Schankwart Vs. Cirrus Casino

Status
Not open for further replies.

lanidar

Dormant account
About a week ago I offered to help Schankwart with recovering his $5200.00 winnings from Cirrus Casino.
Schankwart and I IM'd one another regularly to be sure I knew what the exact problem was. After feeling confident that Schankwart is in the right, I decided to phone Cirrus Casino.
So, on February 24th I phoned and spoke to Christine Jennings. Christine is the manager at Cirrus. In fact I spoke to her twice to be sure I understood what she was telling me.
Basically what Christine said was that on Nov 21st she spoke to Schankwart and told him that he could NOT use the bonus code: 6B6U because it was a HighRoller bonus and for first depositors only. She then deemed Schankwart a "SKILLED PLAYER".
A "SKILLED PLAYER" I asked....what do you consider a "SKILLED PLAYER"? Christine explained to me that a person who is a "SKILLED PLAYER" is a person who wins TOO MUCH!!! And therefore Schankwart was reduced to that level and was only allowed a maximum of a 30% bonus from here on in. But, Christine did NOT tell Schankwart about his reduction until AFTER he played the NEW bonus which I mention in the following paragraph.
On Nov 24th Schankwart received an email from Cirrus asking him to use a 100% bonus code: MMKW8 with WR's 25 X D+B. This bonus was good for the NEXT FOUR deposits. I would have thought, as Schankwart thought, that Cirrus had reconsidered and was going to allow Schankwart to play with the 100% bonus.

Schankwart played the bonus GIVEN to him and made a profit of $5200.00.

If Cirrus did NOT want him to play they should NOT have offered that 100% bonus to him.
He played ...met the WR's and ALL the T&C's.

Now, in my opinion Schankwart must be paid.
There is NO doubt in my mind that he is entitled to his winnings.

Once again a Cirrus Casino player gets screwed!!!

For the complete thread please click on the link below:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


 
Last edited:

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
I'm quite confident that Cirrus is NOT Virtual. There was an initial connection, which was highlighted here, and the subsequent de-connecting was also brought to our attention. Maybe they work in the same building, but they are DISTINCT entities. I don't see the value in this constant calling attention to an invalid assumption.

I'm also curious about the exact particulars of this anti-Virtual crusade - is there actual evidence that whatever it was that brought your site down came from Virtual, or is it circumstantial or heresay? This has certainly gone on a while without anything too clear-cut emerging.

That said, I'm no fan of Virtual. There godzillion clones and spurious bonus-disallowing based on multi-signups to apparently unrelated Virtual casinos, added to their ridiculously confusing bonus policies, shows them up for what they still are.
 

jinnia

Dormant account
As long as this shows in a tracert::

Tracing route to www.cirruscasino.com [216.193.212.74]

8 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms eqix-peer.dfw01.mzima.net [206.223.118.62]
9 40 ms 41 ms 40 ms pos3-0.cr01.ord01.mzima.net [64.235.224.90]
10 70 ms 70 ms 70 ms pos4-0.cr01.iad01.mzima.net [64.235.224.86]
11 70 ms 70 ms 70 ms fe0-grafixsoftech.cust.iad01.mzima.net [216.193.192.74] 12 70 ms 70 ms 70 ms unknown.mzima.net [216.193.212.74]

And This in a WHOIS search::
IP LOCATION DETAILS:
Mzima Networks, Inc. NETBLK-MZIMA-02 (NET-216-193-192-0-1)
216.193.192.0 - 216.193.255.255
Grafix Softech MZIMA02-CUST-GFXSFTCH03 (NET-216-193-212-72-1)
216.193.212.72 - 216.193.212.79

Cirrus Casino IS of the Virtual Group!!


This is interesting::
DOMAIN NAME WHOIS:
Registrant: TOTALNIC-87083 (REGISTRANT@CIRRUSCASINO.COM)
Cirrus Casino

364 First Avenue
Between 26 28 Street
San Jose
CR

Telephone: +00.00000000
Fax: +00.00000000


When I spoke to a guy on the phone back in 2003 from a number I called for Prism Casino from their website, that is the EXACT same wording he said to me of their location :confused:
 

jinnia

Dormant account
Damn!! But of course they are the good ol' guys, just helping out every friggin' casino who needs help with hosting!!!

Silly me for thinking otherwise!! :rolleyes:
 

Black21Jack

Dormant account
Is this the same Grafix Softech that can be found here: www.grafixsoftech.com

According to that site they are a marketing/hosting solution company for any type of e-business. How odes this make all casino clients of theirs the same company? Unless I don't know something else, are you saying that GS is a front company?
 

jinnia

Dormant account
Yes, that is the same one I speak of.

GrafixSoftech in Costa Rica is the company that owns and operates the Virtual Group casinos.

They have differnet businesses in different countries also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jinnia

Dormant account
caruso said:
[1] I'm quite confident that Cirrus is NOT Virtual.
[2] I'm also curious about the exact particulars of this anti-Virtual crusade
[3] is there actual evidence that whatever it was that brought your site down came from Virtual, or is it circumstantial or heresay?
[4] This has certainly gone on a while without anything too clear-cut emerging.
[1] I'm quite certain Cirrus IS Virtual.
[2] It's not a damn crusade, it's keeping players informaed of what HAS been going on with and IS continuing to go on.
[3] No ACTUAL, 100% evidence, but STRONG circumstantial evidence
[4] No, it has not gone on too long, and as long as any of the Virtual Group casino screws over their players, it'll continue, for it is they who is continuing it!!


Short summary of events:
[A] A legal document about the owner of Grafix Softech/Virtual was posted at Insom.
A link went up at 911 directing to it.
[C] An email sent to lanidars yahoo account from the General Manager, who is the right hand man of the owner (of which, the only way anyone could know that email, is if they were at Insom, for was set up for use there only)!
[D] One hour and thirteen minutes after that email was sent, Insom was being deleted.
[E] IP in log files at Insom shows 65.182.30.15 which traces to Costa Rica through Florida.
[F] Phone conversation with the General Manager from Grafix Softech/Virtual wanting legal document removed from 911 (nothing said about removing it from Insom, wonder why?)
[G] The GM offers to pay the money Prism Casino stole from me in 2003
[H] The GM said Prism Casino asked for help in hosting, but are not connected and would have them move from their hosting
The GM offers GamblingFamily.com to myself and Lanidar
[J] Prisms Casino WhoIs information shows a change, BUT
[K] GamblingFamily.com and Prism Casino shows exact same IP Location details.

On [K], not sure if today the IP's are same since GamblingFamily.com is listed under Silver Arrow Marketing now.

Definite, 100% proof? No, Strong circumstancialt evidence? Yes!!
 

jetset

RIP Brian
CAG
I agree with Lanidar, and to my mind this says it all:

QUOTE On Nov 24th Schankwart received an email from Cirrus asking him to use a 100% bonus code: MMKW8 with WR's 25 X D+B. This bonus was good for the NEXT FOUR deposits. I would have thought, as Schankwart thought, that Cirrus had reconsidered and was going to allow Schankwart to play with the 100% bonus.UNQUOTE

We all know that Schankie is an accomplished bonus hunter, and Christine whatever may well have spoken to him on the phone, but the fact remains that he was sent a personal email making an offer. He accepted that offer and was not turned away. Therefore Cirrus should honour their part of the deal and pay him without further ado.

If they are so incompetent that they cannot strike guys like Schankie off their promo mailing list, they must eat this.
 

lanidar

Dormant account
If they are so incompetent that they cannot strike guys like Schankie off their promo mailing list, they must eat this.
Thanks Jet for your support.
In years past, I've probably played Blackjack at 100 casinos or more.
There was a time that I did not know the difference between a rogue casino and a reputable casino.
I too, like Schankwart, was accomplished bonus hunter.
I was called a "bonus hunter", bonus abuser", "bonus whore" and a "skilled player". The casinos that labeled me kept my winnings. Some even kept my deposits.
What struck a nerve was when Christine Jennings told me that she labeled Schankwart a "skilled player" I saw RED!
They have some nerve labeling a player who plays well and risks his money in their casino. The idea is to win ... and win as much as possible. That's called gambling. When the player happens to win a great deal of money, such as Schankwart did, he should be compensated with his entire profit.
If Schankwart would have lost his $1000.00 does ANYONE .. ANYONE think that he would have had his deposit returned because he may have played a bonus that he shouldn't have?
Has ANYONE EVER heard of a casino doing that?
I am waiting to hear a reply from someone who has!
 

dickens1298

Dormant account
As unjust and condemnatory as all the evidence is, I wonder why anyone would even bother playing at Cirrus. I'm a relative neophyte compared to Lanidar, measuring my online gambling life in half-years rather than years, yet I've seen enough posts to steer clear of Cirrus. Why didn't Schankwart do similarly? And if he didn't heed such warnings, isn't this a case of caveat emptor?

Another poster - I believe Jetset - also makes a case of an offer being made... and accepted. In short, the makings of a "contract". But with online gambling being what it is legally, isn't said contract more of an ethical issue, especially since Schankwart seems reluctant to pursue this in court?

If Cirrus cares not a whit about its reputation, then Schank seems to be SOL. It seems that the only true leverage anyone has to force an online casino to pay is hoping that it would consider its reputation to be worth more than the amount involved.

lanidar said:
Thanks Jet for your support.
In years past, I've probably played Blackjack at 100 casinos or more.
There was a time that I did not know the difference between a rogue casino and a reputable casino.
I too, like Schankwart, was accomplished bonus hunter.
I was called a "bonus hunter", bonus abuser", "bonus whore" and a "skilled player". The casinos that labeled me kept my winnings. Some even kept my deposits.
What struck a nerve was when Christine Jennings told me that she labeled Schankwart a "skilled player" I saw RED!
They have some nerve labeling a player who plays well and risks his money in their casino. The idea is to win ... and win as much as possible. That's called gambling. When the player happens to win a great deal of money, such as Schankwart did, he should be compensated with his entire profit.
If Schankwart would have lost his $1000.00 does ANYONE .. ANYONE think that he would have had his deposit returned because he may have played a bonus that he shouldn't have?
Has ANYONE EVER heard of a casino doing that?
I am waiting to hear a reply from someone who has!
 

jinnia

Dormant account
dickens1298 said:
And if he didn't heed such warnings, isn't this a case of caveat emptor?
Has anyone ever told you negative things about a business, but you went ahead and bought from or used their service, and it all worked out great for you? And vice versa? We all don't get treated the same by any one business, so who knows how you'll be treated until/unless you try them out!!

The answer to your question is No, it is not!!
 

dickens1298

Dormant account
jinnia said:
Has anyone ever told you negative things about a business, but you went ahead and bought from or used their service, and it all worked out great for you? And vice versa? We all don't get treated the same by any one business, so who knows how you'll be treated until/unless you try them out!!

The answer to your question is No, it is not!!
Fair enough. But then boards such as this and WinnerOnline are relatively moot with their various casino warnings - and there have been a slew of Cirrus warnings here in the September/December 2004 timeframe on here - if you are hoping that you will be treated "differently" than those who issued these warnings.

And with what you had just said, what's the point of this thread anyway then? To warn players away? No... To force Cirrus' hand? If Cirrus has had a history of payment issues before, why would a thread on this board make a difference?
 

Menu

Banned User - Damian Dunlap in disguise
New person like my self that do not know about cirrus casino. Thanks for the warning
 

dickens1298

Dormant account
Menu said:
New person like my self that do not know about cirrus casino. Thanks for the warning
You may want to do a search on these boards for Cirrus. They may not be on the Meister's rogue list, but I tend to stay away from any casino that may have a payment issue. The prospect of trying to earn a bonus dollar isn't worth the heartache and pain.
 

jinnia

Dormant account
dickens1298 said:
Fair enough. But then boards such as this and WinnerOnline are relatively moot with their various casino warnings - and there have been a slew of Cirrus warnings here in the September/December 2004 timeframe on here - if you are hoping that you will be treated "differently" than those who issued these warnings.

And with what you had just said, what's the point of this thread anyway then? To warn players away? No... To force Cirrus' hand? If Cirrus has had a history of payment issues before, why would a thread on this board make a difference?
No, boards as this is not relatively moot/a waste of time. People makes their complaints, enough comes along, the casino goes to rogue status or blacklisted.

This tells players there are serious problems with that casino (so maybe new players don't sign up), but some may have been playing there before these complaints hit, and were still getting good treatment, they continue to play, believing it'll not happen to them for their treatment has always been good.

To play at a casino that has been rogued or blacklisted by one (some), does not make it a players fault if they play there and get burnt.

Point of this thread is, a casino is stealing legit winnings from a player, and it's being addressed, in hopes this casino will FINALLY do the right thing.

