Prime Casino remove my money from Neteller!

This cant be true.

Spearmaster has been extremely aggressive in demanding respect as a totally independent "voice of reason" (see English Harbour thread among many others).

That he is in fact an employee or in the pay of a casino but has failed to ever mention it just seems bizarre.

That would mean he is forcefully opinionating on threads when the casino in question might well be paying him money.

I think, in fairness to Spearmaster, he would like to have his name cleared as this would surely be the last straw as far as his remaining credibilty goes.

I don't work for a casino, but as of November I have been working for Playtech - and this is known to many people here as they would have my name card - this includes operators and affiliates and players. This fact was never hidden but not otherwise mentioned here because - and you can check the past posts - as Spearmaster I post in my private capacity and not as a representative of Playtech.

Naturally, this is why I resigned as a moderator at the end of October so that I would not compromise the integrity of the forum.

I do not get paid by any casino for any reason whatsoever at this time and have not since I joined the company. And my position will not change with regards to being a 'voice of reason' even if you think otherwise - my objective is to work from within in improving Playtech's offerings and services to operators, affiliates and players.

This post is just to clear the air. Any future postings by me here at Casinomeister will remain my own personal opinion as it has since I joined here. And I cannot and will not respond to any post in an official capacity at any time.
 
Mohammed and Anders

how are you two doing on the wager requirments?
id sure like to see you both hit big and get to keep the money for real!!
good luck
I have now completed my wagering and has now requested a cash-out of about $100 more than was originally taken from my Neteller account. Didn't really hit it big but it didn't turn out bad either. I will at least post once more in this thread when the money hits my Neteller account.
 
4. I have not paid out Jens because she blatantly broke our T&C's, made one bet, and cashed out. This is classic promo abuse and our terms ecist to protect us from just this kind of player. Why should Jens be the only player to become an exception to this rule? Though my decision here was solely based on breaking the T&C's, I'm even less inclined to make an exception since she decided to drag her issue into an angry mob in the hopes you'd all agree with her by default. Lastly, assuming our terms are like every other MGS Casino is a ridiculous excuse for not reading them. I notice how now you have our terms under a microscope but had you read them in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation. My answer is no and it's final.

That what you write here proofs your character best - excuse me but how impertinently is that.
If it is promo abuse to try to win money out of a promotion what are you doing? Customer abuse?

If i had understood your terms correctly i could have easily bet 1 Euro on red at french roulette (6000 rounds) and would have , according to the Wizard of Odds, lost less than i lost when i decided to drop the bonus. I think that proves best that i am not lying when i say that i understood your terms wrong. And in my opinion the main reason for this is, that you arent able to write propper terms.

I'm even less inclined to make an exception since she decided to drag her issue into an angry mob in the hopes you'd all agree with her by default.

Ridiculous.

Who is the angry mob? The casinomeister members?

The only reason i entered this thread is, that you did, with no word, responded to my arguments - neither you did in the mails i sent you first nor you did here.

I cant and wont say more.

Your attitude is intolerable.

My last word in this thread is, that i suggest to donate the money that were in my account before i made this mistake to UNICEF as i dont want you to make profit out of the fact that i didnt (and still dont) understand your terms. This donation would, of course, include my deposit of 100 Euro. I would spend it to Unicef, send Casinomeister a proof and after that you could refund it to my Neteller.

Its on you whether you accept this suggestion or not and whether it would include the bonus money or not.

I am just before my exams and really spent a lot of energy and time on it and only want to bring it to an acceptable end for both of us.
 
I have now completed my wagering and has now requested a cash-out of about $100 more than was originally taken from my Neteller account. Didn't really hit it big but it didn't turn out bad either. I will at least post once more in this thread when the money hits my Neteller account.

awesome!!
im glad it worked out for you in the end
 
Naturally, this is why I resigned as a moderator at the end of October so that I would not compromise the integrity of the forum.

News to me spearmaster.

If I remember correctly you were the "voice of reason" during the English Harbour shame and you accused anyone who doubted your integrity (even in the slightest) as "spewing venom" and relentlessly wailed the fact that noone believed you were being unbiased. You even insisted such people (which turned out to be the large majority) were banned from this forum for not believing you were being independent and honest.

Such was the illogicalness of your posts that a few posters actaully accused you of being in the pay of the casino.

But, no, you were the "independent" person of impeccible character who was "examining" English harbours cheating software (because it all had to be hush hush for some reason).

Then, in the midst of this, you told us you were quitting looking at the software and being a mod because (for very obvious reasons) no one believed you.

And now, shock horror, you say you quit being a mod and "totally independently" examing a cheating casino's software because ... you had just been put on the payroll of a casino software company!!!

And you kept this all to yourself all this time.

Shameful. You do this forum no credit in an otherwise murky enough industry.

NB The English harbour thread where a software was proved to be cheating players was locked despite it being the most viewed (by a country mile) because, officially, it was now boring.
 
And now, shock horror, you say you quit being a mod and "totally independently" examing a cheating casino's software because ... you had just been put on the payroll of a casino software company!!!

And you kept this all to yourself all this time.

Oh, I'd say probably over 100 members of the forum knew this fact - yet didn't think much of it, except you - and Josh, who thought he was going to reveal a deep, dark "secret" that no one knew of (while those in the know who watched were snickering). And if it was such a secret, why would I be answering your question in the first place?

I have nothing to hide, never have, never will. Anyone else out there with a deep, dark secret about Spearmaster please feel free to join in the fray.

And to everyone who knew - members or not, supporters, detractors (one who actually found out later and sent his regards), thanks for keeping my "secret" :what:
 
As much as I would like to sit here all day long each day and debate the morality of my decisions, it's simply not practical. The origin of this thread came from two players who complained their funds were removed from their Neteller accounts. This money was never meant to be credited in the first place but I did the right thing and put it back into their Casino account which would have been the default situation had our software supported our T&C's.

I can't help but feel that I'm bearing the brunt of your anger regarding things many have done before me and as much as I've tried to appease the lot of you, it's in the end, impossible to please everyone. As important as these issues are, this thread is taking up far too much of my time and since there is no governing body here other than CM, I'm forced to leave this in his capable hands.

1. I have told you that I will not initiate Neteller chargebacks in the future for any reason other than fraud. I will not change our T&C's to restrict our ability to do this. If you're not defrauding our Casino, you have nothing to worry about. Fraud = multiple accounts, using other people's accounts, etc. If I need to define Fraud for you then we have a much larger problem here.

2. I have put the players' money back into their Casino account and allowed them to play out their wagering requirements. Perhaps Mohammed and Anders aren't doing backflips over this but they are happy with the resolution and have said so in the thread. What more would like me to do exactly?

3. I have agreed to date our T&C's and to put a note on our index page notifying when recent changes have been made with a link to the new terms. I will not make this a massive road-sign on the index page though. It will sit around where the No-US Players and the Powered by Microgaming logos are. If this is unnaceptable to you I'm sorry but it's more than anyone else is doing.

4. I have not paid out Jens because she blatantly broke our T&C's, made one bet, and cashed out. This is classic promo abuse and our terms ecist to protect us from just this kind of player. Why should Jens be the only player to become an exception to this rule? Though my decision here was solely based on breaking the T&C's, I'm even less inclined to make an exception since she decided to drag her issue into an angry mob in the hopes you'd all agree with her by default. Lastly, assuming our terms are like every other MGS Casino is a ridiculous excuse for not reading them. I notice how now you have our terms under a microscope but had you read them in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation. My answer is no and it's final.

5. Regarding downloading a casino first and then registering several days later, I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. It's common sense that before you deposit, you should read the terms and conditions. I think it's a real stretch to think that someone would download our software, spend the time studying our T&C's, but then not even registering until several days after. I feel I've done enough to protect the players' interests if the terms are valid at the time of fun player registration. I am not going to email every fun player about changes to the terms. Also, I have a fun account with at least 20 Casinos and none of them have ever done this either. Not only that but none of them as far as I have seen are notifying people of T&C changes anywhere on the site. Nevermind the index page.

This has gone on long enough. Some of you have made some very good points and suggestions that I am going to enact. However, I am not going to spend my time each day going through this thread and becoming a doormat for the Casino industry. I think it's time for CM to step in here and decide what he thinks should be done. We're an accredited Casino here and the actions I've taken are the final actions that will be taken in this issue. If he feels that we shouldn't be accredited after this, so be it. My decisions are final and that is literally the end of this discussion. Again, I appreciate all the civilized input I've received and your suggestions will be enacted next week.

Thanks and good luck,

Josh.

Hi Josh -

I'm Keith, the guy who you have consistantly avoided addressing directly.

I'm sorry that this will be your last post on this issue, as it's clear this issue demands further investigation and discussion. I'm also always respectful towards someone, who in the face of further VALID criticism, packs up his marbles and runs home.

Angry mob? Curiously, this thread, which certainly had all of the fuel necessary for an extremely ugly exchange, remained quite respectful. Because you don't appreciate our unwillingness to swallow your bottomline, you want to label us a mob? If you remove the TravelMaxx hijack and the Spearmaster sidebar, this has been an extremely orderly and respectful exchange of ideas and information (in comparison with what can happen around here).

Your accreditation here is nothing more than text on a webpage. After you are accredited, it is up to you and your employees to maintain a level of dignity that this community agrees is a bit above the rest. Bryan can give you the chance up front, but ultimately you will be judged by what's posted in this community. If you have no issues posted, it can be assumed that you are doing good business and a player browsing this community might feel very comfortable making a deposit with your casino. On the other hand, a thread like this can easily (and mostly likely will) null and void the accreditation provided in text. Sorry to tell you that life is about "what have you done for us lately?". Don't kill the messenger here... it's how it is, and I just live in this world and go by the same rules.

Your integrity, in my view (and I know that matters not to you, but I thought I would recognize that up front), is starting to dwindle quite rapidly. I have not appreciated TravelMaxx's attempt to piggy-back an issue onto this one, but now likewise, you have attempted to attach the Neteller issue onto other issues of T&C's dating and ease of access. You have used the player's "thanks" for fixing those things as a vehicle to attach this "not unless it's approved by my desk" Neteller issue. As GM and a few others tried to make it clear that your "solution" there was not accetable, you started getting angry and are now going to tantrum off into the sunset. That speaks volumes about you as a person and a casino manager.

Let me point out that, unless I missed a response somewhere, not one single member of this community has "approved" of your solution to only raid a Neteller account if it meets your personal approval." Not a single one.

You were given an opportunity. Let me explain:

What has been revealed in this thread is something that will be investigated. Ultimately, one of two things will happen here. Either it will come to light that you lied to Neteller (and a vendor actually does need to cite a reason for a chargeback), or this flaw in Neteller will be exposed and fixed. It does not matter which of these two things comes to pass, the ultimate outcome will be that this hole will get patched, and even if you wanted to do this in the future, you will not be able to.

So you have been given the opportuniy here to STOP doing this for any reason other than 2x mistaken funding, and recognize that this will not be allowed in the future. By continually insisting you want to remain able to raid a Neteller account if you feel it warrants it, you are just being overbearing and obnoxiously pompous for no gain in the long run.

So I guess you passed on that opportunity, and have revealed that you are the typical casino manager who feels that you are the judge, jury and executioner, and that we are all peasants beneath you. You can buy out a couple of players and announce that they are happy, but unfortunately we are a bit smarter than to fall for that. I think we all feel very comfortable that, after you violated their respective personal e-Wallets and once they are done with their WR, these two players will cashout and be long gone, never to do business with you again. That's the thing about attempting to buy loyalty and PR, it is short-lived and useless. I do hope a couple of grand (well, one was for 1k, not sure what the other one was worth) was worth the 10 mins of PR it bought you.

On the level of obstinance that you have displayed, I would recommend that any current clients of Prime close their account and move their business elsewhere. I would also recommend to anyone that they NOT open a new account with Prime casino. This recommendation is my opinion, and my opinion alone, based on the answers you have provided to us in this very thread, as well as the answers you refused to provide.

Good day sir,
- Keith
 
Last edited:
1. I have told you that I will not initiate Neteller chargebacks in the future for any reason other than fraud. I will not change our T&C's to restrict our ability to do this. If you're not defrauding our Casino, you have nothing to worry about. Fraud = multiple accounts, using other people's accounts, etc. If I need to define Fraud for you then we have a much larger problem here.

As GM and a few others tried to make it clear that your "solution" there was not accetable, you started getting angry and are now going to tantrum off into the sunset. That speaks volumes about you as a person and a casino manager.

Let me point out that, unless I missed a response somewhere, not one single member of this community has "approved" of your solution to only raid a Neteller account if it meets your personal approval." Not a single one.

Hey D_G, the part of the quote I highlighted above I thought addressed yours (and others) question/concern re: the Neteller issue? Maybe we are perceiving it differently? Don't take this to mean that I approve of what happened with the players having their money taken back from Neteller 2 weeks after the fact, because I don't. I'm just pointing out that I thought Josh answered the question.

As to his participation in this thread, at least he made an effort to participate, which is more than some do. Even if you don't approve of his posts and/or solutions, he put forth an effort. There are many reps on here who won't post publicly, ever. They'll communicate through PM, or through Bryan, but that's it. Again, just an observation.

I wish more would.
 
all i ever wanted to know was what prime would have done if the money was not available in their neteller accounts...that question was never answered so i guess ill have to keep wondering :what:
 
Hey D_G, the part of the quote I highlighted above I thought addressed yours (and others) question/concern re: the Neteller issue? Maybe we are perceiving it differently? Don't take this to mean that I approve of what happened with the players having their money taken back from Neteller 2 weeks after the fact, because I don't. I'm just pointing out that I thought Josh answered the question.

As to his participation in this thread, at least he made an effort to participate, which is more than some do. Even if you don't approve of his posts and/or solutions, he put forth an effort. There are many reps on here who won't post publicly, ever. They'll communicate through PM, or through Bryan, but that's it. Again, just an observation.

I wish more would.

Pina, it is not acceptable that he won't put it into writing. That's where our perception differs, is all. He says that we will "just have to trust his decisions", and I don't accept that. I haven't heard that anybody does.

Josh has said that he will not raid a Neteller account unless fraud is involved. GrandMaster pointed out that Josh is not an independant arbitor or unbiased judge, so therefore how would this be fair? That's when Josh decided to post his "final" post.

Answer this, Pina... because maybe my mind can change if I understand how someone else views it. If Josh is promising NEVER to do this again, then why will he NOT put it in writing? Why do we, the players, have to TRUST HIM on word alone? If this is the case, we can just throw out ALL T&C's as they are all unnecessary. All casino managers should just decide on a whim for or against any particular issue and it's over.

I am very cautious and suspicious of anyone that will agree to something verbally, but REFUSES to add it in writing.

I will not recommend this casino in any shape or form until it is in writing.

- Keith
 
I can't answer that question D_G. Does anyone know if that term exists in any other casino's T&C's (besides XXL Club who posted here)? About processed payments being "final" I mean? Honestly, beyond reading what the wagering requirements are, it's not something that I've ever thought to look for. And I only play slots, so I've never worried about percentage of wagering requirements for various games, or being accused of "bonus abuse".

Hunterduke does have a point. If the monies had already been withdrawn from Neteller, what would have happened then? Again, this isn't something I've ever had to think of personally as I use Payspark, and anytime I get a cashout, I'm at the ATM machine within an hour or two to withdraw it, lol. My money never sits in an ewallet.

As to the fraud issue, I agree that the actual term of "fraud" should be limited to multiple accounts, using other's accounts (as Josh suggested). Who's qualified to judge that? I don't know. I'd rather have the casino manager looking at each case individually rather than leaving it up to the processor (for example). We've seen what a balls-up they can make of a situation.....re: the "certified documents" threads we've seen on here. On the other hand, you'd think that a fraud such as a multiple account scenario should be caught "prior" to a cashout being processed. You'd hope the processor could get that much right, and avoid any chargeback scenario.

Prime is a relatively new casino, and I'm hoping that this episode is due more to inexperience than to any malicious intent. I highly doubt that Josh or any other casino manager wants to see another thread such as this, and would hope that this will be a lesson learned for all. It is not good for the industry period.

As a last note, it would be helpful if Neteller would comment on what their policy is....but that will NEVER happen, not on a public forum.
 
I can't answer that question D_G. Does anyone know if that term exists in any other casino's T&C's (besides XXL Club who posted here)? About processed payments being "final" I mean? Honestly, beyond reading what the wagering requirements are, it's not something that I've ever thought to look for. And I only play slots, so I've never worried about percentage of wagering requirements for various games, or being accused of "bonus abuse".

Hunterduke does have a point. If the monies had already been withdrawn from Neteller, what would have happened then? Again, this isn't something I've ever had to think of personally as I use Payspark, and anytime I get a cashout, I'm at the ATM machine within an hour or two to withdraw it, lol. My money never sits in an ewallet.

