Casinos with Worthwhile Signup Bonuses

[aka23]

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]

Planetluck ,willhill, ladbrokes,harrods,private,redlounge,,all their waqering req. is less than 10 x

 

[GI Joe]

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]

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!

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

 

[BingoT]

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]

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 ...

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]

Here we go again ...

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.

exactly.

 

[aka23]

Here we go again ...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)