Schankwart Vs. Cirrus Casino

[lanidar]

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:
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

 

[caruso]

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]

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 ([email protected])
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

 

[jinnia]

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!!

 

[Black21Jack]

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]

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.

 

[jinnia]

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

New person like my self that do not know about cirrus casino. Thanks for the warning

 

[dickens1298]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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!!

 

[jinnia]

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.

So be it!! The player done not one thing wrong, The casino did!! Why he played there is irrelevant!! Get over that part!

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.

Lets just set one damn (Ooo, profanity) thing straight here Mr. DICKens!
I have not 'spewed venom'.
Only shown connections to one place or another.

I'll go back and re-read them, and will place them here if need be.
No, no I won't, I have not one thing to prove to you or anyone else.

You almost got me, but you failed! Awwww, that's too bad!!!

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.

Get over as to why anyone plays here or there, has no bearing to the issue at hand.

Or are you trying to deter the thread away from Cirrus for some reason??

 

[dickens1298]

So be it!! The player done not one thing wrong, The casino did!! Why he played there is irrelevant!! Get over that part!

Lets just set one damn (Ooo, profanity) thing straight here Mr. DICKens!
I have not 'spewed venom'.
Only shown connections to one place or another.

I'll go back and re-read them, and will place them here if need be.
No, no I won't, I have not one thing to prove to you or anyone else.

You almost got me, but you failed! Awwww, that's too bad!!!

Get over as to why anyone plays here or there, has no bearing to the issue at hand.

Or are you trying to deter the thread away from Cirrus for some reason??

Let's see.... this is your quote, Jinnia, from the Insomniacs' Lounge:

"You know, I am tired of all this f***ing bullshit GrafixSoftech/Virtual keeps shovelling out!!"

THIS is the venom that I was alluding to.

I'm not denying that the casino is wrong, but I AM saying that the player - especially one that has been around for so long - should have known better. By your own quote above - and Lanidar's at the start of this thread - the implication is clearly that the casino has tried to pull this stunt before. THAT history has been noted in previous threads, yet the player chose to ignore it.

Your allusion that I have some ulterior motive to "deter the thread away from Cirrus" is inane - and hopefully is not reflective of the integrity of your role as a moderator in the aforementioned Lounge. Would you prefer that I heap another insult on the casino? Would it help to echo the same sentiment time and time again that the casino was wrong?

Let's put this another way - if no players were to frequent a casino that withheld winnings, how long would the casino continue to operate? And if no one were to offer assistance to players who would frequent an acknowledged "bad" casino and be burned, how long would players be willing to take that risk?

My point still stands - no matter what words of indignation, how bold-faced or in large font those words may be, what good are they if the casino doesn't even read the thread? And if your retort is that such threads stand as a reminder, what good are they if they are not heeded (which leads us to this situation) or if the readership of the board is so insignificant that it will not matter anyway? Don't such words amount to no more than a tantrum if they are NOT heeded or read?

I'd love to hear how the efforts to retrieve the money from Cirrus are progressing, BTW. I DO hope you are able to recover Schank's money.

 

[jinnia]

Let's see.... this is your quote, Jinnia, from the Insomniacs' Lounge:

"You know, I am tired of all this f***ing bullshit GrafixSoftech/Virtual keeps shovelling out!!"

Windows ME??


In that regards, you bet I spew venom. Why the word venom? You like drawing attention to what you have to say? Don't want to go unnoticed?
Profanity is used by the normal person.

Keep searching, you'll see more 'venom' from me, just like the 'venom' spewed here ... it happens. Even by the owners of a board.

As for this --

I'd love to hear how the efforts to retrieve the money from Cirrus are progressing, BTW. I DO hope you are able to recover Schank's money.

Why don't you ask lanidar how it's going, he's mediating this for the player.

Your allusion that I have some ulterior motive to "deter the thread away from Cirrus" is inane - and hopefully is not reflective of the integrity of your role as a moderator in the aforementioned Lounge. Would you prefer that I heap another insult on the casino? Would it help to echo the same sentiment time and time again that the casino was wrong?

My my, you must be an english teacher!

If there isn't an ulterior motive, then drop the questioning as to why anyone would play at a casino that has negative posts about them, etc. For one player or another has in the past, present, and will in the future, that's just facts, and completely irrelevant!!

Stay to the issue at hand, which is........???

Insom was mine, I gave it to lanidar not long ago, I'm there as an admin ONLY for the reason of keeping things updated and scripts being added, or removed.

I have my own little quiet hole in the wall, thank you.

As integrity goes, a person who would rather plaster a poster when they place a complaint, than to stay on track of what the complaint is about, what does that say about their integrity?

I'd hold off on playing at William Hill for the moment. That is, unless you're sure you can make the WR

UNLESS you're sure you can ---

Hmmmm? Maybe this player and others at Cirrus felt sure they would be paid!!!

