WorldWideVegas complaint

Shanky's Swan song

You never did answer my question on why you waited over a year to bring it here. Oh, well - I'll answer that for you later in this post.

I'm just about finished with this.

Let me clarify a couple of things:
a) a player can play and win on roulette with their deposit only BONUS MONEY CAN NOT BE USED TO PLAY ROULETTE OR EARNED PLAYING ROULETTE.
b) shankwart had lost his deposit without qualifying for the bonus money. Because the DCEG software could not discern a qualifying wager from a non qualifying wager they had two options, manually check and approve all bonuses after the fact and no player would receive bonus money until well after they wagered their deposit or allow all bonuses to activate regardless of the game and then retroactively remove any unqualified bonus money and subsequent results. According to the casino, Shankwart is the only player to not understand their policies and procedures. If there were more players in his situation, we would have heard about it by now.

He was told NOT to do this. He ignored their warnings and continued - business as usual.

Here's a link to the Wayback machine that covers these terms and conditions
Outdated URL (Invalid)

Lest we forget, this issue is over a year old.

schankwart said:
I am also aware of a dispute with WWV that you have ruled against two other players in the past, though I am positive that those players did not do anything wrong and should have been paid.

You don't have a clue on what you're talking about. There were three players involved with that situation. er, well actually two. Two of the players were proven to be the same person. This was not from information the casino gave me, but the information I have at my disposal - emails, IP addresses, etc. I know for a fact that one player posed as two. This is fraud. And the casino never lied to me about this. When I handle complaints, I'm not like some ship in the fog trying to figure out what's going on. I have a hell of a lot of information I've collected at my disposal.

Anyway, it was unfortunate that ohdreampop was associated with this other individual with other indicators, so she was lumped together with the other guy. Not much I can do about that. She got her $500 deposit back (I think it was $500), so at least she has that.

Further, after that Cirrus fiasco, I told you I would never handle another one of your complaints again. Dude, no one forgets chat sessions, and you received those emails (you know what I'm talking about).

You ought to have your head examined. This is your MO (method of operation): you make "mistakes" and hope that the casinos will cover or forgive you. You don't respond to emails with crucial information - you act like you've never seen them. You don't answer questions when they are asked of you. You keep going on and on and on, thinking that wasting people's time or screwing around with people is a big fucking joke.

No one - no one - has bonus issues like you do. Someone on another forum posted a list of the casinos you've had problems with - it was lengthy; it's probably something you brag about. And these are the known problems. I can only imagine the casinos that paid you so that you wouldn't go crying to the boards.

There are shit loads of players who have been playing for years without a single issue. And these are successful happy people. I've been playing online for nearly eight years. The number of times I've had to contact support I can count on one hand. You, my friend, suck as a player.

You are the reason why the rest of the us have hell to pay when it comes to complicated bonus terms. It's players like you who turn the playing field for us to shit. Do I sound harsh? You're damn right I am.

Months ago, I told you not to come to me again because I am no longer willing to assist you - and what do you do? You initiate a defamatory post stating that a casino is threatening you, and that it's a scummy organization. Well, obviously I have to get involved - I need to ensure that either a) this is not the case - or b) you'll be taken care of. Well, you suckered me in for the last time.

The reason why you waited a year is that the others that you contacted have dropped your case like a ton of bricks. Greedygirl from Gonegambling is on the road right now, but I spoke to her on the phone and she said she'd chime in to let people know why she dropped your case. But for now, this in not necessary.

I have wasted an incredible amount of time dealing with this bogus crap; time that could be spent taking care of players who have real problems, or updating the site, or writing my newsletter, producing a webcast, or just watching TV.

So that's it dude. You can sucker in the help from Sirius, Caruso, Batman and Robin, or anybody else for that matter. This was your last posting at Casinomeister.

Do not use this board to try and blackmail a casino. Besides making a bogus claim, this is why you're being ostracized from the board. Sorry to give you the boot, but I've had it. Good luck in all of your future endeavors.

Tschss.

Bye bye.

Admin note to anyone who wants to help poor Shanky. I have cached links to T&C URLs that cover all of this mess. If you want this, you can have it. Be prepared to waste a lot of time.
 
Well said Meister.

Nothing against Schankwart and his aim to get as much as he can from bonuses, why not?

His blackmailing methods is what I have an issue with. He ignores, or stretches to breaking point, casino terms and then threatens them with bad publicity on the boards if they don't give in to his demands.

He undermines affiliates or guardians like yourself who take him at face value to the detriment of their future influence and other players long term interests.

Will not weep tears over this banishment. (Nifty is probably doing somersaults as we speak!)

Mitch
 
Well, Im glad its finally been revealed. It was never a witch hunt for me, just a quest for the truth - and thankyou to Bryan for coming forth with the goods.

Whilst Im glad its happened, Im certainly not somersaulting (lol mitch) as Im stuck with ridiculous wagering rules and rollovers as a result of these kinds of players.

Only ONCE I didnt get paid, and thats because I stuffed up and glossed over the rules. I accepted the consequences and moved on.

Lesson: ALWAYS double check ANY terms you dont think are clear - it takes a few minutes to do and can save you a lot of money/time/stress when it comes to cashing in your chips. Forget bad English or poor grammar or typos or whatever in the rules - its OUR responsibility as players to KNOW what we are getting into. Its called being an adult.

Thanks again Bryan for being the advocate of honest online gamblers.
 
Casinomeister said:
There are shit loads of players who have been playing for years without a single issue. And these are successful happy people.

Count me as one in the "shit loads" ... 3 years playing with bonuses almost exclusively, and I've come to Bryan once (maybe twice) with a PAB.

And that PAB was taken care of by the casino paying me a few days later, and Bryan hadn't even contacted them yet. :thumbsup:
 
Slightly confused conclusion

The fact is there is nothing wrong with playing roulette with the bonus as long as the wagering requirements are later met on the allowed games. The terms don't say otherwise. This was the normal situation until some casinos started banning them altogether. This doesn't give players an advantage compared to playing other games where they can win big just as easily with similar house edge. I want to ask Casinomeister where he's seen the term at this casino that means players can't play that game?

The only problem is that he expected the bonus amount to be removed from a withdrawel but the terms are quite clear on the fact that play on unearned bonuses (they are earned when the wagering requirements are met) are null and void. If he had some deposit in his account then they may have removed just the bonus amount if he didn't get below his deposit but this was just pure bonus he had so he couldn't withdraw before completing the wagering.
 
Last edited:
By the way, it is clear to me that he qualified to receive the bonus as it was a cashback promotion. He could apparently play any game apart from Blackjack. It's one thing qualifying for the bonus and another to meet the requirements to withdraw. The software tells the player when he has played enough but if he has played on games that don't count, then they apparently are still counted in the software. As mentioned earlier, he didn't qualify to withdraw anything with the cashback bonus as the play would be null and void until he wagered enough in the allowed games.
 
In the very first instance Sirius, you may have a point. The stated terms may not have expressed exactly the Casinos policy about Roulette.

HOWEVER

Schank was warned by the Casino (more than once as I read it), and WWV stated personally via email and phone that they considered Roulette an excluded game. It is also important to note that the Casino paid Schank on that occasion, on the understanding that the player was fully aware of what the Casinos position was. Hence, they denied the payout and rightly so.

Let me ask this question - if you were at all unclear of the terms on a website, do you: a) contact the Casino for clarification or b) play anyway and hope you got it right.

If you had a brain, you would choose a)

So you chose a) and the casino told you 'no go' on the Roulette, would you a) play it anyway and argue the wording on the website if theres a problem, or b) dont play Roulette as advised.

If you had a brain, you would choose b)

Schank originally chose b)

Subsequently, Schank chose a) then a)

You do the math.
 
casinomeister said:
You can sucker in the help from Sirius, Caruso, Batman and Robin, or anybody else for that matter.

Since I seem to have inadvertently found my way into this discussion:

Since you linked that Cirrus thread, I assume you read it. Did you see how many posts I had in it? Did you see how many were supporting Shanky? - find ONE single such post and you can charge me that $500 fine you have for time wasters. I condemned his behaviour every inch of the way. LOL, the casino even thanked me personally.

What is the point?

On this matter: the vague wording of the terms is the problem:

"craps and roulette wagers are not included"

This can be interpreted to mean 1) those games are not included in the bonus wagering, or 2) those games are not included in the list of eligible games. There is no information as to which one is correct, but it's not up to the player to second guess the casino. It IS up to the player to check in cases of doubt, and Shanky obviously didn't. HOWEVER, I do NOT believe the casino on general principle here - do you have copies of the emails in which the casino states to Shanky that he may not play roulette? All I see is explanations from them. I see no proof.

If it can be proven, with un-doctored email copies, that Shanky was categorically informed that roulette could NOT be played, then he has no case. Not until then. Until then, he is innocent until proven guilty - pain in the ass notwithstanding.

Is this thus proven? Do we have such emails, in which the casino clearly states "no roulette for play on bonuses" >>>PRIOR<<< to this case? Not after, but before? The Cirrus case was proven with chat transcripts. This cannot be judged on less. That the casino may claim to have told him thus is clearly insufficient.

Two more matters:

Ohdreampop / gamblinboi.

Is the allegation these are one and the same person? If this is so, it is false. One is American, the other Canadian. I can tell you this for a certain fact. How are they linked? If the allegation is a different one, that's another matter. But these are separate individuals.

Finally:

There are shit loads of players who have been playing for years without a single issue. And these are successful happy people. I've been playing online for nearly eight years. The number of times I've had to contact support I can count on one hand. You, my friend, suck as a player.

This is wrong - he doesn't. He sucks as an individual, but not as a player. This is EXACTLY the issue. Far from sucking as a player, he's a good and apparently successful one. Casinos dislike him for JUST this reason. You cannot compare yourself to him - you make money WITH casinos, whereas Shanky clearly frequently makes money FROM them (as do maaaaaany, many players). These are absolutely at opposite ends of the scale. Equally, you cannot compare the likes of TimNy, Slotster and others in much the same way.

Casinos are judged on how they treat ALL players. Of course slot junkies rarely have problems - casinos love 'em. You don't judge a casino on how well it treats a player who dumps a grand a week into "Thunderluck" or whatever, you judge a casino on how it treats an unprofitable player. You also don't judge a player in a negative light on the basis of the number of complaints he generates, if the complaints are genuine. If the complaints are scams, this is another matter. Of course, if you're the one receiving those complaints then it would clearly be a hassle, but you do not judge this player negatively for playing to win honestly and generating complaints from casinos that do not want to pay him dishonestly! This is the clearly wrong way round. Again, he is a pain in the ass. But he doesn't "suck as a player" while his complaints are genuine.
 
Just jumping in here real quick to make a clarification:

Ohdreampop / gamblinboi.

Is the allegation these are one and the same person? If this is so, it is false. One is American, the other Canadian. I can tell you this for a certain fact. How are they linked? If the allegation is a different one, that's another matter. But these are separate individuals.

I didn't say Ohdreampop and gamblinboi were the same person. This issue involved these two players and a third. The third and gamblinboi were the same individual. Ohdreampop was not one of them.
 
Just a reply and who is the software company

I would like to comment on Andrew if that is infact his nam. If you have proof of what you're saying and it is in fact the 100% truth. Then he and or they can never file a case and win. Because if one is and can backup their comments then it is ok to tell the truth and to let the worl know. Having said that if you don't have proof then maybe you should try a different ave! to defame; to misrepresent maliciously; to vilify.

Best of luck and remember if you're right then fight!!!!!:what:

Just a thought

Duke
 
Caruso,
I have to tell you when I first started reading the forums I thought you and shank were the same player, but through the years I have learned differently.
What the main difference is between you two that I see is that you are for the PLAYER, all players, where he is for himself. You are both very opinionated and articulate and to be honest fun to argue with, but I do believe you would admidt to being wrong,(if it ever happened). Where when I showed shank a note he had signed with me stating he would not play bonuses, he still would not admidt to any wrongdoing. There is always a middle ground to both sides.
BTW I was wondering how long it would be , before you jumped in after Bryan's quote. Ha Ha
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top