...Who at Casinomeister.com makes the decisions before putting casinos on the accredited list?
I make the decisions. This casino group has been listed here since 2001 - and for the past eight years they have a pretty good track record of treating players fairly.
There are clearly two problems here: the first is your betting style, the second is the wording of this term.
Before I get the collective groan, hear me out and take everything into account of what I'm saying:.
gingeanth89 played in a manner that caused the casino management to take notice and scrutinize his playing patterns. When you grab the attention of a casino manager (this goes for B&Ms as well), you're going to have to hope that you have not violated any of their terms or you'll get the boot.
The casino manager nailed him and applied the "irregular betting" clause. The player played a high risk game (3 card poker), initially placing 4 large bets. He then grinded out the wagering requirements with 2222 bets of 1.6 on Megaspin - a low risk game. This is the reason the casino confiscated his winnings.
The Palace Group might be able to let us know whether this player signed up in concert with others, because this may have been a consideration as well. They'll nail you for "acting in concert" which is a separate term. You see, if you want to beat bonuses, and you have a good plan on how to do this, don't sign up at the same time as your buddies, play the same games, and then try to skirt by the casino managers. They are trained to look out for these type of activities.
Enough ragging on the player - you can put your torches and pitchforks down
The second problem is this term. I don't agree with it. Like Spear pointed out, the way it is worded it could be applied to just about anyone.
So we have to rely on the objectivity of the casino. This is where trust is involved. With this term we are trusting the casino
not to abuse it. So far, this is the first time I am aware of it being applied to anyone.
In my opinion, these terms are seemingly unfair because they give the casino too much room for interpretation. How is "irregular" defined? Well, giving credit to the casino, they
do give examples.
It's problematic because this is how most players want to play bonuses - take a chance, and then grind out the wagering requirements. We can't overlook the fact that the player is not guaranteed a win with the first set of bets. He risked his deposit fair and square.
The dilemma is "where is the line drawn?" to be fair to both parties. The casino wants to protect its business; the player wants to win.
The casino needs to revise this term - it should be majority of
deposit not balance. I think most everyone would agree that this is fair, right?
...Look I generally agree with the Meister all things considered, but I think he and I have a difference of opinion on this. To me this term is a Blue Hat Term just as the 9k a month term is, if not more!
No I disagree, this is a method that many bonus hunters use to beat the house; the casino has posted the ways that disqualify the winnings.
We cannot lose sight that this is bonus play. If you have a "bonus free" deposit I'm sure you can play it however you want.
As I understood it, the casino will not enter into any discussion, eCogra say the rules are the rules end of and so did you when I tried PAB...
eCOGRA is reviewing this term, I'm sure of it. And yes, you breached this term - that's what you were told.
In fact, I don't think anywhere did you deny breaching their terms and conditions.
What we are discussing now is the fairness of this term. The casino will probably enter into a discussion since they are members of this forum. Just as long as the participants of this thread keep it mellow, we can discuss...
Lastly, this player is not banned from the casino - he just had his winnings confiscated.