1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Circus Casino sign up bonus - make sure you read the terms carefully

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by mathsboy1975, Jun 12, 2013.

    Jun 12, 2013
  1. mathsboy1975

    mathsboy1975 Senior Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    software engineer
    Location:
    UK London
    This is just a heads up for anyone else who signs up for the Circus casino new account 100% first deposit bonus match. IT IS NOT INTENDED AS A WHINGE OR COMPLAINT ABOUT THE CASINO WHATSOEVER.

    I know that the general advice here is to always read the small print with regards sign up bonuses but I just want to mention this in case anyone else is stupid enough to do what I did. I opened an account today and made my initial deposit expecting to see the 100% match on it appear in my account as advertised. What I failed to read was that should the funds not appear immediately, contact Circus Casino and do not play with the funds at all. I noticed the bonus did not appear, sent an email to customer services asking why the bonus had not appeared and then proceeded to play with my deposit funds which I then lost. I later made a couple more deposits and also lost those before requesting that my account be closed. It was at this stage that it became apparent that the casino bonus was not automatically added when I deposited because I had held an account with their sister casino Genting Casino (I had no idea that they were associated in any way). It was also explained that the bonus could not be awarded retrospectively as the funds were lost.

    Again, I want to make it clear that I have no axe to grind - I did not read all of the small print and I paid the price of my own apathy. However, I have played at a number of casinos and have not come across this notion of having accounts with a sister casino affecting the bonus payment with another account and I fail to see why this should be the case when opening a new casino account (another matter entirely).

    So, to anyone opening a new account at Circus - if your sign up bonus does not appear immediately, DO NOT PLAY WITH YOUR DEPOSITED FUNDS UNTIL CONTACTING CUSTOMER SERVICES ASKING WHY YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT.

    To their credit, Circus said that they would be happy to honour the bonus on my next deposit but at this point I had lost plenty in the blink of an eye and so didn't want to deposit any more just to get the sign up bonus (my choice).
     
    2 people like this.
  2. Jun 12, 2013
  3. dionysus

    dionysus can turn wine into water CAG MM

    Occupation:
    n/a
    Location:
    I'm a Canucklehead
    I guess not, but I'd have thought NOT playing the funds til the bonus went in was common sense. I get it sorted in live chat before starting
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Jun 12, 2013
  5. mathsboy1975

    mathsboy1975 Senior Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    software engineer
    Location:
    UK London
    Well I have certainly learned from this experience. I just thought that a deposit is a deposit - I cannot see any reason why the bonus cannot be awarded retrospectively. I recently opened an AllSlotsCasino account and the bonus appears about 30 mins after the initial deposit (and again there I lost the entire deposit in the blink of an eye!!). I just guess the only way to be sure is to read everything. In future I will not be so lazy
     
    2 people like this.
  6. Jun 14, 2013
  7. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    There is no reason whatsoever for not adding it later, they are just taking the "jobsworth" attitude.

    There was a good reason for the bonus not being added automatically, you were not entitled to it under the terms. Now they are trying to backtrack and saying they WILL give it to you after all, but only on your next deposit. This is clearly a results driven response, you played and lost your funds first, so they thing they can get yet another deposit out of you, so of course now they will make an exception. What if you had WON though, and ended up ahead from just your own funds. I am sure there would be no offer of the bonus if you deposited again, but a reference made to your ineligibility due to having already played the welcome bonus at a sister site.

    The issue of sister sites is confusing, and often this confusion is intentional on the part of the operator, giving them more than one chance to pull a sucker player, especially one that has decided not to patronise a well known casino group, but gets suckered in by getting lured to a lesser known and/or deceptively branded sister casino.

    On the face of it, Genting casino is a famous land casino group, and so the online variant is obviously part of the group. Circus casino however, is not an obvious member of the Genting group as it carries separate branding. The connection is only revealed in the "small print".

