Bonus Complaint Party casino not paying because of Terms violations!

[zanzibar]

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

Quote please.

But, is it out of line for us to think that is not what happened.

You can think what you like, but you shouldn't tell everyone that its a fact. Assumption != fact.

His 70% bets had to be placed during his play through.

No they didn't. If the bonus requires you to wager 10,000 and you wager 50,000 in total, then anything after the first 10,000 is not part of your playthrough.

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?.

None of them have said that they saw any play logs (Max was asked by Nifty and said he couldn't answer). Max's posts indicate that he interpreted the 70% rule as "no bets over 70% ever" and his main beef with the player seemed to be that the player didn't read the terms. And this post here confirms there is a reason unrelated to the 70% bet, as I said before my guess is the player is on an ITG blacklist that Party has access to:

I contact eCOGRA to see what their decision had been based on which was largely (but not solely) the 70% restriction.

The more important issue for me as a Party player and affiliate going forward is this - is Party Gaming going to rewrite or clarify this rule so that it is not so ambiguous? And if not, why not? Its clearly a poorly written term that can be interpreted many ways.

 

[zanzibar]

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.

That is a good point rainmaker. It all depends on how you interpret that statement. I don't read it that way but I can see how you could.

But if you do read it that way, it implies that the 70% relates to the current bonus amount at the time the bet was placed, which would be a very player-unfriendly interpretation of the rule. Imagine the bonus balance was down to $10, he had been betting $20 each spin and placed another $20 bet (using $10 each of bonus and real money). Then bzzt sorry you broke the rule by betting double your bonus.

 

[deucebag]

Ignoring the question of whether the player actually broke a term or not (as far as I'm concerned, the evidence that he did is far from conclusive): It's interesting to see that som members of this forum, with no apparent financial stake in the casino, get so riled up on behalf of the casino.

How these posters can feel so strongly that a winning player should not be paid, is puzzling to me. What did this player do to them? Do they take som perverse joy in the misery of strangers? Note that the terms say the casino reserve the right to not pay, it doesn't say the casinowill not pay.

This passionate defense of the casino certainly has nothing to do with fair play. This term is inherently predatory, and unfair to players. The reason is that it creates a win-win situation for the casino. The player bets and loses, the casino wins. The player bets and wins, the casino points to the small print and takes the money. Unfortunately, players seem to have come to accept such situations.

It should not be possible for a player to make a with which he can't possibly win. If the casino does not want a player to play certain games or make bets of certain sizes, then the software should no allow the player to make that bet. This can easily be implemented, and some online casinos have done so. The reason casinos don't is obvious: they very much like win-win situations. They're highly profitable.

 

[Nifty29]

Ignoring the question of whether the player actually broke a term or not (as far as I'm concerned, the evidence that he did is far from conclusive): It's interesting to see that som members of this forum, with no apparent financial stake in the casino, get so riled up on behalf of the casino.

How these posters can feel so strongly that a winning player should not be paid, is puzzling to me. What did this player do to them? Do they take som perverse joy in the misery of strangers? Note that the terms say the casino reserve the right to not pay, it doesn't say the casinowill not pay.

This passionate defense of the casino certainly has nothing to do with fair play. This term is inherently predatory, and unfair to players. The reason is that it creates a win-win situation for the casino. The player bets and loses, the casino wins. The player bets and wins, the casino points to the small print and takes the money. Unfortunately, players seem to have come to accept such situations.

It should not be possible for a player to make a with which he can't possibly win. If the casino does not want a player to play certain games or make bets of certain sizes, then the software should no allow the player to make that bet. This can easily be implemented, and some online casinos have done so. The reason casinos don't is obvious: they very much like win-win situations. They're highly profitable.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it is a fact that there are players (often in organised groups via websites/forums etc) that deliberately search with a fine-toothed comb through as many promotions from as many casinos as possible to find a loophole to exploit.....and then share this information with as many other like-minded players as possible.

Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Well, IMO, yes and no.

No, there is nothing wrong with wanting to win as much as possible - it's what every gambler wants to some degree. I don't have any issue with that aspect.

Yes, this the is reason why there are so many of these rules in the first place, and the number is increasing every year. Just as the players have the 'right' to win as much as possible, so the casino has the 'right' to protect itself against those whose sole intention is to exploit the promotions offered and, quite possibly, never return again.

The part that makes me passionate is the knock-on affect to the 'average' or 'recreational' player who just wants a few extra bucks to gamble with in the hope of hitting something nice to take home. The casinos have had to cast their 'nets' so wide as a result of exploitation by the players mentioned above, that other 'innocent' players get caught in it as well. In some circumstances, it may be that a player accidentally breaks a term, and let's face it we're all human. However, it would not be difficult task to ascertain the 'intention' of that player - just look at the logs, and possibly their past history (if any). A good operator can tell the difference, and will let some of these breaches pass, as they should, for a regular player.

I put this question to anyone who wants to answer it: If you owned a casino, and ran a match promotion, and a player's first bet was 100% of his balance on red. What would you think his intention was? (be honest...we all know a recreational player is unlikely to do something like this). How about if they won that bet and then bet 100% of the balance again on red and won? How about your assessment then?

I find it interesting that Party's decision was not based solely on the 70% rule, and may well be related to another rule - quite possible the one I mentioned earlier where bets on black, red, 1-18, 19-38 are banned using a bonus. So, it may well be that the 70% rule is a minor aspect of the matter.

Again, I would think if the OP really was an innocent player who didn't know about the kinds of rules and was just 'caught in the net', he would still be here fighting his corner. Hell, I would!

He isn't.

 

[rainmaker]

That is a good point rainmaker. It all depends on how you interpret that statement. I don't read it that way but I can see how you could.

But if you do read it that way, it implies that the 70% relates to the current bonus amount at the time the bet was placed, which would be a very player-unfriendly interpretation of the rule. Imagine the bonus balance was down to $10, he had been betting $20 each spin and placed another $20 bet (using $10 each of bonus and real money). Then bzzt sorry you broke the rule by betting double your bonus.

I do not think that it implies that the 70% relates to the curren bonus amount, that would be a strange practice

I only referred to what the casino said, to point out that he had used his bonus to bet +70%. This would mean that he did this before WR was completed.

Anyway, Im tired of this thread so consider me as retired :eat:

 

[greasemonkey]

Again, I would think if the OP really was an innocent player who didn't know about the kinds of rules and was just 'caught in the net', he would still be here fighting his corner. Hell, I would!

He isn't.

Well, if you put yourself in the OP's shoes, then why would he come back here and waste his time? He reached out for help, didn't receive any and probably moved on to other venues to seek help in this matter. Why would the OP continue to argue his/her point with other members of this forum? it would be futile if his intention is solely recovering the money being stolen from him.

 

[Casinomeister]

Well, if you put yourself in the OP's shoes, then why would he come back here and waste his time? He reached out for help, didn't receive any and probably moved on to other venues to seek help in this matter. Why would the OP continue to argue his/her point with other members of this forum? it would be futile if his intention is solely recovering the money being stolen from him.

Yeah but, the player has probably given up on this since he was wrong from the start. It was worth a shot - putting it out in a public forum and piece-meal the info for the membership to digest and rally around him.

It has been explained to him several times - by the casino, by eCOGRA, by us, that if you bet 70% or more of the bonus funds in one game, you breach the bonus terms. Period.

If he had played along - met the wagering requirements, and then stated making huge bets, well then these would have been made on the funds he clearly made during the wagering period. But this didn't happen.

His first bet was €400. Please remember - the bonus he received was €350, and this is well over 70%. His main argument was that he didn't know. Well he would have known if he had read the bonus terms.

This thread wasn't a complete waste of time; we had a couple of meltdowns, a member suspended, and the casino is planning to remove the "spirit of the bonus" clause from their terms.

 

[Nifty29]

His first bet was €400. Please remember - the bonus he received was €350, and this is well over 70%.

....and that's a wrap people!

 

[rainmaker]

....and that's a wrap people!

Yeah baby

And thanks for the €400-info Casinomeister.


.

