| Posted by: Tagdog at December 12, 2006, 4:57 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by Palace Group
Hi all,
As I mentioned eCogra ruled against the player due to incorrect information on our part.
It was a mistake which has now been resolved.
Once all the correct information was presented the correct descsion was made.
Unfortanetly mistakes to happen but we will always do our best to resolve them in a timely manner.
Regards,
Darran
The Palace Group
Now this is worrying.
I believe this was a genuine error by the palace group, but it shows that if a casino wishes to be rogue then they can tell eCogra whatever they like and eCogra will rule in their favour?
I'ld like eCogra to be open about their arbitration process, surely at the ery least they could expand on the reasons for failed appeals (I know they have to be careful for Fraud cases) for example they could have at least told gamblingman that the casino had presented further facts contrary to his statement initially... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: vinylweatherman at December 12, 2006, 4:22 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by Palace Group
Hi all,
As I mentioned eCogra ruled against the player due to incorrect information on our part.
It was a mistake which has now been resolved.
Once all the correct information was presented the correct descsion was made.
Unfortanetly mistakes to happen but we will always do our best to resolve them in a timely manner.
Regards,
Darran
The Palace Group
This probably happens in a few cases. Because of the secret nature of the eCogra process, how can players even know that they lost their case unfairly doe to incorrect information. Players are not allowed to see the evidence, so cannot appeal on the grounds that it is wrong. I wonder how many other innocent players of ANY eCogra seal casinos have been unfairly treated due to mistakes in information.
Although it is refreshing to see a casino actually ADMIT this happened, and surely might happen again despite the best of car... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Palace Group at December 12, 2006, 12:59 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Hi all,
As I mentioned eCogra ruled against the player due to incorrect information on our part.
It was a mistake which has now been resolved.
Once all the correct information was presented the correct descsion was made.
Unfortanetly mistakes to happen but we will always do our best to resolve them in a timely manner.
Regards,
Darran
The Palace Group
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: sdaddy at December 11, 2006, 9:45 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by Tagdog
Would you care to elaborate what exactly happened?
I'm specifically intrigued/worried as to why ecogra have ruled against the player, then have reversed this decision. How exactly did ecogra not have the full story? If the player stated his case truly (which I assume he has as he's been paid) then what exactly happened to make them rule against him in the 1st place, did they bother investigating anything or did they just accept the bonus abuser standpoint that the casino promoted without due attention to his case. I find it ery difficult to believe ecogra are 100% impartial sometimes.
Indeed, if the casino or eCogra don't tell us what these new facts are, I find it hard to believe that this ruling reversal was not simply due to the negative publicity surrounding this case. Be that as it may, I sincerely hope that we never again hear of retroactively defined "bonus abuse" as being cause for oiding winnings at an eCogra memb... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Tagdog at December 11, 2006, 4:41 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by Palace Group
Hi all,
I have been in communication with Gamblingman regarding his problem.
The casino re-visited the case with eCogra and it was decided by both parties that the player will receive his winnings.
There was some miscommunication initially however once everything was placed on the table and clarity on certain terms established by eCogra we all felt it the right thing to do.
Please understand it is never our intention to block legitimate winnings. We will always do what is right and look after our players.
I am sure you all know from past experience on this forum and with our group we are completely above board.
Sometimes mistakes happen but we will always work to resolve them.
I think eCogra should also be thanked as their intervention in pointing out some facts which assisted in getting this matter resolved.
As always I am here for any comments and feedback.
Kind reg... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: frufrugirl at December 11, 2006, 4:16 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
EEEEEE! What an avatar! i love it!
Glad to see this is resolved but what about the statement sent to him that says betting high is bonus abuse? . Is this statement a mistake? -switch us to low bet mode when bonus awarded if you dont want us to bet high on and there wont be such a problem.
Qoute-Based on your initial betting being 2 bets on Video Poker for $100 and $50 with only a $150 bank roll and the number of bets on the two games played, as well as your bet size clearly indicates abuse. The clause is there to protect the casino from gameplay such as this.
.
.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Palace Group at December 11, 2006, 2:48 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Hi all,
I have been in communication with Gamblingman regarding his problem.
The casino re-visited the case with eCogra and it was decided by both parties that the player will receive his winnings.
There was some miscommunication initially however once everything was placed on the table and clarity on certain terms established by eCogra we all felt it the right thing to do.
Please understand it is never our intention to block legitimate winnings. We will always do what is right and look after our players.
I am sure you all know from past experience on this forum and with our group we are completely above board.
Sometimes mistakes happen but we will always work to resolve them.
I think eCogra should also be thanked as their intervention in pointing out some facts which assisted in getting this matter resolved.
As always I am here for any comments and feedback.
Kind regards,
Darran
The Palace Group
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Casinomeister at December 11, 2006, 9:52 am | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by daywalker
...No matter what anyone posts on here eCog 'ALWAYS' side with the casino. Ms Rees has the easiest job in the world, she just bends over to the casinos and 'Meister' appears to be lining up next to her?...
Did someone slip some LSD in your Egg-nog? Who do you think is responsible for getting many of the disgruntled Mini-vegas players paid? It wasn't me; it was Tex.
Please bear in mind that arbitration, or handling player complaints can be ery complex at times. You as a forum isitor may not be privy to all the facts; many times they are never publicised. Before getting too critical, please consider this.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: vinylweatherman at December 10, 2006, 4:22 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
One other problem that can lead to this "bonus abuse" is the way casinos conduct their marketing. I have so ery often tried to exit the webpage of one casino, only to have the sign-up offer for another rammed down my throat; naturally, this might indicate to the player that taking a string of signup bonuses is what the casino is attempting to encourage. After all, if Tesco have Jaffa Cakes thrust at you in many isles and the checkout, they want you to buy lots of Jaffa Cakes.
MiniVegas are one such group that does this in the extreme, as are Fortune Lounge, as when you leave some of the sites, you get an exit popup telling you about all the casinos, marketed only by the size of the bonus.
It would be more honest for websites to NOT cross promote with bonuses, and it will then be more understandable when casinos complain about the serial nature of bonus abuse.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: cyprean at December 10, 2006, 2:06 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
The thing that most worries me is that these issues are happening in Microgaming casinos. First Minivegas and now Palace group. I used to think that MG casinos were a safe bet, not anymore. There are a few exceptions, such as 32Red, but MGs IMHO have received a lot of bad publicity lately.
I hope and think that this issue will be solved and that the player will get his money - but after a lot of hassle. This is not good for either players or for the casinos. I would like to think that MG casinos are reputable but the late events aren't supporting that fact.
I dont think that betting 50% of BR at Video Poker is something that the player should lose $6k of winnings. Keep us posted how this issue developes.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: chuchu59 at December 10, 2006, 12:59 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
I cant believe this. It does seem, whatever the outcome of this case, that the casino is trying to confiscate winnings with this sort of BS. Yeah, this player will get his winnings in the end but from the casino's e-mails, they are trying to screw players who can win a bundle with their payroll. They cant possibly be so incompetent, can they? Firstly, they claim that a disallowed game was played and now they invent another reason. This smacks of rouguish behaviour and even if this case is satisfactorily resolved, I would think we shouldnt just let the issue go away.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Stanford at December 10, 2006, 5:23 am | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by inylweatherman
It is not true that it ALWAYS goes the way of the casino, however, it seems the casinos are allowed to justify terms and conditions to eCogra that would be struck out by a County Court action if they were in dispute in a CONSUMER, rather than business, contract. In particular, casinos are allowed to cite "bonus abuse" even when the play involved breaches no term, and players are not normally allowed to know what it was they did to abuse the bonus other to have claimed it in the first place when offered and then make some astute wagering decisions.
Bonus abuse is and has always been the failure of the casino to abide their own terms and conditions. There is no such thing as bonus abuse by a player.
I am a bit surprised by eCOGRA using such terminology. It is cause for alarm.
imho,
Stanford
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: vinylweatherman at December 10, 2006, 12:44 am | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by daywalker
Surely No-one cannot disagree with this, eCOGRA are so in favour of the casinos it's unreal. How anyone can support them (EcOG) is beyond me. No matter what anyone posts on here eCog 'ALWAYS' side with the casino. Ms Rees has the easiest job in the world, she just bends over to the casinos and 'Meister' appears to be lining up next to her?
On this Occasion I reckon it's best for 'the palace group' to post on here rather than communicating to the OP. We've seen their disgraceful response (which they have not denied) so why not post in public? Why say they will let gamblingman post on here, surely it's best to have all this crap in the open?
