SlotoCash - Very bad practice

[kavaman]

I dont know exactly when the rule was added nifty, but when slotocash opened on rtg it was not there . More about advantage play. How can a casino or the player know what is AP or what is not. I dont know any casino rules that state exactly what is an AP, and what kind of play is not tolerated. The terms usually state it something like "advantage play is not tolerated and players who use these strategies will be barred from the casino). Terms made like this do not say what exactly they count as Advantage Play. It should be a clear cut and here it is definately not.

If the player bets all his big WR using big bets how can that be said as advantage play. He just got lucky , and casino should abide with their own t&c of the current time. If the max bet rule was in place at the time the casino has a valid reason to deny winnings, if it wasn't then hell no.

kavaman

 

[Nifty29]

I dont know exactly when the rule was added nifty, but when slotocash opened on rtg it was not there . More about advantage play. How can a casino or the player know what is AP or what is not. I dont know any casino rules that state exactly what is an AP, and what kind of play is not tolerated. The terms usually state it something like "advantage play is not tolerated and players who use these strategies will be barred from the casino). Terms made like this do not say what exactly they count as Advantage Play. It should be a clear cut and here it is definately not.

If the player bets all his big WR using big bets how can that be said as advantage play. He just got lucky , and casino should abide with their own t&c of the current time. If the max bet rule was in place at the time the casino has a valid reason to deny winnings, if it wasn't then hell no.

kavaman

In the absence of the max bet rule, I agree with you....its a "spirit of the bonus" thing and that is unacceptable.

A specific rule like max bet or excluded games.....no problem. However, a player cannot abide by a rule that cannot be quantified.

The casino needs to state what is not allowed specifically. If a player does something that isn't stated (or could be reasonably applied using common sense) the casino should pay. Change the rules by all means, but you can't apply them retrospectively.

If the complainant in the arsekgamblers case is legit, Bryan should review their status.

 

[zap987]

While I do think max bet rules need to be used with some caution and common sense, it's also important to note that they are needed or a lot of bonuses would just be too expensive for the casinos. The higher you can bet the higher your expected profit from a bonus. Good casinos don't have these rules to get an excuse to not pay people that make a mistake, they have them to limit their losses to advantage players while still being able to make reasonable offers to their normal players. This case definitely looks like someone knew exactly what they were doing but then made an expensive mistake, while the Mummy's Gold case is just a bad casino misusing the rules because the don't understand gambling. To some degree it would actually be better if casinos would be allowed to have a spirit of the bonus rule if they could use it with common sense, it's not exactly hard in most cases to spot the difference between advantage play and normal play.

 

[kavaman]

No way. Then casinos could do whatever they wish. Who would play in any casino with a bonus if they would knew that the casino can just void their winnings if they choose to do so. The rules are there so players NOT abusing them would get paid. Zap is basically saying just remove all the rules, and let casino decide if they wish to play using common sense . This has been discussed here previously. The spirit of the bonus thing is highly unacceptable.

Also i think this case is way clearer then the mummysgold case. There the player definately broke rules. As for this casino its not sure that the max bet rule was in place.

As for this player knowing what to do i disagree. Would a bonus abuser lose that much of his balance intentionally betting big bets the whole way. If the player would bet 100$ bets on slots and then bet the playtrough using 1-3$ bets, maybe it could be said as bonus abuse, but not here.

I somehow wish that casinos would not offer bonuses at all, so they could not use any excuse in the book to not pay a player. There is already enough protection for the casinos as it is. When i started playing 10 years ago bonuses had playtrough of 3x deposit and bonus, and some had no cap on the amount of bonus you can have. And blackjack was a game you could play. Now its slots and playtrough between 20-100x.

 

[Nifty29]

No way. Then casinos could do whatever they wish. Who would play in any casino with a bonus if they would knew that the casino can just void their winnings if they choose to do so. The rules are there so players NOT abusing them would get paid. Zap is basically saying just remove all the rules, and let casino decide if they wish to play using common sense . This has been discussed here previously. The spirit of the bonus thing is highly unacceptable.

Also i think this case is way clearer then the mummysgold case. There the player definately broke rules. As for this casino its not sure that the max bet rule was in place.

As for this player knowing what to do i disagree. Would a bonus abuser lose that much of his balance intentionally betting big bets the whole way. If the player would bet 100$ bets on slots and then bet the playtrough using 1-3$ bets, maybe it could be said as bonus abuse, but not here.

I somehow wish that casinos would not offer bonuses at all, so they could not use any excuse in the book to not pay a player. There is already enough protection for the casinos as it is. When i started playing 10 years ago bonuses had playtrough of 3x deposit and bonus, and some had no cap on the amount of bonus you can have. And blackjack was a game you could play. Now its slots and playtrough between 20-100x.

Actually, the best strategy if you want to maximize your profit is to bet as high as possible all the way.

The idea of hitting big and then grinding is a false economy.....the more spins you make, the more you expose your bankroll to the house edge. It might ensure that you cashout something by grinding, but its the wrong way to go if you want to take full advantage.

The players involved were advantage players....let's not kid around here. The issue is whether a specific term was breached, and in one case it was.

 

[Slotster!]

I only casually peruse these forums and this is the second time this ugly, predatory rule has caught my attention. I'm amazed they are allowed to get away with this, in the terms and conditions or otherwise. This isn't a territory restriction or a wagering requirement - it's garbage.

Mark it down to experience, uninstall the software and go play somewhere that doesn't have such a dickhead attitude to customers.

 

[LaHutti]

doublepost, and forgot da quote.

 

[LaHutti]

Another case with Sloto, for a total of 22k: xhttp://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/slotocash-will-not-pay-withdrawal-of-22000-c617

The reply by Slotocash in that complaint is enough to tell that they have gone down the drain.

Edit: same complaint at Gambling Grumbles: xhttp://www.gamblinggrumbles.com/Reports/SlotoCash-Casino_No-payment-and%20a-ridiculous-reason

Looks like Sloto is taking their switch to RTG seriously....they're taking it all the way, to be like the rest of them.

 

[Sloto]

The player bet 23 spins with $25 not 2 /4 spins. This rule is not there to catch any members out and we review each case individually as mistakes do happen. We have updated our terms to include additional wagering should a member wager higher than the max bet by accident.

Best Regards

Ms Sloto

 

[Slotster!]

Ms Sloto

 

[Nifty29]

The player bet 23 spins with $25 not 2 /4 spins. This rule is not there to catch any members out and we review each case individually as mistakes do happen. We have updated our terms to include additional wagering should a member wager higher than the max bet by accident.

Best Regards

Ms Sloto

Oh geez......what a surprise.....the OP LIED about his "little mistake" after all.

Three of four spins maybe....but 23??

The OP should be banned for deliberately misleading the membership.

Sloto..thanks for the information

 

[Casinomeister]

Please don't use barf smilies as a singular response to a casino rep's post. That's uncool.

 

[Slotster!]

Apologies. I was referring to the 'Ms Sloto' sign off. Not Bill or Dave or Susan or Wendy; it's the generic thing that IMHO is a poor way to represent a brand and interact with customers. Particularly in a community that welcomes and encourages transparency and debate.

Exacerbated by what I think is a terrible reason to hold back winnings. We're talking slots here.

I may be being dreadfully harsh if that's the reps real name

Forum rules accepted and understood though CM.

 

[kavaman]

Ok, well back to the matter in hand, original poster. Yup he broke the rules assuming the max bet rule was in place then , and the casino can pay if they are willing or choose not to, as it seems. Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about it. However what is alerting here is that it seems there are some other cases against the casino too where no rule has been breached and they are unwilling to pay.

 

[Sloto]

As the owner of Sloto'Cash I prefer not to use my real name on forums, but there are many people in this industry that know me by name sorry if the Ms Sloto offends you.

We have been online since 2007 and my aim has always been to run an honest operation, never once have I used the term bonus abuse to avoid paying a player winnings apart from in the case mentioned on www.gamblinggrumbles.com, but there are certain cirumstances that cannot be discussed on forums and I can guarantee if a player is denied winnings its for a very good reason.

Ms Sloto

 

[chuchu59]

The player bet 23 spins with $25 not 2 /4 spins. This rule is not there to catch any members out and we review each case individually as mistakes do happen. We have updated our terms to include additional wagering should a member wager higher than the max bet by accident.

Best Regards

Ms Sloto

That's a fair and practical way to deal with such problems.. The OP lied. He deserves nothing.

 

[boyddytoddy32]

what happened afterward?

 

[Slotster!]

As the owner of Sloto'Cash I prefer not to use my real name on forums, but there are many people in this industry that know me by name sorry if the Ms Sloto offends you.

The name doesn't offend me, I'm sure you're lovely.

I just have one question - why?

Would you give thousands and thousands of pounds to an organisation where the owner doesn't want to tell you their name; moreover - would you trust them to pay you? I'm not an industry insider - I'm a customer. I like to know who's getting my money and who promises to give me some back sometimes. I think lots of other players are the same.

We have been online since 2007 and my aim has always been to run an honest operation...and I can guarantee if a player is denied winnings its for a very good reason.

Whilst I have no valid reason to doubt this, it does of course under the circumstances illlicit the response 'well you would say that!'

Honestly, genuinely from someone who is nothing more than a regular depositor and player at online casinos - it would only take me reading this thread to come to the conclusion that I wouldn't come within 100 miles of depositing at Slotocash. Why would I when I could go and play somewhere that values transparency and customer experience over short term gain.

I understand fully that the OP has apparently 'under estimated' the amount of spins they made at whatever denomination blah blah blah - but I don't care. Incidentally, is the point about reverting back to a £25 bet when exiting and entering the game a valid one? I know Crypto had an issue with this a while ago which they resolved.

These are slot machines that are so weighted in the casino favour it's next to impossible to make any sort of decent return from them - actually impossible on a long term basis. These absurd min/max bets etc just continue to demonstrate the gaping difference between B&M casinos and some online outfits that still treat players like idiots.

It's the rule in the first place that offends me and, along with the apparent lack of transparency, all sorts of alarm bells go off for me this end.

 

[Slotster!]

That's a fair and practical way to deal with such problems.. The OP lied. He deserves nothing.

I don't think it is mate.

It's up to the casino to decide if the player did it 'by accident'. It's insane.

If they're cashing out $75, they probably did it by accident and they get paid. If they're cashing out $9782 - they did it on purpose and don't... Ridiculous.

 

[Nate]

The player bet 23 spins with $25 not 2 /4 spins. This rule is not there to catch any members out and we review each case individually as mistakes do happen. We have updated our terms to include additional wagering should a member wager higher than the max bet by accident.

Best Regards

Ms Sloto

Ms Sloto,

I do not know much about your terms and conditions - The bolded statement worries me though. If it is an ACCIDENT - then its just that. Why punish players with additional wagering? Each case could be judged on its own merit just as you would review instances where members bet higher than the allowed limit...

Although there would be individuals who may claim they made a mistake (intentionally), I'm sure that your discretion will play a major role in identifying true instances of this. The crux of the matter is punishment of those who truly slipped up.

Nate

 

[Nifty29]

I'm not happy with my personal treatment by sloto on other issues, but are we REALLY giving her a hard time because she won't reveal her full name?

Do you insist the petrol station attendant give you the station owners name when you buy fuel? Or the owners name when you buy beer from the off-licence? Seriously.

Can you name all the owners of every casino you play at? Try and resist Google or emails....do you really know? I'm Damn sure I don't, and I doubt anyone does either.

From where I'm sitting, it seems like a case of getting personal and unreasonable about unrelated issues just because you don't like their bonus terms. Considering they're an accredited casino rep, I think its quite disrespectful.

Players should base their decisions on how a casino treats them and others, not whether the owners provides their personal details on a public forum.

As for "underestimating" by the OP.....anyone who confuses "3or4" with "23" wouldn't have the capacity to switch a computer on let alone use a keyboard. It was a deliberate attempt by the OP to garner sympathy and support from fellow members via straight out lies and the membership should be offended. It's the reason I never take players word at face value when it comes to complaints, as they try this crap all the time.

 

[chayton]

This reminds me of Intercasino, they have a 25% rule with bonuses and their games default to max if you close the game and come back - if you're not paying attention it's pretty easy to hit spin and realize you just bet $25. Not for me, because I don't usually have that much left and also I've learned to check.

So the OP said originally a couple of spins, it turned out to be 23 - seems odd to me that someone could 'accidentally' do that many spins without noticing, but what do I know, I'm not a high roller.

 

[Slotster!]

I'm not happy with my personal treatment by sloto on other issues, but are we REALLY giving her a hard time because she won't reveal her full name?

Do you insist the petrol station attendant give you the station owners name when you buy fuel? Or the owners name when you buy beer from the off-licence? Seriously.

Can you name all the owners of every casino you play at? Try and resist Google or emails....do you really know? I'm Damn sure I don't, and I doubt anyone does either.

From where I'm sitting, it seems like a case of getting personal and unreasonable about unrelated issues just because you don't like their bonus terms. Considering they're an accredited casino rep, I think its quite disrespectful.

Players should base their decisions on how a casino treats them and others, not whether the owners provides their personal details on a public forum.

As for "underestimating" by the OP.....anyone who confuses "3or4" with "23" wouldn't have the capacity to switch a computer on let alone use a keyboard. It was a deliberate attempt by the OP to garner sympathy and support from fellow members via straight out lies and the membership should be offended. It's the reason I never take players word at face value when it comes to complaints, as they try this crap all the time.

Firstly, when I buy petrol - I don't have to put my trust in them that they'll give me more petrol back in the future for free because I've won it. It's a straightforward transaction which is completely different. If I had a complaint with Texaco however, I'd expect a response from a named representative.

I'm a bad example on your second point because I play at very few places and either interact with the owners personally or am absolutely and fully aware of the ownership and management structure; I agree most will not. I might want these people to pay me THOUSANDS OF POUNDS... It's beyond comprehension that someone would put their trust in a casino that defends their stance in a compaints thread by saying they promise to be honest and signing off Mr Casino.

You're missing the point though. It's in the representation and defence of a complaint that it becomes poor practice to be so faceless... more insulting is the 'trust me I try to be honest' approach... It sounds dodgy, even if it isn't.

You're right though, ultimately people will make decisions on where to play based on their individual experiences.

You are not happy with your treatment by Sloto on other issues.

I'm perfectly happy with every casino I play at on every issue.

 

[casinobuzz]

It can´t be 23 spins. I am the one who played it and it just can not be. Is there a way to show any proof of their claim

I don´t see any gamelog in their cashier.

It is less than 10 bets out of 3500 it can´t be different

 

[vinylweatherman]

The player bet 23 spins with $25 not 2 /4 spins. This rule is not there to catch any members out and we review each case individually as mistakes do happen. We have updated our terms to include additional wagering should a member wager higher than the max bet by accident.

Best Regards

Ms Sloto

This rule was never needed with Rival software, and I am sure players were just as clever. What has happened with RTG to cause this rule to be added? I am not even sure too many RTG casinos have this rule, although it is increasingly common with Microgaming due to their bonuses being cashable, and WR often set to 30xB.

As for giving your name, few casino owners do this, even accredited ones. If Sloto is offering services to US players, you definitely do NOT want to give your real name on a public forum. There are a handful of former casino owners and board directors who know why.

32Red also deal with situations like this by imposing additional wagering, and they have won "best casino" awards for as long as I can remember.

The best way is to ask RTG to add a function that can restrict max bet if a coupon is in play. In such a case, it could ensure that the default return of "max lines" on a slot is checked against this, and if the default bet exceeds the max allowed, the coin size is dropped such that a max lines bet would not exceed the limit. This would remove the "accident factor" for players, making them have to return the bet to one that might exceed the limit before they can make such a spin.

If the OP's claim is true, even though he can't count, then ALL the spins at $25 would occur immediately upon reentering the game after going to the cashier, and most would be after the first couple of times, after which he would have figured out what was going on and starting to reset the bet soon after entering the game again.

The best software option of all is to remember the game state on exit such that it is restored on reentry. This is not something RTG does, nor Crypto for that matter.