Recently I read on a gambling forum a complaint about some of Casino Rewards Network's terms and conditions for accepting a bonus because of a clause created to discourage bonus chasers which states if they deposit the minimum in order to get a bonus and then play the minimum play-through requirements that the casino can still choose to not pay on a cash-out because this demonstrates the actions of an advantage player.
Those terms were added to discourage bonus chasers and at least Casino Rewards is making this known to the player before money exchanges hands. At least Casino Rewards make it clear upfront they will not be abused by advantage players. I realize that their term itself does not present a clear line not to be crossed. It does make it very clear that if you sign up and get a bonus and then proceed to play the minimum required to satisfy requirements, and then cash out, that they reserve the right to refuse to pay you.
I don't necessarily agree with the approach but I understand it. It is the lesser of two evils, the second being they increase the play-through requirements so that nobody gets the lower numbers or they can add a clause that protects them from advantage players. If they increased the numbers they would be accused of trapping the player's deposit into a play-through scheme that is not fair-minded, such as many unscrupulous online casinos already do. This was not why play-through requirements were created and obviously Casino Rewards has chosen to not use them in such manner. In fact play through requirements started out extremely easy which is what gave birth to the advantage player. Increased requirements and clauses such as the one of subject are a reaction against actions taken, not just some idea the casino managment invented to protect the small amounts of money they give away.
If the casinos were to increase play-through requirements any further to combat adavantage play then all the players would stand to lose instead of just upsetting those with plans to play the minimums and get out. Casino Rewards is obviously choosing to not take this cowardly way out. Rather they will take the blunt of the accusations thrown at them in order to protect a better gambling environment for the people who deserve it. The legitimate players who came there to gamble for their entertainment and because they wanted to check out that particular casino, and not just because that casino is the most convenient available which offers an extra edge to new players.
It can be said that the casino should go ahead and just pay these players since they did in fact beat the pre-defined terms of the contract. *However that is exactly why they chose to add that clause in about having the option to define a player as not having accepted the bonus in the spirit given. They aren't trying to cheat anybody out of their money. They just don't want bonus chasers. If you plan on buying in at the minimum, playing the minimum and cashing out, also plan on not getting paid. The casinos cannot make it more clear.
Contrary to popular belief, the (legitimate) casinos are not rolling in money. They survive, and are designed to operate with a profit from the percentage difference you see in the audits. Which is usually around 5% (give or take) and out of that 5% they have to pay their debts just like anyone else. While there is no argument (at least from me) that this is still a very lucrative business, asking the casinos to pay those who ... lets be honest both ways... are not there to accept the bonus in the spirit given, and by their very proven actions are what they stand accused.
Those terms were added to discourage bonus chasers and at least Casino Rewards is making this known to the player before money exchanges hands. At least Casino Rewards make it clear upfront they will not be abused by advantage players. I realize that their term itself does not present a clear line not to be crossed. It does make it very clear that if you sign up and get a bonus and then proceed to play the minimum required to satisfy requirements, and then cash out, that they reserve the right to refuse to pay you.
I don't necessarily agree with the approach but I understand it. It is the lesser of two evils, the second being they increase the play-through requirements so that nobody gets the lower numbers or they can add a clause that protects them from advantage players. If they increased the numbers they would be accused of trapping the player's deposit into a play-through scheme that is not fair-minded, such as many unscrupulous online casinos already do. This was not why play-through requirements were created and obviously Casino Rewards has chosen to not use them in such manner. In fact play through requirements started out extremely easy which is what gave birth to the advantage player. Increased requirements and clauses such as the one of subject are a reaction against actions taken, not just some idea the casino managment invented to protect the small amounts of money they give away.
If the casinos were to increase play-through requirements any further to combat adavantage play then all the players would stand to lose instead of just upsetting those with plans to play the minimums and get out. Casino Rewards is obviously choosing to not take this cowardly way out. Rather they will take the blunt of the accusations thrown at them in order to protect a better gambling environment for the people who deserve it. The legitimate players who came there to gamble for their entertainment and because they wanted to check out that particular casino, and not just because that casino is the most convenient available which offers an extra edge to new players.
It can be said that the casino should go ahead and just pay these players since they did in fact beat the pre-defined terms of the contract. *However that is exactly why they chose to add that clause in about having the option to define a player as not having accepted the bonus in the spirit given. They aren't trying to cheat anybody out of their money. They just don't want bonus chasers. If you plan on buying in at the minimum, playing the minimum and cashing out, also plan on not getting paid. The casinos cannot make it more clear.
Contrary to popular belief, the (legitimate) casinos are not rolling in money. They survive, and are designed to operate with a profit from the percentage difference you see in the audits. Which is usually around 5% (give or take) and out of that 5% they have to pay their debts just like anyone else. While there is no argument (at least from me) that this is still a very lucrative business, asking the casinos to pay those who ... lets be honest both ways... are not there to accept the bonus in the spirit given, and by their very proven actions are what they stand accused.
About the Author:
Steve Briggs is the author of this article on Casino Bonus. Find more information about the subject at www.high-roller-casino-bonus.com
