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

[jetset]

I agree that this requires more than a casual brush-off, as I said earlier and I've already directed the attention of some of the folks at Cryptologic to this thread.

After the weekend, if Frank or one of his colleagues has not been a little more forthcoming I will push it again.

I'm going to be on a panel at the GIGSE conference in Montreal week after next and this is the sort of thing we will be examining. I've already assembled a *dossier* of typical casino and player bonus complaint examples to illustrate these disputes. This case, especially the perceptions it creates and the lack of a serious answer by the casino spokesman will be going into the file.

 

[dominique]

Its just as if Frank wasnt working for this casino.

He doesn't. Frank is an affiliate manager, not a casino rep. He can try to put in a word, but the affiliate program is a completely different entity from the casinos.

He is trying to help and mediate and he helped Caruso get taken care of.

 

[caruso]

Thanks for your support, Jetset - that'll certainly be an interesting event.

OK, point noted about Frank - he who handles the affiliate programme isn't responsible for these kinds management stunts. However, he is listed as the official Sands rep here, as the "customer support manager" - a role which would seem to be rather more central than that of affiliate boss - so anything he says, without a note from him as to his actual status, is obviously going to be taken as the given casino response.

Anyway, one is essentially left awaiting the first "official" comment from the casino.

 

[caruso]

So silence it is. No word from Sands Of The Caribbean as to 1) why I was okayed for the monthly promo, only to be denied when it was too late and I'd already deposited and played; 2) why I was accused of "meeting the exact wagering requirement with the promotional funds only" when there were no "promotional funds" in my account, and how this was "a breach of our Terms and Conditions to the promotion"; 3) how it was that "you were also blocked at Omni Casino" when the OMNI rep I spoke to ALSO CONFIRMED MY ELIGIBILITY AT OMNI CASINO (see the second screenshot); and finally, 4) why I ended up receiving the 100 bucks, when I was so apparently "ineligible".

Thanks, Sands; your silence answers all the questions. You tried it on with the wrong player and got caught. But then, we always knew that, didn't we?

Players: be warned.

Jetset: have fun at the GIGSE.

 

[jetset]

Yes, I start the long flight tomorrow. BTW earlier today I chased Cryptologic on this. I've heard nothing so far so thought they should know that there's an audience out here waiting to see what happens with this.

 

[Verbatim]

"casino cannot explain its actions, so somewhat lamely tell us they're an honest casino who wouldn't do this sort of thing, lol."


Someone is in denial... and it is not Caruso!

I understand that some people are ignorant when it comes to things like this. It forms part of the 'cannot happen to me' attitude.

If they do not even notice the 'dishonesty' in their own organisation, how can we ever expect them to resolve the problem? (They don't even know the problem exists, or choose not to believe it)

Be objective and realise that complaints aren't there to make casinos look bad only, but they are there as a guide for improvement. Who better to give this kind of input than us, who have to use these services every day?

 

[jetset]

Amen to that last paragraph!

 

[Missy]

I just had to reply...

Caruso,

I'm sorry to say this, but you do sound like a promo abuser...
Although I think that sometimes casino reps might make mistakes because their are incompetent, I don't think that a casino would risk its reputation for just $100...
Even if the casino was in a down and needed to revamp the business, i think that it would be a very bad business practice to offer a promotion and then call its players promo abusers just for the sake of not giving the bonus...
I think that they gave you an explanation when they said that they pattern of your play (ok, you have said that you have not played there in a while but surely they must have gone back to when you were active), looks like you are only playing to receive and cashin the bonus. You might not like the explanation but it sounds fair to me. They did not take away your money, they did not deny your cashin, is just that they are not gonna give you the bonus because in THEIR opinion you are abusing the promotion.
I think that a certain degree of discretion on this matters should be allowed to the casino, as they need to take any step that they deem necessery to make sure they do not go bankrupt...

Missy

 

[Missy]

one more thing...

Also as you have received the money in the end (and i'm sure that they only gave it to you because of the various web-masters intervention and not because they changed their mind on your play) could you not just be fair and thank them? noooooo what you did it's worse! you cashed in straight away! you could have proved yourself by playing the bonus money, showing them that you are not what they thought you were... You could have been a gentlemen and do what people do at casinos: play, gamble, take a risk and prove them wrong. and then you people wonder why of these T&C...
sad sad sad....

Missy

 

[virtualted]

Just wanted to drop my 2cents in Missy.Caruso is and can be a lot of things, and I have had many differences with him in the past. But the one thing I have always found about him is he is always honest and cares more about this INDUSTRY than any player, affiliate, moderator,or casino. Love him or hate him, but always respect him.

 

[amandajm]

No such thing as a casino bonus abuser who meets the terms and conditions of the promotion.

What a thing..

The casino is the abuser for not meeting the terms and conditions they chose to employ.

It is quite simple.

 

[caruso]

Thanks for that, Ted - particularly since I've busted your balls more than once.

Oh dearie me, there has to be one, doesn't there?

Missy, hon, try reading what I write before making irrelevant comments.

Of COURSE the casino can categorize players X, Y and Z as A, B and C or any other way they so choose to categorize them. They can even make inaccurate categorizations as far as I'm concerned. They can deny me this or that on the basis that I'm a black Chinese vegan butcher if they want.

What they canNOT do is deny me something on that basis, having FIRST told me that they have no problem giving me whatever is on the table, based on the fact that I'm a black Chinese vegan butcher.

That, as Amanda points out, is "bonus abuse". Casinos, in their topsy-turvy world, manage to routinely categorize their OWN "bonus abuse" as somehow that of the player: casino posts the terms; player plays by them; casino doesn't respect its side of the argument - and the "abuser" is the player. LOL.

I hope that's clear enough now.

 

[caruso]

Thanks to Jetset for including this matter in his latest Infopowa release - I only just saw it.

https://www.casinomeister.com/static/news/june2005.html

 

[jetset]

I've just got back in the office from GIGSE, and I can tell you that I am sure Peak Entertainment were in Montreal, but I couldn't track them down for discussion on this issue, unfortunately.

Neither have I heard another word from Cryptologic head office, although I know my complaint to them was passed on to Peak and Sands.

Perhaps we're seeing a case of head in the Sands.

On a more constructive note, The bonus discussion at GIGSE was very lively and well attended. My perception was that the casino and affiliate guys on the panel accepted the player perspective on bonus abuse and disqualifications...and I definitely came away with the feeling that the audience in general saw the logic and fairness of it too.

I don't know if Sands were in the audience - if they were they weren't identifying themselves but the message was clear - exercise your right of admission, but only after paying the player all the monies due to him or her under the T&Cs pertaining at the time of wagering.

 

[555YY]

Caruso,

I'm sorry to say this, but you do sound like a promo abuser...
Although I think that sometimes casino reps might make mistakes because their are incompetent, I don't think that a casino would risk its reputation for just $100...
Even if the casino was in a down and needed to revamp the business, i think that it would be a very bad business practice to offer a promotion and then call its players promo abusers just for the sake of not giving the bonus...
I think that they gave you an explanation when they said that they pattern of your play (ok, you have said that you have not played there in a while but surely they must have gone back to when you were active), looks like you are only playing to receive and cashin the bonus. You might not like the explanation but it sounds fair to me. They did not take away your money, they did not deny your cashin, is just that they are not gonna give you the bonus because in THEIR opinion you are abusing the promotion.
I think that a certain degree of discretion on this matters should be allowed to the casino, as they need to take any step that they deem necessery to make sure they do not go bankrupt...

Missy

why that's the dumbest line of reasoning i ever heard!

this is analagous to going to a computer store, deciding to buy a dell laptop b/c they currently offer a 200$ rebate. then, after you purchased the item, filled out and sent in the paperwork, to have the rebate come back from dell as denied. along with the explanation that the dell customer service dept has noticed a trend that you only buy dell products when rebates are offered. their reasoning is that if everyone only bought dell products with rebates then they can't turn a profit....

and even the above is based on the assumption that caruso have only played there when a bonus is offered, which has not been proven in the first place

 

[GrandMaster]

Well said, ezc3m. I was going to write something very similar.

If a casino wants to exclude certain players from promotions, then it should either make the promotions invitation only and not invite those players, or notify them IN ADVANCE that they are not eligible for promotions advertised in newsletters or on the website. This is not rocket science, it should be taught in Online Casino Management 101.

Caruso even went one step further and got CS to confirm that he was eligible. To refuse the bonus after all this is rigue behaviour.

 

[jetset]

More on GIGSE

I should add to my earlier post, which was made straight off a long flight that the discussion also embraced the questions of inefficient CSR advice on things such as meeting wagering requirements and eligibility, and on the apparent lack of cohesion and communication between Support, management and Marketing/Promos at many casinos.

 

[GrandMaster]

That's something for the casinos to sort out. The company can be bound by the actions of its employees or agents.

For example, well-run companies have procedures for purchasing. If an employee orders something without authorization, the company is still legally obligated to pay for it (at least under English law), and then can try to recover the costs from the employee and even dismiss him. This is why business stationery usually says something like "Nothing in this letter constitutes an order unless accompanied by an official order form".
The vendor is not obligated to check whether the company's internal procedures have been followed, he is entitled to assume that employee is acting with proper authorization.

It is the same with the casinos, the players should be entitled to rely on the information provided by CS, if that is incorrect, it is an internal matter for the casino deal with.

 

[jetset]

Whilst I agree in principle, I fear that applying the tenets of constructive knowledge and vicarious responsibility in this industry may prove difficult to say the least!

 

[vgyhnji]

'Whilst I agree in principle, I fear that applying the tenets of constructive knowledge and vicarious responsibility in this industry may prove difficult to say the least!'

Jetset is spot on and this is just one of the many reasons that forums such as this play an important, if not vital role.

If players stand together and reject the actions of casino's in situations such as has happened here then 'player power' can help police these issues. However I fear by the lack of vocal support on this thread and, in this case, posts elsewhere supporting other Peak Entertainment casino's - its more a case of 'divided we fall'.