| Posted by: expertofpoke at November 10, 2005, 5:35 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
I think casino on net is not bad...but must be careful..
___________________________________
Do you want play poker and win average $12-$56 per hour？
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Blue at November 10, 2005, 3:41 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Just pay it and move on. Bad streaks happen, but you'll also hit winning streaks. The ying and yang of gambling.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: dominique at November 8, 2005, 3:11 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Tell me about it - bad streaks are really upsetting.
But then the good streaks are so much fun....
You really can't take it out on the casino when you had a bad streak.
You should pay what you owe them! I know, it feels bad after you lost, but next time you may win and it will all fall into place.
You don't want to sabotage your own integrity...
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: luckystrike at November 7, 2005, 11:05 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
well i've played at casino on net lots of times - the games have always looked fair to me....you look as if you had a ery bad streak - this happens sometimes you know
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Codomain at November 7, 2005, 1:18 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
So you made a deposit, spent money you didn't get charged for as you entered a wrong account numbe an now don't intend to pay?
Yeah shows what kind of person you are.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: patrick at October 5, 2005, 11:42 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
I played at casino on net last week and I felt that I was cheated because my gaming history was horrific. Now they say one of my transactions was returned because account# was wrong now they say I owe them $50. Wow not only do I feel like I got cheated by them now they want me to give them another $50 on top of all the money i feel they cheated from me. Maybe I should make up something about a bonus like they do and not pay (haha). I had used a citadell account and if I wanted I could of stopped payments on all my transactions if I felt like it, but I'm not that type of person. I don't want to pay this last $50 it's just like a kick in the ---,but maybe I should pay it and be done with this bad experience.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Vahe Baloulian at November 18, 2003, 12:24 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Dear Magnek, in general, if you give us non-bonus play along with participating in promotions, there is no reason for you to be blocked. Although in some cases we may find it warranted to limit player's access to promotional money.
Every case is different and I request that you send your info to manager@casino-on-net.com, ATTN: Vahe. Please do it ASAP since I am going on a business trip soon. I will review your case and will respond to you.
Thanks, Vahe
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: magnek at November 18, 2003, 8:13 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Vahe,
I was banned from CON several months back. I was a VIP player who had given over 1.7 million dollars in non-bonus action, yet I was still banned. I had received lots of bonuses during my 2+ years at your casino. The biggest bonus was during your 007 roulette promotion. I profited large from that promotion so in return I gave the casino hours upon hours of non-bonus play. I still accepted arious bonuses that were offered to me, yet I continued to play and play and lost many thousands doing so.
When I received the email about no longer being welcome in the casino I was completely flabbergasted. I had assumed I had built a great relationship with the casino considering my long term play. I emailed the VIP department back asking if there was a possible mistake and to please clarify. I was given a few canned responses and was basically told that my action was not wanted.
My question now is what guidelines did the powers that be use to determine my unusefulness to the ca... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: BJlady at November 18, 2003, 1:38 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Thank-you for your consideration Vahe. If you or any of your managers have already emailed me, could you please email again as my ISP service has somehow lost the past 18 hours mail.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Vahe Baloulian at November 17, 2003, 1:10 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
I have reviewed accounts of those who wrote to me because they were blocked in connection with a bonus play.
I would like to mention that although we are dealing with thousands of players and mistakes are possible, we don’t take them lightly and ask you to contact us at manager@casino-on-net.com whenever you think that the action taken in regards to your membership was not justified.
Back to your cases. I don’t think we should have blocked your accounts and I am discussing the possibility to re-open them with the relevant managers.
At the same time, I think we should restrict some of you from participating in promotions for a while. Although you don’t do anything wrong and don’t break the rules, the only action we see from you is during promotions, when the House is at disadvantage. Yes, we organize and run these promotions to thank players for their non-bonus play and we expect players to take advantage of them. At the same time, these promotions are possible because of the n... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Vahe Baloulian at November 17, 2003, 3:14 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
To BJlady: Please send your Casino-on-Net user info to manager@casino-on-net.com, ATTN: VAHE. I will look into it and will reply to you ASAP.
Thanks,
Vahe
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: bewitch at November 16, 2003, 7:40 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
You are not alone. There are 2 persons, including me, were blocked out by them. I wasn't even doing any bonus hunting then. I deposit w/o bonus and even lost all my 2nd deposit.
