Bonus Complaint Rey8 Casino – Is This fair? I Doubt It

[gamblingmace]

At Rey8 Casino one can claim several welcome bonuses.
On my first two deposits I received bonuses of 100%. I deposited 100€ twice. I lost the first deposit but on the second one I was lucky. I had to wager 4000€ on slots to clear the bonus and I wagered much more, about 5800€ on slots and about 1500€ on videopoker. Then my balance was about 1200€.

I asked the customer support of Rey8 if the bonus has been cleared and they confirmed that it has been cleared and that I could withdraw my balance.
However, on the next day – I had not requested a withdrawal yet – I received an email by Rey8 that said that the bonus has not been cleared and that I must wager much more to clear it because of this rule which is in their bonus terms -

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

- quote:

In the event that a promotion or free Bonus becomes available to be used on different games, the highest wagering requirement (based on the games that were used), will be enforced in order to cash-out.

Unquote. In their bonus terms it says games contribute in different ways towards the wagering. Slots count 100% and Videopoker counts 15%. And because I played videopoker my playing on slots also counts only 15% but not 100%. Therefore I have to wager 19000€ now on slots or on videopoker in order to be able to cash out.

I replied that that is not fair and I do not want to wager so much more and that they should allow me to cash out now because that rule is not fair but they did not give in.

What do the members of this forum think about this matter?

But please do not post now that one has to read the terms and that they are allowed to apply the rules because that would mean that you miss the point of my complaint. The point is that a rule like that is not just and that it seems to be nothing but a mean trap – only a means to confiscate winnings of players who failed to understand what that rule means. Maybe that rule is not even legal but I do not know that and if it were legal it would still be unfair and mean. I know that I must read the terms before I play and I read them but I simply did not understand that statement. Would I have played videopoker if I had known that my playing on slots would only count 15% if I play videopoker? Of course not.

So what Rey8 casino should do imo is they should remove that rule and not apply it and allow me to cash out my balance.

 

[Nifty29]

At Rey8 Casino one can claim several welcome bonuses.
On my first two deposits I received bonuses of 100%. I deposited 100€ twice. I lost the first deposit but on the second one I was lucky. I had to wager 4000€ on slots to clear the bonus and I wagered much more, about 5800€ on slots and about 1500€ on videopoker. Then my balance was about 1200€.

I asked the customer support of Rey8 if the bonus has been cleared and they confirmed that it has been cleared and that I could withdraw my balance.
However, on the next day – I had not requested a withdrawal yet – I received an email by Rey8 that said that the bonus has not been cleared and that I must wager much more to clear it because of this rule which is in their bonus terms -

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

- quote:

In the event that a promotion or free Bonus becomes available to be used on different games, the highest wagering requirement (based on the games that were used), will be enforced in order to cash-out.

Unquote. In their bonus terms it says games contribute in different ways towards the wagering. Slots count 100% and Videopoker counts 15%. And because I played videopoker my playing on slots also counts only 15% but not 100%. Therefore I have to wager 19000€ now on slots or on videopoker in order to be able to cash out.

I replied that that is not fair and I do not want to wager so much more and that they should allow me to cash out now because that rule is not fair but they did not give in.

What do the members of this forum think about this matter?

But please do not post now that one has to read the terms and that they are allowed to apply the rules because that would mean that you miss the point of my complaint. The point is that a rule like that is not just and that it seems to be nothing but a mean trap – only a means to confiscate winnings of players who failed to understand what that rule means. Maybe that rule is not even legal but I do not know that and if it were legal it would still be unfair and mean. I know that I must read the terms before I play and I read them but I simply did not understand that statement. Would I have played videopoker if I had known that my playing on slots would only count 15% if I play videopoker? Of course not.

So what Rey8 casino should do imo is they should remove that rule and not apply it and allow me to cash out my balance.

First of all, don't tell people want they can and cannot post. You are not a moderator. It also indicates that you know what the comments will be from realistic, logical members...but that you don't want to hear it.

Secondly, it is obvious that you did not read the terms and conditions of the bonus. If you had, based on your comments in this post, you would most certainly have at least queried the casino or chose not to play video poker (as you stated). You would have known if you had been bothered to read what you accepted. You did not.

Lastly, the argument about the legitimacy of the term is a totally seperate one. You cannot agree to be bound by something, and then later complain that it is unjust and should not apply....you need to make this choice before you play. Post about the term and how terrible it is (and I agree that it is terrible) and make other members aware so they don't get caught out like you did.....absolutely no problem there.....but don't claim that players should only be held to the conditions they feel like being held to, because you won't get much sympathy from other members (except those who already have a chip on their shoulders regarding casinos).

It's a stupid term, but this is a simple case of a player admitting they did not read the terms of the bonus they accepted and those terms coming back to bite them in the arse. Sorry, but you made a mistake. Learn from it and stop blaming someone else.

 

[De Beuker]

Yes, thats an awful term, is it a Playtech casino?
I fell into that very same trap once, they use the same percentages as Microgaming casinos and simply hope that you miss that small sentence that says that the lowest percentage counts for all your play.
5 hands of video poker raised my WR 10x or so..

Theres really nothing you can do, its clearly stated in the T&C's, so I suggest you do as I did, hammer the balance down to zero at high stakes, hope for a biggie, and in the future, ALWAYS read the terms when you take a bonus.
Live and learn they say...

 

[chuchu59]

Gamblingmace,

If you had read the terms carefully before you played you would have sought clarification on what it means by highest wagering requirement. Yep, they should have defined it better and in fact should have bolded it but its not impossible to figure out that wagering on a game with lesser contribution would render all play to be subject to the highest wrs.

Frankly, I detest your attitude too. You are unwilling to listen to answers that are unsupportive of your plight. It certainly doesnt sit in well with me. If you could, you should be persuading us to accept your view instead.

The term in question initially seemed similar to the MG bonuses ie different games contributing different percentages to playthrough but the casino cleverly allowed games of lesser contribution to mixed with slots and hence rendering slots to contribute lesser to wagering. You can say it is predatory but you had an opportunity to know about it upfront but werent too concerned. Whether the terms are fair or not differs among players so while it merits discussion the main thing is you just werent careful. Now go back and complete your wagering.

 

[PNEFOREVER2]

You can't ask us not to point to the rules/terms when you are posting in a forum where people are bound to give their honest thoughts and opinions.

If you read the terms and conditions before playing and don't understand them-why on earth would you take the risk and play there?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

It's a very sucky T&C, no doubt about that, although I have to say to the OP that you can't start a thread at CM and tell everyone what they can and can't put in their replies, especially when the basic issue here is that you have failed to read and understand the T&Cs.

Unfortunately when it comes to bonuses at casinos it is very much a case of 'buyer beware', as the casino is effectively selling you a bonus and their intention, obviously, is to not have to pay you anything.

The simple fact is that if you take a bonus at a casino you need to be damn sure what the T&Cs are before you wager a penny.

 

[Jufo]

First of all, don't tell people want they can and cannot post. You are not a moderator. It also indicates that you know what the comments will be from realistic, logical members...but that you don't want to hear it.

It didn't sound to me that he was telling what people should post, he was asking them. There's a difference between telling and asking. Given that he already admitted the oversight in understanding the T&C he had the right to ask for comments relevant to the fairness of the term. He added this wish in his post probably because he expected you, Nifty29, to be the first one to come to the thread to shout: "Why didn't you read the T&C" and it seems he was exactly right.

Anyway, the OP still can wager 19,000 on video poker to cashout. Doing it with a 1200 balance it looks like it is survivable and I believe many wouldn't mind being in this proposition.

 

[Nifty29]

It didn't sound to me that he was telling what people should post, he was asking them. There's a difference between telling and asking. Given that he already admitted the oversight in understanding the T&C he had the right to ask for comments relevant to the fairness of the term. He added this wish in his post probably because he expected you, Nifty29, to be the first one to come to the thread to shout: "Why didn't you read the T&C" and it seems he was exactly right.

Anyway, the OP still can wager 19,000 on video poker to cashout. Doing it with a 1200 balance it looks like it is survivable and I believe many wouldn't mind being in this proposition.

Thanks for the compliment Jufo

It's nice to know that people expect me to chime in with a logical, reasonable and accurate assessment of the situation. I really appreciate it

But please do not post now that one has to read the terms and that they are allowed to apply the rules

Asking/telling amounts to the same thing. He was stating that nobody who was of the opinion that the he should have read and understood the terms before playing should post (in other words, everyone except you personally it seems)...and that, Jufo, is called moderating, and, as the rest of the replies to this thread state, it is unacceptable to other members (except you personally of course)

 

[chuchu59]

It didn't sound to me that he was telling what people should post, he was asking them. There's a difference between telling and asking. Given that he already admitted the oversight in understanding the T&C he had the right to ask for comments relevant to the fairness of the term. He added this wish in his post probably because he expected you, Nifty29, to be the first one to come to the thread to shout: "Why didn't you read the T&C" and it seems he was exactly right.

Anyway, the OP still can wager 19,000 on video poker to cashout. Doing it with a 1200 balance it looks like it is survivable and I believe many wouldn't mind being in this proposition.