    Some groups, Cassava for example, won't even tell you which casinos are part of the same group even if you ask, yet they WILL pull this "ineligible because you claimed this at a sister casino" stunt, even to the extent of confiscating winnings.

    If you play at several casinos, it is worth trying to determine which casinos belong to which groups. It will tell you which new casino you are thinking of trying is completely new to you, and which is simply a sister site to a casino you already play. If the latter, you can then check for a group wide single welcome bonus policy in the terms before playing.
     
    2 people like this.
  8. Jun 14, 2013
  9. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    This is unfortunate. I know VPL casinos which have 8 or 9 skins did have a clear term which stated (paraphrased) 'you may not receive more than one SUB at our sites in any 1 week' - in other words you could claim them at different associated casinos but only after a short expiry period. They are one of the few I have ever seen be open about this subject.
     
  10. Jun 14, 2013
  11. Nifty29

    Nifty29 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    PAID CASINO SHILL
    Location:
    Turn right, then right. then right again
    Are you serious?

    A casino uses their software to prevent a player receiving a bonus to which they are NOT entitled, thus preventing them from breaching the terms and conditions and hence losing their winnings, and you COMPLAIN about it?

    Isn't this EXACTLY what you harp on about in EVERY case where winnings are confiscated i.e. the software should prevent the problem in the first place?

    Now, when the casino sets up the software to do EXACTLY what you keep banging the desk about, you take a shot at them for a "jobsworth" attitude and doing the WRONG thing! LOL!

    I can just see what your reply would have been had the OP RECEIVED the bonus, played, and won, only to have their winnings removed for "receiving a bonus at a sister site"......"It's a jobsworth attitude. The casino should NEVER have allowed the bonus to be added in the first place. It was an obvious ploy to TRAP the player and freeroll them, a a Cassava et al. Yada Yada Yada..."

    Sorry, but IMO, you just lost come credibility right there. I just cannot believe you're being at all serious. It certainly shows that your views these days are far from objective and reasonable, but rather you have become another card-carrying member of the "Casinos are Evil (but I'll keep playing there anyway) Club". The VWM of old was a far more fair and reasonable poster.
     
  12. Jun 14, 2013
  13. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I am NOT complaining about the denial by the software, but by the CS trying to use this to lever another deposit from the player by "bribing" him with a bespoke variation of the terms and granting the bonus manually. The CS should just accept the account closure request, after all, this is the terms they wanted, and if it costs them a good player, tough, they should have thought about this when they decided to be a "one bonus per group" operation.

    Now of course they have opened the door to other players who might try to "game the system" by making their deposit, and then contacting CS straight away as CS advised this player to do so that they could add the bonus. If they then refuse an quote the terms, they can then be challenged to answer why the OP here was told he COULD have the bonus after all if he asked to have it credited manually before playing. If they resist this challenge, it makes them look like they lied to the OP because with his funds already played out, he could never have held them to it.

    The "one per week" rule at VPL should not affect the majority of players. It is targeted at the old trick of registering at all casinos in the group and doing all the welcome boni on a single day, usually a weekend. The idea was that by the time the casino figured out what had happened, it would have already paid out on the winning accounts. I doubt this trick would work now.

    Maybe Genting routinely waive this rule when players ask, perhaps because they have asked, rather than trying to slip it past them. If so, their attitude to the OP seems a little odd as he didn't just lose the one deposit and ask, but played several, and only asked when he was done playing. This is not the action of a "bonus abuser", but that of a player who would rather play right away and ask that errors be corrected at the end.

    A "bonus abuser" would hold tight, and if they didn't get their way, would just withdraw their deposit and close the account on the grounds that they had not been granted what was advertised.

    Casinos need to make up their minds as to what they want. Sometimes they want players to play as soon as possible, and reject any idea that might cause a new player to have patience, such as pre verification, and then when it suits them, they blame a player for playing straight away, rather than having patience for a problem to be resolved.

    If casinos feel that asking players to wait to hear back from CS over an issue is OK, they should have no problems asking that players be patient whilst their documents are pre verified before being allowed to deposit.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Jun 14, 2013
  15. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    Sorry VWM but that is not true. Most casinos will have a term to prevent laundering along the lines of 'every deposit must be played through at least 1x before a w/d is allowed'. Some it is 5x.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. Jun 14, 2013
  17. mathsboy1975

    mathsboy1975 Senior Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    software engineer
    Location:
    UK London

    Actually, I did not get the impression from customer services that I was not entitled to it - they implied to me that it was merely not automatically added due to my holding an old Genting casino account. They seemed to infer that I would have received it without problem had I held off playing the deposit funds until they had responded to my mail asking where the bonus was. Now I am even more confused and I had better go and read the small print again to see if I actually was not entitled to it.

    This issue of sister casinos is very confusing but I suppose that a casino is not legally obliged to make it obvious that it exists as part of a larger group and the bonus is only awarded once per user across the entire group. I suppose if it is in the small print somewhere then they are covered. You live and learn.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. Jun 14, 2013
  19. Nifty29

    Nifty29 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    PAID CASINO SHILL
    Location:
    Turn right, then right. then right again
    Again....really???

    The TERMS PLAINLY STATE that "should the funds not appear immediately, contact Circus Casino and do not play with the funds at all."

    The OP states they didn't read the terms, so you can hardly blame the casino when they have expressly stated what action to take when this situation occurs. It is common sense that if you are expecting a bonus, and do not receive it, you contact the casino and don't start playing until it is sorted. (Not a swipe at the OP BTW as they already admitted as much just restating for the vision impaired)

    What on EARTH has not receiving a bonus and contacting support got to do with pre-verification? Yet again....really??? The two are completely unrelated, and the latter is totally immaterial to any part of this discussion....save for the fact that they both involve customer service.

    There are many reasons why they are totally unrelated, but here's one little clue....only a few players (comparatively) will need to contact support about their missing bonus, and usually these queries are resolved fairly quickly. Once pre-verification is introduced by an operator, whether that be at start up or down the track, players can expect delays of at least a week to get verified owing to the sheer volume of players sending in their docs etc all at once.....it might even be much longer. I'm pretty confident in saying that most players will not:- create an account, go to login the first time, be presented with a "you must be pre-verified to deposit and/or play", get all their docs together, send them in, receive a reply stating "please wait up to 14 days for approval", and then come rushing back to play in a few weeks time when they are approved.

    I would be surprised if any operator introduced such a system, as they would immediately be sending a huge % of their players away to deposit elsewhere in the meantime, and they may not bother returning (or even have no bankroll left) or just decide it's all too much hassle and just uninstall etc and never return anyway. Either ALL operators will have to do it simultaneously, or none of them will. It would be commercial and financial suicide going it alone. When you add in all the extra staffing and processing time, and the fact that a fairly large % of players only play the SUB and never ever return, it is most likely more cost effective (and certainly more efficient) to verify when winnings reach a certain level. The losses due to fraud would most likely be less than the costs of preverification, so long as the winnings level is kept low.

    People such as yourself who scream for preverification just aren't thinking the practicalities and realities through properly. It's a nice idea in theory, but that's where it ends.

    Anyway, now you made me perpetuate a derail so spllllllllllthhhhhhhhh (blowing a raspberry)

    I would have so much more respect for you VWM if you actually acknowledged when people make vaild points and disprove your theories/arguments, rather than just coming back with "Yes, but......<insert tangent here>". Actually, I used to read what you posted word for word and saw you as the fairest and most logical/realistic guy on the forum...coz you WERE. I'm not sure what happened in the intervening years, but IMO the forum would be far richer for having some of that old VWM back.
     
    1 person likes this.
  20. Jun 14, 2013
  21. mathsboy1975

    mathsboy1975 Senior Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    software engineer
    Location:
    UK London
    Yeah and here I was at fault again for lacking patience. I emailed CS, waited an hour without reply before playing out the deposit. Had I used instant chat instead of email then I would have found out that either I was not entitled to the bonus and just played out my deposit (or withdrawn if allowed), or received it and saved myself an extra hundred quid of further deposits. Another lesson learned.
     
  22. Jun 15, 2013
  23. KasinoKing

    KasinoKing WebMeister & Slotaholic.. CAG MM PABnonaccred webmeister

    Occupation:
    House-Husband and Casino Advisor
    Location:
    Bexhill on sea, England
    I thought that Circus casino was closing down in a couple of weeks time - or at least, changing owners...?
    Could be wrong - just something I saw from the affy people.

    KK
     
    1 person likes this.
  24. Jun 15, 2013
  25. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I was naïve in the old days. Recent events have hardened me. I suppose it started when all those claims that players would always be looked after if anything went wrong were shown to be a myth, and this was when TUSK went under and Microgaming just looked the other way, even blocking a potential rescue package for poker players so that they ended with nothing. A few years then proved this was not an exception, but the norm, as other MGS casinos went under and both Microgaming and the regulators hung players out to dry. Now we have these revelations about how some games REALLY work, and yet again the regulator says the issues just don't matter, and no real punishment is dished out.

    Contrast this with the industry that seems to think they are at war with players, and therefore treat all players as though they are bound to be dishonest.

    If it's a war now, they started it. Only a relative few casinos have decided that fighting a war with players is not a good idea, and they are all in the accredited section, among some others who have decided that they should at least try joining in the war.

    The terms are often designed as a trap, a trap that should be unnecessary with a little extra time spent coding some failsafes in the software. It's like our councils who place traffic cameras where they will generate the most money in fines, not where they will improve road safety the most. They even design overcomplicated junctions and rules so that more motorists end up breaking them and generating fines.

    If we can't trust our local government to play fair, we clearly can't trust a business.

    It is crystal clear here, the offer of a manual bonus was offered as a lure for another deposit, not because the player should have gotten it. It is BS to claim that they "cannot add it" manually unless the player deposits again. It's not some obscure software, it's Playtech, and I KNOW they can add a chip manually even without the player making a deposit.

    It's also a stupid business decision, as a bonus chip is designed not to be won from, yet the gesture could have made the OP think again about closing the account, and the casino could have benefitted from many more deposits, including ones without bonuses.

    I would like to see "the old industry back", where most players didn't even need to send in documents if they used something like Neteller to deposit (because Neteller would already have verified said customer), when a 24 hour pending time was the norm, and 48 hours virtually unheard of. Minor breaches of the terms were let go with a warning for a first offence in order to preserve customer relations.

    Casinos would have us believe that the majority of players are out to defraud them, and therefore the minority must suffer. I just don't believe things are this bad because the casinos still rely on after the fact audits, and do not see the necessity of implementing safeguards in the software to prevent the honest player getting caught out by measures designed to combat fraud.

    They also claim many of these measures are governed by law, yet when it comes to other matters, they throw the law to one side and consider themselves to be above any law. They are freely disregarding UIGEA in the pursuit of business, yet under US law, this is a most serious offence, far more serious than anything a fraudulent player has done.

    There is nothing stopping the industry from changing back, working under proper regulatory authorities rather than some island state that will rubber stamp pretty much anything, coding restrictions into the software rather than having ever expanding terms and conditions, and having a smooth verification process that honest players don't really have to worry about.

    Electronic verification can be done in seconds, not a week, and will cover the majority of players who should not even have to send in documents if the data all matches up. This will mean they are not inundated with thousands of documents requiring verification, and even if they were, they already contract out the process, and so it should still be possible to cope.

    Casinos can save costs by having fewer skins, who really needs 8 skins when ONE skin can handle all their players if done well enough.
     
    1 person likes this.
  26. Jun 15, 2013
  27. Nifty29

    Nifty29 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    PAID CASINO SHILL
    Location:
    Turn right, then right. then right again
    AFAIK, electronic verification can be done easily for MOST people in the UK.

    It cannot be done here....not easily at least....and it appears not in most other countries either.

    So, the process WILL have to rely very heavily on physical docs and ID, which means there WILL be significant delays in the process of verification.

    Also, AFAIK there is a cost involved in the electronic ID process, which large companies like 32Red can absorb, but we all know they are pretty much the exception.

    The reality is that if it ain't broke don't fix it. The current system allows players to signup and deposit without any interruption, and only requires ID upon cashout. In the vast majority of cases, it works smoothly and causes minimum delays. If you sift through the complaints even here at CM, you will find comparitively few cases where casinos just won't accept a player's ID flat out, and a fair of proportion of these turn out to be fraudsters, which is why they have the problems in the first place.

    If most players had a hard time being verified, and it was difficult to cash out across the board as a result, then I would agree that preverification etc would be a necessary component to add to the industry.

    The truth is that the average Joe has little or no trouble proving their identity with minimum fuss. The players that DO have problems tend to be "repeat offenders" who seem to have that issue most places they play, which means they need to do what the rest of us do and GET better ID. Yes, I know not everyone in the UK had photo ID, but my understanding is that anyone CAN get one if they so choose, so I don't see why the whole system needs to be changed from the bottom up because a comparative handful of players cannot, or in many cases WILL not, prove who they are.

    If you REALLY were that concerned about all the things you listed as "reasons" why you are now almost exclusively "pro player" regardless of the facts of each case, then you would not be playing now....and we all know that you are. So I say to you Vinyl, as I say to all others who whine about how awful the industry is and how players are being "hung out to dry"......vote with your wallet and stop playing, as you are personally supporting the status quo. Whilst you keep on depositing, nowt is gonna change.

    IMO, those who say "this food is total crap.....pass me another plate please " don't have the courage of their own convictions and don't even believe their own press, so why should I?

    Anyone who has such opinions as yours, and stops playing in protest, has my respect and I'm sure the respect of many others. Otherwise, in reality, it's just hot air.

    So....up for another plateful are we Vinyl?
     
  28. Jun 15, 2013
  29. Mouche12

    Mouche12 Kitty Lover PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABnoaccred

    Occupation:
    Translator and facilities manager
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    I trust Vinyl, being a seasoned gambler, is playing only at fully accredited casinos where players are far from being "hung out to dry", so there is no question of supporting the status quo.

    Also, the issues raised in Vinyl's threads are valid ones indeed. Lately, there have been some pretty serious (bordering to) rogue actions by casinos (notably Playtech).

    Back on topic: the OP did admit he should have read the T&Cs carefully, and Vinyl does not deny that - BUT customer service did also try to entice the OP to deposit one more time by offering a deposit bonus to which he was not entitled, hence violating their own terms. That's the crux of the matter, which Vinyl pointed out so eloquently.
     
  30. Jun 15, 2013
  31. Nifty29

    Nifty29 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    PAID CASINO SHILL
    Location:
    Turn right, then right. then right again
    VWM was not talking about specific casinos only, but the industry as a whole. He constantly bangs on about how awful and shoddy it is in one form or another every time a new thread pops up regarding just about everything. Purple Lounge was a "fully accredited casino" as was Rushmore at one point, so being accredited doesn't provide an impenetrable umbrella that protects every member who plays there. Many here thought PL and other now-disgraced former accredited casinos, including VWM, were the bees knees at the time, so your argument is not solid at all.

    In any case, I was referring to the whole preverification issue as was he, which is a different matter. He says a,b,c,d,e........z needs to change about a,b,c,d,e.......z aspects of online casinos, but he continues to play as always....which IS supporting the status quo. Whilst he and others filling the forums with how awful and predatory online casinos are continue to deposit, the casinos will just assume everything is OK and keep doing what they're doing. The ONLY way to force change is to hit their bottom line. Whining in a forum achieves very little in the overall scheme of things, especially if the casinos see that the people whining are playing anyway...so why would they change? I wouldn't.

    If you want to defend/support VWM just for the sake of it, you need to come up with some better arguments Mouche.

    In addition, if you weren't so intent on finding a fault with the casino, you might have read the OP here:

    In other words, whilst he did NOT receive the bonus on his first deposit as he had received it at another site, the casino was WILLING to give it to him regardless as a goodwill gesture. The reason for the deposit being required is that the WR are most likely calculated on bonus + deposit so the system would need a deposit to attach the bonus to for calculation purposes. I.E. it was a GOOD thing for the casino to do, which is why the OP was giving them CREDIT for it.

    Next time, try reading more carefully and don't just mimic some others by looking for "Gotcha" moments in every post. More often than not, there just isn't one to find.

    The OP posted to let others know what to do if the same thing happens to them, and made it very clear that he wasn't panning them at all, and that they handled the matter well in the final wash-up. We should be giving service like this KUDOS not a slamming. If you ever wondered why casinos/reps/CS people get jaded and fed up with players, have a read of yours and VWMs posts.

    FWIW, IMO VWM was not "naive" in the earlier days....he was just objective and fair and assessed situations on all the known facts. It's a lot different than just assuming the casinos are always doing something dodgy and that the player is always being shafted just about every time a complaint pops up. One can still be objective and fair regardless of what a handful of rogue casinos have done.
     
  32. Jun 15, 2013
  33. Mouche12

    Mouche12 Kitty Lover PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABnoaccred

    Occupation:
    Translator and facilities manager
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    I don't see why it would be to the casino's credit, they were only trying to entice the OP to deposit one more time - AND they were violating their own terms...

    Okay, sad but true, once accredited casinos going rogue or disappearing into thin air. But you get my drift: making valid comments on certain parts of the industry (I think VWM was not targeting reputable casinos) while gambling online, does NOT make anyone a hypocrite. You are stretching it too far Nifty, but a good argument is always nice. :D
     
  34. Jun 15, 2013
  35. Nifty29

    Nifty29 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    PAID CASINO SHILL
    Location:
    Turn right, then right. then right again
    Are you arguing with me? :p

    I'm still confused about the "violated their own terms" part. What happened is that the casino WAIVED their usual rule regarding bonuses at sister sites, and offered the player that promotion on their next deposit (the reasons for this I already outlined). I just don't see how that's a bad thing...? Circus was offering the OP something that they don't allow others to claim.

    In regards to VWM....I did not use the term hypocrite. You did. He was making comments on certain parts of the industry.....his one specific gripe was how MGS behaved so badly with TUSK and other failures. MGS is a huge part of the industry, and guess which software VWM plays? In this situation, he most certainly IS saying "keep doing what you're doing" by continuing to deposit (large amounts too). Again, how does that match up with his indignation and disgust over their unethical behaviour?

    Sorry, but its the same old same old story. He keeps complaining about the food, and asking for some more in the same breath. I just can't take someone who does that seriously.
     
  36. Jun 15, 2013
  37. Mouche12

    Mouche12 Kitty Lover PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABnoaccred

    Occupation:
    Translator and facilities manager
    Location:
    Amsterdam

    Your comments imply that VWM is a hypocrite, because he should, in your opinion, refrain from depositing. You think the "practise what you preach" principle should apply in this situation. However, the unethical behaviour VWM is referring too is obviously not displayed by the reputable casinos he's playing at, regardless of the software they're using.

    I do enjoy your line of reasoning, but do you really think the casino's "waivering of their usual rule" was a gracious move? At first, the casino was adamant that the OP was not entitled to any bonus. Then, after several deposits from the OP, they decided to offer him the bonus after all, with the sole purpose of enticing him to deposit once more. Hence, I'd rather interpret it as violating their own rules, also taking into account that players are required to adhere to the terms and conditions at all times.
     

Share This Page