Resolved Tropica Casino not paying £7k

[dunover]

It's banned by casino operators who don't understand how to run a casino.

Looking more and more like you were fortunate to get paid when you ran the 1777% SUB through.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Looking more and more like you were fortunate to get paid when you ran the 1777% SUB through.

That was when Duwayne was still their rep, the place has obviously gone downhill since he's been removed from frontline duty.

(And I still maintain that the 1777% bonus (it wasn't a SUB, it was an infinitely repeatable offer!) is one of the most insane EV+ offers I've ever seen, short of visiting players personally and giving them £1000 in cash, I don't see how the casino could have thrown its money away any more effectively.)

 

[dunover]

Well it was evens for you in effect, you failed one and succeeded one, overall making about 600.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well it was evens for you in effect, you failed one and succeeded one, overall making about 600.

Eh?

It only cost £100 per attempt, that was made it so crazily EV+

£100 deposit gave a £1777 bonus for a £1877 bankroll with a maximum cashout of 0.5x the bonus (£888) + deposit back (£100) + comp points (£30 or more).

Over £1000 withdrawable from a £100 deposit if you beat it first time, and it was basically impossible NOT to beat it at least one in ten attempts, so it would always be profitable.

 

[dunover]

Eh?

It only cost £100 per attempt, that was made it so crazily EV+

£100 deposit gave a £1777 bonus for a £1877 bankroll with a maximum cashout of 0.5x the bonus (£888) + deposit back (£100) + comp points (£30 or more).

Over £1000 withdrawable from a £100 deposit if you beat it first time, and it was basically impossible NOT to beat it at least one in ten attempts, so it would always be profitable.

Sorry for some reason I was talking dollars I forgot you did pounds on it.

 

[Nifty29]

Hi guys,

i also hoping that Tropica can be an accredited rival casino but after experienced the next confiscating winnings on a german player my hope is lost somewhere in a black hole.

Hope that the player will register here and will report his story. That is what he wanted to do. But i'm involved in his issue.

short report:

A german player registered and made 2 deposits. First deposit (KK) of €100 he lost. On second deposit of €200 (KK) he pushed his balance up to €1500.

He played without bonus and played roulette. His bets was between €5 and €8 on different numbers, so he placed between €45 and €50 and was lucky to push his balance. This is happened within a few minutes. Now after a short time his account was flagged from security system and was locked.

Account is under review and so on. The reason should be the high risk bets and that he used the martingale system.

He played without bonus, so he was free in playing games and placing bets.

After i contacted casino because he got no response from the department, i got the following response.

MARTINGALE APPLIES TO ROULETTE. ROULETTE IS NOT ALLOWED WHEN PLAYING WITH BONUSES AND THEREFORE IT IS LOGICAL THAT IT APPLIES WITHOUT A BONUS BEEN ACTIVE.

Am i wrong or don't understand ? where please is the logical ?

The casino has table limits, so higher bets are allowed and how can one except that a general bonus term (using martingale system) is allso affected if one play without bonus ?

what is your opinion ?

Fact is that they reopened his casino account a short time to withdraw his deposits. Player withdraw his deposits but they have removed the rest of €1.200 before (Balance was only €300)

E-mail correspondence between player and casino is also a joke.

Now in the menatime of writing here i received another statement from CSR. But what they stated about casinomeister i think it would be better to write it Bryan personally.

@Bryan

will send you a pm (in german)
it will interest you


I believe their CSR is really on crack otherwise i can't explain their own interpretations of rules or management decisions.

ROGUE ROGUE ROGUE

What an absolute disgrace from a pack of gormless jokers.

 

[mrmark21]

Well I'm certainly happy I bumped this thread IMO Bryan needs to rogue Tropica! That's the second player that hasn't been paid and I'm sure there will be more to come.

 

[chuchu59]

Well I'm certainly happy I bumped this thread IMO Bryan needs to rogue Tropica! That's the second player that hasn't been paid and I'm sure there will be more to come.

Correction. There is bound to be scores of players whose winnings have been confiscated by now.

In the past, even when cash-strapped the Rival casinos will ultimately pay but it seems this no longer holds true. It does now seem the active participation of the rep several months ago was a calculated effort to attract players in thinking they have mended their ways. They did succeed though unlike Rushmore.

