Casinos By Status
Popular Filters
By Banking Options
All Games
Popular Bonus Filters
Popular Forums
Forum User Features
Recent Forum Threads
Submit A Complaint (PAB)
PAB Rules and Guidelines
Browse PABs
Popular News Sections
Recent News
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Crazy Vegas: Bonus Abuser?
- Thread starter guy
- Start date
Although yes they are a good group and yes they do pay even though they neglect to allow people to continue using their bonuses, the problem is, why have wagering requirements if someone fullfills them and then is called a bonus abuser. It makes no sense whatsoever. If the player had failed to meet the WR then I could see their justification. If they wish their bonus to only be used with slots and require the player to play a variety of games why does it not state this in the T and C's? They will eventually learn that the majority of players tend to only play 1 or 2 games, and that calling people bonus abusers when their has clearly been no bonus abuse that this does not win favour with customers and soon enough they will be losing most of their customers.
They aren't paying me squat, in fact they probably don't even know I exist unless I give them my account number. I haven't played there for many months at least, they were just trying to lure me back with a $25 match bonus which I took full advantage of and hit some good power poker hands using it, playing $1.25/hand.
They deny people continuing bonuses when they do the classic bonus abuse behavior. Claim the bonus then play the minimum required to meet the w/r and cashout. This is so obvious to them when they check your wagering before processing the cashin. Simple way around that is play more than the minimum on games, play well beyond the w/r (like an additional 1x or 2x the deposit) and then cashout.
OR, don't accept such measily little bonuses in the first place and play with just your own money until they offer you a real bonus (which they will if you play regularly) then take it and follow the guidelines stated above. A 10% bonus is less than worthless because it will cause you to play more to meet the w/r associated with it. You'll either lose money doing so or get labelled as a bonus abuser because you cash out immediately after reaching the 10x requirements that most of these foolish bonuses require. Too much risk for too little reward.
I tell any casino I play at to NOT give me a neteller bonus if it involves having to play my bonus any number of times before I can cash out. If its just playing the bonus 2x or 5x, that's fine, but if it involves my deposit too, then forget it.
They deny people continuing bonuses when they do the classic bonus abuse behavior. Claim the bonus then play the minimum required to meet the w/r and cashout. This is so obvious to them when they check your wagering before processing the cashin. Simple way around that is play more than the minimum on games, play well beyond the w/r (like an additional 1x or 2x the deposit) and then cashout.
OR, don't accept such measily little bonuses in the first place and play with just your own money until they offer you a real bonus (which they will if you play regularly) then take it and follow the guidelines stated above. A 10% bonus is less than worthless because it will cause you to play more to meet the w/r associated with it. You'll either lose money doing so or get labelled as a bonus abuser because you cash out immediately after reaching the 10x requirements that most of these foolish bonuses require. Too much risk for too little reward.
I tell any casino I play at to NOT give me a neteller bonus if it involves having to play my bonus any number of times before I can cash out. If its just playing the bonus 2x or 5x, that's fine, but if it involves my deposit too, then forget it.
I agree there's nothing abusive about following the T & C to the letter, and the casino is wrong to suggest that there is. This is classic Cake And Eat It syndrome: casino wants to be seen to be offering generous promotions to allcomers for the purpose of encouraginging business, but will deny future offers to players whose play does not adhere to unwritten rules - presumably that the player loses at least enough of their deposit to cover casino money transfer charges - rules which they will not disclose because they would obviously DISCOURAGE business.
it's a pity about this, because in every other department this is one of the best groups out there.
it's a pity about this, because in every other department this is one of the best groups out there.
Hi Everyone,
Thank you for your postings on Crazy Vegas Casino and for your generous comments.
We pride ourselves as a top notch organization, and we make every effort to clear up any misunderstanding that may arise from players.
In response to the original posting by Guy, we would like to make it clear to everyone on how we base a decision not to offer bonuses. But first we must apologize for having used the term Bonus Abuse, we have also amended the subject line.
We would like to propose the following scenario:
Suppose a player deposits $100 via Neteller and receives $100 as the 100% match bonus, then the players wagering requirement would be ($100 + $100) x 10 = $2000. After wagering $2080, the player makes a cashin, as all requirements are met, the cashin is processed in the shortest time possible.
The player then makes another deposit for $1000 via Neteller and receives $150 as the 15% purchase bonus, then the wagering requirement would be ($1000 + $150) x 10 = $11500. The player wagers $11520 and makes a cashin. Again, all requirements are met and the cashin is processed.
In the example above the player wagers almost exactly the minimum wagering requirement, plays one particular game and has a small bet size. In these particular instances, generally the player is only prepared to wager the bonus money and not his own. These particular players are welcome to play at our casinos at anytime, however, we simply must spend our bonus funds rewarding loyal players, although should their playing habits change for a significant period of time in the future it would be our privilege to offer them a special bonus again at that time.
We do not rush into making such decisions and we always give the player the benefit of the doubt. Once we make a decision, we are always willing to monitor the players style of play and start awarding bonuses thereafter. In this particular case, we are prepared to give bonuses to Guy and shall monitor his play going forward. However, if his style of play does not change as indicated in the above two examples, we will be forced to remove bonuses.
Should Guy feel comfortable with us, feel free to contact us with this matter.
On the subject of Firepay disputes posted by Tim5ny, please understand that unless we receive direct confirmation from Firepay, we cannot assume that a dispute is resolved. Unfortunately we received late response from Firepay, we duly apologized to the player and have also offered a compensation for the amount of the dispute, to show our genuine heart-felt apologies for the delay in dealing with the issue. We have informed all our sister casinos that this player is in good standing with us.
Contact us 24-hours a day, 7 days a week if you have any other queries or suggestions.
We strive to give you the best online gambling experience of your life, offering you fantastic promotions all the time and backing our services up with a 24hour toll free helpdesk >,Outdated URL (Invalid)<, service.
Regards,
Trevor Penn
Crazy Pitboss
Crazy Vegas Casino
Vegas Partner Lounge
Thank you for your postings on Crazy Vegas Casino and for your generous comments.
We pride ourselves as a top notch organization, and we make every effort to clear up any misunderstanding that may arise from players.
In response to the original posting by Guy, we would like to make it clear to everyone on how we base a decision not to offer bonuses. But first we must apologize for having used the term Bonus Abuse, we have also amended the subject line.
We would like to propose the following scenario:
Suppose a player deposits $100 via Neteller and receives $100 as the 100% match bonus, then the players wagering requirement would be ($100 + $100) x 10 = $2000. After wagering $2080, the player makes a cashin, as all requirements are met, the cashin is processed in the shortest time possible.
The player then makes another deposit for $1000 via Neteller and receives $150 as the 15% purchase bonus, then the wagering requirement would be ($1000 + $150) x 10 = $11500. The player wagers $11520 and makes a cashin. Again, all requirements are met and the cashin is processed.
In the example above the player wagers almost exactly the minimum wagering requirement, plays one particular game and has a small bet size. In these particular instances, generally the player is only prepared to wager the bonus money and not his own. These particular players are welcome to play at our casinos at anytime, however, we simply must spend our bonus funds rewarding loyal players, although should their playing habits change for a significant period of time in the future it would be our privilege to offer them a special bonus again at that time.
We do not rush into making such decisions and we always give the player the benefit of the doubt. Once we make a decision, we are always willing to monitor the players style of play and start awarding bonuses thereafter. In this particular case, we are prepared to give bonuses to Guy and shall monitor his play going forward. However, if his style of play does not change as indicated in the above two examples, we will be forced to remove bonuses.
Should Guy feel comfortable with us, feel free to contact us with this matter.
On the subject of Firepay disputes posted by Tim5ny, please understand that unless we receive direct confirmation from Firepay, we cannot assume that a dispute is resolved. Unfortunately we received late response from Firepay, we duly apologized to the player and have also offered a compensation for the amount of the dispute, to show our genuine heart-felt apologies for the delay in dealing with the issue. We have informed all our sister casinos that this player is in good standing with us.
Contact us 24-hours a day, 7 days a week if you have any other queries or suggestions.
We strive to give you the best online gambling experience of your life, offering you fantastic promotions all the time and backing our services up with a 24hour toll free helpdesk >,Outdated URL (Invalid)<, service.
Regards,
Trevor Penn
Crazy Pitboss
Crazy Vegas Casino
Vegas Partner Lounge
Hi Linda7,
And everyone else.
What we are dealing with here are casinos who are competing with one another, and they have to provide players with some sort of bonus play in order to remain competitive. It's up to them on how to dish them out fairly, and how to ensure that these bonuses won't be a death blow to the company.
I think Eggroll's response was right on target. It's a delicate situation trying to protect ones business from bonus hounds, and to ensure that real players are kept satisfied.
The amount of player fraud that I see day to day would make your head spin. In fact, I am spending just as much time investigation player fraud as I am casino fraud. There are syndicates, or groups of players who will hammer a casino coercively, some of whom are members of this board and WOLs (they know who they are, I haven't busted them out in public...yet.) It because of these assholes that casinos have to protect themselves the way they do.
I for one are completely against using bonuses. I think it's stupid, and moronic to let a casino dictate how much to play and what games. It's my money and I want to play it like I feel. But unfortunately, most players don't see it like this. They want the friggin' bonus.
Nevertheless, I applaud these guys for taking your comments to heart, and being as receptive as they are. I wouldn't expect less from these guys. They are top notch.
And everyone else.
What we are dealing with here are casinos who are competing with one another, and they have to provide players with some sort of bonus play in order to remain competitive. It's up to them on how to dish them out fairly, and how to ensure that these bonuses won't be a death blow to the company.
I think Eggroll's response was right on target. It's a delicate situation trying to protect ones business from bonus hounds, and to ensure that real players are kept satisfied.
The amount of player fraud that I see day to day would make your head spin. In fact, I am spending just as much time investigation player fraud as I am casino fraud. There are syndicates, or groups of players who will hammer a casino coercively, some of whom are members of this board and WOLs (they know who they are, I haven't busted them out in public...yet.) It because of these assholes that casinos have to protect themselves the way they do.
I for one are completely against using bonuses. I think it's stupid, and moronic to let a casino dictate how much to play and what games. It's my money and I want to play it like I feel. But unfortunately, most players don't see it like this. They want the friggin' bonus.
Nevertheless, I applaud these guys for taking your comments to heart, and being as receptive as they are. I wouldn't expect less from these guys. They are top notch.
crushgrove
Dormant account
I played at crazy vegas, the sign up bonus and the neteller deposit bonus. I cashed out a decent amount on the sign up bonus. On the neteller bonus I deposited 2000$ and recivesd a 300$ bonus, 2300$ total, had the autoplayer playing 2.50$ hands of JOB and when fininshed wagering my balance was at a pathetic 1350$, a net loss of 950$ with a measley 2.50$ bet. WOW. So I decided to cashout barely wagering over the required amount, Im sure you can understand why, then got the bonus abuser email right after. As far as Im concerned CV is a joke, calling me a bonus abuser after losing over 900$, total BS. These results are real, is it possible to lose so much betting 2.50$ playing perfect BS at JOB.
I have to agree with Bryan and Eggroll at this point. The casinos are in the business to MAKE MONEY, not hand out bonuses for us to make money. You've got to keep that in mind. They are handing out free money when they give you a bonus (albeit with strings attached), so if they want to call you a bonus abuser, then that's their right. Its their money after all!
Linda, your analogy doesn't apply since in that scenario you committed a crime in the first place, you didn't get handed free money which was given as an incentive to come in the doors and risk (and hopefully lose in the casino's mind) your money. It wasn't a challenge to see if you can keep all of your money and take some of theirs.
This is how most of us 'advantage players' view it though, myself included. And we are the types that the casinos don't want around. I'll take advantage of any decent bonus offered and accept the challenge. But if the casino bans me from further promotions after that, I won't whine about it, that's part of the game. I'll just move on to a different one until they ban me, or play at my favorite few without bonuses.
I still think anyone who takes a 10% or 15% bonus with 10x deposit + bonus w/r is a fool. And as the saying goes, a fool and his money...
Linda, your analogy doesn't apply since in that scenario you committed a crime in the first place, you didn't get handed free money which was given as an incentive to come in the doors and risk (and hopefully lose in the casino's mind) your money. It wasn't a challenge to see if you can keep all of your money and take some of theirs.
This is how most of us 'advantage players' view it though, myself included. And we are the types that the casinos don't want around. I'll take advantage of any decent bonus offered and accept the challenge. But if the casino bans me from further promotions after that, I won't whine about it, that's part of the game. I'll just move on to a different one until they ban me, or play at my favorite few without bonuses.
I still think anyone who takes a 10% or 15% bonus with 10x deposit + bonus w/r is a fool. And as the saying goes, a fool and his money...
JPM: The casinos make PLENTY of money, especially off players like myself. Do you know how many times I cashed out this year...three.
I just leave my money in the casinos so I can keep playing and eventually I lose it back. I can afford it, so this is what I do. However, as long as players follow the rules, I do not think they should be penalized. To be real honest, the players are punished enough. As I read through these threads and see the amount of people getting screwed by these, so called, honest casinos, it upsets me very much. So, if a couple of players look to earn, and yes they can lose, I see no problem with it. There are plenty of suckers, like myself, who overcome the little money that the players win. My second (and present) husband, Barry, runs a holdem game 4 times a week. He chops $150 an hour. If the game goes 20 hours, that is $3000 taken from the game. So there is really only one winner and that is the house, Barry (just like the casinos). BTW, I keep telling his players to hit and run before they get eaten by the chop...lol. You know I have much respect for you JPM, and I am just expressing my opinion.
Please dont get mad at me. I wish you many many Royals...(((hugs)))
I just leave my money in the casinos so I can keep playing and eventually I lose it back. I can afford it, so this is what I do. However, as long as players follow the rules, I do not think they should be penalized. To be real honest, the players are punished enough. As I read through these threads and see the amount of people getting screwed by these, so called, honest casinos, it upsets me very much. So, if a couple of players look to earn, and yes they can lose, I see no problem with it. There are plenty of suckers, like myself, who overcome the little money that the players win. My second (and present) husband, Barry, runs a holdem game 4 times a week. He chops $150 an hour. If the game goes 20 hours, that is $3000 taken from the game. So there is really only one winner and that is the house, Barry (just like the casinos). BTW, I keep telling his players to hit and run before they get eaten by the chop...lol. You know I have much respect for you JPM, and I am just expressing my opinion.
Please dont get mad at me. I wish you many many Royals...(((hugs)))
spearmaster
RIP Ted
My second (and present) husband, Barry, runs a holdem game 4 times a week. He chops $150 an hour.
And you want to hit him with a frying pan?
While an advantage player (not a bonus abuser) is certainly entitled to collect his winnings, the casino equally has the right to decide not to offer further bonuses, which are normally used to entice a player back. They could even shut down the account if they so chose - but only if they paid out according to the rules and conditions that they set for the bonus that was received.
This can't be called punishment in my book. Not honoring winnings when the T&C was met is also not punishment - it is theft.
I think Trevor's wording leaves a wee bit to be desired. Instead of "forced to remove bonuses" it SHOULD say "forced to stop offering bonuses going forward" or something similar.
