
Originally Posted by
spearmaster
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.
OK Fair enough. It's a disagreement on terminology, not fact. Bryan himself is the one who says that "bonus abuse" in it's own right does not exist UNLESS accompanied by a breach in the terms. The argument stems from casinos that deem "bonus abuse" to have taken place on the grounds of "we didn't like the way you played", even when such play was within the terms. This allows too wide a degree of freedom for casinos, and is unfair in the casino - player relationship.
This case is about an interpretation of terms, and whether the OP misunderstood, or WILFULLY tried to exploit an apparent loophole in how the software handled automated crediting of bonuses. Since the OP said that "other players" had posted of getting away with exploiting this loophole, it is more a case of why were they allowed to get away with it, rather than why the OP was not.
Playtech casinos have a reputation for assuming ALL British players are schemers, which is why they get little sympathy from me. I didn't post it, but I suspected that the OP was treated more harshly than those "other players" simply because he was from the UK, and preferred Blackjack.
In this case, the casino adhered to Casinomeister standards, and beyond, by paying out despite being able to demonstrate a specific breach of terms, and THEN issuing a bonus ban. The OP should realise that it is likely they have been flagged as a "schemer", and no amount of "loyal play without a bonus" is going to get them back on the promo list for a third attempt at "advantage play" - best move on to another casino, or develop a liking for other games.
I have some sympathy for the OP since I also saw nothing wrong in using the sportsbook "purse" as an "ewallet" for making "fresh deposits" into the casino part. This was simply because I had never come upon this central purse system before, because I had only played casinos. Now, I know that in general sportsbooks do NOT consider such internal transfers as true "fresh deposits".
I got caught by this at Ladbrokes - and a post on Casinomeister from a respected member who said this was OK with them, and following this, they updated their terms to make it very clear indeed what was considered a "fresh deposit" into the casino for promotional purposes. There is NO scope for argument with THEIR version.
This should be one for the "player 101" guides on how multi-faceted sites define "deposits" in terms of promotional purposes, since the casino software they use does tend to be vulnerable to this exploit. No doubt there ARE true "bonus abusers" out there who KNOW this is against the rules, but that a software "bug" gives them a good chance of getting away with it.
Empty Fruities Astern Capt'n
Back to port for unloading.
Full Sails - before we get raided ourselves.
Bookmarks