WorldWideVegas complaint

[schankwart]

During my almost seven years of online gambling this is the most disgusting and upsetting email I have ever received from any of the nasty Casinos...!

Andrew, the manager of WorldWideVegas, has yet to honor my several-month-old withdrawal, now he is also threatening me, saying he will "come for me" if I continue to attempt to get my own money from them!

My non-payment issue is referring to

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

(at the WOL forum... mods, I hope this crosslink is okay?) where all information about this case is described.

I have involved a couple mediators (affiliates) into this issue already, both of which have discontinued their advertisement for WorldWideVegas. Unfortunately they were not able to get me paid. WWV claims that the mediators would have "shot me down", which is simply not true. -The mediators just did not get to pay me.....

The threat is unsettling and this Casino needs to put out of business ASAP!!! The email below is what I am referring to... Andrew sent it to me after I replied on a survey that he sent me via email:

"NO you are not a VIP with us. We just contracted to have a survey done and an old list was used. You know every single place you have tried to pull your BS story with has shot you down. You have no outstanding issue with us and if I continue to be harassed by you I am at the point where we are ready to turn this over to our legal team to go after you for attempted fraud, blackmail and slander. So keep trying to pull this crap and lets see what happens when I decide to come after you."

Now, I don’t have a particular wish for a visit from little-gangster Andrew, but if he thinks I will stop chasing my own money, he is dead wrong. Therefore I intend to keep this thread updated until I am paid my Grand by them or… whatever.

 

[suzecat]

Shankey, I understand your frustration and I do not interpret Andrew's comments as rising to the level of physical threats against you. IMHO he is telling you he is about to turn this matter over to his attorneys. This thread is a good argument FOR regulation.

 

[suzecat]

planets must be shorting out today..........

 

[mitch]

Schankwart

I do not intend to insult you, but why do casinos seem to pick on you?

I have been an online player for a long time and have never been denied a cashout. I have been locked out after big wins by the usual suspects but only after being paid.

You seem to be all over the web with casinos denying you cashouts.

Perhaps you need to consider your judgement about which casinos are worthy of your business!

You surely can't have been divorced 10 times as well, considering your gambling record you must be on track to get to your Diamond Anniversery at least. ( Lucky in love etc! )

Mitch

 

[winbig]

No disrespect either, but I see that comment as "See what happens when you're sued".

And as the above post states, you do seem to pick the worst casinos. It's great that your luck at the games are better than the casino choices

 

[Nifty29]

Bonus abusing/whoring will always create issues.

It wouldnt surprise me if the number of casinos who have had issues with Schankwart has reached saturation point..........I might have to open one just to keep things interesting.



Ho Hum.

 

[schankwart]

Yes, I will stay on them for sure!
This issue has been never ending and the Casino keeps refusing to put up straight answers. I have summarized the dispute once more:


WorldWideVegas is trying to void my winnings because I played Roulette in a promotion. Roulette indeed did not contribute to the wagering requirements, however, it nowhere states that it was not allowed to play this game at all.
The terms for the promotion were as follows:

"Play any game you like except Black Jack and if for any reason you are not a winner email us at support@worldwidevegas.com and we will add an additional 50% CASH BACK BONUS up to $500 FREE to your account so you can keep on playing."

After I lost my deposit I received their 50% cashback bonus....:

"If a Player receives a bonus greater than 40% they must wager the deposit plus associated bonus amount THIRTY (30) times (craps and roulette wagers are not included) to qualify for the bonus."

I then played Roulette again. This game was allowed to be played as per the term above, but did not contribute to the wagering requirement. I played my money back up, requested my withdrawal and forfeited my 50% cashback bonus as per the following term:

"Any withdrawal requests made before the bonus rules have been satisfied will result in a forfeit of the bonus amount."

Now they are claiming that it would not have been allowed to play Roulette at all, closed my account and stole all my money.


I have made my $1000 deposit via Neteller. I have also saved screenshots of all terms. As a matter of fact WorldWideVegas has even already recognized how they screwed up and brought up another excuse afterwards, that I "received a different bonus with different terms".



As far as the Roulette play goes, I played Roulette both, before and after I received the bonus.
Here are their terms regarding this:

"Play any game you like except Black Jack and if for any reason you are not a winner email us at support@worldwidevegas.com and we will add an additional 50% CASH BACK BONUS up to $500 FREE to your account so you can keep on playing."

After I lost my deposit I received their 50% cashback bonus:

"If a Player receives a bonus greater than 40% they must wager the deposit plus associated bonus amount THIRTY (30) times (craps and roulette wagers are not included) to qualify for the bonus."


