[RESOLVED] Virgin Casino - Poor treatment of High Rollers.

[rpalmer83]

Virgin Ace,

What you are saying is illogical. You say you want to reward players with bonuses as a show of generosity but once they start taking them and winning you accuse them of bonus abuse. We do have quite a number of members here stating that your casino has treated them shabbily with the notorious e-mail. It would seem that the awarding of bonuses is affecting your profit margin so why dont you cancel them altogether and rely on a better comp system. The more you play the better the comps. This is much better than arbitrarily singling out players and accuse them of bonus abuse. If I were a player, I would be worried that if I took your bonus more often, I would get the same treatment. You have your terms for these bonuses ie wagering requirements. You dont have to award players with bonuses every month. If I took a bonus this month, just dont let me have them for the next 2 months instead of slapping a ban on me.

If this decision was taken after much thought and analysis then I do doubt your ability to really understand the players and their needs. You seem to be alienting them more than anything else.

I would much rather them do this, have milestone bonuses or something so when you've wagered a fixed amount over the month you are rewarded for it.

This is the problem though, Losing players are more likely to come back and try to win back what they've lost, even more so if theres a juicy fish on the end of a hook so thats why the existing structure will suit them better.

I am by no means a good gambler. Even though I've won a lot at Virgin, I have lost a lot elsewhere as well.

 

[hitobito2005]

I was once a VIP member at Totesport Casino, who then arbitrarily banned me from bonuses for no apparant reason. They did say that I could continue playing and they "might" unban me from bonuses, but they made a feel like a criminal and I had no intention of depositing there again. Thankfully they overturned the ban and I continue to play at otherwise one of the most efficient/fastest paying playtechs.

The same seems to have happened at Virgin. They seem to have alienated a lot of players by practically accusing them of being a thief.

 

[younggav]

Sorry for going off topic a bit, but while the focus is on Virgin I'ld like to point something else from them which I feel is very sneeky.

If you play for fun on Lucky Draw Jacks or Better the pay table includes.

Full House 9
Flush 6

Now run good log in and play the paytable changes

Full House 7
Flush 5

I dont see the need to have the crippled pay table in the first place, but to have the play for fun mode play different to the real game is very very close to cheating in my opinion.

Regards Gav.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Expired Image

Yep, I just loved risking 17,320 of my own hard cash over the last 90 days in order to merely convert your 1,250 worth of 'generous' bonuses. You've excluded people who've won money. That is the only explaination. I played with you for the enjoyment and entertainment, it was never about only converting the bonus money!. Obviously the bonuses were a nice touch, a 'bonus' as its called but I thought thats what they were there for, to reward loyalty and continued custom. I have certainly not abused them.

You've clearly made your decision, however at least this thread will serve as a warning to people that the promotions which virgin offer are not as transparant and 'available' as they might at first seem.

If you win money you will eventually be excluded and alienated from the rest of their members.

I do not have a dog in the hunt with Virgin but it does remind me of a B & M experience where I simply had the audacity to win and was 86ed. The casino fabricated a story but little did they think I knew Nevada law and surveillance tapes do not lie but in the end as my attorney wisely summed up , it was nothing more than "shitty" treatment by a casino for having the audacity to win. (I was fortunate eventhough I did not know it at the time to be allowed to cash my thousands in chips before I had to leave the casino as casinos have been known to wrongfully confiscate,steal,etc.,chips and then it takes years and money to legally battle). In summary, I sympathize and understand your frustration but let it go and move on as there is nothing more than you have already done on account of this "shitty" treatment (as Nevada's premier casino patron abuse attorney wisely advised me.)

 

[dancinggoon]

i read through the whole threat and im really amused about virgincasino...

Im sure any halfway skilled advancedplayer/bonusseeker has a superior understanding of gambling and would be probably making better buissnes decissions than virgin.

 

[The Dude]

I dont need to reread what you posted. I said you imply (not stated) I should be grateful which is how I interpret your post. I did not make any "snide" remarks. I dont think an accredited casino should behave in this manner and If you do then the accredititation status doesnt mean much.

I appreciate that you have no proof of what we are saying but you dont exactly seem sympathetic.

I guess you want me to admonish a casino for telling you that they aren't giving you anymore bonuses. And because of this incident the entire accredited section is worthless? C'mon, get real.

I'm just telling you like it is - not siding with people - and that the casino has made it clear that certain players are welcome to play, but not with promos.

It's not like they are reneging bonuses or holding back winnings.

 

[rpalmer83]

I do not have a dog in the hunt with Virgin but it does remind me of a B & M experience where I simply had the audacity to win and was 86ed. The casino fabricated a story but little did they think I knew Nevada law and surveillance tapes do not lie but in the end as my attorney wisely summed up , it was nothing more than "shitty" treatment by a casino for having the audacity to win. (I was fortunate eventhough I did not know it at the time to be allowed to cash my thousands in chips before I had to leave the casino as casinos have been known to wrongfully confiscate,steal,etc.,chips and then it takes years and money to legally battle). In summary, I sympathize and understand your frustration but let it go and move on as their is nothing more than you have already done on account of this "shitty" treatment (as Nevada's premier casino patron abuse attorney wisely advised me.)

