Whine and Moan Unclear offers?, deliberate ploy?

[vinylweatherman]

Here is a newsletter containing an offer, seems clear to me at first glance, but is this a ploy to trick me into depositing more than I need to?

I deposited 400 - and was completely taken in by this ploy. The overwhelming number of references was misleading in the extreme, with THREE misleading "headlines" on the offer, and only ONE glimse at the truth.

To me, this was deliberate, and is a ploy some casinos are using knowing full well that there is an understanding of terminology in the industry, and using this to trick players into overdepositing based on a headline.

I read this as a simple 50% match up to 200 - as this is how it is presented in the three headlines - I deposited 400 on this simplistic assumption, and got "screwed over" by a psycological advertising ploy into "wasting 200".

I don't think this was an accident, as the offer is misdescribed (by omission) in THREE places, and only given the correct description in ONE, and not a headline, but the text.

This is certainly "bad form" for a casino to resort to such trickery, and offers should be described CLEARLY, and ESPECIALLY SO in the HEADLINE.

 

[oldtrvlagt]

One would assume, like you did, that you would get a 200 bonus...are you saying they only gave you 100? That stinks

 

[vinylweatherman]

One would assume, like you did, that you would get a 200 bonus...are you saying they only gave you 100? That stinks

That is correct

This is why I believe the wording misleading by omission. I deposited 400, and expected to be given "50% up to 200", but it turns out to be 50% up to 100. It's the fact that the misleading headline is featured at several points on the newsletter. The free 15 was indeed 15.

It would have only required a couple of extra words, or a rewording of the text, to make the correct offer clear.

In long form, they could have said "purchase up to 200 and receive a 50% bonus". They could have used the short form "50% up to 100".

This is simply psychological trickery, similar to those "$1000 free and 60 minutes - keep your winnings" offers, carefully worded to tempt in the player.

There are not even any special terms and conditions, the link to terms and conditions simply loads up the page for the SUB offer, so no further specifics are available.

There are also regular newsletters sent out at the weekends, but these differ in that plenty ofr wording is used to make it clear how the bonus is to be calculated, and indeed 100 credits is available EVERY weekend, so this is NOT a special festive extra, it is simply 100 bonus granted at a festively enhanced 50%, rather than the more usual 20%.

By thinking I had a better offer than I had, I "wasted" deposits and turned down other offers on the table that also expired at midnight yesterday. Worse still, in wagering my deposit 1x to get the bonus (normally required, but no mention of it, CS told me LAST time I used one of these newsletter offers), the games played worse than ever still. 10 consecutive LOSING hands at 3 card poker, followed by a "push". This kind of opening seems far too common, it should be quite RARE to see an opening like this, yet it has happened more than half a dozen times over the holidays, so "wasting" 400 deposits when I could have "wasted" 200 for the same offer is maddening. (I had this offer at two of their casinos). The 400 I "wasted" could have gone to one of two other casinos, and lesser offers, but with a greater chance of finding a "hot" casino among 4.

Now it is not just a matter of "needing a lawyer" to understand the terms, but needing a psychologist to look for clever wording trying to make an offer look better than it is.

 

[suzecat]

So sorry Vinyl ............ that blows! Really appreciate you letting us know about it. This may stop when it ceases to work for the casinos.

 

[chuchu59]

VWM,

Where is the one glimpse at the truth. To me, they all seemed misleading.

We receive these offers all the time and each time this means that we can receive a bonus value up to the amount indicated ($200 in this case). So this is a deliberate ploy to entice players to deposit more.

 

[winbig]

VWM,

Where is the one glimpse at the truth. To me, they all seemed misleading.

We receive these offers all the time and each time this means that we can receive a bonus value up to the amount indicated ($200 in this case). So this is a deliberate ploy to entice players to deposit more.

Which sucks even more if the WR includes D+B and not the B alone.

 

[vinylweatherman]

VWM,

Where is the one glimpse at the truth. To me, they all seemed misleading.

We receive these offers all the time and each time this means that we can receive a bonus value up to the amount indicated ($200 in this case). So this is a deliberate ploy to entice players to deposit more.

Well, bottom right. In THREE places, it is simply featured as "50% up to 200", but in the bottom right there is a longer description which seems to confuse the issue in that it contradicts the three headlines.

Which sucks even more if the WR includes D+B and not the B alone.

