Player preference for bonus handling

[binary128]

Hello. My name is Chris Colby. I am the President of Galewind Software.

We've been working on an addition to our bonus processing system, and we've come to a place where we could go one way or another. So, I thought that I would get some input from the players.

Let's say that you have a bonus, it is limited to game play in any/all Slots, and that it has a bonus bet limit of $5. That is, you can only bet a maximum of $5 on any spin.

We've concluded that we could enforce this maximum game bet in one of 2 ways.

1. When you click spin on a bet of $10, the game prompts you with info that the maximum game bet is $5.

2. When you click spin on a bet of $10, the game win/loss uses the $10, but the bonus wager requirement (WR) uses the maximum bet of $5. There is no prompt.

Personally, I've always hated prompts, so my from-the-gut vote is for number 2. However, it may be that other players would find it confusing that they bet $10 but their WR only went down by $5.

So, what do other players think? Thanks in advance for your input.

(BTW - If you play some Blackjack, or Video Poker, or something other than Slots, then this Slots-only bonus just ignores these bets. There is no problem in playing non-Slot games while you have this bonus, and there is no prompt.)

Chris

 

[Googobucs]

IMO option 1 is far better.

Option 2 allows the casino to void your winnings for breaking the bonus terms by making a wager over the $5 max. Even though only $5 counted toward the wager requirements, you still broke the terms. The software should not allow you to break the terms.

I like pop-ups that are reminding me that I have made an error and keep me from breaking a term and losing my winnings.

thanks for asking for input.

 

[paul7388]

I think number 2 is a definite no go area. You want a max of 5 per spin and that wil be in your terms. If you decide that if someone plays 10 it will only take 5 of the wagering it's a really bad idea.

You will then have players betting 10 knowing they are betting over the max but the casino is allowing ita as only 5 is coming of wagering. So what happens if people get big wins will they have them cancelled for breaking max bet rule. You are leaving yourselves wide open for your bonus structure to be abused as basically the 5 max bet is worthless if you are seen to allow higher bets. And I can imagine the feedback you will get on here if you use your 5 max bet rule to deny winnings if you allow higher bets with only some of it qualifying for wagering.

And if you don't enforce the max bet of 5 you are basically saying bet what you want as only 5 qualifies for wagering. So what happens if a player bets 50 and wins a hundred thousand. As you are condoning higher bets it's hard to get away with not paying the player.

Personally. I'd just have max bet of 5 like every other casino and if a player breaks it then it's their fault like it is at all casinos. That way there's no confusion and every one knows where they stand.

 

[binary128]

IMO option 1 is far better.

Option 2 allows the casino to void your winnings for breaking the bonus terms by making a wager over the $5 max. Even though only $5 counted toward the wager requirements, you still broke the terms. The software should not allow you to break the terms.

I like pop-ups that are reminding me that I have made an error and keep me from breaking a term and losing my winnings.

thanks for asking for input.

Googobucs.

Re: Terms & Conditions. Good point. Let me clarify.

Both of these options prevent you from breaking the T&Cs. Option 2 (the option without the prompt) just processes the bonus bet using the bonus bet max of $5.

So, whichever we go, there is no problem for the player regarding bonus play.

Chris

 

[Jono777]

Probably can't play at your casinos due to being in UK, however as a very experienced online casino player I would defo always go for option 1.

Being a low roller I always prefer to play with a bonus to extend my play time if nothing else.

Annoying as they can be I think I'd prefer a 'Pop Up' as an alternative to trawling through pages and pages of T&C's.

Another option could be when the bonus is active on the players account that the games simply will not allow you to 'click up' to the next bet size, IE, Bet is showing as $5, you click to increase coin value or coins but cannot as the button is 'Greyed Out' until bonus criteria / playthough is met

 

[randomiam]

the first one a prompt would be good or a "are you sure you want to bet over $5 be sure to check you bonus conditions)

 

[quber]

I do not understand the reasoning at all of option 2.

I always understood that the reason for a maximum stake was to prevent a player playing big stakes to get a win and then being able to lower the bet to grind out wagering requirements. I never saw it as a way to make the WR take longer.

If you are happy to let the player have a bet of £10 then why have a minimum bet in the T's and C's at all and just let the player play what he wants. I have never understood the need for a minimum bet anyway, I think one or two casinos started it as a catch and the rest just followed.

 

[Przecinek]

Best option would be to simply lock all the games at 5€ cap so that player cannot increase the coin size above that. I think Lucky 247 had something like this implemented.

My first reaction was that option #1 seems better. It allows player to make a conscious decision.

 

[KasinoKing]

So, whichever we go, there is no problem for the player regarding bonus play.

I disagree.
The way "advantage players" operate is to bet as big as they can with bonus money to try to substantially increase their bankroll, and then drop to much smaller bets to "grind out" the WR with minimum risk.

Your option 2 allows them to bet whatever they like - say $25 per spin and then drop to 25c after they win big.
This is the ONLY reason other casinos have these maximum bet limits in the first place.

Option 1 is definitely the way to go.
In fact, I think most members here agree - we would like to see AUTOMATIC prevention of betting more than is allowed in the T&Cs at ALL casinos!

KK

 

[Googobucs]

Googobucs.

Re: Terms & Conditions. Good point. Let me clarify.

Both of these options prevent you from breaking the T&Cs. Option 2 (the option without the prompt) just processes the bonus bet using the bonus bet max of $5.

So, whichever we go, there is no problem for the player regarding bonus play.

Chris

I am going to disagree. I am making the assumption that you are a developer and not a casino owner. That means you create and sell solutions to operators. What they do with those solutions once you create them is up to them.

Unless you own 100 % of the casino's and spell this out clearly in your T & C then this is open to abuse by rogue casinos.

For example: I play your solution at Casino A which is accredited and has a good reputation. I play as you describe making large wagers and they pay me.
I then play at Casino B and recognize your software and "know" that I can play the same way because that is how it worked at Casino A. Well Casino B are not so legitimate and confiscate my funds because it's in their terms that the max bet is $5.

Are you as a developer going to now pay me? Just like Playtech and Top Game stand behind the casino's that offer their solutions

 

[spintee]

Prompts are good, As long as there telling you that your breaking the rules,

I can not understand why option two is there, If I had 20 in and bet 10 and won 5k than what will be the out come? You take half of me ? or better still I broke rules? yes the wager might go down in otion 2 betting 10 but what happens to winnings,

All casinos should have a no game play aloud when bonus involed or auto pop up stating bet not aloud as bonus in play? Why so much hasstle I do not under stand, Well i would do if I owned the casino but I would nether let that happen as good name you can always respect,

Edit, There are sites that do not let you play banned games with bonus, Now Mr Green has introduced chose your max bet ect, We are not in a world where things can not be sorted in a good time,

Please see the picture, If that can happen in this time than surely a few codes to protect players should not be hard, I get them write for you free of charge

 

[Rick Deckard]

What about just one prompt pop up at the start of any game when a bonus is active.

Stating the max bet when using a bonus and a box to tick to confirm its understood.

 

[K2C]

1. When you click spin on a bet of $10, the game prompts you with info that the maximum game bet is $5.

2. When you click spin on a bet of $10, the game win/loss uses the $10, but the bonus wager requirement (WR) uses the maximum bet of $5. There is no prompt.

Option 2 is definitely advantage player friendly Option 1 may be irritating.
Why would not you simply block the "+" (bet increase) button after reaching the $5. Some microgaming casinos do exactly that AFAIR.

 

[binary128]

Hmm. Perhaps in my first post I should have said "... we could apply this maximum game bet ..." rather than "... we could enforce this maximum game bet ..."?

To quote from my first post:

If you play some Blackjack, or Video Poker, or something other than Slots, then this Slots-only bonus just ignores these bets. There is no problem in playing non-Slot games while you have this bonus, and there is no prompt.

