Kunnioittavasti on sanottava, ett? on monia kasinoita, joissa bonus- ja k?teissaldot pidet??n erill??n. Monet, elleiv?t useimmat, kasinot k?sittelev?t saldojaan nyt t?ll? tavalla s??ntelyviranomaisten ja pelaajien vastustuksen vuoksi, koska heid?n talletuksensa ovat jumissa valtavien pakollisten kierr?tysvaatimusten kanssa. Kripty on yksi n?ist? kasinoista. Kun n?in ei ole, kasino yhdist?? bonuksen ja talletuksen yhdeksi saldoksi, joka vapautuu vasta, kun kierr?tysvaatimus on suoritettu. Olen liitt?nyt mukaan Kriptyn ehdot, ja lausekkeessa 2 sanotaan: "Kun pelaaja on oikeutettu bonukseen, h?nen varojaan k?ytet??n seuraavassa j?rjestyksess?: 1. K?teinen, 2. Bonus". Jos voitan 100 € oikealla rahalla, 100 € lis?t??n oikean rahan saldoon, vaikka bonussaldo olisi olemassa. Joten n?m? kaksi saldotyyppi? ovat erillisi? j?rjestelm?tasolla. Ei ole itsest??n selv?? sanoa, ett? niit? k?sitelt?isiin yhten? bonussaldona, jos bonuss??nt?? rikottaisiin oikealla rahalla. Se riippuisi kyseisen kasinon ehdoista. On totta, ett? kasino voi lis?t? lausekkeen, joka nimenomaisesti kielt?? tietyt panokset jopa oikealla rahalla, kun bonussaldo on olemassa.
Kryptyn vanhat termit sanoivat:
Bonusvaroilla panostettava enimm?ism??r? kierrosta kohden on 5 $/€.
Ne muutettiin muotoon:
"Kun tilill? on aktiivinen bonus, kierrosta kohden on panostettu enint??n 5 $/€."
Jos n?m? s??nn?t olisivat olleet olemassa jo silloin, kun olin tehnyt vetojani, olisin saattanut hyv?ksy? ne valitettavasti ja tajuta tehneeni virheen. Ongelmana on, ett? niit? ei ollut. Ne kirjoitettiin uudelleen sen j?lkeen, kun olin jo voittanut. Ymm?rr?n, ett? se on syyt?s, joka vaatii jonkin verran todisteita. Aluksi se n?ytt?? vain minun sanaltani kasinon omaa vastaan. Mik? pahinta, he p?ivittiv?t ehtojaan, mutta eiv?t muuttaneet viimeisint? p?ivitysp?iv?m??r??. On kaksi keskeist? kohtaa:
- Tarkistakaa heid?n l?hett?m?ns? s?hk?postiketju. Heid?n perustelunsa voittoni mit?t?innille on: "Tarkasteltuamme peli?si turvallisuustiimimme on havainnut, ett? olet tehnyt yli 5 EUR/USD:n vetoja (s??nt?jemme mukainen enimm?ism??r?) bonusvaroilla, mik? on bonusehtojemme vastaista, ja voittosi on mit?t?ity". Kun vastaan ??ja sanon, ett? vedot on tehty oikealla rahalla, he toistavat itse??n kolme kertaa ja sanovat, ett? tein vedon bonusvaroilla. Muutamaa kuukautta my?hemmin ensimm?isess? vastauksessaan t?h?n valitukseen he kiist?v?t sen, mit? he olivat aina v?itt?neet s?hk?posteissaan, my?nt?en ensimm?ist? kertaa, ett? vedot oli tehty oikealla rahalla. Vasta nyt, kun lauseketta on muutettu, he voivat my?nt?? t?m?n perustellusti. Miksi he eiv?t olisi sanoneet t?t? minulle l?hett?miss??n s?hk?posteissa? Selv?sti siksi, ett? kyseist? s??nt?? ei ollut olemassa tuolloin. Koska sit? ei ollut, heid?n alkuper?inen perustelunsa voittoni mit?t?innille oli ep?reilu, koska he syyttiv?t minua jostakin, mit? en koskaan tehnyt. Ensin he sanovat, ett? ly?n vetoa yli 5 bonusvaroilla, mutta t?ss? he ovat my?nt?neet, ett? ly?n vetoa yli 5 oikealla rahalla.
- Toinen Casino Gurulla tehty valitus, joka merkittiin oikeutetuksi, sai minut tarkistamaan Kriptyyn liittyv?t kasinot. N?it? kasinoita, joilla on sama omistaja, on paljon. Ne kaikki k?ytt?v?t samoja kopioituja bonusehtoja kuin Kripty. Maksimipanoslauseke on sanamuodoltaan identtinen kaikissa n?iss? kasinoissa paitsi Kriptyss?. Kaikki muut sanovat, ett? bonusrahoilla ei voi panostaa enemp?? kuin 5. Kriptyn kasino on ainoa, joka nyt sanoo, ett? yli 5 voi panostaa bonuksen voimassaolon aikana.
Ensimm?iseen kohtaan voisit sanoa "oi ei sill? ole v?li?, koska k?vi ilmi, ett? rikoit toisen olemassa olevan s??nn?n, jonka Kripty toi meid?n tietoomme". Toiseen kohtaan voisit sanoa, ett? kyseess? on ep?todenn?k?inen sattuma, mutta pelaaja oli vain niin huono onni, ett? rikkoi t?m?n s??nn?n juuri siin? ainoassa kasinossa kymmenest? tai useammasta siit? ryhm?st?, joka muutti t?t? tietty? lauseketta. Vaikuttaa hyvin ep?todenn?k?iselt?, mutta ep?todenn?k?ist?, ett? asioita tapahtuu.
Kun n?m? kaksi kohtaa yhdistet??n, se ei voi en?? olla sattumaa. S?hk?postit osoittavat, ett? Kripty nimenomaisesti sanoi minun rikkoneen s??nt?? bonusrahoilla. He k?yttiv?t vanhaa lausekettaan perusteluna ; samaa lauseketta kuin kaikki muutkin sen omistamat kasinot. He eiv?t koskaan voineet s?hk?postikeskustelussa my?nt??, ett? nuo vedot oli asetettu oikealla rahalla, koska ei ollut olemassa ehtoja, jotka oikeuttaisivat sen. T?m?n huomioon ottaen et voi en?? sanoa, ett? olin vain ep?onninen valitessani yhden 20 kasinosta t?st? ryhm?st?, jolla oli erilainen nelj?s lauseke. On my?nnett?v?, ett? t?m? eritt?in ep?onninen sattuma tapahtui, ja ett? s?hk?posteissa Kripty mainitsi mystisesti termin, jota ei ollut olemassa sanasta sanaan, perustellakseen maksamatta j?tt?mist?. Sen lis?ksi, kuten Kripty on my?nt?nyt t?ss? valituksessa, alkuper?inen syy ei edes pit?nyt paikkaansa, koska en ly?nyt vetoa bonusrahoilla. Kaikki n?m? tapahtumat ovat itsess??n ep?todenn?k?isi?: Ett? a) Pelaisin ainoassa kasinossa, jossa on t?m? erilainen s??nt?, b) Kasino k?ytt?isi muiden kasinoiden lauseketta perustellakseen maksamatta j?tt?mist??n, c) Ett? en itse asiassa olisi syyllinen t?m?n s??nn?n rikkomiseen ja d) Ett? he kiist?isiv?t t?m?n syyn t?ysin alustallasi. Kasino tekee t?m?n ilman vastuuta.
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.
Muokattu
Automaattinen k??nn?s:
