beravek7 VS Fortune room

[vinylweatherman]

They seem to be resting their case on the definition of "recreational player", rather than any specific terms violation regarding the manner of play. The problem is that "recreational" can mean widely different things to different people. Some people think that climbing the tallest buildings they can find without safety equipment is "recreational", whereas others feel it's a sign they need to be sectioned under the mental health act.

An advantage player may also be playing "recreationally" as far as he is concerned, getting his buzz from trying to beat odds that are designed to beat the house. It's the same kind of recreation that urges people to spend years trying to perfect the ultimate "Roulette system" and making a name for themselves for beating nature itself.

All the casino have demonstrated is that the OP is an advantage player, not that he is "non recreational". It seems that the mere act of "trying one's best to win" is enough to be deemed non recreational.

For all they know, this player may be pretty new to the scene, and simply following a strategy they found on an affiliate site that also earns money from sending players to the casino. One does not need experience of advantage play in order to follow the kind of detailed recipes I have seen posted on some such sites. The affiliate programs are perfectly happy for the casinos to be marketed in this manner, if they weren't, such sites would either die out, or they would have to be subscription based as they would not earn commission for recommending specific casinos.

What is FAR worse is that the casino have confiscated the DEPOSIT, as well as the winnings. This is what surely crosses the line given that this is not a case of fraud, but merely a case of a dispute over the meaning of a non specific term regarding what constitutes "recreational play".

Where do I fit in?

Given that I have been playing since 2005, and have 9 years experience along with some monster non progressive hits, does this now make me "non recreational". It could be an important question as if I am deemed "non recreational" by any given casino after I have made a nice hit, I could find the lot confiscated with little recourse.

If such terms are to be used in the industry, then players and casinos need to operate to clear guidelines as to what constitutes a "recreational player". I would also argue that anyone who works in the industry at a high enough level to be aware of "inside knowledge" as to the inner workings of online casinos can never be a "recreational player" at ANY online casino, yet they are only barred from playing at sites operated by their employer.


It also negates the advice to "always read the terms". This is no good where terms are not precise, with some leeway with regard to the definition of some criteria. It also looks like the action taken was results driven, rather than driven by the actions of the player. This is pretty much a "tails we win, heads you lose" scenario in favour of the casino as if the policing was action driven, the OP would have been stopped dead in his tracks after the second attempt, which would have established that this was a player using a narrow strategy with which to beat the house.

 

[Beravek7]

It means that (1) you didn't read my post above because if you had you'd have seen that I don't much like the "non recreational" Terms either and (2) you are talking out of your arse. The records clearly show that you went from casino to casino within that group and methodically used the same advantage play tricks on each of them, consecutively! Look at your play at any one of those casinos, except maybe the one account you didn't leave dormant when you were done, and you'll have a fine definition of a "non recreational" player.

Whatever we may think of those Terms -- and I think I've made it quite clear that we don't like them -- the point is that you agreed to them and are then bound by them. If you don't like their Terms -- and there is no reason you should -- then don't play there. But if you sign on, lay down your money, and take the goodies they offer then you are in the boat with them and their Terms, for better or worse. Too late to say you'd rather walk once the ship has sailed.

Besides, this is semantics. You knew exactly what you were doing when you worked your way through those casinos and your only real beef is that they nailed you for Terms violations. Tough noogies fella: you bought the ticket, you took the ride. Don't moan about the fact that your little plan went to crap part way through.

And while we are at it consider yourself PAB-banned: you've tried to AP the casinos, effectively lied about it, and then wasted my time fighting your BS battles for you. THEN you come on here to distort the truth further AND call us dirt-bags for trying to help you. To hell with you, you can fight your own casino battles in the future.

Ouh come on Maxd...
Advantage play tricks? I only played slots. Now explain me how one can make tricks by playing slots? Have you ever
played any slot yourself? If not I will explain you- the game consists of one and same simple move- pressing the spin button.And now tell me how can you make tricks by playing slot. Pressing the button faster? Harder? Pressing while singing? Pressing while praying? Give me ideas to what you mean.

You intentionally ignore my biggest question- why the hell they confiscated MY DEPOSIT?
And you know what- I don't need your "invisible battles" for me. That is a hypocrisy. If you really
wanted to do something for me you would demand from the casino to pay me MY DEPOSIT back at least. And if they
don't- you kick them out of an accredited list. But ,off course, you will never do that.

 

[maphesto]

Advantage play tricks? I only played slots. Now explain me how one can make tricks by playing slots? Have you ever
played any slot yourself? If not I will explain you- the game consists of one and same simple move- pressing the spin button.And now tell me how can you make tricks by playing slot. do that.

The known trick (from casinos view) is to place high bets with bonus funds and if you win you can grind out the rest of the WR placing low bets on low risk slots. I don't think you placed too low bets compared to your initial bets.

And you know what- I don't need your "invisible battles" for me. That is a hypocrisy. If you really
wanted to do something for me you would demand from the casino to pay me MY DEPOSIT back at least. And if they
don't- you kick them out of an accredited list. But ,off course, you will never do that.

Max can't! Bryan (Casinomeister) can! He already stated that it´s shitty terms and we all agree. I think that the casino should pay you in full because their terms are both bad and does not specify how much you can decrease your bets.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Ouh come on Maxd...
Advantage play tricks? I only played slots. Now explain me how one can make tricks by playing slots? Have you ever
played any slot yourself? If not I will explain you- the game consists of one and same simple move- pressing the spin button.And now tell me how can you make tricks by playing slot. Pressing the button faster? Harder? Pressing while singing? Pressing while praying? Give me ideas to what you mean.

You intentionally ignore my biggest question- why the hell they confiscated MY DEPOSIT?
And you know what- I don't need your "invisible battles" for me. That is a hypocrisy. If you really
wanted to do something for me you would demand from the casino to pay me MY DEPOSIT back at least. And if they
don't- you kick them out of an accredited list. But ,off course, you will never do that.

Not a trick, but a strategy. It is effectively a "slot system" whereby one changes one's style of play when there is a bonus. You also believed that you had a system that would work, and the casino agreed with you. The problem comes when trying one's best to beat the house is in itself in breach of the terms in general, rather than specific strategies being banned, such as card counting, playing whilst singing, etc.

Believe it or not, "pressing the button too fast" IS against the terms of some casinos, it's usually related to the use of "autoplay", which on a slot does nothing more than repeatedly spin the reels.

Where you failed in following the system is in going from one casino to the next IN THE SAME GROUP in a short space of time, playing the EXACT same strategy at each. This gets you noticed, and thus your gameplay is scrutinised much more closely than most other players.

If you were a good advantage player, you would have been more aware of the need to "stay below the radar", and would not have hit the same group so hard in one go. Fortune Lounge is also a poor choice of operators to AP, they are well up to date with the latest strategies, and so know what to look for. They have learned the hard way, having been hit repeatedly by advantage players in the past. By looking at data from their whole player base, they can tell apart strategies designed by individual players from those used en masse by "teams" of Advantage players connected to various forums. Your strategy happens to be one of those "en masse" efforts, albeit a fairly recent one.

It's possible that they have been overly draconian here in order to "send a message" to the AP community that they should strike FL from their "suckers list", even at the risk of losing their accredited status.

 

[Dinahnana]

They should really give the OP back his deposit at least. When you win and break the t&c's most casino will at the least give you your deposit back.
Also I am sure Bryan is probably taking a good hard look at this group and who knows maybe they will come out with more clear and concise t&c's or they may end up on the reservation.
I mean how hard is it really to put a term in your t&c's saying the max you can bet on a slot when bonus is in play is x amount and possibly exclude the slots that are commonly used to grind out wagering? Really it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. With clear terms while using a bonus deters most AP players and will improve Fortune Lounge's reputation I should think.

 

[wigan rl]

Just read the whole thread wow op your hard work

This doesn't sit right with me the op didn't break the max bet rule he maybe a ap but the term is very dodgy imo and could be chucked at anyone

'Breaking' this term doesn't warrant the op's deposit being taken and all deposits over the network he's made should be refunded - any winnings

Another thing in this day and age how can a company not just deny a player like this signing up at a sister casino?

No they just wait for a deposit and then slam the ban hammer on them it's not right

 

[mimi26]

Funny I tried to email rep this morning regarding documents to verify my ID before I join......his/her inbox is full,!!..........I wont bother now

 

[Janek12]

Ouh come on Maxd...
Have you ever played any slot yourself? If not I will explain you- the game consists of one and same simple move- pressing the spin button.

Why are you being so disrespectful?

And you know what- I don't need your "invisible battles" for me. That is a hypocrisy. If you really
wanted to do something for me you would demand from the casino to pay me MY DEPOSIT back at least. And if they
don't- you kick them out of an accredited list. But ,off course, you will never do that.

Why are you posting here if you do not want MaxD to fight any battles for you? Isn't it hypocritical on your part to say you don't want him to do anything while keeping to post here?

That being said, if it is true they did not refund your deposit, I think that they MUST do that; and IMHO they should also pay you the winnings because I agree with Maphesto, the reduction of bet was not substantial. IMO it was not substantial in proportion to variance of ANY slot - your bankroll could have been wiped easily even by 3 EUR bets very quickly. IMO that is no AP play and no way to grind out WR.

But I must reiterate, I really hate your tone, even though I understand your frustration.

 

[vinylweatherman]

They should really give the OP back his deposit at least. When you win and break the t&c's most casino will at the least give you your deposit back.
Also I am sure Bryan is probably taking a good hard look at this group and who knows maybe they will come out with more clear and concise t&c's or they may end up on the reservation.
I mean how hard is it really to put a term in your t&c's saying the max you can bet on a slot when bonus is in play is x amount and possibly exclude the slots that are commonly used to grind out wagering? Really it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. With clear terms while using a bonus deters most AP players and will improve Fortune Lounge's reputation I should think.

They have done this, the problem is that the OP DID NOT BREAK these terms, he didn't even sail close to the edge such as betting 29% of the bonus. They had to use a more vague argument about "substantially reducing the bet" followed by "non recreational play". These terms can adapt to the outcome one wishes to negate, so there is no way a player can know in advance whether or not he is in breach. Had he lost, he would not have breached this term as the casino would not be seeking to negate that outcome. Also, the player would not know what would have happened had he won, and thus would not ask for the bets to be voided by admitting that he had breached terms that would cause the play to be considered void.

In effect, the term becomes "players are not permitted to attempt to win when accepting a bonus", and this still leaves some leeway between "attempting to win", and "a lucky hit". The problem with so many rules needing interpretation from the viewpoint of the house by the player is that it's hardly "recreational" any longer. Players need to approach bonus play as they might approach signing a contract with a tradesperson employed to work on their house. Drop your guard, and you are in danger of getting ripped off. Recreation is walking in with some money, playing, being offered inducements to stay longer, and being free to leave when you are done along with whatever money you still have in your wallet. In a land casino, they may offer you drinks, a show, even a room for the night; all in the expectation that you will stay longer, play more, and thus lose more on average to the house. If you take the drink, watch the show, go to bed, and leave the next morning without increasing your level of play beyond what you would have played without any of these perks, they do not attempt to detain your wallet on exit. What they do is realise that their perks did not have the desired effect, so next time you walk in, don't expect free drinks, shows, or a free room - they will try something else.

This case is similar, the OP got the perks the first time he walked in, and the second, and so on.... the casino didn't spot that the usual lures were not working on this player, he was not going to spend more as a result. instead of realising this and not offering the same again on the second and third visits, they just carried on offering the same. If land casinos always offered a free room just because someone bought $10,000 worth of chips on entry, and didn't adapt behaviour if said visitor simply used the room and cashed out the same $10,000 of chips the next day, it would be possible to live in a place like Vegas rent free for years. I very much doubt this would be allowed, there would be systems in place that would adapt the offers based on the history of any given customer, and pretty quickly as even one free night is expensive.

 

[Dinahnana]

They have done this, the problem is that the OP DID NOT BREAK these terms, he didn't even sail close to the edge such as betting 29% of the bonus. They had to use a more vague argument about "substantially reducing the bet" followed by "non recreational play". These terms can adapt to the outcome one wishes to negate, so there is no way a player can know in advance whether or not he is in breach. Had he lost, he would not have breached this term as the casino would not be seeking to negate that outcome. Also, the player would not know what would have happened had he won, and thus would not ask for the bets to be voided by admitting that he had breached terms that would cause the play to be considered void.

In effect, the term becomes "players are not permitted to attempt to win when accepting a bonus", and this still leaves some leeway between "attempting to win", and "a lucky hit". The problem with so many rules needing interpretation from the viewpoint of the house by the player is that it's hardly "recreational" any longer. Players need to approach bonus play as they might approach signing a contract with a tradesperson employed to work on their house. Drop your guard, and you are in danger of getting ripped off. Recreation is walking in with some money, playing, being offered inducements to stay longer, and being free to leave when you are done along with whatever money you still have in your wallet. In a land casino, they may offer you drinks, a show, even a room for the night; all in the expectation that you will stay longer, play more, and thus lose more on average to the house. If you take the drink, watch the show, go to bed, and leave the next morning without increasing your level of play beyond what you would have played without any of these perks, they do not attempt to detain your wallet on exit. What they do is realise that their perks did not have the desired effect, so next time you walk in, don't expect free drinks, shows, or a free room - they will try something else.

This case is similar, the OP got the perks the first time he walked in, and the second, and so on.... the casino didn't spot that the usual lures were not working on this player, he was not going to spend more as a result. instead of realising this and not offering the same again on the second and third visits, they just carried on offering the same. If land casinos always offered a free room just because someone bought $10,000 worth of chips on entry, and didn't adapt behaviour if said visitor simply used the room and cashed out the same $10,000 of chips the next day, it would be possible to live in a place like Vegas rent free for years. I very much doubt this would be allowed, there would be systems in place that would adapt the offers based on the history of any given customer, and pretty quickly as even one free night is expensive.

I think the max bet rule should be based on a fixed amount and not a percentage. For example 32Red's welcome bonus has a max bet rule of 6.25 if I am not mistaken. That is a clear rule and not open to interpretation. I personally prefer clear set max bet amount rather than a percentage. I know
Fortune Lounge group write their t&c's to protect themselves against AP players but serious AP players would find a way around it anyway. So it they are so worried about being ripped off maybe they shouldn't be offering bonuses at all but have a good player rewards system instead. Just my opinion.

By the way I totally get what your saying. The casino used an FU clause by bringing in the substantially lowering bet excuse. If they had a set amount in written into their t&c's then they wouldn't have to bother with this vague clause.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think the max bet rule should be based on a fixed amount and not a percentage. For example 32Red's welcome bonus has a max bet rule of 6.25 if I am not mistaken. That is a clear rule and not open to interpretation. I personally prefer clear set max bet amount rather than a percentage. I know
Fortune Lounge group write their t&c's to protect themselves against AP players but serious AP players would find a way around it anyway. So it they are so worried about being ripped off maybe they shouldn't be offering bonuses at all but have a good player rewards system instead. Just my opinion.

By the way I totally get what your saying. The casino used an FU clause by bringing in the substantially lowering bet excuse. If they had a set amount in written into their t&c's then they wouldn't have to bother with this vague clause.

They could take a dual approach, set a max bet along the lines of 32Red, and then set a min bet, below which play would not contribute towards WR. This would defeat the objective of making many small bets to grind out WR.

It could even have worked in this case (the dual approach). If they set the max bet as they have now, the €10 bets would have counted, but if they had also set a minimum bet, perhaps at a level related to the players' opening average bets, the lower €3.18 bets would not have budged the WR. It would have dealt with the situation effectively without having to involve the confiscation of winnings and deposits. It would also have deterred other Advantage Players as they would realise the tactic had been blocked at a technical level by the software, so no amount of "charm" or deceit with CS would make a difference.

Had they chosen a fixed amount, €6.25 for example, it would have ruled out the €10 bets.

Since all these tactics feature big bets to boost bankroll followed by small bets to grind, an adaptive system managed by the software could defeat all variants of the tactic. It could look at a player's highest bet, or their average, and calculate a floor amount below which play is not counted towards WR. Players would be free to bet big, but they would have to carry on betting at a similar level in order to make progress on WR. The bigger the bankroll boosting bet, the bigger the required bet for WR would be - the tactic just would not work. The system could even recalculate WR for past bets based on future behaviour, so that if the smartarses among the APs think they can beat the system by betting small for a bit, then let off some bankroll boosters, before going for the grind, they would find that the earlier bets would be reassessed and would no longer count towards WR because of the later big bets. The grind would also not count, because it would not be assessed on the earlier bets, but on the big bets mid session.

APs would have to go back to the drawing board as most of their known tactics are based around the same general concept of big bets followed by grinding.

 

[dunover]

The fact that the OP is berating Max because he followed his strategy on slots as opposed to table games is neither here nor there. The slots have a similar RTP to table games, usually slightly lower but on some quite high like 98% + i.e. not enough to make slot AP futile in comparison to table games.
We did have a thread on here whereby a rep attempted to explain how bonus abuse/AP can give a player an overall EV+ opportunity at the casinos, though for the life of me I cannot remember where it is.

I do agree that if all else fails FL should put this issue to bed by refunding the deposit.

 

[maxd]

I do agree that if all else fails FL should put this issue to bed by refunding the deposit.

Events that follow may prove to be the exception but traditionally FL does no such thing. The whole point of their Terms as written is to aggressively discourage AP players and confiscating the deposits is a key part of that strategy. We've come to this point in several cases over the years. I don't recall a single instance where a "confirmed" AP had their deposits returned.

 

[dunover]

Events that follow may prove to be the exception but traditionally FL does no such thing. The whole point of their Terms as written is to aggressively discourage AP players and confiscating the deposits is a key part of that strategy. We've come to this point in several cases over the years. I don't recall a single instance where a "confirmed" AP had their deposits returned.

I see. I know the OP was trying it on, but as the vagueness of the terms (yes WE know their intent but maybe not all do) leaves room for argument I would usually propose that a reasonable solution would follow a "take your money and p!ss-off" scenario.

I believe that for the terms to excuse keeping deposits plus winnings, they should leave the player or prospective player in no doubt as to what conduct is expected of them.

 

[Dinahnana]

They could take a dual approach, set a max bet along the lines of 32Red, and then set a min bet, below which play would not contribute towards WR. This would defeat the objective of making many small bets to grind out WR.

It could even have worked in this case (the dual approach). If they set the max bet as they have now, the €10 bets would have counted, but if they had also set a minimum bet, perhaps at a level related to the players' opening average bets, the lower €3.18 bets would not have budged the WR. It would have dealt with the situation effectively without having to involve the confiscation of winnings and deposits. It would also have deterred other Advantage Players as they would realise the tactic had been blocked at a technical level by the software, so no amount of "charm" or deceit with CS would make a difference.

Had they chosen a fixed amount, €6.25 for example, it would have ruled out the €10 bets.

Since all these tactics feature big bets to boost bankroll followed by small bets to grind, an adaptive system managed by the software could defeat all variants of the tactic. It could look at a player's highest bet, or their average, and calculate a floor amount below which play is not counted towards WR. Players would be free to bet big, but they would have to carry on betting at a similar level in order to make progress on WR. The bigger the bankroll boosting bet, the bigger the required bet for WR would be - the tactic just would not work. The system could even recalculate WR for past bets based on future behaviour, so that if the smartarses among the APs think they can beat the system by betting small for a bit, then let off some bankroll boosters, before going for the grind, they would find that the earlier bets would be reassessed and would no longer count towards WR because of the later big bets. The grind would also not count, because it would not be assessed on the earlier bets, but on the big bets mid session.

APs would have to go back to the drawing board as most of their known tactics are based around the same general concept of big bets followed by grinding.

That seems awfully complicated to me. Having a reasonable max bet rule amount (not a percentage) would be much easier to keep track of. If they had that in place instead of 30% (which seems awfully high and risky to me) would prevent this scenario in the first place. AP's would be deterred somewhat.
You do have some good ideas there Vinyl

 

[SkBurner]

I don't agree that they are keeping the deposit, is there a specific term for this?

If there is then fine the player accepted the terms when taking the bonus.

 

[wigan rl]

Events that follow may prove to be the exception but traditionally FL does no such thing. The whole point of their Terms as written is to aggressively discourage AP players and confiscating the deposits is a key part of that strategy. We've come to this point in several cases over the years. I don't recall a single instance where a "confirmed" AP had their deposits returned.

So players who break rules get their deposit back and players what don't that use a strategy get sweet fa makes sense

Maybe cm should look at something to put in the accreditation rules about rules like this cause there is an argument for each side and it never gets anywhere

 

[maxd]

I believe that for the terms to excuse keeping deposits plus winnings, they should leave the player or prospective player in no doubt as to what conduct is expected of them.

You won't get any arguments from me on that but there does seem to be a reluctance in some quarters to spell things out explicitly. Obviously that benefits one side of the dispute more than the other and therein lies our discomfort: loosey-goosey Terms are too easily abused, especially when they are intentionally vague.

I don't agree that they are keeping the deposit, is there a specific term for this?

It's been a while since I checked for that specific item in the Terms but in general yes, that specific penalty was spelled out.

So players who break rules get their deposit back and players what don't that use a strategy get sweet fa ....

Not sure where you're getting that but I hope you're not putting those words in my mouth. I've never said any such thing.

I think I mentioned it earlier but let me say it again so it's perfectly clear: I have to be careful to not give the impression that I am speaking for Bryan or Simmo but I think it's fair to say that none of us here at CM are comfortable with this "non-recreational player" stuff. What exactly to do about it is a subject that we've debated before and we're doing it again now. As ever the final call is and will be Bryan's but no one should be under the mistaken impression that we think those Terms are well and good. We do not.

 

[skiny]

These are just my opinions. People are welcome to disagree with them if they like.

Confiscating deposits for fraud is acceptable.

Any other reason is not.

Grinding out wage requirements is not a crime. It's usually the ONLY way to keep any of the money you won if you still have a wage requirement left when you're ahead. I don't think I can even count the amount of times I was ahead and then went broke before the wage requirement was fulfilled. It's one of the reasons I don't take bonuses. That and the fact that most of these terms and conditions pages look like they were written by VWM on speed.

Pretty much every player is an advantage player to some degree.

People change their bet sizes depending on their bankroll.
People play higher variance games when they have the bankroll to spin out lots of losing spins.
People play a variety of games when they have the bankroll to comfortably try new games.
People stick to games they know when they start losing.
People's attitudes can suddenly change. Bet high when you're winning, bet low when you're not.

This list is literally endless. People play to win and they instinctively change the way they play depending on bankroll and win/lose ratio.

This is playing to your advantage and any sensible player should be doing it.

Clearly this player is an advantage player. I can't hold this against him because I am one as well. I just can't be bothered with all the terms and conditions so I do my advantage playing without bonuses. I just sent a screen shot of almost a 1000x win playing 5 lines, 5 coins on a 25 line slot game. I did this because for the last 20 minutes none of the lines were hitting anything anyway. It was to my advantage to sit and spin quarters instead of dollars while I waited for a bonus feature on a game that I knew would let me play this feature with all 25 lines if it hit.

I did this because it was to MY advantage.

The issue here is not advantage play. It's breaking rules. Casino's can't just make rules that say you can't play to your advantage. That's completely unfair no matter how you implement it.

Rules have to specifically state maximum bet sizes, games you're allowed to play and wagering requirements.

These games are designed to make you lose. No matter how you spin it, that's a simple fact.

And if casinos know how to create bonus systems that keep that TRTP under 100% it should make no difference how you bet or what you play.

They can solve the entire problem once and for all by fixing the terms and conditions and then abiding by them or we can keep coming back here to rehash the same old story with new "advantage players" because as long as the terms and conditions stay the way they are this will not stop happening.

(I know. I make fun of VWM and then type just as much. )

 

[dusky]

I think a lot has already been said about the issue so I won't comment on that, but keeping hold of someones deposit in this instance, especially if you are not paying out (imo) legitimate winnings then keeping the deposit is theft. Pure and simple.

 

[wigan rl]

Not sure where you're getting that but I hope you're not putting those words in my mouth. I've never said any such thing.

I think I mentioned it earlier but let me say it again so it's perfectly clear: I have to be careful to not give the impression that I am speaking for Bryan or Simmo but I think it's fair to say that none of us here at CM are comfortable with this "non-recreational player" stuff. What exactly to do about it is a subject that we've debated before and we're doing it again now. As ever the final call is and will be Bryan's but no one should be under the mistaken impression that we think those Terms are well and good. We do not.

Max if you think i'm having a pop at you,bryan or simmo i'm not and i'm sorry if any of you took it that way i could have put it in a better way you all do a thankless job for the players

All i'm suggesting is the criteria on these type of rules be looked at and if they are i'm sure it would make your life easier with certain baps

 

[homerbert]

Read all thread... i make few statements for myself:
1) it is sick world, in which i should take bonus, which promoting by casino on every fuc*ing page, and then start to fear not break any their rule.
2) i do not see problem in betting 10 euro, then betting 3 euro. Even with a bonus. RTP never change. If you fear such players, do not give bonuses, or make them small.
3) i will never play at this FL, i better continue with betat and guts. Moreover, in 5 years or so, i think multi platform casinos replace this all FL and other MG groups.
4) I am on player side. He does not make multi accounts, he does not use any malfunction. And just ban him and take money this is not cool at all.
I am dumb, i know

 

[vinylweatherman]

Events that follow may prove to be the exception but traditionally FL does no such thing. The whole point of their Terms as written is to aggressively discourage AP players and confiscating the deposits is a key part of that strategy. We've come to this point in several cases over the years. I don't recall a single instance where a "confirmed" AP had their deposits returned.

This can be a big problem when they are relying on deliberately vague terms. This is really a case of "We don't like the way you played", rather than a specific violation of a well defined term. The OP read the rules, and they stipulated a max bet of 30% of the bonus credited. He went for €10, well below this limit. He then reduced the bet to just above €3, however the term governing this was less specific, using the term "substantial" rather than a defined percentage.

Confiscating winnings is usually a result of "voiding the bets". Keeping the deposit goes beyond this, and may not actually be legal within the EU in a consumer contract. This is something that will start to have more bearing on how operators behave now that the industry has become mature enough to come under more direct regulation by the countries where players reside, rather than the somewhat looser rules of their chosen licensing jurisdiction where such consumer contract laws may not exist.

The legal framework in the UK relates to the cost of remedying a breach of contract. It is not legal for a business, be it a bank or online casino, to just take an arbitrary amount of whatever customers' money they can get hold of. What they take has to relate to the costs of pursuing and remedying a breach of contract. Quite a few companies have fallen foul of this principle, and it has sometimes been an expensive policy where the problem is sufficiently widespread for regulators to take action. As well as the UKGC, we have Trading Standards who would look at this not as a gambling matter, but a consumer contract one. There are fairly strict rules about what can legitimately be put into the terms of a consumer contract, and if these are not met, contracts can be voided, and compensation due to the consumer.

Perhaps another thing to worry about is the "arms race" aspect. This will be seen as blatant theft by the casino among many APs, and they may decide to resort to even more underhand tactics as respect for the business is eroded even further.

These APs are not necessarily committing fraud, they are simply intelligent and disciplined enough to maximise their chances of beating the house. The clever and sometimes misleading tactics used by casinos to part punters from their money are equally "advantage play" on the part of the casino, and this has not gone unnoticed by the UK ASA which regulates marketing.

The serial APs who see no problem with multi accounting are unlikely to be put off by the occasional loss of a deposit. It's the inexperienced "wannabe" advantage player that is likely to get caught more easily, and such an experience may harden their attitudes towards the industry, leading them to feel that they are all out to rip off the unsuspecting punters, and that far from being the villain, they are some kind of "hero" for playing Robin Hood and striking back and getting away with it.

When it comes to ordinary players who just don't understand such tactics, they will see that casinos will confiscate even the deposit merely because a player won when they shouldn't have done, and that surely they won because they got lucky, as the alternative explanation is that their tactic worked, and thus the games are somehow open to manipulation, which leads to the conclusion that they are not random.

 

[dizze]

There is NO such thing as an Advantage Player


Only a Player and a Player who has broken the rules, nothing else exists

 

[maxd]

This can be a big problem when they are relying on deliberately vague terms. ....

Yes, which is quite possibly why a fair number of us have already said exactly that, even here in this very thread, and in so many fewer words.