home | about us | contact | site map | credits | disclaimer | bookmark

Fortune Lounge: the beat goes on with this most disreputable of disreputable groups


Saturday, March 26, 2016

Fortune Lounge: the beat goes on with this most disreputable of disreputable groups


May 13, 2014

Steve Russo, the mediator from the "Gambling Grumbles" service whose work has not been the subject of any crticism I'm aware of since he took on the job a few years ago, had this to say about the Fortune Lounge group at the end of one of his mediation reports:


We can't help Cesar, but we can help others thinking of playing at the Fortune Affiliates group with one word of advice:

"Don't".


Excellent advice, which I think bears quoting at the outset.

I'll sign off with another quote from Steve later. In the meantime, this article concerns more lamentable behaviour from a casino group that seems to have gone from being one of the best to one of the worst in the space of about ten years.


As reported in the beravek7 VS Fortune room discussion at Casinomeister, a player's four-figure cashout was confiscated, along with his €150 deposit, on the basis of an apparent contravention of the casino's terms & conditions.

The player started out betting €10 on one particular slot machine, changing subsequently to €3 average bets on another slot to finish the wagering for a new player signup bonus. The casino had this to say on disallowing his winnings:


This is not about playing bets more than 30%. It is about you placing 20 bets of €10 on Beach Babes and then moving to Reel Gems playing 1934 bets at €3.18 on average in order to meet your wagering requirements. This is regarded as irregular in terms of the folowing term I already sent you:

"Placing high value bets with the single intention of increasing your balance, thereafter you substantially decrease your bet size, while reasonably not decreasing your bankroll"


There are two "irregular play" terms here. The first the player didn't violate, and since it's entirely specific and leaves no room for doubt it isn't a problem in any event:


Placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% of the value of the bonus before the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met.


The second is entirely non-specific and gives the casino absolute leeway:


Placing high value bets with the single intention of increasing your balance, thereafter you substantially decrease your bet size, while reasonably not decreasing your bankroll.


The "high value" bet size is specifically covered in the first term and is redundant. The rest contains no information about the bet sizes that fall outside what the casino considers to be "irregular" - the only pointers are a "substantial" decrease without a "reasonable" decrease in the bankroll.

What is "substantial"? What is "reasonable"?

The casino is clearly attempting to discourage profit-orientated players, one of whose strategies is to bet large amounts followed by small amounts for mathematically sound reasons I won't go into. As such, the objective is fair enough. But the way they seek to implement it is completely unfair, as there is no way to know whether or not your play violates the terms.

Such "unfair" terms are unlawful in modern society, and all UK and EU law rules against them.

But not, it seems, in the law of the internet kangaroo court.


After airing his grievance in the thread discussion above, the player filed a complaint. The complaint handler, Max Drayman, dropped some initial hints that things weren't going to work out in the player's favour...


23rd April 2014

the casino has good evidence that the player is "non recreational" and the player is therefore in violation of the casino's Terms. Those are the basic facts and they weigh heavily against the player, for better or worse.


...before delivering his final verdict, replete with invective, hyperbole and infantile language:


5th April 2014

It means that (1) you didn't read my post above because if you had you'd have seen that I don't much like the "non recreational" Terms either and (2) you are talking out of your arse. The records clearly show that you went from casino to casino within that group and methodically used the same advantage play tricks on each of them, consecutively! Look at your play at any one of those casinos, except maybe the one account you didn't leave dormant when you were done, and you'll have a fine definition of a "non recreational" player.

Whatever we may think of those Terms -- and I think I've made it quite clear that we don't like them -- the point is that you agreed to them and are then bound by them. If you don't like their Terms -- and there is no reason you should -- then don't play there. But if you sign on, lay down your money, and take the goodies they offer then you are in the boat with them and their Terms, for better or worse. Too late to say you'd rather walk once the ship has sailed.

Besides, this is semantics. You knew exactly what you were doing when you worked your way through those casinos and your only real beef is that they nailed you for Terms violations. Tough noogies fella: you bought the ticket, you took the ride. Don't moan about the fact that your little plan went to crap part way through.

And while we are at it consider yourself PAB-banned: you've tried to AP the casinos, effectively lied about it, and then wasted my time fighting your BS battles for you. THEN you come on here to distort the truth further AND call us dirt-bags for trying to help you. To hell with you, you can fight your own casino battles in the future.


The language used, "talking out your arse", "tough noogies" , "plan went crap" , "to hell with you" etc hardly needs comment; maybe the mediator in question could aspire to a higher level of professionalism.

The accusations of the player "lying" and "distorting the truth" (which is it?) are also curious, as I can see no corroborated examples of this.

However, putting aside the histrionics and the kindergarten language: you cannot be reasonably bound by any and all terms, however unfair. If that was the case the casino could include a simple catch-all term such as "if you win we won't pay", and the player would have no recourse. That is why unfair, ill-defined terms are illegal in properly regulated societies. You cannot require a player to be "non-recreational", or to wager his money in a certain way, keeping within "reasonable" limits and not being "irregular", without defining what non-recreational, reasonable, irrelgular or any other non-specific terms actually mean in practice, because all this means at the end of the day is little more than a variant of my generic catch-all above: "we'll pay if we want to and we won't if we don't".


One of the standards of accredition at the above site is the following:


Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations


There is no specific terms violation here, and yet Fortune Lounge remains recommended at Casinomeister, while being in direct contravention of this apparent requirement.


As promised, back again to Steve Russo's opinions on Fortune Lounge:


We have learned from experience that we cannot help a player there as their casinos refuse to even give us any information, much less to review their decision. Hence, the entire group is in our "Hall of Shame", meaning that when a complaint comes in we do not even waste the time and effort to write to the casino.


Maybe all webmasters would do worse than follow his advice.


Update 13th May 2014: Bryan Bailey removed Fortune Lounge from his "recommended" section a few days ago, with the following comments:


The Fortune Lounge Group was listed in our Accredited Casino section off and on (mostly on) since 2000. Unfortunately, they have vague bonus terms that they've enforced to confiscate winnings and deposits of advantage players. These vague terms violated our policies of accreditation, so they were removed from the Accreditation Section. They are solid casinos - and very well managed, but advantage players should avoid these casinos at all costs.


No longer recommending this wretched group is certainly a good move, but I take issue with some of the above statement: if casinos steal legitimate players' money, whatever the profit-orientated mindset of those players, and whether said mindset be imagined or actual on the part of the casino, they are neither solid nor well-managed, they are disreputable and should be avoided by all players.

But again, this was the right move on the part of a well known webmaster. However, it's unlikely that Fortune Lounge will change their disreputable modus operandi.


Related articles:

Ruby Fortune: crucial bonus term buried

Royal Vegas: a very unfortunate denouement

Royal Vegas: player breaks no rules, casino refuses to pay



0 Previous Comments


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 | Atom feed
© 2005 hundred percent gambling

ONLINE CASINO NEWS

• Online casino news


2016

• Can't split 10s?
• Overbetting
• EV charts
• The IPCA
• Basic strategy master
• Back to the future
• Site hack

2015

• Better comp value
• Pit bosses are a pest
• 32Red buys Roxy Palace
• Winneronline is gone
• Paradise Win Casino
• Blackjack simple strategy

2014

• Court refuses Ivey winnings
• Phil Ivey versus Crockfords
• 32Red does the right thing
• Wizard Of Odds sold
• Gambling addict sues Ritz
• Better blackjack conditions
• FL: the beat goes on
• Phil Ivey and the Borgata
• LadbrokesFOBT profit
• Chat with the Met
• "Bonus abuse" and the Met
• Casino industry crooks.
• Debate to curb the FOBTs
• Labour idea to ban FOBTs

2013

• Ruby Fortune: terms buried
• Royal Vegas: bad outcome
• Russia illegalises gambling
• RV: player breaks no rules
• Gib casinos and UK laws
• The GGC (GRA) useless
• BetFred rigged games 9
• BetFred rigged games 8
• Betfred rigged games 7
• BetFred rigged games 6
• BetFred rigged games 5
• BetFred rigged games 4
• Phil Ivey: is he entitled?
• BetFred rigged games 3
• Betfred rigged games 2
• BetFred: rigged games 1
•  UK GLA Act 2013
• 888.com and Facebook
• Crockfords denies Phil Ivey
• Bad dealers
• Betfair Blackjack test
• Playtech software update
• Cheap blackjack
• Hippodrome Casino

2012

• The UK's FOBT addiction
• Conan Casino beware
• Intercasino misleading
• Fortune Lounge
• UK Gambling Commission

2011

• Small Claims Court
• Gamcare
• Full Tilt Poker saved
• Full Tilt ponzi scheme
• Casino Barcelona
• Irakli Kacharava
• Betfair processor no pay
• Full Tilt licensing meeting
• UK Gambling Commission
• Full Tilt Poker investors
• Full Tilt license suspended
• Twitter
• Betfair resolution
• Casino Web Scripts 2
• 32Red bonus marketing
• Casino Web Scripts 1
• Poker domains seized
• eCOGRA independent?
• Easystreet Sports theft
• Betfair to Gibraltar
• Rigged blackjack 2
• Betfair responses
• Rigged blackjack
• 888.com theft
• Betfair poker problem
• UK gambling controls
• Harry Reid

2010

• eWallet Xpress
• Kevin Stillmock
• Blog back up
• Betfair happy hour
• Ladbrokes bonus increase
• Absolute Poker tricks US
• Absolute Poker rigged
• Last position no difference
• Basic strategy simplified
• Online casino bonuses
• Righthaven LLC
• Ladbrokes bonus rules
• Malta LGA nonsense
• Purple Lounge theft
• UK affiliates issue
• Online casino problems
• GPWA code of conduct
• One Club Casino problems
• Rushmore theft resolved
• Realtime Gaming cheats
• Absolute Poker Ultimate Bet
• Rushmore Casino theft
• Ask gamblers service
• Intercasino bonus terms
• Profitting from poverty
• Gambling dooms UK to ruin
• Want To Stop Gambling
• Gambling Therapy
• Gordon Moody Association
• Breakeven
• Online gambling jobs
• Gamblock
• Gamble Aware
• Gamblers Anonymous
• Gamcare
• Video poker auto hold
• Gambling Wages help offer
• Blackjack double down
• Intercasino rules
• Tradition Casino warning
• Tradition Casino problem
• Be The Dealer
• eCOGRA approved casinos
• UK underage gambling
• iGaming Super Show
• eCOGRA reputable portals
• eCOGRA exposed
• Slots Oasis warning
• Slots Oasis problem
• HR 2267 comments
• HR 2267 proposed bill
• Search fully functional
• Gambling hearing delayed
• Betfair download blackjack
• Betfair blackjack
• The Federal Wie Act
• Casino Rewards warning
• Kahnawake dumps GP
• GP dumps Microgaming
• UK online gambling
• Gambling checklist
• Online casino problems
• Gambling Grumbles
• Casino Rewards
• Brian Cullingworth
• Casino Wager Tracker
• Grand Prive affiliates
• Jackpots Heaven Casino
• Kahnawake commission
• UK gambling problem
• eCOGRA and Grand Prive
• Bet365 misleading bonus
• Mastercard and Visa
• Online gambling rules
• 32Red sign up bonus
• Ladbrokes data theft
• Ladbrokes unfair settlement
• Palace group bonus rules
• Grand Prive and eCOGRA

2009

• Blackjack in the UK
• Seminole Hard Rock
• The APCW and MG
• Sportsbook.com
• Slot beaters slot strategy
• Rushmore Casino theft
• Paddy Power affiliates
• Slots
• 888.com problem
• The UIGEA
• Neteller contest winner
• 888.com bonus problem
• Casino Club meeting
• Online casino directory
• 32Red debit card bonus
• Blue Square Casino
• Budapest Affiliate Expo
• Rushmore payment issues
• Modern Blackjack volume 1
• Eurolinx certain insolvency
• Buzzluck winnings theft
• PaddyPower removed
• 32Red lawsuit
• William Hill Casino Club
• Betfair video poker
• APCW underage children
• Odds page updates
• VP Genius
• Video poker page updates
• Blackjack page updates
• Progression page updates
• Single deck page updates
• Betfair Playtech license
• Cherry Red Casino
• Online gambling debate
• William Hill & Teddy Sagi
• Rogue casinos section
• Pontoon correction
• Microgaming poker scandal
• Casino Club confiscation
• Casino Club steals €8000
• Villa Fortuna Casino
• Grand Prive affiliate issue
• CAP and Cardspike 2
• Virgin Casino bad results
• CAP and Cardspike 1

2008

• iNetbet removal from site
• Mario Galea and Malta LGA
• Cold Mountain Resort
• The AGCC
• Moneybookers privacy
• Virtual Casino rebranding
• Captain Jack Casino
• Royal Ace Casino
• Ringmaster Casino
• Catseye Casino
• Lucky Palm Casino
• Pharaohs Gold Casino
• Goldstream Casino
• Plantet 7 Casino
• Betfair bonus confiscation
• Malta LGA worthless
• The GIA
• Interwetten theft of £5000
• Lucky Ace winnings stolen
• The KGC and Absolute

2007

• HippoJo Casino
• Microgaming All Aces VP
• Neteller issues
• Lou Fabiano responds
• Lou Fabiano selling stats
• Betfair Zero Lounge
• ICE 2007 brief visit
• RTG cancels ICE visit

2006

• Crystal Palace Casino theft
• eCOGRA & Jackpot Factory
• English Harbour cheating
• Boss Media single deck
• Bella Vegas / Grand Prive
• The KGC worthless
• Gambling Federation
• Playtech sued
• Meeting Andrew Beveridge
• Playtech confirmed listing
• African Palace Casino
• G-Fed ICE discussion
• Playtech ICE meeting
• Playtech issues escalation
• Chartwell hands off

2005

• Crystal Gaming silence
• Price Waterhouse Cooper
• Crystal Gaming flotation 2
• Vegas Frontier
• Crystal Gaming flotation 1
• Playtech public listing
• African Palace & Indio
• Kiwi Casino
• Rochester Casino
• G-Fed theft 2
• Warren Cloud best avoided
• Golden Palace stupidity 3
• Golden Palace stupidity 2
• G-Fed theft 1
• Golden Palace stupidity 1
• Russia online expansion
• Wan Doy Pairs Poker
• Microgaming CPU usage
• Net Entertainment RNG
• Cryptologic & William Hill
• Casino growth slow
• English Harbour paying
• Fraudster or not
• Blackjack surrender
• Integrity casino group audit