Casino Rewards - Retroactive terms & wagering requirements

[iGamingWriter]

So much sympathy towards someone who's obviously a bonus hunter, looks for the loopholes in the t&c's and makes money. I bet that if such player was registered via any of you, and was wiping your earnings month after month you would be begging for his ban.

Casinos don't apply restrictions to players for no reason know that. And making money off casinos isn't well taken don't know why everyone here acts like it's something normal. Just because it's legal through a loophole doesn't make it right. Judging on the dozen other similar topics I guess you do this for living as well. I doubt you will ever take legal actions as well!

If it is not breaking the rules then there is no issue with the play ethical or otherwise. When a supermaket offer cut price deals, they offer them to attact customers into the store in the hopes that they'll buy more than just the special offers. Do they then refuse customers that shop smart and only buy special offer products?

That the player isn't profitable to the casino or the affiliate does not make bonus hunting wrong either. In fact there is no ethical debate what-so-ever as long as the player plays by the rules. If the casino don't want a player to play in a specific fashion it's a straight forward enough process to lay that out in the t&cs.

[TheCPA]

Personally, I think Renee is doing everything possible to be civil and work towards a proper resolution.
She has repeatedly asked for the player to file with Kahnawake.

Also, I doubt she can post actual numbers and activity related to the accounts, but once the player files with Kahnawake, they can see info that we can't see here.

She also just said they would comply with whatever Kahnawake rules, so why isn't this being done?

Disputes are going to occur from time to time, especially when you have a player who is extremely competent at disecting the bonus rules. Not saying there's anything wrong with that either, just saying it brings a lot of gray areas into the mix that require 3rd party intervention. This is one of those. File with Kahnawake and let's see what they say!

[xecutable]

If it is not breaking the rules then there is no issue with the play ethical or otherwise. When a supermaket offer cut price deals, they offer them to attact customers into the store in the hopes that they'll buy more than just the special offers. Do they then refuse customers that shop smart and only buy special offer products?

Your example is totally irrelevant. Buying something still means you leave money at the store doesn't it? Therefore you are still missing $ from your wallet at the end of the day, doesn't matter if it was a special offer or not. Now the example would have been valid, if you entered the store with 200$ and left it with 400$.

And as I said before, when you haven't experienced it you wont care, cause it's not money out of your pocket. You will be singing a different tune, if such player registers via you, and keeps your account into the negative 2k balance for half a year, blocking a good amount of income.

[Schankwart]

This forum of GPWA serves to post and discuss various sorts of unethical behavior with verifiable proof, which why this thread was started in the first place.

Multiple posters and senior members of GPWA clearly voiced their opinions, yet Casino Rewards are refusing to listen and fairly resolve this. If C.R. wanted to settle this they would honor their terms and not ask me to file another complaint elsewhere. Nevertheless, this is what will be done.

By the way, this is what Wikipedia says about forum trolls. One can only guess what their agenda is.

I deposited, risked my money, played some Video Poker and was only forced to dissect their bonus rules when I suddenly found the additional wagering requirements in my account.

[Caruso]

She also just said they would comply with whatever Kahnawake rules, so why isn't this being done?

It may well be. Beyond GPWA, it'd be my suggestion. However, having raised the issue and seen such negative reaction to the idea of GPWA actually taking a stance against casino corruption against players, I'm even more curious. You would have sweet F.A. without players. Yet some of you seem to think you have an indelible right to the contents of players' wallets without any comeback when the player is turned over. What supreme arrogance. What if players started just typing addresses into the address bar and screw the affy ads? Where would you be then? Methinks a little less "fu*ck the player", eh?

That's the generic "you", not particularly directed at Nick.

Your example is totally irrelevant. Buying something still means you leave money at the store doesn't it?

As do BHers, all the time. From your comment, I'd guess you've never played a gambling game in your life.

You may leave something at the shop when you take your cut-price bargain, but these can go wildly wrong for the shop in question. Sometimes they refuse to honour the deal full stop, even though the customer "leaves something at the store", when the outcome is hugely negative to them. The practice of coupon-hunting etc is only logistically different from casino bonuses; the generalities are the same. When an item is actually so underpriced that it represents resale profit potential for the customer, the two are identical.

[TheCPA]

I going to have to disagree with that now. I think they have listened, Renee has tried to explain their side to the best of her ability. Clearly there may be some additional information that she may or may not be allowed to publish on a forum.

She HAS REPEATEDLY ask you to take it to Kahnawake to be investigated, and on her latest post said that CR would abide by any decision handed down by them.
If after Kahnawake investigates the totality of the accounts in question, and CR'S terms, you should win that decision based on your claims here. If there is more to the story that is not here,..or can not be detailed on a public forum, you won't win.

Kahnawake has some teeth, whereas none of us here could ever exert as much pressure or force CR to do ANYTHING. Kahnawake can do this for you, but to continue this banter HERE is futile, and rapidly becoming a waste of time.

Like I said earlier, there are going to be disagreements when loopholes in bonus terms are used. That's OK, but just do your "Due Dilligence" at this point, and escalate it to Kahnawake as Renee has ask you to, and let's get a decision from them.
You think you're right, they feel they are. File with Kahnawake.

Over the last 12 years or so, I also have to admit that I've seen some really good cases made by players against the casinos. We were able to get compliance in many of them for the players. By the same token, there have been dozens of them where the player omitted some little details that came out only after the case was escalated to the governing authority over the casino.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'd like to see what Kahnawake has to say before this goes any further. If you're not willing to take it Kahnawake, then I have to admit, that would make me a little suspicious. If your case is 100% solid, then you will prevail. Simple as that, IMO.

[iGamingWriter]

And as I said before, when you haven't experienced it you wont care, cause it's not money out of your pocket. You will be singing a different tune, if such player registers via you, and keeps your account into the negative 2k balance for half a year, blocking a good amount of income.

So what this is really about isn't an ethical issue with these players' strategy it's your loss of income? If you don't want to market to smart players - and that's all they've done wrong (that being a subjective word); educate themselves about the rules and found the strategy that provides the best opportunity for them to win money, which is the primary objective of gambling - choose to market casinos that are tight on bonus abuse. I can name a half dozen highly reputable brands that are very good at catching bonus abusers quickly and restricting further bonuses. If it's all on sign-up bonuses, you need to start looking at why all these abusers are signing up through your links rather than directly on the casino homepage - perhaps you're offering an exclusive bonus, in which case that exclusive bonus is probably costing you more than it's helping you and you should look to shift back to the standard promotion.

The player doesn't owe you anything for signing up and no player signs up with the intention of losing money. They all know there's a chance that could happen but they're all signing up with the hopes of winning money. Every player selects what game to play and what actions to take during the game to - in their mind at least - increase their chance of winning. It makes no difference whether the player has educated themselves beforehand, the intention is the same.

As long as there has been gambling there have been smart players who figure out how to beat the game. For the casino - and the affiliate as an extension of their marketing department - these players are not who you are looking to attact, but before they are identified they are simply part of the cost of doing business.

If rules are broken that's a whole different story and by the sounds of it your woes come from multi-accounters which is most certainly a violation of the rules, but as long as the player has adhered to the rules they should be treated fairly.

[FictionNet]

You would have sweet F.A. without players. Yet some of you seem to think you have an indelible right to the contents of players' wallets without any comeback when the player is turned over. What supreme arrogance.

This definitely can be the appearance when reading some comments from affiliates and it makes me cringe when I come across it. It's a weird moral situation to be earning a living from the losses of other people. For me, anyway. I try to provide as much value and quality as I can in exchange.

IMO, the benefits of being a gambling affiliate come with a responsibility to our customers and I'm pleased to say that nearly every affiliate I've met in person or got to know online does take their responsibilities seriously and would go out of their way to help a visitor in need, regardless of whether that player signed up under the affiliate's link. At least, that's been my experience.

Apologies for the disrail.

[FictionNet]

Over the last 12 years or so, I also have to admit that I've seen some really good cases made by players against the casinos. We were able to get compliance in many of them for the players. By the same token, there have been dozens of them where the player omitted some little details that came out only after the case was escalated to the governing authority over the casino.

Same here. I'd say cases I've helped with have been split roughly down the middle in terms of who was being naughty

[TheCPA]

I understand the moral feeling that you're earning money off other's losses, however, I see it a bit differently. Gambling is,....like many other things in life,...a form of entertainment for most people. Super Bowl tickets run 600.00 to over 1000.00 each, and that's before you rent a room, buy an 8 dollar beer or two, etc.! lol You leave with a feeling of having a good time, but that's it, and the money is gone.

Gambling is fun, and auxilerating at times! You even have a chance to have the experience, and maybe even walk away with what you started with, or more. To me, it's all about how an individual choses to spend their entertainment dollars.

Where I would feel a little bad is if someone is losing more than they should, or can honestly afford to lose. It happens, however, this happens in other areas too. I've see people all the time spending money on crap they don't need, and can't really afford! A couple of them work for me! lol

I had to ask one of my guys,...do you really need TWO 64 inch HD TV'S right now?? Yep, he had one, and put another one on a credit card. He's single BTW, and lives alone! lmao! So he struggled, and ate Hot Dogs and Beans for two months while he pays it off! It's a personal choice.
So some of this is just being responsible. We can't be responsible for player decisions. The moral issue is on them, not us. JMO, so don't feel to guilty Fiction!!

[joeyl]

If you have terms that need clarifying, then the man gets paid and the terms get clarified.

How come not if not?

[Schankwart]

If Casino Rewards DID have any question or there was some information missing to them, they would have asked me here or in private. They did not do it because all details of this case are already known by them and available in public. The situation itself is already clear.

I do not understand how one can believe that playing a bonus and not breaking any terms is a loophole, but such statements can probably only be made by someone who indeed never played at an online casino themselves.

Just to mention this once again: Whoever reads this thread will get a picture of CR's modus operandi.

While I appreciate that many of you care about fair treatment of the players you refer, this thread is getting derailed from its subject. I would like to take this opportunity to thank (almost) all of you for your inputs and support. I will post updates once new information becomes available.

[Caruso]

I going to have to disagree with that now. I think they have listened, Renee has tried to explain their side to the best of her ability. Clearly there may be some additional information that she may or may not be allowed to publish on a forum.

Clearly there is not, otherwise she would say "there's more I can't mention", which she hasn't. I'm not sure where alluding to possible "other" information, clearly pejorative in nature, comes from. Both the player and the casino rep have been absolutely clear.


1) There were no restrictions on which CR account the bonus could be assigned to. God knows why not, it's totally boneheaded to allow effective freerolling, but that's not our business.

2) There was no "carried over wagering" rule in the terms at the time of playing.


What isn't clear? It's all been laid out in black and white here. Why do we need Kahnawake? Why can no impartial party here make a decision?

[slotplayer]

I understand the moral feeling that you're earning money off other's losses, however, I see it a bit differently. Gambling is,....like many other things in life,...a form of entertainment for most people. Super Bowl tickets run 600.00 to over 1000.00 each, and that's before you rent a room, buy an 8 dollar beer or two, etc.! lol You leave with a feeling of having a good time, but that's it, and the money is gone.

Gambling is fun, and auxilerating at times! You even have a chance to have the experience, and maybe even walk away with what you started with, or more. To me, it's all about how an individual choses to spend their entertainment dollars.

Where I would feel a little bad is if someone is losing more than they should, or can honestly afford to lose. It happens, however, this happens in other areas too. I've see people all the time spending money on crap they don't need, and can't really afford! A couple of them work for me! lol

I had to ask one of my guys,...do you really need TWO 64 inch HD TV'S right now?? Yep, he had one, and put another one on a credit card. He's single BTW, and lives alone! lmao! So he struggled, and ate Hot Dogs and Beans for two months while he pays it off! It's a personal choice.
So some of this is just being responsible. We can't be responsible for player decisions. The moral issue is on them, not us. JMO, so don't feel to guilty Fiction!!

tangibles provide value for your money, gambling under values money.

in any event, the way its typically done in business when someone takes advantage of a weakness in policy is you honor it and close it up so the next customer doesn't take advantage of it.

[mojo]

tangibles provide value for your money, gambling under values money.

in any event, the way its typically done in business when someone takes advantage of a weakness in policy is you honor it and close it up so the next customer doesn't take advantage of it.

Agreed. It's as simple as that. Honor it, then do not allow that weakness again.

[Caruso]

Shanky, did you contact Mikki at Kahnawake?

[Schankwart]

Update: CasinoRewards still insists on the retroactive application of their bonus terms and wagering requirements. After my most recent post I contacted ecogra to resolve this situation. Their reply was as follows:

When a player redeems a bonus, then redeems a subsequent bonus, the wagering requirements apply to the total of both bonus redeemed.

The only reason the wagering requirements on the first bonus would be written off is if the player makes a deposit after the first deposit had been lost.

If no deposits are made, any bonuses redeemed one after the other are effectively added up as a total bonus.

Bearing the above in mind we are confident that the operator has acted according to their Terms and Conditions and as such I must inform you that we find your dispute to be invalid.

As proven in this thread, there has not been any term and condition that stipulates that wagering requirements are carried over for bonuses that were already lost in full. Ecogra's reply is obviously based on the retroactively applied term 15., which is why I asked for clarification on which of the original term(s) they are referring to before the terms were changed. However, Ecogra refused to answer all questions about this.

Furthermore I emphasized that I made a second deposit before receiving the $200 bonus. However, this purchase is irrelevant from a legal point of view, as I had already lost all previous bonuses and term 15. was only added after I had deposited and played already.

When I realized that Ecogra refused to resolve this, I decided to contact Kahnawake and explained all details to them. In their response Kahnawake confirmed that CasinoRewards added this as a new term. However, they explained that they will not assist as this case has already "been dealt with by ecogra".

Since you have been dealing with Tex (ecogra) we must advise you we will not undertake any other issues you may have.

However in this case CasinoRewards management has provided the following information: They agree they did add a new term, however CasinoRewards advises this was solely to avoid any future misunderstandings, it was not intended to be used retrospectively against you or any particular player.

Of course this term is being used retroactively. Furthermore, Ecogra did not investigate this case at all.

I re-explained Kahnawake that there has not been any term that permitted CasinoRewards to apply additional wagering requirements before their changes. Upon this Kahnawake sent me the following reply:

We are satisfied with the investigation into your complaint with CasinoRewards. Your case is closed, we will not enter into any further communication on the matter.

Since then there has not been any progress in this regard.

Due to the terms and conditions of ecogra and Kahnawake I was not permitted to make public statements, which is why I did not update this thread anymore until now. As this case still has not been properly addressed, I am now urged to escalate this matter and take additional measures to collect my rightful balance of more than USD 2000.

For those who are unfamiliar with this extensive thread: Many well established members of GPWA clearly expressed their opinions in this thread and requested CasinoRewards to fairly correct their actions by honoring their original terms. As of today, this still did not happen.

[iGamingWriter]

I have to be honest and say that I feel the behaviour of Casino Rewards, Kahnawake and eCorga have been fairly shameful in this instance.

Having reviewed the original terms there was no violation. To be completely up front about it, Schankwart was employing a strategy that I can understand Casino Rewards not liking, however not liking how a player played does not justify seizure of funds. Term 15 was added after the seizure to prevent other players using the same strategy in the future. That's a perfectly valid reaction and in fact I've advised several casino properties on how they can improve their terms after disputes have occurred. But it's not ok on any level to then enforce a rule that you've just implemented on previous play.

This was not a rule clarification, there was no ambiguity in an existing term, an entirely new rule was added.

I had hoped that this issue would have been properly handled by the correct authorities before I got round to reviewing the Casino Reward properties, but clearly the rights of the player are irrelevant if they don't play in a way the casino approve of. Coincidentally this is a job I am working on right now. Obviously this case will be referenced in said reviews.

ThePOGG

[Viriatu]

So much sympathy towards someone who's obviously a bonus hunter, looks for the loopholes in the t&c's and makes money. I bet that if such player was registered via any of you, and was wiping your earnings month after month you would be begging for his ban.

well not if you are in a wagershare at RA and then you dont give a damm...

anyway, players/ users like this are important at some degree, they find the gaps, allow casinos to close the gap and avoid any serious fraudsters in the future taking part on such actions, but its not my fault the terms are badly designed, despite bonus hunting, the player/user must always be paid imo... i have had many players complaints regarding CR and i always find that at some point they violated some other rule of sorts, the winnings are voided, but the player after being told what he has done wrong is re funded at least the deposits, this is what is going on with my players, i supose they are not special.

I think despite all the untagged cross promotion and despite being impossible to unsubscribe from the crap email listings, RA works for the overall satisfation of players and i have much more happy campers than i have players crying... i think renee is a professional that takes pride in her work and i have nothing but good things to say, but in this case, despite what anyone thinks about winning at casinos, i think the player should not be retroactively forced to wager more because he deposited 400$ and made a bonus clean.

[Schankwart]

but in this case, despite what anyone thinks about winning at casinos, i think the player should not be retroactively forced to wager more because he deposited 400$ and made a bonus clean.

Just for the record: Even without my additional USD 400 purchase Casino Rewards would not be allowed to transfer wagering requirements from previously lost bonuses, as this term (15.) was only added by them after I deposited played already. My balance was USD 0 before I started playing.

thepogg got this absolutely right:

This was not a rule clarification, there was no ambiguity in an existing term, an entirely new rule was added.