In that sense, the Allowed Games List for a bonus isn't really a "rule" because it can't be broken.

I'm trying to do the same thing for any maximum game bets. If I'm applying it server side, then it isn't a "rule" because it can't be broken.

So, if you've got a bonus, it is limited to game play in certain games, and you play other games - no problem.

If you've got a bonus, the allowed games have a cap on the maximum bet, and you bet more than that - again, no problem.

It just strikes me - as a player this is what I would like to see. No rules, no prompts ...


BTW - Here are some examples of our operations policies.

---

Game Play Using "Pattern Betting":

We have no policies against, or restrictions on, the use of any form of "Pattern Betting" in any of our games. We will never evaluate your game play for "Pattern Betting". We will never reject your game play for the reason of "Pattern Betting".

If you have created a "Winning System" in our Play-for-Free Casino and you wish to transfer this system over to our Play-for-Real Casino then please feel free to do so.

If the use of any form of Pattern Betting increases your enjoyment of any of the games in our Casino, then please feel free to use it.

---

---

Game Play Using a "Robot":

We have no policies against the use of "Robots", in any form or manifestation, for game play in any of our games. We will never evaluate your game play for the use of a "Robot". We will never reject your game play for the reason of "Robot Betting".

However, we do have one restriction on the use of robots, and that has to do with their speed of play.

If you have a good (as in low latency) internet connection, it is possible for a robot to play at the rate of 4 to 5 games per second. For many of our games this makes 1 robot approximately equal to 15 reasonably fast humans (at about 3 seconds per game).

This means that robots (as in more than one playing at the same time) potentially represent a non-trivial drain on our server resources. To control this we have implemented a system that will reject a "start game" request if it is less than 0.75 to 3 seconds (depending on the game) after the previous "start game" request.

This system has also been implemented in our Play-for-Free Casino, and for the same reason - to minimize the drain on server resources that may result in our "Human Players" experiencing a negative impact on their game response time.

So, a "Heads Up" notice to all of our "Robot Players" - make sure to dial back your speed of play for "start game" requests to avoid this error. You will need to experiment with your game of choice to determine the server's setting for that game's maximum speed of play.

---

I would really like to write something similar for bonus game play.


Re: rogue casino licensees. Members with a join date from the previous decade may perhaps have some memory of how quickly, and how aggressively, we deal with rogue licensees.

Chris

 

[spintee]

Hmm. Perhaps in my first post I should have said "... we could apply this maximum game bet ..." rather than "... we could enforce this maximum game bet ..."?

To quote from my first post:


it is possible for a robot to play at the rate of 4 to 5 games per second. For many of our games this makes 1 robot approximately equal to 15 reasonably fast humans (at about 3 seconds per game)



Chris

Whats that got to do with a slice of bread? quicker people win than quiker they lose

 

[binary128]

What about just one prompt pop up at the start of any game when a bonus is active.

Stating the max bet when using a bonus and a box to tick to confirm its understood.

Rick,

That's a good idea. I'll put that down as option 3.

Thanks.

Chris

 

[Tirilej]

I would really like to write something similar for bonus game play.

Chris

Whatever you decide to do just make sure it's easy to understand for all players.

I've read through this thread several times now and I can't really understand it all anyway.
Now that is mostly because of the language of course.

We have been forced to learn how to read all rules all the time, and there is still places that hide or change rules all the times.
So no matter how good a system is it doesn't matter if noone can understand it or why it's there

 

[Simmo!]

Option 1 for me. You'll only get the prompt once anyway as you'd adjust your bet. Plus it's more transparent.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Option 1 would be safest for the player, even with a prompt.

It could be configured as suggested to minimise the need for a prompt, such as the game launching with a default of no more than the max allowed bet, and the prompt only being triggered should a player try to increase the bet beyond this.

Option 2 would not be popular with operators. Microgaming have already tried a "no rules" bonus system by simply weighting games differently, with games weighted as low as 0% contribution to WR. Operators refused to adhere to the concept though, and winnings confiscations for play on 0% weighted games were applied because they said "0% means prohibited to play, not just no contribution to WR".

Allowing bets of $50 with only $5 counting towards WR is no different to playing a 0% weighted game.

If you introduce a system that operators don't like, and then couple this with your well known aggressive stance towards rogue operators that void winnings because a player "beat the RNG/game with a system/bot", you will struggle to attract licencees.

If you decide to operate your own casino, keep a close eye on how any system behaves in the wild when you are targeted by advantage players who have experience in "beating the system". They will absolutely hammer "option 2" as initially proposed.

If you are allowing bots, make damn sure all game rules are enforced server side to avoid a bot being able to bypass some rules, such as happened a while ago with blackjack switch games where a "third party client" (or bot in other words) was used to bypass the condition that the two bets must be equal in value. They managed it because this was enforced by the client, and the server just assumed it had been, and processed the invalid bets.

 

[binary128]

Thank you all for your considered, or even "off the cuff", opinions.

We're writing the code for this handling system right now. We've still got two options, but the first option I wrote about in my initial post has changed.

When a player enters a game, and that player has an active bonus, then they will receive a prompt indicating:

1. Is this game in the "Allowed Games List" for that bonus.

2. If so ...

- is there a "percent contribution" limit for this game.

- is there a "maximum game bet" limit for this game.

There will only be the single prompt, at the start of game play. I would personally find that only slightly annoying.

The second option is the same as in my first post - no prompts.

It could be configured as suggested to minimise the need for a prompt, such as the game launching with a default of no more than the max allowed bet, and the prompt only being triggered should a player try to increase the bet beyond this.

As it turns out, this would be a real pain in the ass. It would require system modifications that start with the Flash games, continue to the server script, then the compiled web components, on into the compiled data components, and finally the database. It would also be a very "expensive" solution, as it would eat up a lot of CPU cycles to execute.

It may very well be "the best solution" ... I don't know.

Option 2 would not be popular with operators. Microgaming have already tried a "no rules" bonus system by simply weighting games differently, with games weighted as low as 0% contribution to WR. Operators refused to adhere to the concept though, and winnings confiscations for play on 0% weighted games were applied because they said "0% means prohibited to play, not just no contribution to WR".

In our system, a lot of this is handled by the "Approved Games List". If the game is not in the list, then that's that. If you've got a "slots-only bonus" and you want to play some blackjack, play some blackjack.

Allowing bets of $50 with only $5 counting towards WR is no different to playing a 0% weighted game.

If that's just a typo, I apologize for the correction. A $50 bet with a $5 cap is equivalent to a 10% "weighted" game.

If you introduce a system that operators don't like, and then couple this with your well known aggressive stance towards rogue operators that void winnings because a player "beat the RNG/game with a system/bot", you will struggle to attract licencees.

Sadly, "struggle" has become our middle name.

If you decide to operate your own casino, keep a close eye on how any system behaves in the wild when you are targeted by advantage players who have experience in "beating the system". They will absolutely hammer "option 2" as initially proposed.

We've got a lot of people involved in trying to make this system "player friendly", "marketing friendly", "operator friendly", "rogue licensee unfriendly", and "advantage player bulletproof". And all of that has not been an easy task.

If you are allowing bots, make damn sure all game rules are enforced server side to avoid a bot being able to bypass some rules, such as happened a while ago with blackjack switch games where a "third party client" (or bot in other words) was used to bypass the condition that the two bets must be equal in value. They managed it because this was enforced by the client, and the server just assumed it had been, and processed the invalid bets.

All of our games are in Flash, and have been for the past 14 years. Anyone can "pop the hood" of a Flash game if they want to and determine how to send a game request call directly in to the server. As such, we've always applied a "no client side game logic" approach for, if nothing else, self preservation.

Again, thank you all for your input.

Chris