external image

Resolved More problems with GNUf- taken back a 10k win

Many thanks for a clear and intelligent post. More food for thought.

NP, but I should correct something I said:

... what really matters is what T&Cs were posted on the date of your winnings.

Actually that should be the date you took the bonus. Your winnings may have come some time after, during which the Terms may have changed, in which case it would be the Terms at your date of deposit that would be binding, IMO.
 
Their Terms and Conditions were last updated on 4th November 2010. Last updated 04/11/10

It is shown in Italic at the bottom of their Terms and Conditions and it would appear to be a date stamp automatically created by the CMS they use to update the content of their site. This would be similar to when you modify your post on casinomeister and a time stamp will be automatically created.

To me that is very deceiving because any player who read the T&Cs on 4 June, 2010 16:02 have no reason to believe they were ever changed. The casino have deliberately kept the oringal posting date, however, they have made subtle changes to the T&C's since.
 
Last edited:
Their Terms and Conditions were last updated on 4th November 2010. Last updated 04/11/10

It is shown in Italic at the bottom of their Terms and Conditions and it would appear to be a date stamp automatically created by the CMS they use to update the content of their site. This would be similar to when you modify your post on casinomeister and a time stamp will be automatically created.

To me that is very deceiving because any player who read the T&Cs on 4 June, 2010 16:02 have no reason to believe they were ever changed. The casino have deliberately kept the oringal posting date, however, they have made subtle changes to the T&C's since.

Given that...do i have a case?
 
Given that...do i have a case?
Did you make your deposit BEFORE Nov-4th?

If so, you might have a case - but you need a copy of the T&C's as they were before Nov-4th.
I tried all the archive sites, but none had it. So your only chance would be to Pitch-a-Bitch and hope that the casino will be honest enough to give Max a copy of the relevant terms.

If your deposit was after Nov-4th - them I'm sorry, but it's just very bad luck. :(

KK
 
The casino claims the T&Cs were last updated on 4 June, 2010 16:02. If they wish to change them then surely they have to post the correct date. It is only by accident that there's evidence to show they altered them since.

Even though you deposited after the 4th of November you had no reason at all to believe the T&Cs were changed. It is ridiculous to expect a player to continuously monitor the T&C throughout their gameplay. You have to go by the posted date which was 4 June, 2010, but we know they have altered them since then.

I do feel you have a case.
 
So actually when the betway rep told me that i had been paid in error or given the benfit of the doubt in my previous withdrawals having also played All aces it wasn't quite correct. I was within the terms thats why they paid. He failed to mention the terms change very recently but you wouldn't know it because the date at the top was still June??? This is misleading and who knows deliberate?

"In past cases you may have played All Aces however your winnings were on non excluded games. If they were on All Aces it could have been in error that you were paid"

I wasn't paid in error..It was within the terms!!!


Thanks for the post...over to you Betway??
 
Last edited:
Their Terms and Conditions were last updated on 4th November 2010. Last updated 04/11/10

Yes, this matches my claim that the Video Poker restriction term was added about one month ago and certainly AFTER 4th June 2010.

To me that is very deceiving because any player who read the T&Cs on 4 June, 2010 16:02 have no reason to believe they were ever changed. The casino have deliberately kept the oringal posting date, however, they have made subtle changes to the T&C's since.

This is true and therefore the OP could have some kind of case, although it will still be a weak one. The OP can claim that he played according to the June 4th terms which allowed All Aces and the current date stamp still shows that the terms are from June 4th.

Maxd said:
steffigraff77 said:
... Do they have a duty to update the date of changes? Otherwise it is a little misleading.

Generally speaking I'd say no, it's not a "duty", it's more or less a courtesy thing. One of the realities of web life is that the date someone puts on something and the actual date it appears can easily have nothing to do with one another. It's nice when they do coincide, but they often don't.

I disagree a bit with this statement. If the casino has the right to follow their T&C to the letter and confiscate winnings when they are broken, then conversely it should also be the case that the player has the right to expect that the T&C are perfectly correct and any errors or ambiguouses within them are always ruled in favour of the player. The date stamp, which shows when the T&C was last modified, is ESPECIALLY important as the player should be able to trust that the T&C haven't changed since he last checked them.
 
Gnuf/Betway are slimey little cheats imo. They have deliberately kept the date so that regualr players who chec the terms havent changed would see the date has not changed, play on, and lose. As has happened ere. Processing small cashouts knowing they could probably wait and seize a massive on from this player just shows what a bunch of dodgy little slimeballs they are. They had incorrect terms, stating they were updated in June when they were not so they must accept fault and pay the player. If they do that, I can accept it may possibly have been an oversight. If not then they are little better than theives imo and should be avoided at all cost.

Appaling behavour by this casino. I woudnt be surprised if they made this sneaky change soley to entrap this one player.

Dont blame yourself mate, youve been mugged. hopefully they will right their wrong asap an cough up
 
The casino claims the T&Cs were last updated on 4 June, 2010 16:02. If they wish to change them then surely they have to post the correct date. It is only by accident that there's evidence to show they altered them since.

Even though you deposited after the 4th of November you had no reason at all to believe the T&Cs were changed. It is ridiculous to expect a player to continuously monitor the T&C throughout their gameplay. You have to go by the posted date which was 4 June, 2010, but we know they have altered them since then.

I do feel you have a case.

What a complete COCK-UP!!!

Don't they PROOF READ these LEGAL CONTRACTS before they are put up. Look at item 13, which says quite CLEARLY that play on ALL games counts, but by the time you get to item 15, item 13 gets contradicted TWICE.

A contract this messy would be thrown out by a court, and in fact there is now a run on loan and card companies because of errors more minor than this have meant that the agreements are void, and they have had to give back all the charges and interest on the loans, and in some cases write the capital off.

I think ACCREDITED casinos should be required to ensure that their terms are properly proof read, and errors corrected, before they go live. It's bad enough trying to understand the "legalese", but when terms contradict each other to the extent that you cannot believe what you read, even when you DO understand it, the entire contract becomes unfair.

They expect PLAYERS to regularly review the terms as a whole, yet seem to think it OK for them to dive in, and alter individual points with no checking the updated terms as a whole to ensure that their updates and the original terms are consistent with each other.
 
The terms should be spot on if they expect players to follow them and they were not. I do genuinely feel i was misled. Is it too much to ask for them to get the terms totally correct. What if indeed a court was involved? What would they make of it?

Must admit it does surprise that a casino that is accredited here cant get their terms exactly correct? I chose this casino because of CM approval. You would expect a casino accredited here to be trusted OVER and ABOVE any other. I really did not expect as Vinylweatherman puts it ' A COCK UP'

Anyway, I won't say any more on the issue in case it looks like i am harassing..i'm not. ( sorry MaxD- I had calmed down after your post yesterday but now i am starting to get annoyed again!) I just want fairness. I will try to stay cool.

I think Betway should respond asap.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, Steffi, but that's just how it goes. :( Sucks though, I'm sure.

I don't take bonuses for this reason.

I take bonuses, but I trust casinos as far as I can throw them. Anyone who has tried lifting a server will know this isn't far:rolleyes:

I will either play SLOTS, and ONLY slots, or if I fancy a bit of table action, or even Video Poker, I will RECHECK the terms just in case I missed something the first time, or they have slipped something in later (as GNUF have clearly done in November).

Since GNUF want to be so damn PEDANTIC, remember it's "Double Bonus" VP that is excluded, and "Double Double Bonus" VP is ABSOLUTELY FINE to play with a bonus:p:p (as CLEARLY written in their terms:D)

I am now expecting a DECEMBER update to the terms after they read this thread;) Make sure you all read them:rolleyes:

I don't even play TABLE pokers with GNUF boni, let alone VP or Blackjack, so it came as something as a suprise to see that it would have been OK for me to play 3 Card Poker with their 75% bonus. I expect they will realise this omission, and correct it.

Don't forget the 30% rule too! Max bet is 30% of inital bonus credited.
 
The question is whether the max bet rule applies to initial single bet or total bet. For example: with a 100€ bonus, am I allowed to put an 29€ initial bet on a hand of Texas Holdem bonus, where the final bet size is typically 5 times ante = 145€.

Assume it is TOTAL bet, unless CLEARLY told otherwise. You will ALWAYS be betting the full "play bet" on a good hand, so it is a good assumption to make. Blackjack is a little different, in that splits are considered as two separate bets from that point on. Splitting is NOT something that is done as standard when playing Blackjack, so operators that have expressed a view will allow the initial bet on a DEALER hand of Blackjack to be the one that determines violations of this rule. They also make it clear that in multiple hand versions, your single bet is the sum of the bets on all positions played. This closes a loophole where players bet 30% (for example) of the bonus balance per position in the hope that the dealer would bust, and effectively allow the "all on Black" advantage play method in through the back door by the exploitation of this potential loophole.

The ONLY loophole in slots is the "double up" gamble game after a win, and many terms ban this as a means of doubling up a big win from a slot bonus round, or even a decent line win. I usually steer clear of this "double up" game anyway, and especially so with a bonus.

The problem is that players always have to "watch their backs" when playing at any casino, as they will not TELL you that you are walking into a trap, they will let you do it, even WATCH you do it in some cases, and then spring the violations trap when you withdraw. If you "watch your back", you will have checked out the scene before hand, and thus would know where these traps were, and would steer clear of them when playing.

The ONLY casino that has ever confiscated my win was Crystal Palace, and it was from a free chip, and my suggestion as to what Mr Curran could do with it was just as colourful as how he dealt with players who complained about getting screwed over.

Prime Casino tried to find a problem with a £500 withdrawal, but after I made it clear I knew the correct procedure, they decided to quit the fun & games, and paid up within the 14 days suggested by eCogra before a formal complaint could be lodged. I won this £500 on SLOTS, and it was from £35 or so of comps. Having READ THE TERMS, I knew from the outset that "they didn't have a leg to stand on" if they were trying to sniff out a violation. Lucky they didn't try this on the £6000+ I won off them a couple of weeks before. All they achieved was to ensure they would not get the chance to win it back.

GNUF have ensured we all now know they can't proof read:p
 
Assume it is TOTAL bet, unless CLEARLY told otherwise.

The problem is that the T&C should be written clearly enough so that I don't have to ASSUME anything, especially since I don't know at the start of the hand what the final bet size will be.

Blackjack is a little different, in that splits are considered as two separate bets from that point on. Splitting is NOT something that is done as standard when playing Blackjack, so operators that have expressed a view will allow the initial bet on a DEALER hand of Blackjack to be the one that determines violations of this rule.

I hope the operators are consistent with this interpretation. Once I had a hand in MG double exposure BJ (single hand) where I split my hand 3 times and doubled on three of them for a total bet size of 7x initial bet. My initial bet was 20% of bonus and final bet was 140% of bonus, so with your interpretation this should be okay ;)
 
I certainly believe an accredited casino here should have crystal clear terms and it is crystal clear GNUF have not! If they do a December Update they are acknowledging that they were in the wrong and they should pay me.
 
The problem is that the T&C should be written clearly enough so that I don't have to ASSUME anything, especially since I don't know at the start of the hand what the final bet size will be.



I hope the operators are consistent with this interpretation. Once I had a hand in MG double exposure BJ (single hand) where I split my hand 3 times and doubled on three of them for a total bet size of 7x initial bet. My initial bet was 20% of bonus and final bet was 140% of bonus, so with your interpretation this should be okay ;)

Don't put too much faith in "hope".

Operators are NOT consistent in ANYTHING, but SO FAR this does not seem to have been a problem, where splitting and doubling have been ruled a breach of the terms where the initial bet itself was fine.
It would be a dangerous path for operators to follow, as they would have terms that REQUIRE players to deliberately "throw" a game rather than play the better strategy because it risked breaking the rules.
 
heador112:
“…to make it impossible to play a restrictet game with a Bonus…”
I agree, this is junk; “Sorry you played a restricted game now your bonus + deposit is forfeit.” If they give a bonus the software itself should stop the player from playing restricted games.
At least then we won’t hear about cases like OPs.

nisosbar:
“I don't take bonuses for this reason.”
Same here, if I like the casino I wont accept any bonus, because I know eventually it will cause a fight.
 
Practically all casinos have a clause in their general T and C that state they may change the promotion or general T and C's from time to time and it is the players responsibility to check this.

I check T and C's every time I take a bonus and so should everyone- how often in this forum does the read the T and C advice have to be given!

No casino I am aware of notifies its player base of a change in T and C's other than through the website.

Any time you take a bonus there is a click on link to the specific T and C or a note that standard T and C apply.

Sorry to sound harsh but how hard is it to click a link. or check the website.If there is a query on clarity - send an email an check- that way you get your response in writing as backup.

It seems the OP has a big win, DIDN'T check the T and C relying on previous T and C's assumption and is now pissed off and trying to make a case based on prior rules, clarity non notify etc. I would be pissed off too but at myself for not checking the terms in the first place. Harsh lesson but ---

Sorry but unless the player deposited before the Tand C changed can't see that there is a case here.

Cheers
 
I don’t know how you can all so casually just write off this guys winnings. Whatever the case of them chasing a minor technicality on their terms and conditions, the case still stood he won playing a game there and game he had been playing for over the past year.
I agree casinos have terms and conditions to put people off abusing their bonus, but these should not be used as a excuse for when it suits the casino to take players large win.
As stated in this case they let him happily play when he was losing because it suited them.
So they have a win win situation, I am pretty shocked at the comments of some of the people on this forum to casually let him have £10,000 taken
.
I’ve had casinos make up stupid excuses then withhold payment , check my issue with Bingo Las Vegas casino ( stole over $1000), the casino stole alot of peoples money and closed down under the guise of a casino upgrade never to be seen again. Oh that was accredited by Casinomeister too, and the Casinomeister rep never helped with a resolution either.
Don’t let these charlatans walk all over you , anyway who sticks up for thieves like that sounds to me as if he is in their pocket.
Seems you would have a case that they tried to catch you out, you were clearly playing there for a long time, and were caught by a sly of hand especially with regards to that June 4th date not being accurate (in relation to what questa said earlier).
I think trading standards would see their conduct as unfair, why not speak to the license body? If they won’t help take them to court. I’m pretty sure they will side with you but i don’t think GNUF would like the publicity for it to get that far.
I see it clearly that you won, stealing player’s winnings when they win big is just robbery.
 
Usually a bonus says "bonus terms here" or such, with a link, and you usually have to agree.

I'm a big "read the fine print" gal, but I often rely on the revision date to decide if I need to re-read terms.

I think I'd PAB if I was the OP, and stop posting here about the issue.

This is a large sum of money, and there may be other avenues as well, such as ecogra or the courts.
 
In terms of escalating this issue I think the OP would be best advised to take it to eCOGRA. Their process starts here:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Practically all casinos have a clause in their general T and C that state they may change the promotion or general T and C's from time to time and it is the players responsibility to check this.

I check T and C's every time I take a bonus and so should everyone- how often in this forum does the read the T and C advice have to be given!

No casino I am aware of notifies its player base of a change in T and C's other than through the website.

Any time you take a bonus there is a click on link to the specific T and C or a note that standard T and C apply.

Sorry to sound harsh but how hard is it to click a link. or check the website.If there is a query on clarity - send an email an check- that way you get your response in writing as backup.

It seems the OP has a big win, DIDN'T check the T and C relying on previous T and C's assumption and is now pissed off and trying to make a case based on prior rules, clarity non notify etc. I would be pissed off too but at myself for not checking the terms in the first place. Harsh lesson but ---

Sorry but unless the player deposited before the Tand C changed can't see that there is a case here.

Cheers

You seem to have spectacularly missed the point here, the player DID check the terms, the date on them was from June so he assumed, quite correctly that nothing had changed.

Is it really a requirement of bonuses now to read 8 pages of legal documentation each time before depositing anywhere? We all know which sections to skip to in these documents, but if a random sentence is added without clarification then the player shouldn't be expected to keep track of this.

I'm shocked that people are sticking up for the casino in this case, as others have said, why allow play on All Aces at all if they are going to take this route?
 
Actually I haven't spectacularly missed the point=

the player did NOT check the terms at the date she played- hence she was unaware of the change- her deposit was not made in June - she just assumed the same rules would apply as they did previously= go back and READ all the posts and you will see this is admitted - most of the later emails re this case is based on after the fact "but should haves".

If the no aces rule was in place at the time she made the deposit then sorry the fact that it wasn't in place when she last read the rules is irrelevant.

Yes it is a hard lesson but if everyone started reading the T and C EVERY time they took a bonus then there would be a lot less angst. It aint hard- boring maybe and your playing may be delayed by 5-10minutes but as in this case reading those rules could save you a LOT of time and dissapointment.




Cheers'
 
Actually I haven't spectacularly missed the point=

the player did NOT check the terms at the date she played- hence she was unaware of the change- her deposit was not made in June - she just assumed the same rules would apply as they did previously= go back and READ all the posts and you will see this is admitted - most of the later emails re this case is based on after the fact "but should haves".

If the no aces rule was in place at the time she made the deposit then sorry the fact that it wasn't in place when she last read the rules is irrelevant.

Yes it is a hard lesson but if everyone started reading the T and C EVERY time they took a bonus then there would be a lot less angst. It aint hard- boring maybe and your playing may be delayed by 5-10minutes but as in this case reading those rules could save you a LOT of time and dissapointment.




Cheers'

This would soon get through to the CASINOS, because players would be too SCARED to just deposit, and may decide they "can't be arsed" any longer because the process involves reading the entire set of terms EACH TIME, when all they want to do is just get on and have some entertainment. They would end up having to dish out BIGGER bonuses just to make it worth our while doing all that reading every time.

I re-read the bonus rules almost every time I am thinking of straying from the slots, because it is non-slot games that get excluded. I also stay clear of progressive slots because quite a few casinos exclude these too. There is no obvious logic in this, because as far as the player is concerned, it's just a slot, and if anything, the base game pays far less than 95% to take account of progressive contributions. This means it is the PLAYER who makes the contribution through a lowered RTP on the base game, rather than the CASINO sacrificing part of it's 5% edge.

I just checked them AGAIN at 32Red when depositing for their first Christmas Countdown offer. Still the same thankfully, probably because I am in Club Rouge. They may NOT be the same for non-members of Club Rouge, so always worth a check.

When it comes to checking the link each time, this does not always work, because the casino have NOT put anything at the other end of it. Sometimes, clicking the link just takes you to the welcome bonus rules, and we have to ASSUME the current offer has the same rules. Other times, it just opens the homepage. The suggestion in the email is that the link is for SPECIFIC terms for that promotion, which is what we actually NEED to be reading.

Laziness on the part of casinos makes the process of checking the terms much harder than it need be, almost as though they would rather we NOT check them, but fall foul of them - in just the same way that other companies use "small print" in the smallest font they can legally get away with. One company was "outed" recently for hiding important "small print" not at the usual location, right at the bottom of the mage, but in the FOLD down the middle, which you cannot even SEE unless you stretch the magazine out flat, and you would only do this if you thought there was actually something you were supposed to read located there.

The casinos KNOW what they are doing, and are using "consumer psychology" to bend the rules, and manipulate us into giving them our money. It is a "dark art" similar to "black hat SEO", existing in a grey area between legality and rogue/illegal practice. So much so, that companies themselves trip up on UK advertising laws, and have to factor in the fines and costs of when they push the boundary just that little bit too far.

If my local supermarket is doing this, then so must online casinos.

Since us players can't afford to run each offer past an expensive lawyer or consumer psychologist, I don't see why we should give them any leeway when despite all of this, they STILL screw up.

GNUF would be well advised NOT to use the excuse of "we are sorry, but this was down to a subcontracted web designer who failed to properly implement the updated terms on the website"
 
Actually I haven't spectacularly missed the point=

the player did NOT check the terms at the date she played- hence she was unaware of the change- her deposit was not made in June - she just assumed the same rules would apply as they did previously= go back and READ all the posts and you will see this is admitted - most of the later emails re this case is based on after the fact "but should haves".

If the no aces rule was in place at the time she made the deposit then sorry the fact that it wasn't in place when she last read the rules is irrelevant.

Yes it is a hard lesson but if everyone started reading the T and C EVERY time they took a bonus then there would be a lot less angst. It aint hard- boring maybe and your playing may be delayed by 5-10minutes but as in this case reading those rules could save you a LOT of time and dissapointment.
Cheers'
Saying (and screenshoting) the T&Cs before/during or after still holds little weight. I full read and understood the BF T&Cs and that did me no good.

It is irrelevant whether the OP lost £10k or £1, but the principal of an operator hiding behind vague and inconsistent terms.

What do you want the gambling business to be? Honest, open and responsible or sly, evasive and crooked?

Don't forget, next time it could be YOU that loses 10k....
 
Actually I haven't spectacularly missed the point=

BUT you didn't address the point that the actual T&C, which the player was supposed to follow, had two errors in it. The first error was the wrong date and the second error was Clause 13, which says that every single game at the casino counts towards WR and therefore can be played.

Yes, the player is liable to follow the T&C but the casino is equally liable that the T&C is correct and doesn't contain false information. Because both parties made errors here, I would think that paying player half of his winnings would be the fairest resolution in this case.
 
BUT you didn't address the point that the actual T&C, which the player was supposed to follow, had two errors in it. The first error was the wrong date and the second error was Clause 13, which says that every single game at the casino counts towards WR and therefore can be played.

Yes, the player is liable to follow the T&C but the casino is equally liable that the T&C is correct and doesn't contain false information. Because both parties made errors here, I would think that paying player half of his winnings would be the fairest resolution in this case.


MaxD what is your and casinomeister's view on this? The terms and conditions clearly contained false info e.g. the dates issue. As Vinylweatherman suggests shoudn't all accreditated casinos have well written and not ambigious t+c's particularly if they then use it to claw back 10k?

I am happy to follow ecogra route you suggest but wonder what your view on this is? I am sure you have met this problem before and with your experience and knowledge probably have a pretty good answer?
 
I can't speak for Casinomeister but my view (until further notice) is that (a) humans write the Terms and humans are not infallible therefore one cannot expect the Terms to be 100% iron-clad and glitch-free. We all know this and I would assume that saying so is stating the obvious. Saying "the Terms aren't binding unless they are perfect" is playing games, IMO.

And (b) I personally do not consider the date error to be a dark-hearted attempt to dupe anyone of anything. Sloppy yes, but not criminal. In particular since we are talking about the Terms on a bonus I for one would expect the player to not make assumptions based on the date-stamp or anything else and to read those Terms in full. Boring to be sure, but also your responsibility, IMO.

To argue otherwise is basically to say "I assumed that nothing had changed because the date hadn't changed. I was wrong but because of the incorrect date the casino is responsible for my error." I don't support this line of reasoning because I believe that over and above all assumptions and expectations the Terms of the bonus rule and therefore the player is responsible for reading them, regardless of what date appears. IMO the date-stamp is a courtesy, not a contractual element, and therefore neither automatically validates nor invalidates the Terms.

The bottom line is that in accepting the bonus you say "I agree to accept these Terms". If you click and proceed then you're in for the ride as specified in the Terms. If later you say "Ooopsy, didn't read them because _______" -- fill in whatever excuse you like -- then I'd say tough toodles because you said you had and so the error is yours.

Basically if we are going to expect the casinos to live by the Terms they publish -- no retroactive hinky stuff or "we meant them to say this" or vague and groundless terminology like "kamikaze betting" and so forth -- then it's only reasonable to expect the players to read them.

No read = your problem AFAIC, regardless of your excuse.
 
Clause 13 is not relevant to our discussion about the dates, IMO. The dates are where this started AFAIK and unrelated subjects are exactly that, unrelated.
 
I'm surprised by your response Max, you seem to suggest that an accredited casino terms and conditions can have 'human errors'? Sorry to be cheeky but players are human too! Aren't terms legally binding?

Surely a top casino needs to have its terms checked for obvious mistakes? Would 32red ever make mistakes like this?
Also should an accredited casino accept some responsibility for mistakes it makes? It is clear that players can easily be misled by them?

Anyway, time for bed.
 
Accredited casinos are allowed to have terms which say all games are allowed, when in fact they arent and they wil seize your money if you play some games? And to have a date of update that is out by months?

Wow. I shall pay far less attention to the accredited list in future!

I'm far more shocked and saddened that this is now seen as ok behavious in these parts by a casino than by gnuf's dodgy terms tbh :(
 
I'm surprised by your response Max, you seem to suggest that an accredited casino terms and conditions can have 'human errors'? Sorry to be cheeky but players are human too! Aren't terms legally binding?

Surely a top casino needs to have its terms checked for obvious mistakes? Would 32red ever make mistakes like this?
Also should an accredited casino accept some responsibility for mistakes it makes? It is clear that players can easily be misled by them?

Anyway, time for bed.

Yes, obviously.
Not sure, don't think so.
Yes, I'm sure.
Yes, shit happens.
Depends on the "mistake".
Not a question.
Me too.
 
Players are just that, one person playing, one deposit at a time. Casinos are businesses, and have multiple staff and depositors, I think the onus for them NOT to make mistakes is higher than for individual players. Especially in something as vital as T&Cs. This is not an error that existed for one day only.

We are expected to read everything with a fine-tooth comb every time, why can the casino not be expected to read it with a fine-tooth comb at least once.

None of my past employers would have accepted such shoddy work.
 
Clause 13 is not relevant to our discussion about the dates, IMO. The dates are where this started AFAIK and unrelated subjects are exactly that, unrelated.

I don't think that the discussion was ever only about dates. The discussion was about oversights in T&C that might have misled the player to accidentally play a restricted game. Therefore Clause 13 is very related to the discussion, perhaps even more so than the date.

I don't know whether those oversights in T&C actually contributed to player playing a restricted game or not. But I also think that it would be important to send a signal that sloppily written T&C are strictly a no-no for any accredited casino and if it caused them having to pay the player in this case, then they would have an incentive to make damn sure they get it right the next time.
 
This is a very rude, dismissive and unprofessional post, imo.

it's the players who make the industry, and the members who make a forum. A bit of respect and courtesy would not go amiss.

Just my two cents...

I must agree here. And I do not understand at all why T&Cs would be allowed to contain small errors ...?? Surely, they must have been drawn up by lawyers - and carefully proof-read - as any other legally binding document.

I fully agree that the date -June 4- IS misleading. The OP had therefore no reason to assume that all of a sudden All Aces was listed under excluded games. Plus the fact that the Casino Rep gave off the wrong information to the OP by telling him that previous payment or payments was/were made in error, but I think his reply clearly suggests that the Rep just wanted to show what a nice and generous casino GNUF is, while in fact he should have been honest on behalf of the casino.

Anyone still feel like playing at GNUF or Betway?
Tssss.

You must have time and money to do this, but I would present your case to a lawyer and ask him/her if there's any way to get your winnings.
 
Yes, obviously.
Not sure, don't think so.
Yes, I'm sure.
Yes, shit happens.
Depends on the "mistake".
Not a question.
Me too.

This is a very rude, dismissive and unprofessional post, imo.

I must agree here. ...

Sorry it came across that way. It was well past my bed time and I didn't think they were serious questions. I mean, of course a casino's T&Cs may contain imperfect wording. Look at any legal document, even the Constitution of the United States which is arguably one of the most important legal documents on the planet: 220-odd years on and things that were unclear or left out or inappropriately worded are still being amended by those who have come later, seen a problem, do their best to fix things up. That's life. Like I said many posts back, I feel like I'm stating the obvious here.

As to mismatched time-stamping on the T&Cs, I hardly think that means they're "sloppy written" but to each their own I guess. Doesn't change the fact that by accepting the bonus the player declares they've read them, and so they should.
 
Folks need to get used to what online gambling has become.

If you win any amount that the casino feels is a large amount, the cash in goes straight from accounting to security. Security will check to see if any bonus rules have been broken, no matter how obscure. They will search thru all their clauses to see if they can apply something to cancel your winnings. They will insure you played in the spirit of the bonus. If you didn't they will cancel your withdrawal. They will not tell you how they define "spirit of the bonus".

If you did not receive a bonus, you will likely be asked to send in security documents, perhaps multiple times. If you still have not reversed after all this, they will make sure your occupation (if any) is suitable to them. Or if you were a student, or if you sang in the choir, etc. etc. etc. etc.

:mad:
 
...
If you did not receive a bonus, you will likely be asked to send in security documents, perhaps multiple times. If you still have not reversed after all this, they will make sure your occupation (if any) is suitable to them. Or if you were a student, or if you sang in the choir, etc. etc. etc. etc.

:mad:

Damn...they got me sussed! how did they know? I sang in a choir once! But it was many many years ago and seriously i was very young and did not know any better!
 
I can't speak for Casinomeister but my view (until further notice) is that (a) humans write the Terms and humans are not infallible therefore one cannot expect the Terms to be 100% iron-clad and glitch-free. We all know this and I would assume that saying so is stating the obvious. Saying "the Terms aren't binding unless they are perfect" is playing games, IMO.

And (b) I personally do not consider the date error to be a dark-hearted attempt to dupe anyone of anything. Sloppy yes, but not criminal. In particular since we are talking about the Terms on a bonus I for one would expect the player to not make assumptions based on the date-stamp or anything else and to read those Terms in full. Boring to be sure, but also your responsibility, IMO.

To argue otherwise is basically to say "I assumed that nothing had changed because the date hadn't changed. I was wrong but because of the incorrect date the casino is responsible for my error." I don't support this line of reasoning because I believe that over and above all assumptions and expectations the Terms of the bonus rule and therefore the player is responsible for reading them, regardless of what date appears. IMO the date-stamp is a courtesy, not a contractual element, and therefore neither automatically validates nor invalidates the Terms.

The bottom line is that in accepting the bonus you say "I agree to accept these Terms". If you click and proceed then you're in for the ride as specified in the Terms. If later you say "Ooopsy, didn't read them because _______" -- fill in whatever excuse you like -- then I'd say tough toodles because you said you had and so the error is yours.

Basically if we are going to expect the casinos to live by the Terms they publish -- no retroactive hinky stuff or "we meant them to say this" or vague and groundless terminology like "kamikaze betting" and so forth -- then it's only reasonable to expect the players to read them.

No read = your problem AFAIC, regardless of your excuse.

PLAYERS are human too, yet the casino expects US to be infallible.

Casinos make mistakes, yet they often get away with it on the grounds that "humans make mistakes", yet when a PLAYER makes what is clearly a GENUINE MISTAKE as in this case, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ALLOWANCE made.

Relying on a date stamp is clearly a GENUINE ERROR, which was to believe that checking for a new datestamp, and not finding one, meant that no changes had been made, thus no need to look further. Casinos are routinely excused such minor errors, yet players are NOT.

Whilst the casino did not DELIBERATELY attempt to deceive, neither did the PLAYER, who played just as they had always done, which until 3 weeks before was absolutely FINE according to the casino.

Incidents like this only serve to reinforce the belief that the casinos DELIBERATELY set up these "traps" in order to take money when players are losing, yet find ways to avoid paying when players win.

This will end up being "short term gain, long term PAIN" for the industry as a whole.

Any government wanting to argue for a total ban on "consumer protection" grounds is going to use these examples as evidence that the current industry is rogue, and strips players of basic consumer rights. This also gives these governments a "get out clause" when they are challenged as to whether it is REALLY "consumer protection", or merely "protection of internal trade interests" that has driven the move to prohibition.
 
^ Totally agree with above post.

