Fortune Lounge Terms and Conditions Suggestions

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
I'd like members to post what they would like to see changed in Fortune Lounge's terms and conditions. A number of players find the subjectivity or vagueness alarming - if you feel you have a worthy suggestion, then please post it here. Thanks!

Please no clowns. Try to keep it focused. Thanks!

In other words, improve what they already have in a serious manner.
 

sdaddy

Meister Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Location
Arizona
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 (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
):

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.
 

Roar

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Location
Philippines
It is hard to improve upon sdaddy's post above.

It seems to me however that groups such as FL have the collective nous to create unambiguous T+Cs from the outset should they choose.

The term "irregular play" is most deliberately vague as it suits the purposes of it's creator. FL have been in the past, and again now, been called out on this sort of mendacious behavior.

The ClearPay/EZ bonus system was designed and implemented to cut through the fog of bonus WRs, T+Cs and subsequent cash-out entitlements.

It worked and worked well. The individual casinos then proceeded to gradually erode and strip every last remnant of integrity from that system. And that's the round-about players again find themselves with respect to MG casinos, FL in particular. Back to the future.

I think players as a whole would welcome MG casinos to take a leaf out of the 32RED and Ladbrokes book. They spell out the T+Cs and then pay no questions asked.

Why is it so hard for the likes of FL to emulate these premium organisations?

.
 

BBKPoker

halfway to busto
PABrogue3
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Location
Edinburgh, Seattle, Vancouver BC, Auckland
I think that any terms and conditions that include a clause that allow the arbitrary, subjective confiscation of player funds upon review of an account in which a casino is not happy with the style of play of a player is unacceptable and should be removed. Players should have the peace of mind that if they abide by the preset terms and conditions of a casino that they will be paid without problem or unreasonable delay or request.

I also would like to see all terms that relate to a promotion on the promotional page. Bellerock in particular is guilty of having misleading terms (in my opinion) by selectively enforcing (they've admitted such on casinoaffiliateprograms.com) a buried term and condition that appears nowhere on the promotions page (still) and has no link to the general terms and conditions from the promotions page either while making a concerted effort to cross-market their brands to generate as much revenue as possible. If you are going to have a splash page with four of your casinos and bonus offerings in large type, you better have a crystal clear T&C page.

Sorry to get a little off topic as I know this is targetted towards Fortune Lounge specifically, but the point is, Fortune Lounge shouldn't be under any reasonable scrutiny that other sites are not, and if a player meets the terms and conditions and cannot be proved to be a fraudster through normal linking processes (ip, mac address, phone number, address, payment method links) the casino should not be allowed to make independent decisions to confiscate winnings because they don't approve of play.

I would accept, as a reasonable compromise, that a casino has the right to rescind a bonus they feel was obviously abused, but not the assosciated winnings with it. Even this seems patently unfair to the players to me, but would still be a very large improvement on the current situation, and on eCogra's well-documented backing of casinos confiscation of player moneys when they feel their bonus was abused.
 

BBKPoker

halfway to busto
PABrogue3
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Location
Edinburgh, Seattle, Vancouver BC, Auckland
By the way, excepting that ambiguous term (that I wish everyone would get rid of). I've heard some overwhelmingly positive things about Fortune Lounge since their last fiasco. They've had some catastrophically big PR nightmares, but generally are a well-run, honest, paying group.

I think a good comparison of their turn around would be to look at their average rate of ecogra complaints per new depositing player. I'd gravely doubt they are statistically much off the industry average in the last few months.

At any rate, I'm pretty positive about them being let back on the accredited list as I posted in another thread, and I think they deserve another shot. The roll-with-the-punches award they received is very accurate. We've seen many other groups who have been rogued basically give up and delve into some truly nasty tactics (I'm looking at you Virtual Group). It takes a lot to mess up, admit you are wrong and correct the situation.
 

Zoozie

Ueber Meister
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Location
Denmark
I do have a problem with any T&C that can be used to confiscate winnings. Simply put that is not an elegant solution to the problem and will lead to
lot of unhappy situations.

The Clearplay/EZbonus system is easy to understand and it comes with the software. So why not use it? If the casino believe a player is using advantage play simply just pay him and stop giving him bonuses! Any bonus given to a player should be honoured. If the casino etc. prefer slot players (for an almost guaranteed profit!), simply give good bonuses to the LOYAL slot/keno players.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Funny how there was a general uproar concerning Fortune Lounge's terms and conditions in other threads - I start this one to get some feedback, and we have only two or three suggestions - which are great by the way. But I would expect those who have cried the loudest contribute to this thread as well.

I'm giving everyone here a really good chance to make a difference. Please take the opportunity to make your voice heard - if you care to.
 

cyprean

Banned User
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Location
Sun/Moon
I'm giving everyone here a really good chance to make a difference. Please take the opportunity to make your voice heard - if you care to.
Sdaddy pretty much summed up my thoughts. The current terms are far too vague, and let FL group basically do anything to the players monies' and still stand by their terms.
 

winbig

Keep winning this amount.
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Location
Pennsylvania
Funny how there was a general uproar concerning Fortune Lounge's terms and conditions in other threads - I start this one to get some feedback, and we have only two or three suggestions - which are great by the way. But I would expect those who have cried the loudest contribute to this thread as well.

I'm giving everyone here a really good chance to make a difference. Please take the opportunity to make your voice heard - if you care to.
To be honest, sdaddy pretty much covered most of what players were complaining about, IMO. No reason to beat a dead horse or have a ton of "I agree" posts ;)
 

kingkong098

Experienced Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Location
north
As sdaddy says, eliminating any gray areas that are up to interpretation. The player needs to know exactly what is allowed and what isn't.
 

Seaman63

Full Member
PABnononaccred
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Location
Germany
Im not sure about posting this here in this thread...but I dont like to see my loyality points expire. Im a low better and do not play much..so I have no chance to claim my points.

At other MG Casinos, I have time to collect those points until I have reached an reedemable amount, no matter how long it takes.

Beside that, FL is one of my favourite places to play at!
 

miket2112

Newbie member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Location
Tampa, Florida, United States
Fair Bonuses

I like to play using bonuses. Recently, I was playing at another group that offered Bonuses just about every day. I had a good run and cashed out a few hundred off of a small deposit. Now I am not getting the invites for the Monday through Thursday bonuses just the weekend ones. I can undestand that they want to limit bonuses to winners until they have a chance to recoup. To suggest that ALL players take an unfair advantage with bonuses is bull. If they really have a problem with paying off of bonuses, they should not offer them in the first place. I can't remember the last deposit bonus offer that I got from FL. The only time I get them is after not playing there for a long time. Otherwise, their promos and bonuses suck anyway.
Just my 2 cents.
 

BBKPoker

halfway to busto
PABrogue3
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Location
Edinburgh, Seattle, Vancouver BC, Auckland
I like to play using bonuses. Recently, I was playing at another group that offered Bonuses just about every day. I had a good run and cashed out a few hundred off of a small deposit. Now I am not getting the invites for the Monday through Thursday bonuses just the weekend ones. I can undestand that they want to limit bonuses to winners until they have a chance to recoup. To suggest that ALL players take an unfair advantage with bonuses is bull. If they really have a problem with paying off of bonuses, they should not offer them in the first place. I can't remember the last deposit bonus offer that I got from FL. The only time I get them is after not playing there for a long time. Otherwise, their promos and bonuses suck anyway.
Just my 2 cents.
My general experience (this is pre-UGIEA) was that for most sites if you at least made a deposit or two with no bonuses and gave them a little extra action that they'd generally happily review your deposit history and your game-playing history and allow you to accept bonuses in the future. Or, they'd offer me a smaller percent bonus sometimes as well.

I used to play exclusively with bonuses (again pre-UGIEA) and bounced from site to site because the SUBS were always bigger than the reloads. I've had enough problems at a few different sites with great bonuses and terrible customer service (Virtual Group) that I eventually stuck to the ones that I had no problems with and if I tried a new one it was usually one of the Accredited casinos here. Then Neteller closed to the US and it all became moot anyway.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Define the problem

It would help if FL could define the problem. We are all assuming that traditional "bonus abuse" is what they are having trouble with, however, if this was the ONLY issue they would NOT NEED the vague statements in the terms and conditions, they would just need a clear statement that defined the limits for players making initial big bets while having bonus money in the account. To get rid of the advantage from grinding out at French Roulette they simply need to drop this variant to a lower weighting where such grinding will be -EV for the player.
I am sure that representations could be made to Microgaming to allow further operator options in the software, such as restricted bet maxima for new players, something that has already been done for the "free play" variant for winning an SUB. Another possibility would be to block certain games from being played for new players who take the SUB. This would also allow the offer of slots only bonuses to slots fans, with all other games blocked by the software, along with lesser bonuses for players who prefer other games, with only the "abusable" games blocked by the software.
The important thing is to get rid of any kind of "FU Clause" that allows selective confiscation of winnings. What is also needed is a way to prevent players from hitting the SUB at all casinos within the group. Surely this can be handled in near real time by the software that credits the bonuses, meaning players wil still get the "instant gratification" they desire from a 30 minute to 1 hour wait for their bonus. It does not take much time to run a simple check on the "indicators" for a new player against the same "indicators" stored for existing and former players. This check could be used to pass a flag to support if there is a problem (even one such as "one bonus per group", and instead of getting the bonus, the player gets an Email inviting them to "clarify" their account before having their bonus credited - a minor inconvenience considering the current method is to confiscate winnings and have players jump through hoops to prove the "flags" are nothing to do with fraud or "bonus abuse".
Most likely, asking the player to provide ID up front on those occasions where automated checks show up issues would clear up the accounts of innocent players, and would catch fraudsters at a much earlier stage, before they even had a chance of having a confiscation to complain about.
 

aka23

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Location
Planet Earth
To get rid of the advantage from grinding out at French Roulette they simply need to drop this variant to a lower weighting where such grinding will be -EV for the player.
I believe they already do this. French Roulette is weighted at 40% (not 50% like in the past). This makes grinding out on French Roulette with small bets slightly -EV for the player. I agree with your other comments, especially in regards to vague statements and the "FU Clause".
 

jas2587

Ueber Meister
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Location
FL
I like to play using bonuses. Recently, I was playing at another group that offered Bonuses just about every day. I had a good run and cashed out a few hundred off of a small deposit. Now I am not getting the invites for the Monday through Thursday bonuses just the weekend ones. I can undestand that they want to limit bonuses to winners until they have a chance to recoup. To suggest that ALL players take an unfair advantage with bonuses is bull. If they really have a problem with paying off of bonuses, they should not offer them in the first place. I can't remember the last deposit bonus offer that I got from FL. The only time I get them is after not playing there for a long time. Otherwise, their promos and bonuses suck anyway.
Just my 2 cents.
I agree with the fact that loyality points should not expire
its like they are forcing you to play there to be able to build them up an use them every time they take them I feel like they are slapping me down as i am not a high roller


Cindy
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
I am 100% with Zoozie here.

When MG introduced the EZBonus system I thought 'thank god - now there will never be any argument about when you can or cant withdraw or whether you can or cant play any games'. Boy was I wrong!!

Just stick to the EZbonus system and keep the % low for games you feel are 'abused' for bonus purposes - which is how it was supposed to work anyway.

Make the wagering 40x or whatever...just dont stuff around with a system that already works!! If it aint broke dont fix it! :)

Mind you, I have NEVER had an issue in 7 years with Fortune Lounge but I accept there are some that have done.


I do have a problem with any T&C that can be used to confiscate winnings. Simply put that is not an elegant solution to the problem and will lead to
lot of unhappy situations.

The Clearplay/EZbonus system is easy to understand and it comes with the software. So why not use it? If the casino believe a player is using advantage play simply just pay him and stop giving him bonuses! Any bonus given to a player should be honoured. If the casino etc. prefer slot players (for an almost guaranteed profit!), simply give good bonuses to the LOYAL slot/keno players.
 

Fleur-De-Lis

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Location
CY
Sorry for OT, but I am just curious - is abbreviation in "FU Clause" I had seen mentioned above (and in quite few other threads too) stands for what i think it stands? :eek:
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
Sorry for OT, but I am just curious - is abbreviation in "FU Clause" I had seen mentioned above (and in quite few other threads too) stands for what i think it stands? :eek:
Yes it does; = F**k you!

Here are my suggestions (may have already been posted above) in the form of extracts from e-mail correspondence I had with another MG casino who asked me to promote them, but who I turned down, partly due to their FU clause:-

Quoting myself:-
Here's what I don't like:-
1. WR is bonus x 40 - WHY??? Just about everyone else offers Bx30.
2. No bonuses for people in certain countries (including MINE!) - WHY??? Don't exclude people who you think might abuse the bonus - make the bonus non-abusable!!!
3. Your term "The Casino will be the sole judge of the 100% Welcome Bonus. We reserve the right, exercisable in its sole discretion to discontinue or cancel or change this offer at any time for any reason whatsoever without notice." is bullshyt! Tell people what they can or can't do. Black & White. It's not rocket science. I will even write the terms for you if you like (for a large fee!).
4. Can not claim bonus at more than one of your sites - WHY??? That's just nonsense.

Later:

Now back to your second point: Bonus abuse.
Many people say there is no such thing as bonus abuse - only player abuse (by the casino).
You (MicroGaming casinos in general) give players a 100% bonus with no restrictions. A 'bonus abuser' deposits, claims the bonus, bets his entire bank balance on one hand of Blackjack & wins. He then grinds out the WR with some low edge allowed game & cashes out deposit + a small profit.
The player has not broken any specific term, but then the casino says 'sorry we don't like your play - we're keeping your winnings'.
How would you feel if that happened to you - honestly?
How can you expect players to keep to the 'rules' if you don't tell them what the rules are???

How to prevent so-called Bonus Abuse:
Take out the "any play the management doesn't like" BS term, and replace with this:-
"While meeting wagering requirements for any bonus, players may not place single bets greater than 25% of the bonus in question. (e.g. If you have claimed a $100 bonus, the maximum single bet is $25). Failure to comply with this rule will result in the forfeit of any bonus & winnings in your account".
Without the ability to do the 'big double-up', the WR (of B x THIRTY), the percentage contribution towards WR and the house edge of the games ensures that the bonus is negative expectation for the potential 'bonus abuser' and yet it is still an attractive 'carrot' for the 'normal' player who is just looking for a good place to play.

This is so simple that the only conclusion one can draw is that casinos don't do this because actually they do want the abusers for the reasons described in my first mail.


Multiple sign-ups within one group.
Why is this left to the player to investigate? I'm pretty sure the vast majority do not keep a log of every casino they've ever joined.
How difficult can it be with modern computers for casinos to have software running which instantly checks any new sign-up attempts against a data-base of all existing players & flag up any suspicion of dual accounts and prevent the sign up, or block the bonus offer?
Again, the only conclusion one can draw from this is the same as above - the casinos want players to break the rules so they have an excuse to confiscate winnings.

Maybe I am just being naive. Obviously I don't have the 'inside knowledge' and 'countless research studies' which you have. Maybe from a financial point of view the Status Quo is seen as the most advantageous, but what about from a moral point of view?


I'm very glad that you took my mail in the constructive criticism vein as intended, and hope you realise that I am not 'having a go' at you in particular, but just venting my frustration about the way the majority of MG (and other) casinos are set up.

As mentioned above, I play online an awful lot and I am generally pretty happy with everything at reputable casinos as a player and as an affiliate, but this 'bonus abuse' issue in this one thing which a find a bit distasteful.

My little voice will probably never change a thing, but that wont stop me trying to make things better for the players AND the casinos.

End quote.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top