Omni Casino tricks

[sirius]

Here's the initial response from the Marketing Director, Bob Mann:

We do apologize for handling incorrectly, we sort of put the cart before the horse. We are changing the bonus policy to reward loyal players and not those players who look to only play the bonus money, and some players got categorized incorrectly. No long winded email, just a simple, "We dropped the ball on this one and are going to make it right".

I've asked for some further clarification (I repeated the main points again) but I think they understood where they went wrong.

[mitch]

KasinoKing

I am with you on this one. Stupid advantage players should not be encouraged they threaten the income stream of players who are prepared to do more thinking around the subject of earning money from internet gambling.

I earn money from Omni and want to continue to be able to do that, selfishly, the more that stupid advantage players get barred from promotions the better for me.

Of course playing devils advocate to my own arguement if everyone was a sensible advantage player my income stream would dry up anyway.

So perhaps you and I should actually encourage players to be stupid players or stupid advantage players. ( but see the thread by "toofast4u" to bring you back to earth )

Mitch

"win don't gamble"

[Vesuvio]

I never said flat betting isn't gambling - just implied that it's not very sensible gambling. I think even you agreed with me on this in your 'ps'!
What I'm trying to say, is with known house odds against you, flat betting one game continuously will inevitably lead to loss, whether this is your own cash, or bonus money.
So why would anyone want to do that, unless trying to meet a WR with minimum risk?

My p.s. said that if you played sensibly and won you'd be just as likely to be banned whether you flat-betted or used some other scheme. Along with mitch, I wouldn't get too smug about not being banned if you're consistently winning.

I disagree with the comment on flat betting - all casino games inevitably lead to a loss in the long run, whatever approach you use (without bonuses). In the short term flat betting BJ for a 2500 wr is almost as likely to win you $100 as it is to lose you $100, so if someone wants to have some fun gambling at an on-line casino it's as good an approach as any.

Dominique, I agree it's sad to see the bonus system end & it must completely bamboozle the uninitiated, but I don't see how avoiding criticising casinos will help. Omni have already changed their bonus to make it unappealing. I think casinos are taking advantage of the lack of competition over bonuses now to reduce the chances of casual players winning to almost zero. They could easily afford to lose some money to bonus hunters (not too much if the conditions are sensible) in exchange for new custom. I don't think the changes are a result of bonus hunting - it's just a convenient excuse to increase revenue.

[trick]

Players should be treated fairly - also when they are labelled by a casino as bonus abusers. If that is smearing Omni, then Omni isn't fair...

Or maybe they are.... It looks like something will happen and they are going to set it right....

[Stanford]

Stanford: "Nonsense. This player took an offer. Risked her own funds, not promotional funds. "

The poster is NOT playing with her own money! If you will reread her post, she has taken a $210 profit and deposited $200 of that for her November buy in. Last time I checked even land casinos are allowed to tap you on the

I repeat this player is risking her own money. Once you win the money it is yours.

I have never had a land casino behave in such a manner. Sometimes they get bent out of shape with professionals. But they are more likly wagering hundreds per hand. For this kind of action, reneg on a promotion? Not that I have heard.

Stanford

[Stanford]

Again let me repeat myself:"Last time I checked even land casinos are allowed to tap you on the shoulder and refuse your play even if you are losing. Rescind comps mind you! Why? Same reason as this poster - why not just count out aloud??? Absolutely no brains in wagering, no attempt at disguise. In the long run this stupidity costs you more money as opposed to a short term gain. I trust the BoHo's are taking notes!"

That's not correct. Atlantic City can't bar you from counting. Count out loud all you wish.

In Las Vegas a casino can request not to take your action. That's not because it is correct but simply because they exert a huge amount of political pressure.

However, this is more comprable to a promotion where you have to play a given amount of action for a comp. In which case I have never seen one recinded. And I play a lot.

This case is very clear. A player risk her own money. Fullfilled the promotion and then didn't receive the bonus. There isn't anything more to it than that.

For others concerned about flat betting, that doesn't have any bearing at all. Flat betting won't change the EV of this game even a little bit.

Stanford

PS - I see that Omni has done the right thing. I congratulate them for that.

For those that worry about the casino, don't worry too much. There biggest issue isn't that a few people may not go on tilt. There biggest problem is that there isn't adequate self regulation. Sirius many thanks.

[DeMango]

Greetings Stanford;
It took two posts to answer me, aren't you special! You need to read the REAL Stanford site (bj21.com) to catch your mistakes!

"That's not correct. Atlantic City can't bar you from counting. Count out loud all you wish." Since I didn't mention AC why do you? They have other measures such as half shoing and preferential shuffles. In Eastern Europe you may end up in a gutter, in Nepal in jail!

"In Las Vegas a casino can request not to take your action. That's not because it is correct but simply because they exert a huge amount of political pressure." Oh really? The term 86'd mean anything? Trespassed? Thrown out of their comped rooms in the middle of the night? It all happens!

"I repeat this player is risking her own money. Once you win the money it is yours." That is your opinion. I see $210 profit being reinvested. Maybe the casino sees it different. At any rate considering the T&C's I posted the casino could be a bear. Maybe with this bad publicity they will change their minds, pay her and screw the rest of us later. Any bets?

By the way this is not the first posting of this individual - something about a neteller bonus at FL They (FL) didn't back down - Why? Could it be they weren't too happy with the totaled wagered in relation to requirements? Safe bet huh?

[Stanford]

Greetings Stanford;
It took two posts to answer me, aren't you special! You need to read the REAL Stanford site (bj21.com) to catch your mistakes!

"That's not correct. Atlantic City can't bar you from counting. Count out loud all you wish." Since I didn't mention AC why do you? They have other measures such as half shoing and preferential shuffles. In Eastern Europe you may end up in a gutter, in Nepal in jail!

"In Las Vegas a casino can request not to take your action. That's not because it is correct but simply because they exert a huge amount of political pressure." Oh really? The term 86'd mean anything? Trespassed? Thrown out of their comped rooms in the middle of the night? It all happens!

"I repeat this player is risking her own money. Once you win the money it is yours." That is your opinion. I see $210 profit being reinvested. Maybe the casino sees it different. At any rate considering the T&C's I posted the casino could be a bear. Maybe with this bad publicity they will change their minds, pay her and screw the rest of us later. Any bets?

By the way this is not the first posting of this individual - something about a neteller bonus at FL They (FL) didn't back down - Why? Could it be they weren't too happy with the totaled wagered in relation to requirements? Safe bet huh?

Greetings DeMango,

Fair enough. I will read the real Stanford. Go to BJ21.com and post that you think that when a player wins, he is playing on the casinos money. See what response you get. Let me know when I can go watch. Let me know if you post to Green Chip or Red Chip.

The reason there are two responses is because I responded to two different post.

The first posting Megan was also correct. The problem was that FL did not honor their own Ts/Cs. They applied the wagering requirements exactly backwards as they said they would and this led to Megan forfitting a bonus she deserved for one she didn't realize they gave her.

The reason I mentioned Atlantic City is because it is included in your statement. Your statement was "land based casinos". Not "land based casinos in Las Vegas". It serves as a good illustration of what should happen. That is a game should be played according to the explicit terms and any comps awarded without whining.

As to backrooming and such, yes I am aware. I am sure you are aware of the recent large award a player received for that nonsense. Megen does not need to worry about that though. Flat betting the minimum won't get her backed off or back roomed.

Again, this is neither here not there. Trying to compare this to extreme examples of professionals betting black chips or even semi pros playing mid to high green is just not comprable.

What is comprable are player cards and promotions and never have I seen a casino reneg after the fact. This is only common in the online world and would be more common without watchdogs and player outrage.

Last week I recieved two free rooms at Harahs for the Thanksgiving Holidays. You won't find any counters at Harahs in Las Vegas - trust me. Kicking myself that I can't use them. I have no doubt they would be honored - even if I didn't wager a dime.

Stanford

[dickens1298]

Although this issue is apparently resolved, some of its ramifications cannot be ignored.

Ironically, the uproar over Megan's case - and the apparent subsequent acquiesence from Omni - may actually have more negative long-term ramifications for players, especially those who enjoy bonuses.

First, remember that Omni is a very reputable casino, and players have earned thousands of dollars in comps and loyalty points over the last several years - in short, the $100 in dispute was more a matter of principle and less a matter of dollars. Regardless of whether you thought they were right or wrong, the fact is that their intention was not to defraud the player.

And Megan's intentions were simply to capture the bonus. She had pointedly remarked that she would stop play as soon as she reached the WR. No judgement on my part - statement of fact.

However...if you operated a casino, and assuming Megan's situation many times over, wouldn't you be tempted to pull all bonuses, or simply make the terms more onerous? This isn't without precedent - there are many groups out there who have either eliminated bonuses entirely, disqualified blackjack as part of the WR, or use sticky bonuses. The business is all about cash flow, and if more money is flowing out from a program than in, what incentive is there to still provide it?

Personally, I have never had a problem cashing out nor earning a bonus. There have been a couple of times when I was nervous about the turnaround time of the cashin, but that was in terms of days, not weeks. And I have played at Omni quite a bit, earning both loyalty dollars and bonuses.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Omni chooses to pull its bonus program entirely, partly because it had to pay bonus "users" such as Megan? We players may have won this battle, but whither goest the war?

[Stanford]

"Regardless of whether you thought they were right or wrong, the fact is that their intention was not to defraud the player."

Yes, but we didn't know this. Reneging on a bonus is the same as reneging on a bet. Serious as a heart attack.

"And Megan's intentions were simply to capture the bonus. She had pointedly remarked that she would stop play as soon as she reached the WR. No judgement on my part - statement of fact."

The only time I saw how much she wagered was when she said she was over $2900 on a $2500 requirement.

"However...if you operated a casino, and assuming Megan's situation many times over, wouldn't you be tempted to pull all bonuses, or simply make the terms more onerous? This isn't without precedent - there are many groups out there who have either eliminated bonuses entirely, disqualified blackjack as part of the WR, or use sticky bonuses. The business is all about cash flow, and if more money is flowing out from a program than in, what incentive is there to still provide it?"

Why are you concerned about that. There are plenty of players that play full tilt. It doesn't take much salting to get them going. They will get a mix of those that play close to the WRs and those that play way over the WRs and points in between.

"Wouldn't it be ironic if Omni chooses to pull its bonus program entirely, partly because it had to pay bonus "users" such as Megan? We players may have won this battle, but whither goest the war?"

Look, online gaming is fraught with reneging for all kinds of reasons. That's just no way to do business. We can minimize this by having standards and insisting on them. Even eCOGRA wouldn't tolerate a situation like this.

It would be silly if Omni pulled its bonus program. Do you think MGM will stop offering free drinks if you played one hand, got your free drink and left?

What Omni could do is structure their bonus program to do what they want. Here is an example off the top of my head:

"Our bonus is to reward loyalty. That means players should occasionally play without a bonus. And that also means that they should wager a fair amount. Normally, the player should wager more than $3,000. But we release the bonus at $2,500; this allows the player some latitude when time may be short. Normally, the player should strive to meet our benchmarks and not the minimums. Play with confidence and pleasure and without pressure - we have no hidden terms."

Then notify a player if they want to take them off the program.

Stanford