I don't ever recall a casino "extending" a max cashout on a free chip before. Once you met the wagering requirements you were capped to the max cashout in the terms for that chip. Once the withdrawal was processed you were free to make a new deposit. Some have stated that some casinos do allow you to continue playing above and beyond the free chip max cashout rule. What I don't understand is , if these casinos who allow this extention are RTG, then why only a handful and not all.
I think the act of pulling the excess money out after WR has been met while the player is playing is BS, it confuses and would definitely make the player feel as if they were through with that particular bonus. BUT, this would also go hand in hand with the casinos who carry over bonus terms from one deposit to the next if WR from the first deposit isn't met and the account wasn't zeroed out. I think that is a bunch of BS also. How many players actually think that 1 penny will matter?
I have to agree with Nifty on this one. I don't think the OP will get anywhere with a PAB (But I hope he does for his sake). It's not that we "accept" this is right, but you have to accept this is how the CASINO will interprete it. And who has the final say here, NOT the player...
Until, of course, the day comes when they find that this works in the PLAYER'S favour (can't think how though).
Casinos keep on telling us that the "spirit of the bonus" is to "extend our playing time", and any attempt to make WR quickly and effectively for profit is often called "bonus abuse".
Well, WTF happened HERE to "the spirit of these offers is to extend your playing time". Now all of a sudden, "abuse" of an RTG free chip through meeting WR to the EXACT CENT,and immediately cashing out is no longer "bonus abuse", but a REQUIREMENT!
Cashing out, and then immediately redepositing is simply a "hoop" for the sake of it. Far from providing "entertainment" for the player, it cuts short their session, even if they were having fun and wanted to carry on. It costs the casino extra processing fees purely for the sake of having this artificial means of closure of the free chip contract, and in fact DELAYS the player from playing back the money since they have to go through the process of withdrawing, getting paid, and then depositing again - rather than simply playing on.
It just shows what a load of BULLSHIT all this "extend your playtime" and "recreational entertainment" has been all along.
Casinos do NOT design these offers to "extend playing time", but to shackle deposits to what might appear to be a good offer, but in fact is one that makes it LESS likely the player will end up cashing out a big win. The free chip is simply a means to keep the player interested, and to keep the software installed, even when they are not going to play for real money for a while.
Of course, PLAYERS aren't really in it for the "entertainment" (else they would use a "fun" account), they are after the chance to win money, which is what the main "entertainment" is - to pit your money against theirs in a game of chance that appears to offer an element of skill.
WHY have RTG introduced this new system, it does NOT benefit the PLAYER experience one bit, and only serves to create confusion, which the casinos are quick to take strict advantage of. Was this the actual INTENT, to add an additional "hoop" into the process, giving yet another opportunity for the player to trip up and lose out on their winnings because they didn't go through the steps in the correct order.
Since this new system NEVER works in the player's favour, it ONLY benefits the CASINO, who now end up paying fewer max cashouts from the free chips because players play on after thinking the adjustment has ended the contract, yet can never end up with MORE than the original max cashout.
Take an example to illustrate.
Max cashout $750.
Player plays and meets WR with a balance of $2000. He isn't finished "entertaining himself", so carries on and loses down to $1250. He is done, so cashes out the $2000, and the adjustment takes place during the processing and he ends up with $750.
New system, SAME scenario, except for.....
When balance hits $2000, the adjustment kicks in INSTANTLY, and the very next bet the balance drops to $750. The players isn't finished, so as in the first case, loses another $750 and ends up with $0. He can't cash out, yet he DID win enough to cover this later $750 loss, so WHY isn't an allowance made for this when he withdraws, and the $750 initially removed reapplied to give him a balance of $750 when he cashes out. After all, this IS what is stated in the terms and conditions. A second "allowance" would CERTAINLY be made were his balance to rise to $1500 after the adjustment, a second removal of $750, so surely a second adjustment should be made when the player ends up BELOW the max cashout when he withdraws, provided it can be funded from an amount removed during the "in play" adjustment.
This is why this whole system has been stacked so heavily AGAINST the player, and only serves to provide a means to "screw the player" who really DOES just want to play "for fun & entertainment", and not waste his time following the WR counter by checking every few bets, or manipulate their play in order to fit it within the workings of this system.
The players who are NOT going to get screwed over by this system are the "advantage players", who probably ALREADY watch the WR counter in detail, and cash out on the CENT of making WR. This is maybe where this system CAN favour the player, as it provides a justification for the tactic of meeting WR to the cent, and then withdrawing, and since the casino has made this a REQUIREMENT now, they CANNOT then say (as do Rival), that meeting WR to the cent is "abusive", because they should have "gone over" to prove that they are "recreational players".
21 Grand CONFISCATED the winnings of a player for making WR to the cent, and then withdrawing. THIS casino is punishing the player for NOT withdrawing to the CENT of meeting the WR.
Each casino considers the complete OPPOSITE player action to be "abusive".
21 Grand - Meeting WR exactly and withdrawing is "abusive"
This case - Meeting WR exactly and NOT withdrawing is "abusive", and needs a new "system" put in place to prevent said "abuse".
In the wider sense, this shows the whole thing is bullshit, and there is NOTHING intrinsically "abusive" in either strategy. It's more a case of the casino's arbitrarily deeming a strategy "abusive" from the RESULTS, rather than the action itself. Each casino has a different set of results, therefore we have inconsistent views of what is deemed "abusive" throughout the industry.
but it'll be interesting to see what happens with the PAB. If the OP does get paid, then all the RTG casinos will have an issue because most of them do things the same way, don't they?
