Casino Complaint Royal Vegas takes my deposits and winnings

[ChillBill]

I won 278 euro at Vegas Palms. Then they started asking for all kind of documents. So I started to play Europalace and Royal vegas before they paid me Vegas palms.

Vegas Palms was the first casino she claimed the bonus and won. We've since learnt the OP exceeded the 30% max bet rule while meeting wagering. And her winnings were voided. The OP later accepts she breached the max bet rule at Vegas Palms and EuroPalace but did not breach it at Royal Vegas.

This is rather irregular and if there are several players doing exactly the same - same games and same strategy - something looks very suspect.

Subsequently the OP opens an account at EuroPalace, then Royal Vegas and claimed bonuses at each of these. FL accepted both new registrations and deposits. What is suspect, instead of FL notifying the player of the broken max bet t&c rule at Vegas Palms, FL proceed to ask "for all kind of documents". A clear indication of holding doubt to players legitimacy.

Seems the OP opened the Vegas Palms account and had a withdrawal pending, a while before the EP and RV accounts were opened. If that's the case, FL were well aware of the OP breach, but still accepted the new account registrations and deposits, from a player who according to the FL rep, displayed suspect play.

If the player had lost, then what? Oh yeah FL wins. Seems these type of breaches are only a problem when a player wins

The t&c's relating to bonuses are opened ended. They are not clear.

imo it would serve FL better if they fixed their bonus terms and conditions, spelling them out in plain English. What a player can and can not do when meeting bonus wagering. If making x number of bets on Roulette, then grinding it out on slots, is not seen as "fair play" in the eyes of Fortune Lounge, then make that clear too.

 

[skiny]

Dear Wim. Your title says that you are Accredited Casino Representative. This means that you must be aware of the standards for accredited casinos. Here are the standards for you to review:

Link Outdated / Removed

I see from your posts that you have violated at least two of these accreditation standards:

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

Could you explain why you are making statements that violate Casinomeister's Standards for Accredited Casinos? I am also intrigued to know how maxd and Bryan will react to these violations.



It is always the player's prerogative to play in a profitable manner. You can kick them out, but only after paying up if no concrete terms were violated. Offering a bonus is not obligatory so don't offer one if you can't tolerate someone beating you.

I've been beating this thread to death with the irregular playing patterns excuse because I know for a fact it's against the rules for accreditation. I only wish the OP would shut up long enough for the PAB to find a resolution. I'm curious how this will play out but if the OP keeps carrying on we all know how it will turn out.

Any time a player is able to find some way to beat one of your bonuses that leaves you unhappy with the way it was done you have nobody to blame but yourself. You didn't open this casino last night. You've had years to tweak these terms and conditions so that players cannot abuse them. Bonus terms and conditions should be simple enough that breaking them is obvious and indisputable. If you can't figure out how to do that then either hire someone who can or stop offering them. I have no sympathy.

Collusion is bullshit. Casinos on any average day could have thousands of people playing at them. Am I expected to believe that it's somehow hurting the casino because 50 of them are using the same betting strategy on games that are designed for people to lose? The house edge on these games are supposed to make it next to impossible for the casino to lose in the long run. If you're creating bonuses that is breaking that system stop blaming the players and start offering sensible bonuses.

If casinos have to resort to vague terms that let them pick and choose who they want to pay depending on whether or not they're happy with the way the player won, they shouldn't be offering bonuses. They should be hiring a new marketing director. This isn't just about this one particular case. This is about a casino with unfair terms and conditions that are supposed to be against the rules here. Regardless of how this PAB turns out, that issue will still be on the table.

 

[chayton]

If I ran a casino and had a bunch of players that all signed up at the same time and played the exact same way using the same bonus, I'd be more inclined to think multiple accounts than collusion. Anyhow glad to see there's a PAB on the table - Max will get to the bottom of it one way or another.

 

[slotplayer]

imo it would serve FL better if they fixed their bonus terms and conditions, spelling them out in plain English. What a player can and can not do when meeting bonus wagering. If making x number of bets on Roulette, then grinding it out on slots, is not seen as "fair play" in the eyes of Fortune Lounge, then make that clear too.

alledged collusion and rule breaking aside,

its absolutely fair. grinding it out is just a strategy to preserve as much winnings as possible just as the casino uses wr and the max bet rule as a strategy to limit winnings as much as possible.

 

[Nifty29]

Well I guess it's no surprise that there are now people from an AP/fraudster forum here taking up the OPs cause.

I'd expect no less from a site that promotes and encourages multiple accounts and other fraudulent behaviour.

 

[ChillBill]

Well I guess it's no surprise that there are now people from an AP/fraudster forum here taking up the OPs cause.

I'd expect no less from a site that promotes and encourages multiple accounts and other fraudulent behaviour.

How do you know who's from where, unless your also a regular at this nameless AP/fraudster forum too. If facts rule the truth, then what's it matter what anyone says?

 

[skiny]

Looks like we're back to the old question. Can casinos use vague terms to withhold winnings under certain circumstances or do they have to follow the rules to the letter like most players are expected to do?

I made a statement about the OP going slightly over the max bet earlier in this thread

I'm not disputing that the OP's winnings should have been voided. He broke the 30% rule. And I agree with Nifty that a rule is a rule. If you go 1% over this time you'll be expected to go 2% next time. Draw the line and stand behind it. Rules aren't really made to be broken.

People seemed to agree with it.

Now I'm making the same statement about the rule for withholding payment for irregular play.

The issue is not only about breaching the 30% term and whether you did it on one or all of your accounts. All of your play on all of your accounts was irregular whether you exceeded the max bet limit or not.

We're talking about bonus terms here not terms of service. I'm sure many of us here have screwed up while playing a bonus. I don't remember all of their sister casinos showing up and taking everything I won there too.

Unless the OP has committed fraud through multi-accounting or submitting false information about his identification, what happens at casino A has nothing to do with what happens at casino B or C. And at least one of these three bonuses was played according the all the rules except the irregular play rule and that rule isn't even supposed to exist. Withholding payment for irregular play IS against the rules.

Draw the line and stand behind it. Rules aren't really made to be broken.

I still stand by that statement.

We'll see if anything new comes to light through the PAB. Maybe the casino will get lucky and the OP will have been committing some other kind of fraudulent activity.

 

[dunover]

Looks like we're back to the old question. Can casinos use vague terms to withhold winnings under certain circumstances or do they have to follow the rules to the letter like most players are expected to do?

I made a statement about the OP going slightly over the max bet earlier in this thread



People seemed to agree with it.

Now I'm making the same statement about the rule for withholding payment for irregular play.



We're talking about bonus terms here not terms of service. I'm sure many of us here have screwed up while playing a bonus. I don't remember all of their sister casinos showing up and taking everything I won there too.

Unless the OP has committed fraud through multi-accounting or submitting false information about his identification, what happens at casino A has nothing to do with what happens at casino B or C. And at least one of these three bonuses was played according the all the rules except the irregular play rule and that rule isn't even supposed to exist. Withholding payment for irregular play IS against the rules.



I still stand by that statement.

We'll see if anything new comes to light through the PAB. Maybe the casino will get lucky and the OP will have been committing some other kind of fraudulent activity.

Yes, that seems to be the OP's logic too, which it would be. I own a string of bars, you drink peacefully in one and then proceed to cause aggro in the next 2 would it not be fair of me to then to assess your behaviour as a whole and ban you from all 3 bars??

 

[Jufo]

Well I guess it's no surprise that there are now people from an AP/fraudster forum here taking up the OPs cause.

I'd expect no less from a site that promotes and encourages multiple accounts and other fraudulent behaviour.

I find that statement libelous and entirely false. The site gives legitimate AP tips but in no way "encourages multiple accounts and other fraudulent behaviour". It looks to me that you have a difficult time differentiating AP from fraud. In fact you use the two words together all the time. Besides if this site is so bad, how do you explain that Fortune lounge has had an ongoing affilite business relationship with them for years?

Nifty, don't you agree that it is inexcusable that an accredited casino rep makes statements that clearly violate CM standards of accreditation? Or are you going to just ignore that once again and keep putting blame on some other entity?

 

[dunover]

I find that statement libelous and entirely false. The site gives legitimate AP tips but in no way "encourages multiple accounts and other fraudulent behaviour". It looks to me that you have a difficult time differentiating AP from fraud. In fact you use the two words together all the time. Besides if this site is so bad, how do you explain that Fortune lounge has had an ongoing affilite business relationship with them for years?

Nifty, don't you agree that it is inexcusable that an accredited casino rep makes statements that clearly violate CM standards of accreditation? Or are you going to just ignore that once again and keep putting blame on some other entity?

They don't specifically violate or contradict CM accredited criteria. They are pretty generic. They were there when accredited. The issue as I see it with the FL rep is that the (allowable) multiple accounts the OP had have all been lumped together in this matter, and treated the same whereby the OP represents that on ONE of the accounts he was actually 'innocent' and therefore should be paid her winnings. A PAB will ultimately decide (notwithstanding any collusion/identity issues we are unaware of) whether CM considers it fair the FL should do that. I believe that as the majority of the accounts broke the terms FL would be found to be within their rights here.

I personally have had accounts in the past at all FL properties, simultaneously, and I too found that is was good you could join 2 a week and still get a SUB with reasonable WR. I played within the rules, and took w/d's from most of them. No hassle.

 

[Jufo]

They don't specifically violate or contradict CM accredited criteria. They are pretty generic. They were there when accredited.

No, the CM accreditation standards are very non-generic and specific in this case:

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

Now if you re-read the posts by FL Wim, it is very clear that he blatantly violates this standard for accreditation.

What I am most astonished about here is that casino group gets accredited and yet they have the nerve to come here with the usual "irregular playing patterns" bullshit. It's like they are completely oblivious of the operating standards that come along with CM accreditation How on earth is this possible?

 

[skiny]

Yes, that seems to be the OP's logic too, which it would be. I own a string of bars, you drink peacefully in one and then proceed to cause aggro in the next 2 would it not be fair of me to then to assess your behaviour as a whole and ban you from all 3 bars??

The OP bet over the max on a deposit bonus. She didn't show up drunk and trash the place.

They don't specifically violate or contradict CM accredited criteria. They are pretty generic.

In this regard our Terms clearly state:

The casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings for irregular play

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

Looks pretty specific to me. In fact I find it kind of ironic that Wim points out that the terms CLEARLY state they can withhold winnings for vague reasons.

Terms and conditions are supposed to be clear and specific. "Well, our terms are clearly unclear and vague in specific places. Does that count?"

 

[KasinoKing]

Yes, that seems to be the OP's logic too, which it would be. I own a string of bars, you drink peacefully in one and then proceed to cause aggro in the next 2 would it not be fair of me to then to assess your behaviour as a whole and ban you from all 3 bars??

Yes, ban him, but not make him throw up the drinks he consumed first, before you kick him out!
(In this analogy (which is not a very good one IMO) drinks = winnings).

I really can't understand why anyone here is trying to defend the casino. Yes they are a good group. Yes I promote them on my websites. But no, on this particular occasion they have got it wrong. The player must not be punished at the casino(s) where he didn't break any specific T&Cs, regardless of whether or not he broke bonus T&Cs at ANY other casino.

As Jufo says, the casino is breaching the Accreditation terms, and if they don't do the right thing here and pay the player, I too would support them being removed from the Accredited list.

KK

 

[Jufo]

It looks like there is a bit of speculation going at BB site too about this.

 

[Nifty29]

I find that statement libelous and entirely false. The site gives legitimate AP tips but in no way "encourages multiple accounts and other fraudulent behaviour". It looks to me that you have a difficult time differentiating AP from fraud. In fact you use the two words together all the time. Besides if this site is so bad, how do you explain that Fortune lounge has had an ongoing affilite business relationship with them for years?

Nifty, don't you agree that it is inexcusable that an accredited casino rep makes statements that clearly violate CM standards of accreditation? Or are you going to just ignore that once again and keep putting blame on some other entity?

Libel? LMAO. What? Against a forum I didn't name and could be any number of websites? Ummm yeah OK.

As a general comment, I would say that any forum that allows members that have been caught multi-accounting etc to remain members is most definitely encouraging fraudulent behaviour.

Yes, I'm just going to ignore that once again and keep putting the blame on another entity.

If there is absolutely NO OTHER angles to this matter when the PAB is concluded, then I could see where FL should be asked to at least specifically define what they consider to be "irregular play". If not, then perhaps Bryan should review their status...but that's not up to me.

Also, I know the difference between an AP and a fraudster....it's just that in many cases they are one and the same.

