Nigel207 vs Lucky247

[bigjohn]

I don't think I will ever understand why any casino would care if players played as a group or individually.

If 10 players take a bonus and one or two win and cash out the casino took in the same total deposits and paid out the same total cashout. If the 10 players split the money between them or not the result to the casino would be the same.

Even if one player bankrolled the whole thing the result to the casino is still the same.

I'm not saying that is what happened here because I have no way of knowing but it's alluding to colluding.

 

[anniemac]

I can't, for the life of me, figure out how you can profit playing slots online by being 'part of a group'. We are told over and over that slots are random and can't be tweeked so what's the point? Heck, I couldn't win if there was 50 of us playing the same game at the same time, on the same computer.

I am getting tired of folks coming on here, bitching about something a casino did or didn't do, and then hauling butt when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

If you have a legit bitch, get on with it. If you are just wasting time, then begone.

 

[SirWegs]

What ever the player have done wrong. The specific term is a clear case of "spirit of bonus". The term is roguish

 

[hakapuku]

So first casino states that the player violated the rule 8.2 - changed his bet size after a substantial win and that is the reason the winnings were confiscated. The player goes to the forum with his story. And casino then states- the player is a multi-account-bonus-abuser. And this is the reason the money was confiscated. This is not a first time I see this kind of strange scenario.

 

[SirWegs]

So first casino states that the player violated the rule 8.2 - changed his bet size after a substantial win and that is the reason the winnings were confiscated. The player goes to the forum with his story. And casino then states- the player is a multi-account-bonus-abuser. And this is the reason the money was confiscated. This is not a first time I see this kind of strange scenario.

Very clear case of the casino trying to cover their asses in my opinion.

 

[Mouche12]

I for one am grateful to the OP for bringing out this little rule in the casino's T&C. This is a place I definitely won't be depositing - with or without bonus.

 

[Nifty29]

1. The bet reduction term is BS. No casino with a term like that should be accredited IMO. A max bet term is fine...as long as the player stays under that there shouldn't be a problem.

2. We don't know if it's a multi-account fraud issue as well or something else. Slam the CASINO for #1, but the comments from the usual suspects about the rest is pure assumption.

3. If the OP will not submit a PAB, that should tell everyone something.

 

[dunover]

There is a thread on here where a rep attempts to explain 10 players colluding/multi accounting and using the SUBs can gain an EV+ scenario from the casino. His maths or logic never convinced me and a few others beside. I have no concern with the player's real reasons for being here or not PAB-ing. My sole reason for comment is that this thread has exposed a BS term in the casino which in my opinion can be used at will by the casino to the detriment of a genuine, lucky and winning depositor.

 

[dunover]

1. The bet reduction term is BS. No casino with a term like that should be accredited IMO. A max bet term is fine...as long as the player stays under that there shouldn't be a problem.

2. We don't know if it's a multi-account fraud issue as well or something else. Slam the CASINO for #1, but the comments from the usual suspects about the rest is pure assumption.

3. If the OP will not submit a PAB, that should tell everyone something.

Yep. Happy to give your 7,000th thanks for that one.

 

[Andy Walker]

1. The bet reduction term is BS. No casino with a term like that should be accredited IMO. A max bet term is fine...as long as the player stays under that there shouldn't be a problem.

2. We don't know if it's a multi-account fraud issue as well or something else. Slam the CASINO for #1, but the comments from the usual suspects about the rest is pure assumption.

3. If the OP will not submit a PAB, that should tell everyone something.

It always amazes me when non registered users suddenly register when they have an issue as opposed to taking the better route of asking first before being bitten.

Perhaps I am becoming more cynical with experience, age, indifference, the fact I want to moan and need to tell people summer is over here, my mother sent me to bed without supper on an almost daily basis (joking mum), and I’ve become disillusioned with the illusion of the illusion that was in fact true. Shoes aren’t cheap anymore , I end emails with “Have a nice day”, I queue without protest (well outwardly) and think the new Furby’s are the best thing since sliced bread.

Something like that.

 

[Casinomeister]

So first casino states that the player violated the rule 8.2 - changed his bet size after a substantial win and that is the reason the winnings were confiscated. The player goes to the forum with his story. And casino then states- the player is a multi-account-bonus-abuser. And this is the reason the money was confiscated. This is not a first time I see this kind of strange scenario.

You are twisting things around a bit. His account was closed and his winnings were nullified - he was referred to a clause that describes what the casino deems as bonus abuse - but this is not exhaustive. Already we have several members state that they have done the same thing (changing bet sizes) and nothing happened. There is a bit more to this than what you are implying.

If a player is banned from a casino for being connected to other accounts, casinos will (in most cases) not indulge others in how these persons are caught. This may be the case here. I'm still waiting for more information.

 

[Rustee]

black sheep

hows it that i see some of the same posters thanking different posts?
Guys... if your gonna side with someone, choose a side,you cant be on the winning ans losing team! Seems theres some black sheep, either got clickety fever to thank every post or some just dont know whether theyre coming or going

also, on that note, wheres our OP? Everyone says the casino is at fault but our OP has nothing to say about this? Why you guys fighting his battle? If this were any different a scenario and our OP was a criminal, I hope you do know some of you would be accessories to the crime....


Absence of law is not proof of the law being absent... (unknown author)

 

[Nifty29]

hows it that i see some of the same posters thanking different posts?
Guys... if your gonna side with someone, choose a side,you cant be on the winning ans losing team! Seems theres some black sheep, either got clickety fever to thank every post or some just dont know whether theyre coming or going

also, on that note, wheres our OP? Everyone says the casino is at fault but our OP has nothing to say about this? Why you guys fighting his battle? If this were any different a scenario and our OP was a criminal, I hope you do know some of you would be accessories to the crime....


Absence of law is not proof of the law being absent... (unknown author)

Hey rustee

Personally, I will thank someone with an alternative POV if I think the argument is well made and not just a bunch of crap. It doesn't mean I've changed my mind in that case, just that I concede or appreciate the point.

What examples were you referring to? None stand out particularly.

I agree re the OP. It's not unusual for fraudster shitbags (not saying the OP is one at this stage) to signup, post a "poor me" story full of half-truths and omissions combined with outright lies, to garner support, and them go silent. It means that it allows time for pot-stirrers to come in and muddy the waters with a whole lot of assumptions and make the casino (and Max and Bryan) look like liars etc when the truth comes out. It's an old trick.

 

[wigan rl]

You are twisting things around a bit. His account was closed and his winnings were nullified - he was referred to a clause that describes what the casino deems as bonus abuse - but this is not exhaustive. Already we have several members state that they have done the same thing (changing bet sizes) and nothing happened. There is a bit more to this than what you are implying.

If a player is banned from a casino for being connected to other accounts, casinos will (in most cases) not indulge others in how these persons are caught. This may be the case here. I'm still waiting for more information.

So is the op about bet sizing bs?

If they chucked the bet sizing term at him first then later said 'oh he's linked to other accounts' it's a bit naughty imo

 

[Rustee]

Hey rustee

Personally, I will thank someone with an alternative POV if I think the argument is well made and not just a bunch of crap. It doesn't mean I've changed my mind in that case, just that I concede or appreciate the point.

What examples were you referring to? None stand out particularly.

I agree re the OP. It's not unusual for fraudster shitbags (not saying the OP is one at this stage) to signup, post a "poor me" story full of half-truths and omissions combined with outright lies, to garner support, and them go silent. It means that it allows time for pot-stirrers to come in and muddy the waters with a whole lot of assumptions and make the casino (and Max and Bryan) look like liars etc when the truth comes out. It's an old trick.

I wouldnt think I would like a forum feud so I wont give an outright example, but what I meant is that a saw a poster (not you btw) agree with one comment to simply agree with another opposite comment (pot-stirrer). I think its those pot stirrers you and I will agree are at work.lol Im starting to doubt whether I read/saw some posts correctly/not.lol - in reference to your question.
for the OP and of course for the pot stirrers

 

[dunover]

Referring to thanking converse sides to the story, I do it frequently. Same as Nifty and many others. Sometimes the post may not be the same POV as my own, but is well reasoned and expressed. On other occasions, the poster may post something that I have missed, and make me rethink my own opinions on the matter. That is debate. This thread has 2 distinct parts - firstly the BS term which I thank people for mentioning and happen to agree with whether this term is a consideration in this particular matter or not, and secondly thank others for pointing out that he OP despite correctly pointing out the BS term has question marks over his real complaint and motives. So, no duplicity here.

 

[KasinoKing]

Referring to thanking converse sides to the story, I do it frequently. Same as Nifty and many others. Sometimes the post may not be the same POV as my own, but is well reasoned and expressed. On other occasions, the poster may post something that I have missed, and make me rethink my own opinions on the matter. That is debate. This thread has 2 distinct parts - firstly the BS term which I thank people for mentioning and happen to agree with whether this term is a consideration in this particular matter or not, and secondly thank others for pointing out that he OP despite correctly pointing out the BS term has question marks over his real complaint and motives. So, no duplicity here.

