Suing casino

Quote: 3dfella

Ive blocked this thread...

Blocking your own thread??? LOL

Quote: Beethoven9th

Blocking your own thread??? LOL

Asks a question, gets an answer he doesn't like, sticks fingers in ears. That'll go over well in court.

Quote: MathExtremist

Asks a question, gets an answer he doesn't like, sticks fingers in ears. That'll go over well in court.

Not only that, he gets valid mathematical calculations, that he requested, from one of the most well respected mathematicians in the business.

I completely disagree with the OP and I think he is pulling a scam and he is looking for support from us. Seriously, he deposited $500, got a $500 bonus, wagered $900, then before he could wager the next $1, he was updated with new terms and was notified that the casino would not honor the previous agreement. To me, it sounds like he knew there was a mistake and he was going to take advantage one way or another. If he would have lost the $900, then he'd ask for a reset because the terms were changed, and now that he won the $900, he's asking the court to give him his EV without having to grind it out. If I were the judge, I would have you play out the $19,100 and let you cashout.

If the judge doesn't do that, then you should pay a qualified gaming mathematician (more than $92, I might add) to calculate the cumulative distribution of possible win amounts after wagering $19,100. Then, the judge should obtain a random number from 0 to 1 and determine what amount you will win.

Quote: CrystalMath

Not only that, he gets valid mathematical calculations, that he requested, from one of the most well respected mathematicians in the business.

I completely disagree with the OP and I think he is pulling a scam and he is looking for support from us. Seriously, he deposited $500, got a $500 bonus, wagered $900, then before he could wager the next $1, he was updated with new terms and was notified that the casino would not honor the previous agreement. To me, it sounds like he knew there was a mistake and he was going to take advantage one way or another. If he would have lost the $900, then he'd ask for a reset because the terms were changed, and now that he won the $900, he's asking the court to give him his EV without having to grind it out. If I were the judge, I would have you play out the $19,100 and let you cashout.

If the judge doesn't do that, then you should pay a qualified gaming mathematician (more than $92, I might add) to calculate the cumulative distribution of possible win amounts after wagering $19,100. Then, the judge should obtain a random number from 0 to 1 and determine what amount you will win.

Of course he's pulling a scam. He didn't magically get updated with new terms *after* the first 900 was wagered. That's probably when he asked for clarification, which begs the question -- why ask for clarification afterwards unless you were running a con?

There's no chance he gets the theo awarded. It's an asinine legal theory that specific performance only cuts one way. He wants the casino to perform, but he's unwilling to do the same? The *best* he gets is an order that the casino pay any actual balance after the remaining 19100 handle is played through -- in other words, the deal he wanted at first. But I still think there's no contract due to no meeting of the minds, and that means the deal is void ab initio. I can't believe he's arguing about 92 in theo, though.

If the casino wanted to jerk him around, they could recant and tell the court "okay, he can have the award if he plays through the 20k," thereby eliminating the controversy and forcing a dismissal. And then, when he does do the playthrough, re-recant and make him stick to the terms of the 40k. That's no less sleazy than the con he's trying to run on the house, and then the dispute really would be about 92 in theo.

Quote: 3dfella

Its the UK gambling commission who do not get involved in individual disputes, incredibly.

It certainly sounds as if they don't want anything to do with riff raff like us customers. Not too friendly to not even pay lip service and even be a recipient of consumer complaints. Maybe more friendly venues, other jurisdictions that really try to enforce fair and open casinos, would be more suitable:

What We Do
Through effective regulation and public engagement we permit gambling and ensure that it:
is crime free
is fair and open
protects children and vulnerable people.

Main responsibilities
The Commission's stated aims are "to keep crime out of gambling, to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and openly, and to protect children and vulnerable people".[2]
The Commission is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It issues licenses to gambling operators, can levy fines and revoke licenses, and is tasked with investigating and prosecuting illegal gambling. It is also responsible for advising national and local government on gambling-related issues.[2]
The UK Gambling Commission issues licenses only to those operators whose remote gambling equipment is located on the territory of the UK. Those operators who wish to advertise their services on the territory of the UK, but are based outside the country, have to obtain a license from the Gambling Commission or, alternatively, one of the whitelisted gambling jurisdictions. [3]

Monitoring and regulation
The list of responsibilities of the Gambling Commission includes work to ensure that licensees act in accordance with the requirements imposed by the Gambling Act 2005 and other related regulations and standards. The Commission has the right to visit its licensees and examine their financial activities. As a result of this examination, specialists from the Gambling Commission can issue recommendations for amendments. Apart from such advice, supplementary license conditions can be set or removed. In some cases, the Commission may take action to correct or avoid certain misconducts. [4]
Apart from reviewing the activities of the licensed operators, the Commission is authorised to take regulatory actions against those licensees who breach the rules in some way. The range of actions that may need to be taken varies from issuing a warning to inflicting a fine on those who violate license conditions. In situations where additional investigation is required, the license can be revoked.
The Intelligence department of the Gambling Commission collects information about the illegal activities related to their field and conducts preliminary investigation in order to build a picture of the situation and inform senior management.They also collaborate with other UK organisations and the police in cases where suspicious betting or gambling activities are detected. [5]

What We Don’t Do
consumer complaints: we don’t resolve consumer complaints. For example, we can’t help you get your money back from a bet placed or from a gaming machine. --gambling commission

Well, that was all SO entertaining. I think there was a basic misunderstanding going on there that became clearer as the discussion degenerated. I thought he was honestly misled and wanted reasonable recourse but didn't know how to ask the questions he needed answered, when it turns out by his own account he was being cagey and dodgy on purpose. Bollocks, indeed. Mosca said it best the other day (paraphrasing): You start with respect, and earn disrespect from there. Done, and done.

