Well, first and foremost, Fortune Lounge needs to remove the ambiguous language in its policy defining prohibited "irregular game play." Here is the policy again:
Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns e.g. playing of equal, zero margin bets or hedge betting, which all shall be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes.
Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets using your entire or the majority of your account balance, where the majority of that balance is made up of bonus balance. The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute irregular play for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred to meet bonus play-through requirements.
In particular, the problem phrases are "Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to..." and "The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute irregular play for bonus play-through requirement purposes..." These catch-all terms allow the casino to essentially label ANYTHING as "irregular play," and thus cause for confiscating winnings. I doubt that most fair-minded players find this acceptable.
The other problem I have is with the part of the "irregular play" rule that prohibits "placing single bets using your entire or the majority of your account balance, where the majority of that balance is made up of bonus balance." While specific, this rule is, unfortunately, totally unworkable and unreasonable in how it is written. As many critics have pointed out in previous threads, it can lead to the unavoidable situation where the player, after a period of wagering, has a small balance remaining, but would have no way to make another wager without violating this rule.
In place of this problematic "irregular play" clause, Fortune Lounge has to figure out all the types of activity that exploit its bonuses and come up specific with specific, workable rules against them. I gather FL's biggest problem is with players who make large initial bets and then "grind out" the remaining WR on small, low-risk bets. As a good example of how to prevent this, I'll quote the well-written term that Galaxiworld.com has used for years for its bonuses (Outdated URL (Invalid)):
Players cannot bet more than 25% of their original purchase at any given time. For example, if you deposit $500 then the maximum single bet while having the bonus would be $125. Failure to adhere to this rule will cause your cashout to be disallowed.
The key in how the above rule is written is that it specifies what is the maximum of the player's original balance that can be wagered. This will avoid the problems that can arise by specifying the maximum bet of the player's current balance, as FL's term is now constructed.
