wofacai bonus issue: Pontoon = Blackjack Game?

[Da_Gambla]

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.

There is a reason Bryan is QUITE CLEAR how to properly handle an initial complaint. The way it is handled could VERY WELL affect the outcome. If I appear sympathetic to the casino in this thread, it is because I am capable of drawing my own conclusions based on the presented facts.

Bryan says this is a good group. As well, I can find no other bonafide complaints about this group; this is the only one. The facts as they have come forward are becoming clear: Tristan has not met the WR and needs to do so to fill the contractual obligation he commited to when he made his deposit.

Why do you feel our upholding the casino's T&C's is so evil in this case? They apparently did not try to hide anything or trick anyone into depositing! It is the responsibility of the customer to either AGREE to the terms as stated, or take their business elsewhere, true? That's the option you have that carries weight as a consumer! You do NOT have the right to try and force the business to conduct their business the way YOU see fit. Your only option is to find a place of business that suits your style, or bugger off!

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.

Have no real argument, so toss in a CONSPIRACY THEORY!!

How original... certainly has never been done before...

- Keith

 

[Vesuvio]

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?

Da_Gambla - why don't you respond to arguments instead of always trying to second guess motives. You completely ignored my point. Tristan's entirely within his rights to continue debating this issue here - it doesn't mean he's asking Bryan to do anything more. The forum is a place for discussing things, not a public PM to Bryan.

For what it's worth, I keep responding to your posts because you continually post things that make my jaw drop - nothing more.

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.

Sorry, but that's absurd. You really think a casino can have the right to deny cashouts on the basis that a player takes an issue to a forum?

Sure, practically they can do whatever they like as this industry is unregulated, but they're utterly rogue if they ever invoked such a clause.

 

[henryVIII]

De Gambla ... to summarise your view :

Gamblers at a casino must not complain to a forum if they feel harshly treated otherwise the clause you qoute gives them every right to deny any payment.

The casino will unilaterally decide if it views any posts to be unfair.

In effect, the player must remain speechless to his own opinions to their treatment by a casino otherwise they may fall foul of the clause you support.

Sorry, but again, you are not making any sense.

Ironically, especially, in a casino complaints section of a forum.

Sorry, just nonsense mate. Such opinions are too frequent on here ... i.e. the player should accept what he is given and always doff his cap to the casino, bryan, whoever and hope he gets a lucky break.

Just rubbish really.

The player is a customer and, while most certainly may not always be right and may often be wrong, he does have every right to express his own personal opinion.

Oh, yes, sorry, this "bonus fraud" phrase ahs been raised so he must be scum despite noone except Bryan and the casino knowing the facts.

Not dissing Bryan here per se ... just I feel i am adult enough to make my own mind up without doffing my cap to someone who believes (despite what many experienced players and indeed casinos believe) that thinking pontoon is not synominous with BJ is wholly suffiecient grounds to deny someone their winnings.

This is ignoring such previous episodes as English harbour and Shark casino which, to this day, has left a nasty smell around the place for an awful lot of people.

Sorry for being blunt folks but, hey, I am expressing an honest opinion ... should I be fined a months winnings, banned, whatever?

Just absurd.

 

[Da_Gambla]

Da_Gambla - why don't you respond to arguments instead of always trying to second guess motives. You completely ignored my point. Tristan's entirely within his rights to continue debating this issue here - it doesn't mean he's asking Bryan to do anything more. The forum is a place for discussing things, not a public PM to Bryan.

My post was towards the discussion. You may need to go back a re-read, but Tristan re-opened up the debate by posting "so, what's up?" and then going back on the pontoon vs BJ and playthrough issues again. I posted my opinion that he should take further argument and clarification on where his account status lies to CS at this casino. While I know you believe your opinion is the only one allowed in this thread, I hasten to add that it is not. If you wish to have a discussion, then politely explain to me how you intend to do that if you are the only one with an opinion? Do you enjoy talking to yourself?

For what it's worth, I keep responding to your posts because you continually post things that make my jaw drop - nothing more.
Sorry, but that's absurd. You really think a casino can have the right to deny cashouts on the basis that a player takes an issue to a forum?

Sure, practically they can do whatever they like as this industry is unregulated, but they're utterly rogue if they ever invoked such a clause.

No, I do not think they have a right to silence criticism. The PAB function here, as well as the clearly laid out posting guidelines are there for a reason, and that is to ensure a fair playing ground for both paticipants in the complaint. It is what sets this site above the 'also rans'. It is why the casinos, for the most part, will speak to Bryan and try to resolve issues. It is why Bryan many times changes post titles to try and protect the interest of a player who is too emotionally strung out to help themselves up front. This is a very real and strong player advocate community, and no apologies need to be made for trying to keep a player with a legitimate complaint from shooting themselves in the foot, PERIOD. Once an initial investigation has taken place, and Bryan exhausts reasonable efforts to communicate with the casino management, then he does not care what you post or what you title it. But it does matter up front, as you don't need to give the casino anymore reasons to try and snatch your deposit or winnings.

Now please stop trying to portray me as a casino advocate. I have spoken out against them many times, and they are well documented within these VERY FORUMS. In this case, the casino's T&C's have apparently not been met. That is the only ongoing issue.

- Keith

 

[Da_Gambla]

De Gambla ... to summarise your view :

Gamblers at a casino must not complain to a forum if they feel harshly treated otherwise the clause you qoute gives them every right to deny any payment.

The casino will unilaterally decide if it views any posts to be unfair.

In effect, the player must remain speechless to his own opinions to their treatment by a casino otherwise they may fall foul of the clause you support.

Sorry, but again, you are not making any sense.

Ironically, especially, in a casino complaints section of a forum.

Sorry, just nonsense mate. Such opinions are too frequent on here ... i.e. the player should accept what he is given and always doff his cap to the casino, bryan, whoever and hope he gets a lucky break.

Just rubbish really.

The player is a customer and, while most certainly may not always be right and may often be wrong, he does have every right to express his own personal opinion.

Oh, yes, sorry, this "bonus fraud" phrase ahs been raised so he must be scum despite noone except Bryan and the casino knowing the facts.

Not dissing Bryan here per se ... just I feel i am adult enough to make my own mind up without doffing my cap to someone who believes (despite what many experienced players and indeed casinos believe) that thinking pontoon is not synominous with BJ is wholly suffiecient grounds to deny someone their winnings.

This is ignoring such previous episodes as English harbour and Shark casino which, to this day, has left a nasty smell around the place for an awful lot of people.

Sorry for being blunt folks but, hey, I am expressing an honest opinion ... should I be fined a months winnings, banned, whatever?

Just absurd.

Your summary is quite erroneous. I do not, nor have ever stated that it is RIGHT for them to ever evoke such clauses, but can you not GRIP reality? The fact is, THEY CAN AND DO SO, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks. Based on that, it behooves the intelligent complainant to tread carefully when first asking for help. As stated, if it becomes clear the casino is being dodgy, by all means take off the gloves.

If you two foos ran a site like this, all you would do is scream and yell at things casinos do that you don't like. You would allow any poster to just step forward and make unsubstantiated claim after claim. Fraudsters would immediately piggy-back thread after thread trying to get their 'free money'. Within one month, your forums would be complete rubbish. You would not have any legitimacy in the industry whatsoever. You would be running a site for loud-mouths, and you would be out of business.

Do you disagree? If you do, then start a new player advocate site and conduct business the way you are asking people to do here... see you back here in a month or less!

- Keith

 

[henryVIII]

Your summary is quite erroneous. I do not, nor have ever stated that it is RIGHT for them to ever evoke such clauses, but can you not GRIP reality? The fact is, THEY CAN AND DO SO, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks.

Sorry, but that is not true. My summary was quite correct.

You quoted the clause and said the player "should stop bitching" because he was in "clear violation of that clause".

This has no other meaning other than the casino can justify denying winnings because of this clause. You made zero comment as its its obvious and complete absurdity as a clause. That is just bizarre.

It is, in effect, an "endownment" clause ... bestowing on the player that he is "legally" somehow subjected to whatever the casino dictates irrespective of merit.

Fraud is thrown at a player for the most minor transgression and, yet, in the likes of English harbour when they did 1000worse (ie cheating software) ... it is still resolves to (to quote spearmaster, a mod at the time) a "silly error which anyone could make".

Sorry, your points smacks of being an apologist.

 

[Da_Gambla]

Sorry, but that is not true. My summary was quite correct.

You quoted the clause and said the player "should stop bitching" because he was in "clear violation of that clause".

This has no other meaning other than the casino can justify denying winnings because of this clause. You made zero comment as its its obvious and complete absurdity as a clause. That is just bizarre.

It is, in effect, an "endownment" clause ... bestowing on the player that he is "legally" somehow subjected to the whims of the casino.

I repeat, any customer of any business cannot be denied the right to complain publicly about their treatment.

I wonder when you will add something to the discussion other than trying to keep someone defending against your ludicrous conspiracy theorys?

I tell him to quit bitching and begin repairing his account problems directly with the casino with the exact same breath I would advise someone pointing a gun at their foot to take care not to shoot themselves. I really do not see how advising one against doing something foolish means I advocate anything other than their own wellfare...?

What's next, I conspired with Oswald? Don't you have one single thing better to add to this discussion?

Sorry, your points smacks of being an apologist.

You can call me anything you want. I have been doing this a lot of years, my skin is thick enough to take on such infantile accusations and conspiracy thoeries. Just please be advised that your bullying techniques are a waste of energy. I won't ever view the world as black and white as you do. I am free to think and make my own judgement calls. You can take your abuse down the road.

- Keith

 

[henryVIII]

I wonder when you will add something to the discussion other than trying to keep someone defending against your ludicrous conspiracy theorys?

I tell him to quit bitching and begin repairing his account problems directly with the casino with the exact same breath I would advise someone pointing a gun at their foot to take care not to shoot themselves. I really do not see how advising one against doing something foolish means I advocate anything other than their own wellfare...?

What's next, I conspired with Oswald? Don't you have one single thing better to add to this discussion?



You can call me anything you want. I have been doing this a lot of years, my skin is thick enough to take on such infantile accusations and conspiracy thoeries. Just please be advised that your bullying techniques are a waste of energy. I won't ever view the world as black and white as you do. I am free to think and make my own judgement calls. You can take your abuse down the road.

- Keith

Yes i do.

You should say you made a mistake quoting that term because it is most wholly indefensible.

That term is, in effect, irrelevent to the discussion because it is clearly absurd.

To suggest that he adopts a low profile and pretends its nothing worth being upset about, however, would probably be (in your opinion) his best hope of gaining the approval and benevolence of the omnipotent casino manager.

That would be personal advice which you would have every right to make.

Personally, I feel that just because a casino has hold of your money does not somehow make them automatically "the defendant" who is the safekeeper.

 

[Da_Gambla]

Yes i do.

You should say you made a mistake quoting that term because it is most wholly indefensible.

That term is, in effect, irrelevent to the discussion because it is clearly absurd.

To repeat, your bullying technique is wasted energy. I'll not retract what I said, because doing so would be irresponsible. Casinos have these terms and they have been known to use them if necessary, so it is important to let the consumers know (which includes newbies reading this thread, not just for the sake of Tristan).

Let me see if I am gaining the idea behind posting in these forums... less direct personal attacks (I think I have done well in this volley, eh Pina? ), and more reverse psychology or blatant conspiracy theories. Let's try the latter...

You propose that we not point out terms that could get a player's account frozen and/or his funds seized. Therefore, it is quite obvious that you advocate leading a player to no-payland. By intentionally witholding information designed to GET THEM PAID, you are in fact putting their account in jeopardy. By advocating that when they first feel the need to publically announce a casino complaint, they do so with wild accusations such as "Fraudulant casino" etc., you are encouraging them to risk getting their case NOT resolved in their favor, and therefore you have helped them LOSE their funds instead of gaining them. You are aiding and abetting the casinos.

Henry, you are a closet casino advocate!!

Wow. That's actually quite fun!

I like these threads Henry. For the casual thread passer-by (not just Tristan), you are clearly educating them who to ask WISDOM from if they want to get their account snatched. That would be you.

As far as I go, I will be here to present information that might help them get paid, period.

- Keith

 

[henryVIII]

To repeat, your bullying technique is wasted energy. I'll not retract what I said, because doing so would be irresponsible. Casinos have these terms and they have been known to use them if necessary, so it is important to let the consumers know (which includes newbies reading this thread, not just for the sake of Tristan).

Let me see if I am gaining the idea behind posting in these forums... less direct personal attacks (I think I have done well in this volley, eh Pina? ), and more reverse psychology or blatant conspiracy theories. Let's try the latter...

You propose that we not point out terms that could get a player's account frozen and/or his funds seized. Therefore, it is quite obvious that you advocate leading a player to no-payland. By intentionally witholding information designed to GET THEM PAID, you are in fact putting their account in jeopardy. By advocating that when they first feel the need to publically announce a casino complaint, they do so with wild accusations such as "Fraudulant casino" etc., you are encouraging them to risk getting their case NOT resolved in their favor, and therefore you have helped them LOSE their funds instead of gaining them. You are aiding and abetting the casinos.

Henry, you are a closet casino advocate!!

Wow. That's actually quite fun!

I like these threads Henry. For the casual thread passer-by (not just Tristan), you are clearly educating them who to ask WISDOM from if they want to get their account snatched. That would be you.

As far as I go, I will be here to present information that might help them get paid, period.

- Keith

Ermmm .... its not that complicated actually.

You saw nothing wrong with the "do not say anything we do not like or we will seize all your money" clause.

And you still have said nothing against it.

You even quote Pina "affiliate meister" Baby as a reference.

You have nothing to say outside being a casino apologist.

To repeat, the clause you are defending is (factually) indefensible.

Players deserve better than such absudity.

Hey, if I held money of yours, I could steal it and use that clause to justify it. Theres a thought.

Id even have support on this forum ... you were probably a fraud anyway would no doubt pop up.

Folks ... if you want a reptable casino ... use one which is not subject to such "opinionated facts" as expressed on here. Use a legally binded one ... such as IBAS.

As a bonus, you can say what you think as well with them.

EOS

 

[Da_Gambla]

Ermmm .... its not that complicated actually.

You saw nothing wrong with the "do not say anything we do not like or we will seize all your money" clause.

Says it all.

God help the player here!!!

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear Henry. Let me try again. Your bullying techniques are a waste of energy. Hopefully third time will be charmed?

I did not understand that if you quote a term from a casino, that you have to implicitly state whether or not you agree with said term. Is that policy on these forums? Really?

So everytime I point out where a term might get a player into trouble, which might harm his complaint case, I must append either "I agree" or "I disagree" with what I'm pointing out? And as well, if I accidentally leave out such appendage, then it defaults to "I agree"..??

You speak of ABSURD! LOL!

If that's your only argument to this ongoing saga, then hopefully you are through for today.

Cheers,
- Keith

 

[henryVIII]

I did not understand that if you quote a term from a casino, that you have to implicitly state whether or not you agree with said term.

Ermmm ... kind of the point of a discussion forum.

Unless you have no opinion of your own of course.

