mstrike1978 VS Club World Casino ($46,034.44)

[jod5413]

OK, this is getting silly...what do you not understand on a bonus saying Slots ONLY Bonus? You can discuss this till the moon turns blue but those words will not make it change to Slots only bonus and some blackjack... You cannot mistake a slot machine for blackjack cards.

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

My vote for most sane post in this long, tedious thread!!

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.

Being sorry for the player is fine but..... HE PLAYED BJ ON A SLOTS ONLY BONUS!!!!! That should have ended this thread at page three, maximum!

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?

Another sane voice in the wilderness.

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

Seriously, Max. Could have used your voice of reason long ago, like on page five or so?

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

Believe me, Nash. Not worth reading. I got one Hell of a headache myself. In a nutshell, the OP played BJ on a Slots Only Bonus. The End!!!!!

 

[winbig]

Being sorry for the player is fine but..... HE PLAYED BJ ON A SLOTS ONLY BONUS!!!!! That should have ended this thread at page three, maximum!

IMO, if the player had won big at slots and then decided to play blackjack, he might have had a shot at keeping this money. Even the casino would know that unless the player played stupidly, they would have easily cleared the WR's whether or not they played BJ.

Of course you have the rules that are in place, but look at it from another perspective - the PR would have been great for the casino. "Sure, he played a disallowed game, but he won fair and square. We ended up taking away his winnings from BJ and reset his wagering requirements back to the point of where he started playing a disallowed game."*

But in this situation, the player played some BJ before they hit it big on slots, so of course they shouldn't be paid. It's been established that they would have never had the opportunity to win this large amount without playing on their BJ winnings.

*If they had played slots from the beginning, then they might have a case, but that would be totally up to the discretion of the casino, and they would still have no obligation to pay a dime to them, other than returning their deposit and possibly even the bonus, and telling them to start over.

 

[bryand]

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.

Playing blackjack before completing wagering requirements of a slots-only, deposit bonus clearly increases entropy whereby causing the offending player's balance to decrease to absolute zero.

 

[uungy]

IMO, if the player had won big at slots and then decided to play blackjack, he might have had a shot at keeping this money. Even the casino would know that unless the player played stupidly, they would have easily cleared the WR's whether or not they played BJ.

Of course you have the rules that are in place, but look at it from another perspective - the PR would have been great for the casino. "Sure, he played a disallowed game, but he won fair and square. We ended up taking away his winnings from BJ and reset his wagering requirements back to the point of where he started playing a disallowed game."*

But in this situation, the player played some BJ before they hit it big on slots, so of course they shouldn't be paid. It's been established that they would have never had the opportunity to win this large amount without playing on their BJ winnings.

*If they had played slots from the beginning, then they might have a case, but that would be totally up to the discretion of the casino, and they would still have no obligation to pay a dime to them, other than returning their deposit and possibly even the bonus, and telling them to start over.

Why of course should s/he not be paid ? If the terms clearly seem to say that the winnings of "the restricted games wagering" will be removed, so why the whole balance?

"Not having the oppurtunity to increase the balance" doesnt take away form what their terms seem to say. They have to stick to the terms, and they haven't

 

[Nifty29]

 

[AussieDave]

Why of course should s/he not be paid ? If the terms clearly seem to say that the winnings of "the restricted games wagering" will be removed, so why the whole balance?

Now you are taking the piss. No person can honestly be this daft.

I'm surprised you manage to dress yourself, let alone gamble online.


Dave

 

[uungy]

Now you are taking the piss. No person can honestly be this daft.

I'm surprised you manage to dress yourself, let alone gamble online.


Dave

That didnt really address my question (sorry about the pun)

Name calling is considered flaming, and doesnt really answer the question I put forward :notworthy

 

[nitro]

Why of course should s/he not be paid ? If the terms clearly seem to say that the winnings of "the restricted games wagering" will be removed, so why the whole balance?

You have to read through the T&Cs more carefully uungy because if you try to double up on a slots only bonus and accidentally hit a jackpot later on there is always the risk that the whole balance will be removed.

 

[uungy]

You have to read through the T&Cs more carefully uungy because if you try to double up on a slots only bonus and accidentally hit a jackpot later on there is always the risk that the whole balance will be removed.

Thats correct. The terms are important, however as explained by many of the posters here that the terms seemed to indicate that only the winnings from that particular wager will be removed, not the full balance.

 

[nitro]

So the next time you play this kind of bonus just don't double up then you'll be able to keep the jackpot.

 

[uungy]

So the next time you play this kind of bonus just don't double up then you'll be able to keep the jackpot.

I think you have confused me with the OP

If I take out a slots bonus, I play slots, but thats not the issue here. Besides a casino should honour the terms even if I decided otherwise

 

[silcnlayc]

uungy:If I take out a slots bonus, I play slots, but thats not the issue here.

HUH??? You did not just post this on this thread for the entire forum to read...I do not believe it! Wow..men are from mars just as the book says! OMG..I cannot believe I just read that up there!...

.

 

[uungy]

HUH??? You did not just post this on this thread for the entire forum to read...I do not believe it! Wow..men are from mars just as the book says! OMG..I cannot believe I just read that up there!...

.

What does that mean? I don't get it! Did I post something wrong?

 

[kauphy]

r we done yet?

 

[nitro]

Posted by uungy in another forum:

"well, if they remove the BJ winnings, then you have no advantage."

Finito.

 

[uungy]

Posted by uungy in another forum:

"well, if they remove the BJ winnings, then you have no advantage."

Finito.

and I posted that on this forum too. Seems as though you haven't read the whole thread, which is why your posts seem to be a little confusing.

What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[nitro]

I am trying to say that you should respond to that on your other mstrike1978 account because he was logged in for a while but didn't write anything.

 

[uungy]

I am trying to say that you should respond to that on your other mstrike1978 account because he was logged in for a while but didn't write anything.

right, so now you are saying I have 2 accounts on this forum ?

 

[nitro]

I am saying that it is quite hard for a seasoned bonus w*ore to act as a novice player.

 

[uungy]

I am trying to say that you should respond to that on your other mstrike1978 account because he was logged in for a while but didn't write anything.

you still havent answered what you meant here

I am saying that it is quite hard for a seasoned bonus w*ore to act as a novice player.

I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

The facts of this case have been put down, and you seem to be confusing many things into this, firstly saying I have multiple accounts, then saying that I am a seasoned bonus seeker. Where do you get that fact from?

The casino should keep to its terms, and thats it really.

 

[me_and_ed]

Yawnnnnn

 

[vegetagirl2008]

Okay has the jury reached a verdict? Please read the verdict.

 

[winbig]

Okay has the jury reached a verdict? Please read the verdict.

Yes, a couple of pages ago.

The OP lost on slots, took remaining balance and played BJ, took BJ winnings and played some more on slots @ $15/spin and won a lot of money. They're not going to see any of these winnings.

 

[vegetagirl2008]

So the verdict is in favor of the casino. Case Closed.

 

[uungy]

where exactly was the verdict given? I don't recall any!

 

[nitro]

The facts of this case have been put down, and you seem to be confusing many things into this, firstly saying I have multiple accounts, then saying that I am a seasoned bonus seeker. Where do you get that fact from?

It's the combination of the following: the date you register here, the numbers you post, your postings here, the membership in another forums and the postings there, your fanatical attitude in this thread, your lack of psychological knowledge... and the fact that you're the only person in this forum that still believes that mstrike can get the jackpot.

 

[uungy]

It's the combination of the following: the date you register here, the numbers you post, your postings here, the membership in another forums and the postings there, your fanatical attitude in this thread, your lack of psychological knowledge... and the fact that you're the only person in this forum that still believes that mstrike can get the jackpot.

I have been registered here since 2004, with 587 posts.
I have a membership in another forum
I am a fanatic that the OP should get his money - thats called opinion
lack of psychological knowledge (never claimed to be a psychiatrist)
and I am not the only person. Please read the thread, and then judge accordingly.

You have posted quite strong allegations here, which you seem to refuse to respond to, then you go on posting with mis-informed information.

Also please dont use the forum to constantly attack other members. It does nothing to this post, and completely out of order

 

[bb28]

I don't think I've ever expressed a wish for a thread to be closed here, so this is my first time.

This thread just drags on and on and has served it's purpose many pages back.

Max.....how about it?

 

[silcnlayc]

bb28:I don't think I've ever expressed a wish for a thread to be closed here, so this is my first time.

This thread just drags on and on and has served it's purpose many pages back.

Max.....how about it?
__________________

I STRONGLY agree!

.

 

[LaurieJim]

Yawnnnnn

Okay has the jury reached a verdict? Please read the verdict.

Yes, a couple of pages ago.

The OP lost on slots, took remaining balance and played BJ, took BJ winnings and played some more on slots @ $15/spin and won a lot of money. They're not going to see any of these winnings.

So the verdict is in favor of the casino. Case Closed.

Give this case a rest someone, put it out of its misery, i feel for the OP but rules are rules in gambling, a good gambler knows when he's licked and knows when to leave the table awaiting another day and play................laurie

 

[winbig]

where exactly was the verdict given? I don't recall any!

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...orld-casino-46-034-44.35246/?highlight=winbig


Cliff notes:

Tom:

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

Max:

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.

 

[nitro]

Amen.

 

[skiny]

I would like to add myself to the every growing list of people asking the question: Why are we still discussing this?

 

[maxd]

The stiff is froze, the thread is closed.

 

[Webzcas]

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?

Your post has also saved me from going through 20 odd pages.


Bottom line, if you are going to accept a bonus. Make sure you read the terms and conditions attached to said bonus.

Otherwise you could find yourself experiencing an expensive lesson such as this one.

* Edited to add: Didn't realise the thread was closed! ooopps!