Our Position on Banning Betting Patterns and Strategies
At Casino Guru, we believe that the way casinos treat their players is one of the most important signs of their quality – not only those that bring a lot of revenue, but all of them.
Unfortunately, it is still basically an industry standard for the majority of casinos to apply rules that limit players in terms of how they can play, and how they cannot. Many players may not always be aware of such limitations, but if they break them – even accidentally – they can end up losing all of their winnings.
Some of these rules do make sense (e.g. one account per player, using only your own payment methods, etc.), but there are many others which we consider to be unfair to players.
It is our goal to help to change these standards and the way that they are applied, improve player safety, and rid the online casino world of unfair terms and conditions.
Below, we will take a closer look at one of the most common types of rules we consider to be unfair – banning specific or broadly defined betting patterns or strategies, which is often (but not always) connected to bonus abuse.
Why we consider banning betting patterns unfair
All casino games are configured to give casinos a mathematical advantage. This means that the casino will always be profitable in the long run. It is a direct consequence of mathematical laws that are present everywhere, casino games included. We even dive deep into this topic in our video about the mathematics of casino games that you can watch below.
Mathematical laws dictate that, as long as probabilities of individual results remain unchanged (therefore the game has a fixed RTP), no betting strategy can give players an advantage over the casino and make them profitable in the long run.
If bonuses are not part of the equation (we will discuss bonuses and their effects below), it does not make any sense for casinos to ban any betting patterns and strategies. The only consequence of banning them is a worse user experience for the players, which is why really good casinos do not do it.
Strategies connected to casino bonuses
Let's consider the use of betting patterns and strategies with bonuses. When a player gets a casino bonus, it is often possible to meet the wagering requirements, while statistically losing less than the value of the bonus. Thanks to this, players can actually be profitable in the long run. But can this be considered cheating? We do not think so.
Casinos often argue that players should play to have fun, not to win money. While we do agree with this from a responsible gambling perspective, the possibility of winning money is definitely a big part of the fun. Labeling players as cheaters just because they want to win is simply absurd.
As mentioned, casinos have an advantage in all casino games, and they also control the bonuses they offer to new or existing players. There are many common rules that limit the ability of players to abuse bonuses, such as maximum bet, maximum win, wagering requirements, decreased contribution of certain games towards the wagering requirements, etc.
If a casino configures its bonuses in a way that allows players to gain an advantage, we consider this to be the casino's fault, and definitely not the fault of the player. As long as players comply with other fair terms and conditions (such as only opening one account, playing under their own name, etc.), we find bonus hunting to be perfectly acceptable.
Last but not least, it needs to be said that any way of playing can technically be called a 'betting pattern'. Rules forbidding betting patterns are often very subjective and can theoretically be used against all players. While these types of play might raise suspicion and perhaps trigger additional checks, they shouldn't be used as an excuse for not paying a player if they didn't break any other rules.
What should be done when a player abuses bonuses?
If a casino identifies a bonus abuser, it is their right to exclude them from any future promotional offers or to ban them from playing in the casino altogether. However, it is not acceptable to cancel the winnings they have already accumulated.
Examples of rules we consider unfair
Now that our position is clear, let us take a look at a few examples of unfair rules and how related issues should be handled in order to provide a fair, user-friendly gambling experience.
EXAMPLE 1
"If it appears that you are participating in strategies that we in our sole discretion deem to be promotional abuse or irregular playing we reserve the right to deny, withhold, revoke or withdraw your entitlement to any promotion, winnings or bonus or terminate your access to the website and block your account. In such circumstances we shall be under no obligation to refund any funds that may be in your account other than your original deposit amounts."
The casino's point of view
There are no exact definitions here. The casino does not even forbid specific activities or betting patterns, so this rule can potentially be used to cancel the winnings of anyone who has used a bonus.
The player's point of view
As there are no specific descriptions of what strategies are considered to be irregular play or promotion abuse, the player may break this rule unknowingly, only to find out when they attempt to make a withdrawal of their winnings.
Our position
It is not fair to cancel winnings of a player who has not done anything "illegal". Of course, it is acceptable to close the player's account, but only after all winnings have been paid out.
Instead, forbidden activities and betting patterns should be defined in more detail, so that players know exactly what they can and cannot do when playing with a bonus.
Our recommendations for casinos
We think that this situation should be dealt with by paying out the player's winnings, which can be followed either by blocking the player from receiving any further promotional offers and bonuses, or by closing the player's account if deemed necessary.
EXAMPLE 2
"It is strictly prohibited to engage in any promotion abuse. This includes, but is not limited to:
- moving from high-risk betting to low-risk betting after a big win, for the purpose of clearing wagering requirements"
"Placing high bets and reducing bet size or switching to a less volatile game after a bigger win to 'safely' finish the wagering requirement"
The casino's point of view
Casinos often see any kind of play that may help a player complete the wagering requirements of the bonus quicker or easier as unfair and apply such rules in order to prevent bonus hunters from obtaining an advantage.
The player's point of view
This strategy is very common for bonus hunters, but the truth is that it doesn't affect the casino's advantage in any way. It's a simple strategy that even a recreational player might use without knowing that they're doing something against the rules. It just makes sense to bet that way.
Our position
We think that players should be able to play in whatever way they wish, as long as they follow other bonus rules, such as the maximum bet. Additionally, this rule is meant to deter bonus hunters, but it actually influences recreational players the most. These are the ones that are worried that they might lose their winnings, so they often decrease their bets after a win. True bonus hunters do not mind an increased variance. They focus mostly on their expected value, which is not affected by this betting pattern.
Instead of rules like these, casinos should focus on setting the wagering requirements, maximum bet, game contribution and other bonus rules in a way that makes it more difficult or even impossible for players to abuse their bonuses.
Our recommendations for casinos
These types of strategies are exactly the reason why limiting the maximum bet amount for bonus play has become standard in the industry (one of the ways to decrease profitability of a bonus is lowering the maximum allowed bet amount).
There will always be players trying to take advantage of bonuses this way, but as long as they play by the rules, in their own name, we don't really see any bad in it. We therefore believe that players employing such strategies should still be paid their winnings, and perhaps be prevented from claiming further bonuses.
EXAMPLE 3
"If we have reasonable grounds to believe that You have participated in or have been connected with any form of Prohibited Practice (either detected by us or by our gaming partners and our other suppliers) of any fraud, cheating and collusion practices which are used in the gambling and gaming industry (including but not limited to "Wonging", "Perfect Pair" Card Counting, Dragon Tiger "Suited Tie" Card Counting or any other Card Counting techniques), we reserve the right to close your account and withhold the balance."
Card counting, used most famously in Blackjack, is a popular strategy that helps players figure out if they have an advantage in the next hand. Positive, negative or zero values are assigned to cards, and a running count is kept according to the value of each card dealt. In this way, a player can estimate the percentage of high cards still left in the deck and bet larger amounts when this is in their favor. There are many variations of this strategy, and some can also be applied in other games, such as Baccarat.
The casino's point of view
Casinos have always frowned upon card counting, as it can give players a statistical edge that wouldn't be present when playing otherwise. It is a standard rule in land-based casinos that players are not allowed to count cards, and players suspected of doing so will swiftly be asked to leave. Card counting in online casinos is often detected by the game providers themselves, who then alert the casino of this activity. Often, the casino will then confiscate the player's winnings and close their account.
The player's point of view
Card counting is not considered to be cheating by most players, as it only involves keeping track of the cards that have been dealt. They are merely placing bets when there is the probability of a higher RTP, which is a logical way to play.
Our position
While we can understand that casinos do not welcome card counting techniques, we do not believe that it is always justified to confiscate winnings. Card counting by itself does not affect the fair random outcome of the game and the player has not manipulated the results in any way.
There are also a number of measures that game providers could easily put in place to prevent card counting, or at least make it more difficult, such as using a continuous shuffling machine, a cut card, or increasing the number of decks used in each game.
As long as the player is not using any assisted methods to aid them with card counting, such as additional software, we do not consider it to be a valid reason to confiscate winnings.
Our recommendations for casinos
If a casino is notified by a game provider of a player's involvement with card counting activity, it should not automatically result in the player's funds being confiscated.
We understand that the casino may wish to close the player's account, and we accept that, but each case should be investigated first. If there is no evidence to suggest that any additional software or external aid was used by the player, we believe it is only fair to pay them their winnings in full.
EXAMPLE 4
"The Company reserves the right to void bonuses and any winnings from such bonuses for the following reasons:
low risk roulette play where the player betting equal stakes for both black/red or even/odd covering 25 or more out of 37 numbers on the table. (Placing bets on black/red only covers 36 of 37 possible numbers)."
The casino's point of view
A lot of casinos consider such strategies fraudulent or a form of cheating, as this bet covers most of the possible outcomes on a roulette table (approx. 94%, depending on which version of roulette is played). The rule is also applied in real money situations (without the use of a bonus) as a measure to prevent money laundering.
The player's point of view
It is common for players to play using such strategies quite innocently, minimizing their losses and allowing them to play for longer.
Our position
Low-risk bets alone do not provide a player with any advantage, and there's a good chance that a player who might not be aware that this kind of betting is not welcome will end up with nothing. The casino always has a house edge in every game, and low-risk bets will not be profitable for the player in the long run, so it is not fair to confiscate a player's winnings for this type of play.
Our recommendations for casinos
One solution would be to not count low-risk bets towards wagering requirements at all (or count with a minimum contribution). If that's not a viable route, perhaps the wagering requirement could be increased proportionally, and a withdrawal not allowed until it is completed. While players using such strategies may lose eligibility for future promotions, they should never have their winnings confiscated.
