Play2Win - player's evidence unconvincing

Hi fehutt - thanks for getting in contact.

This seems to be a fairly involved case. The first thing I would say is that by initiating a claim at your bank you've been involved with what is referred to as a 'charge back' - some players use this to attempt to defraud casinos by making a deposit, playing and if they lose claiming the money back through their banks stating they never made the deposit in the first place. As such, casinos view any player involved in such an action with extreme suspicion. Unquestionably this will be the reason for the hostile reaction you received from Play2Win.

For future reference - in a case like this it's advisable to contact the casino first in the case of a missing deposit and see if they can resolve it.

However the details of this case - assuming they are as you describe - obviously don't fit this profile and as such I'll need to do some evidence gathering, which I hope you'll cooperate fully with.

Firstly, what I'd like is for you to forward on to me the complete set of all emails between yourself and Play2Win - you can forward the emails to [email protected] I am familiar with BPP REP [EDIT - the casino rep you named], but as this issue has already be escalated to their casino manager, once I've received the emails I will start by trying to contact the casino manager if you can provide an email address.

Secondly, could you provide a link the the Casino Listings thread?

Finally, before I'll be able to go any further, I'll need you to submit your username and the email address you used to sign-up with Play2Win (don't worry - like the names and emails of the casino staff above, these will be edited out before this report is published).

Thanks

ThePOGG

Hi fehutt,

Firstly, thank you for forwarding your email communications with Play2Win and their various representatives alongside the documentation you submitted to them.

One piece of advice before I proceed - if you encounter any situation like this in future, ensure to edit enough of your personal information out so that the receiving party could not abuse your financial details (removing the middle digits in your account numbers etc). I'll ensure that all files are deleted when this complaint is closed.

We did manage to get in contact with BPP REP and for full transparency I'll include the complete email transcript. My email's are green, Play2Win's responses are purple;

Hi BPP REP,

We've received a complaint from [EDIT] a player (username [EDIT]) regarding seized winnings of $800.

The primary issue here appears to be that Mr. [EDIT] made a charge back through his bank for $51.75 on the 1/7 and Play2Win management are of the mind that they "cannot trust those who charged-back" (at this point I'm quoting directly from your response to CasinoListings.com). In general this is a fair conclusion - charge backs are used by fraudsters to claim back funds that they legitimately lost when playing with casinos.

However, as there are legitimate reasons for using a charge back service, each situation has to be examined in its own right to determine whether this was legitimately the case. In the case of Mr. [EDIT], he has forwarded to me all of the bank statements for the affected period and several other documents. In cases where fraudsters use charge backs to reclaim losses illegally, it would be expected that the person in question would either a) reclaim all payments or a substantial portion there of or b) reclaim the largest payment. In this situation neither of these appear to be the case. I'll list all of the transactions I could find in the bank statements below;

1/4 -$51.75 (the first deposit according to Mr. [EDIT] was never added to his account, but was debited from his bank)

1/4 -$51.75

1/7 +$51.75 (charge back)

1/7 -$51.82

1/7 -$51.82

1/9 -$51.82

1/9 -$51.82

1/11 -$51.85

1/14 -$103.73

1/14 -$62.24

1/14 -$51.87

1/14 -$51.87

1/14 -$51.87

1/14 -$51.87

1/15 -$25.93

1/15 -$25.93

1/16 -$31.14

1/16 -$31.14

1/17 - Mr. [EDIT] claims a credit was made to his account approximately the size of the missing withdrawal from the 1/4 but no funds were taken from his bank account

1/22 -$25.97

1/22 -$25.97

Given that the charge back was issued for only one deposit on a day where 2 deposits were made, that there are days afterwards where far more was deposited and no charge backs were made, that its only been an issue on one out of 17 deposits most of which happened after the charge back and that it wasn't even for the largest deposit nor for a substantial portion of the overall amount deposited, it seems to me that Mr. [EDIT] doesn't fit the profile for a fraudster. Alongside this, as I've seen no correspondence from either Play2Win, SK or yourself that disputes the claim that only one of the two deposits made on the 1/4 were actually credited to the account, it would appear that the player had a legitimate reason for making a charge back and when it was highlighted to him that the charge back was the issue, even went as far as reversing it with his bank and furnishing Play2Win with a letter confirming this.

Now I appreciate that I'm only getting one side of the story here and understand that any casino accepting US customers has to take a hard line on customers who issue charge backs, so I'm hoping that you can provide Play2Wins' perspective and we can take this matter from there.

ThePOGG

Hi ThePOGG,

Thanks for the heads up.

This player is classified as Fraud player and complained rude in several forums:

hxxp://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/play2win-casino-wont-pay-me-out-c2220

This fraud player is classified within all Rival casinos as Fraud.

Best, BPP REP

Hi BPP REP - thanks for getting back to me.

I'm afraid that's a bit of a circular argument; any player that issues a charge back at a Rival casino - regardless of whether the charge back is or a legitimate for fraudulent reason - is added to the Rival fraud list, so using the fact that the player is on the Rival fraud list doesn't really justify the situation.

Moreover, as I don't have access to the Rival fraud list I would have to take your word for this. As an impartial mediator I cannot take either you or the players word for anything, there needs to be proof. The player has already provided substantial evidence that the charge back was issued for legitimate reasons and as such refusing the payout due to this charge back isn't justified. What I need from you if you want my report to reflect Play2Win positively, is for you to provide physical evidence to validate your claim that the player is fraudulent. Is there anything more substantial to this case than the charge back issued on the 1/4?

As to the player being rude - at the point where we're now 3 months past the point where (unless there is something more substantial to this issue) he should have been paid and considering the number of emails I've been forwarded that were sent to Play2Win support with no response and the rude treatment they claim to have received from one of Play2Win's live chat operators, I think it's understandable that they've become frustrated and rude themselves. Polite behaviour has to extend both ways, if the player is expected to behave in a polite fashion, the casino also have to ensure that their staff remain professional at all time and that they respond to the player's correspondence within a reasonable time frame.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

ThePOGG

There is nothing to be discussed here ThePOGG, all is clearly said and done here.

Best, BPP REP

As I'm sure you can see from the above correspondence, it seems unlikely that we will make any further progress with this issue, which leaves us no choice but to find for the player in this case.

The important factors in reaching this decision are listed below;

[X] In this situation, user fehutt provided us with ample justification to support making a charge back - that being that the funds were not credited to their account within a reasonable time frame after the deposit. Had Play2Win been able to show that the funds had in fact been credited to fehutt's account, our conclusion here would be very different.

[X] Alternatively, had Play2Win been able to provided evidence that disputed the transaction logs the player provided, this would have reflected on them more favorably.

[X] Moreover, the deposit pattern that fehutt displayed is not - to our mind - in any way indicative of a player attempting to commit fraud. The charge back in question is actually of an insubstantial size compared to the overall size and frequency of deposits.

[X] The sole supporting claim for their action that Play2Win provided was that the player had been added to the Rival fraud list, something we have no way or verifying but see no reason to doubt. We checked with the AskGamblers complaint that BPP REP referenced and found this statement; "After checking on the phone calls, chats, and emails, and right after the charge-back; Rival has banned this player from all Rival casinos." - as the player has been added to the Rival fraud list and banned at all Rival casinos as a consequence of the charge back in this case it is not then valid to use the fact that they are on the Rival fraud list to validate the seizure of winnings in this case, that's circular reasoning. As the justification for the charge back appears valid and Play2Win has not contested this, having been added to the Rival fraud list fails to justify Play2Win's actions.

[X] Furthermore, the above quote states that the player was banned from all Rival casinos and added to the fraud list "right after the charge-back". The charge-back in question was actioned on the 7th of January. Allowing the Monday the 7th through to the Wednesday the 9th of January for this action to take place, 13 transactions took place in the 14 days following the 9th. If the player was banned at all Rival casinos, "right after" the charge-back, these transactions should never have been processed by Play2Win casino.

[X] Again assuming that fehutt was banned due to their charge-back on the 7th all subsequent deposits which the casino accepted (17 separate deposits totaling $798.66) were all made into not just a no win situation, but a guaranteed loss situation - i.e. the moment the player deposited the money they had no chance of receiving any funds back, not deposit or winnings.

All in all, Play2Win's response to this issue has been inadequate on every level and over and above their poor treatment of fehutt, their failure to engage with dispute mediation not only is a direct contradiction of the assurances we received from BPP REP not even two weeks before writing this report, it's a huge black mark on their record with this site.

This whole issue basically boils down to Play2Win not liking players who initiate charge backs and then punishing fehutt for his $50 charge back by taking over $800 (once the reversed charge back is considered). There is not a reasonable court anywhere that this would deem this an appropriate response, even if fehutt was guilty. Proportionality has been thrown out of the window and the prosecution has been allowed to decide what appropriate recompense is with no oversight. This leads to the questions, had fehutt not won when he did and tried to make a withdrawal, just how much would Play2Win have allow fehutt to deposit knowing that they were never going to pay out anything? And how many other Play2Win players are currently depositing with no chance of receiving any withdrawals?

As a result of this dispute when considered alongside the previous negative history of the BestPay Partners venues (Play2Win, 21Grand and Supreme Play) and the less than professional attitude we've encountered in previous communications with BestPay Partners we've decided to add all of their venues to our blacklist.

This decision can be reversed at any point where BestPay Partners step up to the plate and properly engage with our dispute mediation service or when they can present evidence to support the allegations they've made against fehutt.

Since the original report was published on this issue BestPay Partners/Play2Win have approached us and offered to engage fully with the mediation process to allow their side of this issue to be represented. It should be noted at this stage that due to non-disclosure agreements, I cannot publish the various pieces of evidence submitted by Play2Win. At the same time this is no barrier as for personal security and privacy reasons I will not publish the various documents submitted by fehutt.

The evidence shown to us by Play2Win includes the transaction history on fehutt’s account, which does not correspond with the deposit records shown to us in the form of bank records by fehutt. The Play2Win system shows the first deposit by fehutt being made on the 30th of December 2012 which triggered the Play2Win sign-up bonus, a series of deposits between the 19th and the 21st of January that were denied due to being slightly under the minimum deposit accepted by Play2Win and the charge-back being issued to Play2Win on the 6th of February using the same identification number as the initial deposit.

Obviously this completely contradicts the transaction history that fehutt provided us with. There are a few factors to take into consideration with regard to the evidence submitted fehutt. Firstly, rather than scanned bank statements actually mailed out by the bank, the transaction logs were scanned copies of a printed transaction history downloaded from an online banking system. As such, this would have been a text file that could have been edited. The second factor to consider is that many of the casinos currently serving US customers use the same payment processor. As such deposits to any of these casinos would result in the same company being listed on a bank statement. Finally and most importantly two of the deposits that fehutt's submissions showed - both on the 15th of January for $25.93 - fall below the minimum deposit accepted by Play2Win ($30). This strongly suggests that these deposits could not have happened regardless of what fehutt claims.

Given the credibility of fehutt's evidence has been undermined, we are going to mark this case as 'Found for the Casino'. We can't say with 100% confidence that the players claims are completely unfounded, but given the clear anomalies in fehutt's evidence and the credible evidence submitted by Play2Win this seems the justified conclusion.

Why was "the poggs" decision reversed simply by the submission of deposit records provided by Play2Win? Do I not get the opportunity to supply records from my bank itemizing each debit from my account by the casino? The copies I provided were from my banks website, completely accurate and I assure you, not altered in any way. I protest the insinuation. Prior to my account being locked out by the casino, I contacted "live chat" and went over each and every deposit with their representative. The only discrepancies being, on 1/4/13 my account showing two debits for $$51.75 compared to their records showing one deposit of $51.74.(bank statements are dated by when the bank processes the transaction hence the difference from actual deposit dates). The charge back was initiated due to this extra debit from my account. The other difference being a deposit showing in the casinos records of $51.75 on 1/17/13 which never happened as shown by my bank records. That was it. All other transactions were confirmed by both records of my banks and the casinos records, including the "below minimum deposit' records on 1/15/13 of $25.93 and $25.93 and on 1/22/13 of $25.97 and $25.97. Why these were accepted by the casino is beyond me. I object to the statement of"the pogg" made, "This strongly suggests that these deposits could not have happened regardless of what fehutt claims." As I stated earlier, each and every deposit was went over with me and a "representative on live chat." Are there no records or transcripts of phone calls or "live chat". There are many ways to back up statements and I find it very questionable why Play2Win has refused to provide such evidence. What prevents a casino from accepting deposits below their minimum deposit requirements? If a casino will falsify deposit records, accepting money less than their rules require, is not surprising to me. What is surprising is the fact that "the pogg" has back peddled disregarding their own findings stated in their second correspondence to Play2Win. Them being..."[X]user fehutt provided us with ample justification to support making a charge back" "[X] Moreover, the deposit pattern that fehutt displayed is not – to our mind – in any way indicative of a player attempting to commit fraud. The charge back in question is actually of an insubstantial size compared to the overall size and frequency of deposits "[X] as the player has been added to the Rival fraud list and banned at all Rival casinos as a consequence of the charge back in this case it is not then valid to use the fact that they are on the Rival fraud list to validate the seizure of winnings in this case, that’s circular reasoning. As the justification for the charge back appears valid and Play2Win has not contested this, having been added to the Rival fraud list fails to justify Play2Win’s actions. "[X] Furthermore, the above quote states that the player was banned from all Rival casinos and added to the fraud list “right after the charge-back”. The charge-back in question was actioned on the 7th of January. Allowing the Monday the 7th through to the Wednesday the 9th of January for this action to take place, 13 transactions took place in the 14 days following the 9th. If the player was banned at all Rival casinos, “right after” the charge-back, these transactions should never have been processed by Play2Win casino." [X] Again assuming that fehutt was banned due to their charge-back on the 7th all subsequent deposits which the casino accepted (17 separate deposits totaling $798.66) were all made into not just a no win situation, but a guaranteed loss situation – i.e. the moment the player deposited the money they had no chance of receiving any funds back, not deposit or winnings. "This whole issue basically boils down to Play2Win not liking players who initiate charge backs and then punishing fehutt for his $50 charge back by taking over $800 (once the reversed charge back is considered). There is not a reasonable court anywhere that this would deem this an appropriate response, even if fehutt was guilty. Proportionality has been thrown out of the window and the prosecution has been allowed to decide what appropriate recompense is with no oversight. This leads to the questions, had fehutt not won when he did and tried to make a withdrawal, just how much would Play2Win have allow fehutt to deposit knowing that they were never going to pay out anything? And how many other Play2Win players are currently depositing with no chance of receiving any withdrawals?" I have to ask myself. Why would "the pogg" disregard all of their prior determinations with the submittable of deposit records provided by the casino? This casino was issuing statements such as "There is nothing to be discussed here ThePOGG, all is clearly said and done here. Best, BPP REP Until then they were going to be "blacklisted". Wow!! then all of a sudden they come up with deposit records? Why have they not simply provided these documents earlier in this dispute? I challenge the casino to submit collaborating evidence verifying the authenticity of their deposit records. I'm no casino manager but I would think that with today's technology the casino could review each and every game play that was ever done with my account. At first I thought that "thepogg" seemed very knowledgeable, objective and thorough in their investigations. To remain a trusted, non-bias, review site genuinely determined in resolving complaints honestly and fairly for both parties involved "the pogg" should give the opportunity for both parties to respond or submit evidence before making a determination and closing the complaint. This complaint has escalated from a non payment issue into an issue of slander and disrespect. [This has only been left in as I assume it to be directed at this website rather than Play2Win] I can assure you they will not get another penny out of me or my friends and I hope, anyone who sees the facts of this complaint. Oh Well,

Hi fehutt,

There are several misinterpretations in your post. I also want to be clear that I've edited out many of the accusations you've made and more volatile language as they are not backed up by the the evidence I've seen.

This ruling was not solely based on the evidence that Play2Win submitted - in fact it was your own submissions and nothing to do with their evidence that ultimately caused this change of rule. While what they submitted would directly contradict your own submissions, that would only have resulted in an 'Unresolved' ruling. What swung the decision was the realisation that the automatic systems that are built in to the Rival platform that Play2Win are using likely would not allow the deposits you claim to have made.

Alongside this I have not asked for email/live chat records from Play2Win. All that they have provided me with are some screen shots of their back end system that show the various account/transaction histories I asked about.

We have tested the Play2Win depositing system to see what happens when you try and make a deposit of less than $30. The following videos shows this - one calibrated to be worth slightly more than the $25 you claim to have deposited and the other showing 25 units in our local currency;

As these videos clearly show, the Play2Win software automatically rejects deposit that are lower than 30 currency units, which obviously makes your claims of having made 2 deposits of $25 - and the bank statements you used to verify said deposits - highly questionable.

I'm sorry that you're unhappy with this decision, but the above undermines the credibility of all of the bank statements that you submitted. Given that Play2Win also stepped forward to discuss the complaint and provided all the evidence I requested to support their own actions - none of which I have any reason to question the validity of at this juncture - I have one party who's evidence has crumbled under closer examination and another who's evidence seems legitimate. As such the only fair thing to do is to rule in favor of the party with the strongest evidence.

All of the above statements that you quoted were based on the integrity of your banking evidence. The number and pattern of your deposits was all based on this, as was the charge-back evidence. Basically the entire case rested on that evidence being accurate. Given the above videos, I have no choice but to ignore the evidence you submitted regarding your bank statements.

I'd also add that the delays in response and initial refusal to discuss this issue are far from unusual. Within the corporate structure it's far from unusual for an issue like this one to take time to escalate to the people who are authorized to deal with/discuss it. 'BPP REP' ultimately did not end up being the person who contacted us to provide Play2Win's side of the story and the evidence to support it. It is unfortunate that sometimes it requires a negative report to be published before the right member of a casino's management steps forward to discuss the issue, however it's far from unusual within this industry.

At this point, if you can provide video evidence of the Play2Win system accepting a deposit of less than $30 I will be happy to consider it. You can get free screen recording software by doing a google search for Camtasia.

I do have to warn you however, that given the ruling if you make further allegations against Play2Win without credible new evidence I will be forced to suspend your account.

ThePOGG

Dear Sirs,

I do appreciate your editing of any volatile language I may have included in my post.

I do stand behind all allegations I have made about Play2Win Casino.

I did compare each and every deposit with a Play2Win casino representative and found only two discrepancies, as stated earlier. The deposit discrepancies were on 1/4/13 and 1/17/13 (as dated on my bank statement).

You stated that my whole case was based on the integrity of my banking evidence and that since it was copied from an online summary it could have been edited.

I can not provide evidence of the Play2Win system accepting deposits less than $30.00. Possibly, as you have said, other casinos could use the same processor indicated on my bank statement. I can not reason that possibility since the four deposits less than $30.00 were included in the comparison of deposits I did with the casino representative.

I don't recall the minimum deposit requirements at the time I played and know nothing about Rival software.

.

I can provide copies of original banking statements which I will acquire and forward to you on 4/29/13.

Please compare the bank statements I am sending with the deposit records of the casino and make a judgement.

Any and all derogatory statements I've made were directed solely at the casino.

Sincerely, fehutt

Hi fehutt,

First let me be clear - I do understand your frustration with a decision you clearly feel to be wrong and don't question your right to make derogatory statements, if you choose to, about this site. I'm not saying you have, simply that it would be an understandable reaction. What I can't allow is accusations that contradict the ruling and could get this site in legal trouble. Legally I'm responsible for the content that is published on this site. I cannot be seen to support accusations against a casino that are not backed up with clear evidence. That's the reason I moderate posts. Thank you for your understanding.

Thank you also for submitting the bank statements as scanned documents. However, while they do reflect the previous printed banking history, they don't provide a stronger platform for determining the outcome of this case than the Play2Win automated system.

I have to take into consideration several things here and the most significant of these is that Play2Win never pointed this out as an error. In the transaction history they showed me - which does not bare any resemblance to the documents you've submitted - the only transactions shown are the first deposit, a few declined transactions (under the minimum deposit) around the end of January and the charge-back in February. They made no reference to the documents you had submitted what-so-ever. I was in the process of writing up a new conclusion which would have shifted this case to 'Unresolved' as I had no reason to question either parties submission and no way to determine which was the truth out of two highly divergent stories, when it occurred to me that the rejected deposits towards the end of January were of a similar size to two of the deposits you've listed. At which point I had one of my reviewers test the Play2Win system and confirm that they do automatically reject deposits less that 30 currency units.

Given that Play2Win were not the ones to point this issue out, I consider it to be highly unlikely that they have changed there minimum deposit restrictions due to this complaint. They would have had no way of knowing that we would test their systems.

There are two possible - though I consider them to be unlikely - reasons that our reviewer's testing could be flawed. Firstly they used a different deposit method and secondly they are from a different geographic location. I can't see any reason why either of these would make any difference to a standard rule that is clearly listed on their site, but they are the only factors I can think of.

At this stage, moving this case forward would unquestionably require the submission of video evidence showing that the automated system would allow deposits of less that $30. Obviously I understand that your account is locked, but you could achieve this through any 3rd party willing to help you out by making a deposit for you (to be clear here, the 3rd party would have to do everything - I'm certainly not encouraging you to sign-up under someone else's name).

However I'm not convinced this is worth your while.

If I was to receive evidence clearly demonstrating that the Play2Win system could accept deposits of less than $30, it would once again leave me in the situation where I have two sets of directly contradictory evidence and no way to determine which represents the true story. In other words the case would be moved to an 'Unresolved' status.

You may feel for personal reasons that this would be worth the effort and if you do I'll be happy to assist you, but I completely understand if you do not.

ThePOGG

Dear Sirs,

Let us assume that I am wrong about the deposits of less than $30.00 being deposited at Play2Win. Let us say that those deposits were made at a different casino user the same processor name.

Now, how is this relevant to the complaint on hand?

It seems that the casinos "play history" would resolve any questions regarding deposits, withdrawal requests, or anything else.

I did not keep a log of dates, times, or play at the casino and I'm sure that if I had, it would be unacceptable as evidence.

It seems to me that this complaint has shifted away from what is pertinent and has become focused on unrelated issues. I really can't understand what the lower than minimum deposits have much to do with the casino keeping $800.00 of my money.

Remember that the casino manager admitted owing me the money and promised to payout when the charge-back was canceled. The charge-back was canceled (even though it was legit) and there was no payout. I feel that this is the real issue that should be addressed.

I want to thank you for your efforts in resolving this dispute and I feel that your site is the most thorough and determined site that I have found in trying to resolve issues between the players and the casinos.

I feel that most (if not all) casinos that are now open to USA players are well below the standards of reputable casinos and I will refrain from playing until the US government allows its citizens free choice and access to all gambling sites.

Thank you again for your help and I will recommend your site highly to anyone needing mediation.

Sincerely, Fehutt

Hi fehutt,

Firstly let me thank you for your praise - I do my best but ultimately it's not always possible to make everyone happy in all cases. In this particular case neither party has walked away happy as Play2Win feel that if I've ruled for them this was a non-issue and we should remove the complaint completely. The praise is far more meaningful for coming from someone who should rightly be a critic.

The issues with the bank records are as follows; the evidence provided by yourself and Play2Win is completely contradictory regarding the facts. They contest every deposit other than the first and the contest the date of that. If we assume that the two deposits of less than $30 were mistakes and were to another casino, it leaves me in the predicament that I can no longer tell with any degree of certainty - given that all the stated deposits were processed by the same processor - which deposits actually went to Play2Win and which were mistakes. Basically the entire deposit history that you've presented becomes easily contestable while there's no reason I can see at the moment to question the account history that Play2Win shared.

As to play history, for January - given the lack of deposits on your account - Play2Win are simply going to say that there is no play history. As one last effort to put this to bed I will ask later today about the play history for December, but I suspect as I did not remove this report entirely, much of the goodwill I had has been burned.

I agree that there is a greater degree of risk when playing with a casino that accepts US customers. The basic rule here is that charge-backs will instantly makes you toxic to a US facing casino. Unlike other casinos who can contest charge-backs legitimately, US facing casinos can't as that would involve revealing to the bank what they are doing and as such having their entire operation shut down. As such, if you are going to play with US facing venues the best advice I can give you is don't use the phrase "charge-back" until all other avenues have been exhausted. Talk to customer service, talk to mediators, talk to their regulator - all of this before even saying "charge-back". The bottom line is that I've seen numerous cases where players have been denied winnings simply for saying "if you don't pay me I'm going to issue a charge-back" during a live chat/email.

Any hint of a charge-back is usually enough for a US facing casino to - at least in their own mind - justify refusing to pay. That's the hard truth to playing online in the US.

ThePOGG

As I suspected, Play2Win regard this matter as closed. To gain permission to release any information what-so-ever related to the back end system that Play2Win use, they have to go through an extensive bureaucratic process to justify the reasons for needing to do so to their software provider Rival. I can confirm that this was part of the reason they did not engage immediately and also was at least partly responsible for some delays once they did come back to the table. At this point in time they do not feel there is sufficient justification to engage with this process or to realistically gain permission from Rival.

At this stage, while it would have been convenient to review the game logs, I can understand Play2Win's frustration. Threads like this one can damage them by ranking well for terms related to their business. From their perspective, clearly the objective was to engage with mind to having this thread removed (though I would point out that they never clearly stated that's what they were expecting and I never gave any indication that was a possibility). As such they feel that after engaging in good faith the amount that they've actually managed to achieve in the way of reputational damage prevention is limited.

I see things differently as I feel that I've more than adequately represented the casino when the evidence supported them and furthermore the existence of this thread demonstrates that when push comes to shove they are willing to discuss player issue - something that to my mind is a huge positive.

The short version is that I can understand why they feel that further man hours spent on this issue are unlikely to benefit them any further than what has been spent already.

ThePOGG

In your response to me dated 4/28/2013 you stated that "if I could provide video evidence of the Play2Win system accepting a deposit of less than $30.00 you would be happy to reconsider your decision". I don't have "video evidence, however, I do have a Security Document sent to me from Play2Win which requests my certification of my purchases at the "casino". This document includes record numbers and dates of my deposits, issued by Play2Win including deposits of less tha $30.00. Why this was overlooked six years ago, I don't know. I rest my case. Security Documents Request Yahoo / emails to and from play2win Play2Win Faxbacks To: [EDIT] Mar 9, 2013 at 1:20 PM Dear [EDIT], In order to maintain high levels of player and casino security, and according to our terms and conditions, we kindly request that you submit the following documents to [email protected] Please attach the files in JPG format or they may be rejected. Alternatively, you may fax the documents to 1-866-362-2864. Please make sure to write your username and "Play2Win Casino" on all the documents. Hereinafter, ('THE CASINO') refers to all merchant accounts used by THE CASINO to receive payments from Frank Hutton ('THE PLAYER') We require that you certify your purchases at THE CASINO. Please sign beside each transaction. Transaction Date Amount Method Initial 205344410294968 [21 Jan 2013] $ 25.00 Credit Card __________ 205344410142984 [21 Jan 2013] $ 25.00 Credit Card _ _________ 205344392268590 [15 Jan 2013] $ 30.00 Credit Card __________ 205344391445468 [14 Jan 2013] $ 30.00 Credit Card __________ 205344389088134 [14 Jan 2013] $ 25.00 Credit Card __________ 205344389078280 [14 Jan 2013] $ 25.00 Credit Card __________ 205344384113010 [12 Jan 2013] $ 50.00 Credit Card __________ 205344383878947 [12 Jan 2013] $ 50.00 Credit Card __________ 205344383802471 [12 Jan 2013] $ 100.00 Credit Card __________ 205344380935816 [11 Jan 2013] $ 60.00 Credit Card __________ 205344380798229 [11 Jan 2013] $ 50.00 Credit Card __________ 205344380653953 [11 Jan 2013] $ 50.00 Credit Card __________ 205344375945967 [09 Jan 2013] $ 50.00 Credit Card __________ 205344372325833 [08 Jan 2013] $ 50.00 Credit Card __________ 20534 4369205181 [06 Jan 2013] $ 50.00 Credit Card __________ 205344348011245 [17 Jan 2013] $ 50.00 Credit Card __________ By completing and signing this form you hereby authorize these transactions. If any credit cards were used, please also attach a scan of the front and back of the card used. I, THE PLAYER, do certify that the following transactions were authorized by me to be paid to THE CASINO. Username ____________________ Address ____________________ City ____________________ Postal/Zip ____________________ Province/State ____________________ Country ____________________ Home Phone ____________________ Cell Phone ____________________ Work Phone ____________________ Please print your full name _____________________ , today's date _____________________ . I certify all information that I have provided is accurate. Signed ___ . Once these documents have been received, our security department will review them and forward the outcome to our auditing department. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, [EDIT] Support Manager Play2WinCasino.com [email protected] International: +44-20-8144-5572 Germany: +49-89-235-14722 France: +33-977-195-322 Spain: +34-912-901-420 US: +1 855 558 1717 Play2WinCasino.com Click to unsubscribe.