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

[CasinoRoom]

zanzibar thank you for all the feedback, very constructive.

Customer satisfaction is extremely important to us and I agree that by automating these processes we would offer a much better experience. I will bring this up to our developers, this is the right way to go.

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.

or €18 if you are the OP That's hardly "allows you to bet high, very high". Even €50 isn't "very high", it's just "high".

If you are supposed to bet below €50, why don't the rules just say so?

The rules don't "allow", they DECEIVE players into thinking they can bet "high, very high" because they will deposit, and then do the quick calculation to work out their max bet for the session. Under these rules, players are deceived into arriving at a figure that is more than twice what other casinos allow, but that in practice could lead to a bet of a mere 10% or less of the calculated limit leading to a confiscation of winnings purely because of when in the session the bet was made.

It looks like this is a case of deciding not to pay, and then looking for a rule to use to justify it. If this daft rule was applied consistently, we would have heard about it long ago as it would have quickly caught out no end of casual players who bet as little as €3 with the remains of their balance, and then got lucky.

If the results are random, then it doesn't matter in which order bets are made. If a bet of €250 is OK for the first spin, it should be just as OK for spins 2 through to n until the player either wins and completes WR, or busts out.

There was another casino with this daft rule, and who flirted with the rogue pit for applying it at the most nonsensical extreme, before they saw the nonsense situation they had created, and changed the rule to a fixed percentage of the amount of bonus credited, which is the common and non predatory version of the bet limitation rule.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Thank you, it's just a reference, a way to make things easier for everyone, since there is a bit of confusion now as of how this rule affects casual play and for instance what if you bet €4 if you have €10 left, or what if you bet 4cents if you have €1 left. We will not monitor bets below €50, yet those who still want to bet higher, please do it according to the rule that we have in the terms.

Rest assured we will edit the terms. We are working on this already.

I really want this to go through the PAB I think we all want to see how it develops, so let's give it a shot and settle this matter for once and for all.

We never had PAB in the past, and we've actually never had complaints of this nature ever and that is at least 5 years.

We want this matter to be concluded fairly and thanks again for all the feedback and now we look forward to the PAB.

This more or less proves that this is a pick-and-choose rule, and not one that is applied consistently to all players, else you would have had plenty of players who had hit big almost at the point of busting out, but who had so little left that it was inevitable that they would be breaching the rule in it's current form. No complaints would indicate that in such cases the rule was not applied, which makes it a kind of FU clause for when you don't like the way someone has played, and they have won big.

You really shouldn't have a problem with the OP in any case, they are playing just as you say a high roller can, and it's play that you have tried to cater for by having a rule that allows such unusually high bets.

Had the OP bet €200 and hit that outstanding win on DOA on the first spin, you would have been looking at paying out over 10 times as much, and would have no rule available to void the win. They would then be able to start betting REALLY big, around 30% of some €500,000.

I don't believe for one minute that you would have paid up without fuss, rather I would expect to find that another form of "FU Clause" would have been found to void the win.


I think the logs in this case will show that the player was flat betting a high amount, but not as high as 30% of the balance. Their first three spins were "dead", and then around the 4th spin they hit something decent. The problem will have been down to the fact that the three dead spins came first, rather than later in the sequence after a decent hit that kept the balance close to, or higher than, the start. The really big win came later on, and on a mere €18 bet, and in itself did not breach the rule.

Betting the same amount over a sequence of spins is EXACTLY what a casual player does. It would be a more experienced player, probably an advantage player, who would be running a mathematical calculation before each bet placed, yet this is what the rules REQUIRE a player to be doing.

 

[CasinoRoom]

As I have pointed out our rule is not unfair or uncommon, it's just a rule. There are many ways that you can restrict the maximum bets, but even those that are based on starting bonus, or only bonus or starting balance or balance are a just as impractical and affect the entertainment aspect of the games, that is, unless the operator creates a system to monitor these limits as zanzibar suggests. We will implement a system that is capable of doing this in the short term. In the meantime we don't expect casual players to worry about this and we won't penalize bets under €50, we have never done this in fact.

