who is a bonus abuser?!?

[padanian]

When shopping for new casinos to play with, I try to be careful to read T&C. It is not really for the bonuses, because the most of the times I do not ask for them. But they can be an interesting item in order to check their seriousness and their approach towards clients (or maybe it's just that I have a lot of time to loose or am still conditioned by the fact that when I used to live in Italy, I was a lawyer...).
It's really funny sometimes to read what they write about so called "bonus abusers", and the restrictions that people from certain countries face (that's a kind of approach that in many places would be illegal under discrimination laws).
Since there are several people from casinos monitoring this forum I think that it could be interesting for many of us to know their description of a "bonus abuser"? You know, sometimes when I see 25X, 30X, 55X WR implemented in order to prevent the action of bonus abusers, I have the feeling that for some casinos bonus abusers are just the players that are able to win something...

 

[Black21Jack]

A friend of mine was labelled a bonus abuser by simply depositing, claiming a bonus and then placing the minimum wager until he had met the requirements, then cash out with the bonus money and initial deposit. It is odd that they could do such a thing since the T&C's state that as long as the wagering requirements are met you are fine, no mention of a minimum wager. This was a long time ago and now he has learned that it is simply not worth claiming bonuses anymore.

 

[largeeyes]

A friend of mine was labelled a bonus abuser by simply depositing, claiming a bonus and then placing the minimum wager until he had met the requirements, then cash out with the bonus money and initial deposit. It is odd that they could do such a thing since the T&C's state that as long as the wagering requirements are met you are fine, no mention of a minimum wager. This was a long time ago and now he has learned that it is simply not worth claiming bonuses anymore.

I don't know why they even offer them. They don't want people to use them and when they do, they tell them not to come back. THEY MAKE THE RULES, if they are followed, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[wassie]

Promo abuse

Hi guys,

Another method of promo abuse is the following:

When the casino offers an interactive game promotion, and the winning coupon gets posted on the internet forums and the casino has proof that the players did not take part in the interactive game, then it is deemed abusive. There are also other forms of this.

Wassie

 

[Nidya]

Uh-oh. That sounds like my case. I hope cirrus will let my withdrawal go. *crossing fingers*

A friend of mine was labelled a bonus abuser by simply depositing, claiming a bonus and then placing the minimum wager until he had met the requirements, then cash out with the bonus money and initial deposit. It is odd that they could do such a thing since the T&C's state that as long as the wagering requirements are met you are fine, no mention of a minimum wager. This was a long time ago and now he has learned that it is simply not worth claiming bonuses anymore.

 

[Macgyver]

Most reputable casinos will, in fact, honor the withdrawal. Afterwards, however, is when they have the right to inform you that you're no longer able to redeem bonuses with them.

It's the rogues that just give you back your deposit, but keep your winnings.

Hence Bryan's "Pitch a Bitch" for these slimy ones ...

 

[virtualted]

Feelings from one RTG casino, we have two terms here, Bonus Abuser, and Advantage Player. A bonus abuser is just that, a player who might use free chip fter free chip, without depositing. Opening a number of accounts to take advantage of new player bonuses. Also a player who is skilled enough in the games, that he is able to make play through by only risking the bonus money, and not ever putting there money in play. We have never labled a player as a bonus abuser, who plays, slots ,keno,tri card poker,etc. But when a player makes a 1000 playthrough, by playng 1000 hands of black jack at 1 per hand, because those are the terms on say a free chip of $50, to cash out $20. We consider that player a bonus abuser. We do not ever stop that player from playing or stop the cashout, we just notify them that they are no longer eligible for certain bonuses, but we do reevaluate the players monthly.
We also have players who we deem advantage players, those are players who beat the casino time and time again, with or with out bonus. With those players we politely ask them to leave the casino, and we deactivate the account. No different than if a player is a constant winner at a B&M casino, sorry but we do have the right to exclude players.
I am only comming in here giving my casinos opinion, I am not speaking for any other casino out there. Also I am replying because a player asked a question of the casino side, I do not want this thread to get off topic, because I spoke up. If you have specifics for me send me an E-mail, and I will reply privately.
Ted

 

[snuf419]

Virtual,
Good you know you ain't speaking for others, that's why your casino is going down the drain by the day while Phoenician sucks in all the loyal players.
You ask people who win to leave, even without bonuses? Don't you think that's stupid? Your casino invested so much in this player already, and all your games have negative expectation meaning sooner or later he will lose...and you exclude him?? In BM they exclude players who count cards or something...I didn't know RTG offer this card counting button...must be new!



