Help with Coral & Bonus' in general

[iedmunds]

Hi there,

I have a query regarding bonus' in general, or more specifically if possible, bonus' at Coral.

This week I have signed up to Coral to take advantage of their great prices on the Cheltenham Festival at which I have done extremely well.

Now, each day you bet on the 'big' race, Coral have given a £20 casino bonus...

So after my bets on Tuesday and Wednesday I had the bonus of £40. I can't remember the figures exactly but my "cash balance" was (for example) £350 and my "playable casino balance" was £390. After playing in the Live Casino, I have a "playable casino balance" of £600 and a "cash balance" still at £350 with the "pending bonus winnings" at £250. I have checked the site and the T&C's were to be 20 x the original stake to gain access to winning amount, I think.

Whilst using the Live Casino and winning my £250, I was regularly placing £60 on a spin so I'm pretty sure I'm above the desired amount, or close to it but I cannot find where the remaining amount is located on the site. I have found once screen which says I am still to wager £400 from my £20, stating that I have not spent any money to earn my bonus, although that is incorrect.

I don't understand what I need to do and Coral haven't responded to my Email, in-site message and not answered my phone calls.

Can anyone help me?

Many thanks

Iain


What's up with Coral Casino? Find out in our full review.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi there,

I have a query regarding bonus' in general, or more specifically if possible, bonus' at Coral.

This week I have signed up to Coral to take advantage of their great prices on the Cheltenham Festival at which I have done extremely well.

Now, each day you bet on the 'big' race, Coral have given a £20 casino bonus...

So after my bets on Tuesday and Wednesday I had the bonus of £40. I can't remember the figures exactly but my "cash balance" was (for example) £350 and my "playable casino balance" was £390. After playing in the Live Casino, I have a "playable casino balance" of £600 and a "cash balance" still at £350 with the "pending bonus winnings" at £250. I have checked the site and the T&C's were to be 20 x the original stake to gain access to winning amount, I think.

Whilst using the Live Casino and winning my £250, I was regularly placing £60 on a spin so I'm pretty sure I'm above the desired amount, or close to it but I cannot find where the remaining amount is located on the site. I have found once screen which says I am still to wager £400 from my £20, stating that I have not spent any money to earn my bonus, although that is incorrect.

I don't understand what I need to do and Coral haven't responded to my Email, in-site message and not answered my phone calls.

Can anyone help me?

Many thanks

Iain

You will probably find that play in "live casino" does not count, so you still have the original £400 WR. This would need to be completed on "software" games, and shouldn't take too long.

Coral seem to have terrible CS, which you have found out the hard way. THREE different methods have failed to get any response, which is VERY poor. If they are not even answering the phone, it is very telling of what is wrong with their CS, they just don't have anywhere near the capacity needed to service their players, and thus emails and messages are going to be ignored whilst they are struggling to deal with the phones.

 

[FavoPlayer]

Main Race Casino Bonus

Here is some terms from this promotion:

Terms and Conditions
A wagering requirement of 20 times the bonus amount (example £20 bonus x 20 = £400) must be met before any winnings can be withdrawn. Some games have different percentage contributions than others; please see the chart below for reference and for qualifying games.
Bonus funds are for play on the Casino and Games tabs including live dealer games, Mobile and Download client. Please note that only play on the qualifying games on the website, mobile and casino download client will count towards wagering requirements. Play via Poker and bingo/poker side games will not contribute to the wagering requirements.


Game % of stake contributing to bonus requirement
Roulette (all variations, excludes all live dealer games) - 20%

Blackjack (All varieties excluding Pontoon, Blackjack Switch,
Blackjack Surrender, Lucky Blackjack, Stravaganza,
and all live dealer games) & Video Poker - 20%

Baccarat (all variations, excludes all live dealer games) -10%

 

[vinylweatherman]

Here is some terms from this promotion:

Terms and Conditions
A wagering requirement of 20 times the bonus amount (example £20 bonus x 20 = £400) must be met before any winnings can be withdrawn. Some games have different percentage contributions than others; please see the chart below for reference and for qualifying games.
Bonus funds are for play on the Casino and Games tabs including live dealer games, Mobile and Download client. Please note that only play on the qualifying games on the website, mobile and casino download client will count towards wagering requirements. Play via Poker and bingo/poker side games will not contribute to the wagering requirements.


Game % of stake contributing to bonus requirement
Roulette (all variations, excludes all live dealer games) - 20%

Blackjack (All varieties excluding Pontoon, Blackjack Switch,
Blackjack Surrender, Lucky Blackjack, Stravaganza,
and all live dealer games) & Video Poker - 20%

Baccarat (all variations, excludes all live dealer games) -10%

This is contradictory. First they say that bonus funds are for play INCLUDING live dealer games, and in the next section they state that live dealer games are EXCLUDED. The second section would explain why the WR stuck at £400 despite some considerable play in the live dealer games. Other than being live, the games should act in the same way, so such detailed exclusions (and confusion between the two sections) should not be necessary.

 

[Seaman63]

If you need to contact Coral, I would advise you to contact their rep Anthony here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/

He was the onliest from the entire Coral Team who ever found it worth to reply to me.

 

[psmith2020]

If you need to contact Coral, I would advise you to contact their rep Anthony here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/

He was the onliest from the entire Coral Team who ever found it worth to reply to me.

i my experience corals customer service is way under standard staying away from them i am staying somewhere where its good

 

[Coral Support]

Cheltenham main race bonus

Hi there,

I have a query regarding bonus' in general, or more specifically if possible, bonus' at Coral.

This week I have signed up to Coral to take advantage of their great prices on the Cheltenham Festival at which I have done extremely well.

Now, each day you bet on the 'big' race, Coral have given a £20 casino bonus...

So after my bets on Tuesday and Wednesday I had the bonus of £40. I can't remember the figures exactly but my "cash balance" was (for example) £350 and my "playable casino balance" was £390. After playing in the Live Casino, I have a "playable casino balance" of £600 and a "cash balance" still at £350 with the "pending bonus winnings" at £250. I have checked the site and the T&C's were to be 20 x the original stake to gain access to winning amount, I think.

Whilst using the Live Casino and winning my £250, I was regularly placing £60 on a spin so I'm pretty sure I'm above the desired amount, or close to it but I cannot find where the remaining amount is located on the site. I have found once screen which says I am still to wager £400 from my £20, stating that I have not spent any money to earn my bonus, although that is incorrect.

I don't understand what I need to do and Coral haven't responded to my Email, in-site message and not answered my phone calls.

Can anyone help me?

Many thanks

Iain

Hi Iain,

Could you send me a PM with your username and I'll look into this for you? It appears that there was a mistake with the T&C's advertising that Live Dealer was included. We are happy to honour the mistake and payout anyone that has played Live Dealer with these funds. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience caused by the issue.

One a side note we had some site performance issues with our site last week due to the huge increase in traffic over Cheltenham. We are pushing hard to get through the backlog of customer queries as soon as we can however due to the system issues the number of contacts to Customer Services had increased dramatically. This is taking some time but please bear with us. Anyone with issues please PM me and I'll ensure they are looked into as soon as possible.

Best regards

Anthony

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi Iain,

Could you send me a PM with your username and I'll look into this for you? It appears that there was a mistake with the T&C's advertising that Live Dealer was included. We are happy to honour the mistake and payout anyone that has played Live Dealer with these funds. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience caused by the issue.

One a side note we had some site performance issues with our site last week due to the huge increase in traffic over Cheltenham. We are pushing hard to get through the backlog of customer queries as soon as we can however due to the system issues the number of contacts to Customer Services had increased dramatically. This is taking some time but please bear with us. Anyone with issues please PM me and I'll ensure they are looked into as soon as possible.

Best regards

Anthony

WHY exclude live dealer versions?

Surely it is in the customers' interest to keep things simple. It also seems to confuse the writers of the various sets of terms and conditions.


If the software version of a game can contribute towards WR, the live dealer version should too. After all, BOTH versions are the same, BOTH fair and random, so why have customers and potential customers wonder what is so special about live dealer games. Are they MORE random and fair than the pseudo-randomness of a software RNG, and so have to be excluded from the bonus management structures.

It seems casino operators offer these live dealer games, yet treat them with suspicion, and players that play them with more suspicion than those who play the software version. This ranges from excluding them from WR at Coral, to banning winning players from playing live dealer altogether at William Hill.

I remember when ALL games counted for bonus WR. The exclusions started appearing as a response to "bonus abuse". What this is telling me is that the "abuse" only works on live dealer variants, and not on the software variants. This makes me wonder WHY a betting or "abuse" strategy has ONLY been a problem on live dealer games, as if it worked on the software versions, the "bonus abusers" would have tried it there too, and BOTH variants would have become excluded games by now.

For YEARS some players have been pressing for bonus terms to be made as simple as possible, but what is most anoying is the implementation of unnecessary complications. Modern bonus terms are complicated enough already, and a lack of logic in their construction fuels a belief that the complexity is not so much about protecting the casino from advantage play, but about setting traps for the unwary in order to boost profits.

This case demonstrates one such "trap". The OP bet high, which might be considered "advantage play" or "bonus abuse", yet it was not the betting style that caused the problem as we would expect, but the choice of a live dealer as opposed to software. It seems that this particular "advantage play" method is fine if done on the software, so Coral do not consider it a problem. It should therefore be just as fine on a live dealer version, and there is no reason not to have live dealer games count for WR.

Personally, I don't trust live dealer games as much as I trust the software, a rather odd view among players, but not so among operators, who seem to feel live dealer games don't give them a fair chance to win the players' money.

This is just one reason I don't trust them, the other reasons are the reports of oddities like (for example) the ball dropping into 12, and 25 being announced a winner, the way a minor internet issue becomes a major headache for the player because the live dealer software doesn't handle internet problems too well, and the odd case of stakes vanishing into the ether, with the bet neither won, lost, or voided.

 

[Coral Support]

Live Dealer

WHY exclude live dealer versions?

Surely it is in the customers' interest to keep things simple. It also seems to confuse the writers of the various sets of terms and conditions.


If the software version of a game can contribute towards WR, the live dealer version should too. After all, BOTH versions are the same, BOTH fair and random, so why have customers and potential customers wonder what is so special about live dealer games. Are they MORE random and fair than the pseudo-randomness of a software RNG, and so have to be excluded from the bonus management structures.

It seems casino operators offer these live dealer games, yet treat them with suspicion, and players that play them with more suspicion than those who play the software version. This ranges from excluding them from WR at Coral, to banning winning players from playing live dealer altogether at William Hill.

I remember when ALL games counted for bonus WR. The exclusions started appearing as a response to "bonus abuse". What this is telling me is that the "abuse" only works on live dealer variants, and not on the software variants. This makes me wonder WHY a betting or "abuse" strategy has ONLY been a problem on live dealer games, as if it worked on the software versions, the "bonus abusers" would have tried it there too, and BOTH variants would have become excluded games by now.

For YEARS some players have been pressing for bonus terms to be made as simple as possible, but what is most anoying is the implementation of unnecessary complications. Modern bonus terms are complicated enough already, and a lack of logic in their construction fuels a belief that the complexity is not so much about protecting the casino from advantage play, but about setting traps for the unwary in order to boost profits.

This case demonstrates one such "trap". The OP bet high, which might be considered "advantage play" or "bonus abuse", yet it was not the betting style that caused the problem as we would expect, but the choice of a live dealer as opposed to software. It seems that this particular "advantage play" method is fine if done on the software, so Coral do not consider it a problem. It should therefore be just as fine on a live dealer version, and there is no reason not to have live dealer games count for WR.

Personally, I don't trust live dealer games as much as I trust the software, a rather odd view among players, but not so among operators, who seem to feel live dealer games don't give them a fair chance to win the players' money.

This is just one reason I don't trust them, the other reasons are the reports of oddities like (for example) the ball dropping into 12, and 25 being announced a winner, the way a minor internet issue becomes a major headache for the player because the live dealer software doesn't handle internet problems too well, and the odd case of stakes vanishing into the ether, with the bet neither won, lost, or voided.

Hi Vinylweatherman,

I just wanted to clarify that the customers betting patterns have not affected the bonus in this case. There was a mistake made in the terms and conditions and we are more than happy to rectify this for the players affected.

Regarding your queries about Live Dealer, there can be several reasons why a Casino does not include Live Dealer in a promotion. In the above case it was an error on our part however in our Welcome bonus we choose not to include Live Dealer as we have had cases where 2 players will sign-up and receive the welcome bonus. They will then both enter live dealer Roulette and stake on opposing numbers covering the board. This makes detecting minimum risk betting much more difficult and therefore we have removed it from this offer. This may not be the case for all Casinos. Live Dealer gives several customers the ability to bet on the same spin, something that is not the case with the web RNG versions.

Another reason Casinos may have for omitting Live Dealer play from promotions is the additional cost. As I'm sure you are aware Casinos generally pay a percentage of the revenue from games to game providers, Live Dealer games have a higher cost than regular non-live games so it the Casino would tend to push the games with a lower cost. This allows the Casino to offer better value and more promotions though will limit somewhat the qualifying games.

To prevent bonus abuse we restrict Live Dealer from several offers but we do allow it in some. It really does depend on the offer and the potential for abuse by players.

Live Dealer, like all other games, is constantly monitored and audited to ensure the RTP is within expected limits. Live Dealer should offer the same RTP's that you would find in any regular Casino or an equivalent table game with an RNG online. Again this is independently tested and verified.

I hope that this information has helped address some of your concerns.

Best regards

Anthony

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi Vinylweatherman,

I just wanted to clarify that the customers betting patterns have not affected the bonus in this case. There was a mistake made in the terms and conditions and we are more than happy to rectify this for the players affected.

Regarding your queries about Live Dealer, there can be several reasons why a Casino does not include Live Dealer in a promotion. In the above case it was an error on our part however in our Welcome bonus we choose not to include Live Dealer as we have had cases where 2 players will sign-up and receive the welcome bonus. They will then both enter live dealer Roulette and stake on opposing numbers covering the board. This makes detecting minimum risk betting much more difficult and therefore we have removed it from this offer. This may not be the case for all Casinos. Live Dealer gives several customers the ability to bet on the same spin, something that is not the case with the web RNG versions.

Another reason Casinos may have for omitting Live Dealer play from promotions is the additional cost. As I'm sure you are aware Casinos generally pay a percentage of the revenue from games to game providers, Live Dealer games have a higher cost than regular non-live games so it the Casino would tend to push the games with a lower cost. This allows the Casino to offer better value and more promotions though will limit somewhat the qualifying games.

To prevent bonus abuse we restrict Live Dealer from several offers but we do allow it in some. It really does depend on the offer and the potential for abuse by players.

Live Dealer, like all other games, is constantly monitored and audited to ensure the RTP is within expected limits. Live Dealer should offer the same RTP's that you would find in any regular Casino or an equivalent table game with an RNG online. Again this is independently tested and verified.

I hope that this information has helped address some of your concerns.

Best regards

Anthony

That is pretty interesting!

Simple collusion, but unlike poker, both players vs the house. I presume one loses their entire bankroll, the other wins double, and they share the proceeds.

I thought live dealer wasn't overly vulnerable to this as you can't "go head to head" and choose which way to "dump" the chips. I thought each spin was shared among thousands of players, and such numbers would balance out any kind of collusion between players having a notable negative effect on the operator.

It could also affect regular bonuses, and may even be why William Hill are banning players from live roulette, but not from bonuses, and not from the software. The difficulty in detecting the collusion is probably why many seemingly innocent players seem to get banned. It may be a betting strategy that "might" open the possibilty of this, rather than them being caught doing it.

It could also work with live Blackjack, but more players would need to get involved in a deeper level of collusion, probably making it easier to detect as they make very unusual deviations from usual strategy in order to throw a hand.

Now, as to the cost of providing a single wagering opportunity, this is not the concern of the player, so really they should not have these internal costs result in further complicating already complex terms for promotions. The casino should put pressure on their providers, and balance costs across all it's products so that simple sets of terms can be presented to the player.

Complexity in policy has lead to this mistake, because some offers allow live games, and others don't. If there was a simpler policy, always banned or always allowed, then this could form part of a permanent template for offer terms, thus no scope for getting it back to front on individual promotions. Simpler would probably end up being always banned, but at least players would learn this rule off by heart.

 

[243 lines=daft]

That is pretty interesting!

Simple collusion, but unlike poker, both players vs the house. I presume one loses their entire bankroll, the other wins double, and they share the proceeds.

I agree that's a very illuminating post from the Coral support. I'd never thought about collusion in roulette before, because it doesn't immediately strike you as a game where collusion would provide an edge, but I can see that from a bonus WR abuse perspective it could be very costly to a casino.

I assume that this collusion threat is the reason why none of the live dealer casinos seem to offer Three card Poker or Caribbean Stud, casino games where players knowing each others cards does have a bearing on player choices (especially in borderline raise/fold decisions such as Q/6/4 in three card poker).

 

[vinylweatherman]

I agree that's a very illuminating post from the Coral support. I'd never thought about collusion in roulette before, because it doesn't immediately strike you as a game where collusion would provide an edge, but I can see that from a bonus WR abuse perspective it could be very costly to a casino.

I assume that this collusion threat is the reason why none of the live dealer casinos seem to offer Three card Poker or Caribbean Stud, casino games where players knowing each others cards does have a bearing on player choices (especially in borderline raise/fold decisions such as Q/6/4 in three card poker).

It was not just the collusion, but the fact that it was so hard to detect (according to the Coral rep).

It is also something new to look out when trying to figure out the odd player bans at Will Hill from ONLY the live games. This can't be the usual fraud scenario, else these players would get booted altogether. Knowing how hard it is to prove collusion can also explain why the players fight the logic of the ban, yet are not so forthright when it comes to the details of their gameplay.

This scenario requires players to cover half the table each, which is often enough in itself to get accused of "bonus abuse", but what about 3,4, or 5 players covering different thirds to fifths of the numbers. This would be too low a coverage to ever be acceptable as evidence of "bonus abuse", but with 5 players colluding, each with a decent bonus, 4 lose the lot, and one ends up with the deposit + bonus of the other 4, yet the WR of just one player. Hard to detect, but very +EV indeed.

The only drawback is not being able to manipulate which of the 5 players ends up with the money, but as a bonus scam on it's own, with no need to dump money from fraudulant accounts to a legit one, it doesn't matter which one of the 5 gets the money, they will all have an agreement that all benefit from.

Not all players in the group need to have a bonus, a useful means of providing some cover every now and then, and with the added benefit that the winner could be the player that didn't take the bonus, who would have no WR left to complete.

This only leaves collusion but no players involved having taken a bonus. I can't see how a group could benefit from this unless it forms part of a more complex scheme of moving money between accounts where they keep at it till the "right account" ends up being the one holding the money.

The Microgaming MPV "sit & go" tournaments have been vulnerable for years, but the pools are so small that moving $10 into one account from 5, with a 10% loss to the house each time, does not seem to have attracted the "chip dumpers". Things might be different if sit & go offered high buy in prices and high pools.

 

[Coral Support]

Live Dealer / T&C's

Hi Viynl,

Thanks for your comments, unfortunately the costs associated with Live Dealer will always be higher than regular games. When creating a regular game the costs are development, testing, approval process from regulator etc but once the game has been completed, tested and certified the costs reduce greatly. With Live Dealer you have a large on going cost as you have to pay rent, utilities and most importantly the dealers themselves (over 250 dealers at present). Its an additional cost for Coral to offer Live Casino as opposed to regular Casino games however one we are happy to pay to offer a world class Casino experience.

Thanks

Anthony

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi Viynl,

Thanks for your comments, unfortunately the costs associated with Live Dealer will always be higher than regular games. When creating a regular game the costs are development, testing, approval process from regulator etc but once the game has been completed, tested and certified the costs reduce greatly. With Live Dealer you have a large on going cost as you have to pay rent, utilities and most importantly the dealers themselves (over 250 dealers at present). Its an additional cost for Coral to offer Live Casino as opposed to regular Casino games however one we are happy to pay to offer a world class Casino experience.

Thanks

Anthony

In this case, consistency would be useful. Having live dealer games sometimes eligible, and sometimes not, just causes confusion for players. As far as players are concerned, they don't care about the relative costs of different parts of the casino, they see it as a whole, so expect the costs to be spread as a whole.

It seems odd to offer a live game, and then have terms that say players can't play it under some common circumstances.

If players are supposed to be aware and concern themselves with the costs of providing each game, perhaps you would publish the RTP of all games on offer, information that would make it clear which games offer the lowest margin for the house, and thus cost the most to offer in terms of cost per bet.

Most casinos consider this information to be something the player should not have to worry about, nor even get to see, and that players should consider, if at all, merely the overall costs for the casino, accepting that there has to be some long term margin of profit in all games and all offers.

From the various complaints I have read about live games, it seems players are getting a less reliable service, for example the many cases where the visuals show one result, but the bet is decided on a different result. From the players' point of view, this seems highly suspicious, especially when they had won according to the visuals, but find their bet declared a loss.

This has put me off the live games altogether. At least with the software I know what I am getting.

It might be clearer if the live games were offered as a completely separate product with it's own promotions and rules. It would be less confusing to players, and would allow promotions for the live games to be designed with the extra costs involved, and the separation would avoid players straying from one to the other during play on a specific promotion.