Public complaints: Lapalingo declares €8,000 win void (Page 8)

Random wrote on 07/12/2018 at 2:50 PM

Again, there is talk around it but no one here can deliver a coherent explanation why you have to withdraw these 100 euros first and then Deposit again so that wins are valid.

I bins yes used to be fooled by casino support staff. But from alleged players, this is already a new dimension.

So I ask for an explanation from you and bones why there is this rule?

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Stromberg wrote on 07/12/2018 at 3:19 PM
Since you ask:
The casino does not want to pay out more than 100 euros to someone who has never deposited anything.
Already clear that it makes no difference to Deposit and withdraw the 100 or to play directly with it.

Maybe they only do this because they know that there are people who do not know this rule and therefore the probability that the money is gambled away is there and if the win is only 100 paid out

This may be all, and is also not user friendly.

But it is not a scam in my eyes, because you have been given money under certain conditions, and not deposited your own.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Random wrote on 12/07/2018 at 15:26
So you say they do this because almost no one knows the rule and so they save themselves a hundred euros if they lose and don't have to pay out if they win anyway but at the same time you don't call it fraud?
What is the definition of fraud for you?
Won money is real money that belongs to the winner.
Just as lost money belongs to the casino.
Anything else would completely contradict the purpose of a casino.

Had the TE paid out and paid in again, he would be entitled to the 8000 from your point of view, right?
But why? According to your argumentation, he would then also not be entitled to because he has earned the deposited money through a 'gift' of the casino. Is exactly the same then as if he had left it right upstairs.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Stromberg wrote on 07/12/2018 at 3:33 pm
No I said that they possibly do it for that reason as well.
Fraud would be for me, as already mentioned, if the bonus was linked to an own deposit.
Won money is won money, lost lost you write.
But the player has lost practically nothing, because he has deposited nothing

This post has been translated automatically

Random wrote on 07/12/2018 at 3:41 PM
Irrelevant if he would have paid in his own money.
After implementing the bonus, the 100 euros was his own money. Had he paid it out to his account, goes to the bank and then has 100 euros in his wallet. Who owns the money if not the TE? So of course it is his own money.
What if he has already gambled away 10,000 before? Correct, also completely irrelevant.
The casino offers you a bonus with which you can make real money. Their problem, they do not have to make the offer.
After implementing the bonus, however, it is real money which then belongs to the respective player.
Completely irrelevant where the money then comes from. Real money is real money. And that it is shows the fact that he can withdraw it.

Let's be honest about which completely obvious things we discuss at all.
I feel like I have to explain to people here that the earth is round and not flat.

This post has been translated automatically

Stromberg wrote on 07/12/2018 at 3:49 PM
Not irrelevant to me.
I think it is legitimate to say:
"You can only withdraw 100 euros, even if the bonus is converted and the money is then called real money. Under these conditions we offer you the bonus."
You now know my opinion on this, and even if you want to portray me as slow on the uptake, I won't explain it again.
Of course you can post yours 10 more times.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically