Virtual, rogue, rogue, rogue...

[marcolino]

Me it seems a serious post and a serious position

 

[dickens1298]

Bottom line - it's all about fair games and customer service.

You can offer all the promotions you want, but if your reputation is shoddy, your level of repeat business will be nil. Instead of trying to develop a compelling offer, why not ensure that your T&C's are clearly defined, or that player disputes are quickly and satisfactorily resolved?

Truth be told, there are some casinos that I would NEVER frequent, regardless of the bonus offer. A 300% bonus offer means nothing if I feel that I have no hope of ever collecting my winnings.

Hello,
First off I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your e-mail. I was and am currently on vacation, but read your post and will respond.
Everything you described is 100% accurate. You tried the casino out made a deposit and received a great bonus. Unfortunately you lost. Since I am sure you are aware most first time depositors do lose, I implemented a plan to give new depositors a second chance to at least get their deposit back, so they might not have a bad taste about internet gamming. In your case you were a loser, but we gave you another chance to break even. The casino had nothing to gain at this juncture; it was a good will gesture. After reading your post, it seems that my policy might not be right. May be I should change it back to when you lose you lose, and if you want a second chance you need to pay for that chance. Before I go back to that, I would love to hear from members of the forum who do respond, to please give me your feedback.

 

[GemG7]

Bonus money

This thread is the reason why I never use bonuses the casinos offer.

 

[dominique]

Signup bonuses are for the birds. I don't like them anymore either.

The wagering requirements spoil all the fun. Instead of playing the games I like I am supposed to play things that do not interest me, and it's impossible to quit while ahead.

I wish they would offer loyalty bonuses instead, and keep them totally free of wagering requirements then. I would go for that.

 

[Macgyver]

*shakes his head* virtualted, you've missed the whole point of my post ...

I implemented a plan to give new depositors a second chance to at least get their deposit back, so they might not have a bad taste about internet gamming. In your case you were a loser, but we gave you another chance to break even.

If that's the purpose behind your "second chance" policy, fine. All I'm trying to say is that you need to change the rules listed for Free Chip redemption. If a player HAS TO redeem the chip BEFORE they play ANYTHING AT ALL, then spell that out. However, right now, there's nothing saying that. Once again, from YOUR OWN rules:

A customer will be entitled to winnings on a free chip, if he/she deposits at least $20 BEFORE using the free chip, otherwise he/she will be entitled to amount of the free chip itself.

If you expect me to follow your rules (which I do), then you should follow them as well. If there's a misunderstanding, all I suggested was that you update the rules.

After reading your post, it seems that my policy might not be right. May be I should change it back to when you lose you lose, and if you want a second chance you need to pay for that chance.

Don't make me out to be the kid who ruins everything for everyone else because I spoke up.

"But, teacher, you didn't give us any homework!!" That's not me and not my point.

You fail to mention that in my post I stated that I don't expect to get that $70 since your Free Chips rules are unclear (or could be interpreted differently). My point was to educate other members here in case they end up in the same situation.

Look forward to your email ...

 

[GrandMaster]

This thread is the reason why I never use bonuses the casinos offer.

You need not avoid bonuses. You just need to avoid certain casinos.

 

[dickens1298]

This thread is the reason why I never use bonuses the casinos offer.

If you don't play baccarat or roulette, you'd be missing out on opportunities by not taking a bonus. It's pretty much free money, especially at the more reputable casinos.

Let's put it this way - during the course of a month, would you have wagered at least $2500 in total bets? My guess is that you would. If you do, then you would have missed out on the opportunity for an extra $100, since that's the bonus being offered by Intercasino in July, with a wagering requirement of 25Xbonus.

I've found that most gamblers tend to either (a) reach the WR as quickly as possible, thereby playing differently than they normally would or (b) have problems with casinos regarding bonus payouts. (a) is a matter of discipline; (b) is an issue with finding the right casino (William Hill, Sands, Intercasino, et al).

 

[GemG7]

Casino bonuses

The reason I don't use the bonuses is usually because of the ridiculous play through. Most times I would have cashed out on my winnings I can't because I need to play it through X amount more times. It's not worth the hassle to me.

 

[dickens1298]

The reason I don't use the bonuses is usually because of the ridiculous play through. Most times I would have cashed out on my winnings I can't because I need to play it through X amount more times. It's not worth the hassle to me.

I understand why you would feel it's a hassle. But next time, check your play at each of the casinos you frequent. Add up your total wagered, then deduct baccarat and roulette....if your monthly total is $2500 and higher, you've missed an opportunity for the $100 bonuses available at Omni, Sands, and Intercasino, since you would have already made the wagering requirement.

If you DO wager a total of $2500, but prefer the "convenience" of cashing out whenever you wish, then it's really a matter of discipline.

Put it this way - let's say you deposit $200 at Intercasino. You cash out whenever you have a net profit of 50%, so your first cashout is $300. A few days later, you deposit $200 again, and strive to hit the same goal. And the cycle continues. During the course of a month, your wagers exceed $2500.

So why not just leave your $300 in the casino ($200 initial deposit + $100 first net profit), and play accordingly? With the bonus, you'd actually START with $300, and your balance after your first net profit would be $400. You could literally increase your individual wagers by 50% since you're playing with "casino money".

The only true "advantage" is that your approach enables you to access your funds immediately. But why do you really need to? Aside from the psychological security it might provide, if you plan on going back to the casino later, those funds are as much "at risk" than if they were still held at the casino.

 

[caruso]

Virtual appear currently to be getting their act together.

I would be interested to hear from any players who have unpaid debts from Rogue Virtual Version One, and to see those issues resolved. Rogue casinos that change their ways and pay up on all previous debts (thefts) are entitled to pardon.

 

[dominique]

I would think that was a matter of degree and time.

The degree of "rougeness", amounts owed, numbers of people defrauded, and how long they have been above board.

Eventually - after a good long time of flawless operation - I do think they would be redeemed.

You don't pardon a criminal from jail just because he returns the stolen items.

Then we could all just take whatever we liked, and if we don't get caught we make out like a bandit (and for every complaint filed you've got to figure ten that just quit playing online) and if we get caught we shrug and give it back.

A little too easy - and keeps it too profitable to be rogue.

 

[jinnia]

Does anyone have an up to date list on which RTG's are the Virtual Group?

If so, I'd like to have a copy, email to jinnia@mchsi.com

Thank You!
jinnia

 

[120sam]

Interesting thread.

 

[Annorax]

Interesting thread.

It may be, but you still had no reason to necro it.

 

[120sam]

I have humbly apologized to you on the "Virtual sends false emails" thread.