Bonuses

Bonus abuse

An operator's term for play it considers to exploit a bonus — sometimes genuine fraud, sometimes a vague clause used to withhold a legitimate win.

"Bonus abuse" describes two entirely different things, and operators are not always careful about which one they mean.

The genuine article

Real, definable conduct that operators are entitled to act against:

Multi-accounting. Opening several accounts to claim the same offer repeatedly.
Collusion. Coordinated play between accounts, particularly at poker or live tables.
Low-risk covering. Betting red and black simultaneously on roulette to grind wagering with near-zero exposure. This one is genuinely against the spirit and the letter of most terms, and it is usually spelled out.
Payment fraud. Stolen cards, laundering.

Each of these can be defined in advance, and honest operators define them.

The other thing

Then there is the clause that says nothing at all:

No definition. No examples. No threshold. This clause is not a rule. It is a discretion, and it is exercised, overwhelmingly, against players who have won. Nobody has ever had a losing session voided for irregular play.

The test to apply

Ask one question of any accusation: was the conduct defined, in writing, before I did it?

If yes, and you did it, the operator is within its rights.
If no — if the term is "sole discretion", "irregular play", "abusive pattern", or "advantage play" with no definition attached — then the operator is not enforcing a rule, it is inventing one after the fact.

The second case is a live case and belongs on the Tribunal docket, with your dated screenshots of the terms as they stood when you accepted the bonus. Undefined discretion clauses are catalogued in our unfair terms guide, and they cost an operator points on its TrustAudit Index.