Minimum Playthrough... is it fair?

[D!G!TAL]

What are your opinions on casino's that have a minimum play through requirement? I don't mean for bonuses- I am referring to when you deposit and play with your own funds but decide to cash out after a short time for one reason or another (i.e. no bonus taken).

Personally I think this is a very unfair term and has major implications when it comes to fair play and responsible gambling.

As you may be able to tell I have just fallen foul of this term (I am angry at myself for not seeing it in the terms) and was simply withdrawing due to the minimum bet being $5 in roulette and Blackjack (I am definitely a low roller!) which I thought were beyond my bankroll (I tend to deposit about $100). The slots were not that impressive either but I managed to turnover $75. I lost $25 in total before attempting cashing out. Nothing untoward here.

My gripe isn't really with the casino because it was my fault for missing the term I guess, and I will complete wagering (lol, the CSR actually told me how to do low risk wagers on roulette ) but rather with the ethics of being able to have such a term at all (they carry logos of both GamCare and GA and surely this forcing of play goes against everything they stand for?). The argumentative responses from their CSR's means I will never deposit at this particular RTG casino again.

Imagine a land based casino telling you you can only come in if you agree to wager everything in your pocket!

 

[Audioz]

I totally agree with you, but the casino have also costs, when you make a deposit with an e-wallet or anything else.

wagering your deposit 1 time is for me okay, but like mainstreet group, where you must wager your deposit 5 times, before you can withdraw it without any fees, is certainly totally unfair and that's exactly the reason, why i'll never play there!

 

[D!G!TAL]

Yes that is a valid point.

Might be an idea for them to give you the option- either meet the play through or pay the fees...

 

[james01]

Sounds like another way for them to pick your pocket to me.

 

[bb28]

I received a $5.00 no deposit bonus from a rival a few days ago, with a 40x playthrough..............which is totally ridiculous! Yes I told em'.

 

[D!G!TAL]

Score one for the player!

So, I go back and complete the petulant wagering requirement, I went a bit on tilt with anger after a $22 loss from 25 x $1 spins- managed to double up the remainder and got the hell out of there!

Still think it is a bizarre rule...

Regards, e.

 

[happygobrokey]

they have to look out for money laundering as well as transaction fees. if you put in 500, make a couple bets of 5 or 10, and cashout, you might be trying to clean some dirty money through the casino. so i think this plays into why they do demand a certain amount of play on a deposit, but they should mention this reason as soon as the situation comes up.

 

[Slotster!]

Do not -- ever -- play at a casino that has a 'playthrough' or 'minimum wager' on your own money.

Excluding bonuses of course, it's wrong - and completely against the nature and point of a proper casino.

Money laundering, payment processor costs blah blah blah... Proper casinos build these costs and liabilities into their processes and business models; there's no excuse for insisting on a 'playthough' of your own money. It's absurd.

 

[vinylweatherman]

If the player was objecting to a high minimum bet, then this would be a legitimate reason to want to withdraw early. There is often no way to see what the minimum bets are UNTIL you open an account and try to place a chip on the table. It is very rare for a casino to list the games along with their min and max limits. $5 is very high, considering that most allow a $1 chip, and a few even 50c per bet on roulette.

This term is meant to prevent players depositing a large amount, placing few bets, and then withdrawing again. This is what costs the casino money, and most insist on a 1x playthrough of any deposit to show an intent to play.

Given the negative reputation of most RTG casinos, it is no surprise they are using this rule in a case where it was not originally intended in order to extract the most out of a player who is clearly unhappy with the product and unlikely to return.

 

[Mousey]

I do think a one time playthrough on deposits is fair. I reread your post and (perhaps I missed it) I didn't see what they were requiring of you.

However, I do agree that $5 minimum bet on roulette and Blackjack is unreasonable.

Unfortunately casinos put terms in place to protect themselves and then seem 'helpless' to adjust those terms and make an occasional exception for a particular situation or player.

 

[D!G!TAL]

Unfortunately casinos put terms in place to protect themselves and then seem 'helpless' to adjust those terms and make an occasional exception for a particular situation or player.

I think it is this that made me most angry. The responses from the support team were argumentative in my eyes simply trying to defend themselves over the term rather than trying to keep a player happy and helping out. I had wagered $75/$100 and lost $25 of my own cash. Hardly a money laundering master criminal ha ha ha. Chalk it all down to experience I think.

Thanks for the responses guys.

Regards, e.