Bonus Complaint Party casino not paying because of Terms violations!

Not paying a big winner full winnings should be the last last measure to treat a player when a clear fraud is being involved.

Warning about WPT without adding the same casino Party and Gamebookers are legitimate points to your taste can comment on that as well ?

Yes, I said I think Max is tired of this due to many cases of player fraud and that he looks not objective from his style, whats wrong with that ?

It is not only the style, the way Max decide is based on Terms and condition only, for this we don't need a human being, we can put a software to compare, not every term is there to apply it, when you add rogue behaviour by same Manager, when you add the circumstances here of extra play the player played, when you add the fact I see the attack the player gets by Max by saying of course he forgot that and obviously they judged against him in Ecogra, who also suffer from the same problem of looking in the terms and once you breach one in the general terms....

This kind of rule should be at the promotion terms, Max and Casinomeister agree with me on that, this was already discussed in Palace group thread.

You must agree with me that this is not the way complaints should be handle, it can't be right if you think Terms and condition are the only way to decide whether to pay or not , this can't be right, common sense should be used and when I see cases like that , that is very obvious to me the Casino just tried his best to find a reason not to pay I say that Max deicsion is not the right one in my stupid way but I am still right and you are wrong here, Player should be paid part of his winnings at this case.

The player wagered more than 60,000-80,000 in Roulette if I understand well which 40,000 was above wagering, whats the big deal to pay him half of his winnings and then the casino avoid the bad publicity and my stupid post, what is the big deal ?? what did he do bet some bets above what general terms mentioned, look how many cases of non pay they put there, it is impossible to win and get paid, even somebody who wager 60,000-even 100,000 wagering for couple of hundreds wgering cant be paid so where are we here ??????

The comments about Virtual group were just to show how unsatisfied I was with Palace at that time, to compare them to Virtual and say they are better make the job I think, in the points I mentioed they were better at that time of post.

you all attack me while the Casino Manager should be attack for his behaviour not paying, how would he feel if it was him, anybody of you here broke a term in general terms, give me your cashouts and how you all played and I will find for you the term you broke, I can assure you I will find for all of you here a term not to pay all your winnings ever with and without a bonus, I will find one trust me
 
Last edited:
Max, dont get hurt, I am not trying to hurt your feelings, but I strongly feel you developed hate to players who submit pitch a bitches and complaints about casinos.

This hate and unpleasant EMails and thread is bold and can't be missed.

Look at your style and try to understand what I mean.

There is a poor player here, it is quite obvious the term was hidden look how long their general terms are, look how you write the of course... of course of course


The style and way you reply show you just tired of dealing with unpaid players and you come with a strong taste when you start to deal with complaints.

I am not going to change you but seriously, you might be a great person but dealing with complaints is not for you.


This is something Casinoemster should read my words and decide, I am sure he can feel the same, not feeling it means you are human being without feelings.

I am very sorry max but in this case the player is really poor and you shouldnt treay him like that even if you know how much fraud there is and the amount of fraud you and casinomeister have to deal with that brought you to that hostile attitute

The only of course I would add, is that OF COUSE THE PLAYER SHOULD SEE PART OF HIS MONEY, MAYBE HALF OF WINNINGS DERIVED FROM HIS DEPOSIT, THIS IS THE ONLY FAIR RESOLUTION

Since he wagered 40,000 more, thats huge amount, I am not against you, I just think you should read my words and think again and hopefully change your decision.

Not paying anything is bad practice, bad decision, bet people, bad casino no matter how much fraud they have to deal with

This post of yours, oren1976, is so totally out of line, I am surprised you have any good reputation left. I want to know just who you think YOU are to actually post garbage like this. It certainly will not make you look like anything other than a piss poor piece of crap to most of the members here.

If it was up to me, you would have your membership yanked here in a New York minute. If you have such nasty feelings about Max and this forum, do us all a favor and leave. And do not let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Oh, I would also like to say, your posts are so illiterate and misspelled, it makes me wonder if you ever learned anything in school over the years. Another idiot, folks. Never too many of them.

Anyone who thinks he is out of line, feel free to hand him a neg rep. He deserves it.
 
Not paying a big winner full winnings should be the last last measure to treat a player when a clear fraud is being involved.

Warning about WPT without adding the same casino Party and Gamebookers are legitimate points to your taste can comment on that as well ?

Yes, I said I think Max is tired of this due to many cases of player fraud and that he looks not objective from his style, whats wrong with that ?

It is not only the style, the way Max decide is based on Terms and condition only, for this we don't need a human being, we can put a software to compare, not every term is there to apply it, when you add rogue behaviour by same Manager, when you add the circumstances here of extra play the player played, when you add the fact I see the attack the player gets by Max by saying of course he forgot that and obviously they judged against him in Ecogra, who also suffer from the same problem of looking in the terms and once you breach one in the general terms....

This kind of rule should be at the promotion terms, Max and Casinomeister agree with me on that, this was already discussed in Palace group thread.

You must agree with me that this is not the way complaints should be handle, it can't be right if you think Terms and condition are the only way to decide whether to pay or not , this can't be right, common sense should be used and when I see cases like that , that is very obvious to me the Casino just tried his best to find a reason not to pay I say that Max deicsion is not the right one in my stupid way but I am still right and you are wrong here, Player should be paid part of his winnings at this case.

Yeah...what the heck.

Why have rules at all?

Let's just change it so that the casino manager decides if he is going to pay each withdrawal, based on whether he is in a good mood or whether the player has 'made him mad' :rolleyes:

You see, Oren, the minute you bend the rules for one you have to do it for everyone....and so the whole idea of having rules is pointless.

If it's OK to for 99.9% of players to read, understand, and follow such rules then why should an exception be made for the other 0.1% who couldn't be arsed to do the same?

In regards to this particular issue, I would reckon that the OP staked his entire balance on the first couple of bets to make a nice bankroll - which is exactly what this rule is there to prevent. Anyone who has played roulette online would know that every casino has a similar rule, and the OP doesn't sound like a newb to me.

You obviously visit the advantage player forums Oren, which is fine and there is nothing wrong with that kind of play IMO, as long as it is within the rules. Advantage players know their style of play places them at higher risk of confiscation of winnings, so when it happens they need to cop it on the chin and stop wasting their time convincing others to feel sorry for them......advantage players are the reason there are so many rules to begin with, so I for one won't be losing any sleep.
 
... the way Max decide is based on Terms and condition only ....

Really? You have detailed insight into a large number of PAB cases do you? You've seen and recorded the discussions between Bryan and I on many of the cases that pass through the PAB section? You are somehow privy to the details of the 1000+ cases I've handled? You personally know that the 100s of players who've received close to $1M specifically because of my work on their PABs are secretly dissatisfied with that money and/or the outcome of their cases? Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical here.

What I can say is that your friend's case was decided on the basis of the Terms because (a) he was totally clueless about them (said the 70% rule wasn't there and then sent me a snapshot of exactly that rule) and (b) he was in clear violation of those Terms on several counts. I'm sorry but that puts him on the losing end of his dispute right from the get-go.

And since we're questioning the basis of how to settle PAB cases I'll (rhetorically) ask what exactly one should use if you are going to ignore the Terms? Numerology? Horoscopes? The number of children one has? The state of granny's health? Again, I think not.

Terms are there because they are the contract of service between a player and a casino. Certainly they are among the first things we look at when delving into a case but they often don't settle the issue so other things need to be taken into account, not that examining the Terms is quite the mindless process you seem to think it is. There's a whole segment of the legal profession called "contract law" that wouldn't exist if what you say were even remotely true.

Finally if you feel you or someone you know are better qualified to do my job than I am I encourage this candidate to submit their resumé to Bryan. Then you'll know won't you? Maybe you (or they) will get lucky and be the next person on the receiving end of spurious attempts to discredit you and your work. Good luck with that! :thumbsup:
 
Thanks for all the comments, does anybody know any personal Email in Party that can help in this regard to get paid at least part of my winnings or anybody can help me with that, I feel they did wrong to me and also as people mentioned here?
 
Thanks for all the comments, does anybody know any personal Email in Party that can help in this regard to get paid at least part of my winnings or anybody can help me with that, I feel they did wrong to me and also as people mentioned here?

You are probably out of luck.

Both the casino and eCogra believed you played to beat the bonus, so met the criteria for the conditional clause in the term. Max also believes the casino acted within the scope of this term. It is unlikely that you will make much further progress with this unless you can prove that you did NOT seek to play for the bonus, but are normally a player who bets high.

In bonus rules, it is best to assume that "may" means "we WILL", and that conditional terms should be considered to act with the worst possible interpretation.

In this case, forget the conditional clause, and assume that a bet of 70% of the bonus balance is an ABSOLUTE rule, no matter what the circumstances.

This is a common term, so make sure you look for it before playing, and don't believe any bonus that appears to have no rules or restrictions - it just means you haven't found the catch, so best find it BEFORE you find out the hard way when you try to withdraw.

Although you can appeal to eCogra, very few appeals succeed, and those that do are often the result of mistakes having been made in the initial arguments for the ruling.

The only remaining option is to complain to the licensing jurisdiction, but these vary in quality, and few are worth the bother. This is where you may get a partial settlement, as happened with a player vs Casino Rewards, where despite the term having been violated, it was ruled that it was poorly placed on the website, and was thus unclear. That player was awarded half their winnings by Kahnawake, and the casino was told to make the term easier to find when taking a bonus & reading the promotional terms.

Emailing the casino will not get you anywhere. They have made their decision, and both eCogra and Max agree that they made the right one.
 
Terms are there because they are the contract of service between a player and a casino. Certainly they are among the first things we look at when delving into a case but they often don't settle the issue so other things need to be taken into account, not that examining the Terms is quite the mindless process you seem to think it is. There's a whole segment of the legal profession called "contract law" that wouldn't exist if what you say were even remotely true.

Max it's interesting you bring up contract law with regards to this case because in the UK in the 1970's a series of cases connected with car parks established that to be enforcable an important term had to be in big writing where someone could see it. In other words if someone put 'any vechicle left for five minutes without a valid ticket will be subject to a fine of £100' in small writing on a sign in the corner it was deemed to be unenforceable. This became known as the 'red hand rule' - if it was a really important term it should be in red ink and have a big hand pointing at it. I think this legal concept was established by Lord Denning.

I think the important thing in this case is was the 70% clause clearly displayed where the player could see and understand it? Or was it buried half way down in the terms?

I do think it's about time all major softwares develop a bonus screen with the terms clearly displayed like for example RIVAL do.

If casinos want to rely on terms in a very narrow legalistic way then that's fine but it's a bit pathetic when they seek to enforce them in a way which is contrary to the established practise of contract law, at least in the UK. Ofcourse I can't speak for Gibralter or wherever Party base themselves lol. And as they have ECogra to act as judge and jury then these failings will never get addressed.

A number of you seem very willing to write the OP off without knowing any of the facts of the case, something which seems to be a familiar tendancy round here. There is a world of difference between a full balance bet at the start and martingale progression betting. Also the player could have got ahead and simply raised his bets while on a gambling rush.

Yes the player may be an abusive player who slapped on a full bet balance. But then he did deposit more than the minimum amount required for the bonus. And he played the extra 40K and it appears the terms weren't that clear in the first place.

There is no point trying to call this one since we don't have the gameplay and really the PAB process wants to keep this confidential.

But surely the point is why should we as players put up with such crap layout of these maximum bet clauses? The minimum we should expect is that they should be very clear and in big letters. Instead we often get a small sentance buried halfway down a page.

It really is about time this industry improved their display of bonus terms. If RIVAL can do it in a clear manner then why can't everyone else???
 
A number of you seem very willing to write the OP off without knowing any of the facts of the case, something which seems to be a familiar tendancy round here. There is a world of difference between a full balance bet at the start and martingale progression betting. Also the player could have got ahead and simply raised his bets while on a gambling rush.

The thing in this case is that the player has stated that he did violate T&C, but he wants to "get some of his winnings" because he thinks that the T&C is unfair.

I really don`t understand why people would speak in his favor.


To make it clear again, he has STATED to have violated the rules.

From his first post:

."..not pay 8000 in winnings for couple of bets that were above the 70%"
 
A number of you seem very willing to write the OP off without knowing any of the facts of the case, something which seems to be a familiar tendancy round here. There is a world of difference between a full balance bet at the start and martingale progression betting. Also the player could have got ahead and simply raised his bets while on a gambling rush.

Yes the player may be an abusive player who slapped on a full bet balance. But then he did deposit more than the minimum amount required for the bonus. And he played the extra 40K and it appears the terms weren't that clear in the first place
.

We know the ONLY important fact in this case - the player placed a bet higher than the allowed amount.

Whether he bet it all the beginning or at the end or whatever (I think we can assume it was the former), he still broke the rule. I don't see any other complaints here about other players not noticing the 70% rule, and nobody has mentioned any from other sources, so obviously everyone else had no problems reading the terms before they played.

It is also clear that the OP isn't playing roulette online for the very first time, so they would be aware that there are always restrictions on this game when a bonus is involved that varies from one casino to the next. The advantage players I know of in this forum are very studious when it comes to reading all the terms before playing, as they know they will lose the lot if they break one.

This is not a case of winnings being denied based on 'advantage play', even though it was the obvious intention of the OP to engage in such play. It is about a breach of a specific term which is completely unambiguous and not open to any misinterpretation. How much the OP wagered is irrelevant, as he may not have had that balance available to wager had he not broken the rule in the first place by placing a large bet/s....the fruit of the poisonous tree if you will.

Advantage play is a risky business, as shown by the numerous PABs that most of the advantage players have, and it can be costly when one doesn't do their homework properly. Max and Bryan have stated publicly many times that they have nothing against advantage play as long as it is within the terms, but in this case it wasn't so I don't see why we can't just accept the 'umpire's decision' here and stop giving the OP false hope.
 
Max it's interesting you bring up contract law ....

No offense but you appear to be willfully taking what I said out of context. I mentioned contract law in my attempt to demonstrate the deep flaw in oren1976's suggestion that enforcing Terms is a mechanical and essentially mindless process. I specifically did not suggest that we should all go fishing for obscure and unrelated legal decisions in an attempt to justify the OP's actions, which I believe is essentially what you are doing here.

I mean seriously, I'll bet someone could find a law that said all contracts need to be presented to the village druid at the ceremony of the dancing geese before they can be considered binding. I'd say that has no more relevance to our discussion that some 70's ruling on signs in parking lots.

If casinos want to rely on terms in a very narrow legalistic way ....

I suspect that for the most part you are looking at the wrong end of the beast here. In my experience the casino's are being forced into relying on detailed Terms because of player's attempts to bend, fold and mutilate anything and everything that looks like a loop-hole in order to gain an advantage over the casinos. I'm not saying the players are necessarily wrong in doing so, but I am saying the casinos are being drawn into the arms race over Terms as much or more than they are willfully pursuing them. For the most part we live in an age where people do what they are forced to do rather than doing what is "right" because of the moral goodness of doing so: I believe it's a bit short-sighted to blame anyone involved for looking to "the rules" as a means to bring some order to that chaos.

A number of you seem very willing to write the OP off without knowing any of the facts of the case, something which seems to be a familiar tendancy round here.

:confused: What "facts" do you think are being missed? Player doesn't read (or doesn't understand) the Terms, player breaks the Terms, player openly admits to having not read and subsequently breaking the Terms, player complains that the Terms didn't reach out and grab him by the collar in order to make themselves known to him. And the missing part is ...? Please do share your special insights into this case with us. On the other hand if you're just here to take a poke at us and our those of our membership whom you seem to have a beef with (as seems to be the case) then you can keep that bit to yourself, IMHO.


