Bonus Complaint Betfred Not Paying £7.5k Win Due to Single Mistaken Bet

[Nifty29]

Well yes she might have had to adjust the bet cause of changing coin size, but if a single space bar click can cause it, its still sad by Betfred. Not that they lost anything from it either. The punishment doesent fix the crime here, its like the police giving a person a 7500$ ticket for driving 1 mph over the speed limit.

The amount is immaterial.....and not technically correct anyway.

Any spins after the offending one were null and void, so they actually only "lost" what was in their account at the time. Only by playing on without bothering to contact the casino after knowing immediately that they HAD broken the rules was the player "out" $7500.

I've seen the "its really a huge fine/ticket" thing before, and it doesn't wash. It is the PLAYER who decided the amount of their "fine" by playing on regardless "assuming" that their rules would be exactly the same as one other casino they've played at (the OP is asking here to believe they've only ever played at one other casino that just happened to have a quite unique extra WR rather than confiscation clause....ummm yeah right). Using your example, the PLAYER walked back to their car, realized they were over the time limit, and instead of moving it etc, they just left it there to accumulate tickets (forget about clamping for a minute...before some smart alec says "it would never happen blah blah)...and THEN jumping up and down because they clocked up $7500 in tickets. Who's fault is that? Move the car/contact support, and a nasty situation can be avoided.

Again, why some are going on about the amount is beyond me. Its the same as a $20 depositor losing $150...if that were the case most of you wouldn't bother posting, and that includes the OP...which shows it is NOT about the principle involved as some would have us believe.

IF the OP didn't realize they stuffed up until after they cashed out, then PERHAPS I could see where the casino MIGHT be somewhat lenient, but given the OP had every opportunity to sort it out prior to cashout, the casino will see it as something other than an accident I.e. a deliberate attempt at subterfuge.

I often hear the word "fair" or "fairness" bandied around, usually by "CAE Club" members in relation to how players like the OP are being treated "unfairly". What is often ignored in these posts and discussions is the fairness to OTHER players.....in particular, those who have had winnings confiscated previously under the same rule. How would YOU feel if you had "lost" $500 a few months back exceeding max bet, and accepted the fact that you had broken the rules (like an adult would), and you then come across some person getting their winnings reinstated in the same circumstances, purely because they made a noise about it because of the amount involved? I think anyway who says "it wouldn't bother me" is telling porkies. It would be grossly unfair to both players who DID abide by the rules, AND those who made an error and accepted the consequences (like an adult). It would also set a precedent for future disputes, which I have no doubt would be thoroughly exploited by APs like cheekydancer (oops I'm sorry they're only a 2 casino newbie...my bad).

 

[shazbaz]

Yes, I've seen the wildlife programmes. The one that gets picked off and eaten alive.........

Not if the said animal has a thick enough hide

 

[spoton]

What is this talk of 'punishment'??
It's not punitive at all, merely a black-and-white enforcement of terms the OP AGREED TO when signing up and depositing.

Just to remind folks these casinos are BUSINESSES designed to make a profit, not charities. The OP could have and should have stopped play immediately, as the player in the 32red example did when they realized their error. 32red gave them the benefit of the doubt when they contacted live chat, and the only 'punishment' 32red gave was to add a bit more to the WR.

Yes that is right, and the concept of businesses is paying them for receiving goods or services. Thats how they are supposed to make money, not by trapping their customers just so they can grab as much money as possible without delivering anything back. Ofcourse its ok that they have rules to protect them from loosing money incase of mishaps or cause of abusing customers, but they should also be customer friendly and forgive simple mishaps. All companies want to make as much money as possiblem, but thankfully some has some ethics aswell, and treats customers as people instead of objects.

Ofcourse that goes for normal businesses. If betfred sticks to this it just shows that they(and their owners) belong to a group of businesses like the virtual group, betfair etc. Its just a matter of how creative they are to exploit their customers to generate as much income as possible not giving a sh*t about ethics or what they are providing in return to the customer.

Now, it's possible that BF may have said 'no way, Jose!' in which case the OP could have stopped there and then, BEFORE doing all the play which made the 6.5k gain, and taken their deposit. We'll never know now whether BF would have been that amenable or not. That fact is down to the OP and nobody else.

The OP's whole philosophy seems to be to extract sympathy, because there is little else she can gain from all this. Unfortunately 'sympathy' is not mentioned in the terms and conditions as a factor upon which BF's business is based.

Now had she been an existing player, whom BF knew, and didn't have the play pattern of an AP then BF MAY have made an ad-hoc decision in her favour based on her previous account action - but this is entirely DISCRETIONAL and not mandatory.

Well, yes. The customer could have done more to avoid it, but as she said, she lost the bet, and didnt think it would mean anything. And i believe that. There is alot of buts and stuff here, all which could have been avoided if BF cared to program their casino a little better. Programming in a bet limitation with bonuses aint much harder than limiting which games can be played, not that i believe playtech casinos wants that, as how it is today brings in alot of money for them.

 

[dunover]

Not if the said animal has a thick enough hide

......or a thick enough head

 

[spoton]

The amount is immaterial.....and not technically correct anyway.

Any spins after the offending one were null and void, so they actually only "lost" what was in their account at the time. Only by playing on without bothering to contact the casino after knowing immediately that they HAD broken the rules was the player "out" $7500.

But their software allowed her to keep on playing risking her initial deposit aswell. Which easily could have been avoided by some real time auditing. Or they could simply limit her from betting over the limit with a bonus, or just have a term saying that if that kind of bets are done, the play and bet is void without contributing to the WR.

I've seen the "its really a huge fine/ticket" thing before, and it doesn't wash. It is the PLAYER who decided the amount of their "fine" by playing on regardless "assuming" that their rules would be exactly the same as one other casino they've played at (the OP is asking here to believe they've only ever played at one other casino that just happened to have a quite unique extra WR rather than confiscation clause....ummm yeah right). Using your example, the PLAYER walked back to their car, realized they were over the time limit, and instead of moving it etc, they just left it there to accumulate tickets (forget about clamping for a minute...before some smart alec says "it would never happen blah blah)...and THEN jumping up and down because they clocked up $7500 in tickets. Who's fault is that? Move the car/contact support, and a nasty situation can be avoided.

Using my example its more like having to to walk around two streets because the streets are closed for some reason, then coming 1 min to late to your car, finding a ticket on 7500$ on your car. Atleast here the companies cant fine you before 3 mins have gone, and max 150$..

Again, why some are going on about the amount is beyond me. Its the same as a $20 depositor losing $150...if that were the case most of you wouldn't bother posting, and that includes the OP...which shows it is NOT about the principle involved as some would have us believe.

Thanks for taking words out of our mouths...:/

I often hear the word "fair" or "fairness" bandied around, usually by "CAE Club" members in relation to how players like the OP are being treated "unfairly". What is often ignored in these posts and discussions is the fairness to OTHER players.....in particular, those who have had winnings confiscated previously under the same rule. How would YOU feel if you had "lost" $500 a few months back exceeding max bet, and accepted the fact that you had broken the rules (like an adult would), and you then come across some person getting their winnings reinstated in the same circumstances, purely because they made a noise about it because of the amount involved? I think anyway who says "it wouldn't bother me" is telling porkies. It would be grossly unfair to both players who DID abide by the rules, AND those who made an error and accepted the consequences (like an adult). It would also set a precedent for future disputes, which I have no doubt would be thoroughly exploited by APs like cheekydancer (oops I'm sorry they're only a 2 casino newbie...my bad).

If i had my money confiscated like that 2 weeks prior and accepted it i would just have blamed myself for contributing to a rotten world where companies can do whatever they want. And yes you see it trough the whole world now. Eventhough some leaders has been voted for and won a election, it doesent mean that they can do whatever they feel like, and when people protest, things will change. And some populations just accept it "as adults", and end up like North Korea...

There are too many players loosing their winning cause of things that the casinos easily can prevent by simple coding, but ofcourse they wont, as it saves them from paying out alot of money, and so that they can keep on offering bigger and bigger bonuses, so the next casino has to do the same and come up with the same bs terms, or lose customers.

 

[Nifty29]

Yes that is right, and the concept of businesses is paying them for receiving goods or services. Thats how they are supposed to make money, not by trapping their customers just so they can grab as much money as possible without delivering anything back. Ofcourse its ok that they have rules to protect them from loosing money incase of mishaps or cause of abusing customers, but they should also be customer friendly and forgive simple mishaps. All companies want to make as much money as possiblem, but thankfully some has some ethics aswell, and treats customers as people instead of objects.

Ofcourse that goes for normal businesses. If betfred sticks to this it just shows that they(and their owners) belong to a group of businesses like the virtual group, betfair etc. Its just a matter of how creative they are to exploit their customers to generate as much income as possible not giving a sh*t about ethics or what they are providing in return to the customer.



Well, yes. The customer could have done more to avoid it, but as she said, she lost the bet, and didnt think it would mean anything. And i believe that. There is alot of buts and stuff here, all which could have been avoided if BF cared to program their casino a little better. Programming in a bet limitation with bonuses aint much harder than limiting which games can be played, not that i believe playtech casinos wants that, as how it is today brings in alot of money for them.

I believe the OP though that too....and we all know what happened to "thought" don't we?...and that's my point. If the OP is going to be that careless and irresponsible when they have £1000 of their own money on the line, then why should the casino have to make a special exception for them? Its unreasonable, bordering on ridiculous.

The PLAYER RECEIVED the "goods and services" they paid for I.e. casino credits with which to play casino games, AND some EXTRA credits that involved various restrictions. It was the PLAYER, not the merchant, that violated the terms of use for those services, hence the merchant has the right to void the services/goods and return the initial deposit....which it appears they are going to do. Its important to note that, although I'm using the customer/merchant example to answer yours, the provision of gaming services is a complicated issue and isn't really like being given the wrong sized jeans etc. Certain posters from the UK will tell you its all cut and dried and that they know exactly what Mr Justice Huntington-Smythe is going to say in his 108 page judgement on such matters, but the truth is we all know pretty much the same as each other in a legal sense on this issue I.e. not much.

Why should PT or any other provider make wholesale changes to their software just to accommodate a comparatively TINY portion of players who are either incredibly careless with their money, or couldn't be arsed to be aware of what they're agreeing to? What next? A "isn't that a bit much?" Popup to prevent overspending? A "are you SURE?" Popup every time you press a button? Its ridiculous. If the overwhelming majority of players can follow the rules withoutbhasske, then people like the OP can too.

I still have to appreciate the irony of APs being caught out by the very rules they made necessary for casinos to implement in the first place. Players with common sense should KNOW that it is these kind of players that are responsible for the harsher and harsher rules and WR on bonuses as time goes on. Maybe some of you should think about that next time you get a nice win using a bonus and lose the lot meeting your 30-40xWR.

 

[dunover]

Yes that is right, and the concept of businesses is paying them for receiving goods or services. Thats how they are supposed to make money, not by trapping their customers just so they can grab as much money as possible without delivering anything back. Ofcourse its ok that they have rules to protect them from loosing money incase of mishaps or cause of abusing customers, but they should also be customer friendly and forgive simple mishaps. All companies want to make as much money as possiblem, but thankfully some has some ethics aswell, and treats customers as people instead of objects.

Ofcourse that goes for normal businesses. If betfred sticks to this it just shows that they(and their owners) belong to a group of businesses like the virtual group, betfair etc. Its just a matter of how creative they are to exploit their customers to generate as much income as possible not giving a sh*t about ethics or what they are providing in return to the customer.



Well, yes. The customer could have done more to avoid it, but as she said, she lost the bet, and didnt think it would mean anything. And i believe that. There is alot of buts and stuff here, all which could have been avoided if BF cared to program their casino a little better. Programming in a bet limitation with bonuses aint much harder than limiting which games can be played, not that i believe playtech casinos wants that, as how it is today brings in alot of money for them.

Betfred DON'T program their casino; games are played from a central server. Playtech do not know if bonus is being used, or whatever limits the casino requires on stakes for a specific player. So, BF should have one link to game X for player A who is not using a bonus, and another for player B who is? Can you imagine the complications and potential for complaints, cock-ups and accusations if ANY casino tried implementing this? That is why they have TERMS AND CONDITIONS you read BEFORE taking bonuses and commencing play.

As for 'trapping' the customer, utter hogwash. THE CUSTOMER VOLUNTARILY agreed to a SUB which would necessitate a lengthy and risky session in order to encash that bonus. BF have made NOTHING from their dealings with that customer.


I cannot understand, when the OP has admitted their fault in all this, why people continue to blame Betfred.

 

[spoton]

I believe the OP though that too....and we all know what happened to "thought" don't we?...and that's my point. If the OP is going to be that careless and irresponsible when they have £1000 of their own money on the line, then why should the casino have to make a special exception for them? Its unreasonable, bordering on ridiculous.

The PLAYER RECEIVED the "goods and services" they paid for I.e. casino credits with which to play casino games, AND some EXTRA credits that involved various restrictions. It was the PLAYER, not the merchant, that violated the terms of use for those services, hence the merchant has the right to void the services/goods and return the initial deposit....which it appears they are going to do. Its important to note that, although I'm using the customer/merchant example to answer yours, the provision of gaming services is a complicated issue and isn't really like being given the wrong sized jeans etc. Certain posters from the UK will tell you its all cut and dried and that they know exactly what Mr Justice Huntington-Smythe is going to say in his 108 page judgement on such matters, but the truth is we all know pretty much the same as each other in a legal sense on this issue I.e. not much.

I guess they also would have refunded the initial deposit if she lost her own deposit aswell...

Why should PT or any other provider make wholesale changes to their software just to accommodate a comparatively TINY portion of players who are either incredibly careless with their money, or couldn't be arsed to be aware of what they're agreeing to? What next? A "isn't that a bit much?" Popup to prevent overspending? A "are you SURE?" Popup every time you press a button? Its ridiculous. If the overwhelming majority of players can follow the rules withoutbhasske, then people like the OP can too.

To protect themselfes of abusers if it such a big problem. In the same way that i have a lock on my housedoor and a alarm in the car. But ofcourse, i will loose alot of money if i have a theft, and the casino will make money if the users do a small error on their software. And you dont need a popup asking "are you sure", its possible to just disable the possibility of doing those bets with a bonus, in the same way some honest sites will disable you from playing banned games on a bonus.

I still have to appreciate the irony of APs being caught out by the very rules they made necessary for casinos to implement in the first place. Players with common sense should KNOW that it is these kind of players that are responsible for the harsher and harsher rules and WR on bonuses as time goes on. Maybe some of you should think about that next time you get a nice win using a bonus and lose the lot meeting your 30-40xWR.

Yes for gods sake, its everyone else than the casinos fault... The reason have such harsh terms is because they have to give out big bonuses. In the same you see rouge casinos offering 1000% with 15x WR, and 200% with no WR or rules. To compete one after the other of the casinos has to stretch after those kind of offers, and we see some people applauding it, meaning that more and more casinos have to the same. And then the rougish casinos will suddenly up their bonus offers aswell. And we have a race with more and more restrictions. I remember the first two casinos i played at when i was a noob. In the same way you can say that all workers choose if they want a job or not when buying some electronic thingy made by 12 year olds working 17 hours a day in China, meaning that their competitors has to do the same, or you can buy a item that werent produced by slave-labor for a bit more sending a hint to the first company and show your not fooled.

 

[spoton]

Betfred DON'T program their casino; games are played from a central server. Playtech do not know if bonus is being used, or whatever limits the casino requires on stakes for a specific player. So, BF should have one link to game X for player A who is not using a bonus, and another for player B who is? Can you imagine the complications and potential for complaints, cock-ups and accusations if ANY casino tried implementing this? That is why they have TERMS AND CONDITIONS you read BEFORE taking bonuses and commencing play.

As for 'trapping' the customer, utter hogwash. THE CUSTOMER VOLUNTARILY agreed to a SUB which would necessitate a lengthy and risky session in order to encash that bonus. BF have made NOTHING from their dealings with that customer.


I cannot understand, when the OP has admitted their fault in all this, why people continue to blame Betfred.

She read the TOS, and tried following them for all but 1 misclick of how many thousands?

Try Betfreds sportsbook, and they can sure set a limit for you there if you win a bit to much . No Betfred cant make that software change themselves, but they can put pressure onto playtech on doing it. And they can have a more humane TOS, voiding accidental bets, potensially with a small fee, if its not being done too much.

And betfred got enough bets from this player that they in theory should have made money. That they didn't were just luck on the OPs side.

 

[Nifty29]

I guess they also would have refunded the initial deposit if she lost her own deposit aswell...


To protect themselfes of abusers if it such a big problem. In the same way that i have a lock on my housedoor and a alarm in the car. But ofcourse, i will loose alot of money if i have a theft, and the casino will make money if the users do a small error on their software. And you dont need a popup asking "are you sure", its possible to just disable the possibility of doing those bets with a bonus, in the same way some honest sites will disable you from playing banned games on a bonus.

The casino is NOT "making money" if they return the deposit.

Disabling whole games is a different thing to individually calculating, in real time, what bonus each individual has taken, and what they can or cannot play in relation to that bonus, and how much they can bet on each bonus and game, and whether they can bet on red, black and zero on roulette, or whether they can or cannot blah blah blah.

All of these changes cost money and time and resources which could be better spent on providing better promotions for GENUINE loyal players and developing more new games and other enhanced features to improve gameplay. Considering these confiscations only affect a TINY number of players overall, there is no justification for it.

What next? You want your car to automatically stop for 5 seconds when it recognises a stop sign? You want speed limiters on every car to prevent anyone ever speeding?

Actually, the speeding example is quite relevant. In my experience, the people who whine and complain about speeding fines and "revenue generating speed cameras" are almost exclusively those who continue to exceed the speed limit and get fined. The way I see it, it is a "user pays" system....if you never exceed the speed limit, it won't ever cost you a cent. It's up to ME how much I pay in speeding fines. The same applies for confiscation of winnings for bonus term violations.....the people who scream and whinge the loudest are those who have (usually more than once) had their winnings voided for breaking the rules when taking a bonus.

IMO, the casinos (rogues excepted) provide enough information and tools to PREVENT you from having winnings voided by clearly listing specific terms and providing links to such terms in multple places. In fact, at Betfred, they provide the link to the bonus terms in a popup which allows you to accept of decline the bonus. At some point, there must be some responsibility borne by the player. Some people need to grow up and stop expecting to be spoon fed at every turn, and start directing the blame to where it belongs on a case-to-case basis instead of just blindly exclaiming "it's the casinos fault!!"


Yes for gods sake, its everyone else than the casinos fault... The reason have such harsh terms is because they have to give out big bonuses. In the same you see rouge casinos offering 1000% with 15x WR, and 200% with no WR or rules. To compete one after the other of the casinos has to stretch after those kind of offers, and we see some people applauding it, meaning that more and more casinos have to the same. And then the rougish casinos will suddenly up their bonus offers aswell. And we have a race with more and more restrictions. I remember the first two casinos i played at when i was a noob. In the same way you can say that all workers choose if they want a job or not when buying some electronic thingy made by 12 year olds working 17 hours a day in China, meaning that their competitors has to do the same, or you can buy a item that werent produced by slave-labor for a bit more sending a hint to the first company and show your not fooled.

Actually....you're wrong.

Years ago, there were huge bonuses everywhere.....even the big operators/accredited casinos....with terms like 400% SUB with 10xD+B WR and very few other restrictions. Some of the SUBs and even the regular promos would make those who have joined only in the past 5-6 years salivate wildly.

The reason they have been severely curtailed is that there were swathes of players making a very comfortable full time living out of advantage playing these incredibly EV+ bonuses, with most of them just jumping from one casino to another as they popped up, and many of them using fake IDs etc to create multiple accounts etc to do it over and over again at the same casino.

Obviously, this was not sustainable. In time, operators realised they were basically providing certain players with a grand living and generating almost no loyalty from these players at all.

When new rules like game weighting and out right game exclusion, max bet amounts etc were introduced, these APs had to get more clever, and used their networks to come up with loopholes to exploit at every turn. As each loophole was closed, the terms became harsher and harsher and.....fast forward to today....we have SUBs etc that are almost impossible to beat and regular ones that don't do you any favours either.

So, it's got nothing to do with slave laborers in China.....I'm not even sure where you got that from TBH

The "blame" rests solely on the heads of the advantage player. It's why I have a hard time feeling any sympathy when they "make mistakes", and understanding why average Joe players support them against casinos. It boggles the mind, in fact.

 

[LaHutti]

True, we're not all sheep.

Yes you are right, there's always one that won't follow the herd


Shaz

 

[bpb]

I like tacos

 

[shazbaz]

......or a thick enough head

So you think if someone don't follow the "herd" they have a thick head? What an unusual analysis

 

[GrandMaster]

Betfred DON'T program their casino; games are played from a central server. Playtech do not know if bonus is being used, or whatever limits the casino requires on stakes for a specific player. So, BF should have one link to game X for player A who is not using a bonus, and another for player B who is? Can you imagine the complications and potential for complaints, cock-ups and accusations if ANY casino tried implementing this? That is why they have TERMS AND CONDITIONS you read BEFORE taking bonuses and commencing play.

As for 'trapping' the customer, utter hogwash. THE CUSTOMER VOLUNTARILY agreed to a SUB which would necessitate a lengthy and risky session in order to encash that bonus. BF have made NOTHING from their dealings with that customer.


I cannot understand, when the OP has admitted their fault in all this, why people continue to blame Betfred.

It should be possible to write a module where the casino could specify the conditions applicable to the bonus, the weighting of each game, prohibited games, bet limits, etc., and then if a player tried to make am illegal bet, a pop-up would ask him to confirm that he really want to make that bet and forfeit all his winnings. The whole thing should require less effort than writing yet another slot.

 

[Nifty29]

I like tacos

What a shame you deleted your original post bpb.

It was probably your most intelligent and informative for several years.

 

[Nifty29]

It should be possible to write a module where the casino could specify the conditions applicable to the bonus, the weighting of each game, prohibited games, bet limits, etc., and then if a player tried to make am illegal bet, a pop-up would ask him to confirm that he really want to make that bet and forfeit all his winnings. The whole thing should require less effort than writing yet another slot.

Well it would depend on what PT cost it at....and, as I said, if the actual issue is so big that it warrants the extra time, resources, and money. None of us know how their backend works, and thus how easy/hard etc it would be to implement.

It might well be less effort than writing another slot, but IMO the time, resources and money is far better spent on that slot, rather than spoonfeeding a tiny number of players who refuse to take any responsibility for their own behaviour.

I'm all for reasonable measures to prevent players from breaking rules, but IMO this whole re-programming idea etc is going too far, especially when you consider that the vast majority of players don't seem to have a problem with following the rules without it.

I'll take new games over assisting APs any day.

 

[Nifty29]

So you think if someone don't follow the "herd" they have a thick head? What an unusual analysis

Actually, IMO, depending on the situation it often shows integrity and objectivity to be "the odd one out" or not part of "the herd" in an argument/discussion.

I say "depending on the situation" because it really comes down to the facts of each issue, and whether they are in dispute, and what the common sense approach is etc.

It could be said to be a "thick" attitude to be the odd one out just for the hell of it, without actually thinking about each case on it's merits e.g. always taking the player's side no matter what etc.

 

[mrmark21]

I dont consider myself a member of this "CAE Club" and cant be called a hypocrit

IMO having a popup that displayed all the T&Cs and forced you to tick the relevent box before accepting a bonus would stop "newbies" from later claiming they made a mistake. How could they the T&Cs were right in front of them, they physically agreed to them? Thats a written contract. There are genuine players that make mistakes. We are only human.

I dont bet enough or play that many bonuses to experience problems with the max bet term, I can however see how an accident could occur. Once i was looking after my sisters toddler while playing at 32 Red, I had to move a couple of things around in the room to stop him from playing with them and when i turned around he was reaching up to the table and pressing the space bar for the maximum bet

I think a more player friendly casino would allow a limit of allowable max spins before confiscating funds or just adopt some common sense when situations like the Op's occur. Having said that I'm sure management at Betfred had a good reason for confiscating this players funds (but who am I to judge).

 

[Nifty29]

I dont consider myself a member of this "CAE Club" and cant be called a hypocrit

IMO having a popup that displayed all the T&Cs and forced you to tick the relevent box before accepting a bonus would stop "newbies" from later claiming they made a mistake. How could they the T&Cs were right in front of them, they physically agreed to them? Thats a written contract. There are genuine players that make mistakes. We are only human.

I dont bet enough or play that many bonuses to experience problems with the max bet term, I can however see how an accident could occur. Once i was looking after my sisters toddler while playing at 32 Red, I had to move a couple of things around in the room to stop him from playing with them and when i turned around he was reaching up to the table and pressing the space bar for the maximum bet

I think a more player friendly casino would allow a limit of allowable max spins before confiscating funds or just adopt some common sense when situations like the Op's occur. Having said that I'm sure management at Betfred had a good reason for confiscating this players funds (but who am I to judge).

It is pretty much EXACTLY what Betfred have.

In order to receive a bonus, a popup DOES appear with a "decline" and "accept" button, with a link to the bonus terms right there in the popup. It is unreasonable to expect the entire bonus terms to be displayed in the actual popup.

So, Betfred did fulfil your expectations.

 

[chuchu59]

Of course a system could be devised by the software company to do a lot of things including reminding players that their bet has exceeded the permissible amount with regard to the specific bonus in question but IMO that would be too much to ask especially when it could take a fortune to implement and casinos would need to liaise with the software company on each and every bonus offer they have. If took RTG a lengthy period to come up with a system in the cashier to lock disallowed games when playing with a bonus and I would expect a more advanced and costly system if the system reminds a player that his bet has exceeded a certain 20% or 30% of the bonus and could result in confiscation of both bonuses and winnings.

In my view, what could be implemented is whilst a bonus has been taken the terms of the bonus are retained in the cashier for checking every time a player forgets or is unaware of the terms.

On the Betfred issue, it does seem the OP is not even straightforward in telling us which slot she bet and the actual size of her bet. These things are relevant as we are being asked to believe her that it was an accidental mistake. I have my doubts and possibly even the casino has its doubts I believe. In any case, they do have a right to confiscate the winnings as its a clear violation of the bonus terms whereas whether it was a winning or losing spin is irrelevant. The OP wants us to believe her bet was 'accidental' and even that I find hard to believe.

 

[mathsboy1975]

I signed up to Betfred yesterday, deposited £1,000 and got a £500 bonus. I read all the terms and fully understood I couldn't bet 20% or more of the bonus.

As I was changing the slot bet so I would bet less than £100 it done a spin of £110. I'm not sure how it spun, they said it wasn't an error on their side, but I am thinking I may have pressed a button on my keyboard (is this possible?). Anyway, I didn't win a penny on that spin.
I immediately changed my bet after this to be under the 20% rule, and continued to abide by the rule for the whole wagering.

Now, despite me not winning a penny on my bet, and it clearly being an error on (my?) part, they are now not paying my £7.5k win. I'm distraught and in tears.

What are your thoughts on this term? Surely it is there to stop people winning too much, isn't it? So why are they applying it to me when I won diddly squat from the bet?

Betfred are saying the same thing happened here - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/betfred-confiscated-my-2600£-winnings.54085/ - but that is completely different as the guy WON with his bets, and bet over the 20% the whole way through.

You read all of the terms and conditions so you knew that £100 was the bet limit. I am curious here as to the pattern of your betting - did you start out at that level? This seems unlikely as betting with 6.66% of your bankroll per spin is not a good way to maximise your play time. The more likely explanation (correct me if this is not the case) is that you started off much lower, caught a massive win and then upped the stake to the max in order to get through the wagering requirements a lot faster so you could make a withdrawal. Is that the case? If it was then I would personally be taking EXTRA care that I was not going to breech the terms of the bonus and part of that would entail making sure that my bet was not exactly the maximum allowable amount under the bonus terms. I cannot understand why you would push the limit so close as you are then theoretically one accidental button click away from kissing goodbye to the lot.

You say it was an honest mistake and I see no reason to disbelieve you but IMO you took some risks that you did not have to take (which you are quite within your rights to do of course) and ultimately paid the price. If you were spinning at £100 a push and you changed slot (the point at which you say that the stake increase occurred) you should have taken extra care to check the first spin on the new slot was also under the max for the bonus terms).

It may sound hard and unreasonable but I don't have sympathy for your case because you pushed it so close to the boundary of the terms and didn't exercise enough caution when playing. If you had been betting at £50 or £60 and bumped the stake up £10 by mistake you would still be way under the maximum.

At the end of the day, rules are rules and as harsh as it sounds I see no reason why the casino should pay you if you broke them. Betfred have applied the rules to the letter and as harsh as it sounds, if you are successful in getting them to turn around and pay you then I think you should consider yourself very lucky indeed. If it were me I would be angry too. But not angry at the casino - angry with myself.

 

[mrmark21]

It is pretty much EXACTLY what Betfred have.

In order to receive a bonus, a popup DOES appear with a "decline" and "accept" button, with a link to the bonus terms right there in the popup. It is unreasonable to expect the entire bonus terms to be displayed in the actual popup.

So, Betfred did fulfil your expectations.

So there's ONLY a link. Many people never check T&Cs. They don't realize that predatory terms do exist: That could result in all youre winnings being confiscated due to one single isolated spin.

I dont think that would be unreasonable to have a pop-up with the T&Cs with a scroll down and accept decline option. Easy. Wouldn't that save online casinos from all this bad publicity? No one could say they made a mistake when the T&Cs were staring them right in the face.

 

[Nifty29]

So there's ONLY a link. Many people never check T&Cs. They don't realize that predatory terms do exist: That could result in all youre winnings being confiscated due to one single isolated spin.

I dont think that would be unreasonable to have a pop-up with the T&Cs with a scroll down and accept decline option. Easy. Wouldn't that save online casinos from all this bad publicity? No one could say they made a mistake when the T&Cs were staring them right in the face.

I think you've made my point for me in your first paragraph Mark.

Many people DON'T read the terms and conditions, and anyone who won't click a link (that pops up another window with the terms BTW) that is provided right above the "accept" and "decline" button are NOT going to read all the terms if they're listed in the popup either.

In my experience, there are people who read terms and people who don't, and it makes no difference how many times you list or link to terms, the "non-readers" still won't read them.

It really comes down to the question "Did the operator provide clearly stated terms, allow the PLAYER to accept or decline the bonus, and provide link/s to said terms in visible places". In BFs case, the answer is "yes". Its the standard I use, and not all casinos meet it, which is why I don't automatically support a casino I.e. I look for myself and draw on my own experience with that casino.

BF may have other issues, but insofar as making terms clear and accessible for players, they are in the top few.

 

[jetset]

Of course a system could be devised by the software company to do a lot of things including reminding players that their bet has exceeded the permissible amount with regard to the specific bonus in question but IMO that would be too much to ask especially when it could take a fortune to implement and casinos would need to liaise with the software company on each and every bonus offer they have. If took RTG a lengthy period to come up with a system in the cashier to lock disallowed games when playing with a bonus and I would expect a more advanced and costly system if the system reminds a player that his bet has exceeded a certain 20% or 30% of the bonus and could result in confiscation of both bonuses and winnings.

In my view, what could be implemented is whilst a bonus has been taken the terms of the bonus are retained in the cashier for checking every time a player forgets or is unaware of the terms.

On the Betfred issue, it does seem the OP is not even straightforward in telling us which slot she bet and the actual size of her bet. These things are relevant as we are being asked to believe her that it was an accidental mistake. I have my doubts and possibly even the casino has its doubts I believe. In any case, they do have a right to confiscate the winnings as its a clear violation of the bonus terms whereas whether it was a winning or losing spin is irrelevant. The OP wants us to believe her bet was 'accidental' and even that I find hard to believe.

I feel the same way - this apparent and continued reticence on naming the slot etc concerns me.

 

[petr1]

Of course a system could be devised by the software company to do a lot of things including reminding players that their bet has exceeded the permissible amount with regard to the specific bonus in question but IMO that would be too much to ask especially when it could take a fortune to implement and casinos would need to liaise with the software company on each and every bonus offer they have. If took RTG a lengthy period to come up with a system in the cashier to lock disallowed games when playing with a bonus and I would expect a more advanced and costly system if the system reminds a player that his bet has exceeded a certain 20% or 30% of the bonus and could result in confiscation of both bonuses and winnings.

In my view, what could be implemented is whilst a bonus has been taken the terms of the bonus are retained in the cashier for checking every time a player forgets or is unaware of the terms.

On the Betfred issue, it does seem the OP is not even straightforward in telling us which slot she bet and the actual size of her bet. These things are relevant as we are being asked to believe her that it was an accidental mistake. I have my doubts and possibly even the casino has its doubts I believe. In any case, they do have a right to confiscate the winnings as its a clear violation of the bonus terms whereas whether it was a winning or losing spin is irrelevant. The OP wants us to believe her bet was 'accidental' and even that I find hard to believe.

I don't know would it be costly to build a system like that. There's already a system that can set a daily/weekly/monthly total loss limit and the games remind about that (Netent). I think it wouldn't be too hard to make a system that sets a single bet limit.