If my son said this I would tell him to grow up. You have not been insulted, you have been criticised for posting a dismissive response. Ive seen you behave like this before when people disagree with you Max. This is a serious complaint regarding the terms of a recommended casino.
Resolved More problems with GNUf- taken back a 10k win
- Thread starter steffigraff77
- Start date
If my son said this I would tell him to grow up. You have not been insulted, you have been criticised for posting a dismissive response. Ive seen you behave like this before when people disagree with you Max. This is a serious complaint regarding the terms of a recommended casino.
The casino stated no one needed to read the terms who had read them on or after June 4th by stating that they had not been changed since that date.
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Location
- London
Still waiting for a betway/gnuf response?
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
Where, exactly? Please quote the "dismissive response".
As to the rest, whatever. You're trying to be belligerent and you're succeeding.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
- Location
- earth
Rubbish- it in no way states that- you are reading into it what you want to read to support a case. Also totally irrelevant as the OP didnt know about the date stamp as she didn't read the terms at all to see there was a date stamp until it was pointed out to her by another poster.
Read means read, interpret think- not skim over for the bit that suits
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
OK. Let's just take a deep breath for a moment and look at the facts.
Fact#1 You agreed to the terms and conditions when you created your account, and they are as follows:
Fact#2 You agreed that the casino can change the terms at any time, and it is up to YOU to check them. Here it is:
Fact#3 You breached the terms of the bonus by playing All Aces Poker. Yes, Term 13 does seem to conflict with Term 14 - in this case, anyone with half a brain would contact the casino and confirm which one is correct. If you weren't prepared to do that, then you should have at least gone for the worst case scenario where some games were excluded. However, this is irrelevant because you did not read the terms to begin with.
Fact#4 You failed to read the terms of the bonus. Some posters have brought up the whole 4th June/4th November thing, but it is also irrelevant as you didn't even look at that page so you wouldn't have seen it anyway. It wouldn't matter in your case if it said 25th December 2001 - it would matter to someone who took the 2 minutes to read the terms (it took me that long), but you didn't bother.
Also, it is possible that 04/11/10 is 11th April 2010 and not 4th November 2010. Again, it only matters now as we all check out the page after the fact.
Fact#5 The casino does not have to personally inform you of bonus changes, and it isn't an excuse for not being familiar with them. If it is good enough for the vast majority of members here to read the terms before they accept a bonus, then it is good enough for you too.
You can tell the ones who generally don't - they have a nice collection of "PAB" icons in their profile (usually crossed out).
It also seems these members are the first to chime and sh*tcan a casino when a player breached the terms and loses his winnings.
Fact#6 The casino could have handled this better. The OP should not have been left guessing why he wasn't paid - it should have been explained to him via email. Personally I would be pissed if I wasn't at least notified.
The conflicting dates is also sloppy webmastering, but at the end of the day the OP deposited well after both of those dates so the point is moot. If they had deposited in September it might have been a different story.
IMO this whole issue would have been avoided if the OP had done what he agreed to do when he signed up - check the terms of any promotion you participate in. Hence, he should take full responsibility for his error and take it on the chin.
The casino, on the other hand, needs to be a bit sharper with their website and improve the professionalism of their service.
Fact#1 You agreed to the terms and conditions when you created your account, and they are as follows:
Fact#2 You agreed that the casino can change the terms at any time, and it is up to YOU to check them. Here it is:
Fact#3 You breached the terms of the bonus by playing All Aces Poker. Yes, Term 13 does seem to conflict with Term 14 - in this case, anyone with half a brain would contact the casino and confirm which one is correct. If you weren't prepared to do that, then you should have at least gone for the worst case scenario where some games were excluded. However, this is irrelevant because you did not read the terms to begin with.
Fact#4 You failed to read the terms of the bonus. Some posters have brought up the whole 4th June/4th November thing, but it is also irrelevant as you didn't even look at that page so you wouldn't have seen it anyway. It wouldn't matter in your case if it said 25th December 2001 - it would matter to someone who took the 2 minutes to read the terms (it took me that long), but you didn't bother.
Also, it is possible that 04/11/10 is 11th April 2010 and not 4th November 2010. Again, it only matters now as we all check out the page after the fact.
Fact#5 The casino does not have to personally inform you of bonus changes, and it isn't an excuse for not being familiar with them. If it is good enough for the vast majority of members here to read the terms before they accept a bonus, then it is good enough for you too.
You can tell the ones who generally don't - they have a nice collection of "PAB" icons in their profile (usually crossed out).
It also seems these members are the first to chime and sh*tcan a casino when a player breached the terms and loses his winnings.
Fact#6 The casino could have handled this better. The OP should not have been left guessing why he wasn't paid - it should have been explained to him via email. Personally I would be pissed if I wasn't at least notified.
The conflicting dates is also sloppy webmastering, but at the end of the day the OP deposited well after both of those dates so the point is moot. If they had deposited in September it might have been a different story.
IMO this whole issue would have been avoided if the OP had done what he agreed to do when he signed up - check the terms of any promotion you participate in. Hence, he should take full responsibility for his error and take it on the chin.
The casino, on the other hand, needs to be a bit sharper with their website and improve the professionalism of their service.
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Location
- London
Look.. I did look at the terms and conditions.
This is why i assumed that my way of playing wouldn't cause any problems. The date at the top didn't change so i figured that I was within my rights to assume that the way i have been playing for the last few months would not cause any problems.
Ok so maybe i didn't make that clear in my first few posts here. But the reality was i was all over the place. Infact I had to chase to find out what happened to my balance!!!
Look the main thing is that the terms do say ALL GAMES COUNT. So what did i do wrong? except win? I followed the terms!!!!!
This is why i assumed that my way of playing wouldn't cause any problems. The date at the top didn't change so i figured that I was within my rights to assume that the way i have been playing for the last few months would not cause any problems.
Ok so maybe i didn't make that clear in my first few posts here. But the reality was i was all over the place. Infact I had to chase to find out what happened to my balance!!!
Look the main thing is that the terms do say ALL GAMES COUNT. So what did i do wrong? except win? I followed the terms!!!!!
sambaEah
Banned User - multiple forum accounts - PAB fraud
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Location
- North East England
I still find it bad that they've allowed some of your previous withdrawals through when playing on this game, but as soon as you've dared to win big they've stopped it.
Incorrect terms aside, they either follow them or they don't, otherwise why have terms at all?
Incorrect terms aside, they either follow them or they don't, otherwise why have terms at all?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
- Location
- earth
SambaEah
They paid previously because at THAT time All Aces wasn't an excluded game not because of the smaller win size.
At the time this deposit and bonus was taken the terms had been changed and all Aces was an excluded game- hence the big winnings were void as stated in the terms.
The casino has in fact followed the terms.
Cheers
Colly
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Location
- London
TOTALLY WRONG I got paid because they made a mistake and have continued to make mistakes on my small withdrawals.- I have that in a pm from the Betway rep. He also says when an excluded game doesn't impact too much they don't worry.
Would you like to see the PM again?
Moreover, I am sure the REP said this because he looked at the terms ( probably just the date like i did) and assumed that the previosu withdrawals were in error since the terms had changed back in JUne! Even the manager is confused by his own terms!
I will repeat, the terms are contradictory. It allows ALL GAMES in clause 13. I followed these terms.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
It also needs to LOOK like this is happening. I am convinced that there has been a significant shift recently to casinos taking a far harder line, even where common sense says it's genuine error, rather than an attempt to get away with something.
It is hard enough to convince players to read the terms ONCE, and it is completely unrealistic to expect them to read the ENTIRE DOCUMENT each and every time they deposit.
GNUF have supplied a tool to assist players, which is to date stamp the most recent change right at the very top of the terms page. Players CAN realistically click through to view this date on each deposit, just to see whether a change has been made.
It was the CASINO'S error that caused them to update the terms, but not the datestamp. This is CLEARLY a case where some "slack" should be cut, and it should be the CASINO making apologies for their slopiness, and promising players that more care will be taken in future.
They should move to an automated date stamping system that will create the new date each time the page is edited. No-one would then have to remember to change it when altering other content.
It's a minor error by the casino, but it has created a MASSIVE problem for a player who was stupid enough to TRUST them, rather than consider them "the enemy, out to screw you at every opportunity".
Players who have no trust left in the industry are the ones more likely to spot these traps, rather than fall into them.
It seems the industry LIKES it that way, and wants pedantic players who would NEVER trust the word of an agent, not even a VIP one, and ALWAYS demand everything "in writing", and who would NOT take an offer without spending a fair bit of time going through every aspect of it looking for potential pitfalls.
I only play slots with bonuses now because I have lost confidence that other games played with a bonus could lead to the springing of a trap I had missed. I tend to play the other games when depositing WITHOUT a bonus, and take the attitude that playing without bonuses can lead to BETTER offers coming along for my slots play.
My favourite non slot games are Video Poker and 3 card poker. I could have fallen into GNUF's snare had I played VP with a bonus, although it seems 3 card poker is OK, at least FOR NOW - but I would never take this on TRUST.
When I read tales like this from other players, it makes me more cautious about the casino concerned, sometimes to the point of making me quit playing there, which is what I did after a rash of incidents concerning Purple Lounge, and the fact that this was all happening after new owners took over.
I don't trust Prime casino either, and I am VERY wary of the Palace Group after my minor problem with Prime considerably affected my status at Palace Group - I was dropped from the VIP program like the proverbial "hot potato", which hardly inspires confidence.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Hi all,
In the future, if you'd like me (or any moderator for that matter) to take immediate action on something, please use the "report a post" function and I'll get to it as quick as I possibly can. So far, eleven pages is quite a bit to digest, and I'd like to see this issue taken care of promptly. I can't assist if I don't know about it.
Before delving into the details - just a few comments :
Before slinging mud around the schoolyard, please check your facts first. Thank you.
(my bolding)
@Steffigraf77
To begin with, that is an awesome screenshot.
But I feel your pain as I too would have been gutted to find out that the casino negated these winnings since you broke the terms and conditions. What is truly unfortunate is that this is a term that you supposedly agreed to. How could you have overlooked this?
I'm in touch with Betway/Gnuf on this in case you were wondering.
In the future, if you'd like me (or any moderator for that matter) to take immediate action on something, please use the "report a post" function and I'll get to it as quick as I possibly can. So far, eleven pages is quite a bit to digest, and I'd like to see this issue taken care of promptly. I can't assist if I don't know about it.
Before delving into the details - just a few comments :
Since when was a "Bingo Las Vegas Casino" an Accredited Casino?
