Your Input Please Maximum Withdrawal Limits: Your Views?

[Simmo!]

I have noticed that when I am testing out casinos, I am finding more and more are imposing quite low maximum withdrawal rules, especially the multi-platform operators (Quickfire, EveryMatrix etc) These can be as low as 1,500 monthly or weekly.

Now I can fully understand why a maximum is present when a player is playing from a bonus: there is plenty of player fraud and the last thing a casino needs is to be hit up by a fraud ring and taken fro 10's or 100's of thousands. However, my view is that if a player is playing with and risking their own money, they shouldn't be subjected to maximums, period. This is a casino we are talking about, not an amusement arcade after all.

What bought it home to me was this. The other day I was playing and won a decent amount. I went to cash out and was told that I could only withdraw half this month and then half next month. So I asked them to close my account until it was all processed (which they did without fuss to be fair). There would be little point in playing on if you have hit the max you can withdraw and the irony is, I opened an account at the next casino on my list and the winnings from the first goes to the new one. This is not only bad for the customer but it occurred to me, bad for the casino as the customer is forced to go to a competitor.

The other thing that a low cash-out limit says to me is that a casino does not have a player reserve account of sufficient proportions. That to me is a red flag.

I know many players won't be affected by cash-out limits but I'd be interested to know what the general consensus is on what is and isn't reasonable, or maybe even ideas that might benefit casinos that are caught in the quandary of how to handle this.

Cheers,

Simmo!

 

[dunover]

I have noticed that when I am testing out casinos, I am finding more and more are imposing quite low maximum withdrawal rules, especially the multi-platform operators (Quickfire, EveryMatrix etc) These can be as low as 1,500 monthly or weekly.

Now I can fully understand why a maximum is present when a player is playing from a bonus: there is plenty of player fraud and the last thing a casino needs is to be hit up by a fraud ring and taken fro 10's or 100's of thousands. However, my view is that if a player is playing with and risking their own money, they shouldn't be subjected to maximums, period. This is a casino we are talking about, not an amusement arcade after all.

What bought it home to me was this. The other day I was playing and won a decent amount. I went to cash out and was told that I could only withdraw half this month and then half next month. So I asked them to close my account until it was all processed (which they did without fuss to be fair). There would be little point in playing on if you have hit the max you can withdraw and the irony is, I opened an account at the next casino on my list and the winnings from the first goes to the new one. This is not only bad for the customer but it occurred to me, bad for the casino as the customer is forced to go to a competitor.

The other thing that a low cash-out limit says to me is that a casino does not have a player reserve account of sufficient proportions. That to me is a red flag.
I know many players won't be affected by cash-out limits but I'd be interested to know what the general consensus is on what is and isn't reasonable, or maybe even ideas that might benefit casinos that are caught in the quandary of how to handle this.

Cheers,

Simmo!

Very true - I noticed this when checking terms out. As for the piece I've bolded, I think another aspect to that is not necessarily lack of funds but a kind of substitute for a pending period. Many of these sites pay fast with short or no pending periods. and therefore leaving the temptation of winnings over 1.5k in the a/c for a whole month may be just a 'liability limitation' with the same logic as the dratted PP.

This may also be a way of getting players to only low-roll on games like DoA.

So they can boast all the HV games, boast quick w/d's and balance that out with nonsense like you mention above.

 

[KasinoKing]

If it's NOT related to a bonus, then I don't think casinos should be imposing low weekly or monthly limits (certainly not as low as 1,500/month!).

BUT... My stance has always been - and always will be: Players should always check the T&Cs BEFORE they play anywhere, and if they see anything they are not happy to accept - don't play there.
If you don't read the T&Cs, then I'm sorry but you have to accept the consequences, no matter how unfair you, I or anyone else thinks they are.

What I would like to see though, is a clear indication of withdrawal limits on all casino's deposit screens.
... but that's about as likely as me getting a 5-reel wild-storm!

KK

 

[Simmo!]

