Bonus Complaint The 25k Issue - POLL

[dunover]

OK - as the '32red 25k thread' has become long and convoluted, it's difficult to gauge a general opinion regarding the issue. I think a one-stop poll may make it easier for members.

Remember the purpose of this is NOT an alternative thread to post about the issue, please keep the comments to the proper original thread.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/32red-vs-joseph3-expensive-mistake.63858/?t=63858


It's a simple quick reflection of things as they stand from members point of view without trawling through a long thread.

The results of the poll will not, and are not intended to influence any decisions or events regarding the issue.

 

[citizenx]

OK - as the '32red 25k thread' has become long and convoluted, it's difficult to gauge a general opinion regarding the issue. I think a one-stop poll may make it easier for members.

Sorry, but I think it is a more nuanced discussion than a simple poll would indicate. Further, after having ones views referred to as "slurry", I'm not sure I want to participate.

 

[Tirilej]

OK - as the '32red 25k thread' has become long and convoluted, it's difficult to gauge a general opinion regarding the issue. I think a one-stop poll may make it easier for members.

The thought is good, but since we don't have all the facts then I can't vote for anything.

Until I know I stand behind 32Red. Surprised?

 

[paul7388]

The thought is good, but since we don't have all the facts then I can't vote for anything.

Until I know I stand behind 32Red. Surprised?

Lol I would have been surprised if you didn't

 

[dunover]

The thought is good, but since we don't have all the facts then I can't vote for anything.

Until I know I stand behind 32Red. Surprised?

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.

 

[dunover]

Sorry, but I think it is a more nuanced discussion than a simple poll would indicate. Further, after having ones views referred to as "slurry", I'm not sure I want to participate.

We live in a democracy. Abstentions always welcome.

 

[Tirilej]

You're having fun dunover?

When you put it that way then it's of course ok. Still it's just opinions that depends a lot on what people think of 32Red. Good or bad.
They just can't leave their opinions out of it.
I'll pass

 

[dunover]

You're having fun dunover?

When you put it that way then it's of course ok. Still it's just opinions that depends a lot on what people think of 32Red. Good or bad.
They just can't leave their opinions out of it.
I'll pass

Yes, but the poll simply asks the question of what players think is fair, how they would like to be treated in a similar situation. Yes, it's 32red who've gaffed in this case but the principle would be the same if it was any other casino that had made the initial error. Just pretend it isn't 32red and have a vote - you know you want to......

 

[homerbert]

Discretionary payment of ALL 25k winnings.

 

[dunover]

Discretionary payment of ALL 25k winnings.

Fair enough, you are in the majority at present!


The results are obviously going to be from us players' perspective. I'd be very interested, if it were possible, to compare the outcome with same poll exclusively for casino reps.

 

[syntynyt]

The terms applied - winnings removed and player gets correct D+B and starts over.
3 votes already. depressing. where is justice included with this option? in many places you can get better bonuses than ones displayed just for contacting live support, maybe this crossed his mind after he saw the amount credited. why he should start over again for casino mistake. put yourself in his shoes then vote this.

 

[Jory]

I voted for "Discretionary payment of ALL 25k winnings."

If a decision was made during processing for a payment of 66.666% of the winnings, then I believe that would have been fair at the time.

However, as they chose not to pay then I feel that the only appropriate course of action at this stage is to pay the full payment. You now have to take into consideration the stress the player has suffered in being put through this whole ordeal which was all caused by an error from a member of 32red's staff.

They are fully within their rights to deny any payment of course, but if they do that then they can no longer claim to be the casino that "puts the player first".

 

[Sovietsky]

I remember when my freind recived the 200% deposit bonus up to 20€, he talked with CS and they fixed it for him but because he did a deposit of 20€ they where kind enough to give him 40€ instead of 20€.

If my freind would win and they voided his winnings, is it my freinds fault for accepting the extra bonus money?

 

[243 lines=daft]

You are assuming you have the full facts.

The original poster has acted in a very manipulative way from the start.

The poster made mention of courts at an early stage, limiting the ability of 32 Red to comment in the forum.

As a result one side of the story is being regurgitated and speculated upon.

By default certain members are taking the side of a new member who we know withheld information from the start, against the most reputable casino in the industry.

You should not be running this poll.

 

[lotusch]

Defo option 3 for me.
The casino made a mistake,so i.m.h.o they have to live with it.
A mistake is a mistake.
It would show great sportsmanship if they would admit they made an error and they are gonna pay this customer his winnings.
As I have said in the thread about this issue before,32Red is a great casino,I have had never issues with them and it is a good place to play but this kind of events make you wonder if they are really "that nice" when a bigger amount of monies is involved.
25k for them is a few people depositing in like 10 minutes time maybe and for the player (it defo would for me) is a massive win and a great amount of money.

So 32Red should come forward,apologise for the mistake,pay the guy and close this friggin case.
I guarantee you the casino community will cheer for that outcome,good for 32Red and probably the player in question will continue to be a good customer.

If they keep hiding behind their t&c's trying to blame the player,well then I would find that a disgrace so to speak.
Also I would reconsider playing with them again,but that is just a personal opinion of course.


Just my 2 cents.

 

[dunover]

You are assuming you have the full facts.

The original poster has acted in a very manipulative way from the start.

The poster made mention of courts at an early stage, limiting the ability of 32 Red to comment in the forum.

As a result one side of the story is being regurgitated and speculated upon.

By default certain members are taking the side of a new member who we know withheld information from the start, against the most reputable casino in the industry.

You should not be running this poll.

Please read my OP -
"It's a simple quick reflection of things as they stand" and (later) that the poll is based solely on the fact the player has received and profited from an erroneous bonus credit - which is not speculation and admitted by 32red.

Forget that it's 32red. I'm asking members what they consider a fair and reasonable way to treat the player based on what we DO know.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I too am concerned that we shouldn't be having this poll just yet. At least wait until we know whether a PAB is going to be submitted.

On the face of it, the casino broke the terms, not the player, so it's the party that broke the terms that should suffer, not the other party. This assumes that the player has given a truthful account, and that he in no way manipulated CS during the chat to "force" the error. Without the chat logs, we cannot know how this all started.

The threat of court action has meant that 32Red dare not post a single word about this, their legal team would have made this clear to them.

Anything that has been hidden will come out, either in the PAB, or during a court hearing.

All votes here have to be on the assumption that this is as stated, an unforced error that neither the player nor CS noticed at the time as being an error.

 

[Tirilej]

Forget that it's 32red. I'm asking members what they consider a fair and reasonable way to treat the player based on what we DO know.

I can't stop thinking that it's wrong anyway.

Some members here always side with the player. Always.
Others are siding with casinos they win on and like for that reason.
I'm siding with the casino here not because just who they are but because I don't know the facts yet.

It's always so much speculations, so many opinions, and so many that always have to change their minds afterwards.
You're starting a new discussion thread about the subject. The only thing that's missing is the complainant in the other thread.

You see already that the same posters are having the same opinions here so you could just take them out and post a poll that's already finished.

 

[psmith2020]

Defo option 3 for me.
The casino made a mistake,so i.m.h.o they have to live with it.
A mistake is a mistake.
It would show great sportsmanship if they would admit they made an error and they are gonna pay this customer his winnings.
As I have said in the thread about this issue before,32Red is a great casino,I have had never issues with them and it is a good place to play but this kind of events make you wonder if they are really "that nice" when a bigger amount of monies is involved.
25k for them is a few people depositing in like 10 minutes time maybe and for the player (it defo would for me) is a massive win and a great amount of money.

So 32Red should come forward,apologise for the mistake,pay the guy and close this friggin case.
I guarantee you the casino community will cheer for that outcome,good for 32Red and probably the player in question will continue to be a good customer.

If they keep hiding behind their t&c's trying to blame the player,well then I would find that a disgrace so to speak.
Also I would reconsider playing with them again,but that is just a personal opinion of course.


Just my 2 cents.

but how I see it is if a customer service rep for a cashino made a mistake like that they are liable for the mistake not the player as there will not be any any t and c's in to cover this anyway as its same in arcades or a bookies if they credit a terminal with too much money we arnt liable for it the bookies or arcade are as we haven't made the mistakes

 

[paul7388]

I don't think a poll is a great idea either for various reasons. First if OP had consulted a lawyer( no proof he has) surely he would have been advised not to talk about case online if going for court action. Secondly its been 5 weeks since 32red refused the withdrawal. After 5 weeks I would have thought he would have took the matter further by now either through regulators or court. Why if you have such a great case spend time floating around forums. He stated at first he wanted peoples opinions whether court was a good idea or to try get mob to force 32reds hand. Sorry if lawyer had said you have a great case why need anyone elses advice. And as for 32red we don't know there side of a story but all these posts on here makes it harder for them to "do the right thing" if they are in the wrong and pay him as it will then look like the mob have forced their hand. This should have been settled privately and in my opinion the OP has done whatever case he had more harm than good.

 

[aceking123]

no vote from me either , although i would like too , i shall wait to see which way the op plays the next card , i havnt anything agaisnt 32red , played there for years ,dont have a account any longer.

 

[dunover]

I don't think a poll is a great idea either for various reasons. First if OP had consulted a lawyer( no proof he has) surely he would have been advised not to talk about case online if going for court action. Secondly its been 5 weeks since 32red refused the withdrawal. After 5 weeks I would have thought he would have took the matter further by now either through regulators or court. Why if you have such a great case spend time floating around forums. He stated at first he wanted peoples opinions whether court was a good idea or to try get mob to force 32reds hand. Sorry if lawyer had said you have a great case why need anyone elses advice. And as for 32red we don't know there side of a story but all these posts on here makes it harder for them to "do the right thing" if they are in the wrong and pay him as it will then look like the mob have forced their hand. This should have been settled privately and in my opinion the OP has done whatever case he had more harm than good.

Good points. If you see my last post on the original thread I did say I hoped the poll would alleviate some of the pressure on there - posters can simply cast a vote and forgo more commenting. It also provides an insight into how we perceive our 'rights' when a casino is in error and generally, not just 32red. I am clearly in a minority in my vote. As you say, the matter has been live for 5 weeks, so a poll now is hardly going to affect anything, is it?

I can see about 70% think the casino should pay for their error in full. Fair enough.

All I can say is, next time we have a player on here moaning/PAB'ing because he/she has lost hundreds or thousands for erroneously going over the bet threshold while under bonus WR don't be surprised when 70% of the casinos void the winnings with NO compromise..................

And remember, 32red in the past have given the offending player in the above scenario a second chance by recalculating their WR to take into account their over-stakes rather than voiding the whole lot.

 

[dunover]

I too am concerned that we shouldn't be having this poll just yet. At least wait until we know whether a PAB is going to be submitted.

On the face of it, the casino broke the terms, not the player, so it's the party that broke the terms that should suffer, not the other party. This assumes that the player has given a truthful account, and that he in no way manipulated CS during the chat to "force" the error. Without the chat logs, we cannot know how this all started.

The threat of court action has meant that 32Red dare not post a single word about this, their legal team would have made this clear to them.

Anything that has been hidden will come out, either in the PAB, or during a court hearing.

All votes here have to be on the assumption that this is as stated, an unforced error that neither the player nor CS noticed at the time as being an error.

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.

 

[SpinUk]

Poll?

Not a good time for a poll - which does in fact seem to be a pretty unanimous view.

 

[petro]

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

 

[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!