Virtual/Ace Withdrawal Times Explained

ChillBill

Banned User - Aussiedave in disguise
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Location
Australia
I want to discuss withdrawals, but because much of this explanation has to do with U.S. processing, I have PM’d Bryan and Max to ask whether to have this discussion within this thread or within the America The Beautiful section.

It was already explained that Max felt it best to move this discussion to ATB

It's 1/2 baked truths like this, making out it was Max's idea to split the thread, which not only undermines your sincerity in keeping it 100% real but does very little, if anything, to raise the trust-factor of your employer...Just saying.

With a mere 11 posts in total on these combined threads from you Tawni, it should be very easy to remember what you said.

Also, as a friendly-heads-up, maybe your not used to posting on forums but when you use a quote from another post, you don't remove the link referencing the original post. Keeping the link, preserves the thread's continuity back to the original post, which, the quote was taken from. :)
 
Last edited:

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
There is absolutely NO excuse......NONE....for non-US players to be subject to ANY delays beyond a maximum of 48 hours (quicker for ewallets but I'm including bank wires).

I also agree that US processors and their inevitable delays should have ZERO impact on players from any other country.

I cannot see, and haven't come across in these threads, any valid reason why TWO processors cannot be running simultaneously I.e. one for US, one for everyone else.

IMO, if an operator was serious about improving timeframes, they would employ some people to process ewallet cashouts in-house.....manually if necessary. 30 days to Neteller is clearly taking the mick.

Also, I haven't read anything yet that supports the splitting of the original thread. I'm sure the authorities know about most of the unusual payment methods....they just can't really stop them in any effective way. Unless Tawni is going to be naming processors and bank account details, I don't really see the need for secrecy. I mean, for all we know there could a mole at CM already with full access to this area who is copy/pasting everything verbatim for the US Attorney etc.
 

john39

Senior Member
PABnonaccred
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Location
dfw
rubyslots withdraw

well $2500+ slowed up via paymycard today from my withdraw on 12/29 so took a little over 2 weeks but atleast it posted wahooo
 

TawniVirtualAce

I-Gaming Industry Representative
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Location
Worldwide
I wanted to go back through this thread and reply to some bits and pieces that I may have missed. Here goes!

What this does NOT explain are the numerous tales of winnings being confiscated for vague, silly, or completely BS reasons. The worst I saw was a player who deposited without a bonus and won being told that depositing WITHOUT a bonus was "bonus abuse", as with so many on offer they should never need to play without one. It was accompanied by the BS explanation that if players lost with a bonus, and then played without one, the games "remembered" the lower RTP from their bad earlier session and paid well above RTP with the non bonused deposit to compensate so that TRTP was maintained, thus this was considered "bonus abuse" by the casino.

This BS reasoning was also used to explain having a max cashout on a deposit without a bonus if in the recent past a player had been playing offers that did have a max cashout; the most recent max cashout being carried over and imposed on any next deposit made without claiming a bonus.

Can you please point me to these examples? I’m curious as to when they took place and I’d like to get an understanding of the what and why’s behind everything.

Maybe I'm just slow, but I don't understand how iNetBet has absolutely NO problem sending me a good check to Iowa within seven days, yet here are four pages talking about how difficult it is for Virtual to get money to winners. Why don't you just simply ask iNetBet how to do things? Seriously, what da funk?


I tried explaining this, previously. There is not a mass of processors available to handle outbound payments. Unfortunately, there are just a small handful of processors and each one can only take a relatively small amount of money from each casino at a time to use for making these payouts. If there were more available processors, of course, we would be using them. iNetBet has the ability to make withdrawals happen quicker because they don’t have the sort of volume we do. Let me give you an example:

If we have four processors in place and each processor can only accept $100k in any given week, but we have $500k to pay out, the backlog occurs. iNetBet has the same four processors in place, yet due to a lower player volume, they only have $100k to pay out, they’re easily able to do so. And for the record, I’m not saying exactly how many processors we have in place, how much each processor can take in at one shot (it varies from processor to processor) or anything of the sort. I’m only giving a very raw example. Also, I’m not saying anything negative towards iNetBet.

Surely having the same processor for inbound and outbound would minimise delays, as the processor would have incoming deposits with which to pay winners

There is no such thing when it comes to U.S. processing, unfortunately.

Your Neteller processor has to be the world's worst if they take 30 days to send a payment back to Neteller. Neteller claims it's processing is "instant", and with a competent processor it is. There is no need for the Neteller processor to have anything whatsoever to do with the US side of the business, nor the Canadian side for that matter. Further, since with Neteller it's the same processor handling the transactions in both directions, withdrawals should be paid next business day, maybe the day after, but most certainly in the same week!

Agreed and this is something we are in the midst of fixing. I’ll be reporting back on this very issue, shortly.

Originally Posted by TawniVirtualAce
I want to discuss withdrawals, but because much of this explanation has to do with U.S. processing, I have PM’d Bryan and Max to ask whether to have this discussion within this thread or within the America The Beautiful section.

Originally Posted by TawniVirtualAce
It was already explained that Max felt it best to move this discussion to ATB

It's 1/2 baked truths like this, making out it was Max's idea to split the thread, which not only undermines your sincerity in keeping it 100% real but does very little, if anything, to raise the trust-factor of your employer...Just saying.

Huh?

It feels as if you’re trying to make an issue where there is none. I wanted to write about the processing aspect on things and while chatting with Greedygirl about it, she mentioned I should ask Bryan or Max if this should be discussed within the original thread or posted in ATB. I PM’d Bryan and Max and Max felt it best I discuss the processing part of things in ATB. I don’t understand why you believe this “undermines my sincerity” in any way and there is no “1/2 baked truth”.

If Bryan or Max want to link the two threads together, it is up to their discretion to do so. I have no problem with this, whatsoever.

I’ve said this before and I’m saying it again.

Also, as a friendly-heads-up, maybe your not used to posting on forums but when you use a quote from another post, you don't remove the link referencing the original post. Keeping the link, preserves the thread's continuity back to the original post, which, the quote was taken from.

Sorry. You’re right, I’m not someone who’s been an active poster on any forum, ever. I’m just getting the hang of this and I certainly did not mean to compromise anything. Apologies in advance should I screw up again.
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
I wanted to go back through this thread and reply to some bits and pieces that I may have missed. Here goes!





Can you please point me to these examples? I’m curious as to when they took place and I’d like to get an understanding of the what and why’s behind everything.




I tried explaining this, previously. There is not a mass of processors available to handle outbound payments. Unfortunately, there are just a small handful of processors and each one can only take a relatively small amount of money from each casino at a time to use for making these payouts. If there were more available processors, of course, we would be using them. iNetBet has the ability to make withdrawals happen quicker because they don’t have the sort of volume we do. Let me give you an example:

If we have four processors in place and each processor can only accept $100k in any given week, but we have $500k to pay out, the backlog occurs. iNetBet has the same four processors in place, yet due to a lower player volume, they only have $100k to pay out, they’re easily able to do so. And for the record, I’m not saying exactly how many processors we have in place, how much each processor can take in at one shot (it varies from processor to processor) or anything of the sort. I’m only giving a very raw example. Also, I’m not saying anything negative towards iNetBet.


I agree that Inetbet has smaller player volume but how about Club World and Jackpot Capital? Surely they should have roughly the same number of players as Virtual if not more. As a client, you need to negotiate with the processor to handle a greater volume. This is an excuse for the short term not the medium-trm and certainly not the long-term.

There is no such thing when it comes to U.S. processing, unfortunately.



Agreed and this is something we are in the midst of fixing. I’ll be reporting back on this very issue, shortly.







Huh?

It feels as if you’re trying to make an issue where there is none. I wanted to write about the processing aspect on things and while chatting with Greedygirl about it, she mentioned I should ask Bryan or Max if this should be discussed within the original thread or posted in ATB. I PM’d Bryan and Max and Max felt it best I discuss the processing part of things in ATB. I don’t understand why you believe this “undermines my sincerity” in any way and there is no “1/2 baked truth”.

No grudges against you gal but we are always up in arms against Virtual. I hope you understand. Virtual is akin to lies and untruths not just half-baked truths.

I’ve said this before and I’m saying it again.



Sorry. You’re right, I’m not someone who’s been an active poster on any forum, ever. I’m just getting the hang of this and I certainly did not mean to compromise anything. Apologies in advance should I screw up again.

Never mind. You will get used to it. I hope to see you here every week.
 

Blathaon

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Location
Norway
Maybe I'm just slow, but I don't understand how iNetBet has absolutely NO problem sending me a good check to Iowa within seven days, yet here are four pages talking about how difficult it is for Virtual to get money to winners. Why don't you just simply ask iNetBet how to do things? Seriously, what da funk?

I tried explaining this, previously. There is not a mass of processors available to handle outbound payments. Unfortunately, there are just a small handful of processors and each one can only take a relatively small amount of money from each casino at a time to use for making these payouts. If there were more available processors, of course, we would be using them. iNetBet has the ability to make withdrawals happen quicker because they don’t have the sort of volume we do. Let me give you an example:

If we have four processors in place and each processor can only accept $100k in any given week, but we have $500k to pay out, the backlog occurs. iNetBet has the same four processors in place, yet due to a lower player volume, they only have $100k to pay out, they’re easily able to do so. And for the record, I’m not saying exactly how many processors we have in place, how much each processor can take in at one shot (it varies from processor to processor) or anything of the sort. I’m only giving a very raw example. Also, I’m not saying anything negative towards iNetBet.

If this is the case then i don't see the point of this thread, nor the virtual/ace probation thread. This pretty much means that withdrawal times will only ever improve if you were to get fewer customers, and it would get worse if you were to get more customers.

So if you cannot get more processors and there isn't any change to the laws to make it easier for you to move funds, then i honestly cannot see how you intend to improve withdrawal times?.

The only reason i can see for trying to get out of the pit then would be that you want to get a better image to attract more customers outside the US.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
What this does NOT explain are the numerous tales of winnings being confiscated for vague, silly, or completely BS reasons. The worst I saw was a player who deposited without a bonus and won being told that depositing WITHOUT a bonus was "bonus abuse", as with so many on offer they should never need to play without one. It was accompanied by the BS explanation that if players lost with a bonus, and then played without one, the games "remembered" the lower RTP from their bad earlier session and paid well above RTP with the non bonused deposit to compensate so that TRTP was maintained, thus this was considered "bonus abuse" by the casino.



This BS reasoning was also used to explain having a max cashout on a deposit without a bonus if in the recent past a player had been playing offers that did have a max cashout; the most recent max cashout being carried over and imposed on any next deposit made without claiming a bonus. Can you please point me to these examples? I’m curious as to when they took place and I’d like to get an understanding of the what and why’s behind everything.

These cases happened some years ago, but are typical of the Virtual group. These explanations were initially given to players who made a fuss to the casino about having their winnings confiscated.

One case I remember in more detail is a member here who regularly deposited small amounts of the order of $25, sometimes with a bonus, and sometimes without. She eventually hit a random jackpot of around $6000 from $25 deposited WITHOUT a bonus. The casino (Palace of Chance) voided the win because a PREVIOUS deposit was used to claim a bonus that had a max cashout. They said that this max cashout would apply to a future deposit made without a bonus, and the grounds for this rule was that players should never need to deposit without a bonus, and by doing a mixture, there was a degree of this "bonus abuse" going on, so in order to deter this behaviour, all deposits without a bonus were held to the bonus rules that applied to the last deposit made WITH a bonus, hence the max cashout rule carried and voided all but $150 of the random jackpot.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ndom-jackpot-palace-of-chance-or-did-i.17424/

In the end, after a few failed attempts, payment was grudgingly made in full (over three YEARS later). This appeared to be a good will gesture (or "PR stunt" as it is better known, because this was one case that just would not die). Despite this, Virtual maintained they had done nothing rogue in imposing this rule, so they remained in the pit.


https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ing-wages-rep-trying-to-assist-players.37533/

This is the main thread regarding the previous failed rehabilitation attempt by Virtual group, it can be seen even then many members considered the whole thing a "stunt" rather than a genuine attempt at rehabilitation, and the sceptics were proven right. The sceptics also believe this is simply the next "PR stunt", and that this too will eventually fizzle out and things will return to normal. If Virtual had not tried this fake rehabilitation ploy before, this attempt might have had fewer sceptics, and more well wishers. Somewhere in this thread, the earlier complainant reported that they finally managed to get the full amount of the random jackpot paid.

The biggest problem of all for Virtual is that Bryan has decided to put the decision as to whether to remove the group from the pit to a members vote. This is not how such things are normally done, it is more a reflection of how many members believe this is yet another stunt, and so Virtual have to convince the members that this is a genuine attempt if the vote is going to be for their removal from the pit.

Marty Davis was also billed as an "outsider", but it emerged that he was not as impartial as it appeared, as his website was an extended arm of the Virtual group, rather than an independent affiliate site. I got the impression that Marty was allocated a certain budget, and once this had been spent in resolving some high profile cases, Virtual were no longer going to cooperate in getting the rest of the cases resolved.

The same problem could arise this time around if too many old cases come forward for review.


They are not the only operator that seems to know next to nothing about how the product works though, many others seem to believe that the games will compensate over the cycle, and that it's possible to "deliberately lose" whilst playing the SLOTS with a bonus, and then making a fresh deposit without a bonus whilst "playing to deliberately win" in order to benefit by pulling the TRTP back on track and thus "abusing the previous bonus".

What they may ACTUALLY be seeing is players who make far bigger slot bets when playing with a bonus, and smaller bets when playing without, interpreting the short session with bigger bets as "deliberately losing" a large chunk of money, and the longer, possibly winning, session with smaller bets as "getting back the losses from the slot memory" so as to make it adhere to it's TRTP. The players are doing nothing of the sort, they are in fact increasing the variance and lessening the overall WR by betting big, because if they win big occasionally, they only have the WR of that specific bonus to complete, rather than the WR of all the bonuses they lost in trying.

If there is any "bonus abuse", it's in the making of bets that are very big in relation to the bankroll, which casinos usually deal with by having a max allowed bet rule, an example being "max allowed bet is less than 30% of the bonus credited".
 

greedygirl

Purveyor of Onions
CAG
Joined
Jan 19, 2002
Location
Someplace other than where you're at
Marty Davis was also billed as an "outsider", but it emerged that he was not as impartial as it appeared, as his website was an extended arm of the Virtual group, rather than an independent affiliate site. I got the impression that Marty was allocated a certain budget, and once this had been spent in resolving some high profile cases, Virtual were no longer going to cooperate in getting the rest of the cases resolved.

Where have you gotten this from??? Remember--I was very much involved with things at the time Marty was brought in. Marty was instrumental in creating the resolution/escalation department (and he did a great job with this).

There was NEVER a website...

Marty was HIRED to be an affiliate manager, but also took on the challenge of dealing with the public aspect of things.

There was NEVER (!!!!!) any sort of 'budget,' 'allotment', 'allocation' whatsoever when it came to resolving old issues. In fact, as I've previously discussed, Virtual/Ace is still more than happy to look at any issue, regardless of age or history to ensure the player is being treated fairly.

And just for the record, this bit bugged me so much, that I contacted Marty today, just to be sure I wasn't being snowed by anyone. He vehemently denied ANY truth to the allegations made by vinylweatherman and reiterated everything I've already mentioned in this post.
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Greedygirl,

VWM could be wrong and that there was never a 'budget' to resolve old issues but I do find it surprising that after a year of so of solid work Marty suddenly left and the payments discontinued. Should Virtual have been sincere in resolving the issues they would have appointed someone to take over Marty's job. The departure of Marty only lends credence to VWM's thoughts and I am sure many people think of it in the same way.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
Greedygirl,

VWM could be wrong and that there was never a 'budget' to resolve old issues but I do find it surprising that after a year of so of solid work Marty suddenly left and the payments discontinued. Should Virtual have been sincere in resolving the issues they would have appointed someone to take over Marty's job. The departure of Marty only lends credence to VWM's thoughts and I am sure many people think of it in the same way.

It's one thing to have an opinion or thought.

It's quite another to make shit up and THEN form opinions or thoughts on it.

Going on about things that don't exist, and never did, doesn't help anyone in ANY discussion. The person who posted it is notorious for making a lot of assumptions....and you know what ASSUME makes.....
 

greedygirl

Purveyor of Onions
CAG
Joined
Jan 19, 2002
Location
Someplace other than where you're at
Greedygirl,

VWM could be wrong and that there was never a 'budget' to resolve old issues but I do find it surprising that after a year of so of solid work Marty suddenly left and the payments discontinued. Should Virtual have been sincere in resolving the issues they would have appointed someone to take over Marty's job. The departure of Marty only lends credence to VWM's thoughts and I am sure many people think of it in the same way.

VWM was not just wrong--there were zero facts in that paragraph. Also, Marty was hired as an affiliate manager and it was never intended he was to step into this aspect of things. It just sort of worked out that way. When the emails went out to former players, along with statements in various forums, announcing the resolution center was being formed, emails from players who believed they were wronged came flooding in. As with anything, as time went on these emails became fewer and farther between. At the end of Marty's employ, the number of complaints were negligible, so there was really no foreseeable reason at that point to bring in a singular person to handle this. Further, the resolution center is still operational and I've stated several times between this and the other thread that anyone who feels they have a claim against either company should absolutely file their dispute. Since Bryan pulled these companies out of Rogue and into Probation, we've received a total of 5 claims--two of which were proven to be scammy/abuse and the other three were sorted out quickly in favor of the players.

It's been tough enough dealing with the factual stuff, but tossing in things that have no basis in truth are a massive waste of everyone's time. People have been very quick to jump on everything regarding these companies, from the biggest issues to the tiniest minutia. It's understandable and everyone involved can handle this. At the same time, please don't think that myself, Tawni or anyone trying to make the situation better, won't snap back when it's blatant untruths being told.
 
Last edited:

bigjohn

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Location
Northeast Coastal USA
How about some of the claims made by Greedy Girl and Tawni that have not been supported by facts, namely the ones about Virtual group being one of the top RTG casinos and having a high retention rate?

I will make an outrageous claim now, "Bigjohn's Casino is one of the top RTG Casinos."

I challenge Greedy Girl or Tawni to prove me wrong. For proof I will not accept heresay or conjecture, I want to see a link to a recent list from RTG themselves listing their top 20 casinos in terms of deposits with retention statistics. If you cannot provide this then there is no proof to what you have said either. To me these claims made on behalf of Virtual are certainly less believable than what VWM stated.

I would also like to see an anonymous poll of CM members who have been members for more than 6 months whether they have deposited (not played a free chip) into any Virtual casinos in the last year. This will help support another outrageous claim that many CM members are regular players at these casinos.

Give me these two things and you will have made a believer out of me.
 

GGW Laurie

Dormant Account
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Location
In the Beautiful South !!
Hi Tawni,
Wish you all the luck in the world trying to change the stripes on this zebra. I once many years ago was a sucker for Virtual and even defended it but then I saw the light with the help of friends on here who showed me that casinos like InetBet and Clubworld , 3 Dice took damned good care of its players and valued the advice from members on this forum.

I went on to make money and have great times playing , in my eyes Virtual will always be in the pits and it would take a miracle for me to take 30.00 and play it at one of your casinos verses one of the true ones I listed above. This casino has stolen money from players in the past who did not know how you all operate , I was one of the blinded.

Please just look through the archives and see what your up against and if you are the woman to make a change , seeing is believing and I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars with this group so yes I feel I have a voice in this not just as a member here but one who also is an advocate for players rights and fair play , something you all have lacked in the past years.

My user name at all virtual casinos was lauriejim , now you tell me and do feel free to post as I have nothing to hide from this forum how I was treated back then and try to spin it however but please at least acknowledge the fact that Virtual group and its owner , can not remember the dudes name were lying crooks back then !

Wishing you much luck and please do not take this personal.

Laurie
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Greedygirl,

VWM could be wrong and that there was never a 'budget' to resolve old issues but I do find it surprising that after a year of so of solid work Marty suddenly left and the payments discontinued. Should Virtual have been sincere in resolving the issues they would have appointed someone to take over Marty's job. The departure of Marty only lends credence to VWM's thoughts and I am sure many people think of it in the same way.

This is the problem. There were further claims in the pipeline, but it appeared that Virtual had pulled the plug on providing any further funds. Marty didn't just leave CM, he got BANNED. People working on the industry side don't normally get banned, they move on and become "dormant account", which is how the majority of former industry reps appear in the archive.

If a project is in motion, and it stalls before completion due to no further funds, it's a budget limitation, no matter how you describe it.

Virtual had the chance to "turn over a new leaf" back then with Marty, but they decided to pull the plug after a year, and they have just come up with pretty much the same idea again, no wonder people find it hard to believe this is a true and genuine attempt at redemption that will be followed through to the end, replacing key staff who move on in the mean time.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
How about some of the claims made by Greedy Girl and Tawni that have not been supported by facts, namely the ones about Virtual group being one of the top RTG casinos and having a high retention rate?
These aren't claims; they are facts. The Virtual/Ace Revenue groups are in the top ten. Any RTG operator can vouch for that. The thing is, you are just going to have to take it as it is. I don't think anyone from the casino side of things is going to start posting their player stats here. The only operations that have these stats available are your publicly owned companies (32Red, Betsson, etc.,)

I will make an outrageous claim now, "Bigjohn's Casino is one of the top RTG Casinos."

I challenge Greedy Girl or Tawni to prove me wrong. For proof I will not accept heresay or conjecture, I want to see a link to a recent list from RTG themselves listing their top 20 casinos in terms of deposits with retention statistics. If you cannot provide this then there is no proof to what you have said either. To me these claims made on behalf of Virtual are certainly less believable than what VWM stated.

I'll make a claim: there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. You can't prove that it's not out there so it must be true. :cool:

I would also like to see an anonymous poll of CM members who have been members for more than 6 months whether they have deposited (not played a free chip) into any Virtual casinos in the last year. This will help support another outrageous claim that many CM members are regular players at these casinos.

Give me these two things and you will have made a believer out of me.
Actually, if you want to invest your own personal time and comb through these threads for players that have admitted playing there, by all be my guest. :p The fact is, these people exist. Please don't suggest that GreedyGirl is in anyway being less than truthful. She's telling you how it is - and it is how it is. I can support her claims via my own resources. Most of this is private information which won't ever be posted, so you're just going to have to accept that scenario.

This is the problem. There were further claims in the pipeline, but it appeared that Virtual had pulled the plug on providing any further funds. Marty didn't just leave CM, he got BANNED. People working on the industry side don't normally get banned, they move on and become "dormant account", which is how the majority of former industry reps appear in the archive...
I think in Marty's case it was too spammy or something and he got booted. I can't rightly remember (I'd have to go back and read the thread :p). But in any case, if he wanted to be unbanned he would just simply make a request for me to re-look at his account history and I would probably let him back in.

I thought the real issue was to make sure all players are being paid and treated fairly. All these tangents of how many players are playing there, and what Marty Davis did is just a bunch of distracting hooey that is clouding up the purpose of "probation" and problem solving. Let's please remain focused.

PS - the reason the other thread was so silent is that everyone ran out of things to talk about. Let's not start making sh** up to keep things lively, ok? :D
 

bigjohn

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Location
Northeast Coastal USA
These aren't claims; they are facts. The Virtual/Ace Revenue groups are in the top ten. Any RTG operator can vouch for that. The thing is, you are just going to have to take it as it is. I don't think anyone from the casino side of things is going to start posting their player stats here. The only operations that have these stats available are your publicly owned companies (32Red, Betsson, etc.,)



I'll make a claim: there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. You can't prove that it's not out there so it must be true. :cool:


Actually, if you want to invest your own personal time and comb through these threads for players that have admitted playing there, by all be my guest. :p The fact is, these people exist. Please don't suggest that GreedyGirl is in anyway being less than truthful. She's telling you how it is - and it is how it is. I can support her claims via my own resources. Most of this is private information which won't ever be posted, so you're just going to have to accept that scenario.


I think in Marty's case it was too spammy or something and he got booted. I can't rightly remember (I'd have to go back and read the thread :p). But in any case, if he wanted to be unbanned he would just simply make a request for me to re-look at his account history and I would probably let him back in.

I thought the real issue was to make sure all players are being paid and treated fairly. All these tangents of how many players are playing there, and what Marty Davis did is just a bunch of distracting hooey that is clouding up the purpose of "probation" and problem solving. Let's please remain focused.

PS - the reason the other thread was so silent is that everyone ran out of things to talk about. Let's not start making sh** up to keep things lively, ok? :D

Don't you think you have seen enough to know that the members here are never going to vote yes to get these casinos out of the pit?

It doesn't seem to matter whether they pay everyone. This is your website, if you want them out of the pit, do it. Put them in the reservation and see what happens. As far as I can see they are not getting any complaints but if you are waiting for the members to come around to supporting them you are going to be waiting for a long time.

Can you see any possible scenario where they would get a thumbs up from the members? I can't.
 

silcnlayc

Just one more spin pleez!
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Location
Left Hungary
I would also like to see an anonymous poll of CM members who have been members for more than 6 months whether they have deposited (not played a free chip) into any Virtual casinos in the last year. This will help support another outrageous claim that many CM members are regular players at these casinos.
I actually have been thinking the same thing along these lines about a poll, but not to out anyone, but to see how many continue to play there.

It would be good to know how many still play at this casino and feedback from them if they desire not to stay anonymous. I can't remember ever playing at this group but I cannot say I didn't, because I do not know what casinos they represent. (I am a diehard and hate change so stick with what works for me).

.
 

SlotsLover

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Location
California
I play(ed) there and loved them

I played there and loved their casinos. The bonuses were fantastic. The payouts were very slow, and to some extent, annoying, but I accepted this because I loved their bonus offerings. I love to play with a bonus, PERIOD, and I was willing to wait and deal with their payment issues. I followed all their rules and eventually got paid every penny I was owed, albeit over a period of time.

If you can't accept the wait, don't play there.

Admittedly, I don't know anything about their free chip policy because I never play with a free chip; I refuse to play slots with a maximum cashout, even if for free.

As far as spam goes, I still get their emails sometimes (may have stopped by now), but it doesn't bother me, I get lots of spam and deal with it.

If they reactivated my bonuses, I'd play there today tomorrow and every day.

Also, this is not about accreditation, it's about getting out of the pit. They may have some policies that cause them not to be eligible for the accredited section, but that's not what this is about.

I, for one, applaud their efforts. I also understand those who do not share my opinions on this group, and certainly do not criticize them. I just wanted to weigh in as someone who likes them.
 

jim5555

Newbie member
PABaccred
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Location
Minnesota USA
Virtual Withdrawals

Hi, been playing at many Casinos of this group for years, takes usually 4-6 weeks for payouts, longest was about 3 months with intervention from Marty. Cashed out a couple of times with no playthrough and all games bonus's and am now blocked from using them at most casinos in this group. Also got graveyard extra bonus's with no strings and they still added extra play through. Without the big bonus's definitely not worth playing at. Have had excellent luck at Club World, Slotastic, and Grande Vegas where you get your payouts in less than a week, whether it be cc or check.

It’s time to address the concerns surrounding the lengthy withdrawal times at Ace and Virtual. It’s being discussed here, in the America the Beautiful section because much of this has to do with US processing.

This is not an easy issue to discuss without laying down a little groundwork, so please bear with me.

The Virtual Group uses a very different business model than other casino groups. Virtual offers bonus far exceeding those of other groups and although we have more than our fair share of critics, we do enjoy thousands of loyal players who look forward to these large bonus offers, each and every week. Regardless what our critics may say, the fact is that we cater to these players who continue to play with us BECAUSE of value, higher chances of winning and in general, longer entertainment time. These players are willing to do so, understanding the longer withdrawal/processing processes.

With these large bonuses comes some hurdles, particularly given the fact that 95% of our players hail from the U.S., where payment processing is such a difficult task. We have limited processors to use to disperse payments and we have had to endure MANY seizures over the past few years (like most other US-facing brands). I’m sure processing has been discussed here, ad nauseum, however, it’s still important to stress how we have to deal with this.

With only a few processors at hand and the ability for these processors to accept only a limited amount of cash at any given time, this creates a backlog of player payments for the company of our size. This has become a slow and arduous course for us. When you add in funds seizures, here and there, the backlog gets deeper. Don’t forget, when a seizure occurs, we not only get the cash confiscated, we also lose another processing venue, which leaves us short and scrambling for another processor. Another pain point is most times we don’t even know a seizure has occurred until the customer complains that either a check was returned or a wire was not received. In the ‘old days’ processors were plentiful and in current times, we find ourselves sitting on our hands to a point, waiting on another processor to open its doors.

Without getting too deep, Virtual has a much narrower profit margin (per player) than most, due to our larger bonuses. Because of this, we are reliant on volume. With volume means greater numbers of withdrawals, which in turn means a larger backlog waiting to be processed. This is essentially the reason behind the long wait-times on our withdrawals.

FWIW, it should be pointed out that our processors handle Virtual and Ace as one client, so this is why Ace ends up on the slow end of things, as well. We do give priorities to Ace withdrawals and that is the reason behind Ace getting paid faster than Virtual casinos. Obviously, it would be ideal if our processors could separate the two companies and process for each, individually. Unfortunately, because of the limitations on the amount of cash each processor can handle at a given time, this is just not possible.

In situations when players have exceeded the 30-day total withdrawal time, this mostly occurs as a result of seizures or players having multiple/larger withdrawal amounts within our own group. I’m not going to say that a ball doesn’t get dropped here or there, but in truth, it IS because of a seizure or a snafu with the actual processor, which we have no control over.

No doubt, many of you will be wondering why we continue down this path of larger bonuses if processing is so difficult. It’s quite simple, really. It’s been successful for us and there is a clear demand for it. Because we have made the commitment to improve, we are making an attempt at shortening things up, but we need to do this with a cautious approach. The last thing we want to do is to push things to a point where we are unable to fulfill our promises.

I hope this helps all of you to understand our circumstances. For our side, we would love nothing more than to be able to facilitate these withdrawals in a quicker way, as we know this will mean a better player experience and certainly greater profits.
 

john39

Senior Member
PABnonaccred
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Location
dfw
Hi, been playing at many Casinos of this group for years, takes usually 4-6 weeks for payouts, longest was about 3 months with intervention from Marty. Cashed out a couple of times with no playthrough and all games bonus's and am now blocked from using them at most casinos in this group. Also got graveyard extra bonus's with no strings and they still added extra play through. Without the big bonus's definitely not worth playing at. Have had excellent luck at Club World, Slotastic, and Grande Vegas where you get your payouts in less than a week, whether it be cc or check.

I have not played at Grande Vegas yet but the other 2 I have at they are a lot of fun

I stopped playing at the 4-6 week casinos because while you have a pending withdral you cant deposit :)

Jackpot Capital is pretty fast however the fastest payouts I have been getting Bovada and Slots.lv those get processed within hours and money sent no longer than a week of course theres a $50 fee after your first free one of the month but they are fast
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top