[discussion] limited bet sizes

Bloatgoat

Senior Member
webby
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Location
Somewhere
I am in kind of an argument with a casino that avoids answerring my question. They keep repeating that all of the bet sizes are in accordance with the regulator, blabla. But there just one thing i dont understand.

The casino in particular started to limit bet sizes on certain games. I think i do play there for 3 years and saw various games being debunked from 40 a spin to back 4 a spin. Certain games where over time removed completely, not just due to impopularity but proberly due to liability, the game is perhaps to eager to spit out winnings. Different casino's in the same country, do show the same games with the game as it was intended, including the maximum bet not being restrained.

The difference since this year untill now with playing on both, the uncapped game literally plays 'better' in all ways compared to the capped game version. I'm talking about a few (populair) ones:

Dead or alive
Extra chilli
Pirate gold
Book of ra
Dead or alive

On top of that, why this started, was that the bonus wagering requirement moved upwards from 39x to now 49x. Their mailing initiated me to play, in where they'd offer a bonus of up to 200 euro, but in the TOS it was from 500 deposit or more (lol). Like my 250 euro deposit did'nt matter, as that just offered a 10% return of bonus with a 49x wagering.

So i'm slowly beginning to understand, that all these casino's, except for a few appearantly, are slowly introducing more limited slots, a more of the same money pit tactics where the genuine chances of me, you or anyone else actually winning and withdrawing something, is getting slimmer and slimmer. Everything is well calculated.

I just dont understand why a casino cannot just be straight forward and say yes, we've taken a different approach to our games and offerings, and the reason why we limit certain bets is because of *insert reason* (but mostly financial liability). I remember a year ago, someone was lucky enough to win 90k on DOA. After that the game was capped to a max bet of 7,20 if i'm correct, while others go all the way up to 18 a spin.

I feel like i kind of had to learn the hard way here.
 

Mark_32Red (retired acct)

Dormant account
Joined
May 23, 2008
Location
32Red Marketing Dpt
As I understand it it’s simply a matter of risk appetite. If a casino wants to limit their liabilities by reducing stakes simply move to a casino that has a limit that suits you.

I can’t see how the stake setting can affect game experience though, perhaps due to your style of play you previously increased stakes when you lost and can’t any more?

Mark
 

Bloatgoat

Senior Member
webby
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Location
Somewhere
Yes, i'm a bit of a rebellion player. I could dump 500 and start basing some serious play. At this casino i've won 65k previous year, and they paid out accordingly. But, lets just put it like this that ever since it's bin more and more difficult to really hit the sweetspot.

But yeah, that was my 2nd thought here; why argu and just vote with my wallet, MOVE ON.
 

interlog

Meister Member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
MM
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Location
London
Yes, i'm a bit of a rebellion player. I could dump 500 and start basing some serious play. At this casino i've won 65k previous year, and they paid out accordingly. But, lets just put it like this that ever since it's bin more and more difficult to really hit the sweetspot.

But yeah, that was my 2nd thought here; why argu and just vote with my wallet, MOVE ON.

That's you answer.... you won 65k so it was always going to go downwards from then..... you beat the casino then and should have stopped.

As you know.... the house always wins
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
And here i thought thinking slots where random. :D
I have 3 balls in a bag, 1 green 1 black 1 red, and i win on black&red and you only win when finding the green.
So when you stick your hand in the bag to fish a ball out, the outcome is random, but i of course have an edge because i win on 66% of the balls in the bag.

Thats the definition of random a slot uses.
Tho they use alot more than 3 balls. =)
 

Bloatgoat

Senior Member
webby
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Location
Somewhere
I was about to say yes, the 3 balls example does'nt come that easy. There's a few things that changed over the last 1 to 2 years at this particular casino. They write for example that they limited their bets to protect players. I disagree with this argument because when i made a 1k deposit, lost it, they where eger to dump another bonus offering in the mail hoping that i would come back.

The only reason why i can think of to limit bets is to limit the liability. Second; withdrawl reversals where introduced since previous year. Also again not for the 'convenience' to make another deposit while a withdrawl is pending, but to ease out of the liability the casino (financially) has. Money paid out is loss for a casino. It's not being returned into the system again (hypothetically speaking).

The astronomous amounts of bonusses with no higher limit then 50% up to a certain maximum figure and 39x wagering is also apart. That they changed that to 49x now means the time i have to roundplay it is extended for them and every spin a small percentage is for them. They are fiddling around every corner you can find where's money to be made really.

They did gave some cool offerings related to the VIP program. Tickets first line to soccer matches, a dine in a cultural restaurant with live opera n stuff, some A class meat and wine on december, but nothing really out of the ordinary in relation of money that i could spend in the casino. Note that this casino operates within the EU and not UK. I think i can have a much better time in a landbased anyways.

