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

[dionysus]

If you lose the casino would not say anything if you win they would void your winnings. Pretty simple.

No, they all don't. I've accidentally bet max and the casino forgave me it. But there's the thing..it was a KINDNESS, not an OBLIGATION.
Should the casino look at the history and make a good, fair judgement call? Yes.
Do they have to? No

Life's full of shoulds. But that's life.

 

[dionysus]

The "Life's not fair" quote is just a platitude. The principles of fairness and reasonabless are there for a reason in the judiciary - to make life (less un)fair! I also mentioned earlier that it needs to be proven, of course, that the OP has indeed made an honest mistake.

ok, then platitudes aside - then a higher authority, applying fairness (or your fairness?) should be able to say yea OR nay? Doesn't that swing both ways?
'Sir, we feel the customer employs unfairness and spirit of the bonus breaches'
'Right you are, screw the terms, that's not FAIR..keep his money'

 

[petr1]

ok, then platitudes aside - then a higher authority, applying fairness (or your fairness?) should be able to say yea OR nay? Doesn't that swing both ways?
'Sir, we feel the customer employs unfairness and spirit of the bonus breaches'
'Right you are, screw the terms, that's not FAIR..keep his money'

There's always a rule that gives casino a "right" to do whatever they want.

 

[dionysus]

you're right, and you have ZERO obligation to accept those terms and not play there

 

[Mouche12]

ok, then platitudes aside - then a higher authority, applying fairness (or your fairness?) should be able to say yea OR nay? Doesn't that swing both ways?
'Sir, we feel the customer employs unfairness and spirit of the bonus breaches'
'Right you are, screw the terms, that's not FAIR..keep his money'

Of course it swings both ways, both parties will argue their case before the court and it will fully substantiate its judgment, also taking into account said principles. The casino in your example above has applied the same principles of reasonabless and fairness, and clever customer retention, I don't think it's only kindness.

 

[dionysus]

they were quite kind and were quite fair - and I'll play there again.
I never said this casino was being particularly 'fair' ....but then I don't expect the world to be ; sadly its some people's prerogative to be an ass.....but being a dick isn't against the law

 

[chuchu59]

Very very funny dununder

Scary thing is....there will be some thinking "Yes! Exactly! The casinos should be forced to do that!". Its a worry.

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink. Very apt when it comes to casino/bonus terms.

Even scaryMouche scaryMouche is doing the Fandango on this one

Very true. We even have a Chinese proverb for it but the subject is a cow where you can force its head down to drink water but it can still stubbornly refuse to do so.

 

[Mouche12]

they were quite kind and were quite fair - and I'll play there again.
I never said this casino was being particularly 'fair' ....but then I don't expect the world to be ; sadly its some people's prerogative to be an ass.....but being a dick isn't against the law

Especially high-rollers who have similar issues as the OP may decide to take this matter to court, because they can expect a fair trial. Gamblers IMO are also consumers - and they sometimes need to be protected against unfair rules or behaviour by any company, including casinos. Just being a dick would not hold up in court, but a judge may well decide that the casino's decision was unfair and needs to be reversed.

 

[dionysus]

A fair trial would be quick....oh, you agreed to be bound by these terms and broke them?..next!

you're talking morality not legality
do we fill the jails with people because they dont walk old ladies across the street, pet puppies and bend rules?
If the casino were nice they'd make the exception, but people arent obligated to be nice

 

[Mouche12]

A fair trial would be quick....oh, you agreed to be bound by these terms and broke them?..next!

you're talking morality not legality
do we fill the jails with people because they dont walk old ladies across the street, pet puppies and bend rules?
If the casino were nice they'd make the exception, but people arent obligated to be nice

Ah, the field of legal philosophy! Well, in those circles it is believed that judges (should) interpret the law in terms of consistent and communal moral principles, especially justice and fairness. I have some experience with Dutch courts and I know that they do in fact apply those principles, they play an important role in legal decisions.

 

[dionysus]

well, then the thread is rather moot - if it's all up to the court, what matters our opinions? Let them argue fairness in their legal proceedings. Op, go do battle, have fun!

Ah, but the forum isn't a court. So we're discussing opinions on the merits as we see them. And, we see them differently. God bless opinions.

 

[Mouche12]

well, then the thread is rather moot - if it's all up to the court, what matters our opinions? Let them argue fairness in their legal proceedings. Op, go do battle, have fun!

Ah, but the forum isn't a court. So we're discussing opinions on the merits as we see them. And, we see them differently. God bless opinions.

Of course, we cherish everyone's opinions here If AskGamblers or GamblingGrumbles cannot help the OP, she can always go to court - I definitely would!

 

[dionysus]

I wouldn't. But gl to the op regardless.

 

[chuchu59]

Should the case be taken to court the OP needs to convince the court why the case needs to be heard at all given that she had actually broken the terms. Her claim that it is an accidental mistake needs to be backed up by hard facts. The casino could easily argue that she was fully aware of the terms and pressed a spin that was higher in amount than that permissible to finish the wagering requirements as quickly as possible so she could cash out her 7.5K. As I stated earlier it seems to me that she is being very economical with the truth and that would not be possible in court. If she is afraid of being caught out in a forum like this fat chance she will have in court.

 

[Mouche12]

Should the case be taken to court the OP needs to convince the court why the case needs to be heard at all given that she had actually broken the terms. Her claim that it is an accidental mistake needs to be backed up by hard facts. The casino could easily argue that she was fully aware of the terms and pressed a spin that was higher in amount than that permissible to finish the wagering requirements as quickly as possible so she could cash out her 7.5K. As I stated earlier it seems to me that she is being very economical with the truth and that would not be possible in court. If she is afraid of being caught out in a forum like this fat chance she will have in court.

The OP mentioned the game Bonus Bears and a bet size of $112 I believe. But indeed, all information regarding her game play needs to be submitted. it was only one single spin, and I don't see how she could finish the wagering requirements more quickly in doing so...

 

[dionysus]

The OP mentioned the game Bonus Bears and a bet size of $112 I believe. But indeed, all information regarding her game play needs to be submitted. it was only one single spin, and I don't see how she could finish the wagering requirements more quickly in doing so...

It doesnt mean someone tried to make WR in haste, but rather, they tried to win large on someone else's dime

 

[Mouche12]

It doesnt mean someone tried to make WR in haste, but rather, they tried to win large on someone else's dime

I think what you say would have applied when the OP had played several spins in excess of the max bet size throughout her gaming session. Really, one single spin that appears to have been made by mistake does not convince me that the OP wanted to win big on the casino's dime. Although her claim that she did not win anything on it strikes me as odd, because it has nothing to do with the confiscation. Also, this player had deposited $1000 of her own money. Facts like this would also be considered in court - size of the deposit and bonus.

 

[chuchu59]

The OP mentioned the game Bonus Bears and a bet size of $112 I believe. But indeed, all information regarding her game play needs to be submitted. it was only one single spin, and I don't see how she could finish the wagering requirements more quickly in doing so...

The bet size of $112 is queer to say the least so what button/buttons did she 'accidentally' press to arrive at that bet? 56 lines x$2 or 28 lines x $4. I am unable to access PT casinos now so I don't know if Bonus Bears is a 30-liner or 25-liner. How on earth is it possible to intend to bet $100 and arrive at $112 instead? Should this not be so 'accidental' as claimed then the whole course of this thread is wrong and the OP will have lost any little sympathy she garnered. Should there be a coin size of $4 its likely she purposefully tried to set the bet at 25 lines and somehow clicked a few extra lines and then pressed spin. Oops she then says. Yes, I know I am speculating but what else can I do when the OP says it was an accidental spin and where I have my doubts.

 

[petr1]

The bet size of $112 is queer to say the least so what button/buttons did she 'accidentally' press to arrive at that bet? 56 lines x$2 or 28 lines x $4. I am unable to access PT casinos now so I don't know if Bonus Bears is a 30-liner or 25-liner. How on earth is it possible to intend to bet $100 and arrive at $112 instead? Should this not be so 'accidental' as claimed then the whole course of this thread is wrong and the OP will have lost any little sympathy she garnered. Should there be a coin size of $4 its likely she purposefully tried to set the bet at 25 lines and somehow clicked a few extra lines and then pressed spin. Oops she then says. Yes, I know I am speculating but what else can I do when the OP says it was an accidental spin and where I have my doubts.

Bonus Bears is 25 line slot, with max coin value of 10. If the accidental bet was £125, it could've happened this way:

Coin size of £0.5 with coin value of 8 is a £100 bet. (0.5*8*25=100) Accidentally clicking max bet would make a £125 bet (0.5*10*25=125).

HOWEVER, the coin sizes could be different in pounds (they were in euros for me)

 

[Blathaon]

The bet size of $112 is queer to say the least so what button/buttons did she 'accidentally' press to arrive at that bet? 56 lines x$2 or 28 lines x $4. I am unable to access PT casinos now so I don't know if Bonus Bears is a 30-liner or 25-liner. How on earth is it possible to intend to bet $100 and arrive at $112 instead? Should this not be so 'accidental' as claimed then the whole course of this thread is wrong and the OP will have lost any little sympathy she garnered. Should there be a coin size of $4 its likely she purposefully tried to set the bet at 25 lines and somehow clicked a few extra lines and then pressed spin. Oops she then says. Yes, I know I am speculating but what else can I do when the OP says it was an accidental spin and where I have my doubts.

It's a 25 liner. Spacebar spins at the current settings when pressed.So either she played less than max lines, or she was changing the coin size and then hit spin/spacebar.

Either way she admitted that she knew the rules and was aware when she broke them, yet continued to play instead of contacting support.

 

[chuchu59]

It's a 25 liner. Spacebar spins at the current settings when pressed.So either she played less than max lines, or she was changing the coin size and then hit spin/spacebar.

Either way she admitted that she knew the rules and was aware when she broke them, yet continued to play instead of contacting support.

View attachment 40569View attachment 40570

Thanks for taking the time with the screenshots. Yep they amount to $112 or $112.5 but with these coin sizes you cannot possibly come up with a bet size of $100 whatever you do. Possibly she was toying with bet sizes and lines to come up with $100 but in her confusion she accidentally pressed spin.

 

[dionysus]

'perhaps' being key

 

[Blathaon]

Thanks for taking the time with the screenshots. Yep they amount to $112 or $112.5 but with these coin sizes you cannot possibly come up with a bet size of $100 whatever you do. Possibly she was toying with bet sizes and lines to come up with $100 but in her confusion she accidentally pressed spin.

I know, i just thought i'd post them since there has been so many comments on the game and how many lines it has etc.

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.

Actually is wasn't £110.. It may have been £120, I'll have to check. I increased the coin value and was in the process of reducing the amount of coins when it spun.

As I said, I was mistaken. It was around 110-120. Whatever bet Bonus Bears could produce. Think it might have been 112.50. I didn't login and find out the exact amount as I didn't think the exact amount was that relevant.

What should I have been betting? Thought it was standard to bet around 5-10% of your balance?

The player acknowledges that she is fully aware of the rules, breaks them (whether this was by accident or not doesn't really matter), continues playing and then gets into trouble when withdrawing.

Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that has played with a bonus, follow the rules to the letter, if any accidents happens STOP and contact support.

And it's pretty bold to be spinning at 100£ on a 1000£ deposit +500£Bonus.

 

[Nifty29]

I think what you say would have applied when the OP had played several spins in excess of the max bet size throughout her gaming session. Really, one single spin that appears to have been made by mistake does not convince me that the OP wanted to win big on the casino's dime. Although her claim that she did not win anything on it strikes me as odd, because it has nothing to do with the confiscation. Also, this player had deposited $1000 of her own money. Facts like this would also be considered in court - size of the deposit and bonus.

Forget court.

You've been listening to VWM too much.

You have no idea what would or wouldn't be permissible or even relevant in court, or even whether it would make it that far. Neither do I, and neither does anyone else, as it hasn't been tested legally.

Hence, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

You'll need to find a better excuse for the OP than that.

 

[dunover]

TBH I think this thread is pretty much exhausted now. We've had three camps here - those that think 'unlucky, but BF is correct', those that think 'unlucky but BF should pay you (something)' and lastly those who irrationally scream 'ROGUE! unfair behaviour - forget the terms and conditions lets have T&C anarchy' and irrationally advocate court action.

To summarize:

The OP has continuously failed to furnish us with the exact facts which she could obtain from her play logs.
The OP was clearly NOT inexperienced and was AP'ing. That is not an issue, but denying it is.
The OP has gone AWOL from the thread, possibly disillusioned because she expected to get reams of support to beat BF with but hasn't.
The OP has admitted that they breached the terms anyway.
The OP failed to stop play and contact CS at the time she made this 'mistake'.

Those few that outright support the OP do so on the basis of sympathy and little else concrete. Their judgement seems affected by the amount the OP tried to w/d rather than reality, or whether the spin was an accident. Both criteria are IRRELEVANT unfortunately.

I'm outta here.......

 

[chuchu59]

TBH I think this thread is pretty much exhausted now. We've had three camps here - those that think 'unlucky, but BF is correct', those that think 'unlucky but BF should pay you (something)' and lastly those who irrationally scream 'ROGUE! unfair behaviour - forget the terms and conditions lets have T&C anarchy' and irrationally advocate court action.

To summarize:

The OP has continuously failed to furnish us with the exact facts which she could obtain from her play logs.
The OP was clearly NOT inexperienced and was AP'ing. That is not an issue, but denying it is.
The OP has gone AWOL from the thread, possibly disillusioned because she expected to get reams of support to beat BF with but hasn't.
The OP has admitted that they breached the terms anyway.
The OP failed to stop play and contact CS at the time she made this 'mistake'.

Those few that outright support the OP do so on the basis of sympathy and little else concrete. Their judgement seems affected by the amount the OP tried to w/d rather than reality, or whether the spin was an accident. Both criteria are IRRELEVANT unfortunately.

I'm outta here.......:rolleyes:

Me too.

 

[Przecinek]

who guaranteed life's fair? If it were, I'd withdraw 50% of the time. And frankly, we've only the op's word it was accidental..you think I tell the cop 'oh yes, sir, I totally meant to do 20 over, but it was only this one time'

Pretty weak statement here. We don't have to take OPs word for anything, we can see she made 1000s of spins beforehand and was aware of max bet rule. There's no reason on earth for this spin to be done on purpose.

Who guaranteed life's fair? I guess you also advocate riggered rulette, rigged hi-low used by Betfred, and their confiscation on Jaguar (let's face it, they can't handle 7.5k - yet they offered brand new Jaguar - who would believe it now). The amount of bad PR Betfred has recieved lately is staggering. Just thought I'll drop in to say that even 10 pages full of posts saying Betfred was right in doing what they did, won't change the fact that people reading this thread have their own minds, there's plenty of nonregistered lurkers too.

After all life ain't fair right? As to cop analogy :
Ups sorry but us cops just retroactively changed the terms so that you can't go over 10, even though it was 50 at the time speed check. By the way we will slip some drugs in your pocket, and beat you up later on. After all "who guaranteed life's fair"

 

[stokes]

The OP was clearly NOT inexperienced and was AP'ing. That is not an issue, but denying it is.

I'm outta here.......

Before you outta here...

Would you care to elaborate how the OP was AP'ing? OP was doing one spin over the limit and we need to accept it unless you have access to the OP's game history and see it otherwise.
Before you ask, I don't have access either, but I think BF would be all over the place calling them bonus abuser if the OP was lying about playing only a single spin over the limit.

Or there is a new AP strategy which employs a single losing spin.

 

[Nifty29]

Before you outta here...

Would you care to elaborate how the OP was AP'ing? OP was doing one spin over the limit and we need to accept it unless you have access to the OP's game history and see it otherwise.
Before you ask, I don't have access either, but I think BF would be all over the place calling them bonus abuser if the OP was lying about playing only a single spin over the limit.

Or there is a new AP strategy which employs a single losing spin.

I will assume you're not being deliberately obtuse here, and say that it is strikingly obvious that the offending spin was NOT part of their strategy. It was an ERROR/mistake/ etc. It would appear that everyone bar you has accepted that as fact.....even though we only have the OPs word (or lack thereof in some respects) that it was actually a mistaken bumping of the space bar. Initially IIRC she "couldn't recall" how it happened...and yet she KNEW it happened at the time, which doesn't sound quite right either upon reflection. Point is that the OP may not have removed enough lines or thought they had and spun without double checking....WHO KNOWS.

The term doesn't state "bets over 20% are not permitted UNLESS it was unintentional, in which case it is fine".....hence the argument about how or why is irrelevant to the case. The only reason I said anything about it above is to show how mistaken you are.

I think I will join chu and others and exit stage left. The only ones left crying and gnashing their teeth about the gross injustice that has befallen the OP are those that do the same thing in every discussion where a casino rightfully enforces mutually agreed terms......so its a waste of finger movement really.

 

[mrmark21]

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.

I agree... I just think doing so would mean casinos would have less players running to forums like this one and claiming they broke a term by "accident". IMO that would probably save casinos from unnecessary negative publicity.

Players still probably wouldnt read them but they couldnt argue they didnt see them.

 

[dionysus]

Pretty weak statement here. We don't have to take OPs word for anything, we can see she made 1000s of spins beforehand and was aware of max bet rule. There's no reason on earth for this spin to be done on purpose.

Who guaranteed life's fair? I guess you also advocate riggered rulette, rigged hi-low used by Betfred, and their confiscation on Jaguar (let's face it, they can't handle 7.5k - yet they offered brand new Jaguar - who would believe it now). The amount of bad PR Betfred has recieved lately is staggering. Just thought I'll drop in to say that even 10 pages full of posts saying Betfred was right in doing what they did, won't change the fact that people reading this thread have their own minds, there's plenty of nonregistered lurkers too.

After all life ain't fair right? As to cop analogy :
Ups sorry but us cops just retroactively changed the terms so that you can't go over 10, even though it was 50 at the time speed check. By the way we will slip some drugs in your pocket, and beat you up later on. After all "who guaranteed life's fair"

pretty weak statement there I never suggested rigged games were fine, not once.

 

[kauphy]

Right, so some players basically, at huge complication, cost and inconvenience want casinos to IDIOT-PROOF everything??

Let's not have clear bonus terms and conditions, but let a portal for the game, or pop-up do everything for you. This fantastic piece of software would simply appear when you accepted any bonus, and would flash up a skull and crossbones every time you attempted a bet in violation of that bonus, which daily the extra staff taken on would have religiously programmed the portal to do.

Even better, when you have met the WR, a smiley face could appear say "Hey, you've now met your WR, did you know if you cashed out now, you would have made xxx profit which you could spend shopping?"

Then it could say "Are you eating a balanced diet? Don't eat pizza while you play, why not get a grab-bag of red grapes?"

It could even remind you of your local time: "It's 1 o'clock in the morning and you are still playing - do you know most physicians recommend at least 7 1/2 hours sleep a night? WELL DO YOU? Please fill in the check box to acknowledge this advice or I will SHUT the games down for 24 hours!"

lmao

 

[cheekydancer]

who guaranteed life's fair? If it were, I'd withdraw 50% of the time. And frankly, we've only the op's word it was accidental..you think I tell the cop 'oh yes, sir, I totally meant to do 20 over, but it was only this one time'

In what scenario would I do this bet on purpose?

Also, if you accidentally kill someone, you don't get done for murder.

 

[dionysus]

No, it'd be manslaughter
And while you may not have, plenty people do - it's why rules like that are in place.

 

[cheekydancer]

Initially IIRC she "couldn't recall" how it happened...and yet she KNEW it happened at the time, which doesn't sound quite right either upon reflection. Point is that the OP may not have removed enough lines or thought they had and spun without double checking....WHO KNOWS.

I never said I "couldn't recall" how the bet was done. I said I didn't know why it spun and said it may have been a button on the keyboard. You guys have confirmed the space bar spins the slot, so it must have been that, as I have a wireless keyboard on the floor that I never use but automatically connects to the PC.

 

[cheekydancer]

No, it'd be manslaughter
And while you may not have, plenty people do - it's why rules like that are in place.

Wrong. You still need intent for manslaughter.

 

[dionysus]

oh, well good thing noone died

 

[Nifty29]

In what scenario would I do this bet on purpose?

Also, if you accidentally kill someone, you don't get done for murder.

Intentional or mistaken.....it is IRRELEVANT.

The term does not have an "accident" or "mistake exception, so tough cookies.

Comparing your situation to killing someone is absolutely ridiculous, and obviously born of desperation due to a lack of credible defences.

 

[stokes]

Intentional or mistaken.....it is IRRELEVANT.
The term does not have an "accident" or "mistake exception, so tough cookies.

You are right. The term doesn't have any exception.

I think handling this kind of venial misdemeanor tells about whether the casino is fair or greedy.

 

[Przecinek]

pretty weak statement there I never suggested rigged games were fine, not once.

