Venetian Gold. DO NOT PLAY HERE!

[boxplayer]

Hi all! Look at this case and have a good laugh...!! Below is a copy of my mail to Bryan, about my experience at Venetian Gold...:


Hello!

Some months ago I signed up at Venetian Gold Casino (Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) ). I Deposited $101 and wagered the amount 5 times in order to qualify for their $100 sign up bonus. I got the bonus quite fast and started wagering to meet the $6000 wagering requirement before any cash out could be made.
I played BlackJack with following strategy:
$2 bets as long as the previous hand was won.
If I lost two hands in a row with $2 bets the third bet would be $5.
If I lost three hands in a row ($2,$2,$5) the fourth bet would be $10.
If I lost four hands in a row ($2,$2,$5,$10) the fifth bet would be $20.
If I lost five hands in a row ($2,$2,$5,$10,$20) the sixth bet would be $50.
The $50 bet was my limit. If I lost it I still went back and started from $2 bets again.

After three playing sessions of about an hour each and about $4100 wagered my balance was $573. I logged out and expected to return the next day and finish the wagering to meet the minimum required. But the next day I got this mail from accounts@venetiangold.com:

"Hello,

It has come to the attention of the casino that your play strategies contravene paragraph 4 ot the terms and conditions that apply to this bonus offer. Your account has therefore been deactivated and your initial deposit will be returned to you within the next 72 hours.

Daniel
Accounts Management Team

Venetian Gold Casino"

I was much surprised and very confused I must say, as I've used this playing strategy in several online casinos with changing luck but nobody ever told me that I couldn't use the strategy. As I see it this strategy is just adding some excitement as my experience is that I either win a lot or loose all. The mail from accounts refers to paragraph 4 and that paragraph goes as follows:

"4. If the casino considers that a user or users are participating in strategies which the Casino deems to be abusive, the Casino reserves the right to revoke the entitlement of such user(s) to the promotion."

In my eyes this paragraph can be used almost in every game and towards any strategy. It seems like a pretty good excuse to lock out players who had a lucky day and won a bit. I'm sure they wouldn't use it if I had lost my entire balance which I just as well could have done. There's no definition of "abusive strategies" in that paragraph which makes it a bit too easy to just say that somebody have been using an abusive strategy, if that person won a little too much.

I wrote them back and basically told them the same as I have just written here and asked them to reopen my account with no changes made, so I could finish my wagering and cash out whatever balance I might have and thereby my rightful winnings. But that didn't happen, I received no answer and yesterday my initial deposit of $101 was creditted back to my Paypal account and I still can't log in to my Venetian Gold account.

I hope there's something you can do to help me, as I believe that they indeed have srewed me big time and I really don't know what to do?? As I told Venetian Gold too if they didn't reopen my account, I plan to post this case on various message boards as well, so I will do that now at least..

 

[netloss]

That sounds awful, but I'm starting to think it's par for the course. The casinos offer big matching bonuses to lure folks in, but they're unwilling to deal with the payouts when savvy consumers follow their rules and still come out ahead.

The clause you quoted seems to be their all-purpose escape policy, so they can renege on their promised deals.

This is the problem, I guess, when you're dealing with businesses that situate themselves on island nations with very few consumer protection laws. Sure, gambing is illegal in most of the U.S., but that's not the only benefit to starting a casino offshore. You probably have a much easier time avoiding reprecussions from consumer complaints and fraud allegations.

I wish you the best and hope you can come to a more satisfactory resolution, but (unfortunately) I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[sirius]

So has this been resolved?

 

[boxplayer]

Nope, no news about the case yet...

 

[bryanv]

This casino, venetiangold.com, owes me $52 from a cash-out I made on 12/2/02. Also, blackjacks pay only even money. They made excuses about faulty software a couple of times and asked me to repeat the cash-out. The last repeat was on 12/30. I sent them an email on 2/20 and they claimed that they paid me. I rechecked my Neteller log for the third time, and no they haven't. Of the $52 they stole, $50 is my deposit, and $2 is winnings (no bonus money was involved).

 

[jyde]

I wonder if the manager will show up here too. He posted a reasonable explanation for Bryanv's problem on Winneronline.

On the other hand - if he showed up here he would also have to reply to Boxplayer who started this thread. It has been like 8 months since they :xxx him.

 

[bryanv]

Here's the WOL thread:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Basically, they're claiming that they sent the check to the wrong address, but it was supposed to be a Neteller withdrawal.

 

[The Dude]

Last night the casino contacted me and requested that I post this information:


Your posts include one entitled Don't play at Venetiangold - they dont pay. This is quite libellous and untrue. The player in question had his cash out authorised on 31st December. For some reason our payment partners did not send the check out until 29 Jan. On 21st Feb the player wrote in abusive terms that he had not been paid and proceeded to post that we did not pay. Enquiries today have led me to find out that the players check has been sent to Naminia! This has now been stopped and a new one re-issued. If the player had informed us earlier that payment had not been received this could have been sorted out weeks ago. He could also have contacted our payment partners direct on their 24/7 toll free number but did not, unfortunately, do so. Under the circumstances, of which the player has been fully informed, please remove this damaging and unfair post. Thank you

I have in return requested them to relook at Boxplayer's problem. I hope to have further comments concerning boxplayer's complaint from last July.

 

[bryanv]

Ha ha! I totally warned them in December that I was going to flame them, and they called my bluff! This guy is obviously squirming now, all for $52! I filed a complaint with Casinomeister on 2/4. If I don't get my money, I sure hope Bryan adds them to the "rogues" list.

 

[jyde]

At first I found their explanation with Namibia made sense. Noone should be trashed for making honest mistakes. Shit happens from time to time.

However - according to you (Bryanv) you never asked for a check - you repeatedly cashed out to Neteller - and support was involved when it was reversed. So - why don't you ask them to pay you in Neteller as requested? The mess could be sorted out today - and Venetiangold could move on to Boxplayers case.

 

[bryanv]

Good idea Jyde. I just took your advice and asked them to switch it to Neteller.

 

[bryanv]

Got the reply already. He says, "We did in fact ask our payment partners yesterday to pay you by Neteller but they said the site was down and it would be easier to send you a check."

The saga continues...

 

[danny_vincent]

Bryan if you are going to quote me please be sure to do so in full, not just your chosen edited highlights. Here is a copy of the complete mail:

Hi Bryan,

rest assured that we are doing all we can to try to sort this out for you and are very sorry it has gone this far. We did in fact ask our payment partners yesterday to pay you by Neteller but they said the site was down and it would be easier to send you a check.
It might be a good idea if you took this whole matter up with them direct their toll free # is: 1-888 568 7351 and/or you can contact their Client Relations Manager - Giny Loganathan - gloganathan@ecxcompany.com.

Regards,

Danny Vincent

 

[jetset]

Danny - the processor is your responsibility.

It is not the player's obligation to contact the processor - you hired them and you should be chasing their asses to protect your customer and your own reputation.

 

[The Dude]

Let's clarify that Danny is referring to the player and not to me

Bryan

 

[jetset]

Makes no difference imo, Bryan - the processor is contracted by the casino and it is the casino's responsibility to sort out any problems emanating from that side of his business.

 

[The Dude]

I agree, it's only that I made a post here quoting the manager as well as the player "Bryan". I was starting to freak out thinking he meant that I was piece-mealing what he (the manager) had requested that I post.

That's all

 

[boxplayer]

Hi all!

Told you in July: DO NOT PLAY HERE! Julie from Gambling.com came up with nothing on my case, what about you Bryan? Anything new?

-Box

 

[jyde]

Boxplayer - although the casino never replied to her she did come up with something - quite amusing I might add.

The initial reason for stealing your money was your betting strategy:

Going on three years and more cases than I can count this was a first for this department so it seemed to merit a bit of extra research. I phoned senior pitbosses at two well known and well respected casinos in Las Vegas and both found the idea of calling this method of betting "abusive" to be "utterly absurd", "comical" and "foolishness" to name but a few. Suffice it to say our online experts had similar comments and felt this management team needed a trip to Vegas to play and learn a bit.

Read the entire grumble at Gambling.com - Gambling Grumbles.

 

[The Dude]

The casino has given me the same reason for closing Boxplayer's account:

[color=0000ff]The play strategy of this player is the reason the account was de-activated. The decision to exclude players from Denmark came some days later, and was not applied retrospectively to this player.[/color]

This is the paragraph in question:

[color=0000ff]4. If the casino considers that a user or users are participating in strategies which the Casino deems to be abusive, the Casino reserves the right to revoke the entitlement of such user(s) to the promotion. Any winnings accrued by such individuals or groups will be deemed void and withheld and/or if we determine that member(s) are not here to enjoy the casino and are abusing the bonus program or have a record of promotional abuse or fraud (charge-backs) at Casino or any of our affiliate merchants, we will deactivate their account. [/color]

When I wrote to them last July I mentioned:

...this paragraph as it stands (unless there is additional information that was not included) is extremely vague and could be applied to any strategy whatsoever since it is the casino that is determining what is "abusive" and there is no clear-cut definition. If this is so, you may want to review what is posted (or not posted since I was unable to find this initially) and ensure that there is no room for guesswork. As this issue stands, it seems that this player has been treated unfairly.

They responded promptly with this:

[color=0000ff]we regret to inform you that due to a spate of abusive activity, we have had to take the difficult decision to withdraw all match bonus offers to members from Denmark as from 15 July 2002.

In this particular case the player had not met the cash-out requirements and so any "winnings" were purely theoretical at the time their account was closed. No cash-out request had been received. Moreover, the player's deposit was returned in full within 48 hours of their account being suspended.

In these circumstances the player recieved a refund of their deposit promptly and no unfairness to them has been suffered. We cannot re-activate the account for the reasons outlined above.

I trust this clarifies the situation.
Yours sincerely,
Larry Morel
Casino Manager
[/color]


So it looks like a double whammy. They shut down boxplayer's account because of the "strategy" and then not let him back in becasue of the Danish thing. If this is the case, there is nothing more that can really be done. As I mentioned before, the T&Cs are a bit frustrating since they are too vague, and I would be uncomfortable using any strategy. Without being more precise, it could be abused by the casino. I hope that with Boxplayer's situation, this was not the case.

In retrospect, if Boxplayer read this in the T&Cs BEFORE playing and contacted support asking whether or not his strategy was "abusive" and they said "no", I wonder if this would have been treated differently. Or would he have been booted out for being a Dane?

 

[jyde]

Why on earth would he have contacted them and asked if it was OK to change betsize while playing? Julies contacts in the Las Vegas summed it up pretty well if his betting strategy was abusive or not.

As for the danish thing. Danish players are NOT banned from the casino - they're banned from the 100% signup bonus. Only Costa Ricans are banned from the casino. If the casino handed out the bonus to Boxplayer, danes can hardly have been banned at the time when he signed up, deposited and met the initial requirement for the bonus.

Why did they boot him - if it wasn't for the betting strategy? From their first email to Meister it seems pretty clear: The play strategy of this player is the reason the account was de-activated. The decision to exclude players from Denmark came some days later, and was not applied retrospectively to this player

Boxplayer - I can't remember when you signed up?

 

[boxplayer]

Thank you for your work Bryan, always nice to have someone who can push some buttons!

If I had put my entire balance down on one hand, that would have been abusive as well. And if I got a blackjack on that hand? Well who knows, maybe they'd charge me extra for being extra abusive?
I think I'll set up a casino and invite the Venetian Gold Administration to play there. Of course I would set up T&C so I can claim any result of their play abusive, that should be quite entertaining endeed...

-Box

 

[boxplayer]

<,Jyde

Me neither in fact, but I always check if danes are allowed to play and receive bonusses. And we were in this case.
And they DID boot me based on the betting strategy only. The mail quote is in my initial post.

-Box

 

[jyde]

Exactly - they booted you because of the betting strategy. When they found out they would be laughed at because of this they changed it to the dane stuff.

However - in the first mail they SPECIFICALLY said the dane rule weren't retrospectively applied to you. And IF it had been applied to you it would only have meant they pulled the bonus (that would have been a crooked thing to do - of course) - since the dane rule is only about the 100% bonus.

A lot of contradictions - bottomline is they couldn't afford to lose a few hundred $$. Which brings us back to the topic: Venetian Gold. DO NOT PLAY HERE!

(Message edited by jyde on February 27, 2003)

 

[jetset]

Absolutely - and spread the word widely. There is no doubt in my mind that they have used their own absurd unilateral interpretation of what constituted an illegal playing strategy to void Boxplayer's winnings. Remember that earlier in this thread we had the opinion of top Las Vegas pitbosses who did not find Boxplayer's playing pattern untoward at all. I very much doubt that the management at Venetian Gold are more expert than that.

This really stinks and Venetian Gold are clearly taking a short term view of business by stiffing a player like this.

I am quite sure they will soon feel the consequences of their actions.