Going back to the topic, let me tell you what a TRUE bonus abuser is.
A smart one NEVER creates multiple accounts..NEVER! Nor do they wager minimum bets. Of course that is by definition what a bonus abuser does...but in real life, things like this never happen. They wager small bets..but sometimes BIG...and it depends on what type of bonus it is. They deposit they own money frequently too...just to make the casinos believe they are loyal and send in EVEN more bonuses. They charge back, yes, BUT only with places they truely believe they were ripped off (i.e. rigged software), can't get paid, and/or the casino/processor is unheard of. I personally did two charge backs before...all met the above requirements and I was compelled to do it because I predicted those casinos were going out of business...which they really did eventually.

 

[sw2003]

They deposit they own money frequently too...just to make the casinos believe they are loyal and send in EVEN more bonuses. They charge back, yes, BUT only with places they truely believe they were ripped off (i.e. rigged software), can't get paid, and/or the casino/processor is unheard of. I personally did two charge backs before...all met the above requirements and I was compelled to do it because I predicted those casinos were going out of business...which they really did eventually.

Wow you are basically begging the casinos to ban you right now if they find out who you are! Charge back? No wonder the casinos went bust if everyone did exactly what you did. You can get opinions/experience on most casinos just by reading the public forums without having to go in, deposit, play and then charge back based entirely on your own opinion of whether the casino's software is rigged. On the other hand, if you know the casino is rigged based on others' experience, why did you go in in the first place? Based on what you confessed here, aren't you a bad customer?

 

[snuf419]

No, very unlikely a casino will ban a player who deposits his own money 90% of the time. As I said, I only did 2 chargebacks in my life...both casinos (one was Netclubcasino and I forgot the other one's name) never paid me in 2 months and I had to charge back because if I didn't, my card companies would charge me. I had to do it to get my deposits back at least.

I haven't done charge backs since...partly because I don't deposit with credit cards anymore and mostly because I play with reputable casinos only.

I am not promoting chargeback, the question was about bonus abuser and I was just putting up a definition

Why are there always people in forums trying to fan a fire?

 

[sw2003]

No, very unlikely a casino will ban a player who deposits his own money 90% of the time. As I said, I only did 2 chargebacks in my life...both casinos (one was Netclubcasino and I forgot the other one's name) never paid me in 2 months and I had to charge back because if I didn't, my card companies would charge me. I had to do it to get my deposits back at least.

I haven't done charge backs since...partly because I don't deposit with credit cards anymore and mostly because I play with reputable casinos only.

I am not promoting chargeback, the question was about bonus abuser and I was just putting up a definition

Why are there always people in forums trying to fan a fire?

No one is fanning any fire! You didn't mention that they didn't pay you for two months after you have done everything legitimately. You only said you charged back when you felt their software was rigged which is an entirely different story from non-payment. Ok now I am more sympathetic to your charging back. Crooked casinos certainly deserve a charge back! I will give them a maximum of one month before I charge back but I don't use credit cards.

 

[jpm]

Ted, thanks for defining what you consider a bonus abuser and advantage player. I think its helpful for people to know this.

I think your definition of bonus abuser is right on the mark, no arguement there. The advantage player though, I think you have mislabeled. I would call that a 'sharp' player. An advantage player would be defined by me at least as someone who has only 1 account, accepts bonuses and follows the rules to the letter, and then cashes out, only playing (or 90% of the time at least) when he's getting a bonus. That to me would be an advantage player. I don't have a problem with a casino banning anyone they want to, but I do think they at least should tell the person the reason (not just 'a management decision' which I got from Winner's Playground).

