Propose new Standards for Accredited Casinos

[spearmaster]

Ok - as promised, this thread is for YOU to propose standards for Accredited Casinos.

I will start it off with a list I was working on a few weeks ago - not all of them are going to be acceptable, some of them will need modification, but it's a good starting point.

Spearmaster's Standards for Online Casinos

* Must not use false, misleading or deceptive advertising
* Must not share account details or email addresses with third parties
* Must not spam, nor permit spam by affiliates or any third parties

* Must not disqualify automated (bot) play

* Must not disqualify any player from a payout if terms & conditions are met, except for situations of fraud (multiple-accounts, bogus ID documents, chargebacks, etc.,) (Casinomeister amended version)
* No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.
* Must not impose payout periods which extend beyond 180 days or amounts less than $10,000 per month
* Must pay out progressive jackpot wins in full, regardless of any terms and conditions limiting payouts

* Must not impose playthrough requirements in excess of 1x on all deposits and comps except when a bonus is given
* Must not credit bonuses without the permission of the player
* Must remove any bonus and playthrough requirements at the request of the player if play has not commenced

* Must display information about their licensing jurisdiction, with a link to the jurisdiction's web pages
* Must display information about responsible gambling, with links to relevant organizations

As Casinomeister said - all reasonable suggestions, changes, comments are welcome. And of course feel free to propose more standards as well...

 

[slotheadlizard]

Accredited Casinos

Must have some sort of bonus playthrough counter displayer(?) with remaining amount required to meet, or % left

 

[Tengil]

Must clearly state what they require from you to prove your identity. For every deposit option.

 

[Nandakishore]

* Must not have misleading bonus terms in case of Free Plays.

Very often it starts with something like 'make as much money off the casino as you can and keep your winnings'. Only way down the bonus terms and conditions you stumble across 'Keep up to 200 of your winnings'.

*The adjective FREE must not be used in case of a Sticky Bonus. Only a NO DEOPSIT BONUS should be termed free.

 

[Darf]

example Clubworld

Bold display in offer and in cashier of harsh terms like 'max cashout on first three coupon deposits'

 

[jackieb7]

communication

must answer emails and support calls in a timely fashion to ensure the player feels like he is a valued guest and that his support of there establishment is appreciated. There is nothing worse than asking a question or making a request and have no-one reply to you. No matter what. There are no stupid questions there are no minor issues when it comes to money and the trust between player and casino.

 

[winbig]

I dunno how important this is, but for uniformity and no "you played a bad game, your winnings are void," how about:

If it's a MGS casino, they MUST use the clearpay bonus system, and for others, as it's been mentioned before, any remaining WR should be displayed somewhere inside the software. Heck, if RTG can do it, any software can.

and for all software: The T&C listed on their website MUST include a "last modified" date, AND have links to their archived T&C pages, which must also include the date.

 

[oldtrvlagt]

How about NOT automatically deducting residual amounts after WR has been met? (When there is a max cashout)

 

[aka23]

Must pay winnings in a timely manner (may wish to list specific numbers) when terms and conditions are not breached

Must respond to player communication in a timely manner (may wish to list specific numbers)

Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations

Must use software that passes certain testing (specific details to be added)

 

[spearmaster]

Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations

Covered

* Must not disqualify any player from a payout if terms & conditions are met, except for situations of fraud (multiple-accounts, bogus ID documents, chargebacks, etc.,) (Casinomeister amended version)
* No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.

 

[Rusty]

All deposit options must also offer a withdrawal option except where this is not possible. In this instance it should be clearly stated on the deposit page.

All games should have their theoretical return posted in the paytable.

Progressives should display percentage of wager that goes to the Jackpot
Progressives should state probability of hitting the progressive.

Random Jackpots as above.

Players must be informed of any changes to paytables or game play or theoretical return of any game in advance.

Any Casino requiring ID for cashouts should request this on 1st deposit.

Any advertised bonuses should have clear links to the specific terms of that bonus, including WR, max cashout, and type of bonus.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Since I already have a collection of terms or in some cases terms that include a sentence, word, or similiar I consider at a minimum inappropriate, I will just post screenshots and then comment in a follow up post as some may need clarification. THE MOTHER (FOR MOI) OF ALL BS TERMS WILL FOLLOW, THEREAFTER.

There is some (indirect and/or direct) overlap with some of the previously mentioned especially Spear's.

These are from Sloto' Cash's site ,ftr, and I will clarify on #8 and #16 which can be easily remedied with a simple amendment or modification. #20 was recently discussed in a thread and if iirc CM et others demonstrated it is included similarly at a number of sites.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Since I already have a collection of terms or in some cases terms that include a sentence, word, or similiar I consider at a minimum inappropriate, I will just post screenshots and then comment in a follow up post as some may need clarification. THE MOTHER (FOR MOI) OF ALL BS TERMS WILL FOLLOW, THEREAFTER.

There is some (indirect and/or direct) overlap with some of the previously mentioned especially Spear's.

These are from Sloto'Cash's site ,ftr, and I will clarify on #8 and #16 which can be easily remedied with a simple amendment or modification. #20 was recently discussed in a thread and if iirc CM et others demonstrated it is included similarly at a number of sites.

Per the screenshot's in Post#12 above,

* #8 "unfair" is unfair,lol......should be clarified as accepting the term does not correlate to fair or unfair......maybe one should not claim unfair but one should have the opportunity to prove unfair as TheLawnet(sp) did with EH contrary to Mr.Shackleford, iirc.

** #16 "forfeited" would be acceptable after the casino made a reasonable (uh-oh) attempt(s) to return balance(s) to the Player(s) if the amount exceeds TBD as of course the casino should not have to bear the cost of returning balance(s) where the costs is greater than the subject balance(s). Of course, the casino should have the right to deduct all direct expenses and perhaps a fixed fee for indirect expenses from balance(s) that are rightfully returned to the Player(s).

*** #20 the essence of it or better said, threats and/or possible actions, sorry no way........cheating and fraud should have a term granted to protect all but it is improperly comingled or Fristed with what needs to go.

EDIT: THE MOTHER COMING SOON! (unless posted by another member in the interim.)

 

[greedygirl]

* Must not disqualify automated (bot) play

Really???

I'm having a rough time wrapping my head around this one and I've no doubt that the casinos and software providers will feel similarly. I've yet to understand anyone's reasoning on using a bot if not to cheat the system. Simply put, it's a computer to cheat a computer.

Seriously...can you honestly say that people use bots because they're too damned lazy to click their mouse? Sorry--can't agree on this one.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Modified suggestion.

Playthrough:-

Must display playthrough counter IF AVAILABLE AS AN OPERATOR OPTION. (It would be unfair to expect an operator to provide something not supported in the software).

ID:-

ID requirements should be FLEXIBLE. People, by their very nature, are individuals, and so are governments. Not everybody can drive, and in some countries, the state does NOT issue a "Photo ID" purely for use as a proof of ID, leaving many players wrongly denied winnings, or put through unnecessary hoops in order to get paid. Only when casinos are pretty sure something is not quite right with a player's story should they invoke the "hoops".
There seem to be too many cases where payment has been denied simply for not posessing the right documents, with nothing to suggest the player has been "up to something".

Unless the casino sees something wrong, winnings should be paid that accrued BEFORE a player was asked to prove ID, this would certainy encourage casinos to ask early, and not leave it until a player wins, often MONTHS later.

IF the government of a player's country has a list of what is acceptable for alternative proofs of ID, this must be accepted by casinos (unless fake, of course).


Breaches of rules:-

Where a player has suffered a consequence as a result of a breach of the terms, they must be told specifically which clauses have been breached, so that they have a fair chance of understanding what they did wrong, and thus judging whether they should appeal, or take the hit for their own daft actions.

 

[winbig]

Really???

I'm having a rough time wrapping my head around this one and I've no doubt that the casinos and software providers will feel similarly. I've yet to understand anyone's reasoning on using a bot if not to cheat the system. Simply put, it's a computer to cheat a computer.

Seriously...can you honestly say that people use bots because they're too damned lazy to click their mouse? Sorry--can't agree on this one.

It's illegal to use any sort of device (other than strategy cards, of course) to help your play in Las Vegas and other land-based casinos, so why should it be any different than online casinos?

Whether it's an online or offline casino, they both take into account human error.

Believe it or not, using a program to play for you IS giving you a small advantage when you take human error out of the equation.

Unless, of course you're just talking about having a program running that's clicking "spin" for you, but what online casino doesn't have an autoplay function to take care of that for you?

 

[Rusty]

Really???

I'm having a rough time wrapping my head around this one and I've no doubt that the casinos and software providers will feel similarly. I've yet to understand anyone's reasoning on using a bot if not to cheat the system. Simply put, it's a computer to cheat a computer.

Seriously...can you honestly say that people use bots because they're too damned lazy to click their mouse? Sorry--can't agree on this one.

If the software is random it can not be "cheated" by a bot or otherwise.
Autoplay is a form of bot.
Why is it allowed?
Because it makes the Casinos more money because the player can play more games.
Why would anyone use a bot?
Because it can lessen the house edge by employing perfect strategy but this can be done without using a bot as well but not as efficiently.
Would you ban people who are excellent mathematicians?
Anyone who is capable of employing a strategy to lessen the house advantage?

and what is the system you think is being cheated?
The One that ensures the house always wins by maintaining as larger advantage over the player as possible?
Hardly a system we should be desperate to protect surely.

EDIT: Winbigs post>
Believe it or not, using a program to play for you IS giving you a small, but slight, advantage when you take human error out of the equation.
Are you saying you know of a bot that gives the player an advantage over the house?

PS.
Personally i have never used a bot and don't mind if they are banned just so long as there is a very clear definition of what constitutes bot play, it is a real minefield and it would be much better just to allow bot play.
If the software is not rigged then Casinos should have nothing to fear and 1% profit from bot play instead of 2% from none bot play is still better than 0% from no play at all.

 

[winbig]

EDIT: Winbigs post> Are you saying you know of a bot that gives the player an advantage over the house?

Re-read my post.....notice the "when you take human error out of the equation." Maybe I should have re-worded that sentence to mention that you're never going to get a bot to give you a +EV over the house, but in essence, it's only minimizing the HA when you have a bot playing at 100% perfect strategy for you.


I never said a bot is going to give the player +EV, but you have to remember, bots never get tired, never need a break, never make a mistake, etc....and combine that with your point about bots being able to play many many more hands in the same amount of time as a human player....

Even the most professional of professional players can never play at 100% perfect strategy hours on end. It all boils down to human error, which is the casino's bread and butter. They're just dying for you to make a mistake....like mis-clicking and doubling a hard 20 while playing blackjack....

 

[Rusty]

I read it a few times but still could not be sure what you meant. (Not a statement , a question.)

I was editing my post as you posted and I have given an argument about why bot play is not so terrible for the Casino's and why it should be allowed.

 

[NicolasJohnson]

Hi Guys,

I hope I'm not breaching any rules by posting in this thread as an operator but I actually do wager a little on the side so here are my thoughts....


Must not have playthrough requirements tied to a cashout that exceeds the maximum monthly limit (so that if a player is withdrawing $40k at $10k per month, there should be NO requirement to wager to maintain 'active' status or any such bull).

Must have all the bonus restrictions on one page of their website/lobby (so that if a player reads the Bonus Rules on bonusrules.html, they then don't get stuck with the operator claiming that the player didn't comply with the rules on the promotionalcontions.html page).

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson

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

Manager

 

[hitobito2005]

I don't think casinos with maximum weekly/monthly cashouts should be in the accredited section. It implies a lack of cashflow, and is too restrictive. For instance I have been unable to play at Rushmore and Club World for the last three weeks because of pending cashouts (i'll never reverse a cashout to play).

 

[vegetagirl2008]

If you request a casino to close your account they should be no question as to why you want it closed. The casino should respect the person wishes and close their account.

Also if there should be some issue with their software they should provide updates on what the issue is and when it will be resolved.

Also they should provide adequate telephone numbers in case they need to be contacted. E-mail sometimes is not sufficient.

 

[deucebag]

All games should have their theoretical return posted in the paytable.

Ditto this. It is very odd that the major software providers do not publish theoretical payout on their slots, the only exceptions to this rule AFAIK are Wagerworks and Rival. I think players should have a right to know what they're buying. This has to do with trust.

 

[deucebag]

Accredited casinos should have "responsible gambling" measures such as player determined deposit limits. A player should be able to block himself from deposit/play for periods of time (days/months) or permanently.

 

[Markus]

* Must declare all payment processing fees and in what circumstances they are applied

 

[love2winalot]

Hiya: Must state how/when a player can get the table betting limits increased, or state that they are set, and can not be increased.

I kind of really think they should be required to have a CS Rep. on this board.

 

[RobWin]

Wow, you guys are really getting this thread "Off Topic" here of what was originally intended (Propose new Standards for Accredited Casinos) with all of this talk about "Bot Play". I think another thread altogether would be in order for that topic!

Maybe Max or GG can split off some of these posts here into a "Bot Play" dicussion thread.

[Max says: ok, that stuff moved to Bot stuff from Spear's thread]

 

[maxd]

Maybe Max or GG can split off some of these posts here into a "Bot Play" dicussion thread.

Ya, that's probably a good idea. No need to clog up Spear's good thread.

I'll look into it tomorrow-ish.

LATER: Ok, done (here).

 

[thelawnet]

* Must not credit bonuses without the permission of the player
* Must remove any bonus and playthrough requirements at the request of the player if play has not commenced

Surely you just need the second term. If the bonus is added automatically (without permission in other words), make it removeable.

Also:
* If the casino forbids certain games or play with a bonus, it should not void any wins/bonuses except according to unambiguous rules clearly communicated to the player before he starts playing.

 

[spearmaster]

Surely you just need the second term. If the bonus is added automatically (without permission in other words), make it removeable.

Also:
* If the casino forbids certain games or play with a bonus, it should not void any wins/bonuses except according to unambiguous rules clearly communicated to the player before he starts playing.

The reason for the first is that sometimes the bonus is credited during play, or credited in advance but the player didn't notice immediately.

 

[binshakindown]

Alot of good ideas.

However, is it possible that making too many demands might make it where even a casino that may be worthy of accrediation and may not be rogue, end up choosing not to care any longer about being part of the CM checks and balances. Although there are some things I don't like about some casinos T&C's (like banned game play with bonus voids all winnings or weekly maximum cash paid out), I would hate to see the big picture being lost when it comes to having a good solid choice of casinos that more than likely won't rip me off. If this is off track I apoligize.

 

[Rusty]

However, is it possible that making too many demands might make it where even a casino that may be worthy of accrediation and may not be rogue, end up choosing not to care any longer about being part of the CM checks and balances. Although there are some things I don't like about some casinos T&C's (like banned game play with bonus voids all winnings or weekly maximum cash paid out), I would hate to see the big picture being lost when it comes to having a good solid choice of casinos that more than likely won't rip me off. If this is off track I apoligize.

That is a good point.
Certainly there is a balance to be struck even though I believe that all the suggestions I have read so far are perfectly reasonable but I see no reason why Reps can not be part of this discussion and give their point of view.
It would make for a very interesting open discussion.

 

[spearmaster]

However, is it possible that making too many demands might make it where even a casino that may be worthy of accrediation and may not be rogue, end up choosing not to care any longer about being part of the CM checks and balances. Although there are some things I don't like about some casinos T&C's (like banned game play with bonus voids all winnings or weekly maximum cash paid out), I would hate to see the big picture being lost when it comes to having a good solid choice of casinos that more than likely won't rip me off. If this is off track I apoligize.

To a certain extent, I agree. There is no way we can get a casino to agree to our every whim.

That being said - my initial list there contained items that I personally feel should be mandatory - though I bet the final list will not contain every one of those, and will possibly contain others from your suggestions.

Especially unlikely will be a requirement which is particular to a certain software - I would see those as quite difficult, in addition to usually being the responsibility of the software manufacturer rather than the operator.

Needless to say I highly encourage people to add their thoughts.

 

[Simmo!]

However, is it possible that making too many demands might make it where even a casino that may be worthy of accrediation and may not be rogue, end up choosing not to care any longer about being part of the CM checks and balances. Although there are some things I don't like about some casinos T&C's (like banned game play with bonus voids all winnings or weekly maximum cash paid out), I would hate to see the big picture being lost when it comes to having a good solid choice of casinos that more than likely won't rip me off. If this is off track I apoligize.

I agree. There'a s danger of over-complicating this. I've been out of the loop recently so may have missed something, but I think the way it works at the moment is adequate. It's a stamp by the Meister who I trust. It also means a lot more work for someone not only constructing a list, but checking all the points every day/week/month.

And what happens if a term changes and it's not picked up quickly? A player says it was accredited at Meister and therefore it must have been X when in fact it was Y. More mud to fling around.

Essentilly I see a casino as generally good, or generally bad. If I want more info I read the terms & conditions or do some research. An accreditaion like this encourages people to become lazy and not bother reading the terms and to take other people's word for it.

My suggestion. Leave it as it is, and when an issue arises, hold a vote of Meister Members where a 75% acceptance rate is required to retainn/revoke accreditation.

 

[Jasminebed]

Excluded countries should be denied registration during the signup process. Terms should list excluded countries in alphabetical order, and all in the same paragraph.

There should not be different wagering requirements for different countries.

Players should be able to choose the currency of their choice, even if a national currency is supported.

Links to terms and conditions and promotional terms and conditions should be made available from within the software.

Players must be notified at their registered email address of any changes to general terms and conditions, with notification of which term(s) are amended.

Only play against the terms and conditions would void winnings. No "bonus abuse" if the terms and conditions are complied with. Casinos are free to restrict a player from subsequent bonus offer or to close accounts AFTER the payment of winnings.

 

[Pinababy69]

I agree. There'a s danger of over-complicating this. I've been out of the loop recently so may have missed something, but I think the way it works at the moment is adequate. It's a stamp by the Meister who I trust. It also means a lot more work for someone not only constructing a list, but checking all the points every day/week/month.

And what happens if a term changes and it's not picked up quickly? A player says it was accredited at Meister and therefore it must have been X when in fact it was Y. More mud to fling around.

Essentilly I see a casino as generally good, or generally bad. If I want more info I read the terms & conditions or do some research. An accreditaion like this encourages people to become lazy and not bother reading the terms and to take other people's word for it.

My suggestion. Leave it as it is, and when an issue arises, hold a vote of Meister Members where a 75% acceptance rate is required to retainn/revoke accreditation.

Just curious Mr. Muppet, if you've read the almost 30 page Spin Palace thread? Far as I can tell, that's where this all stems from. I, for one, am 100% behind it....although I absolutely agree that it will be time consuming and will require a ton of work on the part of this site.

As for any input from myself, it sure seems to me like you guys have covered everything. Actually, Spear covered most of what I think is relevant in his opening post. The biggest issues for me are clear terms when a bonus is in play, and the arbitrary confiscation of winnings.

 

[thenmh]

• Must not have T&Cs stating that they may punish player for promotion abuse even if play has been in compliance with the promotion terms, ex:

  Management reserves the right to determine whether play has been deemed to be promotion abuse even though there may have been compliance with the above terms and conditions.

• Must inform players whenever terms and conditions have changed and require them to accept the new terms before playing

 

[thelawnet]

There should not be different wagering requirements for different countries.

Problem with that is if you lose a lot of money to one country, why punish everyone else? Even Ladbrokes have a differential policy for different countries.

Players should be able to choose the currency of their choice, even if a national currency is supported.

Why? This seems like a valid business decision by the casino to me.

 

[winbig]

Why? This seems like a valid business decision by the casino to me.

True, and the only reason behind it that I can see is that the casino can take a beating with the exchange fees...

 

[Simmo!]

Just curious Mr. Muppet, if you've read the almost 30 page Spin Palace thread? Far as I can tell, that's where this all stems from.

No I haven't yet Pina but sounds like I may have to. Thanks for the heads up

 

[thenmh]

Why? This seems like a valid business decision by the casino to me.

Take for a example a player from Sweden, Poland or other country close to the EU, registering at a casino that doesn't support their local currency. They are likely to prefer playing in Euros instead of USD

 

[thelawnet]

Take for a example a player from Sweden, Poland or other country close to the EU, registering at a casino that doesn't support their local currency. They are likely to prefer playing in Euros instead of USD

That's not what it says. It says that player should be able to play even in the currency of their choice even if they have their local currency.

Bottom line IMO is the casino can say 'Dollars for British players', and 'Pounds for US players' if it wants to - their business, their choice. If the players don't like it, they can play somewhere else. Equally the casino could make a bonus with a 100X wagering requirement on keno.

 

[Pinababy69]

EDIT: Nevermind. LOL...just made a post about progressive wins being paid in full, and then realized it's in your original post. DUH!!

 

[RobWin]

This thread here just reminded me of a basic rule that should be applied to all "Accredited Casinos" listed here.

An "Accredited Casino" should never, under any circumstances, tempt their customers with a "Reverse your withdrawal bonus type offer" where they basically offer you a 50% or 100% bonus type offer in order to get you to reverse your pending withdrawal. Like "Slotster" said in the other thread I linked above, that type of behavior borders on something that a Rogue Operator would offer.

That type of behavior also has to be seen as a violation of the code of conduct regarding "Responsible Gambling" by operators.

Another thing these "Accredited Casinos" here need to realize is the impact that "Casinomeister" has on the online gambling world and their actions or lack of actions also reflect on "Casinomeister" as well as on them.

 

[spearmaster]

An "Accredited Casino" should never, under any circumstances, tempt their customers with a "Reverse your withdrawal bonus type offer" where they basically offer you a 50% or 100% bonus type offer in order to get you to reverse your pending withdrawal. Like "Slotster" said in the other thread I linked above, that type of behavior borders on something that a Rogue Operator would offer.

That type of behavior also has to be seen as a violation of the code of conduct regarding "Responsible Gambling" by operators.

Believe me, I seriously considered this. But in the end it can't be a standard because the player is given a choice - rather than being forced to take the offer.

Think about this - let's say you were going to close your CC account because your APR was too high - and the CC company then offered you a low APR if you changed your mind... would you call that rogue?

I don't like the concept of being offered a bonus to reverse my withdrawal - it may leave a bad taste in my mouth but I would hardly call it unfair or unethical.

 

[Slotster!]

I don't like the concept of being offered a bonus to reverse my withdrawal - it may leave a bad taste in my mouth but I would hardly call it unfair or unethical.

Surely it is definitely unethical in direct response to a flush request?..

Whilst the 'automatic'/user controlled MG reverse functionality is a bit wrong but not rogue, actually directly replying to a flush request with an incentive to put your entire deposit back into the casino definitely tips the balance into 'unethical' IMHO.

 

[spearmaster]

Surely it is definitely unethical in direct response to a flush request?..

Whilst the 'automatic'/user controlled MG reverse functionality is a bit wrong but not rogue, actually directly replying to a flush request with an incentive to put your entire deposit back into the casino definitely tips the balance into 'unethical' IMHO.

I still wouldn't consider that unethical. At worst, bad form. But if they kept making you offers after the first instance, I would lean towards unethical...

 

[Slotster!]

I still wouldn't consider that unethical. At worst, bad form. But if they kept making you offers after the first instance, I would lean towards unethical...

Fair enough... I'm not so sure.

Everywhere should be like the Wagerworks or Cryptologic procedure; once you cashout and confirm - the money is already on its way to your designated destination automatically. Every online casino could very easily do this if they wanted... Less people, less hassle - all automated.They just don't want to... Wonder why?

A senior casino representative from a very well known online outfit once said to my face "without the problem gamblers who don't know when to stop - we wouldn't have a business". That's all well and good, but going out of your way to encourage it is, well, a bit off.

 

[RobWin]

Believe me, I seriously considered this. But in the end it can't be a standard because the player is given a choice - rather than being forced to take the offer.

Think about this - let's say you were going to close your CC account because your APR was too high - and the CC company then offered you a low APR if you changed your mind... would you call that rogue?

I don't like the concept of being offered a bonus to reverse my withdrawal - it may leave a bad taste in my mouth but I would hardly call it unfair or unethical.

I hear what you're saying Spear but I still think it is unethical and shows a lack of "Responsible Gambling" criteria that should be in place and offered by the Casino Operator. Otherwise my analogy in comparison would be to say to my addict brother that if he will only stay here awhile longer the best heroin will be made available to him along with a big discount, but on the other hand he can just walk out the door with what he has now and never really know for sure. Very tempting to a weak minded player, don't you think?

Here's the one I can relate this type of offer to:

Synonyms:
1. Tempt, seduce may both mean to allure or entice to something unwise or wicked. To tempt is to attract by holding out the probability of gratification or advantage, often in the direction of that which is wrong or unwise: to tempt a man with a bribe. To seduce is literally to lead astray, sometimes from that which absorbs one or demands attention, but oftener, in a moral sense, from rectitude, chastity, etc.:

IMO, the above should never be something that an "Accredited Casino" would lower themselves to do. They are basically playing on the emotions of the weak minded and further addicted player that in turn takes them up on that type of offer.

Of course one could argue that the Casinos in Vegas will tempt with similar type offers BUT there is one major difference as was in my case at the Mirage. When I won that $50K Jackpot there they offered me one of the best suites in the hotel along with free meals, limo service and a few other perks that I won't mention here BUT this was all offered to me after the fact that I had my cash in my hand.

 

[Slotster!]

Of course one could argue that the Casinos in Vegas will tempt with similar type offers BUT there is one major difference as was in my case at the Mirage. When I won that $50K Jackpot there they offered me one of the best suites in the hotel along with free meals, limo service and a few other perks that I won't mention here BUT this was all offered to me after the fact that I had my cash in my hand.

That's exactly my point Rob. When 32RED gave me 100 free after I'd withdrawn, I already had my cash and it was a gift in the vein of the 'free suite' ethic... I.e - There's a good chance this guy will come back and spend his winnings with us if we look after him. In exactly the same way that your free suite kept you within the casino grounds, my free cash kept me within the casino software - and almost guaranteed I wouldn't wander off around the internet blowing my winnings elsewhere.

That is ABSOLUTELY FINE and completely expected... It's part of what makes casinos and gambling fun... Then of course it's up to the player what they decide to do with THEIR OWN MONEY.

Holding the money back and essentially asking if they can keep if for a bit if they give you a bonus is the dodgy bit... I'd like to see the statistics overall, but from my own experience - reverse withdrawals almost never work out well...