How would you comply to this term ???

[KasinoKing]

The loophole is to bet not 100, but 99 for their first bet...

That's no good as it breaks the first rule: max first bet is 50 credits.

This is just another shining example of extremely poorly written bonus terms - why oh why don't all online casinos get Vinylweatherman or myself to proof-read & correct their terms before they go public.... for a VERY large fee of course!

KK

[winbig]

I know what they mean, but the person who wrote this needs to go back to school

They are outlawing the situation where a player deposits 50, gets 50 in bonus, and then bets the whole 100 on a single hand of Bacarrat, or a single spin of Roulette.

Correct

The way it is written also leads to unintended consequences, and a huge loophole

The unintended consequences are the situation where the player has only 0.03 left as cash. They must first bet this 0.03 and lose, but can THEN make the next bet with the whole 50 of bonus, since they are not "combining their balances".

So far so good....

The loophole is to bet not 100, but 99 for their first bet. This is not "Player's Cash and Bonus Account balances may not be combined as a single bet", but making one big bet that does not combine the WHOLE balance, leaving enough for at least one more bet, thus not a "single bet".

This is not possible....there's no loophole. You're forgetting the very first line:

Until a Player completes the wager conditions for the Welcome Bonus, the Player's total Cash Account balance represents the maximum a Player may wager as a single bet.

It's impossible to bet 99 if their *cash balance* is only 50. The other 50 is their *bonus balance*. If a player were to bet over $50 at any time before the WR are met then there would be problems when it came time to cash out.

[vinylweatherman]

Looks like it is impossible to comply with this rule at all without doing complex maths before each bet. The separate rules often combine to give a VERY restrictive effect.

If the first bet was £50, then the second could be £100, hoping for a run, and if the first bet lost, £50 could be bet again. It seems the problem is ANY bet that combines cash and bonus credits.

It would be simpler to state the max bet at all times is the amount deposited, This would have the effect of limiting bets to 50 in this case, but would also allow 50 to be bet regardless of the outcome of each preceeding bet.

[TDTAT]

King Neptune is now controlled by Carmen Media (BelleRock), so it is them that need to "go back to school" and rewrite the rules for ALL their sites.

I did not know that.. but reading it made me say "AHA! that explains everything. "

This is just another shining example of extremely poorly written bonus terms - why oh why don't all online casinos get Vinylweatherman or myself to proof-read & correct their terms before they go public.... for a VERY large fee of course!
KK

This is a good idea!! How silly is it that billion dollar businesses
can not make clear terms... or at least ones a regular gambler
can figure out without a lawyer?
I think they know exactly what they are writing and do this on purpose.

[Zoozie]

What about splitting and doubling in BJ etc. ?

Say you deposit 50$ and get 50$ bonus.

You play a 25$ hand of BJ which is allowed. But if you split and later
double a hand, does this count as a 75$ bet thus breaking the T&C?

Anyway I would never touch a casino with that T&C. I used to be good a reading them.. But they were mostly some allowed game, some not and maybe weigthing also. But this is just too sick.

"T&C BS Award" goes to BelleRock for this one.