 

[skiny]

Personally, I don't see how it matters if people show up from other forums provided they follow the same posting rules as everyone else. Everyone is welcome to their opinion. This forum and it's members are well established enough that a few members from another forum isn't likely going to tip the scales much.

We have two issues here.

Should a casino withhold winnings at one casino for being disqualified from bonus winnings at another?
Is FL breaking Casinomeister's rules for accreditation?

I've been pretty much trying to ignore anything other than that.

 

[dunover]

The OP bet over the max on a deposit bonus. She didn't show up drunk and trash the place.







Looks pretty specific to me. In fact I find it kind of ironic that Wim points out that the terms CLEARLY state they can withhold winnings for vague reasons.

Terms and conditions are supposed to be clear and specific. "Well, our terms are clearly unclear and vague in specific places. Does that count?"

Skiny you have simply looked at part of the t and c's with no context there, albeit that was what the rep posted.
If you look, you'll see that the terms ARE indeed more specific, and perhaps the rep would have done himself a favour by quoting more of them:

The casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings for irregular play. Irregular play includes, but is not limited to, any one or more of the following types of play:

Placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% of the value of the bonus before the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met
Using the double-up feature to increase bet values
Even money bets on Sic Bo, craps, baccarat, Wheel of Riches and roulette

You guys also scream about FL not isolating the 'good' account from the others.

Well if you check, or have played at FL sites, you will know that all accounts you have are linked, if you read their terms and have used (like I did) the facility whereby you can amalgamate loyalty points across all your accounts, for example to hit a threshold for conversion which you can't do at that time on one or more individual accounts. You can also transfer funds from one to another if you ask, i.e. have a withdrawable balance at 7 sultans and wish to play all or part of it at Vegas Palms.

If you make arrangements with the casino to transfer funds from one casino account to another casino account, any credit held in the transferring account's Bonus Balance shall remain in the transferring account until the wagering requirements on the bonus have been met. Any amount transferred in this manner is not considered a deposit into the receiving casino account and the transfer of funds into the receiving casino account does not give the right to receive any bonuses or take part in any promotion offered by the receiving casino.

So if some on here actually stopped their knee-jerk hysteria about how cruel the FL casino(s) are and did their homework, they'd see that while their terms allow inter-account advantages like funds transfer and loyalty points, this also gives FL the opportunity to link them regardless of whether you use those facilities or not.

So, by statement and inference FL's right to amalgamate account actions is in their terms, and also they specifically mention the violation the OP committed.

Lastly, "irregular play excludes but is NOT limited to.........". The crucial line.
Now this line is used by most accredited sites. It can work both ways via discretion - to let off a regular proven player or to act against a new player with no history who is breach of those terms and has not previously contributed to the site. Common sense decrees that no casino can list ALL facets of bonus abuse or AP as the permutations are endless and also would tell visitors how to do it in the first place.. Hence the truncated term which you people scream isn't 'specific' enough. Except is was in her case.

FL have been accredited for years and generally keep well under the radar and aren't exactly renowned for taking player winnings for no good reason.

 

[chuchu59]

Personally, I don't see how it matters if people show up from other forums provided they follow the same posting rules as everyone else. Everyone is welcome to their opinion. This forum and it's members are well established enough that a few members from another forum isn't likely going to tip the scales much.

We have two issues here.

Should a casino withhold winnings at one casino for being disqualified from bonus winnings at another?
Is FL breaking Casinomeister's rules for accreditation?

I've been pretty much trying to ignore anything other than that.

IMHO
1/No

2/ Yes

For the first question it seems FL is trying to tie the concept of one sign-up bonus across the board with something that is entirely different ie breaking a rule at a casino and applying it to casinos across the group. FL is trying to confuse players with this trash and use it as an excuse not to pay the player. If they can get away with this others will follow suit. I hope they do the right thing and reinstate winnings at those casinos where the bonus rules were not broken.

 

[skiny]

Skiny you have simply looked at part of the t and c's with no context there, albeit that was what the rep posted.
If you look, you'll see that the terms ARE indeed more specific, and perhaps the rep would have done himself a favour by quoting more of them:

The casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings for irregular play. Irregular play includes, but is not limited to, any one or more of the following types of play:

Placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% of the value of the bonus before the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met
Using the double-up feature to increase bet values
Even money bets on Sic Bo, craps, baccarat, Wheel of Riches and roulette

You guys also scream about FL not isolating the 'good' account from the others.

Well if you check, or have played at FL sites, you will know that all accounts you have are linked, if you read their terms and have used (like I did) the facility whereby you can amalgamate loyalty points across all your accounts, for example to hit a threshold for conversion which you can't do at that time on one or more individual accounts. You can also transfer funds from one to another if you ask, i.e. have a withdrawable balance at 7 sultans and wish to play all or part of it at Vegas Palms.

If you make arrangements with the casino to transfer funds from one casino account to another casino account, any credit held in the transferring account's Bonus Balance shall remain in the transferring account until the wagering requirements on the bonus have been met. Any amount transferred in this manner is not considered a deposit into the receiving casino account and the transfer of funds into the receiving casino account does not give the right to receive any bonuses or take part in any promotion offered by the receiving casino.

So if some on here actually stopped their knee-jerk hysteria about how cruel the FL casino(s) are and did their homework, they'd see that while their terms allow inter-account advantages like funds transfer and loyalty points, this also gives FL the opportunity to link them regardless of whether you use those facilities or not.

So, by statement and inference FL's right to amalgamate account actions is in their terms, and also they specifically mention the violation the OP committed.

Lastly, "irregular play excludes but is NOT limited to.........". The crucial line.
Now this line is used by most accredited sites. It can work both ways via discretion - to let off a regular proven player or to act against a new player with no history who is breach of those terms and has not previously contributed to the site. Common sense decrees that no casino can list ALL facets of bonus abuse or AP as the permutations are endless and also would tell visitors how to do it in the first place.. Hence the truncated term which you people scream isn't 'specific' enough. Except is was in her case.

Adding a few examples after "irregular play" doesn't change the fact that it's still "irregular play." The entire point about these terms being unfair is that you can interpret them any way you like. If a casino doesn't want players following specific betting patterns then they should set a maximum you're allowed to wager on each game. This is the difference between a specific term and a vague one. The rep did quote the entire term but anything that followed "irregular play" was irrelevant because the term states that irregular play is not limited to what is stated in the rules. You can't have a rule that says there are more rules but they're not listed in the rules. (Or we're going to make some up later.)

Whether or not you can transfer funds between casinos has no bearing on whether or not bonuses are separate entities. Following that logic a casino could withhold winnings from all your bonuses because you broke the terms on one of them. Breaking the terms of a bonus disqualifies you from the winnings from that bonus, not all subsequent bonuses. I've never heard of anything like that in all the years I've been gambling. Find me another example of a person who was disqualified from a bonus and it cost them not only the winnings from another bonus that was played within the terms and conditions but another bonus that was played within the terms and conditions at an entirely different casino. This strikes me to be more of a retaliatory action than a consequence of breaking a bonus term.

FL have been accredited for years and generally keep well under the radar and aren't exactly renowned for taking player winnings for no good reason.

The fact that this is an accredited casino is exactly why they're being held to scrutiny. Accredited casinos are expected to uphold a certain standard. Just because this casino isn't "renown for taking player winnings for no good reason" up until now doesn't mean it has to stay that way. In fact this could very well be where that reputation changes.

 

[bpb]

Also, I know the difference between an AP and a fraudster....it's just that in many cases they are one and the same.

The absurdity of this statement amuses me.

 

[chayton]

It's not like this is a huge amount of money we're talking about, especially when you deduct the OP's deposit which was already refunded. Not that I'm saying that the amount should make a difference - my point is that the dollar amount is not enough to put the Fortune Lounge group in the poorhouse or anything, so for them to withhold those winnings when it would be a drop in the bucket to pay....seems like they're pretty sure they're in the right.

 

[dunover]

Also, I know the difference between an AP and a fraudster....it's just that in many cases they are one and the same.

The absurdity of this statement amuses me.

If you check throughout this forum you will see that many newbies who've joined simply to garner support and bleat about unfair treatment (viz-a-viz getting caught out then thinking we're all numpties) have been exactly that - using AP in conjunction with collusion/multiple accounts in order to maximise their chances of a successful sting. Seldom will a fraudster join a casino, take a SUB and sit playing TSII for 60p a spin - they want a quick and easy hit, AP is how they achieve it. The statement doesn't say ALL AP's are fraudsters, does it?

 

[maphesto]

Fraudsters behaviour is illegal. They are using illegal ways to gain advantage over casinos. Not only by law, according to the casinos T&C:s as well.

Advantage Play is legal. It's not against casino rules, as long as they are using bonuses in the right way.

To even think about combining these two (Fraudsters and AP:s) into one group, you have to

1. Be a casino manager/employee or

2. Be a player who is angry because he/she thinks AP:s are the ones who destroyed all good bonuses he/she found 10 years ago. or

3. Have a screw loose.

My own comments to the above:

1. Of course some casinos are trying to offer really cool bonuses to gain new players and make existing players to deposit...and lose. If you write all terms bad, there are players who will win some money. I say Betfair... Bonuses is only a marketing move, try something else...

2. I know players who thinks that the ones who found legal ways to gain advantage over casinos by creating EV+ situations were the ones who destoyed the "fun" and "good" bonuses. A shitty attitude if you ask me. It was the casinos who offered the bonuses and now have increased WR who destroyed them. Bonuses is only a marketing move, try something else...

3. WTF, some fraudsters are AP:s. Holy shit! Some criminals like pizza!

 

[skiny]

It's not like this is a huge amount of money we're talking about, especially when you deduct the OP's deposit which was already refunded. Not that I'm saying that the amount should make a difference - my point is that the dollar amount is not enough to put the Fortune Lounge group in the poorhouse or anything, so for them to withhold those winnings when it would be a drop in the bucket to pay....seems like they're pretty sure they're in the right.

I have no doubt the casino feels they're right. That doesn't mean they are.

They created a bonus that could be beat by betting high in roulette and then low in slots. They set the max bet at <30% of the bonus on table games and they allowed people to take this bonus at all 3 casinos. When people showed up to take advantage of these player friendly bonus terms they cried foul as if they didn't know this would happen. If FL doesn't want people betting high in roulette and then low on slots, why is the max bet for table games 30% of the bonus? I don't believe FL is this naïve. Rather than set their bonus terms up to prevent this type of play they somehow thought they could get away with a blanket statement about irregular playing patterns and then just pick off whoever played in a way they didn't like. That doesn't necessarily mean they're acting roguish but it does mean they're either not being very smart or at the very least being too lazy about their terms to even bother creating a better system. When's the last time you saw someone here complaining that 32Red confiscated winnings on a spirit of the bonus clause?

If you check throughout this forum you will see that many newbies who've joined simply to garner support and bleat about unfair treatment (viz-a-viz getting caught out then thinking we're all numpties) have been exactly that - using AP in conjunction with collusion/multiple accounts in order to maximise their chances of a successful sting. Seldom will a fraudster join a casino, take a SUB and sit playing TSII for 60p a spin - they want a quick and easy hit, AP is how they achieve it. The statement doesn't say ALL AP's are fraudsters, does it?

No, but there is a subliminal message being conveyed whether it's intentional or not when the words advantage play and fraud are repeatedly used in conjunction. Advantage play is not fraud. Advantage play is simply playing within the terms and conditions with a strategy that makes it easy to beat a bonus. The very fact that advantage players are playing within the terms of the bonus is why winnings shouldn't be confiscated for advantage play. Now we can all sit around and debate whether or not it's fair to the casino for people to use their poorly written terms against them and most people would probably agree that it's not and most people would probably understand why casinos don't like it. The problem is, it was the casino that created the situation in the first place. The casino created the terms and conditions and the player played within them.

If a casino wants players to stop taking advantage of their bonuses, stop writing bonuses that are easily taken advantage of. What this casino needs to do is accept that they created a stupid bonus, accept that it cost them money and go back to the drawing board. If they want help creating bonuses that don't require vague terms just in case people realize they can be taken advantage of I'm sure there's lots of people here that would be happy to oblige. I could probably come up with a half dozen members right off the top of my head who would be happy to look over their bonus terms and explain how they're going to get screwed.

 

[dunover]

Fraudsters behaviour is illegal. They are using illegal ways to gain advantage over casinos. Not only by law, according to the casinos T&C:s as well.

Advantage Play is legal. It's not against casino rules, as long as they are using bonuses in the right way.

To even think about combining these two (Fraudsters and AP:s) into one group, you have to

1. Be a casino manager/employee or

2. Be a player who is angry because he/she thinks AP:s are the ones who destroyed all good bonuses he/she found 10 years ago. or

3. Have a screw loose.

My own comments to the above:

1. Of course some casinos are trying to offer really cool bonuses to gain new players and make existing players to deposit...and lose. If you write all terms bad, there are players who will win some money. I say Betfair... Bonuses is only a marketing move, try something else...

2. I know players who thinks that the ones who found legal ways to gain advantage over casinos by creating EV+ situations were the ones who destoyed the "fun" and "good" bonuses. A shitty attitude if you ask me. It was the casinos who offered the bonuses and now have increased WR who destroyed them. Bonuses is only a marketing move, try something else...

3. WTF, some fraudsters are AP:s. Holy shit! Some criminals like pizza!

Nobody is 'combining them into one group'.
Remember 'Venn Diagrams' at school?
Imagine one with a circle of AP's, a circle of fraudsters and the shaded area where they overlap, where some are both.
The size of the shaded area is contentious, but it's there, that's all he's saying. I don't see the relevance of the rest of your ill-tempered outburst.

 

[Nifty29]

Also, I know the difference between an AP and a fraudster....it's just that in many cases they are one and the same.

The absurdity of this statement amuses me.

I would ask you to clarify, but it would take a contribution of substance on your part, and more than two sentences.

 

[Nifty29]

Interestingly, the only ones getting nasty and hot under the collar in this thread are the APs.

The truth often hurts.

 

[chayton]

I have no doubt the casino feels they're right. That doesn't mean they are.

I just meant that it's possible there was more going on with this player than just advantage play. Most casinos will pay an advantage player (especially such a small amount) and then kick them to the curb - the fact that they didn't seems (to me) to indicate that there were other issues or something else going on.

If they don't have evidence of fraud or multiple accounts or whatever against the player, then I agree that they should pay the winnings on that one account where the OP didn't break the terms. But since I'm not privy to the whole story it's all just speculation at this point.

 

[chuchu59]

I just meant that it's possible there was more going on with this player than just advantage play. Most casinos will pay an advantage player (especially such a small amount) and then kick them to the curb - the fact that they didn't seems (to me) to indicate that there were other issues or something else going on.

If they don't have evidence of fraud or multiple accounts or whatever against the player, then I agree that they should pay the winnings on that one account where the OP didn't break the terms. But since I'm not privy to the whole story it's all just speculation at this point.

The accusation against the OP from Wim in her earlier post was that it was 'irregular play'. The casino didn't pay mainly for this reason. Should they have mentioned anything else it would be a different story. As it stands the group states that the OP was involved in irregular play and went over the max bet amount whilst playing with a bonus at one of their casinos and they confiscated all winnings across the Board. I am not sure but they may have earlier even thought of confiscating the deposits. Should the OP not have broken any bonus rules at other casinos within the group pay the guy his winnings and kick him out for advantage play. This 'group confiscation' of winnings is contagious and if this action is condoned others follow suit.

FL can take note of what Bellerock is doing. If they have a promo it can only be redeemed at any one of their range of casinos. Say if you opt in a promo at Gaming Club you cannot do the same at Jackpot City. This means for any particular promo it will be restricted to a single casino within the group and the problem the OP encountered will disappear.

Pay the guy! Reserve accusations of fraud or multiple accounts, if any, for any day as this was not the reason advanced for not paying.

 

[dandan]

Surely they are hoping for this? The newbie scans the t&c's then plays... then finds out that there was more to it than realised. Some clause way down on the list that a player did not see! And the casino refuses to pay!

Or in my case won't refund my deposit after it was clear Wild Jack were refusing to remove their welcome bonus.

I've read less T&Cs on my mortgage!!!

 

[skiny]

I just meant that it's possible there was more going on with this player than just advantage play. Most casinos will pay an advantage player (especially such a small amount) and then kick them to the curb - the fact that they didn't seems (to me) to indicate that there were other issues or something else going on.

If they don't have evidence of fraud or multiple accounts or whatever against the player, then I agree that they should pay the winnings on that one account where the OP didn't break the terms. But since I'm not privy to the whole story it's all just speculation at this point.

This is true. If there is some sort of real fraudulent activity going on the OP gets what she deserves.

Advantage play and collusion are not examples of fraudulent activity.

There are several casinos that have no need for advantage play rules in order to offer deposit bonuses. 32Red offers a 160% welcome bonus on a $100 deposit and there is no mention of irregular play or collusion anywhere in their terms and conditions. These things are simply not necessary and I have no sympathy for casinos that have to resort to them.

 

[bpb]

Interestingly, the only ones getting nasty and hot under the collar in this thread are the APs.

The truth often hurts.

Lies also hurt.

I firmly believe that your posts do more damage to genuine players than anyone else's on this forum. You constantly perpetuate the myth that endless reams of T&Cs are necessary to protect casinos from the barbarian hordes of fraudsters and APs. The reality is, those endless terms exist to line the casinos pockets with wrongfully confiscated funds.

Ever see posts about 3Dice or 32Red stealing winnings? Not really. That's because they are intelligent and ethical operators. They still seem to be in business. Other online casinos should be held up to similar standards. Instead, every other poster here screams "rules are rules!" every time a casino uses any flimsy pretext of "game protection" and "fraud protection" to justify a theft.

 

[KasinoKing]

They created a bonus that could be beat by betting high in roulette and then low in slots...

Just want to make one minor point, which many people seem to be forgetting, that there is NO guaranteed winning system for Roulette.
If there was, players would just fleece the casinos using non-bonus deposits!

So even if these Advantage Players are trying to exploit these bonuses, they are still taking a considerable risk with their own money in the first place.
It would be interesting to see how many of the 48 players the Fortune Lounge mentioned actually made a profit, and how many lost the lot.

KK

 

[skiny]

Just want to make one minor point, which many people seem to be forgetting, that there is NO guaranteed winning system for Roulette.
If there was, players would just fleece the casinos using non-bonus deposits!

So even if these Advantage Players are trying to exploit these bonuses, they are still taking a considerable risk with their own money in the first place.
It would be interesting to see how many of the 48 players the Fortune Lounge mentioned actually made a profit, and how many lost the lot.

KK

I agree 100%. Whether you take a deposit bonus or not you're still playing with at least some of your own money. And you're playing games that are designed to make you lose (in the long run.)

The only reason I mentioned roulette is because it's a game that can jack up your balance in a hurry. That's the only real strategy we're talking about here. Doubling up a few large bets and then grinding out the WR in medium variance slots with a low wager. I forget which thread I already mentioned this in but you have almost a 50/50 chance of doubling up your wager in roulette. If your deposit bonus is over 100% you should be able to make a profit in the long run using this strategy. Casinos know this. That's why they limit how much you can wager on a deposit bonus. Fortune Lounge knows this. The only problem is they limit the amount you can wager at a relatively large <30% of the bonus and then they complain because they attract advantage players. In my opinion their terms and conditions invite them. If the only rule advantage players are breaking is an advantage play rule, they broke no rule because advantage play rules aren't supposed to exist.

 

[dunover]

Yes, 32red obviously consider the fact that roulette only clears 1/20 of the WR per pound compared to slots at 1/1 per pound as sufficient protection. Mathematically you are maybe correct on that point solely, playing a high-risk game like roulette, with a 1/20th contribution toward WR would favour the casino just as if you played a slot at 30p stakes for a few thousands spins.

AP's will obviously take a few low-odds punts for as high as possible (29.9 units) on roulette in order to say quadruple their initial bonus/deposit. As an individual this may not work, but frequently does especially if multi accounting. Then, they have effectively made their bonus highly EV+. They can then leave a 97% slot on autoplay for low stakes and from that position almost certainly cash out at least their D+B and often profit on top of that. Easy money and casinos aren't charities.

Colluding AP's will simply pair up on the same roulette game IF evens bets are permitted for bonus WR and bet opposite to each other. Unless they are very unlucky and each of them wins alternate bets continuously (thus treading water and never seeing their balance fall or rise overall) one of them will accrue a sizeable increase in their initial D+B and proceed to grind an EV+ situation out on a 97% slot.

Lastly, if evens bets do NOT count in the bonus terms, the AP's collude in threes or fours on higher-risk 3 or 4-1 bets. Repeat same as above paragraph.

Now before the pedants point out that this behaviour doesn't guarantee AP's/colluders will gain, it makes it highly likely.

Now unsurprisingly, casinos are wise to spotting this and although not illegal, will have specified in their terms that is suspected of or caught doing this, accounts will be closed and deposits refunded. Can you blame them? I can hardly see this as a valid obstruction to accreditation, as spotting these AP's means bonuses can be offered to non-scheming players. Like most of us.

Now I know you love my bad pub/bar analogies. So, if I go into a bar where they have just given me a BOGOF voucher with my first drink, then redeem it for the free one and instead of drinking it sell it for cash at 3/4 of the bar price to another customer, would that be an acceptable and intentional use of the offer as intended?? WIF.

 

[skiny]

Yes, 32red obviously consider the fact that roulette only clears 1/20 of the WR per pound compared to slots at 1/1 per pound as sufficient protection. Mathematically you are maybe correct on that point solely, playing a high-risk game like roulette, with a 1/20th contribution toward WR would favour the casino just as if you played a slot at 30p stakes for a few thousands spins.

AP's will obviously take a few low-odds punts for as high as possible (29.9 units) on roulette in order to say quadruple their initial bonus/deposit. As an individual this may not work, but frequently does especially if multi accounting. Then, they have effectively made their bonus highly EV+. They can then leave a 97% slot on autoplay for low stakes and from that position almost certainly cash out at least their D+B and often profit on top of that. Easy money and casinos aren't charities.

Colluding AP's will simply pair up on the same roulette game IF evens bets are permitted for bonus WR and bet opposite to each other. Unless they are very unlucky and each of them wins alternate bets continuously (thus treading water and never seeing their balance fall or rise overall) one of them will accrue a sizeable increase in their initial D+B and proceed to grind an EV+ situation out on a 97% slot.

Lastly, if evens bets do NOT count in the bonus terms, the AP's collude in threes or fours on higher-risk 3 or 4-1 bets. Repeat same as above paragraph.

Now before the pedants point out that this behaviour doesn't guarantee AP's/colluders will gain, it makes it highly likely.

Now unsurprisingly, casinos are wise to spotting this and although not illegal, will have specified in their terms that is suspected of or caught doing this, accounts will be closed and deposits refunded. Can you blame them? I can hardly see this as a valid obstruction to accreditation, as spotting these AP's means bonuses can be offered to non-scheming players. Like most of us.

Now I know you love my bad pub/bar analogies. So, if I go into a bar where they have just given me a BOGOF voucher with my first drink, then redeem it for the free one and instead of drinking it sell it for cash at 3/4 of the bar price to another customer, would that be an acceptable and intentional use of the offer as intended?? WIF.

Absolutely incorrect.

Collusion is just more than one person taking a bonus and presumably sharing the returns. Mathematically it should make no difference whatsoever.

1 person takes a 150% bonus on a $100 deposit and plays only red on the roulette table. Theoretical long term return, <48%. Player advantage, zero.
2 people take a 150% bonus on a $100 deposit, one red, one plays black. Combined long term theoretical return, <48%. Player advantage, zero.
5 people take a 150% bonus on a $100 deposit, two play red, 3 play black. Combined long term theoretical return. <48%. Player advantage, zero.
25 people take a 150% bonus on a $100 deposit, 20 plays red, 5 plays black. Combined long term theoretical return. <48%. Player advantage, zero.

Are you sensing a pattern here? It doesn't matter how many people are standing around a roulette table. If they play one colour, their theoretical return is less than 48%. If everyone's theoretical return is 48%, their combined theoretical return is still less than 48%.

Collusion isn't the problem. The ridiculously high max bet on table games is the problem. Lower the max bet on table games so that people can't jack up their balance in less than 10 spins and let people collude until the cows come home.

The ONLY advantage to the player has with these bonus terms is they can bet high on table games and IF they can hit their colour a few times in a row they can jack up their balance. Then with a big balance they can afford to grind out the WR on slots. There is no guarantee this will work. It's easier to lose betting on one colour on a roulette table than it is to win.... Hence the <48%

 

[dunover]

Absolutely incorrect.

Collusion is just more than one person taking a bonus and presumably sharing the returns. Mathematically it should make no difference whatsoever.

I just said that. As for mathematically I'll explain later.

1 person takes a 150% bonus on a $100 deposit and plays only red on the roulette table. Theoretical long term return, <48%. Player advantage, zero.
2 people take a 150% bonus on a $100 deposit, one red, one plays black. Combined long term theoretical return, <48%. Player advantage, zero.
5 people take a 150% bonus on a $100 deposit, two play red, 3 play black. Combined long term theoretical return. <48%. Player advantage, zero.
25 people take a 150% bonus on a $100 deposit, 20 plays red, 5 plays black. Combined long term theoretical return. <48%. Player advantage, zero.


Blah, blah theory, yes we all know the long-term odds, looks great typed but not how it works in short term AP. AP's make a quick hit to right level and then make themselves an EV+ scenario.

Are you sensing a pattern here? It doesn't matter how many people are standing around a roulette table. If they play one colour, their theoretical return is less than 48%. If everyone's theoretical return is 48%, their combined theoretical return is still less than 48%.

Collusion isn't the problem.

Yes it can be. Unless you disagree with those who have run online casinos for years.


The ridiculously high max bet on table games is the problem. Lower the max bet on table games so that people can't jack up their balance in less than 10 spins and let people collude until the cows come home.

So you agree with me there, fine. But reducing the max bet would not solve the issue.

The ONLY advantage to the player has with these bonus terms is they can bet high on table games and IF they can hit their colour a few times in a row they can jack up their balance. Then with a big balance they can afford to grind out the WR on slots. There is no guarantee this will work. It's easier to lose betting on one colour on a roulette table than it is to win.... Hence the <48%

No guarantee true, but collusion makes successful AP highly and far more likely. Don't you think people who collude do it for a reason, or are they all tripping over their IQ's?? You seem to have become fixated with the long-term 96% whereby the maths the colluders use is reactionary and short-term. Without me explaining in reams of figures, all the short-term colluding AP's need is any other outcome than red-black-red etc. for a quick highly likely profit.

 

[skiny]

No guarantee true, but collusion makes successful AP highly and far more likely. Don't you think people who collude do it for a reason, or are they all tripping over their IQ's?? You seem to have become fixated with the long-term 96% whereby the maths the colluders use is reactionary and short-term. Without me explaining in reams of figures, all the short-term colluding AP's need is any other outcome than red-black-red etc. for a quick highly likely profit.

And all of this is a direct result of an extremely high max bet allowed in table games.

I'll give you 3 guesses as to how they can solve this.

 

[dunover]

And all of this is a direct result of an extremely high max bet allowed in table games.

I'll give you 3 guesses as to how they can solve this.

OK, I'll abbreviate the maths for you. As said, 96% RTP. This means to cut a complex example short, that colluding players will NOT lose 24/25 times. I'm sure you can work out the roulette strategy they use to ensure x number of the group will make multiples of the bonus amount and of course I forgot (as did we all) that HALF their stake is funded by the casino, thus ANY bonus amount retained with AP after WR is profit.

Back to your point here though. The bet limit is high because the maximum a player can hit (roll ups not allowed) is 36x whereas on slots it can be thousands. Due to the low odds of roulette bets the WR is 20x higher than slots. The problem with lowering the stake is the game of roulette would be effectively ruled out to new players who wanted or were attracted by the chance of cashing in a free bonus. In regards to AP/colluders the job would simply take longer. Any normal player would spend hours bashing away on one small deposit+bonus losing very slowly, hardly a great revenue booster for the casino. So they have, with years of experience, decided correctly that table bets can be bigger than slots bets but with a degree of monitoring and addendums to T&C's.

 

[Nifty29]

Lies also hurt.

I firmly believe that your posts do more damage to genuine players than anyone else's on this forum. You constantly perpetuate the myth that endless reams of T&Cs are necessary to protect casinos from the barbarian hordes of fraudsters and APs. The reality is, those endless terms exist to line the casinos pockets with wrongfully confiscated funds.

Ever see posts about 3Dice or 32Red stealing winnings? Not really. That's because they are intelligent and ethical operators. They still seem to be in business. Other online casinos should be held up to similar standards. Instead, every other poster here screams "rules are rules!" every time a casino uses any flimsy pretext of "game protection" and "fraud protection" to justify a theft.

I firmly believe that you don't read my posts very carefully.

Yes, I DO believe that most of the terms exist these days as a direct result of APs and fraudsters....scratch that...it's a FACT not an opinion. Unfortunately, many of these terms ARE necessary. Not all, but most. I say "unfortunately" from a genuine average player's POV, because WE are the ones who are forced to read "reams" of terms when all we want to do is sit down and play for a while.

The basic point that people like yourself forget is that the casino is giving you "free" money....and we all know that nothing is free. So, we all have a choice to make. Either read and accept the terms and take the "free" money, or use your own funds exclusively. If one chooses the former, then YES...rules ARE rules.

I'd love you to explain what's "mythical" about the reasons behind a consistent strengthening of casino terms. I've already explained it, but I'm sure you have another well thought out "they're out to get us" theory...so have at it by all means.

I will not respond to your personal attack, as I've better things to do than get into a slanging match. Sorry.

 

[skiny]

OK, I'll abbreviate the maths for you. As said, 96% RTP. This means to cut a complex example short, that colluding players will NOT lose 24/25 times. I'm sure you can work out the roulette strategy they use to ensure x number of the group will make multiples of the bonus amount and of course I forgot (as did we all) that HALF their stake is funded by the casino, thus ANY bonus amount retained with AP after WR is profit.

Back to your point here though. The bet limit is high because the maximum a player can hit (roll ups not allowed) is 36x whereas on slots it can be thousands. Due to the low odds of roulette bets the WR is 20x higher than slots. The problem with lowering the stake is the game of roulette would be effectively ruled out to new players who wanted or were attracted by the chance of cashing in a free bonus. In regards to AP/colluders the job would simply take longer. Any normal player would spend hours bashing away on one small deposit+bonus losing very slowly, hardly a great revenue booster for the casino. So they have, with years of experience, decided correctly that table bets can be bigger than slots bets but with a degree of monitoring and addendums to T&C's.

Addendums to the terms and conditions that effectively disqualify them from accredited status.

Do you feel that the terms and conditions are unfair or the rules for accreditation are?

 

[dunover]

Lies also hurt.

I firmly believe that your posts do more damage to genuine players than anyone else's on this forum. You constantly perpetuate the myth that endless reams of T&Cs are necessary to protect casinos from the barbarian hordes of fraudsters and APs. The reality is, those endless terms exist to line the casinos pockets with wrongfully confiscated funds.

Ever see posts about 3Dice or 32Red stealing winnings? Not really. That's because they are intelligent and ethical operators. They still seem to be in business. Other online casinos should be held up to similar standards. Instead, every other poster here screams "rules are rules!" every time a casino uses any flimsy pretext of "game protection" and "fraud protection" to justify a theft.

Apart from the obvious, ubiquitous and generic T&C's the ones you are alluding to (and I say this on behalf of the accredited and not intentionally rogue sites) are not placed there with the intent of fleecing players. These 'reams' of terms are usually reactionary and not strategic, and have been added over time as the casinos in question experience the various scams and AP schemes which they are not in business to cater to. Accepted that some sites have more of these than others, but usually because of the specific type of bonuses they offer which have been subject to a specific type of abuse.

This is a rather paranoid response to a relatively straightforward issue. If you had minimal terms at all casinos, they would all be offering exactly the same sort of bonuses. No variety, no differing stake limits no competition. That would be a bit boring for the players. And the casinos that are 'thieves' are far outnumbered by the players who attempt it.

 

[filterss2]

Just wanted to remind that I submitted pitch a bitch almost 1 week ago. Was it received? Any news?

 

[maphesto]

Just wanted to remind that I submitted pitch a bitch almost 1 week ago. Was it received? Any news?

I think it's a good idea to contact maxd by PM or email. He does not read every thread here, also I think that this issue is in private between you, FL and maxd now when a PAB is submitted.

 

[The Dude]

Just wanted to remind that I submitted pitch a bitch almost 1 week ago. Was it received? Any news?

Yes, it's been received and is being processed - we may be waiting for a response from the casino rep. I've flagged it for Max's immediate attention. We should have something soon.

I personally eschew the term "irregular play" when it's open-ended, but if you continue to read the actual terms and conditions, the casino defines what irregular play is thus allowing the casino to objectively enforce this rule. In essence, it is not a subjective FU clause, and I'm sure most of you would agree with me on that.

As some of you have kindly noted, it's a no-no for CM accredited casinos to include this clause as some vague term. Don't get caught up in semantics. Even if the writers of the T&Cs would have left out the term "irregular play", the player still would have breached the casino rules.

We'll see what the PAB brings forth.

 

[mattsgame]

Yes, it's been received and is being processed - we may be waiting for a response from the casino rep. I've flagged it for Max's immediate attention. We should have something soon.

I personally eschew the term "irregular play" when it's open-ended, but if you continue to read the actual terms and conditions, the casino defines what irregular play is thus allowing the casino to objectively enforce this rule. In essence, it is not a subjective FU clause, and I'm sure most of you would agree with me on that.

As some of you have kindly noted, it's a no-no for CM accredited casinos to include this clause as some vague term. Don't get caught up in semantics. Even if the writers of the T&Cs would have left out the term "irregular play", the player still would have breached the casino rules.

We'll see what the PAB brings forth.

I disagree here Bryan, it states Irregular play includes, but is not limited to, any one or more of the following types of play: This leaves it open for any interpretation the casino wishes and leaves a player vulnerable to breaking a term that is not clear of definitive.

I do agree the 30% rule is clearly there.

 

[maphesto]

Don't get caught up in semantics. Even if the writers of the T&Cs would have left out the term "irregular play", the player still would have breached the casino rules.

Not at Royal Vegas, and that's the casino OP is arguing about.

 

[HIGHIQ]

Just wanted to remind that I submitted pitch a bitch almost 1 week ago. Was it received? Any news?

lol,

u waiting a week ..i am waiting over 5weeks now with my PAB no news nothing..i even wrote MAXD email throug gmail and pmd him here also no response .. poor MAXD just busy i guess.. iam also wondering how and what .. its taking too long...

 

[maxd]

Okay, yes the OP's PAB has been received and is in progress. But yes also I am totally snowed under with PABs, like 60+ on the go at the moment. It doesn't help that I was down with a bad case of the flu for almost two weeks at which time, of course, a new flood of PABs arrived.

So bear with me as I plow through these.

@ HIGHIQ : you know very well that your PAB is in progress and we have communicated privately several times about it. As it happens your case is at the point where I need to make a difficult decision and that takes a space of time that I'm having difficulty finding, for the reasons given above. Also, I don't appreciate you dragging this out onto the forums in order to pressure me to focus on your PAB and ignore the others. The FAQ makes it perfectly clear that difficult cases can take some time to work through and you know very well that yours is one such case. You think you are hard done by because it's taken 5 weeks thus far: some cases take years so I'd suggest that you consider yourself lucky that yours won't be one of those.

If you can't accept these conditions then I'll take your recent post here as your decision to take your issue elsewhere, if that's what you want. Be patient, read the damn Pitch-A-Bitch FAQ and respect it or we don't have much further to say to each other.

 

[skiny]

Yes, it's been received and is being processed - we may be waiting for a response from the casino rep. I've flagged it for Max's immediate attention. We should have something soon.

I personally eschew the term "irregular play" when it's open-ended, but if you continue to read the actual terms and conditions, the casino defines what irregular play is thus allowing the casino to objectively enforce this rule. In essence, it is not a subjective FU clause, and I'm sure most of you would agree with me on that.

As some of you have kindly noted, it's a no-no for CM accredited casinos to include this clause as some vague term. Don't get caught up in semantics. Even if the writers of the T&Cs would have left out the term "irregular play", the player still would have breached the casino rules.

We'll see what the PAB brings forth.

Apart from violating the 30% term on some of the casinos, you displayed irregular betting across all your casino accounts. The pattern you followed on all of your accounts was one of large bet sizes on Roulette and switching to very small bets on slots in order to meet the wagering requirements. This includes your Royal Vegas account and we regard this as a form of irregular betting.

Everyone agrees including the OP that the winnings from the two casinos where the 30% rules was broken should be confiscated. Unless there is a rule that clearly states you can't bet high in roulette and then grind out the WR in slots there was no rule broken in the third casino. The casino just didn't like the way the player played.

"We regard this as a form of irregular betting" means it was interpreted. In my opinion "irregular play" shouldn't even exist in the terms and conditions. The terms should specifically state what people aren't allowed to do. In this case the terms stated that you can't bet 30% of your bonus on roulette. Obviously that was intended to deter this type of play and the OP didn't break that rule at Royal Vegas.

Confiscating the winnings at Royal Vegas seems more like sour grapes to me.