Shark Casino Owes Me $29,500

[phynqster]

1819, I would hope we did not have that rule. I have made a number of changes to the site, but they will not be uploaded till Monday. I know we will not be living by the far fetched rule, that your withdrawal will be confiscated if you do not send in required documentation with in 30 days. What a crock that was. There are other terms and conditions like that also that just make no sense. A casino is a risk business, and need to take risks, because in the long run the casino will come out ahead. Unless Cipher plays there and gets 200% cashable bonuses with no play through.

 

[chuchu59]

Jeez ... shark casino sound a players worst nightmare.

Glad I never played there and, obviously, never will.

I think Steve would be equally at home in a fairground taking 10ps off kids to knock down loaded skittles.

Truly appaling trickery.

Henry VIII,

I can understand why you feel that way. However, you may wish to read some of phynqster's posts when he was the manager of virtual casino which in many players' books was the greatest rogue ever. He was able to resolve many issues satisfactorily during his stint there and at one time there were relatively few complaints against this casino. His handle then was virtualted.

 

[cipher]

1819, I would hope we did not have that rule. I have made a number of changes to the site, but they will not be uploaded till Monday. I know we will not be living by the far fetched rule, that your withdrawal will be confiscated if you do not send in required documentation with in 30 days. What a crock that was. There are other terms and conditions like that also that just make no sense. A casino is a risk business, and need to take risks, because in the long run the casino will come out ahead. Unless Cipher plays there and gets 200% cashable bonuses with no play through.

Seriously Phynqster:

It's good to have you back in the saddle. You know I don't fool with those bonuses. That first 10G win at Virtual taught me better than that. Next time your in L.A. we'll hook up 18 on me.

Have a good one.

 

[henryVIII]

Henry VIII,

I can understand why you feel that way. However, you may wish to read some of phynqster's posts when he was the manager of virtual casino which in many players' books was the greatest rogue ever. He was able to resolve many issues satisfactorily during his stint there and at one time there were relatively few complaints against this casino. His handle then was virtualted.

I am sure you are right chuchu and I dont want to disagree with you.

But, just in this case, it is abundantly clear that the only reason the player is in this "mess" is because the casino didnt pay him his winnings ... not even immediately but in a quick manner.

To then offer him a 'double or quits' is just simply weird.

By not paying him his winnings and then catching him on this has more in common with a card sharp than a casino.

Just my opinions and I appreciate what you're saying .. but ???

 

[phynqster]

Henry,
I agree with you.So no reason to cut off my head. It was an off the wall bet. But like I said it was more to prove my point to him, than to seriously take the bet. You are right about the cash payout terms. I do not like the limited payout's but with the small hold at RTG and the large bonuses it is a necessity. I do change my withdrawal amounts to be equal what a player deposits for what I pay. Meaning that if a player deposits (1 deposit) than I will match that in payouts per week. So a 10k deposit would be paid 10k per week. If a player puts up a risk than the casino should face the same risk.

 

[GrandMaster]

Am I the only one who thinks that casinos should pay in one go, not in weekly installments?

 

[carramrod]

Am I the only one who thinks that casinos should pay in one go, not in weekly installments?

Of course. Real casinos do.

 

[phynqster]

People deposit cash into real casinos also. Not through processing companies that take % of the funds, and put holds on the money. Real casinos do not have charge backs either. I am not saying it is right for casinos to pay in installments, I am just saying that on line casinos are not real casinos.

 

[bpb]

Someone help me here

Player X deposits $1000, gets a $1000 sticky match, 10x max cashout
Player X runs his $1000 up to $15,000
Player X withdraws
Casino Removes $5000, leaving a $10,000, as per the terms
Casino initiates $2500 withdrawal, leaving $7,500 in the account, as they only pay $2,500 a week
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything is kosher up to this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the player can either

A) Wait a month for the remaining $7,500 to be withdrawn, and stop playing at the casino alltogether until that withdrawal is processed. Instead, the player will get his gambling fix from one of this casino's competitors.

B) Continue wagering with the $7,500. This money is "his", though it will take a month to get it. The player is using "his" money to make negative expectation wagers in the casino, resulting in a positive expectation for the casino. No bonuses are involved here, the player is just wagering straight up with "his" money. (Note that the excess balance above 10x the deposit amount has already been removed)


Here' s the question I need help with.

From what I understand in this thread, Shark would rather have the player do A (wait), rather than B (gamble). This doesn't seem to be right if the casino is in the business of making money.

Unless of course what Shark hopes will happen is

C) The player gambles with his remaining money, assuming that since his excess balance was removed and the first cashout processed, the remaining money is "his" and the 10x max cashout no longer applies, since there is no bonus money associated with his current balance. If the player loses money, shark doesn't say a word. If the player wins money, shark invokes the 10x cashout clause and denies winnings.


Obviously, C is by far the best choice for Shark if their sole goal is revenue. But I'm not sure I'd want to gamble somewhere that was angling for C.


phynqster, I like your posts. I thought Virtual was A-OK while you were there (and went to hell shortly after you left) So please convince me that Shark wasn't angling for scenario C all along. Explain to me why scenario B is bad for your casino.

 

[Marco85]

your english is much better then mine

thanks bpb
you said excatly what I was trying to say all along, but you said it much better then I did.
I am happy that this thread become like that, cause I see most of the people agree with me (even thou there is no contest on air).
Steve, I see you have good reputation here, and I want to tell you that it is not a shame to say you made a mistake.

in addition to what bpb said, I would like to say this is really not good business to a casino to be so harsh with his players.
cause it is really as wait some time to get the all amount and then make those winnings.
it is just to look at the small print, and try to look for way to avoid pay.
just be fair, and pay...
Marco

 

[henryVIII]

People deposit cash into real casinos also. Not through processing companies that take % of the funds, and put holds on the money. Real casinos do not have charge backs either. I am not saying it is right for casinos to pay in installments, I am just saying that on line casinos are not real casinos.

Erm ...

... don't 'real' casinos pay for top whack premises, provide freebies for clients, pay huge licencing fees, hire 'professional' and dedicated staff, pay CASH IMMEDIATELY (I have never heard of a B&M casino saying come back once a week for the next twelve months to get your winnings), etc etc.

Whereas, online casinos have no licence worth mentioning, hire largely mcdonalds level staff, get interest on all deposits, get interest on all delayed payments, use T & Cs to trick customers, etc etc

Bottom line ... if this was a land casino the guy would have had the cash in his hand in minutes and could play, leave, whatever. He could even blow you a raspberry ... what does he care, the deal is finished.

Shark casino should be in a fairground between 'spot the ace' cardsharps and the 'hook a duck for 1" stalls.

 

[cipher]

Whereas, online casinos have no licence worth mentioning, hire largely mcdonalds level staff, get interest on all deposits, get interest on all delayed payments, use T & Cs to trick customers, etc etc

I'm really having a tough time understanding where the hell you're coming from on this one. First off you're sadly and totally misnformed as to each and every assumption you've posted here.

At the very least, learn to READ and UNDERSTAND the terms and conditions when you sign up at a casino. More importantly learn to live by those terms and conditions that you had to have accepted when you signed up or you would not have been allowed to play their in the first place.

Phynqster has gone out of his way to treat you fairly in this regard. More fairly in fact than any other RTG licensee out there with the possible exception of BoDog.

Have a good one.

 

[chuchu59]

Someone help me here

Player X deposits $1000, gets a $1000 sticky match, 10x max cashout
Player X runs his $1000 up to $15,000
Player X withdraws
Casino Removes $5000, leaving a $10,000, as per the terms
Casino initiates $2500 withdrawal, leaving $7,500 in the account, as they only pay $2,500 a week
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything is kosher up to this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the player can either

A) Wait a month for the remaining $7,500 to be withdrawn, and stop playing at the casino alltogether until that withdrawal is processed. Instead, the player will get his gambling fix from one of this casino's competitors.

B) Continue wagering with the $7,500. This money is "his", though it will take a month to get it. The player is using "his" money to make negative expectation wagers in the casino, resulting in a positive expectation for the casino. No bonuses are involved here, the player is just wagering straight up with "his" money. (Note that the excess balance above 10x the deposit amount has already been removed)


Here' s the question I need help with.

From what I understand in this thread, Shark would rather have the player do A (wait), rather than B (gamble). This doesn't seem to be right if the casino is in the business of making money.

Unless of course what Shark hopes will happen is

C) The player gambles with his remaining money, assuming that since his excess balance was removed and the first cashout processed, the remaining money is "his" and the 10x max cashout no longer applies, since there is no bonus money associated with his current balance. If the player loses money, shark doesn't say a word. If the player wins money, shark invokes the 10x cashout clause and denies winnings.


Obviously, C is by far the best choice for Shark if their sole goal is revenue. But I'm not sure I'd want to gamble somewhere that was angling for C.


phynqster, I like your posts. I thought Virtual was A-OK while you were there (and went to hell shortly after you left) So please convince me that Shark wasn't angling for scenario C all along. Explain to me why scenario B is bad for your casino.

Scenario C simply assumes that the remaining $7500 is not being held by the max payout which may or may not be correct since there is nothing in the Ts and Cs on this. What the player should have done is to play safe, contact the casino and ask whether the $7500 can be played without the restrictions. Obviously you can blame the casino for not being flexible enough but as this is not such a clearcut situation many casinos would probably do the same as this would be placed to their advantage. Actually, the $7500 is part and parcel of the $10000 withdrawal and it would be hard to fault the casino.

 

[bpb]

I'm sorry, I don't understand how it's hard to fault the casino. Could you please elaborate?

 

[henryVIII]

I'm really having a tough time understanding where the hell you're coming from on this one. First off you're sadly and totally misnformed as to each and every assumption you've posted here.

At the very least, learn to READ and UNDERSTAND the terms and conditions when you sign up at a casino. More importantly learn to live by those terms and conditions that you had to have accepted when you signed up or you would not have been allowed to play their in the first place.

Phynqster has gone out of his way to treat you fairly in this regard. More fairly in fact than any other RTG licensee out there with the possible exception of BoDog.

Have a good one.

Sorry, cypher, Im not meaning to laught at you personally or anything but ...

.. you know how you are telling me read things and pay attention before complaining and that my case has in fact been treated fairly.

Well, guess what?

I have no case. I am not the poster with the problem. Never played sharkcasino and never will.

So, how exactly has physter gone out of his way to treat me fairly??

If you read the thread again you all will become clearer for you I hope because, to quote yourself, "I'm really having a tough time understanding where the hell you're coming from on this one"

You have a good one too.

 

[chuchu59]

I'm sorry, I don't understand how it's hard to fault the casino. Could you please elaborate?

The $10000 was won with a bonus and the player initiated a withdrawal. He is to be paid in instalments of $2500 and the first instalment goes through. The remaining $7500 is still part of the original $10000 and unless the casino agrees otherwise this is still bound by the cap of $10000 regardless of whether you continue playing or not. The whole process is only completed when the whole amount of $10000 is processed. Yes, it is inflexible and actually detrimental to the casino as your scenarios have shown but you cannot regard them as fresh deposits that are not restricted to the earlier maximum cashout.

 

[cipher]

Sorry, cypher, Im not meaning to laught at you personally or anything but ...

.. you know how you are telling me read things and pay attention before complaining and that my case has in fact been treated fairly.

Well, guess what?

I have no case. I am not the poster with the problem. Never played sharkcasino and never will.

So, how exactly has physter gone out of his way to treat me fairly??

If you read the thread again you all will become clearer for you I hope because, to quote yourself, "I'm really having a tough time understanding where the hell you're coming from on this one"

You have a good one too.

The list of assumptions were in fact posted by YOU. Each and everyone of those assumptions posted by YOU are without any basis in fact. Phynqster has gone much further for this player than any other RTG licensee would have gone with the possible exception of BoDog and that's a fact.

Have a good one.

 

[Marco85]

what are you talking about??!!

The list of assumptions were in fact posted by YOU. Each and everyone of those assumptions posted by YOU are without any basis in fact. Phynqster has gone much further for this player than any other RTG licensee would have gone with the possible exception of BoDog and that's a fact.

Have a good one.

the only fact I know - I won 3000$, and Phynqster - Steve - Shark doesn't want to give it to me, where is this "gone much with me" you are talking about. all the other issues was not any issues at all.
I dont see any going towards me at all!!
unless you know otherwise...

farther more, what do I care about other RTG or about Bodog (which I did not played at), THIS is the place I played, and THIS casino do not try to flexible in any way!!
Marco

 

[henryVIII]

the only fact I know - I won 3000$, and Phynqster - Steve - Shark doesn't want to give it to me, where is this "gone much with me" you are talking about. all the other issues was not any issues at all.
I dont see any going towards me at all!!
unless you know otherwise...

farther more, what do I care about other RTG or about Bodog (which I did not played at), THIS is the place I played, and THIS casino do not try to flexible in any way!!
Marco

I wouldnt worry about old cypher there. He's got all confused.

 

[phynqster]

Chuchu,
Sorry that my answer sounds like a quote of yours but I wrote this yesterday, but it failed to post. So here were my thoughts.
Bpb,
Loved your post, and yes "B" would be the ideal situation, but remember again that would be fine if a player is only playing their cash against the casinos, where there are no bonuses or Comp points that a player is getting to lover the negative expectation. Know had the player asked the casino to reverse the pending withdrawal or wanted to make another deposit and wanted to take no bonus, than we would have worked with the player and probably would have let the player play with those terms, but that was not the case, the player made the decision on his own with out getting conformation that what he was doing would be deemed right or wrong.

 

[bpb]

But once the player initiated the first withdrawal, the sticky bonus and any excess balance above the 10x were removed from his account. Therefore, everything left is his money. The player can no longer gain any theoretical edge from the bonus because that bonus is gone. Every wager he makes from that point on is making the casino theoretical money. You want him to make wagers with that money, you don't want him to wait for his withdrawals.

The player could not exploit the situation to his advantage. He couldn't possibly make any wagers that have a positive expectation. The player has no upside to continue wagering (yeah, he might win, but so what ... it's a long-term losing play. I assume that your casino is in it for the long term.

Your post hasn't convinced me. Why does the casino need to lay the Scenario C trap, when the player can't possibly extract an advantage from Scenario B. The bonus is gone, it's not part of the equation anymore. The player can just wait it out for his withdrawals at Shark, and go piss money away to one of your competitors. Instead, the player wanted to piss away more money to you (again ... theoretical cash pissage). Why punish him for making -EV decisions?

If there was any possibility of the player extracting a theoretical advantage by continuing to wager, then I woud totally agree with you that you would need to void his winnings. However, there was no possible theoretical gain. You seem to be punishing the player for the audacity of wagering his money without asking for your permission. (and I can't help but stress this over and over again. Despite the fact that the player claimed a bonus, once you've removed the bonus and excess balance, and allow the player to withdraw 100% of what's left (albeit slowly), that money should be considered his, just as surely as if he'd deposited it without a bonus)

 

[phynqster]

Not a theoretical edge, but a psycological one. "I have all ready won, I am playing with the casinos money at this point, I can lose a little or go for the brass ring and increase bets from what i normally bet to a higher status". That is why the deposit he made had a CAP on it. He never made another deposit.

 

[henryVIII]

Not a theoretical edge, but a psycological one. "I have all ready won, I am playing with the casinos money at this point, I can lose a little or go for the brass ring and increase bets from what i normally bet to a higher status". That is why the deposit he made had a CAP on it. He never made another deposit.

That has got to be possibly the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

The casino needs to stiff players to protect itself from them having a percieved psychological edge.

Jeez ...

The reasons why any casino doesnt pay in one go :

1. They dont have enough money to and/or
2. To make interest on the delayed payments and/or
3. While the casino holds the money they can trick the player out of it (as in shark casinos case) and/or
4. Encourage/Hope for the player to gamble it away

If a casino can't pay the winning then dont take the bet.

This casino is a complete joke ... psychological advantage ... ha ha
ha

 

[bpb]

Not a theoretical edge, but a psycological one. "I have all ready won, I am playing with the casinos money at this point, I can lose a little or go for the brass ring and increase bets from what i normally bet to a higher status". That is why the deposit he made had a CAP on it. He never made another deposit.

Don't you want that to happen?!?!?!!??!?!/!??!?!?!??!?!?! I'm baffled by your comment.

The deposit he made had a CAP on it because he claimed a bonus. He is not just wagering with his money, he is wagering with a combination of his money and the casinos money. The player can extract a theoretical advantage based on the way he plays. You put a cap in place as a condition of accepting the casinos money. But one you've removed the bonus, all that's left is his money, and the CAP should be removed as well. The money in his account after the first withdrawal is processed belongs 100% to the player. This is proven by the fact that you'll happily let the player withdraw all of it with no further play (albeit, in weekly installments) There is no casino money left in it, the player has met all requirements.

Whenever a player says to himself "It's not my money, it's the casinos money" and is talking about money that has no wagering requirements attached to it, money that he can withdraw free and clear, you should be doing the dance of joy and uncorking champagne. Every wager the player makes is MAKING YOU MONEY. Does your casino hate money?

 

[phynqster]

Henry,
If you got of your high horse and joined the real world you would understand better, but I see you are one of those people who believes that the player is always right and the casino is the enemy. It is sad that there are still a few of your type out there that do ruin it for everyone else. Please explain to me what on line casino you gave CASH to? Please tell me which of your credit cards you use? Or do you pay off balances the DAY you charge?Tell me what bussiness you are in that they give away money and are not in it for a profit?
For as many players That I have hoped would gamble it away, there is equally the same that I have encouraged to cash out or stop playing. Until this post I always respond to you without attacking you, but when you post like that, than you are the joke.
So know go ahead and comment how the big bad casino called me a name and that was not nice, because we are players and we are always right, and casinos have no right to be in a players forum. The problem is Henry most intelligent players want to be informed and know it is a two way street.

 

[bpb]

I'd like to distill my long winded arguments to a few brief points.

If I was a player who claimed a bonus with a cap, met the requirements, received a withdrawal, and had to wait a few weeks to get the remainder, my line of thinking would go thusly

1) Casinos like to make money
2) The casino will make money in the long term if I gamble with my remaining balance rather than wait for a withdrawal
3) Therefore, it's ok for me to gamble with my remaining balance

Shark doesn't agree with this line of thinking. Is it because

A) Shark doesn't like to make money
B) There is a way for the player to make positive expectation wagers on his balance.
c) Shark wants the player to gamble with his balance so they can freeroll off of him. If he wins, deny the winnings. If he loses, keep quiet and pay what's left (if anything)
D) ??????????????????????????//

I am 100% sure that A and B are false. I really want to believe that C isn't the case here. So can someone, anyone, please provide me with an answer D that makes sense?

 

[henryVIII]

Henry,
If you got of your high horse and joined the real world you would understand better, but I see you are one of those people who believes that the player is always right and the casino is the enemy. It is sad that there are still a few of your type out there that do ruin it for everyone else. Please explain to me what on line casino you gave CASH to? Please tell me which of your credit cards you use? Or do you pay off balances the DAY you charge?Tell me what bussiness you are in that they give away money and are not in it for a profit?
For as many players That I have hoped would gamble it away, there is equally the same that I have encouraged to cash out or stop playing. Until this post I always respond to you without attacking you, but when you post like that, than you are the joke.
So know go ahead and comment how the big bad casino called me a name and that was not nice, because we are players and we are always right, and casinos have no right to be in a players forum. The problem is Henry most intelligent players want to be informed and know it is a two way street.

To be honest (if you know that word), you can cheerfully call me all the names under the sun.

I dont care. You steal players money.

Cash ... via the internet ... well, I use moneybookers/neteller so thats the equivalent Id guess. Never used a credit card in my life (I dont have one).

So rearrange these words ...

Facts Right Get

Or rearrange these ones

Crook You Are.

But sure call me names and babble on about psychological Players Edge if you think it will deflect away from the truth.

You should spend less time on forums and more time paying your customers their money.

 

[henryVIII]

I'd like to distill my long winded arguments to a few brief points.

If I was a player who claimed a bonus with a cap, met the requirements, received a withdrawal, and had to wait a few weeks to get the remainder, my line of thinking would go thusly

1) Casinos like to make money
2) The casino will make money in the long term if I gamble with my remaining balance rather than wait for a withdrawal
3) Therefore, it's ok for me to gamble with my remaining balance

Shark doesn't agree with this line of thinking. Is it because

A) Shark doesn't like to make money
B) There is a way for the player to make positive expectation wagers on his balance.
c) Shark wants the player to gamble with his balance so they can freeroll off of him. If he wins, deny the winnings. If he loses, keep quiet and pay what's left (if anything)
D) ??????????????????????????//

I am 100% sure that A and B are false. I really want to believe that C isn't the case here. So can someone, anyone, please provide me with an answer D that makes sense?

Arent you forgetting something?

The players psychological Edge of course !!!!

Seriuosly, there is no other answer than C.

You know that.

I know that.

Shark Casino knows that.

"Shark wants the player to gamble with his balance so they can freeroll off of him. If he wins, deny the winnings. If he loses, keep quiet and pay what's left (if anything)"

 

[bpb]

I'm still hopeful that Shark got a little caught up in their own bonus terms, and has drawn the mistaken conclusion that they need to protect themselves by restricting play while a player is waiting on cashouts. When they think it through, I think they'll see that they should be encouraging players to play with any balance once all sticky bonuses and excess balance due to caps have been removed.

I've always considered shark to be one of the top tier RTGs, behind inetbet, bodog, vip and canbet, but ahead of the rest of the pack. I think they made a mistake here while trying to protect themselves from advantage players using bonuses. I hope they'll be able to see this, and correct the problem by paying this player his winnings.

 

[Marco85]

I made the bet/offer to him after he suggested that he will continue to pitch his complaints to everyone he could even after I would send him the 2500. That is why the 2500 was not sent, I was waiting for his reply, which came Wednesday, and he will be paid today.

first I would like to thanks all of you that helping me in this case.
I just want to tell you that I did not get the 2500$ mention above, 3 days after he told you (and me) in this thread, that I will get paid...

I was honest to tell him that I will still do whatever I need to gain my fair winnings, is this a reason to hold my money, only because you hold it???

any advise on this one?
Marco

 

[chuchu59]

Phyngster,

Just pay this player the $2500 and get this thing finished. Meanwhile bpb has a valid point which you may consider in future when there are some outstanding instalments pending. Maybe you could state in your Terms and Conditions that if players wish to reverse the instalments that are not paid yet, they should contact the casino for removing the cap ie max cashout limit. This benefits both the casino and the players alike.

 

[phynqster]

Brilliant words of wisdom ChuChu, I will look into that. I like the way you said it, as I said before it needs to be the casinos decesion at that point not the players on his own.
The player was paid today, I do apologize for the delay. I screwed up I approved his payment Friday, I did not realize we do not send out payments here everyday. I thought we sent everyday, but found out we do not send everyday and there are certain days only we send. Again my apologies to Marco for saying you were paid Friday.It is in your Neteller account now.

 

[bpb]

Chuchu's words are brilliant, but my posts merit no response? (beyond the psychological advantage one which makes no sense)

Do you really believe that the player doesn't deserve his additional $3,000+ of winnings?

 

[phynqster]

Bpb,
You catch my flies with honey than shit. I never said you did not have valid points. In fact I even agreed with much of what you are saying, but if I really did believe I owed it to him I would pay. In fact I was dragged into this thread because the casino had denied his 2500 withdrawal and his additional winning because he had played a banned game. I could have let it stand at that, but felt that since the player had completed wagering requirements that part did not matter, in fact I was going to pay him the additional win, till I was told that the player had a Maximum cash out. In fact the player was told that earlier when he originally won over the 10,000 he was told that those funds would be removed when he decided to cash out that the maximum we would send him without another deposit was 10,000. The player decided to play the additional money, the casino never encouraged play or wanted him to play.Had he lost the money hell yes I would be happy, so in fact it was a lose lose situation for the player, which is unfortunate, but he made the decesion. He understood the rules to deposit and win 10,000 with out questioning them, why did he not call to question this.

 

[Marco85]

let try to find a way of solve this story

Bpb,
You catch my flies with honey than shit. I never said you did not have valid points. In fact I even agreed with much of what you are saying, but if I really did believe I owed it to him I would pay. In fact I was dragged into this thread because the casino had denied his 2500 withdrawal and his additional winning because he had played a banned game. I could have let it stand at that, but felt that since the player had completed wagering requirements that part did not matter, in fact I was going to pay him the additional win, till I was told that the player had a Maximum cash out. In fact the player was told that earlier when he originally won over the 10,000 he was told that those funds would be removed when he decided to cash out that the maximum we would send him without another deposit was 10,000. The player decided to play the additional money, the casino never encouraged play or wanted him to play.Had he lost the money hell yes I would be happy, so in fact it was a lose lose situation for the player, which is unfortunate, but he made the decesion. He understood the rules to deposit and win 10,000 with out questioning them, why did he not call to question this.

first, I got the 2500$, thanks phynqster.

I would like comment on this post, lately I let bpb do my work, and he did it very good.

I said before that I am sure that if I would ask to casino to play with the remaining 2500$, you would probably agreed, like you said.
but I did not, the reason is that 3 months after got the bonus, I really do not remeber what did I get, what terms there are, and even if I did get a bonus.
all I know is that there is 2500$ in my account, which if I would cash it out, I will get it in a month or so, but I will.
so, I considered it as 1000% my money.
phynqster, believe me, no psychological advantage valid when I play on my money...
all I want is to make some fun with my money, and theoretical edge for you for let me play in your place.
all done very innocent, and I did not try to make advatnage on you in any way.

from the start, I was very fair to you, I update you in every move I made, I told you I will post this, and I did. I have a respect to you and your job in the casino.
I can say that you were polite to me too, but bottom line, not so fair.

as you said to bpb, there is a point in what I said (he said on my behalf ), and no harm done to the casino, I did not try to make advantage on it.
all I did was played with my money. but you keeping hold to your position, that I need to pay for my mistakes.

so, I have a deal to offer you, and I think it is a good one, that all will be happy with it.

maybe I made a mistake by not remember the very small print and did not ask your premission to play, maybe you hanging on a big tree without trying to getting towards the player (me). as you said to bpb, if B is the correct answer, then you can see that getting towards players will only benefits the casino in the long run.

I offer to give up on half of the winnings - 1500$, and get only half of it.
I think my small mistake is not worth 3000$.
you will give me only half of my winnings, and will call it even.
I will stop dealing with this after that. (this is what I am doing all day, and it is really bother me).

please let me know what do you think about my offer.

Marco

 

[bpb]

It's pretty clear that Shark is a casino only suitable for bonus whores, who are adept at avoiding traps like the one laid out here. It's also clear that the majority of users on this board are of the opinion that the casino is always right whenever a dispute involving bonuses arises, as evidenced by the startling lack of support for marco. I can't fathom why anyone would think that bonus restrictions still apply once bonuses have been removed from an account and withdrawals have been made. It goes against all reason and common sense, looking at it from the perspective of either the player OR the casino.

It's clear that shark is setting up players to freeroll off of them.

 

[bpb]

please let me know what do you think about my offer.

Marco

You aren't getting anything. You got fleeced, accept it and move on. Nobody with any pull is willing to help you.

You want my advice, go make some credit card deposits somewhere, and if you lose, do a chargeback. This will put the casino in a lose lose situation. Most people in this thread shouldn't have a problem with that. The casino should have read their merchant agreement with their credit card company, which clearly states that funds deposited aren't guaranteed.

 

[henryVIII]

You aren't getting anything. You got fleeced, accept it and move on. Nobody with any pull is willing to help you.

You want my advice, go make some credit card deposits somewhere, and if you lose, do a chargeback. This will put the casino in a lose lose situation. Most people in this thread shouldn't have a problem with that. The casino should have read their merchant agreement with their credit card company, which clearly states that funds deposited aren't guaranteed.

A quite brilliant analogy.

Exactly what would be the difference ... both are profiteering under the pretext of taking gamble.

As to the lack of support ... well, and its only my opinion, but I think this forum should be called the affiliate zone sometimes.

I would reckon the great majority of posters here are linked to casinos through affiliate schemes.

That makes it a bit like trying to argue environmental issues with a forum a petroleum reps. Who dont identify themselves as such.

It can lead you to scratch your head sometimes.

Personally, I think all affiliates should identify themselves as such. Just as a petroleum rep is still perfectly entitled to have and state an opinion on, say, the greenhouse effect but they are clearly not 100% independent bystanders.

 

[chuchu59]

You aren't getting anything. You got fleeced, accept it and move on. Nobody with any pull is willing to help you.

You want my advice, go make some credit card deposits somewhere, and if you lose, do a chargeback. This will put the casino in a lose lose situation. Most people in this thread shouldn't have a problem with that. The casino should have read their merchant agreement with their credit card company, which clearly states that funds deposited aren't guaranteed.

Great advice. In the long run, Marco 85 will benefit because he will be banned as a fraudster and he wont lose anymore at online casinos. The player, maybe unknowingly, placed himself into a lose-lose situation. Had he been more wary, this would not have happened. We must all be vigilant when playing at online casinos. We want to win and they want us to lose so if there is anything that places the casino in an advantageous position, they will use it.

HenryVIII,
In case you are wondering, I can tell you that at least I am not an affiliate, just a pathological gambler who likes to gamble on almost anything from horse racing to mahjong. Most affiliates like dominique and webscaz are reliable and will not simply defend the casinos' position but I also agree that affiliates should identify themselves as such controversial; issues arise.

 

[henryVIII]

Great advice. In the long run, Marco 85 will benefit because he will be banned as a fraudster and he wont lose anymore at online casinos. The player, maybe unknowingly, placed himself into a lose-lose situation. Had he been more wary, this would not have happened. We must all be vigilant when playing at online casinos. We want to win and they want us to lose so if there is anything that places the casino in an advantageous position, they will use it.

HenryVIII,
In case you are wondering, I can tell you that at least I am not an affiliate, just a pathological gambler who likes to gamble on almost anything from horse racing to mahjong. Most affiliates like dominique and webscaz are reliable and will not simply defend the casinos' position but I also agree that affiliates should identify themselves as such controversial; issues arise.

Its funny chuchu because sometimes I am totally agreeing with you and other times I am bewildered.

You know what you talk about and I totally believe you are sincere ... but issues like this I honestly cannot understand how anyone can think the casino isnt anything but shady.

Put it this way. You go into a pub to meet a friend and tell him about online gambling. Now, you can sense his scepticism ... "yeah, whats the catch?" etc etc. You know this conversation, we've all had it. That is, all online casinos are rip-offs.

Cant you see its places like Shark Casino that are the catch?

If this isnt a confidence trick then how would you define one??

Would intercasino, 32red, 888, etc do this?

Of course not.

Thats why shark casino are a scam in my book.

And, very genuinely, as much as i respect your integrity, I cannot for the life of me see any other conclusion.

Would you go onto, say, even judge judy (never mind a real court) and try and defend this action as anything other than illegally unfair to "the plaintiff".

Its just ridiculous!

 

[henryVIII]

oooh ... again... more bad rep from tennis balls ... quote "worst post ever" ...

Are you an affiliate tennis balls?

Thought so.

 

[chuchu59]

HenryVIII,

There is a difference between casinos like 32RED/Intercasino and Shark. The former bends backwards to accomodate reasonable requests because they have a reputation to defend and they also have the financial clout to do so. Shark, I believe, falls into the middle range where they will PAY if everything is done according to their terms and conditions but if anything goes astray, the player will not be given the benefit of the doubt simply because the power of the dollar is more important than reputation or anything else. You might take a cue from their instalment payments. If they had plenty of money in the kitty why would they pay $10,000 in instalments. The line they take may be deplorable at times but certainly understandable and is necessary to allow them to stay afloat. Look no further than Club Player for a bottom range candidate where they dont even have a reason for not paying. As for your reference to judge judy, the plaintiff will need to prove that there is, under the law of contract, an offer by the player to reverse some of his money for play without being bound by the $10000 max and the casino accepted it. The 'consideration' is the $2500 and there are no qualms about that. The burden of proof will be on the player and I honestly believe that if contested in court the player will lose because it is only his unilateral thinking that his reversal is not bound by the original terms of the bonus and where the withdrawal has not been fully cashed.

Nice to debate with you. Sometimes its rather good to agree to diasagree. I like to tackle all issues without branding myself with either siding with the player or the casino. Its fairer and makes us all better people.

 

[Marco85]

chuchu

chuchu.
you said that shark casino is care more about the money then it rep, I don't think so, cause no casino can last long without good reputation, and this kind of treatment to players do not help their's.
about the financial aspect, other casino that pay very fast do it not just for the sake of the good rep, it is because they did their homework and know what is their balance and how much they can pay. if Shark would have done the same then they should lowers thier limits, so players cannot win too much.
putting a note in the site that they can get only 2500$ every week (and pay even slower), is not an answer to thier probelm, it is just an act to prevent them from lose a lot in a certain period, and to be able to pay by the losers money "when they can"! and this is what they did here.

the correct answer is to limit the games, why did they let players play a 500$ a hand if they know they cant stand the hit?

it is like a story I once heard about portofino player who won more then 2 Millions, cause they raise him the limits, because they just wait for him to lose, this is not how things should work... (and this is what couse portofino to close their bussines).

phynqster, I still wait for an answer to my offer, I think it is quite rude that you did not comment on it! you can tell me "NO", I wont be offend, I will just keep on doing what I doing in order to get my money.
hope to get a reply soon.

Marco

 

[tennis_balls]

oooh ... again... more bad rep from tennis balls ... quote "worst post ever" ...

Are you an affiliate tennis balls?

Thought so.

Thought wrong! I'm a player.

 

[chuchu59]

chuchu.
you said that shark casino is care more about the money then it rep, I don't think so, cause no casino can last long without good reputation, and this kind of treatment to players do not help their's.
about the financial aspect, other casino that pay very fast do it not just for the sake of the good rep, it is because they did their homework and know what is their balance and how much they can pay. if Shark would have done the same then they should lowers thier limits, so players cannot win too much.
putting a note in the site that they can get only 2500$ every week (and pay even slower), is not an answer to thier probelm, it is just an act to prevent them from lose a lot in a certain period, and to be able to pay by the losers money "when they can"! and this is what they did here.

the correct answer is to limit the games, why did they let players play a 500$ a hand if they know they cant stand the hit?

it is like a story I once heard about portofino player who won more then 2 Millions, cause they raise him the limits, because they just wait for him to lose, this is not how things should work... (and this is what couse portofino to close their bussines).

phynqster, I still wait for an answer to my offer, I think it is quite rude that you did not comment on it! you can tell me "NO", I wont be offend, I will just keep on doing what I doing in order to get my money.
hope to get a reply soon.

Marco

I hope your prediction is true and that the scums wont last long but I still see the whereabouts of 1cnp and prism. As for portofino, I think its still there but probably under new management. I cannot answer for phynqster but I seriously doubt whether he will take up your offer. Casinos will gleefully rub their hands when players reverse their withdrawals as Simmo and many members here will attest to. In your case, its even worse as you are placed in a lose-even situation where you cannot win more but may lose the $2500 back. Be careful next time.

 

[henryVIII]

Thought wrong! I'm a player.

Hmmmm ...

 

[Tester]

What is Marco's point?

Marco,

You got a bonus.
Rules state you cannot withdraw over 10,000.
You wanted to get more than the max.

Who cares what stuff crosses your mind?
A clear rule. You cannot escape it.

I do not get it how one here can think the casino is wrong about THAT?
You can advice tell the casino that he will be wisher not having this rule, but this is missing the point.

This guy got a bonus with a clear max cashout. Why the hell should he get more than that?

 

[thetic]

I would like to side with the player here.

I understand that you need to be wary of the Terms & Conditions for the bonus but;

1. Nothing for the player to gain here - he is gambling in the proper spirit of the word rather than abusing any bonus. Treat him as a valued customer/gambler and you may well gain more than the $3,000 in the long run.

2. Had Shark held up their own end of the agreement and paid the $2,500 weekly as agreed, the player could then have chosen to return with his own funds. However the casino were still holding money that should rightfully have been in the players account weeks before. If the casino does not hold up their end of the agreement I would see that the money is still rightfully the players at the date it should have been paid as per the Ts & Cs. The fact that casino has not bothered to return it should not mean anything. (Although I am not naive enough to think that they will see this to be the case)

Do not hold out much hope for you here Marco, I think it is discgraceful and will not be going anywhere near Shark (not that they will be concerned) until they get house in order.

Come on Steve, pay the man!!!

 

[Tester]

1. I agree that sometimes terms should not be used against novice who have not managed to read paragraph 7.2.D.
This player however was welll aware to the 10K max.
He choose to play against the rule, based on his own implementation of the rule.
Rules are there to be used. Everyone agrees that his winning hsould not be paid according to the rules. Who cares about his intentions?

2. The fact that the casino did not pay exactly on schedule is against the casino.
I do not think that this makes the player eligible to break the rules and get winning thereof.

 

[thetic]

I'm with you to an extent Tester but it's an awful 1-sided agreement that you have no comeback if casino does not hold up it's end but the player is liable to lose if they stray even slightly from the Ts & Cs (not necessarily saying that on this occasion it is a slight stray!)

I know we are looking at Casinos here and morals don't really come into it but I would say;

1. Player is morally right
2. Casino is legally right

Let's call it a draw and pay the man half of it (my demands have dropped by 50% in a day!) in line with his previous offer. For the sake of $1,500 could have done the casino a lot of good in terms of the publicity and the new manager would have been seen to have made a statement that he was going to clean things up. However, I am also aware that Shark probably would have had thousands of similar claims if they paid this one though!

I still think the player has been very naive, I am now avoiding most RTG (& all Costa Rican based) casinos after I had to wait 3 weeks for a $2k payment from Coolcat - but reading other stories about there, Prism and Shark I was relatively lucky to get paid this quickly!!!