Defining bonus abuse, revisited

orangeindiana

Dormant account
Hopefully I'm not resurrecting a dead topic, but I've searched the forums pretty well about a definition about bonus abuse and still had some questions.

The consensus seemed to say that bonus abuse is when a player demands continued bonuses without meeting wagering requirements, but it's legit for a player to receive a bonus, playing games with the most favorable odds while keeping his bets low until reaching the wagering requirement, and then cashing out.

Is this still the definition? More importantly, is it the definition that most casinos use? I've only been at this for a couple months, but I get the impression that people are being tagged as bonus abusers even when they aren't meeting the forums' definition. I just wanted to see where casinos tend to stand so I can avoid getting into any unnecessary trouble.
 

mary

Dormant account
Orange, it works like this:

basically, if the player meets the casino's stated terms for a bonus, the player should get the bonus and there should be no problems.

That's the ideal world in which casinos state terms that make them happy.

In the real world, if you meet the terms with the least amount of risk possible, the casino will notice and not be real inclined to keep you as a customer.

It varies from casino to casino, there is no industrywide rule.

Red flags for many casinos:

*if you deposit only when offered a bonus
*if you use a currency that is not your native currency (Americans using pounds)
*if you withdraw as soon as possible after play
*if you never play the higher edge games such as slots
*if you always bet the minimum
 

universexf6

Dormant account
orangeindiana said:
Hopefully I'm not resurrecting a dead topic, but I've searched the forums pretty well about a definition about bonus abuse and still had some questions.

The consensus seemed to say that bonus abuse is when a player demands continued bonuses without meeting wagering requirements, but it's legit for a player to receive a bonus, playing games with the most favorable odds while keeping his bets low until reaching the wagering requirement, and then cashing out.

Is this still the definition? More importantly, is it the definition that most casinos use? I've only been at this for a couple months, but I get the impression that people are being tagged as bonus abusers even when they aren't meeting the forums' definition. I just wanted to see where casinos tend to stand so I can avoid getting into any unnecessary trouble.
 Okay. I can simply put it here.

"Bonus abuse" means about the players who don't give casinos money
taking only bonuses whereas casinos use these "bonuses" to attract players.

In the end, money is money, and casinos will try to emply any tactic including
this standard rhetoric when they are at crisis or don't want to pay on the other hand there is no solid theoritical background why they are trying to use
this bonuses. If they can get more money by these "bonuses", then the players are normal players, but if they see a lot of decreasment unexpectely
as a result ot using this "bonuses", then players are more likely to be labelled
as "bonus abusers" in the near future.
 
Last edited:

orangeindiana

Dormant account
Good advice guys, thanks. It leads me to another question, though... how often are people tagged as bonus abusers? I'm definitely more inclined to deposit at a place offering a bonus, and I tend to gravitate towards the games with better odds... never really been one for slots, for example. I do, however, tend to leave money deposited for a while before withdrawing.

Is being red flagged something I should be concerned about enough to alter my gambling habits? I'm not really trying to be an advantage player, just trying to stretch out my dollars...
 

chalupa

Experienced Member
If you are just trying to stretch out your play, and are betting relatively small amounts compared to your bankroll, I don't think you will have any trouble.

Most promotions today are targeted to take advantage of exactly that kind of play -- i.e. you will be a long-term loser, and the casino will be happy to have you as a customer.

Er... feel better? :)
 

GrandMaster

Ueber Meister
CAG
mary said:
Orange, it works like this:

basically, if the player meets the casino's stated terms for a bonus, the player should get the bonus and there should be no problems.

That's the ideal world in which casinos state terms that make them happy.

In the real world, if you meet the terms with the least amount of risk possible, the casino will notice and not be real inclined to keep you as a customer.

It varies from casino to casino, there is no industrywide rule.

Red flags for many casinos:

*if you deposit only when offered a bonus
*if you use a currency that is not your native currency (Americans using pounds)
*if you withdraw as soon as possible after play
*if you never play the higher edge games such as slots
*if you always bet the minimum
I don't consider these to be abuse, advantage play at best. As long as the player follows the rules, the casino should pay up. The casino can then decide that it may not want to give such a player further bonuses, or it may decide to offer different promotions which are less easily exploited by sharp or skilled players.

Examples of what I consider abuse would be hedging bets, e.g., covering all numbers in roulette, or strategies designed to transfer money from one player to another at multi-player tables, e.g., one person betting his whole bankroll including bonus on red in roulette, the other on black and 0.
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
orangeindiana said:
Is being red flagged something I should be concerned about enough to alter my gambling habits? I'm not really trying to be an advantage player, just trying to stretch out my dollars...
No, I wouldn't worry about that at all!
I'm pretty sure the majority of posters at this forum are advantage players.

I only deposit when I get a bonus, and so far I have only been 'banned' for being a so-called 'bonus abuser' at 3 casinos in 4-years. (Windows, Littlewoods, and Omni - so no great loss there! :D )

But there are 100's of other casinos to play at, so who cares? ;)

Mary's advice was spot on! Except that she didn't mention that at some casinos (especially RTG) you are also likely to be labelled an abuser if you have the audacity to actually make a profit from their free money! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

thelawnet

Dormant account
orangeindiana said:
Hopefully I'm not resurrecting a dead topic, but I've searched the forums pretty well about a definition about bonus abuse and still had some questions.

The consensus seemed to say that bonus abuse is when a player demands continued bonuses without meeting wagering requirements, but it's legit for a player to receive a bonus, playing games with the most favorable odds while keeping his bets low until reaching the wagering requirement, and then cashing out.

Is this still the definition? More importantly, is it the definition that most casinos use? I've only been at this for a couple months, but I get the impression that people are being tagged as bonus abusers even when they aren't meeting the forums' definition. I just wanted to see where casinos tend to stand so I can avoid getting into any unnecessary trouble.

Well, here's what Fortune Lounge says:

Certain games are excluded from those which players are permitted to play for the purpose of meeting their wagering requirements.
This is done to avoid any "bonus abuse". Excluded games are:

Jacks or Better Power Poker, Jacks or Better Video Poker, Jacks or Better 10 Play Power Poker, Baccarat, Craps, Roulette and Sic Bo.

Baccarat, Craps, Roulette and Sic Bo I believe all have zero-risk strategies, which are not really gambling, and could probably be called abuse. However, Jacks Or Better is a very high variance game with a high jackpot, and is *high* risk. The only thing about Jacks or Better is that you won't lose your money as fast as other video poker variants, as the edge is not as high.
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
The myth continues!

thelawnet said:
Baccarat, Craps, Roulette and Sic Bo I believe all have zero-risk strategies, which are not really gambling, and could probably be called abuse.
I am still waiting for someone to explain zero-risk betting on Roulette (and I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO!).
I think this is just fantasy - there is not any way to do this.

I don't know anything about the other games, but I would guess absolute zero risk betting on these is also impossible.

Can anyone provide a method of doing this?
.
 

chalupa

Experienced Member
"Fixed risk" would be a more correct term.

With roulette you would cover every number, for a guaranteed 2.70% loss with every spin (on a single zero wheel).

Used alone, that would be a bad strategy for most of today's bonus wagering requirements, because at 2.70% you would have a negative expectation.

But used as part of a bigger strategy it would be very handy. Risk everything on a 4:1 shot, and if you hit, then work off your remaining requirements with a known fixed loss, and net a nice profit.

Baccarat or Craps would be a better choice though... smaller house edge.
 

chalupa

Experienced Member
Baccarat you would do something like this...

Bet $195 on Player + $200 on Banker = $395 Wagered per hand

Player Wins: $390 Player + $0 Banker = $390, Net loss $5
Banker Wins: $0 Player + $390 Banker = $390, Net loss $5
Tie: $195 Player + $200 Banker = $395, Net loss $0

Your maximum loss per hand is then 1.27% ($5 loss / $395 bet = 1.27%), which is much better than Roulette.

And since ties occur 9.51%, your expected long-term loss is only 1.13%.

Again, this would be a powerful tool as part of an overall bonus strategy. Which is why they don't let you do it. :)
 
Last edited:

chalupa

Experienced Member
Craps I think this is your best strategy:

$31 on Pass Line
$31 on Don't Pass
$1 on Horn Bet for 12
-----------------------
$63 Total bet

Roll 2 or 3: Pass $0 + Don't $62, Horn $0 = $62
Roll 7 or 11: Pass $62 + Don't $0, Horn $0 = $62
Roll 12: Pass $0 + Don't $31 + Horn $31 = $62
Roll 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 you establish a point and then:
- Make point: Pass $62 + Don't $0 + Horn $0 = $62
- Seven out: Pass $0 + Don't $62 + Horn $0 = $62

So you always get a $62 return on your $63 bet, a net loss of $1 or 1.59%.

Not as good as the Baccarat, but... you could further enhance the craps strategy by placing maximum Odds bets on both the Pass and Don't Pass if a point is established.

Since the Odds bets are 0% casino edge this would reduce your overall loss per dollar wagered. My guess (math left as an exercise to the reader :)) is that doing this would make a Craps "risk free" strategy slightly better than Baccarat for expected loss, particularly for a casino that allows you to take 2x or 3x odds.

However, the Baccarat strategy would be far easier to execute repeatedly in a wagering-requirements marathon... you would just keep clicking the "rebet" button.
 
Last edited:

nafanny29

Dormant account
chalupa said:
Craps I think this is your best strategy:

$31 on Pass Line
$31 on Don't Pass
$1 on Horn Bet for 12
-----------------------
$63 Total bet
I think you mean $1 on boxcars :D

I can see why these games are excluded for bonuses but I would guess most new online players that the casinos offer these bonuses to attract (gamblers not bonus hunters) play roulette/craps as their game of choice. Making them not allowed to is gonna lose them business surely :confused:
 

Petunia

Dormant account
** how about the casinos give you a bonus to spend ONLY on those games, rather than excluding them... problem with that is.. they are complaining that these games are excluded due to the bonus abuse issues... so how would one regulate that... it could take a while to verify plays to make sure you used THEIR money on those games etc.... any ideas... I would certainly take up a bonus (for the first time in my life !" hehe) if they give it to me to play black jack with. what do you guys think? **
 

555YY

Dormant account
thelawnet said:
Baccarat, Craps, Roulette and Sic Bo I believe all have zero-risk strategies, which are not really gambling, and could probably be called abuse. However, Jacks Or Better is a very high variance game with a high jackpot, and is *high* risk. The only thing about Jacks or Better is that you won't lose your money as fast as other video poker variants, as the edge is not as high.
:eek: :eek: :lolup: :lolup:
 

Nomad

Dormant account
KasinoKing said:
I am still waiting for someone to explain zero-risk betting on Roulette (and I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO!).
I think this is just fantasy - there is not any way to do this.

I don't know anything about the other games, but I would guess absolute zero risk betting on these is also impossible.

Can anyone provide a method of doing this?
.
What about Mike Caro's Roulette System? Copied below:

... Roulette is a harder still. Nonetheless, four years ago, I announced on the Internet that I had devised a roulette system that could cut the house edge to literally zero. In keeping with what Ive just told you, heres Caros Roulette System #1 (see sidebar). Its aimed at a standard American roulette wheel, with both zero and double zero.

This system cuts the house advantage to literally nothing, if you believe in it enough to never get frustrated and switch tactics. What Im going to say may seem strange, but here goes.

First, never bet simply red or black. Also dont bet odd or even. These are equally poor, consistently losing wagers.

Second, dont be suckered into betting zero or double zero, despite what some experts may suggest. This may seem like youre betting with the house, but for technical reasons you are actually betting against the houseand you are taking the worst of it.

So, in order to negate the house advantage, you must stick to straight non-green number bets. All odd red numbers turn out to be bad choices, based on over two trillion computer trials. Dont bet them.

All even black numbers fair poorly, and cannot be bet, for much the same reason, which I wont explain here.

Lets get straight to the money-saving advice. Any bet you decide to make must cover only even-red or odd-black numbers. There are no exceptions.

Finally, you need to be very disciplined in excluding the number 30 and the group of consecutive numbers that begins with 11 and continues clockwise through and including 14.

This system may seem mystical, but I take gambling quite seriously, and this works for me.

:thumbsup:
 

Macgyver

Dormant account
PABnononaccred
This system may seem mystical
fixed when it says "This system does seem supertitious"
 
Last edited:

Nomad

Dormant account
Macgyver said:
fixed when it says "This system does seem supertitious"
Have you read the system carefully? I assure you, it does in fact work. Caro knows his stuff! ;)
 
Top