Before slinging mud around the schoolyard, please check your facts first. Thank you.(my bolding)
If you value your membership, keep your flaming comments to yourself. Casino reps are members here and deserve the same respect as anyone else. Do it again and see what happens.
You are jumping to conclusions - did the player actually state from the beginning that he/she only read a time stamp and went on to play the games? It clearly states that this game is excluded. If you are trying to assist in this matter, please don't make assumptions.
At this point, it is a case of the player not reading the terms and conditions. But you find this as an opportunity to take another swipe. Thanks for your insightful contribution to this forum - notAccredited 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
@Steffigraf77
To begin with, that is an awesome screenshot.
But I feel your pain as I too would have been gutted to find out that the casino negated these winnings since you broke the terms and conditions. What is truly unfortunate is that this is a term that you supposedly agreed to. How could you have overlooked this?I'm in touch with Betway/Gnuf on this in case you were wondering.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Location
- UK
It would be nice if the casino and player both maybe accepted some responsibility - as is the case - and agreed to split the difference, i.e. accept half the winnings, the casino keeping the other half. That would create some good faith all round, especialyl at this festive time. 
Otherwise what we are saying is that casinos can make mistakes and not lose out, but players cant ie the player is always wrong.
Otherwise what we are saying is that casinos can make mistakes and not lose out, but players cant ie the player is always wrong.
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Location
- London
Thanks for your post VM. I imagine you are a fairly regular player and i am pretty sure other players including me will be thinking the same.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
The PM you posted here from the Rep said:
The pertinent word here is could - the Rep did not say that you were previously paid in error.
Looks like the terms weren't the only thing you didn't read.
BTW, looking at a date stamp is not the same as reading the terms. Interesting how firstly you said that you just played with the bonus as you have in the past under the assumption that nothing had changed, and only now do you say "Oh yeah, I actually did look at the terms page but only at the date stamp". Very convenient
Well if incidents like this don't convince players to read the terms of bonuses they take, then I don't know what will.
Of course they cannot be expected to read the entire document, but it is realistic, highly recommended, and required that they read the terms relating to the promotion they want to take part in. As I said earlier, it takes 2 minutes - 2 minutes to possibly prevent seeing $10k go down the toilet.
If I can do it, and just about everyone I know can do it, then so can the OP.
I never get caught out with breaching bonus terms because I always read them.
If the OP had played between the disputed dates, then this 'sloppiness' would be relevent. Since they played after November 4th, it has nothing to do with their situation at all, as they are and were the terms in affect at the time of the deposit.
If one term contradicts another, then seek clarification.
Common sense dictates that if certain games are listed as excluded at any point, you should assume that they are excluded in the absence of any abovementioned clarification.
Again, none of this applies to you anyway because you didnt read the terms. I.E. you can't ask for clarification of a term if you don't know it is there, so whether there are contradictions or not is immaterial because you didnt know about them at the time.
You failed to check the bonus terms before you played and you lost 10k as a result.
It isn't rocket science.
P.S.
I will say one thing though.....given how much you deposit and the stakes you play, it may well have been better for the casino to pay you this time and warn you about the terms for next time. It doesn't make commercial sense to deny winnings to a player who could easily play it back in a short period of time. If I were the casino, I would have taken the longer term view - however, this doesn't change the fact that the casino is right in confiscating you winnings based on breach of terms.
The pertinent word here is could - the Rep did not say that you were previously paid in error.
Looks like the terms weren't the only thing you didn't read.
BTW, looking at a date stamp is not the same as reading the terms. Interesting how firstly you said that you just played with the bonus as you have in the past under the assumption that nothing had changed, and only now do you say "Oh yeah, I actually did look at the terms page but only at the date stamp". Very convenient
Well if incidents like this don't convince players to read the terms of bonuses they take, then I don't know what will.
Of course they cannot be expected to read the entire document, but it is realistic, highly recommended, and required that they read the terms relating to the promotion they want to take part in. As I said earlier, it takes 2 minutes - 2 minutes to possibly prevent seeing $10k go down the toilet.
If I can do it, and just about everyone I know can do it, then so can the OP.
I never get caught out with breaching bonus terms because I always read them.
If the OP had played between the disputed dates, then this 'sloppiness' would be relevent. Since they played after November 4th, it has nothing to do with their situation at all, as they are and were the terms in affect at the time of the deposit.
If one term contradicts another, then seek clarification.
Common sense dictates that if certain games are listed as excluded at any point, you should assume that they are excluded in the absence of any abovementioned clarification.
Again, none of this applies to you anyway because you didnt read the terms. I.E. you can't ask for clarification of a term if you don't know it is there, so whether there are contradictions or not is immaterial because you didnt know about them at the time.
You failed to check the bonus terms before you played and you lost 10k as a result.
It isn't rocket science.
P.S.
I will say one thing though.....given how much you deposit and the stakes you play, it may well have been better for the casino to pay you this time and warn you about the terms for next time. It doesn't make commercial sense to deny winnings to a player who could easily play it back in a short period of time. If I were the casino, I would have taken the longer term view - however, this doesn't change the fact that the casino is right in confiscating you winnings based on breach of terms.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
- Location
- earth
In that case my apologies but the point I am making is that the casino voided the winnings because of a breach of terms not just because you had a big win.
Nifty pointed out pretty clearly in his post that the terms at 14 also say all aces is excluded and the clause about voided winnings if playing excluded games. You can't just ignore clause 14 and take up the all games count clause. You have to read the terms separately and as a whole.
