Casino Club closed account of €167'500 JACKPOT winner

[EasyRhino]

[I think the following is Casino Club's claim, not the player's, but I'm not sure]
[I]For about two months before I was banned I played blackjack on several days. Actually a bot was used. This bot can make calculations before play to predict the results of the hand. A clairvoyant bot in other words. The bot software has magical powers to read random numbers in advance and provide a financial advantage.

That part just sounds sarcastic.

If the player's story is even partly true, he really needs to sue.

[vinylweatherman]

That part just sounds sarcastic.

If the player's story is even partly true, he really needs to sue.

Maybe translation has muddled things up, and the alleged bot simply calculates "perfect strategy".

If CC start claiming the player really had such a "clairvoyant bot", they will do themselves untold damage, especially since the size of the disputed jackpot will ensure this remains a major issue till something is resolved.

The forum only has the word of the player concerned about their side, and we only have the official statements by the casino to balance against this.

The balance in webdollar may simply be down to the legal machinery used to freeze the disputed funds, perhaps by moving them into some kind of escrow account pending the outcome of legal actions, after which they are either paid, or returned to the jackpot pool.

If the player is sueing CC, then in time we will hear more, and it will become a matter for court records which may well become available to the public once the action is decided.

I would not be surprised if the mainstream media began to pick up on this, since it involves a confiscation of a large jackpot because of an unconnected, and unprovable, event the previous year.

[hzock2]

Etwa 2 Monate vor meiner Kontosperrung soll ich an mehreren Tagen BlackJack gespielt haben, was durchaus sein kein. Ich soll aber nicht selbst gespielt haben, sondern einen bot (automatische Spielprogramm) verwendet haben. Dieser bot soll in der Lage sein die Spielergebnisse durch Berechnungen vorher zu sagen.
Also einen super-bot mit hellseherischen Fähigkeiten. Wie das funktionieren soll konnte man mir nicht sagen aber man würde das an den getätigten Einsätzen sehen.
Mit anderen Worten, CC unterstellt mir bzw. der bot-Software magische Fähigkeiten und ich sei damit in der Lage echte Zufallszahlen vorher zu sagen und damit einen finanziellen Vorteil zu erlangen.

To stop any assumpties, this is my attempt to translate this part as close as possible to the text provieded:

About 2 months before my account was locked, I am said to have played BlackJack on several days, which is absolutely possible. However, I am said to not have played myself, but have used a bot. This bot is said to be able to predict game results by doing calculations [upfront]. So to say a 'super bot' with clairvoyant abilities. They were not able to tell me how this exactly works, but they were able to identify that regarding the placed wagers.
In other words, CC assume that I have (resp. the bot-software has) magical abilities and I am said to be capable to predict real random numbers and to gain a financial advantage [by applying these skills].

[kmay87]

That's a good translation hzock2.

But, if that is what Casino Club actually said, it is quite frankly unbelievably pathetic. So they are saying a bot has been created which is capable of predicting random results. Hmm. Let's think about this.

Either their software is not fair, because they fail to adhere to the shuffling which the blurb says occurs each xxx times, or this programme has compromised their software. If it's the latter, they should remove this game, along with all others until a full investigation has been carried out. They shouldn't be operating a game if it's possible to tamper with it. Therefore we can presume that's not the case. It's not improbable to create such a programme, but personally I can't see it. It would involve a huge group taking millions out of casinos, not one guy flatbetting on blackjack.

If their software isn't fair, then a card counting programme might have been responsible. Those are available, I know of a couple in existence. Therefore, if they stated words to that affect, fair enough. Yet using the term clairvoyant just defies belief. If the player used a card counting bot, it didn't make predictions or calculations, it used previous data to confirm what cards were due to appear. Hence, it knew what hand the dealer and player had, and what they would have. Therefore, it could place higher wagers when it knew the player would win, and likewise lower ones when the player would lose. But I've seen enough of the players' logs to know this isn't the case. There again, a player could quite easily write all the cards down and come to the same conclusions, although it would be more complex. Still, it's against the t and cs, so CC are within their rights.

What frustrates me more than anything here is that the blackjack bot is completely irrelevant to the issue in hand. They cannot refuse to pay the jackpot win due to past play - unless the win was on a bonus and that same play occured on both blackjack and video poker.

BUT, they are using that very reason. If they said the player used a video poker bot, it hardly gave him an unfair advantage but they could say the use of 3rd party software is against their terms and hence he won't be paid. They are saying he played blackjack with a bot, and this is a justifiable reason for refusing all wins.

It's disappointing that the forum is in German. Evidently, it is still being talked about and as translation programmes are not perfect, getting a good transcription isn't possible.

However, someone is lying here. Either the player, or the casino. The player says Casino Club have not contacted him, they are not suing him (after all, just why would they?) but the casino said a legal resolution was pending, thus why the jackpot money was in limbo. But it's not. They paid him, and then took it back. So they still have it.

I can't help but feel sorry for this 'Mike' guy. Deep down, I would love him to sue Casino Club and win. If he is completely legit, I be tempted to thrown in a defamation suit and really hit Casino Club where it hurts. Yet I know that the chances of him winning are virtually zero. One unknown guy against a huge company is destined to fail. Not that that would put me off. So I hope it doesn't him.

This story doesn't seem to have hit the news much. At least not here. I don't know all that much about Germany's press, but here in the UK, some of the tabloids would love a story like this. Perhaps this might improve the chance of a resolution here. My fear is that this is going to die away. The player won't get the money, and it won't be returned to the jackpot pool either. I'd like to see a statement from Casino Club. We are probably the only people wondering what's going to happen here. As far as all other players at the casino are concerned, the jackpot was won. It was posted on their newsletter that all members are emailed. I just wonder what they might say about this.

[vinylweatherman]

That's a good translation hzock2.

But, if that is what Casino Club actually said, it is quite frankly unbelievably pathetic. So they are saying a bot has been created which is capable of predicting random results. Hmm. Let's think about this.

Either their software is not fair, because they fail to adhere to the shuffling which the blurb says occurs each xxx times, or this programme has compromised their software. If it's the latter, they should remove this game, along with all others until a full investigation has been carried out. They shouldn't be operating a game if it's possible to tamper with it. Therefore we can presume that's not the case. It's not improbable to create such a programme, but personally I can't see it. It would involve a huge group taking millions out of casinos, not one guy flatbetting on blackjack.

If their software isn't fair, then a card counting programme might have been responsible. Those are available, I know of a couple in existence. Therefore, if they stated words to that affect, fair enough. Yet using the term clairvoyant just defies belief. If the player used a card counting bot, it didn't make predictions or calculations, it used previous data to confirm what cards were due to appear. Hence, it knew what hand the dealer and player had, and what they would have. Therefore, it could place higher wagers when it knew the player would win, and likewise lower ones when the player would lose. But I've seen enough of the players' logs to know this isn't the case. There again, a player could quite easily write all the cards down and come to the same conclusions, although it would be more complex. Still, it's against the t and cs, so CC are within their rights.

What frustrates me more than anything here is that the blackjack bot is completely irrelevant to the issue in hand. They cannot refuse to pay the jackpot win due to past play - unless the win was on a bonus and that same play occured on both blackjack and video poker.

BUT, they are using that very reason. If they said the player used a video poker bot, it hardly gave him an unfair advantage but they could say the use of 3rd party software is against their terms and hence he won't be paid. They are saying he played blackjack with a bot, and this is a justifiable reason for refusing all wins.

It's disappointing that the forum is in German. Evidently, it is still being talked about and as translation programmes are not perfect, getting a good transcription isn't possible.

However, someone is lying here. Either the player, or the casino. The player says Casino Club have not contacted him, they are not suing him (after all, just why would they?) but the casino said a legal resolution was pending, thus why the jackpot money was in limbo. But it's not. They paid him, and then took it back. So they still have it.

I can't help but feel sorry for this 'Mike' guy. Deep down, I would love him to sue Casino Club and win. If he is completely legit, I be tempted to thrown in a defamation suit and really hit Casino Club where it hurts. Yet I know that the chances of him winning are virtually zero. One unknown guy against a huge company is destined to fail. Not that that would put me off. So I hope it doesn't him.

This story doesn't seem to have hit the news much. At least not here. I don't know all that much about Germany's press, but here in the UK, some of the tabloids would love a story like this. Perhaps this might improve the chance of a resolution here. My fear is that this is going to die away. The player won't get the money, and it won't be returned to the jackpot pool either. I'd like to see a statement from Casino Club. We are probably the only people wondering what's going to happen here. As far as all other players at the casino are concerned, the jackpot was won. It was posted on their newsletter that all members are emailed. I just wonder what they might say about this.

A card counting program does not predict the result, it predicts PROBABILITIES that certain outcomes will occur. When the deck is rich in "10" cards, the game will be in the player's favour overall, and this is when bets should be increased. When the deck is rich in low cards, the dealer is favoured, so this is the time to ride things out with low bets. Such programs are ahead of mere "perfect strategy" bots, as they track previous hand data. They have to know when the deck is shuffled though, otherwise they can go spectacularly wrong.

If the argument is over a blackjack "bot", of whatever nature, HOW COME HIS ACCOUNT WASN'T LOCKED THERE & THEN? This, by far, is his strongest weapon in court. There is a strong possibility that the judge would reject the "bot" argument since the player was allowed to continue depositing, playing, AND LOSING for the two months following this, and up to the time of the Jackpot win. The Jackpot win would then be looked at as a separate incident in it's own right. In casino terms, a moment of time where the balance is zero marks each new "contract" between player and casino (this is the rule CASINOS often use themselves when describing how promotions work). IF the player did NOT use this "clairvoyant bot" between the zero balance and the jackpot win, he should win any court case, as the casino would not only have to prove bot use, but prove it took place in the disputed "contract".
The player could further strengthen his case by having had a successful cashout paid AFTER allegedly using the bot, and with no further evidence of bot use submitted between that cashout and the disputed jackpot. This would be pretty clear (although circumstantial) evidence of the casino CHOOSING who to pay, rather than sticking to the rules.
Such a case should attract the "no win, no fee" firms, unless these are banned in Germany. This would change the situation from one of small player vs big company to something more balanced. These "no win, no fee" firms know what they are doing, and have a HUGE incentive to win their cases, they don't get paid if they lose. If such a firm refuses a case, it is because they do not think it is strong enough to be worth the risk of losing and not getting paid. As well as the jackpot, the player could sue for further damages for defamation - he has been branded a cheat by the casino. To defend this, the casino would have the lesser burden of merely proving bot use at any time in the account whilst being against the rules; however, can they PROVE this to the level required in a civil case where THEY are seeking to confiscate a win that was most certainly NOT the direct result of bot use.

If this player really is being honest, then he HAS to be putting together a legal action, although perhaps hoping the casino will do what often happens in these cases, offer an "out of court" settlement but ban the player from the casino because "the business relationship has irretrievably broken down".
CC have one HELL of a lot to lose reputation wise should they indeed LOSE such a legal case, so they had better be sure they know what they are doing, and are sure their facts are right.

[kmay87]

I'm as curious as the player to see what bot was used, considering Casino Club themselves refused to divulge that information. To my knowledge, the only sort of bots available for blackjack are the standard perfect strategy ones, along with a few, virtually untested, ones which basically card count. They work perfectly if you can find a casino which doesn't shuffle the deck. The only information the programme needs is the amount of decks, and of course the amount of hands. So as long as this information is available, you can use it. I've seen a couple in action and they do actually work. I don't know that I'd agree with them calculating probabilities, because provided the deck is not shuffled, the programme keeps track of where the cards are in a deck, in much the same way a card counter in a B&M casino would, therefore it knows for a fact what cards will be dealt. But if the deck is shuffled, which virtually occurs everywhere, unless you can establish when this occurs (i.e. some do it after every hand, which would make using this kind of bot impossible) there's little point in using the system, as sooner or later the chain is going to break and you'd have to start afresh.

However, I'm sure the player can't have been using one of these. For a start, as these programmes go for many ££££, I really can't fathom one single person using it. Moreso, the logs show the guy was flatbetting, so he can't have been using this system.

As vwm said, the player really does need to sue them. There must be someone who is prepared to take this on. If only I spoke German and my firm would allow me to tackle a case like this, I would jump at the chance. It's so clear cut. The player won a jackpot, they paid him, they advertised that they paid him, then presumably they found something in the records of this player which they didn't like, and so they took it back. It would be interesting to hear from Moneybookers as to what logic CC gave for requesting the money back. And that is the biggest mistake they made. If they really do believe this player was abusing their casino and won unfairly, had they left the money in his account, they could have him for fraud. But they can't, as they took it back. So whatever this player does, he's not going to be countersued unless they are looking at recouping what he may or may not have won when using a blackjack bot. In my opinion, I think they took the jackpot win back to compensate themselves, and they never counted on such a huge debate about it.

