RTG's Caribbean 21 lie

[spearmaster]

Welcome, Sting

The alleged confession, first of all, proves nothing. Ron himself said "let's go hit some other casinos."

Is that a confession that he wants to commit a crime? Does that mean that he has already committed the crime?

Of course not. And the player's "confession" is said to be of a dubious nature because it was coerced, or entrapment, or whatever.

If I tell you I'm going to pay you a million dollars to write on your website that I know you were the person behind the DOS attacks, would you consider writing it? Obviously this is not the case (just an example) but if you then said Ok, I am the person behind the DOS attacks, is that a confession?

Surely not.

There are a number of complicated issues in this matter. Three parties - Hampton, the player and RTG - who have cleared the game of any faults or bugs. An alleged bot - which, if the game has no faults or bugs, simply brings the game closer to expectation in a faster manner - and since expectation means a house edge, then the HOUSE is generally the beneficiary of the use of a bot.

This "bot" play exception is simply ridiculous, even if it IS in the terms and conditions. If the casino were to say that I must be using IE6 and Windows 95 in order to claim winnings, would that be an acceptable condition?

Of course not.

What it comes down to is this. RTG has cleared the game - and therefore the winnings are legitimate unless Hampton or RTG can discover a true fault. If Hampton does not pay the winnings then RTG will be forced into a very difficult position.

I would suggest all three parties come to an amicable agreement for the sake of everyone as well as the industry in general. RTG in particular will not want to see its name used or referred to as a dubious entity in the online gambling world - particularly as its base is in the US. Hampton, if it chooses not to settle, might as well shut down now. And as for the player - frankly I think he has the least to lose even if it's a million bucks. But all indications are that his winnings are rightfully earned and unless proven otherwise, I think the ball is in Hampton's court.

[Pirateofc21]

Hi Folks,

This is my first post here.

First off, I would like to start by saying I’ve know Ron of Hampton for a few years now and my own experience with him has always been positive. He’s always had a strong presence in Casino Times News when I was Managing Editor there and back when my site was hit by denial of service attacks in July of last year, Ron was very instrumental in helping me set up with another hosting company. Of course I have nothing but respect for many of the folks here. I’ve known an admired people like Jetset and Spearmaster for many years now.

I have a tough time believing that Ron would deliberately screw anybody from a personal standpoint and at the same time I can’t ignore the fact that there are intelligent player’s advocates suggesting his actions are completely intolerable. So essentially I am left questioning how we’ve ended up in this fine mess without taking away arguments from either side.

From where I stand, there is no denying both parties handled this matter dreadfully. I might be mistaken here, but it seems to me that the player knew of this website’s existence (CasinoMeister) before making his phone confession and I know that Hampton (and Ron) certainly knew of this site’s existence. Sites like Casinomeister are in place to handle these matters (granted this one is in a league all its own) before they get to the point where we are at now. Everything else, in my opinion, is secondary.

My question then becomes, Why did neither of these parties consider approaching Bryan Bailey or any one of a number of online casino advocates prior to mishandling this matter on their own?

As things stand now, the player will not be paid the $1.3 million as his confession is right on tape, and while I realize the possibility of intimidation leading to a false confession, there is simply no need to do so with folks like Bryan here for the players. Unless the player was not aware of this site’s existence, there is no excuse as to why he would have made a false disclosure. He did so after an initial phone conversation. Instead of calling Ron back, he should have contacted Bryan. I get the impression (especially since the calls were taped by the player) that he was more focused on dragging Hampton’s name through the mud through the enlisting of other forum members than he was using this site for its intended purpose – that is RESOLVING THE MATTER BEFORE IT ESCALATES. Neither Bryan, Myself or anyone else for that matter can force Hampton Casino to pay the guy as their whole argument now hinges on the fact that he admits to using a robot, thus violating their published company policy, irrespective of how that confession was derived (I don't believe their is a dispute related to whether or not that specific policy appeared on the Hampton site at the time).

By the same token, the online casinos must do their best to avert this type of negative publicity. Questioning the authenticity of a $1.3 million dollar win is not your every day run of the mill dispute. Companies like Hampton do not need this type of a black eye. The top companies in this industry need to work closely with respected “watchdog” sites and consult with them regularly. The argument that Hampton Casino acted arrogantly here certainly holds water.

The point I’m getting at is that sites such as Casino Meister need to be utilized more properly. From a players perspective, coming onto the forum and complaining AFTER a confession is made serves no purpose. Likewise, from the online casino’s perspective, offering the stance that the player made a confession only after baiting him along during a half hour phone conversation serves no purpose either and is not likely to win over many supporters.

