Yet Another Roxy Palace Horror Story: £1.5k LOST!

Thank you for your comments ujjain, apologies for the delay in response to your query.

We have taken some time to review the actions taken on your account and we can confirm that when term 16 pertaining to the 6X First Deposit with Bonus withdrawal restriction was implemented, this was done after thorough investigation and careful consideration on the impact this may have on our casino and valued players. In addition to this we can confirm that this is in line with the requirements set towards us by the UKGC.

This term was implemented in Dec 2014 as part of the general terms and conditions of the casino pertaining to any withdrawal made after the acceptance of our welcome bonus offer. Upon registration all prospective players are not able to successfully acquire an account with Roxy Palace until the acceptance of the General Terms and Conditions of the Casino.

As a dynamic and reputable online gaming provider, we strive to always offer a fair gaming environment to all of our valued players. Though we understand that some aspect of our terms and conditions may be construed as unfavorable, we do take into consideration any concerns from our valued players and aim to find common ground.

Should you required any further information or clarity in regard to our Terms and Conditions or this matter pertaining to your withdrawal, please let us know and we will contact you directly.

And you expect players to join your little nasty casino...
Atrocious behaviour and it's one of the worst things I have ever seen stuffed away in a casino's t&c's...
Will defo warn people in my friends circle to not join this casino...

Dayum! :puke:
 
I just think 2 things need to happen to make it better for everybody and that is,

The bonus rules need to be on the same page as the bonus details not hidden somewhere on thier site and the rules need to be modified to the following leaving out the bolded part.

Where a Welcome/Sign-up Bonus has been granted to you, once all stipulated wagering requirements have been met, you will be limited to a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your first deposit amount and any remaining balance will be forfeited. Roxy Palace Management reserves the right, entirely in its sole discretion, to waive and/or modify the application of this clause in individual instances. Note: Progressive Jackpot wins are exempt from this clause.

That makes it clear that they will restrict the winnings and not we might do this or we might do that. Unless they are paying some players all of the winnings and others x6 of the winnings, then in that case they should be in the rogue pit

Some time ago Kahnawake rulled in a case that because the bonus T&Cs were hidden and not on the same page as the bonus details they awarded that the player 50% of the winnings. Im not sure if Ecogra would take the same stance but anybody who has had thier winnings reduced and exhaused all other possibilities could give them a try, 50% would be better than x6 :)
 
that is bad.. if every depositer had read that they would have never botherd with the bonus

the only way this would be fair is if the wagering requirement was about x2
 
I would have to disagree, unfortunately. Casinos also have players who do not take bonuses, and therefore, do not find themselves at the mercy
of such appalling terms and conditions. It may well be the case that the non-bonus players at Roxy Palace are in fact a very happy lot.

There is also the fact that a casino can access MILLIONS of UK homes (and beyond) with just one TV ad. That number totally dwarves the total membership of places like CM and ThePogg. For every wronged punter that comes here, there are probably a lot more that don't. Simply because they don't know that fair play advocacy sites actually exist. Whilst we have a collectively intelligent and well-informed membership here at CM, one fact remains...the CM membership forms a very small percentage of the global slotting population. So casinos will (unfortunately) be able to get away with pulling stunts that are appallingly player-unfriendly.

As for the OP, I hope he gets the full amount but I fear this is a battle he may not win. The best thing he can do, once any chance of getting the full amount is well and truly gone, is to just close the account and never go back. At least he will still be "ahead" at that casino, despite the scandalous injustice of this FU clause being "discretionarily applied". It may be his only crumb of consolation.

As for Roxy Palace themselves, there is only place for them.....the PIT!!


How dare you make such an assumption...!!!;)
 
