Villa Fortuna - MAFIA TERMS

poser

Dormant Account
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Location
Hamburg
Just be warned, there is a term at Villa Fortuna, I didn't believe my eyes when I saw it:

Inactive accounts WILL NOT receive balance payments for wins.
An active account requires that a player deposits a minimum of $/?/20 per week, and that the deposit is wagered through 20X. (All table games and Video Poker excluded from meeting the wagering requirements).

You can ALSO keep your account active by depositing $/?/80 and wagering it through 20X at least once a month. Again all table games and Video Poker games are excluded from wagering).


Well, thats wagering requirements on normal deposits AND if you happen to play there and havn't played a month, they can always say: "ehh, ehh, you will not receive a single coin...your account is sleeping..."

You really have to wager 1600 on Slots only per month, or you will not receive any winnings??

What if you deposit 80, and cannot meet the 1600 (not too uncommon) ? You have to deposit more and then wager it again 20 times ?????

Oh MY GOD, Microgaming should kick'em out !! FAST!
 
:rolleyes:

Another nail in the coffin for Grand Prive....it seems they care nothing about trying to make right with affiliates, so why should they screw players any less?

There's a ton of sites, CM included, that have the whole lot of GP casinos listed as rogue.
 
GP has reached a new low when I didn't think that was possible...

All I can say is... :eek:
 
Just be warned, there is a term at Villa Fortuna, I didn't believe my eyes when I saw it:

Inactive accounts WILL NOT receive balance payments for wins.
An active account requires that a player deposits a minimum of $/?/20 per week, and that the deposit is wagered through 20X. (All table games and Video Poker excluded from meeting the wagering requirements).

You can ALSO keep your account active by depositing $/?/80 and wagering it through 20X at least once a month. Again all table games and Video Poker games are excluded from wagering).


Well, thats wagering requirements on normal deposits AND if you happen to play there and havn't played a month, they can always say: "ehh, ehh, you will not receive a single coin...your account is sleeping..."

You really have to wager 1600 on Slots only per month, or you will not receive any winnings??

What if you deposit 80, and cannot meet the 1600 (not too uncommon) ? You have to deposit more and then wager it again 20 times ?????

Oh MY GOD, Microgaming should kick'em out !! FAST!

This is pretty much a fee for having the account of 80 per month. What about "responsible gambling". This MUST ultimately fall to Microgaming to deal with, they cannot be seen to tolerate such incredibly predatory terms. This term is only there because the casino intends to use it on some occasions.
Previously, terms relating to inactive accounts have allowed 180 days to pass, and only charge fees as a deduction on balances left behind, and the player can take some of the blame for not making sure all their monies are accounted for.

In effect, a player could take a break from playing, either generally, or at individual casinos, and for a mere few weeks at Villa Fortuna, and them return and have all losing deposits taken without comment, but with the possiblilty of payouts being refused based on this term.

In terms of responsible gambling, there may be spells where there is not any spare money for weeks to months, and it is right that the player should be able to stop gambling, and return the next time they have some money to spare.

There are now TWO very serious issues with Grand Prive, yet Microgaming seems not to care - shown by their inaction on the previous issue, which is essentially a breach of contract between a business and a number of it's promoters, surely not something Microgaming would tolerate if it were THEY that were told they would not be paid for the rights to use the software despite payment being agreed in the initial contract.

It seems the industry sinks lower and lower, and if someone does not take action, it wont only be the US banning them, other governments will be queueing up to implement bans based on reports of such predatory terms, breaches of contract, and general "we are outside the law" approach some casinos have to their business.
There are a large number of countries where these casinos are technically illegal, but are tolerated because the governments have more important issues to worry about. If problems increase, then the issues will become "mainstream", and the majority who do not play online, or even understand it much, will be demanding action from governments to deal with the "menace" of unaccountable offshore casinos taking money and there being little a player can do if they renege on the bets, or cheat players by rogue "smallprint" that would normally never be allowed anywhere near a consumer contract.
 
Unreal - it is staggering that an online gambling group that has been around as long as Grand Prive can even consider this sort of crap.

