[CLOSED] Misleading Bellerock terms, DO NOT play there.

[GaryWatson]

I dont think I could safely accept a bonus. I have played on many sites for the sake of it. The free 1hour of play etc. I have never collected even if I have won but there are times when I lost. I dont take a note of the sites I have played on. It has been spread over many years.

I am not into bonus hunting & not intentionally abusing the system with multiple accounts.

Would I be considered a bonus abuser if I made my first deposit and collected a bonus I have used but not taken advantage of?

Would I be considered to have multiple accounts if only my latest one was used to deposit?

I remember the poker sites I have played at but all the casino sites are just a blur, of the same.

I am now in the position that I am weary to accept any casino bonus although I have not cashed any

[dominique]

This is the age old issue of casinos trying to defend themselves against fraudulent players and innocents getting caught up in the profile.

My solution would be simple and clear:

Disallow multiple bonuses across the group as a firm rule.

Install the "one signup for all casinos" software.

Hand out surprise gifts to players as retention effort instead of the multiple signup bonuses.

Personally, I hate getting bogged down with wagering requirements, it ruins all the fun, you are just clicking away hoping you'll make it instead of enjoying the game.

But I do love a gift in my account... especially one I didn't expect.

That would be my solution....

[vinylweatherman]

This is the age old issue of casinos trying to defend themselves against fraudulent players and innocents getting caught up in the profile.

My solution would be simple and clear:

Disallow multiple bonuses across the group as a firm rule.

Install the "one signup for all casinos" software.

Hand out surprise gifts to players as retention effort instead of the multiple signup bonuses.

Personally, I hate getting bogged down with wagering requirements, it ruins all the fun, you are just clicking away hoping you'll make it instead of enjoying the game.

But I do love a gift in my account... especially one I didn't expect.

That would be my solution....

It seems casinos want it both ways though, they benefit from having a number of separate casinos in their group either to widen the net for attracting players, or getting their loyal players playing at all their properties. Casinos have often aggressively cross marketed their properties to existing players, and their new acquisition Trident group STILL have very persistent cross marketing of BOTH SUB offers every time you try to exit the websites, even if it was just to check the T & C!!!! Some are worse, they mess with your browser and make exit VERY difficult indeed with a cascade of nested exit pop-ups for the SUB at each property - I have, on occasions, had to resort to the Microsoft "three fingered salute" to free myself from this

Because of this past behaviour in the industry, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE to bury a one bonus per group term in some obscure general T & C consisting mainly of legalese, it needs to be CLEAR, even to an "idiot", that they cannot have more than one SUB. This needs to be done with a big, bold, warning when they try to download and/or make a first deposit, and AGAIN on the claim form for the SUB, such as like this:-

(Terms Window)

1) IF you have EVER claimed a new player bonus, or free play offer, at ANY of the following BelleRock properties (list them here in full), then you are NOT allowed to claim this bonus. IF you do, your account will be locked and your deposit returned.

2)..... etc.. the other terms....

[BBKPoker]

The fact they don't even have like, a check box or something to agree to the terms before downloading or signing up an account, is just otherworldly to me.

I mean, I'm sure this is some sort of oversight, but once a player points that out, I would assume they should automatically be paying all the players they have confiscated funds using that obscure clause with no linkage goodness.

[SlotsWizard]

I believe someone else already said this, but if the player wasn't eligible for the bonus then the casino should not have given it to them in the first place.

If I recall correctly, there is a delay of several hours, sometimes days, between when the deposit is made and when the bonus is granted. This implies that the bottleneck is human intervention, otherwise it would be automated. So why wasn't the person who manually issued the bonus able to see that the player wasn't allowed to have it?

The casino is the one that screwed up here, so pay the player.

[winbig]

The fact they don't even have like, a check box or something to agree to the terms before downloading or signing up an account, is just otherworldly to me.

Not to defend any of the group's actions, but the first line of their T&C reads:

These Terms and Conditions apply to, and are binding upon you if you participate at the Casino.

[GaryWatson]

I would settle for them using my passport number to determine whether or not I am elligable. Its down to the site to check something as simple as this. If they close an inelligable account because a winning account is being checked, they have left it too late. You wont see them queuing to refund lost deposits. I would feel hard done by if they locked one of my accounts due to them not using a simple formula to detect innocent errors, I would feel hard done by.

In general, players do not have a degree in the casino industry. I know my poker sites because I have played on many, I stick to the sites I like and never go back to the ones I dont. The bonus factor is not a big consideration for me. I am unlikely to get an account locked for the above reasons.

Casino sites are an entirely different issue, as is bingo sites. Bonus hunters might know where they have and havnt been to. My only way to check is when my email address have been used but sometimes I changed addresses due to the amount of casino spam i end up receiving after signing up for sites, so in effect, it is the casinos fault I am not being picked up for having a multiple account. If they used a drivers licence no. or passpost no., it would be clear cut. The point is, as it is against the house, they appear only to check when it comes to paying out. That is an abuse of their terms & would come under an unfair contract. They have fallen short of their own security checks & only appear to implement them when they have something to gain.

P.S. I have never had a casino account blocked, and as things stand now, I will not risk it until they start playing the game. I'll play casino games at paddypower and victor chandler because I know where I stand. IMO, the casinos are in the wrong

[paul02085]

If they only want you to have one SUB within the group then dont give it to the player when he tries to get it after the first time. Simple as that. The fact that they give it again and again means its a trap IMO.

[GaryWatson]

IThe fact that they give it again and again means its a trap IMO.

I quite agree. A trap which to a casino is foreseeable. They can stop this unfortunate occurance of blocking account to innocent players by simply using a static check such as a passport ID. They chose not to. It is their fault, not the player who has read, even unwittingly broke the TOS.

As far as bonus abusers go, Its up to them, they know the concequences, they do not have a leg to stand on and deserve to be hit by the TOS. Innocent players are put in this situation due to the sites negligence. The site is in the wrong in these cases, regardless of their printed terms.

[BBKPoker]

Not to defend any of the group's actions, but the first line of their T&C reads:

You don't have to agree to their T&C to download, install or register at their casino.