1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

PLAYTECH: the nightmare list

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by caruso, Jan 18, 2006.

    Jan 18, 2006
  1. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    Playtech licensees currently appear to be out of control. Issues range from absurd slow payment, through cheap tricks into unashamed theft.

    I felt a summary, with problems outlined with links and all casinos listed, would be useful in the main forum. Maybe Playtech will eventually work out its not in their interests to let this go on unchecked.


    Giant Vegas:

    Player denied a cashout of $4879; casino claims that game played was "excluded" screenshot evidence proves otherwise; usual "fraud" allegations thrown in for good measure unsubstantiated; affiliate programme manager cut his ties with the group as a result.

    http://www.casinomeister.com/forums.../10039-giantvegas-wont-pay-4879-winnings.html


    Swiss Casino:

    Player denied cashout of $6000; casino uses the following magnificent justification: "we detected a pattern of bonus abuse in your play". LMAO pretty serious pattern to justify a $6000 theft.

    http://www.casinomeister.com/forums...ss-casino-and-casinolv-do-not-pay-6000-a.html


    Vegas Red:

    Casino uses quite EXTRAORDINARILY sneaky addition of vital terms & conditions hidden away at the very bottom of a barely-readable "user end agreement", when said terms could have easily been placed in with the terms of the relevant bonus, to deny a 1700 ($3200 USD) cash out. Practically every game is excluded from bonus wagering, meaning that practically every player who accepts the bonus will have his winnings revoked. A truly "no cash out" casino.

    http://www.casinomeister.com/forums...0802-problems-vegas-red-1700-confiscated.html


    Grand Banks:

    Too many to list; slow pay to the point of being realistically no pay.

    http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/online-casino-poker-complaints/10516-grand-banks.html


    African Palace / Indio:

    Issues clearing up, but many debts remain:

    http://www.casinomeister.com/forums...040-african-palace-casino-stole-my-money.html


    Joyland:

    At the very least, a $20,000 royal still unpaid; casino "mis-set" comp rate and lost a lot of money; blamed players and didn't pay. Playtech uninterested.

    http://www.casinomeister.com/forums...yland-casino-problem-withdrawal-request.html?


    I make this the full list of casinos and sister casinos within the same group. Fifteen unplayable casinos. Additions / corrections, please let me know.

    Giant Vegas
    Royal Dice
    Swiss Casino
    Casino Las Vegas
    50 Stars Casino
    Casino King
    Vegas Red
    Casino Tropez
    Casino Del Rio
    Europa Casino
    Grand Banks
    Sterling House
    Black Widow
    Joyland
    Monaco Gold



    That a "major" provider such as Playtech allows this extent of rogue element amongst its licensees is remarkable.
     
    36 people like this.
  2. Jan 18, 2006
  3. paul02085

    paul02085 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Fishing :)
    Location:
    USA
    Good for you. There is no way in h... I would deposit money with ANY Playtech site. They have proven time and again they:
    a- dont care who they license as long as they have the cash
    b- will not police their licensees.
    c- will allow their licensees to pull every cheap trick in the book to rip off players.

    IMO Playtech is every bit as bad as RTG if not more so. Good for you to point this out in plain language.
     
  4. Jan 18, 2006
  5. vedat

    vedat Dormant account

    Location:
    TURKEY
    i think delrio group is good

    i think for delrio group i never see a player has a problem when he meets requirements they offer good bonuses and pays all the players who meets the requirements .in their terms they should fix that people shouldnt play excluded games (that goes for all casinos) not hide it on it on another terms on site .At that promotion a player is not correct becouse he didnt meet the requirements by playing an excluded game but i think casino will work something out becouse they hide that stuff on the terms its tricky for new players .and its not ethical if they change it all other stuff is good
     
  6. Jan 18, 2006
  7. Slotmachine

    Slotmachine Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Management
    Location:
    US
    Good roundup Caruso. Avoid these casinos everyone!

    Cheers,
    SM
     
  8. Jan 20, 2006
  9. scrollock

    scrollock Senior Member

    Occupation:
    google
    Location:
    boro, uk
    very nice post caruse, would love to quote but wont because of its size.

    anychance of stickying it CM ?
     
  10. Jan 20, 2006
  11. elscrabinda

    elscrabinda Experienced Member PABnorogue PABnoaccred

    Occupation:
    jvonsofdmpvs
    Location:
    Oxford
    Am I right in saying that all Playtechs include the "management reserves the right to screw you over" term?

    Now there are clearly some good and honest playtech casinos but how about they delete this term for the sake of player confidence in them?

