Quote:
Originally Posted by jamthe3
Actually, I could see that...kinda...like a play through requirement for a bonus; let's face it, currently a 100% instantaneous bonus with a 1:1 (at least that's what's being quoted here in a year old TOS [yet another oddity I would say]) play through is better than the bonus/playthrough they offer for directly depositing, imho; kinda in a weird "Lock" sort of way makes sense, lol.
The 1:1 playthrough makes perfect sense to me, really. It's on the low side, but then again a transfer is a transfer, one could argue people would need no playthrough since a bank xfer or a Skrill xfer for example has no cost either and usually the poker player making use of this system is raking something every now and then at least. 1:1 makes 100% sure nobody can completely abuse it however, such as indeed funneling into other accounts for free, i mean, you're still forced to pay some rake then for the service they offer.
Higher or equal to the bonus would be ridiculous imo, they're 2 completely different systems. A deposit bonus is money they (Lock) are giving you (or at least a cut in rake). A transfer isn't Lock's money however, it's another person's money being sent, so yeah not sure how these can be compared.
That being said, if Lock were to increase the playthrough to something similar, there would be some crying i'm sure, but people would get over it if the rule was made clear to everyone in advance.