Quote:
|
You are missing the point. The casino may exclude ANY game it likes at its discretion. Whatever logic they apply is up to them.
|
The only conceivable logic that they can have used is "this will give us a good opportunity to confiscate winnings". An honest reputable casino would exclude games from
WR but not seize winnings when it is clear that no abuse deliberate or otherwise has occurred. Everyone agrees they are allowed to have this term. The 'frank' rule explained above is a perfect analogy. What we do not agree on is whether these are the actions of a fair and sensible casino
Quote:
Let's say KN said, "Oh, don't worry about playing on the prohibited games. You signed up the day after the terms had changed, but since you won a lot of money, and this means a lot to you, congrats - we'll honor your winnings!"
Put yourselves in the operators shoes. When would this stop? When would you say - okay we'll let this player slide, but these others not. What would the criteria be? "Okay send in a picture, if you're hot - we'll let you cash out." "Oh, you're going to donate it to charity? okay, we'll let you slide." When do you say no - sorry, you generated your winnings on the wrong game(s). Without rules, you'll have chaos. This is the issue, not bonus hunting. Lest we forget the player still has her deposit and bonus funds.
Like most well run casinos, KN has made exceptions to their policies for their regular players. Maybe some of you should enlighten me on why this player should have been treated differently. Why should they have made an exception? That's all I want to know.
|
This whole "setting a precedent" argument is nonsense. All they would be setting a precedent for is to be able to interpret their terms fairly and sensibly. On average the player gained ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from playing this game. Noone is arguing that he should have been able to fulfill the
WR from playing it. The play was wasted from a bonus clearing perspective and therefore cost him money in house edge. He could very very easily have wiped out completely and never discovered he was playing the 'wrong' game. That he happens to have hit the good side of variance is irrelevant. The play cost him money (on average) and it is not something that a casino should be punishing.
Why should this player be treated differently?
1. The rule is nonsense. It is badly thought out, solves no perceived problem and is completely unjustified. Casinos are allowed to have whatever rules they like. Players are also allowed to judge the reputability of a casino by the rules it has. This rule and the way it was used is more akin to a crappy Playtech or
RTG than to a MG casino allegedly competing in the same field as 32red
2. The player looks like a regular recreational player. He was not exhibiting bonus hunting characteristics or any malign intent whatsoever.
3. The short time frame between the terms changing an him playing, whilst entirely legally binding should be taken into account when deciding whether to use their discretion one way or the other
23rd May 2006, 09:08 PM
Similar Threads
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 1
Linear Mode
