Omni Casino Complaint: Hot Seat promotion issue

[Casinomeister]

Tick tock tick tock...

Well after two PMs requesting that the OP submits a PAB, he hasn't bothered to log in.

 

[vinylweatherman]

@vinyl

Did you miss these questions?

Can you show me the clause in the terms and conditions at CWC that expressly states that withdrawals will be paid within a specific timeframe?

Can you show me where they "Have their arse covered"?

My point is that no such guarantee exists, so when you called out CWC over their long delays even for non-US player withdrawals, I was making the point that they are not actually breaching the terms, merely breaching expectations. In fact, by agreeing to the CWC terms, you agree to CWC not having to stick to a specific timeframe, so even if it takes 6 months, if they eventually pay they have done nothing wrong.

Rushmore similarly have their arses covered, and it seems that after letting things drag on for months, they do have these bursts of making good on past payments.

Clearly, having something covered in the terms is NOT the same as treating players fairly, and Rushmore has ended up in the pit.

All casinos have these vague discresionary terms that pretty much allow them to do what they like, however, a reputable casino is not expected to use them except in cases of fraud. I do not consider meeting the terms to the letter "fraud", hence whatever is promised should be honoured, even if the promise is never again made to a particular player.

After wager bonuses, should be treated the same as pre wager ones, in that once claimed and granted, they should be honoured, paid out, and THEN the player bonus banned or kicked out. Just because it is tied to the loyalty program makes no difference, it is still a post wager bonus given for completing a specified WR.

This particular promotion should not have been sent to the OP in the first place, as it is clear that Omni have serious concerns about the OP's motives and methods. The OP has clearly been raising concerns BEFORE this particular promotion was sent to him, and the evidence for this is them "throwing the book" at him after what he claims is the first time he has played this promo, rather than using the lesser "warning" term where he gets a bonus ban until some recreational loyalty is shown.

I had thought the OP had already started the PAB process since he stopped posting after showing that email excerpt showing the use of "spirit of the promotion" as a reason for not honouring it.

If the OP is not going to go ahead with a PAB despite having what seems a good case, maybe they are not that bothered about "justice", or indeed "warning others".


Perhaps if the OP doesn't come forward soon, this thread should be locked until he does decide to come forward. Either the OP PABs, or this thread dies with us never knowing the whole story.

 

[Nifty29]

My point is that no such guarantee exists, so when you called out CWC over their long delays even for non-US player withdrawals, I was making the point that they are not actually breaching the terms, merely breaching expectations. In fact, by agreeing to the CWC terms, you agree to CWC not having to stick to a specific timeframe, so even if it takes 6 months, if they eventually pay they have done nothing wrong.

Rushmore similarly have their arses covered, and it seems that after letting things drag on for months, they do have these bursts of making good on past payments.

Clearly, having something covered in the terms is NOT the same as treating players fairly, and Rushmore has ended up in the pit.

All casinos have these vague discresionary terms that pretty much allow them to do what they like, however, a reputable casino is not expected to use them except in cases of fraud. I do not consider meeting the terms to the letter "fraud", hence whatever is promised should be honoured, even if the promise is never again made to a particular player.

After wager bonuses, should be treated the same as pre wager ones, in that once claimed and granted, they should be honoured, paid out, and THEN the player bonus banned or kicked out. Just because it is tied to the loyalty program makes no difference, it is still a post wager bonus given for completing a specified WR.

This particular promotion should not have been sent to the OP in the first place, as it is clear that Omni have serious concerns about the OP's motives and methods. The OP has clearly been raising concerns BEFORE this particular promotion was sent to him, and the evidence for this is them "throwing the book" at him after what he claims is the first time he has played this promo, rather than using the lesser "warning" term where he gets a bonus ban until some recreational loyalty is shown.

I had thought the OP had already started the PAB process since he stopped posting after showing that email excerpt showing the use of "spirit of the promotion" as a reason for not honouring it.

If the OP is not going to go ahead with a PAB despite having what seems a good case, maybe they are not that bothered about "justice", or indeed "warning others".


Perhaps if the OP doesn't come forward soon, this thread should be locked until he does decide to come forward. Either the OP PABs, or this thread dies with us never knowing the whole story.

You're the only one in this thread talking about withdrawal times, and there's a good reason for that......it is totally irrelevant.

How you can justify comparing my issue with a withdrawal from a completely different operator, in which i did not mention anything about terms and conditions, with this issue involving a promotion and it's applicable terms, has got me completely stumped.

It's almost like you decided "Oh well, he's got me by the googlies here....I'll just bring up something immaterial from a complaint he made some time ago to make it look like he's somehow contradicting himself, rather than just concede a point." I just don't know why it is so hard for you to give other's opinions credit.

Withdrawal times are not enshrined in casino terms. Move on.

You also seem to be in the minority when you say he has a good case.

What you continue to ignore for some reason is that omni have done this twice in two years. It may well be that in other cases they DID invoke the first term and not the second.....we don't know as we don't have all the facts and the Op has gone awol. I think it is a fair assumption that there has been more than two players caught trying to milk the promotion but only two times the 2nd clause has been used....so there must be something about the OP that makes things different.

I'm happy to debate you.....just don't make it about something it is not.

 

[vinylweatherman]

You're the only one in this thread talking about withdrawal times, and there's a good reason for that......it is totally irrelevant.

How you can justify comparing my issue with a withdrawal from a completely different operator, in which i did not mention anything about terms and conditions, with this issue involving a promotion and it's applicable terms, has got me completely stumped.

It's almost like you decided "Oh well, he's got me by the googlies here....I'll just bring up something immaterial from a complaint he made some time ago to make it look like he's somehow contradicting himself, rather than just concede a point." I just don't know why it is so hard for you to give other's opinions credit.

Withdrawal times are not enshrined in casino terms. Move on.

You also seem to be in the minority when you say he has a good case.

What you continue to ignore for some reason is that omni have done this twice in two years. It may well be that in other cases they DID invoke the first term and not the second.....we don't know as we don't have all the facts and the Op has gone awol. I think it is a fair assumption that there has been more than two players caught trying to milk the promotion but only two times the 2nd clause has been used....so there must be something about the OP that makes things different.

I'm happy to debate you.....just don't make it about something it is not.

So, what is wrong with adhering to the terms? Whether it is "milking the promotion" or not, it is whether the terms have been adhered to that matters, else we get the situation where it becomes OK in general for casinos to "choose who to pay" with little regard as to whether actual terms have been broken, or whether it is merely a matter of "spirit of".

There is no such thing as a "professional player", it is a made up definition used to justify the "spirit of" argument. A "professional player" would have this as their primary means of income, declare this to the tax authorities, pay tax and other duties, and use it on their CV.

The only ways to have online gambling as your chief source of regular income (other than having your own casino) are to be an affiliate, or a fraudster. Even playing this promo every week at 20 to 100 per hand for 105 credits is hardly going to be regular income. Just ONE bet at 100 losing instead of winning would make all the difference.

It is the casino's choice to stick to the old methods of enticing players long after they have been made obsolete, and the casino's choice to allow sites that tell everyone EXACTLY how to milk every promo going by continuing to allow sites with such content to be part of the affiliate program.

Some of the worst offenders such as beatingbonuses are financed by casino affiliate programs. If such sites were squeezed out by being banned from affiliate programs, information on how to milk promos would not spread so fast and wide.

 

[Casinomeister]

There is no such thing as a "professional player"...

Tell that to the poker crowd

 

[Nifty29]

So, what is wrong with adhering to the terms? Whether it is "milking the promotion" or not, it is whether the terms have been adhered to that matters, else we get the situation where it becomes OK in general for casinos to "choose who to pay" with little regard as to whether actual terms have been broken, or whether it is merely a matter of "spirit of".

There is no such thing as a "professional player", it is a made up definition used to justify the "spirit of" argument. A "professional player" would have this as their primary means of income, declare this to the tax authorities, pay tax and other duties, and use it on their CV.

The only ways to have online gambling as your chief source of regular income (other than having your own casino) are to be an affiliate, or a fraudster. Even playing this promo every week at 20 to 100 per hand for 105 credits is hardly going to be regular income. Just ONE bet at 100 losing instead of winning would make all the difference.

It is the casino's choice to stick to the old methods of enticing players long after they have been made obsolete, and the casino's choice to allow sites that tell everyone EXACTLY how to milk every promo going by continuing to allow sites with such content to be part of the affiliate program.

Some of the worst offenders such as beatingbonuses are financed by casino affiliate programs. If such sites were squeezed out by being banned from affiliate programs, information on how to milk promos would not spread so fast and wide.

I'm glad you brought up the "adhering to the terms" thing.

The casino is "adhering" to its terms too.....in particular the one where they can decide if points will or will not be awarded for play which is obviously done in such a way to only get the max points and nothing else.

The term is not hidden. It's very clear. It has only been invoked twice, with the result being a reduction of points NOT a removal. The OP still got a bonus.....just not the max amount.

The OP AGREED that Omni could do this by playing. I also think the op knew precisely what he was doing, and that's why he won't PAB.

If you don't like the terms.....DON'T PLAY. Simple.

I don't see why omni should have to make exceptions when 99.9% of players are awarded their full points without issue.

You still seem to be insisting that Omni are invoking some kind of FU clause, which I think is unfair and ill-considered.

If you actually looked at the facts in these cases, instead of being some kind of "player crusader" against the "big bad casinos", your opinions and assessments here might have some credibility. However, you have to give credit to get it. Sometimes, you don't know more than everyone else, and you aren't right. Actually giving your fellow members some kudos would be a breath of fresh air. The fact that you've only thanked someone 475 times in nearly 9 years says a lot about how much you value the input of other members.

 

[Kezman]

Hi Kezmen,

As a Casinomeister member you have a free dispute service allowing you to address your grievance in a manner befitting someone who has a genuine complaint.

Yes, I was considering that, too.
I just took a look at the PAB and whoa, there's a lot of FAQ reading to be done first, 7 chapters with a lot of subchapters.
I can get that done soon, most likely tomorrow; I'm having a busy week here.

We are very sorry that you are not satisfied with the decision made and again ask you to spend a few minutes submitting a Link Outdated / Removed as pointed out in our reply as well as the forum host.

As you’re aware, we cannot detail our October 9th letter to you that explained in detail our determination and decision. This would breach our privacy responsibility to you. You have posted just a portion of that letter as you state the rest was “vague.” Therefore, we urge you to submit a Link Outdated / Removed.

Yours Sincerely,

OC Elliott

I would have no problem with any of that. I have zero issue with sharing everything that has transpired; in fact, it is why I started the discussion and put it under the Bonus Complaints.

I have listed all the information I found relevant simply to voice my dislike and yes, I still do see it as a bait and switch. What other information is there other than my deposits, play, and all the other things that actually happened etc? Be as thourough as you'd like.
I listed it all, tactfully and truthfully on what the terms required me to do and what I did. There still hasn't been a thing listed to state otherwise, cause I said the whole story.

The info from the email from the 9th has been all mentioned already, I just checked and it has no new information whatsoever to what's been discussed. However since you believe it should be here (along with the one I posted already), and didn't want to disclose it for my privacy, no problem, here it is for all to see.


Dear ..,

My name is Adanna Matthews and I am the Player Development Manager here at Omni Casino. First, I want to say thank you for being a loyal member of Omni Casino. We love having you play Blackjack here with us.

..., the reason I am contacting you today is to discuss the Hot Seat Promotion. We were happy to see you enjoy this promotion to the fullest. However, when reviewing your game play last month we noticed that you come in and play a very strict range of low risk wagers at Blackjack to meet the €1250 per day and then leave for the day.

The reason I am contacting you today is that we see this same pattern this month as well.

Please allow me to point out that the Hot Seat Promotion is designed to offer our members an added extra loyalty reward for membership for their all around play throughout the month. It is not designed for members to play in the casino with the sole intention of winning the Hot Seat using low risk table games or betting strategies. Please allow me to state our terms and highlight for you:

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

Players must play a minimum any five (5) of thirty (31) gaming days between XXX 1 and 31, 2012 to win a prize. A gaming day is defined as a unique day on the calendar. A minimum of $/€/£1,250 in “total wagers” placed per gaming day is required to earn one (1) “Hot seat point.” Omni Casino will take note and void any “hot seat points” if it is suspected a player(s) is placing low risk wagers and or competing wagers at games (such as roulette, craps, sic bo, Baccarat, etc) in order to meet the requirement.
Management’s decision in any suspected cases is final.
Video Poker play does NOT count.

Management reserves the right to refuse Hot Seat points for any reason it determines.
Management’s decision in all cases of suspected team play, bonus abusers, advantage players and or playing schemes is final and at our sole discretion


..., we do consider your Blackjack play to be "low risk" wagering by playing the game to intentionally to meet (almost exactly) the Hot Seat levels (almost every day) and then exiting the casino. As you know Blackjack is one of the very best games to play in the casino. Therefore, as this is your game of choice (and it's a great choice...stick with it), we have nonetheless determined that your play on the game was a clear playing scheme for the Hot Seat promotion which removes the entire spirit of this extra promotion to our members. We feel that your near exacting levels of very controlled and designed daily wagers is a clear indication to us to take advantage of a promotion we wish to offer something extra to our members.
As such, we have within the promotional terms rights, voided many of the Hot Seat points per our terms. We do recognize however that you nonetheless played daily in September (regardless of your intent) and therefore as a matter of our goodwill, we opted to award you a 105 prize level base.
Moving forward .., if you care to enjoy the Hot Seat, we will award it based on play we determine to be non-intentional.

My reply, summing up once more my stance on this issue -


Dear Adanna,

I am fine with the discussion. I strongly disagree with pretty much all points you've made, though.

First of all, I have played well over 1250 per day, doubling the requirement on quite a few occasions. I did not near exact anything. I do not wish to continue when I'm running bad, though - and it is my right to do so.
Secondly, maybe to you betting 50 or a 100 eur per hand on occasion is low risk, but I certainly do not agree with that assessment.
Thirdly, I do not understand the beef with logging in to play 1250 per day - it is exactly what the Hot Seat promotion tells me to do! If you do not want the Hot Seat promo to work like that, then I do not understand the point.
Forthly, Blackjack is probably the 2nd most popular casino game, second only to Roulette. If you didn't want people playing that - put it in your Terms, like you did with VideoPoker and craps.

"Spirit" I have no idea what would be; the Hot Seat promo tells me log in, play at least 1250, on allowed game. That is EXACTLY what I did. I thought it was a casino, I even heard it's reputable, not an Ouija board.


You certainly can invoke the "we may deny you what you've earned and what we've promised for any reason" clause and go back on the offer YOU provided - however, in this case, with absolutely no terms breached it is a frivolous and predatory term that any court would see as such, and any public community would see as such. It would not only make me disappointed, it would outrage me. I will seek mediation for that if you insist.
Had I played banned games, then I certainly would understand it; but as it is, I simply do not understand what the problem could possibly be.



The 105 offer is not an option to me which I would be willing to accept. How is you not following up with what you said you would and withholding the amount that is in plain sight on your website "a sign of good will"? That frame is so wrong it borders on being offensive, I'm afraid. You offered 500 for everyday play, and that is what I did; I would not like a place where I got my own money deposited back on their word.

You may exclude me from the promo if you wish, but not crediting what I've earned, for no real, actual reason, and even framing it almost as a favor to me.. I'm afraid that is unacceptable to me.

Please reconsider your last email.


Respectfully,

...


Edit - in principle, btw, it is my opinion none of the recreational non recreational term can work. They can void whatever they want with that as it is inexact completely. It would be unworkable. You play, win, stoploss or protect your wins, boom you're out cause you broke that.
I believe data and exact information only should be in the terms if they're to have merit, as they're easy to include and precise.

I mean, if betting 30 eur per hand on average, or something like that, doesn't fit that then how could anything? You lose 200 euros in a matter of seconds.
It has happened to me, right at Omni, on 4-5 occasions. I lost quite a few €€€ there (which probably added to my disappointment during the issue and during correspondence with them).

 

[Nifty29]

Kezman

If you didn't want to be bound by the terms of the promotion, which state that points van be refused at the casinos discretion, the you should not have played.

We aren't all newbs here....we all.know exactly what you were doing.

It seems you were playing $50-100 hands of blackjack. Are you really expecting us to believe that logging in, playing 13-25 hands and logging out for the day, and next day the same thing and rinse and repeat for 30 days is just "how you play" and "just happened" to be the amount required to meet the hot seat wagering? Are you really trying to tell us that you only stopped each time because you were losing?

Yeah right.

Submit your PAB.....but please....take your time.

IMO the emails you posted makes things look worse for YOU not omni.

The casino has awarded you points. Most casinos would just give you nothing and close your account.

The more you try and play the victim, the more it appears that you aren't.

 

[Casinomeister]

Yes, I was considering that, too.
I just took a look at the PAB and whoa, there's a lot of FAQ reading to be done first, 7 chapters with a lot of subchapters.
I can get that done soon, most likely tomorrow; I'm having a busy week here.

...

That's where I stopped reading.

If you can't be arsed to follow our policies on lodging complaints - then I can't be bothered to waste my time or pay someone like Max to deal with yours.

Thread upgraded to "closed".