Spear,
I know exactly who you are and who you work for so I find it even more entertaining that you're willing to dispute this fact with me. In addition, your first statement, "I hope you have the balls" hardly adds to your credibility and should make you even more embarassed given who you work for. Do they know that you're posting here? I'm curious because I wonder how they would feel about one of their employees acting like a 6 year old.
Are you honestly going to lie to everyone in this thread? Are you going to sit here and tell them that Playtech doesn't own Casino Partners and formerly several other Playtech Online Casinos? I'm still not understanding what you think is out of line here or if this just you taking Pot Shots at competing software. Let's take what I said once more:
"as Playtech seems to generally follow this rule as well. In addition, their requirements are twice as hard to meet."
I'm quoting myself again since you obviously have reading comprehension issues. I said that Playtech seems to generally follow this rule. For example, take Casino Tropez. This casino is owned by Casino Partners and has the following terms:
" In the interest of fair gaming in order to cash out any amount of money you must wager at least eight (8) times your play bonus plus deposit. If you withdraw before having reached the minimum wagering requirements, your bonus and winnings will be void. "
Perhaps you explain to me how what I said was incorrect. I said they "generally follow this rule". The rule being that you can't withdraw until the bonus is cleared or both your winnings and bonus will be void. I never once stated that all Playtech Casinos are the same. You simply decided that this is what I said and then twisted my words to suit your argument. Perhaps you should re-read what I initially said in order for you to better process it.
Also, I'm still waiting for you admit that Playtech DOES in fact own some of its operators: Specifically Casino Partners for example. Owning your operator, regardless of how much you think you can argue it, means that they exert some level of control over it.
Cheers,
Josh.
Yes they do have this rule in general, with "can't" being the operative word here. If you attempt to withdraw without clearing all WR, you physically can't do so, an errror screen pops up to tell you that you have further WR to complete. it doesn't say how much, and you have to get this info from support. It also happens if you attempt to include part of the play bonus in the request, it tells you to select a different amount.
With Playtech, the software supports this rule, with MGS it does not, and the banking page often carelessly states the standard. Don't forget, it is the latest T & C a player reads that count, and the latest terms a player sees before withdrawing from EZBonus are the ones on the banking page. If these state that a withdrawal with bonus forfeit is allowed, then there is no reason to think otherwise.
I get the impression these terms changed on the 8th May. This is an arbitrary date, not an obvious date for a player to think to check the terms again. If the read them, say, on the 5th of May, and they carry no expiry date, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that any changes would be blatantly obvious if they managed to deposit a couple of days later.
Had your terms carried an expiry date, say, valid until 7th May, then a player depositing from the 8th Onward is duty bound to check again.
This is rogue like behaviour, have an offer on the site that player can see, but if they mull it over for a couple of days they might get entrapped by a change that they would only find out about when it was too late.
Don't forget, you say the player should have read the terms again, but so should your audit and payment team, they are professionals - it is their job to know, players are just entering an entertainment venue, they should expect entertainment, not to have their pocket picked days later.
The big issue about casinos taking unauthorised debits from Neteller, and in some cases banks, has now been stated by Prime as hard fact. The damage is that now any scammer can come along with a tale about a casino taking money out of their Neteller/bank without permission, and we are now far more likely to believe this outright rather than thinking that this might be a case of either a forgetful player, a gambler in denial, or just a scam attempt.
It seems that ANY casino, and at ANY time forward, can retrieve winnings from a players Neteller account WITHOUT any reference to the player concerned, so that the first they know is when they see money missing - as they have not been informed, they regard it as theft, and it takes Neteller to inform them it was in fact a chargeback.
How about this scenario then;
Player deposits 1200 at the casino by credit card, plays a promotion, say a lucky draw or tournament, as well as general play. Two weeks later they find out the promotion was not as advertised in the mailer, but was considerably worse (an actual case was the misleading Gift Rap free spins promo from BelleRock last year). They don't like this, so rather than inform the casino and negotiate, they instruct their card company to chargeback the deposits because of misrepresentation of the product. Just as Neteller will do this for a casino, the card company can do this for the player, and here in the UK at least, the player has the Consumer credit act on their side, and the original mailer, and demonstration that it contained an advertising mistake affecting the value of the offer, is all they will need.
In the BelleRock case, players vented steam in the forum, complained to the casino, some even uninstalled the software in protest, but, not one player claimed to have initiated a chargeback.
As for a cheque, it is not as safe as some think, it is possible to cancel a cheque even after it has cleared, and get the money back. This can be up to 30 days from paying in the cheque, although this is normally done where the cheque is found to be fraudulent in some way, but even here, banks have to inform the customer of the recovery so that they have a chance to respond before it happens.
I was merely quite shocked at how josh is dealing with this. I hope you agree though that this (if all the claims made so far are true) is an issue of some importance.