I was just following your logic that "life ain't fair" . Don't like personal references but saying "who guaranteed life's fair?" on a board that aims to be the "Advocate of fair play since 1998" (known formerly as "The players advocate") seems strange and out of place.

 

[dionysus]

I was just following your logic that "life ain't fair" . Don't like personal references but saying "who guaranteed life's fair?" on a board that aims to be the "Advocate of fair play since 1998" (known formerly as "The players advocate") seems strange and out of place.

oh, well, aren't you lucky then .the player had FAIR warning when he agreed to the Tcs and Cs and agreed to them

 

[maxd]

I was just following your logic that "life ain't fair" . Don't like personal references but saying "who guaranteed life's fair?" on a board that aims to be the "Advocate of fair play since 1998" (known formerly as "The players advocate") seems strange and out of place.

A good man can be an advocate of fair play without being fool enough to guarantee it.

It's a big, complicated, crazy world out there. Doubly true for the online gaming world. Guaranteeing anything is chancy, fair play especially so.

 

[mrmark21]

Right, so some players basically, at huge complication, cost and inconvenience want casinos to IDIOT-PROOF everything?

Hey, All i know is if i owned a casino i'd rather idiot-proof everything than face unnecessary negative publicity. These forums are a selling point for casinos and threads like this one wont be helping bring the customers in. So yeah idiot proof the joint

I thought physicans recommended ten hours sleep? I've been over-sleeping

 

[GrandMaster]

Right, so some players basically, at huge complication, cost and inconvenience want casinos to IDIOT-PROOF everything?

I have been told that Rival software does what I suggested, so it is not as complicated and expensive as you make it out to be. The casino would also save on auditing withdrawals and would not lose players who feel that their winnings are unfairly confiscated. (Such players are likely to be "genuine" players, experienced advantage players may still hit the max button by mistake, but won't bet over the limit or play excluded games intentionally.) Of course, you have to consider profits from confiscated winnings that the casino would lose.

 

[JuicyFruit]

I have been told that Rival software does what I suggested, so it is not as complicated and expensive as you make it out to be. The casino would also save on auditing withdrawals and would not lose players who feel that their winnings are unfairly confiscated. (Such players are likely to be "genuine" players, experienced advantage players may still hit the max button by mistake, but won't bet over the limit or play excluded games intentionally.) Of course, you have to consider profits from confiscated winnings that the casino would lose.

I am assuming the profits from confiscated winnings you refer to here are actually confiscated deposits, as surely the 'winnings' as such don't exist in real terms?

 

[LaHutti]

I am assuming the profits from confiscated winnings you refer to here are actually confiscated deposits, as surely the 'winnings' as such don't exist in real terms?

Actually they do. The confiscated winnings are part of the RTP, so whatever they scoop, they make, because they're not actually paying out the RTP....The higher amount they confiscate, the more they make. It looks good in their statistics: Last months RTP was 98.7% ... It would be interesting to know how much of that, they confiscated.

Exactly like the random jackpots at RTG casinos, that they scoop, with their "max cash out rule" on "free chips". Whenever a random jackpot is "won" on a free chip, the casino pockets it.

 

[Nifty29]

I have been told that Rival software does what I suggested, so it is not as complicated and expensive as you make it out to be. The casino would also save on auditing withdrawals and would not lose players who feel that their winnings are unfairly confiscated. (Such players are likely to be "genuine" players, experienced advantage players may still hit the max button by mistake, but won't bet over the limit or play excluded games intentionally.) Of course, you have to consider profits from confiscated winnings that the casino would lose.

Rival operators can set a maximum bet attached to a particular promotion.

The bet cannot be altered according to the player's deposit. It can only be set at a given amount.

Hence, it is not possible to have a "% bet" limitation enforced on each player. The smaller depositors would have a hug advantage over larger depositors in terms of how much of their bonus they can bet at once. I've seen promos like 200% up to $1000 where the max bet was set at $5.....12.5% for a $20 deposit, 5% for a $500 depositor. Hardly reasonable.

When you consider the max bet for the OP was $100, one can only conclude that it is quite generous.

Casinos have the right to impose whatever restrictions they like, with or without software intervention. As long as the terms are clearly stated, which they were in this case, then the OP has no leg to stand on.

The time to decide that a term sucks and that you want the software to ask you/stop you every time you press a button is BEFORE you deposit.....not afterwards when you've breached the terms. The OP obviously thought neither of things were important....until it cost them money....much like thinking sticking to the speed limit is suddenly more important after you lose your licence for a month or cop a huge fine. We all accept that we have to pay if we get clocked over the speed limit (read...max bet limit)....we do so because the law (read....bonus terms) states that that's exactly what will happen if we go over the limit (read...breach the terms). All the government (read...casino) does is provide warning signs stating the limit (read...bonus terms). The government (read...casino) does not put devices on your car to stop you speeding (...software interventions), because it is assumed that if you're responsible enough to drive (...gamble) then you're responsible enough to be aware of the rules (..that you have read and understood the bonus terms). Driving on the road (...placing a bet) constitutes acceptance and acknowledgement of those rules (...bonus terms).

Yes, before someone tries to deny the reality that there are strong connections between the two situations, there ARE exceptions where your fine etc will be waived e.g. medical emergency, other serious circumstances. AFAIK, "Oops" doesn't get you off going 20% over the speed limit, and neither does "well someone/my car/a leprechaun should have stopped me". Try it next time as see how you go.

Its called RESPONSIBILITY folks....and it comes with being an adult. The members who insist it is down to the casino to take responsibility for the actions of the OP are obviously having a tough time with the transition from childhood to adulthood. Mummy and Daddy take the fall when you're a child. Its time to grow up now and take it yourself.

 

[Nifty29]

Actually they do. The confiscated winnings are part of the RTP, so whatever they scoop, they make, because they're not actually paying out the RTP....The higher amount they confiscate, the more they make. It looks good in their statistics: Last months RTP was 98.7% ... It would be interesting to know how much of that, they confiscated.

Exactly like the random jackpots at RTG casinos, that they scoop, with their "max cash out rule" on "free chips". Whenever a random jackpot is "won" on a free chip, the casino pockets it.

At all RTGs I've played, the RJ is reinstated minus what was actually paid out.

As for rogues....could be a different story. Maybe you only play at those, as I wouldn't know.

In my experience, you're inaccurate. You'll have to dig up another red herring to help the OP.

Considering the fact that free chips are....well free...the casino is providing them. It isn't unreasonable that the resultant winnings are capped.

The actual RTP of the games is NOT affected....only what the CASINO then pays the player. The RTP figures they quote are not misleading....but then you know all this.

 

[LaHutti]

To me, it doesn't really matter if the RTP is inaccurate, or they just keep part of it for whatever reason they see fit. The end result is the same.
You're absolutely right, that the RTP of the game isn't affected....just what they choose to pay out. Either way, they're making the exact same amount.

I have never seen OR heard, that any random jackpot has been reinstated, because it was won on a free chip. I HAVE heard, that the jackpot is scooped by the casino. No I have never played in a rogue casino, and I don't go fishing much either.......what ever that has to do with anything ?

At all RTGs I've played, the RJ is reinstated minus what was actually paid out.

As for rogues....could be a different story. Maybe you only play at those, as I wouldn't know.

In my experience, you're inaccurate. You'll have to dig up another red herring to help the OP.

Considering the fact that free chips are....well free...the casino is providing them. It isn't unreasonable that the resultant winnings are capped.

The actual RTP of the games is NOT affected....only what the CASINO then pays the player. The RTP figures they quote are not misleading....but then you know all this.

 

[Nifty29]

To me, it doesn't really matter if the RTP is inaccurate, or they just keep part of it for whatever reason they see fit. The end result is the same.
You're absolutely right, that the RTP of the game isn't affected....just what they choose to pay out. Either way, they're making the exact same amount.

I have never seen OR heard, that any random jackpot has been reinstated, because it was won on a free chip. I HAVE heard, that the jackpot is scooped by the casino. No I have never played in a rogue casino, and I don't go fishing much either.......what ever that has to do with anything ?

Inetbet and CWC do it as a matter of course IIRC and have done so forever.

Sounds like a case of only reading what one wants to read perhaps.

I asked whether you knew about what rogues do because the good operators (AFAIK) replace RJs, so figured you must know of some who don't do it. IMO it is unethical to pocket the RJ as others have contributed real money.

Maybe you could start a rep friendly thread and ask each accredited RTG if they do it or not.