Bonus Complaint Party casino not paying because of Terms violations!

[hakapuku]

I did read the terms and condition and to be honest I missed that term, The promotion terms were ok to handle but the general terms were long and I probably missed it, now I can see their general terms actually put you on a no win situation as for almost anything they can blame you of bonus abuse.
I sent Max the terms with this term inside, thats true, I sent it as a proof the word 70 was not even there, I ran a search on number 70 and it was not there, Now I see it is not the number but seventy written in words.
I didn't abuse their bonus thats all I know, finding in the fine print such an important term is the issue here, I will be satisifed with another resolution but not with non payment why not to pay after I wagered so much and the term is not clear and hidden in such a long long script.

That was my point. Why did they use words "seventy percent" instead of "70%" ? I know many casinos applying that bet percentage limit but I don't know even one which writes this rule using words instead of numbers. And I find that it was made with the intention not to be easily found by players . Just a psychological trick which makes good money for the casino. Not fair!

 

[rainmaker]

DiamondGeezer, I will give you a general comment.

Anyone who has studied law will know that judicial decisions are based on several different legal sources. What kind of legal sources will depend on the jurisdictions' law principles. Typical legal sources in western law is for example the law text itself, preparatory works (and jurisprudence) and precedents.

So when you are saying that the understanding of T&C is more than just "the written" words itself, then you are correct. But you are talking like there is a "universal" law that applies for everyone. This is wrong. So your thoughts would only make sense if you knew the law, and knew the law principles in the correct jurisdiction. .

As Max have said, the PAB process is a way of dealing with player issues in a correct was based on "precedents" in the industry, not in the court system. And the "course of dealing" in this industry is clearly that players who violates the written T&C also will have their winnings confiscated/held back etc. This practice is well established.

 

[nothappy]

If the word seventy is written or 70 is written. It still does not mean any terms were broken. According to their terms it is only a breach of terms if the player is using these large bets to beat down the requirements of the bonus playthrough. Did the OP use 70% or higher bets to quickly clear the wager requirements or did he only bet that high a few times? If it's only a few times then no terms were broken and all the rest is mute points.

 

[Nifty29]

If the word seventy is written or 70 is written. It still does not mean any terms were broken. According to their terms it is only a breach of terms if the player is using these large bets to beat down the requirements of the bonus playthrough. Did the OP use 70% or higher bets to quickly clear the wager requirements or did he only bet that high a few times? If it's only a few times then no terms were broken and all the rest is mute points.

Are you serious?

What other reason would the OP have to gamble more than 70% of the bonus? He had to go pee and didn't want to wait?

It also doesn't say about using these bets to "quickly" clear the bonus. It says nothing about speed lol.

The obvious intention of the player was to build up the bankroll with big bets on roulette and grind it down to meet the WR...which is against the casino rules. It doesn't matter is he did it twice or fifty times - if he did it even once with that intention then he broke the rule. If he did it right at the beginning to build his bankroll (as I suspect) then he most certainly was trying to clear the bonus by creating a large early bankroll.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people just continue to scream "pay the player" regardless of the facts. Even in some of the most blatant examples over the years, there are still some members (usually the same ones i.e fellow advantage players) who insist the casino should pay.

What the supporters of the OP are really saying is that he should be subject to different rules to the rest of us. If it's good enough for everyone else, it's good enough for the OP and the minute casinos start just 'letting things slide' they are going to get taken to the cleaners by unscrupulous bonus hunters (who are to blame for all these rules in the first place!)

Anyway, the decision is made and he ain't getting paid, so the discussion is becoming academic at best.

P.S. Another term related to roulette at Party Casino:

Bets placed in any game of (i) roulette on the winning number being red, black, odd, even, between the number range 1 - 18, or between the number range 19 - 36 will not be counted as valid wagers for the purposes of meeting the cash out or wagering restrictions of any Promotion.

I wonder if he broke that term as well?

 

[DiamondGeezer]

DiamondGeezer, I will give you a general comment.

Anyone who has studied law will know that judicial decisions are based on several different legal sources. What kind of legal sources will depend on the jurisdictions' law principles. Typical legal sources in western law is for example the law text itself, preparatory works (and jurisprudence) and precedents.

So when you are saying that the understanding of T&C is more than just "the written" words itself, then you are correct. But you are talking like there is a "universal" law that applies for everyone. This is wrong. So your thoughts would only make sense if you knew the law, and knew the law principles in the correct jurisdiction. .

As Max have said, the PAB process is a way of dealing with player issues in a correct was based on "precedents" in the industry, not in the court system. And the "course of dealing" in this industry is clearly that players who violates the written T&C also will have their winnings confiscated/held back etc. This practice is well established.

Yep you make some good points here. It's true I am thinking in terms of UK Law whereas Party I think are in Gibralter. This suits the casinos very well I think, basing themselves in small islands with obscure legal practises.

 

[rainmaker]

Yep you make some good points here. It's true I am thinking in terms of UK Law whereas Party I think are in Gibralter. This suits the casinos very well I think, basing themselves in small islands with obscure legal practises.

I agree, and thats the big problem for players when bigger disputes occurs. It is quite hopeless to "sue" within some of these jurisdictions. But it is a players choice to register and play within Gibralter, Malta or whatever

But players do have Casinomeister

 

[DiamondGeezer]

And I think the player should have done more to familiarize himself with the Terms he agreed to. When this issue comes to you for evaluation you can argue your side of it as you like. Since we're discussing the issue here as a PAB it'll come as no surprise that I'm happy to run with my take on things for the time being.

That said I have to point out that "doing more" to communicate a given clause in the Terms is going to be a lot easier said than done. I think it's fair to say that there are typically many clauses, all more or less of equal importance. What do you do to communicate them all more effectively? Multi-coloured text? Individual check-boxes? AFAIK there's no obvious solution to this so it tends to default to the common denominator of just expecting players to read the Terms.



And that's where we fundamentally disagree. In a court of law what you say may be perfectly acceptable -- frankly I have no idea but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- but the PAB process is not a court.

We are asked to evaluate cases based on standard practice within this industry and I don't think I'm taking much of a risk in saying that in this industry it matters very much whether the player reads the Terms or not. The obvious reason being that before they are allowed to play they say, in effect, "I have read, understood and will abide by the Terms".

From that point on their compliance with the Terms is expected so yes, actually reading those Terms is highly advisable. And yes I believe this is true regardless of what may or may not happen in a theoretical court room were the case ever to come before a judge which it almost certainly will not. No disrespect intended but day-to-day court room and/or lawyer practice is of limited interest here because this is no court and in no way pretends to represent one.

Max I do understand what you are saying about the PAB process not being a court but what irritates me is that some standard industry practises can be very different from common legal practise. I do get on my legal hobby horse somewhat at times.

Let's for argument's sake take an example where we have a legit player who likes this guy runs up a balance on a bonus at some casino. During his play he gets up to $5K and in the heat of the moment bets $100 a couple of times and breaches a 25% clause. He then realises and goes under the 25% for the rest of his play. At the end of the session he wins $10K and tries to cash out.

If he then came to you would you really strike him out for violation of the 25% rule?

If your answer is that it is standard industry practise I would say it is a bad practise! Really the main people falling foul of this foul of this are the unwary and the ignorant. Advantage players won't make an error like this. I know not reading terms is no defence but also these 25% terms should not be being used to punish the innocent player who just made a mistake. It is possible to misclick and also get your maths mixed up in the heat of the moment.

The thing is the contract between player and casino is a two way street. Every time a casino are removing a big win form an innocent player who merely made a mistake they are profiting massively from it. How can that be fair?

I would say in cases like the OP's it would be better to look at the case in the round and come to a conclusion about the player. Was he a genuine player? Did he gain any advantage by going over the 70% rule? What was his bonus play like? What was his cover play like? I know someone of your experience could look at the gameplay for 10 minutes and be able to know what sort of a player he was.

FWIW I think there are chances the OP is genuine. 40K extra is a lot of extra play and he did deposit more than the minimum amount. But then you will say this is not important because he broke the 70% term.

But if it turns out the casino are keeping the €8K because he made a mistake that did not actually benefit him then I would say that's highly unfair IMO. I just hope here is more to this case and that it was blatant full balance betting or something.

 

[Nifty29]

Max I do understand what you are saying about the PAB process not being a court but what irritates me is that some standard industry practises can be very different from common legal practise. I do get on my legal hobby horse somewhat at times.

Let's for argument's sake take an example where we have a legit player who likes this guy runs up a balance on a bonus at some casino. During his play he gets up to $5K and in the heat of the moment bets $100 a couple of times and breaches a 25% clause. He then realises and goes under the 25% for the rest of his play. At the end of the session he wins $10K and tries to cash out.

If he then came to you would you really strike him out for violation of the 25% rule?

If your answer is that it is standard industry practise I would say it is a bad practise! Really the main people falling foul of this foul of this are the unwary and the ignorant. Advantage players won't make an error like this. I know not reading terms is no defence but also these 25% terms should not be being used to punish the innocent player who just made a mistake. It is possible to misclick and also get your maths mixed up in the heat of the moment.

The thing is the contract between player and casino is a two way street. Every time a casino are removing a big win form an innocent player who merely made a mistake they are profiting massively from it. How can that be fair?

I would say in cases like the OP's it would be better to look at the case in the round and come to a conclusion about the player. Was he a genuine player? Did he gain any advantage by going over the 70% rule? What was his bonus play like? What was his cover play like? I know someone of your experience could look at the gameplay for 10 minutes and be able to know what sort of a player he was.

FWIW I think there are chances the OP is genuine. 40K extra is a lot of extra play and he did deposit more than the minimum amount. But then you will say this is not important because he broke the 70% term.

But if it turns out the casino are keeping the €8K because he made a mistake that did not actually benefit him then I would say that's highly unfair IMO. I just hope here is more to this case and that it was blatant full balance betting or something.

The OP obviously bet very large at the beginning to manufacture a large bankroll - which is exactly what the 70% term is there to prevent. He may not have been able to wager the $40k more is he hadn't made those large bets, so it is irrelevant.

You say that "not reading the terms is no defence", but then you say that "the main people falling foul of this are the unwary and the ignorant". I would say it's the unwary and ignorant that neglect to read and understand the terms in the first place, so you are kinda contradicting yourself there.

Players have a choice in regards to where they play. If you read the terms and don't like them, then don't play there. If you decide to play there without reading and understanding the terms, then you have to suffer the consequences if you break them, regardless of whether there is a 5% or 95% rule.

A casino has the right to make any rules they like for bonuses so saying the rule itself is unfair is also irrelevant - the OP agreed to be bound by them when he created his account and accepted the bonus.

What is it these days? Nobody ever wants to take responsibility. It's always someone else's fault. No wonder litigation has gone crazy in the US and other western nations....everyone is always looking for someone else to take the blame. Sheesh.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

That said I have to point out that "doing more" to communicate a given clause in the Terms is going to be a lot easier said than done. I think it's fair to say that there are typically many clauses, all more or less of equal importance. What do you do to communicate them all more effectively? Multi-coloured text? Individual check-boxes? AFAIK there's no obvious solution to this so it tends to default to the common denominator of just expecting players to read the Terms.

Well I for one am not willing to tolerate the casinos lame excuses on this front.

For one thing in the OP's case this 70% bonus money clause wasn't in the bonus terms but the general terms. And then oddly it was written and not stated numerically which is weird. I can understand how a player could genuinely miss it.

It really isn't difficult writing bonus terms. One thing that has always struck me as odd is that they are always in tiny writing. You have to ask yourself why that is?

The bonus terms should just cover the bonus rules. In nearly all cases they are WR, what games you can play, the max bet rule, what countrys are allowed, how long you have to do it, what the cash out rules are.

Then there is the general gubbins like only one IP address, don't even think of playing here if you are from Denmark etc etc.

If you go on Rival you get a bonus page that in about five steps details all you need to know about playing the bonus. Also for all their ills RTG are good with their terms too.

Also it wouldn't harm to use more plain english, bigger writing and use examples. It's like the casinos are afraid to deal with their customers. They could very easily improve things if they wanted to.

 

[rainmaker]

What is it these days? Nobody ever wants to take responsibility. It's always someone else's fault. No wonder litigation has gone crazy in the US and other western nations....everyone is always looking for someone else to take the blame. Sheesh.

Yeah, I must agree with you again. I just can`t believe why so many people in this thread would actually speak in favor of the complainant. Players must take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

The OP obviously bet very large at the beginning to manufacture a large bankroll - which is exactly what the 70% term is there to prevent. He may not have been able to wager the $40k more is he hadn't made those large bets, so it is irrelevant.

What??? Is this fact or some wild accusation of yours??? What proof do you have?

Anyway in truth I am more interested in the principles than this actual case.

But Max said he struck out the claim because the OP broke the 70% term, plain and simple.

 

[jod5413]

For all of you that think that the player should get his money even if he did break the rules.

Plexrep put out a suggestion for you folks. You try to write the rules to cover any and every term or rule that might come up. Be sure to use multi color ink, and do not write out any or all instances of using a number figure, seventy vs 70 for example. I could go on, but why?

Come on, people. Quit your bitching and try to help players by "streamlining" the rules and regulations for the casino. Hell, maybe you can even get other casinos on board to fix up their oh so hard to understand rules.

 

[jod5413]

Originally Posted by Nifty29
What is it these days? Nobody ever wants to take responsibility. It's always someone else's fault. No wonder litigation has gone crazy in the US and other western nations....everyone is always looking for someone else to take the blame. Sheesh.[/QUOTE]

It is not just us crazy folks in the USA or other "western nations". We see problems from all over the world where gambling on line is available.

Yeah, I must agree with you again. I just can`t believe why so many people in this thread would actually speak in favor of the complainant. Players must take responsibility for their own actions.

"Players must take responsibility for their own actions." Some do, when they win. If they lose it is another story.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

"placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

I would at least like clarification of how Party are interpreting this rule. The player's starting bonus is €330 so does that mean a total bet exceeding €231 on a single roulette spin is violating the terms?

The reason I ask is I have heard other casinos have interpreted this clause to mean 70% of the player's bonus funds at the time of making the bet.