 

[naththo]

That casino definitely should deserve a rogue pit!

Hi,

I am sorry to hear you have through that huge problem with that Tropica Casino. It is not nice experience troubling with it for such a long time. I am glad you came here to tell us whats happened. I don't agreed with Tropica moderator that you have made a threat to post it here. What you simply did was the right thing to do to warn others as well at the same time. Tropica, sorry to say but you have cross the line far too far. You shall deserve a huge rogue pit. I will never shall join with you in future reference also. It is totally unethical and unacceptable to see that situation happened. And your customer service is way too P!$$ POOR. I support someone here who had trouble with it. You should have listen to them and find a solution to help the customer, yet you haven't. What you did was very unhelpful and very impatient, your demand was very rude to customer as well. Good on ya for posting here to let us know what happened. Stand up for yourself!

 

[incrediblestuff]

I second that Chu, looks like a well planned effort indeed, i did suspect something like that, but ofc liked to give them the benefit of the doubt...
Just history repeating itself..

 

[sparkz]

As others have mentioned its sad that Rival have swung this way.

I remember playing at numerous rivals that were brilliant but all went down the same path...

Vegas Regal for example. They were 1 of the best casinos on the web at 1 point.

In their prime I wouldnt care about depositing and losing because I knew whatever the outcome it would confirm I could expect a nice few free chips very shortly (They gave them out very often, xmas, valentines day, birthdays, new year, thanksgiving, firework night, if a new game is launched and so on). Each chip had a fair max cashout and WR.

Then the chips became less and less and started to have unfair terms on them (must win 2x the freechip value to be able to cashout with max cashout being the freechip amount). Before long the rep stopped posting here and off they went to the rogue pit.

It seems now that the whole rival outfit it corrupt and rogue. Probably started as a few bad business decisions (perhaps not accepting US market anymore was a big factor) and tactics that put players off, made their money reserves dry up which in turn left them to making excuses and delaying payments, then came the limits on max withdrawal amount per week and now making excuses to take the players balance if the player wins while not saying a word if a player loses.

The rival slots were some of the best online which makes it sad. I especially loved the islots which were unique at the time (some other platforms have done a similar approach to their slots since).

If they want any chance of being accredited or making a good profit ever again, rival needs to speak up and pull the plug on all rival casinos that are operating and then re-launch the software from scratch.... Otherwise there will be a day when everyone knows that Rival are corrupt scammers and the whole operation will go bust

 

[Mouche12]

I am afraid Tropica are lying through their teeth and will continue to do so!

I asked them about this case and this is the response I received:

Thank you for your interest in the casinomeister case. We have liaised
with Bryan and Nifty and stated our case 2 weeks ago with no reply from
either.

We will not be discussing the matter with any third parties.

For the record, we chose not to be part of Casinomeister anymore,
because they would not allow us to become accredited. (DUH!!! > my comment)

You are welcome to play here and test our service, rewards, offers etc.
We do run a good operation and only people abusing our generosity have a
poor experience.

 

[chuchu59]

I am afraid Tropica are lying through their teeth and will continue to do so!

I asked them about this case and this is the response I received:

Thank you for your interest in the casinomeister case. We have liaised
with Bryan and Nifty and stated our case 2 weeks ago with no reply from
either.

We will not be discussing the matter with any third parties.

For the record, we chose not to be part of Casinomeister anymore,
because they would not allow us to become accredited. (DUH!!! > my comment)

You are welcome to play here and test our service, rewards, offers etc.
We do run a good operation and only people abusing our generosity have a
poor experience.

Wow this is interesting. I would dearly love to see Nifty's response.

 

[Mouche12]

Me too! Where are you Nifty?

 

[Balthazar]

We have liaised with Bryan and Nifty

Nifty? Why? (Nothing against Nifty, just curious).

no reply from either.

Well hopefully they'll explain themselves here now.

they would not allow us to become accredited.

Ain't that a shame...

 

[Nifty29]

Nifty? Why?

I did receive an email and have yet to reply.

I wanted to see how things progressed. I have seen enough.

When I respond I will consider posting the email, although I can't post the email I received without permission.

Balthazar....apparently Duwayne considered me to be fair minded and likely to give him a fair hearing,which I am and did. I've spoken to him several times over the past 12 months so that might be a factor also.

