Baptism by Fire - success Wintingo

[dunover]

We have no such term on Wintingo, its purely 4k maximum each week, excluding progressive jackpots.

I'm almost falling about laughing at this reply. You glibly post it and in fact it's even WORSE than lucky247's - at least they have to hit the casino for 5x or more lifetime deposits before imposing the 4k weekly limit - you impose it routinely!

No-one doubts you had the winner, there's no reason for you to make it up and face this nonsense of looking small-time pretenders in the casino world by not paying the person more than 4k a week.

All this has achieved for Wintingo so far is a great bloody stonking statement in bold letters:

"HI ROLLER? THEN DON'T PLAY HERE!! WE CAN TAKE THE HIGH DEPOSITS INSTANTLY BUT NOT PAY THE WINNINGS IN A SIMILAR MANNER. PLEASE GO TO LADBROKES OR 32RED"

How much has he been paid thus far? Is he being bombarded with 'special bonus for reversal' offers? Mmmmmm..

 

[Mouche12]

Yes, the "excluding progressives" bit does not extend to big wins like the high roller from the Netherlands (betting $100 a spin). So, he will get paid +100K over a period of more than 25 weeks... Man, he must be pissed!

 

[Pontus]

You really have to change your T&C's. I actually find it frivolous right now.

 

[wintingo]

have you paid the guy/girl all there money or is it being paid at 4k per week ?, also why would there be a full audit because someone won a 100k plus ? im thinking the software is bullit proof cant be tampered so why a audit ? ? ?

Yes, we have paid the player a significant amount of the winnings already. The audit is done by MGS automatically, we did not request it so i cant comment as to why its done but i can only assume because its a large amount.

 

[wintingo]

I'm almost falling about laughing at this reply. You glibly post it and in fact it's even WORSE than lucky247's - at least they have to hit the casino for 5x or more lifetime deposits before imposing the 4k weekly limit - you impose it routinely!

No-one doubts you had the winner, there's no reason for you to make it up and face this nonsense of looking small-time pretenders in the casino world by not paying the person more than 4k a week.

All this has achieved for Wintingo so far is a great bloody stonking statement in bold letters:

"HI ROLLER? THEN DON'T PLAY HERE!! WE CAN TAKE THE HIGH DEPOSITS INSTANTLY BUT NOT PAY THE WINNINGS IN A SIMILAR MANNER. PLEASE GO TO LADBROKES OR 32RED"

How much has he been paid thus far? Is he being bombarded with 'special bonus for reversal' offers? Mmmmmm..

Ok, lets put this issue to rest if possible, below is a copy of a private message i had sent Bryan on the 17th July regarding this big win and the press release we sent out. I have removed some names and personal info where necessary, apart from that, its word for word.

"Just so you know (and please keep this private), we are not obliged, and neither is the winning player, to release to the public how we/they choose to receive their winnings and what they do with their winnings. In terms of paying the player, our terms and conditions follow an industry accepted guideline of a set amount every week (excludes progressive winnings which are paid in one lump sum) until the funds are completely paid in full. In most countries around the world, the same rule applies to national lotteries.

Our terms are way above or at least equal to the the current industry standard, especially when compared to operators much larger then us i.e. a large portion of ------ brands, -----, ------, ------ and countless others. These are all huge operators within our industry and i'm sure you have seen can in many instances dictate how the industry and operators treat or mistreat their customers.

Wintingo is a small and dedicated outfit, trying to do right by players because we believe that our boutique approach is the only thing that can set us apart from the competitors listed above. This is illustrated by our unique Cashpay program which a number of your well known members have agreed is ingenious and good for customers. Our results and customer feedback show us that our approach works.

We took the decision to break our own terms and reach a much more rewarding (for the player) payment plan. The player hit the win on the 10th July, considering there was a weekend soon after, we did the full KYC process, got confirmation from microgaming about the win, got sign off from the IOM for AML laws and we paid the player 50k of his winnings, which he already received earlier this morning into his bank account. The balance of his winnings will be paid in increments of 10k every week. This was agreed with the player in writing and the player is extremely appreciative of this.

We are in no way forcing the player to reverse or coercing him in anyway. We did not put words in his mouth and tell him what to say in the questionnaire, there is a specific reason why i decided to post these questions and the info on CM forum as its much more legitimate then putting this info on our own website"

Now, i will admit that we should have paid more attention to the wording of the original press release and made it much clearer that the player was not paid in full yet and to also include what the players original bet amount was. This was an error on our side and will make sure it wont happen again next time.

 

[mattsgame]

I can see why Wintingo is getting some heat here, but they are not the only casino to have max withdrawal limits although I will say most of the ones that do are a lot more generous than 4k. By having these limits you would think most high rollers would take there cash and run once they found out.

This is one of my pet peeves with this industry. If you are going to limit what a player can withdraw then you should be limiting what a player can deposit and you most definitely should not be excepting bets of $300 ($30 is pushing it) a spin if you have such limits.

If you have cashout limits it looks as though you have cash flow problems and is mind boggling why you would think offering people $300 a spin is a good idea (do you know what the win potential could be?). But then again someone betting $300 a spin (and losing) is keeping the cash flowing to pay out those other winners of their 4k a week. This gives the perception of greed in my eyes, hey you can lose what ever you like but don't expect us to pay you out straight away.

 

[mattsgame]

Our terms are way above or at least equal to the the current industry standard, especially when compared to operators much larger then us i.e. a large portion of ------ brands, -----, ------, ------ and countless others. These are all huge operators within our industry and i'm sure you have seen can in many instances dictate how the industry and operators treat or mistreat their customers.

This line annoys me so much, I have seen casinos spin it before. "Our terms are like 20 other casinos" or "Our terms are within industry standards" and so on. You follow the pack and you do not stand out and that's why the best of the best do stand out and have players flocking to them.

 

[aceking123]

Yes, we have paid the player a significant amount of the winnings already. The audit is done by MGS automatically, we did not request it so i cant comment as to why its done but i can only assume because its a large amount.

To be honest & as some other forum members have pointed out , this term should be struck off away from CM here its a side step for a fair ammount of casinos allowing them to take the pi$$ with large withdrawals

great that youve coughed up 50k ,this does show a goodwill gesture ,but to be honest i wouldnt be that happy as a player if i was depositing & playing 300 quid a spin i would be looking for a full payment i would hate to think how much went in before he got this hit

the ( metlax ) guy in winner screen shot the other had two monster hits on thai paradise & another game im recalling the guy was paid in full this is a playtech casino they dont have such a good rep as micro gaming ( although ive never had any problems ) so why is it they can pay in full & some mg sites cant ? ? it cannot be just cash flow , any casino should have the funds to cover all large bets if your or any other casino cant pay out a win of a 100k plus in one go they shouldnt be taking any bets over 25 quid per spins as its clear they cant pay in one .

 

[skiny]

Personally, I think it's entirely up to any casino how much they're willing to pay out each week as long as they make it obvious in the terms and conditions. Anyone who can afford to spin 300 bucks a pop on a slot game must be at least intelligent enough to understand the sentence "4k per week." They must know it'll take 25 weeks to get their money if they win 100k.

If someone's going to place 300 dollar wagers they should have enough sense to find a casino that's going to honor their winnings in a shorter time span. It's not like the casino is refusing to pay. They're doing exactly what they said they'll do and exactly what the player agreed to before he started spinning.

 

[aceking123]

Personally, I think it's entirely up to any casino how much they're willing to pay out each week as long as they make it obvious in the terms and conditions. Anyone who can afford to spin 300 bucks a pop on a slot game must be at least intelligent enough to understand the sentence "4k per week." They must know it'll take 25 weeks to get their money if they win 100k.

If someone's going to place 300 dollar wagers they should have enough sense to find a casino that's going to honor their winnings in a shorter time span. It's not like the casino is refusing to pay. They're doing exactly what they said they'll do and exactly what the player agreed to before he started spinning.

you make a valid point , but i cant agree to weekly max payment or is it more likely that a select few of mg casinos are truely under funded

 

[dunover]

Ok, lets put this issue to rest if possible, below is a copy of a private message i had sent Bryan on the 17th July regarding this big win and the press release we sent out. I have removed some names and personal info where necessary, apart from that, its word for word.

"Just so you know (and please keep this private), we are not obliged, and neither is the winning player, to release to the public how we/they choose to receive their winnings and what they do with their winnings. In terms of paying the player, our terms and conditions follow an industry accepted guideline of a set amount every week (excludes progressive winnings which are paid in one lump sum) until the funds are completely paid in full. In most countries around the world, the same rule applies to national lotteries.

Our terms are way above or at least equal to the the current industry standard, especially when compared to operators much larger then us i.e. a large portion of ------ brands, -----, ------, ------ and countless others. These are all huge operators within our industry and i'm sure you have seen can in many instances dictate how the industry and operators treat or mistreat their customers.

Wintingo is a small and dedicated outfit, trying to do right by players because we believe that our boutique approach is the only thing that can set us apart from the competitors listed above. This is illustrated by our unique Cashpay program which a number of your well known members have agreed is ingenious and good for customers. Our results and customer feedback show us that our approach works.

We took the decision to break our own terms and reach a much more rewarding (for the player) payment plan. The player hit the win on the 10th July, considering there was a weekend soon after, we did the full KYC process, got confirmation from microgaming about the win, got sign off from the IOM for AML laws and we paid the player 50k of his winnings, which he already received earlier this morning into his bank account. The balance of his winnings will be paid in increments of 10k every week. This was agreed with the player in writing and the player is extremely appreciative of this.

We are in no way forcing the player to reverse or coercing him in anyway. We did not put words in his mouth and tell him what to say in the questionnaire, there is a specific reason why i decided to post these questions and the info on CM forum as its much more legitimate then putting this info on our own website"

Now, i will admit that we should have paid more attention to the wording of the original press release and made it much clearer that the player was not paid in full yet and to also include what the players original bet amount was. This was an error on our side and will make sure it wont happen again next time.

Yes, you did shoot yourselves in the foot with the original wording. I also accept Skiny's POV that it was daft of the player to deposit there WITHOUT checking the terms properly, which I agree he can't have done if he was playing 300 a spin. So, yes I suppose the player would be happy with your proposal, and in your words being a 'small boutique outfit' SURELY it would be disingenuous of you not to reduce your max stakes on games accordingly and commensurately with your weekly payout limits.
Thanks for filling is in here, no-one is suggesting Wintingo are crooked or don't pay, I know you pay from personal experience - BUT you can't have your cake and eat it. You and all these sites that impose this limit should be fair and reduce your max stakes to limit the likelihood of a player becoming the victim of the limit, and indeed of you taking another 6-figure hit.

 

[skiny]

you make a valid point , but i cant agree to weekly max payment or is it more likely that a select few of mg casinos are truely under funded

I agree the wager limits aren't really proportional to the withdraw limits but it's probably better than not setting these withdrawal limits and then finding out later they don't have the credit to cover a huge hit or even worse 3 or 4 huge hits in one week.

Then they'll be making excuses later why they can't pay instead of being realistic with their limitations in advance.

It's not an unreasonable term. It's just not a term that high rollers are going to be happy with. My experience with Microgaming casinos is that I'm lucky if I see 40 dollars over my deposit. I'd be more than happy to be waiting a second week for my next 4k withdrawal.

Maybe next year they can double it. Maybe 5 years from now they can remove it. There's too many casinos out there being completely irresponsible. I just don't feel right cracking down on this one for doing the opposite.

 

[dunover]

I agree the wager limits aren't really proportional to the withdraw limits but it's probably better than not setting these withdrawal limits and then finding out later they don't have the credit to cover a huge hit or even worse 3 or 4 huge hits in one week.

Then they'll be making excuses later why they can't pay instead of being realistic with their limitations in advance.

It's not an unreasonable term. It's just not a term that high rollers are going to be happy with. My experience with Microgaming casinos is that I'm lucky if I see 40 dollars over my deposit. I'd be more than happy to be waiting a second week for my next 4k withdrawal.

Maybe next year they can double it. Maybe 5 years from now they can remove it. There's too many casinos out there being completely irresponsible. I just don't feel right cracking down on this one for doing the opposite.

Yes, it's not illogical what they do, but as you say they should make it clearer in their terms that for example 'due to our 4k weekly payout limit, should you be placing large bets that significantly increase the chances of payout(s) in excess of this amount, be aware total payment of winnings may not be to our usual timescale'.

I think many players are nervous when they see these limits because the payment of their winnings may depend on the longevity of the casino itself over many months, and of course RedRabbit/Purple Lounge would have failed to complete the instalments. Then the very limit itself suggests to some that the casino may not be well funded and therefore is at an increased risk of insolvency if a player hits big.

 

[wintingo]

Yes, it's not illogical what they do, but as you say they should make it clearer in their terms that for example 'due to our 4k weekly payout limit, should you be placing large bets that significantly increase the chances of payout(s) in excess of this amount, be aware total payment of winnings may not be to our usual timescale'.

I think many players are nervous when they see these limits because the payment of their winnings may depend on the longevity of the casino itself over many months, and of course RedRabbit/Purple Lounge would have failed to complete the instalments. Then the very limit itself suggests to some that the casino may not be well funded and therefore is at an increased risk of insolvency if a player hits big.

I hear what you are saying here and its a valid point. For example, look at the past issues with Fulltiltpoker and their "ponzy scheme" under their license in Alderney. Since this whole thing broke, as far as we see, majority of the top tier licensing jurisdictions are putting very strict measures in place to avoid this from every happening again. I'm sure most operators see this. Obviously, its a good thing for players and the industry as a whole.

In terms of wintingo players, I would like to clarify that player balances AND player liability (unpaid-winnings), regardless of when the customer receives their winnings i.e. whether its paid in one lump sum or its paid in weekly installments, the entire amount needs to be kept and secured in a completely segregated account and Wintingo management and directors cannot under any circumstances access these funds. This falls under rules and regulations of our Isle of Man license and therefore assures players that no matter what happens to Wintingo as a business, players funds are always protected.

With regards to changing the max bet sizes in order to be more inline with our current weekly withdrawal limit, i'm waiting for conformation from MGS but i don't think its actually possible in the Quickfire environment, its very much standardised across the board across all operators however i put the question forward. Maybe other quickfire operators on CM can comment on this? Apart from this, we admit that we will review the current weekly withdrawal limits and come up with a better alternative.

 

[skiny]

I hear what you are saying here and its a valid point. For example, look at the past issues with Fulltiltpoker and their "ponzy scheme" under their license in Alderney. Since this whole thing broke, as far as we see, majority of the top tier licensing jurisdictions are putting very strict measures in place to avoid this from every happening again. I'm sure most operators see this. Obviously, its a good thing for players and the industry as a whole.

In terms of wintingo players, I would like to clarify that player balances AND player liability (unpaid-winnings), regardless of when the customer receives their winnings i.e. whether its paid in one lump sum or its paid in weekly installments, the entire amount needs to be kept and secured in a completely segregated account and Wintingo management and directors cannot under any circumstances access these funds. This falls under rules and regulations of our Isle of Man license and therefore assures players that no matter what happens to Wintingo as a business, players funds are always protected.

With regards to changing the max bet sizes in order to be more inline with our current weekly withdrawal limit, i'm waiting for conformation from MGS but i don't think its actually possible in the Quickfire environment, its very much standardised across the board across all operators however i put the question forward. Maybe other quickfire operators on CM can comment on this? Apart from this, we admit that we will review the current weekly withdrawal limits and come up with a better alternative.

So if I win a hundred thousand you have the money sitting in an account somewhere that you can't touch but still you bleed it out to me in small installments? What's the point? Other than earning interest on my money why do you hold it? And for that matter, do I get the interest you earned on it when you're done holding it?

 

[vinylweatherman]

I hear what you are saying here and its a valid point. For example, look at the past issues with Fulltiltpoker and their "ponzy scheme" under their license in Alderney. Since this whole thing broke, as far as we see, majority of the top tier licensing jurisdictions are putting very strict measures in place to avoid this from every happening again. I'm sure most operators see this. Obviously, its a good thing for players and the industry as a whole.

In terms of wintingo players, I would like to clarify that player balances AND player liability (unpaid-winnings), regardless of when the customer receives their winnings i.e. whether its paid in one lump sum or its paid in weekly installments, the entire amount needs to be kept and secured in a completely segregated account and Wintingo management and directors cannot under any circumstances access these funds. This falls under rules and regulations of our Isle of Man license and therefore assures players that no matter what happens to Wintingo as a business, players funds are always protected.

With regards to changing the max bet sizes in order to be more inline with our current weekly withdrawal limit, i'm waiting for conformation from MGS but i don't think its actually possible in the Quickfire environment, its very much standardised across the board across all operators however i put the question forward. Maybe other quickfire operators on CM can comment on this? Apart from this, we admit that we will review the current weekly withdrawal limits and come up with a better alternative.

I have had some pretty big wins, £52K at 32Red and £66K at Lucky Nugget. Unlike the scenario at Wintingo, the "industry standard" as far as my experience has gone has been a weekly limit of £52K at 32Red and £66K at Lucky Nugget.

Were I to "empty a fruitie" at Wintingo, I would get an atypical experience of receiving £4000 per week. The regular "empty" can be between £10K and £25K, the rare exception is higher. I would be repeatedly falling foul of "instalment schemes" were Wintingo to suffer the extraordinarily bad luck of me emptying each of their fruities.

One CAN "deposit in instalments" though, just deposit and bet lower according to the weekly limits. High rolling can be done at casinos without such limits.

Having this limit seen as "standard" at Flash based casinos, and very rare at download casinos, leads to the impression that the Flash casinos are less well funded than the download casinos.

There is also a big problem with this statement:-

In terms of wintingo players, I would like to clarify that player balances AND player liability (unpaid-winnings), regardless of when the customer receives their winnings i.e. whether its paid in one lump sum or its paid in weekly installments, the entire amount needs to be kept and secured in a completely segregated account and Wintingo management and directors cannot under any circumstances access these funds. This falls under rules and regulations of our Isle of Man license and therefore assures players that no matter what happens to Wintingo as a business, players funds are always protected.

The rules for securing players' funds are the same at the LGA (Malta), but this didn't protect Purple Lounge players, nor the players of a number of LGA licensed operations that went bust in the past taking players' money with them. Even now, there is yet another LGA licensed operation (a niche one) that is in the process of going bust and taking players' funds with them. Players can see that the LGA just don't learn from past mistakes.

Even the more highly respected Alderney authorities dropped the ball over Full Tilt, and then demonstrated that it was the operators, not themselves, that really call the shots when they broke their own rules to hold their inquiry in private after pressure from investors, and despite pressure from PLAYERS for a proper public inquiry.

How can we trust 100% that the IOM is unique in that such a disaster would be "impossible" under their regime.

It's unfortunate, but so many other jurisdictions and operators have shafted players over this that the trust is all but gone. This would make players nervous about any long term instalment plan unless the casino gave the player cast iron proof, such as a purchased annuity to cover the payments, or a verifiable independent insurance policy guaranteeing the win will be paid no matter what happens to the operator.

What WILL bring back the trust is for an IOM based operator to go bust, and then players seeing the IOM regulators stepping in and making sure all player balances are paid from the segregated accounts right away.

 

[wintingo]

I have had some pretty big wins, £52K at 32Red and £66K at Lucky Nugget. Unlike the scenario at Wintingo, the "industry standard" as far as my experience has gone has been a weekly limit of £52K at 32Red and £66K at Lucky Nugget.

Were I to "empty a fruitie" at Wintingo, I would get an atypical experience of receiving £4000 per week. The regular "empty" can be between £10K and £25K, the rare exception is higher. I would be repeatedly falling foul of "instalment schemes" were Wintingo to suffer the extraordinarily bad luck of me emptying each of their fruities.

One CAN "deposit in instalments" though, just deposit and bet lower according to the weekly limits. High rolling can be done at casinos without such limits.

Having this limit seen as "standard" at Flash based casinos, and very rare at download casinos, leads to the impression that the Flash casinos are less well funded than the download casinos.

There is also a big problem with this statement:-



The rules for securing players' funds are the same at the LGA (Malta), but this didn't protect Purple Lounge players, nor the players of a number of LGA licensed operations that went bust in the past taking players' money with them. Even now, there is yet another LGA licensed operation (a niche one) that is in the process of going bust and taking players' funds with them. Players can see that the LGA just don't learn from past mistakes.

Even the more highly respected Alderney authorities dropped the ball over Full Tilt, and then demonstrated that it was the operators, not themselves, that really call the shots when they broke their own rules to hold their inquiry in private after pressure from investors, and despite pressure from PLAYERS for a proper public inquiry.

How can we trust 100% that the IOM is unique in that such a disaster would be "impossible" under their regime.

It's unfortunate, but so many other jurisdictions and operators have shafted players over this that the trust is all but gone. This would make players nervous about any long term instalment plan unless the casino gave the player cast iron proof, such as a purchased annuity to cover the payments, or a verifiable independent insurance policy guaranteeing the win will be paid no matter what happens to the operator.

What WILL bring back the trust is for an IOM based operator to go bust, and then players seeing the IOM regulators stepping in and making sure all player balances are paid from the segregated accounts right away.

IMO the LGA have proven on numerous occasions that they are not abiding by their stated mandate. The Isle of Man is a different proposition all together, time will tell of course, if and when an IOM operator goes bust. (note: i haven't done actual in depth research into whether an IOM operator has gone bust, i just haven't heard of one in the last 5 years)

 

[Andy Walker]

IMO the LGA have proven on numerous occasions that they are not abiding by their stated mandate. The Isle of Man is a different proposition all together, time will tell of course, if and when an IOM operator goes bust. (note: i haven't done actual in depth research into whether an IOM operator has gone bust, i just haven't heard of one in the last 5 years)

Not exactly a reassuring answer but then again banks have clauses that limit their liability in the event of a financial meltdown, so I suppose nothing is set in stone.

 

[wintingo]

Having this limit seen as "standard" at Flash based casinos, and very rare at download casinos, leads to the impression that the Flash casinos are less well funded than the download casinos.

There are MANY download casinos that have withdrawal restrictions in place. Many of them are also accredited CM casinos such as your earlier examples of Lucky nugget and 32red. As you mention, it was "your" personal experience so therefore it seems to be discretionary at many casinos. At Wintingo, we also took a discretionary approach and we paid 50k up front and 10k weekly instead of 4k weekly. I believe we do need to update our terms to reflect its discretionary nature.

Lucky Nugget terms state:

Players who withdraw a sum of money that is 5 times or more greater than their lifetime deposits across the Casino Group will liable for detailed game and play review and only be able to withdraw their winnings at a sum of €4,000 per week. The remaining amount will be placed back in the player's account until such time that they are eligible for a further withdrawal. This clause will only be applied at the discretion of casino management. All progressive wins are exempt from this clause

32red terms have an interesting restriction:

The maximum payout for any one 24-hour period for any one customer is £120,000 in the casino and £100,000 on the poker network. The daily maximum payout in the casino excludes winnings on 32Red's progressive casino games, payouts of which are governed by the Jackpot amount.

 

[dunover]

There are MANY download casinos that have withdrawal restrictions in place. Many of them are also accredited CM casinos such as your earlier examples of Lucky nugget and 32red. As you mention, it was "your" personal experience so therefore it seems to be discretionary at many casinos. At Wintingo, we also took a discretionary approach and we paid 50k up front and 10k weekly instead of 4k weekly. I believe we do need to update our terms to reflect its discretionary nature.

Lucky Nugget terms state:



32red terms have an interesting restriction:

I think 120k at 32red per day is a ridiculous comparison to 4k per week. Come on!!

 

[PaaskeDenmark]

I think 120k at 32red per day is a ridiculous comparison to 4k per week. Come on!!

If I was doing £100 a spin at 32RED and made a win over £1,000,000 then I think I would be able to live with "only" getting £120K a day

 

[albrco123]

I hear what you are saying here and its a valid point. For example, look at the past issues with Fulltiltpoker and their "ponzy scheme" under their license in Alderney. Since this whole thing broke, as far as we see, majority of the top tier licensing jurisdictions are putting very strict measures in place to avoid this from every happening again. I'm sure most operators see this. Obviously, its a good thing for players and the industry as a whole.

In terms of wintingo players, I would like to clarify that player balances AND player liability (unpaid-winnings), regardless of when the customer receives their winnings i.e. whether its paid in one lump sum or its paid in weekly installments, the entire amount needs to be kept and secured in a completely segregated account and Wintingo management and directors cannot under any circumstances access these funds. This falls under rules and regulations of our Isle of Man license and therefore assures players that no matter what happens to Wintingo as a business, players funds are always protected.

With regards to changing the max bet sizes in order to be more inline with our current weekly withdrawal limit, i'm waiting for conformation from MGS but i don't think its actually possible in the Quickfire environment, its very much standardised across the board across all operators however i put the question forward. Maybe other quickfire operators on CM can comment on this? Apart from this, we admit that we will review the current weekly withdrawal limits and come up with a better alternative.

JMO when a bet/gamble is made and lost the money lost becomes the property of the Casino, conversely once a bet/gamble has been made and won the winnings no longer belongs to the Casino it becomes the property of the player, so while keeping player funds protected in a separate account may be admirable it is totally pointless, why hang on to money that is no longer yours, give it to it's rightful owner, they will probably be back spending it in no time.

Al

 

[chuchu59]

Having gone through the recent posts I think the thread title is appropriate. I would suggest running the BOF process all over again.

 

[wintingo]

Having gone through the recent posts I think the thread title is appropriate. I would suggest running the BOF process all over again.

If need be, we have no problem with this and we welcome any constructive feedback and suggested improvements. I will wait to hear from CM regarding this.

 

[wintingo]

I think 120k at 32red per day is a ridiculous comparison to 4k per week. Come on!!

Relax max, it was not a comparison, just a mere observation!

 

[aceking123]

Relax max, it was not a comparison, just a mere observation!

hi one not have a 25k limit as a starting bench , with your casino that can waiver this at any point ?

no forum members have suggested your casinos is bad at all , weve all just pointed out that you could up your limits , most of do understand you have limits for your reasons but it would be better to be able to start with 25k as your taking heavy bets so why not put it to your board about a upgrade

 

[skiny]

Having gone through the recent posts I think the thread title is appropriate. I would suggest running the BOF process all over again.

I'm not sure why. I went to the Wintingo website and it took me literally 3 seconds to find this term.

"You agree that the maximum amount that You may cash out per week is equal to 4,000 (four thousand) units, of any currency the Company provides the Services with. For customers playing in Swedish Krona or Norwegian Krone, the maximum withdrawal value per week is 20,000 credits."

One mouse click on the front page and I scrolled down. It was pretty obvious and right under the large bolded words "Cashouts." ( Which should be two words, by the way. )

Realistically, it's probably only a term that high rollers would have an issue with and something they can clearly see and have to agree to before they start playing.

I think the biggest issues are with casinos with vague terms or with casinos breaking their own terms. If a casino makes it quite clear what the rules are before you start playing and abides by them when you win, how are they being unfair? This term was extremely easy to find and very clear in it's description.

The only thing I see that should be added before this statement is "With the exception of progressive jackpots...." These need to be paid in full and according to this thread they are.

I don't think it's up to us to dictate each casino's payment schedule. I'd be more concerned with casinos who are refusing to pay or using stall tactics to delay payments beyond what was agreed upon at sign up.

The only reason I've never played at this casino is that I can't download a flash version. 4k per week doesn't really effect me since I haven't withdrew 4k from all Microgaming casinos combined in the last 10 years.

 

[dionysus]

Cheers skiny. I've been looking at the thread and wan't sure why the casino is getting such a hard time - I haven't seen any actual complaints (that I'm aware of). The winner in question hasn't come to bitch. If the max cash-out isn't to your liking, and you're looking for that big win, then maybe the casino isnt ideal. For low-rollers like me, at the bet size I play, not only would I be unlikely to see a 4k win, even if it surpassed it, I wouldn't care if it took 2 weeks to pay it out.
I don't see why bof should be reset - the rep has been in faithfully answering questions, and the issues are theoretical to date it seems.

 

[Mouche12]

QTE: In terms of wintingo players, I would like to clarify that player balances AND player liability (unpaid-winnings), regardless of when the customer receives their winnings i.e. whether its paid in one lump sum or its paid in weekly installments, the entire amount needs to be kept and secured in a completely segregated account and Wintingo management and directors cannot under any circumstances access these funds. This falls under rules and regulations of our Isle of Man license and therefore assures players that no matter what happens to Wintingo as a business, players funds are always protected.
UNQTE

I still don't understand. If player funds are kept in a segregated account, why impose a 4K limit a week for all cash outs? I can live with, for instance, a 10K max cash out at Betrockit when playing the first-deposit bonus. But when I deposit 500 to 1000 per month (not that much compared to what a high-roller may deposit), I will definitely not choose Wintingo in view of this restriction. I would suggest you up the limit or remove this term altogether.

As far as we know, the Dutch player has not come forward about this 4K restriction, but how can we know for sure?

 

[chuchu59]

QTE: In terms of wintingo players, I would like to clarify that player balances AND player liability (unpaid-winnings), regardless of when the customer receives their winnings i.e. whether its paid in one lump sum or its paid in weekly installments, the entire amount needs to be kept and secured in a completely segregated account and Wintingo management and directors cannot under any circumstances access these funds. This falls under rules and regulations of our Isle of Man license and therefore assures players that no matter what happens to Wintingo as a business, players funds are always protected.
UNQTE

I still don't understand. If player funds are kept in a segregated account, why impose a 4K limit a week for all cash outs? I can live with, for instance, a 10K max cash out at Betrockit when playing the first-deposit bonus. But when I deposit 500 to 1000 per month (not that much compared to what a high-roller may deposit), I will definitely not choose Wintingo in view of this restriction. I would suggest you up the limit or remove this term altogether.

As far as we know, the Dutch player has not come forward about this 4K restriction, but how can we know for sure?

That is BS from the casino. The funds are said to be secure and protected but its not Fort Knox where actual gold taels are stored. Its just secured on paper and the casino uses the money for its cashflow.

 

[albrco123]

I would really like to hear from a Casino reps point of view the reasoning behind placing a players winnings in a segregated account and giving it to them a few thousand at a time vs just giving the players money straight to the player, this is not aimed specifically at Wintingo (just happens this is the first thread i have read where the Casino admits to this practice) but to all casinos that operate this way, maybe there is a logical business reasoning behind this that we are all missing, i accept that they can as long as it is in the T&C's just would like to know why they would?

With the exception of Major Progressives that we all know are handled differently, can you imagine the furor if a High Roller hit big on the $100 or hgher slots at a Vegas Casino and was told "Congratulations now we will keep it safe for you and send you a few thousand each week".

Al

 

[skiny]

I would really like to hear from a Casino reps point of view the reasoning behind placing a players winnings in a segregated account and giving it to them a few thousand at a time vs just giving the players money straight to the player, this is not aimed specifically at Wintingo (just happens this is the first thread i have read where the Casino admits to this practice) but to all casinos that operate this way, maybe there is a logical business reasoning behind this that we are all missing, i accept that they can as long as it is in the T&C's just would like to know why they would?

With the exception of Major Progressives that we all know are handled differently, can you imagine the furor if a High Roller hit big on the $100 or hgher slots at a Vegas Casino and was told "Congratulations now we will keep it safe for you and send you a few thousand each week".

Al

Well, if a high roller walked into a Vegas casino and was told at the door "4k per week, max" and then proceeded to spin off 100 dollar spins, I don't see where the casino is really to blame for this. It really does come down to a matter of choice. If you're a high roller you're better off not playing here. If you wager high enough that a higher than 4k win is likely why are you playing where there are withdrawal limits clearly stated at sign up?

If you want to go out and get drunk you don't head off to some bar with a two drink maximum and then argue with the bartender that the rules should be changed. You walk across the street where you can drink till your liver bursts and nobody cares. It's a choice.

I'm curious as to why this casino feels the need to hold your money since we're told they obviously have it and are just not willing to give it all at once but I'm not terribly concerned about it because if I ever got rich and started betting high enough for it to matter I'd do it where it wasn't an issue.

As for the BOF issue, I think there are bigger issues for people to worry about than terms and conditions that are clearly written and easily understood that you have to agree to before you place your first bet.

 

[Mouche12]

Terms clearly written and easily understood? Yes, fully agree. But whether this particular term is fair under the EU Directives? Mmm, don't know. Also, in my experience, you don't need to be a high-roller per se to exceed the 4K limit. I had several cash outs for higher amounts with a starting balance of $500 or $1000.

 

[skiny]

Terms clearly written and easily understood? Yes, fully agree. But whether this particular term is fair under the EU Directives? Mmm, don't know. Also, in my experience, you don't need to be a high-roller per se to exceed the 4K limit. I had several cash outs for higher amounts with a starting balance of $500 or $1000.

Starting with a balance of 1k is a high roller in my opinion. Why would you start with a balance of 1k when you know the maximum you can withdraw is 4k per week? And we're talking about rules of accreditation for the BOF.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I would really like to hear from a Casino reps point of view the reasoning behind placing a players winnings in a segregated account and giving it to them a few thousand at a time vs just giving the players money straight to the player, this is not aimed specifically at Wintingo (just happens this is the first thread i have read where the Casino admits to this practice) but to all casinos that operate this way, maybe there is a logical business reasoning behind this that we are all missing, i accept that they can as long as it is in the T&C's just would like to know why they would?

With the exception of Major Progressives that we all know are handled differently, can you imagine the furor if a High Roller hit big on the $100 or hgher slots at a Vegas Casino and was told "Congratulations now we will keep it safe for you and send you a few thousand each week".

Al

Whilst the funds are in a segregated account, other than the paltry interest on the money, there is nothing for the casino to gain. However, I suspect that the truth is that it's DEPOSITS that are placed into the segregated accounts, but winnings are NOT placed there in full as soon as they are won. This WOULD make it good business sense to trickle out large wins in smaller chunks so as not to cause a liquidity crunch in the operational accounts that could cause other players' to experience delays in their more modest withdrawals.

It's hard to see winnings being safeguarded this way, as until the win is hit, the money belongs to the casino. When the win IS hit, the money comes from the hold on past play. As it's random, big wins can exceed what the casino has in liquid funds at the time, but that it WILL have as players continue to play, and steadily lose to the house.

Casinos either need access to short term credit with which to pay big winners in full, or use instalment schemes to match payouts to expected income.

A rare run of luck for players could in theory bring down an IOM licensed operator, and not leave enough in the segregated accounts to pay players both their deposits and winnings.

It's cheaper for a casino to impose an instalment scheme than have to pay fees and interest to the banks on short term credit facilities that would enable them to pay in full.

For players, it's the length of the instalment scheme that matters, so by upping these to 50K up front and then 10K per week, this big winner probably has a scheme that is short enough that they don't feel there is much risk in the casino going bust before it's paid.

The problem has been with casinos that have imposed instalment schemes spanning 20 or 30 years to pay a progressive in an industry that is barely half as old itself, and has very few casinos around now that were around 15 years ago. Even where casinos have not gone bust, it's been the player on the long term instalment scheme that has been expected to reduce their payments even further so that the money can be used to save the casino from going under altogether.

5 years is not really a long enough time to consider the IOM to be safer than any other jurisdiction in terms of casinos going bust. Alderney was considered, like the IOM, to be a place where an operator going bust would NOT take players' funds with them, and then along came Full Tilt......

What we need in addition to limits is a guaranteed maximum length of an instalment scheme that big winners will have to endure. What's the longest players would feel comfortable waiting for full payment of a life changing big (non progressive) win?

 

[Nifty29]

Terms clearly written and easily understood? Yes, fully agree. But whether this particular term is fair under the EU Directives? Mmm, don't know. Also, in my experience, you don't need to be a high-roller per se to exceed the 4K limit. I had several cash outs for higher amounts with a starting balance of $500 or $1000.

EU directives are immaterial. As far as online gambling is concerned, they're about as relevant as a "no sex" directive in Ibiza.

If players don't want to wait to be paid via instalments, then they need to either choose a casino that doesn't have them (or has very high limits like 32red), or avoid betting such amounts that might create a situation where instalments might be required I.e. $10+ slot bets etc.

 

[Mouche12]

Starting with a balance of 1k is a high roller in my opinion. Why would you start with a balance of 1k when you know the maximum you can withdraw is 4k per week? And we're talking about rules of accreditation for the BOF.

My point exactly, and I think Wintingo does not deserve to be accredited with this term in place.

 

[Mouche12]

EU directives are immaterial. As far as online gambling is concerned, they're about as relevant as a "no sex" directive in Ibiza.

If players don't want to wait to be paid via instalments, then they need to either choose a casino that doesn't have them (or has very high limits like 32red), or avoid betting such amounts that might create a situation where instalments might be required I.e. $10+ slot bets etc.

Alternatively, Wintingo could have lower bets on their games; allowing players to wager $100 a spin but not being able - or willing - to pay more than 4K a week is not my definition of an accredited casino.

Colourful comparison with the "no sex" directive in Ibiza, but the European Gaming & Betting Association welcomes the proposal for aOld / Expired Link, which will lead to increased transparency and balanced and fair contract terms for the player (among other things). Together with the 2007 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive the new Directive will offer increased protection to European consumers who gamble online.

 

[Nifty29]

Alternatively, Wintingo could have lower bets on their games; allowing players to wager $100 a spin but not being able - or willing - to pay more than 4K a week is not my definition of an accredited casino.

Colourful comparison with the "no sex" directive in Ibiza, but the European Gaming & Betting Association welcomes the proposal for aOld / Expired Link, which will lead to increased transparency and balanced and fair contract terms for the player (among other things). Together with the 2007 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive the new Directive will offer increased protection to European consumers who gamble online.

Oh, I agree totally with the first part mouche. A casino that pays $4k per week has no place offering $300 slot bets IMO. When you think about it, this latest big winner was paid around 150xBET initially, and then 33xBET each week for 8 weeks. Awful. Its like betting $1, winning $450, and being paid $150 upfront and then $33 per week!!

The EU can propose whatever they like, but its not going to offer any protection to those players using operators outside the EU, and quite possibly, very little extra protection in real terms to those actually playing within the EU.

 

[Mouche12]

Oh, I agree totally with the first part mouche. A casino that pays $4k per week has no place offering $300 slot bets IMO. When you think about it, this latest big winner was paid around 150xBET initially, and then 33xBET each week for 8 weeks. Awful. Its like betting $1, winning $450, and being paid $150 upfront and then $33 per week!!

The EU can propose whatever they like, but its not going to offer any protection to those players using operators outside the EU, and quite possibly, very little extra protection in real terms to those actually playing within the EU.

I don't know for sure if a player living in the EU can file a lawsuit against a casino established outside the EU before a European court if he, for instance, wants to challenge one or more unfair terms which turned out to be disadvantageous (confiscation of winnings, delayed payment, weekly payout limits, etc..) I would surely hope so. Any lawyers here at Meister who know more about this?

 

[Nifty29]

I don't know for sure if a player living in the EU can file a lawsuit against a casino established outside the EU before a European court if he, for instance, wants to challenge one or more unfair terms which turned out to be disadvantageous (confiscation of winnings, delayed payment, weekly payout limits, etc..) I would surely hope so. Any lawyers here at Meister who know more about this?

I only know of one lawyer...and no its not VWM

The problem is the cost probably wouldn't be worth it, and the player would probably have to appear in person at some point which means travelling etc. I don't know...I'm not a European legal expert and don't claim to be such. I can only go by what tends to happen over here.

The best regulation is self-regulation. Don't play at clipjoints and you'll be fine 99.9% of the time.

 

[skiny]

I might be the only person here with this opinion but although I agree that the maximum bet size seems grossly disproportionate to the maximum weekly withdrawal limits, it just doesn't seem "unfair" to me.

What does seem strange is that anyone who might think this is unfair would be caught by it. It's probably the easiest term I ever found that related to a forum conversation. It took one click to get to it and it's the first thing listed under the large bolded words "Cashouts."

It's not disadvantageous to people unless they win a fairly large amount of money. And since this term doesn't apply to progressive jackpots, the only way this can happen is to bet a fairly large amount of money. In my opinion anyone who agrees to this term and then proceeds to bet large amounts of money can't blame the casino for the payment schedule that they agreed to when they signed on.

It seems to me that we're trying to dissolve the player's responsibility for their own actions. You have to knowingly follow some pretty clear steps to make this term disadvantageous.

And since we keep claiming this should effect a casino's accreditation standards, should we remove all casinos from the accredited list that have low payment schedules or is this just for Microgaming casinos?

Grande Vegas, 10k per week.
Intertops, 5k per week.
Desert Nights, 2k the first week and then 4k every week after.
Club World, 3k per week.

 

[Mouche12]

I might be the only person here with this opinion but although I agree that the maximum bet size seems grossly disproportionate to the maximum weekly withdrawal limits, it just doesn't seem "unfair" to me.

What does seem strange is that anyone who might think this is unfair would be caught by it. It's probably the easiest term I ever found that related to a forum conversation. It took one click to get to it and it's the first thing listed under the large bolded words "Cashouts."

It's not disadvantageous to people unless they win a fairly large amount of money. And since this term doesn't apply to progressive jackpots, the only way this can happen is to bet a fairly large amount of money. In my opinion anyone who agrees to this term and then proceeds to bet large amounts of money can't blame the casino for the payment schedule that they agreed to when they signed on.

It seems to me that we're trying to dissolve the player's responsibility for their own actions. You have to knowingly follow some pretty clear steps to make this term disadvantageous.

And since we keep claiming this should effect a casino's accreditation standards, should we remove all casinos from the accredited list that have low payment schedules or is this just for Microgaming casinos?

Grande Vegas, 10k per week.
Intertops, 5k per week.
Desert Nights, 2k the first week and then 4k every week after.
Club World, 3k per week.

The casinos mentioned above do not feature slots where the player can wager $100-300 a spin, although this term may be disadvantageous to the very, very few lucky players winning a huge progressive. The term is transparent and easy to find, that is not the issue here. However, I think that in view of this restrictive term Wintingo should also limit the maximum deposit amount and/or adjust the bet sizes on its games.

@Nifty, you remember the $17K at Casino Plex - these kind of amounts would outweigh the costs of filing a law suit IMO.

 

[dionysus]

ok, but if you're someone who can afford to drop 300 bucks a spin, surely youre bright enough to read the max cash out terms...if you dont like the max cash out, why play there? if youre ok with the max cash out, play away

 

[Mouche12]

ok, but if you're someone who can afford to drop 300 bucks a spin, surely youre bright enough to read the max cash out terms...if you dont like the max cash out, why play there? if youre ok with the max cash out, play away

Fair enough, but this Dutch player winning over $100K obviously deposited a very sizable amount. As mentioned earlier: when you plan to deposit $1K or more, avoid this place.

 

[skiny]

The casinos mentioned above do not feature slots where the player can wager $100-300 a spin, although this term may be disadvantageous to the very, very few lucky players winning a huge progressive. The term is transparent and easy to find, that is not the issue here. However, I think that in view of this restrictive term Wintingo should also limit the maximum deposit amount and/or adjust the bet sizes on its games.

@Nifty, you remember the $17K at Casino Plex - these kind of amounts would outweigh the costs of filing a law suit IMO.

The max bet at High Noon per line is 1 dollar. During free spins while playing Crystal Waters 4 turtles with a dolphin and an 8x bonus fish would be 2000 x 2 x 8 on a single line.

32k and this casino has lower weekly withdrawal limits than Wintingo and I just picked this game randomly.

 

[Mouche12]

View attachment 41871

The max bet at High Noon per line is 1 dollar. During free spins while playing Crystal Waters 4 turtles with a dolphin and an 8x bonus fish would be 2000 x 2 x 8 on a single line.

32k and this casino has lower weekly withdrawal limits than Wintingo and I just picked this game randomly.

Yes, but the max bet on that slot is just $20 ($1 per line), which is nowhere near the bet sizes available at Wintingo. Betting $100 a spin you are much more likely to win $32K or more than betting $20 a spin.

 

[skiny]

Yes, but the max bet on that slot is just $20 ($1 per line), which is nowhere near the bet sizes available at Wintingo. Betting $100 a spin you are much more likely to win $32K or more than betting $20 a spin.

So you're saying it's fair because it's less likely that it'll take 3 months to get all your money.

Now we have to determine the likelihood that a withdrawal will take an amount of time that we deem fair and then set the casino's deposit and withdraw limits for them as a rule of accreditation.



Player A is spinning $100 per spin and wins 200x bet at Casino X.
Player B is playing $20 per spin and wins 1000X bet at Casino y.

Both players win 100k but casino X is rogue for allowing the $100 spin because it was more likely that the player could win 100k.

 

[Mouche12]

Rogue is not the proper word here, but IMO Wintingo does not belong in the accredited section because they (obviously) accept $10K+ deposits and feature $100-300 bet sizes on many of their slots while only allowing $4K cash out per week.

Alternatively, they might be included in the accredited section with a warning that there's a $4K withdrawal limit per week.

As mentioned before in this thread, the casino is using player funds for its own cash flow (regardless of those funds being placed in a segregated account).

 

[skiny]

Rogue is not the proper word here, but IMO Wintingo does not belong in the accredited section because they (obviously) accept $10K+ deposits and feature $100-300 bet sizes on many of their slots while only allowing $4K cash out per week.

Alternatively, they might be included in the accredited section with a warning that there's a $4K withdrawal limit per week.

As mentioned before in this thread, the casino is using player funds for its own cash flow (regardless of those funds being placed in a segregated account).

A warning about maximum withdrawal limits still wouldn't effect the BOF process or accreditation status which seems to be what this discussion has turned into.