mstrike1978 VS Club World Casino ($46,034.44)

[blankley]

'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. '

It's quite clear to me what that means in any normal sentence structure, that the 'winnings' at the end of the sentence relate to the 'wagers' at the start of the sentence, ie only those winnings on excluded games are removed (plus bonus).

If they had meant ALL WINNINGS they would have said so. I'd like to see this go to arbitration in front of a barrister, but Club World woudn't have the bottle.




'Thank you for taking the time to find out about Club World Casinos, the only online casino that puts the player first.'

HAHAHAHAHA

 

[kauphy]

hi thank you all this helped me kill an hour of time lol. you all have seen this before not that its easy for the player when something like this happens but he/she played on a bonus that was for slots only and he played a game he was not allowed to play. no matter how u cut it he loses casino keeps money. the casino did nothing wronge. if ur not sure don,t take a bonus. i would say if he hit the jackpot before then they should pay him but he did,nt so no more need to be said. but thank you all for being who u are and have the very marryest x-mas and the best new year.

 

[Pulver]

Since this is a large amount of money I would advice the OP to contact a lawyer to get his view on the T&C.

The casino could have written a very clear T&C with absolutely cotton clear meaning if they wanted to. They could have also programmed the software in such a way that the player was not physically allowed to play a game that was not allowed. The way it is set up now, people are bound to make mistakes, and the casino will profit from the mistakes beeing done.

I am not a native english speaker, so Im not an expert, but I read it the same way blankley sees it.

Again, I would suggest that OP contacts a lawyer so the he can get an expert interpretation of the case, and then pursue the case via court if the lawyer supports your view of the case.

I have a friend who is a lawyer, If I see him on msn tonight, I could ask him what his thoughts are.

 

[rockycatt]

i beieve the O P is from here ----------> and that preseants a problem
internet gambleing
but please corret me if im wrong


the City of Neenah!

A special place to live and a great place to do business!

Coming to Neenah is like coming home. Quietly nestled along the shores of Lake Winnebago, Neenah is a friendly, spirited "hometown," where life is safe, comfortable, and secure. Here you'll enjoy the lifestyle of small town America and the convenience of living in the Fox Cities metropolitan area, the fastest growing urban center in Wisconsin.

Neenah, Wisconsin. A special place to live and a great place to do business. Come, visit us and see for yourself. And if you're late coming home, we'll leave the lighthouse on for you!

 

[LaHutti]

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.
____
____

Why on earth would they want to put that in, since their whole point is "We do NOT want you to play ANYTHING but slots with this bonus", and that's excactly what it says now ?

 

[mstrike1978]

Coming to Neenah is like coming home. Quietly nestled along the shores of Lake Winnebago, Neenah is a friendly, spirited "hometown," where life is safe, comfortable, and secure. Here you'll enjoy the lifestyle of small town America and the convenience of living in the Fox Cities metropolitan area, the fastest growing urban center in Wisconsin.

Neenah, Wisconsin. A special place to live and a great place to do business. Come, visit us and see for yourself. And if you're late coming home, we'll leave the lighthouse on for you!

RockyCat... Thanks... Yes, I am from Neenah, and I guess I never looked at it that way before.

To everyone else.... I had no idea my post would snowball into this large of a thread. I've taken the past 24 hours to think carefully, and I will be taking the week and weekend to consider my options. I am, however, a little frustrated with the lack of software control and my ambiguous interpretation of the terms of service. If blackjack was not allowed, I should not have been allowed by the code. I spoke with the customer service representative after winning the jackpot, and they said all was fine. In my opinion, this is a bit underhanded. I was instructed to contact the cashier in the morning because they were out. The same software that I entered my code into awarded me a jackpot.

However, Tom did send me a professional and and courteous email, restating their position on this matter.

 

[uungy]

Since this is a large amount of money I would advice the OP to contact a lawyer to get his view on the T&C.

The casino could have written a very clear T&C with absolutely cotton clear meaning if they wanted to. They could have also programmed the software in such a way that the player was not physically allowed to play a game that was not allowed. The way it is set up now, people are bound to make mistakes, and the casino will profit from the mistakes beeing done.

I am not a native english speaker, so Im not an expert, but I read it the same way blankley sees it.

Again, I would suggest that OP contacts a lawyer so the he can get an expert interpretation of the case, and then pursue the case via court if the lawyer supports your view of the case.

I have a friend who is a lawyer, If I see him on msn tonight, I could ask him what his thoughts are.

Would really be interesting to hear a professional side to this.

 

[bernynhel]

I like alabama5150's point about how the software could easily prevent play on prohibited games until the WR is met. Rival software has it. I don't know that because the software doesn't prevent play on prohibited games that there would be some kind of legal recourse for a player who only "accidentally" played blackjack or vp, but the point is why don't casinos just build the safeguards into the software?

 

[nitro]

The best solution, as I have been saying for years and others have suggested above, would be for the software to PREVENT players using any games not allowed in the bonus until WR is met.

The best solution would be trying to attract more gamblers and not screwing them with rules like this because this kind of behaviour is absolutely counterproductive in the long run. This could be achieved by improving the incentive schemes. The only thing needed to do this is putting the advantage players here on the rogue list for a while and start to treat them like cassava does throughout the industry because they're the ones who have turned the bonus concept almost to crap and aren't very eager to change their ways...(this could be a nice christmas present to the "abuser" community that is right now on the scene - who have a 10 years long history of being good for nothing parasites)

 

[LaurieJim]

I like alabama5150's point about how the software could easily prevent play on prohibited games until the WR is met. Rival software has it. I don't know that because the software doesn't prevent play on prohibited games that there would be some kind of legal recourse for a player who only "accidentally" played blackjack or vp, but the point is why don't casinos just build the safeguards into the software?

That would be a perfect solution, but lets face it if a seasoned player is playing on a slots only bonus, then he/ she would know the difference between slots and blackjack and couldnt call it an" accident". I dont play blackjack, just slots and its always in the terms, when i have taken a bonus.....no bj, ect, ect, ect. i feel for the player but the casino is within their right imo and they did return their deposit.

Im sure in the many years of online gambling, this isnt the first time something like this has popped up at any casino and wont be the last until folks........READ!!!!! even the fine print when using any bonus..............laurie

 

[rockycatt]

with all do respect aside from this thread but related the fine print has been the joke of contracts sence inception of them

 

[hobbithumper]

Sigh...

At the end of the day, this was a SLOTS ONLY bonus. Huge amounts of sympathy to the OP, life changing sum of money but not to be.

Search through the old posts to see how many people have criticised casinos for not following their own terms & conditions. Like it or not, a slots only bonus was claimed & abused; whether deliberately or accidentally, it was abused. Claiming a slots only bonus & being aware of t&c which, post event, are being claimed as unclear - the lessons to be learned are "check first" and "don't risk it". If you don't like, or approve of, or understand t&c, the time to complain is before the conflict. The terms haven't changed. A decent casino will answer questions about t&c if you ask them. If you don't like the t&c, don't play there.

Bottom line, don't criticise the casino for following their own rules.

 

[nitro]

This kind of mistakes are intended because that increases the profits (in the shortterm - not too many people care about the bigger picture) hobbithumper and could be prevented easily if there was a wish to do so.

 

[Pulver]

mstrike1978: I would really recomend that you see a lawyer that specializes in matters regarding contracts, terms and conditions. It may cost you a coupple of hundred, but with such a sum to be potentially won, I would not hesitate to do it. Lets face it, no one in here have enough legal knowledge to give you the right answer. Bearing in mind that many of the online casinos terms and conditions would not hold up in court, and the fact that this term can be discussed, indicates that the case might not be as crystal clear as CWC claims it to be. If I am not entirely wrong, CWC headquarters are in England, so I would assume that it would not be to difficult to pursue the case there. In my country atleast, we have a "consumer ombudsman" (Sorry, I don't have the correct english word for it) where we can complain if we feel wrongfully treated as a consumer. I would assume that England has a similar, if not better system.

 

[Pulver]

At the end of the day, this was a SLOTS ONLY bonus. Huge amounts of sympathy to the OP, life changing sum of money but not to be.

Search through the old posts to see how many people have criticised casinos for not following their own terms & conditions. Like it or not, a slots only bonus was claimed & abused; whether deliberately or accidentally, it was abused. Claiming a slots only bonus & being aware of t&c which, post event, are being claimed as unclear - the lessons to be learned are "check first" and "don't risk it". If you don't like, or approve of, or understand t&c, the time to complain is before the conflict. The terms haven't changed. A decent casino will answer questions about t&c if you ask them. If you don't like the t&c, don't play there.

Bottom line, don't criticise the casino for following their own rules.

At the end of the day the term regarding the matter can be interpreted in different ways as Blankley wrote in this post: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/mstrike1978-vs-club-world-casino-46-034-44.35246/

And at the end of the day not many of the casinos T&C would hold up in a court of law either. I would therefor again recomend that the OP contacts a legal expert on matters like this.

(I am not judging if the OP should be paid or not, all I am saying since this is such a large sum of money, and that the term, in my opinion, can be interpreted different ways, the OP should contact a "real" expert on matters regarding terms and conditions)

 

[anniemac]

We can discuss this topic until the cows come home and it won't change a thing. The terms, however ambiguous to some, state for playing slots only, period. CW is within their rights to uphold the terms just as we expect them to uphold the rules if the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak.

If you are going to play online then be an informed player. If you don't know, ask. I won't even play a progressive slot until I have completed playthru just in case.

As for legal recourse, what are you going to do in the US? We are not even suppose to be playing online or rather, not funding our habit with our own money. Any other country you might have legal recourse but I really doubt it here.

I am so sorry this happened to the player. It did and it sucks but the casino is in the right about this.

 

[Pulver]

We can discuss this topic until the cows come home and it won't change a thing. The terms, however ambiguous to some, state for playing slots only, period. CW is within their rights to uphold the terms just as we expect them to uphold the rules if the shoe was on the other foot, so to speak.

If you are going to play online then be an informed player. If you don't know, ask. I won't even play a progressive slot until I have completed playthru just in case.

As for legal recourse, what are you going to do in the US? We are not even suppose to be playing online or rather, not funding our habit with our own money. Any other country you might have legal recourse but I really doubt it here.

I am so sorry this happened to the player. It did and it sucks but the casino is in the right about this.

Since you are so shure, I presume you have 6 years of legal education in your backsack when you are saying that this term would hold up in a court of law?

The part of beeing in the US and gambling beeing illegal and all that, is a bit of an ass for the OP though..

 

[zebedy]

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

At the tournaments at 3dice if you try and play a game that is not specified in the tournament list it displays a popup,so your aware you cant play that game
If a small operation like 3dice can do it surely RTG could come up with something similar in normal game play when a coupon has been triggered,

 

[Pulver]

At the tournaments at 3dice if you try and play a game that is not specified in the tournament list it displays a popup,so your aware you cant play that game
If a small operation like 3dice can do it surely RTG could come up with something similar in normal game play when a coupon has been triggered,

If RTG did this, then RTG casinos would miss out on a lot of "confiscated money". Bad for business in other words. Ofcourse it could be done within a couple of hours of programming. Aswell as casinos could write crystal clear T&C, if they wanted to...

 

[anniemac]

Pulver,

No, I don't have 6 years of legal experience and I assume that you do. But I do live in the US and know what a firestorm that online gambling has become here. Now if the OP wants to hire a lawyer, he is within his right to do so. But things being what they are, can't see a good outcome.

Don't see the need in you being snippy with me. I have as much right to my opinion as you do. Just calling it as I see it.

 

[bernynhel]

mstrike1978: I would really recomend that you see a lawyer ...

Given the fact that ClubWorld is licensed in Netherlands Antilles which licenses 293 online gaming sites in exchange for a fee of 10,000 Netherlands Antilles Guilders (US$5,580.00) per month during the first two years plus 2% of each operators net gains and that online casinos, so licensed, operate under the laws and statutes and protection of Netherlands Antilles, and if that isn't enough to discourage anyone from throwing good money after bad at attorneys over any dispute with an outfit like ClubWorld, online gaming operators may also obtain sub-licenses to run Internet gambling operations from the Netherlands Antilles. This allows host businesses to sub-divide their existing gambling licenses for use by partner companies, further insulating some operators by being an entity, once removed, from the actual license holder.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Nifty29]

@uungy - I wonder if this has anything to do with why you are so anti-casino in this thread:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...voids-winnings-i-played-the-wrong-game.32592/

It might explain why you refuse to acknowledge any of the facts.

Again, it is often the same people who try to make excuses for players vs the 'evil casinos' regardless of the fact it was the player who made all the mistakes.

No wonder the terms and conditions of bonuses are becoming so draconian, there always seems to be a group of players that are determined to create ambiguity where there isnt any.....often to claim winnings they know full well they are not entitled to.

We all have to follow the rules - we might not like them or wish they were different - but the OP has no more right to be exempted than you or I do. Anyhow, if you dont like the terms of a bonus dont take it in the first place. If you claim a bonus without reading the terms properly, its the same as signing a contract without reading it - if it all goes belly-up because you broke the agreement it is tough bikkies....whether you read it or not isnt a defence in any court.

Its true though that the 'discussion' is academic now. The OP wont be paid and thats final, and the vast majority of members posting in this thread agree with that course of action - you can rest assured, as has always been the case, members like myself who have been around a while will come out fighting for any player who has been mistreated or geniunely ripped off, so if that were the case here the overall opinion would be very different indeed. It was a mistake by the player, and now they are paying an unusually heavy price....sad, but it is their fault and they alone should bear the responsibility.

 

[nitro]

If you claim a bonus without reading the terms properly, its the same as signing a contract without reading it...

If you expect that people have to read through 48 pages of T&C before claiming a bonus no wonder you have to pull stunts like this...

 

[me_and_ed]

Even though it is after the fact they should lockout games, if I am not mistaken I think there was a post a while back and I believe it was Klub8 that used to lock restricted games, I guess this would just be too easy, having amiguous terms that can be interpreted differently by each user still leaves a FU clause for the casino and thats my belief why they dont lockout games.

 

[Nifty29]

If you expect that people have to read through 48 pages of T&C before claiming a bonus no wonder you have to pull stunts like this...

Actually, the bonus terms are less than half a page:

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

There may also be extra/different terms for each coupon but in my experience its usually only a few lines. e.g. in the OPs case it was a slots only coupon where no other games were allowed. Not really difficult to understand 'slots only' is it?

Also, I think you'll find its the other way around.....it is because of people pulling stunts all the time that casinos have to be so strict with terms. (btw Im not saying the OP was pulling a stunt)