- Joined
- Mar 16, 2018
- Location
- Canada
Hi,
Recently I finished a wager on Wild Jackpots for about $1600 and was happy to cashout this balance from a small deposit. As Im awaiting my cashout I am blindsided by this message about how I voided the bonus terms:
e have received your withdrawal request; however, it has been denied by our Audit Team.
Please be advised that during the verification of your withdrawal they have noticed that our Bonus Terms and Conditions were breached.
Please be reminded that: In order to avoid bonus abuse by building balance while playing with pending Playthrough Requirements (wagering requirements) on 0% contribution games, all players should avoid playing 0% contribution games while having an active bonus. If players fail to comply with these terms, we reserve the right to void any winnings generated, should you play on any 0% contribution games before fulfilling the Playthrough Requirements (wagering requirements).
Upon checking, on the 1st of January, you have claimed a deposit bonus and during your gaming session you have played a game with 0% contribution before the playthrough requirement was fulfilled.
The following 0% contribution game was played, which led to the breach of the Bonus Terms & Conditions:
Now, Since I played these 3 games while I was beating the wager they have decided to void all my winnings... I had no idea that playing these 3 games would void this wager. Now you could say I should have known this before hand, but there were no warnings at all when playing these games that the wager was being voided when trying these games out... it took a while to finish the wager and I played many other games that obviously did not void the bonus terms... Why make these games available to play when playing out the bonus if they are just going to void the bonus terms after the fact?
I just want people to be aware of this site if they do choose to play a bonus on it as these casinos are ruthless and will do anything to not pay you
Our full writeup on Wild Jackpots here.
Recently I finished a wager on Wild Jackpots for about $1600 and was happy to cashout this balance from a small deposit. As Im awaiting my cashout I am blindsided by this message about how I voided the bonus terms:
e have received your withdrawal request; however, it has been denied by our Audit Team.
Please be advised that during the verification of your withdrawal they have noticed that our Bonus Terms and Conditions were breached.
Please be reminded that: In order to avoid bonus abuse by building balance while playing with pending Playthrough Requirements (wagering requirements) on 0% contribution games, all players should avoid playing 0% contribution games while having an active bonus. If players fail to comply with these terms, we reserve the right to void any winnings generated, should you play on any 0% contribution games before fulfilling the Playthrough Requirements (wagering requirements).
Upon checking, on the 1st of January, you have claimed a deposit bonus and during your gaming session you have played a game with 0% contribution before the playthrough requirement was fulfilled.
The following 0% contribution game was played, which led to the breach of the Bonus Terms & Conditions:
- BasicI nstinct
- Reactoonz
- Lucky Angler a snowy catch
Now, Since I played these 3 games while I was beating the wager they have decided to void all my winnings... I had no idea that playing these 3 games would void this wager. Now you could say I should have known this before hand, but there were no warnings at all when playing these games that the wager was being voided when trying these games out... it took a while to finish the wager and I played many other games that obviously did not void the bonus terms... Why make these games available to play when playing out the bonus if they are just going to void the bonus terms after the fact?
I just want people to be aware of this site if they do choose to play a bonus on it as these casinos are ruthless and will do anything to not pay you
Our full writeup on Wild Jackpots here.
Last edited by a moderator: