Dragi aleks86,
Hvala vam na odgovoru.
Iako je, strogo tehnički gledano, tačno da je Pravilo 16.12.10, koje određuje ograničenje maksimalnog iznosa opklade, uključeno u Uslove korišćenja kazina, i registracijom naloga i zahtevanjem bonusa, pristali ste na ova pravila, ostaje nejasno zašto tako važno ograničenje, što ograničenje maksimalnog iznosa opklade svakako jeste, nije jasno navedeno i u opisu bonusa. Uključivanje ključnih ograničenja bonusa direktno u uslove bonusa se generalno smatra standardnom praksom u industriji, jer osigurava da su igrači pravilno informisani pre korišćenja bonusa.
Preduzeli ste odgovarajući korak kontaktiranjem ćaskanja uživo u kazinu kako biste razjasnili važeće uslove i bilo je razumno da se oslonite na informacije koje je pružio agent za ćaskanje uživo u kazinu.
Nakon razmatranja okolnosti, slažem se da ste, na osnovu informacija koje su vam bile dostupne u to vreme, delovali u dobroj veri. Tehničko kršenje ograničenja maksimalne opklade izgleda da je prvenstveno rezultat nedostatka odgovarajućeg ograničenja u opisu bonusa koji vam je dat, nedostatka tehničkog ograničenja maksimalne opklade koje je nametnuo sistem i netačnih informacija koje je pružio predstavnik za ćaskanje uživo.
Izgleda da ste igrali na osnovu razumevanja stečenog informacijama koje su vam bile dostupne, a dobici su generisani kroz igru koju je dozvoljavao sistem kazina. Pod ovim okolnostima, smatramo da bi bilo razumno da se dobici isplate.
Podelio sam svoju procenu sa timom kazina i saopštio šta smatram odgovarajućim pristupom za rešavanje ovog problema.
Dragi 29Black tim,
Hvala vam na odgovoru i dodatnim informacijama koje ste nam dali u imejlovima.
Kao što je pomenuto tokom naše e-mail prepiske, nakon pregleda okolnosti ovog slučaja, čini se da je do tehničkog kršenja ograničenja maksimalne opklade došlo prvenstveno zbog nekoliko faktora koji su doprineli kršenju: odsustva ograničenja na nivou softvera koje sprečava kršenje, izostavljanja ograničenja maksimalne opklade iz opisa bonusa dostupnog igraču i netačnih informacija koje je pružio vaš predstavnik za ćaskanje uživo.
Na osnovu dostupnih informacija, čini se da je igrač delovao u dobroj veri i oslanjao se na informacije dostupne u to vreme. Štaviše, dobici su generisani kroz igru koju je dozvoljavao sistem kazina, a igrač nije namerno zaobišao nikakve moguće zaštitne mere.
Uzimajući u obzir sve relevantne informacije i okolnosti, smatramo da bi dobitak igrača trebalo da bude priznat u ovom konkretnom slučaju.
Stoga vas ljubazno pozivam da još jednom preispitate stvar i razmotrite da li se sa igračem može postići obostrano prihvatljivo rešenje.
Dear aleks86,
Thank you for your response.
While, strictly, technically speaking, it is true that Rule 16.12.10, which specifies the maximum bet limitation, is included in the casino's Terms and Conditions, and by registering your account and claiming the bonus, you agreed to these rules, it remains unclear why such an important restriction, which the maximum bet limit certainly is, was not also clearly stated in the bonus description. Including key bonus limitations directly within the bonus terms is generally considered an industry-standard practice, as it ensures that players are properly informed before using the bonus.
You took the appropriate step by contacting the casino's live chat to clarify the applicable conditions, and it was reasonable for you to rely on the information provided by the casino live chat agent.
Having reviewed the circumstances, I agree that you appear to have acted in good faith based on the information available to you at the time. The technical breach of the maximum bet limit appears to have resulted primarily from the lack of a corresponding restriction within the bonus description provided to you, the absence of a technical maximum bet limitation enforced by the system, and the inaccurate information provided by the live chat representative.
It appears that you played based on the understanding created by the information available to you, and the winnings were generated through gameplay that was allowed by the casino system. Under these circumstances, we believe it would be reasonable for the winnings to be paid.
I have shared my assessment with the casino team and communicated what I consider to be an appropriate approach toward reaching a resolution of this matter.
Dear 29Black Team,
Thank you for your response and for the additional information provided in your emails.
As mentioned during our email correspondence, after reviewing the circumstances of this case, it appears that the technical violation of the maximum bet limit occurred primarily due to several contributing factors: the absence of a software-level restriction preventing the breach, the omission of the maximum bet limitation from the bonus description available to the player, and the inaccurate information provided by your live chat representative.
Based on the available information, the player appears to have acted in good faith and relied on the information available at the time. Furthermore, the winnings were generated through gameplay that was permitted by the casino system, and the player has not intentionally circumvented any possible safeguards.
Taking all relevant information and circumstances into consideration, we believe that the player's winnings should be honoured in this particular case.
Therefore, I kindly invite you to review the matter once more and consider whether a mutually acceptable resolution can be reached with the player.
Automatski prevedeno: