Why the hell have fortune lounge been allowed back??

[SuitedPower]

Hi Guys,

It saddens me that a bunch of theives like this lot have been allowed back into casinomeisters accredited list. There is a thread currently a few below this one discussing how some MG casinos are turning a bit "rogueish" ( https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/is-some-microgaming-casinos-becoming.22944/ ). In that thread "aka23" makes a very good post which I will now quote from..

Fortune Lounge -- Locked thousands of accounts and confiscated winnings from many players. It was temporarily put on rogue list here. As of this week, a player reported that they are still up to their old tricks with confiscated winnings.

The thing is, ignoring what happened in the past, that I too have heard such reports this week from sources. The pattern of thefts they got rougued for is still continuing. These are NOT groups of fraudalent accounts or even players who are misreading the terms and conditions. These are legitimate players who have abided by fortune lounges own t&c. Their only crime? Being smart/lucky enough to win. In these cases the practices of a while ago are still commonplace with fortune lounge. Winnings confiscated. If a player has been allowed to sign up for an account and his bets accepted, with him or her abiding by all the t&c then they should be paid their winnings regardless. Of course the casino is free to ban anyone they want but if they have gone so far as allowing all of this then by confiscating the winnings of a legitimate, rule abiding player they are doing nothing but stealing. This practice is still commonplace at fortune lounge casinos.

When casinomeister originally rouged them a while back I was most impressed, they clearly deserved it but they had long been a fixture of his site, it took some balls to drop them like he did. However this about turn saddens me greatly. I have always followed the casinomeisters recommendations for casinos. Whenever I have fancied trying a new casino/software platform out my first port of call has always been his accredited list to choose one that takes my fancy. His judgement always appeared 100% sound to me, and with his contacts at each casino any minor complaint that would arise (I had a couple of these myself, nothing major tho and with this websites help they were sorted asap) from players he referred were always recitified openly and to the satisfaction of both parties. Because of this I always tried to use the affiliate links from casinomeister as a show of support for the site and also because I felt my money was going to a truly worthy affiliate. Unfortunately this state of place is now not so clear. With Fortune Lounge back on the list it is a nasty state of affairs as imo this is openly inviting players to play at a casino which has no qualms about trying to steal legitimate intelligent players money. A leopard does not change its spots in Fortune Lounges case as has been proven this week and being "accredited" is basically inviting players who are none the wiser to sign up to a bunch of crooks. It seems a sad lapse in judgement to me from an otherwise excellent site. I dont really automatically trust other "accredited" casinos so quickly now, it was a true seal of approval for me before. I can only guess that the reason for putting them back up was purely financial....

SP

P.S. This is not intended as a casinomeister bash guys, this site has helped me a lot in the past, its really a fortune lounge bash, but the accredited thing me just smacks me as plain wrong.

 

[Casinomeister]

...I can only guess that the reason for putting them back up was purely financial...

It has nothing to do with anything financial - those who know me, and I have a public track record going on ten years here, know that I am not motivated by money. I am motivated by being fair.

The unfortunate thing is that many people who frequent forums only see what other players post. You are not privy to their player accounts, or whether or not they are being 100% honest. I on-the-other-hand am. I can see clearly from both sides of the fence (in most cases).

When Fortune Lounge was removed from the site last Spring, it was for a number of things, mainly they didn't react appropriately to a botched promo. They were hit by massive fraud because of this and many of the complaints that were dealt with were from fraudsters. I nailed a few on my own. The other players, the advantage players who were locked out, were paid both their deposits and winnings.

The bottom line is that I am being fair to both the casino group and its players. The player base for Fortune Lounge is huge - and how many of these players have problems? The percentage is minuscule.

If casinos are not allowed room for improvement or to learn from their mistakes, what good is a rogue list? Why would a casino be motivated to do the right thing, treat their players fairly so that removal is possible?

Its funny how anytime I try to be fair towards a group of casinos, I get bashed with a "it's all about the money" thing. I'm disappointed in your short-sightedness.

 

[chuchu59]

Financial reasons? Bryan, you must be a multi-millionaire by now, if not a billionaire. Can I borrow some quid for a shot at the progressives?

 

[brianzz]

If you don't like FL casinos, don't play there. When I signed up here I didn't see anything that said I must play at all accreditted casinos.

 

[vinylweatherman]

"are reports of...." does not constitute proof of rogue behaviour. If there is enough of a problem, then this will surface here, and again through the PAB service it will be possible to identify whether this is "fraud", or a repeat of the problems from last time.
We need to have cases where play has been within the terms and conditions, yet winnings have been confiscated. After last time, additional terms WERE added that prohibited certain kinds of "advantage play" even though all games are allowed under the new EZbonus rules.
The problems last time were that Fortune Lounge went over to EZBonus, but were hit by players who had found the mathematical flaw in the system, and with 8 casinos to join, each with a bonus, these advantage players were on to a winner. The fraudsters were the greedy ones for whom it was not enough to hit 8 SUBs, but they went back for more under false details. The sheer weight of "new" signups triggered the initial overreaction, and the slowness in sorting out the innocents from the fraudsters is what earned them rogue status.
I expect they have now "served their time", and are being allowed a fresh start after a review of current practices.
There have been other casino groups that have moved between rogue and accredited status, and some that have not kept up with promises and found themselves back in the rogues gallery again. Sometimes this is driven by changes in management and ownership, and thus policy. I am not aware, though, of such changes with Fortune Lounge.

 

[KasinoKing]

We need to have cases where play has been within the terms and conditions, yet winnings have been confiscated. After last time, additional terms WERE added that prohibited certain kinds of "advantage play" even though all games are allowed under the new EZbonus rules.

This whole 'bonus abuse' thing is the main thing which P's me off with the vast majority of MG casinos - not just Fortune Lounge (who at least did make an attempt to clarify one type of 'abuse')
EZ-bonus or not, why is it so difficult for them to just add a term which says something like "While meeting wagering requirements for any bonus, players may not place single bets greater than 25% of the bonus in question. (e.g. If you have claimed a $100 bonus, the maximum single bet is $25)"
I mean, it's not rocket science and if the casinos were really serious about stopping so called 'abuse' they would surely do something like this.
All the time they carry the wishy-washy term "any play the management deems abusive" the complaints will just keep coming and coming...

 

[kingkong098]

Sign up to Royal Vegas, deposit $100 and get the the $100 SUB. Make $100 bets on bacarat/BJ until you are two bets or more ahead... Grind out the WR on $1 bets on French Roulette. I can pretty much guarantee your account will get locked and you will not get paid.

Same shenanigans that got them rogued, yet still completely within the rules. They got massacred by this method in the past, and yet they do nothing to fix it? Doesn't make sense, unless of course they engage the FU clause. Casinomeister once warned against signing up to any casino that used the following language "The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute irregular play for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred", but I see that has been removed from the recommendations list.

Mr. CM, can you confirm that if a player plays in the way described above, understanding obviously this is purely an advantage play but completely within the rules of the casino, that the player will get paid?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sign up to Royal Vegas, deposit $100 and get the the $100 SUB. Make $100 bets on bacarat/BJ until you are two bets or more ahead... Grind out the WR on $1 bets on French Roulette. I can pretty much guarantee your account will get locked and you will not get paid.

Same shenanigans that got them rogued, yet still completely within the rules. They got massacred by this method in the past, and yet they do nothing to fix it? Doesn't make sense, unless of course they engage the FU clause. Casinomeister once warned against signing up to any casino that used the following language "The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute irregular play for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred", but I see that has been removed from the recommendations list.

Mr. CM, can you confirm that if a player plays in the way described above, understanding obviously this is purely an advantage play but completely within the rules of the casino, that the player will get paid?

I thought FL resolved the issue by explicitly disallowing this kind of advantage play tactic. If they did add such terms, and then removed them once the fuss died down, but still confiscate winnings, then this needs further investigation. They may have "done a BelleRock" and buried this term in the general terms of use, and not in the terms for each of the SUBs. It is also worth looking for a term limiting bonuses to a certain number of casinos within the group, as with 8 to choose from, FL can be hit 8x by a single player, and this kind of play becomes an almost certain winner, but not one that has the slightest chance of going unnoticed by "risk management"

 

[kingkong098]

They word the clause confusingly (surprise,surprise). My interpretation is no full balance bets and no bets where the majority of the bet is bonus funds. Since the players funds are used first, if I were to bet $100 and win 2 or 3 consecutive hands, I have never touched the bonus money....the other extreme is what happens once you've lost over half your balance, now all of a sudden all you have is bonus funds and you're not allowed to bet more than half your balance be it $100 or $1.

Here's the full clause on "irregular play"

Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns e.g. playing of equal, zero margin bets or hedge betting, which all shall be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes.
Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets using your entire or the majority of your account balance, where the majority of that balance is made up of bonus balance. The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute “irregular play” for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred to meet bonus play-through requirements.

The fact that the player never fully knows if their funds are safe and the continued arbitrary use of this clause to confiscate winnings keeps me from ever playing there. What's even crazier is 3 of my FL accounts got banned, 2 keep receiving "we want you back" bonuses.

 

[jetset]

This thread is beginning to sound like a convoluted debate between opposing Silks in the Supreme Court with all the T&C technicalities....that's an unfortunate consequence of the bonus system that has developed in the industry which now has the savvy players and the operators continually trying to outwit one another.

I don't see this struggle changing anytime soon.

FWIW, I think if the operator believes a player is an advantage player whose business he does not want or need, he should exercise the right of admission and bar the "offending" player or restrict his/her promo eligibility.

But first, he needs to honour the T&Cs if said advantage player has played by the rules on the transactions preceding the lock.

 

[Casinomeister]

Perhaps you're confusing Casinomeister with some bonus whoring website - it's not. And when it comes to whoring bonuses - you can't have it both ways.

FL found themselves rogued last year for using subjective terms and confiscating winnings; they didn't like the way some players had played. If I remember correctly, they had 4000+ players open about 9000+ accounts - about two thirds were fraudsters. Of course they panicked (what would you have done BTW?) locked these accounts and started going through these one-by-one. In the end, after being chastised on how they handled this (and rogued), they paid winnings to the players who had met those present terms. Then they went and modified their T&Cs to indicate what type of play would not be allowed.

What more do you want? They are being specific on what type of activity they won't tolerate. Does a business have a right to do this? Of course they do.

The problem is, some players want it both ways. You cry foul when a casino boots you out for playing a certain way, and you cry foul when the casino indicates what play is not permitted. My approach is if you don't like this, then just don't play there. Like brianzz said, you are not obligated to only play at casinos that are listed at Casinomeister. The FL group is an excellent group of casinos, and I have backed them up when I feel that they were/are in the right, and nailed them to the wall when they were wrong.

Have you considered <gasp> playing without bonuses? You will free yourself from all of this unneeded stress. There is more to life than chasing bonuses y'know.

In my opinion, they paid for their transgressions, and I don't see a problem bringing them back on just as long as they behave.

 

[maxd]

... I can only guess that the reason for putting them back up was purely financial....

No offense to you personally, but do you realize what a cheap shot that is?

Over the years the number of players that CM has helped get payed, had problems ironed out, etc is pretty impressive. That, and run a forum where players can openly and fairly discuss their issues AND file formal complaints if necessary and it costs none of them a single thin dime for the privilege.

In any other field the man would have been knighted or given a lifetime achievement award, or somesuch. But here people who know little or nothing about the significance of the contribution made and have no respect for the integrity proven many many times over can feel free to make the most flagrantly ignorant accusations with no evidence, no corroborating material, and no good reason for doing so beyond "I can only guess".

The reason that your "purely financial" accusation is so foul is that it's so cowardly on the one hand and so potentially damaging on the other. Anyone can take a cheap shot from the shelter of anonymity and that particular cheap shot is sooooo easy to take. You know it's hurtful and damaging when you do it but you do it anyway. After all why not kick a guy in the nuts if it's a free shot, eh? If people don't know CM for what it is they might take that accusation seriously and the devil's work is done. Congratulations! It's nothing but (one of) the internet's version of vandalism and we all know how much we admire that little pastime.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sign up to Royal Vegas, deposit $100 and get the the $100 SUB. Make $100 bets on bacarat/BJ until you are two bets or more ahead... Grind out the WR on $1 bets on French Roulette. I can pretty much guarantee your account will get locked and you will not get paid.

Same shenanigans that got them rogued, yet still completely within the rules. They got massacred by this method in the past, and yet they do nothing to fix it? Doesn't make sense, unless of course they engage the FU clause. Casinomeister once warned against signing up to any casino that used the following language "The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute irregular play for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred", but I see that has been removed from the recommendations list.

Mr. CM, can you confirm that if a player plays in the way described above, understanding obviously this is purely an advantage play but completely within the rules of the casino, that the player will get paid?

That's the problem. While betting $100 on Blackjack with your OWN deposit is fine, the French Roulette follow up is what is "banned" by the term:-

Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns e.g. playing of equal, zero margin bets or hedge betting, which all shall be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes.
Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets using your entire or the majority of your account balance, where the majority of that balance is made up of bonus balance. The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute irregular play for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred to meet bonus play-through requirements.

A long series of $1 bets on a "50/50" Roulette outcome is what would be considered as "equal betting". The starting strategy, although within the letter of the terms, is likely to be viewed as "taking the piss" when followed by the French Roulette grind, and they can then use the catch-all term of

The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute irregular play for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred to meet bonus play-through requirements.

This is NOT the same scenario as before, FL have a stronger case for arguing their side, especially when the player repeats the strategy throughout all 8 casinos.

As far as "bonus whoring" goes, this is pretty amateur stuff, and not something that stands the SLIGHTEST chance of getting past "risk management", because it is SO BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS.
Websites promoting this method as "easy money" are the ones out to make "a quick buck" out of the hapless player, and it is these websites that deserve the criticism, not Casinomeister, who ends up having to clear up the mess created when these "whoring" sites send an avalanche of players to hit a single casino group; which is what triggered the earlier FL issue.

I suspect that one (or more) of these "whoring" sites is at it again, promoting this method as "just within the terms", making money from players who sign-up through their links, and getting an inflated number of sign-ups by promoting this scheme as "easy money". Casinos can also track which sites are sending the players (so they can pay the affiliate), and will place "problem" sites' players under extra scrutiny.

In order to avoid problems, new players should consider avoiding games such as Blackjack, Craps, Roulette, and Bacarrat altogether, and try their luck at a variety of other games, including slots (assuming no other game restrictions in the terms). This would make it near impossible for the casino to cry "bonus abuse" when it comes to paying out, and would also ensure the player received the follow-up offers given to regular players. Sometimes, these can be better than the SUB, more so if the player makes it to VIP level.

 

[TDTAT]

I was suprised when Fortune lounge was put in the pit.
I had never had one bonus problem with the group
and I have many many players there and most use every bonus.
I threw up big warnings when it happened though because
I respect CasinoMeister as a SERIOUS player watchdog.

I guess my players and I are more "bonus sluts" than
"bonus whores", because we had no issues
After hearing about the problems here last year,
I did argue with them about what they saw as bonus
abuse, but can not argue with the decisions they ultimately made.

I was happy to see them back on the accredited list
because so many of my players think they are decent casinos.
I won there personally on their bonuses and cashed out no problem.

CasinoMeister is right... there has to be a self serving purpose
for a casino to do right on some occasions. If casino status
never changed, the casinos would have less reason to do right by players
when they screw up.

I am personally financially motivated as an affiliate, but I want to
promote only good casinos because no amount of money is worth
my players getting screwed over, and thus loosing trust in me.

It is in all our best interests to motivate online casinos to change
for the better in any way possible.

 

[NextToYou]

What I think is that there should be exact terms what is allowed and what is not in promotional T&C. This current promotional T&C is not clear enough in its wording. It will lead into disputes and interpretation questions. Basically casino just takes a right not to pay winnigs with this wording. You can always rely on "irregular playing pattern" term, when it is not clearly stated what it consists.

Why just not ban all the games that are not likeable when using bonuses or give them such weighting that they are allowed so there wouldnt be any confusion?? If we want to take MG casinos as an example - look at 32Red. Their T&C is very clear about allowed games when playing with bonuses and I dont recall a single dispute here about them during past year.

I agree that this current T&C of the Fortune Group is not the T&C an accredited casino should have. It should be much more clear and easy to understand so it wont leave any chance for interpretation. How is it so hard to write one? Just copy one from 32Red with your desired wagering multipliers if it is hard to make one of your own.

 

[suzecat]

I can only guess that the reason for putting them back up was purely financial....

It strikes me the only reason for hasseling with bonuses (and their awful terms) is purely financial..............

 

[KasinoKing]

In order to avoid problems, new players should consider avoiding games such as Blackjack, Craps, Roulette, and Bacarrat altogether, and try their luck at a variety of other games, including slots (assuming no other game restrictions in the terms). This would make it near impossible for the casino to cry "bonus abuse" when it comes to paying out, and would also ensure the player received the follow-up offers given to regular players. Sometimes, these can be better than the SUB, more so if the player makes it to VIP level.

... or if you're a low-roller & get lots of lovely Ladbrokes scratchcards!

I agree that this current T&C of the Fortune Group is not the T&C an accredited casino should have. It should be much more clear and easy to understand so it wont leave any chance for interpretation. How is it so hard to write one? Just copy one from 32Red with your desired wagering multipliers if it is hard to make one of your own.

Agreed! But not just FL, many other casinos are just the same:-

why is it so difficult for them to just add a term which says something like "While meeting wagering requirements for any bonus, players may not place single bets greater than 25% of the bonus in question. (e.g. If you have claimed a $100 bonus, the maximum single bet is $25)"
I mean, it's not rocket science and if the casinos were really serious about stopping so called 'abuse' they would surely do something like this.

.

It strikes me the only reason for hasseling with bonuses (and their awful terms) is purely financial..............

Nail on the head!
These 'bonus whores' are not what many would consider as 'true gamblers', they are just trying to take advantage of a free lunch - eat as much as you can and see how much you can sneak out in your pockets!
But it has to be said that many casinos are not doing enough to discourage this 'questionable play' by adding really simple terms as proposed by myself & others above.
By not banning 'abusive' play in the terms, they are effectively encouraging the so-called 'abusers' to come & have a go. Why do they do this? Well this time I think the motivation is financial. There can be no other explanation. Personally this is about the only thing I find a bit distasteful about the whole online casino scene.

KK

 

[aka23]

... Then they went and modified their T&Cs to indicate what type of play would not be allowed.

What more do you want? They are being specific on what type of activity they won't tolerate...

The modified terms are specific about some things, like making large bets with the majority of your balance. But they are ambiguous about other things, saying

"The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute "irregular play" for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred..."

I have heard of players being denied winnings who did not bet the majority of their balance or do anything that was clearly defined as problematic in the T&C. Echoing comments of other posters, I think the T&C should be more specific about what type of play is not allowed, rather than confiscating winnings for undefined "irregular play."

 

[suzecat]

is[/B] financial. There can be no other explanation. Personally this is about the only thing I find a bit distasteful about the whole online casino scene.

KK

Bonuses then are an "insurance" of sorts for the casinos that offer them. Make the terms vague enough and insure an out for nonpayment! Distasteful? Certainly! Begs the question: who's scamming who?

 

[sdaddy]

What I think is that there should be exact terms what is allowed and what is not in promotional T&C. This current promotional T&C is not clear enough in its wording. It will lead into disputes and interpretation questions. Basically casino just takes a right not to pay winnigs with this wording. You can always rely on "irregular playing pattern" term, when it is not clearly stated what it consists.

Why just not ban all the games that are not likeable when using bonuses or give them such weighting that they are allowed so there wouldnt be any confusion?? If we want to take MG casinos as an example - look at 32Red. Their T&C is very clear about allowed games when playing with bonuses and I dont recall a single dispute here about them during past year.

I agree that this current T&C of the Fortune Group is not the T&C an accredited casino should have. It should be much more clear and easy to understand so it wont leave any chance for interpretation. How is it so hard to write one? Just copy one from 32Red with your desired wagering multipliers if it is hard to make one of your own.

Well stated. Certainly Fortune Lounge has every right to prohibit such play that it believes exploits its bonuses, but not by using the vague language in its definition of "irregular play." When that clause includes phrases such as "Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to..." or "The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute irregular play for bonus play-through requirement purposes...", then what is prohibited can be whatever the casino wants it to be.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The modified terms are specific about some things, like making large bets with the majority of your balance. But they are ambiguous about other things, saying

"The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute "irregular play" for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred..."

I have heard of players being denied winnings who did not bet the majority of their balance or do anything that was clearly defined as problematic in the T&C. Echoing comments of other posters, I think the T&C should be more specific about what type of play is not allowed, rather than confiscating winnings for undefined "irregular play."

It would be useful to know exactly what these players did that caused problems with FL. If we knew this, we could see just how far they were pushing the catch-all term.
They COULD indeed prevent the grind on French Roulette from working simply by giving such games a weighting of zero in the MG bonus system, this would force players to "grind" out WR on something else with a non-zero weighting. It is also possible to set up different EZBonus weightings for different groups of players. Jackpot Factory run TWO sets of weightings, 30x for new players, and 15x for members of the VIP Lounge. Casino Action go even better than this, with FOUR divisions depending on VIP level reached. This is CLEARLY available to ALL MG casinos, and they should perhaps explore these settings more thoroughly before relying on unpopular and reputation damaging "FU Clauses".
They have yet another weapon, and that is to VET THEIR DAMN AFFILIATES!!! If they have trouble with a "whoring" site sending too many advantage players, SHUT THEIR AFFILIATE ACCOUNT! This will make it of no benefit for the site to send players for the "easy money", and they should make it clear to ALL affiliates that if they promote "bonus whoring" they risk having their affiliate accounts terminated.

I have seen the complete opposite. SOME whoring sites seem to have access to special deals with casinos to attract players, and these casinos MUST know what kind of site they are offering the deal to, and only have themselves to blame when they find out the site has sent them a bunch of it's "regulars". They then are faced with fighting back with "FU Clauses", which then causes the problem to spill out into other forums, where it may not be clear how the problems arose.

The fact that these amateur methods are STILL promoted heavily by these sites shows that they are not motivated by helping players genuinely beat casinos, but are motivated by the referral payment, and are happy that the players referred, and not themselves, are the ones taking the real risk that the casino will work out what is happening. Often, before a new casino bonus hits the mainstream, the REAL "whores", those running these portals, have already hit the bonus, and made THEIR money before the casino works out what is about to happen. A couple of these sites make this all too clear, just look for "password protected" areas of the forum, where you cannot even READ the posts unless you have the special password, which means being a member of the inner circle.

 

[Roar]

.
.

Nail on the head!
These 'bonus whores' are not what many would consider as 'true gamblers', they are just trying to take advantage of a free lunch - eat as much as you can and see how much you can sneak out in your pockets!
But it has to be said that many casinos are not doing enough to discourage this 'questionable play' by adding really simple terms as proposed by myself & others above.

God forbid!!

You mean there are some players that don't want to lose money? They want to actually............win! Good grief. And heaven forbid that they might arrange their wagers to minimize risk lest such play gets tagged "questionable play".

It's ok for Casinos to arrange their business model to make money, it's ok for affiliates and the like to arrange their business model to make money, but if you are a mere peasant player then you're apparently suppose to lose in order to allow the aforementioned businesses line their respective pockets.

Sounds like a restriction of trade to me - thought that was illegal.


.

 

[Roar]

Have you considered <gasp> playing without bonuses? You will free yourself from all of this unneeded stress. There is more to life than chasing bonuses y'know.

Ok Bryan then would you likewise consider removing all the banners promoting bonus offerings from your web site? Every last single one of them.

Surely this is hypocrisy of the grandest order.

How can a player be chastised for taking a SUB when he is merely responding to flashing advertising banners begging him to take such SUB on every page.

IMHO the advertising of bonuses cause the problems in the first place. They specifically invite the player to win "free cash" and take advantage of the promoted "give-away".

They are specifically not marketed as an opportunity to merely try-out the casino SW. They are an invitation to take advantage of a cash reward. The problem starts there.

Inserting T+Cs fine print using esoteric phrases such as "irregular play" is plainly an attempt to retract and substitute the original "fee cash" bonus offer. It is dishonest if not unlawful in most regulated environments. Such behavior should not be ordinarily rewarded by promotion into things like an "accredited list".

Return the Fortune lounge group to the rouge list where they most deservedly belong. That they now sit shoulder to shoulder with the likes of 32RED is just laughable.

.

 

[suzecat]

Surely you can exercise self-control over the temptation of flashing banners. Unless grinding out WR is fun to you. I would rather cash out after a nice win than risk losing it to WR! But that's just me - a recreational gambler = I play for fun.

 

[maxd]

IMHO the advertising of bonuses cause the problems in the first place.

If people are going to start going after advertising for everything that might be bad for them we've got a lot of work cut out for us: pharmaceuticals, tobacco, alcohol, junk food, McDonald's, bungie-jumping, white water rafting, cell phones, candy, TV, travel to a great many countries, brand name clothes made in third-world sweatshops, etc etc. Surely allowing those to pass but targeting casino bonuses is "hypocrisy of the grandest order".