Greetings all,
This has been interesting from the ground up, it is the first time we have encountered such a thing and it has become a bit of a thought experiment internally. Schrödinger's bonus if you will. 😀
As mentioned previously my initial opinion was, due to error on the part of the casino to side with the player and request payment in full for the player which was the proposal I brought to upper management. The casino made an error, the rules should be clearly stated. This is commonly done through including the bonus rules in both the advertising and upon redemption in a pop-up window where the player agrees to the terms before redeeming the bonus, much the same as the terms and conditions of any website.
This system failed due to human error (humans!) and the specific rules regarding the bonus were not displayed in the advertising nor upon redemption in the pop-up before redemption.
After considerable internal debate (the top level of the executive branch to be specific) we have come to agreement that there was 1. an error on the casino side to which the casino is beholden and 2. in the interest of fairness to both parties there needs to be an action (compromise) on the part of the casino which demonstrates our acknowledgement of this error.
Having said this we need to also acknowledge that there were bonus funds in play, bonus cash (even the most liberally given) always carries rules. In the absence of bonus terms specific to the bonus being redeemed (then played by) the player we need to default to the standard terms and conditions for bonuses and apply these terms. It is necessary to say that lack of the specific terms of the bonus does not magically turn those bonus funds into actual cash, it is still gifted money that needs to comply with certain rules.
As a compromise the casino is willing to re-deposit the funds that were removed and allow the player to continue to play these funds until the basic terms for all bonuses are completed as listed in the general terms and conditions of the casino. Per the general terms regarding all bonuses there needs to be a 60x playthrough on "table game" play any time there is a bonus involved "unless otherwise stated", that would mean the playthrough should have been $23,400. We need to take the good with the bad here. Since the terms were not defined ahead of time in any way (other than the percentage amount on top of deposit) we need to assume that the general terms for bonuses be respected.
The casino is willing to credit back the $1779 (minus the $100 already deposited and played as cash, so $1679 in total) which was denied for withdrawal so long as the general playthrough rules for bonuses are respected moving forward.
There is currently $8565 in game play completed which the casino is willing to credit toward the required playthrough, ignoring the source of the play (non-allowed table games). Since we now know the specifics of the bonus (slots and keno only) if the remaining playthrough is completed playing the games allowed for the initial bonus ($14,835 still to play) we will honour any resulting win as eligible for withdrawal.
Folks (in suits) have really earned their daily bread going over the situation top to bottom, it's an interesting situation that has never occurred before so it was given much time and attention, in economic terms well beyond the total sum of payout in this case. It became a question of fairness, for both parties, and what our obligation is to our players when a well laid system fails to function properly.
I was initially none too thrilled with the direction but after relaxing my incredulity (and indignation) at the failure of the casino to provide the necessary details at the proper time I began to see the situation a bit differently. Bonus cash always carries rules, and if the specific rules are not stated clearly then we need to look elsewhere, that elsewhere being the general terms of the casino to which we all agree upon signup and play.
I have asked that we re-open the case to give the opportunity to make this public statement regarding our findings (it was at no point ignored, quite the opposite) and to give the player the opportunity to respond and potentially accept the compromise as presented. It is the only scenario where we as an organization feel that all parties get a fair shake.
It is also worth mentioning there is NO WITHDRAWAL LIMIT on this bonus, this means it could go either way for us. We could end paying the player significantly more than the initial withdrawal request, but fair is fair.
Hopefully this compromise is acceptable to all parties involved.
Best wishes,
Nick and Raging Bull
Greetings all,
This has been interesting from the ground up, it is the first time we have encountered such a thing and it has become a bit of a thought experiment internally. Schrödinger's bonus if you will. 😀
As mentioned previously my initial opinion was, due to error on the part of the casino to side with the player and request payment in full for the player which was the proposal I brought to upper management. The casino made an error, the rules should be clearly stated. This is commonly done through including the bonus rules in both the advertising and upon redemption in a pop-up window where the player agrees to the terms before redeeming the bonus, much the same as the terms and conditions of any website.
This system failed due to human error (humans!) and the specific rules regarding the bonus were not displayed in the advertising nor upon redemption in the pop-up before redemption.
After considerable internal debate (the top level of the executive branch to be specific) we have come to agreement that there was 1. an error on the casino side to which the casino is beholden and 2. in the interest of fairness to both parties there needs to be an action (compromise) on the part of the casino which demonstrates our acknowledgement of this error.
Having said this we need to also acknowledge that there were bonus funds in play, bonus cash (even the most liberally given) always carries rules. In the absence of bonus terms specific to the bonus being redeemed (then played by) the player we need to default to the standard terms and conditions for bonuses and apply these terms. It is necessary to say that lack of the specific terms of the bonus does not magically turn those bonus funds into actual cash, it is still gifted money that needs to comply with certain rules.
As a compromise the casino is willing to re-deposit the funds that were removed and allow the player to continue to play these funds until the basic terms for all bonuses are completed as listed in the general terms and conditions of the casino. Per the general terms regarding all bonuses there needs to be a 60x playthrough on "table game" play any time there is a bonus involved "unless otherwise stated", that would mean the playthrough should have been $23,400. We need to take the good with the bad here. Since the terms were not defined ahead of time in any way (other than the percentage amount on top of deposit) we need to assume that the general terms for bonuses be respected.
The casino is willing to credit back the $1779 (minus the $100 already deposited and played as cash, so $1679 in total) which was denied for withdrawal so long as the general playthrough rules for bonuses are respected moving forward.
There is currently $8565 in game play completed which the casino is willing to credit toward the required playthrough, ignoring the source of the play (non-allowed table games). Since we now know the specifics of the bonus (slots and keno only) if the remaining playthrough is completed playing the games allowed for the initial bonus ($14,835 still to play) we will honour any resulting win as eligible for withdrawal.
Folks (in suits) have really earned their daily bread going over the situation top to bottom, it's an interesting situation that has never occurred before so it was given much time and attention, in economic terms well beyond the total sum of payout in this case. It became a question of fairness, for both parties, and what our obligation is to our players when a well laid system fails to function properly.
I was initially none too thrilled with the direction but after relaxing my incredulity (and indignation) at the failure of the casino to provide the necessary details at the proper time I began to see the situation a bit differently. Bonus cash always carries rules, and if the specific rules are not stated clearly then we need to look elsewhere, that elsewhere being the general terms of the casino to which we all agree upon signup and play.
I have asked that we re-open the case to give the opportunity to make this public statement regarding our findings (it was at no point ignored, quite the opposite) and to give the player the opportunity to respond and potentially accept the compromise as presented. It is the only scenario where we as an organization feel that all parties get a fair shake.
It is also worth mentioning there is NO WITHDRAWAL LIMIT on this bonus, this means it could go either way for us. We could end paying the player significantly more than the initial withdrawal request, but fair is fair.
Hopefully this compromise is acceptable to all parties involved.
Best wishes,
Nick and Raging Bull