There is no point trying to call this one since we don't have the gameplay and really the PAB process wants to keep this confidential.

:confused: :confused: Say what? No offense DG but you're starting to talk out of your arse here. We're not trying to suppress anything in this case nor do I see how we would gain by doing so. As I've said more than once in this thread the process of my decision making in the case went as follows:
  • I receive player's complaint.
  • I contact eCOGRA to see what their decision had been based on which was largely (but not solely) the 70% restriction.
  • The player says "there was no such Term" and sends me a snapshot of the T&Cs where there very much was such a Term.
  • I tell the player he screwed up, quote him the relevant bits, and it's case closed AFAIC.

Where in there is the conspiracy to suppress information or whatever it is you are trying to insinuate we are doing?

I suggest to you that you are entirely missing the point here. It's not about gameplay or any other minutia of the player's activity. It's about not reading the Terms, which the player has amply demonstrated AND ADMITTED they did not. How more clear-cut do you need this to be? Forget the subtleties, the issue here couldn't be more black-and-white if you tried.

But surely the point is why should we as players put up with such crap layout of these maximum bet clauses? The minimum we should expect is that they should be very clear and in big letters. Instead we often get a small sentance buried halfway down a page.

This is basically bullshit. Because of the nature of the Terms there are many of them. The OP was fully aware of them because he took snapshots of the lot and emailed them to me. So at the very least he certainly cared enough about them to send them as evidence in his case. If that clause is "buried" because it is in the middle of a page then would it have been any more or less "buried" if it had been near the top, or bottom. Are the clauses progressively more "buried" as they appear further down? So then all Terms have "buried" clauses by the simple fact that the clauses don't all appear at the top?

Clearly this is a ridiculous train of thought but so too is the suggestion that the casino maliciously tried to hide or obscure anything. Whether you like it or not the player went to the casino, skimmed over the Terms and then said "Yes, I agree to your Terms", and promptly proceeded to break them.

No one is forcing that player to play at that casino: if there was something about the Terms that troubled the player he could have and, it would seem, should have walked away. Saying later "yeah but I didn't actually read the Terms because they were too hard/long/confusing/not in big enough print" is just crap. If the player thinks he needs bigger print then he can make his font bigger. But that wouldn't have helped much would it because he didn't read them in the first place!

A wise man said "there are none so blind as those who will not see". I reckon that applies in spades here. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Max thanks for the very detailed reply.

When I said 'There is no point trying to call this one since we don't have the gameplay and really the PAB process wants to keep this confidential' - I was merely stating fact, that the PAB process is confidential and I can understand why the details of the exact gameplay would not be made public. I am not really sure why you interpreted this so negatively. I was merely stating what the process is not making any accusation.

All I was saying is I won't call a case against another player without being privvy to the information, that's all. I never said the player was guilty or not guilty, advantage or non advantage. Nor did I ever say anything negative about the the PAB process. Also FWIW I consider Party to be an excellent company and one of the best overall.

I was just looking at the situation from a personal perspective as I think it's an interesting case. And having studied contract law to degree standard I know that things are rarely as straightforward as they seem. But then I am looking at it from UK terms and not Gibralter which could be quite different.

On the facts of this case if they player admitted they didn't read any of the terms and conditions then it's important to look at the gameplay to see if breaching this term gained the player a matieral advantage. I would argue if it didn't and it was a genuine accident then the player should be paid in full or at least a large proportion of it.

If the player was claiming he had not seen their term and it was not that obvious ie buried then under UK law he would have a fair case. For one thing a contract is split into conditions and terms. If you break a condition it is likely to be breach of contract but breaking a term will not necessarily lead to a breach of contract. So if this 70% rule was not clearly stated and in a group of other terms then you could argue it was a term and not a condition.

Legally speaking if the guy could prove it was an accidental breach rather than an intentional breach then the legal principal of equity would mean it would be wholly unfair on the player to claim breach of contract.

If it went before a UK court say and the player claimed he hadn't seen the term and broke it accidently with a couple of bets then they might look at it and give him say 80% which would be broadly fair.

