I don't get it Nifty. If Skiny cash out the money it won't cost him anything and he would get the money in just a few hours.
Then he can make a new deposit for $50 or $100 back in to the casino, and that wouldn't cost him anything either.
Only the casino would lose isn't it so?
I can't see how he abusing any system at all. I just can't see it no matter how many times I reading all of these posts in this thread.
Thing is, it isn't just about the recycling of cash back and forth from the safe. If the player generates enough playthrough each month I.e. risks their own funds enough, then they automatically qualify for VIP perks regardless of where the money came from. Enzo ALSO allowed players who didn't make the playthrough requirements, but had deposited min $50, to be included in the tourneys. In this way, if you could only afford $50 a month, but you played it to zero i.e. wagered as much as you were able, you would still be considered eligible.....which is fair and generous to low rollers.
The players affected by the change were simply depositing the $50 out of their safe, generating a tiny playthrough, or perhaps even none at all, and then putting all or most of the $50, and perhaps a few bucks extra in winnings, back in the safe to pull out and use next month. It is a blatant misuse of the system that was designed to cater for those who were happy to deposit what they could afford and play. Players who have $100 in their safe for example, and deposit $50 at the start of the month, play a few spins, and put it back in the safe should NOT be eligible under the exception rule as they are NOT genuinely spending what they can afford and actually COULD generate the minimum.playthrough required for normal VIP status if they took the $100 and played for a reasonable amount of time. However, their intention is clearly to NOT generate the required playthrough, but RATHER to satisfy the $50 min deposit exception rule to gain pretty much FREE access to the VIP tourneys that everyone else has to pay for.....and that is totally unfair to the other loyal players who actually put their funds at risk.
It should be noted that the whole idea of whether players are depositing from the safe or via external deposit is irrelevant. A player depositing $50 by skrill who plays a few spins and stores the cash in the safe to re-use next month to qualify for VIP tourneys is just as culpable, and I think you'll find that 3dice would not allow it to continue.
So, in essence, it is about what these players DO with their funds, not just about where they come from. If skiny or anyone else took $50 from their safe and lost it all, but didnt make the playthrough for VIP, then they should qualify as they showed a genuine intention to put their funds at risk. However, this is not the case.