| Posted by: happygobrokey at October 3, 2007, 4:32 am | | Topic: Metro wouldn't pay $6600 Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by chuchu59
Honestly, I cannot see how the casino can use these terms to deny winnings. HGB is right. How stupid can they get. What is the purpose of saying that play at other games will count towards WRs after they are actually met. The mind boggles.
If the player is deemed not to have completed WRs at least they should give him half of the winnings since they have explicitly stated that they would deduct the bonus and winnings generated by the bonus which means that the bonus did not figure in the play.
Simply put, if their English isnt good enough, get someone who is to rewrite the terms and conditions. Otherwise, pay up and regard this as a lesson earned.
little freudian slip there?
both are in the wrong, or both are in the right. the casino should have to make its terms crystal clear. but a player should, where a term is questionably worded, get clarification.
how often has it been discussed here that it's prudent to ask just what the nature of "excluded games" or "not counting towards wr" means for each casino? more than once or twice.
a player smart enough to find and exploit loopholes or ambiguity, and smart enough to find the resources to learn to hunt/wh0re bonuses, and smart enough to come here for help, really ought to be smart enough to know that casinos are the arbiters of what the rules are and what they mean, and they should be smart enough to ask and get things clear before handing over their money. (see the link i posted in the previous post)
as it stands now, the player should argue that bonus funds were not used to create winnings, if indeed the player never dipped below 500 or made any bet that if lost would put the account below 500. if they did use bonus money to generate winnings on a disallowed game, that is classic abusive behaviour, and although there's a case for believing this was allowed, there is just as strong a case that it isn't.
the mention of "playing games prior to meeting wagering" and "doesn't count towards wagering" should conjure up red flags to the player. failing that defence, the player should go to the paragraph saying only "bonus will be removed" and fight to have the winnings remain intact. but all of these terms are worded foggily (real word?) and the damage being done, there are only these straws to grasp at while hoping the casino will act generously and admit their part of the fault in the miscommunication.
finally, who in this world doesn't know that casinos are (potentially) crooked? ask any online gambler, and they have been shafted personally or have read many stories of it happening. tell any non-gambler that you play online, and they will ask you "is it safe? what happens if they don't pay?"
why do you think the casino is going to roll over and pay out when you took advantage of a flawed statement? there's usually a term covering winnings from a malfunction and failure to report such, so at the same time if you want to be safe you should report the flaws in the terms to the casino also. common sense. or put another way, asking will get them to say "yes you can" do whatever your angle is, instead of just not saying that "you can't" do it. know what i mean, ern?
|
|
Casino Classic
Get $500 free on the house!
Categories:
casino bonus poker stars poker tables texas holdem tournament gambling tips free slots casino slots casino poker poker casino chips online casino poker tournament poker cards baccarat poker games playing cards internet gambling video poker slots poker table
Links:
Movie Talks
Forum Extractor
|