    Quoting here from Kiwi

    Now I'm sure they wouldn't try and pull any stunts, at least as long as they are on Bryan's list, but it would be nice if they made a point of NOT including this license to steal in there. Sure, they need to cover their backs but if they did it in a way that emphasised any action taken would be fair and above board I'm sure it would generate a lot of player goodwill. As it is I'm nervous at depositing at any playtech casino, accredited or otherwise
     
  12. Jan 20, 2006
  13. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    To be honest, you'll find many contracts inside and outside of the industry have wooly get-out clauses. I bet even your cellphone contract mentions that they can cut you off at any time at their discretion. Any loan contracts you have will probably say that the issuer can demand full payment with due interest back at any time and so on and so forth.

    Its just standard legal drivel that all lawyers bang into every contract to cover any eventuality that hasn't ben covered IMO :) Rarely is it ever exercised as every business needs to protect the reputation of its "brand".
     
  14. Jan 20, 2006
  15. elscrabinda

    elscrabinda Experienced Member PABnorogue PABnoaccred

    Occupation:
    jvonsofdmpvs
    Location:
    Oxford
    Its not excercised in cellphone land and so the cellphone industry does not have a terrible reputation and they aren't considering making cellphones illegal in the US. It IS excercised in casino-land. All the blooming time by the looks of it. As a result, casinos have a bad name, we have to have whole forums to discuss complaints about them and the industry as a whole is dragged down.

    Thats why I suggest for reputable casinos to be open and honest and frame their terms in a way that is clearly understood to mean "we'll play by the rules as long as you do" instead of giving them free reign to ignore the rules as and when they feel like it. But if reputable casinos want to be dragged down by others and tarred with the same brush thats their perogative
     
  16. Jan 20, 2006
  17. Reef

    Reef Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    USA
    Even if a reputable playtech tries not to have their name degraded, what are their options? Take over the affairs, support, and payments of crappy playtechs? I don't think so
     
  18. Jan 20, 2006
  19. Westland Bowl

    Westland Bowl Tin Foil Hat Club Member CAG PABnonaccred

    Occupation:
    not applicable
    Location:
    America
    I've heard that the exceptions to the general "avoid Playtech" rule are Bet Fred and Bet365 casinos. Supposedly they were determined to be fair and fast payers.
     
  20. Jan 20, 2006
  21. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    ...and the Playtechs that are listed at Casinomeister. C'mon give these guys a break. The Mainstreet casinos payout usually within a day or two.
     
  22. Jan 20, 2006
  23. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    The post was only ever intended to relate to the fifteen listed casinos, lol.

    Would that it were "standard legal drivel" that is "rarely ever excercised"; the precise point here is that it's being dishonestly and unfairly excercised, for the purpose of reneging on a contract to which one side has already fulfilled its obligations, ie. the player.

    See how long your cellphone company would stay in business if they ever pulled the stunts these Playtechs are pulling.
     
  24. Jan 20, 2006
  25. GI Joe

    GI Joe Webmeister webmeister

    Occupation:
    manager
    Location:
    LA
    ..and I never read anything bad regarding AcropolisCasino.

    They are really great.

    GI Joe
    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
  26. Jan 26, 2006
  27. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    I met up with Iris, the lady in charge of the Playtech disputes service, on day one of the ICE. She's a very sweet little slip of a thing who looks like she'd blow away if a strong gust of wind took her unawares. I think I freaked her out slightly at the off, steaming straight into the business at hand with a vengeance and without so much as a by-your-leave. I'm afraid I was in one-directional frame of mind. :)

    I started out asking how she thought the dispute service was fairing generally, since player-perception is unfavourable. She was not of this opinion at all, reckoning that it was moreorless on track. Following on from that, I highlighted the recent handful of cases. It would probably be asking a lot for her to have facts about specific complaints sitting at the top of her head in any event. In these circumstances, being focussed on other things totally and then being called to task on this matter, it's maybe not unreasonable that these recent cases mentioned at Casinomeister were not familiar to her at all.

    Moving away from specific cases, I asked for her take on one of the apparently contentious issues: games which don't count towards bonus wagering but are not excluded, which the casino then uses as justification for winnings-confiscation. On THIS matter at least, I thought Iris played the political card a bit too much - she told me that on these matters she had to consult their legal folk and could not give a general answer, only a specific answer to a specific case. I suggested that the distinction is really pretty plain. Although unwilling to give her personal take, she did go on to say, revealingly, that other factors concerning the player history would come into the discussion: bonuses, how much wagering beyond bonus requirements etc. I asked if these "other" areas would have an impact on the final payment decision; again, only specific cases would be looked at, not general answers to general questions.