Once the bonus is offered, you can't "remove" it unless the player does not meet the T&C before cashing out.
Otherwise, not only do I agree with Trevor, I also agree with Bryan - bonuses are the bane of the industry and the cause of most of the problems. And rather than automatically getting a bonus, I would much prefer having to request the bonus - Microgaming's promotion system is perfect for this because you have to go and "accept" the bonus, but it is instant.
And you want to hit him with a frying pan?
While an advantage player (not a bonus abuser) is certainly entitled to collect his winnings, the casino equally has the right to decide not to offer further bonuses, which are normally used to entice a player back. They could even shut down the account if they so chose - but only if they paid out according to the rules and conditions that they set for the bonus that was received.
This can't be called punishment in my book. Not honoring winnings when the T&C was met is also not punishment - it is theft.
I think Trevor's wording leaves a wee bit to be desired. Instead of "forced to remove bonuses" it SHOULD say "forced to stop offering bonuses going forward" or something similar.
Once the bonus is offered, you can't "remove" it unless the player does not meet the T&C before cashing out.
Otherwise, not only do I agree with Trevor, I also agree with Bryan - bonuses are the bane of the industry and the cause of most of the problems. And rather than automatically getting a bonus, I would much prefer having to request the bonus - Microgaming's promotion system is perfect for this because you have to go and "accept" the bonus, but it is instant.
spearmaster
RIP Ted
LOL... just remind him how long he will be out of action if he gets the frying pan treatment...
Same preface: this is a good group.
Unfortunately, double standards and innaccuracies are being expressed from various quarters.
I would like any of the webmasters or players who endorse this stance to comment on Have Your Cake And Eat It syndrome: a casino wants to encourage business and be competitive by being seen to offer generous bonuses, whilst denying those bonues to players who don't wager in the required and UNDISCLOSED manner. Why advertise "ten times!!!" when ten times will result in a barring? Why not advertise the REAL requirement - "twenty times" or "thirty times" - and include the prerequisite that the player play more than one game - so that that player can then play and cashout safe in the knowledge that he will be entitled to future comps and not be seen as "abusive"? Why not? Because this would DISCOURAGE business.
This is an unacceptable double standard.
Trevor says "In the example above the player wagers almost exactly the minimum wagering requirement, plays one particular game and has a small bet size. In these particular instances, generally the player is only prepared to wager the bonus money and not his own."
Trevor, at various VPL casinos I played $400 blackjack and $100 videopoker. I won pleasantly playing $400 blackjack. Having busted a packet on $100 VP I scaled down to $20. How does this square with the "small betsize" and "not wager his own money" comment? Clearly this is nothing to do with the matter. I don't consider bets ranging from $20 to $400 "small" or otherwise representative of a "risk free" playing style.
The matter is WINNING. End of story. I would LOVE to have known, BEFORE I played, the "real" required playing style, so that I could have ensured myself a future welcome mat. Why the "real" playing style was not revealed to me, and has STILL not been revealed, is because "you are required to lose" would most likely have been an unacceptable requirement (lol), and my business would have gone elsewhere.
Bryan said "The amount of player fraud that I see day to day would make your head spin. In fact, I am spending just as much time investigation player fraud as I am casino fraud. There are syndicates, or groups of players who will hammer a casino coercively, some of whom are members of this board and WOLs (they know who they are, I haven't busted them out in public...yet.) It because of these assholes that casinos have to protect themselves the way they do."
Bryan - can you be a little more specific in the definition of "player fraud"? Are we talking mob stuff here? In that case, why don't you publish details? Fraudsters have no right to anonymity, and the players also have a right to know who is doing what in the illegal stakes on boards they frequent. I see no value in rather darkly suggesting that you haven't busted them YET. Go ahead and bust them - I'm sure they've earned it.
The word "syndicate" is also intriguing. You could define The Pig Post as a "syndicate" - A "syndicate" of slot junkies posting bonus offers and busting their deposits. How do these fraudulent syndicates differ?
Unfortunately, double standards and innaccuracies are being expressed from various quarters.
I would like any of the webmasters or players who endorse this stance to comment on Have Your Cake And Eat It syndrome: a casino wants to encourage business and be competitive by being seen to offer generous bonuses, whilst denying those bonues to players who don't wager in the required and UNDISCLOSED manner. Why advertise "ten times!!!" when ten times will result in a barring? Why not advertise the REAL requirement - "twenty times" or "thirty times" - and include the prerequisite that the player play more than one game - so that that player can then play and cashout safe in the knowledge that he will be entitled to future comps and not be seen as "abusive"? Why not? Because this would DISCOURAGE business.
This is an unacceptable double standard.
Trevor says "In the example above the player wagers almost exactly the minimum wagering requirement, plays one particular game and has a small bet size. In these particular instances, generally the player is only prepared to wager the bonus money and not his own."
Trevor, at various VPL casinos I played $400 blackjack and $100 videopoker. I won pleasantly playing $400 blackjack. Having busted a packet on $100 VP I scaled down to $20. How does this square with the "small betsize" and "not wager his own money" comment? Clearly this is nothing to do with the matter. I don't consider bets ranging from $20 to $400 "small" or otherwise representative of a "risk free" playing style.
The matter is WINNING. End of story. I would LOVE to have known, BEFORE I played, the "real" required playing style, so that I could have ensured myself a future welcome mat. Why the "real" playing style was not revealed to me, and has STILL not been revealed, is because "you are required to lose" would most likely have been an unacceptable requirement (lol), and my business would have gone elsewhere.
Bryan said "The amount of player fraud that I see day to day would make your head spin. In fact, I am spending just as much time investigation player fraud as I am casino fraud. There are syndicates, or groups of players who will hammer a casino coercively, some of whom are members of this board and WOLs (they know who they are, I haven't busted them out in public...yet.) It because of these assholes that casinos have to protect themselves the way they do."
Bryan - can you be a little more specific in the definition of "player fraud"? Are we talking mob stuff here? In that case, why don't you publish details? Fraudsters have no right to anonymity, and the players also have a right to know who is doing what in the illegal stakes on boards they frequent. I see no value in rather darkly suggesting that you haven't busted them YET. Go ahead and bust them - I'm sure they've earned it.
The word "syndicate" is also intriguing. You could define The Pig Post as a "syndicate" - A "syndicate" of slot junkies posting bonus offers and busting their deposits. How do these fraudulent syndicates differ?
I too am interseted in what defines a syndicate, criminal or not. I personnally have a group of my freinds who discuss online casinos and bonuses and share experiences about the good and bad of online casinos via email. Does this make me part of a syndicate? This word seems like one that is made up by casinos so they give themselves the right to give hard times to a group of players who probbably dont lose as much money as a casino would like.
mrracetrack
Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
I believe I can answer the question of the definition of the term "Syndicate" in a gambling related context.
Simply put, it means 3 or more people are "involved" in same agenda.
In the US, accepting bets is illegal everywhere except Las Vegas. When an "illegal bookmaker" is arrested, he will usually be charged with "Syndicated Gambling".
Although the term has connotations of "organized crime", it has nothing to do with that.
If a bookie has at least 2 "customers", he is involved in "syndicated gambling", as far as the law is concerned. And it IS a felony charge.
Simply put, it means 3 or more people are "involved" in same agenda.
In the US, accepting bets is illegal everywhere except Las Vegas. When an "illegal bookmaker" is arrested, he will usually be charged with "Syndicated Gambling".
Although the term has connotations of "organized crime", it has nothing to do with that.
If a bookie has at least 2 "customers", he is involved in "syndicated gambling", as far as the law is concerned. And it IS a felony charge.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 419
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 586
Users who are viewing this thread
Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Meister Ratings
Read about our rating system and how it's done.
-
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!
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.