Why do some casinos give many bonusses...

[yoshirules]

and if you use them, according to them too much, you get bonusbanned.
It has happened to me.
When I keep losing I can use as many bonusses as I want.
But if you win sometimes you get bonusbanned.
Whats the point of giving so many deposit bonusses, if you are not allowed to use them all?

[vinylweatherman]

and if you use them, according to them too much, you get bonusbanned.
It has happened to me.
When I keep losing I can use as many bonusses as I want.
But if you win sometimes you get bonusbanned.
Whats the point of giving so many deposit bonusses, if you are not allowed to use them all?

Another Rival player eh

Seriously, I have found quite a few casinos where the bonus offers mysteriously, and often suddenly, dry up when you win. I have found a few others where they knock you down a level after the first surge ahead, and kill the bonuses althogether the next time you win.

There are some that will even bonus ban overall LOSERS, greed perhaps, losing, but not fast enough for their liking.

In most cases though, the more you are down, the better the bonuses. This reverse logic means that players are inticed to play MORE where they are LOSING, than where they have merely BEEN LUCKY enough to win (assuming the bonuses have been properly designed to give a long term edge to the house). Casinos that bonus ban players simply for BEING LUCKY lose the chance to get it back over the long term, which mathematics proves they surely will (all things being the same).

Many operators don't understand these concepts, and are too quick to assume "bonus abuse" MUST be playing a part in the gameplay of a player that wins, even though in many cases it is purely down to luck. The luck argument is no more clearly demonstrated with SLOTS, where a player can come out ahead overall one ONE rare lucky hit, which has NOTHING to do with bonuses (other than perhaps making the resultant net win LESS because there would still be WR to complete).

Where players play "advantage" games such as Blackjack, the logic of the casino is easier to understand. BJ has a low edge, and low variance, so a player using small bets, or big bets followed by small bets, has a very good chance of beating the casino. Getting ahead only shows the casino that the player is clever enough to operate the relevant strategy, so they get bonus banned. They would be unlikely to win the money back from the player by continuing to offer the bonuses.

Many bonus now exclude obvious advantage games like Blackjack, and quite a few are slots only.

[yoshirules]

a rival indeed but i'm also talking about a RTG an accredited one.
won 3 times in a row, so now I'm bonusbanned

[NicolasJohnson]

Another Rival player eh

Seriously, I have found quite a few casinos where the bonus offers mysteriously, and often suddenly, dry up when you win. I have found a few others where they knock you down a level after the first surge ahead, and kill the bonuses althogether the next time you win.

There are some that will even bonus ban overall LOSERS, greed perhaps, losing, but not fast enough for their liking.

In most cases though, the more you are down, the better the bonuses. This reverse logic means that players are inticed to play MORE where they are LOSING, than where they have merely BEEN LUCKY enough to win (assuming the bonuses have been properly designed to give a long term edge to the house). Casinos that bonus ban players simply for BEING LUCKY lose the chance to get it back over the long term, which mathematics proves they surely will (all things being the same).

Many operators don't understand these concepts, and are too quick to assume "bonus abuse" MUST be playing a part in the gameplay of a player that wins, even though in many cases it is purely down to luck. The luck argument is no more clearly demonstrated with SLOTS, where a player can come out ahead overall one ONE rare lucky hit, which has NOTHING to do with bonuses (other than perhaps making the resultant net win LESS because there would still be WR to complete).

Where players play "advantage" games such as Blackjack, the logic of the casino is easier to understand. BJ has a low edge, and low variance, so a player using small bets, or big bets followed by small bets, has a very good chance of beating the casino. Getting ahead only shows the casino that the player is clever enough to operate the relevant strategy, so they get bonus banned. They would be unlikely to win the money back from the player by continuing to offer the bonuses.

Many bonus now exclude obvious advantage games like Blackjack, and quite a few are slots only.

I just wanted to pop by and say that we believe excluding games is too drastic.

While I can understand the logic to it, in past places I have worked I've witnessed endless confusion and abuse* when it comes to excluded games. That is why we don't exclude any games, we just add a multiplier to the wagering requirement amount on games like blackjack.

That way players can enjoy playing their favorite games, and we can continue giving big bonuses.


* We are concerned the abuse doesn't even necessarily have to be a corporate policy, it can be even a rogue employee trying to make bonus goals or whatever.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

[RobWin]

I just wanted to pop by and say that we believe excluding games is too drastic.

While I can understand the logic to it, in past places I have worked I've witnessed endless confusion and abuse* when it comes to excluded games. That is why we don't exclude any games, we just add a multiplier to the wagering requirement amount on games like blackjack.

That way players can enjoy playing their favorite games, and we can continue giving big bonuses.


* We are concerned the abuse doesn't even necessarily have to be a corporate policy, it can be even a rogue employee trying to make bonus goals or whatever.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

Nicolas, please look at my account there "RobWin", and you will see the same thing that I see. I currently have 11 bonus coupons available to me there in the cashier client. Those 11 coupons range from a "10% Alternative Deposit Bonus" to a "400% Bonus".

9 of those coupons do not allow me to play my favorite game which is video poker and the only two that do allow it are for only 10% and 50% respectively.

I would like for you guys to customize some video poker bonuses for me with no max cashout, not the typical slots type where I can only cash out 3x or 4x or 5x. I never use those anyway. If you could make this happen for me there then I would be an everyday depositor there instead of a sporadic depositor...
____
____

[NicolasJohnson]

Nicolas, please look at my account there "RobWin", and you will see the same thing that I see. I currently have 11 bonus coupons available to me there in the cashier client. Those 11 coupons range from a "10% Alternative Deposit Bonus" to a "400% Bonus".

9 of those coupons do not allow me to play my favorite game which is video poker and the only two that do allow it are for only 10% and 50% respectively.

I would like for you guys to customize some video poker bonuses for me with no max cashout, not the typical slots type where I can only cash out 3x or 4x or 5x. I never use those anyway. If you could make this happen for me there then I would be an everyday depositor there instead of a sporadic depositor...
____
____

You have spoken and we have listened. We will allow VP for all bonuses, albeit with a multiplier.

The change isn't instant but should be out in our next update.

I will make a note that we don't allow bonus play on Progressives due to the issues that arise with that.

About the no max cashout, I'll talk to the promotions people and see what we can do.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

[nisosbar]

Bonuses are a means of attracting players.

But if you are lucky, I don't think it makes sense to take a bonus, since there are max cashouts, and games are restricted - as someone else has said, you can't play video poker on most Rivals if you took a bonus - EVEN AFTER you have cleared the bonus! WTF?

Also, the wagering requirements - you can win big but then lose it all back meeting the bonus wagering requirement.

I'm about done with bonuses, myself.

[vinylweatherman]

You have spoken and we have listened. We will allow VP for all bonuses, albeit with a multiplier.

The change isn't instant but should be out in our next update.

I will make a note that we don't allow bonus play on Progressives due to the issues that arise with that.

About the no max cashout, I'll talk to the promotions people and see what we can do.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

It would be better if such rules were ENFORCED at the SOFTWARE level. This means that a player could never mistakenly, or cleverly, use ANY gameplay that is excluded for the particular bonus they took. Excluded games should simply not load, but give an error "this game is not permitted with your current bonus". Where placing large bets on an allowed game is the problem, such as entire balance on a single hand of Blackjack, the software should modify the max bet to an acceptable "non abusive" level.

Progressive play is an odd issue, the concept is the same throughout, yet some casinos allow play on progressives with a bonus, and some don't. The definition of progressive is not always clear either. The RTG Reel Series slots are "progressive" slots, they have a random jackpot element, which operates exactly like a network progressive by taking a contribution from each bet to give a chance of winning it, or adding it to the pool for others to win.

Players CANNOT "abuse" bonuses by playing progressives, since they CANNOT control who wins it, and it is highly unlikely to be THEM.

The CASINO can only have a problem if too many players as a whole play too much on progressives whilst using large percentage bonuses. I doubt individual "advantage players" would see progressives as a way forward, they would prefer games where they get ALL of the RTP allocated to the base game, which as a result would have a higher net RTP because no contributions are being lost to a pool.

[felicie]

You truly are amazing Nicholas. Now who are you really?

[NicolasJohnson]

It would be better if such rules were ENFORCED at the SOFTWARE level. This means that a player could never mistakenly, or cleverly, use ANY gameplay that is excluded for the particular bonus they took. Excluded games should simply not load, but give an error "this game is not permitted with your current bonus". Where placing large bets on an allowed game is the problem, such as entire balance on a single hand of Blackjack, the software should modify the max bet to an acceptable "non abusive" level.

Progressive play is an odd issue, the concept is the same throughout, yet some casinos allow play on progressives with a bonus, and some don't. The definition of progressive is not always clear either. The RTG Reel Series slots are "progressive" slots, they have a random jackpot element, which operates exactly like a network progressive by taking a contribution from each bet to give a chance of winning it, or adding it to the pool for others to win.

Players CANNOT "abuse" bonuses by playing progressives, since they CANNOT control who wins it, and it is highly unlikely to be THEM.

The CASINO can only have a problem if too many players as a whole play too much on progressives whilst using large percentage bonuses. I doubt individual "advantage players" would see progressives as a way forward, they would prefer games where they get ALL of the RTP allocated to the base game, which as a result would have a higher net RTP because no contributions are being lost to a pool.

You are absolutely right about the software level.

About the reason we dis-allow progressive play with bonuses, it isn't because of bonus abuse, but rather because of the amount of bonuses we give and the implications that would have in the amount we would have to contribute to the jackpot.

Because we give so many and so large bonuses, if players played progressives, we would pay $100,000s of dollars worth of progressive contributions on money we never got. This would cut into our already very small profit margin. If we allowed Progressive play with bonuses, we would have to cut down on how much we give. We've made the decision that we believe most of our players would rather have a large bonus, than be able to play it on a progressive. I know not all players will feel that way, but it was a decision we had to make

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager