Welcome, Phil, and thanks for your speedy response
Will you be reinstating rpalmer83's ability to receive bonuses, based upon the genuine error he made?
|
|
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Meister Member
Achievements:
Welcome, Phil, and thanks for your speedy response
Will you be reinstating rpalmer83's ability to receive bonuses, based upon the genuine error he made?
Still waiting for those five rams
Inspired by the game!
Hi,Originally Posted by kmay87
Welcome, Phil, and thanks for your speedy response
Will you be reinstating rpalmer83's ability to receive bonuses, based upon the genuine error he made?
After much consideration we will allow the player in question to receive bonus funds at Betfred Casino once again.
However if any further irregular transfer patterns are identified in the future, it could result in permanent exclusion from receiving bonus funds.
We hope that this has now clarified the whole situation but if you do have any further queries please do not hesitate to ask.
Thanks,
Phil.
kmay87 (17th March 2009), maxd (17th March 2009), Pinababy69 (17th March 2009), rpalmer83 (17th March 2009), spearmaster (17th March 2009)
Typus Infinitus
Achievements:
Awards:
Granted, but WHY is this so wrong, when you admit that WR were completed, and the money does indeed now belong to the player. There would be no argument at all (presumably) had the player deposited 500, took the bonus, met WR, and withdrew (right back to their ewallet, say); and THEN repeated the process 3 times with the SAME 500 - but with it being somehow OK because you had sent this 500 all the way back to the deposit method, rather than it having sat in the sportsbook purse. The entire industry is driven by this kind of money circulation, without it, as with the current banking crisis, the whole thing would grind to a halt. Further, for this relatively minor infringement, driven only by the bank's refusal to allow a full 2000 deposit, the player is summarily stripped of priviliges. At the same time, there are REAL "bonus abusers" bragging in forums that they broke this term, and repeatedly transferred back & forth, got paid, and did not even receive a gentle reprimand that this was a breach of the rules, and to not do it again. I suspect THIS was the chief reason why RPalmer83 gave you such grief over this. You have a rule, but it must apply to EVERYONE, and more importantly, must be SEEN to be so applied, or there will be further instances of players feeling they have been unfairly singled out for "punishment" whilst other "offenders" are bragging about getting off scot free with the same "crime".
It's an awful fuss over a mere 20% bonus though, and there is a high risk that variance will go against the dedicated "bonus bagger", which is surely what the casino is hoping for.
This rule (sportsbook transfers) has it's equivalent in stand alone casinos, where there is usually a term stating "reversed withdrawals do not count as deposits for promotional purposes". Again, somewhat illogical, since once validly withdrawn, the money has been won by the player, and by insisting the player lets it flow back to their card or ewallet and depositing it again, they make the process more expensive for themselves by having to pay the extra fees involved - something the player rarely sees since casinos cover these.
The maths does not stack up either. IF a player stops after the second 500 because they cannot use a transfer, they keep their winnings, BUT if transfers were allowed, the casino gets another go at winning it back. In this case, the third transfer could have gone the way of the first, and the casino would now have 1000 of the player's money. Provided the promotions are designed to at least slightly favour the casino in the long term, they can only gain from players using internal transfers to claim extra bonuses, since the long term will favour the house.
Many of these seemingly illogical rules seem to be down to a poor understanding of casino mathematics by management and promotions designers. They are afraid of what looks like "advantage play" even when it isn't so from a mathematical point of view. On the other hand, poor mathematical skills can lead to a botched promotion that DOES work to the advantage of players, and given some of the allegations that started flying (changing terms from 12x to 25x mid way for example), I wonder if at some point management became aware this particular promotion was +EV, and were on the look out for players who had taken short cuts that were against the terms and conditions, thus being harsher than they might otherwise have been on players who took the full 400 mostly through repeated internal transfers. It seems Betfred have a few "bonus baggers" who managed to get away with this. This should not be allowed to continue, as these players seem to be bragging about it, and this will only encourage others reading the boasts to believe this strategy is quite OK for the next time a similar promotion is run. This will lead to further "why me, and not them" type of complaints.
For me, looking in from the outside, I see a player who has lost a considerable sum, played for many months, yet all this time has been "bonus banned", whilst other less loyal players get all the bonuses. He gets a promo, and tries to win back a small portion of past losses, but breaches a term about transfers because his bank blocks deposits. He wins back a bit of past losses, but gets the book thrown at him by the casino, with yet another 12 week minimum bonus ban. The message this sends out is that you are somehow wrong if you win with a bonus, and that weeks of past loyal play without bonuses counts for very little. This reinforces my negative views of Playtech operators, and does nothing to make me want to play at any casinos offering Playtech software.
Loyal play I have made similar to RPalmer83, but at MGS powered casinos, has opened the door to far bigger bonus offers, and fairly generous terms in most cases. I have also been able to take part in all the ordinary promotions leading up to gaining VIP status.
Perhaps there is more to this particular case that either RPalmer83 and the Betfred rep have told us.
Perhaps RPalmer83 could clarify what lead to the initial Betfred bonus ban. If this too was related to making sportsbook to casino transfers instead of deposits, then he cannot claim ignorance of the rule now. Given that this was RPalmer83's first promotion since that earlier ban, it is likely his account was subject to a thorough audit at the time of final withdrawal, whereas the other braggers were able to fly their breaches in under the radar because they had managed to keep their heads down and not "abuse" bonuses straight after joining.
Empty Fruities Astern Capt'n
Back to port for unloading.
Full Sails - before we get raided ourselves.
rpalmer83 (17th March 2009)
Ueber Meister
Jeez...
Do you not understand that moving funds back and forth between sportsbook and casino accounts for the purposes of receiving a bonus is abuse?
If all the movement was one direction - sportsbook to casino - I could see the point.
The point I made is that the funds have LEFT the system - they are not within the control of the operator. And quite obviously, if someone were to withdraw say $500 to Neteller, and then immediately redeposit it, this would also be flagged as abuse.
People are going to have to use a little common sense here. The operator has clearly stated that "other transfers" are not allowed - it's not like this is some nefarious hidden term. They have the right to make this determination and frankly I think there's nothing wrong with it.
This discussion is turning totally senseless. The player has gotten what he wants from the casino - end of story. The operator has clearly outlined a scenario for bonus abuse, just as I did earlier in the thread - end of story.
If anyone thinks that what the casino did is unfair, explain, don't argue. Or post a sensible alternative solution.
Otherwise I am going to close this thread again - it was only opened to allow the operator to post their response.
Pinababy69 (17th March 2009)
Experienced Member
First and formost I would like to thank Phil as BetFred Rep for the conduct and professionalism he has shown in dealing with this complaint. Whilst initially in my emails to him he did not seem to be willing to address my concerns he was pleasant and polite in all of his responses and that has to be commended and he has now responded here and addressed all my concerns appropriately.
Secondly the £50 gesture is very much appreciated but was not necessary under these circumstances. Nethertheless it does show that he understood the way I was feeling about this issue and the frustration which it has caused. So for this gesture I would like to say Thank you.
I'm sure that when BetFred looked into my account again they could see clearly that it was never my intention to abuse this promotion over the weekend and I didn't make transfers from the sportsbook to deliberately break the term which dis-allows transfers when claiming a bonus and will certainly NEVER EVER make such transfers again if claiming a bonus now that I know 100% that it is NOT ALLOWED. The term should definately be updated though to reflect that a sportsbook transfer by definition is not acceptable, as people have stated on other internet forums they were also confused by this term and thought it was acceptable and Phil has said he is going to look at this. If this is done then there are absolutely no grounds for confusion and a problem like this should never arise again in the future. I have seen many sportsbooks and casinos which do allow transfers between the two accounts regardless of claiming a bonus or not without any problem. It is upto the individual casino itself, in this case Betfred however whether it is allowed or not but the terms surrounding it need to be absolutely clear and to the point.
In some ways I want to also say that I probably overreacted slightly on this issue but this was mainly due to the fact that my vip loyalty privelages were removed entirely within 2 days of them being instated and my loss record was used in making the decision whether to payout or not. Thankfully Phil has said he has addressed these issues and re-instated these privelages.
Overall I would like to say that I am now satisfied and will continue to use BetFred for the forseable future and I'm happy to know that I am playing at a casino which does actually show a willingness to look after its customers and make them happy.
Casinomeister (23rd March 2009), chayton (9th November 2009), maxd (20th March 2009), spearmaster (17th March 2009)
Meister Member
Achievements:
It's great to see this outcome - didn't I tell you about the advantages of being a member here
While we seem to get better treatment than other players, it also allows you to communicate to those who can actually get things done, rather than filling in a feedback form or chatting with cs. In your case, you outlined a problem that confused you, and possibly others, and the rep has taken it on board and is going to look at making it clearer.
A positive result all round.
Still waiting for those five rams
rpalmer83 (17th March 2009)
Experienced Member
I signed up back in 2006 so cannot quite remember the exact reasons however I believe I played Blackjack and back then I was new to online gaming so was probably at around £3 per hand. I'm sure I complied with all the terms, I remember withdrawing and recieving an email a couple of days later saying they felt I manipulated the promotion and would no longer be welcome to any further ones unless I demonstrated regular non promotional play. I asked the reason why I wasn't welcome to promotions and a CS advisor told me "it's because you play Blackjack". This wasn't a problem for me though as I weren't really that interested in claiming benefits and I play for leisure rather than profits. It was definately nothing to do with transferring as I was new, and there was one bonus on offer.
I do expect my loyalty to be rewarded ocassionally though as online gaming is a competitive industry and it is only natural for a player to use a casino which treats its customers ocassionally.
Experienced Member
Bonus abuse is clearly a problem in the industry and it does need to be controlled. Some do it better than others, but the whole transferring/depositing funds thing is strange. If the funds are your own, what's to stop you withdrawing them and making another deposit...the company loses even more through this process by paying processing fee's to the bank or payment operator. It's daft.
Anyway, I've never really been a big fan of many Playtech Casino's, whether it be because of the one wallet system or because they don't know how to set things up properly I don't know, but I tend to stick with just one or two when I fancy a change from MG...Betfred unfortunately isn't one of them, especially now the egaming side has been sold off...but then again maybe that's a plus side, at least I'm not funding a Man Utd fan now
Jasminebed (26th March 2009)
Typus Infinitus
Achievements:
Awards:
There is no such thing as "bonus abuse", only breaches of bonus rules. It is all down to what's in the terms and conditions. In this case, this was not allowed specifically, so is a breach of terms. "Bonus abuse" is what casinos cry when no actual terms have been broken, but they believe a player has played to win, rather than "lose in an entertaining manner".
Mathematically, it makes no difference whether money moves back & forth within the system, or between the system and deposit method. From the point of view of the player, they have been offered so much bonus on so much deposit money. If the "system" rejects their attempt to make a big deposit, it is logical to expect some players to try smaller deposits.
In this case, the solution chosen was unwise. Presumably, if they had £2000 on the card, they could just as easily have deposited 4x £500 direct from the card, rather than doing the casino - sportsbook shuffle. At the end of the promotion, they could have withdrawn everything back to the card. This would have been within the rules, and would have shown the operator that there REALLY WAS £2000 available to put "at risk" with the casino in the first place.
Generally, the problem boils down to the casinos offering too high a ceiling on an offer, and when a player tries to take it they find their bank takes fright at the sheer size of the purchase, which is what happened in this case.
A small change in the rules as applied by the software could prevent this kind of manipulation, making only the FIRST deposit eligible for the bonus, OR, stating that once a withdrawal OR TRANSFER from the casino has been made, the promotion is no longer valid on further deposits. I have seen many Playtech casinos with a term stating that no bonus may be claimed whilst a withdrawal is pending, or within 7 days of a withdrawal having been made. It is a shortcoming in the casino software that permits this term to be breached in the first place. A stand alone Playtech casino would not be vulnerable, since such a manouver would be read as a reversal of a withdrawal, and not a new deposit.
What seems a problem here is the SELECTIVE application of the rules. Rules are there for EVERYBODY, and EVERYBODY who used this shuffling tactic breached the rules, and so should receive a stern email telling them this is NOT allowed, and they will have winnings removed if they try it on again. If there are any "advantage play" sites telling players to try this, THEY are wrong, and if they are also affiliates of the casino, they should lose their accounts for inciting these loophole exploitations.
MOST widescale abuse and fraud issues has been because a large number of players have been made aware of a "loophole" in some promotion or another, and a convenient step by step guide posted on some internet forum, or website, leads to a mass of new players hitting the casino all at once. Often, the loophole, once exposed as profitable, then leads to attempts at multiple account fraud. This can happen VERY quickly. One such site used to recommend "doing" an entire casino group over the weekend to give them less chance of catching on & locking accounts.
There are still many sites out there like this, and given that this was a Blackjack friendly bonus, I know where the "step by step guide" probably was for this one
Empty Fruities Astern Capt'n
Back to port for unloading.
Full Sails - before we get raided ourselves.
rreevy (12th May 2009)
Ueber Meister
I disagree.
What casinos cry when no terms have been broken is NOT bonus abuse, on that we agree.
Unintentionally breaching a rule is NOT bonus abuse either.
Deliberately breaching a rule IS bonus abuse.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks