Tons is confiscated by Europa casino and Tropez

[hithere7]

In the promotion terms they wrote Videopokser is not allowed to play to satisfy the wagerring.

They added a sentence in the long term of use which is not related to the promotions that they reserve the right not to pay if any Videopoker was played.

I played blackjack which was allowed and Videopoker, I wagered much more than required to cashout.

There is a promotion page and a promotion term and condition, why to mislead players and put such an important sentence at the terms of use ????


The balance is high, more than $12,00 that they confiscated.

3415 BP at Tropez and 3620 BP at Europa casino

I think it is not honest although it written in the term of use, when a player play a bonus he usually look at the promotion terms.

 

[paul02085]

Just another sneaky trick by PLAYTECH licensee's. I tell you most PLAYTECH licensees makes RTG look like a first class operation. They will pull every trick in the book to screw people out of money.

These clip joints should be avoided at all costs in my opinion. I do hope you get your money but I doubt it especially since they have it in their T&Cs, you know the ones they hide so they can use them in case someone wins.

 

[hithere7]

I believe the casinomeister can affect the industry and these playtech casino to stop with the games.

I think playtech is worried and the casinomeister too from what is going on and that is my hope

Here are the fact

1. The term that you can not play the videopoker was hid in the terms of use and not at the promotion terms which is applicable to the signup and monthly bonus I played

2. I played Videopoker and did not abused the bonus by playing non risk bets like red and black on the roulette

3. Actually because I played thousands of wagering in VP and also played the required amount to cashin in blackjack, I wagered triple the amount required thus risked and suppose to lose more using my money

4. From the amount I reached you can see I came to play and not to grind the bonuses, the deposit in both casino was only 100 or $200 in Tropez


I came to play, I looked at the terms, but alqways they can hide things in the long long term of use


I still believe I can get the money from them if the reputation of playtech is important

 

[caruso]

hithere7: the terms currently state:

Bets placed on any versions of Baccarat, Craps, all versions of Roulette, all versions of Sic Bo, all Video Poker games, Blackjack Switch and Blackjack Surrender will not be counted toward wagering requirements. We reserve the right to withhold any amount in excess of the player’s original deposit from a player's withdrawal if the play bonus is wagered on the above mentioned games.

Did they not state this when you played? This looks very much like the Vegas Red complaint, where they stuck the exclusion clause in the right place after the player posted.

Either way, this is a standard Playtech trick, to hide this clause in a faraway place. Playtech are currently welching on a packet of cases in which the player is one hundred percent in the right. Your chances of getting them to reverse this one are very slim.

Europa is on my Nightmare List:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/playtech-the-nightmare-list.10836/

 

[hithere7]

It was absolutely not there

Thank you for letting know about this

If you can give me any email to send, I think I have a screenshot if the promotion terms at the time I played

I will try to find the screenshot and attach it to this message also

 

[hithere7]

Unfortunately I still do not find a screenshot of Tropez or Europa, BUT I did found one of Vegasred

They are all the same and in Vegas red you can see in my screenshot which is from Novemeber 2005 that in the general terms the sentence " we reserve the right is missing" and in the general terms from today you can see it is there


Please caruso give me your email and we will start with Vegasred, the historical one without the sentence and the new one with the sentence, as I mention the group terms are the same

I will try to find casinotropez one

 

[caruso]

Hithere7, the problem is that the term existed in some shape or form on the site. Even if you had a screenshot proving the exclusion clause was absent from the BONUS page when you played, they can still argue that it existed on the USER END agreement page. I can assure you I'm not condoning this shabby behaviour, no more than am condoning Vegas Red's identically shabby tactics in the other thread, but the point is that the casino has a get-out clause on this. A dirty, shabby, blatantly ripoff-orientated one, no question, but it still gets them off the hook. Really sorry about that.

However, if you CAN manage to find a screenshot for Europa, where you played, please hang onto it - it'd be worth having a go at least. I cannot see a successful conclusion, though.

 

[hithere7]

I found also the screenshot of Europa and Tropez

Caruso, if you can give me any email I can send all I have

They added everywhere now that in addition to the do not count sentence they pur the we reserve the right and in my screenshot you can see it is missing

 

[caruso]

OK, fair enough. Worth a shot.

Bear in mind still that that clause WAS listed elsewhere, albeit it deeply hidden, so I cannot be optimistic. Playtech players are being shafted on far more clear-cut issues than this.

Also bear in mind that in spite of seemingly picking up a useful contact at the ICE, I have not heard a dicky bird on the one issue I've so far emailed her about - so far from any guarantees on that score. It may turn out to have been no more than a PR job - in which case, I will have much to say at the next exhibition at which Playtech and I meet up.

 

[hithere7]

I sent them an email but they decided to ignore me

Bryam, you saw my story, do you think they should pay me ?

Right now I see they added the sentence in the terms of the promotion and I have a screenshot which show that when I played there it was not mention at the promotion terms.

 

[scrollock]

why the F*** isnt playtech rouged ?

chartwell got rogued and fair enough there was some shady operations using chartwell, but there is a hell of a lot them who pay up no questions asked (coral, eurobet, VC, all their poker rooms)

there lots more reputable chartwells than playtech reputables

and going back to so called reputable playtechs, yes caruso you are right that golden palace do pay out, but does taking 6 months to pay out a player, accusing them of being invloved with fraud and being given all kinds of bullshit by some arrogant guy in their security department redeem themselves from not being on your list ?

 

[caruso]

why the F*** isnt playtech rouged ?

chartwell got rogued and fair enough there was some shady operations using chartwell, but there is a hell of a lot them who pay up no questions asked (coral, eurobet, VC, all their poker rooms)

Friend of mine made just this point to me. Clearly, Chartwell are about twenty times more reputable than Playtech. Chartwell make an honest statement about their position, whereas Playtech post up a whitewash dispute service that has to date acieved a big fat zero. Are we upside down?

Chartwell made a statement, back when a player was out $600 and SOL, that they had no interest in mediating disputes. This was creditably honest of them, but it didn't much help that player, nor would it help subsequent players in the same position. Playtech have given an indication that they are prepared to step in. Have they? No. Will they? I doubt it. That said, it'd be counter-productive to close the door on them at this point, since the whitewash job they've so far demonstrated might just harden up in time. Emphasis on "might". While they're making the right noises, probably best to hang back. Not indefinitely, because that would give them just the excuse they need to go on making the right noises but doing absolutely nothing - as in fact they've been doing, to date. But for the time being, give it time. No sense in jumping the gun.

That's the "responsible" answer.

My REAL answer? Hell yes; Playtech should be labelled as a rogue provider by every responsible webmaster out there. There are at least fifteen licensees out there who think they can do absolutely anything with their customers' money, because the moment they get their hands on that money they consider it theirs by right - and the numbers involved are truly staggering. To hell with the handful of "honest" Playtechs. Playtech should be boycotted until such a time as they start to call their licensees to order - every single Playtech out there.

That's the "real" answer - sorry if it gives any offence to anyone; the "responsible" answer remains my official position.

and going back to so called reputable playtechs, yes caruso you are right that golden palace do pay out, but does taking 6 months to pay out a player, accusing them of being invloved with fraud and being given all kinds of bullshit by some arrogant guy in their security department redeem themselves from not being on your list ?

Still kinda. I'm not aware of this issue, but all these casinos I listed above are casinos that are...heck, what word can I use here? **doing something other than paying**. While Golden Palace are not currently **doing something other than paying** their customers' money, I'd keep them off the list. If this slow-pay becomes of Grand Banks proportions, and effectively no-pay, obviously they will belong up there too.

NONE of which should be considered ANY endorsement of Golden Palace or ANY endorsement of Playtech.

 

[Pinababy69]

why the F*** isnt playtech rouged ?

Not to detract from this thread at all...I totally agree with all the comments re: Playtech. But....it is rogued, not rouged. I'm sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine. Rouge is a colour which I associate with a top notch casino. It's not just you Scrollock, most people seem to type it incorrectly. Maybe it's just a typo. Carry on.

