Hi,
I would like to introduce myself I am Phil the Deputy Casino Manager at Betfred. Thank you for all the feedback and comments.
I have taken the time to read all of the posts made in this thread and will try to address all of the points that have been made as best I can.
Firstly, I would like to take the time to apologise to RPalmer83 for any confusion caused with regards to being informed that he had not met wagering requirements for the bonus funds received as part of our 400 Giveaway promotion. When in fact the wagering requirements had been met, please accept our apologies for any confusion caused. Due to the inconvenience and confusion which may have been caused we have now credited your account with a 50.00 cash bonus. Please rest assured that customer satisfaction is of the utmost importance to us.
Secondly, I would just like to address the issue with regards to transferring funds from sports to chips. The below is stated on our website:
Bonuses will only be valid on real cash deposits other transfers will result in the voiding of any bonus and winnings at our discretion.
We are sorry to hear that the above statement could cause confusion for some players and we will be looking to have this re-worded so that it is clearer for our players in future. As we always welcome any type of feedback from our players as it is vital for us to know how are players are feeling and also listen to any suggestions that they may have, so that we can improve the level of service that we provide.
For genuine deposits that have been made via sports in error and then transferred to chips, we are a lot more lenient and it is very rare that we would actually void winnings under such circumstances.
Unfortunately we still need to enforce such a rule for occasions when players simply transfer funds from chips to sports after completing wagering and then transfer funds from sports to chips to claim new bonuses.
In essence if we allowed such activities to occur at the casino players could receive multiple bonuses via a single deposit.
In reference for us allowing the withdrawal in question to be processed due to the players past loyalty, we can appreciate the comments made. We could have a standardised procedure for such incidents but we prefer to review each matter on a case by case basis in the best interests of fairness and loyalty.
I hope that this has addressed all of the issues of concern and if you have any further issues please do not hesitate to contact me via the forum or by PM.
Kind Regards,
Phil.
Granted, but WHY is this so wrong, when you admit that WR were completed, and the money does indeed now belong to the player. There would be no argument at all (presumably) had the player deposited 500, took the bonus, met WR, and withdrew (right back to their ewallet, say); and THEN repeated the process 3 times with the SAME 500 - but with it being somehow OK because you had sent this 500 all the way back to the deposit method, rather than it having sat in the sportsbook purse. The entire industry is driven by this kind of money circulation, without it, as with the current banking crisis, the whole thing would grind to a halt. Further, for this relatively minor infringement, driven only by the bank's refusal to allow a full 2000 deposit, the player is summarily stripped of priviliges. At the same time, there are REAL "bonus abusers" bragging in forums that they broke this term, and repeatedly transferred back & forth, got paid, and did not even receive a gentle reprimand that this was a breach of the rules, and to not do it again. I suspect THIS was the chief reason why RPalmer83 gave you such grief over this. You have a rule, but it must apply to EVERYONE, and more importantly, must be SEEN to be so applied, or there will be further instances of players feeling they have been unfairly singled out for "punishment" whilst other "offenders" are bragging about getting off scot free with the same "crime".
It's an awful fuss over a mere 20% bonus though, and there is a high risk that variance will go against the dedicated "bonus bagger", which is surely what the casino is hoping for.
This rule (sportsbook transfers) has it's equivalent in stand alone casinos, where there is usually a term stating "reversed withdrawals do not count as deposits for promotional purposes". Again, somewhat illogical, since once validly withdrawn, the money has been won by the player, and by insisting the player lets it flow back to their card or ewallet and depositing it again, they make the process more expensive for themselves by having to pay the extra fees involved - something the player rarely sees since casinos cover these.
The maths does not stack up either. IF a player stops after the second 500 because they cannot use a transfer, they keep their winnings, BUT if transfers were allowed, the casino gets another go at winning it back. In this case, the third transfer could have gone the way of the first, and the casino would now have 1000 of the player's money. Provided the promotions are designed to at least slightly favour the casino in the long term, they can only gain from players using internal transfers to claim extra bonuses, since the long term will favour the house.
Many of these seemingly illogical rules seem to be down to a poor understanding of casino mathematics by management and promotions designers. They are afraid of what looks like "advantage play" even when it isn't so from a mathematical point of view. On the other hand, poor mathematical skills can lead to a botched promotion that DOES work to the advantage of players, and given some of the allegations that started flying (changing terms from 12x to 25x mid way for example), I wonder if at some point management became aware this particular promotion was +EV, and were on the look out for players who had taken short cuts that were against the terms and conditions, thus being harsher than they might otherwise have been on players who took the full 400 mostly through repeated internal transfers. It seems Betfred have a few "bonus baggers" who managed to get away with this. This should not be allowed to continue, as these players seem to be bragging about it, and this will only encourage others reading the boasts to believe this strategy is quite OK for the next time a similar promotion is run. This will lead to further "why me, and not them" type of complaints.
For me, looking in from the outside, I see a player who has lost a considerable sum, played for many months, yet all this time has been "bonus banned", whilst other less loyal players get all the bonuses. He gets a promo, and tries to win back a small portion of past losses, but breaches a term about transfers because his bank blocks deposits. He wins back a bit of past losses, but gets the book thrown at him by the casino, with yet another 12 week minimum bonus ban. The message this sends out is that you are somehow wrong if you win with a bonus, and that weeks of past loyal play without bonuses counts for very little. This reinforces my negative views of Playtech operators, and does nothing to make me want to play at any casinos offering Playtech software.
Loyal play I have made similar to RPalmer83, but at MGS powered casinos, has opened the door to far bigger bonus offers, and fairly generous terms in most cases. I have also been able to take part in all the ordinary promotions leading up to gaining VIP status.
Perhaps there is more to this particular case that either RPalmer83 and the Betfred rep have told us.
Perhaps RPalmer83 could clarify what lead to the initial Betfred bonus ban. If this too was related to making sportsbook to casino transfers instead of deposits, then he cannot claim ignorance of the rule now. Given that this was RPalmer83's first promotion since that earlier ban, it is likely his account was subject to a thorough audit at the time of final withdrawal, whereas the other braggers were able to fly their breaches in under the radar because they had managed to keep their heads down and not "abuse" bonuses straight after joining.
