i seen lojo was banned, so i had to come read.
i failed to recognize what point he was trying to make, but it's of no matter.
winward is quite a poor casino indeed. i almost played there back in the day, when i was a disciple of the bonus-whoring how-to's. it was an easy bag: $500 sticky bonus with generous wr. but i was apprehensive to stick that much cash into a place and praying to get paid.
and the way they are handling this is quite lame. perhaps if they are bent on forcing bonus and wr on people, they should give a one-time option at signup whether or not bonuses will be used. that way, those who don't use bonuses can be an entirely separate stream from the bonus users.
but basically winward is saying they can't be bothered to change anything. the way they phrase it, it sounds like the following takes place:
...........deposit......bonus
amount ...100.........200
wr .......
2400.........4800
with each being counted separately. under this scenario i can easily visualize a function for the bolded "cell" above that even my commodore64 could handle, to the tune of IF BONUS = 0 THEN DEPOSITWR = 0, and then IF BONUS > 0 THEN DEPOSITWR = 24*DEPOSIT
why can't this be changed? or perhaps it is the players' faults for not also asking the wr's to NOT be applied along with their bonus exclusion request? of course i kid here, but it might be worth a try...
i say we just chat/pm bomb their support with "why must i wager my own money x times over before i can have it back?" millions of times from multiple players. maybe then they will realize it's a real issue and not just a standard inconvenience we're making a huff over because we "failed to read terms".
i mean, sure, literally if
wr = 24(d+b) and
b = 0 then
wr = 24d , but sensibly the idea of a wr with no bonus involved is ludicrous, and not something anyone is going to be watching out for.
and if you want to get uber-technical, you could say that bonus ≠ 0 , but rather = DNE(does not exist), and the result of the above would be wr = undefined, which essentially means there is no wr to speak of, or the wr is unattainable by conventional means (of counting the play made up to the target wr).
and even in the entirely unlikely event that the software cannot be changed to allow the withdrawals through on non-bonus play, maybe you can just admit it's a retarded rule and handle each case manually. ie when the software is forced to kick it, and you are examining why, say to yourself "she didn't use our bonus so she can have her cashout without meeting wr since ethically the wr ought not exist, it only does due to our outdated/underdeveloped software, here you go, thanks for playing, and we'll see you again rather than have you uninstall our casino and post in public for all to see what (greedy) idiots we are". doesn't that seem like a smart business move, even if the software is not prepared to let a withdrawal through before the deposit (WITHOUT BONUS) is turned over 24 times? sorry if that's at all harsh, but COME ON!