mstrike1978 VS Club World Casino ($46,034.44)

[Nifty29]

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.

OK - lets just assume for a minute that you are right about the 'any winnings' bit (which I dont believe you are), then the only thing remaining in the terms is 'bonus will be void'. When you use a deposit coupon at an RTG casino, the ENTIRE balance of your account is deemed to be a bonus - you can check this yourself as it says 'withdrawable' in one box and 'bonus' in the other. So, in fact, under this term, the ENTIRE balance of the account can be void as it is ALL considered a bonus until the WR is met. Hence, the 'winnings' part is unnecessary. Even if you dont think its fair that the players' deposit is considered a 'bonus', then the most you could claim is the $150 deposit he made and the rest would be a bonus which is then void under those terms.

You can look at it every which way you like but every angle yields the same result.

Also, dont you think Bryan would be all over Club World like a cheap suit if he thought a member was being stiffed out of almost $50k?? C'mon guys! Sheesh.

@Robwin - OP did play BJ before hitting the slot jackpot.

 

[RobWin]

OK - lets just assume for a minute that you are right about the 'any winnings' bit (which I dont believe you are), then the only thing remaining in the terms is 'bonus will be void'. When you use a deposit coupon at an RTG casino, the ENTIRE balance of your account is deemed to be a bonus - you can check this yourself as it says 'withdrawable' in one box and 'bonus' in the other. So, in fact, under this term, the ENTIRE balance of the account can be void as it is ALL considered a bonus until the WR is met. Hence, the 'winnings' part is unnecessary. Even if you dont think its fair that the players' deposit is considered a 'bonus', then the most you could claim is the $150 deposit he made and the rest would be a bonus which is then void under those terms.

You can look at it every which way you like but every angle yields the same result.

Also, dont you think Bryan would be all over Club World like a cheap suit if he thought a member was being stiffed out of almost $50k?? C'mon guys! Sheesh.

@Robwin - OP did play BJ before hitting the slot jackpot.

Yea, I know Nifty...I think it was KK that had asked that question...
____
____

 

[uungy]

OK - lets just assume for a minute that you are right about the 'any winnings' bit (which I dont believe you are), then the only thing remaining in the terms is 'bonus will be void'. When you use a deposit coupon at an RTG casino, the ENTIRE balance of your account is deemed to be a bonus - you can check this yourself as it says 'withdrawable' in one box and 'bonus' in the other. So, in fact, under this term, the ENTIRE balance of the account can be void as it is ALL considered a bonus until the WR is met. Hence, the 'winnings' part is unnecessary. Even if you dont think its fair that the players' deposit is considered a 'bonus', then the most you could claim is the $150 deposit he made and the rest would be a bonus which is then void under those terms.

You can look at it every which way you like but every angle yields the same result.

Also, dont you think Bryan would be all over Club World like a cheap suit if he thought a member was being stiffed out of almost $50k?? C'mon guys! Sheesh.

It doesnt all become bonus money, it all becomes non withdrawable, and its all put into one box. Why should it all become bonus? You arent buying chips, and getting BOGOF. To prove this, when you look in the lobby, you play $, not chips.

The withdrawal can be requested once the requirements have been met. Seems simple to me.

"Winngs" part is required

No one is pointing a finger at Bryan, the casino seems to have screwed up, thats all.

 

[spearmaster]

I don't see anything ambiguous about this at all - I agree with Nifty.

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 there was any ambiguity at all, it is incumbent on the player to inquire BEFORE starting play - but I cannot see how he can challenge this term.

Let's shorten this a bit.

Any non-permitted wager results in the bonus and any winnings being void.

and not:

Any winnings from a non-permitted wager will be void

If they wanted to make it more clear, they could have said:

Any non-permitted wager voids all play and any bonus and ALL winnings are forfeited

but as far as I am concerned, the original term is quite clear where it says:

will result in the bonus and ANY winnings being void

 

[uungy]

I don't see anything ambiguous about this at all - I agree with Nifty.



