Resolved Palace Group Rules Shenanigans

[spearmaster]

Of course:

I mentioned that we go into detail to check accounts and if it is the remaining balance used for a small bet that is fine.

Those players who have been playing with us for years know we are fair and upfront with what we do.
There are however cases where intentions are deliberate and terms are broken and these are the ones acted upon.

Hopefully this answers your question Spearmaster.

Regards,

The Palace Group

Excuse me for pointing out, then that 30 is 10% of deposit and bonus under the SPIRIT of the terms you were trying to implement - while 30 is 100% of BALANCE and bonus under your flawed terms.

If you were to try and have this enforced in a court of law, I would bet my last dollar they would throw you out of court so fast you wouldn't have time to blink.

I would advise you to reconsider.

 

[spearmaster]

Hmm, I think that certain games are different. For some games, you HAVE to pay more to get paid. Like casino hold em, three card poker ante + play bet, and some others.

Every brand of casino software will, with $3 in your balance, let you bet $3 on blackjack. But they won't necessarily let you bet $3 on casino hold em. Playtech limits you to 1/3 of your balance, because you NEED the extra cash to get paid.

It's not unreasonable to consider the amount wagered as the sum of ante+play for these purposes on 3 card poker. For blackjack, however, it's definitely only the original bet.

Good point.

I should revise to say "any initial bet, or additional bet which is required to avoid forfeit of any preceding bets" or something of the sort.

 

[thelawnet]

Of course:

I mentioned that we go into detail to check accounts and if it is the remaining balance used for a small bet that is fine.

Those players who have been playing with us for years know we are fair and upfront with what we do.
There are however cases where intentions are deliberate and terms are broken and these are the ones acted upon.

It's not clear really. The player has a 300 balance. He bets 100. This is ok.

He loses.

He now has a 200 balance. He bets 100. This is not ok. How can it be that the first bet was allowed and the second is not?

How about if he is betting 50 and loses the first 5 bets and wins the 5th? Is this permissible

Or if he bets 25?

Or 10?

Where do you draw the line? You need to explain UP FRONT. Because 'small bet' for Donald Trump is different from 'small bet' for a little old lady with $20 in her wallet.

You're declaring that the player's 30 bet in this case is not a 'small bet' and is not allowable. On what basis? A lot of people consider that a small bet. I would usually bet 50 on table games.

The player bet his remaining balance on a bet that was small - only 1/10 of his original balance - a far cry from the 'majority' referred to in your terms.

 

[deucebag]

How many players who LOST have been refunded their deposit by this group because they did not play in the proper spirit?

The player in this case would be more likely than not to lose his deposit. Would he then have his deposit returned?

This is a brilliant business plan. Have players deposit, and if they lose -- fine. If they win, return their deposit only.

 

[spearmaster]

Funnily enough, I have one more point.

As a person placing their last bet with their remaining money breaches the T&Cs, should the casino not be required to refund the deposit and close the account, even when the player LOSES the last bet?

Play fair, Palace Group.

 

[ternur]

The problems come in when we look at trends and play and see definite signs that someone is betting a certain way after receiving bonus money which is not in the spirit of fair play and not the reason we give offers and bonuses to our players.

Players who play with us know we are a reputable group who does not need to revert to any underhand tactics. We do however strongly believe that a business needs to protect itself.

Why don't you revise your rules and add restrictions to games you do not want players to play? Since every single game offered favours the house, betting patterns and/or "spirit of play" should not even be an issue. The spirit of play is for the player to win money. Against the odds of casino taking it away from the player.

You run a casino, right? You offer bonuses to attract players because the competition is tough.

Things have gone really strange in regards to online casinos. The business where a casino accepts a wager and pays (if they choose to it seems) if the player is successful.

Any win from accepted bet made should be honoured. No exceptions. If bet size matters, adjust the limits accordingly.

 

[RobWin]

Firstly to address a few additional points raised in this thread:
30. Spin Palace Casino reserves the right to pay all Progressive Jackpot winnings in US dollars. The amount to be paid, will be determined by the US Dollar Progressive Jackpot amount on the Progressive Game played, at the time the jackpot was won.
We pay progressives in the currency the player played in. The term does need updating and will be done so accordingly.

The Finnish site will be updated to have the same terms as the rest of our the casino sites. Thank you for pointing these out.

In response to the original post.

We have been targeted and abused by a number of players using certain betting patterns (which for obvious reasons I cannot divulge). We do not take the bets at face value but delve into the actual game play to determine whether someone has transgressed the terms and conditions or not.
The problems come in when we look at trends and play and see definite signs that someone is betting a certain way after receiving bonus money which is not in the spirit of fair play and not the reason we give offers and bonuses to our players.
Our terms do state what we do not allow and if players would like to clarify what they may or may not do prior to claiming and betting they are welcome to contact us.
The 20% bonus offer on the reversal was an error and should not have been sent out. This does not detract that once the withdrawal was submitted and analysed the player did in fact break terms which they agreed to when registering with us.
Players who play with us know we are a reputable group who does not need to revert to any underhand tactics. We do however strongly believe that a business needs to protect itself.

Regards,

The Palace Group

That's it? This is the response and post that everyone has been so anxiously awaiting on here? Come on Palace Group, you guys are better than this, you have been an "Accredited Casino" here for years now. I think myself and the rest of the members here deserve better than this from you guys! At the very least a definitive response to the very issue at hand and not just simply a copy and paste of T's & C's!

 

[chuchu59]

Correction Palace Group. If you insist on implementing such a ridiculous condition I venture to say 'you were a reputable group.

 

[WAYLANDER]

can i have my money back ?

Spin Palace

I deposited and claimed a bonus some time back which i completely bust out .

My balance is showing as Zero

So i must of bet 100% of my balance on my final bet

Unknowingly i have broken your T&C's ....

can i have my deposit back ?

WAYLANDER

 

[pmhcfc]

Correction Palace Group. If you insist on implementing such a ridiculous condition I venture to say 'you were a reputable group.

Yep.. 'were' is the best word that can be used here....I've just read the whole thread and I just think this guy got lucky and the casino doesn't like it...How much money have they kept in the past from other people who have broken the T & C unknowingly...Suffice to say Spin Palace didn't give their deposits back.

Talk about sour grapes...Is two and half grand really that much money to a casino? See it for what it is, the guy got lucky... PAY THE MAN!

 

[Jufo]

Hey, Palace Group

For the last five reload bonuses I have lost my deposit placing large bets on Craps. So why haven't you put those funds back on my Moneybookers account?

 

[cmich77]

To the casino rep. What is your definition of the term "spirt of play"???
I would also like the definition of a small bet please, if you could give the exact numbers for what is a "small" and "large" bet that would be great! Thanks

 

[chuchu59]

To the casino rep. What is your definition of the term "spirt of play"???
I would also like the definition of a small bet please, if you could give the exact numbers for what is a "small" and "large" bet that would be great! Thanks

"Spirit of play" means playing at the following slots:

1/ Johnny Spectre
2/ Halloweenies
3/ Skullduggery

It's getting late so I will leave it to you guys to think of more.

 

[sjn]

It seems obvious from the OP's wagering that the goal was purely to exploit the bonus on offer in the hope of hitting a big win as he then grinding through the attached WR.

The palace group are one of the better casino groups and I never worry about getting paid when i make a cash out. The purpose of a sign up bonus is surely so new players can try the casino out, to try a variety of games, and so make your money last twice as long.

It is only because of sign up bonus abuse that the terms and conditions are getting more and more complicated in an effort to combat this. I remember back in the old days the rules would be wager 3 x deposit and bonus, no roulette or craps. How times have changed.

 

[spearmaster]

It seems obvious from the OP's wagering that the goal was purely to exploit the bonus on offer in the hope of hitting a big win as he then grinding through the attached WR.

The palace group are one of the better casino groups and I never worry about getting paid when i make a cash out. The purpose of a sign up bonus is surely so new players can try the casino out, to try a variety of games, and so make your money last twice as long.

It is only because of sign up bonus abuse that the terms and conditions are getting more and more complicated in an effort to combat this. I remember back in the old days the rules would be wager 3 x deposit and bonus, no roulette or craps. How times have changed.

Do keep in mind that the only term that the OP "broke" was a term which was mathematically impossible to avoid breaking - and that all people who lost their entire bankroll also "broke" this term.

This is *NOT* bonus abuse. Bonus abuse takes one of three forms:

1. Multiple accounts and/or false identification
2. Playing prohibited games
3. Not meeting wagering requirements

A fourth term *could* be size of bet - but this must be denominated by a specific bet size, or a percentage of a FIXED number (such as deposit + bonus).

Balance + bonus is NEVER fixed. Thus the term as written is invalid as it applies to all players who lose their bankroll, or someone who bets at least half of their remaining balance - even if that balance is 2 cents.

An invalid condition is unenforceable in a court of law - and there is no reason why it should be otherwise permitted online.

 

[cmich77]

It is fair eneugh that a casino offering a bonus has restrictions on the betting about with that bonus money. The problem is there is no definition of what ia "small" bet is or a "large" bet. The "Spirit of play" seems to be interpreted by whoever is on duty that day.

 

[gingeanth89]

Palace group Flim Flammery

In response to the original post.

The problems come in when we look at trends and play and see definite signs that someone is betting a certain way after receiving bonus money which is not in the spirit of fair play and not the reason we give offers and bonuses to our players.

I played allowed games, under the betting cap you have imposed through the software and made sufficient wagers to clear your requirements. How can you even begin to suggest that I did not play fairly? When I gamble at a casino, I'm trying to win the casino's money, the casino is trying to win my money. That's how it is. I can't beleive that a big grown up casino is whinging that it's "not fair" that a player won from them. Where was your spirit of fair play when you decided to invoke this impossible to adhere to rule to deny my winnings?

Lets get this straight. You don't give bonuses to new players out of the kindness of your hearts. The ten pages of rules regarding bonuses (which are fatally flawed), game restrictions and bet capping make this perfectly clear. You give the bonuses to attract players so you can make money off them. Nearly all lose is my guess given the heavy restrictions. If I had lost you'd have made money off me. If you are a fair casino, you would apply this rule in the same way for everyone who plays at your casino. That means you should either pay me or you should be sending everyone who ever played with a bonus and lost their deposits back as we speak. Are you on that yet? No? I think I could rest my case right here but I'll carry on.

Our terms do state what we do not allow and if players would like to clarify what they may or may not do prior to claiming and betting they are welcome to contact us.

Oh really? Are you suggesting that if I got in touch before playing I could have had this conversation:

Player: "Hey! If I deposit 10 do I get a 10 bonus from you?"
Support: "Yes sir"
Player: "Can I play slot machines with the money?"
Support: "Yes sir"
Player: "I can play slot machines at 1 a go? The whole 20? Without penalty?"
Support: "Apart from the last 1 sir, if you play it you will be breaking our rule which clearly(!) states that you cannot bet the majority of your balance. if you play with the last -=*magical*=- 1 we'd have to return your deposit."
Player: "So. If I lose the first 19 spins and then deliberately bet the last 1, I will be breaking your rules and you would return my deposit?"
Support: "Yes sir"
Player: "I think I just worked out how to play at your casino with absolutely no risk whatsoever! Please give me the bonus"

The 20% bonus offer on the reversal was an error and should not have been sent out. This does not detract that once the withdrawal was submitted and analysed the player did in fact break terms which they agreed to when registering with us.

That offer wasn't sent in error was it? It was a last ditch attempt at getting me to not withdraw by ofering me a bonus incentive. When that didn't work you invoked the impossible to abide by rule. I agreed to the spirit of the rules not the twisted version that you applied when you decided to deny me my winnings.

Players who play with us know we are a reputable group who does not need to revert to any underhand tactics. We do however strongly believe that a business needs to protect itself.

Sure a business needs to protect itself, that's why you have a wagering requirement and disallow most of your games while a bonus is in play oh, and you limit the maximum a player can bet too. I think it's fairly clear from this thread and your wishy washy reply that the Palace group are not acting reputably and have in fact resorted to very underhand tactics indeed to deny my payout.

You can still turn this around Palace Group. Admit you made a mistake, change the rule so it is absolutely clear and fair! and pay me.

 

[gingeanth89]

Rebuttal

It seems obvious from the OP's wagering that the goal was purely to exploit the bonus on offer in the hope of hitting a big win as he then grinding through the attached WR.

Are you telling me that you go to casinos and play games purely for the fun of it, avoiding big wins if possible? If that's the case, please come to my home casino where we offer a large variety of games with lots of flashing lights. The only downside is - you never win.

My goal was to gamble pure and simple. My definition of gambling includes a chance that I will win and a chance that I will lose. The odds at any casino are stacked against me, this is mathematical fact, even more so with all the restrictions the casino put in place. I won, you should be happy for me.

 

[KasinoKing]

It seems obvious from the OP's wagering that the goal was purely to exploit the bonus on offer in the hope of hitting a big win as he then grinding through the attached WR.

The palace group are one of the better casino groups and I never worry about getting paid when i make a cash out. The purpose of a sign up bonus is surely so new players can try the casino out, to try a variety of games, and so make your money last twice as long.

You know, about 3 or 4 years ago I used to think exactly the same as you.
But I listened to the arguments of other forum members and came to realise that I was wrong.

Why do people gamble? Because they want to win.
What will they do to win? Anything which is permitted in the rules.
And that's what this player did.

He deposited 150 of his own money and placed 4 very large bets.
If he hadn't been very lucky, he could have lost his fourth bet & bust out.
150 in just 4 hands - if that's not gambling I don't know what is!

Everyone here (except the casino) agree - if you don't want players to place big single bets - tell them!!!
This can either be as a monetary figure (e.g. 20) or as a percentage of the bonus received (e.g. 10%).

This Spin Palace rule is totally ludicrous, as many others have said, and I am VERY disappointed in the actions of what were one of my favorite groups.

 

[Tengil]

Firstly to address a few additional points raised in this thread:
30. Spin Palace Casino reserves the right to pay all Progressive Jackpot winnings in US dollars. The amount to be paid, will be determined by the US Dollar Progressive Jackpot amount on the Progressive Game played, at the time the jackpot was won.
We pay progressives in the currency the player played in. The term does need updating and will be done so accordingly.

The Finnish site will be updated to have the same terms as the rest of our the casino sites. Thank you for pointing these out.

In response to the original post.

We have been targeted and abused by a number of players using certain betting patterns (which for obvious reasons I cannot divulge). We do not take the bets at face value but delve into the actual game play to determine whether someone has transgressed the terms and conditions or not.
The problems come in when we look at trends and play and see definite signs that someone is betting a certain way after receiving bonus money which is not in the spirit of fair play and not the reason we give offers and bonuses to our players.
Our terms do state what we do not allow and if players would like to clarify what they may or may not do prior to claiming and betting they are welcome to contact us.
The 20% bonus offer on the reversal was an error and should not have been sent out. This does not detract that once the withdrawal was submitted and analysed the player did in fact break terms which they agreed to when registering with us.
Players who play with us know we are a reputable group who does not need to revert to any underhand tactics. We do however strongly believe that a business needs to protect itself.

Regards,

The Palace Group

Fact is that you have that term (still not removed) and those T&Cs were last updated 19/03/2009. You werent obviously aware of it until now

And about the Finnish T&Cs (BTW we have two official languages), how would you have treated me if I had played the same way as the OP?

The rest of your post has already been addressed by Spearmaster and others so nothing to add there. Only that you actually have bet restrictions "built" in the software as many have pointed out, shouldnt that take "care" of these situations?

And remembered that I still had an Mummys Gold account open. I of course emailed support to have it closed.

 

[dancinggoon]

It seems obvious from the OP's wagering that the goal was purely to exploit the bonus on offer in the hope of hitting a big win as he then grinding through the attached WR.

The palace group are one of the better casino groups and I never worry about getting paid when i make a cash out. The purpose of a sign up bonus is surely so new players can try the casino out, to try a variety of games, and so make your money last twice as long.

It is only because of sign up bonus abuse that the terms and conditions are getting more and more complicated in an effort to combat this. I remember back in the old days the rules would be wager 3 x deposit and bonus, no roulette or craps. How times have changed.

I cant agree here, he just did what everyone else is doing (or at least should do!) in such a situation, he was taking care, that he is able to withdrawl his big win, to enjoy it in real life! Tell me whats wrong with this?

 

[hitobito2005]

I don't usually bet less than 25-50 per hand.

Therefore, I will no longer play at Palace Group since playing a 30 hand while in receipt of a bonus seems to have been deemed in breach of the rules. I'm not sure if they'll be sorry to see me go but I was a VIP for some time last year so my deposits must have meant something to them!

 

[rpalmer83]

This is ludicrous. There would be an issue if the player had claimed a bonus and lumped his entire deposit and bonus on one hand as that is clearly a violation of the terms but the player reduced his betsize as the balance was reducing and were significantly smaller than the amount deposited + bonus. He appeared only to be reducing his betsize because he wasn't winning. It was just fortunate that he got dealt a good hand on the last deal with the last of his remaining balance.

To not payout on this is a serious breach of trust IMO, many casinos today seem to be excercising outrageous terms in order not to payout.

This player deserves his money, as another poster has said, if he had 1 left and hit a 5,000,000 jackpot on his final spin the casino could exercise this term and refuse a payout because 100% of the remaining balance was used to win the prize. It's a very similar situation. If the casino had a problem with his method of play they could have paid out and told him he wouldn't be welcome to bonuses to do the same with.

Far better procedures of going about things can be achieved when an operator treats its customers in a proper mannor and not making them feel like criminals. Confiscating winnings should always be a last resort and not be a decision taken lightly. Learn about your players and listen to them rather than immediately taring them with a brush of bonus abuse otherwise your just setting yourself up for bad publicity and hassle.

 

[deltoid]

It's all been said before by those smarter than me, but I want my voice heard on this.

This is pure fraud on part of the casino. Miester, I know you've coined the term but I think you haven't fully grokked it quite yet - here is my understanding. A blue hat term is a condition placed on the player that is unfair and may restrict the player from collecting their winnings. Limiting payments to 9k a month on a 4million plus win is blue hat. Making it so that it's technically impossible (key point) to be able to cash out (at the discretion of the casino) with a bonus is also blue hat.

It's a "Blue Hat" condition because AS Spearmaster pointed out, it's impossible for you to not break this rule at some point. The casino gives the caveat that "well, it's at our discretion" - which is about as fair as requiring the player to wear a blue hat. On top of that, in the LIKELY chance that the player loses, the BLUE HAT disappears and all is well with their play.

The casino has the capability of limiting bets to cover themselves. They in fact DO it, but not to the extent that they actually want. Why? Because that would limit players TOO much and they wouldn't play. So instead they apply the BH term (bonus hunter? blue hat?) and it lets them win regardless of whether or not the player wins or loses. It's win win for the casino, and LOSE LOSE for the player.

Sorry CM, this is fraud pure and simple on the casinos part. Unintentional, maybe, but it's fraud. Fraud in that the player is given the appearance of a chance of winning, but technically cannot.

And again - stressing this, the casino HAS the option of using a much FAIRER and CLEARER term that steers completely clear of Blue Hat territory. But they choose not to use it, as it gives them less leeway in how they can apply it.

Palace Group - Yes, I'm accusing you of fraud, and YES, I'm accusing you of theft. Maybe you haven't really thought it through, and I do doubt that it was your intention, but that's what it is! And if we let you get away with this, well it's a slippery slope as to what kinda terms and conditions, or treatment of players, we'll see next!

 

[MJackson]

The palace group are one of the better casino groups and I never worry about getting paid when i make a cash out. The purpose of a sign up bonus is surely so new players can try the casino out, to try a variety of games, and so make your money last twice as long.

It is only because of sign up bonus abuse that the terms and conditions are getting more and more complicated in an effort to combat this. I remember back in the old days the rules would be wager 3 x deposit and bonus, no roulette or craps. How times have changed.

Gosh, those darn bonus abusers! If those silly market participants wouldn't have been so hell bent on arbitraging wild inefficiencies then we wouldn't have been callously robbed of our glory days. Days when we could "try the casino out, try a variety of games, and so make [our] money last twice as long", with perhaps 1/15th today's wagering (making it last 1/15th as long).

32 Red is by all admissions one of the more reputable casinos, I certainly wouldn't disagree. They seem to think that in some cases the bonus can help players last much more than just twice as long.

32Red, no interpretation involved. The maximum bonus you can receive is $32and therefore the maximum bet that you can place prior to clearing WR is $8...it doesn't get any clearer than that. They must have a bunch of rocket scientists working at 32Red.

Yes they are pretty clear...

Any winnings derived from bets placed to the value of 25% or more of the bonus before wagering requirements for that bonus have been met will initiate a further wagering requirement of 100 times the amount won.

So with your maximum $8 bets and a win of say $200, you would have a total wagering requirement of 670x the bonus amount. Judging from their promo page, even a monkey can figure this one out. Since the rocket scientists who must work there know that most players aren't rocket scientists themselves, they instead use a computer science based analysis by assuming that all who read the T & C's (presumably every player who accepts a bonus) knows the laughably obvious difference between > and >=.

It is a well known fact that the vast majority of end users never even glance at the terms and conditions despit box-checking to the contrary. What are the chances that the same people who favor stimulation by something like "Track and FieldMouse" are going to be found delving into the fine points of a highly complex legal document when it is not directly required? And for that matter, what are the chances that even a highly competent lawyer could decipher one of these contracts?

Originally Posted by Palace Group
The problems come in when we look at trends and play and see definite signs that someone is betting a certain way after receiving bonus money which is not in the spirit of fair play and not the reason we give offers and bonuses to our players.

I would contend that the reason you give offers and bonuses to your players is not in the spirit of fair play.

I would contend that the reason you give offers and bonuses to your players is not separable from the reason that you exist as a business, namely to maximize profits. The history of capitalism will show that the goal of maximizing profits seldom overlaps with the spirit of fair play.

Gambling is one of the few examples of a pure game-theoretic zero sum contest. In this contest one side is the winner with grossly skewed frequency. In fact is it the absolute end goal of one player to use asymetrical information and active deception to gain an advantage over the other player. This, incidentally, is an application very similar to warfare. When someone "plays back" a little, then it's time to take even more extreme measures so that the business may "protect itself" i.e. maintain it's advantage. No, I'm sorry sir, this doctrine has little to do with fair play or any spirit thereof.

Your own play is not fair in general. But in this case you got called out because it was particularly egregious. You should remediate this.

The 20% bonus offer on the reversal was an error and should not have been sent out. This does not detract that once the withdrawal was submitted and analysed the player did in fact break terms which they agreed to when registering with us.

It looks like plausible deniability minus the plausibility. I would say make it go away.

 

[EasyRhino]

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.

 

[chuchu59]

At Jackpot Capital and a couple of Rivals, paigow poker is allowed even when bonuses are claimed. Well, I claim the bonus, place the full amount on one hand and maybe even double-up if I won the first hand (constrained by table limits though) and then proceed to play slots. If I am lucky I cash out but even if I win that first hand I might still bust out. The casinos do the math and they still send me similar offers without a single mention of bonus abuse. Why? Because if you continue patronising them, they eventually win albeit at a slower rate.

In the present case, it was not exactly an even-money win so the casino should pay the winnings, congratulate the player and move on. They could even pubilicise this as a winner who got lucky with a str. flush at 3-card poker on his last bet.

 

[Tengil]

From my inbox. The way to deal with issues like this. I hope Im not the only one, its time for us players to show that we dont accept these kind of actions.

Hi there Johnny

Account number: TMGDxxxxxxxx

Thank you for contacting Mummy's Gold Casino.

It is with great disappointment that we have closed your casino account as per your request. Kindly note that we have also forwarded your email to our Operations department for their attention.

We trust that you should be receiving a response within the next business day.

We thank you for your patience and appreciate your understanding in this regard.

Should you require any further assistance, feel free to contact us at our friendly helpdesk which is available 24 hours a day and 7 days a week at your convenience.

Kind regards,

Taz
Guest Services

 

[The Dude]

Just so you know I'm not ignoring this issue

I'm in contact with the casino and they are looking into this matter. More later.

 

[Jufo]

Regarding the bet size limitations, even extremely low maximum bets wouldn't help the casino against advantage strategies because the player could play high variance & low house edge game such as All Aces to use the bonus as betting leverage to get a large payout and grind out the WR.

If you can't afford to pay out the player profit from bonuses, then the only way is stop offering such bonuses.

 

[rpalmer83]

It's all been said before by those smarter than me, but I want my voice heard on this.

This is pure fraud on part of the casino. Miester, I know you've coined the term but I think you haven't fully grokked it quite yet - here is my understanding. A blue hat term is a condition placed on the player that is unfair and may restrict the player from collecting their winnings. Limiting payments to 9k a month on a 4million plus win is blue hat. Making it so that it's technically impossible (key point) to be able to cash out (at the discretion of the casino) with a bonus is also blue hat.

It's a "Blue Hat" condition because AS Spearmaster pointed out, it's impossible for you to not break this rule at some point. The casino gives the caveat that "well, it's at our discretion" - which is about as fair as requiring the player to wear a blue hat. On top of that, in the LIKELY chance that the player loses, the BLUE HAT disappears and all is well with their play.

The casino has the capability of limiting bets to cover themselves. They in fact DO it, but not to the extent that they actually want. Why? Because that would limit players TOO much and they wouldn't play. So instead they apply the BH term (bonus hunter? blue hat?) and it lets them win regardless of whether or not the player wins or loses. It's win win for the casino, and LOSE LOSE for the player.

Sorry CM, this is fraud pure and simple on the casinos part. Unintentional, maybe, but it's fraud. Fraud in that the player is given the appearance of a chance of winning, but technically cannot.

And again - stressing this, the casino HAS the option of using a much FAIRER and CLEARER term that steers completely clear of Blue Hat territory. But they choose not to use it, as it gives them less leeway in how they can apply it.

Palace Group - Yes, I'm accusing you of fraud, and YES, I'm accusing you of theft. Maybe you haven't really thought it through, and I do doubt that it was your intention, but that's what it is! And if we let you get away with this, well it's a slippery slope as to what kinda terms and conditions, or treatment of players, we'll see next!

Could not agree with this more, a lot of problems boil down to the way terms and conditions are written. I was in a similar situation personally with Betfred which is now resolved where they had a term that stated "only cash deposits qualify for a bonus, other transfers may void winnings at our discretion". They told me they could use this term to consfiscate my winnings if I transferred money from the sportsbook into the casino, a practice which is common across almost all bookmakers operations across the globe. I challenged it and got it changed to "sportsbook transfers" because "other" is far too loose and could mean if they were really feeling that way out they could even decline to payout someone who'd deposited via Neteller for example. Not that I am suggesting they WOULD do this but the term did make it possible.

Unfortunately I feel with a lot of casinos these terms are written this way deliberately so they can use them as a scapegoat. In this particular situation the player was offered a further bonus if he reversed is cashin. The email posted did not look automatic, more personal and that said to me they wanted him to play to lose and quite plainly did not want to payout in the first instance. When he declined the offer of a bonus they chose to use the term as means of not paying out at all.

I do hope the situation can be resolved appropriately.

 

[Mark_32Red (retired acct)]

Hi gingeanth89, Check your PM

 

[gingeanth89]

32 Red Casino Online Casino Champions forever?

Hi gingeanth89, Check your PM

Its very clear to me why 32 red win casino of the year every year even without the pm they sent me. Heres one reason why. I won recently at 32 Red playing slots. I went to the banking section to see if I could withdraw and it said the full amount was available for withdrawal so I withdrew. The next day I went back into my account and the money was back in my account and there was an email in my inbox telling me why. I hadnt wagered enough and it also provided additional information about how much more I had to play to withdraw. Thats good service. Not only telling me what had happened but helping me more than necesary. Other casino groups (naming no names) state in their rules that if you withdraw before meeting the requirements that any winnings will be voided. Can you all see the difference between the number 1 casino on the net (and Casinomeisters top pick year after year) and other less reputable organizations? One uses the rules to make things fair, others use them as a weapon against winners.

More on this later.

Amazing how much difference a one line PM can make to your month!

Anthony

 

[tonyg82]

Wow, what did you get?

I have only signed up to one online Casino before, and wasn't going to bother signing up to any more after reading what goes on in this thread. At least I can't be accused of cheating on roulette in Vegas when I go!

Sounds like 32Red would be my choice if I get round to it.

By the way, I think it is terrible they can apply an ambiguous term, they are basically saying they can do anything they want. There should be clear terms and if they don't like your play they should just bonus ban you from future promos or something. It's called a loss-leader Palace Group, try to understand it.

You've lost a load of 'leads' now as you have been greedy and not taken your loss.

 

[gingeanth89]

32 Red goodness

Wow, what did you get?

I have only signed up to one online Casino before, and wasn't going to bother signing up to any more after reading what goes on in this thread. At least I can't be accused of cheating on roulette in Vegas when I go!

Sounds like 32Red would be my choice if I get round to it.

By the way, I think it is terrible they can apply an ambiguous term, they are basically saying they can do anything they want. There should be clear terms and if they don't like your play they should just bonus ban you from future promos or something. It's called a loss-leader Palace Group, try to understand it.

You've lost a load of 'leads' now as you have been greedy and not taken your loss.

I got a message, Im waiting for Spin Palace/The Palace Group to do the right thing before I say any more. You just never know, could have been an overzealous manager having an off day. Doesnt look likely that thats the case after their reps first response but this case isnt dead yet.

I live in hope.

 

[Pinababy69]

This can either be as a monetary figure (e.g. 20) or as a percentage of the bonus received (e.g. 10%).

This Spin Palace rule is totally ludicrous, as many others have said, and I am VERY disappointed in the actions of what were one of my favorite groups.

Exactly KK, and that's why I posted the terms that 32Red uses...just to highlight that their terms leave nothing open to interpretation. It seems so simple to me....I just don't get why other casinos don't use a similar term.

The Palace Group were always one of my favourite groups as well. I didn't do the affiliate thing for very long...but while I did, I only felt confident in promoting three casinos/groups.....Roxy Palace, the Palace Group and 32Red. To read this thread and the line they are taking is beyond disappointing to me as well. I never expected this from them.

I don't usually bet less than 25-50 per hand.

Therefore, I will no longer play at Palace Group since playing a 30 hand while in receipt of a bonus seems to have been deemed in breach of the rules. I'm not sure if they'll be sorry to see me go but I was a VIP for some time last year so my deposits must have meant something to them!

From my inbox. The way to deal with issues like this. I hope Im not the only one, its time for us players to show that we dont accept these kind of actions.

Kudos to both of you for doing the right thing, and showing some solidarity for players!! Can we bottle your attitude and force feed it to other players?

 

[The Dude]

Just an FYI, I've been in discussion with the Palace Group on changing their terms and conditions. The changes should be up sometime soon, and in my opinion, and I'm sure with most of you, you'll find these straight-forward and fair.

 

[BBKPoker]

Let's be honest, 2 years ago no Microgaming would have ever pulled this nonsense, and ECOGRA would have never upheld such a ludicrous term. I know we are not turning this into an ECOGRA bash thread, and that's not my intention, but I think its just absurd that since Americans have had a much more difficult time depositing, Microgaming-software casinos as a whole have been including much more arbitrary clauses that are written ambiguously and are often difficult to interpret. They seem to invoke these clauses anytime a big score is hit, or simply because they do not feel like paying up.

They are doing this more and more and I read about incidents that are taken as standard "gotcha" clauses on here and am just repulsed to think that because the industry is struggling, this is how the casinos are cutting costs and saving their bottom line by making up relatively arcane rules and using them to deny the better scores.

It's a really upsetting trend to see, from a software brand that to me was synonymous with reputable even after the UGIEA and has just slowly degraded over the last couple of years. Most of this stuff reminds me of the RTG nonsense that used to get pulled back before they had a legitimate dispute channel, and I really doubt that most or any of this would fly on this forum even a couple of years ago.

It's a really sad state for the industry that we allow this kind of behavior by operators because we think we have no alternative and because these unethical actions happen so much we think its appropriate or have become used to them. I played a little at Spin Palace, but after reading this thread and the indifferent response by Palace Group's rep, I have added this group to a growing number of sites I refuse to do business with again.

 

[pmhcfc]

I got a message, Im waiting for Spin Palace/The Palace Group to do the right thing before I say any more. You just never know, could have been an overzealous manager having an off day. Doesnt look likely that thats the case after their reps first response but this case isnt dead yet.

I live in hope.

If....(and it's a big IF) the Palace Group do the right thing and give Ginge what is rightly his, it just goes to show (once again) the power of this type of forum and the justification of being a member.

We may not always agree with the Casinomeister himself, but we're all indebited to him, and all the people on here, in one form or another.

Even though I've stopped virtually all my play online, I (and this is not being crawly bum lick) would like to say thanks for all that he does here....

In the words of Wolfie Smith - "Power to the People"

 

[vinylweatherman]

If the OP did anything "abusive", it was on the FIRST bet, not the LAST. This is where Spin Palace seem to have dropped the ball.

If there was a clear term that did not allow more than x% in a single bet, the first bet would probably fallen foul of this.

By Spin Palace's argument, had the OP won the straight flush bet on the FIRST wager, this would have been OK, so surely winning it on the fourth should be no different at all.

IF the software had been adjusted to disallow bets that were too large, then the failure here is administrative, in allowing 30 chips to be placed on each position of this game under bonus conditions.

I have played this game a fair bit, and have occasionally staked 50 chips per position, and in the distant past even 100 chips. Even now, I range between 5 and 25 chips per position, knowing now through experience how nasty this game can turn.

I had never thought of this game as a candidate for "bonus abuse" considerations, since the straight flush and 3OK, the only real big wins, are so rare, about 1 in 200-300 hands dealt to get one of either.

Unless players are opening HUNDREDS of accounts, and using this 3 card poker strategy on each, the CASINOS are winning. Nothing has been presented so far that suggests this player has been doing this.

 

[Tengil]

They have now changed their T&Cs. Its now:

Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings.

But this term is still there:

30. Spin Palace Casino reserves the right to pay all Progressive Jackpot winnings in US dollars.
The amount to be paid, will be determined by the US Dollar Progressive Jackpot amount on the Progressive Game played, at the time the jackpot was won.

 

[rpalmer83]

Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings.

The terms are better but I still really hate T&C's which carry scapegoat clauses. Notice how they've put "Includes but Not limited to" in there which again gives them the right to confiscate winnings "At their discretion". Don't get me wrong I don't expect casinos to list in their terms every form of bonus abuse going but when reading terms like this you do feel a little cheated, particularly when you hear of casinos invoking terms like this to the maximum extent possible and taking peoples winnings. I am starting to think the safest bet is to not accept bonuses at all because its like signing up for a bank account or a credit card all the legal blurb you have to accept.

And to be honest a fairer approach when dealing with bonuses would be either to either take the bonus off an abusing player, refuse any further bonuses or in extreme cases divide the win into the percentage of the bonus and pay them the win on the portion of their deposit.

For example:

Player deposits 100, player recieves 100 bonus
Player bets 200 on a 35x bet and wins 7000

The player is not allowed by the terms of the bonus to bet the full deposit+bonus balance on a single stake so the bonus and winnings from the bonus are confiscated. The player is returned 3500 which is a 35x win of his original deposit of 100.

This scenario would be a fair approach to both the player and the casino, but again any good casino group should not take confiscating winnings lightly and should try to resolve things with the player so they don't lose what might be a good customer and others through the bad press.

Back to the original player who has had his entire winnings confiscated I still feel he should be given his entire win, from my point of view he clearly did not set out to abuse the bonus in his play, the initial terms weren't worded properly and he just got very lucky on his last bet.

I would hope that Spin Palace would do the moral and decent thing.

 

[deucebag]

They have now changed their T&Cs. Its now:

Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings.

An improvement, but I'd like to know what they mean by "low margin bets". Bets on games with a low house advantage? Bets that are small in relation to your balance or deposit? Or is it something else?

This whole "irregular betting" term is a joke IMO. The player should be free to make any bet the software will let him. A bet accepted has to be paid (as long as there is no fraud involved of course).

And I can confirm that MG software can be configured to lower the table limits when a bonus is in play. I played at one that did this the other day. So there is no need for this term.

 

[gingeanth89]

Will Spin Palace relent and pay me?

They have now changed their T&Cs. Its now:

Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings.

But this term is still there:

30. Spin Palace Casino reserves the right to pay all Progressive Jackpot winnings in US dollars.
The amount to be paid, will be determined by the US Dollar Progressive Jackpot amount on the Progressive Game played, at the time the jackpot was won.

So by this new rule which is clearer but still not great, a bet of 45 would be fine. Why not set the software to limit your bets to that amount then? make it impossible for us to transcend your rules. Any chance of me getting paid then Palace Group? I won betting under this amount. Or was that mangled comment by your rep the last word?

 

[chuchu59]

These terms are unambiguous and is the best the casino could come up with IMO. However, if the bonus is only a 10% or 20% bonus and the deposit is say $25, the bets allowed are likely to be very small.

Now I would like to know whether ginge is gonna get paid. These terms cant be retroactive can they?

 

[Tengil]

An improvement, but I'd like to know what they mean by "low margin bets". Bets on games with a low house advantage? Bets that are small in relation to your balance or deposit? Or is it something else?

This whole "irregular betting" term is a joke IMO. The player should be free to make any bet the software will let him. A bet accepted has to be paid (as long as there is no fraud involved of course).

And I can confirm that MG software can be configured to lower the table limits when a bonus is in play. I played at one that did this the other day. So there is no need for this term.

Spin Palace has their software configured this way. At least it used to be. Dont know what the limits were/are.

 

[Mallorca]

The table limits on BJ are from 1 credit to 500.
On 3 card poker from 0,5 to 200.
I have also been banned from receiving bonus offers after 5 years playing with them.I told Darran I would not change my gambling style....if it was ok the way I played before why should I change it now...?

 

[gingeanth89]

Spin Palace Limits

The table limits on BJ are from 1 credit to 500.
On 3 card poker from 0,5 to 200.
I have also been banned from receiving bonus offers after 5 years playing with them.I told Darran I would not change my gambling style....if it was ok the way I played before why should I change it now...?

The limits are different for different games. Why they dont just set the limit so the most you can bet is within the rules rather than leaving it up to the player so they can fall into the rules trap is well dodgy I think. Im still not seeing a fair casino here. And The Palace Group havent paid me either. Sigh. Has the rep left the building after the battering he took for his last post?

 

[thelawnet]

So by this new rule which is clearer but still not great, a bet of 45 would be fine.

Seems like it's not so clear. 45 is exactly 30% of the bonus you received, and would not be allowed. 44.99 would be ok though.

It's all rather arbitrary though, Palace group send out deposit 60, get 40 offers for instance.

The maximum bet would be only 11.99!

What's wrong with setting low limits when the bonus is the account? That way nobody can accidentally fall foul of the rules and get their winnings confiscated.

 

[rpalmer83]

These terms are unambiguous and is the best the casino could come up with IMO. However, if the bonus is only a 10% or 20% bonus and the deposit is say $25, the bets allowed are likely to be very small.

Now I would like to know whether ginge is gonna get paid. These terms cant be retroactive can they?

Bit of a Joke to behonest, players who sit there all day betting $1/hand on BJ regularly get shot down for bonus abuse, yet bet big and its also bonus abuse. These casinos really don't make life easy on themselves or their players when it comes to provision of bonuses do they?.