UK Casino Club / Casino Rewards denies a 10K payout - RESOLVED

[thepokerkeep]

I gotta agree with Caruso on this. If you're going to provide some terms on the bonus page, you should ensure all the relevant info is there. And a link from that section of the page directing players to the terms page would be a good idea as well.

Most players (and affiliates) do not read the complete terms and conditions.

Sad but true!

[Chalkie]

Seems that the real bug bare is that there is 2 sets of terms, now forgive me, however, why cannot all terms be the same place? Even if the main terms run under the relevant terms.

If someone does not read the terms and conditions then they cannot moan when they do not fit within them, however, when there is 1 set of terms here and another there then this is tantamount to hiding them imo

Bottom line for me is this, put the whole terms where the player has to check that they have read them and there can be no issue.

[Renee]

Imagine, you deposit €400, get a €100 bonus. Balance now €500. Yum yum yum.

Now: isn't it pretty important to know that, with this €500 balance, you may not bet any bigger than €25 a hand? Isn't this VITAL information?

How many gamblers, with a €500 starting balance, restrict themselves to bet sizes up to no more than €25?

Now look here:

http://www.ukcasinoclub.com/promo/signup.asp

See a ****-load of terms, right? Game exclusions? Game weightings? Wagering requirements? All that stuff you'd expect to see? It's all there.

But where is this "25%" term? It's not there.

But it IS here - you have to scroll right to the bottom of the page:

http://www.ukcasinoclub.com/help/termsconditions.asp

And voilà, there's the term.

That term which is SO relevant to ANY gambler who takes a bonus is not listed in amongst the main terms, but squirreled away at the bottom of the general terms.

And let's be clear we're talking about gamblers here, because a savvy player like me would never get caught out like this. It's the GAMBLERS, not the bonus hunters / +EV players etc, who will get caught out here, because gambler are looking to gamble, not scan the fine print. For the GAMBLERS, this information must be displayed in the proper place, with all the other bonus information.

It's rank unacceptable to hide vital terms like this. It is even more rank unacceptable when the group is one which is, frankly, eulogised to the extent that Casino Rewards is.

The ball is rather in the player's court right now, so I'm putting my own plans on hold until he's sure what he wants to do.

Caruso I see your point, but that doesn't excuse the fact that they didn't read all of the T&Cs. There is also nothing that says the player must take the bonus. The player is welcome to decline it.

I will speak with management about linking the T&Cs page from that bonus page.. I don't think that is unreasonable (although if they look under the help menu the link is already there)

Chalkie - there already is a link to the terms where the player has to tick that they have read them.

[Renee]

I gotta agree with Caruso on this. If you're going to provide some terms on the bonus page, you should ensure all the relevant info is there. And a link from that section of the page directing players to the terms page would be a good idea as well.

Most players (and affiliates) do not read the complete terms and conditions.

Sad but true!

Terry if the player has not read the T&Cs, they shouldn't be ticking the box that says "...I have read and agree to the T&CS..."

[Chalkie]

Chalkie - there already is a link to the terms where the player has to tick that they have read them.

I understand that but to alleviate the problem arising why not have the terms copied underneath instead of linking them?

It's not like it is waste of paper or anything is it.

It would just make it a lot easier to stand up against people who complain when they do not meet the terms and some people may even read all of them too.

Not complaining or anything, just adding my tuppence hal'penny

[TheGooner]

It's a bad situation - with terms and conditions scattered over two HTML pages - and very poorly thought out.

The resolution - which sounds like the confiscation of all winnings due to not following the bonus terms does not appear to make sense to me - as the player has deposited €400 of his own - and potentially only received a €100 bonus.

I agree that the terms of the bonus have not been followed - so I agree that the casino should have a right to say that the €100 bonus will be taken off the players balance.

But as for cancelling the players winnings or refusing to payout - no - that's simply being a "rules lawyer" in an attempt to minimise a payout.

I cannot agree with the stance you are taking Renee - I do not believe that it natural justice - it's simply spouting the company line. The only amount that should be in dispute in this case is the potential €100 bonus.

Nothing else.

[Renee]

It's a bad situation - with terms and conditions scattered over two HTML pages - and very poorly thought out.

The resolution - which sounds like the confiscation of all winnings due to not following the bonus terms does not appear to make sense to me - as the player has deposited €400 of his own - and potentially only received a €100 bonus.

I agree that the terms of the bonus have not been followed - so I agree that the casino should have a right to say that the €100 bonus will be taken off the players balance.

But as for cancelling the players winnings or refusing to payout - no - that's simply being a "rules lawyer" in an attempt to minimise a payout.

I cannot agree with the stance you are taking Renee - I do not believe that it natural justice - it's simply spouting the company line. The only amount that should be in dispute in this case is the potential €100 bonus.

Nothing else.

OK guys I've found the player in question.. It wasn't hard..

A few facts.

The player did not claim the bonus until they had spent all of their own money.

When playing with their own money before claiming the bonus, the player made very small bets. Once they claimed the bonus, they began making very large bets, the first being more than 50% of the bonus received, and the rest being more than 100% of the bonus received. If this player was a "gambler" as Caruso describes, why didn't the player make these kind of bets with their own money?

So looking at this, if the player was not given a bonus, they would not have won the 10k since they were not so daring with their own money.

Also, the page that they were referring to is not the one that you posted Caruso, it is the german version here: http://www.ukcasinoclub.de/promo/signup.asp

The player's deposit was refunded even though they did lose the whole of the deposit at the casino. I think this is reasonable.

[thepokerkeep]

Terry if the player has not read the T&Cs, they shouldn't be ticking the box that says "...I have read and agree to the T&CS..."

I agree with you. But, most players do not read them. The bottom line is that the terms need to be transparent and easily found. In the case we are discussing, the terms are partially printed on the bonus page which could easily lead a player to believe that if he follows the instructions he reads there, he will meet all the bonus requirements. It would be a simple thing for your techs to add the remainder of the bonus terms to that page... eliminate any chance of confusion and be more transparent.

[Spearmaster]

I agree with Caruso. At the very least there MUST be a link to any additional T&Cs which are relevant to the promotion, or even generally applied to all players.

Otherwise, I would call this promotion deceptive.

[Renee]

If I walked into a shop and took something from the shelf that had no price tag under it or on it, and walked out, I would still be stealing it. Just because it doesn't have the price tag there, it doesn't mean it is free.. In this case I would search for a price tag and if I couldn't find one I would ask the store keeper.

The handful of terms listed on that page are not the full terms and conditions - the full terms and conditions can be found on the T&Cs page.. as I mentioned, I will chat with the bosses about adding a link to the full T&Cs and will suggest that a line to the tune of "all regular T&Cs of the casino apply" there too, but the player broke the T&Cs right after agreeing that he had read them... their deposit was refunded despite the fact that they lost the deposit.
Also take note of my last post.

[casinobonusguy]

Judy this is all dependent on the bonus you took with the deposit. From your example you did not take a bonus, therefore the rule would not apply to you.

Yes I did get a bonus ,the only thing fortune ever takes is the bonus NEVER the player winnings.I agree with Gooner the only thing this player should lose is the $100 Bonus.Playing with his own money he bet one way then he bet another way on free money ,I would have to see entire player data to make a statement on this.
Bottom line the player was entitled to a bonus , you guys think it is ok to give him back his deposit ,take back his bonus and all winnings because happened to win?Caruso is right any other casino group would be hung out to dry for this.

[Renee]

Yes I did get a bonus ,the only thing fortune ever takes is the bonus NEVER the player winnings.I agree with Gooner the only thing this player should lose is the $100 Bonus.Playing with his own money he bet one way then he bet another way on free money ,I would have to see entire player data to make a statement on this.
Bottom line the player was entitled to a bonus , you guys think it is ok to give him back his deposit ,take back his bonus and all winnings because happened to win?Caruso is right any other casino group would be hung out to dry for this.

Judy, i was referring to your exact text and you never mentioned how much the bonus was or that the deposit came with a bonus, so i assumed that you did not receive one in that example.

