Resolved Palace Group Rules Shenanigans

[vinylweatherman]

The terms are better but I still really hate T&C's which carry scapegoat clauses. Notice how they've put "Includes but Not limited to" in there which again gives them the right to confiscate winnings "At their discretion". Don't get me wrong I don't expect casinos to list in their terms every form of bonus abuse going but when reading terms like this you do feel a little cheated, particularly when you hear of casinos invoking terms like this to the maximum extent possible and taking peoples winnings. I am starting to think the safest bet is to not accept bonuses at all because its like signing up for a bank account or a credit card all the legal blurb you have to accept.
And to be honest a fairer approach when dealing with bonuses would be either to either take the bonus off an abusing player, refuse any further bonuses or in extreme cases divide the win into the percentage of the bonus and pay them the win on the portion of their deposit.

For example:

Player deposits 100, player recieves 100 bonus
Player bets 200 on a 35x bet and wins 7000

The player is not allowed by the terms of the bonus to bet the full deposit+bonus balance on a single stake so the bonus and winnings from the bonus are confiscated. The player is returned 3500 which is a 35x win of his original deposit of 100.

This scenario would be a fair approach to both the player and the casino, but again any good casino group should not take confiscating winnings lightly and should try to resolve things with the player so they don't lose what might be a good customer and others through the bad press.

Back to the original player who has had his entire winnings confiscated I still feel he should be given his entire win, from my point of view he clearly did not set out to abuse the bonus in his play, the initial terms weren't worded properly and he just got very lucky on his last bet.

I would hope that Spin Palace would do the moral and decent thing.

Not so. When you sign up to such things you actually have LEGAL RIGHTS over the fairness, or otherwise, of the contract.

The credit card companies had for a long time had contracts with outrageous "penalty charges" for going even 1p over your limit, and resorted to all sorts of tricks. They would meet any complaint with "well tough, you agreed to it".
Unfortunately for the banks, complaints lead the Office of fair Trading to use the Consumer Contract laws to determine that such "penalty" charges were unfair, and were thus legally struck out of contracts RETROSPECTIVELY. This resulted in the issuing banks having to repay MILLIONS of ill gotten profits, and also being forced to make several changes to the terms.

Vague terms, such as the one being discussed, would be deemed unfair in the UK, since it is impossible to comply with a term that fails to specify what does, or does not, apply in a given circumstance.

Credit card terms also have to have a prefix defining the "jargon" used in the main terms. In the casino sense, the words in "equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting" are also "jargon", since they are clearly not being used in context of their literal meanings. In fact, they could cover EVERY SESSION at a casino, and taken literally, "zero" means you don't bet at all, which is ALSO now "irregular play".
"hedge betting" is the ONLY one that I can interpret from experience, and come up with it meaning "you can't bet simultaneously on all possible outcomes". An example of "hedge betting" might be 100 chips on red, and 100 on black for Roulette, or 10 chips on each number.

"equal" - equal to what
"zero" - meaning of the word is clear, but NOT it's appearance here, a "zero bet" means you haven't played at all, so this CANNOT be "irregular play"
"low margin" - do we interpret this as meaning games with a low margin, such as blackjack - yet these games are allowed. "margin" itself has a meaning in business, and refers to a margin over cost of a product, which usually means "profit", so it looks like "low margin" betting really DOES mean that if you select the low house edge games, your play is "irregular", and you will have winnings confiscated.

No bet over 30% of the bonus credited - now this IS clear. It is possible to work out your maximum permissible bet by seeing the bonus you have been given, and multiplying it by 0.3 - remembering to round DOWN to the next available bet size available in the software.

I believe the intent is that this term applies to the SUB, rather than the regular offers, and if this is so, there will never be a problem with the lower 25% bonuses offered creating very small permitted bets.

200 on 3 card poker and 500 on Blackjack seems to be MGS standard, and does NOT seem to reflect any lowering of limits due to there being a bonus in play. I have never seen higher limits, but a few casinos have lowered them.

 

[MJackson]

Bit of a Joke to behonest, players who sit there all day betting $1/hand on BJ regularly get shot down for bonus abuse, yet bet big and its also bonus abuse. These casinos really don't make life easy on themselves or their players when it comes to provision of bonuses do they?.

It really is a laugh. Is this bankruptcy court or casual entertainment? I guess the management thinks if the average player is put off by the terms that they could just go pass the time doing leveraged buyouts or drafting international trade agreements or something.

If what Casinomeister says is true and the average player is well read and informed, then I think Spin Palace might notice an inverse relationship between growth and contractual complexity.

 

[deltoid]

IMO this case isn't resolved until:

* OP is paid
* Software is updated to limit bets as required by TC. Since the capability is there, to not use it is inviting people to unwittingly break terms and conditions giving additional advantage to the house.

 

[Pinababy69]

I appreciate the Palace Group changing their T&C's to much more unambiguous wording....but like everyone else, I would like to know if the OP is going to be paid.

The terms have been changed, which clearly indicates they were not fair before, for all the reasons stated in this thread. The OP deserves to be able to collect his winnings. He got lucky, nothing more. Had he busted on that last hand, we wouldn't even be here (until the next time that the original terms came into play).

I sincerely hope that the Palace Group will do the right thing.

 

[maxd]

[Warning: Max is climbing up on the soap box and looks like he's got something unpopular to say. Please keep in mind that what Max says is what Max says, not what Casinomeister says or any such thing.]

I agree that it would be a nice gesture of Palace to pay this player out for falling afoul of Terms that were ultimately changed but I don't personally feel they are under any obligation to do so.

Fair or not the OP agreed to the Terms before he played and is therefor bound to those Terms. Yes it sucks because those Terms sucked but it equally sucks that the OP say "Yes, I accept these crappy Terms".

If Palace pays it will be a good gesture. If they don't it'll be a bitch for the player but sooner or later people are going to have to start accepting the fact that saying "Yes" to bullshit Terms is a foolish thing to do. It doesn't really matter that they were forced to say "Yes" in order to play there. What matters is that didn't say "Hell No!" and take their business elsewhere. Once you say "Yes" you're in the game and responsible for being there. It's not our responsibility, for example, to undo your "Yes" for you and clean up your mess.

Other casinos have the same Terms you say? I say yes, other casinos have Terms that suck, avoid them too. How else are you going to send the message that crappy Terms are bad for business? If you don't do something then you are, by default, saying "that's ok, I accept your crappy Terms, let's play". You get what you settle for.

All casinos have Terms that suck? Well that's a bitch, no doubt, but maybe it's time to go play something else for a while. Better yet, write to your favourite casino or forum and describe in detail exactly what Terms suck, what about them sucks, and why they should be changed. If nobody is playing and everyone is bitching then I can assure you the casinos will start listening.

And for what it's worth there are some casinos that don't use crappy Terms. Go play there. When everyone is playing at No Crappy Terms Casino and no one is playing at Mo' Crappy Terms Casino then Mo' Crappy will start wondering what they can do to get No Crappy's players .. and that's when the crappy Terms might get the boot.

IMHO crappy Terms should be avoided just like you'd avoid things that make you barf and unattractive suitors: why would you go there? Generally speaking you wouldn't. Same with the crappy Terms: just say "no". Vote with your feet.

 

[MJackson]

I agree that it would be a nice gesture of Palace to pay this player out for falling afoul of Terms that were ultimately changed but I don't personally feel they are under any obligation to do so.

I think it's already been convincingly shown by Spearmaster and others that the original terms are invalid and would not stand in most jurisdictions.

That aside, I would agree generally with the rest of your post, and I would certainly agree with you if this were say, buying a unit of a bankrupt business, buying a house or even signing up for a credit card. But this is supposed to be casual entertainment.

The only people who actually read terms and conditions are profiteers, real gamblers don't read them. They should be kept simple and intuitive. Anything else is borderline predatory.

 

[Casinomeister]

I think it's already been convincingly shown by Spearmaster and others that the original terms are invalid and would not stand in most jurisdictions.

