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.

 

[The Dude]

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?

 

[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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

....
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.