all winnings removed if withdrawal before WR met

[maxd]

Is it just me or does this clause from a casino's bonus Terms strike anyone else as particularly draconian?:

Residents of Greece and Canada must wager 110 times the bonus amount regardless of the payment method used. It is the sole responsibility of the player to ensure he or she has met the wagering requirements before cashing out. Players who withdraw before meeting the requirement will have the bonus and all winnings removed.

I'm asking myself what could be the purpose of such a term? Obviously the system is going to deny the withdrawal anyway if the WR haven't been met, so what's with the confiscation?

Clearly the WR are pretty outrageous to begin with but hey, whatever, that's their choice. it's the confiscation that has me scratching my head.

Much Later: this poll has morphed a bit since it first went up. Max's 'Dummy's Guide To This Thread' says you should read this post if you want to cut to the chase.

[darkpixie]

What software is this? Not all of them automatically calculate. Or at least not that the player can see.



Canadians have to do 110X I thought BetFred was bad with 50X

[chuchu59]

It could be a trap for the unawares. If there is no playthru counter and you think you have met WR and attempt to withdraw, everything except your deposit are confiscated. The casino will not reinstate the confiscated amount even if you want to complete the remaining WRs. The terms should actually state that if you had not met WRs and you withdraw the whole amount balance will be reinstated for you to finish your wagering. At least that's what I experienced in a number of MG casinos.

[maxd]

I'd rather not say which software just yet. I don't want to give anyone a hard time, just looking for some other peeps thoughts.

As it happens this software doesn't ... but I'm not sure how that makes a difference. The question is why the confiscation, regardless of who knows what and when. No system I know is going to let the withdraw proceed if the WR haven't been met, either automatically denying it or an operator doing it, so ... WTF?

It could be a trap for the unawares.

Yeah, that's what it looked like to me too. I hoped there might be a better, more reasonable explanation.

[darkpixie]

I have seen this term before can't recall exactly where at the moment, and yes I too believe it is a trap. A reasonable approach, if the withdrawal is not stopped automatically by the software is to replace all the monies back in the players account and notify the player what WR is left to do.

[doomed4ever]

Its this kind of thing that catches those players out that maybe dont read all terms n cons, dont visit gambling boards/ forums etc and of course new players coming through. Its a disgrace to have such terms and even worse if the player has to COUNT the play through themselves - nigh on impossible unless you want to sit with a pen n paper tracking ever spin. This kind of thing does damage to the industry as a whole especially where new players are concerened.

Seasoned addicts like meself etc always read terms n cons but not everyone does. Would like to know which casino / software this is ?

[maxd]

A reasonable approach, if the withdrawal is not stopped automatically by the software is to replace all the monies back in the players account and notify the player what WR is left to do.

Agreed. The confiscation approach just seems like a big FU.

[takethemoney]

This has to be part of a casino's T&Cs, I would think, not software specific. However, the operator should have no such verbiage, as accounting would be able to catch the WR issue and simply just return the amount to the player's balance and notify them of how much more wagering they need to do before the withdrawal can be processed. I have heard of rogue casinos confiscating winnings because a player attempted to withdraw before the WR was met. Rogue and questionable casinos do not enable the WR counter typically found in the more reputable casino cashiers.

[Nifty29]

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.

[maxd]

... so why not just ban them from bonuses?? Or, if things are that bad, exclude them from the casino entirely?

As far as the bonus ban goes it's my understanding that that's not an attractive option to some operators because the bonus ban thing with their software is all-or-nothing, which presumably is not what they want to do.

As to the "exclude from casino entirely" option I'm pretty sure that would fall under the same category: not what they want to do.