Locked Account at Royal Vegas & Vegas Towers

[JALaw]

It's mighty unfortunate that the casino representative fails to understand that the players in question met the terms and conditions set forth by the casinos. They should demand documentation on the players to avoid gnomes, pay everyone what they're owed, unlock the accounts and get on with running a business.

The concerns about "bonus abuse" should be addressed by changing the terms and conditions of the bonus such that it is less attractive, possibly just break-even EV-wise.
That will chase away the bonus whores, but still attract casual players, and possibly attract some long term loyal players. I presume that is the kind of client mix the casinos actually want.

As long as casinos provide bonuses which are +EV, there will be individuals who look for the method which maximizes their EV and play the bonus in that manner. The casinos have nobody to blame but themselves when the casino loses money on +EV bonuses. Banning intelligent players (or those who at least do internet searches for maximizing the EV from a bonus) is not the solution -- it just generates negative press at a time when the industry can least afford it.

In my particular case I have been banned from a handful of the fortune lounge casinos for aggressively playing bonuses, which isn't a big deal to me or likely the casinos. However, due to the banning, I will boycott any online poker rooms associated with fortune lounge -- which is definitely -EV for fortune lounge (and me). I drop more in rake these days in a month than I've ever made on a casino bonus.



jeff

[Casinomeister]

Just so we're straight here - the bottom line is this, and this applies to all casinos across the board.

If the casino operation does not approve in the manner in which the player plays, then they have every right to lock a player's account just so this is outlined in the terms and conditions.

If fraudulent activity is detected (multiple accounts, faked IDs, bogus personal info, etc.) then winnings should be confiscated since these would be considered bogus accounts.

If the player account is legit, the wagering requirements are met, and the terms and conditions are not breached, then winnings should be paid.

[powerball]

I am not the only one beeing banned from this casinogroup I see.. (I have my own thread in the "bonus-complaint" forum)

If you dont like people gambling on one big bet of baccarat, why don't you put it in your T&C? I have my own theory on this. And that is that you now have created a win\win situation for yourself in a very sneaky way. If the so called "bonus abuser" ends up loosing, you get his money, if he "wins", you lock his account and also get his money.

If a bank does not have metal detectors it doesn't justify why the bank should be robbed.

What is the logic behind this? If the bank doesnt have a metaldetector it is still illegal to "rob" the bank as you say it. That is because the LAWS (lets call it societies terms and conditions) says that it is illegal to "rob" people. The casinos sets up their own laws in the form of terms and conditions. When these laws don't prohibit people to gamble it up with the bonus, then they can not be judged for doing so.

In Norway we have a legal paragraph saying "You cannot be judged without authority of the law". Meaning you cannot be judged for something one party claims is a criminal act, when it is not any laws against it.

It is the same situation in this case. The Casino makes the laws in form of terms and conditions. If a player havent broken these, the player can neither be judged for it.

[BBKPoker]

Just so we're straight here - the bottom line is this, and this applies to all casinos across the board.

If the casino operation does not approve in the manner in which the player plays, then they have every right to lock a player's account just so this is outlined in the terms and conditions.

If fraudulent activity is detected (multiple accounts, faked IDs, bogus personal info, etc.) then winnings should be confiscated since these would be considered bogus accounts.

If the player account is legit, the wagering requirements are met, and the terms and conditions are not breached, then winnings should be paid.

Agreed, but at least one player has posted a response from the casino that is an objection to his manner of play (which does not breach their terms and conditions) rather than actual fraudulent activity (multiple accounts, bogus info, etc). That is a contemptible way of doing business on any casino's part, and it's even more appalling when it's defended as a legitimate reason to confiscate winnings by a group that has previously been a model for operating as an honest establishment. Very depressing action to see from a casino group that is going to quickly lose it's credibility if it thinks that kind of argument is going to fly anywhere.

[Casinomeister]

Agreed, but at least one player has posted a response from the casino that is an objection to his manner of play ...

Yeah, I know. I'm hoping by tomorrow sometime things might be a bit more clearer.

[JALaw]

Yeah, I know. I'm hoping by tomorrow sometime things might be a bit more clearer.

It's more than one player that wasn't committing any kind of fraud. Did I aggressively play their bonus? absolutely (can't remember if I won or lost at this point). But I _never_ engaged in any fraudulent activity.

I personally don't care that my account was closed permanently, but their actions reflect badly upon their company and online gaming as a whole. For online gaming to survive it must be seen as legitimate and this kind of behavior undermines the legitimacy of online gaming in a significant way.

Jeff

[Vesuvio]

Apologies for repeating what others have said, but for the record:

This is a case where players purchase the minium required to receive the offer (no problem with this) wager the full amount on one hand of a low risk game and, if they win, proceed to play only French Roulette, betting on red or black / odds or evens to meet the wagering requirements and then to cash in and disappear. This is nothing else than bonus abuse, call it what you like.

No, that's simply a player trying to make the most of a bonus. Alter the rules, if it's a problem for you. Note, betting one hand on a "low risk" game isn't low risk and betting on red "or" black at roulette is still risking your balance at a high house edge.

Thank you for your version. We regard syndicates as players linked by certain identifiers who play from the same area and display the same patterns.

Fair enough and good to have your definition, though obviously perfectly legitimate players can also play in the same area with a similar pattern of play. The bottom line is you can exclude who you like but must have proof of fraud to confiscate funds.

If a bank does not have metal detectors it doesn't justify why the bank should be robbed.

Comparing yourself to a bank is apt, but it's not a robbery if you lose money when players take up your offers and win - any more than it's a robbery if they take up the offers and lose.

Bonuses are there to attract real, honest, bona fide players. It should be our right to exclude players who clearly display that they are only interested in taking advantage of a free money offer with no intention to return.

I don't dispute your right to exclude players - of course you can. But if your terms have been met and no fraud committed you have to pay out winnings first. (in passing, "free money" is a comical misnomer if even the players who are "robbing" you are more likely to lose their deposit than win when they play)

We have never practiced "we can do whatever we like" You seem to advocate this for players.

The player needs to meet your terms (the clearcut ones, not the catch-all) and commit no fraud. The only "whatever they like" I'm advocating is that players can play a bonus how they choose - big hands, small hands, having a target and stopping when they reach it, or simply playing for fun until they lose their balance.

If we (and other operators) keep on allowing bonus abuse to this extent, we won't have a business.

You set the terms of the game - you can change your offers or use a different business model if you don't like the results. You can't justify committing a crime by claiming it's the best business decision! (though you're not the first casino group to try)

Our Terms and Conditions are very explicit on this issue. It is every player's responsibility to read, understand and agree to these Terms and Conditions and no player is allowed to open an account unless he/she agrees to these terms. If someone is not happy with a particular term or condition, then the logical thing to do is to go and find a casino that does not have such a term.
Terms and Conditions are there to protect players and casino alike.

Taken to it's logical conclusion that would sound the death knell for the online casino industry. All casinos have something similar written into their terms but the fine line between the industry being reputable and simply criminal is that only the rogue outfits have enforced it - a rational player either has to consider the catch-all term unenforcable nonsense, or not play. It's worth noting that such terms would have zero legal weight in a properly regulated industry/jurisdiction.

It boggles my mind then that, when we enforce these terms, it becomes an issue and we are wrong. We are then liars and thieves and the player is the victim.

Spare us the pretense that you thought you could get away with what you're doing without a response. No doubt you calculated that the fraudulently obtained funds would outweigh the bad publicity - all players can do is try and tip the scales of the calculation on forums like this one.

[GOCC]

Just checked my email and I have 3 accounts locked with this group that I have only used for their sign up offer.

So it can only be if you win with the bonus, they dont want you

[wangpoker]

I have knew this method to abuse the bonus for a long time.
VPL casinos have 100% or 150% or 200% or 300% signup bonuses.
One account can earn about 100-300 bucks at low risk in this group.
This method applys to Fortune Lounge and other groups.

Whose fault? MG's new bonus system? players' greed?

I never tried this method although it works.

[vinylweatherman]

The method described is one specific method of "advantage play". It is not any kind of "abuse", bonus or otherwise, provided the player has not broken rules about multiple accounts or ID fraud.

The casino makes these offers to gain players. EXISTING players of one or two of their casinos are vigorously encouraged to play at the others, WITH THE BONUS. If the casino sees a player use this method at one casino, why not instantly bar them from any of the others before they get a chance to turn a very high risk advantage play method into a very low risk near certain winner.
There is nothing to stop the casino from moving French Roulette to the 10% weighting level, instead of the standard 50% for tables. This would remove the opportunity to grind out a WR profitably, even after a one off high risk bet.
The faults are mathematical, whoever implemented these promotions was not sufficiently qualified, and management let this pass for too long because presumably they did not want to alienate players. They waited too long, and have now taken severe and delayed action without there being any change in the terms and conditions to scare off further advantage players.

At least we have an admission that the E-mail suggesting fraud should not have been sent out to mere "bonus abusers".

Now this has been put out in the open, how on earth can future players be certain that simply doing their best to beat the house will not get them labelled as an abuser. What if they deposit the max, play a slot with a chunky bet size and hit an early bonus round, then play other slots at a much smaller bet to meet WR and end up with a win - is this "abuse", or just "luck".

The only real defence is to implement a system whereby a bonus claim is denied, and an explanation given that the player has not demonstrated a desire to play after receiving an earlier bonus. This system should get rid of "bonus abusers" at the outset, but would NOT result in the casino resorting to confiscation of winnings after the fact - the one act that causes the most bad feeling in these disputed cases.

Mass closing of acounts where "the horse has already bolted" serves no purpose other than to blow the issue out of necessary proportion - this thread began not with players not receiving cash-ins, but with players suddenly being accused of "suspicious activity" on what they took to be long dead accounts. IF these accounts had been simply left open, no further "abuse" could have happened from them, and there would have been no fuss on this forum. T & C could have been changed to prevent more than one automatic bonus over the entire group (others only by invitation and personal claim), and French Roulette wager weighting (an anomaly within EZBonus), reset to reflect the favourable house edge on the even money bets. The initial big bet could even be dealt with by restricting the max bet size on new accounts. This has been demonstrated as being possible under MG by the fact that when Casino Action used separate bonus accounts this is exactly how they dealt with this, by limiting the bets on these even money shots to $100, whereas in the real account of the same casino they were set to $500.