<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The General:
If I deposit $1000 and get a $100 bonus, then proceed to lose all $1100, then re-up with another dime and receive 10%, should I be required to meet the rollover for both deposits or just the re-up amount? The rollover requirement is 5X.
Thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. If you lose every penny of deposit and bonus from your initial deposit, then any remaining rollover requirement should disappear along with it.
If I deposit $1000 and get a $100 bonus, then proceed to lose all $1100, then re-up with another dime and receive 10%, should I be required to meet the rollover for both deposits or just the re-up amount? The rollover requirement is 5X.
Thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. If you lose every penny of deposit and bonus from your initial deposit, then any remaining rollover requirement should disappear along with it.
WWTS is the only book of offhand that has required players to make up for past rollover requirements. More often than not, it is a clerical error on the books part. Makes very little sense to require a player to complete a rollover on funds that were previously deposited and lost. Such a policy would cause many players who have lost not to reup , eventhough those are the players the book should want the most.
marc is correct,wwts did it to me
My sense of justice on this one:
Does the book in question say anything about this in its rules? If so, then the rules are what matters and nothing else. If not, then the default should be the industry standard which, to my understanding is that the rollover requirement gets reset to zero when the balance falls to zero.
A book could of course have a different policy but fairness would dictate that they post this policy clearly for all to see so players could factor this in when they decide to re-up. A top tier book should rule in the player's favor for past instances and post their policy clearly to avoid disputes in future instances.
That is my 2c on this matter.
Does the book in question say anything about this in its rules? If so, then the rules are what matters and nothing else. If not, then the default should be the industry standard which, to my understanding is that the rollover requirement gets reset to zero when the balance falls to zero.
A book could of course have a different policy but fairness would dictate that they post this policy clearly for all to see so players could factor this in when they decide to re-up. A top tier book should rule in the player's favor for past instances and post their policy clearly to avoid disputes in future instances.
That is my 2c on this matter.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darryl Parsons:
A question might arise if the player has a pending futures wager but his available cash is zero. In this case I say his balance is not zero until the pending wager is decided (and lost).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with Darryl on both points:
1. If the book states in their rules that any unfulfilled rollover gets carried forward to the next deposit, well, that's their rule. It would be a shitty rule, but if they state it in their rules, that's their prerogative, and their rules would have to be followed.
If this is not stated in their rules, then the handling of the rollover should default to the industry standard, which is NOT carrying forward any unfulfilled rollover.
2. If there is a pending wager that exists when the customer sends a reload deposit, it would be acceptable for the book to rule that the customer hasn't completely "tapped out" from his first deposit. In this case, it would be acceptable for the book to carry forward the unfulfilled rollover requirements.
A question might arise if the player has a pending futures wager but his available cash is zero. In this case I say his balance is not zero until the pending wager is decided (and lost).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with Darryl on both points:
1. If the book states in their rules that any unfulfilled rollover gets carried forward to the next deposit, well, that's their rule. It would be a shitty rule, but if they state it in their rules, that's their prerogative, and their rules would have to be followed.
If this is not stated in their rules, then the handling of the rollover should default to the industry standard, which is NOT carrying forward any unfulfilled rollover.
2. If there is a pending wager that exists when the customer sends a reload deposit, it would be acceptable for the book to rule that the customer hasn't completely "tapped out" from his first deposit. In this case, it would be acceptable for the book to carry forward the unfulfilled rollover requirements.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The General:
If I deposit $1000 and get a $100 bonus, then proceed to lose all $1100.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>General, not really sure about the rollover, but if you repeat this process five times, I'm pretty sure they send you a hat and a tee shirt.
If I deposit $1000 and get a $100 bonus, then proceed to lose all $1100.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>General, not really sure about the rollover, but if you repeat this process five times, I'm pretty sure they send you a hat and a tee shirt.
