greasemonkey VS Club Worlds Alladin's Gold

[greasemonkey]

I am new to the casino at Alladin's gold but I won't be going back the way they are acting. It is very hard for me to trust them. The reason is that they have a bonus for all deposits that you make for the first 7 days of membership. It sounds great! The problem is that they were treating me great at first and very nice. They even sent me an email for an additional 100% bonus on top of the 7 days! However, I won once then they cancelled all the bonuses. They wouldnt allow me to do the rest of the 7 days and on top of that they voided the emailed bonus.

So it is classic bait and switch. They lured me in with all promises of bonuses and great support then they took it all away after I had one win. They claim it is their right to stop giving bonuses. I agree that they have no commitment to give me bonuses going forward but they agreed to give me a bonus on every deposit for the first 7 days of my membership and to void that is just being dishonest. It is bait and switch. They want me to play so they offer a bonus then they take it away half way into it.

I will not trust them after this. Also, they keep changing my betting limits. They lower my minimum/maximum bets then they raise them then they lower them again. It is as if they are trying to figure out how to make it worse for me. It is just unethical and gives me the creeps to be playing there. I wouldnt suggest it to anyone after my experience.
They DID pay me so that is one good thing for them. still, very unethical practices other than that.

 

[slotjunkie]

That is horrible! I would never go back if it was me! I also had an experience there that was creepy! Uninstalled!

 

[takethemoney]

Accedited casino!

They should not be so arbitrary and if this is the MO, they shouldn't be accredited. No casinos that switch things around on a customer just for winning should be accredited.

 

[Lucky Loser]

I don't know how CWC casinos got accredited here. Their conduct is certainly no shining light for other casinos to follow.

They have a $3k cashout limit, they charge for ewallet withdrawals and they bait with bonuses and then put up the barriers if you win. It seems they want your money but not the overheads or risk that go with running a decent casino operation.

 

[clubworld]

We got our accreditation here by running an excellent casino for many years.

We do not charge for eWallet withdrawals and all we ask if you win is that you verify your account.

When the OP in this thread requested his withdrawal my cashier team reviewed the account and saw that he was participating in a playing strategy that we deemed abusive. As such they processed the withdrawal and restricted any further bonuses.

Regards
Tom

 

[maxd]

Since there appears to be more to this story than originally stated I've changed the thread title to indicate that there is some disagreement over the facts here between the respective parties.

 

[Nate]

We got our accreditation here by running an excellent casino for many years.

We do not charge for eWallet withdrawals and all we ask if you win is that you verify your account.

When the OP in this thread requested his withdrawal my cashier team reviewed the account and saw that he was participating in a playing strategy that we deemed abusive. As such they processed the withdrawal and restricted any further bonuses.

Regards
Tom

Hello Tom,

Care to explain what the Casino deems 'Abusive' and what is regarded as a 'Playing Strategy'...

Thank You

 

[winbig]

Hello Tom,

Care to explain what the Casino deems 'Abusive' and what is regarded as a 'Playing Strategy'...

Thank You

Yes, please. Aren't these SUB's for slots only? How could a playing strategy be at all effective on a set of games that the house is always going to win on? With one of the highest HA's there is to offer, you should be happy to have players that only play the slots.

If they played other games, then please disregard my above statements.

 

[takethemoney]

It sounds like the point being missed is that the bonus ban occurred before he got to use the 7 days of bonuses that were used to lure players to join. After he had used them, then it should be their perogative to remove future bonuses, but the fact that they let this player join thinking he had the bonuses, then yanked them away as such has caused this player to play under false pretenses and this is a breach on the casino's part, IMO.

 

[winbig]

Ah, the nice FU clause that's listed in the T&C for that particular bonus offer:

"We reserve the right to withdraw these offers at our sole discretion."

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

 

[takethemoney]

Ah, the nice FU clause that's listed in the T&C for that particular bonus offer:

"We reserve the right to withdraw these offers at our sole discretion."

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

It's fair as long as they put this term in too: "the players shall be allowed the right to withdraw their deposit at any time, at they're sole discretion". Fair is fair.
I think CW is a good casino, but I disagree with them on this one.

 

[vinylweatherman]

We got our accreditation here by running an excellent casino for many years.

We do not charge for eWallet withdrawals and all we ask if you win is that you verify your account.

When the OP in this thread requested his withdrawal my cashier team reviewed the account and saw that he was participating in a playing strategy that we deemed abusive. As such they processed the withdrawal and restricted any further bonuses.

Regards
Tom

Sadly, the OP didn't enlighten us as to his strategy, just the fact that he was OK to play this strategy WHEN HE WAS LOSING, but it was deemed "abusive" WHEN HE WON, and the offer was thus terminated.

This offer is not all that well thought out though, since it theoretically offers UNLIMITED 100% bonuses for 7 days, and it is hard NOT to come out ahead provided you have a big enough bankroll.

There is also the question of his betting limits constantly changing from one session to the next, WTF is all that about I have NEVER experienced this with RTG software before, and RTG themselves say that it is NOT possible to make "account specific" changes, but only changes that apply to all players at a particular casino.

Not charging for ewallet withdrawals has also been contradicted in another thread, and was shown to be in your "smallprint".

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/manhattan-slots-104-withdrawal-fee-to-neteller.38865/

In here, a player simply made more than one withdrawal in a 28 day period. According to T & C therefore, he was charged 2%. BUT, this fee was applied RETROSPECTIVELY to earlier withdrawals that were initially free, but BECAME retrospectively chargeable because of the last withdrawal.

In his exchanges with CWC, at no point was this player told his pattern was deemed "abusive", but rather that it was "normal practice" to levy these charges if more than one withdrawal was made within a 28 day period.

From his account of his last session, he completed WR on a bonus, so therefore it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for this deposit to have been used (as I suspected) to "churn" money for the current Neteller promo.

What is bad in this incident was that the player was simply hit with the charges, and WITHOUT prior warning that his depositing patterns had been deemed as "churning", rather than for playing. He further mentioned that he had LOST significantly overall at the casino, and this does NOT happen if you are "churning" money through the casino, playing it a token 1x through, and withdrawing, in order to manipulate the Neteller promo.

In short, it looks like you DO indeed charge for ewallet withdrawals beyond one "free" one per month, but when there is another, not only is that charged, but the earlier free one is charged retrospectively. This is in the terms and conditions, so is "normal practice", rather than an exception (unless you regularly ignore your own T & C).

That thread still awaits the benefit of your reply as to WHY this player got charged $104 for that ewallet withdrawal.

 

[jod5413]

I only have one thing to say.......Inetbet.

Though they do not offer live chat support, they let you know where you stand, they do not change the bonuses or terms midstream, they pay without hassle.

The End.

 

[clubworld]

Hello,

I have posted in the other thread VWM refers to, but to reiterate we don’t charge for eWallet withdrawals and this is not in our terms and conditions. The player referred to has been less than completely transparent, and is in fact many thousands of dollars in profit.

The table limits for the OP in this thread were not changed from one session to the next. They were increased from the new player limits of $50 per hand to the regular player limits of $250 per hand. No other changes at all.

But back to the main issue in this thread, should we have revoked this promotion for this player?

If we only offered promotions that were impossible for bonus advantage players to profit from they would be so stingy and overladen with terms and conditions that no-one would want them at all.

As such our policy is to offer generous promotions with reasonable terms, and if someone is participating in a playing style that is clearly abusive we cash out the winnings and reduce the bonuses offered to them. We would never revoke bonuses for players simply because they have won - it is all down to the system they use to play.

Greasemonkey’s experiences with our casino has been to make a few deposits, claim a few bonuses, make a few thousand profit, get paid out within 48 hours and be told that this promotions is no longer available to him. I genuinely fail to see how this is either Rogue behaviour or an FU.

Regards
Tom

 

[winbig]

So other than being in the black, how did the player abuse the system?

 

[anniemac]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

Let's say the OP made a deposit, took bonus, made playthru and immediately cashed out. Got paid within a day or so. Again, made deposit, took bonus, made playthru and immediately cashed out. Repeat process, etc. I can see where a casino would have a problem with this type of play. CW is not the only casino to remove or change bonuses because of this play. And as Bryan has stated in other threads, bonuses are given at the casinos discretion.

While I have bitched about CW on occasion, I have never had one problem with them as far as my bonus structure. I have been ahead by alot some months but my bonuses never change.

So possibly before we hang them by their thumbs, we might need to know the whole story.

And nope, not shilling for CW. Just stating another possible side to this story.

 

[The Dude]

I just want to make a few general comments - these are not directed at anyone in particular, it's just a general commentary that can be applied to a number of situations; perhaps including this one.

If you want to solve any issue - you're going to have to see both sides of the fence. What I'm gathering is that most people don't like the term "abusive" correct? Perhaps another term needs to be coined in order to get beyond certain definitions or semantics. How about "inventive play"

Let's not forget:
Bonuses are not obligatory - no casino is obliged to give you one/you are not obliged to take one either.

When you accept the bonus, you accept the terms and conditions - if you see something that alarms you, e.g. the term "abusive play", ask the casino to define what that is. Or bring this up in the forum.

If something bothers you, and you want something to change, then by all means drop rhetoric that puts people on the defensive. Pushing people into a corner won't get you very far. Sure, it's great to vent, but if you want to persuade someone to make a change, drilling them with accusations won't help.

 

[Nate]

When you accept the bonus, you accept the terms and conditions - if you see something that alarms you, e.g. the term "abusive play", ask the casino to define what that is. Or bring this up in the forum.
help.

Ty Meister... I have asked this exact same question in a previous post on this thread...

What does the Casino deem 'Abusive' and what is 'Playing Strategy' .... The question was not answered although specifically directed at Tom...

 

[darkpixie]

I was of the understanding that CM frowned upon casinos that played the Advantage player card per the notation in the Accreditation Section:

Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations.

Not saying that this is specifically the case here, BUT the player DID join and agree to the 7 days of deposit bonuses offered by the casino at the time he joined, likewise the casino made the agreement to uphold this deal by accepting his first deposit.

Now if the player is playing the bonuses within their T&C, I believe that the Casino should keep its end of the bargain here and after the 7 days may offer bonuses to this player or not at their own discretion.

If the player is NOT playing within the defined T&C then the casino has every right to confiscate his winnings and return his deposit, but should still stand by the 7 days of deposit bonuses. By processing his first withdrawal the Casino has made it pretty clear that this is NOT the case here.

As long as the player plays within the T&C then all bets are off. The Casino made an offer and a player accepted it. If CWC continues to not honor the 7 days of deposit bonuses then that's a dark spot on their record for sure.

And a question to the casino, how many losing players did you contact and inform that they are no longer eligible for the 7 days of bonuses??

Just throwing out a guess here and that would be zero!

 

[winbig]

And a question to the casino, how many losing players did you contact and inform that they are no longer eligible for the 7 days of bonuses??

And in addition, how many other (non CM, apparently) players have won and have had these bonuses taken away for the same reason?

 

[Nate]

And a question to the casino, how many losing players did you contact and inform that they are no longer eligible for the 7 days of bonuses??

Excellent Q

 

[brianzz]

From what I'm seeing here is the only "advantage play" or "abusive" behavior is the player made a deposit, got a bonus, made wagering requirements and won.

Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot we're just supposed to give online casinos our money. I'm so glad I washed my hands of online casinos a few weeks ago, I've been in such a better mood.

 

[takethemoney]

From what I'm seeing here is the only "advantage play" or "abusive" behavior is the player made a deposit, got a bonus, made wagering requirements and won.

Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot we're just supposed to give online casinos our money. I'm so glad I washed my hands of online casinos a few weeks ago, I've been in such a better mood.

The new modus operandi is that any kind of play that does not allow the casino to take your deposit before you make the playthrough and bust out must be considered advantage or abusive play by the customer. Check! Online gaming continues to go down the crapper. Why won't these places just let the RTP do it's job without creating extra obstacles? The vendor of the software has already built in the house edge but apparently that's not good enough for these greedy casinos that insist on using tactics like giving bonuses then taking them away, aka bait and switch. Yes it pisses me off. Not having bonuses is one thing and an acceptable perogative for the casino. It's their business and as long as they do business in an ethical manner, we players have no right to tell them how to run things. When they start pulling the rug out from under people like this, I think we have the right to say something about the ethics involved. This does not just apply to this casino, but any casino that does business like this. People can always express their approval or disapproval with their wallets.....that is our perogative as well. This incident would keep me from ever depositing at such a casino again and I wonder how many other folks here who read this kind of stuff avoid them as well? Their business practices must certainly be driving customers away.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hello,

I have posted in the other thread VWM refers to, but to reiterate we don’t charge for eWallet withdrawals and this is not in our terms and conditions. The player referred to has been less than completely transparent, and is in fact many thousands of dollars in profit.

The table limits for the OP in this thread were not changed from one session to the next. They were increased from the new player limits of $50 per hand to the regular player limits of $250 per hand. No other changes at all.

But back to the main issue in this thread, should we have revoked this promotion for this player?

If we only offered promotions that were impossible for bonus advantage players to profit from they would be so stingy and overladen with terms and conditions that no-one would want them at all.

As such our policy is to offer generous promotions with reasonable terms, and if someone is participating in a playing style that is clearly abusive we cash out the winnings and reduce the bonuses offered to them. We would never revoke bonuses for players simply because they have won - it is all down to the system they use to play.

Greasemonkey’s experiences with our casino has been to make a few deposits, claim a few bonuses, make a few thousand profit, get paid out within 48 hours and be told that this promotions is no longer available to him. I genuinely fail to see how this is either Rogue behaviour or an FU.

Regards
Tom

OK, the player ended up ahead overall, and you then stopped all FURTHER bonuses. However, what was the $104 "fine" for? IF you don't normally charge for withdrawals, this $104 must have been a fine, so what did he do wrong other than having the brass nerve to WIN.

You said :-

Greasemonkey’s experiences with our casino has been to make a few deposits, claim a few bonuses, make a few thousand profit, get paid out within 48 hours and be told that this promotions is no longer available to him. I genuinely fail to see how this is either Rogue behaviour or an FU.

So, he did nothing wrong, but you DID "confiscate" $104 from his winnings, and this IS what could be considered as "rogue behaviour", because it goes beyond merely banning a player from future bonuses after having paid current winnings.

The advantage element from the 7 day bonus could be removed by adding a term that ends the promotion upon a withdrawal that takes the player into profit, for whatever reason. This would prevent players cashing out a profit, and then depositing again for further 100% bonuses.

 

[greasemonkey]

Sorry that I had not responded. I was away for a week. I made 8 deposits at Alladins Gold. Only on the 8th deposit did I win. What I did that was abusive is.... win? I don't know other than that. I played table games. They have 2 bonuses. 200% for slots and 100% for table. I played table games. I deposited $500usd in total and they loved me. Like I said, I even got sent an individual (for me only) Email bonus during this time. When I tried to redeem it they had taken that back also. Classic bait and switch.
Also, the person posting from CWC is not accurate. They DID change my betting limits often. I started at $100 max bet, it then went to $250 after one point when I checked the cashier for my comps and playthrough, then down to $50. When I next logged in it was back to $250 then I went to the cashier for live chat and came back and it was $50 again. so there were multiple movements of the number and there were 3 different numbers for max bet that they were moving to and from.
Like I have maintained, I agree that they do NOT have to give me a bonus going forward if they don't like my table game play but to Email me a personalized bonus when I am down 8 deposits then say they wont honor that bonus ANNNNND take away the signup bonus WHILE I AM PLAYING IT is nothing more than bait and switch and no matter how the poster from cwc tries to spin it, it is roguish in nature. It is offering one thing and doing another. I would even understand it if I had broken a term or something. I simply played table games, had a great run and cashed out well after meeting wagering on my 8th deposit. As I read these posts the more that action was "defended" the more roguish it seemed to me even more than when it was happening. How could anyone think that this is an acceptible practice? The casino really has a ton of audacity in this matter.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sorry that I had not responded. I was away for a week. I made 8 deposits at Alladins Gold. Only on the 8th deposit did I win. What I did that was abusive is.... win? I don't know other than that. I played table games. They have 2 bonuses. 200% for slots and 100% for table. I played table games. I deposited $500usd in total and they loved me. Like I said, I even got sent an individual (for me only) Email bonus during this time. When I tried to redeem it they had taken that back also. Classic bait and switch.
Also, the person posting from CWC is not accurate. They DID change my betting limits often. I started at $100 max bet, it then went to $250 after one point when I checked the cashier for my comps and playthrough, then down to $50. When I next logged in it was back to $250 then I went to the cashier for live chat and came back and it was $50 again. so there were multiple movements of the number and there were 3 different numbers for max bet that they were moving to and from.
Like I have maintained, I agree that they do NOT have to give me a bonus going forward if they don't like my table game play but to Email me a personalized bonus when I am down 8 deposits then say they wont honor that bonus ANNNNND take away the signup bonus WHILE I AM PLAYING IT is nothing more than bait and switch and no matter how the poster from cwc tries to spin it, it is roguish in nature. It is offering one thing and doing another. I would even understand it if I had broken a term or something. I simply played table games, had a great run and cashed out well after meeting wagering on my 8th deposit. As I read these posts the more that action was "defended" the more roguish it seemed to me even more than when it was happening. How could anyone think that this is an acceptible practice? The casino really has a ton of audacity in this matter.

It rather looks like incompetence on their part. They sent you a personalised mailer, BUT YOU WERE STILL PLAYING THE 7 DAY WELCOME PACKAGE. You were allowed to claim 8 times, and ONLY WHEN YOU WON on your 8th deposit were you banned from further promotions. The reps reply confirms this, it is the fact that you WON that triggered the early withdrawal of this (badly planned) welcome offer. You have also won at their sister casinos, and overall are up "several thousand".

This might trigger a bonus ban, BUT this was done in an incompetent manner, with conflicting actions being made by different members of staff. Marketing (or similar) sent you a special offer after you lost 8 deposits in a row, but didn't think to check whether you were STILL within your 7 day welcome offer period. When you were banned from winning on the 8th deposit, it was a consequence NOT mentioned in the terms, but was nethertheless a sensible term to have on such an open ended promotion. This resulted in a RETROSPECTIVE withdrawal of a personal offer already made (very disjointed customer service - the offer should NOT have been sent until the 7 day one had been exhausted, given that too much winning gets a bonus ban at CWC).

The continual oscillation between 250 and 50 for the max bet has not been properly explained by "player class upgrade". This would explain the move from 50 to 250, but NOT the further "messing about" of this figure between these limits. It does rather look like a move intended to throw a player off his game by messing around with his head whilst he is playing, a bit like that tale of the "hot" craps player who kept on winning, and the pit boss resorted to chucking a load of chicken bones under the table for "bad luck" when all the usual measures failed to break the winning streak.

Now, CWC have lost their chance of winning the money back from you because of all this "messing around", and you will probably be playing elsewhere now.

Unfortunately, the rep has pretty much admitted that you were banned because you had won "several thousand" from their casinos, taking bonuses that are supposedly available to EVERYBODY, not just losers. It seems that the "secret rule" is that these bonuses are ONLY intended for loyal LOSING players, and not loyal but WINNING players.

I have only played at the original Club World, but have been bonus banned merely for winning more than I had deposited. I was NEVER told I broke any terms, or "played clever". I was put back on the list a year later, and played SLOTS, and ONLY slots. I won again, and was bonus banned AGAIN (it was a large win though, took 3 weeks @ $3000 per week). I even PLAYED regularly on my balance during that 3 week period, even though all WR had been met. NO WAY was this "abusive", I must have been bonus banned for nothing more than winning. No-one can say that I was not LOYAL by playing on long after WR had been met, rather than waiting it out & withdrawing $3000 per week.

I am sure I will get all the promotions back if I were to lose "several thousand" back & go negative again on my lifetime win, but "that aint gonna happen"

 

[doc3738]

bonus removed andf banned

I can't believe that anyone would be surprised at CW and its sister sites taking bonus money back or restricting bonus taken.
I have quit playing any casino that uses RTG software.
If you watch when making a deposit or at some point in a game a small window pops open and there is a statemet " no random wins will be awarded for more than what the deposit is "
now that leaves it wide open does it mean for that one deposit or all deposits for that day or all deposits ever made to the one casino or a total of all casinos
If they will take a random win away from you then why would they hesitate to take bonus money
I have ask several casinos including CW about this and have never received a reply
Be glad you got your winnings

 

[skiny]

We got our accreditation here by running an excellent casino for many years.

When the OP in this thread requested his withdrawal my cashier team reviewed the account and saw that he was participating in a playing strategy that we deemed abusive. As such they processed the withdrawal and restricted any further bonuses.

Regards
Tom

Did I miss something in this thread? I still don't see how the play was "abusive." I'd like to see a more specific explanation of what constitutes abusive play.

Isn't a specific explanation one of the rules of accreditation?

 

[mclee321]

If you watch when making a deposit or at some point in a game a small window pops open and there is a statemet " no random wins will be awarded for more than what the deposit is "

I'm sorry but WTF does this mean? You can't win a Random Jackpot over the amount you deposit? You can't withdraw more than you deposit?

This would be a massive issue, could you tell us the exact message and where the f*%k you are (were) playing!

 

[greasemonkey]

. You have also won at their sister casinos, and overall are up "several thousand".

...





Unfortunately, the rep has pretty much admitted that you were banned because you had won "several thousand" from their casinos, p

Actually, I have never played at any other of their sister casinos except alladins. Never ever. Alladins is the only one of this group that I had ever played.

 

[The Dude]

Actually, I have never played at any other of their sister casinos except alladins. Never ever. Alladins is the only one of this group that I had ever played.

Are you willing to swear to this? I hope you're not trying to misrepresent what went down. From what I gather, you've have an account at CWC USD, Aladdins, Lucky Red, Manhattan, and All Star casino (recently acquired).

Now I noticed you signed up in this form just prior to starting this thread, and you seem to be very well versed on the ins an' outs of online gaming; you're no newbie - and you seem to be very familiar with this site.

I know I know, you've probably been lurking for some time now and just opened an account in this forum. That's cool. But if it turns out you have been posting previously under a different handle - especially a banned one, that would be very uncool.

You say "bait 'n switch" - I say there's more to this than what meets the eye.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Are you willing to swear to this? I hope you're not trying to misrepresent what went down. From what I gather, you've have an account at CWC USD, Aladdins, Lucky Red, Manhattan, and All Star casino (recently acquired).

Now I noticed you signed up in this form just prior to starting this thread, and you seem to be very well versed on the ins an' outs of online gaming; you're no newbie - and you seem to be very familiar with this site.

I know I know, you've probably been lurking for some time now and just opened an account in this forum. That's cool. But if it turns out you have been posting previously under a different handle - especially a banned one, that would be very uncool.

You say "bait 'n switch" - I say there's more to this than what meets the eye.

This is what the rep said, but if this was so, WHY was he allowed to claim EIGHT bonuses, and presumably would have been allowed to carry on until he cashed out.

This seems pretty predatory, since he had ALREADY committed the "offence" of winning "thousands" at the sister sites, so surely he should have found his newest account with the group IMMEDIATELY blocked from promotions.

It seems very much that it was the act of WINNING, rather than taking the bonuses, or the way he played, that drove the decision to issue this "bonus ban".

Would he have been bonus banned had he gone right through the 7 days, and his personal offer, without ever managing to win?
The fact that he was not banned for 8 consecutive deposits, looks to me like he would have been able to carry on claiming bonus after bonus for as long as it took him to win something and cash out. This is NOT how decisions like this should be made. It should have NOTHING to do with the result, BUT depend on the style of play, number of accounts at sisters, and whether only the welcome offers were played at each before moving on.

 

[anniemac]

I have no knowledge of greasemonkey and his 'problem' with CWC but I just have to step in and post my knowledge of Club World.

I play at CW alot and I mean alot. I have won a considerable amount, $3000 at one pop on a $25 plus bonus deposit. Never once have I been bonus banned or even had a possiblity of this happening. I get loyalty chips, VIP bonuses and am able to collect my GG bonus deposit each month.

I hate to see a pretty decent casino knocked about when maybe we don't know the whole story.

Greasemonkey, if you are on the up and up, I certainly hope you get this worked out to your advantage. If not, then shame on you.

 

[takethemoney]

I have no knowledge of greasemonkey and his 'problem' with CWC but I just have to step in and post my knowledge of Club World.

I play at CW alot and I mean alot. I have won a considerable amount, $3000 at one pop on a $25 plus bonus deposit. Never once have I been bonus banned or even had a possiblity of this happening. I get loyalty chips, VIP bonuses and am able to collect my GG bonus deposit each month.

I hate to see a pretty decent casino knocked about when maybe we don't know the whole story.

Greasemonkey, if you are on the up and up, I certainly hope you get this worked out to your advantage. If not, then shame on you.

Casinos are sometimes "selectively good" to some players. That does not change the fact that I read a lot of complaints about them.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I have no knowledge of greasemonkey and his 'problem' with CWC but I just have to step in and post my knowledge of Club World.

I play at CW alot and I mean alot. I have won a considerable amount, $3000 at one pop on a $25 plus bonus deposit. Never once have I been bonus banned or even had a possiblity of this happening. I get loyalty chips, VIP bonuses and am able to collect my GG bonus deposit each month.

I hate to see a pretty decent casino knocked about when maybe we don't know the whole story.

Greasemonkey, if you are on the up and up, I certainly hope you get this worked out to your advantage. If not, then shame on you.

Well, I am using my own personal experience to form my views. I was also bonus banned, and all I did was play slots, and claiming bonuses with the majority of my deposits. I was also VIP before the bonus ban.

I played $5 per spin mostly, occasionally $10 per spin. VIP bonuses were up to $2000, often at or near 100%.

After a session where I managed to withdraw 3 lots of $3000 and 1 lot of $2000, I became ineligible for further promotions other than a single ongoing 30% or so slots bonus, despite the fact many promotions were being advertised as available for "everyone".

I ONLY had an account with Club World (Dollars), I had NOT opened accounts at all the sister casinos as they came along just to get more welcome bonuses.

My conclusion is that it is NOT about "bonus abuse", it is about WINNING getting you dropped from promotions. It's not just a single win, but your overall position during the life of the account. The rep implies that the overall position across the group is used, not just that at a single casino.

Winning at table games generally seems worse when it comes to getting the boot from the bonuses, since there is an element of skill that does not exist with slot games.

Why is it so hard for casinos to admit that some bonus bans are due to nothing more than players being unduly "lucky", being at the edges of the statistical norms expected from their gross playthrough.

Who wants to play at a casino where they are going to be punished for being lucky, the house wins overall, but not equally from every player.

What about those players at the OTHER edge of the statistical norm, those convinced that RTG software is rigged, or that operators are deliberately messing with their game. They are told to "get over it, you were just unlucky". How about the casinos just "getting over it, THEY were just unlucky".

Where losing players accuse casinos of cheating, WINNING players sometimes find THEY are accused of having some "secret slot system", or "strategy" that allows them to guarantee to win every time. If this is NOT a load of BS, then neither can we dismiss similar types of accusations made against the casinos.

 

[Kenny Lingus]

When the OP in this thread requested his withdrawal my cashier team reviewed the account and saw that he was participating in a playing strategy that we deemed abusive. As such they processed the withdrawal and restricted any further bonuses.
Regards
Tom

Hello Tom,
Care to explain what the Casino deems 'Abusive' and what is regarded as a 'Playing Strategy'...
Thank You

Hello,
The player referred to has been less than completely transparent, and is in fact many thousands of dollars in profit.
.....our policy is to offer generous promotions with reasonable terms, and if someone is participating in a playing style that is clearly abusive we cash out the winnings and reduce the bonuses offered to them. We would never revoke bonuses for players simply because they have won - it is all down to the system they use to play.
Greasemonkey’s experiences with our casino has been to make a few deposits, claim a few bonuses, make a few thousand profit, get paid out within 48 hours and be told that this promotions is no longer available to him. I genuinely fail to see how this is either Rogue behaviour or an FU.
Regards
Tom

So other than being in the black, how did the player abuse the system?

... I have asked this exact same question in a previous post on this thread...
What does the Casino deem 'Abusive' and what is 'Playing Strategy' .... The question was not answered although specifically directed at Tom...

From what I'm seeing here is the only "advantage play" or "abusive" behavior is the player made a deposit, got a bonus, made wagering requirements and won.

Did I miss something in this thread? I still don't see how the play was "abusive." I'd like to see a more specific explanation of what constitutes abusive play.

Is it just me or are these questions being ignored?

If there is more to the story that puts the CW in a better light, what are the specific facts?

All this pussy-footing around the issue, while insisting that the OP is being "less than completely transparent" is just a bunch of self-serving CRAP.

Answer the questions, please!

 

[maxd]

Actually, I have never played at any other of their sister casinos except alladins. Never ever.

CWC records show otherwise:

Casino.....Account opened...Last date played
CWC USD....14.12.2007.......31.7.2009
Aladdins....25.3.2009.......31.7.2009
Lucky Red.. 31.5.2009.......31.7.2009
Manhattan....6.2.2010.......21.6.2010
All Star....10.6.2010.......10.6.2010
Club Euro..14.12.2007.......22.7.2009


As to the charges of "abusive" play I seriously doubt that the casino will answer that question in public because it would reveal something of what their security people look for in order to detect that kind of thing. I will say this though: we've dealt with several CWC-related PABs where the player was accused of "abusive" play. Because of the vagueness of that term -- which I detest -- I have often asked for info and on every occasion CWC provided details that backed up their claim. In other words we have no reason to doubt their claim of same here.

 

[takethemoney]

Somebody is lying.

 

[Kenny Lingus]

As to the charges of "abusive" play I seriously doubt that the casino will answer that question in public because it would reveal something of what their security people look for in order to detect that kind of thing. I will say this though: we've dealt with several CWC-related PABs where the player was accused of "abusive" play. Because of the vagueness of that term -- which I detest -- I have often asked for info and on every occasion CWC provided details that backed up their claim. In other words we have no reason to doubt their claim of same here.

He was counting cards, wasn't he?

 

[maxd]

He was counting cards, wasn't he?

