Prime Slots Misleading Bonus Terms

[Casinomeister]

This part of the T&Cs was never hidden on purpose...

Of course it was. Maybe you don't understand the basics of HTML - but the code that was placed there was unique to that one link only. It's designed to hide links. Here's a developer page that describes this a little:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Tip: Although this is possible, we advice all users to not create links with no underlines. Every user browsing the Internet understands the concept of links being underlined and will assume any text not underlined is just text and not a link. Also, doing this to trick search engines into following links but not users is deceptive and could result in your site being delisted.

Your casino staff chose to hide the link. I think it's pretty clear why it was hidden, but maybe you can ask who ever was responsible for this why it was done.

And please don't expect to get kudos for changing it - it was changed because you got caught out in public.

 

[dunover]

Hi everyone,

This part of the T&Cs was never hidden on purpose. I admit, it was an in-house misunderstanding between Product and R&D.
As you see we changed it right after the first post was done and underlined the missing part. We are going to take further step and to add a link to the bonus T&Cs in every bonus offer on our promotions page. In addition, We are going again over all the T&Cs to make sure everything is clear and full transparency is given.
If you have any input, suggestions etc. , please let me know!

Regards

 

[spintee]

sorry peeps, I only got the just of it, but my old man told me from day 1 any LINKS or ect should be underlend or bold with unders, This is the 1st first thing I was told,
People are not stupid, But if its not there than blow me, Its danger or on purpuse than out of order

 

[maxd]

I've been trying to get a solid response out of the casino peeps, the best they've managed is this:

Usually, player issues are handled by the support of the casino.
Anyway, we are in direct contact with them and try to get the money back for the player.

Hopefully there's some substance to this.

 

[PrimeGaming]

I've been trying to get a solid response out of the casino peeps, the best they've managed is this:


Hopefully there's some substance to this.

Yes. The issue has been solved. We were in direct contact with the casino to solve it. We gave the money back to the player and he could cash it out.

Kind regards

 

[dunover]

Yes. The issue has been solved. We were in direct contact with the casino to solve it. We gave the money back to the player and he could cash it out.

Kind regards

Plus compensation? Still took a while, when it was blindingly obvious foul play had occurred from day 1.

So, who was actually responsible for this trick, and what action has been taken against the individual that committed this rogue action?

This is massive breach of trust which is now in cyberspace forever.

 

[maxd]

Plus compensation?

The OP had played his balance out so anything they gave him can be considered "compensation", IMO.

As I understand it the OP has withdrawn the balance they returned, waiting for conformation on that.

 

[AC7X]

Update

Hi all

First of all, I have now withdrawn the full £170 that was in my balance when I met the standard 35xB wagering requirement.

To clarify: I made the PAB with £170 remaining having played through 35xB, when Max first appraised the situation he advised me that they probably couldn't help, so I returned to the casino to try to make wagering and lost the balance. After losing the balance, Bryan found evidence that the link was obfuscated by design, so the PAB continued and eventually the full £170 was returned to me.

I am very grateful to Max and Bryan for their efforts in resolving this matter to my complete satisfaction, and to the Casinomeister forum for the support. I have to also applaud the casino for complying with the PAB process; whether this gets them out of the rogue pit or restores players' faith in them remains to be seen, I guess.

Thanks again to Max, Bryan and everyone else for all of your help!

 

[Dinahnana]

Hi all

First of all, I have now withdrawn the full £170 that was in my balance when I met the standard 35xB wagering requirement.

To clarify: I made the PAB with £170 remaining having played through 35xB, when Max first appraised the situation he advised me that they probably couldn't help, so I returned to the casino to try to make wagering and lost the balance. After losing the balance, Bryan found evidence that the link was obfuscated by design, so the PAB continued and eventually the full £170 was returned to me.

I am very grateful to Max and Bryan for their efforts in resolving this matter to my complete satisfaction, and to the Casinomeister forum for the support. I have to also applaud the casino for complying with the PAB process; whether this gets them out of the rogue pit or restores players' faith in them remains to be seen, I guess.

Thanks again to Max, Bryan and everyone else for all of your help!

