This forum has a zero tolerance policy towards the posting of player or affiliate complaints. Please use our dedicated Player Complaint or Affiliate complaint if you have a complaint you would like reviewed. Users found posting complaints will have their complaints deleted and potentially their forum account suspended.

Affiliates that wish to link to their site need to ensure that they do not work with any of our Blacklisted Affiliate Programs then request approval by contacting admin.

Aspire Global - problematic max bet term

Let us know with any issues with the site or if there's something we've missed.
Post Reply
User avatar
Senior Member
Posts: 3849
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:17 pm

Aspire Global - problematic max bet term

Post by thePOGG »

We have recently managed a complaint against the Aspire Global group that relates to the 'greater than or equal to €4' aspect of their maximum bet term.

The unfortunate player bet €4. So they were by technical definition in violation of this term. Had they bet €3.99, they would have been fine. But by betting €4, they are in violation and won't get paid a significant win.

In that much this is no different than any other maximum bet term. There has to be a cut-off and 0.01 difference will always ultimately make the difference. The problem here is three-fold:

- If you skim the terms and conditions it is easy to see how a player could make a mistake and interpret €4 as the limit rather than €3.99.

- Game skates naturally gravitate towards whole number. It is far easier to set a game to wager €4/round. Many games won't allow a bet of €3.99. This makes the effective maximum bet significantly lower than €3.99.

- There is no practical benefit to the operator in terms of risk reduction to the 0.01 lower maximum bet limits. Maximum bet limits are intended to restrict players from placing big bets with bonuses and this can result in bonuses becoming commercially non-viable for operators. For bonuses to remain a part of the online gaming experience max bet terms are essential. But a 0.01 difference is inconsequential/insignificant in terms of reducing the risk to operators.

The point I am making with this third comment is that if the addition of 'or equal to' creates no realistic benefit for the operator in terms of achieving the intents of the rule, why is the operator choosing to continue to retain this inclusion in the term? It simply makes the term more complex for players to navigate without reducing risk of 'abusive' styles of play.

You can read the complaint here - ... -wont-pay/

We can't agree with making bonus terms needlessly complicated for player to navigate in this respect and as such Aspire Global operators who continue to retain this term have been downgraded to 'Needs Work' status.


Post Reply