 

[chop-choi]

I don't see how placing only the minimum bet at blackjack is bonus abuse. Afterall, the casino determines the amount of the minmum bet, the wagering requirement, and the games which are eligible for the bonus.
If casinos don't want people earning their bonuses by playing $1 blackjack, then they should either exclude blackjack from the bonus, raise theire table minimum, or make the wagering requirement high enough that the player does not have much positive expectation. If the casinos set 10x WR's, $1 table minimums, and allow the bonuses to be earned at blackjack, I don't think it is fair for them to withold that players deposit, bonus, or winnings. At the same time, casinos are free to exclude anyone they wish, and so there is nothing wrong if the casinos choose to exclude such players from future bonus offers.

 

[sw2003]

I don't see how placing only the minimum bet at blackjack is bonus abuse. Afterall, the casino determines the amount of the minmum bet, the wagering requirement, and the games which are eligible for the bonus.
If casinos don't want people earning their bonuses by playing $1 blackjack, then they should either exclude blackjack from the bonus, raise theire table minimum, or make the wagering requirement high enough that the player does not have much positive expectation. If the casinos set 10x WR's, $1 table minimums, and allow the bonuses to be earned at blackjack, I don't think it is fair for them to withold that players deposit, bonus, or winnings. At the same time, casinos are free to exclude anyone they wish, and so there is nothing wrong if the casinos choose to exclude such players from future bonus offers.

The key is in the very last sentence. They certainly can do that and they should never hold up the current bonus/winnings if the players have satisfied the WR and all T & C. To do that would make them bad casinos.

 

[bethug]

ted, i really repect you in being upfront, i am glad i read this post. If i win most of the time i play with out a bonus, that i would not be welcome?
That is good to know. i will stick to the old faithfuls.

ted, i really think your casino need to step up to the plate. What the good reason should any player play there.

Bodog, inetbet, phonenican , what make your casino better or even in there league???

 

[GrandMaster]

I don't see how placing only the minimum bet at blackjack is bonus abuse. Afterall, the casino determines the amount of the minmum bet, the wagering requirement, and the games which are eligible for the bonus.
If casinos don't want people earning their bonuses by playing $1 blackjack, then they should either exclude blackjack from the bonus, raise theire table minimum, or make the wagering requirement high enough that the player does not have much positive expectation. If the casinos set 10x WR's, $1 table minimums, and allow the bonuses to be earned at blackjack, I don't think it is fair for them to withold that players deposit, bonus, or winnings. At the same time, casinos are free to exclude anyone they wish, and so there is nothing wrong if the casinos choose to exclude such players from future bonus offers.

I liked 32red's idea. It offered a very generous 2000/1000/45000 bonus, but you had to have an average bet size of $40.

 

[sw2003]

I liked 32red's idea. It offered a very generous 2000/1000/45000 bonus, but you had to have an average bet size of $40.

Who wouldn't like 32red's bonuses! They are at the very top of all casino bonuses if you ask me but my opinion could be subjective.

 

[caruso]

Very subjective. Best???

Take three consecutive and they bar you.

Very impressive.

 

[jetset]

The key is in the very last sentence. They certainly can do that and they should never hold up the current bonus/winnings if the players have satisfied the WR and all T & C. To do that would make them bad casinos.

...and as Chop Choi says "If the casinos set 10x WR's, $1 table minimums, and allow the bonuses to be earned at blackjack, I don't think it is fair for them to withold that players deposit, bonus, or winnings."

Deplorably, some of (the dishonest) among them do, and bonuses have become the major source of disputes as a consequence.

Any operator who has been in this business for any legth of time knows full well that where a player accepts and meets the T&Cs no matter by how small a margin he is due deposits, bonus and any winnings.

If an operator chooses to label the player an abuser after the fact, then that operator can invoke his future right of admission or the right to withold future bonuses....but he cannot revoke the monies already earned by compliance with his T&Cs. If he does, he's a crook, plainly said.

The other aspect of bonusing that bothers me is the penchant for some integrity challenged operators to attempt the imposition of retroactive T&Cs in their efforts to avoid paying a player. That is equally dishonest.

 

[Stanford]

This is where I change horses

...and as Chop Choi says "If the casinos set 10x WR's, $1 table minimums, and allow the bonuses to be earned at blackjack, I don't think it is fair for them to withold that players deposit, bonus, or winnings."

Deplorably, some of (the dishonest) among them do, and bonuses have become the major source of disputes as a consequence...

If an operator chooses to label the player an abuser after the fact, then that operator can invoke his future right of admission or the right to withold future bonuses....but he cannot revoke the monies already earned by compliance with his T&Cs. If he does, he's a crook, plainly said.

The other aspect of bonusing that bothers me is the penchant for some integrity challenged operators to attempt the imposition of retroactive T&Cs in their efforts to avoid paying a player. That is equally dishonest.

I agree and especially about your last paragraph.

But even banning players as a consequence of a casino promotion is bad form. In land based casinos, the food, drinks, service, ambiance, shows, rooms - all handed out without fussing with the patron. No casino ever refused me Baileys and Coffee because I hadn't wagered enough. And these casinos have to pay personnel, maids, cooks, taxes, untilities, performers - a huge laundry list of overhead. Online casinos have a few (very few) service reps and a server. Big Whoop.

In addition it is this lack of overhead that makes serious the arguement that they should be banned - and they can be for 90% of the U.S. traffic without much effort. They contribute nothing to the local economy, they pay no taxes, and they magnify social ills. If all they are going to use the bonus system for is to attrack gamblers to sick to control their gaming, they are of no use to us. Even their entertainment value is suspect.

If online gamblers have the right to harrass honest players who abide the rules, we don't need them and I can support the shutting down of the industry in the States.

IMHO (obviously),
Stanford

 

[Stanford]

I agree and especially about your last paragraph.

If online gamblers have the right to harrass honest players who abide the rules, we don't need them and I can support the shutting down of the industry in the States.

Should read:

If online casinos have the right to harrass honest players who abide the rules, we don't need them and I can support the shutting down of the industry in the States.

Stanford

 

[mongrel]

In addition it is this lack of overhead that makes serious the arguement that they should be banned - and they can be for 90% of the U.S. traffic without much effort.

Stanford, how could they do that, do you think?

Federal legislation forcing ISPs to block their users from gaining access to them, perhaps?

Good post BTW, although mind I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it. I'm kinda conflicted on such issues, as I see the reasoning that could lead to such a clampdown, yet, on the otherhand, the libertarian side of my personality recoils at the idea of big brother stepping in and restricting my freedom to do what I want with my Internet access (if it doesn't involve unauthorized hacking intrusions into others' systems, spamming, spreading viruses...). Give them an inch (for the "greater good"???), and ya know what they'll take!

 

[sw2003]

Stanford, how could they do that, do you think?

Federal legislation forcing ISPs to block their users from gaining access to them, perhaps?

Next they are going to block porno and any sites that they don't like .... !
They did not try and didn't succeed in stopping porno so why would like try the same thing on online casinos. They could however force the US financial institutions from doing business with online casinos. US players already have a lot of hindrance on using credit cards when it comes to online gambling. A lot of the banks block credit card transactions with online casinos already. The next step would be to force the banks to not do business with all these webwallet companies. No?

 

[kls834]

They could however force the US financial institutions from doing business with online casinos. US players already have a lot of hindrance on using credit cards when it comes to online gambling. A lot of the banks block credit card transactions with online casinos already. The next step would be to force the banks to not do business with all these webwallet companies. No?

Correct, and that's exactly what Bush's Justice Department is trying to do.

 

[Stanford]

Correct, and that's exactly what Bush's Justice Department is trying to do.

Yes. It really is a shame. That would hurt not only the casino business, but also the poker rooms and the sportbooks.

I think of all the services, the strongest case can be made for the poker rooms. It is a place where owners have the least incentive to cheat. Unfortunatly, I think as goes one so goes all.

That's why I dream of a players union teamed with some of the watch dogs. Such an organazation could mirror eCOGRA and go even a step further in defining what is acceptable behavior. Might help. Might not.

If players ever start writing certain congressmen the same letters they write the watchdogs, that certainly will hurt. And every time this stuff comes up in congress, all the casinos ask us to contact congress and voice our dissent. And we do. One day players will just say - Why should we? Some probably already have.

BTW, the response from my congressman seemed to indicate the last proposed bill would have no real effect. He said it only effected credit card transactions. Which indicates the last bill didn't impact web wallet companies. Easy enough to correct should congress wish to do so.

IMHO,
Stanford