![]() |
Rules & Policies |
|
|
#1 | ||
|
In The Doghouse
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: England
Posts: 3,648
|
This was originally brought up on the 2+2 forums.
Fortune Lounge are now confiscating winnings based on "bonus abuse": Quote:
In other words: you broke no rules, but we don't like the way you played so we're confiscating your winnings. After the matter was brought up at Casinomeister, Fortune Lounge subsequently had this to say: Quote:
More of the same. Fortune Lounge have lost money to bonus play, in which the players broke no rules. Fortune Lounge's solution is to confiscate the winnings. This is rogue casino behaviour. Avoid rogue casinos. The Fortune Lounge stable is comprised of the following casinos: 7Sultans Desert Dollar Platinum Play Royal Vegas Fortune Room Vegas Palms Vegas Towers Vegas Villa PokerTime Royal Vegas Poker 7Sultans Poker Thunderluck These casinos will take your money if you lose, and not pay you if they don't like the way you play if you win. There are enough casinos around that do not do this for there to be any need to patronise Fortune Lounge casinos. I would think very carefully before you do so. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,901
|
Quote:
This displays a basic lack of understanding of roulette, even if we assume that the author meant "black and red" instead of "black or red". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
VIP
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,596
|
Wim Ops always struck me as a sensible guy. He mentioned a player scammed the casino via a loophole.
One would hope the loophole is not wagering with a bonus across the casino group with a view to maximising profit. From the information in the public domain, that seems to be the case. We shall see soon enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
VIP
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,137
|
Based on the comments that followed, he obviously meant BLACK and RED, not BLACK or RED. Simple typo.
That's bonus abuse, and has been ever since I can remember. Where's the problem here? ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
In The Doghouse
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,898
|
If he didnt break no rules, he should be paid then kick out. If they dont like his style of play. I would never depoist money in FL. Many other micro back casino that on the up and up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | ||
|
VIP
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,137
|
Quote:
The Terms: Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
VIP
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,596
|
The players never wagered red & black at the same time according to the posts.
Were those the terms in place at the time of the players taking the bonus CPA? |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,901
|
Another guy has been told that betting $1 on red 11609 times was unnatural and improbable for a true gambler.
Compared to KasinoKing, that guy is a whale. ![]() Last edited by GrandMaster : 15-03-2007 at 01:48 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hastings UK
Posts: 646
|
Quote:
But not any more. The onus is on the casino to spell out exactly what play is or is not allowed. I have seen many casinos T&C's where they say Roulette is allowed, but add that 'low risk wagers will not be counted towards WR' That is clear & fair. The FL casinos actions are totally unacceptable whether it is a syndicate of players or not. If no T&C's have been broken - pay the players (deposits AND winnings) & THEN close their account. I currently promote the FL group - but if they don't do the right thing here they will be heading for the exit. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
In The Doghouse
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: England
Posts: 3,648
|
Quote:
Nick, the bit you quoted is nowhere to be seen on the Royal Vegas terms, either general or specific. Where are you seeing that? I've attached a relevant screenshot - roulette is actually included in an example. Anyway, if this were the case, the casino would have simply said "you played roulette" and we would all have agreed, at least to the extent that the wagering requirements had not been fulfilled, not that the winnings were void. Clearly, baccarat / roulette is OK to play, as the casino went through the whole "bonus abuse" nonsense above. So evidently, there is no contravention of terms. Also, your point about red-black / player-banker being "bonus abuse" is only relevant insofar as the casino rules state this. If they don't - and there is nothing in the RV terms to this effect - then there is no problem. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|