Gaffed software at major Internet casinos
Quote: WizardThe story about Absolute Poker and Ultimate Poker broke on the forums, which eventually led to 60 Minutes and nationwide exposure.
And after Black Friday, they are bankrupt, but unlike Full Tilt, PokerStars didn't buy them out. So anyone with significant balances in the site are screwed regardless. The site was notoriously soft after the cheating scandal because most profitable poker players stopped playing there and never came back, leaving a disproportionate amount of "fish".
This is an issue of any online gaming site. You have to have faith in a fair game AND manage players' funds appropriately. It's a tall order for many online gaming sites.
Quote: WizardThe story about Absolute Poker and Ultimate Poker broke on the forums, which eventually led to 60 Minutes and nationwide exposure.
If I have to count on players that I’m getting a fair game out of the gate, I would say there’s a serious issue that need’s dealing with.
Quote: tringlomaneAnd after Black Friday, they are bankrupt, but unlike Full Tilt, PokerStars didn't buy them out. So anyone with significant balances in the site are screwed regardless. The site was notoriously soft after the cheating scandal because most profitable poker players stopped playing there and never came back, leaving a disproportionate amount of "fish".
This is an issue of any online gaming site. You have to have faith in a fair game AND manage players' funds appropriately. It's a tall order for many online gaming sites.
Faith is something I have when I go to church on Sunday. Not something I should need to consider when I’m willing to risk my money against an already known certain house edge, but could unfaithfully be getting an unknown different one.
The fact still remains that every present online gaming site have the complete power to dictate and execute whatever, whenever, if ever, with what has become obvious to most, (forum members) absolutely no oversight.
Gambling on the gamble is not a good or safe place to start regardless who's willing to risk their reputation that it is.
The point I was endevouring to make (without writing it down - sorry if that was too subtle) was not when this award was made, but by whom? A selection of "judges" from a subscription magazine that is dependent on a bouyant online gaming industry in order to justify it's raison d'etre. I've searched the site at some length, and I can't find a single reference to the recent "issue" that has created some ripples on the pond. Wonder why that is? Perhaps they don't consider it newsworthy?
Still, the awards jolly looks a good excuse to put on a tux and sink a few?
No word from the Gibraltar "regulator".
Quote: WizardThe story about Absolute Poker and Ultimate Poker broke on the forums, which eventually led to 60 Minutes and nationwide exposure.
Except in this situation GTECH/Lottomatica was able to get a NV license after the time this news broke and their suitability was declared. I went to NGCB and got a "We will look into it" right before their interactive license was rubber stamped.
Quote: 4ofaKindPersonally, I think all the noise people made online at different forums relating to this scandal will eventually have the rude awakening of how meaningless we all actually are in the multi billion dollar unregulated online gaming industry. (That's if we haven't already)
Three months without a peep I think is enough time to confirm my above statement.
Quote: 4ofaKindThree months without a peep I think is enough time to confirm my above statement.
Yep. My microphone is only so loud, but at least I used it.
How often do you spend time talking to a rubber stamp? If its a world of shell corporate entities, diplomatic signatures, rubber stamp regulators, etc. .... don't enter it and hope to be dealing with the cream. Steer clear.Quote: PokeraddictI went to NGCB and got a "We will look into it" right before their interactive license was rubber stamped.
______________________________________________
Another way of looking at this long delay.
If ...
1. The Player's interests and concerns didn't count for jack shit.
2. The GRA's documented regulations, specifications and requirements didn't count for jack shit.
3. The significant threat to their business arising from the UKGC modifications now being considered didn't count for jack shit.
... then a decision would have been made a long time ago.
Personally, I think the GRA is well aware of the public scrutiny that will be applied to their decision. I think that some media outlets are waiting for that decision before they publish anything, and I think the GRA is aware of that too.
Yes, Bryan locked the thread, which I think we all agree was a wimpy thing to do. His action removed a continuous pressure arising from the Players.
However, prior to it being locked it got pretty heated. I'm not sure if Bryan said it, but I believe he certainly implied it - he was getting a lot of heat from the GRA as a result of that thread.