Now my feeling is..... Forget it. Please close my account and remove all my personal information. In fact, thank you for doing it. So I won't waste my money at 5 days pending withdrawal here. There are a lot of great casino out there. Pay fast, fair game (better than CON) and great CS!
They might reopen you account today and block it again when they are in the banned players mood. So why even bother? They run their own rules and you never know when you against it.
Vahe might be able to help you. Good luck!
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: BJlady at November 16, 2003, 1:32 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
I'm just starting to have problems with CON, although I've been a member for a couple of years now,Vahe can you comment or help?
I personally promote CON to English casino players at popular website called Jokersrewards.com (in the come back forum) as a fair site, I play there every month with my own money, but my account has just been closed by some overzealous employee as a bonus abuser.
In the past twelve months I have not tried to claim every bonus going at CON, I play there often with no bonus, I don't just play BJ, but like slots and Pai-Gow, also I do not only bet tiny amounts never risking my own money.
In fact in the past year I've bet amounts from 25c (slots) to over $100 (Pai-Gow), and whenever I do play the bonus offers that I'm constantly urged to do in emails from CON, I always wager far and above whatever limits are set. In one instant I decided to enter a competition and ended up wagering over $6,500.
My casino behaviour as far as I can tell is... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Clayman at July 28, 2003, 6:08 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by caruso:
Just to clarify: my account was re-opened.
I disagree with ahe's comments about risk free play. I'm sorry the blackjack game was downgraded, and I'd be interested to know the reasoning. We're talking fractions of a percent - was it worth turning that unique game into just another nondescript online also-ran for so little?
Actually, I had your case in mind, when I asked my little question of Vahe before I left for the weekend. Now I'm back and see it created quite a dscussion which is what I hoped for. Knowing individual cases can always be reviewed by top management goes along way with me.
I'm glad your account was re-instated as it seemed to me you are the type of player that would not fall under most "bonus-abuser" guidelines. (Maybe the "compulsive gambler" guidelines - LOL).
Why it wasn't looked at when it happened perhaps represents a failure on the part of CON. Given the reluctance that Vahe says CON has i... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: caruso at July 28, 2003, 5:37 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Just to clarify: my account was re-opened.
I disagree with ahe's comments about risk free play. I know what he's trying to say, but I think he's not explaining himself clearly. My play was probably NEVER risk free; maybe, many many many moons ago when I was a $2 whore, a case could be made. For my latter play, with bets ranging from $25 to $100, I'd say the risks were there.
Of course, I respect the final decision, whatever the explanation.
I'm sorry the blackjack game was downgraded, and I'd be interested to know the reasoning. We're talking fractions of a percent - was it worth turning that unique game into just another nondescript online also-ran for so little?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: DrOakland at July 27, 2003, 9:20 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Vahe Baloulian:
DrOakland: I can't change the Blackjack rules, but if you send me your name, I will check your case. May be I can have your account reinstated, if you care, of course :-).
Well since your blackjack game is no longer "special", I really don't much care about coming back. Thanks anyway
DrO
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Trader v1.1 at July 27, 2003, 9:01 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
I really don't feel like I need to submit a "case." I played by the rules, won just over $8700 at CON from December 1999 to April 20, 2003 and was always paid promptly. Almost $3600 of that $8700 was from promotions and comp points, so I certainly have no complaints about the promotions I was given, the fairness of the games, or speed of payment.
Even if my account were to be reopened, I would have a feeling that I needed to be looking over my shoulder to see if I might be iolating some other unwritten rule. One of the written rules is that the casino can close an account if they want. I accept that. At least I know now that I will not lose back any portion of my winnings and CON will remain #3 on my lifetime winnings list for a while. There are still lots of places that welcome my action, and many of them have a blackjack game with a lower house advantage than CON. This is not something I want to argue about.
The CON web site now has the correct rules for blackjack posted. ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: swin at July 27, 2003, 7:33 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Trader 1.1, if all you said is true, CON is definitely denying any winners. though your winnings is not a big deal compared to the annual net profit of CON.
Vahe, appreciate your honest and quick response. I find your posting ery interesting and useful. You have mentioned a lot about the "bonus abuser" but we still find the definition not concrete enough. Maybe it's time for CON to set the industrial standard? I believe many players are label "bonus abusers" even without their own awareness. To our perception, so many casinos just lable "non-slots winners" as bonus abusers/hunters.
Do you think Trader 1.1 is a bonus abuser? Trader might be just lucky at those few days and they might lose or win in other casinos. This is ery normal in gambling.
Please keep us updated on your case, Trader.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Vahe Baloulian at July 27, 2003, 6:05 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Bart, I just want to assure you of the following:
1. We don't want players to spend more than they can afford. We close or set limits on the accounts of those who we feel cannot control their play. Setting limits is not profitable for us, but in some cases instead of cutting off the compulsive gambler all together and pushing him to a casino where he does not have a relationship and is not known for his problem gambling, we prefer to give him a controlled place for limited gambling and we monitor these players closely. The amount of money we turn away is staggering. However, any sensible casino operator knows that this money is worth not earning. Too much pain and suffering comes with it. This may sound too melodramatic, but I could not find another way to say it.
2. Bonus is given in direct correlation to the player's gaming action. I think it is fair to say that those who spend more should get more bonuses. This does not mean that we are pushing compulsive gamblers to spend more.... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: DrOakland at July 27, 2003, 5:16 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Vahe Baloulian:
We do not "boot otherwise honest players who won too much playing (y)our generous promotions." What we do is this – rather than changing our promotions, we simply close accounts of those who don't know a good thing when they see it.
No, you closed my account because I DID know a good thing when I saw it
I was an otherwise honest player. Had you left my account open and simply (courteously) stopped offering me bonuses, I probably would have played your blackjack game on occasion (the old ersion that allowed hitting split aces).
DrO
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: gamblinboi at July 27, 2003, 12:05 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
i find this whole thread interesting.
my two cents:
CON is a class act. If only all casinos were of their calibre..
My only gripe is the short pay JOB VP. I wish they offered full pay, but then again there are a ton of places online that do.. (MG's, playtechs like Sunnygroup)..
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Trader v1.1 at July 27, 2003, 11:33 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Sorry, Vahe. You are off a little on your facts. When I got no answer from live telephone support or email support I posted a warning here at WOL: http://www.winneronline.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/006256.html
I do not remember any newsletter about rule changes and have deleted all my CON correspondence now that my account has been closed. Maybe I just missed it. Maybe there was a problem with the newsletter on your end.
I accept your decision as final. There are plenty of other places to gamble online. At least you were professional enough to immediately stop sending me more promotional announcements when you closed my account.
Just for the record, I did not notice the rule change on my penultimate isit on April 17. That was "888 day". I deposited $888, received the $88 bonus and $5 in comp points, which would indicate I wagered at least TWICE the required amount. I cashed in $1576--which I consider a nice win.
On April 20 I deposited $1460(that was all I had in m... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bart at July 27, 2003, 9:55 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
I want to add one thing.
Vehe is kind enough to discuss these things with us in abstract. I have on occasion had an issue with Casino On Net for real. I have always found them to be reasonable in resolution and fair. I don't want my discussion to unfairly damage a well deserved reputation. If only ALL casinos were as good as CON.
bart
[This message has been edited by bart (edited 07-27-2003).]
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: bart at July 27, 2003, 9:27 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
I have a player who has been with us for 3 years. During this time he played only with bonuses, barely fulfilled the WR, and cashed out. Nothing illegal, everything according to the rules. I don’t want to continue serving this member. We pay fees to accept his deposit, we pay fees to cash him out, and we add to his cash out our own funds. However unpopular, it is a simple business decision. Now, should we toughen the WR? I don’t think so. I prefer to let this member go and still allow those who DESERVE – those who use their own funds as well to play – to take advantage of these liberal WR.
Except he can't take advantage of the liberal wagering requirements because then he is personna non grata. Look. A retired lady takes the bus to her favorite casino and gets 5 dollars of nickles. She pulls a few and gets a free drink. She goes and listens to the band for free. She pulls a few more and gets another drink. Shoud security escort her to the door? Certainly not. But they don't have to give her a f... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Vahe Baloulian at July 27, 2003, 6:52 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
I want to thank you all for taking time to share your thoughts and to raise these issues. Although most of them are concentrated around bonuses, it is a great education for my associates and me.
