jemmanunn VS Buck & Butler

Hi Max you are incorrect in this statement. OP has not posted since she submitted the PAB. Last post from her was 3.23AM and you state she submitted 03:52AM :thumbsup:

You're in a different time zone. :p Max was referring to central European time - her PAB was submitted at 03:52AM CET and last post was at 4:23 CET.
 
Rainmaker is a stellar guy, and may have a contact higher up than the support you have been dealing with.

I couldn't find any rep from Buck&Butler here at CM but as Jasminebed suggested you can try contacting Rainmaker and see if he can help.

If he is unable to help you then i think it's time to Link Outdated / Removed.


Thanks you two :thumbsup:

Yes, the OP did contact me earlier today, but I haven't heard back from her as I just needed a couple of details before contacting the guys at B&B.

However - I see that Max now has confirmed that a PAB already has been filed and I do not want to interfere in that process.

I think this is an interesting case, so I am looking forward to Max's conclusion.
 
I support original poster even if I think she violated their terms.

To show my support.....
 

Attachments

  • image.webp
    image.webp
    38.8 KB · Views: 255
I support u Jem. I just sent them this email!!

Hello. Although I never played there I excluded myself because of a single mom that won 8k with you and you are not paying her.

You are hiding behind your terms and conditions and stuffing legal crap down the ladies throat. Pay her the money. She won. So what if she violated a term which you switched when she was playing or totally misunderstood your lawyers words which 99.9% of the world would not understand anyway!!!

Pay her the money. People read forums. I was going to deposit there. I changed my mind after reading.

8000 dollars for a single mom is a lot of money BUCK. She deserves to get paid. Everything!!

Violation of bonus terms. Next time make it clearer for people. Not everyone is a bloody lawyer

Johnny

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:46 AM, "Buckandbutler support" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear ******

This email is to confirm your account is now set to self excluded.

You will no longer be able to login to your account.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any queries at [email protected]

Kind Regards

BuckAndButler.com Customer Support Team
 
Their response.........

Hello,

Im sorry to inform you that we do not have an offer like this but if you like, kindly provide us with the link you saw this so I can report it.
Thank you in advance.


Have a great day!
Kind regards
Isabelle


Buck & Butler Support
[email protected] / www.buckandbutler.com

Ticket Details





I emailed them the link here Jem.

I hope they pay you.

Mumbo jumbo lawyer talk which no one understands and is always subject to modificAtions is no fair to honest people depositing and playing.

You are the victim here. Yes. You don't deserve stress. You won. Violation of terms, even if clear to less that 1% of the world is no excuse not to get paid. Fight till u get paid Jem!
 
Hello. Although I never played there I excluded myself because of a single mom that won 8k with you and you are not paying her.

You are hiding behind your terms and conditions and stuffing legal crap down the ladies throat. Pay her the money. She won. So what if she violated a term which you switched when she was playing or totally misunderstood your lawyers words which 99.9% of the world would not understand anyway!!!

Pay her the money. People read forums. I was going to deposit there. I changed my mind after reading.

8000 dollars for a single mom is a lot of money BUCK. She deserves to get paid. Everything!!

Violation of bonus terms. Next time make it clearer for people. Not everyone is a bloody lawyer

Johnny

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:46 AM, "Buckandbutler support" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear ******

This email is to confirm your account is now set to self excluded.

You will no longer be able to login to your account.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any queries at [email protected]

Kind Regards

BuckAndButler.com Customer Support Team



please Johnny stay out of it!! let Max deal with it,
 
Agreed.

please Johnny stay out of it!! let Max deal with it,


Max will do what he can for sure. I am just responding and trying to help the OP.

Buck is now going to see the reality. 8k for a single mom is a lot of money Mimi.

Never mind my rants, I am really upset that they did that to her.

I did what I could to help. There is nothing more for me to say.

I wish her the best.

And as for you, you continue playing GOD and stand back and critisize every post I make. Maybe try to help OP. That's what she needs.
 
