Casino Rewards down the drain like Fortune Lounge?

[chuchu59]

I'm also having trouble with captain cooks, they tell me that I have brooken clause 12 and 13,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

What I did was betting my full roll, and then wager the bonus on ONE color with french roulette, no zero risk wagers.

They told me that my deposit would be refunded (which it hasn't and it's been almost a month now) and my winnings void...

Is this worth pitching or is it a dead end? I have not contacted ecgora since it's doesn't seem to help... they just say the samething as the casino.

I dont quite get what you mean. Were you betting your full roll on one color and the bonus on the other color? This would be bet hedging. Otherwise, you dont seem to have broken any rules.

 

[Casinomeister]

I dont quite get what you mean. Were you betting your full roll on one color and the bonus on the other color? This would be bet hedging. Otherwise, you dont seem to have broken any rules.

He violated #13 - the casino states that they don't want this sort of bonus play. They have a right to withhold winnings. These guys should have read these terms. Obviously they didn't and thought they could pull a stunt like what happened at Fortune Lounge last Spring.

 

[Nickelars]

I dont quite get what you mean. Were you betting your full roll on one color and the bonus on the other color? This would be bet hedging. Otherwise, you dont seem to have broken any rules.

I placed a full roll (250) bet on baccarat, and then wagered on french roulette since it's the best game for wagering.

How big bets are you allowed to do then? Any bet over a 100 credits (half bonus, half depost) should void any winnings if you are to follow clause #13...

What's the fun in that?? Do all microgaming casinos have this rule?

Let's consider I didn't bet my full roll, and just wagered on french roulette, would that also be a stupid way of playing? Why wager on any other game than french roulette?

 

[Casinomeister]

I placed a full roll (250) bet on baccarat, and then wagered on french roulette since it's the best game for wagering.

How big bets are you allowed to do then? Any bet over a 100 credits (half bonus, half depost) should void any winnings if you are to follow clause #13...

What's the fun in that?? Do all microgaming casinos have this rule?

Let's consider I didn't bet my full roll, and just wagered on french roulette, would that also be a stupid way of playing? Why wager on any other game than french roulette?

If you want to play like this, then DON'T use a bonus.

And please spare me the "I only play with bonuses" nonsense. Bonus play limits what you can and can't do in most cases.

One question - why did you fail to read their terms and conditions, and then come here complaining when your winnings were confiscated? You fully knew you were in the wrong, and I don't appreciate you and your non-reading T&C buddies wasting my time.

 

[sdaddy]

Let's consider I didn't bet my full roll, and just wagered on french roulette, would that also be a stupid way of playing? Why wager on any other game than french roulette?

If you would have stuck with that, then I would have backed you up as far as not violating any specific T&C. It's that initial bet that appears to violate rule #13, because it was a "majority" of your available balance.

The bottom line is, however, their T&Cs permit confiscating winnings if, for whatever reason, they determine you are violating the "spirit" of the bonus, so it's really pointless to try to figure out how you can and can't play. My advice: just play with bonuses at casinos with clear T&Cs, and you'll avoid any future headaches.

 

[vinylweatherman]

If you would have stuck with that, then I would have backed you up as far as not violating any specific T&C. It's that initial bet that appears to violate rule #13, because it was a "majority" of your available balance.

The bottom line is, however, their T&Cs permit confiscating winnings if, for whatever reason, they determine you are violating the "spirit" of the bonus, so it's really pointless to try to figure out how you can and can't play. My advice: just play with bonuses at casinos with clear T&Cs, and you'll avoid any future headaches.

"Majority" would specifically cover any bet greater than HALF the balance.
In the Fortune Lounge case, Casinomeister sided with players because FL had NO term forbidding such play, and said FL should add such a term if this play was not allowed. CR have added such a term, so this is why winnings were confiscated.
I do not agree so much with the other term about "spirit", this is too vague, and would rely on opinion rather than fact, and also suggests the casino is uniquely able to determine the thoughts of the player as they play. They cannot, they can only see if they are "skilled" in play (likely to win), or whether they would win through luck.
The safest thing to do with any SUB is to play slots and try for a lucky hit, and save the "clever" games for loyalty bonuses once they seem happy with your documents. At this stage they would find it hard to justify calling you a "bonus abuser", as the term implies players who play ONLY with the SUB and never return, whatever the outcome.
It is a pity MG were not able to come up with a better system than would punish such advantage play, while allowing the "spirited" player a decent chance of meeting WR.

