Tradition Casino and likely all Rival casinos are Rogue. All Evidence shown here.

[vinylweatherman]

Oh OK........there is probably a thread from way back when when I had a bitch session about Gold Rock removing Scary. I was pissed to say the least and they lied about it, kept telling me it would be back in a week, then another week and then........well it wasn't. Liars!

Back to the original topic......sorry for the T/J.

Lowering max bet is NOT the same as messing with the RTP, and many MGS casinos can set their own min and max settings for coins, and thus limit the amount that can be bet. They CANNOT however, mess with the RTP settings of the game.

What is far WORSE is yet ANOTHER case of a Rival operator LYING to players because they want something covered up. In the above case, lying that a particular slot is "down for maintenance" or whatever, when it has been REMOVED INTENTIONALLY even though NOTHING is wrong with it, and then LYING to players by telling them it will be back in a week or two.

Now funnily enough, MICROGAMING have done JUST THIS over the 8 games that vanished from the lobby before Christmas, and they have NEVER come back, even though I was told "2 weeks or so" in JANUARY (admittedly, at the end and at the Atlas "do"). I have ALWAYS suspected this is a case of PERMANENT removal, but being covered up by the "down for maintenance" excuse. Although this is about Rival, it proves that operators WILL lie about such things in order to hide an issue, even to the detriment to PAYING players.

This is some really serious sh*t ofcourse, the fact that this error was known to be there for a month is just insane.
Cant wait for a Rival rep to comment on this.

Still I dont believe the slots can be altered this way.
If it would be so easy to cheat with the slots, than why do they bonusban half the world?
That makes no sense.
You should think they want to squeeze out as many deposits as possible, right?

One other thing, the error (?) was first spotted Feb. 22, and is now exposed here, on March 27.
In the mean time, has really nobody else spotted this?
I'm not at all an experienced blackjackplayer, I hardly ever play that game, but this underpaying error is pretty obvious, even for me.
Nobody here or on other forums who play BJ at Tradition?

If they have THIS much leeway with Blackjack, I find it INCONCEIVABLE that the RTPs of the slots are set in stone - it doesn't make sense.

The reasoning too doesn't make sense. We KNOW that RTG can alter the RTP settings on the slots, YET THEY STILL BONUS BAN PLAYERS!! Some do this by country, and others like Rushmore do it by deposit method. Operators who can mess with the RTP will STILL bonus ban groups of players.

Ok I have made some calls today and do NOT ask me to disclose where I got this info because I will not.

I have been told that yes each white label can set their own blackjack payouts. Tradition seems to be set at 1:1 payout instead of the regular 3:2. (They are likely the only Rival brand that picked this option) Furthermore after my calls the owners of Rival software were contacted and shown this thread and as a result it was determined that Tradition may have set the payout to 1.1 which was in their rights to do so BUT it was also determined that the felts did not match up so Rival went in and disabled the 1.1, changed it to the 3:2 at Tradition and set BJ to 3:2 at all rival brands

Also since this issue brought to light the point that rules should not ever conflict with the game felts ...now ALL operators must contact Rival to make changes to rules and Rival will first verify whether any graphical changes are necessary before they allow a change.

I personally think this title is a bit off "All Rivals Rogue", not all of the casinos are rogue but let me say Tradition will NEVER be on my sites they have proven to me over and over they do some pretty shady things!!

Now things have gotten a whole lot worse. It was NOT a mistake according to this source. Tradition INTENTIONALLY made this setting, and only when found out and questioned did they relent. THIS might explain the extraordinary efforts made in chat to make this player go away, and the refusal to deal with, or even discuss, this issue.
It was RIVAL that stepped in & fixed the game back to match the graphics, and NOT Tradition.

Initially, it was CLEAR that Rival allowed operators to set the options themselves, with no controls. First off, who IN THEIR RIGHT MIND thinks that paying 1:1 for a Blackjack is a VALID option for an online Blackjack game. Vegas are taking some stick for moving to 6:5 Blackjack instead of traditional 3:2, yet Tradition turned to screw even TIGHTER, and set it to 1:1. Worse, they didn't make sure the rules and table matched the settings, and this was DECEPTIVE. There is ALSO the matter of not being able to double down after a split, even though the rules say this is allowed, FURTHER deception.

All of this means that the "standard" house edge that has been published on many affiliate sites is about as useful to players as a concrete parachute!!

AFFILIATES could get some stick for this too, since players might do their OWN maths from observation, and work out the affiliates are LYING about the figures, and this will lead to mistrust of that site. Where did affiliates get the figures? IF they were supplied by Rival, this was pretty rogue behaviour, since Rival KNEW that they were variable, and NOT fixed for all Rival casinos.

Interesting would be a calculation of the TRUE house edge this game was running at because of the 1:1 payout on a Blackjack, plus no double down being allowed after splits.

If this game is supposed to be single deck, keep your eyes peeled for two of the same card cropping up, as maybe this is yet another parameter that operators can fiddle with.


Rival should seriously consider "coming clean" about the other "skeletons in the closet", as it will be far worse if WE find & expose them after public denials ON RECORD from Rival and operators.

[JSM_Jason]

Thanks Kendra,

I can also confirm the same about Paradise 8 and Cocoa Casino.

This has never been changed at either casino since they first opened in 2006

Jason

[jod5413]

I am not a big card player, but I do play BJ occasionally. I think JHV brought a big problem out in the open. Now let's see if it can be carried on since he was banned again earlier today.

Lots of good posts here, need rival reps talking, don't you think? I am never surprised at these happenings, without regulation and some standards set of who can have a license, this is always going to be a problem.

Nash, I grit my teeth every time you decide to post. You hint, try to be cryptic, post little non sequiturs. I have only one thing to tell you.

Spill the damn beans!!!!!

You might have saved a lot of people from getting screwed, if your little hints were spelled out and pursued rigorously.

Oh wait, he is starting to spill 'em! Keep them coming, Nash!!

[deucebag]

Well no it doesn't actually - see below...


That screenshot shows you getting a 21 on a Split Hand - that is not a BlackJack in any game I've played.

That's not a split hand, he was playing two hands. It says "no" under "from split".

[incrediblestuff]

my SamD username is not coming up as banned - if you don't mind, can you just let vynilweatherman know in the thread I am banned and I would also like to hear the reason i am bonus-banned from Nicholas and give him permission to publicly state the reason...although I imagine he has bigger things on his radar right now


just because hes banned, i feel theres no reason to not post this ...
cheers

[vinylweatherman]

Thanks Kendra,

I can also confirm the same about Paradise 8 and Cocoa Casino.

This has never been changed at either casino since they first opened in 2006

Jason

So what else COULD be changed, but has not been since Paradise 8 and Cocoa Casino opened in 2006?

[maphesto]

I have nominated the op:s first post even if he´s banned. Pure evidence is the best way to make the industry better. It feels very strange to nominate a post made by a banned user..

@ op: I now realize that your occupation and interests were too good to be true. (retired and interests like drinking and play slots tournaments)

For how long did you plan to reveal this on a day when you knew there were less moderating? A smart move. You made several posts untill the banning came.

@ Casinomeister: Is it possible to "unban" a user until this very interesting story is cleared and solved? I mean in the same way you can suspend someone for a week or month.
I will not criticize the fact that the user is banned. You always have good reasons.
Maybe you even can set him on a Baptism by Fire - Pending Accredited User ?

@ Rival casinos: This is not good! I read that some reps has replied in this thread, good!

[NASHVEGAS]

Lowering max bet is NOT the same as messing with the RTP, and many MGS casinos can set their own min and max settings for coins, and thus limit the amount that can be bet. They CANNOT however, mess with the RTP settings of the game.

What is far WORSE is yet ANOTHER case of a Rival operator LYING to players because they want something covered up. In the above case, lying that a particular slot is "down for maintenance" or whatever, when it has been REMOVED INTENTIONALLY even though NOTHING is wrong with it, and then LYING to players by telling them it will be back in a week or two.

Now funnily enough, MICROGAMING have done JUST THIS over the 8 games that vanished from the lobby before Christmas, and they have NEVER come back, even though I was told "2 weeks or so" in JANUARY (admittedly, at the end and at the Atlas "do"). I have ALWAYS suspected this is a case of PERMANENT removal, but being covered up by the "down for maintenance" excuse. Although this is about Rival, it proves that operators WILL lie about such things in order to hide an issue, even to the detriment to PAYING players.



If they have THIS much leeway with Blackjack, I find it INCONCEIVABLE that the RTPs of the slots are set in stone - it doesn't make sense.

The reasoning too doesn't make sense. We KNOW that RTG can alter the RTP settings on the slots, YET THEY STILL BONUS BAN PLAYERS!! Some do this by country, and others like Rushmore do it by deposit method. Operators who can mess with the RTP will STILL bonus ban groups of players.




Now things have gotten a whole lot worse. It was NOT a mistake according to this source. Tradition INTENTIONALLY made this setting, and only when found out and questioned did they relent. THIS might explain the extraordinary efforts made in chat to make this player go away, and the refusal to deal with, or even discuss, this issue.
It was RIVAL that stepped in & fixed the game back to match the graphics, and NOT Tradition.

Initially, it was CLEAR that Rival allowed operators to set the options themselves, with no controls. First off, who IN THEIR RIGHT MIND thinks that paying 1:1 for a Blackjack is a VALID option for an online Blackjack game. Vegas are taking some stick for moving to 6:5 Blackjack instead of traditional 3:2, yet Tradition turned to screw even TIGHTER, and set it to 1:1. Worse, they didn't make sure the rules and table matched the settings, and this was DECEPTIVE. There is ALSO the matter of not being able to double down after a split, even though the rules say this is allowed, FURTHER deception.

All of this means that the "standard" house edge that has been published on many affiliate sites is about as useful to players as a concrete parachute!!

AFFILIATES could get some stick for this too, since players might do their OWN maths from observation, and work out the affiliates are LYING about the figures, and this will lead to mistrust of that site. Where did affiliates get the figures? IF they were supplied by Rival, this was pretty rogue behaviour, since Rival KNEW that they were variable, and NOT fixed for all Rival casinos.

Interesting would be a calculation of the TRUE house edge this game was running at because of the 1:1 payout on a Blackjack, plus no double down being allowed after splits.

If this game is supposed to be single deck, keep your eyes peeled for two of the same card cropping up, as maybe this is yet another parameter that operators can fiddle with.


Rival should seriously consider "coming clean" about the other "skeletons in the closet", as it will be far worse if WE find & expose them after public denials ON RECORD from Rival and operators.

Add ~2.26% for 1 to 1 and ~.13% if no double after splits. If Rivals multi deck, single player the H/A would then suppose to be ~.63% + ~2.26% + .13% OR TOTAL H/A OF ~ 3.02% but there are other issues so all hypothetical.

[NicolasJohnson]

I can confirm our blackjack pays out 3:2.

I'm honestly not sure why my name is being dragged through the mud. I replied to the OPs PM, with the truth; there is nothing I can do.

I can understand the OPs frustration, but I'm not sure exactly what else was expected of me, given this is an issue between a player and a casino I have zero access to and is totally unrelated except for our common provider.

Yes we share the same outsourced CS, but we have managers that will react to specific individual cases like this one in different manners, as each casino administrator feels fit. Lumping the decisions of one casino administration together with that of another seems a little bit of a stretch.

I'm also not sure why our private conversation was brought into public domain when it has nothing to do with the topic of complaint.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

[NASHVEGAS]

Someone please explain the house edge of Rival's BJ based on the following in March 2008!


From : NASHVEGAS
To : thisisvegas
Date : 2008-03-22 14:09
Title : Re: howdy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey John...just piddling.... I do think I found a serious bug though that reoccurs but not consistently>>>sometimes the split button will double down instead of split the cards and has now prolly happened 10 or so times but I just did not feel like complaining but you should look into why this occurs out of the blue as I am positive it happens but totally random and unpredictable)...good for you guys,bad for...be safe and well!,Garry


SIDENOTE:This rip-off/malfeasance which I had now discovered with John in late October 2008 precisely how and why it was occurring was finally addressed and corrected in late October 2008 by a Rival BJ update. (John initially did admit to the BJ malfeasance via a telephone conversation and PM iirc. I will confirm and prolly post.) I also PM'ed Bryan on the same night in late October 2008 as I knew from previous dealings with Rival that if Bryan did not see this Rival rip-off/malfeasance immediately (he had no Rival accounts so I did not go into detail), now that I knew how it was occurring, Rival would now immediately correct and then deny all. Guess what??? Rival did exactly as previously anticipated--->>>>corrected the malfeasance via a BJ update and of course denied the malfeasance. Thus, those that deserved compensation for doubing down on a pair of Aces could go eff themselves. Exactly what Rival did with one exception I assume as I was given hush (again "I assume") credits later that night/morning but I did not hush.(Search the forum as I "always double down on a pair of ACES", pair of Deuces so I can not resplit and possibly double down yet I see the not determinable and incorrect house advantage published everywhere.) Co-incidence that I would win Rival's largest Progressive to that date a few weeks later but not be paid as agreed ??

I am not a big card player, but I do play BJ occasionally. I think JHV brought a big problem out in the open. Now let's see if it can be carried on since he was banned again earlier today.

Lots of good posts here, need rival reps talking, don't you think? I am never surprised at these happenings, without regulation and some standards set of who can have a license, this is always going to be a problem.

Nash, I grit my teeth every time you decide to post. You hint, try to be cryptic, post little non sequiturs. I have only one thing to tell you.

Spill the damn beans!!!!!

You might have saved a lot of people from getting screwed, if your little hints were spelled out and pursued rigorously.

Oh wait, he is starting to spill 'em! Keep them coming, Nash!!

Ban Me if necessary but John's October 26, 2008 reply (six months) after he was made aware there was a problem per our hour and a half phone conversation regarding:

(Hope the following makes sense JOD) When the player clicked the split button to split ACES or any pairs that basic stategy calls for, the pairs were not actually being split if your cursor only went in approx. 15% of the left side of the split button which the split button was the last button on the right, think about it (thus,the player had no chance of respliting and then possibly doubling down the original split as well as any possible resplits) The pairs were actually being doubled down instead of split as clicked and intended. Thus,the player was doubling his bet that in all cases has a high negative or losing expectation. Would you double down a pair of 9's or 18?

If the split button would have split the cards instead of wrongfully doubling the pairs, the player may have a chance of having 8 bets with a positive expectation. For example, at a max. bet of $200 per hand (my avg. was $180 over approx. 130,000 hands, ftr), when the bet was doubled when the player clicked and intended (split button) to split, the player was highly likely to lose $400 being no fault of the player whereby if the split button that was clicked had split the pairs, the player (under the best case scenario) could have won $1600. A possible negative player bankroll swing of $2000 on the original one hand of pair's. The house advantage of single hand Rival blackjack was, well I am not about to figure it out (not sure it can be) but this is malfeasance beyond my comprehension $ wise. That said there was a way for Rival to reasonably compensate the affected players by pulling all player's hand histories prior to the fix on Oct. 28, 2008.

Oh I forgot, Rival denied the whole issue or to that effect. Let me check for the specifics please on the prior sentence!

From : thisisvegas
To : NASHVEGAS
Date : 2008-10-26 16:59
Title : Re: howdy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I sent your last statement to Rival as well but I remember talking about it and I did ask them to look into it. I don't think they took it seriously but probably only looked at basic counts of doubling when splitting occurs. I will see how much of a difference it has made but going to take a while. I would say that space is close to 15% of the button space (i.e. the split button--- added by NASH for clarity on 3-27-2010) which activates the double down. Whatever I find out I will let you know. Expect it to be adjusted soon but I really don't know if this is an easy job or not but I am sure it is urgent.

Was nice chatting and anytime.

John"