Resolved Slotastic Voids $4800 Win With Spurious Invocation of Rule

My original goal was to briefly resurface each past post and PAB in an attempt to establish each one as a legitimate issue to have brought up. Given the progression of the dialogue, I am going to let go of that ambition and handle things as they come on future postings. I said there would be no more PAB and I decided my original ambition would constitute a PAB in another form directed against Casinomeister. I've now a good sense how I will calibrate future postings. As far as "continued efforts to obfuscate the real issues", if you say so. Regardless of the response, this will be my last comment.
 
Is it significant that 70% of those cases were decided against you? Yes, I'd say it was, particularly since you made a habit of abandoning your PABs while we were still working on them for you.
My original goal was to briefly resurface each past post and PAB in an attempt to establish each one as a legitimate issue to have brought up.
One of the suggestions that came up in the PAB process thread was being more "obvious" with the reason for a PAB succeeding or failing - and personally I would like to see non-compliance reasons (posting on the forums, unresponsive or abandoned etc) split out from an actual negative ruling - that is one in favour of the casino.

If someone abandons the PAB process then Max isn't able to adjudicate on the issue at hand, only that the player abandoned the process.
 
@mcd68024 , whatever your intentions the bottom line is this: no future PABs will be accepted from you and any further Forum Rules violations -- with particular attention to items 1.17 through 1.19 -- will result in your Casinomeister membership being terminated. In other words you are one strike away from being shown the door: do with that as you will but you can't say you haven't been warned.

One of the suggestions that came up in the PAB process thread was being more "obvious" with the reason for a PAB succeeding or failing - and personally I would like to see non-compliance reasons (posting on the forums, unresponsive or abandoned etc) split out from an actual negative ruling - that is one in favour of the casino.

If someone abandons the PAB process then Max isn't able to adjudicate on the issue at hand, only that the player abandoned the process.
Excellent point. I've never thought of it that way because I've always seen it as "was the player successful?" vs "in whose favour was the case decided?" In truth though we do differentiate the different types of Closed cases -- "OP AWOL", "Ignored the Rules", etc -- behind the scenes because that info is important to the ongoing management of the PAB process.

As we proceed with the PAB revamp I'll make sure we look at possibly changing the Resolved / Closed binary to something like Casino / Player / Botched or something of that nature. @jasonuk , is that the sort of thing you were suggesting? Just want to be sure I've understood this correctly.

- Max
 
Deposited $150 and redeemed slot coupon. Met rollover, got to ~$4800 and requested payout. Slotastic claimed I violated their max bet rule and reset my balance to $150. They claimed 3 of my ~3500 bets were over the $10 limit. All my other bets were $5 or less.

Do not remember making any bets over $5, but it is possible I made a few by accident. Many games, when you reopen or refresh it, reset the bet to maximum which you may not notice immediately. However, if I had to guess, I toggled from a second browser back to my slot game and, in doing so, accidentally clipped a pay-line marker. If you do this, it activates every pay-line up to that pay-line which could give you 3 consecutive $11+ spins without noticing.

Their rule is worded, "The maximum bet for all bonuses (including cashback) must not exceed $10. Any winnings, plus bonus amounts derived from bets higher than this limit will be voided". All 3 of my over-limit bets were losers and thus I "derived" no winnings from them. I told them I was, from the beginning, aware of their terms and conditions and of the max bet rule. I had played all previous coupons according to them. I mentioned the ways that higher bets could happen by accident. I told them, "The second sentence of your rule implies that the repercussion for violating a max bet of $10 is that it voids all wins on such bets as well as all wins which can be concluded to have been "derived" from bets made from the money won on those bets. The fact that the second sentence of your rule is clearly designed to clarify the first sentence, implies that just having a bet on principle above $10 does not void your entire balance above the original deposit."

I suggested that they should be happy enough that I gifted them 3 automatic losers by accident. Their response was "Whether or not winnings were had from the specific bet, if bets above $10 are made when a coupon is active, the winnings are voided." They then chastised my "playing style", i.e., the 3 accidental bets, reiterated numerous times that I be familiar with the terms and conditions, and invited me to play their hottest slots.

When I escalated a ticket here at casinomeister. Slotastic simply echoed their position. Despite my admonishments, Slotastic has shown no interest in updating the wording of their rule to reflect how they actually act on it. Doing so could eliminate any ambiguity. Any ambiguity should benefit the party that didn't write the rules. Rules like a $10 max bet are designed to protect casinos from people who want to collect bonuses while minimizing the action they give back. They are not meant to be an arbitrary way to say "gotcha". I don't care what anyone says. Slotastic is not justified here karmatically or by the wording of their rules.
Been there with £2500 win from £20 depo I hit spacebar to do my spins and this 1 game pressing spacebar makes it do max bet of £40 i didnt win nothing from it.
I never got paid
 
Been there with £2500 win from £20 depo I hit spacebar to do my spins and this 1 game pressing spacebar makes it do max bet of £40 i didnt win nothing from it.
I never got paid
Swear to god, just as a matter of principal, I would buy a one way plane ticket to the nearest airport to visit these good buisness mans. And I would probably never be able to come back home. Finding Nemo :)
 
Swear to god, just as a matter of principal, I would buy a one way plane ticket to the nearest airport to visit these good buisness mans. And I would probably never be able to come back home. Finding Nemo :)

Honestly they are bastards,
 
Let's hide some mines in their garden so we can confiscate their vedgetables and accuse them of knowing how an explosion works.
Sorry our decision is final. Our hands are tied dear friends. No more tomatoes.
 
As we proceed with the PAB revamp I'll make sure we look at possibly changing the Resolved / Closed binary to something like Casino / Player / Botched or something of that nature. @jasonuk , is that the sort of thing you were suggesting? Just want to be sure I've understood this correctly.

- Max
Pretty much - Casino / Player / No Ruling seems the obvious split.

Perhaps No Ruling could be split slightly further into say Withdrawn (by player, e.g. inactivity, posting when they shouldn't), No Can Do (e.g. already gone to ADR) and possibly Unresponsive Casino (because that is important to know, even if you can't rule in favour of the player).
 
Great entertaining in this thread. honest.

keeping the balance in the account on principle + logging in occasionally to avoid balance removal. I'm sure our guy has read there terms diligently and he knows the timeframe + is login enough? etc lol.

I'm here to protest those denigrating our OP for "not contributing". he gave me a very hearty laugh.

to the OP. I feel your pain. alas, most of us aren't as principled about keeping big companies honest. we accept what we are given and go watch TV
 
I'm here to protest those denigrating our OP for "not contributing". he gave me a very hearty laugh.
You might have missed the age of the thread - those observations are from six months prior, where you can see their forum history (across 16 years) was almost exclusively to "brigade" complaints across multiple forums as some kind of attempted leverage. Admittedly their comedy act of recent weeks may have brought a smile to some, albeit more in the city of delusion than the land of reality.

to the OP. I feel your pain. alas, most of us aren't as principled about keeping big companies honest. we accept what we are given and go watch TV
They broke the terms, there is no ambiguity there. The casino offered half because they realised they'd not made the phrasing watertight and felt that was a reasonable settlement... the only way the player gets all of the money is a) they didn't break the terms or b) they can prove beyond reasonable doubt their interpretation of the rule is correct - neither of which is likely.

That nothing has changed in the past six months kind of confirms that...
 
For some reasons casinos aren't anymore fun. Their % of the revenue is a lot from denyeing player wins. We are in 2023 and all casino's ot there apart from a few don't want to implement the restrictions over player bets when he is playng with a bonus. They know some games , in example when you load them have the max bet automated selected and by pressing space even by mistake can trigger the round.
In a realistic scenario , what are the odds that a player who won like 5 k non breaking the rules , then he go and break them knowing that the casino will confiscate the money? We all know the answer.
The casinos always will say "terms and conditions" wich makes me directly go and flush the toilet. T&C are invocating always on confiscating, but when they stall winnings,delays and "accidentally" cancel windrawls there are no "T&C".
And remember that only a few will come here and complain, but the reality will show that actually the casino operators are the ones who break their own "T&C" much frequently then the players
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top