That's actually a really nice, amicable and objective post. Thank you for that.
For vast majority, actually - for all of it, I'm in complete agreement. I would like to clarify the example you put forward though, if possible. The scenarios we look at are much wider than presented: game type, bet type by game type, deposit turnover (of course), type of play (autospin y/n), deposit method, deposit method vs withdrawal method, etc.. Sometimes things wouldn't be clear cut after only one deposit, so in those cases we would generally let it ride into the next case scenario while taking a closer look..
I wouldn't say the fine line is drawn at recognising the type of play actually - we've actually never had a complaint derived from our decision. Once caught, such "players" (i shouldn't call them that, really) just move their patterns onto the next place.
The fine line for me is drawn between trying to safeguard absolute transparency in the terms without 1) providing more information to the risk group which can be used to bypass the warning signs and 2) simply overly complicating the terms which would then need consistent update for any development as we learn and grow and change, or times change.. To me, that is the hardest part - safeguarding the player from the Casino's potential misuse of terms, without limiting the casino staff to do their job, while also not complicating the content to the point of it being putting off out of confusion in the end. To me, that's the real balancing act.
In any case, i really do appreciate your objective views. Thank you for that post, once more.
Igor
For vast majority, actually - for all of it, I'm in complete agreement. I would like to clarify the example you put forward though, if possible. The scenarios we look at are much wider than presented: game type, bet type by game type, deposit turnover (of course), type of play (autospin y/n), deposit method, deposit method vs withdrawal method, etc.. Sometimes things wouldn't be clear cut after only one deposit, so in those cases we would generally let it ride into the next case scenario while taking a closer look..
I wouldn't say the fine line is drawn at recognising the type of play actually - we've actually never had a complaint derived from our decision. Once caught, such "players" (i shouldn't call them that, really) just move their patterns onto the next place.
The fine line for me is drawn between trying to safeguard absolute transparency in the terms without 1) providing more information to the risk group which can be used to bypass the warning signs and 2) simply overly complicating the terms which would then need consistent update for any development as we learn and grow and change, or times change.. To me, that is the hardest part - safeguarding the player from the Casino's potential misuse of terms, without limiting the casino staff to do their job, while also not complicating the content to the point of it being putting off out of confusion in the end. To me, that's the real balancing act.
In any case, i really do appreciate your objective views. Thank you for that post, once more.
Igor