Bonus Complaint Party casino not paying because of Terms violations!

[hakapuku]

I did read the terms and condition and to be honest I missed that term, The promotion terms were ok to handle but the general terms were long and I probably missed it, now I can see their general terms actually put you on a no win situation as for almost anything they can blame you of bonus abuse.
I sent Max the terms with this term inside, thats true, I sent it as a proof the word 70 was not even there, I ran a search on number 70 and it was not there, Now I see it is not the number but seventy written in words.
I didn't abuse their bonus thats all I know, finding in the fine print such an important term is the issue here, I will be satisifed with another resolution but not with non payment why not to pay after I wagered so much and the term is not clear and hidden in such a long long script.

That was my point. Why did they use words "seventy percent" instead of "70%" ? I know many casinos applying that bet percentage limit but I don't know even one which writes this rule using words instead of numbers. And I find that it was made with the intention not to be easily found by players . Just a psychological trick which makes good money for the casino. Not fair!

 

[rainmaker]

DiamondGeezer, I will give you a general comment.

Anyone who has studied law will know that judicial decisions are based on several different legal sources. What kind of legal sources will depend on the jurisdictions' law principles. Typical legal sources in western law is for example the law text itself, preparatory works (and jurisprudence) and precedents.

So when you are saying that the understanding of T&C is more than just "the written" words itself, then you are correct. But you are talking like there is a "universal" law that applies for everyone. This is wrong. So your thoughts would only make sense if you knew the law, and knew the law principles in the correct jurisdiction. .

As Max have said, the PAB process is a way of dealing with player issues in a correct was based on "precedents" in the industry, not in the court system. And the "course of dealing" in this industry is clearly that players who violates the written T&C also will have their winnings confiscated/held back etc. This practice is well established.

 

[nothappy]

If the word seventy is written or 70 is written. It still does not mean any terms were broken. According to their terms it is only a breach of terms if the player is using these large bets to beat down the requirements of the bonus playthrough. Did the OP use 70% or higher bets to quickly clear the wager requirements or did he only bet that high a few times? If it's only a few times then no terms were broken and all the rest is mute points.

 

[Nifty29]

If the word seventy is written or 70 is written. It still does not mean any terms were broken. According to their terms it is only a breach of terms if the player is using these large bets to beat down the requirements of the bonus playthrough. Did the OP use 70% or higher bets to quickly clear the wager requirements or did he only bet that high a few times? If it's only a few times then no terms were broken and all the rest is mute points.

Are you serious?

What other reason would the OP have to gamble more than 70% of the bonus? He had to go pee and didn't want to wait?

It also doesn't say about using these bets to "quickly" clear the bonus. It says nothing about speed lol.

The obvious intention of the player was to build up the bankroll with big bets on roulette and grind it down to meet the WR...which is against the casino rules. It doesn't matter is he did it twice or fifty times - if he did it even once with that intention then he broke the rule. If he did it right at the beginning to build his bankroll (as I suspect) then he most certainly was trying to clear the bonus by creating a large early bankroll.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people just continue to scream "pay the player" regardless of the facts. Even in some of the most blatant examples over the years, there are still some members (usually the same ones i.e fellow advantage players) who insist the casino should pay.

What the supporters of the OP are really saying is that he should be subject to different rules to the rest of us. If it's good enough for everyone else, it's good enough for the OP and the minute casinos start just 'letting things slide' they are going to get taken to the cleaners by unscrupulous bonus hunters (who are to blame for all these rules in the first place!)

Anyway, the decision is made and he ain't getting paid, so the discussion is becoming academic at best.

P.S. Another term related to roulette at Party Casino:

Bets placed in any game of (i) roulette on the winning number being red, black, odd, even, between the number range 1 - 18, or between the number range 19 - 36 will not be counted as valid wagers for the purposes of meeting the cash out or wagering restrictions of any Promotion.

I wonder if he broke that term as well?

 

[DiamondGeezer]

DiamondGeezer, I will give you a general comment.

Anyone who has studied law will know that judicial decisions are based on several different legal sources. What kind of legal sources will depend on the jurisdictions' law principles. Typical legal sources in western law is for example the law text itself, preparatory works (and jurisprudence) and precedents.

So when you are saying that the understanding of T&C is more than just "the written" words itself, then you are correct. But you are talking like there is a "universal" law that applies for everyone. This is wrong. So your thoughts would only make sense if you knew the law, and knew the law principles in the correct jurisdiction. .

As Max have said, the PAB process is a way of dealing with player issues in a correct was based on "precedents" in the industry, not in the court system. And the "course of dealing" in this industry is clearly that players who violates the written T&C also will have their winnings confiscated/held back etc. This practice is well established.

Yep you make some good points here. It's true I am thinking in terms of UK Law whereas Party I think are in Gibralter. This suits the casinos very well I think, basing themselves in small islands with obscure legal practises.

 

[rainmaker]

Yep you make some good points here. It's true I am thinking in terms of UK Law whereas Party I think are in Gibralter. This suits the casinos very well I think, basing themselves in small islands with obscure legal practises.

I agree, and thats the big problem for players when bigger disputes occurs. It is quite hopeless to "sue" within some of these jurisdictions. But it is a players choice to register and play within Gibralter, Malta or whatever

But players do have Casinomeister

 

[DiamondGeezer]

And I think the player should have done more to familiarize himself with the Terms he agreed to. When this issue comes to you for evaluation you can argue your side of it as you like. Since we're discussing the issue here as a PAB it'll come as no surprise that I'm happy to run with my take on things for the time being.

That said I have to point out that "doing more" to communicate a given clause in the Terms is going to be a lot easier said than done. I think it's fair to say that there are typically many clauses, all more or less of equal importance. What do you do to communicate them all more effectively? Multi-coloured text? Individual check-boxes? AFAIK there's no obvious solution to this so it tends to default to the common denominator of just expecting players to read the Terms.



And that's where we fundamentally disagree. In a court of law what you say may be perfectly acceptable -- frankly I have no idea but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- but the PAB process is not a court.

We are asked to evaluate cases based on standard practice within this industry and I don't think I'm taking much of a risk in saying that in this industry it matters very much whether the player reads the Terms or not. The obvious reason being that before they are allowed to play they say, in effect, "I have read, understood and will abide by the Terms".

From that point on their compliance with the Terms is expected so yes, actually reading those Terms is highly advisable. And yes I believe this is true regardless of what may or may not happen in a theoretical court room were the case ever to come before a judge which it almost certainly will not. No disrespect intended but day-to-day court room and/or lawyer practice is of limited interest here because this is no court and in no way pretends to represent one.

Max I do understand what you are saying about the PAB process not being a court but what irritates me is that some standard industry practises can be very different from common legal practise. I do get on my legal hobby horse somewhat at times.

Let's for argument's sake take an example where we have a legit player who likes this guy runs up a balance on a bonus at some casino. During his play he gets up to $5K and in the heat of the moment bets $100 a couple of times and breaches a 25% clause. He then realises and goes under the 25% for the rest of his play. At the end of the session he wins $10K and tries to cash out.

If he then came to you would you really strike him out for violation of the 25% rule?

If your answer is that it is standard industry practise I would say it is a bad practise! Really the main people falling foul of this foul of this are the unwary and the ignorant. Advantage players won't make an error like this. I know not reading terms is no defence but also these 25% terms should not be being used to punish the innocent player who just made a mistake. It is possible to misclick and also get your maths mixed up in the heat of the moment.

The thing is the contract between player and casino is a two way street. Every time a casino are removing a big win form an innocent player who merely made a mistake they are profiting massively from it. How can that be fair?

I would say in cases like the OP's it would be better to look at the case in the round and come to a conclusion about the player. Was he a genuine player? Did he gain any advantage by going over the 70% rule? What was his bonus play like? What was his cover play like? I know someone of your experience could look at the gameplay for 10 minutes and be able to know what sort of a player he was.

FWIW I think there are chances the OP is genuine. 40K extra is a lot of extra play and he did deposit more than the minimum amount. But then you will say this is not important because he broke the 70% term.

But if it turns out the casino are keeping the €8K because he made a mistake that did not actually benefit him then I would say that's highly unfair IMO. I just hope here is more to this case and that it was blatant full balance betting or something.

 

[Nifty29]

Max I do understand what you are saying about the PAB process not being a court but what irritates me is that some standard industry practises can be very different from common legal practise. I do get on my legal hobby horse somewhat at times.

Let's for argument's sake take an example where we have a legit player who likes this guy runs up a balance on a bonus at some casino. During his play he gets up to $5K and in the heat of the moment bets $100 a couple of times and breaches a 25% clause. He then realises and goes under the 25% for the rest of his play. At the end of the session he wins $10K and tries to cash out.

If he then came to you would you really strike him out for violation of the 25% rule?

If your answer is that it is standard industry practise I would say it is a bad practise! Really the main people falling foul of this foul of this are the unwary and the ignorant. Advantage players won't make an error like this. I know not reading terms is no defence but also these 25% terms should not be being used to punish the innocent player who just made a mistake. It is possible to misclick and also get your maths mixed up in the heat of the moment.

The thing is the contract between player and casino is a two way street. Every time a casino are removing a big win form an innocent player who merely made a mistake they are profiting massively from it. How can that be fair?

I would say in cases like the OP's it would be better to look at the case in the round and come to a conclusion about the player. Was he a genuine player? Did he gain any advantage by going over the 70% rule? What was his bonus play like? What was his cover play like? I know someone of your experience could look at the gameplay for 10 minutes and be able to know what sort of a player he was.

FWIW I think there are chances the OP is genuine. 40K extra is a lot of extra play and he did deposit more than the minimum amount. But then you will say this is not important because he broke the 70% term.

But if it turns out the casino are keeping the €8K because he made a mistake that did not actually benefit him then I would say that's highly unfair IMO. I just hope here is more to this case and that it was blatant full balance betting or something.

The OP obviously bet very large at the beginning to manufacture a large bankroll - which is exactly what the 70% term is there to prevent. He may not have been able to wager the $40k more is he hadn't made those large bets, so it is irrelevant.

You say that "not reading the terms is no defence", but then you say that "the main people falling foul of this are the unwary and the ignorant". I would say it's the unwary and ignorant that neglect to read and understand the terms in the first place, so you are kinda contradicting yourself there.

Players have a choice in regards to where they play. If you read the terms and don't like them, then don't play there. If you decide to play there without reading and understanding the terms, then you have to suffer the consequences if you break them, regardless of whether there is a 5% or 95% rule.

A casino has the right to make any rules they like for bonuses so saying the rule itself is unfair is also irrelevant - the OP agreed to be bound by them when he created his account and accepted the bonus.

What is it these days? Nobody ever wants to take responsibility. It's always someone else's fault. No wonder litigation has gone crazy in the US and other western nations....everyone is always looking for someone else to take the blame. Sheesh.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

That said I have to point out that "doing more" to communicate a given clause in the Terms is going to be a lot easier said than done. I think it's fair to say that there are typically many clauses, all more or less of equal importance. What do you do to communicate them all more effectively? Multi-coloured text? Individual check-boxes? AFAIK there's no obvious solution to this so it tends to default to the common denominator of just expecting players to read the Terms.

Well I for one am not willing to tolerate the casinos lame excuses on this front.

For one thing in the OP's case this 70% bonus money clause wasn't in the bonus terms but the general terms. And then oddly it was written and not stated numerically which is weird. I can understand how a player could genuinely miss it.

It really isn't difficult writing bonus terms. One thing that has always struck me as odd is that they are always in tiny writing. You have to ask yourself why that is?

The bonus terms should just cover the bonus rules. In nearly all cases they are WR, what games you can play, the max bet rule, what countrys are allowed, how long you have to do it, what the cash out rules are.

Then there is the general gubbins like only one IP address, don't even think of playing here if you are from Denmark etc etc.

If you go on Rival you get a bonus page that in about five steps details all you need to know about playing the bonus. Also for all their ills RTG are good with their terms too.

Also it wouldn't harm to use more plain english, bigger writing and use examples. It's like the casinos are afraid to deal with their customers. They could very easily improve things if they wanted to.

 

[rainmaker]

What is it these days? Nobody ever wants to take responsibility. It's always someone else's fault. No wonder litigation has gone crazy in the US and other western nations....everyone is always looking for someone else to take the blame. Sheesh.

Yeah, I must agree with you again. I just can`t believe why so many people in this thread would actually speak in favor of the complainant. Players must take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

The OP obviously bet very large at the beginning to manufacture a large bankroll - which is exactly what the 70% term is there to prevent. He may not have been able to wager the $40k more is he hadn't made those large bets, so it is irrelevant.

What??? Is this fact or some wild accusation of yours??? What proof do you have?

Anyway in truth I am more interested in the principles than this actual case.

But Max said he struck out the claim because the OP broke the 70% term, plain and simple.

 

[jod5413]

For all of you that think that the player should get his money even if he did break the rules.

Plexrep put out a suggestion for you folks. You try to write the rules to cover any and every term or rule that might come up. Be sure to use multi color ink, and do not write out any or all instances of using a number figure, seventy vs 70 for example. I could go on, but why?

Come on, people. Quit your bitching and try to help players by "streamlining" the rules and regulations for the casino. Hell, maybe you can even get other casinos on board to fix up their oh so hard to understand rules.

 

[jod5413]

Originally Posted by Nifty29
What is it these days? Nobody ever wants to take responsibility. It's always someone else's fault. No wonder litigation has gone crazy in the US and other western nations....everyone is always looking for someone else to take the blame. Sheesh.[/QUOTE]

It is not just us crazy folks in the USA or other "western nations". We see problems from all over the world where gambling on line is available.

Yeah, I must agree with you again. I just can`t believe why so many people in this thread would actually speak in favor of the complainant. Players must take responsibility for their own actions.

"Players must take responsibility for their own actions." Some do, when they win. If they lose it is another story.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

"placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

I would at least like clarification of how Party are interpreting this rule. The player's starting bonus is €330 so does that mean a total bet exceeding €231 on a single roulette spin is violating the terms?

The reason I ask is I have heard other casinos have interpreted this clause to mean 70% of the player's bonus funds at the time of making the bet.

I heard of a player who took a €100 bonus at MG. His balance was down to €10 and he bet €4.50 on a slot, hit a big feature and ended up winning a few thousand. The player claims the casino didn't pay him as they said he broke the 30% rule they have - the €4.50 bet was over 30% of his €10 balance at the time of doing the spin.

Max I would be interested in your thoughts on this and how you would rule if such a case came your way. BTW I don't know if this is true or not but if casinos don't give examples it's very hard to know what this term EXACTLY means.

 

[gaydave]

Wait a damn second.

NIFTY, The term reads EXACTLY THIS: "placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

That is what it says. YOU are interpreting it to mean NO BETS EVER. It doesnt say that. Stick with the facts of what is written. It says with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met

Anybody that reads that for the first time will think "ok, I am not going to use these large bets with the intention of clearing the wagering until the release requirements have been met. I might make a few large bets but not in order to get through the wagering by using them"

That is how I read it. For all of your ridiculous backing of casinos this has got to be the farthest reach. The term says nothing about not being able to make these bets. It doesn't. YOU may think it means that but that isn't what it says. It says don't do it with the intention of clearing the bonus with them.

If you make a few big bets at the beginning that isn't against their terms. It is horribly written but it does NOT say you can't make a large bet of 70% or more. It says you can't use that type of bet to get through the wagering requirments. that is what it says in their own words. No interpretation should take place here. It should be a direct reference from the words used.

bottom line is this is another bullshucks way of a low life casino trying to screw a player out of winnings. They can make the max bet whatever they want. They set a trap here and it is a big FU clause. "spirit of the bonus" crap. They should be rogued for this type of behavior.

If this site allows this type of crap to happen without so much as a stand against it then the whole industry will continue to go down the crapper. Casinos need to quit taking damn bets if they don't plan on paying the winnings. They spend way too much time looking for loopholes to not pay players. Instead they should be thinking of ways to retain players and not put everyone off.
this whole industry is turning into a sham in which you lose often and if you win you are still lucky if you ever get paid. Its getting ridiculous. Something needs done. Really quickly as this industry is hanging by its last string of any credibility.

 

[Nifty29]

Wait a damn second.

NIFTY, The term reads EXACTLY THIS: "placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

That is what it says. YOU are interpreting it to mean NO BETS EVER. It doesnt say that. Stick with the facts of what is written. It says with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met

Anybody that reads that for the first time will think "ok, I am not going to use these large bets with the intention of clearing the wagering until the release requirements have been met. I might make a few large bets but not in order to get through the wagering by using them"

LOL.

1. Did the OP place bets higher than 70% of the bonus? YES.

2. Did the OP do so with the intention of clearing the wagering? YES. How do I know? The casino said they did. Who has the final say on the players' intention? The casino.

That is how I read it. For all of your ridiculous backing of casinos this has got to be the farthest reach LMAO. Oh yes I am totally ridiculous, I always support the casinos no matter what. Didn't you know I was a paid shill?

The term says nothing about not being able to make these bets. It doesn't. YES it does, because the ONLY reason you would make such bets would be to clear the wagering. The recreational player would be unlikely to play this way...only the bonus hunters do, as I'm sure you know. YOU may think it means that but that isn't what it says. It says don't do it with the intention of clearing the bonus with them.

If you make a few big bets at the beginning that isn't against their terms. It is horribly written but it does NOT say you can't make a large bet of 70% or more. YES IT DOES. Where did you learn English?? It says you can't use that type of bet to get through the wagering requirments. that is what it says in their own words. No interpretation should take place here. It should be a direct reference from the words used.

bottom line is this is another bullshucks way of a low life casino trying to screw a player out of winnings. They can make the max bet whatever they want. NO THEY CAN"T. The player cannot make bets larger than 70% of the bonus because that it was advantage players do to beat bonuses....hence the term in the first place They set a trap here and it is a big FU clause. "spirit of the bonus" crap. They should be rogued for this type of behavior. This has NOTHING to do with spirit of the bonus, or Max/Bryan would be all over it like a rash because they do not subscribe to that theory.

If this site allows this type of crap to happen without so much as a stand against it then the whole industry will continue to go down the crapper. Casinos need to quit taking damn bets if they don't plan on paying the winnings. They spend way too much time looking for loopholes to not pay players. ...and some players spend too much time looking for loopholes to take the casinos to the cleaners, hence this term and others like it. You're pointing the finger at the wrong people. Instead they should be thinking of ways to retain players and not put everyone off.
this whole industry is turning into a sham in which you lose often and if you win you are still lucky if you ever get paid. Its getting ridiculous. Something needs done. Really quickly as this industry is hanging by its last string of any credibility.

Oddly enough, I always get paid, and most people I know get paid without any problems at all.

The players that often have these issues are the advantage players who try every trick in the book to get one over the casino.....and sometimes it backfires. IMO it's just tough cookies - if you play with fire you should expect to get burned.

I'm not sure why you call yourself "GayDave" - you seldom seem to be happy at all.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Come on, people. Quit your bitching and try to help players by "streamlining" the rules and regulations for the casino. Hell, maybe you can even get other casinos on board to fix up their oh so hard to understand rules.

Well they could ditch all the EXTRA GAME RULES they have made up, like you cant bet on Red or Black as this will apparently gives the customer an unfair advantage over the casino imposed to protect themselves from so called bonus abusers.

And instead ramp up the already absurd play-through from 50x deposit + 50x bonus (Deposit $500 get $500 free bonus, min Play-through equals $50,000) to an even more ridiculous 200x Min playthrough $200,000 and plant this small disclosure of info smack bang next to the glittering promo heading.

100% extra, up to $500: recommended for Roulette players;

Or tell the excited happy smiling new customer that the free bonus is very difficult to complete and win with. I dunno a big warning next to the promo that shows their statistical chance of winning with said free bonus, collated by stats from all customers that have taken and won compared with all those who didn't.

Or at least tell the customer the rules of Roulette for instance are not the same rules if they take a bonus, than a customer who plays without a bonus.

Or carry on potentially abusing new customers and potentially exploiting them to the max, whilst snaring the odd few fraudsters that are apparently to blame for making this free bonus so complex and labyrinthine.

Whatever is suggested will not change IMO unless opinion grows and a business then has to adapt. It seems currently that most online casinos bonus models are oddly accepted as the norm, otherwise the trend in greater restrictions with bonuses would be becoming less and not as they are trending towards more and more restrictiveness.

Maybe bonuses are the life blood of players and casinos alike. A form of bondage where the player likes to be tied up and the casino showers the player with gold that can't usually be reached. oke:

 

[colly]

Well I have been flamed before for my views on this sort of topic but here we go again.

If you are going to play at a casino READ THE T&C'S
If you are going to accept a bonus READ THE T&CS

Its harsh but it is your responsibility- yes yours -not the casino's to hold your hand and stop you but you who are depositing your hard earned cash and choosing to accept a bonus (wait for it) on the terms and conditions under which its offered.

If you find the term confusing, vague or ambiguous- EMAIL them and get a written clarification.

Boring to read - mindnumbingly so sometimes
Worth the boredom- 8000Euro this time or former 10,000GNUF and 3500 Inet payout denied on other threads on the same issues- yep I'd rate 10 to 30 mins of my time worth that.

 

[silcnlayc]

Well I have been flamed before for my views on this sort of topic but here we go again.

If you are going to play at a casino READ THE T&C'S
If you are going to accept a bonus READ THE T&CS

Its harsh but it is your responsibility- yes yours -not the casino's to hold your hand and stop you but you who are depositing your hard earned cash and choosing to accept a bonus (wait for it) on the terms and conditions under which its offered.

If you find the term confusing, vague or ambiguous- EMAIL them and get a written clarification.

Boring to read - mindnumbingly so sometimes
Worth the boredom- 8000Euro this time or former 10,000GNUF and 3500 Inet payout denied on other threads on the same issues- yep I'd rate 10 to 30 mins of my time worth that.

Excellently said...and may I add...another option? Quit taking bonuses if you refuse to read all the fine print...

.

 

[gaydave]

Oddly enough, I always get paid, and most people I know get paid without any problems at all.

The players that often have these issues are the advantage players who try every trick in the book to get one over the casino.....and sometimes it backfires. IMO it's just tough cookies - if you play with fire you should expect to get burned.

I'm not sure why you call yourself "GayDave" - you seldom seem to be happy at all.

"placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

My English is fine. It says "intention of clearing the bonus until the release of requirements have been met"

That means continually betting large in order to burn through the wager requirements. If it was simply a rule that you were not allowed to bet 70% or more then it should simply say "no bets of 70% of the bonus amount allowed".
but it doesn't. It says no bets of 70% with the intention of CLEARING THE BONUS UNTIL THE RELEASE requirements have been met. That is what they typed. I take that literally. You are interpreting it.

It does NOT say no bets over 70% allowed. If it did then you may be correct. Many of you are just assuming this rule because of other casinos with a max bet rule. If they did not want you to bet over 70% then they should simply say so. They don't. They say don't use that kind of bet to burn through the wagering requirements.

I'm seldom happy, Nifty, on these topics because a player came through with the spirit of trying to win while gambling on a game that is far less than a 50% chance to do so and the casino got a team of lawyers together to try and screw this player out of winnings. I guess it is not enough to already have the advantage in a gambling matchup. They need to make an impossible array of terms that could be construed to have been broken then deny payment of winnings. It is absurd. Again, if they did not want a player to bet that much on a single bet then they should say so. They only say not to do with the intention of burning through the wager requirements. The OP's intention probably was to get ahead so that the requirements would not eat away his balance. That strategy is not against that rule. He didn't continually bet that much "with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; " however, so they are reaching for ambiguous terms in order to steal from that player.

How can anyone be happy to see another player from the forum getting screwed over by this type of vague interpretation of a rule that literally does not state what they are saying is the violation is incredible.

I think players should be responsible to read terms also. it IS our responsibility I agree. However, this rule literally states that you can bet 70% if you like so long as it is not "with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; ". If they never wanted you to make that type of bet they would have simply stated that. But they didn't. So, just as it is OUR responsibility to read the terms it is THEIR responsibility to write the terms concisely and clearly... and it should not need to be interpreted. if it is interpreted then it was poorly written or purposely being used to screw a player. Why else would they also have in their rules a line below the dreaded "spirit of the bonus rules"? Max and Bryan should be all over this and not accepting of it as was stated.

 

[Gremmyboy]

This is why I never use bonuses!

I don't see the point in all the hassle for a few extra dollars!

They way I see it is that when I go to the pub to play Pokies I bring along $50 etc...
I go and play and have my $50 to play with. This is what I am used to! If I win I take my money out and have my winnings and go home. If I lose then I've lost my $50!

I can't see how the extra $50(online bonus) is worth the hassle you have to go through? A million rules to learn and understand, massive complictions if you accidently break a term, The inability to cash out and leave if you've won money, the list goes on....:Read:

In a nutshell I guess I'm saying that online I pretend as If I'm in a pub and deposit and wager accordingly. If I win I have instant access to my money(Imagine a pub telling me I can't leave until I play an extra $150 at their pub and locking the doors so I can't leave! Then if I do manage to stay and wager the extra $150 being told that I must wait inside for a further 48 hours and stand next to a pokie with My $$ in a cup and try to resist the urge to gamble more, only then will I be permitted to leave the pub!)

In summary bonuses are more hassle than they are worth for a few measly dollars!

Don't play with bonuses and it's a whole different world out there. I've never had a problem cashing out(Other than ridiculous wait times in the hope that Temptation gets the better of me), I've never had an issue with an online casino ever. Reason.... Because I don't use their stupid bonuses(Read: TRAPS)!

Cheers
Gremmy

 

[maxd]

Max and Bryan should be all over this and not accepting of it as was stated.

Excellently done! You've purposefully ignored the fact that the OP never bothered to read the Terms, invented a scenario where he broke those Terms but did so with goodness in his heart, and concluded that it is somehow our fault for not doing enough to pursue the interests of said player.

What an amazing piece of bent logic and conjured "facts"! Unfortunately most of the rest of us are due back on the planet Earth.

 

[FreeDomme]

Oh please!

"Who has the final say on the players' intention? The casino."

 

[jod5413]

Well I have been flamed before for my views on this sort of topic but here we go again.

If you are going to play at a casino READ THE T&C'S
If you are going to accept a bonus READ THE T&CS

Its harsh but it is your responsibility- yes yours -not the casino's to hold your hand and stop you but you who are depositing your hard earned cash and choosing to accept a bonus (wait for it) on the terms and conditions under which its offered.

If you find the term confusing, vague or ambiguous- EMAIL them and get a written clarification.

Boring to read - mindnumbingly so sometimes
Worth the boredom- 8000Euro this time or former 10,000GNUF and 3500 Inet payout denied on other threads on the same issues- yep I'd rate 10 to 30 mins of my time worth that.

What a spot on post, Colly. No one can diss you over this post. It seems like so many players think the rules are fair if you win, but unfair when you lose?

Excellently said...and may I add...another option? Quit taking bonuses if you refuse to read all the fine print...
.

Quit taking bonuses? A novel idea, Silc! I do not usually take bonuses, but if I do I read and even reread some of the rules to make sure I do not screw up.

Excellently done! You've purposefully ignored the fact that the OP never bothered to read the Terms, invented a scenario where he broke those Terms but did so with goodness in his heart, and concluded that it is somehow our fault for not doing enough to pursue the interests of said player.

What an amazing piece of bent logic and conjured "facts"! Unfortunately most of the rest of us are due back on the planet Earth.

And that's a wrap, people!!!

 

[gaydave]

Excellently done! You've purposefully ignored the fact that the OP never bothered to read the Terms, invented a scenario where he broke those Terms but did so with goodness in his heart, and concluded that it is somehow our fault for not doing enough to pursue the interests of said player.

What an amazing piece of bent logic and conjured "facts"! Unfortunately most of the rest of us are due back on the planet Earth.

You know what?
You can check your attitude at the door. Do you have to be so smarmy every damn time you post? YOU need some tact and you need it quick. I would like to see you run off at the mouth in person to people like that. It's rude, It's ignorant and you should be embarrassed for doing it so often. Stop being so damn condescending on every post you make. I'm embarrassed for you. Go find some common courtesy please.


.......Back to the matter at hand. How is it bent logic? The rule states EXACTLY THIS WORD FOR WORD:

"placing single or multiple bets of a value of seventy percent or more of the bonus on any single game with the intention of clearing the bonus until the release requirements have been met; "

They wrote it. I didn't. It says what it says. Who gives a flying flip what you or me or anyone THINKS was his intention? He didn't break the rules. Period.

He did not use bets of over 70% of bonus to intentionally clear the bonus until the release of the requirements had been met. He used smaller bets. Now if he would have used large bets to grind through the wager requirements then he would have been guilty. He didn't. He did nothing wrong. Nice player advocate thing you got going on there telling a guy who didn't break a poorly written rule "too bad". Its too bad that you are siding with a casino who is in the wrong. The rules state what they state. If they meant for you to never use a bet of that size they would have simply stated (like every other casino with a max bet rule) "no wagers allowed over 70% of the value of the bonus or you will lose all winnings".
Instead they wrote a rule that accepts large bets so long as you are not making those bets to grind through the wagering requirements. If the OP made a couple large bets at the beginning that is not even close to a break in the term. The casino is trying to steal from him. If we are all interpreting it differently then it is the casinos' fault and they need to fix it. But not retroactively. This player should be paid.