This thread may keep new players who reads it from signing on with them, it may not, but this thread is here as a warning.
 

lanidar

Dormant account
dickens1298...
I don't know why he played there in the first place. And you are completely correct about heeding all the warnings about Cirrus/Virtual.
Everyone makes mistakes and I can only assume that Schankwart didn't heed the warnings and became greedy. Greed happens to the best of us.

We're still working to get the $5200.00 from them.
You will be informed as we progress.
Thank you for your support. :notworthy
 

dickens1298

Dormant account
If you trust someone whom you know has lied to others, and the basis of your trust is naught save that you're "different", and this person then betrays you, then true - it isn't strictly your "fault".

But most would agree that you would be gullible to be so trusting of this person in the first place.

jinnia said:
No, boards as this is not relatively moot/a waste of time. People makes their complaints, enough comes along, the casino goes to rogue status or blacklisted.

This tells players there are serious problems with that casino (so maybe new players don't sign up), but some may have been playing there before these complaints hit, and were still getting good treatment, they continue to play, believing it'll not happen to them for their treatment has always been good.

To play at a casino that has been rogued or blacklisted by one (some), does not make it a players fault if they play there and get burnt.

Point of this thread is, a casino is stealing legit winnings from a player, and it's being addressed, in hopes this casino will FINALLY do the right thing.

This thread may keep new players who reads it from signing on with them, it may not, but this thread is here as a warning.
 

dickens1298

Dormant account
Major props to you, Lanidar, for helping a fellow player in need. Personally, I hope that - regardless of the outcome - a lesson has been learned.

lanidar said:
dickens1298...
I don't know why he played there in the first place. And you are completely correct about heeding all the warnings about Cirrus/Virtual.
Everyone makes mistakes and I can only assume that Schankwart didn't heed the warnings and became greedy. Greed happens to the best of us.

We're still working to get the $5200.00 from them.
You will be informed as we progress.
Thank you for your support. :notworthy
 

jinnia

Dormant account
dickens1298 said:
But most would agree that you would be gullible to be so trusting of this person in the first place.
Majority of people are gullable, especially the ones who tend to trust in someone or something, no matter what others tell them?

What person has not been easily duped or cheated at one time or another, to one degree or another in their life? And it's all due to 'trust'. It blinds those 'trusting' souls to the truth, most times.

I also know/agree that when it comes to gambling (money), greed does blind some people.

BUT, that is still NO reason for a casino to send a player an email with a coupon/code for their use, accept that coupon along with that players deposit, allow them to play, as long as they are losing, then come up with this bullshit 'Skilled Player" crap to keep from paying that player their rightful, legit winnings!!
 

dickens1298

Dormant account
Allow me to clarify my position:

I am not saying that the casino is right - it is undeniably wrong.

But the player was foolish if he let his greed get the better of him - especially when there were warnings everywhere (as Lanidar agreed there were). It is one thing to try and beat the odds; quite another to play at a casino that has had a history of payment issues.

But I have also read your vitriol and venom on this matter in this forum and in the Insomniacs Lounge, and have also seen the fine investigative work you have shown. For all the feet-stomping and teeth-gnashing, for all the profanity you spewed in the other forum, Cirrus has not delivered one penny of the $5200 owed.

And - based on your previous posts - the warning inherent in this thread might well go unheeded by the next Schankwort. Which would then start an entire new round when that next player does not get paid.

It is interesting to note the juxtaposition of gullibility and greed. So the player was blinded by greed, yet lacked the self-control to inject some cynicism. And this self-same player, btw, is not a neophyte to neither this board nor the online gaming experience. Shouldn't the player shoulder some culpability in allowing something as base as greed blind him to common sense?

BTW - the gullibility and greed that we had referenced actually hurts the industry, in that it allows such practices to continue and such practicing casinos to continue to keep winnings. Each and every time a customer takes a flyer on one of these more dubious casinos adds another dollar to their coffers, and another day to their life.

jinnia said:
Majority of people are gullable, especially the ones who tend to trust in someone or something, no matter what others tell them?

What person has not been easily duped or cheated at one time or another, to one degree or another in their life? And it's all due to 'trust'. It blinds those 'trusting' souls to the truth, most times.

I also know/agree that when it comes to gambling (money), greed does blind some people.

BUT, that is still NO reason for a casino to send a player an email with a coupon/code for their use, accept that coupon along with that players deposit, allow them to play, as long as they are losing, then come up with this bullshit 'Skilled Player" crap to keep from paying that player their rightful, legit winnings!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top