Bonus Complaint Am I correct or wrong?

[TM1974]

I may have a PaB situation but didn't want to waste time of people. Before I contact a rep or fill out the PaB I wanted opinions of some of the wise members here please.

The situation is that I received a $150 free chip at a casino. Probably because I have lost a lot of money there and they were trying to tempt me back.
The casino terms is 45x wagering and it is actually 4x that number since I play table games. That makes the wagering at 27,000. OK, that is not a problem since it is a free chip and I played it. The rule states that there is a 5X maximum cashout rule in place and the free chip is non-cashable. OK again. I understand that too and I agree and play it.

I have great success and run my total well above the $750 Max cashout. As soon as I get to the wagering requirements they then take the $150 bonus out of the account PLUS all extra money. This was done the instant that I met Wagering and it was automatic.

Fair enough! They did take $1,877.50 from my account but that is their rules and they left me with just my cashable $750. The bonus was gone. My extra money was gone. There it is - my balance was now bonus free and sat at $750.

I then played some more and when I was finished I had built up my money to $1500! I withdrew this money but they only sent me $750. They took another $750 from my account claiming it was bonus!!! I explained that I had met the wagering requirements and that they had already took $1,877.50 from my account, thus leaving me with my own money. They say "no, you can never cashout more than $750 since it was a free chip"... but then I say you ALREADY took my free chip and extra money! You left me what was mine and I played it and won, you must pay me! They will not. Is this PaB worthy? Or rep contact worthy?

Thanks for advice.
I really feel like they stole from me.

 

[Glunn11]

I'm afraid in all cases I've ever seen with these kinds of bonuses, the max cashout applies until you withdraw, regardless of whether or not you have completed wagering. It does suck, but I highly doubt a PaB would go far.

For future reference, withdraw immediately after completing wagering on one of these kinds of bonuses, then re-deposit to clear the max cashout and proceed play if you want.

 

[Nifty29]

Wrong - completely wrong.

Unfortunately the maximum you can cash out as a result of the free chip is $750. The funds you used to generate the extra winnings were the result of a free chip i.e. you would not have been able to win the $1500 if you didn't have the $750, and you would not have had the $750 if it wasn't from the free chip. However you slice it, you arrive back at the source of all the winnings - the free chip.

You would be wasting your time on a PAB (IMO). Keep it for when you really need it.

 

[ksech]

Glunn11 nd Nifty29 are correct. You were still playing on the free chip money. Withdraw the $750 before you lose it. You have to be careful with bonuses that have a max cashout. Most bonuses, unless they have a no max cashout in the promo terms, are clearcut and most casinos adhere strictly to their promo terms.

 

[KasinoKing]

Unless what you did was clearly forbidden in any of their T&C's; I completely disagree with the 3 posts above - especially if this is a CasinoMeister Accredited casino.

I would say definitely 100% submit a PAB.
I'm not saying it would definitely be successful, but any decent casino should see that what they did was not "in the spirit of the bonus".

If it IS an accredited casino, I would say their actions breached ALL of these CM conditions:

* 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.

KK

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is the stupidity of RTG.

Once they had removed the bonus and extra winnings, it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether the $750 is withdrawn and immediately redeposited, or whether it is played in-situ. In fact, it costs the casino MORE money this way, because the player has to withdraw the $750, and redeposit it again, which costs the casino TWICE OVER in processing fees. There is also no guarantee that the $750 will end up being played & lost at their casino, ot could (and really SHOULD) go to a DIFFERENT casino.

This is a complication purely for the sake of it. It serves NO purpose in protecting the casino, and can ONLY cause problems for the players because it DEFIES COMMON SENSE to do a process only to reverse it straight away for no benefit whatsoever.

Loads of players get caught ONCE with this, and this generates extra profit for the casinos through preying on the "newbie" player. Once caught out however, you should not fall for this again.

The funny thing is that NORMALLY, withdrawing money only to redeposit it straight away, is considered ABUSE by the casinos BECAUSE it saddles them with extra processing fees. In fact, the accredited casino Club World will "fine" players who repeadedly withdraw, only to redeposit the same funds almost immediately, and the "fine" represents the extra unnecessary processing charges the casino has had to pay.

It proves to ME that many of these "hoops" are designed specifically to catch out the unwary player, because they have NO beneficial effect in preventing "advantage play", and would NOT penalise savvy players who jumped through all the hoops in the correct order at the CASINO'S expense.

Because of all these sneaky "hoops", RTG casinos are able to offer what appear to be "too good to be true" promotions, and these little tricks are ALWAYS buried in the small print, NEVER right up there with the banner headline.

 

[ksech]

@KK, how is this wrong? The FREE chip had a max cashout of 5X ($750). From my minimal experience with bonuses (from even accredited casinos) once you have made the playthrough, you've cleared the non-cashable bonus monies, you are still locked into the max cashout rule no matter how much more you play. You would still be considered playing on the free chip money since there wasn't a withdrawal or reversal of withdrawal request. Is my line of rationale skewed?

 

[Nifty29]

@KK, how is this wrong? The FREE chip had a max cashout of 5X ($750). From my minimal experience with bonuses (from even accredited casinos) once you have made the playthrough, you've cleared the non-cashable bonus monies, you are still locked into the max cashout rule no matter how much more you play. You would still be considered playing on the free chip money since there wasn't a withdrawal or reversal of withdrawal request. Is my line of rationale skewed?

No, you are correct.

The max cashout from the free money is $750

All the winnings were generated as a result of the free chip. There were no deposits made by the player. When the casino removes the excess funds, the remainder is the maximum that can be cashed out. It is irrelevant what happens after that - the maximum is the maximum. You will find this applies at all casinos that have max cashouts.

KK - you should email a dozen or so of your casino contacts and put the question to them. I'll bet $10 of Ksech's money that all of them say they wouldn't pay.

Don't forget the player is still being paid the $750. It isn't like they are being ripped off.

I have personally never heard of anyone being paid any extra winnings in this kind of case.

 

[vinylweatherman]

@KK, how is this wrong? The FREE chip had a max cashout of 5X ($750). From my minimal experience with bonuses (from even accredited casinos) once you have made the playthrough, you've cleared the non-cashable bonus monies, you are still locked into the max cashout rule no matter how much more you play. You would still be considered playing on the free chip money since there wasn't a withdrawal or reversal of withdrawal request. Is my line of rationale skewed?

It's not skewed, but this is NOT something that ever gets EXPLAINED to a "newbie", and is by no means obvious in the terms.

The fact that an immediate confiscation of the excess winnings and original chip makes it look like the "contract" has ALREADY been terminated through an in-play adjustment. This is a recent development, and the old way was MUCH clearer because there was NO adjustment done UNTIL a withdrawal was made. This made it much clearer to the player that this adjustment was STILL going to be made later on, and would give a clear message that a withdrawal had to be made to cause this to be done.

The old system was clearer, and it WORKED, so WHY did RTG muck around with it to produce a system that fooled players because it made the adjustment in-play, but did NOTHING to make the player aware that he MUST also withdraw there & then to complete the process. Instead, the software just lets play continue, even though this is pointless.

Since this adjustment is instant and automatic, how come the software can't automatically launch the cashier with a "withdraw now" prompt to the player.

This is unique to RTG, as other casinos using max cashouts STILL make the adjustment once the player has decided to stop playing, and submits a withdrawal request.

It is the pedantic player who does everything "by the book" that gets the best deal, even though this costs the casino more, and is usually NOT the average "recreational player" that casinos like, but the savvy, possibly "advantage", player that casinos have to defend against.

This kind of thing also turns "recreational" players into "advantage" players, since after something like this happens, they do further research, and become wise to the TRUE nature of the relationship between online casinos and players, and along the way, learn many of the "clever" ways of playing with promotional offers in order NOT to get stung by something else the next time.

The OP has now learned that this is NOT simply a case of play & get paid, it is a case of read the terms, do the math, choose the offer, and choose optimum strategy to reap maximum benefit. Rather than playing on with the $750, optimum strategy is to withdraw it, and then hunt for the next offer to take advantage of, rather than just "have fun" by playing on until they feel they want to stop for the day.

 

[ksech]

Diggin' through my wallet for a tenspot...
I thought maybe I misread the OP's post and went back to read it. But there was no mention of the OP withdrawing and redepositing. So, I didn't understand where I had given incorrect information.

 

[greasemonkey]

The OP mentions losing lots of money in the casino. He/she must have deposited then at some point? I'm confused LOL.
Just from reading the post it doesn't make any sense. I kinda can see when nifty explains it but it is like double jeopardy. In all RTG terms, once you complete bonus requirements then the money is yours and your free from any limiting rules.
If they took all that money out of the OP's acct already then that money is the players to withdraw OR play I would think. Why would the casino WANT the withdrawal? They wouldn't. They would surely want the OP to play and lose it back. They already took the bonus/extra winnings once bonus play was over, so to take more seems like excessive bending of the rules from a common sense perspective.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Diggin' through my wallet for a tenspot...
I thought maybe I misread the OP's post and went back to read it. But there was no mention of the OP withdrawing and redepositing. So, I didn't understand where I had given incorrect information.

He didn't - it just didn't make sense that this would be necessary since he did NOT want to stop playing at that point, he wanted more "recreation". This is a case of "rules for the sake of rules" being applied to the letter. The player SHOULD have been equally pedantic, withdrawing the $750, logging out, and depositing another $750, before continuing.

The OP mentions losing lots of money in the casino. He/she must have deposited then at some point? I'm confused LOL.
Just from reading the post it doesn't make any sense. I kinda can see when nifty explains it but it is like double jeopardy. In all RTG terms, once you complete bonus requirements then the money is yours and your free from any limiting rules.
If they took all that money out of the OP's acct already then that money is the players to withdraw OR play I would think. Why would the casino WANT the withdrawal? They wouldn't. They would surely want the OP to play and lose it back. They already took the bonus/extra winnings once bonus play was over, so to take more seems like excessive bending of the rules from a common sense perspective.

They don't normally, it costs them money. Players who repeatedly withdraw only to redeposit moments later are a right "pain" because of the extra costs. It is then the CASINO that argues "it doesn't make sense" to the player, and often charges them for the extra fees incurred. The ONLY difference here is that the casino has placed this hoop to jump through at the end of the promotion, and if the jump misses, the casino gets to keep the money if the player loses it back, yet does NOT have to pay if the player wins again.

This new system is designed to fool the non-savvy player into believing the contract is over, and the money then theirs with no further strings attached. To my knowledge, ONLY RTG has this odd system, other casinos adjust AFTER the player cashes out, so all the time the player is playing, they do so in the knowledge that they are STILL facing the removal of the bonus and capping of the winnings when they withdraw.

NOWHERE is this peculiar mechanism described, so there is no way players can learn about this from the casino's own website.

Experienced players are the ones who express surprise that a player would be caught out like this, but they benefit from the experience that a new player has yet to gain.

I certainly wouldn't be caught out, not because this has actually happened to me, but because it has been discussed before in the forum, and the mechanism explained.

 

[KasinoKing]

@KK, how is this wrong? The FREE chip had a max cashout of 5X ($750). From my minimal experience with bonuses (from even accredited casinos) once you have made the playthrough, you've cleared the non-cashable bonus monies, you are still locked into the max cashout rule no matter how much more you play. You would still be considered playing on the free chip money since there wasn't a withdrawal or reversal of withdrawal request. Is my line of rationale skewed?

Skewed or not, in the rules or not... bottom line is, do YOU think the casino's actions are FAIR?
I don't.
Just my opinion; I don't think it's fair and I think the OP should go ahead and PAB.

I am literally just about to go out the door to go to Bryan's party in London - when I see Max I'll ask him in person what he thinks!

KK

 

[vinylweatherman]

Skewed or not, in the rules or not... bottom line is, do YOU think the casino's actions are FAIR?
I don't.
Just my opinion; I don't think it's fair and I think the OP should go ahead and PAB.

I am literally just about to go out the door to go to Bryan's party in London - when I see Max I'll ask him in person what he thinks!

KK

Without knowing the casino concerned, we cannot know whether this IS something clearly stated in the terms, or something the player is "just supposed to know", which would of course be unfair.

There is also the matter that something is unfair, even though it IS stated in the terms and conditions.

This is surely a system whereby the player is placed in the position of "involuntarily breaching the terms".

I didn't leave for the party, since I would so far have missed TWO couriers delivering some stuff I ordered on the internet, and if these came just now, the other item I am expecting (and which was dispatched at the same time) could well follow later on today.

Last time I wasn't in to receive a gift from an unknown casino, I never ever got it in the end because they wouldn't redeliver it, and their depot was MILES away. They couldn't tell me who sent it either.

To be honest, I thought the whole thing was a scam.

 

[Jasminebed]

To my mind, max cashout means just that. I've contacted CS asking if I could withdraw and reverse in the past... no go.

I must agree that it might seem a little silly on the part of the casino... but it's their house and their rules.

 

[vinylweatherman]

To my mind, max cashout means just that. I've contacted CS asking if I could withdraw and reverse in the past... no go.

I must agree that it might seem a little silly on the part of the casino... but it's their house and their rules.

So, if it is so clear cut, why the messing around?

Adjust on withdrawal, Simple. Player knows where they stand.

When they adjust during play, player is no longer sure, but often THINKS they are, so don't ask questions.

The old system worked just fine, player cashed out when they were done, and KNEW how much they would receive because of the rules.

Now, RTG fixed something that didn't need fixing, and turned a straight forward system into something far more complicated for the player to grasp.

This is not the ONLY problem with this system either, since other cases have highlighted that unless the player has sharp reflexes, they can play on past this point, and eat into a max cashout that has ALREADY been adjusted ready for withdrawal, thus they don't even get the max amount allowed.

I certainly don't see a "stop on max cashout WR" button in their autospin

Cash out on the dot of meeting WR at a RIVAL casino, and they scream "abuser!" at you & kick you out! DON'T do it at RTG, and they PUNISH you for it.

These are rules designed to "screw the player", and they can get away with it using the defence "it's in the small print, tough!".

We should stand up for the newbies, as well as our own. It's a bad system, and needs to be got rid of to prevent players falling into these situations without really understanding them.

All very well smiling smugly to ourselves thinking "wouldn't catch ME out with that old trick", but there was a time when they WOULD have stitched us up good & proper with a similar ploy, and this is how players learn the TRUE nature of casinos vs players, rather than believing the bullshit about "entertainment" or "recreation" they would have us believe.

It's GAMBLING, and the pitting of skills against each other, they have NO interest in "entertaining" us for a pittance, they are after our cash, and as much of it as they can get away with. Naturally, WE are after THEIR cash, and as much as possible allowed by the rules. The "entertainment" is in pitting OUR wits against THEIRS, and figuring out which of the promotions are the "duds", and which are worth a go.

An RTG free chip under the new capping system is NOT something for the novice, since you have to disengage from "common sense", and study the offer thorougly, and track your play pretty precisely. NO room for "having a bit of fun" with your balance and thinking you will just be able to carry on until you no longer feel "entertained".

 

[Scooter7]

When the removal of the free chip and excess winnings is automated as described by the OP, it gives a very strong indication that the bonus play is over even though I (and most of you) understand that it is still quite possible to interpret the situation the same way the casino does. Ambiguity is not a desirable thing when dealing with financial transactions. Creating a cluster-f#^% of a PR issue becomes the likely outcome when that happens.

Casinos do b*$%$ and moan about processing fees and unnecessary deposit/withdrawal combos. That's why it makes no sense to 'force' two transactions unless they are truly trying to encourage people to keep playing without a withdrawal to put themselves in a no-lose situation (player loses-money comes back-may make another deposit OR player wins more, but is denied the winnings because of broken T&C's).

It would be nearly impossible to prove that the casino planned the no-lose scenario, but if they didn't, then it's quite a nice stroke of luck that it worked out that way

 

[vinylweatherman]

When the removal of the free chip and excess winnings is automated as described by the OP, it gives a very strong indication that the bonus play is over even though I (and most of you) understand that it is still quite possible to interpret the situation the same way the casino does. Ambiguity is not a desirable thing when dealing with financial transactions. Creating a cluster-f#^% of a PR issue becomes the likely outcome when that happens.

Casinos do b*$%$ and moan about processing fees and unnecessary deposit/withdrawal combos. That's why it makes no sense to 'force' two transactions unless they are truly trying to encourage people to keep playing without a withdrawal to put themselves in a no-lose situation (player loses-money comes back-may make another deposit OR player wins more, but is denied the winnings because of broken T&C's).

It would be nearly impossible to prove that the casino planned the no-lose scenario, but if they didn't, then it's quite a nice stroke of luck that it worked out that way

This is a RECENT development, and the system it replaced had nothing wrong with it, as players were STILL only going to get the max cashout.

Players certainly DO interpret this as meaning "bonus play is over", but THIS also means "the money left is now 100% yours, do what you want with it as we have ALREADY removed the excess winnings and bonus as per terms and conditions". There is NO mention that yet ANOTHER specific sequence of action is needed, which ISN'T automated.

I fail to see why they could not also have automated the presentation of the cashier to the player when the adjustment was done, as this would make things MUCH clearer as to the expected course of action then needed from the player.

 

[Scooter7]

Players certainly DO interpret this as meaning "bonus play is over", but THIS also means "the money left is now 100% yours, do what you want with it as we have ALREADY removed the excess winnings and bonus as per terms and conditions". There is NO mention that yet ANOTHER specific sequence of action is needed, which ISN'T automated.

Agreed. Personally, I believe they're aware of the potential confusion and are counting on it to either lose less or make more money. The only problem is that (as I stated), there's no way in hell that you could easily prove it.

We're left with a scenario where it's very likely that they're acting in a rogue-ish manner, but the chances of being caught are highly un-likely.

 

[chayton]

Every RTG I play has this rule with a free chip. Once you've reached wagering and you've got the max cashout, you need to cash out - there's no use playing any more because although there's a very good chance you'll lose, there's no way to be able to win/cashout more. Also some of them don't even give you comps when you're playing on a freebie.

When RTG started implementing that "all bonus monies are removed when WR are met" I thought it was silly - that means that as soon as you meet WR you should just cashout instead of playing more - that's completely opposite to "playing with the spirit of the bonus" isn't it?

But that's the way it is - to the OP, sorry but max cashout means max cashout and I really doubt that a PAB will get you anywhere. If I were you I'd tell them thanks for the freebie and walk away with your $750 and a big smile.

 

[slotjunkie]

Every RTG I play has this rule with a free chip. Once you've reached wagering and you've got the max cashout, you need to cash out - there's no use playing any more because although there's a very good chance you'll lose, there's no way to be able to win/cashout more. Also some of them don't even give you comps when you're playing on a freebie.

When RTG started implementing that "all bonus monies are removed when WR are met" I thought it was silly - that means that as soon as you meet WR you should just cashout instead of playing more - that's completely opposite to "playing with the spirit of the bonus" isn't it?

But that's the way it is - to the OP, sorry but max cashout means max cashout and I really doubt that a PAB will get you anywhere. If I were you I'd tell them thanks for the freebie and walk away with your $750 and a big smile.

If this is infact the definite term of that chip at that casino, than I agree! You won! If you are still feeling lucky and wanna play more just withdraw and deposit

 

[KasinoKing]

I am literally just about to go out the door to go to Bryan's party in London - when I see Max I'll ask him in person what he thinks!

It's 1:40am and I just got back from Bryan's party... "hic" :eat: :yahoo:

I spoke to Max and he said "Definitely Pitch-A-Bitch - even if it's not an accredited casino".
Note: Max is in London (and therefore probably pretty much off-line) until Monday. So you may have to wait a few days for a response.

KK

 

[TM1974]

Thank you KK for asking for me. It is much appreciated.

All of the responses are much appreciated and I am thankful for all of the advice and insight.

I am going to pab now, thus I cannot really divulge more information. One little tid-bit to add is that the function that takes the money is truly unfair because of another reason that happened on this experience to me. When I had a balance of approximately 2500 and the casino automatically took back the winnings and bonus I had just made a rather large wager and I did it on blackjack. Well wouldnt you know that I split a few times and doubled and was scared and confused when I noticed that my balance had slipped all the way down to a few hundred dollars! I was lucky and the dealer had busted his hand so I won. Could you imagine if I would have lost though? I would have went all the way from about 2500 to 200 without knowing it. There was no warning.

That is pretty unfair in my opinion because they took all the money in the middle of a bet. Basically leaving me in a situation where most of it was out on the table. Before they took it I really didn't care if I lost because I knew it was still under bonus rules so they almost got me there. I hope all of you somehow keep track of that and don't allow that to happen to you!

Thanks you all again.

 

[brutaldeluxe]

OK here is a question. What would happen if the person deposited fresh cash after he had had the amount over $750 taken off but before he had withdrawn and then carried on playing ? Would he be tied into a maximum cashout of $750 + whatever he deposited ?

What if he desposited $100 and then won $200. Would he be allowed to withdraw $1050 or would he only be allowed to withdraw $850 or perhaps even $750 ? Would the rest of the winnings be counted as being generated from the bonus funds or his own funds ?


Playing devils advocate a bit I know but it's an interesting question I think.

 

[chayton]

OK here is a question. What would happen if the person deposited fresh cash after he had had the amount over $750 taken off but before he had withdrawn and then carried on playing ? Would he be tied into a maximum cashout of $750 + whatever he deposited ?

What if he desposited $100 and then won $200. Would he be allowed to withdraw $1050 or would he only be allowed to withdraw $850 or perhaps even $750 ? Would the rest of the winnings be counted as being generated from the bonus funds or his own funds ?


Playing devils advocate a bit I know but it's an interesting question I think.

Once I was playing at iNetBet and they deposited my manager bonus by mistake. The manager bonus comes with a WR and max cashout, so I got all flustered - I ended up just finding a losing game and blowing it and then I wrote them a mail to complain - one thing I said is "What if I'd won? or God forbid, won a RJ?" I can't remember the exact wording they used, but it was basically that they could tell from their end which percentage of winnings were from real and bonus money, and because it was their mistake that the bonus was credited while I had a balance, they would have covered it and waived the max cashout rule. If I'd deposited and won while I still funds and playthrough on my manager bonus, it might have been different though - I don't really know and I'd hate to risk it.

To the OP, once the PAB is resolved one way or the other, please let us know what happens.

 

[sambaEah]

What happens in this example?

I'm on $755 and playing $5 spins on a slot, I win $1000 with my last spin meeting WR, am I still maxed out to $750 only for a cashout instead of $1750?

 

[Nifty29]

What happens in this example?

I'm on $755 and playing $5 spins on a slot, I win $1000 with my last spin meeting WR, am I still maxed out to $750 only for a cashout instead of $1750?

You would be entitled to the max cashout of $750.

The main argument put forward against this view is that once the bonus is removed when WR is met, the remainder belongs to the player and is, in effect, 'real' or 'cash' money to be wagered or withdrawn. Whilst this certainly makes sense to a degree, I have never heard of it being allowed in my 10 years online.

At the end of the day, the casino has provided the player with a free chip. No deposit has been made. The casino restricts any withdrawal to a maximum of $750 as a result of that free chip. If the player meets WR with an extra $1000, that $1000 is removed to leave $750 to withdraw......if the casino were to allow the player to keep going and then cash out for $5000 (for example) there would be no point having a max cashout in the first place.

It doesn't matter if extra winnings occurred before or after the WR was met.....every single cent of any winnings accrued is a result of that free chip i.e. if the free chip had not existed, none of the winnings would either. the casino implements max cashouts to limit their exposure from awarding free money - it would make absolutely no sense at all to allow a further increase in the cashable amount.

However, if the player meets WR and only has $250 there is no restriction on further wagering up to the $750 max cashout. Again, if they end up on $3000 it makes no difference - the max cashout is still $750.

It would be nice if it worked the other way, but it doesn't and probably won't.

I would be very surprised indeed if a PAB is successful, which is why I cautioned the OP to think about it first.

The RTG system does seem a little silly, but I suspect it was implemented to prevent the racking up of large amounts of comp points given that, under the old system, the whole amount became 'withdrawable' so all wagers from that point would attract comps - the excess only being removed upon cashout, with most smart players wagering the excess off entirely for just that purpose. It would make more sense to place a restriction on any further play after the WR is met, up to the max limit....or better still the software removes your max cashout from your playable balance and submits it for withdrawal automatically with only your choice of method to be entered, and the reverse function disabled.

It might be confusing to newbs I agree, but we all had to find these things out the hard way when we began and there is only so much 'hand holding' a casino can do to prevent misunderstandings. I ,along with others in this thread, have always just accepted that 'the max is the max'. I think that most players would consider that the case when faced with max cashout chips.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Missing the point really.

It's deceptive to make an early "fake" adjustment whilst the player is still playing, as this can make them think the "real" adjustment has already been made, so they no longer need to cash out & redeposit.

If this was NOT done, the player would STILL know that whatever they win during that session, they WILL have to cash out in order to close out the free chip contract.

It all seems designed to CUT the amount of time the player is connected to the casino server with no chance of actually winning any more, or of making much more money for the casino. They want the player off, so other players can connect and play with fresh money. This goes against the bullshit they spew about them providing "entertainment" rather than hardcore gambling.

This view is supported by the fact that when a country is excluded from real money play, a great deal of effort goes into blocking access to "free play" too. One software provider even admitted that this was to stop players who would never be able to be converted over to real money play from taking up the resources on the server by "playing for fun".

The problem with the RTG system is that is ONLY automates what is good for the CASINO, and does NOT automate any "player protection" functions.

The removal of excess winnings DURING a single hand of Blackjack is as rogue as it gets. How on EARTH does it know how much to remove when the result of the game who's stake brought WR to completion is yet to be determined (or is the result already decided at this stage - even with the player still to make a choice, and the amount to be removed known - a bit like the old MGS bug where the balance updated BEFORE a pick was made in the bonus round).

The only way to make this even slightly fair is to display the WR counter alongside the game in play, so that the player can track how close they are to the free chip adjustment as they play, and can therefore stop betting at the right time.

The adjustment should ALSO throw a message on to the player's screen telling them to "withdraw now", and have a warning that there is no benefit to be gained from further play. WHY was this NOT done when this new system was introduced?

 

[Nifty29]

Missing the point really.

The point is the OP believes he is entitled to more than the $750 max, which under the free chip rules he is not.

What you are talking about regarding software automations that don't work very well, or are not in the players'' interest, is a valid but seperate issue IMO.

It would solve a lot of problems to have, like you say, a "WR Complete. Max Limit Reached. Excess Winnings Removed" or something like that - in addition to an 'auto withdraw' as I described earlier it would almost be foolproof (except for fools of course....).

I think we all accept by now that software providers seldom implement changes that are advantageous for the player. It's business - they want our money and like to use more and more tools to get it. Every business has to consider it's own best interests, and this doesn't always equate with the players' best interest.

As an aside, I played at Platinum Play last night and had this big upgrade happen.....grrrr.....but all the temp meters went back to 80.0 and I can't confirm this (but I'm pretty sure), the bonus progress in the TSII "Hall of Spins" went back to the start. I am almost certain I have had the feature on TSII at that casino in the past, so it should not be at the beginning. I might have to investigate that a bit more as it does appear a bit shifty.

 

[greasemonkey]

I have to respectfully disagree with you Nifty.

You say basically "if there was no free chip, then he couldn't have had a balance of $750 to run up higher"

That is silly actually. If he withdrew it then redeposited it, he still has it because of the free chip, correct? So then the free chip rule, according to your logic, must be enforced until the player loses $750 back to the casino. It MUST work that way according to your logic or your argument is flawed.

Look, it seems pretty simple at this point from any common sense perspective. The OP played a free chip with a max cashout. Upon satisfying the terms of the free chip all the extra money was taken from them, leaving them with the max cashout which then is the OP's money to play, withdraw, leave in the account or whatever they wish. I agree that a PaB should be made in this case. It goes against every other term in the casino.

I understand the need to limit the casinos risk with free money. Max cashout is max cashout on all money derived from the free chip. The free chip and all extra monies were gone. No longer a free chip. If it IS considered a free chip then all subsequent deposits must also be considered part of the free chip up to $750 in losses by the player.

 

[Nifty29]

I have to respectfully disagree with you Nifty.

You say basically "if there was no free chip, then he couldn't have had a balance of $750 to run up higher"

That is silly actually. If he withdrew it then redeposited it, he still has it because of the free chip, correct? So then the free chip rule, according to your logic, must be enforced until the player loses $750 back to the casino. It MUST work that way according to your logic or your argument is flawed.

Look, it seems pretty simple at this point from any common sense perspective. The OP played a free chip with a max cashout. Upon satisfying the terms of the free chip all the extra money was taken from them, leaving them with the max cashout which then is the OP's money to play, withdraw, leave in the account or whatever they wish. I agree that a PaB should be made in this case. It goes against every other term in the casino.

I understand the need to limit the casinos risk with free money. Max cashout is max cashout on all money derived from the free chip. The free chip and all extra monies were gone. No longer a free chip. If it IS considered a free chip then all subsequent deposits must also be considered part of the free chip up to $750 in losses by the player.

I didn't say I agree with the way the casino looks at the issue - I'm saying that is how it is and I explained why.

Once the winnings from the free chip are withdrawn and processed, the slate is clean. Up to that point, they are considered to be generated by the free chip by the casino. You are drawing a very long bow by twisting what I said to mean that the player will 'owe' the casino $750 - I said nothing of the sort. I said the $750 is his winnings (why would he have to pay it back???) , but no more than that, regardless of what happens before or after WR is met. I mean, when you withdraw $1000 from a casino they don't say 'well the next $1000 in deposits are ours'. It's just the same here, except the amount of the withdrawal is capped.

I think the money should be his to do what he wants with....double it, lose it, whatever...it's his money....but the vast majority of casinos won't accept that argument and may well add additional terms to cover such an eventuality.

I did not recommend not to PAB because I don't want the OP to get his extra winnings - I hope he does - I was just being realistic about how this issue is addressed by RTG casinos and, based on that, I don't believe he will be successful.

 

[ksech]

Sorry greasemonkey, but I'm not following your logic
Once the OP had withdrawn, then the money was his free and clear to do with as he pleased. Whether he redeposited with or without a bonus, the cap for the free chip was over once he withdrew. Now, some have stated that some casinos view a reverse withdrawal as a "fresh" deposit, since we don't know which casino this is we can't go searching T&Cs to see if this had been an option for the OP.

I don't agree that the casino chose to pull money out before a withdrawal was requested is fair. I think that stinks and is misleading for players (especially newbies who have NO experience in these types of bonus issues). But as long as players play the freebies, this will always be an issue...

 

[vinylweatherman]

It's still "sharp practice", just like those "all your money back in 5 years" deals they used to offer on double glazing, washing machines, etc.

The schemes were DESIGNED so that a good number of people would fail on of the stages, and there were a number of stages that had to be completed in the right order, at the right time, and in the manner specified.

These stages were designed purely as traps to reduce the level of eligible claims. Many of these schemes went bust because too many consumers met the requirements, and the scheme didn't have the funds to pay all the valid claims. Subsequently, all such schemes were made illegal in the UK.

There is no reason why the adjustment could not be left until the player logs off, but this would mean they ALWAYS got the max amount possible. This new setup makes it possible for the player to lose some or all of it back, without ever having the chance to withdraw the correct amount.

Although not best illustrated in this case, the usual case is that a player has, say, $1000 removed by the adjustment, and THEN manages to lose an additional $100 (for example) because they were playing & didn't notice the adjustment straight away.

This actually BREACHES the terms, because the player is left with max cashout - $100, yet should REALLY have max cashout + $900 at this point, and this $900 would be removed upon withdrawal.

This system is rogue because the second adjustment is all one way, part of the removed funds are NOT returned during the withdrawal if the player carries on playing, yet any further winnings ARE removed by a second adjustment.

RTG seem determined to reinforce the impression that their software has been set up to "scam players" through the implementation of numerous "trap" situations that operators can utilise in the "back end".

Just when they are suffering the loss of confidence after the revelation of hard evidence that operators DID adjust the slots down to 91% after all, and were bullshitting players for the past two years about it just being "bad luck" that recent deposits have not lasted as long as they used to, they launch THIS new system on players without notice.

I don't recall there being ANY description whatsoever about how this system operates, it is something players just find out the first time it affects them. Operators seem unwilling to discuss this new system either, as though they have been caught red-handed like a naughty child with their hand in the cookie jar.

RTG need to either ditch this system, or make it FAIR to BOTH sides.

I am left wondering what else RTG are going to come up with to "screw" players in a future upgrade. This of course means that I no longer TRUST the software to be "fair" in the way I can trust MGS to be "fair".

The simplest way to avoid these problems is to avoid RTG.

 

[greasemonkey]

Sorry greasemonkey, but I'm not following your logic
Once the OP had withdrawn, then the money was his free and clear to do with as he pleased. Whether he redeposited with or without a bonus, the cap for the free chip was over once he withdrew. Now, some have stated that some casinos view a reverse withdrawal as a "fresh" deposit, since we don't know which casino this is we can't go searching T&Cs to see if this had been an option for the OP.

I don't agree that the casino chose to pull money out before a withdrawal was requested is fair. I think that stinks and is misleading for players (especially newbies who have NO experience in these types of bonus issues). But as long as players play the freebies, this will always be an issue...

What I am saying, ksech, is that if the casino will deem the $750 that they left in his account AFTER they took the free chip and extra winnings to STILL be part of the free chip BECAUSE the player earned the money via a free chip .... then that is paramount to saying that any future deposits made to the casino STILL fall into the free chip rule up until the player loses all of $750.

You ask why? It is because they could say that any money deposited up to $750 was actually gained by the free chip.

sound silly? It is. But it is no more silly than them saying that even after terms are met and all extra money and free chip is taken out of the account that the player is still held to free chip terms.

---------------

Maybe to make it more simple lets do this scenario:

Player gets free chip with 750 max
Player gets balance to 5000
software automatically removes 4250 upon completion of free chip terms
750 is withdrawn and immediately redeposited

Now in the above scenario that 750 was still gained via a free chip. What is the difference if the player withdraws then redeposits? Its still the same money and all terms were met and extra money already taken out of the players account.
so I guess in the casinos mind they could still say that the subsequent 750 deposit is from free chip and cannot cashout any more than 750? Its not logical, but it is no more illogical than what happened to the OP.

It is the players money once the terms are met. Period. that is why they took out the players extra money.

 

[ksech]

Once he withdrew, the WR and max cap was done. A fresh deposit would NOT fall under the free chip terms. So, if the OP immediately turned around and made a new deposit, he would be free to play until he busted out, or until he was satisfied with a new amount to withdraw. As long as there was no new bonus applied to the new deposit, he is literally playing with no strings attached. (Is my logic illogical? or maybe I'm being dense as I need sleep...or am I way off base?)

 

[greasemonkey]

Once he withdrew, the WR and max cap was done. A fresh deposit would NOT fall under the free chip terms. So, if the OP immediately turned around and made a new deposit, he would be free to play until he busted out, or until he was satisfied with a new amount to withdraw. As long as there was no new bonus applied to the new deposit, he is literally playing with no strings attached. (Is my logic illogical? or maybe I'm being dense as I need sleep...or am I way off base?)

hehe

Where we are missing each other is in the fact that I think the strings were no longer attached when the casino confiscated all of the OP's winnings and free chip. They took it. That ended the Free chip terms.

It appears you are saying the terms stay until he cashes out.

My question is WHY? If the OP cashes out then turns right around and redposits it, it is still the same money.

so if the casino is going to say that even though they took the free chip and all extra winnings out automatically AFTER TERMS WERE MET because the money was derived from the free chip, well then why would they not say that the same money redeposited was derived from the free chip? It WAS actually. There is no difference. The terms were met, the extra money taken away, the free chip taken away. No more wager requirements shown, no more rules applied to the free chip, all things satisfied in regards to the free chip. It is now the players money period.

 

[Nifty29]

The casino does not consider the bonus terms extinguished until the withdrawal of your winnings is PROCESSED. Hence, at ANY time before that your winnings are limited to the max cashout amount. So,your argument that any subsequent deposits are subject to any kind of restriction doesn't hold water.

EG
player gets 150 chip
Player meets wr with 2000 balance
1250 excess winnings removed
Player withdraws 750
withdrawal processed
player deposits 100 no restrictions apply.

I just don't see how the player could ever owe the casino money in this case.

The big issue is at what point the winnings become his to do what he likes.

The fact is that it's only when the money is actually sent to him. It shouldn't be that way but it is. It's silly I agree, but it's reality.

Removing funds in the middle of a hand is just plain wrong - but it's a different issue and one that needs to be corrected by RTG.

 

[ksech]

lol we ARE kind of on the same page here. I think it is stupid to have to cashout to end the free chip terms, but can redeposit (using the winnings) and play with no strings attached. I would think it would cause way too much "paperwork" for the casino to do this.

I hope no offense was taken, I think the painkiller I took a few hours ago is making me loopier than usual.

 

[sweiger]

The casino does not consider the bonus terms extinguished until the withdrawal of your winnings is PROCESSED. Hence, at ANY time before that your winnings are limited to the max cashout amount. So,your argument that any subsequent deposits are subject to any kind of restriction doesn't hold water.

EG
player gets 150 chip
Player meets wr with 2000 balance
1250 excess winnings removed
Player withdraws 750
withdrawal processed
player deposits 100 no restrictions apply.

I just don't see how the player could ever owe the casino money in this case.

The big issue is at what point the winnings become his to do what he likes.

The fact is that it's only when the money is actually sent to him. It shouldn't be that way but it is. It's silly I agree, but it's reality.

Removing funds in the middle of a hand is just plain wrong - but it's a different issue and one thatneeds to be corrected by RTG.

There seems to be a lot that needs to be corrected by RTG.

So, in your book, player should settle with "the withdrawal must be processed, before the free chip obligations are done" ?
IMO, it's nonsense. The contract was fulfilled the moment the free chip + excess winnings were removed. Any other way of bending terms are rogueish.

 

[greasemonkey]

lol we ARE kind of on the same page here. I think it is stupid to have to cashout to end the free chip terms, but can redeposit (using the winnings) and play with no strings attached. I would think it would cause way too much "paperwork" for the casino to do this.

I hope no offense was taken, I think the painkiller I took a few hours ago is making me loopier than usual.

lol!

I think highly of you and your posts... I have never even came close to taking offense from your opinions.

 

[Nifty29]

There seems to be a lot that needs to be corrected by RTG.

So, in your book, player should settle with "the withdrawal must be processed, before the free chip obligations are done" ?
IMO, it's nonsense. The contract was fulfilled the moment the free chip + excess winnings were removed. Any other way of bending terms are rogueish.

If you read what I posted you will see that I don't personally agree with that policy.

I'm saying that the player will HAVE to settle for that because that's what the casino has said, and will say come PAB time.

I was explaining why the OP has been denied the extra winnings and why I don't think the casino will budge.

 

[chayton]

I don't think I've ever done a max cashout on a free chip except for one of the $3 freebies from iNetBet 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?

 

[sweiger]

If you read what I posted you will see that I don't personally agree with that policy.

I'm saying that the player will HAVE to settle for that because that's what the casino has said, and will say come PAB time.

I was explaining why the OP has been denied the extra winnings and why I don't think the casino will budge.

I did read what you posted. It was in connection with this and your earlier posts I got the impression that you think OP should be satisfied with the $750 and a PAB would be pointless.

Since we don't know which casino is in question here, a PAB might be waste of time. But if it's an accredited one, there's hope that they come to their senses IMO.

 

[vinylweatherman]

If you are still going to be bound by the cap until you withdraw, then WHY has RTG added this extra step in to create a "mock ending" of the contract by removing the winnings and the bonus during play. Had this NOT happened, this issue would never have ocurred, and NOTHING would have happened to make the player believe the contract was over, and this fact would have been a constant reminder that he HAD to cash out in order to carry on playing for any amount above the max cashout.

The ONLY purpose behind this change is to make something that was simple before into something ambiguously complicated now, with the result that players get confused, and end up having their excess winnings removed TWICE instead of once, or being fooled into playing on after the removal of excess winnings in the belief that they were free to win more, yet the ONLY possible outcome was to end up with the same, or LESS, than they started with.

 

[ksech]

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...

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.

 

[De Beuker]

This removal of exess winnings during play is not at all new, I ran into it more than 1.5 years ago when playing a free 10.- from Intertops.
Had my balance over 200.- and playing at 1.- per spin when I saw my balance reduced to 49.- all of a sudden.
I was lucky enough to see it (almost) immediately, and cashed out.
I remeber there were alot of complaints about this new feauture, ppl playing much higher stakes who did not notice the reduction immediately and ended up with amounts far below the max. cashout, trying to get back up again and busted.
(And thats ofcourse the one and only reason they came up with it, these guys at RTG are not stupid, but neither are we!)

Soon after these complaints many RTG casinos like Inet and CWC got rid of that removal during play, casinos DO HAVE the choice, and I'm pretty sure places like Inetbet and CWC do not have this feauture implemented now.
Cant say for sure, as I haven't made any playthrough on RTG for over a year..
So I'm a bit curious which casino it was, Intertops?

Its a nasty playertrap, very unfair and confusing, and it should be disabled, period!

For the OP, no, I dont think you will ever see that extra cash, the rules are clear, no matter if we think they are fair or not, but its good to PAB anyway, because the sooner this trap is removed, the better it is for all of us.

Good luck, and hey, congrats on that $750.-!

 

[chayton]

Now that casinomeister and Max are back, I'm just wondering if the OP did PAB on this? I'm really interested to know how it turned out.

 

[colly]

/Cant say for sure, as I haven't made any playthrough on RTG for over a year..

:

Have cashed out a few max capped bonuses on freebies at jackpot capital slotastic and inetbet lately- none of them remove any excess while you are in play.