Casino On Net will steal your deposit and winnings

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by chuchu59

888 were stupid to have such wagering requirements but you did not play in good faith.

Since when did "good faith" have anything whatsoever to do with the casino industry?

[rreevy]

Gee, this is an interesting one.

Depositing $200, getting a $200 bonus and cashing out your deposit when you've lost the bonus does seem like taking the mickey to me. However, most casinos specify in their T&Cs that you can't withdraw _anything_ until meeting the WR. If CON don't have such a term, then it seems they're on rather shaky ground.

I believe Bryan states that if a casino gives a bonus and the player meets the terms, they should be paid. This is a special case, but if I understand right, the Reef Club business happened before this player opened an account at CON. If so, why was the bonus credited at CON despite the earlier blatant abuse at Reef Club?

As regards 'good faith', I agree the player definitely didn't show that in this case. But with bonuses it must be about the T&Cs. Bonus hunters exploit mathematical expectations to make a profit, which is also what casinos do with the house edge. I don't think it matters how much money a player has or a casino makes: large companies and private individuals alike do things that, although perhaps unfair or exploitative, are nonetheless perfectly legal. I personally feel that bonus hunting has to be looked at in the same way.

To be honest, I don't have much sympathy for this player either, but I have even less for the casino. When issuing bonuses, casinos set the rules, and should easily be able to work out what a player who plays the lowest-edge games and stops at the minimum WR could make. It's their job to cover themselves against specific abuses: statements about 'fair play', 'good faith' etc. are too subjective IMO.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, and I'd be interested to hear any opposing views.

Rob

[dominique]

Originally Posted by rreevy

When issuing bonuses, casinos set the rules, and should easily be able to work out what a player who plays the lowest-edge games and stops at the minimum WR could make. It's their job to cover themselves against specific abuses: statements about 'fair play', 'good faith' etc. are too subjective IMO.
Rob

Yeppers!

My sentiments exactly.