Omni Casino tricks

[Dirk Diggler]

Considering Omni are in the recommended section Bryan must have a contact there.

 

[cipher]

I'm sorry - but you're the one who is totally wrong!
You & Megan seem to be saying 'This bonus money is already mine by right - how DARE the casino take it off me!'
Now that IS BS!

They are not saying what you said at all - they are just saying (put simply) 'please act like a gambler - take a few risks!'
Why shouldn't they say that? They are taking a HUGE risk by offering these bonuses in the first place.
Where do you think they get all this 'free money' from??
Have they got money-trees out the back???
Jeeeeeeeze! :icon_twis

KASINOKING, I couldn't care less what your opinion is. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion and in my OPINION this number that OMNI is trying to run in this is instance is nothing short of BS!!! Have a good one.

 

[DeMango]

Stanford: "Nonsense. This player took an offer. Risked her own funds, not promotional funds. "

The poster is NOT playing with her own money! If you will reread her post, she has taken a $210 profit and deposited $200 of that for her November buy in. Last time I checked even land casinos are allowed to tap you on the shoulder and refuse your play even if you are losing. Rescind comps mind you! Why? Same reason as this poster - why not just count out aloud??? Absolutely no brains in wagering, no attempt at disguise. I have no sympathy for this even though she might have due recourse according to T&C's. In the long run this stupidity costs you more money as opposed to a short term gain. I trust the BoHo's are taking notes!

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Stanford: "Nonsense. This player took an offer. Risked her own funds, not promotional funds. "

The poster is NOT playing with her own money! If you will reread her post, she has taken a $210 profit and deposited $200 of that for her November buy in.

So because you've made a profit at a casino previously you are no longer playing with your own money?? Thats BS, what is it they're playing with - money loaned to them from the casino?

Last time I checked even land casinos are allowed to tap you on the shoulder and refuse your play even if you are losing. Rescind comps mind you! Why? Same reason as this poster - why not just count out aloud??? Absolutely no brains in wagering, no attempt at disguise. I have no sympathy for this even though she might have due recourse according to T&C's. In the long run this stupidity costs you more money as opposed to a short term gain. I trust the BoHo's are taking notes!

The way the player has played has got nothing to do with the underlying issue of all this - that is casinos refusing bonuses when a player has met all their terms and conditions.

 

[KasinoKing]

Kasinoking i think you need help with your gambling buddy, i think you have a problem.

Yeah, you're right. I've made profit in 32 of the last 34 months.
I really must stop doing that!
(No flat-betting & not much Blackjack either!)

Back to Omni - I can see us posters falling into two distinct camps - and it's creating a great thread of heated debate!

Although I can see both sides of this debate, at the end of the day a player who can be obviously seen to be flat betting their way through WR just to get a bonus is clearly in breach of the casino's T&C's, and it is their right to withhold/remove any bonus. It is certainly not 'stealing'. How can they 'steal' something that didn't belong to the player in the first place?

In this instance, I think Omni should refund Megans latest deposit in full, as a gesture of good will, but I don't think they owe her more than that.

I hope ALL casino's clamp down on this sort of betting pattern as it can only lead to the end of these very generous bonus offers - and that would be a sad day for all of us.

That is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. If any of you don't like it, let's all agree to disagree, and get on with the more serious business of gambling our way to profit!

 

[sirius]

It is potentially fraudulant and totally unfair to deny a bonus (already played and qualified for) for uncertain reasons not fully verifiable by the player. I've contacted the manager about the alleged problem so I'm now awaiting their response to it and what they will do to resolve it.

It needs to be sorted out quickly and I'd be very surprised if this was the only player affected by this policy or mistake.

I even played at Omni last month and qualified for the promotion. The bonus arrived quickly the next day without me having to ask for it but I'd lost a few hundred during the wagering. I'm left wondering if I'd have received it if I'd won.

 

[Vesuvio]

I totally agree with Dickens.
Megan admitted she just flat-bet blackjack to meet the WR 3 months in a row.
What do you expect the casino to do???
I also totally agree with Omni, and I hope they continue with this policy. The only other option would be to stop giving bonuses altogether, spoiling it for 'proper' gamblers like me.

I take crypto bonuses every month, and often withdraw just after meeting WR. But I play all different games and never 'flat-bet' any of them. I've never had any complaints from the casino's, and I've done 'very nicely, thank you! '

I urge everyone NOT to just flat-bet any game for WR because;
a) It's boring as hell.
b) Your behaviour is only likely to lead to casino's getting tighter & tighter with their bonuses, making it harder for us 'proper' gamblers to maintain the income we have become accustomed to!

So CUT IT OUT!

KasinoKing, you've made too many ridiculous statements on this thread to address them all, but one is the assumption that flat-betting isn't gambling. Maybe you should try flat betting BJ for a while at a casino (especially a Cryptologic casino) and see what happens - then you might have a better understanding of how bonuses work.

One of the reasons casinos can offer fairly generous bonuses (apart from most 'gamblers' not having a clue) is that there's usually no risk-free approach. The 'advantage' player risks his deposit because the odds are in his favour, but he can still lose money. The casino has the right to refuse bonuses to players they think they're likely to lose money to (call me a fool, but I tend to respect these players rather more than 'proper gamblers', as you call them), but not to trick the player into playing only to then refuse the bonus when all the terms have been met.

As to flat betting being boring, if you're betting reasonable stakes it's not. Your spending hours playing slots to ridiculously low stakes (thanks for the exciting threads telling us all about it), on the other hand, strikes me as mind-numbingly boring. I find internet casinos very dull so try to spend as little time as possible on them, but I'm willing to endure some boredom to earn easy money.

Sorry for getting personal, but then you were the one to go on the attack first

p.s. for what it's worth - flat betting is just one approach & it's perfectly easy to use a sensible progression or different games to still keep the odds in your favour. You're just as likely to be banned if you win, though, unless you play stupidly.

 

[trick]

The casinos choose to offer bonuses - the casinos should stand by their offers. As long as the players follow the T&C - no matter how - they should get the bonuses they qualify for. If the casino chooses to disqualify players that is fine. But they cannot let the player qualify for a bonus according to the T&Cs set by the casino and then refuse it.

The picture is pretty clear: Omni abuse their bonuses to get players to deposit and risk their money under the false impression that Omni will reward them for this.

For this pattern of behaviour Omni Casino should be labelled a Bonus Abuser!!!

 

[KasinoKing]

KasinoKing, you've made too many ridiculous statements on this thread to address them all, but one is the assumption that flat-betting isn't gambling. Maybe you should try flat betting BJ for a while at a casino (especially a Cryptologic casino) and see what happens - then you might have a better understanding of how bonuses work.

p.s. for what it's worth - flat betting is just one approach & it's perfectly easy to use a sensible progression or different games to still keep the odds in your favour. You're just as likely to be banned if you win, though, unless you play stupidly.

You may not agree with my statements, but that doesn't necessarily make them ridiculous!
(Though many are!)

I never said flat betting isn't gambling - just implied that it's not very sensible gambling. I think even you agreed with me on this in your 'ps'!
What I'm trying to say, is with known house odds against you, flat betting one game continuously will inevitably lead to loss, whether this is your own cash, or bonus money.
So why would anyone want to do that, unless trying to meet a WR with minimum risk?

I think everyone here agrees that flat betting Blackjack is the safest way to meet a WR with minimal risk of loss. If there was another casino game or pattern that was safer we would all be talking about that instead. (If anyone knows a better method - please speak up!!)

Obviously the casino's know this too, which is why many disallow or restrict Blackjack in their WR. At least the Crypto casino's are very sporting in allowing full BJ play - all they are asking in return is that the player be 'sporting' in taking some risks too!
Flat betting of any low edge game is always going to be seen by any casino as 'bonus abuse'.
If Megan had played a progressive pattern, or maybe played a couple of 100 at stud, or some other game, the chances are Omni wouldn't have taken the action they did.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and method of making the most of bonuses, of course. And if you wish to make the most of your bonus by betting this way, there's nothing I can do to stop you.
But surely you understand my point, that if more and more players adopt this strategy, the outcome will inevitably be the end to Crypto bonuses, or at least, disallowing BJ in their WR?

Do you really want this to happen?

I don't.

 

[DeMango]

From Dirk Diggler:"The way the player has played has got nothing to do with the underlying issue of all this - that is casinos refusing bonuses when a player has met all their terms and conditions."

From Omni Casino T&C's
"Promotions are intended as a bonus to loyal players, and to attract new end users to Omni Casino. Omni Casino encourages end users to participate in promotions, but to refrain from abusing them. Any abuse of a promotion which comes to the attention of Omni Casino may result in the cancellation of that promotion and/or future promotions."

Well I would say that Omni has kept to the terms of their T&C's, found a bonus abuser and took action that was promised!

Again let me repeat myself:"Last time I checked even land casinos are allowed to tap you on the shoulder and refuse your play even if you are losing. Rescind comps mind you! Why? Same reason as this poster - why not just count out aloud??? Absolutely no brains in wagering, no attempt at disguise. In the long run this stupidity costs you more money as opposed to a short term gain. I trust the BoHo's are taking notes!"

The question now becomes what happens. Will Omni be pressured into paying up and revamping the bonus structure to our detriment? There will be no winners in all this, due to a lot of short sighted people.

 

[Weedlayer]

In order to preserve their good name Omni really ought to pay this bonus. Meganspot has earned it through her play. Notice how no one disagrees that they are within their rights to bar her from receiving further bonuses.

They shouldn't have disallowed her bonus after she put in her play.

Also as Meganspot points out she did bet with her own money that she deposited. She could have potentially lost that deposit and more just trying to qualify.

To those who worry that casinos will make changes for the worse, note that Omni already has changed their bonus. Now you have to play your wagering requirement before receiving the bonus. Which is still penty fair in my book. But the potential is there to lose considerably before qualifying.

 

[KasinoKing]

Sorry for getting personal, but then you were the one to go on the attack first

PS: No offense taken, nor intended by me against anyone else!
I'm just trying to protect the interests of ALL bonus using players, but not bonus abusing players!

PPS. Since my last post I played 6:22 minutes of Stud at a Crypto, with only $2 ante, & made $53.

Do you want proof of my playing pattern?

 

[trick]

Flat betting of any low edge game is always going to be seen by any casino as 'bonus abuse'.

This is not correct. I have been playing for more than 1 1/2 years at many casinos with frequent bonuses and I have only been excluded personally once. That was from 32red because they didnt think 6 deposits in little more than a month was enough to be a loyal player. Even though I liked 32red that put me off from playing there again...

And furthermore: This crap about bonus abuse is not making online casinos look too trustworthy. Especially not with a bonussystem like Omnis (Just like Vesuvio said long ago)

If Megan had played a progressive pattern, or maybe played a couple of 100 at stud, or some other game, the chances are Omni wouldn't have taken the action they did.

Either you have a unique insight into Omnis way of conducting business or this is entirely guesswork on your part.

EDIT: Btw: This is really not about players abusing bonuses. IMO it is about casinos offering bonuses they cannot afford.

 

[KasinoKing]

Either you have a unique insight into Omnis way of conducting business or this is entirely guesswork on your part.

This is entirely guesswork on my part.

EDIT: Give me ONE good reason why ANY casino would offer a bonus it could not afford???

 

[dominique]

This kind of play and complaint has gotten us where we are today - facing ridiculous wagering requirements and sending novices into situations they cannot fathom exist.

I would bet that as a result of this complaint a number of casinos will tighten their requirements further.

Omni has a liberal system in my opinion, and a bonus that can be received (and is received) over and over and over again.

It is one of a few casinos still offering that.

I have a feeling that if this thread succeeds in smearing them enough, that will stop soon also.

It is a sad thing to watch - the slow destruction of the bonus system.

 

[sirius]

Here's the initial response from the Marketing Director, Bob Mann:

We do apologize for handling incorrectly, we sort of put the cart before the horse. We are changing the bonus policy to reward loyal players and not those players who look to only play the bonus money, and some players got categorized incorrectly. No long winded email, just a simple, "We dropped the ball on this one and are going to make it right".

I've asked for some further clarification (I repeated the main points again) but I think they understood where they went wrong.

 

[mitch]

KasinoKing

I am with you on this one. Stupid advantage players should not be encouraged they threaten the income stream of players who are prepared to do more thinking around the subject of earning money from internet gambling.

I earn money from Omni and want to continue to be able to do that, selfishly, the more that stupid advantage players get barred from promotions the better for me.

Of course playing devils advocate to my own arguement if everyone was a sensible advantage player my income stream would dry up anyway.

So perhaps you and I should actually encourage players to be stupid players or stupid advantage players. ( but see the thread by "toofast4u" to bring you back to earth )

Mitch

"win don't gamble"

 

[Vesuvio]

I never said flat betting isn't gambling - just implied that it's not very sensible gambling. I think even you agreed with me on this in your 'ps'!
What I'm trying to say, is with known house odds against you, flat betting one game continuously will inevitably lead to loss, whether this is your own cash, or bonus money.
So why would anyone want to do that, unless trying to meet a WR with minimum risk?

My p.s. said that if you played sensibly and won you'd be just as likely to be banned whether you flat-betted or used some other scheme. Along with mitch, I wouldn't get too smug about not being banned if you're consistently winning.

I disagree with the comment on flat betting - all casino games inevitably lead to a loss in the long run, whatever approach you use (without bonuses). In the short term flat betting BJ for a 2500 wr is almost as likely to win you $100 as it is to lose you $100, so if someone wants to have some fun gambling at an on-line casino it's as good an approach as any.

Dominique, I agree it's sad to see the bonus system end & it must completely bamboozle the uninitiated, but I don't see how avoiding criticising casinos will help. Omni have already changed their bonus to make it unappealing. I think casinos are taking advantage of the lack of competition over bonuses now to reduce the chances of casual players winning to almost zero. They could easily afford to lose some money to bonus hunters (not too much if the conditions are sensible) in exchange for new custom. I don't think the changes are a result of bonus hunting - it's just a convenient excuse to increase revenue.

 

[trick]

Players should be treated fairly - also when they are labelled by a casino as bonus abusers. If that is smearing Omni, then Omni isn't fair...

Or maybe they are.... It looks like something will happen and they are going to set it right....

 

[Stanford]

Stanford: "Nonsense. This player took an offer. Risked her own funds, not promotional funds. "

The poster is NOT playing with her own money! If you will reread her post, she has taken a $210 profit and deposited $200 of that for her November buy in. Last time I checked even land casinos are allowed to tap you on the

I repeat this player is risking her own money. Once you win the money it is yours.

I have never had a land casino behave in such a manner. Sometimes they get bent out of shape with professionals. But they are more likly wagering hundreds per hand. For this kind of action, reneg on a promotion? Not that I have heard.

Stanford

 

[Stanford]

Again let me repeat myself:"Last time I checked even land casinos are allowed to tap you on the shoulder and refuse your play even if you are losing. Rescind comps mind you! Why? Same reason as this poster - why not just count out aloud??? Absolutely no brains in wagering, no attempt at disguise. In the long run this stupidity costs you more money as opposed to a short term gain. I trust the BoHo's are taking notes!"

That's not correct. Atlantic City can't bar you from counting. Count out loud all you wish.

In Las Vegas a casino can request not to take your action. That's not because it is correct but simply because they exert a huge amount of political pressure.

However, this is more comprable to a promotion where you have to play a given amount of action for a comp. In which case I have never seen one recinded. And I play a lot.

This case is very clear. A player risk her own money. Fullfilled the promotion and then didn't receive the bonus. There isn't anything more to it than that.

For others concerned about flat betting, that doesn't have any bearing at all. Flat betting won't change the EV of this game even a little bit.

Stanford

PS - I see that Omni has done the right thing. I congratulate them for that.

For those that worry about the casino, don't worry too much. There biggest issue isn't that a few people may not go on tilt. There biggest problem is that there isn't adequate self regulation. Sirius many thanks.

 

[DeMango]

Greetings Stanford;
It took two posts to answer me, aren't you special! You need to read the REAL Stanford site (bj21.com) to catch your mistakes!

"That's not correct. Atlantic City can't bar you from counting. Count out loud all you wish." Since I didn't mention AC why do you? They have other measures such as half shoing and preferential shuffles. In Eastern Europe you may end up in a gutter, in Nepal in jail!

"In Las Vegas a casino can request not to take your action. That's not because it is correct but simply because they exert a huge amount of political pressure." Oh really? The term 86'd mean anything? Trespassed? Thrown out of their comped rooms in the middle of the night? It all happens!

"I repeat this player is risking her own money. Once you win the money it is yours." That is your opinion. I see $210 profit being reinvested. Maybe the casino sees it different. At any rate considering the T&C's I posted the casino could be a bear. Maybe with this bad publicity they will change their minds, pay her and screw the rest of us later. Any bets?

By the way this is not the first posting of this individual - something about a neteller bonus at FL They (FL) didn't back down - Why? Could it be they weren't too happy with the totaled wagered in relation to requirements? Safe bet huh?

 

[Stanford]

Greetings Stanford;
It took two posts to answer me, aren't you special! You need to read the REAL Stanford site (bj21.com) to catch your mistakes!

"That's not correct. Atlantic City can't bar you from counting. Count out loud all you wish." Since I didn't mention AC why do you? They have other measures such as half shoing and preferential shuffles. In Eastern Europe you may end up in a gutter, in Nepal in jail!

"In Las Vegas a casino can request not to take your action. That's not because it is correct but simply because they exert a huge amount of political pressure." Oh really? The term 86'd mean anything? Trespassed? Thrown out of their comped rooms in the middle of the night? It all happens!

"I repeat this player is risking her own money. Once you win the money it is yours." That is your opinion. I see $210 profit being reinvested. Maybe the casino sees it different. At any rate considering the T&C's I posted the casino could be a bear. Maybe with this bad publicity they will change their minds, pay her and screw the rest of us later. Any bets?

By the way this is not the first posting of this individual - something about a neteller bonus at FL They (FL) didn't back down - Why? Could it be they weren't too happy with the totaled wagered in relation to requirements? Safe bet huh?

Greetings DeMango,

Fair enough. I will read the real Stanford. Go to BJ21.com and post that you think that when a player wins, he is playing on the casinos money. See what response you get. Let me know when I can go watch. Let me know if you post to Green Chip or Red Chip.

The reason there are two responses is because I responded to two different post.

The first posting Megan was also correct. The problem was that FL did not honor their own Ts/Cs. They applied the wagering requirements exactly backwards as they said they would and this led to Megan forfitting a bonus she deserved for one she didn't realize they gave her.

The reason I mentioned Atlantic City is because it is included in your statement. Your statement was "land based casinos". Not "land based casinos in Las Vegas". It serves as a good illustration of what should happen. That is a game should be played according to the explicit terms and any comps awarded without whining.

As to backrooming and such, yes I am aware. I am sure you are aware of the recent large award a player received for that nonsense. Megen does not need to worry about that though. Flat betting the minimum won't get her backed off or back roomed.

