PLAYTECH: the nightmare list

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
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.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/giantvegas-wont-pay-4879-in-winnings.10039/


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.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/swiss-casino-casinolv-do-not-pay-6000.10806/


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.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/problems-with-vegas-red-1700-confiscated.10802/


Grand Banks:

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

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/grand-banks.10516/


African Palace / Indio:

Issues clearing up, but many debts remain:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/african-palace-casino-stole-my-money.9040/


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.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/joyland-casino-problem-withdrawal-request.9195/


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.
 

paul02085

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
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.
 

vedat

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
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
 

elscrabinda

Full Member
PABnoaccred
PABnorogue
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
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

We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to offer and advertise from time to time promotions, bonuses or other special offers and each such offer will be subject to specific terms and conditions which will be valid for a limited period of time. In connection with the specific terms of the above promotions, bonus and special offers, we further reserve the right to withhold any withdrawal amount from your account which will be in excess of your original deposit. In addition, we reserve the right to withhold or otherwise decline or reverse any pay-out or winning amount or amend any policy in the event that we suspect that you are abusing or attempting to abuse any of the following: (i) bonuses; (ii) other promotions; or (iii) specific policy or rules determined in respect of an existing game or a new game.

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
 

Simmo!

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
elscrabinda said:
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

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".
 

elscrabinda

Full Member
PABnoaccred
PABnorogue
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Location
Oxford
Rarely is it ever exercised as every business needs to protect the reputation of its "brand".

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
 

Reef

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Location
USA
elscrabinda said:
But if reputable casinos want to be dragged down by others and tarred with the same brush thats their perogative

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
 

Westland Bowl

Tin Foil Hat Club Member
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
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.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Westland Bowl said:
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.
...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.
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
The post was only ever intended to relate to the fifteen listed casinos, lol.

Simmo! said:
To be honest, you'll find many contracts inside and outside of the industry have wooly get-out clauses...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".

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.
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
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.
 

paul1

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
caruso said:
I think I freaked her out slightly at the off, steaming straight into the business at hand with a vengeance...


I find this hard to believe. :D
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
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.
 

Slotmachine

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
US
caruso said:
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..

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

Cheers,
SM
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
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.
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
SK2005 said:
Please, advise me if i have any chances to get paid and what should i do. Thank you

You can file a complaint with Bryan for one thing:-

https://www.casinomeister.com/player-arbitration-pab/

I think Bryan is pretty snowed under at the moment; as I posted, I met up with our "disputes" lady last week and assured her I'd be staying in touch. If you want, you're more than welcome to PM / email me details and I'll contact her on your behalf. If it's bog-standard bonus abuse casino-speak, they don't have a leg to stand on technically. That isn't any guarantee of payment of course, but being catagorically in the right doesn't half make things easier.

Slotmachine said:
bump

Cheers,
SM

Malicious little devil...:):)


EDIT: Good heavens, that was quick rethink, SK2005.
 

uungy

Dormant account
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Location
Planet Earth (I think)
I may just be lucky, but I have never (yet) been refused a payout by any of these casino's (even for a withdrawal of a sign up bonus which ended up over $3000, and i wagered a very little over the requirements).
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
No apologies for shamelessly bumping my own thread.

Play at any of the sixteen casinos listed and you need your head examining - preferably with a hammer and chisel.

Is there ANY progress with ANY Playtech dispute?
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
As you'll see from the other thread you posted, the Golden Palace issue is in a class apart from these current ones.

There are unresolved, bogus winnings confiscations from that issue. Unfortunately, all players affected have either lost interest, lost all records or vanished from the scene, as a result of the sheer time involved.

These days, Golden Palace are are worst guilty of acts of idiocy ranging from buying baby names to sabotaging the olympic games. What they are NOT doing these days is stealing legitimate cashins. Then, yes. Now, no. These days, Golden Palace pays first and bars second - the correct way around.

The 15 casinos listed above are those which steal players' money. This is not to say that Golden Palace didn't. However, the sheer timescale involved makes this a horse of a different colour, because while the old GP issue is now completely unresolvable, these issues are NOT. These issues are current, all the players are active, all the records are up to date and all information is available. These issue can be resolved at the drop of a hat.

As such, I would tend to put Golden Palace into another category. If you don't mind patronising a group that stole about $300,000 six years ago and has no problem in committing such acts as olympic sabotage and baby-abuse, then you can do so and they will pay you. To include them in THIS category would devalue it slightly in my opinion, because these 15 casinos are flat out, committed thieves. They WILL steal your money if you patronise them.
 
Top