Gaffed software at major Internet casinos
Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games
I assisted the OP in determining that the games "Hi-Lo Gambler" and "Reel Deal" made by Realistic Games (based out of the U.K.) are gaffed. These programs were available at Betfred, Nordicbet, Stanjames, Betpack, Sportingbet, and Bet365. Betfred admitted that the game Reel Deal was gaffed and blamed the problem on a faulty help file. They have not addressed Hi-Lo Gambler, which is still in their casino as of this writing. The other casinos mentioned have not yet come forward to address this issue.
My opinion is that this is the most significant case of gaffed software since the BLR incident.
Michael Shackleford wrote to me indicating he will look into this after he returns from his trip.
I've been out of the country all week but will write more about this after I return tomorrow. Unlike BLR, this game implicates some very big caisnos.
This deserves to be huge.
Apparently there is this casino somewhere that offers "Cutesy Game" in real money mode and there is no House Edge, its just a totally fair game.
Now WHY would a casino do that? I do not know of ANY Brick and Mortar casino that offers a ZERO HOUSE EDGE game and tells the players "Don't Worry. We will pay the croupier his salary out of thin air."
Casinos have band width that they BUY, Servers that they BUY, Techies that they BUY ...
How does the casino buy anything if its a totally fair game with zero house edge?
If it can't be done in a brick and mortar casino where there is a live girl in a revealing outfit walking around giving free drinks away, what makes you think there is going to be a change when its a virtual girl in a revealing outfit but real money is involved?
WHO pays the programmer? If there is no house edge how does the casino pay that programmer? If there is no house edge how does the casino pay the night auditor?
If there is no house edge, zillions of players could line up... get lucky and win... and then walk away never to return, but there is that darned casino unable to walk away from such lucky winners. That casino has to stand there and keep paying bandwidth as well as lucky winners. Whereas unlucky losers simply walk away. Doesn't make sense economically.
What's the casino's name: Goodness of our hearts charity casino? Keep Beating Us Casino? We Make It Up On Volume Casino?
The thing about us degenerate gamblers - we are eager to excuse or deny the fact that we are cheated time and again, lest it ruin our favourite pastime. If we would acknowledge that we are cheated by online casinos, and would furthermore admit that this is not a "gaffe", and is gonna happen again and again, we would have to feel pretty stupid about still giving our money away. Nobody likes to feel stupid. So we excuse the fraudulent online gambling business again and again and again...
Mind you, it's probably a very small step to jump to "ripoff" or "fraudulent" as the motive is there when possible.
Like with BLR, if a third party software is contracted with a casino and gets paid a share of revenue as a fee for using the software, then the software company has a huge interest in "gaffing" the software to get more revenues, hoping that the general public won't notice. This is what I believed happened with BLR. The casino might be fine with earning 1.4% of the action for a fair game (like craps), but the software company who might get say a 20% share of this might very well not be.
And since the software company is not dealing with the public and is usually located in another third world country, it might be worth the risk to them to try it.
Quote: sodawaterIt's just a joke that anyone would do any gambling online aside from sports, which can't be rigged...
Really ????
I look forward to legalized online gambling in North America where cheating can be punishable with meaningful consequences and penalties. If and when that happens, I think it would open up a huge market where seniors and those who are too lazy to leave the house can donate their money to their local casino.
Quote: sodawatergaffed is a synonym for intentionally rigged. it means the same thing. it's not what you're thinking, gaffe like an accidental mistake.
You are correct about the meaning and my error. Thanks.
I stand by the rest of my remarks though. Gamblers WANT to trust online casinos / pokerrooms really bad, despite tons of proof about what is really going on.
That may be. I know its hard to gaff a roulette wheel by accident ... but just about any explanation seems to be accepted for awhile. All these programming errors, consultant's error, programming "glitch", ... no one ever seems to come right out and say blatant fraud. And after some rigamarole is applied, it seems these sites re-emerge under new names with newly whitewashed software.Quote: CanyoneroGamblers WANT to trust online casinos / pokerrooms really bad, despite tons of proof about what is really going on.
I'm told the demand during Prohibition was so high that some really rot-gut whiskey was often tolerated simply because that is all there was. Perhaps its similar in internet gambling sites. The demand is so high that quality is totally being ignored.
Quote: FleaStiffPerhaps its similar in internet gambling sites. The demand is so high that quality is totally being ignored.
-- sourceQuote: Wikipedia page on faroThe famed scam artist Canada Bill Jones loved the game so much that, when he was asked why he played at one game that was known to be rigged, he replied, "It's the only game in town."
As an update, I was out of the country all last week, so couldn't devote much time to this. I just gave Realistic Games 48 hours to make a statement in their defense before I add them to my blacklist.
Quote:Hi all,
Apologies for the delay, but the analysis of significant amounts of data and liaising with multiple suppliers takes time. We have moved as quick as possible without jeopardising the accuracy of the results, which you will find below.Our initial offer of compensation in regard to the help file was made. However, having reviewed the analysis from SPEILO G2 and our own, we accept that Betfred Games has been running two versions of the same game for free and money play respectively and that is simply not acceptable. Based on that we will be refunding all losses on the game from when the game was introduced to Betfred, and will be removing other Realistic Games provided by SPIELO G2 to complete a review of their configuration, help files and RTP and until we’re confident in their accuracy. Compensation payments will be issued within 7 working days.
