Tarabas3 VS Lucky Nugget

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tarabas3

Banned User, PAB fraud
PABnoaccred
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Location
Moscow
I played at Lucky nugget recently. Deposited 143, got 143 bonus. I played Roulette, placing 15 euro on 2 numbers. I was lucky. Got my balance to 700. After that I made the rest of 7500 wagering on slots.
I made 3 euro per bet wagering. And finished with 368 euro balance. And this is an email that I received from Lucky Nugget after
that:
"As per your request I provide you with further explanation. We detected irregular game play as per our Terms & Conditions.
Your balance was reset as you placed high bets on Roulette and then played through the bonus in small bets on Hot Ink."
Firstly, there is a rule in the Lucky Nugget terms that one cannot bet 30% more than bonus received.
At no point I violated that rule. So how can they define my bets as "high" if I never made a single bet more than 30% of bonus received?
Second, how do they define "small bets"?
3 euro per spin on slots- small bet? I think that is ridiculous! 3 euro on slots is not a small bet at all. Do they want me to make 20-30 bet per spin on slots?
Now , can Lucky nugget do whatever they want to the winning players? Do they think I am just a stupid girl from Russia?
I am really frustrated, please Casinomeister, help me.
Thank you.
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Around 2 years ago I deposited and got a 100% bonus and lumped the whole lot on Paigow. I then played slots at low stakes to clear the wagering. Its a similar situation as yours the only difference being they paid me in full without any hassles.
 

gerilege

Meister Member
PABrogue
PABnorogue
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Location
Hungary
Did you have any specific reasons to play Hot Ink for the whole 7500 wagering? Or did you play other slots as well?
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Did you have any specific reasons to play Hot Ink for the whole 7500 wagering? Or did you play other slots as well?

This isn't really relevant.

The key point is whether the specific 30% max bet rule was broken. The rest of their argument is "spirit of the bonus", and not acceptable for an accredited casino.

If the OP is certain she didn't break the 30% rule, she should PAB right away.

The bet of €15 on two numbers would be classed as a bet of €30, as it is the stake per spin of the wheel that matters, not the bet per number. If she increased the total bet per spin after getting lucky on this opening bet, then this is where the 30% rule could have been broken.

The rule applies to 30% of the bonus, or 30% of €143, which gives a max bet of €42.90
This would be broken if she added one number to her strategy, making it €15 on three numbers, a total of €45

By going into Playcheck, the Roulette bets can be checked to see if any transaction entry shows a total greater than €42.90, and if not, PAB as the rest is a "spirit of the bonus" argument.

Not all casinos even allow play on Roulette for a bonus, and if the game shows as zero weighting in the terms, this effectively means it is not allowed, but in that case they should have said so in the email rather than waffling on about the max bet rule and small bets on slots.
 

Tarabas3

Banned User, PAB fraud
PABnoaccred
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Location
Moscow
This isn't really relevant.

The key point is whether the specific 30% max bet rule was broken. The rest of their argument is "spirit of the bonus", and not acceptable for an accredited casino.

If the OP is certain she didn't break the 30% rule, she should PAB right away.

The bet of €15 on two numbers would be classed as a bet of €30, as it is the stake per spin of the wheel that matters, not the bet per number. If she increased the total bet per spin after getting lucky on this opening bet, then this is where the 30% rule could have been broken.

The rule applies to 30% of the bonus, or 30% of €143, which gives a max bet of €42.90
This would be broken if she added one number to her strategy, making it €15 on three numbers, a total of €45

By going into Playcheck, the Roulette bets can be checked to see if any transaction entry shows a total greater than €42.90, and if not, PAB as the rest is a "spirit of the bonus" argument.

Not all casinos even allow play on Roulette for a bonus, and if the game shows as zero weighting in the terms, this effectively means it is not allowed, but in that case they should have said so in the email rather than waffling on about the max bet rule and small bets on slots.


I did not wager more than 30 euro total a bet. I knew about that 30% rule and was very cautious.
 

Nate

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
webmeister
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Location
Cyberspace
I did not wager more than 30 euro total a bet. I knew about that 30% rule and was very cautious.

If you are confident of your claim then I would refrain from further posts and Pitch A Bitch:

You can read about it here: Link Outdated / Removed

Further Posts on the subject CAN harm your chances so please be careful.

Nate
 

gerilege

Meister Member
PABrogue
PABnorogue
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Location
Hungary
This isn't really relevant.

The key point is whether the specific 30% max bet rule was broken. The rest of their argument is "spirit of the bonus", and not acceptable for an accredited casino.

If the OP is certain she didn't break the 30% rule, she should PAB right away.

The bet of €15 on two numbers would be classed as a bet of €30, as it is the stake per spin of the wheel that matters, not the bet per number. If she increased the total bet per spin after getting lucky on this opening bet, then this is where the 30% rule could have been broken.

The rule applies to 30% of the bonus, or 30% of €143, which gives a max bet of €42.90
This would be broken if she added one number to her strategy, making it €15 on three numbers, a total of €45

By going into Playcheck, the Roulette bets can be checked to see if any transaction entry shows a total greater than €42.90, and if not, PAB as the rest is a "spirit of the bonus" argument.

Not all casinos even allow play on Roulette for a bonus, and if the game shows as zero weighting in the terms, this effectively means it is not allowed, but in that case they should have said so in the email rather than waffling on about the max bet rule and small bets on slots.

It might be relevant in connection to 5.8.1 of the respective T&Cs. I think some of the phrases in that paragraph are more concrete than the general spirit of the bonus terms we frequently see.
I would not like to go more into the details here, but my personal opinion is that the reason for the rejected payout here might be related to the play on this particular slot, and not related to the bet sizes used for completing wagering.
I am not the person who should tell whether this decision was right or wrong, but from my perspective it might turn out to be a non-straightforward case at the end.
 

maphesto

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Location
Sweden
If you are confident of your claim then I would refrain from further posts and Pitch A Bitch:

You can read about it here: Link Outdated / Removed

Further Posts on the subject CAN harm your chances so please be careful.

Nate

Or, he can first contact their rep cobus here! ;)

@OP: Lucky Nugget are accredited here at CM and I suggest you contact their rep first.
 

hakapuku

Banned User - repeated violations of rule 1.14 (tr
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Location
UA
"5.8.1 Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account, placing even money bets on Roulette, Sic Bo or Craps, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 20% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. For the purposes of this rule, a bet is defined as one roulette spin or one dealer's dealt hand in any table game, or one deal in any Video or Power Poker game (this includes Multi-Hand/Play games). Any double or gamble shall be considered a new bet. Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred; the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings. "

Can somebody explain this to me? What 30% bet limits refer to and what 20% bet limits refer to?
 

hakapuku

Banned User - repeated violations of rule 1.14 (tr
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Location
UA
It might be relevant in connection to 5.8.1 of the respective T&Cs. I think some of the phrases in that paragraph are more concrete than the general spirit of the bonus terms we frequently see.
I would not like to go more into the details here, but my personal opinion is that the reason for the rejected payout here might be related to the play on this particular slot, and not related to the bet sizes used for completing wagering.
I am not the person who should tell whether this decision was right or wrong, but from my perspective it might turn out to be a non-straightforward case at the end.

There is nothing there about "specific slot play".
 

gerilege

Meister Member
PABrogue
PABnorogue
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Location
Hungary
There is nothing there about "specific slot play".

I DO appreciate input from any forum members, and I understand that there are natural reflections to what I posted. Still, let me refrain from commenting any more on this issue for now and see how the thread and a potential PAB would develop.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
"5.8.1 Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account, placing even money bets on Roulette, Sic Bo or Craps, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 20% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. For the purposes of this rule, a bet is defined as one roulette spin or one dealer's dealt hand in any table game, or one deal in any Video or Power Poker game (this includes Multi-Hand/Play games). Any double or gamble shall be considered a new bet. Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred; the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings. "

Can somebody explain this to me? What 30% bet limits refer to and what 20% bet limits refer to?

I suspect what has happened here is that they are now enforcing a 20% max bet rule, which the OP DID break, but have not properly updated the terms to reflect this, leaving the position unclear for players.

This is definitely a PAB issue, as accreditation means that when a mistake is made like this by the casino, they would have to err in favour of the more generous interpretation until they correct the typo. For others, it reveals that they are now moving to a 20% max bet rule, as it was always 30% in the past.

There is nothing about "this slot" as opposed to "that slot" in any terms and conditions, and unless they have specifically excluded this slot elsewhere, play on it is no more "irregular" than play on any other, as it's a slot, and the outcomes are all random, so no "strategy" involved.

I have seen other MGS casinos exclude specific slots from making WR, but this has been progressives, and more oddly, the single non progressive "Scrooge". Unless Hot Ink is a Scrooge clone, I don't see the problem.

I have seen casinos argue that switching to slots after starting on games with a lower weighting is "abuse", but they are not accredited, and they at least have this spelled out in the terms, some with a pretty clear "must not reduce bets by more than xx% after a winning streak".

My big issue with Lucky Nugget is their change to 10 day pending for all large withdrawals, and their "large" is not the same as my "large", and seems to cover anything from the low hundreds upwards. I bet that even if they agreed to pay the OP, it would be pending for 10 days first.
 

hakapuku

Banned User - repeated violations of rule 1.14 (tr
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Location
UA
I suspect what has happened here is that they are now enforcing a 20% max bet rule, which the OP DID break, but have not properly updated the terms to reflect this, leaving the position unclear for players.

This is definitely a PAB issue, as accreditation means that when a mistake is made like this by the casino, they would have to err in favour of the more generous interpretation until they correct the typo. For others, it reveals that they are now moving to a 20% max bet rule, as it was always 30% in the past.

There is nothing about "this slot" as opposed to "that slot" in any terms and conditions, and unless they have specifically excluded this slot elsewhere, play on it is no more "irregular" than play on any other, as it's a slot, and the outcomes are all random, so no "strategy" involved.

I have seen other MGS casinos exclude specific slots from making WR, but this has been progressives, and more oddly, the single non progressive "Scrooge". Unless Hot Ink is a Scrooge clone, I don't see the problem.

I have seen casinos argue that switching to slots after starting on games with a lower weighting is "abuse", but they are not accredited, and they at least have this spelled out in the terms, some with a pretty clear "must not reduce bets by more than xx% after a winning streak".

My big issue with Lucky Nugget is their change to 10 day pending for all large withdrawals, and their "large" is not the same as my "large", and seems to cover anything from the low hundreds upwards. I bet that even if they agreed to pay the OP, it would be pending for 10 days first.


The way I understand this rule is that 20% bet limit only refers to EVEN money bets on roulette, sicbo and craps. The OP ,as I see it, did not make even money bets (eg. bets on Red/Black, Odd/Even etc). So this rule cannot be applied to her case.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
The way I understand this rule is that 20% bet limit only refers to EVEN money bets on roulette, sicbo and craps. The OP ,as I see it, did not make even money bets (eg. bets on Red/Black, Odd/Even etc). So this rule cannot be applied to her case.

The wording is confusing. Even money bets are considered irregular play regardless of bet amount AFAICT.

There seems to be two sets of rules for max bet. The logical and fair thing to do would be to apply the HIGHER of the two percentages.

Unless there are other facts to which we are not privy, it LOOKS like a case of "pay the player".

me_and_ed - 3 months non-response is unacceptable. Please let Bryan or Max know so they can find out what is going on.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Let me know if he actually responds, I have been waiting for 3 months from a PM I sent.

Funnily enough I closed my Lucky Nugget account last weekend for that very reason. I contacted Cobus and still 10 days later have had no reply. Prior to this I got paid on the few occasions I made a w/d from there.

If you all remember, I started a thread last week for this very reason - concerning our responsibility to notify Max/Brian if we notice the advertised criteria for a particular casino's accreditation is not being maintained, or reduced. I would include in this both Vinyl's observation concerning the surreptitious 10-day pending for a vague definition of 'large withdrawals' AND the seemingly sleeping rep and bad/non-response time.

I maintain that it's all very well members here chastising people for not using the accredited list before playing and ensuing problems, but what about when players join on the basis of changed/inaccurate information in the accreditied list??:mad:
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
Funnily enough I closed my Lucky Nugget account last weekend for that very reason. I contacted Cobus and still 10 days later have had no reply. Prior to this I got paid on the few occasions I made a w/d from there.

If you all remember, I started a thread last week for this very reason - concerning our responsibility to notify Max/Brian if we notice the advertised criteria for a particular casino's accreditation is not being maintained, or reduced. I would include in this both Vinyl's observation concerning the surreptitious 10-day pending for a vague definition of 'large withdrawals' AND the seemingly sleeping rep and bad/non-response time.

I maintain that it's all very well members here chastising people for not using the accredited list before playing and ensuing problems, but what about when players join on the basis of changed/inaccurate information in the accreditied list??:mad:

So you chastise Bryan for not updating his accredited list using information that he is NOT provided with by members?

That makes sense.

We as members are part of the ongoing accredited process, in that the real time feedback we provide to Max and Bryan, when taken with other information, is vital in preventing the very problem you're talking about.

I didn't see the other thread, but did you report the lack of response to Bryan? If me_and_ed had done so (I assume he didn't) and you have done so, then Bryan WILL take action to find out WTH is going on, AND will remove them from the list if the answers he receives are not satisfactory. I've seen it done on many occasions to even long-time accredited groups.

The accredited standards are actually very tightly maintained and policed in comparison to other self-proclaimed "Watchdog" site, which should indicate just how little money and profit means to CM and how important integrity and professionalism is in his ethos.

If players join on the basis of "inaccurate information" etc, then we must bear some responsibility for that. It's unreasonable and likely impossible for Bryan or anyone else to be personally up with every single issue that members experience without members actually reporting things when they happen. A lack of reply or some small detail might seem trivial and hardly worth it to a member, but if a dozen are having the same issue and also ignoring it, chances are it really is a BIG issue that could be the start of something even bigger, whereas if even a couple of those members passed the information along, it might just stop the issues in their tracks.

I'll say one thing.....I do check out affy sites regularly, and from the examples of other "accredited/approved lists" I've seen, the one at CM is MILES ahead in regards to integrity. Some of the "approved" casinos I've seen at well-peddled sites here in the forum would make you :eek:. Another aspect that is good about the CM list is that it is limited to a selection of casinos who have been through a formal process and proven themselves, and that the rest of the site is not full of "other casinos" just to catch the extra affiliate dollars when the accredited casinos are exhausted for a player. I've heard the "yeah that casino isn't great...thats why we don't give it much webspace and it isn't an approved one etc etc"....what a load of crap. Players TRUST affiliates to lead them to reputable casinos, so having any association with casinos that have a proven record of being the opposite is disgusting IMO. If you have a casino listed on your site, then you ARE recommending it, and if it is a known craphole (even if the affy personally hasn't had many issues), then you deserve to be called out. It's disappointing that affys here who do this are allowed to have their links in their siggys, but then I don't think anyone but the mods should have them anyway, but that's a different rant for a different day.....
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
So you chastise Bryan for not updating his accredited list using information that he is NOT provided with by members?

That makes sense.

We as members are part of the ongoing accredited process, in that the real time feedback we provide to Max and Bryan, when taken with other information, is vital in preventing the very problem you're talking about.

I didn't see the other thread, but did you report the lack of response to Bryan? If me_and_ed had done so (I assume he didn't) and you have done so, then Bryan WILL take action to find out WTH is going on, AND will remove them from the list if the answers he receives are not satisfactory. I've seen it done on many occasions to even long-time accredited groups.

The accredited standards are actually very tightly maintained and policed in comparison to other self-proclaimed "Watchdog" site, which should indicate just how little money and profit means to CM and how important integrity and professionalism is in his ethos.

If players join on the basis of "inaccurate information" etc, then we must bear some responsibility for that. It's unreasonable and likely impossible for Bryan or anyone else to be personally up with every single issue that members experience without members actually reporting things when they happen. A lack of reply or some small detail might seem trivial and hardly worth it to a member, but if a dozen are having the same issue and also ignoring it, chances are it really is a BIG issue that could be the start of something even bigger, whereas if even a couple of those members passed the information along, it might just stop the issues in their tracks.

I'll say one thing.....I do check out affy sites regularly, and from the examples of other "accredited/approved lists" I've seen, the one at CM is MILES ahead in regards to integrity. Some of the "approved" casinos I've seen at well-peddled sites here in the forum would make you :eek:. Another aspect that is good about the CM list is that it is limited to a selection of casinos who have been through a formal process and proven themselves, and that the rest of the site is not full of "other casinos" just to catch the extra affiliate dollars when the accredited casinos are exhausted for a player. I've heard the "yeah that casino isn't great...thats why we don't give it much webspace and it isn't an approved one etc etc"....what a load of crap. Players TRUST affiliates to lead them to reputable casinos, so having any association with casinos that have a proven record of being the opposite is disgusting IMO. If you have a casino listed on your site, then you ARE recommending it, and if it is a known craphole (even if the affy personally hasn't had many issues), then you deserve to be called out. It's disappointing that affys here who do this are allowed to have their links in their siggys, but then I don't think anyone but the mods should have them anyway, but that's a different rant for a different day.....

I think you should take that statement back; you have admitted you didn't read my thread/ideas about this matter and had you done so you would see my sentiments are the polar opposite to which you allege here. In fact you could have saved yourself a bit of typing because much of what else you wrote mirrors what I stated too.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/accredited-casino-profiles-we-can-help.56093/
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
I think you should take that statement back; you have admitted you didn't read my thread/ideas about this matter and had you done so you would see my sentiments are the polar opposite to which you allege here. In fact you could have saved yourself a bit of typing because much of what else you wrote mirrors what I stated too.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/accredited-casino-profiles-we-can-help.56093/

Well, maybe next time link the thread if you're going to refer to it.

Your comments here seemed to express a different view, but I see now how it could be read another way.

I do retract the statements referring to you personally and apologize for getting the wrong end of the stick.

Looks like we are in agreement on this subject :thumbsup:
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Well, maybe next time link the thread if you're going to refer to it.
Your comments here seemed to express a different view, but I see now how it could be read another way.

I do retract the statements referring to you personally and apologize for getting the wrong end of the stick.

Looks like we are in agreement on this subject :thumbsup:

Yeah, that's fair enough.

Apology accepted.

There does seem to be a consensus about the rep issue on the Digimedia MG casinos, so I'll take the lead and PM Bryan or Max.
 

Mouche12

Kitty Lover
PABnonaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Location
Amsterdam
10 days pending for large withdrawals (starting from $750, 1000 or...?):what:

Not my casino of choice for sure!
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
10 days pending for large withdrawals (starting from $750, 1000 or...?):what:

Not my casino of choice for sure!

I did query this with CS, and they replied that the policy had just come in (blatant lie), and that by large, they meant £5000+, after which they subjected my £4000 withdrawal to 10 days pending (another lie). I also had a £700 withdrawal set to 10 days pending almost a YEAR before CS told me the policy had been brought in (lie 3), and a German player was subjected to a 10 day pending a year before that.

It prompted Simmo to ask them for clarification, and they told him no such policy existed, or had ever existed, even though the German player had posted the email HE received where he was told it was a new GLOBAL policy that had just been brought in for everyone.

It's the sheer scale of deceit, not just the 10 day policy, that is the problem.

I forwarded the email detailing the policy as it was communicated to me to Max, who said he would discuss it with Bryan at a later time, but asked me to copy Bryan into what I sent him about it. This was last year, and STILL the claim on their listing is the old 48-72 hour timeframe, with nothing about any policy for large withdrawals. I put this down to them giving people like Simmo and Max BS about there never having been such a policy, so as to hide it from people who might, with some authority, reveal it in public.

CS didn't know I knew anything about the German player's story, so it obviously didn't occur to them to ensure the stories matched. I bet they didn't know WHY Simmo asked, so he just got given the standard 48-72 hour info.

It now seems the rep has gone AWOL, and the operator has not informed Max nor Bryan. Cobus was an affiliate side rep in any case, we lost the player rep "Bellerock" some time before, and he was never replaced. Cobus simply added the role of forwarder of player issues to his role as rep for the affiliate side.

They have also quietly become Digimedia, and for a long while were listed as the outdated BelleRock group. This may indicate that there was a complete change of ownership and management that Bryan was not aware of, and this may have included a change of policy to something darker, such as the sneaky 10 day pending, and the "spirit of the bonus" type confiscation highlighted by this case.

After my "larger than £5000" £4000 was subject to 10 days pending because of a policy that didn't even exist, I decided it was time to uninstall all their casinos and go elsewhere. After all, my most recent set of visits were very profitable, and oddly enough, the £66,000 highlight was NOT subjected to 10 days pending as had some earlier withdrawals been. Maybe the very public airing in "winner screenshots" made them think it unwise to have me post "still waiting" whilst the topic was still hot:rolleyes:
 

Mouche12

Kitty Lover
PABnonaccred
PABnoaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Location
Amsterdam
Thanks for your elaborate answer VWM.

Should this info not be included in the accredited section? Or do you think Lucky Nugget should be downgraded to 'good to go'?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top