Thoughts on bonuses

[lanidar]

My two bits...

I still prefer to have my money in my account under my control after I've won and requested a payout. Unfortunately, some casinos use all sorts of delay tactics before paying out and this has generally made the internet gambler nervous.
So if you can have it in your account in a few minutes, why not?

I completely and totally agree!

 

[sw2003]

I completely and totally agree!

Me too, I prefer the money in my hand than in the casinos'. If you need the
casinos to help you control your gambling impulses than you have a problem
and should go get a self-control transplant.

 

[dickens1298]

Me too, I prefer the money in my hand than in the casinos'. If you need the
casinos to help you control your gambling impulses than you have a problem
and should go get a self-control transplant.

ahh... agreed there - one should never allow the casinos to "control" your gambling impulses.

Still doesn't answer WHY you would prefer the money in hand - except for your peace of mind. Which then implies a lack of trust in the casino. no?

 

[GrandMaster]

The biggest problem for online casinos is cashout time. Recently I have seen some offer IMMEDIATE cashouts. I think that is the wave of the future. The biggest difference between land and online, other than the obvious, is the cashouts. Would you go to the Bellagio if they told you as you were leaving they'd mail you a check in 1-2 weeks instead of paying up?

If I won big and the alternative were having to carry tens of thousands of dollars in cash, then yes, I would prefer a check sent to me. A check issued on the spot or the money wired to my bank account would be even better, of course.

 

[jpm]

ahh... agreed there - one should never allow the casinos to "control" your gambling impulses.

Still doesn't answer WHY you would prefer the money in hand - except for your peace of mind. Which then implies a lack of trust in the casino. no?

Because there's always the possibility that the casino will go out of business without warning and you will not get paid. Seen it happen more than once. So yes, there is a bit of mistrust involved.

 

[lanidar]

ahh... agreed there - one should never allow the casinos to "control" your gambling impulses.

Still doesn't answer WHY you would prefer the money in hand - except for your peace of mind. Which then implies a lack of trust in the casino. no?

Because there's always the possibility that the casino will go out of business without warning and you will not get paid. Seen it happen more than once. So yes, there is a bit of mistrust involved.

Originally Posted by spearmaster
My two bits...

I still prefer to have my money in my account under my control after I've won and requested a payout. Unfortunately, some casinos use all sorts of delay tactics before paying out and this has generally made the internet gambler nervous.
So if you can have it in your account in a few minutes, why not?

All of the above

 

[dickens1298]

Because there's always the possibility that the casino will go out of business without warning and you will not get paid. Seen it happen more than once. So yes, there is a bit of mistrust involved.

Ok - to wrap this tangent up - you're basically saying that with a bit of acknowledged mistrust, you're willing to send several hundred dollars?

Tying this back to the stream of the original thread - the argument was that land casinos have an advantage because you can "cash out" immediately (never mind the $10,000 rule, by the way). My argument is that while we would all love to have immediate cashout, the 2-3 day delay is rather insignificant, especially since there's a high probability the funds will be reused for gaming or used for a leisure purchase (contrary to a comment by another poster - a REAL problem gambler is someone who actually NEEDS the money to make a payment on a necessity, like a mortgage).

In point of fact, would anyone here really choose to go to a land casino because of the advantage of immediate cashout? I'm willing to wager that that's a small minority indeed.

 

[DealerBusts]

I like to have my money in my neteller account quickly. The reason for this is the same as why I play a bonus to completion in a single short session. The act of completing the wagering and receiving my cash is like a task that I do not want to leave unfinished. I get satisfaction from the fact that I can note down the result of a session of BJ and look forward to getting my cash in quick. Yes i am weird

For practical purposes, receiving winnings online instantly would be a big plus because you are not left wondering what cashin you have received or not a week later. Having 7-10 pending withdrawals dating back a few days to a couple of weeks has happened to me often and keeping track of it is an administrative nightmare.

I've never really pondered the question of whether I would prefer a land casino because of the instant payout. Its certainly nice to be paid straigh away but after a while, you get used to the delayed payout from online casinos. If I win big though, i would much prefer to be paid asap because I do not trust all online casinos 100%. Hustlergames.com went out of business with my deposit and winnings after I requested a withdrawal so you have to be careful.

I think the main difference is that at a land casino, you are almost certain to get paid after winning big on slots/BJ/VP. At online casinos, winning and getting paid can be two entirely separate things.

 

[jpm]

Ok - to wrap this tangent up - you're basically saying that with a bit of acknowledged mistrust, you're willing to send several hundred dollars?

Tying this back to the stream of the original thread - the argument was that land casinos have an advantage because you can "cash out" immediately (never mind the $10,000 rule, by the way). My argument is that while we would all love to have immediate cashout, the 2-3 day delay is rather insignificant, especially since there's a high probability the funds will be reused for gaming or used for a leisure purchase (contrary to a comment by another poster - a REAL problem gambler is someone who actually NEEDS the money to make a payment on a necessity, like a mortgage).

In point of fact, would anyone here really choose to go to a land casino because of the advantage of immediate cashout? I'm willing to wager that that's a small minority indeed.

Well you're risking the couple of hundred on the games anyway, so either way its a risk. But since I'm using a trusted payment method like neteller, I'm not too worried about sending the money there in the first place. I can always pester neteller to get the deposit back if they don't credit my account or something.

