The blonde Online Casino

[tikay]

blonde is liable for all winnings/losings in the casino? im really shocked at that.

As a major shareholder in blonde, I have an ABSOLUTE DUTY (as do all other Shareholders, in this or any other Company) to optimise or maximise blonde's revenues.

public companies have this obligation, not sure about LLC's

blonde is liable for all winnings/losings in the casino?

Correct.

As a major shareholder in blonde, I have an ABSOLUTE DUTY (as do all other Shareholders, in this or any other Company) to optimise or maximise blonde's revenues. [/quote]

public companies have this obligation, not sure about LLC's[/i]

In fact, you may be, technically, correct there. I apologise if I've misled anyone on this point. But in general, that is the Shareholders Duty.

[tikay]

I actually think this could be a "best of blonde" Thread.

It's a difficult & emotive subject, & yet every single response from Members has been intelligent, reasoned & well argued, reflecting the real character of blonde Members.

I began the thread because I really was not quite sure of the ethicacy of this matter. It's nice to know we can discuss these things openly, & without hoohah.

[stoneii]

I too don't regularly play casino games, either online or live, they just don't do it for me.  I understand that these are huge revenue makers and in a lot of cases (live anyway), poker is almost a lost leader to get punters into casinos and, when they crash out of tournaments earlier than they hoped, have a high likelihood to drop a lot more into the side games than they do in the tournament they showed up to play in.

Regards position on non-poker casino games online, there has been a huge difficulty for online sites with regards US punters due to the legislation that has gone through in the USA.  From what I gather, a lot of the momentum for such legislation getting to the ear of congress was due to some horrific stories of sums of money being lost in "online gambling" (and of course the money laundering opportunities!!!).

The poker sites stance has always been largely built around poker being a game that includes a significant degree of skill and so should exempt themselves from the law that addressed online gambling.  I think such a stance gets increasingly weakened everywhere with the greater inclusion of these pure gambling "add-ons".

Ask punters to stand up in a courtroom and relate their experience of blonde poker room versus punters to stand up and relate experiences of any blonde casino games and I think the divide would be obvious.  Not sure where legislation will go ultimately with online sites, but the gambling aspect will never receive a warm (or acceptable) reception from some influential Joe Public bodies imo.  Poker - meh, I think that can be achieved.

stoneii

[RichEO]

I apologise if I've misled anyone on this point. But in general, that is the Shareholders Duty.

LOL

In context, he means it's his duty to optimise blonde's revenue, not to mislead people.

[tikay]

I apologise if I've misled anyone on this point. But in general, that is the Shareholders Duty.

LOL

In context, he means it's his duty to optimise blonde's revenue, not to mislead people.

Oops!

[tikay]

I too don't regularly play casino games, either online or live, they just don't do it for me.  I understand that these are huge revenue makers and in a lot of cases (live anyway), poker is almost a lost leader to get punters into casinos and, when they crash out of tournaments earlier than they hoped, have a high likelihood to drop a lot more into the side games than they do in the tournament they showed up to play in.

Regards position on non-poker casino games online, there has been a huge difficulty for online sites with regards US punters due to the legislation that has gone through in the USA.  From what I gather, a lot of the momentum for such legislation getting to the ear of congress was due to some horrific stories of sums of money being lost in "online gambling" (and of course the money laundering opportunities!!!).

The poker sites stance has always been largely built around poker being a game that includes a significant degree of skill and so should exempt themselves from the law that addressed online gambling.  I think such a stance gets increasingly weakened everywhere with the greater inclusion of these pure gambling "add-ons".

Ask punters to stand up in a courtroom and relate their experience of blonde poker room versus punters to stand up and relate experiences of any blonde casino games and I think the divide would be obvious.  Not sure where legislation will go ultimately with online sites, but the gambling aspect will never receive a warm (or acceptable) reception from some influential Joe Public bodies imo.  Poker - meh, I think that can be achieved.

stoneii

Thanks fella.

FWIW, I used to play Blackjack & Roulette big time until about 20 years ago. (Can still remember my magic wheel numbers - 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31 - note, all Prime Numbers, I am fascinated by Prime Numbers). And I was a card-counter at Blackjack. Jeez, I've done some daft things in my life.

I have not touched either since, Live or Online, & I am never likely to.  I may, if stuck in a Casino with time on my hands, play a little three-card poker to while away the time, but I don't enjoy it, but I do find idle time in Casinos numbingly boring.

[Jamier-Host]

Additionally these games have not been promoted at all to the players and I have no plans to do so.  If someone decides to play them then fair enough but I personally do not want to encourage players to lose money.  (hmmm, I see what you mean about sounding pompous Keith!)

The why do I get promo mails from Blue Square Casino?

I know that (I suspect) to play I'd have to download a different piece of software, rather than just click on a button in the poker software, but making a big deal out of taking the high moral ground is a bit empty if you know you can rely on someone else within the organisation to push the casino games on players.

