- 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...
Just sayin'!
KK
Just sayin'!
KK
Slotocash is Not Recommended at Casinomeister.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Location
- Ontario
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.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
I suspect 32Red changed this so that the WR could be tracked by the software, but the reduction from 100x to 30x comes at the price of the entire cashin being made into bonus, rather than only the winnings from specific over limit bets.
This may be an easier approach for Sloto to adopt, having the entire amount of the cash in being subjected to a "do over" under the standard bonus rules. It may then be possible to do what 32Red have done, add the cashin as a giant "free chip coupon" under the RTG tracking system rather than have CS constantly being asked to do a manual calculation of progress.
They might consider adding a "no third chances" clause, so that a repeat offence during the wagering of the cash in that cannot be shown to be a mistake (such as one or two odd spins), to result in the win being voided, and the deposit returned, along with the option of closing the player's account.
Whilst wagering 372K at $6 a spin the OP will have plenty of time to reflect on their moment of carelessness that lead to this situation, and next time to make sure the software is doing what it is supposed to be doing, which is playing 6 lines at $1 on autoplay.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Location
- Faroe Islands
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
- Location
- Triolet
my thoughts
hi,
the casino says the decision to confiscate all winnings is final.
we both made a mistake. the casino sent a wrong game log and i placed a 20$ 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?
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?
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
I don't see where anyone was enjoying the fact that the players winnings were rightfully confiscated, nor can i see where anyone was "taking great pleasure".
Maybe you could provide some quotes, as theres a possibility I missed a few lines of the thread here and there.
Just FYI.....who said anything about the 177 spins being losing ones? They accounted for about $3500 of wagering which isn't a small part. You might want to check the facts on that one.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Why haven't you submitted a PAB? It's free you know, and it might find in your favour.
I can't understand why someone convinced of their innocence wouldn't do so.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
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.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Location
- Ontario
Was the player's deposit returned, or is that part of the confiscation as well?
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Location
- Right here
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.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
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.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Location
- Right here
No need to say sorry. I get you. I just thought your characterization as "fart in the breeze" was pejorative.
Cheers.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
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 ?
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
The real prroblem here is, that the casinos apparently find it necessary to limit their own software.
There should BE no max bet limit, apart from what's built into the software, and there should be no max withdrawal, there should be "press the button", and if you hit something you win, and get paid, and if you don't hit anything .... guess what....the casino won, and keep your money, and I'm pretty sure, when the latter happens, they have no problem keeping THEIR winnings.
If this is not how it works there is a problem with the software itself, and THEY need to adress that problem...NOT the players.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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?
Re: software limitations.
As stated earlier these cost money and they bring no benefit to the casino, so they generally don't do it.
Anyway, it is irrelevant because it doesn't exist in this software. Whether it should is a seperate argument, as the OP accepted the terms KNOWING that there were no such software limits.
It yet again boils down to accepting a bonus and following the rules. If you don't think your brain can handle the attention and care required to do things like check your bets, then you shouldn't accept the bonus.
FWIW Do you play at 32red? They enforce max bet terms without software alterations. I assume you would therefore put them in the same class as sloto?
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
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.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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".
If you go to court for speeding 10mph over the limit and you tell the judge it was an honest mistake or oversight, they will most likely accept that and let you off or reduce your fine etc. What do you think would happen if you went in and claimed the same thing for doing 60mph over the limit? See what i mean? It's about degree here and the casino did make an exception for what they accepted COULD have been a genuine error, so they are certainly flexible in those circumstances....this case is very different and the term was applied properly according to the offence, just like that judge would have done if you were 60mph over instead of 10mph
I'm not sure if you caught my 32red question I edited into my last post?
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
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.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Sorry it ended out that way. I tend to believe the casino was adopting a 'wait -and-see' attitude and feel the pulse of the gaming community before deciding on whether winnings should be confiscated or imposing additional wrs. This does seem to be a case of the player knowing all the rules but unknowingly pressing the autoplay button after visiting the cashier. The tide of opinion might have been different had you come clean much earlier. It was definitely a mistake on your part and you did know about both the max bet rule and the fact that all slots are automatically converted to max lines on re-entry. However, in hastiness, you pressed autoplay without thinking to complete the wrs and that while not entirely forgivable, is understandable.
I hope other players will realise the need to spell out all the details and truths if they were to encounter something similar. People tend to be sympathetic on these causes.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Well I must admit you do seem to be applying your convictions selectively, but thats your perogative.
I'll assume that your choice not to address most of my arguments and examples means that you agree with me.
Out of interest, what are your favorite casinos? Say, top ten? I dont think ive seen you indicate at any time. I'm happy to share mine also:
32red
Inetbet
Highnoon
Manhattan slots
3dice
Buzzluck
Nordicbet
Nedplay
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Location
- Earth
Request for Ms Sloto and other casino reps reading this - if you're going to institute these limits, put them in the software. The same goes for restricted games that aren't allowed while on a bonus. Just pop up a message that says "Sorry the max bet allowed is $6.25 while you still have a bonus" or "Sorry you cannot play this game while your bonus is active". It would be simple to do.
All these terms and clauses that online casinos are using to protect themselves are ridiculous, and there are inevitably going to be innocent players caught out by them. Its obvious that this crap isn't good for your business - not in terms of player satisfaction and also not in the time you have to waste dealing with it. So make it impossible to be exploited either deliberately or accidentally. Then there can be no mistakes, no confusion, no arguments, and no debate about "spirit of the bonus" and other associated BS.
I know you don't develop the software but you are in a position to demand it from RTG. So demand it! Its a disgrace that this sort of thing has been going on for years and very few casinos have bothered to address it (kudos 3Dice and Party Casino from memory).
All these terms and clauses that online casinos are using to protect themselves are ridiculous, and there are inevitably going to be innocent players caught out by them. Its obvious that this crap isn't good for your business - not in terms of player satisfaction and also not in the time you have to waste dealing with it. So make it impossible to be exploited either deliberately or accidentally. Then there can be no mistakes, no confusion, no arguments, and no debate about "spirit of the bonus" and other associated BS.
I know you don't develop the software but you are in a position to demand it from RTG. So demand it! Its a disgrace that this sort of thing has been going on for years and very few casinos have bothered to address it (kudos 3Dice and Party Casino from memory).
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Location
- California
What about that other sloto case
In this case, the player broke the rules. Yes, sloto could have acted differently, but the rule was broken.
I'm just as concerned about the case where sloto said the "advantage" player played $50 and then "grinded out" at $20 per spin on a $400 deposit and 400% bonus and therefore denied the winnings. I found that case to be even more incredible. Even a $50 spin is only 3% of the bonus anyway, so I didn't think sloto had a leg to stand on, yet they seem to have stuck by that ruling. Does anyone know anything about how that worked out? I think that player should be paid if he played $1 per spin. The rules are the rules, as sloto says in denying the 12k payment above. What rule did the player in this example break?
In this case, the player broke the rules. Yes, sloto could have acted differently, but the rule was broken.
I'm just as concerned about the case where sloto said the "advantage" player played $50 and then "grinded out" at $20 per spin on a $400 deposit and 400% bonus and therefore denied the winnings. I found that case to be even more incredible. Even a $50 spin is only 3% of the bonus anyway, so I didn't think sloto had a leg to stand on, yet they seem to have stuck by that ruling. Does anyone know anything about how that worked out? I think that player should be paid if he played $1 per spin. The rules are the rules, as sloto says in denying the 12k payment above. What rule did the player in this example break?
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
He won a pretty good amount ?
