Bogus Complaint Slotsoasis voids winnings - I played the wrong game

Status
Not open for further replies.

big_mac

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Location
uk
I'm not disagreeing with this result - but why do so many (as in most!) casinos have contradictory and confusing terms and conditions?

If the term 'winnings .... will be removed at the time of a cash-out request. ' actually has no effect at all, because you will always use the other term 'Wagering on restricted games may void all winnings won on this promotion' then why have it in the terms at all?

Any why say 'may void' when you actually mean 'will void'?

All it is doing is confusing people and making the terms harder to read and understand. (although that possibly answers the question...).
 

Louise

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Location
Right here
I'm not disagreeing with this result - but why do so many (as in most!) casinos have contradictory and confusing terms and conditions?

If the term 'winnings .... will be removed at the time of a cash-out request. ' actually has no effect at all, because you will always use the other term 'Wagering on restricted games may void all winnings won on this promotion' then why have it in the terms at all?

Any why say 'may void' when you actually mean 'will void'?

All it is doing is confusing people and making the terms harder to read and understand. (although that possibly answers the question...).

Thanks for your comments.

With 2 years experience working in this field, I would say that it's possible for so many different things to happen with a players account, that this would be a reason as to why it's worded suchlike. In the end, the warning is there for the player to see and read, so they would be silly to read that condition and still think 'I'll try my luck'!

Regards,

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.
 

spearmaster

RIP Ted
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Location
Heaven
The player made a bet of $125 on the '0' and won $9000 from that one single game of roulette. He had no other winnings on other games.

That must be wrong. A bet of $125 on "0" would pay $125x35=$4375, plus his original stake of $125, making the total $4500.

As it is, the OP has stated that the bet was $250.

In any case, I do not believe that the player has a legitimate claim - but I do think you should be more careful with your data before posting it :)
 

Louise

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Location
Right here
That must be wrong. A bet of $125 on "0" would pay $125x35=$4375, plus his original stake of $125, making the total $4500.

As it is, the OP has stated that the bet was $250.

In any case, I do not believe that the player has a legitimate claim - but I do think you should be more careful with your data before posting it :)

This is what I see on the admin here:

# of bets: 1 - Total bet: $250 - Result: 0 - Total Payout: $9000 - Table: European

Regards,

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.
 

big_mac

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Location
uk
With 2 years experience working in this field, I would say that it's possible for so many different things to happen with a players account, that this would be a reason as to why it's worded suchlike.
of course it's possible that anything could happen -that isn't a reason to be unclear about the extent of your terms. You can always choose to be more generous than your terms say.

There is also another term, this one is highlighted on the conditions page.
Only bets placed on slots, keno and scratch cards will count towards the wagering requirements of the bonus.

So, there are three terms, saying either the wagering won't count, the winnings will be removed at cash-out, or all winnings will be void.

I believe that this 'warning' is unnecessarily difficult to read and understand.

But I should add that these are certainly not the worst I have seen lately, and thanks for replying!
 

Louise

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Location
Right here
You are most welcome, and thanks for your comments and input :)

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.
 

Jasminebed

Game old gal
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Location
Ontario
Louise, that Slotsoasis is giving the player an opportunity to have another go at the bonus is more than fair.

Uungy, you have nothing to lose by taking them up on their offer. If it was indeed a genuine misunderstanding of the terms, you understand them now. Perhaps the slot gods will smile again.

Your only other recourse would be legal, and I'm no lawyer, but I would not expect you to prevail.
 

big_mac

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Location
uk
I think that the legal position may not be as obvious as you might think.

Under English law, if there is doubt about the meaning of terms and conditions then you must use whichever interpretation is 'most favourable to the consumer'. I would have thought that three different conditions saying different things would easily constitute doubt.

I have also seen information, from the court service, that consumers can sue European companies in their local court, without having to transfer it to the overseas court. There is also a 'European Order for Payment' which assists in enforcing payments.

This is just general uk consumer law, I don't know how things may be different for gambling.
For that amount of money, I imagine that it would be worth looking into.
 

jas2587

Ueber Meister
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Location
FL
I think that the legal position may not be as obvious as you might think.

Under English law, if there is doubt about the meaning of terms and conditions then you must use whichever interpretation is 'most favourable to the consumer'. I would have thought that three different conditions saying different things would easily constitute doubt.

I have also seen information, from the court service, that consumers can sue European companies in their local court, without having to transfer it to the overseas court. There is also a 'European Order for Payment' which assists in enforcing payments.

This is just general uk consumer law, I don't know how things may be different for gambling.
For that amount of money, I imagine that it would be worth looking into.

possibly but he knows he played a game that was disallowed an he is acting all innocent like he got off the turnip truck yesterday

Uungy has made many great post here at Casinomeister but I am afraid this is his worse attempt

he isnt fooling Louise nor the casino nor the majority of the members that know Uungy from posting before this it just isnt washing

sad to say it would have been a Hell of a cashout for sure

If I had hit 9K on roulette I would have went crazy on the slots

Cindy:rolleyes:
 

big_mac

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Location
uk
possibly but he knows he played a game that was disallowed
He said that he didn't know when he played it. I am prepared to believe that.

I believe that he is experienced enough to not deliberately break the rules, knowing the likely outcome. I would guess that the tactic is aimed to get value out of bonuses, this can easily be done without playing roulette (e.g. doubling-up on blackjack), just not quite as quickly. As many places don't allow roulette, I'm sure that he has been in that situation before and would have had little trouble avoiding roulette.

I do think that he would have more chance of convincing a judge than anybody around here!
 

jas2587

Ueber Meister
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Location
FL
Actually, I disagree. Your choosing to play roulette is the main point since this is where you ran into the problem of confiscated winnings.

To say that playing roulette was a mistake is a cop-out. I don't think a soul here can buy that. You've been playing online for years, with enough bonus problems to shake a stick at, and you want us to believe that you didn't know roulette was not included????? I don't mean to be harsh, but you've got to be shittin' me.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any recent RTG VP and Slot bonus codes that include roulette, and you know this.

My thoughts are that you tried to get over on them by thinking you found a loop-hole, and now you're trying to get them to pay up by trying to split hairs with their terms and conditions.

I can hear a collective moan out there, but I don't believe in an instant that uungy makes mistakes like this. I don't buy it.

Just my thoughts. :rolleyes:

agreed

Cindy
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Hi everyone,

I would first of all like to of course comment on the unfortunate situation we are dealing with here.

Uungy's account has been looked in to thoroughly to ensure that the answer we have given the player is correct and fair according to our terms and conditions.

Uungy had redeemed the blackjack bonus and made a first bet of $125 on the restricted game of roulette and won $9000 off of that one game. He then switched to play blackjack and proceeded to wager on this allowed game, meeting the playthrough, however not coming out the other side with any winnings whatsoever on blackjack, only void winnings from playing roulette were in his balance. This then meant that the whole balance was void as it was winnings accumulated from only restricted games. The player then requested a withdrawal and had come to live chat about it, where we then proceeded to explain what has happened and that he has the following two options:

1. To be reset to the original deposit and start to play from scratch
2. To be reset you back to the original deposit and add a bonus for some/a allowed games that he wanted to play

Whilst on live chat with our CS rep, Uungy had then proceeded to cancel the withdrawals and start to play on the slot machines, in turn, accumulating a large and unfortunately void balance.

This is of course an unfortunate situation and is very disappointing for the player, but it is clearly written in the terms and conditions concerning our policies, so there is unfortunately nothing that can be done for the player.

Uungy can still decide as to the 2 options which were offered above, 1. Going back to the original deposit and starting from scratch 2. Going back to the original balance and re-applying the bonus and making not sure to play any restricted games whilst the playthrough has still not yet been met.

I hope that this explains everything as to the order of events that have transpired.

Kind regards,

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.

I am being totally mean today but I really am getting boiling mad reading this thread. There is no doubt that since Uungy won $9000 on Roulette and then lost his initial balance on BJ the rest of the winnings are void. When they are removed does not bear relevance to the issue. Any winnings derived from the Roulette winnings are void whether you like it or not. So how about option 3: Lick your wounds
 

jas2587

Ueber Meister
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Location
FL
He said that he didn't know when he played it. I am prepared to believe that.

I believe that he is experienced enough to not deliberately break the rules, knowing the likely outcome. I would guess that the tactic is aimed to get value out of bonuses, this can easily be done without playing roulette (e.g. doubling-up on blackjack), just not quite as quickly. As many places don't allow roulette, I'm sure that he has been in that situation before and would have had little trouble avoiding roulette.

I do think that he would have more chance of convincing a judge than anybody around here!

if he decides to take it to court are YOU gonna pay his lawyers fees do you believe in him that much that he didnt really know that roulette was disallowed?

Cindy:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

GGW Laurie

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Location
In the Beautiful South !!
He said that he didn't know when he played it. I am prepared to believe that.

I believe that he is experienced enough to not deliberately break the rules, knowing the likely outcome. I would guess that the tactic is aimed to get value out of bonuses, this can easily be done without playing roulette (e.g. doubling-up on blackjack), just not quite as quickly. As many places don't allow roulette, I'm sure that he has been in that situation before and would have had little trouble avoiding roulette.

I do think that he would have more chance of convincing a judge than anybody around here!
I agree with Jasmine, Louise and the casino are being more than fair imo, and whats this crap about getting a better chance with a judge than on here? man this is Casinomeister, not some casino furum for dummies, the best and brightest gamblers are on this forum, they know all the ends and outs and tricks of online casinos..........court my ass..............pleeze:mad:...........laurie
 
Last edited:

CasinoKidd

Meister Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Location
Rochester NY
We train our staff to be aware of players that may have certain issues with their accounts, so as to try and preempt the disappointment and get things fixed up as soon as possible. The players account was then handed on to the customer service manager to be checked in to and actions be made as to remove the void winnings.

As the player had met the playthrough by playing enough blackjack, the balance had then switched to withdrawable, but with only winnings from that one game of roulette.
Thanks,

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.

Louise,
I have the smallest confusion in regards to the bolded statement. What differentiates his startng $$ from the $$ he won from Roulette? Does the win on Roulette null & voide the entire balance until the situation is resolved?

This is the only issue I am confused with - I think it's rediculous the OP continued to play even with a blatent problem with his account. He was talking to a rep... why keep playing? Sounds a little arrogant, like he expected his little cheat to be successful. Sorry if that sounds rude.

Thanks
CK
 

Louise

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Location
Right here
Louise,
I have the smallest confusion in regards to the bolded statement. What differentiates his startng $$ from the $$ he won from Roulette? Does the win on Roulette null & voide the entire balance until the situation is resolved?

This is the only issue I am confused with - I think it's rediculous the OP continued to play even with a blatent problem with his account. He was talking to a rep... why keep playing? Sounds a little arrogant, like he expected his little cheat to be successful. Sorry if that sounds rude.

Thanks
CK

If things would have worked differently here, then there is a chance that his winnings would have been OK, but there could have been many different things to have taken in to account. As all the winnings were on roulette and none on allowed games, this has made the situation a non-arguable one, however if he would have played restricted games along with blackjack and had winnings on blackjack, then we could have looked in to further detail to see the amount of bets and winnings made on each game and assess what we could do for him.

Regards,

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.
 

lots0

Banned User - troll posts - flaming
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Location
Hell on Earth
@lots0 no need to take offence, apologies if I said anything within my post that got you offended. Please post your thoughts, however that post did make me laugh.
Sorry I jumped on you. I did misunderstand your meaning.

You should take the offer.. It is a good one and better than you'd get most places.

And by the by... I'm not a big fan of this particular group.. Ben and I just had words a while back... So it's not like I am shilling for the casino.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Admin note: thread title changed

Changed the thread title to reflect something more accurate.
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
If things would have worked differently here, then there is a chance that his winnings would have been OK, but there could have been many different things to have taken in to account. As all the winnings were on roulette and none on allowed games, this has made the situation a non-arguable one, however if he would have played restricted games along with blackjack and had winnings on blackjack, then we could have looked in to further detail to see the amount of bets and winnings made on each game and assess what we could do for him.

Regards,

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.

This is probably the most flexible approach I have seen from a casino.
 

uungy

Dormant account
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Location
Planet Earth (I think)
possibly but he knows he played a game that was disallowed an he is acting all innocent like he got off the turnip truck yesterday
I dont think I am acting innocent. I am just quoting the terms.
If things would have worked differently here, then there is a chance that his winnings would have been OK, but there could have been many different things to have taken in to account. As all the winnings were on roulette and none on allowed games, this has made the situation a non-arguable one, however if he would have played restricted games along with blackjack and had winnings on blackjack, then we could have looked in to further detail to see the amount of bets and winnings made on each game and assess what we could do for him.
Well $125 of that bet was my deposit, so 50% of the winnings was from my deposit
If we want to talk more about conditions, I would also mention:

Wagering on restricted games may void all winnings won on this promotion.
You also have 'Wagering on restricted games does not count towards the fulfillment of the wagering requirements and winnings from rounds played on restricted games before meeting the wagering requirements will be removed at the time of a cash-out request. Can you please clarify which one do you implement then?

Also why were the winnings removed before the cashout request
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Uungy - to be blunt: your complaint is frivolous and you are wasting our time.

Louise has thoroughly explained what happened, the members here seem to be satified that you have been treated fairly, and you are just plain in the wrong.

Give it a rest and let us move on to something else. Thank you.
 

uungy

Dormant account
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Location
Planet Earth (I think)
I value your opinion, and everyone elses too.

However I would appreciate Louises answer to my previous post. I think its very important for them to clarify the terms, what exactly they mean
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
C'mon uungy - let it go mate.

Louise HAS clarified the terms and nobody here except you seems to have an problem understanding them.

It also appears you placed your entire balance on your first bet - most casinos would void everything based on that alone.

Well $125 of that bet was my deposit, so 50% of the winnings was from my deposit

You know well that once you take a bonus on a deposit it is no longer 'your money' until you meet the WR.

I just cant believe someone of your experience is still claiming that the winnings are valid. :mad:
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
C'mon uungy - let it go mate.

Louise HAS clarified the terms and nobody here except you seems to have an problem understanding them.

It also appears you placed your entire balance on your first bet - most casinos would void everything based on that alone.



You know well that once you take a bonus on a deposit it is no longer 'your money' until you meet the WR.

I just cant believe someone of your experience is still claiming that the winnings are valid. :mad:

Geeze Nifty,

You are now at 778. Did you win your Triple 7s JP yet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top