Thread Rating:

4ofaKind
4ofaKind
Joined: Sep 28, 2010
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 221
June 22nd, 2013 at 7:28:11 PM permalink
Quote: binary128

Caruso,

What do you infer I am saying with the words - "The fact that there were no posts in this thread from Casinomeister I believe speaks volumes concerning his stance on this entire issue."

Chris



This is just my opinion on the whole Casinomeister thing.

Casinomeisterís collusion with the casinos has been so obvious all along it amazes me how not one of the members there would challenge him about this. Then again that should make it clear that any member willing to challenge him as already been banned. At the very least someone still a member there could have asked him for a closing opinion on this entire matter. After all, his opinion is what the entire site is based on.

Although Iíve been banned from his site after being labeled a ďTrollĒ believing in ďTin Foil HatĒ conspiracies and finally being charged with disrespect, I still always monitor important threads. It should be obvious to all how he always follows the same pattern of actions whenever challenged.

1) Ban any member that is an educated gambler that challenges him or any of his accredited recommended casinos as soon as possible.

2) Agreeing often with one of the labels the casino gave for keeping a players winnings. Of course never having to show the proof of that label since they have to protect the integrity and future safety of the stellar online gaming industry. Sharing this evidence could tip off future fraudsters. This is what is better known as a Kangaroo Court.

3) When any member confronts him and makes him look bad, instead of responding to the member with confirmed facts, he labels the member, bans him usually for disrespect, and then transfers the post with a new thread title or transfers the thread to some useless heading where no one would ever find the post or the thread.

4) Since I became a member there and still even today, whenever there is any type of serious issue that pops up, it just so happens on that day heís leaving on vacation or traveling for a week or two or three. Iíve seen this happen every single time ever since I joined the site, and considering this coincidentally happens with every serious issue I can only suspect it may not always be so. Regardless, this obviously gives him time to monitor everything thatís being said, and would appear to give him time to work in collusion with the casino for the best possible mutual response when he returns. It also gives him time to realize if he has no choice but to trash the casino when he comes back. Trashing casinos usually happens 99% of the time when the casino is not one of his financial backers.

5) Whenever a thread gets out of his control or seriously questions his integrity he locks it and waits for the fade away.

6) When a thread hits the top of a crescendo and itís time for him to take a stance, he no longer responds, and after making certain the thread was started in a busy heading, he waits for the fade away. {recent example please view} "Announcement from the GRA concerning Hilo and ReelDeal games" posted under "Online Casinos" heading. You might have to dig through a couple of pages to find it.

Just go to the first thread where this last issue developed with Katie and Betfred at Casinomeister, under the heading "Casino Complaints - Non-Bonus Issues" and the original rigged title of the thread was changed to "Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue" now locked and buried somewhere around page four. Then do some searching and you'll eventually find the second and third thread, and youíll see how every tactic I mentioned above was utilized. If you visit the site today you would never know this serious issue even took place. In fact every serious issue that was ever brought forward banks on the fade away as quick as possible so newbies don't read it preventing the risk of infecting their decision to sign on. For example everything the regulator recently said is already at the end of page two and the other two threads related to this issue are already lost deep within the site. Visit the site today and you'll see it's business as usual, with the same ole group of members bickering amongst themselves about delayed payments and tricky T&C's, and good old reliable Nitty doing the dirty work for the site.

What he did do with regard to this recent issue was send an e-mail to all his members to sign a petition against the regulators response. What did he really believe a hundred or two signatures would accomplish after reading the regulators absurd responses? The only reason for that e-mail was to calm down his cult followers who were climbing the walls after being attacked by the regulator. It was nothing more then an effort to imply (as phony as it may be) that he agreed with his followers justified response. Take note it wasn't him that was sending any petition, it was the Pogg.

It should have been obvious to all who read the regulators responses that even a hundred thousand signatures couldn't have changed the regulators absurd response. Did anybody really think the regulator would change his ruling and do a complete reversal? That would be the same as a defendant in a court of law openly admitting to committing perjury in his or her previous testimony. Of all the things Casinomeister could have done for the benefit of all the players and members, asking them to sign a meaningless petition was the most absurd and ridiculous. Don't think he didn't know this upfront. But he also knew he had to do something to show at least a little concern for his ranting followers.

He was on the casinos side from the get go, and even did all he could to cover it up early on. He lied about all the involved casinos paying back defrauded customers. I guess because he said the casinos paid the people back that makes it a confirmed fact and the case is closed. Now we know for fact Betfred never paid anyone back, (of course with an excuse why) so why should we believe the other casinos in different jurisdictions did? What's really ironic is the only player that did confirm they were paid back from Betfred, was the only person actually charged with anything which was scheming to defraud for personal gain and also banned from his site for that very reason. Is something wrong with this scenario or is it just me? This whole issue and his website reminds me of Jim Jones the founder and the leader of the Peoples Temple, convincing his cult followers to drink the cool-aide.

Every casino named in this issue are still accredited and the regulator only got a demotion in its rating at his site. The least he could have done was insist that the involved casinos had to reimburse all past players and provide proof that it was done for all to see. He also should have labeled the regulators as rogue with a warning if a player decides to play in that jurisdiction that nothing could be guaranteed safe.

Regulation enforcement would be in the best interest for all players. It should be obvious to all; even the cult members that are still permitted at Casinomeister that he wants no part of regulation enforcment. Regulation enforcement would ruin his entire sales pitch and pretty much render his services and site as useless. I suspect that day is on the horizon.

It doesnít matter that billions have already been stolen over the years from players that got robbed. Recovering a 100k a year for some of the victims is a pathetic joke when put against the stolen billions.

Making money regardless who takes the fall (always the customer) is the only rule everyone follows in this industry.

Like I said earlier itís obvious how few people must know whatís really going on.
Caruso
Caruso
Joined: Jan 26, 2013
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 74
June 23rd, 2013 at 11:40:02 AM permalink
Quote: binary128

Caruso,

What do you infer I am saying with the words - "The fact that there were no posts in this thread from Casinomeister I believe speaks volumes concerning his stance on this entire issue."

Chris



Please note I did say:


Quote:

I don't disagree with the opening comments



One such was your quote above.
Caruso
Caruso
Joined: Jan 26, 2013
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 74
June 23rd, 2013 at 11:59:46 AM permalink
Quote: 4ofaKind

Now we know for fact Betfred never paid anyone back, (of course with an excuse why) so why should we believe the other casinos in different jurisdictions did?



I think Nordic Bet claimed to have refunded players. They seemed on the up-and-up, and I spoke to them in London about it, so I'm happy (if maybe naïve) to take them at their word.

The fact that BetFred, or anyone else, has NOT refunded players is...what? It's a disgrace, but it could arguably be considered a crime of sorts. They falsely advertised (I'm being charitable here: it was rigged, but let's give them their best possible out) a 96% game as 100%. They owe, by any reasonable consumer standards, their entire player base 4% of the wagered total on that game. I'm correct about that, right? I can't see how it can be disputed.

The obvious problem is, no one knew they were being short-changed (note euphemism again), and only the casino can determine who is owed and how much.

I'm talking about >>> BETFRED <<< here.

Only >>> BETFRED <<< knows who's owed what and how much.

By no reasonable standard can the GRA (GGC) not require that BetFred, and any others, refund the players. This is an absolute disgrace. Brear's own words were that these games had "milions and millions of plays". So let's pick six million. 4% of six million is £240,000, assuming each bet was no greater than £1, which is a conservative estimate. Across those casinos running these games, the players are owed a huge amount of money, I suspect well over a million in reality, but possibly vastly more.

None of which Brear considers refundable, in his role as an ostensible "top regulator".

And Bailey STILL recommends BetFred.
lojo
lojo
Joined: Jun 24, 2013
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 112
June 24th, 2013 at 12:38:49 AM permalink
I will enjoy the pleasure of this forum if i am allowed. I will respect any other poster. I will substantiate anything I say. Thank you if allowed. I will expect that any message brought in response will be backed up by fact and I will not post half baked conspiracy theories. I do not wish to tax the welcome of my host.
Beyond my "vetting" questions of our host (current affiliations which I assume to be the Sands and online advertising) I will be open for vetting if I am comfortable with the response. I will feel free to challenge motive to any question asked of me and i will provide the answer to Mr. Shackelford in private if I feel better about that regardless of public response.

I have questions and I have answers
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1325
  • Posts: 21771
June 24th, 2013 at 2:43:46 AM permalink
Quote: lojo

I will enjoy the pleasure of this forum if i am allowed.



All are welcome, except those members already banned. That said, please introduce yourself.

