Resolved Slotastic Voids $4800 Win With Spurious Invocation of Rule

[mcd68024]

Deposited $150 and redeemed slot coupon. Met rollover, got to ~$4800 and requested payout. Slotastic claimed I violated their max bet rule and reset my balance to $150. They claimed 3 of my ~3500 bets were over the $10 limit. All my other bets were $5 or less.

Do not remember making any bets over $5, but it is possible I made a few by accident. Many games, when you reopen or refresh it, reset the bet to maximum which you may not notice immediately. However, if I had to guess, I toggled from a second browser back to my slot game and, in doing so, accidentally clipped a pay-line marker. If you do this, it activates every pay-line up to that pay-line which could give you 3 consecutive $11+ spins without noticing.

Their rule is worded, "The maximum bet for all bonuses (including cashback) must not exceed $10. Any winnings, plus bonus amounts derived from bets higher than this limit will be voided". All 3 of my over-limit bets were losers and thus I "derived" no winnings from them. I told them I was, from the beginning, aware of their terms and conditions and of the max bet rule. I had played all previous coupons according to them. I mentioned the ways that higher bets could happen by accident. I told them, "The second sentence of your rule implies that the repercussion for violating a max bet of $10 is that it voids all wins on such bets as well as all wins which can be concluded to have been "derived" from bets made from the money won on those bets. The fact that the second sentence of your rule is clearly designed to clarify the first sentence, implies that just having a bet on principle above $10 does not void your entire balance above the original deposit."

I suggested that they should be happy enough that I gifted them 3 automatic losers by accident. Their response was "Whether or not winnings were had from the specific bet, if bets above $10 are made when a coupon is active, the winnings are voided." They then chastised my "playing style", i.e., the 3 accidental bets, reiterated numerous times that I be familiar with the terms and conditions, and invited me to play their hottest slots.

When I escalated a ticket here at casinomeister. Slotastic simply echoed their position. Despite my admonishments, Slotastic has shown no interest in updating the wording of their rule to reflect how they actually act on it. Doing so could eliminate any ambiguity. Any ambiguity should benefit the party that didn't write the rules. Rules like a $10 max bet are designed to protect casinos from people who want to collect bonuses while minimizing the action they give back. They are not meant to be an arbitrary way to say "gotcha". I don't care what anyone says. Slotastic is not justified here karmatically or by the wording of their rules.

 

[hogexd]

so TLDR is they voided your winnings because of a few bets going above the max-bet limit during a bonus?

I’d suggest spacing out the post, it’s a bit difficult to read such wall of text.

 

[anddi32]

You violated bonus terms. It doesn't matter if you got the benefit or not.
Many casinos check everything about to players game history especially if the player has played with a bonus.
And then it's extremely important for the player not to give any reason for taking the money.

I personally recommend, that if the player accidentally violates the terms (like few spins over max bet) the player should stop wagering as soon as the error is noticed. Go to the chat and report about the mistake. Ask the casino if it's okay to continue or if the bonus will be rejected.
When the player acts like this an honest picture has given. And there will be better change that casino accepts the error and wagering can continue.

If the player doesn't report the error to the casino but tries to withdraw, it can be easily interpreted as an intentional violation of the terms. And in that case if the casino notices the violation it's absolutely certain that the money will be voided.

 

[hubbadubbadingdong]

Max bet $5; You bet over that - You broke a rule, take ownership of a mistake

 

[satchnz]

I don't care what anyone says.

I’m confused as to the purpose of your post then. It is only going to illicit responses from people here, and you won’t like what you are told.

 

[toms596]

He does have a point with the wording in my opinion.

If it said all bets over $10 will void bonus funds and winnings then they would be right to confiscate everything and not pay him.

 

[SpinUk]

Technically its here -> “derived from bets over this limit”.

If it said “derived from any betting over the this limit” then they would be in the right.

It’s not even contentious - it clearly confirms only winnings achieved will be discounted through the larger bet size are relevant.

The reason why it’s not been changed is because they make $5k when people do what you did. Good business isn’t it.

 

[bamberfishcake]

He does have a point with the wording in my opinion.

If it said all bets over $10 will void bonus funds and winnings then they would be right to confiscate everything and not pay him.

But the op admits they bet over the limit, not at the limit.

"All 3 of my over-limit bets"

This is a casino promotion with rules, and rules were broken. There is no question of fairness, ethics or business conduct.

 

[mcd68024]

I never noticed any over-limit bets in real time so there is nothing I could have done. As far "not caring what anybody says", I am merely saying nobody is going to change what my assessment is. That does not mean you don't post. You get no leverage if you do nothing, and you warn nobody else. Really, has anyone felt motivated to open an account at Slotastic after reading this? If Slotastic really had an intrinsic justification for the confiscation, I don't think anyone would be deterred. I should also point out there is a motivation to be a bit trashy in your posts because it provokes replies which increases views which increases leverage if you make a valid point. Thus, God forbid I "not care what anybody says". If Slotastic were so concerned with the sanctity of their $10 rule they might, you know, pursue a lock on the software against such bets so they could never happen. One might think they actually want bets over the limit.

 

[toms596]

But the op admits they bet over the limit, not at the limit.

"All 3 of my over-limit bets"

This is a casino promotion with rules, and rules were broken. There is no question of fairness, ethics or business conduct.

Am I confused? It states "any winnings, plus bonus amounts derived from bets higher than this limit will be voided."

So he placed 3 bets over the $10 max but from the OP side his winnings were not the result of these over max bets. Hence his winnings are not "derived from bets higher than this limit"

I'm fine with promotion rules but they should be clear in their meaning such as "any bets over the max bet will result in winnings and bonus funds being void" if they had simply avoided using the word derived I would be agreeing with the casino.

In the event the OP bet over the max early on in wagering and then the winnings from this over max bet were the source of his winnings the casino would also be correct.

E.g

$20 balance places $20 bet wins $100.

Player then has balance of $100.

Player bets $10 for remainder of balance and wins $4800.

This balance is now derived from the original $20 over max bet specified in the terms.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Am I confused? It states "any winnings, plus bonus amounts derived from bets higher than this limit will be voided."

So he placed 3 bets over the $10 max but from the OP side his winnings were not the result of these over max bets. Hence his winnings are not "derived from bets higher than this limit"

I'm fine with promotion rules but they should be clear in their meaning such as "any bets over the max bet will result in winnings and bonus funds being void" if they had simply avoided using the word derived I would be agreeing with the casino.

I see what you mean, but rule 22 of the terms states 'The maximum bet must not exceed $10'.

For me, this is black and white - an open and shut case. OP bet over the max bet limit.

Maybe I am confused

 

[toms596]

In that case it is rather clear. it is the addition of the next line which causes the confusion

 

[bamberfishcake]

In that case it is rather clear. it is the addition of the next line which causes the confusion

Must admit, it could be worded better for sure, which I missed at first glance.

 

[toms596]

My attempts to clear this up with live chat weren't very successful they disconnected rather quickly

 

[jasonuk]

This is a tricky one for sure, and the ambiguity may be deliberate.

So the combined rule 22 has two parts - the first part dictates the requirement, the second part dictates the punishment.

For me, the ambiguity actually comes in the second sentence (rather than first to second) - "Any winnings, plus bonus amounts derived from bets higher than this limit will be voided."- because of the awkward punctuation, so examples could include:

• [Any winnings, plus bonus amounts] derived from bets higher... - the OPs standpoint, which would only void a few dollars
• [Any winnings], plus [bonus amounts derived from bets higher...] - the casino standpoint, which would void the entire amount except the deposit

If there was a comma before "will be voided" then I think the intent would be clear - which would be the casino's standpoint that "all winnings, ..., will be voided". Unfortunately when you break the rules, you are at the mercy of their arbitration - and in this case I don't think you're going to find a different outcome.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Come to think of it, by industry comparison, a $10 bet limit is rather accommodating. Most casinos I have seen state a $5 max bet limit.

 

[Avernite]

Unfortunately I think that they will stick with term 22, as they'll believe it covers them. You are right that the wording is definitely a bit grey. Have you raised a PAB? Perhaps a solution can be made there.

 

[mcd68024]

All my winnings were from $5 bets (half the maximum). I did PAB and nothing changed. You are always at the mercy of the casino anyhow because none of the arbitration has legally binding power. So that point is academic. As I have said, legally, my understanding is that ambiguity should benefit the party that didn't write the rules. Otherwise, there would be a motivation to always write rules ambiguously. However, kind of academic because, again, there is no legal power in play here. Slotastic will pay me if they feel the loss to their reputation for not paying is > than $4800 and not otherwise. That is the only situation from their perspective. All they need to think is that the public thinks the situation is ambiguous or that the public thinks there is some technicality in their favor and they will continue to void the win. I find it hard to believe the situation is ambiguous though, that "winnings plus bonus amounts" would not be interpreted as one unit. If they are interpreted separately, then how does "winnings" connect to the 2nd half of the 2nd sentence? It would just be "Any winnings will be voided" without a proper connection to the 1st sentence. The fact that Slotastic has refused to refine the wording of the rule is very telling.

 

[Avernite]

I agree that the wording should be in your favor. They could have at least offered a settlement reflecting the minor breach (because I somehow doubt they'd return your deposit if you lost), but then again I'm exceptionally cautious when it comes to anything bonus related and often just play with my own money. Threads like these is why.

 

[hhhelllo]

I completely agree with OP.

The problem is that terms like that are made to be reassuring about their fairness and can be understood in any way that will give them the ability to take one side or another depending of which one screws you.

Don't you know that this casino will do exactly that in this situation.

Even softswiiss casinos block any spin higher than a max bet related to an active bonus.

Just forget bonus play anywhere except reliable casinos. Even then , if you win too much, they all become very aware of such possible interpretation of their own terms designed the bullsh1t you when needed.

It must hurt like hell. I feel you. Any slot player will stop gambling after that. That's why online casinos are on the edge of bankruptcy. I wish

 

[SuperTed88]

Surely not! A casino has ambiguously worded terms and this gives them the opportunity to interpret them how they wish. So when one of the staff is trawling through winners withdrawals trying to find any reason not to pay they have all the ammunition they need. Been going on since the dawn of online casinos I'm afraid. One must assume that they will do this, any reason to not pay you will be found, you must play within any terms else don't expect to get paid. However it must be said occasionally I have broken the odd rule when playing with a bonus (normally very similar to this scenario laid out by the OP - with the odd bet accidentally made over the limit) and been paid, so some casinos are a little more lenient than others, it's all in the lap of the gods I'm afraid.

 

[satchnz]

I never noticed any over-limit bets in real time so there is nothing I could have done. As far "not caring what anybody says", I am merely saying nobody is going to change what my assessment is. That does not mean you don't post. You get no leverage if you do nothing, and you warn nobody else. Really, has anyone felt motivated to open an account at Slotastic after reading this? If Slotastic really had an intrinsic justification for the confiscation, I don't think anyone would be deterred. I should also point out there is a motivation to be a bit trashy in your posts because it provokes replies which increases views which increases leverage if you make a valid point. Thus, God forbid I "not care what anybody says". If Slotastic were so concerned with the sanctity of their $10 rule they might, you know, pursue a lock on the software against such bets so they could never happen. One might think they actually want bets over the limit.

Keen for you to go into a bit more detail on the bold sentence above as your reply showed in my alerts as a response to my post.

 

[KasinoKing]

I completely agree with OP.

The problem is that terms like that are made to be reassuring about their fairness and can be understood in any way that will give them the ability to take one side or another depending of which one screws you.

Seconded!

Player says he made 3 accidental over-bets out of 3,500 spins. IMHO the casino is being TOTALLY UNREASONABLE in confiscating his winnings.
Things like this just make me sick

KK

 

[Betreels Casino & Sports]

@Affiliate Capital

 

[mcd68024]

Keen for you to go into a bit more detail on the bold sentence above as your reply showed in my alerts as a response to my post.

You earlier derided my statement that "I don't care what anybody says." which I consider slightly provocative/trashy for me to put in. My response " I should also point out there is a motivation to be a bit trashy in your posts because it provokes replies which increases views which increases leverage if you make a valid point." means exactly what it means. Some people will quickly glance at the views and replies of a post before deciding to click on it. Thus, having more replies can stimulate further views. More views means more negative publicity for Slotastic which means better chance they reverse position. FYI your prediction that I won't "like what I've have been told" has simply not panned out.