Defining bonus abuse, revisited

[orangeindiana]

Hopefully I'm not resurrecting a dead topic, but I've searched the forums pretty well about a definition about bonus abuse and still had some questions.

The consensus seemed to say that bonus abuse is when a player demands continued bonuses without meeting wagering requirements, but it's legit for a player to receive a bonus, playing games with the most favorable odds while keeping his bets low until reaching the wagering requirement, and then cashing out.

Is this still the definition? More importantly, is it the definition that most casinos use? I've only been at this for a couple months, but I get the impression that people are being tagged as bonus abusers even when they aren't meeting the forums' definition. I just wanted to see where casinos tend to stand so I can avoid getting into any unnecessary trouble.

[mary]

Orange, it works like this:

basically, if the player meets the casino's stated terms for a bonus, the player should get the bonus and there should be no problems.

That's the ideal world in which casinos state terms that make them happy.

In the real world, if you meet the terms with the least amount of risk possible, the casino will notice and not be real inclined to keep you as a customer.

It varies from casino to casino, there is no industrywide rule.

Red flags for many casinos:

*if you deposit only when offered a bonus
*if you use a currency that is not your native currency (Americans using pounds)
*if you withdraw as soon as possible after play
*if you never play the higher edge games such as slots
*if you always bet the minimum

[universexf6]

Hopefully I'm not resurrecting a dead topic, but I've searched the forums pretty well about a definition about bonus abuse and still had some questions.

The consensus seemed to say that bonus abuse is when a player demands continued bonuses without meeting wagering requirements, but it's legit for a player to receive a bonus, playing games with the most favorable odds while keeping his bets low until reaching the wagering requirement, and then cashing out.

Is this still the definition? More importantly, is it the definition that most casinos use? I've only been at this for a couple months, but I get the impression that people are being tagged as bonus abusers even when they aren't meeting the forums' definition. I just wanted to see where casinos tend to stand so I can avoid getting into any unnecessary trouble.

　Okay. I can simply put it here.

"Bonus abuse" means about the players who don't give casinos money
taking only bonuses whereas casinos use these "bonuses" to attract players.

In the end, money is money, and casinos will try to emply any tactic including
this standard rhetoric when they are at crisis or don't want to pay on the other hand there is no solid theoritical background why they are trying to use
this bonuses. If they can get more money by these "bonuses", then the players are normal players, but if they see a lot of decreasment unexpectely
as a result ot using this "bonuses", then players are more likely to be labelled
as "bonus abusers" in the near future.

[orangeindiana]

Good advice guys, thanks. It leads me to another question, though... how often are people tagged as bonus abusers? I'm definitely more inclined to deposit at a place offering a bonus, and I tend to gravitate towards the games with better odds... never really been one for slots, for example. I do, however, tend to leave money deposited for a while before withdrawing.

Is being red flagged something I should be concerned about enough to alter my gambling habits? I'm not really trying to be an advantage player, just trying to stretch out my dollars...

[chalupa]

If you are just trying to stretch out your play, and are betting relatively small amounts compared to your bankroll, I don't think you will have any trouble.

Most promotions today are targeted to take advantage of exactly that kind of play -- i.e. you will be a long-term loser, and the casino will be happy to have you as a customer.

Er... feel better?

[Petunia]

**Check this thread - http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...=Adri+Sinclair - I think she explained pretty well what it SHOULD be.... of course, sometimes thereality is different from the actuality... but still.. I think it explains it very well. **

[GrandMaster]

Orange, it works like this:

basically, if the player meets the casino's stated terms for a bonus, the player should get the bonus and there should be no problems.

That's the ideal world in which casinos state terms that make them happy.

In the real world, if you meet the terms with the least amount of risk possible, the casino will notice and not be real inclined to keep you as a customer.

It varies from casino to casino, there is no industrywide rule.

Red flags for many casinos:

*if you deposit only when offered a bonus
*if you use a currency that is not your native currency (Americans using pounds)
*if you withdraw as soon as possible after play
*if you never play the higher edge games such as slots
*if you always bet the minimum

I don't consider these to be abuse, advantage play at best. As long as the player follows the rules, the casino should pay up. The casino can then decide that it may not want to give such a player further bonuses, or it may decide to offer different promotions which are less easily exploited by sharp or skilled players.

Examples of what I consider abuse would be hedging bets, e.g., covering all numbers in roulette, or strategies designed to transfer money from one player to another at multi-player tables, e.g., one person betting his whole bankroll including bonus on red in roulette, the other on black and 0.

[KasinoKing]

Is being red flagged something I should be concerned about enough to alter my gambling habits? I'm not really trying to be an advantage player, just trying to stretch out my dollars...

No, I wouldn't worry about that at all!
I'm pretty sure the majority of posters at this forum are advantage players.

I only deposit when I get a bonus, and so far I have only been 'banned' for being a so-called 'bonus abuser' at 3 casinos in 4-years. (Windows, Littlewoods, and Omni - so no great loss there! )

But there are 100's of other casinos to play at, so who cares?

Mary's advice was spot on! Except that she didn't mention that at some casinos (especially RTG) you are also likely to be labelled an abuser if you have the audacity to actually make a profit from their free money!

[thelawnet]

Hopefully I'm not resurrecting a dead topic, but I've searched the forums pretty well about a definition about bonus abuse and still had some questions.

The consensus seemed to say that bonus abuse is when a player demands continued bonuses without meeting wagering requirements, but it's legit for a player to receive a bonus, playing games with the most favorable odds while keeping his bets low until reaching the wagering requirement, and then cashing out.

Is this still the definition? More importantly, is it the definition that most casinos use? I've only been at this for a couple months, but I get the impression that people are being tagged as bonus abusers even when they aren't meeting the forums' definition. I just wanted to see where casinos tend to stand so I can avoid getting into any unnecessary trouble.

Well, here's what Fortune Lounge says:

Certain games are excluded from those which players are permitted to play for the purpose of meeting their wagering requirements.
This is done to avoid any "bonus abuse". Excluded games are:

Jacks or Better Power Poker, Jacks or Better Video Poker, Jacks or Better 10 Play Power Poker, Baccarat, Craps, Roulette and Sic Bo.

Baccarat, Craps, Roulette and Sic Bo I believe all have zero-risk strategies, which are not really gambling, and could probably be called abuse. However, Jacks Or Better is a very high variance game with a high jackpot, and is *high* risk. The only thing about Jacks or Better is that you won't lose your money as fast as other video poker variants, as the edge is not as high.

[orangeindiana]

Sah-weet. I think you all have handled my question pretty well... thanks.