Im not bothered either way to be honest, there are plenty of other online casinos out there who won't treat me this way and at the end of the day their terms and conditions do state that they have the right to exclude individuals from promotions at anytime so they are completely within their rights.

I just wanted to make sure other people know exactly how they treat their customers. as shown in my screenshot I would think 17k in deposits over 3 months ought to have triggered some sort of VIP status, not once was I invited into such a scheme and the only possible explaination in my mind is that they don't like the fact that I have been successful in winning there.

So the moral of the story is, if you have a significant amount of money you want to bet in a casino, don't play at Virgin.

Nice wording on the reasons to play at Virgin on their website:

If it's great promotions you're after, look no further:
Get a 100% sign-up bonus when you first start playing
Grab your share of weekly and monthly cash offers
High rollers are invited to join our competitive VIP program
Monthly competitions give you the chance to win great prizes

 

[uungy]

It's not like they are reneging bonuses or holding back winnings.

May I add the word "yet".

This is a quote from their website,

WagerWorks reserves the right to withhold any free credits payment at our total discretion.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Im not bothered either way to be honest, there are plenty of other online casinos out there who won't treat me this way and at the end of the day their terms and conditions do state that they have the right to exclude individuals from promotions at anytime so they are completely within their rights.

I just wanted to make sure other people know exactly how they treat their customers. as shown in my screenshot I would think 17k in deposits over 3 months ought to have triggered some sort of VIP status, not once was I invited into such a scheme and the only possible explaination in my mind is that they don't like the fact that I have been successful in winning there.

So the moral of the story is, if you have a significant amount of money you want to bet in a casino, don't play at Virgin.

Nice wording on the reasons to play at Virgin on their website:

Agreed based on your facts and side of the situation!

 

[bash_2357]

Unbeleivable response from Virgin.
Have you read the thread? The evidence is at least these players are definitely loyal and NOT just abusing promotions. Just take an interest and read otherwise you will lose many players.

 

[topoor]

I guess you want me to admonish a casino for telling you that they aren't giving you anymore bonuses. And because of this incident the entire accredited section is worthless? C'mon, get real.

I'm just telling you like it is - not siding with people - and that the casino has made it clear that certain players are welcome to play, but not with promos.

It's not like they are reneging bonuses or holding back winnings.

So you do find it acceptable for your accredited casinos to exclude high stakes players from promotions without proper explanation? Thanks for clarifying that. If I wanted to make a snide remark Id say Its a good job you're not a players advocate!

Is the bottom line for a good casino only fair games and payouts? Its a bit like describing a rickety, old, uncomfortable bus service as excellent because you arrive at the detsination you wanted.

 

[spearmaster]

Any casino has the right to exclude players from promotions at its own discretion - nothing obligates them to give you bonuses or comps.

Having said that - while they may be in the right, it doesn't mean that the decision they made was good business sense. Certainly, I would not call 17K of deposits for $1.2K in bonuses "bonus abuse".

 

[The Dude]

So you do find it acceptable for your accredited casinos to exclude high stakes players from promotions without proper explanation? Thanks for clarifying that. If I wanted to make a snide remark Id say Its a good job you're not a players advocate!

Is the bottom line for a good casino only fair games and payouts? Its a bit like describing a rickety, old, uncomfortable bus service as excellent because you arrive at the detsination you wanted.

Like I said earlier, I'm not privy to your account details, wagering habits, bonuses or whatever - and no one has asked me to investigate this either. If a player wanted to PAB about this, that's fine - I would deal with this and perhaps something in the player's favor could be worked out. Or maybe not.

But if you think you're going to solve anything with troll-like postings, then you are in the wrong place.

 

[dominique]

Any casino has the right to exclude players from promotions at its own discretion - nothing obligates them to give you bonuses or comps.

Having said that - while they may be in the right, it doesn't mean that the decision they made was good business sense. Certainly, I would not call 17K of deposits for $1.2K in bonuses "bonus abuse".

True.

It's their own decision, and they have a right to make it.

IMO it's not a very smart one. In the end, treating a good depositor like that can only hurt the casino in the long run.

And I certainly agree with the suggestion of loyalty bonuses.

 

[tristan727]

Any casino has the right to exclude players from promotions at its own discretion - nothing obligates them to give you bonuses or comps.

I've read the posts of many of the complainants here previously, over the last year - and respect their intelligence & knowledge of casinos - to me it's almost an insult that you think they're just complaining about not getting freebies. We are merely highlighting Virgin's recent treatment of players. I'd be surprised if I'm actually in profit with them since the month which they admitted me into the redroom - which was only after I'd emailed them saying that I'd lost $5,000 in their casino that month, and just how do you get into the redroom then?

The Virgin casino reps post here is of exactly the same automaton & unflinching tone as the emails I have been getting. I sent them a reply yesterday, asking for a human review of my account - and then logged in and sadly lost the previously mentioned $1,600. I then emailed asking for an update, and was told to wait. Eventually I got a reply....and what do you think this $1,600 handed over paid for? Merely a copy & paste of the previous email, nothing actually written personally towards me - they couldn't even be bothered.

 

[spearmaster]

I've read the posts of many of the complainants here previously, over the last year - and respect their intelligence & knowledge of casinos - to me it's almost an insult that you think they're just complaining about not getting freebies.

I pointed out what was in this thread. Every complaint was about suddenly being classed as not able to receive promotions.

And I also pointed out that I don't believe that this was a sound business decision. Nevertheless, the casino is not at fault here - if anything, their competitors will be thanking them.

I kindly ask you to read a bit more closely - nothing I said should be construed as a defense of their actions.

 

[rpalmer83]

The Virgin casino reps post here is of exactly the same automaton & unflinching tone as the emails I have been getting. I sent them a reply yesterday, asking for a human review of my account - and then logged in and sadly lost the previously mentioned $1,600. I then emailed asking for an update, and was told to wait. Eventually I got a reply....and what do you think this $1,600 handed over paid for? Merely a copy & paste of the previous email, nothing actually written personally towards me - they couldn't even be bothered.

I don't know about you but if i'd have logged in there now after these emails/response from virgin and suddenly lost $1600 I would automatically assume that my account had been 'rigged'. Granted, I seriously doubt that is the case. However we are human beings and we are naturally cautious about what goes on around us. We can't see what equipment casinos have at their end to permit us to take part in online gaming so if we want to gamble online we have to trust their word that everything is above board and is run correctly.

That is a hell of a lot of trust, you trust casinos with your identity, bank account details and other personal information. They give you nothing in return apart from fixed odds. It should be their duty to make their customers feel comfortable, confident and safe in an online gaming environment. Not make accusations and withdraw privilages because they have won money.


The way Virgin have gone about and responded to this whole situation has been a farce. They are now saying that 'The promotional ban is not permanent and will be reviewed in the future' but why should anyone believe them. They haven't offered to review individuals accounts, nor have they been honest about the reasons why people have been excluded.

 

[lifechooser]

It's all down to scale. I think that Casinomeister is used to dealing with complaints about genuine rogue casino's, and people PAB at them.

This thread is nowhere near that level, rather it's about a very good casino doing something which seems incredibly stupid business wise.

No-one is suggesting that what Virgin has done is wrong either legally or morally, far from it. It's simply a case of customers being shocked and baffled by their actions, and wanting to talk about it and find out what on earth is going on.

If rpalmer83 doesn't have an inbox of other casinos offering him VIP status, then I'd be suprised. If I were a rival casino reading this thread, I'd be doing my upmost to win this players custom.

I'd also be suprised if he stayed at virgin. It's not like he needs or really cares about the bonuses, or whether they get withdrawn, rather the attitude in which they did it. I'm reading this thread because I'm hoping to find out what on earth was going through their heads when they decided to bonus ban people after so little analysis of their playing.

 

[tristan727]

I pointed out what was in this thread. Every complaint was about suddenly being classed as not able to receive promotions.

Nevertheless, the casino is not at fault here

Each to their own interpretation of posts - something I am very familiar with from the whole Wofacai debacle. However I see it as being a discussion of anything but bonus abuse - it looks obvious it's a sheer matter of profit/loss - which is the beauty of forums - where one can find out what's really happening from other's experiences.

How do you mean the casino isn't at fault here by the way? They might not be, in the end - but still seems rather debatable.

Anyhow - no doubt when they do a proper audit - they'll suddenly preen off their books all fraudulent accounts, multiple household ones etc. and come running back to the highrollers when they realise they actually need genuine, honest gamblers.

 

[spearmaster]

Each to their own interpretation of posts - something I am very familiar with from the whole Wofacai debacle. However I see it as being a discussion of anything but bonus abuse - it looks obvious it's a sheer matter of profit/loss - which is the beauty of forums - where one can find out what's really happening from other's experiences.

How do you mean the casino isn't at fault here by the way? They might not be, in the end - but still seems rather debatable.

Anyhow - no doubt when they do a proper audit - they'll suddenly preen off their books all fraudulent accounts, multiple household ones etc. and come running back to the highrollers when they realise they actually need genuine, honest gamblers.

If this was meant to be a discussion of anything but bonus abuse, it doesn't belong in the "Casino Complaints - Bonus Issues" forum.

The casino is not at fault because it has every right to withhold promotions, no matter what the cause. It is not obligated to offer any promotion to one or all players for any reason - it does so at its own choosing. Once offered, it must abide by the offer, of course - but if it says it will not make further offers, that's entirely their right.

 

[topoor]

Like I said earlier, I'm not privy to your account details, wagering habits, bonuses or whatever - and no one has asked me to investigate this either. If a player wanted to PAB about this, that's fine - I would deal with this and perhaps something in the player's favor could be worked out. Or maybe not.

But if you think you're going to solve anything with troll-like postings, then you are in the wrong place.

OK, forget about me. Look at rpalmers figures and tell me he has been fairly treated by one of your accredited casinos.

Rpalmer would you PAB?

 

[spearmaster]

OK, forget about me. Look at rpalmers figures and tell me he has been fairly treated by one of your accredited casinos.

Rpalmer would you PAB?

This is not unfair treatment. It might be poor treatment, but it is not unfair. And a PAB will go nowhere in this situation.

 

[tristan727]

The casino is not at fault because it has every right to withhold promotions, no matter what the cause. It is not obligated to offer any promotion to one or all players for any reason - it does so at its own choosing.

Yes, yes - we do all know that. However 'their right' is different than being right. The whole point of this thread seems to be highlighting what has been an inquitable & hurried resolution of their obvious financial difficulties, and players should be informed & forewarned.

For instance -from reading this & elsewhere - it looks like they've simply downloaded some spreadsheet sorting out accounts by profit/loss purely - I don't see any evidence elsewhere in various forums or blogs that they actually have banned any or many low level 'bonus abusers' - people wagering 1 or 2/hand, exactly to the WR. I may turn out to be wrong - but it would support this theory & evidence here, of high-rollers being kicked out only.

 

[spearmaster]

Yes, yes - we do all know that. However 'their right' is different than being right. The whole point of this thread seems to be highlighting what has been an inquitable & hurried resolution of their obvious financial difficulties, and players should be informed & forewarned.

Financial difficulties, indeed!

 

[topoor]

This is not unfair treatment. It might be poor treatment, but it is not unfair. And a PAB will go nowhere in this situation.

It is unfair treatment and is the whole point of the thread. PAB was not my idea...

 

[spearmaster]

It is unfair treatment and is the whole point of the thread. PAB was not my idea...

... and what makes it unfair? (and note the title of the thread says "poor")

 

[BBKPoker]

I guess you want me to admonish a casino for telling you that they aren't giving you anymore bonuses. And because of this incident the entire accredited section is worthless? C'mon, get real.

I'm just telling you like it is - not siding with people - and that the casino has made it clear that certain players are welcome to play, but not with promos.

It's not like they are reneging bonuses or holding back winnings.

I think he just wants someone to agree with him that it's a stupid business decision on Virgin's part in his specific scenario, because with his stats, he believes that there is no way he is the prototype bonus hunter.

And yeah, I agree with that. It's certainly Virgin's right to exclude him from bonuses, or close his account altogether once they've paid him out, but with the kind of activity he has on his account, they should be doing what they can to keep him around, he's obviously a recreational gambler with a lucky win and not a sharp bettor.

 

[topoor]

erm the tarring of long standing, high stake, non bonus players as bonus hunting scum and being excluded from the promos of a casino they have been members of for years makes it unfair. It really pisses me off that people in this thread keep emphasing that casinos have the right to remove you from promos. That has never been disputed. They also have the right to void winnings and claim malfunction - it doesnt mean they should.

 

[spearmaster]

erm the tarring of long standing, high stake, non bonus players as bonus hunting scum and being excluded from the promos of a casino they have been members of for years makes it unfair.

I might give you "unfairly" tarred - but not "unfairly" excluded.

 

[topoor]

Why not? And please dont say they have the right because that doesnt make it fair.

 

[hitobito2005]

A casino banning big winners is insane. Do they not understand the concept of EV?

A losing player who has only wagered what he needed for bonus but has just been unlucky is much worse to the casino than Rpalmer with his 10k win over the last few months. In this case, Rpalmer is EV neutral with his level of wagering assuming he played the best games to perfect strategy. Virgin have not lost anything to him.

 

[uungy]

Any casino has the right to exclude players from promotions at its own discretion - nothing obligates them to give you bonuses or comps.

Having said that - while they may be in the right, it doesn't mean that the decision they made was good business sense. Certainly, I would not call 17K of deposits for $1.2K in bonuses "bonus abuse".

With all you respect it really seems you are just trying to antagonise with a post like that.

No one has said that they were in the "right's" to recieve the bonus, so this post just seems to be stoking up the fire, its the same aimless post which Virgin Ace responded.

Besides for the fact, I think Virgin may be in the wrong, and Rpalmer may be within his "rights" and so too many others here.

When a customer signs up, they agree to the terms, and I suspect the casino agrees to it too!

The email Virgin sent out, and I quote

....reserves the right to prohibit or exclude certain individuals with immediate effect if any offer abuse
is identified or suspected . Our Terms and Conditions are quite clear
on this matter and can be reviewed by clicking on the terms and
conditions link on any of the promotions on our promotions page. ............. Our analysis of play patterns has identified you as being in breach of those terms and conditions.

Now their terms and conditions state that they have the rights to do so only and if bonus abuse is found.

In this case there has been absolutely none of that, and the casino has to explain their situation, as they are bound by the terms stated in their own website.

Rpalmer, and many others here have rights to request why any such bonus abuse is evident, when clearly it is not! What analasis are they using, it seems they may be in breach of their terms!

Besides saying that anyone can choose their own casino, and they can do what they wish in regards to bonuses, everyone knows that, and obviously it really isnt a point which anyone is interested inhearing. Explanation is requested and some answers, not just vague shrug offs!

 

[rpalmer83]

I am still deciding whether or not to push this any further, I might write to Virgin group with print out of my wagering and see what they say. They have handled the situation terribly which I know I keep saying but it makes me so angry when I have deposited so much money there only to be sidelined as some sort of outcast.

It would have been fairer to send an email saying that they weren't happy with the way I was using my account and it was now being monitored, give an example of how I could improve my 'alleged' playing patterns and failure to improve on this would result in the bonus privelages being withdrawn after a month or so.

That would be the sensible, and right thing to do in situations like this.

It would have also been nice for the Virgin Rep to PM me and offer to re-look over my account, and answer my question of how 17,000 of deposits equates to abusing their promotion scheme. I'm certainly not emailing CS again to recieve a pre-typed reply.

 

[spearmaster]

With all you respect it really seems you are just trying to antagonise with a post like that.

No one has said that they were in the "right's" to recieve the bonus, so this post just seems to be stoking up the fire, its the same aimless post which Virgin Ace responded.

Besides for the fact, I think Virgin may be in the wrong, and Rpalmer may be within his "rights" and so too many others here.

When a customer signs up, they agree to the terms, and I suspect the casino agrees to it too!

The email Virgin sent out, and I quote
Now their terms and conditions state that they have the rights to do so only and if bonus abuse is found.

In this case there has been absolutely none of that, and the casino has to explain their situation, as they are bound by the terms stated in their own website.

Rpalmer, and many others here have rights to request why any such bonus abuse is evident, when clearly it is not! What analasis are they using, it seems they may be in breach of their terms!

Besides saying that anyone can choose their own casino, and they can do what they wish in regards to bonuses, everyone knows that, and obviously it really isnt a point which anyone is interested inhearing. Explanation is requested and some answers, not just vague shrug offs!

Kindly show me where they are bound by the T&C to offer you a promotion.

 

[uungy]

Virgin sent out this in their email

....reserves the right to prohibit or exclude certain individuals with immediate effect if any offer abuse is identified or suspected . Our Terms and Conditions are quite clear on this matter and can be reviewed by clicking on the terms and conditions link on any of the promotions on our promotions page. ............. Our analysis of play patterns has identified you as being in breach of those terms and conditions.

which means they will offer bonuss unless they have areason not to...

 

[spearmaster]

Virgin sent out this in their email


which means they will offer bonuss unless they have areason not to...

Nowhere in the T&C does it say that they MUST offer you a promotion as long as you are not identified as a bonus abuser. Nor does it say anywhere that they MUST offer you a promotion at all.

You cannot imply a right that does not exist in the first place.

 

[rpalmer83]

On their promotions page though they have this little beauty tucked in:

1. WagerWorks reserves the right to withhold any free credits payment at our total discretion.
2. WagerWorks reserves the right to withdraw or amend this offer at any time without prior notice.

Which pretty much gives them the right to do what they want, if they wanted to be so harsh the second term even permits them to pull out of their side of a promotion even whilst a person is in the middle of wagering for it.

Again, I don't think anyone is saying that they have a right to these promotions or is meaning to come across that way. I certainly am not.

It is quite clear though that Virgin are deliberately avoiding answering questions on why people have been excluded which if they had any morals, respect for their customers and nothing to hide they would do, but again they are only excercising their rights of term 2. So are keeping to their terms.

 

[spearmaster]

On their promotions page though they have this little beauty tucked in:



Which pretty much gives them the right to do what they want, if they wanted to be so harsh the second term even permits them to pull out of their side of a promotion even whilst a person is in the middle of wagering for it.

Again, I don't think anyone is saying that they have a right to these promotions or is meaning to come across that way. I certainly am not.

It is quite clear though that Virgin are deliberately avoiding answering questions on why people have been excluded which if they had any morals, respect for their customers and nothing to hide they would do, but again they are only excercising their rights of term 2. So are keeping to their terms.

Just so it's clear - I agree with rpalmer.

 

[uungy]

Nowhere in the T&C does it say that they MUST offer you a promotion as long as you are not identified as a bonus abuser. Nor does it say anywhere that they MUST offer you a promotion at all.

You cannot imply a right that does not exist in the first place.

Sorry, thats called "arguing for the sake of arguing"!