 

[unicorn40]

Posted by Dickens1298

what good are they if the casino doesn't even read the thread?

What makes you think that they don't read it? You would be surprised at the number of 'casino reps' that do indeed read this, and other boards, whenever 'their' casino is mentioned. The fact that they don't respond to any of the accusations isn't that surprising, considering the abuse many previous reps who did respond here (and on other boards) have received.

And the abuse, in my opinion, is 'well deserved', considering the smug and smartass attitude many of them displayed.

Intelligence and professionalism doesn't seem to be a strong point with many of the casino reps that honor us with their presence on the forums.

And I seriously doubt that they are all that thrilled to see their casino degraded and bashed as 'ROGUE'. So it DOES serve a purpose to post about these casinos that conduct their business in an inappropriate manner.

 

[dickens1298]

To begin with, my William Hill comment was directed to a poster who was concerned about being able to make the WR before the end of the month. That was Dreamer's thread, and s/he was concerned about the possibility of not meeting the WR before month's end. Let's not take my comments out of context. The parallel is also flawed, since there have been no posts about William Hill not paying its players.

I quoted your words because in a previous post you claimed that you did NOT "spew venom" - and now you're saying that you did. Ooookkkk....and if you are thinking that the use of the word is a cry for attention....ooookkk.. thank goodness I don't change my font size or resort to profanity - I REALLY wonder what sort of attention I would be seeking then!

I "PLASTERED" the poster?!? Wow... if my non-verbal "tsk tsk" was plastering, I would hate to see what my more vitriolic responses would be like.

And by your own admission, this is not the first time this casino has done this - can't we still help the player while at least admonishing him to be more heedful of warnings in the future?

And MY issue at hand is.....

Let's be more broad-minded.

Cirrus is in the wrong, correct? Schank may or may not be able to collect, but how many others have been wronged by Cirrus? Would we all jump in triumph if/when Schank collects his money, then go back into the same mode of "this casino did it AGAIN!!"-type vitriol when the problem resurfaces?

Why not seek to shut the casino down by blacklisting it? Why not insist that it be on the rogue list at this and every board out there - including the Lounge? If no one patronizes the casino, the casino makes no money, therefore.....

Windows ME??


In that regards, you bet I spew venom. Why the word venom? You like drawing attention to what you have to say? Don't want to go unnoticed?
Profanity is used by the normal person.

Keep searching, you'll see more 'venom' from me, just like the 'venom' spewed here ... it happens. Even by the owners of a board.

As for this --Why don't you ask lanidar how it's going, he's mediating this for the player.

My my, you must be an english teacher!

If there isn't an ulterior motive, then drop the questioning as to why anyone would play at a casino that has negative posts about them, etc. For one player or another has in the past, present, and will in the future, that's just facts, and completely irrelevant!!

Stay to the issue at hand, which is........???

Insom was mine, I gave it to lanidar not long ago, I'm there as an admin ONLY for the reason of keeping things updated and scripts being added, or removed.

I have my own little quiet hole in the wall, thank you.

As integrity goes, a person who would rather plaster a poster when they place a complaint, than to stay on track of what the complaint is about, what does that say about their integrity?

UNLESS you're sure you can ---

Hmmmm? Maybe this player and others at Cirrus felt sure they would be paid!!!

 

[dickens1298]

The more reputable casinos certainly have reps that read this posts - but they seem to be less and less common. Many of the casino responses seem to be regarding less material issues (such as bonus monies or payout times) or pure propaganda (witness the Gfed software problem).

My comment was more Cirrus-related. If Cirrus is indeed being purposefully unethical, then they likely would choose to not respond. Indeed given the timeline (since Nov 2004, I believe) and the amount ($5200 is a far cry from a $50 bonus), and their current reticence, it certainly seems that no matter how much we "yell" at this injustice, the casino would not respond - either in word (on the board) or in deed.

I pray that I'm wrong.

Posted by Dickens1298

What makes you think that they don't read it? You would be surprised at the number of 'casino reps' that do indeed read this, and other boards, whenever 'their' casino is mentioned. The fact that they don't respond to any of the accusations isn't that surprising, considering the abuse many previous reps who did respond here (and on other boards) have received.

And the abuse, in my opinion, is 'well deserved', considering the smug and smartass attitude many of them displayed.

Intelligence and professionalism doesn't seem to be a strong point with many of the casino reps that honor us with their presence on the forums.

And I seriously doubt that they are all that thrilled to see their casino degraded and bashed as 'ROGUE'. So it DOES serve a purpose to post about these casinos that conduct their business in an inappropriate manner.

 

[jinnia]

I quoted your words because in a previous post you claimed that you did NOT "spew venom" - and now you're saying that you did. Ooookkkk....and if you are thinking that the use of the word is a cry for attention....ooookkk.. thank goodness I don't change my font size or resort to profanity - I REALLY wonder what sort of attention I would be seeking then!

I said I didn't 'spew venom' before you showed me what 'spewing venom' meant to you. When you quoted a bit of a post I made, I then said, I did 'spew venom' then, by your definition of it.

Spewing venom to me means, out and out lies.

I use profanity, so what?

I "PLASTERED" the poster?!? Wow... if my non-verbal "tsk tsk" was plastering, I would hate to see what my more vitriolic responses would be like.

Just using a word with more punch, as you do.
But yes, you began questioning the poster as to why he played there, what difference does that make, really?

And by your own admission, this is not the first time this casino has done this - can't we still help the player while at least admonishing him to be more heedful of warnings in the future?

Great!! Lets try to help the player, sounds like a positive step forward to me.

Cirrus is in the wrong, correct? Schank may or may not be able to collect, but how many others have been wronged by Cirrus? Would we all jump in triumph if/when Schank collects his money, then go back into the same mode of "this casino did it AGAIN!!"-type vitriol when the problem resurfaces?

YES, in my opinion, Cirrus is in the wrong.

No matter how many triumphs, or failures one has with a casino, or how often their wrong doings gets posted all over the net, it is NOT going to stop every online gambler from falling victim to them. It just won't happen!

But we can work at trying to prevent as many victims as possible! Using small type, large type, colored, or black and white, using 'venom' (btw: I do know how to conduct myself when speaking directly to them) or not. As long as it makes an impact, that is what counts.

People should stop questioning a player as to 'why did you play there, didn't you know?"..etc..etc..etc.

Why not seek to shut the casino down by blacklisting it? Why not insist that it be on the rogue list at this and every board out there - including the Lounge?

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

 

[jinnia]

NOW, back to the issue at hand.

[1] Cirrus Casino sent Shank an email offering him usage of a coupon for a deposit bonus.

[2] Shank made a deposit and used the coupon.

[3] Cirrus Casino allowed the deposit and bonus to go through and be credited into Shanks account for play.

[4] Shank played with this, for how long, I have no idea, but play was made. (Shank can answer if want)

[5] As long as he was losing, all was fine with Cirrus Casino.

[6] When Shank won and requested a withdrawal, then Cirrus Casino came up with this 'Skilled Player' bull, for the sole purpose (excuse) of not paying Shank his rightful and legit winnings.

I have made contact with Cirrus by email, on my own, twice, asking them to clarify what a 'Skilled Player' was. No response at all!!

 

[dickens1298]

My girlfriend - and bed - beckons, so I shall close off my thoughts on this thread.

Jinnia, I applaud your passion and efforts to right injustices. If some of my words may have created a misperception as to my intent (for example, my use of the word "venom" had nothing to do with prevarication and everything to do with vitriol), I apologize.

My concern is that posting such indignation over Cirrus' actions would do little good. I point to the fact that such postings have already existed before Schank's actions, and the small size of the readership relative to the actual online gaming world. True, every bit helps, but I DO wonder how someone as experienced as Schank would have gotten into this quandary. You point to trust and greed - I point to folly.

Does it matter? Not in the sense of who is right or wrong (Cirrus is clearly in the wrong) - but Schank appears to have allowed his gullibility and greed overcome his good sense. Does that mean that Cirrus is in the right? Of course not. But if I were to leave a twenty dollar bill on a table and have it stolen when I leave it unattended for 20 minutes, then I HAVE shown a lapse of common sense - just as the thief has demonstrated a lapse of morality/ethics. Perhaps I ask too much that an individual be accountable thusly - and please keep in mind that in no way does this accountability issue detract from the casino's culpability one iota. It's just that I tend to be more careful with my money. But that's just me.

I have enjoyed the discussion. Have a good night.

 

[jinnia]

Have a good rest. I'm hoping to soon. Two days, no sleep at all.

Shank admits to being silly/stupid... forget word..

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

But it has happen, and now Cirrus Casino needs to address it!!

Will they? Very doubtful, in my opinion, for they haven't for so many months as is..

 

[lanidar]

Dickens1298...
As I said before, I do appreciate your support.
I have NO idea why you are having this volley with MY PARTNER and VERY GOOD FRIEND ..JINNIA!
I will ALWAYS back JINNIA before ANYONE else.

She and I are working hard to get Schankwarts money for him.
That's the BOTTOM line. Everything else here is BULL!!!
Why he played at Cirrus, when he played at Cirrus, what made him play at Cirrus again...ALL irrelevant CRAP.

I got a DAMN headache from reading all that back and forth nonsense.
Dickens1298, it seems that every word is being analyzed by you.
Take the whole thread for what it says. The man was screwed out of his money.

Leave Jinnia and myself to do our job.
Let's get the damn money back for him...PERIOD!!!

 

[The Dude]

Hi All,

Back from a few days off and a bit surprised to see this thread appear here

Question: Why isn't Schwankwart posting this himself in the complaints section? Just wondering.

And by the way, I've already covered most of this between Cirrus and Schwankwart a couple of months ago (only with several other people). If Schwanky had a case, he would have been paid - and I would have beat Cirrus over the head with it. But in this situation, it didn't turn out that way.

I would be glad to spell it out tomorrow. Apparently, there's a bit of information that Landidar wasn't given, and I'd be glad to post this so this whole issue can be put to rest. Thanks!

 

[schankwart]

Hello posters & readers,

due to birthday I have been out of town pretty much for the last couple days and did not get to post here any earlier. Additionally, I did not know that this thread was being created here just to clear up some confusion.

It is true that Bryan already was involved in this case and I never kept that any secret. I do not have to play with hidden cards here either as there is no need for me to do so.

I think Meister is referring to the point that Cirrus claims to have informed me that I was "not eligible for any promotions anymore because I was a skilled player".
Unfortunately I did not save this conversation as it was just a question of me about a bonus that Christine @ Cirrus indeed told me I was not eligible for because this particular promotion one was for new players only. I did not see any need to save this chat then as I of course did not play the promotion either.

After Bryans request Christine provided him with a copy of this live-chat "conversation" between her and me. She now claims that in this correspondence she would have informed me of that I was "no longer eligible for all of their promotions".... Which is simply the untruth!

The wording in this chat-conversation is definetely not as I recall it to have been and I CERTAINLY would not have deposited and played for this deal and others had I indeed been made aware of my "ineligibility" before I started playing!

Almost needless to say the deposits that I lost before I eventually won my $5200 have been all kept by Cirrus. I do not care about this money though as all I want is my legit $5200 in winnings that they still owe me so I can finally close this case once and for all.

What I just posted has not been held back from anyone ever. Everyone who is involved in this desaster has been informed about this "conversation".


How about me posting the transcript of "real chat" in which a Casino operator "promised me a free $5000 bonus upon my next $20 deposit without any wagering requirements"?
-Do you think the operator would have done that or honor it now just because I tell people he would have "told me so"??

 

[jinnia]

It does not matter what 'Christine' allegedly said in a live chat.

The FACT is, Cirrus Casino sent you a coupon to your e-mail address, you deposited, submitted the coupon code, Cirrus Casino allowed it to go through, you received the bonus in your account by Cirrus Casino, Cirrus Casino allowed you to play with it.

Cirrus Casino owes you the winnings!!! Period!! As simple as that!!

 

[The Dude]

It does not matter what 'Christine' allegedly said in a live chat.

The FACT is, Cirrus Casino sent you a coupon to your e-mail address, you deposited, submitted the coupon code, Cirrus Casino allowed it to go through, you received the bonus in your account by Cirrus Casino, Cirrus Casino allowed you to play with it.

Cirrus Casino owes you the winnings!!! Period!! As simple as that!!

Hi Jinnia,

It's not quite that simple. Cirrus sent a generic email that covered every promo that they had to offer - which included everything from sign up bonuses to VIP bonuses. Schwanky misread this as an offer to take the VIP bonus (which he took). He had been told already that he couldn't take offers of more than 30%.

If it had been a mailing of a specific promo - then the casino would have been liable (IMO). But since this was a promo that covered all bonuses and not a direct mailing, then it is up for the player to decide what he/she is eligible for.

 

[schankwart]

"He had been told already that he couldn't take offers of more than 30%."

No Meister... I have not! This rule was applied retroactively but apparently you do not believe me as I have not provided you with a copy of the conversation (that does not exist).
Had they seriously NOT wanted to play the should not have sent me the offer or let me redeem the codes at all! They did ANYTHING to get me to deposit.... And then voided my winnings as soon as I won.

 

[jinnia]

Hi Jinnia,

It's not quite that simple. Cirrus sent a generic email that covered every promo that they had to offer - which included everything from sign up bonuses to VIP bonuses. Schwanky misread this as an offer to take the VIP bonus (which he took). He had been told already that he couldn't take offers of more than 30%.

If it had been a mailing of a specific promo - then the casino would have been liable (IMO). But since this was a promo that covered all bonuses and not a direct mailing, then it is up for the player to decide what he/she is eligible for.

Hi BrYan,

Ok, BUT, if Schwank was not allowed to use anything over 30%, why did they allow it to be redeemed, and then he was allowed to play with it?

I know gaming software well enough to know you can block whatever you want from individual accounts, I ran various ones a few years back on my Bulletin board. All they had to do was to block any and all coupon offers over the 30%. BUT, they didn't! Then allowed him to play, until he won!

 

[The Dude]

Here are some email excerpts from the casino that may clear up some things:

...all players were sent the e-mail with offers for every one. Thing is that they all know what bonuses they can get. Florian knew he was not entitled to the 100% bonus and he used it even knowing that fact. If a person is told that he cannot get a bonus of more than 30% why would he go after and use a code for 100%, what would have happened if he would have lost

When Florian started playing that same day he was taking bonuses of 25% to 30%, those were okay, When you have lots of players playing at the same time it is impossible to monitor each and every account. We have to trust the player will stick to the casino terms and redeem only the bonuses he knows he is allowed to do. It is the player's responsibility to stick to this terms otherwise he knows that the casino has the right to void winnings and send back the original deposit if he wins. RTG does have a system that allows the casino to exclude a certain player class from getting some offers. Florian's class was not excluded from the codes cause it will still affect 40 VIPs that were still eligible to get any of the offers, . besides, should Florian be treated as a kid or as an adult that can be trusted when he has been told what he can and cannot do?...

...As I wrote before, we trusted Florian would know which bonuses he was eligible for. I came to know he won on a 100% bonus after he requested a cashout. Then I sent him an e-mail explaining the situation (he still claims he did not get this message).

 

[The Dude]

Here's a copy of the email that was sent to Schwankwart

 

[caruso]

RTGs can block ALL coupons (I know, since I'm coupon-blocked at Cirrus), but I doubt they can "partial-block". If a player is on the "partial" coupon list and KNOWS it, he does have the responsibility to chose his coupons correctly. If he HASN'T been informed of his "partial" status then the Email needs to have had the VIP coupons PLAINLY labelled as such for the casino to be justified in refusing payment.

If the coupons are NOT labelled as VIP-specific, and a "partial-coupon" player who hasn't been informed of his "partial-coupon" status by the casino redeems one of a bunch of apparently generic coupons, he can't be expected to know he's not entitled.

We need to see either a copy of the Email in question to verify the VIP stamp on the coupon, or evidence that the player was informed of his non-eligibility to 100% coupons prior to redeeming it.

I guess that the Email is the most likely - screenshot, Bryan or anyone else?

EDIT: lol Bryan, mind-reader or what???

 

[jinnia]

Ok, a generic e-mail sent to all players.

So then, one question -

How long was Schwank allowed to play before requesting a withdrawal?

I tried using a coupon one a couple of occasions at different RTG casinos, and it was immediately blocked/denied saying I was not allowed to use it. So I know they can do this.

 

[The Dude]

Here is a copy of his chat sessions and emails from Cirrus (to include explanatory comments)

General Chat Info
Chat start time 14:19:51 11/22/2004
Chat end time 14:44:18 11/22/2004
Duration (actual chatting time) 00:23:38
Chat starting page

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Operator Support 1
Browser MSIE 6.0
Host address xxx
Host IP xxxx
Country Germany
City xxxxx
Organization Deutsche Telekom AG
World Region xxxxx
Postal Code null
Time Zone null
ISP Deutsche Telekom AG
Connection Type Dialup


Chat Transcript

info: Please wait for a site operator to respond.
info: You are now chatting with 'Christine'
Christine: Hello Schankwart
Player: Hello Christine
Christine: how are you?.. it's been a long time
Player: I am quite good
Player: just returned from vacation
Player: thanks
Player: I sent you an email last night...
Christine: yes, I got it
Player: I tried to redeem 2 coupons and they both got rejected
Christine: the fact is that the 100% bonus no restrictions that you tried to redeem is only for first time players that is one of the reasons why it did not redeem
Christine: and the other one, well, what can I say
Christine: you have been labeled a skilled player..
Player: ...means?
Christine: that you cannot get bonuses but still you can play with us... with no bonuses at all or with bonuses of up to 30%, all non-cashable. You are not eligible for bonuses over 30% any more...
Player: you just not too long ago offered me to become a "vip"?
Christine: I still have an offer for you
Player: hmm
Christine: the deal is no bonus upfront - you play as long as you want and cashout when you feel like
Christine: no requirements
Christine: BUT: you cannot play pontoon at all
Christine: and, depending on how much you deposit, you will still get a cashback or insurance
Player: hmm, okay
Player: i do not feel like gambling tonight but i will consider it
Player: please send me an email with all rules so i have it for future
Player: what do you mean with "skilled" here actually?
Christine: that you are TOO GOOD
Player: all i do is play
Christine: but you are good, you always win
Player: hmm, okay
Player: i wish i did
Player: anyway
Player: please email me the offer
Christine: what would it take for you to come and deposit right now?
Christine: what offer do you want from me?
Player: i would deposit something between $100 and $1000 or so
Player: i have no specific offer in mind... what i usually did was to read your newsletters or check on the webpage when i felt like playing
Player: there i usually found a promo i wanted to play
Christine: have you ever play with no bonuses?
Player: of course
Christine: so you must agree that it is better
Christine: cause you decide when to stop
Christine: you do not need to worry about the wagering
Christine: and you know no restrictions apply
Player: yes
Player: i would still like to be eligible for promotions though
Christine: you are still eligible for bonuses of 30% or less, it is not that you cannot get bonuses at all
Player: well, i would have expected quite some better service for a "vip"...
Player: i deposited a few thousand to get on that list and now i am getting excluded from promotions
Player: well, please just send me a couple offers via email
Player: the bonus does not have to be upfront as you said
Christine: well, if you do not tell me what you would like it will be difficult for me
Player: ok
Player: i will email you again once i feel like playing
Player: i just do not want to spend any money today
Player: i do not feel like putting money in a casino everyday
Player: well, i will let you go for now
Player: maybe next week i will play
Player: thanks for the chat
Christine: contact me then when you feel like playing...
Player: ...last night i did =)
Player: german time*
Player: good bye
Player: thanks
Christine: bye
info: Chat session has been terminated.

Even though he knew that he was not eligible for bonuses over 30%, on November 24th he deposited $1,000 and redeemed a code for 100% bonus. Played, met the wagering and cashed out $6,200.00 total.

I also sent him an e-mail regarding this situation, please see below:

----- Original Message -----
From: Christine Jennings
To: Schankwart
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 8:56 AM
Subject: Your withdrawal request
Dear Schankwart,

As you were told on Monday November 22nd that, as an skilled player, you are not eligible for any bonuses over 30% and that all bonuses for you will be non-cashable.

Please see below an extract of our chat session for that day:

Christine: Hello Schankwart
Schankwart: Hello Christine
Christine: how are you?.. it's been a long time
Schankwart: I am quite good
Schankwart: just returned from vacation
Schankwart: thanks
Schankwart: I sent you an email last night...
Christine: yes, I got it
Schankwart: I tried to redeem 2 coupons and they both got rejected
Christine: the fact is that the 100% bonus no restrictions that you tried to redeem is only for first time players that is one of the reasons why it did not redeem
Christine: and the other one, well, what can I say
Christine: you have been labeled a skilled player..
Schankwart: ...means?
Christine: that you cannot get bonuses but still you can play with us... with no bonuses at all or with bonuses of up to 30%, all non-cashable. You are not eligible for bonuses over 30% any more...

Also, as per our our Terms and Conditions:

If a customer uses a promo bonus that is not entitled to him/her, any winnings generated from that are forfeited and the original deposit is returned to the customer
(

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

)

Your $1,000 have now been approved and your money should reach your NETeller account any time now.

Regards,


Christine Jennings

CASINO MANAGER
Personal E-Mail: [email protected]
Support E-Mail: [email protected]
US Toll Free 1.800.480.2498
UK Toll Free 0.800.032.9334
International players please call 678.349.0358

He was paid his $1,000 deposit last week.

As you can see, Bryan, we honored our rules and send him his money. He knows already that he was not entitled to such bonuses and I really do not know what is all his thing... he got an e-mail from Marketing, that is right, but it was not a PERSONAL offer from any of the casino people and to be honest, all players keep getting our e-mails but they know if they are eligible or not to an specific promotion.

Please see below our chats from December 6th and December 8th:

General Chat Info
Chat start time 12:42:23 12/06/2004
Chat end time 12:50:35 12/06/2004
Duration (actual chatting time) 00:07:34
Chat starting page

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Operator Christine
Browser MSIE 6.0
Host address xxxx
Host IP xxxxxx
Country Germany
City xxxxxx
Organization Deutsche Telekom AG
World Region xxxxxx
Postal Code null
Time Zone null
ISP Deutsche Telekom AG
Connection Type Dialup


Chat Transcript

info: Please wait for a site operator to respond.
info: You are now chatting with 'Christine'
Christine: hello Schankwart
Christine: you know I was just thinking about you
Schankwart: Hello
Schankwart: How is that?
Christine: well, I replied to your last message and then never heard back from you
Schankwart: Could you please explain what happened to the withdrawal of $6200 that I made on November 25th?
Schankwart: I am not sure what message you mean
Christine: well, last time you were told you are a skilled player and you cannot get more bonuses for more than 30% and all bonuses are non-cashable
Christine: you then used 100% bonus even knowing that
Christine: as per our rules, if a player uses a bonus that he is not entitled to receive the winnings are voided and the original deposit goes back to the players account
Schankwart: hold onare you saying you want to not honor the withdrawal?
Christine: the $1,000 you deposited are in yoru account
Christine: your
Schankwart: i will get back to you shortly
Christine: you were not entitled to that offer, Florian, and the fact id that you were told that days before you made that deposit
Christine: okay
Schankwart: this smells nasty
Schankwart: i will get back to you soon
Christine: no, Florian, it does not
Chat start time 16:24:45 12/08/2004
Chat end time 16:36:17 12/08/2004
Duration (actual chatting time) 00:11:28
Chat starting page

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

...
Operator Christine
Browser MSIE 6.0
Host addressxxx
Host IP xxxxx
Country Germany
City xxxx
Organization Deutsche Telekom AG
World Region xxxx
Postal Code null
Time Zone null
ISP Deutsche Telekom AG
Connection Type Dialup


Chat Transcript

info: Please wait for a site operator to respond.
info: You are now chatting with 'Christine'
Christine: Hello Schankwart
Schankwart: Hello Christine
Schankwart: Is it correct now that you have no intention in paying my withdrawal anymore?
Christine: did you get my mail, Schankwart?
Schankwart: no, I did not receive it
Schankwart: I have not received an email from you
Christine: the last time we spoke you were told that for you, as an skilled player, no more bonuses over 30% would be given
Schankwart: what you did was to not allow me the bonuses i asked for previously!
Christine: [email protected]
Schankwart: anyways
Christine: that is your mail, right?
Schankwart: yes
Schankwart: please forward the email to [email protected] once more
Schankwart: I have not received it
Christine: I forwarded the mail again
Schankwart: I am shocked to see this coming now...
Schankwart: but if you are not honring that withdrawal I will make sure that this issue is getting massive public attention through the known websites, forums and newsgroups
Christine: to see what coming, Schankwart
Schankwart: I have always been a good customer
Christine: you were told by me about the bonuses when you complaint you tried to use one code that did not redeem
Christine: you can do what you feel like
Schankwart: But your attitude here is unbelievably
Christine: I have the chat transcripts where you were told about your player status and your bonuses situation
Christine: and there is also a rules in our website that prevents this
Schankwart: Well, you will hear from others then
Christine: I will contact Montana about this issue, you can contact them as well, let's see what they have to say
Schankwart: Well, feel free to start that fight now
Christine: the rule is in the website and I have all transcripts where you were told about the bonuses in your account, Florian
Christine: do not threaten me
Christine: I am not afraid as no one here tried to steal your money as you said
Schankwart: Obviously you will not change your opinion anymore so be sure to see that coming now
Christine: and I believe people will agree that you took a bonuses YOU KNEW you were not entitled to get
Schankwart: You are the one who started this
Christine: me?
Christine: why me?
Schankwart: ^that is a LIE
Christine: what is a lie?
Christine: you were told and we both know that
Schankwart: because YOU were the one who sent me this offer and invited me to play!
Christine: I will never lie Schankwart
Christine: all chats are recorded
Christine: I did not
Christine: you might have gotten the mail from marketting
Schankwart: your casino has an awful reputation but i kept playing with you as i felt being treated quite fairly
Christine: but then you knew you were not entitled to such deal
Christine: Schankwart, do as you want
Schankwart: now though, this reputation will be sure to get its support again
Christine: because of playrrs like you we have a bad reputation
Christine: and honestly I do not care what you or those players do
Schankwart: any fair person would have honored that withdrawal
Christine: my good players know I am fair and I always treat them with respect
Schankwart: you could have locked me out or whatever afterwards but you chose to o that route
Christine: and I will not let you call me a liar when we both know you were told on November 22nd that you are an skilled player and you cannot get more bonuses for more that 30%
Schankwart: i know the casinos have pretty much terms for anything they want to do...
info: Chat session has been terminated.
.

 

[eek]

If he had lost would he had got his money back?

Is he entitled to get any or all of the previous VIP deposits he made and lost to Cirrus, back?

 

[eek]

The thing is...

Why the heck doesn't Cirrus just keep 70% of the original bonus and pay him the balance?

Then sort their bonus system out.

Its always bonuses that give casinos bad publicity so why don't they get these things sorted.

 

[The Dude]

Why the heck doesn't Cirrus just keep 70% of the original bonus and pay him the balance?

We should have a "Solution of the Week" award here at Casinomeister

 

[jinnia]

No, I didn't go away, was reading and re-reading Bryans post on the chats..etc.

So his account blocked/rejected two 100% Bonus coupons, it should have blocked the one that was redeemed, even if it came from their marketing team. Where did the two come from that was blocked/rejected?

First chat about rejection of 2 coupons, Nov. 22, 2004
Deposited, redeemed coupon, played, requested withdrawal, second chat on Dec. 06, 2004 about denied withdrawal.


I see a bit of deception from both parties involved here -

[1] Schwank was allegedly told he could not use any offers over 30% and those would be non-cashable. He then used a 100% deposit bonus.

[2] Cirrus blocked/rejected two previous attempts on 100% deposit bonus coupons,
reasons given -- (a) for first time players, AND (b) he had been labelled a 'skilled player'


If Cirrus was able to block/reject the first two coupons for the "Skilled Player" excuse, they could have blocked/rejected the one they allowed to go through also, but didn't! No matter if it did come from their Marketing.
Where did the two come from that were blocked/rejected?

Since both 'seems' to have practiced deception, I say it would only be fair they both lose a bit but both win at the same time.

Cirrus keeps half of the original $1000 deposit which would be $500 and Schwank gets the other $500 returned.

Then on the $5200 win, same thing, Cirrus don't pay half which is $2600, and send Schwank the other $2600.

$2600 minus $500 (Cirrus returned full deposit) leaves another $2100 Cirrus owes.

Fair?....No?

 

[lanidar]

The FACT is, Cirrus Casino sent you a coupon to your e-mail address, you deposited, submitted the coupon code, Cirrus Casino allowed it to go through, you received the bonus in your account by Cirrus Casino, Cirrus Casino allowed you to play with it.

Cirrus Casino owes you the winnings!!! Period!! As simple as that!!

I've read and re-read and re-read again the complete thread. It's like he said/shesaid going back and forth.
Though Jinnia is my partner, I do not always agree with her ideas regarding any particular situation. That being understood I want ALL of you to know that I am in COMPLETE AND TOTAL agreement with her.
The bottom line, ONCE AGAIN, is that Cirrus sent the coupon to him. He played and won. I don't know if the coupon could have been blocked or not... but, it was NOT!

Should he have lost...would they have been kind enough to return his deposit? I think not!

Also, IF they would have told him something along the lines that they understood the possible misunderstanding and HAD paid him, what a feather in THIER cap that would have been.

I personally would have raised my hat to them and posted what a TERRIFFIC thing they had done. This could have been a start to a complete turn around for their image. I believe that players MAY have looked Cirrus in a completely different light. Cirrus probably would have had NEW players registering and playing ... some winning, some losing, but they could have all that free promotion of how FAIR they were.
The start of turning over a new leaf.

There is NO better promotion than a happy player.

PAY THE MAN...

 

[jinnia]

We should have a "Solution of the Week" award here at Casinomeister

LOL .. well, would I be in the running?

 

[caruso]

If he had lost would he had got his money back?

No he wouldn't, Eek.

Is he entitled to get any or all of the previous VIP deposits he made and lost to Cirrus, back??

No. From when he was informed of his ineligibility for coupon X but went ahead and redeemed coupon X anyway, he forfeited all his entitlements to anything.

...that you cannot get bonuses but still you can play with us... with no bonuses at all or with bonuses of up to 30%, all non-cashable. You are not eligible for bonuses over 30% any more...

...but if you are not honring that withdrawal I will make sure that this issue is getting massive public attention through the known websites, forums and newsgroups.

I can't claim to be a fan of Cirrus after the trouble they put me through (which was resolved very satisfactorily in my favour, I should add) but I don't support extortion attempts by players. The player WAS informed; he played regardless and then chose to blackmail the casino with threats to slander them if they didn't play ball and pay him what he was not owed.

If a casino cheats a player and gets away with it, more power to them. BUT if the player exposes them, they pay up and take their lumps.

If a player cheats a casino and gets away with it, more power to him. BUT if the casino exposes them they shut up and take their lumps.

It works BOTH WAYS. If you want honesty from casinos you have to offer honesty in return. You will NOT "clean up" the industry while everyone is trying to cheat everyone else.

Lanidar and Jinnia - sorry for you two to have had your chains yanked on this one. In your shoes I'd be pissed off.

 

[Vesuvio]

Christine: have you ever play with no bonuses?
Player: of course
Christine: so you must agree that it is better
Christine: cause you decide when to stop
Christine: you do not need to worry about the wagering
Christine: and you know no restrictions apply

This is such a shabby industry - 'chats' like these just emphasise why casinos like Cirrus should be avoided. Yep, obviously it's much better not to play with a bonus, that's why Christine is desperately trying to get Schankwart to play without one

This whole bonus thing is the same as at Virtual. If they want to stop a player from receiving a bonus then how difficult can it be just to make it so the system won't credit the bonus (as appears to have happened with two other bonuses he claimed). If the bonus code is accepted then it seems to me that the player is right to assume that he's been given the bonus and will be tied to whatever wagering requirements it entails - if he meets them he should be able to withdraw.

The only reason for letting these bonuses be credited anyway seems to be that casinos like Virtual and Cirrus want to have a win-win situation. Either the player loses their deposit or he wins and the casino voids the winnings. Why is it that these type of problems don't seem to occur at the (very) few reputable RTG casinos?

I agree that if the chat's genuine Schankwart was very foolish to try claiming these bonuses, but if the bonuses were credited then Cirrus is also in the wrong denying the withdrawal. Some compromise might well be the only sensible solution (and a complete overhaul of the bonus system to prevent this happening in future).