Peter Jesko: “When players purposefully try to abuse the system, we side with the casino”

Casino Guru's Strategy Lead, Peter Ješko, significantly influences the direction of company development. In his previous interviews for Casino Guru Insiders, he talked about work and knowledge, and introduced the Safety Index for our readers as well.

When we discuss a certain topic in further depth, Peter confirms his expertise and comprehensive understanding ofthe gambling industry. This time around, we talked about bonus hunting and bonus abuse, which Peter explains, gives examples of, and demonstrates how Casino Guru works with these concepts.

What should readers imagine when they hear the term "bonus abuse"? Why are players falsely accused of bonus hunting? How does the Complaint Resolution Center handle these complaints? And what advice would Peter offerto all players that use bonuses? Keep reading to find out!

Q: I will start with the most important question. How would you define bonus hunting and bonus abuse? What distinguishes them?

This is a difficult and complex question. The truth is that there isn't a universally accepted definition for these terms. Bonus hunting and bonus abuse are sometimes interpreted as synonymous, but the interpretations vary.

At Casino Guru, we have developed our own perspective, which is detailed in our Fair Gambling Codex. To put it plainly, we consider bonus hunting to occur when a player uses specific mathematical techniques to get long-term profitable value from a bonus. Bonus abuse, on the other hand, is not about mathematical strategies but rather about exploiting flaws in the software.

Q: Can you give specific examples?

Bonus hunting can only be described as a mathematical strategy based on playing games with high volatility, where the player either loses or wins quickly to reduce long-term wagering.

An example of bonus abuse would be postponing bonus rounds. Some players might load the bonus round on a slot machine but choose not to spin it. They only spin the bonus rounds after playing with real money to avoid wagering their bonus wins. Additionally, bonus abuse can include any attempt to exploit software flaws.

Some casinos even consider actions such as depositing the minimum amount required to claim a bonus as bonus abuse, which shows the significant variation in how operators define it compared to our understanding at Casino Guru.

Q:Can you elaborate on the differences between what Casino Guru perceives as bonus abuse, and what the operator considers bonus abuse?

Most casinos consider any misuse of a bonus as bonus abuse. Therefore, for them, bonus hunting is often seen as a form of bonus abuse because they perceive it as a method players use to bypass the system.

From their perspective, players should rely solely on luck rather than strategies or mathematical calculations to play with the bonus. But we believe that using strategies to maximize the value of a bonus is legitimate.

Q: So, bonus hunting, as defined by Casino Guru, is considered bonus abuse in some casinos? Do they define it that way in their Terms & Conditions (T&C)?

Well, that is another issue. Many casinos do not specifically define what counts as bonus abuse. They state in their T&C that bonus abuse is prohibited without providing clear guidelines.

Sometimes theyuse examples, and that is what we draw from when we evaluate casinos with our Safety Index methodology, but much of what we know about casino bonus practices comes from player complaints.

However, there are operators who want to be transparent and provide clear examples of bonus abuse, such as postponing bonus rounds, which we agree unfairly advantages the player ; therefore, it is bonus abuse.

But Imust say, more often than not, there are cases where casinos have no specific definitions of bonus abuse yet still penalize players for it or refuse to pay out winnings when a player has done nothing wrong. They just used a mathematical formula in their play.

Q: What other examples of bonus abuse do operators list in their T&C that Casino Guru disagrees with?

We disagree when casinos penalize common practices and label them as bonus abuse. I'm talking about things like making multiple minimum deposits to receive bonuses or depositing money only when there is a bonus available.

Although some casinos oppose this behavior, we believe it is normal and understandable for players to deposit the smallest amounts required to receive a bonus or to decide to deposit money only if they get a bonus. After all, casino bonuses are designed to encourage players to deposit.

At other times, there are scenarios we refer to as bonus hunting, which, in our opinion, should not be prohibited. In these situations, the player understands that there is no certain winning strategy at the casino.

It is possible, however, to employ a strategy where the player loses, on average, less than the bonus amount after meeting the wagering requirements. This means the player ends up ahead since the bonus has a set value, and they only lose, on average, about part of it.

Q: Why would you say doesthe Casino Guru's perspective on bonus hunting and bonus abuse differ from the operators' perspective?

This, in my opinion, is frequentlycaused by poorly writtenT&Cs. We know that the T&Cs are oftencopied from one casino to another. Sometimes operators even fail to truly understand gambling mathematics.

For example, they prohibit the Martingale strategy, which is known to be a losing strategy that provides no advantage to the player. Therefore, they shouldn’t mind players using this strategy, but still, Martingale is strictly prohibited in many casinos.

Other than that, there can be various business and non-commercial reasons why casinos may disagree with us on certain issues. That is perfectly normal.

All I can say is that we rely on our Fair Gambling Codex, our corporate philosophy, our research provided mostly by our Data Team, as well as experiences learned by addressing player complaints through the Complaint Resolution Center.

Q: Speaking of addressing player complaints, how are cases of bonus hunting and bonus abuse addressed within Casino Guru?

If we verify that the player did not actually abuse the bonus, we have two options to persuade the casino to change its mind.

First, we provide logical argumentation based on the specific case to explain why we do not view certain player actions as unfair.

Second, we also may have business relationships with the casino; therefore, if they go against our philosophy, they risk dropping in our Safety Index ratings. This could lead to the point where we can no longer recommend these casinos to players.

So, naturally, casinos take these disagreements very seriously because our website is well-visited and reliable. They carefully consider their options on how to proceed and what is important to them.

Q: Are operators, in your experience, open to changing their decisions or even customary procedures?

It depends. Some casinos adopt a pro-client approach and are open to communication and considering our arguments.Others mistakenly believe—and this is completely untrue—that we want to dictate how they should run their businesses.

But the only thing we are trying to say is that, in line with our methodology and principles, we consider certain casino practices unfriendly to players and refrain from recommending casinos that don’t uphold our standards to players.

Q: What happens if it turns out that the players are at fault and Casino Guru can’t assist them?

If it turns out that the player has actually participated in bonus abuse, we will explain the situation to them and conclude that the player was given an unfair advantage, and the casino has the right to refuse to pay them.

Q: How does Casino Guru determine what is and isn't an unfair advantage? How does one go about developing a philosophy like this?

We regularly discuss these topics, sometimes for hours on end, and we update our Fair Gambling Codex accordingly. We work as ateam specifically on situations that are not entirely clear and to which our Fair Gambling Codex does not yetapply.

Our approach is designed with the average player in mind, who just wants to enjoy themselves at the casino, who doesn’t generally read terms and conditions, and so on.

We draw fromcommonsense, and,above all, we strive to put ourselves in the player's position—a point I always stress during our meetings.

We must always keep in mind that we are not creating Casino Guru as a website for a fictitious user who is an expert in everything. In reality, these players arepractically nonexistent.

We believe the casino should set up everything so that players cannot unintentionally break the rules and get their money confiscated. However, if players understand what they are doing and purposefully try to abuse the system, we side with the casino.

Q: Isn't bonus hunting a procedure in which the player tries to abuse the system a little? So why does Casino Guru think bonus hunting is acceptable?

Our principle is that if a player can gain an advantage through a game feature without manipulating the system or using third-party software, it is legitimate.

It reminds me of counting cards, I think. When someone invites you to play blackjack, you have to assume that, yes, there's a chance someone is counting cards. When a bonus is offered, the casino must assume that some players will play with the bonus in a way that will be profitable.

Bonus hunting is acceptable by Casino Guru standards as long as the players doit under their own names, on a single account, and without using any devices that might manipulate the game or cause system errors.

Q: Are there any examples of court rulings on this topic that you are aware of?

A fascinating case is the one of the well-known poker player Phil Ivey from many years ago. Along with an associate, Phil Ivey visited a casino one day to gamble. He came to play for large stakes andwon approximately £7.8 million.

However, before he received his winnings, an investigation was launched, and it turned out that Iveyhad breached his contract with the casino by taking advantage of a manufacturing defect on theplaying cards with the help of his associate. The court chose to side with the casino, despite Ivey's denial of these charges.

Q: How was this case different from card counting? Isn't that also a feature of the given card game?

Not at all. This is not the same as card counting because, in card counting,the player has no idea which card will be dealt.

He is onlyaware that the house edge in this game is, let's say, 1%, but when there are certain cards dealt and certain cardsleft in the deck, the math changes and the player gains a 1% edge.

That's the main idea behind card counting; it's not exactly like in the movies. All the player knows is that, on average, a hundredth of his bet will be in the plus if they play this game for a long time. But they could still lose.

For Ivey, it was about knowing the cards that would be dealt to him. It was unfair because it was no longer a game of chance. We have a consensus within the Casino Guru that anything that appears to disrupta particular probability is unfair to play.

Q: How do casinos prevent bonus abuse or bonus hunting?

When it comes to bonus hunting, casinos make wagering requirements challenging to discourage bonus hunters. However, they need to balance this so as not to discourage recreational players.

Bonus abuse could be dealt with through software, but this is rarely the case. Usually, casinos verify gameplay to detect bonus abuse, and they generally do so when it comes time to pay bonus winnings.

We would very much prefer if the playersweren't allowed to take part in any problematic behavior and thatthe game would beset up in a way that prevented themfrom even trying.

Q: What would you advise players when playing with bonuses?

My advice is to read the entire bonus conditions carefully. The bonus conditions are, in contrast to the general T&C, shorter and more comprehensible.

Players also need to be careful about max bet, which is something that the casino uses to prevent bonus hunting. If the casino had not introduced max bet, bonus hunting would be very simple and effective.

Max bet is therefore a completely legitimate condition set by the casino, so I recommend every player to check it.

Restricted games are another thing. Casinos typically don’t allow bonuses on all casino games. We would like operators to implement a system that wouldn’t let players use the bonus on restricted games, but unfortunately, this is not the norm.

And, of course, I would also recommend looking at whether the bonus has a specified max win. So, in general, be careful about the things you can and cannot do when using a bonus.

This interview is part of Casino Guru Insiders, a series of interviews during which experts from Casino Guru share their unique workflow, reveal insider information, and offer an exclusive overview of experience-packed know-how.

Image credit: Casino Guru News