Slots wagering on table games bonus

[all4greed]

Looking at my history I could see that I had taken similar bonuses at least three times before only to lose it all playing the same slots.

At least 3 times equals 48? Guess there was more to the story...

[maxd]

At least 3 times equals 48?...

Yes, that being one of several items of "creative interpretation" of the actual events.

[Nifty29]

You know, ya can smell 'em a mile away sometimes....and this one was putrid from the get go.

Nice work Max.

[spiderlegz]

At least 3 times equals 48? Guess there was more to the story...

He obviously meant the "BOND" coupon.

They indeed had a term which allows them to confiscate ("steal") the deposit which is at least enough for me to stay away.

The casino was overly "generous" because they tought the player would keep losing.

[vinylweatherman]

Confiscation of a DEPOSIT should NEVER be allowed. The "removal of winnings" due to term violations is merely "voiding the wager(s)". Where wagers are void, the casino HAS NOT WON the wager, it has been cancelled, therefore the deposit must be returned.

I have trouble believing the casino, an RTG one, was unable to block specific players from taking the coupon; after all, Club World, SAME SOFTWARE have made coupons account specific. I know this FOR A FACT, being one of the "bonus banned" there.

Although the casino contacted the player with regard to this numerous times, this is NOT proof the player received these, because spam filters are increasingly trapping VALID communications from casinos to their players. This is the fault of the INDUSTRY, because of their past lack of control of spam, the ISPs and filter programs are now doing it for them, but bluntly.

I find MOST of my inbound communications from casinos rejected as spam, even though they are perfectly valid. IF my ISP did NOT offer me the option to switch off the supplied filter (as is the case with the likes of Yahoo and Gmail), I would NOT receive my offers.
Even WITH the filter switched off, I am STILL not receiving emails that casinos claim they have sent me.

In this case, why has this player ONLY been banned for a mere 30 days, why not for LIFE, given that his intent is now clear, regardless of whether he received the communications from the casino or not. After 30 days, surely he would AGAIN look for a similar "loophole" in another code, and push it to the limit again.