Intercasino: video poker double up for bonus wagering rules not clear
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Intercasino: video poker double up for bonus wagering rules not clear
Intercasino voided a player's £2000 win recently on the basis of behaviour apparently in contravention of the terms and conditions - see the Intercasino is rogue thread at Casinomeister:
As a result your account has been and will remain disabled, thank you for your understanding in this matter.
The player subsequently discovered the justification for the voiding of the win:
I think that using the double-up feature is a part of the initial bet and not a new bet. 32red.com has exactly the same rules and they paid me without a problem.
The Intercasino bonus rules contain this clause:
For clarity an individual bet relates to the total amount wagered on one spin of the roulette wheel, one individual hand against the house in table games or blackjack (double up in any individual hand is permitted), one deal of the cards in video poker (no matter how many hands are chosen to play with) and one spin of slots.
InterCasino reserves the right to refuse withdrawals and lock all accounts of players found abusing this rule.
It's encouraging to note that Intercasino clearly states that use of the double down feature in blackjack is not considered a violation of the maximum bet rule. This really should not require any clarification, but it has been known to cause confusion and it's good to see the point made.
The rules do not make this clarification for video poker - they just mention "one deal of the cards" being permitted, not that the subsequent double up function is also allowed, as with blackjack. They should specify this, but given the blackjack clarification you could reasonably conclude that the lack of mention of the double up equates to its ineligibility, assuming the combined total exceeds the stated 25% limit.
My own take on the issue is that the Intercasino rules are reasonably clear, if not perfectly so, and they have a defensible case in revoking these winnings.
However:
1) They should specifically state that the video poker double up will be included in the total initial wager size calculation, and if the combined total of initial bet plus any doubles exceeds 25% of the bonus, this is grounds for confiscation of winnings.
2) They absolutely should not email players who are to have their winnings voided with such vague and meaningless nonsense as was the case here:
Since Intercasino has a reasonable case here in claiming rules violation, they should just say so, giving the player an exact explanation.
When casinos talk about the "spirit of the promotion", you can be sure such amateurish and vague nensensical waffle is a result of a very unsure position on their part.
9 Previous Comments
I would have thought a Brit would be able to apply a "common law" approach to this issue.
I cannot see how you could take the position that InterCasino's theft of the winnings is defensible - when you take into account their own contradiction in their position on BJ doubling, as well as 32Red's position on the issue, as well as common sense.
-------
Yet I don't have any issue with their use of language when notifying players they are no longer offering them exploitability.
Which really is a tiny issue in comparison to theft of winnings....
By 
Jonny Vincent, at
11:35 pm
Actually, I've firmed up my opinion after more fully mulling over the matter - see my blackjack / VP post.
On this occasion, Intercasino was entitled to make this call, as the double bet is entirely separate, and therefore governed by the same percentage of betsize restrictions as the initial wager.
It would be helpful if the specified this fully in the terms, however.
By 100% Gambler, at
11:40 pm
Even if VP double up is considered as a separate wager, what if you enter the double up game with a winning size that doesn't break the max. 25% of bonus bet rule? For example you could only double up winnings that result from a high pair (a push payout). Would you consider each additional doubling up as a separate bet or just the first one?
By 
, at
11:40 am
If the double bet doesn't break the 25% rule, then you should be fine.
Say, £125 bonus and you're playing £1 single line, £5 total bet. You hit a flush for £30. You can double no problem, as the restriction is £31.25.
Of course, you can't go on to double again, as that'd be £60, which is over the limit.
As long as you stay within the 25% restriction for any double bet, you're good to go.
By 100% Gambler, at
2:54 pm
[QUOTE]Say, £125 bonus and you're playing £1 single line, £5 total bet. You hit a flush for £30. You can double no problem, as the restriction is £31.25.
Of course, you can't go on to double again, as that'd be £60, which is over the limit.[/QUOTE]
But if you enter the double up game with a 30£ win which is below the allowed maximum, shouldn't you be allowed to double up as many times as you want after that, since surely each doubling up doesn't count as a completely different wager but just the first one?
By , at
4:24 pm
Each game is separate, the same as a round of blackjack, roulette or whatever else. As such, whatever the percentage restriction is, it will apply to each bet.
So, your £30 would be OK, but another double up, on £60, wouldn't be.
By 100% Gambler, at
4:30 pm
[QUOTE]Each game is separate, the same as a round of blackjack, roulette or whatever else. As such, whatever the percentage restriction is, it will apply to each bet.
So, your £30 would be OK, but another double up, on £60, wouldn't be.[/QUOTE]
Is that just your interpretation or is there some good reason to support this? If we ignore the VP game and assume that the doubling up game is offered as a standalone game if I put a 10£ wager on the game it counts as 10£ wager no matter how many times I double up until the round ends. Similarily if you play any Hi-Lo game, no matter how many consecutive rounds you play through, only the initial wager which you take to the game at the beginning counts as wager.
By , at
4:36 pm
The wager in a standalone version of this game would still be governed by bonus rules, assuming a bonus was in the mix. If it was a "wild doubling" game, then the restriction would be bizarre, but still there.
Of course, with a zero house edge, the doubling game wouldn't be available for bonus play in the first place.
In terms of my opinion or otherwise, I'm basing it on the casino's response and my own reasoning thereof.
By 100% Gambler, at
4:46 pm
[QUOTE]The wager in a standalone version of this game would still be governed by bonus rules, assuming a bonus was in the mix. [/QUOTE]
I agree with that. However to me the most logical assumption would be that the only the inital wager you take to the game counts as wager, no matter how many consecutive rounds or double-ups you conduct starting from that single wager. But then again that's just my opinion...
By , at
5:03 pm