On Probation The Virtual Casino Group and Ace Revenue

[tomgalanis]

Good question. Who decides how many chances?

Bottom line is: Casinomeister should give the group every chance possible to clean up its act. When it comes down to it, with or without Casinomeister's accreditation or rogue list, the group can still operate, still market to customers and treat them in a manner that their license provider permits... they are obviously keen to set the record straight or else they wouldn't be setting themselves up in this way.

In Martin Sack, they have someone who is incredibly well respected in the affiliate industry. Let's hope he is given the support he deserves from elsewhere in the group.

The fact is, if you don't trust the casino group, you don't need to deposit your money there. There are plenty of historical threads on this forum that will put people off and plenty of other casino affiliates who will dispel the Virtual Group to their rogue sections for life. Hats off to Bryan (and Greedygirl) for getting involved. At the end of the day, it is in players' best interests that all can be done to help casinos operate in an acceptable way, and there is currently no stronger, independent process that measures this than the accreditation process... it's why I take all my casino clients through it! If, for whatever reason, the group fails at this attempt to be removed from the rogue pit - and it won't be down to the team Greedygirl has mentioned here - yes it will hurt, but it's in players' interest to see them go through the process again and again until they do.

 

[SlotsLover]

all true

Nothing you are saying below is not true. It's up to the player to decide whether or not they want to deal with this risk and aggravation. If they are speeding up the withdrawal process, let's see if they can abide by it. I guess I'm just saying i) we all know how they have operated, so caveat peremptory; and ii) let's see if they can improve their policies and procedures.

That is effectively winners subsidising the other players. What if most players learned to be more patient, would they struggle to pay?

What if they have their own variant of "Black Friday" and are forced to stop accepting deposits, with players then all wanting payment of their remaining balances? Surely their model breaks down because there are no more incoming deposits? They have been seen to "hit the buffers" in the past, with payments delayed for MONTHS, even though things even out in the end and they claim to pay everybody.

It's the same with Rushmore, but they are starved of deposits due to a long term reputation for long delays and excuses. People still play at Rushmore, but it's not enough to provide enough cash to keep to the payment schedule.

Many of the bonus promotions at RTG actually INSIST that the player makes a withdrawal and redeposit, rather than being allowed to play on with the balance once the WR have been cleared. This is particularly true for max cashout bonuses. Even Club World have promotions where it is necessary to make a withdrawal to clear the promotion from the system, rather than play on with an all cash balance without further restrictions.

 

[Cleveland]

Bottom line is: Casinomeister should give the group every chance possible to clean up its act. When it comes down to it, with or without Casinomeister's accreditation or rogue list, the group can still operate, still market to customers and treat them in a manner that their license provider permits... they are obviously keen to set the record straight or else they wouldn't be setting themselves up in this way.

In Martin Sack, they have someone who is incredibly well respected in the affiliate industry. Let's hope he is given the support he deserves from elsewhere in the group.

The fact is, if you don't trust the casino group, you don't need to deposit your money there. There are plenty of historical threads on this forum that will put people off and plenty of other casino affiliates who will dispel the Virtual Group to their rogue sections for life. Hats off to Bryan (and Greedygirl) for getting involved. At the end of the day, it is in players' best interests that all can be done to help casinos operate in an acceptable way, and there is currently no stronger, independent process that measures this than the accreditation process... it's why I take all my casino clients through it! If, for whatever reason, the group fails at this attempt to be removed from the rogue pit - and it won't be down to the team Greedygirl has mentioned here - yes it will hurt, but it's in players' interest to see them go through the process again and again until they do.

Just for the record and mainly to be clearer it was a rhetorical question.

 

[greedygirl]

As has already been speculated, I too believe virtual is prowling for depositors. If this forum is to be trusted and believed by the gaming public, the notion of giving virtual and their groups a pass is total nonsense.

Sure. It's a great marketing ploy: Get beat up in the highest-trafficked player-protection forum. Over 300 posts, most of which are slamming the groups. Brilliant marketing!

That looks VERY dangerous (for players). They blame the very slow withdrawals on the bonuses. This smacks of a cross subsidy, even a "Ponzi scheme", whereby future bonuses are being subsidised by pending withdrawals. Given the volatility in outcomes, there is a danger that too many players will win from the bonuses, not by cheating but by a large swing of variance. If this happens, pending withdrawals are placed at risk. It seems worryingly close to the Rushmore model, where they have had almost permanent cashflow problems for years, alongside ever bigger offers to induce players to deposit.

Put more simply, the marketing offers are underfunded, they need more funding, or more realistic offers.

Where is the proof on this? This is supposition, the stuff rumors are made of. Yes, many years ago, Virtual made some really stupid mistakes and choices that may have pointed to being underfunded, but those days are long gone. As I stated previously, Virtual/Ace collectively are RTG's highest grossing, best producing groups, with Virtual really being tops. This points to the fact that players DO want these massive bonuses--so much so, they are willing to endure the long wait on withdrawals. It should also be pointed out (once again), that these brands have not hidden the wait on withdrawals. It is clearly posted on all of their casinos websites and it is the players choice going in whether this is acceptable or not.

As to ownership, this is a shareholder situation. Due to confidentiality, it's something that I'm not permitted to discuss beyond this. To be honest, for me, this is not about who owns these companies--this is about ensuring these companies operate properly and no players are treated unfairly.

It seems as if some CM members WANT to see Virtual and Ace do the wrong thing. It's difficult to wrap my head around the need to be right in something negative, rather than be surprised by something positive. These brands are going to continue to operate, regardless. Is it not better to do everything possible to clean up the past and move forward doing things right, in a responsible fashion?

I've been in this industry nearly 14 years, now. I've worked hard to earn the trust of both sides--players and operators. I've helped to clean up countless situations with countless operators, and without question, Virtual and Ace has been the most challenging. I'm certainly willing to do whatever I can to help progress things in a positive way with these companies--so much so that I've pretty much staked my reputation on this. If I didn't fully believe these companies were willing to do the hard yards, I would have backed out long ago. I feel a bit like a broken record, but whether or not these companies go into 'Not Recommended' or back into the 'Rogue Pit,' is not what is at issue at this point. What IS at issue is making certain they progress in a positive way.