    However: notwithstanding the requirements to get the legal team onto what players see as fairly cut and dry matters, Iris stated that as far as she's concerned, whatever agreement the player signs up to is binding, and that the rules as they are / were at the time of signup is the only relevant consideration. This does NOT square with the "player history" aspect that was originally thrown into the melting pot, but it was a positive.

    Iris made me aware that she is only one corner of the dispute / casino / player triangle, and as such ends up with problems that are not of her own creation: casinos are varying in their responsiveness, as are PLAYERS. I concur with this: some of the posted complaints see little interest from the player in question after the first post - see the Swiss Casino complaint thread - where did he go?? If the player fails to follow through, Iris will give it a fortnight or so and then close the case. This is perfectly acceptable, since one can only tacitly accept that the player has accepted the decision. The player may then subsequently return and complain that the decision was unfair and why did he not hear more? I quite understand that this is a legistical problem for her, not of her creation. If players don't care, why should she?

    Since Iris was unaware of the cases I mentioned - Giant Vegas, Swiss and Vegas Red - she asked me to email her specifics. This I am happy to do, but it's really up to the PLAYERS to follow these things through. I will, however, email her links for the threads in question.

    Although there were some aspects of the initial part of the discussion that I was worried about - the possible "player history" aspect of a case beyond simple adherence to the rules - I found Iris's attitude pretty much in tune with what would generally be regarded as correct by the player community, and I think the Playtech dispute service has a good chance under her management.

    I hope she recovered fast from what was a bit of a battering! Sorry Iris, but you can blame Spearmaster for this one: it was he who pointed you out to me, and he knows I don't mince words. :)

    Oh yes, one specific: the Joyland case is considered SETTLED IN FULL, to the satisfaction of all parties. That surprised me.
     
    6 people like this.
  28. Jan 27, 2006
  29. paul1

    paul1 Dormant account


    I find this hard to believe. :D
     
  30. Jan 27, 2006
  31. Webzcas

    Webzcas Winter is Coming! Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Webmaster
    Location:
    Block S25, South Stand, Ashton Gate, BS3
  32. Jan 27, 2006
  33. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    I forget the context, but I mentioned to Iris the low percentage of the online gambling public that actually follow the gambling boards and, as such, the limited outreach of important information.

    Her response was an angle I'd never really thought about: although the percentage of industry-watchers - around ten percent - seems small overall, in a competetive market ten percent is an enormous figure, and a chunk of the potential customer-base that no casino can permit itself to do without. Lose ten percent of your market and you might lose your casino.

    I remember talking to a webmistress about my Angelciti case, almost three years ago now. I mentioned the general outrage expressed at Winneronline and the sheer level of interest in the matter expressed by the community. She said that, unfortunately, these were not players the casinos really had much interest in appeasing, being by and large bonus hunter types and of generally negative value to them. This was probably true then. However, there's been a big change in the forum-composition in more recent times: time was, a slot junkie would not dare show his face for fear of the ridicule he'd receive from the sharp players who generally regard slot players with contempt. Since then, the number of sharp players on the forums has dwindled to almost nothing with the ever tightening nature of bonuses, and the number of casino-profitable players has exploded - just take a look of the slot threads at Casinomeister. Three years ago you would have seen none. That is a statement of fact and not intended to offend anyone.

    In other words, although the forum readership of yesteryear was a readership casinos could possibly afford to allienate, it is no longer. That said, make no mistake: the power of the boards was considerable even then. Angelciti, Gaming Club, Forty Plus...these and many other cases were immensely fortified by forum pressure. It's simply my opinion that the composition of the forum ten percent is now such that when it votes with its feet, it has greater power. Of course, the outreach into the mainstream media of copy supplied by the likes of Bryan Bailey and Brian Cullingworth is of as much, and most likely greater, value - now as it was then. But it's heartening to be told by a casino representative that the apparently small customer base supplied by the forum readership is not a customer base to be triffled with.
     
    3 people like this.
  34. Jan 27, 2006
  35. Slotmachine

    Slotmachine Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Management
    Location:
    US
    None taken. Slot junkies rise to power! You gotta be nice to us now:D

    Cheers,
    SM
     
  36. Jan 27, 2006
  37. GrandMaster

    GrandMaster Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Mathematician by day, online gambler by night.
    Location:
    UK
    Whatever the casino's opinion is about the boards and about the people who visit them, it cannot be good for business when the first hit for the casino's name on Google is the rogue list or a thread about the casino not paying.
     
  38. Jan 30, 2006
  39. Slotmachine

    Slotmachine Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Management
    Location:
    US
    bump

    Cheers,
    SM
     

Share This Page