100 % Payout VS. Partial Payout

[juliack]

I am a bit confused. I have read many posts about casinos not honouring withdrawls in full. If you went to a B&M casino and hit large enough and the management told you to come back over several weeks or months to collect would you still play at their venue. If the reason to not pay a player in full is because a casino had limited funds I would be highly skeptical to play there. I play mostly MG casinos because of their instant pay, however, I played one casino at MG that started to partial pay as they said they had a daily limit. Needless to say I do not play there anymore. Cheers

[markjacob]

Originally Posted by juliack

I am a bit confused. I have read many posts about casinos not honouring withdrawls in full. If you went to a B&M casino and hit large enough and the management told you to come back over several weeks or months to collect would you still play at their venue. If the reason to not pay a player in full is because a casino had limited funds I would be highly skeptical to play there. I play mostly MG casinos because of their instant pay, however, I played one casino at MG that started to partial pay as they said they had a daily limit. Needless to say I do not play there anymore. Cheers

I AGREE WITH YOU A 100.00% JULIACK, IT'S PRETTY SCARY TO KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY IN FULL. I BELEIVE THAT THIS IS HAPPENING MORE AND MORE. CHOSE YOUR CASINO CAREFULLY.

[RobWin]

Originally Posted by juliack

I am a bit confused. I have read many posts about casinos not honouring withdrawls in full. If you went to a B&M casino and hit large enough and the management told you to come back over several weeks or months to collect would you still play at their venue. If the reason to not pay a player in full is because a casino had limited funds I would be highly skeptical to play there. I play mostly MG casinos because of their instant pay, however, I played one casino at MG that started to partial pay as they said they had a daily limit. Needless to say I do not play there anymore. Cheers

juliack, good post by the way but I am curious about something and that is the fact that you have been a member of this forum since Jan 07 and have made 171 posts so far and I also see that you have received 719 "Thanks" at this writing by other forum members which is fine and great but what sparked my curiosity is the fact that you have not found any of the other members posts worthy of receiving your thanks for in an entire year...not even one ?....just a little odd to me...considering how many great posters there are on here and great posts that have been made just over the past year....

Actually you are the only active member that I know of that has not thanked another member for their post...

[NASHVEGAS]

Juliack and MarkJacob,you read my mind but in my current situation I will take full blame for at least the payment amount and time restrictions. That said, it all leads back to the hubris of the online gaming industry in its present state. Hail Caesar!

[juliack]

Hi Robwin. Believe it or not I am a bit of a computer peasant. Please tell me how you post a thanks and I will do so from now on. It took me years to find out you could take a screen shot and save it. I wish I knew how to do that prior to Jan 07 as I could have taken some amazing win shots. Cheers

[juliack]

Hi again RobWin. After I posted my last message I noticed something at the bottom of each post. Talk about missing the obvious. Cheers

[RobWin]

Originally Posted by juliack

Hi again RobWin. After I posted my last message I noticed something at the bottom of each post. Talk about missing the obvious. Cheers

Yea that's it, I kinda was hoping that would be your answer and that you had just overlooked that crazy little button, thanks for your replies...

[GaryWatson]

I would love to be in the position that a site needs to pay me in installments but it seems wrong for anything under 100k.

The internet is pretty volatile & I wouldnt expect a site to be around forever. I would be concerned about them changing names (Under New Management).

I can understand it with the National Lottery but they have National backing. A corner shop website doesnt fill me with confidence. Sites like William Hills & Ladbrokes are the only sites I would feel relatively safe with these rules as they have been around well before I was born & have a solid reputation.

Some sites are skanking people for $50 bonus money and closing accounts when they feel like it. They have a long way to go before they can impose a rule like this which relies on trust. Sites that use this rule should be avoided. If they can accept the bet, they should pay on request, otherwise they are gambling their future on your winnings.

Anything could happen. Another .com crash, a recession, over budgeting & going bust, a slight change in gambling laws.

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by GaryWatson

I would love to be in the position that a site needs to pay me in installments but it seems wrong for anything under 100k.

The internet is pretty volatile & I wouldnt expect a site to be around forever. I would be concerned about them changing names (Under New Management).

I can understand it with the National Lottery but they have National backing. A corner shop website doesnt fill me with confidence. Sites like William Hills & Ladbrokes are the only sites I would feel relatively safe with these rules as they have been around well before I was born & have a solid reputation.

Some sites are skanking people for $50 bonus money and closing accounts when they feel like it. They have a long way to go before they can impose a rule like this which relies on trust. Sites that use this rule should be avoided. If they can accept the bet, they should pay on request, otherwise they are gambling their future on your winnings.

Anything could happen. Another .com crash, a recession, over budgeting & going bust, a slight change in gambling laws.

Quite, XXLClub was pretty much crippled by a change in Russian gambling laws, and the effects were felt by players, and this included long delays to payments for some, and for others, accusations of "fraud" coming almost out of the blue some months later to explain non-payment.

A bigger issue was UIGEA, as this meant that pretty much overnight the ability to pay by certain methods vanished, and those US players who were still waiting for their funds had big problems. There have been a number of such "no notice changes" throughout the world, the first was to hit Canada when Neteller pulled out, leaving those players who had not already withdrawn their casino balances having to sort out another way to get them.
Even if a casino is reliable enough to honour partial payments, there can still be problems because of changes that are happening elsewhere.

RTG casinos seem particularly fond of partial payments, often at a very low rate. Big casino groups do not seem to have a problem with paying in full.

[SlotsWizard]

If (and that's a big IF) a casino chooses to enforce a limit on withdrawals, it shouldn't be flat. Instead, it should be based on the sum of all deposits made by the player within the past x-amount of time, and progressive jackpot wins should never be subject to this rule.

For example, some places set a weekly withdrawal limit of $3,000. This is downright insulting to someone who deposits $1,000 at a time, and obviously they should not play at such a prohibitive place.

A weekly withdrawal limit of 100 times the sum of the player's deposits within the past month, or something similar, would be a more realistic total. But that could lead to problems for the player with beginner's luck.

The obvious solution is that no withdrawal limit AT ALL is the best option.