====

The casino has enforced this rule on people who have lost both deposit and bonus too... i.e. refunded the deposit.. There is no picking and choosing here. The guy broke the T&Cs and like all others before him who have broken the T&Cs, the rules were enforced. If the guy had made bets like this after he had satisfied the wagering requirements, there would have been no problem and his cashin would have been processed.

I can't post data here due to ecogra rules on player protection, but if the player would like to come here and post his playcheck himself that is fine ...

I'm not going to keep repeating myself again.. if there is new information I will happily take care of it.

Cheers

[joeyl]

The player did not claim the bonus until they had spent all of their own money.

When playing with their own money before claiming the bonus, the player made very small bets. Once they claimed the bonus, they began making very large bets, the first being more than 50% of the bonus received, and the rest being more than 100% of the bonus received. If this player was a "gambler" as Caruso describes, why didn't the player make these kind of bets with their own money?

So looking at this, if the player was not given a bonus, they would not have won the 10k since they were not so daring with their own money.

I can't quite fathom the system here.

A slow blowing of 400, to get another hundred, and then go for it quick?

The terms are present granted, but mia.

Gamblers don't read the general terms and conditions any more than facebook users do. They'll tick yes though. When they are offered a bonus, they'll read the bonus terms, sure.

Please put bonus wagering related terms with the bonus terms.

Cheers.

[Renee]

I am not seeing 400 deposited here.. I'm seeing 100.

Unless the account number is provided and I can confirm, there are no other cases where a 10k cashin was blocked due to this rule, so I'm guessing the player has miscommunicated about this..

[Madnesz]

I am not seeing 400 deposited here.. I'm seeing 100.

Unless the account number is provided and I can confirm, there are no other cases where a 10k cashin was blocked due to this rule, so I'm guessing the player has miscommunicated about this..

Ok, so from what I understand, the player in question has been lying about his first deposit, so he might have been lying about other stuff as well. I do not want to discuss this specific player for this reason, but the rule in general.

As every other online casino there is a playthrough requirement in place to avoid bonus abuse. From what I understand the playthrough requirement is based on a negative expectancy for the player. So in case of a $100 bonus, the playthrough requirement should make sure the expected loss of the player after meeting that requirement should be at least $100. Because of this rule, the player will not be able to abuse the bonus.

What I really don't understand is why the rule subject to this topic has to be put in place. Who cares if the player makes one bet of $50, or two bets of $25? The expected loss of the player will be the same...

[TheGooner]

What I really don't understand is why the rule subject to this topic has to be put in place. Who cares if the player makes one bet of $50, or two bets of $25? The expected loss of the player will be the same...

That's easy to explain - the expected loss IS NOT THE SAME.

This rule is simply making sure that the casino has the "tryanny of large numbers" on it's side - ensuring that the bonus will have to be bet many times thus ensuring that the result of the play is likely to be a small loss. Basically the more bets made - the more likely the overall result will be a small loss.

If a player is allowed to bet "all-in" and then double and re-double the stake then the turnover requirements can be quickly met in a small sequence of bets - as few as five 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x - and the probability of player profit (and significant profit) is much higher.

(in the case above a lucky sequence of 5 red bets in roulette completes 31x turnover and turns a 100 bonus into 3200 - and occurs 3% of the time)

Compare that to 120 bets of $25 on roulette to meet a 30x turnover, and you expect to see a final player balance of around $40 - plus or minus $20

Casino odds are all about maximising the number of bets to reduce variance and produce an overall profit to the house.

---------------------------------

Regarding the specific case ...

Renee / Caruso - there seems to be a lot of he said/she said now - with deposit amounts being questioned as well as when the bonus was taken.

This might be something that needs to be discussed between you two and the player offline - with a resolution (satisfactorily or otherwise) posted back into this thread.

Additionally ...

Renee - if the player did only claim the bonus after all other balances were lost - and then the bonus was misplayed not according to the rules then I understand the decision not to payout.

However, it would be better to have this key rule up front and centre in future and pretty much at the top of the first page - and not towards the bottom of an additional link.

Bet restrictions and bet value limitations are pretty key to serious bonus players - and having to deny someone who thought that they'd won fairly is always going to be a huge negative PR event.

[Madnesz]

That's easy to explain - the expected loss IS NOT THE SAME.

You are making one big mistake here. You are applying the 'law of the large number' to this one player only, but you should apply it to a large player base. You are right in that this one player is more likely to walk away with a profit by placing large bets. At the same time, there will be another player who will be bust very soon playing in the same way. Applying this to a large player base, will give exactly the same results in the end.

Let's say we got 100 players, all playing with a large number of very small bets. In the end every player will settle more or less around the expected house win. So with a bankroll of $1000, let's say the all end up with $950. Now we got 100 different players who place only few large bets. Some of those players will walk away with a profit, some will be completely bust after a few bets. In the end, the sum of the money will be about the same: 100 * 950 = 95000

[thepokerkeep]

The handful of terms listed on that page are not the full terms and conditions

That's the problem I have with the current page. Either list all relevant bonus terms or none of them. The page, in it's present form is misleading and will obviously lead to players misunderstanding and unintentionally abusing the bonus terms.

[Caruso]

In terms of the actual deposit amount, the player didn't tell me this, only that he receiveda €100 bonus. I then went to the UK CC site, saw that first deposit get a 25% bonus, and made the logical calculation that he put in €400. If his deposit, to receive his €100 bonus, was less or more than €400, then OK. Whatever. Doesn't change the principle.

As to the reference about playing small, then playing big after receiving the bonus (which must have been credited immediately post-deposit, so I don't know how it's relevant), well, again, whatever. The issue remains. My opinion is he's a "gambler" type, otherwise he'd have scrutinised the rules from top to toe. Nevermind, it was a side issue, gambling orientation notwithstanding.

To those of you have have taken the appreciatedly player-supportive stance of suggesting that he should only lose his bonus: in (grudging) fairness to the casinos that implement the rule of withholding bonus plus everything else, I should point out that there is method to their madness, because the bonus, even if sacrificed, can be advantageous. This does not mean that ALL winnings should be lost if "too big" bets are made. In fact, the correct rule is to disallow only those winning resulting from the "too big" bets - this is what 32Red does (see my terms article), and is what all casinos should do, as it is fair. However, this is another slight sideissue that I wanted, in fairness, to address.

Although I won't post specifics, I can say that the player has made a couple of proposals which are, in my opinion, fair, as they represent acknowledgement of the fact that although he "broke the rules", the rules are not correctly displayed, and, intent notwithstanding, this represents a degree of entrapment which I don't consider acceptable (nor do pretty much all the posters here, which I appreciate, as I'm sure the player does).

I would appreciate it if Casino Rewards would consider the suggestions.

(They also absolutely should include the "25% max bet" rule in with the main bonus terms where they appear on the bonus page, but that is not my current priority.)

[Hans]

Hello to you all:
I am the sa(i)d player who managed to win 10 000 Euro in the UK Casino Club with a 100 Euro bonus. Sad, because now I am left with nothing, since the risk management decided to confiscate my winnings, as I was not aware of bonus rule no. 13 while playing.

I already sent private emails to Renee and Caruso explaining my situation. I will not provide any personal account information in this forum, because the Kahnawake Gaming Commission has taken the lead in this issue and I do not want them to terminate their assistance. However, there are 3 points that I wish to clarify, because they are not cited correctly here.

Point 1: I did not deposit 400 Euro as Caruso stated, but 100 Euro. I never mentioned to anyone that I deposited 400 Euro. Caruso must either have misunderstood or misinterpreted my first email. I kindly ask Caruso to look into my first email and verify that I was never wrong with this information. Fact is that I deposited 100 Euro, but the size of my deposit amount should not matter in this issue, as you will see from Point no. 2.

Point 2: Renee wrote that I wagered small amounts in the beginning and larger amounts when having received my bonus. This is true, but there is a simple reason for it: With a 100 Euro balance I can hardly place a 300 Euro bet. I did not receive the bonus right away, so I started with a balance of 100 Euro. My favorite games are Video Poker and Multi Hand Blackjack. I do not remember exactly, what I wagered in the first rounds (and I cannot retrieve this information anymore, because my casino account is locked), but I surely did NOT just wager small amounts like 1-Euro-bets. I guess that I played 5 hands with a 10 Euro bet on each hand. That is, what I would typically have done: Spending 10% of my balance on one hand. After some rounds of play I lost it all. Two hours later I was awarded the 100 Euro signup bonus. With this bonus I continued playing in a similar way. But then something occurred, which never happened to me in all my life. For 30 rounds or more, I won almost every round. And, naturally, with an increasing balance I also increased my bet on each hand. I am not the player who always places the same chip regardless of my game history. If I have a lot to spend, then I wager a lot. At that time I was not aware of bonus rule no. 13, which says that I shall not wager more than 25% of my bonus in a single bet.

Point 3: Unfortunately I cannot prove now, that it is not irregular play for me to wager 5 hands in Multihand Blackjack with 300 Euros in each hand, because my casino account is locked. However, that is exactly what I did after having reached a balance of something like 5000 Euro. I continued playing large bets until I reached something like 12 000 Euro. At that time I had already fulfilled the play-through requirements of the bonus. And now comes the interesting point: If the casino management looks into my account history, they will find that even then (after I had fulfilled the play-through requirements), I STILL CONTINUED PLAYING THESE BIG AMOUNTS, until I finally decided to go to sleep at an ending balance of 10 000 Euro. And if that is not enough to prove that I do bet large amounts (of money that I believe is mine!), I am happy to provide my user names in other casinos, who can confirm that I am a high-roller and not a 1-Euro-better.

Finally, here is my major point of dispute: I have played in many casinos before, and I always read the bonus terms and conditions before starting to play, if I am entitled to a bonus. In this case, I DID read the "Terms and Conditions Multiple Bonus Promotion" as listed on ukcasinoclub.com/promo/signup.asp , believing that these Terms and Conditions were complete. I guess that only very, very few players will search for more TERMS AND CONDITIONS to read on some other webpages, if they already found a passage referred to as „Terms and Conditions Multiple Bonus Promotion“. Please note, that it really reads "Terms and Conditions Multiple Bonus Promotion". It does not say "Excerpt of the Terms and Conditions". I just cannot understand, why such a relevant rule as bonus rule no. 13 was DISCLUDED from this list. It is the ONLY rule missing here, when comparing the Terms and Conditions listed on the two DIFFERENT locations ukcasinoclub.com/promo/signup.asp
and ukcasinoclub.com/help/termsconditions.asp . Does it make sense to squeeze 13 rules to 12 rules on the signup bonus page? Waste of paper could hardly be the reason for it. It is more likely, that it was simply forgotten to post rule no. 13 on the signup bonus page.

There is one more topic that I wish to address: The Risk Management informed me by email that the page ukcasinoclub.com/promo/signup.asp contains instructions only of how to receive the bonus. That is just not true, because rule no. 2 explains the play-through requirement, and rule no. 7 explains the allowed games. Rule no. 13 (which is missing here) would have been of the SAME importance, as it addresses the allowed amounts. Allowed amounts are of the same importance as allowed games, aren’t they???

I also wish to make some suggestions to help other players in the future: It would be a lot fairer, if there is just ONE set of Terms and Conditions in every casino. And if there really needs to be an additional Signup Bonus page, then it should be clearly stated that any rules or conditions listed here are an excerpt only.

Finally, I wish to say (and I hope that my English is good enough to express this accordingly, since I am from Germany and not a native English speaker) that I never intended to cheat anyone. It does not thrill me, if I just place 1-Euro-bets. The thrill comes when I wager larger amounts, which might even go up to a substantial part of my total balance. And to show my honesty I would even agree to fulfill another 30x play-through requirement in blackjack, if the casino agrees to put the 10 000 Euro back into my account. I have no other idea of how to prove my honesty.

Regards to all of you
Hans