mstrike1978 VS Club World Casino ($46,034.44)

[winbig]

oh how I miss 32Red's all-games bonus every month. No weighting, nothing.

[/derail]

 

[KasinoKing]

oh how I miss 32Red's all-games bonus every month. No weighting, nothing.

[/derail]

It's terrible - I have so much trouble deciding which game to play...

[/more derail]

 

[spearmaster]

I still rate you as a Hongkonger Spear. May we meet sometime in the future. If you come with Bryan and Simmo! I can teach you guys how to play mahjong.

Haha... well, part of my heart is definitely there in HK

I used to play mahjong - and smoke - in the principal's office!!

 

[winbig]

It's terrible - I have so much trouble deciding which game to play...

[/more derail]

Bite me, mmmmkay?

 

[jas2587]

I remember back when we would win a Gonegambling bonus that Microgaming would block the progressives an the new games from us so we couldnt play them on bonus money I always thought that was odd

then 1 day we could play anything

so it is possible to block off games

its like a member stated they want you to cross the line so they can take your winnings


Cindy

 

[BigSD]

Apologies if I missed the answer to this but it is an awfully long thread.

Did the OP admit he played bj BEFORE the jackpot? If you didn't do this and you exhaust all avenues through casinomeister and the licensing body then I reccomend you approach a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer but If the play didn't give you an advantage I highly doubt someone can get away with taking 50 thousand dollars away from you.

Alternatively, if you did play bj before the jackpot on a slots bonus then you've just wasted alot of peoples time. You can't claim a slots only bonus is a hidden term. Every slots only bonus I've seen is pretty easily indicated.

 

[funeral979]

I see many MANY posts in this thread saying well they claimed a SLOTS ONLY bonus, so case closed....

I reread this whole thread twice and cannot find any mention of what the actual bonus was that was claimed. It would be interesting to note if we could see what the actual terms are of the coupon claimed...and see how it was worded. You see alot of casinos that reel off a list of games that CANNOT be played, and that MAY be cause for confiscation of winnings...and very few that say, hey, THIS BONUS CAN ONLY BE PLAYED ON SLOT MACHINES ONLY.

I dont play at CW so I dont know how their coupons work, or how they are worded (except for their general terms), so would be interesting to see..

 

[BigSD]

You see alot of casinos that reel off a list of games that CANNOT be played, and that MAY be cause for confiscation of winnings...and very few that say, hey, THIS BONUS CAN ONLY BE PLAYED ON SLOT MACHINES ONLY.

I dont play at CW so I dont know how their coupons work, or how they are worded (except for their general terms), so would be interesting to see..

Its a fair point but I don't think RTGs generally list excluded games for a slots only bonus. They usually pretty clearly say slots bonus.

There are a couple of casinos that go to the trouble of just excluding all the games other than slots rather than just saying slots only but I've never seen that in a RTG casino.

 

[bryand]

I see many MANY posts in this thread saying well they claimed a SLOTS ONLY bonus, so case closed....

I reread this whole thread twice and cannot find any mention of what the actual bonus was that was claimed. It would be interesting to note if we could see what the actual terms are of the coupon claimed...and see how it was worded. You see alot of casinos that reel off a list of games that CANNOT be played, and that MAY be cause for confiscation of winnings...and very few that say, hey, THIS BONUS CAN ONLY BE PLAYED ON SLOT MACHINES ONLY.

I dont play at CW so I dont know how their coupons work, or how they are worded (except for their general terms), so would be interesting to see..

A link to the complete T&C was posted earlier in this thread.

 

[funeral979]

A link to the complete T&C was posted earlier in this thread.

Again, I am unfamiliar with CW, but I just recall seeing a link to the general T&Cs, not the terms of the specific bonus/code that they were using...or do all CW bonus terms just follow this one set of general T&Cs?

 

[SlotMonster]

I didn't manage to read through the whole thread...did the OP get their money or not?

 

[bb28]

I didn't manage to read through the whole thread...did the OP get their money or not?

No money.

