playing games that do not count towards wagering requirements

[Steve Russo]

And a word of caution, never ever play any game that is mentioned as "does not count towards wagering requirements" if you are playing with bonus funds. It's too vague and can be read different ways, and many casinos will snatch your winnings if you do so. Always check before-hand and get everything in writing.

I cannot agree more with Casinomeister on this point. I manage Gambling Grumbles and have found that most of the complaints that players have concern bonuses, and they are often the result of not understanding the restrictions.

I just had one grumble about the Slots Oasis Casino in which the player had won over $50,000 but the casino refused to pay him because his first bet was on roulette, which was not permitted under the T&Cs of the bonus.

I would like to repost here the last few paragraphs of that report:

This gets us back to what I said in the beginning -- always make certain that you read and completely understand all of the Terms and Conditions before you play. Even the best On Line casinos, like insurance companies, review everything about your account before making any payouts, especially large ones, and the slightest violation of the T&Cs will mean that you will wind up with nothing.

Remember what I said about "this doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with those norms"?

Here is what I meant: They establish a "You can lose, but you can't win" situation. I have never heard of a casino contacting a player who had lost to tell him, "your bets were in violation of our Terms and Conditions, so we are refunding your losses." I am 100% certain that if Wolf had picked the wrong number with that initial bet and lost everything, he would never have heard word about it from Slots Oasis (or from any other on line casino).

If you play at a land casino, be it in Vegas, Monte Carlo, or anywhere else, they also have their rules. They might, for example, set a $1000 table limit for roulette bets. If you try to bet more, the croupier will refuse the bet -- or else call the pit boss or even someone higher to get permission to accept it. Under any circumstances, however, if the casino accepts the bet it will pay off if you win.

On line, however, casinos accept the bets and only object if you win -- never if you lose.

This is an easy enough problem to fix. Each promotion has a code and it is entered when you accept the bonus. The software could be programmed to refuse any bet which is in violation of the promo. If that had happened, Wolf would not have been able to make that first roulette bet and he never would have had his grumble.

That is the way that on line casinos should work, but it is not the way they do work. So, unless and until this ever comes about, it is the player's responsibility to make certain he is betting completely within the T&Cs. If he is not, neither Gambling Grumbles nor any other mediator will be able to help him.

 

[KasinoKing]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

And a word of caution, never ever play any game that is mentioned as "does not count towards wagering requirements" if you are playing with bonus funds. It's too vague and can be read different ways, and many casinos will snatch your winnings if you do so. Always check before-hand and get everything in writing.

I cannot agree more with Casinomeister on this point. I manage Gambling Grumbles and have found that most of the complaints that players have concern bonuses, and they are often the result of not understanding the restrictions.

I can not agree LESS with CasinoMeister...unless we are talking about rogue casinos, where players shouldn't be depositing their money in the first place.

I understand the gist of what he is saying, but IMO if the T&Cs say "does not count towards wagering requirements" it means "does not count towards wagering requirements" and NOT "must not be played during wagering for a bonus".
It's Black and White - no ambiguity - and no reputable casino should be using this clause alone as a reason for confiscating bonuses or winnings.

KK

 

[Steve Russo]

I understand the gist of what he is saying, but IMO if the T&Cs say "does not count towards wagering requirements" it means "does not count towards wagering requirements" and NOT "must not be played during wagering for a bonus".
It's Black and White - no ambiguity - and no reputable casino should be using this clause alone as a reason for confiscating bonuses or winnings.

KK

The T&Cs often go beyond that. In the case I was discussing, Oasis Slots T&Cs say that "Wagering on restricted games may void all winnings won on this promotion."

Do you want to debate what that means? Fair enough -- but remember that a casino will not join the debate, especially if it means that it faces paying out the big bucks.

As I mentioned above, the casinos have put players in a "You can lose but you can't win" position. If you lose, they will be happy to keep your losses. If you win, they will determine that your bet was invalid and return your deposit only.

The real answer should be making it impossible for a player to make a bet which violates the T&Cs. That would not be problematic for any software designer worth his salt.

Casinos, however, don't appear anxious to do that so in the meantime, the best any player can do is to study the T&Cs very carefully, contact the casino before-hand if he has any question as to what they mean, or, better yet, avoid making any bets which could, by the furthest stretch of the imagination, be considered a violation of the T&Cs.

 

[revelingame]

The T&Cs often go beyond that. In the case I was discussing, Oasis Slots T&Cs say that "Wagering on restricted games may void all winnings won on this promotion."


The issue is how it is conceivable that "doesn't count towards playthrough requirements" can be construed as "this game is restricted and you can't play it". Steve Russo is wrong. That game was never restricted for play.

As far as I'm concerned it's absolutely clear. The game (in this case Roulette) can be played. It doesn't count towards the playthrough requirements.

Casinos should be exposed when they mislead players to make a deposit based on terms that they subsequently elect to misinterpret and then proceed to confiscate any winnings.

Revelingame

 

[Steve Russo]

The issue is how it is conceivable that "doesn't count towards playthrough requirements" can be construed as "this game is restricted and you can't play it". Steve Russo is wrong. That game was never restricted for play.

No game offered by any casino is ever completely off limits. If it were, the casino simply would not have it on its site.

When a player is told that he can not play a certain game until he has met his playthrough requirements, a restriction is put on that game. That automatically makes it (for him) a restricted game.

Of course, the very fact that you and I can read the T&Cs and come up with two completely different interpretations demonstrates how complicated on line T&Cs tend to be. Nobody wants to go to law school just to be able to understand what he can or can not do when enjoying himself playing on line.

It is about time that casinos started taking responsibility for enforcing their rules -- and, at the same time, do it in a manner which is fair to the player. I do not consider "You can lose, but you can't win" policies to be at all fair.

If a casino demands certain identification before allowing a cash in, it should require that identification before allowing someone to play.

If a casino is going to run a check on you to see if you have multiple accounts, it should do so before you can play.

If a casino is going to call you a "bonus abuser" because you only play when it is offering bonuses, then it should not send you any more offers.

And, as I said earlier, it should put any restrictions on your play into its software. If roulette is off limits to you until you meet playthrough requirements for a bonus, then the casino should make it impossible for you to play roulette.

Unfortunately, the concept of "if you win we will return your deposit, if you lose we will keep it" is a widespread one throughout the industry. Indeed, today we only consider a casino to be "rogue" when it keeps the deposit as well as your winnings.

 

[bernynhel]

Here! Here! In the Sahara Sands thread started by Bencuri, earlier today, I was alerted, for the first time after playing Rival sites for almost 2 years, that DoubleUp is listed in the restricted games list. While VP limits are reduced while WR is being met, the winnings-voiding double up feature is still active. Foul!