Omni Casino tricks

[KasinoKing]

Zrap,

Look mate - I'm TRYING to stop posting on this stupid subject!

But you just made another statement that in my opinion is ridiculous!

Now you started talking about Craps. This is clearly labeled as being excluded from WR play in a separate condition of the casino.
Therefore this can not even come into the Condition about bonus abuse, because the software automatically discounts these bets from the WR.

Now Sanford (total respect :notworthy ) has posted a very detailed reply which fully explains that there is no such thing as 'bonus abuse'.
OK, I personally fail to understand why casino's have a condition relating to something that doesn't exist, but if that's the way it is - fine! Suits me!

So for a quiet life - I'm just going to agree with everything you've said, so I can get on with some gambling, and then get a good night's sleep!

You're right, I'm wrong. Good luck & Good night!

 

[zrap]

KK,
I specifically brought up craps to make the point that playing craps is bonus abuse. Because it says so in the terms and conditions.
Playing Blackjack (no matter the denomination) isn't bonus abuse cause there is no mention of it in the agreement.

Why is this such a difficult concept??

Bonus abuse is when a player breaks the terms and conditions, this is not the case.

 

[cipher]

Zrap,

Look mate - I'm TRYING to stop posting on this stupid subject!

But you just made another statement that in my opinion is ridiculous!

Now you started talking about Craps. This is clearly labeled as being excluded from WR play in a separate condition of the casino.
Therefore this can not even come into the Condition about bonus abuse, because the software automatically discounts these bets from the WR.

Now Sanford (total respect :notworthy ) has posted a very detailed reply which fully explains that there is no such thing as 'bonus abuse'.
OK, I personally fail to understand why casino's have a condition relating to something that doesn't exist, but if that's the way it is - fine! Suits me!

So for a quiet life - I'm just going to agree with everything you've said, so I can get on with some gambling, and then get a good night's sleep!

You're right, I'm wrong. Good luck & Good night!

Do you see a word in anything that I've said that has anything at all to do with craps. The fact of the matter is your arguments from the gate have no merit. NONE, ZIP NADA. I could care less what your most recent argument is you are W-R-O-N-G. Have a good one.

 

[CJack]

Wagered more than the $2500 needed for the bonus last week.

Still no bonus and no communication from the casino.

This is theft.

 

[KasinoKing]

Eureka!

To: Zrap and all the guys on your side of this 'argument',

I've got it, got it, got it! Amazing how a good night's sleep clears your head!

Your last post was the key that unlocked this dispute when you said 'there was no bonus abuse'!

Maybe this 'disagreement' stems as much from cultural and legal differences between the UK & the USA as anything else!

This whole issue is down to how each of us interpret the 'Law' (the casino's T&C's).
Interpretation of subjective laws have caused unquantifiable arguments in law-courts all over the world, and now at Casinomeister too!

Your side are saying there was no abuse because there is no 'black and white' law which states 'thou shalt not play a minimal risk strategy with a permitted game to the point of meeting the WR, and then bugger off with the bonus money'

My side is saying there is a subjective law which states 'any play which the casino deems to be abusive, in the opinion of the casino management, may lead to the removal of said bonus from the player concerned'

We are just saying, that in this instance, the management deemed Megan's play to be abusive, and so removed the bonus.

We are also saying we agree that the casino should have the right to do this.

You are saying the casino has no right to do this!

(If I owned a casino, I'd be pretty miffed if guys like you came along and tried to tell me what rules I could or couldn't have in my own place! But I don't want to start an argument about that!)

So who is right, and who is wrong? I don't know - that's a subjective question!!

Please follow this link from Megan's original post and read condition 5:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

I admit that my beliefs on what I would expect the casino would 'deem to be abusive' are strongly influenced by an e-mail I was sent, when I myself was barred from receiving bonus from another Crypto casino, (despite the fact that I actually lost money to them in the preceding 9 months and did not break any of their black & white laws):-

(This is a genuine mail, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent, and the guilty!)

Dear King,

Hello and thank you for contacting the Smallcock Casino Support team.

At Smallcock Casino we aim to offer our players the fairest bonuses each month to reward them for their loyalty.

Unfortunately, over recent months we have seen an increase in the number of players who have been abusing this offer on a regular basis.

We have therefore analysed our player records and we have identified a number of players who fall into this category. There are a number of factors we considered, the most common include:

- players who deposited 25 and withdrew 25 therefore only playing with the House's money and never risking any of their own money

- players who placed low risk wagers on games such as roulette or baccarat to fulfil the wagering requirement

- players who given the bonus, just met the wagering requirement, withdrawn the money and not played with us again

Looking at your recent playing behaviour at Smallcock Casino we are afraid you fall into this category.

Therefore we have restricted your account from receiving these monthly match bonuses in the future. (Please note however your account is still active and you may play in the casino at anytime using your own funds). You are also entitled to take part in our other player promotions such as tournaments.

If you feel as a player you have been included in error then we sincerely apologise. Please send an email to

tinypenis@Smallcockcasino.com and we will review your account immediately.

We hope this attends to your enquiry. If we can be of any more assistance please feel free to contact us anytime. We are open 24 hours per day, 7 days a week (including holidays). You can contact one of our friendly and courteous Smallcock Casino support staff (toll-free) at: 555 4455

So that's it! All differences now clearly understood!

Now that's settled, I think I might just re-visit my 18-months dormant Omni account, and see how much bonus I can abuse out of them!

 

[dominique]

Boils down to one question:

Is a bonus a right or a privilege?

 

[Petunia]

Dominique * * I have always looked at my bonus as a Privilege with a few rights! **

There is a thin line between the two. AND, I know there a supposed list of bonus abusers but how about a list of bonus-user-abusers.
Grin * it IS Friday and I AM allowed to dream!

 

[sirius]

KasinoKing, it is up to the casino whether they allow players a bonus. This casino did nothing wrong because they informed you about it beforehand. The bonus there is instant so at least if you hadn't read the email you would have noticed when you deposited that the bonus wasn't being awarded!

Dear King,

Hello and thank you for contacting the Smallcock Casino Support team.

At Smallcock Casino we aim to offer our players the fairest bonuses each month to reward them for their loyalty.

Unfortunately, over recent months we have seen an increase in the number of players who have been abusing this offer on a regular basis.

We have therefore analysed our player records and we have identified a number of players who fall into this category. There are a number of factors we considered, the most common include:

- players who deposited 25 and withdrew 25 therefore only playing with the House's money and never risking any of their own money

- players who placed low risk wagers on games such as roulette or baccarat to fulfil the wagering requirement

- players who given the bonus, just met the wagering requirement, withdrawn the money and not played with us again

Looking at your recent playing behaviour at Smallcock Casino we are afraid you fall into this category.

Therefore we have restricted your account from receiving these monthly match bonuses in the future. (Please note however your account is still active and you may play in the casino at anytime using your own funds). You are also entitled to take part in our other player promotions such as tournaments.

If you feel as a player you have been included in error then we sincerely apologise. Please send an email to

tinypenis@Smallcockcasino.com and we will review your account immediately.

We hope this attends to your enquiry. If we can be of any more assistance please feel free to contact us anytime. We are open 24 hours per day, 7 days a week (including holidays). You can contact one of our friendly and courteous Smallcock Casino support staff (toll-free) at: 555 4455

 

[GrandMaster]

My side is saying there is a subjective law which states 'any play which the casino deems to be abusive, in the opinion of the casino management, may lead to the removal of said bonus from the player concerned'

This is a very slippery slope. The management could say that true gamblers always play until they lose all their money, so if you win, you are clearly a bonus abuser.

We are just saying, that in this instance, the management deemed Megan's play to be abusive, and so removed the bonus.

The bonus was not awarded in the first place.

(If I owned a casino, I'd be pretty miffed if guys like you came along and tried to tell me what rules I could or couldn't have in my own place! But I don't want to start an argument about that!)

Sticking to your own terms and conditions would be a good start.

(This is a genuine mail, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent, and the guilty!)

We have therefore analysed our player records and we have identified a number of players who fall into this category. There are a number of factors we considered, the most common include:

- players who deposited 25 and withdrew 25 therefore only playing with the House's money and never risking any of their own money

This is abuse, I agree, but the best defence for the casino is not to allow the withdrawal in such circumstances.

- players who placed low risk wagers on games such as roulette or baccarat to fulfil the wagering requirement

Betting on opposite outcomes is clearly abuse, but "low risk" is not a well-defined concept.

- players who given the bonus, just met the wagering requirement, withdrawn the money and not played with us again

This is not abuse. Advantage play at worst, but it could simply mean that the player did not like the casino.

 

[KasinoKing]

This is a very slippery slope. The management could say that true gamblers always play until they lose all their money, so if you win, you are clearly a bonus abuser.

YES, YES, YES! You're getting closer to understanding what I am saying!

1) Any casino can offer it's services with any damn conditions it wants!
2) If you don't like the conditions - you don't have to sign up!
3) If you do sign up, you have to accept ALL their conditions!
4) Just because you don't like one of their conditions, or think it's unfair - why should that mean they can not impose it, or that it should not apply to YOU?

Another hypothetical example someone will no doubt say is ridiculous:
Suppose I signed up to a casino, and one of it's terms & conditions said "If you get 3 blackjacks in a row, your account will be closed and all deposits forfeited"
Now, by signing up I'm accepting this totally stupid condition. If I didn't like it - I wouldn't sign up!
If I got 3 blackjacks in a row and was banned, would I create a 'song and dance' about it? No I would not, because I accepted their conditions!

The bonus was not awarded in the first place.

Splitting hairs here!
You know what I mean - awarded/earned = same thing. Removed/denied = same thing.

Sticking to your own terms and conditions would be a good start.

I totally agree! And that is EXACTLY what Omni did. Condition No5:-

[5] Omni Casino, CryptoLogic Inc., WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited reserve the right to review transaction records and logs, from time to time, for any reason whatsoever. If, upon such review, it appears that end users or any one or combination of them are participating in strategies which Omni Casino, CryptoLogic Inc., WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited in their sole discretion deem to be abusive, Omni Casino, CryptoLogic Inc., WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited reserve the right to revoke the entitlement of such end user(s) to the promotion.

Yep - I'm pretty sure they stuck to this condition in Megan's instance.

I don't like it. You don't like it. Megan doesn't like it. Most other posters here don't like it. But when we signed up with Omni Casino - we agreed to it. Therefore we MUST accept it.

You are supposed to be 'The Voice of Reason' - what is unreasonable about what I'm saying? Really?

I'm not answering your points against the e-mail I quoted. I was just telling you what they said - it was not my words. If you want to argue about that you'll have to contact Smallcock Casino!

Have a nice evening!

 

[Macgyver]

If, upon such review, it appears that end users or any one or combination of them are participating in strategies which Omni Casino, CryptoLogic Inc., WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited in their sole discretion deem to be abusive, Omni Casino, CryptoLogic Inc., WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited reserve the right to revoke the entitlement of such end user(s) to the promotion.

OK, make sure you're sitting down, KK, because I'm actually agreeing with you on this one (well, in part)!

However, the problem comes when Omni "revoke[d] the entitlement of such end user(s) to the promotion." If Omni deemed the strategy to be abusive, then by all means revoke Megan's entitlement to any further promotions.

However, Megan deposited under good faith -- not having been told that s/he had been deemed "abusive" -- and believed that the bonus would be received after meeting a certain amount of wagering. For the casino to deem the strategy abusive after that and deny the bonus ... well, therein lies the rub.

By all means, Omni has the power -- per their T&C -- to deem anyone "abusive" for whatever "strategies" the player may use. But Omni's timing of this decision is what's called into question.

 

[Stanford]

YES, YES, YES! You're getting closer to understanding what I am saying!

1) Any casino can offer it's services with any damn conditions it wants!
2) If you don't like the conditions - you don't have to sign up!
3) If you do sign up, you have to accept ALL their conditions!
4) Just because you don't like one of their conditions, or think it's unfair - why should that mean they can not impose it, or that it should not apply to YOU?

This reminds me of a lot of my business practice.

I have had many clients that wanted to build "gotchas" into their agreements. But they still wanted to get the business and so they wanted the "gotchas" to be unclear in some manner.

This is really bad form. In cases of dispute, ambiguity is rightly construed against those that drafted the agreement. So things like "abusive strategies" isn't going to cut well with watchdogs and players. It doesn't mean anything.

With my clients, I advocate they spell out things clearly. You might hear the word "transparency" used a lot.

It really is a shame because the casinos can make this process very transparent. Omni wants a "play first bonus later" promotion. That is exactly what a players card is. They can make the bonus contingent on points and they can make the 'points per dollar wagered' different for every game.

How amazingly simple. No restricted games. No worry about abuse. They can favor some games over others. Easily administered. Totally transparent. Easily adjusted.

Now the reason for a promotion is to garner additional revenues. It is most likely that to get the maximum revenue, they will design a bonus that some more sophisticated players will be able to exploit. It happens every day in the real world. They should not worry about that. If anything, they should promote it.

They should only be concerned with the net additional revenues from a promotion. If they try to eliminate all leakage they will lose themselves money and frustrate everyone else in the process.

Think back to marketing 101 and the loss leader concept. Milk was commonly sold at a small loss. The grocer lost money to those that bought milk only. But it was the net traffic that made it worthwhile.

My advice to Omni is not to get defensive. Come to the boards and engage in a productive discussion. Design a program that is totally transparent and trumpet it to the world. We players have no wish to harm them.

IMHO,
Stanford.

 

[KasinoKing]

OK, make sure you're sitting down, KK, because I'm actually agreeing with you on this one (well, in part)!

Luckily I was sitting down!

You better be too - because I agree with you. I think the way Omni handled this was poor, and she should have been warned in advance. Even though, to the true letter of their conditions, they made no commitment or promise of any prior warnings. But I believe from Sirius' post that Omni has apologised for this and are putting it right. Nice one Omni!

But this 'debate' then moved on from Megan's case to a global discussion on what is, or is not 'bonus abuse' and whether players are contracted to the casino's T&C's, or whether they could claim to be 'exempt' from them, just because they didn't like them! I was just quoting Megan's case and Omni Casino as an example. It could apply to anyone at any casino.

I nearly give up on this, but I think I have finally put my point across as clearly as possible.

No doubt there will still be some who want to argue about this - the one's who also believe the world is flat!

Have a good weekend!
KK

 

[caruso]

I think you're making absurd statements to stir the pot and get a bit of attention. Whatever turns you on, I suppose.

Maybe this 'disagreement' stems as much from cultural and legal differences between the UK & the USA as anything else!

No, I'm not located too far from you myself, and your posts are off their trolley from my perspective as well.

Angelciti, Gaming Club, English Harbour and all other casinos that have been the subject of protracted public scandals all maintain the "we reserve the right to screw you" clause. None of those groups invoked it (in the end). Only a casino with no concern for public disgrace and serious loss of business through loss of player / affiliate support would ever actually invoke that clause. It would be suicide. Even the shadier RTGs pay in the end, and they all "reserve the right".

This matter is being pointlessly complicated for absolutely no good reason, and it isn't doing any of the players concerned any favours.

 

[zrap]

Update

I finally got an email response from the promotions department at this place, here it is...

I am glad that you took the time to express the way that you feel about
this promotion.

I would honestly like you to give me a call tomorrow while I am on schedule
from 7am-3pm Eastern at Toll Free 1-888-477-2239. I would like to personally
discuss the status of your account and as to why we opt to have a temporary
block placed on this particular account of yours with Omni Casino.

I hope to hear from you tomorrow if not, I am again on schedule for Saturday
at the same times.

Looking forward to talk to you.

Regards,

Abi
Omni Casino
Promotions Department
www.omnicasino.com
promotions@omnicasino.com
1-888-477-2239


Seemed pretty optimistic, So I gave her a call during the hours she suggested today. Well, she wasn't there as she apparently left early today. Then I was told she wouldn't even be in again until Tuesday.

Quite the operation going there. They admit to having issues with the way they are running their promotions and claimed to be working hard and straightening things out but the person in charge of this department is leaving early and won't be back til Tuesday. Working real hard over there!

 

[Stanford]

I finally got an email response from the promotions department at this place, here it is...

Seemed pretty optimistic, So I gave her a call during the hours she suggested today. Well, she wasn't there as she apparently left early today. Then I was told she wouldn't even be in again until Tuesday.

Zrapture,

I am sorry you are having trouble there. Despite the frustration, I take the offer for you to call to be a positive sign.

Sirius has been working the issue and I know that CasinoMesiter said he was going to look into what is going on. So hang in there and I suspect things will turn around.

Stanford.

 

[Stanford]

As you may have guessed, I'm on the road again - but I'm in Barcelona at the EIG. I spied one of the operators form across the room earlier today, but I didn't have a chance to go shoot the shit. This is the first time I've read this post (my Internet connectivity ain't the best), but I'll be heading back over to the conference center this evening and hopefully I'll run into him and find out what the scoop is.

Casinomeister, did you find out what the scoop is?

Stanford

 

[MeganSpot]

Thanks to everyone for going to the trouble of expressing their views. The points raised have been argued far more eloquently than I could have managed alone.

