Roguish PKR revoking bonus for no reason.

[topoor]

At PKR? Im afraid not. I would unequivocally recommend a PAB.

I cant say to much as yet but there are some developments on this issue...

 

[catrina m]

You are just too cool for your shoes vinyl!

 

[vinylweatherman]

I advised Moneybookers that the Alderney ruling confirmed that no fraud had taken place but that the dispute with PKR was purely contractual.

They replied with:

Dear Mrs. *****,

Thank you for the updates and your kind cooperation and patience during the whole process. Unfortunately, the fact that the issue has been escalated again and another security audit has been initiated and thoroughly completed based on the additional information you have provided me with did not lead to any changes in their final decision and I must advise you that your Moneybookers account will remain closed.

Your Moneybookers account has been terminated since we have detected a violation of our terms and conditions, please review sections 7.5 and 11 of our Terms and Conditions for more information.

No further processing or administrative charges have been applied to your account and you were allowed to withdraw your whole balance which has been done on 11 Jul 08 18:47.

I would like to kindly advise you to further bring the issue to the attention of the Financial Services Ombudsman in case you feel your case has not been resolved properly or we have not taken into consideration any of your requests or have not provided any of the services we were obliged to provide as agreeed in our Terms and Conditions.

Here are the details you may reach them at:

Financial Ombudsman Service
PO Box 4
South Quay
Plaza183 Marsh Wall
London
E14 9SR

Telephone: 0845 080 1800

E-mail address:enquiries@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

For further information visit the Financial Ombudsman Service website at:www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk More information on how to file an official complaint has been submitted previously and is available again upon request. The flow of events in such a case will be that upon receipt of your complaint, they will provide independent and impartial service without taking sides based on careful investigation.

Please accept my sincerest apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Kind Regards,

Kamelia, moneybookers.com Team

Time to go to the Financial Ombudsman then. Moneybookers have said you have violated the quoted terms and conditions, so will have to back this up if the Ombudsman investigates. The only thing you seem to have done so far is really p**s off PKR, one of their merchants, who then made a complaint to Moneybookers about something or other.

If Moneybookers cannot prove said violations, then any compensation you are awarded should make up for the lost monies from PKR.
You should look into alternative deposit options, such as a debit card, or better still, a credit card that treats gambling transactions as regular purchases.
Many casinos can pay back to VISA branded cards, and if they cannot, try to find one that will issue cheques through a local UK based bank, these only take a couple of days, rather than several weeks.

Avoid Playtech, you are surely on that central blacklist by now.

 

[spearmaster]

Avoid Playtech, you are surely on that central blacklist by now.

Beg your pardon. No such list exists.

 

[jetset]

Grateful if you would keep us advised here on what happens with your Ombudsman complaint, topoor. GL.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Beg your pardon. No such list exists.

Posted experiences of some players seems to indicate otherwise. It may not be official, but there is certainly some sharing of information about "advantage players" between otherwise unconnected casinos.

Indeed, some casinos explicitly state the existence of such a central blacklist of advantage players in their terms and conditions, which usually state that players found guilty of a breach (including advantage play) will have their details placed onto a register of "bonus abusers" or "fraudulent players".

If no such Playtech list exists, it is very hard to understand how a player being banned at one Playtech casino then finds their account locked at another, and UNRELATED (other than by software) Playtech casino and told they "have been identified as a bonus abuser", with this having happened without a single game being played.

If no such OFFICIAL list exists with Playtech, then these casinos operating this unofficial list are in breach of privacy rules, which in the UK would be the Data Protection Act, and similar rules in the EU.

Topoor, if she wishes, can prove the point either way by registering at another Playtech casino that has no relationship to PKR, and seeing if she is eligible for bonus offers as stated in the terms and conditions. A free chip would be the best test, as trying another deposit bonus would go sour should such a list be operating.

The reps for Rival have admitted that Rival DO keep a central list of players deemed "advantage players", and this list can be used by other Rival powered casinos to block players from more bonuses.

 

[spearmaster]

Posted experiences of some players seems to indicate otherwise. It may not be official, but there is certainly some sharing of information about "advantage players" between otherwise unconnected casinos.

