Limiting Wins

[phynqster]

A lot of people complain about the RTG (only ones I am familiar with) casinos that put limits on wins. Since I happen to be one of those casinos I want to point something out to players.
I think it is wrong to limit wins on table games, I do not think it is wrong to limit the pay outs on slots, and am undecided on Video poker. The reason I feel that it should be limited on slots is the money in the Jackpots is not REAL MONEY. As an example over the weekend I ran a free chip promotion, in the casino. My jackpots on my slot machines raised over 360,000 so far while the actual deposits in were less than 10,000. In most cases at least 50% and usually closer to 80% (depending on bonuses) of the money in a jackpot is real money. So if a player takes a bonus he should be limited to his win. But a player comming in with no bonus is able to cash out the full jackpot if he hits.
My problem on Video Poker is some what the same, the bonuses keep the player playing longer and if the eventually play long enough they will hit the Royal Flush, but because there is also some skilled involved, is my quandry. If you knew that the Royal flush should hit at 1000 hands and you deposit 500 and get a 100 match bonus than you will hit the royal and be paid as if you deposit 1000, but really only played 500. If you actually did the math the machines pay out over 100% if everything put in was real money.
Just a few coments, from a casino manager. Would love to hear other suggestions from players out there.

 

[aka23]

If you knew that the Royal flush should hit at 1000 hands and you deposit 500 and get a 100 match bonus than you will hit the royal and be paid as if you deposit 1000, but really only played 500. If you actually did the math the machines pay out over 100% if everything put in was real money.

I'm confused by this statement. How would you know the royal should hit at 1000 hands? The odds of a natural royal flush are less than 1 in 1000, and the odds should remain at less than 1 in 1000 regardless of how many hands you have played before with or without hitting one.

 

[phynqster]

I was just using round numbers to make a point. Like saying you deposit 20 and get a 100% bonus at roulette and bet the same # everytime you will always win money. Off course your single number is not gauranteed but should come up with in 38 spins.So you real were only risking 20 for a gauranteed win.

 

[Simmo!]

I have two things to say on this issue Phyngster.

Firstly, if the limits are made very clear within the T&C's then the casino has the right to limit payouts to players who use a bonus.

Secondly, as a regular player, I would not play at a casino that limited cashouts for two reasons: (rightly or wrongly) my initial impression is that the casino has limited funds and that leaves me feeling uneasy. And also, I am always hopeful of landing the "big one" and the thought that this will be paid to me over years is not appealing in the slightest! Besides there are several top casinos that don't limit cashouts so unless I was bonus hunting, why would I go to one that did?

Now this is slightly OT but as it's mentioned as a "cause" of arguably limiting cashouts, I'll go on:

The whole "bonus" issue is a sticky wicket: casinos don't want players who are trying to profit from free money and move on (and nor would I), but conversely they are happy to offer bonuses which are likely to attract that sort of player in the hope that some players will "stick". This isn't aimed just at you by the way, but the way I see it is that you can't have your cake and eat it: a casino either offer bonuses, get's the terms spot on and plays the game properly, or they find other ways to attract new players.

Just my view - but bear in mind signup bonuses don't tempt me to play at online casinos anyway

Cheers,

Simmo!

 

[RobWin]

A lot of people complain about the RTG (only ones I am familiar with) casinos that put limits on wins. Since I happen to be one of those casinos I want to point something out to players.
I think it is wrong to limit wins on table games, I do not think it is wrong to limit the pay outs on slots, and am undecided on Video poker. The reason I feel that it should be limited on slots is the money in the Jackpots is not REAL MONEY. As an example over the weekend I ran a free chip promotion, in the casino. My jackpots on my slot machines raised over 360,000 so far while the actual deposits in were less than 10,000. In most cases at least 50% and usually closer to 80% (depending on bonuses) of the money in a jackpot is real money. So if a player takes a bonus he should be limited to his win. But a player comming in with no bonus is able to cash out the full jackpot if he hits.
My problem on Video Poker is some what the same, the bonuses keep the player playing longer and if the eventually play long enough they will hit the Royal Flush, but because there is also some skilled involved, is my quandry. If you knew that the Royal flush should hit at 1000 hands and you deposit 500 and get a 100 match bonus than you will hit the royal and be paid as if you deposit 1000, but really only played 500. If you actually did the math the machines pay out over 100% if everything put in was real money.
Just a few coments, from a casino manager. Would love to hear other suggestions from players out there.

phynqster, I don't understand your reasoning here. How do you explain how brick and motar casinos like Harrah's for example can sent me two coupons for $125.00 each to use in their casino on two adjacent days playing whatever game I chose to play and absolutely imposing NO wagering requirements on me whatsoever ?

