all winnings removed if withdrawal before WR met

[1819]

another example of a simple software application saving alot of headache. simply do not allow a cashout until wr's are met. confiscating anything after the withdrawl, that could easily be disabled and refused, is rogue, and borderline criminal, behavior...

 

[dynamitewoman]

gotcha

This is so typical of gaming in the online industry.Not to say all casinos and gaming arenas use this kind of "manipulation", but it is so common to use "gotcha" techniques that players need to be more aware of software deviations and owner "floating" optional devices they can pull out of their collective rectum vaults and ice us with their shit. The rule is just plain WRONG, regardless if they have it noted in their requirements or not without a backup device to alert the player or stop the transaction as invalid!
They need to return this players funds and stop being a festering boil on the face of the industry.

 

[takethemoney]

If the player had not yet met the wagering requirements, the money should have just been put back into the balance and a nice email stating why the withdrawal was declined should have been sent. Then player could go back and try and meet the playthrough. To confiscate winnings is very predatory, roguish or whatever else you want to call it. It's not like the player could take advantage of the casino, since the final say as to whether to pay would be up to the casino.

IMO, they are using the language in their T&C for what it was intended for all along....a hook with bad intentions from the outset. There IS NO OTHER reason to have such language in a T&C, especially where the casino controls the withdrawal.

 

[Pulver]

This rule, amongst many others, are there to trap players. Simple as that. The casino often ends in a "win win" situation. If the player wins, they get their winnings confiscated..

I agree that it should be no problem for the casinos to block the games that are not allowed for wagering aswell. This would be an easy fix, but yet they don't implement it. Imagine how many novice players there are out there that tries out online gambling for the first time and get burnt with playing disallowed games and get their winnings confiscated.

It is a shame that it has come to this and a good thing that Bryan highlights this.

 

[laurels]

laurels

firstly as a canadian and I read that I would never put my money in that casino. I question all casinos that request certain nationalities to wager more than others. If it states that all monies will be confinscated if taken out before wagered then again I would question there legitability as they should have it calculated for auditing anyway. To with hold this info or wait for the player to screw up is unjust. They should be shut down or shunned totally as bad casino.

 

[laurels]

laurels

I just want to say that my vote was cast wrong I'm with the majority that it is unacceptable for a acredited casino I thougt I was saying it was unaceptable period sry and if there was a way I could change my vote I would

 

[joker05]

disgusted!

These terms are as lame as it gets. The casino is allready keeping track of your playthrough but yet they require you to keep track yourself - which is not an easy task for the disgustingly high playthrough amts. What possible reason is there for them to not share your current playthrough towards a bonus? Please, tell me, because I cannot for the life of me think of a valid reason. If I lose track of my playthrough progress, will support tell me what it is?

I could go on forever.... I have been an active depositor at many casino for years, and things like this are sickening. Please tell me which casino this is so I can ensure that I have nothing to do with them or any of their sister casinos. They are, in my opinion, predatory thieves that should be locked up and the key thrown away!

 

[barx7]

I voted Unacceptable and agree with everyone above that the onus shouldn't be placed on the player.
There's no excuse for confiscating winnings other than to save themselves a withdrawl from someone lucky enough to have come close to the WR. There's no cost involved either so I don't see any reason for it.

 

[SlotKing]

This term strikes a completely different tone with me.

As (mostly) everyone else has said, I believe this is an unacceptable term for ANY casino to have. If they are in the business of attracting new players and enticing them to deposit, they need to come up with terms that won't piss the player off the very first time they go to withdraw.

Now, on to my "hidden" meaning...

If:

1. The casino has this clause...

2. There is no WR counter....

3. No "live chat" function is available.....

It says to me that the casino is under-funded and is trying to find any possible way it can to deny a withdrawal so it can "rob peter to pay paul." A 110x WR is rogue itself. A term that states "cash out early and poof, we take everything, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it" says to me "our casino needs money and we will do whatever we can to get it, even if it means screwing our players about."

If these casinos can't even afford to pay their bills, who's to say they can afford to pay the lucky players? Like the ones who don't take a bonus?

[derail]

This is just like the casinos who offer bonuses that no matter what, can't be gotten rid of. That's pathetic, and (almost) amounts to extortion.

[/derail]

It's unacceptable for any casino, accredited, reputable or otherwise, to have such a term included. There is no need for it and essentially says "If you want to cash out, beware!"

 

[dodecahedron]

You can mess with the bonus $$$ all you want, DONT MESS WITH MY $$$ !

 

[davidw]

Unacceptable for any casino whether they are accredited or not imo and one of just many clauses that I would not agree with in a casinos t&C

 

[RaiseandFold]

I find all of this very vague. There are some key facts and figures missing from all of this.

What is the casino name?
How much did the player deposit?
How did the player deposit?
How much did they win?
How much did they try to withdraw?
Do they live in Canada or Greece?

Personally I agree with the decision and here's why. 99% of the time if not more people do not read the T&C. Once something goes wrong they cry foul and try to pass the blame on the operator. If the T&C is readily accessible and the terms were given to the customer, then the customer is at fault.

Now on the other hand the operator could've went back to the player and said under our T&C here's what's going to happen if we process your request. Do you still want to proceed or cancel it out?

It's not known if that was done and likely it wasn't. However there's a possibility it was and omitted in the complaint.

Anytime a bonus is involved there's stipulations. Whether it's a deposit bonus from a sportsbook, an initial deposit bonus from a poker room, or "free play" from a casino. We all should know that and all should accept the responsibility for our actions. We may not like the outcome, we may not like the terms, but once you check mark or click I agree then we are bound by those rules.

Does it suck that this player lost their "winnings" certainly. However we don't know how they won this money and this whole poll is vague without pertinent information.

Can we start a poll that says Does Obama Suck? A lot would vote YES instantly. But what is Obama sucking? You get my point.

Enjoy all.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

It would all be a lot more logical if the casino automatically blocked withdrawals until the WR was met.

There are only two senarios with players trying to withdraw early. Either they are trying to cheat or they have made a mistake. And since so few casinos allow players to monitor their WR then mistake is far more common than cheating.

But if withdrawals were blocked before WR is met then neither instance could occur so everyone would be happy.

 

[butterflyboogie]

Ludicrous

This is absolutely ludicrous, although I have read that term in some of the casinos I have played before. I am going to give my honest opinion here for whatever it is worth. Playing at a casino should be for fun. When it becomes work then it is time to move on to a different avenue of finding a good time. To know that I have to track my play time in order to know if it is safe to try and cash out is insane! I want to be able to sit down, load my casino with money, hit the spin button and other than taking a picture of a winning snap shot, that is all the "work" I want to do. The casinos (all of them) that have WR requirements should have it set up where if the requirements are not met, then the withdrawal is rejected. I have seen this on other casino software, so this should not be something that is hard to instate. Times are hard for everyone and to be able to play is a luxury, and casinos need to keep that in mind when developing rules and regulations. I know that I can't win all of the time, however, if I don't win some of the time I will not play with that casino for long. In addition, if I have to "worry" about if I am not doing something right, or that I have to make sure the casino is up to par with their activity, then this is not fun anymore.

Bryan, you are well respected here (I respect you) and the work that you and Max do. If these casinos don't want to do as they need to do in order to make sure that everyone benefits from it (including the casino), then these casinos are not worthy to be accredited on your web page (again my opinion). Thanks for bringing this to everyones attention.

 

[coloradobuff]

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.

agree with 1st sentence..

 

[Gouldster]

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"

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".

Definately incredibly unfair, dishonest and damn right dirty... But it doesnt suprise me at all...

Just had captaincrooks scam me out of a grand. so would guess it was them.


Done with online gambling.

 

[all4greed]

I'm not going to read through all this but what software is out there that doesn't have a wagering counter or allows a withdrawal to go through without meeting requirements?

None that I play at (Rival/RTG).

 

[Tinrap]

NEVER attempt a withdraw until verifying playthru with live chat!

MY 2Cents
I never do a withdraw without a chat (which I save ) w/Support.

Casinos are like insurance companys ,they do not train the help to Pay Out money.
By the same token Most will Pay IF you follow their sometimes crazy rules.

I have been lucky to have many successful withdraws on the Numerous free chips casinos send as marketing tools (PS I always send a little back 'Cause it almost guarentees future free chips :notworthy)

But Again ,Always Chat With Support Before a withdraw !! , That Is how You make them Successful withdraws

 

[ace4suited]

This sort of term causes no problems for those exploiting bonuses with any seriousness. They read the terms and work around them and counting how much you are betting could easily become second nature. It is not vague or unclear. Some people have made interesting points about it being difficult for some casinos to automatically track from the player end what extent of betting has been done.

My feelings about it go back to basics

a) bonuses should be simple, easy to understand and free from pitfalls for the uninitiated

b) if bonuses can impact someones ability to withdraw money or can seriously hamper their ability to collect the profits of their wagers then they should be given a straightforward option not to claim the bonus

ie "please not if you wish to claim your bonus you will have to bet in accordance with our terms and conditions or some of your winnings and the bonus could be voided"

To me the real problem with the clause is if enforced it is bad for business. The only people who it will affect will be on people who have tested a site out and want to bet legitimately. If someone gets their money taken away from them in this sort of way when they are not trying to abuse the bonus, merely withdraw when they have reached a good level of winnings then will they come back to the site? I think very few gamblers would win big and then never revisit a site - the only ones who do this are bonus exploiters. My chief issue with this clause is that it makes pure business sense for it to be there or to be utilised.

It would be much better service and in everyones interest to merely block the withdrawl and explain "unfortunately you have not completed sufficient wagers to withdraw the money according to the terms of receiving your bonus.".

People should not be expected to read terms and conditions - few people do. The worse consequences they should face should be having to complete their playthrough.

 

[cindie7777]

I feel the same as many others regarding this issue. It sounds like a trap I don't know of any casino that I have played at that would even allow a withdrawal request to go through if wagering requirements had not been met. I think I may have even tried to withdraw at some casinos just to see if I had met the requirement since there was no accounting that I had access to in regards to where I was at. I do believe that the terms of the casinos that I have played at state something similiar like if you play a certain game winnings could null and void or if you withdraw before meeting requirements winnings could be voided. I know on RTG if your playing on bonus once you meet requirements it will automatically take all your winnings except the max bonus amount out of account while still playing. It sounds like a standard legal disclosure that this casino is using to benefit them and the others just don't make it possible to make an early withdrawal and avoid the headache of dispute that will surely follow.

 

[vbdragon]

While I now read the T&C carefully on all new Casinos I play, as a newbie I also was caught by misleading/unclear T&C.
I was of the opinion that the Casino was keeping a record of my wagering and that I would not be able to withdraw if the WR had not been met.
The x100 is a joke, but the Casino can place whatever they want, BUT this is different to having clauses that preclude play at a certain game.

If the software doesn't keep a record of the WR and stop the player from withdrawing before that clause is fulfilled, it is just another scam excuse to take the player's money.

I don't agree with the change to the poll question ...
This is rogue behavior.
It is something I would expect from the Virtual Casino Group.

Anyone still playing at Virtual?

 

[spearmaster]

For some reason I can't vote, and it's early in the morning and I had another sleepless night, but here's my two bits:

The first time I read it, I had absolutely no problem with it. It was only after a while that it sort of hit me how this could be problematic both ways.

The term says that the casino "WILL" and not the casino "MAY". This implies that it is absolute. This is where the problem is.

Enough of you have seen the player's side - that a withdrawal too early may have been entirely accidental due to whatever factor. I agree that this is unfair on some players.

On the casino's side, you deposit, they give you a bonus, you play a few hands or spin a few times and hit a huge win, and withdraw. This is unfair on the casino, particularly when:

a. You might have already lost more than your original deposit
b. You might have placed a bet bigger than you would have without a bonus

When casinos offer a bonus, they have to calculate the risk they are taking and then they set a playthrough accordingly. 100x or more is plainly stupid and taking advantage of the player. 10x would be plainly stupid on their part if they allowed it for table games because they would lose their asses.

It is for this reason - limitation of risk - that playthrough must be determined. If you win - they should pay because they were willing to take that risk - but not before that point.

The correct thing for a casino to do is to tell the player that he has X amount of wagering to complete before a payout can be processed. Some casinos do this.

However, in this case, the terms and conditions are clear - even though they may have been applied in a heavy-handed manner. I don't know what the actual situation is so really I can't say much - but a casino should be able to distinguish between abuse and accident and act accordingly. My only real beef is with the word "WILL" instead of "MAY".

 

[zanzibar]

Voted unacceptable.

If a casino offers a bonus then the player should be able to do whatever they like under the conditions that are set - there is no such thing as "bonus abuse", "spirit of the bonus" or any other such BS. If they don't want the player leveraging by making bigger than normal bets, then change the table limits. If they don't want the player playing certain games, then disable the ones they are not allowed to play. If they don't want the player to withdraw early, then at the very least disallow a withdrawal before wagering is met, and even better show the player a counter.

I am unaware of a single casino that does all of these exceedingly simple things that would prevent almost all of these problems occurring. (I am a programmer so yes I know how simple it would be to do).

I think this is because:
1. it gives the player a little bit of rope to hang themselves with.
2. showing a counter would reveal to players just how bad a deal they are really getting on these high wagering bonuses

 

[felicie]

Sorry for not reading the rest but gotta go so my opinion of it is that it is ridiculous since it makes no sense. I've always kind of chuckled when I saw it because again it makes no sense. I wouldn't TRY to withdraw if I didn't know my WR was good to go. Always confirm that first.
The way it is written though with 110X seems like a speed trap to me or a good way for a slimy operation to make some extra money.
Good poll thank you.

 

[WyldGirl]

Personally I find this to be TOTALLY Unacceptable (but that option was not on the vote list!) as it is unfair to penalize a player for not meeting a WR if there is no visible way for the player to determine how much has been wagered! In order for this to even begin to be anything but a scam rule would be for the casino to implement wager counters within the casino!
And why is this only a rule for certain geographic players??