Question Curious Rule Interpretation?

DemonUK

Dormant account
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Location
Warrington, UK
I would appreciate comments on the following, hopefully I can explain it clearly enough.

I play a bonus chip which is a 75% bonus ($10-$100, max coupon amount $75, 20x dep+bonus playthru). So I claim the bonus and go to deposit where it clearly mentions the minimum amount to deposit with the maximum stated as 'unlimited' and the 'max coupon amount of$75 also there in black and white.

I fancied a little more playtime and deposited $150....bonus awarded was $75 as stated. I was going along nicely so decided to check where I was up to on the playthru requirement. So I was expecting to see my playthru set at $4500 (225 x 20)...but no it showed as $5250.

So I decided to drop the casino an email pointing out that there was an error in the playthru calculation as it had given me a play through of 23.33 times d + b. Now if I apply a little maths myself, it seemed, to me anyway, that the system had calculated the 20x as though I had received the full 75% of my deposit, which would have given me a starting balance of $262.50 when I actually got the amount I expected of $225 ($150 plus max coupon amount of $75). I still felt that this was an error.

This was the reply from the casino

HI Derek

The wagering is based on the deposit

So 20x deposit and bonus is 35x deposit

The rules clearly state to deposit between $10-$100

Regards

Firstly nowhere, anywhere on the coupon information/rules does it state the alternative interpretation of 35x deposit instead of 20x d+b, and secondly it does state max deposit is unlimited but max coupon amount is $75.

So it allows you to deposit more which is risking more of your own cash as the 20x playthru is applied to the extra too.

To cut a long story short my actual playthru has ended up as close to $6000 and I have now put in a withdrawal request. Yes it does state for deposits between 10-100, but it also states when you go to deposit that the max coupon amount is 75 but max deposit is unlimited (and not 100). I received the max coupon amount and took the hit of 20x the extra 50 I deposited.

So in short they have applied an unwritten rule of extra playthru on my own cash. Also by mentioning this 35x playthru in the reply it says to me that they are saying you deposited more so this extra playthru applies and its fine to continue but we are going to penalise you.

Its almost like saying to some one who deposits without a bonus and then saying you can play your own cash with no playthru, but if the amount is greater than $x there will be a WR.

Comments please

(casino is accredited)
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
It's odd, normally WR is calculated only on the deposit amount that qualifies for the bonus. This must be crappy software that can't cope with this, so it has to be RTG. Many casinos welcome players who deposit MORE than strictly necessary, but softwares like RTG are designed for players who like to get a bonus on almost every deposit, so they should be played like this. Deposit only enough to qualify for the bonus, and if you bust out, deposit the extra amount. Some casinos would say this is "abusive", but if the software can only cope this way, players have to be equally calculating in their play. This also means players are more likely to cash out as soon as they meet WR rather than play on, in fact in some circumstances, RTG even punishes players who play on past the WR rather than cashing out immediately.

The coupon description points to only one accredited RTG casino, an odd one though, where the bonus is actually cashable.
 

Balthazar

The Governor
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Location
Woodbury
Comments please

First I must say that I don't understand why you deposited more than $100, knowing that any extra $ will be added to the wagering requirements without any extra bonus $ to back it up. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Now from what I've read, they are wrong and you are right. 20x dep+bonus playthru is exactly that. Looks like the automated system "assumed" that everyone would deposit $100 or less and calculated the WR at 35x deposit instead of the actual 20xd + 20xb.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
First I must say that I don't understand why you deposited more than $100, knowing that any extra $ will be added to the wagering requirements without any extra bonus $ to back it up. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Now from what I've read, they are wrong and you are right. 20x dep+bonus playthru is exactly that. Looks like the automated system "assumed" that everyone would deposit $100 or less and calculated the WR at 35x deposit instead of the actual 20xd + 20xb.

He didn't know, he thought only the $100 that qualified would be used in the calculation. I didn't know either, but being more of an "advantage player" would deposit no more than $100 anyway as the entire deposit would be held to the WR for the bonus. If I wanted more playtime, I would use 2 deposits, the first to play the bonus, and the second to have another go free of any bonus restrictions. This is how I play everywhere else, no matter how they calculate the WR. If you get the big hit early, you have extended the playtime anyway as you get to play out the full WR.

Microgaming casinos would not have a problem in any case, as the WR is calculated only on the bonus awarded, and so depositing more would not lead to more WR.

It would help if the cashier didn't say "max deposit - unlimited", but changed to displaying the max qualifying deposit as the max allowed. Even if the software could not enforce it, almost nobody would deposit more than required upon reading it.
 

DemonUK

Dormant account
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Location
Warrington, UK
:lolup: I have to own up to being stupid. I agree that if the section in the cashier said max deposit $100 that is what I would do as I always try and make sure I break no rules. It states max - unlimited so I don't think I have broken any rules. It is just the way I play sometimes, I was aware the 20x would also be applied to the 50 extra deposit. I am pretty sure I have had a withdrawal or two in the past when depositing more and without issue (for some reason this time I am worried). Microgaming do have the best idea in applying the WR as they only use the bonus amount.
 
Last edited:

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
:lolup: I have to own up to being stupid. It is just the way I play sometimes, I was aware the 20x would also be applied to the 50 extra deposit. I am pretty sure I have had a withdrawal or two in the past when depositing more and without issue (for some reason this time I am worried). Microgaming do have the best idea in applying the WR as they only use the bonus amount.


What about depositing the $100, and then immediately depositing $50. It gives you the same bankroll as a single $150 deposit and $75 bonus, but the WR should be calculated only on the first $100.

You are being too generous to the casino by saddling yourself knowingly with this extra WR just because you like a bigger starting bankroll. Perhaps if they offered bigger bonuses you would not feel the bankroll to be too small.
 

DemonUK

Dormant account
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Location
Warrington, UK
I fully understand what you are saying VW. As luck would have it I went 2 or 3 times past their WR and have put in a withdrawal. Hoping for no issues although I haven't had any before.......
 

Balthazar

The Governor
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Location
Woodbury
What about depositing the $100, and then immediately depositing $50.

He would still open the door to possible confusion by mixing bonus money, a WR restricted deposit and no WR deposit (especially with RTG). That's asking for trouble IMO. Redepositing a fresh $50 when you're done with your $175 is the best option. :)

Plus if you win and/or you get a lot of playtime, you might even end up keeping that extra $50 for another day or another casino! ;)
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I fully understand what you are saying VW. As luck would have it I went 2 or 3 times past their WR and have put in a withdrawal. Hoping for no issues although I haven't had any before.......

If you have only played the allowed games, you should have no issues. Going 3x past WR means the casino will think of you as playing for entertainment, rather than surgical extraction of best value from a bonus.
 

colly

Senior Member
PABnononaccred
PABaccred2
MM
Joined
Mar 27, 2001
Location
earth
If you have only played the allowed games, you should have no issues. Going 3x past WR means the casino will think of you as playing for entertainment, rather than surgical extraction of best value from a bonus.

Not necessarily VWM- i regularly go way past the WR (sometimes to my detriment) but a certain accredited casino RTG bonus banned me despite being a very longterm and loyal player and agreeing that I wasn't a bonus abuser - there reasoning (which is in writing) was that it was that I was ahead and wouldn't have been if i hadn't taken advantage of their bonuses (which are not high)- I note that I was actually ahead due to 2 RJP's - not a regular event. It seems you are an advantage player if you actually win on a bonus. Last time I did maths the casino always has the advantage - especially on slot play so go figure

They have the right of course but pretty shabby if you are tracked and then bonus banned on net win. An accredited casino should be able to cover this without it being an issue.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Not necessarily VWM- i regularly go way past the WR (sometimes to my detriment) but a certain accredited casino RTG bonus banned me despite being a very longterm and loyal player and agreeing that I wasn't a bonus abuser - there reasoning (which is in writing) was that it was that I was ahead and wouldn't have been if i hadn't taken advantage of their bonuses (which are not high)- I note that I was actually ahead due to 2 RJP's - not a regular event. It seems you are an advantage player if you actually win on a bonus. Last time I did maths the casino always has the advantage - especially on slot play so go figure

They have the right of course but pretty shabby if you are tracked and then bonus banned on net win. An accredited casino should be able to cover this without it being an issue.


No problems as in having winnings confiscated. The bonus ban is a different matter. Club World was it;) I got bonus banned for having a 4OK on table poker that put me ahead. A while later, they lifted the ban and offered me some pretty big VIP bonuses. I ended up even further ahead, followed by another bonus ban, this time permanent.

Casino Rewards are known to bonus ban players who get ahead.

32Red, on the other hand, bonus ban for "abusing their generosity" by only playing when a big bonus is offered, but do NOT bonus ban a player who just happens to end up ahead. If they did, 32Red would have bonus banned me long ago.

Standards for accreditation allow for bonus banning players provided it isn't done retrospectively by voiding winnings from the last bonus to be claimed purely for playing to win.
 

DemonUK

Dormant account
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Location
Warrington, UK
Well, we are now well beyond the 24 hours this casino usually pays within and boasts even quicker than that sometimes and i have had no email telling me payment has been made. Should i get my PAB ready :)
 

colly

Senior Member
PABnononaccred
PABaccred2
MM
Joined
Mar 27, 2001
Location
earth
I can tell by the bonus which casino this is- of late they have been re requesting doc's on a win if your docs were sent in a long time ago or if you are requesting wire transfer and you haven't requested it before- nothing out of the norm.

BTW on your query- RTG bonuses are expressed purely as multiples of deposit plus bonus-with the note that the bonus is limited- strictly speaking if you deposit a higher amount than maxed for the bonus the correct interpretation is that you have to meet the wagering requirements of your bonus plus deposit irrelevant of the cap.
 

DemonUK

Dormant account
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Location
Warrington, UK
While not wishing to go into the whole wagering thing again, you saw the casinos response at the top of the thread.

Have now been paid and yes you guessed it, bonus restricted (banned). My thoughts are because i have won too much recently. Still, onwards and upwards.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
While not wishing to go into the whole wagering thing again, you saw the casinos response at the top of the thread.

Have now been paid and yes you guessed it, bonus restricted (banned). My thoughts are because i have won too much recently. Still, onwards and upwards.

So, depositing more than strictly required is against the spirit of their promotions now, so as per accreditation standards, you are paid and then bonus banned. It seems they really want you to play the bonus challenge by depositing just enough and withdrawing when you have met the challenge.

If RTG software can't cope with players depositing more, RTG needs to be pressured into changing it. The best change of all would be to move to x Bonus specification of WR. This is how Microgaming implemented it's Clearplay system. Not perfect, but it meant that players could deposit more than required for the bonus, but all wagering and max bet rules were derived from the bonus credited.

iNetBet are known to bonus ban players who ONLY play the best coupons, such as the 100% and 75% ones, and never deposit when there are no coupons available. 32Red will bonus ban players for this kind of thing as well.
 

DemonUK

Dormant account
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Location
Warrington, UK
Having read VWMs post i do feel i must add I had been warned by the casino prior to my ban most recently in September i think. While i did make one or two deposits without bonuses, i slipped back to using bonuses. Only myself to blame I suppose.
 
Top