Playtech is a software provider. Its sole role is to provide software and support to operators. It provides no additional services whatsoever.

Indeed, some casinos explicitly state the existence of such a central blacklist of advantage players in their terms and conditions, which usually state that players found guilty of a breach (including advantage play) will have their details placed onto a register of "bonus abusers" or "fraudulent players".

"Some casinos" does not equal "Playtech", for one thing. Furthermore, a "register" may exist somewhere but nowhere is the scope of that register mentioned.

If no such Playtech list exists, it is very hard to understand how a player being banned at one Playtech casino then finds their account locked at another, and UNRELATED (other than by software) Playtech casino and told they "have been identified as a bonus abuser", with this having happened without a single game being played.

Again, this does not equal a "Playtech" list. You can make assumptions if you like but when you use a wide-encompassing term which includes all operators using the same software, you should be especially careful that your information is correct.

If no such OFFICIAL list exists with Playtech, then these casinos operating this unofficial list are in breach of privacy rules, which in the UK would be the Data Protection Act, and similar rules in the EU.

LOL. I'm not going to comment on this because as far as I am concerned, the non-existence of a list hardly represents a breach of privacy.

Topoor, if she wishes, can prove the point either way by registering at another Playtech casino that has no relationship to PKR, and seeing if she is eligible for bonus offers as stated in the terms and conditions. A free chip would be the best test, as trying another deposit bonus would go sour should such a list be operating.

The reps for Rival have admitted that Rival DO keep a central list of players deemed "advantage players", and this list can be used by other Rival powered casinos to block players from more bonuses.

Topoor is of course welcome to do as she pleases without interference from anyone.

However, I again implore you to be careful about making wide-ranging accusations or representations without basis in fact.

 

[chuchu59]

There is a list shared by at least some Playtech casinos as I wasnt welcome when registering at a couple of playtechs several years ago while I had some arguments with one of them. However, this is definitely not a central blacklist as I was still able to register and play at Betfred and Bet365 which turned out to be excellent until the whole 'Playtech Platform denied access to players from Hong Kong.

Shared lists of unwelcome players is nothing new. Many Rival casinos and to a certain extent, some groups of RTG casinos also do the same. It is strange, however, that only the rogues, eg Powerbet did not accept my registration years ago.

 

[topoor]

Pending legal advice I am removing.

 

[topoor]

Pending legal advice I am removing.

 

[topoor]

I have removed the above two posts on the advice of a solicitor I contacted today. The posts contained details of an email and telephone exchange between a representative of PKR and myself.

I cant disclose too much at this stage but I will tell you that I have a very good indication as to why my Moneybookers account was closed.

I am taking legal action.

 

[thelawnet]

It is disturbing that there are apparently no reputable gaming regulators.

We already knew that Antigua and Kahnawake were a bunch of cowboys.

We've yet to hear back from Malta about the very straightforward issue of non-payment of winnings.

And apparently Alderney, a Crown Dependency of the United Kingdom, is incapable of understanding that online gambling, while random, is highly predictable, in that players are only capable of certain actions, because the software determines which actions the player can take.

And given that the casino has 100% control over what the player can do, it is up to the casino to clearly describe what is and is not acceptable behaviour, and if the player does not break any of these specific rules they must pay the player.

I can only imagine that the Alderney Gambling Control Commission is staffed by people who do not understand how online gaming works.

The basic premiss of a wagering requirement is that you meet the requirement and then you can withdraw immediately. If meeting the requirement is not to be considered enough, then they need to increase it. It's not hard. Meet the requirement, withdraw immediately if you want, get paid. Don't meet it, face the consequences as described in the casino's terms.

And of course if they don't like players making small bets, there's a fair few casinos that dictate minimum and/or maximum bets, so it's not hard for them to follow suit. It's not rocket science. Everything they determine, ex post facto, to be bonus abuse, can be described in a rule dictated to the player in advance, and fairly enforceable accordingly. As I said, online gambling is determinstic. Players can't slip cards into the deck. They can't bribe the dealer. They can only play in the way the casino designed, and as such the casino needs to make any rules that derogate from the fact that they are the ones controlling their customer's options, 100% explicit and clear as to their effect, in advance of arbitrarily deciding to confiscate player funds.

To make it worse, in the case of these Playtech bonuses in fact, the second you meet the requirement a dialogue box pops up, which says something to the effect of "$200 bonus now withdrawable". They are telling you to withdraw! You can't continue playing without clicking on the box that says in not quite so many words "withdraw your money"!

Nobody should be surprised if you popup a big box telling people they can withdraw that they then do so straight away.

I played at PKR a few months back, depositing $2800 to clear their bonus, withdrawing only $753. And when I saw that dialogue box popup, you can bet I was straight out of there without wagering another cent: I wasn't hanging around to lose another $2k.

 

[Jufo]

I have removed the above two posts on the advice of a solicitor I contacted today. The posts contained details of an email and telephone exchange between a representative of PKR and myself.

I cant disclose too much at this stage but I will tell you that I have a very good indication as to why my Moneybookers account was closed.

I am taking legal action.

Good, keep fighting! Also AGCC should be contacted with the updated information so maybe they will review their ruling. Your case sets an important example how this kind of situations can be dealt with in the future.

 

[rreevy]

I don't play Casino Hold'em, but it appears to be similar to many casino poker variants in that it involves placing an ante bet, followed by a raise: in this case twice the ante bet.

For this reason, Casino Hold'em might not be such a bad game from an advantage play perspective. The house edge is the total loss as a percentage of the initial bet (ante) only, not the total amount wagered (ante+raise). The loss rate as a percentage of the total amount rate - the Wiz calls this the 'element of risk' - would probably be much lower. Since it is the total amount wagered that counts towards wager requirements, it might be possible to have an expected profit playing Casino Hold'em after all.

I'm not in any way defending the casino, just (hopefully) clarifying this and offering a possible explanation as to why they acted as they did. There have been some great posts on this forum as to why casinos should be obliged to pay when people meet the T&Cs and I agree 100%.

I really hope to see a happy ending to this one. Especially with regard to the Moneybookers issue and the fact that Alderney has sided with the casino, I think this could have a major impact on confidence in the industry as a whole.

 

[lots0]

Because of several reasons listed in this thread and in the other PKR.com thread here at CM, I am as of today adding PKR.com to my sites Casino Hall of Shame Blacklist. (Not Associated with CasinoMeister's Rogue List).

I have Zero tolerance for liars and cheaters and PKR.com in my opinion, appear to be both.

The deciding factor for me, is the fact that PKR.com is and has been blatantly attempting to mislead players into thinking that they are licensed to operate by the UKGC, when in fact they are not.

Edited... after I posted this PKR.com has changed the link at the bottom of their main page from
"Licensed by the UKGC" to "Licensed by the Alderney Gambling Control Commission and the UK Gambling Commission."

I still believe this statement by PKR.com is an attempt to mislead players into thinking that PKR.com is licensed to operate by the UKGC, when in fact they are not.

 

[blizeH]

A quick heads up: despite not reply to my e-mails, PKR have refunded the $250 to my Neteller account, still banned from bonuses but I'm very happy with the outcome.

Thanks to all for their efforts in the thread, and thanks to PKR for doing the right thing

 

[maxd]

I can (unofficially) confirm that PKR has had a change of heart regarding what they call "bonus seekers". This is not an official announcement but I do think it important to flag this because it represents a significant step forward for them on behalf of the affected players. Indeed,

 

[topoor]

One thing I can state without prejudice is that they havent settled with me. I am happy that others are getting what they are entitled to.

 

[blizeH]

One thing I can state without prejudice is that they havent settled with me. I am happy that others are getting what they are entitled to.

That's odd, fingers crossed for you sir, I'm sure it won't be long before they payout now.

