vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Agreed VWM I did raise my eyebrows a bit when I read 'there is no error in the system' - clearly there is - and it is the customer service agents mistake that they did not investigate what the player was trying to explain, instead insisting that the figures they could see on the screen must be correct even though it should have been obvious to them that something was amiss.
At the same time though I can understand the point that the system was making the calculations correctly according to the bonus configuration that was active at the time so it is true to state that the problem lies in the bonus configuration and not with the procedure that calculates remaining wagering.
As long as that bonus configuration has been fixed and the player treated correctly though I think the rep has done a good job and deserves credit for that.
Perhaps another player will be able to investigate the wagering requirement calculation at some stage, though I still suspect that if I were to try it myself the calculations might well be accurate, your right that fifty percent of 1000 is always the same of course, but a computer system will almost always work in one currency then use conversion ratios to achieve the multi-currency support, and its entirely possible different parts of the system (eg, the games, the bonus manager) have a different base currency. If the system has been designed to always round these figures up such that the player will never be left out of pocket, I think thats an acceptable solution, dont you?
The simplest currency to work in for such calculations would be "casino credits". Currency only needs to be considered when processing deposits and withdrawals, multi player situations (progressives, poker, multi player community games, etc), and perhaps when setting maxima for bonuses such that regardless of currency, all players are offered something equivalent.
Once allocated to a players' account, it's just a number of credits, and a multiplier for wagering. No need to involve currency at all. If anything, trying to cater for different currencies at this stage makes things more complicated. It should then be a simple matter that every 100 credits wagered knocks 100 credits off the remaining WR, not 119 or other odd figure.
As this was a configuration error that has been around since Sheriff games were withdrawn, there must be many players who have been negatively impacted by this, some of whom wagered more than they needed to because they didn't question the figures given to them by CS.
It was probably not obvious to CS as all they had to do was cut and paste a number from their screens, use of brain not necessary, and if players questioned the accuracy, it was again the "the calculations are accurate" rebuff. Only doing an experiment like the OP would have given the data to prove that there was not a 1:1 equivalence between the amount wagered and the reduction in the requirement. Maybe if players' doubts were properly investigated, rather than being dismissed, this could have been discovered earlier by comparing their actual wagers from the player records with the tally in the bonus system. Hiding the figures behind CS agents, rather than letting players check for themselves, makes it harder for players to gather their own data when they have such doubts about the accuracy. Taking 10 observations would mean badgering CS 10 times in that one session, but it is how one would check that a selection of games were being counted correctly.