Fortune Lounge get away with a no pay. Shameful, shameless behaviour.

Read this thread and the pathetic denoument:

hxxp://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-bonus-issues/59198-royal-vegas-takes-my-deposits-winnings.html

Quote: Caruso

Read this thread and the pathetic denoument:

hxxp://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-bonus-issues/59198-royal-vegas-takes-my-deposits-winnings.html

{your link don't work}

Although that web-site has traffic, the actual number of active members there are meaningless. Anyone that could honestly consider the nonsense taking place there seriously or even be concerned about it any longer after what has been exposed there over the years might have issues of their own.

Actually, I think after reading threads like that it’s these types of promotional / arbitrator sites displaying this type of nonsense for all to see gives a great deal of creditability for the need of real regulation. This type of repeated colluded behavior endlessly being demonstrated should no doubt open the eyes of the people reading this stuff.

Can you even imagine having a problem after gambling online and one of the only places to go for help is where these ass clowns operate and put your fate in their hands?

This is just another perfect example of why real regulation is the only hope for this present online mess.

Quote: 4ofaKind

your link don't work

I "xx"ed out the direct link, no reason to give him any juice. Just "http" it.

Thanks. A slightly more detailed summary would have been appreciated.

Best I can determine without reading all 17 pages, the player signed up and received bonuses at several casinos in the group, pursuing a strategy of betting big at roulette, then grinding through the wager requirements with small bets at slots.

On some accounts, the player mistakenly violated casino bonus rules prohibiting big bets. The casino group confiscated all winnings, and refunded deposits on the winning accounts.

The player argued that she should receive winnings on the one account that was in compliance with the rules, but the casino group denied the request because the player showed a pattern of improper behavior.

The player filed a Casinomeister complaint, which was voided because the player failed to remain silent on the forum during the deliberation process. However the Casinomeister himself implied that the request would have been denied anyway because the player "colluded."

The casino group may have intended to confiscate all funds, only agreeing to refund deposits after the player went public.

That's my summary. I would question the casino group's decision to deny winnings on the "clean" account. Casinomeister indicates that the player is clearly wrong, but doesn't really explain why. In general, the posters on that board are somewhat hostile to advantage players.

Do I understand the situation at all?

I have no knowledge of the events, other than I did manage to read pages 1-13 and then the final 3 pages.

You have summarized it quite nicely.

The casino group says you cannot bet an amount greater than, or equal to, 30% of the bonus amount awarded.

The player mistakenly bet exactly 30% on Roulette in 2 of the casinos that had given him a $100 bonus. It appears as soon as money was won at Roulette, she then played low level slots to make the requirements.

At the third casino, the bonus was $150, which meant the amount bet on Roulette was only 27% of the bonus. But the casino stated her 'irregular' play was still a violation, and would not pay out the wins.

They used evidence of the other 2 casinos to establish an 'irregular' pattern that is contrary to their rules.

I can't see how the casino group could win this case based on the above facts alone. There must be more to the story that we are not being told, but in any event, it just shows what your chances of winning, AND then GETTING, your money, really are.

Quote: gpac1377

Thanks. A slightly more detailed summary would have been appreciated.

I was too pissed off to go into details. I just wanted to post the link.

Quote: gpac1377

Do I understand the situation at all?

You do; your summary is pretty much perfect.

There's an anti-Casinomeister version of the discussion in progress at Beating Bonuses. The aggrieved player has posted there once so far.

Casinomeister has now said the player is "associated" with 40 other recently new players who used similar strategies, which I assume is an accusation of "gnoming" -- i.e., using the identities of other people, real or imagined.

I guess it's not a shock that online casinos can be somewhat shady, imposing ridiculously complex terms & conditions, and applying them arbitrarily. But it's disappointing if true that the player advocates are biased. Casinomeister is very prominent because he accepts complaints from any player regardless of affiliation.

I'm still reading through the other thread. As an American, I've been out of the game for many years : (

Quote: gpac1377

Casinomeister is very prominent because he accepts complaints from any player regardless of affiliation. (

That's just his hook to get new members to sign on and hopefully sign up to an accredited casino on his list through his site.

I think it's becoming obvious to most people in the online gaming community how unfriendly the site actually became. It seems most of the members that don't get banned there are obnoxious, arrogant, belligerent, and appear to suffer from some form of a gambling disorder since their only concerns appear to convince anyone that reads the colluded trash being published there how much smarter they are then the rest of the world.

People looking to have some gambling fun online should be forced to navigate through that site first which should surely convince them that online gaming can't be trusted with their money under these present conditions.

Personally, I believe Casinomeister realizes the writing is on the wall that the Wild West days of online gaming are coming to an end, and welcomes the members that are allowed there to trash newbees that don't agree with him or any of his commandments that he personally carved in stone.

Might also explain the recent rash of new casinos and some old ones getting accredited there. He's just trying to grab all he can before this pathetic mess gets cleaned up.

Online gaming is in a sad state. Imagine what's really going on throughout the world when you consider 33 billion dollars was bet in 2012? We're only witnessing what's happening in the peanut gallery.

Quote: gpac1377

On some accounts, the player mistakenly violated casino bonus rules prohibiting big bets. The casino group confiscated all winnings, and refunded deposits on the winning accounts.

The player argued that she should receive winnings on the one account that was in compliance with the rules, but the casino group denied the request because the player showed a pattern of improper behavior.

So, is this what happened according to the outcome of the particular Fortune Lounge Casino?

1. Player over-bet and won: Winnings confiscated, original deposit returned.
2. Player over-bet and lost: Everything lost.
3. Player followed rules and won: Original deposit returned only.
4. Player followed rules and lost: ?

Were there any casinos in group 4? Anything in the T&C I should be aware of before taking a stance on this?

Quote: Wizard

2. Player over-bet and lost: Everything lost.
4. Player followed rules and lost: ?

I don't think it's known whether the player followed the rules when the outcome was a loss, but the deposits were not returned in those instances.

Quote: Wizard

Anything in the T&C I should be aware of before taking a stance on this?

There are a lot of items in the T&C that are somewhat open to interpretation. Here's where the Fortune Lounge rep quotes from the T&C:

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-bonus-issues/59198-royal-vegas-takes-my-deposits-winnings-5.html#post583652

Quote: Wizard

So, is this what happened according to the outcome of the particular Fortune Lounge Casino?

1. Player over-bet and won: Winnings confiscated, original deposit returned.

Correct in two cases, though I'm not sure about deposit refunds. That can be checked with the OP.

Quote:

2. Player over-bet and lost: Everything lost.

No.

Quote:

3. Player followed rules and won: Original deposit returned only.

Correct, this was the third of the three casinos in the group played.

Quote:

4. Player followed rules and lost: ?

No.

Quote:

Were there any casinos in group 4? Anything in the T&C I should be aware of before taking a stance on this?

No, as above. T & C have vague waffle about "irregular betting", but no rules were broken at casino three.

My write up:

http://www.hundredpercentgambling.com/newsArticle.php?id=74

It's only a couple of page scrolls, and covers everything up to Bailey accusing the player of fraud after he committed the heinous crime of asking why in the heck it was taking so long. I'll do another write up to cover the pathetic denoument.

Quote: gpac1377

Casinomeister has now said the player is "associated" with 40 other recently new players who used similar strategies, which I assume is an accusation of "gnoming" -- i.e., using the identities of other people, real or imagined.

This was never suggested as reason for the confiscation, and I pay it no heed - I predicted they would throw something like this out as a last-ditch attempt to muddy the waters. Also, note the word "collusion" - he's quick to talk about multi-account "fraud", but this isn't it. What the rep said previously was that several other people had used similar strategies around this time. I believe this is a vague attempt to tie the OP to anyone and everyone who might or might not have used similar playing strategies at this time. This is obviously absurd, but there appears nothing else to pin on this player. And please note again, there was no mention of this before. Just "irregular betting", ie. AP style.

Quote:

Casinomeister is very prominent because he accepts complaints from any player regardless of affiliation.

Noooooo, it's because he was first in on the act.

Quote: gpac1377

Casinomeister is very prominent because he accepts complaints from any player regardless of affiliation.

Quote: Caruso

Noooooo, it's because he was first in on the act.

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure of the history.

Quote: Caruso

I'll do another write up to cover the pathetic denoument.

Everything covered now to date:

http://www.hundredpercentgambling.com/newsArticle.php?id=76