Lucky 247 - confiscated my winnings

Hi grinder020123 - welcome to ThePOGG.com

Before I can do anything to help you I need you to provide me with the username and email address that you use at Lucky247. Once I have them I'll contact the casino and see what I can find out.

Thanks.

ThePOGG

Hi grinder020123,

I've received your details. Can you confirm for me the amount of voided funds?

Thanks

ThePOGG

Hi grinder020123,

Just to confirm I am in the process of discussing this issue with Lucky 247 and hope to have further information for you shortly.

Thanks

ThePOGG

Hi grinder020123,

I expect to have a final decision on this issue for you sometime next week at which point I'll give a more detailed explanation of what's been going on.

Thanks

ThePOGG

Hi grinder020123,

Lucky247 have informed me that you have been paid. Can you confirm this for me?

Thanks

ThePOGG

grinder020123 had confirmed that they have received payment.

I will close this complaint shortly.

ThePOGG

I’ve specifically been holding off on the publication of 3 complaints about Lucky247 until the last of them was resolved and I have to admit I’m very concerned that these cases were not the honest players that the individuals submitting them would represent. All 3 complaints revolved around confiscation of funds due to vague justifications of “bonus abuse”. That’s not a problem, after extended discussion with Lucky247, they agreed that their terms were not clear enough and relevant adjustments have been made. What does concern me is that 3 complaints of the same nature where submitted to ThePOGG.com in a relatively short space of time. Given that ThePOGG.com is the smallest of several choices players have for dispute mediation against casinos this leaves 4 possibilities; 1) Lucky247 had been widely enforcing vague terms very recently on a large number of players (a large sample would obviously make it more likely that several players may end up here). 2) Players experiencing similar issues submitted complaints after seeing the resolution of the first complaint. 3) After the first complaint was submitted and appeared to be moving to a positive conclusion, further players directly associated with the original complaint submitted complaints. 4) Coincidence. I can rule out options 1 and 2. I know exactly how many confiscations were made with these vague rules and these 3 complaints represented the majority of them (i.e. the sample size simply isn’t large enough for it to be likely that 3 separate player selected ThePOGG by chance). Alongside this I’ve looked at my competitor sites and no other similar complaints turned up anywhere else, providing further evidence that this was not a widespread practice at this casino. I also refrained from publishing any of the three complaints until now, so no-one other than the first complaint submitter would know that the first complaint was resolved. This only leaves options 3 and 4. Coincidence seems very unlikely which that leaves an undefined association between the accounts in these three cases the likely connecting factor. Add to this that the player in the original complainant was informed on the 1st of April that they would be paid and complaints 2 and 3 came in hot on the heels of this decision on the 8th and 16th of April and I feel that the likelihood of these players not being associated becomes very slim. If these accounts are not being run by the same individual under different names, I feel it’s highly likely that the players operating the accounts have a personal relationship with each other that has specifically not been disclosed to this site at the time they submitted their complaint. While the original justification for the seizures of funds were obviously not valid, collusion or multi-accounting is an absolutely valid justification for non-payment of winnings and in these cases there is – to my mind – a fairly strong indication that this has been taking place. If you choose to engage in this type of practice that’s your choice, but my service is not here to assist you. From this point on situations where I find suspicious associations between complaints are likely to be held against the submitting players. I will do my best to ensure that coincidental factors are ruled out but had I been aware of all of the facts prior to dealing with these complaints my recommendations to the casino would likely have been different. I will say that this is the first instance where I’ve felt the need to question the relationship between different complaints, so this is not a common issue to have arisen. You can view the other two complaints here ; http://thepogg.com/complaint/lucky-247-casino-not-want-pay-my-win/ http://thepogg.com/complaint/lucky-247-funds-confiscated-for-lowering-bet-size-despite-no-prohibitive-terms/ ThePOGG