Is wagering requirements even legal?

Mbuhl

Dormant account
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Location
Denmark
Hi all. First of all sorry if some one already made a post similiar to mine but too be honest i simply couldnt find it.

Im making this thread cause i tripped over something at Villento Casino's wagering requirements and was wondering if that was legal at all:

The wagering obligations for players resident in Denmark are slightly more stringent, as they are required to wager the sum of the purchase and bonus and additional 20 times on top of those requirements stipulated in the table above, before any cash-in will be permitted.

I made a deposit of 50 Euro and started out with 125 Euro. Now i've got 2700 Euro (lucky indeed) and two days ago i asked the live chat i'f i had now wagered enough to withdraw my money and the support replied that the wagering requirements was fullfilled. I tried to cash out and 24 hours later the money was back on my account and i contacted the staff that told me that i still had to wager another 2000$ estimated.

I had once tried to cash out earlier when i had 600 Euro where i recieved a mail from Villento saying that i had to wager 1875$ total and i only had wagered about 12% of that. So i started playing again and ended up on the 2700 Euro as written ealier.

That means that they twice made a mistake according to how much i needed to wager. Sorry if I'm a complete retard but im brand new to the whole Wagering-system.

Hope any of you have some good replies/suggestions for me :)

Thank you
 

footdr

Banned User: PITA violations of the Forum Rules
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Location
cyberspace
HOPE THIS HELPS YOU

There are no laws that govern terms and conditions on bonuses. You should read the terms and ask for clarification, before, accepting a deposit bonus.

I have no clue why some Countries have higher wagering requirements.

I suspect that when you asked if you had met the wagering requirements the Customer Support Person didn't realize you were located in Denmark.

You should always take copy or print your chats. If you had done this I believe the casino should have allowed you to cashin as you would have been misinformed. You also can ask for the chat to be emailed to you.

I personally do not request Deposit Bonuses unless I am broke and can only deposit a small sum. That way my wagering requirements aren't much if I happen to get lucky right off.

Also, I generally decline any bonus under 50%. Why should I have to wager my deposit of say 50.00 10 times when I only recieved a 20% bonus(10.00)
I'd rather take my chances then have to wager 600.00 for $10.

With your wagering requirements being so rediculous, I would only take a bonus if I was depositing less than $50.00 and was getting atleast a 50% bonus and could cash out bonus.(some casinos subtract the bonus from your winnings before paying you)

HOPE this helps
 

Mbuhl

Dormant account
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Location
Denmark
Thanks for the fast reply

You are right about the fact that i should have written the part about the wagering requirements to certain countries. Like i said im new and didnt realise they where so brutal with their bonuses.

The bonus was btw 125% and i deposited 50 Euro = 125 euro ;).

And because i suspected i might get some troubles with the casino i took screenshots of everything: the chat, mail request of getting my money and even the winnings. But i hardly doubt the casino will give me my money for being missinformed :/
 

D!G!TAL

Dormant account
webmeister
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Location
England
I don't know if they have ever been challenged in a court of law but I can't see why they would be deemed as illegal. The casino is basically saying "if you agree to make 'x' amount of bets on 'y' games we'll give you 'z' amount of cash". By taking the bonus you are accepting those rules. If they compelte their side of the deal, it is only fair that you do :)

It sucks that some countries have higher requirements but it can only be due to the casino's own experience of a particularly high amount of abuse from said countries.
 

casplayer

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Location
Germany
As it seems to be a microgaming casino, have you thought of forfeiting the bonus or is that not possible with villento?
 

paul02085

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Location
USA
Im sure the casinos who make players from Great Britain wager more are reacting to the raping Kasino King has given them over the years :)
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Im sure the casinos who make players from Great Britain wager more are reacting to the raping Kasino King has given them over the years :)

The problem with such blanket treatment is that it treats ALL players from certain countries as "experienced advantage players". True "advantage players" will still find other ways to play tactically, but genuine inexperienced players stand little or no chance of getting the same deal as their counterparts in other countries. Interestingly, such country discrimination MIGHT be rules illegal in a REGULATED market. Now that the UK has formally accepted online gambling as something that is regulated and legal, EU free trade laws apply to all casinos who are based within the EU and take EU players as customers. These rules dictate that members of ALL countries are entitled to the same value of deal as offered to any one EU country.
So far, Apple have been challenged over their approach to iTunes pricing, in that they blocked UK customers from buying their music from the French iTunes site - where it was sold in Euros, and worked out cheaper than the UK site. The ruling was that they cannot prevent people from one EU country from buying the product from a different EU country if they so choose. The same rule can be expected to apply to online gambling, but first we have to get all EU countries to agree to it's definition, legality, and regulation. EU countries that currently prevent other EU countries from providing betting/gaming to their citizens are being challenged in the EU courts.

The casinos will still retain the right to bar entry on an individual basis, provide they can show good cause in the event that a discrimination claim is brought. They have to show that they have not discriminated on grounds of Race, Gender, Age (except for excluding minors), and now Religion. Discriminating against those who breach the terms will still be OK, just as it is in any consumer contract.
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta


I have no clue why some Countries have higher wagering requirements.

I suspect that when you asked if you had met the wagering requirements the Customer Support Person didn't realize you were located in Denmark.

HOPE this helps

Some countries have more of a community oriented toward bonus abuse. Casino's note that customers stemming from these regions are vastly more abusive of the bonuses and as such would either limit their offer by excluding these countries or change the T&C's specific to be more in line with the level of abuse stemming from those regions.

You will frequently see offers with exclusions to players from Denmark and Singapore, among others. For example, while we have night-time shopping TV, some Danish channels offer night-time TV courses on poker collusions and casino bonus abuse (I kid you not).
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
You aren't 'buying' bonuses...

....

Interestingly, such country discrimination MIGHT be rules illegal in a REGULATED market. Now that the UK has formally accepted online gambling as something that is regulated and legal, EU free trade laws apply to all casinos who are based within the EU and take EU players as customers. These rules dictate that members of ALL countries are entitled to the same value of deal as offered to any one EU country.

....

The casinos will still retain the right to bar entry on an individual basis, provide they can show good cause in the event that a discrimination claim is brought. They have to show that they have not discriminated on grounds of Race, Gender, Age (except for excluding minors), and now Religion. Discriminating against those who breach the terms will still be OK, just as it is in any consumer contract.

Those statements are invalid on premise of purchase of service.

When you deposit, or more correctly place a wager, you are purchasing a service that enables you to gain from that purchase or lose it. Its quite literally like buying iTunes as you aptly put it but the product is different - its a gamble. When you purchase in GBP, stemming from UK, your product (potential return) is given in GBP should it come to fruition.

That is where it ends.

You are under the impression that you are legally purchasing bonuses. You are not. Bonuses are a promise of loyalty reward offered by the 'shop' aka. a casino, on pure and unchallengeable terms set upon the casino offering them and carrying the behavioural conditions they impose.

To go to outright extremes, when it comes to a bonus, a casino can wait for you to complete 99% of wagering and lose your real funds and invalidate a bonus - and you would sill have no case. At best, you could push for false advertising and that's a stretch. Of course they'd end up in the rogue pit, but that's besides the point. Legally you as a single individual have no ground to stand on. Only if its done in masses and the regulator receives a vast number of complaints they *may* do something about the way that casino operates commercially.

I say you would have no case because for every real money bet you placed on the casino, you received a chance to win money back. Players seemto be forgetting that this is what they are buying. You aren't buying bonuses - you're buying into a gamble. Bonuses come extra and are our prerogative, not yours.

You remain with a choice to gamble her or there based on what's being offered, but to go as far as to say that its legally required of me to give the same loyalty comp points reward program to one player because I gave it to another, or one group of players because of another is ludicrous.

Casinos should own up to their T&C's - it's undeniable - but what their T&C's are composed of is their choice and their choice alone. Don't like it? Don't play. There's enough choice around.
 

IanO

Regular Human
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Location
Ireland.
Hey Igor,

FYI, nice to see you taking part, but a tip: This thread is from 2008 and digging up such old threads is generally frowned upon ;)
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
Hey Igor,

FYI, nice to see you taking part, but a tip: This thread is from 2008 and digging up such old threads is generally frowned upon ;)

ooops sorry - still trolling through the forum and having things catch my eye :) I'll take note in future.

Thanks!
 

Stovetopp

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Location
On the Beach
Hey Igor,

FYI, nice to see you taking part, but a tip: This thread is from 2008 and digging up such old threads is generally frowned upon ;)

Frowned upon by whom, may I ask?
I have been a member here now for years and never saw this thread. I am about to read the rest of it, but I am sure it has to be more "informative" thamn the whining and bitching and moaning for other matters
for eg
This casino "ripped" me off
this casino stole my money (OP's never usually say if at gunpoint or by knife)
This casino cheats
Oh my God 3 days too long to wait for payment
I didnt get my $5.00 bonus
etc etc
So I say let it all flow, I have thje choice to ignore a thread old or new
btw, nothing personal here
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Those statements are invalid on premise of purchase of service.

When you deposit, or more correctly place a wager, you are purchasing a service that enables you to gain from that purchase or lose it. Its quite literally like buying iTunes as you aptly put it but the product is different - its a gamble. When you purchase in GBP, stemming from UK, your product (potential return) is given in GBP should it come to fruition.

That is where it ends.

You are under the impression that you are legally purchasing bonuses. You are not. Bonuses are a promise of loyalty reward offered by the 'shop' aka. a casino, on pure and unchallengeable terms set upon the casino offering them and carrying the behavioural conditions they impose.

To go to outright extremes, when it comes to a bonus, a casino can wait for you to complete 99% of wagering and lose your real funds and invalidate a bonus - and you would sill have no case. At best, you could push for false advertising and that's a stretch. Of course they'd end up in the rogue pit, but that's besides the point. Legally you as a single individual have no ground to stand on. Only if its done in masses and the regulator receives a vast number of complaints they *may* do something about the way that casino operates commercially.

I say you would have no case because for every real money bet you placed on the casino, you received a chance to win money back. Players seemto be forgetting that this is what they are buying. You aren't buying bonuses - you're buying into a gamble. Bonuses come extra and are our prerogative, not yours.

You remain with a choice to gamble her or there based on what's being offered, but to go as far as to say that its legally required of me to give the same loyalty comp points reward program to one player because I gave it to another, or one group of players because of another is ludicrous.

Casinos should own up to their T&C's - it's undeniable - but what their T&C's are composed of is their choice and their choice alone. Don't like it? Don't play. There's enough choice around.


I wouldn't be so sure.

There is a more recent debate that the casinos are themselves "selling bonuses" rather than the service of playing the games via a software interface. Almost ALL marketing is now based on the bonus, and making it look better than the competition. You do NOT see so much of marketing that sells the GAMES, with statements like "our Blackjack is better than the blackjack at other casinos because............", or "we pay faster than the rest".
If anything, these other services like speed of payment have become WORSE than ever before, whilst the marketing of bonuses has become ever more intrusive and aggressive. Go to most affiliate sites and you will see it is the welcome bonus, not the quality of service, that is being "sold". Rankings are nearly always based on the quality of the bonus, rather than other aspects of the service.

You are also wrong in another sense. If a bonus promise is used to entice the player to make a contract by purchasing, it is still a breach of contract to void the bonus where no contractural terms have been broken by the player. It is the same with shops, and has been upheld in legal cases. Where a shop offers a "free gift" as an inducement to buy a product, the free gift forms part of the contract, and the shop is obligated to supply the free gift, and it must be of "merchantable quality" in the same way it would be if bought. A faulty free gift, or it's non arrival, is even grounds for the consumer getting a refund on the purchase because of breach of contract.

Google "hoover free flights fiasco" for an example of what happens to a company that promises a free gift as an inducement to purchase a product, but fails to deliver. In the end, it brought the company down, and the brand was bought out by an American company.

The main reason online casinos see it differently is the lack of regulation. Most casinos are not regulated in the same country as the player, so it is much harder to pursue a case. The recent proposals by the UK government are due in part to the realisation that UK players are not properly protected with the current system, spurred on of course by the prospect of getting some TAX out of these offshore operators, and selling it to voters as better protection against the rogues.


Within the EU, there have already been cases where companies have tried to subject specific countries to worse terms than another, and the EU courts have ruled this to be illegal. Apple, for example, offered a better price in Euros than in UK Pounds on it's French iTunes site, and then blocked UK customers from buying in Euros from the French site. This was outlawed by the EU, yet Apple have now resorted to trickery. Although UK customers can no longer be blocked from buying from another EU countries' iTunes store, they have blocked the use of UK cards, so a UK customer would have to get, for example, a French issued card, in order to exercise their "single market" rights.

This only applies within the EU, and only where the casino itself is regulated within the EU. It is still very hard for an individual player to make a case, so apart from venting about it in forums since 2008, there has been little progress.

We STILL have the argument that just because a late night TV channel offers a guide to "bonus abuse", EVERY person is bound to have seen it, and decided to try it. There is also the fact that there is nothing on that show that cannot be gained from looking around the internet, so "bonus abusers" do not rely on this TV show for knowing how to play best.

I bet I know a few things NO Danish late night TV viewer could have found out by watching that show;)


The REAL problem is that casinos "sell" the welcome bonus as a "loss leader" like a supermarket selling bread or beans for 1p in order to entice customers into the store, where the hope is that they will do their entire shop there, rather than walk out with 50 loaves or 50 tins of beans. Supermarkets already know this doesn't work, because this is exactly what happened, and they stopped doing it. Casinos on the other hand STILL persist in offering "loss leader" welcome bonuses, and have to use subtle, even devious, means to ensure that they don't have too many players walking out with the proverbial 50 loaves rather than making the casino the place for their "regular play".


With internet TV and a global community, excluding by country is not a long term solution to the problem, as all it does is move it along to a different country, or even a like minded virtual community NOT connected geographically. Such a community would be "all Casinomeister members".

There are also many community forums dedicated to the arts of "bonus abuse", with a few that move into "fraud" territory, such as discussions on how to multi-account and get away with it. These are easy to find by anyone interested in "abusing a bonus", whether or not they are from Denmark.

All this does is make the MAJORITY of players from a blighted country feel that they are being treated as second class customers, yet still expected to pay "first class" prices, if not more, for the same service. As far as they are concerned, there is no good reason for this other than a "random" prejudice. Casinos are often unwilling to explain WHY such a rule is in place when one of these "blighted" customers asks, so it reinforces the view that it is a rule without reason.

Playtech, for example, have a stock advisory to all operators to "blight" the UK. When this was discussed here, a Playtech operator explained that the rule was there simply because Playtech advised it was needed, and the operator just followed along, rather than thinking for themselves. Playtech won't say why they are giving such advice, nor explain WTF it even has to do with them as after all, they are "merely the software supplier", as they explained when trying to claim there was nothing they could do to police their licensees and make them play by the rules.

The UK does NOT have a late night TV show on "bonus abuse", so there seems no logical reason for the UK to be seen as a "hotbed of abusive players".
 

IanO

Regular Human
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Location
Ireland.
Frowned upon by whom, may I ask?..
btw, nothing personal here

Nothing personal taken at all :) The forum admins and many members object to old threads being dug up. As a long term member I'm surprised you've not seen it mentioned before by Max or Bryan.

Sometimes it re-ignites an old debate which is a good thing, but often thats not the case. This seems to be the former which is good... but I pointed it out to BEt-At Admin as friendly advice to a new member just to check those dates. Sometimes information and details have changed sooo much that a new thread on a subject is a better idea.
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
For one, a really good reply. You raise some extremely good points, but i do think you missed the point of my post itself.

I wouldn't be so sure.

There is a more recent debate that the casinos are themselves "selling bonuses" rather than the service of playing the games via a software interface. Almost ALL marketing is now based on the bonus, and making it look better than the competition. You do NOT see so much of marketing that sells the GAMES, with statements like "our Blackjack is better than the blackjack at other casinos because............", or "we pay faster than the rest".

I completely agree. In fact, moving through this forum made me realise how much as a casino we have been caught into 'bonus advertising' completely missing out on other features we do that players find much more refreshing. I'm not trying a sales pitch here, but I do wholeheartedly agree.

You are also wrong in another sense. If a bonus promise is used to entice the player to make a contract by purchasing, it is still a breach of contract to void the bonus where no contractural terms have been broken by the player. It is the same with shops, and has been upheld in legal cases. Where a shop offers a "free gift" as an inducement to buy a product, the free gift forms part of the contract, and the shop is obligated to supply the free gift, and it must be of "merchantable quality" in the same way it would be if bought.

Within the EU, there have already been cases where companies have tried to subject specific countries to worse terms than another, and the EU courts have ruled this to be illegal. Apple, for example, offered a better price in Euros than in UK Pounds on it's French iTunes site, and then blocked UK customers from buying in Euros from the French site. This was outlawed by the EU, yet Apple have now resorted to trickery. Although UK customers can no longer be blocked from buying from another EU countries' iTunes store, they have blocked the use of UK cards, so a UK customer would have to get, for example, a French issued card, in order to exercise their "single market" rights.

This only applies within the EU, and only where the casino itself is regulated within the EU. It is still very hard for an individual player to make a case, so apart from venting about it in forums since 2008, there has been little progress.

I think we're going off point here on two levels:

1) Casino absolutely must honour its bonus premise if it they cannot find sufficient grounds to invalidate the bonus. That said however, the cases where 'poor loyalty rewards' influence a refund of a purchase i imagine are extremely rare and far in between. The level of T&C's also leaves a lot to be desired in terms of suspected 'bonus abuse' etc.

You need to take into consideration that increase in bankroll (bonuses) influences the potential outcome of the gameplay at large. Bonuses not only CAN but actually DO put the outcome of the game into positive expectancy in a large number of cases so you aren't talking about a simple monetary exchange for a tangible defined product here here.

In that respect (profit potential) casinos function far closer to a bank/investment fund than a shop and should be regulated in a much stricter sense, but to understand how and by which premise regulations should apply when it comes the way they market themselves would mean that regulators themselves need to know the inner workings of the markets, influences of the internet audience and their demand (players made the bonus race not only possible but unavoidable, not casinos), and industry structure in general from player, to affiliate, to operator to supplier - which is a far cry from reality.

Unfortunately, I digressed also. I don't disagree that T&C's must be honoured as my ending paragraph states, but to impose the type of loyalty reward on premise of equality doesn't stand ground.

2) You are comparing a price differentiator between two states in a country when talking about iTunes, which conflicts with EU 'Federal law'. TO draw a direct comparison between the two would imply that you deposit in GBP but casino pays your winnings in EURO. The example doesn't hold.

We STILL have the argument that just because a late night TV channel offers a guide to "bonus abuse", EVERY person is bound to have seen it, and decided to try it. There is also the fact that there is nothing on that show that cannot be gained from looking around the internet, so "bonus abusers" do not rely on this TV show for knowing how to play best.

I bet I know a few things NO Danish late night TV viewer could have found out by watching that show;)

No, but if the offer becomes commercially invalid for a specific region, while it is very much commercially beneficial for another region (call it state), to impose the same rule of law on two very different cultural environments is contradictory to the concept of the free market economies. The remaining option is to retract that offer across all regions, in which case, are casinos not discriminating also against regions that would in actual fact benefit from the offer just because a minority of EU regional structure can and would abuse it?

If the proof is in the pudding, its in the pudding :) If the same product in Denmark is causing me a loss because they aren't buying enough, but my shipping costs are overwhelming, do I have to offer it regardless just because I offer it in UK, where it is profitable for me? It just doesn't make sense..


The REAL problem is that casinos "sell" the welcome bonus as a "loss leader" like a supermarket selling bread or beans for 1p in order to entice customers into the store, where the hope is that they will do their entire shop there, rather than walk out with 50 loaves or 50 tins of beans. Supermarkets already know this doesn't work, because this is exactly what happened, and they stopped doing it. Casinos on the other hand STILL persist in offering "loss leader" welcome bonuses, and have to use subtle, even devious, means to ensure that they don't have too many players walking out with the proverbial 50 loaves rather than making the casino the place for their "regular play".
No comment here. Agreed and its quite sad overall.

With internet TV and a global community, excluding by country is not a long term solution to the problem, as all it does is move it along to a different country, or even a like minded virtual community NOT connected geographically. Such a community would be "all Casinomeister members".

There are also many community forums dedicated to the arts of "bonus abuse", with a few that move into "fraud" territory, such as discussions on how to multi-account and get away with it. These are easy to find by anyone interested in "abusing a bonus", whether or not they are from Denmark.

All this does is make the MAJORITY of players from a blighted country feel that they are being treated as second class customers, yet still expected to pay "first class" prices, if not more, for the same service. As far as they are concerned, there is no good reason for this other than a "random" prejudice. Casinos are often unwilling to explain WHY such a rule is in place when one of these "blighted" customers asks, so it reinforces the view that it is a rule without reason.

Playtech, for example, have a stock advisory to all operators to "blight" the UK. When this was discussed here, a Playtech operator explained that the rule was there simply because Playtech advised it was needed, and the operator just followed along, rather than thinking for themselves. Playtech won't say why they are giving such advice, nor explain WTF it even has to do with them as after all, they are "merely the software supplier", as they explained when trying to claim there was nothing they could do to police their licensees and make them play by the rules.

The UK does NOT have a late night TV show on "bonus abuse", so there seems no logical reason for the UK to be seen as a "hotbed of abusive players".

Although i agree, above still works on the same premise. It doesn't matter if its religious, racial, regional, community based, or any form of segmentation - if providing a service to a class of customer is commercially unviable to my business - i have a right to deny service. We aren't imposing laws by which those need to live by.

What you seem to forget is that our service is not compulsory and as such must be equally offered. It is based on free will and choice - on both parties.
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
Nothing personal taken at all :) The forum admins and many members object to old threads being dug up. As a long term member I'm surprised you've not seen it mentioned before by Max or Bryan.

Sometimes it re-ignites an old debate which is a good thing, but often thats not the case. This seems to be the former which is good... but I pointed it out to BEt-At Admin as friendly advice to a new member just to check those dates. Sometimes information and details have changed sooo much that a new thread on a subject is a better idea.

I for one appreciated it :)
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
For one, a really good reply. You raise some extremely good points, but i do think you missed the point of my post itself.



I completely agree. In fact, moving through this forum made me realise how much as a casino we have been caught into 'bonus advertising' completely missing out on other features we do that players find much more refreshing. I'm not trying a sales pitch here, but I do wholeheartedly agree.



I think we're going off point here on two levels:

1) Casino absolutely must honour its bonus premise if it they cannot find sufficient grounds to invalidate the bonus. That said however, the cases where 'poor loyalty rewards' influence a refund of a purchase i imagine are extremely rare and far in between. The level of T&C's also leaves a lot to be desired in terms of suspected 'bonus abuse' etc.

You need to take into consideration that increase in bankroll (bonuses) influences the potential outcome of the gameplay at large. Bonuses not only CAN but actually DO put the outcome of the game into positive expectancy in a large number of cases so you aren't talking about a simple monetary exchange for a tangible defined product here here.

In that respect (profit potential) casinos function far closer to a bank/investment fund than a shop and should be regulated in a much stricter sense, but to understand how and by which premise regulations should apply when it comes the way they market themselves would mean that regulators themselves need to know the inner workings of the markets, influences of the internet audience and their demand (players made the bonus race not only possible but unavoidable, not casinos), and industry structure in general from player, to affiliate, to operator to supplier - which is a far cry from reality.

Unfortunately, I digressed also. I don't disagree that T&C's must be honoured as my ending paragraph states, but to impose the type of loyalty reward on premise of equality doesn't stand ground.

2) You are comparing a price differentiator between two states in a country when talking about iTunes, which conflicts with EU 'Federal law'. TO draw a direct comparison between the two would imply that you deposit in GBP but casino pays your winnings in EURO. The example doesn't hold.



No, but if the offer becomes commercially invalid for a specific region, while it is very much commercially beneficial for another region (call it state), to impose the same rule of law on two very different cultural environments is contradictory to the concept of the free market economies. The remaining option is to retract that offer across all regions, in which case, are casinos not discriminating also against regions that would in actual fact benefit from the offer just because a minority of EU regional structure can and would abuse it?

If the proof is in the pudding, its in the pudding :) If the same product in Denmark is causing me a loss because they aren't buying enough, but my shipping costs are overwhelming, do I have to offer it regardless just because I offer it in UK, where it is profitable for me? It just doesn't make sense..

No comment here. Agreed and its quite sad overall.



Although i agree, above still works on the same premise. It doesn't matter if its religious, racial, regional, community based, or any form of segmentation - if providing a service to a class of customer is commercially unviable to my business - i have a right to deny service. We aren't imposing laws by which those need to live by.

What you seem to forget is that our service is not compulsory and as such must be equally offered. It is based on free will and choice - on both parties.


The problem is not so much about not offering the product in Denmark, but your forbidding customers from Denmark buying it from a country where it IS offered. This is what happened in the iTunes case. The product was offered in both countries, but Apple prevented UK customers from buying it from a French outlet, which is what got them into trouble with the EU. The EU stance is that customers from one EU country have the right to "shop around" outlets in other EU countries for a better deal, rather than requiring the company to offer the SAME deal everywhere.

With the internet, there is no physical travel involved, but you are preventing a player from Denmark from exercising their right to "buy" your product from a French or UK outlet (in this case a website), and under the terms applicable for that outlet. This is what causes the problem, the insistence that customers can only by the product from outlets in their own country.

You are not denying service either, you are taking the same money, but providing a worse product.

These rules didn't take account of the internet when they first came about, and so actual physical travel was involved in chasing down these better deals. It is up to business to lobby for the rules to be revisited with the internet taken into account.

Players did not "make" the bonus race, they just joined in when CASINOS set it up. Casinos then didn't consider the future, and decided to stick with what worked at first when the concept of online gambling was new. Players are now much better educated, so what worked well then does NOT work well now, and casinos are struggling to keep the current bonus model alive.

By competing on bonuses, they are leaving themselves wide open to advantage player attacks, and the bad press that follows.

If many players now opt out of bonuses because of the lengthy rules and regulations and repeated bad press, WHY would that bother a casino that is not "selling bonuses" in the first place? Surely you should be GLAD that many players will STILL play at your casino WITHOUT the inducement of bonuses. Whatever these players are finding attractive is what you should be marketing.

The general theme of your defence of different terms for different countries is the imposition of national borders on the internet. This goes against what the internet is about, a global virtual society without borders. THIS is why having different rules based on physical location is so unpopular. Governments are trying (and mostly failing) to police the internet based on national borders, and these governments are also unpopular among internet users for trying this.
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
The general theme of your defence of different terms for different countries is the imposition of national borders on the internet. This goes against what the internet is about, a global virtual society without borders. THIS is why having different rules based on physical location is so unpopular. Governments are trying (and mostly failing) to police the internet based on national borders, and these governments are also unpopular among internet users for trying this.

Hmmm.. I don't know. I have to say that for the very most part I do agree with you. I cant defeat the arguments you propose and it's true- the rule of internet should not carry over the rules of geo-political structure as it is inherently different.

I still cant shake off the gut feeling that if i wanted to not offer a product to someone - I have a right not to. Also, if the running costs of delivering that product to a specific place or a group of customers carriers higher costs to me (in this case bonus abuse) i have the right to alter its price or in this case bonus conditions.

Lets say I waned to offer 6 times higher turnover to players that come from beatingbonuses.com but not completely eliminate them. Isn't it their choice to say yes? Isn't it my choice to structure my product suitable for that demographic while maintaining profitability?

I wont lie - I cant argue your presentation, but simultaneously I do think that as it is players choice to bet on my casino or another, it is equally my choice to offer the product of 'this type' to you, while I offer the product of 'that' type to someone else based on best outcome to my business.

Core premise here lies with choice. Law's are imposed and SHOULD be equal - while purchases are made out of free will.

I agree to disagree me thinks :) I think the tread went heavily off topic anyway...
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Some countries have more of a community oriented toward bonus abuse. Casino's note that customers stemming from these regions are vastly more abusive of the bonuses and as such would either limit their offer by excluding these countries or change the T&C's specific to be more in line with the level of abuse stemming from those regions.

You will frequently see offers with exclusions to players from Denmark and Singapore, among others. For example, while we have night-time shopping TV, some Danish channels offer night-time TV courses on poker collusions and casino bonus abuse (I kid you not).

While higher wagering requirements for certain countries cannot be deemed illegal they are certainly discriminatory and could be challenged in court though the fact that player and casino are from different countries makes it more difficult. Even if casinos have this practice they should review it periodically. Of the 2 countries you mentioned I recall Denmark granting licences to some operators and if one wants to get a licence there I believe the 'discriminatory practice' should be removed. As for Singapore, the citizens are getting wealthier by the day and are becoming less likely to abuse bonuses. I dont buy into the notion that Danish players always abuse bonuses and if there were some in the past it could alter with time.

Bonuses are abused by players from most countries albeit in varying degrees. The casinos themselves expose themselves to the risk so should be responsible. The worst offender is Casino Rewards with their $1 for $20 promo and they are asking for it. Higher bonuses should ideally be tied to higher deposit amounts eg $20 attracts a 30% bonus, $50 a 50% bonus, $100 a 100% bonus etc. etc. Branding players from a certain country as bonus abusers and tie them to higher wrs is an insult IMHO.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Hmmm.. I don't know. I have to say that for the very most part I do agree with you. I cant defeat the arguments you propose and it's true- the rule of internet should not carry over the rules of geo-political structure as it is inherently different.

I still cant shake off the gut feeling that if i wanted to not offer a product to someone - I have a right not to. Also, if the running costs of delivering that product to a specific place or a group of customers carriers higher costs to me (in this case bonus abuse) i have the right to alter its price or in this case bonus conditions.

Lets say I waned to offer 6 times higher turnover to players that come from beatingbonuses.com but not completely eliminate them. Isn't it their choice to say yes? Isn't it my choice to structure my product suitable for that demographic while maintaining profitability?

I wont lie - I cant argue your presentation, but simultaneously I do think that as it is players choice to bet on my casino or another, it is equally my choice to offer the product of 'this type' to you, while I offer the product of 'that' type to someone else based on best outcome to my business.

Core premise here lies with choice. Law's are imposed and SHOULD be equal - while purchases are made out of free will.

I agree to disagree me thinks :) I think the tread went heavily off topic anyway...

So, what happens when a player questions this? They will argue what does it matter what link they followed. They will also wonder how on earth you even KNEW, and will start thinking that casinos use "malware" to spy on players general browsing activity. These players are probably unaware that you pay the site for forwarding them, and this is how you know where they came from. It will look deceiptful, for on the one hand you have decided that the site brings you loads of players you don't want, but rather than cutting ties with them, you "screw over" those players that follow the links in the belief that they are going to get at least as fair a deal as any other.

What operators SHOULD be doing is better policing their affiliates, and making THEM pay for sending the "wrong kind" of traffic because of how they market the product. This would mean affiliates who market to the better types of players would get a higher payment because quality would matter over numbers.

Sites like beatingbonuses DO generate far more traffic than more "ethical" sites, but it is of much poorer quality in terms of profitability. Many of these sites even LIE about how easy it is to beat a bonus and get paid without trouble, and it is the players that come along later that suffer withdrawal delays and accusations of abuse, whilst the affiliate goes largely unpunished.

For the non-expert, advanced SEO makes it pretty hard to find a decent casino WITHOUT lining the pockets of an affiliate, and it is pot luck whether the review is truthful, or designed to exaggerate and mislead in order to get the conversion.

Surely an true "abuser" would NOT make it so obvious by signing up through such an affiliate - why give the casino advance warning of what type of player they are likely to be.

Currently, the biggest problem is bad press, not legal action, facing operators with discriminatory rules. It can also backfire when all of a sudden they decide they DO want to market to players in a region they had previously blacklisted of offered worse terms to. Players do not forgive the previous slight so easily, and see the marketing change of heart as a money grasping measure due to some calamity such as the loss of the US market, rather than a genuine aceptance that players from that region are not considered so bad after all.
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
So, what happens when a player questions this? They will argue what does it matter what link they followed. They will also wonder how on earth you even KNEW, and will start thinking that casinos use "malware" to spy on players general browsing activity. These players are probably unaware that you pay the site for forwarding them, and this is how you know where they came from. It will look deceiptful, for on the one hand you have decided that the site brings you loads of players you don't want, but rather than cutting ties with them, you "screw over" those players that follow the links in the belief that they are going to get at least as fair a deal as any other.

What operators SHOULD be doing is better policing their affiliates, and making THEM pay for sending the "wrong kind" of traffic because of how they market the product. This would mean affiliates who market to the better types of players would get a higher payment because quality would matter over numbers.

Sites like beatingbonuses DO generate far more traffic than more "ethical" sites, but it is of much poorer quality in terms of profitability. Many of these sites even LIE about how easy it is to beat a bonus and get paid without trouble, and it is the players that come along later that suffer withdrawal delays and accusations of abuse, whilst the affiliate goes largely unpunished.

For the non-expert, advanced SEO makes it pretty hard to find a decent casino WITHOUT lining the pockets of an affiliate, and it is pot luck whether the review is truthful, or designed to exaggerate and mislead in order to get the conversion.

Surely an true "abuser" would NOT make it so obvious by signing up through such an affiliate - why give the casino advance warning of what type of player they are likely to be.

Currently, the biggest problem is bad press, not legal action, facing operators with discriminatory rules. It can also backfire when all of a sudden they decide they DO want to market to players in a region they had previously blacklisted of offered worse terms to. Players do not forgive the previous slight so easily, and see the marketing change of heart as a money grasping measure due to some calamity such as the loss of the US market, rather than a genuine aceptance that players from that region are not considered so bad after all.


You both had me on a re-read.

You are right. To generalise is (in retrospect) as wrong in real life as it is on-line. Blocking Denmark (or whomever) isn't the answer - not when its done on bias and prejudice. More rigorous terms and technologies should be implemented to catch out advantage play, rather than carpet-block it. Similarly you're right, bad affiliate sides with bad traffic shouldn't be worked with (I mentioned beatingbonuses as an example, we banned them from our program)

I didn't just cave in :) In retrospect you are right and i really did turn around - prejudical approach is wrong from the very principle of it and other technological alternatives should be employed.

Although this is the right way, its not necessarily a viable option for every operation out there - i hope you can understand that. Some operators are restricted to the technology of the provider and simply cant facilitate 'a more rigorous screening method' or employ substantially more staff to comb out players from these regions.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
You both had me on a re-read.

You are right. To generalise is (in retrospect) as wrong in real life as it is on-line. Blocking Denmark (or whomever) isn't the answer - not when its done on bias and prejudice. More rigorous terms and technologies should be implemented to catch out advantage play, rather than carpet-block it. Similarly you're right, bad affiliate sides with bad traffic shouldn't be worked with (I mentioned beatingbonuses as an example, we banned them from our program)

I didn't just cave in :) In retrospect you are right and i really did turn around - prejudical approach is wrong from the very principle of it and other technological alternatives should be employed.

Although this is the right way, its not necessarily a viable option for every operation out there - i hope you can understand that. Some operators are restricted to the technology of the provider and simply cant facilitate 'a more rigorous screening method' or employ substantially more staff to comb out players from these regions.


This is because the operators do not put pressure on the providers to pursue this kind of change. Most pressure seems to be applied to releasing new games, and often it seems the number of new games is more important than the quality. Hence, we end up with multiple clones of the same successful game, with the only difference being the reelstrips and sounds.

Most problems are themselves down to generous welcome bonuses, which is what advantage players look for. A casino without a decent welcome bonus will be ignored by the advantage players. Such a casino would attract fewer registrations, but those it does attract will be of greater quality, driven by factors other than the "bribe" of a large bonus.

Most bonus problems are related to the welcome bonus, so it is possible that a casino could scrap this, yet STILL have a system whereby loyal players can be offered bonuses every now and then, so long as it is done in a way that does not generate an expectation, and feeling of rejection when no such offer is forthcoming.
 
Top