Der er mange ting, der adskiller de bedste kasinoer fra resten af konkurrencen. En af disse faktorer er den samlede brugeroplevelse, herunder om kasinoet er sikkert. Efter vores mening betyder en god brugeroplevelse, at spillere ikke behøver at læse de fulde T & C'er (faktisk gør ingen det, måske med undtagelse af nogle bonusjægere) og kan stole på, at de bliver behandlet retfærdigt. Efter vores mening betyder sikkerhed, at det ikke er let at ved et uheld gøre noget, der annullerer dine gevinster.
Vi forstår, at der skal være regler, der gælder for bonusser. Ellers ville det være virkelig let at misbruge dem. Men vi mener, at disse regler skal håndhæves af software, så spillere ikke kan bryde dem ved et uheld. Kun fordi dette ikke er så let for kasinoer at gøre, og næsten ingen casino gør det i øjeblikket (vi håber, at dette vil ændre sig i fremtiden), straffer vi ikke kasinoer for ikke at have denne funktion. På den anden side forventer vi, at de bedste kasinoer individuelt ser på alle tilfælde, hvor denne regel kan være blevet brudt af en ærlig fejl.
I dette særlige tilfælde er problemet, at spilleren tog en anden bonus, før han trak gevinster fra den forrige. Ved at gøre dette brød han reglen, der forbyder at have to bonusser aktive på samme tid og også reglen, der forbyder at tage en bonus uden depositum, mens han ikke har resterende restbeløb.
Vi vil gerne understrege tre punkter i denne sag:
1. Satsning var allerede afsluttet.
2. Spilleren kunne ikke få nogen fordel i forhold til casinoet ved hans handlinger. Der er intet, han kunne få ved at ansøge om en anden bonus, før han trækker tilbage den resterende saldo.
3. Det faktum, at bonus slutter, når spilleren udbetaler, og ikke når satsningen er afsluttet, er imod intuitivt. Det kan være fornuftigt med klistrede bonusser (hvor det oprindelige bonusbeløb trækkes ved afslutningen). Men her er det let at forstå, at spilleren måske tror, at den gamle bonus ikke længere er aktiv.
Konklusionen er, at det er klart, at spilleren begik en ærlig fejl. Og han fik ikke nogen fordel i forhold til casino på grund af det. Så selvom der er chance for, at casinoet er ret ud fra et rent juridisk perspektiv, overvejer vi at annullere gevinsterne co er klart urimelige.
Hvis kasinoet nægter at tage særlige omstændigheder i denne sag i betragtning, kan det rejse spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt de virkelig anvender denne regel for at beskytte sig selv, eller om det bare er en undskyldning for ikke at udbetale gevinsterne. Selv hvis der ikke er nogen dårlige intentioner, anser vi stadig, at et kasino, der fungerer som dette, er utrygt for spillere, og vi bliver nødt til at sænke dets rating. Derfor vil vi gerne bede Fair Go casino-repræsentanter endnu en gang om at overveje deres holdning.
There are many things that separate best casinos from rest of the competition. One of these factors is the overall user experience, including whether the casino is safe. In our view, a good user experience means that players don’t need to read the full T&Cs (in fact nobody does that, maybe with the exception of some bonus hunters) and can rely on the fact that they’ll be treated fairly. In our view, safety means that it’s not easy to accidentally do something that will cancel your winnings.
We understand that there must be rules that apply to bonuses. Otherwise, it would be really easy to abuse them. But we believe these rules should be enforced by software, so that players can’t break them accidentally. Only because this isn’t that easy for casinos to do and almost no casino does this at the moment (we hope this will change in the future), we don’t penalize casinos for not having this feature. However, on the other hand, we expect the best casinos to individually look at every case where this rule may have been broken by an honest mistake.
In this particular case, the problem is that the player took another bonus before he withdrew winnings from the previous one. By doing this, he broke the rule that forbids having two bonuses active at the same time and also the rule that forbids taking a no deposit bonus while having a non-zero remaining balance.
We would like to emphasize three points in this case:
1. Wagering was already completed.
2. Player couldn’t get any advantage over the casino by his actions. There is nothing he could gain by applying for another bonus before withdrawing all of the remaining balance.
3. The fact that bonus ends when the player cashes out and not when wagering is completed is counter intuitive. It might make sense for sticky bonuses (where the initial bonus amount is deducted at the end). But here it’s easy to understand that the player may think the old bonus is no longer active.
The conclusion is that it’s clear that player made an honest mistake. And he didn’t get any advantage over casino because of it. So, even if there is chance that the casino is right from a purely legal perspective, we consider voiding the winnings co be clearly unfair.
If the casino refuses to take specific circumstances of this case into consideration, it may raise the question whether they really apply this rule to protect themselves, or whether it’s just an excuse to not pay out the winnings. Even if there are no bad intensions, we still consider any casino that acts like this to be unsafe for players and we’ll have to decrease its rating. Therefore, we would like to ask Fair Go casino representatives once more to reconsider their position.
Automatisk oversættelse:
