Kære mehrdad1341,
Tak for din tålmodighed. Efter en grundig gennemgang af sagen og intern drøftelse af spørgsmålet afviser vi desværre denne klage som 'ubegrundet'.
Som du måske ved, var den bonus, du hævdede, såkaldt "sticky". Det betyder, at det oprindelige bonusbeløb betragtes som ikke-udbetalingspligtigt (det trækkes ved udbetaling). Desværre betyder det også, at sådanne bonusser betragtes som aktive, selv efter omsætningskravene er opfyldt, og det er der en god grund til.
Forestil dig en situation, hvor en spiller indsætter $100 og får $200 som bonus. De har nu $300 at spille for. Lad os sige, at efter at have afsluttet omsætningskravet (som normalt er meget lavt i denne type bonusser), står spilleren tilbage med $250. Hvis bonussen slutter automatisk, vil $200 blive trukket fra, hvilket giver spilleren kun $50. Ville spilleren være tilfreds? Nå, de fleste spillere ville ikke. De fleste spillere vil foretrække at fortsætte med at spille med $250 for at få en chance for at øge deres saldo. Dette er grunden til, at spillerne, efter at have gennemført indsatskravene, skal beslutte, hvornår de vil udbetale. Vi anser dette system for ikke at være særlig brugervenligt, men desværre er der ingen anden måde at afslutte en bonus på i RTG-softwaren.
Dette bringer os til den diskuterede situation. Kasinoer har ret til at begrænse visse spil, mens de spiller med bonuspenge. Dette skyldes, at forskellige spil vil have en anden fordel. Hvis kasinoet ville tillade spillere at bruge bonusmidler på spil med et lille husfordel, såsom Blackjack, ville det i høj grad øge omkostningerne ved bonussen for kasinoet.
For standardbonusser anbefaler vi casinoer ikke at annullere gevinster, men ikke at tælle væddemål foretaget på begrænsede spil med i omsætningskravene. På denne måde kan bonusjægere ikke drage fordel af at spille disse spil. For sticky bonusser ville dette dog ikke hjælpe, da de vedhæftede omsætningskrav ofte er for lave, og prisen på bonussen ikke reduceres af, at spillerne skal opfylde dem, men snarere af det faktum, at det oprindelige bonusbeløb er fratrækkes til sidst. På denne måde kan spillere få en betydelig fordel ved at spille spil med en meget lille husfordel. Hvis spillere ville få lov til at gøre dette, ville det ikke være muligt for casinoet at tilbyde disse bonusser længere.
Vi er overbevist om, at alle kasinoer bør håndhæve disse regler med software, så spillere ikke er i stand til at spille begrænsede spil med en aktiv bonus. Desværre har langt de fleste casinoer, inklusive dem der bruger RTG-softwaren, ikke en sådan funktion implementeret, og industristandarden er blot at angive de begrænsede spil i vilkårene og betingelserne. Det er derfor, vi ikke giver nogen større straf for dette i øjeblikket.
Dear mehrdad1341,
Thank you for your patience. Unfortunately, after a thorough review of the case and discussing the issue internally, we are rejecting this complaint as ‘unjustified’.
As you might know, the bonus you claimed was so-called ‘sticky’. This means that the initial bonus amount is considered non-cashable (it is deducted upon withdrawal). Unfortunately, this also means that such bonuses are considered active even after the wagering requirements have been met and there is a good reason why.
Imagine a situation where a player deposits $100 and gets $200 as a bonus. They now have $300 to play with. Let’s say that after finishing the wagering requirement (which is usually very low in this type of bonuses), the player is left with $250. If the bonus would end automatically, $200 would be deducted, leaving the player with just $50. Would the player be satisfied? Well, most players wouldn’t. Most players would prefer to continue playing with the $250 to get a chance to increase their balance. This is why after completing the wagering requirements, players need to decide when they want to cash out. We consider this system not to be very user-friendly but unfortunately, there’s no other way to end a bonus in the RTG software.
This brings us to the discussed situation. Casinos have the right to restrict certain games while playing with bonus money. This is because different games will have a different house edge. If the casino would allow players to use bonus funds on games with a small house edge, such as Blackjack, it would greatly increase the cost of the bonus for the casino.
For standard bonuses, we recommend casinos not to void winnings, but not count bets made on restricted games towards wagering requirements. This way bonus hunters can’t take the advantage of playing these games. For sticky bonuses, however, this wouldn’t help as the attached wagering requirements are often too low and the cost of the bonus is not reduced by the fact that players have to fulfill them, but rather by the fact that the initial bonus amount is deducted at the end. This way players can get a significant advantage by playing games with a very small house edge. If players would be allowed to do this, it wouldn’t be possible for the casino to offer these bonuses anymore.
We strongly believe that all casinos should enforce these rules by software so players are not able to play restricted games with an active bonus. Unfortunately, the vast majority of casinos, including ones using the RTG software, do not have such feature implemented, and the industry standard is to just list the restricted games in the Terms and Conditions. This is why we aren’t giving any major penalty for this at the moment.
Automatisk oversættelse:
