Bonus Abuse - What kind of play would warrant bonus removal?

[MrWorf]

I dont like reading in the terms and conditions of promotions stuff along the lines like "bonus abusers are baddies"

The fact is the only way u can bonus abuse is by extracting ur initial money and only playing with the bonus.

I always feel I have to do an all in bet at some stage so I dont get a mail saying "sorry weve removed the bonus" and finding myself with less money than I started with.

I usually always do ending up wagering a large portion if not all of my own money.

But I dont like feeling pressured to do so.

What in ur eyes would u agree with casinos removing bonus? And are there any that actually in removing bonus they take ur own money (like if ur on 180 after match 100% of 100 and they take away 100 so your left with 80)

I only play on different casinos other than william hill casino because of the bonus yea but still there is every chance I will lose my own money I have never once said "im going to play down to the bonus then cash out" and have actually done it.

[DOHC]

I think what casinos mean by bonus abuse is when a person opens more than one account so they get the same bonus more than once. If not, probably you are talking about a non cashable bonus which I think is removed from your account when you request a payment. BTW, Casinomeister, thanks for removing my username in the other post and sorry for not being careful

[jpm]

Some casinos tend to throw around that phrase 'bonus abuse' far too easily. It should mean exactly what you said DOHC, you open multiple accounts, or use other means to get bonuses you are not entitled to, like multiple first time deposit bonuses.

Unfortunately, alot of places consider bonus abuse to mean you've only deposited when you got a bonus and 'never risked your own money'. Which is somewhat b.s., since you are risking some of your money. They need to come up with better terminology, such as 'advantage player'. This would more accurately describe this behavior (of which I am definately guilty at some places!).

You can always refuse a bonus MrWorf, you just have to do so before you place a wager on any game after getting the bonus in your account. Once you place the wager, you're pretty much locked in to the 'contract', though there are some places that would still remove it even if you did play a couple of hands/spins.

And I think almost all casinos consider wagers made with bonus money in your account as starting with your money first. In other words, if you deposit $100 and get say a $50 bonus. You play and lose $50 so your balance is now $100, but you haven't met the wagering requirements and decide to withdraw, you can only get $50 back since half of the $100 is the bonus and the $50 you lost was your money. That's why the claim that you 'aren't risking your own money' when you have a bonus is so silly.

[topoor]

I have had a bonus removed for nothing more than adhering to the terms.

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...no-reason.html

[KasinoKing]

Yes - and it was bang out of order.

Just about a good enough excuse to dig up a 4 year old thread...

[topoor]

You do know that my thread is 4 weeks old not years

[mysticjoz]

Originally Posted by topoor

You do know that my thread is 4 weeks old not years

Actually KasinoKing is correct. The first post in this thread is dated 2004. So, you did in fact dig up a 4 yr old thread.

Usually Rogue casino's are the ones to "throw around bonus abuse" terms.
They will dig for any excuse not to pay a winning customer.
Is the casino you are referring to on the Rogue list here at CM?

[topoor]

No, it is PKR.

[Fleur-De-Lis]

I asked a similar question recently, and got excellent answers, by CM and simmo! in particular. Here is the thread (too lazy to do Copy&Paste, time to go to bed )
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...nus-abuse.html

[GaryWatson]

4 years or 4 weeks old, the topic is still relevant. different site, same issue.

I could cut 'n' paste my answer.

In 4 years time, players will be posting the same issues & the bonus abuse cop out clause will still be as vague as ever.