Should casinos that arbitrarily bonus ban remain accredited?

[takethemoney]

Here is the scenario:
I have played a casino which will remain unnamed for now. I deposited quite a bit, then won an RJ last year. I deposiited plenty after that, normally taking a bonus. I won another RJ. Suddenly any promotions that come out say I am not eligible to claim bonuses. This is confirmed in both the cashier and by customer support, although they did not tell me precisely why. I think they got pissed because I unsuscribed to their 2-3 time a week promo emails. I even asked them on two occasions, both live chat and email to close my account. They did not comply nor respond. This is a CM accredited casino.

 

[winbig]

Sorry, but on this one I have to vote no.

Now, if they were to continually send you bonus offers that you were not eligible for, then yes, they should be removed. What it boils down to is that it's the player's choice to take a bonus, and it's a casinos option to pick and choose who they offer bonuses to.

By banning players from bonuses....If the player is a regular depositor that either always or sometimes takes a bonus, then they're just shooting themselves in the foot, imo.

But on another note - if they fail to close your account after asking them to, that's reason enough to be at least suspended from the accredited list. That's a huge no-no in my book. What would happen if an addicted gambler finally came to terms with their addiction and asked for their account to be closed - and was ignored??

 

[KasinoKing]

Oooops - bit of a cook-up with the thread & poll titles here!

The thread title is: Should Accredited Casinos Be Removed For Abitrarily Bonus Banning Players?
The poll title is: Should casinos that arbitrarily bonus ban remain accredited?

i.e. The questions are opposite, and so people voting "Yes" could mean opposite things.

e.g. I voted "Yes, casinos that arbitrarily bonus ban should remain accredited"
And Winbig voted "No, Casinos should not Be Removed For Abitrarily Bonus Banning Players"
But I think we agree with each other!

Start again?

KK

 

[hitobito2005]

The thing that annoys me is when casinos just ignore you. I've been bonus banned by CM and non-CM casinos before but one thing they have in common is ignoring the email I send asking why i've been bonus banned.

Common courtesy would be to reply and say my deposit/bonus ratio is too large, or i've made an overall profit, or whatever the reason is.

 

[takethemoney]

Oooops - bit of a cook-up with the thread & poll titles here!

The thread title is: Should Accredited Casinos Be Removed For Abitrarily Bonus Banning Players?
The poll title is: Should casinos that arbitrarily bonus ban remain accredited?

i.e. The questions are opposite, and so people voting "Yes" could mean opposite things.

e.g. I voted "Yes, casinos that arbitrarily bonus ban should remain accredited"
And Winbig voted "No, Casinos should not Be Removed For Abitrarily Bonus Banning Players"
But I think we agree with each other!

Start again?

KK

Thank you! Hopefully I have corrected it.

 

[Rusty]

I'm with winbig and KK on this.
I understand why people would be annoyed but it is up to the casino to who and when they offer any bonuses.
I would be more concerned that wager requirements are within reasonable limits and I realise that is subjective and again the Casinos choice but I have seen some crazy WR such as 30x deposit+bonus on 75% sticky and max cashout x10 deposit.(Example not accredited)
Fine if you are aware how truly a bad a deal that is but many noobies would not and there are worse than that out there too.

Also if they close an account or deny winnings because of some BS bot use or bonus T&C they just plucked from their arse then I don't think they belong on the accredited list either but that is just my opinion.

To be honest though my personal accredited list would be very, very, very,very, very, very small

 

[The Dude]

Since bonuses are not obligatory, they are not taken into account when looking at the operation procedures of a candidate for an accredited casino. Of course they need to have fair terms and conditions, but taking a bonus is strictly up to the player. It's your decision - and it's the casino's decision whether or not they want to offer you one.

So if you get bonus banned, well - that's a bummer for you. Actually when you think about it, they may be doing you a favor since it frees up your play 100%.

 

[Pinababy69]

I voted yes, they should remain accredited. As stated by others, they are under no obligation to offer you bonuses. Bonuses are a perk, and nothing more.

 

[maxd]

In practical terms having the power to "bonus ban" people is very important to the casinos because many players are interested in nothing but the bonuses and it is very often the case that those are not the players a casino wants.

Every casino should have the right to choose who they will offer their services to, so every casino must also have the right to choose who they will offer their bonuses to.

To put it another way: you say "arbitrarily bonus ban" and the casino says "necessary bonus ban". It's a matter of perspective.

 

[winbig]

In practical terms having the power to "bonus ban" people is very important to the casinos because many players are interested in nothing but the bonuses and it is very often the case that those are not the players a casino wants.

Every casino should have the right to choose who they will offer their services to, so every casino must also have the right to choose who they will offer their bonuses to.

To say it another way: you say "arbitrarily bonus ban" and the casino says "necessary bonus ban". It's a matter of perspective.

Yes, but what about those casinos out there (you know who you are) that ban players simply because they're 'in the black,' even though their bonus/non-bonus deposit ratio is small? Sometimes players are banned right after taking their 1st bonus if they get really lucky. [edit: Pun intended..lol]

And then you have Rival, which operates in the above fashion...but they also keep a central database and once you sign up at a new casino, you're banned automatically...

 

[takethemoney]

Actually, my real gripe with the practice of bonus banning customers has more to do with slot play than anything else. I understand why it can become necessity to ban some players from taking bonuses on skill games. Slots though? It seems to me everyone should have equal opportunity. To me sometimes a bigger bankroll, enhanced by a bonus equals more opportunity or a better shot at the slots.

Let's say I have $200 and another player has $200 to play with. Other player gets a 200% bonus giving him a starting bankroll of $600. The other player seems to have the advantage of deeper pockets to do battle with, where I feel like I am at a $400 disadvantage, lessing my chances of a big hit, compared to the other player. That's why I feel it's discriminatory. How can a slot player be considered an advantage player when there is no skill....other than money management? Maybe I'm just looking at it all wrong...I dunno.

 

[maxd]

Yes, but what about those casinos out there ...

Like Bryan said, offering bonuses is not obligatory.

It's like if I offered free back rubs but then said "no" to the guy who refused to bathe. I don't want to offer a free back rub to a smelly, unclean person. Fully my right to decide this, regardless of how often he comes back or how badly he wants the free back rub. Too bad, I'm offering the service and I say "no".
(this is starting to sound weird and I'll stop with this metaphor now)

Basically no one should be forced to offer a customer freebees, regardless of how they decide who they will or will not offer them to. I think that's pretty much what it comes down to.

On the other hand they might be jerks and then you should certainly go elsewhere. Now that's you not offering them your business and that is most certainly your right.

 

[jetset]

My 2 cents - excluding a player from bonuses is the prerogative of the casino...but ignoring emails from customers or neglecting to close an account when requested by the player is an absolute no-no.

 

[winbig]

Now let's put the shoe on the other foot.

What's up with casinos forcing a player to take an obligatory SUB? I know of a few casinos that used to do that, but I'm not sure if they still do, or are even around anymore.

 

[maxd]

What's up with casinos forcing a player to take an obligatory SUB?

Have another look at the terms for Accred status:

Operational Standards
...Must remove any bonus and associated playthrough requirements at the request of the player if play has not commenced.

Pretty much says it, no?

 

[winbig]

Have another look at the terms for Accred status:



Pretty much says it, no?

I meant in general But yep, pretty self explanatory

 

[spearmaster]

I don't want to offer a free back rub to a smelly, unclean person.

Guess I won't be getting a back rub from you then

... ok ok I just got out of the shower, so how about it?

Anyhow - as long as the casino does not withhold winnings earned from a bonus, and then subsequently chooses not to offer you any more bonuses, that's fine and entirely the casino's prerogative.

 

[Simmo!]

Bonuses are a perk, and nothing more.

Not even a perk in many cases. They tie you down and often stop you cashing out when you win.

 

[maxd]

Any time Spear.

 

[ksech]

I have to agree with the majority on this, it's definitely up to the casino on who they hand out bonuses to. I very seldom use a bonus (only because I don't want to be caught up having a playthrough and a max cashout clause), but I noticed at the only Rival I play at, my bonus options have dropped down to 2 promos available. My small wins from there have always been non-bonus deposits, so I am suspecting this is one of the reasons for this. The other reason, I am assuming, is because I can no longer deposit with my cc. The few times I've tried the new All Slots USA, I've had deposit bonuses added automatically to my deposit (Royal Joker used to give me a small bonus on Mondays, like 10% of total deposits for prior week deposits), which was nice because I had something to look forward to each Monday.

I've cut way back on how much I deposit/play as the entertainment value is gone. It seems a year ago I could deposit $20-$25 and play for hours, now it's only a few minutes. I've closed most of my accounts (I'm down to 3 casinos) and the remaining ones may be gone soon too.

I've only had issues with one casino (accreditted) over closing my account. I had decided I would try this casino again after about a year, I'd forgotten my user name and password so I contacted the casino via email (as they don't have live chat available), only to be told I didn't have an account with them (there may have been a time limit on an inactive account???). I was instructed to open a new account, which I did. I deposited (no bonus used)and tried to withdraw the small win I had only to be told (via email) I was ineligible to withdraw due to multiple accounts . Needless to say, I emailed them back asking to have my account closed. To this day, I don't know if the account is still active as I have never received an email back from them and I've uninstalled the casino.

 

[winbig]

I've had deposit bonuses added automatically to my deposit (Royal Joker used to give me a small bonus on Mondays, like 10% of total deposits for prior week deposits), which was nice because I had something to look forward to each Monday.

Now why don't more casinos work this way? Since they wouldn't be footing 100% of the bonus money (in reality, they're basically giving you insurance, but you have to make another deposit to get it), maybe then they wouldn't be stingy with bonuses and quit attaching 2451x wagering requirements to them to only be played on bingo or scratch cards..

 

[Jasminebed]

I agreed with the majority that they may remain accredited, as long as any winnings are paid before the bonus ban.

Whether you continue to play at the casino is up to you.

 

[felicie]

Bonus banning for anything other than fraudulent behavior is bs to me especially if you've won and cashed out just before the ban but I do agree the casino has the right to offer them or not. I very rarely use one anymore because it isn't worth the can of worms it opens later. That reminds me I got email earlier giving me 10000 nd or something which I put aside for a good laugh later but just in case......
anyway I guess my vote would be yes, I think. They should not be removed from accredited list for that arbitrarily stuff.

 

[chuchu59]

Surely one should not remove accreditation sttus from casinos that arbitrarily bonus ban players. However, I would expect an accredited casino to be transparent in its dealings and give valid reasons for the bonus banning.

 

[maxd]

... I would expect an accredited casino to be transparent in its dealings and give valid reasons for the bonus banning.

As one who's work often takes him inside those "dealings" I can tell you that full transparency is never going to happen. I certainly understand the player's desire for it but at some point you have to recognize that it's a quest, not necessarily a realistic goal.

Even the most respected and player-friendly casinos around have security issues regarding player activity that they simply cannot and will not share, including at times the reasons for bonus banning.

Of course part of our job with the Pitch-A-Bitch process is to verify for the player's sake that those reasons are reasonable, but we still can't share the details. It's the very nature of this business that some parts of the process are simply going to remain "confidential" out of necessity.

 

[felicie]

Gotcha maxd and maybe that somehow relates to why I feel that the fairest casinos offer the fewest bonuses.

 

[maxd]

... maybe that somehow relates to why I feel that the fairest casinos offer the fewest bonuses.

Wise words! The bottom line is that things get complicated when bonuses become part of the mix. The best casinos keep it sweet and simple.

 

[chuchu59]

As one who's work often takes him inside those "dealings" I can tell you that full transparency is never going to happen. I certainly understand the player's desire for it but at some point you have to recognize that it's a quest, not necessarily a realistic goal.

Even the most respected and player-friendly casinos around have security issues regarding player activity that they simply cannot and will not share, including at times the reasons for bonus banning.

Of course part of our job with the Pitch-A-Bitch process is to verify for the player's sake that those reasons are reasonable, but we still can't share the details. It's the very nature of this business that some parts of the process are simply going to remain "confidential" out of necessity.

Nor did I believe that there will be full transparency. However, I would not want players to be treated with contempt and be bonus banned just because they took a bonus and won. Surely the casinos must have factored these in when offering the bonuses. Just look at Rival's bonuses. They calculate the WRs on their bonuses up to 2 decimal points eg a 66.67 (D+B) playthrough.

 

[maxd]

... I would not want players to be treated with contempt and be bonus banned just because they took a bonus and won.

Surely not, and no decent casino is (typically) going to do that. On the other hand there's nothing wrong with a casino saying "all you ever do is take the bonuses, you win a lot and are well ahead at the casino, that's enough bonuses for you."

When that happens any given player can say "I took a bonus, I won, they said 'no more bonuses' for you!" Yes, but what about all the previous bonuses you've taken, and profited from? When players post, such as they often do here, there is usually a lot more to the story than a single bonus and then the boot.

Obviously casinos want players to become regular, depositing players who risk their money at the casino. That's why the casino is in business, to profit from such players. If a player does not fit their customer profile then it's perfectly reasonable for them to say "time to change your habits" or "there's the door."

I know this sounds uncaring and brutal but we need to be realistic about this. This is business reality we're dealing with here, not some fantasy about a player's paradise that we'll never see. Bonuses are basically a gift from the casino, obviously with a lot of strings attached. No casino should be under obligation to offer these gifts, be it to any single player or to players in general. When and to whom they offer these gifts is their business, plain and simple.

 

[Jasminebed]

Most bonuses are not a "gift", but an enticement to deposit and gamble. Most of them are not easy to beat, and at best may lower the house edge, not eliminate it.

Free chips are an exception, and there are a few deposit bonuses that are really good out there.

I certainly don't blame casinos from ceasing to offer free chips to players that play nothing else.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Whilst bonuses are a "gift", it is the INDUSTRY that has made this into an EXPECTATION among players, which is why there is so much fuss when there is an arbitrary bonus ban.

The problem I have is when the ban is imposed for nothing else other than the fact the player happened to get lucky one session. This is often the case with slots, where no skill is involved.

I do not buy the reasoning that casinos (other than in cases of fraud) cannot say why players are bonus banned because of "security issues".

Telling a player they have been banned because they are in the black is not a security issue, it is basic transparency. It is DECEPTIVE to players currently in the RED to have a secret policy of kicking them out from "perks" if they make it into the black, since it restricts their chances of winning, but NOT their chances of losing.

Players who ARE committing some kind of fraud, or scam, do NOT need to be told why they are bonus banned, because they KNOW ALREADY (they got found out). Giving these players too much detail could be a "security risk", but a simple broad reason for the ban should not be a problem. There is the issue of fairness because the WRONG player could get bonus banned, and as far as they are concerned, it is because the casino is "bad", even though the problem is mistaken identity/connections by the casino. Without disclosure, innocent players cannot correct any problems that may have lead to the mistaken connection, and may continue to suffer further injustices because of it. The most common problem is identity theft, and it might be that some of their details are being used by a fraudster, but the casino has punished the VICTIM, not the fraudster, who is then able to assume ownership of the ID as far as the casino is concerned, whilst the actual owner of the ID becomes blacklisted as the fraudster.
How does the victim appeal this, check their credit files, etc, without having any idea that this might be the problem.

Players WILL post in public when they get bonus banned, and if they can convince others that the ban was completely arbitrary, or nothing more than punishment for being lucky, the image of the casino will be damaged, and this will divert players to competitors.

Worst of all are casinos that PERSONALLY invite players to take a bonus, and THEN bonus ban SIMPLY because they had the cheek to take the offer that was sent to them. There is no way this can be dressed up to look good, it looks like nothing more than a deliberate trap set by the casino, rather than a genuine promotion.

Behaviour like this from casinos makes similar behaviour from "advantage players" more acceptable. If a casino will use every trick they can, legal or not, in order to relieve players of their money, it makes it perfectly acceptable for PLAYERS to use every trick at their disposal to relieve casinos of THEIR money short of anything clearly illegal, such as deliberate fraud.

 

[winbig]

How are bonuses a gift, when in fact most cannot be cashed out and are removed from your balance when you withdrawal?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't RTG remove a bonus from your account the second you complete the WR? Or is that just for ND bonuses? I remember someone mentioning that they were spinning at a fairly high stake to finish off their WR, but noticed that their balance dropped at one point. But if someone didn't notice this, it could wipe their balance out fairly quickly.

imo, this is a semi-roguish trick, as it's simple for the casino to just remove the bonus amount at the time of the withdrawal.