx maniac as I thought your were referring to Pina's avatar.

Back on topic, this thread has really dragged on with nothing new. It should now end. Actually, I am looking forward to a new thread initiated by a new player at KN who has lost his whole deposit on excluded games. Let's see how KN deals with this one when it comes and whether it refunds the losses.

 

[soflat]

Actually, I am looking forward to a new thread initiated by a new player at KN who has lost his whole deposit on excluded games. Let's see how KN deals with this one when it comes and whether it refunds the losses.

The T&Cs only refer to winnings on excluded games. The clause does not kick in for losses.

I think KN deserves all the criticism it got here because of its bad T&Cs and by taking the most extreme interpretation of T&Cs maximize its confiscation

They could have just "removed/confiscated [winnings from excluded games] from your account balance or withdrawals" (from T&Cs), but they got greedy and it got them a black eye.

 

[spearmaster]

I think KN deserves all the criticism it got here because of its bad T&Cs and by taking the most extreme interpretation of T&Cs maximize its confiscation

They could have just "removed/confiscated [winnings from excluded games] from your account balance or withdrawals" (from T&Cs), but they got greedy and it got them a black eye.

You gotta be shitting me. They did what they were perfectly entitled to. How is that "extreme interpretation"?

They did exactly what you suggest - removed winnings from excluded games. Where do you see winnings from allowed games - and if there were any, they were obtained by using said excluded winnings... WTF???

 

[mitch]

The Cryptos - Intercasino, William Hill, etc. - also have restricted games (Roulette, Baccarat, and Craps), but play at restricted games simply doesn't count. It doesn't result in confiscation.

Linus

As I pointed out in a previous post that is EXACTLY what the casino did in this case.

All "winnings" from the excluded games didn't count therefore when she made her first bet on a non-excluded game it was an all in £400 bet and she lost!

She now has no money to win anything with has she?

The casino has acted in accordance with what the majority of members would like them to do except that they gifted her £400 to play again, damn generous IMO.

Therefore will members please stop posting complaining and then telling the casino to do what it has already done! ( this thread is turning into the Twilight Zone)

Mitch

 

[Vesuvio]

Linus

As I pointed out in a previous post that is EXACTLY what the casino did in this case.

All "winnings" from the excluded games didn't count therefore when she made her first bet on a non-excluded game it was an all in 400 bet and she lost!

She now has no money to win anything with has she?

Your posts are normally logical, Mitch, but here you seem to be deliberately missing the point. The casino didn't follow the bonus policy of the Cryptos or most other reputable casinos. If they did then there'd be no problem building up however high a balance playing other games and then meeting the bonus requirements on games allowed for the wr. That's just normal practice.

The real issue here is whether it's ok for casinos to have "confiscation" terms. I'd say any code of best practice would ban them as they inevitably catch out a large number of players.

The issue of the 400 bet being her first bet with her own funds just strikes me as a hypothetical red-herring. It's not likely she'd have adopted the same betting pattern if she hadn't had a lucky win at deuces wild.

The casino has acted in accordance with what the majority of members would like them to do except that they gifted her 400 to play again, damn generous IMO.

Most members would be happy for a player to lose 8000 on a technicality? I seriously doubt it, though we can probably do without another poll!

Giving back the deposit while keeping 8000 is pushing most definitions of "damn generous". Giving the bonus as well is more a PR stunt - we all know the most likely result if you give the bonus & the player accepts it is that the casino gets to keep the deposit as well.

 

[rreevy]

Mitch, I think Linus meant that play at restricted games doesn't count towards the WR, not that it doesn't count as a legitimate bet. If you play excluded games at said Crypto casinos and win, you'll have to meet the WR on games that count but when that's done you'll keep your winnings.

Sorry spearmaster, when I said the casino runs no risk for play on excluded games, I meant in the long run, for all the play on the game in question. In the long run the casino will get its 2-3% - whatever the edge for Deuces Wild is - and this will be a pointless play from a bonus point of view, as the player is on a loser but these games aren't counting towards the WR. How big the swings are in the meantime doesn't really matter for a casino with lots of players. Yes, some games are surely easier to build a bankroll on, but the more you can win as a multiple of your bet, the more losing plays you'll have, in the long run, before you hit that win.

Not sure if the maths graduate remark was directed at me - I'm actually an English Lit. graduate I am pretty sure, though, that the confiscation clause is unnecessary from a maths perspective.

Maybe if KN employed a maths graduate they wouldn't have had that rule in the first place. Just a thought ;-)

(Sorry, Vesuvio, looks like I was replying to Mitch's post at the same time as you).

 

[spearmaster]

The issue of the 400 bet being her first bet with her own funds just strikes me as a hypothetical red-herring. It's not likely she'd have adopted the same betting pattern if she hadn't had a lucky win at deuces wild.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the rules. You can't go place a sum of money like that elsewhere and then, after you lose, claim you didn't mean to do so.

The casino didn't follow the bonus policy of the Cryptos or most other reputable casinos.

Since when is any casino required to follow the policy of the Cryptos? And since when do most other "reputable casinos" share the same terms and conditions?

There is no hypothetical situation that needs to be considered here. We are dealing with a real situation, with real issues, and we have already shown, AND the player has agreed COMPLETELY, that she was at fault.

End of story!

 

[Vesuvio]

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the rules. You can't go place a sum of money like that elsewhere and then, after you lose, claim you didn't mean to do so.

She never claimed that, did she?

Since when is any casino required to follow the policy of the Cryptos? And since when do most other "reputable casinos" share the same terms and conditions?

Did I say casinos had to follow the Crypto policy? Look at Mitch's post - it's responding to Linus mentioning the Cryptos but misses the point. That's all. Reputable casinos don't have to share the same terms, but there are reputable and disreputable terms.

There is no hypothetical situation that needs to be considered here. We are dealing with a real situation, with real issues, and we have already shown, AND the player has agreed COMPLETELY, that she was at fault.

End of story!

But the casino's assessing whether the player deserves any winnings on the basis of a hypothetical situation... Anyway, that's by the by. Yes, the player fell foul of the terms here and can only rely on good will from the casino. It's not the end of the story, though. The real story is the general existence of confiscation terms - which certainly isn't going to go away unless all of the MG casinos move over to something like the EZbonus or get rid of the terms.

 

[spearmaster]

She never claimed that, did she?

What did you expect her to say? "Oops! I only meant to bet 40, not 400?"

She made her bet and she lost. As far as the casino is concerned she lost her deposit and her bonus - but they STILL gave it back to her to start again!

As I was saying - try that somewhere else and see how far you get.

Did I say casinos had to follow the Crypto policy? Look at Mitch's post - it's responding to Linus mentioning the Cryptos but misses the point. That's all. Reputable casinos don't have to share the same terms, but there are reputable and disreputable terms.

He didn't miss the point at all.

but play at restricted games simply doesn't count.

If it doesn't count, how can the winnings be valid? As far as I am concerned that's exactly the same thing.

If you believe that I am wrong, why not do exactly what the player did, only at a Crypto - and see what happens (especially at William Hill)... I am willing to bet your stake that it works out exactly the same.

Note the following term in Intercasino's Monthly Match Bonus:

The Casino, WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited reserve the right to review transaction records and logs, from time to time, for any reason whatsoever. If, upon such review, it appears that end users or any one or combination of them are participating in strategies which the Casino, WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited in their sole discretion deem to be abusive, the Casino, WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited reserve the right to revoke the entitlement of such end user(s) to the promotion.

Tell me what that says in plain English... my reading of this says LOUD and CLEAR that you will not get your winnings if they, in their SOLE DISCRETION, deem your play to be abusive.

In case you don't agree, in my books "revoke the entitlement" means you get nada. It doesn't explicitly say "confiscation" but it sure as hell shouts something VERY similar to me.

But the casino's assessing whether the player deserves any winnings on the basis of a hypothetical situation... Anyway, that's by the by.

Is it me or did it escape you that the casino did not have to give the player a chance? They could simply have declared everything void because the terms and conditions explicitly stated that any play on excluded games would be null and void.

Yes, the player fell foul of the terms here and can only rely on good will from the casino. It's not the end of the story, though. The real story is the general existence of confiscation terms - which certainly isn't going to go away unless all of the MG casinos move over to something like the EZbonus or get rid of the terms.

If players would read the rules, there would be no need for confiscation terms.

 

[Vesuvio]

If you believe that I am wrong, why not do exactly what the player did, only at a Crypto - and see what happens (especially at William Hill)... I am willing to bet your stake that it works out exactly the same.

Sorry, Spear, you're completely wrong. There's absolutely no problem playing any games you like. They just don't count. Of course you'd be mad to play other games as you're better off playing the ones allowed as they count to the wr. Just as the player here wouldn't choose to play deuces wild if she knew it wasn't allowed. There are better options.

In case you don't agree, in my books "revoke the entitlement" means you get nada. It doesn't explicitly say "confiscation" but it sure as hell shouts something VERY similar to me.

As you know almost all casinos have that type of get-out clause. Those that invoke it are rogue. Intercasino don't use it to void winnings - besides which playing on other games isn't "abuse", it's just normal casino play. After all we're supposed to buy the line that bonuses are there for players to try out the games The issue here is different. King Neptune's have a clear term which they enforce which confiscates funds. If you think it's fine, that's your opinion, but don't try and confuse the issue.

If players would read the rules, there would be no need for confiscation terms.

There is no need for confiscation terms. Playing on games with a house edge which don't count towards the wr isn't doing the player any favour.

I don't disagree that players should read the terms (though it's asking a bit much of your average player to plough through it all), but back in the real world a good proportion of players aren't going to and confiscation terms are going to catch them out.

 

[Linus]

LOL.

The terms and conditions which the player read were expired, period. The point, however, is that a merchant cannot be expected to make an exception when it is clear that the customer did not meet the conditions under which he/she made a purchase. Making that exception, on the other hand, opens the merchant to possible abuse on the pretext that "well, you made an exception for so and so, why can't you make an exception for me? Besides which only 15 hours had passed, not 22...?

I don't understand the argument that paying piecar would somehow subject the casino to abuse.

Where are all these players, looking for a chance to play a newly-excluded game, so that if they win (if they win), their winning might not be confiscated?

Players are looking for a guarantee that they'll be paid if they win - not a chance they might be granted an exception.

If, on the other hand, the customer had already made the purchase but the merchant was unable to validate the offer right away, it can then be assumed that the merchant would honor the offer.

Keep in mind the purchase and play was some 20+ hours after the terms and conditions (or offer) had expired. The player did not register the account, make a purchase, and start playing before the terms expired.



This is unfair. King Neptunes has rarely, if ever, had to exercise its right to declare winnings null and void - you make it seem as if this is the norm, when in reality it is far from common practice.


Believe it or not, that's what Micki did - she went to the trouble of validating the play and basically left some room for an exception to be made even though she was WELL within her rights to simply void all play and winnings. Despite that, the player then lost the entire deposit and bonus on her first legitimate play - end of story.

If confiscating a player's winnings at King Neptune is discretionary - which is what their terms and conditions say - and what you seem to be implying here - why do you keep insisting that confiscating winnings in piecar's case is mandatory?

 

[Linus]

No.

She went from the start looking for where the player started playing allowed games. She then tried to determine if the player would have met the new terms and conditions by playing allowed games - but unfortunately the player lost the entire starting amount on her very first play of an allowed game.

She lost 400 pounds. Her account had upwards of 8000 at that point.

There are lots of ways of accounting for commingled funds (assuming that's even an issue.). King Neptune's method happened to be the way that was most beneficial to them.


Edit - sorry, I realize I've fallen behind. I'll try not to post again until I get caught up.

 

[spearmaster]

Sorry, Spear, you're completely wrong. There's absolutely no problem playing any games you like. They just don't count. Of course you'd be mad to play other games as you're better off playing the ones allowed as they count to the wr. Just as the player here wouldn't choose to play deuces wild if she knew it wasn't allowed. There are better options.

You're welcome to take up my offer at William Hill as well as Intercasino. I double dog-dare you.

As you know almost all casinos have that type of get-out clause. Those that invoke it are rogue. Intercasino don't use it to void winnings - besides which playing on other games isn't "abuse", it's just normal casino play. After all we're supposed to buy the line that bonuses are there for players to try out the games The issue here is different. King Neptune's have a clear term which they enforce which confiscates funds. If you think it's fine, that's your opinion, but don't try and confuse the issue.

There's no confusing the issue. The Crypto terms are even more vague than the terms you are challenging, which specifically state that play on excluded games are void.

I don't see the point of arguing this any more - I cannot in any way see how you can hold up Crypto terms and tell me that they are BETTER and "more reputable" - that is absolute crap.

There is no need for confiscation terms. Playing on games with a house edge which don't count towards the wr isn't doing the player any favour.

Irrelevant. You either accept the terms or you don't - it has nothing to do with whether there is an edge or not. Restaurants have dress codes - the fact that I prefer to wear a sweat suit does not have any bearing on my ability to pay. But still, those are their rules - take it or leave it.

I don't disagree that players should read the terms (though it's asking a bit much of your average player to plough through it all), but back in the real world a good proportion of players aren't going to and confiscation terms are going to catch them out.

*sigh*

Oh well, in the real world you don't get bonuses to gamble with either. And if you do get match play coupons, they are good for ONE type of game. Not many games.

I don't understand the argument that paying piecar would somehow subject the casino to abuse.

She broke the rules - yet she expects to get paid? If she gets paid, others will go do the exact same thing and demand to get paid as well.

Why are we arguing such a simple fact? She broke the rules. Makes no difference if they went looking for a game or not - this argument is totally irrelevant. RTFM.

Players are looking for a guarantee that they'll be paid if they win - not a chance they might be granted an exception.

They can have a guarantee. Don't accept the bonus. Simple as that.

If confiscating a player's winnings at King Neptune is discretionary - which is what their terms and conditions say - and what you seem to be implying here - why do you keep insisting that confiscating winnings in piecar's case is mandatory?

Where did I say it was mandatory? Where did I even *imply* that it was mandatory?

I said she broke the rules - and King Neptune's invoked their rights. Discretion, you will notice, belongs to the casino - not the player. The player's only discretion is which ALLOWABLE games to play.