Omni Casino tricks

[MeganSpot]

After playing the monthly bonus at Omni Casino I have been banned from further participation as a bonus abuser. Here are the facts.

In September as a first time player I deposited $335 and got a $100 bonus with $2500 WR. I cashed out $465 netting $130 ($100 bonus plus $30 winnings) flat staking bj.

In October the bonus T+C were altered whereby players were obliged to meet WR $2500 first before being awarded the $100 bonus. Having completed the WR (flat staking bj) I was subsequently awarded the $100 bonus netting me a $80 profit (losing $20 in bj play).

This month I deposited $200 and again completed the WR $2500 (I bet over $2900) but this time I was not awarded the $100 bonus. On inquiry with Omni I have been thus informed:

Hello Megan,

Thank you for contacting us and I am sorry for the late reply.

Please note that in order to qualify for this month's loyalty bonus, you will be required to adhere to our promotional terms and conditions.

Though you have met the wagering requirements stipulated as one of the conditions, you have established a pattern in which your wagering is done almost solely with the use of promotional funds.

See #5 at www.omnicasino.com/common/terms_and_conditions.asp.

Persons engaging in this type of activity are typically not allowed to participate in this loyalty bonus.

We would however like to see you become eligible to receive this bonus, this month as well as next. You are, therefore, welcome to deposit and play using those deposited funds. We will continue to monitor your account and when the current pattern has stopped, your account will receive this loyalty bonus.

As always, do continue to enjoy playing at Omni Casino.

Best of luck,

Kimmoye
Customer Care Agent
Omni Casino


The said T+C at #5 read:
5] Omni Casino, CryptoLogic Inc., WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited reserve the right to review transaction records and logs, from time to time, for any reason whatsoever. If, upon such review, it appears that end users or any one or combination of them are participating in strategies which Omni Casino, CryptoLogic Inc., WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited in their sole discretion deem to be abusive, Omni Casino, CryptoLogic Inc., WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited reserve the right to revoke the entitlement of such end user(s) to the promotion."

I am at a loss to know how to become a non-abusive player. Should I design my play in a suitably wreckless fashion to ensure that I habitually lose both house and home? Is that what a non-abusive player is?

Omni writes your wagering is done almost solely with the use of promotional funds. Not true I have only once received a bonus PRIOR to wagering.

And further, You are, therefore, welcome to deposit and play using those deposited funds

But thats exactly what I have done deposited and played solely with my own funds.

I have no difficulty with Casinos deciding who can and cant receive bonuses on the basis of unambiguously defined T+Cs. But the term in their sole discretion deem to be abusive requires one to be a mind reader. Furthermore, my deeming as an abusive player came AFTER I had played over $2900 of bj. I think this is shabby treatment and quite frankly player abuse.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

The casino has evey right to exclude any player for whatever reason from receiving bonuses - however they should inform you of this PRIOR to allowing you to do the wagering requirement for such bonuses.

It is completely WRONG of them to deny you the bonus AFTER you have done the wagering to get it. If they hadn't previously informed you that they were excluding you from bonuses then they should give you the bonus IMO.

 

[DealerBusts]

I knew something like this was bound to happen with Omni's new bonus policy.
I'm always wary about bonuses that require prior wagering and that are not automatically credited once conditions are met. The casino always has the option to deny you the bonus to you so i generally avoid these situations.

 

[Stanford]

This is awful behavior. Who can mediate crypto? Is this something Megen can pitch a bitch about?

Stanford

 

[jerseyguy11]

casino is right, most land based casinos cannot offer such high promotions. They simply would not make any profits on the tables if they did. The promotions are established to reward new and loyal players. I cant blame the casino in this case. I cant blame the player either (since she met the WR). Nobody is to blame, but the casino has the right to not award you this promotion because of the pattern they indicate. I think that is fair.

 

[jerseyguy11]

you guys just LOOOOOOOOVE your bonus's

not me. i hate them heh

 

[jerseyguy11]

actually i misread this. If they notified you about this after you completed the WR, then that is unacceptable. You should argue for the last bonus, but the casino is right and you should expect anymore if you continue to play near the minimum play solely for bonus money.

 

[m249a]

Maybe they should re-name the bonus from "loyalty bonus" to something like

Completly random, compulsive gambling only bonus. Only if your randomness has no pattern. If you randomness begins to look like a random pattern then we will label you a random pattern player, and exclude you from the bonus.
At our random discretion.

That might be closer to the truth.

 

[Stanford]

Maybe they should re-name the bonus from "loyalty bonus" to something like

Completly random, compulsive gambling only bonus.

I agree. These guys are trolling for compulsives. These are the top of the line casinos too.

Remember the last scare when congress was considering banning on line gaming. We all got emails from the casinos asking us to contact our congressman. I did. I bet others did as well.

I won't do it again. And if this gets worse, I will be switching to the other side.

Jersey, these casinos don't even begin to compare to a real casino. They have spit for overhead. A real casino has large number of employees, entertainments, free drinks, free food, and free rooms. And they pay taxes and they contribute jobs to a local economy. And they don't whine near as much.

It's crazy that they accuse her of playing with promotional funds when the player doesn't get the bonus until after they have risked there own funds.

They have flat out stolen $100 from this player.

Stanford

 

[dickens1298]

Ok...let's play Devil's Advocate and reverse roles.

You're monitoring customer activity and see a customer who has been playing for three months. In the first month, as soon as she reaches the WR, she cashes out, and doesn't play there again. In the second month, she does the same. Her net "winnings" are comprised primarily of bonus money. She does not revisit the casino again in either month, preferring to wait for the bonus offer.

Would you not consider her a bonus abuser (in short, a player who plays merely for the bonus)?

True, it would help if the casino did not use such strong language and inform her that she was only risking bonus money, AND it would have helped if they had written to her before the third month's activity.

But - put another way - they did not "steal" from her in the third month. Her account was not locked, nor was she outright denied the bonus. She still has her funds (plus the earlier bonuses), and Omni offered to make good on the bonus as long as they see the pattern broken. My guess is they're waiting for her to continue to play AFTER the WR level was reached. Her pattern this month would have been similar - cash out as soon as she reached the WR, with most of her profit being bonus money.

Omni is part of the Peak Entertainment group (inclusive of Sands et al), which has been quite good in the long run. Their loyalty program is quite rich, and I've earned hundreds of dollars from it, not to mention bonuses earned. I cannot see them willing to "cheat" a customer of $100 if they did not believe it in principle.

 

[Vesuvio]

All sadly predictable: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/is-omni-rigged.5870/

Dickens, how is it 'bonus abuse' to meet all the terms and conditions of an offer? The casino offers it hoping (expecting) that the player will lose their deposit before meeting the terms. If instead they manage to get through it surely there's no problem withdrawing? (a 2500wr takes a while, even 'recreational' players might get bored after that) Call it 'bonus hunting', if you like, though it seems Megan didn't even withdraw her deposit after losing the bonus - which is the standard way of upsetting Cryptologic casinos

I've no real complaint if they want to ban all but compulsive gamblers, but not informing the player is unacceptable if they're going to credit the bonus only after wagering.

 

[KasinoKing]

I totally agree with Dickens.
Megan admitted she just flat-bet blackjack to meet the WR 3 months in a row.
What do you expect the casino to do???
I also totally agree with Omni, and I hope they continue with this policy. The only other option would be to stop giving bonuses altogether, spoiling it for 'proper' gamblers like me.

I take crypto bonuses every month, and often withdraw just after meeting WR. But I play all different games and never 'flat-bet' any of them. I've never had any complaints from the casino's, and I've done 'very nicely, thank you! '

I urge everyone NOT to just flat-bet any game for WR because;
a) It's boring as hell.
b) Your behaviour is only likely to lead to casino's getting tighter & tighter with their bonuses, making it harder for us 'proper' gamblers to maintain the income we have become accustomed to!

So CUT IT OUT!

 

[cipher]

I totally agree with Dickens.
Megan admitted she just flat-bet blackjack to meet the WR 3 months in a row.
What do you expect the casino to do???
I also totally agree with Omni, and I hope they continue with this policy. The only other option would be to stop giving bonuses altogether, spoiling it for 'proper' gamblers like me.

I take crypto bonuses every month, and often withdraw just after meeting WR. But I play all different games and never 'flat-bet' any of them. I've never had any complaints from the casino's, and I've done 'very nicely, thank you! '

I urge everyone NOT to just flat-bet any game for WR because;
a) It's boring as hell.
b) Your behaviour is only likely to lead to casino's getting tighter & tighter with their bonuses, making it harder for us 'proper' gamblers to maintain the income we have become accustomed to!

So CUT IT OUT!

I couldn't disagree more!!! QUOTE "We would however like to see you become eligible to receive this bonus, this month as well as next. You are, therefore, welcome to deposit and play using those deposited funds. We will continue to monitor your account and when the current pattern has stopped, your account will receive this loyalty bonus.

As always, do continue to enjoy playing at Omni Casino." IN OTHER WORDS, GIVE US ANOTHER CHANCE TO WIN YOUR MONEY BACK AND EVERYTHING WILL BE HONKY DOORY" that's absolute B. S.

 

[jerseyguy11]

I totally agree with Dickens.
Megan admitted she just flat-bet blackjack to meet the WR 3 months in a row.
What do you expect the casino to do???
I also totally agree with Omni, and I hope they continue with this policy. The only other option would be to stop giving bonuses altogether, spoiling it for 'proper' gamblers like me.

I take crypto bonuses every month, and often withdraw just after meeting WR. But I play all different games and never 'flat-bet' any of them. I've never had any complaints from the casino's, and I've done 'very nicely, thank you! '

I urge everyone NOT to just flat-bet any game for WR because;
a) It's boring as hell.
b) Your behaviour is only likely to lead to casino's getting tighter & tighter with their bonuses, making it harder for us 'proper' gamblers to maintain the income we have become accustomed to!

So CUT IT OUT!

somewhat accurate, but if she met the WR and wasn't notified prior tha she wasnt eligible anymore, then they have to pay that last bonus. its only fair.

but the casino has the right from now on to not give the bonus.

 

[KasinoKing]

I couldn't disagree more!!! QUOTE "We would however like to see you become eligible to receive this bonus, this month as well as next. You are, therefore, welcome to deposit and play using those deposited funds. We will continue to monitor your account and when the current pattern has stopped, your account will receive this loyalty bonus.

As always, do continue to enjoy playing at Omni Casino." IN OTHER WORDS, GIVE US ANOTHER CHANCE TO WIN YOUR MONEY BACK AND EVERYTHING WILL BE HONKY DOORY" that's absolute B. S.

I'm sorry - but you're the one who is totally wrong!
You & Megan seem to be saying 'This bonus money is already mine by right - how DARE the casino take it off me!'
Now that IS BS!

They are not saying what you said at all - they are just saying (put simply) 'please act like a gambler - take a few risks!'
Why shouldn't they say that? They are taking a HUGE risk by offering these bonuses in the first place.
Where do you think they get all this 'free money' from??
Have they got money-trees out the back???
Jeeeeeeeze! :icon_twis

 

[DeMango]

Can we move to real problems with casinos? Another blatent bonus whore outed and shut down. There are other ways to be an advantage player, use your brain!

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Casino King - I think you maybe missing the point. Omni advertised a bonus, that to get you needed to wager a certain amount. The player did this but was then refused the bonus. That is basically the same as a casino removing a bonus from a players account after its given for some bullsh*t reason about the players wagering pattern etc - its basically theft.

The bottom line is the player followed their Terms and Conditions required to get the bonus and Omni refused to give it to them AFTER the event. Now does anyone seriously think that is an acceptable practice for ANY reputable online casino?

I've no problem with any casino excluding whoever they want from promotions - however they SHOULD inform the player prior to them taking part. If they have not done this then they should give the player the bonus.

What Omni should do is give the player the bonus this month (as they hadn't previously informed them they were excluded) - but inform them they are excluded from future promotions. That is the right thing to do.

Allowing them to get away with what they have just done basically gives casinos the right to take bonuses off players whenever they feel like it.

 

[kangamick]

I have stoped playing at Omni for this very reason. I knew this new bonus system would bring trouble. They should have informed Megan before she started playing that the bonus was not available to her. Kasinoking i think you need help with your gambling buddy, i think you have a problem.

 

[dickens1298]

All sadly predictable: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/is-omni-rigged.5870/

Dickens, how is it 'bonus abuse' to meet all the terms and conditions of an offer? The casino offers it hoping (expecting) that the player will lose their deposit before meeting the terms. If instead they manage to get through it surely there's no problem withdrawing? (a 2500wr takes a while, even 'recreational' players might get bored after that) Call it 'bonus hunting', if you like, though it seems Megan didn't even withdraw her deposit after losing the bonus - which is the standard way of upsetting Cryptologic casinos

I've no real complaint if they want to ban all but compulsive gamblers, but not informing the player is unacceptable if they're going to credit the bonus only after wagering.

Just because you meet all the T&Cs of an offer does not disqualify you as a bonus abuser. Omni seems to be affixing the label of "bonus abuser" to Megan because (1) she would immediately withdraw after meeting WR, (2) she flat bet, (3) once meeting WR, she would not play at the casino again that month, (4) her profit was almost entirely the bonus.

Candidly, if every player played like her, the casinos would stop offering bonuses. You might call her a canny player - and I guess she is, since she's taking advantage of a situation - but to fail to see the casino's perspective can only hurt the players in the long run, especially if casinos decide that bonuses are a losing proposition for them.

 

[dickens1298]

From an Omni perspective, it didn't have many options. If it automatically sent a letter to Megan telling her that she was disqualified from receiving the bonus before this month, she could cry foul and complain that she was going to do things differently, and break the "pattern". They're only true "out" was to have sent an email BEFORE any play this month.

The problem with that scenario is one of logistics. Most online casinos review player patterns once a withdrawal request is submitted. Someone had to make a judgement call - personally I can see their point. And in their T&Cs, Omni DID specify that "bonus abusers" would not be allowed the bonus. So the reality is whether Megan is - in the eyes of the casino - a bonus abuser.

And - in the eyes of the casino - she is. She is playing SOLELY to reach bonus, and has done nothing to disguise her efforts.

From a purely monetary perspective, the casino hasn't "stolen" from her. Her account wasn't locked, funds were not seized, and she was free to keep bonuses from previous months. The casino simply refused to give her this month's bonus.

Casino King - I think you maybe missing the point. Omni advertised a bonus, that to get you needed to wager a certain amount. The player did this but was then refused the bonus. That is basically the same as a casino removing a bonus from a players account after its given for some bullsh*t reason about the players wagering pattern etc - its basically theft.

The bottom line is the player followed their Terms and Conditions required to get the bonus and Omni refused to give it to them AFTER the event. Now does anyone seriously think that is an acceptable practice for ANY reputable online casino?

I've no problem with any casino excluding whoever they want from promotions - however they SHOULD inform the player prior to them taking part. If they have not done this then they should give the player the bonus.

What Omni should do is give the player the bonus this month (as they hadn't previously informed them they were excluded) - but inform them they are excluded from future promotions. That is the right thing to do.

Allowing them to get away with what they have just done basically gives casinos the right to take bonuses off players whenever they feel like it.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Nobody is failing to see the casinos perspective - as previously stated the casino has every right to ban anyone they want from receiving bonuses, however they need to do it BEFORE the player takes part in the promotion. I'm sure even Megansport isn't saying they should get a bonus every month - just that they shouldn't be allowed to do the wagering and then refused the bonus.

Its like when a dodgy RTG casino offers you a fantastic signup bonus, you more than meet the required wagering and manage a good win. Now the casinos perspective is that they only offered you this bonus so that you would deposit with them and lose your money - therefore their perspective is that you must be an advantage player and void all your winnings and just give you your deposit back.

I can understand why they would do this - it's just it isn't right, the same as Omni aren't right.

 

[jerseyguy11]

i disagree. When a casino states "wager this much" and you get a bonus, that is a contract between a player and the casino.

Regardless of how bad or stupid or profitless the contract is, the casino made that contract and cannot renegotiate to their advantage. They set the terms and conditions and the player fulfilled them.

Now they can deny a bonus assuming they notify the player that they want to nullify the contract (bonus agreement). But im simply saying the casino should honor the last bonus on that contract because the player met her requirements before the casino notified her about stopping the bonuses.

 

[nafanny29]

I agree that they have to pay you the bonus as you met their T&Cs fair and square.

AS a previous poster said they are at liberty to exclude you from any future bonuses (Or even ban you from the casino if they want ) but they have to notify you in advance.

On a side note I do receive quite a few bonuses (mainly poker related) but I always play way over the minimum required by the casino (normally double the minimum). I have never encountered a bonus related problem this way.

Do you "bonuslovers" always play exactly what is needed then cashout? Asking for trouble IMHO

 

[Dirk Diggler]

From an Omni perspective, it didn't have many options. If it automatically sent a letter to Megan telling her that she was disqualified from receiving the bonus before this month, she could cry foul and complain that she was going to do things differently, and break the "pattern". They're only true "out" was to have sent an email BEFORE any play this month.

Thats correct, their only true out WAS (and IS) to have sent her an email BEFORE she played at all this month once the offer was posted on their website.

Your point about her being able to promise to do things different is neither here nor there - do you really believe they actually reverse any of these decisions once they are made? A player would have to lose some serious money before they would even bother considering re-instating them for bonuses,and even if she did manage to convince them she was going to change thats their decision - nothing to do with the player.

The problem with that scenario is one of logistics. Most online casinos review player patterns once a withdrawal request is submitted. Someone had to make a judgement call - personally I can see their point. And in their T&Cs, Omni DID specify that "bonus abusers" would not be allowed the bonus. So the reality is whether Megan is - in the eyes of the casino - a bonus abuser..

'Logistics' is the casinos problem - not the players.

I can also see their point, and have no problems with them restricting anybody's right to bonuses. It's just they should do it before the player takes part. Once a player has deposited and started wagering BOTH parties should be tied to the terms and conditions of the offer.

Also if you're allowing casinos to take advantage of 'get out clauses' that ALL casinos have about management having the rights to deny/remove bonuses etc you're going completely against the principles that this site has. A basic principle is that a casinos should stick to the terms and conditions of an advertised bonus, and not be able to pull that old trick.

From a purely monetary perspective, the casino hasn't "stolen" from her. Her account wasn't locked, funds were not seized, and she was free to keep bonuses from previous months. The casino simply refused to give her this month's bonus.

They refused to give her the bonus AFTER she had met the requirements - mathematically this is exactly the same as a casino removing a given bonus from a cashin AFTER a player has met the terms for the offer.

They both basically amount to stealing.

 

[Stanford]

Can we move to real problems with casinos? Another blatent bonus whore outed and shut down. There are other ways to be an advantage player, use your brain!

Nonsense. This player took an offer. Risked her own funds, not promotional funds. Fullfilled the requirements. And is owed the money. This money was owed, and stolen from her.

I do this all the time in real casinos. They ask me to come stay and play and they offer me rooms at a reduced rate. Had I played and they said well you flat bet the minimum so we are going to charge you for the room after all, I would be mad as hell.

Another example, a casino offered a free jacket - nice one too - for 21 blackjacks. It was at the Lady Luck. I played. I got my blackjacks. I had the free drinks. They comped my meal. And I still have the Jacket. And I never worried about them reneging. This is one of the lower scale casinos in Las Vegas.

Sadly, the lowest real casinos have more class then the top online casinos. Despite the work of those like Spearmaster, CasinoMeister and Jetset to raise the standard.

Megen, pitch a bitch if the Meister takes cryptos. He won't stand for reneging on a bonus.

Stanford

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Considering Omni are in the recommended section Bryan must have a contact there.

 

[cipher]

I'm sorry - but you're the one who is totally wrong!
You & Megan seem to be saying 'This bonus money is already mine by right - how DARE the casino take it off me!'
Now that IS BS!

They are not saying what you said at all - they are just saying (put simply) 'please act like a gambler - take a few risks!'
Why shouldn't they say that? They are taking a HUGE risk by offering these bonuses in the first place.
Where do you think they get all this 'free money' from??
Have they got money-trees out the back???
Jeeeeeeeze! :icon_twis

KASINOKING, I couldn't care less what your opinion is. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion and in my OPINION this number that OMNI is trying to run in this is instance is nothing short of BS!!! Have a good one.

 

[DeMango]

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 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. I have no sympathy for this even though she might have due recourse according to T&C's. 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!

 

[Dirk Diggler]

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.

So because you've made a profit at a casino previously you are no longer playing with your own money?? Thats BS, what is it they're playing with - money loaned to them from the casino?

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. I have no sympathy for this even though she might have due recourse according to T&C's. 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!

The way the player has played has got nothing to do with the underlying issue of all this - that is casinos refusing bonuses when a player has met all their terms and conditions.

 

[KasinoKing]

Kasinoking i think you need help with your gambling buddy, i think you have a problem.

Yeah, you're right. I've made profit in 32 of the last 34 months.
I really must stop doing that!
(No flat-betting & not much Blackjack either!)

Back to Omni - I can see us posters falling into two distinct camps - and it's creating a great thread of heated debate!

Although I can see both sides of this debate, at the end of the day a player who can be obviously seen to be flat betting their way through WR just to get a bonus is clearly in breach of the casino's T&C's, and it is their right to withhold/remove any bonus. It is certainly not 'stealing'. How can they 'steal' something that didn't belong to the player in the first place?

In this instance, I think Omni should refund Megans latest deposit in full, as a gesture of good will, but I don't think they owe her more than that.

I hope ALL casino's clamp down on this sort of betting pattern as it can only lead to the end of these very generous bonus offers - and that would be a sad day for all of us.

That is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. If any of you don't like it, let's all agree to disagree, and get on with the more serious business of gambling our way to profit!

 

[sirius]

It is potentially fraudulant and totally unfair to deny a bonus (already played and qualified for) for uncertain reasons not fully verifiable by the player. I've contacted the manager about the alleged problem so I'm now awaiting their response to it and what they will do to resolve it.

It needs to be sorted out quickly and I'd be very surprised if this was the only player affected by this policy or mistake.

I even played at Omni last month and qualified for the promotion. The bonus arrived quickly the next day without me having to ask for it but I'd lost a few hundred during the wagering. I'm left wondering if I'd have received it if I'd won.

 

[Vesuvio]

I totally agree with Dickens.
Megan admitted she just flat-bet blackjack to meet the WR 3 months in a row.
What do you expect the casino to do???
I also totally agree with Omni, and I hope they continue with this policy. The only other option would be to stop giving bonuses altogether, spoiling it for 'proper' gamblers like me.

I take crypto bonuses every month, and often withdraw just after meeting WR. But I play all different games and never 'flat-bet' any of them. I've never had any complaints from the casino's, and I've done 'very nicely, thank you! '

I urge everyone NOT to just flat-bet any game for WR because;
a) It's boring as hell.
b) Your behaviour is only likely to lead to casino's getting tighter & tighter with their bonuses, making it harder for us 'proper' gamblers to maintain the income we have become accustomed to!

So CUT IT OUT!

KasinoKing, you've made too many ridiculous statements on this thread to address them all, but one is the assumption that flat-betting isn't gambling. Maybe you should try flat betting BJ for a while at a casino (especially a Cryptologic casino) and see what happens - then you might have a better understanding of how bonuses work.

One of the reasons casinos can offer fairly generous bonuses (apart from most 'gamblers' not having a clue) is that there's usually no risk-free approach. The 'advantage' player risks his deposit because the odds are in his favour, but he can still lose money. The casino has the right to refuse bonuses to players they think they're likely to lose money to (call me a fool, but I tend to respect these players rather more than 'proper gamblers', as you call them), but not to trick the player into playing only to then refuse the bonus when all the terms have been met.

As to flat betting being boring, if you're betting reasonable stakes it's not. Your spending hours playing slots to ridiculously low stakes (thanks for the exciting threads telling us all about it), on the other hand, strikes me as mind-numbingly boring. I find internet casinos very dull so try to spend as little time as possible on them, but I'm willing to endure some boredom to earn easy money.

Sorry for getting personal, but then you were the one to go on the attack first

p.s. for what it's worth - flat betting is just one approach & it's perfectly easy to use a sensible progression or different games to still keep the odds in your favour. You're just as likely to be banned if you win, though, unless you play stupidly.

 

[trick]

The casinos choose to offer bonuses - the casinos should stand by their offers. As long as the players follow the T&C - no matter how - they should get the bonuses they qualify for. If the casino chooses to disqualify players that is fine. But they cannot let the player qualify for a bonus according to the T&Cs set by the casino and then refuse it.

The picture is pretty clear: Omni abuse their bonuses to get players to deposit and risk their money under the false impression that Omni will reward them for this.

For this pattern of behaviour Omni Casino should be labelled a Bonus Abuser!!!

 

[KasinoKing]

KasinoKing, you've made too many ridiculous statements on this thread to address them all, but one is the assumption that flat-betting isn't gambling. Maybe you should try flat betting BJ for a while at a casino (especially a Cryptologic casino) and see what happens - then you might have a better understanding of how bonuses work.

p.s. for what it's worth - flat betting is just one approach & it's perfectly easy to use a sensible progression or different games to still keep the odds in your favour. You're just as likely to be banned if you win, though, unless you play stupidly.

You may not agree with my statements, but that doesn't necessarily make them ridiculous!
(Though many are!)

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?

I think everyone here agrees that flat betting Blackjack is the safest way to meet a WR with minimal risk of loss. If there was another casino game or pattern that was safer we would all be talking about that instead. (If anyone knows a better method - please speak up!!)

Obviously the casino's know this too, which is why many disallow or restrict Blackjack in their WR. At least the Crypto casino's are very sporting in allowing full BJ play - all they are asking in return is that the player be 'sporting' in taking some risks too!
Flat betting of any low edge game is always going to be seen by any casino as 'bonus abuse'.
If Megan had played a progressive pattern, or maybe played a couple of 100 at stud, or some other game, the chances are Omni wouldn't have taken the action they did.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and method of making the most of bonuses, of course. And if you wish to make the most of your bonus by betting this way, there's nothing I can do to stop you.
But surely you understand my point, that if more and more players adopt this strategy, the outcome will inevitably be the end to Crypto bonuses, or at least, disallowing BJ in their WR?

Do you really want this to happen?

I don't.

 

[DeMango]

From Dirk Diggler:"The way the player has played has got nothing to do with the underlying issue of all this - that is casinos refusing bonuses when a player has met all their terms and conditions."

From Omni Casino T&C's
"Promotions are intended as a bonus to loyal players, and to attract new end users to Omni Casino. Omni Casino encourages end users to participate in promotions, but to refrain from abusing them. Any abuse of a promotion which comes to the attention of Omni Casino may result in the cancellation of that promotion and/or future promotions."

Well I would say that Omni has kept to the terms of their T&C's, found a bonus abuser and took action that was promised!

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!"

The question now becomes what happens. Will Omni be pressured into paying up and revamping the bonus structure to our detriment? There will be no winners in all this, due to a lot of short sighted people.

 

[Weedlayer]

In order to preserve their good name Omni really ought to pay this bonus. Meganspot has earned it through her play. Notice how no one disagrees that they are within their rights to bar her from receiving further bonuses.

They shouldn't have disallowed her bonus after she put in her play.

Also as Meganspot points out she did bet with her own money that she deposited. She could have potentially lost that deposit and more just trying to qualify.

To those who worry that casinos will make changes for the worse, note that Omni already has changed their bonus. Now you have to play your wagering requirement before receiving the bonus. Which is still penty fair in my book. But the potential is there to lose considerably before qualifying.

 

[KasinoKing]

Sorry for getting personal, but then you were the one to go on the attack first

PS: No offense taken, nor intended by me against anyone else!
I'm just trying to protect the interests of ALL bonus using players, but not bonus abusing players!

PPS. Since my last post I played 6:22 minutes of Stud at a Crypto, with only $2 ante, & made $53.

Do you want proof of my playing pattern?

 

[trick]

Flat betting of any low edge game is always going to be seen by any casino as 'bonus abuse'.

This is not correct. I have been playing for more than 1 1/2 years at many casinos with frequent bonuses and I have only been excluded personally once. That was from 32red because they didnt think 6 deposits in little more than a month was enough to be a loyal player. Even though I liked 32red that put me off from playing there again...

And furthermore: This crap about bonus abuse is not making online casinos look too trustworthy. Especially not with a bonussystem like Omnis (Just like Vesuvio said long ago)

If Megan had played a progressive pattern, or maybe played a couple of 100 at stud, or some other game, the chances are Omni wouldn't have taken the action they did.

Either you have a unique insight into Omnis way of conducting business or this is entirely guesswork on your part.

EDIT: Btw: This is really not about players abusing bonuses. IMO it is about casinos offering bonuses they cannot afford.

 

[KasinoKing]

Either you have a unique insight into Omnis way of conducting business or this is entirely guesswork on your part.

This is entirely guesswork on my part.

EDIT: Give me ONE good reason why ANY casino would offer a bonus it could not afford???

 

[dominique]

This kind of play and complaint has gotten us where we are today - facing ridiculous wagering requirements and sending novices into situations they cannot fathom exist.

I would bet that as a result of this complaint a number of casinos will tighten their requirements further.

Omni has a liberal system in my opinion, and a bonus that can be received (and is received) over and over and over again.

It is one of a few casinos still offering that.

I have a feeling that if this thread succeeds in smearing them enough, that will stop soon also.

It is a sad thing to watch - the slow destruction of the bonus system.

 

[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