kiwi casino - resolved

[seymour]

I deposited 100. Got a 100 bonus and played one hand of 200 blackjack.

I was on 400 and decided to come back another day to wager some more, when I did I found my account locked. I received an email the other day saying I'm getting my 100 back but due to a pattern of bonus abuse in the casino I'm not getting the 200? I'd only played 1 hand of blackjack. How is this abuse?

It seems this casino doesn't like people to win, maybe thats bonus abuse.
I mean they're all after a profit but to actually let someone deposit and play (risking their own money as well) then when they're up, kick them out and take their winnings. its disgusting

 

[UKDafoe]

Because I think the only people who bet like that are bonus abusers.

 

[mikekloeg]

u can only play slots true?
terms

 

[frafi]

bonus abuse?
There is a 50/50 change for them to loose it all in one shot.

 

[nafanny29]

I deposited 100. Got a 100 bonus and played one hand of 200 blackjack.

I was on 400 and decided to come back another day to wager some more, when I did I found my account locked. I received an email the other day saying I'm getting my 100 back but due to a pattern of bonus abuse in the casino I'm not getting the 200? I'd only played 1 hand of blackjack. How is this abuse?

It seems this casino doesn't like people to win, maybe thats bonus abuse.
I mean they're all after a profit but to actually let someone deposit and play (risking their own money as well) then when they're up, kick them out and take their winnings. its disgusting

If BJ is not specifically excluded then it is not bonus abuse but rouge casino abuse

 

[thelawnet]

I deposited 100. Got a 100 bonus and played one hand of 200 blackjack.

I was on 400 and decided to come back another day to wager some more, when I did I found my account locked. I received an email the other day saying I'm getting my 100 back but due to a pattern of bonus abuse in the casino I'm not getting the 200? I'd only played 1 hand of blackjack. How is this abuse?

It seems this casino doesn't like people to win, maybe thats bonus abuse.
I mean they're all after a profit but to actually let someone deposit and play (risking their own money as well) then when they're up, kick them out and take their winnings. its disgusting

That is disgusting rogue behaviour, if that is the whole story.

Absolutely wrong.

The main thing being that a 200 bet on blackjack with no cash to double up is a sucker bet anyway. Well over half of the time the casino will get your 100. And the rest of the time they get your winnings. I bet they wouldn't give you your money back if they lost.

So > 50% they win, and the rest of the time you lose

So heads they win, tails you lose.


T&Cs here:

In the interests of fair gaming, Kiwi Casino requires you to have wagered a minimum of 8 (eight) times your deposit and bonus before cashing out any amount higher than your initial deposit amount. Bets placed on Baccarat, Craps and Roulette do not count towards this wagering requirement.

This play bonus gives you the chance to play on a much larger variety of games when you are new to Kiwi Casino and is for wagering purposes only. The first deposit play bonus will be removed from your account after a withdrawal request.

R - O - G - U - E

 

[clawback]

Kiwi you need to address this issue.

A player puts his full balance down on 1 hand and wins so you hit the lock account button and kindly escort him out the door with only his deposit

What a bunch of jokers.

 

[samchopra]

outrageous

if thats the whole story
thats outrageous
although it might be the best play for the player to double up real quick and take away the casinos long term edge, its his money and he could do what he wants with it
that bonus abuse is a garbage term
no where in the t and c does it say how you can play with your money

 

[The Dude]

MUST READ: Posting Your Complaint

Welcome to the forum Seymour - first posting = complaint

But please take the consideration to read the posting rules for this section. I'll repeat them since you seemed to have skipped this:

Old URL

Before posting a complaint in Casinomeister's forum, please consider the following:

There are ways to deal with your complaint privately.

If the offending casino is powered by RTG, you can contact Montana Disputes section:
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

If the casino is a member of eCogra, you can contact Tex Rees here:

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

You may also "Pitch a Bitch" with the Casinomeister here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/player-arbitration-pab/ (this service is only for forum members and subscribers to our newsletter, no exceptions)

There are a number of casino operators/managers and affiliate managers who are members of this board, please feel free to PM them before or after you post your complaint. They should be able to assist you before things get nasty.
Old URL

Fraudulent complaints will not be tolerated. This is not a message board that condones the bashing of casinos. If you are posting a public complaint, ensure that it is free of subjective and insulting comments and that it is truthful.

