Redflush?

[bb28]

Pacers I'm not going to get into a he said, she said contest, there isn't any point. I don't have the answers for you, we all are speculating to some degree. I don't think anyone here is privy to the inside operation of how a casino pays their players, if they are, they aren't talking about it for all the obvious reasons. I found that article very interesting and actually it is scary when you think about some of the things that were mentioned in it.
I doubt the big boys do a deliberate stall.......why would they? It drives away their customers and just pisses people off. If I had asked for a check and it took weeks to get it......I won't be playing there again, would you? As for the some of the RTG's that have a less than stellar reputation.....I don't doubt it for a minute that they use it as an excuse.
We in the US have the UIGEA to thank for a lot of the issues with checks.

bb, I read that article awhile back. What I can't understand is why a small, stand alone casino can provide the quick payout, and the mega HUGE groups cannot. MO or check, shouldn't matter. There really is no excuse for the big outfits not to provide the same thing. Are you saying that MG, RTG, etc. cannot do what 3Dice does?? If so, why the hell not! My feeling is that it is a deliberate stall, nothing more.

 

[pacers31]

That still doesn't explain why some can and some can't bb. It kind of bothers me when some posters claim things as fact when they really don't know the true answer. Believe what you want, but until I get some sort of proof that it is so damn difficult for others to pay quickly, I can only assume that these sites are making a conscience effort to stall. Think about it, when people here believe that it is difficult, it gives these operations a built in excuse to make things hard on the player.

Max, I still await your answer as to whether CM is compensated by the accredited sites.

 

[chuchu59]

There are bound to be some casinos who use these tactics to stall payments. However, these casinos will also try to delay payments to e-wallets as well. The Casino Rewards casinos spring to mind. Although everything was in perfect order, they only sent payment to my MB account more than a week after I initiated a withdrawal. Therefore, we could try to differentiate the bad from the good by trying to realise whether they process withdrawals quickly to e-wallets. If so, the delays may be genuine as they dont want the risk of US players not returning just because of this.

On the accredited casinos query, I have the utmost faith in CM's integrity. The whole gaming industry is very volatile and the casinos are trying hard to grab a share of the gambling dollar which is shrinking due to the exit of many US customers and the introduction of the Rival casinos and 3Dice. We should understand that, despite CM's efforts, there is still a possibility that casinos may be accredited one day and become rogue the next day although that is taking things to extremes. Take Eurolinx for example. They were accredited but were delisted because of a player issue. That shows that Bryan does take his accredited list very seriously although the action that could possibly be taken is not as fast as we hope. However, he needs to allow both sides (player and casino) to present their sides of the stories. We should not get our emotions to get the better of us. CM has assisted many a player to get his winnings and just because we tend to get over-suspicious at times we should not just believe in our gut feelings nor succumb to conspiracy theories. I am not saying the guy is infalliable but we need proof of him acting wrongly instead of requiring proof to the contrary. We cant ask BB28 to show us anything she has no access to.

Let's put it this way. Although there is an accredited list, we should also be wary because we are gambling with our own money. The list is definitely useful especially for newbies but just because something goes awry it does not mean that Bryan is responsible. At least he has communication channels with the casinos in question and more often than not he and MaxD will come up with a solution. Think of what might have happened were it not an accredited casino. You might not be able to get any assistance and you are on your own. Happy gaming mate.

 

[bb28]

That still doesn't explain why some can and some can't bb. It kind of bothers me when some posters claim things as fact when they really don't know the true answer. Believe what you want, but until I get some sort of proof that it is so damn difficult for others to pay quickly, I can only assume that these sites are making a conscience effort to stall. Think about it, when people here believe that it is difficult, it gives these operations a built in excuse to make things hard on the player.

Max, I still await your answer as to whether CM is compensated by the accredited sites.

OK.......Pacers if you want to nitpick, I didn't make myself clear on this comment. "It's a well known fact that a check withdrawal for US players is going to be problematic."
I should have said that it's a fact that many posters here at CM have had problems with check withdrawal. Feel better now?

I'm not trying to present anything as fact......I'm just like you, I've drawn my own conclusions from what I've read here and other places and the article that I provided the link to.....well that is the most interesting thing I've read on online gambling in a long time.

We all have our opinions about it.....and it's a good discussion.

 

[maxd]

Max, I still await your answer as to whether CM is compensated by the accredited sites.

"Still await"? Excuse me, but I need as good a night's sleep as everybody else.

The answer is of course not! That would kind of defeat the purpose wouldn't it?

Frankly I'm surprised you've even asked that. Someone with as much experience here as you have certainly ought to know that sites are listed as Accredited, or de-listed, depending solely on their performance, reputation, and openness. Read the Accreditation page: it's not advertising copy you know, what's said there is how it really works.

 

[dambusted]

Nicely Said

We all know about the problems with US checks, and so would Red Flush I expect. It is therefore completely out of order to charge an OPTIONAL $35 for a faster delivery, when no such service can be provided.
The excuses are a load of rubbish, the real reason is nothing to do with "mistakes", and "couriers", it is to do with the processors hired by the casinos. It is more likely that events overtook the issuing of the check, and it had to be cancelled before it was placed with the courier. This will be obvious, as if the check were sent, but then had to be cancelled, the courier will simply deliver a dud check, with the player having to wait for the real one.

It is quite some surprise that the casino cannot afford to reimburse the measly sum of $35 for what is, after all, a fault of THEIR payment systems, and nothing to do with the player. To offer $10 worth of comps is an insult to the player, and hardly seems the thing to do to build a long term relationship.

Perhaps long term customer relationships are no longer that valuable now for US players, and saving $25 from the bottom line now is better business planning than spending it in the hope of recouping more in the longer term.

Perhaps MG is going to bail altogether from the US in the near future given this serious escalation in payment problems sparked by the seizure of some $26 Million in transit to players.

Unfortunately, such bail outs will happen more or less overnight, as happened with other software providers and eWallets. There will be little or no opportunity for players to fulfil promotional requirements, as the previous pattern has favoured locking accounts and providing for a withdrawal process through contact with CS, giving no opportunity for further play.

RTG will probably be the least affected by this, along with, it seems, one other unique casino portal.

Thank You...Thats exactly what my point is, very well stated. I will sit back and see if I receive any monies from this Casino.Believe me I will post the final results. Excuses, Excuses...why not just tell me the truth, the lies just put doubts in everyones minds. My original post was to let players beware of the slow pay or maybe NO pay and how they didn't even want to make a effort to make a player happy, instead they insulted me with $10!
As far as withdrawing by check, example I have withdrawn over $20k from Ultimate Bet (which isn't accredited casino), since Jan. 08, I withdrew in incrediments of $5k, NOT once did I not receive the check within 2-3 days, and NOT once did my bank refuse to cash it. Of course after the scandal I do not play there anymore, I just want to point out I have not had any problem with cashing or withdrawing from any other casino besides this one. With it being a brand new casino, they sure don't go the extra mile to make a player happy, when the problem lies directly within in them not the player!

 

[grrrrusa]

I made a withdrawal from Red flush on July 20th never heard from them so I called, they told me they were awaiting for all my info (cc, DL, and a bill with my name on it) Hello why not tell me this no I have to find out myself 4 days later....Ok sent everything by email....Called again to make sure they received it...Well we got it but not the bill in your name...Ok resent while I had him on the phone....Ok we got it ..I will put this in right away...
Called again a few days later....It is still processing...Called a few more days later you check was issued on the 29th .You should receive it in 4-5 business days...OK day 6 comes no check and this is courier that I also paid $35.00 for...Call again, Very Nice guy named Gary tells me that all checks that were issued at the end of July have been canceled due to a Processor problem and are being reissued...So it will be another 4-5 days...

Well guess what I received my check yesterday Aug 9th by regular Certified Mail!!! Now i know that does not cost $35.00 for processing. Small white folder thing that said Mail rebate redemption for the return address..

I will be calling because as far as I can see they own me $35.00 because this was not processed the way I chose...We will see.

 

[dominique]

That still doesn't explain why some can and some can't bb. It kind of bothers me when some posters claim things as fact when they really don't know the true answer. Believe what you want, but until I get some sort of proof that it is so damn difficult for others to pay quickly, I can only assume that these sites are making a conscience effort to stall. Think about it, when people here believe that it is difficult, it gives these operations a built in excuse to make things hard on the player.

Max, I still await your answer as to whether CM is compensated by the accredited sites.

If you read the article, it did explain why some can and some can't.

It has nothing to do with software, each operator has to find processors and usually casinos do not share unless they belong under one umbrella. There are exceptions where the software provider manages to get processing in place, it is always temporary.

The whole thing is hush hush, the processors don't exactly advertise either. You have to know someone who knows someone who knows someone.

Processors charge whatever they want now, because they know the casino has to pay or go under. Some are crooks, accept the very high security deposit from the casino and then just disappear. Like with any prohibition, the situation has given raise to a criminal element. You also have to consider the risk to the processor and the very short term he can operate befor he has to find a new way.

There are still honest to goodness processors that manage to stay in business for a good length of time, but finding them is difficult, and when a casino finds one, they do everything in their power to keep him to themselves. That's competition. Precisely because of threads like this one, nothing is shared.

He who can find a good processor and has the luck of the method lasting a few months, gets player affection.

He who gets screwed by a bad processor, gets a bad player reputation to boot.

That's what it boils down to. It makes the processor all powerful. He can manipulate casinos and players. Of course this gives cover to casinos who just are plain rogue, like some of the RTGs. They now don't look much worse than the unlucky guy. The difference is that the rogue will happily refuse to pay and just pocket the money, while the unlucky guy scrambles to find another processor and spends a ton in order to make it happen again.

Like with any prohibition, the only ones who benefit are criminals.

Re, the question about how Casinomeister manages to raise the funds to stay online - it operates like a magazine with the exception that it screens possible advertisers excruciatingly and only allows those who emerge clean to advertise. Without sites that bother to do this, players would be screwed all the way because no one would know which casinos are rogue and which are not. With so many sites online that advertise any crap, it's good to know some of us are ethical.

 

[pacers31]

I understand your point dominique, but if one site can get a MO to you in a very short time, why don't the others follow suit and avoid the processor extortion?? I find it very hard to swallow that a small stand alone site can do this and the big well funded ones cannot (or IMO more likely, will not).

Your statement about the $$ issue with CM is precisely why I asked about any fees for admission to the accredited list. It appears that those who pay to advertise get the accredited status, which is fine, but I think that readers of this forum should be informed that this is the case. Obviously those who are providing revenue to CM are going to be handled much differently than those who do not. I know it is just business, but in the interest of transparency I believe it should be pointed out that the accredited sites "do business" with CM. And no, I don't believe that CM is purposely trying to mislead us in this regard. It's just that I think it is naive to believe that an advertiser wouldn't be accredited and vice-versa. It would be like the oil companies telling us to use less gas, aint gonna happen.

 

[maxd]

It appears that those who pay to advertise get the accredited status, which is fine, but I think that readers of this forum should be informed that this is the case. ... It's just that I think it is naive to believe that an advertiser wouldn't be accredited and vice-versa.

I'm afraid the only misleading going on here is coming from you. These assumptions you are making, and stating as if they were fact and had even the remotest connection to how things actually work here, are bunk!

(a) A casino gets listed in the Accredited section because CM decides that it's a decent place and is worthy of being included.

(b) A casino advertises here when they approach CM and he decides they're a decent place, and are going to be a safe place for players to play.

(a) does not necessarily lead to (b); (b) does not necessarily lead to (a): compare the list of advertisers to the list of Accredited casinos and this becomes obvious.

If you do compare the two you'll see that yes, there is some commonality. And why shouldn't there be? If a place is good enough to Accredit it's probably good enough to have as an advertiser. And if it's good enough to have as an advertiser then it may well deserve to be on the Accredited list.

However you are assuming:

(c) that a casino from (a) and/or (b) gets special treatment because of it.

Not at all the case! Accredited casinos have been and are pulled when they failed to maintain their standards. Ditto with advertisers.

In other words, read the criteria for listing in the Accredited section. Your answers as to how it works here are there, nowhere else. Not under the table, not behind closed doors, not in your imagination.

If a casino fails to meet the standards set out in the Accredited listing then feel free to complain about it. CM will approach them and demand that they shape up. If they don't, they get the boot! That applies equally to Accredited casinos as it does to advertisers. Again, instances of this happening are more than sufficient to verify what I've said here.

And again, you ought to know that. I can see a rookie making the kind of sweepingly unfounded and inappropriate statements that you have been but it baffles me that you can have been a member here for ... 2.5+ years and not know this.

 

[dominique]

You got this upside down.

A large, busy site like casinomeister can pick and choose who they let on their site. That means he has the freedom to kick anyone out at any time without financial consequences.

There are only so many ad spots, and it doesn't matter financially who fills them, it only matters ethically.

If you see a site that advertises only one group of sister casinos, you know they are dependent on them. Small sites often think they need to remain loyal to someone who pays their bills.

With sites like Meister, it just doesn't matter whether a casino pays or not, if they become rogue they get rogued. There are dozens in line to fill the empty spot.

Over the years, many casinos have done an immense amount of cleanup to their businesses to get off the rogue list. Bryan has likely done more to clean up this industry than anyone else.

As far as business goes, it would be a very bad business decision to favor certain casinos, there is nothing to be gained by it, and the site would lose the trust of players. Good, profitable portals exist because they give priority to the consumer, the player.

Most of the regulars on this board have been around, and they know how to judge whether a portal is trustworthy. You can't sneek anything past the members here, which is why I love this place. I have learned a lot here and learn something new every time I drop in.

Re. processors: If you happen to have a friend who has access to processing and doesn't mind the risk, you are in. It has nothing to do with the size of the business. I would think it would be a lot easier to process smaller amounts than huge ones, so I imagine smaller places have a somewhat easier time of it.

why don't the others follow suit and avoid the processor extortion??

Follow suit where? How?

 

[suzecat]

I understand your point dominique, but if one site can get a MO to you in a very short time, why don't the others follow suit and avoid the processor extortion?? I find it very hard to swallow that a small stand alone site can do this and the big well funded ones cannot (or IMO more likely, will not).

Your statement about the $$ issue with CM is precisely why I asked about any fees for admission to the accredited list. It appears that those who pay to advertise get the accredited status, which is fine, but I think that readers of this forum should be informed that this is the case. Obviously those who are providing revenue to CM are going to be handled much differently than those who do not. I know it is just business, but in the interest of transparency I believe it should be pointed out that the accredited sites "do business" with CM. And no, I don't believe that CM is purposely trying to mislead us in this regard. It's just that I think it is naive to believe that an advertiser wouldn't be accredited and vice-versa. It would be like the oil companies telling us to use less gas, aint gonna happen.

An unaccredited advertiser would not make much sense now would it?

 

[pacers31]

Attack all you want Max, it seems that I've hit a nerve with you. You are the one making assumptions about what I think, so spare me your holier than thou line about purity. Many sites are accredited that then become rogued or not recommended. That indicates to me that the vetting process is not as indepth as maybe it should be. I really don't want to fight about it, and just because you say it is one way, doesn't necessarily make it so. Money talks and BS walks, I understand that and so do you. So, your admonishment falls on deaf ears. Goodbye for now.

 

[pacers31]

As far as me "knowing" better due to my length of time on this site, why wouldn't I just now get around to asking these questions. I believe that 2+ years of reading posts here gives me a very good handle on how it appears to work with the accredited list. So, I guess we can agree to disagree.

Dominique, by follow suit I mean why don't the others put people in place to pay the same way that 3D does. Can you understand that now?? The whole tough payment thing is a myth that you and others are reinforcing. If it is so damn difficult, explain why some can and some can't. Yes, these are my opinions just as your statements are.

 

[suzecat]

Attack all you want Max, it seems that I've hit a nerve with you. You are the one making assumptions about what I think, so spare me your holier than thou line about purity. Many sites are accredited that then become rogued or not recommended. That indicates to me that the vetting process is not as indepth as maybe it should be. I really don't want to fight about it, and just because you say it is one way, doesn't necessarily make it so. Money talks and BS walks, I understand that and so do you. So, your admonishment falls on deaf ears. Goodbye for now.

pacers, pacers.............maxd is not attacking you, in fact the man is a softie who's just trying to 'splain things to you Lucy!

The fact that accredited casinos lose accreditation proves that Bryan keeps abreast of the casinos who appear on his site and acts accordingly. He does not just sit back and count the $! Now if you ever find a casino on this site who should not be on this site, then your previous arguments deserve merit. BTW, Bryan is a very patient man who gives folks ample chance to change their thinking and if they do......great! Everyone is happy again. But if they don't, they're outta here! So I guess in a way that is money talking and BS walking..............but it's cool cause someone has figured out a way to protect the player.

 

[Simmo!]

...do casinos pay any sort of fee to become accredited here? If so, IMO it makes the list suspect, that's all.

... just because you say it is one way, doesn't necessarily make it so. Money talks and BS walks, I understand that and so do you. So, your admonishment falls on deaf ears.

I can substantiate what Max says. Casinomeister decides himself who to accredit and to who he wishes to be associated. There is no charge made for that at all. Up to you whether or not you want to believe it.

I can't speak for Bryan, but this is how I'd view "accreditation": very few casinos are perfect - they all make mistakes at some stage. But you get to know a "right" one from a "wrong" one - one that will endeavour to put wrongs right, or where "wrongs" are generally accidental/unforeseen/out-of-the-norm/one-offs. Add to that the software provider and/or jurisdiction providing some sort of back-up (or not!) and generally speaking, you can work out a "proper" casino from a "bandit". But they will all have issues from time to time - you can't escape that, and some might get temporarily or permanetly de-accredited.

It's just common sense really - but obviously you need to know the industry. Everyone has their own views on different casinos as this forum proves over and over, so most people will have at least one disgareement with the accredited list. Personal opinion. Common sense.

 

[dambusted]

I made a withdrawal from Red flush on July 20th never heard from them so I called, they told me they were awaiting for all my info (cc, DL, and a bill with my name on it) Hello why not tell me this no I have to find out myself 4 days later....Ok sent everything by email....Called again to make sure they received it...Well we got it but not the bill in your name...Ok resent while I had him on the phone....Ok we got it ..I will put this in right away...
Called again a few days later....It is still processing...Called a few more days later you check was issued on the 29th .You should receive it in 4-5 business days...OK day 6 comes no check and this is courier that I also paid $35.00 for...Call again, Very Nice guy named Gary tells me that all checks that were issued at the end of July have been canceled due to a Processor problem and are being reissued...So it will be another 4-5 days...

Well guess what I received my check yesterday Aug 9th by regular Certified Mail!!! Now i know that does not cost $35.00 for processing. Small white folder thing that said Mail rebate redemption for the return address..

I will be calling because as far as I can see they own me $35.00 because this was not processed the way I chose...We will see.

This sounds familiar, sure sounds like this casino definitely has processing problems! Please let me know how it turns out for you, as you probably read in my post they were generous enough to give me $10 (in loyalty points, since they can NOT give me $35...hahahha). But they can offer players 100% on their deposits...imagine that!

 

[pacers31]

O.K., I won't question the company line again, as I've seen what happens to posters who offer contrary opinions. The world is a beautiful place, everyone is happy, and everything said by the management is completely true and accurate. That what you want to hear? For me, the "accredited list" will remain a crap shoot.

 

[maxd]

... it seems that I've hit a nerve with you ... so spare me your holier than thou line about purity.

"Hit a nerve"?!? Damn straight you've hit a nerve! You come on here and imply (repeatedly) that Accredited casinos are there because they've bought their way in and that advertisers get special treatment. That's total BS and based only on your feeble assumption that since there's money to be made the process is crooked. Ya, that'll hit a nerve all right. It would be a sorry day at CM if it didn't!

If you choose to read my explanation as "holier than thou" then that's your business and fill your boots while you're at it. I've tried to take your insulting and degrading remarks and respond reasonably civilly with details about how things _actually_ work as opposed to your posted suppositions about how they _might_ work if the money did the talking here. Read it for what it is, or don't, but don't assume that the corruption you think "might" apply to the Accreditation process also applies to my efforts to set the record straight.

Money talks and BS walks, I understand that and so do you.

As true as that is in general it doesn't mean that your particular interpretation and/or application of it has anything to do with reality, which in this case it does not.

You've made implications and accusations here and I'm trying to set the record straight. If you refuse to acknowledge that then I'd say this is about something other than your desire to understand how the process works here at CM or to participate constructively in it.

To quote the bard, "there are more things in this life than are dreamed of in your philosophy". In this particular case that means you've missed the mark by a long shot.

And finally, a response wherein a person shows how you were mistaken is not an attack, it's a rebuttal. Big difference. If I were "attacking" you you'd know it.

 

[Simmo!]

O.K., I won't question the company line again, as I've seen what happens to posters who offer contrary opinions. The world is a beautiful place, everyone is happy, and everything said by the management is completely true and accurate. That what you want to hear?.

Yup - thanks

 

[suzecat]

O.K., I won't question the company line again, as I've seen what happens to posters who offer contrary opinions. The world is a beautiful place, everyone is happy, and everything said by the management is completely true and accurate. That what you want to hear? For me, the "accredited list" will remain a crap shoot.

Dude, gambling is a crap shoot! You want safe............find another hobby. I do appreciate that you brought up this subject and your skepticism of Bryan's work. I am sure you are not the only one who feels this way but for some reason have not voiced their opinion.

 

[pacers31]

Follow your own procedures Max and ban yourself. That's what you do to me and others that offer contrary opinions. Seems that only YOU are allowed to flame things!! I have my opinions and you have yours Max. Suzecat, are you on the payroll now or is there some other reason you are shilling??? Don't like what I have to say, ban me. Of course that just proves my point that only the company line works here. If you can't take critism, don't run a public forum. Not everyone is going to believe everything you say, so have a coke and a smile and enjoy your day!!

 

[pacers31]

Sorry Suzecat, I was out of line on that one. Emotions get to running high you know. I do appreciate that you understand that there are probably many who wonder about this as I do. My apologies to you for my shill comment.

 

[Simmo!]

Follow your own procedures Max and ban yourself. That's what you do to me and others that offer contrary opinions.

For clarification, it's not what you say that generally gets you banned but how you say it! There's a way to criticise and make it sound reasonable, and a way to criticize and make it sound spiteful.

 

[pacers31]

Right back at ya Simmo!