Yes the player only played to profit from the bonus,obviously.
Gambling to me is about profit.Players,Affiliates,Forum owners,Casino and Software supplier do not engage in the spiritual ambience i read about.Who works for free in the gambling world?Is not charity.See Adkins for further details.He's in Sing Sing or somwhere similar
It's not about love,it's about profit.
I don't recall Unified being proven by a third party as offering a rigged game.I could well be mistaken.
This dispute has gone across the boards in a hot minute.Attention has been drawn.
The casino have made their point and judging by this thread alone they have lost atleast $200 in deposits.
If i ran this firm i'd pay the $200 extra to the punter and rewrite the rules to unequivocably set the standard.
Any more tosh from apparent boni hunters after would just get a link to this and other threads with a middle finger coated in honey.Suck it or use it as a lubricant.
Gambling to me is about profit.Players,Affiliates,Forum owners,Casino and Software supplier do not engage in the spiritual ambience i read about.Who works for free in the gambling world?Is not charity.See Adkins for further details.He's in Sing Sing or somwhere similar
It's not about love,it's about profit.
I don't recall Unified being proven by a third party as offering a rigged game.I could well be mistaken.
This dispute has gone across the boards in a hot minute.Attention has been drawn.
The casino have made their point and judging by this thread alone they have lost atleast $200 in deposits.
If i ran this firm i'd pay the $200 extra to the punter and rewrite the rules to unequivocably set the standard.
Any more tosh from apparent boni hunters after would just get a link to this and other threads with a middle finger coated in honey.Suck it or use it as a lubricant.
I usually do not reply to threads other than in a sporadic manner, but have to on this topic. Let me begin by saying that I do not care about bonuses. I play where I play for different reasons (better lines, etc.). I have played at 5 dimes and they are OK with me. Somebody may have already said this, but I have to say it now. Everybody calls him a "bonus whore." I don't understand what the big deal is in this case. The main clause that means anything in this scenario is the rollover requirement. What difference does it make if you meet it in an hour or a month. I understand 5dimes has a 30 day requirement. Having gambled there, I know that in the sportsbook you can place very miniscule wagers per their limits. So you could, in theory, meet the rollover requirements, then wager the minimum wager every day for 30 days and no problem. I almost always side with the books, but not in this case, not even close. They (the sportsbooks)advertise bonuses to lure people (not me) to their books and then try to find any way they can to get out of honoring the bonus. I guess that is what it boils down to me, honor. If the guy thought enough of 5dimes to give them a deposit and do the rollover requirement, what difference does it make how long it took? Wait the required time and withdraw. That should be it since, in theory, he could have met it any other way. These so called bonus whores that are so bad to the industry are a creation of the books. Make no mistake about it, the bonus is for the benefit of the books to lure customers into their book, not for the player. If you advertise a bonus, honor it. I really like 5dimes and this will not reflect on me playing there, but it seems clear to me that the player is correct in this situation.
"I understand 5dimes has a 30 day requirement. Having gambled there, I know that in the sportsbook you can place very miniscule wagers per their limits. So you could, in theory, meet the rollover requirements, then wager the minimum wager every day for 30 days and no problem."
----------------------
ramdaddy:
Exactly - this guy did not even make a token effort to, at least for appearances sake, maintain an active account for the 30 day period, so he is not entitled to the bonus.
You make the argument, as do many others, that it should not matter if he gives 5Dimes the required amount of action in 6 hours, 6 weeks, or 6 months, as long as he gives them the required rollover. Obviously, I see the rationale behind this.
Unfortunately for the player, 5Dimes decided to add the additional clause about the "Active Account for 30 days". This rule may suck, but 5Dimes wanted this rule, they posted it on the website, so I don't understand how you can say that 5Dimes is in the wrong. My dog could look at the situation and determine that the account was not kept active for 30 days.
It's easy to argue that the rule is not a "good" rule, but the bottom line is that IT IS ONE OF THEIR RULES, and the player did not abide by it.
----------------------
ramdaddy:
Exactly - this guy did not even make a token effort to, at least for appearances sake, maintain an active account for the 30 day period, so he is not entitled to the bonus.
You make the argument, as do many others, that it should not matter if he gives 5Dimes the required amount of action in 6 hours, 6 weeks, or 6 months, as long as he gives them the required rollover. Obviously, I see the rationale behind this.