As to the fraud issue, I agree that the actual term of "fraud" should be limited to multiple accounts, using other's accounts (as Josh suggested). Who's qualified to judge that? I don't know. I'd rather have the casino manager looking at each case individually rather than leaving it up to the processor (for example). We've seen what a balls-up they can make of a situation.....re: the "certified documents" threads we've seen on here. On the other hand, you'd think that a fraud such as a multiple account scenario should be caught "prior" to a cashout being processed. You'd hope the processor could get that much right, and avoid any chargeback scenario.

Prime is a relatively new casino, and I'm hoping that this episode is due more to inexperience than to any malicious intent. I highly doubt that Josh or any other casino manager wants to see another thread such as this, and would hope that this will be a lesson learned for all. It is not good for the industry period.

As a last note, it would be helpful if Neteller would comment on what their policy is....but that will NEVER happen, not on a public forum.

It's good to know that you see what I'm pointing out.. As I said, it appeared to me that Josh was kind of sweeping this issue aside with making NT the bad guys and instituting other non-NT issues in his casino's T&C's.

So what is "Fraud"? As you've stated, who knows, and that's the problem.

Oh wait! Josh knows!

PrimeCasino said:
Fraud = multiple accounts, using other people's accounts, etc.

And there's my problem... ETC.

According to his own definition, he cites 2 explicit reasons and leaves the door open for any interpretaion he deems to fall under etc.

You're also right that most reasonable people's definition of "fraud" would be caught long before the cashout, so why does Josh holdout for the right to raid a Neteller account after the cashout has been paid? Interesting things he refuses to address. Maybe it's for security reasons?

I don't know when other casinos (besides XXLClub) will address this issue in their T&C's. I do know one thing, however... Almost every single type of complaint, whether by player or casino, hits these Forums sooner than later. If Josh's contentions that all vendors can do this chargeback with NT is true, then he is the first one to have abused it. So, this is a new issue and will have to trickle down over the weeks, but in the meantime, Josh pulled the trigger, it's been posted here what he is capable and willing to do, and so the burden is on him to step up and put in writing that it will not occur within his business structure again. We will have to deal with the other casinos as they come up. Hopefully this hole will be plugged by Neteller and this whole discussion will be moot. After it is no longer an issue, Josh's obstinance on this topic will still stand, however. That's the unfortunate part for him.

- Keith
 
RTG saves Neteller security code

When I play at RTG's, my neteller security code is stored. I entered it when I signed up at the casinos, but never since. This, I would imagine, opens the door for rogue operators to remove money from neteller, without having to make a "chargeback". Just do the transaction, pretending to be the customer. I'm sure this wasnt how neteller intended it. I've never heard of this happening though.
 
Even though i am in US and cant play anymore, I would really love it if somebody with clout like CM or Jetset would present these cases to Neteller and get their official explanation of why they allowed the casino to take back these funds.
I can see casinos trying to do this (i can see it VERY easily,lol), so to me it is way more a Neteller problem.
 
Even though i am in US and cant play anymore, I would really love it if somebody with clout like CM or Jetset would present these cases to Neteller and get their official explanation of why they allowed the casino to take back these funds.
I can see casinos trying to do this (i can see it VERY easily,lol), so to me it is way more a Neteller problem.

They do do it in the case of 2X payments, but never before in a situation like this. I can't see casinos doing it in a similar instance TBH.

So josh has closed this discussion. Not going to happen josh, the issue is still here. As dg pointed out, etc. can be twisted into anything you like, and as some casinos now get mixed up between advantage play and fraud, then who's to say you won't either?

Until you fully accept it was a completed unjust thing to do, and show that by putting it in writing that you shall not ever commit such a crime again, then the issue remains open (The issue will remain open until theres a response from neteller, but the issue involving your casino will diminish).

Lets not forget, we (I?) are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the investigation - what was actually said between Prime and neteller to instigate this charegback in the first place. I can't believe that a claim of 'mistaken payment' would be accepted by neteller as a valid reason.
 
As much as I would like to sit here all day long each day and debate the morality of my decisions, it's simply not practical. The origin of this thread came from two players who complained their funds were removed from their Neteller accounts. This money was never meant to be credited in the first place but I did the right thing and put it back into their Casino account which would have been the default situation had our software supported our T&C's.

I can't help but feel that I'm bearing the brunt of your anger regarding things many have done before me and as much as I've tried to appease the lot of you, it's in the end, impossible to please everyone. As important as these issues are, this thread is taking up far too much of my time and since there is no governing body here other than CM, I'm forced to leave this in his capable hands.

1. I have told you that I will not initiate Neteller chargebacks in the future for any reason other than fraud. I will not change our T&C's to restrict our ability to do this. If you're not defrauding our Casino, you have nothing to worry about. Fraud = multiple accounts, using other people's accounts, etc. If I need to define Fraud for you then we have a much larger problem here.

2. I have put the players' money back into their Casino account and allowed them to play out their wagering requirements. Perhaps Mohammed and Anders aren't doing backflips over this but they are happy with the resolution and have said so in the thread. What more would like me to do exactly?

3. I have agreed to date our T&C's and to put a note on our index page notifying when recent changes have been made with a link to the new terms. I will not make this a massive road-sign on the index page though. It will sit around where the No-US Players and the Powered by Microgaming logos are. If this is unnaceptable to you I'm sorry but it's more than anyone else is doing.

4. I have not paid out Jens because she blatantly broke our T&C's, made one bet, and cashed out. This is classic promo abuse and our terms ecist to protect us from just this kind of player. Why should Jens be the only player to become an exception to this rule? Though my decision here was solely based on breaking the T&C's, I'm even less inclined to make an exception since she decided to drag her issue into an angry mob in the hopes you'd all agree with her by default. Lastly, assuming our terms are like every other MGS Casino is a ridiculous excuse for not reading them. I notice how now you have our terms under a microscope but had you read them in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation. My answer is no and it's final.

5. Regarding downloading a casino first and then registering several days later, I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. It's common sense that before you deposit, you should read the terms and conditions. I think it's a real stretch to think that someone would download our software, spend the time studying our T&C's, but then not even registering until several days after. I feel I've done enough to protect the players' interests if the terms are valid at the time of fun player registration. I am not going to email every fun player about changes to the terms. Also, I have a fun account with at least 20 Casinos and none of them have ever done this either. Not only that but none of them as far as I have seen are notifying people of T&C changes anywhere on the site. Nevermind the index page.
This has gone on long enough. Some of you have made some very good points and suggestions that I am going to enact. However, I am not going to spend my time each day going through this thread and becoming a doormat for the Casino industry. I think it's time for CM to step in here and decide what he thinks should be done. We're an accredited Casino here and the actions I've taken are the final actions that will be taken in this issue. If he feels that we shouldn't be accredited after this, so be it. My decisions are final and that is literally the end of this discussion. Again, I appreciate all the civilized input I've received and your suggestions will be enacted next week.

Thanks and good luck,

Josh.

4. Jens,

Yes, this play is what casinos consider "bonus abuse", however, Bryan has clear rules as to what is expected of an eccredited casino. Unless the single bet play was specifically against the T & C, this alone cannot be used as a reason for non-payment, This leaves the issue of withdrawing early. Jens says she didn't understand that particular term, which she clearly read BEFORE depositing, so there is a clear case of player ineptitude in not getting CS to explain to her what this meant BEFORE withdrawing.

Jens is guilty of playing to win with the SUB, rather than lose it playing the games. This is EXACTLY what happened with Fortune Lounge, they confiscated winnings from a number of players that employed this aggressive betting strategy on the SUB, however, Fortune Lounge lost their case for doing this, and were pretty much told to pay players who had not committed actual fraud (multiple accounts, false details etc), so why should Prime be any different? No exception was made for Fortune Lounge, so I don't see why one should be made for Prime.
Confiscating winnings is an EXTREME sanction that has become all too common nowdays. Yesterday, I played Blackjack at another MG casino, howeve the dealer hardly ever busted out on 15 or 16, but time and time again got 20 or 21, and I lost hand after hand that I should have won. The deck behaved as though it was a "10 poor" shoe, which is against the "shuffle every hand" rules. Now, this looked to me like "deposit abuse" by the virtual dealer, and normally is treated like "bad luck", with the dealer allowed to keep the winnings. Now, if players started acting more like casinos do when they don't like OUR style of play, we would be making chargebacks (our equivalent of confiscating winnings after the bet was made and accepted) whenever we had a truly unbelievable session, and naturally WE would get to be the judge, jury, and executioner as to what constituted "rigged" as opposed to "unlucky".

5.
To say that registering a few days after registration is "ridiculous" is itself ridiculous. Granted, the casinos would rather we deposited immediately, and preferrably lost, but in the real world there ARE many players who register days later. Naturally, given what a "ball-ache" downloading an MG casino is, theyb will read and digest the T & C BEFORE deciding whether they want to play, and this is why it is important for casinos to place expiry dates on terms, such that players can immediately tell how long what they have read is GUARANTEED to be valid for.

Promotion Abuse.

Here is a case with Fortune Lounge that closely resembles the case of Jens:-

I have queried your account and I can confirm the following. The withdrawal that you requested has been cancelled as your casino account has been locked due to promotional abuse. They have advised us that due to suspicious wagering by you on 100 Play Power Poker-Aces and Faces game in particular, the account was closed and will remain closed. Your game play was highly unnatural and improbable for any bona fide player with intent to play with us in future. Similarly, placing all your money on one single bet is also highly unlikely for any serious gambler.

For this reason the account has been locked and will remain locked.


Highlighted is the exact strategy Jens used on Roulette.
The later cashout was a mistake, and against the terms and conditions, however a good casino should give the player the chance to fulfill WR by returning the funds to the account, not use a player oversight as an excuse to void winnings.
The advantage play itself is NO EXCUSE for voiding winnings, so in effect, the casino are still of the opinion that should any player make the mistake of withdrawing before WR, despite the problems with the cashier page suggesting this is OK, should be given NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER, but suffer an instant confiscation.

Bryan's explanation as to WHY this practice earned a spell in the rogue pit was this:-

The problem with the term "promotional abuse" is that it's too subjective. The casino looks at this sort of behavior as abuse - the player looks at this as "beating the house". Don't get me wrong, the casino has every right in the world to pick and chose who their customers are. But once the casino makes the offer, accepts the bet, and the player plays according to the terms and conditions meeting the wagering requirements, then the casino ought to honor the winnings. It's the casino that is responsible for making the rules. If they make mistakes by forgetting to say that making a single bet on Blackjack is not allowed, then it should be allowed. It is not the responsibility of the player to try and guess what the casino considers "abuse".

Subjective language has no place in enforcing rules. Casinos can enforce policies by disallowing these players access to the casino, or deny bonuses in the future, but it is unacceptable to garnish winnings after the player has met the wagering requirements of the bonus.

We understand that the casino wishes to bring in new players who will remain loyal by them offering bonuses. But the bottom line is that the casino writes the terms for these bonuses, the casino should be expected to write terms that protect it from players they don't want.

I understand that during this period, they was a high level of player fraud. But advantage players are not fraudsters - if you are tuna fishing, you don't kill the dolphines in the tuna net.

Advantage players, avoid these casinos at all costs.


This leaves as the ONLY justification for voiding Jens' winnings the fact that she withdrew before completing the full WR in the mistaken belief that EZBonus works the same in every casino, allowing this to blind her to the possibility that some casinos may intend otherwise.

Bryan goes on to say how casinos should be reacting to "abusive" play:-

by disallowing these players access to the casino, or deny bonuses in the future

It is clear that Jens is an "advantage player", and not a player the casino would want to offer future bonuses to, but on the other hand, there is no obligation on players to lose with their SUB, they have every right to try their best to beat the house within the rules of the game.

If Prime wish to continue to confiscate winnings when players slip up, they should not feel hurt when their own slipups are met with such "draconian" action by forum members - it works both ways.
 
VWM! :notworthy

Really valid argument. I'm afraid that since this issue was interjected into a very crowded thread, I did not, and still don't know exactly what specific T&C TravelMaxx violated to the degree of being stripped of the winnings.

Was the only wrong move the cashout attempt? So if TM had moved on to another game that counted towards WR, completed the WR and then cashed out, would they have been stripped of the winnings?

I'd like to know the specific T&C, because I've gone back and skimmed over the relevant threads and cannot see it anywhere.

I might suggest that TravelMaxx file an official PAB with Bryan at this point, as instead of being denied the winnings, maybe all they deserved was being banned from the casino as an "undesireable" player. From what VWM has quoted from Bryan in the past, there is argument here that Jens was simply an advantage player with no fraud involved.

- Keith

4. Jens,

Yes, this play is what casinos consider "bonus abuse", however, Bryan has clear rules as to what is expected of an eccredited casino. Unless the single bet play was specifically against the T & C, this alone cannot be used as a reason for non-payment, This leaves the issue of withdrawing early. Jens says she didn't understand that particular term, which she clearly read BEFORE depositing, so there is a clear case of player ineptitude in not getting CS to explain to her what this meant BEFORE withdrawing.

Jens is guilty of playing to win with the SUB, rather than lose it playing the games. This is EXACTLY what happened with Fortune Lounge, they confiscated winnings from a number of players that employed this aggressive betting strategy on the SUB, however, Fortune Lounge lost their case for doing this, and were pretty much told to pay players who had not committed actual fraud (multiple accounts, false details etc), so why should Prime be any different? No exception was made for Fortune Lounge, so I don't see why one should be made for Prime.
Confiscating winnings is an EXTREME sanction that has become all too common nowdays. Yesterday, I played Blackjack at another MG casino, howeve the dealer hardly ever busted out on 15 or 16, but time and time again got 20 or 21, and I lost hand after hand that I should have won. The deck behaved as though it was a "10 poor" shoe, which is against the "shuffle every hand" rules. Now, this looked to me like "deposit abuse" by the virtual dealer, and normally is treated like "bad luck", with the dealer allowed to keep the winnings. Now, if players started acting more like casinos do when they don't like OUR style of play, we would be making chargebacks (our equivalent of confiscating winnings after the bet was made and accepted) whenever we had a truly unbelievable session, and naturally WE would get to be the judge, jury, and executioner as to what constituted "rigged" as opposed to "unlucky".

5.
To say that registering a few days after registration is "ridiculous" is itself ridiculous. Granted, the casinos would rather we deposited immediately, and preferrably lost, but in the real world there ARE many players who register days later. Naturally, given what a "ball-ache" downloading an MG casino is, theyb will read and digest the T & C BEFORE deciding whether they want to play, and this is why it is important for casinos to place expiry dates on terms, such that players can immediately tell how long what they have read is GUARANTEED to be valid for.

Promotion Abuse.

Here is a case with Fortune Lounge that closely resembles the case of Jens:-

I have queried your account and I can confirm the following. The withdrawal that you requested has been cancelled as your casino account has been locked due to promotional abuse. They have advised us that due to suspicious wagering by you on 100 Play Power Poker-Aces and Faces game in particular, the account was closed and will remain closed. Your game play was highly unnatural and improbable for any bona fide player with intent to play with us in future. Similarly, placing all your money on one single bet is also highly unlikely for any serious gambler.

For this reason the account has been locked and will remain locked.


Highlighted is the exact strategy Jens used on Roulette.
The later cashout was a mistake, and against the terms and conditions, however a good casino should give the player the chance to fulfill WR by returning the funds to the account, not use a player oversight as an excuse to void winnings.
The advantage play itself is NO EXCUSE for voiding winnings, so in effect, the casino are still of the opinion that should any player make the mistake of withdrawing before WR, despite the problems with the cashier page suggesting this is OK, should be given NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER, but suffer an instant confiscation.

Bryan's explanation as to WHY this practice earned a spell in the rogue pit was this:-

The problem with the term "promotional abuse" is that it's too subjective. The casino looks at this sort of behavior as abuse - the player looks at this as "beating the house". Don't get me wrong, the casino has every right in the world to pick and chose who their customers are. But once the casino makes the offer, accepts the bet, and the player plays according to the terms and conditions meeting the wagering requirements, then the casino ought to honor the winnings. It's the casino that is responsible for making the rules. If they make mistakes by forgetting to say that making a single bet on Blackjack is not allowed, then it should be allowed. It is not the responsibility of the player to try and guess what the casino considers "abuse".

Subjective language has no place in enforcing rules. Casinos can enforce policies by disallowing these players access to the casino, or deny bonuses in the future, but it is unacceptable to garnish winnings after the player has met the wagering requirements of the bonus.

We understand that the casino wishes to bring in new players who will remain loyal by them offering bonuses. But the bottom line is that the casino writes the terms for these bonuses, the casino should be expected to write terms that protect it from players they don't want.

I understand that during this period, they was a high level of player fraud. But advantage players are not fraudsters - if you are tuna fishing, you don't kill the dolphines in the tuna net.

Advantage players, avoid these casinos at all costs.


This leaves as the ONLY justification for voiding Jens' winnings the fact that she withdrew before completing the full WR in the mistaken belief that EZBonus works the same in every casino, allowing this to blind her to the possibility that some casinos may intend otherwise.

Bryan goes on to say how casinos should be reacting to "abusive" play:-



It is clear that Jens is an "advantage player", and not a player the casino would want to offer future bonuses to, but on the other hand, there is no obligation on players to lose with their SUB, they have every right to try their best to beat the house within the rules of the game.

If Prime wish to continue to confiscate winnings when players slip up, they should not feel hurt when their own slipups are met with such "draconian" action by forum members - it works both ways.
 
I might suggest that TravelMaxx file an official PAB with Bryan at this point, as instead of being denied the winnings, maybe all they deserved was being banned from the casino as an "undesireable" player. From what VWM has quoted from Bryan in the past, there is argument here that Jens was simply an advantage player with no fraud involved.

- Keith

I think that is the best suggestion that I've heard yet, the PaB I mean. I assumed the cashout was denied and winnings removed because they placed only one bet, and thus didn't come anywhere near to meeting the WR. I really think it's better if Bryan has the chance to look at this himself and discuss it with the casino. It doesn't sound like Josh is gonna budge, but let them hash it out and let us find out the result when it's resolved (or not).
 
the issue of Neteller allowing casinos to remove funds from our accounts - even if Prime promised never to do this again, it is the rogue operators we need to look out for, they will be looking at how easily Prime managed this, and some no doubt will have a go at this themselves. Anyone recently paid by Action Online to Neteller should be wary of letting the funds linger, as should any who feel they got one past Oliver Curran in the past.

Quick input, why would a rogue operator first pay a player and then initiate a neteller chargeback instead of "simply" not pay the player? This is of no benefit to a rogue operator it just cost them extra time an transfer charges.

Or does someone see a benefit in this new possibility? I think this is also the reason why we (I) never heard about this before.
 
Quick input, why would a rogue operator first pay a player and then initiate a neteller chargeback instead of "simply" not pay the player? This is of no benefit to a rogue operator it just cost them extra time an transfer charges.

Or does someone see a benefit in this new possibility? I think this is also the reason why we (I) never heard about this before.
I'm not sure, but it does mean that we now have to worry about them not charging back. Before the worry was up until one was paid. and I guess they could initiate a mass chargeback then shut up shop and disappear.
 
There's been so much drama and diversion in this thread I haven't been able to keep a train of thought long enough to contribute, but here's what I see today:

Prime made a mistake, admitted it, remedied it, and have changed their policy. What else is to discuss about them?

Were I a casino manager, I would not tie my own hands in regards to 'reverse chargebacks' by explicit T&C. Nothing but a weakness to exploit.

Of course in a perfect world all transactions would be audited perfectly, but it's not a perfect world. There is a level of trust in any business arrangement.

Prime probably has no special arrangement with NT, any casino can do this if Prime can. The problem is with NeTeller and as others have mentioned, that is where the players' focus should be to affect any real change in security.

The other two topics should have their own threads or be lain to rest, imo.

edit: just saw another thread... not what i meant pg, Jens should pab and it all should be laid to rest imo.
 
Last edited:
Quick input, why would a rogue operator first pay a player and then initiate a neteller chargeback instead of "simply" not pay the player? This is of no benefit to a rogue operator it just cost them extra time an transfer charges.

Or does someone see a benefit in this new possibility? I think this is also the reason why we (I) never heard about this before.
It gives rogue casino managers an extra chance to snatch back the money if the player turn out to be the member of an international bonus abuser ring.
 
Quick input, why would a rogue operator first pay a player and then initiate a neteller chargeback instead of "simply" not pay the player? This is of no benefit to a rogue operator it just cost them extra time an transfer charges.

Or does someone see a benefit in this new possibility? I think this is also the reason why we (I) never heard about this before.

Rogue operators might do this for PR reasons, say, to pay players who have made a huge stink. When the topic dies, they could grab the money back.
Far more likely though, is the scenario of the rogue about to go bust, they will have paid players in the past, but could be suffering serious cashflow problems. They could make a mass chargeback, and pretend it was some mighty cock-up, and promise those players it would be sorted. In the mean time, they have a free loan of extra cash, while the player takes 100% of the risk the move fails. If the casino is criminally rogue, they could chargeback all they could get their hands on, and then simply vanish - it seems thst this would work given that Neteller need no reason for the action under current policy.
Many may have just not realised it was this EASY to chargeback winnings they had already paid out.
It was pointed out that the chargeback would ONLY go through if enough funds were in the player's Neteller, if the player had emptied the account Neteller would NOT have given the money back, as then, obviously, Neteller would carry the risk of recovering it from the player, which might mean taking the player to court where questions might be asked about the initial chargeback (Neteller would likely NOT get the money if it went to court, they would be deemed negligent in not asking questions but just handing the money over).

In short, casinos can get away with it as they have no tough regulator to answer to, Neteller would have to explain to TWO regulators exactly what happened, and they might find this rather hard to justify, as they are supposed to be protecting OUR funds, as well as those held in their merchant accounts.
 
I see some good points made about TravelMaxx's issue, though it's a bit ironic that Pangloss was pilloried for trying to highlight it in a separate thread (it was a bit clumsy, I know, but there's a good case for this thread splitting off into two or three different discussions).

As I stated in that thread, it's unnecessary for a member to start a new thread on behalf of a registered member who is capable of starting their own thread. TravelMaxx was given several "hints" in this very thread to go start their own.

At the time Pangloss made that post, Josh had long since posted he wouldn't be responding to the Neteller issue any longer, so actually this thread became available to VWM to make that new post and re-open discussion about advantage play versus fraud. As well, at this point, this threads contains all the previous discussion about TM that shouldn't have been here to begin with. It's here now, and VWM was just adding to what he already contributed in this thread.

It's all about perception of personality, isn't it? Pangloss has let it be known, quite loudly, that he is an instigator, a distraction to any thread. That's the persona he wanted to display, and it's the persona that we now have to deal with him on. Should we direct him to "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? If he wants to be taken seriously on these forums, why doesn't he contribute anything but piggy-back rants? Based on his past history of bashing a casino at any cost, what would anyone naturally see that post as? Just a vehicle for more casino hatred. Now I'm not loving this casino too much, obviously. But I'm not going to participate in a roast, and if I see a thread created that is so obviously designed for a roasting session, I'll ask a moderator to pass judgement and lock it up. That's what I did, and CM locked it in agreement. No conspiracy anywhere, we would just like the opportunity to stay on track with this particular casino's issue in one thread. If Jens files a PAB and wants to discuss it publicy without all of this side chatter, then Jens can make that decision and click the POST button.

Vesuvio, I do not intend to go off on another 3 page discussion with you that would end up yet another major distraction to this important thread, as you will obviously find flaws in my view. If you wish to discuss this further, please PM me, or if you so desire a public discussion on this issue, please start a new thread in Wildcards. I would be happy to join that discussion, and leave the issue of Prime in this thread. Thanks.

lojo said:
There's been so much drama and diversion in this thread I haven't been able to keep a train of thought long enough to contribute, but here's what I see today:

Prime made a mistake, admitted it, remedied it, and have changed their policy. What else is to discuss about them?

Good to have you back in some of the serious discussions again, Lojo :thumbsup:

Well, they have changed their policy verbally. That's not good enough for me to ever recommend them at this point. If I see anyone post questions about the casino, I will certainly warn them and direct them to this thread so that they can make an informed decision before they deposit. It is wisdom to say "get it in writing", and it is a much-repeated phrase around gambling Fourms. For some reason, we should not get this one thing in writing? :what:

lojo said:
Were I a casino manager, I would not tie my own hands in regards to 'reverse chargebacks' by explicit T&C. Nothing but a weakness to exploit.

OR it could end up a strength to the wrong casino manager. If a player cannot initiate a chargeback without being blacklisted and publically humiliated by a casino, why should a casino be able to chargeback a customer with no repercussion?

lojo said:
Of course in a perfect world all transactions would be audited perfectly, but it's not a perfect world. There is a level of trust in any business arrangement.

I agree with that, if we are referring to a street corner hot-dog cart. But in a business like this, contracts are everything, and everything is documented as to what both sides are responsible for, and what both sides can and cannot do. As I stated earlier, if we are going back to the trust route, then abolish all T&C's, as if one term is not needed to be in writing, none of it is! :thumbsup: Ah, but no casino would do that... that would lead to exposure again. Well, anyways, T&C's are not there to protect one side. They are there to protect BOTH sides of the contractors involved.

Let's say the we allow good old fair 'n' square Josh to be the sole arbitor in whether or not a casino-to-customer chargeback is warranted. Let's say he never needs to pull that trigger. What happens if he quits and a new manager takes over. Ok, let's say (LOL!) that Chistopher D'Angelo takes over as manager of Prime. I think you're gonna want that in writing real quick, aren't you? In other words, it's not about Josh's personal integrity or ability to be fair or not (but I don't want to have to test that either..), but it's about a company's overall policy that covers ALL of their employees.

lojo said:
Prime probably has no special arrangement with NT, any casino can do this if Prime can. The problem is with NeTeller and as others have mentioned, that is where the players' focus should be to affect any real change in security.

We have nothing but rhetoric on this subject so far. Only someone able to get this information from Neteller will be able to put facts to these questions. We will have to wait. But in the meantime, statements like "any casino can do this" are invalid until we know for sure under what conditions (or even none) a casino can initiate a thef.. err.. chargeback.

Quick input, why would a rogue operator first pay a player and then initiate a neteller chargeback instead of "simply" not pay the player? This is of no benefit to a rogue operator it just cost them extra time an transfer charges.

Or does someone see a benefit in this new possibility? I think this is also the reason why we (I) never heard about this before.
It gives rogue casino managers an extra chance to snatch back the money if the player turn out to be the member of an international bonus abuser ring.

Hi XXLClub - thanks for your contributions here. Please know they are appreciated... I compliment you in how you've handled yourself on these forums for quite awhile now, not just in this thread.

Anyways, my thoughts on your question basically come down to: why should we have to guess why or how a rogue operator might use this? It just simply needs to stop, period. Good casinos should take care of their security issues and audits up front and should NEVER need to do this post actual funding. Since they should NEVER need to do this, it should be an addition to T&C's. Does it stop at Neteller? Maybe there are other current e-wallets that are vulnerable in this way? If not, what about future ones? If these things are written into T&C's, then the player is protect from all current and future internet banking schemes a rogue outfit might try to pull.

It may just come to one day that this is a very important thing for a player to look for in a rogue operation. Someday Bryan may need to add it to "How to spot a rogue".

- Keith
 
I'd say that from the name-calling, (particularly the barb about a poster acting like a six-year old) the implicit threat about knowing who a forum member "really" is, confidential information-dropping to try and prove his knowledge of the industry, and the accusatory, defensive, snide tone that is coming across from the Prime Casino rep posting here, that this is probably a good place to avoid.

Regardless of the situation and players opinions, you have to keep it professional, and I definitely think Joshua would have crossed the line as a representative much less a manager in several of the posts he's made here.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top