Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sirius
King Neptune maybe should employ someone who knows what they are doing regarding their promotions. There are other games they should be excluding and certainly there is no reason to void winnings for playing the games excluded from the wagering requirements. Instead they react monthly to play that happened in previous months. What sort of way to run a casino is that? As others have mentioned, there are other games that should be excluded from the start.
It makes the casino look a bit stupid to exclude one game but miss others that are more obvious. The casino should also remove the term that allows them to void winnings as it serves no legitimate purpose and alienates new players. The player can as easily build a large bankroll in allowed high house edge games such as slots. By allowing themselves to void the winnings they may be saving themselves a small amount of EV but that is if they actually exclude all the games they should which they haven't.
The EV difference is so small that it is not worth alienating new players by banning the games completely. Slots at Microgaming return around 96% and obviously have a high variance so I'm not sure why they think players can't win big on these games with almost as high EV as playing the others they are completely banning. They should just be excluded from counting towards the wagering requirements.
|
You are missing the point. The casino may exclude ANY game it likes at its discretion. Whatever logic they apply is up to them.
Do I think
VP should be excluded? Of course not. Frankly I'd prefer that no game be excluded - but I can't always have things my way, and it's their business so they can run it how they like as long as they don't screw the player after the fact - and in this case it is very clear that they were well within their rights.