You and your friends practices for me amounts to organised fraud and can not be defended or advocated as punters getting their own back.
I can't agree with that.
If each player is playing as an individual with only one account and no sharing of funds, then this isn't a syndicate. As mentioned previously, if simply telling someone about a good opportunity is considered a breach of terms, this entire community is a liability.
And the way the game here has been used does not constitute a breach of terms to my eyes. The game specifically offers the player the choice to hold over playing the bonus wheel. Like with the Gala IBAS issue, use of a built in game feature cannot be considered a violation of terms. I've dealt with similar issues where a major Playtech casino claimed that use of the autoplay feature constituted a 'robot' which was prohibited by terms. If we follow this type of logic we end up in a situation where an operator could write into their terms that clicking the 'spin' button on any slots game when you have a bonus is a breach of terms. Obviously players aren't going to expect this and vast swaths would be caught out. Defining in built features of a game as in breach of terms creates more issues for players than it solves.
The specific term here cites delay of bonus rounds - this was put in place across the industry due to a rash of players forcing the delay of bonus features by exiting the game when they triggered the bonus feature. Applying it to a bonus feature that actively endorses the player holding over playing the round is not what this term was originally intended to prevent when it proliferated across the industry. The original problem was players forcing an action that would not naturally occur within the game (most games will insist on you actively finishing your round before they can be closed). This issue involves the game doing naturally what it was intended to do. The term is being used in a make shift manner in this case.
I also wouldn't be so quick to demonise smart players. Every single player here plays with the intention of winning. That's everyone's desired outcome. As long as these players do no more than use smart play that's within the rules they've done nothing wrong. The unfortunate truth is there's a significant cross over between those players that are smart enough to beat the house and those that choose to run multiple accounts under a variety of names. And that's where the big '?' hangs over this case for me. Without doubt multi-accounting is a breach of terms and quite likely from the advice I've been given illegal, though the likelihood of prosecution appears to vary with the nature of the alternative IDs. Regardless of the legal status, where a person operates an in a name other than their own they've broken the rules. Alongside this, if the players are actively collaborating, rather than simply sharing a bit of information, then this becomes a syndicate and that again is against rules.
There's nothing morally wrong about striving to win as long as you play within the rules.
I'd also contest the concept that smart players are solely to the detriment of the regular player. Firstly this presumes that if casinos could be more generous to players they would be. That may be true in some cases, but the majority of operators would more happily pocket the extra money than give more back to their players. I've heard similar concepts bandied about by smart players who resent the cut affiliates take, arguing that the bonus offers would be better if operators didn't have to pay affiliates.
More significantly though, in almost every case where a casino is caught running cheating games it comes as a byproduct of a smart player. Regular players generally don't have the incentive to learn about the mathematics and theory of gambling that a winning player does and by and large won't rack up enough play with a consistent strategy on a single game to prove an issue. In short, these players provide a hidden regulatory force that helps keep software providers honest for the rest of you. Without them cheating software would almost never be exposed.
If there's no strong evidence to suggest that these accounts are being run as a syndicate or not by the people named on the accounts then I'd suggest that a similar ruling to that Gala case may be in the works here. For any account that does not show evidence of breach of terms the result should be that the proper wagering requirement should be restored and the player would have to complete that requirement before they could withdraw (without breach of other terms). Any account that lost would be left as is. Any account that is shown to have breached terms should have their deposit refunded.
TP
