Bleh, the player was playing without a bonus, so the casino was going to win all his money in the long run anyway. So they actually did him a favor by cancelling his winnings, since he would have lost them all in addition to his deposit. This way, he at least gets his deposit back.
I don't see the issue here. If the casino had a term that people named Fred can't play, and Fred Dunkelweissen was allowed to signup and win a few thousand before having his winnings voided, it's pretty clear that it's Fred's fault. He didn't read the terms and conditions, so he deserves what he gets.
You people seem to automatically always side with the player. You just don't understand the casino business. It's very clear that the casino shouldn't pay this player, and if you don't understand that, well, then it really can't be explained to you.
Nothing to see here, move along.
What a load of crap frankly.
They did him a favour by not paying his winnings?????
Because in the long run he would lose all the money if he kept playing there
Wow, that's just the worse argument I've ever heard.
Next time someone wins, it's a good one.
Dear customer,
We know you think you won the $3 million progressive, but we feel it is in your best interests that we don't pay you anything, because if we do, you will only lose it all in the long run.
HA HA HA.
Great argument, next please.
Frankly, if they did have a term that 'Fred Erdinger' couldn't play or whatever, then no, I would not expect them to enforce it, because it's unreasonable, and they could easily exclude such players with two lines of code.
I can guarantee that at a reputable, properly regulated casino you would not be treated like this.
It goes against natural justice that a player who honestly deposits and wins can have his winnings voided on a technicality.
I could see if he had another account and was claiming the bonus again but he wasn't.
Casinos have a long list of rules, but they don't enforce all of them all the time, because frankly if they did, they could confiscate everyone's money every time they play.
It is not appropriate or reasonable to invoke a 'we seize your winnings' clause on a player who has honest intentions.
In fact, by playing in Euros, given that he didn't claim any bonus, he was actually benefitting the casino, as US$ are worth less, and without a bonus the casino expects to make a profit.
it's not even as if they are just enforcing the letter of the rules.
It says
"Please note * All accounts opened not according to our Account Currency Policy (i.e. Euro accounts opened from a non-EU country) will be locked: should you have made a deposit before the account is locked, the Casino cannot be held responsible for any action taken afterwards."
It doesn't say
"If you play in the wrong currency we will seize your winnings"
It says "we cannot be held responsible"
This is the most BS term ever, of course they can be held responsible, they are making a choice out of free will. You can say "If you jump into the lions' cage, we can't be held responsible for you being eaten", or "if you choose to go on this extreme sports holiday, we can't be held responsible for you hurting yourself."
In this case they clearly can be held responsible, because they are choosing their course of action, and depsite the fact that the player's choice of actions were on average actually beneficial to the casino, they chose to "not be held responsible" for stealing thousands of euros.
