Android Phone

iPad

iPhone

Android Tablet

Windows

US Dollar

Euro

British Pound Sterling

Swiss Franc

Australian Dollar

Israeli New Sheqel

Russian Ruble

Bulgarian Lev

Czech Republic Koruna

Danish Krone

Estonian Kroon

Hungarian Forint

Latvian Lats

Norwegian Krone

Polish Zloty

South African Rand

Swedish Krona

Japanese Yen

Singapore Dollar

Hong Kong Dollar

Malaysian Ringgit

New Zealand Dollar

Romanian Leu

Iraqi Dinar

Nigerian Naira

Mexican Peso

Uruguayan Peso

Peruvian Nuevo Sol

Brazilian Real

Georgian Lari

Colombian Peso

Argentine Peso

Turkish Lira

Ukrainian Hryvnia

Thai Baht

Indian Rupee

1x2 Gaming

2by2 Gaming

4ThePlayer

Bally

Barcrest

Big Time Gaming

Blueprint Gaming

Booming Games

Cayetano Gaming

Elk Studios

Foxium

Gamatron

Gameburger Studios

Golden Hero

Green Jade Games

High 5 Games

Iron Dog Studio

iSoftBet

Just for the Win

Kalamba Games

Lightning Box Games

Merkur

Microgaming

NetEnt

Northern Lights Gaming

Oryx Gaming

Peter and Sons

Play'n Go

Pragmatic Play

QuickSpin

Realistic Games

Red Tiger Gaming

Reel Time Gaming

StakeLogic

Thunderkick

Wazdan

Yggdrasil Gaming

Spillemyndigheden (Danish Gambling Authority)

UKGC

Swedish Gaming Authority

Queen Vegas Casino

Neteller

Much Better

Paypal

Skrill

Trustly

Paysafecard

Master Card

VISA

Chat

Email

Phone

Hi McMaNGOS - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

Unfortunately it sounds like it's unlikely we'd be able to do anything to help you in this instance.

Where you accept a bonus you are responsible for ensuring you've read and understood the terms and conditions associated with the bonus. If you've not done that and later violate a rule there's very little argument to make in your favour.

You are correct that maximum bet rules are put in place to prevent big bet, and while the most detrimental way in which a player can engage this pattern is to bet big at the very start, doing so further through the wagering requirement is still a viable method of gaining an edge.

The only possible argument we could make in this case is if all bets over the limit resulted in no return. At which point we could argue that the violating bets were no only detrimental but did not result in any funds being returned to contaminate the rest of the balance as you completed the rest of the wagering requirement. Is that the case?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi, thanks for the response!

I didn't make it very clear in my initial text, but yes, what you stated at the end of your reply is actually the case here.

On the game in question, I wagered a total of 7800 SEK, and won 7475 SEK, meaning I had a net loss of 325 SEK on this slot. In other words, these bets had a negative impact on the overall outcome of my session. If the bets would've had a positive impact, I would've been much more understanding of the decision they've made.

Let me know if there's anything else I need to clarify.

Best regards,
[EDIT]

I forgot to add, but Vampires also happens to be a very high-variance slot, so I don't think the "high stakes to beat the wagering requirements" argument is valid in this case. 

Had it been on a low-variance slot, then that argument could definitely be made.

Best regards,
[EDIT]

Hi McMaNGOS,

Firstly high variance is exactly what is intended to be avoided with these terms - high variance means increased likelihood of either winning big or busting out quickly. Busting out quickly means less bets placed. Less bets placed means less exposure to the house edge. The whole purpose of high bet strategies is to create high variance so if you've played a high variance game this is all the more problematic.

And again, you say that your 'net' return was negative. I'm not talking about your net return. I mean that you would have to have absolutely no return on any violating spin. If you've had any return, because your bet was higher than was allowed your return was higher than it should have been, which contaminates the balance with funds you shouldn't have. This is then compounded with each spin. 

Regardless, you have violated terms. Where we can argue that there was no return - for instance where there was a single mis-click and it lost or a small series of wagers that all lost - we can try to convince the operator to ignore the violation as a good will gesture (they're still within their rights not to pay), but 
if there has been sustained play above the limit that has resulted in more than zero return transactions I'm sorry to say there's no case for us to argue.

ThePOGG

Hi,

Thanks for elaborating, I do see your point. 

I don't really agree in this case since the max bet limit here was so low (20 SEK), and the violating bet was also relatively low (25 SEK), but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The wording in their terms specifically say that if this term is broken, they can enforce the rule at their own discretion, meaning that they can make judgments about situations like this on a case-by-case basis. Which is kind of why I sought out an ADR to begin with. But when contacting them, they insisted that this rule is always enforced, regardless of the context and how minor the violation is, which I don't think is fair. They're within their rights to do this, but it's not very player-friendly.

It's also worth noting that the slot I played the big bets on only contributes 50% to the WR. All the games I played during this session contribute 50% to the WR, meaning my WR for the session was effectively 60xB rather than the usual 30xB. So for each 25 SEK bet, only 12.5 SEK counted towards the wagering requirements. 12.5 SEK being well within the max bet limit, which I think is worth considering. Had I played the violating bets on GVG slots, the only slots that contribute 100% to WR, then one could argue that that would be an abusive betting style.

Either way, I don't think confiscating 9,000 SEK over spins that were a mere 5 SEK above the already-low max bet limit is fair. But if I can't get the money I've won, I'd at the very least like to hear an explanation from the casino other than "sorry, that's just our rule".

Best regards,
[EDIT]

Hi McMaNGOS,

Unfortunately it doesn't really matter whether you consider the maximum allowed bet low or not. You agreed to it when you accepted this bonus. Personally I agree that that is very low, but if you accept a bonus you accept the rules associated with it. 

Any term can be enforced discretionally. The operator always has the right to ignore an otherwise player detrimental term if they feel the player is valuable to them. But there's no grounds to force an operator to do anything where a term has been violated.

There's nothing in the terms and conditions that would suggest that the weight that a bet has in relation to contribution to the wagering requirement has any influence of how the size of a bet is considered with regard to the maximum bet term. No operator functions like that. In fact, the games with lower weightings are given those lower weightings specifically because they are MORE susceptible to players taking advantage of them via bonuses.  

I appreciate your frustration but you don't have a case here.

ThePOGG

This player openly acknowledges that they breached the maximum allowed bet term for the bonus they accepted.

In short, the issue is that some of my bets exceeded the max bet rule specified in the terms and conditions. While that sounds straightforward, I believe the term was enforced unfairly in my case. Here's the full story:
 
 On the 28th of October, I deposited 200 SEK on QueenVegas with a 100% bonus. I started off with lower bets around 4-10 SEK per spin, and got quite lucky, quickly building up a sizable balance. When my balance was well over 10,000 SEK, I played some 25 SEK spins on the slot Vampires. I didn't win anything significant on these bets. I finished up the wagering requirements, then made a withdrawal request for 10,000 SEK.
 
 Few days later, I get two emails in rapid succession from QueenVegas, one saying that my withdrawal was denied, and one saying that my withdrawal was processed. Thought it was just a technical hiccup, until I looked at my bank account a few days later, where I saw that I had only received 1000 SEK instead of 9000 SEK. There was no notification of this at all, so I reached out to their support team.
 
 Here, it was explained to me that some of my bets violated their max bet rule. The clause in their bonus terms state that the max bet is either 50 SEK or 10% of the received bonus, whichever is lower. Since I had taken a 200 SEK bonus, this means that my max bet for the session was a meager 20 SEK (€2). Which I of course would never assume, since I don't think I've ever played at a casino with such a low max bet limit. It's also worth noting that this casino, along with other SkillOnNet casinos, rarely ever offer bonuses worth over €20, meaning that the max bet will in most cases be just €2.
 
 The enforcement of the term in my case also goes against the whole point of the max bet rule. This rule exists solely to prevent players from making massive bets with their bonus balance early on, hoping for a big hit, to then finish the WR with smaller bets. My betting pattern grew alongside my balance - it wasn't until my balance was well over 10,000 SEK that I made the bets which violated this rule (bets which resulted in a net loss, I might add), so to imply that my playing style during this session was abusive is far from fair.
 
 I've tried my best to get some answers from QueenVegas' support team regarding this matter, but they seem incredibly reluctant to discuss the purpose of the term and why they chose to enforce it in my case. I believe that if they explain—in clear writing—the purpose of the rule, then compare it to what's happened here in my case, it'll quickly become apparent that the ruling is unfair.
 
 Best regards,
 [EDIT]

Queen Vegas - Funds confiscated due to max bet rule

To submit an online gambling complaint, register a new account or log in.

Create account

Log in

Got a complaint about a gambling site?

Casino Review Site Logo

Log out

Account

Title

Complaint Details

Posted By

Disputed amount

Date raised

Date closed

Player’s Complaint

To protect the privacy of our users, all personally identifiable information has been redacted. If you see anything we've missed contact us at complaints@casinoreviews.com.

Player's Complaint

Player Complaint Responses

Complaint Title

This complaint may have been archived. If you are looking for information about your complaint, please contact us at complaints@casinoreviews.com