I heard of a player who took a €100 bonus at MG. His balance was down to €10 and he bet €4.50 on a slot, hit a big feature and ended up winning a few thousand. The player claims the casino didn't pay him as they said he broke the 30% rule they have - the €4.50 bet was over 30% of his €10 balance at the time of doing the spin.

Max I would be interested in your thoughts on this and how you would rule if such a case came your way. BTW I don't know if this is true or not but if casinos don't give examples it's very hard to know what this term EXACTLY means.

 

[gaydave]

Wait a damn second.

NIFTY, The term reads EXACTLY THIS: "placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

That is what it says. YOU are interpreting it to mean NO BETS EVER. It doesnt say that. Stick with the facts of what is written. It says with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met

Anybody that reads that for the first time will think "ok, I am not going to use these large bets with the intention of clearing the wagering until the release requirements have been met. I might make a few large bets but not in order to get through the wagering by using them"

That is how I read it. For all of your ridiculous backing of casinos this has got to be the farthest reach. The term says nothing about not being able to make these bets. It doesn't. YOU may think it means that but that isn't what it says. It says don't do it with the intention of clearing the bonus with them.

If you make a few big bets at the beginning that isn't against their terms. It is horribly written but it does NOT say you can't make a large bet of 70% or more. It says you can't use that type of bet to get through the wagering requirments. that is what it says in their own words. No interpretation should take place here. It should be a direct reference from the words used.

bottom line is this is another bullshucks way of a low life casino trying to screw a player out of winnings. They can make the max bet whatever they want. They set a trap here and it is a big FU clause. "spirit of the bonus" crap. They should be rogued for this type of behavior.

If this site allows this type of crap to happen without so much as a stand against it then the whole industry will continue to go down the crapper. Casinos need to quit taking damn bets if they don't plan on paying the winnings. They spend way too much time looking for loopholes to not pay players. Instead they should be thinking of ways to retain players and not put everyone off.
this whole industry is turning into a sham in which you lose often and if you win you are still lucky if you ever get paid. Its getting ridiculous. Something needs done. Really quickly as this industry is hanging by its last string of any credibility.

 

[Nifty29]

Wait a damn second.

NIFTY, The term reads EXACTLY THIS: "placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

That is what it says. YOU are interpreting it to mean NO BETS EVER. It doesnt say that. Stick with the facts of what is written. It says with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met

Anybody that reads that for the first time will think "ok, I am not going to use these large bets with the intention of clearing the wagering until the release requirements have been met. I might make a few large bets but not in order to get through the wagering by using them"

LOL.

1. Did the OP place bets higher than 70% of the bonus? YES.

2. Did the OP do so with the intention of clearing the wagering? YES. How do I know? The casino said they did. Who has the final say on the players' intention? The casino.

That is how I read it. For all of your ridiculous backing of casinos this has got to be the farthest reach LMAO. Oh yes I am totally ridiculous, I always support the casinos no matter what. Didn't you know I was a paid shill?

The term says nothing about not being able to make these bets. It doesn't. YES it does, because the ONLY reason you would make such bets would be to clear the wagering. The recreational player would be unlikely to play this way...only the bonus hunters do, as I'm sure you know. YOU may think it means that but that isn't what it says. It says don't do it with the intention of clearing the bonus with them.

If you make a few big bets at the beginning that isn't against their terms. It is horribly written but it does NOT say you can't make a large bet of 70% or more. YES IT DOES. Where did you learn English?? It says you can't use that type of bet to get through the wagering requirments. that is what it says in their own words. No interpretation should take place here. It should be a direct reference from the words used.

bottom line is this is another bullshucks way of a low life casino trying to screw a player out of winnings. They can make the max bet whatever they want. NO THEY CAN"T. The player cannot make bets larger than 70% of the bonus because that it was advantage players do to beat bonuses....hence the term in the first place They set a trap here and it is a big FU clause. "spirit of the bonus" crap. They should be rogued for this type of behavior. This has NOTHING to do with spirit of the bonus, or Max/Bryan would be all over it like a rash because they do not subscribe to that theory.

If this site allows this type of crap to happen without so much as a stand against it then the whole industry will continue to go down the crapper. Casinos need to quit taking damn bets if they don't plan on paying the winnings. They spend way too much time looking for loopholes to not pay players. ...and some players spend too much time looking for loopholes to take the casinos to the cleaners, hence this term and others like it. You're pointing the finger at the wrong people. Instead they should be thinking of ways to retain players and not put everyone off.
this whole industry is turning into a sham in which you lose often and if you win you are still lucky if you ever get paid. Its getting ridiculous. Something needs done. Really quickly as this industry is hanging by its last string of any credibility.

Oddly enough, I always get paid, and most people I know get paid without any problems at all.

The players that often have these issues are the advantage players who try every trick in the book to get one over the casino.....and sometimes it backfires. IMO it's just tough cookies - if you play with fire you should expect to get burned.

I'm not sure why you call yourself "GayDave" - you seldom seem to be happy at all.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Come on, people. Quit your bitching and try to help players by "streamlining" the rules and regulations for the casino. Hell, maybe you can even get other casinos on board to fix up their oh so hard to understand rules.

Well they could ditch all the EXTRA GAME RULES they have made up, like you cant bet on Red or Black as this will apparently gives the customer an unfair advantage over the casino imposed to protect themselves from so called bonus abusers.

And instead ramp up the already absurd play-through from 50x deposit + 50x bonus (Deposit $500 get $500 free bonus, min Play-through equals $50,000) to an even more ridiculous 200x Min playthrough $200,000 and plant this small disclosure of info smack bang next to the glittering promo heading.

100% extra, up to $500: recommended for Roulette players;

Or tell the excited happy smiling new customer that the free bonus is very difficult to complete and win with. I dunno a big warning next to the promo that shows their statistical chance of winning with said free bonus, collated by stats from all customers that have taken and won compared with all those who didn't.

Or at least tell the customer the rules of Roulette for instance are not the same rules if they take a bonus, than a customer who plays without a bonus.

Or carry on potentially abusing new customers and potentially exploiting them to the max, whilst snaring the odd few fraudsters that are apparently to blame for making this free bonus so complex and labyrinthine.

Whatever is suggested will not change IMO unless opinion grows and a business then has to adapt. It seems currently that most online casinos bonus models are oddly accepted as the norm, otherwise the trend in greater restrictions with bonuses would be becoming less and not as they are trending towards more and more restrictiveness.

Maybe bonuses are the life blood of players and casinos alike. A form of bondage where the player likes to be tied up and the casino showers the player with gold that can't usually be reached. oke:

 

[colly]

Well I have been flamed before for my views on this sort of topic but here we go again.

If you are going to play at a casino READ THE T&C'S
If you are going to accept a bonus READ THE T&CS

Its harsh but it is your responsibility- yes yours -not the casino's to hold your hand and stop you but you who are depositing your hard earned cash and choosing to accept a bonus (wait for it) on the terms and conditions under which its offered.

If you find the term confusing, vague or ambiguous- EMAIL them and get a written clarification.

Boring to read - mindnumbingly so sometimes
Worth the boredom- 8000Euro this time or former 10,000GNUF and 3500 Inet payout denied on other threads on the same issues- yep I'd rate 10 to 30 mins of my time worth that.

 

[silcnlayc]

Well I have been flamed before for my views on this sort of topic but here we go again.

If you are going to play at a casino READ THE T&C'S
If you are going to accept a bonus READ THE T&CS

Its harsh but it is your responsibility- yes yours -not the casino's to hold your hand and stop you but you who are depositing your hard earned cash and choosing to accept a bonus (wait for it) on the terms and conditions under which its offered.

If you find the term confusing, vague or ambiguous- EMAIL them and get a written clarification.

Boring to read - mindnumbingly so sometimes
Worth the boredom- 8000Euro this time or former 10,000GNUF and 3500 Inet payout denied on other threads on the same issues- yep I'd rate 10 to 30 mins of my time worth that.

Excellently said...and may I add...another option? Quit taking bonuses if you refuse to read all the fine print...

.

 

[gaydave]

Oddly enough, I always get paid, and most people I know get paid without any problems at all.

The players that often have these issues are the advantage players who try every trick in the book to get one over the casino.....and sometimes it backfires. IMO it's just tough cookies - if you play with fire you should expect to get burned.

I'm not sure why you call yourself "GayDave" - you seldom seem to be happy at all.

"placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

My English is fine. It says "intention of clearing the bonus until the release of requirements have been met"

That means continually betting large in order to burn through the wager requirements. If it was simply a rule that you were not allowed to bet 70% or more then it should simply say "no bets of 70% of the bonus amount allowed".
but it doesn't. It says no bets of 70% with the intention of CLEARING THE BONUS UNTIL THE RELEASE requirements have been met. That is what they typed. I take that literally. You are interpreting it.

It does NOT say no bets over 70% allowed. If it did then you may be correct. Many of you are just assuming this rule because of other casinos with a max bet rule. If they did not want you to bet over 70% then they should simply say so. They don't. They say don't use that kind of bet to burn through the wagering requirements.

I'm seldom happy, Nifty, on these topics because a player came through with the spirit of trying to win while gambling on a game that is far less than a 50% chance to do so and the casino got a team of lawyers together to try and screw this player out of winnings. I guess it is not enough to already have the advantage in a gambling matchup. They need to make an impossible array of terms that could be construed to have been broken then deny payment of winnings. It is absurd. Again, if they did not want a player to bet that much on a single bet then they should say so. They only say not to do with the intention of burning through the wager requirements. The OP's intention probably was to get ahead so that the requirements would not eat away his balance. That strategy is not against that rule. He didn't continually bet that much "with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; " however, so they are reaching for ambiguous terms in order to steal from that player.

How can anyone be happy to see another player from the forum getting screwed over by this type of vague interpretation of a rule that literally does not state what they are saying is the violation is incredible.

I think players should be responsible to read terms also. it IS our responsibility I agree. However, this rule literally states that you can bet 70% if you like so long as it is not "with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; ". If they never wanted you to make that type of bet they would have simply stated that. But they didn't. So, just as it is OUR responsibility to read the terms it is THEIR responsibility to write the terms concisely and clearly... and it should not need to be interpreted. if it is interpreted then it was poorly written or purposely being used to screw a player. Why else would they also have in their rules a line below the dreaded "spirit of the bonus rules"? Max and Bryan should be all over this and not accepting of it as was stated.

 

[Gremmyboy]

This is why I never use bonuses!

I don't see the point in all the hassle for a few extra dollars!

They way I see it is that when I go to the pub to play Pokies I bring along $50 etc...
I go and play and have my $50 to play with. This is what I am used to! If I win I take my money out and have my winnings and go home. If I lose then I've lost my $50!

I can't see how the extra $50(online bonus) is worth the hassle you have to go through? A million rules to learn and understand, massive complictions if you accidently break a term, The inability to cash out and leave if you've won money, the list goes on....:Read:

In a nutshell I guess I'm saying that online I pretend as If I'm in a pub and deposit and wager accordingly. If I win I have instant access to my money(Imagine a pub telling me I can't leave until I play an extra $150 at their pub and locking the doors so I can't leave! Then if I do manage to stay and wager the extra $150 being told that I must wait inside for a further 48 hours and stand next to a pokie with My $$ in a cup and try to resist the urge to gamble more, only then will I be permitted to leave the pub!)

In summary bonuses are more hassle than they are worth for a few measly dollars!

Don't play with bonuses and it's a whole different world out there. I've never had a problem cashing out(Other than ridiculous wait times in the hope that Temptation gets the better of me), I've never had an issue with an online casino ever. Reason.... Because I don't use their stupid bonuses(Read: TRAPS)!

Cheers
Gremmy

 

[maxd]

Max and Bryan should be all over this and not accepting of it as was stated.

Excellently done! You've purposefully ignored the fact that the OP never bothered to read the Terms, invented a scenario where he broke those Terms but did so with goodness in his heart, and concluded that it is somehow our fault for not doing enough to pursue the interests of said player.

What an amazing piece of bent logic and conjured "facts"! Unfortunately most of the rest of us are due back on the planet Earth.

 

[FreeDomme]

Oh please!

"Who has the final say on the players' intention? The casino."

 

[jod5413]

Well I have been flamed before for my views on this sort of topic but here we go again.

If you are going to play at a casino READ THE T&C'S
If you are going to accept a bonus READ THE T&CS

Its harsh but it is your responsibility- yes yours -not the casino's to hold your hand and stop you but you who are depositing your hard earned cash and choosing to accept a bonus (wait for it) on the terms and conditions under which its offered.

If you find the term confusing, vague or ambiguous- EMAIL them and get a written clarification.

Boring to read - mindnumbingly so sometimes
Worth the boredom- 8000Euro this time or former 10,000GNUF and 3500 Inet payout denied on other threads on the same issues- yep I'd rate 10 to 30 mins of my time worth that.

What a spot on post, Colly. No one can diss you over this post. It seems like so many players think the rules are fair if you win, but unfair when you lose?

Excellently said...and may I add...another option? Quit taking bonuses if you refuse to read all the fine print...
.

Quit taking bonuses? A novel idea, Silc! I do not usually take bonuses, but if I do I read and even reread some of the rules to make sure I do not screw up.

Excellently done! You've purposefully ignored the fact that the OP never bothered to read the Terms, invented a scenario where he broke those Terms but did so with goodness in his heart, and concluded that it is somehow our fault for not doing enough to pursue the interests of said player.

What an amazing piece of bent logic and conjured "facts"! Unfortunately most of the rest of us are due back on the planet Earth.

And that's a wrap, people!!!

 

[gaydave]

Excellently done! You've purposefully ignored the fact that the OP never bothered to read the Terms, invented a scenario where he broke those Terms but did so with goodness in his heart, and concluded that it is somehow our fault for not doing enough to pursue the interests of said player.

What an amazing piece of bent logic and conjured "facts"! Unfortunately most of the rest of us are due back on the planet Earth.

You know what?
You can check your attitude at the door. Do you have to be so smarmy every damn time you post? YOU need some tact and you need it quick. I would like to see you run off at the mouth in person to people like that. It's rude, It's ignorant and you should be embarrassed for doing it so often. Stop being so damn condescending on every post you make. I'm embarrassed for you. Go find some common courtesy please.


.......Back to the matter at hand. How is it bent logic? The rule states EXACTLY THIS WORD FOR WORD:

"placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

They wrote it. I didn't. It says what it says. Who gives a flying flip what you or me or anyone THINKS was his intention? He didn't break the rules. Period.

He did not use bets of over 70% of bonus to intentionally clear the bonus until the release of the requirements had been met. He used smaller bets. Now if he would have used large bets to grind through the wager requirements then he would have been guilty. He didn't. He did nothing wrong. Nice player advocate thing you got going on there telling a guy who didn't break a poorly written rule "too bad". Its too bad that you are siding with a casino who is in the wrong. The rules state what they state. If they meant for you to never use a bet of that size they would have simply stated (like every other casino with a max bet rule) "no wagers allowed over 70% of the value of the bonus or you will lose all winnings".
Instead they wrote a rule that accepts large bets so long as you are not making those bets to grind through the wagering requirements. If the OP made a couple large bets at the beginning that is not even close to a break in the term. The casino is trying to steal from him. If we are all interpreting it differently then it is the casinos' fault and they need to fix it. But not retroactively. This player should be paid.

 

[Nifty29]

You know what?
You can check your attitude at the door. Do you have to be so smarmy every damn time you post? YOU need some tact and you need it quick. I would like to see you run off at the mouth in person to people like that. It's rude, It's ignorant and you should be embarrassed for doing it so often. Stop being so damn condescending on every post you make. I'm embarrassed for you. Go find some common courtesy please.


.......Back to the matter at hand. How is it bent logic? The rule states EXACTLY THIS WORD FOR WORD:


They wrote it. I didn't. It says what it says. Who gives a flying flip what you or me or anyone THINKS was his intention? He didn't break the rules. Period.

He did not use bets of over 70% of bonus to intentionally clear the bonus until the release of the requirements had been met. He used smaller bets. Now if he would have used large bets to grind through the wager requirements then he would have been guilty. He didn't. He did nothing wrong. Nice player advocate thing you got going on there telling a guy who didn't break a poorly written rule "too bad". Its too bad that you are siding with a casino who is in the wrong. The rules state what they state. If they meant for you to never use a bet of that size they would have simply stated (like every other casino with a max bet rule) "no wagers allowed over 70% of the value of the bonus or you will lose all winnings".
Instead they wrote a rule that accepts large bets so long as you are not making those bets to grind through the wagering requirements. If the OP made a couple large bets at the beginning that is not even close to a break in the term. The casino is trying to steal from him. If we are all interpreting it differently then it is the casinos' fault and they need to fix it. But not retroactively. This player should be paid.

Next time you take a trip to Uranus, you really should remember to book a return ticket.

"He didn't use the bets over 70% to beat the wagering, only the smaller ones". ROFLMAO. I nearly spit coffee all over my keyboard.

 

[gaydave]

Next time you take a trip to Uranus, you really should remember to book a return ticket.

Please stop trolling. Give it a try, you might like not making everyone angry..... Must you troll every thread with this type of insulting venue?

"He didn't use the bets over 70% to beat the wagering, only the smaller ones". ROFLMAO. I nearly spit coffee all over my keyboard.

I didn't say he didn't try to beat the bonus and I didn't say he didn't use 70% bet(s) to do so. That is not what the term says is against the rules. It doesn't say that you cant use 70% bet to try and beat the bonus. You are interpreting.
So clean up your coffee and read the rule again.

"placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

Placing single or multiple betS Plural. More than one.

clearing the bonus until the requirements have been met. Meaning continuously pounding these large bets in order to burn through the wagering requirements then cashing out.

Where in this rule does it say "NOT ONE SINGLE BET of 70% allowed"? Read it over and over. It doesn't say you cant bet it. It says you cant use that type of bet to blow through the wagering requirements then stop. Not one place does it say "no bets of 70% allowed". I am reading it literally and not interpreting what I think they mean. i am taking their written word at face value.

If we are interpreting this to mean different things then the casino needs to rewrite that rule immediately. They also should not penalize a player for following their rules by their words. When I read that in no way do I think that I am not allowed to make a few bets of 70% or more. So long as I am not using it with the intention of blowing through the wagering requirements. That is the literal interpretation of what they put in their rules. Nowhere does it say no betting 70% bets.

 

[jod5413]

Damn, Gaydave,you are a persistent little pissant, aren't you? How you keep coming up with an attitude and totally redundant statements that the rules do not say what the rules say?

Then you turn around and diss other members and treat Max with shear stupidity in your quest to make a point that is not valid? WTF is your problem? Get a life, man.

 

[gaydave]

Damn, Gaydave,you are a persistent little pissant, aren't you? How you keep coming up with an attitude and totally redundant statements that the rules do not say what the rules say?

Then you turn around and diss other members and treat Max with shear stupidity in your quest to make a point that is not valid? WTF is your problem? Get a life, man.

Because Max was rude to me. I am not going to let that slide. He does it too often and needs to show some more tact when he is speaking. Nobody deserves a little attitude like that every time they read a post of his....Just like I am not going to let your little bit of piling on and insulting me pass without telling you that you are making a valid point of mine personal. You have now personally attacked me. Learn some forum etiquette and decency. Nobody insulted you, why do you think it is ok to derail a thread and pile on like that? You have done nothing in the way of fixing this problem of the OP. go get a hobby and you can quit trolling too.

I am the one telling you exactly what the rules say. I have quoted it a million times. Can you show me where it says that you are NEVER allowed to make a 70% bet? it doesn't say that anywhere. So perhaps YOU should stop trying to say that the rule says something that it does not.

 

[Nifty29]

Please stop trolling. Give it a try, you might like not making everyone angry..... Must you troll every thread with this type of insulting venue?



I didn't say he didn't try to beat the bonus and I didn't say he didn't use 70% bet(s) to do so. That is not what the term says is against the rules. It doesn't say that you cant use 70% bet to try and beat the bonus. You are interpreting.
So clean up your coffee and read the rule again.




Placing single or multiple betS Plural. More than one.

clearing the bonus until the requirements have been met. Meaning continuously pounding these large bets in order to burn through the wagering requirements then cashing out.

Where in this rule does it say "NOT ONE SINGLE BET of 70% allowed"? Read it over and over. It doesn't say you cant bet it. It says you cant use that type of bet to blow through the wagering requirements then stop. Not one place does it say "no bets of 70% allowed". I am reading it literally and not interpreting what I think they mean. i am taking their written word at face value.

If we are interpreting this to mean different things then the casino needs to rewrite that rule immediately. They also should not penalize a player for following their rules by their words. When I read that in no way do I think that I am not allowed to make a few bets of 70% or more. So long as I am not using it with the intention of blowing through the wagering requirements. That is the literal interpretation of what they put in their rules. Nowhere does it say no betting 70% bets.

I think you should remind everyone that these comments are coming direct from Uranus.

 

[gaydave]

I think you should remind everyone that these comments are coming direct from Uranus.

