Casinos with Worthwhile Signup Bonuses

aka23

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Location
Planet Earth
Most sign up bonuses are a waste of time. The terms and conditions favor the house, or the amount of time invested is not worth the benefit. However, some sign up bonuses are definitely worthwhile. My top 5 are below:

1. Golden Palace -- 350% bonus (extra 50% via live rep) for $100 deposit. $9,000 playthrough (450x20). I gained more than statistically expected.

2. Bet365 -- $200 for $200 deposit. $4000 (400x10) playthrough. I gained more than statistically expected.

3. 888.com --- $220 for $200 deposit. $4400 (220x20) playthrough. I gained far more than statistically expected.

4? Starluck -- $100 for $100 deposit. $1600 (200x8) playthough. I busted at an almost statiscally impossible rate. It makes me think they are using cheating software, but others seem to recommend them. I wonder if this relates to their high affaliate payment.

5. Casino.net -- $200 for $800 deposit. $10,000 (1000x10) playthough. The single deck game odds give the player a slight edge over the house, unlike other casinos. The game quality was higher and support was good. I gained far more than statistically expected.

What others are out there?
 

CasinoForumu

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Location
Bursa
Planetluck ,willhill, ladbrokes,harrods,private,redlounge,,all their waqering req. is less than 10 x
 

GI Joe

Webmeister
webmeister
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Location
LA
Here are my list:

VC Casino 250/250/5.000 - you must play BJ - Chartwell software - slow but fair

EuroBet 50/50/800 - BJ okay - you must use an affiliate link to get to the right landing page + 25 match each month - Chartwell Software

Coral.co.uk - 100/100/2.500 - you must use an affiliate link to get to the right landing page + you can get a 25 free each month - chartwell software

LittleWoods - 50/50/1.250 - ok cryptologic

PeachCasino - 200$/1000$/6000$ - ok cryptologic

RoxyPalace - 100$/100$x9 - no BJ


GI Joe
all the Old / Expired Link
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
CasinoForumu said:
Planetluck ,willhill, ladbrokes,harrods,private,redlounge,,all their wagering req. is less than 10 x
Dunno about Planetluck (dodgy software?), but agree with the others! :thumbsup:

Note that Ladbrokes have suspended their SUB for this month :mad:
Hopefully will be back next month - it's the best on the net! :D
 

BingoT

Nurses love to give shots
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Location
Palm Bay Florida
I will say 32Red,Starluck,Planetluck

I will say 32Red,Starluck,Planetluck
You hear bad stuff about all of them. I say they are all bad
You are their to make money not on what the place looks like lol
But over all (1) Planetluck,(2) 32Red,(3) Starluck is the order I like them.
 

Macgyver

Dormant account
PABnononaccred
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Location
North Carolina
aka23 said:
4? Starluck -- $100 for $100 deposit. $1600 (200x8) playthough. I busted at an almost statiscally impossible rate. It makes me think they are using cheating software, but others seem to recommend them. I wonder if this relates to their high affaliate payment.

Here we go again ... :rolleyes:

Losing at 1 out of 5 casinos does not make it rigged!! Neither does casting aspersions on the integrity of people who may promote them or had a good run at that particular casino.
 

AussieDave

Banned User
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Location
Australia
Macgyver said:
Here we go again ... :rolleyes:

Losing at 1 out of 5 casinos does not make it rigged!! Neither does casting aspersions on the integrity of people who may promote them or had a good run at that particular casino.


:thumbsup: exactly.
 

aka23

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Location
Planet Earth
Macgyver said:
Here we go again ... :rolleyes:

Losing at 1 out of 5 casinos does not make it rigged!! Neither does casting aspersions on the integrity of people who may promote them or had a good run at that particular casino.
I didn't say just busting. It was the speed of busting based on betting size. There was less than a 1% chance of this happening randomly, according to the tables at casinoexploit.
 

Oebro

Dormant account
Joined
May 6, 2005
Location
Nowhere
aka23 said:
There was less than a 1% chance of this happening randomly, according to the tables at casinoexploit.

1 % chance is a lot. This will happen to 1 in 20 people playing at 5 casinos each. Welcome to the world of randomness.
 

aka23

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Location
Planet Earth
Oebro said:
1 % chance is a lot. This will happen to 1 in 20 people playing at 5 casinos each. Welcome to the world of randomness.
And it happens to more than 1 in 20 people, if the SW is not truly random. Considering the number of issues that have been reported with Starluck SW, either SW or randomness may explain the result.
 

Macgyver

Dormant account
PABnononaccred
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Location
North Carolina
aka23 said:
I didn't say just busting. It was the speed of busting based on betting size. There was less than a 1% chance of this happening randomly, according to the tables at casinoexploit.

And what were the percentage chances of you winning "more than statistically expected" or "far more than statistically expected" at those other four casinos?

Didn't figure that out, I guess ...
 

aka23

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Location
Planet Earth
Macgyver said:
And what were the percentage chances of you winning "more than statistically expected" or "far more than statistically expected" at those other four casinos?

Didn't figure that out, I guess ...
I didn't care enough to work out exact numbers, but a basic summary is:

"More than statiscally expected" -- within 1 standard deviation above mean

"Far more than statiscally expected" --between 1 and 2 standard deviations above mean (closer to two with the 2 casinos I listed)
 
Top