Good advice. Thread moved, title changed since the original was obviously intended to coerce the casino.
I totally agree, once the casino has applied the "max win" rule the Terms should have no further claim on the player's balance.
That said I can't say that this case looks to me like an instance where the Terms were applied beyond the point where the "max win" was enforced. I could well be missing something but it seems as if it was simply a case where the OP pressed the spin button one too many times. Yes/no?
Either way, no problem accepting a PAB on this AFAIC. From what I've seen here I would say the OP would basically be appealing to the casino peeps to give him/her a break but there's nothing wrong with that.
This looks like what happened, but this system simply does not give a player enough time to react to the change in balance. Human reaction times are just not up to it. Many players are looking at the game, not their balance, and unless a spin yields a big win, a glance down to the balance is unlikely. Once playing, players often click fast, especially if they are using the new RTG "turbo" feature.
In order to be fair, this system needs to create an interrupt at the time the balance is reduced, and the player required to acknowledge the fact such as by clicking to close a pop-up message telling them what has happened. Unless the player is counting spins, they have no way of knowing which spin should be their last.
The only real way a player can have a fair chance is by using the autospin "bot" and calculating the exact number of spins required to meet WR, whereupon play will stop automatically.
My challenge to the rep was whether they really want players addressing such promotions with the degree of clinical play required in order to guard against the "one spin too many".
Such clinical play is usually considered "abusive" by the industry, and many reps have made it clear that they want their players to engage with the game, rather than with analytically making exact WR. JC seem to want to have it both ways, saying completing WR to the cent is "abusive" when it suits them, yet saying players MUST do so on occasions like this.
No proper argument has ever been presented for the introduction of this new feature, and in any case it is meaningless. No matter when the reduction of balance is made, the player can only cash out the max allowed.
In all cases so far where the player has chosen to play on after meeting WR and having their balance reduced in situ to the max cashout, they have AGAIN had their balance reduced to this amount if they have won more from play following the first reduction.
This has lead to complaints from players who have wrongly assumed that once the reduction is applied, what is left is theirs with no further strings attached. This is WRONG, in order to play on after the reduction to the max cashout, they MUST withdraw and redeposit the amount in order to free the tie to max cashout.
Disabling all play and forcing cashout at the point of reduction would be another fair solution.
