1. Ted Loh's Month: 32Red 100% Cashback offer for new players!

    Ted Loh was a close friend of mine who left us in 2010 – no thanks to cancer. Since then, I have managed his 32Red affiliate account, and each year for the month of March.

    Join 32Red and deposit £10 and if you don’t make a withdrawal from the £10 they will refund it in cash.

    Click here for more info.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Online Casino Management 101 - from Casinomeister's newsletter

Discussion in 'Online Casinos Discussions' started by Casinomeister, Feb 10, 2006.

    Feb 10, 2006
  1. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    If you're not a subscriber to Casinomeister's newsletter, you need to be.

    This is from yesterday's issue - I'm currently doing a few segments on Online Casino Management 101. I want you to read this, and then read the response that I received this morning from a casino that is listed here:

    In light of some of the reoccurring problems that players keep sending to me via "Pitch a Bitch", I've chosen to dedicate this part of the newsletter to "Casino Management 101". This is in anticipation that a manager or two might not only read this, but heed to its principles.
    Dealing with Players Who Use Bonuses

    If you offer a player a bonus, and this player meets the wagering requirements - pay her (or him). Please understand, you are not being cheated if a player plays the bonus to the last cent; you are providing that player a unique service - the ability to gamble online. This is your function as a casino, and your mantra should be "Pay the player. Pay the player. Pay the player..." Repeat ad nauseum.

    Providing gambling activities online may be your function, but with a bit of creativity and ingenuity you can garner loyalty from this player to keep him or her coming back. The house always wins, and if you are going to survive in this highly competitive industry, you need to see this "win" as a long term goal. Keep your players happy, whether you like their style of play or not, and you will receive your just rewards: respect and loyalty.

    What not to do.

    Don't lie to the player. Don't let the player play out a bonus, and then deny the player his winnings when he requests it. To tell a player the following is the wrong approach:
    This is a no go. This gives the casino license to pay whom they want to pay. And to not pay a person who has met the wagering requirements is flat out wrong. I understand and sympathize with casinos which are hammered by bonus players, but if the casino invited them in by offering the bonus then whose fault is that? Casinos who feel victimized need to either review their bonus structure or in the method how these bonuses are handed out.

    This email should read as follows:
    Simple as that. The casino may take a financial hit now and then - but that's just the way it is. Get used to it. Trust is what it's all in this industry, and if players can't trust you, neither can I.

    That was in yesterday's newsletter. This morning I received an email from a Casinomeister casino which I'd like to share with you.

    Please note - my highlights:

    So, it seems to me there are a number of operators out there that need to wake up and smell the coffee. Compare this response to the hokey responses some casinos give to void winnings. This is a prime example of how an operation should be conducting itself.
  2. Feb 10, 2006
  3. jetset

    jetset RIP Brian CAG

    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    That's a very laudable response, although I have some reservations about the capability of a government licensing official to vet a promo in the sense of gambling expertise.

    Nevertheless - this casino manager seems to have the right approach and it would be good see others following suit.

    BTW in which jurisdiction is his casino licensed?
  4. Feb 10, 2006
  5. scrollock

    scrollock Senior Member

    boro, uk
    the whole point of gambling is to win money, whether your the player or the house, because the house provides the service they have the edge in their favour, however they do not have a divine right to this edge.

    whatever form of gambling it their will allways be players who will discover an edge that can be used in the players favour, aslong as this edge hasn't been achieved by fraud or any other criminal means, then the house should always honour the payments first and then take action after should they wish to prevent other players doing the same, but importantly they take this action before others place any other wagers, if they fail to do this and they know what the player was doing then should honour it as it was their own fault for not refusing the wager in the first place.

    to simply void winnings on the basis that a player has found an edge and thus consquently "not played in the spirit" is to take away from every gambler the reason why they do play, and that is we all hope to stumble on a winning system one day. to take this away is to render the recreation of gambling pointless.

    if a bookie makes a rick on an event he doesnt void winnings on the basis that loads players steamed in as they recognised a good price and thus had an edge, no he takes it on the chin realising that if he didnt want pay, he shouldn't of offered the price and taken the bets in the first place.

    however i think with casino bonuses, i think a more correct analogy would be the buy 1 get 1 free offers you see in supermarkets, there will always be people who will buy them because its on special offer and never buy the product again, but there will be people who will continue to use the brand. these offers must work or they wouldnt be constantly offered, however in my lifetime i have yet to see someone being escorted out of a store because of "promotional brand abuse" because they only ever buy the special offers.
    7 people like this.
  6. Feb 10, 2006
  7. Zoozie

    Zoozie Ueber Meister CAG PABnonaccred

    Software Developer
    Very good analogy! Makes it even more clear to me how dishonest this behaviour is.
  8. Feb 10, 2006
  9. carlin

    carlin Dormant account

    I can't believe that this casino can get away with witholding winnings
  10. Feb 10, 2006
  11. managra

    managra Dormant account

    Great post, Scrollock, and rofl about the imagery invoked by the very last sentence. Great analogy.
  12. Feb 10, 2006
  13. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    Bryan is making a general point about about casino behaviour, he's not picking up on one particular case.
  14. Feb 11, 2006
  15. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    STILL At Leisure
    United Kingdom

    This has actually happened!!!!!
    Although there is not the humiliation of being dragged out of the store, there have been instances of shoppers being told that they have bought "too much" of something at the checkout and only being allowed 10 items. Shoppers with large families are often hit with this rule as they will often buy large quantities in one go. This is operated akin to "bonus abuse" as it is considered that such shoppers clear the shelves too quickly to prevent later customers getting some of the loss leader goodies.
    One store made a big screw-up, and offered items at an effective NEGATIVE price when all loyalty card offers were added in. Customers were buying by the trolleyload, making a profit on the loyalty card - even if they simply threw the produce in the bin!!!! (I think they mixed a BOGOF offer with a bonus loyalty card points offer).
  16. Feb 11, 2006
  17. GrandMaster

    GrandMaster Ueber Meister CAG

    Mathematician by day, online gambler by night.
    That's actully more like limiting the amount of the bonus, so that you only get 100% match up to $100. I have never heard of anyone being banned from store for only buying promotional items, and a shop could certainly not be able to force a "promotion abuser" retrospectively to pay full price for all the items she has bought.
  18. Feb 11, 2006
  19. suzecat

    suzecat Dormant account

    The scenario outlined by the OP brings to mind the chicken or the egg quandry: Did a player first chargeback on a casino because they were stripped of legitimate wins, or did the casino begin tossing legitimate wins because a player charged back?

    In either event, when you look at the big picture, players must have a level of trust to even deposit their cash into a casino. Conversely, once you deposit, the casino has your money and their only risk is will you honor your deposit for all time? I believe we have all seen instances where a player is royally screwed. We have also seen instances where saavy player groups have royally screwed casinos. So I wonder, does the house edge take into consideration these costs of doing business? And should I, as a depositing player, consider that any amount I win may very well be stripped away? Seems that such an event would certainly take the fun out of gambling.
  20. Feb 12, 2006
  21. -z-

    -z- Dormant account

    For some reason this line in the response:

    "Unfortunately, your pattern of play across our affiliated casinos has not shown this intention of becoming a loyal and regular depositing player."

    triggered my memory of a recent Ausvegas clause that struck me as very odd.. probably because it was so direct and free of doublespeak

    "Ausvegas reserves the right to review a player's transaction record. If, upon review, it appears that a player is participating in strategies intending to profit from promotional bonuses, we reserve the right to revoke any such bonus payments to the player."

    How dare people profit at a casino! (heheh) However unfair or whatever this clause may seem, I recall thinking, "Well, that's pretty clear. I'll be moving right along."

    I think the clause should read:

    "Unfortunately, your pattern of play across our affiliated casinos has not shown this intention of becoming a loyal and regular Losing player."

    I certainly won't be offended by reading such a thing considering some of the other things found in T&C's, acutally I think it would be refreshing and honest.

    If that's their policy then just tell me and save everyone a bunch of time.

  22. Feb 12, 2006
  23. oblomov

    oblomov Dormant account

    self employed
    Thank you for the interesting post CM.

    The unnamed casino wrote:

    " Hi Bryan,

    ......Just to fill you in on the procedures here at our casino, we actually need to have our promotions and their associated terms and conditions approved by our licensing government before we can conduct them. If we were to apply a condition stating that all winnings would be void if the player outsmarts us, our auditors would laugh in our face.

    If we tried to pull such a stunt, we'd lose our license to operate (Not that we'd consider it in the first place).....

    ....The idea of voiding their winnings is beyond my comprehension.
    I guess this is a prime example of why tighter regulation benefits the consumer. If only all casinos had the same audit processes we do. "

    My question is how do EU based operators such as bet365,acropolis,betfred,tote get away it? They all have the Playtech "void winnings" clause in their terms of use.
  24. Feb 13, 2006
  25. Ausvegas.com

    Ausvegas.com Dormant account

    Marketing Exec
    Hello -Z-

    Thanks for your post, you do raise an interesting point. I hope this post will shed a little light on the topic for everyone. Before I start I would like to qualify the Ausvegas position by saying that we have a great reputation for honesty in the industry and have never been party to revoking bonuses or winnings from players just because they have won by using a promotional bonus. The bonus is there to be used by players for their enjoyment and if the odds are in their favour, profit as well. I encourage players to check through posts on this forum to validate Ausvegas' good reputation.

    The clause you posted from the Ausvegas site provokes a good point. It certainly does read that if players engage in strategies to make a profit from a bonus payment, Ausvegas may revoke the bonus. I think that this term does require reviewing because it seems overly harsh and does not accurately describe what is intended by the term.

    This particular clause is in place to allow Ausvegas to revoke bonus payments from players who have participated in fraudulent activities and/or strategies. Basically this means things like signing up several times to claim welcome bonuses and activities of that nature. The term that is in place now is very broad and discretionary as to how it is applied so we can encompass a range of fraudulent activities. This will need reviewing if it is coming across as onerous to players. The clause certainly wouldn't be applied to players who legitimately comply with the terms and conditions of the promotion.

    When all is said and done I would just like to stress this point. Players who receive a bonus and then win as a result are not be considered to be engaging in abusive strategies. They are just having a win and Ausvegas would never revoke a bonus on these grounds. If , as a player you ever feel that you have a concern about a term and condition please do not hesitate to contact us. We are also licensed by the Australian NT Government who take their role very seriously. If you feel you have been unfairly treated and don't feel Ausvegas has been able to resolve the matter satisfactorily for you, you can contact them directly and they will assess your claim. You must register/login in order to see the link.

    We support an industry that deals honestly and fairly in its business activities. We aspire to lead by example.

    Kind Regards

    Michael Facey
    You must register/login in order to see the link.
  26. Feb 13, 2006
  27. Ausvegas.com

    Ausvegas.com Dormant account

    Marketing Exec
    RE: above
  28. Feb 13, 2006
  29. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

  30. Feb 13, 2006
  31. chuchu59

    chuchu59 gambling addict CAG PABnonaccred


    I have always considered both Ausvegas and Lassetters to be honest and forthright casinos. However, if it is intended that the clause in question relates to abusive stategies, then I would like to know what they are or could be. Couldnt this clause simply be reworded by 'fraudulent activities' replacing 'abusive strategies'. Every player has his/her own strategy for playing at online casinos. How would we be able to know when they will become abusive. Fraudulent activities are definitely different and I am sure everyone will agree that any engagement in these would inevitably result in denied cashouts. The example you mentioned ie claiming several sign-up bonuses can be a fraudulent activity because you can state that each person is entitled to one sign-up bonus only and is not really a strategy as such.

    Ausvegas may base their discretion on good faith but what about the others. Most players wouldnt want to second-guess the casinos' thoughts.
  32. Feb 13, 2006
  33. -z-

    -z- Dormant account

    I would like to clarify my previous post: the second quoted paragraph in which I suggested

    'I think the clause should read:

    "Unfortunately, your pattern of play across our affiliated casinos has not shown this intention of becoming a loyal and regular Losing player."

    Was in reference to the very first post in this thread in which CM makes some suggestions for policy modification and -what not to do-

    This was not in reference to nor a suggestion for Ausvegas' T&C. I probably should have said,

    'I think CM's suggestion should read:

    "Unfortunately, your pattern of play across our affiliated casinos has not shown this intention of becoming a loyal and regular Losing player."

    I've not played at Ausvegas, but as they are listed in CM's Accredited 'good guy list' I have no doubt of their great reputation for honesty in the industry, nor any lack of proactive customer service (your fast and thorough response is impressive.)

    About AusVegas, Michael Facey's point "this term.. seems overly harsh and does not accurately describe what is intended by the term.":

    From an optimistic perspective, it's refreshing to hear your consideration and discussion.

    From a cynical real world perspective, there are plenty of threads in this forum that illustrate why casino T&C's and rules and responses are as harsh as they are. The standard "we can do anything we want", "our decisions are final", "we wont enter into discussion" etc etc, IMHO are obviously there because a couple (probably a couple thousand) bad apples really ticked off every online casino over the last few years.

    The latest thread I read is the

    -I deposited my money, got the bonus, then withdrew my deposit then completed the wagering requirement with the bonus money, now they wont pay me-

    was a classic 'Not in the spirit of the game' faux-pas. I can't find the thread now, but it was a really amusing late nite read. I was surprised the person got any money at all.

    While I'm on the topic of rules&T&C reform, How about the casinos that say "Video poker only counts 20% toward wagering requirements." Does this mean the other 80% of my wagering requirement need to be some other game? or that I need to play video poker 5x more? I've heard (on-line live customer service) responses either way from casinos regarding this one. Now I just avoid any casino that puts such ambiguous rules on their website. But I digress further.

    In summary:
    1. I hope noone thought I was dissing AusVegas.
    2. I will remain hopeful yet cynical that casino T&C's and casino policies will be less draconian, more explicit, and more succinct.


    p.s. what if a thread was created in which casinos and gamers reconstituted a 'standard online casino rules&t&c' that was totally fair, acceptable, and generic for online casinos worldwide- with adoptable sub-clauses for specific game/promotion dynamics?
    nah.. idealistic crazy talk, nevermind.
  34. Feb 14, 2006
  35. Ausvegas.com

    Ausvegas.com Dormant account

    Marketing Exec
    Hello everyone,

    I just wanted to add to the discussion by saying firstly to -Z- that it is good that this type of discussion is raised. Your thoughts are welcome and they provoke us all into thinking of ways to best make the industry enjoyable and secure for everyone. Even though your comments were not specifically about Ausvegas, they have nevertheless raised a possible issue with the terms and conditions that I am happy to have reviewed.

    Keep up the good work guys, it's these types of discussions on reputable forum's such as Casinomeister that helps improve the industry.


    You must register/login in order to see the link.

Share This Page