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
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