Accredited Casino new rule suggestion?

[vinylweatherman]

Notwithstanding the other heated arguments, a cap of 500 in currency per week which is ONLY applied to Neteller, Moneybookers, and Click2Pay is inherently "unfair", since it bears NO relation to the functionality of these wallets, and I have extensive experience of the functionality of Neteller, and a little of Click2Pay. The limit should be the SAME for ALL methods of payment. We are talking here of the PLAYER'S MONEY, not the HOUSE'S. The difference between these limits is HUGE, a factor of 10 no less. A player withdrawing a win via these three wallets has to wait TEN TIMES LONGER than for any other means.

If an accredited casino has these limits, they MUST provide an EXPLANATION as to why this has proved necessary.

I have been paid 20,000 IN ONE DAY back to my Neteller by both Jackpot Factory and 32Red before, so this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "Neteller limits" other than my PERSONAL limits at Neteller, which casinos are NOT privvy to.

Payment back to my Neteller account is MUCH SAFER than having a cheque sent through the post. I have read MANY tales from players who were sent cheques that never arrived, and the SEVERE problems this can create with getting the cheque cancelled, and reissued; sometimes to disappear again. Payment back to my Neteller is also MUCH QUICKER, there is NO other method of payment that makes my funds available so SOON for more gambling.

 

[RobWin]

If an accredited casino has these limits, they MUST provide an EXPLANATION as to why this has proved necessary.

That I can agree on as it may be simply due to a reason of sorts that they do not desire to pay the high fees associated with ewallet transactions on larger amounts. Maybe the EH Rep can come in here and clarify.
____
____

 

[JHV]

That I can agree on as it may be simply due to a reason of sorts that they do not desire to pay the high fees associated with ewallet transactions on larger amounts. Maybe the EH Rep can come in here and clarify.

There are literally innumerable incredibly valid reasons (that players shouldn't be asked to justify, explain in detail or list sequentially) that limits them to their depositing method as their only withdrawing method.

I actually have no problem at all with $500/w caps on expensive deposit methods (I don't believe MB is expensive at all though - relatively speaking) and things like that - but only if those caps are relative to players' deposit limits, table limits, etc. And if you're running tournaments with $50,000 1st place, and a customer who's only option is Moneybookers (for reasons he or she shouldn't have to justify), then paying out that prizemoney over 2 years.....that's not appropriate imo.

So two questions for you please Rob:

1. If the reason was cost of fees for these processors (reason for the tiny $500 cap on weekly w/d), do you think that amount is then justified for withdrawals whilst deposits are uncapped and potential to wager is as high as $20,000 a minute or w/e?

2. Can you explain to me how my statement $500/w cap is somehow seemingly untruthful or misleading to you when all over this forum, people talk about terms that don't apply to high rollers or VIPs etc? Do you see what I mean? Just because *some* people aren't limited to that cap, doesn't mean the cap isn't a real cap. My statement about the cap being there is 100% valid and truthful. I shouldn't have to qualify it with every caveat and exception and clause that apply to others. For some people, it's their cap! For you (and for me, fwiw), our cap is $5000/w. But what good does that do to someone for whom it's $500/w? They sit warm in the knowledge that JHV and Robwin aren't capped at those low levels? I don't think they'll find that comforting when facing a two-year payout for winning a monthly tourney.

 

[RobWin]

There are literally innumerable incredibly valid reasons (that players shouldn't be asked to justify, explain in detail or list sequentially) that limits them to their depositing method as their only withdrawing method.

I actually have no problem at all with $500/w caps on expensive deposit methods (I don't believe MB is expensive at all though - relatively speaking) and things like that - but only if those caps are relative to players' deposit limits, table limits, etc. And if you're running tournaments with $50,000 1st place, and a customer who's only option is Moneybookers (for reasons he or she shouldn't have to justify), then paying out that prizemoney over 2 years.....that's not appropriate imo.

I agree!

So two questions for you please Rob:

1. If the reason was cost of fees for these processors (reason for the tiny $500 cap on weekly w/d), do you think that amount is then justified for withdrawals whilst deposits are uncapped and potential to wager is as high as $20,000 a minute or w/e?

Absolutely not. You see, I agree with you again..

2. Can you explain to me how my statement $500/w cap is somehow seemingly untruthful or misleading to you

We have already been over this one Ad nauseam here as you well know. Just read my post above a few more times and you will hopefully see.. https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/accredited-casino-new-rule-suggestion.34390/

Just because *some* people aren't limited to that cap, doesn't mean the cap isn't a real cap.

It's absolutely a real cap but on ewallets not on the "Accredited Casino" as a whole as you originally stated in your first post.

My statement about the cap being there is 100% valid and truthful.

As far as those ewallets go you are correct and I never disputed that or even disagreed with you on that fact...hell, I even stated it several times myself.

I shouldn't have to qualify it with every caveat and exception and clause that apply to others.

Yes you do, when you are making broad statements such as the one you originally made which is in fact still not true. Why do you think Bryan even questioned you on that one?

For some people, it's their cap! For you (and for me, fwiw), our cap is $5000/w.

Lets be absolutely clear here...everyone's cap is $5,000 if they choose to use the withdrawal method that the casino allows for the $5,000 and also that the player agreed to when they signed up there.
____
____

 

[Jasminebed]

Casinos reserve the right to pay a player by whatever means they like.

The japanese yen example is extreme...I think most terms and conditions say a player will be paid in the currency they play in.

The best casinos do their utmost to accommodate a player's preferred method of payment, or they return payments via the methods used for deposits. But we often see complaints regarding such issues, and while perhaps not ideal outcomes, it is not rogue IMO if the player is paid by a method other than their first choice.

My prepaid Mastercard cannot be paid back to. If you limit my ability to withdraw to Moneybookers to $500, you can still send it by wire to me, or by cheque. I would expect a casino to work with me to find a way to pay me their weekly cap as advertised.

I might not be thrilled with having to wait for a foreign cheque to clear, or going to a Western Union office to collect my winnings. But it would be my choice, or accept $500/week.

I think that when you discuss a casino's payment caps, that must be taken into account.

If JHV has an experience of English Harbour not honouring their $5,000 weekly payments by a METHOD OF THEIR CHOOSING, then that is a matter of a casino breaking their terms, not of having terms of only $500/week.

Please don't respond with your specifics JHV, I would hate to see your opportunity to PAB restricted by continued participating in airing dirty laundry in public.

 

[JHV]

Lets be absolutely clear here...everyone's cap is $5,000 if they choose to use the withdrawal method that the casino allows for the $5,000 and also that the player agreed to when they signed up there.

Look I can see your point. I disagree with it, I think maybe you underestimate how many players really are restricted to 500/w caps, but I definitely see your point. Perhaps I should have made it more clear the 500/w for just for eWallets - still think I'm mostly right though, just due to sheer numbers, but for the length of my posts....I concede I can't really stand on the "can't list every caveat" excuse lol.

But I actually think (and I could be totally wrong) that Bryan was more like "wait wat!?" because, until very recently, it was 5000/w for those eWallets at this group. They just made that huge reduction not long ago, and yes I've asked for a reason and one is yet to be given to me - it could be that MB/NETeller/C2P are total pricks (for want of a better word) at the moment. I'm having an interesting discussion with VWM in another thread where he mentioned MB was starting to get excluded by some merchants (my position on NETeller is widely known already and it's not a positive one) - coupled with the fact that MB have started promoting Rogues on their site and will wash their hands clean of the inevitable Rogue behaviour...makes me wonder if MB hasn't gone the way of NETeller (which would be really sad).

I'm itching to post some stuff here which would blow you back in your chair, but I'm holding off as I still believe overall CasinoCoins are a damn good operation (at least I think they try to be, and that's good enough for me) - there are just some big issues we have to work out and if I jumped the gun and posted everything I had, it could potentially be unfair to them if their reasons for various things here and there were valid and stuff. And you can search my posting history on Millionaire and Caribbean Gold and you'll see my position on this group since I started playing there very clearly.

 

[RobWin]

Look I can see your point. I disagree with it, I think maybe you underestimate how many players really are restricted to 500/w caps, but I definitely see your point. Perhaps I should have made it more clear the 500/w for just for eWallets - still think I'm mostly right though, just due to sheer numbers, but for the length of my posts....I concede I can't really stand on the "can't list every caveat" excuse lol.

LOL, I too agree with this "can't list every caveat" excuse lol"... I'm also glad to see that you now see the point I was making...

And you can search my posting history on Millionaire and Caribbean Gold and you'll see my position on this group since I started playing there very clearly.

Yea, I know you like them, as far as I'm concerned they are a good group and I too like them since I have been playing there for a long time as well.
____
____

 

[Casinomeister]

Man, go away for a few hours....

I was unaware of the $500 cap for some of the payment limits (perhaps a typo?). I'm going to confirm this with the casino peeps to see what's up. $500 a week for Neteller seems a little off.

As for Nash's sig quote "All casinos want you to play back your winnings." I don't see how one comment from a casino manager can be as sweeping as this. With my eleven years in the industry, I would tend to disagree with that comment.

Casinos want repeat loyal customers, just like any business - especially those focused on entertainment. Casinos that are in it for the long term understand that players will win, players will lose. Players are happy when they win and when their losses are minimal - or just forgettable. Players who win big and cash out quickly are happy players (in most cases) and will benefit the company in the long run by spreading the good word.

Players who play back their winnings are usually miserable sad sacks afterwords, and will probably not come back or will not even talk about the casino at all due to their embarrassment. Wanting a player to play back their winnings is bad business philosophy, and has tunnel-vision for short term goals. Read - always fighting an uphill battle.

The online casino business is extremely competitive and casinos can lose players by the click of a button - unlike their B&M brethren. I keep going back to the Wynn because I like the rooms and the set up of the Hotel = eye-candy. It has nothing to do whether I win or lose there. Online casinos are nearly the total opposite. Players are focused on their winnings and the ability to cash these out quickly or within an acceptable time frame.

Wanting players to play back winnings is misguided - and those who feel this way do not clearly understand the fundamentals of this business. I can understand some affiliates feeling this way, or some casino managers - if so, they need to be retrained or follow the Casinomeister Philosophy of online gaming.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Casinos reserve the right to pay a player by whatever means they like.

Casinos reserve the right to invoke the FU TERM also. Another "casino apologist", yes??????????

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Man, go away for a few hours....

I did for ~ 2 months....OOPS, I know not directed at moi,yet,LOL!!

Players who play back their winnings are usually miserable sad sacks afterwords, and will probably not come back or will not even talk about the casino at all due to their embarrassment. Wanting a player to play back their winnings is bad business philosophy

Agree to disagree and I will not call out any member (but I could) other than myself. Not 'ed either ftr. Mid 9 figures in total wagers may not equate to your 11 years but you can not deny I am experienced, maybe stubborn, yes??

I keep going back to the Wynn because I like the rooms and the set up of the Hotel = eye-candy.

+1

Wanting players to play back winnings is misguided - and those who feel this way do not clearly understand the fundamentals of this business. I can understand some affiliates feeling this way, or some casino managers - if so, they need to be retrained

+2, FULLY AGREE

Care to address why the Player in the subject situations must capitalize online casinos that do not pay in full or via installments. No different than debt or Bond fundamentals especially when the Player's subject deposits exceed installment payments??.........really nothing more than a psuedo-ponzi scheme..........See Alan Stanford "It's great to be a billionaire"

 

[vinylweatherman]

Casinos reserve the right to pay a player by whatever means they like.

The japanese yen example is extreme...I think most terms and conditions say a player will be paid in the currency they play in.

The best casinos do their utmost to accommodate a player's preferred method of payment, or they return payments via the methods used for deposits. But we often see complaints regarding such issues, and while perhaps not ideal outcomes, it is not rogue IMO if the player is paid by a method other than their first choice.

My prepaid Mastercard cannot be paid back to. If you limit my ability to withdraw to Moneybookers to $500, you can still send it by wire to me, or by cheque. I would expect a casino to work with me to find a way to pay me their weekly cap as advertised.

I might not be thrilled with having to wait for a foreign cheque to clear, or going to a Western Union office to collect my winnings. But it would be my choice, or accept $500/week.

I think that when you discuss a casino's payment caps, that must be taken into account.

If JHV has an experience of English Harbour not honouring their $5,000 weekly payments by a METHOD OF THEIR CHOOSING, then that is a matter of a casino breaking their terms, not of having terms of only $500/week.

Please don't respond with your specifics JHV, I would hate to see your opportunity to PAB restricted by continued participating in airing dirty laundry in public.

Fine, if there is a good reason for this, but there have been some complaints that payment has been DELIBERATELY made by a method inconvenient to a particular player because of a "sour grapes" attitude by management, such as "how DARE you win off that bonus".

When players get together in a forum, and MOST are getting paid back to a particular method, and ONE player seems to have trouble in this respect, there does seem to be an element of "sour grapes" behind the casino's decision.

Casinos KNOW that cheques can sometimes not only be invonvenient, but IMPOSSIBLE for a player to receive payment by. This would be down to local practices, and even the practices of individual banks. The purpose of these ewallets was to PREVENT such problems, with players having a central repository for their gambling funds which was designed SPECIFICALLY for the task. Neteller even have the Net+ card available for those players who cannot use bank transfer or cheque to get their money out of "gambling mode", and into spending.

If there really IS a recent reduction to $500 per week for these wallets, it would CERTAINLY keep me well away from playing at such casinos, except perhaps with VERY SMALL deposits, which in turn means they do not stand to make much money from me, even in the long term.

I have often deposited THOUSANDS with casinos from Neteller, but I KNOW that if I were to double this, or more through play, I would get paid, and ALL IN ONE GO. This is particularly the case during events such as "Birthday Fiesta" at Red Flush (now you know why you lot lost to ME). Since it comes back to Neteller, it is available straight away for another event, whereas I could be waiting a WEEK or more for a cheque to work it's way into my bank, and even then it is NOT readily available since cards often get blocked at relatively low volume limits, because they are RISKIER for both merchant & bank.

 

[Simmo!]

I think it's quite realistic to have weekly withdrawal limits in place if you have a bonus offer and a player isn't yet ID'ed. This caps any potential fraud and unfortunately the actions of a few idiots affect everyone. However, I think if withdrawal limits stay in place after a casino has done it's checks on a player then this is less acceptable.

I wouldn't say it's unacceptable though - as long as it's clearly laid out in the terms - but speaking personally it would put me off. Medium/High Rollers who read the T&C's I suspect would be put off playing. Many don't obviously, but then invariably you get the negative PR at places like Casinomeister when they realise the cap's in place. The savvy operator will spot a roller and remove the limits though I suspect, but it's mere presence as aterm might mean they miss the opportunity to get a high roller through the door in the first place.

Finally, to many players it indicates a small operator and infers that funds are limited. I can only think of 1 MG group with weekly limits, but conversely I can only think of 3 RTG's without them. But $500 sounds ludicrously low and as Meister said, it might be a typo. The ones I know are all between $2k and $4k.

Cheers

Simmo!

 

[NASHVEGAS]

I wouldn't say it's unacceptable though - as long as it's clearly laid out in the terms -

So terms equate to acceptance. Afterall, we are masters of our own domain just like Madoff's investors

but speaking personally it would put me off.

Speaking of hedge funds, LOL , nice hedge

Medium/High Rollers who read the T&C's I suspect would be put off laying. Many don't obviously,

As CM said himself only 5 or so casinos ,iirc, would be accredited. What choice does that leave the "Medium/High Rollers"? Answer: the same it has CM's business model.

Cheers

Simmo!

Cheers back at you

 

[JHV]

NashVegas, I think you're coming across too strong on one side of the debate.

You have valid points but you need to understand the other side has valid points also. There are genuinely huge complications that online operators face with keeping every withdrawal method they offer fully funded - money flies around between their accounts at each payment processor (obviously).

It's not comparable to a land-based operator who deals primarily in cash or cheque or bank wire for withdrawals.

Limits are fine. We're just discussing here what kind of limit caps are appropriate.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think it's quite realistic to have weekly withdrawal limits in place if you have a bonus offer and a player isn't yet ID'ed. This caps any potential fraud and unfortunately the actions of a few idiots affect everyone. However, I think if withdrawal limits stay in place after a casino has done it's checks on a player then this is less acceptable.

I wouldn't say it's unacceptable though - as long as it's clearly laid out in the terms - but speaking personally it would put me off. Medium/High Rollers who read the T&C's I suspect would be put off playing. Many don't obviously, but then invariably you get the negative PR at places like Casinomeister when they realise the cap's in place. The savvy operator will spot a roller and remove the limits though I suspect, but it's mere presence as aterm might mean they miss the opportunity to get a high roller through the door in the first place.

Finally, to many players it indicates a small operator and infers that funds are limited. I can only think of 1 MG group with weekly limits, but conversely I can only think of 3 RTG's without them. But $500 sounds ludicrously low and as Meister said, it might be a typo. The ones I know are all between $2k and $4k.

Cheers

Simmo!

Club USA is $3000, I once won almost $9000 and had to wait three weeks for the staged withdrawal. With a $500 cap, it could have been 18 weeks!

It's not just the limit, it is how LOW it is compared to the normal weekly cap. It still suggests a problem at the group, maybe the wallets don't trust them, and have given them a limited merchant account.
This has happened before with Playtech, where the eventual explanation from some operators was that they needed some "paperwork" from Playtech HQ which was not forthcoming, and the wallets limited their merchant accounts for a while.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Limits are fine. We're just discussing here what kind of limit caps are appropriate.

Agree with Intertops who will send $10K per day for reasons you may allude to. $2K to $4K per week which many times has been less than my deposits, I'm not flexible.

 

[JHV]

Agree with Intertops who will send $10K per day for reasons you may allude to. $2K to $4K per week which many times has been less than my deposits, I'm not flexible.

100% agree with you when the amount being withdrawn via that method is less than the deposits you've made via that method - *and* the caps are small or tiny. I have faced this exact situation numerous times and it doesn't 'feel' fair or 'right'.

I genuinely feel this is the real issue. I will defend the right of this group or any group to have any sized caps they want, even tiny ones like 500/w. It's only when they're willing to accept very high incoming $ from those same payment processors, as well as allowing very high levels of wagering with that money, only to then restrict withdrawals to token amounts....that you could be forgiven for wondering: "Well, is this really concerns over managing balances across the range of processors or concerns over players having the nerve to cashout?"

 

[Casinomeister]

Word back from EH stating that the $500 a week for Moneybookers, Neteller and Click2Pay is not a typo. This was implemented to counter the recent flood of fraud that they (and a number of other casino groups) have been dealt with.

And a reminder - there are plenty of other payment options (Bank Wire, Usemywallet, MyCitadel, Ecocard $5K a week, etc.) that they offer.