ROCHESTER CASINO: enforcing unwritten rules and stealing $3000.

ROCHESTER CASINO: enforcing unwritten rules and stealing $3000.

In early February 2005, a player deposited $500 at Rochester Casino and received a 250% non-cashable bonus, for a total initial balance of $1750. The conditions of the bonus were that $52,500 needed to be wagered to qualify for a cashout, and that the games Blackjack, Roulette and Casino War did not count towards that wagering total - see below:




Note carefully the wording: "Bets placed in the games of Roulette, Blackjack and Casino War do not fulfill players' obligations with regards to the minimum wagering requirements". This does not say that play on these games is actually illegal when wagering the bonus, simply that play on those games doesn't count towards the wagering total. To actively disallow play on those games would be highly counter-productive for the casino, given that they all carry house edges, and as such any play on them increases the casino's win rate.

The player in question wagered on blackjack, got his balance up to $4750, then wagered $52,500 on baccarat, ending up with a balance of $4797 - and cashed out.

Rochester Casino denied the withdrawal, stating that since he played blackjack the cashout was illegitimate, and as such, all his winnings would be voided and he would have to start again with the original $1750 starting balance.

The player did not break any rules. The fact that blackjack did not count towards the $52,500 wagering requirement total does not mean that blackjack play voids winnings.

In an attempt to clarify this, I had a chat myself with the Rochester Casino about the matter of blackjack play for bonuses. Here it is:

Steven: Welcome
Steven: How can I help you ?
Me: I just found this casino. For the new player bonus, I know blackjack doesn't count towards the wagering requirements, but does blackjack play actually void wins?
Me: Or can I play BJ as long as I play the "required" games as well?
Steven: No "Black Jack does not count towards the wagering requirement"
Steven: Is there anything else I can do for you ?
Me: I understand it doesn't count towards the wagering requirement, but if I play blackjack AND the games that DO count towards the wagering requirement, is that OK, or does any BJ play void winnings?
Steven: "Bj void's the winnings"
Me: OK, thanks.
Steven: your Welcome ....thank you.

You can see that the customer support rep makes two somewhat different responses: in the first place he simply repeats that blackjack doesn't count towards the wagering total, but he THEN goes on, when pressed, to state that blackjack play actually voids winnings.

This is to state one rule and enforce another. Nowhere is there any clue given that blackjack voids winnings - why not? Because there are many blackjack players out there, and for them to be denied the opportunity to play their game would cost the casino a lot of customers. So, the casino does not disallow blackjack play for bonuses in the written terms and conditions - they simply void the blackjack players' winnings when they come to make a cashout.

This is a no-lose situation for the casino.

The most recent development in this case is quite extraordinary: Rochester Casino has agreed to refund the player's DEPOSIT - $500 - on condition that he acknowledge the fact publically! Not the winnings, legitimate though they be. In order to simply receive his DEPOSIT back, he needed to offer up a public "thank you".

On the matter of the winnings, the casino appears entirely unresponsive.

Read the whole story in the Rochester Casino thread at Casinomeister, and also in the Rochester Casino thread at Winneronline.

Rochester Casino should be avoided at all costs.

Post a Comment

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 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | December 2011 | February 2012 | May 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | March 2016 | April 2016 | June 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | March 2017 | May 2017 | June 2017 | August 2017 | August 2021 | October 2021 | May 2022 | Atom feed