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

[Anthony]

Affiliates as a whole need to look at how player terms are presented.

Terms placed in multiple locations only confuses players. There is no reason everything cant be in one place where the player can make an informed decision where they want to deposit their money.

[TheGooner]

If casinos want to limit a players wager ability they should have this built in the software .

Absolutely agree ...

It would be simple to pass a maximum-bonus-bet parameter through the casino software in the same way the player balance is maintained.

Imagine a land-based casino offering a comp chip and then saying - don't bet it all at once now ...

[AmCan]

Imagine a land-based casino offering a comp chip and then saying - don't bet it all at once now ...

My buddy gets deals in vegas all the time, 2 nights free room, $1000 bonus for slots. The casino puts the 1000 credits on as bonus, he puts in at least $1, then can bet all of the $1000 bonus, based on the min/max bet rules on the machine. What ever money is left after playing the $1000 bonus can be cashed out. Period.
no rules about keeping it at the casino, not cashing out, playing the wrong bet on the wrong game... nothing that revokes the player's win or his ability to walk out the casino with cash.

Requiring anything more than a straightforward playthrough multiple for a bonus, either means the bonus hasn't been adequately risk assessed or that the operator wants a way to avoid paying winners.

my favorite clause ever came from an MGS operator, years ago, who listed a series of requirements to avoid having your account closed as a bonus abuser. then they finished with "following all of these requirements exactly is considered bonus abuse".

BRILLIANT!

[Madnesz]

If casinos want to limit a players wager ability they should have this built in the software .

Hey! He stole my content!

[Hans]

The very first bet made with the bonus was 60.

Please let me stick to the facts: As I mentioned in my previous posts, I did NOT start playing with 60 Euro on a SINGLE hand. I played Multihand Blackjack and the 60 Euro was split among several hands. (It would not make sense to wager 60 Euro on a single hand at a balance of 100 Euro, because I would not be able to split if I had 2 Aces.) I do not recall how many hands I played, but I believe that I played 5 hands with a 10 Euro bet on each hand. The 60 Euro sum might arise from a double-down or a split in one of these 5 hands. Even if I had wagered 3 hands only with 20 Euro each, I would have wagered less than 25% of my 100 Euro bonus on each hand in the beginning.

Of course, if I add up the amounts on all hands simultaneously played, then I wagered more than 25% of my bonus. But is it fair to add up all the wagered amounts in 5 hands played, in order to see whether bonus rule no. 13 was broken or not??? I doubt it, because with 5 hands played it is much less likely to double the total amount wagered than with just one hand. There are just too many obstacles hidden in this bonus rule no. 13.

After having won some money, I increased my bet, because I was not aware of bonus rule no. 13 while playing. If the software had automatically limited my wagers, I would not have come into this unpleasant situation. Therefore, if a casino does not want its players to wager more than 25% of the bonus in a single bet, then I agree, that it would make things much easier and more transparent, if this is prohibited through the software itself.

Please note, that I did NOT leave the tables after having fulfilled the Play-Through requirement. I continued to wager 5 hands with something like 200 Euro on each hand, even AFTER having fulfilled the Play-Through requirement. That proves that I DO risk large amounts, even if the money is mine (which I believed at that time). I assume that this fact should be of some importance.

Please also note, that there is already an obstacle involved when playing blackjack at the UK Casino Club, because this game counts 20% only towards the Play-Through requirement. I had to wager my bonus money 150 times (!), before asking for a withdrawal. And I really managed to play-through more than 150 times, which I believe does not happen very often, does it?

I am looking forward to settling this issue gentlemen-like, because I believe that there is some fault on both sides. My fault is, that I did not search for more Terms and Conditions, before starting to play. The Casino's fault is, that it does not post its Terms and Conditions clearly and on ONE page only. The casino has the upper hand, that is why I am here to kindly ask for some good-will in this case. For instance, I would like to offer the following solutions to this sticky situation:

1) If the casino agrees to reopen my account and to put the 10 000 Euro back into my account, I will not cash out until I have wagered another let's say 300 000 Euros in Blackjack.

2) If the casino refuses to reopen my account, I kindly ask that we meet halfway, meaning that I be paid 50% of my winnings.

As I said, these are just suggestions that I wish to make, so that both sides can leave this sticky situation with a smile on their face.

Hans

[Caruso]

The bets made with their own deposit were between 10-12.. The very first bet made with the bonus was 60. The argument that the player cannot make large bets with such a small bankroll is bollocks here...The bonuses are credited to the casino rewards loyalty account and are claimable through there. The player could have waited for the bonus before beginning to play.

Putting aside the lack of professionalism in a casino employee saying that any opinion is "bollocks": whether or not the player bet $12, $60 or whatever other part of his overall bankroll is nothing to do with anything either I or the player have raised.

As a side note, I've looked at the page again. There is a link on the bottom footer that says Terms and Conditions. The argument that it's hard to find, again not withheld here. In any case, as I have mentioned many times previously, it is the player's responsibility to read ALL the T&Cs, not just the ones they choose to read.

I'll repeat this once more:

The "30% max" term is not on the bonus page, where there is a section clearly entitled "terms and conditions" and which, obviously enough, contains ostensibly all the terms applicable to the bonus: wagering requirements, game weighting, and even the old "we reserve the right to not pay you if..." clause, which is ALWAYS in the full terms.

Not only does that section of bonus terms not include the 30% rule, it also does not include a link within those rules saying "click here for additional bonus rules". The placement of that additional T & C section is, in fact, where all the standard pseudo-contract links are placed on all casino pages, in a line along the bottom.

The casino is now clearly aware of this, as evidenced by the rep's responses, and there is no mistake. She has clearly stated that they consider the terms to be in the right location, and that it is their evident intention to continue thus.

At this point, I return to my original opinion that this is entrapment, and I do not consider it acceptable. Some of you have made reference to the apparent good-standing of Casino Rewards. How do you now view this opinion?

So if its fair to say that CR has not made a career out of hiding terms etc, then at least let them come in and speak their side before you toss around words like etrap because lets not forget that you yourself have already said the term was there to be found, hidden as it was.

Having picked me up initially on that word, how do you now view this?

Affiliates as a whole need to look at how player terms are presented.

Terms placed in multiple locations only confuses players. There is no reason everything cant be in one place where the player can make an informed decision where they want to deposit their money.

What is the GPWA stance? The risk here is plain for all to see: few players, and almost certainly none of the the non-profit orientated gamblers (as opposed to laweresque advantage players) are going to see that vital term buried at the bottom of the general T & C page, and it is plainly a nonsense to assume that such a gambler will NOT infringe such a restrictive rule at some point, a rule which says that I may not bet more than $30 on a $200, and bigger as the bonuses get proportionally smaller, starting balance. The 3rd bonus is a 10% match - which means I can only bet up to $60 on a $2200 starting balance. This is absurd beyond belief. All gamblers will infringe the rule if they are unaware of it.

Any player accepting a bonus from a Casino Rewards casino is essentially handing the right to pay him or not over to the casino, because unless you see that hidden term, every gambler will break it at some point. And of course, if he infringes the term but loses his money, the casino won't have a problem with that.

This is a heads I win, tails I win, for Casino Rewards.

How does GPWA view this? Is it acceptable beaviour for a "Gold" sponsor? Without wanting to put words into the mouth of the people who have commented, I would think that an awful lot wouldn't be too happy about it.

[GamTrak]

This is a heads I win, tails I win, for Casino Rewards.

How does GPWA view this? Is it acceptable beaviour for a "Gold" sponsor? Without wanting to put words into the mouth of the people who have commented, I would think that an awful lot wouldn't be too happy about it.

I for one am NOT happy about the way this all went down. If any NEW online players were to read this thread ALL of us would lose! Another example (like the chargeback affiliates are forced to pay) how some brands take advantage of the situation at every turn be it fair, just or the right thing to do.

IMO the casino should not be telling folks how much they can play/bet on bonuses & the T&C should always be in one spot. Finally any crazy rule like this needs to be at the TOP of the page and highlighted in RED not hidden via a link on a separate page! It may be 'ok' to do, BUT it's certainly NOT right!

Both parties were wrong so pulling out regs and stating 'what should have been done' is pointless. Settle with the guy and move on for christ sake! I've never like the bonus set up and this is another reason why!

[FictionNet]

I have to be honest. Sorry, Renee - but I think the player should get the full 10k. I wouldn't even offer him the 50% he's willing to accept - I'd say 'sorry' and pay him, plus a bit on top as a goodwill gesture. I think the term is something I'd find very hard to sell. I didn't know it existed, to be honest and I have to agree 100% when people say it should have been made more prominent.

I'm not blaming online casinos for having t&c but they're getting weirder and more difficult to understand. I don't think I'd ever play with a bonus these days.

In any event, this player is clearly a serious gambler. Treat him right here and you may even retain him.

That's my honest opinion but I was almost worried to express it 'cos people are starting to get personal with their comments. Let's debate opinions.

[Webzcas]

If casinos want to limit a players wager ability they should have this built in the software .

Well said!

[joeyl]

Don't really need to post, as I agree with Caruso.

Aside from the girl should'nt say bollocks.

If she can't, we can't, ever, because we run websites, and should remain "professional".

Bollocks to that.

[universal4]

Imagine a land-based casino offering a comp chip and then saying - don't bet it all at once now ...

Liked that one Gooner, needed a chuckle this morning.

then they finished with "following all of these requirements exactly is considered bonus abuse".

AmCam that was Classic

After having won some money, I increased my bet, because I was not aware of bonus rule no. 13 while playing. If the software had automatically limited my wagers, I would not have come into this unpleasant situation. Therefore, if a casino does not want its players to wager more than 25% of the bonus in a single bet, then I agree, that it would make things much easier and more transparent, if this is prohibited through the software itself.

I think this is one of the best points you made above Hans, and I am hoping that all operators seriously consider this as a valid point and reason to take a solid look at what can be done to reduce if not eliminate these kinds of situations in the future.

Not only does that section of bonus terms not include the 30% rule, it also does not include a link within those rules saying "click here for additional bonus rules". The placement of that additional T & C section is, in fact, where all the standard pseudo-contract links are placed on all casino pages, in a line along the bottom.

This is a good point Caruso, and could be done fairly easily without having to re-write both pages.

Rick
Universal4

[bb1web]

Hi all,

Having picked me up initially on that word, how do you now view this?

appreciate your waiting until she'd chimed in to respond to me Caruso.

Okay I talked with Renee and she showed me some of the reasons the casino is sticking to its guns.

Much like the player has posted, both parties made mistakes, and neither is what I would term squeaky clean, or all in the right.


The casino is by the letter of the law, covered. I think we all have agreed upon that. (meaning the terms were there to be found, whether on another page or otherwise.

It sucks, but the truth is that you DO have to hunt for all the hidden BS, that true with everything from hosting your website to a subscription to a health gym. (I've been screwed by both for not reading ALL the terms, which I doubt were on one page either) sigh.

So here is what I'd do.

.......

Had the player signed up there under me ... I'd honor my guarantee and pay the player what he was owed in respect to my involvement (reminding I am however not involved).

So with me least you'd not be out any pocket money. However this decision would be done on the basis that I want to keep my players happy, and not on that CR was wrong in any blatant manner.


One last thing: I think it is fair to say that it IS odd that wagering would change so vehemently and in stride with when things changed over to the bonus side, ... so based on that I'd tell the player that I couldn't any longer guarantee them on any casino in the CR group if they accepted any sort of bonus, .... but however I would cover any wagering he did that didn't involve any bonuses. That way next time if he decided to change betting habits ... there'd be no reason to look at him as if he was up to something.

.......

Finally

I still believe CR isn't out to cheat the players. And I still will continue to promote the CR brand, because I trust they will make sure this is never again an issue.

[pgaming]

As a player receiving a bonus I would defiantly go in guns blazing and wager high. I already lost my initial deposit and the wager requirements are so high let’s bet max. I have always played this way and had no idea wager patterns must be consistent while in the bonus round. A tad stunning to think I just won 10,000 Euros but withdrawal denied because of my wagering amounts.

I am sorry but it makes no sense even if this term is here or there it is just an unfair agreement. I wonder though if any other MGS casinos carry a similar requirement.

I too will continue throw my support behind CR and hope this issue gets resolved. All things being equal IMO CR still remains one of the best.

greek39

[joeyl]

Right, so it's gone off to Kahnawake for a ruling the girl said above.

Which will be interesting. 7 day turnaround if I recall.

The casino should'nt have let it get this far.

Silly rule, badly placed, even worse is the mentality. ie the accusation of some kind of pattern of liberty going on while wagering a couple of hundred dollars in a casino.

It's been pretty much an industry-wide phenomenon over the years. This bonus abuse stuff I mean. Irregular play. Players must not actively maximise thier profit kind of thing. So it's not just this firm.

I can't see Kahnawake changing it.

It's all about advertising bonus amounts that pretty much consititute a loss leader the casino cannot afford to cover.

This is the result.

[Betpartners]

I think there is a lot to be learned from all this.

The bonus terms and this whole situation could and should never have happened and CR only have themselves to blame for this, to have a link not easily found is not good imo.

Secondly a situation occured were the player continued to play and due to circumstances could never ever win, only lose, again a situation like this should never have been allowed to happen.

But and this is a big but, i come down on the side of CR on this

The reason is that the term was listed, even if not easily reached and it is the responsibility of the player to understand all conditions attached to any bonus offer, he could simply have asked what the conditions were if he did not want to search every single line in the terms.

Players and affiliates have to take responsibility for their own actions and while it is very annoying when casino,s sportsbooks etc dont clearly mark terms and conditions it still does not absolve all of us from our own responsibility in understanding the rules.

Finally reputation and credibility come in to this.

CR and Renee in particular have an excellent reputation and are very credible and that for me means that i take them at their word until such a time that they are shown otherwise.

I do not beleive that CR have made this decision purely to rip a player off, i believe they have made this decision as a matter of principle and whether we like it or not their decision, for me at least, is taken at face value without any hidden agenda on their part.

Bottom line is that CR have made this difficult for themselves by the way the bonus terms were displayed and the fact that a player was allowed to play on without any chance of winning.

But CR broke no rules, they did publish the bonus rules and have responded in a timely manner to both player and his representatives.

We may disagree with the bonus terms, we may disgaree with the way they were displayed but none of us can say that CR have acted in a rogue manner or even unethically.

So i am sorry to go against a player on this one, i really am, but a lesson to all of us and not just players but affiliates alike, always ask the question if unsure and if sure ask for confirmation on what you think you understand.

5 minutes chatting in chat would have prevented this from happening in the first place.

That said i also think CR should look at this whole thread and ask themselves did they come out of this smelling like roses? and can they improve this for future players interested in this bonus? yes i think they can and should do with immediate effect.

[Hans]

When I was playing, I was acting in good-faith, that all relevant bonus rules are listed in the section TERMS AND CONDITIONS on the signup page. I assume, that "allowed amounts" have the same relevance as "allowed games", but only the allowed games are listed there. If you feel that both sides have made mistakes, then I kindly ask for a fair settlement.

This discussion is also about how much good-faith is worth.

Hans

[Caruso]

But CR broke no rules, they did publish the bonus rules and have responded in a timely manner to both player and his representatives.

As did Grand Prive. Rules published, even upfront and not hidden.

If you break the rules, tough. Doesn't matter how clear a case for entrapment they represent.

If you're held to the rules, tough. Doesn't matter how clear a case for blatant ripoff they represent.

But it seems that Grand Prive did something wrong, whereas Casino Rewards can to a degree be excused.

CR and Renee in particular have an excellent reputation and are very credible and that for me means that i take them at their word until such a time that they are shown otherwise.

Aside from the Casino Action buyout, to me Casino Rewards is one of many Microgaming groups. Of that stable, almost all have unfair terms (the sort of unfair terms Grand Prive was pilloried over, but I digress again) but which are by and large visible on one page. None are acceptable, but all are at least visible on one page.

Casino Rewards is, from the semi-complete research I have done to date, the only one that entraps the player with this dual-page device (the Palace Group was recently pulled up on this, but they fixed it and I don't think any money was involved, certainly nowhere near €10,000).

So I would question the nature of this excellent reputation and credibility, whose substance I am unaware of and which seems to somehow act as a mitigator against scandalous behaviour. Of what does it consist?

In fact, I would go so far as to say that they may be the worst Microgaming group at this point. Certainly the evidence is compelling.

All things being equal IMO CR still remains one of the best.

I would extend the same question to you, my friend. Why can a group that positions its terms in a way that is, as almost everyone here has agreed, unacceptable, be the "best"? In fact, why is it not the "worst"?

Had the player signed up there under me ... I'd honor my guarantee and pay the player what he was owed in respect to my involvement (reminding I am however not involved).

bb1web - that would be a very generous offer in principle, but it wouldn't work. The player would not, for one thing, have any way of knowing which site he clicked through, unless you happen to run a very big site which players routinely and only click on, and this is very rare in the overall picture. Even then, all but the most exclusively affiliate-loyal players could ever be sure. This is an immeasurably miniscule handful of players, if they exist at all.

You should insist that the casino resolve the matter fairly themselves, as you would have the necessary fire power, as a partner. I cannot, as I have never, and would never, promote them.

May I also point out that complaining to the Kahnawanke Gaming Commission is a pointless excercise. Unusual as it is in matters gambling-related, I can state this with 100% confidence, because if anyone does anything at all, which would surprise me considerably, they will simply point out the hidden term at the bottom of the general terms page. They will have no interest in the not even particularly subtle arguments put here with relation to the duplicitous nature of the terms positioning.

That much will, at least, give the lie to the nonsense I've read in recent weeks about there apparent makeover and general passage to divinity, which will be a victory of sorts, largely phyrric.

[Caruso]

@ Casinobonusguy - I saw your unspecified comments, subsequently picked up on and specified by another member, at Bailey's. I thought that unsolicited gesture demonstrated commendable integrity. Thanks - much appreciated I'm sure by the player and certainly by me.

[joeyl]

I don't think the promotion terms were clearly displayed.

That's an egap minimum req by Ecogra.

[nitro]

I have no pull with CR. But to entrap players with these rule games is unfair and inexcuseable behaviour, and I'd like to help him out. And I know GPWA does have weight.

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.

Posted on a advantage play forum:

"Reading that thread just reaffirms my belief that most casinos are clueless about AP. And that is a great thing. Incompetence is out best friend and only hope. Fortunately there is a lot of it in the online gambling business."

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.

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...

Once again:

"Reading that thread just reaffirms my belief that most casinos are clueless about AP. And that is a great thing. Incompetence is out best friend and only hope. Fortunately there is a lot of it in the online gambling business."

Back in 2007 I started a list to track my overall losses. Since then I lost a total of 87k Euro in online casinos...

If this case really ends up leaving me with nothing, then I will at least have learnt one lesson: QUIT GAMBLING. Because ... why should I spend thousands of Euros and then, when I finally win, see my winnings being confiscated? That is no fun anymore. Playing should make fun, and that is possible only with a clear and not wide-spread setup of rules...

Maybe it's time to change that and get rid of this canaille?

http://www.beatingbonuses.com/forums...ead.php?t=5230