mstrike1978 VS Club World Casino ($46,034.44)

[AussieDave]

It doesnt!

RTG coupons now display allowed and disallowed games after they are redeemed and have done for a little while now - you just click on "coupon details" in the banking tab....I assume blackjack would have been listed in the disallowed games.

uungy if your going to make a statement based of fact, at least check your facts first

and vthe rest should be paid out.

How do you figure that out? It has been established the OP:

• Was using a slots ONLY bonus.
• A slots ONLY bonus can only be used to play slots - the word only should make that condition crystal clear.

Play any disallowed game whilst fulfilling the bonus terms and all winnings are forfeited.

Edit: I'm not dishing the OP, it certainly must be a terrible shock. But if the OP had read the bonus terms and played within the conditions of the bonus terms, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we!



Cheers



Dave

 

[Pinababy69]

Without the winnings from his BJ play, he would never had the OPPORTUNITY to go and play max bet on slots, and hit the jackpot. He played BJ to build his bankroll, to go back and play slots. On a SLOTS ONLY coupon. Pretty simple. Tragic yes...but no ambiguity at all, at least IMO. No bankroll boost from Blackjack, no $15 pull on the slot machine...and no jackpot.

 

[RobWin]

While the hand count on Blackjack was relatively low, the winnings enabled mstrike to return to the slots and start hitting the bet max button.

Kind Regards
Tom

Tom, I'm curious if the winnings confiscation would have happened as well if the scale and bet proportion were smaller? (eg: If the OP had won say $20 on BJ and then returned to a real series slot and bet 0.20c and won the random for $1,800)

Would this random jackpot for $1,800 have been confiscated as well because he bet 0.20c with his winnings from BJ?
____
____

Without the winnings from his BJ play, he would never had the OPPORTUNITY to go and play max bet on slots, and hit the jackpot. He played BJ to build his bankroll, to go back and play slots. On a SLOTS ONLY coupon. Pretty simple. Tragic yes...but no ambiguity at all, at least IMO. No bankroll boost from Blackjack, no $15 pull on the slot machine...and no jackpot.

Ah, other good points to my previous question I asked Tom....

Tom, BTW...it is a yes or no question too...so no lengthy answer needed...maybe that will help as far as getting an answer to it!
____
____

 

[uungy]

Without the winnings from his BJ play, he would never had the OPPORTUNITY to go and play max bet on slots, and hit the jackpot. He played BJ to build his bankroll, to go back and play slots. On a SLOTS ONLY coupon. Pretty simple. Tragic yes...but no ambiguity at all, at least IMO. No bankroll boost from Blackjack, no $15 pull on the slot machine...and no jackpot.

whats oppertunity to do with it? The casino hasnt lost out by the fact the OP decided to play BJ then slots. OP could have lost everything.

Ther terms as I explained earlier seem to say that that wager would be cleared.

What differance is it if the boost was from that. The payer may have been lucky, but that doesnt mean that he "gained" out of it. Luck isnt "gain". On the long run if the OP does this constantly he will lose his/her pants eventually to the casino.

 

[AussieDave]

The casino hasnt lost out by the fact the OP decided to play BJ then slots.

The OP won the jackpot on the proceeds of playing blackjack.

You seem to have very hard time understanding that blackjack was not allowed to be played whilst fulfilling the slots only bonus of which the OP had redeemed.

By redeeming a bonus & placing your first wager from this bonus the player acknowledged and accepted the slots only bonus terms. If they didn't read the terms & or understand the terms, it's not the casinos fault.

The onus is on the player to make sure they understand what they are agreeing to. If they don't then they should contact support and ask support to clarify the bonus terms. This btw must be done before placing the first bet.

Because placing the first bet constitutes the punters agreement with the bonus terms.


Edit: When contacting support it is advised to get this in writing. Don't except a phone conversation as fact.

Cheers



Dave

 

[RobWin]

The OP won the jackpot on the proceeds of playing blackjack.


Dave

Is that for sure an established fact?

I mean, had he already totally lost his original deposit money not including the bonus when he actually hit that slot jackpot?
____
____

 

[1819]

a very simple software application can solve these problems once and for all. when a specific bonus is used, simply disable the games that are not to be played. very simple. maybe if this application was a requirement for accreditation casinos would think about it...

 

[DogBoy001]

whats oppertunity to do with it? The casino hasnt lost out by the fact the OP decided to play BJ then slots. OP could have lost everything.

Heya,

Playing a circa 99% RTP game (on perfect play) such as blackjack versus a 95% slot has numerous advantages, not least of which is a low volatility versus a high.

From a bankroll-building perspective the close to 100% RTP is attainable without having to hit the rarer top prizes, features and jackpots that compose elements of a 95% RTP slot.
i.e.: One is far more likely to get a constant level close to 50/50 through blackjack than one is through short-term slot play.

Unless you get lucky on a slot...but getting lucky isn't a part of a bank-building strategy, survival is.

Woooof

 

[winbig]

Maybe Tom can come and clear things up by letting us know exactly what the OP's balance was when they started playing BJ; and what it was when they went back to slots.

 

[RobWin]

Maybe Tom can come and clear things up by letting us know exactly what the OP's balance was when they started playing BJ.

You would think so but I've now seen the guy read the thread three separate times since I first asked that very simple yes or no question and still can't get an answer..
____
____

 

[winbig]

This also opens up another can of worms.

When players request their gameplay logs, RTG operators consistently tell these players that they'll have to request them from RTG and the player will have to wait weeks, if not months to get the history; if at all.

It seems now that RTG operators have instant access to this history, so why not give it up to the player immediately after requesting it?

In this situation, since the player is unsure when they started playing BJ (they even said themselves they were only 90% sure that they only played BJ after hitting big on slots), this game history is vital to their case.

 

[uungy]

Heya,

Playing a circa 99% RTP game (on perfect play) such as blackjack versus a 95% slot has numerous advantages, not least of which is a low volatility versus a high.

From a bankroll-building perspective the close to 100% RTP is attainable without having to hit the rarer top prizes, features and jackpots that compose elements of a 95% RTP slot.
i.e.: One is far more likely to get a constant level close to 50/50 through blackjack than one is through short-term slot play.

Unless you get lucky on a slot...but getting lucky isn't a part of a bank-building strategy, survival is.

Woooof

This is a sidepoint really.

If this was a pooled Jackpot slot, you may have something, i dont know, and I dont speculate. This is not one of those random JP, and from a higher bankroll and lower bankroll, there is nothing in between.

Just look at the recent posts, how many have lost $600 in about $1K wagering at about 60c a spin

In this case its like losing $15K at $15 a spin in $25K wagering or so

The OP won the jackpot on the proceeds of playing blackjack.

You seem to have very hard time understanding that blackjack was not allowed to be played whilst fulfilling the slots only bonus of which the OP had redeemed.

By redeeming a bonus & placing your first wager from this bonus the player acknowledged and accepted the slots only bonus terms. If they didn't read the terms & or understand the terms, it's not the casinos fault.

The onus is on the player to make sure they understand what they are agreeing to. If they don't then they should contact support and ask support to clarify the bonus terms. This btw must be done before placing the first bet.

Because placing the first bet constitutes the punters agreement with the bonus terms.


Edit: When contacting support it is advised to get this in writing. Don't except a phone conversation as fact.

Cheers



Dave

and? therfore?

The terms as stated earlier say that the winnings from that wager will be removed.

What has what "he/she should have done" to do with it.

We are now in this scenario, and the terms are what to abide by.

In an ideal world........ we arent in an ideal world, we are human, we do silly things, but then there are terms that cover our stupidity, which is what I am quoting.

 

[Tengil]

Someone with excellent English skills can probably answer this. Is the bolded term open to interpretation (correct word?)? especially the any winnings.

6. All bonuses carry a wagering requirement that is to be completed on a specific selection of games. Any wagers made on games that are excluded from the wagering requirement before the wagering requirement is completed will result in the bonus and any winnings being void. The player must be aware of and accept these terms and conditions before playing the bonus.


If it is then it should always be deemed in the consumers favor. At least thats the case in civilized countries and "normal" business.

 

[RobWin]

Someone with excellent English skills can probably answer this. Is the bolded term open to interpretation (correct word?)? especially the any winnings.

6. All bonuses carry a wagering requirement that is to be completed on a specific selection of games. Any wagers made on games that are excluded from the wagering requirement before the wagering requirement is completed will result in the bonus and any winnings being void. The player must be aware of and accept these terms and conditions before playing the bonus.


If it is then it should always be deemed in the consumers favor. At least thats the case in civilized countries and "normal" business.

It is an ambiguous term IMO, it should have the words "from those games" added to that paragraph! as in:

6. All bonuses carry a wagering requirement that is to be completed on a specific selection of games. Any wagers made on games that are excluded from the wagering requirement before the wagering requirement is completed will result in the bonus and any winnings from those games being void. The player must be aware of and accept these terms and conditions before playing the bonus.

Otherwise, it is left open to interpretation!
____
____

 

[Nifty29]

The terms as stated earlier say that the winnings from that wager will be removed.

With all due respect you are incorrect.

The terms state ANY winnings - they do not specify winnings from the excluded game/s - ANY means just that - ANY. I dont see anything unclear at all. It basically means if at any point whilst meeting the WR you play an excluded game, then its curtains. I agree that not every casino does this, but here it makes it quite clear IMO.

I would surmise the reason is that any winnings resulting from the excluded winnings, are also excluded as they were paid for with funds generated from the excluded game play.

Im really astonished that some members are actually pointing the finger at the casino here.....how difficult is it to check the terms of a coupon before you play it?? I mean, even when you redeem the coupon the inclusions/exclusions are displayed in the cashier....plus it was a slots only coupon. It seems obvious the OP had three seperate opportunities to check/verify the terms of the bonus. If the casino had gone out of their way to hide the information, or apply it retroactively, or deliberately make the terms vague, then yeah - string 'em up!. However, as I said they provided several avenues for the player to educate themselves so it comes down to personal responsibility.

It seems that some people almost always come out on the players' side against the casino in complete defiance of the facts.

I think Robwin (?) asked about the balance etc...I think the OP was down to $30 when they started playing BJ (obviously to attemp to rebuild the bankroll, which is why BJ is banned ) and then they hit the slot JP. The bet was $15 on the slot, so even if all the BJ winnings were removed, they would have to hit the JP on the first or second spin to have any claim under the system proposed by some members. Its also important to remember that a players' deposit is deemed to have been wagered first in just about every casino, so technically they were playing an excluded game with the casinos' money....so either way they lose the winnings.

 

[LaHutti]

To me it's pretty clear, that if you choose to play anything but slots, before the wagering requirements are met, ANY and ALL winnings will be lost, no matter how you win it, or on what game.
Then it really doesn't matter, if he played before, after, or in the middle,,,,the second you touch the bj button, you're screwed, with those terms and conditions, because you chose to break them (whether it's on purpose, to gain an advantage, or you just didn't understand/read the t and c's).
Still hurts my stomach, that anyone would even consider playing anything but slots, until wagering has been cleared.
We don't know, at what point, and how much he played bj, but chances are, that had he not done that, he would never have hit the jp in the first place.
I even cash out, and redeposit before playing anything else, just to be 1000% sure all is good.

 

[mstrike1978]

It is an ambiguous term IMO, it should have the words "from those games" added to that paragraph! as in:

6. All bonuses carry a wagering requirement that is to be completed on a specific selection of games. Any wagers made on games that are excluded from the wagering requirement before the wagering requirement is completed will result in the bonus and any winnings from those games being void. The player must be aware of and accept these terms and conditions before playing the bonus.

Good morning everyone, at least here anyways....

Club World, thank you for logging in and taking the time to help clarify your position...

I would like to say that I re-read the terms several times over. I respectfully disagree that they are clear. To me it sounds as if the Casino will confiscate "any" BlackJack winnings. If this is the case, then I concede and you may confiscate my Blackjack winnings up to my WR, I am not sure what they are. I will then only ask for whatever my subsequent winnings were as to your terms. My winnings were not confiscated automatically by the software when I was playing.

 

[RobWin]

I think Robwin (?) asked about the balance etc...I think the OP was down to $30 when they started playing BJ (obviously to attemp to rebuild the bankroll, which is why BJ is banned ) and then they hit the slot JP. The bet was $15 on the slot, so even if all the BJ winnings were removed, they would have to hit the JP on the first or second spin to have any claim under the system proposed by some members. Its also important to remember that a players' deposit is deemed to have been wagered first in just about every casino,

Correct, I agree with that statement I bolded above....

so technically they were playing an excluded game with the casinos' money....so either way they lose the winnings.

