Accredited Casino new rule suggestion?

[JHV]

Lets be absolutely clear here...everyone's cap is $5,000 if they choose to use the withdrawal method that the casino allows for the $5,000 and also that the player agreed to when they signed up there.

Look I can see your point. I disagree with it, I think maybe you underestimate how many players really are restricted to 500/w caps, but I definitely see your point. Perhaps I should have made it more clear the 500/w for just for eWallets - still think I'm mostly right though, just due to sheer numbers, but for the length of my posts....I concede I can't really stand on the "can't list every caveat" excuse lol.

But I actually think (and I could be totally wrong) that Bryan was more like "wait wat!?" because, until very recently, it was 5000/w for those eWallets at this group. They just made that huge reduction not long ago, and yes I've asked for a reason and one is yet to be given to me - it could be that MB/NETeller/C2P are total pricks (for want of a better word) at the moment. I'm having an interesting discussion with VWM in another thread where he mentioned MB was starting to get excluded by some merchants (my position on NETeller is widely known already and it's not a positive one) - coupled with the fact that MB have started promoting Rogues on their site and will wash their hands clean of the inevitable Rogue behaviour...makes me wonder if MB hasn't gone the way of NETeller (which would be really sad).

I'm itching to post some stuff here which would blow you back in your chair, but I'm holding off as I still believe overall CasinoCoins are a damn good operation (at least I think they try to be, and that's good enough for me) - there are just some big issues we have to work out and if I jumped the gun and posted everything I had, it could potentially be unfair to them if their reasons for various things here and there were valid and stuff. And you can search my posting history on Millionaire and Caribbean Gold and you'll see my position on this group since I started playing there very clearly.

[RobWin]

Look I can see your point. I disagree with it, I think maybe you underestimate how many players really are restricted to 500/w caps, but I definitely see your point. Perhaps I should have made it more clear the 500/w for just for eWallets - still think I'm mostly right though, just due to sheer numbers, but for the length of my posts....I concede I can't really stand on the "can't list every caveat" excuse lol.

LOL, I too agree with this "can't list every caveat" excuse lol"... I'm also glad to see that you now see the point I was making...

And you can search my posting history on Millionaire and Caribbean Gold and you'll see my position on this group since I started playing there very clearly.

Yea, I know you like them, as far as I'm concerned they are a good group and I too like them since I have been playing there for a long time as well.
____
____

[Casinomeister]

Man, go away for a few hours....

I was unaware of the $500 cap for some of the payment limits (perhaps a typo?). I'm going to confirm this with the casino peeps to see what's up. $500 a week for Neteller seems a little off.

As for Nash's sig quote "All casinos want you to play back your winnings." I don't see how one comment from a casino manager can be as sweeping as this. With my eleven years in the industry, I would tend to disagree with that comment.

Casinos want repeat loyal customers, just like any business - especially those focused on entertainment. Casinos that are in it for the long term understand that players will win, players will lose. Players are happy when they win and when their losses are minimal - or just forgettable. Players who win big and cash out quickly are happy players (in most cases) and will benefit the company in the long run by spreading the good word.

Players who play back their winnings are usually miserable sad sacks afterwords, and will probably not come back or will not even talk about the casino at all due to their embarrassment. Wanting a player to play back their winnings is bad business philosophy, and has tunnel-vision for short term goals. Read - always fighting an uphill battle.

The online casino business is extremely competitive and casinos can lose players by the click of a button - unlike their B&M brethren. I keep going back to the Wynn because I like the rooms and the set up of the Hotel = eye-candy. It has nothing to do whether I win or lose there. Online casinos are nearly the total opposite. Players are focused on their winnings and the ability to cash these out quickly or within an acceptable time frame.

Wanting players to play back winnings is misguided - and those who feel this way do not clearly understand the fundamentals of this business. I can understand some affiliates feeling this way, or some casino managers - if so, they need to be retrained or follow the Casinomeister Philosophy of online gaming.

[NASHVEGAS]

Casinos reserve the right to pay a player by whatever means they like.

Casinos reserve the right to invoke the FU TERM also. Another "casino apologist", yes??????????

[NASHVEGAS]

Man, go away for a few hours....

I did for ~ 2 months....OOPS, I know not directed at moi,yet,LOL!!

Players who play back their winnings are usually miserable sad sacks afterwords, and will probably not come back or will not even talk about the casino at all due to their embarrassment. Wanting a player to play back their winnings is bad business philosophy

Agree to disagree and I will not call out any member (but I could) other than myself. Not 'ed either ftr. Mid 9 figures in total wagers may not equate to your 11 years but you can not deny I am experienced, maybe stubborn, yes??

I keep going back to the Wynn because I like the rooms and the set up of the Hotel = eye-candy.

+1

Wanting players to play back winnings is misguided - and those who feel this way do not clearly understand the fundamentals of this business. I can understand some affiliates feeling this way, or some casino managers - if so, they need to be retrained

+2, FULLY AGREE

Care to address why the Player in the subject situations must capitalize online casinos that do not pay in full or via installments. No different than debt or Bond fundamentals especially when the Player's subject deposits exceed installment payments??.........really nothing more than a psuedo-ponzi scheme..........See Alan Stanford "It's great to be a billionaire"

[vinylweatherman]

Casinos reserve the right to pay a player by whatever means they like.

The japanese yen example is extreme...I think most terms and conditions say a player will be paid in the currency they play in.

The best casinos do their utmost to accommodate a player's preferred method of payment, or they return payments via the methods used for deposits. But we often see complaints regarding such issues, and while perhaps not ideal outcomes, it is not rogue IMO if the player is paid by a method other than their first choice.

My prepaid Mastercard cannot be paid back to. If you limit my ability to withdraw to Moneybookers to $500, you can still send it by wire to me, or by cheque. I would expect a casino to work with me to find a way to pay me their weekly cap as advertised.

I might not be thrilled with having to wait for a foreign cheque to clear, or going to a Western Union office to collect my winnings. But it would be my choice, or accept $500/week.

I think that when you discuss a casino's payment caps, that must be taken into account.

If JHV has an experience of English Harbour not honouring their $5,000 weekly payments by a METHOD OF THEIR CHOOSING, then that is a matter of a casino breaking their terms, not of having terms of only $500/week.

Please don't respond with your specifics JHV, I would hate to see your opportunity to PAB restricted by continued participating in airing dirty laundry in public.

Fine, if there is a good reason for this, but there have been some complaints that payment has been DELIBERATELY made by a method inconvenient to a particular player because of a "sour grapes" attitude by management, such as "how DARE you win off that bonus".

When players get together in a forum, and MOST are getting paid back to a particular method, and ONE player seems to have trouble in this respect, there does seem to be an element of "sour grapes" behind the casino's decision.

Casinos KNOW that cheques can sometimes not only be invonvenient, but IMPOSSIBLE for a player to receive payment by. This would be down to local practices, and even the practices of individual banks. The purpose of these ewallets was to PREVENT such problems, with players having a central repository for their gambling funds which was designed SPECIFICALLY for the task. Neteller even have the Net+ card available for those players who cannot use bank transfer or cheque to get their money out of "gambling mode", and into spending.

If there really IS a recent reduction to $500 per week for these wallets, it would CERTAINLY keep me well away from playing at such casinos, except perhaps with VERY SMALL deposits, which in turn means they do not stand to make much money from me, even in the long term.

I have often deposited THOUSANDS with casinos from Neteller, but I KNOW that if I were to double this, or more through play, I would get paid, and ALL IN ONE GO. This is particularly the case during events such as "Birthday Fiesta" at Red Flush (now you know why you lot lost to ME). Since it comes back to Neteller, it is available straight away for another event, whereas I could be waiting a WEEK or more for a cheque to work it's way into my bank, and even then it is NOT readily available since cards often get blocked at relatively low volume limits, because they are RISKIER for both merchant & bank.

[Simmo!]

I think it's quite realistic to have weekly withdrawal limits in place if you have a bonus offer and a player isn't yet ID'ed. This caps any potential fraud and unfortunately the actions of a few idiots affect everyone. However, I think if withdrawal limits stay in place after a casino has done it's checks on a player then this is less acceptable.

I wouldn't say it's unacceptable though - as long as it's clearly laid out in the terms - but speaking personally it would put me off. Medium/High Rollers who read the T&C's I suspect would be put off playing. Many don't obviously, but then invariably you get the negative PR at places like Casinomeister when they realise the cap's in place. The savvy operator will spot a roller and remove the limits though I suspect, but it's mere presence as aterm might mean they miss the opportunity to get a high roller through the door in the first place.

Finally, to many players it indicates a small operator and infers that funds are limited. I can only think of 1 MG group with weekly limits, but conversely I can only think of 3 RTG's without them. But $500 sounds ludicrously low and as Meister said, it might be a typo. The ones I know are all between $2k and $4k.

Cheers

Simmo!

[NASHVEGAS]

I wouldn't say it's unacceptable though - as long as it's clearly laid out in the terms -

So terms equate to acceptance. Afterall, we are masters of our own domain just like Madoff's investors

but speaking personally it would put me off.

Speaking of hedge funds, LOL , nice hedge

Medium/High Rollers who read the T&C's I suspect would be put off laying. Many don't obviously,

As CM said himself only 5 or so casinos ,iirc, would be accredited. What choice does that leave the "Medium/High Rollers"? Answer: the same it has CM's business model.

Cheers

Simmo!

Cheers back at you

[JHV]

NashVegas, I think you're coming across too strong on one side of the debate.

You have valid points but you need to understand the other side has valid points also. There are genuinely huge complications that online operators face with keeping every withdrawal method they offer fully funded - money flies around between their accounts at each payment processor (obviously).

It's not comparable to a land-based operator who deals primarily in cash or cheque or bank wire for withdrawals.

Limits are fine. We're just discussing here what kind of limit caps are appropriate.

[vinylweatherman]

I think it's quite realistic to have weekly withdrawal limits in place if you have a bonus offer and a player isn't yet ID'ed. This caps any potential fraud and unfortunately the actions of a few idiots affect everyone. However, I think if withdrawal limits stay in place after a casino has done it's checks on a player then this is less acceptable.

I wouldn't say it's unacceptable though - as long as it's clearly laid out in the terms - but speaking personally it would put me off. Medium/High Rollers who read the T&C's I suspect would be put off playing. Many don't obviously, but then invariably you get the negative PR at places like Casinomeister when they realise the cap's in place. The savvy operator will spot a roller and remove the limits though I suspect, but it's mere presence as aterm might mean they miss the opportunity to get a high roller through the door in the first place.

Finally, to many players it indicates a small operator and infers that funds are limited. I can only think of 1 MG group with weekly limits, but conversely I can only think of 3 RTG's without them. But $500 sounds ludicrously low and as Meister said, it might be a typo. The ones I know are all between $2k and $4k.

Cheers

Simmo!

Club USA is $3000, I once won almost $9000 and had to wait three weeks for the staged withdrawal. With a $500 cap, it could have been 18 weeks!

It's not just the limit, it is how LOW it is compared to the normal weekly cap. It still suggests a problem at the group, maybe the wallets don't trust them, and have given them a limited merchant account.
This has happened before with Playtech, where the eventual explanation from some operators was that they needed some "paperwork" from Playtech HQ which was not forthcoming, and the wallets limited their merchant accounts for a while.