Gaffed software at major Internet casinos

Quote: Wizard

I'm disappointed with the Gibraltar Gambling Commission.
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.

Heck, its always a lying cheating gambler who complains that the dealer is dealing from the bottom of the deck! After all, its the lying cheating gamblers who watch for such things and know it when they see it. They might even want to deal that way themselves and only be objecting to others dealing to them from the bottom of the deck ... so what?

When there is a scoundrel dealing from the bottom of the deck... a lynch mob may start forming... when it does... you can be one of the gentlemen or one of the scoundrels carrying a hanging rope.... but don't be one of the dealers who is about to be hanged!! Sure, there will be lying cheats amongst the lynch party. Where else would they be? That's the safest place for them to be!

Very few saintly types will ever point out a bottom dealer... the saintly types are the ones getting cheated and not catching it. The sharpies are the ones who are alert for it. All these individuals and associated entities claiming ignorance and purity of heart are fools if they think we will believe this nonsense about "we didn't know".

Here are a couple of posts with my opinions I made at BB touching on certain topics if anyone is interested in reading.

http://www.beatingbonuses.com/forums/showpost.php?p=86268&postcount=566


http://www.beatingbonuses.com/forums/showpost.php?p=86276&postcount=567

"What's even harder to comprehend is the amount of suckers that are still out there even after learning everything that's actually going on. Online gaming today falls into the same bracket as responding to an e-mail and sending money to Africa to pay for a lawyer so they could send you millions of an inheritance. "

That's how I've felt since day one of online gaming.

I have some input that I think is useful, but it is tangental to the main point, the one that is being addressed very solidly by those who are much closer to the action. Speaking from the bottom up, though, my opinion is that online gambling will never be widely adopted by most people who gamble for recreation. And this scandal is why. Online gambling is important to people who can't live without gambling. For the rest of us, it will never be an option.

Quote: Mosca

Online gambling is important to people who can't live without gambling. For the rest of us, it will never be an option.

Marching shoulder to shoulder with you on that sir.

Will resolve crumble when legitimized US-run companies offer internet?

Quote: odiousgambit

Marching shoulder to shoulder with you on that sir.

Will resolve crumble when legitimized US-run companies offer internet?

Probably not. There are some ancillary reasons. For many of us, gambling is not the entire reason we go to casinos. But the idea that when we gamble we are getting a fair, regulated game is the reason we've chosen that as a destination for the evening, or the weekend, or the week.

With online gambling, there is nothing other than the bet. If the provider of the wager offers nothing else, and has no expenses other than programming and maintenance of hardware and software and accounting, then I would expect better odds, for one.

Regardless, the belief that there is no way I could be guaranteed a fair gamble would trump everything else. And no, I would not trust Caesar's... they would calculate the risk of the cost of the fine vs how much they could make before getting caught.

This is the type of regulation I expect to see before I would consider gaming online again. Posted by me at BB.

http://www.beatingbonuses.com/forums/showpost.php?p=86291&postcount=575

Read this additional reply from the GRA if you're looking for entertainment.

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/online-casinos/57063-announcement-gra-concerning-hilo-reeldeal-games-20.html#post560780

Well, I once again braved the ire of all "defending parties" (or perhaps more accurately "offending parties") by jumping into the fray and adding my 2 cents.

Actually, I thought the "throwing snowballs at the tanks" thing was kind of funny.

Chris

Quote: 4ofaKind

Read this additional reply from the GRA if you're looking for entertainment.

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/online-casinos/57063-announcement-gra-concerning-hilo-reeldeal-games-20.html#post560780

I was not amused. Shows once more Phil Brear is not a regulator but a joke, a moron, a shill, a puppet, a figurehead, a fraud, a placebo, ...

The interesting part is this though: "GRA is not the Gibraltar gambling regulator. The GRA has had nothing to do with us for nearly three years. So all those who tell us what our rules say appear to have not even looked at them, as they make explicit that the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner is the Gibraltar regulator, and publishes the rules, known as RTOS (Remote Technical and Operating Standards), and how they are to be applied in such circumstances. "

So, what I take from that is that the "Gibraltar gambling regulator" is not bound by any rules except those he makes and interprets himself, so he is just a tool (double-entendre intentional) of the online gambling industry to create trust and the illusion of regulation that is in fact non-existent.

Quote:

Phil Brear is not a regulator but a joke, a moron, a shill, a puppet, a figurehead, a fraud, a placebo, ...

I may have got the impression you don't like him....?

Quote:

So, what I take from that is that the "Gibraltar gambling regulator" is not bound by any rules except those he makes and interprets himself, so he is just a tool (double-entendre intentional) of the online gambling industry to create trust and the illusion of regulation that is in fact non-existent.

He's just making a big fuss that they're not the GRA anymore, but the GGC.


Of course, the response is just ludicrous beyond ludicrous. I don't know where to start, and if I did I'd probably give up anyway. There's only so much idiocy I can handle, and I've handled a lot. This bloke defeats me. I can't believe he's in charge of an ostensibly serious regulator.

I'd like an expert opinion on this. He originally said:

Quote:

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%.

Right. So knocking off the zeros, 48 went (say) black, and 48 went red, total 96. I'd already worked that out myself. But the remaining numbers 97, 98, 99 and 100, when they are hit they kick in the "factor X" function, whereby whatever bet the player is currently on loses. So if he's on black, it goes red and vice versa.

Is this correct, and if so is it the ONLY possible conclusion?

If not, what is an alternative?

Could this "adapt to bet" mechanism be engineered straightforwardly enough by a software designer?

Quote: Caruso

Is this correct, and if so is it the ONLY possible conclusion?

If not, what is an alternative?

Could this "adapt to bet" mechanism be engineered straightforwardly enough by a software designer?

I don't know anything about software design, but what I interpret from what he said is that a RNG-Generated number of 4800 (or less) results in a win for the player...the color the player picked is irrelevant. It will correspond to that color if the RNG returns 4800 or less. If the RNG returns 4801-10000, then the opposite color will win.

Right, that does look more in line with what he says; thanks.

As such, you could have a "fair adaptive" game where 1 to 5000 returned "win" and 5001 to 10000 returned "lose". This would represent fair odds (for a coin toss, red / black or whatever), but it would still be "adaptive". Right?

To crystalise the difference with examples:

Non-adaptive: "The RNG-generated number is 40, which is mapped to red; the player is on red, so he wins. If the player had bet on black, red would still have been displayed as winning, and the player would have lost".

Adaptive: "The RNG-generated number is 40, which is a player win number; the player is on red, so red is displayed as winning. If the player had bet on black, black would have been displayed as winning".

I've never played either of these games. (I've seen their pictures, posted by Eliot on Casinomeister.)

Does anyone know whether you can place multiple bet types at the same time, as in Roulette where you can place a "Bet on Red", a "Bet on Even" and a "Bet on 1-18" on the same spin of the wheel?

If not, then I would pursue an "adaptive" argument. If so, then I would pursue a "rigged" argument (as in the infamous BLR Tech Craps game fiasco).

Chris

Quote: binary128

I've never played either of these games. (I've seen their pictures, posted by Eliot on Casinomeister.)

Does anyone know whether you can place multiple bet types at the same time, as in Roulette where you can place a "Bet on Red", a "Bet on Even" and a "Bet on 1-18" on the same spin of the wheel?

If not, then I would pursue an "adaptive" argument. If so, then I would pursue a "rigged" argument (as in the infamous BLR Tech Craps game fiasco).

Chris

Are these not simple two choice games, ie. red / black or high / low? I'm also not familiar with the games, and I can't see any screenshot examples, being banned at Bailey's gaff, but I understand that Reel Deal is a basic coin toss type game.

I'm also interested in a more forensic look at this "adaptive" issue, which is why I'm trying to clarify my thinking. I don't think industry stool pigeons, posing in almost judicial capacity, should be able to get away with this kind of thing so blatantly. Gibraltar needs to be held better to account.

The GRA (GGC) ramping up the rhetoric with this charming threat to Eliot:

Quote:

I have no wish to have a public slanging match on your role in this matter and your defective logic so I suggest you make a diplomatic and tactical retreat.

I have a counter suggestion: maybe Brear should consider a diplomatic and tactical retreat of his own, issue a proper finding and order BetFred to compensate players the 4% of the total wagering handle they're owed over the years this game was in operation.

Brear is full of thinly veiled threats, innuendo, intimidation and conspiracy theories. The online casino industry has taken a giant step backwards in credibility with Brear's sorry handling of this issue.

Quote: teliot

Brear is full of thinly veiled threats, innuendo, intimidation and conspiracy theories. The online casino industry has taken a giant step backwards in credibility with Brear's sorry handling of this issue.

This came to mind as I read Brear's response.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://olivefab.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Nixon-not-a-crook.jpg&imgrefurl=http://olivefab.com/2013/02/17/i-am-not-a-cook/&h=321&w=475&sz=69&tbnid=_SbwwYooRPXCOM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=133&zoom=1&usg=__nhfU4Tw7anQ7H3DbuGocPhFM_wg=&docid=ZPDhCmt-kMh_TM&sa=X&ei=4dO9UfLCOenXygHeqIDACQ&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAQ&dur=424

Quote: teliot

The online casino industry has taken a giant step backwards in credibility with Brear's sorry handling of this issue.

You think? I doubt it. I predict things will tick on pretty much unchanged.

I'll be pleased to be proven wrong.

My Closing Thoughts

As we all know ... For so many years (think back to 2000 and the formation of the Online Players Association) the primary source of "regulation" that has been applied in controlling runaway casinos (and software providers, and affiliates) has been the pressure arising from, and/or applied by, the various casino/affiliate forums - "bad press" appearing in a Google search, the threat of being "blacklisted", a voluntary "behind closed doors" mediation process, and so forth. (BTW - think back to 2002 and the death of the Online Players Association.)

Time after time it became obvious that this whole mechanism was one leaky boat. The "damage value" of being blacklisted was determined by the casinos themselves - if the casinos didn't care, the damage value was zero. The mediation process had to be "behind closed doors" because (apparently) this was the only way that the casinos would cooperate. Most of the time the only data available for these "secret discussions" was the data that the casinos wanted to disclose (or admit to).

Although all of this was happening "behind closed doors", occasionally the data, the discussion, and the criteria became available to the public. This exposure showed that the parties involved in this mediation process all too frequently did not possess the knowledge (technical or otherwise), the experience, the data, or the criteria to make an accurate decision regarding many of the problems with which they dealt. "Robot users", "pattern bettors", "bonus abusers" all became nothing more than dumping grounds for "we don't want to pay". The "mediation services" transformed into marketing tools.

In my opinion, a "case in point" example is the following forum thread. The ONLY thing that saved this particular player's ass (and their many thousands of Euros) was the PUBLIC presentation of the otherwise "secret data" on another forum, and the PUBLIC exposure that the "secret analysis" of this "secret data" was so completely wrong. In my opinion, every leak in the boat was exposed here.

(My reference example occurred several years ago. In the interim there have been many, far too many, other examples.)

"Player Advocacy" (the Wizard and a few others excluded) wound up becoming a network of people (an "old boys' club") who were making "secret decisions", using "secret data", possessing inadequate knowledge, applying ill-defined criteria - all of this affecting tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands? more?) of player's dollars/euros/pounds. In addition, once the decision exited the "closed back room", that was it. There was no appeal process.

So yes, there was pressure on the casinos, but the casinos exercised 90% of the control over the result of any dispute. In general, there never was a lot of real horsepower in that engine.

Over time, one simply became hardened to the reality that the inmates were running the asylum. Acceptance of mediocrity became the norm. Although publicly ridiculed, the "silent membership" of the "tin foil hat club" began to grow.

When this Betfred/Finsoft/GGC issue first presented itself, and the subsequent data (hard data, clean data, reproducible data) began to really pile up, I became excited at the possibility that one of the "major" online regulatory agencies would finally show some teeth. At that time I simply did not see anywhere for the casino(s), the software provider(s) or the regulatory authority to hide.

I became excited at the possibility that not only would we not have a leaky boat anymore, but that the solution was NOT to patch the leaks but to buy a new boat. I became excited at the possibility of some quantitative, positive, and lasting change happening here. I also considered the ripple effect that would arise as other regulatory organizations began to follow the example. The size of the opportunity for positive change here was, in my experience, unique.

And I don't think that I was alone - I think that a lot of people who had been hardened by the industry's history of failure in dealing with these problems also let down their guard a bit and allowed themselves to become hopeful.

And then ... days turned into weeks, weeks turned into months. Hope faded. What little hope remained was smashed on the rocks by the recent "so bad they do not even rise to the level of wrong" publications of the GGC.

Fundamental change was pushed off even further into the future. Membership in the "tin foil hat club" continues to grow. The expectations of those hardened members of the online community became, if anything, even more hardened. The magnitude of what the software providers, and the casinos, and the regulatory agencies simply got away with here is really stunning.

That, to me, is probably the worst aspect in all of this - a truly unique opportunity for implementing lasting change in the effective management of the online casino industry, an opportunity that does not come along all that often, was completely wasted.

Chris

It wasn't bad at all. In a sense Eliot is right, though probably not as he intended it: after the earlier days, we had the Closed Shops of the likes of Bailey's marketing-ploy-masquerading-as-mediation-service, with the "regulators" gaining sway throughout that time. Things were better before, when things were splashed all over the place and a degree of rude democracy ruled. As of now, every regulator has been shown to be failed. Players can only be worse off now. This GRA (GGC) fiasco has only highlighted that fact, but it was ever so.

I think it’s important to recognize the three people listed below that are presently hands on operators in the online gaming field.

The president of Jacobson Gaming is Dr. Eliot Jacobson, who holds a Ph.D. in mathematics. For 25 years, Dr. Jacobson has held positions as professor of mathematics and professor of computer science. With dozens of research articles, publications and media appearances, Dr. Jacobson is widely recognized as one of the world's top experts on casino table games and casino game mathematics.

Christopher Colby President and Chief Technology Officer of Galewind Software.
BS Chemistry, University of Connecticut, 1978

The Wizard of Odds is Michael Shackleford, A.S.A., a professional actuary who has made a career of analyzing casino games.

Their efforts and intentions to better the online gaming community and willingness to put their own reputations and livelihoods on the line for the benefit of everyone involved is unheard of in this rogue online gaming environment.

These men realize how much brighter the future would be if the online gaming business was run similar to the present and proven Las Vegas of today. Instead, it’ll remain running similar to the early mob controlled Vegas years. This could only mean that where the money comes from; and since the option exists in the first place, this is exactly how they prefer it

Unfortunately, the online gaming industry needs a country and a government to step in for their piece of the pie, but at least regulate it properly making it one hundred percent safe for the player. For some reason everyone keeps saying this will come with a cost to the player. As long as the play is exactly the same as being in Vegas, and a regulator I could talk to if I have a problem, I’m not sure what the cost complaints would be. Paying taxes on winnings at the end of any given year is a welcome problem I'd look forward to.

It’s now obvious to all that the online regulations that are presently in place are nothing more then a business tax for whatever countries they reside in. One could only now conclude that any regulation enforcement obviously was never intended and whatever that privilege cost the casinos and software companies could only mean it’s worth it.

