casinomate crazy first deposit rules (X6 deposit limit on winnings)

New Casino Brand!

Race Casino Logo
Fast Pay'n Play Casino from L&L Europe..
Race Casino Review

lammersef

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Location
Finland
Hi all,

Do you think this is acceptable for an accredited casino (Casino-mate.com) ?

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


4.6 Where a Sign-Up Bonus, or any bonus that is equal to or greater than 100%, has been granted to you, subject to you being required to have met all wagering requirements, you will be limited to a maximum withdrawal value of 6 times your deposit amount and any remaining balance will be forfeited. All progressive wins are exempt from this clause. Casino Management may not exercise this clause in some instances.

:mad::mad::mad:
 

Valhalla

The Professional
MM
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
Location
Northern Ireland
No deposit bonuses, I would understand. But deposit bonuses? Ridiculous. A player will have already busted his/her balls playing through the WR only to be met by that stupid limit.
 

kavaman

Senior Member
PABnononaccred3
PABnononaccred3
MM
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Location
finland
I agree, the rule is unbelievable for any casino, more so on an accredited casino. I hope their rep is pointed towards this thread.
 

GoldenGhoul

Experienced Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Location
EU
Well I'm certainly not going to play there while this rule is present. Not only the limit itself, but 6x? Nothing like winning lots of money on e.g. 20 euro deposit and being able to withdraw only 120 :)

BTW I see they're in an Accredited list, yet the C2O widget shows them as not listed in the database.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
This is not merely on the sign up bonus, it applies to EVERY bonus of 100% or more, even for loyal players.

This goes way beyond the notorious first appearance of this term at Palace Group, where it ONLY applied to the first deposit bonus.

Allowing such predatory terms for accredited casinos will damage the status of accreditation, as players who fall foul of this will be angry that they were mislead through trusting that the "CM accredited" status would mean that they would avoid such problems.

Players caught out by such terms are often told "next time, play only at accredited casinos and you won't run into such problems". Now, even this can't be trusted any longer, so "proceed with care" should now apply to accredited casinos, not just the reservation.

What's the betting that they sneaked this term in under Bryan's radar some time AFTER gaining accreditation, and decided not to update him on the change?
 

The Viking

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
CAG
MM
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Location
Faroe Islands
anyone flagged Bryan about this thread ? it does say in the accredited section for Casino Mate, Payout Limits: none .well thats not all true then is it.
also see the rep have not been online for 10 days
 

hedgehok

Meister Member
mm3
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Location
Germany
Seems to be a general term of all Vegas Partner Lounge Casinos/Go North Casinos accredited:

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/list.php?r=category/105-Go-North-Ltd
Every Casino of this group has exactly this Term 4.6.

It was changed between 25th June 2014 and 19th March 2015. I actually remotely remember to have read this in January this year when I registered at 777dragon.
Here the timestamps for Crazy Vegas:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


So it has been this way for a couple of month now. I don't think they enforce this rule necessarily - however this term is certainly not ok for an accredited casino imho.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Seems to be a general term of all Vegas Partner Lounge Casinos/Go North Casinos accredited:

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/list.php?r=category/105-Go-North-Ltd
Every Casino of this group has exactly this Term 4.6.

It was changed between 25th June 2014 and 19th March 2015. I actually remotely remember to have read this in January this year when I registered at 777dragon.
Here the timestamps for Crazy Vegas:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


So it has been this way for a couple of month now. I don't think they enforce this rule necessarily - however this term is certainly not ok for an accredited casino imho.
This just makes it an even BIGGER problem as they can use this term to pick and choose who to pay and who to screw over at their discretion. This is what rogue casinos do, not what is expected of an accredited one.

There is no need for such a vague enforcement policy of a predatory term, the CLEAR and CONCISE terms for the 100% offers should cover everything, and if they are adhered to, the player should be paid.

I didn't see nor hear of this term when they accepted UK players, whom they proceeded to jerk around before dumping them.

This term seems to be spreading throughout the industry, as Vegas Partner Lounge have nothing to do with Palace Group, Digimedia, etc where this term first appeared for a Microgaming casino.

Whilst such terms are seen in Rival and RTG casinos, they are not enforced or not at the whim of the casino, they apply to EVERYONE regardless. It's also a very low limit as many of the best slot wins would end up being confiscated under this rule. It is also odd that it only applies to 100% bonuses, as though this is some kind of magic boundary, but take 90% and it's no problem.

I don't recall this group giving out much in the way of 100% boni when they took UK players, they were usually between 20% and 50%. The 100% offers were very rare, and often given to especially desirable players whom they wanted to keep happy. Maybe they have added this term so that they can push out much more in the way of 100% offers, with many players not realising that this nasty term awaits should they have one of those rare big wins that are worthy of the Winner Screenshots thread.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
I can give you a list of MG casinos with this silly 6x SUB cash-out rule in their terms. Plus they also have the right to limit cash-outs to 4k if they exceed more than 5x your lifetime deposits, so they have got you both ways:

CASINO SPLENDIDO
CRAZY VEGAS/CV MOBILE
GOLDEN RIVIERA/GR MOBILE
HIPPODROME/H MOBILE
LUCKY NUGGET
MAPLE CASINO
RIVER NILE
ROXY PALACE/RP MOBILE
 

lotusch

A little mix of Dutch and Irish
PABaccred
webby
CAG
mm3
Joined
Jun 3, 2013
Location
Dún Dealgan
I can give you a list of MG casinos with this silly 6x SUB cash-out rule in their terms. Plus they also have the right to limit cash-outs to 4k if they exceed more than 5x your lifetime deposits, so they have got you both ways:

CASINO SPLENDIDO
CRAZY VEGAS/CV MOBILE
GOLDEN RIVIERA/GR MOBILE
HIPPODROME/H MOBILE
LUCKY NUGGET
MAPLE CASINO
RIVER NILE
ROXY PALACE/RP MOBILE
Casino's to avoid at all costs if you ask me!!
I defo wouldn't spend a dime there...
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I can give you a list of MG casinos with this silly 6x SUB cash-out rule in their terms. Plus they also have the right to limit cash-outs to 4k if they exceed more than 5x your lifetime deposits, so they have got you both ways:

CASINO SPLENDIDO
CRAZY VEGAS/CV MOBILE
GOLDEN RIVIERA/GR MOBILE
HIPPODROME/H MOBILE
LUCKY NUGGET
MAPLE CASINO
RIVER NILE
ROXY PALACE/RP MOBILE
That's beyond ridiculous, it effectively means the low roller can never win big, and even the high roller can't win big when they are a new player.

I would have had numerous cashins confiscated had I played at casinos whilst these rules were operative, so it's significant.


It would also encourage some players to deliberately "churn" large sums of money simply to get their account out of this risky position, which will cost the casinos a fortune in processing fees. It can easily be done staying within the terms by wagering the deposit 1x and then withdrawing until one has reached a point where 5x lifetime deposits exceeds the highest possible win from any game at one's preferred stake.

I would have to needlessly churn around £15,000 to cover the eventuality of hitting one of my bigger wins whilst still a relatively new player. The expected loss in wagering it once would simply be the insurance premium to insure myself against having a large win confiscated.

It is largely a barrier to playing at a new casino, as in a couple where I have been a long term player, even Mega Moolah couldn't put me on the wrong side of the 5x lifetime deposits rule, and this rule does not seem to apply to progressives in any case.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
That's beyond ridiculous, it effectively means the low roller can never win big, and even the high roller can't win big when they are a new player.

I would have had numerous cashins confiscated had I played at casinos whilst these rules were operative, so it's significant.


It would also encourage some players to deliberately "churn" large sums of money simply to get their account out of this risky position, which will cost the casinos a fortune in processing fees. It can easily be done staying within the terms by wagering the deposit 1x and then withdrawing until one has reached a point where 5x lifetime deposits exceeds the highest possible win from any game at one's preferred stake.

I would have to needlessly churn around £15,000 to cover the eventuality of hitting one of my bigger wins whilst still a relatively new player. The expected loss in wagering it once would simply be the insurance premium to insure myself against having a large win confiscated.

It is largely a barrier to playing at a new casino, as in a couple where I have been a long term player, even Mega Moolah couldn't put me on the wrong side of the 5x lifetime deposits rule, and this rule does not seem to apply to progressives in any case.
Sorry Vinyl I do apologise, I was recently making a list of current promos/SUBs and the info is correct but I should have made it clear the 4K is not an overall max cash-out limit (the 6xD when using a SUB is though!) but a general limit for a single weekly cash-out should it exceed 5x previous deposits. They will still pay the wins above 4k, but on a staggered basis if they choose to do so. So you are correct in one aspect, those terms would be totally unsuitable for YOU personally. Sorry again, I see how it reads now.:oops:
 

jshort

Full Member
webmeister
PABaccred
MM
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Location
Canada
Casino-mate is one of my favs! FYI: I play at vegaspartnerlounge casinos frequently and with the exception of the SUB, they don't really offer 100% match bonuses anyway.

I know everyone has their own opinion, but the view "this a casino to avoid!" because of this is BS!
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Casino-mate is one of my favs! FYI: I play at vegaspartnerlounge casinos frequently and with the exception of the SUB, they don't really offer 100% match bonuses anyway.

I know everyone has their own opinion, but the view "this a casino to avoid!" because of this is BS!
The obvious question is why have those terms in the first place?

I don't recall those terms being there when they accepted British players, and if they had no intention of using them as a backup means of confiscating winnings from players who had otherwise played by all the rules, why risk their reputation by poisoning their PR by having such terms.

When the Palace group had these terms, they got noticed due to a small number of PAB cases where they were ENFORCING them.

Such terms appearing are a sign that the wrong direction has been taken, not necessarily that the wrong destination has been reached yet.

Many players will have this same view now, until of course THEY get shafted by such a term, and then they will be complaining as to why "nothing was done about it" beforehand.

Jackpot Factory were ejected from accreditation for implementing "spirit of the bonus" terms, and in essence, this term IS a "spirit of the bonus" term, but somewhat disguised. The clue is in the "we choose whether or not to enforce it" policy, rather than the term itself.

The 4K slice term, although not a full confiscation of winnings, is designed to harass players who happen to win big by jerking them around over getting paid promptly and in full. It is often the case, and casinos know it, that players in this position frequently play back some or all of the winnings, so in this respect, some players WILL be limited to a 4K cashout because significant patience is needed in order to receive the rest.

This is not a casino group I would have expected such a set of terms, but Microgaming have fallen from grace since the days when a casino could be trusted purely because it was Microgaming, rather than something like RTG or Playtech.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top