Keeping winnings is suspect
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?
[/B].
Those guys just now figuring out how to play? I played that way for years. Crank it up and swing for the bleachers. If you get a nice win, pull back on the throttle and coast to the finish line. Who knew it was irregular play? Now one often goes broke doing this, but there are some nice wins.
But no, the rules are not good enough.
The irregular play rules are so poorly defined they are not enforcable. At some point one will often have to bet a large part of your existing bankroll and violate rule 12. In fact, if he didn't, there is so little left that you grind out at the minimun and violate rule 13.
If they want to limit flux, write the rule so it is clear and understandable. The max bet till wagering requirements are met is .... whatever it is. That's for rule 12.
You can't have the second rule. You can't say betting the minimum or any particular amount is irregular betting. You are just insisting on irresponsible gaming at this point.
The real answer is don't book the bet if you don't want to pay it. If we want to be strick about it, the casino waived the rules when they accepted the wager. If we don't want to be strick about it, then at least insist that they not trap the player with rules that are not clear or with rules that disallows flat betting the minimum. The point about this promoting irresponsible gambling is well taken.
In this case, the casino is flat our wrong. They should not be keeping the winnings. Here is the test - if the player had lost, would they come back and say, "Sorry, that bet was contrary to our rules. We are voiding the bet. You have to now wager it properly." No. They would keep the money. That's how you know this isn't a void bet. Whenever it only works against the player, somethings wrong.
Here is another way you know its wrong. Remember when the casinos tried to void autoplay as bonus abuse? We all agreed that you can't offer autoplay and them make it bonus abuse. So tell me, how do I use autoplay without violating rule 13?
If casinos don't want to offer clear bonus terms, don't offer the bonus. If they don't want to pay the bet, don't accept the bet. If they insist they have to void a bet, void all of them win or lose. If there is a dispute, keeping selective winnings is always suspect and eCOGRA should be concerned. If they are not, players should be concerned. Brick and mortar casinos have promotions too; but they don't find reasons to keep your winnings.
imho,
Stanford.
