Hilsen alle,
Dette er en kompliceret situation, ifølge casinoets vilkår og betingelser og indbetalingsbonussen i spil var kun slots og keno tilladt ved at bruge disse midler, og den ønskede udbetaling blev afvist på det grundlag. Blackjack og baccarat blev begge spillet med midler, der stammede fra en begrænset bonus. Efter at den anmodede udbetaling blev afvist, blev indbetalingen derefter placeret tilbage på kontoen, under de eksplicitte instruktioner fra spilleren blev der placeret en ekstra indbetalingsbonus oven på den, hvilket gav spilleren en ekstra chance for at vinde. Disse midler blev derefter spillet til nul. På dette tidspunkt var den oprindelige indbetaling ikke længere hos kasinoet, da den nu var blevet spillet til nul.
Kasinoet mener, at det har handlet i god tro og i henhold til dets betingelser. Spilleren var blevet informeret om beslutningen, accepteret beslutningen, accepteret den ekstra bonus, spillet indbetalingen, og bonussen indgav derefter en klage bagefter, formentlig fordi denne ekstra spillesession ikke resulterede i en (potentielt større) gevinst.
Vi er stadig i diskussion om emnet internt, kun fordi casino.guru's fair gambling codex kræver, at vi forbyder ikke-tilladte spil under spil på en begrænset kupon, og dette er mekanisk umuligt ved at bruge vores spilleplatform. Beslutningen er enten at holde fast i vores klart angivne vilkår, som blev accepteret af spilleren (og acceptere de "sorte punkter" mod vores omdømme), eller at ignorere vores vilkår og betale spilleren (for at overholde denne 3. parts voldgiftsdommer ). Det er et kompliceret spørgsmål.
Tak for din tålmodighed,
Krypto Loko
Greetings all,
This is a complicated situation, per the terms and conditions of the casino and the deposit bonus in play only slots and keno were allowed using those funds and the requested withdrawal was denied on that basis. Blackjack and baccarat were both played using funds stemming from a restricted bonus. After the requested withdrawal was denied the deposit was then placed back in the account, under the explicit instructions of the player an additional deposit bonus was placed on top of it giving the player an additional chance to win. These funds were then played to zero. At this point the original deposit was no longer with the casino as it had now been played to zero.
The casino believes it has acted in good faith and per it's terms. The player had been informed of the decision, accepted the decision, accepted the additional bonus, played the deposit and the bonus then filed a complaint after the fact, presumably because this additional play session did not result in a (potentially greater) win.
We are still in discussion on the subject internally only because casino.guru's fair gambling codex requires us to prohibit non-allowed games during play on a restricted coupon and this is mechanically impossible using our gaming platform. The decision is either to hold to our clearly stated terms which were agreed to by the player (and accept the "black points" against our reputation), or to ignore our terms and pay the player (in order to comply with this 3rd party arbitrator). It is a complicated question.
Thank you for your patience,
Crypto Loko
Automatisk oversættelse: