You type well loads

• #11

It doesn’t look like it. If the WR is , this is CLEARLY a mistake on their part, and this leads me to believe there are likely to be further mistakes that as in the case of this WR, they are “bluffing” through in order to fool the customer into thinking they are 100% to blame.

It’s the sales tactic that is the problem. At the time it was offered, the bonus was completely unsuitable for this player in the position he was in at the time. The only purpose served by offering this ?20 at that time was to trap his then profit by an onerous WR. The offer luxury casino would have been more appropriate had it been offered when he bust out, or not offered at all had he eventually withdrawn. It’s preying on the naievety of the average consumer, and is at best considered “sharp practice”, and at worst considered ILLEGAL in parts of the EU. Part of this offer was the requirement to make an on the spot decision, rather than getting back to the casino after checking the terms of this offer. The player even asked a question that gave the chat agent the opportunity to expand on any negative implications of this bonus, but instead it was glossed over as “suitable for Roulette”. “suitable” is NOT the same as VALID, this bonus was indeed “valid”, but it certainly was not “suitable” in the circumstances.

Being taken over by Ladbrokes hasn’t made much of a difference either, if anything, a recent thread about Ladbrokes casino suggests that Ladbrokes are lowering standards to match 888, rather than RAISING the standards of 888 to those of Ladbrokes.

I am rather intrigued by the idea that “live roulette” has a 40x WR, yet “computer RNG roulette” has a 200x WR. It’s the same game, same odds, same rules, and SAME vulnerability to “abusive play” on a bonus. What are the live croupiers “up to” that substitutes for the need to protect against “bonus abuse” that is countered in the software variant through the use of a 200x WR through using a 20% weighting?

I’m not a penguin

• #12

It doesn’t look like it. If the WR is , this is CLEARLY a mistake on their part, and this leads me to believe there are likely to be further mistakes that as in the case of this WR, they are “bluffing” through in order to fool the customer into thinking they are 100% to blame.

It’s the sales tactic that is the problem. At the time it was offered, the bonus was completely unsuitable for this player in the position he was in at the time. The only purpose served by offering this ?20 at that time was to trap his then profit by an onerous WR. The offer would have been more appropriate had it been offered when he bust out, or not offered at all had he eventually withdrawn. It’s preying on the naievety of the average consumer, and is at best considered “sharp practice”, and at worst considered ILLEGAL in parts of the EU. Part of this offer was the requirement to make an on the spot decision, rather than getting back to the casino after checking the terms of this offer. The player even asked a question that gave the chat agent the opportunity to expand on any negative implications of this bonus, but instead it was glossed over as “suitable for Roulette”. “suitable” is NOT the same as VALID, this bonus was indeed “valid”, but it certainly was not “suitable” in the circumstances.