Bonus Complaint Party casino not paying because of Terms violations!

[Rick Deckard]

Let me remind you this isn't some small mom-and-pop casino, these guys have deep enough pockets to pay whomever whatever.

True, but they have been facing some tough times recently

* Party Gaming founders Ruth Parasol and Russ DeLeon have been less successful, their earnings being down GBP99 million.

* Another Party Gaming multi-millionaire is Vikrant Bhargava, currently worth an unchanged GBP230 million.
https://www.casinomeister.com/stati...INE-GAMBLINGS-MOGULS-FEATURE-ON-RICH-LIST.php

Business Summary
bwin.party digital entertainment plc operates as an online gaming company... In addition, the company operates PartyCasino.com, an online casino site;

http: //uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=P2G1.DE

 

[DiamondGeezer]

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.'

You may well be correct but as I understand it Max rejected the claim for breaking the t&c's plain and simple. Advantage play was never discussed.

 

[makwe33]

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.

Thank you so much gaydave!

This is exactly how I interpret these rules. Exactly. I read all the rules to the casino, although it is not party but it is related somehow. Casino Swiss, Enter Casino, club dice, 50 stars, casino king. These are all related to party I assume.
They are playtech casinos and I played them and I made some bets that were over 705 of the bonus but I too read the rules and thought that as long as I didn't just bet 70% the entire time or most of the time in order to quickly get through the wager requirements without truly playing lots of hands then I would be within the terms. They, in fact, do not say that you cannot make these bets. The wording just led me to believe they did not want someon to come in and bet the max bet per hand until the wagering requirements were released then just cashing out or dropping bets lower. I filed a PAB and Max told me that I broke the "70% term". I responded that I did not because I only made a handful of these type of bets. Now I see that others are seeing the rules the same way as me. There is s a definite problem with this.
Especially considering all of their "spirit of the bonus" terms. When I received my email from the casinos stating they were stealing my winnings they listed several reasons like spirit of the bonus, just meeting minimum requirements and cashing out (I played almost 2000 past minimum requirements), and so on... this is the only one that they could get any footing on but IMO they are twisting the words to mean ANY BET over 70% but that is not what the actual words in their terms state and it is not what I am understanding those words to mean.
It is apparent to me that this group is very roguishly looking for ways to not pay players. The most disgusting part of all of this is that this group only wants to refund my winning deposits. They would like to keep all of my losing deposits and all of my winnings too. This entire situations is very predatory towards players and is totally unfair.

 

[gaydave]

This is one of those few times where I am glad that I am an American and cannot play at these places.

This group needs to go back and rewrite their rules, put them in obvious places to find and be specific with what they are talking about. They should pay these players and fix their terms so that it makes sense to everyone and doesn't need to be interpreted.

 

[Nifty29]

You may well be correct but as I understand it Max rejected the claim for breaking the t&c's plain and simple. Advantage play was never discussed.

......due to the fact that the OP broke the t&c's plain and simple.

It would be interesting to know what type of bets he was making as well e.g. red or black, 1-18 etc as some of these are expressly forbidden to use when playing a bonus (see terms posted earlier) - so if he did this and they were above 70% of the bonus when he has broken more than one term.

It's also nice to see the advantage players rallying behind their brethren

I must admit I didn't quite understand what some of you were on about with the 'he didn't break the term because he only played a few 70% bets', but now I do.....and I am, quite frankly, laughing even louder.

The term does not state he only breaks the term if every single bet he makes whilst the bonus is active is over 70%!!. It is the most ridiculous 'interpretation' of any term I have ever seen. So you're really saying if he bet 100% of his entire balance on the first 5 bets and won, then played a $1 bet on #29, and then continued betting over 70% of his balance he would be within the rules???? Oh geez you guys are entertaining, I'll give you that!!

 

[zanzibar]

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.

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

You are absolutely correct that failure to read the terms is no excuse. However failure to read the terms does not automatically mean that the terms were broken.

I don't see how anyone who has not seen the play logs can say that "the bottom line is the terms were broken", nor know for sure whether the player was using advantage play. It is impossible to tell for reasons I mentioned earlier.

Nifty, as we all know a fact is something known to be true. Seeing as you know that the player placed the large bets before the bonus wagering requirements were satisfied, therefore breaching the term, could you please send CM the play logs so he can verify? Thanks.

 

[jod5413]

I am still really confused over so many thinking the way he bet was fine and dandy. The fact is that he shouldn't have bet 70% period. Most of us have become quite adept at reading terms and conditions. Why you all think that he should get paid even though..........
I just do not get it.

This thread should have died way before now. It's kinda like beating a dead horse. He is not gonna get up no matter how hard you hit the poor SOB.

Maybe you think that if all of you stay loud, rowdy and obnoxious in your complaints, the casino will capitulate and pay? Just to shut a handful of people up? Really? Think? That? Will? Happen???????

Good Luck.

 

[zanzibar]

I am still really confused over so many thinking the way he bet was fine and dandy.

No-one knows that his betting was "fine and dandy". Anyone who says so is uniformed. Just like you don't know that it wasn't.

The fact is that he shouldn't have bet 70% period.

Wrong again. That is not what the term says.

BTW if a player wants to bet 1%, 20%, 50%, or 100% of their money at once without breaking the terms of the site its nobody else's business to tell them otherwise.

Maybe you think that if all of you stay loud, rowdy and obnoxious in your complaints, the casino will capitulate and pay?

Not at all. Personally I would like to see two things: 1. Some clear evidence showing the player clearly broke the vague term that may be interpreted in multiple ways, and 2. The casino rewriting the term so that it is clear and unambiguous. I already suggested a good alternative earlier and no-one has picked a hole in it yet. Feel free to try and we can make it watertight so there is no room for interpretation whatsoever.

 

[Nifty29]

You are absolutely correct that failure to read the terms is no excuse. However failure to read the terms does not automatically mean that the terms were broken.

I don't see how anyone who has not seen the play logs can say that "the bottom line is the terms were broken", nor know for sure whether the player was using advantage play. It is impossible to tell for reasons I mentioned earlier.

Nifty, as we all know a fact is something known to be true. Seeing as you know that the player placed the large bets before the bonus wagering requirements were satisfied, therefore breaching the term, could you please send CM the play logs so he can verify? Thanks.

AFAIK Max has seen the relevant information.

I'm not sure about you, but I'm prepared to take his word for it. Has he or Bryan ever been wrong? Sure, but ill put my money on a runner with a 99% strike rate every time.

As jod said, you can stomp your feet and blow raspberries until the cows come home, but the FACT remains they arent going to pay. In fact, if they are reading this thread and the complete nonsense the advantage gang are coming up with, they're probably doing what I'm doing - laughing.

 

[zanzibar]

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.

AFAIK Max has seen the relevant information.

I'm not sure about you, but I'm prepared to take his word for it. Has he or Bryan ever been wrong? Sure, but ill put my money on a runner with a 99% strike rate every time.

He may well have seen it but as you can see in his reply to your question he is not saying, so I am sorry but you are unable to "take his word for it", nor am I. So there you go, you're assuming things that are not backed by evidence.

If max or CM does come through and say yes - I have seen the play logs and he was betting more than 70% of the initial bonus balance right from the start, then fine, the casino's decision would be acceptable to me.

It would not be acceptable to me if any of these things happened:
- his bonus balance temporarily fell to $10 or something and he made a $10 bet.
- he was progression betting and made 1 or 2 large bets as a result of losing several in a row, then returned to small bets immediately.
- he made a sum total of multiple bets that exceeded 70% over many spins of the wheel and they are using the rule to deny the payout (as I said before the rule is so vague it could be interpreted that way).

So you see, I have an open mind.

As jod said, you can stomp your feet and blow raspberries until the cows come home, but the FACT remains they arent going to pay. In fact, if they are reading this thread and the complete nonsense the advantage gang are coming up with, they're probably doing what I'm doing - laughing.

Please show one quote from me where I have "stomped my feet", "blown raspberries", or demanded the casino pay anyone. You should try sticking to the facts, and try to attack the actual argument if you have something of merit to contribute, instead of inventing straw men every time.

As for "advantage gang" , again you're assuming things without a shred of evidence. I have suggested an alternative version of the term that I believe is unambiguous. It would not help the "advantage gang" to rewrite the term this way. I would love your or anybody else's input on that.

As for why I care, I am both a player at Party Casino and an affiliate that currently recommends them as a decent place to play. If I find they are using deliberately vague clauses to seize legitimate winnings from players then that will change on both counts. But once again, before you make another unfounded assumption about me, there is not enough information to make that call either way.

I find arguing with someone who has their mind made up without knowing the facts tiresome, as I am sure others reading this do, so please excuse me if I won't continue this back and forth with you Nifty. Cheers.

 

[rainmaker]

Just as additional information,

These casinos have exactly the same seventy percent rule:

Casino Las Vegas
Casino King
Swiss Casino
121 Casino

I think the rule is amateurish, but...well its there. And the player has chosen to play at the casino.


We know that the casino, eCOGRA and Max believes Party Casino has done the right thing. So I am confident that the case has been handled in a good way (how many appeals are necessary?).

The OP has not been logged in for almost 1 week, not even he is interested in this thread anymore.

.

 

[Nifty29]

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.

Did you miss the part that said 'we know'?

He may well have seen it but as you can see in his reply to your question he is not saying, so I am sorry but you are unable to "take his word for it", nor am I

AFAIK he has seen the information and his statement above confirms it. Just because he cannot divulge it, doesn't mean he hasn't seen it. If he posted it here in public I wouldn't need to take his word for it.

So, I am able to take his word for it...and I do. What you do is your choice.

It would not be acceptable to me if any of these things happened:
- his bonus balance temporarily fell to $10 or something and he made a $10 bet. AGREE. It should be based on his original bonus amount.
- he was progression betting and made 1 or 2 large bets as a result of losing several in a row, then returned to small bets immediately. DISAGREE. The rule doesn't make exceptions for martingale progressions or any other style of betting.
- he made a sum total of multiple bets that exceeded 70% over many spins of the wheel and they are using the rule to deny the payout (as I said before the rule is so vague it could be interpreted that way). AGREE. It should be the amount wagered on a single spin of the wheel. The part about multiple bets (IMO) refers to more than one bet per spin e.g. $200 on red and $100 on #29 = $300 total bet = more than 70%

If we are to believe those who favor the player being paid......Max, Bryan, Party Casino, and ECOGRA are all clueless and have no common sense or are all part of some kind of conspiracy to deny one particular player out of $8000.

Max and Bryan are about as fair and impartial as they come when it involves confiscation of winnings based on bonus terms. If there was any ambiguity or doubt in their minds, they would have expressed it by now - that in itself tells you something.

As someone else mentioned, even the OP has given up...most likely because they knew then what they know now - that they broke the rules and won't get paid.

 

[zanzibar]

I think you are reading too much into those two words, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that interpretation. A simple "we have seen the play logs" would not be revealing anything that shouldn't be, and since it has not been said I am assuming they have not been seen.

My own guess based on what has and has not been said here is that there is some other evidence the casino has that suggests this is an "advantage player" and they do not want to divulge what it is publicly. For example, the IGT group of Playtech casinos that Party also own has a list of players that it bans within minutes of signing up and depositing. Maybe said player is on that list and was missed and/or Party only checked it after he won. There could be a hundred other explanations... and every one speculation as I don't think we'll ever get a straight answer from the casino which is disappointing.

 

[P.V.]

It's very clear that Party states in their T & C's (BONUSES), check the Standard Promotional Terms & Conditions and provides a link.

It' s also clear that this link sends the player to this condition within the terms, 9.2:


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.

Party wants no bonus bets above seventy percent or more, so the debate should be did the OP do this? If the OP can't provide logs of his play then the debate is irrelevant.

Many might not like the T & C's but that's not the debate, it's whether seventy percent of the bonus was wagered on any single game.

Party also advises, in advance that by wagering seventy percent or more, that in their eyes it's your intention of clearing the bonus before requirements have been meet.

Looks like a good call from Max & CM unless the OP steps up showing that he didn't wager more than the terms allow.

On a side note my browser doesn't show this term in small or hidden text nor do I not see a link from (BONUS) with additional T & C's. Looks very straight forward.

Just an opinion, no debate here.

