@Sirius 152542 wrote:
1] Your explanation confirms what I thought. Basically, you are fraudulantly denying players’ winnings for unverifiable reasons. If the players aren’t 100% sure of what qualifies or disqualifies him, then you can’t discriminate between them. It’s also open for abuse because the casino can deny a player who wins big for unverifiable reasons. The only difference is now you have a term to allow what you’re doing but it is not clear and you are still cross marketing. When was it decided to add this term and also could you tell me who decided on this? This term is really hidden and confusing and even people who read it may not understand it (on first reading I would have thought it meant multiple accounts at the *same* casino only). I have heard the Fraud department at Casino Rewards are advising Microgaming now. This group have been blacklisted on my site for fraudulant practises towards players from five years ago. This included retroactive application of terms regarding wagering requirements and also bait and switch of offering a bonus to procure a deposit but not honouring the deal after the player deposits. There is no chance of that being resolved because they did this for years afterwards.
There is no way to know whether a player is ‘abusing a bonus’ as you put it. There is no actual gameplay that makes it obvious, so whoever is deciding on this will make many wrong decisions. A player might sign up to take advantage of all the ones on offer but this isn’t enough to deny his winnings. If you offer it and actually give the bonus, then you can only deny winnings if it the reasons are 100% verifiable and players should be clear from the start what is expected of them and what isn’t. You are basically misleading and stealing from players. It seems like the casino management haven’t learnt from the past and are new to the whole thing.
2] I was talking about withdrawing the deposit associated with the bonus and not the bonus itself (I know how EZbonus works). At the moment, your terms say this will void winnings whereas your EZbonus flash demonstration on your site says otherwise. This was one of the main points of the EZbonus as it didn’t disadvantage the player who maybe wouldn’t normally take a bonus due to wagering requirements and allows them to sacrifice the bonus anytime (but still receive some prorated with their wagering). It was always how it worked apart from one or two groups but now it seems all Microgaming casinos are going back on it. That’s not the point, the point is that the demonstration on your sites is wrong and players used to the system might not know of the change either.
[1.]
I hear your concerns however the one thing Belle Rock and Referback has always been known for is honesty – sometimes being up front with things has meant we have had to take a lot of flack but we’ve always put honesty first.
To hypothesise that players will now be blocked over simply winning is not very smart – players who win are often a casinos bread and butter as they tell others, post on player forums and 99% of the time put their winnings PLUS more back in. After nearly a decade in the online gaming arena this is something BR is very clear on.
Also there is no link between Casino Rewards and Referback. We have no other connection with CW other than working in the same industry. Our Risk team is an internal team and they have all been around for years, so its not like we’ve brought in any ringers from outside recently either!
[2.]
Thank you for pointing that out – I’ve taken it up with the casino group and asked that they either update or remove the demo.