If say the player did a couple of full balance bets at the start and all his other winnings were a result of that then it would also be fair to remove all his winnings. Which brings me to the point I made yesterday about not wanting to pass judgement without more of the facts.

Really the nuts and bolts of it boil down to two things as ever. Either the guy was an advantage player type who was doing a lot of big balance betting, or he was a normal player who just fell foul of this 70% term.

If he was an advantage player and he broke the term deliberately then we all know he can't expect to get paid. But what if he isn't? What if he failed to read the terms and then placed a couple of bets over 70% that didn't really have any great bearing on the amount he won. Is it really fair he should lose €8000 over a mistake???

If you take this argument to the logical conclusion the only players who are going to regularly get caught by these terms are the social players. I just think you lot must be very cruel if you think he is a social player and it's just tough luck he cocked up and breached this term.

The point I have been making all along is without seeing the gameplay how can anyone know what sort of a player this guy was? This industry is in a sad state if this guy WAS an innocent player and got trapped by something he hadn't read. This business is supposed to be about entertainment. As I said yesterday it really is about time bonus terms and conditions got presented in a clear and consise manner.

Max you are a good guy and I am grateful for the PAB work you do. My post was never intended to insult you or Bryan.

I feel a lot of you are falling into the trap of 'player broke the term and should not be paid'. But really contract law is not as simple as that as a broken term does not always lead to a breach of the contract. It is not like breaking the speed limit and getting a £60 fine. There is much to look into and a number of different outcomes. Contract law is very different form criminal law, there is a lot more to it and not much is black and white, even though you might think it is this way.

Bottom line is it's extremely harsh to deny the guy €8K EVEN if he didn't read the terms and broke the 70% rule. If the guy gained no matieral advantage in doing so then what's the problem? Is this a case of a casino just citing a technicality to deny a big win? And you guys are all buying it? Or did the player roll up the balance with some full bankroll bets?

This was really my point, that I wouldn't judge one way or the other without seeing more information.
 
I suspect that for the most part you are looking at the wrong end of the beast here. In my experience the casino's are being forced into relying on detailed Terms because of player's attempts to bend, fold and mutilate anything and everything that looks like a loop-hole in order to gain an advantage over the casinos. I'm not saying the players are necessarily wrong in doing so, but I am saying the casinos are being drawn into the arms race over Terms as much or more than they are willfully pursuing them. For the most part we live in an age where people do what they are forced to do rather than doing what is "right" because of the moral goodness of doing so: I believe it's a bit short-sighted to blame anyone involved for looking to "the rules" as a means to bring some order to that chaos.



:confused: What "facts" do you think are being missed? Player doesn't read (or doesn't understand) the Terms, player breaks the Terms, player openly admits to having not read and subsequently breaking the Terms, player complains that the Terms didn't reach out and grab him by the collar in order to make themselves known to him. And the missing part is ...? Please do share your special insights into this case with us. On the other hand if you're just here to take a poke at us and our those of our membership whom you seem to have a beef with (as seems to be the case) then you can keep that bit to yourself, IMHO.

The missing part I a referring to is this player may have been a genuine player who was unlucky enough to get trapped by a term he either did not see or what was not particularly clear. I just think it's a very poor show when these 30% or 70% clauses are not well communicated to the player. I just think more could be done to communicate this piece of information.






I suggest to you that you are entirely missing the point here. It's not about gameplay or any other minutia of the player's activity. It's about not reading the Terms, which the player has amply demonstrated AND ADMITTED they did not. How more clear-cut do you need this to be? Forget the subtleties, the issue here couldn't be more black-and-white if you tried.

The fact the player did not read the terms is not really important if it was not a matieral breach of the terms. In other words if the outcome would have been similiar had he not broken the term then it's of little importance that he actually broke it.


Are the clauses progressively more "buried" as they appear further down?

Not quite but it is a legal convention that conditions are in the first part of the contract and terms are further down. So it does make a difference where something is in the contract as you would want your conditions at the head.

The thing is you do need a strong level of proof to claim an entire breach of contract. Believe it or not - not reading the terms and accidently breaking them is not always breach of contract.

If you are a judge say the idea is to look at it as what did the parties intend to do? Ie did the player intend to play honestly at the casino? Was the breach intentional or accidental? Has the casino presented the contract fairly and honestly to the player?
 
The missing part I a referring to is this player may have been a genuine player who was unlucky enough to get trapped by a term he either did not see or what was not particularly clear. I just think it's a very poor show when these 30% or 70% clauses are not well communicated to the player. I just think more could be done to communicate this piece of information.

Talk about flogging a dead horse.

When you create an account, you have to confirm that you have read and understood the terms and conditions of the casino.

The fact is that the player did not read the terms and hence did not understand them. It is completely irrelevant where the term was placed as the player didn't read them (the general terms). Promotional terms always include statements like "these terms are in addition to the general terms of the casino", so the onus is on the player to make sure they on top of the general terms as well.

As Max said, what more do you want? 26pt font? One term per page and a checkbox with "read and accepted" for each and every term? Come on. It's clear that nobody else has an issue with finding the relevent term so why should an exception be made for the OP? Even a simple "find" query in IE with "roulette" typed in would do the trick - 5 seconds work.


The fact the player did not read the terms is not really important if it was not a matieral breach of the terms. In other words if the outcome would have been similiar had he not broken the term then it's of little importance that he actually broke it.

How do you know what the outcome would have been if the player had not broken the term? Do you have a reality emulator?

It is ridiculous to use this method as the OP may well have placed different bets at different times with different outcomes...and even on different games. Who knows??....which is my point.



Not quite but it is a legal convention that conditions are in the first part of the contract and terms are further down. So it does make a difference where something is in the contract as you would want your conditions at the head.

The thing is you do need a strong level of proof to claim an entire breach of contract. Believe it or not - not reading the terms and accidently breaking them is not always breach of contract.

If you are a judge say the idea is to look at it as what did the parties intend to do? Ie did the player intend to play honestly at the casino? Was the breach intentional or accidental? Has the casino presented the contract fairly and honestly to the player?

As a lawyer, can you tell us about contract law in the jurisdiction where Party Casinois licensed? I'm sure you would have access to that information. The law in the UK is totally irrelevant as the laws are different in every country.

In addition, how can you know the player's intent? Could you see his face at the time? Read his mind perhaps? What does 'play honestly' mean? He used his own money? His own computer??

Sorry, but these excuses are just getting more and more silly by the minute.

Example of what you are saying from the other side:

Let's say you took up a promotion where the casino was offering to add 10% to your winnings up to $1000 in a given period, and you won $10k. You receive your winnings the next day but without only 5% extra. You enquire and the casino says "Oh yeah, that was an accident by one of our marketing guys it was supposed to be 10%. Sorry."

You reply "Well it is listed in the terms and you should honor it" to which they reply "Yes, we know, but we honestly missed the error when we emailed the offer so we are going to go by our intended offer which was 5%"

Are you saying you would accept being ripped off for $500? The hell you would, and neither would anyone else. Why? It is listed in the terms.

So why should the casino be held to the terms and not the player?

You can't have it both ways.

Some people always think it's the casino trying to screw the player......in fact, it is most frequently the other way around.
 
... I just think more could be done to communicate this piece of information.

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.

The fact the player did not read the terms is not really important ....

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.
 
A simple analogy will help to see this case clear. Lets say on some road there is a speed limit sign. But this sign is hidden by the tall trees surrounding the road. So it is hard for driver to see it, especially on the rainy day.
Now if some driver breaks the speed limit on this road and gets fined- will be that fair or not?
 
Sure, now take away the trees and the rain. If the driver still doesn't see the sign then maybe it's because he's either not paying attention or isn't trying very hard, or both. Either way he knows that if he speeds and get's nailed then "sorry, didn't read the sign" is going to be a piss poor excuse.
 
A simple analogy will help to see this case clear. Lets say on some road there is a speed limit sign. But this sign is hidden by the tall trees surrounding the road. So it is hard for driver to see it, especially on the rainy day.
Now if some driver breaks the speed limit on this road and gets fined- will be that fair or not?

The situation you describe is nothing like the matter a hand IMO.

The terms in this case were NOT hidden......the OP just didn't read the terms properly.

I would assume the only reason a sign would be placed in the middle of tall trees(obviously not on the road shoulder where every other sign is placed :rolleyes: ) would be to deliberately deceive the drivers into exceeding the speed limit. Nothing the casino has done has been a deliberate attempt to deceive as the terms were available for all players to read at all times.
 
Second Rule can broke First rule....

So i think better is paying that player because this terms are created only to make more difficult the play time and " entertainment " for the player.

He take the risk, he come and play much, he win, come on....RULES RULES RULES....if casinos dont respect RULES who can change that????....what players can do to change their rules???? NOTHINGGGG

I think who win much will have always problems with casinos ( when he use deposit bonuses )

Would be great if player put 830 $ and maybe withdraw 40 K......

WHAT RULES CASINO WILL FIND THEM........

I think operators everyday abuse with players....

Shame on those casinos....
thanks for \reading
 
So i think better is paying that player because this terms are created only to make more difficult the play time and " entertainment " for the player.

He take the risk, he come and play much, he win, come on....RULES RULES RULES....if casinos dont respect RULES who can change that????....what players can do to change their rules???? NOTHINGGGG

I think who win much will have always problems with casinos ( when he use deposit bonuses )

Would be great if player put 830 $ and maybe withdraw 40 K......

WHAT RULES CASINO WILL FIND THEM........

I think operators everyday abuse with players....

Shame on those casinos....
thanks for \reading

What's your point? So you think rules are made to break/ignore them?
Wow what a useless post... :confused:
 
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.
 
'Hidden' and 'Buried' rules...

I wanted to raise a point regarding 'hidden' rules, or rules that people feel are 'buried' or unclear.

Some people here are saying the 70% rule should have been better communicated to the player when getting the promotion. This is great advice.... in hindsight.

What if the player never bet more than 70%, but was a student, and this casino had a 'no-students' clause? Then I'm sure the same people would have said THAT rule should have been better communicated an no mention would be made of the 70% rule.

What if the player was neither a student nor making bets over 70%, but played on a restricted game... then people would be complaining THAT rule should have been better communicated.

The list goes on and on ...

This is why, as a player, you should read ALL the rules before beginning play. Of course not all of them will apply to you, but you need to be aware of the ones that do.

I know what a pain in the a** this sounds like.... I also know that players feel that overall general terms and conditions can be very long winded and often phrased unclearly.

To those with that complaint, I invite you to go to my own site and get the T's and C's. If you can shorten them or make them clearer without opening any doors to potential fraud, then I'm all ears. :) I've no doubt other operators would also welcome such advice and feedback.

Knowledge is power... when it's offered, take it.
 
This was touched on earlier but most of you are not reading the term. Or not the entire term.

The rule does not say that you can't bet more than 70% of the bonus value..... It does not say that at all.

Many of you are just going with it like that is the rule. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT.

Here is what it says

"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; "

So then it appears as though anyone can bet 70% of the bonus value or more if they like. So long as they are not using 70% or higher bets to clear the wagering. Doing it once or twice or a handful of times is fine according to this rule.

If the OP bought in for $500 and got $330 and burned through the requirements betting $235 per spin then he broke the terms. If he bet $300 a few times and $250 a few times and $100 a few times and $50 a few times and $25 a few times... and only a handful of times crossed the 70% threshold then he didn't break any term or condition.

It is getting irritating reading everyone quote some phantom term of "no bets exceeding 70%". That is not at all what it says and most of this discussion could be avoided. The question isn't whether the OP made any bets over 70%. The question is did he burn through the requirements by using these 70% or more bets to do so.

THAT is what is written. THAT is what should be enforced. Who cares if he bet it a few times. That isn't against their terms.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top