Slots Oasis problem: theft of a five-figure balance by means of deceptive rules

Slots Oasis problem: theft of a five-figure balance by means of deceptive rules

Playing roulette and slots at Slots Oasis Casino in July 2009, a player racked up a win of £51,000. On attempting to cashout, the casino informed him that roulette, his first game, was restricted from bonus play, and pointed him to the following terms:

Bets placed in Roulette, Craps, Baccarat, Bingo and Paigow Poker do not fulfill players obligations towards wagering requirements.

Wagering on restricted games does not count towards the fulfillment of the wagering requirements and winnings from rounds played on restricted games before meeting the wagering requirements will be removed at the time of a cash-out request.

Wagering on restricted games may void all winnings won on this promotion.

The first thing to note here is that the terms are contradictory:

Of the three I've quoted, the second says that play on restricted games does not count towards whatever the wagering requirements are for the given bonus and that, as such, any derived winnings will be removed. This is crystal clear, and also fair.

The third says that it may be the case that all winnings, from all game play, will be removed. This is vague, and basically contradicts the first. It is also unfair.

Assuming that roulette is a "restricted" game, the clear terms should take precedence, as would always be the case in a jurisdiction with rigorous consumer protection laws, as in the EU; the player should lose his roulette winnings but receive the remainder of the balance.


However, after initially taking the casino at its word about the "restricted" nature of roulette, with a little further examination it became apparent that roulette is nowhere classed as a "restricted" game. It simply "does not fulfill players obligations towards wagering requirements" as per the above term. There are in fact no restricted games listed anywhere.


As per the terms of the deal, the player is owed his full winnings.


But exactly what is going on here?

Why does the casino list no "restricted" games, only those which "do not fulfil players obligations towards wagering requirements", a patently different matter, having mentioned "restricted" games in the previous term?

Why the apparent contradiction and confusion?


Since the Slots Oasis terms are written in correct English, there is clearly no misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the language on their part. They cannot plead ignorance of the difference between "restricted", meaning the game cannot be legally played, and "not fulfilling the wagering requirements", which rather passively means that whatever the wagering requirements are, bets placed in roulette will simply not contribute towards their fulfilment.

If they wanted roulette to be "restricted", they could simply say so - and they are clearly linguistically competent enough to so do. Yet they do not.


As such, this would appear to be a trap laid by the casino, and not particularly subtly either, to encourage the player to play games which result in his never being able to cashout.

If he loses, he loses; if he wins, his winnings are void.


However, I think there's a way around this which is fair to both sides.


Let's assume an honest mistake on the part of the casino, whereby they intend "not fulfilling the wagering requirements" to mean "restricted", being somewhat bizarrely unaware of the clear difference between the two.

In this case, we go back to the original terms:

Wagering on restricted games does not count towards the fulfillment of the wagering requirements and winnings from rounds played on restricted games before meeting the wagering requirements will be removed at the time of a cash-out request.

Wagering on restricted games may void all winnings won on this promotion.

The clear term should take precedence over the non-specific one. As such, of the total £40,000 balance, the player should lose his £9000 roulette winnings and receive the remainder, £42,000.


I do not for one minute expect the casino to take this fair view, or take steps to amend their deceptive terms. They are aware of the issue, and choose to leave the contradiction in place - see the Slots Oasis bonus terms page.


As such, they are willfully seeking to entrap the player, and should be avoided at all costs.


The matter was also discussed at Casinomeister, where self-proclaimed player watchdog Bryan Bailey made a number of remarkably incorrect and unfair statements, accused the player of making a deliberate mistake where there was, in fact, no mistake, proclaimed the casino was right, and for good measure locked the thread to prevent any further discussion - see Slots Oasis voids winnings discussion.


It should, of course, be borne in mind that Slots Oasis is one of the Casinomeister accredited casinos - see the accredited RTG casinos list.

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 | December 2023 | May 2024 | Atom feed