- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree. If you can’t afford to pay your winners, then get out of the casino business.
You let me gamble with $1000 dollars and I’ll deposit $100 a week until it’s covered. How’s that sound?
kidd75219 wrote:You let me gamble with $1000 dollars and I’ll deposit $100 a week until it’s covered. How’s that sound?LOL! I like that. :laugh:When I read that, I could NOT believe my eyes. Seriously???? You pay out progressives at $4k increments??? That doesn’t even make any damn sense as all that money comes straight from the Casino Software provider, correct?
I would NEVER play at a casino that had that stipulation.
This “how-can-I-screw-up-my-reputable-casino-program´s-reputation-as-fast-as possible-bug” seems to spread like bird flu.
Maybe a few of the affiliate managers should be put in quarantine for a while.
Wow, that is pretty bad. When did they change this?…Or has it always been like that? I think not paying the progressive right away doesn’t seem right.
kwblue wrote:When I read that, I could NOT believe my eyes. Seriously???? You pay out progressives at $4k increments??? That doesn’t even make any damn sense as all that money comes straight from the Casino Software provider, correct?I would NEVER play at a casino that had that stipulation.
To be fair, they were challenged on that instance, admitted a mistake and paid the player the full amount and the policy on progressive wins is not affected by the $4k rule now. I merely mentioned it as an example of negative PR that the normal $4k cashout rule will probably only serve to exacerbate IMO.
I guess my point is that I would like to see ITS (CR) use their obvious expertise and position as one of the largest groups in the industry to serve players in a manner which will keep players (and affiliates) happy and as a result improve loyalty, standing and of course revenues
Simmo! wrote:To be fair, they were challenged on that instance, admitted a mistake and paid the player the full amount and the policy on progressive wins is not affected by the $4k rule now. I merely mentioned it as an example of negative PR that the normal $4k cashout rule will exacerbate IMO.That’s good… Although you can bet your ass that they knew that from the start. Just wanted to keep the money for a while.
Still sucks butt.
kidd75219 wrote:You let me gamble with $1000 dollars and I’ll deposit $100 a week until it’s covered. How’s that sound?I agree w/ Dave, points for humor.
Goldfinger wrote:This “how-can-I-screw-up-my-reputable-casino-program´s-reputation-as-fast-as possible-bug” seems to spread like bird flu.
Maybe a few of the affiliate managers should be put in quarantine for a while.I should probably leave this one alone, but I’m dying to know … what do you think the affiliate managers have to do with deciding company policy?
Hi All,
To clarify this one …
[paraphrased from management]
Existing players are not affecting by this. It’s just for new players to protect against fraud, money laundering, etc. Lots of online operators employ this practice.
You might also consider that the players are much more likely to play their winnings back under these circumstances which obviously increases the affiliates bottom line … especially on the wager model.
[end paraphrasing]
Cheers
Ryan wrote:You might also consider that the players are much more likely to play their winnings back under these circumstances which obviously increases the affiliates bottom line … especially on the wager model.Hi Ryan
Thanks for the response. With due respect I can’t agree. A player in that situation is likely to be disillusioned by the limiting cashout policy and go elsewhere. At least as a player, that’s what I’d do if I encontered that rule. Even if the “case for the defence” is that it encourages them to play it back by limiting what they receive, then that isn’t something I’d advocate.
I know this is only an opinion and there is a business to run, but I think it’s far more important if you are going to encourage players to stick around to understand each individual’s players needs.
I don’t mean to be confrontational, but as an affiliate, I’d much rather have a player go to a casino where they are not limited by rules such as this because I think, treated properly, they will stay loyal for longer.
Just my opinion
Cheers
Simmo!
I have to agree with Simmo here. I’ve got some big spending players at casinos who have been active for many years. I doubt they’d still be active (and generating me a long-term income) if they had to receive their winnings over the course of weeks or months.
On a personal note, no way would I play at a casino with those terms.
I also agree with simmo. But it seems like it is out of Ryan’s hands. All we can do is hope that upper managment comes around…
Those T&C are shady. Players understand that this clause is there to make them play back their money before they receive their installments. It´s as if you gave them a weekly amount of gambling money to play back to you.
But as the majority of gamblers isn´t braindead they will take their funds to your competitors and spend it there. It´s a no brainer.
kdollar wrote:I also agree with simmo. But it seems like it is out of Ryan’s hands. All we can do is hope that upper managment comes around…Yes I totally agree and I should have been clearer on that. I see it as presumably an ITS thing rather than a CR thing so apologies if it seemed I was aiming at you guys Ryan :hehe:
