Lucky Thrillz – terms changed.

Hi jimbo999 - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

I'm afraid you appear to be confuse. We are not a casino not have we confiscated anything from you.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

No I know you havent, its lucky thrillz that have confiscated my money, which is why I selected that casino

Thanks

Hi jimbo999,

I've had time to discuss this issue in full with the operator.

As things currently stand, your non-payment has nothing to do with the change in terms though admittedly your play would be in violation of the new term.

The issue relates to a very large number of accounts signing up across this network of operators in a short space of time that all share very similar activity and behaviour profiles and most notably all chose to employ the same highly abnormal betting strategy.

The style of play that you've chosen is unusual enough that to have two players select it at the same time would be remarkable. Where there are dozens of accounts choosing to play this strategy it's very clear that this isn't coincidence and something is connecting the activity on these accounts.

As such I need you to explain to me why you've chosen the same abnormal betting pattern as so many other accounts?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi, thanks for the response.

I'm a bit suprised at this to be honest. I've no idea what an 'abnormal betting strategy' actually means as all I have done is play their slots and made sure I followed their terms in force at the time.

However, if that is the case, then why have they not told me this before? All I have been told is that I broke the terms because I exceeded a maximum line bet of £0.50. The issue, as far as I can see it, is that this casino has deliberately amended their terms and conditions to their advantage and decided to confiscate my earlier win based on these terms. This makes anything the casino have to say as totally unreliable and dishonest in my opinion.

I have no interest in how anyone else at this casino plays their games, and if they happen to play in a similar way to me then that's not my fault. Their terms are so restrictive anyway that I'm sure a lot of people, who don't read casino terms as closely as I do, will end up losing any winnings.

This casino has bombarded me daily with deposit bonus offers and I simply took them up on these. I've also lost a lot of money from playing exactly the same strategy yet the casino has decided not to refund these losing deposits either. This puts me in a lose lose situtation and makes the whole gambling industry look like a bunch of crooks.

I really hope The Pogg can liaise sensibly and professionally with this casino to ensure a fair and sensible outcome is achieved.

Hi jimbo999,

Your opinion isn't relevant to this issue. WE have reviewed both your activity at this operator and that of a large number of other accounts. It is simply implausible that so many account all selected what is very obviously an abnormal betting pattern without any interaction between account holders or correlating factors initiating said patterns.

So I ask again, why have you selected the betting pattern you have and why have so many other accounts done the same?

ThePOGG

Thanks for the reply

You've stated my opinion isn't relevant to this issue, yet you and the casino are still ignoring the main point of my complaint. Why has the casino changed their terms and conditions after my win and applied them restrospectively as justification to confiscate?

This is the reason they gave me. Abnormal betting patterns have never been mentioned to me directly so why didn't they give me the chance to challenge this at the time? It seems they are content with brushing me off with factually incorrect reasons that would not hold up in court.

I'm sure a casino could extract and manipulate their data to show any 'abnormal' betting patterns they wanted to. Let's look at the facts of their offers.

1) They email and telephone daily with bonus offer reloads. Far more than any other operator I've played at. They are clearly eager to engage with their customers
2) All bonuses carry a maximum single bet of £5. That in itself will limit the number of choices availble to customers and create common 'betting patterns' more often than not.
3) A £300 bonus for a £300 deposit will take a long time to play out at £5 spins where you are covering all lines on a slot
4) Recommendations on how to play these types of offer, including on your own site, exist across numerous gambling forums. Are you saying the very act of discussing these recommendations publically is fraudulent?
5) I prefer to play big spins and therefore have to reduce the number of lines on my slot to compensate for the low max £5 limit.
6) Only a couple of slots let me drop the slots lines down anyway.

So again I can't be held responsible for why other people play in a similar way to me. Although it's not hard to imagine given the limited play options to begin with. In any case, I'm not concerned with other players as they can argue their own case if they are in the same unfortunate position as I seem to now be in. The casino's agreement is with me and no other parties are of concern.

So the casino continues to hide behind false breaking of terms and refuses to honour the agreement I signed up to and followed. Perhaps the casino feels they've been outsmarted by gamblers more intelligent than themselves and weren't ever prepared to have to pay out any winnings against their restrictive bonuses.

I've had the chance to take some unoffical legal advice on this and will be taking further action based on their recommendations. I will certainly be detailing this case to the UK Gambling Commission who are currently very focused on rogue casino behaviour.

I've never had so much trouble with a casino before and any complaint I've had has been quickly and fairly dealt with. I'm all in favour of fair play and that both sides should agree to playing by the rules. I've met my obligations and now it's time for the casino to meet theirs. I look forward to your final response before I escalate to the next level.

Kind regards

Hi jimbo999,

You can feel free to escalate this however you see fit. However, despite your lengthy response you have not provided what I asked for. In fact you've done everything but answer the question. Without that our involvement in your case stops.

I am saying directly that whether or not the operator provided you with an accurate reason for non-payment is irrelevant as long as there is a valid justification for said non-payment. A breach of terms is a breach of terms and as things stand the most likely explanations for the factors we've seen are that you've engaged in activity that would be clearly prohibited by either terms or law. You may not be in violation of the term quoted, but all the indications are that you ARE in violation of more serious rules.

They have changed their terms because a large number of accounts appear to have engaged in collusion/fraud applying a strategy that is highly unusual. Rather than allow this to continue they have adjusted their terms to provide a stronger rule set - and multiple violations - where further accounts are opened in this manner.

The facts are very straight forward here - you chose EXACTLY the same strategy as dozens of other accounts in a very short space of time alongside EXACTLY the same game as multiple other complainants that have submitted complaints to this service in the same time period. Our team has NEVER seen a single complainant come through using the strategy you applied. That we've seen multiple complainants all using this strategy at a single group in the space of less than 2 weeks would make for something remarkable. That there are dozens of other accounts associated with this activity that the operator can provide information on demonstrates beyond question that these accounts are not functioning independently of each other.

This isn't coincidence. There is some factor here that is very clearly accounting for so many accounts choosing to implement the same strategy at the same time. There are a limited number of potential explanations for that and the majority of those would be either in breach of the terms and conditions you agreed to or illegal. I have asked you repeatedly now to offer an explanation that would fall outside those categories. As stated previously unless that is forthcoming we will take no further part in the representation of your case. It is your choice - provide a verifiable reason that would legitimately explain your strategy choice outside of collusion/fraud or this conversation has reached its conclusion.

ThePOGG