Just because its not written in blood, doesnt mean that its not the case. Be honest, and dont just stick to your guns. They clearly quote their own terms, and any honest person would admit to the fact that since it states clearly that"if you are a bonus abuser then we will not allow promotions" obviously imply's that otherwise you are allowed bonuses.

It doesnt say in the terms and conditions, that if you have only one account then you can wont be banned it says "You can only have one account, using one credit or debit card, at any time – multiple accounts are banned." So are you saying that since it doesnt say that you wont be banned if you have one account, they have a valid reason to ban you

Come on, you aren't being practical and straight with this. It comes back to my earlier point, that I feel you are just antagonising!

Just so it's clear - I agree with rpalmer.

Changing directions? Thats not the reasoning why you were backing Virgin before, because of those terms.

By the way, even if those pints are tucked away, they still called players "bonus abusers" which is unfair, and that is not the terms and conditions in their website

They have not pulled the bonuses, as they are still there, so it has not been withdrawn, also withholding bonuses "at their discretion" is a Rogue casino terms and condition

 

[vinylweatherman]

The point is that not only have the casino delisted certain players from promotions, they had said this decision was made because said players "abused the casinos generosity", if there is evidence that players were banned even when they did NOT seek to "abuse" the bonuses, then the casino has made an unjustified accusation. It does not matter that it was in private, it was still unjustified.
To justify their stance, Virgin casino must demonstrate that the vocal complainants here were indeed guilty of some form of bonus abuse, although the one 90 day account history posted (which I assume has not been doctored) seems to indicate the prompt for the ban was the history of still being ahead despite a large amount of wagering, ie. the player has beat the house edge over the medium to long term, and it seems the casino must have concluded that this means that some kind of "abuse" must be taking place to achieve this, or that they simply levy the ban on overall winners.

The other scenario is, of course, that the casino have weeded out promotion abusers, and a few have come here trying to get back their access to the "Virgin ATM".

The casino does have the right to exclude players from promotions if this is allowed by the laws of their juristiction, however, it MUST NOT LIE to players who ask why the decision was made, it will only make them look bad if such lies are found out.

Rather than play on, these players should stop all play whatsoever if they believe they have been wrongly accused of bonus abuse, and only reconsider if the casino either tells them the truth, or reverses the decision.

As I said, I have been delisted from normal promotions, and I have been told this was because I was an overall winner, nothing to do with "bonus abuse".
I find it hard to believe that any player who played "abusively" would make it to the VIP club, and thus even bigger bonuses to "abuse".
I am pretty certain that this thinning out of eligibility was aimed at both "bonus abusers" AND those players who seemed to constantly beat the house edge, but both classes got the standard accusatory banning E-mail.

Being banned simply for winning is far more common than many think here in the UK gambling industry, so it is no surprise that this happens with sportsbooks and casinos with a strong UK connection.

Not ALL online casinos ban winners from promotions though, and the best thing these players can do is start afresh at another casino, and see if they can continue their winning streak.

Virgin will be far more likely to reconsider their position if customers take this option than if they continue to plug away at what seems a lost cause.
If Virgin are forced to come begging for these players to return, this will be on the PLAYER'S terms, not the casinos, and I am sure service will be alot better.

To get at the truth, a player who is 100% certain they have not sought to manipulate the bonus should pitch a bitch on the grounds that they have been wrongly labelled as a "bonus abuser". It probably won't get their promotions back, but it will ensure the casino is being truthful about this being a matter of abusive players, and not simply about overall winners.

If I were to play at Virgin after reading this, I would believe that it was winning too much that earns a promotion ban, not being abusive with the offers, and this would mean I would play so as NOT to hit very big wins at the risk of big losses, I would play to win modest amounts at much less risk knowing that with a certain level of success would come the promotion ban, which would be reversed once I had played some of the winnings back.

 

[chuchu59]

Sorry, thats called "arguing for the sake of arguing"!

Just because its not written in blood, doesnt mean that its not the case. Be honest, and dont just stick to your guns. They clearly quote their own terms, and any honest person would admit to the fact that since it states clearly that"if you are a bonus abuser then we will not allow promotions" obviously imply's that otherwise you are allowed bonuses.

It doesnt say in the terms and conditions, that if you have only one account then you can wont be banned it says "You can only have one account, using one credit or debit card, at any time – multiple accounts are banned." So are you saying that since it doesnt say that you wont be banned if you have one account, they have a valid reason to ban you

Come on, you aren't being practical and straight with this. It comes back to my earlier point, that I feel you are just antagonising!


Changing directions? Thats not the reasoning why you were backing Virgin before, because of those terms.

By the way, even if those pints are tucked away, they still called players "bonus abusers" which is unfair, and that is not the terms and conditions in their website

They have not pulled the bonuses, as they are still there, so it has not been withdrawn, also withholding bonuses "at their discretion" is a Rogue casino terms and condition

Uungy,

Let's not get overheated on this. There is no way you can legally force them to give you bonuses and as long as this was not tied to a deposit already made they are perfectly within their rights to do so. The only way to overcome this would be to hit them where it hurts hardest - their pockets. In the short run,they may well save a petty amount but surely those that feel aggrieved will not return and their customer base will dwindle. Furthermore, their non-affected customers will be wary of their bonus promotions and bet less freely than before and before u know it, turnover will be down as well. While I can understand why certain players have been labelled bonus abusers, this certainly does not seem to apply here. Sending out mass e-mails to players labelling them as bonus abusers is not only poor PR but gives little credence to bonus abusing as 'the exception rather than the norm'.

Given the development on this issue, I doubt whether they will change their minds on this issue anytime soon. However, their antics will be spread far and wide and they will soon be licking their wounds on this lousy act in the futile hope of saving a few bucks.

 

[SlotsWizard]

I have no affiliation with Virgin, nor can I play there as a US resident.

That said, Virgin is within their rights to exclude players from receiving their massively super-generous 7% bonuses... however, they will be the losers in the long run once word spreads how they don't like players who win.

If it upsets you (I know it would irritate me, and I'm not even a bonus hunter), you should protest with your wallet. I would interpret that email as a loud and clear "FU" from the casino, and I would be more than happy to return the favor by depositing and playing somewhere that appreciated my business.

It's as if they only looked at three figures: amount deposited, amount given in bonuses, and amount withdrawn - without even looking at how much you wagered.

 

[bash_2357]

They could have just sent an email like this...

"Listen Guys...I don't know what you are doing but you seem to be doing consistently well and we can't handle the fact that you can be this lucky. So we don't think you need any further incentives like bonuses since you do so well regardless. So the best solution is to temporarily exclude you for promos. No big deal. We need to make big bucks after all"

If they were clear from the outset and did not label loyal players effectively as bonus abusers, this whole matter would probably be put to rest.

After all there are plenty of casinos that offer generous incentives to loyal high rollers. So who gives a toss about Virgin.

Everyone is in agreement ( except Virgin Ace!) that Virgin will lose out in the end. Infact, why are we so bothered about helping them out? Thats the conclusion i've reached. BTW, i wasn't banned from them just find the whole situation unbelivable!

 

[tristan727]

The problem here is many people have been unfairly labelled bonus hunters - most evidently in the case of the OP. Who knows what these people are going to do with this supposed knowledge, and how far it will be passed on elsewhere. I get customer service replies from Bluesq with virgin email addresses, and grosvenor casino emails from bluesq addresses...because the OP legitimately won an RF, with no bonus - and I won $3,500 playing BJ, again with no bonus or cashback involved last week - we may well find ourselves persona non-grata everywhere, thanks to this highly questionable method of analysis of bonus abuse.

Sure you can all promise they don't pass on info. etc, I'd believe that even less than Gordon Brown's assurances on the safety of our personal data.

We have based our decision on months of play analysis.

Do you mean it took you months to work out who the bonus hunters were? Or more likely you have reviewed just 'months' of game analysis?

If the former - why does it take so long? Other casinos take just a few hours.

If the latter - What about your ex-vip members here who have been of VIP status for 3 years or more - surely they deserve a slightly longer period of analysis, before being booted out? Some of them might even be looking at huge losses for the year, if you're only capturing the most recent few months.

 

[bash_2357]

^ Are you suggesting that there is a chance that rpalmer will get banned from other WW casinos because virgin banned him?

 

[vinylweatherman]

^ Are you suggesting that there is a chance that rpalmer will get banned from other WW casinos because virgin banned him?

There is a high likelihood that rpalmer would be allowed to play at other WW casinos, but the label of "bonus abuser" will probably get him a ban from the promotions. If the accusation of "bonus abuser" was not valid in the first place, but just a cover for getting rid of a winning player without having to admit that winning is enough to get delisted from promotions, then passing the information as "bonus abuse" to other WW operations would be libel, and this WOULD be covered by civil law, and indeed the data protection act, which would probably apply to Virgin as an EU operation.
This is why it is not so much the promotion ban, but the accusation that is the big problem here. It is well known that the casinos share information on "rogue" players, and Playtech have even admitted as much through a casino rep here, and have justified it as a means to fight fraud, and implied other software licencees would love to see the same centrally held data available to help fight "fraud".
With this data sharing, it is imperative that any labelling of players is accurate, and the right to have the data held on you to be accurate is another legal right under the data protection act, and would apply to any online casino operating from an EU territory. Casinos operating outside the EU may be able to get away with mislabelling players due to lack of legal protection in their juristiction.

The post regarding Bluesq support replies coming from Virgin addresses etc indicates that my supposition is probably true, that Virgin casino is merely a franchise, or "white label" if you like, able to trade on the reputation of the Virgin brand through a licencing deal. It may well be that the others, BlueSQ and grosvenor are all run from the same support centre, and maybe by the one management company who have licensed the three brands to front their three casinos.

To prove the point, a player banned from Virgin promos should sign up at, say, BlueSQ, and see if a ban from promotions it implemented pretty quickly (and before any meaningful analysis of gameplay could have taken place). If one is, it would demonstrate that the information is being shared between these three casinos. This would mean these players are NOT able to take their custom elsewhere (with WW software), although other casino groups would probably delight at the opportunity of snagging a high roller prepared to play 40 VP without necessarily having had a bonus.


Perhaps I should sign up to Virgin as "vinylweatherman" and see if I get a bonus, or a ban for being "too smart"

 

[uungy]

Uungy,

Let's not get overheated on this. There is no way you can legally force them to give you bonuses and as long as this was not tied to a deposit already made they are perfectly within their rights to do so. The only way to overcome this would be to hit them where it hurts hardest - their pockets. In the short run,they may well save a petty amount but surely those that feel aggrieved will not return and their customer base will dwindle. Furthermore, their non-affected customers will be wary of their bonus promotions and bet less freely than before and before u know it, turnover will be down as well. While I can understand why certain players have been labelled bonus abusers, this certainly does not seem to apply here. Sending out mass e-mails to players labelling them as bonus abusers is not only poor PR but gives little credence to bonus abusing as 'the exception rather than the norm'.

Given the development on this issue, I doubt whether they will change their minds on this issue anytime soon. However, their antics will be spread far and wide and they will soon be licking their wounds on this lousy act in the futile hope of saving a few bucks.

you cant be more correct, it is impossible to take a legal point here, I was just demonstarting to those who found it hard to understand that Virgin are probably in the wrong, not only financially, but also probably legally wrong. By no way or means is it worth chasing a losing casino (which inevitably will be, by the stance they are taking), but I was just implying that whilke they have the choice, legally it could be achallange. Casinomeister forums, I belive, is not to threaten legal cases, but to prove the case is correct, and legally correct, and that way an honest casino would keep their word, otherwise they don't deserve their accredited status.

I believe they have a few issues which should be a good reason to take off accredited status :-

1)The term which states "WagerWorks reserves the right to withhold any free credits payment at our total discretion."
2) their rudeness diplayed, which is bad customer support, with "no response". The responses they have given, are just the standard to many players, as they can't be bothered looking into anything.
3) Not responding to players issues (as far as I am concerened, on the forun)
4) I believe they may be legally in the wrong (not that I am making a legal threat against the, but ultimatly they are playing against their own rules which equates to a ROGUE)

 

[tristan727]

There is a high likelihood that rpalmer would be allowed to play at other WW casinos, but the label of "bonus abuser" will probably get him a ban from the promotions.

1)The term which states "WagerWorks reserves the right to withhold any free credits payment at our total discretion."

I have deposited for 2 Wagerworks bonuses since the Virgin banning elsewhere, one a slots bonus & the other a VIP one. None credited automatically- and I hear of no other problems with anyone else, on the forums, regarding any probs with these promos. At this moment I have no idea if a big co-incidence or not. Two in a row however gives me high suspicions, and since the slot one was added manually, I suspect that if my paranoia is correct - this came from above at WW.

If possibly the OP could try one or two promos, outside his normal play, elsewhere - would be interesting to see if he has the same problem.

edited to add - both have now been added manually by the casinos concerned. With regards to the slots bonus - my wife plays some slots occasionally & also deposited for it - she got the bonus no probs. I deposited only an hour after her, twice to double-check, and nothing. Make what you will of this, I needn't spell it out further what this looks like....except that if my paranoia is correct - fortunately the casinos concerned are able to take their own view above whatever WW acted upon, after Virgin's actions.

Eagerly awaiting to see if it will be 3rd time lucky...

 

[GamesysAffiliates]

Hi everyone,

I would like to give the opportunity to players who believe they have been wronged by Virgin Casinos decision to exclude them, to have their accounts reviewed again individually. So may I ask that those of you who would like to have a second opinion please send me a Private Message with your username and I'll look into the matter for you.

Warren

 

[uungy]

Hi everyone,

I would like to give the opportunity to players who believe they have been wronged by Virgin Casino’s decision to exclude them, to have their accounts reviewed again individually. So may I ask that those of you who would like to have a second opinion please send me a Private Message with your username and I'll look into the matter for you.

Warren

May I ask whats taken this long? I am really dissapointed, and will be considering whether to do this or not! At least maube there is a chance for seconding, but as yet there has been no apologies, explanation or regrets!

The truth is , I would be surprised if the response isn't

Thank you for your email.

I appreciate you are not happy with our decision, but I would like to say that this is by no means a permanent status and we will be happy to review the restrictions placed upon your account in the future. However, I can confirm that for now you will remain restricted.

Your Virgin Casino account will remain open and your ability to play will be unaffected.

If you have any questions with regard to this correspondence, then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,