Ace LIve Casino Wouldn't Pay €7000

[maxd]

Yes and no. Casino has responded, sort of, but there's more required. Still a work in progress IMO.

 

[maxd]

Ok, these Ace Live issues seem to be going nowhere so an update here seems to be in order.

The casino said in a canned** response that these were bonus abuse issues and they wouldn't do anything further. Of course that's not good enough -- "bonus abuse" is far too generic a claim, essentially meaningless -- so I've tried to discuss the issue(s) further but they appear to have gone off-hook. If that situation doesn't change soon then I'll have to shelf the PABs and flag the casino in Warnings for non-cooperation on player issues, etc.

** I say "canned" because the text of the email wasn't really a response to what I'd sent them, they said things that made no sense in the context of what had been said in the PAB submissions. It seemed clear that this was either (a) a reply they'd sent to someone else and they'd just bumped it on to me or (b) they weren't actually reading the PABs and were giving a stock response. Either way it isn't a satisfactory way to reply to player issues, even aside from the "bonus abuse" issues.

 

[MisterBJ]

Maxd, have you heard anything else? Or is this company is like beating a dead horse?

 

[maxd]

The short answer is no, no meaningful response to date.

The last I heard was the "bonus abuse" thing. I've prompted them a few times for further discussion on this but to date it's dead air.

If you're patient wait a few more days, if nothing by then then I'll be issueing a Warning against them, for obvious reasons.
If you're not patient ... well, my guess is you can read the writing on the wall.

 

[skiny]

I verbally abuse my bonuses. In fact if I could find some way to do it I'd take them out back and slap them around.

Stupid bonuses.

 

[Mouche12]

I'd rather verbally abuse Ace Live Casino for not giving any proper response, which I will revoke as soon as the casino pays the OP, shame on them!

 

[jjezebel37]

Let's cut to the chase here mate.

You're an advantage player. You know it, and I know it. I'm certain you do this at every casino, and probably have done so for quite some time. The strategy you employed is NOT what your average Joe would use...in fact it is pretty much ONLY advantage players that would bet their entire balance on the first bet. So, let's not pretend you're all innocent and stuff. You know what you were doing.

As such, you would also know that what you were doing was VERY risky, and I don't mean in a gambling/bet sense. Just about every online casino on Earth would consider your play to be that of an advantage player and "bonus abuser" (I use quotations because I don't believe bonus abuse exists, but casinos DO). Hence, you would also know that there is ALWAYS a risk that you will not be paid if you play this way....the advantage player accepts this as "the cost of doing business".

I assume that you did NOT read the terms and conditions BEFORE you agreed to them. I make this assumption based on the idea that anyone with any sense at all, after reading said terms, would NEVER bet like you did and think there was no risk of breaching them. In fact, it is pretty much "bonus abuse 101" when it comes to such terms.

Whilst I may not agree with the non-specific nature of these rules, the facts remain that:

1. You agreed to be bound by them

2. You could have clarified with management that your method of play was acceptable BEFORE you played

3. The time to decide the terms were unacceptable to you was BEFORE you played

4. You took an "extra gamble" that your play would not violate the terms. You lost.


The term basically states that the casino can decide what is abusive and what's not....and you said "OK" to that by registering your account. A crappy term....but you agreed to abide by it.

Bottom line is that it is basically YOUR fault. Whether the casino itself is crap or rogue etc is a totally seperate matter. Once you signed up and took their bonuses you acknowledged that they might be rogue but you were going ahead anyhow.

The question I'd ask those who often go right to "its all the casinos fault they are rogue etc" is simple:

After reading those terms, would YOU bet your whole balance on your first bet, and then cover 1/3 of the table with smaller bets to meet WR? (Honest answer folks....seriously).

It is what it is and every word is true

 

[skiny]

It is what it is and every word is true

There's no such thing as bonus abuse and every player should be an advantage player.

If there's no advantage to taking a bonus, it's not a "bonus."

 

[akrus88]

Betting whole bankroll on a single spin while playing with a bonus is a clear betting strategy.
So what if the casino sent you an email with an exclusive 500€ bonus. They have seen you have lost. It does not mean they have gone trough your gaming logs from the loosing sessions and agree with your gaming style. It would be colossal waste of time to go trough every single player gaming logs before offering them bonuses.

Max bet rule would be a smart move from the casino.

