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

 

[Dinahnana]

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".

I agree any reputable casino should be able to show the player the playthrough remaining so that when playthrough is met the player knows. Most RTG's do this and so does Rival. I have one MG account and my winnings are listed as bonus in my balance until the playthrough is met.

If the casino doesn't show playthrough balance in my opinion that casino is trying to bamboozle players and use that clause as an excuse not to pay.

 

[Dinahnana]

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 ?

Me too I want to know so that I can steer clear of that place myself.
In my opinion this clause is written intending to mislead players. Most places state that if you play with a slots bonus for example then you must only play on slots. Restrictions should be listed clearly on the T&C's and not some obscure fineprint somewhere.

There was some hoopla some time ago with Casino Titan not allowing progessive slots with their bonuses BUT the allowed games are listed in the coupon tabs for all to see. Casinos should be clear regarding restrictions on game play and playthrough requirements need to be clearly seen by the player otherwise they are rogue in my opinion.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I agree any reputable casino should be able to show the player the playthrough remaining so that when playthrough is met the player knows. Most RTG's do this and so does Rival. I have one MG account and my winnings are listed as bonus in my balance until the playthrough is met.

If the casino doesn't show playthrough balance in my opinion that casino is trying to bamboozle players and use that clause as an excuse not to pay.

This is where it becomes a rogue term. IF the software vendor has developed a display of remaining WR, and a means for the cashier to block premature withdrawal, casinos MUST USE IT as a means to protect the player from making mistakes, especially where the casino deems it so IMPORTANT that they wish to confiscate winnings, rather than return the funds for further wagering.

It seems a few well known rogue casinos have deliberately crippled the playthrough counter within RTG software, and use this deficiancy in a predatory nature to lie to players that they have not met WR, when in fact they have. These rogues also manage to do the impossible, deleting transaction histories from customer's accounts (even though the casino claims to have the information still).

Accredited casinos should make every effort to make the experience good for the customer, and not prey on players' mistakes.

I feel that turning off a feature that helps players determine whether they have met WR breaches this requirement for accreditation.

# No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.

 

[skiny]

There is absolutely no reason to confiscate the winnings. Even if the software doesn't allow you to see whether or not you've cleared the WR. (Which is ridiculous in itself.) When a player makes a withdrawal the money doesn't instantly fly into the players hands. It has to go through the casino's accounting department and at that point if the WR hasn't been met the money should be put straight back into the player's account and then the player should be notified. That is fair to the casino and fair to the player. The casino doesn't get stung and the player doesn't get robbed. Any casino that's confiscating winnings for such trivial reasons is doing so for the sole purpose of stealing money from the players.


I would have preferred to vote "Classic rogue behavior."

 

[same_old]

Yeah it is completely predatory.

the exact reason for that was stated above, not all clients are maths heads and or dont come to sites such as these to find this sort of info out.

Now days there is a lot more measures you can put in place to counter the fraudsters and the bonus abusers ( bonus abusers= caisno's terms not mine).


I mean there are companies who employee staff just to check the new incoming applications and there is a lot of areas you can find out if this clients is dodgy or not.

Also you can implement things into your system that will detect irrergular game play, such as bonus abuse etc.


All this boils down to is time and money- there simply is no money to be made in this area and if anything telling them they will lose there deposit also is only in the casino's favour.

You can easily put measures in place so you dont even have to add those terms in, but it seems this casino is all about the dollar and not the player experience.

 

[BigSD]

Rogue behavior in my opinion particularly if there is no easy way to calculate wagering. Playtechs are particularly difficult when your only option is to do some complex calculation using comps when different games count for different %s to wagering. The only option is to contact support who may take a week to respond to you or in fact lie about whether you have actually met the wagering.

 

[rockycatt]

what the hell kind of business model are they using or is it just a front and they really don't want business

 

[maxd]

Hello everyone,

Thank you for returning to the "new and improved" version of this poll.

I just wanted to say a few words to encourage others who might not yet have voted to come and do so:

When I contacted the casino in question -- yes, I specifically did not mention their name or the fact that there was a PAB in progress in the original poll because I did not want the poll to seem like an attack against the casino -- they said that one of their reasons for using this confiscation clause was that "other casinos use it too".

In other words it's not just one casino we're talking about here, there are others. To me this means that the strongest possible message from players to these casinos would be a very good thing here. If players have an interest in this, and I believe they do, the casino peeps need to know it loud and clear.

So if you haven't voted, or know of interested forum members that haven't yet, please do and please encourage others to. Vote as you see fit, of course, put please do vote.

Needless to say I DO NOT think it would not be appropriate for casino people to participate in this poll, at least not at this point. AFAIC that's basically stuffing the ballot box.

Thank you for your participation.

 

[footdr]

Not acceptable

I would guess 99% of players make the withdrawal request thinking playthrough met.
I have never had anything happen but my money put back in my account.

If a casino provides no means of keeping track of your playthrough balance they should not confiscate your money just because you thought playthrough met. It is stupid anyway, if you have met wagering they would never process the withdrawal anyway.

 

[maxd]

It is stupid anyway, if you have met wagering they would never process the withdrawal anyway.

Did you mean "if you have NOT met wagering they would never process the withdrawal anyway"? I'm guessing so.

This is largely my beef with this: there seems no legitimate reason to have such a clause.

If the player does attempt withdrawal before WR are complete the system or the cashier peeps are going to catch it, cancel the attempt, and (presumably) bounce the funds back to the player's account.

If for some reason the withdrawal attempt incurs some non-trivial effort on the part of the casino peeps -- ie costing time and wages -- then I can understand the term saying something like "if the player repeatedly attempts WD before meeting WR ... blah blah blah" in order to protect themselves from wasting time on players who might frivolously attempt WD many times over. But that's not what the term says and that's not how it's being applied: it's do it and you're screwed, no second chances.

FWIW I have asked over and over again for the casino to offer a reason, any reason, for the use of this confiscation clause. "What purpose does it serve you?" I asked, leaving it wide open for them to answer as they pleased. Not once did they answer the question. To this date I still have no idea why they feel such a clause is necessary or what purpose it serves for them. FWIW the PAB was filed one month ago.

 

[Simmo!]

If we assume the software prevents you withdrawing if you are short of WR, then the term is surely irrelevant anyway?

If the software doesn't, then it should at least warn you.

Now not being a bonus player, this may sound silly. But lets say you deposit 100, get 100, win a bit, lose a bit and come down to say 101. The term suggests you can still withdraw the 100 you initially deposited doesn't it? If so, then surely its like a risk-free bonus which is a good thing, right?

 

[KasinoKing]

On re-visiting this thread at CM's request it seems I mis-understood the original question and therefore my previous comment & vote are incorrect
(I'm sure I'm not the only one!)

Obviously if a player requests a withdrawal before meeting WR it should be refused, the full balance put back and the player told how much more WR he has to do.
Anything else is rogue-ish.

However, I equally agree with other posters that the casinos are mostly to blame for this situation - they should ALL have clear WR indicators in their cashier screen and invalid withdrawal attempts should be automatically blocked by the software.
I guess they can't do that because it's obviously rocket science!

KK

 

[brianzz]

I see this term *ALOT* on the T/C's at various casinos. If they feel the need to suddenly enforce it they should at least return the entire W/D back to the players account and send a detailed explanation/auto pop up chat/message window when they log in as to why they did it and how much more they needed to wager. If the player tries to cash it right back out again, then it'd be gone and the deposit refunded back to the deposit method and account locked/closed.

I'm sure that it's such a bother for the "cashiers" at these casinos to process a cash out.. I'd say maybe 5 or 6 clicks, maybe a key or two.... heaven forbid they have to click 8 or 10 times. But hell if they can't seem to figure out a way to not send new MG game announcements to US players I'm sure they have a really hard time processing cash outs.

 

[D!G!TAL]

Apologies if I'm repeating anything already said, I just got a PM to have a look at this and this subject intrigued me but I don't have time to read all of the thread at this time, so if I'm repeating anything that has already been said, sorry!

I can see why a casino would have the term as a last line of defence against software set ups that actually allow withdrawals prior to WR being met- especially if their software actually allowed bonus funds to be used on restricted games- if that isn't clear what I mean is, some casinos have restricted games that do not count towards wagering, say even chances in Roulette, but that does not prevent a player from actually placing those bets with bonus funds, it just doesnt count towards wagering- they would essentially be getting 2/1 on an even money shot (assuming a 100% bonus and all funds being placed on one out come). The winnings of this wager are very real and would not be subject to wagering. The term protects the casino against such abusive play in that the winnings can easily be removed.

That said however, I voted that accredited casinos should not be enforcing such a rule in the first instance- unless such activity as above is evident whereby the player is obviously seeking to gain an advantage. In the majority of cases the player should be given the benefit of the doubt and the withdrawal should be returned to the casino account to complete wagering, with a clear explanation of what the player had done wrong in the first place. Alienating a potential long term player would not seem to be a wise move on the behalf of the casino...

EDIT: Reading my post back I think I should have voted I believe it is acceptable.

 

[chayton]

I agree with the other posters who say it's a predatory term. If you haven't met wagering requirements your withdrawal will be cancelled and placed back into your casino account until such time as WR are met. That's fair and reasonable.

Or if the software prevents you from making a WD until WR are met, that's also fair and reasonable.

Or even if you go to make a withdrawal and the software pops up a warning message like, "Hey dummy, you still have WR and if you continue we're going to use our 'FU clause' to take the bonus and all winnings away - are you sure you want to do that?" Thus giving you fair warning that wagering hasn't been met. That's also fair - maybe not reasonable, but it's fair.

I really want to know what casino this is. I have a pretty good idea and if so, it sucks - because if it's them, I won't play there anymore. I don't normally take deposit bonuses except at MG anyhow, but it's the principle of the thing.

 

[helwhipped]

It shouldn't allow you to withdraw if wagering is not met. CS is there to help you out too.

 

[Westland Bowl]

I assume the purpose of a bonus is to attract deposits? Since gambling is a losing proposition over the long run the casino shouldn't fear that some people win in the short run.

But I think some casinos use bonuses as a way to put a ball and chain on lucky winners by high wagering requirements and/or conditions. If the player's balance never dipped below the original deposit amount, then the casino should not confiscate the winnings. Take away the bonus amount, yes, but not the winnings in that case.

 

[fatshaft]

I assume the purpose of a bonus is to attract deposits? Since gambling is a losing proposition over the long run the casino shouldn't fear that some people win in the short run.

But I think some casinos use bonuses as a way to put a ball and chain on lucky winners by high wagering requirements and/or conditions. If the player's balance never dipped below the original deposit amount, then the casino should not confiscate the winnings. Take away the bonus amount, yes, but not the winnings in that case.

Nothing else needs, or should need saying surely?

 

[puggie.pete]

They have a point

I think common sense applies, and you have to get past the fact that there are 2 points of view, both correct in my opinion so a compromise has to be reached. The player wants free cash and to skin the casino, the casino doesn't want to get skinned and wants more revenue. The 2 views are not compatible.

Being fair, this isn't about a casino promotion, it's about being offered something, reading the terms and determining whether you find them acceptable. If you do, accept and don't moan, if you don't don't play.

The promotion needs to be paid for, and this doesn't always mean fleecing the player, it means getting more players so they can afford to run the promotion. You get nothing for free. However, someone has to win with promotions and you won't find those who do complain.

Anyone is free to stipulate any terms at all, it is up to the taker to read those terms. You have absolutely no basis for complaint if you have ticked the read terms box and have not read them. You simply can not blame a casino because you have chosen to be less than thorough and bought into something you have not understood.

Will you always win at a casino or an online casino? Absolutely not, so you get to churn your money anyway, and this is the crux of the matter. I believe that the terms are talking about churn, rather than actual cash.

So if you have to spend 5 x stake to get the bonus money, it doesn't mean depositing your stake x 5, it means you deposit, get a percentage back, spend this again, get some back and so on and so forth until the in and out of cash adds up to 5 times the initial deposit.

Let's assume you put money in and lose it, there's a good chance that this will happen anyway through natural churn, unless you take your win and close your account. So it's going to happen regardless, you might as well get additional bonus money for doing something that you are probably going to do anyway.

Again, I can't stress this enough, the argument here isn't one of the actual promotion, but one of being caught out because you haven't read the terms properly and have placed your deposit to get the bonus and then found out it doesn't work as you thought it might.

Neither can you claim that it's sneaky, because the terms are there, right in front of you and you have to accept them before you proceed. If you don;t read them.......well.

I think my final point is bases on common sense. No one in their right mind can give away cash without a mechanism to make sure they get some or all of it back, it just doesn't happen. Basing an argument on being annoyed that you are not being handed cash for absolutely nothing isn't a particularly strong point of view.

Yes, it rankles, but did you really expect anything less? Has anyone played <snipped URL> now it's up and running?

 

[Lucky Loser]

My 2 cents for what is worth

The confiscation clause is clearly unjust and an abuse of the casino's contractual power. Generally speaking, a clause like this cannot be legally enforced unless it is clearly brought to the players attention before the deposit is made and bonus given, so a conscious decision is made to accept such punitive terms. I know this is the internet so having a legal right of recourse is pretty much non existent.

The casino in my opinion has 2 options. Ban bonuses for players in the affected jurisdictions or simply reverse the withdrawal unless playthrough is met and recredit the account

Some online casinos just think they can get away with anything. They should be shamed for the safety of the gambling public.