The mistrust of the online casino I think comes from the fact that you can't really touch the place. If you go to a land based casino, you're there and you can see the assets and the cash flowing all around you. You know that the money is there to pay you if you cashin. They are also (at least in the US) regulated by gaming authorities who are onsite and can't just say, 'sorry we're not going to pay you, tough luck' and ignore your emails & phone calls. They can't just disappear into the night, never to be heard from again while you're standing at the cashier window with a handful of chips.

In fact, a 2 or 3 day delay is imo insignificant. Anything longer than that is bordering on the ridiculous side. Instantaneous is just a nice to have for me.

 

[hahacasino]

bonus is bait
stink bait

 

[Ping]

bonus is bait
stink bait

... and usually, it works!



Ping

 

[sw2003]

... and usually, it works!

Ping

If the fish is smart, it can take a big bite out of the bait and not get hooked.

 

[lanidar]

If the fish is smart, it can take a big bite out of the bait and not get hooked.

:notworthy

 

[Ping]

If the fish is smart, it can take a big bite out of the bait and not get hooked.

Agree! But why take the risk of biting the bait with a hook? Why get casino bonus with high wagering requirement?



Ping

 

[dickens1298]

Agree! But why take the risk of biting the bait with a hook? Why get casino bonus with high wagering requirement?



Ping

All very relative. I enjoy playing the Sands, Omni, and Intercasino - all three offer bonuses with a WR of 25X bonus. Is that excessive? Personally, not for me... especially since I typically meet that WR in one session.

 

[lanidar]

All very relative. I enjoy playing the Sands, Omni, and Intercasino - all three offer bonuses with a WR of 25X bonus. Is that excessive? Personally, not for me... especially since I typically meet that WR in one session.

Why not play at William Hill.
It's the same game as Intercasino.
$80 deposit you get an $80 bonus and all you wager is 10X the D+B...$1600.00.
Instead of $80 + $80 X 25 = $4000.00.
Paid in two business days.
Which is the better deal?

 

[chucho]

Why not play at William Hill.
It's the same game as Intercasino.
$80 deposit you get an $80 bonus and all you wager is 10X the D+B...$1600.00.
Instead of $80 + $80 X 25 = $4000.00.
Paid in two business days.
Which is the better deal?

Maybe William Hill is the next Lucky Nugget, I guess it depends on how many more people take advantage of their "great bonus." What I am trying to say is DONT PLAY AT WILLIAM HILL IF YOU GET A BONUS, IT IS A SCAM OPERATION, HIDDEN TERMS, DONT PLAY THEIR WITH A BONUS OR PAY!!!!!!!!!

 

[dickens1298]

Why not play at William Hill.
It's the same game as Intercasino.
$80 deposit you get an $80 bonus and all you wager is 10X the D+B...$1600.00.
Instead of $80 + $80 X 25 = $4000.00.
Paid in two business days.
Which is the better deal?

Based on pure bonus capture - of course William Hill. But you may want to recheck your figures - it's NOT bonus+deposit X 25... it's bonus X 25. So the WR is $2000, NOT $4000.

But the Sands and Omni feed into the same loyalty program, which is earning me above the industry average because of my level of play.

And as I've stated before... hitting the WR within one session is fairly easy. So the differential of $400 in WR ($2000 vs. $1600) is relatively moot in my case.

 

[lanidar]

Based on pure bonus capture - of course William Hill. But you may want to recheck your figures - it's NOT bonus+deposit X 25... it's bonus X 25. So the WR is $2000, NOT $4000.

But the Sands and Omni feed into the same loyalty program, which is earning me above the industry average because of my level of play.

And as I've stated before... hitting the WR within one session is fairly easy. So the differential of $400 in WR ($2000 vs. $1600) is relatively moot in my case.

My apologies....
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! :notworthy

 

[chucho]

The terms read "To cash out either bonus you must wager an aggregate total of $1600." That is for either the $40 bonus or the $80 bonus. I don't get it, I could not find anywhere that it said play x amount deposit and bonus.

 

[sw2003]

The terms read "To cash out either bonus you must wager an aggregate total of $1600." That is for either the $40 bonus or the $80 bonus. I don't get it, I could not find anywhere that it said play x amount deposit and bonus.

I don't know, I deposited $80 and got the extra $80. I played around with
various games, mostly BJ, and done the WR of $1600 and took my money
out. It is not a scam why are you so cynical about everything???

 

[dickens1298]

The terms read "To cash out either bonus you must wager an aggregate total of $1600." That is for either the $40 bonus or the $80 bonus. I don't get it, I could not find anywhere that it said play x amount deposit and bonus.

The "play x deposit and bonus" is standard industry convention. William Hill isn't applying that because the $1600 is required for either the $40 bonus (40X) or the $80 one (20X). I'm not entirely sure what your question is, however...

 

[chucho]

The "play x deposit and bonus" is standard industry convention. William Hill isn't applying that because the $1600 is required for either the $40 bonus (40X) or the $80 one (20X). I'm not entirely sure what your question is, however...

The way it reads is the wagering requirements are $1600 for the $40 bonus and the $80 bonus and I think that you are saying that is the case. It seem starnge to have the same wr for both. My question basically was "what are the wagering requirments" as it seem strange to me. And their terms read "aggregate total" I am super dumb and I don't know that that means, sounds like something a geologist would say.