Casino Complaint What is happening at Club World Casinos ?

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Just wanted to note that the thread title has been changed from "roguish" to "Casino complaint". If a casino confiscates winnings and closes accounts of advantage players - that's roguish. But it they pay winnings and close your account, then that's their prerogative - it's not necessarily rogue.

If what the op says is correct and the account was closed prior to sending out winnings that is roguish imo. I also dislike the fact that they closed the account because they dont like the way he played bonuses. they have the choice to not not offer bonuses but the sudden closure of account is too drastic. hopefully, a rep from cwc can shed light on this.
 

rainmaker

I'm not a penguin
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Location
-
Hi Nifty.

I see your point of view. And yes, there are other casinos. And yes, they can choose if they want you as a customer or not. The main issue here is that this is an accredited casino. As a standard I follow CM list of those, just to be sure not beeing rude or unfair treated.
I have praised this group in many of my post here. So, I am surprised of this behaviour. Looks like panic action in view of short terms.

Kind regards

L'arsenne

Yes, I agree. It is really not a good practice for an accredited casino to kick out players because the player has "played slots in the wrong way". If they had confiscated your winnings based on this, then we would have a "in the spirit of the bonus"-case. But as Casinomeister said, this is not roguish since you have been paid.

On the other hand, it is highly unusuall to kick out players that has not violated any T&C. Especially if the player only play slots.

Club World are accredited and they are also one of "Casinomeister`s picks". If the case is correctly presented, then it will look very bad if an accredited casino only want to have customers who have a history of losing on slots. One must expect from an accredited casino that they will "allow" players to win within the T&C set by the casino, either with a bonus offered by the casino or without.
 

Larsenne

Dormant account
PABnononaccred2
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Location
World Citizen
Thank you vinylweatherman

It seems CWC also need to educate themselves on how slots work:rolleyes:

How the hell can raising bets after a win be "abusive play". It seems that EVERYTHING is "abusive play" with online casinos, and it is starting to look like this is more an excuse being trotted out when they want to ditch a player, rather than an opinion based on the mathematics of casino gaming.

CWC have recently said that LOWERING bets after a win is "abusive", and other casinos have said that keeping your bets at the same level throughout play is "abusive". Add "raising bets after a win", and EVERY method of play is now "abusive".


It doesn't matter that the have paid the withdrawal NOW - someone at CWC initially decided to CONFISCATE it, and this would have had to come from management, not front line CS. Had the player not protested, this decision would have stood.

The whole thing is evidence of a decline in standards, and taken with other complaints about other standards having declined recently, indicates that the group as a whole is letting things slip.

I am sure the OP is ahead overall, and this is why their account was closed, but CWC used to do nothing more than drop such players from promotions, but they were still allowed to play without them if they wanted to.

To completely ban a player suggests that the strategy they are using works even WITHOUT them taking a bonus, a fallacy based on an unusual lucky streak, but one that makes others think this means the slots can be "cracked", and are thus not random.

Players who's unusual streak is a LOSING one often claim this is down to the casino "rigging the games", yet the casino THEN claim that whilst unusual, it is all down to luck. How come, therefore, an unusual WINNING streak is NOT put down to luck, but to a particular playing strategy - even without using bonuses.

I am ahead at CWC, and was dropped from the promotions program, yet my last withdrawal was paid, and my account was NOT closed and I can still play without any of the promotions.

Their terms are pretty robust now, and if the OP didn't break any of them, I can't see how they could have "advantage played" anything.

I must say, that when my withdrawal was declined AND my account closed, I really thought that my winnings was confiscated.
I contacted the cashier by mail, but nothing happened before I contacted rep here,
who released the withdrawal and said I was not welcome anymore.
If I am ahead ( I talking of a period of 3 years) of the casino, I would have understood if I was not given any promotions. But this treatment, like I have being cheating, is under the level.
I don't risk my reputation here at CM. I have not broken any rules.

L'arsenne
 

Lucky Loser

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Location
Planet Earth
I must say, that when my withdrawal was declined AND my account closed, I really thought that my winnings was confiscated.
I contacted the cashier by mail, but nothing happened before I contacted rep here,
who released the withdrawal and said I was not welcome anymore.
If I am ahead ( I talking of a period of 3 years) of the casino, I would have understood if I was not given any promotions. But this treatment, like I have being cheating, is under the level.
I don't risk my reputation here at CM. I have not broken any rules.

L'arsenne

It's all very strange. For some reason the casino no longer wants your business and felt it was worth terminating the relationship.

If fraud is discounted, maybe they have an over zealous employee who is charged with getting rid of unprofitable players because of the American issue. Knowing how incompetent many are in the business world this would not surprise me.
 

clubworld

Rogue casino operator
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Location
UK
We have the option to deny access to our casino, and as long as the balance on the account is paid in full there is nothing rogueish about this at all.

Closing a player’s account is not something that we do without good reason. For this particular player his account was locked out while we conducted a review and at the end of this process the balance was paid in full and permanently closed. We have many winners at all of our casinos and we would never close a player’s account just because they have won.

Regards
Tom
 

SadFatMan

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Location
America
We have the option to deny access to our casino, and as long as the balance on the account is paid in full there is nothing rogueish about this at all.

Closing a player’s account is not something that we do without good reason. For this particular player his account was locked out while we conducted a review and at the end of this process the balance was paid in full and permanently closed. We have many winners at all of our casinos and we would never close a player’s account just because they have won.

Regards
Tom

What was the reason? Is it really possible to abuse bonus privileges playing *slots*?
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
We have the option to deny access to our casino, and as long as the balance on the account is paid in full there is nothing rogueish about this at all.

Closing a player’s account is not something that we do without good reason. For this particular player his account was locked out while we conducted a review and at the end of this process the balance was paid in full and permanently closed. We have many winners at all of our casinos and we would never close a player’s account just because they have won.

Regards
Tom

You should first pay the player and then close the account after the review and not while the review is in progress unless you believe there is fraud involved in which case you wouldnt have paid out at all. It seems you had not found any evidence related to fraud or the like and thus paid the op. Treating players like trash will backfire on you. Of course you have the right to deny access to players but the way cwc handled this issue is amateurish imo.
 

Larsenne

Dormant account
PABnononaccred2
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Location
World Citizen
The truth is out there

We have the option to deny access to our casino, and as long as the balance on the account is paid in full there is nothing rogueish about this at all.

Closing a player’s account is not something that we do without good reason. For this particular player his account was locked out while we conducted a review and at the end of this process the balance was paid in full and permanently closed. We have many winners at all of our casinos and we would never close a player’s account just because they have won.

Regards
Tom

Dear Tom.

You have just closed an account because a player had a winning streak. That is the only reason. As you stated in the private e-mail I have not broken any terms at all.
As I stated before. If a casino has financial problem with to many promotions going on, it is a company problem, not a customer problem. Don't take out this on the players. We all have the odds against us most of the time.

Kind regards

L'arsenne
 
Last edited:

rainmaker

I'm not a penguin
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Location
-
We have the option to deny access to our casino, and as long as the balance on the account is paid in full there is nothing rogueish about this at all.

Closing a player’s account is not something that we do without good reason. For this particular player his account was locked out while we conducted a review and at the end of this process the balance was paid in full and permanently closed. We have many winners at all of our casinos and we would never close a player’s account just because they have won.

Regards
Tom

I agree, it is not roguish to deny access to your casino as long as the balance is settled. You have the right to choose your customers.

But it is bad to close the players account without informing the player about it. CS did not even know why it was closed. And to tell the player "we don`t like the way you play with our bonuses" is not a good answer. You should know that it only will lead to speculations.

If you have offered this player "too many" bonuses, then it is the casinos fault. The player only accept what you offer.

If bonuses are a problem for your casino, then just stop offering it.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
We have the option to deny access to our casino, and as long as the balance on the account is paid in full there is nothing rogueish about this at all.

Closing a player’s account is not something that we do without good reason. For this particular player his account was locked out while we conducted a review and at the end of this process the balance was paid in full and permanently closed. We have many winners at all of our casinos and we would never close a player’s account just because they have won.

Regards
Tom

The balance was only paid because the OP protested, and NOT because it was "routine" to pay out and then close an account.

Since no terms had been broken, WTF is this "review" about? Terms were either broken or not, the "review" looks like a "fishing expedition" was launched because the player had been unduly lucky, and when nothing was found, this was STILL not good enough, since the result of the review had been predetermined by management, and this was that the player would be ditched whatever the outcome of the review, and it was merely a case of finding a reason to explain it away.

Getting rid of players who have been far too lucky makes no mathematical sense, since ANY player could be the next one to have a lucky streak. You do NOT alter the overall outcome by selectively cutting away those players who are "on a roll", you merely reduce your overall player base, and when stories like this become public knowledge you put off new players from joining because they believe winners are not tolerated for long - and NOONE wants to suffer the indignity of being forcibly evicted from a casino for being too lucky, so will avoid this eventuality by not joining in the first place.

If there really IS a way to consistently beat the slots, so much so that merely bonus banning this player (your usual response) is not enough, you should have words with your software supplier.

As players, we want to be confident that our custom is EQUALLY appreciated, whether we win or lose. This story shows that you think of winners as "undesirables", and would rather they went away, and if they don't take the hint, they are thrown out.

What has not been clarified is why the OP believed his final payout had been confiscated. SOMEONE at CWC clearly gave this impression to the OP in the first instance, even though the withdrawal was paid in the end.

What communication did the OP receive that gave them the impression their payout had been confiscated?

Will CWC now be "reviewing" the accounts of a number of "unusually lucky" players and throwing them out. It would be nice if we could be told, so that we could have the choice to leave with dignity, rather than being thrown out.

I left CWC with my dignity a couple of years ago, even though I was merely bonus banned. This was because I was nicely ahead, and clearly didn't need any more offers as far as the casino management were concerned.

It's not unusual to get ahead, and then have all the promotions removed. This has happened at many of the accounts I am ahead at, so I simply play where I am DOWN, and still get all the offers. This is common sense, since it's the same software, and subject to the same variations in luck, but the way this business works is that players get offered far more when they are losing, and I do NOT believe that I get ahead because that particular casino pays more over the long term, I believe I am ahead because I hit a "sweet spot" in the cycles of good and bad luck, and it could just as easily happen again anywhere, and in some cases, it HAS happened elsewhere.

I think we can be certain now that casino management DO consider slots a "game of skill" in the same way that the table games can be "beaten" by the right strategy and choice of bonuses; however this does NOT explain why an account has to be closed altogether, rather than merely being restricted to play without bonuses.

If the player goes away because they don't WANT to carry on playing without bonuses, the same ends have been achieved (getting rid of them), but WITHOUT them suffering the indignity of being thrown out, and the pursit by them of some kind of explanation as to why they were "singled out" for what is a pretty unusual and harsh treatment compared to the norm for this situation.

Of course, maybe the OP DID break the rules, but the casino are not going to say what rule was broken, because it would expose a weakness inherrent in the gaming, and knowledge of this would end up with "everybody trying it", and WINNING.

