Med respekt er der mange casinoer, hvor bonus- og kontantbeholdninger er adskilte. Mange, hvis ikke de fleste, casinoer behandler nu deres saldi på denne måde på grund af modstand fra regulatorer og spillere om at få deres indbetalinger fastlåst med enorme mængder af tvungne væddemål. Kripty er et af disse casinoer. Når dette ikke er tilfældet, kombinerer et casino bonussen med indbetalingen til en enkelt saldo, der først låses op, når væddemålet er gennemført. Jeg har vedhæftet Kriptys vilkår, og klausul 2 siger "Når en spiller er kvalificeret til bonussen, vil deres midler blive brugt i følgende rækkefølge: 1. Kontanter, 2. Bonus". Hvis jeg vinder €100 med rigtige penge, tilføjes €100 til saldoen med rigtige penge, selvom der findes en bonussaldo. Så disse to saldotyper er forskellige på systemniveau. At sige, at de ville blive behandlet som en enkelt bonussaldo, hvis en bonusregel blev brudt med rigtige penge, ville ikke være en selvfølge. Det ville afhænge af det specifikke casinos vilkår og betingelser. Det er sandt, at et casino kan tilføje en klausul, der eksplicit forbyder visse væddemål, selv med rigtige penge, mens der findes en bonussaldo.
Kriptys gamle vilkår sagde:
"Der er en maksimal indsats pr. runde med bonusmidler svarende til $/€5"
De blev ændret til:
"Der er et maksimalt indsatsbeløb pr. runde, mens der er en aktiv bonus på kontoen, på $/€5."
Hvis disse regler havde eksisteret, da jeg lavede mine indsatser, ville jeg måske ulykkeligt acceptere dem og indse, at jeg havde lavet en fejl. Problemet er, at de ikke var der. De blev omskrevet, efter jeg allerede havde vundet. Jeg er klar over, at det er en anklage, der kræver beviser. I starten ser det bare ud til at være mit ord mod casinoets. For at gøre tingene værre opdaterede de deres vilkår, men justerede ikke den sidste opdateringsdato. Der er to hovedpunkter:
- Tjek den e-mailkæde, de sendte mig. Deres begrundelse for at annullere min gevinst er: "Efter at have gennemgået dit spil har vores sikkerhedsteam registreret, at du har placeret væddemål på over 5 EUR/USD (maksimalt tilladt i henhold til vilkår og betingelser) med bonusmidler , hvilket er imod vores bonusvilkår, og dine gevinster er blevet annulleret". Da jeg svarer og siger, at væddemålene blev placeret med den rigtige pengesaldo, gentager de sig selv 3 gange og siger, at jeg placerede væddemålet med bonusmidler. Flere måneder senere i deres første svar på denne klage modsiger de, hvad de altid havde påstået i deres e-mails, og indrømmer for første gang, at væddemålene var med rigtige penge. Kun at nu hvor klausulen er blevet ændret, kan de indrømme dette med begrundelse. Hvorfor skulle de ikke have sagt dette i deres e-mails til mig? Tydeligvis fordi den regel ikke eksisterede på det tidspunkt. Da den ikke eksisterede, var deres oprindelige begrundelse for at annullere min gevinst urimelig, fordi de beskyldte mig for at gøre noget, jeg aldrig har gjort. Først siger de, at jeg har placeret mere end 5 med bonusmidler, men her har de indrømmet, at jeg har placeret mere end 5 med rigtige penge.
- En anden klage over Casino Guru, som blev markeret som berettiget, fik mig til at tjekke casinoer relateret til Kripty. Der er et væld af disse casinoer med den samme ejer. De bruger alle de samme kopierede bonusvilkår som Kripty. Klausulen om maksimal indsats er formuleret identisk i alle disse casinoer bortset fra Kripty. Alle de andre siger, at du ikke kan satse mere end 5 med bonusmidler. Kriptys er de eneste, der nu siger, at du ikke kan satse mere end 5, så længe der er bonus.
Til mit første punkt kunne du sige "åh, det betyder ikke noget, for det viser sig, at du har brudt en anden eksisterende regel, som Kripty har gjort os opmærksomme på her". Til mit andet punkt kunne du sige, at det er et usandsynligt sammentræf, men spilleren var bare uheldig nok til at bryde denne regel på det ene casino ud af et dusin eller flere fra gruppen, der ændrede denne specifikke klausul. Det virker meget usandsynligt, men usandsynlige ting sker.
Når man lægger de to punkter sammen, kan det ikke længere være et tilfælde. E-mailsene viser, at Kripty specifikt sagde, at jeg brød reglen med bonuspenge. De brugte deres gamle klausul som årsag ; den samme klausul som alle de andre casinoer, de ejer, har. De kunne aldrig på noget tidspunkt i e-mailudvekslingen indrømme, at disse væddemål blev placeret med rigtige penge, fordi der ikke fandtes nogen vilkår, der ville retfærdiggøre det. I betragtning af dette kan man ikke længere sige, at jeg bare var uheldig at vælge det ene ud af 20 casinoer fra denne gruppe, der havde en anden fjerde klausul. Man må indrømme, at ikke kun dette meget uheldige tilfælde skete, men at Kripty i e-mails mystisk citerede et udtryk, der ikke eksisterede ordret, for at retfærdiggøre den manglende betaling. Ikke nok med det, men som Kripty har indrømmet i denne klage, var den oprindelige årsag ikke engang sand, fordi jeg ikke spillede med bonuspenge. Alle disse hændelser er usandsynlige i sig selv: At a) jeg ville spille på det eneste casino med denne anderledes regel, b) casinoet ville bruge en klausul fra andre casinoer til at retfærdiggøre deres manglende betaling, c) at jeg faktisk ikke ville være skyldig i at bryde denne regel, og d) at de ville modsige denne grund fuldstændigt på din platform. Casinoet gør dette uden ansvarlighed.
Respectfully, there are many casinos where bonus and cash balances are separate. Many if not most casinos now treat their balances this way because of pushback from regulators and players about having their deposits stuck with huge amounts of forced wagering imposed. Kripty is one of these casinos. When this is not the case, a casino combines the bonus with the deposit into a single balance that is only unlocked when the wagering is completed. I have attached Kripty's terms and clause 2 says "Once a player has qualified for the Bonus, their funds will be used in the following order: 1. Cash, 2. Bonus". If I win €100 with real money then €100 is added to the real money balance even if a bonus balance exists. So these two balance types are distinct at a system level. To say they would be treated as a single bonus balance if a bonus rule was broken with real money would not be a given. It would depend on that specific casino's terms and conditions. It is true that a casino can add a clause that explicitly forbids certain bets even with real money while a bonus balance exists.
Kripty's old terms said:
"There is a maximum bet per round using Bonus Funds equal to $/€5"
They were changed to:
"There is a maximum bet amount per round while having active bonus in account equal to $/€5."
If these rules had existed when I had made my bets then I might unhappily accept them and realise that I made a mistake. The problem is that they were not there. They were rewritten after I had already won. I realise that is an accusation that requires some evidence. At first it just looks like my word against the casino's. To make matters worse, they updated their terms but did not adjust the last updated date. There are two key points:
- Check the email chain they sent me. Their justification for voiding my win is "After reviewing your gameplay our Security Team has detected that you have made bets above 5 EUR/USD(maximum allowed as per T&C) with bonus funds which is against our Bonus Terms and Conditions and your winnings have been voided". When I reply saying the bets were made with the real money balance they just repeat themselves 3 times saying that I made the bet with bonus funds. Several months later in their first reply on this complaint they contradict what they had always maintained in their emails, admitting for the first time that the bets were with real money. Only that now the clause has been changed they can admit this with justification. Why would they not have said this in their emails to me? Clearly because that rule did not exist at the time. Since it didn't exist, their original justification for voiding my win was unfair because they accused me of doing something that I never did. First they say I bet more than 5 with bonus funds but here they have admitted that I bet more than 5 with real money.
- Another complaint on Casino Guru which was marked as justified prompted me check casinos related to Kripty. There are a ton of these casinos with the same owner. They all use the same copy pasted bonus terms as Kripty. The maximum bet clause is identically worded in all of these casinos apart from Kripty. All the others say you can't bet more than 5 with bonus funds. Kripty's is the only one that now says you can't bet more than 5 while any bonus exists.
For my first point you could say "oh it doesn't matter because it turns out you broke another existing rule which Kripty brought to our attention here". For my second point you could say that it is an unlikely coincidence but the player was just unlucky enough to break this rule at the one casino out of a dozen or more from the group that changed this particular clause. Seems very unlikely but unlikely things happen.
When you take the two points together it can no longer be a coincidence. The emails show that Kripty specifically said that I broke the rule with bonus funds. They used their old clause as the reason; the same clause as all the other casinos it owns have. Never at any point could they admit in the email exchange that those bets were placed with real money because no terms existed that would justify doing so. Considering this, you can no longer say I was just unlucky to pick the 1 of 20 casinos from this group that had a different 4th clause. You have to concede not only did this very unlucky coincidence happen, but that in emails, Kripty mysteriously cited a term that didn't exist word for word to justify the nonpayment. Not only that, but as Kripty has admitted in this complaint, the original reason was not even true because I did not bet with bonus funds. All these events are unlikely by themselves: That a) I'd play at the only casino with this different rule, b) The casino would use a clause from other casinos to justify their nonpayment, c) That I would not actually be guilty of breaking this rule and d) That they would contradict that reason completely on your platform. The casino does this without accountability.
Redigeret
Automatisk oversættelse: