|
Good post, Bryan, though I think you could go even further. Casinos have to understand that they can't, as they're desperately attempting to do at present, claim that playing a bonus in the most advantageous way possible is "abuse". It's like allowing people to play Blackjack but claiming they're abusers if they follow basic strategy.
If a casino offers a bonus that gives the player an edge they simply have to accept some players will play it in an optimal manner with the aim of making a profit. They're no more abusers than the people also aiming to make a profit but playing the bonus in a manner that gives the casino an edge. If the casino's reputable, attracts a good cross-section of players, and sets the terms sensibly the optimal play should only eat into a percentage of the profits. Casinos can't expect to offer promotions and attract players at no cost.
I disagree with the comments about not setting off "red-flags" for casinos. As long as players aren't committing fraud there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't play at as many casinos as they wish, in whatever time frame they wish, playing whatever allowed games in whatever manner they wish. Any casinos trying to claim any of the above as evidence of "abuse" are simply rogue and shouldn't receive the slightest sympathy or understanding.
|