ONLINE CASINO MANAGEMENT 101 - from Casinomeister's newsletter

[Casinomeister]

If you're not a subscriber to Casinomeister's newsletter, you need to be.

This is from yesterday's issue - I'm currently doing a few segments on Online Casino Management 101. I want you to read this, and then read the response that I received this morning from a casino that is listed here:

CASINO MANAGEMENT 101
In light of some of the reoccurring problems that players keep sending to me via "Pitch a Bitch", I've chosen to dedicate this part of the newsletter to "Casino Management 101". This is in anticipation that a manager or two might not only read this, but heed to its principles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dealing with Players Who Use Bonuses

If you offer a player a bonus, and this player meets the wagering requirements - pay her (or him). Please understand, you are not being cheated if a player plays the bonus to the last cent; you are providing that player a unique service - the ability to gamble online. This is your function as a casino, and your mantra should be "Pay the player. Pay the player. Pay the player..." Repeat ad nauseum.

Providing gambling activities online may be your function, but with a bit of creativity and ingenuity you can garner loyalty from this player to keep him or her coming back. The house always wins, and if you are going to survive in this highly competitive industry, you need to see this "win" as a long term goal. Keep your players happy, whether you like their style of play or not, and you will receive your just rewards: respect and loyalty.

What not to do.

Don't lie to the player. Don't let the player play out a bonus, and then deny the player his winnings when he requests it. To tell a player the following is the wrong approach:

It has been noted that you have not taken part in promotions offered by xyz Casino and its affiliate casino's in the true spirit as intended. From your pattern of play at xyz Casino and other affiliated casino's, it has been noticed that you only generate the sub minimum wager required in order to be entitled to cash out after receiving the bonus.

On at least one other affiliated casino, you again wagered the sub minimum required in order to be allowed to cash out after receiving the bonus and never returned to this casino to play further. When we plan our promotions, the aim is to reward loyal and regular depositing players with FREE bonuses. Unfortunately, your pattern of play across our affiliated casinos has not shown this intention of becoming a loyal and regular depositing player.

As a result, as per our terms and conditions, your initial deposit has been returned to you and all bonuses and winnings have been declared void.

This is a no go. This gives the casino license to pay whom they want to pay. And to not pay a person who has met the wagering requirements is flat out wrong. I understand and sympathize with casinos which are hammered by bonus players, but if the casino invited them in by offering the bonus then whose fault is that? Casinos who feel victimized need to either review their bonus structure or in the method how these bonuses are handed out.

This email should read as follows:

....Unfortunately, your pattern of play across our affiliated casinos has not shown this intention of becoming a loyal and regular depositing player.
As a result, as per our terms and conditions, your winnings will be honored, but you will not be given further bonuses unless you can convince us that you will become a loyal player.

Simple as that. The casino may take a financial hit now and then - but that's just the way it is. Get used to it. Trust is what it's all in this industry, and if players can't trust you, neither can I.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That was in yesterday's newsletter. This morning I received an email from a Casinomeister casino which I'd like to share with you.

Please note - my highlights:

Hi Bryan,

I just read your newsletter and can't get over what I saw.
I'm referring to the unnamed casino's stance on promotional abuse.
First of all, I can't believe that they are legally allowed to do what they have done, let alone their moral obligation.

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). Of course we are aware that certain players will attempt to profit from our promotions and I believe it is our responsibility to consider this when establishing the terms of the promotion.

We need to find a balance with our terms and conditions that will protect our profitability and still have appeal to our patrons. That's one of the challenges of casino marketing.

As you suggested (almost word for word from our promotion terms and conditions page) if a player is deemed to be abusing our generosity, we restrict them from receiving further bonuses.

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.

So, it seems to me there are a number of operators out there that need to wake up and smell the coffee. Compare this response to the hokey responses some casinos give to void winnings. This is a prime example of how an operation should be conducting itself.

[jetset]

That's a very laudable response, although I have some reservations about the capability of a government licensing official to vet a promo in the sense of gambling expertise.

Nevertheless - this casino manager seems to have the right approach and it would be good see others following suit.

BTW in which jurisdiction is his casino licensed?

[scrollock]

the whole point of gambling is to win money, whether your the player or the house, because the house provides the service they have the edge in their favour, however they do not have a divine right to this edge.

whatever form of gambling it their will allways be players who will discover an edge that can be used in the players favour, aslong as this edge hasn't been achieved by fraud or any other criminal means, then the house should always honour the payments first and then take action after should they wish to prevent other players doing the same, but importantly they take this action before others place any other wagers, if they fail to do this and they know what the player was doing then should honour it as it was their own fault for not refusing the wager in the first place.

to simply void winnings on the basis that a player has found an edge and thus consquently "not played in the spirit" is to take away from every gambler the reason why they do play, and that is we all hope to stumble on a winning system one day. to take this away is to render the recreation of gambling pointless.

if a bookie makes a rick on an event he doesnt void winnings on the basis that loads players steamed in as they recognised a good price and thus had an edge, no he takes it on the chin realising that if he didnt want pay, he shouldn't of offered the price and taken the bets in the first place.

however i think with casino bonuses, i think a more correct analogy would be the buy 1 get 1 free offers you see in supermarkets, there will always be people who will buy them because its on special offer and never buy the product again, but there will be people who will continue to use the brand. these offers must work or they wouldnt be constantly offered, however in my lifetime i have yet to see someone being escorted out of a store because of "promotional brand abuse" because they only ever buy the special offers.

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by scrollock

however i think with casino bonuses, i think a more correct analogy would be the buy 1 get 1 free offers you see in supermarkets, there will always be people who will buy them because its on special offer and never buy the product again, but there will be people who will continue to use the brand. these offers must work or they wouldnt be constantly offered, however in my lifetime i have yet to see someone being escorted out of a store because of "promotional brand abuse" because they only ever buy the special offers.

Very good analogy! Makes it even more clear to me how dishonest this behaviour is.

[carlin]

I can't believe that this casino can get away with witholding winnings

[managra]

Originally Posted by scrollock

the whole point of gambling is to win money, whether your the player or the house, because the house provides the service they have the edge in their favour, however they do not have a divine right to this edge.

to simply void winnings on the basis that a player has found an edge and thus consquently "not played in the spirit" is to take away from every gambler the reason why they do play, and that is we all hope to stumble on a winning system one day. to take this away is to render the recreation of gambling pointless.

however i think with casino bonuses, i think a more correct analogy would be the buy 1 get 1 free offers you see in supermarkets, there will always be people who will buy them because its on special offer and never buy the product again, but there will be people who will continue to use the brand. these offers must work or they wouldnt be constantly offered, however in my lifetime i have yet to see someone being escorted out of a store because of "promotional brand abuse" because they only ever buy the special offers.

Great post, Scrollock, and rofl about the imagery invoked by the very last sentence. Great analogy.

[caruso]

Originally Posted by carlin

I can't believe that this casino can get away with witholding winnings

Bryan is making a general point about about casino behaviour, he's not picking up on one particular case.

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by scrollock

however in my lifetime i have yet to see someone being escorted out of a store because of "promotional brand abuse" because they only ever buy the special offers.

This has actually happened!!!!!
Although there is not the humiliation of being dragged out of the store, there have been instances of shoppers being told that they have bought "too much" of something at the checkout and only being allowed 10 items. Shoppers with large families are often hit with this rule as they will often buy large quantities in one go. This is operated akin to "bonus abuse" as it is considered that such shoppers clear the shelves too quickly to prevent later customers getting some of the loss leader goodies.
One store made a big screw-up, and offered items at an effective NEGATIVE price when all loyalty card offers were added in. Customers were buying by the trolleyload, making a profit on the loyalty card - even if they simply threw the produce in the bin!!!! (I think they mixed a BOGOF offer with a bonus loyalty card points offer).

[GrandMaster]

That's actully more like limiting the amount of the bonus, so that you only get 100% match up to $100. I have never heard of anyone being banned from store for only buying promotional items, and a shop could certainly not be able to force a "promotion abuser" retrospectively to pay full price for all the items she has bought.

[suzecat]

The scenario outlined by the OP brings to mind the chicken or the egg quandry: Did a player first chargeback on a casino because they were stripped of legitimate wins, or did the casino begin tossing legitimate wins because a player charged back?

In either event, when you look at the big picture, players must have a level of trust to even deposit their cash into a casino. Conversely, once you deposit, the casino has your money and their only risk is will you honor your deposit for all time? I believe we have all seen instances where a player is royally screwed. We have also seen instances where saavy player groups have royally screwed casinos. So I wonder, does the house edge take into consideration these costs of doing business? And should I, as a depositing player, consider that any amount I win may very well be stripped away? Seems that such an event would certainly take the fun out of gambling.