wofacai bonus issue: Pontoon = Blackjack Game?

[spearmaster]

Erm .... if you dont care what casinos think .... well, dont you think you are on the wrong website????? Its all about casinos I think you might find.

You can "announce" your opinions as facts and keep repeating what your opinion is as though its fact but, in the real world, your "opinionated fact" is as immaterial as anyones, its what casinos do that concerns people.

As stated, many experienced players and now even casinos themselves, believe your "opinionated fact" to be just plain wrong.

Sorry to be blunt, but that isnt stating an opinion, read through the thread and you will see it actually is a fact.

Do you read before you type?

I provided plenty of evidence to show that pontoon is a type of blackjack. That is not an opinion of mine - it is an opinion of nearly every valuable reference available.

Neither Intercasino nor Centrebet state that Pontoon is NOT a type of blackjack. They may or may not allow it for playthrough - that's their prerogative - but don't give me this crap that says that casinos do not consider Pontoon to be a type of blackjack without any evidence.

 

[Vesuvio]

I would have hated it for some poor schmuck to read your Intercasino post and rushed over there and joined the Pontoon craze only to get screwed over.

The refreshing thing about Intercasino and the other Cryptos now is that you can see exactly which games are allowed in the software, as well as being able to check the wagering remaining. You don't need to wrestle with ambiguous terms or contact support (who often don't have a clue about simple issues, nevermind fine distinctions like here). So you'd have to be a true smuck to play pontoon without making sure it was working after playing a hand or two

As for the general BJ/pontoon issue - all I'd say is you certainly can't assume that terms that exclude all forms of BJ exclude pontoon, as they often don't. Perhaps the casinos are misusing the English language, but in practical terms they've got a case as the games are very different and it's not clear they'd automatically want to exclude a game which puts the player's funds at much greater risk than BJ.

 

[thelawnet]

LOL

For one, that's just a link to some bonus forum - (that you outed by the way - every casino manager is slapping each other on the back with glee - bet your fellow posters are happy with you for that )

Eh? Why would the casino managers be doing that?

That site has affiliate deals with a lot of casinos, and is very open about its purpose: it's not some secret bonus coven - just take a look at the front page

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

to see that there's no confusion.

I think the owner must be making plenty of money from it, I believe if you sign up to enough of his affiliate links, he will add you to the 'vip forum'.

 

[thelawnet]

But - sorry - how silly is that?

The decisive point was a totally different one.

And the BJ theme is as plain as simple: pontoon is obviously a form of BJ,. Its is a 21 game ,....
and that is, what spearmaster and others said.

You are saying "its a 21 game". This much is not in doubt. But it is completely irrelevant. The question is whether it is 'blackjack'.

Just FWIW, if you go to a lot of RTG casinos, they say something along the lines of

"All casino games except Roulette, Baccarat, Craps, 21 games and Pai Gow Poker "

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

Not "all blackjack games". All "21 games".

Clearly they are not the same thing, and games included as "21" are not necessarily included as "blackjack".

 

[thelawnet]

You are saying "its a 21 game". This much is not in doubt. But it is completely irrelevant. The question is whether it is 'blackjack'.

And just for final clarification, here's a description of the original vingt-et-un game (invented 1700s in France - meaning 21):

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

Here's some excerpts:

'the rule of " ties pay the dealer." '
' a player who receives an ace and a ten-card scores 21 at once. This is called a " natural "; the holder receives twice - sometimes thrice - the stake or the doubled stake'

And the rules of pontoon?

*Ties lose.
* A winning player pontoon or five-card hand shall pay 2 to 1.

See also:

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

"Pontoon is the British version of the internationally popular banking game Twenty-one, perhaps now best known in the form of the American Casino version Blackjack. The game Pontoon and its name are derived from the French Vingt-et-un (21). "

In other words, pontoon is derived from vingt-et-un (21). Blackjack is also a version of 21. But pontoon is absolutely not a version of blackjack. It is an English game with its own history and derivation from 21.

Quite plainly pontoon is not derived from blackjack. Both games date from an 18th century ancestor, 21. This is not a minor point.

Wild Jack Casino agrees:

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

"Despite its popularity in Europe, the game did not immediately take off in the U.S. and the rules were changed slightly to make the odds more favorable to the player. One such rule change was the addition of a 10:1 bonus payout if a player drew the jack of spades together with the ace of spades as his first two cards. Thus history was made and the game became known forever after as "black jack" or "blackjack." "

In other words, the game did not turn into 'blackjack' until the 'black jack' rule was added. It quite clearly was NOT blackjack before the 'black jack' rule existed, it was called '21'.

Clearly the English variant of 'vingt-et-un' known as 'pontoon' has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a variation of 'vingt-et-un' (21) being developed into blackjack in the USA, and therefore Pontoon cannot possibly be a 'blackjack game'.

Case closed I think.

 

[uungy]

This is now going to an aimless direction

I have been asked for a "proof that casinos call it BJ"
I have been told that Intercasino call Pontoon BJ.
I have been told in the casino directories (whatever they are) consider it BJ, therefore its a BJ.

Cant you see its been proven wrong. Quotes such as "oh just because there is one casino that makes it a negative" are completeky baseless, as I have proved you that its completely incorrect. Now you are changing goal posts, and saying, some may, but really its called "BJ"

Thats a change of direction surely, and proves the point that its not "definatly considred BJ" and any reputable casino who does ban BJ, and allows Pontoon, should clearly state so. (So too, should anyone who has asked for proof, asmit that I have shown a indesputable proof, that large casino's, and well known ones, agree to the laymen)

I honestly can't believe that no-one has the honesty and dignity to bow out and agree to the facts lying in front.

Again I respect the views that some consider it BJ, it makes no sense to me, but I cant argue the case there, however if casino's (this is just the most recent one and there are more) consider it to be different, then admit it

PONTOON IS A "21 GAME" as I have said all the way through, BUT IT'S NOT A BLACKJACK GAME.

This is clearly the casino's opinion, and seems to be quite a strong opinion here too.

Edit: Just saw your case thelawnet. Its such an extra casino that agrees to that. I have given proof from the Oxford Dictionay, casinos and plyers. I think the case is completelly closed too! There doesn't even seem to be a base for the other side logically

 

[Casinomeister]

Eh? Why would the casino managers be doing that?...

Many casino managers (mainly the ones who are adamant against bonus "abuse") will scour the boards looking for bonus abuse-speak. Many players use similar or the same user names in their email addresses or user names in the casinos, and they get red flagged. Discovering a bonuswhore-like forum is a coveted find (I'm not saying that specific forum is a whoring forum - I'm merely making a general statement), and managers are happy when they come across them. It enables them to make preemptive strikes against unwanted players. I thought most people were aware of this. Sorry if you weren't.

This just in from Intercasino:

The monthly bonus that excludes blackjack at Intercasino $$ and Intercasino also excludes pontoon (the 'wild card' bonus), this is clearly stated in the terms and conditions.

This morning one of our customer support representatives asked me to confirm if pontoon was considered as a type of blackjack for the purposes of our promotions. I told her yes it is considered a type of blackjack and this is true as can be seen in the terms and conditions of our monthly bonuses.

However, for the special weekend promotion you refer to in the thread, pontoon was allowed as a one off case. This was an exception and that was why pontoon was not listed in the terms and conditions...

So Pangloss was right in stating that Pontoon was allowed, but he should have been specific on which bonus this was being applied to. He implied that it was always allowed.

And just for final clarification, here's a description of the original vingt-et-un game (invented 1700s in France - meaning 21):...

Good post, thelawnet - I'll bookmark this page for a background on BJ/21/Pontoon etc. Looking back at Hoyles, it states Pontoon is a nickname for 21, and 21 is another name for Blackjack. Sheesh!

Is there - like nothing good on TV tonight?

I wasn't aware that Intercasino disallowed the playing of disallowed games in their software. Ingenious. I guess I should take them up on a bonus and try this out sometime.

 

[spearmaster]

When all is said and done, it is still very clear that pontoon and blackjack are closely related. They are both derivatives of vingt-et-un as thelawnet points out - which in English is 21. blackjack and 21 are interchangeable. A pontoon is the equivalent of a blackjack.

They are not the same game, as they have slightly varying rules - but for all intents and purposes they are still related - and a description of "all blackjack forms", clear or not to some of you, cannot be said to exclude pontoon - and in such cases you should always ask unless you see pontoon clearly allowed.

I actually thought of compiling a list of games and categorizing them once and for all to set a standard - it bugs the shit out of me when some casino rep calls three card poker or red dog "video poker", and I can see where a game without the word "blackjack" in it can be confusing even if I think that's splitting hairs.

It also pisses me off when a casino calls a game "video poker" when the cards are not randomly dealt, but instead are fixed payout, such as the machines you commonly see in UK and European arcades. I'm not going to mention any names here

Some terms, too. Like RNG... which is NOT fixed... a random number generator does nothing but spit out random numbers (or at least it's supposed to).

 

[Vesuvio]

So Pangloss was right in stating that Pontoon was allowed, but he should have been specific on which bonus this was being applied to. He implied that it was always allowed.

To be fair, he mentioned, "a weekend bonus", which is specific enough.

That said, the standard monthly terms state, "All forms of Blackjack (including Super Fun 21 and Pontoon)", which implies that Intercasino consider Pontoon and 21 forms of BJ, but don't think it's self-evident enough for players to take for granted.

 

[uungy]

That implies that its not included in "allblackjack" thats why it was specified for that promotion.

You can look at it two ways, and the one you chose is the way you decide to look at it

 

[pangloss]

For one, that's just a link to some bonus forum - (that you outed by the way - every casino manager is slapping each other on the back with glee - bet your fellow posters are happy with you for that ) - where there is nothing but a bunch of misinformation being passed around. Did anyone in that thread bother to make a screenshot, post an email/chat-session? Nope. Bunch of guys leading each other to no-pay city...

...and then they'll come crying over to here.

Walking to China on your hands sounds pretty cool, especially if a conga line is involved
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/wofacai-bonus-issue-pontoon-blackjack-game.17759/
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/omni-casino-wager-req-carry-over.16234/

But I'll consider this water under the bridge.

I would have hated it for some poor schmuck to read your Intercasino post and rushed over there and joined the Pontoon craze only to get screwed over.

"but - but, Pangloss at Casinomeister said it was okay to play Pontoon..."

It's not. Ask customer support yourself. Or post a screen shot where their t&c's say it is okay. That I would like to see. And then we can rag on Intercasino for not updating their terms and conditions.

Oh yeah, you would care. You like the attention you get over here

Oh my goodness. Just where shall I start............

Being a gentleman of quiet and modest disposition I am not one to gloat and take succour from those dining out on large portions of humble pie. Hell, I would even lend a hand in wiping egg off a poor chap's face.

So I too will gladly let water pass under the Forum bridge even in the abscence of sincere apology. But allow me to leave just a few words of perhaps sage, if not immodest, advice.

Stop swallowing, hook, line and sinker, every word those Casino clowns (CSR) feed you. Listen to players, listen to what we want, listen to what we expect and give us a little credit of knowing just what is going on there in cyber gaming land (even if the frigging CSRs don't).


Now, what's on TV tonight?


...

 

[Casinomeister]

Oh my goodness. Just where shall I start...

Geeze Pangloss, put down the cheerleader pom-poms and calm down. You didn't prove anyone wrong, nor did you enlighten me with your "sageness".

I've been doing this long enough to know who to believe, who not to believe, and who to trust with a grain of salt thrown in.

And I don't think anyone here perceives that I'm as stupid and gullible as you are trying to make me seem to be.

Now get off your soap-box, and go back to your reruns of Bay Watch why don't cha.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Damn, I'm going to let this chick taste my breakfast first today to be sure no one pissed in my Cherrios...

 

[tristan727]

I have received no communication from Wofacai since they advised that I had opened multiple accounts. I also have no idea if, or what they've decided to tell Playtech about me...which would easily affect my current good standing with other Playtech casinos, and sportsbooks which use them. This proof Bryan has received & banned me originally, on the basis of - has not been shown or refuted yet. No apologies received anywhere yet. The only improvement to last week's conviction of me being a multiple account fraud - is that my banned status here has been lifted whilst it is being resolved...due to Uungy's fortuitous intervention - without which no doubt I would have been hung out to dry for eternity, since was given absolutely no chance to dis-prove this accusation.

So what's up basically?

 

[Casinomeister]

...
So what's up basically?

I'll find out.

 

[tristan727]

Cheers - would just like to point out again, the diff. between Pontoon or BJ being an allowed game towards a bonus, and an allowed game to play, whilst a bonus happens to be in your account.

It is clear at Wofacai, from the terms I've posted here, and at several other casino's - that one can play excluded games whilst a bonus is in your account (in Wofacai's case, so long as you aren't playing with the bonus funds, but the deposited)....so am not happy how some posters still, in the face of this, think or refuse to come out & disagree with, the principle that the player's winnings should be confiscated - and instead try to twist the plainly-written t&c's into some other bizarre interpretation. Am pretty sure Playtech has the facility to offer post-wager bonuses for any casino not happy about such issues.


Anyways - what it has taught me, is that the most important issue with a casino is trust...no way on earth am I ever going to try an unheard of casino again, will stick with my reputable, UK-based ones like 32red & Willhill. No chance of my name being dragged through the mud with them, & being given a very public flogging. Y'all banned in the USA, Turkey etc. can try them out instead.

 

[Casinomeister]

It's also clear that the bonus terms stated no Pontoon.

From Feb 16th:
The promotion does not apply to Roulette, Baccarat, Craps, SicBo, Blackjack, Video Poker play and Pontoon.

You only played Pontoon - I have no idea why you would put yourself through this. Don't come here ragging on a casino that closed your account due to what they determined was fraudulent activity. I saw what they had and agreed that it was suspicious. This had nothing to do with any bonus play by the way.

As some other players have mentioned, this is a good casino run mainly for Chinese players. No reason to criticize their operation when they are only trying to what they feel is right for everyone involved. And why should they offer you an apology when your first posting was an attempt to damage their business by calling them fraudulent?

But anyway, they've reopened your account and will allow you to meet the wagering requirements. Just don't play Pontoon (or any other forbidden game for that matter). Good luck.

 

[cyprean]

This proof Bryan has received & banned me originally, on the basis of - has not been shown or refuted yet. No apologies received anywhere yet. The only improvement to last week's conviction of me being a multiple account fraud - is that my banned status here has been lifted whilst it is being resolved...due to Uungy's fortuitous intervention - without which no doubt I would have been hung out to dry for eternity, since was given absolutely no chance to dis-prove this accusation.

So what's up basically?

I am glad you are back. I always felt that banning a player instantly and giving him no chance to reply was an dictator-like move which fights against the basic integrity of a site.

You only played Pontoon - I have no idea why you would put yourself through this.

I believe it was stated earlier that in the terms it is said that cash balance will be wagered first, and then bonus funds. If you used bonus funds to play Pontoon, then that was not allowed. Hence the player never used bonus funds to play Pontoon, only cash funds, he was not violating the T&Cs.

 

[tristan727]

I believe it was stated earlier that in the terms it is said that cash balance will be wagered first, and then bonus funds. If you used bonus funds to play Pontoon, then that was not allowed. Hence the player never used bonus funds to play Pontoon, only cash funds, he was not violating the T&Cs.

Exactly - I don't know why this point keeps being ignored or mis-understood. Apparently it comes as a shock to people that sometimes casino players play games which have nothing to do whatsoever with some bonus they forced into your account (no choice, unless presumably you contact them to get rid of - which most of us can't be bothered) - hence why they had the terms I quoted, to cover such a scenario. I'm really surprised that this is an issue even in debate, to be honest - as the simple fact is that the vast majority of online casinos allow gameplay on (excluded for bonus) games, whilst a bonus is pending...in fact I am struggling to think of any which don't - including Wofacai, which does!

I;ve been saying for days now here I wanted the winnings, not the bonus - as whilst IMO Pontoon was allowed for the bonus, I was quite willing to give ground on that - but not these terms which clearly allow this gameplay. After all you don't close down 2/3rds of a bricks & mortar casino, and put out security guards around the permiters of the tables, just because you've given a $10 chip for a slot machine as a comp, do you?

 

[Casinomeister]

You two are missing the main point of Tristan's complaint - read the first post, and read his PAB. It had nothing to do with a bonus. He was banned for being a fraudster. I saw the evidence, and I agreed there was a pretty good indication that fraudulent activty had taken place. I banned the guy, but as you probably know we were still communicating. I took a few things into consideration and lifted the ban.

A high percentage of the complaints I receive deal with fraudulent activity. This saps the time I need to deal with legitimate complaints. I have zero tolerance towards players using this forum (or any forum for that matter) as a blackmail tool, especially when fraud is involved.

As for playthrough requirements, games, etc., Tristan - you need to contact their customer support on that.

 

[happygobrokey]

post #13

...
Before & during terms....

This bonus doesnt apply for any blackjack games.

Any non-risk bet (such as bet same time in banker and players in baccarat, or bet same time in red and black in Roulette etc), will not be counted under wager.

Today's

This bonus doesn't apply for any blackjack games and Pontoon.

Any non-risk bet (such as bet same time in banker and players in baccarat, or bet same time in red and black in Roulette etc), will not be counted under wager.

...

yes they changed it to explicitly exclude pontoon, but the argument is that "This bonus doesnt apply for any blackjack games" means no pontoon anyway. they add the "and Pontoon" for those that either mistakenly don't notice the familiarity with bj or the ones that feel they can twist the terms to their own interpretation and somehow convince themselves that pontoon is not a form of bj or "bj game".

tristan keeps saying that 13.14 or whatever says only no bj bets with bonus money, but on page two of the thread in the above quoted post he admits no bj games allowed for the bonus he took. and as was said by i believe simmo and others, in this case no wr was met with the pontoon play. best case. the individual bonus terms override any general clauses in the casino t&c. if you take a bonus whose page says "slots only", you can't use the general t&c bonus clause that says "no roulette, craps, baccarat" to play the slots-only bonus at bj or vp or anything other than slots. so a no-bj bonus can't be met playing bj. simple as.

as for fraud, if the player is attempting cashouts prior to wr, warping the terms to try to justify play on pontoon, etc the casino may indeed deem this player abusive/fraudulent. and if any other foul play is afoot, then this duck is dead.

i'd like to ask tristan whether spanish 21, double exposure, super fun 21, etc are blackjack games in his world?

 

[Da_Gambla]

Apparently it comes as a shock to people that sometimes casino players play games which have nothing to do whatsoever with some bonus they forced into your account (no choice, unless presumably you contact them to get rid of - which most of us can't be bothered)

Your arguments are so simply nullified, I have no clue why you continue to make them...?

It may come as some shock to YOU that if you "can't be bothered" with contacting CS to have the bonus removed or clarified, and/or clarify what game you intend to use for WR, that you will be stuck with what you have.

Pontoon is not allowed for WR on the Bonus you took, and as HGB has pointed out, the terms for a specific promotion override the general posted T&C's. Your current WR with this casino is currently at 0%, so they have no obligation to allow a withdrawl at this point. As Bryan stated, your issue is not with HIM or the Forum members here. Your account was unfrozen, so you now need to deal with CS. Maybe they will allow you to get your deposit back and call it even...? I don't know...

Here's why you should stop bitchin' in this thread and get busy negotiating with CS:

Terms of Use
6.8 You will not commit any acts or display any conduct that damages our
reputation or our software provider or any other related service providers.

The way you handled this in the beginning is a clear violation of that clause. Again, you have been around here long enough to know how to properly PAB and how to PROPERLY title a post when beginning a complaint thread. You have violated so many things that just concern common sense, I've lost count. You seem to think Bryan can force either a player's or his will on a casino; he cannot. He has done what could reasonably be expected for you, and yet you still continue to whine??

Spell it out for us: what exactly do you want him to do?

As far as the bonus being forced down your throat... puh-leeeze... You knew what you were signing up for, and again, it is my contention that you knew it would create an 'issue'. You intentionally avoided communicating with CS, and as your thread brethren have contended, this was within your right. I agree, but by doing so, you put yourself in a clear position of needing to take care of wiping your own arse this time around.

/end sympathylongtimeago

- Keith

 

[Vesuvio]

Spell it out for us: what exactly do you want him to do?

You're getting confused with the PAB page. People don't post here to appeal directly to Bryan - this is a forum - people discuss things.

I can't believe you quote the following:

6.8 You will not commit any acts or display any conduct that damages our reputation or our software provider or any other related service providers.

If ever there was a perfect example of an unacceptable term that's it. I don't know about America, but such terms have zero legal weight in the UK.

 

[Da_Gambla]

You're getting confused with the PAB page. People don't post here to appeal directly to Bryan - this is a forum - people discuss things.

Bryan has addressed his initial PAB several times recently, and yet he still continues to seemingly 'argue' onward... I believe it is valid to simply ASK him what he thinks Bryan can do that he hasn't done so far...?

Vesuvio, camping my thread responses and trying to find anything whatsoever to try and make yourself seem superiorly knowledgeable is wearing thin, don't you think? Instead of picking issue with sidebar crap, why don't you contribute to the discussion at hand?

I can't believe you quote the following:
If ever there was a perfect example of an unacceptable term that's it. I don't know about America, but such terms have zero legal weight in the UK.

Believe it, because I did it.

I never said it carried "legal weight", you did. Oh wait... you've done that DIRECTLY to me on numerous posts now!

It is a clause that may not carry weight in an actual libel suit, but it gives the casino a right to deny further play, lock out an account, and deny any cashouts. And a veteran player like Tristan should clearly know to avoid ANYTHING that might throw him into a no-pay debacle. Once again I will state that a clear "common sense" issue is being thrown to the wind as if it's not important to him. Clear enough? Very well then.

- Keith

 

[henryVIII]

The way you handled this in the beginning is a clear violation of that clause. Again, you have been around here long enough to know how to properly PAB and how to PROPERLY title a post when beginning a complaint thread.

Sorry but that is pathetic.

You are saying ANY player deserves to lose any winnings because he didnt complain properly??

Casinos must absolutely adore some posters on this forum ... couldnt wish for more sympathetic folk in fact.

Sorry, like an awful lot of posts on this forum, it would clearly fail the "what a reasonable person would think" test fior me.

It would however pass the "what casinos would like people to post" test very easily.

I smell a conflict of interest running around somewhere in this thread, regardless of the merits of tristans case, some of the comments have just been absurd to say the least.