More drama? really? My goodness, I don't know what you have against these guys but it seems like your on a crusade. These rules apply to a lot of casinos.
It is NOT impossible to play properly. You just have to adjust your bet size to allow you the flexibility to make those kinds of wagers if that is what YOU chose to do.
If you want to double or split then either make lower initial wagers or a larger deposit so you can make the wagers you like. What is so difficult to understand about this?
Well, it's necessary because people just are not getting it.
If you are dealt a pair in Blackjack, the correct strategy is often to split, and not doing so reduces the TRTP of the initial hand dealt. If the rules prevent this split, then they in effect prevent the player from playing the hand properly, and they are forced to use an alternate strategy that might cause them to "throw" the hand.
With a max bet of as little as $3, there simply isn't the range of options available for a player to take this into account when selecting their chip. You need to allow for the possibility that you will both split 4 times, and get to double those 4 hands. For this, you need to be able to bet up to 8x your initial chip, which you can't do if you can only bet $3 in total.
The players who are getting caught have actually read the terms, but have assumed common sense will prevail where the flow of play dictates that they should split a hand, and they are then getting stung for following this flow of play.
Blackjack should be a prohibited game on these generic bonuses, and specific bonuses for Blackjack designed that allow the player to play the game properly.
This is not a problem elsewhere, as most casinos ARE taking a common sense approach, even if this approach is to list Blackjack as a prohibited game for the most generous offers.
iNetBet have bonuses for specific sets of games, and have slots bonuses, and alternative table and Blackjack bonuses that suit the style of play.
There is a fundamental difference between slots (which is just select bet & spin), and table games where the total outlay on any given hand depends upon the cards dealt.
The players getting caught are seeing the max bet, say $3, and are simply selecting $3 as their betting chip thinking this is what is intended.
They seem to be playing the majority of their hands at this level, and are only being caught because occasionally they get dealt pairs which should be split.
Doing the right thing would be the casino addressing this problem by removing the potential for this from their offer terms, rather than by using them as an opportunity to void the winnings of players who play Blackjack and end up walking into trouble.
To me, this is another negative indication of the business ethics of the owners, not necessarily those of the rep, they KNOW this is creating a problem, but they like it this way because any issues that do occur are in their favour.
Players need to be warned to steer clear of the Blackjack tables unless they have done a proper calculation of what their choice of chip might potentially lead to them needing to wager under all possible split/double combinations.
This is also an issue in poker games, where there is a play bet and sometimes a side bet, all of which will contribute to the total bet.
I have even seen slots where this might end up being an issue, for example the "Jackpot 6000" game where the Supermeter mode is played with bets well in excess of the base bet. If all casinos took such an anal attitude to the definition of the max stake rule, there would be loads of complaints from slots players who have wagered close to the max bet in a base game, but exceeded this when playing in a feature mode. This is the FIRST time I have seen this type of issue arise in the regular play of Blackjack. It has only been an issue before in some multi hand versions where a player can play several hands against the one dealer hand, and make the max allowed bet on each of these hands from the outset.
If one just sits back and takes it, nothing is going to change is it? If the problem isn't addressed, and too many players get caught out, it's going to be bad PR for the casino brand as they will be associated with the problem. Even the casinos in the rogue pit have often managed to justify the actions that got them there by referring to their terms and conditions, and that if the players had all read and agreed to them, then they only got what they expected.
Grand Prive screwed over affiliates and ended up in the pit, but what they did was covered within their terms and conditions, and they argued that therefore they did nothing wrong. The excuse was dismissed because the terms themselves were judged to be rogue, so their argument didn't help them.
It follows therefore that just because something is in the terms, and that these were agreed to by the customer, it does not make it always right when the terms are applied as written.
I am actually quite surprised at some of the crap that players from the USA are prepared to sit back and take just because their government has pushed their hobby underground where the usual rules of engagement no longer apply, and where taking a stand can mean having one's bank account suspended or getting blacklisted from most of the casinos still taking bets from US players. Casinos should worry about where the breaking point for US players lies, as if they are pushed TOO far, it's something they may end up having to learn the hard way.
Had the GRA and LGA made a serious effort at putting player protection first under the old whitelist arrangement, we would probably still have this arrangement as the UK government could not have hidden behind the player protection argument when making a tax grab on the industry, and this might have been enough to scupper the plan either in parliament, or in the courts.
