Bonus Complaint The 25k Issue - POLL

[Mouche12]

Well, I disagree. The basic mechanics are not in dispute i.e. 32red erroneously credited excess bonus which enabled the player to win. They also have a term to cover this.

The poll simply asks that given these circumstances at present, what people would consider a fair outcome. When the player spotted this is irrelevant as it simply can't be proven by him, 32red, us or anybody else and therefore can't have any influence on the poll question.

But it seems more complicated than this: the $2000 bonus also came with 35x wagering and it was therefore IMO no small effort to bring his balance up to $25K, taking into the account the fact that he had to wager $70K.

 

[Mouche12]

You are missing an option for the poll.
Option: player accepts the bonus offer like a true sportsperson (750k play though on a 25k bonus)

I will vote when you add that option

Agreed, and don't forget to mention that the OP would then be restricted to a max bet size of $6.25....

 

[Mouche12]

No, they didn't break terms; they made an error and used valid terms to recover the error. That's misleading Vinyl.

On the second point you should know by your length of presence here that 32red reps by policy do not get embroiled in discussions and heated threads like the one we refer to here. Never. Only answer banal questions about trivia and promos etc. I point you to the recent one regarding removal of weekend cash-outs. A lengthy thread with lots of questions and concerns from members, no 32red input other than the first post informing you of the decision. That's how they do things. Whether lawyers were mentioned or not had no bearing on that as they wouldn't participate anyway. It's between them and the player/Max and not us.

The issue at stake is whether the casino is allowed to use those valid terms to recover its error at the detriment of the player in this particular scenario. As I mentioned earlier: the player is supposed to bear full responsibility for ANY mistake (his or the casino's), the casino is fully covered in any scenario and the player is left on his own.

 

[dunover]

The issue at stake is whether the casino is allowed to use those valid terms to recover its error at the detriment of the player in this particular scenario. As I mentioned earlier: the player is supposed to bear full responsibility for ANY mistake (his or the casino's), the casino is fully covered in any scenario and the player is left on his own.

Not disagreeing with you. 'Allowed' is not really the right word though. They ARE allowed to, the question is whether we think it's fair that they do. Clearly the poll would show the majority believe it's unfair. That was the idea, to summarize the forum opinion.
P.S. The 750k WR bonus option wasn't included in the poll because the player had already indicated he wouldn't accept that and wanted an alternative outcome.

 

[PNEFOREVER2]

I voted for the compromise of part payment and the rest as bonus.

Bottom line for me is you can't play or win something with credits you don't have, or shouldn't have in this case. Sure, he tells us he would have made another £1000 anyway, but he's bound to say that, there's no way of proving whether he would or wouldn't have.

Meeting halfway at a compromise is the best solution in my opinion.

 

[Jasminebed]

I've expressed my view in the other thread, I won't vote here.

 

[KasinoKing]

You are missing an option for the poll.
Option: player accepts the bonus offer like a true sportsperson (750k play though on a 25k bonus)

I will vote when you add that option

Also missing is "Casino's error - pay in full".
I don't like the word "Discretionary" in option 3, because it makes it sound like the casino was never in error under any circumstance.

KK

 

[Balthazar]

You are missing an option for the poll.
Option: player accepts the bonus offer like a true sportsperson (750k play though on a 25k bonus)

I will vote when you add that option

The "play until you bust" offer? The number of spins required to meet WR virtually eliminates any form of variance which means that you had close to 0% chance to beat that offer.

If I ever own a casino, I want players like you though

Also missing is "Casino's error - pay in full".
I don't like the word "Discretionary" in option 3, because it makes it sound like the casino was never in error under any circumstance.

This is why I couldn't vote. Your wording shows biais here dunover.

 

[chayton]

Sorry Dun, no vote from me either. Personally I'd like to see the truth come out, or have them come to a compromise that everyone is happy with, but that's what I always hope for.

I just hope that this poll on top of the other thread doesn't come across as a way to show the casino which way the wind is blowing or some kind of pressure tactic. You know what I mean? Like "Look how many players you're going to lose if you don't pay that guy..."

I get that you don't mean it that way, but the poster in the other thread ended his first post with this line, "Maybe mob justice can make 32Red see sense before I proceed with court action." We pretty well all agree that's not how you do things...and asking 'the mob' (us!) to vote makes it feel like we're coming uncomfortably close to fueling the agenda of the player. If in fact he has one, which seems more likely since as far as I can tell, he still hasn't bothered doing a PAB after 27 pages of people telling him to.

 

[chuchu59]

Sorry Dun, no vote from me either. Personally I'd like to see the truth come out, or have them come to a compromise that everyone is happy with, but that's what I always hope for.

I just hope that this poll on top of the other thread doesn't come across as a way to show the casino which way the wind is blowing or some kind of pressure tactic. You know what I mean? Like "Look how many players you're going to lose if you don't pay that guy..."

I get that you don't mean it that way, but the poster in the other thread ended his first post with this line, "Maybe mob justice can make 32Red see sense before I proceed with court action." We pretty well all agree that's not how you do things...and asking 'the mob' (us!) to vote makes it feel like we're coming uncomfortably close to fueling the agenda of the player. If in fact he has one, which seems more likely since as far as I can tell, he still hasn't bothered doing a PAB after 27 pages of people telling him to.

Don't you worry smart Dragon. Mob justice can work both ways. Actually, I am convinced that the OP had no wishes whatever to proceed with court action. If he did and all he presented were the facts in his opening post he would be deemed an untruthful witness for omitting the fact that an offer was made to him. He vehemently denied that he had been untruthful but if one does not disclose all relevant details why should the judge believe him? Players are quite likely to side with him as it is possible that one day they will be on the receiving end of similar treatment. I believe both sides have erred in one way or another and both sides should aim for a settlement somewhere in between. The OP of that thread and a couple of posters cannot be totally trusted IMHO.

 

[maphesto]

I haven't voted. I still think (with that knowledge I have about the issue atm) that 67% of the winnings should be paid.

So far 12% eek2 actually voted for this:

The terms applied - winnings removed and player gets correct D+B and starts over.

A question to those people:

Does this mean that you think that a casino can put extra bonus money into players account without risk?

 

[paul7388]

Thought I would stay away from other thread as its so long. Anyway see theres still no PAB. And still only had one side of the story. Its got to the case now that no matter who is right or wrong and whatever the outcome is the OP still succeeded if he wanted mob justice. Cannot believe some of the comments directed towards the casino without actual proof. Has no one learnt anything from all the previous cases where casinos have been ripped apart then its turned out the OP was lying. Fact OP is so reluctant to PAB worries me. If indeed he ever PABS and 32RED were wrong then that's the time to rip them apart. But until then maybe we should all wait to see what happens before finding either party guilty with no evidence. But seriously the OP knows what a PAB is and what it does so if hes genuine cant understand why the hell he wont do it. Would take a couple of days and if he didn't like outcome he can still go to court.

 

[vinylweatherman]

No, they didn't break terms; they made an error and used valid terms to recover the error. That's misleading Vinyl.

On the second point you should know by your length of presence here that 32red reps by policy do not get embroiled in discussions and heated threads like the one we refer to here. Never. Only answer banal questions about trivia and promos etc. I point you to the recent one regarding removal of weekend cash-outs. A lengthy thread with lots of questions and concerns from members, no 32red input other than the first post informing you of the decision. That's how they do things. Whether lawyers were mentioned or not had no bearing on that as they wouldn't participate anyway. It's between them and the player/Max and not us.

Well, they did actually. The term broken was that the max was £1000. The CS agent broke that term by adding £2000. The player didn't actually break a term at all, what has been used is a recovery term, a term that allows the casino to do something against the wishes of the player. A player can't break such a term as they have no power whilst the money is still in the casino's jurisdiction.

Not all terms can be broken by one party or another through their actions.

There is no term obligating a player to audit the actions of the CS agents, hence the player can't have broken it.

When a player "makes an error" which has the effect of breaking a term, such as pressing max bet, the player is still said to have broken the term.

The term used to recover the error was not an error recovery term. It was a different term, a merely descriptive term, that was turned into an actionable term and used for a different purpose to that intended. It's not like a case where a player claims a bonus themselves, and then knowingly uses a claim code to which he is not entitled. Here, it's the actions of the player that causes a problem, and something wholly within their control. When it's the CS that does something, it is reasonable for the player to assume in the first instance that what they have done is correct in their case.

This case is going to create an atmosphere where players are reluctant to trust CS, they are going to start asking for things in writing, copies of live chat logs, etc. This is usually something players have to worry about at the less reputable casinos, known for making promises over the phone (no written record of course) and then denying such conversations ever took place if that helps them screw the player over. It isn't something we should have to start worrying about at accredited casinos.

Fortunately, the player has just submitted a PAB, so hopefully it will eventually be revealed whether we are being asked to vote on the issue as presented, or whether some other issue yet to be disclosed has created the problem.

 

[petro]

The "play until you bust" offer? The number of spins required to meet WR virtually eliminates any form of variance which means that you had close to 0% chance to beat that offer.

No, I don't think that is true. Variance has no effect on EV as far as I'm aware.

 

[KasinoKing]

No, I don't think that is true. Variance has no effect on EV as far as I'm aware.

Yes it does (in this particular case).
The point Balthazar was making was that with such a HUGE WR to do at relatively small bets (compared to the total starting balance) - your most likely outcome is to end up pretty close to the theoretical RTP of the slots you are playing = typically 96%-ish, and therefore you are almost certain to bust out.

If you have a very low WR and/or could place big bets compared to your starting balance, then the variance would give you the possibility of meeting the WR with a decent profit.

KK

 

[dunover]

The "play until you bust" offer? The number of spins required to meet WR virtually eliminates any form of variance which means that you had close to 0% chance to beat that offer.

If I ever own a casino, I want players like you though





This is why I couldn't vote. Your wording shows biais here dunover.

I accept your point Balt. These options are quite hard to word in the 100 letters available to satisfy all aspects. I did consider 'casino fault' but thought that would be even more leading than capitalizing the word 'ALL' (the winnings).
I used the word 'discretionary' because 32red (as most accredited casinos) have a standard 'get-out' term for when this happens. Therefore, under these terms that are accepted and present at all the accredited sites, any payment of winnings accrued in these cases are always at the discretion of the site - whether we like it or not.

P.S. Vinyl used the example of casinos confiscating winnings when a player 'accidentally' exceeds the max stake under WR. I did point out in another post that 32red have a record of (if player stops play and informs CS) allowing a new calculated WR including the 'excess stake' winnings, in order to allow the player another fair chance of cashing the bonus. Not many do this.

P.P.S. Thanks to all who voted, it was just intended as a summary of the feelings on this matter. I got nearly 100 votes so that's a decent spread. I also thank those who didn't and for giving their reasons for not doing so. The player has now PAB'd so I guess this 'pointless poll' (as Incrediblestuff calls it..lol) has run its course and we know where the majority stand on the forum. Cheers!

P.P.P.S. Just a reminder Bryan has closed the other thread regarding this issue as a PAB has been launched, so in the spirit of that action can I kindly request this poll topic is not turned into an alternative place to discuss it. I think we've collected all the votes by now and are probably done here. Thanks!