The rule was missing in bonus terms
The rule was missing in terms of use
The rule was missing in full terms and condition
There was a rule of max 30% of balance bet not bonus but balance which is an impossible rule - it was there in a sublink of a sublink inside the full terms and condition which is a sublink of the terms of use there was another link that show this impossible rule.
They added the rule to the bonus terms right after I let them know about it.
Anyway to make the long story short, they confiscated 57,000 Pounds for over betting the bonus.
I agree it's badly worded:
•The welcome bonus is restricted in the following countries, Turkey, Denmark and the USA.
•Unless otherwise stated, all bonuses have a 30 day validity from the date of issue.
•All wagering requirements must be met on all match bonuses/freespins including your Bonus in order to cash out. We do not allow minimal risk wagering, or placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of your $$$$ total balance (including any given bonus) until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Any players we deem to have used minimal risk wagering tactics to redeem their bonuses or cash prizes risk having their bonuses, cash prizes and any subsequent winnings voided and removed.
What this actually means in practical terms is that your maximum bet is restricted to 30% of your
initial starting balance (if say you get 100% bonus, and deposit £100) of £200 which includes both your cash and bonus, i.e. the max bet is £60. This would remain at £60 until you cleared your 45xB wagering requirement and all your balance reverts to cash.
I have never seen a site have a term which means your 30% amount is dynamic and varies with the balance after each game. This would be, as you say unworkable. I believe the meaning and intent of the term is as I've stated, and the word 'initial' or similar is missing, and should be added where I have inserted the red $$$$ signs above.
I also note that if you were playing slots then a 30% limit (in this case £60) wold be a staggeringly high bet; surely this refers to table games.
You are also correct in the other 2 statements you make:
"The rule was missing in terms of use"
"The rule was missing in full terms and condition"
I looked too.
The term you fell victim to IS very poorly worded and for once I agree with a new poster complaining - BUT to get 57,000 you have clearly bet large and ever-increasing amounts while under WR. Common-sense tells me that is never going to be allowed, however if you read their terms literally it could be!
The terms clearly need rewording and to an inexperienced player are misleading. They also have no cross-reference by being repeated in the general terms either. or terms of use.