...

Never mind my rants, I am really upset that they did that to her.
Kind of hard to ignore your rants when they appear in any thread you choose to participate in.

And as for you, you continue playing GOD and stand back and critisize every post I make. Maybe try to help OP. That's what she needs.
Playing god? How about some "hammer time" from Thor?

Repeated violations of rule 1.18 - 30 day suspension.
 
Hello. Although I never played there I excluded myself because of a single mom that won 8k with you and you are not paying her.

You are hiding behind your terms and conditions and stuffing legal crap down the ladies throat. Pay her the money. She won. So what if she violated a term which you switched when she was playing or totally misunderstood your lawyers words which 99.9% of the world would not understand anyway!!!

Pay her the money. People read forums. I was going to deposit there. I changed my mind after reading.

8000 dollars for a single mom is a lot of money BUCK. She deserves to get paid. Everything!!

Violation of bonus terms. Next time make it clearer for people. Not everyone is a bloody lawyer

Johnny

Sent from my iPhone

Oh for gods sake, you don't even understand the disagreement, why on earth would you choose to stick your nose in like this? Excluding yourself from ANYWHERE on behalf of a user you just spent several pages attempting to call stupid(basically) is bizarre anyway, the fact she is a single mom is irrelevant. She did not violate the term as stated, and 99.9pc of forum users here at casinomeister are able to understand the term, its only you who can't.

I hope you will spend your 30 days suspension READING the forums and trying to make sense of the world around you. God knows you need to.
 
I am not waiting for the results, as usual. I fully intend to comment on this issue now that I can get a word in edgewise.

I want to make a cognizant post, and I need to read certain terms more fully, research terms at a couple of other threads and sites, and comment thoughtfully.

I endeavour to read other people's comments and posts most times before posting my opinion, and I want to thank CM of relieving me of the burden of Johnny's contributions.

You will hear from me a little later, got some gambling, lunch and then shopping to do in the meantime!
 
Sorry for OT but this was the best read in a long time. Johnny made my day. :notworthy :lolup:

Started reading this morning and been checking for updates over the afternoon for a good laugh. Wanted to chime in but everyone else seemed to state what I wanted to shout, so no need. Really sad for the ban, could have been good evening read as well.

Best of luck with the PAB.
 
Sorry for OT but this was the best read in a long time. Johnny made my day. :notworthy :lolup:

Started reading this morning and been checking for updates over the afternoon for a good laugh. Wanted to chime in but everyone else seemed to state what I wanted to shout, so no need. Really sad for the ban, could have been good evening read as well.

Best of luck with the PAB.

I found absolutely nothing humorous with Johnny's latest rant to a new member that came here seeking help. His borderline psychotic bipolar behavior makes this forum look unprofessional and immature at best.
I for one have had enough of his nonsense and would have liked to see the ban be permanent.
 
I found absolutely nothing humorous with Johnny's latest rant to a new member that came here seeking help. His borderline psychotic bipolar behavior makes this forum look unprofessional and immature at best.
I for one have had enough of his nonsense and would have liked to see the ban be permanent.

I don't know... really starting to become convinced he suffers from some type of mental disability in which case I'm going to feel like the biggest jerk on the planet for the way I've spoken to him. That, or he's the very best troll I've yet encountered and done an amazing job of inciting a response here at CM.

If neither are true and he is infact just a very... strange individual, the short term ban is the best thing, he should hopefully spend the time reading the forum instead of padding out threads such as this to five pages by repeating his opinion over and over again - I begged him to go back to the start of the thread and work out where he had misunderstood, but I'm pretty sure he didn't listen once again.

In the strangest way though, I have to admit I'll miss the guy lol... the absurdity of his posts is really compelling in the weirdest kind of way lol.
 
He`s gotta be a troll, nobody can be that "all over the place" and his post seams almost as they are written in a psychotic state... (No offence)
Or maybe hes just not a native english speaker and are struggeling to write in a meaningfull way.

