Imperial Casino Encourages $1000 Deposit then Modifies Terms

[harbourhopper]

During the Christmas holidays, Imperial casino sent out a massive set of promotions, one of which was $1000 free on a $1000 deposit. The rules for cashing out the bonus were 15xD+B, including several Blackjack options at the Micro-Stakes tables.

This offer seemed more than attractive enough to convince me to deposit, and soon after I had claimed the bonus and began wagering and seriously risking my money, I had blown my balance up to well over $4000.

The playthrough is grueling and long at $30,000 but I risk much less playing Blackjack.

About a week ago, Imperial dropped Blackjack from its list of allowed games. I knew full well most players who deposited for the $1000 free hadn't finished their $30,000 playthrough.

I sent in an email through their message centre from the website to request the wagering restictions be removed once I had finished by the original terms, they have no call centre, or actual email addresses. They either misread my email or ignored it:

Dear bronmact2,

Thank you for your inquiry. Please read the terms of our "Minimum
Play-Through Requirement (PTR).

In order to cash-out qualifying deposit and/or any winnings resulting
from a bonus offer, player must wager 15 times the sum of the
qualifying deposit plus the bonus award in eligible real-money games.

Wagers from the following ineligible games are excluded from counting
toward the Play-Through Requirement: Baccarat, Blackjack, please see
link below for complete list of eligible games), Chuck-A-Luck, Craps,
Roulette (some games only are excluded, please see link below for
complete list of eligible games), Sic Bo and Video Poker (some games
only are excluded, please see link below for complete list of eligible
games).

Attempting to cashout before satisfying the Play-Through Requirement
will result in forfeiture of any remaining bonus chips and all
winnings received from bonus chip stakes up to that point.

Minimum Play-Through Requirement (PTR) = (Initial chip purchase +
Matching Bonus) x 15
PTR = ($1000 + $1000) x 15
= $30000

At the time of this response your remaining PTR = $27276.89. You may
send us an inquiry at any time and we will supply you this PTR
information.

Following this, I wrote a second email and received this a few days afterwards:

Dear bronmact2,

Please note that our Bonus Terms have changed recently and some games
are no longer eligible.

For a list of all eligible games, please click on the link below:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Please note: Casino Management reserves the right to end any
promotional offer at any time, without reason or justification. Casino
Management also reserves the right to deny a bonus, or a series of
bonuses, or a bonus program, to any Player or any group of Players, at
any time, without reason or justification.

Kind regards,
Customer Care Team

Support refuses to back down on the retroactive change to the terms, despite the fact that nowhere in their terms do they include a clause warning that changes to the terms may occur at anytime. The closest they have to it, and which they cited to me by email is the right to deny or end a promotional offer at any time.

I understand casinos feel the need to change terms periodically for whatever reason, but I cannot empathise with changing promotional rules after a deposit has been made and the promotion claimed.

There's no question whether that clause can be interpreted as justification for changing terms or not that it's unfair to the player.

 

[Rob]

this clause should do the trick

Disputes. In the event of any dispute regarding bonuses, the decision of Casino Management is final and shall be binding on the Player per consent to the Agreement necessary for the creation of a Player account.

and you agreed to this when signing up

 

[harbourhopper]

That clause is the "FU" clause of every casino that demands the player to accept whatever management decides.

 

[lojo]

It is ROGUE to change terms after the contract is entered into.

Imperial is an accredited casino. I'd suggest you PaB here after reading the advice on that page.

Good luck

 

[Rob]

That clause is the "FU" clause of every casino that demands the player to accept whatever management decides.

And I'm afraid to say you agreed to that when you signed up

 

[lojo]

And I'm afraid to say you agreed to that when you signed up

Rogue is rogue

 

[Komodo]

I have the same complaint.
They dont even answer my emails.
This is extremely bad customer treatment from their part, first send out a good xmas bonus, let the players lose a shitload of money and then change TC.

this clause should do the trick
and you agreed to this when signing up

Is there anything you dont agree to when you sign up on a site?

 

[lojo]

I have the same complaint.
They dont even answer my emails.
This is extremely bad customer treatment from their part, first send out a good xmas bonus, let the players lose a shitload of money and then change TC.

Have you filed a complaint here?
https://www.casinomeister.com/player-arbitration-pab/

 

[Komodo]

Thx. Complaint filled in.

 

[maxd]

I have received your PAB and will process it in the next few days. HarbourHopper, I encourage you to file one as well.

 

[spooler]

They did the same thing to me.

I had covered about 60% of my wagering requirement at Imperial BEFORE they changeed the terms. I happened to finish the wagering on the very day they changed the terms. I only found out about the change after getting a early cashout warning when trying to cashout.

I emailed them about this a week ago and they did not even reply.

Perhaps they have a clause that legally allows them to pull whatever unscrupulous move they want, but that does not change the fact that what they did is rogue behavior.

If they had any sense of decency, they would have :

1- Notified players of the change (in advance!)
2- Applied the old terms to those who deposited under the old terms (or at the very least considered the amounts wagered before the change)
3- Answered emails about the issue

I can't see how they will say accredited after a stunt like this.
They need to pull themselves together and work something out.

 

[Komodo]

They did the same thing to me.

I had covered about 60% of my wagering requirement at Imperial BEFORE they changeed the terms. I happened to finish the wagering on the very day they changed the terms. I only found out about the change after getting a early cashout warning when trying to cashout.

I emailed them about this a week ago and they did not even reply.

Perhaps they have a clause that legally allows them to pull whatever unscrupulous move they want, but that does not change the fact that what they did is rogue behavior.

If they had any sense of decency, they would have :

1- Notified players of the change (in advance!)
2- Applied the old terms to those who deposited under the old terms (or at the very least considered the amounts wagered before the change)
3- Answered emails about the issue

I can't see how they will say accredited after a stunt like this.
They need to pull themselves together and work something out.

Regarding point 2. Do you actually mean they dont even count the amount wagerered before the change? If not, then its nothing but robbery.
They dont answer my emails, so I dont know my wagering progress.

 

[vinylweatherman]

If this is true, and the casino is indeed accredited, then the question is why? This tale is a clear violation of Casinomeister standards. The problem is not them ending a promotion early, but changing the terms after the fact for players who deposited under the earlier published terms.
There are an increasing number of ACCREDITED casinos that seem to be behaving badly, this damages the integrity of what it means to be accredited. It is one thing to have an "FU Clause", but entirely another matter when it is routinely used to screw over players who have entered the casino, or a particular promotion, in good faith. In this case, I suspect the CASINO made a very grave error with the initial design of this rather large Christmas offer (15x on BLACKJACK WTF!), and have now realised this, but have decided to correct it by reneging on the offer for players who have already taken part, and not just ending the promotion to new players, as would be the expected actions of a reputable casino.
This badly designed offer should never have made it off the drawing board, let alone passed by management for release to players. To have done this at Christmas only makes matters worse in terms of bad publicity for the casino involved, as it is considered very "bad form" to hijack Christmas to pull such a "scrooge like" stunt.

I get the impression that casinos are firing all the competent staff and hiring fools. It may save a little money, but will make the whole industry look bad in the long term, as these "fools" make one mistake after another, leading to one "stunt" after another as the casinos try to limit the damage, while at the same time trying to hide the fact THEY were the ones making mistakes by trying to pin the blame on the players who took the terms and conditions published at face value, and played in good faith.

 

[maxd]

FWIW, I have emailed Imperial alerting them to this thread and reminding them of their responsibilities as one of our Accredited Casinos. We'll see what we see.

 

[Komodo]

It was 30xBonus (15xD+B), not that unusual. The 2 active bonuses I have is the 1000$ 30x and a 45x dec monthly. Also it was a sticky type.
Only unusual thing was the size of the bonus, but we have seen extremely good xmas bonuses before. Party had one last year for example.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It was 30xBonus (15xD+B), not that unusual. The 2 active bonuses I have is the 1000$ 30x and a 45x dec monthly. Also it was a sticky type.
Only unusual thing was the size of the bonus, but we have seen extremely good xmas bonuses before. Party had one last year for example.

If it was a sticky type, then they really ARE going "over the top" with this. I was under the impression it was $30,000 of play to withdraw the $1000 bonus, which would clearly be a bad promotion for the casino.
If it was sticky, only players with the "balls" to place one $2000 bet on Blackjack to start off are going to break the bank. Perhaps this is what started happening, and they didn't expect this tactic from the players who were offered the bonus.
What they have done though, is to set a precedent, as now players know that they WILL change the terms of an ongoing offer retrospectively, even for players who deposited before the changes were made. It doesn't matter what they do, or say, now, they still did what they did over this Christmas promotion, and they can no longer be trusted not to do the same again should they feel the need to do so.

 

[mishun]

What they have done though, is to set a precedent, as now players know that they WILL change the terms of an ongoing offer retrospectively, even for players who deposited before the changes were made. It doesn't matter what they do, or say, now, they still did what they did over this Christmas promotion, and they can no longer be trusted not to do the same again should they feel the need to do so.

Let's face it. Most online casinos have gone roguish. Without the Americans they are finished, and they know it. How can a casino payout $42,000+? Without the Americans playing there. Europeans doesn't waste like us Americans. America is the dumping ground. Once Upon A Time these accredited casinos wouldn't mind paying out. Even to multiple accounts and bonus abusers. Now they are doing every trick in the book to take winnings from you. When George Bush signed that bill. It did what it was designed to do. It killed online gambling all across the world. I have been waiting on 5 checks from MG that was sent 32 days ago. Is it worth it to play anymore? HELL NO! I'm bored at the house, so I play. But ONLINE GAMBLING ISN'T FUN ANYMORE! Not only did my president take it from me. But the floor managers did it as well.

 

[maxd]

They did the same thing to me.

Spooler, I suggest you get in touch with GrandVirtualCS via PM (here). She's working on these Imperial issues and would like to help you with yours too.

 

[NextToYou]

They have some problems with their current allowed games too. I received account specific reload bonus today, and wagered the required amount in current allowed games listed here

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(in allowed video poker All American to be exact), but still system gives me a warning about early withdrawal when I try to withdraw now. This was in Everest Casino, which belongs to the same group. So be warned.

I have PMd the casino rep. here with exact details to take a look at my issue too.

 

[spooler]

Thanks maxd. I PMed her. I hadn't had an opportunity to fila a PAB yet, and I'm hopeful that it won't be necessary now.

komodo, actually I assumed, perhaps wrongly, from some other post (on another forum) which I now can't locate, that wagering before the change wasn't counted. I realize now that I jumped the gun on that. I guess, the lack of response from support did lead me to bleak expectations. Also, the software provides no way of keeping track of wagering requirements.

I really hope GrandVirtualCS will be able to help.

 

[maxd]

I really hope GrandVirtualCS will be able to help.

It's my understanding that she's already working on it for you.

 

[Elgoog]

any news on this?

 

[spooler]

GrandVirtualCS offered me a compensation which I find perfectly satisfactory.

Perhaps it's best if she explains it herself.

 

[GrandVirtualCS]

Hi all,

Sorry for not posting our answer to this thread earlier.

In any case, I will try to give you as much background information on this case as possible. My post may be a bit lengthy but if you get bored, you can simply scroll down to the end where you will find the solution we are offering to the players affected by this PTR change

In December, we ran a promotion called 12 Days of Christmas, which offered a series of large, exciting bonus awards and prize drawings. This promotion generated huge response from players. However, there was a subset of players who took advantage of the Play-Through-Requirements to win substantial sums off these promotional bonuses.

For the benefit of our players, we decided to allow the promotion to complete, as advertised. Although 99% of our players completed their bonuses within 5 days of their deposit, we allowed a grace period of three weeks for the Christmas bonuses to play through, and then proceeded to change our playthrough policy to exclude the microstakes blackjack games.

Changing our PTR policy to exclude these games allows us to continue to offer exciting bonus offers to all of our players. Otherwise, we would have to restrict bonus offers for everyone due to the exploitive behavior of only a few people.

We believe that a small number of players were still playing through a bonus at the time of the change. Some of these players may have wished to play through using the microstakes blackjack games. Although this change was permitted under our terms and conditions, we fully understand that these players are not happy with it and we want to treat them fairly.