 

[swampwitch]

I was so worried this wouldn't be resolved before Saturday, and I'd have been thinking about it, sitting in my lawnchair with a Miller Lite and a fat one watching my naked neighbors float away. Now I can enjoy The Rapture.

 

[maxd]

... sitting in my lawnchair with a Miller Lite and a fat one watching my naked neighbors float away. Now I can enjoy The Rapture.

Reminds me of the old Supertramp album cover for "Crisis? What Crisis?":

 

[FreeDomme]

Thank you for letting us hash it out. One more sleazy term bites the dust. Oh the power! hehe

 

[DiamondGeezer]

The part that makes me passionate is the knock-on affect to the 'average' or 'recreational' player who just wants a few extra bucks to gamble with in the hope of hitting something nice to take home. The casinos have had to cast their 'nets' so wide as a result of exploitation by the players mentioned above, that other 'innocent' players get caught in it as well. In some circumstances, it may be that a player accidentally breaks a term, and let's face it we're all human. However, it would not be difficult task to ascertain the 'intention' of that player - just look at the logs, and possibly their past history (if any). A good operator can tell the difference, and will let some of these breaches pass, as they should, for a regular player.

This was exactly what I have spent many posts fighting for. I argued from my first post that the logs should be looked at so it could be acertained if it was deliberate or possibly accidental.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

His first bet was €400. Please remember - the bonus he received was €350, and this is well over 70%. His main argument was that he didn't know. Well he would have known if he had read the bonus terms.

This thread wasn't a complete waste of time; we had a couple of meltdowns, a member suspended, and the casino is planning to remove the "spirit of the bonus" clause from their terms.

Thanks for that. Clearly this was deliberate and not some accident.

I do think it would have been helpful if this information had been released a lot sooner.

While I agree failure to read the terms and conditions will result in the player going unpaid should they break them I also know it is possible to read the t&c's yet accidently break them.

Also I think Party can improve their layout and should have included the term in the bonus terms.

The bottom line is I would hate to see a recreational player lose out on an €8K win through not seeing a term, or seeing the them yet breaking it through some kind of accident that did not benefit him.

I think it's important to judge every case on it's merits as opposed to a 'you broke a term you won't get paid' approach. That was all I was asking from day one.

 

[Casinomeister]

....
The bottom line is I would hate to see a recreational player lose out on an €8K win through not seeing a term, or seeing the them yet breaking it through some kind of accident that did not benefit him.

I think it's important to judge every case on it's merits as opposed to a 'you broke a term you won't get paid' approach. That was all I was asking from day one.

That's why we've spent so much time on this. We feel the same way.

 

[papadol3]

The only Issue I have with Party Casino and the reason I submitted the complaint is because it was not clear, it was far from being clear.

I did check the terms of the bonus I received, in the promotion terms they didn't say anything about this 70% rule, look at my first post, I do admit that after the casino digged for me in the really long and small font, very long and small font please check yourself.

The issue is that considering the fact the deposit I made was larger than the 100% they give, I made a deposit of 500 and got 300 bonus if I remember well, and considering the fact 40,000 in extra wagering was given to them, and condiering the fact the 70% was not at the promotion terms, when you add all those facts together I feel they should have paid.

Why are there promotion terms section ??? give the general terms to read, why didn't they warn players in the promotion terms ??

I never said I was 100% right, I just played as I play everywhere using basic common sense and based on the promotion terms and type of bonus.

Everybody here say, forget it you breached the terms, they never going to pay you, I say Ecogra, Casinomeister, Max, the users here not supporting my points, they are all wrong.

Why they are all wrong ? because if you want to apply such drastic action, you should put it in the promotion terms or adjust the software exactly as they adjusted the software not to count red and black bets.

This is why I think you are wrong and I am right in my case for at least getting paid part of my cashout

 

[zanzibar]

First, thanks CM for clearing up when the bets were placed. I feel sorry for you papadol3, but I don't think you have a leg to stand on now we know that.

The part that makes me passionate is the knock-on affect to the 'average' or 'recreational' player who just wants a few extra bucks to gamble with in the hope of hitting something nice to take home. The casinos have had to cast their 'nets' so wide as a result of exploitation by the players mentioned above, that other 'innocent' players get caught in it as well. In some circumstances, it may be that a player accidentally breaks a term, and let's face it we're all human.

