Forum

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

You say you’re not blaming the customer support agent, but there’s very little if any practical difference between doing that and demanding answers from them you know they can’t give. Moreso, the subject matter you ask about is clearly intended to try to make them feel uncomfortable. It borders on a form of bullying or abuse.

And the truth is for all the support structures and funding in the world for problem gamblers, you cannot help people who willfully refuse to help themselves. Casinos don’t like regulation, nor does any other industry subject to it, but they do comply – and get no end of shit for it from people including you, when they ask for verification of your income, or lock an account displaying behavioural evidence of a problem or erraticism. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

Services such as GamStop, Gamcare, Gamblers Anonymous, The Samaritans not to mention the NHS are readily available and free, but you can’t force someone to use them.

I honestly don’t think gambling, thinking about gambling and being part of a gambling community is doing your well-being and mental health any favours – and that’s not an insult, it’s an observation that I sincerely mean in the kindest way. The whole industry and activity of gambling seems like it just upsets you.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

I am speculating, but there’s a good chance Bonanza simply gets random reel positions on which to stop, which will subsequently determine the cascade you get. I know from examining the DHV frontend code that what it gets back from the server are reel positions and I expect Bonanza is the same, simply because this is a very common way of designing a game to have a particular theoretical RTP. The reel design however will also impose a theoretical limit on how many cascades can happen in one spin. I don’t think I’ve ever seen more than about 7 drops and I actually have had that happen in a bonus, where the first spin got to x8. It was a shit bonus, if you’re wondering; it burned about 8 of the 11 remaining spins with no win and paid a total of about 40x

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Nope, not chomping on the bait this time. I’ll answer sincere questions and I’ll always be happy to put in a quick word that I’ve explained the mechanics of this in a dozen other threads but I’m not repeating myself any more. I only respond at all because I think it’s really important people who don’t know how slots work aren’t misled and subsequently end up thinking stuff like “oh it hasn’t payed out in ages, I’ll keep spinning because a bonus must be due and the game will eventually force one in to meet its RTP”…

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Mr B wrote:

argyl53 wrote:

The only thing absolutely required is that in one form or another, the outcome of your bet was random.

I’m so tempted but instead I’ll just pucker up and whistle like it wasn’t said. You know, like I could write my thought ‘oh fuck it’ and tear this statement apart with one word ‘profit’ or go deeper but right now I just can’t be arsed to do anything more than say I am so tempted.

It’s such a nice day. Why ruin it.

Then why post this other than bait? If anyone else wants to understand how independent random outcomes and RTP work together I have posted numerous threads on the subject you can find from my post history.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Never heard of them but if they’re UK licensed they are partnered with a mediation service such as IBAS. The information as to who they use must be published on their site (probably in the footer somewhere). If it’s taken a week and your withdrawal is still pending, I would be sending an email at this point saying you intend to raise a case via the adjudicator. It does not take a week to do the real, legitimate checks and verification they are required to do and no reputable casino would take that long.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

In the case of Bonanza, Chilli and other BTG titles where each spin in the bonus is random, I’d guess they just run your spins on the server in the event of a disconnect to close the round. So it wouldn’t strictly be “what your bonus would have paid”, rather they have just finished the bonus for you on their side. Alternatively it may be each spin is independently random, but they’re all generated at the same time and stored at the point of initiation, in which case they can know what the round would have paid. The latter would be unusual from an architecture point of view but is certainly possible.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

I don’t doubt Nick when he says he streams only with real money, I just can’t stand his personality or style. Stakes £10, wins a grand…”Nooooooo! You’re jooooooooking, you’re jooooooooking….what the fook guys?” – yeah mate it’s 100 times your stake, it’s pretty much an average bonus not a record breaker.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

There is no single answer to your question, as provided the overarching outcome is random, there is no prescriptive requirement that the bonus itself has to be random or pre determined.

1. You buy a bonus, at which point the result is randomly determined that regardless of what you do, you will win e.g. 50x.

2. You buy a bonus, each spin in the bonus is random but it was pre determined (by random choice) that your maximum gamble before losing would be 15 spins and 7x multiplier.

3. You buy a bonus and every gamble is random, every spin is random.

These are all legitimate ways a slot is allowed to work in accordance with the legal rules. So the answer is only the provider can tell you for sure how a particular game works and they probably won’t. The only thing absolutely required is that in one form or another, the outcome of your bet was random.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

I’ve had my share of zero win features on games where that’s possible, but I’d actually my worst feature was when I had a bonus on Captain Venture no less, which gave me 10 spins and paid absolutely nothing except for the 2x you get for the initial scatter trigger. So I’ve had bonuses that have paid less than 2x, but you just don’t expect that from the Captain of all games, I didn’t even realise it could do that until it happened. Worst feature by far because the difference between expectation and reality there is greater than it would be on say a zero pay Pink Elephant or Bonanza bonus – at least you go in to those knowing they can be super shit on occasion.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Protests like the one in London today will keep happening. The politicians will feel the pressure from the protests, and they’ll undo the last vote to open up for a new one. The democracy is failing

Politicians being forced to listen to all the different voices in society around a very complex situation and therefore offer them the final say on how it turns out sounds to me a lot more like democracy working the way it should.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

disproportionate spenders – casino operators should obtain information about customers’ financial resources so that they can determine whether customers’ spending is proportionate to their income or wealth

regular customers with changing or unusual spending patterns

proceeds of crime – there is a risk that the money used by a customer has been gained through criminal activity, so greater monitoring of high spenders will help to mitigate the risk

multiple gambling accounts or wallets – customers may open multiple accounts or wallets with an operator in order to obscure their spending levels or to avoid CDD threshold checks

changes to bank accounts – customers may hold a number of bank accounts and change the bank account they use for the remote
casino operator

identity fraud – details of bank accounts may be stolen and used on remote gambling websites, or stolen identities may be used to open bank accounts or remote gambling accounts

pre-paid cards – these cards pose the same risks as cash, as remote casino operators normally cannot perform the same level of checks on the cards as they can on bank accounts

e-wallets – some e-wallets accept cash on deposit or cryptocurrencies, which pose a higher risk, and some customers may use e-wallets to disguise their gambling

Where a customer is assessed as presenting higher risk, additional information in respect of that customer should be collected. This will help the casino operator judge whether the higher risk that the customer is perceived to present is likely to materialise, and provide
grounds for proportionate and recorded decisions. Such additional information should include an understanding of where the customer’s funds and wealth have come from.

Higher risk customers should be subjected to a frequency and depth of scrutiny greater than may be appropriate for lower risk customers.

Regardless of whether they have established a business relationship with the customer, suspect money laundering or terrorist financing, or doubt the veracity or adequacy of documents or information previously obtained for the purposes of identification or verification, casino operators must also apply CDD measures in relation to any transaction that amounts to €2,000 or more, whether the transaction is executed in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked.

For the purposes of CDD, ‘verify’ means verifying on the basis of documents or information which, in either case, have been obtained from a reliable source which is independent of the person whose identity is being verified.

This is just a fraction of the applicable regulation we’re talking about.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

[removed, double post]

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Sorry Argyl I both agree and disagree with some of what you have said but this comment is being slightly obtuse to my mind.

You can’t try to lessen the amount of money the casinos are gaining by quoting figures of 35p a day and 2.5p over 3 days, while ignoring the aggregation principle.

Case in point, if you were to withhold £10,000.000 of withdrawals every day for a year the figure would be more substantial

Now I’m not saying those figures are accurate in anyway, just trying to add some balance to your 3.5p interest comment.

Im pretty sure the casino follow the supermarket principle that every penny counts

And as everyone says, the longer in your online account the more chance you have to lose it.   Perhaps an automatic non reversible lockdown by the casinos on all funds as soon as the withdrawal request was made would remove the players view, which is probably correct, that’s it’s just a scummy casino method to try and get there money back.

They would probably get it back anyway eventually, why not show a bit of good faith

Even on that wild figure though, the interest at a rate of 0.1% would amount to £10k in a year. That’s not a figure any business is going to strategically plan around.

This is all speculation anyway – I don’t know if they are making interest on customer deposits or what even a big name online casino’s typical assets under management figure looks like.

I do think all casinos should have to give you the option to lock withdrawals, either on an individual level or as a setting in your account but it should be an option – you have to remember some people actually want to be able to change their mind and reverse a withdrawal, the fact that many casinos will allow you to reverse is not indicative that they are sitting on your withdrawal requests, hoping you’ll reverse and lose. Casumo for example would regularly take anything from 12-24 hours to process even small withdrawals in my case, even if I’d locked them, whereas other casinos would approve my withdrawals within 5 minutes when I hadn’t locked them and was still actively playing on the site.

A lot of the rules this industry is subject to in respect of carrying out checks on people also apply to the financial industry I work in, so I know what sort of patterns of behaviour with deposits and withdrawals can trigger these delays. I know they seem unfair and annoying to genuine customers but the rules are imposed on us, we are scrupulously audited to ensure we’ve complied with them and the penalties for not being able to show the right paper trail can be punitively immense. So I’m more inclined to believe that’s the reason when someone gets hit by a casino for extra documentation and proof of whatever than that a UK licensed casino deliberately tries to withhold paying a legitimate withdrawal. It’s definitely not something I ever experienced as a player, but you do have to accept if you can afford to deposit £20k in the space of a few hours, you’re going to be asked where that money comes from.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Struggling to make sense of any of your last five or six posts mate, but so there’s no confusion I’m only talking about online casinos, not high street bookies shops. No idea what rules the latter are subject to in respect of cash withdrawals, but I do know years ago when I was playing FOBTs every shop I played in would give me cash if I deposited cash and pay out to my card if I deposited with a card. But I don’t know what’s an obligation versus company policy on the high street.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Mr B wrote:

Typically 0.1% interest. So at that rate your funds are earning them all of about 35p per day. There used to be a rule that you didn’t have to pass on interest to clients until it was over about £20 which in your case would take about 8 weeks.12 Apr 2017 solicitors holding money for interest? – MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5632904

Assuming it’s the same for any company holding funds, obviously, the more they delay, the better. Sure, silly things to talk about when John want’s to withdraw £24 that he won from a email giving 10 free spins on Starburst.

But what about when millions of people are withdrawing hundreds and thousands….

Seems legit to me.

I have no idea whether casinos are making interest on the money they hold in the client funds account, but if they are it means a £3k withdrawal pending for 3 days (which is way, way longer than average for a withdrawal of that size to be approved) would net the casino a whopping 2.5 pence in interest.

[Author]

Posts