Tropezia Palace Minimum Withdrawal

[Tropicana50]

How is this place so highly accredited when it has a minimum withdrawal of £100? That is the highest I have ever seen online anywhere!

- T

 

[bigjohn]

Probably because they offer;

Fantastic customer service
Fantastic assortment of slots
Flushes upon request
Great player relations
English, Swedish, Norwegian, Finish, French and German languages supported

Also, USD, GBP and Euro currencies are supported.

Not to mention games from NetEnt, Microgaming, Betsoft, BetonSoft, Leander, NextGen, Sheriff and Rival.

Is there anything else you don't like about them?

 

[Tropicana50]

Probably because they offer;

Fantastic customer service
Fantastic assortment of slots
Flushes upon request
Great player relations
English, Swedish, Norwegian, Finish, French and German languages supported

Also, USD, GBP and Euro currencies are supported.

Not to mention games from NetEnt, Microgaming, Betsoft, BetonSoft, Leander, NextGen, Sheriff and Rival.

Is there anything else you don't like about them?

So do MrGreen and other places but they don't have stupidly high withdrawal limits. Everything else beside the weight of these limits is fine.

- T

 

[PaaskeDenmark]

Probably because they offer;

Fantastic customer service
Fantastic assortment of slots
Flushes upon request
Great player relations
English, Swedish, Norwegian, Finish, French and German languages supported

Also, USD, GBP and Euro currencies are supported.

Not to mention games from NetEnt, Microgaming, Betsoft, BetonSoft, Leander, NextGen, Sheriff and Rival.

Is there anything else you don't like about them?

Quite vague answer on this. Tropicana is right about this. Most other brands offer that and they have £10 minimum withdrawal. So having a 100 minimum is just BS.

 

[miso]

Probably because they offer;

Fantastic customer service
Fantastic assortment of slots
Flushes upon request
Great player relations
English, Swedish, Norwegian, Finish, French and German languages supported

Also, USD, GBP and Euro currencies are supported.

Not to mention games from NetEnt, Microgaming, Betsoft, BetonSoft, Leander, NextGen, Sheriff and Rival.

Is there anything else you don't like about them?

Same as 20 other multi-software casinos.

You realize that many lowrollers are happy to deposit 10 and withdraw 50?
To make a minimum deposit and get above hundred is not as easy as it sounds.
Basically, small depositors are bound to loose most of the time. Even if they strike it lucky,
everytime they dip below 100, need to keep playing.

Personally, I dont think its fun to always watch the balance and hit the WD button as soon
as you cross the WD limit.

 

[bigjohn]

What you guys don't realize is that the information I posted was from CM's own review. According to the ranking system here they must out perform some of those others in some ways, that's why I was wondering if there was anything else in particular the OP didn't like about them. If they are better in several categories but only lower in minimum cashout amount that could explain why they are ranked higher.

 

[Tropicana50]

What you guys don't realize is that the information I posted was from CM's own review. According to the ranking system here they must out perform some of those others in some ways, that's why I was wondering if there was anything else in particular the OP didn't like about them. If they are better in several categories but only lower in minimum cashout amount that could explain why they are ranked higher.

Their system and support is equal to others. As a low roller, depositing £20 and then having a £60 win (which is HUGE for a NetEnt game on minimum bet) means I am still unable to withdraw and have to keep playing. Now I'm stuck in a position of continuing to low roll the slots which will more than likely slowly ebb the balance away, or risk some £10 bets on Blackjack and hope I get lucky.

I cannot recall any other casino I have played at having a withdrawal limit at £100, and the only reason they would have their limit this high is to force low rollers into situations such as this. I wouldn't deem it accredited behaviour.

- T

 

[spoton]

Would be nice if the accredited page takes these kinds of thing into account when giving them point. Not only the min. withdrawal, but it would be nice if also the min. deposit were mentioned in the reviews.

 

[jjezebel37]

Their system and support is equal to others. As a low roller, depositing £20 and then having a £60 win (which is HUGE for a NetEnt game on minimum bet) means I am still unable to withdraw and have to keep playing. Now I'm stuck in a position of continuing to low roll the slots which will more than likely slowly ebb the balance away, or risk some £10 bets on Blackjack and hope I get lucky.

I cannot recall any other casino I have played at having a withdrawal limit at £100, and the only reason they would have their limit this high is to force low rollers into situations such as this. I wouldn't deem it accredited behaviour.

- T

Stopped playing myself because of this but the rep is active here and there is no harm in asking him if he will let you withdraw under the min amount.

 

[bigjohn]

Stopped playing myself because of this but the rep is active here and there is no harm in asking him if he will let you withdraw under the min amount.

This could be one of the reasons they are ranked well here, an active rep. probably weighs heavily here.

I never understood why Club World were ranked so high until I had a problem there and Georgia was excellent.

With Andy at Mr. Green I expect that their rating will improve on the next cycle.

 

[miso]

Stopped playing myself because of this but the rep is active here and there is no harm in asking him if he will let you withdraw under the min amount.

And open the flood gates? I dont know, rules are rules, even if we dont like them sometimes.
While I do sympatize with Tropicana on this one, they should change it for everyone, or not at all.

 

[bigjohn]

Maybe I misunderstood the OP. If he wanted an answer to his question I tried to give him that. If this is a complaint it was posted in the wrong section.

 

[Tropicana50]

Lost all of the £80 back to the casino trying to make it to the £100 wager in Blackjack. Huge scam in my opinion and I would advise anyone who low rolls to avoid this place like the plague.

- T

 

[thebigs]

Same here

Lost all of the £80 back to the casino trying to make it to the £100 wager in Blackjack. Huge scam in my opinion and I would advise anyone who low rolls to avoid this place like the plague.

- T

I have had the same problem with this casino.
Had a good few hours fun and nearly had over the minimum 100 to withdraw but just did not get there.
As for being a scam i do not believe so.
I think they are a good casino but for a smaller player it is annoying when there is such a high limit.
I have asked the casino to look at the policy but it does not look like it will change.
I would most certainly play there again if its ever dropped to 50 or less but until they do i wont.

 

[bigjohn]

Lost all of the £80 back to the casino trying to make it to the £100 wager in Blackjack. Huge scam in my opinion and I would advise anyone who low rolls to avoid this place like the plague.

- T

Well, maybe you don't like it but it doesn't mean it's a scam.

 

[Tropicana50]

Well, maybe you don't like it but it doesn't mean it's a scam.

There is no sound reasoning for having a withdrawal limit so high, other than to restrict the possibility for low rollers to successfully cash out. It is predatory behaviour and therefore a dishonest scheme manufactured out of greed for the casino. Your more than welcome to enlighten me on any other reasoning you suspect. I'm all ears.

As I said earlier, I would advise any low rollers to avoid this casino due to the above.

- T

 

[bigjohn]

There is no sound reasoning for having a withdrawal limit so high, other than to restrict the possibility for low rollers to successfully cash out. It is predatory behaviour and therefore a dishonest scheme manufactured out of greed for the casino. Your more than welcome to enlighten me on any other reasoning you suspect. I'm all ears.

As I said earlier, I would advise any low rollers to avoid this casino due to the above.

- T

Casinos typically set limits to control costs.

If they have to pay out, say, $10,000 one day it cost them a lot less to process 4 payments for $2500 each than it would to process 500 payments for $20 each. 100 payments for $100 each would be somewhere in between.

Suppose the minimum withdrawal was $80, would that suit you?

How about $75?

You will have a certain threshold in mind and so do the administrators of Tropezia, they settled on $100.

There is nothing in that that is predatory or dishonest. If you want to play NetEnt games and deposit $20 and cashout $50 than Tropezia is probably not going to work for you but to say they are schemers and dishonest and predatory makes no sense.

 

[jjezebel37]

And open the flood gates? I dont know, rules are rules, even if we dont like them sometimes.
While I do sympatize with Tropicana on this one, they should change it for everyone, or not at all.

I was up to £97 last time I played there so instead of giving it back I deposited a tenner (I think) and withdrew without a problem.

 

[lockinlove]

Probably because they offer;

Fantastic customer service
Fantastic assortment of slots
Flushes upon request
Great player relations
English, Swedish, Norwegian, Finish, French and German languages supported

Also, USD, GBP and Euro currencies are supported.

Not to mention games from NetEnt, Microgaming, Betsoft, BetonSoft, Leander, NextGen, Sheriff and Rival.

Is there anything else you don't like about them?

This is not a very good post imo.

There are dozens of casinos that offer the exact same stuff you list.

Also, $100 really strangles the life out of low rollers.

Not a very good casino for that one reason alone.

 

[jjezebel37]

Lost all of the £80 back to the casino trying to make it to the £100 wager in Blackjack. Huge scam in my opinion and I would advise anyone who low rolls to avoid this place like the plague.

- T

I think that is quite harsh!

They are a fantastic solid group who offer a lot of different games (Rival ETC).

I choose not to play there because i am a low roller and i don't like their WR terms.

If i were a mid to high roller,i would have no doubt in my mind that this would be my go to casino.

 

[KasinoKing]

Lost all of the £80 back to the casino trying to make it to the £100 wager in Blackjack. Huge scam in my opinion and I would advise anyone who low rolls to avoid this place like the plague.

Well I was going to say that if it's in the T&Cs, then it isn't a scam...
But much to my horror and amazement, I searched the Banking page, the FAQs AND the General T&Cs and there is NO mention anywhere of any minimum withdrawal amount!

IMHO this IS roguish behaviour and I will be getting on to my contact there right now to find out what they are going to do about this.

KK

 

[Tropicana50]

I was up to £97 last time I played there so instead of giving it back I deposited a tenner (I think) and withdrew without a problem.

That was my plan A, but if you have over £3 in your balance already you cannot make a new deposit. They have it all covered.

- T

 

[jjezebel37]

That was my plan A, but if you have over £3 in your balance already you cannot make a new deposit. They have it all covered.

- T

Oops you are right,it was at Redflush i did this sorry.

 

[sigothx1]

That was my plan A, but if you have over £3 in your balance already you cannot make a new deposit. They have it all covered.

- T

Started reading the thread and thought, well its in the t's and c's, and if your close you can just deposit then withdraw, now after reading all of it i must admit its starting to get alot more shady, If your at 95 say and cannot deposit that extra 5 to deposit, then youll probly go for an even chance game like rouletter/bj, and a few spins of the wheel you've lost it all, id class myself as a low/mid roller, and my withdrawals are very rarely under £100, but its been known, so if i was forced into playing more to reach a limit that casino would not impress me at all, needs clarification i think from the rep.

 

[Tropicana50]

Casinos typically set limits to control costs.

If they have to pay out, say, $10,000 one day it cost them a lot less to process 4 payments for $2500 each than it would to process 500 payments for $20 each. 100 payments for $100 each would be somewhere in between.

Suppose the minimum withdrawal was $80, would that suit you?

How about $75?

You will have a certain threshold in mind and so do the administrators of Tropezia, they settled on $100.

There is nothing in that that is predatory or dishonest. If you want to play NetEnt games and deposit $20 and cashout $50 than Tropezia is probably not going to work for you but to say they are schemers and dishonest and predatory makes no sense.

Ok, so your answer is they do it to make themselves more money, which is exactly the same as my answer. It is completely predatory and dishonest, there is no mention in the terms, they block you from depositing further so you cannot make it up to the £100. The sole reason the rule is in place is for the casino to profit out of it and they have covered all avenues.

The minimum withdrawal should match the majority of other casinos which is around £20. I do not know of any other casino that has a minimum of £100. Do you?

- T

 

[quber]

That was my plan A, but if you have over £3 in your balance already you cannot make a new deposit. They have it all covered.

- T

That is an absolutely stupid rule, what if I was playing £100 a spin and my balance drops to £70? I have to play a lower value spin, ridiculous. They seem to not want low rollers but also can't cater for high rollers, what a bunch of muppets.

Also the withdrawal limit should be the same as deposit limit, if they want 100 min withdrawal then it should be 100 min deposit, but no they can't fiddle players then can they. Roguish and wrong, they will not see a penny of mine.

Thanks for pointing it out Tropicana50

 

[luckysox]

Hey guys,
thank you for your feedback and I am really sorry that we do not have the friendliest terms out there.
We are talking with the Payments Team and the management to see if we can get this changed. In some cases it costs €25 to send an international bank wire, wow. Ok, give me some time and I will come back to you with an update!

I was pretty sure that the minimum withdrawal amount was clearly displayed and found out that it is not (thank you KK), I am putting in a request for content update and we will do it ASAP technically possible and hopefully with new amounts.
Cheers!

 

[bigjohn]

Ok, so your answer is they do it to make themselves more money, which is exactly the same as my answer. It is completely predatory and dishonest, there is no mention in the terms, they block you from depositing further so you cannot make it up to the £100. The sole reason the rule is in place is for the casino to profit out of it and they have covered all avenues.

The minimum withdrawal should match the majority of other casinos which is around £20. I do not know of any other casino that has a minimum of £100. Do you?

- T

I still do not see the predatory or dishonest angle. By your analogy the $20 minimum would also be predatory and dishonest if you could not get your balance up to that. If you are stuck at $18 should the casino allow you to deposit $2 to get to their limit? Maybe that sounds kinda silly but it is just using different numbers. You gotta find a place to play that uses the numbers you want.

I do not know the withdrawal limits of casinos I don't play at and can only speak from my own experience. I do know the limits of the casinos I do play at, currently all the casinos I play at have a $50 minimum withdrawal and $10 minimum deposit.

Most of the casinos I played at in the past had a minimum, for players in my country, of $300 or $350. This got me accustomed to knowing the limitations before I play and then not depositing at places that didn't meet my expectations.

FTR, I would not have expected to see these limits in the T&C's, I would expect it to be in the banking section as typically there are different limits for different methods.

Apparently now the Rep. has chimed in and we will see where it goes next.

I was just thinking, I don't think any casinos allow you to deposit just to meet the minimum withdrawal amount. I believe they all have at least 1X playthrough. I would have to say that the requirement for your balance to be below £3 is definitely bad.

 

[Tropicana50]

I still do not see the predatory or dishonest angle. By your analogy the $20 minimum would also be predatory and dishonest if you could not get your balance up to that. If you are stuck at $18 should the casino allow you to deposit $2 to get to their limit? Maybe that sounds kinda silly but it is just using different numbers. You gotta find a place to play that uses the numbers you want.

I do not know the withdrawal limits of casinos I don't play at and can only speak from my own experience. I do know the limits of the casinos I do play at, currently all the casinos I play at have a $50 minimum withdrawal and $10 minimum deposit.

Most of the casinos I played at in the past had a minimum, for players in my country, of $300 or $350. This got me accustomed to knowing the limitations before I play and then not depositing at places that didn't meet my expectations.

FTR, I would not have expected to see these limits in the T&C's, I would expect it to be in the banking section as typically there are different limits for different methods.

Apparently now the Rep. has chimed in and we will see where it goes next.

I don't think deposits should be restricted by how much is already in your account.

I don't think £100 limits match the limits of any other casino.

The sole reasoning behind this high limit is to force low rollers to keep playing and lose. This reasoning is the aspect which makes it predatory. Again I ask, can you supply me with a reason for these limits which does not involve the casinos making more money in a way that restricts the player?

- T

 

[bigjohn]

I don't think deposits should be restricted by how much is already in your account.

I don't think £100 limits match the limits of any other casino.

The sole reasoning behind this high limit is to force low rollers to keep playing and lose. This reasoning is the aspect which makes it predatory. Again I ask, can you supply me with a reason for these limits which does not involve the casinos making more money in a way that restricts the player?

- T

No, I can't but your original post didn't say anything about the deposit restrictions. The withdrawal threshold in and of itself is not that terrible. Leaving a player who has dropped below £100 no option but to play it out is certainly rogue behavior.

 

[Tropicana50]

No, I can't but your original post didn't say anything about the deposit restrictions. The withdrawal threshold in and of itself is not that terrible. Leaving a player who has dropped below £100 no option but to play it out is certainly rogue behavior.

Glad we finally agree. Now let's hope the Rep gets on it.

- T

 

[The Dude]

Thanks for bringing this up since I don't think I was aware of this. I've added this to their accred page.

It would probably be a good idea to include these limitations in the ratings. Since I include withdrawal max limits, I should include min limits as well. And to be honest, I didn't see this in their terms and conditions. Is this for all play or only bonus play?

I'm hoping that they can decrease this to something more "low roller" friendly.

 

[Tropicana50]

Thanks for bringing this up since I don't think I was aware of this. I've added this to their accred page.

It would probably be a good idea to include these limitations in the ratings. Since I include withdrawal max limits, I should include min limits as well. And to be honest, I didn't see this in their terms and conditions. Is this for all play or only bonus play?

I'm hoping that they can decrease this to something more "low roller" friendly.

This is for all play, not just bonus play. Do I deem from your response that they are still considered accredited despite displaying clear rogue behaviour?

- T

 

[The Dude]

This is for all play, not just bonus play. Do I deem from your response that they are still considered accredited despite displaying clear rogue behaviour?

- T

They are far from being "rogue". You are implying that there is a level of unethical intent; trying to entrap people - and this is far from the truth. Their rep has already mentioned that they are going to revise this. What needs to happens right away is that they must make this clearer so that players can make a decision on whether or not they want to participate. To throw the "rogue" term around is a bit rich; it's really unwarranted. I'm hoping that they can decrease this amount substantially to a more competitive scale.

In order for me to incorporate this into the CM ratings scheme, I need the same info from all casinos listed here.

 

[maphesto]

I want to add to this that Red Flush (And LaVida then) had the same minimum amount before but they decreased it to the reasonable 50$ minimum. I suggest Tropezia decrease it to the same amount.

 

[dunover]

100 minimum w/d says to me they don't want small depositors. It is excessive but not rogue, and as CM says is not competitive. Almost like a pub saying you can't buy only half a pint. Daft.

 

[maphesto]

I found the thread and the post where Red Flush changed their minimum amount:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/red-flush-minimum-withdrawal-amounts.53810/

@Tropezia:

50$ is a reasonable minimum amount to web wallets.

 

[bigjohn]

To me what Quber said woke me up to this being bad behavior. It's not the withdrawal limit that's the problem it's the fact that they wont allow you to deposit until your balance falls below £3.

If they don't want low rollers I think that should be fine but this rule goes against high rollers too.

I can picture somebody who plays £100 per spin having to play £80, winning a little, then having to play £30, winning a little, then having to play £14, etc. until he gets down to less than £3 before he can deposit again.

IMO, they should let players deposit anytime they want with, of course, a 1X playthrough on the new deposit.

It's not exactly rogue but it isn't friendly to high or low rollers.

 

[Vegasbum]

That is an absolutely stupid rule, what if I was playing £100 a spin and my balance drops to £70? I have to play a lower value spin, ridiculous. They seem to not want low rollers but also can't cater for high rollers, what a bunch of muppets.

Also the withdrawal limit should be the same as deposit limit, if they want 100 min withdrawal then it should be 100 min deposit, but no they can't fiddle players then can they. Roguish and wrong, they will not see a penny of mine.

Thanks for pointing it out Tropicana50

predatory ....perhaps
rougish....maybe
"bunch of muppets"...now you went too far!

 

[maphesto]

That was my plan A, but if you have over £3 in your balance already you cannot make a new deposit. They have it all covered.

- T

IMO, they should let players deposit anytime they want with, of course, a 1X playthrough on the new deposit.

I didn't read this part until now. This is very bad. Of course players should be able to deposit when they have between 3.01 £€$ to 99.99 £€$ in their account. I was in this situation at Sunset Slots when they were in the BBF period and had 92$ in my account (100$ minimum withdrawal) and I asked their rep and he told me that I could either deposit and make a withdrawal or try to play it up. I figured ouy that I could try to play it up but I could not let my balance decrease below 75$ because their minimum deposit amount is 25$ and next step is 50. I played it up.

@Tropezia:
From Link Outdated / Removed for accredited casinos:

Must not implement terms that can be construed as "unfair" towards the player.

When having that high limit for withdrawals, it's bordering to rogue to not let players deposit before their balance decrease to 3 £€$. It's also unfair to have 100£$€ as minimum withdrawal when reading this at T&C's:

25. The minimum allowed deposited amount is 10€/£/$

The casino is supposed to earn it's money with the House Edge, not by unfair rules to lowrollers. A player who is willing to deposit 10€ to a casino obviously thinks that he can withdraw when reaching 50. The difference between increasing you balance 5x and 10x is huge.

And then when this player finally reach over 90, he isn't even allowed to deposit yet another tenner to reach 100!

Suggestions:

* Remove the stupid rule about not be able to deposit before decreasing balance to 3€£$. You might add tha all deposits have to have a WR of 1x to prevent money laundering etc.
* Decrease your minimum withdrawal amount to a more reasonable amount as 50£$€
* Be clear in the T&C's about minimum withdrawable amount in the exact way tou are clear about minimum deposit amount.

There you go!

 

[jjezebel37]

I didn't read this part until now. This is very bad. Of course players should be able to deposit when they have between 3.01 £€$ to 99.99 £€$ in their account. I was in this situation at Sunset Slots when they were in the BBF period and had 92$ in my account (100$ minimum withdrawal) and I asked their rep and he told me that I could either deposit and make a withdrawal or try to play it up. I figured ouy that I could try to play it up but I could not let my balance decrease below 75$ because their minimum deposit amount is 25$ and next step is 50. I played it up.

@Tropezia:
From Link Outdated / Removed for accredited casinos:



When having that high limit for withdrawals, it's bordering to rogue to not let players deposit before their balance decrease to 3 £€$. It's also unfair to have 100£$€ as minimum withdrawal when reading this at T&C's:



The casino is supposed to earn it's money with the House Edge, not by unfair rules to lowrollers. A player who is willing to deposit 10€ to a casino obviously thinks that he can withdraw when reaching 50. The difference between increasing you balance 5x and 10x is huge.

And then when this player finally reach over 90, he isn't even allowed to deposit yet another tenner to reach 100!

Suggestions:

* Remove the stupid rule about not be able to deposit before decreasing balance to 3€£$. You might add tha all deposits have to have a WR of 1x to prevent money laundering etc.
* Decrease your minimum withdrawal amount to a more reasonable amount as 50£$€
* Be clear in the T&C's about minimum withdrawable amount in the exact way tou are clear about minimum deposit amount.

There you go!

Great idea

 

[quber]

Imagine going to the baker's and having the following conversation-

Me: Hello Mr Baker
Baker: Hello Quber, what can I get you?
Me: Can I have a dozen rolls please?
Baker: I sold you a dozen yesterday, have you eaten them all?
Me: No I still have 5 left.
Baker: Well I'm sorry but i won't sell you anymore until you have 3 or less left.

I don't think he would stay in business for long. Any business that makes it hard for you to give them money will fail.

 

[Tropicana50]

They are far from being "rogue". You are implying that there is a level of unethical intent; trying to entrap people - and this is far from the truth. Their rep has already mentioned that they are going to revise this. What needs to happens right away is that they must make this clearer so that players can make a decision on whether or not they want to participate. To throw the "rogue" term around is a bit rich; it's really unwarranted. I'm hoping that they can decrease this amount substantially to a more competitive scale.

In order for me to incorporate this into the CM ratings scheme, I need the same info from all casinos listed here.

You are correct; I am fully implying that the sole reason the set up has been orchestrated in this manner is an attempt to entrap low rollers funds so they are unable to withdraw. If you can supply sound reasoning why they would have sub-standard withdrawal limits and block deposits unless your balance is below £3 then I would like to hear it.

I am not saying that the Rep has not admitted faults with their current system, but the current intentions I fully believe to be rogue in nature.

- T

 

[luckysox]

Hey guys and girls!!

Before even starting with an update, I have to point out that our deposit and withdrawal procedures and terms were in no way created to rip people off. I know that our terms are far from the best and that players might feel frustrated if they fall into the bracket of under 100€/£/$ withdrawal limit.

1. The deposit restriction was created solely as precaution against money laundering.
2. The withdrawal limit was put in place because we have very expensive solution in place for international bank wires (I was shocked when I found out the price).

Ok, on to the news!

The casino management has had several meetings about the banking solutions and processes. After speaking with the Head of Fraud and Payments, there are several things that we will do to improve the banking options and player's experience.

1. We have lowered our withdrawal limit to 50£/€/$.
2. We will soon enable the option to make withdrawals back to cards, looks like Visa only.
3. We will add the proper deposit and withdrawal limits to our banking page as well as our terms and conditions.

Thank you for the patience with my answer and for your feedback as well.
Cheers!

 

[maphesto]

I have to point out that our deposit and withdrawal procedures and terms were in no way created to rip people off.

I believe you, there are certain traps that only rutined players know about and can see. You don't know about it until you've been there and realize that you aren't the first or last player to be in that situation.

1. The deposit restriction was created solely as precaution against money laundering.

The usual thing for casinos to do is to have a 1x playthrough on deposits, then you can get rid of that "balance below 3€£$ rule.

1. We have lowered our withdrawal limit to 50£/€/$.
2. We will soon enable the option to make withdrawals back to cards, looks like Visa only.
3. We will add the proper deposit and withdrawal limits to our banking page as well as our terms and conditions.

For me personally, the 50£$€ and withdrawals back to Visa is perfect! Deposit and withdrawal limits is obviously good to have on banking page and in T&C's.

 

[Dinahnana]

Hey guys and girls!!

Before even starting with an update, I have to point out that our deposit and withdrawal procedures and terms were in no way created to rip people off. I know that our terms are far from the best and that players might feel frustrated if they fall into the bracket of under 100€/£/$ withdrawal limit.

1. The deposit restriction was created solely as precaution against money laundering.
2. The withdrawal limit was put in place because we have very expensive solution in place for international bank wires (I was shocked when I found out the price).

Ok, on to the news!

The casino management has had several meetings about the banking solutions and processes. After speaking with the Head of Fraud and Payments, there are several things that we will do to improve the banking options and player's experience.

1. We have lowered our withdrawal limit to 50£/€/$.
2. We will soon enable the option to make withdrawals back to cards, looks like Visa only.
3. We will add the proper deposit and withdrawal limits to our banking page as well as our terms and conditions.

Thank you for the patience with my answer and for your feedback as well.
Cheers!

This is great news Min withdrawal of 50 is more in line with other accredited casinos. It's great to see casino's listening to players concerns and acting on them in a timely manner. The min withdrawal limit has kept me away from Tropezia Palace so it's great to see it being reduced.
Good job

 

[jjezebel37]

I'll be back to play.

Good work.

 

[quber]

Hey guys and girls!!



1. The deposit restriction was created solely as precaution against money laundering.
2. The withdrawal limit was put in place because we have very expensive solution in place for international bank wires (I was shocked when I found out the price).

1. So you stop people giving you money, which is your sole purpose of being in business, to combat laundering. Doesn't make any sense, you will lose legit deposits to combat the small and manageable risk of laundering. As mentioned earlier you are stopping high rollers playing their desired levels and they are the ones that keep your business afloat, if your VIP's aren't a major chunk of your business then your restrictive deposit practices are harming you.

2. Why restrict players using wallets? if it is only bank wires that are expensive then put the withdrawal limit on those or charge for them.

The number one priority for players is being to withdraw THEIR money (whatever amount) quickly and easily, any obstacles in this will see them go elsewhere and they have a large choice of hassle free operators.

 

[NohchiPlayer]

Played 10 freespins at vegaspalms won 1 euro played BDBA got up to 35 saw that minimum withdraw is 50 played more and lost