KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[spearmaster]

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

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

How many times must I explain this simple matter?

Bet $100. Win $100. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400
Bet $150. Win $150. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400

...

Play on excluded games is VOIDED. It does not count. No matter how you word it, she is NOT entitled to anything for these plays regardless of what amount is shown in her account. Any winnings derived can be considered to have been obtained by deception, if you ask me - and thus subject to a lot more serious problems than just being voided. But casinos simply void plays because they have the luxury of being able to track the play - and it is entirely within their rights.

 

[Vesuvio]

Spear, there's clearly no point trying to reason this with you. Every single one of your responses cries out for a rebuttal, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

p.s. if I take up your offer at William Hill I can guarantee you we're going to be very old men before I win 8000 at deuces wild (or roulette or whatever the other non-wr games are)

 

[spearmaster]

Spear, there's clearly no point trying to reason this with you. Every single one of your responses cries out for a rebuttal, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

LMAO.

You can rebut all you like - but it still boils down to whether the casino exceeded their rights or not - and they didn't even come close.

p.s. if I take up your offer at William Hill I can guarantee you we're going to be very old men before I win 8000 at deuces wild (or roulette or whatever the other non-wr games are)

Worth a try... LOL... if you win and get paid, your deposit is doubled as a bonus from me!

 

[Vesuvio]

You can rebut all you like - but it still boils down to whether the casino exceeded their rights or not - and they didn't even come close.

Last, last word This is the whole problem - you're not actually responding to what I'm saying. No-one disputes the casino's within their rights not to pay this player.

 

[soflat]

When it says winnings from excluded games will be removed from the balance or withdrawal, that doesn't mean they have to take non-excluded game winnings. They didn't have to treat it as if they had voided excluded games winnings either (they did void them, but after the fact).

Those are very clever T&Cs and an outstanding job of using them to their fullest to avoid paying winnings on non-excluded games.

I would have just subtracted off the excluded games winnings (like the T&Cs allow for). I would never make it as a casino operator.

 

[spearmaster]

When it says winnings from excluded games will be removed from the balance or withdrawal, that doesn't mean they have to take non-excluded game winnings. They didn't have to treat it as if they had voided excluded games winnings either (they did void them, but after the fact).

Those are very clever T&Cs and an outstanding job of using them to their fullest to avoid paying winnings on non-excluded games.

I would have just subtracted off the excluded games winnings (like the T&Cs allow for). I would never make it as a casino operator.

Ok.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that ALL of the winnings were derived from excluded games, and that playing the allowed games actually resulted in a loss.

Would you then agree that they were within their rights?

There is NO mention at all that there were ANY winnings from allowed games. What I'm trying to say is that I fear you're chasing a point which is moot.

 

[soflat]

Ok.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that ALL of the winnings were derived from excluded games, and that playing the allowed games actually resulted in a loss.

Would you then agree that they were within their rights?

Absolutely!

I believe Mikki said the player built her balance up to $5-6k initially from Deuces Wild (excluded).

The player claimed there were net winnings from non-excluded games.

Casino rep also stated they were within their rights to confiscate deposit and bonus after the $400 wager.

If there were $1500 or $2000 in net winnings from non-excluded games, they should have paid that and the player probably would have been happy.

 

[GrandMaster]

King Neptunes should provide a detailed calculation to explain how they arrived at this result.

 

[spearmaster]

Absolutely!

I believe Mikki said the player built her balance up to $5-6k initially from Deuces Wild (excluded).

The player claimed there were net winnings from non-excluded games.

Casino rep also stated they were within their rights to confiscate deposit and bonus after the $400 wager.

If there were $1500 or $2000 in net winnings from non-excluded games, they should have paid that and the player probably would have been happy.

OK. Let's try another scenario, since you've accepted this one.

Let us assume that all excluded play took place before allowed play. Would you agree that the player was only entitled to her initial deposit and bonus amount when starting to play allowed games? And if she lost her deposit and bonus during this time, would she be allowed to create winnings from those funds she was not entitled to?

 

[spearmaster]

King Neptunes should provide a detailed calculation to explain how they arrived at this result.

What result are you looking for? That there were no legitimately earned winnings? This is speculation, of course... but if it were true obviously the casino could provide an answer - though I can't see how they could divulge the individual play of a player without the player's permission...

 

[derelict]

Let us assume that all excluded play took place before allowed play. Would you agree that the player was only entitled to her initial deposit and bonus amount when starting to play allowed games?

This wasn't directed to me, but under the clause in the T&Cs, yes. However I also believe that this clause is evil and has no place in a reputable casino.

As has been said before, the house is not put at any additional risk by allowing play at a game that is normally allowed without the use of bonuses (and simply not counting it toward the wagering requirements). The only purpose it serves is as a "gotcha" clause to confiscate winnings from unsuspecting players. While acceptable under the terms, this is a rogue term and I'm shocked to see it being defended.

I know I'm late to the party and am probably beating a dead horse, but to hear some of you talk about it, you'd think the casino was doing her a damned favor by siezing the funds. For the one player who turned 200 into 8000, there are plenty others turning 200 into zero, and I assure you they aren't in a hurry to void those results.

 

[Macgyver]

King Neptunes should provide a detailed calculation to explain how they arrived at this result.

C'mon, here we go 'round the mulberry bush once again ...

Micki did give a detailed calculation in her post:

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.

Nowhere does that state that the player played another allowed game (3 Card poker or otherwise) between the time she deposited/received the bonus and the time she lost the £400 on 3 Card poker.

The FACT is that the player did indeed bet £400 and lost an amount constituting her deposit and bonus; the HYPOTHETICAL is whether the player would have bet that £400 without having an additional £6300 from play on excluded games.

Everyone can speculate on what the player would or wouldn't have done; but all the casino can go by is what the player actually did.

Unless piecar states that there was indeed play on ANY allowed games before her £400 bet on 3 Card poker, people are basically calling Micki a liar.

 

[mitch]

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

Vesuvio

As you well know that statement is only true when you are not playing with a bonus, when you are playing with a bonus the player can generate a huge advantage on certain games.

Eg. Betting the whole £200 + £200 on a single number on roulette has a very large average positive expectation, even when winnings are subsequently played out on allowed games. (Abusive players often used to work in teams to reduce the admittedly high variance)

People have often argued that casinos should pay up even if they detect such behaviour and if they don't like it should change their T&Cs to prevent this type of play with bonuses.

Well this casino has T&Cs which prevent this type of play yet you are still arguing they should pay, why? If she had made this actual play on roulette would you be arguing the casino should pay? If you don't think they should pay, why should they pay on her play on the other excluded games? They breach the casinos T&Cs to the same extent, no more and no less.

Your statements, about the varying merits of casinos T&Cs, is a completely different arguement. Players sign up or they don't dependent on what they are prepared to accept. In my case I wouldn't sign up at KN and I would sign up at Inter.

My personal preferences however, do not change the fact that the casino is completely in the right in this matter, and members should be pleased they showed some generosity in this case.

Mitch

 

[Vesuvio]

As you well know that statement is only true when you are not playing with a bonus, when you are playing with a bonus the player can generate a huge advantage on certain games.

Except that if you don't mind the variance you can always use the same approach on allowed games (essentially just upping the stakes). Adding a confiscation term makes very little difference to the advantage a bonus hunter can extract but allows the casino to make a steady income from the mistakes of casual players.

 

[derelict]

As you well know that statement is only true when you are not playing with a bonus, when you are playing with a bonus the player can generate a huge advantage on certain games.

Eg. Betting the whole £200 + £200 on a single number on roulette has a very large average positive expectation, even when winnings are subsequently played out on allowed games. (Abusive players often used to work in teams to reduce the admittedly high variance)

There are some finer details, but if the bet does not count toward the wagering requirement, there would be no significant advantage in placing such a bet. In the case of a sticky bonus, which I'm pretty sure this isn't, there would be some advantage in being able to play games with higher limits, but other than that, this is just a kick in the nuts to players who don't read the fine print.

 

[mitch]

There are some finer details, but if the bet does not count toward the wagering requirement, there would be no significant advantage in placing such a bet

Derelict

I can see you are not a hardcore advantage player or you would not have said that.

As an exercise think about making 37 such bets on roulette and the probabilities surrounding this. When you have done this don't run off and create a betting syndicate, you just make it hard for other more sensible players. ( Vesuvio can no doubt give you the answer of the top of his advantage player head )

On a related note have members spotted that whilst roulette is a restricted game at Intercasino it is an allowed game at Intercasino UK. ( now don't start getting ideas gents!)

Mitch

 

[derelict]

I can see you are not a hardcore advantage player or you would not have said that.

As an exercise think about making 37 such bets on roulette and the probabilities surrounding this. When you have done this don't run off and create a betting syndicate, you just make it hard for other more sensible players. ( Vesuvio can no doubt give you the answer of the top of his advantage player head )

Without question I'm not as deep in the profession as some here, but I really don't know what you're getting at. Maybe you could explain how a risky bet in roulette would be more advantageous than a risky bet in another game?

 

[rreevy]

As I read it, the terms used at Intercasino give them the right to revoke entitlement to the promotion, ie. confiscate the BONUS. They don't seem to give them any right to confiscate the winnings. Even so, I doubt Intercasino would revoke a bonus already given - they just wouldn't give you and bonuses in future.

I'm pretty sure that if I took my deposit and bonus and built up a substantial win on an excluded game, Intercasino would pay, provided I met the WR on games that count before cashing out. I would try to prove it if I thought I'd ever get that lucky.

BTW:

"Eg. Betting the whole £200 + £200 on a single number on roulette has a very large average positive expectation, even when winnings are subsequently played out on allowed games."

Assuming we are playing European (single zero) roulette, betting £400 on a single number. Our number will come up, on average, once every 37 times we do this.

1 time we WIN £14,000
36 times we LOSE £400 (total £14,400)

Overall we have lost £400. We have bet £14,800 (37 x £400). The amount we have lost is 2.703% of the amount bet. So we have a negative expectation of about 2.7%, or 1/37, which just happens to be the house edge at European roulette.

There is NO way that betting on excluded games can turn an unprofitable bonus (from a bonus hunter's point of view) into a profitable one, at least not for a cashable bonus. It MAY be true for a sticky, though I doubt it makes any difference in the long run.

 

[soflat]

BTW:

Assuming we are playing European (single zero) roulette, betting 400 on a single number. Our number will come up, on average, once every 37 times we do this.

1 time we WIN 14,000
36 times we LOSE 400 (total 14,400)

Overall we have lost 400. We have bet 14,800 (37 x 400). The amount we have lost is 2.703% of the amount bet. So we have a negative expectation of about 2.7%, or 1/37, which just happens to be the house edge at European roulette.

There is NO way that betting on excluded games can turn an unprofitable bonus (from a bonus hunter's point of view) into a profitable one, at least not for a cashable bonus. It MAY be true for a sticky, though I doubt it makes any difference in the long run.

Don't you only lose 7200 since half of your bets are bonus funds?

 

[Linus]

Spear - I'm happy to take you up on your offer.

Next month, after I get my Intercasino bonus, I'll play any one of their excluded games - or all three of them, if you like.

While I can't promise to win 1000's of pounds (or any money at all, for that matter), I can promise to stop playing as soon as I have a win, and to immediately switch to one of their other (included) games to finish out my bonus.

My wager is that Intercasino will not confiscate any of my winnings.

I'm so confident, I won't even ask you to lay odds, despite the fact there's a (small) chance Intercasino will stop offering me their monthly bonus, for having done this.

How much do you want to bet?

 

[chuchu59]

It really doesnt matter why casinos choose excluded games differently and the fact they should be able to gain from house edge on these games may only be one of their many considerations. They may just as well exclude everything except scratch cards but they are perfectly entitled to do this as they are the ones to pay out when players win. If they feel that it would be in their own interests to exclude certain games then that's their decision and we should respect that. We can persuade them to think otherwise but until they do we cannot just do our maths and say Hey! You are not disadvantaged by the play on these games so cough up. If the games were excluded, then non payment on these games is certainly correct.

I dont understand why, after all this furore, it still insists in it having discretion in the confiscation of winnings on excluded games unless this is set as a booby trap for new players. The correct solution is voiding all play on excluded games until you meet your WRs unless casino was to take advantage of those who lost on the excluded games during their sessions. By voiding all play the casino stands neither to gain or lose when players, whether intentionally or not play such games. In fact, this would be similar to playing in fun mode.

 

[Linus]

How many times must I explain this simple matter?

Bet $100. Win $100. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400
Bet $150. Win $150. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400

...

Play on excluded games is VOIDED.

That's the thing, Speer. The winnings weren't voided, automatically or otherwise, until piecar tried to cash out, which was after she won playing non-excluded games.

Here's what the terms and conditions say:

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.

There's nothing "automatic" about confiscating winnings. On the contrary, the terms and conditions specifically say winnings "may be" voided - not that they're automatically voided.

You can argue til the cows come home that King Neptune could have automatically confiscated piecar's winnings - but that's hypothetical.

The fact is, they didn't.

 

[Linus]

I dont understand why, after all this furore, it still insists in it having discretion in the confiscation of winnings on excluded games unless this is set as a booby trap for new players.

By waiting until a player tries to cash-out, the casino gets to see whether the player wins or loses, before deciding whether to void her play. If the player wins, the casino confiscates her winnings. If player loses, the casino adds her losses to its profits. That way, the casino avoids risking any its own money.

Put yourself in the casino's shoes - well, you get the picture, don't you?

 

[spearmaster]

That's the thing, Speer. The winnings weren't voided, automatically or otherwise, until piecar tried to cash out, which was after she won playing non-excluded games.

I'll keep this one short. The play is considered void. You don't have to wait to consider it void because it was not an allowed play in the first place.

Your definition of time and mine in this case do not agree - but I think it is quite clear that play on the games is void - and thus you cannot derive any funds from a disallowed game.

 

[spearmaster]

Spear - I'm happy to take you up on your offer.

Next month, after I get my Intercasino bonus, I'll play any one of their excluded games - or all three of them, if you like.

While I can't promise to win 1000's of pounds (or any money at all, for that matter), I can promise to stop playing as soon as I have a win, and to immediately switch to one of their other (included) games to finish out my bonus.

My wager is that Intercasino will not confiscate any of my winnings.

I'm so confident, I won't even ask you to lay odds, despite the fact there's a (small) chance Intercasino will stop offering me their monthly bonus, for having done this.

How much do you want to bet?

If you want to take this up, there is one ground rule - your win better be more than a buck or two because they certainly won't bother to argue over that. And surely King Neptune's would not spend the time arguing over a buck either.

You need to win $500 or more.

And the bet was whatever your stake was - so if your match bonus is $90, then the bet is $90.

As I read it, the terms used at Intercasino give them the right to revoke entitlement to the promotion, ie. confiscate the BONUS. They don't seem to give them any right to confiscate the winnings. Even so, I doubt Intercasino would revoke a bonus already given - they just wouldn't give you and bonuses in future.

How can you possibly say that? Your entitlement is revoked. Your winnings are an entitlement just as much as any future bonus offering. Are you 100% sure of this? If you are, do what piecar did - play and hope that they don't read the riot act to you.

 

[spearmaster]

By waiting until a player tries to cash-out, the casino gets to see whether the player wins or loses, before deciding whether to void her play. If the player wins, the casino confiscates her winnings. If player loses, the casino adds her losses to its profits. That way, the casino avoids risking any its own money.

Does it not occur to you that if the player doesn't play any excluded games, that the casino obviously must accept all play and pay in full?

It's either that or they hire pitbosses to manage hundreds or thousands of monitors to watch each player as they come in.

Your proposition above is just not correct, at least not for reputable casinos. While I don't disagree with the train of thought, you're really taking one event - which by the way, in case you needed a reminder, has already been agreed by casino and player - and wildly extrapolating other events which are either not common or don't make sense.

Ultimately however, the solution for this particular software is to simply allow operators to determine which games are disallowed and not allow any play on them. The shortcoming of such a solution is that some people will indeed come in and not realize that they've gotten a bonus which prevents them from playing on certain games - and then they will have to go through the hassle of getting the bonus removed, or they will play on some game they didn't want to play on in the first place, lose, and then leave dissatisfied - which again is NOT what any casino wants.

Until then, in any case, you have to allow the casino SOME leeway in determining which games they will and will not accept play on - and of course everything after that fact, may I point out yet again in case you needed a reminder, is discretion - which the casino is absolutely entitled to.

 

[Vesuvio]

If you want to take this up, there is one ground rule - your win better be more than a buck or two because they certainly won't bother to argue over that. And surely King Neptune's would not spend the time arguing over a buck either.

You need to win $500 or more.

You're simply wrong on this, Spear. To date Intercasino and similar casinos haven't invoked this type of escape clause. Sometimes they choose not to offer bonuses to particular players in future, which is their right, but they pay out winnings first. For what it's worth I once played roulette (not something I make a habit of!) at Totalbet and won £960. I met the wr on other games and withdrew no problem.

Think about this for a second. Do you think Intercasino don't count roulette, bacarrat and craps for the wr because they allow the player to build up a big bank balance They're banned because you can (generally) guarantee a profit. If you want to try and build up a large balance there are games with a much lower house edge which also count towards the wr.

 

[spearmaster]

You're simply wrong on this, Spear. To date Intercasino and similar casinos haven't invoked this type of escape clause. Sometimes they choose not to offer bonuses to particular players in future, which is their right, but they pay out winnings first. For what it's worth I once played roulette (not something I make a habit of!) at Totalbet and won 960. I met the wr on other games and withdrew no problem.

As I told you, you are welcome to take up the challenge. Play on excluded games - build up bankroll - then lose your deposit & bonus during playthrough on allowed games, and use the remainder of funds to complete playthrough.

If you succeed, can prove your play, and get paid, I match your deposit up to whatever the bonus was.

 

[chuchu59]

How many times must I explain this simple matter?

Bet $100. Win $100. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400
Bet $150. Win $150. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400

...

Play on excluded games is VOIDED. It does not count. No matter how you word it, she is NOT entitled to anything for these plays regardless of what amount is shown in her account. Any winnings derived can be considered to have been obtained by deception, if you ask me - and thus subject to a lot more serious problems than just being voided. But casinos simply void plays because they have the luxury of being able to track the play - and it is entirely within their rights.

I missed this post altogether. Spearmaster, I hope you are right and that the casino has conceded that all play on excluded games are voided and not just the winning hands. The Terms and Conditions certainly do not reflect this.

Using your example, Piecarll hops along, makes a deposit of $200 (100% matched with bonus) and comes out with the following results:

Bet $100. Lose $100. Loss sustained. Balance: $300

Bet $150. Lose $150. Loss sustained. Balance: $150

I am sorry to say this but from the casino's Ts and Cs, this is exactly what will happen if such a player comes along and loses on the excluded games. I have been mentioning this in several of my posts here. VOID ALL PLAY ON EXCLUDED GAMES. That gives everybody,casino and players alike, a level playing field. Otherwise, their accreditation here seems to be questionable.

 

[Vesuvio]

As I told you, you are welcome to take up the challenge. Play on excluded games - build up bankroll - then lose your deposit & bonus during playthrough on allowed games, and use the remainder of funds to complete playthrough.

If you succeed, can prove your play, and get paid, I match your deposit up to whatever the bonus was.