The OP did not get what the terms meant because they badly written leading to confusion. He admitted that had he known that playing video poker would render his wagering on slots to contribute to wrs the same as vp he wouldnt have done it. Likewise, his opening post, while he might have meant exactly what you said, didnt come accross as such and I believe quite a number of readers will think he simply did not want to listen to opposite views. The terms themselves werent clear already so shouldnt we make our posts clearer?

 

[Jufo]

Asking/telling amounts to the same thing. He was stating that nobody who was of the opinion that the he should have read and understood the terms before playing should post (in other words, everyone except you personally it seems)...and that, Jufo, is called moderating, and, as the rest of the replies to this thread state, it is unacceptable to other members (except you personally of course)

Ok, fair enough. Maybe I read the OP's wish a bit differently than others, I interpreted it as "Please don't waste my time by stating the obvious" but I understand that others don't see it like that. Anyway like I said forced wagering 19 000 on Video Poker is not nice but should still leave the OP in profit from the bonus offer.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The willingness of the casino to allow you to just keep on claiming "welcome bonuses" until you managed to beat one should have had you asking "what's the catch?". You have now found the catch, an innocuous piece of smallprint that has a massive bite.

There could well be further catches. Some casinos would void you win altogether for straying from the slots on the welcome bonus, so this is by no means the worst possible outcome. Your best bet is to continue on VP to complete this WR at minimum house edge. No point going back to slots, as they also only count 15% now.

Casinos that use small print like this are best avoided unless you are 100% sure you understand the rules, and can properly appreciate the true value of the offer.

Other than persuading them to offer a "goodwill gesture" in this case, there is little you can do other than take your custom elsewhere.

 

[Nifty29]

The willingness of the casino to allow you to just keep on claiming "welcome bonuses" until you managed to beat one should have had you asking "what's the catch?". You have now found the catch, an innocuous piece of smallprint that has a massive bite.

There could well be further catches. Some casinos would void you win altogether for straying from the slots on the welcome bonus, so this is by no means the worst possible outcome. Your best bet is to continue on VP to complete this WR at minimum house edge. No point going back to slots, as they also only count 15% now.

Casinos that use small print like this are best avoided unless you are 100% sure you understand the rules, and can properly appreciate the true value of the offer.

Other than persuading them to offer a "goodwill gesture" in this case, there is little you can do other than take your custom elsewhere.

It was not smallprint FYI. All the terms are in the same size font.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It was not smallprint FYI. All the terms are in the same size font.

Smallprint is not about size, it is a general term for the pages of terms and conditions that expose the true nature of an offer presented in a very big font and fancy imagery.

It's like the MGS offer of "play for 1 hour and keep all your winnings".

The "smallprint" will show that the definition of the word "all" is not as one would find it in any dictionary, but that it actually means "a fraction of", which can be as little as £50, and I have never seen "all" to mean more than £200.

Not properly understanding how the weighting system works is what lead to this case. The OP assumed it worked exactly like the MGS version, but it doesn't. Had the OP stuck to slots though, it WOULD have worked exactly like the MGS version, and for slots players this could be a pretty good deal in that you can have several goes at cracking the welcome bonus.

The real problem is the habitual use of misleading hype in the lure that gets players interested, be that the landing page, or an email or snailmail invite. Taking this at face value will often make the offer seem "too good to be true", and it is the normal size font terms, often a couple of clicks away, that show the offer may actually be pretty bad.

 

[Nifty29]

Smallprint is not about size, it is a general term for the pages of terms and conditions that expose the true nature of an offer presented in a very big font and fancy imagery.

It's like the MGS offer of "play for 1 hour and keep all your winnings".

The "smallprint" will show that the definition of the word "all" is not as one would find it in any dictionary, but that it actually means "a fraction of", which can be as little as £50, and I have never seen "all" to mean more than £200.

Not properly understanding how the weighting system works is what lead to this case. The OP assumed it worked exactly like the MGS version, but it doesn't. Had the OP stuck to slots though, it WOULD have worked exactly like the MGS version, and for slots players this could be a pretty good deal in that you can have several goes at cracking the welcome bonus.

The real problem is the habitual use of misleading hype in the lure that gets players interested, be that the landing page, or an email or snailmail invite. Taking this at face value will often make the offer seem "too good to be true", and it is the normal size font terms, often a couple of clicks away, that show the offer may actually be pretty bad.

Yes, I understand and agree in that scenario, but this is not that scenario.

If the website said "100% bonus! Low wagering! All games allowed!" , then the term at issue could be construed as "small print'". However, the the term was clearly listed along with the other terms I.e. anyone reading it would have seen it. No misleading hype or "hiding" it away in smaller font or a different link etc.

It's really not a case of the operator being "sneaky" or underhanded, so I'm not surewhy you're going off on a tangent into something immaterial to the case at hand.

You know, vinyl, many operators do the right thing and list all their terms clearly, as this operator has.....it doesn't always have to be about "tricking players" etc. It can be just about someone being pissed that they neglected to read the terms of a bonus they accepted, and insisting that it doesn't apply to them because they didn't know about it.

I will repeat though..it is a sh*thouse term, and I would avoid the place based on that alone.

 

[chuchu59]

It was not smallprint FYI. All the terms are in the same size font.

It is not in small print in the sense of the words but these dreadful terms are mired in the text and dont even come under Wagering Requirements and certainly away from the table showing different percentage contributions for different games. I cant help but suspect they were written to pounce on players who dont read the terms carefully. If this were an honest outfit, this term should come immediately after the Table and be bolded.

 

[KasinoKing]

It's like the MGS offer of "play for 1 hour and keep all your winnings".

The "smallprint" will show that the definition of the word "all" is not as one would find it in any dictionary, but that it actually means "a fraction of", which can be as little as £50, and I have never seen "all" to mean more than £200.

[Nit-pick mode]
Actually... I have just checked the 8+ MGs on my site who have these offers, and NONE of them use the phrase "keep all your winnings"
Most say "keep the winnings"

I agree this is still misleading, but not as bad as if they did actually say "all".
[/Nit-pick mode]

KK

 

[Nifty29]

It is not in small print in the sense of the words but these dreadful terms are mired in the text and dont even come under Wagering Requirements and certainly away from the table showing different percentage contributions for different games. I cant help but suspect they were written to pounce on players who dont read the terms carefully. If this were an honest outfit, this term should come immediately after the Table and be bolded.

I disagree.

What makes that term more important than any other? Who judges what is important?

You see, making some terms bolded can actually be counter-productive, as some players will "skim" terms and conditions and only note the bolded ones, rather than forcing themselves to read each one more carefully. It's like the argument I've heard at times "they should have put that at the top!!" Well, once you put it at the top, then the important one that was at the top now is not etc etc.

It's also important to note that it wouldn't have mattered if it was in neon 78pt font in this case, because the OP admits not reading them anyway.

Sorry Chu, but I hear excuses like that a lot and they just don't wash. If the forums were full of players having this issue when they've read the terms and "missed" one somehow because it wasn't highlighted, I might be persuaded.....but the fact is that most are a result of players not being arsed to read the terms in the first place, so nothing the casino does will fix it. Some people just always point the finger elsewhere as a way of life, instead of learning from their mistakes.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yes, I understand and agree in that scenario, but this is not that scenario.

If the website said "100% bonus! Low wagering! All games allowed!" , then the term at issue could be construed as "small print'". However, the the term was clearly listed along with the other terms I.e. anyone reading it would have seen it. No misleading hype or "hiding" it away in smaller font or a different link etc.

It's really not a case of the operator being "sneaky" or underhanded, so I'm not surewhy you're going off on a tangent into something immaterial to the case at hand.

You know, vinyl, many operators do the right thing and list all their terms clearly, as this operator has.....it doesn't always have to be about "tricking players" etc. It can be just about someone being pissed that they neglected to read the terms of a bonus they accepted, and insisting that it doesn't apply to them because they didn't know about it.

I will repeat though..it is a sh*thouse term, and I would avoid the place based on that alone.

You are misinterpreting the meaning of "smallprint". Smallprint is simply the name given to the set of detailed terms and conditions, and does not necessarily imply there is anything sneaky going on. "Smallprint" can be clear, and obvious to anyone who reads it. The point is that marketing doesn't like to present the negative side of a deal in the "headline" lure, so relying ONLY on this can give a very biased view of an offer.

Anyone who uses common sense and realises the "spirit" of the headline offer is to create a movement of money from the customer to the business over the longer term should realise that any impression that the intent is otherwise indicates that the "headline" has overstated the positive benefits, and kept the negative for the terms and conditions.


You will see this everywhere. Supermarkets often have bloody great billboards proclaiming "shop this week and get £10 off next week". You may think that you could just buy a pint of milk to get the offer, but on closer inspection you will find a block of smallprint at the bottom of the poster, which whilst presented in clear language, tells you that there is a minimum spend, and a list of excluded goods, in order for that visit to qualify for the voucher. You may have to spend a set minimum this time, and also the £10 off may only apply if a set minimum is spent the next time. What you don't get is £10 off next week's £11 shop just for buying a pint of milk.

I use these offers, so know that after driving past the billboard, I have to walk right up to one to check the "smallprint" that sets the boundaries for the offer. There is a community of "advantage shoppers" that happen to be "better at math than the shop manager" and who DO achieve some VERY good discounts on their regular shopping. There is even rumour that some receive "voucher bans" in the same way that casinos issue "bonus bans".