KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[kreome]

I still think I can convince the Casinomeister that these kind of terms are not acceptible and I will start with a question.

Bryan, many of the casinos that are under your rogue list has a term that if a player came to play and grind a bonus and wager the minimum amount required, the casino reserve the right not to pay him.

Why wouldn't you say, the player read the terms and condition before and he agreed on fact that there is a chance he won't be paid.

You don't accept that although it is written in the terms because it is not honest to do so, to decide who desreve and who is not deserve to get paid.

I wish to convince you that this is the same.

You might reply to those casinos above like Indio and African palace that has these kind of terms(Sorry for the other casinos I missed), if you don't want the player then don't accept them from the beiginning, once you accept their bet you have to pay them once they win.

I say the same about ALL the casinos that force a rule like Kingneptunes: You don't want the player to play an excluded game then disable the game, because the player can make a mistake and then it is not reversible, in the past you reversed the cashout for more wagering, this is ok, it is reversible, but to void winnings for couple of 100 wagered in an exluded game ?! not acceptible.

All kinds of reserve the right terms are there to scare the bonus hunters and this is the reason it is there but once the casino force such a rule it is exactly the same as the rule Indio Forced on his players, Both of the casinos are not paying and both of them has it in the terms.


It is just a new policy now enforced by the casinos and you might not think about this rule deeply, this rule should not be acceptible, the games should be disabled from playing them.

Assume a casino has a rule that if you bet flat bet they won't pay you, then you bet a flat bet and they don't pay, you bet 3 hands of flat bet in a row, you won 3000 from betting a flat bet.

If you don't want the player to bet a flat bet then don't allow him to do so IN THE SOFTWARE.

I saw you mentioned at the beginning of this thread, come on, many casinos has exluded games, this is true, but they are exluded from counting towards the wagering, if you play them then the casino will reverse your cashout until you finish the wagering in the allowed games.

Kingneptunes has the right not to pay this players exactly as Indio reserve the right not to pay the bonus players. Indio can even say our rules were there even at the begininng of april of 2004, we have a better excuse.

Of course Kingneptunes is a much better casino than Indio and I am just trying to be sarcastic and I hope I am not too agressive with everyone here but this is what I think.

This player could built a balance easily using an allowed game, he could go to the tri card poker and bet the 400 on pair plus and then he would have 16,000 GBP in his account easily , so he used Deuces wild which was allowed couple of hours before, so what ?

Pay the player, and disable the game you don't want the players to play.

To the casinos in general, if you have some odds rules like: you are not allowed to bet more than 25% of your deposit, or like you max cashout is this and this, then disable the option to play more than 25% with bonuses. Once the player deposit write a message on half of the screen remember that the max u can cashout is 1000 using this promo, otherwise you will be considered putting traps, expect complaints in the future.

 

[nafanny29]

Kreome I do agree with about disabling the games that are barred. It would stop a lot of the current issues.

I have quite a few mates who have not yet ventured into online casinos. If they did I KNOW they would not read all 300 pages of the T&Cs and would play their favorite games innocently. If this happened to be excluded they would get a nasty first experiance online and would never play again.

There definately needs to be something done with

1. Excluded games being non accessable in the software and
2. Any bonuses credited should be on an "opt-in" basis with the main wagering fully explained in plain and easy to understand terms.

This would stop all of the confusion and help the industry shake off its poor image in this area INHO.

 

[Simmo!]

1. Excluded games being non accessable in the software and
2. Any bonuses credited should be on an "opt-in" basis with the main wagering fully explained in plain and easy to understand terms.

Good idea. I think Bryan mentioned earlier that he's contacted Microgaming with a software idea. Meanwhile the casinos are trying different things with EZbonus and now "ClearPay". be interesting to see what difference this makes:

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

 

[spearmaster]

Any bonuses credited should be on an "opt-in" basis with the main wagering fully explained in plain and easy to understand terms.

Strangely enough, I made this exact recommendation to the operators at the Casino Affiliate Conference in Amsterdam in 2003 (or was it 2004, can't remember now). What I had envisioned was that all bonuses be implemented through the website, with a checkbox to agree to the terms and conditions, and with such things as playthrough and restricted games stated very clearly.

Not surprisingly, and sadly, no one implemented this. And needless to say I definitely agree with this idea.

Excluded games being non accessable in the software

This is a good idea, but have to see if they can find a way to implement that.

 

[GrandMaster]

Strangely enough, I made this exact recommendation to the operators at the Casino Affiliate Conference in Amsterdam in 2003 (or was it 2004, can't remember now). What I had envisioned was that all bonuses be implemented through the website, with a checkbox to agree to the terms and conditions, and with such things as playthrough and restricted games stated very clearly.

I would add to this that the casino should e-mail the player a digitally signed and dated copy of the applicable T&C which would be considered definitive version if it differs from the T&C on the website.

 

[spearmaster]

I would add to this that the casino should e-mail the player a digitally signed and dated copy of the applicable T&C which would be considered definitive version if it differs from the T&C on the website.

Also a good idea. That shouldn't be that hard to implement either.

Back to the discussion at hand - The terms very clearly show the valid date range - and it should also be clear that wagering requirements and game exclusions apply according to the date you claim your bonus and not the date you registered at the casino.

The terms & conditions contain no legalese or gobbledygook, everything is in the same size font except that the excluded games are highlighted, obviously to make things very clear.

Now let's reverse things a bit.

You played on the same game 22 hours earlier when it was not excluded and won and the casino has already paid out your winnings. Now the new months T & C's exclude the game, should the player give back his/her winnings because after all it's only 22 hours difference? So even though he/she might have played a game when it was allowable, don't you think that the player should make an exception and give the casino back the winnings?

 

[thelawnet]

I would add to this that the casino should e-mail the player a digitally signed and dated copy of the applicable T&C which would be considered definitive version if it differs from the T&C on the website.

Golden Palace send out terms when they give you a bonus.

Quite why King Neptunes don't do this, instead of whining about how they had changed their terms 18 hours before I don't know.

 

[thelawnet]

Also a good idea. That shouldn't be that hard to implement either.

Back to the discussion at hand - The terms very clearly show the valid date range - and it should also be clear that wagering requirements and game exclusions apply according to the date you claim your bonus and not the date you registered at the casino.

The terms & conditions contain no legalese or gobbledygook, everything is in the same size font except that the excluded games are highlighted, obviously to make things very clear.

Now let's reverse things a bit.

You played on the same game 22 hours earlier when it was not excluded and won and the casino has already paid out your winnings. Now the new months T & C's exclude the game, should the player give back his/her winnings because after all it's only 22 hours difference? So even though he/she might have played a game when it was allowable, don't you think that the player should make an exception and give the casino back the winnings?

Is that a joke? Like if I win $10,000 and then the casino says 'winning more than $100 is not allowed, effective yesterday'?

 

[spearmaster]

Is that a joke? Like if I win $10,000 and then the casino says 'winning more than $100 is not allowed, effective yesterday'?

I presume you get the point then. The casino of course cannot be allowed to apply the terms retroactively - so why should the player be allowed to use old terms and plead ignorance?

 

[spearmaster]

Quite why King Neptunes don't do this, instead of whining about how they had changed their terms 18 hours before I don't know.

The terms very clearly show the valid date range. There is no excuse for pleading ignorance.

 

[thelawnet]

I presume you get the point then. The casino of course cannot be allowed to apply the terms retroactively - so why should the player be allowed to use old terms and plead ignorance?

The difference is that the player gambled and put their money at risk, and that this is a consumer-business relationship, and the business has a certain responsibility to 'be nice'.

 

[soflat]

Originally Posted by nafanny29
1. Excluded games being non accessable in the software and
2. Any bonuses credited should be on an "opt-in" basis with the main wagering fully explained in plain and easy to understand terms.

1. Casinomeister already made this suggestion to Microgaming (to add this feature to the software).

In the meantime, what do you suggest? That they stop offering this generous bonus?

2. You already have to opt-in to King Neptunes bonus. There is a claim form with the Terms and Conditions. The T&Cs are very clear without any misleading clauses.

 

[kingfile64]

Restricted games,excluded games,progressives,non progressives,multi hand video poker,normal video poker,table poker. When will the casinos stop this MADNESS. If you give a bonus, allow all games. A little creative thinking would allow the casinos to still make money, and earn a players loyalty. One simple idea is to give your bonus AFTER wagering is completed within a reasonable time frame.This will allow the T&C to be very clear and easy to understand. No more unclear,dual meaning,open to interputation,and GOTTYA YOU LOOOOSE terms.

 

[spearmaster]

The difference is that the player gambled and put their money at risk, and that this is a consumer-business relationship, and the business has a certain responsibility to 'be nice'.

Do you mean to imply that the casino does not put their money at risk, and that they are not gambling by doing so?

 

[Linus]

The terms very clearly show the valid date range. There is no excuse for pleading ignorance.

Last month Intercasino made a mistake on their T&C's - They listed the excluded games as "Blackjack, Roulette, and Craps." Previously, it had always been Baccarat, Roulette, and Craps. I happened to check their T&C's that month, and wrote them about it. And that's when they explained they'd made a mistake. Blackjack was still allowed, as it had always been. But I know most customers did not check the T&Cs that month. They simply went on and played BJ as normal.

Had Intercasino intentionally changed their terms that month, I suspect they would have made an announcement. They wouldn't have just let their players go on and play their games under the old rules, and then said, "Haha! Gotcha!," when they tried to cash out.

Failing to check the T&Cs is not inexcusable - it's just human nature. Time is valuable, and nobody wants to spend their time rereading T&Cs over and over again.

Yes, King Neptune has the right to cancel this player's winnings. It says so on their T&C's. It's in their "sole discretion."

But she deserves our sympathy. She made a simple, easy-to-make mistake, and has been penalized to the tune of 8000 quid. (I wish I knew how to make the pound sign with this frikken keyboard!) She doesn't need to be chastised for it. And she's not trying to "take advantage" of anyone. She played a game with a house advantage, and had the good fortune to win. That's all.

She just wants her winnings back. Anyone in her situation would feel the same.

It's worth noting that the best casinos out there aren't so crafty.

And that if you want to avoid "sharp" casinos, there are other casinos out there you can play at.

 

[soflat]

Restricted games,excluded games,progressives,non progressives,multi hand video poker,normal video poker,table poker. When will the casinos stop this MADNESS. If you give a bonus, allow all games. A little creative thinking would allow the casinos to still make money, and earn a players loyalty. One simple idea is to give your bonus AFTER wagering is completed within a reasonable time frame.This will allow the T&C to be very clear and easy to understand. No more unclear,dual meaning,open to interputation,and GOTTYA YOU LOOOOSE terms.

Before this thread I never would have imagined that having excluded games was unclear or confusing to the masses of gamblers out there. This has been a real eye opener.

 

[Linus]

BTW, here's a complete copy of Intercasino's terms and conditions:

* To qualify for the match deposit bonus you must make a single lump sum deposit in one transaction of $25 or more. This cannot be done over a number of transactions.
* Players must wager an aggregate total of 25 times the bonus in the casino before they can withdraw the free money, e.g. Deposit = $100, Bonus = $100, you must then wager an aggregate total of $2,500 in the casino before you can cash out the bonus money and its winnings.
* Your free cash will be credited to one account only
* This offer applies to every calendar month throughout the year.
* Baccarat Roulette and Craps do not count towards your minimum wagering requirement.
* If you do not wish to receive this bonus please email [email protected] your account number BEFORE you deposit. Please allow 72 hours for this request to be fulfilled. Please note: A bonus can NOT be removed once issued into your account.

Nothing about "sole discretion." Nothing about "promotion abuse." Nothing about seizing all your winnings.

And to my knowledge, Intercasino's terms never change. (Except for the typo last month.)

I'm not trying to say people should play at one casino rather than another.

But there's nothing about the way that King Neptune handled this situation, that ought to encourage a player to deposit her money there.

 

[chuchu59]

Last month Intercasino made a mistake on their T&C's - They listed the excluded games as "Blackjack, Roulette, and Craps." Previously, it had always been Baccarat, Roulette, and Craps. I happened to check their T&C's that month, and wrote them about it. And that's when they explained they'd made a mistake. Blackjack was still allowed, as it had always been. But I know most customers did not check the T&Cs that month. They simply went on and played BJ as normal.

Had Intercasino intentionally changed their terms that month, I suspect they would have made an announcement. They wouldn't have just let their players go on and play their games under the old rules, and then said, "Haha! Gotcha!," when they tried to cash out.

Failing to check the T&Cs is not inexcusable - it's just human nature. Time is valuable, and nobody wants to spend their time rereading T&Cs over and over again.

Yes, King Neptune has the right to cancel this player's winnings. It says so on their T&C's. It's in their "sole discretion."

But she deserves our sympathy. She made a simple, easy-to-make mistake, and has been penalized to the tune of 8000 quid. (I wish I knew how to make the pound sign with this frikken keyboard!) She doesn't need to be chastised for it. And she's not trying to "take advantage" of anyone. She played a game with a house advantage, and had the good fortune to win. That's all.

She just wants her winnings back. Anyone in her situation would feel the same.

It's worth noting that the best casinos out there aren't so crafty.

And that if you want to avoid "sharp" casinos, there are other casinos out there you can play at.

I dont know whether Intercasino would have made an announcement in this case. They certainly didnt when they decided that players from China would not be eligible for their monthly bonuses. Furthermore, despite my long standing relationship with them, they stated that Hong Kong should belong to this category despite the fact that when you register at the casino, they are listed separately in the address column. It was only after I protested that they added Hong Kong to the list of excluded countries.

 

[spearmaster]

But she deserves our sympathy.

No one's arguing that point. But my point is, somewhere a line has to be drawn, and in this case it was drawn quite clearly.

If there's anything to be said about "sole discretion" and "promotional abuse", it's that they could be completely removed from the terms and conditions and it would make absolutely no difference in the reading of said terms, as well as the eventual result.

 

[BBKPoker]

Kreome I do agree with about disabling the games that are barred. It would stop a lot of the current issues.

I have quite a few mates who have not yet ventured into online casinos. If they did I KNOW they would not read all 300 pages of the T&Cs and would play their favorite games innocently. If this happened to be excluded they would get a nasty first experiance online and would never play again.

There definately needs to be something done with

1. Excluded games being non accessable in the software and
2. Any bonuses credited should be on an "opt-in" basis with the main wagering fully explained in plain and easy to understand terms.

This would stop all of the confusion and help the industry shake off its poor image in this area INHO.

King Neptune's is an "opt-in" bonus. You have to go to the webpage and manually claim it (and there are reminder links all over pointing to the terms and conditions that include the excluded games).

 

[BBKPoker]

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.

Uh, their old terms explicitly state they were valid through a specific date which this player played after. Don't you think it makes sense to re-check the terms the day after the old ones are supposed to be valid through?

Your assessment is essentially 100% bs. No one ninjaed in some obscure clause five seconds after this player registered to screw him out of his winnings. They had old terms that stated a specific date range, the player messed up and was careless about checking them after they had changed, the new terms apply, and he loses his winning, lesson learned, end of story.

There is nothing they could have done to be more clear about their terms and the date range then how they chose to display their information without actually posting their future terms ahead of time.

Most of the time casinos get negative threads posted about them or a bad rap because they actually do something scandalous, but this is fiction. The player happened to have bad timing that coincidentally coincided with a change of terms that was clearly posted in every reasonable way on a casino's site. Given the facts that both the player and casino's account of the situation support, King Neptune's made a decision entirely within their scope, and in fact, could have chosen an even more draconian path such as locking the account, refunding the deposit, and confiscating the bonuses and winnings and still have been well within their right.

 

[kingfile64]

I just love it. Just because they only screwed Piecar out of $8000 and did not withdraw the bonus and freeze her account you pat them on the back for this? UNBELIEVABLE

 

[chuchu59]

Uh, their old terms explicitly state they were valid through a specific date which this player played after. Don't you think it makes sense to re-check the terms the day after the old ones are supposed to be valid through?

Your assessment is essentially 100% bs. No one ninjaed in some obscure clause five seconds after this player registered to screw him out of his winnings. They had old terms that stated a specific date range, the player messed up and was careless about checking them after they had changed, the new terms apply, and he loses his winning, lesson learned, end of story.

There is nothing they could have done to be more clear about their terms and the date range then how they chose to display their information without actually posting their future terms ahead of time.

Most of the time casinos get negative threads posted about them or a bad rap because they actually do something scandalous, but this is fiction. The player happened to have bad timing that coincidentally coincided with a change of terms that was clearly posted in every reasonable way on a casino's site. Given the facts that both the player and casino's account of the situation support, King Neptune's made a decision entirely within their scope, and in fact, could have chosen an even more draconian path such as locking the account, refunding the deposit, and confiscating the bonuses and winnings and still have been well within their right.

BBKPoker,

Let's not make this too personal. While the player is guilty of not revisiting the terms and conditions when it was apparent that the validity of the previous terms had expired, the casino can also be accused of not taking all possible measures to relay the new Ts and Cs to would be customers especially since they should already have the new terms at hand. With the benefit of hindsight we can of course say the player has not done what she should do but this should apply for the casino as well. The fact that this thread has been drawn to such lengths makes me believe neither party is absolutely right or wrong with defenders for both sides with valid arguments. The casino has the final say of course but simply stating it is their right to void winnings does not absolve them of the responsibility to relay changes to the new terms as prominently as possible especially when we argue that the player should be waiting to read them when they come out.

Whichever side we stand on(you can call me a fence-sitter,BTW), let's not take things so personally,please.

 

[Linus]

There is nothing they could have done to be more clear about their terms and the date range then how they chose to display their information without actually posting their future terms ahead of time.

They could have said, "Hey, our terms changed last night. You might want to check them again before you play."

Or, they could have said, "Hey, just so you know, if you play this game, you give us the right to seize all your funds."

Or, they could have prevented her from playing it.

Or, they could have simply not counted her play on that game toward her WR, but refrained from seizing her funds.

 

[silcnlayc]

Anyone remember the saying, "JUST SAY NO"?

Well, I say this to anyone using bonuses..."JUST SAY NO"!!!!!!!

You are tempting fate when you do and I for one have no more sympathy for the ones that do use them and then cry foul......whether from ignorance or not...as I was politely told, that is NO EXCUSE! The BURDEN

They could have said, "Hey, our terms changed last night. You might want to check them again before you play."

is on the PLAYER, not the casino......And they were, and are right....

Too many posters on this board knowing the end result in most of these bonus offers/wins/scenarios......its like really getting too old...the story line that is..Just don't use bonuses...and if you do and get skrewed...then you can't say you weren't told...PERIOD!

 

[Linus]

No one's arguing that point. But my point is, somewhere a line has to be drawn, and in this case it was drawn quite clearly.

If there's anything to be said about "sole discretion" and "promotional abuse", it's that they could be completely removed from the terms and conditions and it would make absolutely no difference in the reading of said terms, as well as the eventual result.

Well, yes & no. It depends on whether you're talking about leaving out the clauses completely, or just rephrasing it in different words.


My point is that many casinos don't have confiscation clauses at all.

I feel like she would have been better off playing at one of those - rather than at King Neptune.


Many gamblers are not always as careful as they should be. They're playing for fun. They don't necessarily want to read and reread terms and conditions over and over again, or go over them with a fine-tooth comb. That's just the nature of the beast. They certainly don't want to have the good fortune of winning at a house-advantage game, only to have their winning confiscated on a technicality.

If it were up to me, I'd encourage gamblers to play at casinos that don't have confiscation clauses, as opposed to those that do.

 

[Linus]

Anyone remember the saying, "JUST SAY NO"?

Well, I say this to anyone using bonuses..."JUST SAY NO"!!!!!!!

You are tempting fate when you do and I for one have no more sympathy for the ones that do use them and then cry foul......whether from ignorance or not...as I was politely told, that is NO EXCUSE! The BURDEN is on the PLAYER, not the casino......And they were, and are right....

Too many posters on this board knowing the end result in most of these bonus offers/wins/scenarios......its like really getting too old...the story line that is..Just don't use bonuses...and if you do and get skrewed...then you can't say you weren't told...PERIOD!

There are lots of casinos that offer easy-to-use and easy-to-understand bonuses, without attaching confiscation clauses.

Some of them are among the most successful operations in the business.

I don't think that's a coincidence.

It's fine for you to say, "the burden is on the player." But the fact remains the player gets to decide where to deposit his money.

Hopefully, boards like this help players separate the good ones, from the bad.

 

[GrandMaster]

Yes, King Neptune has the right to cancel this player's winnings. It says so on their T&C's. It's in their "sole discretion."

As I read it, KN has the right to cancel the winnings on excluded games, but not all winnings.

I have quite a few mates who have not yet ventured into online casinos. If they did I KNOW they would not read all 300 pages of the T&Cs and would play their favorite games innocently. If this happened to be excluded they would get a nasty first experiance online and would never play again.

They can play anything they like without bonuses. If somebody offers me free money, my first instinct is to check where the catch is. I certainly remember reading the T&C at my first online casino several times over to make sure that the casino was indeed giving the player an advantage.

 

[Vesuvio]

My point is that many casinos don't have confiscation clauses at all.

I feel like she would have been better off playing at one of those - rather than at King Neptune.

Exactly Players, especially those new to on-line casinos or just out to have fun, would be advised to steer clear of places which forfeit winnings for mistakes in wagering. Something for affiliates to ponder.

 

[Linus]

As I read it, KN has the right to cancel the winnings on excluded games, but not all winnings.

There are three paragraphs at issue.

The first (bolded) paragraph says excluded games don't count toward the WR.

The second says the casino may confiscate winnings from excluded games.

The final paragraph says they can confiscate all her winnings, at their "sole discretion," if her play is deemed to be "promotion abuse."

Since they seized all her winnings, from both excluded and non-excluded games, I assume they did it because they deemed her play to be "promotion abuse."

But you're right - the second paragraph only gives them the right to seize winnings from excluded games - not all winnings.

 

[Sodax77]

well.... i slam their face, but after i email to Micki and say honestly, what i think.... and we sent few emails to each other. I like to admit that Micki really care. And yes, Micki wass frustrated aswell, like many.
But her reply was great. She really care and do her job well!

Plase contact her, if you have any issues... or questions... before any mistakes...

She will care!

Thanks Micki!

 

[BBKPoker]

BBKPoker,

Let's not make this too personal. While the player is guilty of not revisiting the terms and conditions when it was apparent that the validity of the previous terms had expired, the casino can also be accused of not taking all possible measures to relay the new Ts and Cs to would be customers especially since they should already have the new terms at hand. With the benefit of hindsight we can of course say the player has not done what she should do but this should apply for the casino as well. The fact that this thread has been drawn to such lengths makes me believe neither party is absolutely right or wrong with defenders for both sides with valid arguments. The casino has the final say of course but simply stating it is their right to void winnings does not absolve them of the responsibility to relay changes to the new terms as prominently as possible especially when we argue that the player should be waiting to read them when they come out.

Whichever side we stand on(you can call me a fence-sitter,BTW), let's not take things so personally,please.

I'm not making it personal in anyway shape or form. The player on the other hand came on CM and threw essentially a hissy because KN enforced their very clear posts and then attempted to paint them as some stealthy, tricky, casino hellbent on screwing over players whenever possible, and that is not fair to the casino.

Remember, Casinomeister is about what is fair. It is an advocate both for players and casinos depending on who is in the right. In this case, the casino is in the right.

The player has my sympathies for not getting her winnings, but on the other hand, I certainly don't think she is entitled to them, or to complain the casino enforced their clearly posted T&C.

 

[BBKPoker]

They could have said, "Hey, our terms changed last night. You might want to check them again before you play."

Or, they could have said, "Hey, just so you know, if you play this game, you give us the right to seize all your funds."

Or, they could have prevented her from playing it.

Or, they could have simply not counted her play on that game toward her WR, but refrained from seizing her funds.

They say BOTH of the first two things in the terms and conditions (remember, the date range was posted as expiring the next day when the player signed up) and the terms clearly state that they reserve the right to withhold winnings and void bonuses when excluded games are wagered on.

In terms of preventing her from playing on excluded games, that is specific to the software, not the casino. Perhaps that is a good suggestion, but because Microgaming does not provide that option, the casino has no way to do so. If Microgaming DID provide that option, and they chose to ignore it, that would be another matter entirely.

In regard to your last point, it's clear almost all of her winnings must have been on videopoker. At least, she hasn't said what was won on which game, but Micki did respond and note that due to her betting patterns, her wagering on the other games was only possible due to her winnings on video poker.

I posted my experience in which I was paid my winnings ($2000) on other games after playing excluded games (on which I won $800 and which they confiscated), so I have little doubt that if she won $20 on video poker and $5000 on some progressive slot jackpot they would have paid her., but then, I played an even mix of them and was just dinking around being a dork and gambling, whereas this player was obviously an advantage player.

Perhaps she will post exactly what she won on each game, and then we'll have a better assessment of the situation. I haven't seen it yet in the thread and it seems that that question is being avoided.

 

[BBKPoker]

There are three paragraphs at issue.

The first (bolded) paragraph says excluded games don't count toward the WR.

The second says the casino may confiscate winnings from excluded games.

The final paragraph says they can confiscate all her winnings, at their "sole discretion," if her play is deemed to be "promotion abuse."

Since they seized all her winnings, from both excluded and non-excluded games, I assume they did it because they deemed her play to be "promotion abuse."

But you're right - the second paragraph only gives them the right to seize winnings from excluded games - not all winnings.

Unless her winnings on non-excluded games were only possible due to her wins on excluded games.

If, for example, she bet all $400 on a singlehand of blackjack (excluded), won so had a total of $800, then autoplayed slots and hit a $100,000 jackpot when she had $10 left in her account before busting that's not really a valid win is it? The slot wager would never have been possible without the winnings from the excluded games.

 

[Linus]

Well, you're free to play where you want. Like I said, some casinos will confiscate your winnings. Others won't. The choice is up to you.

 

[Linus]

Unless her winnings on non-excluded games were only possible due to her wins on excluded games.

If, for example, she bet all $400 on a singlehand of blackjack (excluded), won so had a total of $800, then autoplayed slots and hit a $100,000 jackpot when she had $10 left in her account before busting that's not really a valid win is it? The slot wager would never have been possible without the winnings from the excluded games.

No where in their terms and conditions does it say winnings from a non-excluded game are invalid because the game was played with funds from an excluded game.

If they wanted that rule, they easily could have added it.

Not that it matters. Their terms already allow them to confiscate as much as they want, once they decide a player has broken one of their rules.

 

[chuchu59]

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

I think Micki's post above explains everything. The player lost her full deposit and bonus on her very first bet on a non-excluded game leaving her with only winnings derived from the excluded games on which to bet on and hence it can be said that even her winnings on non-excluded games came from winnings from excluded games.

 

[spearmaster]

Well, yes & no. It depends on whether you're talking about leaving out the clauses completely, or just rephrasing it in different words.

Ultimately, different words. Literally, removing those two phrases and fixing the grammar afterwards.

My point is that many casinos don't have confiscation clauses at all.

I feel like she would have been better off playing at one of those - rather than at King Neptune.

Can't argue with that either - except this is all after the fact! The clause was there - and I'm going to dispute your use of "many" and replace it with "some" LOL... but in this case hindsight isn't even an issue!

If it were up to me, I'd encourage gamblers to play at casinos that don't have confiscation clauses, as opposed to those that do.

Well, yes. And no.

I think confiscation clauses are somewhat necessary to protect the casino from abuse. I don't, however, like confiscation clauses as a general rule.

Ultimately, if you are ready to play by the rules, you must accept them if you start playing. If you miss something it is your own fault. Emotion does not rule here - hard cold black & white contract does.

Some good suggestions have come up in this thread, and perhaps all operators can take these into account - but I think there's really no point in going on and on about how the casino should feel sorry for the player or vice versa.

 

[GrandMaster]

Unless her winnings on non-excluded games were only possible due to her wins on excluded games.

If, for example, she bet all $400 on a singlehand of blackjack (excluded), won so had a total of $800, then autoplayed slots and hit a $100,000 jackpot when she had $10 left in her account before busting that's not really a valid win is it? The slot wager would never have been possible without the winnings from the excluded games.

That's not what the T&C say. If we want to go hypothetical, if the player had not taken the bonus, she might have deposited more money and hit the jackpot with her own money.

 

[silcnlayc]

Lets take a look at what the player is actually saying/implying

1)

The only thing I am guilty of is an honest mistake.

Maybe.

2)

Where is the goodwill?

No need for goodwill unless it was knowingly done and expected to be offered in the end

3)

King Neptunes did return my deposit. And since I played Deuces Wild first

. Casino actually made good on her request of goodwill by allowing her to play again with the initial funds

4)

What I am looking for here is King Neptunes to reconsider their decision on their term, "...these [excluded game]

Ok, again as a first time depositor/player she wants to be an exception

5)

I was hoping for a little more leeway from Trident.

Looks like this was all planned from the beginning..go for bust or the jackpot type thing

6)

So I was hoping after ten or so e-mails back and forth between them and me that a positive situation would emerge

Positive outcome for ?

7)

Also keep in mind that I did not breach the old terms (the terms that I saw) in any way. If I had breached those terms I certainly would not be posting on this board.

But you were not under the OLD TERMS when play had begun so why the post and after 10 e-mails stating this?

8)

If the player read the T & Cs when she claimed her welcome bonus, she would have known what games were and were not excluded from play. To arrive at the Excluded games section, she had to pass the Eligibility section which includes the Promotion T & Cs start and finish date range.

An interesting tidbit that was totally ignored?. It's like driving and closing your eyes when you see a red light and saying, that light is for others so I will just ignore it and keep driving (closing eyes in the meantime hoping for the best type thing)

This whole deal is a totally no brainer..she played an excluded game until she was up $6700 right from the get go......if it was unintentional, or by mistake, you would think that other games would have been interspersed in there...looks like she had a mission and it was to make as much off the bonus/deposit and then holler foul if the casino didn't give.....but if she lost, would we have heard her holler she played foul to the casino? I don't think so...

 

[Linus]

Can't argue with that either - except this is all after the fact! The clause was there - and I'm going to dispute your use of "many" and replace it with "some" LOL...

Well, there's about twenty trillion casionos out there (slight exaggeration), and I'm way too lazy to try to do a survey... but can we agree that some of the most successful ones don't have confiscation clauses?

but in this case hindsight isn't even an issue!

I think we both agree that she isn't entitled to her winnings. King Neptune's T&Cs clearly allow them to do what they did.

I'm just arguing that many players - particularly those who who gamble mainly to relax or have fun, and aren't interested in scouring lengthy terms and conditions - would be better off avoiding casinos that have confiscation clauses.

Nothing is less fun than having a casino seize your winnings!

I know Intercasino is one. Perhaps when I have a little more time later, I'll put together a list of some others.

Well, yes. And no.

I think confiscation clauses are somewhat necessary to protect the casino from abuse. I don't, however, like confiscation clauses as a general rule.

I don't like them either. I've never been caught by one - but I put that down, at least partly, to luck.

I'm certainly capable of reading the T&Cs on one day, and depositing on the next.

Ultimately, if you are ready to play by the rules, you must accept them if you start playing. If you miss something it is your own fault. Emotion does not rule here - hard cold black & white contract does.

I agree with all that. But I also think it's in a casino's interests to try to attract players. And confiscating players' money is - or at least should be - the kind of thing many players find unattractive in a casino.

Some good suggestions have come up in this thread, and perhaps all operators can take these into account - but I think there's really no point in going on and on about how the casino should feel sorry for the player or vice versa.

 

[vedat]

its something diffrent

its like this you examine the road you will takle from a day before but when you are on the way you saw a hole on the ways and its too late to stop i dont think this players intentions was bad i think casinos intestions is bad i think they are all sure that that player had read the terms before so she won big so why not use our terms to screw her they have done it good i am pretty sure that they will lose in the long run .

 

[spearmaster]

Well, there's about twenty trillion casionos out there (slight exaggeration), and I'm way too lazy to try to do a survey... but can we agree that some of the most successful ones don't have confiscation clauses?

I already agreed on "some" LOL - but I suspect you'll be surprised to find that many of the other successful ones also have confiscation clauses.

I'm just arguing that many players - particularly those who who gamble mainly to relax or have fun, and aren't interested in scouring lengthy terms and conditions - would be better off avoiding casinos that have confiscation clauses.

Unless things have changed over the past year, I think that would severely limit their choices.

Nothing is less fun than having a casino seize your winnings!

Having casino call security to throw you out the door as well?

I don't like them either. I've never been caught by one - but I put that down, at least partly, to luck.

In my case, it's not luck. Ultimately, I lose most of the time LOL. But when I do get ahead on an initial deposit, I always go back and recheck the terms. But generally, since I mostly play slots now, it makes no difference.

I'm certainly capable of reading the T&Cs on one day, and depositing on the next.

So is most anyone else - but that's still besides the point. Had she gone and looked before starting play, this discussion would have never occurred - and if she had read the night before, she would have known exactly where to go look just to make sure.

I agree with all that. But I also think it's in a casino's interests to try to attract players. And confiscating players' money is - or at least should be - the kind of thing many players find unattractive in a casino.

If KN, or any casino for that matter, knew of a solution which would not require such a thing, I am quite certain they would have implemented it long ago. The problem is, there are many people of many different types using many different methods to try to beat the casino out of their bonus - so you can hardly blame them for trying to protect themselves. I'm not saying that piecar tried to do this, but ultimately she still fell foul of the rules.

 

[Linus]

A partial list of casinos that don't have confiscation clauses:

32Red
Intercasino
William Hill
Cherry Casino
Coral
Littlewoods
Roxy Palace
Sands of the Caribbean
Lucky Nugget

 

[Linus]

If KN, or any casino for that matter, knew of a solution which would not require such a thing, I am quite certain they would have implemented it long ago. The problem is, there are many people of many different types using many different methods to try to beat the casino out of their bonus - so you can hardly blame them for trying to protect themselves. I'm not saying that piecar tried to do this, but ultimately she still fell foul of the rules.

Well, a couple of things.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a player trying to win money from a casino. After all, they're trying to win money from us! If casinos were actually able to prevent players who were trying to win from playing, I doubt they'd have any customers left.

Casinos do have the right to write whatever T&C's they want.

A casino could, for example, simply say paying winnings was discretionary, and then refuse to pay anyone who managed to win. I just wouldn't suggest anyone actually play there!

In piecar's case, if the clause was there to protect them from "abusers," there's nothing in this thread that suggests piecar was one of them.

Instead, the thread suggests she happened to get lucky at a house advantage game, and King Neptune decided to use their "sole discretion" and "promotion abuse" clauses against her - despite the fact there's nothing to suggest she was actually abusing their promotions.

 

[spearmaster]

Well, a couple of things.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a player trying to win money from a casino. After all, they're trying to win money from us! If casinos were actually able to prevent players who were trying to win from playing, I doubt they'd have any customers left.

Absolutely nothing wrong with players trying to win. To be honest, I hate this whole bonus thing altogether. And I expect that players will use every advantage they have to leaving the casino a winner.

My point is that those terms were in to protect against genuine abuse - and piecar was never said to be a bonus abuser though some other posters did draw some sort of a connection. It wasn't the casino that did so.

"Sole discretion" is kind of an unfortunate term which is still commonly found in contracts of all sorts. It should be clear that the organization issuing the contract has sole discretion in the first place.

A casino could, for example, simply say paying winnings was discretionary, and then refuse to pay anyone who managed to win. I just wouldn't suggest anyone actually play there!

Well, I think that would be a genuine reason for roguing a casino - you can hardly draw that comparison to "sole discretion" though. You can't say that the T&Cs were unfair, because they aren't - yet your example above clearly is unfair.

In piecar's case, if the clause was there to protect them from "abusers," there's nothing in this thread that suggests piecar was one of them.

Correct.

Instead, the thread suggests she happened to get lucky at a house advantage game, and King Neptune decided to use their "sole discretion" and "promotion abuse" clauses against her - despite the fact there's nothing to suggest she was actually abusing their promotions.

Not correct, at least in my opinion. I've already said what I believe "sole discretion" means - nothing sinister about that. And they did not say that she was an abuser nor did they say what she did was promotion abuse - all they said is that she played an excluded game - and then they went out of their way to review the play to see if she would have met the T&C even after the excluded game - and she did not by losing the entire amount on the very first play of a game which was eligible.

Other casinos don't even go that far - play an excluded game and your winnings are void. They certainly wouldn't lift a finger to check the situation - and they certainly wouldn't give them the bonus and deposit back, they would probably just refund the deposit and close the account.

I believe it is unfair to the casino to be hauled up for invoking a term which they had every right to invoke, and especially after bending about as far as they could to try and give the player a second chance, as well as checking into whether this was a case that they could make reasonable exception for.

 

[kingfile64]

What is disturbing about the defenders of KN and others with similar terms of excluded games is the player is ALLOWED to play an excluded game, but is then in a no win situation. If the player loses, the casino is silent. If the player wins the casino confiscates the winnings from the game and even other games. The bottem line is these T&C are ROUGE. Sad thing is many casinos have similar terms. Why ecogra allows these type of T&C is beyond belief.

 

[Linus]

Not correct, at least in my opinion. I've already said what I believe "sole discretion" means - nothing sinister about that. And they did not say that she was an abuser nor did they say what she did was promotion abuse - all they said is that she played an excluded game - and then they went out of their way to review the play to see if she would have met the T&C even after the excluded game - and she did not by losing the entire amount on the very first play of a game which was eligible.

There were three relevant paragraphs.

The first said excluded games don't count toward the WR.

Excluded Games: .... Wagers placed at these games will not be deemed as fulfilling the promotion's minimum wager requirement.

Please note that not fulfilling a WR is not the same as confiscating a player's funds... and had KN simply not counted her wagers toward the WR, I doubt we'd ever have heard a peep from her.



The second paragraph says that KN may confiscate winnings from excluded games.

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.

Please note that this term does not give KN the right to confiscate winnings from non-excluded games.



The only paragraph that applies to piecar's situation - that allows KN to confiscate all of a player's winnings - is the one under "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:

* All winnings on any account/s opened will be null and void and all withdrawals will be cancelled where play has been deemed abusive.

Since all of piecar's winnings were confiscated - from both excluded and non-excluded games - I have to assume King Neptune seized her funds under the "Promotion Abuse" rules.


I realize the rep from KN talked about confiscating her funds because of "winnings from winnings," but I have to assume she misspoke, because no where in King Neptune's terms and conditions is there any such rule.

Since assume King Neptune is following its own rules when they seize players' funds, they must have done it under the "Promotion Abuse" rule.

The other option is that they were not following their own rules when they confiscated Piecar's funds.

 

[spearmaster]

What you're saying, I presume, is that the term should state "confiscate all winnings AND any winnings generated on allowable games which may have been derived from winnings generated on disallowed games"?

It stands to reason that if you generate funds which were not properly earned, and then use those funds to generate additional winnings, that they should not be allowed to count either, no?

Her $400 bet on an allowed game was lost - and since all other funds were generated from disallowed games, her correct balance should have been zero. Any winnings generated from that point on, on allowable or disallowed games, should not be valid.

It's no different than putting Canadian quarters into a slot machine in Vegas - you are not entitled to those winnings either if caught. You can replace with washers, game tokens, anything that the machine accepts and believes to be a quarter.

Granted - modern machines no longer have this problem - but in the past older machines definitely would have this problem.

 

[tennis_balls]

It's no different than putting Canadian quarters into a slot machine in Vegas - you are not entitled to those winnings either if caught. You can replace with washers, game tokens, anything that the machine accepts and believes to be a quarter.

lmpmao (laughing my potty mouth ass off)

it is quite a bit different......you get caught putting some sort of slug in a Vegas slot and they're going to take you out in the desert and go old-school on you.