The only reason online casinos have so many different rogue options to utilize, (which covers a lot of ground) always just at their fingertips and get away with it is because the regulators let them.

I understand most governments are corrupt, some worst then others. But, if you bring me Vegas into my house with the same all around safety, I really don’t care how it got there.

The biggest disappointment with this recent hope for change disaster was the no voice of Casinomeister. His voice might have helped change this pathetic outcome, but like Caruso said above, he’s just operating a “marketing-ploy-masquerading-as-mediation-service.” These words speak for themselves, along with Casinomeister’s obvious collusion. His actions throughout could only mean that this is how he too prefers the industry to remain. He made it perfectly clear that real regulation enforcement is something he wants no part of.

Like I said over and again, the only hope for real change is the U.K. or the U.S.A. involvement.

These are the unfortunate facts, and the present online gaming fairness case is closed.

The sobering point that Chris made is one that saddens me the most -- the expectation that at the very least, Phill Brear and the GRA would conduct a professional investigation and issue a final report that itemized the issues addressed, the information discovered, the culpable parties and the reparations, if any. Instead, we got a diatribe split across several posts that was full of red herrings, arrogant incoherent rambling, thinly-veiled threats and outright incompetence. It was beyond shameful.

The sadness is not that this incident occurred. Lots of these things happen in the Online casino industry. That's why there are rogues and black lists. And, we assumed, that's why there are regulatory agencies. What is particularly sad here is that when given the opportunity to shine, the GRA chose the path usually reserved for scumbag lawyers defending a rape case -- attack the victim and attack anyone who defends the victim.

Quote: 4ofaKind

The biggest disappointment with this recent hope for change disaster was the no voice of Casinomeister.

I don't think Herr Bailey uttered a single word at the end. From when Phill Brear started issuing his diatribes, I don't think he made one single, solitary comment. I think this was unique in all the commentators - everyone put in some version of their ten cents' worth, save him. When you think about it, it's flabbergasting: what was that "watchdog" stuff about?

Quote: 4ofaKind

Their efforts and intentions to better the online gaming community and willingness to put their own reputations and livelihoods on the line for the benefit of everyone involved is unheard of in this rogue online gaming environment.

That "rogue online gaming environment largely consists of those who do not listen to the voices of the honest and hard working in the wilderness.

Quote: 4ofaKind

Instead, it’ll remain running similar to the early mob controlled Vegas years.

Whoa, no matter what you say about skimming, leg breaking, blackmail, etc. the one thing the mob always wanted was for the games to be kept honest. The mob just skimmed the money afterwards. Vegas was founded by professional gamblers, they knew that the public soon wises up to rigged games. The public had to have a decent chance to win and occasionally to win really big. The Mob knew that.

Quote: 4ofaKind

It’s now obvious to all that the online regulations that are presently in place are nothing more then a business tax for whatever countries they reside in.

Yes. Rubber Stamps cost money, but rarely too much. But a "rubber stamp" is only a good as the person who accepts that rubber stamp as a valid and potent entity. Most players know the various commissions are mere Rubber Stamps created by the crooks. There are people who may argue about it forever and ever but its obvious when its mere window dressing on the crook's website.

Quote: teliot

The sadness is not that this incident occurred. Lots of these things happen in the Online casino industry. That's why there are rogues and black lists. And, we assumed, that's why there are regulatory agencies.

I disagree with some of your comments in your last post quoted above.

It is pathetically sad that this incident can even still occur after 15 years. It’s also pathetically sad that lots of these things are still happening in the online casino industry, and should be expected and accepted. Then the fact that rogue lists need to exist at all blatantly places this industry at the bottom of a cesspool.

Now that we know for fact that there is no meaningful regulators willing to protect the online players, what now?

Proven and exposed rogue casinos out number the ones that allegedly are good operations or just haven’t been caught yet. With that being said, what good did those rogue lists do anyhow after fifteen years? The list is bigger then ever and still growing and all still operating.

Most players don’t know where to play and only find out after they’ve been screwed. Then they still have to fear if the recommended casinos they play at don’t decide to execute a rogue tactic, since that is always a free option for any present online casino with no fear of any regulation enforcement since it’s been confirmed that it don’t exist at all.

The present online gaming industry sucks, and will continue to suck. Where else could a business steal billions of dollars from its customers and get away with it for over 15 years and still going strong?

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/14229-online-casino-options/#post247913

Quote: Caruso

I don't think Herr Bailey uttered a single word at the end. From when Phill Brear started issuing his diatribes, I don't think he made one single, solitary comment. I think this was unique in all the commentators - everyone put in some version of their ten cents' worth, save him. When you think about it, it's flabbergasting: what was that "watchdog" stuff about?

Actually, I found Casinomeister's introduction to the three "posts" from Mr. Brear to be very revealing. The thread started with the heading:

Quote: Casinomeister

Announcement from the GRA concerning Hilo and ReelDeal games

which was followed by Casinomeister's introduction:

Quote: Casinomeister

I've just received the statement from the Gibraltar Gambling Commission concerning the Hilo and ReelDeal games.

Please bear in mind that commenting is to be expected, but members who chose [sic] to turn this into a self-serving forum circus will be dealt with appropriately. I am out this week, but the moderators will be monitoring this for any questions or valid comments. Thanks!

In my opinion he makes it quite clear - "Be careful what you say, because we'll be watching."

Realizing that he has ...

1.) started a discussion thread by first issuing a "warning" (hardly conducive to an actual discussion).

2.) chosen words which imply that the previous, and extremely valuable, thread (which he decided to lock) was "a self-serving forum circus".

... he needs to then use "softer words", words which wind up making absolutely no sense:

Quote: Casinomeister

... the moderators will be monitoring this for any questions or valid comments.

Won't the moderators be monitoring this:

1.) for "members who chose [sic] to turn this into a self-serving forum circus" (whatever that means, especially given the aggressive and threatening content of Mr. Brear's first "post")?

2.) such that these members/posts can be "dealt with appropriately" (again, whatever that means)?

IMO, in total this wonderful introduction by Casinomeister becomes the dictionary definition of a "veiled threat". (I won't go into the continuation of these threats contained within Mr. Brear's document.)



The second post from Mr. Brear was introduced by Casinomeister with the words:

Quote: Casinomeister

As some of you may have guessed, I'm on the road at the moment, but I have been in touch with Mr. Brear. here is a follow up comment that he requested for me to publish.

The part of this introduction which I find the most interesting are the closing words "he requested for me to publish." Clearly Casinomeister uses these words to document the process of distancing himself from Mr. Brear's statement.



The third post from Mr. Brear received the following introduction from Casinomeister:

Quote: Casinomeister

Final Word

Here is a final word from the commissioner. Posted by his request:

1. We are then left to wonder - who decided that this was the "Final Word"?

2. Once again, we have the "distancing words" "Posted by his request".


The fact that there were no posts in this thread from Casinomeister I believe speaks volumes concerning his stance on this entire issue. I believe that Casinomeister actually had quite a bit to say here.

Chris

Quote:

The fact that there were no posts in this thread from Casinomeister I believe speaks volumes concerning his stance on this entire issue. I believe that Casinomeister actually had quite a bit to say here.

I don't disagree with the opening comments, but for a minute there I thought I'd miss-clicked onto his forum, reading that latter bit.

I'm not talking about what you can painstakingly infer in his favour from his silence. I'm looking for opinion from self-proclaimed industry leaders. He is perfectly capable of giving a reasonable appraisal without fear of a backlash. The fact that he couldn't muster one sentence of comment speaks volumes. Even my old oppo Jetset stepped up to the plate, to his credit. And everyone else. Mein Host: nada. Not even "I don't agree with Phill Brear's stance". You think Gibraltar's lawyers would have set about confiscating his site on that basis? Million dollar libel suits? Phooey, no chance. Not if he'd even done an actual forensic analysis, like the rest of us.

Your opinion there doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He said nothing, and he did thuswise because he had nothing to say.

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

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.

Casinomeister’s 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 I’ve been banned from his site after being labeled a “Troll” believing in “Tin Foil Hat” 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 he’s leaving on vacation or traveling for a week or two or three. I’ve 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 that’s 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 it’s 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 you’ll 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 doesn’t 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 it’s obvious how few people must know what’s really going on.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 100€ to win 100€ 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.

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

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

Well Finsoft was bought by Gtech before Lottomatica bought Gtech. Lottomatica changed their name to GTECH as of June 3. I'm seeing net income of $74.7 million for first quarter 2013 with revenues for that 3 months at $797.5 million or over 3 billion a year - should cover it. According to htxx://www.insidermedia.com/insider/north-west/45123-betfreds-sales-hit-35bn

Quote:

(Betfred's) Operating profit remained broadly static at £12.37m

for 2010 and it has to be a bit more than that now with their rapid growth so they can probably pay back all they didn't earn and then some.

You know it's not like some elderly lady living off social security and a meager income from her bar who gets nicked by Nevada for allowing lewd acts and they turn off her slots for awhile, not wanting to bankrupt her with massive sanctions. These guys are giants. That's what bothers me so much they can make it right but aren't even trying as far as we know. Now they have their stake in the Greek gambling monopoly they can give their lottery style odds to players there with 60% RTP - a complete captive market, but I digress. I think they can afford whatever a fair settlement might be.

I don't know how public access to politics works in the UK but you would think that someone could at least let the Commissoner's boss (Minister of Finance) know that someone might need to find a new job.

Quote: binary128

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

Indeed, there was one substantive post beyond the "here is what Phil Brear asked me to post" collection, about downgrading the GRA / GGC. I'd forgotten that, possibly not unexpectedly given it was just the one. But anyway, he did manage to get out one criticism. Probably as much as we can expect from the industry side.

Here's a perfect example showing how I explained in my last post in this thread that Casinomeister banks on the fade away of negative threads with negative news about the online industry so newbies decisions to sign on don't get infected.

The last of the threads on this issue that exposed the incompetence of the alleged regulators and their hideous findings was just about to be forgotten. The fade away tactic had the thread down to page three, but a member brought it back to the top with more negative comments.

First thread and most important thread exposing how the casinos cheated in detail was locked and long gone.

Second thread faded away long ago, hard to even find.

Third and final thread even more important which confirmed regulation enforcement for players safety does not exist at all, which was just about extinct with the fade away tactic, but was given a bump to the top with another post.

So, when all else fails trying to hide negative threads there's only one last tactic left to do that will rid it once and for all. The famous and final "LOCK THE THREAD" maneuver which guarantees extinction.

To bad you couldn't do a search on the site that would bring up all locked threads since the site began.

See for yourself: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/online-casinos/57063-announcement-gra-concerning-hilo-reeldeal-games-25.html#post564130

And what a pathetic, reprehensible excuse to use - that a member took the opportunity to sling a bit of mud the way of Phil Brear. He could have easily done a quick edit and said "please don't post insults" if he'd been concerned about invective. He was looking for an excuse to lock the thread, and one of his members entirely unwittingly served it up to him.

Typically disgraceful.

It is amazing that people are still discussing CM's integrity. He is an affiliate portal owner. His loyalty is going to be to the people that pay him. This conversation has been going on for ten years.

I have never taken CM seriously as a player advocate, I've never found it necessary to use his site, I don't see why this is such an ongoing issue.

"Regulators" are the same.

Who do you trust in the onling gambling world? No one.

No one has any incentive to provide honest, accurate mediation or information about online casinos.

The one asset players have is that if a casino rips players off obviously they can band together and
complain and reduce the flow of new customers to the business. That's it. That's all there has ever
been and all there ever will be.

I don't actually want the industry regulated. In the unlikely event there was some kind of effective
regulation we would end with the same situation you have in Nevada-the cost of regulatory compliance
gets passed onto the customers in the form of poor value games and deals. I'd rather make money.

Quote: GBV

I don't actually want the industry regulated. In the unlikely event there was some kind of effective
regulation we would end with the same situation you have in Nevada-the cost of regulatory compliance
gets passed onto the customers in the form of poor value games and deals. I'd rather make money.

Not sure what you mean when you say you'd rather make money in unregulated online casinos who control the power to do whatever it is they please.

Grinding away at -EV games? Taking advantage of -EV bonuses?

If you hit a 20k Royal Flush or a 50k Jackpot; which would you prefer, hoping you get paid sooner or later or not at all online, or walking to a regulated window and having crispy hundred dollar bills handed to you on the spot?

Quote: GBV

It is amazing that people are still discussing CM's integrity. He is an affiliate portal owner. His loyalty is going to be to the people that pay him. This conversation has been going on for ten years.

I have never taken CM seriously as a player advocate, I've never found it necessary to use his site, I don't see why this is such an ongoing issue.

I would agree with this but for the claim to be a "watchdog", which is plainly false. Without this, I would say, go right ahead, no problem. But the false claim is what his business is built on. This is what annoys me.

Quote:

The one asset players have is that if a casino rips players off obviously they can band together and complain and reduce the flow of new customers to the business. That's it. That's all there has ever been and all there ever will be.

I don't actually want the industry regulated. In the unlikely event there was some kind of effective regulation we would end with the same situation you have in Nevada-the cost of regulatory compliance gets passed onto the customers in the form of poor value games and deals. I'd rather make money.

I largely agree. Pre-regulation, things were a lot better as far as I was concerned.

Quote: 4ofaKind

Not sure what you mean when you say you'd rather make money in unregulated online casinos who control the power to do whatever it is they please.

Grinding away at -EV games? Taking advantage of -EV bonuses?

If you hit a 20k Royal Flush or a 50k Jackpot; which would you prefer, hoping you get paid sooner or later or not at all online, or walking to a regulated window and having crispy hundred dollar bills handed to you on the spot?

When online casinos started there was no regulation and they offered the best opportunity there has ever been for advantage players. It was a time when you could grind up a million from nothing playing basic strategy.

Many casinos cheated, many didn't. The professional could work out who was paying and who wasn't most of the time, and make a ton of money. A lot of them slow-paid, but a significant minority paid very fast.

By contrast B&M gambling locations such as Nevada and AC have regulation, at least to some extent. They also have very poor games. Speed of payment is not a factor to me if I can't get a decent edge in the first place. I don't want formal regulation. All you get is industry people who invariably side with their former paymasters rubber-stamping decisions and diverting funds away from decent promotional offers.

Quote: GBV

... All you get is industry people who invariably side with their former paymasters rubber-stamping decisions and diverting funds away from decent promotional offers.

Oh I wouldn't be so fast to judge the rubber stamp. New Jersey in all of their oversightful wisdom decided to invest in hiring the founder and current grand poobah of the LGA as their online gambling consultant. You know, the guy who will let them know how it really is. And anyone who plays online or follows the boards knows that Malta has never rubber stamped anything - gee, I'd say they rank with the best, bettered only by Gilbraltar for neutrality and protecting players. Nevada regualtion seems to be moving te way of insider D.C. lobbying politics to if we look at who is on the commission, in the House, and enjoying their "promotions" into and out of the industry and other power seats.

All sarcasm aside. NO, regulation will not be good. It can't be. They waited to long and big fish like Gtech will call the shots, mark those words.

I officially retire from all of this nonsense, since I realize the only hope I have of once again enjoying online gaming is to wait for the USA. Hope I live long enough to find out being 60 years old already.

Later