I am delighted for you:notworthy Goes to show you when you have been wronged file a PAB. If you are in the right it will work out good in the end (well mostly anyway)

 

[airwave]

but my old man told me from day 1 any LINKS or ect should be underlend or bold with unders, This is the 1st first thing I was told

It's poor aesthetics to do it that way. I haven't underlined a link in close to a decade. Just to play devils advocate a little, I'll also say that assuming that code does not just appear on it's own (or however it was worded in this thread) is not entirely true. Many WYSIWYG editors will change your code (sometimes with completely undesired results). I'm not saying that is what happened here; I'm just saying it happens.

That said, I couldn't be more pleased with the outcome. Spend that money wisely.

 

[Persianprince]

These guys are killing me, really bad support too. Wager is suppose to be 35x, I won roughly 500 euros and had wagered everything. Well not according to Prime Slots, as NetEnt games counts as 50% wagering! Is that a joke?
And Bloodsuckers counts as 0%. What the hell is going on? So the real deal is 70x wagering requirements. I'm down to a 200 euros now and don't think that I will make it.

Read this:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

That's just insane requirements.

 

[PrimeGaming]

These guys are killing me, really bad support too. Wager is suppose to be 35x, I won roughly 500 euros and had wagered everything. Well not according to Prime Slots, as NetEnt games counts as 50% wagering! Is that a joke?
And Bloodsuckers counts as 0%. What the hell is going on? So the real deal is 70x wagering requirements. I'm down to a 200 euros now and don't think that I will make it.

Read this:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

That's just insane requirements.

Hello,

as we have already told earlier, every casino has games that contribute different to the wagering.
Our house advantage with the NetEnt games is lower than with other games and therefore their contribution to the wagering requirements is lower.

Regards,
Prime Partners

 

[ianbeale]

I am sorry to drag this up again, but is it normal for a casino to have Terms and Conditions still active that relate to games they dont even offer any more?

Mega are quoting terms for NetEnt games and they dont even have any.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hello,

as we have already told earlier, every casino has games that contribute different to the wagering.
Our house advantage with the NetEnt games is lower than with other games and therefore their contribution to the wagering requirements is lower.
Regards,
Prime Partners

So what!

A slot is a slot, the average player doesn't even understand TRTP or "house edge". Even when they try, many get it wrong and claim that their session proves there was a fault, or the games were rigged, because they got a much lower return than the TRTP quoted.

Is Bloodsuckers 100% TRTP then? If not, the weightings do not correlate with the TRTP in any case, they seem purely arbitrary.

From the point of view of the average player, this is "sharp practice" designed to rip them off without them catching on in time to take their money elsewhere.

There may be differences in TRTP between slots, but slots as a whole have a TRTP, and hence "house edge" which is significantly different to other classes of game such as Blackjack. It should therefore be easy to have a general weighting for ALL slots that is the same, and a different weighting for other game classes like Blackjack.

For a long time, Microgaming refused to publish the TRTP of it's games as it was "irrelevant information" as far as players were concerned, and would be widely misunderstood by those who tried, and the rest would not use the figures to influence their choice of game.

By micromanaging the weightings for different individual slots, you are effectively calling Microgaming "liars", and agreeing with the UKGC that publication of the TRTP is an essential part of the player being able to make an informed decision.

I have so far NEVER seen a Microgaming only casino have different weightings for individual slots, yet the TRTP turns out to vary widely from 95% all the way up to 98%, possibly even 99%. These casinos also retain a lower house edge from some of the Microgaming slots, but they do NOT react by weighting them as low as 0%. Your excuse therefore, does not hold water. It doesn't matter who made the slot, a TRTP or "house edge" of 98%/2% is worse for the casino than 95%/5%. If your excuse were true, the games would be weighted according to which TRTP band they fell into, not by who made them.

 

[PrimeGaming]

This is not an excuse.
Our house advantage with the NetEnt games is lower than with other games.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is not an excuse.
Our house advantage with the NetEnt games is lower than with other games.

Again, so what?

The player doesn't care, it's just a slot among a casino full of slots. All slots are the same class of game.

We don't seem to see each individual game having it's own bespoke weighting, yet slots from other suppliers (Microgaming for example) vary considerable between just below 95% RTP all the way up to 98%+. The 98% ones have less than half the edge of the 95% ones, yet Microgaming casino apply the same 100% weight to the lot of them.

I'll bet that closer inspection will show that this explanation is not entirely true either. There could be NetEnt games with a HIGHER edge than a game from another supplier, yet the NetEnt game will still count less than 100%, but the other supplier game with a LOWER edge would be counting 100%.

It's an unnecessary complication, one that got you into the rogue pit a while ago due to some HTML trickery designed to hide this lower weighting of NetEnt games from players.

https://www.casinomeister.com/rogue-casinos/primeslots-deceptive-casino-tricks/

 

[Kiwiguy]

Hi all,

I suppose it had to happen eventually. After about two years of gambling online I've finally run into a rogue operation and been cheated out of my deposit and winnings.

I like to play with a bonus so I've signed up to just about every casino on the internet which doesn't have obviously predatory terms. I always quickly scan through the promotions page and check for feedback on Casinomeister before making a deposit; this technique has held me in good stead so far. There wasn't much mention of Prime Slots on Casinomeister (Prime Gaming are in the "Not Recommended" section, but I didn't think it was the same operation), but they did have good reviews on another gambling website which I found.

I deposited £60 at 35xB WR. The 100% match bonus wasn't added so I opened live chat and they upsold me a better bonus deal (150%) if I deposited another £10. I did, and ended up with a cash balance of £70 and bonus of £105, for a total balance of £175. I confirmed with the chat operator that the standard 35xB WR would still apply. However, they did not have any method to track the progress of the WR in the user account, which I thought strange. Instead I kept a note of how much I had wagered and gambled only in blocks of 100 to keep the maths easy.

I played for the whole day, building my balance up to £350 before a bad run of luck just before the wagering was complete brought my balance just under £200. Happy days, time to withdraw, right? But when I went to the cashier to withdraw it told me that I still had over £1,800 to play through. It was after chat hours so I went to bed, angry and confused, and contacted the live chat in the morning.

The first line they spun me was that I also had to complete wagering on the £5 NDB that they gave me before I deposited (a balance which I cleared before depositing). Okay, fair enough, that's another £175 on to the WR but it didn't explain the massive gulf between my figures and the £1,800 the cashout screen thought I still had to play.

The CSR started banging on about only bets over $1 contributing to the wagering and different games having a different weighting, none of which were mentioned on the bonus policy page. When I re-visited the page I noticed a text link hidden amongst the text, in the same colour and without an underline (note: other links on the page are underlined). This links to a page that isn't linked from anywhere else, which shows all of the predatory bonus terms. The main one being that NetEnt slots only contribute 50% towards the wagering, which stacks up with the discrepancy between my calculations and the casino's.

What should I do? Is this PAB worthy? Does this fall into the category of deception or is it my fault for not finding the hidden link before depositing? Any and all input here is greatly appreciated.

Even though I'm seeing red with anger I had to LOL at a casino called "Prime Slots" where play on slots only contributes 50% to wagering.

Edit to add: I still have a balance of £170.

Gidday Mate ,

Ok I play at this Casino and I'm well aware of how it works now with that 5 Dollars NDB you have the option of playing with it or not playing with it I personally don't like bonuses mixing up with each other
for this very reason and I'm very cautious with every casino when it comes to bonuses and the terms and conditions related to them .
I will vouch for this casino I've had no problems with it and I've received payments from winnings your case sounds like there's been some confusion about the WGR due to the fact that you subsequently zero balanced re the 5 NDB which should in all honesty have wiped any wagering requirements : I've been on a grand safari myself and I gotta tell ya you got to read everything more to the point each casino
will have different terms and conditions some more flexible than others.

I think that what happened here is unfortunate especially that part about no way of confirming the current WGR which resulted from a bonus given from Live Support I'm sure something can be worked out
here sounds like a simple comedy of errors : I'm sure someone will be able to weed through the issue and hopefully provide you with a positive result.