SlotGrinder
Dormant Account
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Location
- England
With all due respect but you are trying to tar the reputation of a good casino group because of one case.
Max stated clearly that Eric had other valid reasons for standing by his decision to confiscate the winnings. Reasons he might not want to disclose to the greater public to protect himself and the casino.
Eric is one of the most generous and forthcoming casino reps and decided in many cases in favor of players where other casinos would have never done so.
So please take your few hundred bucks, play somewhere else but don't try to publicly insinuate that CL/Next are a bad casino.
Well I read Max's posts at the time and again just recently and I'm afraid it doesn't sound to me that casino have bothered to provide any explanation beyond "he broke the max bet rule once". Why isn't the title changed if that is not the case? I can see 3 posts from Max in that thread (below) . I'm not trying to tar their reputation I am merely stating that I haven't deposited/played on there since I read that thread and I am obviously not going to deposit on a new "skin" either .
"The casino had proof that the player violated the "max bet" Terms -- admittedly only once -- and they chose to enforce the rules. Their call but unfortunately that doesn't work out so well for the player."
"The casino may have more information but they've not shared anything with me. As to their hard line on this Eric's response was simply "I have my reasons"."
"Reading the case notes over I do see that Eric felt that the player had "threatened" them re posting on CM. I personally didn't read it that way but such things are almost always a matter of interpretation. Since it was not directly pertinent to the case I didn't pursue the matter."
"For the PAB point of view the player violated the Terms, there's proof to show that he did and the casino busted him for it, as it is their right to do."
"I agree that on the surface their decision may seem unusually harsh but that doesn't make it an invalid decision. We might think they _could_ give the player a break but it the end there are no valid grounds to say that they _should_ have done so. It's their call to make and they gave it the old . Sucks for the OP, but thems the breaks"