Caution: XXL Club Casino Bonus Terms

[GrandMaster]

A bar may prevent you from entering their premises on the basis that you broke a chair and didn't pay for it - and the owner might tell his friends who would then possibly not admit you into their establishments.

This could be libel.

 

[XXLClubCasino]

Hi

Thanks for your reply.
I have read this thread a while. And it wasn't my personal opinion.
But after all, you are "Casino Representative" and then it is your Casino statement. Right?

Referring "sister casino" - There is a few examples, where player from La Isla Bonita Casino will get an answer from XXL Club Casino.
( email sent to La isla Bonita Casino - an answer came from XXL Club Casino)
I do not care, are you connected in any form to La Isla Bonita.

This is now very interesting do you have any example of this? As you might know or not we do subcontract part of our service to a third company mostly answering basic customer support through emails. Our chat operators are our own support team and casino managers available 24/24. We are NOT in any case way connected to them.

If possible please send me this email so I can clarify this very unpleasant and surprising incident, so I can investigate it, because I would care ;-)

But your statement: "...Mostly players organized in groups from the same countries (greece, finland, turkey, netherlands, france)..."
Can you pleae proof that, please.
Eg. referring my country: Finland.

How can I possibly prove this to you? Our weekly/monthly and now yearly stat shows that bonus abuser mostly are resident from the mentioned countries.

Also it is from those countries that we payout the most. Maybe you will tell me that Finish (capital F) players are more talented or more lucky than others, this is surely also true but the bonus abusing tricks are with high majority mastered by those countries.

At least, You should write correctly. (with capital letters)
Finland, Turkey, etc

I gave my best now

 

[Sodax77]

This is now very interesting do you have any example of this? As you might know or not we do subcontract part of our service to a third company mostly answering basic customer support through emails. Our chat operators are our own support team and casino managers available 24/24. We are NOT in any case way connected to them.

If possible please send me this email so I can clarify this very unpleasant and surprising incident, so I can investigate it, because I would care ;-)



How can I possibly prove this to you? Our weekly/monthly and now yearly stat shows that bonus abuser mostly are resident from the mentioned countries.

Also it is from those countries that we payout the most. Maybe you will tell me that Finish (capital F) players are more talented or more lucky than others, this is surely also true but the bonus abusing tricks are with high majority mastered by those countries.



I gave my best now

Oh, you are the hero!

"Finish"?! ...or did you mean: Finnish?!

5 star indeed :xxx

 

[spearmaster]

This could be libel.

If it were a factual statement, it could not be libel. But that is beside the point - while what vwm says is true about the fact that one's presence on a list could have an adverse effect, it remains true that the establishments are private.

Another simple example - one could be prohibited from playing further because they live in a particular country - sucks, but again still within the casinos' rights.

Ultimately, there isn't a whole lot that can be done - except of course if a casino makes a decision to add further comments to an entry on the list, and possibly permits entry despite presence on the list. A player would nevertheless still not be guaranteed entry.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Private

If it were a factual statement, it could not be libel. But that is beside the point - while what vwm says is true about the fact that one's presence on a list could have an adverse effect, it remains true that the establishments are private.

Another simple example - one could be prohibited from playing further because they live in a particular country - sucks, but again still within the casinos' rights.

Ultimately, there isn't a whole lot that can be done - except of course if a casino makes a decision to add further comments to an entry on the list, and possibly permits entry despite presence on the list. A player would nevertheless still not be guaranteed entry.

While all establishments are private, the addition of a name to a publically available blacklist goes beyond the rights of an individual establishment to deny entry to a customer they don't like. They are circulating what could be a personal opinion or prejudice to other unrelated establishments, which would prejudice those other establishments against admitting the customer even though the customer is behaving properly within the new establishment. Unless the addition on the list is factual, it comes under civil libel laws. There does not have to be a libellous comment, the mere fact of being on a BLACKlist implies wrongdoing.
Online casinos are pretty much the only establishments that now bar players based on generalisations about their country (and by implication in some cases, race). B & M establisments are no longer allowed to make such broad bans, but must do so on an individual basis, such that each individual has a fair chance of being considered for admission on merit.

I would ask the casino whether they suffered more "bonus abuse" from US players in the past, than the rest of the world put together. I am sure that if they analysed US players by county, they could come up with a few that have had an "unusual number of connected players", but they ignore this and treat the US as a whole. Since the US once accounted for 90% of the business, it seems odd that they are subdividing the remaining 10% into small sample sizes, doing the stats on these small samples and concluding that they represent entire nations. It is as bad as us taking 10 spins on a slot, and getting only 10% return - then concluding that this proves that particular slot returns 10%, and is not a fair game when compared with our favourite that has returned 95% over thousands of spins.

 

[GrandMaster]

If it were a factual statement, it could not be libel. But that is beside the point - while what vwm says is true about the fact that one's presence on a list could have an adverse effect, it remains true that the establishments are private.

In the UK at least, a true statement made maliciously can also be defamation, this typically applies to cases involving someone's criminal record, sexual orientation or HIV status. The other issue is that the bar owner may be telling the truth, but not the whole truth, he may be omitting the fact that he bought chairs of inferior quality, or he knew that the chair was already partly broken or he failed to carry out the necessary inspection and maintenance.

 

[XXLClubCasino]

Oh, you are the hero!
"Finish"?! ...or did you mean: Finnish?!
5 star indeed

Sorry for that:notworthy

I would ask the casino whether they suffered more "bonus abuse" from US players in the past, than the rest of the world put together. I am sure that if they analysed US players by county, they could come up with a few that have had an "unusual number of connected players", but they ignore this and treat the US as a whole. Since the US once accounted for 90% of the business, it seems odd that they are subdividing the remaining 10% into small sample sizes, doing the stats on these small samples and concluding that they represent entire nations. It is as bad as us taking 10 spins on a slot, and getting only 10% return - then concluding that this proves that particular slot returns 10%, and is not a fair game when compared with our favourite that has returned 95% over thousands of spins.

We do not block players based on their origin (nations) from entering the casino. The fraud team has a 20 to 25 list of criteria that need to match before excluding a player from gaming.

Some of the exclusion are handled directly by the software based on predefined rules that are adjustable. Then each player get screened manually to review his details (valid phone numbers etc.) for example mr. qgfqjkeg and phone number 1111000111 may pass the software screening but fail at the manual screening.

Multiple accounts from the same players would also be subsequently closed where most of the time the last opened account will remain active in rare cases where multiple accounts are detected all accounts might get closed and the player will get refund for his deposit.

Our short experience (5 months) with US players were mostly very positive as US players were mostly playing progressive jackpot and always read the casino T&C before playing also I think that because the US market was gambling online for a much longer time we would have a larger knowledge of this market. The US market accounted for us "only" for 45% of our player base.

What really matters to our group is to handle each player 100% fairly. If you risk your money gambling you should be rewarded for it! Being an "advantage" player or not. Most advantage players will play once and never come again (except of course if it's the same player with different details) and we therefor always honored every payment even so we know to 99% that this player is only after our first deposit bonus.

We have been extremely lack in handling bonus "abuse" compared to any other casino. If a player meet the wager requirement on the aloud game and risked his money in doing so we paid in 100% of the cases no restriction. If a player is blocked before playing and after depositing he get refunded (rare cases) if the player is bocked before depositing he can contact the casino for his account to be reviewed and given the real reason why we prefer not to have him playing in our casino.

I would say that 90% of the blocked players do not care at all to know the reason why we blocked them as they know why (charge backs being the first reason) and prefer to open an account in the next casinos. With 2000 online casinos competing in the market I truly believe that each player can find a casino that best suite his playing style and tastes.

What is the purpose of opening 30 accounts in 30 different playtechs casinos if not to profit from the welcome bonuses? All games are the same the only differentiation is customer services and different promotions other than that it's the same, so by opening 10 accounts per day make no sense at all to me, no time to test customer support or the variety of player promotions and VIP treatment.

 

[spearmaster]

publically available blacklist

Show me where it is publicly available. I think this is where we are seeing different things.

In the UK at least, a true statement made maliciously can also be defamation, this typically applies to cases involving someone's criminal record, sexual orientation or HIV status.

Not if this fact is publicly known. For that to occur in the case of the bar owner, the person who broke the chair would have to be the only one in the bar

The other issue is that the bar owner may be telling the truth, but not the whole truth, he may be omitting the fact that he bought chairs of inferior quality, or he knew that the chair was already partly broken or he failed to carry out the necessary inspection and maintenance.

One has to determine that the omission was deliberate as well.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Accounts

What is the purpose of opening 30 accounts in 30 different playtechs casinos if not to profit from the welcome bonuses? All games are the same the only differentiation is customer services and different promotions other than that it's the same, so by opening 10 accounts per day make no sense at all to me, no time to test customer support or the variety of player promotions and VIP treatment.

Yes, players who have played a pattern of depositing once only 30 times are most probably after the bonus rather than any loyalty offers, however, from the viewpoint of the player this seems to be what the industry wants. Many groups will have layered exit pages on their websites that thrust up the bonus offer for another one or more of their properties - this does nothing to discourage players from opening accounts at all properties in one go. As well as this we have the eternal issue of spam, offering hordes of bonuses to any E-mail address that is remotely interested in online casinos. The end result is that players are bombarded with offers for sign-up bonuses, however once they have made a couple of deposits at a casino there is often nothing on offer for returning players, so naturally they move on to the next casino.

While there are no outright bans based on origin, there are special restrictions placed on players from certain countries. In effect, whole countries are being treated as though all players from them are seasoned bonus hunters, any player from such countries who is genuinely new to online gaming is not getting a fair start by being able to take a few sign-up bonuses.
If the software can block players automatically, surely it would be better for laytech to have a platform ration for each individual, such that they may only have, say, three sign-up offers at Playtech brands, after which the software will deem them sufficiently experienced at the Playtech platform as to not need further bonuses. It seems many groups suffer from problems with players taking the new player bonus at each property, but seem unwilling to make a rule against it.

Unlike Bricks and Mortar casinos, who can offer all kinds of comps, online casinos are stuck with bonuses of some sort, but perhaps more use could be made of the comp points system, and less of sign-up bonuses. One way could be to offer a REAL incentive to play through the comp system, not just a token 0.2% return, but a return approaching the house edge for a particular game for a specific periond. For example, if slots pay out at 95%, the casino could offer new players 4.5% comps based on all their slots play over their first week, fortnight or month. Unlike sign-up bonuses, this could not be abused by syndicate, as there would still be a built in edge of half a percent. Individual players though, could do pretty well if the slots run in their favour. the only way to abuse this type of promotion would be if there was a situation where the comp rate exceeded the house edge for a game, which would be a mistake on the part of the casino.

 

[GrandMaster]

the only way to abuse this type of promotion would be if there was a situation where the comp rate exceeded the house edge for a game, which would be a mistake on the part of the casino.

See the Joyland Casino debacle.

 

[deepart]

Hi Cerdikola

I do not share your view with regards to this T&C. We are suffering from giving bonus to advantage players and need to protect our business. As long as the excluded games are not played before meeting the WR you have nothing to worry about. Also note that in case this happen we practice either a total refund of the deposit to the player or based on his/her choice we leave the bonus and deposit to the player and ask to meet the WR without playing any listed restricted games.

The mathematical outcomes if we do not enforce these basics restrictions is devastating for the casinos and we would get bankrupt within a month!

Also note that any bonuses can be refused and a lot of players prefer it this way. We do then give other bonus incentives like kick backs based on the players lost.

The definition of gambling is risking some money to be able to win big. Due to the welcome bonus given to loyal players and abused by others the risk is completely covered by the casino and not by players which can't be call a FAIR situation.

We pay 1000's of dollars every months to player "abusing" the welcome bonus. This is integral part of the game going on between advantage players and casinos but without making any game restrictions we would not survive 1 month.

I hope I gave you a better view of our T&C and why we unfortunately have to restrict playing some games. I'm confident everyone can see it as a FAIR and do not feel being ripped of by our T&C.

Any opinion is welcome and I would love to hear other players view on the subject.

If the player win big on a "forbidden" game, there's a problem.
If a player loses on a "forbidden" game, there's no problem.

Strange thing,