They actually seemed really nice and helpful too; I checked my Neteller and it wasn't there, they then sent the payment a few minutes later, along with an e-mail apologising and checking if I'd got it

 

[fatshaft]

The deciding factor for me, is the fact that PKR.com is and has been blatantly attempting to mislead players into thinking that they are licensed to operate by the UKGC

The deciding factor? So the removal of bonus funds isn't that significant for you, but what is actually a truthful statement on their website (it's only your opinion that is was put there to deliberately mislead) is something that would get a site blacklisted?

Your logic and priorities are bizzare, and by association your blacklist becomes meanlingless.

 

[jetset]

LOL. It appears that my latest contribution to this thread has been overtaken by events, but having put in the time earlier today I'm going to post it anyway!

I've been in contact with the AGCC, and the recommendation is that Topoor should request that her case be reviewed.

I quote from the AGCC email:

"On a principle level, I can tell you there is a complaint procedure on our website which is copied from the Regulations for ease of access to agrieved players. If a player is not satisfied with how the AGCC has dealt with his complaint I would strongly suggest that the complaint be escalated in terms of the provisions of the said procedure.

(Regulation 341 which is fully explained on the AGCC website - see the page on Player Protection)"

 

[lots0]

The deciding factor? So the removal of bonus funds isn't that significant for you, but what is actually a truthful statement on their website (it's only your opinion that is was put there to deliberately mislead) is something that would get a site blacklisted?

Your logic and priorities are bizzare, and by association your blacklist becomes meanlingless.

I don't feel the need to justify my actions to any shill.

What I do, I do for the players, not for the business and not to make you or the poker room in question happy.

If you or your employers have any objections or comments you would like to make about my decision to place PKR.com in my Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) , please feel free to leave them on my site, I will publish them...

BTW - "deciding factor" does not mean I did not consider the closed accounts, seized monies, failure to follow their own bonus rules and sleezy treatment of players, I did. Just that the obvious attempt to mislead players into thinking that PKR was licensed to operate and regulated by the UKGC, was the straw that broke the camels back... The deciding factor for me, so to speak.

ADDED:
Also I can say without a doubt, that I am most certainly not the only person that believes the statement by PKR was misleading...

I say "was" because PKR has changed the text in the last 24 hours. Now I believe it is even more misleading to the casual observer(Player) now than it was before.

Licensed by the Alderney Gambling Control Commission and the UK Gambling Commission.

 

[fatshaft]

I don't feel the need to justify my actions to any shill.

.

Sure you don't, however it was me that made the statement, I have no connection with PKR, nor have I ever been in their employ at any time in the past.

What exactly is your vested interest, because while they deservedly are getting a kicking over the bonus issue, the RNG nonsense in the other thread is clearly just the ravings of another loser, as is usually the case, and the license point is just pedantry at its worst, and yet you're trying to rank it up there with the likes of UB, Ap or Poker Spot. I presume there is something in this for you? Just a chance to post your spam perhaps?

I find it particularly annoying, that someone so full of their own self-importance, can think of no other reason for someone disagreeing with them, than that they have a vested interest in the site concerned.

As I said in the other thread, when I joined here over 4 years ago, was it some sort of psychic moment, aware that I would have to defend 'my' site? If you really believe that I feel sorry for you.

 

[lots0]

I presume there is something in this for you? Just a chance to post your spam perhaps?

Ya, I get the satisfaction of seeing that a few poker players do not get ripped off.

My spam huh... I posted that link so people would not get confused that I was speaking for CM's Rogue Casino list. Besides, I believe Bryan and the mods here decide what is or is not spam on this board, not you.

Your just using shill tactics, to hijack and derail this thread, with non-related crap and trying to start a fight so the thread will get closed. Again all expected and well used shill tactics.

Why shouldn't this get 'elevated' to the likes of Absolute Poker and ultimate bet?
Aren't people getting ripped off...

(Although, I would have thought this situation with PKR.com was more like ministeringangel, than Absolute Poker...)

 

[maxd]

One thing I can state without prejudice is that they havent settled with me.

I believe there is good reason to expect that is forthcoming. It's my understanding from PKR that the bonus -- that being the monies in question in your case -- has been credited but your access to the account is still up in the air due to some "identity verification" issues.

I believe the problem is that you and your son (?) are both using the account? Not sure of the details, check with your PKR contact.