All the OP seems to have by way of slots strategy is to increase the bet when the slot seems "hot", and it seems this lead to the OP managing to ride a long "hot" streak with a large bet size, and have a pretty good run. This is pure chance, there is no actual "system" in place that means the games deliberately obey "cycles", so this is NOT a long term guaranteed winning strategy - all it does is give the player a bigger chance of winning big, but equally a bigger chance of LOSING it all back when the elusive "cycle" does NOT play out, and they are busted out by an unlucky run just as they have started playing with much bigger bets, losing the inital win back very quickly.

It's the same kind of fallacy that convinces some players (and some CASINOS) that Martingale systems offer the player a win-win situation, and that casinos have to fear them.

The OP's strategy looks like a "reversed modified Martingale", where bets are not doubled, but increased by a different formula, and increased after winning, rather than losing as with the usual Martingale progression.

I remember that CasinoJack was telling us that the software could be beaten due to certain "bugs" and weaknesses, and offered to tell me even more "dark secrets" about how the RTG slots REALLY work in London a couple of years ago. I took this to be complete bullshit, and never pursued the matter, but I am beginning to have second thoughts because of stories like this that show casino operators are afraid of something they should NOT be if RTG slots worked the way we have been told they do.

The OP didn't break the terms, but clearly had CWC scared of SOMETHING because of the strategy they used playing the slots - this simply does not make sense, and has to be the FIRST case of an ACCREDITED casino throwing out a SLOTS player because they had an advantage that could NOT be dealt with by banning them from bonuses.

A non-accredited casino threw out a slots player with a similar set of arguments, and it was taken as a sign that the operator didn't understand how slot games and RNGs work, and thought a lucky streak meant the player had actually found a guaranteed winning strategy.

The only other argument that has been presented is that some players simply take too long to lose small amounts of money, and maintaining their accounts is not considered profitable. This boils down to these players making each Dollar last too long, and the casino is looking for players who lose faster. This flies in the face of the claim made by operators that they are offering "recreation & entertainment" rather than hardcore gambling. If it is REALLY about "entertaining" the player, the casino should be HAPPY when players have such a good time that they manage to make their bankroll "entertain" them for a prolonged period of time.

We have to speculate about this, because the rest of us want to know how WE can avoid suffering the same fate as the OP, and clearly reading the terms, and sticking to them, is NOT enough.
 

anniemac

Ueber Meister
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Location
Texas, USA
Seems to me like CW is being held to a higher standard than some of the other casinos here.

It was all well and good when Bet Phoenix (RTG then) decided to bonus ban me for winning to much and I took a pretty good spanking from members here because I took umbrage for being called a 'negative value' player. There were things that went on behind the scenes that you folks were never privileged to. I closed my account with them before they actually banned me or rather it was an agreement between Bet Phoenix and me.

That said, a casino has the right to close any players account (and I was told this by more than one of you here) or disallow bonuses at their discretion. Believe me, I know how L'Arsenne feels. I was good and pissed at Bet Phoenix. But in the end, nothing I could do about it except move on.

There may be way more to this story than we will ever know.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Seems to me like CW is being held to a higher standard than some of the other casinos here.

It was all well and good when Bet Phoenix (RTG then) decided to bonus ban me for winning to much and I took a pretty good spanking from members here because I took umbrage for being called a 'negative value' player. There were things that went on behind the scenes that you folks were never privileged to. I closed my account with them before they actually banned me or rather it was an agreement between Bet Phoenix and me.

That said, a casino has the right to close any players account (and I was told this by more than one of you here) or disallow bonuses at their discretion. Believe me, I know how L'Arsenne feels. I was good and pissed at Bet Phoenix. But in the end, nothing I could do about it except move on.

There may be way more to this story than we will ever know.

CWC is REGARDED as being of a higher standard, and this is why this case has come as a surprise. Betphoenix didn't get of lightly either, but not being accredited were not being held to such a high standard. We simply expect better from an accredited casino than from a non-accredited one.

For some reason, and despite getting rid of their "negative value players", Betphoenix found they could no longer work profitably with RTG, so switched to Rival in the hope that things would improve.
It is clear that getting rid of negative value players does not work, far better to JUST ban them from bonuses, and leave it at that.

A bonus ban is NOT the same as being thrown out altogether, and told you are not even welcome as a non-bonus player. If CWC had merely bonus banned the OP, we would probably be saying "tough, but they can choose who gets the bonuses". The problem comes where someone is told they haven't broken any rules, yet for some "commercially sensitive" reason they have somehow "sinned" sufficiently to warrant a permanent and total exclusion. This then leads to the idea that the player MUST have been "a bit naughty" to warrant such action. In your case, some of the debate centered on trying to figure out just what YOU had done to warrant such an action, and the thought persists that you somehow figured out an "angle" that wasn't covered, nor could be covered, in the terms and conditions - so you had to go.
There is also a suspicion that these players are also added to some industry "watch list", as players that get banned from one casino even though they didn't break the rules, seem to end up suffering a similar fate elsewhere, yet are STILL not breaking any rules, or doing anything "dodgy".
You were adamant that you were doing nothing unusual at Betphoenix that could be considered as "advantage play", or "fraud", so clearly felt that their action was an implied slur on your reputation, even without any specific accusations having been made.
This has happened to players at other casinos, and makes me think that there IS a weakness or two in the various softwares, and that by chance or design, players are winning because of it, and since this would be considered "commercially sensitive", the reasons for these actions CANNOT be made public, so they are simply "by management decision", followed by "we are not required to offer an explanation".
This may keep their secrets safe, but it hardly inspires confidence among other players when they know that even though they have done nothing wrong, they can STILL be summarily thrown out of an online casino without recourse to appeal, nor any explanation as to what aspect of their behaviour lead to the decision being made.
 

Emmeline

Registered
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Location
Sweden
Larsenne, according to what you've said been so far, you have not broken any terms and conditions and the casino agrees with that. (not questioning you just trying to sort it out)
Firstly the rep refers to playing patterns and now the explanation from the rep is that the casino doesn't close accounts without good reason. I don't get it, cause if it's about playing patterns, there's possibly an applicable clause.

18. In cases where players are participating in strategies or patterns of play that CWCUSD in its sole discretion deems to be abusive we reserve the right, prior to closing the account, to deduct any processing costs associated with the account from the value of the final payment.

Since CWC is not referring to this clause, I presume your playing strategy/pattern is not deemed abusive. So what is this about.
Perhaps you have some genius playing pattern that you're not aware of yourself, and thus the casino won't disclose any more info ;)
 

Larsenne

Dormant account
PABnononaccred2
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Location
World Citizen
The balance was only paid because the OP protested, and NOT because it was "routine" to pay out and then close an account.

Since no terms had been broken, WTF is this "review" about? Terms were either broken or not, the "review" looks like a "fishing expedition" was launched because the player had been unduly lucky, and when nothing was found, this was STILL not good enough, since the result of the review had been predetermined by management, and this was that the player would be ditched whatever the outcome of the review, and it was merely a case of finding a reason to explain it away.

Getting rid of players who have been far too lucky makes no mathematical sense, since ANY player could be the next one to have a lucky streak. You do NOT alter the overall outcome by selectively cutting away those players who are "on a roll", you merely reduce your overall player base, and when stories like this become public knowledge you put off new players from joining because they believe winners are not tolerated for long - and NOONE wants to suffer the indignity of being forcibly evicted from a casino for being too lucky, so will avoid this eventuality by not joining in the first place.

If there really IS a way to consistently beat the slots, so much so that merely bonus banning this player (your usual response) is not enough, you should have words with your software supplier.

As players, we want to be confident that our custom is EQUALLY appreciated, whether we win or lose. This story shows that you think of winners as "undesirables", and would rather they went away, and if they don't take the hint, they are thrown out.

What has not been clarified is why the OP believed his final payout had been confiscated. SOMEONE at CWC clearly gave this impression to the OP in the first instance, even though the withdrawal was paid in the end.

What communication did the OP receive that gave them the impression their payout had been confiscated?

Will CWC now be "reviewing" the accounts of a number of "unusually lucky" players and throwing them out. It would be nice if we could be told, so that we could have the choice to leave with dignity, rather than being thrown out.

I left CWC with my dignity a couple of years ago, even though I was merely bonus banned. This was because I was nicely ahead, and clearly didn't need any more offers as far as the casino management were concerned.

It's not unusual to get ahead, and then have all the promotions removed. This has happened at many of the accounts I am ahead at, so I simply play where I am DOWN, and still get all the offers. This is common sense, since it's the same software, and subject to the same variations in luck, but the way this business works is that players get offered far more when they are losing, and I do NOT believe that I get ahead because that particular casino pays more over the long term, I believe I am ahead because I hit a "sweet spot" in the cycles of good and bad luck, and it could just as easily happen again anywhere, and in some cases, it HAS happened elsewhere.

I think we can be certain now that casino management DO consider slots a "game of skill" in the same way that the table games can be "beaten" by the right strategy and choice of bonuses; however this does NOT explain why an account has to be closed altogether, rather than merely being restricted to play without bonuses.

If the player goes away because they don't WANT to carry on playing without bonuses, the same ends have been achieved (getting rid of them), but WITHOUT them suffering the indignity of being thrown out, and the pursit by them of some kind of explanation as to why they were "singled out" for what is a pretty unusual and harsh treatment compared to the norm for this situation.

Of course, maybe the OP DID break the rules, but the casino are not going to say what rule was broken, because it would expose a weakness inherrent in the gaming, and knowledge of this would end up with "everybody trying it", and WINNING.

All the OP seems to have by way of slots strategy is to increase the bet when the slot seems "hot", and it seems this lead to the OP managing to ride a long "hot" streak with a large bet size, and have a pretty good run. This is pure chance, there is no actual "system" in place that means the games deliberately obey "cycles", so this is NOT a long term guaranteed winning strategy - all it does is give the player a bigger chance of winning big, but equally a bigger chance of LOSING it all back when the elusive "cycle" does NOT play out, and they are busted out by an unlucky run just as they have started playing with much bigger bets, losing the inital win back very quickly.

It's the same kind of fallacy that convinces some players (and some CASINOS) that Martingale systems offer the player a win-win situation, and that casinos have to fear them.

The OP's strategy looks like a "reversed modified Martingale", where bets are not doubled, but increased by a different formula, and increased after winning, rather than losing as with the usual Martingale progression.

I remember that CasinoJack was telling us that the software could be beaten due to certain "bugs" and weaknesses, and offered to tell me even more "dark secrets" about how the RTG slots REALLY work in London a couple of years ago. I took this to be complete bullshit, and never pursued the matter, but I am beginning to have second thoughts because of stories like this that show casino operators are afraid of something they should NOT be if RTG slots worked the way we have been told they do.

The OP didn't break the terms, but clearly had CWC scared of SOMETHING because of the strategy they used playing the slots - this simply does not make sense, and has to be the FIRST case of an ACCREDITED casino throwing out a SLOTS player because they had an advantage that could NOT be dealt with by banning them from bonuses.

