Bogus Complaint Slotsoasis voids winnings - I played the wrong game

[big_mac]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You are most welcome, and thanks for your comments and input

Louise
Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.

 

[Jasminebed]

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]

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]

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

 

[big_mac]

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]

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.

agreed

Cindy

 

[chuchu59]

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]

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

 

[vegetagirl2008]

At this point the damage was already done. He is going to have to move on to much greener pastures (money wise) and use the 4 eyed principle when taking a bonus.

 

[LaurieJim]

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...........laurie

 

[CasinoKidd]

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]

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]

@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.

 

[The Dude]

Admin note: thread title changed

Changed the thread title to reflect something more accurate.

 

[chuchu59]

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]

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

 

[The Dude]

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]

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]

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.

 

[chuchu59]

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.

Geeze Nifty,

You are now at 778. Did you win your Triple 7s JP yet?

 

[maxd]

The OP has since filed a PAB on this and I don't think it's a suitable topic of discussion while that is ongoing.

I'll reopen the thread when the PAB has concluded.

 

[KasinoKing]

The OP has since filed a PAB on this and I don't think it's a suitable topic of discussion while that is ongoing.

I'll reopen the thread when the PAB has concluded.

What, 9-months after this happened...?

Also, you can't re-open the thread - it's not closed!

KK

 

[maxd]

... you can't re-open the thread - it's not closed!

It was closed. Bryan re-opened it when we finished the PAB.

And yes, 9 months after the fact.

 

[AussieDave]

It was closed. Bryan re-opened it when we finished the PAB.

And yes, 9 months after the fact.

Do we get to hear the result?

Cheers



Dave

 

[maxd]

Attach Removed (Old not found)

 

[SlotMonster]

OK, now we see the result

 

[Lucky Loser]

After reading through the post the PAB result was not very surprising.

What a complete waste of time for everybody involved.

 

[uungy]

After reading through the post the PAB result was not very surprising.

What a complete waste of time for everybody involved.

The PAB and this thread arent the same in reality, however at the moment I prefer to not elaborate publicly.

 

[Nifty29]

The PAB and this thread arent the same in reality, however at the moment I prefer to not elaborate publicly.

If they arent the same issue, then why would Max comment in this thread about it?

 

[Kenny Lingus]

... 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....

Let me first say that, IMO, in this case, the OP has no legitamte claim to his winnings, and is 99% responsible for this unfortunate situation. And, giving credit where credit is due, I am impressed that the casion is allowing a "do over" with the deposit and bonus. That is very considerate, and certainly not someting you see from a casino in this situation everday.

But the blatantly confusing and somewhat contradictory terms involving bonus play is the bigger issue for me. To what purpose does having the unneeded multiple statements that say different things accomplish, except to give the casino an "out", if deemed necessary? Sort of a provisional "FU" clause, to be invoked when needed.

And the reps response above is just humourous doublespeak.

And from an accredited casino......PLEASE!

 

[maxd]

The PAB and this thread arent the same in reality ....

How so? Here in the thread you were saying "ambiguous Terms, I win!". In the PAB you said "okay, they're not ambiguous, but they mean something different to me than they mean to everyone else. I win!"

You can spin this any way you like but that doesn't mean anything has actually changed. So yes, in reality it is the very same issue.

If they arent the same issue, then why would Max comment in this thread about it?

Same player + same incident = same issue, if you ask me.

The fact that OP took a slightly different approach in the PAB than had been taken here on the forums doesn't make it a different issue, especially since the details of the PAB were basically a variation of what was originally presented here. Nothing had changed but the OP's claims of what they thought was wrong at the casino. Still kicking the same can IMHO.

I looked at the applicable Terms and it was pretty clear to me in less than 2 minutes what would have been expected of me if I took one of their bonuses and why. In fact very little in the Terms has changed from the time the OP played their bonus almost a year ago and the bonuses offered today, all the bonuses they offer today that I looked at.

In other words in all that time (at least!) the situation has existed and I've heard exactly one complaint about it -- albeit in a few different variations -- from a player who admitted on day one that they had screwed up.

So we have a situation where a player has tried at least two different approaches to get at the same 'winnings', each consecutive approach saying "oh, forget about that other one". And the target kept moving throughout the PAB process.

As I see it we've got a nice fat, albeit confiscated, balance on one hand and a stream of ever-evolving complaints and protests from the player on the other hand. What would you guess the motivation for attempting to keep this issue alive might be?

Clearly it's not a perceived wrong done that is the motivation here because the nature and details of the 'wrong done' keeps changing. Maybe, just maybe, it's not about something 'wrong' any specific place at all, maybe it's just that they can't bear to walk away from what they think, hope, dream could be theirs. And so the banging on pots and kettles continues. Until when?

FWIW the OP had gone over my head and forwarded their complaint to Bryan in the middle of their unsuccessful attempt to debate it out with me. Bryan agreed that there was no case here and instructed me to close the book on this. And so there it is: case closed, by pretty much everyone here, by me, and by Bryan. The OP is going to have to take the pot-and-kettle show elsewhere.

And as to the "deliberate this" and "blatant that" stuff, give it a rest. While even I would say that their wordings could be better I'm reminded of that Monty Python skit: "she weighs more than a duck ... witch, witch!", "she floats on water ... witch, witch!"

 

[chuchu59]

The PAB and this thread arent the same in reality, however at the moment I prefer to not elaborate publicly.

This is confusing. You are the OP for this thread and the PABer. What are the differences in reality?

 

[maxd]

This is confusing.

Perhaps I've got my crabby shoes on today but it seems to me that there is only confusion here if you -- the generic 'you' not the specific 'you' -- allow yourself to be persuaded by "black is white" and "up is down" arguments.

Are the OP and PABer the same person? Yes.

Is the complaint here and the complaint in the PAB referring to the same incident: same balance being discussed, same casino decision being challenged, etc? Yes.

Are the complaints pointing at the same text and taking exception to it? Yes.

Are the arguments presented directly related to one another? Yes, IMHO, it's two different ways of saying the same thing.

It's like saying "the dog jumped over the fence" and then saying "no, the dog didn't jump over the fence, he used his leg muscles to elevate himself into the air such that he moved over the barrier that stood before him". O-kay ... ??? Thank you for the different words, but the meaning is the same. What's the point?

Again, look to the motivation for the actions -- the $$$ -- and you'll see the probable cause for then and now. It's a frivolous attempt to quibble over an issue that was DOA from the get-go. Why are we still discussing this?

 

[uungy]

I am ready to put out my PAB. Slots Oasis voided my winings, which I felt was wrong, since I may have played on roulette, however roulette is not even a restricted game.

Bets placed in Roulette, Craps, Baccarat and Paigow Poker do not fulfill players obligations towards wagering requirements.

This term clearly says that it doesnt count as wagering however its allowed to be played with.

Take a look at https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ame-that-doesnt-count-towards-rollover.17378/

Loking at the link below even a rogue casino Betroyal paid out with those terms, and another casino rep agreed to that.

 

[The Dude]

The PAB and this thread arent the same in reality, however at the moment I prefer to not elaborate publicly.

Well, please allow me to elaborate publicly for you. Your case is frivolous and Max has wasted more than enough time on your issue. No one sees it your way but you. Not one member here has sided with you - no one that I know of has had the same problem.

Do you see a pattern here? You need to face the fact that you are wrong.

If you value your membership in this forum, I would suggest you let this one go.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Well, please allow me to elaborate publicly for you. Your case is frivolous and Max has wasted more than enough time on your issue. No one sees it your way but you. Not one member here has sided with you - no one that I know of has had the same problem.

Do you see a pattern here? You need to face the fact that you are wrong.

If you value your membership in this forum, I would suggest you let this one go.

WTF?....threatening members that do not see it your way? Total BS, quack,quack!

 

[Tengil]

Well based on the first post were they seemed to have contradicting terms it would have been ruled in the favour of the consumer, at least in any civilized country. No arguing there.

But here we have an online casino licensed in Curacao(?). They of course do what they see fit. So one can say that the mistake that uungy ultimately did was to play at Slots Oasis (especially knowing their history).

 

[The Dude]

WTF?....threatening members that do not see it your way? Total BS, quack,quack!

I never said that - don't put words into my mouth. I said stop wasting Max's time. I've told Uungy a number of times that this is a closed issue and that he can take it elsewhere.

To continue arguing about nothing saps our resources for dealing with much more important issues. Max's plate is full and it pisses me off to see people wasting his time.

So yeah, if you are intending to go on and on and on and on about whatever, I'll give you a break form the forum.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Well based on the first post were they seemed to have contradicting terms it would have been ruled in the favour of the consumer, at least in any civilized country. No arguing there.

But here we have an online casino licensed in Curacao(?). They of course do what they see fit. So one can say that the mistake that uungy ultimately did was to play at Slots Oasis (especially knowing their history).

agreed, and there is such thing as "The Contractual Aspect of Gaming" that could be applied to all these frivolous issues but of course "The Contractual Aspect of Gaming" is non-sense.

 

[The Dude]

Well based on the first post were they seemed to have contradicting terms it would have been ruled in the favour of the consumer, at least in any civilized country. No arguing there.

But here we have an online casino licensed in Curacao(?). They of course do what they see fit. So one can say that the mistake that uungy ultimately did was to play at Slots Oasis (especially knowing their history).

agreed, and there is such thing as "The Contractual Aspect of Gaming" that could be applied to all these frivolous issues but of course "The Contractual Aspect of Gaming" is non-sense.

It's obvious to me that neither one of you has read this thread in its entirety. If you wish to discuss an issue, please make sure you understand exactly what went down, and how the casino has responded. To jump into this conversation with half-baked knee-jerk responses just turns a thread into crap.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

It's obvious to me that neither one of you has read this thread in its entirety. If you wish to discuss an issue, please make sure you understand exactly what went down, and how the casino has responded. To jump into this conversation with half-baked knee-jerk responses just turns a thread into crap.

Agreed, I do and will review the thread again although my memory does recollect most. I will stop posting accordingly in this thread until. Peace

 

[Tengil]

It's obvious to me that neither one of you has read this thread in its entirety. If you wish to discuss an issue, please make sure you understand exactly what went down, and how the casino has responded. To jump into this conversation with half-baked knee-jerk responses just turns a thread into crap.

I have read the entire thread. In at least EU we have a thing called consumer protection, usually defined in a Consumer Affairs Act.

So it would have meant that his winnings from roulette would have been removed from his cashout because if there are terms that contradict each other its always ruled as the most favourable for the consumer.

 

[maxd]

I'm not going to lay out the whole nine yards here but if you look at the bonus Terms and the General Terms and take them together -- as players are expected to do -- then there is no contradiction, no ambiguity and no reasonable grounds for the PAB, or this thread for that matter.

Compound that with the fact that the player started off by saying they screwed up + they've tried two or three self-contradictory attempts at this + their PAB is simply outrageous ("the Terms mean something different to me than they mean to other people") and you've got a situation where the PAB is where it belongs, in the dustbin.

The pot-and-kettle crew can bang on as long as they like, noise is just noise and it is certainly not rational nor reasonable argument.

 

[uungy]

Well, please allow me to elaborate publicly for you. Your case is frivolous and Max has wasted more than enough time on your issue. No one sees it your way but you. Not one member here has sided with you - no one that I know of has had the same problem.

Do you see a pattern here? You need to face the fact that you are wrong.

If you value your membership in this forum, I would suggest you let this one go.

I value my membership here, however I am not sure "not one member has sided with me", I have only just about posted what my PAB was. This is a very similar case to the betroyal case and many members agreed to the OP there.

I did not bring this thread back up or update it in any way, so why was i wasting time? Once the PAB was closed, I responded that my PAB was that I did not play a restricted game so they had no right to void my winnings, and had nothing to do with the disputing terms I started this thread about. It answered a few other members questions why I PAB'd, which I think is fair, as they questioned my side.

..........
Compound that with the fact that the player started off by saying they screwed up + they've tried two or three self-contradictory attempts at this + their PAB is simply outrageous ("the Terms mean something different to me than they mean to other people") and you've got a situation where the PAB is where it belongs, in the dustbin......

whats contradictory in my PAB? I didnt say the word "ambiguous" or "contradictory". I don't get why you keep saying I said its contradictory, or anything like that! The terms mean what they say, you actually responded, that from looking at the whole terms its easy to work out that the games restricted are ............... which I explained to you is incorrect.

You still havent responded to that. I had no intention to bring this up, but you keep saying I say things are contradictory, hence the reason why I stated earlier its a different issue

 

[jackieonweb]

I'm not going to lay out the whole nine yards here but if you look at the bonus Terms and the General Terms and take them together -- as players are expected to do -- then there is no contradiction, no ambiguity and no reasonable grounds for the PAB, or this thread for that matter.

"winnings .... will be removed at the time of a cash-out request" - Tells me only the winnings will be removed.

"Wagering on restricted games may void all winnings won on this promotion" - Tells me all winnings will be lost.

This is called a CONTRDICTION.

Casinomeister site:
"Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player."

Like spiderlegz said, in any civilised country, contradictory terms would be ruled favour the consumer, in Casino/Casinomeister land this seems to not apply, why is that?