BeenAround
Newbie Streaker
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2026
- Messages
- 2
This situation happened to me at Red Stag Casino. However, I want to make it clear that it is not just Red Stag Casino that I am going after. That would be too little. Practically speaking, Red Stag should be viewed as a skin of their parent company: Deckmedia N.V. By extension, I am levying my complaint against all Deckmedia N.V. casinos: Red Stag, Miami Club, Uptown Aces, Sloto Cash, Fair Go, Ozwin, Spartan Slots, Uptown Pokies and Decode Casino.
Red Stag is refusing to pay me nearly $15,000. First, they closed my account. At the time, they said my balance would be paid off at a rate of $2,500 per week. After they failed to make any payments, they eventually told me it was because the security team was running an investigation. I continued to pressure Red Stag during this period, but ultimately, I tolerated this investigation because I knew there was nothing to find. After 5 weeks, the security department didn't find anything. They decided to void my balance anyway. Officially, they claimed my activity was not in compliance with their T&C, citing only the end of rule 10:
“Players found using multiple browsers and/or found attempting to manipulate or ascertain information concerning the Casino software will forfeit all winnings and their accounts will be terminated.”
They refused to elaborate on this. I had no inside information regarding the software and did nothing to manipulate it. Sometimes, I had more than one slot game open at a time - different slots on the same computer on the same account always on Microsoft Edge. This is not against the rules at any casino, and some game providers specifically design their games to accommodate this. If you read rule 10 in its entirety, you get a better sense of what it was actually designed to defend against:
"All Casino wagers must be placed through the user interface provided by the Casino on its website or through the client software. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a "robot" player, is strictly prohibited. In the event that use of non-approved client software is detected, the Company reserves the right to invalidate all such wagers retroactively, cancel the Player's account, or take any other appropriate counteraction. Players found using multiple browsers and/or found attempting to manipulate or ascertain information concerning the Casino software will forfeit all winnings and their accounts will be terminated."
I violated nothing in the above rule. Red Stag knows it too. Frankly, it would not shock me if Red Stag tried to home in on the "ascertain information concerning the Casino software" clause as a backhanded way to try to criminalize using some basic, common-sense strategy playing their progressives.
Most of the money in my account was the result of progressive jackpot money won. By stiffing me, that money gets paid out to nobody. It's also true that my winnings didn't really affect their bottom line that much. If I didn't win that jackpot money, they would've just had to pay it out to somebody else sooner or later.
After I notified Red Stag that I was going to post negative feedback, they tried to pivot themselves to being the victim. Essentially, the implication was that I was either trying to extort them or bribe them (I said I'd provide positive feedback if they paid). It should go without saying that I am resorting to a self-defense mechanism to try to get paid what's owed to me.
Make no mistake, Red Stag is not acting from within a framework of what is right and wrong. They are acting from within a framework of who has power and who doesn't.
Red Stag is refusing to pay me nearly $15,000. First, they closed my account. At the time, they said my balance would be paid off at a rate of $2,500 per week. After they failed to make any payments, they eventually told me it was because the security team was running an investigation. I continued to pressure Red Stag during this period, but ultimately, I tolerated this investigation because I knew there was nothing to find. After 5 weeks, the security department didn't find anything. They decided to void my balance anyway. Officially, they claimed my activity was not in compliance with their T&C, citing only the end of rule 10:
“Players found using multiple browsers and/or found attempting to manipulate or ascertain information concerning the Casino software will forfeit all winnings and their accounts will be terminated.”
They refused to elaborate on this. I had no inside information regarding the software and did nothing to manipulate it. Sometimes, I had more than one slot game open at a time - different slots on the same computer on the same account always on Microsoft Edge. This is not against the rules at any casino, and some game providers specifically design their games to accommodate this. If you read rule 10 in its entirety, you get a better sense of what it was actually designed to defend against:
"All Casino wagers must be placed through the user interface provided by the Casino on its website or through the client software. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a "robot" player, is strictly prohibited. In the event that use of non-approved client software is detected, the Company reserves the right to invalidate all such wagers retroactively, cancel the Player's account, or take any other appropriate counteraction. Players found using multiple browsers and/or found attempting to manipulate or ascertain information concerning the Casino software will forfeit all winnings and their accounts will be terminated."
I violated nothing in the above rule. Red Stag knows it too. Frankly, it would not shock me if Red Stag tried to home in on the "ascertain information concerning the Casino software" clause as a backhanded way to try to criminalize using some basic, common-sense strategy playing their progressives.
Most of the money in my account was the result of progressive jackpot money won. By stiffing me, that money gets paid out to nobody. It's also true that my winnings didn't really affect their bottom line that much. If I didn't win that jackpot money, they would've just had to pay it out to somebody else sooner or later.
After I notified Red Stag that I was going to post negative feedback, they tried to pivot themselves to being the victim. Essentially, the implication was that I was either trying to extort them or bribe them (I said I'd provide positive feedback if they paid). It should go without saying that I am resorting to a self-defense mechanism to try to get paid what's owed to me.
Make no mistake, Red Stag is not acting from within a framework of what is right and wrong. They are acting from within a framework of who has power and who doesn't.
