Online Casino Cautions
Published: Friday, September 22, 2006 Online-Casinos.com
ONLINE CASINO CAUTIONS
A fundamental obligation....
One of the most basic tenets of gambling - online or on land - is that honourable players and operators alike never welch on their gambling debts, and yet Internet message boards continue to tell harrowing tales of players being badly treated when it comes to legitimate payouts.
And the bigger the amount owed....the longer it seems to take the player to squeeze it out of certain operators.
Operators like:
African Palace Casino (Playtech-powered)
Virtual Casino (Realtime Gaming powered)
Club Player Casino (Realtime Gaming-powered) and
Shark Casino (Realtime Gaming-powered)
to name a few that have been involved in some pretty disgraceful handling of player payouts in recent times.
Experienced players will of course know these brands well...and for all the wrong reasons. These are operations that have been involved in repeated incidents that give the lie to their claims to provide "safe and enjoyable" online casino action to the paying public.
Although there are many jurisdictions that claim to regulate online gambling, few actually do so, especially when it comes to assisting an aggrieved player to get his or her money. The player is consequently left with the stark alternative of a war of attrition through the message boards and those watchdogs that are prepared to roll up their sleeves and get involved.
14 months and counting.....
One tenacious player has been battling Club Player Casino for well over a year in one of the worst cases of slow-paying yet seen in the industry....and as we went to press this week the case was still unresolved and the player unpaid.
In July 2005 after receiving a bonus offer from Costa Rican-based Club Player Casino, the player deposited $20 000. He went on to win a total of $150 000 after the "sticky" bonuses were deducted, only to be told that the casino would only pay him $2 500 a week until his balance reached zero. Nothing was said about interest accrued, of course.
The casino made two payments - one on 11 August 2005 and another on 12 September 2005. In October of 2005, the casino management unilaterally amended their payout policy, adding a clause that 'inactive accounts' (such as the complainant's) would only be paid $1 000 weekly at the discretion of the manager.
In March 2006, that amount was again reduced to $500 per week 'at the manager's discretion'.
The supremely patient player finally sought help from the Casinomeister watchdog site in July 2006 having received only 17 payments totaling $16 000 since his win...in other words, not even his initial deposit had been returned by that stage.
Still owed $134 350.20 plus approximately 2 700 worth of comp points, the player was faced with a Club Player Casino management that had started to ignore his phone calls, would not respond to his e-mails or address his very legitimate concerns.
By then, the player had called Club Player approximately 70 times and written at least 20 e-mails, but by a remarkable string of unlikely coincidences not once had the manager, Cynthia Williams or even a deputy manager been available to assist. The player was able to speak only to front line customer service employees who lack the authority to make any changes to the account or materially improve what has to be assumed is a deliberate slowpay process.
Despite the stressful situation, the player remained remarkably calm and polite, submitting his problem to Montana Disputes, the player disputes channel for software provider Realtime Gaming. All that achieved was a promise from the casino to pay the weekly amounts on time, a promise that was allegedly immediately broken once Montana had withdrawn.
Casinomeister intervened with the affiliate manager of Club Player in July this year, who astonishingly asked how the dispute could be resolved! The player advocate gave her the obvious solution - pay the player according to the original ($2 500 a week) payment agreement, instead of no payments or the "manager's discretionary" reduced payment of $500 a week.
And here we are - the player has still not been paid 14-some months on.
It is an extraordinarily cavalier manner in which to treat any player, let alone a high roller and sends out a powerful danger signal regarding this casino and its management. The operation has now been flagged in the "Rogue" section of the Casinomeister site, and deservedly so.
Repeated reneging
Another patient (but determined) player has had a similarly frustrating ride from the management at African Palace Casino, who it seems are incapable of honouring their own settlement agreements.
This case is even longer-running, for the player originally withdrew over $41 000 from his A Friggin' Palace account back in September 2004. After about a year and a half of continual delays and broken promises, he had still only received $12 000 of a promised settlement amount, compelling him to take his dispute public in an attempt to obtain satisfaction. In April this year a new settlement was reached, this time in writing. With that, one might assumed that payments would be regular and the matter (eventually) would be resolved.
Alas, that was not to be.
For a short while the new agreed payments kept coming, reducing the amount owed to the player (after two frustrating years) of $6477 but then this management again failed to meet their (latest) obligation. The player's polite communications are ignored and all the indications are there that the managers are again about to renege.
Bitten by a Shark
"We are here to provide a safe and fun leisure alternative, and are constantly monitoring our systems to ensure your safety and security," says the blurb on the website of Shark Casino, a subsidiary of the "colourful" Angelciti group, famed for its frequent press releases hyping an essentially penny stock.
Unfortunately, that monitoring does not seem to extend to the payment of long outstanding amounts to players, as we will see from the next example.
In June this year, Shark Casino reps called a high roller online player offering him a $5 500 bonus on a $5 000 deposit, half the bonus 'sticky' (so only really a $2 750 bonus), $420 000 playthrough. Being a gambling man, he took it up, playing primarily blackjack, and a few other games and boldly betting $100-$500/hand.
This time the gamble worked, the player was both skilled and fortunate and finished up, after the removal of the $2750 'sticky', with a very nice win of $29 501. In the course of earning that win, he played around $500 000 during this time, primarily on blackjack, but also on the Sharks Rummy game, some video poker and slots. Having carefully studied the T&Cs, the player stayed well away from any excluded games and remained within the bounds of the T&Cs.
After requesting a withdrawal on June 25 - three months back - he has still not received a cent of either his $5 000 deposit, or of the $24 501 he was lucky enough to win. So as of right now, Shark owes him $29 501.
Following a modus operandi frequently encountered with welcher managements, Shark has not responded to his many attempts to communicate.
Virtual hiccoughs
Another player is embroiled in a rapidly aging tussle with the infamous Virtual Casino, which still owes him $5 000 from a big win on which the casino management refused to pay out more than $1250 a month. Intervention with Virtual's software provider, Realtime Gaming managed to get another solitary installment out of the casino after it unilaterally stopped paying the player short of the agreed amount.
Even assuming Virtual starts paying again (and that is by no means a certainty) it will take until the new year at this rate to discharge the obligation.
Clearly the customer is not king at this establishment, for as the player says: "At this point, I am willing to accept $1250/month because, well, it seems I have to accept it. I've tried every channel I can think of and your help seems at least to have pushed on the right path for the moment."
These are just a few examples of the contempt that some online operators seem to have for the concept of promptly discharging their obligations to the player; there are many more on the message boards, indicating that players need to be increasingly aware that some operators are way less reliable and ethical than others...and the consequent need to thoroughly research a potential gambling venue before laying a cent of that hard-earned money on the virtual table.
