- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
This situation came to light when a player reported the following:
At this point the player's balance was fully withdrawable but they continued to play until their balance was back up to $1500. AGAIN the casino knocked the balance back to $750. In their words:
In other words the casino is applying the bonus Terms long after the requirements have been completed and the Terms of the bonus fulfilled. As we see it the casino's actions acknowledged that the Terms were fulfilled because:
What the casino is saying to the player by taking these actions is "all you get is $750", or to put it another way "this is your $750 per the Terms". So it's the player's money at that point -- "your $750" -- and the casino has no further claim on it because accounts have been settled per the Terms. What the player does with their balance after that has got nothing to do with the bonus or its Terms because the casino has already said by their actions "you have completed the bonus and we are now fully enforcing its Terms".
You can't have it both ways: either the bonus is active and in play (in which case leave the player's account alone) or the bonus is concluded and finished (the only justification for confiscating monies per the bonus Terms). To retroactively re-apply bonus Terms at some arbitrary later time(s) because of a technicality (see below) is potentially very damaging to the player's balance and play experience. For these reasons this alert is necessary and justified.
The bottom line is that if the player had withdrawn the full $750 the moment it became withdrawable and immediately re-deposited it the casino's later (2nd) confiscation would clearly have been unreasonable and invalid. Simply because the player didn't do the pointless withdrawal/re-deposit the casino feels they are within their rights to continue to confiscate any and all winnings in excess of the (now expired) bonus "max win" of $750.
What if the player had deposited after the WR? Presumably any further winnings would have been thanks to both the free chip winnings and the player's fresh deposit so would those new winnings be valid or not? Would the casino prorate it or something equally suspect arguing the "max win" clause again?
What if the player had continued to play for months or years after the WR was complete, assuming no withdrawal, deposits, etc? Would the casino have happily carried on confiscating winnings in excess of that original $750, all because "his earnings were based on free chip only"? Could they confiscate $1000? 10,000? More? At what point does this become ridiculous?
The point is that these hypothetical scenarios pose the wrong questions because per the casino's actions the only reasonable conclusion is that the bonus is over. Its Terms no longer apply and the money in the player's account is his own. Until such time as he takes some other bonus and agrees to be subject to its Terms. Any other action by the casino basically means that they are choosing to interpret the Terms as meaning that once the player takes the bonus they are bound by its Terms as long as the casino sees fit, REGARDLESS OF THE WR, and the casino is justified in confiscating all subsequent winnings for as long as they like.
Player beware: the player's only means to free themselves from these Terms is to withdraw everything so there are no "earnings based on free chip only" before they ever place another bet at the casino.
I got a $150 free chip with 5x max cashout requirements attached.
I [played until I] had $2500 in my account and once I passed the Wagering requirements all of the money was automatically taken out of my account along with the free chip ... left me with just the maximum withdrawal of $750. Well over $1800 was taken. That is fine because that is the terms. No problem.
At this point the player's balance was fully withdrawable but they continued to play until their balance was back up to $1500. AGAIN the casino knocked the balance back to $750. In their words:
All player's earnings were based on $150 free chip only. We clearly state in our terms that the maximum cashout based on Free chip are *5 the free bonus amount, $750 in this case. No exceptions stated ... all his earnings were based on free chip only, and there is no place for any misinterpretation.
In other words the casino is applying the bonus Terms long after the requirements have been completed and the Terms of the bonus fulfilled. As we see it the casino's actions acknowledged that the Terms were fulfilled because:
- the WR were met,
- they deliberately knocked the player's balance back to the "max win" amount and,
- they made the player's balance fully withdrawable at that point.
What the casino is saying to the player by taking these actions is "all you get is $750", or to put it another way "this is your $750 per the Terms". So it's the player's money at that point -- "your $750" -- and the casino has no further claim on it because accounts have been settled per the Terms. What the player does with their balance after that has got nothing to do with the bonus or its Terms because the casino has already said by their actions "you have completed the bonus and we are now fully enforcing its Terms".
You can't have it both ways: either the bonus is active and in play (in which case leave the player's account alone) or the bonus is concluded and finished (the only justification for confiscating monies per the bonus Terms). To retroactively re-apply bonus Terms at some arbitrary later time(s) because of a technicality (see below) is potentially very damaging to the player's balance and play experience. For these reasons this alert is necessary and justified.
The bottom line is that if the player had withdrawn the full $750 the moment it became withdrawable and immediately re-deposited it the casino's later (2nd) confiscation would clearly have been unreasonable and invalid. Simply because the player didn't do the pointless withdrawal/re-deposit the casino feels they are within their rights to continue to confiscate any and all winnings in excess of the (now expired) bonus "max win" of $750.
What if the player had deposited after the WR? Presumably any further winnings would have been thanks to both the free chip winnings and the player's fresh deposit so would those new winnings be valid or not? Would the casino prorate it or something equally suspect arguing the "max win" clause again?
What if the player had continued to play for months or years after the WR was complete, assuming no withdrawal, deposits, etc? Would the casino have happily carried on confiscating winnings in excess of that original $750, all because "his earnings were based on free chip only"? Could they confiscate $1000? 10,000? More? At what point does this become ridiculous?
The point is that these hypothetical scenarios pose the wrong questions because per the casino's actions the only reasonable conclusion is that the bonus is over. Its Terms no longer apply and the money in the player's account is his own. Until such time as he takes some other bonus and agrees to be subject to its Terms. Any other action by the casino basically means that they are choosing to interpret the Terms as meaning that once the player takes the bonus they are bound by its Terms as long as the casino sees fit, REGARDLESS OF THE WR, and the casino is justified in confiscating all subsequent winnings for as long as they like.
Player beware: the player's only means to free themselves from these Terms is to withdraw everything so there are no "earnings based on free chip only" before they ever place another bet at the casino.
Last edited: