Tips BGO beware if using neteller/skrill

[marsan]

i searched an new casino with an decent first deposit bonus,so i looked in the accredited list and choose BGO(200% bonus)
i clicked via the casinomeisters link,read the conditions etc..

all looked good,so i deposited 100 euro expecting to get 300 to play with
balance stayed at 100..so i contacted live support,had to wait like 5 minutes and then support said she would look into it,after couple minutes she said she added bonus to my account

but it wasnt,she said i had to relog,so i did..still not there
contacted live support again,but after waiting for 10 minutes while no1 answered i checked my email

and in my welcome email i found in very small print that first deposit bonuses were not eligible when using neteller/skrill

but nowhere was that in the bonusterms on their website..and since when i register i deposit when still logged in i had not seen that email(else ofcourse i would not have deposited)

needless to say that 100 euro didnt last me very long

so this rant is to warn players that choose BGO to play not to make use of neteller/skrill for depositbonuses

 

[citizenx]

Interesting, thank you.

Wonder if thats a recent change. Few months ago I got a deposit match via Neteller but this isn't good form. I was stung because they excluded DOA from bonus play but i didn't realise and won. Ended up playing my balance out rather than withdrawing.

 

[McMaNGOS]

I've seen this clause at a lot of casinos, it's most likely due to the high processing fees that come with using Neteller/Skrill. They really should make it more obvious that you can't claim bonuses with these deposit methods, I've been screwed over by this once or twice myself.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Even support didn't know, and wasted several hours jerking the player around with BS until the real reason turned up in the email.

It also seems odd that Neteller just sits back and takes it, because such an experience creates an overall negative impression of Neteller itself.

Neteller could easily tell operators that it's "all or nothing", and that if such terms come to light the casino will not be able to use Neteller at all so that Neteller customers can't wander unsuspectingly into such a situation. Some of the casinos using such terms would be hurt by the complete withdrawal of Neteller as an option for their customers, but it would at least ensure that customers couldn't ever fall foul of such a term.

I expect it's very useful for casinos to have Neteller because banks can be tricky and casinos can lose out if customers keep getting their card deposits blocked by their bank through "automated fraud detection measures", with the bank telling them that there is nothing they can do in order to "whitelist" their usual casinos so that deposits go through trouble free. This was actually the very reason for the creation of Neteller, BY the online casino industry, back when the US could play and was over 90% of the market, but the banks would keep blocking deposits.

 

[Rhyzz]

I expect it's very useful for casinos to have Neteller because banks can be tricky and casinos can lose out if customers keep getting their card deposits blocked by their bank through "automated fraud detection measures", with the bank telling them that there is nothing they can do in order to "whitelist" their usual casinos so that deposits go through trouble free. This was actually the very reason for the creation of Neteller, BY the online casino industry, back when the US could play and was over 90% of the market, but the banks would keep blocking deposits.

Fact is, with 3DS now in place, coded transactions are a thing of the past. If the operator has 3DS enabled and the password is entered, the deposit will go through... within reason obviously.

Neteller and Skrill no longer have any influence over the business. They're a tiny portion of the overall market place now, with Ukash/Paysafe having a higher share thanks to the boom in Bingo.

 

[Jono777]

Cheers for the 'heads up' as I use Skrill often for playing.

Bit dubious of BGO in general, although accredited I can't get this 'nagging' feeling out of my head, especially since the change in management, Paul (ex rep) leaving altogether and their severe absence in the forum the last few months.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Fact is, with 3DS now in place, coded transactions are a thing of the past. If the operator has 3DS enabled and the password is entered, the deposit will go through... within reason obviously.

Neteller and Skrill no longer have any influence over the business. They're a tiny portion of the overall market place now, with Ukash/Paysafe having a higher share thanks to the boom in Bingo.

My experience has been that casinos generally refuse to implement 3DS, and this used to give me severe problems with some cards. I have also had the automated fraud detection block a 3DS deposit to a casino that has decided to use it.

The old UKash was extremely fraud prone because it allowed anonymous purchase of vouchers, whereas Neteller did extensive KYC in order to grant verified account status. Paysafe is UKash rebranded, so I would not assume it had been completely cleaned of the old problems.

I don't see how Neteller is any worse than the other players in the eMoney market, so if casinos are driving out Neteller as much as they can, they should logically be vary of all the other players in the market, and thus ONLY wanting to accept cards connected to a "proper" bank.

Having just bought Skrill, Neteller are addressing the fragmentation in the market and now have a bigger fragment to themselves. I would have expected Neteller to have reacted to the fact that merchants are actively trying to move players away from them and over to competing services, but it seems to be that Neteller don't care. Maybe it's a continuation of the arrogance that came with them being a virtual monopoly supplier of eMoney services for casinos in the past, which they may feel they have regained by taking out their main rival, Skrill. Many of the other eMoney services have come and gone, most falling victim to the US war on offshore casinos.

I am rather surprised at the drive towards cards because many card providers have now separated "gambling, chip purchase" transactions from "purchases" and put them into a special high risk category, with some providers refusing outright to process correctly coded gambling transactions, and others hitting players with huge fees due to the higher risk that players will lose the lot and be unable to pay off the money.

Mastercards also don't allow returns, which breaks one of the major anti-money laundering protocols used by casinos, which is always processing withdrawals back to the source of the deposit.

 

[Dinahnana]

Cheers for the 'heads up' as I use Skrill often for playing.

Bit dubious of BGO in general, although accredited I can't get this 'nagging' feeling out of my head, especially since the change in management, Paul (ex rep) leaving altogether and their severe absence in the forum the last few months.

Totally agree with you there Jon. Since Paul left BGO have gone downhill fast. I don't play there anymore.

 

[SpinUk]

I think the Mastercard thing depends. Mr Green for example happily refund to Mastercard.

My experience has been that casinos generally refuse to implement 3DS, and this used to give me severe problems with some cards. I have also had the automated fraud detection block a 3DS deposit to a casino that has decided to use it.

The old UKash was extremely fraud prone because it allowed anonymous purchase of vouchers, whereas Neteller did extensive KYC in order to grant verified account status. Paysafe is UKash rebranded, so I would not assume it had been completely cleaned of the old problems.

I don't see how Neteller is any worse than the other players in the eMoney market, so if casinos are driving out Neteller as much as they can, they should logically be vary of all the other players in the market, and thus ONLY wanting to accept cards connected to a "proper" bank.

Having just bought Skrill, Neteller are addressing the fragmentation in the market and now have a bigger fragment to themselves. I would have expected Neteller to have reacted to the fact that merchants are actively trying to move players away from them and over to competing services, but it seems to be that Neteller don't care. Maybe it's a continuation of the arrogance that came with them being a virtual monopoly supplier of eMoney services for casinos in the past, which they may feel they have regained by taking out their main rival, Skrill. Many of the other eMoney services have come and gone, most falling victim to the US war on offshore casinos.

I am rather surprised at the drive towards cards because many card providers have now separated "gambling, chip purchase" transactions from "purchases" and put them into a special high risk category, with some providers refusing outright to process correctly coded gambling transactions, and others hitting players with huge fees due to the higher risk that players will lose the lot and be unable to pay off the money.

Mastercards also don't allow returns, which breaks one of the major anti-money laundering protocols used by casinos, which is always processing withdrawals back to the source of the deposit.

 

[slotter999]

I think the Mastercard thing depends. Mr Green for example happily refund to Mastercard.

This is my experience as well. Some do and some don't. Never quite understood the reasons why either. I personally prefer back to card as its just one lot of KYC / AML checks to go through.

 

[randomiam]

bgo

I got my ass kicked 100 pounds on top gun 25 cent bets only one feature after 100s and 100s of spins that rtp is messed up

 

[Rhyzz]

The Mastercard mystery is exactly that - a mystery. For some people they'll allow the funds to go back, for others they won't, it's mighty strange. But yes, operating closed loops is one way to combat money laundering, although with the processes & checks in place these days you'd have a tough job actually laundering money. AML is actually a very wide reaching process and covers criminal activities too, such as theft from your place of business to fund gambling. It's all considered money laundering since if you take from a business bank account, play with it and withdraw to a personal account, it's laundering money. Basically making online operators the FBI of internet fund transfers seems to be the end game of the UKGC lately.

As for 3DS VWM, it's getting more common these days with deposits over a certain amount. What you generally find is the operator is happy to take the risk up to a certain level, say perhaps £100 per account per month, and then they'll flip the switch and force 3DS on every deposit thereafter, removing the chargeback liability. 3DS is a great system, although having experienced the uprising of it in recent years it's funny to see the tables turned on the banks. Many years ago trying to dispute an obviously fraudulent chargeback was nigh impossible, they just didn't want to know. These days they come begging for info to try and not pay the chargeback.

 

[slotter999]

The Mastercard mystery is exactly that - a mystery. For some people they'll allow the funds to go back, for others they won't, it's mighty strange. But yes, operating closed loops is one way to combat money laundering, although with the processes & checks in place these days you'd have a tough job actually laundering money. AML is actually a very wide reaching process and covers criminal activities too, such as theft from your place of business to fund gambling. It's all considered money laundering since if you take from a business bank account, play with it and withdraw to a personal account, it's laundering money. Basically making online operators the FBI of internet fund transfers seems to be the end game of the UKGC lately.

As for 3DS VWM, it's getting more common these days with deposits over a certain amount. What you generally find is the operator is happy to take the risk up to a certain level, say perhaps £100 per account per month, and then they'll flip the switch and force 3DS on every deposit thereafter, removing the chargeback liability. 3DS is a great system, although having experienced the uprising of it in recent years it's funny to see the tables turned on the banks. Many years ago trying to dispute an obviously fraudulent chargeback was nigh impossible, they just didn't want to know. These days they come begging for info to try and not pay the chargeback.

I was just reading up on this and MasterCard do allow payment transfers (PT) but it appears to only be permitted within the EU.

My guess is that those companies that can't offer that service must be processing payments from somewhere outside of the EU.