Caddell - Min Bet £/€1

Nicola

Closed Account
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Location
Malta
Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but this term has crept into the most recent terms and conditons when using bonus funds.

For a wager to count towards play-through requirements where allowed, the following minimum bets are required £/€1. At a contribution level of 20%, £/€1/20% = £/€3 minimum bet is required (Blood Suckers, Dead or Alive, Devils Delight, Kings of Chicago, Secrets of the stones and Victorious)

Looking at archived copies of the T&C it used to be £/€0.35 for wagering to count.
 

Jono777

Ueber Meister
CAG
mm1
mm4
Joined
May 13, 2014
Location
Wolverhampton
It has been mentioned a couple of time Nicola, although to be fair only briefly and in 'None Specific' threads so easily missed.

'Hands On play' / player feedback (and witnessed it myself) has however shown that all wagers, regardless of bet size DO contribute to the wagering target.

For Example

0.60p Spins on Egg O Matic (random example/none restricted game) count as 0.60p, towards total WR Target

0.45p Spins on DOA Count 0.09p towards WR Target (Hence the 20% rule)

Had to agree to new T&C's a couple of times lately (during log in) but as I think was mentioned in the previous posts, they're in place but don't seem to be actually working / enforced :confused:
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but this term has crept into the most recent terms and conditons when using bonus funds.

For a wager to count towards play-through requirements where allowed, the following minimum bets are required £/€1. At a contribution level of 20%, £/€1/20% = £/€3 minimum bet is required (Blood Suckers, Dead or Alive, Devils Delight, Kings of Chicago, Secrets of the stones and Victorious)

Looking at archived copies of the T&C it used to be £/€0.35 for wagering to count.


Yeah, we discussed this the other day. They are funny with bonuses - when I started there Twin Spin was OK under WR, then it was excluded after me getting a few decent WR conversions on it. Then DoA was barred, then it's back again at 20% and yes the 0.35 minimum applied. Their strategy means you'll almost certainly bust the bonus BUT if you hit at those stakes on DoA they'll be hammered. Don't tell me, the first time that happens there'll be a max cash-out applied to bonuses.....
 

mcgameboy

NEVER GO FULL WOKETARD
CAG
mm2
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Location
Belfast
Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but this term has crept into the most recent terms and conditons when using bonus funds.

For a wager to count towards play-through requirements where allowed, the following minimum bets are required £/€1. At a contribution level of 20%, £/€1/20% = £/€3 minimum bet is required (Blood Suckers, Dead or Alive, Devils Delight, Kings of Chicago, Secrets of the stones and Victorious)

Looking at archived copies of the T&C it used to be £/€0.35 for wagering to count.

It shouldn't come as that big a surprise to you Nicola. Even Royal Panda (one of my favourite sites) have a similar term on bonus play....

1.32 In the interest of fair gaming and fraud prevention, wagers placed using bonus money are subject to a maximum bet per game round limit. In most games, the maximum bet permitted when playing with bonus money is $7.50, €7.00, £5.00, or its equivalent in another currency. In the case of the following games, these operate with a deviating maximum bet of $1.50, €1.40, £1.00, or its equivalent in another currency, when playing with bonus money: Dead or Alive, Bloodsuckers, Kings of Chicago, Hellboy, 300 Shields. In case of a breach of this rule, the player agrees that his bonus and any associated winnings may be void.

Another one of my favourite sites (Maria Casino) even has Thunderstruck 1 and 2 as restricted games. I cannot figure out why that would be the case.
 

Nicola

Closed Account
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Location
Malta
Thanks Dunover and Jon :thumbsup:

Problem with me nowadays mcgameboy i'm only playing 9p-30p bets so this would have ruled me out of most caddell casinos.
 

mimi26

Meister Member
Joined
May 17, 2012
Location
uk
Thanks Dunover and Jon :thumbsup:

Problem with me nowadays mcgameboy i'm only playing 9p-30p bets so this would have ruled me out of most caddell casinos.


