Accredited Casino new rule suggestion?

[baabaa006]

I have noticed a number of threads showing disappointment at maximum cashout limits at Casino's.

This is not a cap on the amount that can be won from a ND bonus but a maximum daily/weekly limit on the amount that can be withdrawn if you manage to win something.

Now these same Casino's will happily take unlimited deposits but once you withdraw they say you can make a maximum withdrawal of $nnnn.

There is no valid logic behind these terms except to try and encourage you to play back your winnings.

For this I believe any accredited casino should have to honour the full amount of any withdrawal request.

 

[Roanan]

I have noticed a number of threads showing disappointment at maximum cashout limits at Casino's.

This is not a cap on the amount that can be won from a ND bonus but a maximum daily/weekly limit on the amount that can be withdrawn if you manage to win something.

Now these same Casino's will happily take unlimited deposits but once you withdraw they say you can make a maximum withdrawal of $nnnn.

There is no valid logic behind these terms except to try and encourage you to play back your winnings.

For this I believe any accredited casino should have to honour the full amount of any withdrawal request.

Land based casinos are required to have enough cash on hand to cover every chip in play on the floor plus all progressives combined. At least that is the case for Nevada and British Columbia casinos. The state/provincial laws makes that a requirement.

Last time I checked, online casinos weren't based in either jurisdiction and have no such requirements.

Until draconian laws, such as the UIGEA, get lifted and Canada and the USA can start housing and licensing online casinos and implementing similar requirements to the brick-and-mortars, this will always be a problem.

 

[elscrabinda]

I can see the logic in casinos having max cashout limits, but I think that:

a) Progressive jackpots should not be subject to such limits as I believe such money is held centrally by the software provider and can therefore be made available instantly

and b) that if a casino has absurdly low cashout limits, players should come to their own conclusions about the reliability of playing at such a place. Casinos should realise that whilst it may help their cashflow to have such limits it makes them look amateur and short of cash

 

[The Dude]

If we were to remove all casinos that have cashout limits from the Accredited Casino section, there would probably be about five left .

You can't compare the banking processes of online casinos with their brick and mortar counterparts since online casinos are just that - online. And they challenges that change daily - money transfers and constant regulatory and banking policy changes. It's a very complex situation and I'm sure most operators would agree with this. You have to be one your toes - especially if you cater to US players.

As long as the payments are reasonable, I don't see a problem. Progressive jackpot wins that are pooled ought to be exempt - and they are for the casinos listed in here (except for the Wager Works casinos - read the disclaimer).

Players need to exercise restraint when dealing with these payments and not play them back. That's strictly up to them.

 

[JHV]

I agree with Bryan but who determines what is the "reasonable" amount? There are Accredited List casinos currently listed who would happily accept $100,000 from me instantly, let me wager $20,000/minute...BUT they have a $500/week payout cap.

There are definitely money juggling complexities for casinos that most players aren't aware of, but I don't think the above example is acceptable, even if stated somewhere on the website in T&C (just my opinion).

 

[JHV]

Hijack!

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to baabaa006 For This Useful Post:
JHV (Today), KasinoKing (Today)

Expired Image



/hijack.

 

[The Dude]

I agree with Bryan but who determines what is the "reasonable" amount? There are Accredited List casinos currently listed who would happily accept $100,000 from me instantly, let me wager $20,000/minute...BUT they have a $500/week payout cap.

There are definitely money juggling complexities for casinos that most players aren't aware of, but I don't think the above example is acceptable, even if stated somewhere on the website in T&C (just my opinion).

$500 a week? where?

And I know that if you're a regular player, many of these casinos waive these payments and just send it in one lump sum.

 

[Jasminebed]

Perhaps a solution?

I do understand the need for online casinos to manage their money. I also understand a player's need to manage theirs.

For the purposes of Accredited Casinos here at CM, I propose that:

If a casino has daily/weekly/monthly payment limits, and a withdrawal by a player exceeds those limits, the casino must flush the remaining player balance upon request or pay it in full immediately.​

.

