Check this out:
I deposited at Royal Vegas and received a first deposit bonus. I played very aggresively and lost everything very quickly, not nearly meeting the wagering requirement.
They offered me a second bonus some weeks later, so I decided to deposit again and give it another try. This time I did well and cashed out with a nice little profit. However, I had part of my cashin REVERSED - they said I had not completed the wagering requirement. I was sure that I had, so wrote to ask them what the heck was going on. They said that I still owed the wagering for my first bonus received! Here's their exact e-mail wording:
"Thank you for your reply. I regret to inform you that the wagering requirements unfortunately does not disappear [referring to when a player goes bust]. The wagering requirements is as per terms and conditions of the casino. EVEN IF ALL MONEY IS LOST THE WAGERING REQUIREMENTS STILL STANDS..."
This is a very tricky practice. I have not run into this at any other casino, though I have heard that some casinos do this. Frankly I did not expect it from a casino group as highly regarded as the Fortune Lounge group.
I didn't see any reference to this rule in their terms and conditions either.
In any case, having this rule seems to me to be counter-productive from the casino's perspective (at least if the customer knows about the rule in advance). Basically they are encouraging players to bet conservatively - knowing that if they are reckless and lose the deposit and bonus prior to meeting the wagering requirement, they will have a monsterous wagering requirement the next time they deposit.
Either that, or it serves as incentive NOT to come in and make another deposit (IF you lose). After all, there are plenty of casinos where wagering requirements are erased if you lose.
I would think that the casino would a) want you to bet recklesslsy rather than conservatively and b) would want to ENCOURAGE you to come back and bet again - especially if you are a loser (most casinos reward you for being a loser, rather than for being a winner) - this practice seems to me to be the opposite. It encourages you to bet conservatively and rewards you if you do so and win, and penalizes you if you bet recklessly and lose.
Go figure.
I deposited at Royal Vegas and received a first deposit bonus. I played very aggresively and lost everything very quickly, not nearly meeting the wagering requirement.
They offered me a second bonus some weeks later, so I decided to deposit again and give it another try. This time I did well and cashed out with a nice little profit. However, I had part of my cashin REVERSED - they said I had not completed the wagering requirement. I was sure that I had, so wrote to ask them what the heck was going on. They said that I still owed the wagering for my first bonus received! Here's their exact e-mail wording:
"Thank you for your reply. I regret to inform you that the wagering requirements unfortunately does not disappear [referring to when a player goes bust]. The wagering requirements is as per terms and conditions of the casino. EVEN IF ALL MONEY IS LOST THE WAGERING REQUIREMENTS STILL STANDS..."
This is a very tricky practice. I have not run into this at any other casino, though I have heard that some casinos do this. Frankly I did not expect it from a casino group as highly regarded as the Fortune Lounge group.
I didn't see any reference to this rule in their terms and conditions either.
In any case, having this rule seems to me to be counter-productive from the casino's perspective (at least if the customer knows about the rule in advance). Basically they are encouraging players to bet conservatively - knowing that if they are reckless and lose the deposit and bonus prior to meeting the wagering requirement, they will have a monsterous wagering requirement the next time they deposit.
Either that, or it serves as incentive NOT to come in and make another deposit (IF you lose). After all, there are plenty of casinos where wagering requirements are erased if you lose.
I would think that the casino would a) want you to bet recklesslsy rather than conservatively and b) would want to ENCOURAGE you to come back and bet again - especially if you are a loser (most casinos reward you for being a loser, rather than for being a winner) - this practice seems to me to be the opposite. It encourages you to bet conservatively and rewards you if you do so and win, and penalizes you if you bet recklessly and lose.
Go figure.