Virtual VS bsilva028 : split from the Virtual Probation thread

[bsilva028]

it was already said before that after the 180 days of probation will also have something to vote what we think of put them out of the rogue pit or not.

i asked to the reps clarify some good things, like until now nothing was answered neither changed in their rogue rules, i will not say more nothing about this.

when the vote happens i will give my vote
continue in rogue pit forever, it will be what i will vote.

[Max says: this post and the 100+ that follow were originally part of The Virtual Casino Group and Ace Revenue and were split off because it became a massive, fraudster-inspired derail. Apologies for any discontinuities that may have caused: thread splitting is not an exact science and there will be jagged edges here and there. If anything actually needs fixing -- moved from this thread to that or whatever -- please send me a PM with the details (post number, link, whatever) and I'll do what I can to make things right. FTR this post originally appeared here.]

 

[bsilva028]

me, like i said before, for me this is one more trick of them
however, and like when i started online gambling, (i didn´t know anything about best or worst casinos) in a search it appeared me one of their casinos, in that time i registered, i have made some deposites, when i tried to casout the 1st time i did not get paid in that time with stupid escuses, so since there until now i uninstalled them and never logged in again

yesterday, in 1 of their spams, it was a free chip, like it was free, not my own money, i played it, completed the playthrough and tried to cashout.
uninstalled again.

i am now waiting for the results.
i am not expecting to get paid so early, i only played it with test purposes, i want to see if they are really different (thing that i dont belive)
but let´s just see.

if i get paid in less than 1 month, i will post here, if i dont get paid in that time (thats what i belive it will happen) i will post also.

 

[bsilva028]

well, like i said before, i would post here the results

the withdrawal request was denied, asked live chat why:

excuse given:

"players from portugal can´t cashout from free chips"
so even if receive them in e-mail they cant cashout.

its more than proof:
this is a big trick of virtual to try get out and keep being the same as they allways was:
rogue rogue and rogue again.
i will not complaint with anything, like i also said before, i was not expecting to gat paid, this was only a test, the test results are the same as few years ago. they dit not changed and i dont belive that they will change never.

there are lots of other rogue casinos but, so rogues like this group? i dont belive.
they are really the shame of online gambling and they should disapear from the planet for a better online gambling world happen.

 

[vinylweatherman]

well, like i said before, i would post here the results

the withdrawal request was denied, asked live chat why:

excuse given:

"players from portugal can´t cashout from free chips"
so even if receive them in e-mail they cant cashout.

its more than proof:
this is a big trick of virtual to try get out and keep being the same as they allways was:
rogue rogue and rogue again.
i will not complaint with anything, like i also said before, i was not expecting to gat paid, this was only a test, the test results are the same as few years ago. they dit not changed and i dont belive that they will change never.

there are lots of other rogue casinos but, so rogues like this group? i dont belive.
they are really the shame of online gambling and they should disapear from the planet for a better online gambling world happen.

This is classic Virtual rogue behaviour. They decide not to pay, and then think up an excuse to justify it. If they were acting with honesty and integrity, they would not be sending players free chips in the first place if they could never cash out. You will probably find that the blame will now be shifted onto an affiliate having "spammed" you with that offer without regard to your eligibility.

If they have embarked on a programme of great change, it seems the memo has yet to reach the CS agent that you dealt with. This should have been addressed BEFORE they embarked on this publicity push, so that such embarrassing "test results" would not come to bite them on the ass.

 

[bsilva028]

This is classic Virtual rogue behaviour. They decide not to pay, and then think up an excuse to justify it. If they were acting with honesty and integrity, they would not be sending players free chips in the first place if they could never cash out. You will probably find that the blame will now be shifted onto an affiliate having "spammed" you with that offer without regard to your eligibility.

If they have embarked on a programme of great change, it seems the memo has yet to reach the CS agent that you dealt with. This should have been addressed BEFORE they embarked on this publicity push, so that such embarrassing "test results" would not come to bite them on the ass.

yes also belive that the excuse now will be: "its not our fault, its affiliate´s fault, affiliates are sending spams where they have acess to the username that the player uses in the casino, so its their fault not ours, we are honnest"


if they were really different they should say: lets honour what we sent, but with the guarantee that players from country a,b or c or or player 1,2 or 3 will no longer receive promotions and/or free chips

 

[greedygirl]

Debbee was this disclosed to you during any of the honest talks you had with virtual staff?

When I saw the posts by bsilva, I contacted the casino straight away to ask for the full story. I don't feel it is my place to discuss this, but I'm quite certain Tawni will be explaining things in detail. What I will say is that perhaps, when CM members get the full story, you may have a different opinion in this situation.

 

[mattsgame]

This is classic Virtual rogue behaviour. They decide not to pay, and then think up an excuse to justify it. If they were acting with honesty and integrity, they would not be sending players free chips in the first place if they could never cash out. You will probably find that the blame will now be shifted onto an affiliate having "spammed" you with that offer without regard to your eligibility.

If they have embarked on a programme of great change, it seems the memo has yet to reach the CS agent that you dealt with. This should have been addressed BEFORE they embarked on this publicity push, so that such embarrassing "test results" would not come to bite them on the ass.

Ok, first off I think everyone has seen and knows I am not the biggest Virtual Fan. But.... it is in the terms and condition that players from Portugal cannot withdraw from free chips. If the mail came from them it is a stuff up, but they would not be the first casino to send players free spins or bonuses to players from bonus banned countries, my bet though it will be from an affiliate but you should still check the terms regardless.

The one thing I do not like about this term is this little bit

We retain the right to lift these restrictions on an individual basis

I was going to stay out of this thread, dammit.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Ok, first off I think everyone has seen and knows I am not the biggest Virtual Fan. But.... it is in the terms and condition that players from Portugal cannot withdraw from free chips. If the mail came from them it is a stuff up, but they would not be the first casino to send players free spins or bonuses to players from bonus banned countries, my bet though it will be from an affiliate but you should still check the terms regardless.

The one thing I do not like about this term is this little bit

I was going to stay out of this thread, dammit.

This also relates to their other rogue practice of deliberately sending players offers they are not allowed to use. Mostly, it was the "back to back free chip trick" that got them the most flak. They would aggressively market free chips to players and many took the offers in good faith. They then sprung the trap later on when the player managed to win. Sometimes, it wasn't even a win from a free chip, but a win much later on that was confiscated because at some time in the past they had played back to back free chips.

If this offer came from the casino, they knew damn well where this player resided, and that this would render them ineligible. To make matters worse, they have the discretionary removal of the restriction on an individual basis. Of course, if a player receives such an offer direct from the casino, it is reasonable to believe that they have done so because they have had the restriction lifted.

Given that large offers and free chips are the fundamental business model used by this group, it is even more damning given that they vigorously defend the practice because "our players like it". Of course they do, except the ones that win and find out the whole thing was a clever illusion designed to fleece them.

Whilst they may have certain restrictions in their terms, it seems they are pretty random. Why single out Portugal seemingly at random for an extra special shafting Who else has been disadvantaged by some term or other that can change overnight without notice?

So far, it seems that nothing has changed, and the few members here that admit they have dipped their toes in to see if things HAVE changed appear to be finding out that nothing really has changed after all.

 

[TawniVirtualAce]

well, like i said before, i would post here the results

the withdrawal request was denied, asked live chat why:

excuse given:

"players from portugal can´t cashout from free chips"
so even if receive them in e-mail they cant cashout.

its more than proof:
this is a big trick of virtual to try get out and keep being the same as they allways was:
rogue rogue and rogue again.
i will not complaint with anything, like i also said before, i was not expecting to gat paid, this was only a test, the test results are the same as few years ago. they dit not changed and i dont belive that they will change never.

there are lots of other rogue casinos but, so rogues like this group? i dont belive.
they are really the shame of online gambling and they should disapear from the planet for a better online gambling world happen.

There are definitely two sides to every story and this is no exception.

In the case of bsilva, at a quick first glance, it appears that he has created no less than 40+ accounts within six of our casinos, since 2008 (quite possibly, more). He has made a total of $80 in deposits (back in 2008). With each account, he has used free chips and has been denied winnings previously, four times, based on the fact that he resides in Portugal. He cannot claim he was unaware of this term.

In this particular instance, bsilva not only ignored the term stating he cannot withdraw on bonuses due to his location, but also he broke the term regarding multiple free chips without depositing. He accepted three free chips in succession, Dec. 17th.

He states:

yes also belive that the excuse now will be: "its not our fault, its affiliate´s fault, affiliates are sending spams where they have acess to the username that the player uses in the casino, so its their fault not ours, we are honnest"

This is patently untrue. We’ve looked up the origins of the coupons he used. Two of the three came from casinofreebees.com. The third came from the casino itself, a standard free chip offered to all its players.

As a result of what has occurred, I’ve spoken with management regarding making changes with the following:

• We need to find a way to limit the number of accounts any player has.
• We also need to find a clear way to prevent players from those countries with bonus limitations from redeeming free chips.
• Additionally, we need to implement some sort of fix, preventing players from using multiple free chips without depositing, between.

Management is in full agreement with what I’ve described and will immediately look into how these fixes can be achieved. I will report back on progress on these items, in the coming days.

I wont comment on spam/ownership but on the subject of inactive accounts I do believe Virtual can go one step further. The dreaded term may have been removed but what about those innocent players who had their balances confiscated in the past. This is just so wrong so if you wish to act in good faith and give 'Virtual' a push literally thought should be given to restore the players' confiscated balances. Should Virtual feel, like many banks nowadays, that inactive/dormant accounts costs them resources in servicing they may consider slapping a fee of say no more than 5% of the balances. In other words, please consider returning at least 95% of the money back. In the long run, this will show your goodwill though monetarily speaking, it may be painful to part with others' money already pocketed.

I don’t disagree with this and I will speak with management regarding this, Monday. As Greedygirl mentioned early on, the resolution center has re-opened, so if anyone has had this term enforced, I invite them to please submit a claim to [email protected] (for the Virtual brands) or [email protected] (for the Ace brands).

We know who the previous owner was, and probably still is.

I think what would be a little comforting would be to know if there is a board of directors or the like that is going to handle the day to day operations and see to it that the players concerns have a little higher priority, which they haven't in the past.

Lack of information will lead to speculation and if the behavior of the casino supports that speculation it will be seen to confirm it.

Perhaps you could explain the chain of command and where our withdrawal requests would go once submitted and how it takes your casinos 7 days to do what the vast majority of others do in 1 or 2 days, or instantly. The long pending period suggests that the casino doesn't really want to pay.

This is quite a bit to address in one shot. This brings into play limitations due to difficulties with the U.S. I’m not trying to skirt things, but because this is going to require lengthy explanations, I’ll hold off until tomorrow. It’s been a very long day and I’d like to be thorough in my response to this.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is the most damning of all.

The third came from the casino itself, a standard free chip offered to all its players.

You have knowingly been sending such offers to players who are ineligible.

As a result of what has occurred, I’ve spoken with management regarding making changes with the following:

•We need to find a way to limit the number of accounts any player has.
•We also need to find a clear way to prevent players from those countries with bonus limitations from redeeming free chips.
•Additionally, we need to implement some sort of fix, preventing players from using multiple free chips without depositing, between.

Er, try reading the RTG user manual - Club World can do it, and have been doing just this for some while.

Only the first is the tricky one, something all casinos have problems with, and something that the software cannot really get to grips with when faced with a player who is knowingly and determinedly trying to beat the system.

This is also a serious accusation against a CM member, and one that needs to be tested independently as to it's validity.

Unfortunately, Virtual in the past have pulled this "multiple accounts" trick before, and in some cases it has been bogus, merely a means to deny payouts.

I am also interested as to why Portugal has been singled out, it's just an EU member state, and a long standing one. It is considered no more or less "criminal minded" than any of the other long standing EU member states. one can understand such terms for countries that have a chaotic regime, or which have undergone dramatic changes, but only because this makes an easier environment for fraudsters and criminals to operate because the state structure is not fit to properly police the citizens.

 

[Nifty29]

This is the most damning of all.



You have knowingly been sending such offers to players who are ineligible.





Er, try reading the RTG user manual - Club World can do it, and have been doing just this for some while.

Only the first is the tricky one, something all casinos have problems with, and something that the software cannot really get to grips with when faced with a player who is knowingly and determinedly trying to beat the system.

This is also a serious accusation against a CM member, and one that needs to be tested independently as to it's validity.

Unfortunately, Virtual in the past have pulled this "multiple accounts" trick before, and in some cases it has been bogus, merely a means to deny payouts.

I am also interested as to why Portugal has been singled out, it's just an EU member state, and a long standing one. It is considered no more or less "criminal minded" than any of the other long standing EU member states. one can understand such terms for countries that have a chaotic regime, or which have undergone dramatic changes, but only because this makes an easier environment for fraudsters and criminals to operate because the state structure is not fit to properly police the citizens.

The way I read it, Tawni meant it came from their website I.e. "available to all players"...NOT via email. Just like the other codes "came from" that other website.

I'm no fan of Virtual, but I am a fan of truth and accuracy in ANY discussion.

If bsilva is proven to have done what Tawni suggests, they should be banned from here for fraud IMO, or at least for deliberately misleading the membership.

 

[dionysus]

The way I read it, Tawni meant it came from their website I.e. "available to all players"...NOT via email. Just like the other codes "came from" that other website.

I'm no fan of Virtual, but I am a fan of truth and accuracy in ANY discussion.

If bsilva is proven to have done what Tawni suggests, they should be banned from here for fraud IMO, or at least for deliberately misleading the membership.

I agree. It cuts both ways.
If the player knowingly is misleading the members in an intentionally misrepresented crusade to satisfy their agenda of bonus abuse and wrongful bad-mouthing, the axe!
If the casino is wrong, a huge apology is due and is set back in the forum eyes

 

[vinylweatherman]

The way I read it, Tawni meant it came from their website I.e. "available to all players"...NOT via email. Just like the other codes "came from" that other website.

I'm no fan of Virtual, but I am a fan of truth and accuracy in ANY discussion.

If bsilva is proven to have done what Tawni suggests, they should be banned from here for fraud IMO, or at least for deliberately misleading the membership.

The implication is that it was an email offer:-

the withdrawal request was denied, asked live chat why:

excuse given:

"players from portugal can´t cashout from free chips"
so even if receive them in e-mail they cant cashout.

If Bsilva is proven to have been committing multi account frauds, then they should be sanctioned under normal policies, not given special leeway because "it's only Virtual". This would have to come via a PAB process, and this is something bsilva should be looking to do in order to clear their name.

I believe casino reps can approach Max and in a sense, PAB against a player in this kind of circumstance, as not getting to the bottom of this can also reflect badly on the casino, and players who know they have been caught out often decide not to pursue a PAB as it would likely lead to them getting named, shamed, and banned.

 

[Nifty29]

The implication is that it was an email offer:-



If Bsilva is proven to have been committing multi account frauds, then they should be sanctioned under normal policies, not given special leeway because "it's only Virtual". This would have to come via a PAB process, and this is something bsilva should be looking to do in order to clear their name.

I believe casino reps can approach Max and in a sense, PAB against a player in this kind of circumstance, as not getting to the bottom of this can also reflect badly on the casino, and players who know they have been caught out often decide not to pursue a PAB as it would likely lead to them getting named, shamed, and banned.

We only have bsilvas word that this is what live chat said....and we don't even know what the question was.

It may have been a general comment, and it may have applied to the codes from the other website.

 

[bsilva028]

to greddy girl and tawny

1st: i dont have multipe accounts - thats another BAD EXCUSE FROM YOU

2nd: if i broke some rule of some get more than 1 free chip its BECAUSE CASINO HAS SENT THEM

3rd: if i am not able to my withdraw due to my locations, casino has my location so it shoulnt send the bonuses

4th: casino also knows that i am verified because when y have the 1st problem back in 2008, casino has asked for my docs

5th: how do you know which casino was?? i did not mention if was in some casino of virtual or ace revenue, i did not mention the name of the casino.
i was the only player in the world making a withdraw this week??

6th: its only virtual because i´ve never had problems in any other casino.

7th: i have proof, that only in 2008 cool cat has more than $300 in deposites, so, tawny is not speaking the true, its speaking the rogue side of the story

8th: another proof that its a lie, i dont even know the site: casinofreebees.com. and i can sent all the sites in historic to prove that i never was in that site.

acredited casinos that i never had problem:
MG: 32red group, fortune lounge, vpl, club red gaming, bellerock, roxy.

netent: nordicbet, redbet, whitebet, guts, maxino

playtech: paddy power, betfred, omni, fly, bet365, sports interaction

rtg: club world group, sloto cash, jackpot capital group.

rival: slots capital

other brands: inter casino, vip casino, 3dice

non-acredited casinos:

club gold (playtech), casino rewards (mg), miami club (wgs), liberty slots (wgs)

so i really dont need to play there.
another thing ONLY to tawny:

you continue to give bad and rogue excuses to dont pay the players:
you said, your words, that i didnt read that i couldnt cashout due to my location, once again, this was your words and are predatory!!! casino does not allow my location to make cashouts, so casino dont have to send the bonuses !!!! if they was sent, they should be honored.

 

[bigjohn]

I am more inclined to take bsilva's word at this point.

Some of the things Tawni said don't seem to make sense or reflect a predatory nature. For instance, how does a casino leave someones account open if they believe that person has 40+ accounts?

 

[bsilva028]

another untrue of tawny:

the called "investigation" that she has made:

after she posts that "investigation" blaming me, and saying that i did not speak the true, i receveid another spam with another free chip:

what kind of investigation it was afterall?? so she investigated and AFTER that i continued to receive spams???

another thing that i did not post in previous post:
more casinos that i never had a problem with rules:
inetbet, and they have some bonuses that are strictly restricted to some games, and rules must be very well readen to dont be broken, and i never had problem

 

[bsilva028]

The way I read it, Tawni meant it came from their website I.e. "available to all players"...NOT via email. Just like the other codes "came from" that other website.

I'm no fan of Virtual, but I am a fan of truth and accuracy in ANY discussion.

If bsilva is proven to have done what Tawni suggests, they should be banned from here for fraud IMO, or at least for deliberately misleading the membership.

and no nifty, i did not make any fraude, you already read other posts, you also saw my activity since 2010 here, yes in the year that learned who was virtual and other rogues and when i discovered the true online gambling, it was here in cm.

i never defended anything when someone makes fraud
and like i said before, i dont even know the site mentionated by tawny. and if, in her side of the story, she said i claimed 2 free chips from a certain site and a 3rd given by the casino. (her words)

so after claiming 2 codes from another site the casino sends a 3rd code if they do not allow them?? specially that they know i couldnt got it??
so she is contradicting herself
she says: "bsilva claimed 2 free chips from a site, and a 3rd that the casino has sent" so the casino has sent the 3rd code after me claiming the 2 firsts???

again, like i said in another page, i did not was expecting to get paid, it was a test to check if they were really different, and by the excuse given they are not different, they sent a free chip to a player that couldnt cashout, THEY SENT IT, it wasnt me asking.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I am more inclined to take bsilva's word at this point.

Some of the things Tawni said don't seem to make sense or reflect a predatory nature. For instance, how does a casino leave someones account open if they believe that person has 40+ accounts?

It's Virtual remember. This was yet another predatory tactic from the past. They allowed accounts to remain open, taking deposits etc, but would use the multiple accounts violation as soon as the player won. This is probably why these 40+ accounts are still open. The turning over a new leaf exercise did not include making sure that historical multiple accounts were closed in line with the promised change to more honest practices.

The allegations are actually quite specific

In the case of bsilva, at a quick first glance, it appears that he has created no less than 40+ accounts within six of our casinos, since 2008 (quite possibly, more). He has made a total of $80 in deposits (back in 2008). With each account, he has used free chips and has been denied winnings previously, four times, based on the fact that he resides in Portugal. He cannot claim he was unaware of this term.

In this particular instance, bsilva not only ignored the term stating he cannot withdraw on bonuses due to his location, but also he broke the term regarding multiple free chips without depositing. He accepted three free chips in succession, Dec. 17th.

...........

We’ve looked up the origins of the coupons he used. Two of the three came from casinofreebees.com. The third came from the casino itself, a standard free chip offered to all its players.

So, despite this GROSS multi accounting from way back in 2008, his accounts are STILL open in 2013, and he is STILL being sent inducements to play.

Despite it being only $80, he IS actually a "depositing player".

Given how specific these allegations are, it should be easy for this to be proven to Max as a true account of what went on, and thus absolve Virtual of any wrong doing in this case.


Maybe Virtual should go back over their database and see how many other serial fraudsters have managed to remain undetected and thus still have access to their accounts. If any of these players start trying to play again, they will all end up having their withdrawals confiscated, and the ensuing publicity would be very bad news indeed for Virtual. Far better to close all such suspect accounts now so that any players who have been flagged will have to ask CS to reopen their accounts if they want to try again, at which point Virtual can say "no" if they have such specific evidence of multi account fraud as they do for bsilva.

 

[maxd]

@ bsilva028 : please tone down the "lies and rogue Rogue ROGUE" rhetoric. If you can't discuss these issues without all the accusations and name-calling then maybe you should take a break to cool off for a while, or whatever form of "chill out" suits you. The point is that this can and should be done in a more civilised manner, please and thank you.

 

[bsilva028]

@ bsilva028 : please tone down the "lies and rogue Rogue ROGUE" rhetoric. If you can't discuss these issues without all the accusations and name-calling then maybe you should take a break to cool off for a while, or whatever suits you. The point is that this can and should be done in a more civilised manner, please and thank you.

sorry be the terms used, i belive they was not the more correct, but thats a thing that revolts me:

reading that i claimed a free chip from a site that i dont know, saying that i have 40+ accounts with $80 deposite, when i dont have that multiple accounts and deposites was above 300 in 2008, saying that i broke 1 rule because they sent that bonus without i ask for nothing, read that they have done an investigation and after that investigation i continued to received e-mails to claim more free chips and to broke more rules.

sorry by the words used

 

[bigjohn]

It seems we are at an impass here.

The ball now seems to be in CM's court (since this is a probation) to gather the evidence from each side and determine where the truth lies. I would call on Tawni to submit her "multi accounting" evidence to Max or Bryan and bsilva to submit these e-mails so it can be determined where they came from.

As far as I am concerned, if what bsilva says is true and Virtual are willing to besmirtch a seniors members name to cover it then, indeed, the leopards spots remain unchanged.

 

[bsilva028]

It seems we are at an impass here.

The ball now seems to be in CM's court (since this is a probation) to gather the evidence from each side and determine where the truth lies. I would call on Tawni to submit her "multi accounting" evidence to Max or Bryan and bsilva to submit these e-mails so it can be determined where they came from.

As far as I am concerned, if what bsilva says is true and Virtual are willing to besmirtch a seniors members name to cover it then, indeed, the leopards spots remain unchanged.

the e-mails received until 11 am was already deleted but i am sure that i will receive more
however, the site that tawny mention, the "historic" section has not been cleaned from my browsers, so i sthill have the proof that i dont have the site mentionated, the multiple accounts also dont have, the deposites, to be honnest, i will check if neteller allows transactions of 2008, its also a pitty that my bank is not the same as it was in 2008, to have even more proofs that the deposites was not $80 but much more than that.

IMHO its not in cause the senior member or not, its the really fact of they not being different than what they were before, and, if i also had claimed 2 codes from a site (that i dont know) and casino has sent a 3rd code (tawni´s words in her post) so the casino knew that the rules was broken and they sent it anyway. a proof of they being different was they dont send anything to anyone that they know its not allowed to receive.

 

[Cleveland]

It's pretty simple. File a PAB. Max views the evidence submitted by both sides.

In terms of this thread. Personally I actually feel sorry for the virtual rep here. Not because of anything virtual has done but by all of the people in the thread that clearly would be happy filling the roles of judge, jury, and executioner. Some are seeking truth, but many seem content with using a "it's virtual" response to negate any truth the rep tries to present or to prove anything said by another player against virtual.

The fact of the matter is things change. People get multiple chances many times over. And this isn't about withstanding the fire of the CM membership. As I said it's clear some people's minds are made up....which is fine. But I personally wouldn't want those people sitting on the jury at my trial. Neutral voices are often best when looking at evidence and drawing conclusions. All the emotions add to a clouded judgement. I'm sure some will say they are being open minded in this , but the words used in many of these post show otherwise.

 

[bsilva028]

It's pretty simple. File a PAB. Max views the evidence submitted by both sides.

In terms of this thread. Personally I actually feel sorry for the virtual rep here. Not because of anything virtual has done but by all of the people in the thread that clearly would be happy filling the roles of judge, jury, and executioner. Some are seeking truth, but many seem content with using a "it's virtual" response to negate any truth the rep tries to present or to prove anything said by another player against virtual.

The fact of the matter is things change. People get multiple chances many times over. And this isn't about withstanding the fire of the CM membership. As I said it's clear some people's minds are made up....which is fine. But I personally wouldn't want those people sitting on the jury at my trial. Neutral voices are often best when looking at evidence and drawing conclusions. All the emotions add to a clouded judgement. I'm sure some will say they are being open minded in this , but the words used in many of these post show otherwise.

file a pab its a lot job to do and i dont have all the proofs needed,
all that i have actually is: e-mails that i will receive more for sure, and i dont know if neteller allows to go back to 2008 show the transactions, proving that was much more than the $80 deposited in that time.

and this was not a complaint, was a test to check if they were really different, well, they are not different.
the only complaint is i being acused from claiming codes from a site that i never visited, and being acused of trying to fraud the casino, which obvisously i didn´t.

and their words of "player has claimed 2 chips, and we sent a 3rd chip after that"- so they knew what they were doing

just checked neteller transactions now, they only allow me to go back until 2012

 

[Tirilej]

and their words of "player has claimed 2 chips, and we sent a 3rd chip after that"- so they knew what they were doing

Like the rep said their offers are sent to every player, and I also know that in every email from them it says that you are not allowed to claim two free chips in a row. You must have known that rule.
I don't like them tempting players. There are free chips to their casinos all over the net, but their rules are clear.

It's not much different from what Inetbet has. There you are only allowed to claim two free chips between deposits and they are also sending out codes for free chips every week, and for new games, and free tournaments and so on. It's the same.

Still rules are rules and if we don't like them we don't play there.

 

[bsilva028]

Like the rep said their offers are sent to every player, and I also know that in every email from them it says that you are not allowed to claim two free chips in a row. You must have known that rule.
I don't like them tempting players. There are free chips to their casinos all over the net, but their rules are clear.

It's not much different from what Inetbet has. There you are only allowed to claim two free chips between deposits and they are also sending out codes for free chips every week, and for new games, and free tournaments and so on. It's the same.

Still rules are rules and if we don't like them we don't play there.

i never received such offers from inetbet, i am not saying that they dont do that, i never received that from them, the only thing i receive is when i deposit after 1 or 2 weeks a called "manager bonus"

from virtual its easy, i actually dont play there and i will not do even if they become acredited, this was a test to check if they were different or not.
and by what they have said, at least for me they are not different.

 

[gagamel]

bsilva is a long time member here. I can`t believe that he is lying, he knows the consequences. And for me it seems that the Virtual group was not trustworthy in the past. I`m really curious in which way this issue proceeds. I hope for a good end to bsilva.

 

[bsilva028]

bsilva is a long time member here. I can`t believe that he is lying, he knows the consequences. And for me it seems that the Virtual group was not trustworthy in the past. I`m really curious in which way this issue proceeds. I hope for a good end to bsilva.

thanks gagamel, no i did not tried to fraud anything, yes i know the consequences, virtual only said
"we are different, we had a lot of problems in the past, but we are different now"

so i tested them, the problems that they had in the past, they continue using the same kind of tactics in the present, at least with me.

 

[TawniVirtualAce]

I woke up this morning to some very interesting reading! I’ve certainly jumped straight from the fire, into the frying pan!