I have no idea

The link to T & C incorrectly leads to the rules for the 150% SUB. One of the two bonuses was added under "EZBonus", the other was simply added as cash, which implies even CS do not know what they are doing. The ONLY thing CS know is that THEY have this promotion down as 50% up to 100 of bonus (deposit 200, get 100).

MiniVegas have made a VERY SIMPLE way of telling a player how much is on offer into a complete Dog's Breakfast. Now, "50% up to 200" should be seen as ambiguous, since it seems different casinos give it different meanings, and now a much longer and more precise description is needed to make such offers clear.

I often receive the same offers for Palace Group casinos, and where THEY offer "50% up to 200", then I deposit 400 and DO GET 200 - I take this for granted without contacting them to ask what they mean by "50% up to 200".

While they certainly granted the offer THEY had listed without fuss, they tricked me into depositing 2x400 when only 2x200 was necessary under the REAL rules of the offer. They did this by clever wording, and breaking of a headline at just the right place to mislead. They also failed to make available SPECIFIC terms and conditions, and simply ran the promotion under the general rules for the SUB, which is more complex than EZBonus, and has game restrictions (to prevent big opening bets).

The "normal" newsletters make it clear that the 20% is calculated on a DEPOSIT of up to 500 (making the actual bonus 100, but worded in a way that means they don't have to quote this figure, but can simply include the higher figure).

A "festive" offer is supposed to be something special, so I took it at face value rather than looking for traps. "50% up to 200" is by no means "too good to be true", and does not warrant suspicion on these grounds.

I will now have to read these offers more and more carefully, as it seems clear that casinos are resorting to this kind of "mind game"* with players by careful layout and choice of words. I DID read this offer more than once, indeed I read it THRICE, yet still didn't spot the trap. Three headlines giving the WRONG impression with only ONE indication that a simple "50% up to 200" was NOT on offer.


* the other common onen is offering headlines of "$1000 absolutely free" when all they are REALLY offering is a guest balance of $1000 with a chance to win your standard $50 SUB in a different way. It is designed to make a mediocre offer of $50 SUB look stunningly brilliant, and get the viewer to at least install the casino and play the "free $1000". It certainly DOES mislead, as the forum is full of "bitch & moan" when players find they have been duped into signing up for a mere $50, and even that isn't really "free", they have to deposit and play (30x is usual) to have a chance to keep it.

 

[uungy]

I actually phoned them. Was told it was 100 bonus, but was very surprised too. Iwas a little confused, as it sounded vague, which is why I phoned.

 

[winbig]

Why can't they word it like this offer I just received from Villento via e-mail?

Join us at Villento with your exclusive deposit bonus.

You Deposit: Up to 200 credits
We'll give you: Up to 100 credits

 

[jerrylee]

vinyl presents a misleading offer indeed

how about this offer? get a 400% bonus! deposit $15 and get $60.
If you deposited $200, what bonus do you expect?

 

[vinylweatherman]

vinyl presents a misleading offer indeed

how about this offer? get a 400% bonus! deposit $15 and get $60.
If you deposited $200, what bonus do you expect?

Well, in this case they have given the percentage, and an example, but have not given an "up to" figure. The best assumption here would be that $15 for $60 is the ONLY combination allowed.

MY example differs in that it stated "200% up to $200", so an "up to" figure and a percentage is given, but no example. The conclusion therefore is that "up to" should apply to the maximum amount of bonus available, as it does in 90%+ of other places, and that a $200 deposit would give $100, a $400 deposit $200 (the max), and that any deposit $400+ would still give $200.

Having experienced this first hand, I have noticed that many other casinos seem to be using this kind of word trickery to make their offers sound better than they are. Often, this manifests itself in contradictions, with it being impossible to say for certain what rules apply. This makes it impossible to be certain what the maximum ACTUAL bonus credit is for the offer, because the text skirts around giving the information in a no-nonsense direct form.
Some of these casinos may honestly believe it is clear, because they are the 90%+ who say "50% up to $200" and mean what they say, that you can get a 50% bonus up to $200 if you deposit $400. It is the trend the other 10% show for meaning otherwise that casts doubt on all the other offers. We will end up having to confirm with CS, who in turn, will think we have all turned into simpletons over the holidays in having to ask for clarification of what should be obvious.