SUB at Redbet and Whitebet?

[AC7X]

Can anyone confirm if you are allowed to use the sign-up bonus at both Redbet and Whitebet? I don't see anything on the terms and conditions but wanted to be sure...

Outdated URL (Invalid)

 

[Nate]

Hi,

You may not claim the SUB's at Whitebet and HeyPoker IF already claimed at Redbet....

Although PM Redbet Andy and he can direct you. The rule is in place to prevent Bonus abuse obviously... not ALL people fall into that class.

Nate

 

[vinylweatherman]

Can anyone confirm if you are allowed to use the sign-up bonus at both Redbet and Whitebet? I don't see anything on the terms and conditions but wanted to be sure...

Outdated URL (Invalid)

Another player got caught out by this. It is obvious that this rule is not clear enough. Even players who are looking specifically for such an exclusion are having trouble finding it. Usually, unless specifically excluded in the terms, the default understanding is that you CAN treat each casino offered by an operator as an independent entity, hence you can be a "new customer" at each and take any relevant offers.

Where you can't do this, I fail to see any point in running clone skins when players can only use one of them. If there was ONLY Redbet, this would not be a problem as it would be obvious to players that once they have taken a welcome bonus, they are an "existing customer" at Redbet.

Such rules require players to understand part of the corporate structure behind individual casino websites, even though each is branded differently. Most players don't understand nor care, they see Redbet as being one site, and Whitebet being a different one. It would be like expecting players to "understand" that 32Red and 7Red are both branches of the same company, named in a similar way to Red & White bet as 32 or 7 Red. In one case there is no connection whatsoever, and in the other the connection is very close indeed. Players cannot therefore be expected to gather from a naming similarity that two sites are run by the same company, as often this throws up a false connection. In many cases, the false connection is damaging to one of the brands as it is often down to a "copycat rogue" trying to appear to be connected to a well respected operation.

If I didn't know better (from this and the other thread), I would see the sudden appearance of "whitebet" as being a rogue operation trying to trick players into trusting them by creating the impression they are connected to Redbet. I would think the same if a casino with a similar name to another respected operation suddenly appeared. "Can I also take this welcome bonus" would not be the FIRST question I would be asking, it would more likely be "who the hell are you lot?"

 

[rainmaker]

If I didn't know better (from this and the other thread), I would see the sudden appearance of "whitebet" as being a rogue operation trying to trick players into trusting them by creating the impression they are connected to Redbet. I would think the same if a casino with a similar name to another respected operation suddenly appeared. "Can I also take this welcome bonus" would not be the FIRST question I would be asking, it would more likely be "who the hell are you lot?"

The very first rule says:

Redbet Gaming Ltd includes the brands www.Redbet.com, www.Whitebet.com and www.Heypoker.com


And this is the rule from their general bonus terms:

Redbet Gaming Ltd reserves the right to void bonuses and winnings if the customer or any person in the customers household has previously received a similar or equal bonus on one of our other brands. This applies to both sportsbetting and casino bonuses.

 

[Nate]

Another player got caught out by this. It is obvious that this rule is not clear enough. Even players who are looking specifically for such an exclusion are having trouble finding it. Usually, unless specifically excluded in the terms, the default understanding is that you CAN treat each casino offered by an operator as an independent entity, hence you can be a "new customer" at each and take any relevant offers.

That's not the case - the player DID NOT get caught out... Actually the player tried to catch Redbet out - The player has a history of ONLY complaints due to Bonus abuse... If this is the player you are referring to - I suggest you read the thread again before making sweeping statements.

This post shows that on EVERY Page of Redbet / Whitebet and Heypoker - It expressly identifies them with Redbet.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ngs-due-to-whitebet-winnings-must-read.53452/

Again the player is a scamster - Read here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ngs-due-to-whitebet-winnings-must-read.53452/

This is the only dispute relating to a Bonus I can see recently??

Nate

 

[vinylweatherman]

I found the terms scattered about the site. This is in the general terms, but NOT in the welcome bonus terms, the one place it NEEDS to be clearly spelled out as this is the place a NEW player is almost guaranteed to be looking at in some detail. There was also a typo, with the Whitebet site stating it was Redbet, not Whitebet. This is the kind of things we see when a content thief slips up when stealing a whole site and trying to make his own version of it.

Although a scammer, such a player would try to use such a site structure as a loophole, but this does not detract from the fact that the problem is still there, players are simply missing this rule when looking at the terms.

The reason is pretty clear. casino terms are so longwinded and crammed with legalese that "reading the terms" actually means "scanning the page" for those bits that actually look like they are written in a language that the everyday person might understand. If such a term is embedded in, or even just close to, a block of mind numbing legalese, it can be missed. This is common for terms of anything, and is why there is strict guidance on how terms must be laid out to UK consumers. Online casinos do not yet have to adhere to this guidance, so merely show the version drawn up with it's lawyers' help.
The "plain English" pages that players are likely to read, rather than scan, are those for the specific promotions they want to play. If they see here what looks like a full set of bonus terms, they will not think to ask whether any other terms apply.

Cassava white labels are well known for using this type of rule as a means to scam players they deem to be "too skilled", which gives the enforcement of such rules by other casinos a negative anti-player appearance.

To clear the problem up, why not simply have the back end systems enforce it when a player from one brand signs up at another. Fortune Lounge do this with their back end. If they offer anything, it applies only to the first skin it is used on. Try to claim it again, such as on Royal Vegas and then Platinum Play, and it is blocked by their systems. The rule is enforced by the software, so a player can never be in a position where it is enforced after the fact through a voiding of winnings. To bypass this at FL, one has to be a bit devious, and thus not an innocent player caught out, but one trying to bypass the rule enforcement.

One could also argue why FL need 8 casinos, when promotions are one per player.

I wonder whether this is an accounting trick where a single player with an account at each FL casino shows up as 8 players in the accounts for the company as a whole, making it appear to be much more popular than it really is.

 

[MAW3Y]

I have an account at Redbet, and wanted to open one in Whitebet. I simply went to live chat and asked about bonuses before I opened an accout because as I was concerned about the link between the two sites and any bonus abuse terms and the agent in chat said "you are able to claim the welcome bonus in white bet as we are an independant brand from Redbet".

This was yesterday: The first question I asked was "Can I have an account with Whitebet if I have one at Redbet"

 

[vinylweatherman]

I have an account at Redbet, and wanted to open one in Whitebet. I simply went to live chat and asked about bonuses before I opened an accout because as I was concerned about the link between the two sites and any bonus abuse terms and the agent in chat said "you are able to claim the welcome bonus in white bet as we are an independant brand from Redbet".

This was yesterday: The first question I asked was "Can I have an account with Whitebet if I have one at Redbet"

Clearly, it is as "clear as mud". Even their CS are giving the wrong advice to players. This is unsatisfactory, and would breach the standards for accreditation.

Operational Standards

•Must pay winnings in a timely manner.
•Must not disqualify any player from a payout if terms & conditions are met, except for situations of fraud (multiple-accounts, bogus ID documents, chargebacks, etc.,).
•Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations.
•Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player.
•No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.
•Must pay out progressive jackpot wins in full or in reasonable chunks, regardless of any terms and conditions limiting payouts.*
•Must remove any bonus and associated playthrough requirements at the request of the player if play has not commenced.
•Will not entice players to reverse cash withdrawals with bonuses or other incentives.
•Will not use outsourced support. Player support must be in-house.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you ask CS a specific question, and are given a wrong answer that would cause you to break a term, especially one you are asking about, this DOES place the player in a position of involuntarily breaking the terms.

CS should KNOW that the bonuses are one per PLAYER, not one per brand, as this is known company policy among experienced players.

If their own CS get it wrong, mere players cannot be expected to be better informed than the CS, this is what CS is for - to answer questions about matters that players are unsure of.


It seems in general that players are more likely to get an accurate answer about terms and conditions by asking other CM members than asking the casino CS.

 

[Nate]

Clearly, it is as "clear as mud". Even their CS are giving the wrong advice to players. This is unsatisfactory, and would breach the standards for accreditation.

Again you are misguided... Making a Mountain out of a mole hill... I had the exact same scenario - I was told I could claim it by live chat and did... I later found out it was an error on their part. It was still honored.

The way you are behaving as if Redbet is some clip joint intent on ripping off players - AGAIN blowing the whole issue outta proportion. That's why we have Reps on the forum. People make mistakes and IF... A BIG IF ... they did not honor the statement I am 100% confident Andy will make good on it.

Sorry dude... Your rant is unwarranted.

Nate

 

[Redbet-Andy]

Thanks for the reminder!
I promised to add some clarity to this in the Welcome Bonus terms and conditions following the Khan thread but then it just didn't get done.
We're doing it right now.

Cheers for that
Andy

As to the general question it's one of those issues where we use a "reserves the right" clause so that we don't have to penalise genuine players.
If you take the max Redbet Welcome bonus and the Whitebet welcome bonus and the Heypoker welcome bonus for example (in Khan's case all at the same time!) then we're likely to look at it and perhaps block the later ones.
if you play at Redbet for a while and then decide that you want to try Whitebet etc then it's highly unlikely you'll be penalised.
As someone in the other thread said, it's a shame that we are forced to introduce so many T&Cs but it's a way for us to make it fairer all round for the majority of players.
Not foolproof or perfect and if anyone has better ideas throw them out in a new thread that's not brand specific as it'll make an interesting discussion for players and reps.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Again you are misguided... Making a Mountain out of a mole hill... I had the exact same scenario - I was told I could claim it by live chat and did... I later found out it was an error on their part. It was still honored.

The way you are behaving as if Redbet is some clip joint intent on ripping off players - AGAIN blowing the whole issue outta proportion. That's why we have Reps on the forum. People make mistakes and IF... A BIG IF ... they did not honor the statement I am 100% confident Andy will make good on it.

Sorry dude... Your rant is unwarranted.

Nate

This is the problem. CS are giving the wrong advice which leaves players open to involuntarily breaking the terms. Even if a "reserve the right" attitude is used, it still creates a problem where CS say yes, and management decide that the player is one that should not be allowed to claim the bonus. This example was one where CS didn't use a "reserve the right" discretion to grant the bonus, but erroneously stated that there was no problem because the brands were independent.

Whilst Redbet has a history of honouring mistakes made on erroneous advice from CS, this is by no means universal, with one casino on record as telling a player they should not take the word of a CS agent as binding in situations like this.

Poor CS seems endemic in the industry, and really needs to be addressed. It should not be necessary for reps to act as CS agents, or have to clear up the mess when CS get things wrong. There are also those players who are not CM members, and have no way to contact the rep to have a matter cleared up other than going through CS and hoping the matter can be reffered over the head of a supervisor who makes a bad decision regarding a mistake made by CS.

Ideally, the software should block it by default, and then lift the block on a case by case basis as the "right is reserved" to allow some regular players to claim a bonus at one of the other brands.

It is better to have a "bonus abuser" trying to argue that the block should be lifted rather than have one having to complain about confiscation of part or all of their winnings, with the bad PR that this can produce.

 

[Cogge]

What do you mean by the CS giving the wrong information? He just said that the player was allowed to take the bonus?

The terms states "reserves" not "you're not allowed". If you ask the CS and they say it's ok, it's obviously legally binding as the CS is a representative of the company. They can't then come after the fact and say "no wait, you were actually not allowed".

Perhaps the CS sometimes give erroneous information (who's perfect?), perhaps the CS has looked over the player's account and deemed him fit for another bonus, who knows. Doesn't change the fact that they explicitly said "It's ok to use the bonus" and thus gave up the right to invoke that part of their T&Cs.

 

[Nate]

This is the problem. CS are giving the wrong advice which leaves players open to involuntarily breaking the terms.

Yes - Again Redbet is NOT a clip joint (This is not Casino Rewards or 888). Mistakes Happen and when they do, it takes a STELLAR operation to stand up and honor or correct their mistakes - FWIW - Redbet IS all that!

Even if a "reserve the right" attitude is used, it still creates a problem where CS say yes, and management decide that the player is one that should not be allowed to claim the bonus.

This is so speculative - how do you know what Management will do?

Poor CS seems endemic in the industry, and really needs to be addressed. It should not be necessary for reps to act as CS agents, or have to clear up the mess when CS get things wrong....

If its NOT the reps job to assist with mistakes or queries - I would Suggest Redbet Andy closes his account here... We not dealing with Robots here... Even the BEST Casinos make mistakes...

I see your argument but all you are trying to do is make Redbet look amateur with speculation and more speculation. They are far from that and I suspect that you are barking up the wrong tree. Seriously mate - Get a grip.

Nate

 

[vinylweatherman]

I have no experience with Redbet, but I do not agree that Casino Rewards is a "clip joint" as I DO have experience there of being a VIP, and I also know that Kahnawake have changed for the better, so Casino Rewards would suffer for making a bad decision.

Redbet in this matter have committed the SAME misjudgement as Casino Rewards had a while ago, for which they had a slapped wrist from Kahnawake. They too had a one welcome bonus per player policy, and used a discretionary rather than absolute attitude to enforcement, just as Redbet have. Also like Redbet, Casino Rewards did not have this particular restriction listed with the rest of the bonus terms, but as a clause in the general terms. Kahnawake ruled that this was not sufficiently clear, and so they shared the blame for a player who didn't read both sets of terms. This lead to Kahnawake ordering CR to pay half the disputed winnings they had confiscated.

We cannot have one rule for Redbet, and another for those perceived to be lesser operations. Rather, it is Redbet that have dropped the ball in allowing this lack of clarity to exist in an otherwise "stellar" operation.

I had a go at Cassava for the very same thing, a lack of clarity over their one welcome bonus across all Cassava white labels policy that was catching players out because CS were giving out the wrong information, and the term governing this was situated away from the rest of the bonus terms. Redbet don't get a free ride because of who they are, it is what they do that counts.

Granted, they tend to honour such mistakes, not something that one can say of Cassava.

When the earlier case arose, the term seemed to be absolute, not discretionary, and was the grounds used for the action taken.

Just because a player took all three bonuses doesn't mean they are a scammer. It is how they play those boni that counts - meet the playthrough, and the terms of play such as no whole of bankroll bets, and they should be seen for what they are, someone who wants to win, just like the casino.

Casinos don't operate to entertain themselves, they operate to outsmart players through slick marketing, making players feel they have a better chance of winning than they actually do. Sometimes, a player is too smart to fall for the marketing, but sees and seizes any opportunities within that could shift the odds in their favour, and this is almost always to be found in the bonus offers.

Later on, I am off to Tesco for a spot of "advantage shopping"

 

[Redbet-Andy]

Tough audience!
I don't want to deprive the vast majority of players of a bonus in an effort to protect ourselves from an extremely small minority so we're retaining the policy.
However, thanks to feedback from here we will update the T&Cs as follows. I think this makes it fairer.
It will be displayed in the Welcome Bonus terms not deep in the general T&Cs...


The Redbet group includes Redbet, Whitebet and Heypoker. We reserve the right to cancel a welcome bonus, and any winnings arising from it, if the player has already used a welcome bonus at one of the other brands. To get approval prior to using a second welcome bonus, please contact [email protected]

Cheers
Andy

 

[vinylweatherman]

Tough audience!
I don't want to deprive the vast majority of players of a bonus in an effort to protect ourselves from an extremely small minority so we're retaining the policy.
However, thanks to feedback from here we will update the T&Cs as follows. I think this makes it fairer.
It will be displayed in the Welcome Bonus terms not deep in the general T&Cs...


The Redbet group includes Redbet, Whitebet and Heypoker. We reserve the right to cancel a welcome bonus, and any winnings arising from it, if the player has already used a welcome bonus at one of the other brands. To get approval prior to using a second welcome bonus, please contact [email protected]

Cheers
Andy

Can we assume that if prior approval is given, even if the CS made a mistake, any winnings will be honoured.

Is it not possible to automatically block the minority of players rather than have to confiscate after the fact. A simple time limited block should be enough. Applied to all who claim any one welcome bonus, it would ensure players had to wait xx days before being able to get one at another skin, which would deal with those players that sign up at all three in a short space of time purely for the welcome bonuses. Players not out to exploit the system will find no block if they sign up after a longer period to the other skins.

Another idea would be to have the block automatically lifted once a player has made their NNth deposit where they claimed the first welcome bonus. NN set to a value that favours loyal returning players who after a while fancy a change of scenery.

Confiscation after the fact due to a "reserve the right" restriction is always going to create bad PR when it affects a player able to "spin" their story in their favour.

 

[Redbet-Andy]

Is it not possible to automatically block the minority of players rather than have to confiscate after the fact.
I thought about that, but not as efficiently IMO. This will affect an extremely small number of people (in 3 years less than half a dozen cases) and the way I've chosen to set this up has a lot of advantages for us, and for genuine players.

Confiscation after the fact due to a "reserve the right" restriction is always going to create bad PR when it affects a player able to "spin" their story in their favour.
Yes I know what you mean, but if a player can spin a story in their favour, successfully, then we may be in the wrong and if we are we deserve the PR hit. If we are in the wrong we'll fix it and hopefully that will negate the bad PR.

Cheers
Andy

Can we assume that if prior approval is given, even if the CS made a mistake, any winnings will be honoured.

Is it not possible to automatically block the minority of players rather than have to confiscate after the fact. A simple time limited block should be enough. Applied to all who claim any one welcome bonus, it would ensure players had to wait xx days before being able to get one at another skin, which would deal with those players that sign up at all three in a short space of time purely for the welcome bonuses. Players not out to exploit the system will find no block if they sign up after a longer period to the other skins.

Another idea would be to have the block automatically lifted once a player has made their NNth deposit where they claimed the first welcome bonus. NN set to a value that favours loyal returning players who after a while fancy a change of scenery.

Confiscation after the fact due to a "reserve the right" restriction is always going to create bad PR when it affects a player able to "spin" their story in their favour.