Betfred - Withdraw Issue

[newjam]

Looking at their t&cs you need to wager 20x deposit + bonus so that's 200x 20= 4000 on slots, so you're guaranteed 2k even in the unlikely event you lost all the wagering, pretty sweet offer.

[vinylweatherman]

Hi,

Firstly thank you for your patience in awaiting a response.

We have now reviewed the account in question and can confirm that you are yet to meet the wagering requirements for the first deposit bonus that was awarded.

Kindly note, as per the terms & conditions for the first deposit bonus you must complete the required wagering before you are permitted to withdraw any winnings.

In addition you have been playing Blackjack Switch, which is actually an excluded game towards the required wagering. In fact our terms and conditions actually state the below:

“Roulette (All Types), BJ Switch and BJ Surrender (All Types), Spin A Win, Craps, Baccarat are restricted for wagering. Any wagering on these games will result in bonus and winnings being removed from a players account.”

On this occasion and as a gesture of goodwill we will not void your winnings but you will be required to complete the required wagering playing non excluded games before you are permitted to withdraw your accumulated winnings.

In regard to being awarded a bonus that you did not request, please note that the below screen appears prompting you to either accept or decline the bonus on offer before it is awarded.



As you can see we clearly display that terms & conditions apply. Unfortunately we cannot fit all of the terms & conditions via such a pop up message, which is why the onus is on the player to take the time to read the details via our website.

Even when the bonus has been awarded you still have the opportunity to have the funds removed as long as you make your request prior to placing any bets, as per section 5 of our General Bonus Rules, as seen below:

“If you do not wish to receive a bonus, you must contact our support team either by live chat or email support@betfredcasino.com to decline the bonus prior to placing any bets.”

We hope that this is a satisfactory explanation and conclusion to this issue that you have raised.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to ask.

Phil
Casino Manager.

Including only PART of the terms is actually quite misleading, since it appears to be saying that only ROULETTE play is not allowed. Where it refers to "terms and conditions" it doesn't appear that they can be reached from within the casino (no "clickable" link). This only encourages players to skip reading them because they are not easy enough to get at from that stage in the process.

There is also no logic in confiscating winnings just because a game "does not count" towards meeting WR. There is no reason why your "goodwill gesture" should not be the NORM for EVERY player. Let them play what they like, but they MUST complete a set WR on the games "that count" before being allowed to withdraw, no matter HOW much they have played through on the other games.

Despite the apparent mistrust of "bonus players", it seems casinos still go to considerable lengths to get players to accept a bonus on their deposit.

Whilst experienced players will "know the ropes", a first time player could very easily have a very NEGATIVE first impression of the whole industry, which could scare them away for good, especially with the considerable negative publicity surrounding the issue from certain "vested interests" and politicians around the world.

This player was able to play a game they shouldn't because the software itself has deliberately NOT been adapted to assist the player in complying with the terms. It is NOT a case of "can't be done" either, it is a CHOICE on the part of the software provider to NOT implement software based compliance because it is CHEAPER to rely on the terms and conditions, and the ability they grant to confiscate the winnings after the fact. The ONLY victim of this cost cutting approach are the players who DON'T "know the ropes", and don't see any real need for them to FEAR any stipulations buried in the terms and conditions.

This player simply ASSUMED that they could trust the software to ONLY let them play in the style allowed, and believed that if they were able to open a game, place a bet, and play - it was OK to do so.

It is only TWO Blackjack games that are banned, and had this player played any other Blackjack game this problem would never have arisen. This again makes little sense, as surely ALL Blackjack games are just as "bad" for the casino, which makes most profit from the slots.

Sticking to slots is also no longer reliable advice, since there have been numerous cases where players have ONLY played slots, yet STILL had their winnings confiscated.

The SAFEST approach is to not play online at all - the regulations are pretty lax and player unfriendly compared with B & M casinos. A B & M casino also has to obey the laws where the player is located, whereas ONLINE casinos obey the laws in carefully chosen jurisdictions that offer the best compromise with regard to taxation and regulation. A player sitting on a PC in England could find they are betting under the laws of Costa Rica or Malta, yet THINK that it is their own DOMESTIC laws that apply (until they become more experienced, and realise this is almost NEVER the case).

[pinsnpies]

The new marvel slots are good. Who knows you may even win more. Imo playtech slots trump the bloted tripe provided by microgaming hands down. Its just that 4 day pending period for withdrawals which let the vast majority of the show down.

[petro]

...I think that the casino should have voided the players winnings.

A man after my own heart.

[doomed4ever]

I think this is a pretty good result for the player. As no matter what he will be up when requirments are met. Agreed the casino could have had a clickable link on the pop up box to open in a new window for the terms & conditions. But again it comes down to ALWAYS reading the terms and NEVER presume anything when it comes to online gambling. At least in this case the casino didnt drag their heels and came forward with a solution that seems fair all round. If in doubt dont take the bonus!