 

[happygobrokey]

someone get the hose!

we're flogging an expired nag here. the player probably won't get paid and the majority imo agrees with this, given what's been presented. with all the info here, it's easy to pick out a few missteps that could have caused this whole fiasco, and once the true issues are rectified it will be resolved. there's no point in trying to prove anything else here i think. the ball is in the casino's court to ultimately give the root of the issue and a recommended course of action will follow. let's wait back to hear from the casino and see what develops. until then, it's all been said. now let's all kiss and make up!

 

[Vesuvio]

I posted my opinion that he should take further argument and clarification on where his account status lies to CS at this casino. While I know you believe your opinion is the only one allowed in this thread, I hasten to add that it is not. If you wish to have a discussion, then politely explain to me how you intend to do that if you are the only one with an opinion? Do you enjoy talking to yourself?

Just a brief response.

If other people didn't have different opinions there wouldn't be any reason to post. It's not megalomania to think my opinion's right and try to support it - that's what an opinion is: what you believe to be right (unless we're talking about favourite colours or running a debating society here).

I still think it's misguided to make much of any clause saying players musn't embarrass the casino or software company, not least because I can't remember a single case where that's been invoked. If it ever was instant roguing would (should) be the result.

 

[tristan727]

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

Somewhere amongst the 20 odd pages of this thread, had thought I made it clear this was no longer an issue - apologies if not.I do have grievances regarding this - but am practical - it's the 'fraud' cr*p I'm still very much angry bout.

 

[Casinomeister]

Somewhere amongst the 20 odd pages of this thread, had thought I made it clear this was no longer an issue - apologies if not.I do have grievances regarding this - but am practical - it's the 'fraud' cr*p I'm still very much angry bout.

Sorry for the fraud crap. But if you saw what they showed me, you would have probably done the same thing. I'll just leave it at that.

Now go play some Black Jack games

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sorry for the fraud crap. But if you saw what they showed me, you would have probably done the same thing. I'll just leave it at that.

Now go play some Black Jack games

Well, if what they had was so good, how come the player is now able to play out the balance under the usual terms.

The casino was so certain this was fraud they took very severe action, they didn't just ask further questions.
Is this yet another casino acting as judge jury and executioner, hanging a player out to dry, and then finding out they got it all wrong.

If what they showed you turned out not to be fraud, they need to clean up their procedures before they call players a fraud.
After all, this very accusation was levelled at the casino when the thread started, and they didn't like it one bit. Casino operators are professionals in their trade, players are just consumers of the product. It is casino operators who should be expected to uphold the highest standards when it comes to not getting things wrong, players cannot be expected to know much more than how to register, read, and play.

 

[uungy]

Haven't been on the past couple days, but what I see is adding insult to injury, as I My account was closed, and so was someone elses.

They provided Bryan with some false information, and claimed false allegations against players, with absolutely no base to it

I claim (so does another player here) that Pontoon "wasnt in the terms and condition" when I played.

With all this you are still trusting the casino, whom say it was included in the terms!!!!

It clealy ISN'T BJ.

Makes no sense to me, unless you are taking a particular side!

 

[happygobrokey]

It clealy ISN'T BJ.

oh, it SO is. ranks of cards are the same, objective is the same, actions are the same.

someone give a convincing argument with some sort of evidence to claim the games are different. the word used to call a blackjack by is different? so i guess elevators and lifts are not related either. the dealer wins ties? any rules enforced or not don't change the game's nature and its essence. some blackjack games do/don't allow surrender, DAS, payout 6:5 on bj's, play with a hole card, etc. the games are still forms of the game blackjack.

neanderthals were a totally distinct sort of race, and indeed came about before true humans (as pontoon did before traditional bj), yet to all but the nitpickiest circles who would beg to differ on such technicalities, some 95% of people would group neanderthals together with all other hominids as "man" or "forms of man". only minor cosmetic details differentiate humans from neanderthals, and their way of life was the same, and they did coexist and share the same goals and features. anyone taking the overwhelmingly unpopular stance that they are not men, or that pontoon is not bj, has to have some specific insider information to be holding this belief when nearly everyone she meets will not agree with her view.

long/short of it, if you KNOW FOR A FACT pontoon is not bj, then you are smarter than the casinos and everyone else here (and please enlighten us showing the proofs that caused you to doubt the majority and know you're right). if you're simply TRYING TO CONVINCE anyone here or at the casino that such is not the case, either you have some stake in it or you just like to argue/be the devil's advocate. but please let's have some undeniable truths that make you all believe it's not a form of blackjack. [/dead_horse_flog]

 

[tristan727]

Now go play some Black Jack games

There's the thing - I don't actually like BJ - is too boring. Pontoon gives me that extra buzz - like when you split aces, and get Pontoon on one, then a 5 card (doubled) on the other. Suddenly your $10 original stake has turned into $90! Of course, on the flipside - you quite often lose 7,8, or 14 games in a row - that's the variance for you - and hence why many casino's do treat it differently, as not all casino's ban games purely by the theoretical payout% - is down to risk to player's funds sometimes.

 

[uungy]

oh, it SO is. ranks of cards are the same, objective is the same, actions are the same.

someone give a convincing argument with some sort of evidence to claim the games are different. the word used to call a blackjack by is different? so i guess elevators and lifts are not related either. the dealer wins ties? any rules enforced or not don't change the game's nature and its essence. some blackjack games do/don't allow surrender, DAS, payout 6:5 on bj's, play with a hole card, etc. the games are still forms of the game blackjack.

neanderthals were a totally distinct sort of race, and indeed came about before true humans (as pontoon did before traditional bj), yet to all but the nitpickiest circles who would beg to differ on such technicalities, some 95% of people would group neanderthals together with all other hominids as "man" or "forms of man". only minor cosmetic details differentiate humans from neanderthals, and their way of life was the same, and they did coexist and share the same goals and features. anyone taking the overwhelmingly unpopular stance that they are not men, or that pontoon is not bj, has to have some specific insider information to be holding this belief when nearly everyone she meets will not agree with her view.

long/short of it, if you KNOW FOR A FACT pontoon is not bj, then you are smarter than the casinos and everyone else here (and please enlighten us showing the proofs that caused you to doubt the majority and know you're right). if you're simply TRYING TO CONVINCE anyone here or at the casino that such is not the case, either you have some stake in it or you just like to argue/be the devil's advocate. but please let's have some undeniable truths that make you all believe it's not a form of blackjack. [/dead_horse_flog]

Please read through the post in full, before asking for proofs

 

[Casinomeister]

They provided Bryan with some false information, and claimed false allegations against players, with absolutely no base to it...

C'mon. What do you know about what was presented to me? There was nothing false about it - but there were two different interpretations made. I'm not at liberty to go into this further, but anyone with an IQ higher than a chimp would have shut Tristan's account down in a New York minute.

And the only reason that this was reopened was that the casino was willing to relook at what they had.

 

[Da_Gambla]

There's the thing - I don't actually like BJ - is too boring. Pontoon gives me that extra buzz - like when you split aces, and get Pontoon on one, then a 5 card (doubled) on the other. Suddenly your $10 original stake has turned into $90! Of course, on the flipside - you quite often lose 7,8, or 14 games in a row - that's the variance for you - and hence why many casino's do treat it differently, as not all casino's ban games purely by the theoretical payout% - is down to risk to player's funds sometimes.

You kinda sorta forgot option A:

Discuss with CS what options you have. Can you play pontoon for WR? No? Ok, can you deposit without applying a bonus? No?

Move on to a different casino.

I think it's safe to assume, since you've played 10 years, that you're not gonna lose your ass playing BJ for the WR. May be boring to you, but once it's done, you are free to play any game they offer, including pontoon. The best part will be, you should be allowed to cashout at that point without needing Bryan's help.

