Terms
While I don't expect any change of heart, I still think the terms are poorly written. There is the beating around the bushes of stating "wagering on ....... does not count...etc", and 2 paragraphs later, NOT in the bold text of the excluded games paragraphs is a term that suggests that winnings MAY be removed. The terms need to be "Loud and Clear", the BOLD text should clearly state that play on the excluded games is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN, PROHIBITED etc, not "does not count". The confiscation paragraph needs to be moved directly beneath this and made up to bond text, and should make it clear that winnings from such play on the FORBIDDEN games will NORMALLY BE FORFEIT rather than "may be at the casino's discretion". While this will scare off players for seeming harsh, it will at least make the true situation clear.
The current terms still leave the confiscation as discresionary, which leaves them open to argument as to "why me, I only played 300 credits - that's not a big mistake". A direct prohibition would leave no room for argument. The casino does not just have to be in the right, it has to be visibly seen to have acted fairly in both the application, and DESIGN of the relevant terms. After all, rogue casinos often fairly apply their terms, but they are DESIGNED as a trap so they get to apply the bad bits frequently.
I am certain that if this case went before the UK regulatory board the casino would be asked to make it clearer that the games are PROHIBITED rather than just not counting, and to spell out more clearly that the confiscation of winnings is the most likely consequence of breaching the terms, rather than something that is done as a last resort to a detected bonus chaser.
A previous reply has stated that GBP had nothing to do with the decision in this case, it was all down to play patterns, and much seems to be made of the fact that the first losing bet on 3 card poker totalled 400, which would have lost everything had Deuces Wild not been played beforehand.
I have looked at the terms, and they are dated with a start and expiry date, but perhaps this can be made more prominent, and perhaps reiterated at a few places in the terms, such as where changes are most likely.
From the players point of view, 8000 is a hell of a lot of money to lose out on, especially when the player did have 200 of her own money at risk as well as the bonus. I would be interested to know whether the BONUS was ever wagered on the prohibited game; i.e - would this 8000 have been won had the starting balance been only the original deposit of 200.
Piecar, if you have had luck with GBP before, I think it has come to an end now! Depositing in GBP from the USA does attract the attention of the casino accounts department, and the audit of your account may be more thorough. This also gives casinos an excuse to read an intent of "bonus abuse" into your chosen currency, and many casinos will make this determination simply on the basis that you won by playing well, but in the "wrong" currency, and will seek to just return your deposit and ban you.
I hope that the MG programmers come up with a method to get around this problem; as Casinomeister suggested, blocking the forbidden games on an account would work, and some of this coding is already in place. In Casino Action, when they had the Bonus account in which to play out bonuses, all the progressives were blocked by the software BECAUSE this was bonus money; however, bonus money in a real account is normally OK on progressives, except in a few cases such as 32Red. Certainly, this code exists, but currently only blocks all progressives rather than selected games as specified by the operator. It may be doing this from the account type code, rather than individual account number, so a little development may be needed.