If there was any ambiguity at all, it is incumbent on the player to inquire BEFORE starting play - but I cannot see how he can challenge this term.

Let's shorten this a bit.



and not:



If they wanted to make it more clear, they could have said:



but as far as I am concerned, the original term is quite clear where it says:

Dont shorten it, read what they write. If you shorten it and re-arrange it you could probably make a christmas pudding out of it,

The terms stand by what they have put on their site. They have to abide by what it says.

and again you seem to have conveniantly missed out the beginning of the term, which states its reffering to to "any wager on excluded games" winnings.

 

[spearmaster]

Dont shorten it, read what they write. If you shorten it and re-arrange it you could probably make a christmas pudding out of it,

The terms stand by what they have put on their site. They have to abide by what it says.

and again you seem to have conveniantly missed out the beginning of the term, which states its reffering to to "any wager on excluded games" winnings.

The context is very clear.

It says:

the bonus and any winnings being void.

and not:

the WAGER and any winnings being void.

 

[silcnlayc]

How much clearer do they need to be?

I agree, this thread has become a joke. We can pick and tear apart each and every word, nuance etc..but the bottom line is: He played Blackjack on a slots bonus...period..all is lost..end of story. There is NOTHING left to discuss..we all KNOW not to do this but some try to get away with these things KNOWING it is wrong but then claiming..well, geez...I only did it for a little while..

Tell it to a judge when robbing a bank and say , well geez, I only took the change...but got a few large bills mixed up in it..does it matter either way...no...it was still WRONG and it is posted, bank robbers will be prosecuted even if they take the change only!

.

 

[LaHutti]

I don't understand how you get that to mean, that only winnings from those games will be void....it doesn't say that ...it says play on those games will void ANY winnings

 

[uungy]

I agree, this thread has become a joke. We can pick and tear apart each and every word, nuance etc..but the bottom line is: He played Blackjack on a slots bonus...period..all is lost..end of story. There is NOTHING left to discuss..we all KNOW not to do this but some try to get away with these things KNOWING it is wrong but then claiming..well, geez...I only did it for a little while..

Tell it to a judge when robbing a bank and say , well geez, I only took the change...but got a few large bills mixed up in it..does it matter either way...no...it was still WRONG and it is posted, bank robbers will be prosecuted even if they take the change only!

.

Incorrect. There is nothing illegal done here, I dont see th comparion. The terms and conditions is like the law, and as I said earlier, its now been done, and the terms are what to be abided by. It makes no sense in my opinion, that just because it says "slots only" that you can discard the terms that say the winnings of the wagers should be removed

The context is very clear.

It says:



and not:

that term clearly states at the begining of that term/sentence, that it is refering to that particular wager

 

[Nifty29]

I agree, this thread has become a joke. We can pick and tear apart each and every word, nuance etc..but the bottom line is: He played Blackjack on a slots bonus...period..all is lost..end of story. There is NOTHING left to discuss..we all KNOW not to do this but some try to get away with these things KNOWING it is wrong but then claiming..well, geez...I only did it for a little while..

Tell it to a judge when robbing a bank and say , well geez, I only took the change...but got a few large bills mixed up in it..does it matter either way...no...it was still WRONG and it is posted, bank robbers will be prosecuted even if they take the change only!

.

Yes! Some common sense



that term clearly states at the begining of that term/sentence, that it is refering to that particular wager
Thankyou Silc, Spear and LaHutti for making something very simple.....well....very simple!

FWIW for the doubters - check your RTG cashier next time you take a bonus and see what your balance is described as. You may not like it, but thats how it is.

IMO the player was lucky to even get his deposit back, given he had technically already lost it before he played BJ.....so kudos to Club World for that.

@uungy

that term clearly states at the begining of that term/sentence, that it is refering to that particular wager

No it doesnt. It says:

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

You are reading it wrong. It says that IF you do what it says in black then the casino will do what it says in red.