 

[jas2587]

Again, I am unfamiliar with CW, but I just recall seeing a link to the general T&Cs, not the terms of the specific bonus/code that they were using...or do all CW bonus terms just follow this one set of general T&Cs?

its on page 1 of this thread

Cindy

 

[AussieDave]

Did the OP admit he played bj BEFORE the jackpot?

I am having the worst day of my life. This morning, Club World Casino confiscated all of my winnings, even my DEPOSIT! Read below... I need some serious help help people... The worst part is, I only played a few hands of blackjack...

Please wait for a site operator to respond.

You are now chatting with 'Jaye'

Jaye: Hello, how are you today?

Michael Strike: Ok, I need help please.

Jaye: ok, i haved checked your account.

Michael Strike: Why does my balance read zero? I had $46000.

Jaye: The management have removed the winnings as Blackjack was played, and you claimed a SLOTS only bonus.

Jaye: 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.

Michael Strike: They can keep any blackjack winnings.

Michael Strike: But I made 46000 on slot machines.

Jaye: When you claim a bonus, you have to meet the playthrough on the games allowed only,

Jaye: as you played blackjack and won, you then used these winnings to play slots, unfortunately this has voided the win

Michael Strike: I need to speak with a supervisor please....

Michael Strike: I did not see anything that said that and we are talking about a lot of money.

Jaye: unfortunately there is not one available at the moment, if you can email in i will forward the email to management for you.

Jaye: But the bonus terms were broken

Jaye: and it is the players responibility to read the terms

Michael Strike: Where is the link for the terms please?

Jaye: Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Michael Strike: Where is the part you are referring to please.

Jaye: scroll down to bonus terms

Jaye: it is the 6th term

Michael Strike: It says any winning made on games that are excluded from the wagering requirement will be void, which means worst case scenario, I fofeited any money from blackjack,.

Jaye: 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 OP played blackjack first... From these winnings the OP then played slots @ $15 a spin and won a Jackpot.

It was a slots only bonus...The OP voided the bonus terms well before the OP played the slots.

If the OP had played slots only as the terms and conditions stated, (blackjack among other games is clearly displayed in the cashier as as excluded games when the OP claimed the bonus)...

Michael Strike: It says any winning made on games that are excluded from the wagering requirement will be void, which means worst case scenario, I fofeited any money from blackjack,.

The winnings from blackjack were used by the OP to to play $15 spins on the slots, which he hit a $50K jackpot.

By confiscating the blackjack winnings it null and voids the slot jackpot.

On a purely goodwill gesture by the casino, I would put forward this solution:

Remove the blackjack winnings, which voids the jackpot win. Return whatever money the OP had in his account prior to playing blackjack. And let the OP play slots only.

I still think the OP is in the wrong by voiding the bonus terms.
However it's Christmas. Although that doesn't mean everyone should get a free get out jail card, I view it as decent goodwill gesture on the casinos part.


Cheers



Dave

 

[Pinababy69]

Reply to Funeral979, from the first post of the thread. While we haven't seen the coupon/code itself...the OP has not to this point disputed the fact that the bonus he claimed was indeed listed as slots only.

Jaye: The management have removed the winnings as Blackjack was played, and you claimed a SLOTS only bonus.

As Silcnlayc pointed out earlier...we have 17 pages of discussion relating to the T&C's of this particular coupon/bonus. I can't speak for anyone else but myself..and I'm no more intelligent than the average person..but for those few who think the OP did nothing wrong...would someone please tell me why anyone would play BJ with a bonus that is labelled as slots only? Forget the T&C's, forget about reading to see what's allowed and what isn't....when a coupon says SLOTS ONLY or SLOTS bonus...please tell me why you would play any other game BESIDES slots? I just don't get it.

There was a thread similar to this maybe a year or more ago re: Inetbet (I think)..and my view then was the same as now. I don't need to read any Terms and Conditions. If I claim a coupon that stipulates it is for Slots...I play slots, and nothing else. I wouldn't claim a VP or BJ coupon and then proceed to play slots. The disallowed games don't even count towards WR...so WHY? Doesn't common sense dictate that you stick to slots?

Nifty...I almost posted that exact same thread that you did re: Uungy's voided winnings at Slots Oasis. He played Roulette...one big INITIAL bet, and he won 9K and then proceeded to meet the WR and actually got his balance up to close to 50K as well. Uungy, you are a VERY seasoned player and should know very well that this type of situation has popped up many times before. I can excuse the OP for maybe being a little green, and I feel horrible for him (I read his profile as well and see that he's a single dad). I'm sure he must be sick right now over losing 46K. But anyone who has been around the block should know very well that ANY RTG casino will void ALL winnings for playing any disallowed games, when using a coupon..in most cases. So why push the envelope? I just don't get it, and I guess I never will.

Bottom line....I will never understand any player who redeems a slots only bonus, and then proceeds to play roulette, BJ, or whatever game. They give the coupon a name for a reason. Slots Only means play slots. The only thing I would be checking is the playthrough, and if there was a max cashout.

Final note...to the various posters who mentioned that RTG and other softwares should alter their code to make disallowed games unplayable....I couldn't agree more. This would eliminate all of this bullshit. It's not rocket science, so I'm left with no alternative but to agree that they don't do this, in hopes of trapping the unwary newbie, who doesn't understand WR and T&C's.

I'd love to hear from Dogboy as to why RTG has not written this into their software as yet. If someone claims a slots only coupon....why not make it impossible for them to load any game but slots? So simple.

 

[bryand]

The OP played blackjack first... From these winnings the OP then played slots @ $15 a spin and won a Jackpot.

It was a slots only bonus...The OP voided the bonus terms well before the OP played the slots.

If the OP had played slots only as the terms and conditions stated, (blackjack among other games is clearly displayed in the cashier as as excluded games when the OP claimed the bonus)...



The winnings from blackjack were used by the OP to to play $15 spins on the slots, which he hit a $50K jackpot.

If the OP didn't play blackjack (an excluded game) The OP wouldn't be up sh#t creek spearing tadpoles with crow bars now!


Cheers



Dave

Dave, I believe OP stated more than once that he won the slots jackpot before playing BJ. Chat does not say he played BJ first.

 

[AussieDave]

Dave, I believe OP stated more than once that he won the slots jackpot before playing BJ. Chat does not say he played BJ first.

I was under the impression that initially the OP could not remember whether he play blackjack or the slots first.

(of course this is just from memory - not stating it as fact)
But I'm sure it was later revealed by the OP that the blackjack winnings allowed him to play $15 spins on the slots of which produced the $50K jackpot win.

Raking through 17 pages is not my idea of fun. But for completeness and to see if blackjack was played first as I believe, I guess I'll be doing just that now


Cheers



Dave

 

[Nifty29]

This is the order of events as described by the OP and CW:

The OP:

1. deposited $150 and received $150 bonus with slots only coupon

2. played slots initially until their balance reached $30

3. played blackjack and built their bankroll up again

4. played $15 spins on slots and hit $50k jackpot


There is no doubt that the OP won the slot jackpot AFTER they played blackjack - this is not in dispute.

So, if the OP were to have their balance returned to before they played blackjack they would have $30. In that case, the casino is giving him back more than he would be entitled to under the clause that Aussiedave suggested.

Pina is right in saying the whole issue has become more complicated than it actually is - the OP played BJ on a slots only coupon - end of story. I wonder if there would be as many people either a) supporting the OP or b) even bothering to post at all if the amount was $500. It doesnt matter what the amount is, ANY winnings and the bonus (which is technically the whole balance anyway in RTG casinos) are VOID. It is not a case of a casino using an FU clause to avoid paying....its Club World for goodness sake not Cool Cat!!

 

[AussieDave]

Ok Found it without too much hassle...

I was wrong the OP played slots first....However as the following shows, it gives straight forward reason why the OP had his winnings voided.

If you built up your balance by playing BJ first (or at any time before winning this massive amount) then by all means they're doing the right thing. eg:

started out playing slots
balance got low, so go play blackjack
win some more money playing blackjack
go back to slots and win a ton of money

etc

Hello, events did transpire as WinBig guessed:

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.

By the way this win was not from a prize pool and so does not affect the jackpots available to our players.

From our terms and conditions:

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.

I feel this is very clear and we would not take such extreme action without good reason.

Kind Regards
Tom

I will add that CW has since returned the OP's original deposit of $150 to his account. As stated by the OP here:

Well I logged into my account and they refunded my $150.00 original deposit, but I'm not going to touch it.

Whilst reading this thread over and over again, I have noticed a divergence in what the OP claims and what Tom from CW states.

The OP claims to have won the $50K jackpot before playing blackjack.

However Tom is claiming the proceeds won from blackjack allowed the OP to make max bets.

Which statement is true?

The OP play logs would of course show this.



Cheers



Dave

 

[maxd]

... I believe OP stated more than once that he won the slots jackpot before playing BJ.

You might want to go back and re-read the OP's posts. He has said he doesn't remember, then later implied the jackpot came _before_ the BJ, etc. There hasn't been a lot of consistency there.

FWIW I've got a request in to Tom for a definite statement on the sequence of events. IMHO, even his earlier post in the thread didn't make that 100% clear.

 

[maxd]

This is the order of events as described by the OP and CW:

The OP:

1. deposited $150 and received $150 bonus with slots only coupon

2. played slots initially until their balance reached $30

3. played blackjack and built their bankroll up again

4. played $15 spins on slots and hit $50k jackpot


There is no doubt that the OP won the slot jackpot AFTER they played blackjack - this is not in dispute.

Can you point us to where in the thread this is made clear? Please post the URLs.

 

[bernynhel]

Hello, events did transpire as WinBig guessed:



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.

By the way this win was not from a prize pool and so does not affect the jackpots available to our players.

From our terms and conditions:

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.

I feel this is very clear and we would not take such extreme action without good reason.

Kind Regards
Tom

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in post #36 there's this: Link Outdated / Removed Merry XMAS everyone!

 

[maxd]

Sorry Berny, that post by CW doesn't definitively state that BJ winnings funded the big Slots win. That's what we need to nail down hard here.

I see now where it was said in chat that BJ winnings funded Slots, but it doesn't say the BJ winnings were used to fund the Slots jackpot win, meaning the Slots jackpot _came_after_ the BJ winnings.

As I've said, I still want to hear the actual sequence of events from Tom. ...

Ok, he has confirmed it. Just waiting for permission to quote his email here on the boards.

 

[Nifty29]

Can you point us to where in the thread this is made clear? Please post the URLs.

Hi Max

I found everything but the $30 bit...Im sure I read that but I cant find it but the order below, especially toms post where he confirms what winbig said:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/mstrike1978-vs-club-world-casino-46-034-44.35246/

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/mstrike1978-vs-club-world-casino-46-034-44.35246/

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/mstrike1978-vs-club-world-casino-46-034-44.35246/

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/mstrike1978-vs-club-world-casino-46-034-44.35246/

 

[maxd]

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.

Mike, were you really betting $10 per spin on a high variance slot with only a $300 balance?

Yes, I was trying to hit the jackpot. It was actually $15 / spin.

Hello, events did transpire as WinBig guessed:

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.

By the way this win was not from a prize pool and so does not affect the jackpots available to our players.

From our terms and conditions:

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.

I feel this is very clear and we would not take such extreme action without good reason.

Kind Regards
Tom

Sorry Nifty, those are the posts you cited and I don't see anywhere in there a clear, no-questions statement that the BJ wins funded the Slots jackpot win.

That said the following from the casino manager leaves no questions unanswered:

I can confirm that the sequence of events was:

1. Slots action reduced the players balance
2. Before wagering requirement was met the player switched to Blackjack and won
3. Player switched back to slots and hit a natural $50,000 win
4. Player completed wagering requirements on slots

There's no question now: BJ winnings made in violation of the Terms were then used to win the Slots jackpot. As I read the Terms the casino has not applied them unfairly or unjustly. The player's Slots win should be forfeit due to Terms violations.

Think of an extreme case:

• say I have $10 left in my account after taking the Slots bonus.
• I go play some BJ and wind that up to $500.
• Then I play Slots at MAX and win big.

Am I justified in claiming the Slots win? NO! I violated the Terms -- one could say I did so intentionally in order to stay in the game -- and then made bets in Slots that I could not have afforded otherwise. Crystal clear case where the win would not have been possible without the Terms violations. No way no how would I be justified in claiming the Slots win: (a) I violated the Terms and (b) I played and won in Slots with money I would not have had if I hadn't violated the Terms.