It's almost as if they want to chase players away - something they have probably managed to do with their many other reeally stupid moves.
 
im not suprised , ive just found out who the new CEO of grand prive is :D

Hmm, don't you mean these guys?

ht_sopranos18_060307_ssh.jpg
 
Just a small note on this I discovered when writing it up: the rule only applies to players awaiting balance payments on wins over $10k, which is maximum monthly withdrawal limit. It's still bad, but worth noting.

xhttp://www.villafortuna.com/en/terms/terms_promo.aspx?lang=en&btag=V2_A2

14. PAYOUT PROCEDURE AT VILLA FORTUNA CASINO:

All wins under $/?/10,000 will be paid out in one lump sum as soon as possible.

For POUND (?) accounts all wins over ?10,000 will be paid out as follows: ?10,000 up front, with the balance paid out in maximum increments of ?10,000 per month thereafter.

For EURO (), CANADIAN DOLLAR (CAD$) and US DOLLAR ($) accounts all wins over $/10,000 will be paid out as follows: $/10,000 up front, with the balance paid out in maximum increments of $/10,000 per week thereafter.

Inactive accounts WILL NOT receive balance payments for wins.
An active account requires that a player deposits a minimum of $/?/20 per week, and that the deposit is wagered through 20X. (All table games and Video Poker excluded from meeting the wagering requirements).

You can ALSO keep your account active by depositing $/?/80 and wagering it through 20X at least once a month. Again all table games and Video Poker games are excluded from wagering).

And the same term is applicable at ALL GP casinos btw (ie: Big Dollar (xhttp://www.bigdollar.com/tc_bonuspromo.asp)

And interestingly, a casino I've never heard of called "Mandarin Palace" which must be tied in to GP too as the T&C's are identical. xhttp://www.mandarinpalace.com/terms-and-conditions.html#player-warrants
 
Just be warned, there is a term at Villa Fortuna, I didn't believe my eyes when I saw it:

Inactive accounts WILL NOT receive balance payments for wins.
An active account requires that a player deposits a minimum of $/?/20 per week, and that the deposit is wagered through 20X. (All table games and Video Poker excluded from meeting the wagering requirements).

You can ALSO keep your account active by depositing $/?/80 and wagering it through 20X at least once a month. Again all table games and Video Poker games are excluded from wagering).
This is evil. Basically, you need to lose 80 credits a month on average in order to receive you own money. This is the sort of thing you expect from dodgy casinos based in Costa Rica, but Villa Fortuna is approved by ecogra and by the Maltese LGA. Perhaps someone could ask ecogra to comment on this (I would do it, but ecogra consider me the leader of the anti-ecogra forces in the world and won't talk to me.)
 
This is evil. Basically, you need to lose 80 credits a month on average in order to receive you own money. This is the sort of thing you expect from dodgy casinos based in Costa Rica, but Villa Fortuna is approved by ecogra and by the Maltese LGA. Perhaps someone could ask ecogra to comment on this (I would do it, but ecogra consider me the leader of the anti-ecogra forces in the world and won't talk to me.)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I would love to hear eCogra's response to this one!

Maybe Jet will volunteer to ask them how they feel about this term.
 
This is evil. Basically, you need to lose 80 credits a month on average in order to receive you own money. This is the sort of thing you expect from dodgy casinos based in Costa Rica, but Villa Fortuna is approved by ecogra and by the Maltese LGA. Perhaps someone could ask ecogra to comment on this (I would do it, but ecogra consider me the leader of the anti-ecogra forces in the world and won't talk to me.)

I mentioned it in passing to eCOGRA at ICE but nothing formal - just dropped it into a conversation and they were suitably unimpressed. Wouldn't do any harm to follow that one up.
 
This is evil. Basically, you need to lose 80 credits a month on average in order to receive you own money. This is the sort of thing you expect from dodgy casinos based in Costa Rica, but Villa Fortuna is approved by ecogra and by the Maltese LGA. Perhaps someone could ask ecogra to comment on this (I would do it, but ecogra consider me the leader of the anti-ecogra forces in the world and won't talk to me.)


I'm not sure that you're right. I believe the intention is they will pay you your $10k and the rest of the money stays in the account. The $80 is just a sideshow, it seems they want you to lose all the rest as well. The $1600 WR is big enough that the kind of gambler who has >$10k may do something stupid is likely to lose a lot of money, certainly far more than $80, and hopefully for the casino the entire balance

This is a 'rip-off the whale' clause.

The big joke is that these crooks are registered in Malta, which is considered legitimate by Britain and 'safe' for British players to play and to be advertised.

So much for 'responsible gambling'.
 
What gets me is the fact that eCOGRA doesn't care if affiliates of a certified casino get the shaft, but if a certified casino has rogue T&C for the player, they immediately say they'll look into it? Before players get screwed?
 
What gets me is the fact that eCOGRA doesn't care if affiliates of a certified casino get the shaft, but if a certified casino has rogue T&C for the player, they immediately say they'll look into it? Before players get screwed?

I too think that eCOGRA should also do the same for the affiliates since most affiliates are also players too, at least the knowledgeable affiliates are or were.
 
I would have thought that a preparedness to investigate before a player was screwed was a good thing?

Sure it is; but the point I was trying to convey is that eCOGRA could care less about affiliates getting the shaft. Even when they had "signed" contracts with the casinos. Which is this case in this situation when they threw these contracts the window without warning nor reason, other than to stiff them on future payments. They breached these contracts and should be held accountable.
 
I'm not sure that you're right. I believe the intention is they will pay you your $10k and the rest of the money stays in the account. The $80 is just a sideshow, it seems they want you to lose all the rest as well. The $1600 WR is big enough that the kind of gambler who has >$10k may do something stupid is likely to lose a lot of money, certainly far more than $80, and hopefully for the casino the entire balance

This is a 'rip-off the whale' clause.

The big joke is that these crooks are registered in Malta, which is considered legitimate by Britain and 'safe' for British players to play and to be advertised.

So much for 'responsible gambling'.
I am sure the casino wants to lose the player even more, but even the most responsible and disciplined player is forced to lose (on average).

What gets me is the fact that eCOGRA doesn't care if affiliates of a certified casino get the shaft, but if a certified casino has rogue T&C for the player, they immediately say they'll look into it? Before players get screwed?
I am not even terribly impressed by Andrew Beveridge promising to look into it. Things with ecogra are never immediate. What I would like to see is him getting on the phone to the casino manager and telling him that "Hey buddy, either you pull these terms, or I'l pull your ecogra certification". Or even better, ecogra actively monitoring their casinos' T&C. Maybe they should have fewer casinos and keep them under better control.
 
Maybe they should have fewer casinos and keep them under better control.

Well, I'm sure it doesn't help that they're over-extending themselves even more, with the branching out to certify bingo rooms, sportsbetting, and live gambling:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.



Can we say "Too big for their britches?"

...or maybe they're turning into another CAP? You know, "certifying" anyone that wants to pay them? :rolleyes:
 
Sure it is; but the point I was trying to convey is that eCOGRA could care less about affiliates getting the shaft. Even when they had "signed" contracts with the casinos. Which is this case in this situation when they threw these contracts the window without warning nor reason, other than to stiff them on future payments. They breached these contracts and should be held accountable.

eCOGRA have not approved the prive affiliate scheme:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
I am not even terribly impressed by Andrew Beveridge promising to look into it. Things with ecogra are never immediate.

Just in:

Weve spoken to the Grand Prive people, and they assure us that the intention of this clause is not what is perceived in the posts on the message board. It is just very badly worded, and we are currently discussing changing the wording of the offending clause to reflect the true intention.

We'll have to wait to see how the new wording defines the "true intention". IE: let's not speculate until we know for sure ;) And can we also remember the principle focus of this thread is about Grand Priv - I just want to avoid it getting sidetracked onto people's eCOGRA sentiments which we have covered on numerous occassions and about which we're all more than aware that opinion is divided.
 
I am pleasantly surprised that those conditions about inactive accounts are gone, although the date of last change is still shown as 25/11/08. I am curious as to what the "true intention" of those conditions was, as they have not been replaced by anything.
 
The upshot of discussions between eCOGRA and Grand Priv is that Grand Prive will be removing this clause from their T&C's in it's entirety forthwith.
 
even though they will be removing those t&cs, because of the affiliate scam by grand prive im guessing its still not wise to play there ?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top