"As for "reneging" on the bonus, Omni included the usual disclaimer regarding bonus abusers. If it classified her as such, then it was simply doing so based upon its internal processes. For someone to claim that Omni was seeking to "cheat" Megan outright is nonsensical, given the amount of business Peak Entertainment does."
It isn't nonsensical. It is perfectly sensible. Gaming Club also was well known and respected when it reneged on its bonus. Do you remember the outrage by the player community and the various watchdogs?
Such terms that allow some arbitrary classification for something called "bonus abusers" have always been uneforceable. You can't invite players to a promotion - then remove their promotions or their winnings or their deposit or any combination of same by simply labeling them.
"If you consider how many casinos now use sticky bonuses or exclude BJ wagering for WR purposes, then my concern that Omni might think itself better served withOUT this particular bonus isn't too farfetched."
I think it perfectly reasonable that they might increase the bonus, decrease the bonus, remove the bonus, or add someother promotion. That isn't of any concern.
"From a business standpoint, it wouldn't be silly at all. It's merely a risk-benefit scenario. MGM would have no problem offering a drink that costs them perhaps a $1.00 wholesale, knowing that in aggregate they will earn it back quite easily. Having one drunk player betting black can likely cover their alcohol costs for an entire night...
"
Exactly right. It would be silly to base a decision on Megen. It is small change. By the way, factor in the cost of labor and the overhead and that drink cost more than a dollar.
"With a $100 bonus, the earnback scenario changes. If they have enough repeat customers within a given month, business rationale would indicate that the bonus isn't the primary draw, and why would a casino willingly give $100 if it did not need to?
Nor is that scenario farfetched, even within the Peak Entertainment Group. In that particular family, only two offers any sort of bonus, while the other two offers an "insurance" variant."
That is up to them to decide. An online casion only has a limited number of options to attract players. How they do it is up to them. Any promotion is simply a cost of the business. It would be like worrying about the enormous cost of building a new casino. Yes, it cost a bundle to build the Bellegio. They do that to attract players.
Omni doesn't have those cost. It does still have to attract players. That they have a cost intrinsic to their business is no reason not to require high standards.
This isn't difficult. Casinos have to be fair with their players. All of them. Every time. The player community needs to demand it. When Congress again brings up banning Onlines, the casinos will do just what they did last time and ask the player community to rally to their cause. Those that rally are the long time players who they hate. The compulsives burn out and go away eventually. Those of us that play in a controlled manner and then get called bonus abusers are the ones that write the letters and make the phone calls.
The only real bonus abusers are those casinos who attract players with a bonus and then change the terms. This bait and switch tactic is highly unethical. And sadly some of the best casinos still do it.
Omni says this is just an error. So be it. I applaud them taking care of this situation. And I applaud Sirius who brought it to their attention. I also applaud you Dickens for a thoughtful exchange.
Stanford.
)