 

[Balthazar]

I did receive an email and have yet to reply.

I wanted to see how things progressed. I have seen enough.

When I respond I will consider posting the email, although I can't post the email I received without permission.

Balthazar....apparently Duwayne considered me to be fair minded and likely to give him a fair hearing,which I am and did. I've spoken to him several times over the past 12 months so that might be a factor also.

Is Duwayne still working for them or not? Last time it was mentionned the answer was quite ambiguous (ie: "yes but no...").

 

[Nifty29]

Is Duwayne still working for them or not? Last time it was mentionned the answer was quite ambiguous (ie: "yes but no...").

Yes he's on the affiliate side of things.

He was replaced here at cm 6 months ago with no notification to anyone, and pms personally addressed to him were being read and answered by "D"....who it turns out is NOT Duwayne....and who IMO deliberately signed "D" to make us think it was still Duwayne.

Duwayne was instructed to no longer participate at CM by management. He was resolving too many issues fairly and making too much sense I think, which is contrary to official Rival policy.

 

[Balthazar]

deliberately signed "D" to make us think it was still Duwayne.

That's what I thought too when I first read about it earlier in the thread.

 

[just play]

I did receive an email and have yet to reply.

I wanted to see how things progressed. I have seen enough.

When I respond I will consider posting the email, although I can't post the email I received without permission.

Balthazar....apparently Duwayne considered me to be fair minded and likely to give him a fair hearing,which I am and did. I've spoken to him several times over the past 12 months so that might be a factor also.

I don't know how to word this without sounding like an asshole. This is pure curiosity.

Why would a casino talk about any case with a member of a forum in private? (that wasn't about them) The way you word things, sometimes it seems like you are more than a member.

Especially "Duwayne considered me to be fair minded and likely to give him a fair hearing". What does he care if one forum member gives him a fair hearing?

Again, this is just curiosity (or me being nosey, NOT asshole-ish).

 

[chuchu59]

I did receive an email and have yet to reply.

I wanted to see how things progressed. I have seen enough.

When I respond I will consider posting the email, although I can't post the email I received without permission.

Balthazar....apparently Duwayne considered me to be fair minded and likely to give him a fair hearing,which I am and did. I've spoken to him several times over the past 12 months so that might be a factor also.

Fair enough but the casino is accusing both you and Bryan of inaction which I feel is unlikely from what I understand about both of you.

 

[Nifty29]

Fair enough but the casino is accusing both you and Bryan of inaction which I feel is unlikely from what I understand about both of you.

Yes, I see your point there.

I've been waiting to see how it all turned out with the $7k issue, and I had a feeling based on past experience that this might be the tip of the iceberg.....often one complaint tends to become several either via aggrieved players using Google, or some kind of change in management policy. I'm glad I waited, given the horrendous confiscation of non-bonus winnings due to "pattern betting".

I'm tempted to put an offer to Tropica.....allow me to gather a couple of knowledgable members from here and form an advisory team with a goal of turning their casino into a trustworthy big player in the industry, with a nice paycheck for us if we meet our goals etc. I think its doable, but they'll never go for it. I actually think a lot of casinos would benefit from such a panel/team with a passion for improving the industry for both players and casinos.

I will post the email when I've sent it.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yes, I see your point there.

I've been waiting to see how it all turned out with the $7k issue, and I had a feeling based on past experience that this might be the tip of the iceberg.....often one complaint tends to become several either via aggrieved players using Google, or some kind of change in management policy. I'm glad I waited, given the horrendous confiscation of non-bonus winnings due to "pattern betting".

I'm tempted to put an offer to Tropica.....allow me to gather a couple of knowledgable members from here and form an advisory team with a goal of turning their casino into a trustworthy big player in the industry, with a nice paycheck for us if we meet our goals etc. I think its doable, but they'll never go for it. I actually think a lot of casinos would benefit from such a panel/team with a passion for improving the industry for both players and casinos.

I will post the email when I've sent it.

Well, they had one of their own trying, and succeeding, in doing the same. What did they do? They moved him. They clearly have no interest in becoming a fair and honest casino. THIS is why Bryan won't let them become accredited, they simply aren't prepared to meet his standards. It is almost as though they believed it should have been possible to "buy" accreditation, rather than have to meet certain standards. Maybe this is a reflection of how they normally get themselves "highly rated" on other sites, and are miffed that on this site, they can't simply buy their way in.

