32Red - Dish of the Day changes?

[aceking123]

To be honest 32red & bonuses & fair play with bonuses are still number one ,you can pretty much play unrestricted on any games & all kind of bets.

im clearly down but do take mixed bonuses there even the small ones , doesn't matter about wagering there to me if im going to play i shall do it anyway.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The real problem for the casino here is PR. There is no way to put a positive spin on a bonus ban given how integrated they have become with the product experience. Trying to put a positive spin to spare a players' feelings can actually make things even worse. Hiding the truth behind a cloak of secrecy makes it worse still, as players have to guess why they have been banned, and others have to second guess from the tales whether or not they too might get bonus banned unless they play differently.

The problem with something like "Dish of the day" being allowed to get settled in for a couple of years as a regular and expected DAILY promotion is that it's immediately obvious when a player has been "insulted" over their style of play. So obvious and expected that in some cases, a technical issue with the promo can cause offence even if the player hasn't actually been bonus banned.

The problem with bonus banning players who have done nothing "smart" with their play, but just got a lucky hit one day, is that it serves as an accusation that somehow the casino is accusing them of cheating to get the big win, and whilst they can't prove it well enough to void the withdrawal, they are going to make their feelings known via an immediate bonus ban for the "offence". This is what causes the damage on the PR front, especially for the more trigger happy casinos.

I do not consider 32Red "trigger happy", and neither do I believe they bonus ban players purely for being ahead (if they did, I would have been bonus banned in 2009!).

I DO believe that it has much more to do with what bonuses the player takes, and taking ONLY the 100% offers and nothing else is most likely to bring on the bonus ban. If you take almost ALL of the DOTD offers, even the crap ones, and occasionally deposit more besides when the mood takes you to play some more, a bonus ban is unlikely. If anything, being offered even MORE under their new email invites on top of the DOTD offerings is a possible outcome.

Unlike DOTD, the email invites are not supposedly tied to an expectation, but from my observations, 32Red are falling into the trap of issuing them to a schedule, which runs the risk of them ending up being perceived as a scheduled promotion, along with the risk of a player feeling "insulted" if after a while the schedule changes, or they are dropped from the list.

 

[Slotster!]

I must be the worst (or best) player in the world. In about 17 years or so of playing online, I've never been stopped/banned/restricted from bonuses or anything. I'm clearly the exact sort of idiot casinos are after

 

[Jono777]

Whilst I agree to a point with some of the points raised, there is no 100% clear definition of the 'Bonus Ban' IMO

Nothing specific to 32 Red, each casino will have its own set of criteria for 'To ban or not to Ban'

As mentioned continuous use of 100% matches only can be one as can 'casual play, never risking you own funds, I could go on forever lol.

The only one I feel is not on the list (or maybe only a very small contributor and would need 'other reasons) at 32 Red (and a bit unfair towards this particular casino and maybe other casinos too??) is the 'Bonus Ban the Winner(s)

Reason I say this I've been with them approx 8 years or so and am currently 5K ahead which as a low roller is quite an achievement I suppose and (touch wood ) still get my DOTD offers.

 

[Deeplay]

Think its pretty simple - if you dont deposit without a bonus ever or are way up probs you get banned. I dont think there is any big mystery to this.

I aint been bonus banned at 32red but dont take each bonus offered. I still cant resist the 100% DOTD but rest I usually leave alone.

All my deposits across all casinos this past 2 weeks apart from 1 have been bonus free. I did take a casumo 100% and regretted it!
Was 160 ish up with around 20 million in play through still to go ;-) the rest you can work that one out. No cash out for me that day.

 

[petro]

I must be the worst (or best) player in the world.

There is a saying: the "master wizard" is someone least expected.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Explained this already once.

32RED and every other casino need to keep the deposit/comp ratio to roughly 25-30%. Anything higher and it becomes unprofitable for the casino in the long run, especially if players only deposit to take 50 or 100% bonuses

Simple as that. Be above over a prolonged time and the bonus offers get smaller, rarer or are removed all together.

 

[petro]

I was going to start my own thread about this.
But since the topic is so developed I will say what I was going to say here.
I apologise to OP if it's a hijack.

All the evidence I have about this says that Harry BKK is right.
Players must not only consistently lose in order to claim bonuses. But, they must lose enough to cover costs for other things such as; payment processing, Microgaming's cut, staff, stockholder dividends, and so forth. And if someone is only taking the higher bonuses, it's not going to be enough to pay for all those things; even if you are just playing slots or mainly slots.

What I'm stuck on:
- Why don't they tell people that they can only remain profitable by giving players the lower % bonuses?
Other casinos do this. I visited an accredited casino just recently and I complained about the high playthrough of their bonuses. They said they can't remain profitable and offer a lower playthrough. There's nothing wrong with that.

- Why don't they start offering bonuses that reflect what they can truly afford to give?

- And if they don't fix these problems; can they still be considered an ethical casino? A casino that offers 100% bonuses, which can only really afford to give 50% (or whatever) seems a bit questionable to my mind.

 

[dionysus]

Because there's also the element of individuality.
Example, someone who grinds and successfully cashed out bonuses is probably less likely to keep receiving them, and others who play for fun or blow back winnings every time can afford to receive them.

And there's other factors: goodwill, loyalty, discretion.

There's no real a+b = C but rather a hundred things to look at.
It's ethical - piss poor managers and CS who don't know what they're doing will get tossed; savvy ones will remain.

We've seen casinos offer poorly designed promos and sink, and others offering clever ones lasting the distance.

ALL a casino has to do is remain fair. Fair does not mean 'Player A should receive what player B received'

 

[petro]

I'm still examining this topic.

I can quote myself from several posts in the past saying: "Casinos should be free to give bonuses/do business with whomever they please."
But now that I'm the one bonus banned, it's harder to swallow.

I think there's some importance in understanding the reasons behind the actions of casinos.
Take this for example: We all accept the idea that casinos can choose to do business with whomever they please.
Let's say if someone uses a roulette system at a casino. After, the casino says: "We don't want this guy as a customer because he used a system."
That seems OK if we refer back to the rule: Casinos can pick and choose their customers.

Any way you look at it, a casino would have to be out of it's mind to ban a player just for using a roulette system. And because they are acting crazy it increases the chance for the casino to try something even crazier; like stealing winnings. (It's true.)

There's a definite link between player safety and straight-up bans/bonus bans. It might not be a large enough link for someone like Max to be concerned about but as a player, for your own safety it's important to know the reasons why people get banned/bonus banned.