Stipulations on Playtech progressive win

Status
Not open for further replies.

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
...and online gambling aside, it is a case of 4 mill owed, and only 1 mill actually paid - where did the 3 mill go....

This has already dragged on for 3 years, and although rogued, the casino was SUPPOSED to be fully regulated at the time.

Actually, she's received about half ($2,361 000.00) 61k was comp points. And this win was in August - the emails from Oct-Dec - and this has been presented to WH and Playtech only a couple of weeks ago - not three years.
 

RobWin

closed account
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Location
A Vault!
Actually, she's received about half ($2,361 000.00) 61k was comp points. And this win was in August - the emails from Oct-Dec - and this has been presented to WH and Playtech only a couple of weeks ago - not three years.

I can certainly see where Vinyl may have been confused here as I still am also since Hank had said this a couple of posts back:

Also, on the last (recorded conversation) with the vip manager he says very clearly that there is $2 285,000.00 in her account. So they/he (the so called vip manager) anticipated her playing and had deducted 1.1M which she never played, and the remaining sum of $1 185,000.00 would be erased!!!!(so from that moment on the account was locked and inaccessible).
 

HankP

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Location
Canada
RobWin,

The facts are that when we asked for the total payout, we were answered by the vip manager point blank, that she would recieve 9K per month as per their terms and conditions.

If Sylvia wanted a lump sum the total payout would be $2 300 000.00 and Sylvia would have to playout the remaining winnings, we had intentionally stopped playing out the money when her account was at $2 285 000.00 in the account (which she never played out).

So, they did offer Sylvia the total amount, but it would be 9K monthly for the next 39 yrs or so.

In response to Vinylweatherman; Just to clarify,She collected $2 361 000.00 and not $1M as you posted. The remaining $2 285 000.00 which was in her account was erased and the account was closed and never paid off in full.

But the question remains, where did the remaining 2 285 000.00 GO?

One thing is for sure it wasn't to Sylvia....

HP
 

chayton

aka LooHoo
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Location
Edmonton Canada
Another thing that sucks about this whole thing is that article on the Joyland website makes it out to be "oh look, what a happy winner we have - She won AND RECEIVED all this money and her life is complete and she had no hassles and she loves our casino so much - you should all come and play here."

That pisses me off. :mad: If I was some ordinary shmuck (rather than an ordinary shmuck with a Casinomeister account) I wouldn't know that she wasn't able to collect. Isn't that like false advertising? They should put a disclaimer: "The player was only allowed to collect approximately half of her winnings after jumping through many hoops and she's no longer a satisfied and happy customer as we've locked her account and stolen her money....mwaaahhh hahahahaha"
 

Westland Bowl

Tin Foil Hat Club Member
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Location
America
......The facts are that when we asked for the total payout, we were answered by the vip manager point blank, that she would recieve 9K per month as per their terms and conditions.

If Sylvia wanted a lump sum the total payout would be $2 300 000.00 and Sylvia would have to playout the remaining winnings, we had intentionally stopped playing out the money when her account was at $2 285 000.00 in the account (which she never played out).

So, they did offer Sylvia the total amount, but it would be 9K monthly for the next 39 yrs or so.........

This is beginning to sound like what the state lotteries do for their progressive jackpots. For example, the recent Mega Millions jackpot reached $225 million and there was a winner (three actually). You have a choice to receive a big first payment, like $10 million and the rest paid out over 20-30 years.

OR...

One lump sum payment that is considerably less, like $120 million (on a $225 million jackpot). This would be a figure, more or less, like the Present Value of $225 million in 20-30 years.

So it appears that the Playtech jackpot was actually the Future Value of the amount contributed to date into the jackpot. Perhaps the actual present value contributed was $1 million but the jackpot figure of $4+ million shown was the Future Value (in 20 or 30 or 40 years) of such contributed to date.

Does this make sense?
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Actually, she's received about half ($2,361 000.00) 61k was comp points. And this win was in August - the emails from Oct-Dec - and this has been presented to WH and Playtech only a couple of weeks ago - not three years.

You mean to say this is ANOTHER issue with this bunch:confused:

I thought this was the original "joyless situation".

Last August is VERY close to the Will Hill tie up in City terms. William Hill would have been in discussions with the various parties, and should have seen this situation as a potential minefield then. They could have made clearing up outstanding player issues a condition for the deal to go ahead.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
This is beginning to sound like what the state lotteries do for their progressive jackpots. For example, the recent Mega Millions jackpot reached $225 million and there was a winner (three actually). You have a choice to receive a big first payment, like $10 million and the rest paid out over 20-30 years.

OR...

