Resolved Need advice on iNetBet - don't want to lose 6k from one spin :(

[goatwack]

As I very publicly had my Casinomeister status put on the line as being a troll then finding that my thoughts where very common opinion and Max offering this thread up to our thoughts. Am I now at liberty to express myself again on this topic?

Is that a trick question?

 

[zreb]

Something for you all to consider here, and it's NOT referring to the OP but generally:

You guys are aware, of course, that a seasoned player MAY hedge bets by taking a spin on a wrong game?

The philosophy is similar to signing up to a casino when you know you are SE'd, or at a sister site. You win, and expect payment as they 'took your bets and never stopped you playing' and if you lose, then have a case for a refund on the grounds your bets should be void. We've all seen it before on here.

Now similar 'insurance' can be gotten by having ONE false spin - you win and as it was just ONE spin, expect goodwill and an exception, especially if posted on a forum. Lose (which most players would expect, or indeed actually do, on the deposit and this 'spin' can be used to void the deposit when the player 'notices it' later and points out his subsequent gameplay under the bonus is void.) Expects refund, or balance to be restored as cash no bonus after the event.
If there is no 24-hour support this can be used to favour the player's case too.

OK, this is for informational purposes and not any indictment of the OP but you need to be aware why something that appears so black-and-white to many posters here can have more sinister connotations, of which both Max and the Casino need to examine with care.

That's a fair point to make, but does that ever actually happen? A player getting their deposit back after successfully arguing that they couldn't have won due to a term violation? Particularly at U.S. facing sites?

My intuition was the exact opposite - that you're far more likely to fail to get leniency (lose winnings) than to succeed in getting a deposit back (regain losses). Am I incorrect in that? Like I said, it just seems like something that I would have thought virtually never happened (player successfully petitioning for deposit back after LOSING with a term violation).

I know there are people out there that will do anything to make money, but that sounds like a lot of effort for a scam that likely won't work and will burn up all your good will from casinos as fast as possible. But something being "not worth doing" doesn't necessarily mean no one tries it.

 

[Steviedoo]

Ok, I've dug extensively into this case, received all the supporting evidence I could ask for from the casino, and as I see it it all comes down to the timeline, namely who did what and when.

The date of primary interest is, of course, the day of the player's mistake, play and winnings. That was the 24th of August and here's the timeline of that day as I understand it:

??:?? player deposits, receives bonus.
02:39 first bet at the casino as a new player plays a disallowed game, wins a little.
02:41 tried to contact Support via Live Chat, failed.
02:46 went on to play slots.
02:48 tried to contact Support via Live Chat, failed.
03:39 stopped playing after jackpot ($6000+).
03:46 player is in contact with Support via email regarding KYC for a withdrawal; no mention is made of any game errors nor requests for assistance regarding same. ...
13:25 ... KYC docs submitted.
18:18 player posts to the forums "for assistance".
09:09 (next day) Support re KYC: "Your documents have been added to your file".

Here's what I glean from that sequence of events:

a) the player broke the Terms. On those grounds alone I would have supported the casino's decision against this player. I'm not personally over-joyed that this casino is so strict about their Rules but I cannot and will not discredit them for being so. They may be strict but they are not dishonest and that's a damn sight better than can be said for a great many of the other operators in this business. And before we leave this point I just want to re-iterate that the player's first bet ever at this casino was on a disallowed game during bonus play. Is that a coincidence? Just asking the question.

b) contrary to this player's oft-repeated claims that he was unable to reach Support he most certainly was because I've seen the email exchange between them regarding KYC docs for withdrawal. That took place on the day and into the next. As you can see from the timeline that conversation spanned about 30 hours. I believe it is important to note that never in that email conversation did the player say anything about a game "mistake", not a single word. And furthermore the player has never thought to mention this conversation at any time since. These are lies of omission and that is the second case of necessary and sufficient grounds to rule against this player, not to mention kicking him to the curb for being deceitful.

c) this player was awfully fast to jump on the forums and "ask for advice." I have two major issues with this:

i) it's a flat out violation of our zero tolerance Posting Complaints policy which states that players MUST contact the casino rep before hitting the forums with their complaint on pain of being banned for violation of said rule. This is a second instance of grounds to kick this player to the curb.

ii) that post can as easily be read as a deliberate attempt to pressure the casino as it can as a innocent plea for help. And who posts their case on the forum "asking for advice" in that manner _while_ they are waiting for confirmation from the casino on their KYC docs? Something is not at all right here.

IMO, there are two major conclusions to be drawn from the above:

1) the player was either exceedingly unlucky to have violated so many basic principles of good player practice and conduct in such a short time OR this player isn't anywhere nearly as innocent and hard done by as they have since claimed. Either way the casino's decision against the player is valid and should stand.

