KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Micki]

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

 

[mikepipe]

that sounds reasonable to me. And that should in my opinion be accepted as a not only correct but even good decision.

 

[chuchu59]

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.

 

[elscrabinda]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[Pinababy69]

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.

 

[mikepipe]

minority report

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]

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.

 

[Pinababy69]

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.

 

[Vesuvio]

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).

 

[The Dude]

She has her deposit AND bonus waiting for her to have another go at it - as far as I know.

 

[elscrabinda]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

I don't follow you. They have a disallowed game. All casinos have disallowed games for their bonuses. What exactly are you referring to?

 

[Macgyver]

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."

 

[Vesuvio]

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.

 

[Simmo!]

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

 

[Vesuvio]

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

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.

 

[Simmo!]

Yep, though you might find turning $200 into $2k a little tricky

The way I play Blackjack that's an understatement

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

 

[Vesuvio]

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.

 

[elscrabinda]

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.

 

[elscrabinda]

The way I play Blackjack that's an understatement

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.

 

[Simmo!]

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?



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

 

[Macgyver]

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.

 

[Vesuvio]

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?

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 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!]

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


Take care of yourselves... and each other.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Still don't get Deuce!

I can understand the issue with a single big bet on BJ or Roulette using all funds and then meeting WR slowly on a slot, but why VP, it is as high variance as a slot, and is not effective for reliably building up a balance with which to meet WR. The method with big bets on BJ and Roulette was intended as a ploy for sticky bonuses, and it is only effective if said player hits ALL casinos in a group with the same method. They cannot lose mathematically in the long run. VP does not give this sort of advantage. The only way to do this with VP is to play for a Royal Flush and then meet WR on allowed games. I could understand why Trident would not like ME playing VP with the bonus (see winner screenshots).
The likelihood of a player of getting the RF is slim, and they would have to play many casinos for this. This method would work on ALL the VP, not just the excluded ones, so I am surprised they don't simply go down the "slots only" route rather than listing excluded games that appear to have little logic for the beginner. A bonus hunter should not be tripped up by Trident on this sort of issue, they are more careful, and will have triple checked the terms, got the relevant tables from the Wizard, and planned carefully (and will probably have a degree in maths!). Incidentally, the high house edge only applies to the single hand Deuces Wild. The multi-hand versions have a house edge similar to Aces and Faces (actually slightly greater), but with higher variance due to the Deuces Royal and 4 Deuces loading at the expense of the lower hands.
A bonus hunter would have actually switched to 50 hand Deuces Wild, set the coin to 1c, and set Autoplay for a couple of hours to do the $6000. This would work on all the other VP games, and would still beat using slots to play out the WR. I expect there is more to this story than has been revealed (has this player done this with the other Trident casinos before terms changed), or Trident have been unduly harsh on a recreational player.
At least the rep has clarified that the terms DO contain a validity span (1 to 31 March), so I would have expected the player to have at least checked the bonus was available for April, but on the other hand I have noticed that these validity spans are often meaningless at other casinos, as the following month sees the dates change and nothing else.

 

[sirius]

Terms

As has been mentioned by a few people, there is actually no reason to void winnings for play on excluded games. The wagering requirements would not be met with these games but the extra play on these games would be advantageous to the casino because of the house edge. I would like to know what caused them to include this term. Initially only Playtech casinos voided winnings from play on excluded games.

The only mistaken reason for casino doing this is if they see that the player has a good chance to build a large bankroll with the game. Some players treat bonuses with high WR as a sticky bonus which can't be withdrawn as it will on average be lost by the house edge - so players are advised to aim for a high win to maximise the return. WizofOdds and others have explained that you should aim for a high win with sticky bonuses so this method is no secret but they can do that just as easily with the games that count towards the wagering requirement such as slots so it really makes no sense for the casino to void winnings for play on the excluded games. It actually serves no purpose to the casino and prevents new players from legitimately trying all the games.

 

[Pinababy69]

Bitch.

You say that like it's a bad thing... You were the one didn't wanna cough up the extra $100 for the higher priced model, lol.

Really though Simmo..lmfaoooo. What an analogy, ha ha ha ha. Stick it on me fat boy?

Mac, you can come outta hiding now, it's safe.......I think.

 

[Pinababy69]

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.

Well said Mac, and bottom line, that's the way it is. I feel bad for the player, because I don't think she was trying to pull a fast one, but I guess it's an expensive lesson for her.

I am glad to see that the casino gave her back her deposit PLUS bonus. Maybe she can be lucky once again. Best of luck Piecar.

 

[jonevegas]

I know where you are coming from. You should get paid! The only reason they put terms in there is so they don’t have to pay you. You are asking for help at the wrong place if your asking the guy that runs this place because he has casinos out there that are screwing people as well. He may say and make it look like he is trying to help but trust me he is not on any of us players side he is one of them in Descries. I have casinos over the Internet that owe me over $200,000.00. The best Casinos to play at are the ones that say they will pay the same day. Spanish Luck Casino pays just go talk to Tex and tell him COS**** sent you he will take good care of you. Black Dog Casino is another that will pay you the same day. The Casinos that have to hold your withdraws for days, do not trust them. I am thinking about opening up a web site to help people and advise them of what to look for. I have lost over a 1/2 million over the Internet and have a lot of experience. I don’t plan on owning any of them and you dam sure cant trust someone that is playing both sides. I mean look at the picture of the meister, that tells everything.

Blackdog, Spanishluck what a fucking cockhead you are, and BTW I think you blow dead goats as well!!. Hey Brian I am not going to get suspended am I?

 

[jenn1381]

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?



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

LMAO!!! Oh how I needed that laugh tonight!

 

[The Dude]

Blackdog, Spanishluck what a fucking cockhead you are, and BTW I think you blow dead goats as well!!. Hey Brian I am not going to get suspended am I?

Man, why do people test me? Four days for potty mouth language.

 

[shirlsplay]

wrong

Hello,
I thought that king neptunes was alright.I had never made a deposit,I did the vote for them and got 5.00 free.Than continued to vote for them for i think 3 more months.so i could get tickets into the yearly drawing.which i won 50.00 and was able to cashout 250.00 without ever making a deposit there.That's totally wrong of them to keep all your winnings.Especially,to say they changed the rules the nite before.find that every hard to believe.They changed the rules ,so they didn't have to pay.

 

[Pinababy69]

They did refund her money, PLUS the bonus.

Jones, no more vodka for you....

 

[tennis_balls]

welcome to the rouges, jone!

Old Attachment (Invalid)

 

[kreome]

I had a strory with Good as gold group of casino(Vip casinos, betgameday...)

They changed the terms, they were kind and told me that they give a week for the players to see the new terms and because they have just changed the terms they will processed the cashout.

Kingneptunes wrote in the terms that he reserves the right not to pay if an excluded game is being played before the allowed games.

Kingneptunes CHANGED THE TERMS ON THE 1ST OF APRIL AND NOT 31 OF MARCH, because 00:01 is 1st of April and this was the time the site was updated.

The player played less than 24hrs later, the player abided the old terms, the players played other games like Slots.

Is it right to reserve the right with this player ??????????

Hell no, but again this player won around 15,000 USD, too much....too much for us to pay, why to pay if we can just void his winnings, Who care about the reputation for 15K.

Once a player tells you that he read the old terms and you as a casino can see well, yes he played by the old rules, we have just changed the terms and big deal what did he do , he played Deuces wild in addition to the allowed games , pay him and this is it.


Piecar, let me guess that you can forget about the money, now the question is how much of a damage you are giong to cause the Trident lounge group more or less than 15K

I would go to other forums and publish this story there just for casinos to understand that once they treat you like yuo are nothing and the winnings are for them to Void/ Withhold or I dont know what they get punished and big time.

 

[The Dude]

Hi Kreome,

Perhaps you didn't read the thread all the way through. The new terms were uploaded at around 1030 the night of the 31st.

The terms state: 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.

They tell you when these specific terms and conditions are good for.

The old terms stated on the website 1 -31 March. It's clearly stated that those terms EXPIRE on the 31st. The player signed up the evening of the 1st, nearly 24 hours after the terms had expired.

No wonder so many players have difficulties with bonuses. You don't read.

 

[kreome]

Casinomeister, I still don't contradict what you mentioned.

I said that the terms were changed on the 1st of april and not on the 31.

If this player had played on the 31 23:59 he was entitled to his winings.

Although they updated the website on around 22:00 it is still valid to claim the bonus on the 31.

The new terms were applied at 00:01 1st of april and the player played on the first of april.

Lets say Inter casino has a monthly bonus, every month it is the same. Same story with Kingneptunes, They have this 200 for 200 for years, I think more than two years.

A new player come, now this is a new player he watch the terms, he looks at the terms and as you said it is mentioned that the bonus is valid until the 31 but when he comes again , register and deposit cuople of hours later he can see that the bonus is the same, the advertisement is the same, the website generally looks the same.

Like the example in Inter casino, you come the next month you can see the bonus is the same, the casino looks the same.... The playered assumed that nothing had changed.

If the bonus was totally changed, so he has to deposit 500 to get 250 and not 200 for 200 then you are right ok, now he has to think mmmm... maybe the terms has just been changed lets check but here almost nothing changed


EVEN THE CODE FOR THE BONUS I Think it is the same everymonth there.

There are traps that a reputable casino should not use one of them is this reserve the right sentence or I can give anoter example, casinos that write down that you have to bet 25% of your deposit at the max. What is this if not a term to allow the casino not to pay after the player made a mistake.

These are traps, this is not a honest thing to do.

If a player deposit 100 get 100 and bet 30 a hand and you send him an email we are not going to pay because in the terms it says tha the max bet allowed with a bonus is 25, it is a trap and not honest because most player dont understand the terms 100% but they understand the general idea of wagering and risking their funds.

If a player did what he did to casino on net, cashing in his deposit and then play only with the bonus, here I can understand the reserve the right.

But, if an excluded game was played so what, if you dont want him to play an excluded game, adjust the software not to let the player play an excluded game.

If you dont want a player to open GBP adjust the software not to let a player from USA open in GBP.

Kingneptunes invite the professional only, they will come with a screenshot, they will understand and read carefully the terms but if a recreational player is coming, play some Slots some poker and an exluded game they void his winnings.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Professional

Kingneptunes invite the professional only, they will come with a screenshot, they will understand and read carefully the terms but if a recreational player is coming, play some Slots some poker and an exluded game they void his winnings.

I have to agree with this. While the websites are great (possibly the best), I found that the terms were not easy to understand, and I had to read them again and again, and even then I was not quite certain. The trap is in the complication. Different bonuses and tournaments have different rules, prizes, bonuses, AND DIFFERENT excluded and allowed games, sometimes games that count in the tournament are not allowed when playing with the prize money. In the end, I followed the website for a couple of months, but I never played because I could not see the need for this ever changing complexity.
I can understand how a new player could easily trip up on one or more of these terms, and I would not be happy to be "fined" some $8000 for a minor misdemeanor such as playing a bit of VP. Unless this player played a definite "sticky bonus" method, and moved through the trident Lounge sites one by one with the same method I find it hard to understand why a term that only "reserved the right" to do something "nasty", rather than oblige it, has been used.
These "reserve the right" terms are used to protect against play by players in "bad faith", such as part of some bonus chasing team (the leader of an example of one is defending his "business" in the EH thread!).
This player feels cheated because the use of a discretionary term, coupled with the fact that this was considered at length by looking through play history before being applied, implies that the player played with the purpose of stripping out the bonuses and not returning as a regular player.
It is not for the casino to expand on this due to player confidentiallity, however, there is nothing to stop the player posting the session(s) from Playcheck so that we can see what the pattern of play was. We can then judge for ourselves whether the casino was reasonable in believing that bonus hunting was an issue, and whether it looked like a strategy was being employed that deviated from "normal play" that might be expected if a player only had their own money on deposit (an example would be signing up and placing one or two massive bets, then switching to play like a tight fisted low roller with any winnings and cashing out as soon as possible to open another account with a different casino in the group and playing the same strategy).
Such evident paranoia about bonus hunters is going to alienate the genuinely new player as there is no way to tell them apart other than making assumptions about the conduct of past playerers and looking for patterns. There is such a thing as coincidence, a new player playing certain games in a certain way is not concrete evidence they are out solely for the bonus.
If we, as players, assume that the dealer getting BJ after BJ, and winning from 5 up against our pairs of 10's repeatedly is evidence of cheating we are told "don't be paranoid, it was just a run of bad luck, the games have been verified by PWC etc...".
One test that might be worth trying is "would Ausvegas be allowed to have this term, even if clearly stated". I remember their rep stating that auditors would "laugh in our face" if such a term was proposed as part of a promotional offer, and that they would have to redesign the promotion to prevent exposure, rather than resort to such a term.
My own impression is that Trident will hit a new player hard with T & C, even if the mistake is minor based on something that was quite OK yesterday, rather than something that has not been allowed for a long time.
An $8000 streak is not something that comes along every day, and the player should not be tempted to "chase" this believing that luck will even out. A superstisious player would believe that they have had the lucky spell, and evening out would be losing most of the $8000 back to the casino, except it had not really been won as such due to the confiscation term.
I would like to know two further things. Are confiscated winnings included in the audited payout figures? (this should not be allowed, as such money is retained by the casino and not paid out). Secondly, what is this about a player receiving $5 for "voting" for Trident casinos, making enough over a few months to cash out $250. I read this as "buying votes", please clarify if I am wrong, but this negates any credibility in what is being voted for, and I thought that any casino with a great reputation would not need to buy votes in order to come out top in any survey. If it is simply a promotion to vote for internal things, such as best game in the casino, please set my mind at rest; but if players are being paid to vote in an external survey for "best casino"
this does whiff more than a little, and means we cannot trust such league tables to give new players a proper view as to where to play.

 

[bpb]

No wonder so many players have difficulties with bonuses. You don't read.

But here's the irony. Advantage players are typically very good at reading and following T&C and catching changes to those T&C. Recreational players, who likely are going to be solid long term losers even with bonus claims, are the ones who get tripped up by the fine points of (or changes to) a casinos T&C.

Note that the exclusion of video poker doesn't stop any sharp player from squeezing lots of +EV out of King Neptune's bonus. Certainly not the exclusion of that awful Deuces Wild game which the OP won on. The sharp player will just use pai gow, or war, or 3 card poker, or whatever other game with a HA in the 2-3% range to work them over.

In my opinion, these casinos seem to be swatting at the advantage players, but are missing and hitting their potentially most profitable recreational players right in the head.

Kreome's post above is dead on

 

[Slotster!]

In my opinion, these casinos seem to be swatting at the advantage players, but are missing and hitting their potentially most profitable recreational players right in the head.

Spot on :notworthy Give the man a mars bar. (King size).

Non bonus hunter here, spend a load online (probably more than I should - I was a certain casino's "25th highest roller" one month last year) - and smashed WR's or busted out every time... I'm striking off 'places to play at' more and more every single day that passes!!!!

I'm your classic 'recreational' player that you describe, and wouldn't play at King Neptunes in a million years after this.

Were I a 'bonus hunter' I'd do exactly as you describe, following the T&C's to the letter of the law...

 

[lydia]

But here's the irony. Recreational players, who likely are going to be solid long term losers even with bonus claims, are the ones who get tripped up by the fine points of (or changes to) a casinos T&C.

I am a perfect example of such player - I hate to read boring T/C so much that I play without bonus oft to my disadvantage. I have such a horror and paranoia about bonuses (reading all the time disputes about bonuses and payouts) that I am even suspicious if sometimes some casinos give me an innocent 'manager bonus' or whatever it's called. But I surely could use some good bonuses! (being a low-roller).
And I would never dream to read T/C second time(on next day) after I managed to do it after all.

 

[The Dude]

Kreome's post above is dead on

I beg to differ. I'm surprised that many of you can't get beyond the bonus hunter theme. I don't believe this situation has anything to do with bonus hunting. This has everything to do with abiding by the posted terms and conditions.

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.

 

[bpb]

Let's say the casino has a rule that players named Frank can't play on Wednesday between 7 and 9 PM. Frank Dingdong plays at 8:24 PM on Wednesday and wins $800. Casino says "Sorry Frank. You broke our rules. No winnings for you." The casino is perfectly within their right to do this. That doesn't make the rule intelligent, and it doesn't make the casino operators "good people". I seriously doubt CM, that you would put any casino on your accredited list if it had such an obscure and ridiculous rule.


King Neptune's exclusion of video poker from their signup is on par with the "No Franks between 7-9". It doesn't prevent advantage play ... an advantage player can use the non-restricted games of Pai Gow, 3-card, etc. The rule's effect is to trip up recreational players and get their winnings seized. I recognize that this is probably not King Neptune's intention for having and applying this rule. They probably think they are protecting themselves from advantage players ... but they aren't. You protect yourself from advantage players by restricting play to games with high house advantage and restricting maximum bet sizes. The effect of this rule, even if unintended, is screwing over recreational players. This isn't a good thing for the casino, or the industry as a whole.


I certainly recognize that King Neptune's has made a very good faith effort to keep it's new players apprised of their T&C, especially by including dates which the T&C are effective. But I think they need to think about why they have rules restricting certain games, and why they have a rule that they will revoke winnings if those restricted games are played ... when a majority of the casinos out there don't seize funds when you play on restricted games ... they just make you complete the WR on allowed games before cashing out.

 

[spearmaster]

Taking a break from the other thread... LOL...

I cannot believe what I am seeing here.

* Player did not read latest terms and conditions before opening account.
* Player wins on excluded game as stated in T&C.
* Casino rejects payout, restores account to deposit AND bonus.

WTF is the problem here?

* Players complain that there should be "grace period"
* Players complain that there should be "discretion"
* Players complain that the rule SCREWS players
* Players complain that the casino is screwing recreational players
* yada, yada, yada
* blah, blah, blah

What this amounts to, combined with the other thread, is this:

* Players think they are always right
* Players always think they are being screwed
* Players are too lazy to protect themselves
* Players want flexibility while demanding strict compliance from casino
* Players think that bonuses MUST be offered by the casino on THEIR terms

You know what I think about this. I won't even spell it out for you but you can smell it all over the place.

What I think casinos ought to do is KILL BONUSES FOREVER.

 

[Simmo!]

What I think casinos ought to do is KILL BONUSES FOREVER.

Assuming you mean "signup" bonuses, Way more trouble than they are worth IMO.

 

[The Dude]

Let's say the casino has a rule that players named Frank can't play on Wednesday between 7 and 9 PM. Frank Dingdong plays at 8:24 PM on Wednesday and wins $800. Casino says "Sorry Frank. You broke our rules. No winnings for you." The casino is perfectly within their right to do this. That doesn't make the rule intelligent, and it doesn't make the casino operators "good people". I seriously doubt CM, that you would put any casino on your accredited list if it had such an obscure and ridiculous rule..

But no one has this ridiculous rule, and this doesn't apply in this case. If this player signed up maybe a couple of hours after the rule change, I honestly don't think she would have had a problem. But she signed up a full day afterward.

And I don't see how anyone can claim that the bonus terms were unclear. They even state when they are applicable, and I'm pretty sure Trident Lounge changes them only on the 1st of the month - not in the middle. And any T&C changes are emailed to their player database. What more do you want? If you can think of anything else, please PM Micki, I'm sure she would be open to any suggestion to improve the way the terms are conveyed.

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. But I'm sure if you have some great advice, I'm sure they are all ears.

 

[The Dude]

* Players are too lazy to protect themselves.

And when you eff up, c'mon down to Casinomeister or WOL and slam the casino. Hey, maybe you'll get paid.

I'd like a reason why not to toss this newbie for attempted extortion.

 

[spearmaster]

Assuming you mean "signup" bonuses, Way more trouble than they are worth IMO.

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.

 

[spearmaster]

And when you eff up, c'mon down to Casinomeister or WOL and slam the casino. Hey, maybe you'll get paid.

I'd like a reason why not to toss this newbie for attempted extortion.

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