CasinoRoom won't pay 57,000 Pounds Super Hidden Rule

[Captain Chaos]

So, in essence what you are saying is that the 30% limit IS tagged to whatever the CURRENT balance is and not the starting balance is? I have never, ever come across this before. I've always had it as a percentage of the starting balance. What a bonkers rule! So if I had 1p left, I'd be breaking the rules placing a one line penny bet. Crazy!

 

[spintee]

The rules are fair and come across them a number of times, But there is variations of this, Such as 30% of balance & bonus like your selfs but you can also find 30% of just the bonus and alot are the initial deposit or bonus, So if you only started with £90 than you can only bet max £27 no matter if you won 10k, If win 10K on yours than you can bet 3k

This is how it appears in the terms:

" Other examples of irregular game play for bonus play-through requirement purposes include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of your total balance (including any given bonus) until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met."

The total balance will change with every bet, that's how it works, if you want to go wild with the bonus just keep the bets below 30%, if you win then we pay.

In this case the starting balance was 893.97 GBP not 1000GBP

We will follow LGA recommendations and cap the amount that can be bet per spin rather than a percentage, but a rule is a rule and in this specific case it has been disregarded. As I have pointed out it is not uncommon or unfair, it's just a rule and if you check the terms, or if you ask anyone at support or if you check the FAQ you will get this information as well.

We want to come to settlement to conclude this issue fairly and to demonstrate effective customer care, this will be looked into the PAB.

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

 

[paul7388]

The rules are fair and come across them a number of times, But there is variations of this, Such as 30% of balance & bonus like your selfs but you can also find 30% of just the bonus and alot are the initial deposit or bonus, So if you only started with £90 than you can only bet max £27 no matter if you won 10k, If win 10K on yours than you can bet 3k

I would hardly say the rules were fair. So if I deposited just £10 and got a £10 bonus my max would be £6. That's more than okay. But if I played 60p a spin and was down to my last 60p and won a fortune id lose it all since my last bet was 100% of my remaining balance.

That's the craziest thing I have ever heard.

 

[spintee]

Yes you be pissed if you had 30p left and got 5 reel wild desire,
I have not checked the rules but have seen them before and if you drop below a certain amount than the 30% rule is wiped

So, in essence what you are saying is that the 30% limit IS tagged to whatever the CURRENT balance is and not the starting balance is? I have never, ever come across this before. I've always had it as a percentage of the starting balance. What a bonkers rule! So if I had 1p left, I'd be breaking the rules placing a one line penny bet. Crazy!

 

[spintee]

I would hardly say the rules were fair. So if I deposited just £10 and got a £10 bonus my make would be £6. That's more than okay. But if I played 60p a spin and was down to my last 60p and won a fortune id lose it all since my last bet was 100% of my remaining balance.

That's the craziest thing I have ever heard.

Yes abit crazy but check my last post, Inot read there rules but have read simuler and if drop below certain amount than the 30% is wiped

 

[Captain Chaos]

Yes abit crazy but check my last post, Inot read there rules but have read simuler and if drop below certain amount than the 30% is wiped

That may indeed be the case, but it doesn't take away the unfairness and ridiculous nature of this rule. Nothing wrong with having a betting limit. But to declare it to be a moving limit depending on the result of each bet placed and its effect on your balance is very unfair imo. It should either be a clearly stated fixed number or nothing at all tbh. If it's 30%, it should be 30% of either the bonus of starting balance. Having a moving limit just seems like a good way of catching people out.

 

[dunover]

This is how it appears in the terms:

" Other examples of irregular game play for bonus play-through requirement purposes include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of your total balance (including any given bonus) until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met."

The total balance will change with every bet, that's how it works, if you want to go wild with the bonus just keep the bets below 30%, if you win then we pay.

In this case the starting balance was 893.97 GBP not 1000GBP

We will follow LGA recommendations and cap the amount that can be bet per spin rather than a percentage, but a rule is a rule and in this specific case it has been disregarded. As I have pointed out it is not uncommon or unfair, it's just a rule and if you check the terms, or if you ask anyone at support or if you check the FAQ you will get this information as well.We want to come to settlement to conclude this issue fairly and to demonstrate effective customer care, this will be looked into the PAB.

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

1. Thereby you admit (as I said all along) that your terms did not follow the LGA recommendations.
2. Those recommendations are there for a reason, to provide a fixed and indisputable easy-to-follow guide for the player.
3. The term you had IS uncommon, as I've yet to see a casino offer a fluid max-bet amount WITHOUT qualification, i.e. a fixed maximum per spin.
4. The player had (inevitably) made a mistake which means you can smugly give him/her the middle-finger salute.
5. The odd amount of £897 would suggest a deposit made in Sterling and converted to Euros?
6. The lack of qualification in your terms also exposes YOU to risk, as (depending on the slot max stake) the player could potentially make huge bets and hit you for correspondingly huge amounts derived from YOUR bonus money, assuming the middle finger stays folded.

Irrespective of the player allegedly breaching the terms you had, those terms are totally inadequate and are always going to trap the unwary. So if we are to assume the player is kosher here, yes there should be a 'settlement' beneficial to them. Nevermind the stress.

 

[maphesto]

If I lose almost everything and only have 30c left, I am not allowed to even play Jack Hammer (25c, without the ability to change the number of lines) at the lowest bet?

Or 10c left, I can't play DoA at full lines? (9c)

I have to recalculate at every bet?

What if I have 2c left and play ONE line on any game...did I then break the rules?

@Casinoroom:

Clarify!

 

[fun4all]

I have seen other casinos have this 30% of current balance rule before. I agree it sucks for all the reasons given - you get trapped and when you have a small balance or whatever there is no way to play without suffering from possible win confiscation. I found this rule unworkable and scary I am surprised it has not been mentioned before on here.

Gowild definitely USED to have it. I don't know if they still do they have not taken UK customers for quite a while. I have seen others have it as well.

I also play at casinoroom and have never had any problems there. Granted ive never won anything like OP won but they seem a good casino to me usually.

Will be interested in the results of the PAB.

 

[spintee]

I think your right about gowild used to have it when I played many moons back, Im sure if balance drooped below £10 than the 30% rule did not count, It is a messy rule but pretty easy to work out, Does not take take S.Hawkins to figure it, It is abit annoying especially if a big roller,

I have seen other casinos have this 30% of current balance rule before. I agree it sucks for all the reasons given - you get trapped and when you have a small balance or whatever there is no way to play without suffering from possible win confiscation. I found this rule unworkable and scary I am surprised it has not been mentioned before on here.

Gowild definitely USED to have it. I don't know if they still do they have not taken UK customers for quite a while. I have seen others have it as well.

I also play at casinoroom and have never had any problems there. Granted ive never won anything like OP won but they seem a good casino to me usually.

Will be interested in the results of the PAB.

 

[KasinoKing]

5. The odd amount of £897 would suggest a deposit made in Sterling and converted to Euros?

Other way around I would say: £'s are bigger than Euros!

The OP said he deposited 500 and got a 500 bonus - but he didn't say what the currency was.
€1,000 was roughly £800 at the time - so something is still not spot on.

KK

 

[zanzibar]

Why for the love of Zeus won't casinos like yours do the only responsible thing and impose any bet limits in the software itself, including both bet sizes and games allowed, so no-one can possibly break the rules?

Third time now CasinoRoom. Why won't you answer the question?

It appears to me you like to have your cake and eat it too. Azzurri characterised this situation perfectly. You enjoy having a rule that lets you take money off losers and take money off winners too?

 

[Azzurri]

The rules are fair and come across them a number of times, But there is variations of this, Such as 30% of balance & bonus like your selfs but you can also find 30% of just the bonus and alot are the initial deposit or bonus, So if you only started with £90 than you can only bet max £27 no matter if you won 10k, If win 10K on yours than you can bet 3k

Sorry spintee, but there is nothing fair about this term.

This term essentially means you have to spin with one hand, and have a calculator in the other, to ensure you are within the 30% range of your balance before each spin.

This is ludicrous! Imagine playing 'real' slots at a casino with a calculator firmly planted in your lap to crunch some numbers after each spin. I'm sure you'd have little opportunity to explain yourself before two guys that look eerily like Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci nab you and give you one clear and simple choice:

"The left hand, or the right hand?"

It's simply a rogue term designed to have the exact desired effect it has had here. Regardless of whether or not this particular case involves a fraudulent OP, the PAB outcome will have little bearing on the blindly obvious:

Play at this casino at your own risk!

 

[spintee]

Fair probably should not of been the word used and the rules for that are crazy,

Easy way to look at it is say right, to make sure I do not break rules it than call it 25% than all you got to think of is make sure you do not bet more than a quarter of balance,

Thinking back now than you be twisting your brain thinking as say you was high rolling and had £764 left

The rule has been around for some time as I came across it years back, But whos going to be betting a around a 3rd of there balance? If your in the low hundrunds than something you may have to keep an eye on but if you have a few thousands than it shouldn't have to much to worry about,

Again I am a low roller and only play slots, If you can play roulette ect with it than I would look situation complete different,

Sorry spintee, but there is nothing fair about this term.

This term essentially means you have to spin with one hand, and have a calculator in the other, to ensure you are within the 30% range of your balance before each spin.

This is ludicrous! Imagine playing 'real' slots at a casino with a calculator firmly planted in your lap to crunch some numbers after each spin. I'm sure you'd have little opportunity to explain yourself before two guys that look eerily like Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci nab you and give you one clear and simple choice:

"The left hand, or the right hand?"

It's simply a rogue term designed to have the exact desired effect it has had here. Regardless of whether or not this particular case involves a fraudulent OP, the PAB outcome will have little bearing on the blindly obvious:

Play at this casino at your own risk!

 

[silcnlayc]

This is how it appears in the terms:

" Other examples of irregular game play for bonus play-through requirement purposes include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of your total balance (including any given bonus) until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met."

The total balance will change with every bet, that's how it works, if you want to go wild with the bonus just keep the bets below 30%, if you win then we pay.

In this case the starting balance was 893.97 GBP not 1000GBP

We will follow LGA recommendations and cap the amount that can be bet per spin rather than a percentage, but a rule is a rule and in this specific case it has been disregarded. As I have pointed out it is not uncommon or unfair, it's just a rule and if you check the terms, or if you ask anyone at support or if you check the FAQ you will get this information as well.

We want to come to settlement to conclude this issue fairly and to demonstrate effective customer care, this will be looked into the PAB.

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

Interesting! I clicked on the link and had 10 pages load (did not go through all 10 of them) with about 11 casinos per page I would assume showing this same term since that was the search term. I never knew so many casinos had this term. Hope all works out for the best.

.

 

[datch]

Hi,


I clicked that google search link, too and what I find is this at lots of casino t&c's :

".....placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the Bonus credited to their account...."


The term at CasinoRoom is :

"...placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of your total balance (including any given bonus)..."


Greetz

 

[Przecinek]

This is how it appears in the terms:

" Other examples of irregular game play for bonus play-through requirement purposes include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of your total balance (including any given bonus) until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met."

The total balance will change with every bet, that's how it works, if you want to go wild with the bonus just keep the bets below 30%, if you win then we pay.

In this case the starting balance was 893.97 GBP not 1000GBP

We will follow LGA recommendations and cap the amount that can be bet per spin rather than a percentage, but a rule is a rule and in this specific case it has been disregarded. As I have pointed out it is not uncommon or unfair, it's just a rule and if you check the terms, or if you ask anyone at support or if you check the FAQ you will get this information as well.

We want to come to settlement to conclude this issue fairly and to demonstrate effective customer care, this will be looked into the PAB.

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

WTF Casinoroom ... and to think I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Don't you realize it's impossible NOT to break this rule?
And yeah this google link you posted refers to total STARTING balance (or in most cases total starting bonus balance to be exact). This is how all the other casinos understand that rule. Eighteen pound bet equates to roughly around 2% of the starting balance... even the nittiest casinos would consider this bet as normal.

Taking money from legitimate players while pretending to combat bonus abuse. Appaling.

P.S Just read Dunover post and couldn't agree more. With 57.000 balance, players could theoretically make 15.000-19.000 bets on table games since it's 30% of running balance O_o These rules would surely be something out of abusers dream. I somehow doubt you would stick to your guns then and pay without a hinge, this interpretation of max bet doesn't make sense on so many levels.

 

[Przecinek]

I have seen other casinos have this 30% of current balance rule before. I agree it sucks for all the reasons given - you get trapped and when you have a small balance or whatever there is no way to play without suffering from possible win confiscation. I found this rule unworkable and scary I am surprised it has not been mentioned before on here.

Gowild definitely USED to have it. I don't know if they still do they have not taken UK customers for quite a while. I have seen others have it as well.

I also play at casinoroom and have never had any problems there. Granted ive never won anything like OP won but they seem a good casino to me usually.

Will be interested in the results of the PAB.

This only shows how unfair they are. If you went bust at least once, it means you already broke the very same rule! Yet they are paying you no problem? How come?

Also most people I know spin the slots while flat betting. If anything people will sometimes use a form of "progressive betting" - and up the stakes from 30p to 60p to 90p to counter their bad run, once they hit something. It's impossible to expect players to make calculations after every single bet they make.

 

[CasinoRoom]

Every casino has their own rules, this rule it's not unfair or uncommon it's just a rule.

If you want to go wild and bet big, play by the rules, if you win then we pay.

If you are a casual player, keep your bets in slots below €50 (when you have a bonus) and you will be fine.

As I have pointed out we don't limit bets to €5 per round, this rule allows you to bet high, very high and that is perfectly fine with us as long as you play according to the rules.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Every casino has their own rules, this rule it's not unfair or uncommon it's just a rule.

If you want to go wild and bet big, play by the rules, if you win then we pay.

If you are a casual player, keep your bets in slots below €50 (when you have a bonus) and you will be fine.

As I have pointed out we don't limit bets to €5 per round, this rule allows you to bet high, very high and that is perfectly fine with us as long as you play according to the rules.

This is a contradiction in terms I'm afraid. You state the rule is 30% of total balance. So if my balance is £1200 I can bet £400. But now you're saying that as a casual player, when playing with a bonus, I should be fine if I keep below £50? So, I wouldn't be fine, according to this, if I bet within the 30% limit because it would be over £50? Which is it? £50 or 30%? Because this implies that there is a 30% limit, but bigger bets will be scrutinized at the casinos discretion.

 

[CasinoRoom]

Following LGA recommendations we will set a max bet cap rather than a percentage.

The rule as it is in the terms is the 30%

This issue happened in October last year, the terms have not been updated because we didn't want any changes in the terms until we had this issue with the player settled. I am not sure why the player is bringing this up until now, 3 months later, but this is why the terms remain the same.

We want this matter to be concluded fairly, come to settlement, change the terms and move on.

We look forward to the PAB. Thank you for all the feedback.

 

[asadzareef89]

Following LGA recommendations we will set a max bet cap rather than a percentage.

The rule as it is in the terms is the 30%

This issue happened in October last year, the terms have not been updated because we didn't want any changes in the terms until we had this issue with the player settled. I am not sure why the player is bringing this up until now, 3 months later, but this is why the terms remain the same.

We want this matter to be concluded fairly, come to settlement, change the terms and move on.

We look forward to the PAB. Thank you for all the feedback.

So you are saying until the issue above is solved you would carry on with the same rule? If you don't want to change it till then, would u assure the CM community no one else would be penalized for the moving betsize requirement?

Also if the LGA has asked you to change it, shouldn't it be changed as soon as possible regardless of this case?

 

[asghan]

Guy is unlucky AP who hit big while he was trying to clear WR.

He started with 200 GBP bets(read elsewhere), up his balance to 6k or something, then he switched to DoA to clear WR, but was "unlucky" to hit really big.

I played at Casino Room few times and was convinced that there is no max bet rule, it was really buried deep in terms.

 

[CasinoRoom]

So you are saying until the issue above is solved you would carry on with the same rule? If you don't want to change it till then, would u assure the CM community no one else would be penalized for the moving betsize requirement?

Also if the LGA has asked you to change it, shouldn't it be changed as soon as possible regardless of this case?

You can count on it, we won't penalize players if bets are kept under €50 when you have a bonus.

The LGA gave a recommendation and we will follow it, but we don't want to change the terms just yet until this matter is settled.

 

[spintee]

Every one is quick to knock casinos when no pay, Would I be pi$$ed of if I received no winnings? Dam right,

The problem is yes there were rules that was hard to find, Was this a tactic? We all have a theory and many casinos have terms we do not like including the top dogs, Do I want to find in the players favour? Yes of course but we all no that bonus comes with rules, In another fourm the op stated that ilve chat told her there was no max bet rules, If this is the case and the rules was hidden than I say pay up,
I just wish we can see the facts on the matter when its all over and done with, See the screen shot of live chat & where they bet over the max rule,

Some thing Ive yet to see is finished P.A.B where us players see the final prof ect