BUT... My stance has always been - and always will be: Players should always check the T&Cs BEFORE they play anywhere, and if they see anything they are not happy to accept - don't play there.
If you don't read the T&Cs, then I'm sorry but you have to accept the consequences, no matter how unfair you, I or anyone else thinks they are.

Obviously, as experienced players, we all know this. However in one instance this week, the withdrawal limit wasn't in the T&C's...it simply said

"In some instances for reasons of fraud protection and social responsibility we may limit withdrawal to a sum per day or week. Please check with customer support as to the relevant withdrawal limits pertaining at any time.".

It turns out it's £2500 a week in all instances with discretionary increases.

Anyway, I am more interested in opinions about the imposition of limits rather than the consequences.

 

[Deeplay]

Personally unless there is a bonus in which case a casino can choose to limit what you may win - leaving the choice to the player then there should be ZERO limits on the amount you can withdraw at any time. Imagine that in a land based casino it simply would not happen! And for me it is a Red Flag and / or a tactic to get as many to reverse as possible. If I see a withdraw limit of any kind I will usually not deposit. They will already know the risks associated with certain games. E.g the likes of DorA and should have worked all potential outcomes into the financial structure of the business.

If a casino does not have the reserves at hand to pay ANY possible outcome e.g 2 wild lines at max bet on say D or A then they should either not have such games on offer or decrease the max bet inline with what they can pay out in one go without problem. Sure they are limits to what you can send to an e-wallet but ZERO limits on any kind of bank wire. So they are no excuses. For the American market I know its different because of the structure and how in effect those casinos have to go through loops to process payments. But they are no such limits with European facing operations.

I would hate to win big then only to be told sorry we will pay you over x number of months. Which is bullshit. Any casino that imposes a withdraw limit is not worth the risk at depositing at regardless of how much of a good name they may have.

 

[rockycatt]

defiantly sound like money is tight for any casino playing by that rule of limiting cash outs ( be Leary) imo

 

[bebo67]

Obviously, as experienced players, we all know this. However in one instance this week, the withdrawal limit wasn't in the T&C's...it simply said

"In some instances for reasons of fraud protection and social responsibility we may limit withdrawal to a sum per day or week. Please check with customer support as to the relevant withdrawal limits pertaining at any time.".

It turns out it's £2500 a week in all instances with discretionary increases.

Anyway, I am more interested in opinions about the imposition of limits rather than the consequences.

I think 1500 per month is crazy, but having a daily or weekly withdrawl limit would be actually beneficial for both you and the casino. At the moment I am having a hell of a time with my bank over 4k, I wish now I had split it up. When I had with drawls of anything under 2k, there was never a problem. Also my guess with any accounting dept, casinos included, if there is a proper procedure in place, where there is always a set amount, it makes it easier to keep track for auditing purposes.

 

[dave1888]

I was just thinking about the exact same thing the other day Simmo. The most recent "redflag" for me was a popup message I recently saw at my beloved Boyle games.
It said when I logged in something about company monies are in a separate account from funds given to players as winnings?!

I'm glad they are informing players of this but is it indicating they are having a cashflow problem? Been playing here on and off for about 2 and a half years and have not seen it say this.
Also strange was my deposit into my account failed? I hope they don't go under as some of my best sessions have been here and it's probably my luckiest place to play DOA(3417x bet) The only reason I have neglected to play here is they had gotten slow at withdrawals compared to super quick Videoslots,Betat,Betsafe etc.. Anyone know anything about here?

 

[PaaskeDenmark]

I was just thinking about the exact same thing the other day Simmo. The most recent "redflag" for me was a popup message I recently saw at my beloved Boyle games.
It said when I logged in something about company monies are in a separate account from funds given to players as winnings?!

I'm glad they are informing players of this but is it indicating they are having a cashflow problem? Been playing here on and off for about 2 and a half years and have not seen it say this.
Also strange was my deposit into my account failed? I hope they don't go under as some of my best sessions have been here and it's probably my luckiest place to play DOA(3417x bet) The only reason I have neglected to play here is they had gotten slow at withdrawals compared to super quick Videoslots,Betat,Betsafe etc.. Anyone know anything about here?

