RazorKV VS Mummys Gold (Palace Group)

RazorKV

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Location
Full moon
[pab-in-progress]I played the free play promotion Mummys Gold. And won.

The link to the promo (at the bottom) explained what the free play are and what the terms are. There were totally 19 points, I read them all. There was also another bonus that had another terms linked to it, but this promotion was only for those who didnt win on the free play bonus. Cos I won on the free play bonus, this bonus and the additional terms didnt concern me.


After I received my freeplay winnings, I played a few slots and other games. I ended up lucky and won over 1500 €. All the games I played were allowed.

They asked me documents and later I sent them. Then about a week later I get the bad news: they said will steal my money. They said I had bet more than 30% of bonus balance.


They linked to other terms and conditions than the bonus I played with, and said my winnings were invalid. I read the 19 whole terms that my bonus had, and none of them had the 30% rule.


I would have understood if the 30% rule had read in the bonus rules, or there had been a link or a saying that other terms also apply to the bonus. On other sites there is often a mention that other terms apply to the bonus terms, usually accompanied with a link.

This is just pure deceit and theft by Mummys Gold and Palace Group. They retroactively add terms that werent included. And if they say that the terms have applied all the time, then they should be more clear about the terms and add them to the promotional terms or stay other terms apply.

MummysGold is an accredited casino as a part of the Palace Group. Accredited casinos should have clearand upfront bonus rules, not retroactive hidden terms. I was really careful about reading the terms, and its pretty ironic that even after being careful (playing at an accredit casino) and reading all the 19 rules on promotional terms, I still get screwed.

I have contacted the rep here.


This is the promo link:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
[/pab-in-progress]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Seventh777

RIP Roy
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Location
Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
How did you miss this?.......

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



12. Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings.

I navigated to the page that has this rule from a link in the free play promo.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
I played the free play promotion Mummys Gold. And won.

The link to the promo (at the bottom) explained what the free play are and what the terms are. There were totally 19 points, I read them all. There was also another bonus that had another terms linked to it, but this promotion was only for those who didnt win on the free play bonus. Cos I won on the free play bonus, this bonus and the additional terms didnt concern me.


After I received my freeplay winnings, I played a few slots and other games. I ended up lucky and won over 1500 €. All the games I played were allowed.

They asked me documents and later I sent them. Then about a week later I get the bad news: they said will steal my money. They said I had bet more than 30% of bonus balance.


They linked to other terms and conditions than the bonus I played with, and said my winnings were invalid. I read the 19 whole terms that my bonus had, and none of them had the 30% rule.


I would have understood if the 30% rule had read in the bonus rules, or there had been a link or a saying that other terms also apply to the bonus. On other sites there is often a mention that other terms apply to the bonus terms, usually accompanied with a link.

This is just pure deceit and theft by Mummys Gold and Palace Group. They retroactively add terms that werent included. And if they say that the terms have applied all the time, then they should be more clear about the terms and add them to the promotional terms or stay other terms apply.

MummysGold is an accredited casino as a part of the Palace Group. Accredited casinos should have clearand upfront bonus rules, not retroactive hidden terms. I was really careful about reading the terms, and its pretty ironic that even after being careful (playing at an accredit casino) and reading all the 19 rules on promotional terms, I still get screwed.

I have contacted the rep here.


This is the promo link:

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


Actually, the 30% rule is, and always has been, part of the General Terms and Conditions to which you AGREED when creating your account.

If you didn't read what were agreeing to, then you are solely to blame for breaching those terms. Ignorance is not a defence.

The term is 19.9 in the general terms FYI.

The casino did not retroactively change anything. You just didn't bother reading the rules.

The casino is fully entitled to void your winnings and refund your deposit.

Your bets must have been over $30 which is very high and would be the method used by advantage players for which the rule was designed to deter in the first place. (Not saying anything about advantage players....just that they're the reason for this rule and most others)
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
The OP's link to the Ts and Cs only has 11 terms whereas 777's link has 12. Both were updated on the same date ie 12th July 2010. Ah, 777 must have added the 12th term by himself hehe.:D
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Damn, I just checked that, I stumbled across the T&C`s after searching through their promotions page :confused:.

Well, either the casino tampered with the ts and cs and added #12 retroactively or it was a 'cut and paste' job by someone. Maybe it was the 'egyptian mummy reincarnated'.
 

RazorKV

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Location
Full moon
How did you miss this?.......

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



12. Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings.

I navigated to the page that has this rule from a link in the free play promo.


Hi.

That link of yours is a completely different promo under the UK tab. Yours is a 25 pounds free, where i played a 50/100 EUR free play promotion.

These terms were not included in the promotion I participated.
 

RazorKV

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Location
Full moon
Actually, the 30% rule is, and always has been, part of the General Terms and Conditions to which you AGREED when creating your account.

If you didn't read what were agreeing to, then you are solely to blame for breaching those terms. Ignorance is not a defence.

The term is 19.9 in the general terms FYI.

The casino did not retroactively change anything. You just didn't bother reading the rules.

The casino is fully entitled to void your winnings and refund your deposit.

Your bets must have been over $30 which is very high and would be the method used by advantage players for which the rule was designed to deter in the first place. (Not saying anything about advantage players....just that they're the reason for this rule and most others)

Hi. Thanks for your reply.

Do you work in the casino industry?

I chose an accredited casino, read 19 promotional rules under the promotional terms. I even read the 3 promotional terms for the promotion that I was going to play if I had not won in the free play. That promotion would have had clearly had the normal terms included in it, as it clearly stated, but in my promotion that was above it (see my OP post for link) had no saying that additional terms are added to the terms.

Why would they have 2 bonuses on the same page with different terms, with only one of them specifically including additional terms, and then afterwards saying the other bonus that didnt have additional terms, DID have them.

What is the logic behind that? Tricking people and giving the back door to cheat customers out of their winnings?

I feel cheated by Mummys Gold and dont feel I can trust online casinos to pay up if I happen to win big.

Here is the link once again:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

RazorKV

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Location
Full moon
After some googling I found that the casinos can set up maximum bet limits in the casino software.

This makes me wonder why the casinos dont opt to do this, but instead go for the steal if a (well hidden) maximum bet rule is broken.

Is it because when the customer loses by betting too much they can keep the deposits, but if the customer wins, then they dont have to pay? Sounds like a win-win scenario to the casino.

Makes me wonder how this casino can be accredited.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
OP is right. Carelessness on the part of the casino. The free play has it's own set of bonus wagering terms should any winnings be transferred and redeemed through making a deposit. There is mention of wagering on 0% weighted games being grounds for voiding winnings, but no "irregular play" term. This term only exists in the rules for the welcome bonus, and the only mention of the welcome bonus comes right at the end of the free play terms, and it clearly states this is not applicable should anything be won from the free play, thus rendering it unnecessary for the player to click through the link to the terms for the welcome bonus.

Rather than having a condensed set of terms with a vital missing component to cover the free play WR, a link to the main bonus terms should have been there, which would have required the player to click through whether they were meeting WR on free play winnings, or the welcome bonus. It is also reasonable to assume that the presence of partly duplicated content, rather than a link to an all encompassing set of bonus terms, means that different bonuses have different sets of terms. A NEW player winning from the free play would not be lead through to read the terms that are only listed on the welcome bonus page, and would not therefore see the additional limitations regarding "irregular play" and the 30% rule. A player that has previously played would NOT have this excuse, because they would, at some point, have encountered this 30% term on another bonus, and seen that it applied generally.

When receiving further promotions by email, the link to the bonus terms always ends up on the welcome bonus terms page, thus implying this is a general set of rules for all bonuses.

A PAB is in order here, and should be based on the poor design of the website that makes this 30% rule "invisible" when players win from the free play, rather than take the welcome bonus. The 30% rule was added some time after these promotions were first released, and carelessness has meant that not all the locations containing bonus terms were updated to include this extra restriction.