This is spot on Nifty. The main problem I see is that the average recreational player is the one most likely to skip reading the terms and consequently get burned by them. The bonus hunters know to read them and make sure they stay within them so as not to jeopardise a win. As do many of the posters here who are probably among the most savvy online gamblers. Its important to remember that not all players are so experienced. Casinos themselves are not blameless - if they don't want people trying to win on their bonuses then don't offer them.

I am glad to hear that Party are going to try to fix their terms. It would be even better if they programmed the limits into the games themselves.

 

[rainmaker]

First, thanks CM for clearing up when the bets were placed. I feel sorry for you papadol3, but I don't think you have a leg to stand on now we know that.

You feel sorry because he was caught ?

This guy got exactly what he asked for. 400 on his first bet, c`mon zanzibar

 

[FreeDomme]

I doubt this casino is new and somehow placed the caveat in the middle of the mud by reason of ignorance. It is negligent at best. And I doubt the player is a bingo housewife playing for nickels here and there, but due diligence was done in reading the bonus terms and possibly scanning the general terms for percentage signs.

A little balance in hindsight rather than 'hating the player' seems in order. It seems some people think advantage players are cheaters. I just don't understand, is it sour grapes because they beat the house more often?

Sorry for the players loss but it has done some good for all of us if the casino is going to get honest now and put promotional terms in the bonus terms of an offer.

 

[zanzibar]

I feel sorry for him that he won that much and didn't get to keep it. The casino is within its rights to confiscate the winnings but that doesn't mean I like the rule or approve of it.

When you say "he got caught" - you make it sound like he was cheating or something. He did not hack their server, or change the game rules or payout, or play a game without a house edge. So what if he was an advantage player? He did not turn the odds of the game in his favour. He is a victim of a few things: his own ignorance, a player unfriendly clause, and software that did not prevent him from trapping himself like that. Maybe if he had seen the rule he might have bet 69% and still won. So yes I don't see what is wrong with saying I feel sorry for him?!? Have a little compassion man!

Let me ask you this. Do you think Party refunds any player who comes in and bets over 70% of their bonus and loses? cmon rainmaker

 

[jod5413]

Nevermind, It is all figured out! Thank Heaven!!!

 

[Realitybitez]

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

He cant be that poor if he can afford to do $500 deposits at a time Just saying

 

[bedanec]

This is old thread, but it was something I found after searching around a bit after reading those unclear terms of Party Casino.
To comment this thread, I cannot believe people actually think OP deserved not to get paid out. The terms and conditions clearly did NOT state such a bet is forbidden, but gave that an example of what COULD be an indicator of a player that only plays to abuse the bonus. The problem with the terms is, that they clearly imply the only wrong thing is to try to abuse bonus given by them, by only playing to getting the bonus paid out. For example, depositing 200€, getting 200€ bonus and then playing various strategies only to stop playing at 380€ and paying out what is actually a loss, but getting a profit with a bonus. You wouldn't do that if you had deposited 400€. But if you had 800€ (OP), 400€ bet would be pretty normal. So if it went to any normal (western) court, the only thing OP would have to prove is that his style of play is not only aimed to cash the bonus, but normal style of play with 800€. Which wouldn't be too hard.
Sure OP did make a mistake not to read the terms properly (which of course isn't an excuse or the fact that the term isn't really exposed), but how can people actually be with the casino on this? Normal reaction of someone who read the terms would be that he is either unlucky or stupid, in both cases it was clear in the terms that bonus is only there to fuck up people like him.

Anyway what I'm wondering is, did anyone even get paid out after receiving the bonus? From reading them, it seems they can call any type of play being aimed at abusing their bonus system and just not paying you out at all.

Also, totally off-topic, is there a site that lets you play roulette with a non-restrictive bonus. I'm not saying allowing you to bet both red and black (for example) just to get enough play-through, but letting you play a normal roulette game with a bonus. Everywhere I checked they either didn't include roulette in the bonus, or have some hard max-bet limit.