 

[scrollock]

caruso, about six months ago GP done a blanket not paying evryone, it took a load of layers some time to get their money, and as far as i know some still havnt got their money.

there was a load of threads on here, i mean one day half of the first page of the complaints section was filled up with people being refused payment by GP, all of them were accused of being in a "fraud ring", except the problem was they were all from different conutries, yet the guy in GP security department told them that they wernt being paid out due to "large amouts of account being opened in a specific geographical area", he neglected to mention the "area" he was referring to was the whole world!

 

[jetset]

"To hell with the handful of "honest" Playtechs. Playtech should be boycotted until such a time as they start to call their licensees to order - every single Playtech out there." - Caruso.

I do not agree. Deliberately seeking to damage generally good casinos in indiscriminate boycotting exercises, which this post seems intended to incite, is in my opinion unfair, wrong and.....yes, frankly irresponsible whether it is your *official position* or your *real position*.

By all means flag truly rogue casinos for the safety of the players, making it possible for gamblers to pass these dangerous venues by in the interests of self-protection. There's a difference.

 

[The Dude]

chartwell got rogued and fair enough there was some shady operations using chartwell, but there is a hell of a lot them who pay up no questions asked (coral, eurobet, VC, all their poker rooms)

They are not rogued. I'm sorry you have this impression. I merely cautioned players about their stance on mediation as a software provider. And as now, it looks as though they are turing around on their position.

To hell with the handful of "honest" Playtechs. Playtech should be boycotted until such a time as they start to call their licensees to order - every single Playtech out there.

Then I'll have to ask you to do this on your own website, and not mine. The Playtech casinos that are Casinomeister members (there are 9 of them from three different groups), are conducting themselves appropriately and have nothing to do with the casinos in question. To incite a boycott here is a bit out of line, please take it to your home turf.

 

[caruso]

Bryan, it's my "unofficial" position, to be read strictly in brackets , a bit of a vent, and borne of the utter frustration at the current situation. It's meltdown in Playtech land right now. Noone can deny this.

I still support giving Playtech a chance.

 

[caruso]

caruso, about six months ago GP done a blanket not paying evryone, it took a load of layers some time to get their money, and as far as i know some still havnt got their money.

I had no idea. Did that coincide with the various casino events in Vegas last September? I can't think of any reason why else I'd have missed it. Maybe you can post some thread links - preferably in the Golden Palace thread you posted, as they will devalue the Europa / Tropez issue here.

 

[Suited72]

Bryan there are 2 catagories though - software providers and casinos. Playtech IMO from what ive read on here and elsewhere are a software provider who have no grip over their licencees and allow them to do whatever they want - Therefore being a "rogue" software provider. The fact that 9 casinos choose to make a good job of it is excellent - but it still doesnt mean playtech would do anything if they weren't....

Iris (who has the worst job in the WORLD BTW) can't solve an issue where we all agree the player is 100% right - so that complaint division for playtech is there surely to just shhhh everybody while the player gets used to the fact hes lost his money and makes less of a big issue out of it (whilst the terms on the casino site are being altered accordingly lol)

Playtech could make things really easy and put on there complaint site what is and isn't acceptable and what they can do about it. As it stands at the moment people are emailing iris and being told sorry theres nothing we can do. Well, whats the point of their complaint section then?

I would love to see playtech rogued because where everyone agrees a majority of licensers do an excellent job with all the licencees, playtech simply dont do a good job, dont really care, and dont have a facility to resolve a legit complaint. I personally think if they get rogued and it becomes known throughout that they will start to do something about it and by doing so they will make it fair for the 9 casinos you want to protect. As it stands those 9 casinos could make more money by doing the same as the others (not paying out)

Lastly, if 9 decent licencees make a good software provider out of 60 (more may be decent I dont know) at what point do they become rogue?

 

[scrollock]

I had no idea. Did that coincide with the various casino events in Vegas last September? I can't think of any reason why else I'd have missed it. Maybe you can post some thread links - preferably in the Golden Palace thread you posted, as they will devalue the Europa / Tropez issue here.

will do.