Feel that this player has been treated a bit shabbily by Max D here and from what I've seen so far from GNUF I doubt I'll be playing ther anytime soon, they seem really slimey and appear to have set up their T&Cs to intentionally catch people out. Very dodgy.

MaxD / Casinomeister, two points:

(1) How can you Acredit a casino that has deliberatley misleading T&Cs? At one point they say all games allowed and then later they say they're not! I sincerely doubt that that is the result of simple human error. If it was then surely someone there should have spotted the error by now and ammended it! No, I think it's been left there on purpose to trap players.

(2) The date issue: if a player has managed to trawl through pages of confusing and contradictory T&Cs one month and then goes back to play the next month and on the T&Cs page it shows the same date of change as last time then why should the player be expected to trawl through them all again? If the casino is to be trusted then the player would see the date and not have to trawl through them all again to check if a few words have changed. It is only in the case of a casino that is not to be trusted that you would expect to have to trawl through them all again. This begs the question why is a casino that cannot be trusted accredited?
 
As to mismatched time-stamping on the T&Cs, I hardly think that means they're "sloppy written" but to each their own I guess. Doesn't change the fact that by accepting the bonus the player declares they've read them, and so they should.

The terms clearly stated at THE BEGINNING of the document that they hadnt been altered since June. This is an ACCREDITED CASINO and deemed trustworthy. The player trusted this statement and accepted the terms based on that fact and his since June playing history.

Im sorry if you dont like it Max but I think you need to get with the program here because as far as I can see your sites reputation is on the line here because if we cant trust your accredited list to behave fairly then there really is nowhere left.

This player has been misled and thats without even addressing the term that states all games are allowed.
 
Casinos make mistakes, yet they often get away with it on the grounds that "humans make mistakes", yet when a PLAYER makes what is clearly a GENUINE MISTAKE as in this case, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ALLOWANCE made.

In my experience this is simply not true. PABs are often settled where the casino makes allowances for one player error or another. Often we recommend to casino or player that they see how the other party's perspective on the situation is not what they themselves might see and therefore some slack should be given. As you say there are imperfections on both sides and where reasonable and appropriate we will counsel the given parties accordingly. Flat out statements like yours help no one, not the least because it is untrue.

... Feel that this player has been treated a bit shabbily by Max D here ...

How is that? They asked [strike]my opinion, I gave it[/strike] a question, I gave an option. They [strike]asked it again[/strike] later directly asked my opinion, I gave it. The question of escalating the issue came up, I directed them to eCOGRA which is where their complaint should be taken. And so forth. "Shabbily"? Not by half.

... Im sorry if you dont like it Max but I think you need to get with the program here because as far as I can see your sites reputation is on the line here because if we cant trust your accredited list to behave fairly then there really is nowhere left.

It's not a matter of me "not liking" it because beyond giving an opinion when I was asked to, and being assailed and insulted by you and a few others, I'm not really involved in this issue. I was asked for an opinion and I gave it. I'll try to remember not to make that mistake next time.

As to your opinion that I "get with the program here" I remind you once again, I was specifically asked to contribute an opinion which I did. As far as I know that was the program. If there is something in that that I've missed please feel free to point it out. That would be a perfect opportunity for you to try making your point with a little more tact and respect.

And FYI the site belongs to Bryan, not me. If he thinks my contributions here are damaging the site's reputation then I have every confidence that he'll let me know about it, as he should.
 
Last edited:
If you read through all the posts made by the OP carefully the date stamp comment is a straw to hang on brought up only after another poster mentioned what they thought was the date change. TO this point there was no mention of dates- only the vague I am sure it was-- etc

There was clearly no rechecking or rereading at all of the bonus terms prior to this point merely a reliance on I played before and it was OK. The date stamp issue was leapt on after numerous other whys and why nots and claims of unfairness.

It is clear that only at this point did the OP did read the terms.

Frankly I feel sorrry for the OP 10K is a motza in anyones language but blaming everyone else and not taking any responsibility for her own failure to read the terms when she deposited isn't helping her case or her future playing. Yes I would probably try and grasp every straw and loophole as well for that much money but its not going to work.

Players - including me- have to take responsibility. Live and learn and move on.

I would also suggest next time (and I hope you never have a next time) you try a different approach.

Approach the casino quietly as soon as you realised you made a mistake or have it pointed out to you - admit you made an error but explain why and ask what can be done - some casinos if you are upfront or offer it will wipe your winnings and allow you start again with the bonus to play correct games - particularly if you have been playing there a while. Their certainly not going to do it if you are aggressive, spam complaints at them, don;t be upfront and blame the casino for not telling you what is written in black and white and you agreed to read.

Cheers
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top