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

[lotusch]

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!

 

[vinylweatherman]

THIS is what winds ME up

'As a dynamic and reputable online gaming provider, we strive to always offer a fair gaming environment to all of our valued players'

mmmhmmm

Technically true, it's only new players that ever get hit by this term.

 

[zebedy]

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

 

[jackanory2279]

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

 

[Gaz237]

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...!!!

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.

 

[dunover]

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.

 

[coxwel]

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...

 

[Tirilej]

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!

 

[bruinsdude]

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....

 

[Deeplay]

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!

 

[lockinlove]

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.

 

[mcgameboy]

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.

 

[mattsgame]

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.

 

[Batman]

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?

 

[polli123]

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".

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.

 

[Batman]

@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.

 

[sigothx1]

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.

 

[jumboshrimp]

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?

 

[coxwel]

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.

 

[Batman]

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...

 

[Jasminebed]

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.

 

[psychogene]

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]

@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.

 

[Batman]

I am aware of everything you mentioned, and I entirely agree with you;


However, I'll try giving you another example, a better one, to prove my point and my personal opinion on the matter:

Claim a tenner, free sign up bonus, with a max cash out of $100.
Play, win $200, ask for a withdrawal of the $100, go play progressive with the rest.
(you made no deposits so far with that specific casino)
Win Mega: $3 mil.
At this point, I believe the casino won't pay. Or pay only a part of the winning to keep your mouth shut.
(This is my personal opinion, developed in time, after lurking and being a part of many, international, casino-related forums / blogs / chat / all)

I might be wrong, and I truly hope this won't EVER happen to anyone.
I personally am a very cautious person / player, and this is why I usually steer clear of Progressive slots.

 

[brianmon]

I am aware of everything you mentioned, and I entirely agree with you;


However, I'll try giving you another example, a better one, to prove my point and my personal opinion on the matter:

Claim a tenner, free sign up bonus, with a max cash out of $100.
Play, win $200, ask for a withdrawal of the $100, go play progressive with the rest.
(you made no deposits so far with that specific casino)
Win Mega: $3 mil.
At this point, I believe the casino won't pay. Or pay only a part of the winning to keep your mouth shut.
(This is my personal opinion, developed in time, after lurking and being a part of many, international, casino-related forums / blogs / chat / all)

I might be wrong, and I truly hope this won't EVER happen to anyone.
I personally am a very cautious person / player, and this is why I usually steer clear of Progressive slots.

There wouldn't be any 'rest', once you make a withdrawal, that other £100 is voided and disappears from your account

 

[Batman]

There wouldn't be any 'rest', once you make a withdrawal, that other £100 is voided and disappears from your account

You can ask for a withdrawal of £100 and play the rest, there usually is a pending period in all MG casinos.

You can do whatever you want usually with the rest.
That's not the issue tough.

You can keep the £100 in your balance and play, you'll have the same reply from the casino:
That you can only get the £100, because that's the max cash out, the rest (£3 mil.) will be voided.

 

[The Dude]

I'm still waiting for a better response from the casino concerning the OP's submitted PAB. As it stands now, I don't see how the removal of the winnings was justified. I'm waiting for an answer.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I am aware of everything you mentioned, and I entirely agree with you;


However, I'll try giving you another example, a better one, to prove my point and my personal opinion on the matter:

Claim a tenner, free sign up bonus, with a max cash out of $100.
Play, win $200, ask for a withdrawal of the $100, go play progressive with the rest.
(you made no deposits so far with that specific casino)
Win Mega: $3 mil.
At this point, I believe the casino won't pay. Or pay only a part of the winning to keep your mouth shut.
(This is my personal opinion, developed in time, after lurking and being a part of many, international, casino-related forums / blogs / chat / all)

I might be wrong, and I truly hope this won't EVER happen to anyone.
I personally am a very cautious person / player, and this is why I usually steer clear of Progressive slots.

You're thinking of Playtech, and yes they would allow their operators to do this, and have done on several occasions. This, however, is Microgaming, and so far they have a clean sheet when it comes to allowing the confiscation of progressives. Microgaming have everything to lose by allowing a first case of a multi million progressive being confiscated purely because a player won it from their first, rather than second, third, etc deposit.

However, in order to stay safe the player should NOT withdraw and then play the surplus, but play down to the max limit BEFORE withdrawing. This term only kicks in when a withdrawal is submitted, so until the player does so, they can play on as much as they like. At worst, the casino might deduct the original non progressive surplus from the eventual payout, but if you have just hit Mega Moolah, it is unlikely that you would argue over the $100.

The position with the Minor and Mini jackpots is less clear. They are technically progressives, but hit frequently enough that players have a good chance of hitting them in any one session. Depending on how they are treated, this could provide a neat loophole around this term for ordinary players simply by converting their non progressive surplus into a series of Mini and Minor jackpot wins and arguing that as per terms, they are all exempt from the 6x restriction.

 

[The Dude]

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.

Their bonus banners have been removed and replaced with this:

Attention: this casino has a term for its sign up bonus that reads "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."

If any player has his winnings removed because of this clause, that player ought to contact Max Drayman and file a Link Outdated / Removed with us. If we believe that there was no justification to remove winnings, or that the justification was weak, the casino will have its accreditation revoked.

Link Outdated / Removed

 

[Dinahnana]

Their bonus banners have been removed and replaced with this:


Link Outdated / Removed

Thank you Bryan. Can you do the same for Lucky247?

 

[slottymcslot]

Some people in this thread may remember that I first appeared here on CM about 18 months ago with a complaint about Ruby Fortune casino, they tried to pull this on me, paying me 6 x 150 when I completed wagering with a balance of 5000+ playing slots. Even worse, they added the term after I made a withdrawal and tried to apply it retrospectively. Fortunately this forum was on hand to catch them with their pants down.

This term was in a bunch of MG casinos even back then such as Lucky Nugget, and thru 7 layers of BS I believe most of these casinos are owned by digimedia. In some cases it's easy to see the link, others not but it is there. It is an absolutely foul term that is a catch all FU term that they can apply on anyone who hits big - if you'd hit for even 800 or so, they likely would've paid.. risk assessment/loss adjustment, call it what you will. Still, they would have a hard time arguing this in court for the simple reason that they have already stated their wagering weightings for games, and amount you must wager and you have fulfilled those black and white terms. Some unknown algorithm or forumla to assess whether or not you'll be limited to 6x, that is just not going to fly in the UK. That is where the good news starts for you and that is why I think you'll get paid. Ruby Fortune eventually paid me (in their case they had no choice), and seeing as Roxy are getting a good shaming here I would take the odds evens or above on you getting paid too.

 

[dodo]

Hello everyone (first post),

I believe the same warning is needed for their sister site, Casino Splendido. I too found out the hard way about this term. Two months ago I was denied 1600 eur from the welcome bonus winnings. Support just sent an e-mail informing me about the 6x limit term, and that the withdrawal will be processed according to it.

Aaand that was it! The term was in general t&c's, I see now they have included it in the sign-up bonus terms as well.

 

[Tirilej]

Hello everyone (first post),

I believe the same warning is needed for their sister site, Casino Splendido. I too found out the hard way about this term. Two months ago I was denied 1600 eur from the welcome bonus winnings. Support just sent an e-mail informing me about the 6x limit term, and that the withdrawal will be processed according to it.

Aaand that was it! The term was in general t&c's, I see now they have included it in the sign-up bonus terms as well.

Please do a PAB too. It's a free complaint service here. You can find the links above on how to do it. Just read the rules carefully.

Good luck! You will need it

 

[The Viking]

Hello everyone (first post),

I believe the same warning is needed for their sister site, Casino Splendido. I too found out the hard way about this term. Two months ago I was denied 1600 eur from the welcome bonus winnings. Support just sent an e-mail informing me about the 6x limit term, and that the withdrawal will be processed according to it.

Aaand that was it! The term was in general t&c's, I see now they have included it in the sign-up bonus terms as well.

It makes you wonder how many players have been treated this way since thos terms came into place.
as im sure many players dont know about sites like CM,etc
also this could be a first time player just saw an add on TV or in a newspaper, then get there withdrawal slashed,
but figure this must be normal and do nothing about it.

 

[onkel]

Guess I am in the minority here.

I really do not see what the casino has done legally wrong. I do not agree with the 6x max bonus as think its unfair but as the casino has it clearly visible in their terms then players signing up know what to expect.

It might not be fair but its their choice and from what I see it only applies to sign up bonus and not bonuses after.

Players can look at it and go no thanks I can get a better offer elsewhere but as you are meant to read t&cs then you will know the 6x rule is there. Why not just sign up and make first deposit without a bonus. Its maybe not idea but at least the wagering is not crazy. Its just an introductory offer like other casinos give you a free bonus to try but cap winnings to maybe £50 or something.

I think the casinos like Ladbrokes for instance are far worse when they offer crazy bonuses like deposit £50 get £10 free with 20x bonus and deposit playthrough. That's a playthrough of 120xbonus and several casinos are now doing it. To me that's worse than having a 6x withdrawal limit on first deposit bonus.

In fact I am sure their have been other casinos that offer large bonuses on deposits especially from RTG and Rival and they had max withdrawal amounts since they were offering such high bonuses. Not really any different from whats happening here.

As it only applies to the first deposit and is clearly stated in terms then I hardly feel its enough for them to lose accredited status. I know it says that management will look at it case by case and that should be removed but the actual 6x max on first deposit should not be enough to remove them. As long as players get paid and all other bonuses etc. don't have those terms then its hardly rogue behaviour as its clearly visible. Nowadays with the amount of casinos out players have plenty of choice about where to deposit.

Isn't part of the problem that this term isn't clearly visible but "hidden" in the general T&C's rather than the specific Bonus T&Cs. Can you think of a reason why the casino has chosen to not list this clause in the welcome bonus T&Cs with the rest?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Isn't part of the problem that this term isn't clearly visible but "hidden" in the general T&C's rather than the specific Bonus T&Cs. Can you think of a reason why the casino has chosen to not list this clause in the welcome bonus T&Cs with the rest?

Yes, they don't want to scare players away!

Many players may read the bonus terms, but not the general terms. If they spotted the 6x term there they may not deposit. This is bad for the casino because most of those first deposits will be lost, or beaten with the player not making a big enough profit to trigger the term. These players could then become loyal without ever knowing that they initially faced this 6x limit.

These are some CM members saying this incident has made them decide to suspend playing at Roxy Palace, despite the fact that they will never be subject to this term as they have already passed the stage of being a new player.

If anything, the action Bryan has taken is BETTER than quietly shuffling them off to the reservation, as anyone who uses the accredited list will be told about this term, even if it's nicely tucked away out of easy sight on the casino's page.

This should be done for ALL accredited casinos found to have such a term, and affected players encouraged to submit PABs in order to get to the bottom of what is behind it all.

My suspicion is that it's nothing more than a "spirit of the bonus" term, but disguised in the hope that it can skirt around the accreditation standards where the direct use of the phrase "spirit of the bonus" is a sure way to get fast tracked to the reservation or worse.

 

[onkel]

I'd be interested to know how much this clause shaves from the TRTP if playing only highly volatile games such as Game of Thrones when playing with a welcome bonus. It wouldn't surprise me if the TRTP goes down to 60% or less (as no players get to keep the rare big wins)

 

[slottymcslot]

I'd be interested to know how much this clause shaves from the TRTP if playing only highly volatile games such as Game of Thrones when playing with a welcome bonus. It wouldn't surprise me if the TRTP goes down to 60% or less (as no players get to keep the rare big wins)

with slots it is a lot. but it would be a fair bet that confiscated/voided funds don't get deducted from the RTP figure that sites quote (usually 96..97%)

there is no way to justify applying this term to one player and not another.. I think we all know that they apply it to those they think won't be profitable in the future (i.e. will drop it all back and more) and don't apply it to potential whales.. and somewhere inbetween the pitboss or whoever isn't sure if someone just got lucky or is an unprofitable player so pays 6x anyway. But then, this isn't a valid reason in a court of law

 

[slottymcslot]

Isn't part of the problem that this term isn't clearly visible but "hidden" in the general T&C's rather than the specific Bonus T&Cs. Can you think of a reason why the casino has chosen to not list this clause in the welcome bonus T&Cs with the rest?

No because the 6x rule is still there. It is actually your deposit + 5 times your deposit winnings if we're being pedantic. Forget about where the term is listed because it is bullshit, end of story. It's not a no deposit bonus, you are doing a 100% deposit match at the MG sites in question,. I will repeat that, a 100% deposit match! That is not fair gaming. And if you use the law, they will always pay up before it gets to court so as not to set a precedent, as vinylman stated somewhere, that could enable players that have been unfairly trapped by this rule to come back and claim however much as been voided as people did with banks etc

 

[Deeplay]

Good now that the terms of this dreadful bonus are in Red / Bold on the CM page for Roxy Palace. So kudos to CM for that

No surprise the rep from Roxy Palace refuse to make further comments apart from the utterly insulting one they made earlier in this thread!

This whole thing stinks and on a 100% bonus! Could understand if it was 400 or 500 or % ... but come on 5xs your depo ??

Not surprised they dont offer the 100% with every deposit at those terms! So glad I did not get caught on that one and feel for those who have been royally shafted by Roxy Palace Casino on this.

 

[mattsgame]

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.

This is the problem, Brian, affiliates and players don't see this term or notice its there until players start complaining and by then its to late.

Their bonus banners have been removed and replaced with this:


Link Outdated / Removed

Nice , but you do still have a lot of casinos whom have this term in the accredited section. I think Dunover had a list of these casinos somewhere, if not I have compiled some what of a list on the ones I know that have it. It is literally most of the MGS download casinos with the exception of the 32Red group and GoWild group.

From what I know though at this time its only Roxy, Casino Splendidio and Lucky247 who have enforced it on their players (or should I say, have players complained its been enforced). Might be worth having a thread asking players where this rule is/has been enforced.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is the problem, Brian, affiliates and players don't see this term or notice its there until players start complaining and by then its to late.



Nice , but you do still have a lot of casinos whom have this term in the accredited section. I think Dunover had a list of these casinos somewhere, if not I have compiled some what of a list on the ones I know that have it. It is literally most of the MGS download casinos with the exception of the 32Red group and GoWild group.

From what I know though at this time its only Roxy, Casino Splendidio and Lucky247 who have enforced it on their players (or should I say, have players complained its been enforced). Might be worth having a thread asking players where this rule is/has been enforced.

Which seems VERY odd indeed as this is a very unusual term, and we are supposed to believe that completely independent operators all thought it up at the same time. Maybe this has come right from the very top, higher than we can normally see, and is evidence of a connection between most of these Microgaming casinos at this unseen level. It may even have come from Microgaming themselves, perhaps as a "suggestion" for operators in some handbook.

Lucky 247 have a Facebook page, and it seems there is discontent being posted there with one player saying that they won 500 after completing WR, but only received 280 with the rest vanishing, and they have resorted to Facebook because they can't get anywhere with CS. Others are just general complaints about piss poor CS.

I have also noticed that they are doing a fair bit of 50% bonus offerings, so this term probably allows them to offer far bigger bonuses because they can shave the positive variance from the winners' withdrawals to compensate. I recall that someone here was told that a bonus to deposit rate of only 25% was "unsustainable" for loyal players, yet Lucky 247 seems to be running at around 50% on their Facebook promos alone.

