Resolved Purple Lounge Bonus Issue

[poser]

Hi,

just to warn all players that think of taking the 75 GBP signup bonus at Purple Lounge Casino:

At the very end of the additional(!) signup bonus terms and conditions, there is a really uncommon and BAD rule:

If you took the bonus and before you completed all wagering requirements of it (50x bonus on Slots, 250x on table games), you are not allowed to use any gamble feature or even money wagering bet. Failure to comply to this WILL VOID ALL BONUS and ALL WINNINGS !!!

And even worse, in the middle of the terms, they just write: Please note that all gamble feature bets do not count to the wagering requirement. LOL (not only this)

I think as a accredited casino here, they must make things clearer and must not have such tricky rules that were never seen before.

[ocf]

I totally agree. They should make things clearer.

And/or Microgaming may want to add new functions that enable operators to make some special setting in client software to disable gamble buttons or double buttons (or in some cases banned games) when players are to complete these kind of bonus conditions.

[kavaman]

Totally agree. This is a very bad rule to void winnings based on a gamble. I mean purple lounge is not even allowing players to double high winnigs, only small ones.

kavaman

[chuchu59]

I can understand why they dont allow the gamble feature as this could increase a player's bankroll if the right choice is made and pave the way for him to complete the wagering requirements easier but I am at a loss about the even money wagering bet. Does this mean you are not allowed to bet on RED and BLACK in Roulette simultaneously or for that matter, Banker and Player at Baccarat. Surely this cannot void winnings as these are allowed games (table games x 250?). The casino can only say that such bets do not count against the WRs and thus there is no advantage from the player's point of view.

Whatever it is, these wagering requirements are really ridiculous and way above the EZ Bonus requirements at the typical MG casinos. One more thing, they charge you $1 for each withdrawal. At least, that was the case six months ago.

[vinylweatherman]

This term is nasty since it is possible to accidentally hit the gamble button, just as it is possible to hit "max bet" by accident.

This is a deliberate ploy by MG, since with the older games such as Thunderstruck, it is possible to disable the gamble function altogether, but this is NOT now possible on the newer slots. This is a BACKWARD development, so has to have been a deliberate choice by MG to remove such "responsible gambling" options from the lobby.
Most Video Poker games also allow the disabling of the gamble feature.

I do not normally use the gamble feature, however, I have often clicked it by accident, as I have the max bet button. This is often due to software problems where I move my mouse, but the movement is not properly reflected on screen in a timely manner, and I find my click has not gone where intended because I have overcompensated for the error in displaying the cursor.

This has similarities with Casino Rewards, who voided winnings due to Autoplay, which is a legitimate lobby function.

The gamble feature has never counted for WR, since it is an option after the bet has been resolved, but before it has been paid out, so only the initial stake has been wagered.
I have seen no complaints so far where Purple-Lounge have confiscated winnings for gambling a small slots win, so maybe this is one of their discretionary terms, as I doubt many players have obeyed it 100%

It is possible to manipulate the rules with Video Poker though, bet all on one deal of 50 or 100 hand VP, you are bound to get back something, and then double or quadruple it through the gamble feature, then meet WR on slots. Odd though, that this is supposedly only a problem at Purple-Lounge, it works at ALL MG casinos.

[Casinomeister]

I've alerted their reps to see if they can look into this. It's a bad idea unless they can program the games to disallow this gamble function during bonus play. There is too much room for major screw-ups.

[Jody Nustedt]

Hey Everyone,

Just a quick note to say we are looking into this (thanks for the alert Bryan) and will get back to you in due course.

At least in my time at Purple Lounge we have never confiscated winnings due to this rule (or for any other reason that I can remember), so we'll look into the reasoning for it, and whether it should be dropped.

Regards,
Jody Nustedt

[Jody Nustedt]

OK, the offending term has now been removed. It was originally added (quite a while ago) as a short-term measure, but obviously was never removed.

As I said before, we have never confiscated winnings using this or any other terms, which to be honest even reduces further the need for it in the first place.

chuchu59 - the reference to even money wagering in the (now removed term) referred only to the 'gamble' or 'double' feature, as these were true even money bets. We don't consider betting on Black and Red or Odd and Even to be even money bets.

If anyone has any further concerns, please feel free to address them either in this thread or by email at jody@purple-lounge.com

Regards

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by Jody Nustedt

OK, the offending term has now been removed. It was originally added (quite a while ago) as a short-term measure, but obviously was never removed.

As I said before, we have never confiscated winnings using this or any other terms, which to be honest even reduces further the need for it in the first place.

chuchu59 - the reference to even money wagering in the (now removed term) referred only to the 'gamble' or 'double' feature, as these were true even money bets. We don't consider betting on Black and Red or Odd and Even to be even money bets.

If anyone has any further concerns, please feel free to address them either in this thread or by email at jody@purple-lounge.com

Regards

I am shocked that using the "gamble" feature was ever considered "abusive", yet at the same time you were happy to allow the clearly "abusive" tactic of wagering both Red and Black on roulette to clear WR. With MG French roulette at standard bonus rules, this is a loophole that could allow a pretty much guaranteed +EV outcome on any bonus (except the slots only bonus, of course).

It may have scared off a few players, who would have seen it and just not played, and only now has a player seen it, and questioned it here rather than just not playing, and this seems to have revealed it was never used, and probably not even necessary, yet no-one bothered to review the terms from time to time to review then need for it.

What other unnecessary and obsolete terms are still there, perhaps as a "short term measure" initially, but remain only because no review has taken place.

What about other casinos, are they scaring off players with bad terms they don't even need, but initially threw together because of some perceived short term problem.

[Jody Nustedt]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

I am shocked that using the "gamble" feature was ever considered "abusive", yet at the same time you were happy to allow the clearly "abusive" tactic of wagering both Red and Black on roulette to clear WR. With MG French roulette at standard bonus rules, this is a loophole that could allow a pretty much guaranteed +EV outcome on any bonus (except the slots only bonus, of course).

Our bonus system is set up so that playing red and black (even on French roulette) won't offer the player a +EV outcome. The 'gamble' or 'double' features do however make us vulnerable.

What other unnecessary and obsolete terms are still there, perhaps as a "short term measure" initially, but remain only because no review has taken place.

What about other casinos, are they scaring off players with bad terms they don't even need, but initially threw together because of some perceived short term problem.

Valid point, I'm sure other operators have bad terms also. We actually streamlined our casino SUB from the previous 2 (a slots only bonus and an all games bonus) in order to simplify the players experience. Obviously we should have re-visted the general conditions.

However, this was at the time not a perceived problem, rather a real major issue for us as operators. The term was added due to technical issues in our system which needed fixing with regards to the 'gamble' and 'double' features.

Regards,