Casino guru unfair practices (page 2)

I am writing to formally express my frustration and concern regarding the handling of my account and winnings with Power plays platform.

Several years ago, I won a substantial amount of money, only to be informed that I would not be paid due to the fact that both my partner at the time and I held accounts. However, according to their own published rules at the time, this was permitted. Despite this, my winnings were withheld and my account was subsequently closed without further recourse.

Two years later, I received an email from their team inviting me to return. I interpreted this outreach as a goodwill gesture and an opportunity to re-engage with their services. I signed up again, played in good faith, and won an additional $550.00. To my dismay, I was once again told that I would not be paid—this time on the grounds that I held multiple accounts. This is simply not possible, as my original account had been closed by their team.

I am extremely disappointed by this treatment and feel strongly that I have been unfairly penalized despite adhering to their stated policies. I respectfully request that my winnings be paid in full, as I have done nothing wrong and acted in good faith throughout. I feel they have an unfair advantage by having the claim reopened after the 6 month mark and mine being denied. Power play says they have no record after 6 months yet they know my every move on their site.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a fair resolution.

Sincerely, Rebecca Wolfe

I do not understand how you say nothing was done that was unfair they kept my winnings for no reason at all. You even admit that. You also opened the claim after the 6 month mark for them and are ignoring mine

please see the above post

'll write it down very simply for you:

stamps22 openned the case with terms that include that she has the option to re-open it in 1 year if she has anything to add to it.

The casino ran out of time, and lost the case

You let the casino to re-open the case a year later

stamps22 was busy with other things and didn't reply in about half a year (so she didn't even take as long as the casino)

You refused to do this, because you changed your terms all the while according to the old rules, the rules she knew and was applicable when the complaint was created, she still had 5 months to re-open the case.

Now the casino "won" because you changed the rules while the procedure was still active according to the rules that you've changed in the meanwhile.You didn't provide the same terms for both parties in the very same procedure.

Rebecca, I completely understand why this feels unfair, especially when you compare your situation to older cases or rules that may have been different at that time. It’s frustrating when things seem inconsistent, and I don’t blame you for being upset.

The difficulty here is that the casino system doesn’t keep records open after such a long period of time. After several years, the case files, communication logs, and even the casino’s internal records are no longer accessible for review. That means we can’t "reopen" or verify what exactly happened, or which terms were in place at the time.

On the forum, we also don’t have direct links between posts and complaint IDs, so we can’t tell which exact case you are referring to. Without that, there’s simply no way to revisit or re-evaluate it properly.

The casino kept records of everything they did to me.Why did you open it for them and ignore me?

Hello, as I tried to explain, the timeline is crucial here. Though I may only guess what complaint we are talking about here.

I believe the concerns are related to those two, however:

The older one is probably out of the question because the issue was submitted on 30 Oct 2022:

The other one contains only your single post, and it was closed because you did not respond. Submitted: 07 Apr 2024.

I did not find any other reopen requests associated with that, I'm afraid.

However, in total you just wrote down two posts; there wasn't much to do with those, I'd say.