So then, do the amounts won in one game or another really matter in this example? Or is it the Terms violations that are the point?

I'd say the Terms violations are the point and they torpedo the player who did so.

And is that not exactly the case we have on hand here? Yes, I think it is. The player is SOL, imho.

And I should add that this is entirely consistent with previous rulings we've made in similar cases. There the player wins weren't so big but that is not the point. The point is we see this happen from time to time -- sometimes innocently, sometimes not-so-innocently -- and the ruling has always been the same: player violated the Terms and has no justifiable claim against the casino.

Does the size of the player's win here change any of that? I say no. Same procedure = same outcome. No question, regardless of the "Oh F***!" factor involved here because of the big win.

 

[Nifty29]

Thanks Max

I figured the part below would have been enough, but Im glad Tom confirmed it all with you.

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.

Max is right though - whether its $46 or $46k doesnt matter.

 

[maxd]

I figured the part below would have been enough....

Yes, I figured that was the gist of it. From my work on the PABs I'm in the habit of eliminating the wiggle room wherever possible. As it happens here that was pretty straightforward.

 

[hobbithumper]

One issue which has been raised but not highlighted is the fact that playing blackjack shouldn't make a difference as it's a -EV game, so there is no advantage to playing blackjack and then switching to slots.

Had the OP lost at blackjack and THEN moved to slots & hit big, he may well have had a valid argument, even though the bonus was SLOTS ONLY - the "all winnings" part of the t&c may have been seen as ambiguous if the OP lost money on blackjack if there had been a net loss - would winnings mean money won on a hand by hand basis, or overall? I think this is the only ambiguous part of this whole unfortunate affair.

This is a moot point as the OP was able to make enough money playing blackjack to fund the slots win. As to why he did this, I cannot guess, but the end result is painfully clear.

 

[maxd]

One issue which has been raised but not highlighted is the fact that playing blackjack shouldn't make a difference as it's a -EV game, so there is no advantage to playing blackjack and then switching to slots.

Had the OP lost at blackjack and THEN moved to slots & hit big, he may well have had a valid argument....

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether the EV is + or - or wearing striped pajamas. It's a Terms issue not a logic or mathematics issue. IMHO.

Ideally the player would be barred by the software from entering BJ while the slots bonus was in affect. Or lock him up once he started playing BJ, or whatever.

The point being that if the software could enforce the Terms then there'd be a lot fewer of these "but I didn't mean to" and similar situations. Until that fine day we're left with what we've got and that is that players have to respect and follow the Terms. This player did not. End of story if you ask me, regardless of how nice it might have been for him if things were different.

 

[hobbithumper]

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether the EV is + or - or wearing striped pajamas. It's a Terms issue not a logic or mathematics issue. IMHO.

Utterly agree, just attempting to tidy up the loose ends of this thread, many points have been raised, this one was the only one I could see which hadn't been followed through. An earlier post raised this issue & sided with the player, as normally one wouldn't expect this tactic to work - the fact it did is clearly more luck than judgement. Had the OP lost at blackjack & then deposited again.....The benefit of hindsight!

 

[Tengil]

'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

This is the reason why I asked earlier if it could be interpreted that way. It clearly can.

And then if this would be a "normal" business it would be ruled in the favor of the consumer. Everything else is irrelevant. Write crappy or unclear terms and it will cost you.

But this is a online casino licensed in Curacao. And AFAIK no online casino or licensing jurisdiction adheres to any consumer affairs act which is understandable when you read most of the replies in this thread.
Why would they as the majority think its totally okay.

No wonder why online casinos can do basically what they want when the attitude is like this.

 

[deucebag]

This is the reason why I asked earlier if it could be interpreted that way. It clearly can.

And then if this would be a "normal" business it would be ruled in the favor of the consumer. Everything else is irrelevant. Write crappy or unclear terms and it will cost you.

Even if it was interpreted that way, he used the money he won playing blackjack to win on slots. If you agree that the blackjack winnings should be voided, it follows that the slots winnings are also void.

 

[Tengil]

Even if it was interpreted that way, he used the money he won playing blackjack to win on slots. If you agree that the blackjack winnings should be voided, it follows that the slots winnings are also void.

Wrong.

Only the BJ winnings would be deemed void. The slot winnings were made on an allowed game.

 

[LaHutti]

Wrong.

Only the BJ winnings would be deemed void.

And after that was done, there would be no money to play slots with ....geez

 

[Tengil]

And after that was done, there would be no money to play slots with ....geez

Totally irrelevant. They have no term that states anything about that.

As said write crappy terms and sooner or later you will pay for it. Called learning the hard way.

 

[deucebag]

Wrong.

Only the BJ winnings would be deemed void. The slot winnings were made on an allowed game.

You have bad habit of presenting your own logically flawed opinions as fact.

 

[Tengil]

You have bad habit of presenting your own logically flawed opinions as fact.

Then you could tell whats logically flawed?

E: only BJ winnings would be deemed void if the term would be interpreted the way blankley wrote as it only refers to the BJ winnings. Not the slot winnings made from those as they dont have a term that explicitly states that.

 

[deucebag]

Then you could tell whats logically flawed?

I don't see the point, because it has already been explained in this thread several times. You are blind to it, so there's no point in taking it further.

 

[zippedup]

I am so damned tired of people expressing opnions here and labeling them facts. Before someone posts a freaking fact they need to have data to back it up not just some fuzzy belief!

I have a belief---big bets lose more frequently than small ones on line--but it is by no means a fact because I do not have anything to back up this "belief".

A fact might involve keeping track of 100 bets vs 5 bets over 5 years and comparing the results.

So please please please stop irritating all of us by posting conjecture and saying it's fact!

You know who you are!!

 

[mstrike1978]

Hi everyone... Sorry, I would have posted earlier, but its still morning here in Wisconsin for me... Wow, everyone is really involved in getting to the bottom of this one, I feel as if you guys have as much interest as myself... I know we don't all agree on who or what, but there isn't anyone that has been posting who's opinions I dont respect.

There were some questions as to the order of the play.... Blackjack first slots, slots first, etc... I played the slots first... I remember playing blackjack, but I don't remember where it was in the order... Sorry guys, my memory isn't that good. I am going to see if I can get access to the logs.

As I have mentioned to the Casino, I won the jackpot on a slots machine with a slots coupon... That was a valid play. If they want to forfeit my blackjack wagers up to the WR, I am open to a discussion regarding that, due to the fact that a slots coupon was used. But my position is that the software that accepted the slots bonus allowed a slot jackpot. To have a big link to the other games on the main menu sends a bit of a mixed message to me, which is why I was enticed to play them.

Also, regarding the exact coupon used, I am at work now and will try and look it up shortly. This was a good point to bring up that each coupon may have different terms.

 

[chuchu59]

Hi everyone... Sorry, I would have posted earlier, but its still morning here in Wisconsin for me... Wow, everyone is really involved in getting to the bottom of this one, I feel as if you guys have as much interest as myself... I know we don't all agree on who or what, but there isn't anyone that has been posting who's opinions I dont respect.

There were some questions as to the order of the play.... Blackjack first slots, slots first, etc... I played the slots first... I remember playing blackjack, but I don't remember where it was in the order... Sorry guys, my memory isn't that good. I am going to see if I can get access to the logs.

As I have mentioned to the Casino, I won the jackpot on a slots machine with a slots coupon... That was a valid play. If they want to forfeit my blackjack wagers up to the WR, I am open to a discussion regarding that, due to the fact that a slots coupon was used. But my position is that the software that accepted the slots bonus allowed a slot jackpot. To have a big link to the other games on the main menu sends a bit of a mixed message to me, which is why I was enticed to play them.

Also, regarding the exact coupon used, I am at work now and will try and look it up shortly. This was a good point to bring up that each coupon may have different terms.

