If You're Promoting RTGs Then You Should Read This

[Caruso]

OK, on this 180 day rule. Any funds that are removed from a players account is actually benefitting you directly as an affiliate, and here is why. If a player has some cash left in their account and the 180th day is approaching then we as a company attempt to make contact with the player by any means possible based on the details they left us, phone, email, fax whatever.

If for whatever reason we cannot contact the player, yes the funds are removed. In doing so, you, the affiliate get paid out on the cash amount from that players account as it affects the overall Net Win figure.

Putting aside the "hey, affiliates are OK so what's your problem?" aspect of this:

And why exactly do you not simply refund the money to the player?

Player deposits with Neteller = Neteller refund. ETc etc etc for other ewallets.

Player deposits with bank transfer = bank account refund.

Player deposits with credit card (trickiest) = you have the player's addess. Send him a cheque.

But that isn't what happens. Club World "does everything they can to contact the player". Why do they not do the OBVIOUS thing, and simply refund the money? Why complicate things?

And, if you must "do everything we can to contact the player", then assuming you FAIL to so do, why not refund it then?

Obvious, really. Once that six month period is up, that money is history. Money gone, no notification. All the rest is casino word games.


Mojo, you said:

Who know where the player is. Deceased? (etc)

Is a casino my next of kin?

Is this a basis for assumption of proprietorship of funds?

[offyourface]

Well yes, but that is nowhere in sight. The casino is not putting it back if and when the player returns. They are stealing that money. It is beyond gobsmacking that casinos consider this their right. Club World's response here is just jaw-dropping. The contempt in which they must hold their players.

Thanks for the clarification, Rick. I should have realised myself that Casino Webcam didn't use RTG, LOL.

I don't think anyone is stealing here Caruso. Martyn said this money is not lost and if the player returns they will have access to it without issue.

I agree that if the player has genuine deposited funds in the account with no rollovers to adhere to, then after 6 months the best thing to do would be to refund this money in the manner it was deposited instead of just taking the money out of the players account. But my guess is most funds removed after 180 days is free bonus money never played or excess winnings off a free chip or something that can't be withdrawn, and I certainly don't want to continue paying 30% of this.

[bb1web]

Of course I agree funds should be returned to player, that's pretty much a given.

Simple good business.


These kinds of issues are what taint OG as being something less than Vegas.

Vegas would see the wisdom in leaving that money in the account .. and then contacting the people (or attempting) every month and use the existing account the same as you'd use a bonus ... to lure the player back.

Yes its true they could simply cash it out but I bet Vegas would tell you that enough of them do not simply cash it out ... to make it worth the while.

Not too mention the excellent publicity it generates to be seen as the caring mother hen ... protecting the flock's bank roll until the time they should return again ...


Now that's the kind of place you look at and say .. I'd not mind playing there.

As opposed to ... "We'll be keeping your money if you're not back here gambling it at least once every 6 months".

There's a place I would cross the street to avoid.

......

Guys the AMs explanations are about as poorly thought out as is the term itself.

I understand and appreciate clearing uncashable amounts from our stats which are causing duly earned income to be with held. I think we all agree on that.

but why seeking to tie up loose ends for accounting involves the threat of closing accounts ... that I'm still unclear about.

suffice to say I agree with Kevin, that as long as the money which is withheld from our earned income ... that is kept back due to winnings which can never be cashed out ... is returned to us at some point ... I can live with it.


I also agree that regardless of how the RTG stats want to paint the day ... that as long as at the end of the day we see an income which is within an acceptable range (which each respective aff can view and knowing their site .. can decide if its a worthy deal or not).

Obviously Rick feels that CWC does not meet that bottom line standard ...(man I know I have written this before .. or similar) ... and therefore ... CWC would not be a good choice for future promotion.

For myself ... I'll follow Rick's lead. No offense to you personally Martyn but Rick's been around a long time. Is quite fair by my standards. So if he's saying my time is better spent elsewhere .. I'm listening.

[GCG]

Obviously Rick feels that CWC does not meet that bottom line standard ...(man I know I have written this before .. or similar) ... and therefore ... CWC would not be a good choice for future promotion.

For myself ... I'll follow Rick's lead. No offense Martyn but Rick's been around a long time. Is quite fair by my standards. So if he's saying my time is better spent elsewhere .. I'm listening.

Which RTG(s) meet this bottom line standard ?

I do not like to see casinos plundering inactive players accounts maybe they are on a worldtrip for 2 years and come back later. Just keep your dirty little fingers from player accounts money as its rightfully theirs not yours CWC.

[mojo]

Why do they not do the OBVIOUS thing, and simply refund the money? Why complicate things?

Is a casino my next of kin?

Is this a basis for assumption of proprietorship of funds?

That is a valid question. I was trying to think of an example and remembered that my state (mass) has an abandoned property division. They sent us heirs a claim form recently for a deceased reletive. They must check the probate (will) records.

What attempts does the Office of the State Treasurer make in finding owners?
•The Treasurer publishes the names in newspapers across the State. In the case of life insurance companies the names are published in September of the same year following the report and for all other property the names are published in March of the year after the report.
•A mail notice is sent to the owners last known address.
•The Abandoned Property Division has recently started an outreach program. This program allows Abandoned Property staff to visit different events and locations i.e. fairs, nursing homes, malls, etc. in an attempt to reunite owners with their abandoned property.

What does the State do with the money?
While abandoned assets are deposited in the Massachusetts General Fund on an annual basis, owners can always claim their financial assets at any time. All funds earn interest until claimed

Source

The norm doesn't seem to be to automatically send a check or refund to the last known address. What I believe we need to clarify is exactly the procedure casinos use to attempt to find the owners of the unclaimed monies.

I also agree that regardless of how the RTG stats want to paint the day ... that as long as at the end of the day we see an income which is within an acceptable range (which each respective aff can view and knowing their site .. can decide if its a worthy deal or not).

Obviously Rick feels that CWC does not meet that bottom line standard ...(man I know I have written this before .. or similar) ... and therefore ... CWC would not be a good choice for future promotion.

I think Rick may have been talking about GW bb1? LOL I am getting confused.

I'll just throw in here that CWC has been one of my staples. At times it has been my best earner. No problems. In fact, I can't find anything to complain to Martyn about except an occasional affiliate spam.

I know some programs work better for some than others but I just wanted to give cwc some kudos. The good programs are becoming fewer and I appreciate CWC. JMO.

[mojo]

Well yes, but that is nowhere in sight. The casino is not putting it back if and when the player returns. They are stealing that money. It is beyond gobsmacking that casinos consider this their right. Club World's response here is just jaw-dropping. The contempt in which they must hold their players.

Thanks for the clarification, Rick. I should have realised myself that Casino Webcam didn't use RTG, LOL.

Looking back through this thread, I can't find where Martyn said they wouldn't give the money back if the player ever returned at any time. Only that they clear it out of the account.

Would you Martyn?

I know this happened at Rushmore but they finally paid the player. I agree this is stealing if they withold money no matter when a player requests it. Also, there should continue to be an attempt to contact the player even after the 180 days.

[universal4]

Correct Mojo,

BB1, GWages formula is pretty simple to understand.

If you send players and you make money, they do a coupon, bonus or any other creative bookkeeping so that your commissions fall back to as near to zero as possible for as many months as necessary that you continue to send visitors.

I thought I was clear on that.

I also agree that Club World has been considered one of the good guys, and I will once again thank Martyn for jumping in here and stating their position....I would like to see a little further clarification and possible revisions to how the term is worded and possibly implimented.....but it is clear that Club World sees this as something that needs looked at and thank you Martyn for not being shy about discussing it.

CasinoJack has also been VERY CLEAR about how their group handles this, in fact when this first kinda blew up Brian immediately got in touch with Casino Management and they actually made sure they went through their terms so this ambiguous term did not exist.

Now for the others, maybe they hadn't yet seen this thread or been made aware of it, or maybe they prefer to be silent....personally I would like to see more input from a few of them...

Rick
Universal4

[ck8795]

Can I just ask wouldnt it make it much more simplier to have the bonuses not impact the affiliates earnings UNLESS the bonus has been cleared. I know I get sick and tired of seeing stats not add up because of credits and bonuses then waiting for the player to play it back to the casino


I just think it could be a whole lot simplier on everyone. If the player clears the bonus, deduct the 40% from the affiliate, but stats really should be left alone until that happens otherwise you end up with unplayed amounts . I get the 180 day thing Martyn but depending on the amount of traffic you send one casino that can add up to quite a bit...not to mention the headaches of trying to look through stats. (Thanks Steve...nice discussion)

my take on it anyway.

[LiveCasinoPartners]

Oooh, here's a novel thought, CWC Martin (that's "Casino Web Cam", right?).....

CWC Martin is not related to Casino Webcam. Those are two distinct programs that have their own reputations.

I thought it was worth mentioning. lol

[Caruso]

Yes, Rick pointed this out earlier. I could also have glanced a bit better at his sig, LOL.

Of course, if the money is non-cashable RTG sticky bonus type money, left in the account after the casino has paid withdrawable funds, that is something entirely different. However, I don't think this is anything to do with the kind of situation raised here, particularly as one is talking about basically dormant accounts.

The funds in question are players' withdrawable, fully-entitled-to funds.

I'm still none the wiser as to why, since the funds are "removed", they are not simply refunded to the player via either his deposit method or, at absolute WORST, a cheque.

Why does the casino expend such apparent effort on "contacting" the player, when they can simply reverse the transaction process and solve the problem? Any kind of answer possible on that, or should one draw the reasonably obvious conclusion?

I also do note what Club Dice said about not stealing the funds.

These kinds of issues are what taint OG as being something less than Vegas.

These and one or two others.

The norm doesn't seem to be to automatically send a check or refund to the last known address. What I believe we need to clarify is exactly the procedure casinos use to attempt to find the owners of the unclaimed monies.

If the "unclaimed asset" is actual property - real estate - then that's a different problem: if it's abandoned / unoccupied, there is no obvious trail back to the owner, and digging is required.

With cash in a casino account, the trail is very clear. It came from Neteller? It goes back to Neteller (etc etc).

In fact, I can see no circumstance that would prevent the last resort being used, that of issuing a cheque in the player's name, sent to his address. Name and address details are a default requirement on casino signup.


Oh, and to go totally off-topic: I noticed this in the CW affy terms:

5.2 Effect of Termination. The following will apply upon the effective date of termination:

(f) You will be entitled to only to those unpaid Marketing Fees, if any, earned by you on or prior to the date of termination. You will not be entitled to Marketing Fees with respect to Player activities made after the termination date.

http://www.cwcaffiliates.com/Terms.aspx

That's what Grand Privè got you with.

[Caruso]

(See previous.)

[mojo]

The funds in question are players' withdrawable, fully-entitled-to funds.

If the "unclaimed asset" is actual property - real estate - then that's a different problem: if it's abandoned / unoccupied, there is no obvious trail back to the owner, and digging is required.

With cash in a casino account, the trail is very clear. It came from Neteller? It goes back to Neteller (etc etc).

Oh, and to go totally off-topic: I noticed this in the CW affy terms:

http://www.cwcaffiliates.com/Terms.aspx

That's what Grand Privè got you with.

I agree and am talking about real money that belongs to the player, not bonuses etc.

The example I used for Mass Abondoned Property excudes real estate:

Any financial asset with no activity by its owner for an extended period of time. This includes savings accounts, checking accounts, unpaid wages or commissions, stocks, underlying shares, uncashed dividends, customer deposits or overpayments, certificates of deposit, credit balances, refunds, money orders, paid-up life insurance policies, safe deposit boxes, and uncashed benefit checks, gift certificates, etc. Abandoned Property does not pertain to land, houses or real estate of any kind.

That said, in looking around, I can find no rules for internet abandoned property. Wiki says this..

A property can be considered lost, mislaid or abandoned depending on the circumstances under which it is found by the next party who obtains its possession. The rights of a finder of such property are determined in part by the status in which it is found. Because these classifications have developed under the ancient and often archaic common law of England, they turn on nuanced distinctions. The general rule attaching to the three types of property may be summarized as: A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property.[1] This rule varies by jurisdiction.[2]

While I understand that it would be easier to return the funds to the method it was transferred, I don't agree since it could be lost in cyberspace forever. ie..it goes to neteller and the recipent is deceased, neteller then becomes the holder.

A check is more reasonable via snail mail with a 30 day cashing limit. If it doesn't get cashed then the check is x'd it's back to the drawing board. That is due dilligence and something I would like to see.

Again we find ourselves in unregulated wild west land with abandoned funds. Players can take due dilligence and assign an heir to online property and casinos must give it to the heir. However, how many players think of this? As a webmaster I certainly have assigned an heir to my online properties.

As far as that clause at CWC, a contract cannot be changed unless both parties agree. A clause that says we can change this anytime we want, in effect, invalidates the contract. But that's contract law. What we have here is good faith and a handshake. That's where all the trouble starts.

[AE-Martyn]

Someone grabbed the sticky end of this stick!

LMAO.

Goodie goodie. Casino and affiliates are OK. Rob the player and pay the affiliate.

Glad we got that sorted.
No kidding?

OK lets do this in order...

No we don't rob the player. Please see my original post and read it. Please stop trying to twist words.

Oooh, here's a novel thought, CWC Martin (that's "Casino Web Cam", right?).

Wrong. Club World Casinos.

How about rather than robbing the player of his money, you just send it back to him?

OK, first off as I already mentioned we dont rob the player. If we send it back to them without knowing there are multiple reasons why we don't just do this. To give a few as an example to you...

1. The player may not have confirmed their ID/Documents.
2. The funds could go to a closed account (Bank, eWallet etc) and float around until whenever.
3. We don't send checks out, they are super hard to cash in the US.
4. If the player comes back we simply put the cash/non-cash back.
5. If the funds are returned to an account that belongs to a partner or ex-partner things could get very messy.
6. Costs are involved to both parties involved, what if they didnt want the funds back but wanted to leave in the casino until such a point they want to play again. They get teh funds back minus $30 or so.

There are countless more reasons and many other scenarios that would affect this. But again, let me reiterate...we do not STEAL the funds.

Well yes, but that is nowhere in sight. The casino is not putting it back if and when the player returns. They are stealing that money. It is beyond gobsmacking that casinos consider this their right. Club World's response here is just jaw-dropping. The contempt in which they must hold their players.

Twisting words and making stuff up. Again, please re-read my first post which I have quoted below...

If a player has some cash left in their account and the 180th day is approaching then we as a company attempt to make contact with the player by any means possible based on the details they left us, phone, email, fax whatever.

If for whatever reason we cannot contact the player, yes the funds are removed. In doing so, you, the affiliate get paid out on the cash amount from that players account as it affects the overall Net Win figure.

Net Win is the figure that your commissions are calculated on.

The balance that has been removed is not forfeited or lost just simply removed so that the negative affect dormant accounts give does not roll over for months/years.

If the player returns (they still have their affiliate tag) and they say, 'oi buddy, where's the cash I left in my account 6 months ago?' then this will be added back to the players account without issue. The player account is not closed.

Putting aside the "hey, affiliates are OK so what's your problem?" aspect of this:

And why exactly do you not simply refund the money to the player?

Player deposits with Neteller = Neteller refund. ETc etc etc for other ewallets.

Player deposits with bank transfer = bank account refund.

Player deposits with credit card (trickiest) = you have the player's addess. Send him a cheque.

But that isn't what happens. Club World "does everything they can to contact the player". Why do they not do the OBVIOUS thing, and simply refund the money? Why complicate things?

And, if you must "do everything we can to contact the player", then assuming you FAIL to so do, why not refund it then?

Obvious, really. Once that six month period is up, that money is history. Money gone, no notification. All the rest is casino word games.

I just covered this. It seems you are rewording things you have said already in an attempt to make us look like a "rogue" outfit.

Looking back through this thread, I can't find where Martyn said they wouldn't give the money back if the player ever returned at any time. Only that they clear it out of the account.

Would you Martyn?

Post one I said we return it which I think was missed.

To clarify:

• Yes, funds are removed (not stolen) after 180 days if we are unable to contact the user. As it says in our terms and conditions.
• If the player returns then these funds are added back to the account.
• No, we can't just refund a player the way it came in as it would casuse all sorts of complications as some were listed above.
• We don't steal the players money.
• The players account is not closed nor are any threats made to close an account.
• We don't steal the players money.

[casinojack]

Question:


This term has been around for YEARS! I think almost since day one. Why is this an issue now? How can it be stealing if it in in the terms and conditions?

I'm sorry I just don't see the big deal in this, and I bet 99% of the account closed after 180 days have balances under 1 dollar.

As an affiliate, player, or operator is crazy. Think of a checking account in a bank; If you don't use it, the fee will dwindle it down to nothing.

Anyways, interesting thread, but it has gotten a little over blown I think.

Martyn's company is very stand up, and I think anyone promoting them will be fine.

[Caruso]

OK, first off as I already mentioned we dont rob the player. If we send it back to them without knowing there are multiple reasons why we don't just do this. To give a few as an example to you...

1. The player may not have confirmed their ID/Documents.
2. The funds could go to a closed account (Bank, eWallet etc) and float around until whenever.
3. We don't send checks out, they are super hard to cash in the US.
4. If the player comes back we simply put the cash/non-cash back.
5. If the funds are returned to an account that belongs to a partner or ex-partner things could get very messy.
6. Costs are involved to both parties involved, what if they didnt want the funds back but wanted to leave in the casino until such a point they want to play again. They get teh funds back minus $30 or so.

There are countless more reasons and many other scenarios that would affect this. But again, let me reiterate...we do not STEAL the funds.

Noted about not stealing, although holding funds to which you are not the owner is the same in essence. However, these appear little more than excuses. In order:

1) I'm talking about fully entitled funds, not funds in a halfway house state.

2) Excuse. Send it. If it comes back to you, then it'll be time to think again. But you don't take this most obvious action.

3) Excuse. See above. Not all players are US, anyway. And if US play is no hard, why are you encouraging it? If they can't be serviced properly, they shouldn't be targetted.

4) If they've already received their money, they can just redeposit.

5) Dearie me. Excuse or what? Is Club Dice into marriage counselling?

6) That's the players problem. Nobody in the world is going to complain about funds being sent, minus a fee. Particularly if it's in the terms, as THIS would be an entirely fair term, though the period, six months, is far too short. Make it two years at least.


If you wanted to resolve the "funds in dormant account" issue, just put it in the terms that any funds untouched for XXX months will be refunded to the player's registered address, minus a $30 fee. This is the ethical course. In fact, all casinos should do this, to ensure funds always find their righful owner, death or incapacity notwithstanding, and there are actual laws governing this in all reputable jurisdictions.

The unethical course is to slice them away and hang onto them until the player, quite possibly dead, comes asking for them.

How can it be stealing if it in in the terms and conditions?

That argument has passed its sell by date.

It was in the Grand Privè terms, that closed affy accounts meant that nothing would be owed going forward.

[Caruso]

As far as that clause at CWC, a contract cannot be changed unless both parties agree. A clause that says we can change this anytime we want, in effect, invalidates the contract. But that's contract law. What we have here is good faith and a handshake. That's where all the trouble starts.

V. TERM AND TERMINATION

5.1 Term and Termination. This Agreement will take effect when you activate a link to our Site and will be continuous unless and until either party notifies the other party, in writing, that it wishes to terminate the Agreement, in which case, the Agreement will terminate immediately. TERMINATION IS AT WILL BY EITHER PARTY.

-(f) You will be entitled to only to those unpaid Marketing Fees, if any, earned by you on or prior to the date of termination. You will not be entitled to Marketing Fees with respect to Player activities made after the termination date.

As Casino Jack said, "it's in the contract". I thought that Affy Guard Dog whatsit was all about identifying "predatory" terms? This was my point.

[AE-Martyn]

This seems to be just me and you Caruso and your constant pokes will not provoke a reaction.

Maybe we can discuss this in London face to face?

I've made my points, I've covered it and I wont keep on doing so to provide you with your thrill.

I take it you will be going to London in January, to the affiliate conference, LAC?

[AE-Martyn]

As Casino Jack said, "it's in the contract". I thought that Affy Guard Dog whatsit was all about identifying "predatory" terms? This was my point.

Oh my! Where is this going?

Are you comparing us to Grand Privé? You have no idea how far off the mark you really are.

If you feel that strongly why dont you complain over at Casinomeister?

I will afford one more post in this thread that has been spectacularly derailed.

[Caruso]

Funny about Casinomeister.

Ranks right up there with "Why don't you complain to the LGA?" that I heard from a player, as response from a casino he had an issue with, not long ago.

I will afford one more post in this thread that has been spectacularly derailed.

Right, it was my derailment, it belongs elsewhere and I should have posted it elsewhere - an issue I'll correct.

Your "last post" could address the the above points, but I reckon you don't have much to add, as I cannot imagine you plan to change your stance on an issue which must be a fair money spinner. Your excuses remain excuses. There is no rational justification for this course of action, because as you well know, your last recourse, failing all others, is always to write a cheque for the balance. And if it's a US player, and if his bank happens to take exception to cheques from the First National Bank Of The Wogga Wogga Islands, well, you need to start again. But you would at least demonstrate good faith.

[Caruso]

Maybe we can discuss this in London face to face?

I've made my points, I've covered it and I wont keep on doing so to provide you with your thrill.

I take it you will be going to London in January, to the affiliate conference, LAC?

Please tell me this wasn't a threat. Please.