Max bet rule

elscrabinda

Active Member
PABnoaccred
PABnorogue
Hi All,

General post regarding max bet rules:

Haven't been paying attention for a while, and in the meantime lots of casinos seem to have instituted max bet rules when playing with bonuses. Not just "30% of balance etc", but absolute limits, sometimes as little as 6£/$. I appreciate that there are advantages to putting it all on one hand that a casino may legitimately want to mitigate against, but the low absolute rules seem incredibly restrictive, punitive against genuine high rollers, and liable to trip up lots of players, especially as they are often introduced with no fanfare and not displayed prominently where you would expect them to be in the terms.

What is the consensus around these in the community regarding them being unfair, and how much sympathy do players who inadvertantly fall foul of them receive from fellow players/CM/the casinos themselves

If this has been rehashed many times before apologies, and would appreciate being pointed in the direction of the relevant threads. Otherwise would be interested to know people's thoughts
 

fun4all

Senior Member
What is the consensus around these in the community regarding them being unfair
It's perfectly fair for casinos to impose a max bet like that. After all if they are giving you money to play with then they have every right to tell you what you can't do with it. I totally understand they want to protect against huge wins happening. £6 a go or whatever the example was is more than enough for almost every player!

What is not fair is when T&C's are deliberately hidden away and made hard to find on purpose, or crucial bonus clauses buried AWAY from the bonus section. Stuff like "Max win of 6x your deposit from a sign up bonus" - but its buried in the general terms instead of in the bonus/sign up terms. Disgusting.

It is also not fair (and I believe a UK court would rule against it) to have a clause which can be invoked any time the casino wants to. Basically a "If we don't want to we don't have to pay"/FU clause. Something like "Irregular play will result in confiscation of winnings" - but what is irregular play? If they don't define it they can say anything they want is irregular play. Fair terms specify exactly what is and isn't allowed clearly.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
It's perfectly fair for casinos to impose a max bet like that. After all if they are giving you money to play with then they have every right to tell you what you can't do with it. I totally understand they want to protect against huge wins happening. £6 a go or whatever the example was is more than enough for almost every player!

What is not fair is when T&C's are deliberately hidden away and made hard to find on purpose, or crucial bonus clauses buried AWAY from the bonus section. Stuff like "Max win of 6x your deposit from a sign up bonus" - but its buried in the general terms instead of in the bonus/sign up terms. Disgusting.

It is also not fair (and I believe a UK court would rule against it) to have a clause which can be invoked any time the casino wants to. Basically a "If we don't want to we don't have to pay"/FU clause. Something like "Irregular play will result in confiscation of winnings" - but what is irregular play? If they don't define it they can say anything they want is irregular play. Fair terms specify exactly what is and isn't allowed clearly.
Which is why Bryan ensures any casino accredited or going through BbF doesn't have those vague FU 'spirit of the bonus' terms.
If you want to play with casino's money via a bonus as well as yours, you have to accept they impose terms - provided they are fair, which means they can choose what maximum stake they like.
 

rockycatt

meistercatt
It's perfectly fair for casinos to impose a max bet like that. After all if they are giving you money to play with then they have every right to tell you what you can't do with it. I totally understand they want to protect against huge wins happening. £6 a go or whatever the example was is more than enough for almost every player!

.
isn't that covered in the w/r how else do they come up with the x factor =roll over
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
isn't that covered in the w/r how else do they come up with the x factor =roll over
In simple terms - yes the WR would protect the casino. But variance comes into play and is why the casinos have to have these rules to protect against advantage play.

Just for a very simple example, with no max bet limits:
Player deposits $100 and gets $100 bonus. WR is Bonus x30 = $3,000.
Puts 1 bet of $200 on Red at Roulette - wins and so has $400.
He then turns over the required $3,000 with small bets on a 96% RTP slot and loses the expected $120
He can now cash-out $280 = $180 profit.

If he loses the Roulette spin he only loses $100, when he wins, he makes $180.
This is why some time ago we saw huge groups of players ganging together or opening multiple accounts - with big numbers of accounts they were sure to win using this system.
That is why maximum bet limits were brought in.

KK
 

kavaman

Experienced Member
PABnononaccred3
PABnononaccred3
MM
Yes, but since almost all bonuses are slots only now, the roulette example dont cut it. Nevertheless the max bet rules are ok, but i think the casinos should have systems in place to not allow bets above the maximum bet they wish to enforce, since many NEW players do not have the faintest idea of such rule.
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Yes, but since almost all bonuses are slots only now, the roulette example dont cut it. Nevertheless the max bet rules are ok, but i think the casinos should have systems in place to not allow bets above the maximum bet they wish to enforce, since many NEW players do not have the faintest idea of such rule.
I did say that was a simple example.

From what I've heard, the "advantage players" have been brave and taken this system from Roulette to slots.
When you think about it, with Roulette they placed one huge bet and could only win double their money. But with slots they can place quite a few very large bets and potentially win MANY times their stake.
Sounds risky, I know - but the law of big numbers makes it profitable.

Rival have always had automatic max bet controls, and now Video Slots have found a way to add it to their casino.
Hopefully more casinos and/or software providers will follow suit. It would prevent a vast amount of problems! :thumbsup:

KK
 

cpdnd31

Ueber Meister
webmeister
CAG
You know I still get so dam confused with those rules- I can never remember the percentages you are allowed to bet. I was at rival today and I was like ok is it 10 percent of your stake you cant bet over -- well then I had to sit and watch to make sure I didn't screw up. Ended up doing min bets most of the time and it annoyed me. Moral of the story don't take a bonus at casinos that have this rule or don't play there. Too much work when I am trying to relax and have fun.
 

SlotsLover

Senior Member
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
PABnorogue
PABnononaccred3
MM
max bets and max cashouts

I believe the casino should have a right to place a max wager rule, but it would be really great if the software would impose this rule. I live by the basic rule, if the casino books the bet, it stands, but I do understand the max bet rule.

What I cannot accept are max cashouts (especially like 6x or 10x), especially when slots are involved. Max cashouts truncate all big hits and big hits are what the slots player dreams about. Furthermore, max cashouts reduce RTP potentially to unfair low returns. I am a strong believer that no accredited casino should be allowed to have a max withdrawal on deposit match bonuses. It's just not fair. Just like the casino commission would not allow a casino to offer 2-1 on 6-6 in craps (although some players might foolishly bet it), online casinos should not be allowed to cap withdrawals because of the way it reduces the RTP in a potentially huge manner. For example, on RTG, with a $50 deposit, all random jackpots, even the smallest, would have the return reduced by over 50%.
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
What I cannot accept are max cashouts (especially like 6x or 10x), especially when slots are involved. Max cashouts truncate all big hits and big hits are what the slots player dreams about. Furthermore, max cashouts reduce RTP potentially to unfair low returns. I am a strong believer that no accredited casino should be allowed to have a max withdrawal on deposit match bonuses. It's just not fair. Just like the casino commission would not allow a casino to offer 2-1 on 6-6 in craps (although some players might foolishly bet it), online casinos should not be allowed to cap withdrawals because of the way it reduces the RTP in a potentially huge manner. For example, on RTG, with a $50 deposit, all random jackpots, even the smallest, would have the return reduced by over 50%.
That is a very valid point and I can't argue with your thinking there.

I think the main reason a lot of RTG and Rival casinos in particular have these max cash-out rules is because of the sometimes huge Match Bonuses they offer. e.g. 400% up to $4,000 and the like.
Players starting with huge bankrolls have more opportunities to get big wins on stakes much higher than they would use if playing without a bonus.
So though the max cash-out can been seen as reducing the RTP, it could also be seen as a way for the casinos to recover some of the cash from the huge bonuses they hand out.
Personally I can accept these max cash-outs on big % bonuses as long as they are CLEARLY stated in the T&Cs - then it's up to the player to decide to take the bonus or not, knowing what will happen if they win big.
I don't think any casino should have max cash-outs on bonuses of 100% or lower though

KK
 

SlotsLover

Senior Member
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
PABnorogue
PABnononaccred3
MM
That is a very valid point and I can't argue with your thinking there.

I think the main reason a lot of RTG and Rival casinos in particular have these max cash-out rules is because of the sometimes huge Match Bonuses they offer. e.g. 400% up to $4,000 and the like.
Players starting with huge bankrolls have more opportunities to get big wins on stakes much higher than they would use if playing without a bonus.
So though the max cash-out can been seen as reducing the RTP, it could also be seen as a way for the casinos to recover some of the cash from the huge bonuses they hand out.
Personally I can accept these max cash-outs on big % bonuses as long as they are CLEARLY stated in the T&Cs - then it's up to the player to decide to take the bonus or not, knowing what will happen if they win big.
I don't think any casino should have max cash-outs on bonuses of 100% or lower though

KK
Fair enough, except the rollovers on the giant bonuses are very high as well. Even 20x on a 400% bonus is 100x the initial deposit, so if one deposits $100, the rollover will be 10,000, meaning the high variance of playing that much (even if one plays smallish) will result in mostly going bust and an occasional great run, resulting in a very large balance, which will then be truncated off. But I do agree, on the regular bonuses of approx 100% or so, there should never be a max cashout.

Also, it just ruins the fun of playing slots with a max withdrawal. RTG random jackpots start at $1000 and are often in the $10,000s. If one deposits $50, any random jackpot will be horribly truncated. Who wants to hit for 25k and receive $500.

Let the casinos increase the rollover on higher bonuses but I truly believe (maybe we should do a poll) that no accredited casino should have a max withdrawal on a deposit bonus.

Thanks for the input KK, I always enjoy your posts.
 
Top