kiwi casino - resolved

[pstnpstn]

I think this is classic example of casino scamming.

check this post

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/amber-coast-casino-not-paying-winnings.8327/

the casino finally paid to player.
hope you be paid too.

 

[thelawnet]

On the question of complaint procedure:

I agree that hasty postings don't help because the casino doesn't like bad press, but there are issues beyond facilitating the mediation process. The poster will maybe save another member of the "lucky 10%" from depositing at Kiwi, making a full-balance bet and getting robbed. That's a good thing.

People need to be warned what's going on out there. Maybe the poster didn't follow the letter of the law. Maybe that will invalidate his complaint. BUT, he's already assisted others in so doing, because we know now that Kiwi will rob you based on undisclosed terms. This is tremendously valuable information.

It's a double-edged sword, both posting and non-posting.

it beggars belief. Kiwi Casino have spent huge amounts of money building up a reputation, Casinomeister Casino of the Year, etc., and they are prepared to toss it away for the sake of some players 100 bonus.

They could have just come out and used the usual casino excuse about a fraud ring or investigation and said that they have paidd the player.

But no, they dig themselves into a deeper hole and risk being labelled on multiple sites as 'to be avoided', just for the sake of a measly 100 bonus.

It just can't be worth the damage to their reputation for the sake of 100.

 

[seymour]

Well they actually owe me 200 lets not forget.

But that aside yes I thought posting might help out other people not waste their time and money with KIWI casino.

Also I sent numerous emails to kiwi casino without even receiving a reason for why they did it.

 

[clawback]

Eeeeeeeeek

So the only players welcome here are losers eh.

A player lumping his full balance on 1 hand is a high roller, kiwi see`s this as nothing but abuse purely based on the fact he won that hand

Are kiwi now willing to refund all those players who lost doing this kind of bet....I think not.

Avoid.

 

[Aindreas_Daoc]

Online casinos are a funny bunch. Bet too small, you're an abuser because "you never risk your own money". Bet too big, you're an abuser because "only bonus abusers play that way".

If he lost that bet, he wouldn't be a bonus abuser, now would he?

I think deciding whether someone is a bonus abuser based on 1 hand of play is absurd.

 

[UKDafoe]

If he lost that bet, he wouldn't be a bonus abuser, now would he?

He would be a broke bonus abuser.

 

[samchopra]

absurd

absurd that they arent paying, just shameful

 

[Gaming Partners]

Thank you for your responses on this. We value player feedback; it is how we improve our service to you.

In some cases we must take specific action, with the information available to us. Following on from this and other cases, on the 1st of July, the Kiwi Casino bonus system was changed;
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) .

Our integrity, as a reputable casino operator, is the sole reason we have posted on this forum. To post on this forum with anything beyond the complete truth in how we dealt with this player would have been against all of the reasons we belong to the Casinomeister forum.

Kiwi Casino has always held itself to the highest operating standards and will continue to do so in dealing with our players.

Regards

Kiwi Casino Management

 

[clawback]

Thank you for your responses on this. We value player feedback; it is how we improve our service to you.

In some cases we must take specific action, with the information available to us. Following on from this and other cases, on the 1st of July, the Kiwi Casino bonus system was changed;
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) .

Our integrity, as a reputable casino operator, is the sole reason we have posted on this forum. To post on this forum with anything beyond the complete truth in how we dealt with this player would have been against all of the reasons we belong to the Casinomeister forum.

Kiwi Casino has always held itself to the highest operating standards and will continue to do so in dealing with our players.

Regards

Kiwi Casino Management

Ok now you`ve changed your T&Cs you can now payout to the player concerned who was not party to the new unimproved conditions or are you retroactively going to enforce this?

 

[mitch]

I was thinking of depositing in Kiwi as it is on the Meisters recommended list.

No way will I deposit now, in view of this situation. I always bet my whole balance in casinos with 'sticky bonuses'. This gives a gambler the best chance to win.

Kiwi apparently thinks trying your best to win is unacceptable!!

If they don't like this play, don't offer the bonus. But of course they like to offer the bonus to suck players in to their casino.

Well I find their attitude unacceptable and I am the customer a fact casinos like this seem to forget. They seem to feel that they are at war with their players and must constantly be looking for new weapons to defeat them.

Casinos like this will always lose out to casinos like 32RED, Inter and Harrods who look at the big picture.

Do casinos know how difficult it is for even the best advantage players to stick to their strategy when things are running against them? The willpower involved is extrordinary. Have they any idea what percentage of players can keep this up over the long term?

These people are fools, they make money on turnover so their whole object should be to increase turnover and accept that an extremely small proportion of these players will make a small profit at their expense.

Meister, you should remove this casino from your recommended list immediately in view of their publicly admitted attitude to their customers.

If they come to this forum and retract their statements and pay this player his honestly won money then keep them in the list. I might even deposit myself in this case.

Mitch

 

[mucullus]

In some cases we must take specific action, with the information available to us. Following on from this and other cases, on the 1st of July, the Kiwi Casino bonus system was changed;
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) .

How is this change in your new terms exactly affecting such behaviour you call 'bonus abuse'. Maybe I am missing something here but the only modification i noticed in your new t&c's are increased wagering requirements. This won't prevent new players from betting their whole balance on one hand of blackjack.

Kiwi Casino has always held itself to the highest operating standards and will continue to do so in dealing with our players.

With all due respect, I wouldn't call Kiwi Casino's actions in this matter as the highest operating standards.

 

[Macgyver]

How is this change in your new terms exactly affecting such behaviour you call 'bonus abuse'. Maybe I am missing something here but the only modification i noticed in your new t&c's are increased wagering requirements. This won't prevent new players from betting their whole balance on one hand of blackjack.

Same question here; I see nothing that addresses an "all or nothing" betting stance on the first hand of blackjack, just increased WR and seperate WR depending on what currency you use.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Disgusting - total rogue behaviour.

BTW Kiwi your terms and conditions still don't dissallow players to do what seymour did. There's nothing at all that dissallows play on Balckjack Switch, it just doesn't count towards the wagering requirement.

Bryan, are you seriously going to continue to recommend these when they try and pull stunts like this?

 

[Aindreas_Daoc]

Thank you for your responses on this. We value player feedback; it is how we improve our service to you.

In some cases we must take specific action, with the information available to us. Following on from this and other cases, on the 1st of July, the Kiwi Casino bonus system was changed;
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) .

Our integrity, as a reputable casino operator, is the sole reason we have posted on this forum. To post on this forum with anything beyond the complete truth in how we dealt with this player would have been against all of the reasons we belong to the Casinomeister forum.

Kiwi Casino has always held itself to the highest operating standards and will continue to do so in dealing with our players.

Regards

Kiwi Casino Management

I read your entire new TC document, and no where does it state you can't bet your entire balance on the first hand. Or second hand. Or 17th hand. Or....you get the idea. How about half your balance, twice?

I get matchplay coupons from land based casinos all the time. This exactly the same condition (except land based casinos don't have wagering requirements): you get a coupon "matching" your play. So for example, I have a $25 coupon. I have to put up $25 of my own money, and the casino matches $25. If I win the bet, the casino pays me $50, and collects the coupon. I have often only played one hand like this, then left the table. Never ever did a dealer or a pitboss go, "Excuse me sir, you only played one hand, so you have to give us your winnings back, and here is your original $25".

Heck this is not even the case here: The player came back to play some more! (I guess he had to, because of your wagering conditions. But he could've stayed longer, but we'll never now, since you used the amazing technique to catch bonus "abusers" in one bet)

Anyway, this is silly. No land based casino could get away with this, only online "safe from any regulation" casinos.

 

[KasinoKing]

Oh dear!
No apology from Kiwi, no promise to pay this player, no sensible change to their T&Cs.
They really have lost the plot, like too many other casinos these days.
Will they ever wake up and realise this is not bonus abuse but human nature?
We all want to win, this desire is born into us all. The casino wants to make profit the players want to make profit.
If the casino is going to offer a tempting bonus, they surely must expect players to try to profit from it, not just use it to try out their games. Who are they trying to kid?
Its just our human nature. Humans will try to work out the best way to profit from any situation in the case of sticky bonuses it seems the best way is to try to double your starting balance ASAP. The casino has to accept this, and take the rough with the smooth. A few players will profit, but many more will fail, and with the house always having the edge, they will always win in the long run.

Like Mitch said, 32Red, Inter, Will Hill and the like have realised this, and look at the long term. The other casinos should take their heads out of where the sun dont shine and follow suit, otherwise only one fate can ultimately await them.

 

[caruso]

In fact, the new T & C change nothing. There is nothing that disallows one big bet, since those games simply don't count, they are not disallowed. According to the old terms, the play was legitimate. According to the new terms, the play is legitimate.

But you're still going to rob him, huh?

Our integrity, as a reputable casino operator, is the sole reason we have posted on this forum. To post on this forum with anything beyond the complete truth in how we dealt with this player would have been against all of the reasons we belong to the Casinomeister forum.

Ha. Posting on Casinomeister is not evidence of "integrity"; care for me to give you a list of the rogues who've posted here? And anyway, the "complete truth" is perfectly clear: you're robbing the player. How is this remotely virtuous?

Just pay him, then rob the other 90% who don't read the forums. You know the drill, Kiwi.

 

[KasinoKing]

Kiwi apparently thinks trying your best to win is unacceptable!!

If they don't like this play, don't offer the bonus. But of course they like to offer the bonus to suck players in to their casino.

Well I find their attitude unacceptable and I am the customer a fact casinos like this seem to forget. They seem to feel that they are at war with their players and must constantly be looking for new weapons to defeat them.
Mitch

Mitch is right, its not a war between the casinos & the players; its just a game that both sides are trying to win.

All we ask is that its a fair game with both sides sticking to the rules. The rules in this case are the T&Cs. If none of these rules are broken, the loser should pay up without complaint.
I guess some casinos are just rotten losers. Its about time they grew up.

 

[seymour]

Thanks for the support guys. Its nice to know Im not the only one who thinks the way kiwi have behaved is totally unacceptable.

Im just shocked they'd rather lose 200 (which means a hell of alot more to me then it does to them) then the amount they're going to lose due to bad publicity from actions like this.

Casinomeister can nothing else be done?

seymour

 

[mucullus]

seymour, have you already filed a complaint with playtech? I have heard of similar cases to yours which were ruled in favour of the player.

 

[toofast4u]

Pathetic, KIWI, if you can't handle being a casino then don't be one. For some reason the possibility of a player actually winning money just doesn't sit well with you guys. I am getting sick of hearing about nearly every player that wins online getting labeled as a bonus abuser. IMO you just set up the system so you have something loosely written in your t&c that allows you to not pay a winner. That makes it a win/win situation for you.

IF YOU DID NOT SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT YOU CANNOT WIN IF YOU ONLY PLAY ONE HAND THEN YOU OWE THE PLAYER THE WINNINGS - THE DEPOSIT.

Its behavior like this, that will ensure that online gambling will continue to be a joke. Eventually everyones gonna catch on and you will be the losers in the end. Good ol' land based casinos are still lightyears beyond you guys, and always will be until one day there is some sort of legal liability placed on you guys.

 

[Casinomeister]

Ive only just spotted this thread and find this is one of the rare occasions that I disagree with the Meister.

I think seymore was totally right to make his initial post here.
People should be warned of any casino that pulls the old anything we deem to be bonus abuse will get your account locked even if youve not broken a specifically stated condition BS....

The reason I prefer that players follow posting procedures is to make sure complaints aren't full of fluff, or BS. It's not to protect anyone's credibility or reputation - it's to get a job done.

People are being "warned" of something that I don't think has been flushed out completely. I wouldn't be too quick to judge before the fat lady sings, and I don't think she's singing yet.

 

[thelawnet]

The reason I prefer that players follow posting procedures is to make sure complaints aren't full of fluff, or BS. It's not to protect anyone's credibility or reputation - it's to get a job done.

People are being "warned" of something that I don't think has been flushed out completely. I wouldn't be too quick to judge before the fat lady sings, and I don't think she's singing yet.

well she might not be signing, but she's certainly warming up.

it might be, as you imply, that there is more to this than meets the eye, and that the player had multiple accounts or something, but the casino's official response has made things a lot worse for themselves, as they have defended the indefensible, and claimed that betting 200 on a hand is bonus abuse.

I guess you might have more information, but Kiwi Casino really dug its own grave by making this statement.

So the initial statement by the player might not be the whole story, but now that Kiwi Casino have come out and confirmed what the player said. So a warning seems perfectly in order to me - granted a lot of the time an unknown person of unknown probiety says something and people jump all over the casino before the casino has had a chance to put its version of events, but here that is not the case, as they have basically put out a statement saying 'we will take your money if you win and we don't like the way you wagered'.

It does seem odd that the player account was locked just for placing one bet - maybe there were other flags, but I don't think the casino has responded in a way that gives anyone the impression that they are an upstanding outfit.

 

[thelawnet]

well she might not be signing, but she's certainly warming up.

it might be, as you imply, that there is more to this than meets the eye, and that the player had multiple accounts or something, but the casino's official response has made things a lot worse for themselves, as they have defended the indefensible, and claimed that betting 200 on a hand is bonus abuse.

I guess you might have more information, but Kiwi Casino really dug its own grave by making this statement.

So the initial statement by the player might not be the whole story, but now that Kiwi Casino have come out and confirmed what the player said. So a warning seems perfectly in order to me - granted a lot of the time an unknown person of unknown probiety says something and people jump all over the casino before the casino has had a chance to put its version of events, but here that is not the case, as they have basically put out a statement saying 'we will take your money if you win and we don't like the way you wagered'.

It does seem odd that the player account was locked just for placing one bet - maybe there were other flags, but I don't think the casino has responded in a way that gives anyone the impression that they are an upstanding outfit.

just in case it wasn't clear, completely aside from the players individual story, this was the statement with which Kiwi damned themselves:

'In our
view Seymor's play on Kiwi Casino UK is an example of this abuse.
Betting an entire balance after depositing the exact level of the
bonus match on Blackjack Switch is the classic beginning scenario of
bonus abuse.
'

They say that betting your balance is bonus abuse, but had nothing to say this in their terms and conditions. And moreover they imply that winning strategies are de facto bonus abuse. This suggests to me that the bonuses are a ploy by the casino, as any strategy which does not tend to lead to the player losing their money will be deemed abuse.

These 'after the fact rules' are no way to run a casino at which people will want to play.

 

[seymour]

so should I email playtech to try and sort this out?

 

[caruso]

so should I email playtech to try and sort this out?

lol, no. You won't see a penny that way. Stick with Herr Bailey, who remains your best bet.

Points well made, Thelawnet. The casino has stated that the player was locked out because he was using "abusive", ie. what were, in their eyes, "winning" strategies. Whatever else they might come a-scuttling out with by way of tracks-covering (false docs, multiple accounts etc), this was their statement and they cannot retract it. If there had been the slightest evidence of foul play, you can betcha THAT would have been in the statement - you don't bar a player for docs falsification, and then claim as the reason breach of undisclosed conditions. Kiwi has set out their stall: they will invoke undisclosed conditions to steal your money.

Any casino that uses these tactics is a rogue to be avoided. As far as I can see it, that they pay or don't pay the player is in no way relevant to this fact.