Mansion Casino - Mansion Casino refused to pay 18,000 euro!

UNRESOLVED
ppv Russia
posted on July 9, 2014.

My complaint concerns two casinos from this group: Mansion Casino and Club777. I have decided to make a single complaint as my history with the whole group is important as well.

The complaint is very long as I believe mentioning all the relevant facts and details is necessary, especially when it comes to proving a negative, i.e. that you are not a bonus abuser or that telepathy does not exist.

I played at this group during April and May. I enjoyed a variety of games and played very risky. I made a large number of deposits and lost most of them. Sometimes after having a large win I would return in a few days and gamble again, losing it all. Such was the case with Slots Heaven where I had won €3550 on 26.04 after depositing just €200 and lost it all a few days when I just opened the casino and made €1000 bets on Roulette. The same story occurred at LesaCasino. On 01.05 I reached a balance of more that €4000 after depositing €500 and receiving a 100% bonus. Next day I gambled it away by making €300-700 bets in Arcade games. My highest balance was €5700 which was a lot of money and more than 10 times the initial deposit.

I played at the 3 other casinos in this group at the same time, but I lost my balances there within minutes of making deposits.

All of the Mansion Group valued me as a player. I was given VIP levels and received individual promotional offers almost every day. They were completely comfortable having a player who gambled with a great level of risk, losing 2-3 large deposits at each of the casinos. A player who could lose a total of €8000 at SlotsHeaven and LesaCasino in a few minutes instead of meeting the wagering requirement and cashing out with a net profit.

By 08.05 I had a net loss of €3650 with this group and zero balances everywhere.

On 14.05 I made 7 deposits ranging from €100 to €500 to several casinos in the group, for a total of more than €2300. Some of them were played without any bonus. That day I lost four of the deposits and won with three of them. One was at Casino.com where I won €700 on €100 deposit without any bonus. Regrettably, I gambled it away 5 weeks later.

The other two lucky deposits were at Club777 and Mansion. Each deposit was €500 and the bonuses I was given were 100% with all games included. I played quite a lot of games, most of them were card games and Blackjack was my favorite. The majority of bets during the wagering requirement were between €20 and €100, a lot of them were €50 Blackjack single hand or poker bets. There were some slots bets.

At some points during the wagering requirement I made very large bets.

At Club777 I bet €5000 on a single Blackjack game (5 hands of €1000) when I had a balance of €6700 and was close to completing the wagering requirement. At another point I made €255-510-1000 consecutive bets. There were also €200, €400 bets.

At Mansion casino I made €700 and €2000 bets while having around €7000 balance.

I lost some of these bets and could have easily lost my entire balances at both casinos like I did at SlotsHeaven and LesaCasino despite having an opportunity of making large gains without much risk involved.

After completing the wagering requirements and playing some more I was thinking whether to request a withdrawal or gamble big with €1000+ bets and in the end I decided not to push my luck too much like I did before.

My balance at Club777 was around €9500 and at Mansion Casino I had around €8500. I requested withdrawals on 17.05 and 21.05 and provided all the necessary documents. The verification process took two long weeks. On 02.06 I was informed it was finished and withdrawals would be processed within 24 hours.

However, on 10.06 I was informed that only my initial deposits would be processed, for a total of €1000, with the rest of the balance removed.

I was told this was in accordance with the terms and conditions 13.7 sections (a) and (c). I found out that these terms were changed after I requested a withdrawal and informed the support about it and the fact that I had not violated any term that was in place at the time I deposited and played at their casinos.

Support replied saying that they would stick to their decision due to "the funds being amassed winnings on high stakes low edge games and freed wagering on low stakes slots, clearly displaying unfair game play" and base their decision on paragraph 13.2 which was in place at the time of my play and which is expanded by the new terms. This paragraph gives the right to withhold winnings if a user is identified as playing in a way designed solely to exploit bonus awards, among other things, and states that MansionCasino.com shall act in good faith to determine if there was actual or attempted abuse.

Further communication didn`t help.

I have described every aspect of my game play at this group in detail above and I think it is obvious to any reader that the reason for removing my winnings given by the support has nothing to do with reality or fairness. However, I would like to go through their arguments one by one.

High stakes were made mostly on table and card games, many of those were high edge, not low edge. Wagering was not freed on low stakes slots. It was freed on average to high stakes table games. I would estimate their contribution as above 90% and slots around 5%. There was nothing unfair about my gameplay. It involved a very high degree of risk even when wagering was almost finished and I gambled multiple times using all-in maximum bets at different stages of my play. I played in a way that can be best described as emotional, excessive gambling and it is completely impossible to relate the term about playing in a way designed solely to exploit bonus awards to me. It is also impossible to say that MansionCasino has acted in good faith in relation to this matter.

It seems that my account was reviewed with the new terms in mind, either by mistake or deliberately with an expectation that the discrepancy between the old and new terms would not be found. The actions of the group would be completely in line with the new terms if they had been in place at the time I signed up or accepted the bonuses. It unfortunate that the management refused to change their course of action after realizing those new terms cannot be applied to my case. Instead, they decided to claim that a general undefined anti bonus abuse rule had been broken. The magnitude of the sum in question must been a factor, too.

The total amount I deposited to Mansion group casinos over a short period of time was €5950. I lost €4950 and could have easily lost the last €1000 on several occasions when gambling based on my instincts and pure fun without any system or abusive strategies. I lost great amounts of winnings and deposits previously in this group doing the same thing. I am almost sure these crazy swings would happen again if the casinos did not remove my winnings. Like I lost €700 I had in my Casino.com account that I had won without bonus. But the group decided to keep a nice €4950 profit to itself and refund just two of my numerous deposits.

I know some may get an impression that I am a problem gambler. I am not, meaning I do not gamble with money I can`t afford to lose. I have impulses to gamble, but they can be resisted in most cases. So I am not a problem gambler. And certainly not a bonus abuser or someone "displaying unfair game play".

AskGamblers
posted on July 12, 2014.

Dear @ppv,
Any update considering your complaint?

ppv Russia
posted on July 13, 2014.

Dear AskGamblers,
There is no update, the casino hasn`t contacted me or returned the funds.

posted on July 15, 2014.

Hello,

Thank you for making us aware of the concerns you have raised regarding the management of the security issues identified on your account.

We regret to find that you are under the mistaken impression that our ‘Terms and Conditions of Use’ were changed.

The terms and conditions relating to our bonus policy have been enhanced to support and provide greater transparency to give customers a definitive guideline of our bonus policy.

The cause for this addendum is that we at Mansion Casino want our players to be informed and understand the reasons why action is taken on their account.

We make no excuses for wanting our players to enjoy their time at our casino playing in a regulated, secure and fun environment, where they know full well what they can and cannot do.

Having read this complaint’s closing statement we feel our decision to impose restrictions on this account was and still is justified.

Should the player feel otherwise, we kindly entreat the player to raise such concerns with the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner directly.

We thank the player for raising this issue and hope our effort to make our terms and conditions of use even clearer for our players comprehension is taken in the spirit the addendum was made and that is to improve the experience and enjoyment of players playing at our casinos.

Many Thanks

Mansion Casino

Customer Support Team.

ppv Russia
posted on July 16, 2014.

Hello,

Thank you for your reply. I am not under the mistaken impression that your "Terms and Conditions of Use" were changed. I attached a copy of them dated 19.05 and a current version. As you can see, they have changed indeed. You can also check that all my deposits and gameplay took place before the new version was published. While I appreciate your efforts to provide clear guidelines, it is undisputable that the new rules do now apply to my case.

The closing statement of my complaint showed that I am a genuine player who enjoys gambling. It is very strange that you use it as some sort of justification of your decision. Perhaps this is because there are no valid supporting reasons behind it?

You only say that you "feel" you decision is justified. This matter is not about "feelings". You do not provide any proof to support your claim that I am a bonus abuser or any other legitimate reason for the actions taken.

I also appreciate you advice to raise this matter with the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner directly. This will be the next option if either the dispute is not resolved here or if a legitimate reason is not given. It seems that there are no such supporting reasons, otherwise you would have already provided them. And I still believe you can change your decision and feel otherwise and resolve this issue here at AskGamblers if you study my history with your group closely enough.

Many Thanks

posted on July 18, 2014.

Hello,

We appreciate the effort you have made to add screenshots showing our terms and conditions before and after, this enables us to clarify even further and satisfy your need for proof.

As you can clearly see the original text (13.7) already included our reference to “low-risk betting” not being allowed at our casino. Player agree to our Terms and Conditions of Use prior to creating an account with us and therefore agree they will not engage in this behaviour once they play at our casino.

Our addendums are marked (A) (B) (C) (D) (E), and are simply additions to the same parent text (13.7). These additions are only explaining and clarifying further what we are already covering in the parent text. This means that the decisions made on the player’s account were on the basis of the existing terms and conditions of the parent text (13.7) both before and after the addendums were made.

It is regrettable that a genuine attempt by the casino to improve the service it provides and the experience players have at our casino (by increasing the transparency of our terms and conditions) is being misconstrued as an attempt at subterfuge to justify retaining a player’s funds.

We hope the player more clearly understands the situation now. However if this is not the case the player is entitled to take this to the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner directly and we are more than happy for the regulatory body to make the necessary investigations, adjudicate and provide a resolution on the matter. As per the conditions of our Remote Gaming Licence, we are bound by whatever decision the GGC should reach.

Many thanks for your time.

Mansion Casino

Customer Support Team

ppv Russia
posted on July 21, 2014.

Hello,

I did not disapprove of the changes to the terms in any way. I actually appreciate the fact that you strive to create clear and transparent rules that would avoid the problem of misinterpretation.

In my previous reply I was simply commenting on your statement where you said I was under false impression that they had been changed. I also commented that the new terms could not be applied to my case since they were published after activity on my account.

So my intention was to understand your reasoning based on the old terms with the understanding that the new addendums are completely irrelevant to my case. And from what I gather from your reply the reason is "low-risk betting".

As you can clearly see, the original text (13.7) did not allow low-risk wagering on a list of specific games. They are Roulette, Baccarat, Craps, Spin and Win and Wild Vikings. This list is exhaustive.

I HEREBY STATE WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT I HAVE NOT ENGAGED IN LOW-RISK WAGERING ON THESE GAMES.

I also state that I have not used low-wagering tacticts on other games either. This is mentioned in paragraph 8 of the original complaint as well. I have not engaged in any activity that would constitute bonus abuse or any other condition that would justify retaining my balance under the original terms.

The reason you provide for retaining my funds is not valid. The decisions made were not on the basis of the terms and conditions that I agreed to

If you are looking to improve the service and the experience of players I believe your decisionmaking process should be reconsidered. Almost two months after removing my funds you have not provided any single valid reason for doing so.

My previous closing statement still feels up-to-date.

I also appreciate you advice to raise this matter with the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner directly. This will be the next option if either the dispute is not resolved here or if a legitimate reason is not given. It seems that there are no such supporting reasons, otherwise you would have already provided them. And I still believe you can change your decision and feel otherwise and resolve this issue here at AskGamblers if you study my history with your group closely enough.

Many Thanks

posted on July 22, 2014.

Hello Again,

Thank you for taking the time and effort to engage with us in a constructive manner throughout.

As a result of your latest post we performed a further review of the facts pertaining to this case, which has confirmed our original decision to cut the winnings accrued over and above the deposited amounts.

Regrettably, we have reached an impasse regarding this issue and therefore recommend the player to raise his concerns to the Gambling Commissioner.

We hope the player will be satisfied with their adjudication and ruling, which we are bound to abide by.

Many Thanks

Customer Support Team
Mansion Casino

ppv Russia
posted on July 25, 2014.

Hello,

It is regrettable that the casino has not presented any valid reason (which shows that none exist) for their decision and yet decided to stick with it. This shows that when a substantial amont is in question receiving it is simply subject to the willingness of the casino to pay it even when all the rules have been followed by the player.

This has now been admitted publicly.

ppv Russia
posted on July 25, 2014.

On a separate note, I`d like to count the versions of casino`s reasons so far. It unlikely that a casino would present additional reasons if the first was valid and would justify their actions.

1. Addendums to 13.7. Irrelevant. They were published only after my gameplay. Also, the casino presented a second version which they wouldn`t have done if the first was valid.
2. Bonus abuse. Invalid. The initial complaint comments as to why. Also, the casino presented a third version which they wouldn`t have done if the second was valid.
3. Low-risk betting. Invalid. Referred to in my 21.07 reply. No comments from the casino on my points raised there.

In its latest reply the casino decided not to come up with any new reasons or comment on the matters of fact.

I have directly asked the casino to state specific facts and valid reasons for their decision several times. Latest post by Mansion says they know facts that confirm their decision. It may seem a little dumb, but I would like to ask again.

Exactly which facts pertaining to this case found in your latest review have confirmed your original decision to cut the winnings accrued over and above the deposited amounts? (I`d like to draw special attention to the words "exactly" and "facts").

posted on July 29, 2014.

Hello,

We appreciate the players comments and accept his right to disagree with our decision.

However, as stated previous, our decision on this is confirmed, if the player is not happy he can ultimately take this to our regulator who can independently review his case.

This advice has been provided before and we would advocate the same advice again if the player still feels aggrieved.

Many Thanks

Customer Support

Mansion Casino

AskGamblers
posted on August 1, 2014.

This complaint is unresolved. Casino and the player didn't find a common ground. So we recommend to continue their dispute by contacting a Gibraltar Gambling Commission.