Can't say.

 

[Nate]

A casino gives a client a bonus - The client sticks to the allowed games and wagers the playthrough (Already climbed 2 hurdles) ... When the client wins, its either they have been playing abusively or playing with a strategy ... if not then the client has bet more than the max bet allowed on that bonus or played an excluded game or... lalalalalala...

If he loses, give him more and more bonuses, till he wins then bonus ban him.

Bonus Banning for Something that is Phantomly specified in your T&C's is unethical practice.

For goodness sake... the House already has a significant edge ... Casino's that pose the above IMO are bordering on dishonest (IMPO). They make it as difficult as possible for a player to win..

Max - i understand your post, but if the Casino has specific identifiers (over and above the T&C's and they are not specified) they look for when deciding to give a guest a bonus, then they shouldnt be giving bonuses at all... They have their T&C's - If guests stick to them, why do they create Phantom Issues that are not specified

If a player has a strategy that he sticks to and finds to be profitable, and he is using it within the T&C's then there is nothing wrong... Should he abandon it and play wildly so it pleases the Casino?

i could be horribly wrong here, but unless the Casino specifies all issues in their T&C's, they should not selectively be banning players from Bonuses... In regions where Gambling is regulated (Land Based) the Gambling Authority would not view this kindly... Esp.; if the guest did not break your T&C's and you paid him... which basically equates to him sticking to the rules...

 

[maphesto]

It really seems like we havent seen the whole picture here. It's quite obvious, and it's also not the first time we have witnessed this about player issues.

Greasemonkey claims he hasn't played at the other casinos in this group and the casino group shows several examples of the opposite.

Why did greasemonkey think that he could go away with that?

Did he have different account details and thought they didn't check?

Or, did he just forget? I have forgotten several times, but not that many in the same group.

However, there are some things the casino might have done wrong as well. I wrote might.

* The casino can withdraw any promotion whenever they feel like it. It's ok to me. But I see the whole "unlimited promotion during 7 days" as one promotion. If I use this promotion(which I am btw, 2 days to go) I know that I can play in a certain way because I can deposit more an receive a new 200% bonus the same second I bust out.

* The betsize limit? Why was it changed?

* Bonus ban for winning players. Pure stupidity. Is Gladstone Gander banned?

If the casino noticed that this was a player who had used the system earlier and opened several accounts at one casino etc. I can understand that they removed his promotions. If you have a higher betsize limit when you have deposit more I can understand that one too. But if te betsize was lowered when the casino began to think he was skilled and used Martingale tactics lolup: ) it's not just wrong. It's plain stupid.

Most important question right now IMO is, why did greasemonkey claim he hasn't played at the other casinos?

 

[The Dude]

Let's try not to confuse this with a bonus that is offered - accepted, then negated. That's a different situation. This is a situation where a player has been playing at this casino - and the casino has chosen not to give him any more bonuses - which is clearly stated in their terms and conditions.

Sure - we can argue that we don't like the term "abusive" since this is quite subjective, nor do we like any subjective language in T&Cs. And this is something we can explore further.

...i could be horribly wrong here, but unless the Casino specifies all issues in their T&C's, they should not selectively be banning players from Bonuses... In regions where Gambling is regulated (Land Based) the Gambling Authority would not view this kindly... Esp.; if the guest did not break your T&C's and you paid him... which basically equates to him sticking to the rules...

Here are some clauses from UK white-listed casinos:

32red
#8 The casino may, at their sole discretion, limit the eligibility of new players to participate in this promotion, for any reason whatsoever without notice to the end users.

#9 The casino may, at their sole discretion, change the terms and conditions for any reason whatsoever without notice to the end users. No correspondence will be entered into. 32Red's decision will be considered final in the event of a dispute.

LuckyNugget (and just about every MGS casino)
The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute "irregular play" for Sign-Up Bonus Play through Requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any withdrawals where irregular play has occurred to meet Sign-Up Bonus Play through Requirements.

Betfred
#19 We reserve the right to prevent players from receiving future bonus if we feel that they are trying to abuse our bonus system in any way at our sole discretion on our own interpretation of the facts.

Virgin Games
FRAUD, COLLUSION, IMPROPER BEHAVIOUR AND UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY
#1 We may have reason to suspect that you have been involved in fraudulent, improper, collusive, misleading, fixing, manipulative, cheating or other unacceptable activity (whether or not unlawful) in relation to your access to or use of the Virgin Games Service. Such activity can include (but is not limited to)

* that you have used or attempted to use any software-assisted methods or techniques or hardware devices for participation in any Virgin Games Product or manipulation of any of our gaming or other systems;
* that you have introduced or attempted to introduce any virus or other harmful or malicious application or material to our systems;
* that you have introduced or attempted to introduce any defamatory, obscene, abusive or unlawful material to our systems;
* that you have colluded or attempted to collude with another user or users of a Virgin Games Product;
* that you have been participating in any act of intentionally losing money to another player (such as chip dumping);
* that you have abused or misused any bonus offer or promotion offered by us;
* that you have provided incorrect information.

# If we do have any suspicions we shall be entitled to take such action as we deem appropriate, including without limitation,

* immediately blocking you from accessing any Virgin Games Product;
* closing your Customer Account;
* suspending your Customer Account;
* seizing all funds in your Customer Account; and
* voiding any bets or wagers placed by you which appear to us to have been made utilizing such activity.

The first three casinos are licensed in Gibraltar - the last in Alderney. These two jurisdictions are probably the most stringent when it comes to offering and monitoring gaming licenses - which includes of course reviewing and implementing terms and conditions.

Here you will notice that "subjective" language is acceptable. I believe a player like greasemonkey would have difficulties at these casinos as well, so I think it's unfair to point fingers at CWC since the entire industry is set up this way.

 

[maphesto]

There is something fishy about greasemonkey's account. There has to be. Why would he lie about the other accounts otherwise?

Let's try not to confuse this with a bonus that is offered - accepted, then negated.

If we put the issue with greasemonkey aside, I see the welcome offer at Aladdins Gold as one promotion.

Look at my provided pic before you continue your reading.

As soon as a legit player has deposit and received his first bonus on the first day of the 7 day period he has to be promised to continue his promotion.

The promotion goes on for 7 days. If they can't keep this promise, they have to change the promotion for all players.

I believe a player like greasemonkey would have difficulties at these casinos as well, so I think it's unfair to point fingers at CWC since the entire industry is set up this way.

It's definately wrong to point fingers at CWC if greasemonkey is a fradaulent player in any way.
Is he a legit player without any kind of fraudalent behaviour, there is definately correct to point fingers at CWC group for not continue their obligation of the contract.

Remember, the offer is/was not one 100% bonus on table games.
It's 100% bonus unlimited times during 7 days.

If Aladdin's gOld can't keep their promise they have to change the offer for everyone.
False marketing is IMO some of the worst thing reputable casinos can do.

But remember, this question may be hypothetical. If greasemonkey is a fraudalent player, Aladdin's Gold haven't done anything wrong.

 

[Nate]

Sure - we can argue that we don't like the term "abusive" since this is quite subjective, nor do we like any subjective language in T&Cs. And this is something we can explore further.

Thank you - This remains the main concern

I also agree with maphesto in that if greasemonkey is a fraudulent player then CWC are within their rights to exclude him from further bonuses....

The crux of the issue has been addressed above.. Abusive / Playing Strategy to be defined...

 

[vinylweatherman]

Greasemonkey has damaged his case by not explaining the evidence of the other accounts. If he has lied about this, how can we trust anything else he has said. Did he even play as he claimed?

The problem I have is that this exclusion was ONLY invoked when he WON with this "abusive strategy". The casino was quite happy for him to carry on claiming bonuses, and playing with this "abusive" strategy so long as he continued to lose.

The records given of his account opening and last played date do NOT look like he was just going down the list playing one welcome bonus after another.

The also DID retrospectively withdraw a promotion already offered, that of the personal offer he received after having lost several deposits, but before he made the withdrawal.

If players don't know what consitutes "abusive", how can we be expected to "behave".


Imagine being a child, happily playing away, and suddenly getting a smack. The child asks "what did I do?", and the parent says "can't tell you, but you'll get another smack if you do it again, hopefully you will learn in the end".

 

[greasemonkey]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!!!!!!

STOP!!!

This is WROOOOOOONG my friends. Something is definitely "up" here alright.

Yeah, Bryan, I CAN swear to it and I WILL swear to it!!

How could I have played in 2009? I didn't even have an EWX account opened until 2010 1st of all. How could I------ Wait,

-------no, you know what?!!? I am not going to go into all of the obvious reasons that this is just totally incorrect. Lets do this instead, lets say that I will send you my ID and whatever you want for your proof and you compare it to whatever this casino group thinks that they have of mine and then when you find that I am completely correct you can buy me a nice phat German beer - how bout we do that? How about that I prove this is just totally false and I get a big beer and maybe a name clearing post here?!!?

I didnt name this thread CWC vs. greasemonkey - someone else did.. I did not do it because I didn't think that I was really "against" them. I mean, at least they did pay me. what I was attempting to do was warn others and bring to light the foulness of how I was treated there with bait & switch tactics.

and YES, it is bait n switch. They offered the signup then rescinded it halfway through. then they sent me an offer via email and would not honor it. They WOULD have let me deposit though!!! so they got me to the casino with a bonus offer then wouldnt honor it. PERIOD.

So, lets go do some more research here and find out that ol' greasemonkey hasn't lied, not even a little bit.

 

[The Dude]

I don't need your ID. I just want you to come clean. So you are telling me that you have no accounts at the following casinos:

Club World USA
Club Euro
Lucky Red
Manhattan
All Star Casino

 

[greasemonkey]

I don't need your ID. I just want you to come clean. So you are telling me that you have no accounts at the following casinos:

Club World USA
Club Euro
Lucky Red
Manhattan
All Star Casino

That is correct sir. I do not, have not and will not (unless they fix themselves and I feel really comfortable with them someday, but not looking that way).

No i haven't.
huh-uh.
nope
nada
zilch
zero
absolutely not.

 

[maphesto]

This is going to be an interesting thread. :eat:

@ Mr Grease Monkey: I hope you are correct.