CASHMIO - BONUS ISSUE

Hi xxscotslassxx - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

As a UK citizen and as we are the officially appointed Alternative Dispute Resolution service for Betspin Casino there is certain information we have to provide you now.

You can find all the relevant information about this service here – http://thepogg.com/terms-of-use/

To summarise.

– Use of this service does not preclude your seeking redress through court proceedings .

– This service is free to use for both the complainant and operator.

– At any point during the procedure the submitting party retains the right to withdraw their complaint. This does not preclude our right to continue the discussion with the involved operator of general issues related to the complaint (i.e. insufficiently clear terms and conditions).

– You are not obliged to obtain independent or legal advice or representation, though you may choose to do so.

The above is somewhat clunky but a necessary part of the process for any complaint that comes in under ADR procedures.

If you have any questions about the above, let me know.

With regard to the specifics of your complaint, I do understand your frustration but by the sounds of things there's been a technical issue. That being the case there's every possibility that Cashmio will have to involve several parties to review and establish what if anything has gone wrong. That can be a slow process.

In the mean time can I ask you to forward the file containing your play history to [email protected] so I can review and confirm whether or not you should have completed the wagering requirements before the larger bets took place. Once I've reviewed these files I'll contact the operator.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi

I hope you received the file ok.

I have actually gone through all of the transactions on Immortal Romance (I had done a rough estimate previously due to the amount) they actual total £5092 - which was wagered prior to even playing Rainbow Riches - Reels of Gold. Which I am actually pretty peeved at!

I had tried to withdraw previously at £1700, £1400 and £1200 and each time it bounced back to the withdrawal page where bonus and wagering both showed £0. I didn't think much off it and did continue to play.

My claim with them is for the £925 withdrawal which eventually went through ok only to then be refused and confiscated for the reasons already given above.

As the time increases for them to rectify this issue I am becoming increasingly annoyed that given the actual amount wagered I possibly 'should' have been able to withdraw the £1700 or £1400 or £1200 had their system not had what clearly appears to be a major glitch on the date in question.

Hi xxscotslassxx,

I've reviewed the game history you've sent through. The bonus you received would carry a 40x wagering requirement and the requirement for the free spins you received was 5xdeposit. So the total was (40x50) + (5x50) = 2000 + 250 = £2250.

Having re-ordered the spread sheet and counted through the wagers made my assessment would be that you would have completed the wagering requirement at line 3539 or at server time 03:50:42 on the 18th. At this point no wagers exceeding the maximum allowed bet of £5 had been placed.

Obviously I still need to speak to the operator, but my preliminary analysis would be that you are correct and that the £5 bets came long after the completion of the wagering requirements.

If possible I would appreciate it if you could forward on a screen shot of your account history. I want to see the times that your various withdrawals were declined.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi

Just wondered whether you had been in contact with Cashmio?

I have spoken to them a couple of times and am still getting the same answer each time - 83 over bets were placed on Rainbow Riches - they refuse to acknowledge the previous play on Immortal Romance and are increasingly rude in their response. I have again asked them to look at the previously play - the response was we don't need too it's already been done.

Their t&c's state

22.5 In the event of any dispute, you agree that the records of the server shall act as the final authority in determining the outcome of any claim.

22.6 You agree that in the unlikely event of a disagreement between the result that appears on your screen and the game server, the result that appears on the game server will prevail, and you acknowledge and agree that our records will be the final authority in determining the terms and circumstances of your participation in the relevant online gaming activity and the results of this participation.

These only obviously apply for Cashmio and not for any players!

Hi xxscotslassxx,

We haven't yet had a direct response about this issue, but we are dealing with the platform provide (Gaming Innovation Group) rather than the operator directly, so they will have to discuss the issue with the operator before they can provide a response.

I'll let you know as soon as I have some relevant information.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi xxscotslassxx,

Thanks for your email and confirming that you have now received your funds. That's very good news!

In response to your concerns the operator offered this explanation:

"when checking it closely the issue was due to this specific game offering a feature where the player can choose a “package” where she could choose 5 big bet spins and have more expanding wilds within it. So in our back office, it was being displayed as one bet when in reality it was 5 spins of 5 each."

The above comment would be in relation to Immortal Romance's bonus feature. In short the back end system was displaying a false positive on an over bet far earlier than the Rainbow Riches spins. Obviously now that this quirk has been identified the platform provider will be keeping an eye on it.

All the best,

ThePOGG

Hi

That explanation relates to Rainbow Riches - Reels of Gold and not Immortal Romance.

They are correct in what they said - Rainbow Riches offers a 5 spins for £25 - which is what was played on Rainbow Riches hence the £25 stakes showing on the game logs.

This does not address in any way the funds wagered previously on Immortal Romance. There is no feature as they have described on Immortal Romance, bonus or otherwise.

I find it strange that yet again they fail to acknowledge these spins on Immortal Romance and still stand by the fact that there was a glitch/error on their system which they have failed to admit too.

Had the system been working correctly the wagering rule would have been met long before the Rainbow Riches games and should not have recorded on the game logs as -£25.0000/bonus. I should have been able to withdraw prior to when I did.

I don't feel the explanation they have given is in anyway sufficient. I will be closing my account with them and all related sites as to me they have not been fully honest with regards to this issue.

Hi xxscotslassxx,

I'm actually fairly familiar with the Immortal Romance game, and the bonus feature does indeed account for this issue. The free spins feature allows, once unlocked, for the selection between different packages of spins with includes different numbers of spins, different Wild symbol additions and different multipliers. How these different packages are specifically recorded on the system back end is what's caused the issue here. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my explanation.

ThePOGG

Hi

Apologies -

I'm sorry but they refer to '5 big bet spins and have more expanding wilds within it' and 'being displayed as one bet when in reality it was 5 spins of 5 each' this 100% relates to the BB spins on Rainbow Riches -Reels of Gold- 5 spins for £25. These spins are referred to on the game as 'Big Bet spins' as they have correctly described them. They are offered as a 'package' to accumulate more expanding wins again as they have correctly decribed and is £25 for 5 spins.

The packages of bonus spins on Immortal Romance starts at 10 spins and not 5 spins.

Anyway I have closed my account and will not be playing this site or any associated again.

Hi xxscotslassxx,

I'm not contesting that there is the potential for a similar issue to occur with Rainbow Riches, nor am I saying that the communication with relation to this issue has been good. I am however stating that while I understand your contention based on the information you've received that the issue must relate to Rainbow Riches, that in fact this has been a communication issue related to the details of the situation.

Thanks,

ThePOGG