To Best Casino Group Vegas Partners

[A23456789TJQK]

Found in your terms:
"This is not a large amount to wager considering that the average player will wager 40 X his original Deposits during any one session."

ANY ONE SESSION

So are you saying people who deposit say $25 will/can wager $1000. Could you please prove this?


"Using the promotional bonus for no risk wagers does not fulfill your obligation with regard to the total amount wagered prior to cash in."

If that player really would and could wager his deposit 25x then he must be playing one of your 'no risk' games. Could you tell me which ones are these?:notworthy

"Maple Casino management reserves the right to determine whether play has been deemed to be promotion abuse even though there may have been compliance with the above terms and conditions."

So your casino can void a player's winnings even he complies with all your terms?

 

[alphagirl]

Found in your terms:
"This is not a large amount to wager considering that the average player will wager 40 X his original Deposits during any one session."

ANY ONE SESSION

So are you saying people who deposit say $25 will/can wager $1000. Could you please prove this?


"Using the promotional bonus for no risk wagers does not fulfill your obligation with regard to the total amount wagered prior to cash in."

If that player really would and could wager his deposit 25x then he must be playing one of your 'no risk' games. Could you tell me which ones are these?:notworthy

"Maple Casino management reserves the right to determine whether play has been deemed to be promotion abuse even though there may have been compliance with the above terms and conditions."

So your casino can void a player's winnings even he complies with all your terms?

I think that you will find these things in most casinos T&C. It's really a backdoor for these places. In the end, they will do whatever they want. However, most casinos don't really use this. Good casino's won't anyways. But, I don't think that you have to worry about VPL, you will be treated fairly.

 

[Mousey]

"This is not a large amount to wager considering that the average player will wager 40 X his original Deposits during any one session."

I've seen this stated at more than one casino groups T&C. Anyone know who in the world determined this, or how?

I know I've been having a horrible losing streak lately, rarely able to squeeze out even 2x wagering on my money, but even on a good day, it was quite rare that I could even come close to wagering 40x deposit! Am I the only one that's not 'average'? Never have been 'average'? And if a majority of players were unable to get anywhere near this 'average' 40x deposit in wagers, wouldn't that indicate something flaky in their software?

Sheesh... nothing like making the player feel like a loser before they even play...

 

[spearmaster]

I have a feeling they were referring to Blackjack. This absolutely cannot be true with respect to slots.

 

[Zoozie]

"This is not a large amount to wager considering that the average player will wager 40 X his original Deposits during any one session."
ANY ONE SESSION

I have seen it all over in T&C's also and I also agree it is pure BS, actually worse - it is a LIE.

I would say I wager 40*deposit in like 5% of my sessions at MOST and in those I stop right after 40* since this is the amount needed to clear most bonuses. You can only be able to wager that much in low risk low variance games like BJ. Even in VP you often bust before wagering are fullfilled. Playing slots (as I think a big majority of gamblers do) it is very hard not to bust before wagering 40*deposit.

Have you found any Meister accredited casinos with this in their T&C?

It should be easy to prove this wrong mathematically given bet-size/deposit-size for average players and the game they play (payout% and variance important parameters for this).

Zoozie

 

[pacers31]

I think bonuses need to pretty much be done away with. At 20X, 40X, 1 million X, they all are just a no risk way for the casino to get you in the "go for it" mode and deposit more money after you lose their "free money". I have rarely met a wager requirement anywhere, and when I have, it just turns into a giant hassle to get my money from any of them. If sites offer bonuses, they should maybe do it in a discretionary manner with no strings attached to regular players and depositors. Bonuses are just for the casino, not the player. I hardly ever accept them anymore. Along the same lines, I really didn't appreciate Challenge casino automatically "giving" me sign up bonuses that I didn't request. Of course they kindly "gave" me the wagering requirements that went along with it too!!!! End the come on bonuses people, I'll let you know if I want one!!!

 

[thechap]

I often ask for bonuses to be removed, the casinos rarely have a problem with this.

 

[bayleesprings]

"Sneaky" bonus...

What kills me are the casinos that "sneak" the money in without you knowing and if you're on autospin you may not notice. Then you hit $$ and owe them an unreasonable amount. I will not play there if they pull this with me. I'll bust out and leave if they refuse to withdraw the bonus. If I had wanted the bonus, I would have requested it.

How does everyone else handle this?

 

[soflat]

What kills me are the casinos that "sneak" the money in without you knowing and if you're on autospin you may not notice. Then you hit $$ and owe them an unreasonable amount. I will not play there if they pull this with me. I'll bust out and leave if they refuse to withdraw the bonus. If I had wanted the bonus, I would have requested it.

How does everyone else handle this?

I wouldn't play anyplace that does that either.

For the most part, the Microgaming sites with EZBonus are getting my repeat business. You have the bonus there if you want, but you can play any game and cash out winnings anytime also. No-hassle bonuses, what a concept!

 

[Linus]

"This is not a large amount to wager considering that the average player will wager 40 X his original Deposits during any one session."

If he's playing slots, the average player would bust out after wagering 20x.

For most table games - 3 card poker, for example - the average is 40x.

Only VP and BJ players would be likely to have any money left after wagering 40x.

"Using the promotional bonus for no risk wagers does not fulfill your obligation with regard to the total amount wagered prior to cash in."

I have no idea what casinos are talking about when they say this. There's no such thing as a "no-risk" wager, in a casino.

"Maple Casino management reserves the right to determine whether play has been deemed to be promotion abuse even though there may have been compliance with the above terms and conditions."

The reality is that a casino can keep your money, once you've deposited, whether they say it or not. So it's what they do that's most important, not what they say (although the fact that they DO say it is definitely something worth paying attention to.)

Bonuses are just for the casino, not the player. I hardly ever accept them anymore. Along the same lines, I really didn't appreciate Challenge casino automatically "giving" me sign up bonuses that I didn't request. Of course they kindly "gave" me the wagering requirements that went along with it too!!!!

Unfortunately, some casinos use bonuses not only as a marketing tool, but also as a way to ensure the player will lose.

 

[spearmaster]

If he's playing slots, the average player would bust out after wagering 20x.

For most table games - 3 card poker, for example - the average is 40x.

Pray tell, where do you get your figures from?

Unfortunately, some casinos use bonuses not only as a marketing tool, but also as a way to ensure the player will lose.

Not that I disagree - but think about it. First of all, a casino cannot ensure that you will lose simply through a marketing ploy like this. And secondly, casinos aren't exactly in business to give away money now, are they?

 

[SlotsWizard]

"Using the promotional bonus for no risk wagers does not fulfill your obligation with regard to the total amount wagered prior to cash in."

Could you tell me which ones are these?

I think what this is supposed to mean is that if you Double Up, you have only risked the original amount bet for that hand. For example:

You start with $500
You bet $5.00
You win $5.00
----> So far you have wagered $5.00, have broken even, and you have the option to double up

If you double up and lose on your first try, they do not consider you to have wagered another $5.00. If you double it 4 times and lose on your 5th try, your ending balance would still be $495.00.

I agree that it is worded strangely, but I think this is their intent. The correctly worded statement would read as follows:

Using the promotional bonus for wagers with no house edge does not fulfill your obligation with regard to the total amount wagered prior to cash in.

 

[Linus]

Pray tell, where do you get your figures from?

The house advantage on slots is ~5%. If you roll it over once, that means you lose (on average) 5% of your funds. If you roll it over twice, you lose 10%.

If you roll it over 20 times (20*5%), you lose 100%.

You can do the same thing on any game, once you know the HA.

Not that I disagree - but think about it. First of all, a casino cannot ensure that you will lose simply through a marketing ploy like this.

It depends on the ploy. For example, a non-cashable bonus, with a large wager-requirement, that excludes most everything but slots, will make it very hard for any player to cash any money out.

And secondly, casinos aren't exactly in business to give away money now, are they?

No. They're in business to make as much money as they can.

Nobody ever started a casino because he wanted to save the rainforests.

 

[SlotsWizard]

The house advantage on slots is ~5%. If you roll it over once, that means you lose (on average) 5% of your funds. If you roll it over twice, you lose 10%.

If you roll it over 20 times (20*5%), you lose 100%.

It's not that cut and dry, as each spin does not return precisely 95% (or whatever the statistically expected payout is) otherwise nobody would be playing slots. The variance is high enough that you could end up getting a 1.25x playthrough or a 50x (or higher) playthrough.

If your luck is anything like mine, rest assured that you'll be getting the 1.25x playthrough.

 

[GrandMaster]

"No risk" in the casinos' interpretation includes things like betting red and black simultaneously in roulette, or player and banker in baccarat, which are in fact risky (= non-zero variance) bets. A genuine no risk (= zero variance) bet would be to cover all numbers in roulette with equal amounts.

I would also like to see some statistics supporting the claim that the average player will wager 40x his bankroll in a single session.

