This is the REAL sign of a rogue. The software would have to be gaffed in order to prevent any player winning more than this amount, and this term simply covers them for when their software fails to enforce this limit.
In a fair game, it would be impossible for a player to comply with this term, and for the casino to enforce it through the software.
The other rogue sign is that even if a player does not take a bonus, they are still bound by many of the bonus related terms and conditions.
On top of this, they even appear not to be paying players of the poker product who comply with all the terms, and then blame the network. Since when was the network responsible for paying the player of a particular skin.
I think what they really mean is that they are skint, and player balances do not actually exist within the skin to be paid out. This can only happen where players' monies have been used for "company purposes", perhaps in the hope that players will continue making fresh deposits and play, and in the case of poker, replacing the missing player funds with income generated from the rake, and that this process goes unnoticed by players.
It seems now that withdrawal requests are no longer covered by the above mechanism, so the skin has to stall in order to buy time to make the money needed to fund the current withdrawal requests. This is bound to fail as since this has come to notice, players are less likely to deposit or play, and more likely to want what money they have there out as quickly as possible.
They must have been underfunded to begin with, and have been caught out by a swing in variance with which they haven't the funds to cope.
