1. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
  2. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. You can find out more by following.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Sister site to Casino Max launches

    Roaring 21 has just launched - sister casino to Casino Max, and they have a special promotion for you!! .They are in the Baptism by Fire - you can check them out here: Roaring 21 BBF and special promo.


    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

BGO Exclusive Promo: 25 free spins with No Wagering on Archangels Salvation

Get Up to 25 free spins on Archangels: Salvation
No wagering requirements and No Max Win cap!

New Depositing players ONLY.
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Spin palace complaint: resolved

Discussion in 'Casino Complaints - Bonus Issues' started by gamblingman, Dec 7, 2006.

    Dec 7, 2006
  1. gamblingman

    gamblingman Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Furniture family business
    Location:
    Israel right now Thailand
    I had the luck to win $6600 playing their signup bonus back on July 2006.

    They decided not to pay because they claim that excluded games were played.


    I thought maybe they changed the terms and now the games I played are excluded but I was surprised to see that the terms have not been changed.

    I played Tri card poker and Deuces wild, I might have played also Joker poker or Deuces and Joker but no Aces Videopoker and no Jacks or better.

    They don't reply to my emails anymore.

    I tried the eCOGRA, they repeated the casino voice, bonus abuse...

    When I replied to Tax Ree from eCOGRA explaining that no excluded game was played and this is a mistake he also chose not to reply any more to 3 of my emails.

    Hi there xxxx,

    Account tsprxxxxxx

    Kindly note that we have removed the 100% Sign on bonus and all
    winnings, and we have issued your initial deposit of $50.00 back to
    your
    NETeller account.

    The reason for this is due Terms and Condition of the Casino state the
    following:

    1)If an excluded game is played before completion of the above wagering
    requirements, the casino reserves the right to void all play and close
    the
    account, and require the player to forfeit the deposit.

    You may view the Terms and Conditions via the following:

    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    We trust that we have been of assistance.


    By the way my deposit was 75 and I played a totally different bonus, the bonus they probably meant is the only slots bonus deposit 50 get 200 but I played the deposit 75 get 75 , different terms.

    More emails from them :

    Hi xxx,

    Indeed you have made a deposit of $75 and went on to receive the
    additional $75 bonus. According to our website the following terms and
    conditions are applicable to the 100% Match Sign-up Bonus.

    - Please note that the initial deposit plus the bonus needs to be
    wagered 15 times before you can withdraw. Wagers on craps, all roulette
    games, bonus paigow poker, casino war, sic bo, all baccarat games, All
    Aces Video Poker, All Aces 10-Play Power Poker, all Jacks or Better
    Video Pokers and Red Dog are not counted when calculating if the
    wagering requirement has been met. Wagers on any of the Blackjack,
    Power
    Poker and Video Poker games will be weighted at 10% towards meeting the
    wagering requirements (for example if you were to only play Blackjack -
    you would be required to wager the initial deposit and the bonus 150
    times before you can withdraw).
    - This offer is subject to ongoing review and the right to change the
    offer and its terms is reserved.

    And eCOGRA:

    Dear xxx,



    We have investigated your query with the casino and have found that there are issues with the documents that you sent in for ID verification and that your gameplay indicates bonus abuse. As such the casino is going to refund your initial deposit and have voided your gameplay, this is according to their Terms and Conditions which can be found at You must register/login in order to see the link.



    Regards,

    Tex Rees

    I sent them at the beginning only my Passport. They asked for more IDs for verifications and they finally accepted my IDs.

    This is why it took so long to get paid my initial deposit, I had to send them my driver license,national ID and also my renewd Passport(the old one was expired during August and they have not paid yet) to pass they verification procedure.
     
  2. Dec 7, 2006
  3. winbig

    winbig Keep winning this amount. webby PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    Bum
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Have you asked for the game logs? That would prove without a shadow of a doubt whether or not excluded games were played...
     
  4. Dec 7, 2006
  5. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    Grab a screenshot of those T&Cs if they are still the same as when you played, too.

    If you would like help in getting your case reviewed, this time by a higher level of authority let me have your personal details and I will suggest that to eCOGRA.

    Alternatively, if for privacy reasons you have a problem with that, then you can contact the CEO direct. PM me if you cannot find his email address.
     
  6. Dec 7, 2006
  7. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Worrying

    I find it of some concern that eCogra will allow casinos to deny winnings even if no terms were broken just because gameplay MIGHT indicate a player to be abusing bonuses as opposed to cheating or committing fraud. If eCogra want to be seen to be independent of their paymasters as a voluntary regulatory body this cannot continue and allow their reputation to remain untarnished.
    I am also shocked that such unfair terms as allowing confiscation of deposits is permitted under the eCogra seal simply for playing the wrong game (even the rogues refund the deposit). Their list is illogical, as they are perverting the reason for eZbonus (simple rules and all games count), yet they allow the bonus abusers favourite, Blackjack, and would seemingly be happy for a player to grind out the WR on Vegas Strip BJ, yet not be happy if they were to play a high risk game like VP and most probably bust out anyway.

    If the casino are alleging fraud it is a different matter, but this does not seem to be the case.
    I noticed that this rash of complaints about Palace Group came about when they were bought by Fairground Gaming, before which there were few comlaints of this nature.

    If this keeps up, there will be nowhere that players will feel fully confident in playing.
     
  8. Dec 7, 2006
  9. gamblingman

    gamblingman Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Furniture family business
    Location:
    Israel right now Thailand
    I know that what I am doing now might sound not acceptible but I was amazed to see the PM I got today from their representative trying to help me out.

    Spinpalace should be rogued for that kind of answer. eCOGRA should be rogued as well for accepting those kind of explanation of no pay.


    Hi there xxx,

    You were given incorrect information as to why your withdrawal was declined. You are correct, Dueces wild is not an excluded game.

    The reason why your withdrawal was deemed null and void was due to the casino identifying your play as bonus abuse.

    The term below is listed on our site:

    " All withdrawals will be subject to audit by the Casino. The Casino reserves the right to reclaim bonuses and winnings and / or close accounts in situations of obvious abuse or fraud."


    Based on your initial betting being 2 bets on Video Poker for $100 and $50 with only a $150 bank roll and the number of bets on the two games played, as well as your bet size clearly indicates abuse. The clause is there to protect the casino from gameplay such as this.

    Unfortunately we will have to stand by the ruling and we have refunded your initial deposit back to you.

    I know this is not the news you wanted but I hope this clarifies things.

    Kind regards,

    Darran
     
  10. Dec 7, 2006
  11. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Taken to extreme

    This is a bit extreme. Large bets on even money propositions used to be deemed bonus abuse, but it now seems big bets on anything is now bonus abuse. If this is the case, there should be a rule to make this clear as some casinos have, such that bets of more than x% of total bankroll will be deemed void and deposits only will be returned.
    This would be clear, and players who do this would be in breach of stated terms. The idea that casinos can make up the rules as to what constitutes bonus abuse is just allowing them to declare any player that wins as a bonus abuser if they see fit. One bet of 100 on VP is hardly an even money proposition, and is not going to burn through the WR at any speed due to the 10% weighting.
    What would be acceptable? Bets of 40? Bets of 20, or is it now best to bet tiny and often, the very gameplay that was "bonus abuse" a couple of years ago.

    How about a new term,

    "Your welcome bonus is intended to give you extended gameplay with your initial deposit. If you win, you may withdraw up to the amount of the initial deposit but are expected to enjoy playing with us till all winnings have been lost back to the casino. You are welcome to win any amount with subsequent deposits".

    I bet you would not have been locked & banned had those initial bets quickly leached the bankroll as would often happen on so few bets at VP.

    The only defence a casino might have would be if you had gone through the whole group doing this on each sign-up, whether or not this was the case here has not been mentioned, but abuse would then be nothing to do with betting history, but a history of opening further new accounts without showing any degree of further play on the old ones.

    Microgaming casinos are quite able to alter the maximum bet size on these games to put a stop to this, just try betting 100 on VP at Roxy!
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Dec 7, 2006
  13. gamblingman

    gamblingman Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Furniture family business
    Location:
    Israel right now Thailand
    I can see 3 threads in a row dealing with the Palace group.

    Something definitely stincks there.
     
  14. Dec 8, 2006
  15. daywalker

    daywalker Dormant account

    Occupation:
    .........
    Location:
    UK
    This is out of order.
    For them to deem this bonus abuse because the player placed two bets of $100 + $50 with a bank roll of only $150 is just plain wrong. If they are so concerned about this they should start limiting the max bet to $1.25 or whatever. Again, this is a case of a casino offering you games to play and then crying cos you had the nouse to make a profit.
    All casino t+c's stink to be honest, they are the prosecutor and jury and us players are all f**ked if we don't like it.
    Ecogra are a joke and not even worth bothering with.
     
  16. Dec 8, 2006
  17. Palace Group

    Palace Group Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Customer Support
    Location:
    Online
    Hi all,

    As you know we always try and sort players out in a timely manner.
    I am always available for comments and feedback on this forum.

    I am working with eCogra on Gamblingmans case and will revert back to him shortly.

    Thanks,

    Darran
     
  18. Dec 8, 2006
  19. Tagdog

    Tagdog Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Sales
    Location:
    England
    Shocking stuff. I quite like betting big at the start to trying to win big then consolidating if i do, according to spin palace this would make me a bonus abuser - unreal. Get a grip boys you're sounding exactly the same as mini vegas here and we've seen what's happened to their reputation.
     
  20. Dec 8, 2006
  21. Palace Group

    Palace Group Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Customer Support
    Location:
    Online
    Hi all,

    As mentioned I am working on resolving this one with Gamblingman.
    I am sure he will post once we have resolved things with him.

    Thanks,

    Darran
     
  22. Dec 8, 2006
  23. wolfman

    wolfman Dormant account

    Occupation:
    unemployed
    Location:
    BW
    I've heard casinos claim it's bonus abuse when players try and grind out a WR with minumum bet size, and/or when they "don't show a willingness to put their own funds at risk". Now it's bonus abuse when they play maximum bet size and put their funds at a huge risk of blowing out in 2 bets.

    So what do we do now? Make medium bet sizes and hope that doesn't fit a new definition of bonus "abuse" when it comes to cash out?
     
  24. Dec 8, 2006
  25. Vesuvio

    Vesuvio Dormant account

    Location:
    UK
    That's just staggering. And the fact that eCOGRA backed the casino up here just illustrates the mockery their service has become.

    If MG casinos (the same with MiniVegas & Bellerock) and their "regulator" consider it fine to deny winnings based on the bet size or patterns they've sunk to (or below) the level of Playtech and RTG.

    It seems it needs to be stated again for these fraudsters: any gameplay not specifically outlawed in the terms and conditions can't be considered "illegitimate" (to borrow MiniVegas's word). If you don't want people to bet their balance either put that in the terms or make it impossible in the software. The same goes for any conceivable player strategy.

    Denying winnings based on "bonus abuse", or MiniVegas's comic variation on the theme, is rogue behviour - and these groups deserve their comeuppance. I hope the new American regulations are hitting them hard.
     
  26. Dec 8, 2006
  27. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    I need to jump in here real quick to let you know it's gone back to eCOGRA for negotiation. No need to start a slam session. There is a possibility that there has been some mis-communications made by the casino. I'm anticipating a favorable outcome.
     
  28. Dec 8, 2006
  29. eeeee

    eeeee Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Nice Guy
    Location:
    Left Coast
    No slam session? :(
    I'll check back tomorrow. :D
     
  30. Dec 9, 2006
  31. Vesuvio

    Vesuvio Dormant account

    Location:
    UK
    The criticism of eCOGRA stands and will keep coming back to haunt them until Tex Rees comes out and says unambiguously that "bonus abuse" is not a reason for keeping players' winnings. There's fraud or contravening clearly laid out terms and conditions (wagering requirements, allowed games and so on). Supporting casinos' "bonus abuse" clauses, which allow them to do anything, legitimises casino fraud and makes a mockery of regulation.

    I don't buy any excuse of "miscommunication". The casino couldn't have been clearer and eCOGRA have a history of supporting anything the casino decides in this sort of situation. Sure, they might change their mind here, but that's no good if it's just a one-off decision.
     
    1 person likes this.
  32. Dec 9, 2006
  33. GOCC

    GOCC Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas

    Occupation:
    Housewife
    Location:
    UK
    Palace

    May I ask a question. Do you have a CS rep called "Dan" who would do live chats.

    Reason being I had a chat with him about WR and said I wanted to make sure I had wagered enough as I now wanted to play Blakcjack. He said, THREE TIMES that I could play ANY game I wanted, just it would not count towards the wagering. I even copied and pasted your terms that said what I believed it said but he reiterated that it was the case.
     
  34. Dec 9, 2006
  35. daywalker

    daywalker Dormant account

    Occupation:
    .........
    Location:
    UK
    Surely No-one cannot disagree with this, eCOGRA are so in favour of the casinos it's unreal. How anyone can support them (EcOG) is beyond me. No matter what anyone posts on here eCog 'ALWAYS' side with the casino. Ms Rees has the easiest job in the world, she just bends over to the casinos and 'Meister' appears to be lining up next to her?

    On this Occasion I reckon it's best for 'the palace group' to post on here rather than communicating to the OP. We've seen their disgraceful response (which they have not denied) so why not post in public? Why say they will let gamblingman post on here, surely it's best to have all this crap in the open?
     
  36. Dec 10, 2006
  37. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Tex

    It is not true that it ALWAYS goes the way of the casino, however, it seems the casinos are allowed to justify terms and conditions to eCogra that would be struck out by a County Court action if they were in dispute in a CONSUMER, rather than business, contract. In particular, casinos are allowed to cite "bonus abuse" even when the play involved breaches no term, and players are not normally allowed to know what it was they did to abuse the bonus other to have claimed it in the first place when offered and then make some astute wagering decisions.
    It would be like getting 6 free bets at a racecourse, and betting all 6 on the favourites of 6 top races, then getting the payout denied because you didn't bet at least something on some knackered old nag or two at 66/1.
    Some casinos are now beginning to define this elusive term (reluctantly), and so far we have that if a game "does not count towards...." it actually means "play it, and have your winnings confiscated". We also have that you cannot bet too much of your bankroll in one go, but neither can you bet too little in many goes - there is no magic formula to dictate what percentage of the bankroll to bet on each outcome in order to steer clear of the "bonus abuse" radar. Even refusing a bonus is no help with Mini-Vegas, one player had accounts locked simply for choosing the wrong currency after the software offered it, and another got an account locked for apparently playing too aggressively with his/her own money alone.
    At least we have had this big survey, for eCorga, but not run by eCorga, results due January, but advance press release is that there will be some "surprises" (Hopefully for the industry!).
     
  38. Dec 10, 2006
  39. Stanford

    Stanford Dormant account

    Location:
    USA
    Bonus abuse

    Bonus abuse is and has always been the failure of the casino to abide their own terms and conditions. There is no such thing as bonus abuse by a player.

    I am a bit surprised by eCOGRA using such terminology. It is cause for alarm.

    imho,
    Stanford
     
    2 people like this.

Share This Page