One lump sum payment that is considerably less, like $120 million (on a $225 million jackpot). This would be a figure, more or less, like the Present Value of $225 million in 20-30 years.

So it appears that the Playtech jackpot was actually the Future Value of the amount contributed to date into the jackpot. Perhaps the actual present value contributed was $1 million but the jackpot figure of $4+ million shown was the Future Value (in 20 or 30 or 40 years) of such contributed to date.

Does this make sense?

In theory, yes. In practice, we can probably trust a government run lottery to PROPERLY value the pool, but how do we know whether the casino really received the full 4M, and not the reduced amount. It is VERY messy, and since clearly the FULL amount went into the player balance when the jackpot was won, and not a reduced amount, I expect the casino somehow took the remaining 2M into it's own asset base, but there is no accounting to show this.

An amount this large would have to be shown in annual accounts for a company, and MAY appear in the first set of formal accounts the new group submit. It would take a skilled forensic accountant to figure out what happened, but if they were let loose on all the books, they might find a "smoking gun".
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
This is beginning to sound like what the state lotteries do for their progressive jackpots. For example, the recent Mega Millions jackpot reached $225 million and there was a winner (three actually). You have a choice to receive a big first payment, like $10 million and the rest paid out over 20-30 years.

OR...

One lump sum payment that is considerably less, like $120 million (on a $225 million jackpot). This would be a figure, more or less, like the Present Value of $225 million in 20-30 years.

So it appears that the Playtech jackpot was actually the Future Value of the amount contributed to date into the jackpot. Perhaps the actual present value contributed was $1 million but the jackpot figure of $4+ million shown was the Future Value (in 20 or 30 or 40 years) of such contributed to date.

Does this make sense?

Like I mentioned before:

When she signed up at Joyland, they had a policy of a max payout of 9k per month. Do the math $4.2 million will take around 39 years to pay out. Thats one hell of a long time. Most state lotteries have payment plans for 20 years but Im pretty sure that the state of California will be around for the next 20 years even 50 years. How do we know that the Internet will be around in 39 years, much less Joyland casino? Personally I think 39 years is absurd and indefensible. It boggles the mind to think anyone would consider this acceptable.

Here's her screenshot which shows the entire amount in her account. There was no "future value". She had the cash in her account; she just couldn't cash it out in one shot.
 

love2winalot

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Location
Philippines/Visiting Las vegas
Hiya: Lets take this a step further. William Hill said they assumed the assets, and not the dept. This is all well and fine, but what about the dept?

What about all those other players who had their money, either deposits or winnings, still in the casino bank? Did all of them get paid? Was every account closed prior to the sell?

I mean, come on, if YOU were going to buy "insert casino name here", the sales agreement has to disclose what to do, WITH ALL CURRENT ACCOUNTS, AND MONIES CURRENTLY HELD BY THE CASINO". Both Assets, that being money deposited by players that has NO winnings, but still has a balance, and depts being money is has an positive gain for the player.

Player 1: Deposited $1000, was losing, and has $470 of it left.
Player 2: Deposited $1000, was winning, and now has $1500 balance.
 

Westland Bowl

Tin Foil Hat Club Member
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Location
America
Like I mentioned before:

Here's her screenshot which shows the entire amount in her account. There was no "future value". She had the cash in her account; she just couldn't cash it out in one shot.

Uh, the egg on my face is quite delicious in fact.:oops:

egg_on_face.jpg
 

deucebag

Full Member
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Location
cyberspace
I spoke with the CEO of William Hill online and he was as perplexed as I was, but he stated that William Hill considers that this player accepted the terms and conditions of 9k per month, had an offer to accept a lump sum payment, and took it. Even though William Hill purchased the casino, it purchased the assets and not the debt.

I'm no lawyer, but can't believe that statement holds water. When you buy a company, of course you take over the liabilities as well. The player should get a lawyer and take William Hill to court.
 

thelawnet

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Location
UK
This is beginning to sound like what the state lotteries do for their progressive jackpots. For example, the recent Mega Millions jackpot reached $225 million and there was a winner (three actually). You have a choice to receive a big first payment, like $10 million and the rest paid out over 20-30 years.

OR...

One lump sum payment that is considerably less, like $120 million (on a $225 million jackpot). This would be a figure, more or less, like the Present Value of $225 million in 20-30 years.

So it appears that the Playtech jackpot was actually the Future Value of the amount contributed to date into the jackpot. Perhaps the actual present value contributed was $1 million but the jackpot figure of $4+ million shown was the Future Value (in 20 or 30 or 40 years) of such contributed to date.

Does this make sense?


No. The typical online progressive returns about 90% before the jackpot. Then perhaps 2-3% goes to the jackpot. That is TODAY's money. In the case of very large rare jackpots there is a benefit to the casino in sitting on the money for a year or more.

The casino puts up a seed, which is their own money, but in the long run they'll come out ahead.

Example:

90% payout from non-jackpot pays
casino seeds jackpot at 1 million dollars,
jackpot is a 50 million to 1 shot, and the stake is $1, which means the seed jackpot is worth 2% return
2% of the bet goes to the progressive

then the casino expects that there will be 50 million spins between jackpots

it will receive $50 million
it will pay out on average $45 million in non-jackpot pays
it will pay a $2 million jackpot - 1 million seed, plus 1 million from the players

leaving $3 million of profit (6%)

All online casinos pay jackpots TODAY, because the business model is such that on average they'll receive the jackpot many times over from the players before it is paid out.

[There is one dishonourable exception: Wagerworks - see here https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/community/online-casinos/
 

thelawnet

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Location
UK
You mean to say this is ANOTHER issue with this bunch:confused:

I thought this was the original "joyless situation".

The joyless situation was when they had players win off high comps payouts. They negotiated with some of the players to pay half of what they were owed and refused to pay others.
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
Playtech definitely have some answers to give.

Who was the previous owner of Joyland casino?

Six Digits Trading, owned through a trust by Teddy Sagi.

Old / Expired Link

Who he?

41.1% owner of Playtech.

So this would be the cashflow:

1. Playtech seeds Beach Life jackpot with just $50,000:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

2. Players play Beach life for many months. A total of $4,188,508.70 is sent from player funds to seed the jackpot.
3. Sylvia P wins the jackpot.
4. Playtech sends $4,238,508.70, 99% of which is player funds, to Joyland Casino to pay the jackpot.
5. Joyland sends Sylvia P half the money, Six Digits Trading pockets the rest, resulting in over $2 million going to the trust owned by Teddy Sagi, aka the 41.1% owner of Playtech.

In other words Playtech ended up funneling money to its largest shareholder, who incidentally in 1996 was imprisoned for "bribery, fraud and stock manipulation".

From the Jerusalem Post 30 January 1996:


THE Tel Aviv District Court yesterday sentenced broker Teddy Sagi to nine months in prison imprisonment plus an additional 15 months suspended sentence and a fine of NIS 300,000.

Sagi, whose prison term starts on February 25, admitted to bribery, fraud and stock manipulation.

In October 1993, Sagi was asked to fund the purchase of NIS 5 million in securities, after which they were sold - with Sagi pocketing NIS 8,000.

Three months later, Sagi was asked by a Bank Discount employee to purchase NIS 20m. in securities. During the court case it was maintained that Sagi earned NIS 105,000 from the second deal.

Sagi's legal counsel has requested that his client not be sent to Ma'asiahu Prison, where his estranged stepbrother Ronen Sagi is serving time for the murder of broker Ya'akov Alfrovitz 12 years ago. The matter will be decided by the Prison Authority.
Great job at background checking by Playtech and by Kahnawake.
 

HankP

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Location
Canada
You mean to say this is ANOTHER issue with this bunch:confused:

I thought this was the original "joyless situation".

Last August is VERY close to the Will Hill tie up in City terms. William Hill would have been in discussions with the various parties, and should have seen this situation as a potential minefield then. They could have made clearing up outstanding player issues a condition for the deal to go ahead.

I am not aware of the time line when this occured but If you can do a quick search off google link below and see how my sisters win was well known by all and the numerous acknowledgments were posted.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


HP
 

deltoid

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Location
canada
This makes me sick. Playtech licensees better speak up because this puts Playtech in the mud. I know they're just finding this out with the rest of us but they better realize that a player sees progressives as a SOFTWARE WIDE thing, and not down to the casino. How (networked) progressives are handled reflects almost completely on the network, not just the casino providing the link to the network.

The reputable Playtech casinos, or those seeking to be reputable, should think long and hard as to what sort of pressure they should put on Playtech/WillHill to fix this in order to get the playtech brand out of the mud that this sort of fiasco WILL and HAS put them in.
 

Gogo

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Location
Croatia
Anyway, I congratulate Sylvia. She is winner!
I have noticed that she won in CAD. Did she get 2M+ usd or cad?
 

HankP

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Location
Canada
It was CAD, they collected the full amount of her CAD deposit, and paid her a lil more than half her jackpot in Cad...
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Disappointingly low blow, GM.

Catania may have drafted a competent set of rules, but the responsibility for compliance rests with Kahnawake itself.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
William Hill should be coming out with a statement on this shortly.
 

funky_seagull

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Location
scotland
This is an instance where playtech should step in and kick any operators arse that dares to do such a low thing. William Hill has billions of pounds. They've bought Joyland and it has become a part of their brand. Now Lowland I mean Joyland(predictive text on phone comes up with interesting alternative words.) has a crap reputation. I think if William Hill want to improve the reputation of Joyland and make their brand look trustworthy. As a gesture of good will they should pay the player the rest of her winnings. It makes better business sense for them to do this. As it will send out a clear message to the player community that they're a good operator. Playtech are pretty much in bed with William Hill. If playtech want to show themselves as being a trustworthy software provider that cares about the players, after all it is the players who are the lifeblood of their business. Without the players they would die. They should either persue the original villains and take them to court for the money they stole off the player community. Or come to an arrangement with William Hill to pay the player the rest of her winnings, so that William Hill take over the casino with a clean slate and give a positive message out that Joyland is no longer Lowland. It isn't like they're short of cash. They just made a fortune in the grand national with that 100/1 winner that nobody backed. Surely they can afford to pay the player the rest of her money. Also I may be wrong here, but when you buy a company you also take on that companies debts...
 

DiamondGeezer

Dormant account
PABaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred2
Joined
May 12, 2007
Location
NOT Pennsylvania!!!
For me the thing that hits home hardest is the forcing of the player Sylvia to play through 2.1M of winnings. It's pretty sad reading that she also played through 6M after that time. I believe the legal term for such tactics is coercion.

This is a new low. When you hear stories like this it makes you wonder what exactly is really going on between online casinos and their players. And the truth is none of us really know. Affiliates - have you ever wondered how you most profitable clients are running up big payments for you? Do you ever wonder that there may be more going on than the simple process of player depositing and playing?

I used to be in favour of an open market and online regulation but I am beginning to wonder if it may infact be a mistake. This industry seems unable to control itself. Time and again owners, operators and software providors seem to have barely any knowledge or understanding of the law. Or they think they can make things up as they go along. And when things go wrong the buck is always passed. Because it is 'cyberspace' some of these companies think they can do as they please.

This episode, the WW Megajackpots farce and the Casino Club dispute have really made me feel sick. Particularly this one. The idea of winning an incredible jackpot and being subjected to these tactics is nauseating. You do wonder if there are other practises going on that haven't come to light yet.

Isn't it about time this industry got cleaned up? I would like to see ringfencing of deposits so that players can be confident casinos can pay these jackpots. And if a player has a dispute there should be some place they can go to get it attended to. Hire a few accountants and solicitors and set up a proper dispute service, even if it means players paying a fee of some kind. I know I would be happy to do so.

We as players have got to make these casinos more accountable. Many of them are very adept at hiding behind subsiduaries or basing themselves legally in one land while targeting their marketing at another nation. They are very clever at it. They also exploit the weakness and indecision of many governments.

HankP I really hope you have success in recovering thse funds for your sister. On the face of it I would think it is a really good break for you that Joyland has come under William Hill ownership and not been wound up. It looks like you have a very strong case but it is ofcourse very difficult as an individual taking action against such a large company as William Hill (who themselves may have been duped). It is a difficult situation and will no doubt make a lot of money for some lawyers.

Best of luck HanKP. As players let's stop taking this abuse and demand a better system.
 

thelawnet

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Location
UK
This is an instance where playtech should step in and kick any operators arse that dares to do such a low thing. William Hill has billions of pounds. They've bought Joyland and it has become a part of their brand. Now Lowland I mean Joyland(predictive text on phone comes up with interesting alternative words.) has a crap reputation. I think if William Hill want to improve the reputation of Joyland and make their brand look trustworthy. As a gesture of good will they should pay the player the rest of her winnings. It makes better business sense for them to do this. As it will send out a clear message to the player community that they're a good operator. Playtech are pretty much in bed with William Hill. If playtech want to show themselves as being a trustworthy software provider that cares about the players, after all it is the players who are the lifeblood of their business. Without the players they would die. They should either persue the original villains and take them to court for the money they stole off the player community. Or come to an arrangement with William Hill to pay the player the rest of her winnings, so that William Hill take over the casino with a clean slate and give a positive message out that Joyland is no longer Lowland. It isn't like they're short of cash. They just made a fortune in the grand national with that 100/1 winner that nobody backed. Surely they can afford to pay the player the rest of her money. Also I may be wrong here, but when you buy a company you also take on that companies debts...

I wouldn't be so hasty. I would think the vendor, which was actually Playtech, because for some reason they bought the casinos from their Director, and then resold them immediately to William Hill has a great deal of responsibility to explain what has happened to the money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top