I think they are doing allright mate and yeah might have cash flow problems looking at this

Boylesports Bids To Acquire 600 Stores In British
Aug 2 15
Boylesports Ltd. has made a £130 million approach to acquire over 600 stores from the merged operations of Ladbrokes and Gala Coral. Boyle confirmed to The Sunday Business Post last Friday that his company had approached Ladbrokes Coral to express its interest.

In regards to that message pop up mate that is apparantly something all should or at least should show in terms and conditions >

2.12 The Commission’s approach to disclosure to customers has been that operators must
make clear to their customers whether, and if so how, their money is protected in the event
of insolvency. This is intended to allow customers to make informed choices about where
to play and how much money to keep on account with various remote operators. This
current requirement is set out in licence condition 4, and was intended to be a key element
of the Commission’s caveat emptor approach.
Current licence condition 4
Protection of customer funds
All operating licences, except gaming machine technical, gambling software,
ancillary remote bingo, ancillary remote casino and lottery licences issued to non
commercial societies or local authorities
Licensees who hold customer funds for use in future gambling must set out clearly, in information
made available to customers in writing, whether they protect customers’ funds in the event of
insolvency and the method by which this is achieved.
2.13 Operators almost all include the information required by current licence condition 4 in their
terms and conditions. The Commission is concerned however that customers do not
understand the information made available to them or that the information may give
customers false expectations of how their funds are protected against insolvency or fraud.
For example, the statements made by operators often do not distinguish sufficiently
5
between the different levels of protection which are in place for customer funds.
Furthermore it was clear for example from the reaction to the high profile cases of
insolvency that there was a widespread assumption that funds with licensed operators are
protected in some sense.
2.14 Therefore, in addition to considering an appropriate minimum level of protection for
customers, the Commission is also considering the options for helping customers
understand and choose the level of risk they wish to accept for their funds held with remote
gambling operators. In other words, customers may wish to be able to choose between
operators where one company exceeds the minimum level of protection for their
customers.
2.15 Some customers consider that it is appropriate for consumer choice to be available for
those customers who have a greater appetite for risk, who have faith in the brand(s) with
which they choose to play or who take care to hold a level of funds with gambling
operators, the loss of which would not affect them materially.
2.16 It is clear that the loss of funds held with a gambling operator is not directly comparable to
the severe financial hardship which might be the result of lost pensions for example.
Gamblers may have more appetite for risk. Customers may not wish to bear the increased
costs of protection and would rather assess companies individually. However, such
assessment is only possible if consumers are given sufficient, meaningful information. In
turn, consumer choice is likely to drive increased protection on a voluntary basis if
marketing and transparency encourages customers to move to operators who offer more
protection.

 

[dave1888]

I think they are doing allright mate and yeah might have cash flow problems looking at this

Boylesports Bids To Acquire 600 Stores In British
Aug 2 15
Boylesports Ltd. has made a £130 million approach to acquire over 600 stores from the merged operations of Ladbrokes and Gala Coral. Boyle confirmed to The Sunday Business Post last Friday that his company had approached Ladbrokes Coral to express its interest.

In regards to that message pop up mate that is apparantly something all should or at least should show in terms and conditions >

2.12 The Commission’s approach to disclosure to customers has been that operators must
make clear to their customers whether, and if so how, their money is protected in the event
of insolvency. This is intended to allow customers to make informed choices about where
to play and how much money to keep on account with various remote operators. This
current requirement is set out in licence condition 4, and was intended to be a key element
of the Commission’s caveat emptor approach.
Current licence condition 4
Protection of customer funds
All operating licences, except gaming machine technical, gambling software,
ancillary remote bingo, ancillary remote casino and lottery licences issued to non
commercial societies or local authorities
Licensees who hold customer funds for use in future gambling must set out clearly, in information
made available to customers in writing, whether they protect customers’ funds in the event of
insolvency and the method by which this is achieved.
2.13 Operators almost all include the information required by current licence condition 4 in their
terms and conditions. The Commission is concerned however that customers do not
understand the information made available to them or that the information may give
customers false expectations of how their funds are protected against insolvency or fraud.
For example, the statements made by operators often do not distinguish sufficiently
5
between the different levels of protection which are in place for customer funds.
Furthermore it was clear for example from the reaction to the high profile cases of
insolvency that there was a widespread assumption that funds with licensed operators are
protected in some sense.
2.14 Therefore, in addition to considering an appropriate minimum level of protection for
customers, the Commission is also considering the options for helping customers
understand and choose the level of risk they wish to accept for their funds held with remote
gambling operators. In other words, customers may wish to be able to choose between
operators where one company exceeds the minimum level of protection for their
customers.
2.15 Some customers consider that it is appropriate for consumer choice to be available for
those customers who have a greater appetite for risk, who have faith in the brand(s) with
which they choose to play or who take care to hold a level of funds with gambling
operators, the loss of which would not affect them materially.
2.16 It is clear that the loss of funds held with a gambling operator is not directly comparable to
the severe financial hardship which might be the result of lost pensions for example.
Gamblers may have more appetite for risk. Customers may not wish to bear the increased
costs of protection and would rather assess companies individually. However, such
assessment is only possible if consumers are given sufficient, meaningful information. In
turn, consumer choice is likely to drive increased protection on a voluntary basis if
marketing and transparency encourages customers to move to operators who offer more
protection.

Yes this is what the popup said insolvency was the word used. I did business management at school and college so I understand everything in that above statement. Thanks very much for posting this they are definitely having cash flow problems! Won't be playing progressives here that's for sure!

 

[PaaskeDenmark]

Yes this is what the popup said insolvency was the word used. I did business management at school and college so I understand everything in that above statement. Thanks very much for posting this they are definitely having cash flow problems! Won't be playing progressives here that's for sure!

No probs mate. I was joking when i said they had cash flow problems. According that statement they are wanting to invest £130 million to buy ladbrokes coral shops?? So clearly they must be doing just fine?

 

[dave1888]

No probs mate. I was joking when i said they had cash flow problems. According that statement they are wanting to invest £130 million to buy ladbrokes coral shops?? So clearly they must be doing just fine?

No problem man I've just been relentless with live chat though so let me know you are joking right away next time! so I don't look stupid.. I just read the terms you posted I'm looking at this on my phone. 130million eh so if they have that kind of money why was there talks of potential insolvency? They must just be covering themselves for worst case scenario.

 

[Simmo!]

I was just thinking about the exact same thing the other day Simmo. The most recent "redflag" for me was a popup message I recently saw at my beloved Boyle games.
It said when I logged in something about company monies are in a separate account from funds given to players as winnings?!

I'm glad they are informing players of this but is it indicating they are having a cashflow problem? Been playing here on and off for about 2 and a half years and have not seen it say this.
Also strange was my deposit into my account failed? I hope they don't go under as some of my best sessions have been here and it's probably my luckiest place to play DOA(3417x bet) The only reason I have neglected to play here is they had gotten slow at withdrawals compared to super quick Videoslots,Betat,Betsafe etc.. Anyone know anything about here?

The popup is something that all operators taking UK players under a UKGC licence are required to inform people, that's all. I have had it several times - absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

[dave1888]

The popup is something that all operators taking UK players under a UKGC licence are required to inform people, that's all. I have had it several times - absolutely nothing to worry about.

Thanks for clarifying simmo. First time I've seen this bewilderingly...hope the other places I play at are fully licensed!

 

[PaaskeDenmark]

Thanks for clarifying simmo. First time I've seen this bewilderingly...hope the other places I play at are fully licensed!

Yes mate they should have but they will be in terms and conditions. Reason I pasted that clarification from UKGC