RTP = not everything really. At least there i walk away with cash money in my hands, not being obstructed by verification, validation, wagering or any of that.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
People would rightly moan like buggery if a casino let them play 100-quid spins then limited cash-outs to x-amount a month or week. So equating risk with what they can safely pay is surely a good thing?
 

Bloatgoat

Senior Member
webby
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Location
Somewhere
Just what Mark said, risk appetite... and yes, max exposure/stake can be adjusted.

Well,

I just logged in to verify above claim, they have a "RTP" based roulette with stakes of up to 2500 per session.

So you tell me why games are going from 40 back to 4, 8 or 10 a spin while roulette is all the way up to 2500 per spin. The argument of 'protecting' players is just nonsense. If you tackle one game you should tackle the rest of the games with that argument, dont you?

Yep; i can find quite a few games that have the 'inhouse' brand and yet offer no restrictions on the bet sizes. This is my point. The argument of the casino does'nt stand now that well.
 
Last edited:

cncas2123

Meister Member
Joined
May 23, 2015
Location
Belfast
Well,

I just logged in to verify above claim, they have a "RTP" based roulette with stakes of up to 2500 per session.

So you tell me why games are going from 40 back to 4, 8 or 10 a spin while roulette is all the way up to 2500 per spin. The argument of 'protecting' players is just nonsense. If you tackle one game you should tackle the rest of the games with that argument, dont you?

Yep; i can find quite a few games that have the 'inhouse' brand and yet offer no restrictions on the bet sizes. This is my point. The argument of the casino does'nt stand now that well.
Roulette = max win 35-1, DOAII MAX WIN 111,111 times stake, so maybe thats why????
 

Bloatgoat

Senior Member
webby
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Location
Somewhere
That 111,111 stake is a one out of a billion spins tho. Ive checked various (table/card) games, there's no such thing as a bet limit on those games. If i wanted to play bj for 2500 a hand it's possible.

So who in their right mind believes that lowering slot-bets is for the protection of players. I could blast 2500 a hand easily on RTP based blackjack. Funny notice: the "fiches" on demo mode is up to 50, where real mode offers up to 500. I mean, come'on.
 

Halvor

Experienced Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Location
Malta
How many times must it be explained to you that bet sizes are decided by how much risk the casino want to take/are willing to take?

As the self proclaimed brilliant business man you are, you surely must understand casinos are also well within their rights to set what bet sizes they want?
 

Halvor

Experienced Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Location
Malta
That 111,111 stake is a one out of a billion spins tho. Ive checked various (table/card) games, there's no such thing as a bet limit on those games. If i wanted to play bj for 2500 a hand it's possible.

So who in their right mind believes that lowering slot-bets is for the protection of players. I could blast 2500 a hand easily on RTP based blackjack. Funny notice: the "fiches" on demo mode is up to 50, where real mode offers up to 500. I mean, come'on.
That's a straight up lie, table games comes with a variety of limits.
 

Bloatgoat

Senior Member
webby
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Location
Somewhere
If that is the true reason why a casino is limiting the bet sizes, why not simply answer that straight up in the email. Why not just be honest. Hey we're a business and we're shifting to a different approach in the world of gambling and entertainment. Their argument holds jack shit because i just figured out all the inhouse-games are'nt bet limited, they just go up to 40 a spin. It's all the 'external' games like BTG, pragmatic or Netent that have these bet limits going on.

They send me a link of where the functionality, rtp / rng and all that must be qualified for from an official goverment based website. All info holds true. It also shows a list of other casino's that do have a license here in this country and are legal to play on. So i check it out in 2 different ones besides the one i usually play at, it's all games as they are intended.

So their really doing their best not to shine through that they are limiting bet sizes for completely different reasons then for the purpose of what they say.
 

Halvor

Experienced Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Location
Malta
Maybe, just maybe, bet sizes are decided upon exposure from the specific game?

This has been told to you in several threads by people in the industry. Hell, even multiple times in this one alone
 

Bloatgoat

Senior Member
webby
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Location
Somewhere
Reactoonz, Book of dead, Legacy of dead, Aztec gold, fantastic games, all already capped at a max bet of in between 5 and 10. It's listed in the "new games section" as well and frankly, NONE of the games actually hit something decent while they still are in the new section.

Appearantly it needs seeding and i guess it works different then what we're being told about games and providers. Ah well there's 5 different ones to choose from that do not have these limitations.
 

Halvor

Experienced Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Location
Malta
Reactoonz, Book of dead, Legacy of dead, Aztec gold, fantastic games, all already capped at a max bet of in between 5 and 10. It's listed in the "new games section" as well and frankly, NONE of the games actually hit something decent while they still are in the new section.

Appearantly it needs seeding and i guess it works different then what we're being told about games and providers. Ah well there's 5 different ones to choose from that do not have these limitations.
What the **** do them being in the new section got to do with performance?
 
Top