Unfortunately for the player, 5Dimes decided to add the additional clause about the "Active Account for 30 days". This rule may suck, but 5Dimes wanted this rule, they posted it on the website, so I don't understand how you can say that 5Dimes is in the wrong. My dog could look at the situation and determine that the account was not kept active for 30 days.
It's easy to argue that the rule is not a "good" rule, but the bottom line is that IT IS ONE OF THEIR RULES, and the player did not abide by it.
Halifax:
I understand your rationale, in theory, but I look at it a different way. They lure you in with the bonus. They say "active" account. Now I am no professional gambler so I will not presume to know conclusively what "active" means. Being a lawyer, I view it analytically and see that 5 dimes should define "active account." I understand there is a separate thread on this issue to so I will not go into explicit detail, but I have probably 100 "active" accounts or so I thought. I will not use some of them for 5 months, but I still thought they were "active." I believed the main clause was the rollover clause b/c that forces them to meet a certain level of action. I understand your point, but nowhere did I see active defined on 5dimes website. I care not either way for or against so called "bonus whores," but to me what is right is right (I know that is a contradiction for a lawyer). Honesty to me is honoring the bonus structure. I assumed all of my sportsbook accounts that had not been closed were "active" since I often go back and deposit into various ones of them. I just can't see the rationale of being dishonest in my eyes on a bonus. I'm sure may disagree with my assessment. This is the view of someone like me who is not in the industry, does not know all of the alleged rules and is not a professional gambler, i.e., the consumer most sportsbooks would probably target.
I understand your rationale, in theory, but I look at it a different way. They lure you in with the bonus. They say "active" account. Now I am no professional gambler so I will not presume to know conclusively what "active" means. Being a lawyer, I view it analytically and see that 5 dimes should define "active account." I understand there is a separate thread on this issue to so I will not go into explicit detail, but I have probably 100 "active" accounts or so I thought. I will not use some of them for 5 months, but I still thought they were "active." I believed the main clause was the rollover clause b/c that forces them to meet a certain level of action. I understand your point, but nowhere did I see active defined on 5dimes website. I care not either way for or against so called "bonus whores," but to me what is right is right (I know that is a contradiction for a lawyer). Honesty to me is honoring the bonus structure. I assumed all of my sportsbook accounts that had not been closed were "active" since I often go back and deposit into various ones of them. I just can't see the rationale of being dishonest in my eyes on a bonus. I'm sure may disagree with my assessment. This is the view of someone like me who is not in the industry, does not know all of the alleged rules and is not a professional gambler, i.e., the consumer most sportsbooks would probably target.
"5Dimes has listed no set definition for the word "active" in its rules pages. The term "margininally exceeded" has not been defined either. 5Dimes is not about to draw a map for what it takes to bonus hunt."
IMO, marginally exceeded means met. If 5x play through is not enough, then you should change your rule to 7x play through.
The term "active" is nothing more than a license to steal. There is no definition that will be acceptable to either side.
I can't believe a poster would criticize the player for the book making up ambigous license to steal rules.
If this is 5 dimes policy on bonus as stated above, then the rules need to be changed.
Intead of banners with 50% bonus! 30% bonus! etc.
You should have banners that say "We might offer bonuses to those we deem not to be bonus whores at Bookybashers discretion"
The thing is, I don't think that is going to get new sign ups. So, instead you created banners offering big bonuses with ambigous rules.
A perfect example of a bonus whore book.
I am an active player at 5 dimes because they offer sports that are hard to get at other shops. If this rule is not changed, or made clear however, I will not be depositing there again nor would I recommend players do so.
Once again if you don't like your bonuses or bonus policies don't offer them.
The player has two choices if he plays at online casinos.
1. Lose
2. be a bonus whore.
The book always chooses option 2, why shouldn't the player???
IMO, marginally exceeded means met. If 5x play through is not enough, then you should change your rule to 7x play through.
The term "active" is nothing more than a license to steal. There is no definition that will be acceptable to either side.
I can't believe a poster would criticize the player for the book making up ambigous license to steal rules.
If this is 5 dimes policy on bonus as stated above, then the rules need to be changed.
Intead of banners with 50% bonus! 30% bonus! etc.
You should have banners that say "We might offer bonuses to those we deem not to be bonus whores at Bookybashers discretion"
The thing is, I don't think that is going to get new sign ups. So, instead you created banners offering big bonuses with ambigous rules.
A perfect example of a bonus whore book.
I am an active player at 5 dimes because they offer sports that are hard to get at other shops. If this rule is not changed, or made clear however, I will not be depositing there again nor would I recommend players do so.
Once again if you don't like your bonuses or bonus policies don't offer them.
The player has two choices if he plays at online casinos.
1. Lose
2. be a bonus whore.
The book always chooses option 2, why shouldn't the player???
My saying I hope this book goes under is no different than you assholes supporting a theif book. Who is to say that guy didnt need the money they stole from him ? Where is your sympathy for him ? You are in here supporting a book that you know damn well is in the wrong, so save your self righteous BS.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DannyMay:
My saying I hope this book goes under is no different than you assholes supporting a theif book. Who is to say that guy didnt need the money they stole from him ? Where is your sympathy for him ? You are in here supporting a book that you know damn well is in the wrong, so save your self righteous BS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If he needed the money then he shouldn't be gambling, hello?
Only a classless **** would wish a book to go down. The man is obviously a bonus hunter & tried to pull a fast one. He knew what he was doing & got busted & now we should feel for him, I don't think so.
My saying I hope this book goes under is no different than you assholes supporting a theif book. Who is to say that guy didnt need the money they stole from him ? Where is your sympathy for him ? You are in here supporting a book that you know damn well is in the wrong, so save your self righteous BS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If he needed the money then he shouldn't be gambling, hello?
Only a classless **** would wish a book to go down. The man is obviously a bonus hunter & tried to pull a fast one. He knew what he was doing & got busted & now we should feel for him, I don't think so.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DannyMay:
I wonder why the book ignored his first two emails ? I wonder why the book is still ignoring this thread ?
Even five dimes is ashamed of their BS excuse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WHy do you keep avoiding the fact he tried to take a shot?
Unlike some clowns a bonus doesn't concern me & a book that treats me well & pays me without hassle is of high priority to me & they meet that so I won't sit around & watch some cheater & a bunch of bonus whores try to run their game of dumping on a book.
I wonder why the book ignored his first two emails ? I wonder why the book is still ignoring this thread ?
Even five dimes is ashamed of their BS excuse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WHy do you keep avoiding the fact he tried to take a shot?
Unlike some clowns a bonus doesn't concern me & a book that treats me well & pays me without hassle is of high priority to me & they meet that so I won't sit around & watch some cheater & a bunch of bonus whores try to run their game of dumping on a book.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DannyMay:
I wonder why the book ignored his first two emails ? I wonder why the book is still ignoring this thread ?
Even five dimes is ashamed of their BS excuse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Danny,
they did reply on page 4...
Top of the day to ya.
I wonder why the book ignored his first two emails ? I wonder why the book is still ignoring this thread ?
Even five dimes is ashamed of their BS excuse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Danny,
they did reply on page 4...
Top of the day to ya.
I just went to five dimes chat and here is a copy of the live chat -- notice where she says FUNDS MUST REMAIN IN ACCOUNT FOR 30 DAYS
Dear Customer,
I have attached bellow a copy of our conversation as you requested.
Please feel free to email me back if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
Priscilla
Customer Service
Priscilla: Good Morning. How may I assist you?
Visitor: If I open an account and recieve a bonus, what are the requirements for me to earn the bonus ?
Priscilla: you must wager 5 times the amount of your deposit and keep your account funded for 30 prior requesting a withdrawal
Visitor: ok
Visitor: and then I can withdraw
Priscilla: yes
Visitor: Can I have a copy of this chat sent to my email address
Visitor: Can I have a copy of this sent to my email
Priscilla: the bonus will be added on a separate balance and it ONLY for you to wager
THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES. NOT ONLY ARE THEY THIEFS, BUT BALD FACED LIARS AS WELL. I AM DONE WITH THIS THREAD. THIS LIVE CHAT BS SAYS IT ALL ABOUT THIS BOOK.
Dear Customer,
I have attached bellow a copy of our conversation as you requested.
Please feel free to email me back if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
Priscilla
Customer Service
Priscilla: Good Morning. How may I assist you?
Visitor: If I open an account and recieve a bonus, what are the requirements for me to earn the bonus ?
Priscilla: you must wager 5 times the amount of your deposit and keep your account funded for 30 prior requesting a withdrawal
Visitor: ok
Visitor: and then I can withdraw
Priscilla: yes
Visitor: Can I have a copy of this chat sent to my email address
Visitor: Can I have a copy of this sent to my email
Priscilla: the bonus will be added on a separate balance and it ONLY for you to wager
THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES. NOT ONLY ARE THEY THIEFS, BUT BALD FACED LIARS AS WELL. I AM DONE WITH THIS THREAD. THIS LIVE CHAT BS SAYS IT ALL ABOUT THIS BOOK.
I doubt many people are still reading this thread, but you don't have to worry about 5 dimes going under. I have lost over 6 figures there on sports.
I agree that they should clarify their rules or restructure the bonus policy. There are several ways they could do this:
1. Higher rollover requirements for blackjack.
2. Make the bonus a matchplay that can't be withdrawn.
3. Lower the bonus % to discourage people from opening accounts strictly seeking the bonus money.
4. Make a blanket statement in the rules that "Management reserves the right to confiscate the bonus of any player deemed to be taking advantage of our program." This is the worst solution in my opinion.
I have had only good experiences at 5 dimes (besides losing) and their customer service has been great. They may not be super friendly and their web site leaves a lot to be desired but they are still a top book in my opinion.
Revere14
I agree that they should clarify their rules or restructure the bonus policy. There are several ways they could do this:
1. Higher rollover requirements for blackjack.
2. Make the bonus a matchplay that can't be withdrawn.
3. Lower the bonus % to discourage people from opening accounts strictly seeking the bonus money.
4. Make a blanket statement in the rules that "Management reserves the right to confiscate the bonus of any player deemed to be taking advantage of our program." This is the worst solution in my opinion.
I have had only good experiences at 5 dimes (besides losing) and their customer service has been great. They may not be super friendly and their web site leaves a lot to be desired but they are still a top book in my opinion.
Revere14
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Matthews:
Ever hear the expression "Penny wise and pound foolish" ?
That is exactly what people are when they do the absolute MINIMUM necessary to meet bonus requirements.
David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
David- I have heard this before of course but do not think that it justifies obscure bonus guidelines.
A lot of people talk about how the BONUS is destroying sportsbooks, etc.. The FACT is that sportsbooks have a choice to either offer the bonus or not offer it.
I don't see anything wrong with meeting the absolute MINIMUM bonus requirements. Why not? Everyone knows that the odds of a gambler winning are very LOW to begin with. The longer that the gambler plays, the more likely he is to LOSE. Why not take out some or all of my winnings if I WIN? It makes perfect sense to me. Why not also collect the BONUS that the sportsbook offered in order to LUER me into sending $$$ to an anonymous individual in Costa Rica?
Ever hear the expression "Penny wise and pound foolish" ?
That is exactly what people are when they do the absolute MINIMUM necessary to meet bonus requirements.
David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
David- I have heard this before of course but do not think that it justifies obscure bonus guidelines.
A lot of people talk about how the BONUS is destroying sportsbooks, etc.. The FACT is that sportsbooks have a choice to either offer the bonus or not offer it.
I don't see anything wrong with meeting the absolute MINIMUM bonus requirements. Why not? Everyone knows that the odds of a gambler winning are very LOW to begin with. The longer that the gambler plays, the more likely he is to LOSE. Why not take out some or all of my winnings if I WIN? It makes perfect sense to me. Why not also collect the BONUS that the sportsbook offered in order to LUER me into sending $$$ to an anonymous individual in Costa Rica?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EveryGamblersDream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SPIVE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Big difference being their rules were stated on their webpage & if this person didn't like it they did NOT have to make a deposit there. They tried to pull a fast one, got busted, & are now crying about it. I feel no pity for them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're sadly missing the point...
Rules did NOT CLEARLY state what "active" nor "extended period" meant which would deactivate the account (only a 30 day period, which one could easily be assumed as active by merely leaving the account open for this period) therefore, rules could ONLY be followed to the point of exceeding the roll-over requirement, which was clear stated.
Now regardless of intentionally posting unclear, ambiguous rules which could not be adhered to...because they were unknown to the client. The bonus requirement was rightfully achieved based upon wagers which exceeded the (all important) roll-over requirement...which means, an individual risked an amount of capital for a period long enough for a bookmaker with a mathematical edge to win a portion if not all of what was risked, but didn't...now refusing to pay a token bonus while holding a client's money for 30 days?
This wouldn't be an issue if all the capital risked was lost in 6 hours, now would it?
The Bookmaker is the one pathetically crying here, while paying more in bad PR then what a client's token bonus would cost.
[This message was edited by SPIVE on May 20, 2003 at 04:30 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, you are missing the point. Only a BONUS WHORE would play dumb as to what active is. If someone bets a bunch just to meet a rollover requirement & then stops cold turkey is trying to exploit the generosity of a book & deserves not to get it.
Are you a bonus whore by any chance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now the BONUS that is used as a marketing tool to luer gamblers into sending $$$ to an anonymous person in Costa Rica is representative of the "generosity of a book." (laughing)
So what does "active" mean, EGD?
Once you start trying to characterize the hypotheticals below as "active" or "not active" I trust that you will acknowledge the ambiguity in the term "active."
Active or not active? You tell me:
1)Suppose that I make one wager every day for $10 and I do this for thirty consecutive days.
3) Suppose that I make one wager a week for $100 and I do this for four consecutive weeks.
4) Suppose that I make $10,000 worth of bets in a single day then don't play for the rest of the month.
5) Suppose that I only gamble on two days in a particular month. On one of those days I play ten different games for a total of $10K. On the second day I also play ten games for a total of $10K. Now I have wagered on 20 games for a total of $20K. Has my account been active?
6) Suppose that I wager $50 on each of 30 consecutive days.
In conjunction, I would also ask you what the underlying PURPOSE of requiring an "active" account is.
Danny May- good posting, IMO
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SPIVE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Big difference being their rules were stated on their webpage & if this person didn't like it they did NOT have to make a deposit there. They tried to pull a fast one, got busted, & are now crying about it. I feel no pity for them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're sadly missing the point...
Rules did NOT CLEARLY state what "active" nor "extended period" meant which would deactivate the account (only a 30 day period, which one could easily be assumed as active by merely leaving the account open for this period) therefore, rules could ONLY be followed to the point of exceeding the roll-over requirement, which was clear stated.
Now regardless of intentionally posting unclear, ambiguous rules which could not be adhered to...because they were unknown to the client. The bonus requirement was rightfully achieved based upon wagers which exceeded the (all important) roll-over requirement...which means, an individual risked an amount of capital for a period long enough for a bookmaker with a mathematical edge to win a portion if not all of what was risked, but didn't...now refusing to pay a token bonus while holding a client's money for 30 days?
This wouldn't be an issue if all the capital risked was lost in 6 hours, now would it?
The Bookmaker is the one pathetically crying here, while paying more in bad PR then what a client's token bonus would cost.
[This message was edited by SPIVE on May 20, 2003 at 04:30 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, you are missing the point. Only a BONUS WHORE would play dumb as to what active is. If someone bets a bunch just to meet a rollover requirement & then stops cold turkey is trying to exploit the generosity of a book & deserves not to get it.
Are you a bonus whore by any chance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now the BONUS that is used as a marketing tool to luer gamblers into sending $$$ to an anonymous person in Costa Rica is representative of the "generosity of a book." (laughing)
So what does "active" mean, EGD?
Once you start trying to characterize the hypotheticals below as "active" or "not active" I trust that you will acknowledge the ambiguity in the term "active."
Active or not active? You tell me:
1)Suppose that I make one wager every day for $10 and I do this for thirty consecutive days.
3) Suppose that I make one wager a week for $100 and I do this for four consecutive weeks.
4) Suppose that I make $10,000 worth of bets in a single day then don't play for the rest of the month.
5) Suppose that I only gamble on two days in a particular month. On one of those days I play ten different games for a total of $10K. On the second day I also play ten games for a total of $10K. Now I have wagered on 20 games for a total of $20K. Has my account been active?
6) Suppose that I wager $50 on each of 30 consecutive days.
In conjunction, I would also ask you what the underlying PURPOSE of requiring an "active" account is.
Danny May- good posting, IMO
