Nigel207 vs Lucky247

[dionysus]

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 )

Well, Bryan DID say: On another note, the casino is reviewing and changing the terms which deal with irregular play.

 

[Nifty29]

Well, Bryan DID say: On another note, the casino is reviewing and changing the terms which deal with irregular play.

Some people see what they want to see.

 

[skiny]

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 )

In my opinion, the joke's on him. He played at a casino with a vague term that needs to be changed. He claimed that his payment was withheld because of the vague term and if he was an honest gambler who got caught by this term it could and probably would have been sorted out. The problem is, he held multiple accounts at this casino which means he was never eligible to win anything in the first place. Even if the casino changed the term he would still be violating the rule against holding multiple accounts and that most certainly will not be changed.

As for scummy behaviour I think you're twisting the picture a little bit. The casino agreed to have Max or Bryan investigate the matter and is apparently taking their advice on the term being too vague. That shows cooperation. The OP, on the other hand came to the forum knowing full well he was breaking the rules about holding multiple accounts and proceeded to warn everyone that the casino would confiscate people's winnings if they changed their bet sizes. It was a flagrant attempt to discredit the casino for withholding money he knew he should never have won in the first place.

Maybe we just have a different idea of what scummy is.

 

[Sachalucky]

Hi everyone,

Thanks again for all your messages and patience.

I am glad to say I think this issue can be put to bed, thanks to invaluable contributions from all of you as well as the Meister himself.

The reason for returning the player's deposits and closing his account was due to his account being linked to others in the first place. The fact that we have not seen him since his original post and that he has refused to deal with the matter in a PAB also says a lot about the type.

Unfortunately, due to the number of fraudsters trolling fora and T&Cs for loopholes, we are sometimes reluctant to explain exactly how a player has been caught for fraud, as this would only educate those groups further to try to abuse the casino and its perceived generosity.

We do however realise that the term highlighted by this discussion was particularly vague and did not paint the right picture as far as our way of operating is concerned. As many of you have experienced when playing on Lucky247 and commented, it is definitely not the casino's policy to void winnings for changing one's bet size - that would be ludicrous!

The term was however not clear and we have thus removed it entirely from our T&Cs, so as to avoid any confusion. Only a fool can't recognise when something's wrong and we pride ourselves on at least trying not to be fools!

We'd like to thank all of you once again for your help in bringing this matter to light and look forward to similar collaboration in the future.

Regards,

Sacha

 

[Nifty29]

Thanks Sacha.

As we thought.....a lowlife fraudster.

Just to be clear....for the benefit of the "it's irrelevant if they had multiple accounts" members....the reason for confiscation and banning is NOT the betsize rule.

SirWegs? Hakupaku? Comments?

 

[chuchu59]

In my opinion, the joke's on him. He played at a casino with a vague term that needs to be changed. He claimed that his payment was withheld because of the vague term and if he was an honest gambler who got caught by this term it could and probably would have been sorted out. The problem is, he held multiple accounts at this casino which means he was never eligible to win anything in the first place. Even if the casino changed the term he would still be violating the rule against holding multiple accounts and that most certainly will not be changed.

As for scummy behaviour I think you're twisting the picture a little bit. The casino agreed to have Max or Bryan investigate the matter and is apparently taking their advice on the term being too vague. That shows cooperation. The OP, on the other hand came to the forum knowing full well he was breaking the rules about holding multiple accounts and proceeded to warn everyone that the casino would confiscate people's winnings if they changed their bet sizes. It was a flagrant attempt to discredit the casino for withholding money he knew he should never have won in the first place.

Maybe we just have a different idea of what scummy is.

Excellent summary Skiny.

 

[chuchu59]

Hi everyone,

Thanks again for all your messages and patience.

I am glad to say I think this issue can be put to bed, thanks to invaluable contributions from all of you as well as the Meister himself.

The reason for returning the player's deposits and closing his account was due to his account being linked to others in the first place. The fact that we have not seen him since his original post and that he has refused to deal with the matter in a PAB also says a lot about the type.

Unfortunately, due to the number of fraudsters trolling fora and T&Cs for loopholes, we are sometimes reluctant to explain exactly how a player has been caught for fraud, as this would only educate those groups further to try to abuse the casino and its perceived generosity.

We do however realise that the term highlighted by this discussion was particularly vague and did not paint the right picture as far as our way of operating is concerned. As many of you have experienced when playing on Lucky247 and commented, it is definitely not the casino's policy to void winnings for changing one's bet size - that would be ludicrous!

The term was however not clear and we have thus removed it entirely from our T&Cs, so as to avoid any confusion. Only a fool can't recognise when something's wrong and we pride ourselves on at least trying not to be fools!

We'd like to thank all of you once again for your help in bringing this matter to light and look forward to similar collaboration in the future.

Regards,

Sacha

First, I hope you pass the BBF test without any problems.

Removal of the term is welcome until you can think of a better replacement but why not consider what many other casinos are doing ie limiting a bet size whilst a bonus is active?

 

[Nifty29]

Yes, excellent post skiny. Spot on.

In the famous words of another member....

"I could go on about this all night........................and I will...."

 

[maxd]

In the famous words of another member....

"I could go on about this all night........................and I will...."

:grumpyface:

Does Nifty need a "play nice" -- which includes "don't stir up shit just for the hell of it" -- reminder?

oke:

 

[Nifty29]

:grumpyface:

Does Nifty need a "play nice" -- which includes "don't stir up shit just for the hell of it" -- reminder?

oke:

Hey...I've been very nice as it happens.

"Twas all in jest....and besides, I didn't name the member. It could be anyone!

P.S. Point taken however

 

[skiny]

:grumpyface:

Does Nifty need a "play nice" -- which includes "don't stir up shit just for the hell of it" -- reminder?

oke:

In all fairness, I don't really play nice most of the time either.

I just hide it a little better.

 

[Sachalucky]

Hi Chuchu,

Well first thank you very much, appreciated!

Second, there is a bet size limit while a bonus is active (20% of the bonus value) and it is outlined in our T&Cs.

Thanks all,

Sacha

First, I hope you pass the BBF test without any problems.

Removal of the term is welcome until you can think of a better replacement but why not consider what many other casinos are doing ie limiting a bet size whilst a bonus is active?

 

[Przecinek]

Happy to see Lucky 247 listens to community, and decided to remove terms relating to dropping/increasing bets
I will definitely keep playing at your casino.

In the future you should inform players that are suspected of fraud, that their account has been connected to others and this is why it's being closed down. No need to give out any specifics on how you managed to reach that conclusion. This way posters like OP won't be able to copy-paste entire email and make it look like they are being punished for their style of play.