- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
@Shane 152533 wrote:
1] My previous post answers this concern – players who are genuine casino players will receive the bonus and be allowed to cash out any winnings which are due to them.
2] Again the description you gave is not 100% accurate. Bonuses are given as one item (in land based terms it would like receiving one chip), as you meet play through requirements the bonus value moves from your Bonus Balance to your Cash Balance. This movement allows you to track whether or not you have met the full wagering requirements – without having to check Play Check all the time.
A player cannot however receive a 100 credit bonus, wager through 60 credits and then try cash out the 60 and leave the remaining 40 credits behind.
The comp the player received is 100 credits and needs to be played through fully before it can be cashed out.
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.
Just to add in case anyone is in any doubt, there is no such thing as abusive play with bonuses (if the terms don’t clearly disallow something). The only real difference between players is that some are there for the bonus only. They can and will often play just the same as other players (i.e. those after the bonus don’t always know how to play). Conversely, even many loyal players will make the most of a bonus and many will play to maximize the return the same way as expert players so the whole idea is flawed and also fraudulant as you are offering the bonus and giving it to players who you will later deny.
Another thing, is that normally the expert players will play large bets with the bonus and look just like a high roller. The other players just looking for the bonus will be almost the same as your average player in terms of the cost to you (assuming the promotion has a cost to the casino in the short term) so the only problem is if there are a large number of them. There is no way you can tell which is which. If you want to stop players taking any more sign up bonuses judging from their lack of non-bonus play, then you have to do just that (not give it to them) and not decide after they are given the bonus which is potentially fraudulant if the reasons are not verifiable and fair.
Casinos always knew a certain percentage will only play for the bonus and this should be factored into the cost. They really are stupid to ‘get back’ at these players with ridiculous behaviour like this. In the past this only happened at the dodgy casinos trying to get back at bonus players (like you are doing) or those about to go out of business and in desperation. Even when Gaming Club tried something five years ago, they saw the error of their ways and apologised.
@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.@Sirius 152544 wrote:
Just to add in case anyone is in any doubt, there is no such thing as abusive play with bonuses (if the terms don’t clearly disallow something). The only real difference between players is that some are there for the bonus only. They can and will often play just the same as other players (i.e. those after the bonus don’t always know how to play). Conversely, even many loyal players will make the most of a bonus and many will play to maximize the return the same way as expert players so the whole idea is flawed and also fraudulant as you are offering the bonus and giving it to players who you will later deny.
Another thing, is that normally the expert players will play large bets with the bonus and look just like a high roller. The other players just looking for the bonus will be almost the same as your average player in terms of the cost to you (assuming the promotion has a cost to the casino in the short term) so the only problem is if there are a large number of them. There is no way you can tell which is which. If you want to stop players taking any more sign up bonuses judging from their lack of non-bonus play, then you have to do just that (not give it to them) and not decide after they are given the bonus which is potentially fraudulant if the reasons are not verifiable and fair.
Casinos always knew a certain percentage will only play for the bonus and this should be factored into the cost. They really are stupid to ‘get back’ at these players with ridiculous behaviour like this. In the past this only happened at the dodgy casinos trying to get back at bonus players (like you are doing) or those about to go out of business and in desperation. Even when Gaming Club tried something five years ago, they saw the error of their ways and apologised.
Added to this point I would also like to include in my answer a response to “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.“.
The Risk team do look out for fraud rings and players who open multiple accounts – these are clearly players making use of fraudulent techniques to gain a financial advantage from the bonuses.
If a player comes and plays and win or lose and go about their business thats one thing but where we are able to poinpoint people opening 5-20 accounts per casino and claiming the bonus that is fraud! When we see accounts being opened under different names and they’re all have the same address or banking details its fraud.
We are not out to discourage players from playing but we are going to protect our business against abuse – as an affiliate this should make you glad as abuse of bonuses costs affiliates as their wins drop your netwin and this directly affects your paycheck at months end.
Shane
@Shane 152547 wrote:
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.
The point was not that you will deny players who win big, just that you could. You could even deny all players. That’s why it’s potentially fraudulant. The term is unfair as it’s not made clear so you can’t enforce it. You are giving a bonus when the player can’t win with it. There is no way to tell from his play if he is just after the bonus, only from whether he has non-bonus play. You can’t make players play without a bonus. You have to accept some won’t. If you actually give the bonus to him and he follows the promotional terms, you have to pay him. It’s not rocket science.
How many more traps are you going to lay on players in your misguided attempts to get back at certain players (the currency thing with some Microgaming sites is another one- the software could very simply automatically set the currency players should play in from their address)? Your business should not be that short sighted. It is a stupid thing to do that makes no sense. I’ve only seen it from desperate casinos just before they go out of business or those that were never reputable. In the past there weren’t as many bonus players, but there are always going to be players who will only play with a good offer and won’t play without one. Casinos already knew this and these players cost the casino almost the same amount as the average player for the promotion.
Unless you are trying to save your business, why lose your reputation over it? Also I’m not sure what the Gibraltar licensing authority would do, but I think they can at least fine you for behaviour like this.
@Shane 152548 wrote:
The Risk team do look out for fraud rings and players who open multiple accounts – these are clearly players making use of fraudulent techniques to gain a financial advantage from the bonuses.
If a player comes and plays and win or lose and go about their business thats one thing but where we are able to poinpoint people opening 5-20 accounts per casino and claiming the bonus that is fraud! When we see accounts being opened under different names and they’re all have the same address or banking details its fraud.
My point is that now you are denying players who are not part of fraud rings. You have always denied players who were trying to defraud the casino with opening multiple accounts for bonuses. This is nothing to do with your new term.
Sirius, these are some mighty heavy accusations.
I have never had any such complaints. As a matter of fact, I have never had a single player complaint about Belle Rock.
Maybe the players you are referring too aren’t telling you everything.
Sirius, I am sorry but to lable something “potentially fraudulent” is a little out there – if you have an account where a player was denied a bonus who had full rights to it please send me an account and I will personally investigate it.
Where we have seen players denied has been on the occasion where someone opens a duplicate account and they forgot they had one once before – but this as you said before is standard practice.
If this has affected your business please let me see where – till then I will maintain that this is in place to protect the casino, and therefore by default also affiliate income, against abuse and will be enforced in that capacity only.
Anyone who reads this thread can see what the problem is. I still haven’t been told when the new term was added. It is obvious why it was made almost impossible to see.
Why is the term there if you are saying it’s not being enforced? It is a stupid thing to do to selectively enforce a rule for unverifiable reasons. I’m assuming what you said was correct that only some players will have the rule enforced but it doesn’t make it any better if you selectively and misguidedly choose who is subject to the rule. It is still misleading.
Players are getting denied cashouts at the moment. There is one at Casinomeister at the moment. http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-bonus-issues/22132-misleading-bellerock-terms-do-not-play-there.html and remember you told me here that the rule is only sometimes applied (contrary to what the bellerock rep said there- his response was also total rubbish). You don’t seem to know when the rule was added and are even saying players are still allowed multiple sign up bonuses in the group except in some strange and basically unverifiable cases (either you or the Bellerock rep must be wrong). It would be an important thing for affiliates to know about (my affiliate manager for some reason wanted me to think the rule was always there)!
To me it’s obvious what is happening as I’ve seen it all before with other casino groups many times. Usually they do it to try and save their business.
Your group has really lost it if you think that all this is fine to do. Someone please clear up the confusion once and for all. When was the term added? When was the EZbonus rules changed? Affiliates were never told anything. I’m not even sure if the affiliate managers were told.
Don’t give a player the bonus if he isn’t eligible and think it’s ok to refund his deposit if he wins and keep it if he loses. If a player withdraws with the EZbonus as described on your site and in the software (before finishing the wagering), don’t confiscate his winnings. At least allow him to finish the wagering. Whatever misguided reasons you have for thinking the player is abusing the bonus, pay him and don’t give him any more bonuses. You are penalising players unfairly and it’s a ridiculously stupid thing for you to do. This is what Fortune Lounge tried to justify last year (denying winnings for bonus abuse- and this was even too much for CasinoMeister to ignore and he rogued them last year although I had done years previously).
Is this the only way you can run your business nowadays? Eventually paying players who complain at Casinomeister doesn’t change your intention of trying to steal their winnings through misguided reasons.
Of course Shane doesn’t know when rules are enacted for players, he works for Referback and worries about affiliates. This is the wrong place for such enquiries, you are going to get guess work as answers. If you have a Belle Rock rep at Bryan’s who has responded, that’s your best bet as he actually knows the Belle Rock policies.
Belle Rock knows when player rules are enacted. It’s their job. Shane knows when affiliate rules are enacted. That’s his job.
I still think maybe your players are not telling you something and risk had some reasons specific to them.
Dominique, Wouldn’t you have wanted to know when the rules changed so that a player can only get one of the bonuses from the whole group? I used to promote the total amount of the bonuses. I’m sure Shane can find out for me. Yes, they said they were looking to get me a bellerock contact earlier last month but maybe they forgot.
Also, did you promote Fortune Lounge before and why have you more confidence in BelleRock when the situation looks to be repeating itself?
I go strictly by the experiences my players have. If they are happy, I am happy.
Since I have had no negative feedback, but have had positive feedback concerning retention efforts by the casinos, meaning continued incentives for players, I am happy.
Doesn’t matter if they get only one welcome bonus for the group if they get incentives along the way anyways. Welcome bonus or retention incentive, it’s all extra play for free.
I don’t advertise combined bonuses though, I can see how that would pose a problem if there were only one bonus per group. I also figure the average player doesn’t understand that this is not real cash and may feel cheated if they play with all the bonuses and lose due to endless WR and have nothing. I prefer letting them play one bonus, and then getting retention bonuses which are usually better anyways.
I realize that combined bonuses for a group sound better, you can promise them a large amount of free money, but in the end they don’t even benefit over good retention.
I find that Belle Rock takes very good care of my players, some have played there for years and adding up all the incentives they have received can be mindboggling and superceeds any welcome bonus combos by far.
Ditto for Fortune by the way.
There’s two groups I stick up for in this business, fellow affiliates and my own players.
Affiliates need to form firm alliances because in numbers we have strength and can keep things fair for ourselves.
My players can always count on me to be honest and to help, because if the players ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.
@Dominique 152573 wrote:
I go strictly by the experiences my players have. If they are happy, I am happy.
That casinomeister thread has got more active last night. Sorry, but maybe you should go to that thread http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-bonus-issues/22132-misleading-bellerock-terms-do-not-play-there.html and tell them you are happy to promote them because your players are happy. I’m sure they want you to be happy and send you and your players plenty of gifts. That doesn’t change the fact that they are stealing from others and by the looks of it so are King Neptune’s. I’ve seen it all before plenty of times and can’t believe Bellerock have gone back on their promises from five years ago after the Gaming Club incident.
If you want a good read, look what put Fortune Lounge in the rogue pit there last year when they went the same way: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/16977-locked-account-royal-vegas-vegas-towers.html
Anyone who thinks Casino Rewards have recently got better can read this too: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-bonus-issues/19802-casino-rewards-down-drain-like-fortune-lounge.html
I’m hoping BelleRock will see sense soon but they need to go the extra mile to resolve it. With the Gaming Club incident, they gave the players an extra 10% of the money they stole at first. Even that took a few weeks to resolve. I’m giving Microgaming until the 20th February.
Well, 5 years ago my husband really insulted me. He apologized the next day and we are currently happily enjoying the 24th year of our marriage.
I believe in fixing things and getting on with life. I apply that to everything – you make a mistake – fix it and get on already. I feel the same way about affiliate programs.
Gifts – where did that come from? You must not have been reading cap around xmas time. I don’t appreciate being insulted like that, but I will assume you didn’t mean it or just don’t know better.
I was aware of the Fortune debacle and surveyed my players and none had their accounts closed. You can see me post in that Meister thread. As far as I could tell Fortune was getting rid of a bunch of players that were draining the system by claiming bonuses under multiple names. Unfortunately they hit a few innocents with it. That’s the problem with profiling, and that is why it is illegal for the police to do so in the US, but it still happens every day. I have not heard of any similair incidents at fortune since.
I think if you feel like you say you should just pull them all. If I don’t like someone, that’s what I do. I believe strongly that everyone needs to take care of their own players. If all of us did, they would be little complaining. Players will know that when they come to your site and follow your advice, they will be safe.
That also includes giving sound advice. I don’t think it’s responsible to advertise multiple bonuses across a group when they don’t exist or are only handed out as incentives to players who qualify for retention efforts. If you advertise multiple bonuses all added up into a huge sum, you really need to immediately pull places that do not encourage such player behavior. You are not doing your players any favors.
Shane has nothing to do with any of this, and this thread isn’t going anywhere because of that. Everyone who is interested in this matter should read at Meister about it, Bryan is the one who has the contacts that can unearth the truth.
It is not really an affiliate matter except for truth in advertising – make sure you give sound advice to players that will not get them in trouble and everything will go smoothly.
I am going to take this over to Meister and will be posting there instead. At least the correct people will see it there.
My recommendation to you is to just pull them now. They don’t fit your advertising niche. IMO a good affiliate knows what his/her players want and only advertises exactly where that can be found. Your players trust you to be true to your beliefs.
