Well done, ClubDice! You rule!

[Simmo!]

I see Jetset agreeing with your observation here but can you explain what you mean? Casinos don't need to send almost daily promotions of hundreds of dollars free (when you are losing overall at the casino) like Club Dice did so they must do this for a reason, don't you think?

I think its generally accepted in this competitive industry (and many others) that a merchant needs to promote and attract new customers and once on board, keep them loyal. Most casinos offer cash bonuses to loyal players, just usually with different terms...some better than others.

I would play with loyalty bonuses but generally only if they are tied to overall wagering - for example, at 32Red, you can claim the $132 VIP bonus at any time but you can't withdraw it until you hit $3,500 wagering. Its very clear and for a loyal player works well. We all know their signup bonuses are stricter and less attractive - but thats aimed at a different set of people and as in any group, there will be those who tarnish the others with their practices. So give them a CD or something when they have wagered $500 and offer them ongoing cash bonuses after the second/third deposit to keep them valued.

Thats all i'm saying really. As Jetset says, it would keep the posts down in this forum - a good thing as far as everyone is concerned The actual complaints that are "non-bonus" related would a) be more interesting and pertinent in deciding where/where not to play and b) would help reduce the overall perception of the industry as a "rogues playground" by concentrating on more fundamental issues I would suspect.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not suggesting where a casino blatantly decieves on a bonus issue that that isn't a genuine complaint...just merely capping what people consider "bad". Crap wagering requirements, refusals to cash out prior to wagering, slow processing of bonus winnings, ID requirements on bonus winnings etc are not what i would term reasonable complaints. Withholding winnings on genuine bonus play, changing or hiding wagering terms, locking accounts of winners etc are good grounds for complaint.

As Mary said, the slow-pay thing is waaaay more important to me than the bonus issues. Basically I don't believe in a free lunch. Nothing wrong with trying to get a "free lunch" of course, but I think anyone who does needs to look out for themselves and not go all huffy when it turns out there's a bill after all. That's just plain naive IMHO.

And to stand outside the restaurant with a placard afterwards is just a bit silly

Cheers

Simmo!

 

[Vesuvio]

Thats all i'm saying really. As Jetset says, it would keep the posts down in this forum - a good thing as far as everyone is concerned The actual complaints that are "non-bonus" related would a) be more interesting and pertinent in deciding where/where not to play and b) would help reduce the overall perception of the industry as a "rogues playground" by concentrating on more fundamental issues I would suspect.

We've had this discussion before & I've already outlined all the advantages of bonus hunting, so just a few points

a) I'm not convinced the complaints would be 'more interesting' - some bonus issues can be quite wacky too, even if I'm not sure entertainment value is the key here! Pertinent in deciding where to play? Possibly, though a casino that treats bonus players badly can't be trusted to deal fairly with non-bonus players who win. Besides, without bonuses the only good advice on where to play is nowhere Seriously, most of the people who advocate getting rid of bonuses earn money from affiliate websites or other revenue sources which are more profitable the more money casinos earn. That's not a criticism, it's just that bonuses are the one factor that gives players a chance of winning, so must be a good thing

b) I'd agree that if you could universally ban bonuses most rogues (& a lot of smaller reputable casinos) would probably be forced out of business - hard to see that happening in the near future, though.

Basically I don't believe in a free lunch. Nothing wrong with trying to get a "free lunch" of course, but I think anyone who does needs to look out for themselves and not go all huffy when it turns out there's a bill after all. That's just plain naive IMHO.

Wrong on all counts There is such a thing as a free lunch in the casino industry, for easily explicable reasons (the casino needs to attract players and the profits generated more than cover a percentage of players winning - the casino just doesn't get the free lunch of attracting players at no cost!). The bonus hunter has to foot the bill if they lose, as often happens. If they win and a casino fails to fulfill its terms they have the same rights as any other player at the casino. Naivity!? That would be thinking that the poor mistreated casino can't be expected to pay out if it loses money from the offer it so generously offered players out of the goodness of its heart

 

[Vesuvio]

And to stand outside the restaurant with a placard afterwards is just a bit silly

I must admit I find the idea of players boycotting casinos a bit absurd! Usually the only players who'd be clued up enough to take part are bonus hunters the casino wouldn't want anyway. Though I did once toy with the conspiracy theory that Bethug was trying to get together a group of players who use his system. The casinos would be so desperate to get hold of this revenue source they might take the 'Players' Union's' strike threats seriously!

 

[Simmo!]

We've had this discussion before

Indeed we have V but its still fun eh I think we'll agree to differ but essentially what I'm saying is that i believe a gambler will want to gamble and if no-one offered cash bonuses, there would still be enough people willing to play to make it worthwhile and generate decent profits plus there'd be the benefit of removing (probably more than) half the complaints in this forum.

Its like the old Music Download scene. When Napster was around in original form everyone said there's no way people would pay to download music. Now its the norm and iTunes are selling millions a month.

Fair point about some webmasters promoting bonus abolition. Not seen anyone state this, but regardless of that its not the issue here - its about the industry's reputation being tarnished by bonus-related complaints that may be totally unneccesary in the first place. I'd take a guaranteed CD or a DVD over the chance of profiting from a signup bonus any day of the week.

Cheers

Simmo!

 

[Vesuvio]

I agree the on-line casino industry wouldn't disappear if bonuses were abolished. It's not quite like Napster as of course players already do play without bonuses (and perhaps most players first played at an on-line casino before they knew about bonuses).

I just doubt that players, especially high rollers, would choose to play at more than one or two reliable casinos for each software provider. Without continual incentives players would also deposit less. With that, & the loss of bonus hunters, there'd be fewer casinos and far fewer people employed in customer services.

I'm not even sure it would solve the industry's image problem. Players will always rightly be suspicious of casinos, especially on the internet. To be honest, I think that's a good thing. The more compulsive gamblers are discouraged from throwing away their money the better. Rogue operators would still be drawn to casinos and if they couldn't offer bonuses they'd find other ways of scamming players out of winnings (so maybe non-bonus players are better off at present while bonus hunters bear the brunt of it ).

Again, bonuses are the only possible good thing about on-line casinos

 

[mary]

Realistically, bonuses are never going to go away.

*They bring in more money than they cost the casino. They're easy to sell (free money!) and tap right into what the player wants (free money!)

*Nobody is very worried about "tarnished reputations" either for the industry as a whole or for individual casinos. If a casino is otherwise well-run, including having the capability to advertise, it will do just fine. (Golden Palace leaps to mind.)

We do see a correlation between the casinos with the worst thought-out bonus offers and their sudden collapse because there is a correlation between not being able to design a bonus correctly and not having good casino management skills. They borrow money, they fail to pay their advertisers, they fail to pay their software providers, they get hit with a lot of reverse charges and get thrown out of their payment processing contracts. They fail to function on many fronts, it's just that for players the most obvious early sign is bad bonus design and fulfillment.

The current player base consists only of people willing to take a risk with (for the most part) unregulated casinos. If all the existing online casinos suddenly conducted themselves with upmost probity, that probably wouldn't change a whole lot.

There is a huge untapped market out there of players who are waiting for the government to regulate the casinos; for brand names they recognize; for cross-marketing with other recognizable brands. We can see them pouring online for UK companies now. Like their parent land operators, those sites will be offering bonuses both on sign-up and for player loyalty. Harrah's in fact has won awards for their success at rewarding loyal customers...with free money (and other goodies).

Another way to look at bonuses is that they actually *help* the overall health of the industry. (Mary, have you gone loopy?) Yep. They help to enforce a level playing field between good operators and bad operators willing to lie, cheat, and steal. How? Bonuses are the only reward a committed, disciplined, creative, intelligent, self-trained and organized cadre of online gaming inspectors can expect to receive.

Without bonuses, we'd have no bonus hunters. Without bonus hunters, we'd have nobody (or very few individuals) constantly testing casinos for game fairness, processing competency, contract fulfillment; we'd have nobody correlating their results; nobody tracking down bad owners; nobody in the field. Non-bonus hunting players probably would have been unpaid a couple of times and then just quit playing online or would have found a satisfactory casino and stuck with it. Bonus hunters on the other hand are rewarded for trying out new casinos and for sharing that information with others.

Sometimes dishonest, sometimes a pain in the ass, but very effective in discovering industry problems. It's an ecology and Natural Selection is operating, folks. The Bonus Hunters can be compared to parasites, maintaining species diversity through taking down those unfit to reproduce.

 

[GrandMaster]

Fair point about some webmasters promoting bonus abolition. Not seen anyone state this, but regardless of that its not the issue here - its about the industry's reputation being tarnished by bonus-related complaints that may be totally unneccesary in the first place. I'd take a guaranteed CD or a DVD over the chance of profiting from a signup bonus any day of the week.

The question is who guarantees it. Why do you think that a casino that cannot administer its bonus program properly, which only involves some book-keeping, would be better at sending out CDs or DVDs?

Physical goods cost money up front, whereas bonus credits are "free" until the casino has to pay out real money, and $100 bonus that has to be wagered 25 times on slots does not really cost the casino $100. Players may also have to pay customs duties and taxes, which will not make them very happy.

 

[mary]

Brrrrr. I just had the mental image of a virus-laden offshore burned cheapo CD turning up in the post. Coooties!

 

[Vesuvio]

The Bonus Hunters can be compared to parasites, maintaining species diversity through taking down those unfit to reproduce.

I like to think of myself as a parasite feeding on other parasites (casinos) Though parasites don't usually kill their hosts (that would be counter-productive!), so it can be an even better metaphor for the situation with most well-run casinos.

Great post overall!

 

[Simmo!]

I just doubt that players, especially high rollers, would choose to play at more than one or two reliable casinos for each software provider. Without continual incentives players would also deposit less.

Yes indeed, but I'm drawing a distinction between signup bonuses, which are generally the ones abused, and loyalty bonuses which i think are much more important V.

 

[Simmo!]

The question is who guarantees it. Why do you think that a casino that cannot administer its bonus program properly, which only involves some book-keeping, would be better at sending out CDs or DVDs?

I don't say they would GM. But I'm thinking more about a third-party business that provides this service to the casinos and perhaps uses Amazon to distribute.

Say that new business was called "CasinoIncentives":

Player deposits > Casino sends email "gift voucher" (effectively a key) to the player > Casino notifies CasinoIncentives of the key > Player picks from a list on CasinoIncentives website (or even Amazon) and enters the key > CasinoIncentives orders gift from Amazon (probably using an Amazon affiliate link!) to be sent to the player.

The casino pays CasinoIncentives for the service obviously but all the Casino has to do is enter the players ID into a system at CasinoIncentives and an amount ordered and thats the end of their involvement. Player can choose their gifts to a given value and CasinoIncentives can probably get gifts sent from local versions of Amazon to save tax i suspect too.

Well thats just one way it could work...so who's an entrepreneur round here?

Cheers

Simmo!

PS. I want 10% for the idea

 

[GrandMaster]

We would still have the issue that the casino would have to identify the players who are eligible for the promotion, and send the list to CasinoIncentives. Even better established companies don't seem to be able to cope with this simple task. I get lots of junk mail from insurance companies offering a free pen and other gifts of similar value just for asking for a quote. In my experience half of these gifts don't arrive. There will also be the usual casino related problems, if the terms involve wagering then some people will play on exluded games, certain casinos will accuse you of bonus abuse if they feel that you take part in promotions too often, etc.

 

[Simmo!]

We would still have the issue that the casino would have to identify the players who are eligible for the promotion, and send the list to CasinoIncentives.

True...but then there has to be communication at every level of play GM.

Even better established companies don't seem to be able to cope with this simple task. I get lots of junk mail from insurance companies offering a free pen and other gifts of similar value just for asking for a quote. In my experience half of these gifts don't arrive.

You're bound to have issues at one time or another - its not a "total cleanup" solution - i dont believe there is one - but it should vastly reduce the number of complaints one would have thought...see below...

There will also be the usual casino related problems, if the terms involve wagering then some people will play on exluded games, certain casinos will accuse you of bonus abuse if they feel that you take part in promotions too often, etc.

The good thing about this is that you should be able to reduce the complexity of wagering requirements. All the game "exclusions" for example will be far less relevant. Plus being of "known value" rather than giving the player potential to take the casino for a song will enable the casino to budget better and thus (arguably) be able to pay regular players quicker. So the theory goes

 

[KasinoKing]

The Bonus Hunters can be compared to parasites, maintaining species diversity through taking down those unfit to reproduce.

Yippee! Im a parasite!

Simmo, gifts instead of ca$h bonuses would not interest me at all in fact, thats a total turn off.

The thing that really winds me up about bonuses is, why do the casinos positively encourage bonus hunters? The vast majority of casinos offer generous sign-up incentives, and then crap-all else. Why do they discriminate against existing customers in favour of new punters?
What do you expect people to do, other than keep signing up for new ones?
I think it very short sighted of the casinos who cant see this.

I would much rather go back to just a handful of decent casinos month after month, like I do with Will Hill, Intercasino, and a few others. But when it comes to Microgaming I might as well just join 1 or 2 new ones every month then never go back. With over 80 to chose from Id have a good 3-4 years worth still to go! (Then Id start on playtech )

 

[Simmo!]

The thing that really winds me up about bonuses is, why do the casinos positively encourage bonus hunters? The vast majority of casinos offer generous sign-up incentives, and then crap-all else. Why do they discriminate against existing customers in favour of new punters?
What do you expect people to do, other than keep signing up for new ones?
I think it very short sighted of the casinos who cant see this.

I would much rather go back to just a handful of decent casinos month after month, like I do with Will Hill, Intercasino, and a few others. But when it comes to Microgaming I might as well just join 1 or 2 new ones every month then never go back. With over 80 to chose from Id have a good 3-4 years worth still to go! (Then Id start on playtech )

kk

 

[jetset]

QUOTE: The thing that really winds me up about bonuses is, why do the casinos positively encourage bonus hunters? The vast majority of casino's offer generous sign-up incentives, and then crap-all else. Why do they discriminate against existing customers in favour of new punters? UNQUOTE

With the exception of those online casinos that do offer useful ongoing incentives, I think KK makes a good point here that will hopefully be read and taken on board by more casino managements.

Getting players is expensive and time consuming...surely it's worth an equal investment to keep 'em.