Am I correct or wrong?

[Nifty29]

I have to respectfully disagree with you Nifty.

You say basically "if there was no free chip, then he couldn't have had a balance of $750 to run up higher"

That is silly actually. If he withdrew it then redeposited it, he still has it because of the free chip, correct? So then the free chip rule, according to your logic, must be enforced until the player loses $750 back to the casino. It MUST work that way according to your logic or your argument is flawed.

Look, it seems pretty simple at this point from any common sense perspective. The OP played a free chip with a max cashout. Upon satisfying the terms of the free chip all the extra money was taken from them, leaving them with the max cashout which then is the OP's money to play, withdraw, leave in the account or whatever they wish. I agree that a PaB should be made in this case. It goes against every other term in the casino.

I understand the need to limit the casinos risk with free money. Max cashout is max cashout on all money derived from the free chip. The free chip and all extra monies were gone. No longer a free chip. If it IS considered a free chip then all subsequent deposits must also be considered part of the free chip up to $750 in losses by the player.

I didn't say I agree with the way the casino looks at the issue - I'm saying that is how it is and I explained why.

Once the winnings from the free chip are withdrawn and processed, the slate is clean. Up to that point, they are considered to be generated by the free chip by the casino. You are drawing a very long bow by twisting what I said to mean that the player will 'owe' the casino $750 - I said nothing of the sort. I said the $750 is his winnings (why would he have to pay it back???) , but no more than that, regardless of what happens before or after WR is met. I mean, when you withdraw $1000 from a casino they don't say 'well the next $1000 in deposits are ours'. It's just the same here, except the amount of the withdrawal is capped.

I think the money should be his to do what he wants with....double it, lose it, whatever...it's his money....but the vast majority of casinos won't accept that argument and may well add additional terms to cover such an eventuality.

I did not recommend not to PAB because I don't want the OP to get his extra winnings - I hope he does - I was just being realistic about how this issue is addressed by RTG casinos and, based on that, I don't believe he will be successful.

[ksech]

Sorry greasemonkey, but I'm not following your logic
Once the OP had withdrawn, then the money was his free and clear to do with as he pleased. Whether he redeposited with or without a bonus, the cap for the free chip was over once he withdrew. Now, some have stated that some casinos view a reverse withdrawal as a "fresh" deposit, since we don't know which casino this is we can't go searching T&Cs to see if this had been an option for the OP.

I don't agree that the casino chose to pull money out before a withdrawal was requested is fair. I think that stinks and is misleading for players (especially newbies who have NO experience in these types of bonus issues). But as long as players play the freebies, this will always be an issue...

[vinylweatherman]

It's still "sharp practice", just like those "all your money back in 5 years" deals they used to offer on double glazing, washing machines, etc.

The schemes were DESIGNED so that a good number of people would fail on of the stages, and there were a number of stages that had to be completed in the right order, at the right time, and in the manner specified.

These stages were designed purely as traps to reduce the level of eligible claims. Many of these schemes went bust because too many consumers met the requirements, and the scheme didn't have the funds to pay all the valid claims. Subsequently, all such schemes were made illegal in the UK.

There is no reason why the adjustment could not be left until the player logs off, but this would mean they ALWAYS got the max amount possible. This new setup makes it possible for the player to lose some or all of it back, without ever having the chance to withdraw the correct amount.

Although not best illustrated in this case, the usual case is that a player has, say, $1000 removed by the adjustment, and THEN manages to lose an additional $100 (for example) because they were playing & didn't notice the adjustment straight away.

This actually BREACHES the terms, because the player is left with max cashout - $100, yet should REALLY have max cashout + $900 at this point, and this $900 would be removed upon withdrawal.

This system is rogue because the second adjustment is all one way, part of the removed funds are NOT returned during the withdrawal if the player carries on playing, yet any further winnings ARE removed by a second adjustment.

RTG seem determined to reinforce the impression that their software has been set up to "scam players" through the implementation of numerous "trap" situations that operators can utilise in the "back end".

Just when they are suffering the loss of confidence after the revelation of hard evidence that operators DID adjust the slots down to 91% after all, and were bullshitting players for the past two years about it just being "bad luck" that recent deposits have not lasted as long as they used to, they launch THIS new system on players without notice.

I don't recall there being ANY description whatsoever about how this system operates, it is something players just find out the first time it affects them. Operators seem unwilling to discuss this new system either, as though they have been caught red-handed like a naughty child with their hand in the cookie jar.

RTG need to either ditch this system, or make it FAIR to BOTH sides.

I am left wondering what else RTG are going to come up with to "screw" players in a future upgrade. This of course means that I no longer TRUST the software to be "fair" in the way I can trust MGS to be "fair".

The simplest way to avoid these problems is to avoid RTG.

[greasemonkey]

Sorry greasemonkey, but I'm not following your logic
Once the OP had withdrawn, then the money was his free and clear to do with as he pleased. Whether he redeposited with or without a bonus, the cap for the free chip was over once he withdrew. Now, some have stated that some casinos view a reverse withdrawal as a "fresh" deposit, since we don't know which casino this is we can't go searching T&Cs to see if this had been an option for the OP.

I don't agree that the casino chose to pull money out before a withdrawal was requested is fair. I think that stinks and is misleading for players (especially newbies who have NO experience in these types of bonus issues). But as long as players play the freebies, this will always be an issue...

What I am saying, ksech, is that if the casino will deem the $750 that they left in his account AFTER they took the free chip and extra winnings to STILL be part of the free chip BECAUSE the player earned the money via a free chip .... then that is paramount to saying that any future deposits made to the casino STILL fall into the free chip rule up until the player loses all of $750.

You ask why? It is because they could say that any money deposited up to $750 was actually gained by the free chip.

sound silly? It is. But it is no more silly than them saying that even after terms are met and all extra money and free chip is taken out of the account that the player is still held to free chip terms.

---------------

Maybe to make it more simple lets do this scenario:

Player gets free chip with 750 max
Player gets balance to 5000
software automatically removes 4250 upon completion of free chip terms
750 is withdrawn and immediately redeposited

Now in the above scenario that 750 was still gained via a free chip. What is the difference if the player withdraws then redeposits? Its still the same money and all terms were met and extra money already taken out of the players account.
so I guess in the casinos mind they could still say that the subsequent 750 deposit is from free chip and cannot cashout any more than 750? Its not logical, but it is no more illogical than what happened to the OP.

It is the players money once the terms are met. Period. that is why they took out the players extra money.

[ksech]

Once he withdrew, the WR and max cap was done. A fresh deposit would NOT fall under the free chip terms. So, if the OP immediately turned around and made a new deposit, he would be free to play until he busted out, or until he was satisfied with a new amount to withdraw. As long as there was no new bonus applied to the new deposit, he is literally playing with no strings attached. (Is my logic illogical? or maybe I'm being dense as I need sleep...or am I way off base?)

[greasemonkey]

Once he withdrew, the WR and max cap was done. A fresh deposit would NOT fall under the free chip terms. So, if the OP immediately turned around and made a new deposit, he would be free to play until he busted out, or until he was satisfied with a new amount to withdraw. As long as there was no new bonus applied to the new deposit, he is literally playing with no strings attached. (Is my logic illogical? or maybe I'm being dense as I need sleep...or am I way off base?)

hehe

Where we are missing each other is in the fact that I think the strings were no longer attached when the casino confiscated all of the OP's winnings and free chip. They took it. That ended the Free chip terms.

It appears you are saying the terms stay until he cashes out.

My question is WHY? If the OP cashes out then turns right around and redposits it, it is still the same money.

so if the casino is going to say that even though they took the free chip and all extra winnings out automatically AFTER TERMS WERE MET because the money was derived from the free chip, well then why would they not say that the same money redeposited was derived from the free chip? It WAS actually. There is no difference. The terms were met, the extra money taken away, the free chip taken away. No more wager requirements shown, no more rules applied to the free chip, all things satisfied in regards to the free chip. It is now the players money period.

[Nifty29]

The casino does not consider the bonus terms extinguished until the withdrawal of your winnings is PROCESSED. Hence, at ANY time before that your winnings are limited to the max cashout amount. So,your argument that any subsequent deposits are subject to any kind of restriction doesn't hold water.

EG
player gets 150 chip
Player meets wr with 2000 balance
1250 excess winnings removed
Player withdraws 750
withdrawal processed
player deposits 100 no restrictions apply.

I just don't see how the player could ever owe the casino money in this case.

The big issue is at what point the winnings become his to do what he likes.

The fact is that it's only when the money is actually sent to him. It shouldn't be that way but it is. It's silly I agree, but it's reality.

Removing funds in the middle of a hand is just plain wrong - but it's a different issue and one that needs to be corrected by RTG.

[ksech]

lol we ARE kind of on the same page here. I think it is stupid to have to cashout to end the free chip terms, but can redeposit (using the winnings) and play with no strings attached. I would think it would cause way too much "paperwork" for the casino to do this.

I hope no offense was taken, I think the painkiller I took a few hours ago is making me loopier than usual.

[sweiger]

The casino does not consider the bonus terms extinguished until the withdrawal of your winnings is PROCESSED. Hence, at ANY time before that your winnings are limited to the max cashout amount. So,your argument that any subsequent deposits are subject to any kind of restriction doesn't hold water.

EG
player gets 150 chip
Player meets wr with 2000 balance
1250 excess winnings removed
Player withdraws 750
withdrawal processed
player deposits 100 no restrictions apply.

I just don't see how the player could ever owe the casino money in this case.

The big issue is at what point the winnings become his to do what he likes.

The fact is that it's only when the money is actually sent to him. It shouldn't be that way but it is. It's silly I agree, but it's reality.

Removing funds in the middle of a hand is just plain wrong - but it's a different issue and one thatneeds to be corrected by RTG.

There seems to be a lot that needs to be corrected by RTG.

So, in your book, player should settle with "the withdrawal must be processed, before the free chip obligations are done" ?
IMO, it's nonsense. The contract was fulfilled the moment the free chip + excess winnings were removed. Any other way of bending terms are rogueish.

[greasemonkey]

lol we ARE kind of on the same page here. I think it is stupid to have to cashout to end the free chip terms, but can redeposit (using the winnings) and play with no strings attached. I would think it would cause way too much "paperwork" for the casino to do this.

I hope no offense was taken, I think the painkiller I took a few hours ago is making me loopier than usual.

lol!

I think highly of you and your posts... I have never even came close to taking offense from your opinions.