Spear, you're being absurd. There'd be absolutely no problem as anyone who has the slightest idea about how the bonus works there knows. Why didn't you respond to my point about the reason for Intercasino not counting those games? Do you really not see it's nothing to do with stopping players building up a bankroll?

Your comment about losing the "deposit & bonus" is a weird consideration that I've only ever heard used in this particular case at King Neptune's. Nothing of the sort comes into play at Intercasino or most other casinos.

Your challenge isn't a challenge. I'd win (and prove what most of us know), but the bonus you're offering would be unlikely to compensate for the loss of profits in playing high house edge games. Besides, I don't like high variance

 

[spearmaster]

There'd be absolutely no problem as anyone who has the slightest idea about how the bonus works there knows. Why didn't you respond to my point about the reason for Intercasino not counting those games? Do you really not see it's nothing to do with stopping players building up a bankroll?

Every casino has a right to choose which games it will allow and which games it doesn't want to allow. It matters not WHY they choose these games. This is why I am not paying any attention to the side discussion about edge or games or anything that does NOT concern the issue at hand.

 

[Vesuvio]

Every casino has a right to choose which games it will allow and which games it doesn't want to allow. It matters not WHY they choose these games. This is why I am not paying any attention to the side discussion about edge or games or anything that does NOT concern the issue at hand.

The "issue" in my post is your claim that Intercasino operate the same confiscation policy as King Neptune's. They don't. If you won't accept that on trust then the games allowed should convince you (see my post again - I don't see the point repeating arguments you ignore). If that doesn't persuade you then I can't help.

 

[rreevy]

I'd be happy to e-mail Intercasino and ask them whether they'd void winnings for playing an excluded game, even if you subsequently met the WR on allowed ones. I'd be prepared to wager that they wouldn't void winnings in such cases.

soflat, thanks ever so much for your post. I realise I've made a mistake in my approach to this question. While betting on a single number on roulette is not a profitable play in itself, I omitted to take account of the fact that you only have to meet the WR at the one place you don't bust out, not at the 36 where you do. You lose £14,400, but £7,200 of that is bonus money so you only lose £7,200 of your own. When you win the £14,000, you are actually up £6800. Let's say these bonuses have a WR of 20x D+B on slots only. You now have to wager £8,000 on slots to clear the WR. Assuming a 5% slots edge you lose £400, for an overall net profit of £6,400 (or £6,200 if the bonus is sticky).

Ordinarily, such a bonus would have no positive expectation. Assuming the edge on slots is about 5%, a slots-only bonus with a 20x WR (which is not uncommon) would lead to you losing your bonus and deposit at about the point you meet the WR, on average.

So I was quite, quite wrong. It IS possible to turn an unprofitable bonus into a profitable one. This is simply because you bust out earlier at most places with the above strategy, so the total amount wagered is less.

Mitch, I owe you an apology.

 

[derelict]

There is an advantage to bust with a bonus, but my argument is that this term has no reason to exist because the same strategy could be used with virtually any other game in the casino.

With these conditions, they have set up a situation where the software will accept bets where wins are voided and losses are not. While they are within their right according to the terms, the terms are simply not fair and should be condemned.

Spear, your post about the cryptologics is batty. Their terms are quite fair and should be a model for other operations.

 

[Vesuvio]

Ordinarily, such a bonus would have no positive expectation. Assuming the edge on slots is about 5%, a slots-only bonus with a 20x WR (which is not uncommon) would lead to you losing your bonus and deposit at about the point you meet the WR, on average.

It's a bit counter-intuitive, but you're actually expected to make a profit (over a good number of casinos) even with the 5% edge and a 20x wr. You don't usually meet the wr (because you bust out early), so overall you lose less to the house edge than if you were wagering the full wr.

 

[spearmaster]

Spear, your post about the cryptologics is batty. Their terms are quite fair and should be a model for other operations.

How is my post batty?

Cryptologic's terms are even more vague than King Neptunes - and yet you want to hold that up as a model for terms and conditions?

It is simply amazing that anyone could call "entitlement" a clear description of any sort. If I didn't know better, I could swear this whole thing is about "argue with Spear no matter what" rather than "interpretation of terms and conditions".

 

[derelict]

How is my post batty?

Cryptologic's terms are even more vague than King Neptunes - and yet you want to hold that up as a model for terms and conditions?

It is simply amazing that anyone could call "entitlement" a clear description of any sort. If I didn't know better, I could swear this whole thing is about "argue with Spear no matter what" rather than "interpretation of terms and conditions".

That's the standard escape clause BS that everyone has. So long as it isn't invoked, I don't consider it an issue. Here are the terms I was talking about:

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

Directly on the page about the bonus, the terms governing their promotion are bulleted and easily understood. In particular, this one:

Baccarat Roulette and Craps do not count towards your minimum wagering requirement.

No misunderstandings and no confiscated winnings. Everyone is happy. I would love to take your money but I think from the terms on that page and the experiences of all the people playing this extremely popular promotion, I have no idea why you'd believe that they would sieze funds for play on excluded games. I saw Ryan Hartley was logged in earlier, maybe we could ask him for confirmation.

 

[Pinababy69]

If I didn't know better, I could swear this whole thing is about "argue with Spear no matter what" rather than "interpretation of terms and conditions".

Ya think?

 

[spearmaster]

So only Linus wants to take up my challenge - the rest of you just wanna ASK?

What the heck do you think they're going to tell you?

"WTF were you thinking? Of course we confiscate winnings derived from play on non-permitted games..."

...um... NOT...

 

[Vesuvio]

So only Linus wants to take up my challenge - the rest of you just wanna ASK?

There's no need to ask, Spear, as regular players know how these casinos work. Note I've even done what you're on about - played roulette, got a big balance and then met the wr with games that count - and been paid no problem.

No-one's arguing with you for the hell of it; you're just showing staggering perseverance in claiming something we all know to be untrue. It looks a bit silly.

 

[spearmaster]

There's no need to ask, Spear, as regular players know how these casinos work. Note I've even done what you're on about - played roulette, got a big balance and then met the wr with games that count - and been paid no problem.

No-one's arguing with you for the hell of it; you're just showing staggering perseverance in claiming something we all know to be untrue. It looks a bit silly.

Pardon my ignorance - but are you saying that regular players take bonuses and play restricted games?

Something just does not add up here. Maybe you've done it - but I fail to see how "regular" players can all be doing this.

 

[rreevy]

Good point about the expectation on slots bonuses, Vesuvio. I have a follow-up question which I'll send as a private message since it's not really relevant to this particular thread. In fact, I apologise if I've side-tracked this thread at all by getting into a general discussion about bonus abuse, rather than the specifics of this player's case.

Still, the roulette abuse strategy discussed does dramatically increase the long-run profitability of such bonuses, so maybe this is relevant somehow to the question of building up a big balance on Deuces Wild.

In principle, I'd be happy to accept Spear's challenge, but it could easily be several months before I increase my balance fivefold with the monthly bonus. Will we still be discussing this then?

The KN term clearly does give the right to void winnings, whereas in my view Intercasino's does not. I will contact them on this point, asking for permission to post the reply on this forum.

"WTF were you thinking? Of course we confiscate winnings derived from play on non-permitted games..."

Spear, if KN are willing to say in their T&Cs quite clearly that there is a risk of winnings on excluded games being confiscated, why should Intercasino be unhappy to say so in an e-mail? Also, would they say there is no risk of this happening, knowing it would be posted in a public forum, if this was not the case?

 

[Vesuvio]

Pardon my ignorance - but are you saying that regular players take bonuses and play restricted games?

Something just does not add up here. Maybe you've done it - but I fail to see how "regular" players can all be doing this.

Did I say anything about "all" players - it's just common knowledge how the bonus system works at Cryptologic casinos. You can play anything but the restricted games don't count. It's also normal at most reputable casinos. I can't believe you've missed it - when I started playing on-line I'd meet the wr and then fiddle around with any other casino games I felt like. Naive? Perhaps, but there was never a problem.

I think you'll find quite a lot of "regular" players have tried out roulette and craps at the Cryptos, seeing as they're the most popular casino games. I don't know any bonus hunters who play them to "build up a balance" as there are much better games that also count to the wr.

 

[spearmaster]

Did I say anything about "all" players - it's just common knowledge how the bonus system works at Cryptologic casinos. You can play anything but the restricted games don't count. It's also normal at most reputable casinos. I can't believe you've missed it - when I started playing on-line I'd meet the wr and then fiddle around with any other casino games I felt like. Naive? Perhaps, but there was never a problem.

Is it me or did you just describe something entirely different from what I have been saying?

If you meet the PT and THEN play restricted games there should NOT be a problem.

If you play restricted games and THEN meet the PT it is a completely different situation.

Furthermore, I said "regular", not all - I did not misquote you.

I think you'll find quite a lot of "regular" players have tried out roulette and craps at the Cryptos, seeing as they're the most popular casino games. I don't know any bonus hunters who play them to "build up a balance" as there are much better games that also count to the wr.

What you're telling me is an entirely different scenario than what I have been describing all along - so now we're comparing apples and oranges... wtf...

 

[Vesuvio]

Furthermore, I said "regular", not all - I did not misquote you.

You said: I fail to see how "regular" players can all be doing this

Rest assured it's fine to play "disallowed" games first and then meet the wr at Intercasino. If they dislike your approach they can ban you from future bonuses. I've never heard a single case of confiscation of winnnings there. Have you?

 

[spearmaster]

Rest assured it's fine to play "disallowed" games first and then meet the wr at Intercasino. If they dislike your approach they can ban you from future bonuses. I've never heard a single case of confiscation of winnnings there. Have you?

You have missed the point entirely. Your case scenario does not even realistically match what we have been talking about all along. There is a BIG difference between playing disallowed games and then going on to meet playthrough, as opposed to meeting playthrough and THEN playing disallowed games - which, btw, are no longer disallowed games since you met the playthrough... so excuse me if I say WTF again...

 

[Vesuvio]

You have missed the point entirely. Your case scenario does not even realistically match what we have been talking about all along. There is a BIG difference between playing disallowed games and then going on to meet playthrough, as opposed to meeting playthrough and THEN playing disallowed games

Actually in the only "case scenario" I gave you I played roulette first, won 936 and then met the wr on allowed games. You ignored the fact Intercasino don't confiscate winnings, however you play (they ban you from future bonuses) - ergo there's no problem playing disallowed games first.

- which, btw, are no longer disallowed games since you met the playthrough... so excuse me if I say WTF again...

Now that is something it really would be worth checking with King Neptune! If you did that at a lot of the Playtechs and RTG casinos with confiscation terms you'd forfeit your winnings, despite having met the wagering requirements first.

 

[spearmaster]

Actually in the only "case scenario" I gave you I played roulette first, won 936 and then met the wr on allowed games. You ignored the fact Intercasino don't confiscate winnings, however you play (they ban you from future bonuses) - ergo there's no problem playing disallowed games first.

You said you met the WR and then played roulette. Now you're saying you played roulette and then met the WR.

Which is it?

Now that is something it really would be worth checking with King Neptune! If you did that at a lot of the Playtechs and RTG casinos with confiscation terms you'd forfeit your winnings, despite having met the wagering requirements first.

King Neptune's is not a Playtech or a RTG - not even close. There would have been zero reason for Micki to confiscate the winnings if the WR had been met prior to any play on formerly restricted games. Why do you think she even bothered to check the actual play in the FIRST place?

 

[Vesuvio]

You said you met the WR and then played roulette. Now you're saying you played roulette and then met the WR.

Which is it?

Go back and read, Spear. I've said the same thing 3 times.

Why do you think she even bothered to check the actual play in the FIRST place?

To defend the casino's actions.

 

[Let_It_Ride]

I could swear this whole thing is about "argue with Spear no matter what" rather than "interpretation of terms and conditions".

it takes two to tango my friend