You seem to be speculating here, since no one knows how this would be dealt with by differing jurisdictions. These terms have been there for over a year and have been reviewed by the casino, the casino's legal team, their licensing jurisdiction, and (I'm assuming) most players who have taken a bonus there. To argue that the term is "invalid" is debatable and falls in the realm of legalese. Sorry, but we're not here to offer legal help or to give legal advice. I can point you into the direction of some excellent gaming lawyers, but that is about as far as it goes.

We are here to affect change, assist when we can, and to do our best to set a level playing field for everyone. In this situation, we have done all three.

This issue came to us late Friday afternoon, and it was debated amongst us even up until now. The player posted on Monday, I contacted the casino operators on Tuesday letting them know how I felt about the situation. They looked at this and were responsive to your (and my) suggestions, and these terms and conditions were changed within hours.

As most of you are aware, the Palace Group is not some fly-by-night organization, they've been around for years and are committed to providing players an excellent playing experience. I'm sure I speak for many when I say that they are not out to scam or take advantage of anyone. This is the only case that I am aware of where they negated a player's winnings because of breaking this specific term.

Players need to be responsible for their activities. He agreed to this term and he chose to play in a manner that breached this term. This was his choice; not mine, not yours, but his.

Like Max said, if you think a term sucks - don't play there. You know the deal - vote with your feet (wallet).

The only people who actually read terms and conditions are profiteers, real gamblers don't read them. They should be kept simple and intuitive. Anything else is borderline predatory.

Man, I wish it were still 1999 sometimes, but too bad, it ain't like this anymore.

 

[dancinggoon]

You are right max, but its a shame that a casino thats has these crappy terms in their T&C and even uses them against a lucky player, is still on the accredited list with other Casinos, who really deserve the "accredited" status!

 

[RobWin]

Mo' Crappy Terms Casino then Mo' Crappy

LOL Max, you been hanging in the hood this week bro?? :notworthy


@The Palace Group, I'm only making a suggestion here that could help you guys tremendously here regarding your (accreditation status as to the way the player community will view your actions) here for years to come now. Why don't you guys at the very least make a goodwill gesture toward the OP here and offer him/her a "Meet You Half-Way" type of deal and pay this amount, settle this issue and put it to bed.

This type of action on your part I believe would be viewed as a fair offer in the player community for the most part IMO and you guys could come out of this saving face and most likely gain yourselves a new level of respect here for doing the right thing..

 

[gingeanth89]

Good Will

How much will it cost you to settle this Palace Group? 2263. How much goodwill will you gain for this gesture? Nearly 6,000 views on this thread now. There are a lot of people watching.

Anthony

 

[chuchu59]

Sometimes I just cannot understand how it is possible for such terms and conditions to stand. In any contract there is the element of there being a possibility of performance. This term does not allow anyone to be able to perform ie the very last bet must be 100% of the remaining balance. While we should always respect contractual obligations this one is unforceable.

I think its time to have a hard look at this issue. When we sign up there are a whole lot of conditions that we agree to adhere to. While most of them are there for the protection of the casino some are just plain ridiculous and there is no element of consideration. Take the example of where there are restricted games when playing out a bonus. On the surface, if restricted games are played, the bonus is void and all winnings confiscated. But what is the consideration here? None because only the winnings from the restricted games should be voided and not winnings from the allowed games. It may be argued that winnings from restricted games increases your bankroll and hence you make bigger bets on allowed games to win more. However, this is not a reason to introduce a blanket confiscation of all winnings.

Simply put, it is time the industry condemns these kind of clauses/terms. I could be saying that any winnings at slots thru clicking your mouse with your left hand is void and I think the casinos will be thinking along this line if only they can prove it.

 

[maxd]

I think it's already been convincingly shown by Spearmaster and others ....

Spear has his opinion, I have mine but I don't think anything has been "convincingly shown", hence the ongoing debate.

What I think has emerged is a general consensus that no one liked the Term as it was originally written .. hence B's efforts to get it changed .. and hence the change. Voila! Progress! Everyone should be happy, or happier, right?

No, what we're really talking about now is the OP's responsibilities in this -- as a general issue, not singling this particular player out personally -- and there is quite obviously a lot of ongoing disagreement over that.

Max, you been hanging in the hood this week bro??

 

[jetset]

Have to agree with Max's post 155 on this.

"Intuitive" and simple T&Cs would truly be great, but the operators and their legal advisers possibly fear that some players will take advantage if every point is not painstakingly covered to be nit-picking proof...we see that quite often in postings where a player and a casino are in dispute.

So it is important that players know what they're signing up for when they click that "I agree" box.

In this particular case the T&C was not fair or reasonable, and it's encouraging to note that Bryan was able to get it changed without delay.

 

[gingeanth89]

I'm sure I speak for many when I say that they are not out to scam or take advantage of anyone. This is the only case that I am aware of where they negated a player's winnings because of breaking this specific term.

Players need to be responsible for their activities. He agreed to this term and he chose to play in a manner that breached this term. This was his choice; not mine, not yours, but his.

Hey hold on a a minute. I played at a casino that is marked with the eCogra seal indicating fairness. This casino is also on the Casinomeister accredited casinos list - lending it further credibility. I dont think anyone in this thread, not a single person would agree that this casino has acted fairly here.

YES, I signed up under their rules and agreed to them, but I agreed to what I thought was the spirit of the rules, not some extremely narrow interpretation which makes everyone who ever lost their deposit and bonus at the casino a rule breaker. As I said in my first response to the rep, if you are acting fairly, then you should either pay me or pay back everyone who ever lost their last bet out of their deposit plus bonus. You cant have it both ways, the rule means this if you win and something else if you lose, that is clearly NOT fair!

Just because this is the only case you have ever seen where the casino abused its rules in this particular way to avoid a payout does not make their actions any fairer and Im guessing that Im just the most vocal complainant.

As it stands, Spin Palace should still pay me. I dont think they have gone far enough with clarifying their rules and on the issue of fariness, well, there just hasnt been any. Im shocked that anyone would still claim they have been acting fairly.

 

[KasinoKing]

As I said in my first response to the rep, if you are acting fairly, then you should either pay me or pay back everyone who ever lost their last bet out of their deposit plus bonus. You cant have it both ways, the rule means this if you win and something else if you lose, that is clearly NOT fair!

I'm sorry, but you're being the unreasonable one here.
The original term said:

Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns e.g. playing of equal, zero margin bets or hedge betting, placing single bets using your entire or the majority of your account balance and bonus, all of which shall be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Should the Casino deem that practices such as this have been utilized, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any cashins and/or confiscate all winnings.

"reserves the right to", not "will".
In other words, if someone breaches the term they might confiscate winnings.
Also, it doesn't say anything about returning your deposit.

Apart from that, I'm 100% on your side & think you should be paid your winnings in full.

KK

 

[gingeanth89]

Understood

I'm sorry, but you're being the unreasonable one here.
The original term said:

"reserves the right to", not "will".
In other words, if someone breaches the term they might confiscate winnings.
Also, it doesn't say anything about returning your deposit.

Apart from that, I'm 100% on your side & think you should be paid your winnings in full.

KK

I wasnt suggesting that they should do that, I was just making a silly example of a situation that could be true because of this rule as it stood. I am chuffed that the members of this group making their feelings known has got the rule changed as well, kudos to palace for makiong an improvement. I still dont think it goes far enough which would be a fair, simple set of rules that everyone understands.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Max says we shouldn't play at casinos that have this kind of term.

eCogra gives it a seal, and it is accredited here.

It follows therefore that an eCogra seal, and CM accreditation should NOT be taken at face value, and as reason to make ASSUMPTIONS about the terms and conditions.

Unfortunately, this also weakens the player's ability to use these measures to select a casino in a simple manner.

I would have hoped that having this kind of term would be against the criteria for receiving these kinds of accreditations, with casinos applying for such status being told they need to review the terms before it will be granted.

RECREATIONAL players often don't understand most of the terms. It is not even as if they are written in clear "every day" language either. Many players start at the top, see a load of lawyer speak they don't understand and think "screw this, I wanna PLAY!!", and just select "I agree" without having much of a clue to what they have agreed to.

Where a casino decides "in it's discresion" to confiscate winnings, rather than using an EXPLICIT breach, they are simply refusing to honour a bet because they don't like the result. Terms that allow this should be outlawed, since IF casinos have legal teams to help them, they should be capable of writing a proper set of terms and conditions.

Casinos complain that PLAYERS who may be "bonus hunters" will go through terms and exploit loopholes, but often CASINOS do just the same, especially if they think that a big winner will never give it back.

Insurance companies are just as bad, they look at claims to find reasons NOT to pay, and often very minor nuances in the terms and conditions are used.

Here is an example from the UK:-

1) Woman diagnosed with breast cancer.

2) Critical illness insurance refuse to pay because it is not "critical illness" because it has not spread. Said they WOULD have paid if it had, but woman was caught early enough to have mastectomy, considered NOT critical by insurance company.

3) Turns out this little nuance is present in many such policies, but is certainly against the SPIRIT of the insurance product.

Woman fell into this trap because everything was written in "legaleze", not English, so she had to ASSUME she would be fairly treated, and agreed anyway.

If consumers really DID refuse to agree to terms and conditions they didn't understand, perhaps by losing confidence that they would by definition be fair, even though they couldn't understand them, a great many businesses would go to the wall, and those that escaped that fate would have to fight hard to restore confidence.


Casinos appear to being less "fair" now than ever before, and they are mostly being judged NOT by whether they were acting within the terms, but whether they were acting FAIRLY in the eyes of PLAYERS reading the tales, and responses from the casinos.

The most unfair of all is "we have confiscated all your money, we don't have to say why, you agreed to allow us to do this at our discresion".

This would be something in the terms, but they would find few players who would immediately see this as fair, but many that would worry that they too could suffer the same fate, and without knowing why it happened in that case, have no way of guarding against it happening it to them.

This case is puzzling, since the new and "fair" terms now implemented would NOT have caused this player to have their winnings confiscated, yet this doesn't seem to be a case of players pouncing on a loophole and acting in consert to clean out the casino. It seems this is the only player known to have had this term applied to them, so why have they been singled out for this extra harsh treatment?

 

[kingkong098]

If this term has been in place for a year and you disagreed with it, why have they been left accredited and only now been requested to change the rule after someone got trapped by it.

They caught me with this rule too a few months back, but my cashout was only $400 so I never made a complaint about it. As with the OP, I understood the term to reference your beginning balance, not current. There are certainly others out there that have had winnings voided.

You seem to be speculating here, since no one knows how this would be dealt with by differing jurisdictions. These terms have been there for over a year and have been reviewed by the casino, the casino's legal team, their licensing jurisdiction, and (I'm assuming) most players who have taken a bonus there. To argue that the term is "invalid" is debatable and falls in the realm of legalese. Sorry, but we're not here to offer legal help or to give legal advice. I can point you into the direction of some excellent gaming lawyers, but that is about as far as it goes.

We are here to affect change, assist when we can, and to do our best to set a level playing field for everyone. In this situation, we have done all three.

This issue came to us late Friday afternoon, and it was debated amongst us even up until now. The player posted on Monday, I contacted the casino operators on Tuesday letting them know how I felt about the situation. They looked at this and were responsive to your (and my) suggestions, and these terms and conditions were changed within hours.

As most of you are aware, the Palace Group is not some fly-by-night organization, they've been around for years and are committed to providing players an excellent playing experience. I'm sure I speak for many when I say that they are not out to scam or take advantage of anyone. This is the only case that I am aware of where they negated a player's winnings because of breaking this specific term.

Players need to be responsible for their activities. He agreed to this term and he chose to play in a manner that breached this term. This was his choice; not mine, not yours, but his.

Like Max said, if you think a term sucks - don't play there. You know the deal - vote with your feet (wallet).


Man, I wish it were still 1999 sometimes, but too bad, it ain't like this anymore.

 

[chuchu59]

Kingkong,

Unwary players like yourself were caught out by them on this clause. Nothing against you and possibly a multitude of other players, but if any of you did register a complaint against these creeps maybe they would have been forced to alter this ridiculous term earlier.


We live and learn. No matter how small a cashout is, if we feel that the casino has acted unfairly by all means have it debated in the open. Frankly, the recent antics of Irish Luck, Spin Palace and Inet leave a bad taste in the mouth. They are exploiting loopholes in their terms and conditions so that they dont have to pay winnings to the players. When a terms and condition is set there must be a reason for its existence and the casino cannot just say "You didnt adhere to our terms so your winnings are confiscated". It has to use its discretion to judge whether the act by the player was against the spirit of the term. I dont see it happening here and I am afraid this bodes ill for the industry.

 

[Tengil]

Firstly to address a few additional points raised in this thread:
30. Spin Palace Casino reserves the right to pay all Progressive Jackpot winnings in US dollars. The amount to be paid, will be determined by the US Dollar Progressive Jackpot amount on the Progressive Game played, at the time the jackpot was won.
We pay progressives in the currency the player played in. The term does need updating and will be done so accordingly.

The Finnish site will be updated to have the same terms as the rest of our the casino sites. Thank you for pointing these out.

In response to the original post.

We have been targeted and abused by a number of players using certain betting patterns (which for obvious reasons I cannot divulge). We do not take the bets at face value but delve into the actual game play to determine whether someone has transgressed the terms and conditions or not.
The problems come in when we look at trends and play and see definite signs that someone is betting a certain way after receiving bonus money which is not in the spirit of fair play and not the reason we give offers and bonuses to our players.
Our terms do state what we do not allow and if players would like to clarify what they may or may not do prior to claiming and betting they are welcome to contact us.
The 20% bonus offer on the reversal was an error and should not have been sent out. This does not detract that once the withdrawal was submitted and analysed the player did in fact break terms which they agreed to when registering with us.
Players who play with us know we are a reputable group who does not need to revert to any underhand tactics. We do however strongly believe that a business needs to protect itself.



Regards,

The Palace Group

You still have that term. A nice opportunity to pocket some extra cash if someone playing in GBP or euro hits an progressive.

OT And I hate Detroit Redwings.

 

[Jasminebed]

Palace Group, I thank you for amending that term to be reasonable. Since I usually bust out on bonuses, at some point I am betting the remainer of my balance.

It has been there for a while, and this OP seems to have been one of the few to have the clause used.

Since you have now amend the unreasonable term, I would hope that as a gesutre of goodwill and acknowledgement that the previous wording was unworkable, that you would pay this player his winnings.

His play fell within the amended terms (even though not the current terms at time of play).

Even if you paid him half his win (assuming he would have played half his bet size with half the bankroll without a bonus), I think that would provide a lot of player goodwill and faith in your casino to provide players a good gaming experience.

It's hard to get lucky at the casino, and most of us carry on even when we do.

If you feel 3card poker is too high a risk game for you to offer during promotions, withdraw it.

While I would like to see the OP come out with something, I do appreciate your decision to change an unreasonable term.

I am a SpinPalace customer, and it would have been my last deposit otherwise for fear my luck last hit would have a slot recovery voided. You remain on my desktop, and I hope you do right by the OP.

 

[maxd]

Max says we shouldn't play at casinos that have this kind of term.

eCogra gives it a seal, and it is accredited here.

It follows therefore that an eCogra seal, and CM accreditation should NOT be taken at face value, and as reason to make ASSUMPTIONS about the terms and conditions.

Don't forget that B's first move once this issue came to light was to remove the casino from the accredited list pending a revision of the Term.

So does CM accreditation GUARANTEE that everything at the the casino is perfect? No.

Does CM accreditation mean that B has screened the place and decided they look trustworthy? Yes.

Does B stand behind the accreditation and re-evaluate it based on new info that comes to light? Yes.

Is that what accreditation is supposed to be about? Yes.

Seems to me the process is working nicely and as expected.

As to the OP's claim that nobody here thinks they have been treated fairly I would suggest they go back and re-read the posts in this thread. I believe what several people have said is (a) you agreed to the Terms and should therefore be subject to them, (b) the Term was crappy and should be changed, by this casino or any other that uses such a clause.

Finally as to this "players should not be expected to understand the Terms" idea I would respectfully point out that the vast majority of casino Terms are not written in legalese but are in fact written to be read and understood by mere mortals, and players.

Why do I say this? Because we often make PAB decisions based on a "reasonable" interpretation of the Terms as written yet we are not trained in legalese. If we can figure them out the players surely can. And should.

Like I said before, you get what you settle for. If that means you settle for Terms you don't understand then you can expect surprises down the road. Is that good? No, certainly not. Is it the casinos fault that you say "yes" when what you really mean is "whatever, just let me play". No, certainly not.

Let's be realistic here. No one is advocating that players should, as a matter of course, be crucified by unreasonable Terms. Many times in the past we've gone back to casinos and said "your Terms suck and you should change them". Some do, some don't. Some get Warnings posted because of the crappy Terms they adopt.

That said the time for players to raise objections is BEFORE they are being nailed up on the boards, not during or after. Is that always possible? No, but that doesn't mean it isn't something to strive for. And the first step of that process is, "hello!", reading the damn things!

 

[chuchu59]

Max,

I believe we do have a wide variety of opinions in this thread. While I wont say the 'majority', I believe that many here believe that the OP has been treated unfairly and should be given his winnings. The 100% of balance bet term was shady and using that term to void winnings is unacceptable. My understanding of 'an accredited casino' is that even when terms are ambigous they are just for self protection and not used as excuse to void legitimate winnings. The intention of the clause was to prevent bonus takers from using the bonus part to make huge bets but they screwed up by not stating the percentage of the original balance ie deposit+bonus that would constitute a breach and so used the final bet (which must have been 100% of remaining balance) as thie weapon for voiding the winnings.

Whatever way the decision goes, damage has been done to Spin Palace's credibility. The fact that they amended the terms could mean they fully understood the folly or rather ambiguity of their previous terms. So either they pay the winnings albeit grudgingly or risk having their repustation tarnished. Frankly, the act of modifying the Ts and Cs is only part of the remedial measures. They should show that they are willing to take a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

 

[maxd]

... I believe that many here believe that the OP has been treated unfairly and should be given his winnings.

The popularity of an idea or notion does not make it true or valid. Reference "flat earth" and "earth-centered solar system" for details.

Personally I think that looking at the larger issues is more important that the gratification of seeing one player paid for agreeing to a Term he should have backed away from.

But like you say, it's all just opinions. It would seem that I have a different opinion than "many here".

 

[Casinomeister]

... I believe that many here believe that the OP has been treated unfairly and should be given his winnings...

Actually, this is strictly up to the casino to decide. This was a very complicated issue to deal with and I feel that this player jumped the gun when it came to posting this complaint in public.

He had PABd on Friday afternoon, Max contacted him that afternoon pointing out the terms he had breached - but also said that we were debating this in house. On Monday the OP decided to post - I have no idea what he thought he was going to accomplish by doing so, but he made his decision not to be paid at that point. The OP's impatience was his own undoing in this situation.

He didn't rebut the PAB, but if he had responded with a "could you please reconsider?" he would have found out that there was enough going on behind the scenes to give him faith that his voice was being heard. I had not contacted the operators yet on this when he decided to begin this thread.

Going against the popular grain of thought, going public is not always the smartest route to take. If you definitely feel you are in the right, rebut your PAB and explain why. As soon as you post in a message board trying to whip up public support and damage a company's reputation, it looks like blackmail from the casino's perspective, and in most cases they will drop any consideration of paying winnings.

Warning - sage advice follows: If you want your way - whatever it may be - and you're facing opposing forces that have you outnumbered (i.e. a broken term and condition), you must use discretion and tact. You also must envision the situation from the casino's point of view: Why were these terms and conditions in place? Why didn't they pay me? As soon as you have understood this, then you can see where you fit in this picture. And perhaps from this standpoint offer a convincing argument to convince a casino to give you a break.

The OP never gave anyone a chance.