Again, this is neither here not there. Trying to compare this to extreme examples of professionals betting black chips or even semi pros playing mid to high green is just not comprable.

What is comprable are player cards and promotions and never have I seen a casino reneg after the fact. This is only common in the online world and would be more common without watchdogs and player outrage.

Last week I recieved two free rooms at Harahs for the Thanksgiving Holidays. You won't find any counters at Harahs in Las Vegas - trust me. Kicking myself that I can't use them. I have no doubt they would be honored - even if I didn't wager a dime.

Stanford

 

[dickens1298]

Although this issue is apparently resolved, some of its ramifications cannot be ignored.

Ironically, the uproar over Megan's case - and the apparent subsequent acquiesence from Omni - may actually have more negative long-term ramifications for players, especially those who enjoy bonuses.

First, remember that Omni is a very reputable casino, and players have earned thousands of dollars in comps and loyalty points over the last several years - in short, the $100 in dispute was more a matter of principle and less a matter of dollars. Regardless of whether you thought they were right or wrong, the fact is that their intention was not to defraud the player.

And Megan's intentions were simply to capture the bonus. She had pointedly remarked that she would stop play as soon as she reached the WR. No judgement on my part - statement of fact.

However...if you operated a casino, and assuming Megan's situation many times over, wouldn't you be tempted to pull all bonuses, or simply make the terms more onerous? This isn't without precedent - there are many groups out there who have either eliminated bonuses entirely, disqualified blackjack as part of the WR, or use sticky bonuses. The business is all about cash flow, and if more money is flowing out from a program than in, what incentive is there to still provide it?

Personally, I have never had a problem cashing out nor earning a bonus. There have been a couple of times when I was nervous about the turnaround time of the cashin, but that was in terms of days, not weeks. And I have played at Omni quite a bit, earning both loyalty dollars and bonuses.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Omni chooses to pull its bonus program entirely, partly because it had to pay bonus "users" such as Megan? We players may have won this battle, but whither goest the war?

 

[Stanford]

"Regardless of whether you thought they were right or wrong, the fact is that their intention was not to defraud the player."

Yes, but we didn't know this. Reneging on a bonus is the same as reneging on a bet. Serious as a heart attack.

"And Megan's intentions were simply to capture the bonus. She had pointedly remarked that she would stop play as soon as she reached the WR. No judgement on my part - statement of fact."

The only time I saw how much she wagered was when she said she was over $2900 on a $2500 requirement.

"However...if you operated a casino, and assuming Megan's situation many times over, wouldn't you be tempted to pull all bonuses, or simply make the terms more onerous? This isn't without precedent - there are many groups out there who have either eliminated bonuses entirely, disqualified blackjack as part of the WR, or use sticky bonuses. The business is all about cash flow, and if more money is flowing out from a program than in, what incentive is there to still provide it?"

Why are you concerned about that. There are plenty of players that play full tilt. It doesn't take much salting to get them going. They will get a mix of those that play close to the WRs and those that play way over the WRs and points in between.

"Wouldn't it be ironic if Omni chooses to pull its bonus program entirely, partly because it had to pay bonus "users" such as Megan? We players may have won this battle, but whither goest the war?"

Look, online gaming is fraught with reneging for all kinds of reasons. That's just no way to do business. We can minimize this by having standards and insisting on them. Even eCOGRA wouldn't tolerate a situation like this.

It would be silly if Omni pulled its bonus program. Do you think MGM will stop offering free drinks if you played one hand, got your free drink and left?

What Omni could do is structure their bonus program to do what they want. Here is an example off the top of my head:

"Our bonus is to reward loyalty. That means players should occasionally play without a bonus. And that also means that they should wager a fair amount. Normally, the player should wager more than $3,000. But we release the bonus at $2,500; this allows the player some latitude when time may be short. Normally, the player should strive to meet our benchmarks and not the minimums. Play with confidence and pleasure and without pressure - we have no hidden terms."

Then notify a player if they want to take them off the program.

Stanford