Quote:

(current affiliations which I assume to be the Sands and online advertising)



You may say anything about the Sands you wish. I no longer have any affiliation with them.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Caruso
Caruso
Joined: Jan 26, 2013
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 74
June 24th, 2013 at 11:07:23 AM permalink
Sorry for getting a tad carried away above. I've amended my post.

Some more thoughts about the potential legal consequences / options...

http://www.hundredpercentgambling.com/newsArticle.php?id=71

...all of which are likely to come to nothing.
lojo
lojo
Joined: Jun 24, 2013
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 112
June 24th, 2013 at 3:28:33 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

All are welcome, except those members already banned. That said, please introduce yourself.

You may say anything about the Sands you wish. I no longer have any affiliation with them.



Thank you Wizard. I'm just a nutter degenerate gambler from way back when. I prefer to not divulge any past professional affiliations unless it seems necessary to qualify a claim I might make if that's okay. I don't really have anything to say about Sands here or Bodog/Bovada either I think Bodog is a fine place to play and I've done well there over the years.
lojo
lojo
Joined: Jun 24, 2013
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 112
June 24th, 2013 at 3:48:37 PM permalink
Quote: Caruso

Sorry for getting a tad carried away above. I've amended my post.

Some more thoughts about the potential legal consequences / options...

http://www.hundredpercentgambling.com/newsArticle.php?id=71

...all of which are likely to come to nothing.



Gtech files regular briefs with the US S.E.C. whenever they take over a company like Finsoft and may have to make yearly disclosures. There is a column on their financials that has income derived from the gaffed games. Surely. I wish I was more familiar with corporate law, there may be an angle in that.

I'd also like to mention that it is probably not 4%. Taking something Jufo said on another forum we see that the RTP is not the important number as the effect is compounded. Please let me know if my thinking is off here and if 4% still seems equitable.

Quote:

The player will double his balance only 16.7% of time or about once every 6 attempts. The difference is huge - you risk 100Ä to win 100Ä and only have a 1 in 6 shot to win rather than the 1 in 2 shot you believed to have.



Gtech can easily absorb the loss of refunding every deposit made where a player touched the bad games. Betfred and any other casinos that carried it could provide the data and participate financially somehow plus an extra 10% or so as an act of contrition. I just don't think refunding 4% of every bet made on the games is enough.
binary128
binary128
Joined: Nov 5, 2011
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 82
June 24th, 2013 at 5:13:31 PM permalink
To ensure that the data regarding Casinomeister's contributions to his forum's thread are clearly documented:

In addition to publishing Mr. Brear's ...

- First "Letter to the Meister" dated May 20 2013.

- Second "Letter to the Meister" dated May 22 2013.

- Third (and final?) "Letter to the Meister" dated June 5 2013.

... there were also the following posts:

- May 28 2013

- May 28 2013

- May 29 2013

- June 16 2013

I'm posting this to correct my previous statement - "The fact that there were no posts in this thread from Casinomeister ..." - which is clearly not true.

Chris
binary128
binary128
Joined: Nov 5, 2011
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 82
June 24th, 2013 at 5:51:33 PM permalink
Quote: lojo

Gtech can easily absorb the loss of refunding every deposit made where a player touched the bad games. Betfred and any other casinos that carried it could provide the data and participate financially somehow plus an extra 10% or so as an act of contrition. I just don't think refunding 4% of every bet made on the games is enough.


I believe that I am (uniquely?) qualified to speak on the issue of absorbing the loss associated with a problem game/problem licensee.

At the time that we paid out the approximately $40K USD to clear the debris trail of Heroes Casino and Westland Bowl, that $40K represented something slightly less than 10% of Galewind Software's gross annual income. (Yes, at that time, with 5 full-time employees, a handful of part-time employees, and the burden of a few business complications/responsibilities, we were barely scraping by.)

What do you figure 10% of GTech's gross annual income comes in at? Or Betfred's? Or Finsoft's?

I agree, BTW - I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think that an accurate compensation is more complex than a 4% total bet refund. (On the other hand, I could be completely wrong.)

In my mind I picture a normal distribution curve, with Player RTP on the X axis and Player Count on the Y axis. The production release of the game has the peak of that curve intercepting the X axis at 96%. You would need to shift the curve such that the peak intercepts the X axis at 100%.

I don't believe that it's rocket science, but I do think that it is a bit more complicated than a 4% total bet multiplier. Mike, or Eliot, or Jufo, or some of the other "math men", could clear this all up. (I know that I can't.)

Sadly, given that the "case is closed", the point is purely academic.

Chris

  • Jump to: