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

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

October 15th, 2013

Royal Vegas, of the Fortune Lounge casino group, confiscated a player balance of €734 on the basis of no apparent rules' breach, as discussed at Casinomeister.

The player made big bets on roulette followed by small bets on slots, and won at all three of the group's casinos at which he played; he exceeded the maximum bet limit of 30% of the bonus, and in doing so invalidated his wins, at two of them. However, at Royal Vegas he did not exceed the limit and broke no rules - yet his withdrawal request was denied.

The casino has to date cited the vaguest possible rules as justification. These are they:

The casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings for irregular play. Irregular play includes, but is not limited to:

• 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

• Using the double-up feature to increase bet values

• Even money bets on Sic Bo, craps, baccarat, Wheel of Riches and roulette

The "30% of the value of the bonus" rule relates only to the two disqualifications which are not in dispute. Neither that rule nor any of the stated examples of "irregular play" apply to the third casino, which leaves the casino hanging their decision on the part of the rule that states:

irregular play includes, but is not limited to...

The casino had this to say:

It is abundantly clear to us that you were conducting irregular betting on our casinos.

The "irregularity" was as follows:

...you displayed irregular betting across all your casino accounts. The pattern you followed on all of your accounts was one of large bet sizes on Roulette and switching to very small bets on slots in order to meet the wagering requirements.

This includes your Royal Vegas account and we regard this as a form of irregular betting.

They had, however, already acknowledged that this was not a rule infringement:

Changing from roulette to slots is not against our rules

But that...

This is rather irregular and if there are several players doing exactly the same - same games and same strategy - something looks very suspect.

And finally:

All of your play on all of your accounts was irregular whether you exceeded the max bet limit or not.

You displayed the same pattern across all of your accounts which shows that you knew exactly what you were doing and that you were intent on doing it on every account.

So, to summarise: the play was not against the rules according to the casino spokesman, but it was "irregular". "Irregular" play is given in the casino's terms & conditions as being against the rules, which directly contradicts what the spokesman said. However, those rules do not state what is considered "irregular" beyond three examples, none of which relate to the player in question's case - the casino is claiming an "irregularity" that is nowhere listed as being such.

A rule which says "you must obey all the rules but we won't tell you what they are" is not a rule that would be upheld in any fair society, but it is what Fortune Lounge is holding the player to here.


As an interesting sidenote, the casino is one of more than a hundred "accredited" casinos at the site where the matter is being discussed, and those casinos are apparently held to a cornucopia of rules themselves, one of which is:

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

Since this is exactly what the casino has done, confiscating winnings for "irregular playing patterns" with no specific T&C violations, it remains to be seen what sanctions Fortune Lounge will receive from webmaster Bryan "Casinomeister" Bailey. Bailey's sidekick and complaints' handler Max Drayman did not exactly welcome the player with open arms, having this charming homily for him:

Post again before the PAB (complaint) is done and your PAB is toast.

Not an encouraging start, but watch this space to see what happens, both in terms of the player's withdrawal and the casino's failure to respect the apparently required standards of residence at Casinomeister.

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