GAMBLING FEDERATION: from malware to larceny - the resolution
Thursday, June 09, 2005
GAMBLING FEDERATION: from malware to larceny - the resolution
A few weeks ago, it came to public attention that a gambler had had €7000 winnings at a Gambling Federation casino withheld on the basis of the player holding "multiple accounts"; the matter was discussed in the GPWA Players Corner forum, and I commented on it in a previous post, "Gambling Federation: from malware to larceny".
The casino's initial reaction had been to disallow the winnings on the basis that the player had many Gambling Federation accounts, ostensibly contravening one of their rules:
"Player may only operate one active account at any time. Players opening multiple accounts without first voiding their existing account are subject to being excluded from the Casino with all wins forfeited. In order to void an account, Players must contact Customer Support."The mediator, Cindy Carley (www.videopokerjunkie.com), initially came down on the side of the casino, on the basis that the player had more than one "active account".
However, what this failed to take into account was the fact that the above-quoted rule is CASINO-specific, not SOFTWARE-specific; the player may indeed have only one account at any one Gambling Federation casino, but he may have as many individual accounts as there are Gambling Federation casinos: if there are 50 casinos, he may have 50 accounts - one at each individual casino. In the same way, of the 80 or so Microgaming casinos, all players are allowed one account at all 80 casinos, for a total of 80 accounts. It would certainly set an unusual precedent to allow players only one active Microgaming account - and it would be extremely unprofitable for Microgaming!
After this had been pointed out to her, Cindy acknowledged her mistake with much good grace and contacted Gambling Federation once more, to clarify with them that the player had not in fact broken any rules, having as he did just the one account at each casino.
For whatever reason, Gambling Federation did not feel obliged to pay the player, but in the end they decided to acquiesce to Cindy's request and give him the €7000 he was owed - you can read Cindy's comments on the third page of the Gambling Federation thread - so all's well that ends well.
It's always great to see the various online gambling fora being used for what they do best: facilitating the lines of communication between players, affiliates and casinos, and getting players their money from those casinos that would really rather not pay them.
Long may it continue.
Permalink
|
Reply (1)
| 
1 Previous Comments
I do just love the idea of the casino believing they are right and putting paying out the player to Cindy.
I reckon Cindy should ask them for a million pound, maybe thay will cough that up too... yeah right.
The firm are chancers, simple as that. Gfed have never been any good and have put themselves up shit street with the malware thing.
The mahjong firm that have joined them are jokers too. Asian market or no asian market.
By 
Gamblog UK, at
2:03 AM
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 |