I then played Roulette again. This game was allowed to be played as per the term above, but did not contribute to the wagering requirement. I played my money back up, requested my withdrawal and forfeited my 50% cashback bonus as per the following term:

"Any withdrawal requests made before the bonus rules have been satisfied will result in a forfeit of the bonus amount."

In their promotional terms it clearly states to play "any game but Blackjack" in order to receive (or "qualify" for) the bonus.


Anyways... WorldWideVegas will not be getting anywhere with this but down. Many have already recognized this but did not get to do anything about it. I have played fair and square but they are refusing to correct themselves and try to scare me off with nasty and threatening words.




@ Mitch... I simply DO play a lot online at numerous Online Casinos and have had my number of disputes in the past. In this case with WWV I was totally satisfied with their service at the time I played there.
There is always going to be people who claim Casino A is evil and others who praise it. At the time I played at WWV their reputation was still quite fine.
I also indeed enjoy bonuses and do not see what is wrong with that?

And Nifty.... I thought you had realized by now that your continuos personal attacks are just making a fool of yourself?


As soon as WWV is going to provide me with the term they are basing their non-payment on, I will update all threads about it and the money will be theirs. This however is never going to happen as they are basing their action on no term at all...

I am also still expecting an apology from them.


t.b.c.

 

[phynqster]

Shank,
Please clear up something for me as I read your complaint. I took it as you lost your complete deposit, than asked for your cash back bonus after the deposit was lost. You than started winning off the cash back bonus, and cashed out, but claimed you did not have to fulfill the requirements of the cash back bonus because you cashed out early. Please explain if this is the scenerio? If so I do think you were wrong, if it was something different please give more details

 

[Dirk Diggler]

From my reading of the situation schankwart fully complied with the terms and should have been paid.

Yes he recieved a cashback bonus after losing his deposit. Yes he wagered this on games that did not count towards the wagering requirements (BUT were not excluded from being played). Yes he cashed out before meeting the wagering requirements and therefore forfeited the bonus under the terms. However all of this was allowed under the terms of the offer as far as I can see.

All this boils down to is the same thing that many playtech's have tried to pull recently - that is stealing winnings because a player has played on a game that does not count towards wagering, although not excluded altogether.

P.S Just because Schankwart has had more than his fair share of problems it shouldn't mean that casinos can just steal his winnings when they don't like the way he has played. It's very easy to think 'here we go again' without looking at the facts, but if the facts equal unfair treatment from the casino then it shouldn't matter who the hell is having the problem.

 

[The Watchdog]

mmmmm

From my reading of the situation schankwart fully complied with the terms and should have been paid.

Yes he recieved a cashback bonus after losing his deposit. Yes he wagered this on games that did not count towards the wagering requirements (BUT were not excluded from being played). Yes he cashed out before meeting the wagering requirements and therefore forfeited the bonus under the terms. However all of this was allowed under the terms of the offer as far as I can see.

........

That is something casinos some times do not clarify.. some games are invalid.. not forbidded. Casinos should be careful with their terms and conditions...

Example.. I take a 100% on $50 deposit (black jack, roulette, craps, videopoker, baccarat all of them invalid towards meeting the wagering requirements) this doesn't say you can play them.. it means that those wagers will not count for the rollover.. so here is where the evil mind starts..

Lets say a Roulette Pro goes ahead.. and starts playing roulette building a balance of $5000k... however none of those wagers count.... By a miracle this guy has a flawless video poker strategy... goes to play Jacks or Better and hits some full houses and a straight flush.. .bringin his balance to 10.000...

Now .. he has not place one cent valid for his requirement.. which is only 25x bonus plus deposit.. $2500 total... he decides then to put his little son to play slots as a degenarte with 2500... if he looses.. he meets the requirement and take 7500.. if he wins.. worst for the casino.

So casinos should be specific of their terms...

 

[schankwart]

Shank,
Please clear up something for me as I read your complaint. I took it as you lost your complete deposit, than asked for your cash back bonus after the deposit was lost. You than started winning off the cash back bonus, and cashed out, but claimed you did not have to fulfill the requirements of the cash back bonus because you cashed out early. Please explain if this is the scenerio? If so I do think you were wrong, if it was something different please give more details

Yup, I have indeed won off my cashback bonus and cashed out before having finished my wagering requirements but did not break any term thereby. As per me post above, this is what it states in their terms about this scenario:
"Any withdrawal requests made before the bonus rules have been satisfied will result in a forfeit of the bonus amount."
As far as my wagering on Roulette goes, the game simply would not have contributed to the wagering requirements but was fine to be played, as DDiggler points out in his post.

WWV is well aware that I did not disobey -any- of their rules, but tried to not pay me, hoping I would duck down. Instead of having paid me and THEN lock my account they decided to simply not pay me and do the lock.

I am positive that anyone who reads my complaint will agree that I have not broken anything. If for some reason you are not convinced feel free to ask and I will try to make it understandable for you.

Fact is, I am well appreciated "VIP" player at a ton of (reputable) Online Casinos as well, which shows that the goodies appreciate my legit business with them. I do play sharp but I do not break terms. Anyone who has been around for the last few years and read my positive and negative reports about the Casino-joints out there, should be able to agree on that.

WWV, you will not get out of this before you tell me either what term I have broken or PAY!!

 

[casino employee]

If I've understood the situation in the thread correctly, I think the problem casinos have - and rightly (I think) - is that if a game is excluded from bonus wagering, then the winnings accrued from those games should also be voided. The reason is: you're playing with a bonus; the bonus has certain restrictions; if you go and play - and win - on a "restricted" game, you're profiting at the casino's expense with a bonus that was not supposed to have been played there in the first place.

By switching then to "approved" games to fulfill the wagering requirements, you're simply fulfilling wagers using an inflated balance bulked up from wins that were obtained with a bonus on restricted games. In the eyes of many online casinos that's a disadvantage to them.

Not all casinos will void your winnings, but I do understand those that would.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

If I've understood the situation in the thread correctly, I think the problem casinos have - and rightly (I think) - is that if a game is excluded from bonus wagering, then the winnings accrued from those games should also be voided. The reason is: you're playing with a bonus; the bonus has certain restrictions; if you go and play - and win - on a "restricted" game, you're profiting at the casino's expense with a bonus that was not supposed to have been played there in the first place.

By switching then to "approved" games to fulfill the wagering requirements, you're simply fulfilling wagers using an inflated balance bulked up from wins that were obtained with a bonus on restricted games. In the eyes of many online casinos that's a disadvantage to them.

Not all casinos will void your winnings, but I do understand those that would.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. If the terms don't expressley forbid playing on the games that don't count towards the wagering requirements then the player has done nothing wrong.

The casinos can write whatever T&Cs they like and can easily put in a term excluding play on whatever games they wish. It's their repsonsibilty to make sure they have covered eveything they don't want the player to do, if they haven't then it's their own fault.

Any casinos that steals winnings because of this reason when they haven't forbid it is rogue - simple as that.

 

[casino employee]

I don't disagree that casinos should be more explicit in their T&C's but by the same token, a player who goes and plays on a restricted game with a bonus is also taking a risk by not contacting the casino first to find out if there will be a problem.

It's like taking the risk quietly in order to play dumb now and then to make a scene later that the player "didn't know"... in many cases it's deliberate ignorance.

 

[winbig]

I don't disagree that casinos should be more explicit in their T&C's but by the same token, a player who goes and plays on a restricted game with a bonus is also taking a risk by not contacting the casino first to find out if there will be a problem.

It's like taking the risk quietly in order to play dumb now and then to make a scene later that the player "didn't know"... in many cases it's deliberate ignorance.

The player was told explicitly via the T&C that they could PLAY the games, but any wagers wouldn't count towards the WR.

How's that "playing dumb" and claiming ignorance when the casino wants to change the terms after the fact?

 

[vinylweatherman]

BS

Utter BS - Roulette has a high(ish) house edge, and it is more likely that the player will lose some of the bonus rather than win an "inflated amount". An individual player might win this way, but the adoption of this strategy by the general player pool will work in the favour of the house. The only exception would be where a restricted game had a small player edge, and was there for loyal players to play with their own money.
Terms need to mean what they say, and say what they mean. Saying "wagering will not contribute to meeting WR", means something different from "play on these games is not permitted till the WR for the bonus has been completed".

The casino wrote overly complicated rules, got it slightly wrong, and got turned over by a sharp player. If the rules were simpler, and said what they meant, this would not happen. They should pay and then lock, this is the correct procedure for dealing with an over clever player who has not actually breached the T & C. The whole point of accepting a bonus is that a player feels it improves their chances of winning. This case is worse, as this was a bonus only given if the player lost all of their own money first, and was already down twice the amount of the bonus. Since when does a player lose their entire deposit to get a 50% cashback do this as part of bonus hunting. This offer gives them a chance to win back some of their losses, not mechanically extract a bonus by playing low variance and low house edge games.

 

[phynqster]

After reading this again, I do not think the problem is the excluded games, I think it is about the bonus requriments of the cash back bonus. The money won here was from the casinos money Shank put up no money on this win.9He had all ready lost it). So he builds a balance with the casinos bonus money , than cashes out before fullfilling the terms of the bonus, than says because he cashed out early, he does not have to adhere to the rules. What is the difference here if a casino says you need to make 30x playthrough on the bonus, and you hit big before making playthrough, so you cash out and say go ahead and remove the bonus?. Once you accept bonus money you have to follow the rules.

 

[The Watchdog]

Wrong

If you play a bonus, make money out of it and you haven't played the valid games no "smart casino" will let you forefit the bonus...

As a matter of fact, I have never seen a casino that allows to forefit bonuses.

If you accept a bonus with a 30x rollover you can not use that bonus to play roulette, win a lot of money and then forefit the bonus... Don't you think everyone will do that??

Regarding invalid games casinos should be clear if they want them invalid or forbiddedn.. Invalid is understood that wageres placed in those games will not count. At no point these people said that if you played X game your bonus and winnings will be voided.

Forbidden, Invalid, Forbidden, Invalid ... its not Nuclear phisics...

I believe that the 300% bonus at golden palace very clearly informs not to play certain games... that is how it should be done. If its not goldenpalace's its another one.

The Casino is responsible of making all their rules clear as water.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

After reading this again, I do not think the problem is the excluded games, I think it is about the bonus requriments of the cash back bonus. The money won here was from the casinos money Shank put up no money on this win.9He had all ready lost it). So he builds a balance with the casinos bonus money , than cashes out before fullfilling the terms of the bonus, than says because he cashed out early, he does not have to adhere to the rules. What is the difference here if a casino says you need to make 30x playthrough on the bonus, and you hit big before making playthrough, so you cash out and say go ahead and remove the bonus?. Once you accept bonus money you have to follow the rules.

Yes, could well be that. However the terms clearly stated that an early withdrawal would result in the forfeit of the bonus - NOT winnings as well. Therefore they have no right confiscating the winnings.

 

[phynqster]

Sorry, but in my eyes if you forefit a bonus than any play from that bonus would also be forefitted. This was a no deposit bonus, Shank did not use any of his money. These means all you have to do with a no deposit bonus is make one bet for the full amount of the bonus, if you win cash out and say remove the bonus I don't want it (forefit) and just cash out the win, with out ever making playthru.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

No Ted, that's only the case if the terms state it. It's what the terms and conditions state that matters, not what you think is right or wrong.

I really can't even think why you think that should be automatically the case anyway. Many casinos for years allowed you to withdraw your winnings early and forfeit the bonus. I reckon they probably saw it as a good way to get some bonus money back, which is usually mathematically correct.

Both ALL Boss Media and ezecash (Starluck etc) casinos had this in place for years. That's well over 50 casinos for starters, so how you can expect players to think that it's the norm to have their winnings stolen when the terms don't state it is beyond me.

All players ask is that the casino's stand by their terms and conditions, is that too much to ask?

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Also (for clarification purposes) this wasn't a no deposit bonus, it was a cashback bonus meaning shankwart had already lost a lot in the first place.

EDIT: This makes no difference anyway really - so god know's why I brought it up

 

[schankwart]

My apologies for not having posted here in a couple days. Timely restrictions did not allow me to spend much time online.

I have to say that I very much agree to what Dirk Diggler says in this thread. CasinoEmployee, how am I supposed to "play dumb" when WWV is putting up terms retroactively? There was no "questionable" rule anywhere in their terms and I have not broken one either. Are you saying that before having made my deposit I should have asked the Casino for confirmation whether all of their terms are still valid...? mhhh

The payment they owe me is more than clear and I will insist on my money until they have paid me. A decreasing number of players should be enough of a warning for them!

WWV, I am hoping that you will be contacting me about this soon so we can get this matter resolved. This payment is due!


On a sidenote, WorldWideVegas have now updated their website with the term they brought up retroactively. I however have saved screenshots of the original terms I played under.

 

[The Dude]

Semi-admin note

Just jumping in here after my Montreal trip.

My dealings with Schanky go way back, and it's gotten to the point that I won't deal with his PAB's anymore. I've learned that his problems are never simply one-sided, and that the casino has an entirely different story. Many of these stories are backed up with chat sessions and emails, etc. I'm a bit surprised Schankwart is having a go at this casino with such gusto in this forum with this sort of history.

So to be fair to the casino in question, I'm toning the title of the thread down a bit. The "threat" of the email (as I read it) is a legal threat. "we're going to get you (legally)" sort of thing. I'm asking the casino for comment to get their side of the story.

 

[The Dude]

Sorry Schank, but after rereading this thread, I'm not sure how much I can trust you right now:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/schankwart-vs-cirrus-casino.7467/

It seems like you've gotten yourself in the same sort of situation. Perhaps you should be posting this stuff elsewhere - and not here.