But you know you are risking of getting your winnings avoided (or that did not even slipped your mind, really o.O??). Should have asked if that kind of betting is allright.

 

[skiny]

Betting whole bankroll on a single spin while playing with a bonus is a clear betting strategy.
So what if the casino sent you an email with an exclusive 500€ bonus. They have seen you have lost. It does not mean they have gone trough your gaming logs from the loosing sessions and agree with your gaming style. It would be colossal waste of time to go trough every single player gaming logs before offering them bonuses.

Max bet rule would be a smart move from the casino.

But you know you are risking of getting your winnings avoided (or that did not even slipped your mind, really o.O??). Should have asked if that kind of betting is allright.

If there is no max bet rule in the terms and conditions, there's no reason to ask. That's why they have a page called "terms and conditions." So we don't have to ask.

Bonus rules should be simple and straight forward. There should be a very short list of things you're either allowed or not allowed to do and the wage requirement and the amount of the bonus should be structured around those rules. Casinos need to stop offering huge bonuses riddled with vague terms and conditions that ineffectively try to force every player to play with the same style and strategy.

The problem is not everyone is going to gamble the way the casino wants them too. The only way to solve that is to tell them exactly what they're not allowed to do or offer small bonuses so when they bet 75% of their starting balance at once they're playing with most of their own money anyway. What they shouldn't do is just say "If we don't like the way you play we're not going to pay you." It doesn't work that way.

And when casinos get caught doing this they should get a rap on the knuckles for it.

 

[akrus88]

If there is no max bet rule in the terms and conditions, there's no reason to ask. That's why they have a page called "terms and conditions." So we don't have to ask.

Bonus rules should be simple and straight forward. There should be a very short list of things you're either allowed or not allowed to do and the wage requirement and the amount of the bonus should be structured around those rules. Casinos need to stop offering huge bonuses riddled with vague terms and conditions that ineffectively try to force every player to play with the same style and strategy.

The problem is not everyone is going to gamble the way the casino wants them too. The only way to solve that is to tell them exactly what they're not allowed to do or offer small bonuses so when they bet 75% of their starting balance at once they're playing with most of their own money anyway. What they shouldn't do is just say "If we don't like the way you play we're not going to pay you." It doesn't work that way.

And when casinos get caught doing this they should get a rap on the knuckles for it.

Agree on that t&c should be straight forward. So player could clearly see what is allowed and what is not allowed.
But what annoyes me here, is the fact this Casino has that "betting strategy blaa blaa..." Term on and still OP decided to play the whole bankroll with a single spin and then continue playing with smaller and lower risk spins.
That is like calling for trouble.

Ofcourse that betting strategy term can be used wrongly by the casino, but for once it is actually used in a right place.

 

[Mouche12]

So, is "betting the whole bankroll on a single spin" a betting strategy of some sort? There's no max bet rule, and the OP took a huge risk by following this "betting strategy". The OP should be paid, period.

 

[skiny]

Agree on that t&c should be straight forward. So player could clearly see what is allowed and what is not allowed.
But what annoyes me here, is the fact this Casino has that "betting strategy blaa blaa..." Term on and still OP decided to play the whole bankroll with a single spin and then continue playing with smaller and lower risk spins.
That is like calling for trouble.

Ofcourse that betting strategy term can be used wrongly by the casino, but for once it is actually used in a right place.

Wagering my entire bankroll on one spin.
Increasing my bet by one coin every 100 spins.
Betting minimum bet from start to finish.
Decreasing my bet after each bonus feature.
Increasing my bet if scatters are frequent.
Increasing my bet per line but only betting on half the lines or less.
Randomly changing my bet size every spin.

How in the hell is anyone supposed to know what they're allowed to do if they're simply told they're not allowed to use a strategy? No matter how you play it's a strategy.

Would you like to know what the real strategy is? Making your terms and conditions too vague to adhere to. That's a strategy.

 

[akrus88]

Wagering my entire bankroll on one spin.
Increasing my bet by one coin every 100 spins.
Betting minimum bet from start to finish.
Decreasing my bet after each bonus feature.
Increasing my bet if scatters are frequent.
Increasing my bet per line but only betting on half the lines or less.
Randomly changing my bet size every spin.

How in the hell is anyone supposed to know what they're allowed to do if they're simply told they're not allowed to use a strategy? No matter how you play it's a strategy.

Would you like to know what the real strategy is? Making your terms and conditions too vague to adhere to. That's a strategy.

As I said. That term can be used wrongly and it is a bad term from players side.

But are you seriously saying it is not a known strategy to bet your whole balance to increase your bankroll and then grind out the wr.
Ofcourse it is risky, but it is a kind of a classic way to abuse a bonus.

 

[skiny]

As I said. That term can be used wrongly and it is a bad term from players side.

But are you seriously saying it is not a known strategy to bet your whole balance to increase your bankroll and then grind out the wr.
Ofcourse it is risky, but it is a kind of a classic way to abuse a bonus.

Yes, it most certainly is a strategy. And if casinos don't like it they set a maximum you're allowed to bet or they learn to live with it.

There never was a question of whether or not people employ a strategy when they play. Everyone who plays employs some sort of strategy. Some are much riskier than others and some are designed specifically to beat these bonus offers that casinos never learn to stop handing out.

If you don't like people doubling up their balance in black jack or roulette and then grinding out the WR in low variance slots, then don't let them play black jack or roulette. If you don't want people betting their entire balance in one spin then set a maximum bet size. This seriously isn't rocket science. This is entirely the casino's own fault. They created the bonus and the terms. Every single time I see a casino mention the words bonus abuse, advantage play, strategies, spirit of the bonus or anything even remotely similar to that it tells me one of two things.

Either they're not smart enough to structure their bonuses so they don't get robbed by them or they can't be bothered because any time they're not happy their going to just pull an FU out of their hat.

In my opinion, casinos that use any form of "bonus abuse" to withhold payments should find themselves sitting at the bottom of the rogue pit. I don't care if it's intentional or just plain laziness. Either way it's unfair.

Bonus Terms and Conditions.

1. Wage requirement.
2. Games you're allowed to play.
3. Maximum bet.

4. Maximum withdrawal. (for ND bonuses.)

What the hell else do we need to know?

 

[Mouche12]

As I said. That term can be used wrongly and it is a bad term from players side.

But are you seriously saying it is not a known strategy to bet your whole balance to increase your bankroll and then grind out the wr.
Ofcourse it is risky, but it is a kind of a classic way to abuse a bonus.

I fully agree with Skiny here. Betting one's entire bankroll on one spin should never qualify as a betting strategy. It is a VERY high risk kind of betting which the OP was prepared to do. The odds of losing it all are much higher. The OP was very, very lucky and, as Skiny said, there's NO max bet rule, so he should be paid.

So, what if the OP had LOST his entire bankroll in one spin, could he have claimed his deposit back because he would have "followed a betting strategy" according to these vague casino terms...? Don't think so.

 

[akrus88]

I do agree to almost everything Skiny says.

I am just trying to say, player should take responsibility if he bets his whole bankroll (all half of it) with a first spin and then lowers his bets. Especially if there is a term like that in the T&C.
I do not have any idea what kind of casino Ace Live is, so it is hard to say if they normally act reasonably.

But I'll agree do disagree .

 

[maxd]

Betting one's entire bankroll on one spin should never qualify as a betting strategy. It is a VERY high risk kind of betting ....

I'm no maths guy so I have to rely on what smarter folks tell me about such things but as I understand it there is a statistical advantage to the player to take their deposit + bonus and bet large up front. If they can compound this with multiple bonuses -- by working in collusion or simply with multiple accounts -- then their advantage increases.

This would explain why casinos go out of their way to discourage such "betting patterns" and IMO it's hard to see that they're wrong in doing so: you take their money you play by their rules. Don't like the rules? Best not to take the money then.

If you gave me $500 and said "go bet on the horses but don't put it all down on a single bet" and I used it all on a single bet then I shouldn't be too surprised if you got a little pissed at me for doing so. You might never want to give me money to bet with again, and I can't say I would blame you. You might even kick my ass for doing what I did, and I can't say I would blame you.

 

[rena35]

This is why i want to give up online gaming and perhaps take a trip to a land casino. Darned if you do darned i you dont. I take a bonus every once and a while ,maybe once a year to go with my deposit. Other then that i play without a bonus. Is this bad

 

[skiny]

I'm no maths guy so I have to rely on what smarter folks tell me about such things but as I understand it there is a statistical advantage to the player to take their deposit + bonus and bet large up front. If they can compound this with multiple bonuses -- by working in collusion or simply with multiple accounts -- then their advantage increases.

