We have the option to deny access to our casino, and as long as the balance on the account is paid in full there is nothing rogueish about this at all.
Closing a player’s account is not something that we do without good reason. For this particular player his account was locked out while we conducted a review and at the end of this process the balance was paid in full and permanently closed. We have many winners at all of our casinos and we would never close a player’s account just because they have won.
Regards
Tom
The balance was only paid because the OP protested, and NOT because it was "routine" to pay out and then close an account.
Since no terms had been broken, WTF is this "review" about? Terms were either broken or not, the "review" looks like a "fishing expedition" was launched because the player had been unduly lucky, and when nothing was found, this was STILL not good enough, since the result of the review had been predetermined by management, and this was that the player would be ditched whatever the outcome of the review, and it was merely a case of finding a reason to explain it away.
Getting rid of players who have been far too lucky makes no mathematical sense, since ANY player could be the next one to have a lucky streak. You do NOT alter the overall outcome by selectively cutting away those players who are "on a roll", you merely reduce your overall player base, and when stories like this become public knowledge you put off new players from joining because they believe winners are not tolerated for long - and NOONE wants to suffer the indignity of being forcibly evicted from a casino for being too lucky, so will avoid this eventuality by not joining in the first place.
If there really IS a way to consistently beat the slots, so much so that merely bonus banning this player (your usual response) is not enough, you should have words with your software supplier.
As players, we want to be confident that our custom is EQUALLY appreciated, whether we win or lose. This story shows that you think of winners as "undesirables", and would rather they went away, and if they don't take the hint, they are thrown out.
What has not been clarified is why the OP believed his final payout had been confiscated. SOMEONE at CWC clearly gave this impression to the OP in the first instance, even though the withdrawal was paid in the end.
What communication did the OP receive that gave them the impression their payout had been confiscated?
Will CWC now be "reviewing" the accounts of a number of "unusually lucky" players and throwing them out. It would be nice if we could be told, so that we could have the choice to leave with dignity, rather than being thrown out.
I left CWC with my dignity a couple of years ago, even though I was merely bonus banned. This was because I was nicely ahead, and clearly didn't need any more offers as far as the casino management were concerned.
It's not unusual to get ahead, and then have all the promotions removed. This has happened at many of the accounts I am ahead at, so I simply play where I am DOWN, and still get all the offers. This is common sense, since it's the same software, and subject to the same variations in luck, but the way this business works is that players get offered far more when they are losing, and I do NOT believe that I get ahead because that particular casino pays more over the long term, I believe I am ahead because I hit a "sweet spot" in the cycles of good and bad luck, and it could just as easily happen again anywhere, and in some cases, it HAS happened elsewhere.
I think we can be certain now that casino management DO consider slots a "game of skill" in the same way that the table games can be "beaten" by the right strategy and choice of bonuses; however this does NOT explain why an account has to be closed altogether, rather than merely being restricted to play without bonuses.
If the player goes away because they don't WANT to carry on playing without bonuses, the same ends have been achieved (getting rid of them), but WITHOUT them suffering the indignity of being thrown out, and the pursit by them of some kind of explanation as to why they were "singled out" for what is a pretty unusual and harsh treatment compared to the norm for this situation.
Of course, maybe the OP DID break the rules, but the casino are not going to say what rule was broken, because it would expose a weakness inherrent in the gaming, and knowledge of this would end up with "everybody trying it", and WINNING.
All the OP seems to have by way of slots strategy is to increase the bet when the slot seems "hot", and it seems this lead to the OP managing to ride a long "hot" streak with a large bet size, and have a pretty good run. This is pure chance, there is no actual "system" in place that means the games deliberately obey "cycles", so this is NOT a long term guaranteed winning strategy - all it does is give the player a bigger chance of winning big, but equally a bigger chance of LOSING it all back when the elusive "cycle" does NOT play out, and they are busted out by an unlucky run just as they have started playing with much bigger bets, losing the inital win back very quickly.
It's the same kind of fallacy that convinces some players (and some CASINOS) that Martingale systems offer the player a win-win situation, and that casinos have to fear them.
The OP's strategy looks like a "reversed modified Martingale", where bets are not doubled, but increased by a different formula, and increased after winning, rather than losing as with the usual Martingale progression.
I remember that CasinoJack was telling us that the software could be beaten due to certain "bugs" and weaknesses, and offered to tell me even more "dark secrets" about how the RTG slots REALLY work in London a couple of years ago. I took this to be complete bullshit, and never pursued the matter, but I am beginning to have second thoughts because of stories like this that show casino operators are afraid of something they should NOT be if RTG slots worked the way we have been told they do.
The OP didn't break the terms, but clearly had CWC scared of SOMETHING because of the strategy they used playing the slots - this simply does not make sense, and has to be the FIRST case of an ACCREDITED casino throwing out a SLOTS player because they had an advantage that could NOT be dealt with by banning them from bonuses.
A non-accredited casino threw out a slots player with a similar set of arguments, and it was taken as a sign that the operator didn't understand how slot games and RNGs work, and thought a lucky streak meant the player had actually found a guaranteed winning strategy.
The only other argument that has been presented is that some players simply take too long to lose small amounts of money, and maintaining their accounts is not considered profitable. This boils down to these players making each Dollar last too long, and the casino is looking for players who lose faster. This flies in the face of the claim made by operators that they are offering "recreation & entertainment" rather than hardcore gambling. If it is REALLY about "entertaining" the player, the casino should be HAPPY when players have such a good time that they manage to make their bankroll "entertain" them for a prolonged period of time.
We have to speculate about this, because the rest of us want to know how WE can avoid suffering the same fate as the OP, and clearly reading the terms, and sticking to them, is NOT enough.