Slotocash - Baptism by Fire

[Nifty29]

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/rtg-software-backend-issues-rtp-etc.41825/



32red only have it for their sign up bonus, which is relatively small. Virtually no other casinos out there have this restriction (the ones that restrict bet size have a percentage rectriction). The only other reason for having this rule is even worse than being underfunded: it's a "gotcha" term that is there to create traps for players and win-win situations for casinos. Offer a very large bonus to attract high rolling players, and take their money if the didn't read the rules carefully enough and bet too high. There's nothing inherently nefarious or about betting more than $6.50, lots of players do that, especially ones that deposit 4 figures.

It's a bad rule, and reflects poorly on the casino. That's my opinion, you're entitled to yours.



What were you smoking on 8 October 2011?

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/questions-about-rtp.46494/

I admit I had forgotten some of that stuff from last year and it appears you are right, and I am wrong. It's interesting to note that the disgraceful treatment dogboy was subjected to by Vinylweatherman and others is one of the main reasons he stopped participating. As soon as someone with expertise comes onto the forum, they are often driven away by some members starting a pissing match to prove they're the cleverest.....instead of actually engaging them in proper debate without boasting about how much of a hero they are for finding some loophole or some pedantic error in what is actually very useful information. (Sorry....back to the topic now.....just re-reading that old thread annoyed me because a fantastic resource was chased away by the usual suspects)

The reason you and I have different views on the max bet rule is because I don't go from casino to casino exploiting any and every +EV bonus I can find without ever intending to be a regular customer. Hence, the max bet bonus rule doesn't affect me.

Bonuses aren't offered to provide an income for advantage players. The max bet rule has nothing to do with liquidity.....its about deterring these kinds of players, whilst making it attractive to those regular players who like taking bonuses to extend their play. It's actually pretty funny that you think it is because they can't afford to pay. Sounds like sour grapes because their bonuses are harder to exploit.

All the max bet rules I've seen are clearly stated in the terms. The only players who get caught by "gotcha" terms (which don't exist btw if they are stated) are those who don't READ the terms before playing.....and that is their tough cookies. If its good enough for me, its good enough for them and they should be held to the same rules.

The only "gotcha" term is one they add afterwards or make up out of thin air....and there's a name for those casinos....ROGUE.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I admit I had forgotten some of that stuff from last year and it appears you are right, and I am wrong. It's interesting to note that the disgraceful treatment dogboy was subjected to by Vinylweatherman and others is one of the main reasons he stopped participating. As soon as someone with expertise comes onto the forum, they are often driven away by some members starting a pissing match to prove they're the cleverest.....instead of actually engaging them in proper debate without boasting about how much of a hero they are for finding some loophole or some pedantic error in what is actually very useful information. (Sorry....back to the topic now.....just re-reading that old thread annoyed me because a fantastic resource was chased away by the usual suspects)

The reason you and I have different views on the max bet rule is because I don't go from casino to casino exploiting any and every +EV bonus I can find without ever intending to be a regular customer. Hence, the max bet bonus rule doesn't affect me.

Bonuses aren't offered to provide an income for advantage players. The max bet rule has nothing to do with liquidity.....its about deterring these kinds of players, whilst making it attractive to those regular players who like taking bonuses to extend their play. It's actually pretty funny that you think it is because they can't afford to pay. Sounds like sour grapes because their bonuses are harder to exploit.

All the max bet rules I've seen are clearly stated in the terms. The only players who get caught by "gotcha" terms (which don't exist btw if they are stated) are those who don't READ the terms before playing.....and that is their tough cookies. If its good enough for me, its good enough for them and they should be held to the same rules.

The only "gotcha" term is one they add afterwards or make up out of thin air....and there's a name for those casinos....ROGUE.

Interesting that he appears to have let slip that the stacked pears IS the 91% setting, even though when under fire he would not reveal this information. he distances himself from this revelation by saying it is a business decision down to an individual operator, and can be a double edged sword.


Well, clearly it is, because RTG has told Bryan that the 91% is intended for "Asian kiosks", and that although we were seeing this stacked pears online in quite a few places, we were lead to conclude that it had to be the generous 97.5% setting, as it was not 95%, and it was not an Asian kiosk.

This suggests that Sloto has decided to turn the casino into an Asian kiosk, which is their perogative, and not their fault that RTG decided to mislead Bryan by saying the 91% was not for use online.

If there is proof that this setting change was made after the casino launched, it also brings into question whether RTG were also lying about this 6 month and "only through RTG" rule for making such changes.

How the heck are we supposed to trust anything RTG have to say about this, even if they manage to convince Bryan or Simmo.

This 86% setting is rumour, and there has never been evidence that it existed, not even for kiosks. Unfortunately, if we can't trust RTG to tell the truth to Bryan, we can't trust them if they say there is no setting lower than 91%. The ONLY thing that seems true is that the software comes with the default 95% setting.

KK's information is out of date because it came from some old marketing sheets that were no longer being updated, but that had been left lying around on the RTG website, and easily got at through a Google search. This find is what forced RTG to concede the point that there WERE these settings for slots. Before this, players who questioned this were told it was just bad luck.

Many players complain that RTG is tight at the default 95% setting, so they are not going to think things are any better long term on 91%.

This is also the first time an accredited RTG casino has changed the setting from 95% to something else. The stacked pears were first spotted at less reputable outfits that tried to attract players with large bonuses and copious spam.

The evidence is pointing more and more towards my speculation being more likely than the theory that no changes have been made from when the casino launched.

 

[Nifty29]

Many players complain that RTG is tight at the default 95% setting, so they are not going to think things are any better long term on 91%.

These same players would be complaining they were "tight" if they were set at 99 or 100%. It wouldn't make a difference.

An individual player would not be able to tell the difference of a few % if it hit them in the shnozz.

I would love an accred casino to setup a test where several slots are set at different RTP's and see who could tell the differences. I sincerely doubt anyone would be able to pick, apart from dumb luck on the odd occasion of course.

What is even more interesting is that the same people that whine about RTP's etc still play at RTG or at MGS etc. If I thought I was being cheated I would be off like a flash. Also, if one of the major brands is doing it, then you would probably at least suspect that the others are as well, so continuing to play anywhere pretty much tells you that it's all about finding a reason for their losses that doesn't involve their own personal decisions ie. to gamble.

 

[Gremmyboy]

This is straight from RTG:

There are three settings for the RTP on RTG slots. 91.5, 95 & 97.5%. When games are released they are set at the default 95%. The 91% is designed primarily for those operators who use RTG software for Asian kiosks and Internet cafes where these games are played. 95% of all RTG casinos have their slots set at 95%

Now this was from a little over a year ago, I'm sure the same applies now.

Interesting thing about the RTP in landbased casinos - I was at the Wynn this last week playing VP. The machine I was on had several games (Spin Poker, Super Times Pay Poker, etc.) I asked the floor manager about the RTP for the games. My question was "Is the RTP set for each individual game, or is the RTP set for the entire machine itself?" he said he was sure it was set for each individual game. I asked what the RTP was for the games. He said he didn't know: "They never tell us that." he said.

So at least in the online versions, we have a pretty good idea what we are getting. At the Wynn, we have to guess

But the bottom line is, the house always wins - it's right there in black in white. And whether it's a difference of a few percentages, it really doesn't make much difference in the end. The key to your bankroll's survival is knowing when to walk away.

I found this in another thread and it's posted by the Meister himself!

So I guess we're back at square one?

91% or 91.5%? Who Knows? It's only .5% is that enough to make a huge difference? Either way we know that there is a lower setting of around 91% give or take!


Cheers
Gremmy

 

[chuchu59]

So ,we have to be prepared/accept that 72 hours pending (possibly reversal) period is within the norm for a casino asking for accreditation? Just asking, nothing else than that.

Personally, given the stubborn attitude of so many casinos, the pending period should be no more than 48 hours. This period should not exclude weekends even if the casino does not process on a weekend otherwise it will unnecessarily prolong the pending period. That said, IMO unless the pending period lengthens to something absurd like 120 hours it should not relate to accreditation as I feel it should only aim to deter casinos from using shady or rouguish practices. I believe that as the economies pick up and competition becomes more intense the pending periods on average will be reduced since cashflow may be less of a problem.

 

[wewewewewe]

Been paid

Just wanted to mention, my withdrawal of 24/2/2012 has been processed yesterday.

Thanks SLOTO

No thanks for not answering my questions in the email about the difference in timeframes between withdrawals

No thanks for the + 72 hour (business time) waiting.


General conclusion: i will probably be back, but there is room for improvements....

 

[deucebag]

The reason you and I have different views on the max bet rule is because I don't go from casino to casino exploiting any and every +EV bonus I can find without ever intending to be a regular customer.

Please don't make assumptions about me. You're wrong. My motivation is not personal, I'm experienced enough to know the importance of reading terms and conditions, and would not get caught by such traps. I simply feel bad for the players that do get caught. You assertion that only a "bonus abuser" with questionable motivations would ever contemplate betting more than 6.50, even on a starting balance well into 4 figures, is ludicrous. I think it's outrageous that casinos get away with these predatory tactics (serioulsy, you should educate yourself on the concept of "unfair terms" in consumer contracts).

Another reason to dislike SlotoCash, is of course that SlotoCash set their slots at 91% RTP.

 

[Nifty29]

Please don't make assumptions about me. You're wrong. My motivation is not personal, I'm experienced enough to know the importance of reading terms and conditions, and would not get caught by such traps. I simply feel bad for the players that do get caught. You assertion that only a "bonus abuser" with questionable motivations would ever contemplate betting more than 6.50, even on a starting balance well into 4 figures, is ludicrous. I think it's outrageous that casinos get away with these predatory tactics (serioulsy, you should educate yourself on the concept of "unfair terms" in consumer contracts).

Another reason to dislike SlotoCash, is of course that SlotoCash set their slots at 91% RTP.

Who said anything about betting 6.50 on a 4 figure starting balance? I didn't. The whole point is that if you don't LIKE the terms then don't PLAY. The terms are clearly stated even in the cashier so they are not hidden. An AP WILL bet more than 6.50 playing any reasonable sized bonus.....which is WHY the rule is there....to deter these kinds of players who are responsible for most restrictions in place these days. I'm not saying its criminal or wrong, I'm just stating the fact that it makes it tougher for average players.

A clearly stated term is NOT a trap. It's a ridiculous notion. Any player affected by this term would clearly NOT have even attempted to read the terms in the first place so they deserve to be penalized. It's like putting a trap on the footpath with a big neon sign saying "this is a trap do not step on this trap its a trap", and then having someone step on the trap. You don't set a trap and tell the people you want to trap how to avoid it. LOL.

In regards to contract law, I'll defer to your expert legal opinion given that you're an attorney, unlike myself.

 

[Lucky Loser]

Until Sloto clarifies on the forum they are not using the lowest RTG setting of 91% I won't play there again.

Why would you when other casinos use RTP's of 95%+. Only a mug punter would.

While its only a small percentage difference, over the longer term, it has a huge negative financial impact. Especially for those players like me that bet every day and often play big.

eg: with a starting balance of $100. Play through once, twice, etc your balance would theoretically dwindle as follows:

95/91 ($100 played through once)
90/82 (2x)
85/75 (3x)
81/68 (4x)
77/62 (5x)
73/56 (6x)

.... and so on.

At the 91% setting your money will disappear much, much quicker.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Until Sloto clarifies on the forum they are not using the lowest RTG setting of 91% I won't play there again.

Why would you when other casinos use RTP's of 95%+. Only a mug punter would.

While its only a small percentage difference, over the longer term, it has a huge negative financial impact. Especially for those players like me that bet every day and often play big.

eg: with a starting balance of $100. Play through once, twice, etc your balance would theoretically dwindle as follows:

95/91 ($100 played through once)
90/82 (2x)
85/75 (3x)
81/68 (4x)
77/62 (5x)
73/56 (6x)

.... and so on.

At the 91% setting your money will disappear much, much quicker.

It's not so much about their decision to use 91%, which is pretty much confirmed by Dogboy's later post that the small number of casinos where we see this stacked pears are those that made the business decision to set the slot at 91%, but much more about RTG lying in order to make Bryan make the announcement that we will NOT be seeing the 91% setting at online RTG casinos, as it was designed for these "Asian booths". We now know that the minority of RTG casinos where we saw this were on 91%, and this probably represents the 5% that RTG say do not stick to the default 95% setting.

The problem from the player's point of view is that it does not allow them to make a fair comparison between different RTG casinos based on their offers, WR, and cashout rules. We CAN do this with Microgaming, as although the RTP is not published for each game, we can be certain that it is the same in all MGS casinos, and thus we can make an informed decision as to which promotional programme offers the best value.

Had RTG told the truth that a small percentage of their online operators have requested the 91% setting, even though it was developed for use in booths, we could have made an informed decision as players not to patronise this minority, whatever else they offered. It is not that RTG didn't know, after all any requests for such a change MUST go through RTG, and can only be done after 6 months from the last. Therefore, they KNOWINGLY mislead Bryan when telling him the setting was for "booths", not online games.

This, in my view, is a BIG lie, and could bring Bryan into disrepute as he backed up the statement from RTG by relaying it to us and giving the impression that he knew it to be true.

Since then, I have been wondering WHY this small percentage of casinos were using 97.5% instead of the default 95% given that they had lost many players, and that paying those that were left lead to a considerable leakage of funds through seizures, bent processors, etc. It DOES however make sense that those hit hardest went for the 91% setting, hoping it could be explained away as "bad luck" if players claimed they had noticed a tightening of the games.

If it was not for the stacked pears, we still would know very little about this, and would still assume that every RTG casino had the same games on the same RTP.

Now WE can make a decision as to whether the 91% is a price worth paying for the faster payments and better service being delivered by Sloto, as opposed to waiting months for payment at Rushmore, but with 95% RTP games (unless someone has seen stacked pears there recently).

ANY casino that has had this stacked pears in the past, even if not now, has been prepared to lower the RTP to 91% for "business reasons", whereas the majority have not been tempted to use this particular method to increase profits, or stem losses.

Dogboy was right when saying this was a "double edged sword".

For players in it for the long term, the change from 95% to 91% DOES matter, although for those out to take what they can by being creative with the SUB, it hardly matters at all, because they are going to move on.

 

[giogio]

(from VWM post)
Now WE can make a decision as to whether the 91% is a price worth paying for the faster payments and better service being delivered by Sloto,


It does seems like the "faster payments" though, are not always that fast.

 

[vinylweatherman]

(from VWM post)
Now WE can make a decision as to whether the 91% is a price worth paying for the faster payments and better service being delivered by Sloto,


It does seems like the "faster payments" though, are not always that fast.

It's probably not a good choice for non-US players, as they have access to all the softwares that have pulled out of the US. For the US player though, Sloto at 91% is going to be a better option than, say, Rushmore at 95%, or a Top Game casino who's games seem to get constantly "adjusted", and often screwed up in the process, run by groups not renowned for their professional approach to business difficulties. There are many RTG casinos that offer 95%, but will make every excuse in the book for delaying or confiscating any winnings.

For a US player, 5 days is "fast", even if it is deemed "unacceptable" for a non-US player who worries about the process taking longer than 24 hour pending and next day processing. Sloto is serious about staying in the US, going so far as to ditch Rival when they were told they could no longer accept bets from the US with it.

Who knows what the RTP is with Top Game, could be just as bad, even worse. It seems they can dive into the code at whim and make such an adjustment, which has even been shown to be true with Rival when Ms Tradition "got careless" and then got caught.

 

[Gremmyboy]

Who knows what the RTP is with Top Game, could be just as bad, even worse. It seems they can dive into the code at whim and make such an adjustment, which has even been shown to be true with Rival when Ms Tradition "got careless" and then got caught.

Could I please have a link to the thread where this happened? I would like to read it.

Thanks



Cheers
Gremmy

 

[ksech]

@gremmyboy
This thread is where MsTradition introduces herself...

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/rival-games-glitches.34311/
post#65

This may be the thread VWM is referring to(?)...

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...inos-are-rogue-all-evidence-shown-here.37010/

 

[labeled]

OK, wtf? I was under the impression that those who believed casinos manipulated, or had the ability to manipulate, RTP were "tin-hatters" ie the "super user" thread. But as it stands, they do have this ability, they do use it, and it's pretty much common knowledge?

Sloto has always been seen as one of the most reputable groups out there, accreditation or not, right again?

Damn. How are US players ever supposed to just have fun playing and not spending their time suspecting they're getting effed over by rtp's and super-users and whatever the hell?

 

[vinylweatherman]

OK, wtf? I was under the impression that those who believed casinos manipulated, or had the ability to manipulate, RTP were "tin-hatters" ie the "super user" thread. But as it stands, they do have this ability, they do use it, and it's pretty much common knowledge?

Sloto has always been seen as one of the most reputable groups out there, accreditation or not, right again?

Damn. How are US players ever supposed to just have fun playing and not spending their time suspecting they're getting effed over by rtp's and super-users and whatever the hell?

Get rid of the current crop of protectionist congressmen and senators. The best softwares have all pulled out of the US, which has left US players in the hands of second rate and rogue operators. In many cases, new softwares have popped up, and many of these have been shown to allow operators to set and change the RTP of the games. The Tradition case was that players found that Blackjacks were suddenly being paid 1:1, when it was previously 2:1 Even the worst land Blackjack games pay 3:2. This was standard Blackjack too, not some odd variant where 1:1 pays for a Blackjack might be expected. The felt still showed 2:1 though, so players reported it as a glitch in the software (Rival). It turned out that it was a deliberate change made by the operator, which revealed that Rival software allowed operators to mess around with the RTP, and seemingly without limits. When caught red-handed, the owner (Ms Tradition) decided to offer up the excuse that it was a mistake made by a "trainee", who for some reason was granted unsupervised access to the LIVE back end. This was considered to be bullshit, and just an excuse to wriggle out of a cock up they had made (getting caught ). Not long after, Tradition casino just disappeared, and left players wondering about their funds. For their behaviour, Tradition were granted posthumous entry to the pit, and were joined by ALL Rival white labels because of the total lack of control Rival were exercising over their actions.

Common knowledge also tells us that both RTG and Top Game can mess freely with the RTP of the games. The Top Game incident where symbols went missing from a slot, rendering a progressive award impossible, could NOT have happened if the games were just left alone. It looked like the reelstrips were changed in order to change the RTP, and someone screwed up and deleted ALL of one symbol from a reel or two.

There has NEVER been evidence that RTP settings can be changed at Microgaming or Playtech once a game has been launched, however both softwares are no longer available to US players. For Sloto to carry on offering a service to US players, their choices were pretty limited, and of the main brands, it was between RTG and TopGame, so in this sense they made the right choice. They could have gone for a bespoke software, or one of the largely unknown smaller brands, but this would hardly have inspired confidence as it would mean players having to trust that an unknown software was both fair and bug free. They couldn't stick with Rival either, as Rival had served notice that US players would shortly be shut out of the software. Many of the other Rival casinos went to Top Game, and their behaviour grew even worse.

 

[ksech]

OK, wtf? I was under the impression that those who believed casinos manipulated, or had the ability to manipulate, RTP were "tin-hatters" ie the "super user" thread. But as it stands, they do have this ability, they do use it, and it's pretty much common knowledge?

Sloto has always been seen as one of the most reputable groups out there, accreditation or not, right again?

Damn. How are US players ever supposed to just have fun playing and not spending their time suspecting they're getting effed over by rtp's and super-users and whatever the hell?

It all comes down to TRUST. If you don't trust them stop playing, pretty simple...jmo...

 

[KatPM]

I did really like them, not so sure now...

I was excited to have a new place to play as it is very limited living in the US. I took one of their bonuses (misunderstood the terms) and ended up with a $10,000 win, but had a $119,000 playthrough requirement (on a $150 deposit), LOL!! Well it was completely my fault so I spent about 20 hours playing the requirement. Of course lost it all right towards the end.

I then started to play without using the bonuses- I like to play for $10 & $20 dollars a spin so I didn't want the bonus. I had a few lucky streaks and ended up taking out a couple withdrawls.

When I went on the next week I found that they had limited my bet amount to under $6.25. When I asked them why they sent me back a message saying that 'I was also excluded from using any bonuses(fine with me, I didn't use them anyway) because the bonuses were for people who had trouble winnning, and I obviously didn't.' The only answer I got about my limit on bets was that they were restricting some peoples accounts.

I don't think it's fair that if you have a winning streak you can be limited on your bets. I haven't really played much with them since- I don't think it's fun betting those small amounts. It's too bad because I went on a $14,000 losing streak the next couple days and they could have benefited from that, LOL!

Slotocash
PROS- totally fast payouts- never had a casino be as responsive as they are
CONS- limit you if you win

 

[vinylweatherman]

I was excited to have a new place to play as it is very limited living in the US. I took one of their bonuses (misunderstood the terms) and ended up with a $10,000 win, but had a $119,000 playthrough requirement (on a $150 deposit), LOL!! Well it was completely my fault so I spent about 20 hours playing the requirement. Of course lost it all right towards the end.

I then started to play without using the bonuses- I like to play for $10 & $20 dollars a spin so I didn't want the bonus. I had a few lucky streaks and ended up taking out a couple withdrawls.

When I went on the next week I found that they had limited my bet amount to under $6.25. When I asked them why they sent me back a message saying that 'I was also excluded from using any bonuses(fine with me, I didn't use them anyway) because the bonuses were for people who had trouble winnning, and I obviously didn't.' The only answer I got about my limit on bets was that they were restricting some peoples accounts.

I don't think it's fair that if you have a winning streak you can be limited on your bets. I haven't really played much with them since- I don't think it's fun betting those small amounts. It's too bad because I went on a $14,000 losing streak the next couple days and they could have benefited from that, LOL!

Slotocash
PROS- totally fast payouts- never had a casino be as responsive as they are
CONS- limit you if you win

REALLY

How come this isn't done as a matter of course for players who use the bonuses, instead of confiscating their wins because they forgot the limits and bet too big?

HOW the HELL do you get a remaining $119,000 playthrough from a $150 deposit?

WTF is this limiting of bets to $6 for players playing WITHOUT a bonus? This is the kind of shady practice we were seeing with the Rival white labels, and a few of the rogue RTG casinos. It also makes it look like the operator does not understand casino maths very well, else they would have just stuck with the bonus ban, and been damn GLAD to have a high roller prepared to wager $20 a spin and play WITHOUT bonuses. You big win has NOTHING to do with a betting strategy, it was pure luck that you got a high paying combo when betting big. Had you continued to bet this way, you would probably have given back far more than 10K.

I often spin at this level, as well as at lower stakes, and even HIGHER ones on occasion. I have NEVER had my bet limits restricted just for being lucky enough to hit big when betting high, I have only had the odd bonus ban because I have ended up ahead overall. These casinos would just LOVE me to carry on playing at a similar level without bonuses, even if in the short term I win more, but I suppose these casinos know damn well that without the leverage of bonuses, they are almost certain to get it all back in the long term.

It makes me wonder whether these limits are more to do with stopping you from generating very large withdrawal requests from winning sessions at large bets, rather than them thinking your betting strategy somehow manipulates the games into paying out too much. Rival certainly limited max bets right down to $2 a spin on some slots, and imposed it across all brands. They never explained WHY, other than to offer vague and lame excuses.

If you would rather bet $20, play elsewhere, and you will quickly become a VIP.

 

[giogio]

....and BTW, today was the last of the 10 business days and I didn't receive my money.
I will spend this coming week end without a spin nor any kind of play at sloto nor desert nights.(2d week end in a row)
I'm glad it isn't a big amount....still !!!!!!!!!

 

[Sloto]

KatPM, please PM me your username I don't know of anyone restricting bet limits without a bonus?

giogio, please PM me your username I will look into your withdrawal.

Best Regards

Ms Sloto

 

[Diane]

KatPM, please PM me your username I don't know of anyone restricting bet limits without a bonus?

giogio, please PM me your username I will look into your withdrawal.

Best Regards

Ms Sloto

Even though I played without a bonus also my bets were also restricted in the beginning. However, once I asked Stephen to get involved it was resolved and limits were increased. $6.50 limit remains in place for bonus -----

Diane

 

[chuchu59]

After 3 deposits, cashed out a small amount on my 4th deposit. Initiated w/d about 12 hours ago and money was in my ecocard account just a while ago. And it's a Sunday.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Even though I played without a bonus also my bets were also restricted in the beginning. However, once I asked Stephen to get involved it was resolved and limits were increased. $6.50 limit remains in place for bonus -----

Diane

Is this now happening as routine for players claiming the bonus?

If so, it seems there is an error in the system that leads to players finding they are limited even when no bonus has been claimed. Such errors can make the operator look bad, even if CS are able to sort them out. This should be outlined in the bonus and general terms, so that finding themselves bet restricted does not come as a nasty surprise to players.

 

[DemonUK]

After 3 deposits, cashed out a small amount on my 4th deposit. Initiated w/d about 12 hours ago and money was in my ecocard account just a while ago. And it's a Sunday.

Interesting, a desert nights casino CS just told me they don't process at weekends and payout is 48-72 business hours even though their website doesn't say that. Told my Thursday 4-figure withdrawal to my neteller account won't be in until possibly Tuesday. Anyone else experienced similar?