- Realistic Games provided the assets and rights to the Reel Deal game but SPIELO G2 developed the game for their operators and in doing so changed a number of core features. As such, it is not right to identify Realistic Games as responsible for how the game performs.
- On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.
- The development of the game in this way resulted in SPELO G2 inadvertently running the fun version of the game on a fixed odds model and not a fixed price, and therefore it ran at a different RTP.
- Finally, during the deployment of the game to Betfred the wrong help file was associated with the game and reported the wrong RTP.
We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to our players and to thank the OP and the Casinomeister forum as a whole for bringing this to our attention. The integrity of our games and operation is of paramount importance to Betfred and value any feedback that strengthens or corrects our operation.
Finally, our logs and cooperation will remain open to authorised parties to further any part of this investigation.
Kind regards,
Aaron
Basically, the involved parties are admitting that this game was intentionally deceptive, i.e. not performing the way a real deck of cards would. Not only is that shady and unacceptale, turns out it is also illegal:
Quoting the Gibraltar gambling regulations (as posted on Casinomeister):
(5) A licence holder should not implement game designs or features that may
reasonably be expected to mislead the customer about the likelihood of particular
results occurring. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
(a) Where a game simulates a physical device the theoretical probabilities and visual
representation of the device should correspond to the features and actions of the
physical device (e.g. roulette wheel).
http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/images/s..._standards.pdf
Betfred and their providers derserve to die for this, but, of course, they wont.
Quote: FleaStiffPlease people think for a moment.
Apparently there is this casino somewhere that offers "Cutesy Game" in real money mode and there is no House Edge, its just a totally fair game.
Now WHY would a casino do that? I do not know of ANY Brick and Mortar casino that offers a ZERO HOUSE EDGE game and tells the players "Don't Worry. We will pay the croupier his salary out of thin air."
There is at least one casino in Arizona that offers zero house edge bets on the Field, buy 4 and buy 10. I have designed many zero edge games for online casinos (at their request). They're somewhat equivalent to loss leaders except they don't actually lose but break even. There is nothing inconsistent about offering casino players a good deal. Not everyone will take it all of the time, and the rest of the time is how they pay the bills. It's the same reason that players make hopping hard 6 bets instead of taking free odds, or play 6/5 Jacks or Better instead of blackjack: most gamblers are not price-sensitive (to house edge). The house doesn't need to profit from every single player to continue operations. They just need to profit in the aggregate.
Quote:Hi all,
Apologies for the delay, but the analysis of significant amounts of data and liaising with multiple suppliers takes time. We have moved as quick as possible without jeopardising the accuracy of the results, which you will find below.Our initial offer of compensation in regard to the help file was made. However, having reviewed the analysis from SPEILO G2 and our own, we accept that Betfred Games has been running two versions of the same game for free and money play respectively and that is simply not acceptable. Based on that we will be refunding all losses on the game from when the game was introduced to Betfred, and will be removing other Realistic Games provided by SPIELO G2 to complete a review of their configuration, help files and RTP and until we’re confident in their accuracy. Compensation payments will be issued within 7 working days.
- Realistic Games provided the assets and rights to the Reel Deal game but SPIELO G2 developed the game for their operators and in doing so changed a number of core features. As such, it is not right to identify Realistic Games as responsible for how the game performs.
- On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.
- The development of the game in this way resulted in SPELO G2 inadvertently running the fun version of the game on a fixed odds model and not a fixed price, and therefore it ran at a different RTP.
- Finally, during the deployment of the game to Betfred the wrong help file was associated with the game and reported the wrong RTP.
We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to our players and to thank the OP and the Casinomeister forum as a whole for bringing this to our attention. The integrity of our games and operation is of paramount importance to Betfred and value any feedback that strengthens or corrects our operation.
Finally, our logs and cooperation will remain open to authorised parties to further any part of this investigation.
Kind regards,
Aaron
Be nice if they could decide how to spell the name of the development company... (3 different spellings...)
Quote: CanyoneroOk, there is all kind of stuff to get mad about in here, let me focus on this:
Basically, the involved parties are admitting that this game was intentionally deceptive, i.e. not performing the way a real deck of cards would. Not only is that shady and unacceptale, turns out it is also illegal:
Quoting the Gibraltar gambling regulations (as posted on Casinomeister):
(5) A licence holder should not implement game designs or features that may
reasonably be expected to mislead the customer about the likelihood of particular
results occurring. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
(a) Where a game simulates a physical device the theoretical probabilities and visual
representation of the device should correspond to the features and actions of the
physical device (e.g. roulette wheel).
http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/images/s..._standards.pdf
Betfred and their providers derserve to die for this, but, of course, they wont.
I don't know much about this, but since these companies seem to be located and licensed in real countries with real legal systems, isn't there some legal recourse here? ie, sue the assholes?
I don't buy the argument that the casino is not responsible because they licensed the software from someone else. If they are going to offer someone else's software then they are responsible for testing it before unleashing it on their customers. When the customers deposited into the account they entered into a relationship with the casino, not the software providers.
I also notice the RG web site seems to be down.
Quote: WizardI just added Realistic Games to my blacklist. This after giving them 48 hours to provide a statement in their defense. They never replied to this offer.
I also notice the RG web site seems to be down.
Here is Realistic Game's reply to me, received 01/07/2013. I did not take them up on their offer. They required a condfidentiality agreement that would preclude me from disclosing any actual wrongdoing, should I become aware of any.
Quote: Andy Cattrell @ Realistic GamesDear Eliot,
[some content omitted]
Many of the posts I have read on the Casinomeister message board are quite staggering and I feel some information could go a long way to answering some of the assumptions and judgements that I believe have been mistakenly made.
We are happy to discuss the following topics in a second email correspondence in detail
• Company background
• Company founders
• Company aims
• Origins of both games (Reel Deal & Hi Lo Gambler)
• Why 2 versions exist e.g. x1.95 & x2
• Explanation of 3rd party relationships
• Explanation of the Finsoft relationship
• Explanation of a game life cycle on the Finsoft platform detailing development, support, maintenance & testing
• The maths of the games
• Certification of the games
[some content omitted]
I believe the fingers are now currently pointing to Finsoft as the main culprit here, along with complicit online casinos.
Here is the response from the U.K. Gambling Commission when contacted about their certification of Realistic Games:
Quote: UKGCDear Sirs
Thank you for the courtesy of requesting permission to publish the Gambling Commission’s (the Commission) response. The Commission is happy for you to do so. However, I thought it may also be useful to provide further information on the British regulatory system as there appear to be some misunderstandings so I’ll provide a basic overview of the British system which you may or may not already be aware of.
Firstly, and importantly for gambling software technical standards and testing requirements, we should differentiate between those operators that provide facilities for gambling directly to consumers (i.e. operate a website which takes deposits, verifies the age and identity of customers, accepts bets, pays out winnings, handles complaints etc) and those that provide services such as games to these customer facing operators.
Under the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act) online gambling is currently regulated on a point of supply basis. This means that a gambling company only requires an operating licence if they have certain key equipment located in Great Britain (for example the RNG, servers that store gambling transaction records, settle bets). See section 36(4) of the Act and the Commission’s advice note on remote gambling equipment.
In the case of gambling software developers, as stated in our email of 4 January, a licence is required if any of the licensable activities (manufacture, supply, install, adapt) take place in Britain. It would be an offence to carry out any of those activities without a licence. In the first instance a licence is required to be held in order to avoid an offence being committed.
As you may be aware, much of the online gambling by British citizens is carried out with operators licensed overseas. In fact, the Commission estimates that over 80% of British online gambling activity takes place outside Britain and is therefore not subject to the Act or the licence conditions and codes of practice attached to a Commission operating licence. This can result in confusion amongst consumers as websites can be operated in different jurisdictions and be subject to different requirements such as technical standards, complaints procedures and other matters.
On 3 December 2012 the government published draft legislation which is intended to amend the Act. The proposed new law would mean that remote gambling by consumers living in Britain is regulated on a point of consumption basis. Consequently, all operators selling into the British market, whether based here or abroad, would be required to hold a Commission licence to enable them to transact with British consumers and to advertise in Great Britain. Further information is available at http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/9559.aspx. One of the effects of the new law would be that because all online casinos transacting with British consumers would require a Commission licence, all games played by British consumers would, for the first time, have to comply with the Commission’s technical standards. As at present testing could be carried out by either the operator contracting with the customer or the gambling software licence holder. However, ultimate responsibility for ensuring a game was satisfactorily tested would still rest with the customer contracting operator i.e. the online casino operator.
In the scenario that you have raised the Commission has no legal or regulatory powers over the gambling provided from Gibraltar under a Gibraltese licence. If a game, manufactured by a Commission licensee, is made available for gambling on under a Gibraltar licence it must meet the requirements of that Gibraltar licence in terms of game fairness for consumers. Different jurisdictions have different regulatory requirements, and we believe it is unnecessary to require a game to be tested to the Commission’s technical standards if it is only ever offered under a non-Commission licence. Instead, the game should meet the technical standards in the jurisdiction where it is licensed.
To further explain this, one could consider an example of where a software developer based abroad supplied a game to an online casino licensed and regulated by the Commission. In that case, the software developer would require a gambling software licence from the Commission in order to legal supply a game into Britain (even if the development i.e. manufacture of the software took place abroad). That game would need to comply with the Commission’s technical standards in order to be offered to consumers by a Commission licensed online casino. The game may have already been tested for compliance against technical standards of the jurisdiction it was manufactured in but ultimately that is irrelevant – it is the Commission’s technical standards that it must comply with in order for it to be made available by a Commission licence holder. If the game does not meet the Commission’s technical standards, it cannot be offered by a Commission licensed online casino.
In his email, Mr Garvie states “If this is the case, to all intents and purposed, for online players a UKGC seal would be of no inherent value what-so-ever as it offers the customer no regulator protection.” This is incorrect. A Gambling Commission licence offers regulatory protection to consumers gambling with Commission licensed operators. British consumers choosing to gamble in other jurisdictions are afforded the regulatory protections of those jurisdictions. The Commission published an information note giving advice for consumers on some of the issues to look out for when gambling online, one of which is identifying the regulator for a website as just because a website is accessed from Britain does not mean it is regulated here.
I hope this clarifies the position and you now understand why the Commission cannot assist further in this matter.
Yours Sincerely
In my opinion, the UKGC has shown callous disregard for their obligation to protect players from predatory casino programs created or offered by those companies that bear their certification.
Quote: WizardI have updated my blacklist entry, pointing the finger at Finsoft, Spielo, and Realistic Games.
Hmm, it was Betfred (among others I suppose) however who offered this game to players. So you are going after the gun manufacturer but not the shooter.
Here's a German word of the day: Beisshemmung. It means bite inhibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bite_inhibition), but in German it is also used when a person is reluctant to go after somebody else when they should (in whatever way).
Sorry if I am missing something about your blacklist policy.
Quote: CanyoneroHmm, it was Betfred (among others I suppose) however who offered this game to players. So you are going after the gun manufacturer but not the shooter.
We don't know that Bedfred knew the game was rigged. It deserves to be asked why they would put in a game with an alleged 100% return, or rigged one. However, they should get points for removing the game, refunding players, and an honest confession at CasinoMeister.
I hate to say it, but in the world of Internet gambling, not that many people actually understand gambling. They might not have just accepted a whole package of games without asking questions.
Quote:Here's a German word of the day: Beisshemmung. It means bite inhibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bite_inhibition), but in German it is also used when a person is reluctant to go after somebody else when they should (in whatever way).
German has such wunderbar words like this. I wonder if it came up at the Nuremberg Trials.
OK.Quote: WizardWe don't know that Bedfred knew the game was rigged.
50% chance they knew, maybe, just maybe,
because they would profit from it in a very competitive market,
too many online casinos and not enough players because of the current US rules. Maybe.
50% chance they did not have a clue and did not know.
Are not 100% return games around?Quote: WizardIt deserves to be asked why they would put in a game with an alleged 100% return, or rigged one.
And one is charged a withdraw fee when do you win and want your money. They get their edge.
They may be dumb and were caught, maybe, but IMO they are not stupid.
Once you sue you begin to find out just how "real" the companies and the judicial systems are.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't know much about this, but since these companies seem to be located and licensed in real countries with real legal systems, isn't there some legal recourse here? ie, sue the assholes?
Wade through a bunch of entities without any money to find who is really behind the casino and find that the bank accounts are in some friendly place such as the Cayman Islands. Deal with people who claim ignorance of everything and point only to the wrong doing of others. Then you have to deal with Chinese Judges and the Chinese Sardine Can. (Empty sardine can filled with dirt, lid crimped back on ... sold to a merchant ... famine deepens, prices rice ... eventually the fiftieth merchant opens the can and sues, but is told Those were sardines for selling, not sardines for eating. No Recovery!). The software consultants disappear, gambling certificates from some commission are a rubber stamp in the drawer of the casino owner.
Quote: WizardWe don't know that Bedfred knew the game was rigged.
I don't think that this is really relevant. Either way, they are responsible.
Quote: WizardWe don't know that Bedfred knew the game was rigged. It deserves to be asked why they would put in a game with an alleged 100% return, or rigged one. However, they should get points for removing the game, refunding players, and an honest confession at CasinoMeister.
I hate to say it, but in the world of Internet gambling, not that many people actually understand gambling. They might not have just accepted a whole package of games without asking questions.
Betfred's "confession" was far from honest. If you read the Betfred rep's responses in the Casinomeister thread, he didn't admit to any problem with the game's implementation itself, only that the game's help-file incorrectly stated a 100% payout on a game running at a 96% setting. Apart from the help-file "mistake" they probably don't see anything wrong with how the game was designed.
A bookie as high-reputation and large as Betfred should do due diligence to verify that every product they put on their site complies with standards of fair gaming. They completely failed to do that so they should also face the consequences. If there are no other consequences for the operator to run gaffed games other than having to pull them and saying "sorry", it will remain extremely profitable for them to keep having these kinds of games and hope they get caught only on some low percentage of them.
What amazes me when an online casino game is caught cheating, is the balls they have to run that risk of getting caught in the first place on the easy to detect games they usually are being caught on. These are games that don’t require hundreds of thousands of documented plays before an opinion could be accurate. One could only imagine what is actually being done with these types of games that virtually are undetectable.
The irresistible greed nerve is running rampart within online gambling operators and their software providers, simply because it can with no regulation and no enforcement. Online gambling is being run today similar in many ways if not worse then how Vegas was in its early mob controlled days.
I personally became convinced that table games and video poker games offered unregulated online are designed to mimic a real game, and were designed clever enough that regardless what is brought forward as evidence of foul play with these types of games is usually never efficient. In addition they always will have the cushion of stating that perfect play is required to achieve proper EV to further cast doubts. The opportunity's for foul play are endless when a casino game with real money involved is presented virtually through a program without confirmed regulation oversight.
