- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Location
- Bexhill on sea, England
'scuse me my dear, but I think you'll find 177 x $20 is $3,540, not $354...177 spins @ $20 is $354.
Just sayin'!
KK
'scuse me my dear, but I think you'll find 177 x $20 is $3,540, not $354...177 spins @ $20 is $354.
'scuse me my dear, but I think you'll find 177 x $20 is $3,540, not $354...
Just sayin'!
KK
In the interests of fair gaming, there are limits on the maximum bet sizes you can place during the playthrough of the welcome bonus. Any cash-in derived from bets larger than these limits before playthrough requirements for that bonus have been met will initiate a further playthrough requirement of 30 times the value of the cash-in. The value of the cash-in will be added to your Bonus Balance and will be subject to a playthrough of 30x and a maximum bet size of 6.25.
Thank you, I noticed my error when re-reading this morning.
I've checked 32Red's SUB terms, and there's been a change:
If Slotocash adopted this term, the OP would have wagering of $372,000 to complete. I think the previous term of 100x playthrough was only applied to winnings, which I would assume would include bets such as betting $20 and winning $15.
Of course, Slotocash is free to adopt whatever terms it chooses, and any resolution in the OP's case other than total confiscation would be a courtesy.
In the absence of software limiting bet size, I think it good for casinos to have a policy in place if they impose a max bet rule, and judgement decisions as to whether a mistake was accidental, deliberate or careless need not enter into the discussion and resolution.
Whilst wagering 372K at $6 a spin the OP will have plenty of time to reflect on their moment of carelessness .
A 12.400 penalty, for what happened here, with no win on the high bets is insane. I could understand if the win came from one of those bets, but it didn't.
I hope the ignorance of this casino shows people where NOT to play. There is NO way, confiscating anywhere NEAR 12K can be justified, whether the player made 2, 23 or 150 LOSING spins at $20 in my opinion.
The way some members on this forum seem to take great pleasure in others misfortune, is alarming.
hi,
the casino says the decision to confiscate all winnings is final.
we both made a mistake. the casino sent a wrong game log and i placed a 20$ bet. i got a 12,400$ penalty and all the casino had to do was to send another file.
a little strange, isn't it?
A 12.400 penalty, for what happened here, with no win on the high bets is insane. I could understand if the win came from one of those bets, but it didn't.
I hope the ignorance of this casino shows people where NOT to play. There is NO way, confiscating anywhere NEAR 12K can be justified, whether the player made 2, 23 or 150 LOSING spins at $20 in my opinion.
The way some members on this forum seem to take great pleasure in others misfortune, is alarming.
If this played out more or less as described, suggesting that the error was to click "start" on the autoplay without checking that it was set to continue betting at $6, I believe this player should be made the same offer as the other one, namely that the cashin is subjected to further wagering of the 30x as was the case for the other player, who accepted this resolution.
Some casinos go so far as to see if the player gained any advantage, and only impose penalties where they gained through betting higher than is allowed. Most though use a "one size fits all" approach, which at Sloto was the confiscation of all winnings, only mitigated to additional wagering after the discussion of the other case.
Before this term was implemented, players could bet as much as the software would let them, but the casino decided to implement a $6.50 max bet rule presumably because they were paying out too much. The new rule is far stricter than is seen in other casinos, where the max bet is around 25% of the bonus credited, which if implemented for the high roller bonus would be 25% of $2000, or a max bet of $500. Even if made 25% of deposit, it would still allow a max bet of $125.
Microgaming casinos seem to be happy with this (players betting 25% of bonus credited), whereas casinos using RTG and Rival are not. Either the games are substantially different, or the casinos cannot expose themselves to the variance in liabilities that can lead from players making bets of this size. Microgaming casinos also offer fewer bonuses, and do not as a rule offer 400% on substantial deposits, which seems commonplace with casinos using RTG and Rival, along with a few other softwares.
It's also.interesting to note that 32red casinos have $6 max bets on their SUB, and they certainly don't have liquidity issues. I think it is to discourage bonus hunters/advantage players from taking them to the cleaners and never coming back. It's the MO of these guys I.e. hit big on a sub and disappear like a fart in the breeze. You'll notice that 32red doesn't have this restriction on subsequent bonuses.
I think the big difference in the two cases is degree.
The first case was 20 or so spins, but this one was 177...the first you could possibly argue was a genuine error, but 177 (20% of their total spins btw) just doesn't cut the mustard. It also highlights the problem I predicted earlier, where an exception is made for one based on the same situation apart from the number of spins.....when you start saying 23 spins over max bet is OK, then why not 25? It's only a few more....or how about 30? It's only a few more than that. You can see where there might be no.point having the term if it continued.
It's also.interesting to note that 32red casinos have $6 max bets on their SUB, and they certainly don't have liquidity issues. I think it is to discourage bonus hunters/advantage players from taking them to the cleaners and never coming back. It's the MO of these guys I.e. hit big on a sub and disappear like a fart in the breeze. You'll notice that 32red doesn't have this restriction on subsequent bonuses.
You say that like there is something wrong with that. If that is what you believe, can you explain what exactly is wrong with hitting big on a sign-up bonus and then disappearing? I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, nothing whatsoever. As long as the betting and play are completely within the terms, I don't see how there can be any objection.
I didn't say there was anything "wrong"with it at all.
What I'm saying is that casinos don't want that kind of player, and if you were an operator you would not want them either. SUBs are supposed to be for new players to try out the casino, and if they like it and/or win, to become regular players....this is where casinos make their money. Operators have every right to set conditions which discourage bonus hunting, and every right to enforce those terms when they are breached especially by these kinds of players.
Nothing intrinsically wrong with bonus hunters or advantage players, but if you're going to be one, you need to be extra careful about following the rules. I expect that every player should be bound by the same rules as I am, and that they should follow them like I do. Remember, the majority of these rules exist ss a result of this kind of player, so its impossible for me to sympathize with them when they get caught breaking those rules.
Any perception you have that I think this kind of play is 'wrong' is just that....your perception. Sorry.
I didn't say there was anything "wrong"with it at all.
What I'm saying is that casinos don't want that kind of player, and if you were an operator you would not want them either. SUBs are supposed to be for new players to try out the casino, and if they like it and/or win, to become regular players....this is where casinos make their money. Operators have every right to set conditions which discourage bonus hunting, and every right to enforce those terms when they are breached especially by these kinds of players.
Nothing intrinsically wrong with bonus hunters or advantage players, but if you're going to be one, you need to be extra careful about following the rules. I expect that every player should be bound by the same rules as I am, and that they should follow them like I do. Remember, the majority of these rules exist ss a result of this kind of player, so its impossible for me to sympathize with them when they get caught breaking those rules.
Any perception you have that I think this kind of play is 'wrong' is just that....your perception. Sorry.
The OP was no "fart in the breeze", having already deposited and lost 5 times prior to this.
It was a single mistake, and a minor one, the degree was down to the nature of the mistake (not checking the play after engaging autoplay to ensure it was making the correct bets). The number of spins is simply a reflection of the interval between setting autoplay, and returning to the PC.
The other player essentially made the same mistake, but noticed much sooner, hence only 23 spins went by.
It is no making exceptions either, the rules have been changed such that imposing additional wagering on the cashout is "normal procedure". Before this rule was introduced, there would have been no question of this player having his winnings confiscated, as he INCREASED his bets after hitting big, the complete opposite of the "hit & grind" case over at Gambling Grumbles where a player REDUCING to $20 a spin was what got their winnings confiscated because they had been betting $50 a spin, and had they continued to bet $50 a spin, they too would have ended up OK.
These players are suffering because of what others have done in the past, which was nothing more than being better at math than the casino manager.
Confiscation of winnings should only happen in the absolute worst cases, where fraud has been involved. Where it is a simple breach of the rules, a penalty in proportion to the breach should be applied, with the idea being that both parties are put in the position they would have been in had the breach not occured. This could even be done exactly by recalculating the outcomes of bets over the limit as though the bets had been on the limit. This would put the parties as close as possible to the position they should be in, but may involve much more work on the part of the casino, however there would be no way to outsmart this system, because the achieved WR would also be reduced to reflect this recalculation. Since betsize has no bearing on the outcome of a random game, no advantage can even be gained "on the sly".
Even the RJ question is addressed. A $60 single bet has the same chance of hitting the RJ as 10 bets of $6. Both achieve $60 towards the WR, and $60 wagered either way has the same chance of hitting the RJ, thus no advantage gained by the player. This is an illustration of this, the player hit the RJ after a large number of $6 bets, with the larger $20 bets NOT bringing out further RJ hits, thus the RJ was not down to making large bets, but merely a stroke of luck, BAD luck as it turned out in this case.
Vinyl, 177 spins, autoplay or not, is not a minor mistake.
He knew from previous games in this session that the lines reset, do it was either a deliberate attempt to subvert the rules or a blatant act of carelessness. Either way, if its good enough for me and 99% of others to check their bets, especially in a situation where they KNEW there was a max bet, then its good enough for them. As a fellow player I would be offended if this guy was allowed to keep his winnings, as it means there are different rules for different players...and that is not fair.
Also, I didn't say HE was a fart in the breeze. I was referring to these types of players in general.
Where does it end vinyl? I go and set my autoplay on 500 spins, forgetting to change the lines, so it starts spinning at over the max bet, I walk away the phone rings, someone knocks at the door, I have to go potty etc and get distracted. I come back to finf I've just done 500 spins over the max bet. Now, you're saying that's fine because starting autoplay and the 500 spins were essentially one action so whether it was 3 or 500 spins means nothing? Come on. It's just silly, and it means there may as well not be a rule in the first place.It would also mean that any player could deliberately throw in a bunch of big spins on autoplay and claim 'oh it was a mistake sorry....but that last guy did 177 spins over and I only did 79 do you have to pay me". The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Anyhoo, he ain't getting paid and its the right decision. Nothing we say is going to change that, and those who won't play there as a result are probably the same kind of player, so the casino won't lose any sleep. The OP was disingenuous and misleading from the getgo and his story changed every 5 minutes. If he had genuinely made a genuine mistake he would have contacted the casino like just about everyone else would. The fact that he didn't is one red flag amongst many.
I think you may have gotten that wrong. SUBS are there to lure people in, is what it is.
I believe most people know, that online casino bonusses are not really that great a deal .... for the players, and in the cases where they are, that's excactly where Enzo's excellent post comes in....they effed up their math, so all the bs terms and conditions they come up with, is to cover their arses, when they eff up, OR they make their bonus offers so "good", because of the competition, that they have to limit the possible wins on SLOTS, and we end up with stupid cases like this, where a player finds himself short of 12K ? Ar you kidding me ?
Well we pretty much said the same thing.
Lure = attract = convince = entice.
The SUB is there to attract New players so they can be converted to loyal regular players.
No.player is FORCED to take a SUB, or any other bonus for that matter. However, if you DO take one, the rules have to be followed. Remember the casino is giving you their money to use.....you have to expect conditions to apply. If you don't like the terms, don't take the bonus. It is irrelevant why terms are there...you can't decide you're going to abide by the terms you think are ok and ignore the ones you don't and expect to be paid.
The OP KNEW there was a max bet and it was up to HIM to make sure he didn't bet more than allowed. Unfortunately, he did bet more than allowed....177 times....and he is now paying the appropriate, albeit high, price.
In fact, by making the amount of winnings an issue, you're pretty much saying if its a fairly small amount then you have to cop it sweet, but if its a large amount they should be exempt. Are you kidding me?
I'm not making the amount an issue....the amount probably hurts this player more, that if he was short 25 bucks tho. Doesn't change the fact, that the casino shouldn't confiscate the 25 bucks either, in my opinion, as Vinyl said, maybe with a FAIR penalty. In no way can confiscating 12K for a mistake like this...that in no way did anything good on the players part, be justified.
The other player got a fair resolution for a fair mistake.
The OPs case is very different and was not considered a fair mistake, hence the appropriate penalty was applied. 20% of your bets is not a "mistake".
I'm not sure if you caught my 32red question I edited into my last post?
hi,
the casino says the decision to confiscate all winnings is final.
we both made a mistake. the casino sent a wrong game log and i placed a 20$ bet. i got a 12,400$ penalty and all the casino had to do was to send another file.
a little strange, isn't it?
Just saw your 32Red question, and no....I would NOT put 32Red in the same class as Sloto, simply because I'm pretty confident, you'd NEVER see a case like this in 32Red.
It doesn't mean I agree with their max bet rule, but I'm sure it would have been handled quite differently, if this same thing had happened there....well because the already HAVE a fair penalty for this.