I feel confident in saying that the GRA's first response to this issue was "This is all bullshit. Every Player complaint is bullshit. All they do is whine about not getting bonuses because of T&C exclusions."
I also feel confident in saying that the GRA has by this point actually looked at the data provided by the forums and realized "Hey, this isn't bullshit. This is real shit. And it stinks too."
Chris
Quote: 4ofaKind...the multi billion dollar unregulated online gaming industry.
The problem isn't being unregulated. When it was unregulated, up to ten or so years ago, it worked fine. The problem is the fake regulators - and the fake "player advocates", of course.
Quote: CarusoThe problem isn't being unregulated. When it was unregulated, up to ten or so years ago, it worked fine. The problem is the fake regulators - and the fake "player advocates", of course.
Regardless of how online gaming evolved into its present form, everyone’s only concern should be proof of it being fixed, like the proof we have of it being rigged, before considering playing.
Honest today, rogue tomorrow, is a house edge gamblers should never consider.
Quote: CarusoThe problem isn't being unregulated. When it was unregulated, up to ten or so years ago, it worked fine. The problem is the fake regulators - and the fake "player advocates", of course.
That's not true. I personally worked with several vendors in the early 2000s using a "risk mitigation" system that would tighten up the slot games for a while after someone won a big jackpot. It was crude and obvious, and terribly crooked, and I played no small part in convincing my clients to use proper math (which they did after it became clear their games performed better). But such a rigged system would be illegal under any reasonable regulatory scheme.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's not true.
The quibble you mention then is no less now. Look at Betfred here. Difference is, now the regulators tell us everything is OK. Or look at Full Tilt for a different example. Or Absolute. All "regulated". In fact, in the Absolute case, imagine if that had been wholly down to the regulator. Imagine if another GRA had been tasked to look into it, rather than the thunderstorm of player input that there was. Imagine if some fake player advocate had been the only realistic resource, ready to lock threads and curtail discussions the moment his industry paymasters clicked their fingers, like Bailey.
Back then, if you had a casino problem, you complained on the boards and elicited random affiliate help as and where. And it worked. So it is true, warts and all. It's way worse now.
Quote: CarusoThe quibble you mention then is no less now. Look at Betfred here. Difference is, now the regulators tell us everything is OK. Or look at Full Tilt for a different example. Or Absolute. All "regulated". In fact, in the Absolute case, imagine if that had been wholly down to the regulator. Imagine if another GRA had been tasked to look into it, rather than the thunderstorm of player input that there was. Imagine if some fake player advocate had been the only realistic resource, ready to lock threads and curtail discussions the moment his industry paymasters clicked their fingers, like Bailey.
Back then, if you had a casino problem, you complained on the boards and elicited random affiliate help as and where. And it worked. So it is true, warts and all. It's way worse now.
There are many things that separate online poker from online casinos. Poker sites early on quickly were reduced to five or six major players controlling 95% of all players that mattered. There were tons of whales and high rollers with lots of money sitting around at these few sites. Poker is also viewed differently then casino games since the player is not playing against the house, nor does the house care about game outcomes. Poker players quickly got the scam to the media.
After the poker scandals were exposed and then followed up with all the DOJ nonsense, most ended up screwed anyway.
Now if we consider all of the exposed fraud coming from all different angles concerning online casinos, you would have to agree that online gambling in all of its present forms, if it did anything, proved by now to everyone its just not guaranteed safe or guaranteed fair. (Regardless who says otherwise)
No regulation - phony regulation by hand shake phony regulators – phony player advocates – good player advocates - good affiliates – phony affiliates - wild and crazy bonuses – wild and crazy T & C’s – advanced and cheating players – cheating casinos – cheating processors – cheating software providers - just to name a few of the issues and don’t forget that all of this is scattered all over the world.
If this isn’t a complete unsafe cluster f**king mess I don’t know what is.
Especially how this recent rigged software issue was and still is being handled, I’m now convinced the only hope for online gaming is if the USA gets involved in a big way and realizes what didn’t work online from history, and has a fresh start. There is a good chance the big name casinos might get it right.
I don't care whose pockets are getting stuffed with cash behind the scenes bringing online gaming forward in the USA, as long as the games perform exactly like regulated land based operations presently do.
All we could do is wait and hope for the best.
These days regulations(laws too) generally are written from MS word documents missing the long process of debate and careful conscientious thinking of those involved. We'll see how it turns out here in the USA, but I'm still hopeful for now. When regulations don't work, it is usually due to vague language, a generally favorable opinion of those in charge and someone just willing to be bold no matter the proof and rationale presented.
Quote: 4ofaKindEspecially how this recent rigged software issue was and still is being handled, I’m now convinced the only hope for online gaming is if the USA gets involved in a big way and realizes what didn’t work online from history, and has a fresh start. There is a good chance the big name casinos might get it right.
I see no reason to assume this. If an otherwise "upstanding" territory like Gibraltar can turn a blind eye, I'm sure as hell the US will.
Quote: CarusoI see no reason to assume this. If an otherwise "upstanding" territory like Gibraltar can turn a blind eye, I'm sure as hell the US will.
What is your present view of online gaming? What is it you would like to see change? You sound like you’re convinced it could never work regardless what happens.
I’m convinced online gaming today is good enough for people trying to convert nickels into dollars with not much at risk. Excluding compulsive gamblers who are usually expert gamblers with a sickness, any normal gambler with a brain would never risk money playing online today.
The Wizard (Michael) at this site blacklisted Realistic Games, Spielo G2, and Finsoft software providers on 01/09/13. Considering the Wizard's and Elliot’s expertise and response in only nine days, and who both actually contacted the alleged regulators, should alone have woken up the alleged regulators that something is seriously wrong here and at the very least required some type of immediate pending action. The questionable software should have been seized immediately and analyzed. Instead the software providers had more then enough time to right any wrongs.
Whatever and if ever any outcome of this investigation should come forward, one could only conclude that with such an obvious incompetent regulatory body trying to take action; the outcome should be meaningless especially after three months and obviously crafted by now to protect and preserve the present online gaming industry and the alleged regulators faces. Unfortunately the online gaming industry will continue in its present form and are way, way, way, over the heads of hand shake regulators.
Reminiscing of the old mafia Vegas years come to mind.
Just like the past, maybe some phony muscles will eventually be flexed with no serious consequences, and just like the past exposed rigged incidents, the scams will continue to move forward.
Many of these same software providers are working hard today to be first in line for the USA market. One could only hope that if the USA get involved in a big way, regulation and serious enforcement similar to land based operations can get it done the right way.
Quote: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. This is an ongoing investigation. Finsoft, the GRA and the UKGC are involved with this. Results will be posted here.
I think it must be a kind of relief to Bailey, in a wierd sort of way, that he can show himself plainly for the rogue most of us always knew he was. A weight off the shoulders, no more pretence.
Quote: 4ofaKindWe must all agree that something is very wrong when considering all the still unanswered questions of fraud that revolve around the confirmed exposed rigged software incidents on December 30. 2012...
Outstanding post! Thanks. I couldn't have said it better myself. Keep your channel tuned here or ThePogg as the story continues to unfold.
Quote: 4ofaKindThis post by "bobsyouruncle" was made this morning at Beating Bonuses. Hope someone is looking to confirm this. If this e-mail conversation between Betfred and this poster gets confirmed would add an interesting twist.
http://www.beatingbonuses.com/forums/showpost.php?p=84770&postcount=238
I can endorse this a bit more now:
http://www.hundredpercentgambling.com/newsArticle.php?id=64
Quote: CarusoI can endorse this a bit more now: http://www.hundredpercentgambling.com/newsArticle.php?id=64
Good article. It mentions how BetFred is only automatically issuing refunds going back six months, when the software was allegedly gaffed since at least 2008. Inactive players who were cheated should not be expected to be aware of this scandal. In my opinion, refunds should be issued automatcially going back to the day the game first appeared on the site. Furthermore, I think BetFred should pay more than the amount lost, as a show of contrition. When OddsOn reimbursed players for a software gaff they paid 120% of losses.
Quote: WizardGood article. It mentions how BetFred is only automatically issuing refunds going back six months, when the software was allegedly gaffed since at least 2008. Inactive players who were cheated should not be expected to be aware of this scandal. In my opinion, refunds should be issued automatcially going back to the day the game first appeared on the site. Furthermore, I think BetFred should pay more than the amount lost, as a show of contrition. When OddsOn reimbursed players for a software gaff they paid 120% of losses.
I doubt they even automatically refunded going back six months. It looked to me that only the original poster was paid and some odd person who actively chased the matter with them, as seen in the original CM thread (link). Otherwise they would make a statement that everyone has been refunded and I haven't seen any such statement from Betfred. Also in the new Casinomeister thread Bryan admitted that refunds are still pending (pending what exactly?), yet he put them back on his accredited list a good while ago.
http://www.beatingbonuses.com/forums/showpost.php?p=85934&postcount=486
I would certainly invite Eliot and Mike to comment.
Quote: Carusohttp://www.casinomeister.com/forums/online-casinos/57063-announcement-gra-concerning-hilo-reeldeal-games.html
I would certainly invite Eliot and Mike to comment.
Any company licensed by GRA just took a massive shot to their reputation. Why even bother to say anything if this is the response?
Quote: CarusoI would certainly invite Eliot and Mike to comment.
We see that one of the most important regulatory agencies is willfully silent on the key issue -- a game that used a virtual representation of a physical device was programmed to have that device behave in a deceptively biased fashion. Biased dice. Biased roulette wheels. Biased decks of cards. By its failure to sanction, the GRA has left the door open for companies that offer online casino products to abuse the public's trust. Shame on the GRA.
First, for playing the "blame the victim" card. It should not matter that an alleged bonus abuser using a false identity was the one who warned other players about a fraudulent game. It is usually advantage players that detect weaknesses and flaws in games. Rather than vilify them, casinos should be learning from them. Like a canary in a coal mine, casinos should take advantage of advantage players, as a clue that something is amiss.
Second, lots of Internet casinos have had 0% or negative house edge games. Betfair had a whole casino of near 0% games called the "zero lounge" for a number of years. Many Internet casinos have had blackjack and video poker games with a player edge. In the world of land casinos, the Santa Ana star allows buy bets on the 4 and 10 with no commission, and pays 3-1 on both the 2 and 12 on the field. Both of these bets have zero house edge. It would seem the GGC expects the players to understand the economics of the gaming business, but not the casinos.
Third, as Eliot pointed out, they completely ignore the issue of allowing cheating games in the first place. I fully support the Nevada regulation that video representations of card and dice games should have an equal chance of every card and faces on the dice. To permit cheating games, even if the cheating is disclosed in the rules, is just dishonest and unprofessional. The GGC had a golden opportunity to show some contrition by adopting such a regulation in the wake of this mess, and they chose not to.
As part of the British Empire, I think the GGC let the Queen down on this one.
This is not an official statement by an official regulatory body, this is is some guy venting his frustrations about the internet not seeing things his way. What is this guy going on and on about forum postings, hidden agendas and evil bonus exploiters? All of this is totally irrelevant. Imagine this statement having to hold up in a court of law as the official position of the GGC.
Not gonna happen though, since this is proof that internet gambling is still totally unregulated, with laughable organisations like the GCC has just proven to be just being dust in the sucker's eyes... Internet gamblers, you have been warned.
How could anyone anywhere possibly recommend any online gaming site operating outside the USA to anyone with a clear conscience?
I'm rather surprised that the Wizard with all his expertise and experience, now knowing that a regulator found no wrong doing after he confirmed several misleading scams himself, could recommend even one online gaming site to be trusted.
Regardless who, what, or where anyone says about online gaming, it's obvious a gamble on the gamble. Like I said somewhere, gambling on the gamble is not a good place to start any session with.
If it's only about the money then make that clear upfront. If regulators refuse to keep the sites in order, it's certain you couldn't on your own.
Couple of years ago the guy had a payment of close to a million GBP withheld, which later had to be paid after a Supreme Court case started by the bettors. Interesting detail: During the proceedings, the claimants hired a P.I. who composed and issued a report on Mr. Brear:
"It recorded [Brear's] attending meetings with Betfred’s lawyers Hassans and other movements and as a result the claim is that confidentiality may have been breached and that Mr Brear was seeking to support the gaming operators in resisting making out payments and that he is not impartial."
Full sources here:
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=22802
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=24070
Quote: 4ofaKindIf this is the type of response for such a serious matter from one of the alleged cream of the crop online regulators, one should only expect the same response if not worse from others.
How could anyone anywhere possibly recommend any online gaming site operating outside the USA to anyone with a clear conscience?
After reading the document, I was stunned. I waited a day and then re-read the document. I remain stunned.
There are so many things wrong about both this document and what it represents ... there are just too many things wrong to take the time required to post a thoughtful critique.
I consider this to be a professional embarrassment to the entire online gambling community - software providers, casinos, affiliates and players.
Chris
Quote: WizardDuncan at ThePogg released this statement.
Well done Duncan, well done indeed. I added my signature to the petition.
Chris
Hi Chris,Quote: binary128There are so many things wrong about both this document and what it represents ... there are just too many things wrong to take the time required to post a thoughtful critique.
I consider this to be a professional embarrassment to the entire online gambling community - software providers, casinos, affiliates and players.
I cannot tell you how much I agree with your statement above. I have twice tried to write a cogent response, but there is nowhere to even start. It is just one big mess.
I suppose if I was to choose one thing, it is the complete absence of an explanation of the investigation that took place, what was discovered, and the remedies and/or sanctions put in place. I cannot believe it took six months for this.
I was singled out in the response, with Brear devoting several sentences to me. I could not find a single thing he implied or stated about me that was true. His innuendos, falsehoods and outright libel do not deserve a response.
I encourage everyone to sign the petition.
Quote: PoppyWhy none of these well known technicians are willing to take this to the press for the sake of protecting the people from getting robbed is beyond me.
One just doesn't take something to the press. I can tell you that the press is not very interested in the shady underside of Internet gambling. It needs to be a sensational story like Absolute Poker/Ultimate Bet before they will take notice. You have just as much right to take this to the press as I do."For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
Quote: Phil Brear via CasinoMeisterIn the period 2004 - 2008 and beyond there was no overt requirement by regulators for PFF and PFR to have identical features and performance. Indeed, in some jurisdictions this is still the case, but since 2008 more and more regulators have made this a stipulation, generally, with the alternative that if the games are not identical, this should be made apparent in the game rules. The upshot of this situation is that apparently identical games on PFF and PFR can have different performances if the rules make this clear. So differences are not absolutely disallowed, but they should be identifiable and should not mislead the player of the game in a material way. That said, most European licensed operators have moved towards making PFF and PFR ‘identical’ or as close to as practical.
Play for Free or Play for real MUST be distingishable and its rules clear.
Quote: Phil Brear via CasinoMeisterThe original HiLo game used an RTP/maths methodology known as ‘Fixed Price’ but with different RTP and RNG’s for PFF (100%) and PFR(96%); in very simple terms, the PFR game logic amounted to each customer choice producing an RNG number between 1 and 10,000, with numbers below 4800 winning and numbers above, losing, creating 96% RTP entirely randomly and a house win of 4%; the PFF gave a 50:50 chance. The RNG’s themselves were different for PFF (Flash) and PFR (Server integrated) as the games did not need to be identical.
In 2006 a second version of the game mechanic was produced but using a different game logic known as ‘Fixed Odds’. In this case the game logic for both versions was 50:50 on the player’s choice, but the payout for winners was less than evens, again producing an overall house win of 4%. As the payout was less than evens both PFF and PFR versions had RTP’s of 96% and the versions also used different RNG’s.
If a casino is going to use physical representations of cards or balls or dice or roulette wheels, then it needs to be random OR it needs to be clearly advertised that it is not random. GFR absolutely fails here and it invites operators to offer video poker games, roulette games, and crap-like games where the results are not fair.
Quote: Phil Brear via CasinoMeisterWe have studied the use of these games and in both versions, to the overwhelming majority of customers, they are low priority, low interest games,
That doesn't matter.
Quote: Phil Brear via CasinoMeisterThese games, in all versions, have been subject to independent testing and do behave entirely randomly, they are not ‘adaptive’ or illegal in any way. Thet do not ‘misrepresent’ the players’ chances.
Bull. If the game is presenting cards, then they need to act as cards would. GFR indeed addressed the issue, by making the statement that even though the RNG had a 4% HA on the PFR game by making the player lose 52% of the time, this was not addressed anywhere in the rules of the game and instead, the hi-lo game was represented by virtual representations of physical cards.
Quote: Phil Brear via CasinoMeisterAs I have already said, whilst this is a technical possibility, it is a commercial ‘impossibility’, it would be an error, as a PFR game returning 100% would be doomed to commercial failure.
Bull. Online casinos offer 100% RTP or higher, all of the time.
It's very disturbing.
Quote: WizardI fully support the Nevada regulation that video representations of card and dice games should have an equal chance of every card and faces on the dice. To permit cheating games, even if the cheating is disclosed in the rules, is just dishonest and unprofessional.
The rules actually say that the probabilities need to match live games for representations of live games, but that doesn't imply that you can't change the composition of the deck or number of faces on the dice. It would be legal to do an EGM version of Spanish 21, for example, even though that deck has a different composition than a normal one. Similarly, it would be legal to do an EGM card game with extra cards, like this one: http://www.mardigrascasinowv.com/casino/table-games-blackjack-charleston-wv-casino/double-draw-poker.html
I think that as long as the distribution (of whatever you're playing with) used in a game is well-defined in advance, and the rules are clearly defined, it's not cheating if you play by them. The catch-all rules in NGC Reg 14 say "For other gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in a position in any game outcome must be constant." But you can craft a distribution of basically any shape and chop it up into equal-sized pieces for the purposes of satisfying that requirement. Modelling a 7-sided die with faces 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and playing craps with it would still be legal as long as you don't represent that the odds are equivalent to the normal game (and the other regs are satisfied).
Quote: WizardQuote: PoppyWhy none of these well known technicians are willing to take this to the press for the sake of protecting the people from getting robbed is beyond me.
One just doesn't take something to the press. I can tell you that the press is not very interested in the shady underside of Internet gambling. It needs to be a sensational story like Absolute Poker/Ultimate Bet before they will take notice. You have just as much right to take this to the press as I do.
I emailed 3 UK newspapers with a brief summary and a link to this site that itemized the issues. I got the same response as I did after emailing and snail mailing several alleged internet regulatory bodies, asking for the specific rules on internet video poker.
Not even a response that any of them even received any of my mailings.
I was thinking that someone like yourself who is well respected and well known would have a better chance of finding a concerned righteous ear.
I'm not sure Mike would have any better luck.
I think LVRJ might be interested in this, as would congress.
-Tim
Quote: boymimbo
Bull. Online casinos offer 100% RTP or higher, all of the time.
It's very disturbing.
Right, and not only that, but we're also talking about a game with a House Edge of 4.00% being presented as an Even Money game. There are certainly on-line casinos (and many, many land casinos) that offer games with a House Edge of 4.00% or lower that are not doomed to commercial failure.
Perhaps Phill Brear is not aware of these obscure games such as Baccarat, Craps, Single-Zero Roulette, Video Poker, Blackjack and others. Not many are aware of these games, so I can understand his lack of knowledge of them.
Quote: BrearThe game cannot be a representation of a pack of cards, how could it pay 12x etc.
His ignorance of the mathematics of gambling is profound. He also said:
Quote: BrearThe error was in the production and presentation of a discrepancy in the paytables.
And this sentence, explaining the error, is jibberish.
Quote: boymimboSo if FoxNews calls, you'll hang up the phone?
I'd be happy to talk to them. I've been on Fox News before, talking about baby names.
http://www.hundredpercentgambling.com/newsArticle.php?id=67
Tremendous work! Thank you so much for this effort. In particular, thank you for this sentence:Quote: CarusoMy contribution to the collective disquiet
"To question how graded payouts can be set when 'all cards have equal probability' is to completely misunderstand just about everything it's possible to misunderstand."
http://www.4flush.com/online-casino-news/gibraltar-blames-player-for-discovering-rigged-gtech-games/13980
The site is carried by Google News so maybe it will gain some traction.