Off topic here but how you finding playing such low amounts, I am having a really bad run lately and I am considering lowering bet sizes but I just find it a bit dull, I am by no means a big better I usually stay around 60p to £1
 

Nicola

Closed Account
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Location
Malta
Off topic here but how you finding playing such low amounts, I am having a really bad run lately and I am considering lowering bet sizes but I just find it a bit dull, I am by no means a big better I usually stay around 60p to £1

Plenty of playtime on low bets, finding £50 lasts a full 7-hour night shift on DoA. This month so far out of 16 deposits, I have made 10 withdrawals and up overall thanks to DoA and Immortal Romance. In my experience you get more withdrawals on minimum bets.

Entertainment is all I play for now rather than money. I'm seeking that x10,000 win on DoA and that rare 5-reel WD on Immortal Romance :rolleyes:
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Those terms are a joke. They take confusion to a new level by inventing yet another special case. Not only do players have to worry about the excluded slots, now they have to learn a subset of different max bet rules, and even min bet rules on top.

They are going to get loads of unintentional violations of this set of terms from normal recreational players, including all the habitual low rollers who would normally bet low or minimum bets (0.01 per line). They are also going to get a lot of complaints and negative reviews because if they DO enforce these terms, they will be voiding an awful lot of winnings, and mostly from regular recreational players, not "fraudsters".
 

Jono777

Ueber Meister
CAG
mm1
mm4
Joined
May 13, 2014
Location
Wolverhampton
Those terms are a joke. They take confusion to a new level by inventing yet another special case. Not only do players have to worry about the excluded slots, now they have to learn a subset of different max bet rules, and even min bet rules on top.

They are going to get loads of unintentional violations of this set of terms from normal recreational players, including all the habitual low rollers who would normally bet low or minimum bets (0.01 per line). They are also going to get a lot of complaints and negative reviews because if they DO enforce these terms, they will be voiding an awful lot of winnings, and mostly from regular recreational players, not "fraudsters".

Trying my hardest to do a "test" without it costing me a penny to find out "Oh No!" the costly way.

G' Day Credit my account with a £1 NDB every day! - Few times I've come close but not quite enough to try and withdraw anything.

If I do, will update but then again may still prove nothing and If I do get paid maybe down to luck/oversight etc or the fact that It wasn't a "fresh" deposit since they updated T&C's.

Who Knows?? - Not sure they do themselves :confused:
 

petro

Dormant account, per user request
PABaccred
PABnoaccred2
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Location
Narnia
I'm pretty sure what's going on is that casinos are constantly looking at how players are making withdrawals and then changing the rules so it doesn't happen again.
It's kind of like evolution.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I'm pretty sure what's going on is that casinos are constantly looking at how players are making withdrawals and then changing the rules so it doesn't happen again.
It's kind of like evolution.

This is the problem, they are looking at strokes of luck, then implementing a term to combat it. This is why so many excluded games and other restrictions make no sense at all, the casino has responded to a stroke of luck that has given a player a very substantial withdrawal. Perhaps one lucky sod hit a 5 reel wildstorm, so Thundrstruck II gets restricted, but not Immortal Romance.

However, this is not how casinos should be operating, they should accept that some players will win because they got lucky, and they should not be running around tweaking the terms to stop it from happening again.

Assuming that they won't actually enforce a crazy set of terms is a dangerous approach, because they can enforce them on a whim, and do YOU want to be the player that has just had the wrong win at the wrong time that leads to them exercising their discretion and voiding it, and then saying "it's in the terms, you should have read them".

Players have to assume that all terms, no matter how crazy, are there with the intention of them being adhered to, and enforced if they are not. So, a casino should be judged by the terms it publishes, not by how they are enforced. Rogue terms, whether enforced or not, mean a rogue casino that should be avoided. Casinos should only have terms that they are prepared to enforce. Currently, casinos rely on the fact that most players do not read, or if they do can't understand, the pages of exceptions and exclusions to an already complex and convoluted set of conditions. This allows them the luxury of selective enforcement because if they haven't been enforced, a player probably has no idea they have been dicing with confiscation for deposit after deposit, and we often see cases here where players suddenly find a big win confiscated for doing something they have always done before at the casino without encountering any problems, warnings from support, or confiscated withdrawals. This often happens when they hit the "life changer" win, and the casino decides it's time to enforce the terms so that they don't have to pay up.
 

brianmon

Ueber Meister
webby
mm4
Joined
May 22, 2013
Location
Cumbria
Its been bought up a few times, I have tested and can safely say you can bet less, check out https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/spin-station-warning.74837/

There have a crazy way doing it like that

I get the feeling that the clause in the T&C is there, just waiting to be used when someone wins 'too much'.
I seems from their convoluted T&C and games restrictions, that they aren't properly funded to ride out the highs and lows of online gambling.
How many of the 'big name' accredited brands have all those restrictions???
 

spintee

Ueber Meister
webby
mm2
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Location
Northants
I get the feeling that the clause in the T&C is there, just waiting to be used when someone wins 'too much'.
I seems from their convoluted T&C and games restrictions, that they aren't properly funded to ride out the highs and lows of online gambling.
How many of the 'big name' accredited brands have all those restrictions???

I think its a clause waiting to happen,

I think they have just overpaid some idiot to do there terms, Feck knows but they are strange, I did nether hear back from them about how the bonus works,

But I was checcking some knew sites out just yesterday and there rules still had the 35p min bet ?
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Its been bought up a few times, I have tested and can safely say you can bet less, check out https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/spin-station-warning.74837/

There have a crazy way doing it like that

It's been brought up more than a few times that just because the software allows a breach to occur, casinos will still use the written terms when they want to void a win, and in many cases they have claimed that it isn't "technically possible" for them to implement the restrictions in the software. I suspect this is why their minimum bet term isn't software implemented, but this creates a dangerous situation for the player because the software will tell them they have completed WR when in fact they haven't due to a number of low or high bets that "don't contribute". They will only come to light during the audit of play after a withdrawal has been made, and depending on whether or not this audit detects the violation the player still gets paid or finds the winnings confiscated for "submitting a withdrawal prior to completing WR". Casinos can also run "extended gameplay audits" on a "pick and choose" basis, so whilst many players may still pass the regular audit despite non qualifying bets, a player selected for additional scrutiny may well have their winnings voided. Players do not know they have been selected for such additional scrutiny until after they have run into trouble, when it is too late to do anything about it other than PAB or move on.
 

spintee

Ueber Meister
webby
mm2
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Location
Northants
It's been brought up more than a few times that just because the software allows a breach to occur, casinos will still use the written terms when they want to void a win, and in many cases they have claimed that it isn't "technically possible" for them to implement the restrictions in the software. I suspect this is why their minimum bet term isn't software implemented, but this creates a dangerous situation for the player because the software will tell them they have completed WR when in fact they haven't due to a number of low or high bets that "don't contribute". They will only come to light during the audit of play after a withdrawal has been made, and depending on whether or not this audit detects the violation the player still gets paid or finds the winnings confiscated for "submitting a withdrawal prior to completing WR". Casinos can also run "extended gameplay audits" on a "pick and choose" basis, so whilst many players may still pass the regular audit despite non qualifying bets, a player selected for additional scrutiny may well have their winnings voided. Players do not know they have been selected for such additional scrutiny until after they have run into trouble, when it is too late to do anything about it other than PAB or move on.


I did state after I think its a clause waiting to happen I tried my best a few times to get to the bottom of this by live chat to no success, Promised a reply but that is still pending or pushed to the side

Maybe an affiliate should get the real answer to this, KK maybe? I signed up by him to a few of the sites, Gday at least,

They have changed the rules again, On KK's site he states max bet 5% of depo amount but rules are now

(ii) Placing single bets in excess of 10% of the value of the bonus credited to Your account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. For example, if you received a bonus of £200, then the maximum bet that can be placed is £20. The 10% rule does not apply if the bet size is less than £5

Not only alot off casino rules are changing across sites On a daily basis, One site I agreed to terms like 4 times in a week, It is not good for players but must be a mine filed for affiliates,
 
Top