Hypotheticals -- Poll fixed

Hypothetical Questions

  • The casino should refund the deposits in both cases.

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • Refund in case #1 (bonus), but keep in case #2 (underaged)

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Keep in case #1 (bonus), but refund in case #2 (underaged)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The casinos should keep the deposits in both cases.

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • Total voters


Banned User - repeated violations of rule 1.14 (tr
Jun 17, 2004

Player A claims a 100% Slots bonus coupon at Casino X. Player A loses her entire balance. Player A then notices that the terms and conditions in the email state that she wasn't eligible to claim that coupon, as she first had to claim 9 35% coupons before being eligible for the 100% coupon. Had she won anything, her winnings would have been voided, and her deposit returned.

Player A contacts the casino and asks that the casino refund her deposit. Her reasoning is that she wasn't gambling with the money, since she had no opportunity to win anything. Since the casino wasn't risking anything, it's only fair that the player be returned her original deposit. Otherwise, the casino is freerolling on the player's money, due to the player mistakenly claiming a bonus she wasn't entitled to.

The casino tells the player to bugger off


Player A is 19 and resides in Illinois. He deposits at casino X and loses $100 (no bonuses). Player A then learns that Player B had his winnings cancelled and deposits returned because player B was under 21 and from Illinois. The casino had a clause in their rules stating that you must be of legal age in your jurisdiction. Player A played in the same timeframe as player B, so it is assumed that player A would have had any winnings cancelled in the same fashion.

Player A contacts the casino and asks for a deposit refund. His reasoning is that he wasn't gambling since he had no possible way to win. Had he tried to cashout any winnings, they would have been denied due to this clause. Therefore, the casino should refund his deposit, as they were freerolling with his money.

The casino tells the player to bugger off.

#3 (not included in poll ... just food for thought)

Player A deposits $100 at Casino X by credit card. He plans to work the balance up to $200 and cashout. Instead he loses, and contacts his credit card company and makes a chargeback. The casino calls up the player and asks him to reverse the chargeback. They tell the player that by making a chargeback, he is freerolling against them, as the casino can only lose money, and has no way to win anything from the player.

The player tells the casino to bugger off.
Last edited:
I've actually changed my mind about #2 since my post in your first thread..

#1 is clear: A player should not be able to 'accidentally' receive a bonus they were not entitled to. The casino should ensure the bonus is never granted unless the conditions have been met. Having given the player the bonus the casino is at fault. If they return deposits for winning players, then the same should apply to losers.

#2: All the T&C's I've ever seen state that you may only play if it is legal in your location. It is the players responsibility to make sure it is OK to play BEFORE they deposit. (And to ALWAYS read the T&C's!). If you break the 'law' you must accept the punishment. I do however feel that keeping the deposit is extremely harsh, and would hope that any reputable casino would refund it.
Do the people who think the casino should keep the lost deposit also think that chargebacks are A-OK?

If not, is it because the player made some transgression against the rules? Does it matter that these transgressions are obvious mistakes, and the player could not have in any way benefitted from them. (as opposed to say, opening multiple accounts with fraudulent identities ... in that situation, the player could benefit by claiming bonuses repeatedly if the casino failed to detect the duplicate accounts)

In #3, isn't the casino making a mistake by allowing a player to gamble with unsecured funds (credit card). Do they deserve to get freerolled against because of that mistake?

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings