Nigel207 vs Lucky247

[nigel207]

Be aware that this casino has a term that allows them to confiscate your winnings if you reduce your bet size AT ALL after having a win, I contacted the rep and they "looked into it" but refused to restore my balance. There is a term on their page that covers this, but they do not explain at all what the reduction is, what games it applies to, or how much of a reduction you can make before they decide it it is necessary to confiscate. I told them they should at least define their terms, they refused, avoid this site if you plan on doing anything other than betting the same exact size on the same exact slot the entire time you have a bonus.

 

[tinybettor]

Be aware that this casino has a term that allows them to confiscate your winnings if you reduce your bet size AT ALL after having a win

Wow, if that is true then that sucks. Where's the fun in only being restricted to the same betsize for the duration of the wagering. I hope the casino can clarify this term because it definitely doesn't seem fair.

 

[mrmark21]

Be aware that this casino has a term that allows them to confiscate your winnings if you reduce your bet size AT ALL after having a win

That sounds really rogueish. Thanks for the heads up

 

[Sachalucky]

Hi all,

Thanks for the messages.

@Nigel207: While I won't discuss your account directly here, the version you have given above is far from accurate I'm afraid. We have PMed regarding this and discussed it at length, and you were invited to PAB should you be unhappy with the outcome of our discussion.

Please feel free to PM me or PAB should you wish to discuss this further, but your post above is in no way a reflection of the way Lucky247 operates, and we will from our end alert CM about it.

Regards,

Sacha

 

[mrmark21]

Hi all,

Thanks for the messages.

@Nigel207: While I won't discuss your account directly here, the version you have given above is far from accurate I'm afraid. We have PMed regarding this and discussed it at length, and you were invited to PAB should you be unhappy with the outcome of our discussion.

Please feel free to PM me or PAB should you wish to discuss this further, but your post above is in no way a reflection of the way Lucky247 operates, and we will from our end alert CM about it.

Regards,

Sacha

I believe what Nigel may be referring to is term fourteen from your promotional T&Cs:

All Players’ wagers will be reviewed for irregular game play patterns prior to any withdrawal being processed. Equal, zero, low margin or hedge betting will be construed as irregular game play for bonus wagering requirements. This also includes and is not limited to the placing of bets equal to or greater than 20% of the bonus credited to the players gaming account. This also includes and is not limited to the gameplay that involves placing bets at high wagering values and then reducing it to lower values after large wins in order to achieve play through requirements. Should the Casino deem that any irregular game play has taken place on the gaming account, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any cashin as well as the right to confiscate all winnings.

Does this term apply to slots?

So lets say I've deposit $20 and gotten the 100% welcome bonus for a $40BR and I'm trying a variety of bets. I start off on an 80c bet get a good win so up my bet to $1.20 get another good win, but hang on I still haven't gotten the feature and it feels as though its been close to three hundred spins so I reduce the bet, still not getting the feature I reduce the bet again, then I realize I've finished WR. I've had two good wins but I haven't gotten any features so I decide to withdraw.

Hang on doesn't that mean I've broken that term by reducing my bet size? Will I still get paid? Does this term apply to slots? So really any kind of variance in bet size during slot play could mean I've broken a term? I'm no expert just curious.

 

[maxd]

Be aware that this casino has a term that allows them to confiscate your winnings if you reduce your bet size AT ALL after having a win....

@ nigel207 : given that the casino is doing the Baptism by Fire and there is some dispute regarding the facts of your post I invite you to file a Pitch-A-Bitch so that your complaint can be investigated.

Please note that if you choose not to take the PAB route then I'll have to assume that you are willing to have us discuss your case with the casino OUTSIDE of the privacy of the PAB process.

 

[nigel207]

Here is what you pm'ed me:

Hi Nigel207,

In our T&Cs,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

, term 8.2 defines this issue clearly - % itself is not the only criterion.

In the event that To Play Central (Ltd) believes You are abusing or attempting to abuse a bonus or other promotion, or You are likely to benefit through abuse or lack of good faith from a gambling policy adopted by To Play Central (Ltd), To Play Central (Ltd) may at its sole discretion, deny, withhold or withdraw from You any bonus or promotion, or rescind any policy either temporarily or permanently, or terminate Your access to the Services and/or block Your account. In such circumstances, To Play Central (Ltd) shall be under no obligation to refund to You any funds that may be in Your accounts other than Your original deposit amounts, this includes and is not limited to:

8.2.1 Moving from high wager values to low wager values, after high pay out values to achieve play through requirements. Such game play will be investigated for bonus abuse and game play will be subject to review and if deemed to be abuse all winnings will be voided.

Thanks & Regards,

Sacha

In my case, I bet $20 on slots, hit a nice win, and changed my bet to $3, and that is precisely what you decided was "bonus abuse" that "violated the spirit of the bonus" and confiscated. You say specifically in your pm to me that moving from a higher wager value to a lower wager value is "bonus abuse", and further you say that changing the bet is not the only criterion you can use, and its entirely at your discretion. In other words, you have terms that allow you to confiscate based on whatever it is you feel like is "bonus abuse" and no hard definitions of what is or is not allowed.

 

[nigel207]

@ nigel207 : given that the casino is doing the Baptism by Fire and there is some dispute regarding the facts of your post I invite you to file a Pitch-A-Bitch so that your complaint can be investigated.

Please note that if you choose not to take the PAB route then I'll have to assume that you are willing to have us discuss your case with the casino OUTSIDE of the privacy of the PAB process.

Sure, you have my permission to discuss it with them, I don't need privacy about having my balance confiscated.

 

[Mouche12]

Mmm, not such a great start for a Baptism by Fire... I think that particular clause in the T&Cs relating to high/subsequent lower bets in order to meet WR should be removed.

 

[maxd]

Sure, you have my permission to discuss it with them, I don't need privacy about having my balance confiscated.

Fair enough. I'll be in touch.

 

[Rustee]

bla bla bla bla ......lol....yolo , lets get this started!

Here is what you pm'ed me:

Hi Nigel207,

In our T&Cs,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

, term 8.2 defines this issue clearly - % itself is not the only criterion.

In the event that To Play Central (Ltd) believes You are abusing or attempting to abuse a bonus or other promotion, or You are likely to benefit through abuse or lack of good faith from a gambling policy adopted by To Play Central (Ltd), To Play Central (Ltd) may at its sole discretion, deny, withhold or withdraw from You any bonus or promotion, or rescind any policy either temporarily or permanently, or terminate Your access to the Services and/or block Your account. In such circumstances, To Play Central (Ltd) shall be under no obligation to refund to You any funds that may be in Your accounts other than Your original deposit amounts, this includes and is not limited to:

8.2.1 Moving from high wager values to low wager values, after high pay out values to achieve play through requirements. Such game play will be investigated for bonus abuse and game play will be subject to review and if deemed to be abuse all winnings will be voided.

Thanks & Regards,

Sacha

In my case, I bet $20 on slots, hit a nice win, and changed my bet to $3, and that is precisely what you decided was "bonus abuse" that "violated the spirit of the bonus" and confiscated. You say specifically in your pm to me that moving from a higher wager value to a lower wager value is "bonus abuse", and further you say that changing the bet is not the only criterion you can use, and its entirely at your discretion. In other words, you have terms that allow you to confiscate based on whatever it is you feel like is "bonus abuse" and no hard definitions of what is or is not allowed.

Sounds like a valid point I mean a casino with these terms would be damn-near able to regulate withdrawals. I have a better idea, hows about we have those 247 luggers post your game play review on here and then everyone can give their 2c? It probably wont happen but I have to try either way.lol
Haven't seen what a "game play review" looks like so would be keen to see how this correlates to what you are saying and what they are saying. Again, pushing boundaries but I think it would put this matter as well as the matter of my curiosity to rest

 

[Sachalucky]

Hi all,

Thanks for your messages.

Please note that we are looking into the matter and that CM is involved - I'm not ignoring any of you!

I simply would like CM to review the issue before we post any further, for both the player's and the casino's benefit.

Thanks,

Sacha

 

[aceking123]

well guys im not sure what went on , but i can say i changed my bet alot & didnt run into any problems via this site albeit i didnt go for the bets you made, never the less i did change up & down , balance didnt end up being held up or taken away . in fact i had a good session with a fast cashout , so i shall look for what max points out as i think there good to go , silly term granted but thats what the bof section is for to sort out things

 

[Shorty]

I deposited 25 Euro a few days ago and was able to withdraw 100 Euro. Played the welcome bonus and changed betsizes all the time but i had no problems cashing out.

Sacha was very nice and helped me to get my withdraw to skrill. I like the casino. I will definitely play there again

 

[maxd]

Please note that we are looking into the matter and that CM is involved - I'm not ignoring any of you!

Apologies to all for the delays, my fault. Busy busy!

I am in touch with Sacha and we're discussing the Nigel207 issue. Stay tuned.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Here is what you pm'ed me:

Hi Nigel207,

In our T&Cs,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

, term 8.2 defines this issue clearly - % itself is not the only criterion.

In the event that To Play Central (Ltd) believes You are abusing or attempting to abuse a bonus or other promotion, or You are likely to benefit through abuse or lack of good faith from a gambling policy adopted by To Play Central (Ltd), To Play Central (Ltd) may at its sole discretion, deny, withhold or withdraw from You any bonus or promotion, or rescind any policy either temporarily or permanently, or terminate Your access to the Services and/or block Your account. In such circumstances, To Play Central (Ltd) shall be under no obligation to refund to You any funds that may be in Your accounts other than Your original deposit amounts, this includes and is not limited to:

8.2.1 Moving from high wager values to low wager values, after high pay out values to achieve play through requirements. Such game play will be investigated for bonus abuse and game play will be subject to review and if deemed to be abuse all winnings will be voided.

Thanks & Regards,

Sacha

In my case, I bet $20 on slots, hit a nice win, and changed my bet to $3, and that is precisely what you decided was "bonus abuse" that "violated the spirit of the bonus" and confiscated. You say specifically in your pm to me that moving from a higher wager value to a lower wager value is "bonus abuse", and further you say that changing the bet is not the only criterion you can use, and its entirely at your discretion. In other words, you have terms that allow you to confiscate based on whatever it is you feel like is "bonus abuse" and no hard definitions of what is or is not allowed.

The problem is the term. It does not specify by how much the bet can drop without being considered "abuse". This, unfortunately, turns it into a "spirit of the bonus" term because no player can know beforehand what is acceptable, and what is not.

Other casinos have used specific quantities, such as a drop to a quarter or less of the original bet. Such a specific term would catch this drop without making it a "spirit of the bonus" issue.

Rather than the drop being extreme, maybe the initial $20 bet was too high, and this is also something that can be catered for in the terms. 32Red, for example, have a term for the welcome bonus that limits the maximum bet to £6.25, although recently I have seen a £10 figure appear in this term. Other casinos specify the max bet as a percentage of the bonus credited, with 25% or less being the norm.

Being able to enforce these rules via the software would be ideal, and the Microgaming Viper lobby has come close to this by enabling operators to set a lower max coin size when a bonus is in play. One browser based casino has also managed to limit access to prohibited games when the bonus balance is brought into play.

 

[Przecinek]

Being able to enforce these rules via the software would be ideal, and the Microgaming Viper lobby has come close to this by enabling operators to set a lower max coin size when a bonus is in play. One browser based casino has also managed to limit access to prohibited games when the bonus balance is brought into play.

I'm confused. Isn't this exactly what Lucky 24/7 has been doing? Setting up max coin value in accordance to your deposit so that players don't have to worry about max bet rule?

This was all covered here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ings-saying-i-over-wagered-on-my-bonus.58171/

And I praised Lucky247 for that. Guess I did that prematurely

 

[Przecinek]

well guys im not sure what went on , but i can say i changed my bet alot & didnt run into any problems via this site albeit i didnt go for the bets you made, never the less i did change up & down , balance didnt end up being held up or taken away . in fact i had a good session with a fast cashout , so i shall look for what max points out as i think there good to go , silly term granted but thats what the bof section is for to sort out things

Well I also changed my bets up & down, and didn't have any problems but that doesn't mean casino is solid as I'm sure we both didn't win anything close to what Nigel could have won with a bet of $20/spin. I agree with your BOF comment thought. We have an open discussion here so that t&c can be tweaked and any problems ironed out.

Stilll, this type of arbitrary confiscation behaviour always leaves a degree of uncertainty.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I'm confused. Isn't this exactly what Lucky 24/7 has been doing? Setting up max coin value in accordance to your deposit so that players don't have to worry about max bet rule?

This was all covered here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ings-saying-i-over-wagered-on-my-bonus.58171/

And I praised Lucky247 for that. Guess I did that prematurely

This is no help in a case such as this. It would prevent bets that are too big, but won't police a drop in bet size.

What they could do though is to set a "spread", rather than just a max coin value based on the deposit. If possible, disable the ability to play less than max lines on a slot when a bonus is in play.

Ideally, this would be done dynamically as the player plays, but would be very hard to implement.

This case may be a reflection of the max bet being set too high, allowing too much leeway when it comes to dropping the bet.

As such terms get ever more complicated (and vague in some cases), there is a greater argument for insisting on software policing, which in effect forces the operator to choose whether or not to accept or decline a wager at the time it is placed, rather than at some time in the future after it has been resolved and paid. This is something to bring up during the consultation currently being run by the UKGC.

 

[The Dude]

Just to chime in - the casino has forwarded some information concerning this issue that indicates this player is connected to other accounts. We're looking into this at the moment.

Please note that the term in question is quite broad, and that "bonus abuse" is mentioned. Not to get tied up once again in semantics but I believe in this case it is multiple accounts that are "abusing" or taking advantage of bonuses.

 

[dunover]

Here is what you pm'ed me:

Hi Nigel207,

In our T&Cs,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

, term 8.2 defines this issue clearly - % itself is not the only criterion.

In the event that To Play Central (Ltd) believes You are abusing or attempting to abuse a bonus or other promotion, or You are likely to benefit through abuse or lack of good faith from a gambling policy adopted by To Play Central (Ltd), To Play Central (Ltd) may at its sole discretion, deny, withhold or withdraw from You any bonus or promotion, or rescind any policy either temporarily or permanently, or terminate Your access to the Services and/or block Your account. In such circumstances, To Play Central (Ltd) shall be under no obligation to refund to You any funds that may be in Your accounts other than Your original deposit amounts, this includes and is not limited to:

8.2.1 Moving from high wager values to low wager values, after high pay out values to achieve play through requirements. Such game play will be investigated for bonus abuse and game play will be subject to review and if deemed to be abuse all winnings will be voided.

Thanks & Regards,

Sacha

In my case, I bet $20 on slots, hit a nice win, and changed my bet to $3, and that is precisely what you decided was "bonus abuse" that "violated the spirit of the bonus" and confiscated. You say specifically in your pm to me that moving from a higher wager value to a lower wager value is "bonus abuse", and further you say that changing the bet is not the only criterion you can use, and its entirely at your discretion. In other words, you have terms that allow you to confiscate based on whatever it is you feel like is "bonus abuse" and no hard definitions of what is or is not allowed.

This type of bollox term really annoys me. I understand bet size limits on a bonus, for obvious reasons, but to impose on a player how to bet is ridiculous, and does not befit an accredited site.

So, the player gets a big win on a slot at 20 stake. He realizes this amount is around his overall total WR, say he has 2.5k balance now and a WR of 4k less say Ik already met. So, he has 2.5k to get through 3k of remaining WR. Whatever stake, this is a massively EV+ situation whether he plays 20 stakes or 3 stakes. Remember the slots are RANDOM so changing stake makes no difference apart from either slowing or speeding the process unless the site is suggesting otherwise....

Feeling good that he's likely to cash out a decent profit, he calms down a bit after the good hit and plays the remaining WR out at his leisure, maybe changing the slot. No foul.

The only logic behind this rule is the foil hat worn by the casino management (not supplied by me on this occasion) which makes them think random slot(s) will likely take the big win back if the stake remains the same, as if it's certain a RTP down-curve will occur straight after the big win.

What if, luxuriating in his now-large balance, the player increased the stake to 30 (assuming allowed to) and had another big hit?? Would they remove winnings by the same logic, especially now he couldn't fail to meet WR and make a large profit?

Sorry, but the logic, rationale and paranoia of the casino is ridiculous. De-luxe foil hat with extra long antenna duly sent.

 

[The Dude]

Sure, you have my permission to discuss it with them, I don't need privacy about having my balance confiscated.

I don't understand why you wish not to PAB. Right there is a reason for most everyone here to be suspicious of your intentions. You definitely are not a noob - you seem well versed in what you are doing.

I can say without reservations that you are using this forum as a deliberate attempt to tarnish the reputation of the casino. Please explain to me why this is not the case.

 

[bpb]

I can say without reservations that you are using this forum as a deliberate attempt to tarnish the reputation of the casino.

The casino is doing a good enough job of that with its absurd terms.

 

[Przecinek]

I don't understand why you wish not to PAB. Right there is a reason for most everyone here to be suspicious of your intentions. You definitely are not a noob - you seem well versed in what you are doing.

I can say without reservations that you are using this forum as a deliberate attempt to tarnish the reputation of the casino. Please explain to me why this is not the case.

I for one am very happy that Nigel decided to be transparent, after all if terms are faul and 'spirit of bonus' inducing then it's good if we can see what's happening. Better that, than to think casino is OK when in fact all that happened is that player was paying behind the curtains of a PAB process and bad T&C remain in place for us not to know. If at any point in the future I will feel that a particular casino is not advocating fair play I might post it here for everyone to see, seems reasonable.

Also OP may and should be well versed, if he's playing for $20/spin.
You just don't drop large bets on games you don't know.

Tarnish casino reputation? This is Babtism By Fire, casino has neutral reputation right now. So in my opionion this can only form a reputation that isn't good or bad atm. I think Lucky247 terms should be changed. Letter that was sent to OP is not good enough. I don't understand that... it's like saying that deliberate attempt to tarnish casinos reputation and exposing some of them is a bad thing. Of course if casinos act bad, or stall payments, or look for excuses not to pay (let's see 1000xbet from a $20 spin = $20.000) then I for one would love to "tarnish" their reputation lol

 

[The Dude]

It has little to do with any "spirit" at the moment - it has to do with being connected to other players. We are trying to determine what is going on with that. The OP knows full well what he is doing.

 

[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.

 

[The Dude]

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

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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 )