Jeg har konsulteret mit team, og vi er nået til den konklusion, at casinoets holdning til situationen er urimelig.
For det første er den sædvanlige mekanisme for spil med rigtige penge og bonuspenge som følger: rigtige penge satses først, derefter tabes, og derefter begynder bonuspengeindsatsen. At indstille det som "bonuspenge skal satses først" kan være en mulighed, men det gør egentlig ingen forskel for spilleren, og ingen af dem giver en urimelig fordel, da WR stadig er den samme for alle saldi.
For det andet forstår jeg den regel, der blev anvendt mod spilleren. Den er rettet mod brugere, der forsøger at "skjule" deres rigtige saldo i sports- eller bordspil for ikke at risikere det, mens de modtager bonuspenge, fordi deres rigtige penge allerede er "tabt" (mens de i virkeligheden ikke er det). Den nuværende spillers tilfælde er dog ikke dette, og jeg kan ikke forstå, hvorfor denne regel blev anvendt i dette tilfælde.
For det tredje, lad os acceptere den måde, casinoet ønsker, at spillere aktiverer og spiller med deres penge. Her er problemet, at bonussen kan forblive deaktiveret, efter at spilleren allerede har valgt den under indbetalingen. Vores generelle holdning til alle bonusbegrænsninger (maks. indsats, ekskluderede spil, maks. gevinst) er, at de skal håndhæves af softwaren. Her var spilleren fri til at aktivere bonussen senere, hvilket er casinoets ansvar at forhindre.
Endelig har casinoet holdt op med at svare os. Normalt lukker vi sådanne sager som uløste med den begrundelse, at der ikke er fremlagt tilstrækkelige beviser, men i dette tilfælde har vi tilstrækkelig information til at fastslå, at casinoets handlinger var urimelige. Derfor vil den relevante klassificering blive tildelt.
Ragmn82, jeg beklager, at jeg ikke kunne hjælpe dig mere. Faldet i sikkerhedsindekset kan få casinoet til at genoverveje deres holdning, og jeg håber, det bliver tilfældet.
Med venlig hilsen,
Pavel K.
Casino Guru-teamet
Well, I have consulted with my team and we have arrived to the conclusion that casino's stance to the situation is unfair.
Firstly, the usual mechanism of real and bonus money play is as such: real funds wagered first, then lost, then bonus money wagering begins. Setting it up as "bonus funds must be wagered first" can be an option, but it really does not make a difference for the player, and neither of them gives an unfair advantage, since the WR is still the same for all balances.
Secondly, I understand the rule which was applied against the player. It is aimed against users who try to "hide" their real balance in sports or table games so not to risk it while receiving bonus money because their real money are already "lost" (while in reality they are not). However, the current player's case is not this one, and I cannot make any sense out of why this rule was applied in this case.
Thirdly, let us accept the way the casino wants players to activate and play with their funds. Here is the problem that the bonus can be left deactivated after the player had already chosen it while depositing. Our general stance on all bonus restrictions (max bet, excluded games, max win) is that they must be enforced by the software. Here, the player was free to activate the bonus later, prevention of which is the responsibility of the casino.
Finally, the casino has stopped responding to us. Usually, we close such cases as unresolved with the reason being insufficient evidence provided, however, in this case we have enough information to determine that casino's actions were unfair. Therefore, the according classification will be assigned.
Ragmn82, I am sorry I could not help you more. The decrease in the Safety Index may make the casino to reconsider their stance, and I hope it will be so.
Respectfully,
Pavel K
Casino Guru Team
Automatisk oversættelse: