Prime Slots Misleading Bonus Terms

[dunover]

Due to 'lower house edge on Netent games the contribution towards WR is lower'?? WTF?

Yes, but the lower house edge is literally a percent, so the if you do the math the increase in WR on Netent is hugely disproportionate to the slighter higher risk to the casino.

And anyway, 'Netent Variance' virtually ensures any bonus applied to them is virtually un-cashable anyway...

 

[Dinahnana]

My PAB over this issue was unsuccessful. On viewing the evidence, Max essentially decided that the casino had enough plausible deniability and that I could not prove that they intentionally hid the terms.

It is still my firm belief that Prime Slots intentionally hid this term. The link was not underlined, it didn't read "click here", the colour of the text was almost identical to the rest (certainly if not specifically looking for a link most people would not notice). There is no good reason for having some of the bonus terms on the "bonus policy" page and some of them on another page; why are they not all on the same page? They were all on the same page a couple of months ago (when NetEnt slots apparently contributed 100% to wagering).

To be clear, if you deposit at Prime Slots and intend to play NetEnt slots the wagering requirement is Seventy (70) x Bonus. The CSR will go to considerable lengths to keep this information from you. I have chat transcripts to confirm this.

I would urge anyone still considering playing here to exercise extreme caution. This site is not trustworthy, in my opinion.

I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole especially after following this thread. So sorry your PAB didn't work out but THANK YOU for bringing it my attention.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The T&Cs are updated now.
Regarding the wagering, 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,
Benji
Prime Partners

So what!

You are dealing with CONSUMERS, keep it simple, else end up looking rather dodgy.

EVERY casino game has a different house edge, but the general practice is to group games into consumer friendly categories, and apply a single weighting to all games in each category. Consumers can understand this, and don't see anything dodgy. Well respected casino operators even ADMIT that the topic of RTP and TRTP is far too confusing for the average punter to understand, and that to prominently display the TRTP figures for each game would do more damage than leaving it out because it would lead to misunderstandings between players and casinos, such as players expecting to receive TRTP no matter how short their session was. Given that players don't understand TRTP, they are not going to understand any attempt to legitimise the common practice of weighting slots down as low as 20% purely based on which software company provided them. It is far easier to accept and understand that it is nothing more complex than an attempt to mislead and even "rip off" the unsuspecting customer, and that the explanation is merely a hastily concocted alibi for a company that got caught. It is far more common to get BS than the truth out of a company when they get caught out doing something that they shouldn't, or that is unbecoming of their image and marketing (such as the recent Subway farce).

What you are REALLY trying to hide is that the "crap slots" are a much LOWER TRTP than players have come to expect by tradition, rather than NetEnt slots having an abnormally high RTP. This is relatively easy to spot now that there are some multi provider sites operating with a UKGC license, which forces them to make available the TRTP of each game somewhere on their website. Some of these "crap slots" are showing up as 90% - 91%, even worse than RTG casino using the "land kiosk only" setting of 91.5%. The NetEnt slots have TRTP figures on a par with Microgaming, 95% or over.

The 35x WR is more than sufficient to cover slots with TRTP in the range 95%, 70x is overkill, and is also misleading given that there are only a small number of NetEnt slots that can be considered to have a high RTP, just as there are a couple of Microgaming slots with an RTP listed in the 98%-99% range.

In effect, you have created a the impression of a casino that offers slots with a 35x Bonus WR, on a par with a single supplier casino, but have in fact produced a casino with a 70x WR through the use of two means. Firstly the use of 90%-91% slots to provide some games at 100% weighting, where the depressed TRTP effectively makes them the equivalent of a regular casino with 95% slots at a 70x WR. Secondly, any slots that have a "normal" TRTP have been given a 50% weight, and in order not to put players off, this has been linked to, rather than shown along with the other terms. Even if it was an accident that the link was published as a "hidden" link, it still means a marketing deception was employed to separate "bad news" from "good news" via the requirement to click through to a separate "bad news page" in order to see it.

When you are offering a single website, the average consumer just sees "a page of slot selections", they don't want to have to worry about figuring out which company or programmer produced the game, who licensed it, etc.

What you now have, in terms perhaps better understood by the consumer, is that "some slots are crap" and "some slots are fun". Hidden away in an invisible link, the "slots that are fun" only count 50%, whereas the "slots that are crap" count 100%. However, you have hidden this away, and have advertised a WR "for slots" of 35x bonus. Since this is what you advertise, this is what a player expects. When they manage to win and are suddenly told that the WR of all the slots they played was really 70x, as far as they are concerned they have been ripped off by a "rogue trader".

Microgaming download casinos don't do this, they have a set WR for slots with actually means what it says, no ifs no buts. It seems that these dodgy practices are favoured by the browser based multi supplier platforms, which tarnishes them all with the same rogue brush.

Just because all this is perfectly legal, it doesn't make it right.

There are quite a few things that are "perfectly legal", and some favour the player, but they are not morally right.

 

[maxd]

... On viewing the evidence, Max essentially decided that the casino had enough plausible deniability and that I could not prove that they intentionally hid the terms.

A fair summary BUT Bryan has dug up some goodies that may help. Stay tuned!

 

[The Dude]

Ok - back on track.

I took a look at this issue this morning, and yes - I found myself in the same boat as Max, that this was an unfortunate HTML screwup that somehow caused the link for the "additional" terms not to appear. We couldn't really say that this was deliberate.

Until now.

I looked at the cached page located here:

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

And you can note that the term 5. has the text: "Further requirements may be set, according to the type of bonuses." It's hyperlinked, but there is no underscore or change of color of the text when one mouses over. The other hyperlinked text function normally - there is the common underscore effect and they appear as normal links. So why did the link in question not appear as a link? Because it was intentionally masked by the HTML coders.

I looked at the source code of this page, and found the following:

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.primegaming.com/ex_data/ng_bonusterms/tc_eng_USD.htm" style="TEXT-DECORATION: none;">Further requirements may be set, according to the type of bonuses.</a>

That link was intentionally masked - it was created to appear with NO hyperlink attributes (underscore, change of color, etc.) when one mouses over the text. The coders did this to this link ONLY - the rest of the links on the page have no CSS styles - only this one.

As an example, here is how the other links apear within the same section:

PrimeSlots is committed to "CARE" - Customers Are Really Everything. We have implemented a professional customer support team ready to assist you 7 days a week from 8am to 1am CET. Please do not hesitate to contact the PrimeSlots team. Just click on <a href="contactus.asp">Contact Us</a>

No CSS code.

Why would the coders mask this link? I can only assume it would be to hide the additional terms. No coder is his right mind would mask a link unless he wanted the link to remain undetected. They were probably hoping that players like AC7X would speed read through the text and miss the link. We he did, and he got screwed.

This is dodgy at a über high scale, and I think I found a contender for "Stupid Casino Tricks 2014"

 

[dunover]

Jesus. Well spotted CM, and now Slime are exposed for the cowboy outfit they are. If anybody deposits a penny there after reading this, they deserve to be ripped-off. Prime Slots in the rogue pit with quicklime on top............

 

[The Dude]

I just Googled "Further requirements may be set, according to the type of bonuses" and came up with a number of pages:

xhttps://info.karamba.com/BonusPolicy.aspx
xhttp://www.grandgames.be/en/bonus-policy/
xhttp://www.info.winnings.com/BonusPolicy.aspx
xhttp://www.megascratch.com/BonusPolicy.aspx
xhttp://www.888play.com/BonusPolicy.aspx
xhttp://info.goscratch.com/BonusPolicy.aspx

All of them have the same bonus terms template, but none of them have masked the hyperlink in question.

 

[jetset]

I would really like to see how the casino management try to wriggle out of this one!

Well spotted, CM!

 

[The Dude]

I would really like to see how the casino management try to wriggle out of this one!

Well spotted, CM!

Well, the rep hasn't logged in since Friday, so I guess this is not a big priority for them.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I just Googled "Further requirements may be set, according to the type of bonuses" and came up with a number of pages:

xhttps://info.karamba.com/BonusPolicy.aspx
xhttp://www.grandgames.be/en/bonus-policy/
xhttp://www.info.winnings.com/BonusPolicy.aspx
xhttp://www.megascratch.com/BonusPolicy.aspx
xhttp://www.888play.com/BonusPolicy.aspx
xhttp://info.goscratch.com/BonusPolicy.aspx

All of them have the same bonus terms template, but none of them have masked the hyperlink in question.

Does this in any way mean these casinos are all connected to each other? I am probably noticing the link with "888", which is Cassava, surely nothing to do with Prime and it's numerous white labels.

Is Prime Gaming the same notorious Prime casino that was once accredited, but fell from grace after charging back a payment of winnings after two weeks from a player's Neteller account, and then quietly dropping out of accreditation at their own request, which I only noticed when they tried to screw me over for a mere £500 after having paid me north of £6K without fuss. Appearances are that the company changed hands a couple of times, tends to spam a great deal, and like Cassava has a bunch of clandestinely connected sites that can sometimes catch players out with the terms.

 

[maphesto]

Does this in any way mean these casinos are all connected to each other? I am probably noticing the link with "888", which is Cassava, surely nothing to do with Prime and it's numerous white labels.

Is Prime Gaming the same notorious Prime casino that was once accredited, but fell from grace after charging back a payment of winnings after two weeks from a player's Neteller account, and then quietly dropping out of accreditation at their own request, which I only noticed when they tried to screw me over for a mere £500 after having paid me north of £6K without fuss. Appearances are that the company changed hands a couple of times, tends to spam a great deal, and like Cassava has a bunch of clandestinely connected sites that can sometimes catch players out with the terms.

Yes, it is!

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/prime-casino-remove-my-money-from-neteller.17927/

Prime Gaming is the affiliate program and Prime Slots and Prime Casino are two of their brands.

I have today sent Bryan info about very strange terms at Prime Casino:

Hi

Until recently Prime Casino (Prime Gaming's MGS casino operated by Bayton Ltd.) had that horrific progressive term you mention here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/rogue-casinos/

That is for Playtech but you put Prime Casino there by mistake because their terms were equal to the Playtech ones.

NOW, check the terms:

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

They have removed their T&C's and replaced with only bonus terms. I can't reach withdrawal limit terms or other important terms at all. Is this a mistake from them or have they done this by purpose to fool players?

Together with what you discovered this is probably made by purpose.

Here are the original terms btw:

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

I can't reach those at all now.

Regards

xxxxxxxx

 

[vinylweatherman]

Interesting winners list too!

Thomas L €51,540.00

(04/22/2014)



Thomas L €206,328.65

(04/22/2014)



Thomas L €96,685.25

(04/22/2014)



Thomas L €86,401.15

(04/22/2014)



Thomas L €76,618.85

(04/21/2014)



Thomas L €51,540.00

(04/22/2014

This is pretty hard to believe, although they could have just the one whale on board swamping out all the other players' achievements.

There is also this:-

This Agreement has been updated on 01/06/2014

Well, these terms don't even apply till next month do they, and since they haven't accepted US players for years, that's one excuse gone.

I can't find any link to the general terms and conditions, the "terms" link at the bottom only loads the bonus rules.

A lack of general terms seems very odd indeed, as this is where all the general terms of use are stated, including the legal statements that assert copyrights and software user licensing. With no such terms present, there is no prohibition on anyone downloading the client, and then reverse engineering, customising, copying, using other than for personal enjoyment, etc.

These general terms are also where one can find conditions such as weekly or monthly withdrawal limits, excluded countries, etc. If they have staged progressive payouts, it'll be here. I didn't even think staged progressive payouts was permitted for MGS casinos, so if it is happening at Prime, it's another myth about Microgaming blown away.

 

[Nifty29]

Interesting winners list too!





This is pretty hard to believe, although they could have just the one whale on board swamping out all the other players' achievements.

There is also this:-



Well, these terms don't even apply till next month do they, and since they haven't accepted US players for years, that's one excuse gone.

I can't find any link to the general terms and conditions, the "terms" link at the bottom only loads the bonus rules.

A lack of general terms seems very odd indeed, as this is where all the general terms of use are stated, including the legal statements that assert copyrights and software user licensing. With no such terms present, there is no prohibition on anyone downloading the client, and then reverse engineering, customising, copying, using other than for personal enjoyment, etc.

These general terms are also where one can find conditions such as weekly or monthly withdrawal limits, excluded countries, etc. If they have staged progressive payouts, it'll be here. I didn't even think staged progressive payouts was permitted for MGS casinos, so if it is happening at Prime, it's another myth about Microgaming blown away.

Um.mm....the date is USA style. Mm/dd/yyyy.

Updated 6th January.

 

[maphesto]

I can't find any link to the general terms and conditions, the "terms" link at the bottom only loads the bonus rules.

Exactly, they have replaced the critized T&C's with bonus rules and the other ones are gone.

I didn't even think staged progressive payouts was permitted for MGS casinos, so if it is happening at Prime, it's another myth about Microgaming blown away.

Yes, that discussion started here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/playtech-casinos-with-predatory-progessive-terms.57604/

Did they remove ALL T&C's just because this came up? Wasn't it easier to remove just that clause?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Um.mm....the date is USA style. Mm/dd/yyyy.

Updated 6th January.

Yes, but why? This is a European facing casino, so it should use European customs to avoid confusion. Many dates are valid when read either way, and given the dirty tricks already discovered, this could just be another, use a date that could be read two ways, and then use whichever way suits them best when there is an argument as to when a set of terms began to apply.

They could update a set of terms on the 1st June, and then retrospectively apply them from the 6th January by arguing that the date was in US format. If this had been read a month later, it would not have looked odd at all, and would have been interpreted as having been changed on the 1st June. Given that the first of the month is when casinos generally change terms, coinciding as it does with the monthly cycles of loyalty points and promotions, even with some doubt, it would be more likely to be the 1st of June rather than the 6th January.

Maybe the archives can settle the matter as to whether this page really was updated on the 6th January, or appeared more recently with a future date.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Exactly, they have replaced the critized T&C's with bonus rules and the other ones are gone.



Yes, that discussion started here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/playtech-casinos-with-predatory-progessive-terms.57604/

Did they remove ALL T&C's just because this came up? Wasn't it easier to remove just that clause?

It appears so, there are ONLY the bonus terms left, none of this kind of stuff:-

GENERAL

1.1 Website Terms and Conditions ('Terms and Conditions')

Please note that in these Terms and Conditions, 'You' or 'Your' or 'User' or 'Player' means any person who uses the Software on The Palace Group websites.

The Palace Group is a brand managed by Bayton Limited (C41970) a Maltese registered company whose address is Villa Seminia, 8, Sir Temi Zammit Avenue, Ta' Xbiex XBX1011, Malta.

All transactions between the Player and Bayton Limited take place in Malta where the principal servers are based. The Player’s gaming contract is with Bayton Limited. Bayton Limited is the company who provides the gaming services to the Player.

Unless otherwise stated, 'we' 'us' or 'our' refers collectively to Bayton Limited and its subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents and contractors.

1.2 Right to use Software

You are permitted to install and use the Software and all content derived from the Software in connection with the use of the websites in accordance with these Terms & Conditions and with Microgaming's End User License Agreement (EULA). The Software allows You to use our gambling services available via the websites (the 'Services'). You may install the Software on a hard disk or other storage device and may make backup copies of the Software, provided that such backup copies are used only by You in connection with the Services through a computer of which You are the principal user. The Software's code, structure and organization are protected by intellectual property rights. You must not:
* copy, redistribute, publish, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, modify, translate or make any attempt to access the source code to create derivate works of the source code, or otherwise


* sell, assign, sublicense, transfer, distribute or lease the Software


* make the Software available to any third party through a computer network or otherwise


* export the Software to any country (whether by physical or electronic means)


* use the Software in a manner prohibited by applicable laws or regulations

Together the 'Non-Permitted Uses'. You will be solely liable for any damage, costs or expenses arising out of or in connection with the commission of any Non-Permitted Uses.

....... <and so on>

Well, I'm just off to reverse engineer and create a derivative copy of Prime casinos Microgaming client, opportunities like this don't come along too often

Maybe I can sell it to Jackpots Heaven

 

[The Dude]

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

 

[maphesto]

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

I would appreciate if you also put Prime Casino in that pit. They are there in the "not recommended section" because of their "playtech progressive terms" but they are misleading players totally when they simply removed ALL their T&C's and replaced them with some promotional terms.

 

[Dinahnana]

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

Thank you Bryan:notworthy

 

[PrimeGaming]

Ok - back on track.

I took a look at this issue this morning, and yes - I found myself in the same boat as Max, that this was an unfortunate HTML screwup that somehow caused the link for the "additional" terms not to appear. We couldn't really say that this was deliberate.

Until now.

I looked at the cached page located here:

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

And you can note that the term 5. has the text: "Further requirements may be set, according to the type of bonuses." It's hyperlinked, but there is no underscore or change of color of the text when one mouses over. The other hyperlinked text function normally - there is the common underscore effect and they appear as normal links. So why did the link in question not appear as a link? Because it was intentionally masked by the HTML coders.

I looked at the source code of this page, and found the following:



That link was intentionally masked - it was created to appear with NO hyperlink attributes (underscore, change of color, etc.) when one mouses over the text. The coders did this to this link ONLY - the rest of the links on the page have no CSS styles - only this one.

As an example, here is how the other links apear within the same section:


No CSS code.

Why would the coders mask this link? I can only assume it would be to hide the additional terms. No coder is his right mind would mask a link unless he wanted the link to remain undetected. They were probably hoping that players like AC7X would speed read through the text and miss the link. We he did, and he got screwed.

This is dodgy at a über high scale, and I think I found a contender for "Stupid Casino Tricks 2014"

We did not intend to mislead anyone and transparency is very important to us.
We are investigating the issue and get back to you.

 

[maphesto]

We did not intend to mislead anyone and transparency is very important to us.
We are investigating the issue and get back to you.

Can you then check your T&C's at Prime Casino as well? They are lost, they used to be those rogue terms about progressives.

 

[maxd]

We did not intend to mislead anyone and transparency is very important to us.
We are investigating the issue and get back to you.

Just a thought but as part of that "transparency" you apparently aspire to you might try replying to the PAB too.

 

[PrimeGaming]

RE

Can you then check your T&C's at Prime Casino as well? They are lost, they used to be those rogue terms about progressives.

Sure. I will give you an update about it.

 

[The Dude]

We did not intend to mislead anyone and transparency is very important to us.
We are investigating the issue and get back to you.

Sorry, I don't buy this. The CSS script "TEXT-DECORATION: none;" was placed there deliberately - and the person who placed it there was probably following orders. HTML code just doesn't appear by itself, it's written with a purpose.

 

[PrimeGaming]

Re

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

 

[The Dude]

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.