This would explain why casinos go out of their way to discourage such "betting patterns" and IMO it's hard to see that they're wrong in doing so: you take their money you play by their rules. Don't like the rules? Best not to take the money then.

If you gave me $500 and said "go bet on the horses but don't put it all down on a single bet" and I used it all on a single bet then I shouldn't be too surprised if you got a little pissed at me for doing so. You might never want to give me money to bet with again, and I can't say I would blame you. You might even kick my ass for doing what I did, and I can't say I would blame you.

There is a statistical advantage if the bonus is big enough.

If you make $100 deposits with a 150% bonus you start with $250.
You put the entire balance on either colour in roulette which has about 47.5% chance of hitting which is just under 1.5 out of 3.
This means statistically you should hit your colour at least once out of 3 deposits and double up your $250 starting balance.
Statistically you should be able to turn either $100, $200 or $300 worth of deposits into $500. Even if it took 5 deposits to hit it, you'd still be even and then you're left with the task of grinding out the wage requirement. (Or you could miss 5 times and be $500 in the hole.)

There's no doubt in my mind the casino doesn't want you doing this. And the best way to stop that from happening is set a maximum bet or don't let people play roulette with a deposit bonus and put it in the terms and conditions. In my earlier post I listed 3 conditions for deposit bonuses and two of them would stop this from happening.

As for working in collusion, the same terms and conditions would make 10 people taking a deposit bonus or one person taking 10 deposit bonuses exactly the same thing. Every one of those deposit bonuses would have the same wage requirements and every person who took one would be restricted to games and maximum bet sizes that wouldn't allow a quick easy profit. As for multi-accounting, well that's just fraud.

My entire point is - these things that people are doing to beat these bonuses that casinos seem to be so dead set against, only really becomes and issue because the casinos simply refuse to state clearly what people aren't allowed to do. The size of the bonus shouldn't even matter. Even if you offered me a 500% bonus, the wage requirement should still make it statistically better for the casino if I was limited to playing slots. If I took a 500% deposit bonus on a $100 deposit, I'd start with $600 and if the terms stated 30xD+B I'd have $18000 to wager. Correct me if I'm wrong but with a 95% TRTP shouldn't I theoretically be broke after wagering about $12000? Even with a 97% TRTP I'd probably (theoretically) only have about 60 bucks left when I cleared the WR. I'd have been better off just to deposit 60 in the first place without a bonus. Why wouldn't a casino want 10 people to get together and take one of these bonuses each?

If a casino doesn't tell me specifically what I'm not allowed to do, I'm going to assume I can do whatever I want because all it takes is 3 very simple rules to keep me from "abusing" their bonuses. If they can't state these rules they're either too lazy (tough luck,) not smart enough (tough luck,) or leaving them open to their own interpretation later (rogue.)

Wage requirement, max bet, games allowed. I could write the terms and conditions in one sentence.

 

[skiny]

This is why i want to give up online gaming and perhaps take a trip to a land casino. Darned if you do darned i you dont. I take a bonus every once and a while ,maybe once a year to go with my deposit. Other then that i play without a bonus. Is this bad

Whether or not you're better off taking a bonus depends entirely on how long it takes to hit something. If you take a bonus you might hit something right away making the bonus unnecessary and leaving you with a wage requirement to grind down. If you don't take the bonus you might not last long enough to hit something. There's no real way to know before you start.

Personally, I prefer not to take bonuses because I only play slots and I can't be bothered reading the terms and conditions on bonuses. I'd like to see the day a casino tells me I broke the rules depositing without a bonus and rolling a slot game at a modest wager.

 

[akrus88]

I do like the bonuses, as they buy me a longer playtime with the same money.
I do hate thr T&C. Useally I am bit too lazy to read them carefully. But I have never had a problem cashing out from accredited casinos, allthough I have broke the rules couple of times.
If you are playing just for your enterntainment and not trying to abuse bonus in a creditable casino, there is no reason to worry. Espiacially if you have been playing with that casino a bit longer. I for one believe T&C are not there to steal players money, but to protect the casino.

 

[skiny]

I for one believe T&C are not there to steal players money, but to protect the casino.

This depends entirely on what casino you're playing at.

 

[chuchu59]

Scram you spammers - all prefixed with shena

 

[mrmark21]

F@@KING SPAM!