It is not true that it ALWAYS goes the way of the casino, however, it seems the casinos are allowed to justify terms and conditions to eCogra that would be struck out by a County Court action if they were in dispute in a CONSUMER, rather than business, contract. In particular, casinos are allow... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: daywalker at December 9, 2006, 11:57 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by Vesuvio
The criticism of eCOGRA stands and will keep coming back to haunt them until Tex Rees comes out and says unambiguously that "bonus abuse" is not a reason for keeping players' winnings. There's fraud or contravening clearly laid out terms and conditions (wagering requirements, allowed games and so on). Supporting casinos' "bonus abuse" clauses, which allow them to do anything, legitimises casino fraud and makes a mockery of regulation.
I don't buy any excuse of "miscommunication". The casino couldn't have been clearer and eCOGRA have a history of supporting anything the casino decides in this sort of situation. Sure, they might change their mind here, but that's no good if it's just a one-off decision.
Surely No-one cannot disagree with this, eCOGRA are so in favour of the casinos it's unreal. How anyone can support them (EcOG) is beyond me. No matter what anyone posts on here eCog 'ALWAYS' side with the ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: GOCC at December 9, 2006, 10:37 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Palace
May I ask a question. Do you have a CS rep called "Dan" who would do live chats.
Reason being I had a chat with him about WR and said I wanted to make sure I had wagered enough as I now wanted to play Blakcjack. He said, THREE TIMES that I could play ANY game I wanted, just it would not count towards the wagering. I even copied and pasted your terms that said what I believed it said but he reiterated that it was the case.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Vesuvio at December 9, 2006, 4:40 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by Casinomeister
I need to jump in here real quick to let you know it's gone back to eCOGRA for negotiation. No need to start a slam session. There is a possibility that there has been some mis-communications made by the casino. I'm anticipating a favorable outcome.
The criticism of eCOGRA stands and will keep coming back to haunt them until Tex Rees comes out and says unambiguously that "bonus abuse" is not a reason for keeping players' winnings. There's fraud or contravening clearly laid out terms and conditions (wagering requirements, allowed games and so on). Supporting casinos' "bonus abuse" clauses, which allow them to do anything, legitimises casino fraud and makes a mockery of regulation.
I don't buy any excuse of "miscommunication". The casino couldn't have been clearer and eCOGRA have a history of supporting anything the casino decides in this sort of situation. Sure, they might change their mind here, ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Casinomeister at December 8, 2006, 9:41 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by Vesuvio
That's just staggering. And the fact that eCOGRA backed the casino up here just illustrates the mockery their service has become...
I need to jump in here real quick to let you know it's gone back to eCOGRA for negotiation. No need to start a slam session. There is a possibility that there has been some mis-communications made by the casino. I'm anticipating a favorable outcome.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Vesuvio at December 8, 2006, 9:22 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by gamblingman
Based on your initial betting being 2 bets on Video Poker for $100 and $50 with only a $150 bank roll and the number of bets on the two games played, as well as your bet size clearly indicates abuse. The clause is there to protect the casino from gameplay such as this.
Unfortunately we will have to stand by the ruling and we have refunded your initial deposit back to you.
That's just staggering. And the fact that eCOGRA backed the casino up here just illustrates the mockery their service has become.
If MG casinos (the same with MiniVegas & Bellerock) and their "regulator" consider it fine to deny winnings based on the bet size or patterns they've sunk to (or below) the level of Playtech and RTG.
It seems it needs to be stated again for these fraudsters: any gameplay not specifically outlawed in the terms and conditions can't be considered "illegitimate" (to borrow MiniVegas's word).... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wolfman at December 8, 2006, 8:52 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote:
Based on your initial betting being 2 bets on Video Poker for $100 and $50 with only a $150 bank roll and the number of bets on the two games played, as well as your bet size clearly indicates abuse.
I've heard casinos claim it's bonus abuse when players try and grind out a WR with minumum bet size, and/or when they "don't show a willingness to put their own funds at risk". Now it's bonus abuse when they play maximum bet size and put their funds at a huge risk of blowing out in 2 bets.
So what do we do now? Make medium bet sizes and hope that doesn't fit a new definition of bonus "abuse" when it comes to cash out?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Tagdog at December 8, 2006, 6:23 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Shocking stuff. I quite like betting big at the start to trying to win big then consolidating if i do, according to spin palace this would make me a bonus abuser - unreal. Get a grip boys you're sounding exactly the same as mini egas here and we've seen what's happened to their reputation.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Palace Group at December 8, 2006, 11:48 am | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Hi all,
As you know we always try and sort players out in a timely manner.
I am always available for comments and feedback on this forum.
I am working with eCogra on Gamblingmans case and will revert back to him shortly.
Thanks,
Darran
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: daywalker at December 8, 2006, 10:56 am | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
This is out of order.
For them to deem this bonus abuse because the player placed two bets of $100 + $50 with a bank roll of only $150 is just plain wrong. If they are so concerned about this they should start limiting the max bet to $1.25 or whatever. Again, this is a case of a casino offering you games to play and then crying cos you had the nouse to make a profit.
All casino t+c's stink to be honest, they are the prosecutor and jury and us players are all f**ked if we don't like it.
Ecogra are a joke and not even worth bothering with.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: vinylweatherman at December 7, 2006, 1:00 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
This is a bit extreme. Large bets on even money propositions used to be deemed bonus abuse, but it now seems big bets on anything is now bonus abuse. If this is the case, there should be a rule to make this clear as some casinos have, such that bets of more than x% of total bankroll will be deemed oid and deposits only will be returned.
This would be clear, and players who do this would be in breach of stated terms. The idea that casinos can make up the rules as to what constitutes bonus abuse is just allowing them to declare any player that wins as a bonus abuser if they see fit. One bet of 100 on VP is hardly an even money proposition, and is not going to burn through the WR at any speed due to the 10% weighting.
What would be acceptable? Bets of 40? Bets of 20, or is it now best to bet tiny and often, the ery gameplay that was "bonus abuse" a couple of years ago.
How about a new term,
"Your welcome bonus is intended to give you extended gameplay with you... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: gamblingman at December 7, 2006, 12:09 pm | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
I know that what I am doing now might sound not acceptible but I was amazed to see the PM I got today from their representative trying to help me out.
Spinpalace should be rogued for that kind of answer. eCOGRA should be rogued as well for accepting those kind of explanation of no pay.
Hi there xxx,
You were given incorrect information as to why your withdrawal was declined. You are correct, Dueces wild is not an excluded game.
The reason why your withdrawal was deemed null and oid was due to the casino identifying your play as bonus abuse.
The term below is listed on our site:
"• All withdrawals will be subject to audit by the Casino. The Casino reserves the right to reclaim bonuses and winnings and / or close accounts in situations of obvious abuse or fraud."
Based on your initial betting being 2 bets on Video Poker for $100 and $50 with only a $150 bank roll and the number of bets on the two games playe... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: vinylweatherman at December 7, 2006, 10:01 am | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
I find it of some concern that eCogra will allow casinos to deny winnings even if no terms were broken just because gameplay MIGHT indicate a player to be abusing bonuses as opposed to cheating or committing fraud. If eCogra want to be seen to be independent of their paymasters as a oluntary regulatory body this cannot continue and allow their reputation to remain untarnished.
I am also shocked that such unfair terms as allowing confiscation of deposits is permitted under the eCogra seal simply for playing the wrong game (even the rogues refund the deposit). Their list is illogical, as they are perverting the reason for eZbonus (simple rules and all games count), yet they allow the bonus abusers favourite, Blackjack, and would seemingly be happy for a player to grind out the WR on Vegas Strip BJ, yet not be happy if they were to play a high risk game like VP and most probably bust out anyway.
If the casino are alleging fraud it is a different matter, but this does not seem to be the case... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: jetset at December 7, 2006, 9:40 am | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
Grab a screenshot of those T&Cs if they are still the same as when you played, too.
If you would like help in getting your case reviewed, this time by a higher level of authority let me have your personal details and I will suggest that to eCOGRA.
Alternatively, if for privacy reasons you have a problem with that, then you can contact the CEO direct. PM me if you cannot find his email address.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: gamblingman at December 7, 2006, 9:14 am | | Topic: Spin palace complaint: resolved Forum: Casino Meister |
I had the luck to win $6600 playing their signup bonus back on July 2006.
They decided not to pay because they claim that excluded games were played.
I thought maybe they changed the terms and now the games I played are excluded but I was surprised to see that the terms have not been changed.
I played Tri card poker and Deuces wild, I might have played also Joker poker or Deuces and Joker but no Aces Videopoker and no Jacks or better.
They don't reply to my emails anymore.
I tried the eCOGRA, they repeated the casino oice, bonus abuse...
When I replied to Tax Ree from eCOGRA explaining that no excluded game was played and this is a mistake he also chose not to reply any more to 3 of my emails.
Hi there xxxx,
Account tsprxxxxxx
Kindly note that we have removed the 100% Sign on bonus and all
winnings, and we have issued your initial deposit of $50.00 back to
your
NETeller account.
... | | Read Entire Entry |
|