mstrike1978 VS Club World Casino ($46,034.44)

[LaHutti]

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.

...and if it can be proved, that he stole the money, he'll go to prison.
He might as well rob a bank...at least that'll save him the trip to the store, to buy the lottery ticket.

 

[blankley]

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 ?????

The point is that they are two separate events.

Let's suppose I have a sportsbook bet, say a horse race which wins and I am paid out straight away, I immediately place another bet which wins. Subsequently the first race is declared void for starting too early (it has happened in the UK). My second bet would stand even though the sportsbook would reclaim the money from my account on the first void event.

This is similar to how these casino terms have been written.

 

[spearmaster]

The point is that they are two separate events.

Let's suppose I have a sportsbook bet, say a horse race which wins and I am paid out straight away, I immediately place another bet which wins. Subsequently the first race is declared void for starting too early (it has happened in the UK). My second bet would stand even though the sportsbook would reclaim the money from my account on the first void event.

This is similar to how these casino terms have been written.

There's a big difference. In your scenario, neither of the bets you placed was against the rules.

 

[Pulver]

My support goes to blankley and spiderlegz in this case.

I doesnt matter the name of the coupon or what came when. What matters is the term and point that blankley pointed out which can be interpreted in such a way that would suggest that only winnings from BJ would be removed when making the cashout.

To many posters in this thread, Ill bet you could get a job as casino shills (if you not already are).

 

[nitro]

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)

The problem is that this kind of rules usually hit people who are new to online gambling and when such a thing happens they'll run away instead of stay and play in is therefore counterproductive in the end.

 

[maxd]

To many posters in this thread, Ill bet you could get a job as casino shills (if you not already are).

Just because folks have a little respect for the rules and common decency doesn't make them shills, myself included.

Anyway, from what we've heard from the casino peeps the player was close to being busted in Slots, flipped to BJ and won some, flipped back to Slots and used what they'd picked up in BJ to play further in Slots. In other words -- this could of course be confirmed in the play logs -- the big Slots win was bankrolled by BJ earnings. As stated earlier though, the amounts are beside the point. BJ play -- against the Terms -- preceded the winnings Slots play. All winnings are forfeit at the point the guy flipped to BJ ... and the guy is in violation of the Terms from that point forward. The moment he flipped to BJ he may as well have pulled the plug for all the good the play after that point is going to have done him because ... he was in violation of the Terms. Period. Done. Over. Turn the lights out. The casino is being overly generous in giving him his deposit back.

Regardless of the mega-posts here since I remind peeps that there was a very pointed and salient exchange earlier on in this thread:

... if these BJ winnings are what feeds the slots winnings, then there is a problem.

To which the OP replied:

Understood. ... I do see your point if blackjack winnings fed the slot machines on a slot machine coupon ....

Well sports fans, that's where we're at! The casino has made it clear that BJ winnings funded subsequent Slots play. So why is that not the end of story here? Because you don't want it to be? Ok, enjoy your castles in the sky, but what has that got to do with reality?

And seriously would any of this have come to pass if he had won $46 on Slots and that had been the end of it? No! Most of you would have said "Too bad Charlie" and that would have been the end of it. This discussion is being fueled by the number $46,034.44, not by logic or reason or anything else rational. It's gaga because of the moola, nothing else.

Finally, regarding this "'all' means whatever I think would be convenient" stuff I say "nice try". Frankly if I read that rule -- which is obviously designed to severely penalize players for playing non-bonus games -- and the casino said it meant anything other than "all winnings" I'd be surprised. Not "all since I did this or that", not "all in a way that benefits me the most", but _all_, as in "the works". It's a penalty clause, hence the penalty. It's not there to be an invitation to your creative accounting skills.

Doubtless some folks could start arguing over what "win" or "wager" or "casino" or "player" means too if they really put their mind to it. Get a life.

Stick a fork in this one guys, it's done.

 

[mstrike1978]

Seems to be alot of different opinions on this one...

 

[chuchu59]

Pulver,

It's downright rude to call others shills simply because they dont agree with you. We cant always side with the players merely for the sake of it. We have to look from the casino's angle as well. From the reluctance of the OP to state clearly whether this was an intentional act to beef up his bankroll we will have to take Tom's word for the time being. I dont think casinos will allow people to take advantage of their bonuses designed for slots to play something else especially those with a lower house edge. I agree, though, that RTG should disable all excluded games to avoid any ambiguity. However, there is no ambiguity here. The OP clearly knows that BJ isnt allowed and seems to have played it to try to shore up his bankroll to play slots.

Unless the OP can declare that he was only playing a couple of BJ games for fun and not splashing his entire/bulk of his remaining balance, I wouldnt mind being called a shill if that's the way you like it.

 

[silcnlayc]

maxd:Stick a fork in this one guys, it's done.

Thank Goodness! What took you so long Max??? Geez...IMO it has gotten to the point of ad nauseum....

.

 

[nitro]

This case is done of course because of the amount of $$$ involved and because it would have far too much implications to pay despite breaking the rules but what can be learned from that is that the "problem" are not the novice players but the "rules".

 

[maxd]

Seems to be alot of different opinions on this one...

Yes, and it's my opinion that the moon is made of cheese and Santa serves free martinis on Christmas Eve. So? An opinion based on bunk is bunk.

... the "problem" are not the novice players but the "rules".

Sorry, it's not the Terms that are the problem here. The problem is that a steel door doesn't slam down when the player is in violation of the Terms. This allows that player to play on and later come back to count the angels on a pin head.

If that steel door did slam down then we would not be having this discussion. The player would have found himself staring at a steel door at which point he would have gone to watch the Simpsons or have a coffee or whatever. In other words, no more play time for us to be debating endlessly.

Terms, like laws, can never be perfect. Laws, and Terms, are made by humans and humans are not, nor are we likely to ever see the day they are, perfect. So laws, and Terms, are an attempt to lay down reasonable guidelines that can be understood by reasonably well informed people. That's why there are judges, to see that the laws are applied reasonably and based on precedent.

So in most cases it's an issue of having the Terms applied reasonably, not creatively.

Point being that in most cases it's a people issue, as it ever was.

 

[lauram]

As usually thanks to max being on top of all this we have our answers.
I do understand as new players at times we do not fully understand these bonus codes the casinos do give us. But as you enter the codes in now in the club world cashier area, up comes the games you can play and not play and it also shows you that if you play unlisted games wins are void. The sad part is at times you do get a newbie that played these games without a thought about it.
Or you land others trying to use the codes and hit a large win and hope the casino does not catch it at the end. The casino did right by giving him back his deposit. At least thats how i feel.

 

[Pulver]

Pulver,

It's downright rude to call others shills simply because they dont agree with you. We cant always side with the players merely for the sake of it. We have to look from the casino's angle as well. From the reluctance of the OP to state clearly whether this was an intentional act to beef up his bankroll we will have to take Tom's word for the time being. I dont think casinos will allow people to take advantage of their bonuses designed for slots to play something else especially those with a lower house edge. I agree, though, that RTG should disable all excluded games to avoid any ambiguity. However, there is no ambiguity here. The OP clearly knows that BJ isnt allowed and seems to have played it to try to shore up his bankroll to play slots.

Unless the OP can declare that he was only playing a couple of BJ games for fun and not splashing his entire/bulk of his remaining balance, I wouldnt mind being called a shill if that's the way you like it.

First, I have not once written if the player should be paid or not. I have written that, atleast in my eyes, the term can be read in a way that only the winnings from blackjack should be removed on cashout. I therefor, several times, wrote that the OP should get an expert on legal contracts opinion on this matter. To you and others, read what I am saying, not what you think\want me to have said.

Regarding the shill remark, some posters on here defend the casino's so blindly and in every case, (even before all the facts are on the table) and in such a way that makes them sound like a shill in my ears.

Now, im finished wasting my time, tough luck OP and merry christmass.

 

[deucebag]

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?

No. This is a false analogy.

 

[uungy]

Yes, and it's my opinion that the moon is made of cheese and Santa serves free martinis on Christmas Eve. So? An opinion based on bunk is bunk.

Seriously! Is that what you believe ?

Thats a very good similarity to the way I feel you are thinking in regards to understanding the casino's terms (and many others here)

 

[nitro]

Terms, like laws, can never be perfect. Laws, and Terms, are made by humans and humans are not, nor are we likely to ever see the day they are, perfect. So laws, and Terms, are an attempt to lay down reasonable guidelines that can be understood by reasonably well informed people. That's why there are judges, to see that the laws are applied reasonably and based on precedent.

There are easier ways to get rid of the money than via the laws, terms & paragraphs of some bonus contract agreements with the intention of playing badly animated flash games.

 

[AussieDave]

To many posters in this thread, Ill bet you could get a job as casino shills (if you not already are).

So your stamping your feet, grabbing your bat and ball going home, huh!

I'd say this was a pretty rude comment if it wasn't so damn funny.


Cheers



Dave

 

[Wildfire7]

Sorry to sound a bit thick here. But let me get this correct, the guy takes a slots only bonus and plays blackjack? You don't even have to read the terms and conditions on those, the clue is in the name "slots only"

Also it is absolutly rediculas to complete WR and then deviate from the rules, until you have authority from support to continue on all games. And only then you get it sent via email as proof of authenticity.
If this sounds incredibly complex, then look for a casino that allows all games subject to weighting on its bonuses. (Erm like just about every casino in the world now)!

90% sure you didn't start off playing blackjack? seems an odd amount to quote. I don't know how long this session of yours lasted but you must be able to remember your opening strategy. That 10% doubt in your mind makes me 90% sure you probably did start off with some blacjack.

Afraid your going to have to put this one down to experience, lesson learnt the hard way and move on.

Mike

 

[BigSD]

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.

Very off topic here but I think, at least where I live, legally money earnt through the proceeds of crime can be confiscated by police. Absolutely nothing to do with this case as the OP obviously broke no law and I doubt he even realised he did anything wrong but you did bring up this point.

 

[BigSD]

Pulver,

It's downright rude to call others shills simply because they dont agree with you. We cant always side with the players merely for the sake of it. We have to look from the casino's angle as well. From the reluctance of the OP to state clearly whether this was an intentional act to beef up his bankroll we will have to take Tom's word for the time being. I dont think casinos will allow people to take advantage of their bonuses designed for slots to play something else especially those with a lower house edge. I agree, though, that RTG should disable all excluded games to avoid any ambiguity. However, there is no ambiguity here. The OP clearly knows that BJ isnt allowed and seems to have played it to try to shore up his bankroll to play slots.

Unless the OP can declare that he was only playing a couple of BJ games for fun and not splashing his entire/bulk of his remaining balance, I wouldnt mind being called a shill if that's the way you like it.

Well said. I'm sick and tired of this Players V Casinos mentality. There are good casinos and bad casinos just like there are good players and bad players. I think the point of this site is to get to the truth of matters and then encorage a fair resolution to disputes.

 

[Nifty29]

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.

Actually, in many countries including my own, the $1m would be confiscated as 'proceeds of crime'. The fact is the theif (i.e.criminal) used the stolen funds to purchase something else. The item that the criminal purchases was funded with ill-gotten gains and is forfeit (as it should be)...in this case, it is a lottery ticket which ended up being worth $1m.

Does anyone seriously think that criminal would be entitled to the $1m in that case?? How about if they stole $50k and bought a new car?? Should they be able to keep that??? C'mon people.

The other very obvious difference between that highly unlikely situation and the OPs is that Im sure there was no "Lottery tickets cannot be purchased with stolen money or all winnings will be void" sign on the door. In the OPs case it was CLEAR it was a slots only coupon - for goodness sake it was called 'BIGSLOT'...sheesh!! He KNEW that he wasnt allowed to play Blackjack...but he played it anyway.

I'll say it again for those whose first language may not be English, and for those who just choose to be ignorant of the facts:

"ANY WINNINGS" means "ANY WINNINGS" - it isnt specific, and that is deliberate. It isnt an oversight or bad writing of terms etc - the casino has made it clear that ANY (i.e.ALL) winnings as a result of playing excluded games before WR is met will be VOID - NOT just winnings from the excluded games themselves - if this were the case it would have been specific. The reason it applies to ANY (i.e. ALL) winnings is to prevent players doing EXACTLY what the OP did - build up a bankroll on a high RTP/Low variance excluded game to enable large bets on slots to meet the WR/hit a jackpot. OMG people....players have been pulling this stunt for years and that is WHY the casino states ANY WINNINGS ARE VOID.

You will see that the passionate "the casino ripped the OP off" posters almost always support the player in complete ignorance of the facts...you can see this for yourself from their posting history. There is always a section of the player community that is out to exploit every little loophole they can to take advantage of the casino......and you may think 'well good on them!'....but these people are a big part of the reason why we have huge WR and max cashouts and ridiculously long winded terms and conditions.

Anyway, the OP did the wrong thing and they ain't gettin' paid. End o' story.

 

[alabama5150]

One last question. thus far no one has mentioned this

Okay a few questions.


Q. Since the player had $30 left when he went to BlackJack, and he DEPOSITED $150 and also got $150 Bonus money... How come the $30 that remained could not be considered as money coming from his deposit and not bonus money?. Since this case involves a purchase, and bankroll is combined rather than just free money, wouldn't the remaining balance either be all or even a portion his own money?


Would this point change anything in regards to the iron clad thought that he violated the terms by funding bj with "bonus" money? Just a thought. When terms define which game, does this mean that the players no longer can make own choice of games using his own money to play?

Co-mingling deposits with bonus money would most certainly open up many scenarios. Using a bonus coupon should not remove my choice from my money, should it?

-Annie

 

[uungy]

Actually, in many countries including my own, the $1m would be confiscated as 'proceeds of crime'. The fact is the theif (i.e.criminal) used the stolen funds to purchase something else. The item that the criminal purchases was funded with ill-gotten gains and is forfeit (as it should be)...in this case, it is a lottery ticket which ended up being worth $1m

...............

Anyway, the OP did the wrong thing and they ain't gettin' paid. End o' story.

OP did nothing criminal, so its a very bad comparison. He was completely within the terms

Also you feel that the OP did the wrong thing which seems to be you opinion, however there are many here that differ! I like the way you write the end of the story already!

Basically, if a mistake happens, or whatever, the case is now turns to the terms and condtions. Just because someone has made a mistake there is no reason to penalise them for it. If the term meant the way OP understood, CW should pay out, even if it they didn't intend to mean it that way, facts are, there are many that understood the term the same way the OP understood it, which makes the term at the least, an "unclear/unfair term".

Any reputable casino would pay out in such an instance, if their term is unfairly written, so lets hope clubword do the correct thing, and honour their terms.

 

[Digi]

It makes me sad to see how this player has been threated by the casino... He had to find out 46k was missing from his account and contact support to ask where his money was gone. (Can you imagine how you would feel?). The casino manager could have AT LEAST call the player before and explain him why his 46k was gone.


And void the whole 46k for an innocent mistake... (If he did want to abuse the promotion he certainly would not have played blackjack because he would have read the terms to know how to abuse it and not have his deposit/winnings void)


But yes it easy to make a list of terms so you can do anything you want and confiscate winnings whenever you want.


To the OP, never register to a casino who will void winnings because you played some games. That is in my opinion as rogue as a brick and mortar casino that would void winnings because you didn't stand on your head after a slot spin (or any other stupid reason)

And yes a reputable casino would pay or give him some kind of compensation as a gesture because he did nothing illegal/cheated

 

[chuchu59]

Okay a few questions.


Q. Since the player had $30 left when he went to BlackJack, and he DEPOSITED $150 and also got $150 Bonus money... How come the $30 that remained could not be considered as money coming from his deposit and not bonus money?. Since this case involves a purchase, and bankroll is combined rather than just free money, wouldn't the remaining balance either be all or even a portion his own money?


Would this point change anything in regards to the iron clad thought that he violated the terms by funding bj with "bonus" money? Just a thought. When terms define which game, does this mean that the players no longer can make own choice of games using his own money to play?


I havent gone into detail on CWC's Ts and Cs but normally where a bonus is involved the funds played first are from the deposits and then bonus money. You can easily spot this in MG at the left bottom corner which shows your balance. RTG, I am not sure but it makes perfect sense for the deposit funds to be used first otherwise you might as well argue that though you have lost your bonus your deposit is still there for you to withdraw resulting in no-risk for the player. Once the amount of the deposit is lost, then you can dip into the bonus funds.

 

[rockycatt]

ok
1, if a department store has a sale on hats 50%off than its only hats

2, if same store has a sale on pants 30%off its just pants

3, if same store has sale on shirt's 25% off it's just shirts

4, if same store has complete store wide sale 20% off all merchandise
then everything is fair game

its a sad thing that the op hit and couldn't collect must have been gut wrenching my sympathy to him prolly better if never hit at all that J P

I'm very sorry for the emotional rollercoaster ride the op has especially at christmas time

i wonder if the op had taken bonuses like this one from same casino before

please excuse my rambling thoughts R C

 

[bernynhel]

Seems to be alot of different opinions on this one...

So.....mstrike....how about them Packers!

Way back when, before I knew about CM or just didn't know any better, I registered an account at The Virtual Casino and played a free chip I saw advertised on a banner at a gaming site.. I met the WR and cashed out the maximum, leaving a small balance and expected that the casino would "remove the excess, non-cashable amount" from my balance as stated in the terms. The withdrawal was several hundred dollars, or more and the balance was around $30 or so - this is at least 6 years ago so I don't remember the exact amounts - so I played a little video poker and, since the wagers I was making were no different than if I had been wagering play chips in free play mode, I got bored after a few hands and logged out. Several days later I contacted Live Support to ask what was holding up my withdrawal from being credited to my Neteller and was told my withdrawal had been canceled and voided because I played video poker with the free chip. I immediately realized it would be futile to argue with anyone employed by a casino as chickenshit as The Virtual Casino so I just "thanked" the Live Support and exited.

Ever since then I really hate to see anyone lose out on any winnings for any reason relating to prohibited games, especially, a $50k jp! I think it pretty much stinks that RTG sites don't prevent access to games prohibited in the bonus T&Cs. What happened to mstrike1978, at least to my knowledge, can't happen at any other casino using any platform available to US players. Only RTG offers freeplay whereby they invite you to play but require you to read through lengthy terms to know what pitfalls you may encounter that could, if you're not careful, cause your free playtime to be wasted time. Bear in mind, when we were online gaming noobs, how surprised most of us were the first time we heard about prohibited gameplay on freechips! I know that the thought never even occurred to me when I blew off reading the T&Cs the first time I played a freechip at an RTG site!

So "sorry", mstrike1978, that you had to learn this B.S. the hard way over such a killer jp. Yeah, I know that he wouldn't have ever had the balance to max bet for the jp if he hadn't broke the rules to begin with! What about it!? That I still think that RTG's offering big, fat freechips for new sign-ups and then voiding the winnings, for any reason, is a chickenshit set-up, is nobody's business but my own. Hope you hit a big winner real soon, mstrike1978, and get to keep it!

 

[Nifty29]

@alabama

One of the terms at CW (and every other casino Im aware of) is that your deposit is deemed to have been spent first before any bonus - so technically the OP was using bonus money and not his own. Hope that clears it up

@uungy

there are many that understood the term the same way the OP understood it

Actually there were a handful..and many of them had other agendas..didnt they.

He was completely within the terms

Yup. Uh-huh. I think everyone agrees there.....

Any reputable casino would pay out in such an instance, if their term is unfairly written, so lets hope clubword do the correct thing, and honour their terms

Yup. Uh-huh. How 'bout you do a little poll of casino managers and point them to this thread and see what they say.

I can see you're very passionate about this topic uungy.....I guess losing that $40,000 you tried to milk from Slots Oasis must still really really hurt huh?

Of course, that wouldnt have any influence on your balanced and considered opinion, would it.

You see, when some people make a mistake, their first reaction is to blame someone else, or everyone else....anyone but themselves...they are angry and frustrated with themselves for being stupid and they take it out on the innocent party (a casino in this case and yours btw).

The adults among them then move to another stage where they realise it was actually their own fault and nobody but themselves are responsible - they apologise and accept the consequences and consider it a lesson learned. Just let us know when you get to that stage uungy, then the stuff you post might across as thoughtful comment based on facts instead of sour grapes based on your own past mistakes.

 

[jetset]

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.

The two are dissimilar - and we're (hypothetically) talking here about benefitting from the proceeds of crime eg the guy stole a dollar to buy the lottery ticket.

 

[funeral979]

Im sure many people here recall the poster who went to their Cherry Red (not sure but I know it was a Rushmore Group casino) account after many months of inactivity to find that their balance they had left there had disappeared. Now they were well within their T&Cs to keep that money, but after further consideration (and perhaps a little pressure from this forum), decided to DO THE RIGHT THING and reinstate the balance that was originally confiscated.

Sometimes there are circumstances where the casino should take a step back, and do "a little extra" for the player, especially in extreme situations. Club World pretty much just popped in here for one post to say tuff chit. I think that speaks volumes. Maybe its just me, but i dont think returning the players deposit was being overly generous at all. I have seen many rogue casinos do this if a rule was broken (I believe the recent Silver Oak thread is a prime example).

Im not saying they should give them the whole win, but at the very least a nice managers bonus??

It is entirely plausible that the poster is a novice player and didn't read thru the rules well enough. That doesn't make them stupid. Its a shame it was a 46K mistake. Maybe CW will rethink its position and bend a little.

Merry Christmas!

 

[lee_bumble]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<READ THIS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I really feel for this guy, I really do. Aint that a kick in the teeth. Merry Christmas and all that.

There's one thing thats bothering me though and im not sure if it's had a mention. What exactly happens to that $45000. I mean it has been removed from his account but where has it been removed too? I'm going on the assumption THE ONLY REASON THIS MACHINE PAID OUT THAT AMOUT WAS DUE TO PEOPLE PAYING MONEY INTO THAT PATICULAR SLOT MACHINE. Now all of a sudden it's vanished onto this air. Is that slotmachine now primed ready to spew out another $50000 or what? I dont think so.

Just a thought.

 

[bernynhel]

...There's one thing thats bothering me though and im not sure if it's had a mention. What exactly happens to that $45000...

Good question! Do we know which slot and if the jp was progressive and if it's been restored? (and don't tell me to re-read the thread if it's in here and you know the answer, please!)

 

[funeral979]

I think this was the slot in question...not a progressive..

 

[kenneth2816]

My apologies in advance if my comment seems "gruff". Online casinos take the unstated assumption that players are of legal age, thus fully capable of understanding written terms.

I find nothing ambiguous about "slots only." Even if a person has never gambled online before, there is a 100% exclusion of any games except slots.

Many times, I've used bonuses and saw that my pile of accumulated cash was dwindling, but I KNEW going in I was committed because I accepted the "slots only" bonus.

Yes, most Terms and Conditions are verbose. The reason is to preclude situations exactly like this one from becoming contentious. Not much is left to state.

In my humble opinion, when the player switched to black jack, he or she had already concluded there was little chance of completing the wager requirements, and I believe he or she did say they were "bored."

Why would someone who hit a 50K jackpot on a deposit of $150.00 not IMMEDIATELY cash out? Why continue playing Black Jack (if this were the case)?.

I have to side with the casino 100% on this regardless of what software issues exist now or could be installed later.

"Slots Only" is not ambiguous nor do the wording lend itself to the possibility of misunderstanding.

I'm not buying the OP's argument about when Black Jack was played. It is excluded, period. OP got original deposit back, which was wagered already. That in and of itself is a gratuitous show of good faith.

 

[lee_bumble]

It was a $15 pull on 7's and stripes. Yes 7's stripes is a progressive at some casinos but not at Club World. So where the hell has all that bloody money actually gone too??

 

[funeral979]

"Slots Only" is not ambiguous nor do the wording lend itself to the possibility of misunderstanding.

For the sake of argument, I have yet to see one member here present the ACTUAL terms of this PARTICULAR coupon/bonus, so we can only speculate how the terms of the coupon were worded. We have only been pointed to the general terms of the casino that encompasses all bonuses...

 

[zebedy]

Im sure many people here recall the poster who went to their Cherry Red (not sure but I know it was a Rushmore Group casino) account after many months of inactivity to find that their balance they had left there had disappeared. Now they were well within their T&Cs to keep that money, but after further consideration (and perhaps a little pressure from this forum), decided to DO THE RIGHT THING and reinstate the balance that was originally confiscated.

Sometimes there are circumstances where the casino should take a step back, and do "a little extra" for the player, especially in extreme situations. Club World pretty much just popped in here for one post to say tuff chit. I think that speaks volumes. Maybe its just me, but i dont think returning the players deposit was being overly generous at all. I have seen many rogue casinos do this if a rule was broken (I believe the recent Silver Oak thread is a prime example).




Im not saying they should give them the whole win, but at the very least a nice managers bonus??

It is entirely plausible that the poster is a novice player and didn't read thru the rules well enough. That doesn't make them stupid. Its a shame it was a 46K mistake. Maybe CW will rethink its position and bend a little.

Merry Christmas!

But where do you draw the line, if one player brakes the rules and still gets payed for it whats to stop people saying to a casino well i read so-and-so got paid so why cant you pay me,
i think in this case if CW were to change there mind even by paying some of the winnings it could lead down a slippery slope,

But maybe CW could throw the OP a nice ND bonus with low WR it is christmas afterall

 

[uungy]

@uungy

Actually there were a handful..and many of them had other agendas..didnt they.

Yup. Uh-huh. I think everyone agrees there.....

Yup. Uh-huh. How 'bout you do a little poll of casino managers and point them to this thread and see what they say.

woffle.. woffle ...woffle.... woffle

There are no sour grapes

A handful? Thats quite a number in my opinion. and definately a reason for a casino to payout.

Why are you being so aggresive. You may feel I have another agenda, but thats again your opinion and you wont change on that, but why do you say the others also have their agenda?

You also seem to have an agenda here, and that is you hate it when people win, and especially when its with a coupon. Believe me, I have deposited alot more than $90K, this month, so the Rushmore group has lost a customer, as far as I am concerened. If I am not mistaken, I had deposited $20k, and was down about $10K+ playing there prior to my saga, so I dont think I have an agenda. My agenda is, simple, if a casino screws up, they should pay out.

Just because I dont post my screenshots, it doesnt mean I dont or didnt have any to post. Winning 10K on slots may be a very large sum for some, but for others its not. I have a screenshot of 60K, by a reputable casino here, and they paid out without a problem. (On the other hand, I lost $25K the other day in another reputable casino here). About the screenshots for 10K, well I often dont bother even keeping them, as its for my entertainment!

All I am trying to show is, you may say I have another agenda, but my agenda is to get the casinos to be fair and honest. Clubworld, while I havent played there in months, I have never had a withdrawal problem with them, except for the time it takes, I think about 4K a week. I think my next problem is their terms, and the way they treat players.

$45k, while its a tidy sum, hasnt broken my heart.

Bottom line is, not everyone has to understand it the way I understand the terms, but if there is a significant amount that do, then I believe the casino should pay out, as the player has abided by the terms.

 

[missmichelle]

I am amazed that this continues. I am real surprised that there are quite a few people who think the money should be paid. I just don't understand why you would play anything other than slots with a slots only coupon. I love video poker. When that is what I feel like playing I take no bonus. I don't ever want to win a huge amount and not get paid. We have seen this kind of situation happen too many times. I do agree they should set it up so the restricted games can't be played, but why take a chance. Sorry you learned a lesson the hard way and I'll be hoping you make it up by winning another jackpot with no bonus attatched but I really do feel this has been over for a while.

Michelle

 

[Nifty29]

woffle.. woffle ...woffle.... woffle

Yes Im sorry, I know it was more than one sentence.....I posted for the grown-ups you see, so next time I will cater for you as well.

You also seem to have an agenda here, and that is you hate it when people win, and especially when its with a coupon

OK....provide the links. Good luck!

as the player has abided by the terms.

If you mean they played blackjack on a slots only coupon.....then yes, of course they did

Thankyou for providing some entertainment on Christmas Eve....I would say Merry Christmas but Im not sure if they celebrate it on your planet.

P.S. Oh by the way the word is 'waffle'. If you're going to insult someone you could at least get the spelling right.

 

[rockycatt]

Yes Im sorry, I know it was more than one sentence.....I posted for the grown-ups you see, so next time I will cater for you as well.



OK....provide the links. Good luck!



:loup: :loup: :loup: :loup: :loup:

If you mean they played blackjack on a slots only coupon.....then yes, of course they did

Thankyou for providing some entertainment on Christmas Eve....I would say Merry Christmas but Im not sure if they celebrate it on your planet.

P.S. Oh by the way the word is 'waffle'. If you're going to insult someone you could at least get the spelling right.

DAMMM will you two guys kiss and make up it's christmas and the whole internet is watching this

plus were all members of the meister land

 

[uungy]

Yes Im sorry....... woffle woffle woffle

No problem

Have a merry christmas (your planet only)

 

[Wildfire7]

Unfortunatly for Mstrike1978 the rules are there for a reason. We aren't talking semantics here, this is a rule that has been around for a very long time.

I just don't buy this attitude of "oh hes a new player so he didnt read the T&C's". Ignorance is no defence.

In all walks of life people have T&C's to read. Example - You wouldn't take out a morgage or a bank loan without reading the terms first and you wouldn't take out an insurance policy without doing this either. These are basic life skills you learn in school.

If the casino pays the player on this occassion it will be setting a precedent. This puts the casino in a very vunerable position for future cases. The value of the prize he has won should have no bearing on the casinos desicion. It is just unfortunate for the player that it was a sizeable amount.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you are of legal age to gamble, then you should be old and wise enough to realise, that the free money the casino has just given you has conditions attached. Conditions that should be read and adhered to. If a player cannot understand them or even read them, then they should ask for help from a family member or friend.

Mike

 

[secret2]

Well said, Wildfire.

It must be a horrible, head-thumping-against-a-very-hard-surface feeling and I would be mortified myself but it would set a precedent, as WIldfire said.

I once clicked on a progressive slot and it downloaded (by mistake) when I was using a bonus and realized it and almost freaked but I didn't click 'spin'. I was up a lot...even that scared me. I am so careful, even more so after reading this thread.

So sorry Mstrike1978.

 

[nitro]

There is always a section of the player community that is out to exploit every little loophole they can to take advantage of the casino......and you may think 'well good on them!'....but these people are a big part of the reason why we have huge WR and max cashouts and ridiculously long winded terms and conditions.

living at the expense of the honest gamblers and the casinos because:

Conditions that should be read and adhered to. If a player cannot understand them or even read them, then they should ask for help from a family member or friend.

...and if this kind of "incentive scheme" doesn't scare off enough people from online gambling the people who actually ask for help from a family member or a friend will find out that mostly games are allowed they don't like to play or deposit methods they don't like to use and that it is next to impossible to win anything from a bonus at all. If losing money is their first experience with a casino they'll never come back again and should they somehow manage to win there is quite a chance that the winnings will be confiscated due to some T&C violations and shouldn't that happen there is the next pitfall because it is quite possible that they'll get the withdrawal only after sending some notarized stuff via snail mail to the casino where they played - all thanks to the people in the first quote above.

 

[Wildfire7]

Originally Posted by Nitro
...and if this kind of "incentive scheme" doesn't scare off enough people from online gambling the people who actually ask for help from a family member or a friend will find out that mostly games are allowed they don't like to play or deposit methods they don't like to use and that it is next to impossible to win anything from a bonus at all.

It is not difficult to break down casino games into two categorys 1/ table games 2/ slots - example - If its a blackjack bonus you choose table games, its not Walther Nernsts third law of thermodynamics.

If losing money is their first experience with a casino they'll never come back again

This is why casinos have a duty to ensure their T&C's are concise. Over the years they have become clearer and much less open to interpretation than they used to be. As Nifty points out in his commentary the reason they have become long winded is because they are having to cover every eventuality, so the would be scammer cannot exploit the terms.

If you follow the rules and avoid making schoolboy errors, then you have nothing to fear from the T&C's at a reputable casino.

 

[me_and_ed]

I truly cannot understand how this has become such a witch hunt, terms are terms, how many times do peeps here post terms, good or bad, the responsibilty is the players, I for one can understand how terrible it must be to have a once in a lifetime hit only to feel the slow burn and the personal humiliation of the situation, that being said that is what the OP has to live with, but everyone else laying out hypothetical situations of stolen lottery tickets, discounts at stores....I appreciate the empathy but seriously now.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

<derail>......How long will it take to read this thread (not a slow reader but too exhausted to read rapidly)???

 

[RobWin]

<derail>......How long will it take to read this thread (not a slow reader but too exhausted to read rapidly)???

Average reader...one hour!
____
____

 

[nitro]

As Nifty points out in his commentary the reason they have become long winded is because they are having to cover every eventuality, so the would be scammer cannot exploit the terms.

The T&Cs are a direct response to the behaviour of the bonus contract agreements specialists & especially the people with a lot of computers and special software and if you deny the bonus payments to both of these groups after reviewing their style of play there is almost no need for T&Cs at all but plenty of room for improvement for the incentive schemes. The definition of advantage play has to switch depending on the numbers because it makes a big difference if there are let say 100 people on the scene or 10.000 or so and growing. In this day and age it is almost impossible for a casino to put up a nice SUB without getting crushed or an "easy" reload (even a 150*B BJ bonus cannot be kept as some postings in special forums indicate) without getting robbed so advantage play has to be considered a sort of "theft" (not by a single person but the entire "collective" as such) until the numbers are down to sustainable levels and concept in place to prevent this kind of development again - the alternative would be to get rid of the bonus concept alltogether.