Must chime in:
1) The terms are not well written
2) The terms, if interpreted literally, are mathematically illogical and impossible if a player loses a substantial portion of their original balance. Such terms should be stricken from the T&Cs.
3) The terms, if interpreted on a more 'reasonable' basis compared to original balance, which is somewhat common, would at least make sense, and could definitely catch some bonus exploiters. But such terms would still be a cop-out on the part of the casino. A bet played should be a bet paid. Go ahead and restrict or close the account, but still pay the winnings. It's not like he hacked the software.
4) The vagueness and lack of software-enforcedness of the terms allows the casino to enforce it arbitrarily.
4b) Even the scummy Virtual Group, when printing similarly ridiculous restrictions, is more explicit about them.
In conclusion, since this appears to be an intentional enforcement of faulty T&Cs on the part of the casino, I vote rogue.
1) The terms are not well written
2) The terms, if interpreted literally, are mathematically illogical and impossible if a player loses a substantial portion of their original balance. Such terms should be stricken from the T&Cs.
3) The terms, if interpreted on a more 'reasonable' basis compared to original balance, which is somewhat common, would at least make sense, and could definitely catch some bonus exploiters. But such terms would still be a cop-out on the part of the casino. A bet played should be a bet paid. Go ahead and restrict or close the account, but still pay the winnings. It's not like he hacked the software.
4) The vagueness and lack of software-enforcedness of the terms allows the casino to enforce it arbitrarily.
4b) Even the scummy Virtual Group, when printing similarly ridiculous restrictions, is more explicit about them.
In conclusion, since this appears to be an intentional enforcement of faulty T&Cs on the part of the casino, I vote rogue.