2) For forum violations, dishonesty and attempting to use our forums as a stick against the casino this player is toast at Casinomeister.

Over the next few days the following significant events were added to the timeline:

d) when the player's withdrawal was denied his deposits were immediately returned. He never mentioned those returned deposits anywhere. Not on the forums, not in the many exchanges we've had since, nada.

e) when the player submitted his PAB he said nothing about his email conversation with the casino on the day. Nor did he mention the return of the deposits. In other words he submitted his PAB under false pretences and that is PAB abuse. Yet another reason -- the 3rd -- to be shown the door.

f) immediately after the player's so-called "trouble" with iNetBet the player went to their sister casino, deposited several times, played it all away, and over the following days took the comp points they offered and played them away too. These are hardly the actions of a player who has been mortally mistreated by this casino group.

g) over the following weeks the player and I were in contact many times regarding the PAB in progress. At no time did the player mention the returned deposits or the original email exchange with the casino. All he ever said was "they stole my money" and "I was never able to contact them". IMO this is a case of continued deceit. Again, 4th count, curb-worthy behaviour.

So "vat rezult" as an old Polish soldier I used to know would say:

A) the player broke the Rules -- intentionally or otherwise -- and per the Terms is owed nothing.

B) for forum violations, dishonesty, misusing our services for their personal agenda, and PAB abuse -- not to mention massively wasting my time -- this player's complaint is rejected and they are banned from Casinomeister.

This still leaves a few issues unresolved, namely:

i) what about the evidence to show that Support told the player, at the beginning, to wait? To recap, that was the grounds on which I ruled so quickly in favour of the casino.

ii) is the player truly innocent or is there something else going on here?

iii) how did the thread on the forums get so far out of control?

Let's deal with the easy one first, item (ii): IMO there are way too many oopsies and "mistakes" in all of this for me to believe that this is an innocent player who's been abused by circumstances beyond their control: their first __ever__ bet at the casino kicks this whole thing off: they talk to Support via email but never mention it, only moan about not being able to reach them on Live Chat: they post their issue to the forums __while__ KYC is in progress -- not after, not because of any rejected withdrawals, but BEFORE Support has even responded regarding the documents: the deposits are returned but never mentioned, and are later quietly played away: the player is supposedly being done over by iNetBet but meanwhile happily deposits (repeatedly) and plays at their sister casino, over several days, taking every comp they are offered: and later, once the PAB process is done and the last of the monies spent, suddenly the casino group are "rogues" and great energy is spent on moral outrage. Sorry but I don't buy it. I can't say what the player's game in all of this was but "innocent and hard done by" they are not.

Item (iii), the forum shit-storm: yup, that one is on us. We could have nipped this in the bud and we didn't. Our bad, though it was the weekend. Apologies to those who were mislead or needlessly maligned by the furor that ensued.

And, finally, item (i): the original info I was given by the casino, namely that Support had talked to the player and had been told to wait. Well, the short of it is that that never happened, at least not that way. When I received the reply from the casino it was after several days wait -- and unusually long time for these guys to reply -- and the rep I was dealing with apologized for having taken so long to get back to me. The info they gave me ended up not being quite true, but I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to deceive. I suspect they were careless, read the case records over in haste, and summarized them incorrectly.

So why am I making excuses for the casino here yet am happy to rule against the player? Well this is a serious matter and I've expressed my deep piss-offed-ness to the casino's senior management in no uncertain terms. We've since agreed that I will deal with them directly on any future complaints regarding their casinos. And that's good enough for me because -- hand to heart -- those guys I trust. I would happily hand them my wallet, keys and mobile and know that they are all in good, safe hands. Scoff at me over this if you like but I'm being completely serious here. I've known these guys for well over a decade and they've always, Always, played straight with me. Even when I was probably at fault and it cost them serious money to respect a decision I'd made. That counts for something IMO and so it is here.

Well, as they say at the movies, "Tha-tha-that's all folks!". We return you to your regular forum activities.

totally respect the decision....however still curious if it ever came up that the game he played was a game that was placed with regular games and couldn't get out of until he hit spin...just wondering if they said...oh...we see how that could have happened ...a game you can’t exit without playing....

 

[Steviedoo]

has inetbet put the slot where it properly belongs or is still between two slot games?

 

[paul7388]

That's a fair point to make, but does that ever actually happen? A player getting their deposit back after successfully arguing that they couldn't have won due to a term violation? Particularly at U.S. facing sites?

My intuition was the exact opposite - that you're far more likely to fail to get leniency (lose winnings) than to succeed in getting a deposit back (regain losses). Am I incorrect in that? Like I said, it just seems like something that I would have thought virtually never happened (player successfully petitioning for deposit back after LOSING with a term violation).

Exactly. It is the strictest casino out that uses any slight breach of its terms to deny payout. It is the last casino i would think a player from USA would try that trick on knowing damn well that they have nowhere to complain and no way to fight the case.

 

[Steviedoo]

I just have to ask why a player would play one spin at a game that is not allowed to play? What can he gain from doing that?

He did tell about getting his deposit back, or was that maybe you Max who told us earlier because we knew when he got it?
I guess it's clear when you play at their sister casino that it's the same group. I haven't checked but I will. Edit: It's clear on the front page.

No, I'm not defending him. Just asking questions.

i reread all his posts. he did mention getting his deposit back.

edit: he did mention it

 

[sueyh]

Then you obviously aren't aware of the guile of some players. Goodwill, restart the bonus, remove the bonus can be advantageous. Again, take a search and see how some decent casinos have overlooked or assisted players when they made bonus errors. I don't make this stuff up to wind people up, it happens. Ask some reps.

I don't understand exactly what you meant. Somebody do one $2 spin expecting nice win from a prohibited game, and if it is failed go to chat and ask to restart bonus, or get rid of bonus? Why?
I mean if what the player is hopping is a good win from one spin, why the player just deposit $10 without bonus first, do one $2 spin, and deposit a few hundred with bonus after the spin?
Why the player has to do one $2 spin with bonus-if only one spin is what the player planed?
Because the player didn't want to lose $2 from $200-$300 deposit he made? It doesn't make sense at all.

 

[zap987]

i reread all his posts. he did not mention getting his deposit back.

Need advice - don't want to lose 6k from one spin :(

 

[dunover]

We are aware, but how far can the casinos push this line? There is an easy option available for the casinos if they are worried about this, block disallowed games or bets higher than allowed. Don't you think plenty of players not having this guile have lost out in the current situation? Do you think this is an acceptable situation, where a player can lose large sums of money by clicking once in the wrong spot?

If it's in the terms, then yes. Arbitration has to decide based in those terms and unless the terms themselves are unfair then alas sympathy doesn't come into the equation. Those overbetting terms are in every accredited casino here, and like it not they are under no compulsion to show goodwill.

Dave - I mentioned threads where disputes have occurred in bonus play, not specifically the first spin. As you mentioned that criteria of first spin, it's your job to find one.

The logic I see here sometimes is rather odd - I get pissed in the pub, pull out of the car park on my 10 mile trip home and get pulled over and arrested as I join the main road, or 5 miles down the road. I'm just as guilty in the cops' eyes either way.

 

[geordiecolin]

Is that a trick question?

No. My viewpoint is and has always been not from a player point of view.An affiliates point of view.A developers point of view. A casinos point of view or a casino review sites point of view.
My view is simply based on what is right and fair regarding anything I read in Casinomeister and decide to post on.
I except that I can often be wrong.

 

[colinsunderland]

Yes, there are definitely some on here whereby the player has claimed to have been paid by one site and then not paid by another under SE considerations and we also have the EMSEB court case regarding the same thing. There are a few threads where members here have suggested a player is trying to have their cake and eat it using the SE terms.

I cannot be assed to trawl for them, but I promise you you'll find them.

The principle I just mentioned was a scenario which could work in the player's favour either way IF they wanted to risk it.

I meant for this situation, I obviously am aware of the SE scams that go on. Like I say, I very much doubt a casino would refund a deposit in a situation like you describe. There may be an isolated case, but I suspect most casinos would politely tell the customer where to go, and rightly so.

 

[Savatage79]

Lol yea that is pretty much front and center that he mentioned getting his deposits back

 

[goatwack]

About the pissed off-ness regarding iNetbet's un-stealthily placing non-slot games in the Slot category, any further news on the upcoming wrist-slapping or even just a comment from the mythical rep now that the PAB is finito?

 

[colinsunderland]

If it's in the terms, then yes. Arbitration has to decide based in those terms and unless the terms themselves are unfair then alas sympathy doesn't come into the equation. Those overbetting terms are in every accredited casino here, and like it not they are under no compulsion to show goodwill.

Dave - I mentioned threads where disputes have occurred in bonus play, not specifically the first spin. As you mentioned that criteria of first spin, it's your job to find one.

The logic I see here sometimes is rather odd - I get pissed in the pub, pull out of the car park on my 10 mile trip home and get pulled over and arrested as I join the main road, or 5 miles down the road. I'm just as guilty in the cops' eyes either way.

If your car looks like a bus, and you have no way of getting out until you start driving it, then I would think you would have a decent chance of a not guilty
The game was listed with slots, was shown on the slots page, once you open it, you HAVE to play a spin before you can leave it, then the casino voids all winnings because you play one spin, are you saying you think that is acceptable?