Unfortunately, our bonus system is extremely complex and we werent able to find a way to allow players with open bonuses to play through under the old rules or to remove the remaining PTR for them. Instead, we will offer a no-deposit bonus with a 10x wager requirement based on their bonus balance on the day when the rules were changed. This compensatory bonus will be played through under our current terms. Since no deposit is required and the wager requirement is 33% lower, this will greatly increase the players chance of winning and compensate them adequately for the change.

The bonus amount will be based on the players bonus balance as of January 16th when the microstakes blackjack games became excluded. To be eligible, players must have:
- An account in good standing with us. Banned accounts will not be eligible; restricted and held accounts must verify identity and payment methods to become eligible.
- Redeemed at least one bonus between November 29, 2007 and January 16, 2008
- Had an open bonus balance at end of day on January 16, 2008

If you believe that our policy change adversely impacted your play, please contact our customer support for assistance or contact me directly by PM. I will do my best to answer all of you as quickly as possible.

And of course, good luck to all at the Grand Virtual properties!

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi all,

Sorry for not posting our answer to this thread earlier.

In any case, I will try to give you as much background information on this case as possible. My post may be a bit lengthy but if you get bored, you can simply scroll down to the end where you will find the solution we are offering to the players affected by this PTR change

In December, we ran a promotion called 12 Days of Christmas, which offered a series of large, exciting bonus awards and prize drawings. This promotion generated huge response from players. However, there was a subset of players who took advantage of the Play-Through-Requirements to win substantial sums off these promotional bonuses.

For the benefit of our players, we decided to allow the promotion to complete, as advertised. Although 99% of our players completed their bonuses within 5 days of their deposit, we allowed a grace period of three weeks for the Christmas bonuses to play through, and then proceeded to change our playthrough policy to exclude the microstakes blackjack games.

Changing our PTR policy to exclude these games allows us to continue to offer exciting bonus offers to all of our players. Otherwise, we would have to restrict bonus offers for everyone due to the exploitive behavior of only a few people.

We believe that a small number of players were still playing through a bonus at the time of the change. Some of these players may have wished to play through using the microstakes blackjack games. Although this change was permitted under our terms and conditions, we fully understand that these players are not happy with it and we want to treat them fairly.

Unfortunately, our bonus system is extremely complex and we weren’t able to find a way to allow players with open bonuses to play through under the old rules or to remove the remaining PTR for them. Instead, we will offer a no-deposit bonus with a 10x wager requirement based on their bonus balance on the day when the rules were changed. This compensatory bonus will be played through under our current terms. Since no deposit is required and the wager requirement is 33% lower, this will greatly increase the players’ chance of winning and compensate them adequately for the change.

The bonus amount will be based on the player’s bonus balance as of January 16th when the microstakes blackjack games became excluded. To be eligible, players must have:
- An account in good standing with us. Banned accounts will not be eligible; restricted and held accounts must verify identity and payment methods to become eligible.
- Redeemed at least one bonus between November 29, 2007 and January 16, 2008
- Had an open bonus balance at end of day on January 16, 2008

If you believe that our policy change adversely impacted your play, please contact our customer support for assistance or contact me directly by PM. I will do my best to answer all of you as quickly as possible.

And of course, good luck to all at the Grand Virtual properties!

Thought as much

Was this a cashable bonus then, or was this just a case of one $2000 bet, followed by a grind at microstakes blackjack.
I am surprised this made it into general release, I didn't think there were any casino operators unaware of these strategies, and most places now ban any game with a roughly 50/50 bet, either entirely, or with rules that prohibit huge starting bets to gain leverage with bonus monies.
If there was a whole series of such large bonuses, this no doubt came to the attention of the bonus whoring forums, and resulted in the arrival of this "subset of players".
Even with this rule change, it would be worth having a casino mathematician go through the new rules in case there is another weakness ready to be exploited next Christmas.

To avoid accusations of "retrospective changes", was there a provision that specified the bonus WR had to be completed in a specific timeframe, such as the end of December? If so, the allegation of "retrospective change" fails, if the rules changed during a period of grace in excess of the end date of the requirement to finish WR.