Casino LaVida

[RobWin]

Not acceptable. If the total available balance is $1 and I am playing a slot in excess of 50 cents per spin, I violate the rule.

"Significant" is also open to interpretation.

Agreed! This was the same issue as was discussed in the Palace thread that I posted about earlier in this thread from last year.
____
____

[vinylweatherman]

Not acceptable. If the total available balance is $1 and I am playing a slot in excess of 50 cents per spin, I violate the rule.

"Significant" is also open to interpretation.

This is what got the Palace Group in trouble, although the player was using a similar strategy on 3 card poker, they voided his win based on his LAST bet, which was only half the size of his first due to the fact that he had lost the previous bets, and it was all he had left. Spearmaster's example is the logical end point of any rule running from CURRENT balance, and if interpreted literally means that a 51c bet from the last $1 violates it just as much as the £201 bet from a £400 balance.

The clarification of "single bet" for the multi-hand games is EXACTLY the loophole that is being exploited. In Playcheck, this is recorded as a single game, but is presented as 5 SEPARATE bets on different PLAYER hands. The advantage strategy works because the player hopes for a dealer bust, essentially offering the same as were they to place everything on a single hand of ordinary blackjack, which is a clear violation, even of the subjective terms.
"Majority" of something DOES have a clear meaning, unlike "significant". ANY amount over 50% of something is it's "majority". "30% of bonus credited" is ALSO quite clear in meaning, an exact figure the player can work out and stick to during the session. All that is needed is to close off any loopholes.

It's a great pity that the perfectly reasonable idea of using the software to forcibly implement these max bet rules is constantly falling on deaf ears. It makes players think that casinos are using the terms as a trap for the unwary, and smart advantage players, whereas enforcing the rule through the software would mean NO player could breach the rules, and there could therefore NEVER be a valid confiscation of winnings for breaching a max bet rule.

The affiliates that promote these strategies should also be pursued, after all, it is THEY that have made "bonus hunting" into a "mainstream" hobby for many. Most of these methods challenge the usual human perception of risk, and it would take a mathematician to understand how throwing everything on one bet when using a bonus DOES indeed offer a long term positive outcome, even though the first time (or even first few times) you try it you might lose everthing.

With these affiliates, players are told to follow the strategies, and are told to hold their nerve and they WILL work in the end. A few affiliates even offer "insurance" if players stick to the method, yet end up losing anyway. Affiliates can make a fortune running this "scam" against casinos, since the method itself involves players signing up everywhere, but in general playing only once with the SUB. The affiliate may be on a player acquisition deal, and gets paid whether the player beats the bonus or not. Often they are paid more than the player's own deposit, making it possible for the affiliate to offer "insurance" (a refund) if they use the method and lose. They know that if they refund the player his $50, he will stay with the site, and try the next method, maybe have his $50 refunded again, but the affiliate could have been paid $100 just for the signup and first deposit, regardless of the outcome.

[WayneRedreturns]

Hi All,

This is and will always be open to interpretation regardless of how exact the rule is. The difference is that fraud on our end is monitored by security systems and individuals that make the decisions. The casino will not confiscate winnings from a regular player that makes a 50c bet with a $1 balance. The overall betting behavior of the player is evaluated and some players will stray outside the terms. However this is not reason enough to confiscate a genuine players winnings. These rules are in place to protect the casino when a player joins the casino in syndicates or blatantly violates the rules.

The rule exists because of this type behavior.

The affiliates that promote these strategies should also be pursued, after all, it is THEY that have made "bonus hunting" into a "mainstream" hobby for many. Most of these methods challenge the usual human perception of risk, and it would take a mathematician to understand how throwing everything on one bet when using a bonus DOES indeed offer a long term positive outcome, even though the first time (or even first few times) you try it you might lose everthing.

With these affiliates, players are told to follow the strategies, and are told to hold their nerve and they WILL work in the end. A few affiliates even offer "insurance" if players stick to the method, yet end up losing anyway. Affiliates can make a fortune running this "scam" against casinos, since the method itself involves players signing up everywhere, but in general playing only once with the SUB. The affiliate may be on a player acquisition deal, and gets paid whether the player beats the bonus or not. Often they are paid more than the player's own deposit, making it possible for the affiliate to offer "insurance" (a refund) if they use the method and lose. They know that if they refund the player his $50, he will stay with the site, and try the next method, maybe have his $50 refunded again, but the affiliate could have been paid $100 just for the signup and first deposit, regardless of the outcome.

As much as we try and stop this type of affiliate marketing It still occurs. The reality is that these players exist and they will always try and find loop holes in the terms. For these players the terms will always remain open to interpretation. If it is possible to have bonus terms that stop fraud, without affecting players that want to join the casino for entertainment purposes, please post, I would like to use it.

As stated previously it is very few individuals that force these extra terms on all players. When I started in this industry 10 years ago the bonus terms were barely 10 lines of text.

This is a great thread. Thanks guys.

Best regards,
Wayne

[chuchu59]

Very, very smart player. Knows all the tricks of the trade and made use of this forum to coerce the casino into paying due to a mistake by the support staff. I dont believe for a second that he did not know he was in violation of rule 15 but he should have followed the Spin Palace case and thought that if he had won he had a good chance of getting his winnings by posting in the forum.

Spearmaster is correct in stating the "majority of total available balance' is too vague. Why cant it be 'x% of original balance' with the balance referring to the deposit+ bonus. This isnt rocket science is it?

[elscrabinda]

This is and will always be open to interpretation regardless of how exact the rule is.

Only if you choose to make it open to interpretation by using terms such as 'genuine', 'regular' and 'significant'. It is nonsense to force so-called 'genuine' players to break your terms (which is effectively what having a 50c bet from a $1 balance disallowed does) and hope that you will take pity on them and decide not to confiscate their winnings every time they do it.

[spiderlegz]

Very, very smart player. Knows all the tricks of the trade and made use of this forum to coerce the casino into paying due to a mistake by the support staff. I dont believe for a second that he did not know he was in violation of rule 15 but he should have followed the Spin Palace case and thought that if he had won he had a good chance of getting his winnings by posting in the forum.

Spearmaster is correct in stating the "majority of total available balance' is too vague. Why cant it be 'x% of original balance' with the balance referring to the deposit+ bonus. This isnt rocket science is it?

That would be the best option IMO. Take that "30% of bonus" rule and apply it to the 2nd deposit bonus (33%) and you see how "evil" it is.

Also if they go with the 30% rule then make that the only one that matters. Not the additional BS that Spearmaster mentioned.

And the reps reply included my favourite terms fraud and syndicate

[zebedy]

Not acceptable. If the total available balance is $1 and I am playing a slot in excess of 50 cents per spin, I violate the rule.

"Significant" is also open to interpretation.

Couldnt, they add.

if a players balance falls below $10 the rule would not apply
or something to that effect

[vinylweatherman]

Hi All,

This is and will always be open to interpretation regardless of how exact the rule is. The difference is that fraud on our end is monitored by security systems and individuals that make the decisions. The casino will not confiscate winnings from a regular player that makes a 50c bet with a $1 balance. The overall betting behavior of the player is evaluated and some players will stray outside the terms. However this is not reason enough to confiscate a genuine players winnings. These rules are in place to protect the casino when a player joins the casino in syndicates or blatantly violates the rules.

The rule exists because of this type behavior.



As much as we try and stop this type of affiliate marketing It still occurs. The reality is that these players exist and they will always try and find loop holes in the terms. For these players the terms will always remain open to interpretation. If it is possible to have bonus terms that stop fraud, without affecting players that want to join the casino for entertainment purposes, please post, I would like to use it.
As stated previously it is very few individuals that force these extra terms on all players. When I started in this industry 10 years ago the bonus terms were barely 10 lines of text.

This is a great thread. Thanks guys.

Best regards,
Wayne

It is perfectly possible, but it needs MGS to get off their fat lazy asses and program the enforcements into the software. The operator can ALREADY configure the MGS bonus system with a considerable number of options, and the software ALREADY has code in place to block individual games entirely (it's used to block progressives in "fun" mode, and many games for US based players). The system could be programmed so that allocating a game as counting 0% towards WR automatically blocks that game from being played with a bonus in the account. The max bet percentage can be set by the operator as a global variable, such as 30% of bonus balance, and the table limit for each game will be calculated, and if the player tries to put too many chips down, they get the "max bet reached" message that ALREADY blocks bets greater than the house limit for that game, which again is operator configurable. I don't believe this will be an onerous task for MGS's programmers, but it would wipe out many of the advantage play methods currently doing the rounds, because it will NOT be about finding loopholes, or badly written terms missing something, the SOFTWARE would block the bet, leaving the player to take it up with CS, where they can be told the bet was blocked because it violated one of the terms.


As for these "syndicates", this is NOT necessarily the player's fault, IF a website is advertising a casino WITH THE BLESSING of said casino (usually a paid affiliate), it is not unreasonable for the player to assume that any advertising content also has the blessing of the casino, otherwise surely the casino could take pretty severe action, such as closing down the affiliate account and confiscating THEIR "winnings" for encouraging "bonus abuse" and "syndicated attacks" on a particular loophole.

There are some bonus beating websites where the casino has even made a special deal, giving members an enhanced bonus to abuse - they surely MUST have done due dilligence when offering such a special deal to what must be a select number of favoured affiliates.

Players CANNOT be assumed to be in a syndicate if the ONLY connecting factor is that they came to the casino through a site strongly advocating a particular strategy, and thus played that strategy.

There certainly seems to be "one rule for them (affiliates), and another for us (mere players)". Advantage players stand to have winnings confiscated for even a first offence, but advantage affiliates seem to merely get a "slap on the wrist", even after SEVERAL breaches of the affiliate terms, such as spamming, creating "advantage play attacks" through encouraging abuse of a loophole in terms, and even offering "no lose deals" to players to sign up, such as they get their first deposit back whatever, because the affiliate gets paid more than this just to bring a depositing player to the casino (why is THIS not viewed as fraud, surely it is risk free for both player and affiliate, and the casino loses money on EVERY player taking part through payments made to that affiliate).

Security departments can spot a fraudulent or advantage player among thousands, so I just don't buy the excuse that they can't similarly spot a dodgy affiliate portal sending in a load of advantage players.