1. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Watch out! Insane T&Cs at Fortune Lounge Group.

Discussion in 'Online Casino and Poker Complaints - old section' started by engineer, Oct 27, 2003.

  1. engineer

    engineer Dormant account

    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.
     
  2. jpm

    jpm Dormant account

    FYI, all Cryptologic casinos operate this way with their monthly bonuses. Lose it all before you finish and you gotta finish the next month.
     
  3. engineer

    engineer Dormant account

    That's not true. In Cryptologic casinos the wagering requirement is automatically erased if you lose 150% of the bonus. The wagering requirement carries over ONLY if you withdraw your deposit.

    See: You must register/login in order to see the link.

    I can assure you that the information in the article is true, because I have verified it with multiple Crypto casinos and have deposited again after busting out and the wagering requirement was NOT carried from the previous deposit.
     
  4. fortunelounge

    fortunelounge Accredited Casino Representative

    Occupation:
    Operations Manager
    Location:
    South Africa
    Engineer:
    In your particular case, this was your first cash-in and it was almost impossible to ascertain what wagering related to which of the 8 bonuses you received. In this case we applied the wagering requirements from the period in which you received the bonuses to the cash-in date. I have noted that you still have some wagering requirements outstanding and we will gladly supply you with a breakdown of these should you so request.

    In case of a first cash-in we have to deem part of that cash-in as being made up from various bonuses received from date of registration. This only occurs in cases of fairly new accounts that have received multiple bonuses before cash-in. Thereafter all wagering requirements on cash-ins will be calculated from either date of last cash-in or date of first bonus received after the previous cash-in.

    VP Operations
    Fortune Lounge

    Same reply as on WOL
     
  5. jpm

    jpm Dormant account

    That must have been a recent change at Cryptologic because they always used to carry over regardless of losses. And then you had to logoff after finishing the oldest wagering req't before you started on a subsequent wagering req't or it wouldn't count. I'm glad to see Crypto finally wised up and have a more reasonable requirement now.
     
  6. engineer

    engineer Dormant account

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by FortuneLounge:

    In case of a first cash-in we have to deem part of that cash-in as being made up from various bonuses received from date of registration. This only occurs in cases of fairly new accounts that have received multiple bonuses before cash-in. Thereafter all wagering requirements on cash-ins will be calculated from either date of last cash-in or date of first bonus received after the previous cash-in.

    VP Operations
    Fortune Lounge

    --------------------------------------------------

    In other words - my post was correct. Wagering requirements do carry even when a player busts. Whether the bonuses are calculated from the time the account was established, or from the previous cashin is not important, as in both cases the "bonus balance" prior to the event calculated from would equal zero.

    In any case, I will say that other than this little surprise, I have been happy with the service that I have received from the Fortune Lounge group.

    If you either ditch this policy (which would make sense to me from your perspective - for reasons that I mentioned in a previous post) or do in fact update your terms and conditions to clearly reflect that this is your policy, in either case it will be an improvement on the way things are currently.

    Engineer
     
  7. engineer

    engineer Dormant account

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by jpm:

    That must have been a recent change at Cryptologic because they always used to carry over regardless of losses. And then you had to logoff after finishing the oldest wagering req't before you started on a subsequent wagering req't or it wouldn't count. I'm glad to see Crypto finally wised up and have a more reasonable requirement now.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Actually it has been this way for at least a year and a half, as the winner online article was written in April, 2002. I get the impression from the article that it was this way prior to the writing of the article as well, but that people misunderstood the requirements because they were withdrawing their deposits prior to meeting the wagering requirement and/or prior to busting out.

    The article does mention that you have to log out after meeting one wr (if you did have any carried wagering due to a withdrawn deposit) and re-log in for wagering to be credited towards the new requirement. The article does mention, however, that they were thinking of changing that particular rule, and that the rule was clearly stated in their T&Cs. I haven't seen anything resembling that in their T&Cs currently, so my guess is that they have changed that also. Of course, I didn't review their T&Cs very closely either, so check before you rely on this information!

    Engineer
     
  8. cipher

    cipher Banned member - being a jerk

    Wim, Don't you think it would make things a hell of a lot easier to just wipe the slate clean if a player busts out.

    My God with all this B. S. on these wagering requirements it would take an army of accounts to figure this nonsense out. Not to mention the ill will that is caused by such nonsense.

    I'm thinking that is probably why Cryptologic cancelled those wagering requirements long ago.

    If nothing else Wim, spell it out in easy to understand language if you intend to enforce a carry-over of the wagering requirements when a player busts out. Have a good one.

    Cipher
     
  9. jpm

    jpm Dormant account

    If crypto has been that way for a year and a half, they hadn't informed their e-cash support people or something because I know I had that issue more than once over the past 18 months. I would typically play my deposit + bonus until I at least met the w/r or got to $0. In the case of busting out, I always seemed to have more to do the next month.

    I'm going to see what happens this weekend, since it'll be time for another round of crypto-bonuses. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised!
     
  10. spearmaster

    spearmaster RIP Ted

    Occupation:
    Devil's Advocate
    Location:
    Heaven
    I've finally uploaded my "Stupid Casino Tricks" on the website.

    The appropriate article for this situation is:

    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    Keep in mind this was not written for a specific casino - but is definitely targeted at all casinos who carry over playthough requirements even though the player has already lost his deposit.
     
  11. engineer

    engineer Dormant account

    Give it a shot - jpm. Like I said, I have done this with crypto places and have not experienced any problems. (Prior to doing it however, I did get some customer service people that didn't seem to know what the rule was - in that case I referred them to the article on WOL and asked them to ask their supervisor. That straightened them out and they confirmed that the data in the article was correct). Good luck!
     
  12. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    Good article, Spear - can we use it?
     
  13. jpm

    jpm Dormant account

    Uh oh, this sounds like another GoneGambling vs Sunny Group just waiting to happen! ;)

    Get it in writing! Ooops, yeah, it is in writing. Nevermind. :D
     
  14. spearmaster

    spearmaster RIP Ted

    Occupation:
    Devil's Advocate
    Location:
    Heaven
    Most certainly, Jetset... and any of the others. Same as usual :)
     

Share This Page