 

[greasemonkey]

Obviously there is a problem here. You have multiple people reading the rules and coming up with different understandings of what the words mean. Why any one is "laughing" or happy that the OP is not getting paid is beyond me. The casino seems at fault here. They wrote rules that everyone reads to mean different things. That can't be tolerated or accepted as "OK" or normal industry standard. For those that back up this casino and that rule then you are just hurting yourself and the industry as a whole by allowing and agreeing to give casinos the right to not pay you because they have rules that not everybody can read and agree on the meaning of. Casinos should not have the right to not pay someone who didn't cheat them. If you back up this action shame on you. You are an enabler of more player abuse by the casinos.

 

[greasemonkey]

......due to the fact that the OP broke the t&c's plain and simple.

It would be interesting to know what type of bets he was making as well e.g. red or black, 1-18 etc as some of these are expressly forbidden to use when playing a bonus (see terms posted earlier) - so if he did this and they were above 70% of the bonus when he has broken more than one term.

It's also nice to see the advantage players rallying behind their brethren

I must admit I didn't quite understand what some of you were on about with the 'he didn't break the term because he only played a few 70% bets', but now I do.....and I am, quite frankly, laughing even louder.

The term does not state he only breaks the term if every single bet he makes whilst the bonus is active is over 70%!!. It is the most ridiculous 'interpretation' of any term I have ever seen. So you're really saying if he bet 100% of his entire balance on the first 5 bets and won, then played a $1 bet on #29, and then continued betting over 70% of his balance he would be within the rules???? Oh geez you guys are entertaining, I'll give you that!!

I also don't see in the rules where it says "NO bets over 70% allowed". so who is correct? I guess it is in how you read the rules. They definitely mean different things to different people. Wouldn't it be better to say "no bets over 70%" if that actually IS the rule? why dilute a simple rule (if that is the rules meaning, which is very much in debate) with words like "until the release of requirements" or whatever crap they put in there. I agree totally that the casino would lose this case badly in a court of law. We shouldn't accept it as normal casino behavior either.

 

[Nifty29]

I also don't see in the rules where it says "NO bets over 70% allowed". so who is correct? I guess it is in how you read the rules. They definitely mean different things to different people. Wouldn't it be better to say "no bets over 70%" if that actually IS the rule? why dilute a simple rule (if that is the rules meaning, which is very much in debate) with words like "until the release of requirements" or whatever crap they put in there. I agree totally that the casino would lose this case badly in a court of law. We shouldn't accept it as normal casino behavior either.

Well, now we have your expert legal opinion, I guess Party Casino will have no choice but to pay out. I just wish you could have provided it earlier as it might have saved a lot of confusion and discussion.

FWIW I wasn't laughing at the OP not being paid. I was laughing at how some people twist the words to fit their point of view, and how ridiculous some of the resulting 'interpretations' are.

We aren't all going to agree, so there's no point trying to change each other's minds....and it's not going to make a dollop of difference to the outcome for the OP.

Shame on me for supporting the casino for enforcing their bonus terms? Shame on the bonus scum for creating the need for them in the first place.

 

[FreeDomme]

Well, now we have your expert legal opinion, I guess Party Casino will have no choice but to pay out. I just wish you could have provided it earlier as it might have saved a lot of confusion and discussion.

FWIW I wasn't laughing at the OP not being paid. I was laughing at how some people twist the words to fit their point of view, and how ridiculous some of the resulting 'interpretations' are.

We aren't all going to agree, so there's no point trying to change each other's minds....and it's not going to make a dollop of difference to the outcome for the OP.

Shame on me for supporting the casino for enforcing their bonus terms? Shame on the bonus scum for creating the need for them in the first place.

The moderators either do not inform you of complaints about your posts or you don't care but I will ask you to please stop referring to others as 'scum'. It is offensive to me. I don't want to ignore your posts. Although you seem challenged to argue a point succinctly, you are almost always basicly correct.
I happen to disagree with you on this issue at least until you acknowledge the very valid points raised. Chiefly that the term is ambiguous and poorly written and that a reasonable person could interpret it differently from you.

 

[Casinomeister]

Admin warning: be cool

Just a friendly reminder that we need to remain cool here; no need to dis one another. There are no scum players. Some are recreational; some are advantage players. (and when I refer to advantage players as advantage players, I do not mean it in a negative sense).

We are all bros (and sisters) - so keep it that way. Thank you.

 

[jod5413]

We might all be brothers and sisters but I just have to say that sometimes my siblings let common sense go out the window!! It is not copacetic that some members here can honestly say the rule is ambiguous. I am not Einstein but I have no problem understanding this seventy percent bonus rule.

Further examples of irregular playing 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 do not know how this will all work out, but I am fairly sure that the player is not getting paid. And, sorry for saying this, but he shouldn't be paid.

He did break the rules. Yes he did. He bet one or more times for 70% (seventy percent) the bonus amount. And, it is redundant to think he was not trying to clear the bonus requirements as he bet. It is what any and all of us gamblers are trying to do. Beat the casino and win.

 

[zanzibar]

jod513 its a long thread, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you missed the part where the player stated they wagered 40,000 (Euros?) more than the bonus requirements.

So here's a simple question for you based on your post and what we all don't know about this case: If the >70% bets were placed after the requirements were met and the bonus was cleared, then logically how could they have been placed with the intention of clearing the requirements? Thanks in advance.

 

[Nifty29]

sjod513 its a long thread, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you missed the part where the player stated they wagered 40,000 (Euros?) more than the bonus requirements.

So here's a simple question for you based on your post and what we all don't know about this case: If the >70% bets were placed after the requirements were met and the bonus was cleared, then logically how could they have been placed with the intention of clearing the requirements? Thanks in advance.

Are you sitting down??....I agree with you here.

If the bets were made after the WR was met he should be paid. Having said that, I've gleaned from Max's comments that isn't the case.

P.S. I apologise for the 'scum' comments they were not meant to the person but rather the behaviour.....but I should have phrased it better.

 

[jod5413]

sjod513 its a long thread, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you missed the part where the player stated they wagered 40,000 (Euros?) more than the bonus requirements.

So here's a simple question for you based on your post and what we all don't know about this case: If the >70% bets were placed after the requirements were met and the bonus was cleared, then logically how could they have been placed with the intention of clearing the requirements? Thanks in advance.

How much he wagered has no bearing on the OP as he wagered more than 70% of his bonus before he met playthrough requirements.

It is a long thread, but you yourself might read all of it so you have a better idea of the circumstances before you post.

 

[rainmaker]

Are you sitting down??....I agree with you here.

If the bets were made after the WR was met he should be paid. Having said that, I've gleaned from Max's comments that isn't the case.

P.S. I apologise for the 'scum' comments they were not meant to the person but rather the behaviour.....but I should have phrased it better.

Yes, I agree with you guys. If these bets were made after he had completed the WR, then the player must be paid of course.

The "official" statement from the casino was (from OP first post) "you placed more than 70% of your bonus in a single bet at the Roulette". This would indicate that he used his bonus to bet more than 70%. The OP has not denied this, so I have seen it as obvious that this case is about bets done before he had completed WR.

If these bets where made after he completed WR, then this would not be a case since the 70%-rule is a "bonus rule".

I see that some of you are using the large amount of wagering as an argument. I don`t agree. How he has played with his bonus is the basis of his possibility to wager after completed WR. If he violated bonus T&C, then winnings based on this can be confiscated. The amount of wagering is not relevant in my opinion.

Remember that intentions are something that changes. His intention may have been to bet high and to clear WR. This guy was obviously on "a good run", of course he will continue to play even after WR has been completed. But this does not mean that he necessarily had "good" intentions when he placed the 70% bets.

 

[jod5413]

jod513 its a long thread, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you missed the part where the player stated they wagered 40,000 (Euros?) more than the bonus requirements.

So here's a simple question for you based on your post and what we all don't know about this case: If the >70% bets were placed after the requirements were met and the bonus was cleared, then logically how could they have been placed with the intention of clearing the requirements? Thanks in advance.

Nope, I did not "miss" 40,000 whatever money type was wagered. But, is it out of line for us to think that is not what happened. His 70% bets had to be placed during his play through. Are you forgetting that all of this was checked into by Bryan, Max and whoever else, which is why this player did not get his winnings.

So, what am I missing here?