I hope you can move forward in peace and not carry a chip (pardon the pun ) on your shoulder. If you step into our shoes and re-read this thread, you can only draw one conclusion, and that's that your case was a bit dodgy. You then are going to get asked a lot of very tough questions and also receive some even tougher criticisms for the choices you made. All in all though, there's nothing personal towards you on my end, and my only agenda is for both player and casino to adhere to the agreement between them. It has to happen that way so that we all have a chance at fair play in the years ahead.

I wish the best of luck to you for your WR, and hopefully a future post of a cashout.

- Keith

 

[Da_Gambla]

Haven't been on the past couple days, but what I see is adding insult to injury, as I My account was closed, and so was someone elses.

They provided Bryan with some false information, and claimed false allegations against players, with absolutely no base to it

I claim (so does another player here) that Pontoon "wasnt in the terms and condition" when I played.

With all this you are still trusting the casino, whom say it was included in the terms!!!!

It clealy ISN'T BJ.

Makes no sense to me, unless you are taking a particular side!

First off, it appears Tristan is satisfied to move on and do his WR properly. He's not happy about it, but it beats losing everything. Point is, don't you think it's time for you to do the same? I think it has been established to everyone's satisfaction that pontoon is not allowed under the bonus offer you and Tristan signed up for, so what is the point of further argument about whether pontoon is a bj type game? The casino's general T&C's do not disallow pontoon directly, but the terms of your specific bonus do.

As far as the rest of your rant goes... they provided Bryan with information and did in fact bring concerns to his attention. These are not necessarily false just because they choose not to pursue them. Quite often, people do things that are either dodgy or flat out illegal, but authorities choose not to file charges and pursue a case. I'm reading directly between the lines here, and I think the casino is very convinced you guys tried to do some things that are not allowed, but the evidence is not of the "slam dunk" variety and so therefore you are being allowed a second chance to perform your part of the deposit contract in good faith.

Do you know how many people each and every day are pulled aside by B&M casino security and scrutinized because of weird activity caught on video cameras? It's not the end of the world, unless you really get caught red-handed... more often than not, the suspected person does not get caught red-handed. At that point, depending on what security really feels they saw, you will get asked to leave the casino and maybe even barred from ever coming back. It's a fact of life you should get used to... this is a business that is about money, therefore it attracts its lion's share of people who refuse to play by the same rules everyone else does, and therefore all of us are subject to scrutiny when necessary.

Everyone here will tell you that a huge majority of online casinos are trigger-happy with security issues, and won't budge once they pull that trigger. You are lucky that this group isn't going to clam up as is usually the case, and instead are going to allow you to try and be a customer in good standing. What is the problem here? Why won't you take the offer extended?

Lastly, both of you have voiced concern over being labeled 'frauds'. It's clear as of right now that they are not going to reverse their thinking that something shady was going on, but they have definitely moved to a "neutral" place with it, neither calling you flat out a fraud or flat out innocent. That happens in life all the time, and so the best course of action you can take is to go back into their place of business, be a good customer, and all of this crap will fade into the distance.

If you PAB and do not post publicly about it, Bryan will most likely be fine with handling the issue and the results through private communications. When you freely post your side in public however, Bryan is likely to post the results publically. You have to accept that, and also accept that the community members will jump right on in with their views. If the water is warm and inviting... it's tough to resist.

You've heard your critics, and you've heard your advocates. Bottomline is, even if one side is 100% correct, neither side is the casino you chose to do business with. Unless something new comes to light in the near future, you will have to play by their rules, and be fair in doing so. I wish you well.

- Keith

 

[tristan727]

I think it's safe to assume, since you've played 10 years, that you're not gonna lose your ass playing BJ for the WR.

Only even learnt how to play BJ last year, to be precise (ex slot-junkie)- have had a few horrible sessions & still don't trust it....too many dealer 21's to my doubled 20's etc.