 

[diamondale]

Casino Titan should be rogue

THE ONLY CASINO I KNOW OF THAT DOES THAT IS TITAN CASINO THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF THE ACCREDITED LIST GIVES RTG CASINOS A BAD NAME THIS HAPPENED TO ME MONTHS AGO I DIDNT KNOW WHAT THE PLAYTHROUGH WAS THOUGHT I WAS DONE I KNOW I WAS DONE I COUNTED ALL MY SPINS BUT WHEN I WENT TO WITHDRAW I USED QT WHICH I NO LONGER USE AND THEY WOULDNT PAY ME MY WINNINGS SAID THAT SINCE I WITHDREW MY GAMES WERE VOIDED. AND THAT I STILL HAD PLAYTHROUGH WHICH I KNOW I DIDNT. THATS WHY I DONT PLAY THERE ANYMORE THERE CHEATERS AND ROGUE. GLAD SOMEONE BROUGHT THIS UP I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAD THIS PROBLEM.

 

[Nifty29]

I have seen this term many times over the years at many casinos.

Personally, I withdrew before WR accidentally a few years back and they sent me an email stating how much more I needed to play and put the funds back.....and that is what an ethical casino would do in these situations.

IMO to be accredited a casino should:

1. Provide a playthrough counter for bonuses

2. Disable withdrawal feature until bonus is lost or WR is met

3. If, due to technical or cost issues the above requirements cannot be met, the casino should at the very least state that in the case of withdrawing before WR is met the funds will be returned to the account until the WR is met.

I would consider any casino that will not come to the party on these simple measures unworthy of my business and not somewhere I would recommend to others.

 

[KasinoKing]

Yes, it rankles, but did you really expect anything less? Has anyone played mycasinosite.com now it's up and running?

I nominated your post because it's content & message is spot on IMO.

However, be aware that link you slipped in at the bottom may be considered as "spamming" and could get you into trouble.

KK

 

[Bencuri]

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?

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.

Regarding the confiscation part:

What's your question in fact? Because it is not clear to me. You see it is in the rules, the player is warned, so what's the problem then? Players should read the rules before starting to play. Then they can decide if they take the bonus or not. Interestingly in other cases, such rules don't disturb you, Max. This behavior is a bit inconsistent....

I think there is no problem with this rule in case the casino reminds players about it before cashing out. I don't say this is a good rule, I also prefer when you can cash out your winnings and deposit any time, but restricting the withdrawal is less irritating to me than a high WR. or tight limits in games, or a bad payout. There are casinos out there that has this rule, but in spite of this their overall bonus terms are far better and easier than the terms of many casinos here in the accredited section of Casinomeister. Personally most of the casinos I play at has such a rule, and in spite of this I was succesful in completing them and cashing out numerous times already.

In my opinion the real problem here is not if the casino has this rule, but wherther he reminds players of it before cashing out. If it does not, that is not so fair. But the rule itself is more or less acceptable. Such a rule has less importance for me in case I choose bonuses. It has, but only this rule won't threaten me from taking a bonus. There are many other factors that define if a bonus is worth taking or not.

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.

It think it is not. I think there are many good bonuses, there are numerous ones where you can cash out your winnings and deposit before meeting the wagering requirements, regardless of what game you play. In that case I don't unerstand why players shouldn't take bonuses. Such a bonus almost has no strings attached, has no cashout restriction at all, so I wonder why players should skip such bonuses? Look around a bit and you will find these bonuses, and you can be happy. If you take these, obviuosly they will offer better chance for you than playing without a bonus.


All in all it would be wonderful if casinos generally allowed players to cash out any time, but even if many has the restriction now, it is not the most problematic factor about bonuses. An effective presentation of the rules to the player is neccessary, however.

 

[assa92004]

THE ONLY CASINO I KNOW OF THAT DOES THAT IS TITAN CASINO THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF THE ACCREDITED LIST GIVES RTG CASINOS A BAD NAME THIS HAPPENED TO ME MONTHS AGO I DIDNT KNOW WHAT THE PLAYTHROUGH WAS THOUGHT I WAS DONE I KNOW I WAS DONE I COUNTED ALL MY SPINS BUT WHEN I WENT TO WITHDRAW I USED QT WHICH I NO LONGER USE AND THEY WOULDNT PAY ME MY WINNINGS SAID THAT SINCE I WITHDREW MY GAMES WERE VOIDED. AND THAT I STILL HAD PLAYTHROUGH WHICH I KNOW I DIDNT. THATS WHY I DONT PLAY THERE ANYMORE THERE CHEATERS AND ROGUE. GLAD SOMEONE BROUGHT THIS UP I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAD THIS PROBLEM.

is that casino titan or titan casino and i dont need a hear aid either so stop yelling (smile and the whole world thinks your mental)