all winnings removed if withdrawal before WR met

[maxd]

Is it just me or does this clause from a casino's bonus Terms strike anyone else as particularly draconian?:

Residents of Greece and Canada must wager 110 times the bonus amount regardless of the payment method used. It is the sole responsibility of the player to ensure he or she has met the wagering requirements before cashing out. Players who withdraw before meeting the requirement will have the bonus and all winnings removed.

I'm asking myself what could be the purpose of such a term? Obviously the system is going to deny the withdrawal anyway if the WR haven't been met, so what's with the confiscation?

Clearly the WR are pretty outrageous to begin with but hey, whatever, that's their choice. it's the confiscation that has me scratching my head.

Much Later: this poll has morphed a bit since it first went up. Max's 'Dummy's Guide To This Thread' says you should read this post if you want to cut to the chase.

 

[darkpixie]

What software is this? Not all of them automatically calculate. Or at least not that the player can see.



Canadians have to do 110X I thought BetFred was bad with 50X

 

[chuchu59]

It could be a trap for the unawares. If there is no playthru counter and you think you have met WR and attempt to withdraw, everything except your deposit are confiscated. The casino will not reinstate the confiscated amount even if you want to complete the remaining WRs. The terms should actually state that if you had not met WRs and you withdraw the whole amount balance will be reinstated for you to finish your wagering. At least that's what I experienced in a number of MG casinos.

 

[maxd]

I'd rather not say which software just yet. I don't want to give anyone a hard time, just looking for some other peeps thoughts.

As it happens this software doesn't ... but I'm not sure how that makes a difference. The question is why the confiscation, regardless of who knows what and when. No system I know is going to let the withdraw proceed if the WR haven't been met, either automatically denying it or an operator doing it, so ... WTF?

It could be a trap for the unawares.

Yeah, that's what it looked like to me too. I hoped there might be a better, more reasonable explanation.

 

[darkpixie]

I have seen this term before can't recall exactly where at the moment, and yes I too believe it is a trap. A reasonable approach, if the withdrawal is not stopped automatically by the software is to replace all the monies back in the players account and notify the player what WR is left to do.

 

[Deeplay]

Its this kind of thing that catches those players out that maybe dont read all terms n cons, dont visit gambling boards/ forums etc and of course new players coming through. Its a disgrace to have such terms and even worse if the player has to COUNT the play through themselves - nigh on impossible unless you want to sit with a pen n paper tracking ever spin. This kind of thing does damage to the industry as a whole especially where new players are concerened.

Seasoned addicts like meself etc always read terms n cons but not everyone does. Would like to know which casino / software this is ?

 

[maxd]

A reasonable approach, if the withdrawal is not stopped automatically by the software is to replace all the monies back in the players account and notify the player what WR is left to do.

Agreed. The confiscation approach just seems like a big FU.

 

[takethemoney]

This has to be part of a casino's T&Cs, I would think, not software specific. However, the operator should have no such verbiage, as accounting would be able to catch the WR issue and simply just return the amount to the player's balance and notify them of how much more wagering they need to do before the withdrawal can be processed. I have heard of rogue casinos confiscating winnings because a player attempted to withdraw before the WR was met. Rogue and questionable casinos do not enable the WR counter typically found in the more reputable casino cashiers.

 

[Nifty29]

The part I dont understand is this: The huge WR is obviously based on past history of players from these countries (damn canadians ) to deter them from taking bonuses - so why not just ban them from bonuses?? Or, if things are that bad, exclude them from the casino entirely? The only other reason I can think of is to deliberately trap unwary players into basically donating their money, which wouldnt be acceptable behaviour from a reputable casino I wouldnt think.

 

[maxd]

... so why not just ban them from bonuses?? Or, if things are that bad, exclude them from the casino entirely?

As far as the bonus ban goes it's my understanding that that's not an attractive option to some operators because the bonus ban thing with their software is all-or-nothing, which presumably is not what they want to do.

As to the "exclude from casino entirely" option I'm pretty sure that would fall under the same category: not what they want to do.

 

[all4greed]

That term has been around for at least 10 years. I alway used to contact the casinos to make sure WR had been met. Most didn't have any tracking ability on the players end.

Maybe it's just carryover wording from years gone by...

 

[sw3tsexi]

this will do us good?

 

[love2winalot]

Hiya; I have seen this many times in the past. It is a Trap. It almost certainl;y stops, "MOST", players from being able to cash out a large win on a slot machine, or several good size wins at slots, or the Tables. A lot of the Casino's have the, "If you play ANY excluded game, all profit/bonus money is forfeit".

This is just another reason to avoid taking a bonus, and start making the Casinos come up with other/better way to get/retain players.

 

[PaaskeDenmark]

That is just crazy.
In my opinion there should be no way a casino should be allowed to confiscate a players winnings (money) UNLESS, its because of multiple accounts, fraud or extreme strange playing patterns such as taking advantage of it.....
Removing before wager that is just Unless it states clearly what to wager and how much is remaining. I would say this is almost the same as if a player did the wager and then asks for withdrawal before a player makes the deposit and says sorry winnings is confiscated. That is a joke as well.
No matter what winnings should be in fair interest in the players advantage. Meaning that the player should have a fair way to finish what needs doing. So in this example put money( bonus) back into the casino account, and let the player finish the wager.

 

[maphesto]

Of course this is a rogue term. But I've seen it many times before.

This terms just one of all FU clauses we can see out there.

The casino will of course say that this is just to prevent fraud and in 99% of the cases we don't use it.

Personally, don't like this pretty common clause:

* In the event of a dispute, all decisions made by the casino will be final.

 

[maxd]

I notice some you are voting "No biggie". Just out of curiosity I'd be interested in hearing why you think that "all winnings removed" clause is acceptable.

 

[all4greed]

I notice some you are voting "No biggie". Just out of curiosity I'd be interested in hearing why you think that "all winnings removed" clause is acceptable.

Not so much acceptable as complying with terms and conditions. If I have to comply with ID documents and that kind of crap, I have to comply with the rest.

For instance, when comps are redeemed at INetBet, the player wagering tracker doesn't work. Last time I emailed support twice to check on my status and got confirmation when wagering had been met. Now I don't know if they would void all winnings but I'm sure as hell not going to find out the hard way.

Get it in writing and the casino can't bind you to lack of wagering. Therefore, no biggie...

 

[Tengil]

I remember some shady Playtechs liked to do this, they could even put in a tenner with a WR of 99 while the player was playing. Add to that that CS could give some totally false amounts that you had supposedly wagered.

Tought that all softwares prevented withdrawals before WR was met, excluding all the Cassava (Randomlogic) outfits.
So can anyone confirm that Playtech software prevents WDs before WR is met? I actually dont know so would be thankful if someone could confirm it.

This can be even more tricky at some casinos were early withdrawal (forfeiting the bonus) has been previously allowed. Mostly thinking of Netent and Party.

 

[KasinoKing]

I notice some you are voting "No biggie". Just out of curiosity I'd be interested in hearing why you think that "all winnings removed" clause is acceptable.

Because that's the terms.
When you take a bonus you HAVE to accept the casinos terms - if you don't like it - don't take the bonus.

Saying:
"Players who withdraw before meeting the requirement will have the bonus and all winnings removed".
Is no different to:
"Players who play Blackjack before meeting the requirement will have the bonus and all winnings removed".
Or:
"Players who place bets bigger than 25% of their total balance before meeting the requirement will have the bonus and all winnings removed".

As has been said many times before on this forum, players have to take responsibility for their own actions. That includes reading and complying with any T&Cs of the casinos.

I've seen terms like this many times and it's "no biggie" to me because I always make 100% sure I have finished the WR before requesting a withdrawal.

KK

 

[maxd]

Saying:
"Players who withdraw before meeting the requirement will have the bonus and all winnings removed".
Is no different to:
"Players who play Blackjack before meeting the requirement will have the bonus and all winnings removed".
Or:
"Players who place bets bigger than 25% of their total balance before meeting the requirement will have the bonus and all winnings removed".

I would argue that the first of those is not like the others because you know damn well if you wander off to play BJ or you start placing dangerously fat bets. Knowing your WR at any given point in time isn't nearly so obvious.

But I take your point, which I understand to be "they can put whatever they want in the Terms, as long as it's there". I disagree with vigour and am happy to say that insofar as Accredited casinos go so does CM:

# Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations.
# Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player.
# No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.

Of course there's wiggle room there but I think the intent is clear.

FWIW, we have and will pursue casinos for shabby terms and I believe this is one such case. I've yet to hear anything even approaching a justification for such a clause and "it's there" doesn't quite cut it.

I see that [strike]the staff of[/strike] folks connected to the casinos who use this clause are showing up to vote for the "No Biggie" option. Doesn't seem quite in the spirit of the thing to me.

Ok, heard some opinions, thanks all. Probably best to stop this here before it gets off the rails.

 

[The Dude]

Admin note: reopened thread

I'm opening this thread back up because I do not feel it received the exposure it deserved. I was out of town and Max had this open only for a day - closed it until I got back. Well obviously I'm back now.

What we have here is a term that I feel is predatory in nature. We received a PAB from a member who withdrew prematurely - he had not finished his wagering requirements. The casino confiscated his bonus and winnings as per the terms and conditions stating that they could do so because it was there. I would expect any casino - especially one that is listed in our Accredited section - to return all funds to the player's account and give them a heads up what they need to do to complete the wagering requirements.

Not all players are math heads; some are newbies who get excited and cash out prematurely. Some may also think that if the software will let you cash out, it must be ok (as in this situation).

In my opinion, this term is not fair and breaches the "Standards for Accredited Casinos"

Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player.

https://www.casinomeister.com/accredited-casinos/

I would like further input from our members on this.

Further Admin note: I've modified the poll changing "rogue-like" to "unacceptable for an accredited casino".

 

[maphesto]

Bryan, aren't the alternatives changed?

One of them were "no biggie" and one were "rogue term".

Was it a bit hard to continue calling it rogue term now when we know it was a PAB regarding this issue?

 

[oldtrvlagt]

It's a terrible clause...an "FU" clause...and if anyone agrees to it good luck. It's arrogance on the part of the casino...IMHO.

 

[Tengil]

And its almost exclusively noobs who get stung by it as CM mentioned.

 

[The Dude]

Bryan, aren't the alternatives changed?

One of them were "no biggie" and one were "rogue term".

Was it a bit hard to continue calling it rogue term now when we know it was a PAB regarding this issue?

Like I mentioned - I made a couple of modifications. It doesn't change the voting results though:

The choice of "rogue-like" was changed to "unacceptable for an accredited casino".

"Ho hum, seen it before. No biggie." was combined with "In a word, it sucks, but them's the breaks." since that's about the same - it's redundant. And "I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation ... somewhere." was changed to "it's acceptable" for brevity