Whether or not it was with the casinos money or his, I'm not 100% sure has been determined yet though. If he was only winning on BJ, then he still would have had his original $30 as you say when he went back to play the slots...
____
____

 

[silcnlayc]

LaHutti: I even cash out, and redeposit before playing anything else, just to be 1000% sure all is good.

I do the same...and I do not usually use a bonus..but I still leave the game and not return until the withdrawal is cleared .

To me it sounds as if the Casino will confiscate "any" BlackJack winnings. If this is the case, then I concede and you may confiscate my Blackjack winnings up to my WR, I am not sure what they are. I will then only ask for whatever my subsequent winnings were as to your terms.

That means you will only get $30 returned vs your initial deposit for all winnings you achieved came from your blackjack play (winnings) above and beyond this $30 which resulted in the higher balance that does not belong to you, it came from a game not allowed.....

.

 

[Casinomeister]

Geeze guys - take a look at the calendar - perhaps some of these people are at home spending time with their families instead of hanging on every post made in this forum.

If Tom feels they need to make a play by play posting of what this player did, that's up to him. I think (and a majority of the members here) feel that it is pretty obvious that the guy broke the terms and conditions.

How much clearer do they need to be?

 

[KasinoKing]

Guys... Honestly... I am not really sure. I am new to online gaming. I DID play Blackjack... After I won $50,000 I even played a few $100 hands. I only deposited $150 from my credit card, as far as I remember, I went straight to the slots. I'm 90% sure... All I know is that I feel very, very cheated.

Can we just clear this up; Did you, or did you not play ANY hands of Blackjack BEFORE you won the $50,000?

KK

 

[uungy]

With all due respect you are incorrect.

The terms state ANY winnings - they do not specify winnings from the excluded game/s - ANY means just that - ANY. I dont see anything unclear at all. It basically means if at any point whilst meeting the WR you play an excluded game, then its curtains. I agree that not every casino does this, but here it makes it quite clear IMO.

I would surmise the reason is that any winnings resulting from the excluded winnings, are also excluded as they were paid for with funds generated from the excluded game play.

Its very cinveniant of you to miss out the begining of the terms quoted "Any wagers made on games that are excluded" so the winnings is going on the wager placed.

Also its kind of you surmise, however thats not what the terms state. You may surmise what you wish, however casinos have to stick to their terms. If they were to base themselves on assumptions, why are there terms and condtitions one and a half miles long?

They dont miss anything out, and they say what they mean!

If its ambiguous, then they have to ride it and pay out.

They have lost "ZILTCH", the guy was lucky, and thats all.

 

[Nifty29]

Correct, I agree with that statement I bolded above....



Whether or not it was with the casinos money or his, I'm not 100% sure has been determined yet though. If he was only winning on BJ, then he still would have had his original $30 as you say when he went back to play the slots...
____
____

Yep. what I mean is that they deposited $150 and received a $150 bonus, so to have a balance left of only $30 it means they have lost their deposit (as it is deemed to be used first) and only had $30 in bonus money...which is technically not his money. As I said, I guess you could say he could have hit that slots JP in the first 2 spins (assuming he didnt in on the first one), but there is no gaurantee that he would have hit the jackpot as it would have been played earlier and may have been hit by someone else later on i.e. he may have been in the right place at the wrong time.

 

[RobWin]

It is an ambiguous term IMO, it should have the words "from those games" added to that paragraph! as in:

6. All bonuses carry a wagering requirement that is to be completed on a specific selection of games. Any wagers made on games that are excluded from the wagering requirement before the wagering requirement is completed will result in the bonus and any winnings from those games being void. The player must be aware of and accept these terms and conditions before playing the bonus.

Otherwise, it is left open to interpretation!
____
____

Geeze guys - take a look at the calendar - perhaps some of these people are at home spending time with their families instead of hanging on every post made in this forum.

If Tom feels they need to make a play by play posting of what this player did, that's up to him. I think (and a majority of the members here) feel that it is pretty obvious that the guy broke the terms and conditions.

How much clearer do they need to be?

Just to add the three little words I wrote into the term above!

It will most definitely be clear then with nothing left open to interpretation.
____
____

 

[uungy]

Geeze guys - take a look at the calendar - perhaps some of these people are at home spending time with their families instead of hanging on every post made in this forum.

its the 22nd here, no excuse to take off just yet......... but then again some have that liberty