Online Casino News

Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino claims a “malfunction” and voids entire slot jackpot

The Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Tampa, Florida, is owned by the Seminole Indian tribe. Indian casinos are not known for the tightness of their regulatory procedures, and are not governed by US state regulations.


A Florida resident recently found himself victim of this traditional tribal laxity after a decision to not pay him any part of a slot jackpot, in spite of apparently hitting the winning combination.

$166 million win was slot malfunction

A Daytona Beach man thought he hit the jackpot. He thought he won $166 million on a slot machine at the very popular Hard Rock Hotel and Casino near I-4 in Tampa.

However, as soon as the crowds departed, the celebration ended. The casino told him that he didn't win a thing. The casino claims the slot machine malfunctioned.

(more)

Although the $160,000,000 sum was clearly wrong if the machine's maximum payout was in fact $99,000, why was he not paid that $99,000? He presumably hit the winning combination in order to trigger the jackpot.


It seems a convenient way of avoiding any large payouts: set the jackpot winning sum to an amount in excess of the game's posted maximum payout; then, when the jackpot is hit, invoke the "malfunction voids all wins" clause and claw back the entire win.


Maybe the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino is not somewhere you want to risk playing for slot jackpots - you might find yourself on the receiving end of another such "malfunction".


On a related note, the Seminole Indians appear to be butting heads with the local legislature over issues of permits for gambling machines - see the Seminole gaming talks at impasse article, from the same publication.


The gambling industry continues to impress.

Post a Comment

The APCW and Microgaming: mission to highlight and condemn provider's failure to support customers of Tusk Gaming, Eurolinx and Grand Privè

Online casino software provider Microgaming has had a turbid couple of years, in which the aftermath of the failure of two big pokerrooms and the closure of a large affiliate programme has seen both player customers and affiliate business partners vocal in their criticism and condemnation of the company.


The troubles began in February 2008, with the collapse of casino and poker operator Tusk Investment Corporation; I reported the matter in my licensee in liquidation article, and there were discussions at the 2+2 poker forums, in both the Microgaming skins closure and Microgaming poker scandal threads.


A year and a half later, high-profile pokerroom Eurolinx collapsed. I wrote up the story in my Eurolinx article, and the matter was extensively covered in the Eurolinx withdrawl problems thread at 2+2; that discussion is ongoing, as is the Eurolinx thread at Casinomeister.


Another interesting matter, rearing is head at the same time as the collapse, was posted by Eurolinx business partner Marc "myst" Karam - see his my Eurolinx story. Here are some revealing quotes from Karam's account:

Last June, 2008, the owner, Jo Remme, asked me to borrow money. They said they were tight on funds and wanted to do an advertising campaign at last year's WSOP...

Around two months ago, Jo tells me they are having some financial difficulties and that they will have to grind their way through it before moving...

Here are at least two allusions to financial trouble, but Microgaming was apparently none the wiser.


In neither Tusk nor Eurolinx case has Microgaming paid more than lip service to the matter, maintaining almost total silence for the most part in spite of what appear to have been woefully lax controls on either licensee: Tusk Gaming was clearly in financial strife some time before its final collapse, and it emerged that Eurolinx owner Jo Remme had the sort of chequered past that should surely have disqualified him from ever running a Microgaming pokerroom - to say nothing of the financial strife admitted by Remme to Marc Karam. Microgaming was apparently unaware of their prospective licensee's history; as such, their research and background checking seems to have been found badly wanting.


Between these two licensee collapses, whose cost to players I conservatively estimate at USD $10,000,000, Microgaming casino group Grand Privé decided to close its affiliate programme, sever all relations with its webmaster business partners and pay them no further affiliate commission.

This would be all well and good if the casinos were also closing, as there would then be no more player income and nothing owed to anyone. However, the casinos were not closing - all were to remain open. Grand Privé's plan was simply to renege on the commission agreement with their partners and stop paying affiliate income to those same webmasters whose sites had sent players to the casinos in the first place, and without whom the casinos would not have made that money.

A bad case of biting the hands that feed you.


The matter was discussed at various affiliate organisations - see the battle against Grand Privé, Grand Privé predatory behaviour and Grand Prive snubs the affiliate community threads.

(I also raised the matter in my Grand Prive affiliate problem article, where I focussed my jaundiced eye on affiliate apathy rather than the injustice of the matter - Grand Privé was a bad group, and promoting them was always asking for trouble in my estimation.)


In the interests of refreshing the subject matter, I've taken longer than usual to come to the main point of this article. Time to get back on track:


The APCW, formerly the "Association of Professional Casino Webmasters" and now renamed "Association of Players, Casinos and Webmasters" and owned by the GPWA, has been taking a proactive stance with regard to Microgaming's apparent indifference to the plight of the customers of Tusk Gaming, Eurolinx and Grand Privé.


The organisation runs a weekly ten-minute video show, Perspectives weekly, which over the last few weeks has included videos directly related to Microgaming customer apathy.

The "Can't Lift A Finger" show contains a parody of a country & west song; here are some select highlights:

We're watchin' Eurolinx and Tusk go down,
And Microgaming never makes a sound.
Seems to me that they could have stepped up.
Won't lift a finger cuz their thumbs up their butt!

Now we know Microgaming used to be
The highest standard of integrity.
I may sound crazy but it seems to me
These guys got misplaced priorities!

It's like their ethics were replaced by greed!
They turn a profit while the rest of us bleed?
We're gettin' screwed by folks at Grand Prive
And Microgaming's still got nuthin' to say.

When trouble comes they just look away.
With players hurtin' they got nothin' to say.
They're sittin' phat, but we're out of luck.
The whole damn situation sucks!

The October 30th show also talks about the Microgaming issue, and the project was discussed in the APCW sneak preview thread at GPWA.


It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this.


For myself, I'll be trying to have words with Microgaming at the IGE 2010 in London early next year.


There might be a long queue.

Post a Comment

Sportsbook.com: $2500 confiscated and a long history of theft from players

Sportsbook.com is the parent operation of a large group of sportsbooks under the apparent management of "Jassy Sports Events Limited" according to the about us page.

Sportsbook.com is located in the Caribbean territory of Antigua and Barbuda, and licensed by the Directorate of Offshore Gaming - see their licensee information page.

Confusingly enough, the company name is here given as "Gaming Ventures Limited", and not "Jassy Sports".


I was contacted by a player who had a problem with this sportsbook - I'll call him "James":

A few years ago I had told them to close my account due to gambling addiction. This weekend, I decided to go in and play on their website. I opened a new account since my old one had been closed. I deposited $1000 and won $2500 for a total of $3500.

The next day they informed me that they were closing my account due to the previous account being requested closed for gambling addiction.

Instead of giving me the $3500 that was my account balance, they informed me that they were keeping the winnings of $2500 and only refunding the $1000 I deposited.

Is it just me or is this totally unethical and stealing from me?

Apparently, Sportsbook.com also invoked their multi-account clause:

They said they are keeping my winnings due to the Multiple Accounts Stipulation in their Agreement. The only thing is that I did not have multiple accounts. They closed my previous account per my request. It had been 2 years ago and I did not even remember it.

Also, if you read the Multiple Accounts Stip below, you will see that it is not even designed for how they are using it against me. It states that it is used to close accounts that are trying to use Multiple Accounts to get around wagering limits. That is not even close to what I was doing.

Indeed, the house rules disallow multi-accounts, but specifically for the purposes of circumventing wager limits:

MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS

Members are not permitted to open multiple accounts (either within Sportsbook.com itself or affiliated websites) in order to circumvent the limits imposed by our wagering system. Performing such an action may trigger an audit of the member's accounts. If multiple accounts have been used then all bets may be voided, accounts may be inactivated and winnings may be forfeited.

This player clearly did not open a second account for any nefarious purposes, and his previous account was closed anyway.

The sportsbook also cited their "social responsibility" clause as another reason for reclaiming the $2500 winnings, given his previously claimed addiction problems:

OUR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

We are concerned about problem gambling. We will immediately inactivate any wagering account belonging to a member for whom gambling has become a problem and that account will remain permanently closed. Furthermore, any new accounts opened by that member will be inactivated.

Unfortunately, Sportsbook.com failed to get socially responsible and deactivate James's account until he had managed to win a decent sum of money and request a cashout.

Their social responsibility did not begin with his $1000 deposit, which surely should have immediately sounded the alarm bells within the system.

In fact, I suspect that if the player had lost, their social conscience would not have extended so far as to reinstate and refund his deposit, or manifest itself in any shape or form.


I decided to have a word with them and see if they might reconsider returning his winnings - he had, after all, been allowed to deposit and play, and as such Sportsbook.com might be prepared to acknowledge a little fault on their side and make a goodwill gesture.

I received the following reply:

Dear James,

Thank you for contacting us.

As per management decision account CID XXXXXXXXX will remain closed and $1000 of initial deposits will be credited back to credit card.

We apologize for any inconvenient this decision may have caused.

We are always here to help you. Please feel free to reply to this email if you have any additional questions in relation to this or any other matter.

Kind regards,

Joseph Cooper

My name is not James - that is the player. Did they think the player was impersonating me, in an attempt to bolster his claim?

Or had they not looked at my email at all?


I wrote back, clarifying that I was writing on the player's behalf.

Next reply (they got my name right at least):

Dear HPG editor,

Thank you for contacting us.

Thank you very much for your feedback! It really is appreciated here.

We are always here to help you. Please feel free to reply to this email if you have any additional questions in relation to this or any other matter.

Kind regards,

Kathy Andrews

"Thank you for your feedback"??

I wasn't giving feedback, I was asking a question. Did they not bother to read this email either? This was a copy-and-paste, standard, canned response.

Sportsbook.com reps appear to sign off all their emails with "Please feel free to reply to this email if you have any additional questions".

Considering that they do not appear to bother to read emails, I'm at a loss to imagine why anyone would bother with them at all.


It may not come as a complete surprise to learn that Sportsbook.com is an operation not entirely without a history of problems. In fact, they go some way back and extend across several, if not all, of the entire stable of clones.

Oh, yes. Before going on, did I mention how many clones there are of this sportsbook?

Fully fifty-three. Five and three.

I have never seen so many clones of one operation before. See the Sportsbookreview ratings guide. These Sportsbook.com clones are almost all rated in the "D" category, the second lowest rating.


A look at the Sportsbook.com results page at SBR reveals an unhappy history of problems:

4/30/2009 07:34 PM

Iwager (SBR rating D-) cancels player's wagers; blocks account history

The player made winning in-game NBA wagers. Iwager canceled winnings of $3941, claiming the wagers were not for live in-game wagers, but were all past-posted bets that were offered accidentally while the game was taking place.

Iwager closed the player's account, and refused to allow the player or SBR to view the wagering ticket which would reveal whether the bet was a past-posted play or a valid in-game bet. Iwager is a licensee of the sportsbook.com family, Jazette Enterprises Ltd.

3/24/2009 10:25 PM

Sportsbook.com (SBR rating D-) backtracks on plans to repay balance confiscation victims.

SBR provided sportsbook.com with account information for players, who were cheated over the past two years, in hopes that new management would follow through with plans to pay users back for stolen funds.

Although some managers at sportsbook.com want to see this debt cleared, sportsbook.com tells SBR that board discussions have stalled and there are currently no plans to pay owed customers.

SBR estimates sportsbook.com and sportsbooks that the group service stole over $500,000.

2/26/2009 10:49 PM

Sportsbook.com (SBR rating D-) players report over 40 bounced checks in 2009. Other players report a five month wait for funds.

1/30/2009 11:09 PM

Numerous Sportingbet (SBR rating D+) complaints received.

SBR has received 12 Sportingbet complaints from players showing that the sportsbook will not honor earned bonuses. Recipients of this promotion were targeted directly by Sportingbet. Sportingbet has told some of these players that they do not fit the profile of the player the book wants and will not receive their deposit incentive.

Sportingbet-owned gaming site, Superbahis (SBR rating D+), has refused to honor its cashback poker program to a player owed 250 Euros.

A Sportingbet horse bettor is owed a £100 horse wagering refund due to horse-falling promotion. Sportingbet has refused to credit the bonus citing "unusual betting patterns."

Sportingbet players have also complained that the book has refused to grade soccer matches, citing an investigation of the outcome. SBR has confirmed that investigations by league governing bodies do not exist. Sportingbet rules support the players' claims that these wagers should have been graded months ago. Sportingbet is encouraging these bettors to allow the winning wagers to be graded as no-action so refunds can be applied. Sportingbet will not estimate when the wagers may be graded.

The former owner of sportsbook.com (SBR rating D-) is no longer responding to SBR's inquries on behalf of players.

There appears to be a very persistent scam that the Sportsbook group uses - offering free bets and deposit bonuses at each site for all customers, but without declaring the site in question's connection with the rest of the group. Then, if the player wins, or ends up winning more than the book considers acceptable, the site points out the affiliation with the other Sportsbook clones and uses this "multi-bonus" excuse to confiscate funds.


Sound at all familiar?

This was a technique used by the Crystal Palace group, which I documented in my Crystal Palace deposit trick article. It was also cause for the Be wary of Jazette Enterprises books thread at Casinomeister, in which the player documents the exact same problem:

Just want to let perspective sports bettors know about a group of sportsbooks that are all operated by a company called Jazette Enterprises Limited. Their best known brand is probably Sportsbook(dot)com.

This company has long used a shady tactic to take free shots at players. All of their individual books offer first deposit bonuses. They do not mention it in the rules of their websites, but bettors are not permitted to take the bonus at more than one of their member sportsbooks.

They also don't tell you this when you sign on at the second book, unless you win. Then when you attempt to cash out they will notify you that you are a bonus abuser and they will take back your winnings and bonus, refund your deposit and close your account.

Note that if you lose you don't get a refund - that is what I mean when I say they take a free shot at players. If you win they don't pay you (at the second book) and if you lose, you lose.

The Bookmakers' Review ratings guide assigns a "1" rating to the Sportsbook group. This they define as:

Very poor. Assigned to bookmakers which have failed to fulfill their obligations and/or promises in multiple occasions. You do not want to play with bookmakers rated 1.

Good advice.

Stay well clear of the Sportsbook.com, and all the myriad variations thereof.

Post a Comment

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | December 2011 | February 2012 | May 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | March 2016 | April 2016 | June 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | March 2017 | May 2017 | June 2017 | August 2017 | August 2021 | October 2021 | May 2022 | December 2023 | May 2024 | Atom feed