 

[Supababe]

the logic I see here sometimes is rather odd - I get pissed in the pub, pull out of the car park on my 10 mile trip home and get pulled over and arrested as I join the main road, or 5 miles down the road. I'm just as guilty in the cops' eyes either way.

but what if your drink had been spiked and you thought it was orange juice? You are over the limit but is it your fault?

But continue to stick up for your colleagues by all means...

 

[colinsunderland]

has inetbet put the slot where it properly belongs or is still between two slot games?

Well obviously they are trustworthy and wouldn't want anyone else to fall foul of this would they, so they will have removed it straight away to prevent any more confusion leading to situations where they can void players winnings.
Took this screenshot 2 minutes ago after clicking the slots tab

 

[nutnut]

Absolute DISGUSTING decision, reading the justification was one of the worse things I've read on here.

I respect all the work and effort Max and whoever else put into this site but you have made a huge error here and whole forum is telling you so.

But what I feel worse about is how not only you made this decision to support the casino but then spend half your post making slanderous remarks and the player and IF BUT WHAT IF HE DID THIS etc.... and to make it worse you ban him without giving himself a chance to reply.

Absolute shocking, one thing to side with the casino but to throw him under the bus with accusations and no proof and then ban him. It doesn't make this site look good at all.

I won't say anything more on the situation, i'll let the rest post more calmly but it has pissed me off reading the reply, but also happy the forum has spoken up and not rolled over.

 

[theapple]

If it's in the terms, then yes. Arbitration has to decide based in those terms and unless the terms themselves are unfair then alas sympathy doesn't come into the equation. Those overbetting terms are in every accredited casino here, and like it not they are under no compulsion to show goodwill.

Dave - I mentioned threads where disputes have occurred in bonus play, not specifically the first spin. As you mentioned that criteria of first spin, it's your job to find one.

You cant have it both ways. If casino wants to be so strict about enforcing their rules, those same rules should apply to the casino too, not just its players. You cant have vague explanations, or "small mistakes", which were unintentional and get away with it while at the same time expect your players to accept they are being punished for the smallest of mistakes.

not sure you read this entire topic, or you just chose to ignore that part about banana jons game (unable to exit it after you select bet size, not being placed in correct section), but apparently thats a small mistake casino can get away with it.

Im sure every seasoned player here has had your scenario in mind, but i really dont expect it to be a case here since player tried to contact support right after he made that spin.

Also, if you know of similar cases where someone makes a first spin with a bonu on restricted game, just to be refunded money, please share it with us. Hell, im not even sure there are recent cases where people who were playing restricted slots but lost their deposit and were refunded? Im pretty sure one of 900 casino bonus terms has that covered, no?

You know what could easily protect them from people playing those evil, restricted slots? Players being unable to play those slots when they have bonus funds in their account? Now imagine if only that was possible to do! We wouldnt even have topics like this one. But alas, they were unable to add max bet protection, or restrict players from playing restricted game because ... insert random reasons here.

tldr: to be completely honest its really hard to side with a casino that refuses to implement restricted slots bonus bet protection, whilist being able to easily do so, and its at the same time so happy to confiscate funds because they dont have such a system implemented. If i didnt know better, id even think they are doing it on purpose.

/s

edit: not entirely related to this case but it has much to do with traps though. A few days ago i played some bgaming slots for the first time. I played a slot that has very odd bet size raises/denominations.
It goes like this $0,2 - $1 - $2 - $10.
Now that means you get to click on the plus icon to raise bet just 3 times before it goes double of whats allowed during bonus play. Oh and when you click anywhere on the screen their slots spin instantly. Like anywhere. So basically you start the slot and make 3 raises which nobody actually suspects to go from 20 cents to 10 dollars, and click anywhere else to have no hopes of actually winning anything.

This topic made me wonder how many people have had their winnings confiscated because of it? What on earth is the point of spin button if it spins everywhere else? Was that done on purpose? Why are casinos allowed to get away with stuff like that?

 

[dunover]

You cant have it both ways. If casino wants to be so strict about enforcing their rules, those same rules should apply to the casino too, not just its players. You cant have vague explanations, or "small mistakes", which were unintentional and get away with it while at the same time expect your players to accept they are being punished for the smallest of mistakes.

not sure you read this entire topic, or you just chose to ignore that part about banana jons game (unable to exit it after you select bet size, not being placed in correct section), but apparently thats a small mistake casino can get away with it.

Im sure every seasoned player here has had your scenario in mind, but i really dont expect it to be a case here since player tried to contact support right after he made that spin.

