I Am Begining To Think Bonuses Can Be A Bad Thing !!

[LaurieJim]

Well over the last 3 months , I have deposited way over 2k at a nameless accedited casino and recieved from what the CS is telling me over 3K in bonuses, so if my math is right that is 5K and have not won squat, I was told I was over my 100% bonus mark and could not get a comp after inquiring and not taking bonuses on my last 3 non winning deposits , back to back.

The bonuses as explained are from promos , prize money and match bonuses, Birthday comps and just comps(throw you a bone) in general.

Has anyone else been told this ,I have spent many many thousands of dollars at this casino but just do not think certain bonuses should be held against a player in their general over all % rating.

Am I wrong or right ?

Laurie

 

[dionysus]

I often dont understand a casino's logic in regards to bonus abuse - if you offer them and I can redeem them then what's the problem? I generally bust out on bonuses and win on straight up deps.

 

[Tirilej]

If you are talking about Jackpot Capital then yes, they did it to me also.
But I never used any deposit bonuses. I was just lucky and won from their free ndb's.

 

[Nifty29]

Every casino has the right to decide what bonuses they offer and to whom they offer them.

Most casinos wouldn't explain the reasons....at least this one did.

Players need to sometimes look at the casino side of things I.e. from a business perspective. In your case, you have basically been given a 150% deposit match on EVERY deposit.....which is extremely generous. Even with WR, awarding players too many bonuses vs deposits presents a very real possibility of a loss for the casino....and no business is in the game to lose money.

Casinos need to take an overall view of a players history, whereas players tend to only look at their recent activity, such as you have when you stated your last three deposits were bonus-free.

As to your question....well I don't think you are right in your POV. I would be VERY happy if my overall position regarding deposits vs bonuses was like yours...you have basically had $5k worth of deposits/chances for the price of $2k. Even though you didn't cashout, it doesn't mean you were never in a position to do so, and you might also be surprised about how high your RTP has been over that time (which is another thing the casino has to consider).

Based on what you posted, I would have thought it should have been a "praise" thread rather than a "complain" thread.

 

[LaurieJim]

Every casino has the right to decide what bonuses they offer and to whom they offer them.

Most casinos wouldn't explain the reasons....at least this one did.

Players need to sometimes look at the casino side of things I.e. from a business perspective. In your case, you have basically been given a 150% deposit match on EVERY deposit.....which is extremely generous. Even with WR, awarding players too many bonuses vs deposits presents a very real possibility of a loss for the casino....and no business is in the game to lose money.

Casinos need to take an overall view of a players history, whereas players tend to only look at their recent activity, such as you have when you stated your last three deposits were bonus-free.

As to your question....well I don't think you are right in your POV. I would be VERY happy if my overall position regarding deposits vs bonuses was like yours...you have basically had $5k worth of deposits/chances for the price of $2k. Even though you didn't cashout, it doesn't mean you were never in a position to do so, and you might also be surprised about how high your RTP has been over that time (which is another thing the casino has to consider).

Based on what you posted, I would have thought it should have been a "praise" thread rather than a "complain" thread.

True Nifty ,
I guess it was just the way the CS agent acted, I do deposit and do so most daily so it upset me to think that she might percieve me as a bonus abuser , which I am not

I will just give bonuses another look before partaking!

I do have to add that this casino has been very very good to me over the years and oh hell , I have just had a bad day and bad playing session over the past few months and just needed to vent , even an experianced gambler needs to vent once in awhile, or they would go nutts, right ?

Meanwhile back on the farm................................................

Laurie

 

[Stovetopp]

Every casino has the right to decide what bonuses they offer and to whom they offer them.

Most casinos wouldn't explain the reasons....at least this one did.

Players need to sometimes look at the casino side of things I.e. from a business perspective. In your case, you have basically been given a 150% deposit match on EVERY deposit.....which is extremely generous. Even with WR, awarding players too many bonuses vs deposits presents a very real possibility of a loss for the casino....and no business is in the game to lose money.

Casinos need to take an overall view of a players history, whereas players tend to only look at their recent activity, such as you have when you stated your last three deposits were bonus-free.

As to your question....well I don't think you are right in your POV. I would be VERY happy if my overall position regarding deposits vs bonuses was like yours...you have basically had $5k worth of deposits/chances for the price of $2k. Even though you didn't cashout, it doesn't mean you were never in a position to do so, and you might also be surprised about how high your RTP has been over that time (which is another thing the casino has to consider).

Based on what you posted, I would have thought it should have been a "praise" thread rather than a "complain" thread.

I disagree with you here Nifty, although I have no statistics to validate my assertion.
If I were a casino I would give bonuses all the time especially at the outrageous WR .I dont think its Jackpot Capital Tirilej
has suggested because I have never seen a 150% bonus given by JC or their group even so in the log run its impossible for the casino to lose with their WR

But if OP is talking about RTG slots which is what I am referring to , there is no way the casinos can lose in the long term Sure they wiill get hit occasionally but multiply the the "deposits" by the tHousands and its hard to believe that the casinos cant come out ahead. Even the RTG Random Jackpots are paid by RTG

It maybe possible with some gf those other platforms with DOA and all the other big hits i SEE FROM non USA casinos.

