Casino Sieger - Accepting players from resticted jurisdictions

Hi prasjuga - thanks for getting in contact!

Before we start, I've edited the title and some of the content of this complaint - I understand that you're frustrated right now, but making accusations is likely to put Casino Sieger off talking to me and if they won't talk to me I can't help you.

This issue is unquestionably complicated by the fact that you played and lost the funds, however at first glance given that you could not have withdrawn any winnings, I'd agree that your deposit should be returned.

Let me try and get in contact with Casino Sieger and I'll see what I can do.

ThePOGG

Hi prasjuga,

I've been discussing this issue with Casino Sieger and from what I can see this situation has evolved out of a series of misunderstandings.

Firstly regarding the status of Bulgarian players at Casino Sieger - Casino Sieger were in the process of implementing changes to allow Bulgarian players to play sign-up at the point you joined. They had already implemented the changes to their sign-up process and the last part of the update was to change the terms and conditions. Hence you were allowed to sign-up whilst the terms and conditions still list Bulgaria as excluded.

The missing bonus - There is in fact a check box that you have to mark to receive the sign-up (or any) bonuses. The following video show the deposit options and the location of the check boxes during the deposit process;

As the casino does now accept Bulgarian players, there would have been no issue in withdrawing funds and as such if you'd won while playing your winnings would have been considered valid.

As to the missing sign-up bonus, Casino Sieger are now prepared to credit the bonus on another deposit . If you wish to do that, you need to contact their live support (who are available 16 hours/day) BEFORE you play with your deposit. They would however appreciate it if you'd withdraw your complaints at the various casino portals you've posted on.

If any of this needs clarification, give me a shout.

ThePOGG

Hi prasjuga,

Apologies the live chat facility on the site dropped off line momentarily and I lost you there.

As I was explaining, you were never placed in a no win situation as the casino were in the process of allowing players from your jurisdiction. As such if you'd gambled and won, there would have been no justifiable reason for Casino Sieger not to pay.

While I understand that the rules stated that Bulgarian players were not allowed to play with Casino Sieger given that this was in the process of being changed, claiming that you wouldn't have received winnings is redundant.

Moreover after you saw that Bulgarian players were restricted, rather than withdrawing your funds you chose to gamble them anyway.

If you'd not played and were refused a withdrawal I could have supported your case. If you'd played but Bulgarian players had remained restricted, you would have been placed in a no-win situation and I could have supported you case. As it transpires, a rule was changed and you coincidentally signed up at the same time as the update happened. Had you won, you would have been paid, therefore there was nothing unfair in your game play.

If you'd wanted your deposit returned, you should have withdrawn it rather than becoming abusive with support staff and then allowing your emotional state dictate your actions. As the situation stands, had you won there's nothing to suggest that you wouldn't have received your winnings and somehow I doubt you'd be complaining had that happened.

While I can accept that you were frustrated and understand that you are unhappy with the outcome of this complaint, you haven't been treated unfairly here. You gambled and you lost. It's unfortunate that you did not see the check boxes for the bonus when you were depositing, it's unfortunate that you did not read the terms before you signed up and avoided this whole issue, it's unfortunate that you let your frustration get the better of you rather than simply withdrawing the funds and it's unfortunate you didn't win, but at the end of the day all baring the last of these were your mistakes and the last was simply bad luck - something we all experience from time to time when gambling. As long as you were not placed in a situation where you could not win, there's nothing overtly unfair about the treatment you've received from Casino Sieger.

ThePOGG

Wow, I'm impressed! So many words just to say someone "Sorry dude, you are screwed!".

Listen Pogg, we both know what is happening here. The question is not about the shitty bonus or something (although I'm totally convinced the bonus WASN"T there, so there was NOTHING to check!!!). The question is that YOU and the [EDIT - INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE] casino are trying to convince me, that everything was fine, just because someone unknown, in unknown country, with unknown intensions and under unknown regulation and licensiong WAS ON HIS WAY TO CHANGE SOME POLICY! I don't care what these crooks were about to change, all I do care is to stick to my contract with the casino, which I have signed and ACCEPTED during my registration! SIMPLE AS THAT! You can't make a business with intensions to change something, you aither change it or not?! If someone from a decent casino (like 32Red Plc, or Redbet Gaming, etc.) read the part with "intensions to change the terms' would fall of the chair laughing!

So, the situation is as follows:

1) I don't give a [EDIT - LANGUAGE] about the bonus.

2) I don't give a [EDIT - LANGUAGE] who and for what was going to change!

3) Yes, I was NOT RIGHT to continue playing and for that I regret.

4) I want my miserable 95 euros!

End of story!

Now, if you intend to help me, just try to do so, I know that a shitty casino like this won't pay! But to keep telling me ABOSLUTE NONSENSE like the above, NO THANK YOU! And just for your information, the [EDIT - ABUSIVE ABOUT CASINO STAFF] from the support WAS ABSOLUTELY IN AWARE THAT I AM PLAYING FROM A RESTRICTED COUNTRY BUT SHE LEFT MY ACCOUNT OPEN SO THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO LOSE EVERYTING! Now, do you get it , Pogg?

Yes I get it prasjuga, but I'm afraid you don't.

You want it both ways - both break the rules yourself, but have them enforced when you lose.

You screwed yourself and have no-one to blame but yourself. If you placed as much stock in this one rule as you now want me to you should have followed it in the first place. As it happens the casino chose not to enforce a restriction, it's only because you lost that you want it enforced to justify returning money you gambled away - it's a very weak one sided argument and holds no water with me.

If we look at any other restriction that a casino could put in place we can see how ridiculous your argument is. If you played a restricted game but the casino didn't confiscate your win, would you be shouting about it? If you bet more than the maximum allowed bet and the casino declined to void your winnings would you be posting about it? If you used the autoplay when you shouldn't have and the casino allowed it to pass would you be here? The reality is you only want this rule enforced - a rule that has been revoked and is unrealistic to think has been revoked just to keep your money - because you lost. And how likely do you think you would be to garner sympathy if you had broken a rule - like wagering on a restricted game - lost and then demanded your deposit back because you broke a rule? I can't see this as anything more than taking a shot and I'm not going to support it.

I have given you my opinion - if you don't like it you're free to move on, but you won't be provided a platform to further this issue here. Your language and general aggressive tone are entirely unacceptable and further posts down this line will be deleted and result in your account being suspended.

ThePOGG

Yeah whatever.

Sorry if I have insulted you any way, didn't intend to do so.

And sorry again but to be completely honest, I am totally disappointed from the quality of your service! And it has nothing to do with the outcome of my complaint.

1. If you intend to offer a complaint service with a min quality you must implement some transparency. The way you are dealing with complaints is a mile way for what is believe to be the true and fair way, not to say it is even suspicious! Do you have something to hide from your communication with the casino? Yes, ohh, forget about it, it was just a rethorical question.

2. Yes, I know I did wrong by continuing to play, although I was aware that Bulgaria is restricted from playing at a crtain point (which point was AFTER) registration. But you 'accidentally miss' to comment on two CRUCIAL FACTS.

Fact ONE: Why the support agent didn't block my account immediately, after he/she saw I am playing from a restricted country? And please, don't try to bullshit me again with these crup that the casino HAS INTENSIONS to do something and other bla bla. Intensions has nothing to do with the law and the law in this case are the casino terms and conditions, which AT THAT CERTAIN POINT are CATEGORICAL - Bulgaria is in the list of restricted countries! End of story!

Fact TWO:Why the casino broke his OWN terms and conditions?

I don't care about the money and I don't care about the bonus. It is a matter of honour for me! I can't stand stupid casino tricks but if there is something I hate even more is people, defending casinos, caught on the crime scene while implementing stupid casino tricks! And you, my dear Pogg, are doing exactly what I hate most.

Allow me to give you an advice, a free one. If I was in your shoes and want to build some reputation across the network, I would probably would say this:

1. Player broke the rules, by registering and accepting casino terms and conditions, which are clear that Bulgaria is among the restricted countries!

2. Player was obliged to stop playing in the very moment when he realized he is playing form a restricted jurisdiction and to insist for a refund!

3. Casino broke one of the most important industry rules by commiting changes into its policies and/or business decisions PRIOR changing its own terms and conditions accordingly!

4. I would say the casino is NOT OBLIGED to pay the player, as the both parties have breached the terms in some way. But I would recommend the casino to refund the player's deposit and thus to keep its reputation absolutely clear and intact!

This is the only fair outcome of this situation.

Hi prasjuga,

To answer the points you made in your post.

Re. Transparency - While you may prefer - as you indicated previously on the live chat - the open forum where the casino and player discuss any issues publicly, I've found that this type of complaint system to be detrimental to the mediation process for three reasons.

1) It's regularly abused by players who either have broken rules or are just sore losers to defame venues that they perceive to have wronged them or those that they simply have a vendetta against.

2) Many casinos are far less willing to discuss issues with a site where they've already been publicly insulted.

3) Much of the weight that will bring some casinos to the table and get them talking is given by the desire not to see a negative report published - when the report includes words like 'stolen' and 'fraud' right from the very start, there's not much left for them to worry about.

Alongside the above, the harsh reality of the industry is that it is rife with players behaving in a fraudulent fashion. Several of the complaints that have already been submitted to the site have involved players that strong evidence suggests were doing something they shouldn't be. Maybe not always enough to say with complete certainty, but enough that I personally don't want to argue for them or take their side.

When dealing with these sorts of issues, casinos do not want the evidence they've gathered to publicized for fear of teaching people how to avoid their security measures. I've seen cases where I don't think the release of the information would make any difference and I've seen cases where I do feel that the release of such information would cause a dangerous shift in how fraudulent players approach beating the security measures.

The long and short though is that I'm neither here to protect casinos nor players, but be fair to both parties. Fair of course is simply my interpretation of the terms, so if you don't what I consider fair you're not going to want to use this service.

When situations arise where the casino would not feel comfortable disclosing the evidence that they've gathered without me agreeing not to discuss it with the player or publish it, I'll agree to that as it allows me to get both sides of the story. That approach ensures that the right party is favored at the close of the complaint.

This approach requires players to trust my assessment of the evidence submitted and obviously players that I've ruled against will immediately point to the fact that I won't even tell them what they did wrong. I can accept that criticism as this method of mediation leads to more casinos being willing to discuss player issues and more players who genuinely should have been paid getting their money back. And that's my ultimate aim - to see any many players as possible paid when they should be paid.

See the recently closed Betfair complaint (http://thepogg.com/complaint/betfair-missing-balance/) for an example of a situation where had I not agreed to that privacy at the start of the conversation the player would not have been paid at the end.

Likewise, there are numerous reports where the casino involved would have unjustly received a negative write up if they hadn't been able to disclose the evidence they'd gathered to me.

I quite understand if you are unhappy with this approach, but the short answer is it's not going to change. To my mind this is the most effective form that dispute mediation can take for the time being and I won't reduce the number of players I can get paid simply to prove my credibility to those who doubt it. My priorities would be misaligned if I placed a misguided attempt to ensure every player trusted me ahead of successfully getting their money back.

There are a few competing services that deal with things in a more public manner available to you if you find my approach untenable.

As to your complaint -

Why didn't they block your account? At a guess, they knew Bulgarian players would be removed from the restricted terms within the next few hours. Or perhaps as they knew that you knew you Bulgarian players were restricted, they thought you'd have the sense to withdraw your funds and didn't want to limit your ability to do that. At that point - unless we're discussing an issue with problem gambling, which you've made no indication of - it seems far from unreasonable to expect the player to take responsibility for their own funds and simply withdraw.

And as to the casino breaking their own rule, they've not broken anything, they've removed the rule. As I pointed out before, you wouldn't be concerned about this in any way had you won rather than lost. In fact, had the rule changed and you'd won and the casino had then refused to pay you because they restricted Bulgarian players at the time you signed up I'm confident you would have ended up here shouting just as loud as Bulgarians were allowed (actually that I would have had more scope to defend that). That makes your view selective interpretation of when the rule should be enforced - i.e. only when it benefits you.

And while I thank you for your advice about how I should go about being 'fair', I can't help but notice that what you suggest would result in what you wanted in the first place. Whether you want that result for the financial reasons or simply to validate the anger you felt at what you perceived as mistreatment is irrelevant - you have too much invested in this situation to be considered impartial.

We're going round in circles here but I'll lay this out one last time;

Both parties have some degree of fault;

You broke a rule. I'd also point out that getting abusive with casino staff is a sure way to ensure they won't listen to you.

Casino Sieger were implementing an upgrade and got caught in the middle of that upgrade. Given the multiple stages to an upgrade like this (removing the IP restriction, updating the physical system to allow the new players to register, changing the terms and briefing staff), the reality is without taking the casino offline, there's always going to be a small lag in between these changes. The significant factor is that this was a removal of a restriction. They've not invented a new rule to deny a payout, they removed an old rule that allowed you to participate then and moving forward. I simply don't see that as unfair.

I'm going to call this here - we don't agree on this issue and I'm confident we could discuss it all day without shifting either opinion. As such further debate about it is simply drawing time from other tasks (like the other open complaints) that I need to deal with.

ThePOGG