KasinoKing said:
Although I'm totally sick of this thread, I think everyone needs a little reminder!
I strongly agree that the casinos must stick to their T&C's, but within reason.
Suppose a player opened a second account at a casino for a 100% bonus on say $100 deposit, with blackjack allowed in a WR of x20. He then proceeded to just low-risk minimum flat-bet the whole WR on BJ, finish up with $160 and withdraw.
That is 100% bonus abuse - no question.
Fuglac deposited $500 for a very small 30% bonus of $150.
He played hands of up $100 each which could easily have wiped out his whole balance in 10 hands or less.
He took his balance to $1000+ before he even got the bonus.
That is 110% NOT bonus abuse - no question.
At the very least the casino should pay him the amount he had before getting the bonus. But in light of the fact the 'dual accounts' looks like a genuine error, they should just remove the bonus and pay all the rest.
Im not saying the casino is stealing from the player only that the punishment does not suit the crime. They have the complete right to apply this particular rule, but to me it seems (in this particular case) to be totally unreasonable & highly unfair.
i'm glad that you agree that the casino is within its rights, likewise i do agree agree that the casino must be seen to be fair when enforcing its rights.
as i said above, casinos sticking to its T+C's is what distinguishes the rouges from the non rogues, so everyone lets drop the rogues accusations.
however how a casino enforces its rules, is what distinguishes a good casino from those that are merely non rogue.
this is area where we should be discussing this situation and i think this thread has finally found it.
for example take bellerock, i consider them a good casino (yes i know, i slag them off all the time!, but thats only because they are casino i play the most), recently i was a few minutes too late claiming a promo, yet they credited it, why did they do that ? i guess despite breaking the T+C's (i.e. i claimed late) they could see there was no financial advantage in me doing so. this is in my eyes makes them a good casino, as they didnt just blindly say your not getting your money without checking out the facts.
back to this case, did the player gain a financial advantage by claiming the promo ? obviously if they bonus was honoured and he cashed out then yes, but as we all agree here (even the OP) the bonus shouldn't be honoured, this just leaves the question of his winnings.
now this leaves the question,was his play abusive in anyway? i agree that his style of play is non abusive and if it was he would have been hung,drawn & quartered by the seasoned posters on here by now, however whatever stakes you play, the "average" return is the same, its only the variance you change by playing smaller stakes. thats a consideration that isnt too much of a concern if your hitting up a bonus more than once. so i think its crucial that we know if the original player at the casino returned to the casino after the first time he played.
because
a) if the player played there regulary, then its would be a natural choice for his friend to play there aswell, so he should be paid
b) if the player only played there the once to hit the bonus, then its obvious the motivations of the second player playing there, so he shouldnt be paid
just a note for fuglac, dont get me wrong i am not saying that you shouldnt get paid and your in the wrong, for me the situation is very much 50/50