No! The casino placed that term there! This term is a win-win for the casino. Just think of it, how many SUB related issues haven't we seen about FL group? Did they change the rule to look like BETAT's? No! The casino want that rule to look like it does now because then they attract ALL kinds of players and they want the money.
BETAT (and Sloto with their 6$ max bet with bonus) took action and probably lost some players, FL haven't done this.
Fortune Lounge have to change this rule (this you agree with), and no one should blame players for a shady term placed by a casino.
Of course the casino placed the term there. Who else would have? Elvis?
Honestly.
So why do you THINK the casinos need to HAVE such terms (not this one but others like high WR and excluded games and max cashouts and max bets)....?? The advantage players i.e. those who use particular strategies to take advantage of specific bonuses with no intention of becoming genuine regular and loyal players..pretty much bonus whores but smarter and more selective. Actually, I have no problems with APs per se, I just don't feel sorry for them when they fall foul of terms specifically designed to deter and/or punish this kind of behaviour....and this includes players who accept bonuses without fully understanding the terms, however crappy they might be (such as this case). It's really so simple....if you don't LIKE the terms or don't understand them, DON'T take the bonus. So, so simple. Complain about the term in the forum and email Bryan etc etc...but don't wait until AFTER you signed off on it by taking the bonus.
I can assure you that the players Sloto, and in this case FL, lost are the kind of players they do not want at their casino anyway....hence the type of terms such as max bets etc. Sloto are very upfront and clear about what they consider advantage play, and FL could learn from that IMO.
Oh, and I am not blaming the player for the casino having awful terms. I'm blaming the CASINO for having an awful term, and the PLAYER for saying "Yep, that's cool, I'm OK with that....now give me that juicy bonus".
What do you think would have happened if the OP had lost using this bonus? I'd be interested to hear your prediction.
If nobody should be accepting these terms, by definition the terms are unacceptable. So the question remains, why is an accredited casino allowed to have unacceptable terms?
No, APs are the reason clearly written, well defined terms exist.
If you're going to write terms that invite APs, don't complain when they show up and take advantage.
Nobody should be accepting such terms. An accredited casino should not be allowed to have such terms.
AP's ARE the reason that ALL these types of terms exist. Whether they are well-written or not is an entirely different issue. Just because a term is bad, doesn't mean the reason it was placed there is any different.
I agree that casinos should avoid writing terms that attract APs. I would have thought that any AP worth their salt would have given this one a wide berth, given the clause in question. No doubt in my mind the OP is an AP...maybe they just aren't a very good one.
It's not up to casino support to set up the bonuses. It's up to the promotions team. If the in house promotions teams aren't smart enough to learn the software then they hire people who are.
Of course the promotions team setup the promotions.
The teams might well be quite well-versed in the software operations....I know that some of them actually are.
The fact is, however, that these teams, and in most casino the operators, have NO CONTROL over the backend capabilities of the software. Most casinos use software under licence, and it is supplied to them with limitations set by the suppliers. It might well be that MGS just doesn't want to go down the road of setting up intricate micro-management options, and I equally doubt that they would want to develop such options on an operator-specific basis. The operator/s would have to bear the cost in this case, and it's just not financially viable I wouldn't think.
What I do agree with is that the promotions teams should formulate their promotions and rules around whatever limitations the software actually has at the time. The exceptions to this IMO would be tangible, specific stipulations like max bet, or excluded games etc. It would be great if the software could limit these things automatically, but it seems MGS and some other big providers don't want to do it....probably for the reasons I outlined above, or perhaps other reason that we aren't aware of...who knows? Point is...they don't generally exist at the moment, so the onus is on the player (and reasonably so) to READ and UNDERSTAND the terms they are being asked to accept.
I like the Rival software options, as they make it pretty much impossible to breach terms. Shame many of the operators are crappy. Remember though, that this software was pretty much designed with this stuff in mind from the word go, and was developed much later than MGS software. Could MGS do it? Of course, but it might mean a very large investment and some major changes, which may not be financially viable in the end, given that the average Joe doesn't have an issue with the vast majority of anti-AP terms, so the only ones it would really benefit in the end are the APs themselves, and the operators do not want to make things easier for them (and I don't blame them).
The problem is even deeper when we look at the newer multi-platform operations. The games are supplied by several vendors "as is", so unless the vendors themselves introduce bet limiters and other anti-AP options, it is up to the operator to formulate and enforce terms as they see fit. Even if they wanted to implement such things, they basically couldn't (AFAIK...Igor can correct me if necessary).
IMO, the answer is not dozens of software limitations and spoon-feeding. The answer is CLEAR and PRECISE terms that leave NO room for argument nor debate. Like any situation where agreement is required, these must be an opportunity for the customer/player etc to read and understand the terms before they sign/play. Once they have signed/taken the bonus, they are bound by what they agreed to be bound by. Any discussion about the legitimacy of any of those terms is an argument for afterwards at the point, and IMO has no impact on previous events.