 

[Googobucs]

• Ace group will begin by implementing a 72-hour approval time on the Royal Ace and Captain Jack casino brands, beginning January 1st, 2014.
• Virtual group will begin by implementing a 7 day approval time on the Ruby Slots and Prism casino brands, beginning January 1st, 2014.

The companies are committed to improve their withdrawal process (both with Ace and Virtual). They will review these changes in the next few weeks and will continue to roll it out on remaining brands over the next few months. Further, as previously discussed, if a player chooses to play with no bonus or a bonus only up to 100%, the approval time will be only 48 hours, with both the Ace and Virtual brands, in total. Unfortunately, due to the difficulties the group has with processing for US players, the actual processing (after approval) will still take seven days or longer. I believe US players understand this—this is something that is really out of the casino’s control.

The only reason the I am accepting of it taking 7 days to get the funds after approval is because the places I play at approve in 48 hours or less. 72 hrs. is pushing it, but 7 days is just nonsense. Especially for a player that is already verified.
Sorry, I'm not drinking this Kool-aid.

 

[suzecat]

Marketing ploy? Over the years, must say we have seen it all from this group. So for them to encourage cm staff to gladly throw their reps under the bus, well I hope it works out for you this time. Although cm knows how many times it has not.

 

[zanzibar]

As to ownership, this is a shareholder situation. Due to confidentiality, it's something that I'm not permitted to discuss beyond this. To be honest, for me, this is not about who owns these companies--this is about ensuring these companies operate properly and no players are treated unfairly.

I vehemently disagree with this. If a casino is wholly or partly owned by a convicted fraudster, then I am sorry but that does not meet the standards of character necessary to gain the approval of any proper licensing jurisdiction, and such people should not be involved in running casinos ever. Nor does it come even close to being an acceptable risk for any knowledgable customer to trust the casino with their money. The sad reality is that the vast majority of their customers do not know that they are handing over their money to a guy who did jail time for fraud, and they are never going to find out when the owners hide behind Costa Rican shell companies and statements of "confidentiality" and "shareholder situations". This situation is and never will be good enough, no matter how quickly they do or do not pay winners or who they employ.

It seems as if some CM members WANT to see Virtual and Ace do the wrong thing. It's difficult to wrap my head around the need to be right in something negative, rather than be surprised by something positive. These brands are going to continue to operate, regardless. Is it not better to do everything possible to clean up the past and move forward doing things right, in a responsible fashion?

I don't want them to do the wrong thing. However time after time they have proven that they are willing to do exactly that if it suits them. They have had their chances and blown them. I want their customers to be aware of who they are ultimately giving their money to. I want people to stop apologising for and helping line the pockets of a criminal. I would prefer them to be out of business permanently as they are one of the worst examples of the predatory people that are attracted to this industry.

 

[mattsgame]

As to ownership, this is a shareholder situation. Due to confidentiality, it's something that I'm not permitted to discuss beyond this. To be honest, for me, this is not about who owns these companies--this is about ensuring these companies operate properly and no players are treated unfairly.

This pretty much answers the question. Of course it matters who still owns these companies . You do realize the shady past of said owner (if he still is) does not instil trust in the brands

It seems as if some CM members WANT to see Virtual and Ace do the wrong thing. It's difficult to wrap my head around the need to be right in something negative, rather than be surprised by something positive. These brands are going to continue to operate, regardless. Is it not better to do everything possible to clean up the past and move forward doing things right, in a responsible fashion?

Not true at all, why would we want to see them DO the wrong thing? The problem here is they have DONE the wrong thing for far to long & it is not just a matter of oh we are changing this or we are changing that. Trust is earn't and these guys have a very long long way to go I am afraid. Steps to change withdrawal times are a positive but they are still well behind the 8 ball with those and their terms.

 

[chayton]

I think that people are going to be playing at these casinos as long as they're still in business, so IF they can manage to actually pay people when they win, it's a good thing. Chances are they won't win back many players who've been around for awhile - there's just too much history.

The one thing that bothers me though is that there are still lots of slow pay complaints about the casinos in these groups. They may state their timeframes for withdrawals (which are already ridiculously long) but then they consistently don't pay within those timeframes anyhow. I've seen numerous complaints - and recently - from people who have been getting stalling and excuses from casino support for months - and it's not until they find a forum with a rep who's running the public relations machine that the payments start getting made.

And it's not like these are issues with documents or problems with bonuses, these are players who won and should have been paid IN THE stupidly long timeframe the casinos already gave themselves - without having to resort to finding a forum with a rep who promises to 'look into it' and voila, a withdrawal is processed without further ado.

To me that stinks of 'unless you're saying something that affects our cred online we'll pay you when we bloody well get around to it.'

 

[bigjohn]

Greedygirl, This thread has been very long on posts and questions but very short on actual answers.

I went back to the start and reviewed all the posts and there are quite a few issues that have not been addressed.

I will start with post #70 on 11/7 in which you stated, "There will be reps here from both Virtual and Ace." The first rep. got called away for a family emergency according to Bryan and his replacement has never chimed in on this thread. In a way I can't blame him but it does not lend credence to their cause. You have stated that you do not represent these properties in any official manner.

In post #33 This issue was raised, "If you do not log onto your Casino account for a period of 180 days, any balance in your account will be forfeited to the Company. All accounts that are inactive for a 6 month period will be deemed to be inactive and will be closed." Has this been changed to reflect that an attempt will be made to get funds back to the depositor?

In post #47, "And what am I greeted with when I wake up but more spam from: Silveroak - enjoy your 25 spins It is 100% spam because I don't have an account here. Where did they snavel my email from?" Any explanation here of how they are getting e-mail addresses of CM members.

In post #112 you wrote, "I can say with absolute certainty there are MANY CM members who DO play at these casinos—they just don’t admit to it publicly." How did you get this information, it suggests cross referencing the membership here with their database which is troubling.

In post #134, "I would like to see the evidence to back up the claims of {Virtual} being {a} RTG top producer, is there a list produced by RTG that ranks Casino's?" Do we have any way to see this other than their own word?

In post #146 I said, "A day after this thread opened I got my first spam e-mail from cool cat in over a year. Coincidence?" and several others have also stated this. Again, suggesting some sort of list exchanging going on that would suggest an abuse of personal information given to these casinos.

And finally, in post #296, "Is the guy still the owner of all these casino?" You say you can not answer this because of confidentiality but this is a biggie. The 'Tales from the Trenches' story about the guy getting followed, threatened and beat up not to mention the court case and other exploits of this individual means people are going to have a difficult time trusting him. Can you blame them?

There have been repeated questions of why it should take 7 or 10 or 14 days or whatever it is now to approve a withdrawal if there is no cashflow problem. The only explanation is that, "it is clearly stated in the terms," IMO, that is not an explanation. If a casino takes 48 hrs. perhaps an explanation is not required.

You have tried very hard and you should be commended but, by your own word, you are not a representative of these casinos. In order for this to advance, at some point, there will need to be an active rep. here who will not fear the 'hornet's nest' and will be able to give the official stance of the casino.

 

[dionysus]

thanks, I'm curious too - if they want on board, why ISN'T there an active rep here? It doesn't show much willing on their part

 

[chuchu59]

Sure. It's a great marketing ploy: Get beat up in the highest-trafficked player-protection forum. Over 300 posts, most of which are slamming the groups. Brilliant marketing!





Where is the proof on this? This is supposition, the stuff rumors are made of. Yes, many years ago, Virtual made some really stupid mistakes and choices that may have pointed to being underfunded, but those days are long gone. As I stated previously, Virtual/Ace collectively are RTG's highest grossing, best producing groups, with Virtual really being tops. This points to the fact that players DO want these massive bonuses--so much so, they are willing to endure the long wait on withdrawals. It should also be pointed out (once again), that these brands have not hidden the wait on withdrawals. It is clearly posted on all of their casinos websites and it is the players choice going in whether this is acceptable or not.

As to ownership, this is a shareholder situation. Due to confidentiality, it's something that I'm not permitted to discuss beyond this. To be honest, for me, this is not about who owns these companies--this is about ensuring these companies operate properly and no players are treated unfairly.

It seems as if some CM members WANT to see Virtual and Ace do the wrong thing. It's difficult to wrap my head around the need to be right in something negative, rather than be surprised by something positive. These brands are going to continue to operate, regardless. Is it not better to do everything possible to clean up the past and move forward doing things right, in a responsible fashion?

I've been in this industry nearly 14 years, now. I've worked hard to earn the trust of both sides--players and operators. I've helped to clean up countless situations with countless operators, and without question, Virtual and Ace has been the most challenging. I'm certainly willing to do whatever I can to help progress things in a positive way with these companies--so much so that I've pretty much staked my reputation on this. If I didn't fully believe these companies were willing to do the hard yards, I would have backed out long ago. I feel a bit like a broken record, but whether or not these companies go into 'Not Recommended' or back into the 'Rogue Pit,' is not what is at issue at this point. What IS at issue is making certain they progress in a positive way.

Greedygirl.

While I do not doubt your integrity, its time you tell their rep to really come on board and start answering tough questions. At the same time they should actually start to clean up their acts and not simply make promises. We want present tense not future tense.

I, for one, don't think they are underfunded as they have amassed insane profits at the expense of innocent players and I don't need to prove that. The fact that they normally pay within their 30+ 30 days only shows part of the story. Once cashouts reach 4 or 5-digit sums they stall. Actually, I cant understand why they want to be derogued if they still have herds of players who are content with floods of huge bonuses and who don't mind waiting a month or two for cashouts.

Most members here had more or less refrained from talking about Virtual until this thread popped up. This is the king of rogues and until they are fully reformed this will forever remain in our minds. Unless we all develop Alzheimer's disease that is.

 

[cheetahwind]

Alright, I guess it's time for my big question. I've already figured out they've cleaned up there payment schedule.
Yet the real question comes into play.
These no rules cash out bonuses. Now according to live chat have no WR, no max cash out, are non-cashable. So what's the exact catch? I've never seen anyone offer 270% match bonus, but not require some sort of WR. So does that mean if I win lets say $2,000 off the bat. Would I be able to cash out right away without having to squander it away or ?
That's only real thing other than there past that's been bothering me.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Greedygirl.

While I do not doubt your integrity, its time you tell their rep to really come on board and start answering tough questions. At the same time they should actually start to clean up their acts and not simply make promises. We want present tense not future tense.

I, for one, don't think they are underfunded as they have amassed insane profits at the expense of innocent players and I don't need to prove that. The fact that they normally pay within their 30+ 30 days only shows part of the story. Once cashouts reach 4 or 5-digit sums they stall. Actually, I cant understand why they want to be derogued if they still have herds of players who are content with floods of huge bonuses and who don't mind waiting a month or two for cashouts.

Most members here had more or less refrained from talking about Virtual until this thread popped up. This is the king of rogues and until they are fully reformed this will forever remain in our minds. Unless we all develop Alzheimer's disease that is.

This could be true, but the group itself still could be underfunded. It's what the owners do that matters. There have been many cases where profits have been ruthlessly drawn from a working company and distributed to the owners through dividends, leaving the company itself with insufficient reserves to ride out an economic storm. Once the profits are in the hands of the owners, the company no longer has access to them.

Here in the UK, one would simply go to companies house and be able to find out who the directors are, get the latest company reports, and even get a list of shareholders. A legitimate company should not fear this level of scrutiny, but some DO have something to hide, which is why they choose to incorporate in countries that allow them to cloak such matters.

The guy has become exceedingly wealthy, and has been able to afford a large scale PR exercise to "rewrite history". He also owns, or owned for a long time, the Virtual group, RTGs most productive operation. It's not rocket science to figure out where all the profits have ended up. Virtual group itself is probably NOT awash with money.

Many of the most profitable enterprises in history have been seen as "scams", rather than ethical companies. An ethical company is more likely to have a low margin, and reinvest any surplus into improving the service offered to it's customers. Deceitful marketing can also lead to large profits, but it is far from ethical. Virtual group have aggressive and deceitful marketing, and they probably make most of their money from those players that only read as far as the large sum of "free money" on offer without considering that it is likely to be close to impossible to ever win because of the small print, and the mathematics of casino games.

This latest "new leaf" is probably just part of the bigger plan to rewrite the history books so that The guy is seen as a fine upstanding citizen and charitable towards the less fortunate.

I think it will take new owners to turn this group around, not a rewrite of history to make the old owners look better.

 

[same_old]

Virtual Group

First of all, I know if Nifty was around me he would give me a slap in the face but I had a few beers under the belt and felt like having a chat with the infamous VIRTUAL GROUP.

It started over a coolcat where I asked in live chat if I have ever held an account there before ( being a online gambler for over 10 years you forget half the places you've joined)- anyway long story short I downloaded the software entered all my details and clicked "join now". Well Wel, it came back saying there was ALREADY an account with that email addy etc which I have used the same for over 10 years ( first red flag for me).
A week later I go over to www.virtual.com to ask the same things on live chat and I will paste the conversation below.

Now don't get me wrong- If I had of won and they didn't pay me I was going to get my money's worth back out of CM at the annual Bierfest he holds each year. I'm sure I could drink a few $ worth of Johnny Blue or something to get me money's worth and then I would be happy.

Now, I would like your psersonal thoughts here- does this sound like a group who wants a new customer or even cares about presenting themselves in a somewhat pleasurable manner, like 32RED and 3DICE do.
I know me mentioning casinomeister ( and I've never used CM against a casino EVER, if anything it is usually- I hear good things over at CM etc etc) so I hope Bryan and Max don't see me trying to bait them or anything as I wasn't.

General Info
Chat start time Dec 18, 2013 7:12:58 AM EST
Chat end time Dec 18, 2013 7:29:37 AM EST
Duration (actual chatting time) 00:16:38
Operator Tom



Chat Transcript
info: A site operator will be with you momentarily.
info: Hi! Thank you for using our LiveChat Service. This is 'Alek'. Please verify your Email and Phone Number while you wait.
n/a: HI There Alek- Look I will be quick and to the point. Iam a long time member at a place called Casinomeister, noe Im not sure if you know but the VIRTUAL group hasn't really had the best reputation in the past
n/a: I see you guy's are trying to get things sorted out and let us know that you have indeed changed, so in saying that Im willing to deposit $100 now to try you out
n/a: oh sorry, my email is [email protected]
n/a: I asked over at coolcat if I had an account and he checked and nothing showed for that email address
n/a: DOes it come back with an account for you?
Alek: Let me take a look
n/a: Please dont take what I said in a negative way- I'm actually willing to give you guys a try right now]
n/a: No worries
Alek: Nope, that email does not register any account
n/a: but see when I signed up an account at coolcat today, using that exact same email addy it said this account was already registred
n/a: and Ive used the same email for over 10 years
Alek: Probably at coolcat but not at virtual
n/a: However, I don't want to take a bonus. That's where things can get complicated. I'm happy to just deposit my $100 and see how I go
n/a: oh ok, but If I'm not taking a bonus none of that would apply anyway right?
Alek: Correct
n/a: Or do I have to take one being a new customer
Alek: You can play without it if you like
Alek: It's up to you
n/a: Yeah for sure and I want to have a good experience, I know you guy's have been around for yers- I've heard all the stories. some of them funny.
n/a: Just to make sure, what's the weekly/monthly withdrawal limit, Im in Australia so it shouldnt be an issue for you guys but I do know it takes a few weeks
Alek: Please allow me one moment and I will redirect you to our customer service area and they will be able to assist you. Thanks for your patience!
info: Please wait while I transfer the chat to the best suited site operator.
info: You are not currently in a chat session.
info: Hi! Thank you for using our LiveChat Service. This is 'Tom'. Please verify your Email and Phone Number while you wait.
n/a: Hi there Tom. Sorry If I'm talking to much ETC
n/a: SUre
Tom: Thank you........... Let me check.......
n/a: [email protected] my Aussie phone number is +61 03123456
n/a: and my name is Same_old
n/a: DOB XXXXXXX
n/a: Can I ask if there is a problem or something?
n/a: Are you still about Tom?
Tom: I do not see an account under your name.
Tom: Limit per withdrawal is $1000-1500, and 1 payment will be sent out every 10 -15 days
n/a: Hmmm,OK
n/a: Even if a RJ is won?
n/a: I understand.
Tom: Is there anything else I can help you with?
n/a: No,Bye Tom, have a good shift and thank you for your help.
Tom: Welcome, and have a nice day!!!
info: Your chat transcript will be sent to [email protected] at the end of your chat.

Most of you that know me, knows that I'am not a shit stirring person. I genuinely wanted to see things for myself but after that above chat it just reminds me of WHY EVEN BOTHER with them. I mean talking to people at 3DICE and 32RED is enough to make you want to deposit alone, these guy's just don't give a shit.

Sorry I should have added that- I don't know as to WHY Alek decided to transfer me over to Tom, maybe because of what I was saying about CM or something or Tom was more experienced etc. After talking with Tom it actually took quite a while just for a simple response and I just didn't feel they even wanted to entertain my business. 2 minutes later I deposited $100 at Jackpot Capitol and had a blast.
VIRTUAL group, just give that little bit extra lovin whilst on chat and you would be surprised in some cases. I'm sure Anna and Enzo would gladly give lessons in treating there players well.

 

[The Dude]

Just want to squelch any rumors before they happen.

...

In post #47, "And what am I greeted with when I wake up but more spam from: Silveroak - enjoy your 25 spins It is 100% spam because I don't have an account here. Where did they snavel my email from?" Any explanation here of how they are getting e-mail addresses of CM members.

In post #112 you wrote, "I can say with absolute certainty there are MANY CM members who DO play at these casinos—they just don’t admit to it publicly." How did you get this information, it suggests cross referencing the membership here with their database which is troubling....

No one has access to the CM database besides me and Webzcas (he has admin permissions here). No one is cross referencing anything, it was merely an extrapolation on Debbee's part. Our database is safe and secure - it gets handed to nobody.

 

[wigan rl]

72 hours and a week at some places for a withdrawal sorry most casinos on here you would have the cash in your hands

 

[bigjohn]

Just want to squelch any rumors before they happen.



No one has access to the CM database besides me and Webzcas (he has admin permissions here). No one is cross referencing anything, it was merely an extrapolation on Debbee's part. Our database is safe and secure - it gets handed to nobody.

Thanks for the clarification. I was sure you guys would not share any of that stuff but things do get hacked.

Edited to add; The only reason I brought this up was I felt it was something she should have addressed, not just thrown out there.

 

[LondonDJ]

Hi everyone—

Next is Tawni Wilson who will be handling all forum-related queries—both here at Casinomeister and elsewhere. Tawni’s username at Casinomeister is: TawniVirtualAce Tawni will begin answering any queries, beginning December 18th.

Sounds good. It's December 18th. Will she be chiming in on this thread?

 

[TawniVirtualAce]

Hello,

My name is Tawni Wilson and I would like to formerly introduce myself to the Casinomeister community. I will be the new liaison between the players and the Ace/Virtual groups in an on going effort to better address the issues and concerns of everyone here. This will be a challenging task, as proven by this thread, but my goal is to answer every question as promptly and thoroughly as I possible can. I would like to ask for your patience over the next couple of weeks, as the holidays may slow things up somewhat.

I will be back later today to begin addressing some of the more pressing issues. If you have any questions or issues that you would like addressed privately, please feel free to either private message me here at Casinomeister or email me at: tawniatgwages.com for issues relating to the Virtual brands or tawniatacerevenue.com for issues relating to the Ace brands - of course, please use the @ in place of the word “at”.

 

[dionysus]

thanks Tawni, welcome and good luck

 

[chuchu59]

Welcome to the forum Tawni,

Coming on board during the festive season might be a good time as members could be less harsh on you. However, once we step into 2014 expect to be bombarded with tough questions as we are all extremely displeased with how Virtual has treated players over the years. Frankly, I think the best you can do is convince us you will play by the rules but you will never ever be endeared to us. Most of us here are reasonable chaps and wont crucify Virtual unnecessarily but you need to be totally honest with us.

 

[TawniVirtualAce]

Welcome to the forum Tawni,

Coming on board during the festive season might be a good time as members could be less harsh on you. However, once we step into 2014 expect to be bombarded with tough questions as we are all extremely displeased with how Virtual has treated players over the years. Frankly, I think the best you can do is convince us you will play by the rules but you will never ever be endeared to us. Most of us here are reasonable chaps and wont crucify Virtual unnecessarily but you need to be totally honest with us.

Fair enough. After reading up on things and learning about everything that has happened through the years, these feelings are understandable.

Because there seems to be volumes to answer to, I’m going to respond to a few of the most recent questions. I’ll be here every day or so in the hopes of clearing up any questions that may have been unanswered, but because there is so very much, it will take some time. I hope you all will bear with me.

INACTIVE ACCOUNTS

It was brought up that there has been a term in place stating "If you do not log onto your Casino account for a period of 180 days, any balance in your account will be forfeited to the Company. All accounts that are inactive for a 6 month period will be deemed to be inactive and will be closed."

I’ve spoken with both our finance and management departments on this issue. This term will be removed entirely across all properties, effective immediately. (Please allow a reasonable amount of time for the removal of this term across all casino websites. I suspect all sites will be updated within a few business days.)

SPAM

We realize this is problematic for many people. We are committed to abiding by good practice, which means opt-out is exactly that. Unfortunately, we have little control over affiliates, until we are made aware of the mailings being sent. Just today, I received a PM from a CM member regarding this issue (I’m not mentioning the member’s name unless she gives permission). She was kind enough to forward the SPAM emails to me and the company took immediate action, removing this affiliate from our programs.

Unless we receive the actual SPAM emails, we are unable to take any appropriate action, as we simply do not know who these affiliates are. If you receive such emails, please forward them to me. I will make sure that we do what is necessary on our side to stop any sort of email abuse.

OWNERSHIP

This is a discussion we cannot enter into, beyond what Greedygirl has already previously stated. Because our casinos accept U.S. players, giving ownership information would simply not be wise.

I will be back tomorrow to discuss further issues, including what seems to be the biggest, hot-button topic: Withdrawal times.

 

[BMWSTACK]

It's been pointed out multiple times in the thread that virtual isn't the ones that initiated this push.

Yes it has been made clear that virtual isn't pushing this, so then why the big push for this process? Its very easy to assume that there are plenty of pockets that will be filled through this process regardless of negative comments. ALL publicity is GOOD publicity.

Why would any of us consider giving these people a single cent? Most of us have been at this long enough, why not just continue to support the people that do right, rather than even begin to entertain a know rogue such as virtual?

 

[bigjohn]

OWNERSHIP

This is a discussion we cannot enter into, beyond what Greedygirl has already previously stated. Because our casinos accept U.S. players, giving ownership information would simply not be wise.

We know who the previous owner was, and probably still is.

I think what would be a little comforting would be to know if there is a board of directors or the like that is going to handle the day to day operations and see to it that the players concerns have a little higher priority, which they haven't in the past.

Lack of information will lead to speculation and if the behavior of the casino supports that speculation it will be seen to confirm it.

Perhaps you could explain the chain of command and where our withdrawal requests would go once submitted and how it takes your casinos 7 days to do what the vast majority of others do in 1 or 2 days, or instantly. The long pending period suggests that the casino doesn't really want to pay.

 

[suzecat]

I must admit to wondering when or if the dirty tricks would appear. So sorry Tawny, really, your predecessors were made aware of these tricks in much the same way.

Debbee was this disclosed to you during any of the honest talks you had with virtual staff?

 

[suzecat]

HAPPY BELATED BIRTHDAY

 

[chuchu59]

Fair enough. After reading up on things and learning about everything that has happened through the years, these feelings are understandable.

Because there seems to be volumes to answer to, I’m going to respond to a few of the most recent questions. I’ll be here every day or so in the hopes of clearing up any questions that may have been unanswered, but because there is so very much, it will take some time. I hope you all will bear with me.

INACTIVE ACCOUNTS

It was brought up that there has been a term in place stating "If you do not log onto your Casino account for a period of 180 days, any balance in your account will be forfeited to the Company. All accounts that are inactive for a 6 month period will be deemed to be inactive and will be closed."

I’ve spoken with both our finance and management departments on this issue. This term will be removed entirely across all properties, effective immediately. (Please allow a reasonable amount of time for the removal of this term across all casino websites. I suspect all sites will be updated within a few business days.)

SPAM

We realize this is problematic for many people. We are committed to abiding by good practice, which means opt-out is exactly that. Unfortunately, we have little control over affiliates, until we are made aware of the mailings being sent. Just today, I received a PM from a CM member regarding this issue (I’m not mentioning the member’s name unless she gives permission). She was kind enough to forward the SPAM emails to me and the company took immediate action, removing this affiliate from our programs.

Unless we receive the actual SPAM emails, we are unable to take any appropriate action, as we simply do not know who these affiliates are. If you receive such emails, please forward them to me. I will make sure that we do what is necessary on our side to stop any sort of email abuse.

OWNERSHIP

This is a discussion we cannot enter into, beyond what Greedygirl has already previously stated. Because our casinos accept U.S. players, giving ownership information would simply not be wise.

I will be back tomorrow to discuss further issues, including what seems to be the biggest, hot-button topic: Withdrawal times.

I wont comment on spam/ownership but on the subject of inactive accounts I do believe Virtual can go one step further. The dreaded term may have been removed but what about those innocent players who had their balances confiscated in the past. This is just so wrong so if you wish to act in good faith and give 'Virtual' a push literally thought should be given to restore the players' confiscated balances. Should Virtual feel, like many banks nowadays, that inactive/dormant accounts costs them resources in servicing they may consider slapping a fee of say no more than 5% of the balances. In other words, please consider returning at least 95% of the money back. In the long run, this will show your goodwill though monetarily speaking, it may be painful to part with others' money already pocketed.

 

[rockycatt]

Like the rep said their offers are sent to every player, and I also know that in every email from them it says that you are not allowed to claim two free chips in a row. You must have known that rule.
I don't like them tempting players. There are free chips to their casinos all over the net, but their rules are clear.

It's not much different from what Inetbet has. There you are only allowed to claim two free chips between deposits and they are also sending out codes for free chips every week, and for new games, and free tournaments and so on. It's the same.

Still rules are rules and if we don't like them we don't play there.

ok im following this thread and remarked once I want you to know that i don't approve of you taking the liberty to name a single [inetbet ] as a remark tool

i would think an across the board remark would fly ok but to attach a single casino name is questionable imo

any way the best to your effort

 

[rockycatt]

oop's

 

[Tirilej]

ok im following this thread and remarked once I want you to know that i don't approve of you taking the liberty to name a single [inetbet ] as a remark tool

i would think an across the board remark would fly ok but to attach a single casino name is questionable imo

any way the best to your effort

I don't think I need anyones approval for posting that other RTG-casinos also have the same kind of rules.

It was not anything negative against Inetbet if that was what you thought

 

[gagamel]

If I get some free chips I don`t want to read the whole T/C again or complete law school to understand the requirements. There are so many casinos where you never have a problem, all is fine and everyone enjoys the time you spent there, the players and the casinos. I avoid every casino with such behaviour. If I make a mistake I lose my money, if they make a mistake, they have my money.

 

[rockycatt]

I don't think I need anyones approval for posting that other RTG-casinos also have the same kind of rules.

It was not anything negative against Inetbet if that was what you thought

this was an error because i mistaken your avatar for the reps and explains the deleted post that followed as a forum member i wouldn't go after that , i mistake-ed it from the rep
also there must be a glitch i thought i erased it entirely

so sorry mistakes happen

 

[Deeplay]

Hello,

My name is Tawni Wilson and I would like to formerly introduce myself to the Casinomeister community. I will be the new liaison between the players and the Ace/Virtual groups in an on going effort to better address the issues and concerns of everyone here. This will be a challenging task, as proven by this thread, but my goal is to answer every question as promptly and thoroughly as I possible can. I would like to ask for your patience over the next couple of weeks, as the holidays may slow things up somewhat.

I will be back later today to begin addressing some of the more pressing issues. If you have any questions or issues that you would like addressed privately, please feel free to either private message me here at Casinomeister or email me at: tawniatgwages.com for issues relating to the Virtual brands or tawniatacerevenue.com for issues relating to the Ace brands - of course, please use the @ in place of the word “at”.

Hi Apart from the many many issues your group has had over the years can you explain this from your Banking withdraw terms and conditions

" All withdrawals that meet the cash-out requirements will be approved within 10-15 business days of the date the withdrawal was requested."

it is not even clear if it is 15 days or 10 just somewhere in between. These days eWallet payments can be run instantly. Bank transfers within a day or 2 (For UK / EU) Players.
So why the long hold ? So glad I checked the terms and cons before I was tempted to make a deposit. On the above alone it allows to give a resounding NO to ever trusting a company that will hold payment for such a totally ridiculous amount of time.

You have lost a deposit from me and I personally would never recommend your group to anyone in fact would tell them "avoid" change the above and you may have my attention but until then your loss as far as deposits from me go :_)

 

[rena35]

I used to see these codes posted everyday and also received a lot in my emails. I really agree with letting us see what happens before judgement is passed.

 

[Deeplay]

I used to see these codes posted everyday and also received a lot in my emails. I really agree with letting us see what happens before judgement is passed.

Sure Im okay about giving others a chance to redeem themselves but for me personally the below does it for me :
" All withdrawals that meet the cash-out requirements will be approved within 10-15 business days of the date the withdrawal was requested."

I am sure they will come out with valid reasons as to why it takes them so long to pay on winnings which is fine. So just check the accredited section on this site and avoid the above like the plauge. Sooner or later you will get screwed over by them. 10 to 15 days to authorize a cash out ? LOL .... no thanks

this whole thread is actually putting CM in a bad light. Why on earth even bother. They are rouge and will remain so.

 

[Deeplay]

One question to
TawniVirtualAce
g
Why does it take upto 15 days to authorize a withdraw ? Does it take upto 15 days to authorize a deposit ? I would have thought given the diligent time frames it takes to authorize a withdraw for the casinos of the virtual group that the same due diligence must surly be given to deposits ? but from what I read on the Virtual websites terms deposits are immediately available for play. Is there a reason for this discrepancy with such long time frames ?

thanks

 

[Cleveland]

I am sure they will come out with valid reasons as to why it takes them so long to pay on winnings which is fine. So just check the accredited section on this site and avoid the above like the plauge. Sooner or later you will get screwed over by them. 10 to 15 days to authorize a cash out ? LOL .... no thanks

I thought greedygirl advised in an earlier post that they shortened the payout time frame / process. I guess the rep can confirm if this has changed or not. I might scroll through the thread later and check for myself, if I do I'll edit in the answer.

Thought she said something about the info not being updated yet but was in the works.....I dunno. Might be wrong.

 

[Deeplay]

I thought greedygirl advised in an earlier post that they shortened the payout time frame / process. I guess the rep can confirm if this has changed or not. I might scroll through the thread later and check for myself, if I do I'll edit in the answer.

Thought she said something about the info not being updated yet but was in the works.....I dunno. Might be wrong.

Yes would be good for the rep to confirm the payout times. Anything under say 48 hours sucks. Period.

None of the sites reflect any shorter payout times. It takes a few moments to update a .htm or .html or .php page and propagation is within moments.
Its just a matter of changing the text )

 

[chayton]

Easy to change the timeframe, but sticking to that timeframe consistently may be another issue entirely.

 

[chuchu59]

One question to
TawniVirtualAce
g
Why does it take upto 15 days to authorize a withdraw ? Does it take upto 15 days to authorize a deposit ? I would have thought given the diligent time frames it takes to authorize a withdraw for the casinos of the virtual group that the same due diligence must surly be given to deposits ? but from what I read on the Virtual websites terms deposits are immediately available for play. Is there a reason for this discrepancy with such long time frames ?

thanks

Of course the procedure can be sped up. This is virtually saying 'take it or leave it'. They pride themselves on the huge bonuses available to the players and in doing so are free to slap such unreasonable payout times on the players. It means they will never meet accreditation standards as long as this FU clause is in place.

 

[rockycatt]

from the start of this thread can we have a summery of events that have taken place to lift the cloud ever so little from this
group
its them selves that agree that they hav been bad fellas

 

[KasinoKing]

Yes would be good for the rep to confirm the payout times. Anything under say 48 hours sucks. Period.

I think you mean "anything OVER 48 hours sucks", don't you?

KK

 

[chayton]

There used to be a term at this group that if the lifetime amount of bonuses you'd taken was more than you'd ever deposited, you wouldn't be allowed to cash out. Someone from here got caught with that rule years ago but I can't remember who it was....?

Say for instance you used a $100 free chip, then deposited $20 and won, you couldn't cash out.

I just took a quick look at the terms and rules on one of the casino sites and didn't see it anywhere, if Tawni could please confirm whether this rule is still there or not?

 

[vinylweatherman]

The ends don't justify the means.

You're basically saying it's OK to use fraudulent methods to get money from Virtual, because Virtual used similar methods to prevent players from cashing out. Well, if that helps you sleep at night, then great.

For me, doing the wrong thing is doing the wrong thing, regardless of who is doing it. I've been ardent in my criticism of Virtual et al, amongst other groups, for many years. The reason? Well, they have used unethical practices to lure players in only to rip them off. IMO, there is no solid reason for me to change my POV in that regard at this point.

You have no respect for Virtual due to their past, and fair enough, yet you seem to be comfortable with a player doing the same thing in reverse. I just can't grasp that way of thinking.
I actually don't think it would be a bad thing to split this thread. It might help keep the original discussion on track.

Insofar as "slack" is concerned, I don't think either party is getting any more than the other here. The facts/evidence are yet to emerge and/or be assessed. When that happens, we will either know that Virtual have not changed at all, or that we have all been lied to by a fellow member to further their own personal agenda.

It's how the "ordinary people" begin to think when they see the big and powerful blatantly doing the wrong thing and getting away with it for years because absolutely no-one who is charged with doing anything about it can be arsed to act, or worse, is part of the wrongdoing through corruption. In fact, meeting the big and powerful doing wrong with the "ordinary people" doing wrong back is pretty tame when one sees how the "ordinary people" have eventually risen up against the oppression of the big and powerful.

Sometimes, it seems more moral to do wrong in order to prevent a much greater wrongdoing than to sit back and not intervene and allow the wrong doing to continue unchallenged.

Of course, morality is taught by example, and for decades the wrong example has been set by those we are meant to look up to. This means that morality itself is no longer the same as it one was, and so people may genuinely see nothing wrong with trying to rip off the big and powerful in order to cause the wealth to be shared more evenly, as the big and powerful only have such a stranglehold on the wealth because they have set their morals aside when doing business, and have done their best to fleece the ordinary people to keep them in their place.

In the UK, the government is actively encouraging consumers to "fight back" ourselves against big businesses who fatten their profits by fleecing the more moral members of society who still think loyalty to a company is the moral way to behave. We are being told to ditch our ethics and be just as ruthless at playing the game by never staying with one provider, but always jumping ship for the next loss leader inducement, which means that the very best practitioner could actually get the services at less than the cost of providing them, let alone denying the companies any profit. There are now large internet groups dedicated to this art, and of course they have sections covering online casinos, and how to always jump from one to the other for the best new customer deals rather than stay loyal. They also cover how to exploit the stupidity and mistakes made by big companies, from the cock up by Tesco that had a plasma TV for sale at 4p on the website, to how the letter of an offer is sometimes worth far more than the company ever intended due to some miscalculation or cock up.

 

[Nifty29]

Vinyl.

What part of changing service providers qualifies as "doing the wrong thing"? How on earth is it even remotely the same as creating 40+ accounts, which is forbidden, to obtain a financial advantage?

Sorry, but none of that last post has anything to do with anything. Unless you're saying consumers are being encouraged to commit fraud etc to get more than they are entitled to...?

Honestly.

BTW...the are no aliases in Facebook. If you link via facebook, people can see your full name. The whole idea of Facebook is for people to find you and/or keep in touch....well initially anyway.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Vinyl.

What part of changing service providers qualifies as "doing the wrong thing"? How on earth is it even remotely the same as creating 40+ accounts, which is forbidden, to obtain a financial advantage?

Sorry, but none of that last post has anything to do with anything. Unless you're saying consumers are being encouraged to commit fraud etc to get more than they are entitled to...?

Honestly.

BTW...the are no aliases in Facebook. If you link via facebook, people can see your full name. The whole idea of Facebook is for people to find you and/or keep in touch....well initially anyway.

Not in LAW it isn't, it's purely a restriction being applied by "big business". It is therefore no more "wrong" to attempt to circumvent the restriction than it is "wrong" for a business to deliberately create traps designed to screw over their customers. It has been Virtual's choice to place themselves beyond the law, a choice shared by many other casino operators.

Depending on HOW you create additional accounts, it may not even be fraud. If you do it by giving the correct information, but in a slightly different way, and this fools the computer, it's not fraud. It's just like having two Tesco Clubcards, one with my name, and one with ALL my names, including the middle one. Same also as when their computer allows the use of two vouchers for a single purchase where this was not intended - no different really to Tesco mispricing an item and me not noticing the error till it's too late.

Comsumers are being encouraged to "play the system" in order to gain the advantage. This is not fraud, as in it's not illegal according to the laws of the land, even if it is against the terms and conditions of the company, more especially against the "spirit" of the terms, which is where most advantage is to be gained by savvy consumers.

The 4p plasma telly is not even fraud. It's covered by the sale of goods act. By listing it at 4p, Tesco invited the customer to purchase at that price. If Tesco fail to stop the sale before the transaction has completed, it's tough, they don't have a leg to stand on legally. In the case of the telly, Tesco DID manage to catch the error before the sales had been legally completed, and so were able to void them. Despite being in the right, it was a PR disaster for Tesco.

The government are telling consumers to "play hardball" rather than regulate businesses more tightly and force them to charge the same prices for loyal customers as they do new ones, and allow ALL customers to switch to ALL the deals they are offering, rather than have "new customer only" exclusions on the best ones.

It's the fault of big business, they didn't want regulation, they wanted a continuation of the "buyer beware" principle, but it has backfired. The internet has created a breeding ground for buyers to get REALLY clever when it comes to outsmarting big business. If one customer spots a great deal, it soon gets found out by many. In the past, a customer would at worst tip off friends and family about a good deal or a loophole in an offer.

Online casinos are operating in this harsh consumer savvy environment.

Virtual are a particular target because many people know they don't play fair, but they also realise that if they approach them with the intention of not getting lured in, there are 17 free chips for the taking, and a non zero chance of getting one over on them.

The impression that the whole industry is one that routinely cheats it's customers makes it much easier for people to justify to themselves getting one over on them, even where this DOES cross the line into fraud.

In the case of gnoming, it is considered a grey area. If people are willing to allow an account to be operated in their name, and thus cooperate when it comes to the KYC bit, it is going to be very hard to catch (if done properly). Many people don't see it wrong because many would be prepared to send a friend in to Tesco in order to get another "strictly one offer per customer" of something they want two of, but the friend doesn't want at all - that's "gnoming" a special offer in the shops, it gets done all the time. The behaviour has become normalised, even though it's immoral in a stricter set of values, you wouldn't have ever done this in the days of the local store who knew everyone in the community and treated them like family (if you did, it would have been frowned upon by the community, a strong deterrent in those days).

 

[Nifty29]

Vinyl.

I'm not even going to try and read all that. It's not worth it, because it's irrelevant.

Back to the issue at hand.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Vinyl.

I'm not even going to try and read all that. It's not worth it, because it's irrelevant.

Back to the issue at hand.

It's relevant to the wider issues faced by the industry, and something virtual will have to deal with, especially if they are thinking of pushing into the growing UK market in a bigger way after cleaning up their act. I even think that this latest clean up DOES have something to do with expanding into markets that have begun to impose forms of regulation, rather than working on the "buyer beware" principle and the fact that the internet is technically challenging when it comes to policing the activities of businesses.

They screw up a promo, and it'll be all over moneysavingexpert (and other consumer sites) within the week, which was the downfall of Betfair.

 

[Cleveland]

Vinyl.

I'm not even going to try and read all that. It's not worth it, because it's irrelevant.

Back to the issue at hand.

Did you edit this post? Just wondering because that's a lot of restraint ..... meanwhile I'm stilling going ---> ...after trying to make most of that fit the topic.

@ VWM
But it's late (early) and I still haven't went to bed, so what the hell: If a consumer wants to "challenge" big businesses and beat them, then the educated thing to do would be to not shop there. Stealing anything from for example Walmart doesn't teach Walmart anything. It merely raises the prices on items that I would like to buy for me and my family.....meanwhile the big business continues to see their profits, while this supposedly "righteous" vigilante talks about how he is doing it to get back at big business. Which by the way he isn't, he is more so a worthless (not literally) member of society because instead of stealing items such as food to maybe feed himself he stole two TVs.<---- Yes I'm using theft to paint the picture. The same argument applies, especially with Walmart when you read all of the consumer hate when it comes to their (current owners) running of the company.

There are many ways to fight back, and that's assuming the person is trying to "fight" something and not simply being the moral equivalent of a rogue casino.