Fortune Lounge Terms and Conditions Suggestions

[Casinomeister]

I'd like members to post what they would like to see changed in Fortune Lounge's terms and conditions. A number of players find the subjectivity or vagueness alarming - if you feel you have a worthy suggestion, then please post it here. Thanks!

Please no clowns. Try to keep it focused. Thanks!

In other words, improve what they already have in a serious manner.

[sdaddy]

Well, first and foremost, Fortune Lounge needs to remove the ambiguous language in its policy defining prohibited "irregular game play." Here is the policy again:

Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns e.g. playing of equal, zero margin bets or hedge betting, which all shall be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes.
Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets using your entire or the majority of your account balance, where the majority of that balance is made up of bonus balance. The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute “irregular play” for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred to meet bonus play-through requirements.

In particular, the problem phrases are "Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to..." and "The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute “irregular play” for bonus play-through requirement purposes..." These catch-all terms allow the casino to essentially label ANYTHING as "irregular play," and thus cause for confiscating winnings. I doubt that most fair-minded players find this acceptable.

The other problem I have is with the part of the "irregular play" rule that prohibits "placing single bets using your entire or the majority of your account balance, where the majority of that balance is made up of bonus balance." While specific, this rule is, unfortunately, totally unworkable and unreasonable in how it is written. As many critics have pointed out in previous threads, it can lead to the unavoidable situation where the player, after a period of wagering, has a small balance remaining, but would have no way to make another wager without violating this rule.

In place of this problematic "irregular play" clause, Fortune Lounge has to figure out all the types of activity that exploit its bonuses and come up specific with specific, workable rules against them. I gather FL's biggest problem is with players who make large initial bets and then "grind out" the remaining WR on small, low-risk bets. As a good example of how to prevent this, I'll quote the well-written term that Galaxiworld.com has used for years for its bonuses (http://www.galaxiworld.com/lobby/bonus.html):

Players cannot bet more than 25% of their original purchase at any given time. For example, if you deposit $500 then the maximum single bet while having the bonus would be $125. Failure to adhere to this rule will cause your cashout to be disallowed.

The key in how the above rule is written is that it specifies what is the maximum of the player's original balance that can be wagered. This will avoid the problems that can arise by specifying the maximum bet of the player's current balance, as FL's term is now constructed.

[Roar]

It is hard to improve upon sdaddy's post above.

It seems to me however that groups such as FL have the collective nous to create unambiguous T+Cs from the outset should they choose.

The term "irregular play" is most deliberately vague as it suits the purposes of it's creator. FL have been in the past, and again now, been called out on this sort of mendacious behavior.

The ClearPay/EZ bonus system was designed and implemented to cut through the fog of bonus WRs, T+Cs and subsequent cash-out entitlements.

It worked and worked well. The individual casinos then proceeded to gradually erode and strip every last remnant of integrity from that system. And that's the round-about players again find themselves with respect to MG casinos, FL in particular. Back to the future.

I think players as a whole would welcome MG casinos to take a leaf out of the 32RED and Ladbrokes book. They spell out the T+Cs and then pay no questions asked.

Why is it so hard for the likes of FL to emulate these premium organisations?

.

[BBKPoker]

I think that any terms and conditions that include a clause that allow the arbitrary, subjective confiscation of player funds upon review of an account in which a casino is not happy with the style of play of a player is unacceptable and should be removed. Players should have the peace of mind that if they abide by the preset terms and conditions of a casino that they will be paid without problem or unreasonable delay or request.

I also would like to see all terms that relate to a promotion on the promotional page. Bellerock in particular is guilty of having misleading terms (in my opinion) by selectively enforcing (they've admitted such on casinoaffiliateprograms.com) a buried term and condition that appears nowhere on the promotions page (still) and has no link to the general terms and conditions from the promotions page either while making a concerted effort to cross-market their brands to generate as much revenue as possible. If you are going to have a splash page with four of your casinos and bonus offerings in large type, you better have a crystal clear T&C page.

Sorry to get a little off topic as I know this is targetted towards Fortune Lounge specifically, but the point is, Fortune Lounge shouldn't be under any reasonable scrutiny that other sites are not, and if a player meets the terms and conditions and cannot be proved to be a fraudster through normal linking processes (ip, mac address, phone number, address, payment method links) the casino should not be allowed to make independent decisions to confiscate winnings because they don't approve of play.

I would accept, as a reasonable compromise, that a casino has the right to rescind a bonus they feel was obviously abused, but not the assosciated winnings with it. Even this seems patently unfair to the players to me, but would still be a very large improvement on the current situation, and on eCogra's well-documented backing of casinos confiscation of player moneys when they feel their bonus was abused.

[BBKPoker]

By the way, excepting that ambiguous term (that I wish everyone would get rid of). I've heard some overwhelmingly positive things about Fortune Lounge since their last fiasco. They've had some catastrophically big PR nightmares, but generally are a well-run, honest, paying group.

I think a good comparison of their turn around would be to look at their average rate of ecogra complaints per new depositing player. I'd gravely doubt they are statistically much off the industry average in the last few months.

At any rate, I'm pretty positive about them being let back on the accredited list as I posted in another thread, and I think they deserve another shot. The roll-with-the-punches award they received is very accurate. We've seen many other groups who have been rogued basically give up and delve into some truly nasty tactics (I'm looking at you Virtual Group). It takes a lot to mess up, admit you are wrong and correct the situation.

[Zoozie]

I do have a problem with any T&C that can be used to confiscate winnings. Simply put that is not an elegant solution to the problem and will lead to
lot of unhappy situations.

The Clearplay/EZbonus system is easy to understand and it comes with the software. So why not use it? If the casino believe a player is using advantage play simply just pay him and stop giving him bonuses! Any bonus given to a player should be honoured. If the casino etc. prefer slot players (for an almost guaranteed profit!), simply give good bonuses to the LOYAL slot/keno players.

[Casinomeister]

Funny how there was a general uproar concerning Fortune Lounge's terms and conditions in other threads - I start this one to get some feedback, and we have only two or three suggestions - which are great by the way. But I would expect those who have cried the loudest contribute to this thread as well.

I'm giving everyone here a really good chance to make a difference. Please take the opportunity to make your voice heard - if you care to.

[cyprean]

I'm giving everyone here a really good chance to make a difference. Please take the opportunity to make your voice heard - if you care to.

Sdaddy pretty much summed up my thoughts. The current terms are far too vague, and let FL group basically do anything to the players monies' and still stand by their terms.

[winbig]

Funny how there was a general uproar concerning Fortune Lounge's terms and conditions in other threads - I start this one to get some feedback, and we have only two or three suggestions - which are great by the way. But I would expect those who have cried the loudest contribute to this thread as well.

I'm giving everyone here a really good chance to make a difference. Please take the opportunity to make your voice heard - if you care to.

To be honest, sdaddy pretty much covered most of what players were complaining about, IMO. No reason to beat a dead horse or have a ton of "I agree" posts

[kingkong098]

As sdaddy says, eliminating any gray areas that are up to interpretation. The player needs to know exactly what is allowed and what isn't.