Also, if you know of similar cases where someone makes a first spin with a bonu on restricted game, just to be refunded money, please share it with us. Hell, im not even sure there are recent cases where people who were playing restricted slots but lost their deposit and were refunded? Im pretty sure one of 900 casino bonus terms has that covered, no?

You know what could easily protect them from people playing those evil, restricted slots? Players being unable to play those slots when they have bonus funds in their account? Now imagine if only that was possible to do! We wouldnt even have topics like this one. But alas, they were unable to add max bet protection, or restrict players from playing restricted game because ... insert random reasons here.

tldr: to be completely honest its really hard to side with a casino that refuses to implement restricted slots bonus bet protection, whilist being able to easily do so, and its at the same time so happy to confiscate funds because they dont have such a system implemented. If i didnt know better, id even think they are doing it on purpose.

/s

Good points, I agree. As I recall, Videoslots were to the first to totally bet-proof games when bonus funds were in play and it was a long, difficult and expensive project and to this day I don't know of a casino that has done this as diligently and completely. In an ideal world it would help everybody yet it's beyond most of them.
I also know most casinos don't separate excluded bonus games from their general lists - for example when searching a casino's slots would you not find say White Rabbit next to 'White Rhino' (if they had both slots?)

So, like it or not, the accepted requirement is to specify the excluded games in the terms, no more. After that it's caveat emptor basically. The same goes for all us players.

There is one technical point I would like to establish here - did the OP actually log-out of the casino, clear cache etc. and the game in question still wouldn't release him from playing a spin at all? If so that isn't good, without doubt.

Further to that if the OP was stuck in limbo, irrespective of the above point, they should have ceased playing until CS resolved this and a bet was played. I can fully understand the frustration a session that was eagerly anticipated by the player would have had to be abandoned but that would surely have kept the OP within the terms and not led to this PAB?

P.S. theapple - I just noticed your addition/edit about touching the screen to start slots. This indeed does happen on many that I test weekly from many developers, mainly the html5 games. The UK ones can be stopped by pressing the screen but AFAIK not started - unless anybody knows of any that can start too?

 

[Tirilej]

Good points, I agree. As I recall, Videoslots were to the first to totally bet-proof games when bonus funds were in play and it was a long, difficult and expensive project and to this day I don't know of a casino that has done this as diligently and completely. In an ideal world it would help everybody yet it's beyond most of them.
I also know most casinos don't separate excluded bonus games from their general lists - for example when searching a casino's slots would you not find say White Rabbit next to 'White Rhino' (if they had both slots?)

So, like it or not, the accepted requirement is to specify the excluded games in the terms, no more. After that it's caveat emptor basically. The same goes for all us players.

There is one technical point I would like to establish here - did the OP actually log-out of the casino, clear cache etc. and the game in question still wouldn't release him from playing a spin at all? If so that isn't good, without doubt.

Further to that if the OP was stuck in limbo, irrespective of the above point, they should have ceased playing until CS resolved this and a bet was played. I can fully understand the frustration a session that was eagerly anticipated by the player would have had to be abandoned but that would surely have kept the OP within the terms and not led to this PAB?

You sound like you haven't read all the thread. Don't blame you It has been discussed and questioned already enough.
In a perfect world as a perfect person he would have stopped playing. He tried contact live chat twice, didn't get an answer, didn't think he would win so he kept on playing.

When it comes to the game I don't think he saw that it wasn't a slot until he was already in it. It's obviously impossible to not play that bet out, according to all that have tried. No matter what, he just won $16 and it had nothing to do with the rest of his win.

You obviously have a lot of opinions and I wish you had been in the discussion earlier so it hadn't looked like you just defended the casino.

 

[trancemonkey]

Good points, I agree. As I recall, Videoslots were to the first to totally bet-proof games when bonus funds were in play and it was a long, difficult and expensive project and to this day I don't know of a casino that has done this as diligently and completely. In an ideal world it would help everybody yet it's beyond most of them.
I also know most casinos don't separate excluded bonus games from their general lists - for example when searching a casino's slots would you not find say White Rabbit next to 'White Rhino' (if they had both slots?)

So, like it or not, the accepted requirement is to specify the excluded games in the terms, no more. After that it's caveat emptor basically. The same goes for all us players.

There is one technical point I would like to establish here - did the OP actually log-out of the casino, clear cache etc. and the game in question still wouldn't release him from playing a spin at all? If so that isn't good, without doubt.

Further to that if the OP was stuck in limbo, irrespective of the above point, they should have ceased playing until CS resolved this and a bet was played. I can fully understand the frustration a session that was eagerly anticipated by the player would have had to be abandoned but that would surely have kept the OP within the terms and not led to this PAB?

To be fair, you don't know what the hell the game is until you press the stake button and it them automatically plays a game.

 

[colinsunderland]

Good points, I agree. As I recall, Videoslots were to the first to totally bet-proof games when bonus funds were in play and it was a long, difficult and expensive project and to this day I don't know of a casino that has done this as diligently and completely. In an ideal world it would help everybody yet it's beyond most of them.
I also know most casinos don't separate excluded bonus games from their general lists - for example when searching a casino's slots would you not find say White Rabbit next to 'White Rhino' (if they had both slots?)

So, like it or not, the accepted requirement is to specify the excluded games in the terms, no more. After that it's caveat emptor basically. The same goes for all us players.

But in this case slots are allowed, and as you can see from the screenshot I posted above of the screen you get when you click slots, theres nothing to indicate it isn't a slot. It's only when you open the game and select the betsize you realise its a boardgame, by which time its too late as you have to spin.

There is one technical point I would like to establish here - did the OP actually log-out of the casino, clear cache etc. and the game in question still wouldn't release him from playing a spin at all? If so that isn't good, without doubt.

Thats something we will never find out now he's banned, however thats a bit extreme. No player should have to do that, just because you and me might, there are thousands of people out there who play who wouldn't have a clue to do that nor have any idea how to do so.

Further to that if the OP was stuck in limbo, irrespective of the above point, they should have ceased playing until CS resolved this and a bet was played. I can fully understand the frustration a session that was eagerly anticipated by the player would have had to be abandoned but that would surely have kept the OP within the terms and not led to this PAB?

Again, you don't know how experienced the player is, and being honest that shouldn't matter. Yes its the obvious thing to do to us, to someone who plays every now and then? Not so sure. Lets not forget the casino made a 'mistake' in stating to Max they had told him to stop playing when they hadn't done anything of the sort! Their mistake is ok though, the players' cost him 6k.

 

[sueyh]

Good points, I agree. As I recall, Videoslots were to the first to totally bet-proof games when bonus funds were in play and it was a long, difficult and expensive project and to this day I don't know of a casino that has done this as diligently and completely. In an ideal world it would help everybody yet it's beyond most of them.
I also know most casinos don't separate excluded bonus games from their general lists - for example when searching a casino's slots would you not find say White Rabbit next to 'White Rhino' (if they had both slots?)

So, like it or not, the accepted requirement is to specify the excluded games in the terms, no more. After that it's caveat emptor basically. The same goes for all us players.

There is one technical point I would like to establish here - did the OP actually log-out of the casino, clear cache etc. and the game in question still wouldn't release him from playing a spin at all? If so that isn't good, without doubt.

Further to that if the OP was stuck in limbo, irrespective of the above point, they should have ceased playing until CS resolved this and a bet was played. I can fully understand the frustration a session that was eagerly anticipated by the player would have had to be abandoned but that would surely have kept the OP within the terms and not led to this PAB?

So surprisingly, you and Maxd are so generous to the casino and so restrict to the player.

There is excuse for the casino not blocking the prohibited game, but yet the player needs to be blamed for keep playing after he tried not once twice to contact live chat.
It is OK the live chat was not available for so long, but the player is in fault for not waiting for very long time.

The rep here obviously lied about telling the player to wait until the management to contact him, but that lie is considered as something that can happen, not a big deal, but the OP forgot to mention about returned deposit to Maxd when he clearly stated in this thread his deposit was returned, the OP is a big liar who need to be kicked out from this forum.

Seriously, you guys are losing the credibility in my opinion.

 

[brianmon]

Good points, I agree. As I recall, Videoslots were to the first to totally bet-proof games when bonus funds were in play and it was a long, difficult and expensive project and to this day I don't know of a casino that has done this as diligently and completely. In an ideal world it would help everybody yet it's beyond most of them.
I also know most casinos don't separate excluded bonus games from their general lists - for example when searching a casino's slots would you not find say White Rabbit next to 'White Rhino' (if they had both slots?)

I'm pretty sure the VS don't exclude any games from play, with a bonus, they cover themselves by having the wagering contribution vary according to the RTP of the game. Nor do they (AFAIK) 'automatically' restrict the bet size. They just have the facility to 'voluntarily' restrict the bet size.

Many many casinos do however, block restricted games from being played with a bonus. Even the majority of EveryMatrix sites , and also all the Skill-on-net sites. do it. So it can't be that expensive or difficult to do.

Some casinos even have a seperate section of 'Bonus games'. TonyBet, being the first which springs to mind

 

[Broke]

It's just annoying me that casinos get away with all this unreasonable terms all the time, no max bet protection, no games protection etc. It's 2018, the tech to implement these systems are in place.

Actually RTG casinos (well, except iNetBet) have automatically blocked bonus restricted games while playing with bonus funds (image attached). This has been for years. Why iNetBet has disabled that feature in their software is beyond me. Does it have something to do with those very strict bonus terms, to lure players play bonus restricted games? I don't know, just asking a question.

 

[SpinUk]

Need advice - don't want to lose 6k from one spin :(

Well spotted

 

[colinsunderland]

Actually RTG casinos (well, except iNetBet) have automatically blocked bonus restricted games while playing with bonus funds (image attached). This has been for years. Why iNetBet has disabled that feature in their software is beyond me. Does it have something to do with those very strict bonus terms, to lure players play bonus restricted games? I don't know, just asking a question.

Well that just makes it look worse doesn't it!

 

[dunover]

OK video I felt compelled to add here - take a look.

Fact - the OP could have walked away without playing it, therefore broke the terms by continuing.

BUT!!

Fact #2 - this game IMO significantly contributed to this unfortunate situation and I have a large degree of sympathy after taking a look:

 

[Tirilej]

OK video I felt compelled to add here - take a look.

Fact - the OP could have walked away without playing it, therefore broke the terms by continuing.

BUT!!

Fact #2 - this game IMO significantly contributed to this unfortunate situation and I have a large degree of sympathy after taking a look:

It's different playing with free and real money so I hope you tried with real.

 

[dunover]

It's different playing with free and real money so I hope you tried with real.

I can't play it with real, that's irrelevant - I was simply establishing that it is very hard to spot that this game isn't a slot UNLESS you know the game from a previous play.

 

[brianmon]

It's different playing with free and real money so I hope you tried with real.

It was tried by LadyHawke in real mode (post #177)

"2: If you try to exit the game in real mode after selecting a bet, you will get a message along the lines of: "Unfinished game. You must complete the bet." Clicking on the "x" simply has no effect. Believe me, I tried.

This is why it is not possible to exit the game once the bet size has been chosen. You are forced to play out the spin by the game's software. So personally, I think it was reasonable of the OP to play out the 5 spins relating to his one bet, in order to be able to get out of the damned game.

And finally, for everyone who has suggested options like Task Manager, Reboot, etc. just to close a game, does this not add weight to the OP's argument that getting out of a game that was effectively holding him hostage was almost impossible?"

 

[nutnut]

I can't play it with real, that's irrelevant - I was simply establishing that it is very hard to spot that this game isn't a slot UNLESS you know the game from a previous play.

So after all your posts judging the poster you agree hes been screwed over by the casino now.

 

[Tirilej]

I can't play it with real, that's irrelevant - I was simply establishing that it is very hard to spot that this game isn't a slot UNLESS you know the game from a previous play.

Yes but you also claimed that the player could have walked away which he couldn't in real play.

 

[dionysus]

I may be wrong, but I think he meant walk away, as in have support sort it

 

[dunover]

So after all your posts judging the poster you agree hes been screwed over by the casino now.

Nope. As far as the terms go they have a right not to pay, as he could have not played the staked game and resolved it before continuing and thus not broken any game exclusion rules. What I am also saying is that in mitigation the OP has been placed in a situation, by a very deceptive-looking game, that aside from experienced players it would be difficult to extricate oneself from. Therefore IF discretion can be applied after another look was taken, that would be the reason for it.

 

[nutnut]

Looking back into this rereading again I am just staggered at the response.

1) 1 single spin loses you 6k
2) The 4k jackpot win has still not been answered if put back
3) Player banned even though he was x1000 more polite and patience than I would be, the reason for he ban smacked of trying to silence a response from him.

But the one part of the post that really made me annoyed was this,

And, finally, item (i): the original info I was given by the casino, namely that Support had talked to the player and had been told to wait. Well, the short of it is that that never happened, at least not that way. When I received the reply from the casino it was after several days wait -- and unusually long time for these guys to reply -- and the rep I was dealing with apologized for having taken so long to get back to me. The info they gave me ended up not being quite true, but I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to deceive. I suspect they were careless, read the case records over in haste, and summarized them incorrectly.

This single paragraph made the rest of your post irrelevant. You spend as I pointed out most of the post accusing the player of doing wrong without any proof. But you admit the casino has not told the truth on which was the original reason YOU SIDED THE PAB WITH THE CASINO AND NOT THE PLAYER.

The player denied this and he was correct IN THE END, yet a second time you side with the casino who lied and ban the player.

What AM I missing here ??

 

[Mouche12]

But the OP did try to contact support right after he had inadvertently placed a bet on the game that first gave the impression of being a slot.

 

[thr0b]

New here, but has nutnut been suspended for his post up there? That's...harsh.

 

[Mouche12]

New here, but has nutnut been suspended for his post up there? That's...harsh.

Not at all, it's just up there for fun...
Players who get banned have their names highlighted in red.

 

[Tirilej]

New here, but has nutnut been suspended for his post up there? That's...harsh.

No, he just haven't changed the sentence since his last ban

 

[NeverLucky]

New here, but has nutnut been suspended for his post up there? That's...harsh.

Nah, dont think so, thats just an old ban still showing up for some reason.

 

[thr0b]

Ah! I stand corrected and I stand down!

 

[dunover]

I believe the 'trollish behaviour' text should go when the red lettering reverts back to normal, but I think Max gets fed up retyping it every 31 days so left it in situ....

 

[nutnut]

I'll leave that message on my profile, cause apparently if my posts are disagreed it's a troll.

i admit im a twat, but at 31yrs old certainly not a troll. just a arsehole with a opinion!

 

[KasinoKing]

I've been a member of this fantastic forum for 14 years now, and I have to say this is the worst decision on a player v casino case I have EVER seen

I totally love and respect Bryan & Max for the fantastic work they do - but they have got this particular case so very wrong.
With all due respect, I very much doubt either of them regularly play at RTG casinos as I and many other players do, and so maybe they can't understand just how easy it could have been for a player to make a genuine mistake like the OP's.

Nothing else matters: the time-line, the live chat, the e-mails which may or may not have occurred, things the OP said or didn't say... the bottom line is the casino denied the player his winnings due to one simple mistake ANY of us could have made. It's just WRONG.

Apart from all that - anyone who thinks they could get an advantage over a casino by playing Banana Jones must be insane - the game is a stinking pile of utter garbage!

KK

 

[frogrest22]

Casinomeister "ADVOCATE OF FAIR PLAY SINCE 1998".....

When is this tagline being removed? It is simply not credible anymore.

 

[nutnut]

Casinomeister "ADVOCATE OF FAIR PLAY SINCE 1998".....

When is this tagline being removed? It is simply not credible anymore.

I don't think posts like this help. It sidetracks from the point how wrong they got this. So doesn't need you to disrespect them to this level. Lets give them a chance to respond and sort this decision.

 

[dionysus]

I don't think posts like this help. It sidetracks from the point how wrong they got this. So doesn't need you to disrespect them to this level. Lets give them a chance to respond and sort this decision.

but they have responded. 'Well, as they say at the movies, "Tha-tha-that's all folks!" and that's after already revisiting the pab
At this point it's merely members sharing opinions

 

[ladyhawke]

Like so many others have said, Bryan and Max do amazing work in making the Gaming environment safer for all of us.

But we did our damnedest to be fair, and I feel that we made the right call here.

Not in this case, I am very sorry to say.

- the player broke the Terms. On those grounds alone I would have supported the casino's decision against this player.
- the player broke the Rules -- intentionally or otherwise -- and per the Terms is owed nothing.
- And before we leave this point I just want to re-iterate that the player's first bet ever at this casino was on a disallowed game during bonus play. Is that a coincidence? Just asking the question.

Or as @theapple so succinctly phrased it: "Yeah its a fair outcome because he played one spin, didnt get anything out of it, and it was on a slot thats listed under slots but doesnt count as a slot. Oh and its also a slot(notslot?) that you cant leave once you select your bet, even though it is impossible to exit once you have selected the slot(notslot)."

Yup, the terms were indeed broken. On a game that was displayed as a slot, and one which is impossible to exit once the bet size has been selected, without taking extreme measures such as using Task Manager or a system reboot, and who the hell even thinks of that for getting out of a slot? A major - and very important - issue which does not appear to have been addressed during the PAB process. It is an entrapment game, pure and simple.

And what player doesn't seen a new slot and think - Ah Ha, a new game. Must try that. Not sure why you are even 'just asking the question'.

- The info they gave me ended up not being quite true, but I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to deceive. I suspect they were careless, read the case records over in haste, and summarized them incorrectly.

So let's recap:
- The player has been kicked to the curb for "lies of omission",i.e.for missing out passing some information to Max, even though most of that information was later clarified in the OP's forum posts.
- The casino rep did actually lie to you, but it's classed as a mistake, e.g. "not a deliberate attempt by the casino to deceive."
- Their excuses were accepted with no doubts.

Double standards or what? Unfortunately, it is my belief that even after a review of the situation (which was only undertaken due to the strength of feeling by the forum members on this issue), you were always going to side with the casino as you trust them with your wallet, your firstborn, etc. I don't think the OP ever had a chance of getting a fair hearing on this.

So to Max and CM: Remember GreaseMonkey? He was kicked to the curb as well for all manner of lies and deceptions. Except he had not been lying and cheating after all, but it took months for you to finally accept the truth.

Very, very disappointed in this decision

 

[Steviedoo]

the game in question is still on their site among the slot games.
that says a lot.