Ditto here.

"Thanking" a post does NOT necessarily mean I agree with what the poster said, or that I am on their side.
The caption below the posts says:
"The Following Users Say Thank You to Xxxxxxx For This Useful Post:"
and NOT:
"The Following Users Totally Agree With Everything Posted Above:"

So I will thank any post which I think provides me or others with useful information, or suggests an opinion which I or others may not have thought of before, regardless of whether I like or agree with what was written, or not.

KK
[/derail - sorry!]

 

[skiny]

I've reserved posting in this thread so far because I'm still unsure of the exact chain of events that led to the OP's winnings being confiscated.

The OP says his winnings were confiscated for bonus abuse and points to a term that is obviously too vague to be enforceable.

Then we have a casino representative stating that the some or all of the original post is untrue but it's not entirely clear to me which part isn't supposed to be true.

Then we have reports of possible fraudulent activity as the reason for the winnings being confiscated. This is usually where it starts to become clear that the OP was just covering his fraudulent tracks by posting false statements about the casino. The problem is we have an unverified PM from the casino rep stating that bonus abuse WAS the reason for the confiscated winnings.

So it is entirely possible that fraudulent activity did occur in which case the OP will not be paid. The casino is well within their right to withhold winnings for fraud. The problem is (IMO) the casino is not within their rights to withhold winnings for fraud but tell a player the winnings are being withheld for bonus abuse.

Putting aside the fact that the term in question is far too vague to be enforceable anyway, reasons for a refusal to pay must be clearly stated and honest. Casinos should not be allowed to withhold payments for one reason and justify it with another. You can tell a player he is suspected of fraud without telling him exactly how you came to that conclusion. This at least gives the player the option to defend himself against the real reason for the winnings being confiscated.

This thread is already 5 pages long but we've heard very little from the OP or the casino at this point so I'm still waiting for clarification of what exactly happened before I get the pitch forks out.

 

[Sachalucky]

This thread is already 5 pages long but we've heard very little from the OP or the casino at this point so I'm still waiting for clarification of what exactly happened before I get the pitch forks out.

Hi Skiny,

We are in discussions with CM over this as previously mentioned - I assure you that everything is being done to resolve this matter.

Thanks & Regards,

Sacha

 

[Casinomeister]

For what it's worth, what I've seen so far is pretty convincing that this person has more than one account at the casino. Another forum member has been identified (by me, not the casino) to be involved as well.

On another note, I've mentioned to Sacha that the term that describes irregular play needs to be changed.

I wouldnt think I would like a forum feud so I wont give an outright example, but what I meant is that a saw a poster (not you btw) agree with one comment to simply agree with another opposite comment (pot-stirrer). I think its those pot stirrers you and I will agree are at work.lol Im starting to doubt whether I read/saw some posts correctly/not.lol - in reference to your question.
for the OP and of course for the pot stirrers

There is more info concerning the "thanks" button here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum-faq/forum-policies/

 

[dionysus]

Some of the incentives may include special permissions, free beer, and other cool things TBA.

 

[skiny]

Hi Skiny,

We are in discussions with CM over this as previously mentioned - I assure you that everything is being done to resolve this matter.

Thanks & Regards,

Sacha

I understand that. I wasn't trying to rush the process. I was more or less saying I would reserve judgment until more information was available.

 

[Casinomeister]

Back to the subject at hand. The player has been connected to other casino accounts, one of which is another forum account that PABd with an identical problem several years ago. That casino gave us information that matches this case. Coincidence? Not likely. I've been waiting for nigel207 to return to the forum and explain a few things, but it looks like he's left the building for good.

I guess it's until next time - adios.

On another note, the casino is reviewing and changing the terms which deal with irregular play.

 

[aceking123]

Back to the subject at hand. The player has been connected to other casino accounts, one of which is another forum account that PABd with an identical problem several years ago. That casino gave us information that matches this case. Coincidence? Not likely. I've been waiting for nigel207 to return to the forum and explain a few things, but it looks like he's left the building for good.

I guess it's until next time - adios.

On another note, the casino is reviewing and changing the terms which deal with irregular play.

good update , from a players point of view this is good news i havnt been playing since this arrived although i didnt have any problems , nice digging guys & its good that there looking into the silly term )

 

[BBKPoker]

Don't care if that player is connected in some way as it is apparently claimed. That term can be used with a very wide latitude, and as I said previously is exactly the kind of scummy behavior that should make people run for the hills (or at least stick to legitimate sites )