Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: ACR not letting "Rampage" withdraw -- but are they in the right?

  1. #1
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    7917
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    46,910
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    6777351

    ACR not letting "Rampage" withdraw -- but are they in the right?

    https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1523857808999002114



    It appears that ACR has a policy which requires 10% of rake to be generated, compared to the deposit amount, prior to withdrawal.

    Let's say you deposited $15,000. You'd have to generate $1500 in rake before withdrawing. Is that okay?

    In my opinion, sort of. These sites pay substantial fees to their payment processors for deposits and withdrawals, so it makes sense for them to want people to not simply move money on and off at a rapid pace, without playing much in between.

    However, there are a few issues here. Namely, in order to play at high stakes, you need a lot of money on there. If you deposit a lot, then 10% of a large sum deposited will take a LONG time to rake. This is especially because rake is capped at like $5 per pot, no matter what. Furthermore, high stakes games don't regularly go like the lower and middle stakes ones do. Therefore, it's unfair to place this requirement upon high stakes players.

    ACR should instead have a policy which requires X number of raked hands played in order to withdraw. They can even adjust that number for microstakes in order to prevent abuse that way. However, it sets a very bad precedent to require people to play a ton in order to get their own money off.

    They should also offer a one-time withdraw-and-be-banned option. That is, you can take your money off without further play, but this will result in an account ban after that. This way nobody's money will be stuck there due to this policy, while also preventing abuse of repeated deposit/withdrawals.

    They could alternatively do a "one time exception" rule, where everyone gets one withdrawal without meeting the rake requirement (and they're warned at the time they do it), and then it will be required next time.

  2. #2
    Platinum FRANKRIZZO's Avatar
    Reputation
    332
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,540
    Load Metric
    6777351
    Most sites have this, have to generate certain amount of rake before cashing out, I know bet online does. I see this applied for rollover bonus in sports betting predominantly.

  3. #3
    Platinum FRANKRIZZO's Avatar
    Reputation
    332
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,540
    Load Metric
    6777351
    Something that would be fair is having players have to rake the processing fees before cashing out.

  4. #4
    Platinum ftpjesus's Avatar
    Reputation
    487
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    3,323
    Load Metric
    6777351
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1523857808999002114



    It appears that ACR has a policy which requires 10% of rake to be generated, compared to the deposit amount, prior to withdrawal.

    Let's say you deposited $15,000. You'd have to generate $1500 in rake before withdrawing. Is that okay?

    In my opinion, sort of. These sites pay substantial fees to their payment processors for deposits and withdrawals, so it makes sense for them to want people to not simply move money on and off at a rapid pace, without playing much in between.

    However, there are a few issues here. Namely, in order to play at high stakes, you need a lot of money on there. If you deposit a lot, then 10% of a large sum deposited will take a LONG time to rake. This is especially because rake is capped at like $5 per pot, no matter what. Furthermore, high stakes games don't regularly go like the lower and middle stakes ones do. Therefore, it's unfair to place this requirement upon high stakes players.

    ACR should instead have a policy which requires X number of raked hands played in order to withdraw. They can even adjust that number for microstakes in order to prevent abuse that way. However, it sets a very bad precedent to require people to play a ton in order to get their own money off.

    They should also offer a one-time withdraw-and-be-banned option. That is, you can take your money off without further play, but this will result in an account ban after that. This way nobody's money will be stuck there due to this policy, while also preventing abuse of repeated deposit/withdrawals.

    They could alternatively do a "one time exception" rule, where everyone gets one withdrawal without meeting the rake requirement (and they're warned at the time they do it), and then it will be required next time.
    10% is ridiculous and Im speaking from insider knowledge. My merchant account with Coinpayments its 1% on crypto transactions period. Even if ACR is crediting the full deposit amount theres no way in hell the miner fees come up to another 9% on such a large deposit.(heck the customer has to account for those on a payment to Coinpayments actually and include them when making a payment, unless something has massively changed that is) This is nothing but ACR being greedy turds in my book and again Im pretty sure ACR actually owns that crypto payment processor as I stated in the text during the show recently which means there is no processing fee being actually paid its just the miner fees. 10% rake demand is ridiculous and greedy period and given the other shadiness by ACR just adds fuel to the fire of theyre doing what they can get away with as they know they're the only game in town for alot of folks out there especially USA players.

  5. #5
    Platinum FRANKRIZZO's Avatar
    Reputation
    332
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,540
    Load Metric
    6777351
    Oh I forgot , its bitcoin for withdrawl. I can somewhat understand sites not wanting to be banks and want some playthru.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-20-2020, 12:06 AM
  2. Replies: 70
    Last Post: 08-09-2017, 04:14 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-28-2017, 02:34 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-01-2016, 05:38 PM
  5. "MODEL CITIZEN" "DAN DRUFF" "DOESNT" KILL CHIL'RIN
    By Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-04-2016, 12:46 AM