While you may not exactly remember when you played the BJ games, did you play BJ before hitting that Jackpot. This is the crux of the issue. It seems that CW is claiming that you intentionally played BJ to increase your bankroll (which has a much lower house edge and where you can place your entire balance on). I would also be interested to know whether you have used to place a large proportion of your remaining bankroll on the BJ bets. If you did the intention is very clear. You used the bonus given to you to try to increase your bankroll and then trying to hit the Jackpot with the big bets.

The onus is now on you to prove that the BJ played was not for the purpose stated above. Tom of CWC seemed to indicate that this is the case so over to you now.

 

[blankley]

Let me ask Deucebag & LaHutti something.

If I steal $1 from you and buy a lottery ticket with it and win $1M, do the winnings belong to you?



Obviously Club World, and others, should get a professional to write their T & C's, but until then they should adhere to the ones they have, with their normal meanings in contract law.

 

[mstrike1978]

The coupon used was "BIGSLOT".

 

[jas2587]

While you may not exactly remember when you played the BJ games, did you play BJ before hitting that Jackpot. This is the crux of the issue. It seems that CW is claiming that you intentionally played BJ to increase your bankroll (which has a much lower house edge and where you can place your entire balance on). I would also be interested to know whether you have used to place a large proportion of your remaining bankroll on the BJ bets. If you did the intention is very clear. You used the bonus given to you to try to increase your bankroll and then trying to hit the Jackpot with the big bets.

The onus is now on you to prove that the BJ played was not for the purpose stated above. Tom of CWC seemed to indicate that this is the case so over to you now.

funny how the OP can remember the coupon but not the way the events was played out an totaly ignored your questions says alot

Cindy

 

[rockycatt]

Let me ask Douchebag & LaHooti something.

If I steal $1 from you and buy a lottery ticket with it and win $1M, do the winnings belong to you?



Obviously Club World, and others, should get a professional to write their T & C's, but until then they should adhere to the ones they have, with their normal meanings in contract law.

interesting , i believe the winnings from that scenario money goes back to lottery were it can be won by a qualified player

 

[gambblex]

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

!!!

:notworthy

This should be the first ever thought .

Even despite everything looks OBVIOUS.

I don't overrate my mental abilities and knowledge.

But there is a PLENTY of oppotunities to introduce our lawyer friends to somebody else

@OP-no matter what the outcome will be.

I prefer to KNOW.Not to BELIEVE

Good luck!

 

[skiny]

Only 20 pages of posts debating whether or not a guy gets to keep his winings after playing blackjack on a slots only bonus?

I honestly don't know what the hell people are thinking sometimes.

We spend years weeding out the casinos that won't pay us even when we win fair and square. Then we push to have all the vague terms and conditions removed by casinos that are deemed fair and honest so the rules aren't open to interpretation when we do win.

Then we just go ahead and break the rules anyway and expect to get paid?

At what point do we say the casino has done it's part and the player needs to take responsibility for his own actions?

 

[mstrike1978]

funny how the OP can remember the coupon but not the way the events was played out an totaly ignored your questions says alot
Cindy

Wow. Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. If you log into the cashier section of the software, you can view your history and see the coupon you used. I've already said I don't remember the plays chronologically, and even if I thought I did, I would rather see the computer logs anyways.

 

[LaHutti]

Let me ask Deucebag & LaHutti something.

If I steal $1 from you and buy a lottery ticket with it and win $1M, do the winnings belong to you?



Obviously Club World, and others, should get a professional to write their T & C's, but until then they should adhere to the ones they have, with their normal meanings in contract law.

I'm sorry, but that has got to be the stupidest thing I've seen in a very long time.
So you're saying, because I didn't shoot you, while you were comitting your crime, you get to keep the loot, and you think that's good ???
Well I may be out $1 in your scenario, and you may be up $1M, but does that make it a smaller crime ?
A big difference is that the casino has the means to stop you from keeping the loot a long time after the crime has been committed, and they did.....and you have a problem with that ?????
This thread is so far out now, that I think I'm pulling out, regardless of the entertainment value.

 

[just play]

interesting , i believe the winnings from that scenario money goes back to lottery were it can be won by a qualified player

No the guy who stole the $1 gets the winnings. He bought the ticket (even if he stole the dollar) he could have found $1 on the ground and then bought the ticket, it doesn't matter where he got the $1 from, he bought and won the ticket.