Now to Bart’s points.
However, you comment that the perception of winners being banned is "silly" I disagree with. It is not silly.
– What I meant is that we do not ban winners. Players have to win. And once they did, we try not to spoil it for them so that they spread the word..
A bonus in the Inet world or a comp in the real world acts as bait to play a recreational game. It's great for recreational players who play a reasonable amount. But more sinister for a compulsive player who now can play from his home. To give substance to your agruement that you are not trying to lure the Bill Bennetts of the world, you really do need to honor "all" your players. If the player did not cheat, he should not be booted. There is no such thing as a bonus abuser who honors... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: caruso at July 26, 2003, 12:53 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Trader, if you didn't find that Email rude then you received one different to the one I got - and I'm sure we got the same one.
The rule discrepancy you mention is another issue, and equally unwholesome. CON used to have a fine Blackjack game; now that it's sunk into the same mediocrity as all the others, and given that the rest of the CON game selection is nondescript (to put it mildly), what is there that now distinguishes CON from other reputable casinos, that would cause Player X to choose CON over casino A, B or C? Crypto has some good VP and and pretty much identical blackjack, MG has a fine VP / slot selection and excellent blackjack (assuming a fair game), Boss is much of a muchness, and RTG is lightening fast with one or two excellent table games and occasionally good VP.
Having ditched the "trademark" blackjack game, I see nothing now that marks out CON against the competition - other than its longevity, and an advertising budget that would make the Sultan Of Brunei... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Trader v1.1 at July 26, 2003, 11:54 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Welcome back Vahe.
In my opinion CON has always been a class act. That is why I was so surprised when you changed the rule about split aces in your blackjack game and did not even post what the new rules actually were. I respect your right to make changes, even if I do not like them. I do not respect a casino that posts one set of rules and plays by another. When I questioned this move with casino support, the only answer I got was to have my account closed after more than three years. And yes, I had won quite a bit of money at CON over that time, even more than your frequent bonuses.
I also respect your right to ban players, for any reason--or for no reason at all. I did not find the letter rude, only disappointing. I don't think I could compose a letter informing someone that his action was not wanted without provoking a negative reaction. It was the seeming connection with a perfectly alid complaint that bothered me.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Vahe Baloulian at July 26, 2003, 9:17 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
1. There were 36 apparently that were initially denied the bonus for completely no reason. I would like to know how they decided which 7 to remove the bonus from in the end. I now think Erik Shirak (reef club) = Vahe Baloulian (CON). Anyone seen them at the same place at the same time? –
Conspiracy theories are fun. Anyone seen me at all? I don't date Erik Shirak, who is not with Reef for a long time anyway, to be "at the same place at the same time." ;-) Erik may have mentioned mentioned 36 players, but all I see from where I am now – only 7 were not allowed to cash out the bonus and 1 was blocked. All of them got their winnings.
I am not quite sure how these 7 were picked. From my experience, I can say that casinos sometimes overreact and initial number may have resulted from that. It is also possible that the rest of the members simply continued playing and showed that they are not there for the bonus only. As I said, Erik is not here and I can only guess how 36 became 7. I am ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bart at July 26, 2003, 8:52 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Vahe Baloulian:
What's the biggest challenges for CON for 2003? – There are a few equally big challenges. One of them, for example, is the legislation proposed in the US Congress that will affect the players ability to play and may make our US market smaller. Another big challenge was our move from Antigua to EU, which is mostly accomplished....
From Caruso: Why did you close my account... – Before I comment, I need to take a look at your account. Please send your details to manager@casino-on-net.com. Make sure to mark your email to my attention, as I am not the manager anymore.
.....But even if we made $1 a year, it still would be because of your PLAYERS, and we never take them for granted.
.. We do not "boot otherwise honest players who won too much playing (y)our generous promotions." What we do is this – rather than changing our promotions, we simply close accounts of those who don't know a good thing when they see it. Again,... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: joeyl at July 26, 2003, 6:37 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Thanks for the answers Vahe..8 & 9 are intertwined with your question to Clayman and bounce off of the word deserve.That got miscommunicated somewhere,no worries i can glean from your answer the jist.
10 however.(you are the expert but i will say this as if i know what i'm talking about)If you have a system where you can decipher who to or not to advance comps or bonuses to why do people need to be banished?(fraudsters not included)
Take Caruso as a perfect example.
Is it monetarily beneficial to ban a Caruso?No bonuses offered to him for example is all that is needed.Why deny yourself the chance to maybe have him for example deposit one day without a bonus?Impossible if he's banned.He may sit on the train one day and see your adverts,he may come home and play one day with no bonus.
I have no problems personally with C.O.N,that was not my angle.
I ask every casino person as many questions as i can.I ultimately try to learn from you and others.
[This messag... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: richardadc at July 25, 2003, 7:39 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
I wouldn't quite say that Sirius, but i still believe CON/Cassava have a lot to answer for. Reef Club have behaved worse that some of the worst RTG's i.e. Crystal Palace.
In the end, if you want to play at a trustworthy casino stick with Ladbrokes or 32Red.
[This message has been edited by richardadc (edited 07-25-2003).]
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Sirius at July 25, 2003, 7:07 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Vahe Baloulian:
1. From Swin: For the 2x WR, do you have any excluded games such as Roulette, Baccarat? – Only low-risk bets in Roulette and Craps, such as black-red or pass-don't pass, are excluded. We could have made our life easy and exclude these games altogether. However, this would unjustifiably punish those gamblers who play exclusively Craps and Roulette. It does cost us more to be selective, but we think it's worth it.
2. From Swin: What's the biggest challenges for CON for 2003? – There are a few equally big challenges. One of them, for example, is the legislation proposed in the US Congress that will affect the players ability to play and may make our US market smaller. Another big challenge was our move from Antigua to EU, which is mostly accomplished.
3. From Caruso: Glad to see you back, Vahe - I thought there'd been big management changes at CON, including the ousting of your good self. – Thanks. Actually, there were not that many ch... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Vahe Baloulian at July 25, 2003, 5:47 pm | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
1. From Swin: For the 2x WR, do you have any excluded games such as Roulette, Baccarat? – Only low-risk bets in Roulette and Craps, such as black-red or pass-don't pass, are excluded. We could have made our life easy and exclude these games altogether. However, this would unjustifiably punish those gamblers who play exclusively Craps and Roulette. It does cost us more to be selective, but we think it's worth it.
2. From Swin: What's the biggest challenges for CON for 2003? – There are a few equally big challenges. One of them, for example, is the legislation proposed in the US Congress that will affect the players ability to play and may make our US market smaller. Another big challenge was our move from Antigua to EU, which is mostly accomplished.
3. From Caruso: Glad to see you back, Vahe - I thought there'd been big management changes at CON, including the ousting of your good self. – Thanks. Actually, there were not that many changes. I did move within the company and currently ov... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Sirius at July 25, 2003, 11:42 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Doesn't anyone remember this thread??
http://www.winneronline.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/005444.html
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: joeyl at July 25, 2003, 10:05 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Vahe Baloulian:
Dear Clayman,
How about you answer this question? Let's say you are running a casino. Who would you say deserves a bonus in your casino and who does not?
I'll answer after I hear from you and anyone who wants to add-in their two cents.
Thanks,
Vahe www.888.com
Everyone who signs up for the first time gets a bonus and that is fair if not profitable short term.
After that those who deserve a bonus are whoever you so decide deserves a bonus.
That said..If you can banish you can seperate with the right staff and software for them to utilise.
Vahe,at your casino how many staff will it take to operate a system where a seperation process defining who you do and don't think deserves a bonus can be put in place?
Of those players that don't get offered bonuses for the foreseeable future how many do you estimate will come back and play without a bonus and how much money will they lose in co... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: zrapture at July 25, 2003, 8:47 am | | Topic: casino on net Forum: Winner Online |
Vahe,
You guys should really look into a system which allows you to disable bonuses from certain accounts rather then have to boot otherwise honest players who won too much playing your generous promotions. You have no positive expectation games so I can't see how it could hurt to give those players the opportunity to play minus the bonuses. I can see no downside in the above idea except for the time it would take to implement the changes on your end.
| | Static Link |
|