I find most of the stuff he posts funny tough
 
:eek2::eek2:
Sorry for OT but this was the best read in a long time. Johnny made my day. :notworthy :lolup:

Started reading this morning and been checking for updates over the afternoon for a good laugh. Wanted to chime in but everyone else seemed to state what I wanted to shout, so no need. Really sad for the ban, could have been good evening read as well.

Best of luck with the PAB.

Posts like this only encourage the Johnnys of the forum! IMO this poster is a chit disturber and SHOULD BE ASHAMED of themself.

I strongly suggest that members use the ignore function when a poster starts gnawing on your last nerve :thumbsup: especially if it is me doing the gnawing ........
 
I've only just seen this thread - started this-morning and 60 posts already! :eek:
Haven't read all of them - and I especially skipped the totally useless comments from Jonny-got-the wrong-end-of-the-stick, or whatever his name is.

The term is badly written - that is without question.
But when I read it, my interpretation is the the max bet is €6 regardless of bonus size, as clearly stated in the last sentence.
I understand the word "exception", but the way the whole term is written, it could be read two ways.

Therefore I think it's a 50/50 case, though possibly leaning in the casino's favour.

In order to maintain fair play, a maximum permitted amount per wager has been set until the playthrough/wagering requirement has been met. The maximum wager is 10% of the bonus amount received. A wager is defined as one turn on the roulette table or slot machine or one dealt hand in a table game or in a video poker game (this includes games with multiple concurrent hands). This rule also applies to the use of the double/gamble function in all games, for example in video poker. This means that a player cannot continue to double a gain such that it exceeds 20% of the bonus amount received. If this rule is breached, the player accepts that the bonus and associated gains will be voided. Exception: players are allowed to places bets up to the max size of € 6 (or equivalent amount in other currencies), regardless of bonus amount received.

KK
 
You are right kk it is badly written but id agree with you. If I had read that id have stuck to £6 a bet or checked with support to see exactly what bet max was and not risked high bets. It reads like max bet is 10% but fact that exception is there makes it look like the max is £6 as well. Really badly wrote and in reality there should be no need to mention 10% at all and just have £6 max if 10% doesn't apply. Really confusing terms and can see why the OP thought they could gamble higher but feel casino will use exception as there get out clause. Hope PAB goes well for OP tho it is unusual these days for any casino to allow bets of £30 plus on welcome bonuses.
 
To me, the terms essentially read:

a) Everybody may bet up to 10 percent of their bonus amount whilst completing the wagering requirement
b) As an exception, everybody may bet up to €6 regardless of their bonus amount.

Nowhere in the exception does it prohibit betting above six euro - it only allows everybody to bet up to six, including those for whom 10 percent does not equal six euro. I'm certain it would not stand up to any serious legal scrutiny, its unfortunate for the op that the casino will not be subject to such scrutiny.
 
Regardless of what the "correct" interpretation is, for all the bad publicity that will crystalize when google etc indexes this thread i'd be inclined to pay up to save face if I were B&B. Good luck to the OP with the PAB - I reckon you have a fighting chance with this one.
 
Hey This rule is same in Most Net Ent casino if player play with bonus can use maximum 10% or 20% bonus amount recived per single spin with exceptions 5€ or 6€ .

How this work ? if player make deposit 20€ got bonus 100% starts play with 40€ - can bet maximum 5€ or 6€ per single spin - dosent metter 10% from 20€ is only 2€ becose is exception 6€ bet allowed per all bonuses BUT if player deposit 150€ then max bet allowed is 10% from 150€ then 15€ per single spin.

In this case player make deposit 290€ then NOT broke any rulez becose 10% from 290€ is 29€ maximum bet per single spin allowed.( Player say his max bet was 27€)

Casino change rulez soon after player make BIG Withdrawal ...... in first way terms and conditions allowed player to bet maximum 29€ per single spin - and all was good with terms and conditions- Is unethical bissnes practice from casino if they dont woona pay player Big withdrawal becose player dont broke ( max bet rulez) in Terms and conditions.

Player shoud open PAB and casino play dirty with player they shoud pay in this case all was good with terms and conditions.
 
This casino is part everymatrix - in all every matrix who have this rulez with 10% -20% max bet allowed with exceptions 5€ - Rulez are same all players who make smal deposit and recived small bonus can bet maximum 5/6€ per single spin - if in rulez is write something abaout 10-20% then player always can make bet maximm up to 10% ( his bonus amount not only 6€) if player deposit 290€ can bet 29€

If casino wonna make max bet 5-6€ then rulez is clear - example - copy from one matrix casino :


1)"Until the play through requirements have been met, the maximum bet that can be placed is €7.50 (75kr, $7.50, £6). This includes double up wagers after the game round has been completed. For example, wagering winnings from X game round on red/black."

And all is clear is nothing abaout 10% or 20% but is write only Max bet allowed is .... Im know how this work becose im see same rulez in many net ent ( most every matrix casino) Player can bet always up to 6€ if make smal deposit with small bonnus and can bet maximum up to 10% his Biger deposit amount per single spin in case when decided make Big deposit .

Example copy rulez same like BB from secund Net Ent Matrix casino

2) In the interest of fair gaming there is a maximum allowed stake per bet until the wagering requirement has been met. This maximum stake is 10% of the bonus amount received. A Bet is defined as one slot spin. This rule also applies when using any double up/gamble feature in any game. This means that the player may not continue to double a win to an amount larger than 20% of the bonus amount received. In case of a breach of this rule, the player agrees that his bonus and any associated winnings may be void. Exception: players are always allowed to place bets up to the size of €5, or currency equivalent, regardless of bonus amount received.

Now you see diferent ? exceptions 5€ is only for small depositors who make small deposits - they still can bet maximum up to 5€ Biger depositors who decided deposit Big Amount with bonus can always bet maximum up to 10% recived bonus amount. This casino is part of Every matrix and probably copy same/ close terms

If you have time you can check few Every matrix casinos bonus terms and conditions -( and you see this diferent )

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


and you see is clear show - some of them write in bonus terms :

1) Until the play through requirements have been met, the maximum bet that can be placed is .... 5-6 or 7€ amount allowed -( Nothing abaout 10%) Rest have
2) Few matrix casino have write maximum bet 10% of recived bonus but exception all players always can bet up to 5€ ( this rulez is frendly for small depositors) but no connections with 10% for bigger depositors rule

if casino wonna make max bet 6€ then dont need write NOTHING in bonus rulez abaout 10% of recived bonus amount - simple write max allowed is .... and all clear .
 
It seems clear because of the date they decided to update the terms and conditions they must have realised that the original wording could easily be misinterpreted - afterall, it states only that all customers are permitted to bet up to 6 euro, regardless of the size of bonus received, and not that any customers are NOT permitted to bet more ...

I cant imagine your 'breach' standing up in court with the term as written when you broke it. Sadly though we're not in court - did you take screenshots of the original term as you pasted it ?

Somebody here will be able to direct you to the rep for Buck and Butler here, I'm pretty sure there is one, and you can also file a PAB complaint too, which I'd definitely recommend doing. I really wish you luck.

Pretty dodgy.

I would expect the term to cover situations where the bonus amount is so small that 10% produces an unrealistically low max bet, so they will allow up to €6 regardless.

They should still honour wins derived from deposits that were made BEFORE the rules were changed.

If they are using a specific €6 amount, then there is no more need for the general 10% rule, so why leave it there, it only makes it more complicated.

If this kind of rule is going to become the norm, why design games that have higher bets in any case. It's much like the argument "what's the point of making, then advertising, a car capable of 160mph when the max limit is 70mph". Given that bonuses are the mainstay of online casinos, much as driving on the public highway is the mainstay of car use, what's the point of making products that customers can't normally use.
 
thx vwm, knew you would have a sensible opinion on this one

edit: though not so sure about the car analogy part ;) My dad would always say he liked to have a little 'power in reserve', hence the reason he always had 3.0 litre supercharged BMWs... for towing his caravan haha !!
 
I've just had a look at the terms for my own curiosity and they are certainly dizzying for any consumer.

I can see:
1. Campaign terms - specific to this bonus
2. General terms and conditions - what you agree to when you sign up
3. "Bonus terms" - Seem to apply to any bonus, but I cannot see them referenced in the campaign terms or the general terms. So where is the player meant to have accepted them?

Possibly a derail as I might have missed something, I'm sure someone here will point me in the right direction if I have :Read:

I'm certain it would not stand up to any serious legal scrutiny, its unfortunate for the op that the casino will not be subject to such scrutiny.

This is where the UK PoC regulation might become interesting, as casinos will have to have a UK entity you could bring a claim against. I can see a lot of casinos getting called up for shady actions.

Anyway, end of derail point 2. Good luck to OP.
 
FAZII summed things up very nicely.

If for any deposit and bonus size max bet is $6, or currency equivalent, no need for any kind of 10% rule.

Assuming there are no other issues,and play was commenced before the change in rules, that casino should just pay the player. In fact, they should probably send them a big bouquet of flowers for not winning more!

I have no idea where in the OPs play or the OP's balance the high bets were placed. I don't even know if it was a slot or if other games were allowed on the bonus. For someone playing blackjack or roulette, 10% of bonus may not be a big bet at all.

If the casino feels the OP is an advantage player, just pay them and then close their account. Or don't close it, they will just have to abide by the revised rules for future play, or withdraw bonuses altogether.

I'm unsure too if the OP actually won making these bigger bets, or the casino is merely claiming they voided the play. Not that it makes a difference in some respects but to my mind it tells to whether the casino is just looking for excuses not to pay.

I know that the earlier thread, the casino was limiting cashouts on the SUB to 10K, and that was changed. That suggests underfunded to me, or that the SUB was so EV+ they had to limit it.

To my mind, the casino has now amended the term to more clearly reflect their expectations of players, which I have no issues whatsoever with.

But a change in terms cannot be retroactive.
 
Thanks to Buck & Butler

I played last night @ Buck & Butler, took a 100% Bonus and won about 800 Euro.
I had still Bonus Money in my Account and hit unfortunately the maxbet Button.
I didn´t recognized it, until i made 4 Spins for 20 Euro.
I was really wondering where my money is... :eek2: :o
The Casino was more then fair to me and forgot my "mistake".
They paid me 12 hours later.
Great behaviour and big thanks!!!!! :notworthy:thumbsup::notworthy
 
To ensure that the ongoing PAB related to this issue is not adversly affected the original title -- "Avoid Buck & Butler at all costs" -- has been changed.

If the PAB reveals that the original title was justified I'll replace it.
 
Allow me to introduce myself, My name is Jack, I often browse on this site, and read the forums etc, however I have never took it upon myself to give any input. I think I have something that could be very valuable in this case which is why I am posting this.

I myself had a fantastic experience with Buck & Butler.

I signed up to the site around the middle of July. The terms at the time of me signing up were exactly the same terms as when Jemma Nunn signed up based on what she has posted here. I too took the term to read as a 10% of bonus rather than 6 euro max bet. I was betting either 25.00 or 27.50, I can't be exact as it was a month ago now and I do play a fair bit online. Anyway, I managed to win in excess of 9k, and it was paid to me in full within 48 hours. It seems they have maybe been hit too many times and Jemma is going to be the loser in that. But I don't believe she done anything wrong and I was paid doing pretty much the same size bets as her. It seems to be the case considering they have changed the terms so quickly after her win. That looks guilty in itself.

I hope my information can help in this case, I am willing to quote my username as it could possibly be of use maybe :- spursbet1

I wish Jemma luck in this pursuit of her winnings. :D:D:notworthy

Jack
 
I found absolutely nothing humorous with Johnny's latest rant to a new member that came here seeking help. His borderline psychotic bipolar behavior makes this forum look unprofessional and immature at best.
I for one have had enough of his nonsense and would have liked to see the ban be permanent.

Talking of bipolar behaviour...
This is a professional forum?
I await my cheque. :cool:
 
Wow. I thought I was crazy!

30 bucks a spin as a single mum?????

Wow.

As a high roller myself I have limits. Kids first. Maybe she should put some limits down and concentrate on that more than anything.

In my country, 30 bucks can buy 12 litres of milk for the kids. It's a lot of money.

I hope she gets something from all this. Single mum gambling 30 bucks a spin. I can only imagine the money lost over the years. Good luck Jem

OMFG!

This is quite possibly the most disturbing and offensive comment I've ever read here. And from a man who has first hand experience of how hurtful assumptions regarding ones parenting and children can be.

I am speechless.

Not only is this insensitive and offensive to the op and single mothers the world over, but I'm of the opinion it's offensive to all women and any man who has ever loved and respected a mother, sister, daughter, niece, cousin or girlfriend.

Johnny, you've taken your senseless ranting too far on this occasion, and that one post alone was like receiving an unwanted personal invitation into the furthest depths of your heart, soul, and psyche. What a horrible place to be.

Your selfishness astounds me, and I'm of the opinion you aren't wanted, nor ready, to become a member of this forum.

I think you should be banned for life on the back of that one post alone.

WTF?!!

I
 
OMFG!

This is quite possibly the most disturbing and offensive comment I've ever read here. And from a man who has first hand experience of how hurtful assumptions regarding ones parenting and children can be.

I am speechless.

Not only is this insensitive and offensive to the op and single mothers the world over, but I'm of the opinion it's offensive to all women and any man who has ever loved and respected a mother, sister, daughter, niece, cousin or girlfriend.

Johnny, you've taken your senseless ranting too far on this occasion, and that one post alone was like receiving an unwanted personal invitation into the furthest depths of your heart, soul, and psyche. What a horrible place to be.

Your selfishness astounds me, and I'm of the opinion you aren't wanted, nor ready, to become a member of this forum.

I think you should be banned for life on the back of that one post alone.

WTF?!!

I


Pot calling the kettle black here:(

As a high roller myself I have limits. Kids first.

If he can have kids and be a high roller, why is it so wrong for anyone else to do the same?

The OP's error is not being a single mum and gambling, it's mentioning this fact in order to gain leverage or sympathy in a dispute with a casino - it can often backfire.

It only becomes a problem when a parent's gambling causes the kids to go without the basics. I suspect most members who mention they need a dispute resolution quickly in order to pay the bills or buy food for the kids are just bluffing in order to put a little more pressure on the casino through gaining the sympathy vote.

Unless he has access to the OP's bank statements and credit file, there is no way he can judge whether or not such high bets are affordable for the OP, or signs of a gambling problem.

A wider issue however is that with more and more pressure being put on casinos to detect problem gamblers, mentioning that any pending withdrawal is essential in order to buy the groceries or pay the bills could end up with the casino determining that the player is a problem gambler in denial, which could mean they are booted and blacklisted from any casino that shares the same problem gambler blacklist. The UKGC is pressing for the implementation of an industry wide problem gambler exclusion list that will see any player who is excluded from one UK licenced casino due to a gambling problem excluded from ALL UK licenced casinos for the period of exclusion, which could be a life ban.

We already see cases where players have asked for their accounts to be suspended for a short while, or even closed because they don't like a particular casino, assumed to be problem gamblers and finding they get booted from other casinos sharing the same blacklist. This is despite their original request having nothing to do with a gambling problem.
 
