Casino Rewards network have given me as a gambling guide very few problems with them over the years. However I recently read on a forum a person was complaining about some of this network's terms and conditions where there is a clause that states that if the new player signs up and deposits the minimum (if at all, some bonuses are no deposit necessary) and plays in a manner that demonstrates they are a bonus chaser, or another term might be advantage player, even if they meet the minimum requirements for cashing out, the casino reserves the right to refuse payment. Those terms were added to discourage bonus chasers and at least Casino Rewards is making this known to the player before they get involved.

A lot of places don't make such info available to the player, at least not anywhere easy to find. Almost all online casinos have measures to discourage the bonus chaser but they may not be as upfront as Casino Rewards have chosen to be, and will use tactics like putting the player through an extreme regime of proof of identity requirements and even when the player meets these requirements the casino may say the documents did not arrive in legible fashion and that it will be necessary to fax the documents in one more time. There are other stalls that can be used but quite often the casino is less than stealthy about their intention. They want this kind of player to spread the word to peers that their kind of business is not desired nor welcome and will be met with such measures. Casino Rewards make it clear upfront they will not be abused by advantage players. I realize that their term itself does not present a clear line not to be crossed.

It does however make it pretty clear that if you sign up, get a bonus, play the minimum required to satisfy requirements, and then cash out, that they reserve the right to refuse to pay you because it portrays the player did not accept the bonus in the spirit given. I don't necessarily agree with the approach but I understand it. You have a choice of two evils. The first being that you add in your terms upfront that if a player is buying in at the minimum requirements to get a bonus, and then is playing the minimum required play-through and then cashing out, it is pretty obvious this is someone not accepting the bonus in the spirit given.

An obvious grab and go player who is in fact a member of the group of people who caused play-through requirements to become so rigid and detailed in the first place. They are also the reason you see such vague terms in the casino's policy. Things did not start out this way! Such terms are a reaction to an action taken. The second choice is to make the play-through requirements even worse than they are now in order to combat the damage done by advantage play.

However then all the players would stand to lose instead of just upsetting those with plans to play the minimums and get out. Casino Rewards is obviously choosing to not take this cowardly way out. Rather they will take the blunt of the accusations thrown at them in order to protect a better gambling environment for the people who deserve it. The legitimate players who came there to gamble for their entertainment and because they wanted to check out that particular casino, and not just because that casino is the most convenient available which offers an extra edge to new players.

It can be said that the casino should go ahead and just pay these players since they did in fact beat the pre-defined terms of the contract. *However that is exactly why they chose to add that clause in about having the option to define a player as not having accepted the bonus in the spirit given. They aren't trying to cheat anybody out of their money. They just don't want bonus chasers. If you plan on buying in at the minimum, playing the minimum and cashing out, also plan on not getting paid.

The casinos cannot make it more clear. If the casino states upfront they will not fall victim to such tactics as are seen from bonus chasers, then they are stating they they won't let their legitimate players pay any further price for the actions of a group of people who have no honorable intentions in respect to the spirit in which the bonus was offered. Frankly I don't see where anybody with legitimate intent stands to get hurt? Certainly not more often than they would if the bonus requirements were increased to a point where the casino doesn't have as much risk in losing the free money they are bleeding out. Everything else aside, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you just played a little deeper into the game than quitting just when you hit the minimum play-through requirements, that you wouldn't have to worry about being accused of this issue. The major reason behind the complaints voiced is that they are coming from bonus chasers who as I mentioned are seeking to play the bare minimum and then cash out whatever small amount they were able to hedge.

Any extra play risks their losing what small financial gain they have made. Legitimate players with a savvy of online gambling will not find such terms threatening and enjoy having the confidence in knowing they are playing at an online casino in the network of the likes of Blackjack Ballroom which just paid out five and a half million dollars to a player hitting a jackpot after wagering fifty cents on a progressive slot. This was reported on Fox news the month of April, 2008 and is a matter of public record. One last thing, Casino Rewards, the network accused of trying to avoid paying the small withdrawals by those profiled as not accepting the bonus in spirit given, is the same network that just recently bought the failed network of casinos that included Golden Reef, Challenge, Nostalgia and Music City, who closed their doors while still having many of their player's money.

Casino Rewards announced when they bought the failed network that all outstanding debt to the players would be paid by them thus ensuring nobody got hurt. Rather an odd act of charity to come from some place willing to stoop to cheating bonus chasers out of a few dollars, wouldn't you say? Or is it that Casino Rewards has taken their stance based on principal, rather than on trying to save a few dollars?.

please visit http://www.bondedcasinos.com for a list of Casino Rewards establishments as well as other quality online casinos.