The earlier rule being used to define "irregular play" was rather vague, and this 30% definition came about after the issues were discussed in the forum between players and the Palace Group rep. This method of defining a maximum allowed bet when a bonus is in play has now become common, and experienced players now expect to see a term of this type for ALL bonuses, and will often tread carefully where it isn't found.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
Hi. Thanks for your reply.

Do you work in the casino industry?

I chose an accredited casino, read 19 promotional rules under the promotional terms. I even read the 3 promotional terms for the promotion that I was going to play if I had not won in the free play. That promotion would have had clearly had the normal terms included in it, as it clearly stated, but in my promotion that was above it (see my OP post for link) had no saying that additional terms are added to the terms.

Why would they have 2 bonuses on the same page with different terms, with only one of them specifically including additional terms, and then afterwards saying the other bonus that didnt have additional terms, DID have them.

What is the logic behind that? Tricking people and giving the back door to cheat customers out of their winnings?

I feel cheated by Mummys Gold and dont feel I can trust online casinos to pay up if I happen to win big.

Here is the link once again:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

No. Why do you ask? Just because I don't agree?

You AGREED when you created your account that betting more than 30% of the bonus is grounds for refusal of winnings. It's all there in black and white. You obviously didn't know that you had already agreed to that term, because you didn't read those terms, so the fault is entirely yours. Learn from your mistake I.e. don't agree to anything without reading it, and stop blaming others I.e. the casino for YOUR error.

Remember, if it wasn't for a small % of players trying every possible way to turn bonuses to their advantage, this rule and many others wouldn't be needed.....but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that.

FWIW there's no such thing as a hidden term....only if it is invisible or doesnt exist. Terms have to be listed in some kind of order, so not every term can be at the top in bold or red bold size 30 font. The common sense approach would be to read ALL the terms. After all, you wouldn't just give some guy your money on the street when he offers you a sweet deal, if you didn't establish all the terms of the contract....or maybe you would. I don't know you. Point is, its exactly what you're doing by signing up and depositing without reading ALL the rules. I'm sure if there was a term "hidden" amongst other general terms that said "players who win $1000 or more from a bonus will have their winnings doubled" you would be insisting they abide by it. You can't have it both ways.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
OP is right. Carelessness on the part of the casino. The free play has it's own set of bonus wagering terms should any winnings be transferred and redeemed through making a deposit. There is mention of wagering on 0% weighted games being grounds for voiding winnings, but no "irregular play" term. This term only exists in the rules for the welcome bonus, and the only mention of the welcome bonus comes right at the end of the free play terms, and it clearly states this is not applicable should anything be won from the free play, thus rendering it unnecessary for the player to click through the link to the terms for the welcome bonus.

Rather than having a condensed set of terms with a vital missing component to cover the free play WR, a link to the main bonus terms should have been there, which would have required the player to click through whether they were meeting WR on free play winnings, or the welcome bonus. It is also reasonable to assume that the presence of partly duplicated content, rather than a link to an all encompassing set of bonus terms, means that different bonuses have different sets of terms. A NEW player winning from the free play would not be lead through to read the terms that are only listed on the welcome bonus page, and would not therefore see the additional limitations regarding "irregular play" and the 30% rule. A player that has previously played would NOT have this excuse, because they would, at some point, have encountered this 30% term on another bonus, and seen that it applied generally.

When receiving further promotions by email, the link to the bonus terms always ends up on the welcome bonus terms page, thus implying this is a general set of rules for all bonuses.

A PAB is in order here, and should be based on the poor design of the website that makes this 30% rule "invisible" when players win from the free play, rather than take the welcome bonus. The 30% rule was added some time after these promotions were first released, and carelessness has meant that not all the locations containing bonus terms were updated to include this extra restriction.

The earlier rule being used to define "irregular play" was rather vague, and this 30% definition came about after the issues were discussed in the forum between players and the Palace Group rep. This method of defining a maximum allowed bet when a bonus is in play has now become common, and experienced players now expect to see a term of this type for ALL bonuses, and will often tread carefully where it isn't found.

You are wrong.

The term is part of the GENERAL terms which players agree to when they create an account because it applies to ALL bonuses. The OP AGREED to this.

It's got nothing to do with what page it was on, as the OP already consented to being bound by this rule.

Yours is a logically flawed argument this time, and factually unsound. I remember a time years ago when you would see that, and not accuse operators of trying to deceive players when its clearly not the case.

If the term did not exist in the GENERAL terms, then fair enough...but it does, so unless the casino decides that the OP will not be subject to the same rules as everyone else, they are SOL (unfortunately).

You will also know that where this is a conflict between rules for a specific promotion and the general casino rules, the general rules always apply.

FWIW I got caught out a couple of years ago at a netent site that had a general term of 10xdeposit max cashouts when using bonuses. It didn't occur to me that a netent casino would have such an awful rule, but they did and I didn't see it, which cost me $1000. I didn't complain, nor PAB, in fact I'm not sure i even posted a complaint here (although I did warn others) because it was MY FAULT. I wasn't going to go off the deep end and blame everyone else. However, I made sure it didn't happen to me again. An expensive lesson, just like it is for the OP. I empathize with the OP, but its 100% their fault just like mine was.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
You are wrong.

The term is part of the GENERAL terms which players agree to when they create an account because it applies to ALL bonuses. The OP AGREED to this.

It's got nothing to do with what page it was on, as the OP already consented to being bound by this rule.

Yours is a logically flawed argument this time, and factually unsound. I remember a time years ago when you would see that, and not accuse operators of trying to deceive players when its clearly not the case.

If the term did not exist in the GENERAL terms, then fair enough...but it does, so unless the casino decides that the OP will not be subject to the same rules as everyone else, they are SOL (unfortunately).

You will also know that where this is a conflict between rules for a specific promotion and the general casino rules, the general rules always apply.

FWIW I got caught out a couple of years ago at a netent site that had a general term of 10xdeposit max cashouts when using bonuses. It didn't occur to me that a netent casino would have such an awful rule, but they did and I didn't see it, which cost me $1000. I didn't complain, nor PAB, in fact I'm not sure i even posted a complaint here (although I did warn others) because it was MY FAULT. I wasn't going to go off the deep end and blame everyone else. However, I made sure it didn't happen to me again. An expensive lesson, just like it is for the OP. I empathize with the OP, but its 100% their fault just like mine was.

There is also a flaw in your logic. You argue that since this is in the general terms, it is not necessary to duplicate it in the bonus terms, yet the casino HAS duplicated this term in the rules for the welcome bonus. The casino, therefore feel it IS necessary for this term to be duplicated, but carelessly failed to do so on at least one page. Splitting terms that apply to a single event between two or more pages is frowned upon by the KGC, and Casino Rewards got overruled by the KGC in a very similar circumstance to that of the OP, and were told to pay half the disputed winnings, and bring ALL relevant terms together so that they could be viewed together on a single page.

General terms are just that, they contain terms relating to general conduct, such as not reverse engineering the software, application of licenses, etc. They should NOT be used to house a couple of SPECIFIC terms relating to bets played. These should be housed with the other specific terms relating to betting when tied to promotional contracts.

If Mummy's Gold were licensed by the KGC, the player would win at least half the disputed winnings because blame would be judged to exist jointly. The CR case had some terms on the page, and the rest behind a link. The joint blame decision was based on the finding that the casino should have been consistent in it's page layout, and had all the terms on the same page, or all the terms behind a link. The player was found to be jointly to blame by not bothering to click on the link to see if further relevant terms existed.

What is obvious to an experienced player is NOT going to be obvious to a newbie, so the "should have known" argument is not necessarily valid. Whether the OP "should have known better" depends on how experienced they were, and in particular if they had encountered this term at a number of other casinos in the past.

I would accept the argument that "I should have known" had I encountered a similar situation, since I have seen this term before, and in particular, was instrumental in the debate that created it in it's current form at Palace Group casinos. I am also experienced enough to realise that large bets on a welcome bonus are in general a "red flag" for any casino, and something likely to cause problems during a withdrawal of winnings.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
There is also a flaw in your logic. You argue that since this is in the general terms, it is not necessary to duplicate it in the bonus terms, yet the casino HAS duplicated this term in the rules for the welcome bonus. The casino, therefore feel it IS necessary for this term to be duplicated, but carelessly failed to do so on at least one page. Splitting terms that apply to a single event between two or more pages is frowned upon by the KGC, and Casino Rewards got overruled by the KGC in a very similar circumstance to that of the OP, and were told to pay half the disputed winnings, and bring ALL relevant terms together so that they could be viewed together on a single page.

General terms are just that, they contain terms relating to general conduct, such as not reverse engineering the software, application of licenses, etc. They should NOT be used to house a couple of SPECIFIC terms relating to bets played. These should be housed with the other specific terms relating to betting when tied to promotional contracts.

If Mummy's Gold were licensed by the KGC, the player would win at least half the disputed winnings because blame would be judged to exist jointly. The CR case had some terms on the page, and the rest behind a link. The joint blame decision was based on the finding that the casino should have been consistent in it's page layout, and had all the terms on the same page, or all the terms behind a link. The player was found to be jointly to blame by not bothering to click on the link to see if further relevant terms existed.

What is obvious to an experienced player is NOT going to be obvious to a newbie, so the "should have known" argument is not necessarily valid. Whether the OP "should have known better" depends on how experienced they were, and in particular if they had encountered this term at a number of other casinos in the past.

I would accept the argument that "I should have known" had I encountered a similar situation, since I have seen this term before, and in particular, was instrumental in the debate that created it in it's current form at Palace Group casinos. I am also experienced enough to realise that large bets on a welcome bonus are in general a "red flag" for any casino, and something likely to cause problems during a withdrawal of winnings.

I'm not arguing that they should have been listed in the promo terms as well. I'm not sure where you got that from..?

I just pointed out the fact that the rule exists in the general terms which the op agreed to.....all of this was before they even deposited and took the bonus. If they didn't read what they agreed to, its not the casinos fault.

You can't say what kgc would do. Every case is different, and IIRC the CR terms were just on an extra page....not in the general terms of use....and that makes a big difference. It's not a legal nor logical defence to say "oh I didn't expect a rule like that so i didnt read the general terms"....the fact remains that if the OP had actually done what he declared he had done when creating his account I.e. read understand and accept the rules, this thread wouldnt exist.
 

RazorKV

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Location
Full moon
I remember reading from this site about accredited casinos. The terms from them, according to CM, should be understandable, not vague and above all clearly visible. In this case the terms havent been clearly visible.

Had the term 30% of betting rule been visible on the promo terms page like that rule is visible on those other promotional terms linked there, then it would clear.

It seems that Mummys forgot to update the terms on that page, and they should pay.
 

Slotster!

I predict a riot.
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Location
Location, Location!
I agree that, under the circumstances, Mummy's Gold should pay. Or at least come to some agreement.

Whilst Nifty is technically correct, more should be expected of accredited casino operators - particularly a solid operation like Spin Palace and the like.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I remember reading from this site about accredited casinos. The terms from them, according to CM, should be understandable, not vague and above all clearly visible. In this case the terms havent been clearly visible.

Had the term 30% of betting rule been visible on the promo terms page like that rule is visible on those other promotional terms linked there, then it would clear.

It seems that Mummys forgot to update the terms on that page, and they should pay.

Since you cite the rules for accreditation to support your argument, you should submit a PAB. This will determine whether your view about this breaching accreditation standards is accepted by Max.

This is now a very common term, and you should actively look for such a rule wherever you play.
 

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
that term of bet more than 30% of the bonus applys to more than 50% of the mg casinos (to dont say that applys in 100%)

in general terms of most of mg casinos says that, it doesnt matter what kind of bonus you get, you never cant bet more tahn 30% of the bonus received

place group uses that, and another acredited (to not say all) mg casinos too
 

maxd

PAB (Complaints) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
Makes me wonder how this casino can be accredited.

There's an easy way to find out. Send Bryan a PM and ask "how this casino can be accredited?"

It'll probably help if you provide details of why you think there's a problem.

MUCH more effective than passively "wondering" about it in a single post in a thread that is, after all, one of hundreds.

