Pa, konsultovao sam se sa svojim timom i došli smo do zaključka da je stav kazina prema situaciji nepravedan.
Prvo, uobičajeni mehanizam igre za pravi i bonus novac je sledeći: prvo se ulože pravi novac, zatim se gubi, a zatim počinje klađenje na bonus novac. Podešavanje „bonus sredstva moraju biti prvo uložena" može biti opcija, ali to zapravo ne pravi razliku za igrača, i nijedno od toga ne daje nepravednu prednost, jer je WR i dalje isti za sva stanja.
Drugo, razumem pravilo koje je primenjeno protiv igrača. Ono je usmereno protiv korisnika koji pokušavaju da „sakriju" svoj stvarni saldo u sportu ili stolnim igrama kako ne bi rizikovali dok primaju bonus novac, jer je njihov stvarni novac već „izgubljen" (dok u stvarnosti nije). Međutim, slučaj trenutnog igrača nije ovaj, i ne mogu da shvatim zašto je ovo pravilo primenjeno u ovom slučaju.
Treće, prihvatimo način na koji kazino želi da igrači aktiviraju i igraju sa svojim sredstvima. Problem je u tome što bonus može biti deaktiviran nakon što ga je igrač već izabrao prilikom uplate depozita. Naš opšti stav o svim ograničenjima bonusa (maksimalna opklada, isključene igre, maksimalna dobit) je da ih mora sprovoditi softver. Ovde je igrač mogao slobodno da kasnije aktivira bonus, a sprečavanje toga je odgovornost kazina.
Konačno, kazino je prestao da nam odgovara. Obično takve slučajeve zatvaramo kao nerešene, a razlog je nedovoljno dokaza, međutim, u ovom slučaju imamo dovoljno informacija da utvrdimo da su postupci kazina bili nepravedni. Stoga će biti dodeljena odgovarajuća klasifikacija.
Ragmn82, žao mi je što ti nisam mogao više pomoći. Smanjenje indeksa bezbednosti može naterati kazino da preispita svoj stav, i nadam se da će tako i biti.
S poštovanjem,
Pavel K.
Tim kazino gurua
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
Automatski prevedeno: