all winnings removed if withdrawal before WR met

[weplant]

Totally unacceptable..It is so simple, if you hit the withdrawl button and you have not met requirements, do not allow the withdrawl..With some casinos you have to live chat them to find out where you stand...They are hoping you will withdrawl before you have met requirements...Shame, shame on them...

[PeekABoo007]

The part I dont understand is this: The huge WR is obviously based on past history of players from these countries (damn canadians ) to deter them from taking bonuses - so why not just ban them from bonuses?? Or, if things are that bad, exclude them from the casino entirely? The only other reason I can think of is to deliberately trap unwary players into basically donating their money, which wouldnt be acceptable behaviour from a reputable casino I wouldnt think.

I'm with you until you start dissing Canadians I am Canadian do not CHEAT and take great exception to being lumped into a general category. No matter what country, there are the stand up people and the cheaters. Since the rest of the quote is basically reasonable, I would hope that you could be too and refrain from bashing.

[RandomEvent]

I speak as a novice gambler and I still see myself as a newbie with little experience. I apologise in advance if I say something wrong and get flamed in the process.....

From what I understand from the T&C shown, the casino is saying that any withdrawal during the period of playing the bonus will result in the loss of the bonus plus any winnings gained during the bonus play. Am I correct?

Providing the casino is not deleting the winnings earnt prior to the start of the bonus, then I think this is generally fair. At the end of the day these bonuses come with a terms and conditions "contract" attached. A user has to play through a given amount to unlock the winnings and it states that in the "contract" what the specified play is. If the user break the contract without losing the balance, then it is fair that the casino takes away all winnings earnt from the start of that play with that bonus up until attempted cashout.

If the user has a balance which is greater than that of the bonus and bonus-play winnings combined, I see no reason why the casino should reject any of the remainder of the account being withdrawn. If this is the case, then I think the casino is being completely unfair to the user and perhaps taking advantage.

I am not a fan of bonuses in general and not wish to entertain another, unless it was fair.

[Kirilster]

I will probaly say the same thing as some of you already said but still wanted to react. "If you attempt to withdraw" they say... Well, the way it's formulated is like saying "if you attempt to steal, if you attempt to flee etc. and get caught then you will be punished" but this is understandable only if it applies to a physically possible action for the player. The fact is that by submitting a withdrawal request the only thing that he does is ASKING to do something to the casino, he is not able to attempt any action, he has no power whatsoever ! So, what their formulation means is "If you attempt ASKING us to give you your money while you haven't yet met the requirements then all of it will be confiscated ! It's like if I asked to my wife if the dinner was ready and the answer was "no" that would mean I would have no dinner at all. This is taking people for idiots.

[colly]

The terms are a bit trickier than some but does seem to be almost a common term - even with some variations like may confiscate etc.

There may be some validity to confiscating the bonus itself and any remainder winnings over and above the deposit- but if played in good faith and no counting mechanism then some compromise or apportionment should be available.

In a good casino the software should be such that you can't withdraw if you haven/t met the WR and there should be a counter for the WR ,

I certainly wouldn't have expected this in an accredited casino nor some of the ridiclous WR terms but if you check out Alladins (Accredited) the WR if you are AUstralian are even more ridiculous than the Canadian ones mentioned. SImilarly while its WR is fairly standard and I like most things about it I gave up at Intertops (Accredited) because there was no counter for the wagers played.

Cheers

[Nate]

Yep, I agree. this should be a simple issue to resolve. It just depends how how far the Casino will go to ensure they are 'recovering' funds weekly by T&C's breaches (Some not deliberate).

A simple example would be 3dice's Tourney mode - You are ONLY able to play what the tourney specifies. The software advises you that a particular game is not allowed in the current tourney and also doesnt allow you to access it...

Also, i remember that i deposited on a previous balance of a few cents and when i tried to WD, the software said that i still had to complete a WR before WD - So it is possible to do.

Ah well... Will they cite that they are unable to do this or there are costs involved?... Anything is possible if other casinos are able to do it. It's as simple as getting the 'Upgrade' from the manufacturer or paying for the development of such.

Nate

[labell]

I agree any reputable casino should be able to show the player the playthrough remaining so that when playthrough is met the player knows. Most RTG's do this and so does Rival. I have one MG account and my winnings are listed as bonus in my balance until the playthrough is met.

If the casino doesn't show playthrough balance in my opinion that casino is trying to bamboozle players and use that clause as an excuse not to pay.

Absolutely agree, and if the software does not show wr then the entire balance should be returned to the casino account with a message to the player about how much wr remains! Definitely predatory and I'd only expect this behavior of total confiscation from a rogue casino.

[vinylweatherman]

Absolutely agree, and if the software does not show wr then the entire balance should be returned to the casino account with a message to the player about how much wr remains! Definitely predatory and I'd only expect this behavior of total confiscation from a rogue casino.

This was Purple Lounge, Microgaming. The software ALREADY had the facility to physically PREVENT a player making a withdrawal before WR has been met, and this happens in MOST MGS casinos. This was particularly nasty, because there IS a playthrough indicator, and this player played until this showed that all his WR had indeed been met. This was a predatory exploitation of a SOFTWARE BUG by Purple Lounge, as an INCORRECT indication that WR had been met was given to the player, so no amount of checking on the players' part would have made this bug in any way obvious.

There are other bugs in the MGS bonus system, and I found yet ANOTHER only last week, down to a balance tracking error between cash & bonus balances during the play of one of those promotions where xx free bonus slot spins are added to one of the games, with winnings from these spins being paid out as a bonus, not cash.

Casinos don't think it's fair when a PLAYER exploits a software bug for profit, so how come it's fair when a CASINO does it.

CM members said "no" (see poll), hence you no longer see Purple Lounge in the accredited list.

Some casinos have decided that the "bottom line" is more important than doing the "right thing" by players, so when they get "advantage played" by players even more "ruthless" than they are, so be it.

I had a call from them last December, their VIP team wanted to know why I had quit all of a sudden. I told her this tale, and she agreed that this was totally unfair -- then I revealed to her that it was HER CASINO I was talking about She said she would get back to me after asking about this with her bosses - never heard a thing (looks like she got "slapped down" from on high, and they are NOT going to change their behaviour).

I was a significant depositor there, we are talking £ thousands per month sometimes, not a few tenners once in a while.

...and I mean WAS


I am £25,000 ahead at PL, so this incident made me think I could be next, even for the most minor of perceived violations.

[petro]

I don't understand what this means;
"In a word, it sucks, but them's the breaks."
Can anyone translate it? (Serious question.)

[Casinomeister]

I don't understand what this means;
"In a word, it sucks, but them's the breaks."
Can anyone translate it? (Serious question.)

It's a bad term, but there is not much you can do about it. So live with it.