I notice their rep still visits here from time to time. Why not actually comment on this? Either the player is lying, or you are. It would be nice to know the truth.

[vinylweatherman]

I'm as curious as the player to see what bot was used, considering Casino Club themselves refused to divulge that information. To my knowledge, the only sort of bots available for blackjack are the standard perfect strategy ones, along with a few, virtually untested, ones which basically card count. They work perfectly if you can find a casino which doesn't shuffle the deck. The only information the programme needs is the amount of decks, and of course the amount of hands. So as long as this information is available, you can use it. I've seen a couple in action and they do actually work. I don't know that I'd agree with them calculating probabilities, because provided the deck is not shuffled, the programme keeps track of where the cards are in a deck, in much the same way a card counter in a B&M casino would, therefore it knows for a fact what cards will be dealt. But if the deck is shuffled, which virtually occurs everywhere, unless you can establish when this occurs (i.e. some do it after every hand, which would make using this kind of bot impossible) there's little point in using the system, as sooner or later the chain is going to break and you'd have to start afresh.

However, I'm sure the player can't have been using one of these. For a start, as these programmes go for many ££££, I really can't fathom one single person using it. Moreso, the logs show the guy was flatbetting, so he can't have been using this system.

As vwm said, the player really does need to sue them. There must be someone who is prepared to take this on. If only I spoke German and my firm would allow me to tackle a case like this, I would jump at the chance. It's so clear cut. The player won a jackpot, they paid him, they advertised that they paid him, then presumably they found something in the records of this player which they didn't like, and so they took it back. It would be interesting to hear from Moneybookers as to what logic CC gave for requesting the money back. And that is the biggest mistake they made. If they really do believe this player was abusing their casino and won unfairly, had they left the money in his account, they could have him for fraud. But they can't, as they took it back. So whatever this player does, he's not going to be countersued unless they are looking at recouping what he may or may not have won when using a blackjack bot. In my opinion, I think they took the jackpot win back to compensate themselves, and they never counted on such a huge debate about it.

I notice their rep still visits here from time to time. Why not actually comment on this? Either the player is lying, or you are. It would be nice to know the truth.

You have fallen into the same trap the casino seems to have done. Even though there may be 6 decks at the start, and you know they are NOT shuffled, all you can know is the initial composition in terms of how many cards of each value remain in the shoe, you simply CANNOT know for a fact that, say, card 12 is an Ace, and card 23 is a King. It is all down to probabilities. Perfect strategy is the default, based on calculations that do not take into account any cards used in previous hands. Card Counting seeks to recalculate "perfect strategy" using what remains in the shoe. This allows for changes where decisions are marginal, but also allows for increases of stake where the shoe becomes heavily weighted because many low cards leave in the initial few hands. This compensates for the poor performance of those early hands, and the increased stake is what confers the overall advantage to the player.
Flat Betting for hours on end would indicate a simple basic strategy bot, one that would NOT give the player any advantage UNLESS it was used for clearing a +EV bonus. The casino should have noticed this at the time. This is a well worn strategy, bot or no bot, and such excessive Blackjack play and winning should have been caught for audit long before the jackpot incident. This can easily be used in court to demonstrate that it was probable that the casino knew this player was playing, and winning, through endless hours of Blackjack play, yet only acted once the player won a significant amount on a SLOT. This would demonstrate the act of choosing when to enforce a rule, and when to let it pass, and would further show such decisions to have been made to favour the casino, and NOT in the player's best interests. The player's best interests would have been served by banning him from the casino so that he could never have been in the situation of having won such a jackpot, only to have it confiscated.
If the money was already paid, and THEN confiscated from Moneybookers, then this makes the case even STRONGER for the player, and also puts Moneybookers in the frame, and they may be required to produce evidence as to the procedure behind this removal of funds already paid. Moneybookers will not be happy with this, as it undermines confidence in their brand, and if they are found to have acted inappropriately, they could have the regulators on their case. This would have been FAR worse if this were a UK player - worse for the casino that is. A UK player could complain directly to the IOM and/or FSA about the part Moneybookers played in this, and your firm could take this on

If the player does NOT sue, then the suspicion will be that he was, after all, a fraud, and has walked away from this huge sum knowing that his case stands no chance in court. If he is legit, he will at least make every effort to try the courts, and only stop if the COURT refuses to hear the case, or he cannot find a firm out there willing to take this on. Even if he has to agree to a 50/50 split to get a firm on board, this is still better than nothing.

[kmay87]

I have to say, with your knowledge on this, having you as an expert witness would probably go a long way! My theory is that the player WAS using a bot when he played blackjack. It was probably just a standard perfect strategy one, and it doesn't explain how his balance got to 30k Euros. But somehow (unless he did actually deposit 30k) his balance reached that. Perhaps he then used another bot (I never played VP on Casino Club so I don't know whether the autohold is used) and played 25 Euro hands. He then hit the jackpot, in both senses of the word, and withdrew. Casino Club paid him, but later checks by their oh-so stringent security revealed this flat betting. From that they saw the player had done this many times in the past, and so retracted their payment to this player.

The player is quite obviously annoyed about this, and seeks to get this payment back. He is legit, with a real name, address, card details etc, BUT he thinks that because he used a bot, and the casino can prove it, he is in the wrong. This is true, but it depends on if the deposit was on a bonus or not. If it wasn't, it's hard to link the two together. The jackpot is not Casino Club's money, so whether they pay it or not doesn't affect them. Hence, where has it gone?

So, the player can't risk suing because in all likelihood, he will be found out, and even while we can see there shouldn't be a link, Casino Club can bring this across well enough to convince the court. However, if as vwm said, Germany has the no-win-no-fee arrangement, provided a firm can be found that's willing to represent him, it's a goer.

On the other hand, if the player has done nothing wrong, he can tackle this well. One case to retrieve the jackpot win, and another for defamation. The latter will be strong. Casino Club's rep on this very forum called him a cheat. They may have said similar elsewhere. Enough people read this forum for the players' reputation to have suffered severely. It would be even better if this affected him in the real world as well as the online one. He could get more that way.

But all the above is dependent on him not using a bot. If he admits this to a legal firm, they probably won't want to represent him. If he doesn't, when they find out it could invalidate the contract and the no-win-no-fee wouldn't apply. So severe financial implications could occur.

If I remember correct, I'm sure the company behind Casino Club is listed on the London Stock Exchange. So potentially, he could tackle them through the Serious Fraud Office (they usually aren't interested unless the value is of £1 million or more, but I reckon this is of big enough importance to attract their attention) and I could just jump at the chance to represent him But sadly, there's virtually no chance my firm would want this case. As a rule we don't deal in anything gambling related, we are mainly concerned with contract law especially those in the family and employment division. And my position in the company is far too low down the pecking order to be able to mount any challenge to this But never mind.....

Perhaps any native Germans in this forum could keep a check on the other forum. It will be interesting to see how this progresses. Evidently we aren't going to hear anything from the casino so it's up to the player. Either way, this is going to take a long time, and if the player does sue, it will be a long drawn out process. I just hope I am not alone in wanting a resolution one way or the other. Either the player is a fraud, and the money is returned to the pot (with interest, if it's being stored in one of Casino Clubs' accounts) or the player is paid, with an apology from the casino. A big one, at that.

[Rusty]

Eh up.
Less than surprised to see another "bot" issue on the forum and there will be more to come.
Agree with your posts VWM, as I usually do, but I think you are missing an angle CC may well take in court to prove the winnings are illegitimate.
If they can prove to the courts satisfaction that a bot was used initially to win and increase the players balance they could then argue that the jackpot was won with these funds and thus since the money used to make the wager was illegitimately won so was the money wagered to win the jackpot.
Of course this would mean that the player had not made a successful cashout since bot play and the jackpot was not won from a fresh deposit.
I dare say that is the angle they are pursuing already.

Anyway it is my belief that bot play can not be proved in a court of law by merely presenting playlogs.
At best from such evidence one could only consider there was the possibility of a bot being used.
There can be no conclusive evidence of bot play. There will always remain reasonable doubt.
The only exception to this would be if the game was not entirely random and results could be predicted or in other words the game was rigged and the offending algorithm had been hacked.

IF The player is genuine and IF Casino Clubs case rests entirely on proving previous bot play was used and IF I were a Solicitor I would take the case tomorrow on a no win no pay basis and earn myself a nice fee.

[paul02085]

Is the only issue here whether the player used a bot? If he did, how do they know? Is there a way to tell? If not i would sue the h.ll out of Casino Club.

Really sounds like they just dont want to pay the huge jackpot the guy won.