 

[phynqster]

Simmo,
I like your input thank you. I was really not really looking at limiting the payouts on a weekly or monthly amount. I think that is wrong, if you accept the money pay the money.
What my point I was trying to make was limiting the win, as in deposit 100 get bonus MAX CASH OUT 10X DEPOSIT. Even more people are upset with that than only being paid 2500 per week
RobbWin, You can not compare the two on line is totally different than B&M. What if I gave you a bonus to use any way you like on the on line casino, but told you you must leave your computer turned on for 48 hours to the casino, and you could not leave the casino site for more than a few hours. If I could enforce that like a B&M is pretty much doing, I would give the same bonus.

 

[Simmo!]

How do you explain how brick and motar casinos like Harrah's for example can sent me two coupons for $125.00 each to use in their casino on two adjacent days playing whatever game I chose to play and absolutely imposing NO wagering requirements on me whatsoever ?

Just one thing I'd point out here Rob, the effort required to go to a B&M and sit down and play is more than online. It's easy just to flop around online casinos whereas at a B&M the physical act of movement is counteracted by the omni-present lure of MacDonalds

 

[Simmo!]

What my point I was trying to make was limiting the win, as in deposit 100 get bonus MAX CASH OUT 10X DEPOSIT. Even more people are upset with that than only being paid 2500 per week

Yes, certainly a different kettle of fish. My view: The T&C's of the bonus cashout limit must be very clear. The problems will come when a player has their expectations managed badly. IE: they play the bonus unaware of the restriction for whatever reason.

I'll probably get chastised for this remark, but if more of your players moan about the bonus cashout limit than the limit imposed on normal play, then somewhere along the line you have targetted the wrong demographic for a succesful business IMO. This is why I hate the whole signup bonus thing...it just causes problems for everyone apart from the few who know how to use them...no knames kmentioned

But assuming the T&C's are very clear regards limits, then hey it's a freebie, if you don't like it don't take it

 

[Vesuvio]

Like saying you deposit 20 and get a 100% bonus at roulette and bet the same # everytime you will always win money. Off course your single number is not gauranteed but should come up with in 38 spins.So you real were only risking 20 for a gauranteed win.

If only that "guaranteed" win was actually guaranteed we'd all be billionaires Still, it's always reassuring to find casino employees with a shaky grasp of basic probability

As to limiting payouts - why not simply exclude progressive slots from bonus play, if that's a problem? Though I wouldn't be suprised if it works out as financially beneficial to you without limits. Allowing them and restricting payouts is encouraging players to throw away their money at an enormous house edge. I know that's what you want, but it's a bit below the belt.

VP "jackpots" have no relation at all to the progressives. 4000 for a RF is no different to 1.5 for a BJ, unless you're poorly funded. If that's the case then why not reduce the coin sizes available. Of course bonuses help the player, but just because VP has the occasional flashy win shouldn't stop you wanting the player to play it rather than e.g. BJ.

 

[RobWin]

Simmo,
I like your input thank you. I was really not really looking at limiting the payouts on a weekly or monthly amount. I think that is wrong, if you accept the money pay the money.
What my point I was trying to make was limiting the win, as in deposit 100 get bonus MAX CASH OUT 10X DEPOSIT. Even more people are upset with that than only being paid 2500 per week
RobbWin, You can not compare the two on line is totally different than B&M. What if I gave you a bonus to use any way you like on the on line casino, but told you you must leave your computer turned on for 48 hours to the casino, and you could not leave the casino site for more than a few hours. If I could enforce that like a B&M is pretty much doing, I would give the same bonus.

phynqster, I still don't understand your reasoning because I can walk into Harrah's right now....cash-in my coupon for $125.00 and then turn around and walk right back out the door if I choose to.

Harrah's would not know whether I played my free $125.00 back in their machines or not unless I had actually put my players club card into one of their machines.

If a Brick and Motar casino did in fact enforce some kind of rule like you suggest here then your argument would be valid but I have played in brick and motar casinos all over the US and have never known of a brick and motar casino to even try and enforce something that sounds as strange as you suggest.

 

[RobWin]

Just one thing I'd point out here Rob, the effort required to go to a B&M and sit down and play is more than online. It's easy just to flop around online casinos whereas at a B&M the physical act of movement is counteracted by the omni-present lure of MacDonalds

Maybe I am comparing two different things here.........I guess I should compare my free $125.00 coupon to my earned comp points online....but even some comp points online have wagering requirements attached to them also before you can just cash them out and leave...so I am still not quite convenced of the difference.

 

[Simmo!]

Maybe I am comparing two different things here.........I guess I should compare my free $125.00 coupon to my earned comp points online....but even some comp points online have wagering requirements attached to them also before you can just cash them out and leave...so I am still not quite convenced of the difference.

Sorry, what I mean is that Harrahs can be pretty sure that most people who bring in their coupons will stay at their B&M for a while rather than walk around others, so its a more effective way of bringing in the punters than perhaps a similar online promo where it is easier just to wander in, do the wagering, wander off. At a B&M, if you making a trip of it, you're more likely to make more of it I'd have thought.

 

[AussieDave]

This is why I hate the whole signup bonus thing...it just causes problems for everyone apart from the few who know how to use them...

so true!

But assuming the T&C's are very clear regards limits, then hey it's a freebie, if you don't like it don't take it

Exactly...

RTG casino's generally have a notorious past for saying one thing in the their promos and meaning another in their T&C's. (that's not a personal dig btw, just a general observation).

I few years back I spoke with Michael Staw (for those who don't know he's the CEO of RTG) on this exact topic. It's my understanding that (least back then 2003) more than a few RTG casino owners are not very savvy when it comes to writing their T&C's, which turns into a nightmare when they push out over the top bonuses too.

Most gamblers are not legal eagles (I'm not), hence trying to make head & tail of T&C's becomes a linguistic exercise in mental torture. Something I don't feel is needed. Why on earth don't make T&C's plain and simple is a question that baffles me. Or is it intended to confuse the sh#t out of people and that's where you make your killing!

In regards to this whole bonus ( progressive slots) issue I tend to side with Vesuvio's views.

As to limiting payouts - why not simply exclude progressive slots from bonus play, if that's a problem? Though I wouldn't be suprised if it works out as financially beneficial to you without limits. Allowing them and restricting payouts is encouraging players to throw away their money at an enormous house edge. I know that's what you want, but it's a bit below the belt.

 

[RobWin]

Sorry, what I mean is that Harrahs can be pretty sure that most people who bring in their coupons will stay at their B&M for a while rather than walk around others, so its a more effective way of bringing in the punters than perhaps a similar online promo where it is easier just to wander in, do the wagering, wander off. At a B&M, if you making a trip of it, you're more likely to make more of it I'd have thought.

Yes, I see your point here Simmo

 

[Rettahs]

phynqster, I do have to ask what casino you are working for now since it doesn't seem to be listed in your profile. I have a lot more thoughts about the posts in here but I am very curious as to which casino you work for before I make my comments. Not that I am in fear of any backlash but I just like to know who I am talking with .

 

[Simmo!]

phynqster, I do have to ask what casino you are working for now since it doesn't seem to be listed in your profile. I have a lot more thoughts about the posts in here but I am very curious as to which casino you work for before I make my comments. Not that I am in fear of any backlash but I just like to know who I am talking with .

here's a clue Rettahs https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/shark.14330/

 

[1819]

i think the big issue here is offering a bonus to get people to deposit. maybe online casinos should stop this practice and focus on rewarding the people that do. cut down on bonus hunters by getting rid of the big bonus'. sure b&m casinos offer tons of money back with no strings attached but you have to have played first. i get tons of "free" stuff from b&m's including alot of cash but that is a reward for dropping tons of money in their properties. offering a nice deposit bonus with decent playthrough and no max cashout along with good comp points with no restrictions is most appealing. there are a few online places this way and those are the ones who get my money. i dont even look at the offer that's "too good to be true" 400% bonus and such. i put that up there with the guy selling rolex's on the boardwalk for 100 bucks. keep walking. peace...