ONLINE CASINO MANAGEMENT 101 - from Casinomeister's newsletter

[-z-]

For some reason this line in the response:

"Unfortunately, your pattern of play across our affiliated casinos has not shown this intention of becoming a loyal and regular depositing player."

triggered my memory of a recent Ausvegas clause that struck me as very odd.. probably because it was so direct and free of doublespeak

"Ausvegas reserves the right to review a player's transaction record. If, upon review, it appears that a player is participating in strategies intending to profit from promotional bonuses, we reserve the right to revoke any such bonus payments to the player."

How dare people profit at a casino! (heheh) However unfair or whatever this clause may seem, I recall thinking, "Well, that's pretty clear. I'll be moving right along."

I think the clause should read:

"Unfortunately, your pattern of play across our affiliated casinos has not shown this intention of becoming a loyal and regular Losing player."

I certainly won't be offended by reading such a thing considering some of the other things found in T&C's, acutally I think it would be refreshing and honest.

If that's their policy then just tell me and save everyone a bunch of time.

-z-

[oblomov]

Thank you for the interesting post CM.

The unnamed casino wrote:

" Hi Bryan,

......Just to fill you in on the procedures here at our casino, we actually need to have our promotions and their associated terms and conditions approved by our licensing government before we can conduct them. If we were to apply a condition stating that all winnings would be void if the player outsmarts us, our auditors would laugh in our face.

If we tried to pull such a stunt, we'd lose our license to operate (Not that we'd consider it in the first place).....

....The idea of voiding their winnings is beyond my comprehension.
I guess this is a prime example of why tighter regulation benefits the consumer. If only all casinos had the same audit processes we do. "

My question is how do EU based operators such as bet365,acropolis,betfred,tote get away it? They all have the Playtech "void winnings" clause in their terms of use.

[Ausvegas.com]

"Ausvegas reserves the right to review a player's transaction record. If, upon review, it appears that a player is participating in strategies intending to profit from promotional bonuses, we reserve the right to revoke any such bonus payments to the player."

-z-

Hello -Z-

Thanks for your post, you do raise an interesting point. I hope this post will shed a little light on the topic for everyone. Before I start I would like to qualify the Ausvegas position by saying that we have a great reputation for honesty in the industry and have never been party to revoking bonuses or winnings from players just because they have won by using a promotional bonus. The bonus is there to be used by players for their enjoyment and if the odds are in their favour, profit as well. I encourage players to check through posts on this forum to validate Ausvegas' good reputation.

The clause you posted from the Ausvegas site provokes a good point. It certainly does read that if players engage in strategies to make a profit from a bonus payment, Ausvegas may revoke the bonus. I think that this term does require reviewing because it seems overly harsh and does not accurately describe what is intended by the term.

This particular clause is in place to allow Ausvegas to revoke bonus payments from players who have participated in fraudulent activities and/or strategies. Basically this means things like signing up several times to claim welcome bonuses and activities of that nature. The term that is in place now is very broad and discretionary as to how it is applied so we can encompass a range of fraudulent activities. This will need reviewing if it is coming across as onerous to players. The clause certainly wouldn't be applied to players who legitimately comply with the terms and conditions of the promotion.

When all is said and done I would just like to stress this point. Players who receive a bonus and then win as a result are not be considered to be engaging in abusive strategies. They are just having a win and Ausvegas would never revoke a bonus on these grounds. If , as a player you ever feel that you have a concern about a term and condition please do not hesitate to contact us. We are also licensed by the Australian NT Government who take their role very seriously. If you feel you have been unfairly treated and don't feel Ausvegas has been able to resolve the matter satisfactorily for you, you can contact them directly and they will assess your claim. http://www.ausvegas.com.au/security/glicence.jsp

We support an industry that deals honestly and fairly in its business activities. We aspire to lead by example.

Kind Regards

Michael Facey
http://www.ausvegas.com

[Ausvegas.com]

RE: above

[Casinomeister]

...BTW in which jurisdiction is his casino licensed?

Australia.

[chuchu59]

Hello -Z-

Thanks for your post, you do raise an interesting point. I hope this post will shed a little light on the topic for everyone. Before I start I would like to qualify the Ausvegas position by saying that we have a great reputation for honesty in the industry and have never been party to revoking bonuses or winnings from players just because they have won by using a promotional bonus. The bonus is there to be used by players for their enjoyment and if the odds are in their favour, profit as well. I encourage players to check through posts on this forum to validate Ausvegas' good reputation.

The clause you posted from the Ausvegas site provokes a good point. It certainly does read that if players engage in strategies to make a profit from a bonus payment, Ausvegas may revoke the bonus. I think that this term does require reviewing because it seems overly harsh and does not accurately describe what is intended by the term.

This particular clause is in place to allow Ausvegas to revoke bonus payments from players who have participated in fraudulent activities and/or strategies. Basically this means things like signing up several times to claim welcome bonuses and activities of that nature. The term that is in place now is very broad and discretionary as to how it is applied so we can encompass a range of fraudulent activities. This will need reviewing if it is coming across as onerous to players. The clause certainly wouldn't be applied to players who legitimately comply with the terms and conditions of the promotion.

When all is said and done I would just like to stress this point. Players who receive a bonus and then win as a result are not be considered to be engaging in abusive strategies. They are just having a win and Ausvegas would never revoke a bonus on these grounds. If , as a player you ever feel that you have a concern about a term and condition please do not hesitate to contact us. We are also licensed by the Australian NT Government who take their role very seriously. If you feel you have been unfairly treated and don't feel Ausvegas has been able to resolve the matter satisfactorily for you, you can contact them directly and they will assess your claim. http://www.ausvegas.com.au/security/glicence.jsp

We support an industry that deals honestly and fairly in its business activities. We aspire to lead by example.

Kind Regards

Michael Facey
http://www.ausvegas.com

I have always considered both Ausvegas and Lassetters to be honest and forthright casinos. However, if it is intended that the clause in question relates to abusive stategies, then I would like to know what they are or could be. Couldnt this clause simply be reworded by 'fraudulent activities' replacing 'abusive strategies'. Every player has his/her own strategy for playing at online casinos. How would we be able to know when they will become abusive. Fraudulent activities are definitely different and I am sure everyone will agree that any engagement in these would inevitably result in denied cashouts. The example you mentioned ie claiming several sign-up bonuses can be a fraudulent activity because you can state that each person is entitled to one sign-up bonus only and is not really a strategy as such.

Ausvegas may base their discretion on good faith but what about the others. Most players wouldnt want to second-guess the casinos' thoughts.

[-z-]

I would like to clarify my previous post: the second quoted paragraph in which I suggested

'I think the clause should read:

"Unfortunately, your pattern of play across our affiliated casinos has not shown this intention of becoming a loyal and regular Losing player."
'

Was in reference to the very first post in this thread in which CM makes some suggestions for policy modification and -what not to do-

This was not in reference to nor a suggestion for Ausvegas' T&C. I probably should have said,

'I think CM's suggestion should read:

"Unfortunately, your pattern of play across our affiliated casinos has not shown this intention of becoming a loyal and regular Losing player."
'

I've not played at Ausvegas, but as they are listed in CM's Accredited 'good guy list' I have no doubt of their great reputation for honesty in the industry, nor any lack of proactive customer service (your fast and thorough response is impressive.)


About AusVegas, Michael Facey's point "this term.. seems overly harsh and does not accurately describe what is intended by the term.":

From an optimistic perspective, it's refreshing to hear your consideration and discussion.

From a cynical real world perspective, there are plenty of threads in this forum that illustrate why casino T&C's and rules and responses are as harsh as they are. The standard "we can do anything we want", "our decisions are final", "we wont enter into discussion" etc etc, IMHO are obviously there because a couple (probably a couple thousand) bad apples really ticked off every online casino over the last few years.

The latest thread I read is the

-I deposited my money, got the bonus, then withdrew my deposit then completed the wagering requirement with the bonus money, now they wont pay me-

was a classic 'Not in the spirit of the game' faux-pas. I can't find the thread now, but it was a really amusing late nite read. I was surprised the person got any money at all.


While I'm on the topic of rules&T&C reform, How about the casinos that say "Video poker only counts 20% toward wagering requirements." Does this mean the other 80% of my wagering requirement need to be some other game? or that I need to play video poker 5x more? I've heard (on-line live customer service) responses either way from casinos regarding this one. Now I just avoid any casino that puts such ambiguous rules on their website. But I digress further.


In summary:
1. I hope noone thought I was dissing AusVegas.
2. I will remain hopeful yet cynical that casino T&C's and casino policies will be less draconian, more explicit, and more succinct.

-z-


p.s. what if a thread was created in which casinos and gamers reconstituted a 'standard online casino rules&t&c' that was totally fair, acceptable, and generic for online casinos worldwide- with adoptable sub-clauses for specific game/promotion dynamics?
nah.. idealistic crazy talk, nevermind.

[Ausvegas.com]

Hello everyone,

I just wanted to add to the discussion by saying firstly to -Z- that it is good that this type of discussion is raised. Your thoughts are welcome and they provoke us all into thinking of ways to best make the industry enjoyable and secure for everyone. Even though your comments were not specifically about Ausvegas, they have nevertheless raised a possible issue with the terms and conditions that I am happy to have reviewed.

Keep up the good work guys, it's these types of discussions on reputable forum's such as Casinomeister that helps improve the industry.

Regards

Mike
http://www.ausvegas.com