All complaints will eventually be investigated. If it turns out that the post was fraudulent in nature, the member will be banned and possibly invoiced for time and effort spent investigating the issue.

Kiwi casino is a member of this forum, and if you would have taken the time to follow these simple instructions, you could have PMd them to let them know what is up - thus expediting your issue to be addressed. But I guess I'll do that for you.

For the other members who are quick to judge with only the player's information at hand - you ought to wait until you have the full story before going off on tangents.

 

[seymour]

Im really sorry casinomeister and believe me I'd rather my first post wasn't a complaint. I'd already emailed kiwi casino a few times and they weren't budgeing. You say you have spoke to someone about the issue?

 

[dominique]

That would be the first time I heard anything bad about Kiwi!

 

[Gaming Partners]

Player dispute

I deposited 100. Got a 100 bonus and played one hand of 200 blackjack.

I was on 400 and decided to come back another day to wager some more, when I did I found my account locked. I received an email the other day saying I'm getting my 100 back but due to a pattern of bonus abuse in the casino I'm not getting the 200? I'd only played 1 hand of blackjack. How is this abuse?

It seems this casino doesn't like people to win, maybe thats bonus abuse.
I mean they're all after a profit but to actually let someone deposit and play (risking their own money as well) then when they're up, kick them out and take their winnings. its disgusting

Seymour,

Thank you for your feedback on Kiwi Casino.

Please email your Kiwi Casino Username to [email protected] so that we can look further into the situation you have put forward.

Bryan, thank you for your post. We are always open to hear constructive criticism regarding Kiwi Casino although, as you have mentioned, we do prefer, in respect of the players privacy, to have the opportunity to resolve issues directly with the player.

Regards

Manager
Kiwi Casino - www.kiwicasino.com
Kiwi Bingo - www.kiwibingo.com
Gaming Partners Affiliate Program - www.gamingpartners.com

 

[mucullus]

Has this issue been resolved?

 

[seymour]

No its been over a week and I'm still waiting for a reply.

 

[paul02085]

Nothing like quick service.

 

[tim5ny]

Seymour,

we do prefer, in respect of the players privacy, to have the opportunity to resolve issues directly with the player.

Regards

Manager
Kiwi Casino - www.kiwicasino.com
Kiwi Bingo - www.kiwibingo.com
Gaming Partners Affiliate Program - www.gamingpartners.com

Sometimes the player doesn't get any respect until he posts at a forum like this. Most people that complain about a casino have already tried to work things out on their own before posting.

 

[Gaming Partners]

Player Bonus Abuse

Kiwi Casino has recently been the target of a significant level of player bonus abuse from the launch of its new UK (GBP) casino. 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.

Various factors are considered when banning a player as a bonus seeker beyond their play alone. It is not something Kiwi Casino takes lightly, however in some cases it must be done to protect the casino from players with abusive playing habits who are there to take advantage of the bonus system in place. Bonus abuse is a difficult situation in the online casino industry and sometimes there are situations where we as the casino operator must make a decision, based on the best information available at the time, as to how to proceed.

UKDafoe has hit the nail on the head in his post regarding the play:

Because I think the only people who bet like that are bonus abusers.

From the 1st of July, bonus system changes have taken place in Kiwi Casino to prevent further bonuses abuses of this nature from occurring.

Regards

Kiwi Casino Management

 

[paul02085]

"For the other members who are quick to judge with only the player's information at hand - you ought to wait until you have the full story before going off on tangents."

I guess we have the full story now?

 

[mucullus]

Very very sad to hear this from kiwi casino.

 

[Webzcas]

This convinces me more that bonuses, in particular new player sign up bonuses are bad news. You obviously get players in the form of bonus hunters that abuse them and casinos rightly trying to stop said bonus hunters. Unfortunately however some innocent players can and do get caught in the crossfire. I'm not referring to this particular case, just making a general observation regarding new player sign up bonuses.

 

[KasinoKing]

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 good thing here is we dont have to just take this new posters word for it, because Kiwi have admitted it themselves in the post above!

In my opinion this is totally unacceptable behaviour on the part of the casino. If they dont want people to use this tactic they should say so in the T&Cs or simply put a maximum bet limit of say $25 on players who are completing a WR for a bonus. Not rocket science, but would have saved at least this bit of bad PR.

I have noticed that 4 or 5 of the top complaints at the moment are related to Playtech casinos methinks they need to get their acts sorted out damn fast, or soon they will all be tarred with the same brush as has happened with Rip-off The Gamblers.

 

[thelawnet]

Kiwi Casino has recently been the target of a significant level of player bonus abuse from the launch of its new UK (GBP) casino. 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.

Various factors are considered when banning a player as a bonus seeker beyond their play alone. It is not something Kiwi Casino takes lightly, however in some cases it must be done to protect the casino from players with abusive playing habits who are there to take advantage of the bonus system in place. Bonus abuse is a difficult situation in the online casino industry and sometimes there are situations where we as the casino operator must make a decision, based on the best information available at the time, as to how to proceed.

UKDafoe has hit the nail on the head in his post regarding the play:

From the 1st of July, bonus system changes have taken place in Kiwi Casino to prevent further bonuses abuses of this nature from occurring.

Regards

Kiwi Casino Management

I just checked your website and it says 100% bonus, removed on withdrawal. It doesn't say you are not allowed to wager 200 on a hand of blackjack.

So what are these changes you have made, as I cannot see any.

Another thing, you say that trying to double up is abusive, and that various factors are considered when banning. Were there any other factors in this case? And banning is one thing, but the policy of 'if thet bet had lost, then the player loses', and in this case where they won they lose as well. That is different from a ban, it is a 'can't lose steal the player's money policy'

I can't quite see why these bonuses exist if you don't want people to have them. You need them to get people to sign up, and when they have the nerve to win you change your minds.

Frankly it's not going to encourage anyone to sign up at your casino when there are so many layers of crap behind the 'free 100' you promise.

As a personal story, the very first casino I signed up to was Casino Tropez, which was spammed to me via email. They also have this free money policy which evaporates on cashout, a major trap of the unwary new player.

I read the terms and conditions, saw that I could get a 100% bonus. I also read that it would be removed on cashout. So as a new player to casinos I wagered the whole lot on a hand of blackjack.

In the event I lost, but imagine if I had won and they had pulled a stunt like this.

The terms there and here say clearly 'bonus is removed on cashout', so it is so blindingly obvious that wagering everything on one hand could let you win. If you don't like people doing this then say so.

If you don't want people winning, then stop advertising '100 free'. If the bonus attracts customers and makes you money, then offer it. If it costs money then change it so it doesn't. But don't try to screw people that follow your rules.

 

[seymour]

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.

This is a classic. A casino offers you a 100% match up to 100. But they take the bonus back at the end. so.....

The only real choices I can see of actually withdrawing money at the end. (Yes Kiwi withdrawing money at the end, shocking thing to want to do for a gambler I know) are playing alot of videopoker/slots and hopeing to hit something big or playing blackjack. Now I don't like to play slots and I'm not good at videopoker so I decided on blackjack.

But if the casino takes back the bonus at the end I figured I'd have more of a chance doubling my money and then playing my usual way. Now I had roughly a 50% chance of losing it all. Would you have returned my money if I'd lost, no you wouldn't.

The way kiwi operates regarding bonuses is disgusting. It seems wanting to withdraw money from a signup offer is now classed as bonus abuse.

BUYER BEWARE: Playing ONE hand of blackjack makes me a bonus abuser

 

[caruso]

This in itself is absurd:

"I was on 400 and decided to come back another day to wager some more, when I did I found my account locked. I received an email the other day saying I'm getting my 100 back but due to a pattern of bonus abuse in the casino."

He made one full-balance bet, and was an "abuser"? That bearing in mind that there was no split / double option, and as such the bet was ill-advised anyway.

Where do the Kiwi T & C state that you cannot bet your full balance? Where do they specify wagering patterns they consider non-abusive?

Not that I'm remotely surprised, but Playtech is currently coming apart at the seams.

Oh, and Seymour: you WILL get paid - I'm confident of that. You are one of the lucky 10% who found the forums.

 

[caruso]

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.

 

[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.

 

[The Dude]

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.