 

[Jory]

Their bonus banners have been removed and replaced with this:


Link Outdated / Removed

I followed your link from an ipad and was redirected to mobile.roxypalace.com.

I then clicked on the Terms which brought me to

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

These terms are mostly identical, but have not been updated since 2012 [Last Updated: 14-08-2012 13:00 PM] so they do not include the maximum withdrawal term.

Does this mean that any player signing up to Roxy Palace from a mobile device are not bound to the maximum withdrawal term? Even a player who reads every word of the terms will be caught out as depending on what device you sign up from, you get a different set of terms; one of which is very outdated.

 

[slottymcslot]

Which seems VERY odd indeed as this is a very unusual term, and we are supposed to believe that completely independent operators all thought it up at the same time. Maybe this has come right from the very top, higher than we can normally see, and is evidence of a connection between most of these Microgaming casinos at this unseen level. It may even have come from Microgaming themselves, perhaps as a "suggestion" for operators in some handbook.

Lucky 247 have a Facebook page, and it seems there is discontent being posted there with one player saying that they won 500 after completing WR, but only received 280 with the rest vanishing, and they have resorted to Facebook because they can't get anywhere with CS. Others are just general complaints about piss poor CS.

I have also noticed that they are doing a fair bit of 50% bonus offerings, so this term probably allows them to offer far bigger bonuses because they can shave the positive variance from the winners' withdrawals to compensate. I recall that someone here was told that a bonus to deposit rate of only 25% was "unsustainable" for loyal players, yet Lucky 247 seems to be running at around 50% on their Facebook promos alone.

Not to quote myself, but post 83. I believe all these casinos with the 6x rule have an ownership "link". I've read stuff that suggests that the link includes the owners of MG, but I think you implied that. 32Red/Dash aside, I have pretty much stopped playing on MG for this reason, the whole place stinks of something rotten.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I followed your link from an ipad and was redirected to mobile.roxypalace.com.

I then clicked on the Terms which brought me to

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

These terms are mostly identical, but have not been updated since 2012 [Last Updated: 14-08-2012 13:00 PM] so they do not include the maximum withdrawal term.

Does this mean that any player signing up to Roxy Palace from a mobile device are not bound to the maximum withdrawal term? Even a player who reads every word of the terms will be caught out as depending on what device you sign up from, you get a different set of terms; one of which is very outdated.

Legally, mobile players are bound by the mobile terms, so if the 6x isn't there, it doesn't apply to mobile play.

I have been looking through some official guidance, and it looks very much like the insistence of leaving "reserve the right" in the term without informing the consumer how to avoid "breaching" the term renders the term "unfair" and therefore "unenforceable" under UK law. The problem is that by adding "reserve the right", it makes the term discretionary, and allows the business to decide whether or not a consumer is in breach without providing any information that the consumer can use to stay within the terms. If the "reserve the right" was removed, the term would probably stand up to the fairness test, and thus possibly enforceable. HOWEVER, there are other provisions that may still cause this term to be unenforceable, and these relate to the nature of the contract, and in particular whether an overly onerous burden is placed on the consumer. In this case, the burden is placed on the consumer to play slots, but in a way that ensures they don't win more than 6x their deposit. Given that the player has no control whatsoever on the outcome, and that in general there is no bet that can be placed that can be guaranteed not to result in too large a win, it could be argued that the term places too onerous a burden on the consumer, and is therefore unfair.

The much higher max payouts seen with the bookies are easy for the punter to stay under because they can know the potential win when they place the bet at given odds, and can therefore adjust their stake accordingly. Usually, the maximum stake that a bookie will accept is too low for such a limit to be breached in any case.

This whole 6x business really needs to be tested under UK law, and it's not necessary to take it to court, complaints can be made about the term in general, not just by players who are affected. As we no longer have the OFT, it looks like "Consumer Direct", an arm of trading standards, might be the place to go.

A new and stronger set of consumer protection laws has just come into force this month, so any complaints made now will be judged against this new legislation rather than the earlier set.

 

[Jory]

Legally, mobile players are bound by the mobile terms, so if the 6x isn't there, it doesn't apply to mobile play.

It's been a while since I played at an MG download casino, but I assumed that players can freely switch between download, instant play & mobile.

A player might stumble across Roxy Palace on a mobile device, read the terms and signup, but wait until they are at a PC to download the casino and claim the signup bonus. In those cases, which set of terms apply?

 

[The Dude]

...I have been looking through some official guidance, and it looks very much like the insistence of leaving "reserve the right" in the term without informing the consumer how to avoid "breaching" the term renders the term "unfair" and therefore "unenforceable" under UK law. The problem is that by adding "reserve the right", it makes the term discretionary, and allows the business to decide whether or not a consumer is in breach without providing any information that the consumer can use to stay within the terms...

Setting the UK law aside, as well as the UKGC (an untested licensing jurisdiction) this term is "unfair" in relation to common sense. What is the justification to hobble the winnings? Was it because the casino manager was having a bad day? Is the casino being hammered by advantage players? Or is there some secret algorithm that flagged this player's payout? We don't know - so it's not fair. Players are at the casino's whim. All we know is that this casino is protecting its "valued" customers.

If you offer a bonus that can be "abused", then it's a bad bonus - don't offer it.

I can understand that a casino needs to protects its business, but this is the wrong way to go about it. To not include this term on the bonus terms page (like the very first term) flies in the face of common sense and reeks of nefariousness.

I've reread the casino rep's response several times, and I am not only miffed - but flabbergasted. It's a bullshit term and should never have been approved and posted. And if the casino management had properly thought this through, they would have nipped this entire scenario in the bud and posted this term in plain site on the bonus landing page, and made an announcement from the top of the mountain that this term was there. And most importantly, they should have notified anyone advertising their casinos. This is a potential train wreck - and it's crashing in front of us in slow mo'.

As far as I can tell - the casino rep's last words on this were final; there is no indication otherwise. I gave them a heads up this morning that their listing here was pending revocation - no answer, so I guess that's it.

It's always a shame seeing a 13 year relationship get tossed into the bin.

 

[slottymcslot]

Setting the UK law aside, as well as the UKGC (an untested licensing jurisdiction) this term is "unfair" in relation to common sense. What is the justification to hobble the winnings? Was it because the casino manager was having a bad day? Is the casino being hammered by advantage players? Or is there some secret algorithm that flagged this player's payout? We don't know - so it's not fair. Players are at the casino's whim. All we know is that this casino is protecting its "valued" customers.

If you offer a bonus that can be "abused", then it's a bad bonus - don't offer it.

I can understand that a casino needs to protects its business, but this is the wrong way to go about it. To not include this term on the bonus terms page (like the very first term) flies in the face of common sense and reeks of nefariousness.

I've reread the casino rep's response several times, and I am not only miffed - but flabbergasted. It's a bullshit term and should never have been approved and posted. And if the casino management had properly thought this through, they would have nipped this entire scenario in the bud and posted this term in plain site on the bonus landing page, and made an announcement from the top of the mountain that this term was there. And most importantly, they should have notified anyone advertising their casinos. This is a potential train wreck - and it's crashing in front of us in slow mo'.

As far as I can tell - the casino rep's last words on this were final; there is no indication otherwise. I gave them a heads up this morning that their listing here was pending revocation - no answer, so I guess that's it.

It's always a shame seeing a 13 year relationship get tossed into the bin.

The larger issue is (speculation on who really owns them all aside) many, many MG casinos have this term, and in many, many of these cases it's hidden in the same way. Furthermore when you question live chat about this term BEFORE signing up/depositing, they do a merry tapdance and try to play it down saying it is only applied at managements discretion. I urge anyone to go to anyone to go to any MG site that has this term and ask. In fact, it'd be funny to see the convos c/p'ed in this forum to watch the live chat rep try to squirm their way thru it and not lose the customer.