 

[Linus]

It's not that cut and dry, as each spin does not return precisely 95% (or whatever the statistically expected payout is) otherwise nobody would be playing slots. The variance is high enough that you could end up getting a 1.25x playthrough or a 50x (or higher) playthrough.

Well, that's what buggy software, document requests, and confiscation clauses are for.

If your luck is anything like mine, rest assured that you'll be getting the 1.25x playthrough.

Hopefully your luck will turn around.

 

[Simmo!]

A genuine no risk (= zero variance) bet would be to cover all numbers in roulette with equal amounts.

I'm no roulette player GM, but aren't their 37 numbers and a pay of 36 - 1 on the numbers? Reminds me - why would people play American Roulette with a "0" and a "00" when you can play European with only a "0" ? Does it pay 37-1 ?

 

[GrandMaster]

Nobody ever started a casino because he wanted to save the rainforests.

I am sure Jackpot Factory will claim that playing their slotmachines will help save the rainforest.

 

[Linus]

"No risk" in the casinos' interpretation includes things like betting red and black simultaneously in roulette, or player and banker in baccarat, which are in fact risky (= non-zero variance) bets. A genuine no risk (= zero variance) bet would be to cover all numbers in roulette with equal amounts.

If you cover all the numbers, you'll lose exactly 5.3% of your wager on every spin.

I assume that's what you mean by zero variance, but I couldn't help but point it out -- because on a 20x or higher WR that guarantees you'll have nothing left when you try to cash out (= 0% chance).

I cannot figure out why casinos don't want people playing Roulette. Given the HA, you'd think they'd be shoving them toward the wheel.

If I ever got hold of a casino executive, that'd be the question that I'd ask him.

I would also like to see some statistics supporting the claim that the average player will wager 40x his bankroll in a single session.

 

[Vesuvio]

If I ever got hold of a casino executive, that'd be the question that I'd ask him.

I'd ask him how he sleeps at night

 

[vinylweatherman]

Zzzz

I'd ask him how he sleeps at night

I expect he has a mug of Horlicks before bed

 

[Mousey]

......
I would also like to see some statistics supporting the claim that the average player will wager 40x his bankroll in a single session.

Exactly! I want to know where they pull these numbers from.

(p.s. ... and I don't want to hear that they pull them out of their... um... behind! LOL We already suspicion that ... )

 

[A23456789TJQK]

You simply can't compute how times his bankroll will any player wager any day by using the house edge.

Although mathematically indifferent, it is actually VERY different to say you lose $25 betting $1,000 and to say your $25 could afford you a $1000 wager.

Would any of you agree?


Also, every game has a house edge and there is NO no-risk game. If a player plays a real money game, he is risking his money, PERIOD.

 

[GrandMaster]

I'm no roulette player GM, but aren't their 37 numbers and a pay of 36 - 1 on the numbers? Reminds me - why would people play American Roulette with a "0" and a "00" when you can play European with only a "0" ? Does it pay 37-1 ?

Yes, you would lose 1/37 of your wager, but this outcome would be guaranteed, hence "no risk". Even Netgaming could not rig this one.

As to why people play American roulette with a much higher house edge, I can only guess: it could be misplaced patriotism, they just don't know any better or there is nothing better available.

If you cover all the numbers, you'll lose exactly 5.3% of your wager on every spin.

I assume that's what you mean by zero variance, but I couldn't help but point it out -- because on a 20x or higher WR that guarantees you'll have nothing left when you try to cash out (= 0% chance).

I cannot figure out why casinos don't want people playing Roulette. Given the HA, you'd think they'd be shoving them toward the wheel.

If I ever got hold of a casino executive, that'd be the question that I'd ask him.

The rate of loss on European (single 0) roulette would be 2.7%, in some casinos only lose 1/2 of even money bets on 0, which reduces the rate of loss to 1.37%. In the good old days you could make easy risk free profits by taking a bonus and then satisfying the WR covering all numbers in roulette. This would not work any more at most places, but there are other strategies which could increase the value of bonuses, for example, if roulette is allowed but does not count for the WR, you could put your whole bankroll on a single number, then walk away if you lose, satisfy the WR if you win.

I have no idea how many are using such extreme strategies, Intercasino offers a generous monthly bonus without banning roulette completely and it seems to be surviving.

 

[Linus]

Grandmaster -

if roulette is allowed but does not count for the WR, you could put your whole bankroll on a single number, then walk away if you lose, satisfy the WR if you win.

No doubt. But if you want to do that - risk your whole roll - you can do that on just about any game, can't you?




Vesuvio -

I'd ask him how he sleeps at night

On pillows stuffed with cash?