KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[The Dude]

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

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

 

[soflat]

I think King Neptunes was in the right.

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

 

[Slotster!]

I think that's dead mean...

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

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

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

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

 

[bpb]

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

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

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

And a comment for Spearmaster

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

 

[soflat]

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

 

[spearmaster]

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

No one disagreed with your logic nor insulted you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sirius]

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

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

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

 

[spearmaster]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[soflat]

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

 

[bpb]

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

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

 

[spearmaster]

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

In this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

WTF?

 

[Sodax77]

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

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

From: "Lyris ListManager" <[email protected]>
To: [removed]
Subject: all error mail
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:00:06 -0400

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

[~ 2500 email addresses - removed]

And

From: "Trident Entertainment Group" <[email protected]>
To: [removed]
Subject: Apologies
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:46:01 -0400

Dear [removed],


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

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

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

We appreciate your patience and understanding regarding this matter.

Regards,


The Management and Staff
King Neptunes Casino
Trident Entertainment Group

 

[lydia]

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

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

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

 

[Slotster!]

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

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

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

 

[elscrabinda]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why should this player be treated differently?

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

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

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

 

[The Dude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Slotster!]

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

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

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

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

 

[soflat]

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

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

 

[Slotster!]

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

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

 

[spearmaster]

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

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

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

 

[soflat]

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

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

 

[Slotster!]

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

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

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

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

 

[elscrabinda]

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

 

[bpb]

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

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


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

 

[silcnlayc]

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

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

 

[GrandMaster]

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

Let's say you deposit $100 and get 100% cashable match bonus with 10x(D+B)=$2000 wagering requirement on slots with 5% house edge. Your expected loss is $100, your expected profit is 0. (OK, not quite, the possibility of busting out works in your favour, once you bust out you stop losing money, so there would be a small expected profit.)

Instead, put everything on a single number on roulette. If you win, you have $7200, you play the required amount on slots, the expected value of your final bankroll is $7100. If you lose, you just walk away. Your expectation is $7100/37=$191.89. This strategy turned a bonus with minimal profit into one with more than $90 profit. If the wagering requirement were 20x(D+B) then I am pretty sure that playing on slots would have a negative expectation, whereas this strategy combining it with roulette would still show almost $90 expected profit.

This player does not appear to have used such a strategy, but playing in when you are not from the UK is likely to set of a warning flag. (Was it Trident Lounge that invented the "International Foreign Exchange Laws"?)

 

[Macgyver]

Let's say you deposit $100 and get 100% cashable match bonus with 10x(D+B)=$2000 wagering requirement on slots with 5% house edge. Your expected loss is $100, your expected profit is 0. (OK, not quite, the possibility of busting out works in your favour, once you bust out you stop losing money, so there would be a small expected profit.)

Instead, put everything on a single number on roulette. If you win, you have $7200, you play the required amount on slots, the expected value of your final bankroll is $7100. If you lose, you just walk away. Your expectation is $7100/37=$191.89. This strategy turned a bonus with minimal profit into one with more than $90 profit. If the wagering requirement were 20x(D+B) then I am pretty sure that playing on slots would have a negative expectation, whereas this strategy combining it with roulette would still show almost $90 expected profit.

This player does not appear to have used such a strategy, but playing in when you are not from the UK is likely to set of a warning flag. (Was it Trident Lounge that invented the "International Foreign Exchange Laws"?)

Almost exactly what I said earlier ... nice to see someone like Grandmaster using it, too.

 

[piecar]

Just a few things...

Just a few things...

Again, as I have said before I read the Terms & Conditions on the evening of March 31st. I made my deposit and played at about 6 pm on April 1st. I would say the total elapsed time was about 20 hours between reading and playing. My bad. Again, I made an HONEST mistake and was hoping that this forum would help me to have King Neptunes relax their position on thier right to 'void and confiscate all winnings made on excluded games...'

BTW Casinomeister, you chastised me for posting this in the forum instead of dircetly "pitching a bitch." I went to pitch my bitch but there was a note on the webpage that said you were away and to just post in the forum. And that is what I did. I was following your instructions.

Anyway you should all know that played many games at King Neptunes. I played slots, cyber stud poker, roulette, craps, blackjack, tri card poker. I played A LOT there. I wagered A LOT. And I only cashed in a small portion of my nearly 8,000 pound balance--I cashed in for 1,000 pounds and fully intended to play with the rest at a later date.

I admit that it is my responsibility to read and understand the casino's Terms & Condtions. My only gripe is the extreme interpretation of their "right to void winnings" clause. This was an honest mistake!!

 

[soflat]

Yes it was definitely an honest mistake. I don't think anybody denies that. But it is still up to their discretion to pay or not, so I am not going to attack them over it.

If you played only allowed games, you probably wouldn't have hit 8000 GBP, so it didn't really cost you anything.

The lessons to be had are: hit those bonuses before they change, and copy the T&C page when you receive the bonus.

 

[Slotster!]

And I only cashed in a small portion of my nearly 8,000 pound balance--I cashed in for 1,000 pounds and fully intended to play with the rest at a later date.

Interesting stuff.. Not a hit and run then! Even if it was intended to be a gradual hit and run of sorts, just exactly HOW is a legitimate player supposed to cash out!?!

Piecar - can you answer the question why you played in GBP?

Still think the casino messed up here, regardless of official stick to the rules blah blah blah...

 

[Slotster!]

The lessons to be had are: hit those bonuses before they change, and copy the T&C page when you receive the bonus.

...or in other words "be a professional bonus hunter" and (in my case) take half the fun out of it all...

 

[Macgyver]

...or in other words "be a professional bonus hunter" and (in my case) take half the fun out of it all...

I'd quote that as "be an informed and intelligent player if you choose to accept bonuses" ... I bet piecar will never make the same mistake again.

As I've said before, caveat aleator ...

 

[The Dude]

...BTW Casinomeister, you chastised me for posting this in the forum instead of dircetly "pitching a bitch." I went to pitch my bitch but there was a note on the webpage that said you were away and to just post in the forum. And that is what I did. I was following your instructions.

It's after midnight, and I just re-read the entire thread to find where I ragged on you for posting this instead of PABing. I don't think I did, because I know the PAB site was off-line (that was my doing). Sorry to come across that way.

I was just ragging on you (a little) for seemingly trying to use the forum to get the casino to cave.

Actually, I'm a pretty nice guy. Spear will attest to that.

 

[spearmaster]

Actually, I'm a pretty nice guy. Spear will attest to that.

Only when he's buying

 

[vinylweatherman]

GBP

I wonder why the casino is considered right to stick to terms. The terms only say the casino "reserves the right" to void winnings - nothing about this being absolute for ANY player who plays an excluded game. I see these "reserve the right" terms, and they are clearly to be used in an EXCEPTIONAL situation, not in the normal course of events.
The casino have clearly concluded this player was an exceptional case, i.e, interested in the bonus rather than playing long term. I wonder if the decision to play in GBP while residing in the USA was sufficient to come to the conclusion that this 8000 would never be offered back in fair play to the casino long term. The play on an assortment of games alone is what would be expected of a recreational player. If Piecar was after the bonus, she is clearly a newbie to the game for choosing to play DW VP rather than slip in a big bet on one of the other games hoping to not get noticed.
Trident Lounge should look at the really poor deal offered to loyal players against the attractive sign up bonuses. It is hardly surprising they attract the whores but fewer long term players. Most other MG casinos offer a much better deal to long term players, and some of these have a pretty poor sign-up bonus, as well as not being too direct at detailing all that is on offer for the long term. The poor long term deal was the main reason I didn't bother with Trident Lounge, despite them having scoreboard tournaments which would have probably made me join up if the long term deal was better.

The argument for taking bonuses, when on offer, is the fact that players who don't are subsidising players who do through the house edge of the games they play. If bonuses were smaller (or gone), and house edge decreased and loyalty point cashbacks increased there would be more value without bonuses, and online casinos don't have lavish premises to pay out on, and often seem to have "shoestring" support which doesn't cost too much.
One only has to see the large profits of the few listed online gambling outfits to see that they are not exactly suffering a hardship with the current bonusing policy. Affiliates still are offered some 20% to 30% of the net win from referred players, perhaps some of this could go back to the players in bonuses and cashbacks and less to affiliates; after all, affiliates are not selling breakdown insurance for some high street electrical chain, or loans for a bank, so why these high commission payments
They even offer biggish bonuses on POKER!!! and bad play does not reward the casino, they only get a rake, from which they must pay for everything other than the buy in prize tournaments.

 

[spearmaster]

I wonder why the casino is considered right to stick to terms. The terms only say the casino "reserves the right" to void winnings - nothing about this being absolute for ANY player who plays an excluded game. I see these "reserve the right" terms, and they are clearly to be used in an EXCEPTIONAL situation, not in the normal course of events.

Absolute or not, the casino has a clear right to invoke that clause at its own discretion - and one can NOT say that the term is unfair.

The casino have clearly concluded this player was an exceptional case, i.e, interested in the bonus rather than playing long term. I wonder if the decision to play in GBP while residing in the USA was sufficient to come to the conclusion that this 8000 would never be offered back in fair play to the casino long term.

It wasn't, but you'll have to take my word on that as the conversation was private.

The play on an assortment of games alone is what would be expected of a recreational player. If Piecar was after the bonus, she is clearly a newbie to the game for choosing to play DW VP rather than slip in a big bet on one of the other games hoping to not get noticed.

Still irrelevant.

Trident Lounge should look at the really poor deal offered to loyal players against the attractive sign up bonuses. It is hardly surprising they attract the whores but fewer long term players. Most other MG casinos offer a much better deal to long term players, and some of these have a pretty poor sign-up bonus, as well as not being too direct at detailing all that is on offer for the long term. The poor long term deal was the main reason I didn't bother with Trident Lounge, despite them having scoreboard tournaments which would have probably made me join up if the long term deal was better.

I don't know what you get as part of a long-term deal - I know that I have been treated very well, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I know them, I get only what I expect everyone else is getting.

I'm sure that they will look at their deal again, though.

The argument for taking bonuses, when on offer, is the fact that players who don't are subsidising players who do through the house edge of the games they play. If bonuses were smaller (or gone), and house edge decreased and loyalty point cashbacks increased there would be more value without bonuses, and online casinos don't have lavish premises to pay out on, and often seem to have "shoestring" support which doesn't cost too much.

Won't argue this point - but I don't think "shoestring" support has anything to do with this argument - if anything, I would argue that a casino taking this line of thinking would need to spend MORE on support in order to provide additional incentive to play at their casino.

One only has to see the large profits of the few listed online gambling outfits to see that they are not exactly suffering a hardship with the current bonusing policy. Affiliates still are offered some 20% to 30% of the net win from referred players, perhaps some of this could go back to the players in bonuses and cashbacks and less to affiliates; after all, affiliates are not selling breakdown insurance for some high street electrical chain, or loans for a bank, so why these high commission payments
They even offer biggish bonuses on POKER!!! and bad play does not reward the casino, they only get a rake, from which they must pay for everything other than the buy in prize tournaments.

All of this is really not relevant. They cannot go back on their deals with affiliates in any case.

 

[soflat]

I agree that their loyalty scheme is lacking. I haven't played there since clearing the initial bonus, wheras I have played repeatedly at quite a few MG casinos with and without bonuses.

As for the affiliate commission rates, that is driven by market forces.

 

[chuchu59]

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


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


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

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

I dont get it. Why should a few hours not have made a difference whereas 24 hours would. Are we talking about 2 hours, 3 or even 4? If a player had read the terms before he/she went to bed intending to play the next day after work it would probably be about 20 hours before actually depositing and claiming a bonus. Either the casino sticks to the cut-off time or it doesnt. A few hours seems too arbitrary. What KN should do, with hindsight, is to ensure that all promotions like the present one, should have a validity period plus a link that is displayed prominently and that will appear at least 3 days before the expiry of the current promo, outlining the terms and conditions of the next promo since they should by that time have worked it out. If this can be done, I will have no qualms on KN or any casino for that matter, sticking rigidly to the terms and no allowances to be made for the players even if they were one second offside.

I also notice that it is stated in the Ts and Cs that any winnings from derived from restricted games may be deemed null and void and thus confiscated. This is wrong. Since these are restricted games, all play on these before wagering requirements are met are deemed null and void and any losses/winnings should also be nullified. Since winnings can be confiscated shouldnt losses also be reinstated unless this is a trap for unwary players which I believe KN does not intend to set.

This thread has drawn too much antagonism. Healthy debating but ....
While I cannot really fault KN's decision as they stuck to their terms, couldnt it provide a sweetener to the player whom I feel is not in any way a bonus abuser nor a fraudster. Leaving the deposit and bonus in the account for her use is nice but when you think about it, hey I was supposed to have won close to 8000 pounds, now I have to risk 200 and could incur a loss after all WRs have been met. It really sucks! Maybe you could return the deposit to the player and leave the bonus in the account for her to play risk-free(subject to WRs of course) as a goodwill gesture. Just my 2 cents to take the heat off this thread.

 

[spearmaster]

Maybe you could return the deposit to the player and leave the bonus in the account for her to play risk-free(subject to WRs of course) as a goodwill gesture. Just my 2 cents to take the heat off this thread.

Both deposit and bonus were restored to the player. It is not fair on the casino to offer the bonus without risking the deposit when it was entirely right and abided by its own terms and conditions.

Furthermore, the player has stated that she accepts responsibility for the mistake.

Other than that, there really is nothing to discuss. Bonus hunters play to the exact playthrough stated in the T&C - and the casino is forced to pay out. Why should it not be the same the other way around?

We cannot allow a situation to occur where it is unfair to either side. Some of you aren't going to like that - but you simply can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[elscrabinda]

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

In this thread:



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

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

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

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

WTF?

On this basis you are being just as inconsistent in asking people to forgive English Harbour for their misdemeanor but arguing that this player should be hung out to dry for an arguably far far smaller 'offence'

 

[chuchu59]

Both deposit and bonus were restored to the player. It is not fair on the casino to offer the bonus without risking the deposit when it was entirely right and abided by its own terms and conditions.

Furthermore, the player has stated that she accepts responsibility for the mistake.

Other than that, there really is nothing to discuss. Bonus hunters play to the exact playthrough stated in the T&C - and the casino is forced to pay out. Why should it not be the same the other way around?

We cannot allow a situation to occur where it is unfair to either side. Some of you aren't going to like that - but you simply can't have your cake and eat it too.

As it is, the terms and conditions are definitely unfair to the player where winnings on excluded games are confiscated but losses on them are allowed to stand

 

[Simmo!]

As it is, the terms and conditions are definitely unfair to the player where winnings on excluded games are confiscated but losses on them are allowed to stand

Although in this case, by returning the deposit and bonus to the player, that has been taken care of.

 

[elscrabinda]

No it hasn't!

Winnings have been confiscated. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that if the player had lost and subsequently realised the terms to be wrong that they would have refunded her losses

 

[winbig]

Maybe someone should deposit $20 somewhere, break the t&c, lose, then email them for a "do over".

 

[The Dude]

On this basis you are being just as inconsistent in asking people to forgive English Harbour for their misdemeanor but arguing that this player should be hung out to dry for an arguably far far smaller 'offence'

Spear hasn't asked anyone to forgive EH, and this player was not hung out to dry. I guess you need to re-read both threads.

 

[spearmaster]

On this basis you are being just as inconsistent in asking people to forgive English Harbour for their misdemeanor but arguing that this player should be hung out to dry for an arguably far far smaller 'offence'

Show me where I asked anyone to forgive EH.

Show me also where I said the player should be hung out to dry. The only person I said would be hung out to dry in either thread was MYSELF.

Do me a favor please - if you're going to argue with me, at least try to get the facts right. Thanks.

 

[chuchu59]

Although in this case, by returning the deposit and bonus to the player, that has been taken care of.

Yep, although personally I believe that the casino could have done a bit more. What I am concerned about is the existing Terms where the casino can confiscate winnings on excluded games but not return losses. This is just so unfair and should be revamped.

 

[Micki]

I would like to set the record straight. Currency is not a factor until a withdrawal is actually processed. Withdrawals are processed after the audit procedure is followed.

1. Player's first 3 transactions:
4/1/2006 21:36 Deposit
4/1/2006 21:37 Welcome Bonus
4/1/2006 21:38 First Bet

2. That is nearly 22 hours since midnight (Eastern/Server Time) March 31 (although the April 1-31 T & C's were actually loaded around 10:15pm March 31)

3. Our decision was based on:
Player deposited 200 and received 200 bonus;
Player proceded to play on an excluded game and built her balance to a approximately 6700.
Player then played 3 Card poker, she lost 400 on her first bet.

We looked at her further play (4 restricted games, 4 allowable games) ignoring the initial restricted game play, but concerntrating on her play on the allowable 3 Card Poker that played immediately after the Deuces Wild play. When she lost what would have been her total starting balance if she had not played on the restricted game, from her 2nd bet onwards she was playing with funds gained from play on an excluded game.

We would have been perfectly within our rights to not allow her to start again, but we decided to return her inital deposit and bonus permitting her to start again.

As many of you have pointed out our T & C's state: '...the sole discretion of Trident Entertainment Group.' This statement is there to allow us to make an exception at our discretion, it does not obligate us. We have made many exceptions and will continue to do so if we feel it correct.

In this case for the reasons stated above (1,2,3) we could not make an exception.

Micki

 

[Slotster!]

Thanks for the response Micki - input from casino operators and explanations is greatly appreciated by us players!

I see why you took the decision you did under the circumstances - particularly with the large amount built up on the restricted game.

One last question - why is this specific game restricted when the house edge is still in place? This is a general question really and not a criticism. I wonder if it's because there's a high instance of 'hits' on Deuces Wild, even if they are small. That way, someone could use the 'double up' feature to accumulate a balance... (if they're not at English Harbour ))

Thanks again for the explanation - much appreciated!

 

[lydia]

I wonder if it's because there's a high instance of 'hits' on Deuces Wild, even if they are small. That way, someone could use the 'double up' feature to accumulate a balance... (if they're not at English Harbour ))

Didn't work for me - I was curious about Deuces Wild ( I usually play JOB), so I played yesterday at Trident (without bonus), didn't win.