I will provide a general defense of my self-proclaimed status as dispassionate. I am dispassionate in the sense that I entered this environment with no previous bias or experience. I was not bitten by a feral casino as a lad. Until I began my analysis, I had no opinions about them or the industry either way.
After analysis of the industry landscape, I came to my conclusions. I was a judge adjudicating a case, as it were. So while my conclusion is not fundamentally dispassionate, the process by which I reached that conclusion certainly was.
That said, I will concede the point to keep the thread on target, since I see the issue as semantic. I have explained my reasoning, so even though the word is in contention, the meaning that I was attempting to communicate is not.
I also want to address the frequent usage of the phrase “fact of life” when describing T&C's. I find this absurd. Fact of life implies something that is a necessary part of a system. Unalterable. Inescapable.
This is obviously false. T&C's are part of the current system, but there is nothing about them that says that the gambling industry couldn't be made without them. This is not idealism. This is simply a statement about the way things could be, and the way I want things to be.
I understand fully that gamblers like bonuses. As others have also said, I see this as a major problem. Primarily, this probably helps to explain the poor quality of so many casinos' products. They aren't selling games. They aren't selling the casino experience. They are selling bonuses. As such, they are concentrating on the bonuses and the things wrapped up with that. So in a sense, their product is actually very good!
Casinos need to get rid of the current bonus system, though. They need to stop selling that product. The fustercluck created by them is only getting worse, as many here have pointed out with wistful remembrances of a time when bonuses were 10% with no wager requirement.
The immediate solution that I see is a “pay as you go” bonus system. You still get the bonus, but since you only ever start with your original deposit, there is no threat of guaranteed loss for the casino, and the player can leave whenever they want... assuming that there isn't a 72-hour hold or anything ridiculous.
This is what physical casinos do. When I am staying in New England (In the US), I frequently go to Foxwoods Casino. I'm sure many of you have at least heard of it. It has what it calls the “Wampum Bucks” program. When you gamble, you earn Wampum Bucks which can be spent on things in the casino. You can buy chips, food, hotel stays, spa visits, etc. It's essentially a bonus program but where the bonus happens
after you gamble. The online casino world has it backwards.
This is only one idea, though! I'm sure that there are many ideas that could be implemented that have the same end result for the player without asinine restrictions. Good business is innovative business.
It has become clear from the op of the op, and their answers to the points i raised, that his POV is actually quite simple, and didn't require 1000+ words....
...I.E.....every problem related to online gambling is the casino's fault.
Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.
They create the games.
They create the marketing.
They create the websites.
They create the industry. If there is something wrong with it, it is most certainly their fault.
The responsibility falls on them to create something better; to create a superior product. My only responsibility is to buy it once created, which I will happily do.
He is prepared to excuse any and all cases of poor judgement, poor choice, and ignorance by the player......but not the casino.
No. You're stretching what I am saying. I'm saying that
players should get the benefit of the doubt, not that they should be excused. I am attacking the casinos for creating a poor product because they are the creators of the industry. Likewise, I am attacking you because in your formulation, the only evidence of poor judgment, poor choice, and ignorance is the end result. If you have ever had problems, then you are obviously guilty of all three crimes.
If you take a pill, then anything that happens as a result is the manufacturers fault. After all, they held the person down physically and forced the pill down their throats.
I consider this a bit of a tangent, but it actually blows my mind, so I felt that I had to address it. Have you read any books about the drug industry? Have you seen the documentaries? Did you read about the controversy surrounding Elsevier journals
literally being bought by drug companies to publish positive results of drug trials?
Likewise, what about tobacco companies? Their active suppression of research showing that cigarettes are addictive and harmful? I recommend watching the new documentary Addiction Incorporated.
When the industry controls so much of the narrative about itself, even doing research is no guarantee that you won't get hurt.
Well I say "Vote 1 for thelastcylon!". The era of choice without responsibility is here!. You can lose your savings playing the casinos, and get it all refunded because it's not your fault! You can buy some prescription pills from a street dealer and sue the manufacturer for any side effects.....because its not your fault! You can drive a manual car without knowing how to change gears, have an accident, and sue the car maker....because its not your fault!
You're mocking me, aren't you?
This entire paragraph is a straw man. I'm not saying that casinos are responsible for those who gamble in them. I'm saying that the casinos are responsible for their product, and that product, by and large, sucks in some pretty egregious ways.
<tangent>Likewise, while I don't blame the casino for people who lose their shirts, I also don't blame the player. I feel bad for them. I remember reading about gambling addiction back in my psych classes in college and how even otherwise level-headed people can get carried away.
Everyone here undoubtedly understands the concept of “chasing one's losses.” It's not simply a case of self control.
I remember when I quit smoking. My parents both smoked. It was the early 1960's.
everyone smoked. Not surprisingly, I started when I was young. My grandmother honestly,
honestly thought it was good for you.
Was smoking a personal choice? Should I be mocked and ridiculed for doing something so unhealthy when I was encouraged to do it?
And when I quit, it was like a switch went off in my head. It was sudden. One day, I no longer wanted to smoke. I haven't for over ten years. Was that a personal choice? Should I be complimented on my strength of will?
I don't think so. I didn't make the choice. It simply happened.</tangent>
See the pattern here? I'm not "some other type of player"....I'M AN ADULT who can READ and WRITE and am prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. I would say the vast majority here are the same as me. The other small % are those who believe in free choice with zero responsibility, and blame the casinos and/or everyone else for not reading terms of the bonuses they take. If the terms are awful DON'T take the bonus. It's OK for 99% of us, so why should the ignorant get a free pass?
Exactly, and anyone else who doesn't do what you have done are obviously illiterate children. You are still classifying yourself differently from many others who, I think, rightfully expected a casino and instead what they got was a company that sells bonuses attached to something that looks like a casino. Basically, your position appears to be “if you have never had a problem, than you are smart like me. If you have ever had a problem, you're obviously a moron.”
You attack me for having an extreme perspective on the casinos, but your position seems just as extreme, only the opposite orientation.
And again, you're stretching what I'm saying. I am not saying that people should not be held responsible for their actions.
I'm saying that the industry should be held responsible for creating a poor product and an environment where people are getting shafted.
You see, your arguments would be sound if humans were brainless drones who don't have the ability to choose for themselves.....but 99% of us aren't.
And your arguments would be sound if it was impossible for people to make mistakes. I'm saying that people make mistakes, even smart people, and that this industry is primed to cause any type of person to make mistakes that will cost them money.
The best way to initiate change is to vote with your wallet. Nothing else is going to even scratch the surface.
That is exactly what I'm saying. I'm also saying that what I want to vote for
is not yet on the market. That is why I'm posting all of this. I want a better casino, and I am quite ready to vote when it arrives.
Could not have said it better myself.
I intensely dislike the excessive bonusing culture that has evolved in this industry, and the disputes and disruption that it daily generates, but if there was no player take-up, there would be little point in operators offering hese inducements, and I fear that in a competitive environment they are here to stay for as long as a significant proportion of the gambling community takes them...and the risks they entail.
In the real world, T&Cs are everywhere, and necessarily so to spell out the rights and obligations of both sides to a transaction.
I can't disagree with this, but again, what I'm arguing is that the bonus system doesn't need to be here. A good, innovative business would work to eliminate the elements of their model that are problematic. And regardless of whether you place blame for this situation on the casino or the player, this situation is
undeniably problematic.
Just to add my worthless two cents...
Casinos have been FORCED into to writing these mega-paged, mind-boggling, need-to-be-a-lawyer-to-understand T&Cs because human nature has created players who have created every possible scenerio from playing honestly to plying every trick imaginable. (Now how's that for a run-on sentence???) There was a member here just a few months ago who posted about hacking one of the casinos/softwares/games (?) to place bets that shouldn't have been allowed. It's players' like this that T&Cs are molded after. Or the player who "accidently" makes 170 spins@ $110, or the player who has multiple accounts at a casino but "geesh" I forgot I already took the SUB and opened another new account, etc.,etc.,etc...
They have been forced to do nothing. And it's not just human nature that has created this fustercluck, it is also the business model of the casinos.
Your first example isn't valid. Violating a T&C and hacking a system are different things. I don't understand your second example. Your third example is a problem caused by an industry that is selling bonuses and not games. Change the business model, fix the problem.
If casinos weren't faced daily, with scammers/trickster/cheats, but who only had HONEST players, then the need for T&Cs would be obsolete. But this will never happen. The only way to insure YOURSELF from being free of entrapment from T&Cs, is to play bonusfree or to not play at all.
I disagree with this completely for multiple reasons. First, even if all players were honest,
T&C's would still be here to provide casinos with excuses to avoid payouts. That's why we have so man PAB's that turn out to be valid and result either in payment or rogue status. Second, there are many players who are undoubtedly honest and make mistakes. Finally, your last point is a realization that many people will have after already having been tricked. We need to demand the industry to change so this is no longer a reality.
The pressure for change must come from the players, the ones depositing their hard earned money.
I agree. Which is why I want to see a better casino, so I can deposit my money there.
The 10 quote reply towards Max is ambiguous.
What? How so?
Anyone thinking that online is the same as land based, well might be offline them self.
This is a sweeping statement. You will need to explain it.
I can assure you as the US moves forward with IGaming, T & C's will exist, unlike walking into a land based casino.
Again, please elaborate.
You know, there really are just a few basic rules to follow if one is going to take a bonus:
1. Always check restricted games.
2. Check maximum bet restrictions.
3. Check wagering requirements.
4. Check casinomeister forums for any reviews.
The first two points should require no effort on the part of the player.
They should be designed into the casino architecture. This would be a very easy thing to program.
The third point is one of the few things that should actually be included in the T&C's. My primary criticism of this is that few, if any, casinos provide this information right up front. I have never seen a casino that has a big star next to the giant SUB image on their home page that points to some small text below it indicating that restrictions apply.
Your fourth point isn't of much use. People are supposed to just
know about Casinomeister? New players are supposed to just enter the market already armed with knowledge about the bonus system and all of the ways that they can be locked? I knew about Casinomeister because of a friend. Obviously, it's no guarantee that I would have been screwed, but being
given the knowledge of Casinomeister's existence did much to help me. Pity those to whom the information is not given.
Almost every issue is a result of NOT doing the things above, and they're mostly common sense, and I don't have an ounce of sympathy for them. It is these players that blow in like a force 10 gale, typing in caps, throwing accusations around.....all because they're angry...and they should be.....at themselves. However, instead of suffering the consequences of not making themselves aware of the terms they agreed to in the first place, it is far easier to drum up some support from the usual suspects in the forums and make oneself into a victim. Actually, they are a victim....of their own carelessness.
Knowing that a bonus will have a thing called a WR is common sense? I shall put myself into the shoes of someone with common sense. They expect a casino to operate as a casino. They expect that if they put money in, they should be able to get that money out.
If I accept a bonus, both of those common sense concepts go out the window.
If 50%, or even 5%, of players had issues with confiscation of winnings due to breach of terms, then i would consider that bonus terms are a bad thing and join the crusade....but 99% of players don't have an issue with taking time to read terms and clarify what they don't understand, so I'll stay in the "you make your bed, you lie in it" camp.
These are unsupported bits of data. My own anecdotal evidence indicates that many more players than you seem to want to admit have problems, and not just with confiscated winnings. Certainly more than 1%. Am I wrong? Possibly. But where's the data?
Even if 100% of players were happy, my attacks would still have teeth. My points would be more theoretical, but just as valid. An online casino can operate as a real casino with standard casino rules and logic and still have bonuses. This is a better solution since it eliminates the need for T&C's, which makes it a fundamentally simpler and more efficient system.
Your points above are not the kinds of terms we are talking about when it comes to this discussion.
Yes they are. I'm very much concerned with wager requirements and bonuses and I thought that was clear in my posts.
One thing you said is very important.....ASSUMES. Any person entering any agreement, gambling related or not, involving money, that ASSUMES anything is asking for trouble. It really does come down to common sense.....if your first reaction to an offer of something free isn't "what's the catch", then bonus terms are the least of your worries.
I agree with Chopley. Your assumptions are colored by years of online gaming experience. From the perspective of a new online gambler, the common sense concept is that there is no catch with online gambling.
Gambling is the catch. You are mathematically guaranteed to lose money. That's one hell of a catch.
If I saw a bonus, or anything that seemed too good to be true, I'd assume that it was intended to keep me in the casino longer, so I would spend more money. My logic would assume that, while I would not have access to the bonus money initially, I could always take my
own money and leave at any time.
And even if I assumed that my money was locked, and that I would have to play some huge wager requirement, I would never have thought that I would limited in my game choice or my wager size. If anything, those two things actually go
against my initial assumption of the bonus being intended to make me spend more money and keep me in the casino longer, both of which are ends that benefit from me gambling more on a greater number of games.
I know all about being a newb. I was one, and I see them all the time here.
Yes, you were a newb once. But you were a newb back in the days of 10% bonuses and no WR. The world in which you cut your teeth was very different from today specifically because of this escalating war of bonuses that I am now attacking.
My experience tells me that only some newbs run into trouble with bonuses.....so, if the terms are so awful and predatory, why don't all newbs get into trouble? Well a big differentiator is where they begin their journey. A newb who finds CM very early or even beforehand has a huge advantage. A newb who finds first a site like (wherefootdrwent.com), with sections devoted to "casino whoring", is going to find out the hard way why casinos have a lot of restrictions on bonuses (not 20 pages...way OTT).
You seem to be arguing for my point, here. You explicitly say that people who find CM early on have an easy time. How can you reconcile this with your argument of free will when something that is heavily dependent on happenstance can play such a critical part in people's online gaming?
Irresponsible and greedy affiliates are very much a part of the reason there are so many hoops to jump through. The casinos are businesses that need to protect themselves. If you had a business, and had websites popping up by the day telling everyone how to take advantage of your promotions/ products purely for profit etc, you would absolutely have to continually tweak your terms to combat the small sections of people who always try to take a mile when you give an inch.
Or you would ditch the increasingly toxic business model that gives affiliates such power.
My 'clean' record has nothing to do with anything other than common sense and due diligence. If a term is in writing and I agree to it, and I didnt bother to read AND understand it, then its my problem. I can't tell you how many times I've contacted support before playing to get written clarification of a rule, and a few times it has saved me from some bad decisions.
You, by your own admission, are an intelligent and informed person (as I re-read this, I realized it could be taken as a back-handed compliment. This was not intended). You read and understand. And yet you are defending a system that allows terms & conditions to be so poorly written as to require you to
directly contact the casino and have your analysis be contradicted?
My mind is blown. That is not a good system. If your intelligent, informed, experienced analysis was proven wrong, some poor guy coming in for the first time is screwed. That is bad. That is not worth defending. That is worth attacking and deriding.
It is worth it to demand better.
Most complaints aren't actually about not understanding terms....they are about understanding them and trying to circumvent or bend them to ones own advantage I.e. the old "the rules only apply to everyone else" mentality.
Again, I think that you are overestimating your numbers. You yourself said that you were confused enough by T&C's before to require direct contact with the casino to clarify. Not only are these legal documents, they are poorly written legal documents, begging to be misinterpreted.
You see, these kinds of players know EXACTLY what they're doing, as they're trying to improve their odds by deliberately trying to find loopholes in terms
I've expressed it before, but I shall elaborate more fully here. Maybe this is a philosophical difference, but I think that
this is what players should do. The point of the player in the casino is to try to earn money within the terms of the game. In casino games, they try to improve their odds through “systems” and “patterns” and any number of other weird things.
It's the same thing, though less superstitious, for players who choose to play slots with the highest RTP's, or place certain bets in baccarat, craps, and roulette. Players try to increase their odds. When the “game” becomes a legal one involving obtuse bonuses and legal documents, the casinos should not be surprised when the players step up to play that game;
the casinos are the ones who set out the board.
I don't do this, but not because I see it as unseemly or scummy, but because I don't want to play a legal game.
I want to play freaking blackjack. Likewise, I don't grant players of this game amnesty, as it were, like I do to the players that have been tricked (although I do accord the benefit of the doubt to all players). These people played a game and they understood the rules. If they lose the T&C argument, they essentially lost the “game.” I feel for them, because they lost money, which sucks, but that's the way things go.
Very impressive, bulk-wise, but you're still barking up the wrong tree IMO. I admire your dedication to your project -- really, I do! -- but I do think you've wandered off into the tall grass a bit here.
