Q re: CM's iNetBet Tues Offer

Linus

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Location
TX
The T&C says, "offers do not apply to Craps, Roulette, Multi-Hand Video Poker, Blackjack/21 variants or Baccarat play."

Does this mean single-hand VP is ok?

Thanks.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Linus said:
The T&C says, "offers do not apply to Craps, Roulette, Multi-Hand Video Poker, Blackjack/21 variants or Baccarat play."

Does this mean single-hand VP is ok?

Thanks.
Yes, I'm pretty sure - but email support to double check. Thanks!
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Why?

emily_hanson said:
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
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.
 

Linus

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Location
TX
Thank you CM & Emily. Nice site, and a nice offer.

I even won a little bit. :)

Thanks again.
 

Weedlayer

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Location
US11
vinylweatherman 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, ...
Bite your tongue. :mad:

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.
 

elscrabinda

Full Member
PABnoaccred
PABnorogue
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Location
Oxford
It would be simpler to exclude ALL VP
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:
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
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

suzecat 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.
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:
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.

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).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top