They were not even satisfied with the status quo of being neither accredited nor rogue, and still have major supporters like Kasino King prepared to rate the various Rival brands on merit.

As for reps discussing cases via PM with respected members, it happens on occasion, but personal details of the player involved are NOT shared. I also engaged with the former Tropica rep over the issues involved in an earlier case, but I received no personal details of any players involved, just a more detailed discussion of what the issues were from their side, seeking understanding and suggestions on how to proceed. I presume this is the level of discussion they had with Nifty.

The fact that they had to add the gripe that "Bryan won't let us be accredited" in their reply suggests there is an element of "sour grapes" involved, and since this is a battle between Tropica and Bryan, it is clearly unfair to use players who happen to use CM to pursue their issues as pawns in this battle.

If this "feud" is an impediment to fair treatment, perhaps this case should be aired on GamblingGrumbles instead. I can't see voiding of winnings where no bonus is involved being an issue where the casino's decision is supported, and rather than being "not recommended" on one site, they can be "not recommended" on two.

Three if KK puts them in his own rogues gallery.

 

[just play]

As for reps discussing cases via PM with respected members, it happens on occasion, but personal details of the player involved are NOT shared. I also engaged with the former Tropica rep over the issues involved in an earlier case, but I received no personal details of any players involved, just a more detailed discussion of what the issues were from their side, seeking understanding and suggestions on how to proceed. I presume this is the level of discussion they had with Nifty.

Thanks for the reply VWM. Seems odd that a casino would need understanding and suggestions about their own casino. But what do I know? Not much, haha.

 

[skiny]

I don't know how to word this without sounding like an asshole. This is pure curiosity.

Why would a casino talk about any case with a member of a forum in private? (that wasn't about them) The way you word things, sometimes it seems like you are more than a member.

Especially "Duwayne considered me to be fair minded and likely to give him a fair hearing". What does he care if one forum member gives him a fair hearing?

Again, this is just curiosity (or me being nosey, NOT asshole-ish).

As for reps discussing cases via PM with respected members, it happens on occasion, but personal details of the player involved are NOT shared. I also engaged with the former Tropica rep over the issues involved in an earlier case, but I received no personal details of any players involved, just a more detailed discussion of what the issues were from their side, seeking understanding and suggestions on how to proceed. I presume this is the level of discussion they had with Nifty.

Personally, I think the place of Casinomeister members is to debate openly and not investigate privately. I'm sure Casinomeister has specific procedures in regards to dispute settlements between casinos and players who request assistance. Players and casinos are both just as capable of offering a less than complete version of the entire story and without personal details and access to personal documents any conclusions made are no more than opinions based on an incomplete picture. If I had a dispute with a casino that required a third party mediator (which in this case would be Casinomeister) I would not want private members contacting the casino to discuss the case (which would be a fourth party.)

There is a general rule that members who have requested assistance forego discussing the case in public. I think there should also be a rule that fourth party members not seek discussion with the casinos privately. I'm assuming this particular case is not open to mediation since the casino has no intent on being added to the accredited list. If a casino has no intention of allowing third party mediation through Casinomeister and it's guidelines, fourth party discussions are by default meaningless unless the fourth party has access to private documents.

I asked them about this case and this is the response I received:

Thank you for your interest in the casinomeister case. We have liaised
with Bryan and Nifty and stated our case 2 weeks ago with no reply from
either.

We will not be discussing the matter with any third parties.

Actually talking to Bryan IS talking to a third party and unless Nifty works for Casinomeister and has become part of the mediation process he would be considered a fourth party. I'm not sure if this statement was really intended to rank Bryan and Nifty as equals in the discussion but it's more likely just badly worded and not very well thought through. I would hope that any accredited casino would not be open to discussing any members of Casinomeister with anyone other than the employees of Casinomeister. Even if a privacy statement is not signed a privacy agreement should at least be understood when a person joins a casino. It's true that casino players are allowed to post publicly about the casinos they play at but the casino reps are just as capable of posting a reply. In times when the accusations have been serious enough, Casinomeister seems to have been able to sort the issue out to most people's satisfaction. In my opinion, all fourth party members should be restricting their opinions and questions to the public forum.