Bsilva is continuing to make false statements against our company. I realize we are under intense scrutiny and there is much work for us to do. In the same breath, using our history as a way to bully us into paying a player who has clearly abused us is not reasonable.

I have contacted Max via PM to discuss this situation and I will supply him with everything necessary from our side so he can make a proper conclusion on this matter.

 

[gagamel]

I woke up this morning to some very interesting reading! I’ve certainly jumped straight from the fire, into the frying pan!

Bsilva is continuing to make false statements against our company. I realize we are under intense scrutiny and there is much work for us to do. In the same breath, using our history as a way to bully us into paying a player who has clearly abused us is not reasonable.

I have contacted Max via PM to discuss this situation and I will supply him with everything necessary from our side so he can make a proper conclusion on this matter.

That`s what I call a statement. I hope you can clear up all the issues with bsilva. And I really hope that bsilva is right, when not I lose another part of my faith in human.

 

[nisosbar]

Bsilva is continuing to make false statements against our company. I realize we are under intense scrutiny and there is much work for us to do. In the same breath, using our history as a way to bully us into paying a player who has clearly abused us is not reasonable.

I haven't said anything yet about this whole matter, but in defense of bsilva who has always been a 100% creditworthy member of CM, the history of the casino group with which you are affiliated - as anyone who has read this thread can see with crystal clarity - is just about the worst of any casino group on the internet. (As a disclaimer, I don't currently play at any of your group's casinos, and have never had a dispute of any kind with any of them.)

In legal proceedings (in the US), those who are defending themselves against accusations ARE entitled to a presumption of innocence. However, if one party raises defenses that hinge upon considerations of personal character, then the other party may also do so, and in light of the almost unanimous sentiment of CM members against un-rogueing, arguments like, 'but wait! he is a liar!' are not going to really resonate here, in my humble opinion.

Having said that, I do agree with you that the merits of a player's claim that a casino owes them money are really more of an accounting exercise, rather than involving character, reputation, etc.

All just my humble opinion. Cheers.

 

[Cleveland]

In legal proceedings (in the US), those who are defending themselves against accusations ARE entitled to a presumption of innocence. However, if one party raises defenses that hinge upon considerations of personal character, then the other party may also do so, and in light of the almost unanimous sentiment of CM members against un-rogueing, arguments like, 'but wait! he is a liar!' are not going to really resonate here, in my humble opinion.

He said / she said isn't a defense to prosecutions nor is it enough to justify anything one way or another. For the medium being used clearly it would be shortened but that summary you gave is so severely hacked and slashed. In the end what you're describing does amount to he said / she said, as I personally nor does most here know enough of either of their characters from postings on an internet forum.

Lets talk about getting to the truth. If this was any other thread most of us would be screaming PAB. We would say to all parties to stop talking about the incident in question and PAB so that Max can do his thing. However now that it's Virtual, who by the way I could give a rats *** about, some seem to forgot the CM processes. The process for handling a case doesn't change because it's a murder investigation as oppose to a theft investigation. If anything you tighten up on the rules to build a air tight solid case. I for one would like to know what evidence virtual has if any. It would be very damning to them as it pertains to this current process in place to not be able to present to Max solid evidence. It would likely help to facilitate shutting the door on their probation.

I don't want to hear about how much of a pain the PAB process is. It's there for a reason. And imho it's clearly needed for this case. This thread has been pages and pages of past deeds which changes nothing for this process because this process is about "change".....i.e. have they changed? We can't began to find that out by simply saying "well their virtual." People have complaints, file the PABs for crying out loud.

The panel wants to hear from victims. It's important to remember the nature of the past crimes. It also needs to see if the offender has indeed changed / rehabilitated / found the lord or whatever . It hurts the process when nobody in the room is stepping back to present / look at the current evidence. The innocent victim blindly yelling that they were wronged, sometimes causes the guilty party to go free.

 

[bigjohn]

IMHO, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and saying someone has 40+ accounts is an extraordinary claim.

We are not privy to the evidence typical casinos use to prove multi-accounting but I would expect it to be more than just a print out from the casino. I could provide a print out showing Tawni has 62 accounts with me, and I don't even operate a casino. I'm sure there are ways to double-verify whatever the casino submits.

Reputation and past issues should only be considered in the absence of hard evidence.

On a side note, this is probably the only business where some of the vendors routinely make offers that they can not or will not honor and it is, for the most part, excused away by pointing at the T&C's. If I get an offer in my e-mail from XYZ Casino saying, "Come enjoy a $30 NDB!" it should be honored whether I live in Portugal or Zimbabwe or Mars. The same would apply to someone with 40 fraudulent accounts in which case they should have never gotten the offer in the first place. Of course this should not apply to bonus codes 'harvested' from some other site.

If you send it you gotta honor it.

 

[Nifty29]

The CM dispute resolution process....and this IS a dispute between bsilva and Virtual...needs to be followed regardless of the reputation of EITHER party.

Nobody here is privy to ALL the facts, hence there are a lot of assumptions being made. Most of them revolve around bsilva being 100% correct and the casino being 100% wrong, which IMO is unlikely.

Rather than voice my opinion, I'm going to ask bsilva a few relevant questions:

1. Were you EVER informed by these casinos that Portuguese players are ineligible for free chips? Remember that casinos keep emails that they send, so think about your answer.

2. Have you EVER previously had a withdrawal denied due to being from Portugal?

3. Are you SURE that the coupon codes came from the casino directly? Let's see a copy of the email header.

4. How do you explain the two codes that came from an affiliate site? Codes are tailored for individual websites to help the casino track where their players see them etc.

5. What's the REAL reason you won't PAB? The whole "too much work" excuse is BS IMO. When it comes to your reputation, nothing should be "too much work".

6. Do you unreservedly deny that you have 40+ accounts across these casinos?


I'm not taking sides here.

I've got no respect for this group, but I DO have respect for CM and the truth. It's vital that the facts are provided by both sides via the PAB process.

Bsilva, you might be totally legit and innocent....and I hope you are....but your behaviour and responses in this thread do not inspire much confidence in that regard.

I can see this ending only two ways. Virtual get caught in an elaborate lie, perhaps involving the creation of 40+ fake accounts with fake histories etc, and get thrown to the pit for life....OR you get caught in a lie and probably suffer the same fate (and rightly so on both counts).

I will say this much....if I PAB'ed and yelled "rogue!!" every time I received an email offering a freebie that I couldn't claim, Bryan would need a 7 man PAB team. It's common knowledge that the vast majority of these come from affiliates and should be ignored if you already have an account. I think it's BS to just claim every chip you clap your eyes on, and expect to be paid even though you know you're not eligible for one reason or another.

 

[bsilva028]

The CM dispute resolution process....and this IS a dispute between bsilva and Virtual...needs to be followed regardless of the reputation of EITHER party.

Nobody here is privy to ALL the facts, hence there are a lot of assumptions being made. Most of them revolve around bsilva being 100% correct and the casino being 100% wrong, which IMO is unlikely.

Rather than voice my opinion, I'm going to ask bsilva a few relevant questions:

1. Were you EVER informed by these casinos that Portuguese players are ineligible for free chips? Remember that casinos keep emails that they send, so think about your answer.