Of course I have reported your post for flaming...

and remember when you were standing up in arms trying to tell everyone not to "high five" on the political forum using the "thanks button"?? Oh, I remember. You were telling everyone that it was not intended to be used that way. In your hypocritical haste you went and high fived Jod for calling me a pissant.

both of you are very impressive for these childish snipes. I will be ignoring them in the future and continuing to lobby for these rules to be enforced AS WRITTEN, not as interpreted.

Nifty, as has happened so often with you, you can now add me to the droves that have put you on their ignore list as it is a total waste of time reading any of your posts.

 

[Nifty29]

Of course I have reported your post for flaming...

and remember when you were standing up in arms trying to tell everyone not to "high five" on the political forum using the "thanks button"?? Oh, I remember. You were telling everyone that it was not intended to be used that way. In your hypocritical haste you went and high fived Jod for calling me a pissant.

both of you are very impressive for these childish snipes. I will be ignoring them in the future and continuing to lobby for these rules to be enforced AS WRITTEN, not as interpreted.

Nifty, as has happened so often with you, you can now add me to the droves that have put you on their ignore list as it is a total waste of time reading any of your posts.

I thanked Jod's post because I agreed with the vast majority of it, which is completely acceptable.....it wasn't a high five for calling you a name, just for calling out exactly what you are doing in this thread.

**For the record - thankyou Jod for your useful post EXCEPT the part where you called GAYdave a pissant**

I'm not sure about your flaming angle. I stated earlier that you must be living on Uranus (i.e. your comments were way off the mark), and therefore said that must be where your comments were coming from. I don't see the problem.

So far you have taken shots at myself, Jod and Max...so it's pretty rich to be reporting anyone else for flaming. Mind you, it's a common reaction when someone is so blatantly wrong but isn't mature enough to accept it.

Anyway, I guess I'm wasting my time since I'm on your ignore list now.

 

[silvash39]

There are some accepted standards in the industry.

First Max, Changing some of your attitude wont hurt, good teacher would be Mr Steve Russo from Gambling Grumbles and your boss The CM.

Second I would say, from day one in school grade B 70% was written as 70% and not seventy p... Also as stated here, yes the poor knowledge they have caused to write the opposite, by their lack of simple knowledge they wrote that to clear the bonus you cant bet 70% ha ha ha, this obviously mean the opposite they player probably did, I dont know what exactly he did, probably wanted to keep some air for the high wagering he planned to play with this bonus.

There are some standards in the industry.

Level 1 - Reputable casinos dont have this rule, because they are not stupid, they understand that like in a land casino when somebody come to play let him play, there is table limit, you cant confuse him with more, it is gambling, when you feel it coming you want to bet more, sometimes you want to play bunker, different skills of player to manage their money and bonuses, the casino understand they will lose on some players, so what , we are smart, sure of ourselves and we know those player, pro player or average skill one will give us good reputation, like people sit in your restaurant not ordering a lot but the fact they sit there bring more clients, look what happened to the Manager of Party and his casino, I am not sure he is happy to read this thread

Level 2 - We are smaller casinos, cant suffer those players, they do the following, first they limit the games, like Allslots, Clubworld, Oneclubcasino, Vegas partnerlounge casino, SOmetimes Circus and many more, They limit the games so you cant bet more and also add in the terms, but not general terms, PROMOTION TERMS. General terms are to be enforced aganst fraudsters not bonus player which is actually almost any player


Level 3 - Rogue, evasive, stupid, should be condemned and never supported casinos, put things connected to promotion in general terms in order to enforce them, write nonsense like Party

Party casino should pay this player.

 

[Nifty29]

There are some accepted standards in the industry.

First Max, Changing some of your attitude wont hurt, good teacher would be Mr Steve Russo from Gambling Grumbles and your boss The CM.

Second I would say, from day one in school grade B 70% was written as 70% and not seventy p... Also as stated here, yes the poor knowledge they have caused to write the opposite, by their lack of simple knowledge they wrote that to clear the bonus you cant bet 70% ha ha ha, this obviously mean the opposite they player probably did, I dont know what exactly he did, probably wanted to keep some air for the high wagering he planned to play with this bonus.

There are some standards in the industry.

Level 1 - Reputable casinos dont have this rule, because they are not stupid, they understand that like in a land casino when somebody come to play let him play, there is table limit, you cant confuse him with more, it is gambling, when you feel it coming you want to bet more, sometimes you want to play bunker, different skills of player to manage their money and bonuses, the casino understand they will lose on some players, so what , we are smart, sure of ourselves and we know those player, pro player or average skill one will give us good reputation, like people sit in your restaurant not ordering a lot but the fact they sit there bring more clients, look what happened to the Manager of Party and his casino, I am not sure he is happy to read this thread

Level 2 - We are smaller casinos, cant suffer those players, they do the following, first they limit the games, like Allslots, Clubworld, Oneclubcasino, Vegas partnerlounge casino, SOmetimes Circus and many more, They limit the games so you cant bet more and also add in the terms, but not general terms, PROMOTION TERMS. General terms are to be enforced aganst fraudsters not bonus player which is actually almost any player


Level 3 - Rogue, evasive, stupid, should be condemned and never supported casinos, put things connected to promotion in general terms in order to enforce them, write nonsense like Party

Party casino should pay this player.

OMG.

So you are saying because the casino wrote "seventy" instead of "70" they should hold this player to different rules than everyone else? I don't see a swathe of posts from other players who were 'caught' by this same term. In fact, no one has even presented one from any other forum for that matter.

The OP didn't do his homework, and broke the terms because he didn't know what the terms were because he didn't read them properly.

You also have a gall to use your first post to take a shot at the moderator....and even more so when you only signed up to CM to take advantage of the free PAB service!! Talk about rude. Max has done a lot of good work for a lot of people (not all of them good either) and I think he has every right to have an 'attitude' towards players who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[silvash39]

Nifty, this is not what I said, it is part of what said, what said is that the whole idea as a whole picture is not right, read again. Your assumptions might be right sometimes that a lack of skill player would have been paid, or a more of a regular kind of player, but Nifty, when you played with a bonus before did not you play to win , do you think in your game history I would not find some issues with some of the terms, this is not the way things work, read again my post, everybody who have some respect would agree to my Levels distrubition, if you do not agree tell me why, do not just take one sentence and throw your words

 

[maxd]

You know what? You can check your attitude at the door. ....

That's not "attitude", that's being sick of your relentlessly bogus attempts to re-write the history of this case and invent circumstances whereby you end up blaming Bryan and I for somehow not doing our job.

If you can't take the criticism then I suggest you refrain from dishing it out so liberally.

And with that I think this thread needs a time-out: folks are becoming increasingly uncool over this.

 

[maxd]

Hello everyone,

As most of you are probably aware I closed this thread over the weekend. I did this because it had degenerated into a series of personal attacks and insults which had nothing to do with the issues at hand. It seemed pretty clear to me that the thread needed a "time out", meaning a temporary closure to give people a chance to chill out a bit. Hopefully they've done that by now.

The OP has come forward and requested that the thread be re-opened so he could post further on his topic. No problem, I will now do so now, but it will only remain open as long as the discussion is civil and remains focused on the issue(s) related to the case at hand. If it degenerates into cheap shots and flaming again I fully expect that it will be closed again and probably permanently.

Regards,
Max.

 

[ksech]

IMO, the OP took and twisted that particle Term to fit his/her benefit. If you LOOK at the COMPLETE T&C you will notice this...

9.2 Your use of any real money bonuses is subject to Our review for irregular playing patterns. To ensure fair gaming and the proper use of bonuses, We consider low margin betting, equal betting, zero risk bets or hedge betting to be irregular gaming when deployed to exploit bonuses. Further examples of irregular playing patterns also include, but are not limited to: (i) placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; (ii) if We have good grounds to suspect you have attempted to use a bonus contrary to the spirit of the Promotional offering; (iii) if We have good grounds to suspect that you have sought only to exploit a bonus offered by Us in good faith to enhance your entertainment (for example, the acceptance of a bonus, the wagering the minimum amount and immediately withdrawing the funds). In the event that We deem that an irregular playing pattern has taken place, We reserve the right to prevent you from cashing out Account funds and/or withhold any of Your winnings derived from Your use of the bonus.


What difference does 70% or seventy percent make, they both MEAN THE SAME THING! Okay, so this was in the general T&Cs BUT...

1.1 The terms contained in this document (Standard Promotional Terms) apply to all promotional offers available through Our Platforms (each a Promotion) and, together with any applicable specific promotional terms, which may also be referred to as "Key Terms", set out on the individual web landing page for the relevant Promotion (Specific Promotional Terms) and Our Terms and Conditions of Use, Loyalty Program Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy (collectively, the Rules), form a legal agreement between You and Us and can only be amended with Our consent. By participating in any Promotion, You are indicating You accept and agree to be bound by the Rules.

1.3 In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between these Standard Promotional Terms, any applicable Specific Promotional Terms and the Terms and Conditions of Use, the Specific Promotional Terms shall prevail, followed by these Standard Promotional Terms, but only to the extent necessary to resolve such conflict or inconsistency.

Go read ANY bonus T&C from ANY casino/group and the majority will state...
If there are any ambiguous terms in the bonus T&Cs then they will revert to the general T&Cs. So, in essence, they are telling you to make sure you not only understand the promo T&Cs, but the general T&Cs as well.

In my opinion, the OP shouldn't be paid. If the casino pays them, then by rights they should pay every player past/present/future for mis-interpreting this plainly stated clause. It all boils down to responsibility of the players actions. You make an electronic agreement when you sign-up. It is YOUR responsibility to read the T&Cs and make sure YOU understand them.

(Thanks Max for re-opening this thread...)

 

[The Dude]

Admin Warning - flaming

Okay kids - daddy's back. I've dished out a number of warnings/spankings so far in this thread; let's be cool from now on. Thanks!

I did read the terms and condition and to be honest I missed that term, The promotion terms were ok to handle but the general terms were long and I probably missed it, now I can see their general terms actually put you on a no win situation as for almost anything they can blame you of bonus abuse...

Even though I sympathize with this, the bottom line is that the terms were broken. Failure to read and understand is not an excuse. If you do not like or agree to any bonus term and condition, then don't participate at that casino - or just don't accept the bonus.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

If this player was a genuine player who read the bonus terms, skimmed over the general terms and failed to see the 70% because it said 'seventy percent', then I have to say this is a very unfortunate situation.

The thing is I really think Party are about fifty percent culpable for not putting such an important piece of information into the bonus terms instead of the general. Yes the player made a really bad mistake but I don't think it's right the casino should benefit from poorly set out terms.

I do feel really sorry for this guy if he is a genuine player. It would be really interesting if he were able to say how he came to bet over the 70% and when it happened.

I thought a term like this was in to catch people who had done it deliberately not accidently. If it's a 'catch all' situation that seems very harsh to me.

The reason I have been interested in this case is last year I got a payment around this size off an accredited casino after accidently breaking their terms. What happened was that they had the term 'double or nothing bets not allowed'. I was playing video poker and misclicked and hit the double of nothing two or three times as it was near the collect button. Luckily they paid me but technically that was a term violation and if it is a case of break the terms and you won't get paid then I would have been stuffed.

Unlucky OP - we all make mistakes. Seems too harsh to me though unless there are 'other reasons' at play.

 

[Nifty29]

It would be really interesting if he were able to say how he came to bet over the 70% and when it happened.

Max - is it possible you can verify if the player placed large bets at the beginning, so we can at least settle the question of whether he is a 'genuine player' (whatever that means).

If he did, then I can't see how anyone could argue that his 'intent' was anything other than to beat the wagering requirements.....which seems to be a sticking point for those who believe he 'didn't break the rules'.

 

[maxd]

Max - is it possible you can verify if the player placed large bets at the beginning, so we can at least settle the question of whether he is a 'genuine player' (whatever that means).

I'm talking to the Party's people about this, about how much we can discuss about what we know. Since their policy is officially "eCOGRA and eCOGRA only" it's not as easy as you might think.

 

[zanzibar]

All I'm seeing here is a lot of uninformed flaming from people who don't know the necessary facts. He could very well have used the bonus as leverage to bet big right from the start, in which case the casino could argue he broke their vague rule (more on that below). People saying "it's obvious that's what he did" are just talking out of their arse though. They might be correct in their assumption, but its not because they have any insight or evidence to back that claim up.

I can think of a couple ways he could have made these large bets without breaking the term:

- Wagering requirements were completed (we know he wagered much more than was necessary) and he placed larger bets afterwards.

- He could have been using a Martingale and the large bet was placed as a consequence of losing a few bets in a row. Even if this was done before WR was completed it would be clear why the large bet was placed if his previous ones indicated a progression.

According to the terms the 70% breach only applies if the intention was to "clear the bonus until the release requirements have been met". The player could argue that under a progression betting system the "intent" of a large bet is to recover losses. Assuming the large bet won and the following bet was back to the minimum amount in their progression they would have a strong argument.

Aside from that I would like to know how anyone other than the player can know the player's "intent", other than to place a winning bet. Intent is a vague and subjective term in this case, and it leaves the contract open to wide interpretation. Furthermore it is not clear if the 70% applies to the original bonus amount, or the amount remaining after a few losses. It is not even clear to me that the term excludes the aggregate of all bets placed on a single game - i.e. if I received a $100 bonus and played 8 hands of $10 blackjack, have I breached the rule? Don't tell me what you think it means, read what it says (particularly the bit about "multiple bets") and tell me that it cannot be interpreted that way:

(i) placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met;

For whoever asked, a better term would be "You may not place a total bet on one spin/hand/game of more than seventy percent (70%) of the original bonus amount awarded until the bonus wagering requirements have been met." Simple, definitive and unambiguous. We can only speculate as to why this term is so vague, and why they don't just program the bet limit into the software (yes I am a programmer and yes it should be simple to do as they already limit the playable games on bonuses).

Without knowing when the bets were placed and how much they were for, no-one here can say for sure whether the player breached the term or not, no matter how strongly they flame. Only Party, the player, and presumably eCOGRA knows for sure.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

I'm talking to the Party's people about this, about how much we can discuss about what we know. Since their policy is officially "eCOGRA and eCOGRA only" it's not as easy as you might think.

This was all I was asking for from the beginning, that the gameplay gets looked at to see if the player was using big bets to gain advantage or if there was some other explanation.

Zanzibar's post is brilliant as it summarises many of the questions I have raised throughout the thread.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

Max - is it possible you can verify if the player placed large bets at the beginning, so we can at least settle the question of whether he is a 'genuine player' (whatever that means).

If he did, then I can't see how anyone could argue that his 'intent' was anything other than to beat the wagering requirements.....which seems to be a sticking point for those who believe he 'didn't break the rules'.

Nifty IMO from the start you have never understood what this thread is actually about. I do think it would be a good idea to re read the whole thread from the start.

Max said there was no need to look at the OP's play because his claim was rejected simply because he broke the 70% rule. Apparantly the ruling was if you break the rule you won't get paid. It makes no difference if you are an advantage player or a genuine one.

All along I have been arguing that it to me seems very unfair if a genuine player falls foul of this term through either a) getting their maths wrong betting 235 say when only 231 is allowed or b) selecting the wrong sized chips and betting too much by accident.

Right from post one it has never been about advantage play or a genuine player because Max said he never reviewed the gameplay.

The argument is about a number of people - Max, you Jod etc who think it's OK for players not to get payment if they have violated a term for any reason be it deliberate or accidental.

I happen to think denying all payment even if you break the terms accidently is overly harsh and is too favourable to the casino. I personally don't think that is ethical especially when the terms are not that clearly displayed or worded.

FWIW I can understand why Party don't want the gamelogs publicly seen, a point I made many pages ago. Obviously they don't want to be giving fraudsters any ideas etc etc. I only asked Max to look at the gameplay and give a ruling as to whether the player was genuine or an advantage player. I think we should trust Max on this and not make the gameplay public.

Really I have no opinion on whether this guy is genuine or not.

But if another player comes along who is genuine, wins €5K but for example gets payment refused because they accidently did a double or nothing gamble when double or nothing bets are disallowed then this is a pretty sad state of affairs.

But that appears to be the current situation.

 

[maxd]

The argument is about a number of people - Max, you Jod etc who think it's OK for players not to get payment if they have violated a term for any reason be it deliberate or accidental.

I remind you that we are in good company on this:

... the bottom line is that the terms were broken. Failure to read and understand is not an excuse.

I think our position on this a lot closer to the norm than you've implied.

 

[Nifty29]

All I'm seeing here is a lot of uninformed flaming from people

People saying "it's obvious that's what he did" are just talking out of their arse though

No hypocrisy there at least.

Zanzibar's post is brilliant

Absolutely.

It's a brilliant example of why regular recreational players have to jump through a million hoops these days and why there are more rules than you can poke a stick at in the first place. It's also a brilliant example of the ol' advantage player MO of fabricating 'alternative' definitions to muddy the waters just enough to make the OP (or themselves) look like the victim, when in fact it was their own failure to read and understand the terms that created the situation in the first place.

In my experience, it doesn't seem to matter how casinos write their terms - there will always be bonus scum around to argue that it 'could mean something else' or 'it wasn't clear enough'......even though 99 out of 100 players seem to understand and abide by it.

If the OP broke the rule accidentally, then it is up to the casino to cut him slack if they feel so inclined. Imagine if casinos said "oh well, you bet more than 70% of your bonus but you told us it was an accident so here's your cash".....what do you think every advantage player in town is going to do? Lay down one or two big bets and claim it was an 'accident' of course!. The rule is there for a reason - to deter bonus scums from taking casinos to the cleaners - so if you're going to try it, better do your homework.

Even if Party don't release the info we have asked for, one fact remains - the OP ain't getting a cent. I don't usually feel good about players not being paid, but when it comes to those who break the rules that the rest of us are happy to play under, it doesn't faze me at all.

 

[The Dude]

There are a lot of good points being made here - but I need to clarify one thing:

Like I said here:

... the bottom line is that the terms were broken. Failure to read and understand is not an excuse.

Then it is the casino's prerogative to pay the player. I've seen countless times, and it's already been mentioned in this thread, that casinos do pay players even though the player had broken some term and condition. It happens all the time. So if the casino values this player, then they would have probably paid this guy already. Apparently they don't value his participation.

Let me remind you this isn't some small mom-and-pop casino, these guys have deep enough pockets to pay whomever whatever. So I take it he's an advantage player who is getting tossed to the wind.

That's the risk when you advantage play - just sayin.'

 

[Tengil]

There are a lot of good points being made here - but I need to clarify one thing:

Like I said here:

Then it is the casino's prerogative to pay the player. I've seen countless times, and it's already been mentioned in this thread, that casinos do pay players even though the player had broken some term and condition. It happens all the time. So if the casino values this player, then they would have probably paid this guy already. Apparently they don't value his participation.

Let me remind you this isn't some small mom-and-pop casino, these guys have deep enough pockets to pay whomever whatever. So I take it he's an advantage player who is getting tossed to the wind.

That's the risk when you advantage play - just sayin.'

They also sometimes confiscate your winnings even if you follow the rules and play slots. xhttp://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/partycasino-not-paying-winning-c250 there are many more similar stories around the net.
Would never play there myself.
So whatever the OP actually broke the rule by constantly betting too much or not Party most likely wouldnt have paid anyway.

Plus Partycasino doesnt pay progressives in full.

 

[gaydave]

There are a lot of good points being made here - but I need to clarify one thing:

Like I said here:

Then it is the casino's prerogative to pay the player. I've seen countless times, and it's already been mentioned in this thread, that casinos do pay players even though the player had broken some term and condition. It happens all the time. So if the casino values this player, then they would have probably paid this guy already. Apparently they don't value his participation.

Let me remind you this isn't some small mom-and-pop casino, these guys have deep enough pockets to pay whomever whatever. So I take it he's an advantage player who is getting tossed to the wind.

That's the risk when you advantage play - just sayin.'

so if you try to win they should have the option of paying you? Because if you try to win then you are an advantage player if a bonus is involved. Everyone is an advantage player if they take a bonus and try to win with it.


anyways... going back to Zanzibar's post. The rule is being interpreted by everyone. Everyone is going by what they think is meant rather than what the words actually say, as Zanzibar pointed out nicely and I have been trying to.

Literally reading the words
"(i) placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met;"

My understanding of those words is that 70% bets are fine so long as you are not trying to clear the bonus by using these bets repeatedly. To put it in other words (since some do not understand what I am saying) I am reading it to say something similar to this:
"(i) placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game continually until you have blown through the wager requirements is not allowed"

I think that because it says "with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met".... so it is like saying betting big so thatl you meet the wager requirements, then stopping....
it is so ambiguous and poorly written that others must be thinking the same thing when reading it at times. I see where others read it differently than how I interpret it. That is the biggest problem - it NEEDS to be interpreted because it is nonsenical UNLESS YOU ARE interpreting it. Besides the fact that it isnt in their bonus rules.
In their general rules if it says that I can play any game that I like in the casino does that over ride the bonus rules? It is just a mess and I think it is the casinos fault. I know they would lose this in a court of law.