Q re: CM's iNetBet Tues Offer
- Thread starter Linus
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Yes, I'm pretty sure - but email support to double check. Thanks!Linus said:
emily_hanson
Casino Representative
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- London
Hi Linus
Yes Single Hand VP is fine, it is only the Multi Hand version that is precluded.
Hope this helps.
Good luck to all.
Regards
Emily
iNetBet
Yes Single Hand VP is fine, it is only the Multi Hand version that is precluded.
Hope this helps.
Good luck to all.
Regards
Emily
iNetBet
vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Why?
I would be interested to know WHY single hand VP is OK and multi-hand is not? Such complications in Terms only lead to potential confusions. It would be simpler to exclude ALL VP, or as so many games are on the list have a more simple "slots only" term and adjust the promotion accordingly. There seem to be too many problems resulting from confusions about included and excluded games, such as the earlier Pontoon/Blackjack issue, 3-card poker being a form of VP. (I am not saying that ibetnet are the guilty party, but it seems many casinos are using such confusion as a means to escape paying out).
There should be a logical reason behind certain games being excluded, so players may at least consider that a game might meet such criteria even if not specifically listed, and ask support to verify.
I believe that complex terms actually make casinos more prone to bonus whores as they will have the skills needed to properly value the complexities of the terms, and are unlikely to fall foul of them. Inexperienced players will make a mistake due to the complexity, get "red flagged" as a result and have their views tarnished to the point that they will view the online gaming industry as mainly a bunch of chancers looking to relieve the gullible from their money.
Perhaps it is time to get rid of the sign-up offer and it's traps, and offer more to the long term player with bonuses related to their loyalty. The original idea with bonuses was for players to try the whole casino, not worry about what bits they can, or cannot, try out on their first go.
emily_hanson said:
I would be interested to know WHY single hand VP is OK and multi-hand is not? Such complications in Terms only lead to potential confusions. It would be simpler to exclude ALL VP, or as so many games are on the list have a more simple "slots only" term and adjust the promotion accordingly. There seem to be too many problems resulting from confusions about included and excluded games, such as the earlier Pontoon/Blackjack issue, 3-card poker being a form of VP. (I am not saying that ibetnet are the guilty party, but it seems many casinos are using such confusion as a means to escape paying out).
There should be a logical reason behind certain games being excluded, so players may at least consider that a game might meet such criteria even if not specifically listed, and ask support to verify.
I believe that complex terms actually make casinos more prone to bonus whores as they will have the skills needed to properly value the complexities of the terms, and are unlikely to fall foul of them. Inexperienced players will make a mistake due to the complexity, get "red flagged" as a result and have their views tarnished to the point that they will view the online gaming industry as mainly a bunch of chancers looking to relieve the gullible from their money.
Perhaps it is time to get rid of the sign-up offer and it's traps, and offer more to the long term player with bonuses related to their loyalty. The original idea with bonuses was for players to try the whole casino, not worry about what bits they can, or cannot, try out on their first go.
vinylweatherman said:
Bite your tongue.
Enough casinos have already disallowed my favorite game. I only play my other favorite, slots, at casinos that also let me play video poker.
Yes, I understand the larger point you're trying to make about simplicity, but please don't post trying to encourage casinos to worsen their terms. They do that well enough on their own.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2004
- Location
- Oxford
It would be simpler to allow all games to be played but to specify the ones which count towards the wagering requirement. Disallowing games is asking for trouble and does no one any good (last time I checked inetbet doesn't offer a game with a player edge!) apart from giving the casino an excuse to confiscate winnings
suzecat
Dormant account
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Location
- California
emily_hanson said:
Hello Emily! Just wanted to be certain of where I speak regards single hand vs. multi hand VP. Because I too have been quite lucky (being dealt a sizeable winning hand) while playing the multi hand version VP, it would seem to be the reason why it is excluded from bonus offer wagering. Holding on a dealt winning hand could multiply the value of the win by 10x, 50x or 100x. Seems reasonable to limit the casino's risk to 1x.
vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Yes
Yes, and being dealt a crap hand leads to 10, 50 or 100 "useless" wagers instead of one. The house edge is actually the same long term, and a single hand game is actually better for bonus abuse because it has lower variance in the same way that playing 1000 hands of Blackjack at $1 is better than playing 100 at $10 if the intent is to get away with as much of the bonus as possible. If a player finds their favourite game excluded they are likely to play elsewhere rather than risk playing it "at the wrong time" and having all their winnings confiscated. If a game actually had a player edge then a bonus would not be necessary in the first place!!!
There is a casino that "forces" VP players to play Vegas strip BJ to meet WR as certain VP games do not count, silly, as the BJ is the game that a bonus player would use anyway, with VP only second best due to much higher volatility and a slightly higher house edge.
suzecat said:
Yes, and being dealt a crap hand leads to 10, 50 or 100 "useless" wagers instead of one. The house edge is actually the same long term, and a single hand game is actually better for bonus abuse because it has lower variance in the same way that playing 1000 hands of Blackjack at $1 is better than playing 100 at $10 if the intent is to get away with as much of the bonus as possible. If a player finds their favourite game excluded they are likely to play elsewhere rather than risk playing it "at the wrong time" and having all their winnings confiscated. If a game actually had a player edge then a bonus would not be necessary in the first place!!!
There is a casino that "forces" VP players to play Vegas strip BJ to meet WR as certain VP games do not count, silly, as the BJ is the game that a bonus player would use anyway, with VP only second best due to much higher volatility and a slightly higher house edge.
suzecat
Dormant account
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Location
- California
vinylweatherman said:
Yep, we both can see that the coin is double-sided. (Thanks for the post -- now I can remove my tongue from my cheek lol).