As i said I am sorry for you - that much of a win being voided would have me in a state of insomnia and anger for days- and I would be kicking myself for not reading the terms as well as trying to convince myself the casino was unfair- it might seem unfair to you but they are within their rights.
I know its not what you want to hear but I just don't think you are going to win on this one.
If you haven't done too much damage by your style of posting or emails to the casino already I can only suggest you try the approach I suggested you should have made to the casino in the first place or take it up to E cogra. I don't think you would get a different answer from Ecogra and it will probably prolong your anger but that is an avenue you can follow.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Location
- Here
Question for the OP...
You previously had problems with this casino: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/enuf-about-gnuf.39550/
Why would you go back and play there again?
And why do you ASSUME that you don't need to read T&Cs even with a datestamp which hadn't changed? More and more threads are appearing where the OP HASN'T/ or even bothered to read ALL of the T&Cs. Nor do they feel they need to ask questions to the CSR when something is "hinky".
Most of the casino T&Cs I've read lately STATE they make changes (additions/deletions) without notice and it is the players RESPONSIBILITY to make sure they check frequently and UNDERSTAND everything BEFORE they apply a bonus. Yes, it's a royal pain in the ass, but better safe than sorry.
I'm sincerely sorry you have lost your winnings. But, you may have handled this situation better and received help from Max/Bryan via the PAB system (not sure this will apply now since you've continued posting). At least Bryan is looking into this, keep cool and let Bryan try to help you. Posting anything more could be detrimental to your cause...
You previously had problems with this casino: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/enuf-about-gnuf.39550/
Why would you go back and play there again?
And why do you ASSUME that you don't need to read T&Cs even with a datestamp which hadn't changed? More and more threads are appearing where the OP HASN'T/ or even bothered to read ALL of the T&Cs. Nor do they feel they need to ask questions to the CSR when something is "hinky".
Most of the casino T&Cs I've read lately STATE they make changes (additions/deletions) without notice and it is the players RESPONSIBILITY to make sure they check frequently and UNDERSTAND everything BEFORE they apply a bonus. Yes, it's a royal pain in the ass, but better safe than sorry.
I'm sincerely sorry you have lost your winnings. But, you may have handled this situation better and received help from Max/Bryan via the PAB system (not sure this will apply now since you've continued posting). At least Bryan is looking into this, keep cool and let Bryan try to help you. Posting anything more could be detrimental to your cause...
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Location
- UK
Sure the OP made a mistake, but the question I find my self asking, is whether the response is REASONABLE.
"Sure, you breached a term, even though the terms also said all games were ok, and even though the terms said they had not changed since you last played, and even though we cashed you out when you played the same way, and even though you play often and have lost a lot, but still we are responding by taking ALL your winnings."
It's like having the death penalty for all crimes, including littering or speeding tickets (maybe a good idea!).
You make the slightest msitake, your win is gone. I'm surprised there is no sympathy for the OP at all, for a little leeway to be shown.
i think splitting the win with the casino would be a nice fair resolution given both sides made mistakes. But then i'm an optimistic fellow
"Sure, you breached a term, even though the terms also said all games were ok, and even though the terms said they had not changed since you last played, and even though we cashed you out when you played the same way, and even though you play often and have lost a lot, but still we are responding by taking ALL your winnings."
It's like having the death penalty for all crimes, including littering or speeding tickets (maybe a good idea!).
You make the slightest msitake, your win is gone. I'm surprised there is no sympathy for the OP at all, for a little leeway to be shown.
i think splitting the win with the casino would be a nice fair resolution given both sides made mistakes. But then i'm an optimistic fellow
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Location
- Finland
IMO the issue here is not that the player failed to read the T&C. Obviously he didn't and is at fault. The issue is whether an accredited casino is allowed to have mistakes in their T&C such as "every game is allowed to be played" when that wasn't clearly the case. So I would hold some liability for the casino as well, regardless of the mistakes the player did.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Location
- Poole
As the OP has played there before, read the terms and cashed out with AA play successfully, obviously he has NO NEED to check all the terms when it says quite clearly at the very top they haven't changed for 6 months.
Not sure what the courts are like in Malta, but if this was in the UK and you took them to court, i'd be 90% certain that you would win. The judge would laugh at their inaccurate terms. I know this as I have been in a similar situation before, and won.
Not sure what the courts are like in Malta, but if this was in the UK and you took them to court, i'd be 90% certain that you would win. The judge would laugh at their inaccurate terms. I know this as I have been in a similar situation before, and won.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
The constitution does not fall within the category of currently binding legal documents. Ask any lawyer: T&Cs and all other legal documents must be water-tight, or problems will arise. And we are talking about money here, so the stakes can be high.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
Right! Casinos must provide clear and clearly updated T&Cs, just like any other company.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Location
- somewhere on the planet
Why is it that the most obnoxious and offensive members always jump into the fray? Usually newer members with a lot of PABs on their stats or older members that never post. The lack of respect for Casinomeister forum members, Bryan and Max themselves alarms me. It screams of a loss of civility on the forum. A little more thought before posting might make a few posters look smart rather than like assholes (oops).
It seems no one wants to take responsibility for their actions. It is always the casino's fault, even when there is proof the player screwed up.
I guess it is something in the air making folks crazy, you think?