As of this moment this issue remains unresolved. I was approched by Kim Perraud Director of Operations Peak Entertainment via email last week and I responded as follows:

"G'day Kim

Thanks for making contact. Ive had my internet connection temporarily disconnected so available time prevented a prompt response.

I took this issue to the Forums (CasinoMeister + WOL) as the original email I received read in a "take no prisoners" fashion. The subsequent explosion of Forum discussion took me by surprise - it seems a player nerve has indeed been struck.

The issues for me boil down to:

1. Omni should not invite me (implicit or otherwise) to fulfill WR $2500 on the promise of a bonus ($100) only to rely on T+Cs fine print (heavily reliant on interpretation) to deny that bonus.
2. Terms such as "bonus abuse", "pattern of play" and "player loyalty" escape unambiguous definition (see the Forums) and as a result breed player discontent.

As a relatively new player to on-line gambling I have proceeded with a large dose of scepticism as to the fairness of casino games, and likewise, the integrity of the organisations standing behind those games. I only played at certain Cryptograghic casinos as they received a broad-based appeal from the more seasoned on-line players.

In the light of my recent experiences it seems I will need to re-assess my continuing on-line gaming future."

So until Omni Casino come to their senses it's good-bye from Megan.

 

[evoid]

I just also got my bonus denied after wagering 2500$.

They say I did not cover the WR for the last three months. The fact is I busted out on these three occasions.

Now they want me to cover 5600$ in wagers (even though their rules don't mention that WR carry over) in order to receive my bonus.

I guess I'll call the promo dept. when they open and give them hell about this dirty trick.

Edit : I just spoke with another CSR on Live Chat. Now he says that covering the 5600$ in backwards WR might not necessarily do the trick. A review must be made in my favor by the promo dept. Am I glad I did not take the first CSR's word and went on wagering 5600$ for nothing? What a fiasco this is!

 

[MeganSpot]

Sorry to hear of your difficulties evoid. This has certainly been a marketing disaster for the Casino that was avoidable from the beginning.

GOOD NEWS!!!

I have been paid the $100 bonus which was debited to my account without any additional comment or explanation from Omni Casino.

I would like to express my gratitude to Frank from "focalclick", and Sirius who worked behind the scenes on my behalf.

Additionally I am indebted to CasinoMeister and WOL forums without which I simply would not be playing on-line casino games.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Well you can add me to the list of players they've SENT an email advertising the bonus and then refused to give it to.

What really makes me laugh is the term they claim gives them the right

This loyalty bonus will not be credited to accounts that have in the past shown patterns of bonus abuse (ie wagering is done primarily using promotional funds and not deposited funds).

Considering I play a minimum of $50 a hand blackjack (regularly $100+) and $25 at Video Poker there is no way they can claim I don't use my own funds to wager.

I've lost hundreds in a session here many, many times over the years.

Pitched a Bitch

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Oh yeah - and just for the record, I wagered nearly $4,000.

 

[KasinoKing]

Megan,

Although I was one of the people saying your betting pattern was always very likely to get you labelled as a 'bonus abuser', I still think the casino handled it wrong in not warning you earlier.
I am very pleased for you that they have now given you your $100.

You didn't say, but I presume though that you are still excluded from future Omni promotions? (Not that you're likely to want to play there again anyway!)

Good luck with your future 'advantage play'!

.

Considering I play a minimum of $50 a hand blackjack (regularly $100+) and $25 at Video Poker there is no way they can claim I don't use my own funds to wager.

That is totally outrageous! Flat betting BJ with minimum stake is one thing, but how can anyone say bets of your size are 'risk free'. I've not heard anything so stupid for a long time.

Seems to me Omni have got themselves totally tied up in knots trying to offer a great bonus while ensuring no-one at all can profit from it! Crazy.

They need to step back, think about it, and start again!

 

[halix]

Got the bonus chips denied as well. (through livechat)

I play regularly on a $20+ level - thus obviously not a highroller like Dirk Diggler...
Lost 400$ here in November, btw.

I will send an email to their marketing department - and if nothing happens, pitch a bitch here at CM.

Omni Casino should be forced to return to the behavior of a reputable casino, which stands by their words.

 

[evoid]

I play high stakes like Dirk, by the way, 50-200$ hands.

Edit : the promo dept. just answered my (furious) email. They apologize and have credited my 100$.

Before depositing next month I will get my elligibility confirmed.