2. Have you EVER previously had a withdrawal denied due to being from Portugal?

3. Are you SURE that the coupon codes came from the casino directly? Let's see a copy of the email header.

4. How do you explain the two codes that came from an affiliate site? Codes are tailored for individual websites to help the casino track where their players see them etc.

5. What's the REAL reason you won't PAB? The whole "too much work" excuse is BS IMO. When it comes to your reputation, nothing should be "too much work".

6. Do you unreservedly deny that you have 40+ accounts across these casinos?


I'm not taking sides here.

I've got no respect for this group, but I DO have respect for CM and the truth. It's vital that the facts are provided by both sides via the PAB process.

Bsilva, you might be totally legit and innocent....and I hope you are....but your behaviour and responses in this thread do not inspire much confidence in that regard.

I can see this ending only two ways. Virtual get caught in an elaborate lie, perhaps involving the creation of 40+ fake accounts with fake histories etc, and get thrown to the pit for life....OR you get caught in a lie and probably suffer the same fate (and rightly so on both counts).

I will say this much....if I PAB'ed and yelled "rogue!!" every time I received an email offering a freebie that I couldn't claim, Bryan would need a 7 man PAB team. It's common knowledge that the vast majority of these come from affiliates and should be ignored if you already have an account. I think it's BS to just claim every chip you clap your eyes on, and expect to be paid even though you know you're not eligible for one reason or another.

to nifty:

1 and 2 - it have been denied 1 withdrawal of that "cant cashout due to location", i only got informed of that in the withdrawal was denied they said they were different, remember, so i tested.

4 - i had never visited the site mentionated by tawni and the proof that i have is the historic of my navigation.

3 and 5 - i received the e-mail from the casino, i did not pab also because, like i said before, it was a test and i was not expecting nothing, as i also said "i will post here if i get paid or not" it was ONLY with that purposes.
so i deleted the e-mails, as i do with other spams, (not only from virtual and or ace)

6 - i dont have 40+ accounts across the group.

add.information: i do not have $80 in deposites across all the group, but much more, its a pitty that neteller only allows me to go until 2012, if i was able to show the transactions of 2008, i would put that information here, in public, to everyone see that i have much more deposites.

also, the casino tested was not revealed the name ye, also it wasnt if was 1 from virtual or 1 from ace, it was not all the casinos.

to tawni:
i am not making anything to blame you, answer me this only: after your investigation and AFTER your last post against me, how i received another codes??? afterall if you investigated you could blocked that no?
and like i also said: my opinion continues the same since 2010 (year that i discovered cm and i totally changed 100% of the places where i was playing, and changed to best).
in case of rtg, if i receive generous promotions and super fast cashouts from acredited casinos, why would i change the places where i play? of course not, and even if virtual and ace came acredited, for me, it will be to avoid forever even if are acredited, this is an opinion, now, me or anyone else dont think with the head of any other member, so each member is free to play where he/she wants.

to nifty also:

1 - if those 2 codes was really claimed through an affiliate, casino has sent a 3rd code to the e-mail, trying to put me broking even more rules, such casino do that?

2 - they now have their called list of restricted countrys here: xhttp://chatwindow.info/terms/countries-group-1.pdf its not even a pdf of "casino x . com" its a totally different site, me, you, he/she, etc..., or anyone else, can build a list like that and publish, the list has not any name related to the casino no ?

3 - if really was 40 acrossed accounts, how the casino, that by their words, is different from what it was in the past, allows that? only if all in all they are not so diferent no??

 

[Nifty29]

to nifty:

1 and 2 - it have been denied 1 withdrawal of that "cant cashout due to location", i only got informed of that in the withdrawal was denied they said they were different, remember, so i tested.

OK. So you DID already know that Portugal was ineligible for free chip cashouts.

FWIW it IS stated in the terms that players from your country can NOT cash out from free chips...BUT they CAN claim the coupons for "amusement purposes". An odd term, but it's there in black and white. It's superfluous I guess, since you already knew.

4 - i had never visited the site mentionated by tawni and the proof that i have is the historic of my navigation.

Nobody said you "visited" the site. Tawni said the coupon was "from" that site. It was probably re-posted on some bonus whoring forum etc, and you picked it up from there. Either way, you were NOT directly offered it from the casino....which, again, hardly matters since you KNEW you were unable to cash out from those chips anyway.

I think you're trying to make the argument about that specific site to divert attention away from the basic fact that it was NOT a personally-invited promotion...but that's just my opinion there.

3 and 5 - i received the e-mail from the casino, i did not pab also because, like i said before, it was a test and i was not expecting nothing, as i also said "i will post here if i get paid or not" it was ONLY with that purposes.
so i deleted the e-mails, as i do with other spams, (not only from virtual and or ace)

Sorry, but I don't buy that at all. It was ALWAYS going to be a case of NOT being paid, because you already knew that your country was ineligible. It's totally unreasonable to say it was "only for that purpose". It's almost like you were setting the casino up for negative PR, which, regardless of which casino, is NOT fair and not what this probation is about. Test? Sorry, but my detector is really warming up now....

I also find it very convenient that you deleted the emails. I mean, if you are son convinced it was a direct offer from the casino, and that you were eligible to claim it and cash out (as you have claimed previously), then surely you would keep the evidence? If it was legit, then you might have had a case if the casino messed up.

Again, it doesn't do your case any good at all.

6 - i dont have 40+ accounts across the group.

OK. I will re-phrase.

Do you have more than ONE account at each casino in the group?

Remember, it is easily verified.

add.information: i do not have $80 in deposites across all the group, but much more, its a pitty that neteller only allows me to go until 2012, if i was able to show the transactions of 2008, i would put that information here, in public, to everyone see that i have much more deposites.

also, the casino tested was not revealed the name ye, also it wasnt if was 1 from virtual or 1 from ace, it was not all the casinos.

I don't see how your deposits are relevant, at least the amount anyway.

The point is that you are NOT eligible to cashout from free chips, and you have KNOWN it since 2008. What's more, the terms on the website clearly state this information.

The individual casino names aren't really relevant either. The policy is the same across the groups AFAIK.

to tawni: i am not making anything to blame you, answer me this only: after your investigation and AFTER your last post against me, how i received another codes??? afterall if you investigated you could blocked that no?

Oh...so you received MORE codes just in the last 24 hours?

Let's see the email and the header information. Please don't tell us you have deleted this one too.,..?

Unless there is a severe disconnect in the language translation...and I don't think there is....your responses, again, are not looking good for you at this point.

UPDATE:

Bsilva, you have been around long enough to know that at most casinos you can circumvent the signup process to create multiple accounts if you are so inclined, and that these multiple accounts are usually not detected until cashout time. Please, don't pretend that you don't know this....in fact, you obviously DO because it appears you actually DID it.

Just because you managed to setup multiple accounts, it doesn't mean that you should be paid all winnings on all accounts. You KNOW multiple accounts are a no-no pretty much everywhere. Just because the casino hadn't detected them all yet, primarily because you haven't cashed out til lately, does NOT mean it is the casino's fault.

IMO, you're clutching at straws right now.

 

[bsilva028]

Oh...so you received MORE codes just in the last 24 hours?

Let's see the email and the header information. Please don't tell us you have deleted this one too.,..?

Unless there is a severe disconnect in the language translation...and I don't think there is....your responses, again, are not looking good for you at this point.

UPDATE:

Bsilva, you have been around long enough to know that at most casinos you can circumvent the signup process to create multiple accounts if you are so inclined, and that these multiple accounts are usually not detected until cashout time. Please, don't pretend that you don't know this....in fact, you obviously DO because it appears you actually DID it.

Just because you managed to setup multiple accounts, it doesn't mean that you should be paid all winnings on all accounts. You KNOW multiple accounts are a no-no pretty much everywhere. Just because the casino hadn't detected them all yet, primarily because you haven't cashed out til lately, does NOT mean it is the casino's fault.

IMO, you're clutching at straws right now.

no, i dont have multiple accounts across the group, 2nd they did not said that to dont pay, they only said "due to your location" and "more than 1 free chip claimed"

and i did not managed to setup multiple accounts in ANY casino, rogue, not so rogue, reservation or acredited.
i stoped playing there in the begining of 2010 (it was when i made my 1st cashout, that got a lot of problems, and only after that i found cm and i saw that i was playing in the wrong places before)

 

[vinylweatherman]

file a pab its a lot job to do and i dont have all the proofs needed,
all that i have actually is: e-mails that i will receive more for sure, and i dont know if neteller allows to go back to 2008 show the transactions, proving that was much more than the $80 deposited in that time.

and this was not a complaint, was a test to check if they were really different, well, they are not different.
the only complaint is i being acused from claiming codes from a site that i never visited, and being acused of trying to fraud the casino, which obvisously i didn´t.

and their words of "player has claimed 2 chips, and we sent a 3rd chip after that"- so they knew what they were doing

just checked neteller transactions now, they only allow me to go back until 2012

It can be done (I've done it!).

Not through your account though, you ask CS to send you a PDF of all transactions over the life of your account. This is something I did a while back, and I got it, and it goes right back to my very first transaction when I joined Neteller.

If you get this, you will be able to trace all the deposits you made to Virtual, and possibly challenge the assertion that you only deposited $80, not $300.

Virtual of course can supply all the transactions ever made on all 40 of your accounts to back up their claim, as clearly these have already been pulled by the rep.

The rep has also drawn a conclusion that you MUST have visited a certain site in order to get two codes. Not true, the rep has already admitted that there is "little they can do" about controlling affiliates who spam, so it is quite possible that these codes were stolen by spammers and used in spam mailers crafted to look like genuine offers from the casinos.

Of course, if these codes were supplied by Virtual to this specific site, what's the big deal about players visiting that site and using them - what did they think would happen

Given the serious slur made on your character, you really SHOULD PAB, rather than allow this issue to remain unresolved.

 

[bsilva028]

It can be done (I've done it!).

Not through your account though, you ask CS to send you a PDF of all transactions over the life of your account. This is something I did a while back, and I got it, and it goes right back to my very first transaction when I joined Neteller.

really? thanks by the info, i will ask neteller by this right now, i only checked in the account its true, and only allowed back to 2012, but i will ask by all transactions.
not to prove anything, because i have my mind good do i dont need to prove anything, but only to stay clear that i dont lie, even if i talk against myself,
what they are trying to do
blaming me because i posted that they had not changed.

 

[Nifty29]

It can be done (I've done it!).

Not through your account though, you ask CS to send you a PDF of all transactions over the life of your account. This is something I did a while back, and I got it, and it goes right back to my very first transaction when I joined Neteller.

If you get this, you will be able to trace all the deposits you made to Virtual, and possibly challenge the assertion that you only deposited $80, not $300.

Virtual of course can supply all the transactions ever made on all 40 of your accounts to back up their claim, as clearly these have already been pulled by the rep.

The rep has also drawn a conclusion that you MUST have visited a certain site in order to get two codes. Not true, the rep has already admitted that there is "little they can do" about controlling affiliates who spam, so it is quite possible that these codes were stolen by spammers and used in spam mailers crafted to look like genuine offers from the casinos.

Of course, if these codes were supplied by Virtual to this specific site, what's the big deal about players visiting that site and using them - what did they think would happen

Given the serious slur made on your character, you really SHOULD PAB, rather than allow this issue to remain unresolved.

OK.

What's the difference whether they deposited $80 or $80,000?

I'll tell you. None.

The issue it not about how much they deposited back in 2008. It's about not being eligible to cashout from free chips for geographical reasons and (says the OP) for more than 1 free chip claimed. Either way, the OP is screwed regardless of how much they deposited and when.

The other issue about the other codes I explained earlier. One can get codes specifically made for specific sites from just about ANY bonus whoring forum on the net. Players see a code somewhere, and can't get to their BW forums quick enough to share it with everyone. Nothing wrong with that I guess, EXCEPT that not everyone will be eligible. Are you REALLY saying that the casino should honor EVERY coupon code posted on the net regardless of everything else? So, if CM runs a promo with a certain coupon code for CM members only, and some members go posting it everywhere else, the casino involved should honor and pay out every Tom, Dick and Harry that happens upon it in a post at imabonuswhore.org?

It's ridiculous....AND that whole issue is actually a distraction from the important issue at hand....i.e. Which party is telling lies? One of them is, that's for sure.

Also, it is irrelevant WHERE the codes came from because you cannot claim more than ONE free chip in a row. Simples. Unless it was a direct, personally addressed email including their account name and real name etc, then we can safely assume it is affiliate junk mail like we all get every day, and thus should be ignored.

Oh and BTW, we cannot tell if the email offers were genuine or not, as the OP seems to have deleted ALL the emails.

Since the OP has stated unreservedly that they do NOT have multiple accounts at ANY casino, we should now wait to see what Max and Bryan say after looking at the evidence. It should be clear after this who is telling porkies, and should be excommunicated i.e. if it turns out the OP DOES have more than one account at any casino, then we can assume the rest of their claims are BS too....same goes for the casino if they do not have multiple accounts. I think once this question is resolved, the truth behind everything else should reveal itself.

 

[chuchu59]

and no nifty, i did not make any fraude, you already read other posts, you also saw my activity since 2010 here, yes in the year that learned who was virtual and other rogues and when i discovered the true online gambling, it was here in cm.

i never defended anything when someone makes fraud
and like i said before, i dont even know the site mentionated by tawny. and if, in her side of the story, she said i claimed 2 free chips from a certain site and a 3rd given by the casino. (her words)

so after claiming 2 codes from another site the casino sends a 3rd code if they do not allow them?? specially that they know i couldnt got it??
so she is contradicting herself
she says: "bsilva claimed 2 free chips from a site, and a 3rd that the casino has sent" so the casino has sent the 3rd code after me claiming the 2 firsts???

again, like i said in another page, i did not was expecting to get paid, it was a test to check if they were really different, and by the excuse given they are not different, they sent a free chip to a player that couldnt cashout, THEY SENT IT, it wasnt me asking.

Forget about the spam, total deposits made and 3rd successive chip, codes et al. Concentrate on the multiple accounts as alleged by Tawni. If you are in the right, I urge Bryan to discontinue this thread and forget about deroguing Virtual. However, should it be proven that have multiple accounts please explain to maintain your good standing in the forum.

By multiple accounts I mean at least six or seven as its humanly possible that one may have forgotten a couple of accounts created years ago. Futhermore, if one had created an account at say Cool Cat, then Prism and then SOV I wouldn't really call them multiple accounts. They each have their own NDB Code.

 

[bigjohn]

OK.

What's the difference whether they deposited $80 or $80,000?

I'll tell you. None.

The difference is that this is one of the assertions made by the casino in an attempt to reduce the credibility of one of our members. If they mistakenly said this, for whatever reason, they certainly could be mistaken in their other claims regarding this player.

 

[bsilva028]

i think that another difference is what nifty is seeing

tawni says "he has deposited $80 across all the group"
i say: "i have deposited more than that"

but, i think for nifty, that is try to getway from the problem, there´s no difference in what i deposited, so there´s no one lying in this point for him. if HE SAYS it, when writing "whats the difference if he deposited$80 or $80.000"

ai asked to neteller to send my total moves since the begining of the account, i will also try to get the credit cards deposites.

 

[Nifty29]

The difference is that this is one of the assertions made by the casino in an attempt to reduce the credibility of one of our members. If they mistakenly said this, for whatever reason, they certainly could be mistaken in their other claims regarding this player.

Do you not think it's a possibility that, after going through more than 40 accounts alleged to be held by bsilva, that some deposits may have been missed/omitted along the way?

Is it also not possible that there are even MORE accounts still to be located.....after all, if there are 40+, then it's hardly a stretch to think there may be more.

Even still, the actual amount is irrelevant. I don't see how the casino could gain any mileage from stating $80 instead of $300 (as the OP claims). It's hardly a huge amount either way.

Put it this way....if it turns out the amount was $300 and not $80, then IMO it doesn't automatically mean everything the casino stated is questionable i.e. it may be a simple oversight. On the other hand, if it turns out there ARE 40+ accounts held by the OP, then it certainly DOES mean everything they stated IS questionable i.e. two accounts at one casino might be an oversight...several at each casino certainly is not.

Some are putting too much emphasis on whether it was $80 or $300 deposited. It makes absolutely NO difference to the outcome of this case, as the cashout/s were denied due to claming multiple free chips and physical location. If the problem was that he couldn't cash out unless he had deposited a minimum of say $250, then YES it matters....but since amounts are irrelevant, it does not matter.

 

[bigjohn]

Do you not think it's a possibility that, after going through more than 40 accounts alleged to be held by bsilva, that some deposits may have been missed/omitted along the way?

Is it also not possible that there are even MORE accounts still to be located.....after all, if there are 40+, then it's hardly a stretch to think there may be more.

Even still, the actual amount is irrelevant. I don't see how the casino could gain any mileage from stating $80 instead of $300 (as the OP claims). It's hardly a huge amount either way.

Put it this way....if it turns out the amount was $300 and not $80, then IMO it doesn't automatically mean everything the casino stated is questionable i.e. it may be a simple oversight. On the other hand, if it turns out there ARE 40+ accounts held by the OP, then it certainly DOES mean everything they stated IS questionable i.e. two accounts at one casino might be an oversight...several at each casino certainly is not.

Some are putting too much emphasis on whether it was $80 or $300 deposited. It makes absolutely NO difference to the outcome of this case, as the cashout/s were denied due to claming multiple free chips and physical location. If the problem was that he couldn't cash out unless he had deposited a minimum of say $250, then YES it matters....but since amounts are irrelevant, it does not matter.

I'm with you on that, actually that is more my way of thinking.

However, there seems to be a way of thinking here which goes, if you think one casino cheated you you must think all casinos cheat, and likewise if a player lodges a complaint about one thing but is found to be lying about something unrelated they must be lying about everything.

I think the same should apply here, don't you?

Casinos can certainly make mistakes in their accounting but unless they are sure of their numbers I would not expect them to use those numbers to discredit a player in an open forum.

 

[Googobucs]

In the case of bsilva, at a quick first glance, it appears that he has created no less than 40+ accounts within six of our casinos, since 2008 (quite possibly, more). He has made a total of $80 in deposits (back in 2008). With each account, he has used free chips and has been denied winnings previously, four times, based on the fact that he resides in Portugal. He cannot claim he was unaware of this term.

The Casino could have simply stated that he played before and was denied a withdraw because he lives in Portugal, so he should have known the rules. They chose to elaborate and provide a lot more information than was really needed, so they better back up these claims. Not 1 but ALL of them.

They say he was denied 4 times....really??? But you still let him use another free chip, or as stated 3 more free chips.

Bsilva may or may not be innocent, but Virtual does not have clean hands in this matter.

 

[bsilva028]

The Casino could have simply stated that he played before and was denied a withdraw because he lives in Portugal, so he should have known the rules. They chose to elaborate and provide a lot more information than was really needed, so they better back up these claims. Not 1 but ALL of them.

They say he was denied 4 times....really??? But you still let him use another free chip, or as stated 3 more free chips.

Bsilva may or may not be innocent, but Virtual does not have clean hands in this matter.

and in this particular casino from them that i tested this time, i was not denied 4 times, it was my 1st withdrawal !!
in the casino tested now, not in the whole group !!!

its 2 totally different things

 

[chuchu59]

and in this particular casino from them that i tested this time, i was not denied 4 times, it was my 1st withdrawal !!
in the casino tested now, not in the whole group !!!

its 2 totally different things

Then you were probably aware that several within the group denied winnings from NDBs to players from Portugal. Unless you had no awareness on the various casinos being from the same group there is doubt hanging over your innocence.Actually, it does not bode well for you if you had been denied winnings due to you living in Portugal. Luckily they don't deny winnings to those who studied in Portuguese schools lol.

 

[bsilva028]

Then you were probably aware that several within the group denied winnings from NDBs to players from Portugal. Unless you had no awareness on the various casinos being from the same group there is doubt hanging over your innocence.Actually, it does not bode well for you if you had been denied winnings due to you living in Portugal. Luckily they don't deny winnings to those who studied in Portuguese schools lol.

chuchu, like i mentionated in a post in page 33, and like i had already repeated some few times, it was a test.

virtual and ace have said some times: (in other pages of the thread)

"we know that we had a lot of problems in the past, but now we are different"

so, to check if they was really different or not, i claimed a the free chips received on e-mail
i requested the cashout
was denied because i was from "portugal" and in an instant the rep become "he is from portugal, he has multiple free chips, multiple accounts across the whole group, he had made $80 in deposites"

they said the same things that they had said in the past to a lot of players, and some of them was innocent others no.

like i also said in the same post on page 33, " i will not complaint because i am not expecting to get paid", and i am only writing in relation to that because i am being accused of being a liar, when i am not
that is not with the expectation of be paid, again, the argues used now by them are the same that they used in the past to lots of players
so, IMHO they are not different of what they were in the past, they are the same.