Sites like this need to be utilized from the onset immediately upon determination of a dispute…….otherwise there will be no winners when all is said and done. If ever there was a case study on how NOT to handle an online gambling payout dispute, this would be IT.

Both the player and the casino made their own bed and now they have to lay in it.

Hello Sting, You don't have some of your facts straight. For instance:

you said:My question then becomes, Why did neither of these parties consider approaching Bryan Bailey or any one of a number of online casino advocates prior to mishandling this matter on their own?

For your information I did. Bryan himself discusses several of these communications in previous posts.

next you say: Instead of calling Ron back, he should have contacted Bryan. I get the impression (especially since the calls were taped by the player) that he was more focused on dragging Hampton’s name through the mud through the enlisting of other forum members than he was using this site for its intended purpose – that is RESOLVING THE MATTER BEFORE IT ESCALATES.

For your information you are mistaken here too. Again Bryan has discussed this matter in previous posts.
I most certainly was in contact with Bryan Bailey long before any phone calls or escalation. Again he discusses this himself.

Next: "irrespective of how that confession was derived". Really? So it is your position that the Casino bears no ethical nor legal responsibility for their illicit behavior?

next: Companies like Hampton do not need this type of a black eye." Then they need to do the right thing and pay me.

next: "Sites like this need to be utilized from the onset immediately upon determination of a dispute". THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I DID TO THE LETTER STING. As a matter of fact Bryan discusses the content of that contact in a previous post.

next: "The point I’m getting at is that sites such as Casino Meister need to be utilized more properly" What else should I have done?
PirateofC21

[portia]

The motivation behind, and the symmetry of the taped calls :

Hamptons and P21 both recorded their telecons without the others knowledge.

EACH side was ACTING - giving false info - hoping to get genuine disclosures from the other side.

While everyone here agrees that the hamptons side was an ACT (or con job) trying to get Pc21 to acknowledge use of a bot cause their T & C's have a dumb clause prohibiting it. (good thing they don't have a clause prohibiting windows ME or they wouldn't have paid me that 1k i won), but ...

It seems pretty clear that Pc21's side of the conversation was a PUT-ON as well.

His "disclosures" should be taken as seriously as Hampton's "disclosure" of their desire and intent to rip-off other RTG casinos (untrue). And, for that matter that they were not going to pay him another dime (untrue). It was the gut wrenching realization, after RTG thoroughly investigated this case and found NOTHING solid or even circumstantial that could be used to disqualify Pc21's win, that drove Ron of Hampton's to go on TILT - loose all his good sense and try to con Pc21 with all his silly false statements. A wise guy like Ron who knows which side of the table to work from getting stuck with a 1.3 million bill to a gambler - Ron's world turned upside down. *TILT*

Pc21 must have got the picture that Ron has fliipped out, from the prior conversation when Ron called. Raving mad.

So Pc21 figure to call back and play along see if Ron will put his foot in his mouth.

Because both sides were Bullsh*tting each other to get the other side to say something Dumb they reinforced each other to BS even more. Each side taking the others BS to be gold.

So Pc21's admission of a bot written in Cobol etc, etc should be taken with a grain of salt - gag - put-on. If ron was willing to pay 6 figures for a bot written in cobol (haha) why should he be denied that opportunity. Buyer beware especially one who refuses to pay a gambling debt.

Agree with spear (how strange is that?). If Hamptons does not pay up, and does not come forward with play logs, math analysys, report from RTG, or wizard or some other authority indicating foul play from Pc21 than it will cost Ron and RTG more than 1.3 million.

Hamptons/winward will disappear and RTG will become a ROGUE LEGEND in online casino history. The best most honest games, best gaming SW, best backend, clever ownership and the worst family of casino owners. The biggest risk of playing at an RTG casino is that if you win you either do not get paid, wait 10 months before getting paid, suffer abusive phone conversations with the casino owner. In future any 2 bit casino that refuses to pay for some half baked reason will be said to have pulled an "RTG".

M. Staw you know that is going to stick and cost $$. We know you have done (or commisioned someone else to do) the analysis of the game and Pc21's play. And you found nothing that indicated the player should be disqualified. And now another RTG casino owner has flipped out and let the players know that he is untrustworthy and very foolish.

Has he calmed down enough for you (M. Staw) to point out to him that he damaged himself in the first instance by raising the limits on the game? Guess he thought that the laws of statistics said that in the long run the player will lose and, by gosh, this guy is "overdue for a loss". In an earlier post he dismissed the notion of mathematical analysis being relevant in this case (no doubt because it had already been done and yielded nothing he could use to disqualify the players win). He could have avoided a damaging loss to this player if he had been better aquainted with the basic facts of gaming derived from the math analysis.

When Casino-on-net got dinged for $4 million in a couple of hours a few years back they must have been shocked too. And they must have had some analysis done to see if the loss was due to foul play as RTG did in this case. But somehow, after they thought things through they took a different approach than Ross over at Hampton's. Which approach is better?

Casino-on-net showed the gaming world how successful they are. How they can be trusted with a players money even large sums. How they are so well financed. They talked to the players made an accomodationm and then used the event as a marketing tool. They used it in advertising. It was now a positive occurence so everyone should know about it. They must be the safest place to play on the net. That is what players tell each other. So many new players flocked into casino-on-net due to the marketing of their big 2 hour payout that the marketing of the event paid for itself very quickly. Casino-on-net turned a big loss into a big win for them and the players. First Class strategy.

Now Ross at Hamptons has projected the image of a bleeder;

Who sweats about players who win;

Who doesn't have deep enough pockets to cover big action;

A man with a gamblers mentality ("I'll raise da limits 'cause he's over due to lose big") who pretends to have great knowlegde about his games;

A man who cannot be trusted with players deposits;

A man who grasps at rationizations to justify misdeeds (not paying gambling debts) to satisfy his short term interest (not paying big winners).

A casino owner "wise guy" who sees players as born losers who do not deserve any respect and who should be treated as enemies if they win big;

A man who uses his intellectual capacity to find ways to decieve others to get what he wants instead of finding ways to accommodate both sides ( and did he ever miss the boat here - Ross, RTG, or Pc21 PM me if you want some suggestions for both sides to come out ahead on this mess);

A man so unrestrained by scruples, who no longer even recognises that he has concocted an underhanded (and perhaps criminal?) scheme that he even publicizes it online. (Even now is he sayng "what da f**k is all da fuss about wit dat tape, anywayzuh?")

A somewhat low class backalley type strategy wouldn't you say? (so avoidable *sigh*)

It makes me shake my head in sadness that the RTG brand and image, which represents,without dispute, the most honest games and quality SW, run by some very bright people - has to be once again associated with the hairbrained schemes of a rogue casino operator.

Sting, respect your work as always. And you have done well to post about the character of a business associate and perhaps friend, that you know personally. But the image of him that is going to stick to him is that derived from his tape and from his overall handling of this case.

Hope you have given Ross the benefit of your council. My estimate is that there are still several ways of salvaging this thing.

[caruso]

"A casino owner "wise guy" who sees players as born losers who do not deserve any respect and who should be treated as enemies if they win big."

Isn't that the truth? Players held in contempt as pondlife scum - THAT'S the reality. Maybe truer of Hampton than most, but that's the reality. Utter contempt.

One of many quote-worthy phrases in that post, Portia.

[gamblinboi]

One of many quote-worthy phrases in that post, Portia.

agreed, excellent post Portia.

[bohawkins]

I don't think we need to worry about the pirate. I am sure he has learned his lesson here and is now using his robotic software on other casinos. If not then he has a system which is unbeatable and he could take that knowlege to Vegas and make a killing there.

I cannot believe that anyone who didn't have a robot would be so stupid as to confess to using one thinking that he was somehow playing along with them. I think he confessed because he knew the jig was up and he was hoping to get paid the settlement.

He is toast. But, like I said... shed no tears for the pirate, most likely he is racking up wins on lots of other casinos but now he has cleverly designed his software so that it totally is undetectable.

[jetset]

That's a good and reasonably balanced first post, Sting.

In my opinion the bottom line here is that folks involved in this industry can do pretty much what they want to in the absence of effective regulation. Only the threat of player absence from their businesses out of abhorrence for their policies, and the laudable activities of a few good and genuine portals in publicising this sort of behaviour can deter them at present.

Before this thing degenerated into a public bun fight, in fact when RTG first froze the Caribbean 21 game the Pirate of C21 posted here - his first post initiated this thread. Despite the sterling efforts of Bryan and others it kind of went downhill from there with the attempted retroactive WT imposition, those telephone calls made with the explicit purpose of getting an admission, the cryptic posts and jibes from the player and sundry other sillinesses.

As you say, there is fault on both sides and some pretty abrasive comments have been made, including some by Mr. Lewin in your 911 coverage of this affair.

What is troubling me deeply is the fact that Hampton have made some strong statements about the evidence they claim to have (mouse-mapping technology and log checks for instance) which could be corroborative of the alleged confession they have that was achieved by questionable means. Noone has yet seen this evidence to confirm it. They're not the only ones to attempt to obtain admissions using this method, but we're focusing on the Hampton case here.

I am therefore uncomfortable with the unilateral decision not to pay the player (for all his faults) on grounds of a claimed admission made under questionable circumstances. Corroboration of that claim is necessary imv.

We have RTG giving this game a clean bill of health, and I would assume (in view of the fact that Hampton have not supplied the player with his game logs) that game logs were a part of that thorough inspection and that no overt evidence of bots was found.

The whole question of making the use of robots grounds for disqualification is probably a seperate debate, because I think it is generally accepted that Hampton have a "no bot rule" from their UG days, and if they can conclusively PROVE that the player used one, then that is pretty much that in a factual as opposed to moral sense.

1.3 million is a lot of cash no matter what your position, and can induce some strange conduct as we have seen in this case. I honestly do not know who was in the wrong here - I certainly think for 1.3 million more evidence needs to be adduced.

If that cannot be done then it's time for the parties to retire to the negotiating table - in private.

[gamblinboi]

I don't think we need to worry about the pirate. I am sure he has learned his lesson here and is now using his robotic software on other casinos. If not then he has a system which is unbeatable and he could take that knowlege to Vegas and make a killing there.

I cannot believe that anyone who didn't have a robot would be so stupid as to confess to using one thinking that he was somehow playing along with them. I think he confessed because he knew the jig was up and he was hoping to get paid the settlement.

He is toast. But, like I said... shed no tears for the pirate, most likely he is racking up wins on lots of other casinos but now he has cleverly designed his software so that it totally is undetectable.

bohawkins dont be ridiculous. any software, regardless how well designed (and remember, this guy made the ludicrous statement that he wrote the bot in COBOL... lol!!) is NOT going to beat the house advantage. RTG fully investigated the game and found no flaws, NOR did they find bot play.

This whole robot business is ridiculous.

[HamptonCasino]

Here's answers to the points raised since my last post :

1> "Hampton appear to be guilty of criminal solicitation"

How? Those who say this have either not heard the tape or have purposely
decided to block out certain parts of it in their heads.

It may also be the case that some of you are not understanding our
point. As Ron is heard saying on the phone :

"We have to isolate casinos that don't have terms that you know, robot
play is forbidden"

Ron is not soliciting anything illegal. He told him that they were going
to play at casinos that DID NOT have the term "Robot play is forbidden"
like Hampton DOES. Hence that would not have been illegal.

But the problem is that we did and still do have that term. Robot play
is forbidden at Hampton casino and will continue to be indefinitely.

2> "This "bot" play exception is simply ridiculous, even if it IS in the
terms and conditions. If the casino were to say that I must be using IE6
and Windows 95 in order to claim winnings, would that be an acceptable
condition?"

I have already explained this in my previous post. If you wish to play
with Hampton Casino then please read the terms and conditions before
doing so. If you disagree with any of our terms and conditions then
please do not play with Hampton Casino because all winnings will be
voided for any and all individuals that break our rules. No matter how
"unacceptable" he/she may happen to believe they are.

3> Some here seem to believe that this is a court of law and they are
the judge/jury and they may indict and convict as they please. Let me
remind them that this is not the case. We welcome Pirate to challenge us
in a real court of law and we will present any and all evidence that the
court may require of us and we believe we will win hands down. As far as
the message boards are concerned, we believe we have disclosed all we
can without compromising the security of our operation.

Regards

Robert Myers
Public Relations
Hampton Casino

[jetset]

" Some here seem to believe that this is a court of law and they are
the judge/jury and they may indict and convict as they please. Let me
remind them that this is not the case. We welcome Pirate to challenge us
in a real court of law and we will present any and all evidence that the
court may require of us and we believe we will win hands down. As far as
the message boards are concerned, we believe we have disclosed all we
can without compromising the security of our operation."

Your impertinence is staggering, Mr. Myers.

This is a public message board discussing an issue of importance to the online gambling community and as such its members have every right to debate the details, note inadequacies in the claims of either side or to be critical of policies and conduct that are now squarely in the public domain whether you like it or not.

If this matter does go to litigation it will be interesting to learn what this evidence you claim to have really is, and what the gaming logs truly show bearing in mind your several statements on this board (which have been saved for future reference).

Until then, publicly claiming to have evidence and then not producing convincing proof of it is not strengthening the community's perception of your case.