It is then up to the casino operator if they will accept deposits from the player while some of the withdrawal is still pending.

IMO any casino that would refuse deposits from a player that has a (for whatever term) ongoing income from your casino would be crazy.

I have and sometimes still do play casinos with cashout limits. If I was fortunate enough to be in the position that I was receiving $1,000 weekly from a casino, it would increase my gambling budget quite a bit. My first choice would be the casino I won at I expect, as long as everything was going well.

It would do a lot to promote my loyalty to have my win handled professionally, even if I couldn't have it all at once. And once the procedure is in place, keep to our arrangement so I don't have to chase you down and send emails and beg for the money I won.

Players that choose to play at casinos with withdrawal limits must realize these are in place. I wouldn't deposit 10,000 with a casino that will only pay me 4,000 per month.

Casinos can, and do, make special arrangements for VIPs. I've read so many terms and conditions for so many different casinos, I can't always recall which terms I read where, or the exact wording. But often these terms are phrased in terms of "may limit withdrawals" rather than "will limit withdrawals".

If you make very big deposits, or even just place very high bets, where you are likely to have a withdrawal that will exceed withdrawal limits, make prior arrangements with the casino, or choose to accept their terms.

But in the interest of fairness, don't leave that money in the player's account if a flush is requested. This is in regard to withdrawals exceeding a casinos daily/weekly/monthly maximums.

Casinos should still have the right to set their own policies for reversal times and policies for other withdrawals.

 

[RobWin]

There are Accredited List casinos currently listed who would happily accept $100,000 from me instantly, let me wager $20,000/minute...BUT they have a $500/week payout cap.

$500 a week? where?

Yea, I am curious too which one of the "Accredited Casinos" only offers $500 a week as a cap withdrawal ! ??
____
____

 

[Tengil]

$500 a week? where?

And I know that if you're a regular player, many of these casinos waive these payments and just send it in one lump sum.

English harbour group for Neteller, Moneybookers and Click2Pay.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[RobWin]

English harbour group for Neteller, Moneybookers and Click2Pay.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Yea, I knew about the designated ewallet limit but still their overall weekly limit is $5,000.00
____
____

 

[NASHVEGAS]

I have noticed a number of threads showing disappointment at maximum cashout limits at Casino's.

This is not a cap on the amount that can be won from a ND bonus but a maximum daily/weekly limit on the amount that can be withdrawn if you manage to win something.

Now these same Casino's will happily take unlimited deposits but once you withdraw they say you can make a maximum withdrawal of $nnnn.

There is no valid logic behind these terms except to try and encourage you to play back your winnings.

For this I believe any accredited casino should have to honour the full amount of any withdrawal request.

Could not agree with you more and have dwelled on this via posts and elsewhere but to no avail at present.

CM and I will always have to agree to disagree. I am not buying all the defenses,sorry

Ironically, I changed my siggy before your thread/post.

Also have got gaming (et al) attornies' opinions in the past to see if my thoughts were in left field. Not this unless I am just being told what I wanted to hear.

If regulation occurs in the US, I and a member of the Senate banking committees' staff do not believe any type of installment payment term(s) would allow for an online casino to be licensed in the US. I have a pretty good feel for this and have reason to believe it is not even a debateable issue among the Senate banking committee but who knows.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

One of the problems is this issue does not affect many players often so most players are indifferent. Funny how that indifference rapidly disappears when a player becomes subject to this rogue,deliberate term imo.

 

[Tengil]

Yea, I knew about the designated ewallet limit but still their overall weekly limit is $5,000.00
____
____

True indeed. That was the only reference to 500/week that I could find of the accredited casinos.

Ridiculously low tough. Then the only option for a player like me would be bank wire and I dont even know if they have an bank account within the SEPA. If they have then it wouldnt be that bad as I could get it without fees and in max 2 days.

 

[JHV]

Correct re: group. I can't comment extensively at this present time which is why I didn't actually name them straight out - there are ongoing discussions between myself and them that hopefully won't require closure in the public domain but we'll see.

The complications are not as simple as "just use a different Payout Option" but again, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt first before getting into specifics.

 

[RobWin]

Correct re: group. I can't comment extensively at this present time which is why I didn't actually name them straight out - there are ongoing discussions between myself and them that hopefully won't require closure in the public domain but we'll see.

The complications are not as simple as "just use a different Payout Option" but again, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt first before getting into specifics.

Still their overall weekly withdrawal limit is $5,000.00, not the $500 that you previously stated...correct?

Just so no one gets confused here.
____
____

 

[JHV]

Still their overall weekly withdrawal limit is $5,000.00, not the $500 that you previously stated...correct?

That has proven very incorrect, in my experience. I would like, if I may, to refer you to my above post please - and request we continue discussion of specifics down the track once I've been able to converse more with them on that and other issues. Purely for their benefit as I'm trying to give parties and people more time to explain their positions and actions before (perhaps unfairly) sorting out confusion publicly.

To be honest, I thought there were 2 or more groups with these low limits on the Accredited List otherwise I wouldn't have used them to make a point in my first post in this thread. I believe the point is valid, of course - and discussion shouldn't necessarily turn to that group.

To bring us back on topic - yes, there are complications with moving money around. But I cannot imagine what kind of situation creates a legitimate requirement for a large-scale casino operation to limit withdrawals to *those* sorts of sizes. I was more trying to focus on relative wagering issues - 5k / week would be mostly ok for me unless I go robusto or something, but for another player it might be as frustrating or inconvenient as 500/w would be for me. And so on....sure, lines have to be drawn. I think those lines should reflect things like:
* amount deposited via that method (say I deposit 100k via MB, lose it all, then win 10k - do you think limiting me to 500/w MB is appropriate?)
* wagering sizes (as mentioned previously - the clause about progressive jackpot wins is great, but if you can wager 20k / minute on Slots [I don't, just saying they'd let me] then limiting to 500/w on all option apart from Bank Wire is appropriate?)
* probably some other things I'm forgetting cause I'm tired, but I hope I'm making valid points. Well, I know my points are valid. I hope I'm arguing them effectively....

 

[RobWin]

That has proven very incorrect, in my experience. I would like, if I may, to refer you to my above post please - and request we continue discussion of specifics down the track once I've been able to converse more with them on that and other issues. Purely for their benefit as I'm trying to give parties and people more time to explain their positions and actions before (perhaps unfairly) sorting out confusion publicly.

To be honest, I thought there were 2 or more groups with these low limits on the Accredited List otherwise I wouldn't have used them to make a point in my first post in this thread. I believe the point is valid, of course - and discussion shouldn't necessarily turn to that group.

To bring us back on topic - yes, there are complications with moving money around. But I cannot imagine what kind of situation creates a legitimate requirement for a large-scale casino operation to limit withdrawals to *those* sorts of sizes. I was more trying to focus on relative wagering issues - 5k / week would be mostly ok for me unless I go robusto or something, but for another player it might be as frustrating or inconvenient as 500/w would be for me. And so on....sure, lines have to be drawn. I think those lines should reflect things like:
* amount deposited via that method (say I deposit 100k via MB, lose it all, then win 10k - do you think limiting me to 500/w MB is appropriate?)
* wagering sizes (as mentioned previously - the clause about progressive jackpot wins is great, but if you can wager 20k / minute on Slots [I don't, just saying they'd let me] then limiting to 500/w on all option apart from Bank Wire is appropriate?)
* probably some other things I'm forgetting cause I'm tired, but I hope I'm making valid points. Well, I know my points are valid. I hope I'm arguing them effectively....

You are in fact making good valid points as far as the web ewallets are concerned BUT the original problem that I and also Bryan had with your post was the broad statement you made that said:

Originally Posted by JHV View Post
There are Accredited List casinos currently listed who would happily accept $100,000 from me instantly, let me wager $20,000/minute...BUT they have a $500/week payout cap.

Which as you and I and others can all clearly see is not exactly factual.

Old Attachment (Invalid)

 

[JHV]

You are in fact making good valid points as far as the web ewallets are concerned BUT the original problem that I and also Bryan had with your post was the broad statement you made that said:



Which as you and I and others can all clearly see is not exactly factual.

Old Attachment (Invalid)

What you and I and others can all see in the screenshot above I've basically just told you is not factual at all, in my experience. And I kindly request you for a third time to let me give them the benefit of the doubt and hear them out, before we break into discussion on it.

I merely used 500/w as an example of the lowest caps I'd seen, I wasn't trying to direct criticism onto this group. But if you insist on attacking this group, let's not talk about my experience just yet, but we can discuss broader issues such as what possible scenario can have developed to create a 500/w cap rule for the largest payment processors in the world.

 

[RobWin]

What you and I and others can all see in the screenshot above I've basically just told you is not factual at all, in my experience.

That may well be true But you are referring to their ewallet processing and you alluded to that fact in your original post as you well know, hence the reason I said you were making a non-factual Broad statement...lets not confuse those two seperate issues here, please!

I merely used 500/w as an example of the lowest caps I'd seen, I wasn't trying to direct criticism onto this group. But if you insist on attacking this group,

Attacking this group? Are you serious? I promote this group! That's a bit of a cheesy statement don't you think since I am merely pointing out the fact of their weekly withdrawal max NOT being $500 as you stated in your original broad statement. Why are you trying to mix up these two into semantics?

Let's not talk about my experience just yet, but we can discuss broader issues such as what possible scenario can have developed to create a 500/w cap rule for the largest payment processors in the world.

I'm actually not interested in talking about your individual experiences at all, But rather the Broad statement regarding their weekly withdrawal max that you originally made. If you had stated that their weekly withdrawal max to ewallets was $500 then most likely you and I would not even be trading posts at the moment..
____
____

 

[JHV]

Attacking this group? Are you serious? I promote this group! That's a bit of a cheesy statement don't you think since I am merely pointing out the fact of their weekly withdrawal max NOT being $500 as you stated in your original broad statement. Why are you trying to mix up these two into semantics?

If you had stated that their weekly withdrawal max to ewallets was $500[/U][/B] then most likely you and I would not even be trading posts at the moment..

Ah ok sorry - I thought you were attacking them. And all along you were just defending them because you promote them. Boy, do I have red on my face!

If cheque or Bank Wire doesn't suit you for various reasons, you are effectively limited to Moneybookers or NETeller - are you not? My point is that if you're allowed to deposit 100k instantly using a payment processor, 500/w as a cap using the payment processor you deposited with is very obscure limit, especially considering the wagering they'll allow.

Bank Wire is actually fine by me. And I'm telling you the whole issue is a lot more complex. But you keep pushing thinking you've found a weak point in my argument, you might push too hard, and the casinos you promote are going to not get my benefit of the doubt. So perhaps Mr. Affiliate...in your own interest...we could talk about how 500/w cap on MB/NETeller is actually a 500 cap if the other options aren't available to you - can you explain how one option having a higher cap makes the lower cap option unimportant?

Perhaps we'll make it $200 for every option except Surface Mailed cheques in the currency of....Japanese Yen. Where you can withdraw US$50,000 (equivalent) a week. What's the problem? You don't want to wait 2 months for your cheque? And you don't want the payment in Yen?

OBVIOUSLY I'm being ridiculous with this example. I'm just trying to use ludicrous extremes to point out that your argument is a fallacy. A $500/w cap is a $500/w cap, regardless of whether other methods are higher. If you can use some of those other methods, good for you. But a $500/w cap is a $500/w cap if you only wish to use the method you deposited with.

 

[RobWin]

Ah ok sorry - I thought you were attacking them. And all along you were just defending them because you promote them. Boy, do I have red on my face!

If cheque or Bank Wire doesn't suit you for various reasons, you are effectively limited to Moneybookers or NETeller - are you not? My point is that if you're allowed to deposit 100k instantly using a payment processor, 500/w as a cap using the payment processor you deposited with is very obscure limit, especially considering the wagering they'll allow.

Bank Wire is actually fine by me. And I'm telling you the whole issue is a lot more complex. But you keep pushing thinking you've found a weak point in my argument, you might push too hard, and the casinos you promote are going to not get my benefit of the doubt. So perhaps Mr. Affiliate...in your own interest...we could talk about how 500/w cap on MB/NETeller is actually a 500 cap if the other options aren't available to you - can you explain how one option having a higher cap makes the lower cap option unimportant?

Perhaps we'll make it $200 for every option except Surface Mailed cheques in the currency of....Japanese Yen. Where you can withdraw US$50,000 (equivalent) a week. What's the problem? You don't want to wait 2 months for your cheque? And you don't want the payment in Yen?

OBVIOUSLY I'm being ridiculous with this example. I'm just trying to use ludicrous extremes to point out that your argument is a fallacy. A $500/w cap is a $500/w cap, regardless of whether other methods are higher. If you can use some of those other methods, good for you. But a $500/w cap is a $500/w cap if you only wish to use the method you deposited with.

What part of your original post statement as not being truly factual are you not getting here JHV??

Just to recap for you one more time, this was your original statement:

There are Accredited List casinos currently listed who would happily accept $100,000 from me instantly, let me wager $20,000/minute...BUT they have a $500/week payout cap.

Can you not see the factual error in your broad sweeping statement there or do you just simply not want to admit to it? Personally I think it is the latter.

Focus my friend...Focus..
____
____

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Yes, I just love depositing $5K on a given day, having some luck, and receiving $3K per week if I am lucky once again but chutzpah (i.e. "Louise is on vacation",YES!!) usually comes into play there also. If you can not pay in full ,shut your FREAKING doors. It is the player's money and the players should not be online casinos DAMN lenders that most of the time these casinos do not have to even payoff this loan. It is not the "HOUSE'S MONEY" despite some player's inability to grasp this concept.

Yet chargebacks are criminal,nope,but that mindset exists. Who are the real fraudsters afaic???

Kinda of ironic reading the affiliate boards about delayed,short,non,etc. payments. Don't you dare casinos!!

 

[JHV]

What part of your original post statement as not being truly factual are you not getting here JHV??

We're going to go around in circles here Rob - so let's leave it for now. I stand by my statement. You are arguing my statement is invalid because there are other options available which aren't 500/w cap. Your position is *almost* valid except not quite. If someone is limited to their depositing option as their only suitable withdrawing option - then they have a 500/w cap. It's irrelevant whether you, or other players, are lucky enough to have that other option with the higher limit.

If you still disagree, that's fine. But I stand by my statement because it's perfectly valid. And if you keep asking me to repeat it, I'll keep repeating it. So I don't see what the point is in doing so. Therefore, let's discuss that cap amount and whether it's a valid amount to cap at. Do you think it's appropriate to accept 100k off a player using NETeller, allow him to lose it, then when he wins 50k back in a tournament, limit him to $500/w when NETeller is his only suitable option for transacting?

------

(Edit: NashVegas my friend, we are in agreeance. Just a small suggestion, this forum frowns upon emotive language [I've learned this the hard way..twice, maybe 3x ] - we are 100% in the "right" but I believe we'll make a better case arguing without emotion - just my opinion, nothing more, am not criticising you at all - I completely agree with you.)

 

[RobWin]

If someone is limited to their depositing option as their only suitable withdrawing option - then they have a 500/w cap.

That's much better and exactly the way you should have stated it in your original post instead of the much larger sweeping, *Invalid* and *Non-Factual* statement that you made! Now you are getting it buddy..
____
____

 

[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.
____
____

 

[The Dude]

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?"

 

[The Dude]

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.