all winnings removed if withdrawal before WR met

[mattsgame]

Thanks everyone for your responses. We've had a fantastic turnout for the poll - nearly 500 respondents at the moment - and it's pretty clear: a term like this is not acceptable for an Accredited Casino at Casinomeister.

This is the issue that sparked this poll and discussion - in May, we received a PAB from a player who had tried to cash out before he met the wagering requirements at Purple Lounge:



Purple Lounge's terms for the bonus:

4. Players claiming a bonus using a deposit via either Moneybookers or Neteller must wager at least 50 times the bonus amount. 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.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Now it can be argued whether or not the player tried to be slick and made his attempt to cash out before he had knowingly met the wagering requirements. Or perhaps he miscalculated and cashed in too early - or he put his trust solely on the software that showed he was able to cash out (the software not identifying him being a Greek player). But in my opinion, we aren't here to guess what was going on in the player's head. He made a mistake. But even so, shouldn't the casino be obliged to return the funds to his account and instruct the player what more he has to do in order to successfully cash out? I would think so - at least that would be expected of casinos being listed here.

I do understand that there are costs involved with having cashiers audit players' accounts to ensure that all terms have been met. But even so, total confiscation for a first time offense is draconian and player unfriendly.

The responses we received from Purple Lounge indicated to us that they were not interested in debating the issue. So be it. In my opinion - and in the opinion of most of our members, this term is unfair and breaches the standards of accredited casinos. Thus - they've been removed.

I'm hoping that all operators, regardless whether or not they have properties listed here, take a look at this situation and understand that enforcing a term such as this is unacceptable.

Total Rubish..

I'm sure most of us players go by the software to tell us if we have finished our WR.(if its in the software) And once the software says "congrats your WR are met" most of us hit the cashout button.

Glad you posted a little of the PAB. From what you have posted the player was not rude and even excepted he may not have seen the terms and offered to play out what was required. Any casino should return the funds and let him continue on his merry way.

These country restrictions also buffle me With extra WR etc. I don't quite understand, anyone can be a bonus abuser! and these are usually hidden in t&c anyway.

This definitely is a FU clause that does not sit well with me. How hard is it to say "sorry you haven't finished WR please do so before attempting a cashout"

Even if the player did mis-calculate its quite a harsh penalty and i'm so sick of casino's not taking any reasonable/sensible action in solving a matter and handing off responsibility

I had more... minds all over the place (Damn migraine)

I will be pulling purple lounge off my site.(not that they have received any players from me)


Cheers Matt

 

[chayton]

Now that you've explained the situation fully, I'm even more inclined to say it was unacceptable! If the bonus counter ticked down to zero as the player stated in his message then he clearly assumed that he'd met wagering requirements before trying to cash out. I mean seriously....how many people keep track of every bet they make when there's a playthrough counter that's supposed to do it for them? I never keep track, I just play and if I'm lucky enough to get ahead and the bonus amount finally shows 0 then I know I'm done.

I'd have been some pissed if that had happened to me. I understand the ridiculous WR and withdrawal before WR is met is in their terms, but if the playthrough counter was displaying the wrong amount, why should the player be punished for that? It's their mistake - at least they should have given him the opportunity to play the remainder. It wasn't like he knowingly tried to cash out while there was still money showing in bonus funds. As it is, it feels suspiciously like they set a trap.

Good job Bryan.

 

[takethemoney]

Purple lounge has a real bitch for rep here too. Good riddance! Some of these f@!king people seem to forget where their income comes from. I hope they appreciate all the players they just lost.

 

[bb1webs]

Hi all,

I haven't time to read the whole thread but did come to vote as requested and I also wanted to shout out to Bryan that the PM he sent out didn't have a working link in it.

Perhaps not everybody copied and pasted it as I did,

and perhaps its already been brought up, if so, disregard.


hope everyone is doing well.

Cheers

S.

 

[The Dude]

...and I also wanted to shout out to Bryan that the PM he sent out didn't have a working link in it...

Yeah, I know. My bad. But we had a good turnout anyway.

By the way, I just wanted to share some of the responses I had from operators who PMd me on this (all remain anonymous of course)

...With us, this is very simple. If a player does not qualify for withdrawing his bonus balance at the time of the withdrawal we inform him and he keeps attempting to meet the wagering requirements. As far as I know this is pretty standard procedure across the industry...

You do not have to worry about (casino name removed), we will of course inform the player what is the amount he needs to wager more before he can ask for a cash out.... we also do not have this term at all.

... I can assure you that at (our) Casino every customer who contacts us, has been offered the option to continue wagering towards the bonus (provided players did not play restricted games).

...We do not use the term and do not confiscate winnings in cases, such as this...

...I am quite surprised that a casino that uses MG software had an issue like this as the MG virtual pitboss is very powerful and will allow you to create a bonus for almost every player group and scenario...

So it looks as though Purple Lounge is not with the program - nor is any casino that has terms like these.

Purple lounge has a real bitch for rep here too. Good riddance! Some of these f@!king people seem to forget where their income comes from. I hope they appreciate all the players they just lost.

Please don't call other members "bitches". Thank you.

 

[RobWin]

Looks like "Purple Lounge" is already spending that listing money elsewhere now, since their removal from the accredited list here...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I swear it seems that the GPWA has no qualms whatsoever with any program about any issue as long as the programs money is good! They just took their sponsorship money over there.
____
____

 

[Rusty]

EDIT I have read a couple of references from others about this and if I am repeating what is old I apologise in advance.

I have not had time to read all of this thread but I have noticed a few arguments along the lines of "If it is in the T&C's then it is ok"

This is quite an asinine view IMO as it puts all the responsibility on the consumer/customer to read, fully comprehend and judge as fair every last dotted i and crossed t in the T&C's.
This view just gives carte blanche to casinos to bury and/or make unfair T&C's as they please.

This not just my opinion either but the very reason the unfair contract terms act was brought into being in 1977 - this act asserts that contract terms must be "reasonable"
Obviously the courts would often have to decide what is reasonable but for the purposes of this thread I think it fair to say that removal of legitimate winnings as a penalty for what is likely a genuine mistake is unreasonable.

Here are just three of things a court may take into account when deciding if terms were reasonable that may have relevance;
(taken from farnhamchamberofcommerce)

(a) the strength of the bargaining positions of the parties relative to each other, taking into account (among other things) alternative means by which the customer's requirements could have been met.

(b) whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term, or in accepting it had an opportunity of entering into a similar contract with other persons, but without having to accept a similar term.

(c) whether the customer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties).

Hopefully the above will give those who consider "It's in the T&C's so tough" a new perspective.
There is a reason we have laws and do not just devolve into following the laws of jungle - we are not all born equal and we do not all have a social conscience.

EDIT,EDIT Ok After a bit of back reading from here I see people have mentioned this already, I need more time!

 

[all4greed]

I'm not familiar with this casino but if the bonus balance showed zero indicating that wagering was met, then it appears to be fraudulent behavior on the casino's part. It's not the player's fault that the wagering was tracked incorrectly due to him/her being in a country with different wagering requirements. Seriously, how difficult would it have been for the casino to put the money back in their account and notify them of the additional wagering necessary?

Knowing a bit more about the story now, I would have changed the way I voted. As the question was originally asked, it didn't apply in this case...

 

[The Dude]

Looks like "Purple Lounge" is already spending that listing money elsewhere now, since their removal from the accredited list here...
...

Which was $0. Feel free to ask them how much they paid to be listed here.

 

[incrediblestuff]

sorry for this little off topic but here goes: omg rusty!

NO pictures of "animal sex" in your avatar pls!

 

[spearmaster]

Now it can be argued whether or not the player tried to be slick and made his attempt to cash out before he had knowingly met the wagering requirements. Or perhaps he miscalculated and cashed in too early - or he put his trust solely on the software that showed he was able to cash out (the software not identifying him being a Greek player). But in my opinion, we aren't here to guess what was going on in the player's head. He made a mistake. But even so, shouldn't the casino be obliged to return the funds to his account and instruct the player what more he has to do in order to successfully cash out? I would think so - at least that would be expected of casinos being listed here.

Ridiculous. The casino should return the funds for the player to continue wagering. Now that the issue has been made clear I definitely side with the player here.

 

[maxd]

Off-topic posts moved to Casino La Vida - cashout without the standard 20£ deposit?.

@PaaskeDKnowUK: posting your crap in other threads is called "thread hijacking", is a violation of the Forum Rules, and you've been given a short ban for it. Do it again and you will get you booted off the forums for good.

 

[jetset]

Media Corporation bought Purple Lounge late last year for GBP 465 000, and it looks as if that development was not good for players in cases like this, where a policy that is so obviously wrong was introduced.

I wonder if Chris Gorman, who went over with the acquisition, is still involved with Media Corporation? Surely he would have guided the new management on the unacceptability of this sort of ruling?

Media Corporation is a publicly listed company headed by Justin Drummond in the UK btw. Has any attempt to communicate with this ill-advised corporation been made to point out this thread, the poll and the remarks of other operators for Drummond's attention?

I doubt that the licensing authority - Malta - would be much use in resolving the matter; they're not renowned for supporting players or acting swiftly, I'm afraid.

 

[ring657130]

That is totally unacceptable. If you can't see what wagers are already made, then it shouldn't let you try to withdraw...should say wagers have not been met before you try. But if you try ...then they take your winnings??? That is totally wrong, wrong, wrong!!!! Should let you go back to play some more to meet the requirements. At least everywhere I play at, it states not met, so I automatically don't try to cashout, and go play some more.

 

[darkpixie]

Now that I know it was Purple Lounge at work here... And MGS software, I think it begs the question why wasn't the MGS bonus system being used. And if it was being used then would this not be a software glitch to allow him to withdraw before playthrough was met?

 

[irishgilly]

A PENALTY FOR EARLY WITHDRAWAL? WTF???

THIS IS TRUELY THE WORST CASE OF HORSE PUCKY I HAVE EVER RUN ACROSS. I HAVE PARTICIPATED IN TOURNEYS ALL OVER THE WORLD FROM HIGH ATOP TRIGGER, (MY DESK CHAIR) AND I HAVE YET TO COME ACROSS ONE THAT HAD A NEED FOR FINE PRINT. THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT WHERE ANY PARTICIPANT CAN (AND SURE AS HELL SHOULD) READ THEM. EARLY WITHDRAWAL FROM WHAT? I HOPE THEY WERE USING PROTECTION. SERIOUSLY MAN IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE SOMEONE GOT SCREWED.I WOULD ADVISE A DOT COM LAWYER, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA OF THE SCREWED ONE'S MONETARY ACCOUNT. TELL U WHAT THOUGH- IF YOU DECIED TO GO THAT ROUTE, I AM WILLING TO QUEUE UP AND DISH OUT SOME PALTRY AMOUNT THAT I CAN OR MAYBE EVEN CAN'T AFFORD, BUT IF ENOUGH OF US THROW IN...WE COULD HAVE A PROPHYLACTIC AID FOR THE POOR GUY WHO GOT SO THOUROUGHLY SCREWED. THERE IS REALLY NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT THIS SITUATION, BUT I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO, IF I HAD THE TALENT, WOULD BE AN ANGRY COMEDIEN, A LOUIS BLACK TYPE, ONLY IN HEELS. a PENALTY FOR EARLY WITHDRAWL? ARE THEY SERIOUS? ONCE THIS GETS OUT, NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WILL EVER PLAY POKER, OR SLOTS OR WHAT EVER THE HELL THEY WERE DOING AT THIS ESTABLISHMENT AGAIN. MEISTER I WOKE UP ATOP MY TRUSTY STEED THIS A.M. (AGAIN, DAMNIT) AND THE FIRST THING I SAW WHEN MY BLURRED VISION CLEARED, WAS THAT I HAD A MESSAGE FROM THE MEISTER. OFCOURSE I IMMEDIATLY CICKED ON IT. I READ IT THREE TIMES BEFORE I DECIEDED YOU WERN'T HAVING ME ON. I DO HOPE THAT BEFORE THIS POLL IS OVER THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO KNOW WHERE IT IS THAT WE SHOULD NEVER PLAY AGAIN. IF CASINO'S ARE GOING TO START PULLING THIS CRAP I AM GOING TO CLIMB ON DOWN FROM TRIGGER AND TAKE UP GOLF. OR TARGET PRACTICE. OR BETTER YET, BOTH! I HAVE A DISTANT RELATIVE THAT IS A DOT COM ATTORNEY. HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO HER SINCE THE LAST FAMILY GET TOGETHER 6 OR SO YEARS AGO, AND I KNOW SHE IS ONE VERY BUSY LADY, BUT I HAVE JUST GOT TO ASK HER IF SHE HAS EVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING. SINCE I WILL BET ON MOST ANYTHING I WILL BET NOT, BUT EVEN BUSY LAWYERS NEED A LAUGH EVERY NOW AND THEN. AS I SAID, THIS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER, ESPECIALLY FOR THE SCREWEE- BUT MAN, IT IS RATHER LAUGH OR CRY DON'T YOU THINK? UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO YOU THAT IS...I WILL KEEP CHECKING BACK ON THIS ONE, BUT PLEASE, ANYTHING DEVELOUPES, PLEASE SEND US A MESSAGE.MY BEST TO YOU SIR, AND MY CONDOLENCES TO THE POOR GUY THAT IS GETTING SO THOUROUGHLY :xxx

 

[Edomite_Slayer]

Bump

 

[vinylweatherman]

Now that I know it was Purple Lounge at work here... And MGS software, I think it begs the question why wasn't the MGS bonus system being used. And if it was being used then would this not be a software glitch to allow him to withdraw before playthrough was met?

It WAS being used.

The player was MISLEAD by an INCORRECTLY CONFIGURED system into following the bonus balance down to zero.

This is ROGUE behaviour, because it IS possible to configure the MGS bonus system to cope with different player categories. Jackpot Factory do just this. VIP players have a reduced 15x WR, and this is correctly tracked through the bonus tracking system.

It looks like this is being used as a deliberate trap, allowing players from Greece to see their WR dip to zero, but then confiscating their winnings simply for TRUSTING MGS software to get it right.

WHY would a player check with CS if the software had a function to answer their question. Further, there is NOTHING in that rogue term to suggest that the bonus system did not apply, and worse still IT WAS FUNCTIONING, rather than having been switched off.

Had the bonus system been switched off, the player would no doubt have checked with CS that WR had been completed. I see no reason why they would do this if a WR left indicator showed zero.

This looks like a trap was set, leading the player into making the mistake that allowed the confiscation of the winnings. It is PURPLE LOUNGE that made the mistake, an ILLEGAL one at that under EU consumer protection laws, by having MISLEADING information in their service client, and then arbitrarily fining to consumer for nothing more than acting on this wrong information.
This group should really be "not recommended" rather than simply not listed, since this "trap" still exists because they are not correctly using the software provided, and any casino that uses "gaffed" software (even through inaction) should be considered bad.
This should also be brought to the attention of MGS, since this brings their software into disrepute, since a player lost 3000 due to a bug in the tracking, and the operator is washing their hands of all responsibility.

I quit playing Purple Lounge earlier this year, but NOT because of this case, but because of the inexplicable banning of players who's only "crime" was to win. The change of ownership must have had something to do with this deterioration in performance, and maybe I quit at the right time, WELL AHEAD

 

[pocketnut]

just voted

I think it is unacceptable for any casino...

 

[winbig]

It WAS being used.

The player was MISLEAD by an INCORRECTLY CONFIGURED system into following the bonus balance down to zero.

This is ROGUE behaviour, because it IS possible to configure the MGS bonus system to cope with different player categories. Jackpot Factory do just this. VIP players have a reduced 15x WR, and this is correctly tracked through the bonus tracking system.

It looks like this is being used as a deliberate trap, allowing players from Greece to see their WR dip to zero, but then confiscating their winnings simply for TRUSTING MGS software to get it right.

WHY would a player check with CS if the software had a function to answer their question. Further, there is NOTHING in that rogue term to suggest that the bonus system did not apply, and worse still IT WAS FUNCTIONING, rather than having been switched off.

Had the bonus system been switched off, the player would no doubt have checked with CS that WR had been completed. I see no reason why they would do this if a WR left indicator showed zero.

This looks like a trap was set, leading the player into making the mistake that allowed the confiscation of the winnings. It is PURPLE LOUNGE that made the mistake, an ILLEGAL one at that under EU consumer protection laws, by having MISLEADING information in their service client, and then arbitrarily fining to consumer for nothing more than acting on this wrong information.
This group should really be "not recommended" rather than simply not listed, since this "trap" still exists because they are not correctly using the software provided, and any casino that uses "gaffed" software (even through inaction) should be considered bad.
This should also be brought to the attention of MGS, since this brings their software into disrepute, since a player lost 3000 due to a bug in the tracking, and the operator is washing their hands of all responsibility.

I quit playing Purple Lounge earlier this year, but NOT because of this case, but because of the inexplicable banning of players who's only "crime" was to win. The change of ownership must have had something to do with this deterioration in performance, and maybe I quit at the right time, WELL AHEAD

I know that with GoWild, you couldn't see exactly how much of your balance was bonus money, but if you went into the cashier section and tried to withdrawal, it would tell you whether or not you could. At least if you still hadn't cleared the WR, it wouldn't allow you to even try to cash out and fall into a trap to lose your winnings.

 

[weplant]

Totally unacceptable..It is so simple, if you hit the withdrawl button and you have not met requirements, do not allow the withdrawl..With some casinos you have to live chat them to find out where you stand...They are hoping you will withdrawl before you have met requirements...Shame, shame on them...

 

[PeekABoo]

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.

I'm with you until you start dissing Canadians I am Canadian do not CHEAT and take great exception to being lumped into a general category. No matter what country, there are the stand up people and the cheaters. Since the rest of the quote is basically reasonable, I would hope that you could be too and refrain from bashing.

 

[RandomEvent]

I speak as a novice gambler and I still see myself as a newbie with little experience. I apologise in advance if I say something wrong and get flamed in the process.....

From what I understand from the T&C shown, the casino is saying that any withdrawal during the period of playing the bonus will result in the loss of the bonus plus any winnings gained during the bonus play. Am I correct?

Providing the casino is not deleting the winnings earnt prior to the start of the bonus, then I think this is generally fair. At the end of the day these bonuses come with a terms and conditions "contract" attached. A user has to play through a given amount to unlock the winnings and it states that in the "contract" what the specified play is. If the user break the contract without losing the balance, then it is fair that the casino takes away all winnings earnt from the start of that play with that bonus up until attempted cashout.

If the user has a balance which is greater than that of the bonus and bonus-play winnings combined, I see no reason why the casino should reject any of the remainder of the account being withdrawn. If this is the case, then I think the casino is being completely unfair to the user and perhaps taking advantage.

I am not a fan of bonuses in general and not wish to entertain another, unless it was fair.

 

[Kirilster]

I will probaly say the same thing as some of you already said but still wanted to react. "If you attempt to withdraw" they say... Well, the way it's formulated is like saying "if you attempt to steal, if you attempt to flee etc. and get caught then you will be punished" but this is understandable only if it applies to a physically possible action for the player. The fact is that by submitting a withdrawal request the only thing that he does is ASKING to do something to the casino, he is not able to attempt any action, he has no power whatsoever ! So, what their formulation means is "If you attempt ASKING us to give you your money while you haven't yet met the requirements then all of it will be confiscated ! It's like if I asked to my wife if the dinner was ready and the answer was "no" that would mean I would have no dinner at all. This is taking people for idiots.

 

[colly]

The terms are a bit trickier than some but does seem to be almost a common term - even with some variations like may confiscate etc.

There may be some validity to confiscating the bonus itself and any remainder winnings over and above the deposit- but if played in good faith and no counting mechanism then some compromise or apportionment should be available.

In a good casino the software should be such that you can't withdraw if you haven/t met the WR and there should be a counter for the WR ,

I certainly wouldn't have expected this in an accredited casino nor some of the ridiclous WR terms but if you check out Alladins (Accredited) the WR if you are AUstralian are even more ridiculous than the Canadian ones mentioned. SImilarly while its WR is fairly standard and I like most things about it I gave up at Intertops (Accredited) because there was no counter for the wagers played.

Cheers

 

[Nate]

Yep, I agree. this should be a simple issue to resolve. It just depends how how far the Casino will go to ensure they are 'recovering' funds weekly by T&C's breaches (Some not deliberate).

A simple example would be 3dice's Tourney mode - You are ONLY able to play what the tourney specifies. The software advises you that a particular game is not allowed in the current tourney and also doesnt allow you to access it...

Also, i remember that i deposited on a previous balance of a few cents and when i tried to WD, the software said that i still had to complete a WR before WD - So it is possible to do.

Ah well... Will they cite that they are unable to do this or there are costs involved?... Anything is possible if other casinos are able to do it. It's as simple as getting the 'Upgrade' from the manufacturer or paying for the development of such.

Nate

 

[labell]

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.

Absolutely agree, and if the software does not show wr then the entire balance should be returned to the casino account with a message to the player about how much wr remains! Definitely predatory and I'd only expect this behavior of total confiscation from a rogue casino.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Absolutely agree, and if the software does not show wr then the entire balance should be returned to the casino account with a message to the player about how much wr remains! Definitely predatory and I'd only expect this behavior of total confiscation from a rogue casino.

This was Purple Lounge, Microgaming. The software ALREADY had the facility to physically PREVENT a player making a withdrawal before WR has been met, and this happens in MOST MGS casinos. This was particularly nasty, because there IS a playthrough indicator, and this player played until this showed that all his WR had indeed been met. This was a predatory exploitation of a SOFTWARE BUG by Purple Lounge, as an INCORRECT indication that WR had been met was given to the player, so no amount of checking on the players' part would have made this bug in any way obvious.

There are other bugs in the MGS bonus system, and I found yet ANOTHER only last week, down to a balance tracking error between cash & bonus balances during the play of one of those promotions where xx free bonus slot spins are added to one of the games, with winnings from these spins being paid out as a bonus, not cash.

Casinos don't think it's fair when a PLAYER exploits a software bug for profit, so how come it's fair when a CASINO does it.

CM members said "no" (see poll), hence you no longer see Purple Lounge in the accredited list.

Some casinos have decided that the "bottom line" is more important than doing the "right thing" by players, so when they get "advantage played" by players even more "ruthless" than they are, so be it.

I had a call from them last December, their VIP team wanted to know why I had quit all of a sudden. I told her this tale, and she agreed that this was totally unfair -- then I revealed to her that it was HER CASINO I was talking about She said she would get back to me after asking about this with her bosses - never heard a thing (looks like she got "slapped down" from on high, and they are NOT going to change their behaviour).

I was a significant depositor there, we are talking £ thousands per month sometimes, not a few tenners once in a while.

...and I mean WAS


I am £25,000 ahead at PL, so this incident made me think I could be next, even for the most minor of perceived violations.

 

[petro]

I don't understand what this means;
"In a word, it sucks, but them's the breaks."
Can anyone translate it? (Serious question.)

 

[The Dude]

I don't understand what this means;
"In a word, it sucks, but them's the breaks."
Can anyone translate it? (Serious question.)

It's a bad term, but there is not much you can do about it. So live with it.

 

[felicie]

It's a bad term, but there is not much you can do about it. So live with it.

How about 'it's not fair but no one said it was going to be'?

 

[petro]

I voted unacceptable for an "Accredited Casino" becasue the T&C;
"Players who withdraw before meeting the requirement will have the bonus and all winnings removed," seems to have no logical purpose behind it besides making more money for the casino.

 

[sweiger]

I voted unacceptable for an "Accredited Casino" becasue the T&C;
"Players who withdraw before meeting the requirement will have the bonus and all winnings removed," seems to have no logical purpose behind it besides making more money for the casino.

So did I. It's not only unacceptable for an accredited casino, it's unacceptable on the whole. It's rogue behaviour IMO.

Casinos has the advantage anyway, i.e. they decide wether or not you're elegible to be paid. Why then punish a player who in good faith thought WR has been met? It can be a mess keeping track of your wager, and it somehow spoils the fun of playing.
Although I've seen this term in a lot of casinos, I never ran into a situation where they actually forced it on me if I miscalculated WR.
But if the bonus was the sticky type (typical Playtech), I had it removed at cashout time. So if I had to make further play to meet WR, it would be without the removed bonus. That's enough penalty I think.

 

[Bencuri]

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".

Meister you say this: 'That is clearly in their terms - the terms YOU agreed to when you signed up.' I learned from you that if a casino sanctions you because you broke a rule in their terms, you agree on that it is fair. So I just don't understand your point. Now please decide: is a rule a rule, or not? I cannot follow your logic now at all.

 

[The Dude]

Meister you say this: 'That is clearly in their terms - the terms YOU agreed to when you signed up.' I learned from you that if a casino sanctions you because you broke a rule in their terms, you agree on that it is fair. So I just don't understand your point. Now please decide: is a rule a rule, or not? I cannot follow your logic now at all.

Your suspension was for 7 days, I've just ramped this up for a month. Happy trails...