Palace VIP - Prog Jackpot, max payout and min activity!!!

[ThePOGG]

Hey everyone,

I know that CM has pretty much spearheaded a campaign to make players aware of unethical withdrawal limitations on Progressive Jackpot wins so I felt I should make a post here to highlight a new development.

While posting changes to casino terms and conditions on my forum, I've come across one that really made me quite angry. Palace VIP have now added a term which not only limits the maximum withdrawal per month to £10k (that was there before), but stipulates that they won't make payments to players that haven't been active over that month.

Essentially they are looking to force players to play back an amount of their winnings. I'm sure there must be other groups that have tried this in the past, but the term is certainly new for Palace VIP.

I'm expecting to receive alerts about the rest of the iGlobal Media group and probably the Bwin/Party group over the next week.

ThePOGG

 

[Jasminebed]

For any player that faces gambling problems, this could be a trainwreck!

Since you already have a large balance and you are waiting for payments, you can't "win" anything except more months of waiting.

Disgusting.

 

[Cleveland]

I wonder if logging in and simply playing say $ 10 worth of spins would be enough to bypass this or if they will want a significant amount of play.

 

[ThePOGG]

I wonder if logging in and simply playing say $ 10 worth of spins would be enough to bypass this or if they will want a significant amount of play.

I would certainly argue that it does. In fact if you chose to wager 1c on one payline I would argue that you've met the requirements. However, I would strongly suspect that the first time that a player tries that the term will be altered to specify the minimum.

 

[dunover]

My God, you've got to watch these sites like hawks. Well spotted. How disingenuous and shady this term it. So, the site is effectively withholding your cash which it received from outside its business from the Software Provider's pool and eyeing it greedily and then attempting to purloin some for itself. Disgusting. The UKGC and the equivalent body in other countries should immediately bar sites that follow this dodgy practice from taking players from there. then it'll stop.
I expect these sites to be listed in the CM *warning* section where the Playtech non-jackpot payers are.

Imagine winning a state lottery jackpot paid in annual instalments, only to be told "you won't get next years lump-sum unless you buy x-amount of lottery tickets beforehand".
Complete and utter, well how do I put it politely, gonads....

 

[ThePOGG]

In the name of fairness and balance, Palace VIP have just removed the term demanding activity within the month of any payment. I would be interested to know whether they read this thread or whether this is coincidence....

ThePOGG

 

[Jasminebed]

If they read it and heeded the input from the thread, that's good enough for me.

It was a term that needed to go.

Thanks for bring it to our attention, and possibly that of the Casino.

 

[mattsgame]

If they read it and heeded the input from the thread, that's good enough for me.

It was a term that needed to go.

Thanks for bring it to our attention, and possibly that of the Casino.

You are right but still they have terms that all players should be aware of and should probably stay clear of this joint.

6.5.3 You are aware of and agree that the maximum amount that a Player can cash-out in a 30 day period is $10,000 USD, AUD, CHF and CAD, or €7500 EUR, or £6500 GBP, or 70000 SEK, or 80000 ZAR (“Maximum Amount”) . For the avoidance of doubt, any subsequent cash-outs can only take place 30 days after the date of the cash-out directly preceding it. All amounts larger than the Maximum Amount will be paid in terms until the full withdrawal amount is reached. This condition also applies to winnings of progressive jackpots. Withdrawals depend on verification of all required documents as set in clause 10.4.

Disgusting to have a max withdrawal limit that is so low and also applies to progressives, I see Bryan already has them on the not recommended list. I find it strange that they all have withdrawal limits around the 10k mark, yet some will pay up to 50k to U.K residents.

11.6 Your use of any real money bonuses is subject to Our review for irregular playing patterns. To ensure fair gaming and the proper use of bonuses, We consider low margin betting, equal betting, zero risk bets or hedge betting to be irregular gaming when deployed to exploit bonuses. Further examples of irregular playing patterns also include, but are not limited to: (i) placing single or multiple bets of a value of fifty percent or more of the bonus on any single game, individual hand, or round, building a balance and significantly changing play patterns (bet size, game types, bet structures etc) in order to meet the bonus release requirement; (ii) placing large bets which result in a substantial gain followed by a drop in bet size equal to or more than seventy five percent of the previous average bet size until the bonus release requirements have been met (iii) if We have good grounds to suspect that you have sought only to exploit a bonus offered by Us in good faith to enhance your entertainment (for example, on acceptance of a bonus, the minimum wagering requirement is met and funds are subsequently withdrawn).

Ahh this sort of term really gets me goat!

 

[maxd]

I may just be in an ungenerous mood this morning but it seems to me that this "must be active" thing is a pretty chilling prospect. I can see it turning into a "spirit of the bonus" thing in a heartbeat: first it's "be active", then it's "be active enough to convince us you're being active", then soon we'd arrive at the same dark pit that produced "spirit of the bonus" where it becomes "be active in this or that way". In other words "play to lose or you can't have your winnings".

This kind of thing is a cancer on the business. In the words of the prescient Mr. Bickle: "Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."

 

[vinylweatherman]

I may just be in an ungenerous mood this morning but it seems to me that this "must be active" thing is a pretty chilling prospect. I can see it turning into a "spirit of the bonus" thing in a heartbeat: first it's "be active", then it's "be active enough to convince us you're being active", then soon we'd arrive at the same dark pit that produced "spirit of the bonus" where it becomes "be active in this or that way". In other words "play to lose or you can't have your winnings".

This kind of thing is a cancer on the business. In the words of the prescient Mr. Bickle: "Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."

The mere idea is bullshit. If a player wins more than the casino is able to pay in one go, they should NOT carry on playing as they may win an even greater amount. It's simple responsible gambling, and a casino operator should EXPECT that players who are gambling responsibly are likely to stop playing once they have "broken the bank" at a given casino and are faced with an instalment plan.

If operators don't like idle accounts, they should pay winners faster!

 

[ThePOGG]

I may just be in an ungenerous mood this morning but it seems to me that this "must be active" thing is a pretty chilling prospect. I can see it turning into a "spirit of the bonus" thing in a heartbeat: first it's "be active", then it's "be active enough to convince us you're being active", then soon we'd arrive at the same dark pit that produced "spirit of the bonus" where it becomes "be active in this or that way". In other words "play to lose or you can't have your winnings".

This kind of thing is a cancer on the business. In the words of the prescient Mr. Bickle: "Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."

I don't think it's ungenerous at all - the money isn't their's to hold in the first place and these rules are nothing short or highway law (they've got the gun, so what are you going to do about it?). And I couldn't agree more that it opens up Pandora's box with respect to what constitutes "activity".

I post about 5-10 term changes a day on average, and the vast majority of these are changes that are either neutral or negative for players, but this one I thought was exceptional enough that it required a bit larger publicity. It's gone for the time being, but I don't imagine it'll be the last time that a casino tries to add this sort of rule......

Another rule that's really annoying me that's popping up more and more often at the moment is the "maximum allowed win in period X" term. I'm finding more and more casinos - especially smaller operations that are likely underfunded - adding terms that allow them to void winnings over a certain amount regardless of whether a bonus was taken or not. It's one thing to have this term in bonus conditions - if you accept the bonus you accept the terms - but to decline any bonuses and then have your winnings voided anyway is to my mind beyond unscrupulous.

ThePOGG