Lucky Win Slots - max bet rule

Hi fordizzl3 - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

Unfortunately there's not going to be anything we can do to help you in this instance. While I do understand your frustration, the term in question is clear and available within one click of the advertisements of this promotion:

"In the interests of fair gaming, equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of the lower of £5 / €5 / $5 / 50kr or 5% of the value of the bonus or the lower of £2 / €2 / $2 / 20kr or 2% of the value of the bonus if you made a deposit via either Neteller or Skrill (including where such limit is exceeded due to any double up or other feature of any game) until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Should we deem that irregular game play has occurred, we reserve the right to withhold any withdrawals, confiscate all winnings and/or block your access to our services and products and/or your account without being under any obligation to pay you any funds held in your account."

If you've broken this term there's nothing we can do to help you.

Other than that you could approach the operator's ADR IBAS.

Sorry we could not be of more help,

ThePOGG

Hi Pogg,

The problem we have here is the inconsistency of how they have treated other withdrawals. I have evidence they have paid out in the past on withdrawals where the customer has placed exactly 5% of the bonus amount and it was approved? Surely this can be fought on grounds of equality?

I also think the terminology used to explain the maximum bet is purposely poor and very easily misconstrued! How do they determine that placing bets equal to 5% of the bonus is irregular play? Surely spinning at 4.99% would be irregular?

Its crazy! I feel they are only denying this because it is such a large win.

Any other advice?

Hi fordizzl3,

Where the operator chooses to overlooking a breach of terms of this nature that is a discretionary action. They would be within their rights to enforce the rule but have chosen not to. This does not preclude their right to enforce the term in other situations.

Any term of this nature is going to require a cutoff line. While I appreciate you point it's non-relevant. Why does a student who gets 70 get an A when a student who gets 69 get a B? The one point of difference makes a significant difference to the grade awarded, but the practical reality requires a cutoff point between the grades. This is no different.

If you want to challenge the fairness of the term I'd advise you to contact the Advertising Standards Agency, but my honest opinion is that you do not have a case.

Sorry,

ThePOGG

Hi Pogg,

I don't understand how the inconsistency of them paying out on other punters who bet at 5% with the bonus is remotely just or acceptable. How is this not relevant? They know that this term is bullsh*t and easily misunderstood and that's why they have paid out in the past!

**

Good Morning

I am writing to make an official complaint against Progress Play Limited, you can also consider this a request for the winnings I won using the new account bonus offer at Lucky Win Slots.

The offer in question was a 100% deposit match, I deposited £50 and was awarded a £50 bonus. I read the bonus terms carefully and interpreted the maximum bet whilst using the bonus to be £2.50. I was fortunate enough finish the 50X wagering and be left with a balance of £2027. The casino in question, Lucky Win Slots, have rejected my withdrawal of £2027 and accused me of breaking the bonus terms and conditions stating that I placed bets over 5% of the bonus amount. I believe the terminology of these bonus terms to be poorly written and can easily be misconstrued. See terms below:

Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of the lower of £5 / €5 / $5 / 50kr or 5% of the value of the bonus or the lower of £2 / €2 / $2 / 20kr or 2% of the value of the bonus if you made a deposit via either Neteller or Skrill (including where such limit is exceeded due to any double up or other feature of any game) until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met.

"or in excess of the lower of £5 / €5 / $5 / 50kr or 5% of the value of the bonus "

The above line is interpreted to mean you can only bet either;

1) a maximum of £5

2) 5% value of the bonus

Whichever option is the lower amount, in my particular case it would be £2.50, is the maximum you are allowed to bet whilst using the bonus funds.

£2.50 bets do not exceed the 5% of the bonus.

I have a strong case to make here and I have all the evidence I need to back it up, and to take this further if required.

*

One day after I received this rejection, I went on to live chat to discuss the maximum bet rules, only to find that they confirmed that when using bonus money, you are not allowed to exceed the £5/5% rule. As mentioned above, none of my wagers exceeded the 5% rule - Attachment (1).

​

I've also managed to find other evidence in online forums (relating to other poorly treated punters) of this unfair and inconsistent decision making your casinos appear to operate such as; rejecting withdrawals due to breaking terms, but live chat operators providing false and misleading information. In this example, a 200% bonus offer upto £200 was offered, the punter deposits £100 for a total balance of £300, the operator then confirms the maximum bet for this promotion to be £10 - which is exactly 5% of the bonus!! I have blanked out personal details - Attachment (2).

​

*

Furthermore, I have obtained evidence of this inconsistent treatment of punters; Punters who have successfully made withdrawals after apparently breaking the bonus terms and conditions. In this example, one punter was denied a withdrawal after betting spins of £1.25 (5% of the bonus), who subsequently complained to Progress Play, as in the past this punter had their previous withdrawals approved using the same bonus and bet size, the only difference to this withdrawal was that it was a large win of around £500. In the end Progress Play approved the withdrawal, even though the bet size was exactly 5% of the bonus amount. This evidence can be forwarded at any time if you would like to see it.

*

Finally, and I am figuratively speaking here, lets say that I had deposited £50 and placed the same wagers but ended up losing my deposit and the bonus, leaving me with a balance of £0. I would have lost the £50, yet I would have still broken these bonus terms and conditions, but would you be contacting me to let me know that this wagering didn't actually count for anything and refund me my £50? I don't think so. Essentially you are playing some really unfair double standards here, I read the terms carefully and decided with good faith that £2.50 was the safe amount to bet, being lower than £5 and within 5% of the bonus amount. The 50X wagering your bonuses carry are difficult enough to complete, but when one punter actually manages to complete the offer and wins money you attempt to wriggle out of payment in any way possible, yet you are quite content to accept losing wagers without considering the ethical or moral implications.

I believe it only fair that you honour these winnings in full.

Looking forward to your response.

Hi fordizzl3,

I'm sorry you feel that way but it does not change our position. Where you've breached at clearly defined term it is at the operator's discretion whether they want to enforce the term or not. They are not advertising that they will always 'let you away with it'. If they were we would agree with you. If they were the term would have no meaning in the first instance. There may be a small number of cases involving other players who likely have a differing play profile to your own where they choose not to enforce the term but this has no bearing on your case.

I'm sorry you are frustrated but all I can suggest is that you ensure to read the terms and conditions associated with any bonus you take in future.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi fordizzl3,

I've decided to speak with Progress Play about this term generally and they are looking to review this issue. I do NOT guarantee any outcome at this stage, but would ask you allow some time for this conversation to develop.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi Pogg,

Appreciated, let me know the outcome.

Thanks

James

Hi fordizzl3, I've concluded our discussion with ProgressPlay. Firstly I want to say that this conversation happened as after some consideration of the construction of the term in question, I have some concerns that it may not meet the standards required by the Advertising Standards Agency in the UK. The reason for these concerns are as follows: i) The construction of this term is likely to result in any player who scans the terms latching onto the figure given within the terms. Rather than this being the maximum allowed bet, this is the first bet that is not allowed. ii) Significant terms are required to be presented with the advertisement of the bonus. In this case the maximum bet term is not presented and due to its construction could not easily be presented. iii) The reality of the situation is that it is easy to understand why a player could misinterpret this term. The breach in question is of the most minor nature possible and resulted in an inconsequential difference to the win in question. When all of this is taken into consideration I am neither convinced that the Advertising Standards Agency will support the construction or presentation of this term and the manner of enforcement is very arguably predatory. ProgressPlay do not agree with the above assessment though have stated that they are taking it into consideration during a review of their bonus terms. This being the case I would now like to recommend that you contact both the UK Advertising Standards Agency and LuckyWin Casino's ADR IBAS to get further guidance on your case. I'm sorry we couldn't be of further help, ThePOGG

Hi Pogg,

That's good news and very helpful. Thank you for following up, I will definitely be taking this further with IBAS and the UK ASA.

Much appreciated!