 

[The Dude]

Why don't I just rogue the whole bunch and say the hell with it? For several reasons. One is the complexity of the different groups Playtech is dealing with. Some groups are worse than others, but by looking at the information that I have available to me, there seems to be only three or four casino groups that have some serious issues. I would rather focus on these casino groups and try to convince them on how players ought to be treated (indeed if they are being mistreated), instead of tossing the whole bunch into the rogue pit. This is a much more productive way to handle these issues. If the entire software provider is placed in the "evil" section - then many bridges will be burnt unnecessarily. Some of these bridges are needed to assist players that have problems.

As for boycotting? That is strictly an individual's choice, I won't have any part of it nor will I condone it. My job is to present information and to assist players in making their own choices. I can warn you when there are potential problems, and try to steer you - and casino operators - into the right direction. I know by experience that players will do whatever they want. Most are loyal to the bonus offerings, and that's about it. Talk of making some boycott is usually just that - talk. It's not a realistic option.

I would rather see that the good operators are given credit for doing a good job and not being penalized for the mismanagement of other casino properties that they have nothing to do with. This is how it should be done IMO and not so knee-jerkish and rash.

 

[spearmaster]

The only serious reason I can think of to rogue and/or boycott a software provider is because their software is not fair - or because all of their licensees treat players unfairly.

Does that mean I support Playtech? No. I think they should take some responsibility for keeping their licensees in line.

Chartwell has a completely hands-off attitude towards their licensees. I absolutely do not support this - while I wouldn't go so far as to rogue them, or even propose a boycott, I do know that I wouldn't promote them myself, nor handle any queries about them or their licensees.

Playtech has some good licensees that do not deserve to be tarred by a mass action - okay, maybe not that many, but they still exist.

Under the same scenario, do you think anyone could support a boycott of Microgaming, when two of their licensees are the best in the business and never cause problems for anyone? I don't think so.

If you want to boycott questionable operators, by all means do so. They deserve to pay for their own problems. But it is absolutely unfair to top-notch licensees like Kiwi and Acropolis, amongst others, that you should promote a boycott against them as well.

 

[jetset]

Good posts, with which I would like to associate myself.

 

[elscrabinda]

If as a result of a boycott the 'good' playtechs start putting pressure on Playtech to clean up their act then it does some good. Of course South African athletes during apartheid or Israeli orange farmers today don't personally deserve action taken against them but if it changes the bigger picture then it can be completely justified.

Obviously a boycott is only effective if you tell the people you are boycotting that you are doing so and explain your reasons. Playtech casinos getting bombarded with boycott emails? You bet they'll be on to playtech like a shot to get their act together

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Another possible scenario is everyone boycotts Playtech therefore the 'good' operators lose players and potential players due to this.

They find/figure out why this is and realise they need to move to a software provider who also provides a safety net for the player.

 

[spearmaster]

If as a result of a boycott the 'good' playtechs start putting pressure on Playtech to clean up their act then it does some good. Of course South African athletes during apartheid or Israeli orange farmers today don't personally deserve action taken against them but if it changes the bigger picture then it can be completely justified.

The problem with South African athletes, for the most part, is that they were representing the government and the country during apartheid. As far as I am aware, no South African athlete was discriminated against for being from South Africa, provided that he/she did not claim to represent the country. And after all, they didn't ban all of Africa either for the good of the continent...

Don't know about Israeli orange farmers, though... not exactly one of my areas of knowledge

 

[Suited72]

3-4 weeks ago I got ripped by Monaco Gold for $1k and since then ive been on this site. In that time iv'e seen complaints for :

Acropolis, Monaco, Europa, Tropez, Casino Las Vegas, Casino king, Giant Vegas & Swiss.

I can say for sure that Playtech must be giving advice of T&C loopholes - either that or they all have the same operators else they wouldnt all be coming up with the same thing over and over again. For example :
Playtech casinos all that i have checked have right now in their T&C's "we reserve the right to withhold any withdrawal amount from your account which will be in excess of your original deposit"

Thats rogue to me because it gives them the option to not pay any winnings. I cant find a playtech casino that doesn't have that line in.

Playtech casinos all have the same T&Cs (slightly altered layout between casinos) The same run of customer support telephone numbers. The same methods of witholding winnings.

Move the situation offline. Would you expect voided winnings in a land based casino for the excuses ive been seeing? Shit no you wouldnt. Playtech would be closed down. The authorities wouldnt care that 9 of the 60 casinos were presumably ok.

 

[elscrabinda]

How about a campaign to have playtech casinos remove any and all vague terms (such as the one highlighted above) which they then use to justify their confiscations (theft is such a nasty word). That way theres no need for legitimate operations to be caught up in a platform wide boycott as there's no excuse for them to retain such abusable terms.

It would certainly be a nice gesture on the part of the casinos listed here to remove this term. That is unless they intend on using it in the near future

 

[paul02085]

Hopefully enough players will quit Playtech and cause them to see the light. In the meantime players should continue to speak out against the rogue Playtech casinos to help new players keep from being fleeced!

 

[Suited72]

The terms & conditions aren't vague though. They say exactly what they will do. The problem is that players expectations of a casino is relative to a land based casino. In its own title it suggests that its somewhere you go to throw a bit of money at it and hope for a win. To get that 1 in 10 win and then get told you've still lost is a load of shit.

It would be cool if someone from one of the few playtech casinos that bryan has contact with could point out the relevance of the T&C i pointed out above. That particular casino may or may not choose to enforce it, the point is, why is it there?

And if it is an enforceable term (which all of the rest are) then all playtech casinos are rogue... or they aint casinos.

 

[jetset]

I think it should be understood here that those posters who oppose boycotts do so on the basis that they regard such practices as indiscriminate, unjust to operations that are on the level and therefore intrinsically unfair...not that they support Playtech.

Based on the actual cases that have been reported, the bum Playtech casinos should be widely exposed and strongly condemned as best avoided in the absence of any policing or remedial action from Playtech. That in itself is likely to hurt both Playtech and the casinos concerned, but player self-protection, not vindictive commercial damage for revenge should sensibly be the driving force.

I'm pretty sure that the more ethical Playtech licensees will already be pressuring that company to get it's policing act together, if only for self preservation.

I don't believe you can use that lawyer's catch-all phrase as a rationale for including the *good* Playtech casinos in a boycotting action - using that logic there would be few online gambling venues for players to use anyway because most of them have this sort of T&C in one form or another. That's because lawyers usually draw up the original T&C and their objective is to cover the casino against all eventualties up to and including the Apocalypse.

The *rogue* element definitely kicks in when operators actually started using these iniquitous and downright silly clauses when they don't have any real grounds for taking punitive action against a player - that's true ROGUE conduct.

"Move the situation offline. Would you expect voided winnings in a land based casino for the excuses ive been seeing? Shit no you wouldnt. Playtech would be closed down. The authorities wouldnt care that 9 of the 60 casinos were presumably ok."

I agree with you at the start of this passage, but I don't think this can be applied here.

First off, the land authorities would be taking action against an individual land casino or group - not the provider of their equipment. Other casinos using that equipment but operating honestly would therefore not be involved.

Land casinos are regulated by appointed and usually state or territorial bodies with the legal power and will to take action and pull a license if necessary. Before doing so there would have to be a defensible case with all the evidence before them. Some even have inbuilt appeal structures distinct from the normal Constitutional civil remedies available to any citizen. Informal boycotts don't usually have too much in the line of legal niceties like that, and instigators would probably be open to litigation.

By way of comparison, generally online gambling is not effectively regulated in a governmental sense because it transcends borders and most jurisdictions have little interest in actually enforcing their rules unless it involves non payment of the license fee(!) That being the case, the likelihood of this sort of scenario is unlikely.

 

[Webzcas]

If you want to boycott questionable operators, by all means do so. They deserve to pay for their own problems. But it is absolutely unfair to top-notch licensees like Kiwi and Acropolis, amongst others, that you should promote a boycott against them as well.

I couldn't agree more with the above posted by SpearMaster. Boycotting all Playtech Operations due to the actions of some of their Licensees is not the way to go. By roguing Playtech you would be roguing the good Playtech Operations such as Kiwi - which is very unfair as they are a good casino.

Personally as a webmaster I only promote one playtech casino which is Kiwi, but there are several others which are also good operations.

I certainly will not remove Kiwi from my site as a result of other Playtech Operations whom I do not advocate or promote, causing problems for players.

 

[whiterat1]

If you let people use your name and they pay you to use your name and then they act poorly but you still get paid from them for using your name you should be held responsible.

 

[Suited72]

Kiwi & the other acredited playtech casinos still have the line in their terms & conditions that they hold the right to withold a withdrawal in excess of the original deposit.

Playtech have made that T&C and the rest of the ones they catch everyone out with. The fact that monaco choose to uphold playtechs rules and kiwi don't says that monaco are actually doing what they are meant to and kiwi are breaking playtechs terms. Thats why regardless of how good a playtech casino might be playtech are still rogue.

Lets say i put $100 on kiwi and won $10k (yeah, right!) playtech would be fine with them voiding it on the playtech T&C. Where do i complain after that? The antigua & barbuda government?

What really takes the piss is this - playtech obviously wrote up all the T&C's for all their casinos.... and then they employ iris to look at complaints of casinos that uphold them.

Im sorry but casinomeisters first rule on the accredited casinos list is to read carefully the terms & conditions of a casino. Then below that is 9 accredited casinos with stupid terms & conditions written by playtech which other playtech casinos uphold.

 

[elscrabinda]

[Deleted by me. Shouldn't try and pick a fight]

 

[scrollock]

Any non-webmasters who oppose a boycott?

good point.


although i agree that a boycott of honest playtech is unfair, however the problems are.

1) while they give their custom to playtech, its provides no incentive for playtech to clean up its act

2) honest playtechs add legitimacy to the dishonest ones, for example from UK point of view, many UK players start off playing casinos off their favourite sportsbook, someone could start off at say bet 365,betfred or the tote, then when they see another playtech, they might end joining having gained confidence with the playtech software and customer service, only to get a nasty shock.

3) although the honest playtech are honest at the moment, the fact remains that playtech disputes is a joke, so the fact remains that should any honest playtech get tempted over to the darkside as there is no effective disputes channel for the player.

in fact having a disputes channel that doesnt work, increases the chances of a casino turning dishonest if there is no sanction against them doing so. I'm sure that some of the dishonest playtechs started off as honest operations and only turned dishonest when they realised they could get away with it.

fact is that if there was a wholescale boycott of playtech, then honest playtechs would be getting punished for no reason of their own, however while innocent players are putting their money in day after day to dishonest playtechs, then it is the innocent players who are getting punished for no reason of their own.

so as the situation stands, if the status quo is maintained, then some innoncent players are going to be out of pocket, if there is a boycott then some innocent casinos are going to be out of pocket.

i think i know which scenario i would prefer.

maybe a possible solution for those innocent playtechs is to set up there own regulatory body, firstly this would send the message to playtech that their disputes channel is not worth the paper it is written on, it would give a easily recognisable separation from the dishonest playtechs and most importantly of all give the player somewhere to go should he ever encounter a problem.

 

[caruso]

so as the situation stands, if the status quo is maintained, then some innoncent players are going to be out of pocket, if there is a boycott then some innocent casinos are going to be out of pocket.

i think i know which scenario i would prefer.

With all due respect to Bryan, Ted, Webcaz and Jetset, who are of opposing opinions on this subject generally, I also support the idea that if it's a choice between innocent players or innocent casinos getting caught in the fallout, then innocent casinos are preferable.

One way or another Playtech needs to do something about the substantial rogue element. They are doing nothing. If the dispute service is having ANY effect at all, I have to say I haven't seen any evidence - my one thoughtful, considered communication to date has been TOTALLY ignored, and I've seen nothing from anyone else.

I would have to have to encourage players to think twice before depositing at Playtech casinos. I'm probably going to get it in the neck again for saying that, but the greater good is more important, and I do believe there is value to be had if the "forum ten percent" votes with its feet. If my meeting with Iris had any value, it was her acknowledgement that it's a very valuable ten percent that Playtech cannot do without.

I'm sure that if Playtech pulled their socks up as a result, the good Playtechs would see an increase in business with the generally renewed player confidence in the brand. That way, although there might be an initial downturn in business, they would be most likely well compensated subsequently.

 

[spearmaster]

I'm sure that if Playtech pulled their socks up as a result, the good Playtechs would see an increase in business with the generally renewed player confidence in the brand. That way, although there might be an initial downturn in business, they would be most likely well compensated subsequently.

This is simply unjustified in the real world - what if Playtech do not "pull their socks up?" Then you would be actively promoting action against a casino which has been an upstanding member of the community up to now, and has taken good care of its players... and by driving them the wall you take the risk that they too go under - leaving you with less good casinos to play at, and thus encouraging other rogue casinos to keep doing what they're doing in order to survive.

Nope. Can't support this at all. While I encourage people to vote with their feet and avoid patronizing operations which are less than stellar, I cannot possibly recommend an action in which the innocent are hurt as well as the guilty - I'm not going to draw the real-world war comparisons here but I think you can safely figure out what I am talking about - ahem - which is why many of us are being burdened by bullshit like the Patriot Act...

Your greater good concept simply does not work in this scenario.

 

[The Dude]

[Deleted by me. Shouldn't try and pick a fight]

busted!

 

[caruso]

I said if they did. I wasn't even thinking about the "didn't".

I read into your post that you are pessimistic about Playtech ever doing anything, since you focus on this eventuality. I would second that, it being the case. I have detailed knowledge of one substantial case that has been dragging on...forever. Nothing, stress NOTHING, is happening. PLAYTECH IS DOING NOTHING.

Who is best protected, players or casinos, if there is a choice - the only choice? How can you justify innocent players over innocent casinos? I'm not saying it would definitely work, as you suggest. But it would be an option.

Ted, you got any better ones, any more effective ones, fire away.

 

[jetset]

[Deleted by me. Shouldn't try and pick a fight]

As a non-webmaster who disagrees with the indiscriminate boycott in principle I'm glad you had the sensibility to do so, Elscrabinda - implying that this is a player-industry people faction issue is not productive.

 

[spearmaster]

You don't justify innocent players over innocent casinos - both are innocent and do not deserve to be wrongly treated.

What it comes down to is this. Support those casinos you know are good, and stay away from those you know which aren't. If people would listen and read more often instead of rushing into things, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

There is absolutely no way a boycott can be supported against the software provider and its operators - but plenty of reasons why you should boycott those casinos which are unfair.

Don't bother trying to play the "innocent" angle here - you know as well as I do that no innocent party should be injured, AND that there are better ways to deal with this than what you are proposing - throwing dynamite in a pond and hoping to collect all the fish is not productive.

 

[jetset]

"Who is best protected, players or casinos, if there is a choice - the only choice? How can you justify innocent players over innocent casinos? I'm not saying it would definitely work, as you suggest. But it would be an option."

But there is not a sole choice here. So how about the principle of what is fair rather than trying to decide who is the most appropriate party to punish regardless of guilt?

The ones on which pressure is required are those who are injuring the player, and the players can legitimately apply that as Spearmaster suggests - by denying their individual business to those establishments and warning other players of the dangers attendant on playing at these rogues. I doubt that anyone would have an argument with that, because it is an action based on self-protection.

I think posters here should perhaps put themselves in the shoes of one of the honest casinos for a moment - how would you enjoy this sort of conversation, having presumably already pressed Playtech to do something about the situation and strived to consistently deliver a good gaming experience to your players?

And how good for healthy player-casino relationships is this sort of proposal, academic though it may be, when viewed from the perspective of some of the decent and helpful casino reps who have long been members of this board? Not exactly a motivator, I would guess.

Having seen this academic argument on boycotts before I am of the same opinion as Spearmaster - even assuming an effective mass boycott could be put together regardless of the rights of the innocent it is unlikely to do more than create ill-feeling on both sides, and online gambling will continue unabated.

But that's just one opinion - there are too many "what ifs" and unknowns for accurate results to be predicted.

 

[scrollock]

.

What it comes down to is this. Support those casinos you know are good, and stay away from those you know which aren't. If people would listen and read more often instead of rushing into things, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

.

true that players should do research and make an informed decision before playing at a casino, but likewise a casino should do research and make an informed decision when choosing its software provider.

just as player can decide which casino he plays at, a casino can choose which software it uses.

while in this debate a player, who gets ripped off by a rogue playtech casino is guilty of nothing, the honest casinos are guilty of providing reputation and finance to what is now undisputably is a rogue software provider who is complicit in the thefts that are going on at some of the casinos it supports.

 

[spearmaster]

the honest of casinos are guilty of providing reputation and finance

One has to remember that a considerable investment is made when choosing the software - and the PRIMARY consideration should be that the software is fair. Obviously, Kiwi has been around for quite some time now, and Acropolis chose their software based on a number of factors and recommendations from some people in the industry.

Will they change software? Yeah, could be a possibility - but I don't believe we should be burning their houses down to force them to find a new home...

 

[Webzcas]

just as player can decide which casino he plays at, a casino can choose which software it uses.

It is not quite as easy as that. In Online Casino Utopia I am sure this could be well achieved.

However to jump software is not as straightforward as flicking a switch. Time and a lot of finance are just two considerations to make.

While Playtech is underfire, why not boycott RTG as well, who in my opinion, need to get a lot of their Licensees to clean up their act as well. Just this last week I have received another two complaints regarding Connect To Casino from players.

 

[Suited72]

Those 9 accredited casinos. Can you say 100% that you would be happy in users putting there money on sites with terms which state they wont payout more than the deposit amount?

isn't this a consumer watchdog site? half of you are arguing the case for not hurting the profits of 9 casinos which are part of a group voiding possibly 1000's of individual persons money.

 

[spearmaster]

First of all, I am not talking about 9 casinos, I am talking about a few good casinos.

Secondly, they are NOT a part of the same group - they happen to use the same software. Just because hackers use Microsoft Windows doesn't mean we should boycott companies which use Windows or deploy Microsoft servers on the Net.

A consumer watchdog site is meant to educate the public in a responsible manner. It was not, and will never be, here to advocate actions which damage honest and fair operations no matter what the cause.

 

[Suited72]

It is a group because they share the same T&Cs and support staff who enforce them. If it was just software provision I dont think there would even be a problem.

"A consumer watchdog site is meant to educate the public in a responsible manner. It was not, and will never be, here to advocate actions which damage honest and fair operations no matter what the cause."

Yes I know that, which is why I asked how come a list of 9 casinos get accredited when they have a T&C which says you wont get paid out more than you put in - your saying that you would happily play a casino that enforced that term?

Im not having a go by the way. Monaco ripped me $1k they arent rogued, playtech arent rogued (and they wrote the ridiculous T&C monaco got me with) and I wanna try to save people money who play there and think they'll get winnings.

And im taking it seriously too. I put $19k through 888's pacific last year without a single bonus and im not putting another $ online until I feel confident that theres a system in place which protects me from clowns like playtech.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

The problem is we have had many good and reputable Playtech groups turn to rogue behaviour recently, so how do you know others wont follow? At Crypto and MG you know this isn't going to happen and even RTG to a lesser extent, but with Playtech you know it could easily and the software provider wouldn't care less.

The Swiss/Casino King group and the Carnival/Monaco group are prime examples.

Up until about a year ago I had never seen a complaint about any of these, and regularly played at both groups and was paid large cashouts promptly. I would have recommended them to anyone, but how wrong I'd have been.

Now how do I know that other groups (Main Street, Kiwi, Acropolis etc) aren't going to go down that route? The answer is I don't, and when the software provider isn't going to offer me any help why should I play there?

It's the same as RTG used to be. You knew to keep clear of all there licensees, even though there was a few good ones, as RTG wouldn't offer you any help. I'm sure that effected the good casino's business as well, but that was the problem they had made for themselves by choosing to use a software provider that had plenty of dodgy licensees.

The same applies to the good Playtech licensees now.