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.

 

[just play]

Good post Skiny..you worded it better than I could.

I guess I just felt "icky" that a casino would talk to members about me in private, if I ever had a problem. They can talk to Bryan/Max/Simmo as much as they want, but not members.

I'm hoping an explaination will come about this.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Good post Skiny..you worded it better than I could.

I guess I just felt "icky" that a casino would talk to members about me in private, if I ever had a problem. They can talk to Bryan/Max/Simmo as much as they want, but not members.

I'm hoping an explaination will come about this.

I suspect this was "spin" designed to allay the concerns of a potential new player. It looks like they miscalculated as they have made themselves look even more dodgy, and now members are questioning why they felt the need to try to gain the understanding of "fourth party" members instead of discussing the issue with Bryan and Max.

The other problem is that by seeking contact with CM members via PM, it creates a problem whereby that member cannot "blow the whistle" in public if they have any concerns about what the casino is saying, but must seek a view in private from Bryan and Max.

Their claim that they have communicated with Bryan on this issue seems at odds with their official status as "No can do" for PABs, which means that as far as players are concerned, PAB is not an option.

Since they ARE in touch with Bryan, and are probably reading this thread, perhaps they might like to explain why they have confiscated winnings from players who have only used their own money (no bonuses), and played within the table limits set within the software (This ought to be good - grab the popcorn)

 

[Nifty29]

Its important to note that I was contacted by the casino.....not the other way around. I have never intervened IIRC on any players behalf with any casino at CM.

I don't rate myself any more highly than any other member and have never been a "fourth party" in any mediation.

No players private information has been provided to me via Tropica, nor by any other casino.

Casinos often ask my OPINION on cases in the forum, presumably due to my longevity here. I'm not the only one.

KK is far more active in actually intervening/assisting with casinos privately than I....and he deserves kudos for it. I don't see anyone complaining about that.....so I assume its because its me, which is pretty childish if that's the case.

I would also point out that I have been asked to use my casino contacts over the years and have refused, and directed them to the PAB process.

I also think Duwayne needs to examine the meaning of liaising....sending someone an email is not liaising. I also think he's trying to look like a victim of sorts and "harshly treated/ignored"...which is a bit ordinary.

 

[Dipity]

KK is far more active in actually intervening/assisting with casinos privately than I....and he deserves kudos for it. I don't see anyone complaining about that.....so I assume its because its me, which is pretty childish if that's the case.

I think the issue is that people see KK offering to help first, and presumably being taken up on it, NOT being contacted by the casino in question off their own backs.

Thats whats looking suspicious here (against the casino, not you).

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think the issue is that people see KK offering to help first, and presumably being taken up on it, NOT being contacted by the casino in question off their own backs.

Thats whats looking suspicious here (against the casino, not you).

It's even MORE suspicious given that the casino has more or less shunned the CM community since the spat with Bryan over accreditation of Rival casinos.

 

[just play]

Casinos often ask my OPINION on cases in the forum, presumably due to my longevity here. I'm not the only one.

KK is far more active in actually intervening/assisting with casinos privately than I....and he deserves kudos for it. I don't see anyone complaining about that.....so I assume its because its me, which is pretty childish if that's the case.

Your not the only one that casinos ask for opinions on? This makes my "ickyness" even worse.

It's not because it's you...it's because a casino is talking privately with a member about another member. It has nothing to do with you. You could insert any name, I still wouldn't like it. Unless it was Bryan/Max/Simmo.

I thought KK assisted because people used his site to sign up at a certain casino, or I see he asks the person if they would like him to help.

Anyway...of to my dads to set up his phone.

 

[Dipity]

It's not because it's you...it's because a casino is talking privately with a member about another member. It has nothing to do with you. You could insert any name, I still wouldn't like it. Unless it was Bryan/Max/Simmo.

He specifically said no details were given to him.

No players private information has been provided to me via Tropica, nor by any other casino.

 

[Nifty29]

I think the issue is that people see KK offering to help first, and presumably being taken up on it, NOT being contacted by the casino in question off their own backs.

Thats whats looking suspicious here (against the casino, not you).

I can see that POV and its fair.

I know that members to contact KK privately to get help....well I have before so I assume others have....so its not just because he offers it publicly. I also suspect his contacts have emailed him at some time to discuss different things. I'm sure KK can confirm that either way.

It seems some are suggesting it is a free-for-all behind the scenes with member's personal information. It is absolutely NOT the case. I'll reiterate again for those that missed it earlier.....NO personal information is disclosed to me by any casino and never has been.

Given that no personal information is being disclosed, I don't see a huge difference between a casino rep asking an experienced member what their personal opinion is (usually regarding how the casino has reacted and whether it was fair and reasonable), and one member pm'ing another and asking the same. If members don't want themselves being discussed with other members "behind their back" they should choose a forum/site that doesn't allow it. If anyone thinks members don't discuss other members with each other then they're deluding themselves.

Justplay....I'm not sure why you feel "icky" about it. Casinos don't just pm people Willy nilly. I'm flattered that others.....members and casinos alike....trust my opinion and discretion. I do not reveal publicly what I'm told privately, unless permission is given to do so. I've heard stuff that would most certainly cause many to be more sympathetic to operators who have rules on top of rules etc.....but i won't betray trust (none of it involved personal player information).

If an issue isn't being resolved fairly, and my input privately persuades a casino to change their position to make it fairer (which has happened), then I see that as a positive.

If what I've said thus far doesn't ease some peoples minds then there's nothing else I can add that will. I will continue to do what I've always done and give my opinion privately when it is asked for privately, as is my right. Some ARE trying to make it about me specifically, which I might understand if it were just me involved in this type of private communication, but it is not....VWM has put his hand up and I'm sure KK will too, and I'm sure there is others. I don't see them being questioned, so I can only assume that some take exception to me personally discussing stuff privately with reps. Exception can be taken, but until Bryan bans private contact between reps and members, or decides to moderate all PMs, then discussions of this nature will always take place.

If anyone has a serious objection....and it appears some do...they should contact Max or Bryan.

 

[mrmark21]

I'd contact Nifty for help with an issue for the same reason I'd contact KK. They are both knowledgeable members on this forum. IMPO what's important is that the casinos aren't giving away our private/personal information which Nifty has stated they aren't. I'm assuming that Nifty's correspondence with Duwayne on this forum has had some influence on Nifty having more involvement with this case

 

[just play]

Nifty (or anyone who this happens with) can you give a fictitious example of what transpires between you and a casino?

I still don't understand. Why can't they make their own descisions? Why would a HUGE company like online casinos have to ask anyone their opinion (in private) except the people in their own company? When they can come here and ask hundreds of people?

For instance they email you and say "bla bla" you email back and say "bla bla". Can you fill in the "bla blas"?


Do you mean the casino doesn't know how to "rule" in particular cases, so they email you (or the other people) and ask if you would rule in their favor or not? It still seems odd to me...that's like Starbucks doesn't know what to do about something, so in turn they go to another company instead of within their own company.

I MUST be missing something. (I'm a little slow people bear with me )

 

[Nifty29]

Nifty (or anyone who this happens with) can you give a fictitious example of what transpires between you and a casino?

I still don't understand. Why can't they make their own descisions? Why would a HUGE company like online casinos have to ask anyone their opinion (in private) except the people in their own company? When they can come here and ask hundreds of people?

For instance they email you and say "bla bla" you email back and say "bla bla". Can you fill in the "bla blas"?


Do you mean the casino doesn't know how to "rule" in particular cases, so they email you (or the other people) and ask if you would rule in their favor or not? It still seems odd to me...that's like Starbucks doesn't know what to do about something, so in turn they go to another company instead of within their own company.

I MUST be missing something. (I'm a little slow people bear with me )

Well I cannot reveal actual discussions as I stated earlier.

I'll give you a "made up" kind of situation which might help allay your fears, although I think what I have already said should be more than enough. Considering it will be a completely "made up" scenario, it might not be indicative of every conversation and issue.

I will say before I provide an example that a GOOD operator will want to gather as MUCH information and POV's as possible before they make a decision. Whether that information comes from inside or outside the company doesn't matter. If what you say is true, we would not have such a huge industry called Market Research. Every company relies on some kind of exterior opinion and input, and online casinos (should) be no different.

Example as promised:

CASINO REP: We appreciate you being fair and reasonable in thread xxxxxxx regarding our casino's new terms and conditions regarding bonuses. In your experience, do you feel that xxxxxx term is a reasonable one, and is there perhaps a better way to word or phrase it so that innocent and/or well-intentioned players don't get "caught in the net"?

ME: Wel, IMO you could add xxxxx to the term and remove xxxx and that might make it more palatable, and fairer to regular players who aren't coming in to hit big and never return. In my experience, terms like this tend to put regular loyal players off and might cost you more in the long run than deterring a few advantage players.

Now, this is just an idea. I don't email them asking them to ask my opinion. Obviously they feel my opinion is worth something, so they contact me. I think one reason might be that they know Bryan is a very busy guy and that he and I see eye-to-eye on most things, but that's only a guess. Another reason might be that, particulary where new or fairly new operators are concerned, they may not have a wealth of experience in regards to what has worked for other operators and what hasn't....hence they ask me because I've seen a lot of stuff in 12+ years here. Or, maybe they just think I'm a trustworthy and fair person who they like to "bounce" ideas off (and they do this too).

I do NOT see myself as as "alternative" dispute resolution service, and I have NEVER pretended to be one. The PAB is the best and fairest system on the net IMO and that is what I recommend when a casino rep is "on the fence" about something.

I'm probably coming across as "blowing my own trumpet", which might be true if I offered my services unsolicited....but I don't. I'm simply trying to provide reasons why they might ask me and not Joe Blow etc.

I really think I have said EVERYTHING I can possibly say about this issue. Justplay, I am sorry if you are having a tough time getting your head around it, but all I can say is that there is nothing malicious or illegal or inappropriate about it and reps NEVER give personal information away (I cannot stress this enough).

I'll let KK and VWM etc answer anything related now as I've said all I have to say.

 

[just play]

Justplay, I am sorry if you are having a tough time getting your head around it

I like to have examples, I like to ask questions (anyone who has been here for more than a month should know this )

Your example was perfect. Thank you.

This latest post was the most helpful (to me at least) the others not so much. So, I'm done asking questions for now.

I thanked you and clicked the "helpful" button.

 

[zanzibar]

Why would a HUGE company like online casinos have to ask anyone their opinion (in private) except the people in their own company?

As an experienced affiliate who has spoken with many of these people over the years, the average Rival white label "operator" is little more than a couple of people marketing their casino skin, so your assumption there is wrong. The operations and support are all handled by Rival. They aren't huge companies, and most of them have very little experience or idea of how to operate a casino.

A white label may be paying say 30-40% of their profit back to Rival, and the players that have been referred by an affiliate may be costing the casino another 30-40% of their profit. Pretty soon a guy with no idea who thought running a casino is a license to print money realises that going the white label route is a very thin margin game against loads of competition where every dollar counts. The reason they went for a white label agreement in the first place is that they didn't have the start-up capital to open a Microgaming for example. And that is when the problems start happening.

As to why they would engage a third or fourth party in disputes, there are a number of reasons:

1. The lack of oversight, regulation, or any structured intermediary designed to deal with disputes because they are all operated from a mickey mouse jurisdictions (Netherlands Antilles for Rival white labels).
2. These guys have tiny budgets and see forums like this as a low cost marketing channel.
3. In most cases the intermediary is an affiliate (or a potential future affiliate) who has received a complaint from a player that they referred to the casino. If the affiliate refers them customers (or has the potential to) they will often bend over backwards to keep the affiliate happy.
4. To try to convince the intermediary that they are in the right so as to enlist them as support against the player. I can almost guarantee that this is why Nifty would have been chosen in this case as from what I have read here he is very sympathetic to casinos when players complain.

When I have spoken to casinos, it generally goes along the lines of "Player with id 1234567 has contacted me and is complaining of slow payment. Can you please look at their account and see if there is a problem. If not why aren't they being paid?". 9/10 times the casino apologises and the player is paid. Sometimes the casino sends me a long email full of "evidence" which is supposed to explain why the player is a "fraudster". It is usually very easy to spot the casinos that are lying from the ones that are genuine as they are often not very smart people and contradict themselves within a couple of emails when questions are asked. In the past few years I have seen only a handful of cases of genuine fraud. I do not believe people who exploit loopholes in the T&Cs to be fraudsters (many casinos do). If a player complies with the terms they should be paid, no question. If the casino uses its terms as "the law" against a player then a player should be able to use it the same way back against a casino if necessary. Intentions don't matter and are ultimately irrelevant.

In my experience it is never a case that the casino doesn't know what is right or doesn't know what to do. With Rival white labels and many other less established casinos, cashflow is the biggest issue and I suspect in most of the times I have ever tried to help a player over a delayed payment (the most common thing, and often with a casino that we do not even have on our site), the casino simply doesn't have enough cash on hand or sitting in the player's preferred payment method to pay players quickly. They will never ever admit this though. When it comes to bonus disputes, many times the casino has been caught out by a loophole in their own terms that they either never thought of or that they thought they had closed. i.e. the terms don't actually say what the casino intended them to say, and they don't want to pay out. And then there is the outright rogue thievery like in this case which I believe almost always goes back to the thin margin they are operating on.

 

[vinylweatherman]

When I have been contacted by a rep, it is because I have been active in a thread about a particular issue. Usually, it is to give me an idea of the bigger picture as to WHY such a case has arrived, or the reasoning behind a rather odd clause in the terms and conditions. Sometimes, a rep will openly discuss their reasoning in the thread rather than by PM. This has happened in the case of the Coral rep, who has answered many of my questions in public, and opened the matter up for debate.

Sometimes, the rep asks me specifically not to disclose part of the bigger picture, not because it relates to personal information, but because they are in the process of dealing with an issue that could get worse were too much information be allowed into the public domain.

A theoretical example would be something along the lines of a software glitch that was being exploited by a number of players that has yet to be fixed. The operator would not want an open exploit to be made public whilst still awaiting a fix, just like a PC user would not want a malware exploit to be announced in great detail until it had already been patched.

If a player were exploiting something, they would not admit it. Remember the case of the "third party client" that a player was using to open some exploits in some softwares that foolishly entrusted the client to check the validity of bets, and having the server accept bet instructions without it's own validation. It seems the player was "at it" for some time before enough evidence came to light to bust his scheme.

 

[Sovietsky]

Wow!

Anyone else than me that enjoyed zanzibars post?

 

[Balthazar]

the average Rival white label "operator" is little more than a couple of people marketing their casino skin

It appears that when a casino goes "White Label", they become the property of Rival (via Bonne Chance). Rival would "buy" (or seize) them back and then keep the name and some of the operators in place. That seems to limit the operator's freedom greatly (in this case Tropica) and when the Boss (Rival) says that they shouldn't pay then they don't pay (see OP's case).

Now, a better question is why Tropica had to go White Label? The obvious answer is financial issues but I'd be curious to know the details...

 

[Nifty29]

I can almost guarantee that this is why Nifty would have been chosen in this case as from what I have read here he is very sympathetic to casinos when players complain.

I take exception to that statement. It spoiled an otherwise good post.

I am very sympathetic to the TRUTH. I can smell player BS a mile away.....likewise casino BS.

I'm proud to say my first reaction is correct when it comes to fraudsters/dodgy players 99% of the time (at least). Almost all fraudsters etc have certain things in common when they post, particularly their first post. One is their prime motive is to drum up unwavering support from the "casinos are evil (but I still play them) Club"....which they succeed in doing most of the time because too many people believe everything they post, rather than actually taking a moment to think about it and realise that it really doesn't make sense. If dodgy players didn't KNOW they will get this reaction from some people, they wouldn't bother posting.

What members forget is that I am just as harsh when it comes to casino BS, and will support (and have supported) genuine players with genuine complaints. It's a matter of perception....because I am usually the first to question a complainant and/or call BS on their story, I am labelled as a "defender of the casinos"....the fact that I am most often right is forgotten, as it is no longer a "story".

I am a "defender of the truth". In my experience, it is far more likely to be the PLAYER lying and serving up BS to blackmail a casino and rousing up the membership in support than the casino. Hence, it looks like I am "always defending casinos". If you look back over my posts, you will see that it is NOT about "the casino is always right" but rather about "the facts are always right", and in most cases the facts support the casino. I understand where the perception comes from, but the facts don't support it......but then again there a many members who aren't that interested in facts.

Sorry for the derail, but your statement is inaccurate and questioning my integrity and character and I felt it necessary to state the way things really are.

Duwayne stated that he contacted me "because I am fair minded". Judging by what he said, I don't think for a moment he expected me to jump on the forums and defend Tropica and say how great they really are.....which I would do if I was such an avid "casino defender". It appears he believed I would give him a "fair hearing", as opposed to other members who might not....and I did.

It is also interesting to note that I receive more PM's from PLAYERS asking advice here than reps by a long shot. I'd have thought that would suggest I AM fair minded and able to see both sides of a coin. I don't see anyone asking me stuff if they think I'm "in bed with the casinos" as you and others have suggested.

Still, the members who know me in more than just a "quick glance at my posts" capacity...and there are several....know just how fair and reasonable I actually am.

So, perhaps before you make such statements, based on "what you have read here", you might want to try reading a little more carefully, and get your facts straight. Thankyou.

 

[skiny]

I can see that POV and its fair.

I know that members to contact KK privately to get help....well I have before so I assume others have....so its not just because he offers it publicly. I also suspect his contacts have emailed him at some time to discuss different things. I'm sure KK can confirm that either way.

It seems some are suggesting it is a free-for-all behind the scenes with member's personal information. It is absolutely NOT the case. I'll reiterate again for those that missed it earlier.....NO personal information is disclosed to me by any casino and never has been.

I certainly hope it's not a free for all with any member's personal information but the point I made in my last post is that without specific documents and personal information an unbiased opinion is impossible. If the sole content of the conversation is a casino or a player's word that all the information is being given truthfully then which one of the two you decide to trust will be the only real deciding factor in your opinion.

Given that no personal information is being disclosed, I don't see a huge difference between a casino rep asking an experienced member what their personal opinion is (usually regarding how the casino has reacted and whether it was fair and reasonable), and one member pm'ing another and asking the same. If members don't want themselves being discussed with other members "behind their back" they should choose a forum/site that doesn't allow it. If anyone thinks members don't discuss other members with each other then they're deluding themselves.

Given that no personal information is being disclosed and I'm assuming we're talking about matters that members have already made public, there's no reason to even discuss these things in private. This forum has many experienced members. I'm not entirely sure why a casino would want input from only one experienced member when a public debate would grant many varying opinions from all the forum members. If the discussions being held with "fourth party" members aren't suitable for public viewing they probably shouldn't be being held with anyone but the player in question or the Casinomeister staff unless the player requests it. I'm not sure how a casino would even decide which experienced member to have these discussions with since I see intelligent and meaningful posts from many long time members on a regular basis.

Justplay....I'm not sure why you feel "icky" about it. Casinos don't just pm people Willy nilly. I'm flattered that others.....members and casinos alike....trust my opinion and discretion. I do not reveal publicly what I'm told privately, unless permission is given to do so. I've heard stuff that would most certainly cause many to be more sympathetic to operators who have rules on top of rules etc.....but i won't betray trust (none of it involved personal player information).

If an issue isn't being resolved fairly, and my input privately persuades a casino to change their position to make it fairer (which has happened), then I see that as a positive.

But I'm assuming your input is based solely on trust that the casino or the player is telling the truth and neither has simply made a mistake. Again, I'm going under the assumption that fourth party members aren't privy to private information so anything you hear is no more valuable than anything anyone else hears. I'm saying "you" only because in this particular case you stated that you had one of these discussions but I do include any other member who has had private conversations with casino staff about their players. Nobody always assumes based on hearsay that a player is always in the right. It would be just as easy for a forum member to inadvertently or intentionally persuade a casino not to pay a player as it would to convince a casino that a player should be paid and without full disclosure there is no way for anyone to know for sure if either of these decisions are right. I certainly hope for obvious reasons that no members are having these discussions while a PAB is in process.

If what I've said thus far doesn't ease some peoples minds then there's nothing else I can add that will. I will continue to do what I've always done and give my opinion privately when it is asked for privately, as is my right. Some ARE trying to make it about me specifically, which I might understand if it were just me involved in this type of private communication, but it is not....VWM has put his hand up and I'm sure KK will too, and I'm sure there is others. I don't see them being questioned, so I can only assume that some take exception to me personally discussing stuff privately with reps. Exception can be taken, but until Bryan bans private contact between reps and members, or decides to moderate all PMs, then discussions of this nature will always take place.

If anyone has a serious objection....and it appears some do...they should contact Max or Bryan.

Well, I think it's quite obvious that you aren't the only person having these discussions. You might feel singled out but the subject arose when a casino mentioned you by name as a correspondent. That is why your name is being mentioned in this discussion but anything said about you in this case certainly applies to all members. Not everyone is comfortable with people discussing them in private. It's true that people do talk about other people. It happens every day but there is a certain etiquette that needs to be followed and a level of respect that needs to be maintained. I think a basic rule of thumb is if you are having a conversation about someone that you wouldn't want them to overhear then you probably shouldn't be having it. And a rule of thumb for casinos should be if you want to discuss a player's personal business privately with other members of this forum the player should be aware you're doing it. A casino might respect Joe Blow's opinion but the player in question might not and in that situation the player should be aware that it's being given privately.

 

[Nifty29]

When I have spoken to casinos, it generally goes along the lines of "Player with id 1234567 has contacted me and is complaining of slow payment. Can you please look at their account and see if there is a problem. If not why aren't they being paid?". 9/10 times the casino apologises and the player is paid. Sometimes the casino sends me a long email full of "evidence" which is supposed to explain why the player is a "fraudster". It is usually very easy to spot the casinos that are lying from the ones that are genuine as they are often not very smart people and contradict themselves within a couple of emails when questions are asked. In the past few years I have seen only a handful of cases of genuine fraud. I do not believe people who exploit loopholes in the T&Cs to be fraudsters (many casinos do). If a player complies with the terms they should be paid, no question. If the casino uses its terms as "the law" against a player then a player should be able to use it the same way back against a casino if necessary. Intentions don't matter and are ultimately irrelevant.

Re: the first bolded part:

As a case in point.....I have NEVER received such information from a casino rep. NEVER.

So, I expect justplay and others to be questioning now why a casino affiliate, who is pretty much just an advertiser working on profit share, is being given access to sensitive personal and account information. Given shock was expressed when it was suggested that other members might be given access to such, I would expect even greater shock now it is CONFIRMED that any affiliate....and in many cases players don't even KNOW who this is....can and is provided with personal information about players. I actually think that is a worse scenario, given that the affiliate has a vested interest in the issue and in the financial outcome. At least an impartial veteran members has no horse in the race.

Tell me zanzibar....did you remove those casinos that sent you contradictory emails from your site immediately?


Re: the second bolded part.

As has been discussed several times by Bryan over the years, when players are called "fraudsters" in relation to online casinos it does NOT mean fraud in the LEGAL sense. It sometimes does, but most times it does not.

The reason the term "fraudster" is used is because it is a "catch-all" to cover cases where players have attempted to circumvent terms or use multiple accounts (which is NOT a criminal offence if they are all in their own name) or just generally attempt to scam the operator somehow, in addition to those who actually use stolen identities etc etc.

It is just easier than calling them "term breakers" or "bonus term dodgers" or "terms and conditions breachers" etc.

For example, a player who bets above the stated max bet allowed on a bonus, and tells the forum that he didn't, is not a criminal....but he has deliberately lied to garner support and force the casino to pay....and will be called a "fraudster", even though they may not have actually committed criminal fraud. It's a "figure or speech" in CM forum "lingo"....not perfect, but nobody has suggested anything else so until they do.....

Players should ALWAYS be paid if they meet the terms and conditions. Casinos that do not adhere to this rule are rogued here at CM, as they should be. In the same way, players should NOT be paid if they do NOT meet said terms. If it's OK for everyone else, it's OK for them. Once an operator starts making exceptions all the time, it opens the floodgates for every AP and dodgy player to take advantage, which ruins things for everyone (like it already has in many respects).

 

[Balthazar]

Honestly guys I like (and disliked at times) Nifty at least as much as anyone else here but can we go back on topic? (Which is Tropica not paying the OP and other Rival issues).

 

[just play]

So, I expect justplay and others to be questioning

I can question anything I wish.


I question you, I question other members, I probably question Bryan the most (ask him). Am I supposed to go to my crystal ball to get the answers I am looking for?

Or should I just shut my mouth?

This is a forum, people have opinions, questions, thoughts, ideas, as long as they do it in a respectable manner why do you have a problem with this?


I can question anything I wish.

 

[Nifty29]

I can question anything I wish.


I question you, I question other members, I probably question Bryan the most (ask him). Am I supposed to go to my crystal ball to get the answers I am looking for?

Or should I just shut my mouth?

This is a forum, people have opinions, questions, thoughts, ideas, as long as they do it in a respectable manner why do you have a problem with this?


I can question anything I wish.

Whoa....slow down a bit.

I wasn't INSULTING you.

I was making the point that if another MEMBER having access to your personal and account information, including possibly ID docs, made you feel "icky", then surely you would be even MORE concerned that some commercial entity with a VESTED interest in making money from you and the casino would have access to it...that's all. I don't see what's insulting or nasty about that at all. Where did I say anything about you "shutting your mouth" or not being able to question things.....damn I've been answering your questions for hours! Doesn't that give you a clue that I DON'T think that???

Geez. No wonder we didn't use to get along....you fly off the handle when you're not even being dissed! And here I was thinking you were more reasonable these days.

I'm astonished. I really wish people would READ things properly.

 

[just play]

Whoa....slow down a bit.

I wasn't INSULTING you.

I was making the point that if another MEMBER having access to your personal and account information, including possibly ID docs, made you feel "icky", then surely you would be even MORE concerned that some commercial entity with a VESTED interest in making money from you and the casino would have access to it...that's all. I don't see what's insulting or nasty about that at all. Where did I say anything about you "shutting your mouth" or not being able to question things.....damn I've been answering your questions for hours! Doesn't that give you a clue that I DON'T think that???

Geez. No wonder we didn't use to get along....you fly off the handle when you're not even being dissed! And here I was thinking you were more reasonable these days.

I'm astonished. I really wish people would READ things properly.

I'm concerned about it all...I don't like casinos sharing ANYTHING about me with ANYONE except Bryan/Max/Simmo.

Ummmm...Nifty, that's not flying off the handle. You can't "hear" how I'm saying my post. That wasn't even close to flying off the handle, ask my hubby

I'm confused about your second to last line...we didn't get along, so we do now? You thought I was more reasonable these days...am I? Or aren't I?

Oops, more questions.


Seriously tho...as you can tell this REALLY bothers me. Skinys post made a lot of sense to me, especially where he said...

I certainly hope it's not a free for all with any member's personal information but the point I made in my last post is that without specific documents and personal information an unbiased opinion is impossible. If the sole content of the conversation is a casino or a player's word that all the information is being given truthfully then which one of the two you decide to trust will be the only real deciding factor in your opinion.

and

Given that no personal information is being disclosed and I'm assuming we're talking about matters that members have already made public, there's no reason to even discuss these things in private.

The last part isn't directed at you and you alone. It's directed at people who casinos talk to in private. So far it's VWM, Zanzibar and you. KK hasn't comfirmed or denied.

 

[Nifty29]

I'm concerned about it all...I don't like casinos sharing ANYTHING about me with ANYONE except Bryan/Max/Simmo.

Ummmm...Nifty, that's not flying off the handle. You can't "hear" how I'm saying my post. That wasn't even close to flying off the handle, ask my hubby

I'm confused about your second to last line...we didn't get along, so we do now? You thought I was more reasonable these days...am I? Or aren't I?

Oops, more questions.


Seriously tho...as you can tell this REALLY bothers me. Skinys post made a lot of sense to me, especially where he said...



and




The last part isn't directed at you and you alone. It's directed at people who casinos talk to in private. So far it's VWM, Zanzibar and you. KK hasn't comfirmed or denied.

Unless CM has suddenly time warped back to 1950's Soviet rule, I am able to discuss whatever I like whenever I like with whomever I like via private message. Whether members share personal stuff they know with other members is a personal trust choice, however casino reps are not supposed to share personal information with third parties without permission. Anything else is fair game.....within cm rules on flaming etc of course.

Zanzibar has seen far more private information that I've ever seen.....which is the point I was making before I.e. you should feel twice as "icky" about some advertiser being privy to this than some reps having private discussions with members not involving any of that info. Hence the "you should be questioning" remark.

Well we had unpleasant exchanges in the past, but IMO you certainly have become more reasonable both personally and in regard to topics. Its been a pleasure reading your thoughts...until the last one I guess, but I think it was a case of misunderstanding so its done AFAIC.

I haven't read skinys entire post as I have him on ignore, but it appears he is suggesting that nobody should be allowed to talk to anyone privately about anything that involves anyone else, which is ludicrous imo. Its ridiculous and unenforceable, unless you want your pms moderated before they're sent. Whole groups exist here that privately discuss (in ALL respects) other members, so they would have to moderated or closed down too.

I actually think there is another "angle" to why some (not you IDT) are making a major issue of me particularly being contacted for opinion/involved etc, which was pointed out by another member privately. Needless to say its private, but it does explain why it is mostly me being questioned etc.

I will reiterate for the last time.....casino reps, in my case at least, NEVER discuss private player information. I can't vouch for others, and Zanzibar has admitted that he has been involved in such activity.

When deciding who to believe, its not entirely about having all the relevant information in front of me....as I said, it doesn't happen anyway. It has a lot to do with what sounds "right" and what doesn't, added to the "tells" that I have learned from experience (like poker player might) and the history and reputation of both parties. Its not about my opinion being "worthless" or just taken on trust, its a whole host of things. Bryan has labelled me "the BS detector"...and he obviously has good reason for doing so. Of course I have many faults, but one thing I've always had a knack for is sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Its also I interesting to note that it is NOT only newer casinos who contact me from time to time. I've given feedback to several accredited casinos when asked, and some of it not complimentary. Obviously, they value my opinion. If that gets up some people's noses, then they should submit a complaint to Bryan, or just get over it. I feel that I have actually helped players over the years without them even knowing, so for me that's a positive as I believe in genuine players being treated with respect and fairness.

 

[mrmark21]

I actually think there is another "angle" to why some (not you IDT) are making a major issue of me particularly being contacted for opinion/involved etc, which was pointed out by another member privately. Needless to say its private, but it does explain why it is mostly me being questioned etc.

Just Play seems curious and that's fair enough I agree with what you're saying though Nifty IMPO this has just been a major derail for Towersoft's thread. I'm going to have too agree with the others who are suggesting that we get back on topic.