Here is the reply i got from Ecogra concerning my complaint about winnings confiscation. Those of you who know the subject: please comment the statement by Ecogra that the playing equal 2$ bets on Casino War reduces the house edge of the game close to the ZERO. For me it is an absolute absurd. For them- the reason to take my winnings from me.

*****

Dear R,



We have investigated your query with the casino and have made the following findings;



You purchased £60 and redeemed the sign up offer of £90 on the 6th of July 2007.
On the 11th of July you started wagering and placed 3 wagers on the game of Roulette. The 3 bets amounted to £150 (the deposit and bonus combined)
You won £300 on each of your 3 wagers
You then proceeded to play 2576 bets of £2 on the game of Casino War.


You were required to meet the following play through requirement:



£90 bonus * 30 play through requirement = £2700
Since you played Roulette to the value of £450, the play through contribution from this game only counts £180 (40% of £450) and
Your play on Casino War, contributed £2576 (50% of £5152).


However, the manner in which you met your play through requirements on Casino War is covered in 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.



Equal betting is considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes, according to the published T&C's at the time of accepting their bonus offer. The fact that you proceeded to place 2576 individual bets of £2 each on casino war in order to meet the play-through requirements in a manner that reduces the margin of the game close to zero, in our opinion is equal betting. I regret that we support the casino's decision to withhold your winnings and return your deposit to you."



Regards,

Tex Rees

This percentage bonus bullsh*t is absolute nonsense.
Why don't they just give non-withdrawable bonus with a limite set of games (all contributing 100%) like Playtech casinos do?


__________________
my site (http://www.winneronline.com)


[oh and yeah, please note that I am a heavy supporter of Microgaming Casinos]

Speaking totally personally as a player who has made a considerable income from using casino bonuses I totally agree... with the casino.

Your type of play is the reason why bonus WR's are getting tighter & harder for us 'advantage players' :( .
It was clearly a 'bonus abusers' style, and you can not possibly say that it was not or that you were not warned:-

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.



This percentage bonus bullsh*t is absolute nonsense.
Why don't they just give non-withdrawable bonus with a limite set of games (all contributing 100%) like Playtech casinos do?

__________________
my site (http://www.winneronline.com)

[oh and yeah, please note that I am a heavy supporter of Microgaming Casinos]
^ :D ^ That's really good!

I too heavily support Microgaming casinos... No! Come to think of it THEY support ME with all the money I win off their bonuses!
(Slots only - no way they can call that abuse! :cool: )
_________________________
I've got a website too! :p

Hey BL, I love your new site.

Hey BL, I love your new site.
LOL :p LOL
This percentage bonus bullsh*t is absolute nonsense.
Why don't they just give non-withdrawable bonus with a limite set of games (all contributing 100%) like Playtech casinos do?


__________________
my site ("http://BonusLoverWho)


[oh and yeah, please note that I am a heavy supporter of Microgaming Casinos]

Your type of play is the reason why bonus WR's are getting tighter & harder for us 'advantage players'...It was clearly a 'bonus abusers' style

The hypocrisy of this statement is sickening.

"Advantage players" play with positive expectation, usually through bonuses. Whatever your style of play, if that style yields positive expectation then you are in this category. If your (KK) low rolling slot play yields an edge, you are in this category. Call it "advantage player", "bonus hunter", "bonus abuser" or whatever, you are in the same category - let's call it "positive expectation player" for absolute precision. Whatever may have come to pass because of positive expectation players, that situation has been created by these players en masse. This may be greater wagering for bonuses, more game restrictions, more "bonus abuse" bullsh*t from casinos...whatever.

To play a positive expectation style, yab about it in just about every post you write - and then claim that other players in just the same category are in some way "dishonest" where you are not, is hypocrisy of the worst kind.

The hypocrisy of this statement is sickening.

"Advantage players" play with positive expectation, usually through bonuses. Whatever your style of play, if that style yields positive expectation then you are in this category. If your (KK) low rolling slot play yields an edge, you are in this category. Call it "advantage player", "bonus hunter", "bonus abuser" or whatever, you are in the same category - let's call it "positive expectation player" for absolute precision. Whatever may have come to pass because of positive expectation players, that situation has been created by these players en masse. This may be greater wagering for bonuses, more game restrictions, more "bonus abuse" bullsh*t from casinos...whatever.

To play a positive expectation style, yab about it in just about every post you write - and then claim that other players in just the same category are in some way "dishonest" where you are not, is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Two styles of playing bonuses:

1. "You purchased £60 and redeemed the sign up offer of £90 on the 6th of July 2007.
On the 11th of July you started wagering and placed 3 wagers on the game of Roulette. The 3 bets amounted to £150 (the deposit and bonus combined)
You won £300 on each of your 3 wagers
You then proceeded to play 2576 bets of £2 on the game of Casino War."

and
2. Playing slots right through WR starting with bets around 40c/spin & maxing out at around $2 per spin. The target being not to just get a 95% return on your wagering & sneak off with a tiny proportion of the bonus, but to play a 'system' where you quit when ahead on one slot & switch to a different one.

If you really can not see any difference between those two styles of play then I think you are seriously disillusioned and in no state to pass judgment on other peoples opinions.

If seeing the difference in those styles is hypocrisy then I am very happy to be a hypocrite! ;)

KK

There aren't "two styles", yours and that of the rest of the universe; there are as many as there are games to play and various denominations at which to play them.

However you choose to play - or, if you pefer it, whatever "style" you choose - there is only one relevant criterion in terms of the casinos' bottom line: is your play profitable to them, or not? The casino doesn't give a rat's ass how you play beyond how that play affects their bottom line.

Now, your own play may well be borderline - judging by all the slotty nonsense I would say so (if you actually do play the way you claim), and as far as your example here goes, it would be grossly UNprofitable - slots, increasing bets, switching games etc etc. However, let's assume your play is not profitable to the casino, ie, you are my "positive expectation player", along with this other fellow here who played roulette and war.

You are saying: "We are both unprofitable customers to the casino. We both expect to leave with a profit. My unprofitableness is acceptable. His unprofitableness is not."

This is your hipocrisy.

There aren't "two styles", yours and that of the rest of the universe; there are as many as there are games to play and various denominations at which to play them.
Of course I'm not alone - there are lots of other players who play like me too! :thumbsup:



You are saying: "We are both unprofitable customers to the casino. We both expect to leave with a profit. My unprofitableness is acceptable. His unprofitableness is not."

Now you're getting close, but it is not ME who is saying this - it is the CASINOs.
That is why they have the specific term about 'playing styles' which I highlighted in an earlier post.

A large number of bonus-related complaints on the forums are related to this 'bonus abuser' style of play (going for the BIG double up or more, then low-risk flat-betting the rest of the WR). If these players don't read the T&C's & think they can get away with it, who is to blame?

I have signed up to ca. 150 different online casinos to 'take advantage' of their sign-up bonuses and NOT ONCE have I ever had any winnings denied, and I have only been banned from further bonuses at 1 casino due to my playing 'style' (i.e. winning to frequently).

I do understand the point you are trying to make, and as in another thread, I agree it is down to the casino set the rules to prevent 'styles' of play they do not want.
But in this particular case I believe the casino did just that.

Casino T&C's:
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.

Equal betting is considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes, according to the published T&C's at the time of accepting their bonus offer. The fact that you proceeded to place 2576 individual bets of £2 each on casino war in order to meet the play-through requirements in a manner that reduces the margin of the game close to zero, in our opinion is equal betting. I regret that we support the casino's decision to withhold your winnings and return your deposit to you."
Welcome to the forum, rkalkul.

It is very disappointing to see ecogra upholding the casino's decision based on "irregular betting", but the statement that betting small somehow eliminates the house edge shows a worrying lack of understanding of probability.

Two styles of playing bonuses:

1. "You purchased £60 and redeemed the sign up offer of £90 on the 6th of July 2007.
On the 11th of July you started wagering and placed 3 wagers on the game of Roulette. The 3 bets amounted to £150 (the deposit and bonus combined)
You won £300 on each of your 3 wagers
You then proceeded to play 2576 bets of £2 on the game of Casino War."

and
2. Playing slots right through WR starting with bets around 40c/spin & maxing out at around $2 per spin. The target being not to just get a 95% return on your wagering & sneak off with a tiny proportion of the bonus, but to play a 'system' where you quit when ahead on one slot & switch to a different one.

I assume from the weightings that it is some kind of EZbonus. The optimal strategy for an EZbonus is quite complicated, it is not "make a few big bets and then grind out the WR" and I am pretty sure that a casino would not recognise if you were playing it.

Btw, quitting while ahead or varying your bets in any pattern will not make a difference to your expected return, if you wager x on slots with 5% house edge, you expect to lose 0.05x.

Now you're getting close, but it is not ME who is saying this - it is the CASINOs. That is why they have the specific term about 'playing styles' which I highlighted in an earlier post.

My comments were not related to the specific case or what the casino said, but your general comments on certain bonus players compared to yourself as a bonus player. I haven't commented on the particular case yet:


Your type of play is the reason why bonus WR's are getting tighter & harder for us 'advantage players'

As I said, this is basically saying that he is part of the problem but you are not. If you are positive expectation player (the general "you" here - I have no idea if you are yourself), then it is you who contributes to the problem and has all those apparently bad effects on bonuses. To say that one type of PEP is OK - your type - while another is not, is a crushing double standard.

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.

This rule says in essence: "we reserve the right to rob you at our discretion, if your play includes bonus funds." There can be no other interpretation.

This is the rule of a rogue casino; eCOGRA supports such a rule; eCOGRA supports rogue organisations; eCOGRA is a rogue organisation.

No accountable regulatorory body could support this rule as it would be easily challenged in court as unfair to the consumer. It's to Microgaming and eCOGRA's extreme advantage that they answer to noone, and can indulge in rogue behaviour as they choose

The optimal strategy for an EZbonus is quite complicated, it is not "make a few big bets and then grind out the WR" It definitely is, if time means anything to you.

________________
my site (http://www.bonuslover.com)

This rule says in essence: "we reserve the right to rob you at our discretion, if your play includes bonus funds." There can be no other interpretation.

This is the rule of a rogue casino; eCOGRA supports such a rule; eCOGRA supports rogue organisations; eCOGRA is a rogue organisation.

No accountable regulatorory body could support this rule as it would be easily challenged in court as unfair to the consumer. It's to Microgaming and eCOGRA's extreme advantage that they answer to noone, and can indulge in rogue behaviour as they choose


Thank you. This is exactly what i think of ECOGRA right now.
After i got this reply from Ecogra i tried to understand what kind of play style would satisfy them. They say than betting big is bad. They say that betting small is also bad. And what is an exact definition of big and small bets? Let's say 25$ a bet. Is it a big bet or a small one? How should one know that? They also say that the bet size should be varied all the time. How much variety do they need? Should my every bet vary in size from my previous bet? Or may be i should change my bet size every third bet?
In short, what exactly do these guys want from me as a player? At the end they state- "we are the ones to decide what is a good style of play what is bad"- which means that a player who plays at any Fortune Lounge casino should NEVER be sure that he will be paid. And ECOGRA fully supports this bul*hit!

It definitely is, if time means anything to you
If time means anything to you, you won't play 2576 games of casino war. You can play video poker on autoplay for a much higher expected value.

If time means anything to you, you won't play 2576 games of casino war. You can play video poker on autoplay for a much higher expected value.Please don't phrase it like I am the one doing it. I usually forfeit the bonus.

_________________
Bonuslover.com (http://Bonuslover.com)

Fortune Lounge again?

Based on the terms, it is Vegas Villa.

Fortune Lounge again?

yes. It is Desert dollar casino which is a part of Fortune Lounge group.

Same group, very sad that you play by the rules and get robbed. I will for sure put this on youtube and everyother video site

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.

IF the casino has these terms, you should not play. And Ecogra has failed the player again. The term above gives the casino at any time a right to steal. If the casino is scared of bonus players, only give them out to loyal casino players. Do you think if a players knows he has made XXX amount of dollars, that he going to throw it away? Smart people going to bet real small until they meet the play thru. If this casino is so picky they must be not well funded.

Same group, very sad that you play by the rules and get robbed. I will for sure put this on youtube and everyother video site

It's more a case of, he didn't play by the "rules", but the "rules" are grossly unfair and unacceptable.

To repeat (note particularly the bits in bold):


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.

This is a license to steal - the casino is giving itself the option to confiscate winnings on the basis of ANY style of game play. Gambling Federation pulled this same thing on a player a couple of years ago.

If anyone supports this rule, and supports eCOGRA's acceptance and enforcement of this rule, I would be intrigued to hear their comments. eCOGRA's complicity is a particularly damning endictment of them, as no accountable regulator could support anything like this that breaches consumer protection laws.

That would be a worthwhile YouTube exposè, Damian.

EDIT: Posted before Damian got his last comment in above.

I am afraid there are not enough players complaining about players winnings being taken because they played to win as much as possible.

Added to that the vast majority of portal webmasters and others working in the industry supporting the likes of Ecogra playing word games with upholding players winnings, it just will not stop.

Ecogra can blot out the word "bonus abuse", and replace it with "irregular gaming". Shameful industry apologists accept this as acceptable. Or more scarily, don't have a clue what on earth i'm on about.

I never cease to be amazed.

Everyone can remember a few months ago when we were severely abused on our promotions and the outcry when we locked accounts and confiscated winnings.

The argument then was that, if players met the terms and conditions, we had to honor the cash-ins. This was the feeling of forum moderators (like CM), the majority of forum members and was enforced as such by eCOGRA.

It was publicly stated in forums that we should have prevented this abuse by stating clearly what we would allow for players to be able to cash in and what not.

Now we have those terms and conditions in place - and it is still not good enough ????

Agendas, agendas, agendas.......

VP Operations
Fortune Lounge

If time means anything to you, you won't play 2576 games of casino war. You can play video poker on autoplay for a much higher expected value.
I'm not a Video Poker player, but surely War is a much lower variance game & therefore much more suitable for 'grinding out WR' than VP, even if the house edge is slightly higher... ? :confused:

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 wording is not fair, your group makes way to many mistakes. You right some of us have Agendas, to expose casino groups that try and do players wrong.

I never cease to be amazed.

Everyone can remember a few months ago when we were severely abused on our promotions and the outcry when we locked accounts and confiscated winnings.

The argument then was that, if players met the terms and conditions, we had to honor the cash-ins. This was the feeling of forum moderators (like CM), the majority of forum members and was enforced as such by eCOGRA.

It was publicly stated in forums that we should have prevented this abuse by stating clearly what we would allow for players to be able to cash in and what not.

Now we have those terms and conditions in place - and it is still not good enough ????

Agendas, agendas, agendas.......

VP Operations
Fortune Lounge
I never cease to be amazed too.
Unfortunately there are some people who simply refuse to admit that certain styles of play are 'bonus abusive' even though deep down they know damn well that they are.
Your T&C's are not 'black & white' enough for these people.

You best solution to this problem is do what Grand Virtual do - limit the bet sizes on low HA games; e.g. $5 max on blackjack, $25 table limit on roulette, etc. all the time the player has bonus chips in their account.
Then we wouldn't have these issues in the first place.

Just my 2c
(and another post for caruso to rip to peices! :rolleyes: )
KK

The player played to win as much as possible in the casino, your firm calls it irregular play. What is "irregular play" is far fron clear.

The casinos agenda is to win money from the punter at large. The punters agenda is to win money from the casino. If you are amazed at such a thing, that is a problem.

I don't abide chargebackers, and I don't abide casinos that welch on a bet.

Sorry if that's an annoyance to you.

It was publicly stated in forums that we should have prevented this abuse by stating clearly what we would allow for players to be able to cash in and what not.

Now we have those terms and conditions in place - and it is still not good enough ????

Come on. The problem is the term "bonus abuse" has been removed, but only to be replaced by "irregular play patterns". Conceptually, there is no difference. Previously you said "he abused our bonus" and withheld the money; now, you're saying "his gameplay was irregular" and withheld the money. This is just a semantics game that you, or whoever is responsible for this, is playing.

Suppose you had a term which said, word for word, "We reserve the right to rob people at our discretion". If you then did rob someone, you could come back and say "but we have that term in place", and claim no wrongdoing. But clearly, although you would have done something as per your term, the term would be clearly grossly unfair and unacceptable.

I'm using an extreme example to make the point.

Aside from this semantics game, the fact remains that this is a rogue term, and rogue terms are applied and acted upon by rogue casinos.

Trying to dodge the issue by banging on the "agenda" drum doesn't wash, as nobody here has any but the mildest financial ties to the casino industry and cannot have an agenda - Damian and Joeyl have selective advetising, I have none and Grandmaster doesn't even have a site. Kasino King on the other hand is an active and committed affiliate and Microgaming supporter, and therefore can reasonably be said to have an "agenda" on the other side - and he has defended your actions. As such, the only reasonably claimable "agenda" is working for you, not against you.

You folks really need to sort yourselves out if you want to restore credibility. The are a LOAD of casinos that don't pull this crap - none of the Cryptos and none of the WagerWorks for starters, and they also offer bonuses. People don't need to patronise your operations.

Caruso, here is an open invitation.

Why don't you send me your version of how the terms and conditions regarding bonuses should read ? I would be very willing to look at it to see if we can apply them (We will even pay you for that)

You keep on accusing us of theft, yet you defend players who try to do the same to the casino.

If you do not then have an agenda, why do you continuously have negative things to say about us and use every opportunity to label us ? If it is just a case of you not liking us, I can understand but then be objective at least.

VP Operations
Fortune Lounge

The casino starts with the house edge in their favour, and forfeits it as advertising to entice in new players.If those new players use that house forfeited edge for any period of time, that's classed as bonus abuse, irregular betting, or whatever.

Limit the bonus to not mathematically give away the house edge, the advantage players like this punter, or the likes of Kasinoking, would not win overall for 6 years straight. That way, regardless of what punters bet on, how big, small quick or slow and so on, the mathematics won't be overcome by the player at large.

Then the casino can just pay out who wins, and keep what the punter loses.

Offering players an advantage of any kind, but then try to write that player advantage out in the terms, while keeping the casino advantage of bonuses as advertising, is a 1 way street.

If any of the above is too difficult to understand for the Vpops, then FL should employ someone who does understand. It is worrisome the likes of Ecogra seem not to understand the basic fundamental of what gambling, bookmaking, house edge and probability actually is.

The reason there is a lack of faith in these casino & regulatory firms by people who do have a basic understanding of what gambling is, is clealy opitomised and proven in this single thread alone.

The very sad thing is, Microgaming do understand, built a very good product from scratch around such knowledge, and watch this scenario played out time and time again.

It is all recorded in full public view, and will come back to bite 1 day, unless someone at the top employs someone who actually knows what the hell i'm talking about, and give them the remit and scope of powers to get it right, once and for all.

You keep on accusing us of theft, yet you defend players who try to do the same to the casino.
Caruso accuses everybody, not use you guys, don't pay him any attention.
Perhaps you would like to share your side of the story. Was the player hiding anything we should know?

You best solution to this problem is do what Grand Virtual do - limit the bet sizes on low HA games; e.g. $5 max on blackjack, $25 table limit on roulette, etc. all the time the player has bonus chips in their account.
Then we wouldn't have these issues in the first place.

KKAgreed.
Or better yet, just kick up the WR to 40 or 50x and ask players to play just slots and be done with it.

The new MG bonus system simply sucks

Why don't you send me your version of how the terms and conditions regarding bonuses should read ? I would be very willing to look at it to see if we can apply them (We will even pay you for that)

I am not my caruso, but my suggestion is that if the cashier shows an amount as withdrawable, then the player should be able to withdraw it. Do you realise that under the current rules, if I am down to my last dollar, which will inevitably be bonus money, and I bet it on a single hand of blackjack, it is irregular betting, so if I somehow stage a miraculous recovery, you feel entitled to confiscate it?
If you don't want a particular style of play, get MG to give you the option to disable it in the casino software. If you don't like a particular player's style, don't give him any further bonuses. What is the style you like, if betting big and betting small are both considered abusive? The ridiculous thing is that you would not spot an advantage player playing with optimal strategy.

Caruso accuses everybody, not use you guys, don't pay him any attention.
Perhaps you would like to share your side of the story. Was the player hiding anything we should know? That's the point BL, whether you, I, Caruso or GM says it, it remains the same. The player won, that's the problem here.

The player gambled 3 bets on roulette hoping to get lucky and win, won, then played the rest of the playthrough at 2$ a hand of War.

Apparently such is an "irregular betting pattern", therefore does not get paid.

An irregular betting pattern is someone using their brain to win as much money as possible when gambling.

As GM said - how about the punter be allowed to win and cashout what it says in the credit total?

You keep on accusing us of theft, yet you defend players who try to do the same to the casino.

In this case, the player "broke the rules", agreed. The issue isn't this, it's that the rule is grossly unacceptable, because it essentially states that you reserve the right to confiscate money at will.


If you do not then have an agenda, why do you continuously have negative things to say about us and use every opportunity to label us ? If it is just a case of you not liking us, I can understand but then be objective at least.

What is non-objective? If you can highlight any non-objective comment I've made, please do so.


Caruso, here is an open invitation.

Why don't you send me your version of how the terms and conditions regarding bonuses should read ? I would be very willing to look at it to see if we can apply them (We will even pay you for that)

No money needed. The term in question is:


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.

Yeah, "bonus abuse" has just been flat replaced with "irregular betting", LOL.

My first thought was to try to level the playing field and tighten it up, so that that term COULD stand, ie. ensure that winners and losers are refunded equally based on clearly outlined terms. This would be very open to casino abuse unfortunately, and I don't suggest it.

FWIW, it went something like:


Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for the following betting pattern: betting more than half of your account balance, while that balance includes a bonus and your total balance stands at anywhere up to 200% (twice) your initial balance + bonus. If you employ this betting strategy at any time while you are bound by wagering requirements, then your winnings will be removed or your losses refunded, and your account will be closed.

This wouldn't work for a few reasons:

1) It wouldn't get rid of smart players.

2) It's excessively complicated for players and casino.

3) It's open to abuse by the casino. Casino keeps losers deposits against the terms, refunds the 5% who complain and keeps the 95% who don't.

On the upside, it's not a rogue rule. But I don't recommend it, it was just an attempt to clean up the existing rogue rule.

The fact is, you cannot guard yourself against winning players with your bonus format, unless you go the "slots only" route. Either you need to radically rethink the structure, or accept that part of your "growth budget" is those losses incurred to winning players.

Intercasino, for example, has never had a complaint, and they've been offering MONTHLY bonuses to ALL players for years. So why no problem? Because they have a huge player base, generated to a large extent by their generous bonus programme, and they write of the losses to winning players as part of the cost of maintaining their profile. And it works.

What about closer to home, the 32Red group? They manage to offer signup and MONTHLY bonuses, and they don't claim a problem.

Why is Fortune Lounge so badly and uniquely affected?

I would suggest you delete that paragraph entirely - it simply represents rogue practice. Suck in the inevitable losses as marketing costs, and focus on running things down the line and without pulling any strokes. That may be an unhelpful response, but under your current format I don't see an alternative.

On the subject of the 32Red group: they are pretty much the only Microgaming group to not use the eCOGRA stamp. And they are THE only Microgaming group to have never generated a bonus complaint (I think). That's rather remarkable, isn't it? The only Microgaming group to not generate complaints is one of the only groups to not carry the eCOGRA "Safe And Fair" logo.

Ironic, shall we say.

Caruso, here is an open invitation.

Why don't you send me your version of how the terms and conditions regarding bonuses should read ? I would be very willing to look at it to see if we can apply them (We will even pay you for that)

You keep on accusing us of theft, yet you defend players who try to do the same to the casino.

If you do not then have an agenda, why do you continuously have negative things to say about us and use every opportunity to label us ? If it is just a case of you not liking us, I can understand but then be objective at least.

VP Operations
Fortune Lounge

Listen you, what did i try to steal from you??? You did stole from me more than 1200 dollar. And now you call me a thief? Listen everybody- if you ever win at any of Fortune Lounge casinos- they will name you a thief! Just because you won there.

I for most part agree with caruso on this one. If a casino offers bonuses, the bonus terms must be clear. And by clear i am meaning, that there can't be a term that we can "rob" winnings even if you play by our rules.

There is a certain playtrough on certain games, and if that is fulfilled i am welcomed to cash out my winnings. Unless a player has done some kind of fraud there should be no exception. Thats the way it works on every reputable casino. Intercasino, inetbet, getminted, virgin, Rubyfortune, Bigdollar, 32red, Everest, Global-player. There are several reputable casinos, on several platforms.

All of these honor withdrawals if the player meets the wagering requirements. Thats the way it should be.

Thank you for your contributions in this post. Debate such as this is far more productive and will benefit everyone in the end.

As I am not involved in setting up our terms and conditions or our wagering requirements, I will certainly discuss this with the relevant parties within our group.

The positive postings are definitely insightful and useful.

VP Operations
Fortune Lounge

1) Punters gambling with thier brain to win as much money from a casino, bingohall, arcade or betting shop and managing to do so should be paid, then booted if they are clever enough, or lucky enough to win.

2) Fraudsters, ie chargebackers, multiple accounts and layers laying horses to lose while the jockey pulls the horse, should not even get their deposit returned, and should be charged with deception or theft.

The massive problem is that too many casinos, and their "sealers", view the above 2nd tranche as the same as the first, thereby becoming the fraudster and/or thieves themselves in my eyes.

Copied from the wrong thread to here:-
This post was address to me;
I give up.

1) The casino carries the "we reserve the right to rob you at our discretion" rule - the "irregular betting patterns" etc one.

2) You said the casino is entitled to invoke this rogue rule. You also support eCOGRA in saying the casino is entitled to invoke any and all rules, however rogue. As long as the rule is on the site, it doesn't matter how rogue the rule is, you support it.

What is incorrect?
OK.
Caruso has either not read my posts properly, has read them and only seen what he wants to see and not what was actually written, or he is just deliberately trying to wind me up (which would not be a first). Possibly all three!

So for his benefit I will spell it out one last time.

Regarding the quote above:
1) Yes, the casino T&C's do carry a rule, part of which is totally unacceptable. In my opinion one part of the rule being unacceptable does not make the whole rule, or other rules become unacceptable.

2) The bold bit; No I did not say that and I challenge you to quote from the post where you claim that I did.
2) The other bit, about eCOGRA; I can't believe what you wrote! That is slanderous or libelous (which ever one it is :p ). A totally unfounded and unjustifiable statement, ie; bollocks.


OK, I will explain one last time. Please try to pay attention this time.

The casino said this:-
You purchased £60 and redeemed the sign up offer of £90 on the 6th of July 2007.
On the 11th of July you started wagering and placed 3 wagers on the game of Roulette. The 3 bets amounted to £150 (the deposit and bonus combined)
You won £300 on each of your 3 wagers
To my knowledge no one has denied this to be true (not even Caruso amazingly!)

Now correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to ask!) but the above statement means the player, after depositing, went straight to roulette and placed his entire balance of deposit & bonus combined (£150) on one bet (presumably Black, Red or some other even-money shot)
His bet returned £300.

He then did the exact same thing twice more and won both.

Lucky bastard! :p
My personal view is that after 3 such ballsy bets, risking everything on the first one, he deserves to keep the money!
But my opinion is not what counts here, it's whether he broke any rules.

Right then, the casino rules say this (the bold bit is the important bit);
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.

I agree with Caruso & others that the non bolded bits are 'wishy-washy' at best and total bollocks at worst.
But that is irreverent to the point I tried to make right back at the beginning of this thread;

The player clearly broke the unambiguous bolded part of the rule above.
It is on this count, and this count only, that I support the casinos decision.

I don't like it. You don't like it. You can bet the player doesn't like it!
But he broke the rules, and as such he must expect to receive the punishment.

Are we done now?
Or maybe you would like to start arguing that black is white, the earth is banana-shaped or the moon is made of cheese...?

KK.

The 3 bets amounted to $150. Each bet returned $300.

That's 3 5/1 shots as far as I can tell.

The whole concept of irregular betting patterns is a nonsense.
Bonus abuse claims are a nonsense.

Lets hope for your sake Microgaming don't retroactively add up bonus hunters accounts from day dot, and send you your bill of 6 years winning based upon some new rule they write tomorrow.

# 1 line of the terms is ok, but the rest is a nonsense, or bollocks, says all you need to know...

Pay the man.

The 3 bets amounted to $150. Each bet returned $300.

That's 3 5/1 shots as far as I can tell.
Unfortunately the casinos statement "The 3 bets amounted to £150 (the deposit and bonus combined)" is ambiguous.

It could mean 3 even money £150 bets returning £300 each,
or 3 £50 bets at 5 to 1 returning £300 each.
The later seems very unlikely as to win three 5 to 1 bets in a row is a 125/1 shot.

All my previous posts are based on the reasonable assumption that it was three £150 bets.
(Although it is only the very first bet which is relevant)

If the case turns out to have been three £50 bets then I would fully retract my defense of the casino as this play would clearly not be in breach of their rules.

KK.

{edit} to add;
Just went back to the original post - it says:-
Since you played Roulette to the value of £450, the play through contribution from this game only counts £180 (40% of £450)...
This confirms it was three £150 bets.

KK

Lets hope for your sake Microgaming don't retroactively add up bonus hunters accounts from day dot, and send you your bill of 6 years winning based upon some new rule they write tomorrow.
:eek: I hope not!

I don't think retrospective rules hold much water personally.

Just to finish off this topic; You, me, caruso, the casino and the player involved all know his play was a deliberate pre-meditated attempt to 'abuse' this bonus. It goes on all the time.
Although I personally would not make this sort of play, I'm all for players making use of any legitimate strategy to beat the casinos - I have no sympathy for establishments making big bucks from players when the odds are always on their side.
If he had got away with it I would have said well done mate - good on ya! :thumbsup:
But the bottom line is he broke the rules & got caught.
I just don't understand how anyone can defend that... :confused:

KK

Fair enough. 3 bets on red x $150 it was.

You, me, caruso, the casino and the player involved all know his play was a deliberate pre-meditated attempt to 'abuse' this bonus.


Don't be putting words in my mouth or Joeyl's. You are speaking as a committed Microgaming affiliate, who carries all Fortune Lounge casinos on his site. You are not remotely impartial. You have a vested, financial interest in supporting this casino. This needs to be well bourne in mind when reading your comments.

The rule in question - nothing left out but bet examples:


Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns...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.

"Irregular playing patterns" is just a substitute for "bonus abuse". eCOGRA said "can the bonus abuse chat", so Fortune Lounge found an alternative expression. They still mean "bonus abuse".

1) Even if they limited it to "one big bet", this would be nonsensical and no reputable regulator would condone this. Fortunately, they have eCOGRA.

2) As it stands, with the addition of "not limited to" and all the other "at our discretion" nonsense, the casino is saying "If we don't like the way you bet, we reserve the right to rob you". That is what "withhold cashouts" means. It's a euphemism for "rob". I like the word "rob" because it accurately conveys the concept. Of course, the casino tap-dances around it with euphemistic language.

Don't play semantic games with me or anyone else here. It won't wash. You are saying that Fortune Lounge is entitled to say "We reserve the right to rob you at our discretion", and then rob at their discretion when they choose as per that rule. The fact that those are not the precise words is irrelevant. That is the exact meaning of those words:


The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute "irregular play"...and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred

Sorry, but this is a rogue rule which no regulated or reputable casino could or would carry; it can only be implemented by a rogue casino; you support rogue casinos, and are therefore a rogue affiliate. It's as simple as that.

Your gross hypocrisy in saying words to the precise effect of "My type of bonus abuse is acceptable but his isn't" is also well noted. Give me an honest "bonus abuser" over a hypocrite any day.

I agree with the above post by Caruso in essence, aside the annoyed bits.

Of course I understand your point KK. But some terms are just wrong and as per Caruso above, the mere presence of is roguable, when enforced, plain wrong.

Such as the catch-all, "we reserve the right to do whatever whenever and the management's decision is final", would render sending you a bonus abuse bill for all that you've won over 6 years, perfectly acceptable, strictly going by the terms.

In such a circumstance, I would support you, not the casino, regardless what rule they claim to rob you via, using the very same stance I now hold. One you find indefensable and quite obviously fairly confusing to get your head around.

If you now get that lot, whether you agree or not in this instance, you are moving towards understanding where I, and the likes of Caruso (I believe) are coming from.

Be well KK.

I agree with the above post by Caruso in essence, aside the annoyed bits.

Of course I understand your point KK. But some terms are just wrong and as per Caruso above, the mere presence of is roguable, when enforced, plain wrong.

Such as the catch-all, "we reserve the right to do whatever whenever and the management's decision is final", would render sending you a bonus abuse bill for all that you've won over 6 years, perfectly acceptable, strictly going by the terms.

In such a circumstance, I would support you, not the casino, regardless what rule they claim to rob you via, using the very same stance I now hold. One you find indefensible and quite obviously fairly confusing to get your head around.

If you now get that lot, whether you agree or not in this instance, you are moving towards understanding where I, and the likes of Caruso (I believe) are coming from.

Be well KK.
Thank you for your sensible and rational comments on this matter.

Of course I understand why parts of the conditions are unacceptable to you & Caruso. I don't like some of them either, as I have stated repeatedly.
But when anyone signs up at a casino they are agreeing to be bound by the casino's terms & conditions.
If you don't like the terms and conditions - don't sign up there.
It's a fairly simple principle in my opinion.

As to Caruso's further totally ludicrous remarks and slanderous comments; I will address that at a later time (too busy right now), probably in a new thread so as not to distract from the key issue here.

Best regards,
KK

I am not surprised to see a thread like this. This group has still made no progress on any of the things they were shooting off at the lips about two years ago. They're more interested in pumping out useless PR than anything.

And what is up with these wager requirements? Yikes! And the terms are basically a license to steal.

Don't be putting words in my mouth or Joeyl's.
LOL - the joker's back! :)
What's that expression - something about pots and black kettles...?


1) The casino carries the "we reserve the right to rob you at our discretion" rule - the "irregular betting patterns" etc one.
2) You said the casino is entitled to invoke this rogue rule.
Regarding the quote above:
2) The bold bit; No I did not say that and I challenge you to quote from the post where you claim that I did.
I'm still waiting....


Furthermore, since you have seen fit to point out the T&C's at some of the casinos I recommend on my site (to which I have no objection), here's a couple from casinos recommended on your site:-
(Verbatim but with added bolding & underlines by me)

Omni casino:
[5] Omni Casino®, CryptoLogic Inc., WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited reserve the right to review transaction records and logs, from time to time, for any reason whatsoever. If, upon such review, it appears that end users or any one or combination of them are participating in strategies which Omni Casino®, CryptoLogic Inc., WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited in their sole discretion deem to be abusive, Omni Casino®, CryptoLogic Inc., WagerLogic Limited and ECash Direct (UK) Limited reserve the right to revoke the entitlement of such end user(s) to the promotion.
Club on the Park:

10.7 We reserve the right, at Our sole discretion, to offer and advertise from time to time promotions, bonuses or other special offers and each such offer will be subject to specific terms and conditions which will be valid for a limited period of time. In connection with the specific terms of the above promotions, bonus and special offers, We further reserve the right to withhold any withdrawal amount from Your account which will be in excess of Your original deposit. In addition, We reserve the right to withhold or otherwise decline or reverse any pay-out or winning amount or amend any policy in the event that We suspect that You are abusing or attempting to abuse any of the following: (i) bonuses; (ii) other promotions; or (iii) specific policy or rules determined in respect of an existing game or a new game.
According to your definition, which you keep banging on about, these conditions mean these casinos are rogue - and yet you are recommending them yourself!
I'm sure I've seen the word 'hypocrite' somewhere round here... :rolleyes:


You have also made it clear from your comments that you think it is OK for people to break black & white rules and expect to get away with it.
Hardly surprising since you keep on doing it yourself;

Quoting from Winner Online’s ‘Rule & Policies’ (I added bolding):
1. You are reminded that as a user of these message boards you are our guest and as such you are expected to show basic courtesy and respect at all times. You are expected to behave maturely and without excessive aggression or hostility. You are further expected to refrain from posting material that is of a hostile or contemptuous nature towards WINNERonline.com or the moderator(s) of these message boards.

6. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use these message boards to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.
Just one example;

Sorry, but this is a rogue rule which no regulated or reputable casino could or would carry; it can only be implemented by a rogue casino; you support rogue casinos, and are therefore a rogue affiliate. It's as simple as that.

So far I have taken no action, but if you persist in making unfounded defamatory comments about me I shall be forced to start reporting your posts to the moderators.


You know, the message that comes across from your posts is that you hate 90% of online casinos, you hate 100% of casino affiliates (despite the fact you used to be one), and it certainly seems that you hate me!
I have no problem with that at all - you are entitled to your opinion and to express it freely in your posts. The only thing I object to are the deceitful comments you keep on slipping in.

Caruso, regardless of all the above, I don't hate you - I respect you and your entitlement to express your sometimes 'bent out of shape' views. I don't want a fight with you or a 'slanging match'. All I am asking is that you keep our disagreements civil & courteous, treat me with the same respect you expect to receive yourself, and leave your vilifying venomous slurs about me out of your posts.
That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Have a good day,
KK

Fair enough. 3 bets on red x $150 it was.


Yes, it was three bets- 150 pounds each.

If you don't like the terms and conditions - don't sign up there.

*****
And is there any normal person in this world that will like these terms in which there is clearly stated that the casino reserves the right to do whatever it wants with the player's funds? In other words, is there any normal person in the world who should EVER sign up at any of the Fortune Lounge casinos? Will you, KasinoKing, assuming that you don't have any Fortune Lounge accounts already opened, will you ever sign up at these casinos and claim their bonus?

Right about those clauses. If I ever hear that Omni or COTP pull a stunt, off they'll come. They might come off anyway. I've somewhat abandoned the site, I admit.

You keep going on with this sematic game without once answering the question. One more shot:


The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute "irregular play"...and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred

This, in all real senses, means "we reserve the right to rob you", because it states that they will view any playing style as an excuse to so do. Flat bet £1, flat bet £250 or any variation, they reserve the right to rob you. There is no way of playing that FL will not possibly view as an excuse to rob you. Not one.

So, the casino reserves the right to rob the player as per this term based on however you bet. Do you support this right? If so, why? Never mind that "these aren't the exact words"; this is the meaning / the sense.

If you do support this, you are a rogue affiliate.

I fully expect more semantic games from you ("I didn't say I support their right to rob you" bla bla bla). If I get same, I will have nothing more to add because I'll have made my point. I will consider you a rogue affiliate and will say so at any time I see you pushing your site, because I do not support rogue affiliates, affiliates who support rogue casino behaviour. I've done same with the rubbish Bonuslover carries and he's been around a lot longer.

BTW, feel free to report any and all posts. I've reported several, sometimes with agreement, sometimes not.

BTW2: One should acknowledge that the FL rep here has shown good will in discussing this matter, and I had no desire to bring this matter up again in this thread myself. For all I know FL are addressing the issue. I see no reason to have pointlessly bumped this thread when the other less casino-specific thread did just as well.

I don't want a fight with you or a 'slanging match'.

Well, that's a bit "ironic".


No-one else makes me laugh so much. :thumbsup:

I’ll join in the fun for a moment & pretend your post was supposed to be serious

Keep up the good work and keep those jokes coming

LOL - the joker's back! :)

The best one:


If anyone is bent around here, it’s you Caruso. :p

You don't want to fight, you just want to get in a facile, insulting, off topic dig on every possible occasion.

It seems to me you're doing your level best for a fight, and are rather disappointed you're not getting one.

BTW2: One should acknowledge that the FL rep here has shown good will in discussing this matter, and I had no desire to bring this matter up again in this thread myself. For all I know FL are addressing the issue. I see no reason to have pointlessly bumped this thread when the other less casino-specific thread did just as well.

Unfortunately, at this moment nobody is addressing this issue. I sent an email to Ecogra and asked them to change their decision regarding my case. No reply for 2 weeks. Same with the casino. I think i have no chance to receive those unfairly confiscated 1000$+. I am helpless.

Aside the arguements etc.

KK, I notice you think the player at Maxima that cashed out $100 short of the playthrough req having the 1k confiscated, even though it says so in the terms, warrants your support Kasinoking.

I am inclined to agree with you in that instance, but your stance here is different.

If it's in the terms, it's in the terms, I thought was your view on these matters, regardless whether you think the rule is bollocks or not.

Your first reply:-
Right about those clauses...
Thank you for answering in a respectful way without resorting to further personal insults and slurs on my character. (Noted that your belief that I am 'rogue affiliate' was express as your opinion, not a actual fact)
This is appreciated.


Your second reply:-
Well, that's a bit "ironic"....
You have poked fun & thrown some shyt at me - I was merely returning the favour! :p
What do you expect me to do - just sit back & take it?

KK

Joeyl,

For the benefit of others here, this is what the player said in the Maxima case:-
I have a huge problem with Maxima Casino - they want to take my EUR 1000 winnings away, because as it turned out I submitted a withdrawal request when I was EUR 100 short of the wagering requirement ("only" wagered 14 300 when I had to wager 14 400).

They state "If you withdraw before having met the minimum wagering requirements, your bonus and winnings might be void".
But they haven't processed my withdrawal, so I haven't in fact withdrawn + you have 4 days to stop the withdrawal anyways from within the cashier. But they confiscated everything but my deposit after 2 days.

Also, there was no warning whatsoever in the cashier when I tried to withdraw that I haven't met the requirements. I guess it would be quite easy to compute, and most casinos have this feature I'd think.

I requested they redeposit my winnings (minus the bonus which can't be cashed out anyways) so I can complete the wagering requirement. This is really unfair, because with 100 EUR left to wager the worst outcome is I lose 100 but not 1000!

KK, I notice you think the player at Maxima that cashed out $100 short of the playthrough req having the 1k confiscated, even though it says so in the terms, warrants your support Kasinoking.

I am inclined to agree with you in that instance, but your stance here is different.

If it's in the terms, it's in the terms, I thought was your view on these matters, regardless whether you think the rule is bollocks or not.
It all comes down to what each of considers is fair & reasonable.

Note that in most cases the casinos state "they reserve the right to invoke their rules" not "they will invoke the rules regardless"
It is down to each casino's management to make a judgment & decide whether they do nor not.

In the Fortune Lounge case (as already stated above), it is my opinion the player deliberately played the way he did in the 'classic abuser style' in order to maximize his profit from the bonus. In doing so I believe he broke a specific 'black & white' rule forbidding his exact style of play.
It is my opinion that in this case it is fair & reasonable for the casino to invoke this rule if they see fit.

In the Maxima instance the casino is withholding the winnings giving "withdrawing before meeting the WR" as the only reason.
(Not some 'bullshyt condition relating to type of play involved' :p )

If what the player has said is 100% true, it is my opinion this was not a deliberate attempt to abuse the bonus. Who on earth would attempt to abuse a bonus by withdrawing when they were only 0.7% short of meeting WR?
I believe it was a genuine mistake caused by mis-counting his wagering.
As someone who religiously adds up his own wagering all the time (except at Crypto's) I can fully understand how easily this mistake could be made.
If, as the player said, there was no indication from the software of how much wagering he had done, he had to entirely rely on his own counting.

In this case my view is the casino is being unfair & unreasonably harsh in not giving the player the opportunity to complete the wagering.


Both these opinions are just my personal views as a player myself.
I'm not a mediator - I have no influence over the outcome of either case.
Nobody has to agree with my opinions, or give a flying toss about them!

KK

If you don't like the terms and conditions - don't sign up there.

*****
And is there any normal person in this world that will like these terms in which there is clearly stated that the casino reserves the right to do whatever it wants with the player's funds? In other words, is there any normal person in the world who should EVER sign up at any of the Fortune Lounge casinos? Will you, KasinoKing, assuming that you don't have any Fortune Lounge accounts already opened, will you ever sign up at these casinos and claim their bonus?
Sorry - almost missed your post there! :o

Your first two questions I think I already answered in my text you quoted.
As per my answer to casuso, nearly all casinos carry some sort of 'we reserve the right to withhold winnings if we don't like something you did' clause. But as caruso said, having the clause there is not the biggest issue, it's if the casino ever acts on such a clause in a way which is unfair or unreasonable which matters. The problem with this is, what's fair & reasonable to one person could be exactly the opposite to someone else. (Hence the 'heated debate!).

I believe already did all the FL casinos sign-up bonuses at some point between 2001 & 2004.
In those days I was probably playing mostly Caribbean Stud & 3-card poker (low stakes), with maybe a bit of blackjack too. I'm afraid I don't think I have copies of the T&C's from back then.
However, that is irrelevant to your question. Yes I would sign up to FL casinos today without hesitation. But the huge difference is that these days at MG casinos 100% of my play is on slots. In my opinion no MG casino could ever get away with calling slots play abusive!

KK

The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute "irregular play", and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred

As an affiliate, do you 1) support a casino's right to carry this rogue term, the license to steal, 2) support them when they invoke it to rob a player, and 3) support eCOGRA in allowing their casinos to carry and invoke rogue terms?

These require a "yes" or a "no".

The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute "irregular play", and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred
As an affiliate, do you 1) support a casino's right to carry this rogue term, the license to steal,
2) support them when they invoke it to rob a player, and
3) support eCOGRA in allowing their casinos to carry and invoke rogue terms?

These require a "yes" or a "no".
I presume those questions were aimed at me? (You didn't actually say!)

I hate it when politicians refuse to say a straight "yes" or "no", but if the questions were like this I would understand!
One out of three is a close as I can get:

1) You describe it as a 'rogue rule' and a 'license to steal' that is just your personal opinion - fair enough.
This is my personal opinion: I believe that the casinos carry this rule in case clever players or criminal gangs come up with something they haven't thought of before. It is a 'catch all' condition to protect their financial interests. I'm no lawyer, but I would expect most large corporations in this world carry something very similar - especially if they are mainly dealing with financial transactions.
Answer; Yes I support the casino's right to carry this rule and I also support the players right to read the terms & conditions before they sign-up at the casino, and decide whether they are willing to play at a casino with this rule or not. You sign up - you accept all the T&C's; you can not chose to accept some & not others.

2) No. (That was easier!)

3) Here we go again... 'Rogue terms'. Rogue by who's definition? Yours? Mine?
I am not aware of an official body who decides what terms or casinos are 'rogue' or not. If there is such an organisation I would be grateful if you could point me to their website, as I would be very interested to see what they have to say.
Answer; I admit I know very little about who eCogra are, what they do or their policies. Therefore I'm sorry but I can not answer that question.

1) You describe it as a 'rogue rule' and a 'license to steal' that is just your personal opinion - fair enough.
This is my personal opinion: I believe that the casinos carry this rule in case clever players or criminal gangs come up with something they haven't thought of before.

It is up to the casino to write watertight terms. If the casino does not like a particular style of play (e.g. betting large with bonuses), then it should be restricted in the software. The same goes for withdrawals, if the cashier says that your cash balance can be withdrawn at any time, then you should be able to withdraw your cash balance at any time.

It is up to the casino to write watertight terms. If the casino does not like a particular style of play (e.g. betting large with bonuses), then it should be restricted in the software. The same goes for withdrawals, if the cashier says that your cash balance can be withdrawn at any time, then you should be able to withdraw your cash balance at any time.
Absolutely right! If only more casino software writers would use the technology available to them, a whole lot of these 'bonus abuse problems' would be instantly eliminated. :thumbsup:

I have seen this done at a few places:
Rival software has it for sure, and there was a place I played once where if you tried to bet evenly on black & red on roulette it would not spin, and a message came up saying 'no low risk wagers allowed' or something like that. (Can't remember where it was now, but I think it was probably Kismet or Random Logic)

MG are supposed to be the leaders in software development - if only they would take their heads out of their butts and make these small changes to their product instead of just churning out more & more games each month, they could dramatically reduce these 'abuse' issues.

KK

I find your responses confused. You say you support their right to carry this rule, but you don't support them when they invoke it rob someone. FL carry this rule, and they invoked it to rob a player. You can't both support and not support them. You in fact support it, and the answer to 2) is "yes".

Of course, you're back to playing your semantic game - you don't support them to "rob", you just support them to "withhold cashouts". This is the same sematic game you've tried to play from the beginning, and it's not getting any more convincing through repetition.


I believe that the casinos carry this rule in case clever players or criminal gangs come up with something they haven't thought of before.

Your wording is revealing - you put "clever players" right next to "criminal gangs", and mix them together in the "something new" category. You also think casinos need to be protected against players who might do something to piss on the Holy Of Holies and take their money. Clever players don't do anything wrong, they simply do their utmost to take the casinos' money. Players aren't criminals just because they cash out, and your attempt to paint them as such won't wash.


It is a 'catch all' condition to protect their financial interests.

Your suggestion that casinos need to be protected from their own rank incompetence is absurd; if casinos can't run their business for whatever reason, including their own incompetence, then they need to run with the punches like the rest of the world. Yet you suggest they need to be "protected". Get real - this isn't the way businesses operate. If a business f*cks up, they handle it and move on. You seem to think that a casino business has the unique right to blame everyone else for its own mistakes.


I would expect most large corporations in this world carry something very similar - especially if they are mainly dealing with financial transactions.

Name one. Just one. I challenge you. There are none. No genuine financial organisation would be allowed to carry a clause which entitled them to rob their clients with impunity as Fortune Lounge do. What you "expect" is entirely bogus. Even Neteller, who we know DO do this, do not carry the entitlement in their rules - they just do it. Not totally surprising when you look at the clause we're talking about:


The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute "irregular play", and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred

So, the casino will take all and any form of gambling as an excuse to rob a player (yada yada yada, "withhold cashouts"), and you support their entitlement. Of course, you will bang on with the semantics of "withhold" not meaning "rob", but of course we all know this is what it means.

Anyway, rogue affiliates are two-a-penny, and you're no worse than most and a lot better than some. Still, I have to say: rogue you are, as only rogues support rogues, and I would advise anyone against downloading anything through your links. I wish you the best with your new career. I also hope you will rethink your opinions - they're not in the best long-term interests of the industry.

Absolutely right! If only more casino software writers would use the technology available to them, a whole lot of these 'bonus abuse problems' would be instantly eliminated. :thumbsup:

KKNow we're talking.

A player should be able to cash out when it's time to cash out and not before. No bets on barred games, no unwanted bets with a bonus and so on.

In the meantime there'll be another 15 years pass of likely thousands of players a week being denied payment for spurious reason after another, after another.

This refusing payouts almost across the board daily, goes on because it is profitable.

Same reason as the regurgitation of slot after slot with different graphics is profitable.

Same as it is profitable to offer "free" $200 that is not free, to try out the games that one cannot try out, where the freeplay would do that job just fine, in casinos that operate like insurance firms that will do almost anything to not pay out.

I find your responses confused. You say you support their right to carry this rule, but you don't support them when they invoke it rob someone. FL carry this rule, and they invoked it to rob a player. You can't both support and not support them. You in fact support it, and the answer to 2) is "yes".

Of course, you're back to playing your semantic game - you don't support them to "rob", you just support them to "withhold cashouts". This is the same sematic game you've tried to play from the beginning, and it's not getting any more convincing through repetition.
Yes, you are quite right; repeating everything over & over is a total waste of time. You obviously have your personal view of what is right, fair & proper in this world, and I have mine. Nothing you say will change my mind, and nothing I say will change yours.
Let's just agree to disagree & get on with our lives, shall we?

The only thing I wish to repeat is a very brief summary of my personal view & interpretation of the particular case which was the original subject matter for this thread in the first place (as some people seem to have forgotten about that - including me! :rolleyes: ), and to comment on the above quoted section.

The subject of this thread:
1) The casino has a rule which says 'if you place your entire balance of deposit+bonus in a single bet, we reserve the right to withhold your winnings'.
2) The player placed his entire balance of deposit+bonus on a single bet (on roulette).
3) The casino withheld the winnings.
4) Because the player broke a rule, I could not criticise the casino’s decision.
5) The eCogra statement citing the WAR play as abusive and a reason to withhold winnings is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. I share your condemnation of their ludicrous statement.

Regarding the quote from Caruso above:
1) It seems Caruso wants me to keep on repeating this for some reason, so here you are; In my opinion casinos can have any goddamn rules they want - if you don't like the rules, don't sign up there.

2) I fail to see why interpreting English in the popular way, as defined for example by most dictionaries, is 'semantic'... :confused:

This is my understanding of the term 'rob'; To take without permission, something from someone which rightfully belongs to that person. Do you have a different meaning?

My opinion is that the player increased his credit balance by breaking a rule (as described above), therefore forfeiting his right to the ownership of those chips as defined by the T&C's.
Why is that such a controversial opinion?

I would like to add, that in my time I have myself broken, bent & twisted casino rules and found loop-holes in T&C's for bonuses, which I used to make profit. Sometimes I got away with breaking the rules, sometimes I got caught. But I never complained when I got caught. It's just a game; like in football - if players can get away with a rough tackle behind the ref's back, he's laughing. But if it's spotted he gets the yellow card. Fair do's - no point bitching & whining about it.

Closing comments;
Caruso, you asked me 3 questions and I answered them honestly, as I always will.

And yet you still try to force your own (different) interpretation on my answers!
"You can't both support and not support them. You in fact support it, and the answer to 2) is "yes". "
Trying to force me to say "yes". Well the answer is not yes, the answer is quite definitely "NO", it always has been no and it always will be no.
No person or organisation anywhere ever has the right to rob, steal, take without permission, something which rightfully belongs to someone else.

If you want to see an example where a casino really IS robbing a player, take a look at this thread:-
http://www.onlinecasinoreviewer.com/onlinecasinoforum/casinos-avoid/2252-casino-vega-stiffing-me-4950-a.html

And finally;
You just could not resist that little dig in the last paragraph could you. It has been noted.
I'm not even going to comment actually, I don't really feel I need to defend myself against the likes of you. Others can read all these posts & make up their own minds which of us is the bigoted narrow-minded one.
All I will do in retaliation is give you a little sign-off! ;)
(No casino adds, no affy links on that page)
_________________
KasinoKing/Who (http://www.kasinoking.co.uk/KKWho.htm) - How I got my somewhat unfortunately pretentious sounding user name!

I did say this on page three:


It's more a case of, he didn't play by the "rules", but the "rules" are grossly unfair and unacceptable.

The whole point is about the rule. To say "we reserve the right to rob you" - see my oft-quoted quote...


The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute "irregular play", and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred

...is a rogue rule implemented by a rogue casino.

You support the casino's right to carry this rule, on the basis of "they can have whatever rules they want". Yes, that's your unfortunate priviledge.

Thanks for the link to Chez Webcaz, but I fear I won't be revisiting any forums where the webmaster and his sidekick are so grossly irresponsible (I'm assuming your boss is in agreement with you about this). Let the player come here, where he can expect a fair hearing.

Thanks for the link to Chez Webcaz, but I fear I won't be revisiting any forums where the webmaster and his sidekick are so grossly irresponsible (I'm assuming your boss is in agreement with you about this).

Come again Caruso?

Thanks for the link to Chez Webcaz, but I fear I won't be revisiting any forums where the webmaster and his sidekick are so grossly irresponsible (I'm assuming your boss is in agreement with you about this). Let the player come here, where he can expect a fair hearing.
I'll just reply to the above bit;
I have no idea whether Webzcas agrees with me or not.
Until he just posted above I had no idea he had even seen this thread.
He is not 'my boss'.
I told you before I do not get paid for helping him zap the spammers & I do not have any affy links on his site.

Is there no limit to your contempt for honest hard-working webmasters?
It's OK - you don't need to answer that.

Please, can you just give it a break now?
I think this nonsense has run it's course.
Thanks.
KK

Is there no limit to your contempt for honest hard-working webmasters?

That is just silly. I have every respect for anyone who is honest and hard-working, including webmasters. I have every disrespect for online casino affiliates who support rogue practice.

There's a big difference.

That is just silly. I have every respect for anyone who is honest and hard-working, including webmasters. I have every disrespect for online casino affiliates who support rogue practice.

There's a big difference.

It's all over in the USA. I check in just to see how things have progressed and what do I find - FL is up to the same old tricks. And eCOGRA can't see the forrest for the trees. Irregular betting patterns. What nonsense.

If the player loses, does he get his money back? The player wagered. He played the right games. He bet according to his strategy - which is what you do. FL lost. They reneg on the bet... again.

I tell you its like playing hold em and someone makes an inside straight after going all in. Can you imagine the players getting sympathy for yelling - but that was an irregular betting pattern. So stupid.

Speaking of which. I am a big fan of poker for USA players. But not casinos. FL is supposed to be among the best and look at what rip off artist they are. And when they are scrwching the player who is in bed with them? eCOGRA.

Disgusting.

bart

Ecogra have been around half a decade, and still not got around to telling the software suppliers who fund them, to build software that rejects unwanted bets automatically - thereby allowing the player to actually cash out what the credits total is - without the casino having to check to see if the player should or not be paid.

It's not rocket science, Crypto and Wagerworks manage it - rarely garner disputes.

FL is far from the best microgaming casino group. They have a history of jacking players.

This is worth a copy & paste, from a reliable player / player advocate. The casino is a different one, but the essence is the same: casino pulling the "irregular patterns" screw, eCOGRA supporting them.

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/189552-post44.html


Yep. You are missing something. This Casino reneged on a bet.

Here are the terms in question:

"12. Observations of playing patterns such as the playing of equal, zero margin or hedge betting may not be considered as playing in the appropriate spirit for the purposes of meeting bonus wagering requirements. Should the Casino deem that these practices have been utilized for the specific purpose of meeting wagering requirements, the casino reserves the right to withhold any cashins and/or confiscate all winnings.

13. Other practices of playing behaviour which may lead to the casino withholding cashins and/or confiscating all winnings include, but are not limited to, placing single bets whereby the wager consists of the majority of the total available balance and the bonus balance contributing to a significant portion of that balance. Should the casino deem that practices such as this have been utilized, the casino reserves the right to withhold any cashins and/or confiscate all winnings. "

As to number 12, where can I play zero margin? I would like to see that game. And equel betting? What does that mean. I bet 2 units 25 times. I am down. I bet 4 units 25 times. Is that equal betting?

As to 13, I start out with a $25 bonus and a 150 balance. I get down to $35 and hail mary. I win and hail mary again. Did I break the terms of 13.

These terms are so unfair as to not be enforceable. They are the old bonus abuse term renamed.

So what do we get down to? The player made a bet. The casino accepted a bet. Pay up.

What's going on is these guys are starved for players so they are advertising bonues to draw in players. They accept the losing action. Then they look for ways not to pay the winning action.

And eCOGRA backs them up. This is worse then when they used to scream that autoplay was bonus abuse. Now flat betting is bonus abuse.

I support attempts to overturn America's restriction on poker rooms. But I am not going to waste my breath on casinos when the standard setting body of eCOGRA promotes this type of deceptive play.

This is a rogue group.

Amen.

It's a Casino.. Which means players will try to win.

Either the players don't get it, or the industry don't get it.

The likes of any casino, Ecogra or any portal owner that tries to tell people they are not allowed to win as much money as possible, are arguably insisting the player gamble recklessly, brainlessly, ignorantly and so on.

Very very interesting point made there by Pangloss (http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-bonus-issues/19802-casino-rewards-down-drain-like-fortune-lounge.html#post188889).

All the while the players laugh at Ecogra and the Meister ends up bowling about playing the annoyed tough guy.

Ridiculously funny stuff, if it were not par for the course in this game.