Our rule is not a pick-and-choose rule, we apply it consistently, if we allow big bets with big bonuses, then we have to make sure the rules are followed. We don't have a problem with winners, we want winners, but we have a problem with rules being disregarded, just like any other operator. Had the OP bet £200 and hit big on the first spin, it would have been another story, but this is not what happened.

We value the feedback that we have received from the community. As you can see I have been trying to answer all the questions, we take these matters seriously and it is very important for us to come to settlement with the player.

 

[vinylweatherman]

As I have pointed out our rule is not unfair or uncommon, it's just a rule. There are many ways that you can restrict the maximum bets, but even those that are based on starting bonus, or only bonus or starting balance or balance are a just as impractical and affect the entertainment aspect of the games, that is, unless the operator creates a system to monitor these limits as zanzibar suggests. We will implement a system that is capable of doing this in the short term. In the meantime we don't expect casual players to worry about this and we won't penalize bets under €50, we have never done this in fact.

Our rule is not a pick-and-choose rule, we apply it consistently, if we allow big bets with big bonuses, then we have to make sure the rules are followed. We don't have a problem with winners, we want winners, but we have a problem with rules being disregarded, just like any other operator. Had the OP bet £200 and hit big on the first spin, it would have been another story, but this is not what happened.

We value the feedback that we have received from the community. As you can see I have been trying to answer all the questions, we take these matters seriously and it is very important for us to come to settlement with the player.

Rules are not just rules in the real world. Some are OK, others are deemed unfair both by the average person and by the legal system.

There are many ways to restrict the maximum bet, so why did you choose the worst one of all for the average player to monitor and implement during their play.

Rules that arrive at a fixed max bet for a given initial starting balance are far more practical than any other. The player has just a single number to remember throughout their play, yet by using a percentage it allows the max bet to be set in proportion to the amount deposited, so high rollers are not held back by a rule designed to cater for those who make smaller deposits, and those who make smaller deposits can't bet the full amount in one go.

It can't be getting applied consistently as it has not been seen to be applied as written, which would include those cases where players bet 60c from their last €1 balance. It's ONLY seen to be getting applied for players who make very big bets from relatively high deposits.

You now admit to be operating a new set of rules that you are refusing to publish until this case is resolved. This is inherently unfair as the published rules are now wrong, yet it's all players have to go on. There is no need to delay updating the rules as this case is about what happened last year, not what is happening now. The only reason for delay would seem to be that there is an intent to renege on the promises to update the rules should this PAB go in your favour.

The old rules, incidentally, are an advantage players' paradise if played properly, and not how this player did. Rather than flat betting at around €200, each bet would be made at the exact max allowed, or as close as possible to it whilst being below it as possible. This would result in a form of "reverse modified Martingale" where the bet was increased after a win, and decreased after a loss. This would take full advantage of the overly generous rule in it's original form, and by the laws of probability you will get a small number of runaway victories for players who end up being allowed to make truly HUGE bets after a big win that will outweigh the money made from those that bust out.

If these logs ever end up being revealed here, it would be interesting to see what the outcome would have been had the player been smart enough to adjust the bet after each spin to the max possible allowed by the rules, and what they could have walked away with without breaking any rules, assuming a withdrawal was made as soon as WR was completed.

 

[michielm1]

what do we learn here people...

dont mess around with bonusmoney. play with your own balance and play however you want.

 

[spintee]

what do we learn here people...

dont mess around with bonusmoney. play with your own balance and play however you want.

Very true, But theres threads where people have been disqualified when only playing with own money, Using STRATEGY

Cannot win in every sence of the way

 

[michielm1]

its sickening, but on the other hand... if you buy a pair of shoes for 100 euro you dont buy them from a guy who sells them from his trunk, but you buy them in a good shoe store...

 

[redsfan]

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.

Without being rude I stopped reading as I could not believe what I am reading.

YOU CAN NOT CLEAR THE BONUS

£250 D £250 Bonus is £500

£500.00 £150.00
£350.00 £105.00
£245.00 £73.50
£171.50 £51.45
£120.05 £36.02
£84.04 £25.21
£58.82 £17.65
£41.18 £12.35
£28.82 £8.65
£20.18 £6.05
£14.12 £4.24
£9.89 £2.97
£6.92 £2.08
£4.84 £1.45
£3.39 £1.02

So at spin 1, £150 is ok but by spin 5, £40 is a breach of your terms.

Please stop saying its uncommon because is unique because its plain stupid.

(If someone has posted similar after page 6, I appologies but I wasa struggling to understand what I was reading)

 

[CasinoRoom]

redsfan, but in that scenario you are not winning, you can potentially hit big or semi big in the first rounds, then clearing the bonus is easy as long as you play according to the rules.

I have pointed out that we won't penalize bets below €50.

I'm gathering all the feedback we've received from the community in order to come up with new terms. We've never had a PAB or a problem like this in the past and it's extremely important for us to conclude this matter in a positive way and come to settlement with the player.

 

[mina888]

redsfan, but in that scenario you are not winning, you can potentially hit big or semi big in the first rounds, then clearing the bonus is easy as long as you play according to the rules.

I have pointed out that we won't penalize bets below €50.

I'm gathering all the feedback we've received from the community in order to come up with new terms. We've never had a PAB or a problem like this in the past and it's extremely important for us to conclude this matter in a positive way and come to settlement with the player.

That must be a very long list of feedbacks what you're gathering there cause 12 pages worth of negative comments must be telling you something. Pay the player and change your T&C today. No settlements, just pay what he's won and end this.

 

[vinylweatherman]

redsfan, but in that scenario you are not winning, you can potentially hit big or semi big in the first rounds, then clearing the bonus is easy as long as you play according to the rules.

I have pointed out that we won't penalize bets below €50.

I'm gathering all the feedback we've received from the community in order to come up with new terms. We've never had a PAB or a problem like this in the past and it's extremely important for us to conclude this matter in a positive way and come to settlement with the player.

Clearing the bonus is not easy simply because the rules require constant recalculations on the fly.

Odd too that you are unique in positively ENCOURAGING players to bet big to start with as most casinos consider this blatant bonus abuse, and seek to stop it with their terms. It is surprising that you haven't been taken to the cleaners through allowing players to bet ridiculously high when on a winning streak. The bigger the allowed bet, the lower the variance a slot needs in order to be a good one for pushing for an even higher total. The lower variance slots produce decent wins more often, which may be smaller in terms of a multiple of the stake, but if the stake has been increased tenfold because of a quaint rule, it's going to be just as damaging to the casino as 5 scatters at €18 on a slot like DOA, as well as being a good deal more frequent.

 

[CasinoRoom]

vinylweatherman you have many valid points on why the system needs to be improved and I appreciate all the feedback you give. We are working on this, rest assured this is our priority.

 

[dunover]

Clearing the bonus is not easy simply because the rules require constant recalculations on the fly.

Odd too that you are unique in positively ENCOURAGING players to bet big to start with as most casinos consider this blatant bonus abuse, and seek to stop it with their terms. It is surprising that you haven't been taken to the cleaners through allowing players to bet ridiculously high when on a winning streak. The bigger the allowed bet, the lower the variance a slot needs in order to be a good one for pushing for an even higher total. The lower variance slots produce decent wins more often, which may be smaller in terms of a multiple of the stake, but if the stake has been increased tenfold because of a quaint rule, it's going to be just as damaging to the casino as 5 scatters at €18 on a slot like DOA, as well as being a good deal more frequent.

Not at all Vinyl, as the arbitrary FU-clause would then come into play.

 

[spintee]

Without being rude I stopped reading as I could not believe what I am reading.

YOU CAN NOT CLEAR THE BONUS

£250 D £250 Bonus is £500

£500.00 £150.00
£350.00 £105.00
£245.00 £73.50
£171.50 £51.45
£120.05 £36.02
£84.04 £25.21
£58.82 £17.65
£41.18 £12.35
£28.82 £8.65
£20.18 £6.05
£14.12 £4.24
£9.89 £2.97
£6.92 £2.08
£4.84 £1.45
£3.39 £1.02

So at spin 1, £150 is ok but by spin 5, £40 is a breach of your terms.

Please stop saying its uncommon because is unique because its plain stupid.

(If someone has posted similar after page 6, I appologies but I wasa struggling to understand what I was reading)

Ye but who in the right mind would even play machines for that much if taking a bonus, I may not write well but I am not stupid, As pointed out any low rollor or middle than this would not come into affect, Only big time players that would suggest why they broke rule on 4-5 spins. If thats the case than no sympathy as if thats what they do than I have no quibbles but do not come and complain when you been couaght out,

Im no expert or read right and not much cash, If did than would not dream of taking a bonus, I might get a bashing here but please, Rules are rules even low there hidden the OP did as about wager and they said they was told diffrent, After the agrumet is over please provide the screen shot of confo as we as players do not hear much after PAB,

I have not even heard of the casino so got nothing to lose but I have got something about peole trying it, For the few years I have been here every one backs the player? Even low they may be new, For god sake give a casino a chance,

I forgot that the reply is that they might of won of them first spins, I tried working it out and had to be beting high if broke rules after 3-4 spins

 

[Deeplay]

Well at least casinoroom rep is replying here. And maybe give them a chance to work through some betters terms. Just saying. He seems responsive and to be wanting to resolve this issue which is a plus.

 

[hausse222]

You are right, but i don´t trust casinoroom anymore since the case europoker.com
Here my thread i opened in this case https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...still-connected-with-europoker.64551/?t=64551
I still am not convinced that there´s no connection between them...

Fact: Casinoroom and Europoker.com were separated, because europoker was "sold". A few days later Europoker was bankrupt and not able to pay the players. Draw your conclusions...

 

[redsfan]

Ye but who in the right mind would even play machines for that much if taking a bonus, I may not write well but I am not stupid, As pointed out any low rollor or middle than this would not come into affect, Only big time players that would suggest why they broke rule on 4-5 spins. If thats the case than no sympathy as if thats what they do than I have no quibbles but do not come and complain when you been couaght out,

Im no expert or read right and not much cash, If did than would not dream of taking a bonus, I might get a bashing here but please, Rules are rules even low there hidden the OP did as about wager and they said they was told diffrent, After the agrumet is over please provide the screen shot of confo as we as players do not hear much after PAB,

I have not even heard of the casino so got nothing to lose but I have got something about peole trying it, For the few years I have been here every one backs the player? Even low they may be new, For god sake give a casino a chance,

I forgot that the reply is that they might of won of them first spins, I tried working it out and had to be beting high if broke rules after 3-4 spins

So because you dont have much cash, you think its ok for high rollers to get screwed?

No ones saying the rule doesnt exist but 1, it was hidden out of view and 2 its so stupid its scarey that an organisation to be trusted has written it.

 

[spintee]

So because you dont have much cash, you think its ok for high rollers to get screwed?

No ones saying the rule doesnt exist but 1, it was hidden out of view and 2 its so stupid its scarey that an organisation to be trusted has written it.

Absolute not no mater if skint or rich NO casino should do you in, But my point being If only a small depositor than not much to lose, If in the other hand you blasting away thousands than WHY play shit holes and WHY take bonus, if you do the both than double make sure of the rules, (hidden or not) Hopefully if will go in the favour of the player as they mentioned hey have screen shot of chat stating no such max rule, Eevn so does not mean they get paid

 

[vinylweatherman]

Absolute not no mater if skint or rich NO casino should do you in, But my point being If only a small depositor than not much to lose, If in the other hand you blasting away thousands than WHY play shit holes and WHY take bonus, if you do the both than double make sure of the rules, (hidden or not) Hopefully if will go in the favour of the player as they mentioned hey have screen shot of chat stating no such max rule, Eevn so does not mean they get paid

How can you "double make sure" of a rule that is hidden?

Forget about asking CS, there are frequent tales of woe from players who DID contact CS for clarification, and STILL got shafted because CS were even more clueless than themselves or the website.

If you REALLY want to "double make sure", hire a lawyer Any business that requires their customers to "hire a lawyer" before making a contract had better be marketing towards professional and business users, rather than consumers. Professionals and businesses often have lawyers on retainer, or even an in-house legal team, to assist on demand.

 

[spintee]

How can you "double make sure" of a rule that is hidden?

Forget about asking CS, there are frequent tales of woe from players who DID contact CS for clarification, and STILL got shafted because CS were even more clueless than themselves or the website.

If you REALLY want to "double make sure", hire a lawyer Any business that requires their customers to "hire a lawyer" before making a contract had better be marketing towards professional and business users, rather than consumers. Professionals and businesses often have lawyers on retainer, or even an in-house legal team, to assist on demand.

If something is hidden does not mean it cannot be found, (especially if deposit big) The OP did contact CS and if they have the screen shot than it should be game over and player paid, If you read my post you should no I am no bloody fan of CS, That being said even if meiser proves player is right than if there dogy than whos to say there still be paid,

You no as well as I do, Even lawyers canot roll round the FU clause, They can argue it and thats about it, In the gaming world even these bloddy licence's dont no whats going on or give a shit, Just in the last week 2 new licence commissioners have came on the market? At this rates I be setting my own licence

Most of them of not even heard of lawyers

 

[dicky wink]

So where does the 57.000 go ?

Hi Casinoroom

One of the questions on my mind right from the beginning of this thread is " what happens to the 57,000 " ?

if this was won on a single slot then the RTP for that slot would adjust accordingly

But if you have confiscated the amount after that slot has paid it out .. does that not make the RTP for that slot incorrect as no player has actually received it ?

so my question again is... if the Slot Software correctly pays out the money but the casino decides not to pay ... what happens to it ?

all the best ... Dicky

 

[kavaman]

"How can you "double make sure" of a rule that is hidden?

Forget about asking CS, there are frequent tales of woe from players who DID contact CS for clarification, and STILL got shafted because CS were even more clueless than themselves or the website."

Fully agree with vinyl here, just yesterday i played at another net ent casino. I went and asked do you have a max bet rule when playing on bonuses. The cs said, you can bet as much as you wish on slots, the stakes wary between slots. I then went on and tried to elaborate saying most casinos protect themselves and have a max bet rule in place, that you cannot bet over in order to clear a bonus. He said, he is not aware they have this kind of rule. So, after reading about 7 pages of terms and conditions i found the rule which was bet over 8€ voids winnings, i think the rule was hidden pretty well on their website. I then informed the cs agent of the rule and he said, that they have a meeting tomorrow and he must read the terms of the site again.

Im pretty sure if i had bet over that and won even though cs said they dont have such rule in place, my winnings would have been voided (i lost though). As you can see from my previous posts, this is the rule players get their winnings voided all over again. A few year ago this would have been an outrage . For a casino newcomer who DOESN'T read the rules, there is a very good chance he or she gets their winnings voided based on this rule. It really saddens me, since even i have had my winnings voided atleast on 1 place where the rule was pretty well hidden , and every casino posts it on a different place on their site. General terms, Promotional terms, Promotional casino terms. Its just sick. And 50% of the time the casino CS doesn't know this rule exists on their site.

 

[GamblerD]

All solved they are going to pay

 

[dicky wink]

Good News

Excellent News

To be honest i could see a deeper and deeper hole being dug because of the vague terms ... so im glad they stepped out of it whist they could

I also have to say that the Casino also did a great job of informing the Forum members of what was happening even though vague at times ... some other casinos wouldn't have bothered to reply at all

every ones a winner .. the player gets his money and the casino gets our respect for making things right ... also good to know that the casino will be making the max bet terms more playable in the future

All the best ... Dicky

PS. Still would like to know what would have happened to the 57K