RTG's Caribbean 21 lie

[caruso]

Hee hee, from the C.M. newsletter:

"Lets look at an analogy to get a better understanding what is happening here. Let's say a casino forbids players from wearing a blue hat while playing the games: this is stated in the casino's terms and conditions - no blue hats to be worn while playing. Now let's say a player wins a million dollars at this casino, but says he wore a blue hat while playing. And then he changes his story saying that he never wore a hat of any color.

Is the casino liable to pay up? Does the casino have the right not to pay a player that wore a blue hat, even though most people feel the blue hat rule is a goofy-ass rule? I feel that the casino has a right not to pay, if it can show photographic evidence of the player wearing the blue hat. But there is no concrete evidence in this situation, no photos, no witnesses.

If the casino does not pay this player, it will always be remembered as "the casino that did not pay a player because of a stupid hat rule"."

LOL.

[gamblinboi]

Originally Posted by caruso

Hee hee, from the C.M. newsletter:

"Lets look at an analogy to get a better understanding what is happening here. Let's say a casino forbids players from wearing a blue hat while playing the games: this is stated in the casino's terms and conditions - no blue hats to be worn while playing. Now let's say a player wins a million dollars at this casino, but says he wore a blue hat while playing. And then he changes his story saying that he never wore a hat of any color.

Is the casino liable to pay up? Does the casino have the right not to pay a player that wore a blue hat, even though most people feel the blue hat rule is a goofy-ass rule? I feel that the casino has a right not to pay, if it can show photographic evidence of the player wearing the blue hat. But there is no concrete evidence in this situation, no photos, no witnesses.

If the casino does not pay this player, it will always be remembered as "the casino that did not pay a player because of a stupid hat rule"."

LOL.

LOL indeed. CM i think you are a BIT off here. This isn't about any rules - Pirate didn't break any, by the admission of RTG and Phoenician Casino. This is about Hampton NOT WANTING TO PAY $1.3 MILLION ... if they don't pay, it'll forever be known as that RTG Casino that Stiffed a player out of 1.3 MILLION and tried every underhanded, lame-a*s bull*it excuse in the book to get out of paying its debt!

[Casinomeister]

Hi y'all,

Please PLEASE! Stop calling me C.M or CM. There is another webmaster who goes by this handle and it's super confusing. Casinomeister is one word by the way. I have no idea why people try to make it into two words all of the time.

Originally Posted by gamblinboi

CM i think you are a BIT off here. This isn't about any rules - Pirate didn't break any

The Pirate broke the rules in the the casino's opinion when he opened his mouth and said that he used a robot. This is on tape and has been broadcast everywhere but here, The breaking of the rule is clear and simple. Now whether or not this rule was ACTUALLY broken we'll probably never know.

What the bottom line is, can RTG tell its casinos what to do? Simple as that. Does RTG have the right to tell what the casino's rules are and what they aren't? Sure, RTG can pull the plug on a licensee, not let him renew their license or whatever, but still the issue is what can RTG dictate to the casino as in how to run their business(es).

[gamblinboi]

Originally Posted by casinomeister

Hi y'all,

Please PLEASE! Stop calling me C.M or CM. There is another webmaster who goes by this handle and it's super confusing. Casinomeister is one word by the way. I have no idea why people try to make it into two words all of the time.



The Pirate broke the rules in the the casino's opinion when he opened his mouth and said that he used a robot. This is on tape and has been broadcast everywhere but here, The breaking of the rule is clear and simple. Now whether or not this rule was ACTUALLY broken we'll probably never know.

What the bottom line is, can RTG tell its casinos what to do? Simple as that. Does RTG have the right to tell what the casino's rules are and what they aren't? Sure, RTG can pull the plug on a licensee, not let him renew their license or whatever, but still the issue is what can RTG dictate to the casino as in how to run their business(es).

LOL i thought the OTHER CM wrote this, not CasinoMeister.

and What was on the tape was poppycock - the guy was obviously a bit more than flustered and was just trying to get info out of the casino. There was no robot, there was no cheating. RTG and Phoenician say this pretty much.

I'm having first hand experience with a casino right now that's deciding that I've somehow broken the rules (that rule being I won). They're on their THIRD excuse for not paying me now, so I know (kinda) how Pirate feels. At this point, I doubt i'll ever see my money from them. So why not play along and see what exactly they say - maybe it'll lead them to saying something completely stupid and CONTRADICTORY - just like in Pirate's case. HAmptons said they used RTG built in mouse movement detection stuff to find out that he used a robot. WRONG - there is no mouse tracking software in RTG. So by going along with this robot bullocks, Pirate shows that they are FULL of it.

The casino in my case is World Wide Vegas. I've been waiting for your replies on this matter, Dude but please let me go public as i think the analogy fits. They made up some BS about multiple deposits. This was so flat out wrong it only took them a day or two to come up with some other excuse, which was summarily dismissed and wrong again. THEN they come up with the ubiquitous i'm connected to other players bit. Which other players? How am I connected? What if I referred friends or family or even wrote on a forum like WOL - hey, check out this casino! Does that automatically give them the right to void my winnings? And finally, how would this even break their rules? By playing along with the casino, you can draw out information and PROVE that they are full of it. Exactly what Pirate did in this case, and it doesn't prove that he used a robot or broke their rules.

[caruso]

Sorry Bryan.

You can be sure that noone is going to confuse you any time soon with...(etc etc); If they do, I'll have something to say about it, LOL.

Sorry again.

(Gamblinboi, let's stay on track with Pirate here.)

[Casinomeister]

Gamblinboi,

If you want to address your issues with World Wide Vegas, please feel free to start a thread in the complaints section. Let's stay on track here. I'm sure there are a number of individuals that would like to see this thread derailed. Let's not do this. Thanks!

[gamblinboi]

Originally Posted by casinomeister

Gamblinboi,

If you want to address your issues with World Wide Vegas, please feel free to start a thread in the complaints section. Let's stay on track here. I'm sure there are a number of individuals that would like to see this thread derailed. Let's not do this. Thanks!

My bad, folks. But the point remains - this guy was merely grabbing info from Hamptons by playing their game. And it worked - they revealed some lame crap about mouse tracking in the RTG software. RTG states that this is not the case. Pirate has managed to prove his case, the lame "confession" thrown at the window as it were because it's just him trying to get info from the casino. See, the casino was lying. Pirate knew it, so he asked them to elaborate on it. And that's where the casino had to make up even more lies, and finally the lies caught up to them.

[Phillitup]

Originally Posted by casinomeister

Hi y'all,

Please PLEASE! Stop calling me C.M or CM. There is another webmaster who goes by this handle and it's super confusing. Casinomeister is one word by the way. I have no idea why people try to make it into two words all of the time.



The Pirate broke the rules in the the casino's opinion when he opened his mouth and said that he used a robot. This is on tape and has been broadcast everywhere but here, The breaking of the rule is clear and simple. Now whether or not this rule was ACTUALLY broken we'll probably never know.

What the bottom line is, can RTG tell its casinos what to do? Simple as that. Does RTG have the right to tell what the casino's rules are and what they aren't? Sure, RTG can pull the plug on a licensee, not let him renew their license or whatever, but still the issue is what can RTG dictate to the casino as in how to run their business(es).

AND DON'T CALL ME CHIEF! (Perry White?)

[jetset]

It is difficult to understand why doubt still exists over this unproven use of a robot, particularly following the disclosures made by the head RTG techie earlier this week. Not only the content of his posts, but their giving the lie to Hampton claims of technical proof that a robot was used has to be seriously considered.

The Casinomeister did a balanced chronological review of the case backed by diverse emails and that puts things in perspective, too.

Pirate's contested *admission* in the questionable Hampton tape, and his brief braggadochio on the message boards which is wide open to interpretation seems to be what many doubters are now clinging to, and imo Jyde and others have provided acceptable explanations.

Although the winnings of $1.4 million tend to overwhelm the senses, Mary and a number of other respected and knowledgable posters commented well over a week ago that at the levels of wagering used by Pirate and agreed by Hampton it is by no means impossible to achieve this level of success. Irrational to bet at these levels maybe, but not criminal or fraudulent per se.

The latest postings by the Phoenician Casino guy are also very interesting in this regard - he rightly observes that Hampton must have been watching these dangerously high wagering activities in the hope that the Pirate would go down as dramatically as up, and that if they were party to that level of action they have an obligation to pay, all other conditions being in order as now appears to be the case. And it is worth noting that Phoenician have already said they will welcome Pirate at their Caribbean 21 tables, and that autoplay robots are acceptable in this aggressive, negative expectation game.

The unequivocal findings by RTG's technical inspections (and there have been two intensive looks at the technical issues surrounding the Pirate's success)raise another very interesting point.

Now that the Caribbean 21 game has been cleared and is back online, what will Delano Casino do in respect of the serious amount of money (winnings) belonging to Pirate that they froze when Caribean 21 was taken offline? Thus far their name is clean, but they will be judged on what they do from here.

Hampton, following their astonishing admission that they deliberately tried to trick the Pirate into admitting he had a robot, their suggestions of taking other casinos down, their attempts to impose retroactively a ridiculous WT requirement, their failure to supply gaming logs on request, the RTG disclosures which cast Hampton as being economical with the truth, have become damaged goods in my opinion. Their desperate attempts to void this heavy obligation makes me think that their pockets are perhaps not as deep as they claim.

Even assuming they now accept that they have no proof of robot play contrary to their T&Cs, Hampton's future - and Pirate's payouts at $4K a week for the next six and a half years - appears to me to be precarious. That's assuming they return to their payout agreement with Pirate.

[aceinhole21]

Originally Posted by gamblinboi

My bad, folks. But the point remains - this guy was merely grabbing info from Hamptons by playing their game. And it worked - they revealed some lame crap about mouse tracking in the RTG software. RTG states that this is not the case. Pirate has managed to prove his case, the lame "confession" thrown at the window as it were because it's just him trying to get info from the casino. See, the casino was lying. Pirate knew it, so he asked them to elaborate on it. And that's where the casino had to make up even more lies, and finally the lies caught up to them.

I agree with this. Gamlinboi usually posts right on the money. at the time Pirate said this, they had already told him he wasn't getting paid. Although I still say it was dumb for Pirate to make these statements (when he should have known he was on tape), but I believe he is innocent of using a robot. if Pirate didnt say these things, I wonder what excuse or proof hamptons would then have used not to pay. the tape gave them the perfect out which they even posted on their site.