Roguish PKR revoking bonus for no reason.

[topoor]

Max, the reason I made my comment regarding if I had known about PKR, I wouldnt have deposited etc was meant to highlight the need for quick action. I might well be the first complainant but I am not the only one and if PKR/Alderney are highlighted as having issues now then others wont get bitten.

Does it really have to get to the point were a multitude of players are defrauded before action is taken?

I havent forgotten that you disagree with the PKR stance but I dont see the need for a comment such as "give them the benefit of the doubt". It suggesed to me that you agree they have done wrong but only to me so lets see who else they rip off.

If however I have misinterpreted your comments and you fully intend to rogue them if they fail to meet the standards and expectations of the PAB process then I apologise. I have not been through this before and have no experience of anything similar.

 

[maxd]

... Does it really have to get to the point were a multitude of players are defrauded before action is taken? ... Its suggests to me that you agree they have done wrong but only to me so lets see who else they rip off.

Again, I must take exception with your (unfounded) assumptions. The way the PABs normally work is that I give the casino several chances over the course of a few weeks to do the right thing in regards to a specific case. That's one case, such as your own, not multiple cases.

If at the end of that process they are still in breach of our basic expectations for casino conduct then I issue a Warning and begin the Rogue process on them.

So no, haste is not part of this process, simply because it can't be and maintain the success ratio that we try to achieve. The goal of the PAB process is to get cases successfully resolved wherever possible -- that usually means getting players paid what they are owed-- not to issue as many Warnings and Rogue listings as possible.

 

[topoor]

I have edited my post and returned to read yours so there may be some crossover. I felt you might have taken it as you did which is why I edited it.

I think we are on the same page now I understand the process and your outlook. Im sorry for any confusion and would appreciate if we could move forward.

 

[maxd]

... would appreciate if we could move forward.

On that we most certainly do agree.

 

[Kodi]

hey topoor, maxd and others

what are the possibilites of sue PKR Casino?

Im mean, how much would it costs? and is this possible? what court are correct to sent diligence?

 

[topoor]

Due to the sums involved I am considering the small claims court. With the small claims court costs are not recoverable so if I lost I lose nothing other than the filing fee.

Obviously I will await the PAB.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Since Alderney showed that "bonus abuse" took place with the initial sign-up bonus, PKR should never have lured the player back in with an even larger offer. They should have locked the account straight after the initial bonus was "abused". PKR offered the reload when it was already the case that the player had "abused" the bonus, and would probably do the same again with the second one. This is simply a case of bait and switch.

Now we know where Alderney stand with regard to "bonus abuse", players are not allowed to play best strategy to win as much as possible, but must go beyond the terms and conditions by an unspecified amount.

The Moneybookers incident seems rather too much of a co-incidence, and topoor did say that a member of their staff let slip that PKR was the complainant. Since Alderney have not found that fraud was involved, PKR have breached the data protection act by issuing a "fraud report" to Moneybookers for what is simply "advantage play". A complaint should be made direct to the information commissioner now that you have a statement from Alderney as to exactly what took place. The Data Protection act only allows the passing of data in the case of fraud or suspected money laundering. If it was only PKR that was transacted with using the Moneybookers account, there can only be one merchant that complained.

I cannot see how Moneybookers can justify closing accounts simply because their customer is an "advantage player".

There would be no point in sueing PKR over the second bonus, the main problem is the information passed to Moneybookers.

There are other Ewallets available, but don't forget that Playtech have a central database of "bonus abusers", which means topoor should not play at any other Playtech casinos, otherwise either the bonus will not be credited, or another attempt will be made to confiscate winnings.

The small claims court would at least limit the amount payable to take action, even if it failed.

 

[Fleur-De-Lis]

Facts-less, over-emotional post to follow

Well... I do not play in PKR, and it may be none of my business, but I am truly appalled by the so-far outcome of the case. It is understandable that when casino's reps offer you bonuses and sweet-talk you into depositing they want you to lose (otherwise, how they'd pay their bills? ), however decent enterprises somehow manage to handle the situations when player actually wins, not loses.
Not a bonus person till recently, I took up two signup bonus offers just last week, met WR and won nice money in both cases, and were paid in few hours (kudos to Intercasino and Canbet )

At the same time, it appears as if roguish and unscrupulous operators of PKR kind simply cannot accept the fact that their tight 'player-unfriendly' bonus terms can be beaten in an honest way and a player can end up winning... Apparently, PKR were clearly disgusted when OP managed to meet WR, win and cashout the first time around. Looks like they could not live with that, so they tried a second-chance offer, in hope she would fail this time... and the fact that she did not lose her money *again* drove them mad... so they screamed murder

Dear topoor... please accept sincere thanks for bringing this matter up and making us players here aware of this shame of a casino. I am so sorry for all the trouble and unpleasantness you had to go through. I do hope your next choice of a casino will be a better one, and you would have lots of fun, great wins and positive-only experience. Take care.
Fleur

 

[chuchu59]

Alderney has sided with PKR. These are the reasons.

You made two large deposits, $200 and $500. The first depost of $200 is the maximum eligible amount for a first time deposit bonus. The second deposit is again the maximum eligible amount for reload bonus.

As soon as the bonuses were cleared you requested a withdrawal, each time within five minutes of clearing the specific bonus.

You did not engage in any play between the first withdrawal and the second deposit when the reload bonus became available.

The only game you played was casino hold em.

The vast majority of the bets you made were the minimum $1. This is quite a small bet amount when compared to the amounts that you deposited. Only the basic main bet was played, never the side bet (AA bet).

The total amount you bet on the account was $20,002.00, this reflects the $10,000 bet to claim the first deposit bonus and then a second $10,000 to claim the reload bonus. It is clear that as soon as the bonus was released no more games were played.

Play only occured while a bonus was pending.


So there you have it, if a casino invites you to an offer and you take them up on it, follow the terms to the letter and dont breach any rule or law the casino is allowed to deny you the bonus. This is the finding of the Alderney Gambling Commission.

I found this comment particularly laughable:

PKR are more than within their rights to close your account and seize all funds.

So according to Alderney if I break no rules or laws and deposit to a casino they have the right to steal my money should they wish.

Absolute joke. What on earth does this say about the gambling industry?

I am appalled by the reasons given by Alderney for siding with Pkr. If a bonus is awarded and you did not break any of the Ts and Cs whilst playing, they cannot retroactively claim bonus abuse. Certainly, they dont like it and if I were them I will never give you any bonuses again. The result was clear from the outset. If Alderney was only having a look at the play logs to determine whether this was in fact how Topoor was playing, then the result is just like our slot games ie pre-determined once you hit the spin button.

In my view, the stance taken by Alderney only encourages casinos to confiscate winnings. I hope that it can review the whole issue and come up with more solid reasons for its decision - either way. Otherwise, this regulating body will have doubtful integrity and clout.

 

[jetset]

This (the AGCC decision) is absolute nonsense, and takes us back to the dark days when players were so frequently and unfairly screwed by the use of this iniquitous "bonus abuse" allegation, often allied to the notorious FU clause in which management reserves the right to do pretty much what it wants to.

I can't understand why PKR and the AGCC are seemingly incapable of grasping the contractual fundamentals here:

If a casino designs and offers a T&C for a promo and offers it to a player, and that player accepts this and plays within those T&Cs, then the casino has an obligation to pay the player what it has promised in terms of the T&Cs.

Everything turns on compliance with the T&Cs, which should not be corrupted by unfair and non-specific FU clauses or anything else, other than player dishonesty such as fraudulent ID, multiple accounts etc.

Should the casino operator then decide that the player is undesirable, he can bar him from future promos or even from the website entirely....BUT FIRST HE PAYS THE PLAYER WHAT WAS PROMISED IN THE T&Cs.

 

[Rhyzz]

I'd like to get something straight here...

If I decide to deposit with PKR, say $200 to claim the maximum bonus they offer...I then go and play 97% payout slots...I hit a big win towards the end of my play, get my balance up to around $2k or so and continue to play until I meet the wagering requirement for the bonus....they will then remove the bonus and tell me that I'm a bonus abuser?


AGCC Seem to have missed 1 crucial point - the guy is playing Casino Hold'em for god sake. These bonuses are set up in such a way that the house edge should still earn the house a profit. They have some nerve taking the bonus from someone who has met the T&C's of an offer whilst playing a HUGE house advantaged game.

I certainly won't be going near PKR in future... Bonus abuse after playing Casino Hold'em? You're having a laugh.

 

[dominique]

True, playing casino holdem makes it twice as silly. But regardless of what game was played, he needs to be paid.

 

[Rusty]

I have still not heard from the gambling commission as to whether pkr.com are Licensed with them and have sent a follow up email.
This was after an odd telephone conversation in which I was told that they could not give me an answer over the phone.
I have done several searches of licensees on their site including PKR Limited and pkr.com and so far these searches have come up empty.
It is still possible they are licensed under a different name though so I hope for confirmation from the Gambling commission.
I note that the Casino does not advertise they are licensed by the UK gambling commission and this is reserved for the poker site which seems odd.
If it turns out they are not licensed by the UK gambling commission yet advertising that they are, well you can draw your own conclusions.
Lets wait and see.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I have still not heard from the gambling commission as to whether pkr.com are Licensed with them and have sent a follow up email.
This was after an odd telephone conversation in which I was told that they could not give me an answer over the phone.
I have done several searches of licensees on their site including PKR Limited and pkr.com and so far these searches have come up empty.
It is still possible they are licensed under a different name though so I hope for confirmation from the Gambling commission.
I note that the Casino does not advertise they are licensed by the UK gambling commission and this is reserved for the poker site which seems odd.
If it turns out they are not licensed by the UK gambling commission yet advertising that they are, well you can draw your own conclusions.
Lets wait and see.

I believe their UK licence is a Software Operating Licence (Remote) - which authorises their software development

Their casino and poker operations are conducted under an AGCC licence

 

[fatshaft]

I believe their UK licence is a Software Operating Licence (Remote) - which authorises their software development

It is, and is clickable from the link on their homepage giving a full description.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Rusty]

Thank you both.
It is still not clear to me that Pkr.com is covered by this license as the license covers PKR technolies ltd
"to manufacture, supply, install or adapt gambling software"
It does not state that they are licensed as a remote gaming or casino operator.
It is clear that the above does not cover a remote Casino as they are licensed by Alderney for this operation, so in what part does it cover a remote poker room?
Perhaps someone with a little more knowledge in these matters can clarify.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Thank you both.
It is still not clear to me that Pkr.com is covered by this license as the license covers PKR technolies ltd
"to manufacture, supply, install or adapt gambling software"
It does not state that they are licensed as a remote gaming or casino operator.
It is clear that the above does not cover a remote Casino as they are licensed by Alderney for this operation, so in what part does it cover a remote poker room?
Perhaps someone with a little more knowledge in these matters can clarify.

Their UK held licence doesn't cover casino or poker operations. It is simply software development. I imagine PKR Technologies Ltd are a wholly owend subsidiary

Casino and poker operations will be under their full Alderney licence.

 

[Snake Eyes]

For reference, the provisions of their licence are set out in s.97 of GA2005 (didn't have my copy to hand earlier on)

 

[Rusty]

Thanks Snake,

Hmmm,
This what it states in their link under licensed on the Poker site,

PKR is licensed and regulated by The Alderney Gambling Control Commission (AGCC).

Now correct me if I am wrong but UK gambling commission and Alderney gambling control commission are Two different beasts yet it clearly states they are licensed by the UK gambling commission on the poker site.

It seems that the actual poker site is not licensed and regulated by the UK gambling commission but by Alderney and they are only licensed to provide software by the UK gambling commission,

To some that would look like a sneaky ploy.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Thanks Snake,

Hmmm,
This what it states in their link under licensed on the Poker site,

PKR is licensed and regulated by The Alderney Gambling Control Commission (AGCC).

Now correct me if I am wrong but UK gambling commission and Alderney gambling control commission are Two different beasts yet it clearly states they are licensed by the UK gambling commission on the poker site.

It seems that the actual poker site is not licensed and regulated by the UK gambling commission but by Alderney and they are only licensed to provide software by the UK gambling commission,

To some that would look like a sneaky ploy.

Deception by omission. They must know that it is everyday players that read the site, not lawyers (for the most part), and the obvious interpretation is that the Poker room is licenced by both the AGCC and the UK Gambling Commission, which looks like overkill.
The UK licence is merely one for the company supplying and developing the software, and this is not made clear at all, in fact it is the opposite, both statements are displayed alongside each other without any qualification.

Maybe a few disreputable outfits might cotton on to this, using a software that has a UK development and distribution licence, and then having "Licenced by the UK Gambling Commission", perhaps in the vicinity of the logo for their software, and knowing full well they are obeying the LETTER of the rules, but knowing that players will draw the wrong conclusion from the clever placement that the casino itself holds a UK Gambling Commission licence.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Thanks Snake,

Hmmm,
This what it states in their link under licensed on the Poker site,

PKR is licensed and regulated by The Alderney Gambling Control Commission (AGCC).

Now correct me if I am wrong but UK gambling commission and Alderney gambling control commission are Two different beasts yet it clearly states they are licensed by the UK gambling commission on the poker site.

It seems that the actual poker site is not licensed and regulated by the UK gambling commission but by Alderney and they are only licensed to provide software by the UK gambling commission,

To some that would look like a sneaky ploy.

I don't see it to be honest.

They are licensed by the GC in the UK, and I don't see the problem with them displaying that moniker.

Software design is a very important issue as the goings on with Tokwiro have shown.

I certainly don't think it's a sneaky ploy - and I don't consider them to be misleading anyone.

 

[Rusty]

I don't see it to be honest.

They are licensed by the GC in the UK, and I don't see the problem with them displaying that moniker.

Software design is a very important issue as the goings on with Tokwiro have shown.

I certainly don't think it's a sneaky ploy - and I don't consider them to be misleading anyone.

It is open to interpretation I guess but I am with VWM on this.

I feel the most reputable licensing commission is the UK gambling commission for all sorts of reasons and instantly recognisable to most UK players.
It is misleading in my eyes because anyone visiting that site would expect it to be regulated by the UKGC and if any dispute arose they would no doubt expect to be protected by their authority.
They would feel misled I think.

 

[topoor]

I wouldnt be surprised if that was the intention. The UK seal is one that suggests integrity. Just the way Alderney was supposed to...

 

[topoor]

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:[email protected]

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

 

[blizeH]

Did you manage to get hold of an e-mail or phone number of someone who's actually quite helpful please topoor? Wouldn't mind contacting them again regarding the $250 bonus they removed from my account upon trying to cashout.

Cheers

 

[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:[email protected]

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.