Quote: MathExtremist

Of course he's pulling a scam. He didn't magically get updated with new terms *after* the first 900 was wagered. That's probably when he asked for clarification, which begs the question -- why ask for clarification afterwards unless you were running a con?

There's no chance he gets the theo awarded. It's an asinine legal theory that specific performance only cuts one way. He wants the casino to perform, but he's unwilling to do the same? The *best* he gets is an order that the casino pay any actual balance after the remaining 19100 handle is played through -- in other words, the deal he wanted at first. But I still think there's no contract due to no meeting of the minds, and that means the deal is void ab initio. I can't believe he's arguing about 92 in theo, though.

I don't often agree with you and while the OP was clearly a jerk, I think you are a bit tougher on him here than you should be. I think legally he has a dead bang winner that he can cash out AFTER playing the 40x bonus wager through requirement as per the email. If the casino sent an email with mistaken terms that are not clearly a typo, that is their fault and they need to honor it. Legally he is on to something in terms of "anticipatory breach" but the fact is that he must quantify his damages and EV is just not gonna fly. He needs to actually play the hands so that he can quantify his damages.

Quote: bigfoot66

I don't often agree with you and while the OP was clearly a jerk, I think you are a bit tougher on him here than you should be. I think legally he has a dead bang winner that he can cash out AFTER playing the 40x bonus wager through requirement as per the email. If the casino sent an email with mistaken terms that are not clearly a typo, that is their fault and they need to honor it. Legally he is on to something in terms of "anticipatory breach" but the fact is that he must quantify his damages and EV is just not gonna fly. He needs to actually play the hands so that he can quantify his damages.

I'm not so sure it wasn't a typo. The first post in this thread indicated that there was a single missing word in the offer -- the word "and" between "deposit" and "bonus." We're not privy to the rest of the email, and context matters, but if anything the phrase "playthrough requirement is 40x deposit and bonus" parses slightly better than "playthrough requirement is 40x deposit bonus." That tilts even further in the casino's favor if the remainder of the email uses the words "deposit" and "bonus" separately (and does not use the phrase "deposit bonus"). I know the omission of a single word or even character can dramatically alter the meaning of a phrase (e.g., "stop clubbing[,] baby seals" or "let's eat[,] grandma" -- say those out loud with and without the comma) but here it seems a simple case of mistaken copy.

I'm not suggesting that the casino, under normal circumstances, should do anything other than honor the mistaken terms of the offer. If the OP were legitimate, the story would have been "I played through 40x my "deposit bonus" -- the 500, for a total of 20k -- and I have a win of 1300 including that bonus but now you won't let me cash out." In other words, he would have performed his side of the bargain, and there would be a valid claim for relief based on the casino's mistake. But the actual story is different. The OP is, in my opinion, shooting an angle by attempting to alter the terms of the deal mid-flight. If anticipatory breach is a valid theory here, then the casino can likewise use it and counterclaim that the OP has indicated his own anticipatory breach: he is unwilling to play any further at all. Therefore regardless of the playthrough requirements, he has announced he won't perform them and the 500 bonus must be void. He is entitled to his 500 deposit and his 900 in winnings, and that's it. The theory that somehow he is entitled to a bonus based on a playthrough requirement that he admits he will not fulfill is ludicrous.

And if I came off unreasonably harsh, I apologize. I've been in this industry a long time and most of the dealings I've had have been on the up-and-up, but I run into dishonest people more frequently than I would prefer. Sometimes they've been running gaming companies rather than playing casino games, but I have very little patience for liars and cheats regardless of which side of the table they're on. In this instance, nothing the OP said indicates the casino is acting dishonestly at all, but his own behavior tells a different tale.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Blocking your own thread??? LOL

We might need some verification, but this might be a WoV first. I don't know if I've ever heard of someone posting something, getting lots of very good answers and then blocking their own thread because they don't like the answers.

This place makes me smile sometimes.

ZCore13

Something that the OP might consider

Changes from 1 April also mean that you are referred to a mediation service before you proceed with a small claims court claim in England and Wales.
This is to improve awareness of Alternative Dispute Resolution and encourage parties to use it, so all small claims will be automatically referred to mediation.
This does not mean that mediation is mandatory, but a mediator is contacted to establish whether mediation would be suitable for your case.
For the hearing itself, the mediator will ensure that both parties are aware that the process is not a judicial hearing and that the mediator will not take sides but take a neutral role.
There will also be provision to allow parties in low value small claims cases to choose whether their small claim is determined on paper, without the need for a court hearing, but only if the judge agrees that it is appropriate.
The outcome of the mediation could be something other than money - possibly an apology or an agreement for a trader to return and do the faulty work again.
You are not legally bound to the outcome of mediation, but if you unreasonably refuse to accept mediation, or are unreasonable in the conduct of the case, then this could result in cost penalties being made against you. This would be at the discretion of the judge.