From ASA guidance specifically for gambling:-

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


Guidance
The ASA has received an increasing number of complaints about so-called “free bets.” The majority of these complaints centre on unclear or unfair terms and conditions, particularly around the requirement for consumers to make a deposit to access their “free bet” and the number of times they must then wager their “free bet” and deposit money before they are allowed to withdraw any winnings. Other complaints have been on the basis that bets have been labelled “risk-free bets”. “Free bet” offers are often displayed in banner ads.
Terms and conditions relating to consumers' understanding of the “free bet” offer and of the commitment that they have to make in order to take advantage of it should generally be stated in the ad itself. Where the ad is limited by time or space (for example a banner ad), significant conditions likely to affect a consumer's decision to participate in promotions should be displayed no further than one click away from the ad itself. If the significant conditions are not displayed with sufficient prominence, the ad will be seen as misleading.
Terms and conditions which have been seen as significant and likely to affect a consumer’s transactional decision in relation to “free bet” offers include:
 requiring consumers to deposit the same amount of their own money as the “free bet” in order to take advantage of the offer;
 requiring new customers to bet their initial deposit;
 requiring consumers to match free bet amounts on a certain number of occasions before they are able to withdraw any cash winnings from their account;
 imposing time limits in which bets must be made before winnings are forfeited; and
 preventing consumers from being able to withdraw any of their own funds deposited into their account until they have placed bets totalling a certain number of times the value of the “free bet”.
The ASA has seen a number of offers described as “risk-free bets”. It has recognised that whilst some consumers may understand that such offers carry conditions, without qualification, most consumers and visitors would understand that upon sign-up, they could bet a certain amount without loss. Investigations into “risk-free bets” have involved both an examination of the prominence of terms and conditions and whether the terms and conditions contradict the “risk-free bet” claim. Examples of terms which have fallen foul of the rules and been viewed as contradictory include:
 requiring customers to deposit and bet with their own money;
 providing the “risk-free bet” as a refund only available to qualifying customers;
 refunding deposits only as bonus funds that cannot be withdrawn as cash; and
 requiring bonus amounts to be wagered a certain number of times before any winnings can be withdrawn as cash.

Now, a 6x cap on withdrawals of winnings is clearly a "significant condition likely to affect a consumer's decision to participate in the promotion", yet it isn't mentioned whatsoever in the TV ad, although other terms such as a 25x WR are deemed suitable for mention.

The "one click away" is also violated for this 6x restriction because it is a further click away than the specific bonus terms for the SUB, which themselves need to be clicked through to from the casino's website.

These standards are even more thorough that I had expected, they require viewers of the adverts to be treated as though they know nothing at all about what bonuses are and how they work.

The "....must be shown in the ad itself" standard for the most significant restrictions shows that as far as UK law is concerned, it is NOT enough merely to have such terms listed under "general terms and conditions" and expect players to read them all or suffer the consequences.

I don't expect the ASA to rule on the validity of the term itself, but they are likely to require the ad to be altered such that "maximum of 6x deposited amount may be withdrawn" is added to the text displayed during the ad that presently only stipulates things like the 25x WR. This would apply to ALL ads that are directed into the UK market.
 
From ASA guidance specifically for gambling:-

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




Now, a 6x cap on withdrawals of winnings is clearly a "significant condition likely to affect a consumer's decision to participate in the promotion", yet it isn't mentioned whatsoever in the TV ad, although other terms such as a 25x WR are deemed suitable for mention.

The "one click away" is also violated for this 6x restriction because it is a further click away than the specific bonus terms for the SUB, which themselves need to be clicked through to from the casino's website.

These standards are even more thorough that I had expected, they require viewers of the adverts to be treated as though they know nothing at all about what bonuses are and how they work.

The "....must be shown in the ad itself" standard for the most significant restrictions shows that as far as UK law is concerned, it is NOT enough merely to have such terms listed under "general terms and conditions" and expect players to read them all or suffer the consequences.

I don't expect the ASA to rule on the validity of the term itself, but they are likely to require the ad to be altered such that "maximum of 6x deposited amount may be withdrawn" is added to the text displayed during the ad that presently only stipulates things like the 25x WR. This would apply to ALL ads that are directed into the UK market.

Thanks for that; indeed that was the basis for my ASA complaint wording in blue in a previous post. Although I had not read your piece until now I suspected it was the case by looking at other ads where the substantive term is displayed openly and prominently. Clearly in the case of Poxy Palace it has been hidden in breach of these guidelines. Makes me feel more confident about my complaint.
 
I´m curious about the outcome of the pab. The answer of the rep here, what can i say, i found it compared to the other dedicated reps @ this forum we can be grateful to have answering our questions and dealing with our issues, way too business speech "speak to the hand" style. I am also a player at Roxy and feel not very "honoured" by this. They could have done this way better, and maybe gain some sympathy. I mean i have dealt with different reps here, and some were really amazing doing their magic ;) But if any rep would answer me in the way like in this thread i would really ask myself why they have a forum rep if he gives the same pre-written business excuses cs for example gives anyway??

I think the cm membership is used a different standard when it comes to dealing and explaining certain terms and their outcomes, in this case unhappy players who see their winnings voided for very uncommon terms that have to be digged out of the different terms on their website and an official statement like that which generally says ??? fu!? and therefor rightfuly gets no applause here.

I would have expected something stronger from you Roxy...:oops:
 
Last edited:
When I was a new player I didn't read the terms. Why? Several reasons and one was of course the language.
Other reasons was that I didn't know what wagering was. What is a bonus? I had so many questions but to read all that text in there when you hardly know anything at all...it won't help. You don't understand much anyway.

So is this bonus morally right? No, of course not. They are there to stop advantage players who are lucky to win, and newbies that also are lucky to win.

I also tell players here that they should have read the terms. But that is more to make them realize that they have no chance to win against a casino if they have broken the terms. Next time they will. That is how I learned my lesson and probably most of you too.

In this case this casino should realize that they are taking advantage from people who don't know better. It is newbies that have to pay for it.
Are you really making that little money so you can't afford to pay them when they are prepared to give your casino a chance?
If you can't then at least put this rule up in the promotion terms. You also know that noone would take this bonus if they had read that rule. NOT ONE!
 
Long time supporter, let down!

I am appalled.

I have been playing Roxy Palace since day 1, and I can count on one hand the number of issues. I have always been a big supporter. If I do not see resolution for the OP, I will likely stop playing there altogether. This IS serious enough for me to do so. I have had kind words for this casino on here, and I feel somewhat duped. How can a casino be so caring and loyal to it's player base, but hold this kind of term over new players heads? It really does send conflicting vibes.

This IS a predatory or at least nasty term IMO. While it only applies to welcome offers, 6x is very unfair to me for any sort of regular casino player. There have been a few times I have won on a welcome offer, and had this term been present, I would have lost my SH**!! Casinos need to offer something a little better, especially those who people refer others to and especially if they want to preserve a solid reputation. Can't be taking the easy way out of paying people. I guess I will need to start reading the fine print anywhere I play if Darth Vader himself is alive and well at Roxy Palace now....

roxy dark side.jpg
 
With such a filthy term it should be attached clearly to any logos or text promoting the bonus that its 6 times cash out.
A great way for Roxy Palace not to pay unsuspecting players. This is not becoming of an accredited casino and for this 1 term
alone I will never play at Roxy Palace. The response from the rep was insulting at best and total bollocks at worst.
A truly arrogant tone as if the people here are all idiots! I hope the OP gets his money and Roxy Palace do the right thing
Alas I fear that wont happen. Dismayed and disgusted with Roxy Palace! :mad:
 
I agree with everyone else. This casino should not be accredited with a term like that. Thats pretty disgusting to be honest lol.

And this ridiculous term should be put in large letters on any banner and on their own website. And maybe a pop up when you log in.



I find this to be misleading and sneaky.
 
Thank you for your comments ujjain, apologies for the delay in response to your query.

We have taken some time to review the actions taken on your account and we can confirm that when term 16 pertaining to the 6X First Deposit with Bonus withdrawal restriction was implemented, this was done after thorough investigation and careful consideration on the impact this may have on our casino and valued players. In addition to this we can confirm that this is in line with the requirements set towards us by the UKGC.

This term was implemented in Dec 2014 as part of the general terms and conditions of the casino pertaining to any withdrawal made after the acceptance of our welcome bonus offer. Upon registration all prospective players are not able to successfully acquire an account with Roxy Palace until the acceptance of the General Terms and Conditions of the Casino.

As a dynamic and reputable online gaming provider, we strive to always offer a fair gaming environment to all of our valued players. Though we understand that some aspect of our terms and conditions may be construed as unfavorable, we do take into consideration any concerns from our valued players and aim to find common ground.

Should you required any further information or clarity in regard to our Terms and Conditions or this matter pertaining to your withdrawal, please let us know and we will contact you directly.

So to translate...

As a dynamic and reputable online gaming provider (in our view at least), we strive to offer a fair gaming environment, but ONLY to all of our VALUED players.

Or to put it another way....we DO NOT strive to offer a fair gaming environment to all of our UNVALUED players.

What is your definition of a "valued player" exactly? Someone who deposits (on average) a MINIMUM of £100 per deposit? Or maybe you
need to deposit £500 in order to "qualify"? It seems very clear to me that you have "absolutely no time or tolerance for low rollers".

I suppose it is safe for me to assume that if my first deposit at Roxy Palace is below a certain amount, I will immediately be placed into the following categories.

1. A customer who has "sinned" by not risking enough money on a first deposit and is therefore...

2. A customer that is not worth trying to keep on the grounds that they are "not lucrative enough", which in turn means they are...

3. A customer that absolutely DESERVES to be f***ed over, especially if they win too much on their first deposit.

4. A customer that NEEDS to be taught a harsh lesson for committing the sin described in part 1.

Dynamic and reputable gaming provider? Gimme a frickin' break. I wouldn't touch you with a barge pole.
 
This term has been sneaking into MGS download casinos for the past year or more. Its a crap term and not sure how the MGS download casinos have been getting away with it for so long.

I have slowly been compiling a list and checking my own site for whom is using this term and asking why. Some of you probably play at a casino that has this term in place, because the fact is at least 8 casinos on the accredited list have this term and thats just with me having a quick glance over the list and knowing of those who have it.

It would actually be easier for Bryan to list the casinos that do not have this term, as you can count them on 1 hand.

So whilst there is anger at Roxy Palace and rightly so, they are not alone.
 
It's indeed a FU term. I agree that a casino with this term would have no place in the accredited section.

I would presume that the term exists to discourage Advantage Players out there.
The thing is APs always read the terms before joining a casino, so the only ones that will suffer are naive players that won't read the terms in full.



This is really interesting:

On Roxy Palace acrredited page Link Outdated / Removed
is a banner offering 150% welcome bonus but on the same page it says payout limits:None
well i could easily be fooled if i was new here and signed up trough that banner
only to find out later i only get 6x my deposit on my withdrawal.
so my opinion this page should not exist as long as this term is in place.

I currently don't have an account with Roxy, but if I was to make one through this promo... and get a 1000x bet win on let's say BDBA, would I be able to withdraw all my winnings? Or just 6x deposit?
 
I currently don't have an account with Roxy, but if I was to make one through this promo... and get a 1000x bet win on let's say BDBA, would I be able to withdraw all my winnings? Or just 6x deposit?

I guess the payout limit refers to payouts in general; so there is no max payout like e.g. "4.000€ a month".
 
This term has been sneaking into MGS download casinos for the past year or more. Its a crap term and not sure how the MGS download casinos have been getting away with it for so long.

I have slowly been compiling a list and checking my own site for whom is using this term and asking why. Some of you probably play at a casino that has this term in place, because the fact is at least 8 casinos on the accredited list have this term and thats just with me having a quick glance over the list and knowing of those who have it.

It would actually be easier for Bryan to list the casinos that do not have this term, as you can count them on 1 hand.

So whilst there is anger at Roxy Palace and rightly so, they are not alone.

It's probably a "sleeper" term for the most part. It's getting noticed now because two casinos have actually started using it routinely, which has lead to a sudden flurry of complaints about it.

It doesn't stop advantage players, at least not the smarter ones who would be aware of this term right from the outset, and would be devising strategies to avoid wasting winnings.

The most obvious is to dump any excess above 6x deposit into a progressive game, as if the jackpot is won it will be paid, but it's also a "no lose" situation for the player as this excess would never be paid, it would either be lost in trying to hit the progressive jackpot or confiscated by the casino upon withdrawal. The smaller progressives would probably be the ones to go after as they are hit more often, even though they pay only 4 figure sums, possibly 5 figures.

This could end up costing the casinos money as by forcing players to dump excess wins into progressives the casino has to hand over a percentage of every bet to the network. It may also cause players to ONLY play progressives through seeing this as the only way to avoid getting caught by this term, so not only will excess wins be played through progressives, the entire WR of the SUB may increasingly be played through the progressives. The casinos CANNOT confiscate the progressive wins because Microgaming won't allow it, else I am sure the term would INCLUDE progressives so as to avoid the problem of having players switch over to playing them.
 
@vinylweatherman
Totally agree regarding the advantage playing.

However, regarding the Jackpot / Progressive win, not so much:
I am 90% sure that if you win the Mega or the Major jackpot they won't pay you in full if you are a newly registered member and have 0 overall value for them.
They can still say that you already won the 6x and that the rest of the cash, the one you played progressives with should have been voided.
It's gonna be tricky there, but if you complain enough, MG tries to keep a reputable public figure, so you'll be payed out in the end.
But there are also the players that are naive, and are unaware of the general rules and terms and so on, that will take whatever agreement they'll get.

@polli123
I indeed noticed and you are correct;
I know, and you guys also should note: Any bonus, even if it's not mentioned (something else is mentioned) in the banner would be a subject to the general terms and conditions of the casino
You would be taking a risk if you'd play with a bonus that mentioned otherwise on a banner, different than the general bonus terms. My advice if anyone sees a discrepancy, check with support and get it confirmed in writing.
 
The term is in the t's & c's and im a strong believer in reading full terms of a site before sign up, therefore while the player has my sympathy i dont think he has a case, that does not take-away the fact that this term is completely predatory and disgusting, i have no doubts that any casino with such a term will be struck off the accredited section in due course, the reps answer was the classic "we dont care what you think" answer and from that alone you can rest assured they will be using this term to its full effect after defending it in there post. As an advocate of fair play im sure meister will warn players in due course about this term, i have no doubts this will be the last instance about this, and any other casino with such a term.
 
The confiscated money goes to the owner of royal vegas or the executives?
Doesn't Microgaming Systems lose somewhere along the line on this confiscated money or is it destroyed?
 
The confiscated money stays "virtual" until it is paid out. If they confiscate money or winnings the operator saves to pay it to the player, in other words makes profit by saving payouts.
 
MGS is a provider, they receive a monthly fee probably from their operators, but nothing more.
Everything else is operator - related , payouts / deposits / bonuses and so on...
 
Even if Roxy Palace and other casinos with this term display it more prominently, I still think it is heinous enough to be considered "unfair" and preclude accreditation.

If I was the owner/manager/rep, for an accredited casino, I'd be calling for action too, as such terms impact the industry as a whole, and can lead to such a terrible experience for a new player that they never gamble online again.

Since I am such a nice and helpful person, I'd like to suggest an alternative term, that might be fairer for the player, and yet still limit the casino's potential for a large payout on bonus play.

Offer a 100% cashback offer on the first deposit if the player does not cash out. This way, if they hit using their own funds, all is good. If they do not, they receive a freechip to play again. Impose a WR and a max cashout cap of 5X on that freechip.

I played a long time at a casino that offered just such a bonus every weekend (although you could take other bonuses on the weekend), and it is harder to meet the WR without the initial deposit to contribute to the WR as well.

There are such offers regularly from some of the accredited RTG casinos that have max cashouts from free chips.
 
Thats a great idea jasmine especially for those casino's that don't have the option to withdraw real funds as long as you do not touch your bonus funds.

First deposit at any casino should be the one they prioritize much like the first experience at a restuarant/bar/anywhere where getting people to come back is important business.
 
@vinylweatherman
Totally agree regarding the advantage playing.

However, regarding the Jackpot / Progressive win, not so much:
I am 90% sure that if you win the Mega or the Major jackpot they won't pay you in full if you are a newly registered member and have 0 overall value for them.They can still say that you already won the 6x and that the rest of the cash, the one you played progressives with should have been voided.
It's gonna be tricky there, but if you complain enough, MG tries to keep a reputable public figure, so you'll be payed out in the end.
But there are also the players that are naive, and are unaware of the general rules and terms and so on, that will take whatever agreement they'll get.

@polli123
I indeed noticed and you are correct;
I know, and you guys also should note: Any bonus, even if it's not mentioned (something else is mentioned) in the banner would be a subject to the general terms and conditions of the casino
You would be taking a risk if you'd play with a bonus that mentioned otherwise on a banner, different than the general bonus terms. My advice if anyone sees a discrepancy, check with support and get it confirmed in writing.

Apart from them exempting such wins from the cap in their term, there is the issue of this being money from a network pool, not coming from the casino itself. This pool grows from the contributions from players and is paid over to Microgaming for safekeeping. When a jackpot is won, Microgaming are involved in paying the player. Unlike Playtech, I expect Microgaming have strict rules that prevent operators from confiscating pooled jackpots. I expect Microgaming are aware of the PR damage that can be done to the brand as a whole if one operator pockets a large jackpot that was intended to go to a player. Microgaming may also not have a proper procedure in place to return progressives to the pool once won, or believe that this would still not prevent serious PR problems for the brand.

The chances of this term being tested against a major progressive win are very small. If anything, it seems that it's relatively modest wins that are being hit, purely because a player got lucky right away rather than on a later deposit.

Whilst other softwares have used similar terms, namely Rival and RTG among the major brands, they also offer massive bonuses of 1000%+ Microgaming is so far the ONLY brand where max cashouts so low on deposit bonuses are related to pretty ordinary offers of 100% or less.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top