The minute you make one wager on BJ, you forfeit everything....that is the only extent to which 'wager' is referred to in this sentence. It says nothing about the terms only applying to that specific wager.....but I think you know that. You are just picking one word and using it out of context to suit your own theory. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with having as theory or opinion but you need to be prepared to support it with facts.

 

[uungy]

Yes! Some common sense

Thankyou Silc, Spear and LaHutti for making something very simple.....well....very simple!

FWIW for the doubters - check your RTG cashier next time you take a bonus and see what your balance is described as. You may not like it, but thats how it is.

IMO the player was lucky to even get his deposit back, given he had technically already lost it before he played BJ.....so kudos to Club World for that.

why sense? The casino is shouting "the terms say xxx" and the terms don't

The is no justification, just because sense says X, when the terms seem to imply something else altogether

Why is the OP "lucky" to get the deposit back.

 

[RobWin]

I don't understand how you get that to mean, that only winnings from those games will be void....it doesn't say that ...it says play on those games will void ANY winnings

Why should "All" of your winnings be void from "ALL" game play? Say for example you had deposited $1,000 and took a 50% slots bonus to start play with $1,500.

You build up your balance from slots play to $3,000 by hitting a random on your first several spins.

Now you go and play a few hands of blackjack, don't really win much or lose much so you go back to slots play and play for another hour and you have met your wager requirement and decide to cash out now for $3,200...

But wait!! Shit...I played twenty hands of BJ, all of my $3,200 is now going to be void...

That's why those three words should be added to that term...otherwise these casinos that use this term will always make up their own mind whether or not to void "Any/All Winnings" instead of "Only Winnings" gained from playing excluded games.

Now don't you think that would be a lot clearer and less ambiguous to state that as such? Why confiscate all $3,200 when the player didn't even win any on BJ as in my example above as they could clearly do as the term stands now?

Thus, the reason I say it is ambiguous!
____
____

 

[Nifty29]

I see what you're saying Rob, but the case you describe is different insofar as the OP built up his bankroll on BJ before he hit the slot JP.

If you read what CW posted earlier, you will see that they actually looked at the OPs logs to at least see to what extent BJ was played and what effect it had on the final result. Although they didnt say it, I have a very strong feeling they would have waived this term if the player had built his bankroll initially on slots, and just 'played a few hands' of BJ either for the hell of it or because they forgot for a minute they were playing a bonus....you will notice they said his BJ hand number was relatively low.

In your example, the BJ play had almost nil effect on the final outcome, which is far from the the OPs case.

I believe the term deliberately states ANY winnings to cover all the fruit from the poisonous tree i.e. if the BJ play was disallowed, then the slot bets made with the disallowed winnings is disallowed etc etc which is fair enough IMO.

If the casino were to place those extra three words, it would open up their bonuses to 'abuse' or advantage play by allowing players to build up their bankrolls via BJ, play big stakes on slots and hit a monster, and then happily forfeit their BJ winnings leaving a handy chunk to cashout from their slot play which would most likely not have occurred if not for the BJ play. At least the current term gives them discretion between someone deliberately taking liberties and someone making an honest mistake.

 

[RobWin]

I see what you're saying Rob, but the case you describe is different insofar as the OP built up his bankroll on BJ before he hit the slot JP.

If you read what CW posted earlier, you will see that they actually looked at the OPs logs to at least see to what extent BJ was played and what effect it had on the final result. Although they didnt say it, I have a very strong feeling they would have waived this term if the player had built his bankroll initially on slots, and just 'played a few hands' of BJ either for the hell of it or because they forgot for a minute they were playing a bonus....you will notice they said his BJ hand number was relatively low.

Yea, I would like to think so too, ClubWorld is a good outfit IMO

In your example, the BJ play had almost nil effect on the final outcome, which is far from the the OPs case.

I believe the term deliberately states ANY winnings to cover all the fruit from the poisonous tree i.e. if the BJ play was disallowed, then the slot bets made with the disallowed winnings is disallowed etc etc which is fair enough IMO.

Yea, I agree with that....

If the casino were to place those extra three words, it would open up their bonuses to 'abuse' or advantage play by allowing players to build up their bankrolls via BJ, play big stakes on slots and hit a monster, and then happily forfeit their BJ winnings leaving a handy chunk to cashout from their slot play

But it wouldn't because those winnings from BJ would have been gained from excluded winnings...thus, you could also not gain from them in the future by playing slots...

At least the current term gives them discretion between someone deliberately taking liberties and someone making an honest mistake.

The main reason that I see they need to add those "three" words to the terms is strictly for clarity in a scenario as described in my example I posed above...
____
____

 

[bernynhel]

Why should "All" of your winnings be void from "ALL" game play? Say for example you had deposited $1,000 and took a 50% slots bonus to start play with $1,500.

You build up your balance from slots play to $3,000 by hitting a random on your first several spins.

Now you go and play a few hands of blackjack, don't really win much or lose much so you go back to slots play and play for another hour and you have met your wager requirement and decide to cash out now for $3,200...

But wait!! Shit...I played twenty hands of BJ, all of my $3,200 is now going to be void...

That's why those three words should be added to that term...otherwise these casinos that use this term will always make up their own mind whether or not to void "All Winnings" instead of "Only Winnings" gained from playing excluded games.

Now don't you think that would be a lot clearer and less ambiguous to state that as such? Why confiscate all $3,200 when the player didn't even win any on BJ as in my example above as they could clearly do as the term stands now?

Thus, the reason I say it is ambiguous!
____
____

I think it would be clearer, yes. But, in the case of the op, it's clear enough that he played bj before the wr was met so any winnings includes all winnings, some winnings, his winnings, ad nauseum. "Any" winnings, by definition, easily encompasses "all" winnings without stretching an interpretation.

Would I prefer the verbiage you suggest? Of course! Is the casino not entitled to confiscate the op's dough for failing to use wording similar to what you are suggesting? Afraid not. Even though we can all agree that we might prefer for the terms to have been worded differently, by definition, the wording the casino chose to use cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than what they have been insisting it means.

Also, once they've called you on the terms and snatched your money, go argue with 'em.

 

[spearmaster]

Not ambiguous at all.

You breach the T&C, everything is forfeited. Matters not before or after, unless the wagering requirements have been completed in which case there shouldn't be a breach in the first place.

It's clearly stated - and implicitly accepted by the player when he started. All he had to do was clear the WR by continuing to play slots - whether he forgot in excitement or not is irrelevant.

I do think it sucks, mind you - but it's still clear that he breached a term and that term is not unfair in any way nor does it disadvantage a player except when they either read the term and forgot, or never read the term at all - in both instances the fault of the player.

 

[alabama5150]

There are Easier Solutions

This is Software !! there are some programming things that can be done to insure this NEVER happens. The casinos should take some of the blame in these kind of situations. It happens again and again. This is not the one in a million cases. The forums are full of stories like this. Both the player and the casino have a duty here.

I think the Software developers could easily design something that would intervene. They could very easily place a warning flag pop up into the casino that advises a player that game is not allowed at this time.

Or simply grey out games that are not allowed until a certain wager requirement has been reached. This way there would be none of this "Confiscation" stuff. The terms are there for I reason I do understand this, but there seems to be a lack of player protection too.

This simple little fix, would then assure their bonuses do not get misplayed or abused. But I think the casinos do not mind one bit when they find a way to void wins. They too like to keep their bankrolls! Not as to say they are all like Virtual casinos, but this was a pretty quick and dirty confiscation. The Casino Manager could have written an email and stated there is a problem and to contact them to please discuss it, and then placed the funds on hold. To me it sounded pretty routine. That makes me feel like the decision is the same one they reach each time this happens. There was a easy description of the issue, as if the chat guy has said it a hundred times. He acted as if he also knew the manager wouldnt do a thing. Like he has seen it before. It doesnt make the stuation any easier to accept when a player lerns a tough lesson the hard way.


The way this happened was crappy. Then to tell the OP no manager was on duty and to email "management" and they would email back in a few days. This was $46K !!!

This from a company that handles tons of players and tons of money every day, the idea no manager on duty , or supervisor, really doesnt add to a good impression.

This is BS. A name and a personal email for the casino manager, would have been much more professional. Due to the fact ity was a huge amount, this wasn't a $20 max cash out bonus amount.

I have felt over the years that the casinos hold all of the cards, and regardless of whether the terms are clear, are they necessarily fair? I think that the WR's are set high so that they are mostly unacheiveable at least in my experience. There are better ways to insure their bonus terms are met, instead of waiting around to watch it happen, maybe they should prevent it. Then there would be no need for a giant thread, and discussions.


Rather than one or two sentences buried in the T & C's or having to go to the cashier every 20 spins to see if the WR is completed. The casino has the ability to keep track of WR's thru software . It is unnecessary to force a player to leave the game, which could be running on a hot winning streak, might make a player feel they might not get back into the win mode. Besides isn't really much fun to constantly fear you might miss out of the WR because your bank roll wont last thru it and watch and worry instead of enjoy. It really takes the pleasureable experience and lowers it, because now we have to constantly think about whether we will get paid and what will the casino come up with next in order to invalidate winnings. etc,. The casinos could easily place the REQUIREMENTS in eyeview in the game.

The casinos bombardeir us with these bonuses they offer, and the terms these days are a big joke a lot of the time. It is not so cut and dry to simply say read the rules. Yes it should always be done, but why cant the terms be accesible in the game as well? That way leaving the software to click all over a webpage wouldnt be necessary. It isnt like they offer any way to back up their own terms in a easy to see and understand in the software itself, except for the new cashier in the RTG, but showing which games are allowed isnt exactly saying all wins will be voided either.

This kind of issue comes up again and again. It simply does not have to. The casinos haven't addressed this as a problem, that they wish to participate in solving. Maybe they should CARE when a player of theirs is in potential danger of losing all. Prevention is never mentioned.

If it were oh so obvious then none of these posts where this has happened would be here .There should be an OBVIOUS meter of some sort, running in any game under the bonus coupon that is being played. These simple little ideas could easily be programmed with very little effort ( According to my fiancee who is a software architect at ___________)

This would be a very simple task and would certainly help to avoid future issues. But quite frankly, I think that a lot of online casinos know that many players do not understand the WR. After being a member on a forum like this we get educated, but a newbie usually learns the hard way. Some casinos word the rules purposely confusing, and besides, usually one of the terms is "The Casino has the right to change the terms at any time"

I also feel that the software developers should have a "customer support" 24/7, for players. The software companies have remained stealth throught the online gaming history. Since half the time the software glitches etc, the casino operator has no ability to fix , and certainly the person who is experiencing the problem would be the best person to relay the issue.

anyway..


I wonder if all of the play up to the point of the BJ had been one steady downward slope. Then after the BJ played all of a sudden the games start to pay..miraculously. Perhaps the casino was a lot looser after the couplon play voided, again this is something the software could easily detect in the background. Wouldn't this be a shame? I know that I feel there are differencs in how the casino pays when i am using a bonus with a small max cashout, as oppossed to a no max cashout once a WR is achieved. Its probably just my suspicious mind though.


I think that Club World could also offer a little something to ease the sting of this to the player, after all they have $46K in thier pockets now. Jeez ts Christmas. And for crying out loud is it really necessary to act like this is an every day occurence, and warrants no further discussion by the casino, again this is not about a lousy $150 bonus amount. it certainly is not a daily occurence in any players lives I know of. Sometimes a little kindness goes a long way.

I feel very sad for the player and I feel the casino , while they are correct, does not have to be so impersonal and insensitive. Come on it must hurt...a lot.


Okay sorry for the long post. I do wish you all the happiest of holidays.

Annie

 

[RobWin]

Not ambiguous at all.

You breach the T&C, everything is forfeited. Matters not before or after, unless the wagering requirements have been completed in which case there shouldn't be a breach in the first place.

It's clearly stated - and implicitly accepted by the player when he started. All he had to do was clear the WR by continuing to play slots - whether he forgot in excitement or not is irrelevant.

I do think it sucks, mind you - but it's still clear that he breached a term and that term is not unfair in any way nor does it disadvantage a player except when they either read the term and forgot, or never read the term at all - in both instances the fault of the player.

Please Re-read my post number 87 here Spear and tell me if you still feel the term "in general" is still un-ambiguous...as per my scenario?

I am saying this term IMO is ambiguous as a "Term" overall...I'm not even factoring the OP's dilemma or case into this fact...
____
____

 

[silcnlayc]

OK, this is getting silly...what do you not understand on a bonus saying Slots ONLY Bonus? You can discuss this till the moon turns blue but those words will not make it change to Slots only bonus and some blackjack... I do believe the OP played blackjack ON PURPOSE to boost his stash...I play blackjack when I get low on funds too , to make my stash last longer..You cannot mistake a slot machine for blackjack cards..

Geeze...How much clearer can this bonus be?? We do not need programs etc to keep us from doing what the bonus states..we are adults..we can understand rules..etc..to try and fudge on a rule..when it states BOLDLY...SLOTS ONLY...how much more direction does one need???

.

 

[spearmaster]

Please Re-read my post number 87 here Spear and tell me if you still feel the term "in general" is still un-ambiguous...as per my scenario?

I am saying this term IMO is ambiguous as a "Term" overall...I'm not even factoring the OP's dilemma or case into this fact...
____
____

Not ambiguous. "Any winnings" is very clear. "Any winnings resulting from the wager" is also very clear.

Similarly, "Any item" is very clear, as is "Any item from Menu A"

 

[RobWin]

This is Software !! there are some programming things that can be done to insure this NEVER happens. The casinos should take some of the blame in these kind of situations. It happens again and again. This is not the one in a million cases. The forums are full of stories like this. Both the player and the casino have a duty here.

I think the Software developers could easily design something that would intervene. They could very easily place a warning flag pop up into the casino that advises a player that game is not allowed at this time.

Or simply grey out games that are not allowed until a certain wager requirement has been reached. This way there would be none of this "Confiscation" stuff. The terms are there for I reason I do understand this, but there seems to be a lack of player protection too.

Annie

Rival already does that, so kudos to Rival for being ahead of the pack in that regard!
____
____

 

[nitro]

Not ambiguous. "Any winnings" is very clear. "Any winnings resulting from the wager" is also very clear.

Similarly, "Any item" is very clear, as is "Any item from Menu A"

There are more funny ways of wasting time than arguing in 100 postings about a "problem" that never was one...

 

[RobWin]

Not ambiguous. "Any winnings" is very clear. "Any winnings resulting from the wager" is also very clear.

Similarly, "Any item" is very clear, as is "Any item from Menu A"

Existing Term:
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.

New "More Clarity" Term:
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.

So basically in my example above you are saying that it would not be more clear for the player and offer extra clarity to add those three words?

As you can see also, by adding those three words the term would also be more player friendly in the sense that "All Winnings" would not be void but now with better clarity only winnings from those excluded games would be void.

As it stands the current term is what we call in contract law "Pro Casino" or "Pro Contractor" in my sense of use and experience writing contracts for large industrial and commercial contracts for years.
____
____

 

[RobWin]

There are more funny ways of wasting time than arguing in 100 postings about a "problem" that never was one...

Like what?

Todays Tuesday....
____
____

 

[nitro]

Merry Christmas