Rogued Playtech Casinos with predatory progessive terms

[The Dude]

Just lately, I was revisiting a player issue which has really bothered me. In case you have forgotten (or were unaware) this was the problem with Sylvia P. who had won over $4.1 million dollars from a progressive slot at Joyland casino back in 2008. The casino had withdrawal terms of $9k per month and had applied this to her progressive win. That would have taken 39 years to pay out.

So the casino cut a deal with her using non-casino email addresses (thus erasing any evidence of dodginess), and she received about half. That thread is here:
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/stipulations-on-playtech-progressive-win.31033/

Playtech upheld the casino's decision stating that "it was in the terms and conditions, which she agreed to..." I was also told by the COO of William Hill back then (they had purchased Joyland and the casinos that went with it) that the $9k a month withdrawal limitations applied to progressive wins was unacceptable, and that the terms would be removed.

Well guess what folks? The term is back. And not only is it back at Joyland casino, but it is being used on +40 Playtech casinos - which are now listed here:
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/rogue-casinos/

Most of the casinos listed have $9k - $15k a month withdrawal limitations and apply this to progressive wins as well. These are officially Not Recommended at Casinomeister. Would you recommend these casinos to anyone? I sure won't.

And just a note - most Top Game casinos do the same.

 

[dunover]

Jeez, they've learnt nothing???

I'm sorry, but if PT is prepared to allow it's software providers to hide these unreasonable T&C's away and still allow them to offer progressives, then PT are as rogue as the sites themselves.

In the UK, if a lottery scratchcard states '1m POUNDS TOP PRIZE' you get 1m pounds when you submit the ticket. If the scratchcard states 'Top prize 50,000 POUNDS A MONTH FOR 2 years' you get exactly that.

IF this sorry sh*t is to be allowed to continue, then a banner should be put on the picture links to these slots at ALL Playtech casinos that have this surreptitious term CLEARLY stating that the jackpot may take decades to be paid out. I know we all say 'read the terms carefully' but over a matter as serious as this all doubt should be removed.

In the case above, the casino (assuming Playtech has paid the $4.1 to them already) has basically made the player feel like a favour has been done while diddling them out of 2m bucks. This scenario should never be repeated.

Coincidentally, I have also tried to get a straight answer about this question on the recent BOF thread regarding the Playtech 'Fly Casino and see how evasive they were:


https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/fly-casino-sister-site-to-omni-casino-bbf-thread.57275/


All I wanted to know was 'do you get the jackpot up front'/if so 'why impose monthly instalments' and where do the millions sit before they are finally paid out to the player?

Hmmmm..... one more reason I'm glad I never play Playtech.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Jeez, they've learnt nothing???

I'm sorry, but if PT is prepared to allow it's software providers to hide these unreasonable T&C's away and still allow them to offer progressives, then PT are as rogue as the sites themselves.

In the UK, if a lottery scratchcard states '1m POUNDS TOP PRIZE' you get 1m pounds when you submit the ticket. If the scratchcard states 'Top prize 50,000 POUNDS A MONTH FOR 2 years' you get exactly that.

IF this sorry sh*t is to be allowed to continue, then a banner should be put on the picture links to these slots at ALL Playtech casinos that have this surreptitious term CLEARLY stating that the jackpot may take decades to be paid out. I know we all say 'read the terms carefully' but over a matter as serious as this all doubt should be removed.

In the case above, the casino (assuming Playtech has paid the $4.1 to them already) has basically made the player feel like a favour has been done while diddling them out of 2m bucks. This scenario should never be repeated.

The BIG problem with Playtech is that the payouts are not done via an annuity, but can stop at any time if a casino goes bust. Playtech however, have handed over the whole amount to the casino, so apart from the publicity, operators get a substantial interest free loan over a number of years, if not decades.

Joyland actually lasted 6 months from this incident, then the whole group was bought out by Will Hill in what looked like a "rescue deal". Worse still, the other half of the jackpot could not be traced in the company accounts. Since this was never the operator's money, it should have been recorded separately in the accounts, and what happened to it possible to trace by Will Hill's auditors.

All players who play these network progressives are being stolen from whenever an operator pockets all or part of one.

It's even more damning when the CEO of Will Hill lies to Bryan when the issue is in the public gaze, and then slips the offending terms back in over time when the fuss seems to have died down. He clearly meant that the term was "bad PR", rather than being "unacceptable" from a moral perspective.

This latest "outing" will probably result in the terms again being removed and branded "unacceptable", but we will have to see whether they get slipped back in after the fuss has again died down.


Yet another example of why I have this personal dislike for Playtech as a brand.

 

[The Dude]

... It's even more damning when the CEO of Will Hill lies to Bryan when the issue is in the public gaze, and then slips the offending terms back in over time when the fuss seems to have died down. He clearly meant that the term was "bad PR", rather than being "unacceptable" from a moral perspective...

Actually, it was the COO Peter Marcus who I was in contact with back then. He said that they were removing the term - which they did. But it's back. Peter Marcus has since moved on.

 

[The Dude]

I've just noticed that Prime Casino is listed there...but they are Microgaming - yet they used to be Playtech powered. This is probably a term held over since then. I know that Microgaming will not allow their casinos to piece-meal progressive payments. Casino Rewards tried this in the past once and got nailed for this.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Actually, it was the COO Peter Marcus who I was in contact with back then. He said that they were removing the term - which they did. But it's back. Peter Marcus has since moved on.

I see, so he took his higher moral standing with him, and the new COO reverted to form and started putting the terms back in.

How is this "proper player protection" as it holds progressive winners hostage to the fortunes of the company for years, even decades. Online casinos just don't last that long. Another nail in the coffin for the argument that there is no need for the UK to change the rules in order to "afford proper player protection".

The ONLY way to stagger payments in this way for a progressive would be the purchase of an annuity that would guarantee the payments independent of the fortunes of the company or software provider. I fail to see how the UKGC would consider a prolonged payment agreement dependent on the casino lasting another few decades as adequate protection for the player concerned. Given that the court action is about the whitelisted jurisdictions arguing that player protection is already up to standard, they should be ensuring that their licensees do not undermine their arguments by introducing such terms when there is a substantial body of case history that shows that players' funds often vanish when an operator goes bust.

I would hope the UKGC has specific regulations governing staggered payments of large wins with the aim of ensuring that winners still get all the payments no matter what befalls the company after the payout is agreed.

The motive I see for operators in preserving the current system is the ability to use network progressive funds to help with operating costs, which is a risk for the player concerned as the company may thus not have the necessary funds to continue the payments if they make bad business decisions.

There have been enough failures of Playtech operators that it will be a matter of when, not if, the next staggered payment of a network progressive goes wrong because the company has run out of money. This will happen at a time when the UK government, along with many EU ones, are changing the rules such that "offshore" licenses are not enough to offer gambling to citizens.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Maybe Playtech owners are planning to sell it and don't want to be paying out any big progressive wins before they do? Yeah, stick the liability to the future buyer to do with it as they want.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Maybe Playtech owners are planning to sell it and don't want to be paying out any big progressive wins before they do? Yeah, stick the liability to the future buyer to do with it as they want.

In the Joyland case, Will Hill refused to accept liability because they could not trace what happened to the money. One thing is clear from this, the remaining half of that win, some $2million, did not get passed over to Will Hill as part of the company assets, so it had to have been removed by the previous owners, and some "creative accounting" done to cover this up. This is nothing short of fraud, but they got away with it, and Playtech let them.

 

[maphesto]

I've just noticed that Prime Casino is listed there...but they are Microgaming - yet they used to be Playtech powered. This is probably a term held over since then. I know that Microgaming will not allow their casinos to piece-meal progressive payments. Casino Rewards tried this in the past once and got nailed for this.

According to Wayback Machine, Prime Casino did not have that term the first years as a Microgaming casino, it was added later. Very strange.

Prime Casino are using same gaming license as accredited Palace Group, I find these things strange.

 

[naththo]

Very disappointed news to hear that!

That is very disappointed news to hear that. Such a shame that adhere to T/C about tight financial payment per month. It should not happen like that if it was for progressive jackpot. It seems unfair. While casino earns more money than we earn each week. So really its not acceptable. I am hoping it does not apply to other like Betfred or Omni casino or casino.com something like that.

I want to say thank you for letting us know. It is very important to let us know if something had changed or gone wrong. Thats why I am glad I joined with casinomeister.

 

[Blathaon]

Is there any particular reason why Playtech don't pay the progressive wins directly?

With the amount of rogue playtech casinos you would think that Playtech would want to make sure that they didn't get any unnecessary bad press.
Playtech is a huge provider and yet there are only a few decent casinos, which is a real shame as they make some excellent slots.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I've just noticed that Prime Casino is listed there...but they are Microgaming - yet they used to be Playtech powered. This is probably a term held over since then. I know that Microgaming will not allow their casinos to piece-meal progressive payments. Casino Rewards tried this in the past once and got nailed for this.

They have been Microgaming for YEARS, so such an old term should have long since disappeared. Microgaming should insist that such terms not even be present, not just not enforced, it can give the wrong impression that this is an allowed term for a Microgaming casino, and very few players would ever be in a position to discover it was no longer being enforced.

What view does Microgaming have over the recent practice of applying max cashouts to deposit related bonuses where funds over the amount are simply confiscated, rather than paid in instalments? This too is something I never expected to see with Microgaming, but I also never expected to see players lose their money when any Microgaming operator went bust.

 

[Richas]

I would hope the UKGC has specific regulations governing staggered payments of large wins with the aim of ensuring that winners still get all the payments no matter what befalls the company after the payout is agreed.

Nowhere near good enough I am afraid. They do not require the segregation of player funds for example. With my poker focus Full Tilt's collapse made this requirement a high profile item but even post that fiasco the UKGC did not shift to requiring segregated funds as IoM do. They saw this as disproportionate but this is likely as they deal with listed large bookmakers rather than remote gambling startups. They (rightly) saw the big bookmakers as relatively secure. Obviously this pattern of who they licence is about to change.

More imminently though the UKGC is due to have a public consultation on the protection of player funds. They have already discussed this with their licencees and the public consultation is due to start in days rather months.

I will be inputting to the consultation on some poker specific stuff (mostly the way responsible gambling in poker relies on good bankroll management so funds on site are often very large compared to the average bet so poker players esp poker pros whose bankroll is their working capital need high levels of protection) but this jackpot issue with payout shenanigans seems to me to be an important issue that someone should be inputting to them about.

Any volunteers? Maybe you or Casinomeister fancy drafting something once the consultation questions are in the public domain? Maybe a collaborative site users effort?

 

[The Dude]

...I am hoping it does not apply to other like Betfred or Omni casino or casino.com something like that...

All casinos listed here do not piece-meal their progressive winnings. It's part of the standards listed here:
Link Outdated / Removed

Must pay out progressive jackpot wins in full or in reasonable chunks, regardless of any terms and conditions limiting payouts.

Is there any particular reason why Playtech don't pay the progressive wins directly?...

They pay the amount directly to the operator in full within 48 hours (after the obligatory fraud check). Playtech has never taken the position to police how the operators pay these progressive wins - I guess this would be up to the licensing jurisdiction.

 

[Blathaon]

All casinos listed here do not piece-meal their progressive winnings. It's part of the standards listed here:
Link Outdated / Removed



They pay the amount directly to the operator in full within 48 hours (after the obligatory fraud check). Playtech has never taken the position to police how the operators pay these progressive wins - I guess this would be up to the licensing jurisdiction.

This is a real shame, it's not the casino that won, its the player playing at the casino. Does MG and NetEnt do the same? Or do they pay directly to the winning player?

 

[The Dude]

I'm pretty sure MGS pays directly into the player's account and not to the operator (bear in mind some of the information I have is five years old). Net Ent I don't know. But I haven't seen these sort of terms anywhere else but Playtech and Top Gaming.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Nowhere near good enough I am afraid. They do not require the segregation of player funds for example. With my poker focus Full Tilt's collapse made this requirement a high profile item but even post that fiasco the UKGC did not shift to requiring segregated funds as IoM do. They saw this as disproportionate but this is likely as they deal with listed large bookmakers rather than remote gambling startups. They (rightly) saw the big bookmakers as relatively secure. Obviously this pattern of who they licence is about to change.

More imminently though the UKGC is due to have a public consultation on the protection of player funds. They have already discussed this with their licencees and the public consultation is due to start in days rather months.

I will be inputting to the consultation on some poker specific stuff (mostly the way responsible gambling in poker relies on good bankroll management so funds on site are often very large compared to the average bet so poker players esp poker pros whose bankroll is their working capital need high levels of protection) but this jackpot issue with payout shenanigans seems to me to be an important issue that someone should be inputting to them about.

Any volunteers? Maybe you or Casinomeister fancy drafting something once the consultation questions are in the public domain? Maybe a collaborative site users effort?

They need to get it right, because a failure of a UKGC licensed operator that leaves players out of pocket would be a huge embarrassment.

I think the argument is about how, not if, players funds are protected. An alternative to segregation would be an insurance backed scheme. If done properly, it would have the same effect, but would not tie up large sums of money in a segregated account.

Banks were never required to hold all deposits in segregated funds, and this was thought to be safe because of the size of the banking sector. The result was hugely embarrassing, and also very costly, with the whole global financial system on the brink of failure. Now, banks are being required to hold a higher proportion of liquid cash, as well as taking measures to ensure that depositors cannot lose their funds when the merchant banking and market speculation departments screw things up.

Usually, a company that takes customers money with it on going bust results in calls for regulation of that sector, but casinos are already regulated, so blame will fall on the UKGC, and by association, the government. Those offshore regulators who lost out under the new regime would take the opportunity to argue that the UKGC has failed in the very task it was set up to do, protect players better than in the current system of whitelisted jurisdictions.

 

[Richas]

They need to get it right, because a failure of a UKGC licensed operator that leaves players out of pocket would be a huge embarrassment.

I think the argument is about how, not if, players funds are protected. An alternative to segregation would be an insurance backed scheme. If done properly, it would have the same effect, but would not tie up large sums of money in a segregated account.

Banks were never required to hold all deposits in segregated funds, and this was thought to be safe because of the size of the banking sector. The result was hugely embarrassing, and also very costly, with the whole global financial system on the brink of failure. Now, banks are being required to hold a higher proportion of liquid cash, as well as taking measures to ensure that depositors cannot lose their funds when the merchant banking and market speculation departments screw things up.

Usually, a company that takes customers money with it on going bust results in calls for regulation of that sector, but casinos are already regulated, so blame will fall on the UKGC, and by association, the government. Those offshore regulators who lost out under the new regime would take the opportunity to argue that the UKGC has failed in the very task it was set up to do, protect players better than in the current system of whitelisted jurisdictions.

I entirely agree regarding the necessity for UKGC to get this right (in their own self interest as well as players) and I also agree that IF they get it right it puts another nail in the coffin of the idea that sites choosing their own regulator is the way to go.

I am persuaded that some insurance scheme or pool could deliver the required protection but the details are likely to be complex and involve insurance/finance firms who may have their own issues or may have problems insuring a site that has gone 100% rogue as Full Tilt did by crediting players with money they had not collected and paying out dividends from player funds too.

Where a fraudulent site goes bust any insurance policy is likely to be busto too. Forcing segregation and checking on that with auditors seems to me to be far simpler. I am open to persuasion though if the details of the protection scheme are clear and do work for players. if not just letting them pocket the interest on the player segregated deposits looks quite generous to the sites. The fact that they have used player funds as working capital before is to me the problem rather than something to use a workaround for IF it puts player funds at any risk.

Either way advertising a huge jackpot and then spending many years to pay it out without interest is horribly misleading.

 

[chayton]

TBH I don't get the phrase "reasonable chunks" - what I see as reasonable may not be reasonable to the casino or vice versa. And if the casino is getting paid the full amount from Playtech, then the player should get paid the full amount too.

What's the point of letting the casino keep part of a players winnings for months? The only winner in that scenario is the casino. Progressive wins should be paid in full to the player period.

 

[dunover]

TBH I don't get the phrase "reasonable chunks" - what I see as reasonable may not be reasonable to the casino or vice versa. And if the casino is getting paid the full amount from Playtech, then the player should get paid the full amount too.

What's the point of letting the casino keep part of a players winnings for months? The only winner in that scenario is the casino. Progressive wins should be paid in full to the player period.

I know - it's hard to see who has actually 'won' the jackpot. The casino, or the player?

 

[Mouche12]

Truly and utterly appalling and criminal behaviour. Is it not worthwhile for this winner of the JP to institute legal proceedings against William Hill, based on this unfair term and their rogue behaviour?

 

[bsilva028]

fortunally i dont play at any of the casinos listed.

related to prime, they still are microgaming if you try download it from the site, and i read somewhere that who processes their banking is palace group.

in fact with which rules?

 

[zanzibar]

This is nothing new. I emailed our good friend the Gibraltar gambling commissioner about this in September of 2011.

Looking back at my email I specifically mentioned WHG International, bwin/party and Mansion so at the time William Hill was paying jackpots piecemeal, just as now. Paying in large chunks or one lump sum is the exception rather than the rule for Playtechs.

I gave an example clause they all use and provided links to articles about the Joyland fiasco.

BTW if you want to know where the money went, I'd start by asking Teddy Sagi. After all, Playtech was paying the jackpot money to Joyland casino which they more or less owned indirectly through a subsidiary. If you consider that structure, it makes a lot more sense why Playtech pays the casinos rather than the player.

The email concluded like this:

Frankly I believe William Hill still owes this woman $2 million, as they bought the Joyland Casino business from Playtech, debts and all. I am not naive enough to believe that it will ever be paid though.

Now here is the worst part: to the best of my knowledge, Playtech pays the casinos that offer these progressive jackpots the full winning amount if a player wins the jackpot at their casino. It is then up to the casino to pass the jackpot on to the player.

I am sure you can see the inherent contradiction in the casino receiving the full jackpot amount in one lump sum, but the player only receiving it in $10,000 monthly instalments over 15-35 years.

What I would appreciate is if you could comment on how this sort of clause fits in with your licensing requirements and whether you think that it is an appropriate business practice for casinos regulated under your jurisdiction? It is my opinion, and that of many players that I have spoken to, that these sorts of terms are unacceptable for casinos that are regulated in the world's most respected licensing jurisdiction. I would like to see your casinos obliged to pay progressive wins in a much shorter and legally defined timeframe.

I'm still waiting for a response.

Also after reading that back and in light of recent events, I am shaking my head at my own description of Gibraltar as "the world's most respected licensing jurisdiction".

 

[zanzibar]

Also forgot to mention that IGT are not much better.

If you win with them you'll be paid in 20 annual instalments which, if the jackpot size is less than 2.4 million, is actually worse than 10,000 a month or 120,000 a year that the Playtechs offer. They also give the player the option of taking a reduced lump sum up front, as Joyland did when they ripped off that woman. The only difference I see is that it is all written in stone in the terms and conditions, and possibly that IGT pays the player direct?

I still find it odd that they are treated as an exception to the CM "reasonable chunks" rule though.

 

[The Dude]

Reasonable chunks: this was brought up by an operator who wanted to pay a player several hundred thousand dollars at one time - the player requested that the amount be split up into reasonable chunks because of tax purposes. That's all - something that is reasonable to both parties with legitimate reasoning.

There are some casinos that pay out $500,000 per month - and I would consider that reasonable as well.

IGT is a way different story - it has to do with US banking and lottery laws - and this is explained here:
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/igt-wagerworks-and-their-megajackpots.52932/

 

[zanzibar]

Thanks for the link. After reading the IGT explanation I agree with the subsequent comments on that thread that IGT should just display the reduced lump sum amount as their actual real jackpot and be done with it.

 

[jetset]

Man, that SylviaP-Joyland scandal still has the ability to raise my blood pressure...it was so unfair, and no one in authority at software, casino or regulatory level seemed to give a damn about it.

Casino operators would argue that the issue turns on whether the player knows that the progressive pays out in one tranche or over time. However remote the chances are of hitting a big-money progressive, the player should be aware of the conditions attached to it if they are lucky enough to crack the big one. If they are not happy with T&Cs that spell it out, then it is their choice not to play at that particular venue.

We then get into the old argument about whether the T&Cs are sufficient warning on the one payment vs. instalments thing, and here I would suggest that the impression created so far by some operators is that they actively seek to conceal the fact that they only pay out on progressives in instalments by burying the information in their T&Cs, knowing that many players do not thoroughly read these.

One can frequently see from the way company editorials, adverts and website statements are worded that there is often an ulterior motive in not explaining exactly and upfront how big wins are paid.

My perception on the specific issue regarding Playtech is that it clearly knows what the risks for the player are in handing the money and the responsibility to pay over to the operator...that implies that it is complicit in what the operator does, imo.

And in the SylviaP case, the relationships between the software provider and the company concerned certainly flags important questions, as Zanzibar has pointed out.

The GRA's lack of interest in responding to Zanzibar's polite and factual enquiry again speaks volumes about that jurisdiction's attitude to consumer protection...but that is no longer surprising following the responses from the man in charge in recent threads here.

Regarding potential methods for securing and segregating player funds, there has been a lot of discussion on the use of trusts. I would see that as a more acceptable, independent and possibly cheaper alternative than going to insurance companies and their usually high "administrative" fees, but it's a course that is open to debate.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The problem with the Playtech instalment plan is that the money is used by the casino for operational purposes, and if it goes under, the payment plan sinks with the company. A 39 year payment plan is unlikely to have run to completion in any case. Joyland remained in business for a further 6 months before being bought out by Will Hill, who could see no sign of the remaining progressive money.

Even if a player agrees to a part payment up front, the rest of the money STILL doesn't belong to the casino, it belongs to the network, and should be put back in the pool.

The difference with IGT is that payment plans are underwritten so that they will be paid in full no matter what misfortune befalls the operator. The option to take a reduced sum up front is also properly constructed so that the reduced sum is broadly in line with what it costs the operator to purchase the payment plan.

If Playtech progressives were paid by instalment via an annuity purchase or other mechanism that secured the payout no matter what happened to the operator or Playtech, it would probably be as acceptable as the IGT mechanism.

Even odder is the inconsistency where some Playtech casinos DO pay a progressive in full, which proves that those operators that don't are "up to something" with money that doesn't belong to them. If I got "up to something" with money not belonging to me I would probably go to jail.

 

[CasinoBen]

I'm pretty sure MGS pays directly into the player's account and not to the operator (bear in mind some of the information I have is five years old). Net Ent I don't know. But I haven't seen these sort of terms anywhere else but Playtech and Top Gaming.

With the pooled major progressive jackpots, Arabian Nights, Mega Fortune and Hall of Gods Netent pay the funds directly to the operator after verification of the win, then it is up to the operator to organize payment to the player.

Cheers,

Ben

 

[dunover]

With the pooled major progressive jackpots, Arabian Nights, Mega Fortune and Hall of Gods Netent pay the funds directly to the operator after verification of the win, then it is up to the operator to organize payment to the player.

Cheers,

Ben

Sorry, but I still think that stinks. There is absolutely NO reason under any circumstances that, if paid in one go by the software provider, that the verified player cannot get it in ONE hit.

Either the LGA's should stipulate this or the software provider pays it direct to the player. The PLAYER has won the jackpot, not the bloody casino.

Be honest folks - now many casinos (if you won a 1m+ jackpot) would you trust to pay it all at once in good faith, or stay in business long enough to make say 10-20 instalments?? And I include accredited ones in that.

In reality, you have offshore convenience companies with convoluted trails operating many casinos, even if accredited. I wonder, after receiving 4 million from Playtech, how many would suddenly face 'trading difficulties' or 'takeovers'??

 

[CasinoBen]

Sorry, but I still think that stinks. There is absolutely NO reason under any circumstances that, if paid in one go by the software provider, that the verified player cannot get it in ONE hit.

Either the LGA's should stipulate this or the software provider pays it direct to the player. The PLAYER has won the jackpot, not the bloody casino.

Be honest folks - now many casinos (if you won a 1m+ jackpot) would you trust to pay it all at once in good faith, or stay in business long enough to make say 10-20 instalments?? And I include accredited ones in that.

In reality, you have offshore convenience companies with convoluted trails operating many casinos, even if accredited. I wonder, after receiving 4 million from Playtech, how many would suddenly face 'trading difficulties' or 'takeovers'??

Yes, I agree that there is room for improvement and I hope with the UKGC coming in along with new regulated markets they put more stringent rules in place. We would of course pay it to the player all in one hit, there is no reason for us to hold the funds that someone had won from a progressive jackpot. I believe that casinos are accredited for a reason and I have seen many of the accredited casinos listed on casinomeister have players win millions and there has never been a question about the player getting the winnings right away.

Aside from progressive jackpots there also needs to be improvements over the whole industry on how players funds are handled and the guarantee of player funds especially with the high betting limits on certain games and the potential for very large wins. I am under the firm belief that if you offer the games and the odds you must have the funds available to pay the winnings in a quick time frame.

I also heard back from MGS and they operate in the same way as Netent.

Thanks,

Ben

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sorry, but I still think that stinks. There is absolutely NO reason under any circumstances that, if paid in one go by the software provider, that the verified player cannot get it in ONE hit.

Either the LGA's should stipulate this or the software provider pays it direct to the player. The PLAYER has won the jackpot, not the bloody casino.

Be honest folks - now many casinos (if you won a 1m+ jackpot) would you trust to pay it all at once in good faith, or stay in business long enough to make say 10-20 instalments?? And I include accredited ones in that.

In reality, you have offshore convenience companies with convoluted trails operating many casinos, even if accredited. I wonder, after receiving 4 million from Playtech, how many would suddenly face 'trading difficulties' or 'takeovers'??

Joyland for one. received over 4 million, paid about half to player, and then had to be rescued via a takeover 6 months later. They had $2 million from Playtech to flatter their reserves, yet the group couldn't survive more than 6 months.

 

[Igor82]

I don't see a reason why a player should not be paid in one go. Very unreasonable approach in any situation seeing as its not the operator wallet being affected. Joined progressives are fed by any operator in the provider class so there should be an imposition by the network itself to enforce this. Every PT casino will suffer as a result of such an act by one PT casino (or any provider for that matter).

A players win should never be used to feed the casino liquidity and I would imagine that this player in the thread or any other player would hold pretty strong legal ground to demand the winnings to be paid on simply premise that such winnings are not paid by the casino - they are paid by the games provider.

If a casino has liquidity problems, they will have difficulties offering withdrawals far before something this drastic comes about. For casinos which due to liquidity do impose a monthly cap - then simply it must be forced to stipulate payment of jackpots are instant.

Moreover - above line can be made fully unnecessary in its essence as the operator liquidity itself has no influence on this, its not at all important. Look at the Provider/operator relationship - in the same light, should a white label have it's own T&C's which don't inherit Operator T&C's, or are forced to, which in turn don't inherit Provider T&C's??? ludicrous.. who do you sue in this case? bunch of half-knows running wild without any one party being forced to moderate and be held responsible for their "sub-licences".

I'm surprised providers don't enforce a direct payment protocols themselves - simply never give the money to the operator, but demand player information (if they do not hold it already). It would be far easier to condition legal boundaries and responsibilities in a B2B forum limited to a few parties, than impose these limitation on a much wider B2C business model audience. It's harder to control, mange and has a much wider impact as margin for error is left to run wild.

On that note - the player should really look into EU directive on unfair consumer contracts law (B2C) (

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

) as they are pretty protective over unfair contracts and the T&C's fall into that category.

After all, this act reflects terribly on the game provider as much as on an operator, if not more, seeing as operators start and close at the frequency of ping pong match these days, which isn't the case with game providers.

ANY progressive is ultimately a relationship between the owner of the progressive pot (Playtech, MGS, NetEt, etc.) and the player - the business in the middle is nothing but the middle man in this case especially seeing that the pot it self is not "fed" by that business alone.

Any regulator will do well to impose such contractual obligations on their provider licence class, when reviewing and approving it's sub-licences.

 

[Igor82]

Just a copy of the first line of the EU law:

"Contract terms define the rights and duties of the parties who are bound to them. In consumer contracts, sellers and suppliers possess a considerable advantage by defining the terms in advance that are not individually negotiated. "

then think of a vast host of T&C's running about

 

[dunover]

Joyland for one. received over 4 million, paid about half to player, and then had to be rescued via a takeover 6 months later. They had $2 million from Playtech to flatter their reserves, yet the group couldn't survive more than 6 months.

Yes, that was exactly what I meant; how many others would be tempted to go down the Joyland fr**d route?

 

[zanzibar]

What I'm wondering is how many other people have won Playtech jackpots and either been stiffed by taking a reduced lump sum or are currently on "lifetime" payment plans from a casino that is unlikely to exist in 5 years? And no doubt asked to keep quiet.

Someone won Beach life for over 5 million pounds last year - luckily for them it was at Betfred which doesn't have this clause.

It was won 2 weeks ago for almost 2 million pounds, but I can't work out where.

 

[jetset]

Joyland for one. received over 4 million, paid about half to player, and then had to be rescued via a takeover 6 months later. They had $2 million from Playtech to flatter their reserves, yet the group couldn't survive more than 6 months.

Or account for the missing millions that were not paid to the player or were in the kitty when Will Hill took over, apparently!

 

[chuchu59]

If I recall correctly at least half of the casinos in the list had problems with paying out players. It really is a shame as Playtech games, especially the graphics are great.

Of more significance is the apparent cashflow problems plaguing casinos in this industry. I believe we shall be seeing more of these predatory terms from casinos related with other software in the near future. Needless to say, those at Topgame and Rival will be first and foremost followed by RTG. I may be overworrying a bit but the widely respected MG brand is not what it used to be and some casinos are also starting along the same route. Hopefully Netent doesn't follow suit. So, sooner or later, even non-US players may have no choice other than the '3's ie 3Dice and 32RED.

 

[dunover]

If I recall correctly at least half of the casinos in the list had problems with paying out players. It really is a shame as Playtech games, especially the graphics are great.

Of more significance is the apparent cashflow problems plaguing casinos in this industry. I believe we shall be seeing more of these predatory terms from casinos related with other software in the near future. Needless to say, those at Topgame and Rival will be first and foremost followed by RTG. I may be overworrying a bit but the widely respected MG brand is not what it used to be and some casinos are also starting along the same route. Hopefully Netent doesn't follow suit. So, sooner or later, even non-US players may have no choice other than the '3's ie 3Dice and 32RED.

Yes, I see too a pattern here including slower and slower payouts, more predatory terms etc. I wouldn't be quite as pessimistic as you are in the last sentence though; one can add all the big UK bookmaker-owned sites and probably VPL plus the bigger Scandinavian Netent sites there too. So the players outside the US can still have a few safe casinos for all major softwares with payouts in minutes or hours for the foreseeable future.

 

[SpinUk]

William hill

Am confused - does WH not have this In their t&cs. They are not on the list

 

[dunover]

Am confused - does WH not have this In their t&cs. They are not on the list

They own Eurogrand/Joyland etc. which do have the term I believe?
These casinos are like a 'budget' range you find in supermarkets - not the same quality as the premium brands, but nevertheless providing more pro-rata profits per pound than the premium brands on account of the bad ingredients and low product quality. Like 96 hours pending when WH casino themselves pay quicker. If you catch my drift.

 

[vinny187666]

This is madness, they basically steal your money if you win a jackpot. Thank god for you guys keepin em honest/letting people know who to avoid.

 

[The Dude]

Am confused - does WH not have this In their t&cs. They are not on the list

William Hill doesn't, but the batch of casinos they purchased from Cpays still has this term. But, I was contacted today by WH stating that that term should not be there and they are in the process of removing it from Joyluck, Nova21, etc. Once it's removed, then those casinos are off of the list.

There should be zero casinos on this list. I'm surprised that Playtech allows this to happen.

BTW - a Top Game list is in the works. So far I've only identified three of their casinos. More here:
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/top-game-progressive-withdrawal-limits/


Top Game discussion here:
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/top-game-casinos-with-predatory-progessive-terms.57663/

 

[Andy Walker]

William Hill doesn't, but the batch of casinos they purchased from Cpays still has this term. But, I was contacted today by WH stating that that term should not be there and they are in the process of removing it from Joyluck, Nova21, etc. Once it's removed, then those casinos are off of the list.

There should be zero casinos on this list. I'm surprised that Playtech allows this to happen.

BTW - a Top Game list is in the works. So far I've only identified three of their casinos. More here:
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/top-game-progressive-withdrawal-limits/


Top Game discussion here:
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/top-game-casinos-with-predatory-progessive-terms.57663/

This still begs the question of when such a big and reputable business takes over these concerns that they seemed to have forgotten to get their legal team sifting through terms and conditions that may have and seem to have pointed fingers at them?

A new broom should sweep clean but then again new ventures always hit the ground running with a few hiccups, but for me I think they could have done so much better in this respect.

 

[Przecinek]

Of all the casinos mentioned the only ones I play at are Winner.com and Skykings. I'll just make sure that I never play progressives there. Thanks for the heads up CM

 

[vinylweatherman]

This still begs the question of when such a big and reputable business takes over these concerns that they seemed to have forgotten to get their legal team sifting through terms and conditions that may have and seem to have pointed fingers at them?

A new broom should sweep clean but then again new ventures always hit the ground running with a few hiccups, but for me I think they could have done so much better in this respect.

We have been here before, as when Will Hill first took over they said such a term was unacceptable and would be removed. As far as I knew, they did this at the time. This suddenly coming up a few years later looks like they did remove the offending term, but quietly slipped it back in again, and managed to run for a while until Bryan spotted it was there, either still there or put back after the old COO left and a new one came in.

They don't seem to be in much of a hurry to remove it and get themselves off Bryan's list. There should be nothing to discuss, as unless they have been lying all along, the presence of this term is nothing more than a "typo" created when the websites were rebranded. Nothing to discuss means no board meeting needed, just tell the web designers to get on with it "now".

 

[Blathaon]

I sent a PM to Bryan on Tuesday with some additions to his list, never heard back and i see that the list has not been updated. Maybe your inbox is full?.
Anyway here are some more that can be added to the list.

http://www.cscasino.com/common/terms.asp
http://www.plazawin.com/english/gbp/terms.html


http://goldengalaxy.com/terms_conditions.html The most disgusting terms i have ever seen, not only do they limit withdrawals they even steal some of your winnings through a «handling fee».

8.4.4 You are aware of and agree that players are allowed to withdraw not more than $4,500/£4,500/€4,500/AU$4,500/ZAR45,000 per week with a total of and not exceeding $9,990/£9,990/€9,990/R99,900 per month. If the amount to be withdrawn is greater than $9,990/£9,990/€9,990/R99,900, the remaining amount will be placed back to the player's account, allowing the player to withdraw additional funds the following month in accordance with this term. The foregoing applies also to Withdrawals of progressive jackpots. Withdrawals depend on all conditions specified above and the verification of all required documents as set forth in clause 9.4 below.You are also aware and agree that a handling fee will be charged on all progressive Jackpot Winnings over $4,500/£4,500/€4,500/AU$4,500/ZAR45,000. The fee will be at the Casinos discretion up to a maximum of 5% of the Jackpot.

I also went through over 200 MG casinos, to see if they had similar terms.

http://www.primecasino.com/terms.asp
i see that you have this on your Playtech list but it is actually a MGS casino. And the only one i could find that has withdrawal limits on progressives(maybe you can report this to MGS).

A player is only allowed to withdraw up to £10,000/10,000/€10,000 per month. (Defined by the currency of play.) If the amount wished to be withdrawn is greater than £10,000/10,000/€10,000 , then the remaining amount will be put back into the player's account, thus allowing the player to withdraw additional funds the following month respectively. For example: If a Player should choose to withdraw €20,000 this month, €10,000 will be withdrawn this month while the rest will be put back into the casino account. Next month, The Player will be able to withdraw an additional €10,000 should he chooses to do so. This also applies to the withdrawals of progressive jackpots.

Out of all the MGS casinos that i checked i found two that has another type of progressive clause, how bad this term is depends on whether the money is pending/reversible for the 30 days or if it just means that progressive winnings may take longer to get to you.


https://www.videoslots.com/terms-and-conditions/

2.5 An account holder who won a jackpot of more than € 50,000 in the progressive slots, may have to wait up to 30 working days on payment from the time of the jackpot. Account holder can then choose to take out the full,jackpot profit, regardless of size.

https://www.emucasino.com/au/help/terms-and-conditions/

2.5 An account holder who won a jackpot of more than €50,000 in the progressive slots, may have to wait up to 30 working days on payment from the time of the jackpot. Account holder can then choose to take out the full jackpot profit, regardless of size.

I hope it is ok to post this here.

 

[Sovietsky]

Blathaon I have to give you cred for looking up other playtech casinos and for looking up over 200 MGS casinos.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Just double checked.

We DO have a clear case of a Microgaming casino drip feeding progressives at the rate of 10,000 per month in the players' currency.

If Microgaming do not allow this, how come Prime are allowed to do it, or even have a term specifying that they can.

The problem is that if a player wins Mega Moolah and gets drip fed the payout, the LGA will find in favour of the casino as this is specified in the terms.

It would need direct action from Microgaming to "slap them down" over this, the LGA won't.

All we can do is avoid Prime, and Bryan should add Prime casino to the "not recommended" list for drip feeding progressives.

 

[Blathaon]

Blathaon I have to give you cred for looking up other playtech casinos and for looking up over 200 MGS casinos.

Thanks, to be fair i did not read through all of their T&C's . I only did a simple search for "Progressive" and "Jackpot" in the T&C of every site i looked at. Still it did take a few hours.