Stipulations on Playtech progressive win

[The Dude]

I've been spending quite a bit of time recently with what could be considered one of the most disappointing player experiences ever.

Remember that huge jackpot win last August at Joyland casino?

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

Sylvia P. won $4,188,719.98 playing the Beach Life Jackpot at Joyland - a Playtech powered casino which is now part of the William Hill group. This "win" was publicized as one of the biggest jackpots ever paid out. The sad thing is she only received about half of the winnings.

When she signed up at Joyland, they had a policy of a max payout of 9k per month. Do the math - $4.2 million will take around 39 years to pay out. That's one hell of a long time. Most state lotteries have payment plans for 20 years - but I'm pretty sure that the state of California will be around for the next 20 years - even 50 years. How do we know that the Internet will be around in 39 years, much less Joyland casino? Personally I think 39 years is absurd and indefensible. It boggles the mind to think anyone would consider this acceptable.

Note: progressive winnings are normally from a pooled account. In other words, each Playtech casino that participates in the progressive jackpots contributes to this fund. Thus you can have huge wins, and it doesn't affect the specific casino because it isn't 100% of their money to begin with. (please - any operators correct me if I am wrong on this)

Anyway, Joyland was in control of these funds and chose to pay the player 9K per month.

This is from the player:

The problem begins when I requested to collect my winnings, I was told that the only way was ( due to their terms and conditions ) they would pay me $9000.00 a month unless I wanted to collect a bigger amount I would need to play out my money. So if I wanted to collect $100 000.00 I needed to spend it first. After many long winded requests to have this in writing they said you need to decide what you want now or we will only be able to pay out as our terms and conditions. none withstanding the numerous calls at 3am - 5am my time.

At this time - according to the player, the VIP manager would only contact her using a hotmail address. [email protected] She was told that this was the only way to be contacted - either that or by phone.

Note: all correspondences are in French since the player is French Canadian.

As far as I know, she received nothing in writing from the casino detailing her payment plan. (hotmail email addresses don't count IMO). But perhaps the casino has a copy of their official emails backed up on their server.

She states further:

Feeling like there was no way out of this I decided to go ahead and collect only $2,300, 000.00 plus bonus which was $61, 000.00vip points because I was not getting anywhere and I felt that the VIP manager was not honest because he was changing and using words one day and the next day there was always something else. So to collect most of my winnings and make sure I was getting it I did as per there request.

I was forced to collect what they offered to a total sum of $2,300,000.00 I was so upset that on our last conversation I requested a witness and also recorded the whole conversation when all the sums and terms were discussed with them in order to finanlise the 2, 3 mill. I made the VIP talk and asked him how much was my total winnings how much I had lost as per their requests and my bonus points? He summarised it and he states at the end that he had erased my account balance, after which I tried to re log in and was unsuccessful. I guess they have blocked my account.

So her account is now closed.

The dilemma:
William Hill purchased Joyland a few months ago. The owners are no longer a part of the company as far as I know. I spoke with the CEO of William Hill online and he was as perplexed as I was, but he stated that William Hill considers that this player accepted the terms and conditions of 9k per month, had an offer to accept a lump sum payment, and took it. Even though William Hill purchased the casino, it purchased the assets and not the debt.

I understand that she made this agreement - but under what conditions or how this "agreement" was handled remains unclear.

I have been in touch with Playtech as well - I'm unsure what their stance is concerning the ex-operators of Joyland. One question that comes to mind is - what happened to the rest of the winnings? Were they played out, or were they confiscated as per the terms and conditions.

I am highly disappointed that there wasn't some sort of follow up on this player who was made the poster child of progressive jackpot wins. Google Sylvia P. jackpot win and see what pops up:

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

Joyland Casino was a casino that had ethically challenged managers - (at least they did back when they were rogued in 2005). I can't come up with a reason why she didn't receive a lump sum - besides of course the terms and conditions...

This really kicks progressive wins in the stomach - it takes all the fun out of them. This was definitely a "joyless" experience which I hope never has a chance to repeat itself.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Though she *did* collect a pretty sum, it certainly is only half of what she is entitled to. I have been seeing more Terms and Conditions that do qualify their maximum cashout limits to account for jackpot wins, so that is a good sign. However, this doesn't help her right now. If these jackpots are indeed shared amongst the casinos participating in the same jackpots, then Joyless Casinos not only ripped off the player, they ripped off the other Playtech casinos of nearly $2 million that went into that jackpot. Where's their rage?

 

[The Dude]

... If these jackpots are indeed shared amongst the casinos participating in the same jackpots, then Joyless Casinos not only ripped off the player, they ripped off the other Playtech casinos of nearly $2 million that went into that jackpot. Where's their rage?

They probably don't know about it yet...

 

[refre]

It's clear that some casinos just can't be trusted with actually handing over progressive winnings to the players (at least in Playtechs case). The money should have been paid (by Playtech) directly to the winner. That said I'm sure that 99.99% of all Playtechs (rogue or not) would be able to do this the right way. Just think of all the free PR.
It must be every casino managers dream to have a big progressive winner.

Joyland - shame on you!

Freddy

 

[Pinababy69]

Note: progressive winnings are normally from a pooled account. In other words, each Playtech casino that participates in the progressive jackpots contributes to this fund. Thus you can have huge wins, and it doesnt affect the specific casino because it isnt 100% of their money to begin with. (please any operators correct me if I am wrong on this)

what happened to the rest of the winnings? Were they played out, or were they confiscated as per the terms and conditions.

This really kicks progressive wins in the stomach it takes all the fun out of them. This was definitely a joyless experience which I hope never has a chance to repeat itself.

Not to derail the thread Bryan...but this is EXACTLY why I have been harping on Rival for two months now, and trying to find out why they also do not pay out progressive wins IN FULL.

As you've stated, it isn't the casinos money, it is all the player's monies who have played that game and contributed to the jackpot. So, like you.....I'd like to know where the hell any of these casinos get off just keeping any part of this money for ANY length of time once it is won? I don't care whether it's Playtech, Rival or whoever. It is so beyond rogue, I don't even have a term for it.

I sure would like to know where the other 2 MILLION dollars is. What a bunch of crooks. I can feel a self-imposed vacation coming on.

 

[Simmo!]

A key factor is *who* has the other $2 million? Where has it gone? If it was casino contributions from a network it must either be a) with the ex-owners of Joyland, b) with the new owners, expressed as an asset on the acquired balance sheet, c) with Playtech, d) refunded back to the casinos or e) put back into the progressive for the next winner. It would be interesting to find out where it has gone. If it is a, b or c, then questions should be asked. If I was a contributing Playtech licencee, I would want to know the answer to this one too!

IMO the player is due the remainder irrespective of what was supposedly agreed, even if it is continued to be paid at $9k a month. It could have been agreed under duress for all we know.

Incidentally, it should be the software provider who pays the player from "networked" progressives IMO. Or at the very least they should stipulate in their licence that the casino is paid by the provider and is obligated to pay it out as they are paid.

 

[AussieDave]

Removing the semantics from this issue...

Even if the ex Joyland owners have pocketed the money, this player MUST be paid out her remaining winnings.

Whether it's Playtech, Will Hill or these two companies combined that settles this debt, the player needs to be paid, period.


Cheers
T

 

[AussieDave]

It is so beyond rogue, I don't even have a term for it.

I do...mis-appropriation of funds (verges of fraudulent).

It would not surprise me if the casino (Rival or otherwise) specifically uses this clause to use the outstanding jackpot winnings to gain interest in the short term money market or other similar investments.

This industry needs to start taking a good long look at itself. Otherwise the question wont be will this industry be outlawed, it will be when are the shutting it down!

Cheers
T

 

[Pinababy69]

I do...mis-appropriation of funds (verges of fraudulent).

It would not surprise me if the casino (Rival or otherwise) specifically uses this clause to use the outstanding jackpot winnings to gain interest in the short term money market or other similar investments.

This industry needs to start taking a good long look at itself. Otherwise the question wont be will this industry be outlawed, it will be when are the shutting it down!

Cheers
T

Precisely Trezz....but try getting an answer out of them as to WHERE this money is...ha! May as well try and catch butterflies with a basketball net.

 

[hitobito2005]

The money should have been paid (by Playtech) directly to the winner.

That would make a lot of sense actually. It wouldn't take much effort for the software provider to do this.

When I won a $117k jackpot a couple of years ago the now ex-Boss Media Pharaoh's Casino tried to pay me by monthly installment but I stood my ground, confirmed with Boss that the casino had been paid immediately by lump sum, and managed to get it all paid in one go.

Surely it must be against Playtechs terms or something for a casino to do as it wishes with the progressive jackpot money? I can't believe they would be allowed to get away with stealing half the money.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Precisely Trezz....but try getting an answer out of them as to WHERE this money is...ha! May as well try and catch butterflies with a basketball net.

The missing money probably got lost in the Madoff ponzi scheme.

 

[jetset]

This is a real shocker and not good for the reputation of Playtech or its progressives imo.

There is an urgent need for Playtech to come forward and clarify some of the points raised in earlier posts in this thread such as:

1) Is it Playtech policy to allow licensees to do what they like with the progressives prize once it has been paid to them by the network? If it is, that needs to be changed asap as it offers too great a risk to the player as we have seen in the Joyland case. 39 years to collect? Come on!

2) Where is the missing 2 mill? And to whom should it rightfully belong?

3) Who were the owners of Joyland and where can the complainant contact them to pursue this legally (assuming her prior agreement with them can be overturned)

4) Where is the full agreement as accepted and signed by the complainant?

William Hill Online will be less than happy about being associated with this shameful affair, and I would be surprised if CEO Ralph Topping is not active behind the scenes with his Playtech partners on this. I hope that brings forth better results than we have at present. And if I were a Playtech licensee I would be very concerned about the impact this affair will have on the progressives offered by Playtech.

There's a stark contrast between the awful, grasping manner in which this case has been handled and the full payment with attendant fanfare that has characterised progressives wins from other major software providers like Cryptologic and Microgaming.

Playtech should perhaps note this - they are no longer an up-and-coming firm, but a successful (and wealthy, lucrative business) now and need to act accordingly.

I have to say that if I had won over $4 mill I would have been on a plane, with my lawyer, and on the way to meet the casino management within hours.

That said, other progressives winners have not had to go to that expense - the software companies have flown them to their offices, feted them, given them the option of financial advice and then presented the cheque in full for the win.

It is now painfully obvious that it pays to be cautious about which progressives you play and what the terms and conditions are....

 

[RobWin]

I'd like to hear Spearmaster chime in here with his inside knowledge of the way Playtech would normally handle this type of issue and if Playtech do in fact leave it solely up to the casino property to pay out the progressive jackpots. Not sure though if you were actually privy to that type of info or not while you were there Spear but if you can share what you do know about a policy or such, regarding this type of situation it would be appreciated.

Does Playtech itself not hold the progressive money in a type of "Escrow" account for the winner once hit or are each Playtech casino responsible for their own progressive payouts?

 

[thelawnet]

Playtech definitely have some answers to give.

Who was the previous owner of Joyland casino?

Six Digits Trading, owned through a trust by Teddy Sagi.

Old / Expired Link

Who he?

41.1% owner of Playtech.

So this would be the cashflow:

1. Playtech seeds Beach Life jackpot with just $50,000:

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

2. Players play Beach life for many months. A total of $4,188,508.70 is sent from player funds to seed the jackpot.
3. Sylvia P wins the jackpot.
4. Playtech sends $4,238,508.70, 99% of which is player funds, to Joyland Casino to pay the jackpot.
5. Joyland sends Sylvia P half the money, Six Digits Trading pockets the rest, resulting in over $2 million going to the trust owned by Teddy Sagi, aka the 41.1% owner of Playtech.

In other words Playtech ended up funneling money to its largest shareholder, who incidentally in 1996 was imprisoned for "bribery, fraud and stock manipulation".

From the Jerusalem Post 30 January 1996:


THE Tel Aviv District Court yesterday sentenced broker Teddy Sagi to nine months in prison imprisonment plus an additional 15 months suspended sentence and a fine of NIS 300,000.

Sagi, whose prison term starts on February 25, admitted to bribery, fraud and stock manipulation.

In October 1993, Sagi was asked to fund the purchase of NIS 5 million in securities, after which they were sold - with Sagi pocketing NIS 8,000.

Three months later, Sagi was asked by a Bank Discount employee to purchase NIS 20m. in securities. During the court case it was maintained that Sagi earned NIS 105,000 from the second deal.

Sagi's legal counsel has requested that his client not be sent to Ma'asiahu Prison, where his estranged stepbrother Ronen Sagi is serving time for the murder of broker Ya'akov Alfrovitz 12 years ago. The matter will be decided by the Prison Authority.

 

[Gogo]

You can imagine how much interst can 4 M acumulate in bank. Supose 5% a year is 200k so per month is 16.600. Good deal!!

 

[Westland Bowl]

Playtech definitely have some answers to give.

Who was the previous owner of Joyland casino?
Six Digits Trading, owned through a trust by Teddy Sagi....

Who he? 41.1% owner of Playtech.

So this would be the cashflow:
1. Playtech seeds Beach Life jackpot with just $50,000...
2. Players play Beach life for many months. A total of $4,188,508.70 is sent from player funds to seed the jackpot.
3. Sylvia P wins the jackpot.
4. Playtech sends $4,238,508.70, 99% of which is player funds, to Joyland Casino to pay the jackpot.
5. Joyland sends Sylvia P half the money, Six Digits Trading pockets the rest, resulting in over $2 million going to the trust owned by Teddy Sagi, aka the 41.1% owner of Playtech.

In other words Playtech ended up funneling money to its largest shareholder....

With Teddy Sagi's background, I guess $2 million is hard to ignore to leave well alone to give to the winner. Did he hold a gun or something to the other 58.9% shareholder(s)' head?

[Teddy Sagi], who incidentally in 1996 was imprisoned for "bribery, fraud and stock manipulation".

From the Jerusalem Post 30 January 1996:

The Tel Aviv District Court yesterday sentenced broker Teddy Sagi to nine months in prison imprisonment plus an additional 15 months suspended sentence and a fine......

Sagi's legal counsel has requested that his client not be sent to Ma'asiahu Prison, where his estranged stepbrother Ronen Sagi is serving time for the murder of broker Ya'akov Alfrovitz 12 years ago. The matter will be decided by the Prison Authority.

Oh, geez. My personal details in the hands of convicted fraudsters, bribers, and their murdering relatives. Dang, they have more information on players than the Las Vegas Mafia ever had on their casino patrons.

 

[RobWin]

With Teddy Sagi's background, I guess $2 million is hard to ignore to leave well alone to give to the winner. Did he hold a gun or something to the other 58.9% shareholder(s)' head?



Oh, geez. My personal details in the hands of convicted fraudsters, bribers, and their murdering relatives. Dang, they have more information on players than the Las Vegas Mafia ever had on their casino patrons.

Jeeze Ain't that the truth!

 

[The Dude]

Admin note:

Please don't make comments that could be considered slanderous in nature. Thank you.

 

[chuchu59]

You can imagine how much interst can 4 M acumulate in bank. Supose 5% a year is 200k so per month is 16.600. Good deal!!

Joyland would probably counter that (if they were still under the former owners) by not paying they helped the player to save a princely sum which would be lost in the stock market or accumulators last year.

 

[HankP]

First off I would like to thank you all for the comments and information's..I am stunned, but glad this has been brought to the open.

I wanted to clear up a few points made in this thread as I am very aware of this situation since the very beginning.

As per where the winners 2 million + is, well Playtech should be able to produce where the lump sum was deposited?

As per Joyland and the VIP managers, I know for a fact that Sylvia tried to collect the total amount from day one, but was told over and over again that it was 9K per month or 2.1M no exceptions, and the 2.1M was conditional to her playing out the winnings. Which she had to, but didn't play all of it. When she asked if she could travel and meet in person she was told this is not possible.

Also, on the last (recorded conversation) with the vip manager he says very clearly that there is $2 285,000.00 in her account. So they/he (the so called vip manager) anticipated her playing and had deducted 1.1M which she never played, and the remaining sum of $1 185,000.00 would be erased!!!!(so from that moment on the account was locked and inaccessible).

NOTE: While she was playing in order to collect, the VIP manager stated that he could see her account and that she had played for well over 6M, More pool money being collected by??? (not Sylvia thats for sure)


I would love to hear from other Playtech licensees...

I thought it was important to state some of these facts for all to know.
HP

 

[The Dude]

HankP is Sylvia's brother, by the way.

 

[RobWin]

HankP is Sylvia's brother, by the way.

This gets stranger with each post, so the way I am understanding this is that the player was not even going to get the 2-million but only 1-million now because the casino said she had to play half of the half of her total winnings that she would get back?? Is that right??

 

[HankP]

This gets stranger with each post, so the way I am understanding this is that the player was not even going to get the 2-million but only 1-million now because the casino said she had to play half of the half of her total winnings that she would get back?? Is that right??

The original agreement was 9K per month but after I had a long winded conversation explaining that this was not acceptable it would take almost 40yrs to pay Sylvia fully, I was told he would get back to us and let us know what he could do.

He than called us back to inform us that he could give her large sums if and only if, Sylvia would lose it first and only than could he payout
ie: $100 000.00. So in reality once she had played and lost , he would be able to pay, but that also changed when he noticed she wasn't playing anymore and the account was stable at
$2 285 000.00 he changed this to them anticipateing the playout by making withdrawls.

So their mindset was pay half of the jackpot from that moment on... and not much we could do about it, they controlled the money and the withdrawls.

We also offered the vip manager pay us $2 300 000.00 now and pay the rest 9K per month for the remaining amount, once again it was not possible??

HP

 

[RobWin]

The original agreement was 9K per month but after I had a long winded conversation explaining that this was not acceptable it would take almost 40yrs to pay Sylvia fully, I was told he would get back to us and let us know what he could do.

He than called us back to inform us that he could give her large sums if and only if, Sylvia would lose it first and only than could he payout
ie: $100 000.00. So in reality once she had played and lost , he would be able to pay, but that also changed when he noticed she wasn't playing anymore and the account was stable at
$2 285 000.00 he changed this to them anticipateing the playout by making withdrawls.

So their mindset was pay half of the jackpot from that moment on... and not much we could do about it, they controlled the money and the withdrawls.

We also offered the vip manager pay us $2 300 000.00 now and pay the rest 9K per month for the remaining amount, once again it was not possible??

HP

Thanks for the posts Hank. So basically what you are saying is that this Playtech powered casino was never intentioned on paying out the total win of 4,xxx million in the first place...is that correct?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Since these are now listed companies here in the UK, there is an often used method of ensuring issues like this get the glare of publicity.

1) Buy 1 share in the company.

2) Now, you have the RIGHT to attend the AGM, and the RIGHT to question the board, and have the issue noted in the minutes.

3) After 1 + 2, the issue can no longer be buried, and online gambling aside, it is a case of 4 mill owed, and only 1 mill actually paid - where did the 3 mill go.

Unless the old group was bankrupt when bought out by Will Hill, the new owner would STILL be responsible for the debt, as well as benefit from the assets. If there was a 3 mill hole in the accounts from a "ripped off" customer, then it is tough for Will Hill, who decided to get involved with such a colourful srt of characters in the first case.

There is a parallel with the Lloyds bank take over of HBOS here. Lloyds thought they were onto a winner, and so didn't bother to look too deeply. Now, a black hole of toxic debt has bitten them in the ass. There has been no question of Lloyds simply declining to be responsible for the debt, the debt has sunk them, and they were part nationalised as a result.

The correspondence was hotmail. The casino originally thought this would not create anything binding on THEM, so they could renege on it later, which they did. The same argument applies for the player though, there is no "proof" of any standing that the PLAYER accepted the reduced sum, therefore, the player is still owed the remainder of the TOTAL win.

A scandal on this scale could damage the reputation of Will Hill, so hopefully a resolution will be found before the financial press get hold of it, and find they have a quiet week on the stock markets, and a need to produce a story.

As far as I am concerned, Will Hill have already tarnished their reputation by joining up with these rogue casinos as part of the overall package for the joint venture. Playtech have further damaged their reputation by so far doing nothing to assist a player who was rightfully owed the full jackpot, but deprived of it by a rogue casino.

If taken to court, T & C like this ($9K a month for such a win) could well be struck out as unfair by the courts, given the 39 year "will they still be there" argument, as well as the fact this was money already paid over in full to the casino.

Sylvia could take Playtech and Will Hill as joint respondents to court here in the UK, as both companies are listed here, and sue for the return of all monies outstanding from the win. There may be an upfront fee to pay, but there may be a firm prepared to take the case for a percentage of the amount reclaimed, with a limited fee if they lose. It would all depend on how likely a victory would be. In any case, the two companies would probably start talking about a settlement the minute the summons hit their desks, and might settle "in confidence", rather than have the case aired in public.

Online gambling may be a niche activity, but there is enough advertising about it here on the TV and in sports, that such a case would threaten a fledgling industry, and new players, and some current ones, would be scared off if they heard in the general media that a player was ripped off for 3 million of a jackpot, and there seemed nothing that could be done by any regulator to force the casino to pay up.

This has already dragged on for 3 years, and although rogued, the casino was SUPPOSED to be fully regulated at the time.

 

[The Dude]

...and online gambling aside, it is a case of 4 mill owed, and only 1 mill actually paid - where did the 3 mill go....

This has already dragged on for 3 years, and although rogued, the casino was SUPPOSED to be fully regulated at the time.

Actually, she's received about half ($2,361 000.00) 61k was comp points. And this win was in August - the emails from Oct-Dec - and this has been presented to WH and Playtech only a couple of weeks ago - not three years.

 

[RobWin]

Actually, she's received about half ($2,361 000.00) 61k was comp points. And this win was in August - the emails from Oct-Dec - and this has been presented to WH and Playtech only a couple of weeks ago - not three years.

I can certainly see where Vinyl may have been confused here as I still am also since Hank had said this a couple of posts back:

Also, on the last (recorded conversation) with the vip manager he says very clearly that there is $2 285,000.00 in her account. So they/he (the so called vip manager) anticipated her playing and had deducted 1.1M which she never played, and the remaining sum of $1 185,000.00 would be erased!!!!(so from that moment on the account was locked and inaccessible).

 

[HankP]

RobWin,

The facts are that when we asked for the total payout, we were answered by the vip manager point blank, that she would recieve 9K per month as per their terms and conditions.

If Sylvia wanted a lump sum the total payout would be $2 300 000.00 and Sylvia would have to playout the remaining winnings, we had intentionally stopped playing out the money when her account was at $2 285 000.00 in the account (which she never played out).

So, they did offer Sylvia the total amount, but it would be 9K monthly for the next 39 yrs or so.

In response to Vinylweatherman; Just to clarify,She collected $2 361 000.00 and not $1M as you posted. The remaining $2 285 000.00 which was in her account was erased and the account was closed and never paid off in full.

But the question remains, where did the remaining 2 285 000.00 GO?

One thing is for sure it wasn't to Sylvia....

HP

 

[chayton]

Another thing that sucks about this whole thing is that article on the Joyland website makes it out to be "oh look, what a happy winner we have - She won AND RECEIVED all this money and her life is complete and she had no hassles and she loves our casino so much - you should all come and play here."

That pisses me off. If I was some ordinary shmuck (rather than an ordinary shmuck with a Casinomeister account) I wouldn't know that she wasn't able to collect. Isn't that like false advertising? They should put a disclaimer: "The player was only allowed to collect approximately half of her winnings after jumping through many hoops and she's no longer a satisfied and happy customer as we've locked her account and stolen her money....mwaaahhh hahahahaha"

 

[Westland Bowl]

......The facts are that when we asked for the total payout, we were answered by the vip manager point blank, that she would recieve 9K per month as per their terms and conditions.

If Sylvia wanted a lump sum the total payout would be $2 300 000.00 and Sylvia would have to playout the remaining winnings, we had intentionally stopped playing out the money when her account was at $2 285 000.00 in the account (which she never played out).

So, they did offer Sylvia the total amount, but it would be 9K monthly for the next 39 yrs or so.........

This is beginning to sound like what the state lotteries do for their progressive jackpots. For example, the recent Mega Millions jackpot reached $225 million and there was a winner (three actually). You have a choice to receive a big first payment, like $10 million and the rest paid out over 20-30 years.

OR...

One lump sum payment that is considerably less, like $120 million (on a $225 million jackpot). This would be a figure, more or less, like the Present Value of $225 million in 20-30 years.

So it appears that the Playtech jackpot was actually the Future Value of the amount contributed to date into the jackpot. Perhaps the actual present value contributed was $1 million but the jackpot figure of $4+ million shown was the Future Value (in 20 or 30 or 40 years) of such contributed to date.

Does this make sense?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Actually, she's received about half ($2,361 000.00) 61k was comp points. And this win was in August - the emails from Oct-Dec - and this has been presented to WH and Playtech only a couple of weeks ago - not three years.

You mean to say this is ANOTHER issue with this bunch

I thought this was the original "joyless situation".

Last August is VERY close to the Will Hill tie up in City terms. William Hill would have been in discussions with the various parties, and should have seen this situation as a potential minefield then. They could have made clearing up outstanding player issues a condition for the deal to go ahead.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is beginning to sound like what the state lotteries do for their progressive jackpots. For example, the recent Mega Millions jackpot reached $225 million and there was a winner (three actually). You have a choice to receive a big first payment, like $10 million and the rest paid out over 20-30 years.

OR...

One lump sum payment that is considerably less, like $120 million (on a $225 million jackpot). This would be a figure, more or less, like the Present Value of $225 million in 20-30 years.

So it appears that the Playtech jackpot was actually the Future Value of the amount contributed to date into the jackpot. Perhaps the actual present value contributed was $1 million but the jackpot figure of $4+ million shown was the Future Value (in 20 or 30 or 40 years) of such contributed to date.

Does this make sense?

In theory, yes. In practice, we can probably trust a government run lottery to PROPERLY value the pool, but how do we know whether the casino really received the full 4M, and not the reduced amount. It is VERY messy, and since clearly the FULL amount went into the player balance when the jackpot was won, and not a reduced amount, I expect the casino somehow took the remaining 2M into it's own asset base, but there is no accounting to show this.

An amount this large would have to be shown in annual accounts for a company, and MAY appear in the first set of formal accounts the new group submit. It would take a skilled forensic accountant to figure out what happened, but if they were let loose on all the books, they might find a "smoking gun".

 

[The Dude]

This is beginning to sound like what the state lotteries do for their progressive jackpots. For example, the recent Mega Millions jackpot reached $225 million and there was a winner (three actually). You have a choice to receive a big first payment, like $10 million and the rest paid out over 20-30 years.

OR...

One lump sum payment that is considerably less, like $120 million (on a $225 million jackpot). This would be a figure, more or less, like the Present Value of $225 million in 20-30 years.

So it appears that the Playtech jackpot was actually the Future Value of the amount contributed to date into the jackpot. Perhaps the actual present value contributed was $1 million but the jackpot figure of $4+ million shown was the Future Value (in 20 or 30 or 40 years) of such contributed to date.

Does this make sense?

Like I mentioned before:

When she signed up at Joyland, they had a policy of a max payout of 9k per month. Do the math $4.2 million will take around 39 years to pay out. Thats one hell of a long time. Most state lotteries have payment plans for 20 years but Im pretty sure that the state of California will be around for the next 20 years even 50 years. How do we know that the Internet will be around in 39 years, much less Joyland casino? Personally I think 39 years is absurd and indefensible. It boggles the mind to think anyone would consider this acceptable.

Here's her screenshot which shows the entire amount in her account. There was no "future value". She had the cash in her account; she just couldn't cash it out in one shot.

 

[love2winalot]

Hiya: Lets take this a step further. William Hill said they assumed the assets, and not the dept. This is all well and fine, but what about the dept?

What about all those other players who had their money, either deposits or winnings, still in the casino bank? Did all of them get paid? Was every account closed prior to the sell?

I mean, come on, if YOU were going to buy "insert casino name here", the sales agreement has to disclose what to do, WITH ALL CURRENT ACCOUNTS, AND MONIES CURRENTLY HELD BY THE CASINO". Both Assets, that being money deposited by players that has NO winnings, but still has a balance, and depts being money is has an positive gain for the player.

Player 1: Deposited $1000, was losing, and has $470 of it left.
Player 2: Deposited $1000, was winning, and now has $1500 balance.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Like I mentioned before:

Here's her screenshot which shows the entire amount in her account. There was no "future value". She had the cash in her account; she just couldn't cash it out in one shot.

Uh, the egg on my face is quite delicious in fact.

 

[deucebag]

I spoke with the CEO of William Hill online and he was as perplexed as I was, but he stated that William Hill considers that this player accepted the terms and conditions of 9k per month, had an offer to accept a lump sum payment, and took it. Even though William Hill purchased the casino, it purchased the assets and not the debt.

I'm no lawyer, but can't believe that statement holds water. When you buy a company, of course you take over the liabilities as well. The player should get a lawyer and take William Hill to court.

 

[thelawnet]

This is beginning to sound like what the state lotteries do for their progressive jackpots. For example, the recent Mega Millions jackpot reached $225 million and there was a winner (three actually). You have a choice to receive a big first payment, like $10 million and the rest paid out over 20-30 years.

OR...

One lump sum payment that is considerably less, like $120 million (on a $225 million jackpot). This would be a figure, more or less, like the Present Value of $225 million in 20-30 years.

So it appears that the Playtech jackpot was actually the Future Value of the amount contributed to date into the jackpot. Perhaps the actual present value contributed was $1 million but the jackpot figure of $4+ million shown was the Future Value (in 20 or 30 or 40 years) of such contributed to date.

Does this make sense?

No. The typical online progressive returns about 90% before the jackpot. Then perhaps 2-3% goes to the jackpot. That is TODAY's money. In the case of very large rare jackpots there is a benefit to the casino in sitting on the money for a year or more.

The casino puts up a seed, which is their own money, but in the long run they'll come out ahead.

Example:

90% payout from non-jackpot pays
casino seeds jackpot at 1 million dollars,
jackpot is a 50 million to 1 shot, and the stake is $1, which means the seed jackpot is worth 2% return
2% of the bet goes to the progressive

then the casino expects that there will be 50 million spins between jackpots

it will receive $50 million
it will pay out on average $45 million in non-jackpot pays
it will pay a $2 million jackpot - 1 million seed, plus 1 million from the players

leaving $3 million of profit (6%)

All online casinos pay jackpots TODAY, because the business model is such that on average they'll receive the jackpot many times over from the players before it is paid out.

[There is one dishonourable exception: Wagerworks - see here https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/community/online-casinos/

 

[thelawnet]

You mean to say this is ANOTHER issue with this bunch

I thought this was the original "joyless situation".

The joyless situation was when they had players win off high comps payouts. They negotiated with some of the players to pay half of what they were owed and refused to pay others.

 

[GrandMaster]

Playtech definitely have some answers to give.

Who was the previous owner of Joyland casino?

Six Digits Trading, owned through a trust by Teddy Sagi.

Old / Expired Link

Who he?

41.1% owner of Playtech.

So this would be the cashflow:

1. Playtech seeds Beach Life jackpot with just $50,000:

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

2. Players play Beach life for many months. A total of $4,188,508.70 is sent from player funds to seed the jackpot.
3. Sylvia P wins the jackpot.
4. Playtech sends $4,238,508.70, 99% of which is player funds, to Joyland Casino to pay the jackpot.
5. Joyland sends Sylvia P half the money, Six Digits Trading pockets the rest, resulting in over $2 million going to the trust owned by Teddy Sagi, aka the 41.1% owner of Playtech.

In other words Playtech ended up funneling money to its largest shareholder, who incidentally in 1996 was imprisoned for "bribery, fraud and stock manipulation".

From the Jerusalem Post 30 January 1996:


THE Tel Aviv District Court yesterday sentenced broker Teddy Sagi to nine months in prison imprisonment plus an additional 15 months suspended sentence and a fine of NIS 300,000.

Sagi, whose prison term starts on February 25, admitted to bribery, fraud and stock manipulation.

In October 1993, Sagi was asked to fund the purchase of NIS 5 million in securities, after which they were sold - with Sagi pocketing NIS 8,000.

Three months later, Sagi was asked by a Bank Discount employee to purchase NIS 20m. in securities. During the court case it was maintained that Sagi earned NIS 105,000 from the second deal.

Sagi's legal counsel has requested that his client not be sent to Ma'asiahu Prison, where his estranged stepbrother Ronen Sagi is serving time for the murder of broker Ya'akov Alfrovitz 12 years ago. The matter will be decided by the Prison Authority.

Great job at background checking by Playtech and by Kahnawake.

 

[HankP]

You mean to say this is ANOTHER issue with this bunch

I thought this was the original "joyless situation".

Last August is VERY close to the Will Hill tie up in City terms. William Hill would have been in discussions with the various parties, and should have seen this situation as a potential minefield then. They could have made clearing up outstanding player issues a condition for the deal to go ahead.

I am not aware of the time line when this occured but If you can do a quick search off google link below and see how my sisters win was well known by all and the numerous acknowledgments were posted.

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

HP

 

[deltoid]

This makes me sick. Playtech licensees better speak up because this puts Playtech in the mud. I know they're just finding this out with the rest of us but they better realize that a player sees progressives as a SOFTWARE WIDE thing, and not down to the casino. How (networked) progressives are handled reflects almost completely on the network, not just the casino providing the link to the network.

The reputable Playtech casinos, or those seeking to be reputable, should think long and hard as to what sort of pressure they should put on Playtech/WillHill to fix this in order to get the playtech brand out of the mud that this sort of fiasco WILL and HAS put them in.

 

[thelawnet]

Great job at background checking by Playtech and by Kahnawake.

Given that he's the founder of Playtech I don't think background checking would really come into things.

As for Kahnahahahahahahahahahahawake, they are beyond a joke.

 

[Gogo]

Anyway, I congratulate Sylvia. She is winner!
I have noticed that she won in CAD. Did she get 2M+ usd or cad?

 

[HankP]

It was CAD, they collected the full amount of her CAD deposit, and paid her a lil more than half her jackpot in Cad...

 

[GrandMaster]

Given that he's the founder of Playtech I don't think background checking would really come into things.

I am even more glad that I barely played at Playtech casinos.

As for Kahnahahahahahahahahahahawake, they are beyond a joke.

Totally agree. Incidentally, one of the current directors of ecogra helped to draft their rules.

 

[jetset]

Disappointingly low blow, GM.

Catania may have drafted a competent set of rules, but the responsibility for compliance rests with Kahnawake itself.

 

[The Dude]

William Hill should be coming out with a statement on this shortly.

 

[funky_seagull]

This is an instance where playtech should step in and kick any operators arse that dares to do such a low thing. William Hill has billions of pounds. They've bought Joyland and it has become a part of their brand. Now Lowland I mean Joyland(predictive text on phone comes up with interesting alternative words.) has a crap reputation. I think if William Hill want to improve the reputation of Joyland and make their brand look trustworthy. As a gesture of good will they should pay the player the rest of her winnings. It makes better business sense for them to do this. As it will send out a clear message to the player community that they're a good operator. Playtech are pretty much in bed with William Hill. If playtech want to show themselves as being a trustworthy software provider that cares about the players, after all it is the players who are the lifeblood of their business. Without the players they would die. They should either persue the original villains and take them to court for the money they stole off the player community. Or come to an arrangement with William Hill to pay the player the rest of her winnings, so that William Hill take over the casino with a clean slate and give a positive message out that Joyland is no longer Lowland. It isn't like they're short of cash. They just made a fortune in the grand national with that 100/1 winner that nobody backed. Surely they can afford to pay the player the rest of her money. Also I may be wrong here, but when you buy a company you also take on that companies debts...

 

[DiamondGeezer]

For me the thing that hits home hardest is the forcing of the player Sylvia to play through 2.1M of winnings. It's pretty sad reading that she also played through 6M after that time. I believe the legal term for such tactics is coercion.

This is a new low. When you hear stories like this it makes you wonder what exactly is really going on between online casinos and their players. And the truth is none of us really know. Affiliates - have you ever wondered how you most profitable clients are running up big payments for you? Do you ever wonder that there may be more going on than the simple process of player depositing and playing?

I used to be in favour of an open market and online regulation but I am beginning to wonder if it may infact be a mistake. This industry seems unable to control itself. Time and again owners, operators and software providors seem to have barely any knowledge or understanding of the law. Or they think they can make things up as they go along. And when things go wrong the buck is always passed. Because it is 'cyberspace' some of these companies think they can do as they please.

This episode, the WW Megajackpots farce and the Casino Club dispute have really made me feel sick. Particularly this one. The idea of winning an incredible jackpot and being subjected to these tactics is nauseating. You do wonder if there are other practises going on that haven't come to light yet.

Isn't it about time this industry got cleaned up? I would like to see ringfencing of deposits so that players can be confident casinos can pay these jackpots. And if a player has a dispute there should be some place they can go to get it attended to. Hire a few accountants and solicitors and set up a proper dispute service, even if it means players paying a fee of some kind. I know I would be happy to do so.

We as players have got to make these casinos more accountable. Many of them are very adept at hiding behind subsiduaries or basing themselves legally in one land while targeting their marketing at another nation. They are very clever at it. They also exploit the weakness and indecision of many governments.

HankP I really hope you have success in recovering thse funds for your sister. On the face of it I would think it is a really good break for you that Joyland has come under William Hill ownership and not been wound up. It looks like you have a very strong case but it is ofcourse very difficult as an individual taking action against such a large company as William Hill (who themselves may have been duped). It is a difficult situation and will no doubt make a lot of money for some lawyers.

Best of luck HanKP. As players let's stop taking this abuse and demand a better system.

 

[thelawnet]

This is an instance where playtech should step in and kick any operators arse that dares to do such a low thing. William Hill has billions of pounds. They've bought Joyland and it has become a part of their brand. Now Lowland I mean Joyland(predictive text on phone comes up with interesting alternative words.) has a crap reputation. I think if William Hill want to improve the reputation of Joyland and make their brand look trustworthy. As a gesture of good will they should pay the player the rest of her winnings. It makes better business sense for them to do this. As it will send out a clear message to the player community that they're a good operator. Playtech are pretty much in bed with William Hill. If playtech want to show themselves as being a trustworthy software provider that cares about the players, after all it is the players who are the lifeblood of their business. Without the players they would die. They should either persue the original villains and take them to court for the money they stole off the player community. Or come to an arrangement with William Hill to pay the player the rest of her winnings, so that William Hill take over the casino with a clean slate and give a positive message out that Joyland is no longer Lowland. It isn't like they're short of cash. They just made a fortune in the grand national with that 100/1 winner that nobody backed. Surely they can afford to pay the player the rest of her money. Also I may be wrong here, but when you buy a company you also take on that companies debts...

I wouldn't be so hasty. I would think the vendor, which was actually Playtech, because for some reason they bought the casinos from their Director, and then resold them immediately to William Hill has a great deal of responsibility to explain what has happened to the money.