It seems no one wants to take responsibility for their actions. It is always the casino's fault, even when there is proof the player screwed up.
I guess it is something in the air making folks crazy, you think?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
- Location
- earth
Perhaps all should go back and read the link provided by Kesch in her post showing the OP's prior actions.
The OP's prior post re GNUF shows that she did have an issue previously playing VP on a bonus (another reinforcement of tems knowledge) then used the forum to accuse GNUF of being theives and stealing. GNUF paid her as a goodwill gesture in that case and now playing VP again and blaming GNUF and everyone but herself. Perhaps hoping GNUF would excercise goodwill again as it did last time accusations were made
Reading her prior issue was the clincher for me- absolutely no excuse for not knowing the terms. This is not some poor innocent or newbie caught out by a hidden term which she would have had no idea was there. This is someone who has played before, had an issue before and either assumed they would get a free pass again if they blasted the casino or was still too can't be bothered to do her homework.
Any sympathy I had is now in very short supply.
Cheers
Colly
The OP's prior post re GNUF shows that she did have an issue previously playing VP on a bonus (another reinforcement of tems knowledge) then used the forum to accuse GNUF of being theives and stealing. GNUF paid her as a goodwill gesture in that case and now playing VP again and blaming GNUF and everyone but herself. Perhaps hoping GNUF would excercise goodwill again as it did last time accusations were made
Reading her prior issue was the clincher for me- absolutely no excuse for not knowing the terms. This is not some poor innocent or newbie caught out by a hidden term which she would have had no idea was there. This is someone who has played before, had an issue before and either assumed they would get a free pass again if they blasted the casino or was still too can't be bothered to do her homework.
Any sympathy I had is now in very short supply.
Cheers
Colly
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Location
- Poole
Wrong.
The OP was well within the terms before, All Aces being restricted was only a recent thing.
GNUF lied to/misinformed the OP saying they got away with it before when in fact they didn't, it was allowed.
The OP was well within the terms before, All Aces being restricted was only a recent thing.
GNUF lied to/misinformed the OP saying they got away with it before when in fact they didn't, it was allowed.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Admin Note: Moved posts
Moved the William Hill bonus issue to here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/william-hill-bonus-terms-issue.41666/
Moved the William Hill bonus issue to here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/william-hill-bonus-terms-issue.41666/
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Location
- England
I only posted about WH in this threat to highlight that casinos have conflicting terms all of the time, which I felt was relivant to the threat.
I did not wish to raise an issue about WH whatsoever.
The point I wanted to make is that becasue the terms were contradictory and following the aguments of many on this thread, that if they failed to payout, it would be my fault and not the casino for screwing up.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Location
- UK
Perhaps all should go back and read the link provided by Kesch in her post showing the OP's prior actions.
The OP's prior post re GNUF shows that she did have an issue previously playing VP on a bonus (another reinforcement of tems knowledge) then used the forum to accuse GNUF of being theives and stealing. GNUF paid her as a goodwill gesture in that case and now playing VP again and blaming GNUF and everyone but herself. Perhaps hoping GNUF would excercise goodwill again as it did last time accusations were made
Reading her prior issue was the clincher for me- absolutely no excuse for not knowing the terms. This is not some poor innocent or newbie caught out by a hidden term which she would have had no idea was there. This is someone who has played before, had an issue before and either assumed they would get a free pass again if they blasted the casino or was still too can't be bothered to do her homework.
Any sympathy I had is now in very short supply.
Cheers
Colly
What are you talking about? That was a case where the casino told him he coudl cash out, then when he did they tried to seize his winnings as in fact they gave him the wrong information. Of course, they had to relent when it was exposed on here.
This is a totally different matter - the casino has told the player the terms have not changed since he last was paid, and that all games are allowed, when both these statements are false and have been used to deny the winnings.
Pretty clear to me that whilst the player arguably should still ahve read the entire document of terms again despite being told it was the smae as last time, the casino made mistakes with its false information and appalingly confused terms and should accept some responsibility rather than just seizing his win.
Its very annoying for the OP to lose 10K this way but he made a expensive mistake .
The player have to read the terms and conditions before he claimed the bonus . He havent done that .
If there is anything unclear than you have to call support for clarification and not just start playing .
The terms clearly statet that All Aces can void the winnings . It doesnt matter if Gnuf have not removed the term with all games are allowed.
It is a industry standard that casinos have terms like all games are allowed and a few lines later you find another terms that exclude certain low house edge games like All aces .
The terms all games are allowed often refers to all "game categories" are allowed . There are exclusions and you have to search at the terms for them .
I am sure the OP had never played All Aces if he had read the terms .
Even if GNUF paid him before when he violatet the terms (its not 100% sure) you cant blame them for that . It was probaly a good will gesture .
I would say Gnuf have to pay when they had changed the terms after the OP claimed the bonus but in this case the terms excluded all aces at the game weighting before the OP claimed his bonus .
I dont see that Gnuf did anything wrong .
The player have to read the terms and conditions before he claimed the bonus . He havent done that .
If there is anything unclear than you have to call support for clarification and not just start playing .
The terms clearly statet that All Aces can void the winnings . It doesnt matter if Gnuf have not removed the term with all games are allowed.
It is a industry standard that casinos have terms like all games are allowed and a few lines later you find another terms that exclude certain low house edge games like All aces .
The terms all games are allowed often refers to all "game categories" are allowed . There are exclusions and you have to search at the terms for them .
I am sure the OP had never played All Aces if he had read the terms .
Even if GNUF paid him before when he violatet the terms (its not 100% sure) you cant blame them for that . It was probaly a good will gesture .
I would say Gnuf have to pay when they had changed the terms after the OP claimed the bonus but in this case the terms excluded all aces at the game weighting before the OP claimed his bonus .
I dont see that Gnuf did anything wrong .
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
As an accomplished "advantage player" I would expect you to be reading all the terms and conditions, yet you have STILL been screwed because although you stayed within the terms, the casino STILL didn't want to pay, so started making up unwritten rules, pulling "spirit of" arguments, etc.
This shows that even reading the terms and staying within them is no real protection, if the casino doesn't want to pay, it won't - and you have a fight on your hands, which is essentially bullying the casino into adhering to it's own terms.
In the OP's case, maybe the previous issue DID have some bearing on the current one, and if it had not happened, GNUF may have been a little more flexible.
In general, casinos need to get away from this confiscation of winnings lark. 32Red have managed it, they use an alternative sanction, which is to subject the proceeds of bets that stray from the bonus rules to a 100x further WR before they can be withdrawn. 100x WR is more or less a confiscation, BUT one that at least gives the player a chance, and HOURS of "entertainment" in trying to make the 100x.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
- Location
- earth
Just a few points on what is becoming a tedious and slightly ill-mannered thread
Not :"whilst the player arguabley"- a condition they clearly agreed to on sign up
"Told the same as last time"-At no stage told the same as last time - no query raised before playing and terms not checked for comparison
"Mistakes with false information"
Only mistake was a date stamp which the OP didn't know about till it was pointed out later
"Appalling confusing terms" - many of us are not confused by the terms but irrelavant as they weren't read at the time.
"Casino should accept some responsibility" = the OP has taken NO responsibility whatsoever and should be the one taking responsibility.
My prior post if it isn't selectively read is in regard to the fact that this player has had issues before but still doesn't read the terms, Has been let off before but still doesn't think the terms apply. Has been playing long enough and hard enough to know better and still won't take responsibility and blames the casino.Expects the casino to give her the beneift of the doubt but publicly claims theft and stealing. Being polite and trying to resolve an issue quietly and with tact first is always a better approach not to mention that old fashioned thing called good manners.
I have been playing 10 years online to date never not been paid, never had a bonus issue and never had to launch a PAB- I also read the terms and conditions before playing, choose my casinos carefully and query terms in writing if there is something confusing before I claim a bonus. I am either extremely lucky or perhaps I am doing things the right way
Sorry if it offends you but thats my take. A very harsh lesson for the player but maybe one she and everybody else should take note of and act on (meaning READ THE TERMS BEFORE PLAYING) rather than trying to put all the blame on the casino after the fact.
Cheers
Colly
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
*SIGH*
The OP did not read the terms of the bonus they were taking.
Datestamps, term 13, what the rep said could have happened, what the terms were last time they played, whether they were paid before, whether chickens have lips - ALL IRRELEVANT.
Why?
The OP did not read the terms of the bonus they were taking.
It constantly amazes me how the same people always jump in and insist that the player has done nothing wrong and should be paid - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
The OP did not read the terms of the bonus they were taking.
Datestamps, term 13, what the rep said could have happened, what the terms were last time they played, whether they were paid before, whether chickens have lips - ALL IRRELEVANT.
Why?
The OP did not read the terms of the bonus they were taking.
It constantly amazes me how the same people always jump in and insist that the player has done nothing wrong and should be paid - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Location
- Here
*SIGH*
The OP did not read the terms of the bonus they were taking.
Datestamps, term 13, what the rep said could have happened, what the terms were last time they played, whether they were paid before, whether chickens have lips - ALL IRRELEVANT.
Why?
The OP did not read the terms of the bonus they were taking.
It constantly amazes me how the same people always jump in and insist that the player has done nothing wrong and should be paid - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
It's called "denial", they don't want to have to be the responsible ones. Today's society has made it easy for many to foist off the blame onto someone else. I will state it AGAIN! (this is getting old and tiresome *sigh*)
1) When you click that little box, "I agree to the terms and conditions" BEFORE you download the casino, you are electronically signing a contract. Most of the T&Cs will state "you are RESPONSIBLE for rechecking T&Cs frequently to insure no changes in T&Cs have occurred. The casino reserves the right to change/edit/delete any T&C WITHOUT notice".
2)We only have the OPs' side of the story and as MOST know there is ALWAYS two sides to every story. Perhaps this is another "con" job to get empathy from this community, and from the looks of it, the OP has alot of empathy/sympathy from the newbies (who, I feel are showing a complete lack of RESPECT from "older" members of this forum).
And finally, YES, IT'S A F*CKING PAIN IN THE ASS TO KEEP READING T&CS! BUT, perhaps the OP wouldn't have lost their winnings if they had simply taken the time and RESPONSIBILITY to recheck the T&Cs to make sure they hadn't changed. You do know what an assumption is? (Assume - makes an ASS out of U and ME). And why continue playing at a casino who you had problems with before (again only one side of the story was heard here too)? And why would you ASSUME that when one term states one thing and then the next term supercedes that one, that the casino will ALLOW you to only abide by the term YOU want to apply?