 

[Nifty29]

I disagree with you here Nifty, although I have no statistics to validate my assertion.
If I were a casino I would give bonuses all the time especially at the outrageous WR .I dont think its Jackpot Capital Tirilej
has suggested because I have never seen a 150% bonus given by JC or their group even so in the log run its impossible for the casino to lose with their WR

But if OP is talking about RTG slots which is what I am referring to , there is no way the casinos can lose in the long term Sure they wiill get hit occasionally but multiply the the "deposits" by the tHousands and its hard to believe that the casinos cant come out ahead. Even the RTG Random Jackpots are paid by RTG

It maybe possible with some gf those other platforms with DOA and all the other big hits i SEE FROM non USA casinos.

So if you have no stats/facts etc....on what do you base your counter-argument?

I didn't say that JC gave anyone a 150% match. I stated that, given the deposits were $2k and the bonuses $3k, it was pretty much like getting a 150% bonus on every deposit.

RTG slots or not is irrelevant. Even with high WR, it IS possible for the casino to lose even they give too many bonuses out with ANY software. In fact, given RTG slots are mostly high variance, they can get hit pretty hard if they give out too many bonuses to players who already have received far in excess of their deposits (like the OP).

When all is said and done, the casino profit margin is about 3% IF they manage their promotions properly. Casinos just cannot keep giving players free money as it WILL affect their bottom line.

RTG does NOT pay the random jackpots. RTG pay the PROGRESSIVE jackpots. The RJ's are "in house" and are fed by contributions from ONLY that casino....INCLUDING bonus funds as it happens, which is another reason why bonuses have to be carefully managed.

I appreciate your POV, but you are misinformed on this topic...which is probably why you do not understand about bonuses from an operator side i.e. if you WERE a casino, with that POV, you would go broke in a month. PLenty have gone broke, and usually for the reason too.

 

[juuso]

Well, nowdays bonus terms are almost always very advantageous to the casino. There hasn't been much +EV bonuses in years and a few casinos have questionable bonus abuse clauses about maximum bets for slots and stuff. Don't think slots bonuses are really worth it. Better off playing with your own money without any restrictions.

I do understand people want to play with bigger balance and once in a while big hit comes wagering won't be hard to meet as slots are high variance games. Still, I'm almost certain any casino would be better off giving 100% bonus with typical wagering requirements than having the player play without a bonus. Even if they hit off well at start, players will be far more likely bust out trying to meet the 30-40 slots wagering than cash out anything. Slots will eat balances dry pretty fast most of the playing sessions anyway.

 

[mrmark21]

I started playing bonuses at MG when I started constantly loosing. Now I wont play without one. Bonuses can be a bad thing but on the other hand they can also be a good thing: The good thing about bonuses is that you can deposit next to nothing and play on much much higher bets. The bad thing is that you need to finish WR.

I dont understand the reasoning behind casinos bonus banning players. IMO bonuses should be used as a way to keep customers coming back for more (customer retention). On the other hand as Nifty has said and I agree: bonuses are a privllage not a right. But personally if a casino tried to bonus ban me though I just wouldnt play there again. People should vote with their wallets, there are plenty of online casinos to choose from.

 

[243 lines=daft]

I mostly play medium to high variance slots, and I find it preferable to play with a bonus if possible when playing these games, as a decent sized hit will usually mean I'll be cashing something out, and if I bust out well there's no shame in that!

For example I bust out four deposits in a row at 32 Red (with bonus) before last week hitting a good run and withdrawing a profit over and above the total of the five deposits. (Just a shame that 32 Red now pays out twice as slowly to my card as good playtechs like William Hill!
A silly development but in all other respects 32 red is still a top notch operation, and probably the best MGS)

However I wouldn't dream of playing low variance games like Blackjack with a bonus. I play blackjack in two online casinos where I refuse all bonuses (live dealer blackjack obviously, never the mickey mouse cartoon stuff). And I just treat that like I would treat a trip to a high street casino

 

[Stovetopp]

Nifty, not prepared to argue with you on this matter, as I said before, I have no statistics to back up my assertion. It was just my perception

Ok ,you maybe correct in who pays the random jackpot, but the reason I thought RTG paid was some years ago with the cherry red group(now defunct or discredited)
once told me I had to wait because RTG is the one who paid it.
I don't see how you can come up with 3% operating profit Can you verify this.? I am assumoing you are averaging the %age advantages of slots and the other table games.
An operation with fewer personnel(no croupier, no BJ dealer,no slot attendants etc etc and in the case with inetbet no cs onlive chat and no phone operators )who cant do better than 3% should really go out of business

I will look at some real B&M Casinos financial statements and see the operation margins but I have to guess it has to be more than 3% Geesh even supermarkets is about 1%

 

[chuchu59]

Every casino has the right to decide what bonuses they offer and to whom they offer them.

Most casinos wouldn't explain the reasons....at least this one did.

Players need to sometimes look at the casino side of things I.e. from a business perspective. In your case, you have basically been given a 150% deposit match on EVERY deposit.....which is extremely generous. Even with WR, awarding players too many bonuses vs deposits presents a very real possibility of a loss for the casino....and no business is in the game to lose money.

Casinos need to take an overall view of a players history, whereas players tend to only look at their recent activity, such as you have when you stated your last three deposits were bonus-free.

As to your question....well I don't think you are right in your POV. I would be VERY happy if my overall position regarding deposits vs bonuses was like yours...you have basically had $5k worth of deposits/chances for the price of $2k. Even though you didn't cashout, it doesn't mean you were never in a position to do so, and you might also be surprised about how high your RTP has been over that time (which is another thing the casino has to consider).

Based on what you posted, I would have thought it should have been a "praise" thread rather than a "complain" thread.

Actually Laurie was half-kicking herself for taking bonuses as can be seen by the title of the thread though she made a swipe at a casino, which was unnamed, by stating her subsequent non-bonus-related deposits weren't comped. If the casino is Slotocash or Desert Nights she has reason to feel aggrieved as the casino did say all non-bonus -related deposits will get a % cashback/bonus and you cannot use previous deposits to calculate the % overall bonus and deny what was promised. Of course if my guess is wrong and no promises were made on bonuses been given for non-bonused deposits then its a different story altogether.

Laurie can only play RTG and only Slotocash/DN offers daily bonuses exceeding 100% so given its $2k in deposits for $3k of bonuses with the final 3 unbonused I tend to think its that group.

 

[skiny]

So if you have no stats/facts etc....on what do you base your counter-argument?

I didn't say that JC gave anyone a 150% match. I stated that, given the deposits were $2k and the bonuses $3k, it was pretty much like getting a 150% bonus on every deposit.

RTG slots or not is irrelevant. Even with high WR, it IS possible for the casino to lose even they give too many bonuses out with ANY software. In fact, given RTG slots are mostly high variance, they can get hit pretty hard if they give out too many bonuses to players who already have received far in excess of their deposits (like the OP).

When all is said and done, the casino profit margin is about 3% IF they manage their promotions properly. Casinos just cannot keep giving players free money as it WILL affect their bottom line.

RTG does NOT pay the random jackpots. RTG pay the PROGRESSIVE jackpots. The RJ's are "in house" and are fed by contributions from ONLY that casino....INCLUDING bonus funds as it happens, which is another reason why bonuses have to be carefully managed.

I appreciate your POV, but you are misinformed on this topic...which is probably why you do not understand about bonuses from an operator side i.e. if you WERE a casino, with that POV, you would go broke in a month. PLenty have gone broke, and usually for the reason too.

Should random jackpots even be relevant when discussing the casino profit? This money is skimmed right off the top of the RTP just like a progressive. Realistically the casino should never consider this money their own since they know at any given time someone is going to remove it. It's more like a multiplayer savings account. 1 and a half cents gets skimmed off every dollar wagered on that game and when a player wins it (bonus or not) it changes nothing. In my opinion this should be considered player owned money just like the money in each player's account.

Side question: Do RTG casinos get to pick the odds of winning these things? Some casinos you rarely see a RJ go higher than 4k and other casinos seem to get ridiculously high RJs over 10 and even 15k. I haven't played RTG much in a few years. Maybe it's different now or maybe it was all just a fluke.

As for the question of bonuses. If casinos were smart they would offer bonuses they wouldn't have to ban people from right from the start. Figure out what kind of bonus you can give people without losing money and stop worrying about people abusing them. The problem casinos have with bonuses is they start out by giving people big bonuses and when they realize people are using them to win money they take them away. I know people have sat down and figured this out mathematically, personally I haven't but I'm sure it's just a simple ratio between the TRTP, the bonus amount and the amount of times it has to be wagered.

You might think the longer you get to play the better off you are but in reality, with a TRTP of less than 100%, the longer you play the better the odds are that you'll go broke. I'm not a mathematician. I'm better off looking at theoretical sciences than theoretical RTPs. I could probably figure it out if I beat my head off my desk long enough but I'm sure people here already have and it'll leave a red mark that'll be hard to explain.

A very quick table in Excel gave me this.

Starting with 10 dollars, wagering 20c with a TRTP of 96%, theoretically you should go broke after ABOUT 1225 spins.

Add a 100% bonus with a 30x d+b WR and theoretically you should go broke at ABOUT 2475 spins.

$20x30(xWR) = $600 at 20c per spins is 3000 spins. 25 spins after you theoretically go broke. The only difference being you have no choice but to wager those 3000 spins.

Correct me where I went wrong but if the casino is forcing you to wager longer than you should theoretically be able to stay afloat, isn't the casino better off in the long run?