Okay im guessing OP lost since PAB is crossed out. Not here to post about that tho more the single mum bit. Saw a lot of criticism about that and comments that she used it for sympathy. Thought id point out that at no point did the OP mention anything about her personal circumstances. After the OPs last post a member mentioned she was in her late 20s and a mum which im guessing they read on her profile. Johnny then decided that means she was a single mum(which theres no mention if shes single or not) wasting her kids money and it went from there. Not taking anything to do with this as I know nothing about OP or if her PAB was genuine or not but think its unfair for people to judge her on something she has neither said or done as she has not posted anything since single mum got mentioned.
 
You referring to me here? Care to elaborate?

Nope,

Johnny.

He had a rant about a mum playing 30.00 spins, yet says he too is a high roller, and has kids (who come first). If he can high roll responsibly and put his kids first, so can anyone else, single mum or not.

The "single mum" has become a pariah in the UK mainly because of how some young girls exploit the benefits system by deliberately becoming single mums in order to get a free flat and free meal ticket for the next 16 years or more. This has tarred ALL single mums with the same brush. It's what happens when there is a system that rewards bad behaviour, whether it's single mums in sink estates, or greedy bankers gambling with other people's money.
 
Nope,

Johnny.

He had a rant about a mum playing 30.00 spins, yet says he too is a high roller, and has kids (who come first). If he can high roll responsibly and put his kids first, so can anyone else, single mum or not.

The "single mum" has become a pariah in the UK mainly because of how some young girls exploit the benefits system by deliberately becoming single mums in order to get a free flat and free meal ticket for the next 16 years or more. This has tarred ALL single mums with the same brush. It's what happens when there is a system that rewards bad behaviour, whether it's single mums in sink estates, or greedy bankers gambling with other people's money.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you 100%, hence my comments that he was unfairly making the same assumptions against her that he didn't appreciate when made against him.

Glad we're on the same page ;).
 
I think that this is a badly written term that means the opposite of what it actually looks like. I think what they were trying to with the 'regardless of bonus amount received' is that no matter how big your bonus is, you can only bet up to the max bet size of €6.

So max bet is 10% of the bonus - if you get a €20 bonus, your max bet size is €2. If you got a €60 bonus, your max bet size is €6. And the 'exception' is that if you got a €100 or €200 or €300 bonus, your max bet size is still €6.

If that's the case, then the term is so convoluted that there's no way for the player to make sense of it. And if the casino has since changed the term several times to clarify it, then they know how senseless it was...
I agree - it was a poorly written term, but even so, it still read that the max bet should have been €6. When one reads poorly written terms like this, you ought to clarify everything with customer support just to make sure. The unfortunate thing is that sometimes you don't realize how poorly the term is until it's too late.

The casino responded stating that to them, the rule was clear as it was originally written - but that it could be misinterpreted. So this is why it was changed. Max and I felt the same way - as a number of you have pointed out, it could be misinterpreted - it shouldn't have been so convoluted.

This underscores the importance of making sure you understand all of the terms before participating in promotions. I feel sorry for the player, but there was not much we could have done. Any act of reconciliation would have been a decision made by the casino.
 
I agree - it was a poorly written term, but even so, it still read that the max bet should have been €6. When one reads poorly written terms like this, you ought to clarify everything with customer support just to make sure. The unfortunate thing is that sometimes you don't realize how poorly the term is until it's too late.

The casino responded stating that to them, the rule was clear as it was originally written - but that it could be misinterpreted. So this is why it was changed. Max and I felt the same way - as a number of you have pointed out, it could be misinterpreted - it shouldn't have been so convoluted.

This underscores the importance of making sure you understand all of the terms before participating in promotions. I feel sorry for the player, but there was not much we could have done. Any act of reconciliation would have been a decision made by the casino.

So in your opinion Bryan, is this casino safe to play at?
 
This term seams to be on allot of casinos. I always assumed as Bryan said that 6€ was the max bet. But i can see how it may lead to confusion. And i really think casinos or the regulators should sett more strict rules and guidelines when it comes to terms and conditions and advertisment (See my other thread)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top