KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Linus]

It is with great sadness that I watch many of you viewing the online casino industry through rose-colored glasses. Everything that a casino does wrong, you slam. Every time a player does wrong, you slam the casino. You know who you are - it's sad that this unrealistic, one-sided view that you have of the industry is ultimately what makes everyone on both sides look bad.

Spear, you just have to accept the fact that people who are casino-affiliates have a different point of view than people who are not.

For those of us who are not, what we see is that affiliates jump to the defense of casinos when they make a mistake, but bash players when they do the same.

No matter how innocent the mistake, no matter how easy it is to make, and no matter how obtuse, confusing, or vague the casino-written rules are.

For us, you're the ones who are wearing the glasses.

 

[soflat]

KN does not have a catch-all phrase whereby they can nullify winnings. It is unacceptable practice to have a clause where they can void winnings for any reason and I believe CM has taken stances against operators who have such a clause. I think your criticism of the CM folks is unfair.

Most casinos have excluded games. Reputable casinos state whether play at excluded games can nullify winnings.

Bonus terms are changing at all casinos. KN even gives fair warning of the expiration date.

 

[dominique]

Spear, you just have to accept the fact that people who are casino-affiliates have a different point of view than people who are not.

For those of us who are not, what we see is that affiliates jump to the defense of casinos when they make a mistake, but bash players when they do the same.

No matter how innocent the mistake, no matter how easy it is to make, and no matter how obtuse, confusing, or vague the casino-written rules are.

For us, you're the ones who are wearing the glasses.

That card again!

This is such BS.

There are some situations where there is a clear right and wrong, and this is one of them. The rules are the rules, we all, casinos, players, webmasters, whoever, we are all bound by them. Or need to be.

The rules here are clear, and Neptune is ethical to the t. They have no wishy washy T&Cs, no escape clauses, nothing underhanded whatsoever. There is nothing shoddy about this casino. I can give you long lists of shoddy casinos (check my blacklist) but this one is not among them.

Sometimes things are not so clear, or can't be proven by either party and we have a mess. This is not one of those times.

Sometimes we KNOW the casino is crap and just wonder why anyone in their right mind would play there. This is not one of those times either.

None of this has anything to do with being an affiliate. Affiliates and players are in exactly the same boat and need to start listening to each other.

A crappy casino is a crappy casino and it will not pay players or affiliates or the guy who cleans the office either. A crook is a crook, it doesn't matter who gets screwed first. It is not ever smart to ignore when the other guy gets screwed, because you're next.

I guess I can get off my soap box now. Been preaching this for years and always falls on deaf ears anyway.

 

[The Dude]

Spear, you just have to accept the fact that people who are casino-affiliates have a different point of view than people who are not.

Just for the record, I don't think Spear is an affiliate anymore since he sold Got2bet. I would say he is more of a player than an affiliate at the moment.

 

[Linus]

King Neptune's Terms & Conditions:

Terms & Conditions

Back to promotion
100% WELCOME BONUS

* Eligible new players claiming the promotion will be credited with a 100% bonus, up to a maximum of $200, when they make their first real money deposit at the casino.
* Details of how to claim the promotion are noted on the welcome bonus page on the web site.
* Our welcome bonus is offered to you after you make your first deposit. You will not be eligible to claim your welcome bonus if you withdraw your deposit first.
(Example: 1: Make deposit; 2: Withdraw deposit; 3: Claimed Welcome Bonus); therefore
* In order to meet the minimum play through requirements You must play a combination of your initial deposit and welcome bonus; you cannot meet the requirements to withdraw any winnings by playing with the bonus alone (as described in example #3 above).
* If you withdraw your first deposit and then claim the welcome bonus, all wagers & winnings resulting from play using that bonus are null and void. We will cancel and remove your total withdrawal.
* In order to successfully submit a bonus claim, players must submit the special promotion code provided on the site page and in their welcome e-mail.
* Players must claim their bonus using the claim form provided on the web site.
* Once the claim has been successfully submitted, the bonus amount will be credited to the player's casino account immediately.
* Players must claim the bonus within 10 days of opening their casino account. Players claiming after this time will no longer be eligible for the Welcome Bonus.
* This offer may NOT be used in conjunction with any other sign-up offer.
* The 100% bonus is only valid against a New Player's first deposit at King Neptune's Casino.
* This promotion is subject to the casino's terms and conditions of use.

Eligibility

* 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.
* Strictly one Real Account per Household is permitted. This bonus may be claimed only once per person, family, household address, e-mail address, credit card number, and environments where computers are shared (e.g. university, school, public library, workplace etc.). If you already have an account at King Neptune's Casino, you are NOT eligible for this offer.
* Employees, officers and directors of King Neptune's Casino, its promotional or other agencies, licensees and licensors, service providers and any other associated or affiliated companies shall not be eligible for entry. The same terms shall apply to the direct families of such persons.

Minimum Wager Requirements For Bonuses

* Please note that Players must wager the deposit amount at least 15 times plus 15 times the bonus amount on any games except the Excluded Games before making any withdrawals. This is in the interest of fair Casino play considering that any wager at our Casino can return a sizeable winning.
* Excluded Games: this offer excludes play on all forms and versions of: Video, Multihand, and Power Pokers; Blackjack; Roulette; Craps; or Baccarat, and Casino War. Wagers placed at these games will not be deemed as fulfilling the promotion's minimum wager requirement.
* Wagering requirements and game exclusions apply according to the date you claim your bonus and not the date you registered at the casino.
* If you play any of the restricted games, which subsequently results in winnings, this play will not fulfill/complete the play through conditions. These winnings may be deemed null & void and will be removed/confiscated from your account balance or withdrawals at the sole discretion of Trident Entertainment Group.

Promotion Abuse

* Non-compliance with these terms and conditions shall be deemed to be 'Promotion Abuse' and as such shall give the King Neptune's Casino Management the right to at its sole discretion take the following actions against such abusers:
o All winnings on any account/s opened will be null and void and all withdrawals will be cancelled where play has been deemed abusive.
o Abusing Player accounts may be terminated with immediate effect.
o Players found to be abusing promotions may be barred from receiving further promotional offers at the Casino.

GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS

*****Bold original.

The following clause seems to say that if you play an excluded game (like the one the OP played) your play at that game will not count toward the bonus wager requirement.

* Excluded Games: this offer excludes play on all forms and versions of: Video, Multihand, and Power Pokers; Blackjack; Roulette; Craps; or Baccarat, and Casino War. Wagers placed at these games will not be deemed as fulfilling the promotion's minimum wager requirement.

It does not say that playing, for example, video poker, will void ALL winnings on ALL games. In fact, it seems to imply the opposite - that the play will simply not count toward the bonus.


A little further down, though, the terms state:

* If you play any of the restricted games, which subsequently results in winnings, this play will not fulfill/complete the play through conditions. These winnings may be deemed null & void and will be removed/confiscated from your account balance or withdrawals at the sole discretion of Trident Entertainment Group.

The first sentence just restates what was in the bolded section.

The second sentence adds, however, that the winnings from the excluded game "may be deemed null and void" at the "sole discretion" of the casino.

This term seems to discount the argument that not voiding his winnings would somehow set a bad precedent - since their own terms say that it's up to them to decide whether to void the winnings.




Finally, the last paragraph states:

* Non-compliance with these terms and conditions shall be deemed to be 'Promotion Abuse' and as such shall give the King Neptune's Casino Management the right to at its sole discretion take the following actions against such abusers:
o All winnings on any account/s opened will be null and void and all withdrawals will be cancelled where play has been deemed abusive.
o Abusing Player accounts may be terminated with immediate effect.
o Players found to be abusing promotions may be barred from receiving further promotional offers at the Casino.

Again, they use the words "may be" and "sole discretion."

Presumably, this is the term under which King Neptune seized the OP's winnings, since they seized ALL of his winnings from ALL of his games - not just the video poker hands he mistakenly played.

So they're saying she's a "Promotion Abuser."

This, despite the fact she played the game 20 hours after they changed the terms and conditions, and played only one excluded game - which was NOT excluded up until twenty hours before she played.


Bottom line - she made an innocent mistake, and they seized her money because she won too much.


Is the casino "within it's rights" to do this?

I suppose so. After all, it's in their terms and condtions. It's within their "sole discretion."


Would I ever recommend this casino - or any casino that labels someone a "promotion abuser" for playing one excluded game the day after they changed their terms and conditions? And used their "sole discretion" clause to seize all of his - sorry - her - winnings, even from games that have not been excluded?

Of course not.

--Not if I liked him.

 

[spearmaster]

Spear, you just have to accept the fact that people who are casino-affiliates have a different point of view than people who are not.

For those of us who are not, what we see is that affiliates jump to the defense of casinos when they make a mistake, but bash players when they do the same.

No matter how innocent the mistake, no matter how easy it is to make, and no matter how obtuse, confusing, or vague the casino-written rules are.

For us, you're the ones who are wearing the glasses.

Linus, I'm not an affiliate - at least not an active one - and not been so for over a year. And Casinomeister is not an affiliate except with a very, very few # of casinos.

I think you would need to deep much further into our individual histories before you can dictate that "affiliate things" color our world - because, plain and simple, they do NOT.

Both of us have track records that speak for themselves, and these records will show that we equally defend all sides. We take the side of the player when the player is right. We take the side of the casino when the casino is right. It's not very hard to do - just follow your instincts, rather than your heart (or pocketbook, depending on who you're talkikng to).

 

[spearmaster]

Speaking of colored views...

Bottom line - she made an innocent mistake, and they seized her money because she won too much.

Why is it that you allow the numbers to come into the picture? The T&C clearly states that the casino has the right to void winnings, which it did.

Do you have proof that the casino would have PAID the winnings had they been a mere $10? If not, exactly where do you draw the line at what is too much?

Let your imaginations run wild, by all means - but don't read stuff into the situation which simply does not apply. The T&C is clear - that's all that matters. It's not "unclear" or "hazy" or anything of the sort. If it was, it would STILL have been the player's responsibility to ask before entering the contract.

 

[spearmaster]

Why is is ridiculous to question the casino's motives? Because the obvious conclusion is one you don't like?

Motive is irrelevant until you can show where the casino was WRONG.

And I may remind you that the rules does not state that the casino will confiscate the winnings. It states that the casino may deem them null and void. Most casinos have a clause that claim they may confiscate money for whatever reason they want. Most wisely never use that clause. Would use of that "catch all" rule also be supported by you? If not, why? It is in the rules.

First of all, any sensible person understands that MAY is NOT a supporting argument. It should always be viewed in the WORSE sense possible, not the BEST.

Second of all, this is not a catch-all rule - it clearly states that winnings on excluded games may be voided. It does not say "If we don't like your play we'll void all your play and return your deposit." - you cannot compare apples to oranges.

You and I both know this player isn't a scammer. The casino knows it. They wouldn't use this rule to nail the player if the amount was small. Why piss off a potential customer over a small amount. 8k on the other hand...

Whether the player is or is not a scammer is also completely irrelevant - it was not cited as a reason, nor did the player admit to being a scammer. A lot of people threw this in as an excuse to not support the player, but it is still circumstantial evidence and in any case not proven. I certainly would not have supported a confiscation on the sole fact that the casino had determined that the player was a scammer.

 

[AussieDave]

Linus, I'm not an affiliate - at least not an active one - and not been so for over a year. And Casinomeister is not an affiliate except with a very, very few # of casinos.

I don't wish to start anything or let this post be conceived as a personal dig, or least of all derail the topic.

Granted your not an active affiliate Spear, but CM derives income from media buys. Which is technically not an affiliate. Though from Linus's understanding and also from non savvy industry people, using the term "affiliate" may also mean to them holding a business interest to a casino & or gambling venue.

Cheers

 

[AussieDave]

Adding my 2 cents worth.

I'm a firm believer in following the T&C's to the letter. If the casino states you don't play xyz, then you don't play xyz, it's that simple.

This playing games that don't meet the wagering requirements is BS. It's like crossing the road on a don't walk signal and then wondering why you got run over. It's not rocket science, it's common sense imo.

If you want to flaunt the bonus rules playing games that technically are not allowed, then do so at your own peril.

 

[dominique]

holding a business interest to a casino & or gambling venue.

And why would that be a negative?

If you have a grocery store, and you get some of your produce from ABCfarms, and someone claimed they got sick from eating this produce, would you want to know if the produce is bad or would you tell everyone it was just fine? What would the repercussions be for each choice? Same thing here.

If I do business with ABCcasino I am very, very interested in finding out if there is anything wrong.

Not only does my reputation depend on it, and not only do we have the situaton where "if the player ain't happy, ain't nobody happy", and not only do I play myself, but if ABCcasino screws players it is screwing me too. I just have absolutely no way of proving it ever, which is a whole other story.

If I promote ABCcasino, I am indeed very interested and concerned about what happens to you there.

 

[AussieDave]

And why would that be a negative?

If you have a grocery store, and you get some of your produce from ABCfarms, and someone claimed they got sick from eating this produce, would you want to know if the produce is bad or would you tell everyone it was just fine? What would the repercussions be for each choice? Same thing here.

If I do business with ABCcasino I am very, very interested in finding out if there is anything wrong.

Not only does my reputation depend on it, and not only do we have the situaton where "if the player ain't happy, ain't nobody happy", and not only do I play myself, but if ABCcasino screws players it is screwing me too. I just have absolutely no way of proving it ever, which is a whole other story.

If I promote ABCcasino, I am indeed very interested and concerned about what happens to you there.

Edit: Dom was that in reply to my post?

 

[spearmaster]

Granted your not an active affiliate Spear, but CM derives income from media buys. Which is technically not an affiliate. Though from Linus's understanding and also from non savvy industry people, using the term "affiliate" may also mean to them holding a business interest to a casino & or gambling venue.

Yes, there is a line that can be drawn, perhaps - but Linus is probably savvy enough to know the difference - as you can tell from many of his posts he is generally well-informed.

I can't speak to whether or not there have been any media buys here from Trident Grouup, as I generally ignore advertising LOL. But in my case it's still a non-starter as I neither promote nor derive an income from Trident.

 

[Freudian]

Motive is irrelevant until you can show where the casino was WRONG.

Not even the casino itself views this issue as black/white as you do. They themselves admit to allowing some customers to keep their profit when mistakes like this occur.

But they don't allow this one to keep the profit, for what everyone surely must agree is more of an example of extremely unfortunate timing than anything else. Which brings us straight back to motive because the money involved is significant. You claiming it is irrelevant doesn't make it irrelevant.

 

[sdaddy]

With all due respect to the players complaining about this case, I don't see how we can fault a casino for enforcing its written rules, however rigidly. The other side of this is that you can always count on a first-class group like Trident to follow its rules and promises, and this is very reassuring to me as a player. That is why I play there frequently and will continue to do so.

 

[spearmaster]

Not even the casino itself views this issue as black/white as you do. They themselves admit to allowing some customers to keep their profit when mistakes like this occur.

But they don't allow this one to keep the profit, for what everyone surely must agree is more of an example of extremely unfortunate timing than anything else. Which brings us straight back to motive because the money involved is significant. You claiming it is irrelevant doesn't make it irrelevant.

Did they say under what circumstances some customers are allowed to keep their profits?

And did they say any where what these amounts were?

 

[AussieDave]

Yes, there is a line that can be drawn, perhaps - but Linus is probably savvy enough to know the difference - as you can tell from many of his posts he is generally well-informed.

I can't speak to whether or not there have been any media buys here from Trident Grouup, as I generally ignore advertising LOL. But in my case it's still a non-starter as I neither promote nor derive an income from Trident.

Just trying to be devils advocate in that case; you can have that job back Spear.

As you don't take too much notice of advertsing, the same goes for me with Linus's posts (no offense Linus), so I wouldn't know if Linus is savvy or not! It was a generalised post.

 

[spearmaster]

Just trying to be devils advocate in that case; you can have that job back Spear.

As you don't take too much notice of advertsing, the same goes for me with Linus's posts (no offense Linus), so I wouldn't know if Linus is savvy or not! It was a generalised post.

LOL. Actually, I think that as I am currently absent from duties as moderator, perhaps I ought to be absent from being devil's advocate as well

 

[dominique]

Edit: Dom was that in reply to my post?

Yes it was, but it is also in response to this whole thread.

I get really tired of people assuming that as affiliate I don't care what happens with players.

It's exactly the opposite, it is WHY I DO care.

 

[AussieDave]

And why would that be a negative?

If you have a grocery store, and you get some of your produce from ABCfarms, and someone claimed they got sick from eating this produce, would you want to know if the produce is bad or would you tell everyone it was just fine? What would the repercussions be for each choice? Same thing here.

If I do business with ABCcasino I am very, very interested in finding out if there is anything wrong.

Not only does my reputation depend on it, and not only do we have the situaton where "if the player ain't happy, ain't nobody happy", and not only do I play myself, but if ABCcasino screws players it is screwing me too. I just have absolutely no way of proving it ever, which is a whole other story.

If I promote ABCcasino, I am indeed very interested and concerned about what happens to you there.

I'll re-add my response.

By all means dom quote me but please do so in context, thanks.

 

[AussieDave]

Yes it was, but it is also in response to this whole thread.

I get really tired of people assuming that as affiliate I don't care what happens with players.

It's exactly the opposite, it is WHY I DO care.

With the same token you have to admit there are a lot of affiliates out there who don't care either.

I think most people here (least the regulars) know how passionate you are towards the industry. Those who care about this industry and are out to do the honourable thing also know that your integrity is solid.

Unfortunately (imo) in situations like this ( I'm sure you've seen it before), it turns into an US and Them thing.

US = players
Them = casino

 

[dominique]

Well, you are right.

There are a lot of lousy affiliates out there. There are also a lot of lousy casinos out there.

As far as players go, I get annoyed with those who have been around and have read enough to know better, but still play at known crappy casinos and then moan when they don't get paid. Duh!

I think crappy affiliates shoot themselves in the foot - not only will players not trust them or whatever info they may provide, they are likely to get cheated by the very same casinos that cheat players. Again - Duh!

The ones who seem to get away with murder are the really bad casinos. They pull enough players in through the search engines and through spam.

I wish players would subscribe to the few newsletters out there that have integrity. You would get all the good offers that are available in the mail as usual, but be able to avoid the rogues that spam you.

It is because of the rogues that I am glad to see the industry contracting and lots of mergers ocurring. Some are buying up the bad casinos and putting them under new management and ownership entirely, often management that has been running good casinos for years. This is happening particularly in RTG casinos and perhaps this way a lot of the real bad casinos will be turned around.

We can hope, can't we?

 

[chuchu59]

It's the 29th of May and I just went to KN's site to have a look at the Ts and Cs. there is nothing to show what the coming attraction ie Ts and Cs starting from 1 June will be. My concern is that they should show the next set of Terms by now in order that something similar will not occur again. Tennis Ball's suggestion ie a Policy Changes page is a good idea but I do not find them doing anything.

Then there is also the ridiculous term where it says that winnings derived from play on restricted games may be deemed null and void. It doesnt say play on these games are voided. If a player like piecar plays on restricted games but loses both the bonus and deposit will the losses be reinstated? According to the term, definitely not because there is nothing in there saying they will be. So the casino can really have it both ways depending on how they like it. It's really not fair, Bryan/Spearmaster. While I understand that the casino has only been following its terms strictly, how on earth can a reputable casino have such unfair terms. From the responses to this thread, it's obvious that it's not a one-sided issue with sympathies for the player and casino alike and it does seem that both have telling cases. The result is a foregone conclusion and the player will not be paid but why cant steps be made to prevent similar recurrences. We should be looking ahead but from the lack of response/action taken by KN there is a grave doubt as to whether they were simply denying a huge win or were actually sticking to the rules.

 

[soflat]

The May bonus T&Cs did not expire yet. If they change them while players are still on it, then there will be further outcry.

Maybe the June rules will explicitly state that winnings will defintely be void if play on restricted games occurs. To me that is worse than leaving it to the casino's discretion.

I'm guessing they will tighten the bonus and its T&Cs up, and maybe move to a slots-only bonus before long. Another good bonus is going to bite the dust.

 

[chuchu59]

Maybe my words were a bit misleading. I am not suggesting that they change the the terms and conditions before expiry. It's just that since they should already have known by now their next set of Ts and Cs to either provide a prominent link so that players know what is in store for them when the next month arrives or probably just have a 'policy changes' webpage announcing different promo changes for different periods. Posting them to let players know earlier of coming changes will make it difficult for them to claim they stuck to the old rules but deposited and played during the 'new' period.

 

[GOCC]

The May bonus T&Cs did not expire yet. If they change them while players are still on it, then there will be further outcry.

Maybe the June rules will explicitly state that winnings will defintely be void if play on restricted games occurs. To me that is worse than leaving it to the casino's discretion.

I'm guessing they will tighten the bonus and its T&Cs up, and maybe move to a slots-only bonus before long. Another good bonus is going to bite the dust.

Excluded Games: this offer excludes play on all forms and versions of: Video, Multihand, and Power Pokers; Blackjack; Roulette; Craps; or Baccarat, and Casino War. Wagers placed at these games will not be deemed as fulfilling the promotion's minimum wager requirement

From the excluded games listed above, it is a slots only bonus isnt it?? I cant think of any game not covered above (Except KENO)

 

[Simmo!]

From the excluded games listed above, it is a slots only bonus isnt it?? I cant think of any game not covered above (Except KENO)

It's basically allowing games of "chance" rather than games the player can affect the outcome on.

 

[GrandMaster]

Excluded Games: this offer excludes play on all forms and versions of: Video, Multihand, and Power Pokers; Blackjack; Roulette; Craps; or Baccarat, and Casino War. Wagers placed at these games will not be deemed as fulfilling the promotion's minimum wager requirement

From the excluded games listed above, it is a slots only bonus isnt it?? I cant think of any game not covered above (Except KENO)

3 card poker, Caribbean stud poker, pai gow poker, red dog, sic bo (I am really surprised sic bo is not excluded), flip cards, scratch cards.

 

[BBKPoker]

Just a quick word of support for Trident/Neptune's.

I also misplayed on here once playing videopoker, let it ride, paigow, and 3-card poker. I won about 800 on video poker and almost 2000 on the other games.

When they reviewed my account they agreed to let me keep my winnings on 3-card poker as I had never gone under a balance of 200 (I deposited 200 and got a 200 bonus) so I had not placed wagers with the bonus money. Considering I stupidly broke the terms while I was playing by not being careful enough (and believe me, they had a clear link and three reminders to carefully review the terms prior to me playing and I still somehow missed it) I was very happy that they were willing to be reasonable and give me my winnings on the non-excluded games.

I'm guessing almost all of your winnings came from the video poker (confirm?) and that's why they decided to reset your account.

At any rate, they are certainly reasonable people, and I don't think they are obligated to pay given the situation.

 

[spearmaster]

In response to the discussion of the word "may", I shall repeat what I posted earlier.

First of all, any sensible person understands that MAY is NOT a supporting argument. It should always be viewed in the WORSE sense possible, not the BEST.

 

[Macgyver]

I also misplayed on here once playing videopoker, let it ride, paigow, and 3-card poker. I won about 800 on video poker and almost 2000 on the other games.

When they reviewed my account they agreed to let me keep my winnings on 3-card poker as I had never gone under a balance of 200 (I deposited 200 and got a 200 bonus) so I had not placed wagers with the bonus money. Considering I stupidly broke the terms while I was playing by not being careful enough (and believe me, they had a clear link and three reminders to carefully review the terms prior to me playing and I still somehow missed it) I was very happy that they were willing to be reasonable and give me my winnings on the non-excluded games.

I'm guessing almost all of your winnings came from the video poker (confirm?) and that's why they decided to reset your account.

This thread is so long it takes forever to find what I want. From Micki's second post (on page 15 of this thread):

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.

I've bolded the applicable parts ... but KN is just out to take players' money any way they can, right?

 

[chuchu59]

I also misplayed on here once playing videopoker, let it ride, paigow, and 3-card poker. I won about 800 on video poker and almost 2000 on the other games.

When they reviewed my account they agreed to let me keep my winnings on 3-card poker as I had never gone under a balance of 200 (I deposited 200 and got a 200 bonus) so I had not placed wagers with the bonus money. Considering I stupidly broke the terms while I was playing by not being careful enough (and believe me, they had a clear link and three reminders to carefully review the terms prior to me playing and I still somehow missed it) I was very happy that they were willing to be reasonable and give me my winnings on the non-excluded games.

I'm guessing almost all of your winnings came from the video poker (confirm?) and that's why they decided to reset your account.

At any rate, they are certainly reasonable people, and I don't think they are obligated to pay given the situation.

I understand that some of piecar's winnings came from non-excluded games. However, at the very first bet on these games he lost $400 which is the total of his deposit and bonus leaving him with none of his own money to play with theoretically. After this, his winnings were deemed to have been derived from winnings on excluded games.

From BBKPoker's case, there does seem to be a certain level of consistency as to how the casino views further bets on 'non excluded games' after the player has initiated play on 'restricted games' They scrutinize each and every bet to deduce whether there is any of the player's deposit/bonus left to play these games before deciding on whether to (legalize) these winnings.

 

[Freudian]

I understand that some of piecar's winnings came from non-excluded games. However, at the very first bet on these games he lost $400 which is the total of his deposit and bonus leaving him with none of his own money to play with theoretically. After this, his winnings were deemed to have been derived from winnings on excluded games.

From BBKPoker's case, there does seem to be a certain level of consistency as to how the casino views further bets on 'non excluded games' after the player has initiated play on 'restricted games' They scrutinize each and every bet to deduce whether there is any of the player's deposit/bonus left to play these games before deciding on whether to (legalize) these winnings.

Which is a silly way to analyze things. Of course a player with 8k in the account will be able to play a high variance style compared to one who only has 400. Anyone seriously believe the player would have bet 400 with only 400 in the account? Of course not.

Anyway, casinos will take money on technicalities until the industry is dead and buried. Which may happen sooner than many would hope.

 

[dominique]

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.

Macgyver (who is to be commended for his usual impartiality and keen understanding) pulled out the crucial points here.

Not only did Neptune take the time to analyse this correctly, but they were nice enough to return the deposit AND THE BONUS so this player could play it without running into problems with excluded games.

 

[Macgyver]

Which is a silly way to analyze things. Of course a player with £8k in the account will be able to play a high variance style compared to one who only has £400. Anyone seriously believe the player would have bet £400 with only £400 in the account? Of course not.

With a sticky bonus, that is exactly how many people will bet, Freudian.

Though I haven't seen it on the Wiz's page myself, I've seen other people post that this type of "bet-it-all" strategy is listed as a viable option on his site.

The only modification I've seen (not on the Wiz's site, but on others) is the "bet half the bankroll" strategy if the player is playing blackjack, allowing the opportunity to take advantage of doubling or splitting opportunities.

 

[Freudian]

With a sticky bonus, that is exactly how many people will bet, Freudian.

Though I haven't seen it on the Wiz's page myself, I've seen other people post that this type of "bet-it-all" strategy is listed as a viable option on his site.

The only modification I've seen (not on the Wiz's site, but on others) is the "bet half the bankroll" strategy if the player is playing blackjack, allowing the opportunity to take advantage of doubling or splitting opportunities.

The player has £8k. How on earth you can describe betting £400 as a "bet-it-all" strategy? Seems like a normal bet for people who runs hot, as does this players constant changing of games to play. Hardly the stuff bonus abusers are made of.

 

[dominique]

What does bonus abuse have to do with this?

Nothing I can see.

She played disallowed games and built up a winning balance on them.

According to T&Cs, that forfeited everything.

Only the winnings were actually forfeited, and the player got the deposit AND BONUS back to try again without using disallowed games.

I see nothing about bonus abuse here. Just a failure to follow the rules.

 

[chuchu59]

Which is a silly way to analyze things. Of course a player with 8k in the account will be able to play a high variance style compared to one who only has 400. Anyone seriously believe the player would have bet 400 with only 400 in the account? Of course not.

Anyway, casinos will take money on technicalities until the industry is dead and buried. Which may happen sooner than many would hope.

What you dont seem to understand is that much of the winnings were derived from excluded games so we must try to put the position into where the player was without those winnings otherwise we will have to accept the fact that the casino will confiscate all winnings irrespective of whether they were gained from playing excluded or non-excluded games.

 

[Freudian]

What you dont seem to understand is that much of the winnings were derived from excluded games so we must try to put the position into where the player was without those winnings otherwise we will have to accept the fact that the casino will confiscate all winnings irrespective of whether they were gained from playing excluded or non-excluded games.

If by excluded you mean regular casino games where the casino has an edge, sure. The way some of you guys reason is like it is a piece of cake to build up a gigantic roll by playing these *gasp* excluded games. They will surely be the death of casinos worldwide.

She got lucky playing Deuces Wild. Building her roll up to 8k. Then she got unlucky because the casino had changed the rules less than 24 hours earlier and saw a golden chance to keep all the money.

IF she used the bonus to build that 8k playing deuces wild, I might agree with you. But as you know, the money risked first is always the customers so if she never lost 200 playing Deuces Wild every single penny of it was won using her own money.

But keep twisting it. We already heard the casino is doing her a favour by calling "do over" on this one. I am sure some more pearls of wisdom will be dropped.

 

[soflat]

If by excluded you mean regular casino games where the casino has an edge, sure.

By 'excluded' I think they mean the games that are in the Excluded Games list @ King Neptunes. Some non-excluded games are still pretty good (profitable) with the bonus.

IF she used the bonus to build that 8k playing deuces wild, I might agree with you. But as you know, the money risked first is always the customers so if she never lost 200 playing Deuces Wild every single penny of it was won using her own money.

According to your logic, players can ALWAYS play excluded games until their own funds run out. Why shouldn't KN be able to make its own rules?

 

[Freudian]

Why shouldn't KN be able to make its own rules?

Isn't it obvious that they can? All I can hope that absurd rules and absurd application of them cost the casino at least £8k in lost future profits. I am a strong believer in karma.

I have no problem with casinos not allowing certain games count for playthrough. I loathe these "hihi, gotcha" rules.

 

[bpb]

I've changed my mind on this issue. It's clear to me now that if KN didn't void these winnings, that Nazi's would come back to life and ride around on dinosaurs. I've seen the light.

 

[Macgyver]

The player has £8k. How on earth you can describe betting £400 as a "bet-it-all" strategy? Seems like a normal bet for people who runs hot, as does this players constant changing of games to play. Hardly the stuff bonus abusers are made of.

This is what you posted, Freudian.

Which is a silly way to analyze things. Of course a player with £8k in the account will be able to play a high variance style compared to one who only has £400. Anyone seriously believe the player would have bet £400 with only £400 in the account? Of course not.

Some bonus hunters will indeed bet £400 even if they only have £400 as a bankroll, especially with a sticky bonus (though I'm not sure KN's bonus is a sticky).

And I never called the OP a "bonus abuser." All I said was that Micki showed that if the OP had not made profit on playing a disallowed game, the OP would have busted out when the OP made a £400 bet on an allowed game. Therefore, any profit after that £400 bet was made through winnings on those disallowed games.

 

[Sodax77]

This is
The
Never Ending Story

Great PR for King Neptunes! ​

..and yes, also Trident group made some very bad mistakes... eg 2004
When they sent that email... where was over 2500 email address...

I still have that original email...

Link Outdated / Removed
(please note: i removed over 2500 email address - for security reason)

Is that ok?! "Oops" by Trident Group

Whatever...

And Micki!

Funny, how some players got spam emails after your mistake.
And i still have your reply... but you never reply to my "privacy policy"-question.
Even i sent you proof, how few casinos used your database...

One group was Casinonova - who used that - like you know.
I sent proof... long time ago

 

[vinylweatherman]

MAY

If we are to interpret "May" in the worst sense, and not the better or neutral, does that mean we must take it in the best sense for the casino, or can we take "may" as "almost certainly" when WE tell a casino that we "May" take some sort of action.

I note that BBKPoker seems a similar case, winning some $800 on video poker (excluded), and then playing other games, but not losing too much. However, unlike Piecar, the casino took a more lenient stance on the following bets on included games being funded from the $800 VP winnings.
The way the analysis went seems extremely complicated, especially to the novice. I wonder what the difference was between the patterns of play between Piecar and BBKpoker that caused the harsher decision in one case, and a more lenient decision in the other. We have already been told that the amount of $8000 is not relevant, but only the patterns of play.

I have just looked at another casino with a similar offer, they also use the term "excluded games", but in this case players may play them, but must wager the amount needed on included games before making a cash-in - same language, but different meaning. If we are supposed to view everything in the worst possible light at all times where there is a potential ambiguity in any terms, how does this tally with the bond of trust we are expected to form with our casino of choice. Having to take the worst possible interpretation of everything does nothing to encourage trust. We will see online casino "lawyers" springing up to scrutinise each nuance of T & C, and casinos could find themselves on the receiving end of the debate on the meanings of terms such as "May, normally, excluded, does not count towards.....".
There is an increasing perception of an attitude of "warfare" with the casinos, just as there has been with land based providers of various gambling opportunities where the owners will suck in the losing punters, but anyone who seems to have the discipline to win fairly regularly will find themselves thrown out without appeal or explanation, even when they are just recouping some of the losses made while they were learning to play better.
Rather than "maybe", there should be justifiable criteria to determine, whether a discretionary course of action will be taken or not, an argument that commonly surfaces when players are accused of "abusing" a bonus, but are not told what they are supposed to have done wrong, and simply assume the only thing they did wrong was to follow the T & C TO THE LETTER, but still manage to beat the house.
If I were to play at KN, and place my full /$400 on 3-card poker, and somehow end up with a /$10,000 straight flush (pretty unlikely, but I have had this on the first hand a few times before!), I should expect that they will, just as in the case with Piecar, honour the T & C to the letter, provided I continue to play on allowed games and complete the appropriate WR multiple before cashing in. I say this as Piecar's first wager of 400 on 3-card poker with what would have been her total balance without play on DW is cited as one of the main factors in coming to the decision to reset the account to 400

I don't expect they (KN) will keep their rating though, they are going over to BelleRock, who cannot even cope with the current portfolio, let alone the extra workload that such a merger brings about!

 

[Linus]

What does bonus abuse have to do with this?

According to the casino, everything:

Non-compliance with these terms and conditions shall be deemed to be 'Promotion Abuse' and as such shall give the King Neptune's Casino Management the right to at its sole discretion take the following actions against such abusers:
o All winnings on any account/s opened will be null and void...

Nothing I can see.

She played disallowed games and built up a winning balance on them.

According to T&Cs, that forfeited everything.

If she forfeited everything, it's because - according to the casino - she abused their promotion.

Only the winnings were actually forfeited, and the player got the deposit AND BONUS back to try again without using disallowed games.

Which is a net loss, to the player, of approximately 8000 GBP.

I see nothing about bonus abuse here. Just a failure to follow the rules.

On the last sentence, we agree.

 

[Linus]

If we are supposed to view everything in the worst possible light at all times where there is a potential ambiguity in any terms, how does this tally with the bond of trust we are expected to form with our casino of choice. Having to take the worst possible interpretation of everything does nothing to encourage trust.

Trust is something that can only be earned over time. If a casino changes its terms and conditions regularly, enforces them rigidly, and takes the hardest possible line against a player, even one who appears to have made an innocent mistake... you probably shouldn't trust them.

 

[BBKPoker]

If by excluded you mean regular casino games where the casino has an edge, sure. The way some of you guys reason is like it is a piece of cake to build up a gigantic roll by playing these *gasp* excluded games. They will surely be the death of casinos worldwide.

She got lucky playing Deuces Wild. Building her roll up to 8k. Then she got unlucky because the casino had changed the rules less than 24 hours earlier and saw a golden chance to keep all the money.

IF she used the bonus to build that 8k playing deuces wild, I might agree with you. But as you know, the money risked first is always the customers so if she never lost 200 playing Deuces Wild every single penny of it was won using her own money.

But keep twisting it. We already heard the casino is doing her a favour by calling "do over" on this one. I am sure some more pearls of wisdom will be dropped.

Well what would you call my situation then?

I would certainly describe it as a favor when they reset my balance back to the deposit and bonus for breaking the terms, but within 12 hours of me emailing them a manager personally has reviewed my account and agreed to give me all of my winnings back from the non-excluded games along with a detailed statement showing the breakdown of my wagering on each game especially considering I didn't have some 24-hour messup window of terms changing, the terms had disallowed video poker for some time from what I can recall. As far as I'm concerned, despite losing 800 from video poker, that is a more than satisfactory resolution. That is EXCELLENT of them to be so considerate.

The bottom line is: they have a provision that voids all winnings and bonuses when excluded games are played. A player played an excluded game. The terms were readily available on the website, and the player chose not to follow them. Sucks for the player but those are the breaks. If the casino chooses to void her winnings for playing excluded games that is perfectly within their right.

Anything else (like, oh, say, resetting their account and allowing them to replay the bonus rather than simply returning their money and locking the account) IS a favor. Whether it's the outcome the player is hoping for or not, their solution is certainly fair given the situation.

This casino has an excellent reputation, and I personally have a very positive resolution from a very negative experience, I doubt this will detract anyone from paying King Neptunes in the future, and certainly not me.

 

[BBKPoker]

This is what you posted, Freudian.



Some bonus hunters will indeed bet 400 even if they only have 400 as a bankroll, especially with a sticky bonus (though I'm not sure KN's bonus is a sticky).

And I never called the OP a "bonus abuser." All I said was that Micki showed that if the OP had not made profit on playing a disallowed game, the OP would have busted out when the OP made a 400 bet on an allowed game. Therefore, any profit after that 400 bet was made through winnings on those disallowed games.

Many pro hunters with large bankrolls to work with will even bet cashable bonuses this way in the interest of saving time, considering the significant amount of time saved, the quickness with which you clear wager requirements, and that the overall EV is nearly identical to simply small-bet grinding it out.

 

[kingfile64]

I am shocked at the "knee jerk" reaction by most affiliates on this site to side with King Neptunes here. Here are some simple facts. The T&C are "playtechish" to begin with. This is designed to prevent any player from winning big. Then in the cover of darkness, the T&C suddenly change. No mention on the website the T&C will change on the stroke of midnight april 30. I hope Piecar will not accept anything short of full payment. As for me, I am so upset at some of the responses here,I am tempted to go back to casino on net.