Online Casino News
Thursday, January 28, 2010
32Red sign up bonus increased
32Red has just launched a new sign up bonus - I got this from them yesterday:
We have launched a brand new welcome bonus at 32Red Casino. New players can now receive up to �320 when they join. For every multiple of �10 made on their first deposit, your referrals will get a �32 bonus. This also applies to USD, AUD, CAD and EUR deposits.
So if you deposit �100, you get �320.
You can view all details, plus terms and conditions, on the welcome bonus page. Here are the terms:
• Only cash players are eligible for the New Player Welcome Bonus. Guest players do not qualify for this promotion.
• A 32 chip bonus will be awarded for every full 10 chips deposited on your first purchase. For example, a deposit of 25 units of currency would generate a 64 chip bonus, additional deposits do not qualify.
• The bonus awarded will be credited to a player's bonus balance and is subject to our bonus terms and play through requirements before being withdrawn.
• Each new player is eligible for one welcome bonus, players claiming any other welcome bonus are not eligible for this promotion.
• This offer is valid for a player's initial deposit only. Bonuses must be claimed before playing with your initial deposit.
• 32Red welcomes players from all countries around the world (prohibited). However, there are some players who wish to take advantage of this free chip welcome bonus offer. In the interests of fair gaming, players may not place individual bets equal to or in excess of 25% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the playthrough requirements for that bonus have been met. Any winnings derived from bets placed to the value of 25% or more of the bonus before playthrough requirements for that bonus have been met will initiate a further playthrough requirement of 100 times the amount won.
• This promotion is strictly limited to one new player per household even if there is more than one computer retained at the address. The identity of a user will be determined on the basis of all or any combination of the following: name, mailing address, e-mail address, IP address, credit/charge card number, computer, and any other form of identification which may be required.
• The casino may, at their sole discretion, limit the eligibility of new players to participate in this promotion, for any reason whatsoever without notice to the end users.
• The casino may, at their sole discretion, change the terms and conditions for any reason whatsoever without notice to the end users. No correspondence will be entered into. 32Red's decision will be considered final in the event of a dispute.
• A 32 chip bonus will be awarded for every full 10 chips deposited on your first purchase. For example, a deposit of 25 units of currency would generate a 64 chip bonus, additional deposits do not qualify.
• The bonus awarded will be credited to a player's bonus balance and is subject to our bonus terms and play through requirements before being withdrawn.
• Each new player is eligible for one welcome bonus, players claiming any other welcome bonus are not eligible for this promotion.
• This offer is valid for a player's initial deposit only. Bonuses must be claimed before playing with your initial deposit.
• 32Red welcomes players from all countries around the world (prohibited). However, there are some players who wish to take advantage of this free chip welcome bonus offer. In the interests of fair gaming, players may not place individual bets equal to or in excess of 25% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the playthrough requirements for that bonus have been met. Any winnings derived from bets placed to the value of 25% or more of the bonus before playthrough requirements for that bonus have been met will initiate a further playthrough requirement of 100 times the amount won.
• This promotion is strictly limited to one new player per household even if there is more than one computer retained at the address. The identity of a user will be determined on the basis of all or any combination of the following: name, mailing address, e-mail address, IP address, credit/charge card number, computer, and any other form of identification which may be required.
• The casino may, at their sole discretion, limit the eligibility of new players to participate in this promotion, for any reason whatsoever without notice to the end users.
• The casino may, at their sole discretion, change the terms and conditions for any reason whatsoever without notice to the end users. No correspondence will be entered into. 32Red's decision will be considered final in the event of a dispute.
Take careful note of this clause:
...players may not place individual bets equal to or in excess of 25% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the playthrough requirements for that bonus have been met.
Any winnings derived from bets placed to the value of 25% or more of the bonus before playthrough requirements for that bonus have been met will initiate a further playthrough requirement of 100 times the amount won.
Any winnings derived from bets placed to the value of 25% or more of the bonus before playthrough requirements for that bonus have been met will initiate a further playthrough requirement of 100 times the amount won.
If you take a �32 bonus, the largest bet you can legally make is �8. However, the casino will not confiscate any derived winnings - they will simply subject them to an additional 100 times wagering requirement.
The terms page includes an example of basic wagering terms for a handful of bonus examples...
...and the game weightings graphic shows how much additional wagering is required for certain games:
Single deck blackjack counts at just 2%, so on a �320 bonus you'd have to wager a grand total of (320 X 30) X (100 ÷ 2) = �480,000.
With perfect classic blackjack play, I estimate an average loss of about �120 once the bonus is added, which gives an average house edge of just 0.025%.
Not too bad a deal.
Permalink
|
Reply (0)
| 
0 Previous Comments
Ladbrokes data theft: confidential details of more than four million customers offered for sale
British tabloid The Mail On Sunday has reported on an offer they received to purchase the personal details of four and a half million customers:
For sale: Personal details of millions of Ladbrokes gamblers, offered to the Mail On Sunday by a mysterious Australian
The confidential records of millions of British gamblers who bet with top bookmaker Ladbrokes have been offered for sale to the Mail On Sunday. The huge data theft is now at the centre of a criminal investigation after this newspaper was given the personal information of 10,000 Ladbrokes customers and offered access to its database of 4.5 million people in the UK and abroad.
Last night we alerted Ladbrokes to the damaging security breach and handed the customer files to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), Britain's data watchdog, which immediately began to investigate. The records include customers' home addresses, details of their gambling history, customer account numbers, dates of birth, phone numbers and email addresses.
Ladbrokes last night also called in the police and began contacting customers to reassure them that their credit card details, passwords and other financial information were safe.
The database was offered for sale by a mysterious Australian. He claimed to be a computer security expert who had worked at Ladbrokes in Britain. During protracted negotiations via email and in one phone call, the man, who gave his name only as 'Daniel', claimed to represent a company based in Melbourne, Australia. The company, DSS Enterprises, is run by Dinitha Subasinghe, a Sri Lankan-born IT expert.
Last night, Mr Subasinghe denied any involvement in the data theft. He designs websites and also runs a wedding planning business with his British-born girlfriend Charlene King. Australia's companies house describes Mr Subasinghe as a 'sole trader'. His recent work has involved designing websites for estate agents in Melbourne, but he also lists Ladbrokes and the UK Ministry of Defence as clients.
He said yesterday: "I have no access to any Ladbrokes database or any other information. I provided analytical services to them for 18 months during 2007 and 2008."
Mr Subasinghe said he had been on holiday in the UK in November and still kept in touch with a couple of Ladbrokes staff on a social basis, and added: "Unless my name, my signature, my fingerprint is on anything, it has nothing to do with me. I had a call from a senior person at Ladbrokes this morning. I did not take the call. I don't know what they are ringing me about."
The Mail on Sunday received an email from 'Daniel' yesterday saying that he was ending the negotiations and warning us against passing his details to the authorities.
David Smith, the ICO Deputy Commissioner, said last night: "The ICO takes breaches of individuals' privacy very seriously. Any organisation which processes personal information must ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to keep that information secure. We are grateful to The Mail on Sunday for bringing this security breach to our attention and will be contacting Ladbrokes to establish how it occurred and to find out what steps it will be taking to ensure that such a breach cannot happen again."
"We are particularly concerned that up to 4.5 million customer records containing personal information are allegedly for sale. Stealing personal data and selling it is a criminal offence. We will investigate whether an offence has been committed. We are determined to stamp out the unlawful trade in personal information and have recently urged the Government to introduce a custodial sentence for people convicted of buying and selling personal details."
The Mail On Sunday was first approached by 'Daniel' - using the email address 'theinsidescoopuk' - earlier this month. He claimed to have worked as an IT security consultant for Ladbrokes two years ago. He said he had been passed the data by a 'relatively junior' employee, who was trying to sell it on. 'Daniel' claimed that his initial intention was to tip off Ladbrokes about the security breach, but he then decided it would be better to contact the media.
Last night, Ciaran O'Brien, head of PR at Ladbrokes, said: "We have been informed that a person connected to our organisation has offered certain details from a customer database to The Mail on Sunday. This is a criminal act and we are working with the police, the ICO and the newspaper to identify and apprehend the culprit. We are in the process of contacting customers to apologise for this breach in security and to reassure them that everything is being done to protect their personal information. Importantly, we do not believe that customer accounts or banking data can be accessed."
The confidential records of millions of British gamblers who bet with top bookmaker Ladbrokes have been offered for sale to the Mail On Sunday. The huge data theft is now at the centre of a criminal investigation after this newspaper was given the personal information of 10,000 Ladbrokes customers and offered access to its database of 4.5 million people in the UK and abroad.
Last night we alerted Ladbrokes to the damaging security breach and handed the customer files to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), Britain's data watchdog, which immediately began to investigate. The records include customers' home addresses, details of their gambling history, customer account numbers, dates of birth, phone numbers and email addresses.
Ladbrokes last night also called in the police and began contacting customers to reassure them that their credit card details, passwords and other financial information were safe.
The database was offered for sale by a mysterious Australian. He claimed to be a computer security expert who had worked at Ladbrokes in Britain. During protracted negotiations via email and in one phone call, the man, who gave his name only as 'Daniel', claimed to represent a company based in Melbourne, Australia. The company, DSS Enterprises, is run by Dinitha Subasinghe, a Sri Lankan-born IT expert.
Last night, Mr Subasinghe denied any involvement in the data theft. He designs websites and also runs a wedding planning business with his British-born girlfriend Charlene King. Australia's companies house describes Mr Subasinghe as a 'sole trader'. His recent work has involved designing websites for estate agents in Melbourne, but he also lists Ladbrokes and the UK Ministry of Defence as clients.
He said yesterday: "I have no access to any Ladbrokes database or any other information. I provided analytical services to them for 18 months during 2007 and 2008."
Mr Subasinghe said he had been on holiday in the UK in November and still kept in touch with a couple of Ladbrokes staff on a social basis, and added: "Unless my name, my signature, my fingerprint is on anything, it has nothing to do with me. I had a call from a senior person at Ladbrokes this morning. I did not take the call. I don't know what they are ringing me about."
The Mail on Sunday received an email from 'Daniel' yesterday saying that he was ending the negotiations and warning us against passing his details to the authorities.
David Smith, the ICO Deputy Commissioner, said last night: "The ICO takes breaches of individuals' privacy very seriously. Any organisation which processes personal information must ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to keep that information secure. We are grateful to The Mail on Sunday for bringing this security breach to our attention and will be contacting Ladbrokes to establish how it occurred and to find out what steps it will be taking to ensure that such a breach cannot happen again."
"We are particularly concerned that up to 4.5 million customer records containing personal information are allegedly for sale. Stealing personal data and selling it is a criminal offence. We will investigate whether an offence has been committed. We are determined to stamp out the unlawful trade in personal information and have recently urged the Government to introduce a custodial sentence for people convicted of buying and selling personal details."
The Mail On Sunday was first approached by 'Daniel' - using the email address 'theinsidescoopuk' - earlier this month. He claimed to have worked as an IT security consultant for Ladbrokes two years ago. He said he had been passed the data by a 'relatively junior' employee, who was trying to sell it on. 'Daniel' claimed that his initial intention was to tip off Ladbrokes about the security breach, but he then decided it would be better to contact the media.
Last night, Ciaran O'Brien, head of PR at Ladbrokes, said: "We have been informed that a person connected to our organisation has offered certain details from a customer database to The Mail on Sunday. This is a criminal act and we are working with the police, the ICO and the newspaper to identify and apprehend the culprit. We are in the process of contacting customers to apologise for this breach in security and to reassure them that everything is being done to protect their personal information. Importantly, we do not believe that customer accounts or banking data can be accessed."
There can be no doubt that the list is genuine, as proof was offered in the shape of those ten thousand customer details that were handed over - details which included:
• home address
• gambling history
• account number
• date of birth
• phone number
• email address
...all of which is a pretty serious security breach for such a huge operator as Ladbrokes.
Regardless of what the ICO says about "taking breaches of individuals' privacy very seriously", there really isn't much you can do about this. Casino and bookmaker staff access customer information all the time, so getting hold of the complete database must be relatively simple. If you add to that the fact that the online gambling industry ranks among its members an awful lot of morally-challenged individuals out to make a quick buck as easily as possible, then you have a recipe for this kind of illegal data-trading that I suspect is very common - five years ago, in early 2005, the then owner of an influential affiliate site offered a player database for sale, containing one hundred thousand UK gamblers' details.
When you sign up to an online gambling operation, assume your data won't stay secure. You have no guarentees whatsoever that it will.
Related articles and discussions:
• The Racing Post: Ladbrokes reassure users over data protection
• Money Saving Expert: Ladbrokes data theft
• Casinomeister: Entire Ladbrokes customer database for sale
• GPWA: Ladbrokes Database offered for sale
0 Previous Comments
Ladbrokes: unfair settlement offered for voided accumulator bet
According to the Daily Echo's Ladbrokes refuse to honour Southampton man's �7.1m winning accumulators article, a punter's successful accumulator bet on snowfall on Christmas Day was voided by Ladbrokes on the basis that the bet was placed in error, the subject matter not being valid for that kind of bet:
Standing in a bookmaker's, Cliff Bryant thought that a heavy snowfall had changed his life forever. Told by the cashier that his two accumulator bets had come in, Cliff was set to scoop �7.1m.
But his hopes were dashed when officials at Ladbrokes's head office told him that he was owed just a measly �31.78 ? because according to the company rulebook this specific type of bet should never have been accepted. Now Cliff, from Shirley, Southampton, intends to seek legal advice.
It comes after he placed two �5 accumulative bets on postcodes where it would snow on Christmas Day. Although he says that he was advised to do so by the cashier, Ladbrokes argues that it was a mistake and that he should never have been allowed to place the bet as an accumulator.
A money-spinning accumulator bet is a series of wagers where the winnings from the first bet roll over to the next and can only be won when all separate bets named are successful. But Ladbrokes says that according to its rules the bets should only have been accepted as a single bet and therefore Cliff was entitled to just over �30 as winnings. The bookmaker does not dispute that Cliff was correct in each of his bets, and another bookmaker, Paddy Power, confirmed that he would have won �4,922,800.31 on the first bet and �2,233,492.73 on the other.
The graphic designer, 52, said: "Gutted is not the word. This is a genuine mistake and if I make a mistake in my work like that it costs me dearly and I think the offer should be a lot more generous than they have made. Millions of pounds will have been spent on this bet at Christmas. How many of those people will have been allowed to place accumulators? They are one of the leading bookmakers in the country and I think they ought to do their homework a bit better in future."
Cliff has now called on Ladbrokes to make its rules clearer as they were not made obvious to him either in the shop or online.
The Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS) is now investigating the bet.
Danny Cracknell, adjudication manager at IBAS, quoted a section from the Ladbrokes rulebook which said: "Single bets only are accepted, accumulative bets accepted in error will be settled as singles with the stake equally divided."
Ladbrokes spokesman David Williams said: "We have apologised to the customer for any confusion and for mistakenly accepting an accumulator bet when our own rules state that only single bets are available on a market of this nature. We are happy to void the bets and to pay the customer his winnings on the relevant singles."
Last night an independent solicitor said that Cliff 's chances of seeing his winnings were slim.
Rick Munro, commercial dispute resolution partner at Lamport Bassitt, said: "Generally speaking gaming bets are largely unenforceable. You rely on the goodwill of the people you are placing the bet with. There are some exceptions to this but the general rule is he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It's about one of the only contracts in public policy where the contracts are unenforceable.
But his hopes were dashed when officials at Ladbrokes's head office told him that he was owed just a measly �31.78 ? because according to the company rulebook this specific type of bet should never have been accepted. Now Cliff, from Shirley, Southampton, intends to seek legal advice.
It comes after he placed two �5 accumulative bets on postcodes where it would snow on Christmas Day. Although he says that he was advised to do so by the cashier, Ladbrokes argues that it was a mistake and that he should never have been allowed to place the bet as an accumulator.
A money-spinning accumulator bet is a series of wagers where the winnings from the first bet roll over to the next and can only be won when all separate bets named are successful. But Ladbrokes says that according to its rules the bets should only have been accepted as a single bet and therefore Cliff was entitled to just over �30 as winnings. The bookmaker does not dispute that Cliff was correct in each of his bets, and another bookmaker, Paddy Power, confirmed that he would have won �4,922,800.31 on the first bet and �2,233,492.73 on the other.
The graphic designer, 52, said: "Gutted is not the word. This is a genuine mistake and if I make a mistake in my work like that it costs me dearly and I think the offer should be a lot more generous than they have made. Millions of pounds will have been spent on this bet at Christmas. How many of those people will have been allowed to place accumulators? They are one of the leading bookmakers in the country and I think they ought to do their homework a bit better in future."
Cliff has now called on Ladbrokes to make its rules clearer as they were not made obvious to him either in the shop or online.
The Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS) is now investigating the bet.
Danny Cracknell, adjudication manager at IBAS, quoted a section from the Ladbrokes rulebook which said: "Single bets only are accepted, accumulative bets accepted in error will be settled as singles with the stake equally divided."
Ladbrokes spokesman David Williams said: "We have apologised to the customer for any confusion and for mistakenly accepting an accumulator bet when our own rules state that only single bets are available on a market of this nature. We are happy to void the bets and to pay the customer his winnings on the relevant singles."
Last night an independent solicitor said that Cliff 's chances of seeing his winnings were slim.
Rick Munro, commercial dispute resolution partner at Lamport Bassitt, said: "Generally speaking gaming bets are largely unenforceable. You rely on the goodwill of the people you are placing the bet with. There are some exceptions to this but the general rule is he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It's about one of the only contracts in public policy where the contracts are unenforceable.
Is Ladbrokes right here?
An accumulator bet is a multiple wager on independent events; the ultimate success of the bet depends on the success of each component part. If one part doesn't win, the bet is lost. If all parts win, the accumulator wins.
Examples of legitimate accumulators would be:
• Betting on the winner and the runner up in a horse race.
• Betting on all four winners over an evening of boxing matches.
• Betting on the top ten gold medalling countries in the Olympics.
These bets would be legitimate because each component part is independent, and as such the odds of no individual bet is affected by the outcome of any other.
To give an example: if Joe Glassjaw is 1:5 to win the first boxing match of the evening, his success or failure has no impact on the subsequent matches, and Jim Chinaskull's starting odds of 1:4 in the next contest will remain the same, all other things being equal.
An accumulator on these two fighters would have fair odds of the product of the two independent, individual bets: (1/6) X (1/5) = 1 in 30, or odds of 1:29.
Snow, however, is a different matter.
If it snows in Leeds, it'll very likely snow in Bradford, ten miles down the road.
Twenty five miles further out, in Barnsley, we're also looking at a touch of the white stuff.
As such, if the odds of snow in any of these given towns on any given day are one to five, the odds for snow in all three at the same time are moreorless the same. Not precisely the same, as there is the possibility that the snow is limited to a small area, but near enough. The odds are most definitely not the product of the odds of snow in each individual town, otherwise we'd be looking at odds of one in 216 for snow in three towns within a thirty mile radius!
To take an more extreme example: if the odds for snow are again 1:5, and you make an accumulator bet on snow falling on each of the twenty trees in your garden, you're looking at combined odds of one in 27,000,000,000,000,000 (27 quadrillion).
All of which should make the point that you cannot make accumulator bets on events whose probability is affected by the outcome of the other events in the bet without radically adjusting the odds.
However, Cliff Bryant was quite spectacularly successful, predicting snow in all twenty three towns covering a total distance of about 200 miles. Clearly, the odds for snow in all twenty three towns on the same day are not the same as the odds for snow in just one town - they are much less.
It's fair for Ladbrokes to not pay out the 7.1 million claim, the individual bets clealy being non-independent. However, they need to make a better offer than �30. If he had not achieved all 27 wins, he'd have lost the bet, Ladbrokes would have taken his fiver and the discussion would never have occured.
Ladbrokes needs to offer a settlement that is a fair reflection of the true odds of the bet.
This matter has received a lot of coverage; see also the Telegraph bookmaker refuses to give �7.1 million payout on 'banned' snow bet article, and Sandracer blog article The UK weather is not something I'd like to bet on, which arrives at a similar conclusion to mine via a different route; also, Its cold here, but not quite -10 from the BBC.
6 Previous Comments
Ladbrokes should be severely disciplined, and make a sensible offer to the individual who made the bet. As is said in this article, if he had lost half way through the accumulator, the question arises of whether they would have given him his money back.
The law is in Ladbroke's favour, but public opinion, the media, and gambling bodies should not be.
It seems quite likely that Ladbrokes may loose more money in lost trade than that which may have been paid to Mr Bryant.
However, I would not like to make a bet on it. Especially with Ladbrokes.
Hi everybody! I don't know where to start but hope this site will be useful for me.
In first steps it's really nice if somebody supports you, so hope to meet friendly and helpful people here. Let me know if I can help you.
Thanks in advance and good luck! :)
By 
, at
11:07 AM
Ladbrokes took the bet. They should pay out on it. End of discussion.
By , at
4:44 PM
Hi,
I am new here..First post to just say hi to all community.
Thanks
By , at
1:50 AM
hi
i am trying to insert a pol intro this forum and i can't add the code from the page to this forum.
Is there a tutorial so i can add a poll?
i wan't to make a financial poll to know which services are better to apply payday loans or bad credit loans
thanks
cherronry
By , at
2:13 PM
Hello,
I'm afraid it isn't relevant to the subject, which is bookmaker Ladbrokes, so I'd have to pass on authorising anything of that nature.
By 
100% Gambler, at
2:15 PM
The Palace group: vital bonus rules buried deep in the small print
The Palace Group is a long-standing group of Microgaming casinos, comprised of Spin Palace, Cabaret Club, Ruby Fortune, Mummy's Gold and Piggs Casino.
The Palace Group is among the burgeoning list of Casinomeister accredited casinos, a behemoth which includes, amongst others, the following operational standards:
• Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations.
• No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.
• No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.
Does the Palace group adhere to these laudable aims?
All casinos in the group offer a 100% sign up bonus. The terms for the Spin Palace offer are found on the terms & conditions 100% welcome bonus page, and include this little gem:
6. All withdrawals will be subject to audit by the Casino. The Casino reserves the right to reclaim the Welcome Bonus and any winnings and/or close an account in a situation of obvious abuse or fraud.
...which is basically casino-speak for "if you win with a bonus". Aside from that, these terms are fair enough, and don't present any particular problem for the player.
However, these are not the only terms applicable to the welcome bonus.
Go to the bottom of the page and click on the second link from the left, and you'll find the general terms page. It's very long, has some fairly dry titles such as "website terms of use agreement" and "Maltese Law", and doesn't seem to contain anything relevant to bonuses.
Now scroll all the way to the bottom, to the innocuously titles "other" section:
• Barred countries...
• Ineligibility of employees to gamble at the casino...
• List of casino's "reservation of rights"...
Still awake?
• Right to use winners' names for marketing...
• Declaration of limited liability...
A cup of coffee might help...
• Right of contact...
• Right to amend conditions...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
However, after fully seventy three clauses of tedious drivel (I counted them all) we arrive at a clause extremely relevant to the signup bonus, and entirely missing from the bonus terms page:
18.9
Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes.
Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met.
Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings.
Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes.
Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met.
Should the Casino deem that irregular game play has occurred, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or confiscate all winnings.
This is the "Fortune Lounge clause", so named (by me) as having originated at that particular group - see my Fortune Lounge warning.
In the first place, the casino reserves the right to consider any playing style as fair game for winnings' confiscation ("...including but not limited to...").
In the second place, neither this license to confiscate, nor, in particular, the limit to wagers no greater than 30% of the total balance, is included in the promotion terms and conditions.
As such, the player may abide by the full terms and conditions of the signup bonus, yet still find himself in violation of the rules. And since the minimum deposit that may receive the bonus is $20, then a bet of just $6 would constitute this license to confiscate winnings.
In fact, taking the maximum bonus, you may never bet more than $45 without violating the rules and losing any winnings.
Surely almost all players will, at some point in their play, violate this condition unless they're aware of it?
Yet this extraordinarily restrictive and essential to know rule is not mentioned on the bonus rules page, but buried deep in the small print of the general terms - a place where no player would think to look for bonus rules, there being a whole page dedicated to them elsewhere.
How odd.
Going back to the Casinomeister rules of casino engagement:
• Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as "irregular playing patterns" or "bonus abuse", without specific T&C violations.
• No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.
• No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play.
The Palace Group appears in violation of both these requirements.
It's always encouraging to see that where the player is held to the strictest letter of the law, the casino may get away with anything.
But then, they hold the money, and may do as they please.
If and when the US government decides to reconsider the illegalisation of online gambling in their country, I wonder where the Palace Group will be in the entry queue?
3 Previous Comments
The fact that any bonus by The Palace Group is subject to a 30x play through rule is also hidden in their t's and c's. You are also not allowed to withdraw any funds if you have had a bonus credited until such times as you have met this requirement.
Reality then - you deposit $100 and get a bonus of $100 you must play through that bonus 30 times (i.e. minimum of $3000 of bets dependent on game) before you can withdraw any funds including your original deposit !!
Quick math but based on an average payout of 96.4% (their quoted slots payout percentage)this means that by the time you have fulfilled the bonus requirement you will probably only have around $96 of your original $100 - great bonus eh ?
By , at
10:50 PM
The 30X playthrough is clearly listed near the top of the page I linked to above - I haven't checked all the others, but I assume they're the same.
Yes indeed, at 4% house edge the bonus is worthless, other than as an extention of play time for the recreational, as opposed to bonus-focussed, gambler.
By 100% Gambler, at
11:43 PM
Grand Prive investigated by eCOGRA: a whitewash to cover the truth?
As reported in my Grand Priv� affiliate problem article, in late 2008 Microgaming casino group Grand Priv� decided to close its affiliate programme and stop paying previously agreed lifetime commissions to its affiliate partners. In the intervening twelve months there has been much negative comment which will have had some degree of negative financial impact on the group.
Somewhat out the blue, a year after the histrionics kicked off, the Microgaming / Cassava initiative organisation eCOGRA announced involvement in the matter in a press release of 7th December 2009:
Grand Prive Affiliates Investigation
Following a number of internet-based allegations concerning payments following the closure of the Grand Priv� Affiliate Program on 1 December 2008, eCOGRA's professional services have been engaged by the management of the company.
Pursuant to an independent and fair resolution of the issues involved, eCOGRA has been tasked with:
• Independently investigating the manner in which the program was terminated and the reasons therefore; subsequently compiling a full and transparent report.
• Gathering and verifying claims by any affiliate that considers an amount still to be owing by the Program as a result of player wagering activity subsequent to 1 December 2008; and
• Carrying out a full and independent review by suitably qualified staff of the program software and data to confirm amounts owing to claimants at 21 December 2009.
eCOGRA is open to all submissions concerning the closure and payments owed, and urges affiliate watchdog organisations in receipt of this email to assist it in order to ensure that respective affiliate members are informed of this opportunity to submit legitimate claims.
Claims can be submitted prior to 21 December 2009 at http://www.ecogra.org/grandprive.aspx. Former Grand Priv� affiliates who believe they have a legitimate and verifiable claim will be asked to complete the Claim Submission Form that they will find on this link.
The following information will be required on the Claim Form, and will be treated in strict confidence:
• First name
• Last Name
• Banner tag
• email address
• Websites
• Physical address
• Telephone number
• Banking details
• Amount of last payment received from Grand Priv�
• Date of last payment received
Closing dates for submission of claims is 21 December 2009.
In the interests of transparency, eCOGRA's findings will be publicly released on conclusion of the investigation.
Following a number of internet-based allegations concerning payments following the closure of the Grand Priv� Affiliate Program on 1 December 2008, eCOGRA's professional services have been engaged by the management of the company.
Pursuant to an independent and fair resolution of the issues involved, eCOGRA has been tasked with:
• Independently investigating the manner in which the program was terminated and the reasons therefore; subsequently compiling a full and transparent report.
• Gathering and verifying claims by any affiliate that considers an amount still to be owing by the Program as a result of player wagering activity subsequent to 1 December 2008; and
• Carrying out a full and independent review by suitably qualified staff of the program software and data to confirm amounts owing to claimants at 21 December 2009.
eCOGRA is open to all submissions concerning the closure and payments owed, and urges affiliate watchdog organisations in receipt of this email to assist it in order to ensure that respective affiliate members are informed of this opportunity to submit legitimate claims.
Claims can be submitted prior to 21 December 2009 at http://www.ecogra.org/grandprive.aspx. Former Grand Priv� affiliates who believe they have a legitimate and verifiable claim will be asked to complete the Claim Submission Form that they will find on this link.
The following information will be required on the Claim Form, and will be treated in strict confidence:
• First name
• Last Name
• Banner tag
• email address
• Websites
• Physical address
• Telephone number
• Banking details
• Amount of last payment received from Grand Priv�
• Date of last payment received
Closing dates for submission of claims is 21 December 2009.
In the interests of transparency, eCOGRA's findings will be publicly released on conclusion of the investigation.
The reference to the dates 1st December 2008 and 7th December 2009 are a bit confusing when the issue at hand is the withholding of lifetime commissions, not commissions owed for just one year after the programme was closed.
On the same day, Grand Prive announced the investigation in an email circulated to affiliates that was posted on the forums:
Grand Priv� Group Launches Investigation
eCOGRA commissioned to investigate Affiliates Program closure
London, 7 December 2009 - The Grand Priv� group has been following the often inaccurate information exchanges on the internet regarding the closure of Grand Priv� Affiliates with interest, mindful of its reputation as a responsible and respectable business.
Management has reached the conclusion that there is a need to present its point of view, and more importantly to address any perceived shortcomings regarding payments to affiliates genuinely impacted by the Grand Priv� Affiliates closure. The company has therefore decided to make the following factual disclosures:
• For purely commercial reasons, in August 2008 a decision to close Grand Priv� effective 1 December 2008 was taken, and a communication exercise aimed at affiliates commenced.
• This was followed by payment to all affiliates of all amounts owed.
• The termination was, in Management's opinion, conducted according to the terms of Grand Priv�'s contract with affiliates, and in addition to these Grand Priv� also entered into mutually agreeable compensation settlements with all affiliates who at that time had players considered to be reasonably active.
• Following these initiatives, Management has not become aware of one single affiliate claim for compensation being submitted directly to Grand Priv�, despite a rising noise level on the Internet.
• Nevertheless, the company is prepared to concede that certain smaller and relatively inactive affiliate accounts may feel prejudiced by the closure, and acknowledges that this needs to be addressed with both an apology and a fair and reasonable financial settlement.
Moving forward from this factual base, Grand Priv� proposes to address both reputational and payment issues in a transparent and forthright manner as follows:
• By commissioning the independent, fully qualified and professional auditing services of eCOGRA to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Grand Priv� Affiliates closure both within and without the company and issue a public report;
• eCOGRA will additionally facilitate the submission of claims by any affiliate that considers an amount to be owing by the Grand Priv� Affiliate program as a result of player wagering activity subsequent to 1 December 2008; and
• Perform a full and professional review of the program software and data to confirm amounts owing to claimants at 21 December 2009.
Grand Priv� will cooperate whole-heartedly with this process, and has asked eCOGRA to involve all leading affiliate watchdog organisations in informing affiliates of their opportunity to submit legitimate claims.
We have agreed on eCOGRA's insistence that we will be bound by its findings and recommendations arising from the investigation, remaining at arm's length from the enquiry unless asked for pertinent information.
Grand Priv� wishes to emphasise that its primary concern is to address any genuine wrongs in a fair and forthright manner, and it will lend every effort in order to do this.
eCOGRA commissioned to investigate Affiliates Program closure
London, 7 December 2009 - The Grand Priv� group has been following the often inaccurate information exchanges on the internet regarding the closure of Grand Priv� Affiliates with interest, mindful of its reputation as a responsible and respectable business.
Management has reached the conclusion that there is a need to present its point of view, and more importantly to address any perceived shortcomings regarding payments to affiliates genuinely impacted by the Grand Priv� Affiliates closure. The company has therefore decided to make the following factual disclosures:
• For purely commercial reasons, in August 2008 a decision to close Grand Priv� effective 1 December 2008 was taken, and a communication exercise aimed at affiliates commenced.
• This was followed by payment to all affiliates of all amounts owed.
• The termination was, in Management's opinion, conducted according to the terms of Grand Priv�'s contract with affiliates, and in addition to these Grand Priv� also entered into mutually agreeable compensation settlements with all affiliates who at that time had players considered to be reasonably active.
• Following these initiatives, Management has not become aware of one single affiliate claim for compensation being submitted directly to Grand Priv�, despite a rising noise level on the Internet.
• Nevertheless, the company is prepared to concede that certain smaller and relatively inactive affiliate accounts may feel prejudiced by the closure, and acknowledges that this needs to be addressed with both an apology and a fair and reasonable financial settlement.
Moving forward from this factual base, Grand Priv� proposes to address both reputational and payment issues in a transparent and forthright manner as follows:
• By commissioning the independent, fully qualified and professional auditing services of eCOGRA to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Grand Priv� Affiliates closure both within and without the company and issue a public report;
• eCOGRA will additionally facilitate the submission of claims by any affiliate that considers an amount to be owing by the Grand Priv� Affiliate program as a result of player wagering activity subsequent to 1 December 2008; and
• Perform a full and professional review of the program software and data to confirm amounts owing to claimants at 21 December 2009.
Grand Priv� will cooperate whole-heartedly with this process, and has asked eCOGRA to involve all leading affiliate watchdog organisations in informing affiliates of their opportunity to submit legitimate claims.
We have agreed on eCOGRA's insistence that we will be bound by its findings and recommendations arising from the investigation, remaining at arm's length from the enquiry unless asked for pertinent information.
Grand Priv� wishes to emphasise that its primary concern is to address any genuine wrongs in a fair and forthright manner, and it will lend every effort in order to do this.
Why was eCOGRA engaged now?
The answer can be found in almost identical announcents made at two affiliate forums, five days after eCOGRA announced its involvement:
Grand Prive and eCogra - AGD Perspective
In recent weeks, AGD (in partnership with CAP-Warren) began looking into a completely independent audit of the Grand Prive system. AGD wanted to become involved to ensure that the audit would be truly 'independent' and without bias. Grand Prive was involved in the conversations with Warren and progress was being made.
The audit was to be done with an independent auditor (such as Price Waterhouse or similar) and would be overseen by AGD and with Warren's involvement. We had briefly discussed eCogra as the auditor and determined that their involvement would have put a cloud around the audit (unless AGD/CAP had complete raw data access for the purposes of verification of eCogra findings). The auditor of choice was being looked into until last week when eCogra sidestepped AGD/CAP with their announcement.
We had already discussed a proper investigative method and audit procedure prior to this announcement. Our plan would have included contacting all Grand Prive affiliates (not just those who submitted a claimant form) in the same manner that a class action lawsuit informs all affected persons. The initial investigation would have been an affiliate audit to determine which persons to contact.
Subsequent to the affiliate audit would have been a detailed player audit with affiliate-tag verification and match-up. Upon completion, a compensation/commission audit could be performed. This portion of the audit was to be a 2-part audit: Historic Commissions Audit and Cross-Promotional Audit of tagged players. (This is a rough outline of our plans. Feel free, eCogra, to use this methodology or contact us for a more detailed plan.)
This is the plan we had worked on while waiting for the go ahead from GP.
With all that said, we applaud eCogra's efforts in taking on such a monumental task. We certainly hope their plans are as detailed as our own and that their success benefits the affiliates that should have been compensated. This should extend to all Grand Prive affiliates, not just those who happen upon the 'Claim Form' and (contrary to the claim form) affiliates should not be responsible for determining the legitimacy of their request. The Grand Prive backend has been down for quite some time and verification is just not possible.
In recent weeks, AGD (in partnership with CAP-Warren) began looking into a completely independent audit of the Grand Prive system. AGD wanted to become involved to ensure that the audit would be truly 'independent' and without bias. Grand Prive was involved in the conversations with Warren and progress was being made.
The audit was to be done with an independent auditor (such as Price Waterhouse or similar) and would be overseen by AGD and with Warren's involvement. We had briefly discussed eCogra as the auditor and determined that their involvement would have put a cloud around the audit (unless AGD/CAP had complete raw data access for the purposes of verification of eCogra findings). The auditor of choice was being looked into until last week when eCogra sidestepped AGD/CAP with their announcement.
We had already discussed a proper investigative method and audit procedure prior to this announcement. Our plan would have included contacting all Grand Prive affiliates (not just those who submitted a claimant form) in the same manner that a class action lawsuit informs all affected persons. The initial investigation would have been an affiliate audit to determine which persons to contact.
Subsequent to the affiliate audit would have been a detailed player audit with affiliate-tag verification and match-up. Upon completion, a compensation/commission audit could be performed. This portion of the audit was to be a 2-part audit: Historic Commissions Audit and Cross-Promotional Audit of tagged players. (This is a rough outline of our plans. Feel free, eCogra, to use this methodology or contact us for a more detailed plan.)
This is the plan we had worked on while waiting for the go ahead from GP.
With all that said, we applaud eCogra's efforts in taking on such a monumental task. We certainly hope their plans are as detailed as our own and that their success benefits the affiliates that should have been compensated. This should extend to all Grand Prive affiliates, not just those who happen upon the 'Claim Form' and (contrary to the claim form) affiliates should not be responsible for determining the legitimacy of their request. The Grand Prive backend has been down for quite some time and verification is just not possible.
See also the Casino Affiliate Programs announcement.
In summary: these two organisations, AGD and CAP, had been pushing the matter over the preceeding weeks, engaging directly with Grand Prive and mooting an independent audit to determine the exact amount of affiliate debt - and also, presumably, Grand Prive's financial standing.
eCOGRA were themselves rejected as an appropriate candidate, as AGD and CAP did not consider them sufficiently independent.
At this point, Grand Priv� ended discussions with AGD / CAP and engaged eCOGRA directly, putting an end to any of the kind of affiliate involvement that would have insured a balanced and open examination.
Grand Prive - and presumably Microgaming - appear to have been keen to allow no third-party examination of their databases.
The original format as proposed in the above eCOGRA press release was impossibly restrictive, requiring that affiliates file applications themselves over a period of just two weeks and including such extraordinarily irrelevant and personal matters as "bank details".
This was, however, extended somewhat in the 17th December progress report, where it was proposed...
1) That the communications exercise be expanded by emailing all affiliates who had active players on the Program's records during the 3 months prior to 1 December 2008 when the Program closed.
2) That the deadline for submission of claims be extended to 31st December 2009.
2) That the deadline for submission of claims be extended to 31st December 2009.
As such, it looked like all affiliates were due to be contacted. But who would independently determine that this was the case, with no third party involvement?
eCOGRA's 4th Januray 2010 progress report did nothing to clarify this. Rather, it confused things - here are the highlights:
eCOGRA had received a total of 58 claims by the cut-off date, and I would like to assure you that these will all receive the personal attention of (etc)...
Our mandate covers:
• Carrying out a full and independent review of the program software and data to confirm amounts owed to claimants.
• Determining a fair settlement for claimants taking into consideration the potential lifetime earnings of each affiliate's respective players...
Our mandate covers:
• Carrying out a full and independent review of the program software and data to confirm amounts owed to claimants.
• Determining a fair settlement for claimants taking into consideration the potential lifetime earnings of each affiliate's respective players...
If eCOGRA were planning on contacting all affiliates as per the Grand Prive database, why the talk of "clamants"? Why is claiming anything necessary at this point?
In addition to which, that only 58 people had filed claims demonstrates the utter ineffectiveness of the initial announcement; Grand Prive would have had many thousands of affiliates. Only 58 of them knew of this investigation?
Many questions / issues were raised and re-raised in the forum discussions, including New hope for Grand Prive affiliates at Casinomeister and Progress update from Ecogra / GP at GPWA. Here are some:
• Since Grand Prive immediately locked all partners out of the programme, matters such as last payment received and its date could not be determined. Nor could the exact amount owed up to that point be determined.
• Does the database still exist, or has Grand Prive destroyed it?
• If it doesn't exist, how will all affiliates be contacted?
• Why is there no third party affiliate representative involved to ensure transparency?
I summarise my take on all this as follows:
• Noone should have been promoting Grand Prive in the first place. They stole $20,000 from a player on the basis of the player being "underage"; funnily enough, she was only "underage" when she won. While she was losing, she was a welcome customer.
• Putting that aside, affiliates were promised lifetimes commissions, which Grand Priv� reneged on by implementing the "we reserve the right to cancel the contract at any time" clause. Unfair treatment is unacceptable.
• Grand Prive, facing what looked like an almost inevitable audit, appear to have engaged eCOGRA as an excercise in damage-limitation and cover up. They could have accepted the involvement of a reputable third-party affiliate representative, yet they specifically refused it. Why? One can only surmise that Microgaming, Grand Prive and eCOGRA did not want anyone outside the Microgaming family getting access to the data involved. Again, why? To enable the conclusions to be based on false data? To downplay the extent of the debt? If not, why not give people the kind of representation they want, and engage their full trust?
This makes no sense whatsoever.
I suspect this will turn out to be another eCOGRA whitewash, much like the Jackpot Factory whitewash, with a handful of the most problematically noisy affiliates offered gestural commission payments with the proviso that all negative press cease from that point on.
I'll be happy to be proven wrong. I suspect I won't be.
3 Previous Comments
Great article my friend! I think you summarized it really well...can't wait to see how this fiasco turns out.
Guru
By The Gambling Guru, at
10:30 PM
Nice dispatch and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you seeking your information.
By , at
1:08 PM
May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 |
