Casino Complaint Royal Vegas takes my deposits and winnings

[hakapuku]

I said forty accounts, not forty people. The amount of energy some of you are investing in this is really a bit bewildering. But then, it's to be expected. Not much on TV tonight.

So do we have a proved multiple accounts case here with all 40 accounts linked to each other in some other way than just playing the same strategy ? And if so why do you use the word collusion instead?

 

[skiny]

I said forty accounts, not forty people. The amount of energy some of you are investing in this is really a bit bewildering. But then, it's to be expected. Not much on TV tonight.

Collusion and multi-accounting is not the same thing. One is fraud. One is silly.

If you can prove fraud, the player doesn't get paid. If you can prove collusion the player gets a membership card to whatever little club she belongs to and the casino should know better than to have terms and conditions that make this little club profitable.

If the OP has multiple accounts that should have been the start and the end of a very short conversation.

 

[bpb]

So do we have a proved multiple accounts case here with all 40 accounts linked to each other in some other way than just playing the same strategy ? And if so why do you use the word collusion instead?

Good question.

 

[Casinomeister]

So do we have a proved multiple accounts case here with all 40 accounts linked to each other in some other way than just playing the same strategy ? And if so why do you use the word collusion instead?

I've already explained to you that I'm not going into anymore detail, yet you continue to ride me and Max on this. We've already said enough, and if that's not enough for you, sorry. That's the way it is. Get over it.

 

[redsfan]

I must admit I am confused.

Max said in his post regarding the PAB that it was ditched because the OP had been impatient. This was on the 5th November 13.
Max then posted on 6th November that it was now a fraudulent claim WARNING: FRAUDULENT CLAIMS WILL BE FULLY INVESTIGATED - FRAUDSTERS WILL BE EXPOSED AND BANNED FROM CASINOMEISTER!

So am I right that the casino replied on the 23rd October then the OP was banned and PAB sacked 13 days later for asking. But within a day of this, CM had posted he was linked to 40 accounts (I would imagine that its through game play as if it was computer linked this would be fraud and mentioned as in the past posts) and Max has changed it to it being a fraudulent claim and the OP banned from replying his point?

It says he has been banned for a bogus PAB. Was it Bogus if you are to believe Maxs reply posted by hakapuku?

 

[MisterBJ]

Not trying to stir the bee hive. But I always wondered why Fortune Lounge will deal with Casinomeister on issues and Not other sites like GG. Who posts "...we can help others thinking of playing at the Fortune Affiliates group with one word of advice: "Don't". The group includes Royal Vegas, Platinum Play, 7 Sultans, Vegas Palms, Vegas Towers, Poker Time, and Giggle Bingo."

There seems to be a lot of cases with FL, gambling rings and multiple accounts. More so then I seen brought to light then any other casino group. Not saying it doesn't happen within other groups. Just seems to be brought to light more with FL.

When in court, evidence must be presented. Not some backdoor meetings. The accusers has the right to see all evidence against him or her. This is not the case in any of the FL claims.

If this was a REAL casino and someone was caught cheating. The casino will present the tapes and show it. But online is like a kangaroo court.

This remains me of the online players association and online players association 2 with its former board members.

 

[skiny]

If the OP had multiple accounts then she shouldn't be paid. That's a given.

In my opinion collusion shouldn't really make much difference from a casinos point of view on slots and table games like roulette or sic bo if every account is owned by a different player and all players are playing by the casino's rules.

Isn't the worst thing that could happen is some players will beat the bonus and possibly split up the profits? Doesn't the casino expect some people to manage a withdrawal from these bonuses anyway and what difference does it make what they do with the money after it's withdrawn?

Would the casino actually be happier if the same number of people won but didn't know each other? I fully understand how collusion would be profitable on multiplayer games like poker but does it really change the group's odds on a roulette table or a slot machine just because they all belong to the same club? If people want to take a bonus and bet almost 30% of it at a time on a roulette table I say let them. We do know that the odds are in the casino's favour when people play roulette. The casino should be happy when groups of people get together and play it. The more people playing the better are the odds are that the casino is going to come out ahead. Slot machines are the same. It doesn't matter if 10 people are playing it or 10 thousand. The TRTP doesn't change.

I don't really know if collusion is a problem that FL has any more or less than any other casino but I would think that if this really is the case the reason for it would be in the bonus terms and conditions. If groups of people are getting together more frequently at FL than other casinos to beat these bonuses it must be because they feel the bonuses are "collusion friendly."

Although to be honest with you I don't really think any casino game is "come out ahead friendly" regardless of how many people get together in some kind of bonus beating club.