Playshare's problematic bonus abuse policy

[sdaddy]

I was surprised to see the following section in the terms and conditions page for casinos in the Playshare Group:

Grand Mondial audits cash-ins to determine if winnings are a result of promotion abuse. It is possible for promotion abuse to occur even though wagering is compliant with the standard terms and conditions and bonus system rules. If promotion abuse is identified, then Grand Mondial reserves the right at management’s discretion to take the following action(s) against the abusive player:

A) may be banned from receiving or redeeming further promotions
B) may be banned from play in the casino
B) may have account terminated with immediate effect
C) Player information forwarded to a central database resulting in players being barred from receiving bonuses at any other casinos.
D) Cash-ins may be denied, reversed and/or considered void. In such cases, only original purchase amount may be allowed for withdrawal.

And what is considered bonus abuse?

Grand Mondial deems promotion abuse to include but not to be limited to any of the following:

A. receiving a promotion bonus then cashing in without demonstrating a reasonable degree of play
B. attempting a large wager(s) with the bonus funds in an attempt to circumvent play through wager requirements of the bonus system
C. purchasing and playing slots to maximize the opening match slot offer then switching their play to non-slot games and using abusive wagering tactics/systems. This abuse allows players to use bonus credits earned with slot play to use on or hedge against wagering losses on their non-slot game play.

Here's the problem: cases A and B above are too ambiguously-defined, IMO. What is a "reasonable degree of play" or "attempting a large wager?" I don't know. Such subjective criteria should not be used as justification for denying cash-ins, as the T&Cs now permit. I would call on Playshare to amend its T&Cs accordingly.

[vinylweatherman]

These bonus terms are the LEAST of their worries now
They are embroiled in the MG "White label" debacle in "casino industry", and their policy has only ensured greater confusion when it comes to "bonus abuse".
"Reasonable degree of play" should be meeting WR, but not EXACTLY. "Large wager" means not placing the entire bankroll on a single game of Roulette, and meeting WR with tiny bets should this win. Both are within the rules for EZBonus. Earning the "slots" bonus and "abusing" it on other games is THEIR FAULT, in having such an odd way of working out which bonus a player gets after 1x playthrough. If they simply added the bonus upfront, this problem could never arise. With game weightings, there is no need to have this slots and non-slots structure.

Given that the WR is 30x for slots, and mathematically would just bust out your first deposit, this should be a reasonable degree of play. Also, it is perfectly "reasonable" for a player to cash-in earlier should they hit a really big win. This is known as "responsible gambling", however most online casinos call it "bonus abuse" or even "fraud".

[sdaddy]

"Reasonable degree of play" should be meeting WR, but not EXACTLY. "Large wager" means not placing the entire bankroll on a single game of Roulette, and meeting WR with tiny bets should this win. Both are within the rules for EZBonus.

If that's the intention of the wording of their bonus abuse policy, fine. I'm just saying that they need to be specific about exactly what "abusive" play is precluded. Something along the lines of, "no early cash-ins after receiving a bonus will be permitted until at least xx% of the wagering requirements have been completed," for example.

[Nifty29]

Have Playshare been taken over by Oliver Curran????

[sdaddy]

A message has been sent to the Playshare rep requesting comment.

[GaryWatson]

I was surprised to see the following section in the terms and conditions page for casinos in the Playshare Group:

And what is considered bonus abuse?


Here's the problem: cases A and B above are too ambiguously-defined, IMO. What is a "reasonable degree of play" or "attempting a large wager?" I don't know. Such subjective criteria should not be used as justification for denying cash-ins, as the T&Cs now permit. I would call on Playshare to amend its T&Cs accordingly.

On behalf of playshare* I have been requested to respond in a manner that should satisfy even the most sceptical of our wonderful once in a lifetime spectacular bonus bonanza extravaganza.

sdaddy our organization have revised and organized a revision for clearer clarity of our definition. Hopefully our organizations revised revision of our bonus definition will satisfy your confusion.

Grand Mondial deems promotion abuse to be specifically the following :

A) Opening multiple accounts to exploit first deposit bonuses

B) Anything we deem promotion abuse to include but not to limited to multiple accounts

Our playthrough requirements of 30x are merely a minimum to collect your bonus. To withdraw, you must prove beyond a doubt that you are not playing through your bonus requirements. If we deem that this is the case we deem that you are a bonus abuser, in which case you forfeit your once in a lifetime spectacular bonus bonanza extravaganza and any other funds you have at our disposal.

Gary Watson
Playshare Communications Manager

* Moderator Edit: To be clear, this post is sarcasm and GW is not a Playshare employee, before you get sucked in

[sdaddy]

Hi Gary,

Thanks for undertaking a review of your bonus abuse policy. I don't the changes you mentioned being reflected on your casino websites yet, so I'm assuming the T&C pages are still in the process of being updated.

With all due respect, however, this was not the revision I was hoping for.

Our playthrough requirements of 30x are merely a minimum to collect your bonus. To withdraw, you must prove beyond a doubt that you are not playing through your bonus requirements. If we deem that this is the case we deem that you are a bonus abuser, in which case you forfeit your once in a lifetime spectacular bonus bonanza extravaganza and any other funds you have at our disposal.

This indicates that you still intend to use unspecified, subjective criteria to label bonus abusers and that you retain the right to withhold withdrawals from such players. The combination of these two factors is what I find unacceptable.

I am not saying that you can't label players bonus abusers for any reason and at any time, and then bar them from future bonuses. But the criteria you use to deny cash-ins after receiving a bonus have to be specific. Okay, so you don't like players wagering just 30x the bonus. Then please tell me what is your minimum. It shouldn't be a guessing game as to whether or not I'm entitled to withdraw my winnings.

Until the changes I'm looking for have been made, I don't see myself playing again at Playshare.

[lojo]

Playshare may wish to contact their esteemed colleagues in the Fortune Lounge group to see where this ambiguity may lead them.

[GaryWatson]

Oops, maybe I didnt make myself clear enough. I was mocking their official terms.

Bonus abuse :

A) Multiple accounts for the the sole purpose of collecting additional 1st deposit bonuses.

B) Any software used to manipulate the maximization of bonuses.



As there is a playthrough requirement, that is the specific requirement, nothing over and above. There is no vaguness in that term & if Playshare deem there is, they are themselves guilty of vague and misleading bonus offers, predatory terms and possibly false advertizing once the vague terms are clarified.

[sdaddy]

Oops, maybe I didnt make myself clear enough. I was mocking their official terms.

Yeah, I guess you need to be a little clearer next time. Sarcasm doesn't go over well when people don't realize that's what it is.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear from an actual representative of Playshare on this serious topic...