Just saying. ;)
 

Seventh777

RIP Roy
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Location
Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
Hi.

That link of yours is a completely different promo under the UK tab. Yours is a 25 pounds free, where i played a 50/100 EUR free play promotion.

These terms were not included in the promotion I participated.

Firstly - Sorry I did not reply earlier, been very busy today with work related stuff, now back to topic, when I saw your post the 1st thing I done was google Mummy`s Gold Casino (at this time there was no reason to think there would be different home pages with conflicting rules and T&C`S). To everyone who has replied to this thread please use these links and check for yourself, here we have seemingly two identical lists of rules, but, the link the OP provided has no rule 12 Per Se, unlike the link I provided, after noticing this I think the OP has a strong case here and I would advise him to contact maxd and file a PAB.

Razor`s link, there is no mention whatsoever here about the 30% of bonus bet size cap........

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


My link, rule 12 clearly stating there is a 30% of bet size cap in place.....

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


Now, if you are checking the T&C`s of a bonus then every single clause should be on the main T&C`s page, no matter what bonus you opt for from the two available, for some people this is clearly not the case, I will put my hands up here and state that at 1st glance I thought you were clearly in the wrong and Mummy`s Gold was correct, however, after looking more thoroughly at the difference involved between the two links I personally think you have a strong case.

Good Luck :thumbsup:.
 

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
Firstly - Sorry I did not reply earlier, been very busy today with work related stuff, now back to topic, when I saw your post the 1st thing I done was google Mummy`s Gold Casino (at this time there was no reason to think there would be different home pages with conflicting rules and T&C`S). To everyone who has replied to this thread please use these links and check for yourself, here we have seemingly two identical lists of rules, but, the link the OP provided has no rule 12 Per Se, unlike the link I provided, after noticing this I think the OP has a strong case here and I would advise him to contact maxd and file a PAB.

Razor`s link, there is no mention whatsoever here about the 30% of bonus bet size cap........

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


My link, rule 12 clearly stating there is a 30% of bet size cap in place.....

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


Now, if you are checking the T&C`s of a bonus then every single clause should be on the main T&C`s page, no matter what bonus you opt for from the two available, for some people this is clearly not the case, I will put my hands up here and state that at 1st glance I thought you were clearly in the wrong and Mummy`s Gold was correct, however, after looking more thoroughly at the difference involved between the two links I personally think you have a strong case.

Good Luck :thumbsup:.

they had that rule only here:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


"- Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular game playnclude but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings."

bonus terms from "the palace group"

they shouldnt have it in the page of each casino?
 

Seventh777

RIP Roy
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Location
Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
they had that rule only here:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


"- Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular game playnclude but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings."

bonus terms from "the palace group"

they shouldnt have it in the page of each casino?

Okay, let`s create a scenario, you are a brand new player to the world of gambling and you stumble across Mummy`s Gold, create an account/deposit/check bonus T&C`s, completely unaware that this casino belongs to a group, hell you don`t even know groups exist, every single casino should have the rules and regulations of their casinos on display at all their places, in easy to read format, and not only accessible via link to link clicking and buried somewhere obscurely.
 

RazorKV

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Location
Full moon
I have contacted the rep in this forum. He or she has not found the time yet to reply to that query yet.

I also let the rep know about this thread I made. So if they find removing players winnings an important issue, they can reply here.
 

bsilva028

Banned : multi-account fraudster
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
portugal
Okay, let`s create a scenario, you are a brand new player to the world of gambling and you stumble across Mummy`s Gold, create an account/deposit/check bonus T&C`s, completely unaware that this casino belongs to a group, hell you don`t even know groups exist, every single casino should have the rules and regulations of their casinos on display at all their places, in easy to read format, and not only accessible via link to link clicking and buried somewhere obscurely.

i am not saying its correct, only that they have that rule mentionated


but i put too "they should have this in each site of each casino"
not only on "the palace group bonus terms and conditions"
 

RazorKV

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Location
Full moon
I just sent another message to the rep here. He has not been online since 17th Feb.

I hope he doesnt just ignore this issue.
 
Top