1. Dismiss Notice
  2. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Sands Of The Caribbean: eliciting deposits under false pretexts & lying to customers

Discussion in 'Online Casino and Poker Complaints - old section' started by caruso, Jun 2, 2005.

    Jun 2, 2005
  1. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    Oh, the irony.

    The very day after I rag on people about critisizing Crypto gameplay, Sands Of The Caribbean pull the first casino stunt I've been subjected to since...err...Cirrus, 18 months ago?

    This is in fact pretty much identical to the Omni case:


    On the monthly round of clicking on the Crypto casino sites to see what's what on the freebie front, I noticed Sands had added an Omni-esque "wager up front" monthly $100 bonus for $6000 upfront wagering.

    They have a get-out clause in the T & C:

    "This loyalty bonus will NOT be credited to accounts that have shown patterns of bonus abuse in the past ((ie wagering is done primarily using promotional funds and not deposited funds, or wagering is done primarily to satisfy minimum bonus requirements."

    Fair enough.

    I once had an issue with Sands, which was my fault but was resolved to my satisfaction, but which necessitated checking first with them that I was OK for this promo.

    So I live-chatted - and screen-copied. See the "Sands chat" attachment below - all personal details edited out.

    Here's a copy of the chat:


    CSR: Hi, how can we help?

    Me: (I post my account number)

    CSR: I got your account up, (my name)

    Me: Can you tell me if my account is eligible for the "wager $6000, get $100" bonus?

    CSR: This offer is for the month of June, so yes, you sure are eligible"

    Me: Great, thanks

    CSR: yw


    So I deposited $600 and played $15 blackjack up to $6000 in wagers, so fulfilling all requirements - and winning about $700 in the process.

    No bonus come 5:30 EST as promised, so I emailed an enquiry.

    Reply came thus:


    "Hello (me);

    "Your email was forwarded to the Promotions Department here at The Sands of the Caribbean in regards to your wagering patterns for our Monthly promotions.

    "The reason the casino has opt to change our monthly promotion for June was to track and eliminate players who have been taking advantage of our Monthly Promotions.

    "1) For the past months your wagering patterns have been exemplifying one of a Bonus abuser whereas (2) you are meeting the exact wagering requirement with the promotional funds only and only wagering for the promotion thus never risking your own funds and basically playing with the promotion only. 3) This is a breach of our Terms and Conditions to the promotion.
    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    "Attached you will find a spread sheet of you life activity on this account, you will notice that every month you have met the wagering to the "T".

    "I am sure you are aware that The Sands of the Caribbean is part of Peak Entertainment, which allowed me to view other accounts that you have with Peak, unfortunately 4) you were also blocked at Omni Casino and 49er's for the same wagering patterns, this is further indication 5) and ammunition that you are wagering at our casino only to take advantage of our courtesy promotion.

    "I'm sorry to say but Peak Entertainment has opt to no longer qualify your account for further promotions due to these activates.

    "If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to ask, I will be more than ready and willing to assist you the best way that I can.

    Omni Casino
    Customer Service"


    Many, many points to make:

    1) This is a generic email. I haven't, in fact, played at Sands in about a year or so. The reference to "the past few months" is incorrect as far as it applies to me. This email is basically sitting on their desks, waiting to be forwarded to whomsoever they they choose.

    2) "you are meeting the exact wagering requirement with the promotional funds only and only wagering for the promotion thus never risking your own funds".

    Err, excuse me, but how can you make a medium sized deposit, wager about 350 hands of $15 blackjack, whilst "never risking your own funds"? How can you wager "with the promotional funds only" when there are no "promotional funds" in your account, and the ONLY funds in your account are your own?

    3) "This is a breach of the terms & conditions".

    Err, excuse me, but isn't it the casino breaching their agreement with me in the chat? Don't they have this one backwards?

    4) "you were also blocked at Omni Casino".

    Well now, this is very interesting. Take a look now at the second screenshot below, "omni chat". It's basically a repoduction of the first: same question, same response. To quote the most relevant bit:

    "I see your account is OK to receive bonuses so you are good to go".

    Omni casino told me the EXACT same thing, that I was fine to receive promos - and the Peak CSR I spoke to regarding the Sands incident tells me I would also have been denied there, had I played!

    5) "this is further indication and ammunition that you are wagering at our casino...(etc)

    Well, isn't that a fine, pugnacious attitude to take with a customer who deposited, risked his deposit relatively agressively having confirmed his entitlement to the monthly freebie, then requested said freebie as per the casino's above-quoted agreement? They want "ammunition" to use against their customers. What a fine state of affairs this is.

    6) MY ENTITLEMENT WAS CLEARLY AND UNQUESTIONABLY CONFIRMED. I specifically gave my account number to the CSR to check, and the CSR confirmed I was good - at BOTH casinos, in fact. The reason I specifically asked was because of the stated get-out clause "This loyalty bonus will NOT be credited to accounts" being entirely fair, and although I've received regular monthly promos at Sands in the past without any glitch, it's beholden to an experienced player to check on all matters.

    Yet I was denied - on the apparent basis of "risk-free" play, after depositing without a bonus and plainly risking my own funds (I could easily have wiped out at that level), and with the casino's expressly-stated confirmation that I would NOT be denied.

    This I never expected this from Sands. I rate (rated) Crypto right at the top of my list of quality casinos. What an error.

    Sands Of The Caribbean (and Omni) will say one thing to get your money, then turn around and say the exact OPPOSITE when they've got it.

    Sands Of The Carribean (and Omni) are eliciting deposits under false pretexts and LYING to their customers.

    This is Class A rogue casino behaviour.

    Sands must be classed as a rogue casino at this point. And all for a hundred bucks.
  2. Jun 2, 2005
  3. Vesuvio

    Vesuvio Dormant account

    I suppose they decided they got away with the Omni debacle scot-free (giving in to a handful of players on here to diffuse the situation), so now they're trying it again.

    As you say, there are too many things wrong with that e-mail to list.
    That's an open admission that the purpose of the new bonus system is to trap players into depositing then deny them the bonus, isn't it? It's also nonsensical - if they wanted to "track" or "eliminate" players they could just have analysed past play and informed them. There's no longer any possibility of not risking your own money, so tracking how the bonus gets played is pointless. Not to mention the fact you'd think they'd be happy for anyone to play a bonus like this where you have to manually meet such a huge wr and could potentially deposit far in excess of the bonus.

    Given this is exactly the same behaviour as with the Omni bonus I agree they should at the very least be removed from the Accredited casinos list immediately. No-one can put this down to ignorance or a one-off mistake.

    p.s. and if you're going to write your customers such an aggressive e-mail you could at least spend the time to check the spelling and grammar. See the above quote & "I'm sorry to say but Peak Entertainment has opt to no longer qualify your account for further promotions due to these activates." :eek:
  4. Jun 2, 2005
  5. Weedlayer

    Weedlayer Dormant account

    Oh, no. Not again.

    It makes me sad to see the Peak Entertainment group get such (deserved) bad publicity again. :(
  6. Jun 2, 2005
  7. kfellmy

    kfellmy Dormant account

    Sands of the Caribbean sucked anyway!!!

    What about the other BS they pulled: This was a while back-

    If I remember correctly, I got an email about the upcoming voting for some #1 casino and poker room awards. They sent the links to all their players so they could vote. In turn SC would have a 5K freeroll for all the players who voted. Cool. They won and the freeroll happened (eventhough I sucked in it).

    Next month...no more monthly casino match; Following month they jack the hand requirement in the poker room to 500 hands. I talked to live support and when I got through finally I asked about the situation and got the response that I would be earning more points with the higher hand requirement. Huh? Turns out they don't get it.

    I know changing their T & Cs doesn't mean instant rogue-dom but when they changed after getting everyone to vote for them made them an instant rogue in my book.

    Shame too. I used to kill the Single Deck Black Jack game. Made me a lot of money, but now it's gone from my computer.

    They either changed management or changed philosophy. Something happened for these drastic measures to be implemented. Now they look even worse. Maybe no one is playing there anymore. I know I won't ever be back.
  8. Jun 3, 2005
  9. two_card

    two_card Dormant account

    Because of the OMNI problem last year I quit playing at any Peak Entertainment casino.

    I have never had a problem but there are very good casinos without this reputation.

    We must support our players.
  10. Jun 3, 2005
  11. largeeyes

    largeeyes Dormant account

    North America
    I thought CSun and switched over to the must wager to get bonus long ago, but noticed they upped it to 60x this month. Is that a new change?
  12. Jun 3, 2005
  13. KasinoKing

    KasinoKing WebMeister & Slotaholic.. CAG MM PABnonaccred webmeister

    House-Husband and Casino Advisor
    Bexhill on sea, England
    Why am I not surprised by this thread!
    This group completely lost the plot some time ago, but even I can't believe they're still quoting this "not risking your own funds" BS with their current bonus system!

    It is blatant complete incompetence - I'm surprised they have any customers left at all!

    And with their ludicrous 60x WR - this is another 'very long barge pole' casino on my list anyway!

    Hope you get paid by these idiots, caruso.
  14. Jun 3, 2005
  15. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    Actually, I AM surprised by this thread. I never thought Sands would pull a stunt.

    And FTR, not paying money you owe people is no different to stealing from them. Funds retroactively reclaimed are the same as promised funds subsequently non-honoured.

    I'll take a guess I'm not the only person this has happened to, so I'd advise against making any deposits at Sands Of The Caribbean in the expectation of their respecting an agreement they may have entered into with you.

    I had the pleasant surprise of receiving two unsolicited offers for help on this one, so we'll see how it goes. To be honest, this was intended as an information thread and not a call for assistance, but now I think about it I see no reason why the casino should be allowed to withhold / steal even such a relatively small sum without an attempt to prise their wallets open.
  16. Jun 3, 2005
  17. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    As soon as it was posted, management got involved are are already looking this over. Further assistance shouldn't be necessary.

    When you post complaints in this forum, it will always help by PMing the casino reps to let them know what is up. Thanks.
  18. Jun 3, 2005
  19. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    What is the handle of the SOTC rep here? One way or another, this is someone I badly need a chat with.

    Is there a membership list somewhere? General list of all "resident" casino reps?
  20. Jun 3, 2005
  21. largeeyes

    largeeyes Dormant account

    North America
    You mean the Casino Operators link in the yellow bar up there?
  22. Jun 3, 2005
  23. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    Ha, yes, that one.

    EDIT: I've requested feedback from the Sands rep here.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2005
  24. Jun 3, 2005
  25. roryjc

    roryjc Dormant account

    That is not cool. I have played pretty high stakes here and now I don't think I can trust them unless they fix Caruso's situation AND change their bait and switch tactics by emailing everyone who isn't eligible.
  26. Jun 3, 2005
  27. GrandMaster

    GrandMaster Ueber Meister CAG

    Mathematician by day, online gambler by night.
    When will casinos learn the simple rule that if they specifically invite a player or if they advertise the promotion in a newsletter or on the web and they have not informed the player that he is excluded, they have to honour the promotion. If they don't like the player for whatever reason, they can exclude him from the next promotion. This is really not rocket science.
  28. Jun 3, 2005
  29. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    Bear with me, I'm not trying to re-ignite any board wars here:

    Regarding the money-matter: I received a PM from Nick, the mod on the "Sucks" board, to say I had received the $100; logged in, and it was there. Cashed out no problem.

    Thanks to Nick for stepping up to the plate, so to speak, in the time it took me to post this thread, go to bed and get up.

    Also to John Derossett, boss of the GPWA (I posted there as well, on the "Players' Corner" board), who offered to help in similarly speedy fashion and whose help I "refused" on no basis other than what amounted to a coin toss - nice to have the choice, lol.

    This board here at Casinomeister, for evidently oiling the wheels of justice. Threads here get noticed.

    It's good for the players to have more than one person to turn to in times of trouble. No doubt Bryan would have kicked ass here with an email in the twinkling of an eye if I'd submitted a complaint, but he's only one fellow with one pair of hands. There should be more affiliates out there with the kind of muscle the Casinomeister site has, and players should be encouraged to enlist their help, not just Bryan's. This is advantageous to all concerned, since for the affiliates it spreads the work load, and for the players it opens up valuable lines of support.

    Thanks and meanderings over.

    This wasn't about a hundred bucks, it was about alerting players to casino malpractice, and this hasn't gone away with receiving the promo I was entitled to.

    Why was I told I was eligible only to get the opposite response once it was too late?

    Why was my play catagorized as "risk free"? WTF?? Risk free with only my funds? How is this?

    Or was this all about eliciting deposits with promises that were never going to be kept, alla the Omni situation of last year? "Come deposit, we'll give you a bonus...oops, sorry, no we won't".

    This is a very alarming state of affairs with a casino on the accredited list here, and one I actually "rated" myself.

    I emailed support back earlier with a few salient observations: no response.

    I PMed Frank, the Sands rep here, earlier today: no response.

    Though I do thank them for honouring their side of the deal, I do not feel this casino can be trusted, until such a time as they explain to me WHY I was OKed, WHY I was then denied, and then WHY I was OKed again.

    Over to you, Sands, Frank or whoever. This is not acceptable.
  30. Jun 3, 2005
  31. Frank

    Frank Dormant account

    Customer Support
    "Though I do thank them for honouring their side of the deal, I do not feel this casino can be trusted"

    Caruso, I'm not a customer support person and usually don't get involved in these situations but I took care of it for you.

    Our casinos are very trustworthy or we wouldn't have lasted this long. I would not work for a dishonest organization.

    If I can be of any further assistance please don't hesitate to contact me privately or publicly on this forum and I will do what I can to assist.

    Have a good weekend.


  32. Jun 3, 2005
  33. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    For taking care of it, at Nick's and Bryan's behest, I thank you.

    Why was I SPECIFICALLY told, by a CSR, that I was eligible, then to be SPECIFICALLY told that I was not? My account was right there in front of the girl. It did not change.

    Why was I lied to?

    Why was I accused of "risk-free" play? I quote:

    "...you are meeting the exact wagering requirement with the promotional funds only and only wagering for the promotion thus never risking your own funds and basically playing with the promotion only."

    How is this possible, on a non bonus-inclusive deposit?

    How can you "never risk your own funds" on a non bonus-inclusive deposit

    How can their be "promotional funds" in a non bonus-inclusive deposit?

    When a casino says one thing to elicit a deposit, then the PRECISE opposite when said deposit has been elicited, why should any player trust you? You say you would not work for a dishonest organisation, but the facts of this matter expose dishonesty unless they can be explained - and there is no explanation above.

    Never mind. I am done with this. I thank all those who speedily assisted me here, software uninstalled, matter ended.

    But I am DISAPPOINTED with Sands.

    The players can decide for themselves.
  34. Jun 4, 2005
  35. mitch

    mitch Dormant account

    Glad you got your money Caruso.

    The Sands was the first casino I ever signed up with and I have bet many hundreds of thousands of dollars with them, being VIP there.

    I stopped playing with them the moment they ceased offering their monthly bonus, as I refuse to play at any casino without an incentive.

    Now that they are offering a monthly bonus again I will quite happily deposit there, even though the WR is more than twice as large as before.( I am quite prepared to give casinos action well in excess of the required minimum if they take some risk themselves)

    They are a reputable firm, you have no doubts about being paid and their CS is very good.

    As far as I am concerned it is welcome back into the fold Sands and I hope Caruso's experience is a momentary abberation.

  36. Jun 4, 2005
  37. sirius

    sirius Senior Member

    Everyone in the promotional department should be sacked. How could anyone be defending them at this point? There should also be no distinction between different casinos in the group. I am surprised the Omni is missing from the reputable list here but the others are still there. Omni caused a lot of trouble and only gave the bonuses to people once they complained on message boards or emailed me or other sites to do something about it.

    Caruso may have been $700 up without the bonus but why don't they like the fact they have to give him an extra $100 as per the terms of the offer.? They can obviously exclude him from the offer if they want but they should tell him that. He could easily have lost all $600 of his deposit wagering $15 a hand.

    I know a player who really rates this group and Crypto casinos in general. The Peak Entertainment group give him gifts such as steak and wine (something that Intercasino don't do although he also plays there). He was down last year but up $15k this year. I hope he still gets the gifts.
  38. Jun 4, 2005
  39. jetset

    jetset RIP Brian CAG

    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    I think Frank's response to Caruso's justifiable questions lacked resolve here - it almost gave me the impression of "I helped you get your cash, and that's enough" instead of actually addressing the shortcomings apparent in the dispute and at least taking some measures to express regret and an intention to rectify them.

    He would have left me with a far better perception of Sands's handling of the matter if he had given Caruso the explanation I think he deserved.

    At the risk of being accused of taking the casino's side, however the explanation for this sort of issue may be sheer inexperience and/or inefficiency at Support level rather than a deliberate and planned fraudulent attack on players' well-earned bonuses. That's why it is so important for these casinos to have escalation procedures to someone who knows what they're doing and can immediately reverse silly CSR decisions.

    I'm not saying that is the case here because I do not know, but from experience I know that this is often at the root of customer-casino disputes, and it's something that can be obviated with a better focus and appreciation of the customer's needs.

    Inefficiency is always unacceptable, especially in a well-established group like this, and it's important in a business sense that it be addressed when highlighted.

    Peak Entertainment has been in business for long enough for its management to know the fundamental rules of bonusing from a player perspective - a couple of them have been laid out here by KK and Grandmaster in fact, and I agree with their assessments.

    If Peak want to strike particular players off their books then that is their prerogative....but they need to pay them out in full before doing so, not resort to silly and unfair moves like this.

    It is comforting that there were so many people prepared to assist - it's great for players to have options when it comes to experienced mediators with the contacts to make things happen.

Share This Page