Only if this term is applied fairly and to ALL players. If this term IS being applied as it should be, across the board for ALL players, then this group should no longer be accredited. Max cashouts may be acceptable on free chips where the player has not risked their own money, but they cannot be acceptable where players have deposited."
Have to disagree- yes I also hate max cash outs but as long as it is stated as a condition then you accept it and take your chances- I believe Slotocash and a number of other casino's also have max cash out deposit bonuses and I don't believe that this type of bonus prohibits accreditation.
I thinks the comments by some of going rogue is unfair and should be used for genuine rogue behaviour not every time a player can't collect what they think they should irrespective of the terms- if the term is there and upfront its OK (whether it sucks or not is an entirely different question)- as to the discretion comment many of the accredited casinos have a discretion clause- its how they apply it that determines whether they are rogue.
I feel for the guy playing but if the rule was in place is was in place- they obviously had a high risk strategy but 6000 is still a nice take out.
The difference is that with Slotocash, the max cashout term applies to ALL players, and EVERY player knows right from the start that it will be applied to them. The problem with the Lucky Nugget term is that they can pick and choose which players will get paid in full, and which will be limited to a max of 6x their deposit. The decision has nothing to do with the other terms and conditions, it is purely at the whim of management. No player can know what is expected of them in order to get paid in full, which is generally most players, and neither will Lucky Nugget explain to players what they have done wrong to have the term applied to them, nor what they need to do BEFORE they start playing in order NOT to have that term applied to them.
With the 10 day cashout, they LIED to me, and indeed anyone else who asked. I was told this was a general policy they had brought in for all players, not a discretionary term that management could apply to some. Having such a term is bad enough, but to blatantly lie about it to anyone who queries the scope of the term is what makes them "rogue".
Simmo was told that no such term exists, and never has existed. This was AFTER a German player posted a complaint about this being a "hidden term" that was applied to him, and also AFTER I first experienced a 10 day pending. When I queried a later withdrawal, they told me the term had just been brought in, which was yet ANOTHER LIE, because they were applying it to me earlier in the year. What tripped them up was a failure to confer and ensure all CS and management got their story straight, difficult since it was a different story depending on who was asking. What tripped them up was that prior to my query I had that very big, and very PUBLIC, win of £66K. They knew this win was receiving publicity here, and I am sure this is why this was the only win NOT to suffer a 10 day pending. When they later lied, they misinterpreted this management decision and wrongly thought I had NOT been subject to this term until AFTER my £66K win, a mistake that exposes the lie.
Although not hidden, this term is just as nasty and unjustified, and deserving of the view that they are "going rogue".
At no point has the rep come forward to explain to players WHY they might find themselves subject to this term, even though they have played within the terms laid out.
This is the ONLY casino that I know of where such a term is purely at the whim of management, the rest apply such a term as part of the promotion, and apply it equally to all players.
It's nothing more than reneging on a bet of no good reason, no different from a player that decides to charge back a portion of losses without offering a justification.
I suspect that they are silent on this matter because they know their reasoning would be their exit pass from the accredited section, and possibly their ticket to the rogue pit.
If the rep cares to explain how this term is "fair", I am waiting....................
I would also like the TRUTH about this 10 day pending, and furthermore, it should be described in the terms and conditions. Currently, I have been told it applies to "large withdrawals", but why applied to £4000, yet NOT applied to £66,000. Why was I told the dividing line is £5000, yet it was applied to £4000 and £700, and the latter BEFORE this even came into force.
This behaviour taken as a whole is not worthy of accreditation, and the arbitrary application to some players of a max cashout when they have deposited their own money should result in them being "not recommended" as this is so out of step with the Microgaming philosophy, which is that max cashouts, where they exist, are only applied to players who have only played free chips, and never risked their own money.
In my view, they are trying to slip a "spirit of the bonus" term under Bryan's radar, and so far appear to have gotten away with it.
Maybe not the fastest one, but definitely the one, which cannot be given a run around. I am talking about eCOGRA and submitting an official complaint there - it is about time to use the heavy artillery IMHO, since it is obviously that Digimedia don't give a s*** what CM or other major portals are thinking of this predatory term and situation as a whole!
If they dare to lie in front of eCOGRA, I doubt these guys will face a bright future, sooner or later the truth will come up and they will get, what they deserve!