 

[swiftjames]

Captain Cooks did this to me as well - I sent an eCogra dispute and PAB'd yesterday. I hope something comes of it!

---------

Hello James

Your account has been locked following an audit into your gameplay. You have breached our terms and conditions by grinding out your wagering requirements with small, low risk wagers on roulette. Please refer to the bonus account terms and conditions.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Your deposit will be refunded to your Click 2 pay account.

Kind Regards

Jon

Casino Rewards

Risk Management

 

[sdaddy]

In the Fortune Lounge case, Casinomeister sided with players because FL had NO term forbidding such play, and said FL should add such a term if this play was not allowed. CR have added such a term, so this is why winnings were confiscated.

For the record, in that case did Fortune Lounge have any language in the T&C permitting confiscation of winnings because of "bonus abuse" or some similar subjective criteria? If it did and Casinomeister still ruled against them, this could be important to the complaint just posted by swiftjames.

 

[pangloss]

"Majority" would specifically cover any bet greater than HALF the balance.

The subject term specifically states the orignal BR bet MUST include a portion of the bonus. Elsewhere it states when placing wagers credits from the CASH balance are used first before credits from the BONUS balance.

If one had a starting balance of $200 ($100 CASH / $100 BONUS) then I can not see how $100 wagers would offend the subject #13 T+C.

#12 of the T+C applies to equal, hedge or zero risk betting which is specifically aimed at betting BLACK/RED, HIGH/LOW and other type of play where the player seeks to cover all available betting options. It specifically CAN NOT apply and characterised to a series of minimum bet wagers on say ODD numbers on a Roulette wheel.

Moreover, players using an optimum bet-size strategy are attempting to manage their BR effectively and efficiently in order to reduce risk and loss of their funds. By using such Efficient Bankroll Management (EBR) players are exercising and exhibiting Responsible Gaming behaviour.

Member casinos are bound by eCOGRA specific (and codified) commitments to ensuring a Responsible Gaming enviroment is maintained both at the moment of a players deposit and thereafter. The T+Cs under discussion here clearly offend and are in opposition to promoting that said Responsible Gaming commitment. In fact, the subject T+Cs encourage reckless rather responsible gaming.

Accordingly the subject T+Cs ought to be ruled invalid lest the Responsible Gaming platitudes touted by eCOGRA be seen for what they are worth.


...

 

[Nickelars]

The thing is that the bonus is 200 and deposit is 50, this is why they are complaining...

 

[lojo]

For the record, in that case did Fortune Lounge have any language in the T&C permitting confiscation of winnings because of "bonus abuse" or some similar subjective criteria? If it did and Casinomeister still ruled against them, this could be important to the complaint just posted by swiftjames.

They've always had an FU clause, don't all casinos? But after that incident they added the hedge betting, etc. term so that it's fair (or will at least pass eCogra mustard)
At CR it is now terms 12 and 13.

 

[lojo]

...Accordingly the subject T+Cs ought to be ruled invalid lest the Responsible Gaming platitudes touted by eCOGRA be seen for what they are worth....

That's an interesting hypothesis, but I'm afraid it is subjective opinion. Many casinos have adopted or adapted the FL rules about this kind of wagering. The simple test is this, imo: If no bonus were involved, would you bet half or all of your bankroll on one game and then go on to grind the balance with near even money bets? Not likely, and would you consider that to be 'responsible gambling'? I wouldn't, but that is subjective.

 

[sdaddy]

They've always had an FU clause, don't all casinos? But after that incident they added the hedge betting, etc. term so that it's fair (or will at least pass eCogra mustard)
At CR it is now terms 12 and 13.

No, not all casinos have such clauses. Reputable groups like Trident, for example, do not.

The reason I wanted to nail down whether or not this "bonus abuse" clause was there during the Fortune Lounge case is because I want to establish the precedent that even though the clause was in the T&C that still was not seen as a legitimate defense against FL being classified as rogue.

 

[lojo]

Here ya go. Way back machine

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Current T&C Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

 

[pangloss]

That's an interesting hypothesis, but I'm afraid it is subjective opinion. Many casinos have adopted or adapted the FL rules about this kind of wagering. The simple test is this, imo: If no bonus were involved, would you bet half or all of your bankroll on one game and then go on to grind the balance with near even money bets? Not likely, and would you consider that to be 'responsible gambling'? I wouldn't, but that is subjective.

As a reminder eCOGRA purports:

The underlying philosophy of eCOGRA is based on the achievement of the objectives of player protection, fair gaming and responsible conduct by operators

Responsible Gaming is codified within the eGAP (Generally Accepted Practice) document, specifically under Player Protection 103 and attending regulations.

A cursory reading of the regulations does not disclose any mention or reference to a Bonus or Bonus play. One can confidently conclude the application of a Bonus does not in any way alter the operation of the Responsible Gaming principle.

The stated Objective of Responsible Gaming within eGAP reads (in greater part), A responsible gaming environment shall be established, enforced and monitored .

Section 103 R10.1 compels the member Casino to provide a clear home page link to providing Player advice with respect to:

A warning that gaming could be harmful if not controlled and kept in moderation (underlining mine)

In seeking to exercise control over their gaming Players may (should) avail themselves to Efficient Bankroll Management (EBM) both prior and during game play. Bet size management is but one vital component of protecting Players funds against loss. EBM is completely harmonious with the principle of Responsible Gaming.

The Casino T+Cs, in particular #13, seeks to impede Player access to EBM by prohibition and penalty. Profits will suffer confiscation and deposits returned. Deposits are not refunded should the Player lose wagers applying EBM.

Such prohibition can only intend to expose and render the Players funds at a manifestly greater risk of loss (and reciprocal Casino profit). In the process control (ie bet size) over the Players funds is diminished in direct defiance of the aforementioned published Responsible Gaming regulation and objective.

Indeed, on any rational reading, the Casinos T+C #13 is the very antithesis of the principle on which eCOGRAs Responsible Gaming purports to stand.

It must follow that the Casinos T+Cs #13 is invalid for as long as the Casino remains under the auspices of eCOGRA regulation and policy. A properly advised player, and a properly argued case, would ordinarily be entitled to a favorable outcome on complaint to eCOGRA.

Of course it must be said the extent of eCOGRAs commitment to Responsible Gaming will affect the outcome of any such appeal. One could also argue the case on the basis of what constitutes Fair Gaming, which for the present, will be left for another day.


...

 

[dancinggoon]

Great post!!!! :notworthy:

It shows the fu***** double moral of these operations, you are damm right, that these rogues will hammer on any player that trys to minimize the risk of loosing his bankroll, before he is going to withdrawl his winnings.

Stop playing and withdrawing winnings is an import part of responsible gaming, or iam missing something here?

But even if the player does the opposite and plays very risky with his funds, he has only a small chance to win. If he does, they just stealing the winnings.

 

[lojo]

Twelve and thirteen together equal a strategy of manipulation that is clearly not acceptable to the CR group.

Do we know of any incidences where, without using a bonus, these terms were invoked? Not likely because the methods, when used together, are not EBM.

Granted, 13 should not be able to be used against a player if not in conjunction with another 'strategy', because it is incumbant upon the casino to set the wagering requirements and invocation of an FU clause like that, by itself, would be unfair BUT it is a term the player agrees to.

That said, I would agree with you that the existence or invocation of thirteen alone, without a bonus(and I understand it isn't delineated in the eCogra policy) would place the casino in a position of breaching the responsible gaming terms of their agreement with eCogra.

So, where do we go from here? Add another fifteen layers of legalese to the T&C? The casinos will continue to modify the bonus terms as long as bonuses exist. Isn't it better to simply know the HE and be a gambler and leave boni alone? I think so, but that's just me. It's called gambling, not 'strategy of manipulation to come out ahead'.

 

[cyprean]

Twelve and thirteen together equal a strategy of manipulation that is clearly not acceptable to the CR group.

Do we know of any incidences where, without using a bonus, these terms were invoked? Not likely because the methods, when used together, are not EBM.

Granted, 13 should not be able to be used against a player if not in conjunction with another 'strategy', because it is incumbant upon the casino to set the wagering requirements and invocation of an FU clause like that, by itself, would be unfair BUT it is a term the player agrees to.

That said, I would agree with you that the existence or invocation of thirteen alone, without a bonus(and I understand it isn't delineated in the eCogra policy) would place the casino in a position of breaching the responsible gaming terms of their agreement with eCogra.

So, where do we go from here? Add another fifteen layers of legalese to the T&C? The casinos will continue to modify the bonus terms as long as bonuses exist. Isn't it better to simply know the HE and be a gambler and leave boni alone? I think so, but that's just me. It's called gambling, not 'strategy of manipulation to come out ahead'.

You must understand that the terms are so vague that CR group may interpret as they wish, thus resulting in a FU clause.


It's pretty funny to see that CR breaks eCogra's responsible gambling theorem. Thus we see can yet again what little value eCogra poses. Some could call it a PR operation founded by the casinos that rubber stamps some casino actions and FU clauses that a non-dependant instititution would not do. Not to bash eCogra and say that they totally out of line, I must admit they have done a lot of good too.

 

[Stanford]

Yep

Great post!!!! :notworthy:

Stop playing and withdrawing winnings is an import part of responsible gaming, or iam missing something here?

But even if the player does the opposite and plays very risky with his funds, he has only a small chance to win. If he does, they just stealing the winnings.

Yep. You are missing something. This Casino reneged on a bet.

Here are the terms in question:

"12. Observations of playing patterns such as the playing of equal, zero margin or hedge betting may not be considered as playing in the appropriate spirit for the purposes of meeting bonus wagering requirements. Should the Casino deem that these practices have been utilized for the specific purpose of meeting wagering requirements, the casino reserves the right to withhold any cashins and/or confiscate all winnings.

13. Other practices of playing behaviour which may lead to the casino withholding cashins and/or confiscating all winnings include, but are not limited to, placing single bets whereby the wager consists of the majority of the total available balance and the bonus balance contributing to a significant portion of that balance. Should the casino deem that practices such as this have been utilized, the casino reserves the right to withhold any cashins and/or confiscate all winnings. "

As to number 12, where can I play zero margin? I would like to see that game. And equel betting? What does that mean. I bet 2 units 25 times. I am down. I bet 4 units 25 times. Is that equal betting?

As to 13, I start out with a $25 bonus and a 150 balance. I get down to $35 and hail mary. I win and hail mary again. Did I break the terms of 13.

These terms are so unfair as to not be enforceable. They are the old bonus abuse term renamed.

So what do we get down to? The player made a bet. The casino accepted a bet. Pay up.

What's going on is these guys are starved for players so they are advertising bonues to draw in players. They accept the losing action. Then they look for ways not to pay the winning action.

And eCOGRA backs them up. This is worse then when they used to scream that autoplay was bonus abuse. Now flat betting is bonus abuse.

I support attempts to overturn America's restriction on poker rooms. But I am not going to waste my breath on casinos when the standard setting body of eCOGRA promotes this type of deceptive play.

This is a rogue group.

imho,
Stanford

 

[chuchu59]

Hi Stanford,

Long time between posts. On 12, there are only a handful of games that could count as hedging ie red/black or odds/even and sector betting on roulette, player and banker on baccarat and bets on sic bo. The casino could make an exhaustive list so that confusion does not arise. As for zero margin, I recall a game called fantan where the dealer stores away an unspecified amount of white chessspieces(cant remember the term) and the player can bet on any number from 1-4 paying 4-1 for any number. The dealer then reveals the chesspieces and spreads them out in units of 4. The remainder is the winning number. There wasnt any commission involved when I played so I am not sure what house edge they had.

13 is ridiculous and no elaboration is needed as you have already set out the arguments against it clearly.

 

[pangloss]

The current MG (eCOGRA) casinos marketing regime (to new players) includes standard fare such as:

1. False and outrageous promises of free money or bonus money splashed loudly across Casino home pages.
2. T+Cs, contained in the finest of fine print, revealing onerous WRs and restricted game play that render so-called free money and/or bonus money virtually worthless.
3. The newly introduced T+C#13 (aka irregular play) with its sole purpose of preventing optimum Player spending patterns in favor of careless and reckless wagers coveted by the offending Casino. Such optimum Player spending is ironically deemed irregular, consciously shifting the integrity of otherwise perfectly legitimate and sensible behavior, away from the Player. Consequently, the mandated Penalty (confiscation of winnings) of irregular play transforms the Player into an offender of T+Cs for the heinous crime of merely playing his cards right.