I agree with some, casinos with sloppy T&Cs need to be called on the mat. And as Max stated somewhere at some point on this site (too lazy to go looking for it, sorry!), there seems to be an influx of hit-n-run one hit wonders where PABs and generalized bitching and moaning sessions are occuring.
Tis the season to be jolly...
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Location
- London
I wasn't going to say anymore but Colly in particular seems to have it in for me:
Just to clarify Colly, my previous issue with Gnuf was not to do with videopoker. I simply did an early withdrawal and was allowed to. They cancelled it with no email to me. No explanation.My email was ignored.
I used CM to complain , a resolution was reached and i gained trust in the casino once more. I understood CM to be about complaint resolution. They did this very well and this is why i support everything CM stands for.
Here is another issue, sure mistakes were made but on both sides. I did a rush job on the terms and conditions and they did a rush job on the terms too. The fact is 10k was taken away from me and I was left to chase to find out what had happened again. Had it been only 1k , would I have been paid like previous times? Thats what caused me to rethink and post here. I did notice the June date and assumed all was fine. I will take some responsibility but i think the casino needs to also. As a result of this thread will they change their terms to make them more clear and transparent? And other accreditated casinos will also ensure crystal clear terms too?
I really don't understand why you have it in for me. Not everyone can be perfect like you and in ten years of playing you have not had a simple issue. Well done for that. But we can't all be perfect all the time. And one day you might need advice perhaps not to do with casinos but maybe some other aspect of your life and you would hope there would be some support for you somewhere.
I trusted the casino after the last little issue and would continue to play here if this got resolved. What amazes me is that there is a total confiscation of winnings not further wagering requirements or some other solution but the whole 10k vanishes. Funny thing is they would get most of that 10k+ back eventually.
Just to clarify Colly, my previous issue with Gnuf was not to do with videopoker. I simply did an early withdrawal and was allowed to. They cancelled it with no email to me. No explanation.My email was ignored.
I used CM to complain , a resolution was reached and i gained trust in the casino once more. I understood CM to be about complaint resolution. They did this very well and this is why i support everything CM stands for.
Here is another issue, sure mistakes were made but on both sides. I did a rush job on the terms and conditions and they did a rush job on the terms too. The fact is 10k was taken away from me and I was left to chase to find out what had happened again. Had it been only 1k , would I have been paid like previous times? Thats what caused me to rethink and post here. I did notice the June date and assumed all was fine. I will take some responsibility but i think the casino needs to also. As a result of this thread will they change their terms to make them more clear and transparent? And other accreditated casinos will also ensure crystal clear terms too?
I really don't understand why you have it in for me. Not everyone can be perfect like you and in ten years of playing you have not had a simple issue. Well done for that. But we can't all be perfect all the time. And one day you might need advice perhaps not to do with casinos but maybe some other aspect of your life and you would hope there would be some support for you somewhere.
I trusted the casino after the last little issue and would continue to play here if this got resolved. What amazes me is that there is a total confiscation of winnings not further wagering requirements or some other solution but the whole 10k vanishes. Funny thing is they would get most of that 10k+ back eventually.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Location
- Here
I don't think it's the fact that Colly "has it in for you", but the fact that the same things are reiterated over and over again. Remember, we are not having a face to face discussion, so body language and voice inflection (two important factors when trying to convey a thought/feeling) cannot be taken into account. So, take a step back and put yourself in the readers' shoes (NOT as the complaintant) and tell me how YOU would perceive this thread...
- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Location
- NOT Pennsylvania!!!
*SIGH*
The OP did not read the terms of the bonus they were taking.
Datestamps, term 13, what the rep said could have happened, what the terms were last time they played, whether they were paid before, whether chickens have lips - ALL IRRELEVANT.
Why?
The OP did not read the terms of the bonus they were taking.
It constantly amazes me how the same people always jump in and insist that the player has done nothing wrong and should be paid - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
I can't agree with this atall.
What happened is that All Aces used to count only at some point this year they changed it but neglected to inform anybody. I know because I got caught the same way only I never had the big win before I saw the terms had changed.
I have no problem with the change but they should inform existing players of the change. Normally in UK law if you change terms for a regular offer you do have a duty to inform the client of the change.
This is yet another example of casinos ignoring common legal practise. It is getting very irritating that big groups like GNUF and Betfair just do as they please and act as judge and jury.
Lets trun this around. Why would any player play a disallowed game in order to profit from a bonus?
It's a sneaky move changing terms on a regular bonus without informing the player and is borderline rogue IMO.
I really feel for teh OP as this is a sick situation.
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Location
- London
Just had some contact with the Betway Rep and the matter is resolved to my satisfaction.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
- Location
- earth
I am happy you managed to get some resolution on this- it would not be a pleasant matter to have eating away at you over the holiday season.
I really hope that in future we don;t see you having this type of problem again.
Colly
I really hope that in future we don;t see you having this type of problem again.
Colly
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Location
- Bexhill on sea, England
Does that mean they're paying you the full amount?
This thread has attracted a LOT of interest and I think the very least you could do it tell us how it was "resolved to your satisfaction".
Or is it part of the deal that you can't post anything?
KK
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Location
- Finland
[Post removed]
Last edited:
sambaEah
Banned User - multiple forum accounts - PAB fraud
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Location
- North East England
Good to see it has a resolution.
Make sure next time when a casino has a term allowing all games and then banning some later on that you take that into account.
Merry Christmas
Make sure next time when a casino has a term allowing all games and then banning some later on that you take that into account.
Merry Christmas
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Location
- neverland
gnuf confiscated winnings from me two times both for ~3k $ .
i played blackjack betting 30 $ a hand , and after that won on slots .
i submitted a PAB aswell - casino insisted that i broke the rules and voided winnings and paid back the deposit only - sucked ...
i played blackjack betting 30 $ a hand , and after that won on slots .
i submitted a PAB aswell - casino insisted that i broke the rules and voided winnings and paid back the deposit only - sucked ...
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Which rule?
Did you WIN when breaking the rules?
It seems different to the OP's case, where the rule was ONLY applied because the WIN was gained through a breach of the rules, yet in your case it seems the bulk of your win was NOT in breach of the rules.
Surely for consistency your SLOTS win should have been paid, and only the wins in breach of the rules should have been removed.
I recently read the GNUF terms, and they have changed AGAIN!!!!!!! yet the date is STILL 4/11/2010 at the bottom, and the date at the top has gone.
The change addresses the inconsistencies raised in this thread except one, the DATE STAMP. The terms are now clearer, with points 11 through 14 being consistent with one another about weightings and exclusions.
The OP, and others "stung" by this should learn from this, and READ the terms more frequently, and LOOK for any sneaky changes that may have crept in. We shouldn't have to, but it seems casinos are exploiting this TRUST we have in them, so we should REMOVE this trust, and make sure we always watch for the sneaky tricks.
Whilst most of these "tricks" would NEVER be allowed in our home countries, casinos tend to choose jurisdictions that give them far more leeway, and they CAN get away with almost anything. The FACT that outright ROGUE groups continue to flourish from some jurisdictions proves the point.
We have now also learned that even a date stamp on a set of terms is pretty worthless, and CANNOT be trusted on it's own.
It is worth noting that the link to the terms at the bottom of GNUF mailers takes you straight to the relevant bonus terms, so checking for changes is easier since it does not involve reading the entire document. This is how I discovered the most recent change, made AFTER the terms were quoted in this thread.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
This was from a PAB from last September where the player broke the terms and conditions of a bonus offer - the casino pointed out where he had broke them, reloaded the bonus, and the player broke the same rule again.
I really don't know what casinokoenig is on about since it is an entirely different issue.- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Location
- London
Its very strange..just to rub salt into my ten thousand wounds...they have now revised their terms and conditions to allow ALL Aces????
9. Unless stated otherwise on terms specific to a promotion, play at certain games will contribute a different percentage of the playthrough requirement:
100% - all Slots, American Roulette and all Parlor Games
50% - all Table Pokers (except Texas Hold’em), Red Dog, all Roulettes (except American Roulette), Casino War and Sic Bo
10% - all Video/Power Pokers (except All Aces Video/Power Pokers), all Blackjacks (except Classic Blackjack), all Craps, all Baccarats and all Texas Hold’em Poker Games
2% - Classic Blackjack and All Aces Video/Power Pokers
NOTE: playthrough (wagering) made using the Gamble Feature on Slots or the Double Feature on Video/Power Pokers will not count towards playthrough requirements.
9. Unless stated otherwise on terms specific to a promotion, play at certain games will contribute a different percentage of the playthrough requirement:
100% - all Slots, American Roulette and all Parlor Games
50% - all Table Pokers (except Texas Hold’em), Red Dog, all Roulettes (except American Roulette), Casino War and Sic Bo
10% - all Video/Power Pokers (except All Aces Video/Power Pokers), all Blackjacks (except Classic Blackjack), all Craps, all Baccarats and all Texas Hold’em Poker Games
2% - Classic Blackjack and All Aces Video/Power Pokers
NOTE: playthrough (wagering) made using the Gamble Feature on Slots or the Double Feature on Video/Power Pokers will not count towards playthrough requirements.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Location
- Netherlands
Wow... that sucks bigtime 
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
It just shows there was never really a problem in the first place. They have not just allowed the game, it even COUNTS, albeit at a mere 2%.
sambaEah
Banned User - multiple forum accounts - PAB fraud
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Location
- North East England
Very poor form by them. I'm not shocked at all but this is ridiculous.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Location
- Spain
Absolutely epic 
The deserve a place in the rogue pit. In fact, all casinos that void winnings for any stupidity should be rogued. They haven't catched me for this yet, but I know people who lost lots of money.
Example:
Casino Tropez (Playtech). The player JUST OPENED the (now extinct) Single hand Blackjack. He didn't wager a cent. Spent the rest of the 300€ deposit in slots and caribbean poker and won around 4000€. Then he tried to withdraw and they decided to keep deposit and winnings.
So, T&C can be as stupid as casinos want and change whenever they want without any notice?
Let me ask, because I see some people that has posted here who thinks that this kind of actions is acceptable.
The deserve a place in the rogue pit. In fact, all casinos that void winnings for any stupidity should be rogued. They haven't catched me for this yet, but I know people who lost lots of money.
Example:
Casino Tropez (Playtech). The player JUST OPENED the (now extinct) Single hand Blackjack. He didn't wager a cent. Spent the rest of the 300€ deposit in slots and caribbean poker and won around 4000€. Then he tried to withdraw and they decided to keep deposit and winnings.
So, T&C can be as stupid as casinos want and change whenever they want without any notice?
Let me ask, because I see some people that has posted here who thinks that this kind of actions is acceptable.
