All Australian Casino

[SunnyDay888]

Warning to anyone who thinks a Casino has a system in place to limit daily losses or as in my case what I thought was a "do not go over this bet size in Blackjack " of $7 - the casino has a different take on what this means .
To them it means I don't want to turnover more than $7 per day !
It is not the end of the world and I can get back in 7 days to no limits it is just frustrating

Michael in Australia .mmmmm sunshine and summer

 

[L&L-Jan]

Hi mate,

At All Australian Casino we offer various limits; deposit, bet, loss, and time.
Bet limit basically means the total sum of bets you can place within a specific time frame (day, week or month).
After reading your post I can understand the confusion and therefore I will make sure we will edit the information provided around these limits so that you or other customers won't make the same mistake.
Unfortunately we can not limit your betsize per individual bet.

I trust I've informed you to your satisfaction?

Kind regards,

Jan

 

[spintee]

From my experience they have al the right shit in place, i call it shit as most do not,

There are are prtey new company trying to hit the scene, You always will get help if needed as reps are about as I seen there already posted

Every casino has a limit, And not all point it out, but as I said This group has it sorted, All rules are there to see and not hidden

It would be nice to have mesure in place to stop a max bet or not aloweed games, This is stil stuck in the pipe line, Thre are a few that cater for this but I must admit the group in question has easy riules

 

[ThePOGG]

From my experience they have al the right shit in place, i call it shit as most do not,

There are are prtey new company trying to hit the scene, You always will get help if needed as reps are about as I seen there already posted

Every casino has a limit, And not all point it out, but as I said This group has it sorted, All rules are there to see and not hidden

It would be nice to have mesure in place to stop a max bet or not aloweed games, This is stil stuck in the pipe line, Thre are a few that cater for this but I must admit the group in question has easy riules

I think this OP was referring to a self-exclusion/gambling protection style limit rather than the maximum allowed bet during a bonus. If I'm reading correctly, they were looking to put a limit on how much they could bet on any single round of play to help control their gambling, but what the operator put in place was a 'weekly limit'.

However, on the note of what you're talking about you're absolutely right. Where bonuses are involved ALL operators should be automatically preventing players from playing restricted games and placing bets that exceed max bet limits. This is common sense from a player protection POV and is something I've been highlighting with regulators for a while. There are challenges in doing this and the changes would have to come down from the game developer level, but they're far from insurmountable and would immediately half the volume of player complaints.

 

[spintee]

I think this OP was referring to a self-exclusion/gambling protection style limit rather than the maximum allowed bet during a bonus. If I'm reading correctly, they were looking to put a limit on how much they could bet on any single round of play to help control their gambling, but what the operator put in place was a 'weekly limit'.

However, on the note of what you're talking about you're absolutely right. Where bonuses are involved ALL operators should be automatically preventing players from playing restricted games and placing bets that exceed max bet limits. This is common sense from a player protection POV and is something I've been highlighting with regulators for a while. There are challenges in doing this and the changes would have to come down from the game developer level, but they're far from insurmountable and would immediately half the volume of player complaints.

Yes you are right, Looks like theystuck a 7 limit thinking it was per hand but casino took it as the weekly loss amount,

But saying that some casino have even got this set up wrong, I have read that players have stuck a limit on deposit say 200 but manage a win for 500 than there new deposit limit will be 700 the 500 win and the original 200, Due to them being in profit,

As you know most are rush jobs and bottom line is not many casino have the right set ups in place, Most seem to have shuffed something there to bypass the responsible gaming rules,

 

[ThePOGG]

Yes you are right, Looks like theystuck a 7 limit thinking it was per hand but casino took it as the weekly loss amount,

But saying that some casino have even got this set up wrong, I have read that players have stuck a limit on deposit say 200 but manage a win for 500 than there new deposit limit will be 700 the 500 win and the original 200, Due to them being in profit,

As you know most are rush jobs and bottom line is not many casino have the right set ups in place, Most seem to have shuffed something there to bypass the responsible gaming rules,

Whether this is a gaff or not comes down to the specific language used.

If it's a 'deposit' limit, then under no circumstances should deposits be allowed to exceed the limit. If I deposit $200, which is my limit, win up to $700 and withdraw the lot, the win should make no difference. I've deposited my weekly limit and shouldn't be allowed to make any further deposits. If however I leave some or all of the winnings in and continue to play, that's my choice. The limit is on deposits.

If it's a 'loss' limit, then it's applied to the aggregate loss over the week - in which case the winnings would be considered to have increased this (as you're further away from your stated loss tolerance).


I would also say that we're currently in a new era on the gambling protection front. 5 years ago there was very little going on in terms of responsible gaming. The systems are being developed. There are also unique problems for the online industry, with large levels of fraud, widespread mis-use of self-exclusion policies to express discontent with an operator rather than due to actual problem gambling and gaming availability that is unparalleled in the offline industry (the model for gaming regulation to date). It's going to take time to evolve properly functioning strategies, get the industry on side when it comes to their application and educate players as to how the systems work.

 

[dunover]

Whether this is a gaff or not comes down to the specific language used.

If it's a 'deposit' limit, then under no circumstances should deposits be allowed to exceed the limit. If I deposit $200, which is my limit, win up to $700 and withdraw the lot, the win should make no difference. I've deposited my weekly limit and shouldn't be allowed to make any further deposits. If however I leave some or all of the winnings in and continue to play, that's my choice. The limit is on deposits.If it's a 'loss' limit, then it's applied to the aggregate loss over the week - in which case the winnings would be considered to have increased this (as you're further away from your stated loss tolerance).


I would also say that we're currently in a new era on the gambling protection front. 5 years ago there was very little going on in terms of responsible gaming. The systems are being developed. There are also unique problems for the online industry, with large levels of fraud, widespread mis-use of self-exclusion policies to express discontent with an operator rather than due to actual problem gambling and gaming availability that is unparalleled in the offline industry (the model for gaming regulation to date). It's going to take time to evolve properly functioning strategies, get the industry on side when it comes to their application and educate players as to how the systems work.

Tell that to Redbet - I pointed out numerous times on here that their 'deposit limit' is mis-described and is in fact a loss-limit. When I played there if I had a DL of say 100 and withdrew 500 I could then if I chose deposit a further 500 afterwards. Dunno if that's still the case but it was dead wrong.