1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

all winnings removed if withdrawal before WR met

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by maxd, May 26, 2010.

Tags:
?

Thoughts on this "all winnings removed" clause? (please read thread before voting)

  1. In a word, it sucks, but them's the breaks.

    74 vote(s)
    11.3%
  2. Unacceptable for an "Accredited Casino"

    535 vote(s)
    81.7%
  3. Acceptable for casinos not listed at Casinomeister

    6 vote(s)
    0.9%
  4. I believe it is acceptable.

    40 vote(s)
    6.1%
    May 26, 2010
  1. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    Is it just me or does this clause from a casino's bonus Terms strike anyone else as particularly draconian?:

    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? :confused:

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
    2 people like this.
  2. May 26, 2010
  3. darkpixie

    darkpixie Senior Member

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



    Canadians have to do 110X :eek: I thought BetFred was bad with 50X :confused:
     
  4. May 26, 2010
  5. chuchu59

    chuchu59 gambling addict CAG PABnonaccred

    Occupation:
    EXECUTIVE
    Location:
    SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
    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.
     
    3 people like this.
  6. May 26, 2010
  7. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    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?

    Yeah, that's what it looked like to me too. I hoped there might be a better, more reasonable explanation.
     
  8. May 26, 2010
  9. darkpixie

    darkpixie Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Vancouver
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. May 26, 2010
  11. Deeplay

    Deeplay New World Order CAG mm1 webmeister

    Occupation:
    Works For Self
    Location:
    The biG Eu
    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 :cool: etc always read terms n cons but not everyone does. Would like to know which casino / software this is ?
     
    5 people like this.
  12. May 26, 2010
  13. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    Agreed. The confiscation approach just seems like a big FU.
     
  14. May 26, 2010
  15. takethemoney

    takethemoney Banned User - Chargebacks at Slotastic

    Location:
    Washington
    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.
     
  16. May 26, 2010
  17. Nifty29

    Nifty29 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    PAID CASINO SHILL
    Location:
    Turn right, then right. then right again
    The part I dont understand is this: The huge WR is obviously based on past history of players from these countries (damn canadians :p ) 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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. May 26, 2010
  19. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2010
  20. May 26, 2010
  21. all4greed

    all4greed Now we can do business.

    Occupation:
    Misc.
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    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...
     
  22. May 26, 2010
  23. sw3tsexi

    sw3tsexi Dormant account

    Occupation:
    hippie student
    Location:
    London
    this will do us good?
     
  24. May 26, 2010
  25. love2winalot

    love2winalot Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Roulette Player
    Location:
    Philippines/Visiting Las vegas
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  26. May 26, 2010
  27. PaaskeDKnowUK

    PaaskeDKnowUK Always think positive CAG PABnoaccred webmeister

    Occupation:
    Clerk with shipping discounts worldwide
    Location:
    UnKnown
    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..... :what:
    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.
     
  28. May 26, 2010
  29. maphesto

    maphesto Ueber Meister CAG MM webmeister

    Location:
    Sweden
    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. :rolleyes:

    Personally, don't like this pretty common clause:

    * In the event of a dispute, all decisions made by the casino will be final.
     
  30. May 26, 2010
  31. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  32. May 26, 2010
  33. all4greed

    all4greed Now we can do business.

    Occupation:
    Misc.
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    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...
     
  34. May 26, 2010
  35. Tengil

    Tengil Senior Member

    Occupation:
    -
    Location:
    Finland
    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.
     
  36. May 26, 2010
  37. KasinoKing

    KasinoKing WebMeister & Slotaholic.. CAG MM PABnonaccred webmeister

    Occupation:
    House-Husband and Casino Advisor
    Location:
    Bexhill on sea, England
    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
     
  38. May 26, 2010
  39. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    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:
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page