A non-accredited casino threw out a slots player with a similar set of arguments, and it was taken as a sign that the operator didn't understand how slot games and RNGs work, and thought a lucky streak meant the player had actually found a guaranteed winning strategy.

The only other argument that has been presented is that some players simply take too long to lose small amounts of money, and maintaining their accounts is not considered profitable. This boils down to these players making each Dollar last too long, and the casino is looking for players who lose faster. This flies in the face of the claim made by operators that they are offering "recreation & entertainment" rather than hardcore gambling. If it is REALLY about "entertaining" the player, the casino should be HAPPY when players have such a good time that they manage to make their bankroll "entertain" them for a prolonged period of time.

We have to speculate about this, because the rest of us want to know how WE can avoid suffering the same fate as the OP, and clearly reading the terms, and sticking to them, is NOT enough.

Thank you Vinylweatherman.

You have described the situation in all sences. And I assure you, I have not broken any terms. I wouldn't risk my reputation here at CM dragging this in public. Unfairness always reveals itself sooner or later.
Club World's review was to find a reason to kick me out. I was judged before the review was done. And when they found nothing on me, the "manner" of play was the only thing they coudl come up with.
If court of law was runned like this, beware us all!
And actually I have had no strategy at all. If I win I play some spins at higher stake,
and then go to a lower level, if the higher eats my bankroll.
That is not a strategy. I play like this at our landbased casino aswell.
I just had a winning streak this year.
If i had found a strategy, I had won at all casinos, and I had written a book about it and retired on a sunny island, living on royalties.

Regards

L'arsenne
 

asianeyes

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Location
U.K.
The balance was only paid because the OP protested, and NOT because it was "routine" to pay out and then close an account.

Since no terms had been broken, WTF is this "review" about? Terms were either broken or not, the "review" looks like a "fishing expedition" was launched because the player had been unduly lucky, and when nothing was found, this was STILL not good enough, since the result of the review had been predetermined by management, and this was that the player would be ditched whatever the outcome of the review, and it was merely a case of finding a reason to explain it away.

Getting rid of players who have been far too lucky makes no mathematical sense, since ANY player could be the next one to have a lucky streak. You do NOT alter the overall outcome by selectively cutting away those players who are "on a roll", you merely reduce your overall player base, and when stories like this become public knowledge you put off new players from joining because they believe winners are not tolerated for long - and NOONE wants to suffer the indignity of being forcibly evicted from a casino for being too lucky, so will avoid this eventuality by not joining in the first place.

If there really IS a way to consistently beat the slots, so much so that merely bonus banning this player (your usual response) is not enough, you should have words with your software supplier.

As players, we want to be confident that our custom is EQUALLY appreciated, whether we win or lose. This story shows that you think of winners as "undesirables", and would rather they went away, and if they don't take the hint, they are thrown out.

What has not been clarified is why the OP believed his final payout had been confiscated. SOMEONE at CWC clearly gave this impression to the OP in the first instance, even though the withdrawal was paid in the end.

What communication did the OP receive that gave them the impression their payout had been confiscated?

Will CWC now be "reviewing" the accounts of a number of "unusually lucky" players and throwing them out. It would be nice if we could be told, so that we could have the choice to leave with dignity, rather than being thrown out.

I left CWC with my dignity a couple of years ago, even though I was merely bonus banned. This was because I was nicely ahead, and clearly didn't need any more offers as far as the casino management were concerned.

It's not unusual to get ahead, and then have all the promotions removed. This has happened at many of the accounts I am ahead at, so I simply play where I am DOWN, and still get all the offers. This is common sense, since it's the same software, and subject to the same variations in luck, but the way this business works is that players get offered far more when they are losing, and I do NOT believe that I get ahead because that particular casino pays more over the long term, I believe I am ahead because I hit a "sweet spot" in the cycles of good and bad luck, and it could just as easily happen again anywhere, and in some cases, it HAS happened elsewhere.

I think we can be certain now that casino management DO consider slots a "game of skill" in the same way that the table games can be "beaten" by the right strategy and choice of bonuses; however this does NOT explain why an account has to be closed altogether, rather than merely being restricted to play without bonuses.

If the player goes away because they don't WANT to carry on playing without bonuses, the same ends have been achieved (getting rid of them), but WITHOUT them suffering the indignity of being thrown out, and the pursit by them of some kind of explanation as to why they were "singled out" for what is a pretty unusual and harsh treatment compared to the norm for this situation.

Of course, maybe the OP DID break the rules, but the casino are not going to say what rule was broken, because it would expose a weakness inherrent in the gaming, and knowledge of this would end up with "everybody trying it", and WINNING.

All the OP seems to have by way of slots strategy is to increase the bet when the slot seems "hot", and it seems this lead to the OP managing to ride a long "hot" streak with a large bet size, and have a pretty good run. This is pure chance, there is no actual "system" in place that means the games deliberately obey "cycles", so this is NOT a long term guaranteed winning strategy - all it does is give the player a bigger chance of winning big, but equally a bigger chance of LOSING it all back when the elusive "cycle" does NOT play out, and they are busted out by an unlucky run just as they have started playing with much bigger bets, losing the inital win back very quickly.

It's the same kind of fallacy that convinces some players (and some CASINOS) that Martingale systems offer the player a win-win situation, and that casinos have to fear them.

The OP's strategy looks like a "reversed modified Martingale", where bets are not doubled, but increased by a different formula, and increased after winning, rather than losing as with the usual Martingale progression.

I remember that CasinoJack was telling us that the software could be beaten due to certain "bugs" and weaknesses, and offered to tell me even more "dark secrets" about how the RTG slots REALLY work in London a couple of years ago. I took this to be complete bullshit, and never pursued the matter, but I am beginning to have second thoughts because of stories like this that show casino operators are afraid of something they should NOT be if RTG slots worked the way we have been told they do.

The OP didn't break the terms, but clearly had CWC scared of SOMETHING because of the strategy they used playing the slots - this simply does not make sense, and has to be the FIRST case of an ACCREDITED casino throwing out a SLOTS player because they had an advantage that could NOT be dealt with by banning them from bonuses.

A non-accredited casino threw out a slots player with a similar set of arguments, and it was taken as a sign that the operator didn't understand how slot games and RNGs work, and thought a lucky streak meant the player had actually found a guaranteed winning strategy.

The only other argument that has been presented is that some players simply take too long to lose small amounts of money, and maintaining their accounts is not considered profitable. This boils down to these players making each Dollar last too long, and the casino is looking for players who lose faster. This flies in the face of the claim made by operators that they are offering "recreation & entertainment" rather than hardcore gambling. If it is REALLY about "entertaining" the player, the casino should be HAPPY when players have such a good time that they manage to make their bankroll "entertain" them for a prolonged period of time.

We have to speculate about this, because the rest of us want to know how WE can avoid suffering the same fate as the OP, and clearly reading the terms, and sticking to them, is NOT enough.

As usual, vwm you are spot on! I wouldn't touch CWC with a ten foot barge pole!:eek:
 

Larsenne

Dormant account
PABnononaccred2
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Location
World Citizen
Thank you

Dear Members.

I would like to thank all the members here for the support in this matter. And thank you Casino Meister for having this forum to go. I suppose this will never be solved, and I know that I haven't done someting wrong.


Regards to you all

L'arsenne
 
Last edited:

Gremmyboy

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Location
Australia
CWC is REGARDED as being of a higher standard, and this is why this case has come as a surprise. Betphoenix didn't get of lightly either, but not being accredited were not being held to such a high standard. We simply expect better from an accredited casino than from a non-accredited one.

For some reason, and despite getting rid of their "negative value players", Betphoenix found they could no longer work profitably with RTG, so switched to Rival in the hope that things would improve.
It is clear that getting rid of negative value players does not work, far better to JUST ban them from bonuses, and leave it at that.

A bonus ban is NOT the same as being thrown out altogether, and told you are not even welcome as a non-bonus player. If CWC had merely bonus banned the OP, we would probably be saying "tough, but they can choose who gets the bonuses". The problem comes where someone is told they haven't broken any rules, yet for some "commercially sensitive" reason they have somehow "sinned" sufficiently to warrant a permanent and total exclusion. This then leads to the idea that the player MUST have been "a bit naughty" to warrant such action. In your case, some of the debate centered on trying to figure out just what YOU had done to warrant such an action, and the thought persists that you somehow figured out an "angle" that wasn't covered, nor could be covered, in the terms and conditions - so you had to go.
There is also a suspicion that these players are also added to some industry "watch list", as players that get banned from one casino even though they didn't break the rules, seem to end up suffering a similar fate elsewhere, yet are STILL not breaking any rules, or doing anything "dodgy".
You were adamant that you were doing nothing unusual at Betphoenix that could be considered as "advantage play", or "fraud", so clearly felt that their action was an implied slur on your reputation, even without any specific accusations having been made.
This has happened to players at other casinos, and makes me think that there IS a weakness or two in the various softwares, and that by chance or design, players are winning because of it, and since this would be considered "commercially sensitive", the reasons for these actions CANNOT be made public, so they are simply "by management decision", followed by "we are not required to offer an explanation".
This may keep their secrets safe, but it hardly inspires confidence among other players when they know that even though they have done nothing wrong, they can STILL be summarily thrown out of an online casino without recourse to appeal, nor any explanation as to what aspect of their behaviour lead to the decision being made.

Has anyone checked if the terms and conditions have been updated to include any new paragraphs? I tried to using
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
but couldn't find the cached page in google for their terms and conditions(seems you can't search cached pages anymore? it used to be next to the item you searched but it wasn't there?)
Just out of curiousity as it may 'expose' the weakness that was(accidently) taken advantage of!?:rolleyes:

Cheers
Gremmy
 

daveboz

Banned User
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Location
Seattle
Dear Tom.

You have just closed an account because a player had a winning streak. That is the only reason. As you stated in the private e-mail I have not broken any terms at all.
As I stated before. If a casino has financial problem with to many promotions going on, it is a company problem, not a customer problem. Don't take out this on the players. We all have the odds against us most of the time.

Kind regards

L'arsenne


I wonder why they haven't closed my account then? I just hit another royal for 20k this morning, no sh!t. 3 in past week. Of course i had to give back most of the first 20k and then bloop and the little clapping sound again. Now even further ahead of last week. I have been lucky at CWC
 

daveboz

Banned User
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Location
Seattle
Dear Tom.

You have just closed an account because a player had a winning streak. That is the only reason. As you stated in the private e-mail I have not broken any terms at all.
As I stated before. If a casino has financial problem with to many promotions going on, it is a company problem, not a customer problem. Don't take out this on the players. We all have the odds against us most of the time.


Kind regards

L'arsenne

Furthermore, if i would have taken the 15 bonus from Lauren i would have been limited to 10x max . That would've sucked. Not sure how that works with co mingled free bonus money and existing funds. That would be evil to deny a player a jackpot over a 15 dollar bonus . Some outfits have separate sportsbooks to park cash so you can play bonus money . At CWC no option. I try not to co mingle.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I wonder why they haven't closed my account then? I just hit another royal for 20k this morning, no sh!t. 3 in past week. Of course i had to give back most of the first 20k and then bloop and the little clapping sound again. Now even further ahead of last week. I have been lucky at CWC

Well, the rep said it wasn't about winning, but HOW the win was made. It just seems that increasing the stake when winning, and lowering it when losing, is what CWC consider as "abusive playing strategy", and a pretty SERIOUS one at that, since I was merely given a bonus ban, yet the OP had their account closed altogether.

It was clearly far more serious than MY strategy.

Yes, the terms HAVE been updated, and a number of weaknesses have been addressed. I can only presume that the OP inadvertently stumbled on a new weakness, CWC considered that this was used knowingly to exploit the account, and could NOT be dealt with merely by a bonus ban.

CWC are certain the OP knows damn well what they did, but as a new exploit, it isn't covered in the terms and conditions - hence, the OP didn't break any terms, BUT they took advantage of a weakness in the system that CWC considered gave them an unfair advantage over the casino that meant the casino could never make a proft from them over the long term, even if they played without bonuses.

Clearly, they do NOT want to mention what this weakness is until they have found a way to plug it, either through a software update, or a change in the terms.

It would not be the FIRST time this has happened either. It happened in 2006 on Microgaming software, and publicly the casinos were quoting "illegitimate play" and confiscating winnings left, right, and centre. No terms were broken, and players who complained got a decision in their favour. The casinos refused to tell even Max or Bryan what had REALLY been going on, and in the end paid players who had discovered the weakness, but not actually broken any of the rules.

I was intrieged, and started investigating what could have been going on. I got a couple of anonymous tip-offs, and eventually discovered what had REALLY happened. I later told Max about it, and he confirmed that he was never given this information when the cases were being dealt with, even though it could have saved the casinos from having to pay out because of "malfunction voids play" rules. This particular weakness actually worked BETTER if players didn't take a bonus.

The "mad hatter" Casinojack told me in London that there were similar weaknesses in two of the Real Series slots with RTG, and that some casinos had found this out, and didn't feature the games.

The RTG classic slot "Frozen Assets" was pulled RTG wide because it too had a neat little exploit within it, along with a number of other classic slots like Diamond Mine that had a weaker variant of the "Frozen Assets exploit".
RTG have always maintained that the games were discontinued because they were "unpopular", but it was not the PLAYERS who considered them unpopular, it was the CASINOS - many players LOVED them:D

To the OP - you have clearly stumbled on some kind of strategy that makes you unpopular with the casinos, but you don't seem to realise what you have found, and you just think you have been very lucky.

Have you been particularly lucky on certain slot games, and then carried on going back to them using the same strategy because you now feel this is the best way to play them?
 

Gremmyboy

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Location
Australia
That's how I play too! Has served me well....:D

I start out at a low bet like 50c and if I win over the 50c on that spin I go up by one coin per line.(So go up to 75c bet)
If I win more than the 75c on that bet I go up one coin per line($1) If I get half the amount or over of the 75c(37.5c) then I get another go at 75c bet, If i get 0c or less than half the 75c then I go down one coin per line bet(so back to 50c).
If I get 100x the lowest bet(25 lines would mean $25.00) then I put my bet to 10x the minimum bet(so $2.50 Unless I'm over the 10x bet whilst spinning in which case I go to the next 10x which would be 20x or 30x etc...) and have a spin. If I lose on that bet I drop one coin per line bet(so down to $2.25) if I get half the amount bet or more($1.25) Then I get another go and if I win more than the bet I go up one coin size(On RTG that would be $5). I work my way down and stay at my lowest bet(50c) and then start again at going up per win.
I have played like this for ages and have done quite well. sometimes I get my bet up to $20 or more.

Have used this for a long long time and never had a problem cashing out.


Cheers
Gremmy
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
That's how I play too! Has served me well....:D

I start out at a low bet like 50c and if I win over the 50c on that spin I go up by one coin per line.(So go up to 75c bet)
If I win more than the 75c on that bet I go up one coin per line($1) If I get half the amount or over of the 75c(37.5c) then I get another go at 75c bet, If i get 0c or less than half the 75c then I go down one coin per line bet(so back to 50c).
If I get 100x the lowest bet(25 lines would mean $25.00) then I put my bet to 10x the minimum bet(so $2.50 Unless I'm over the 10x bet whilst spinning in which case I go to the next 10x which would be 20x or 30x etc...) and have a spin. If I lose on that bet I drop one coin per line bet(so down to $2.25) if I get half the amount bet or more($1.25) Then I get another go and if I win more than the bet I go up one coin size(On RTG that would be $5). I work my way down and stay at my lowest bet(50c) and then start again at going up per win.
I have played like this for ages and have done quite well. sometimes I get my bet up to $20 or more.

Have used this for a long long time and never had a problem cashing out.


Cheers
Gremmy

Well, you might now. You will probably get paid, but have your account closed for "management decision" reasons if you hit a lucky streak playing like this.

There was a case where a player bet high every 9th spin, and eventually hit a great bonus round on that 9th spin. The casino voided the payout, arguing that the tactic "manipulated the RNG", and was therefore cheating. This BS of course came from one of those "clip joints", so was not all that much of a shock.
 

De Beuker

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Location
Netherlands
The RTG classic slot "Frozen Assets" was pulled RTG wide because it too had a neat little exploit within it, along with a number of other classic slots like Diamond Mine that had a weaker variant of the "Frozen Assets exploit".
RTG have always maintained that the games were discontinued because they were "unpopular", but it was not the PLAYERS who considered them unpopular, it was the CASINOS - many players LOVED them:D

Can you explain to me how a slotgame that is supposed to be truly random can have any exploitable weaknesses in it?
I really dont get that.:confused:
The games have been pulled anyway, so it doesn't really matter anymore if we know, does it?

If it comes to AWP slots I can understand, as those are not random, but normal slotgames obey the RNG, which is supposed to be truly random and cannot be manipulated or predicted in any way.:confused:
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Can you explain to me how a slotgame that is supposed to be truly random can have any exploitable weaknesses in it?
I really dont get that.:confused:
The games have been pulled anyway, so it doesn't really matter anymore if we know, does it?

If it comes to AWP slots I can understand, as those are not random, but normal slotgames obey the RNG, which is supposed to be truly random and cannot be manipulated or predicted in any way.:confused:

The weakness was that the bonus round was triggered by accumulating snowflakes during play. Once a certain number had been collected, the bonus game was triggered. This could be exploited by players because they had a degree of control over when the bonus game would be triggered, and this meant they could trigger it more or less on demand, such as when they had already met WR, or later on a deposit without a bonus.

I know of no current RTG game that has this weakness. RTG even thought of this when the "feature guarantee" games were created, and implemented a way to prevent a similar exploit from working. Hence, this can be ruled out as the reason for CWC closing the OP's account.
 

Larsenne

Dormant account
PABnononaccred2
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Location
World Citizen
Well, the rep said it wasn't about winning, but HOW the win was made. It just seems that increasing the stake when winning, and lowering it when losing, is what CWC consider as "abusive playing strategy", and a pretty SERIOUS one at that, since I was merely given a bonus ban, yet the OP had their account closed altogether.

It was clearly far more serious than MY strategy.

Yes, the terms HAVE been updated, and a number of weaknesses have been addressed. I can only presume that the OP inadvertently stumbled on a new weakness, CWC considered that this was used knowingly to exploit the account, and could NOT be dealt with merely by a bonus ban.

CWC are certain the OP knows damn well what they did, but as a new exploit, it isn't covered in the terms and conditions - hence, the OP didn't break any terms, BUT they took advantage of a weakness in the system that CWC considered gave them an unfair advantage over the casino that meant the casino could never make a proft from them over the long term, even if they played without bonuses.

Clearly, they do NOT want to mention what this weakness is until they have found a way to plug it, either through a software update, or a change in the terms.

It would not be the FIRST time this has happened either. It happened in 2006 on Microgaming software, and publicly the casinos were quoting "illegitimate play" and confiscating winnings left, right, and centre. No terms were broken, and players who complained got a decision in their favour. The casinos refused to tell even Max or Bryan what had REALLY been going on, and in the end paid players who had discovered the weakness, but not actually broken any of the rules.

I was intrieged, and started investigating what could have been going on. I got a couple of anonymous tip-offs, and eventually discovered what had REALLY happened. I later told Max about it, and he confirmed that he was never given this information when the cases were being dealt with, even though it could have saved the casinos from having to pay out because of "malfunction voids play" rules. This particular weakness actually worked BETTER if players didn't take a bonus.

The "mad hatter" Casinojack told me in London that there were similar weaknesses in two of the Real Series slots with RTG, and that some casinos had found this out, and didn't feature the games.

The RTG classic slot "Frozen Assets" was pulled RTG wide because it too had a neat little exploit within it, along with a number of other classic slots like Diamond Mine that had a weaker variant of the "Frozen Assets exploit".
RTG have always maintained that the games were discontinued because they were "unpopular", but it was not the PLAYERS who considered them unpopular, it was the CASINOS - many players LOVED them:D

To the OP - you have clearly stumbled on some kind of strategy that makes you unpopular with the casinos, but you don't seem to realise what you have found, and you just think you have been very lucky.

Have you been particularly lucky on certain slot games, and then carried on going back to them using the same strategy because you now feel this is the best way to play them?

This is so confusing for me. I have not figured out a system. I play slots, the ones I think is fun. Always reel series slots, because the random jackpots can be triggered if your are lucky. If I win a try a little higher, but I don't have a pattern to follow.
Sometimes I play in automatic mode, sometimes I play by hand. Sometimes I take bonus, sometimes I dont.
I have loved playing slots since I was 15, playing those Bally Machines at the resaturants.
I have obviuosly stumbled in to someting I really don't understand. I thought I was lucky this year.
My favourite machines are the reel slots. T-rex, Paydirt, Crystal Waters, Rain Dance, Tiger Treasures, Big Shot and some more I don't remember the name on just now. If one doesn't pay, I move to another.
I cant see what is wrong with that? If one of those give me several features, I stay with that, till it stops giving features. If I start to loose on a machine, I move on to another. That is normal behaviour. All players do that. What player stays by a machine that feels "cold"? I have spent money in the casinos since 2009, and when I have a winning streak it is about strategies, and closed account(. I can't remember any reviews about my account for unormal losses, when I do not even get 97 % payback, that is everage.)
This makes me think to go back to our landbased casinos. I won a big win there 2008. They contratulated me and I was offered a glass of champagne. They didn't kick me out and treated me like a cheater. I do not bother about this. A normal nice occation of winning has been transformed to a nightmare. I drop it. It just make me negative. I hope nobody gets treated as I have been.


Regards

L'arsenne
 
Last edited:
Top