pozdrav svima,
Ovo je komplikovana situacija, prema uslovima i odredbama kazina i bonus na depozit u igri samo slotovi i keno su bili dozvoljeni korišćenjem tih sredstava i traženo povlačenje je odbijeno na osnovu toga. Blackjack i baccarat su igrani koristeći sredstva koja potiču od ograničenog bonusa. Nakon što je traženo povlačenje odbijeno, depozit je ponovo stavljen na račun, prema izričitim uputstvima igrača, na njega je stavljen dodatni bonus za depozit dajući igraču dodatnu šansu za pobedu. Ova sredstva su tada odigrana na nulu. U ovom trenutku prvobitni depozit više nije bio u kazinu jer se sada igrao na nulu.
Kazino veruje da je delovao u dobroj nameri i po svojim uslovima. Igrač je obavešten o odluci, prihvatio je odluku, prihvatio dodatni bonus, odigrao depozit i bonus je zatim uložio žalbu nakon činjenice, verovatno zato što ova dodatna sesija igranja nije rezultirala (potencijalno većom) pobedom.
Još uvek smo u internoj raspravi o ovoj temi samo zato što casino.guruov kodeks poštenog kockanja zahteva od nas da zabranimo nedozvoljene igre tokom igranja na ograničenom kuponu, a to je mehanički nemoguće korišćenjem naše platforme za igre. Odluka je ili da se držimo naših jasno navedenih uslova sa kojima se igrač složio (i prihvatimo „crne tačke" protiv naše reputacije), ili da ignorišemo naše uslove i platimo igraču (kako bismo ispoštovali ovog arbitra treće strane ). To je komplikovano pitanje.
hvala vam na strpljenju,
Cripto Loko
Greetings all,
This is a complicated situation, per the terms and conditions of the casino and the deposit bonus in play only slots and keno were allowed using those funds and the requested withdrawal was denied on that basis. Blackjack and baccarat were both played using funds stemming from a restricted bonus. After the requested withdrawal was denied the deposit was then placed back in the account, under the explicit instructions of the player an additional deposit bonus was placed on top of it giving the player an additional chance to win. These funds were then played to zero. At this point the original deposit was no longer with the casino as it had now been played to zero.
The casino believes it has acted in good faith and per it's terms. The player had been informed of the decision, accepted the decision, accepted the additional bonus, played the deposit and the bonus then filed a complaint after the fact, presumably because this additional play session did not result in a (potentially greater) win.
We are still in discussion on the subject internally only because casino.guru's fair gambling codex requires us to prohibit non-allowed games during play on a restricted coupon and this is mechanically impossible using our gaming platform. The decision is either to hold to our clearly stated terms which were agreed to by the player (and accept the "black points" against our reputation), or to ignore our terms and pay the player (in order to comply with this 3rd party arbitrator). It is a complicated question.
Thank you for your patience,
Crypto Loko
Automatski prevedeno: