Jag har r?dfr?gat mitt team och vi har kommit fram till att kasinots inst?llning till situationen ?r or?ttvis.
F?r det f?rsta ?r den vanliga mekanismen f?r spel med riktiga pengar och bonuspengar f?ljande: riktiga pengar satsas f?rst, sedan f?rloras, och sedan b?rjar oms?ttningen av bonuspengar. Att st?lla in det som att "bonuspengar m?ste satsas f?rst" kan vara ett alternativ, men det g?r egentligen ingen skillnad f?r spelaren, och ingen av dem ger en or?ttvis f?rdel, eftersom WR fortfarande ?r densamma f?r alla saldon.
F?r det andra f?rst?r jag regeln som till?mpades mot spelaren. Den ?r riktad mot anv?ndare som f?rs?ker "d?lja" sitt riktiga saldo i sport- eller bordsspel f?r att inte riskera det medan de f?r bonuspengar eftersom deras riktiga pengar redan ?r "f?rlorade" (medan de i verkligheten inte ?r det). Den nuvarande spelarens fall ?r dock inte detta, och jag kan inte f?rst? varf?r denna regel till?mpades i detta fall.
F?r det tredje, l?t oss acceptera hur casinot vill att spelare ska aktivera och spela med sina pengar. Problemet ?r att bonusen kan l?mnas inaktiverad efter att spelaren redan har valt den vid ins?ttning. V?r allm?nna st?ndpunkt g?llande alla bonusrestriktioner (maxinsats, exkluderade spel, maxvinst) ?r att de m?ste uppr?tth?llas av programvaran. H?r var spelaren fri att aktivera bonusen senare, vilket ?r casinots ansvar att f?rhindra.
Slutligen har casinot slutat svara oss. Vanligtvis avslutar vi s?dana ?renden som ol?sta med anledningen att otillr?ckliga bevis l?mnats, men i det h?r fallet har vi tillr?ckligt med information f?r att fastst?lla att casinots agerande var or?ttvist. D?rf?r kommer motsvarande klassificering att tilldelas.
Ragmn82, jag beklagar att jag inte kunde hj?lpa dig mer. Minskningen av s?kerhetsindexet kan f? casinot att ompr?va sin st?ndpunkt, och jag hoppas att det blir s?.
Med v?nliga h?lsningar,
Pavel K
Casino Guru-teamet
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
Automatiskt ?versatt:
