Remember Ladbrokes?

[The Dude]

Well, they're back!!

They had a break from the site due to the absence of a casino rep - please welcome their new rep who has bravely stepped up to the plate. Please remember she's new here so be nice.

Link Outdated / Removed

 

[rainmaker]

.

Good to see them back in the forum. They are a great casino in my opinion. Welcome new rep

Although there is one thing I am wondering about. First I thought they were removed from the accredited section because they did not want to deal with Casinomeister about player issues (PAB).

But I have also seen that you have listed them in your rather new NON-ROGUES section because they had a tendency not to pay advantage players (probably related to their spirit of the bonus rules).

Does this mean that they now are willing to deal with Casinomeister?

Do players still need to be worried about playing with a bonus there ?

 

[GOCC]

So they are now accredited, as the link is to the accredited section

But they have this in their T&Cs

Low risk wagering or any game play which we might believe not to be in conjunction with the spirit of the promotion will not count towards the turnover requirement e.g. bets on red/black or odd/even.

But in the Accredited standards it says

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

I know because I had exactly this where Max did contact Lads because they wouldnt give me a bonus and they said it was because I had failed the spirit of the Promotion. When he contacted him they wouldnt speak to him

 

[vinylweatherman]

So they are now accredited, as the link is to the accredited section

But they have this in their T&Cs

Low risk wagering or any game play which we might believe not to be in conjunction with the spirit of the promotion will not count towards the turnover requirement e.g. bets on red/black or odd/even.

But in the Accredited standards it says

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

I know because I had exactly this where Max did contact Lads because they wouldnt give me a bonus and they said it was because I had failed the spirit of the Promotion. When he contacted him they wouldnt speak to him

The problem is that this is too vague. It is OK saying specifically that a particular bet doesn't count, such as red and black on Roulette, but not OK to have a vague term that can be stretched to fit any case where they simply don't want to pay.
They also had this other term that if you deposit with Neteller, you have to qualify 20 times over for the same promotion that others only have to qualify for once. There is no reason for this given that they already have all bases covered with the above "spirit of the promotion" term.

The problem now is that they still have this term, yet the standards for accreditation would not condone it's use, and we could end up as before, Ladbrokes standing firm over using "spirit of the promotion" in one or more cases, and walking away from CM once again rather than stick to the standards.

To show proper committment, this term needs to go from their site. To get me interested again, the BS Neteller term has to go too.

 

[KasinoKing]

Do players still need to be worried about playing with a bonus there ?

I've been playing with regular bonuses at Ladbrokes for 5 or 6 years (maybe more...?) and I have NEVER had any problems with them.
Though I do always play "in the spirit of the bonuses" and don't try to milk them, like I know advantage players do.

I agree with VWM that their policy on web-wallets is insane - but that's their prerogative, and it doesn't bother me as I use my debit card to deposit & withdraw.

KK

 

[vinylweatherman]

I've been playing with regular bonuses at Ladbrokes for 5 or 6 years (maybe more...?) and I have NEVER had any problems with them.
Though I do always play "in the spirit of the bonuses" and don't try to milk them, like I know advantage players do.

I agree with VWM that their policy on web-wallets is insane - but that's their prerogative, and it doesn't bother me as I use my debit card to deposit & withdraw.

KK

It's more trouble than it's worth. My debit card was constantly knocking back even small transactions just because it was an online gambling site, a problem I don't have when using Neteller. If anything, a debit card would mean I make smaller deposits less often, and would be forced to "abuse the bonuses" by limiting my deposits to just those needed to qualify for each promotion. Any attempt to deposit larger sums for play outside of their promotional program would have my bank declining them, and maybe even locking the card altogether. I can occasionally get my debit card to work for up to £100, but not too often. At a few sites, it has allowed more. The problem seems to be that online casinos refuse to use the second layer "verified by VISA/ Mastercard Securecode" to protect customers from fraud, hence the banks are more conservative in allowing such transactions through.

If Ladbrokes have implemented this, then maybe my debit card would work better, and for larger amounts, but after they got dropped from accredited, and still had that "temporary" Neteller term 4 years after it first appeared, I stopped checking.

 

[KasinoKing]

It's more trouble than it's worth. My debit card was constantly knocking back even small transactions just because it was an online gambling site, a problem I don't have when using Neteller. If anything, a debit card would mean I make smaller deposits less often, and would be forced to "abuse the bonuses" by limiting my deposits to just those needed to qualify for each promotion. Any attempt to deposit larger sums for play outside of their promotional program would have my bank declining them, and maybe even locking the card altogether. I can occasionally get my debit card to work for up to £100, but not too often. At a few sites, it has allowed more. The problem seems to be that online casinos refuse to use the second layer "verified by VISA/ Mastercard Securecode" to protect customers from fraud, hence the banks are more conservative in allowing such transactions through.

If Ladbrokes have implemented this, then maybe my debit card would work better, and for larger amounts, but after they got dropped from accredited, and still had that "temporary" Neteller term 4 years after it first appeared, I stopped checking.

I use Lloyds TSB - and yes, Ladbrokes use the "verified by Visa" system. I never have any problems depositing or withdrawing - it's always quick and easy!
I never use my Mastercard online (for gambling) because I believe you still can't withdraw to them.

KK

 

[vinylweatherman]

I use Lloyds TSB - and yes, Ladbrokes use the "verified by Visa" system. I never have any problems depositing or withdrawing - it's always quick and easy!
I never use my Mastercard online (for gambling) because I believe you still can't withdraw to them.

KK

Lloyds TSB is the bank that blocks anything over £100 when I try to use the debit card at online casinos, but these are places that don't trigger the additional verification step. 32Red do, and I can deposit £200 via my Cahoot debit card, again a VISA, and another that normally locks out anything over £100 anywhere else.

Maybe I can play at Ladbrokes again after all, and not be denied anything because I have used Neteller.

 

[aacasino]

lack of clarity

Firstly, the Neteller issue has derived from a ring of scam artists using Neteller. Not to abuse bonuses but to abuse Payments. Its a reaction to an issue that occurred a long time ago but is only at Lads loss in my opinion. Rather than unfold and find remedies against the scam, they chose to dis-encourage that method of of depositing :/

The wagering conditions is written as so because they have yet to grasp what they are referring to. Example, is this to deter people playing even chances or to play both to limit the loss factor? There is no example or clarification of this. Its a silly example considering they quote many even chance games that qualify for wagering.
I don't believe it's any sly moves on their part, just naivety of the actual products they refer to. Their wagering requirements are much less than some of the other big operators if you look closely. However, should you wish and request for clarification as to how they come up with what they consider low risk, i imagine they too have no idea either.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Firstly, the Neteller issue has derived from a ring of scam artists using Neteller. Not to abuse bonuses but to abuse Payments. Its a reaction to an issue that occurred a long time ago but is only at Lads loss in my opinion. Rather than unfold and find remedies against the scam, they chose to dis-encourage that method of of depositing :/

The wagering conditions is written as so because they have yet to grasp what they are referring to. Example, is this to deter people playing even chances or to play both to limit the loss factor? There is no example or clarification of this. Its a silly example considering they quote many even chance games that qualify for wagering.
I don't believe it's any sly moves on their part, just naivety of the actual products they refer to. Their wagering requirements are much less than some of the other big operators if you look closely. However, should you wish and request for clarification as to how they come up with what they consider low risk, i imagine they too have no idea either.

So, how did they get this past a webwallet regulated in the Isle of Man, and authorised by the FSA in the UK as a "small e money issuer". How come the scam was unique to Neteller and Moneybookers, but not Click2Pay which is less well regulated?

How come Neteller is still vulnerable?

If it is abuse of payments, how does a BONUS based restriction help in the slightest, if anything, not being saddled with a WR makes any such scam easier.

Ladbrokes did once claim this WAS related to "bonus abuse", and that the restriction would be "temporary". Did Ladbrokes lie?


As far as I can see, the terms at Neteller do not permit a "chargeback", unlike a player who deposits by credit card, loses, and then lies to the bank that his card was used by someone else without permission. THIS is the main "payment abuse" that afflicts the industry, and why they take a zero tolerance attitude to players who even threaten to chargeback deposits in an attempt to blackmail a casino.

If there is a loophole with Neteller, the operators should put pressure on Neteller to deal with it.

 

[Cogge]

So, how did they get this past a webwallet regulated in the Isle of Man, and authorised by the FSA in the UK as a "small e money issuer". How come the scam was unique to Neteller and Moneybookers, but not Click2Pay which is less well regulated?

How come Neteller is still vulnerable?

If it is abuse of payments, how does a BONUS based restriction help in the slightest, if anything, not being saddled with a WR makes any such scam easier.

Ladbrokes did once claim this WAS related to "bonus abuse", and that the restriction would be "temporary". Did Ladbrokes lie?


As far as I can see, the terms at Neteller do not permit a "chargeback", unlike a player who deposits by credit card, loses, and then lies to the bank that his card was used by someone else without permission. THIS is the main "payment abuse" that afflicts the industry, and why they take a zero tolerance attitude to players who even threaten to chargeback deposits in an attempt to blackmail a casino.

If there is a loophole with Neteller, the operators should put pressure on Neteller to deal with it.

There's a sort of "scam" where advantage players uses Netellers Loyalty points scheme to earn more money. I believe Neteller's program works so that you get points per transaction, so the more you move around, the more points you get. I think the points can then be traded for money, kind of like "rake back" in poker.

So if you combine that with advantage play you can earn quite a lot more.

If a casino gets hit by a "ring" with lots of fake identities and good proxies, a quick response could be to throw something like that into the T&Cs and get the ring to move to another casino, there are a few others out there.

This could have been what happened to Ladbrokes. It's out there at least

 

[vinylweatherman]

There's a sort of "scam" where advantage players uses Netellers Loyalty points scheme to earn more money. I believe Neteller's program works so that you get points per transaction, so the more you move around, the more points you get. I think the points can then be traded for money, kind of like "rake back" in poker.

So if you combine that with advantage play you can earn quite a lot more.

If a casino gets hit by a "ring" with lots of fake identities and good proxies, a quick response could be to throw something like that into the T&Cs and get the ring to move to another casino, there are a few others out there.

This could have been what happened to Ladbrokes. It's out there at least

Neteller only ran these promos for short periods of time, and particular merchants didn't count. All Ladbrokes had to do was get deposits to Ladbrokes excluded from all such promotions just as other merchants have done. This would have moved this scam to another casino WITHOUT penalising regular players who were depositing to play, not move large sums around.

The fact that Ladbrokes never did this, and never lifted the "temporary" restriction from the terms, means that this is not the reason, or at least not the main reason. Whatever reason they have, it cannot be dealt with by opting out of such Neteller promos. They also included Moneybookers, so it looks like they want rid of eWallet users altogether, not just those who take advantage of such promos.

Neteller also have a term that states that any member found to be moving money in and out of merchants with no real intent to play will have their reward points docked, and they will be excluded from all such promos in future. All it would take is a complaint to Neteller from Ladbrokes, and not only will the scammers be moved on, they will be stopped from doing it anywhere else.

To me, it looks like Ladbrokes are arrogant, and refuse to use the channels Neteller have set up for dealing with this problem after merchants in general complained about abuses of such promotions. Ladbrokes are also excluding potential VIP high rollers, as unlike Neteller, it is hard, if not impossible, to deposit the required £7000 per month needed to qualify for consideration for the VIP program because the banks will repeatedly block and check such transactions. I had this problem with deposits of £200, let alone £2000, with one card blocking every other deposit, and I then had to wait for "office hours" to pass a fraud check and unblock the card. I was told there was no way to "whitelist" merchants in order to prevent such problems.

With the 1% cashback being offered by Neteller when they ran these events, it would need some pretty blatant action by the player in order to profit, as 1% can easily be eaten up just by wagering the deposit 1x.

Credit cards ALSO offered such cashback schemes, yet this didn't seem to bother Ladbrokes. With credit cards, it was a permanent cashback, not one running just for a month or two. I was getting 1% cashback on my Barclaycard casino deposits for YEARS until Barclays eventually ditched the scheme. I was using the card in preference to Neteller because of this.

 

[ChillBill]

the BS Neteller term has to go too.

I've tried to find that "term" but can not. Can you point me to it please vinylweatherman?

Started playing at Labrokes this month. I like their games, they seem to pay better than most MGS casinos I've played. But email support is painfully slow. I've started using live chat instead. I've dropped and lost well over $12k this month and only received $250 in comps. I contacted VIP services, I've well exceeded the "Deposit, purchase and play over 7,500 Chips per month" VIP eligibility rule. Twice I've been blown off with canned responses. I have contacted the iRep here at CM. Here's hoping she can get me promoted to VIP club

 

[KasinoKing]

I've tried to find that "term" but can not. Can you point me to it please vinylweatherman?

Allow me to assist!
It's clearly stated in the T&C for all bonuses at Ladbrokes. For example, I took this from their Welcome Bonus Terms:

 

[ChillBill]

Thank you KasinoKing
Normally don't play with bonuses. But if funds are light may take a bonus.