A game that consistently over years falls slightly lower then the expected negative EV would equate to billions of stolen dollars. Not that they wouldn’t have eventually gotten these stolen funds if the players kept playing, but it sure as hell expedites their bottom line.
With everything that happened already and what might happen in the future with online gaming (USA regulated games) their cash cows life expectancy is always uncertain, making them desperate to grab all they could while they still can. Personally, I think online gaming after the UIGEA was passed went into a tailspin due to uncertainty. Shortly after the UIGEA was passed the poker scandals were reveled, along with everything the DOJ's actions exposed {which inadvertently exposed even more internal operator scams unknown to the players} and now even more exposed rigged casino games. I'm not even gonna touch on all the players that won having their winnings stolen back one way or another.
Besides, after seeing this type of fraud with online casinos and poker rooms, today we still know nothing is any safer. Everyone should also realize that the proven fraudsters caught in the past suffered no legal consequences from any of the countries they operate and pretend to be regulated out of. The poker rooms that reimbursed players during their scandals had to make a decision. Either close the doors and screw everyone that was screwed, or reimburse the players (that's if they even still had their funds) so they could keep operating.
The worse scenario for a cheating software provider and operator would be having to re-brand, since they can with no regulation oversight.
This incident will have the same results all the others did in the past. The casinos using the rigged software didn’t know it was rigged, then apologize, swear how honest and reputable they are, (with the help of affiliates who also want your money) remove the rigged game and sometimes the providers, telling us they reimbursed all players that ever played the game. (who ever actually saw proof of this?) Then they could even make certain the software they do use can't expose a similar incident. After all with no regulation or enforcement in place these operators and programmers do get to learn from their mistakes and keep operating.
Everyone by now should also realize that "yes" online operators and software providers are willing to risk everything for a quicker buck. But then again maybe someone could tell me what it is they actually are risking if caught? The "Virtual" brand is a perfect example of this point, who still today are going stronger then ever with sixteen different casinos, even after 15 years of blacklisting by many.
As long as all these affiliates continue to make tons of money, this nonsense will never end. Affiliates make money by driving you to the casinos that pay them the most for your business, not the casinos that pay you the most for your business.
This is all just my opinion, and with no online gaming regulation in place that matters, no one can possibly prove I'm wrong. Usually the biggest arguments on this subject come from compulsive gamblers that can't resist the temptations of online gaming and want to convince themselves and others that their getting a fair game, and of cause affiliates who will go to their death defending their incomes.
Unfortunately, the few present good operators today must fall under the same umbrella, since they still have the same options to execute foul play at will.
If anyone wants to believe that forum owners (all affiliates) are running watch dog web sites simply because they want you to be safe while gambling at an online casino that's operating with no fear of any regulation enforcement: then online gaming is for you.
Online gambling as it still stands today, will eventually be exposed as one of the biggest scams of all time.
They did this trying to make you believe their operation was just as much a victim as the players. Besides, no one ever enforced that casino owners had to confirm what they were offering to customers was actually authentic. It now becomes obvious that their gaming software's monthly, quarterly, and annual audits prior to this incident couldn't have been authentic either.
I still can't comprehend how casinos the affiliates and watchdogs that promote them are jumping through hoops to pass the blame solely on the software provider. These are some of the biggest online gaming operators that exist today caught pick pocketing customers wallets. {One could only suspect what they would be saying if these were small outfits not on their recommended money-tree list.}
Betfred, where this rigged game was found made a statement in this thread at casinomeister (linked below) confirming this game that's suppose to mirror a live card game and same probabilities actually don't, and had no problem with it being a slot machine dressed in card games clothing with predetermined outcomes.
Since all online gaming software has allegedly been periodically tested all along, (just read all their websites) how deep does this fraud actually go? This is an annual multi-billion dollar business with plenty of deep pockets.
Also notice who the first thank you for this post below was given by. The famous watchdog himself. The same guy that changed the original title of the thread from "Betfred rigged game" to "software name rigged game", immediately getting Betfred out of the headlines.
I find it troubling after reading the only possible response on the table for NordicBet, of course washing their hands of any wrongdoing, the actual responses that follow after this post. These people have to be kidding me. I don’t care how the software got there; NordicBet and the others (yet to respond) were caught using it.
Are people other then the cult followers at the casinomeister site, (the only long term members allowed to remain there) really this foolish?
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-rigged-rogue-software-30.html#post533400
Quote: OP
Firstly, I would like to apologize to all the members here, especially
Eliot Jacobson who spent a considerable amount of time investigating
these games. The truth is that I opened an account at Betfred on
behalf of my sister in an attempt to profit from bonuses on a 100% RTP
game. While I had her permission to do so, I accept that it was wrong.
I regret bringing the issue to light in this manner and accept that I
should instead have disclosed this directly to Betfred or the
regulator to get an explanation and a refund.
The regulator has explained to me that the discrepancy between the
games was due to human error in game updates, and not that the games
were 'rigged' and I fully understand and accept this explanation. I
now realise that my actions, though identifying an error, have
generated unwarranted criticism of Betfred, Spielo and Realistic Games
and caused a huge distraction for the regulator. I must stress that my
intention was only to get my money back and not to incite any
criticism towards these parties.
I would also like to clarify that I did not in any way profit from my
play at Betfred nor was I aware of any flaw in the game before I
started playing. The amount refunded was the exact amount of the
deposits so there are no winnings resulting from this.
At this point, I am unsure what's going on. I have lost track of all the players, events and issues that constitute this cacophonous conflagration of incompetence, malice and nefarious intent.
Quote: teliotThis issue has taken a turn that has cast everything into doubt...
That the player played on his sister's account doesn't change the issue that Spielo created a gaffed game that cheated players.
"Human error in updating a game..." sure.
Quote: teliotThis issue has taken a turn that has cast everything into doubt. The OP of the thread at Casinomeister admitted, in an e-mail to Bryan Bailey, that:
Quote: OP
The regulator has explained to me that the discrepancy between the
games was due to human error in game updates, and not that the games
were 'rigged' and I fully understand and accept this explanation. I
now realise that my actions, though identifying an error, have
generated unwarranted criticism of Betfred, Spielo and Realistic Games
and caused a huge distraction for the regulator. I must stress that my
intention was only to get my money back and not to incite any
criticism towards these parties.
Read this guys, reads this two or three times. Can you not get mad?
You know what makes me mad, REALLY REALLY mad? The arrogance combined with idiocy of the people behind all of this. Can anybody believe that the OP wrote this statement beacause he suddenly felt bad for using his sister's account? Does that even matter? Heck, he did not even write this. This was written by some would be lawyer, and some shady deal was made.
Listen up retarded criminals: If you are gonna do this, at least get it right! At least make a statement like this seem credible and meaningful. Come up with something better than this! Not only are you trying to steal our money, but you are also insulting us by believing you can deal with this by creating a complete bullshit narrative. It started with the "we can't be held responsible for software somebody else made" ridiculousness, and now this.
So here is my statement:
Betfred has been cheating players out of their money by offering gaffed games that violate Gibraltar gambling regulations. Those games were deceiving the player into believing they were playing a fair (100% RTP) game. Betfred also falsely claimed on their website that these games had a 100% RTP. When they were caught, they attempted to shift the blame.
Sue me.
I just checked the Casinomeister thread:
- OP is banned
- Thread is closed by Casinomeister himself.
- Thread title has been changed from "Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games" to "Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue"
Casinomeister, at least you didn't dare to delete the thread, but you are still a sellout. At least now I know I cannot trust any of the allegedly unbiased information on your site. Farewell.
Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games Betfred Rigged Hi-Lo Games You're welcome!
Quote: teliot
At this point, I am unsure what's going on. I have lost track of all the players, events and issues that constitute this cacophonous conflagration of incompetence, malice and nefarious intent.
What is going on is pretty simple to me. Casinomeister is corrupt and has been sold out. He just added Betfred back to his Accredited casinos list and added these statements there:
Betfred is outstanding - it's one of the best Playtech casinos that is listed at Casinomeister. Besides hosting Playtech's award winning games, they offer poker, sports betting, skill games, bingo, and lots more. Do yourself a favor and join them.
Finsoft/Spielo Games - there was an issue posted here concerning the fairness of some of the games that Betfred (amongst others) were hosting on their site: specifically “Reel Deal” and “HiLo Gambler”. It turned out the RTPs listed on the games' help files were not correct. The files were replaced and affected players were reimbursed.
I see, so it's all just a wrong help-file being provided issue again, never mind that the software adapted to player's bet by increasing the chance of the outcome not selected by the player.
And they haven't even reimbursed any other player than OP. In the CM thread another Betfred customer contacted them about reimbursement and their customer support laughed him/her away.
Does anyone here have contacts to journalists in UK newspapers? What Betfred deserves now is that this issue of cheating makes mass media in UK.
Yes, I agree. The software cheats. Betfred stated very clearly that the software cheats. But, because of the admission by the OP, I can no longer rely on the data that was provided to me in reaching that conclusion.Quote: WizardThat the player played on his sister's account doesn't change the issue that Spielo created a gaffed game that cheated players.
Quote: Jufo81I see, so it's all just a wrong help-file being provided issue again, never mind that the software adapted to player's bet by increasing the chance of the outcome not selected by the player.
If they can use that excuse what is to stop the next Internet casino who cheats from receiving forgiveness by saying, "Sorry, we meant to disclose that we cheat in the help file, but mistakenly omitted that part."
Quote: Jufo81Does anyone here have contacts to journalists in UK newspapers? What Betfred deserves now is that this issue of cheating makes mass media in UK.
Unfortunately, I don't. An American journalist in the mainstream media is investigating this and I hope to see him publish something late next week.
Quote: teliotYes, I agree. The software cheats. Betfred stated very clearly that the software cheats. But, because of the admission by the OP, I can no longer rely on the data that was provided to me in reaching that conclusion.
I find it a stretch to imply the player falsified a log file of about 20,000 games. One thing I do give the other side is that they at least admitted the game was gaffed. As far as I know, nobody has denied the logs posted at CasinoMeister were genuine.
Quote: teliotI hope that those who were posting on Casinomeister in the thread that Bryan closed will find this thread and continue this important discussion here.
Me too. I welcome them here.
There was a great deal of great posts by many other forum members but below summarizes in detail the chain of events, which by the way is not over yet.
Dec. 27, 2012
Katie91 joins Casinomeister and posts documented play logs of two games she played. Real Deal and Hi-Lo Gambler. Claims her brother is a mathematician and suspects rigged software. She states here “I have taken a screen recording of the entire play log directly from the website in case Betfred attempt to lock the account and deny these results are accurate.” Also requests here “I would invite others to analyze these results to confirm that these games are not fair and for Betfred to offer their logs for these two games to a third-party to analyze.” Provides URL’s to game logs.
Dec. 31, 2012
Eliot Jacobson president of Jacobson Gaming, analyzes play logs and reports how the tests were performed and his conclusion that the games are in fact rigged. Read: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-4.html#post530810
Jan. 01, 2013
Bedfred rep joins thread and makes this statement. Read: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-5.html#post530976
Jan. 01, 2013
Eliot Jacobson provides additional analyzes. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-6.html#post531027
Jan. 03, 2013
Eliot posts lack of communication and or response: Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-7.html#post531409
Jan. 04, 2013
Bedfred rep makes statement attempting to explain accusations. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-8.html#post531537
Jan. 04, 2013
Eliot Jacobson responds to Betfred’s lackadaisical explanation. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-8.html#post531552
Jan. 04, 2013
Eliot Jacobson details further. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-9.html#post531580
Forum member “thelawnet” posts evidence that free play plays differently then real play. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-13.html#post531776
Jan. 05, 2013
Katie91 “opening poster” requests additional 3 games to be analyzed she suspects also are cheating. Odd request since it indicates she knows more then first exposed. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-14.html#post531786
Jan. 05, 2013
Forum member “thelawnet” confirms additional games mentioned by Katie91 for review are in fact rigged. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-14.html#post531788
Jan. 05, 2013
Katie91 directs post to Bedfred asking why so many games are rigged. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-14.html#post531790
Jan. 06, 2013
Casinomeister makes first post and joins thread. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-15.html#post531936
Jan. 06, 2013
Eliot Jacobson expresses disgust with no response and drops out of investigation. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-15.html#post532011
Jan. 07, 2013
Casinomeister changes title of thread. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-20.html#post532216
Jan. 07, 2013
NodicBet joins thread stating internal investigation being preformed. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-20.html#post532218
Jan. 07, 2013
Betfred sticks their own foot up their ass with this explanation. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-21.html#post532256
Jan. 07, 2013
Forum member “thelawnet” is all over Betfred’s response. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-21.html#post532263
Jan. 07, 2013
Eliot Jacobson puts Betfred in their place after absurd response. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-21.html#post532267
Jan. 07, 2013
Bet365 contacts casinomeister and reports internal investigation in progress. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-22.html#post532300
Jan. 08, 2013
Betvictor rep. distances their casino from software provider. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-23.html#post532392
Jan. 08, 2013
Casinomeister posts UKGC’s response to issue. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-24.html#post532508
Jan. 10, 2013
Casinomeister attempts to clear Bet365. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-28.html#post532955
Jan 10, 2013
Eliot Jacobson corrects Casinomeister’s stupid attempt to clear Bet365. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-28.html#post533005
Jan. 11, 2013
Casinomeister posts Bet365’s full response. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-29.html#post533232
Jan 11, 2013
Eliot Jacobson requests additional information from Bet365. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-29.html#post533258
Jan 12, 2013
NordicBet confirms faulty software, reimburses all players, and removes all games from Finsoft. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-30.html#post533400
Jan. 14, 2013
Casinomeister thanks everyone for their efforts, declares no wrongdoing on the part of Betfred, Bet365, or NordicBet, puts them back on accredited list, with the hopes of everything said being accepted and hopefully forgotten about. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-33.html#post533815
Jan. 14, 2013
Casinomeister’s further attempt to whitewash issue and sweep under carpet. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-34.html#post533857
Jan 15, 2013
Casinomeister attempts further whitewash. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-37.html#post534117
Jan. 17, 2013
Katie91 (opening poster) declared reimbursement received from Betfred, along with thank you letter from Betfred for bringing the issue to their attention. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-42.html#post534666
Jan. 18, 2013
Forum member “pokeraddict” confirms Nevada G.C.B. was notified of thread since Lotttomatica Software Company, the parent company of all software providers named throughout the thread is suppose to go up against the board for approval of additional gaming software license. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-44.html#post534758
Jan. 23, 2013
After 5 days of over 100 posts looking for more answers and not satisfied with any of the explanations, Casinomeister reveals investigation is being done by the GRA. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-54.html#post536085
Jan. 23, 2013
ALERT-ALERT (cover-up begins) The GRA has notified Casinomeister of some breaking news. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-56.html#post536242
Jan. 23 2013
"binary" Executive at Galewind Software Corp. a highly reputable software provider smells a cover-up coming. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-56.html#post536257
Jan 23, 2013
Casinomeister temporarily locks thread pending further information. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-56.html#post536268
Jan. 24, 2013
Casinomeister reopens thread with breaking news. The opening poster is a fraud! Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-56.html#post536282
Jan. 24, 2013
Casinomeister is waiting for statement from opening poster. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-56.html#post536292
Jan 24, 2013
Not sure what Casinomeister is saying here. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-57.html#post536304
Jan. 24, 2013
Casinomeister explains to forum member, that if you suspect you’re being cheated, go to the people cheating you and ask them if they are. If they were they’ll give you your money back. No need to make the issue public using his forum. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-57.html#post536313
Jan. 24, 2013
Cover up thickens as opening poster is officially silenced. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-59.html#post536374
Jan. 24, 2013
Forum member “Balthazar” expresses concerns about Casinomeister’s actions. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-60.html#post536426
Jan. 24, 2013
Casinomeister responds allegedly showing concern still about software. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-60.html#post536431
Jan. 24, 2013
Forum members start pointing out suspicious chain of events. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-61.html#post536477
Jan. 24, 2013
Additional suspicions from "binary" Executive at Galewind Software Corp. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-61.html#post536484
Jan. 25, 2013
Casinomeister can no longer take the badgering from posters suspecting an obvious cover-up and decides to close the thread till further information is available. Read:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/casino-complaints-non-bonus-issues/54475-finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue-65.html#post536653
Personally, I’m convinced the opening post was an insider and aware of what was going on, and for whatever reason tried to expose them under his sisters name.
Quote: WizardMe too. I welcome them here.
Thank you Mike, I consider myself welcomed. :-)
Quote: Jufo81Does anyone here have contacts to journalists in UK newspapers? What Betfred deserves now is that this issue of cheating makes mass media in UK.
As I said at BB, I gave The Mail a shot, and gave up when all they'd put me through to was an answerphone. I also tried to find contact info for a Guardian blogger who wrote an article about the high street FOBTs and what-not, but no luck there either. How you cold-contact journalists you don't already know, I have no idea.
I'd suggest people don't go off with half-cocked accounts that'll have professional writers rolling their eyes, keep it polite and forensically factual. That is, assuming you have better luck connecting with anyone than I did.
Quote: Wizard
I find it a stretch to imply the player falsified a log file of about 20,000 games. One thing I do give the other side is that they at least admitted the game was gaffed. As far as I know, nobody has denied the logs posted at CasinoMeister were genuine.
It is clear that the logs are genuine.
In particular, the player states
Red: 9282, Black: 10074.
This is 0.4795 chance of getting Red (which should have been a 50/50 outcome).
Given that the Red bet paid 2x, this represents a payout of 95.9% +- whatever the appropriate margin of error is for a sample of this size.
The Betfred rep later states:
"On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP."
The figures presented by the OP are consistent with an RTP of 96%.
While the player may have had an interest in getting his losses refunded, and therefore in falsifying logfiles, there was no reason for him to choose 96%, as opposed to 94%, 92% or whatever. The casino admits outright that the game was set to 96% by a 'fixed price' mechanism.
So quite apart from the improbability of the logs being falsified, the fact that the casinos later stated RTP exactly matches those from the player's logs is beyond a coincidence.
Also, while it's just about possible that you might have some kind of funky arcade game where 3 Aces pays 100, and 3 9s only 2x, and the chances of getting an Ace is less than the chance of a 9, in this case it is necessary not only that the chance of red was less than the chance of black (which is bad, but not cheating given appropriate explanation in the helpfiile), but also that if you switched from a red bet to black, the chances would reverse (otherwise the casino would lose all its money, because players would quickly spot that the odds of black were > 0.5, and would bet exclusively on black, ignoring the red bet - so the game clearly was adaptive).
In other words, the chance of any given outcome changes depending on whether you have bet on it or not!
There is no helpfile that can explain away cheating of this manner, nor any form of player misrepresentation that can be said to be the cause of it.
Quote: 4ofaKindIn regard to this issue being played out at Casinomeister involving programmed cheating software being used at online casinos, I thought it would be easier for anyone who might be interested in what really is taking place, and might want to read what I thought were the most telling posts, without having to read through 650 posts.
4ofaKind, thanks a lot for your effort. Great resource to get up to date for anyone interested.
Maybe they could get a real investigation started on this before everything is wiped clean. I suppose it may already be to late, since they already had a month to cover a lot of ground.
Don't forget one thing, this is a multi-billion dollar annual business with possession of endless resources. Leaving a bunch of pissed off forum members behind in disgust, is really a small price to pay based on what has been exposed. Maybe a small tweak in their next quarters financial report.
Without outside help it will be business as usual in a short time.
Thank you for your extraordinary summary of the posts on this topic at Casinomeister. It may be worthwhile for someone to archive the thread in case it is deleted there. I contacted the media about 2 weeks ago and it is my understanding that a story is being written that will be on the AP wire. But the investigation is obviously complex and no good journalist would rush this one.Quote: 4ofaKindWithout outside help it will be business as usual in a short time
If it were related to sports betting, which is mainstream in the UK, the media would be all over this already...
I've probably signed my death warrant over there so hope you don't mind if I bed in here :)