Basically when you register for an account you're details are entered into our central database and (assuming you accepted correspondance) are accessible by our marketing team for all areas of the business.

However should you wish to be excluded from specific product emails then this can be done by using the unsubscribe option at the bottom of all marketing emails.  To be honest I'm not entirely familiar with how this works though so if you have any problems with it then let me know.

Apologies if what I wrote made me sound hypocritical but hopefully those who have met me will know that I have always done what I can to look after our players best interests.

[AndrewT]

[Apologies if what I wrote made me sound hypocritical but hopefully those who have met me will know that I have always done what I can to look after our players best interests.

I'm not disputing that - I know you're one of the good guys.

Of course, at the heart of all this debate is the question 'How much do/should we need to protect people from themselves?'

Here's a question for Tikay (or anyone else to answer).

Which would you rather happen.

1) A member of the Blonde forum loses $2000 playing roulette through giving it a go following a Blonde mailing/promo message, and then the $1500 or so of Blonde's cut from that is used to help pay for an extra day of live tournament updates.

2) The promo activity doesn't happen, the player's $2000 stays in their account, and the day's live update doesn't happen.

I suspect it's a tough decision for many people (but not me, as I'm quite clinical about such matters).

[Claw75]

[Apologies if what I wrote made me sound hypocritical but hopefully those who have met me will know that I have always done what I can to look after our players best interests.

I'm not disputing that - I know you're one of the good guys.

Of course, at the heart of all this debate is the question 'How much do/should we need to protect people from themselves?'

Here's a question for Tikay (or anyone else to answer).

Which would you rather happen.

1) A member of the Blonde forum loses $2000 playing roulette through giving it a go following a Blonde mailing/promo message, and then the $1500 or so of Blonde's cut from that is used to help pay for an extra day of live tournament updates.

2) The promo activity doesn't happen, the player's $2000 stays in their account, and the day's live update doesn't happen.

I suspect it's a tough decision for many people (but not me, as I'm quite clinical about such matters).

depends on how much the player had in their account.  For some $2000 won't make much of a dent, so I'd not be too bothered about them essentially funding the live update.  If it was someone's entire bankroll blown in a moment of madness, I'd much rather scenario b.

[tikay]

[Apologies if what I wrote made me sound hypocritical but hopefully those who have met me will know that I have always done what I can to look after our players best interests.

I'm not disputing that - I know you're one of the good guys.

Of course, at the heart of all this debate is the question 'How much do/should we need to protect people from themselves?'

Here's a question for Tikay (or anyone else to answer).

Which would you rather happen.

1) A member of the Blonde forum loses $2000 playing roulette through giving it a go following a Blonde mailing/promo message, and then the $1500 or so of Blonde's cut from that is used to help pay for an extra day of live tournament updates.

2) The promo activity doesn't happen, the player's $2000 stays in their account, and the day's live update doesn't happen.

I suspect it's a tough decision for many people (but not me, as I'm quite clinical about such matters).

The question is hypothetical, because we have never spammed or promoted the casino, & I doubt we ever will.

It's nice up here on that Fence the blondes gave me at bB3.

[totalise]

how much would someone need to lose in the casino to get their own child board

[AndrewT]

depends on how much the player had in their account.  For some $2000 won't make much of a dent, so I'd not be too bothered about them essentially funding the live update.  If it was someone's entire bankroll blown in a moment of madness, I'd much rather scenario b.

How much money does someone need to have for you to feel comfortable with them deciding for themselves how to spend it?

[Claw75]

depends on how much the player had in their account.  For some $2000 won't make much of a dent, so I'd not be too bothered about them essentially funding the live update.  If it was someone's entire bankroll blown in a moment of madness, I'd much rather scenario b.

How much money does someone need to have for you to feel comfortable with them deciding for themselves how to spend it?

OK - i'll rephrase it.  It would depend whether $2000 was an amount which the person concerned was comfortable losing (in the same way I'd be comfortable gambling away a few quid on a night out at a casino).

[AndrewT]

The question is hypothetical, because we have never spammed or promoted the casino, & I doubt we ever will.

No need when you can start a forum thread telling everyone about it... 

It's nice up here on that Fence the blondes gave me at bB3.

Confucius says 'He who sits on fence gets splinters in arse.'

[AndrewT]

depends on how much the player had in their account.  For some $2000 won't make much of a dent, so I'd not be too bothered about them essentially funding the live update.  If it was someone's entire bankroll blown in a moment of madness, I'd much rather scenario b.

How much money does someone need to have for you to feel comfortable with them deciding for themselves how to spend it?

OK - i'll rephrase it.  It would depend whether $2000 was an amount which the person concerned was comfortable losing (in the same way I'd be comfortable gambling away a few quid on a night out at a casino).

Some people are comfortable gambling away every penny they have.