It is on this bedrock of probity and practice that eCOGRAs Responsible Gaming policy rhetoric proudly sits.

The Responsible Gaming mantra is repeated and monotonously displayed on every member Casinos home page in the hope that it will be accepted as an integral part of eCOGRAs ethical practice and wisdom.

Accordingly eCOGRA is now put on notice.

Within the next 2 months eCOGRAs commitment to Responsible Gaming will be tested with respect to the operation of T+C #13 and all its irregular play manifestations. The result will be published in full so that no one will be left in any doubt as to just what eCOGRAs Responsible Gaming effectively means to the on-line Player community at large. I feel sure both eCOGRA and member Casinos will welcome this opportunity.

 

[lojo]

Leave it Stanford to cut right through the bullshine:notworthy

When you put it that way... "bet was placed, bet was accepted, player won, pay up" it goes right to the heart of the matter.

Bonuses are the scourge of online gambling and I will have to concede that until the SW simply refuses bets or accepts bets the T&C are nothing more than mumbo-jumbo. My only defense is to not use a bonus, and if I do, I am risking my funds foolishly.

 

[sdaddy]

As to 13, I start out with a $25 bonus and a 150 balance. I get down to $35 and hail mary. I win and hail mary again. Did I break the terms of 13.

These terms are so unfair as to not be enforceable. They are the old bonus abuse term renamed.

You've made me re-think my position, and now I agree that rule 13 is unfair and unworkable as well.

I must confess that at first I didn't read the rule closely enough and didn't appreciate that it prohibits betting majority of the current player's balance and not the original balance. That makes all the difference in the world as far as fairness is concerned. That is, the player could have assiduously avoided making large bets since receiving a bonus, but then find himself left with a balance so small that it is almost unavoidable to make a bet less than a "majority" of his balance.

Great post.

 

[Casinomeister]

12.Observations of playing patterns such as the playing of equal, zero margin or hedge betting may not be considered as playing in the appropriate spirit for the purposes of meeting bonus wagering requirements. Should the Casino deem that these practices have been utilized for the specific purpose of meeting wagering requirements, the casino reserves the right to withhold any cashins and/or confiscate all winnings.

13.Other practices of playing behaviour which may lead to the casino withholding cashins and/or confiscating all winnings include, but are not limited to, placing single bets whereby the wager consists of the majority of the total available balance and the bonus balance contributing to a significant portion of that balance. Should the casino deem that practices such as this have been utilized, the casino reserves the right to withhold any cashins and/or confiscate all winnings.

Whether you like these terms or not, they are there - and there is not much that you can do about it except to avoid these casinos if you are planing to play this way.

Most of you are aware that a few months ago, several MG casino groups were hit by a massive fraud ring that played the exact same way - making a deposit, taking the bonus, and placing it all on one bet, and if the player won, they would grind the wagering requirements away with roulette, etc. The casinos locked all accounts that exhibited this sort of action mainly because they did not like the way the players played. (not to mention about +60% of these accounts were fraudsters).

The main outcry was that there was nothing in the terms and conditions that prohibited this sort of play - the players should be paid. The Fortune Lounge group was rouged mainly because of this subjectivity. Rules need to be clear-cut.

So now these casinos have included these terms, and it's still not good enough for you?

This is BONUS money and not your money. The casino has every right to dictate how this can be played out. If you don't like it, move on to something else.

And as far as I know, eCOGRA does not write the terms and conditions for casinos. I do know that if Ts and Cs are considered unfair or muddled, then eCOGRA will investigate.

Casinos have a right to protect their businesses, but they need to do this in a fair manner. To turn this thread into another <yawn> eCOGRA bash, gets us nowhere. If you really want to do something beneficial, quit sniveling about what you think is unfair, and contact eCOGRA in a businesslike manner. I'm sure they would be receptive to this.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

eCogra is what it is,nothing more,nothing less!!!!!!!!!!