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
I think that about sums it up. Rogue casinos wont care a damn a nd will void your winnings without the blink of an eye whereas casinos that are considered to be fine will hide behind some ridiculous rule and deny winnings. Discretion only comes into play when operators believe paying out would be more advantageous than the negative publicity they get. Up till now, 32 RED is possibly the only casino who uses discretion wisely and out of their own accord. Others will do so only under immense pressure.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Location
- California
let's apply the pressure
Well, in this case, I think sloto has over the years been generally honorable, and Ms Sloto seems like a nice host, so let's start putting on the pressure because the casino of the "spirit of the bonus" dq of the guy with the $400 deposit is absurd, and we need answers from Ms. Sloto on this one, much more than "it's an obvious advantage play." Not only is that term absurd, but betting 3% of bonus doesn't seem to even come close, even if "advantage play" is a reasonable reason (which it never is: they make the rules, players play under them).
Well, in this case, I think sloto has over the years been generally honorable, and Ms Sloto seems like a nice host, so let's start putting on the pressure because the casino of the "spirit of the bonus" dq of the guy with the $400 deposit is absurd, and we need answers from Ms. Sloto on this one, much more than "it's an obvious advantage play." Not only is that term absurd, but betting 3% of bonus doesn't seem to even come close, even if "advantage play" is a reasonable reason (which it never is: they make the rules, players play under them).
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
I don't "apply" my convictions....they come from experience.
Show me ONE thread with a case just close to this, from 32Red, and I'll show you 4 from Sloto, and I think it's very unfair to 32Red, to even begin to compare the two.
Unless you somewhere in this thread said, that SLOTO is wrong, confiscating 12K, based on this players mistake, and I somehow missed your post, I'm afraid you're jumping to conclusions, saying that I agree with you
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
It was still one minor mistake. The 177 spins was the consequence, not the mistake itself. Sloto also made a minor mistake, they sent the wrong log files, the consequence of this mistake was to undermine their stand over this ruling.
The player paid for this mistake by losing 12K, the casino got to say "sorry", but kept the 12K. It is not a level playing field when it comes to the suffering caused by one's own mistakes.
Drivers often make minor mistakes, but occasionally the consequences can be major. It is the mistake that is punished, not the consequences. It is the same for other things, courts look at the mistake made, and do not normally punish according to the consequences. They can also take mitigating circumstances into account.
You may well not make THIS particular mistake, but you could one day make another that you hadn't guarded against, and be trying to argue that YOU should be paid.
Whether or not someone is an "advantage player" should not be a factor when deciding how to deal with their mistake.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
I don't "apply" my convictions....they come from experience.
Show me ONE thread with a case just close to this, from 32Red, and I'll show you 4 from Sloto, and I think it's very unfair to 32Red, to even begin to compare the two.
Unless you somewhere in this thread said, that SLOTO is wrong, confiscating 12K, based on this players mistake, and I somehow missed your post, I'm afraid you're jumping to conclusions, saying that I agree with you
The point I was making is that 32Red has the max bet rule...they deal with it differently, but they have it. You still think they're OK though. I also think that if this happened at 32Red there would be no argument about it being a "mistake"....it would be a breach of the rules and the penalty would be applied. The only difference is the penalty, but this penalty is clearly stated in the rules at both casinos. You may not like the rule, but you agree to it when you play, so there's no point crying about it afterwards.
What I mean by addressing my arguments mean actually addressing them....not just saying "Yeah well sloto was wrong and they confiscated 12K". You've hardly said anything about the reasons I have for my line of thinking, so I assumed you must agree with them in principle at least.
So which casinos do you play? If you don't want to answer its OK...not sure why you wouldn't....but it's OK.
Are you seriously comparing Sloto posting the wrong log file to a player making 177 bets over the max allowed? Really? I'm surprised at you Vinyl. The terms and conditions say nothing about posting log files and the resulting penalties, but they do say something about making bets over $6.50 and the resulting penalties. Comparing the two is like comparing killing a fly with fly spray and running over a pedestrian. It's really drawing a very long bow.
I won't argue with your legal prowess, but courts punish speeding drivers according to speed, not whether they hit anyone. If you go to court for 60mph over, they don't say "oh well that's fine you didn't hit anyone". You pay a heavy fine according to the speed...and that's what the player is paying here. Whilst we're on the legal technicalities, the OP actually broke the term 177 times. Each spin was a breach of the rule, regardless of whether it was automated or not. If you hacked into someone's account, and found a way to siphon money every week into your account via autopayment, you will be charged for every time the money came out...not just the first time when you logged in and setup the fraudulent autopay. Relieving the OP of any responsibility because he used autoplay is ridiculous.
Anyway, as I said, the OP has been refused payment so it's all academic.
I'm more concerned about the other case with the $50 bets. We don't seem to have been shown any factual information and the casino has been coy as well. If it's a "spirit of the bonus" issue then yeah Sloto need to pay up and change their terms going forward. If it turns out it was a max bet or some other specific term violation, then they should be treated the same as the OP.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Location
- Location, Location!
You are 100% wrong. The people who won't play there are people like me who couldn't care less about bonuses/advantage play/WR blah blah blah - and just want a straight up trustworthy casino who'll pay them money back as honestly and transparently as they'll take it. Or, if things go wrong for whatever reason - there'll be a transparent, amicable and trustworthy route for resolution.
Like I said somewhere else, regardless of blame and semantics and terms and conditions - I wouldn't touch Slotocash with KasinoKings bankroll.
Delays, wrong logs emailed, anonymous interaction, text file amendments, complete confiscation of winnings etc etc etc.
There are thousands of people like me who read Casinomeister and, simply put, it just aint worth it.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
You persist in confusing consequences with the actual severity of the mistake made. The mistake was a single click of the mouse without checking. Had this been a click on "spin", the consequence would have been ONE spin at $20. Unfortunately, it was a click on "start", and the other 176 spins were a result of the client continuing to bet, not of the PLAYER making a further 176 mistakes. The actual mistake made was the SAME in both the cases discussed. The previous case could be considered WORSE, as that player REPEATED the same mistake more than once. He failed to check repeatedly when returning to the game from the cashier.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Location
- Location, Location!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Again, CONSEQUENCES, not the mistake itself. Besides, the 12.5K was NOT a consequence of the mistake, as it had been won prior to the run of large bets. Even if paid, the player would have been worse off through betting so big rather than lessening the exposure of his 12K to variance by continuing to bet at $6.But wasn't worth 12.5K
The whole affair is created by operators who use offers like "400%, deposit $500 and play with $2500" for NEW players. If they don't want advantage players, they have a strange way of going about it. Such offers should instead be confined to long term loyal players that have earned it through their level of play.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
If I started my car in the high street, put it in drive, and jumped out....and the car run over three people, how many counts of murder/manslaughter would i be charged with? Only one surely, as the three deaths were only consequences of the one action right? I mean, I only started the car once right?
You see, when he clicked start he agreed to the software placing continual bets of the same value until he stopped it. You cannot say he was responsible for only the first bet and not the other 176. It's ludicrous. I'm surprised with all your legal experience that you don't know that.
Betting 6 lines @$1 is higher variance than 20 lines @$1. The correct method is to make high bets to reduce your bankrolls exposure to the house edge.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Here in the UK you would quite possibly get away with a driving ban and a short sentence because the mistake would be punished, even if the charge was manslaughter. This does lead to considerable public outcry when punishments for killing someone because of bad driving does not end up being anything close to punishments for killing someone in other circumstances.
It's not the same in other countries.
The bankers were also not punished for the consequences of their collective major screw up, but merely for what they did. Most got off with a "sorry", even though they destroyed the lives of a whole generation, and lead to the near collapse of a number of countries. They were not even required to refund the money they made from their mistakes, and some did so only because of public pressure.
It seems the rich and powerful can get away with stuff that the ordinary person would be severely punished for. This REALLY pisses off the ordinary people. Casino operators may not be part of the elite, but they ARE higher up in the pecking order than the players, and we DO see many getting off by simply saying sorry, whereas players are rarely allowed to JUST say sorry, but have to suffer an often disproportionate consequence.
Whilst there is little the ordinary people can do about it other than "bitch and moan", this doesn't make it right. Sometimes the people DO end up finding a way to force change, and this can sometimes be sudden and violent. We had the "Arab spring", but we also had the August riots here in the UK that DID take the establishment completely by surprise, because it was a venting of general anger against specific targets that were simply "in the wrong place at the wrong time", rather than being the cause of the anger. There were riots in Greece over the consequences of the banker's mistakes, and it was anger at being asked to suffer the austerity, but having not made the mistakes that caused it, nor benefitted from any of the profits generated. The UK riots grew because of a similar simmering anger, but needed a trigger as an excuse to kick them off, which was a police shooting, often forgotten by many as the initial trigger that put the idea to riot into people's minds. The rest was simply down to it being obvious that the authorities were completely overwhelmed, so the petty criminals seized an opportunity to help themselves using the excuse of "doing it in protest" at something, rather than just because they are greedy.
footdr
Banned User: PITA violations of the Forum Rules
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Location
- cyberspace
Can someone please explain.....
Exactly what is a max bet rule, when does it apply(when bonus redeemed only?) and exactly where is this term stated? I have never seen this as a term in a bonus or any other terms condition.
Please explain.
Exactly what is a max bet rule, when does it apply(when bonus redeemed only?) and exactly where is this term stated? I have never seen this as a term in a bonus or any other terms condition.
Please explain.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
It is now quite common.
It applies when there is a bonus in play.
In normal play, the bet limits are set by the software, and operators set these to suit. Some now want a lower maximum bet when a bonus is in play, even though the software allows higher bets up to the limit set by the operator.
Rather than have the software detect the presence of a bonus and reduce the table or spin limits within the software, they add a term to the bonus rules to impose such a limit.
It can take several forms.
1) xx% of bonus credited
2) xx% of deposit
3) A specific amount, such as $6.50
There have been a few cases of "xx% of current balance", but this has lead to stupid situations and arguments, so is much less common.
The rule, where present, will be where the general bonus terms are listed, such as the WR, excluded games, max cashout, etc. It may not appear on specific bonus summaries as it is a general term covering all bonuses, or in some cases only the welcome bonus.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Location
- uk
sloto
hi i cant seem to get my head round with the defence for the op , i play with sloto dont get any problems if i do break the terms ( like the other day ) its pretty much my fault , anyway how on earth couldnt you see your account balance going down by 20 bucks a spin? its his job to double check what line bets are placed not that of the casino , that maybe harsh but its there written in the T&C , 6.50 max per spin & its clearly written aswell , let it be a lesson to him or her , double check on things before hitting that spin button , then he wouldnt be here complaing about it , i happen to believe that sloto is a good RTG casino & payouts are prompt .
hi i cant seem to get my head round with the defence for the op , i play with sloto dont get any problems if i do break the terms ( like the other day ) its pretty much my fault , anyway how on earth couldnt you see your account balance going down by 20 bucks a spin? its his job to double check what line bets are placed not that of the casino , that maybe harsh but its there written in the T&C , 6.50 max per spin & its clearly written aswell , let it be a lesson to him or her , double check on things before hitting that spin button , then he wouldnt be here complaing about it , i happen to believe that sloto is a good RTG casino & payouts are prompt .
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Location
- Location, Location!
... Double check your text file/game log attachment before hitting that 'send' button.
Everyone makes mistakes; some just get penalised more than others.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Location
- Bexhill on sea, England
Just a few things:
How on earth did this thread get to be over 140 posts??? (Mostly waffle, it has to be said).
I pretty much agree with everything Nifty said; The player broke the rules and had his winnings denied. End of story.
It was not one "simple little mistake" like hitting "Bet Max" by accident once or twice - it was 100s of spins! As a frequent player myself I usually tend to side with the players - but in this case the casino is perfectly entitled to invoke their rules IMO.
Why is everyone still talking about this - is there a world-wide shortage of forks or something?
KK
How on earth did this thread get to be over 140 posts??? (Mostly waffle, it has to be said).
I pretty much agree with everything Nifty said; The player broke the rules and had his winnings denied. End of story.
It was not one "simple little mistake" like hitting "Bet Max" by accident once or twice - it was 100s of spins! As a frequent player myself I usually tend to side with the players - but in this case the casino is perfectly entitled to invoke their rules IMO.
Why is everyone still talking about this - is there a world-wide shortage of forks or something?
KK
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Location
- Texas, USA
Is this the same complaint that is on Gambling Grumbles? If it is, how is it that it is $12,400 here and $17,000 over there? $4,600 is a big difference in my book.
Just curious.
And I'm with KK, stick a fork in it. Done, done, done.
Just curious.
And I'm with KK, stick a fork in it. Done, done, done.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Location
- Palm Bay Florida
I too say..........
It's time to put this to bed......
It's time to put this to bed......
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Location
- Location, Location!
Its not though, is it. Had the guy either been able to automatically check the play via a Playcheck type malarkey OR the casino had reliably supplied accurate indelible information quickly and in a trustable format - it would be that simple. But it isn't. Plus the other guy got paid (sort of).
There's a massive question mark over Slotocash. Or not, apparently. Depending on how tolerant you are of how a customer should be treated by a casino.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Location
- Texas, USA
Sorry, Slotster, it is done.
Sloto made their stand very clear so no matter how many times folks post in this thread, it's done. No one and nothing posted here is going to change the facts.
Sloto made their stand very clear so no matter how many times folks post in this thread, it's done. No one and nothing posted here is going to change the facts.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Location
- Location, Location!
Oh yeah, I get that. It's not my money, so that's kind of incidental to me. I'm not the Police either, so I'm not going to insist Sloto pays anyone. Up to them.
Critically, these forums provide an excellent audit trail for anyone making a decision on where they should throw their bankroll now or at some point in the future. When these sort of experiences are shared, it serves as excellent recommendation or warning.
Either way, the dissection and debate is important - regardless of if that's with rogue, accredited or anywhere inbetween.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Location
- California
Not the same
This is not the same complaint, and in my opinion, the complaint at Gambling Grumbles is far worse as there no rules were broke but sloto is applying the spirit of the bonus to a player who deposited $400, took 400% then (according to sloto, not the OP) bet the max of $50 on a slot (still only 3% of the bonus), hit big, then bet the max on 20 line games and "grinded it out" at $20 per spin and is having his money confiscated. Not only was he within the rules completely, but the "advantage play" element is extremely doubtful as well.
Yes, no one is taking sloto to task on that one, but slamming sloto for a case where the rules were clearly broken.
This is not the same complaint, and in my opinion, the complaint at Gambling Grumbles is far worse as there no rules were broke but sloto is applying the spirit of the bonus to a player who deposited $400, took 400% then (according to sloto, not the OP) bet the max of $50 on a slot (still only 3% of the bonus), hit big, then bet the max on 20 line games and "grinded it out" at $20 per spin and is having his money confiscated. Not only was he within the rules completely, but the "advantage play" element is extremely doubtful as well.
Yes, no one is taking sloto to task on that one, but slamming sloto for a case where the rules were clearly broken.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Location
- Texas, USA
Thanks, SlotsLover. I didn't read the whole thing at Grumbles, sorry.
This is two different kettle of fish. Unless the OP at Grumbles comes here and PAB then it's not likely to be discussed here.
This is two different kettle of fish. Unless the OP at Grumbles comes here and PAB then it's not likely to be discussed here.
Similar threads
Bonus Complaint
Incognito Casino Withdrawal and Bonus Issue
