The whole PAB system is broken in my opinion

[nothappy]

[Max says: this thread was split off from Inetbet closes my account - You be the judge since is seemed to be a major topic in itself and a major derail from the original topic.]

This may sound harsh but it is not meant personal. It is meant as constructive criticism and to allow you to view this as the members here may. It must be obvious to many but:

The whole system set up here is broken in my opinion. You say that you should ask "how can I prove that I am not a fraud...etc?" Well then what? The casino will not respond. They have already gotten the "thumbs up" to steal the money from you based on your "findings" and I use that term loosely.

So, what you do here, in essence, is get a PaB and look into it. Sometimes this may take months and months. In the interim there is a sort of "gag order" that this cannot be discussed in public. Then when you finally decide what you think you write back a terse email stating that you think that the casino is ok with taking the money and in so you will now close that players forum account so that there can be NO rebuttal in public. However, what you WILL do is forward one last message from you to them. The issue is that they have likely bloody well been ignoring the player for months and they see that you will not berate them for the thievery in public, so why in the hell would they respond to a last plea for help from the player?
It is not a help when you do this. You silence the critics is what you do and the word doesnt get out. I am glad that I have seen gambling grumbles here. I will try and use them in the future. At least that person is interested enough to get both sides of the story.

You ask us to believe you without question. However, as in these public cases of chuchu and alicek, you are taking the side of the casino when they openly have lied about thier position. You have them falsifying things out in the open where we can all see it then you ask us to trust them and their decision to not pay someone or lock their account?

In AliceK's situation for example, they claim there was a bonus yet GG states there was no bonus used in her last several LARGE deposits. This person obviously sent in documents also based on the story. it is too far of a reach for us to think that the player is evil and bad and cheating and deserves to be stolen from when they were not doing anything remotely profitable other than gambling with their own funds. so you can say that you can divulge ZERO information. The information that GG gave was a slamdunk case against the casino. Especially when they lied to the writer about many things.

My point in this ramble is that the way you conduct the PaB is good for the casino. It keeps the complaint out of the public view and basically silences them. You offer no real retort nor do you ask for much in the way of proof from the player. You get most of your info from the casino side.
All of that is broken and I tend to believe gambling grumbles over this site based on those things. Especiallly the transparency issue.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

I think a lot of what you say nothappy can be classed as 'fair comment' and your argument is well put. Howver I think you are very misguided in throwing the ills of the casino industry at Bryan's and Max's door. It's hardly their fault this industry has such poor legislation. Infact quite the contrary as they have campaigned tirelessly for more competent and robust legislation. They have highlighted the Malta failings and rogued Betfair and deserve a lot of credit for that.

The PAB process can never be perfect and it is inevitible that sometimes good upstanding players will get ripped off. Mistakes are inevitible given the volume of work they receive. Not to mention the fraudsters who waste a huge amount of their time with bogus claims. And on occasion casinos will lie to them also.

I have to say I yearn for the day this industry gets put on a more professional footing with regulation and an independant ombudsman doing the job that Max does. I'm sure Bryan and Max hope for that as much as we do, it's not like the PAB side is integral to the business model. You could even argue that CM might do better if they weren't involved in the PAB process and operated by promoting the forum and just reviewing casinos and providing a news feed. I'm sure they would have much easier lives and would still be very successful.

I share your frustration nothappy but I also think Max and Bryan do a very difficult job very well. But also they are human and aren't going to get iright every time. I would never doubt their integrity.

 

[Nifty29]

I think a lot of what you say nothappy can be classed as 'fair comment' and your argument is well put. Howver I think you are very misguided in throwing the ills of the casino industry at Bryan's and Max's door. It's hardly their fault this industry has such poor legislation. Infact quite the contrary as they have campaigned tirelessly for more competent and robust legislation. They have highlighted the Malta failings and rogued Betfair and deserve a lot of credit for that.

The PAB process can never be perfect and it is inevitible that sometimes good upstanding players will get ripped off. Mistakes are inevitible given the volume of work they receive. Not to mention the fraudsters who waste a huge amount of their time with bogus claims. And on occasion casinos will lie to them also.

I have to say I yearn for the day this industry gets put on a more professional footing with regulation and an independant ombudsman doing the job that Max does. I'm sure Bryan and Max hope for that as much as we do, it's not like the PAB side is integral to the business model. You could even argue that CM might do better if they weren't involved in the PAB process and operated by promoting the forum and just reviewing casinos and providing a news feed. I'm sure they would have much easier lives and would still be very successful.

I share your frustration nothappy but I also think Max and Bryan do a very difficult job very well. But also they are human and aren't going to get iright every time. I would never doubt their integrity.

Interesting.

Could you please provide some examples of when "a good upstanding player" has been "ripped off" by the PAB process? Are you referring to your own use of the PAB service?

I don't think its unreasonable to ask you to substantiate such a serious accusation.

@nothappy

It sounds a little like sour grapes on your part. I hope this isn't the case. Bryan and Max have a theory about players that demand to know how they were "caught".

 

[DiamondGeezer]

Interesting.

Could you please provide some examples of when "a good upstanding player" has been "ripped off" by the PAB process? Are you referring to your own use of the PAB service?

I could have put that bit better - "Ripped off" was meant in the context of casinos ripping off players followind an unsuccessful PAB. It wasn't meant to be a comment on the PAB process atall, just what can happen if the PAB process can't work for whatever reason.

As far as my own use of PAB is concerned it was very successful and I am most grateful to Max for the work he did on my behalf. However I would much prefer beefed up regulation plus an independant ombudsman. Being from the UK I would also like to see online casinos based in the UK if they are to service the UK market. Also I would like to see these guys pay some tax.

I'll stop now as this is going way off topic - sorry Chuchu.

 

[maxd]

For now I've moved these posts to their own thread since any discussion of this topic -- and I have a funny feeling there will be plenty -- will be a major and continued derail from the original topic (Inetbet closes my account - You be the judge). As you might imagine I have a few comments of my own but they'll have to wait until after I get some shut-eye.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

I hope nothappy doesn't get troll accusations just because he/she has a different opinion. Also it'e easy to make mistakes and not get one's point accross quite right just like I did a few posts above.

The fraud accusation certainly does put the PAB process in a real bind. In truth things would may not be a lot different if there was some kind of independant adjudicator as a lot of the same situations would no doubt arise. I think it's always going to be very tough dealing with player fraud as regards disclosure. And certainly there is a lot of fraud attempted by players. I would like to see more independance but ofcourse the reality may be that it could be very disappointing.

The worry behind any webmaster complaints model is casinos are capable of using fraud as cloak to deny payment to players if they have made some kind of promotional blunder. These don't happen often but when they do can be spectacular.

It's very tough to strike a balance.

 

[gaydave]

Interesting.

Could you please provide some examples of when "a good upstanding player" has been "ripped off" by the PAB process? Are you referring to your own use of the PAB service?

I don't think its unreasonable to ask you to substantiate such a serious accusation.

@nothappy

It sounds a little like sour grapes on your part. I hope this isn't the case. Bryan and Max have a theory about players that demand to know how they were "caught".

I don't want to sound badgering but how would anyone ever know if a good upstanding player got ripped off the way it is currently set up? If YOU, Nifty, were to be called a fraud by a casino and your money stolen then you pab'd here a likely result would be Max asking the casino about it, the casino saying "its fraud, this guy is connected to other players, they play same games, use same payment processor, blah, blah, blah..." then Max coming back and telling you that the casino has some evidence against you and that you are now locked out of the forum for pab abuse... therefore you cannot tell your story. You may send in a last statement to the casino that Max or Bryan will forward for you, in which the casino will then wipe their collective buttocks with it and be happy that they didn't have to pay you any of those winnings.
To make a long story short, how would you tell us that you were ripped off? I can recall several, several players that made complaints then were told to stop while the pab was going on. I have seen some players scream innocence and say that they will do anything to prove it on this board with nothing being done (I know it is not part of the pab process and that Max/Bryan cannot force anything from a casino........ but they can put pressure). https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/what-to-do-for-help-against-lock.38391/ in specific look at post 8.... heck, read the whole thing. So the onus is on the player to prove himself. Who is listnening? Nobody, because the casino is not interested in getting it right, they are interested in not paying.

I agree very much that the process could use refining.

Why is it that the inetbet posters had their forum accounts locked? Odd that they have no way to rebutt the theft of the casino I would say.

 

[Nifty29]

I don't want to sound badgering but how would anyone ever know if a good upstanding player got ripped off the way it is currently set up? If YOU, Nifty, were to be called a fraud by a casino and your money stolen then you pab'd here a likely result would be Max asking the casino about it, the casino saying "its fraud, this guy is connected to other players, they play same games, use same payment processor, blah, blah, blah..." then Max coming back and telling you that the casino has some evidence against you and that you are now locked out of the forum for pab abuse... therefore you cannot tell your story. You may send in a last statement to the casino that Max or Bryan will forward for you, in which the casino will then wipe their collective buttocks with it and be happy that they didn't have to pay you any of those winnings.
To make a long story short, how would you tell us that you were ripped off? I can recall several, several players that made complaints then were told to stop while the pab was going on. I have seen some players scream innocence and say that they will do anything to prove it on this board with nothing being done (I know it is not part of the pab process and that Max/Bryan cannot force anything from a casino........ but they can put pressure). https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/what-to-do-for-help-against-lock.38391/ in specific look at post 8.... heck, read the whole thing. So the onus is on the player to prove himself. Who is listnening? Nobody, because the casino is not interested in getting it right, they are interested in not paying.

I agree very much that the process could use refining.

Why is it that the inetbet posters had their forum accounts locked? Odd that they have no way to rebutt the theft of the casino I would say.

In other words, you don't trust Bryan and Max. I've tried to find another angle that you might be coming from, but I keep coming back to that one fact.

Instead of pointing out how terribly unfairly the PAB process treats fraudsters, how about coming up with a different process? You could lay it out right here for us. Who knows, maybe it will be adopted.

The major sticking point with PABs has always been that the exact nature of the evidence provided by the casino, along with the methods used to collect said evidence, is never published for all to see. The only people who see it are Max and Bryan, so it comes down to whether you trust their judgement having SEEN all the evidence (whilst you have not). It's really very simple. If you don't think that they are intelligent enough to sort the wheat from the chaff and decide what constitutes evidence and what doesn't, why on earth woulld you even be here? If I thought that I would be out of here like a shot.

There are two kinds of people who insist on seeing all the evidence in this forum (IMO)........the person perpetrating the fraud and other fraudsters looking for ways to better ply their trade, and the downright nosey. Neither have any legitimate argument.

As for me being accused of fraud? It's been 14 years without incident for me. Funny how others just seem to have problems consistently. I guess I'm just lucky huh?

 

[chayton]

deja vu all over again...

 

[pinkfloyd]

i could also see innocent parties looking for proof nifty , its a weird tightrope the people here walk , protecting accredited casinos from bad false accusations , hiding the way fraudsters are caught to protect the industry.
i myself cant think of a better way to do it unless the whole damn industry is 200 % regulated and if operators faced 100 % closure and fines for ripping off players we might not need the pab sigh dream of the day.
we have players committing fraud and casinos like coolcat committing fraud and we have suffering people in countries that are forced through 100 x playthrough or who are totally banned from even joining a casino because of what others have done previously.
i have to admit in the years ive been playing ive never had an issue mainly thanks to this site and avoiding listed rouge casinos and such tho if i was accused of fraud my level of calmness would be a result of the amount and id be on here screaming blue murder for a large amount and proof if i thought i was falsely accused.

the system might not be perfect but its the best dam system we got .

 

[chuchu59]

A PAB should not be used to strong-arm the casino into submission otherwise the casino might as well close its ears and eyes. The system is there to seek cooperation from the casino to reach a compromise which while beneficial to the player would also preserve the reputation of the casino. Unless absolutely necessary, information should be kept under double wraps as this is sort of a mutual agreement between Bryan/MaxD and the casinos. Of course it is easy for a player to say 'Show me the evidence' but in reality the casinos wont let you know how they conduct fraud checking otherwise the real fraudsters will get smart and devise ways to overcome it.

We shall have to rely on the integrity of Bryan and co. Years ago, when Max hadnt arrived on the scene yet the Belle Rock and Fortune Lounge casinos locked me out as they suspected that I was linked to a ring of fraudsters. I started a thread here and after investigation where I suspect Bryan played a big part my accounts were reopened. At that time, I, like others, felt that they need to prove to me that I was a fraudster. However, on second thoughts, I realised this would be difficult as they would expose their methods of checking making them easily vulnerable to fraudsters taking advantage of this knowledge. It all boils down to whether we believe in Bryan and Max or not. I have total faith in them but of course anyone can choose otherwise.

 

[anniemac]

Good post, Chu. Totally agree.

 

[The Dude]

[Max says: this thread was split off from Inetbet closes my account - You be the judge since is seemed to be a major topic in itself and a major derail from the original topic.]

This may sound harsh but it is not meant personal. It is meant as constructive criticism and to allow you to view this as the members here may. It must be obvious to many but:

The whole system set up here is broken in my opinion. You say that you should ask "how can I prove that I am not a fraud...etc?" Well then what? The casino will not respond. They have already gotten the "thumbs up" to steal the money from you based on your "findings" and I use that term loosely.

So, what you do here, in essence, is get a PaB and look into it. Sometimes this may take months and months. In the interim there is a sort of "gag order" that this cannot be discussed in public. Then when you finally decide what you think you write back a terse email stating that you think that the casino is ok with taking the money and in so you will now close that players forum account so that there can be NO rebuttal in public. However, what you WILL do is forward one last message from you to them. The issue is that they have likely bloody well been ignoring the player for months and they see that you will not berate them for the thievery in public, so why in the hell would they respond to a last plea for help from the player?
It is not a help when you do this. You silence the critics is what you do and the word doesnt get out. I am glad that I have seen gambling grumbles here. I will try and use them in the future. At least that person is interested enough to get both sides of the story.

You ask us to believe you without question. However, as in these public cases of chuchu and alicek, you are taking the side of the casino when they openly have lied about thier position. You have them falsifying things out in the open where we can all see it then you ask us to trust them and their decision to not pay someone or lock their account?

In AliceK's situation for example, they claim there was a bonus yet GG states there was no bonus used in her last several LARGE deposits. This person obviously sent in documents also based on the story. it is too far of a reach for us to think that the player is evil and bad and cheating and deserves to be stolen from when they were not doing anything remotely profitable other than gambling with their own funds. so you can say that you can divulge ZERO information. The information that GG gave was a slamdunk case against the casino. Especially when they lied to the writer about many things.

My point in this ramble is that the way you conduct the PaB is good for the casino. It keeps the complaint out of the public view and basically silences them. You offer no real retort nor do you ask for much in the way of proof from the player. You get most of your info from the casino side.
All of that is broken and I tend to believe gambling grumbles over this site based on those things. Especiallly the transparency issue.

Your ability to still post in this forum is proof that it does work. We could have thrown your account into the heap of PA fraudsters, but since we look at all aspects of a complaint and compare notes with thousands of others, we are able to access these situations better than any entity that is willing to deal with these sort of things.

Even though your PABs were unsuccessful, (one where you were accused of fraud via collusion), you maintained your status. To throw this into our faces saying that the system is broken is pretty thankless and undeserving IMO.

Silence the critics you say? Any other administrator of a forum would have shut your account down ages ago. Food for thought.

 

[jetset]

Much of Nifty's post #8 resonates strongly with me.

For years the PAB system here has been working well and in most cases quickly enough to be a boon to those players who use it, and an irritation to those that are exposed by it... and would perhaps like to use it to obtain information beneficial to their agenda.

Bryan as the owner of the site has always been open to practical suggestions on improvement, but I don't see any here so far.

The issue of "independence" has many nuances and can be debated to sometimes ridiculous depths until the cows come home, but the practical bottom line imo is what the PAB system is regularly able to achieve in redressing player complaints.

Bryan and Max have been around the industry for long enough to suss out questionable statements and information on both sides of the argument and have proved to be men of integrity who try to assist players in an even- handed way and without expectation of reward. In addition they have contact with many experts at all levels in the pastime who are prepared to assist with information and perspectives.

More formal and effective regulation in the industry is clearly desirable, but that is a patchwork in terms of quality, and as those involved in the industry for any period of time will tell you, the mere fact of a national regulator does not guarantee efficiency, communication or understanding from a player's p.o.v.

This debate surfaces regularly and imo usually goes nowhere. Perhaps that's because there is little point in it if the player/s involved distrust the PAB system or those operating it and their capacity to make progress with operators on player issues. Excruitiating examinations in the past have not, as far as I am aware, produced a better system here, and I think most of us appreciate the potential value of proper "independent" regulation... but are realistic about its present execution.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It really is a system based on trust. The casinos trust Max and Bryan enough to show them the evidence, and how they got it. They know that neither Max nor Bryan will "spill the beans". Players have to trust that Max knows how to interpret the evidence, as well as form an independent opinion.

There is also a big stick. A casino that falsifies evidence to achieve it's agenda of not paying players, perhaps because of a promotional blunder on their part, risks getting caught out and thrown into the pit.

The carrot is that casinos who fully engage with the standards here can become accredited, and this boosts their business.

The PABs also allow Bryan to monitor what is going on at individual casinos, and a sudden increase in valid PABs is a warning sign that something has gone wrong, and the casino needs reviewing. The first WE hear of this is when Max posts a "casino warning", which usually comes after the PAB process with that particular casino has ground to a halt, and Max can no longer make progress behind the scenes.

There is of course choice. Gambling Grumbles, for example, provides a similar service, but again it is down to trust.

The ONLY way to have all the evidence out in the open is to take the casino to court, which can be a complicated and expensive process.

 

[Simmo!]

This may sound harsh but it is not meant personal. It is meant as constructive criticism and to allow you to view this as the members here may. It must be obvious to many but:

The whole system set up here is broken in my opinion. ...

I'd be interested in the OP's opinion on how to fix it. It's all well and good making a statement like this but without solutions and suggestions for improvements it just sounds like a player who didn't get the result falling the way he/she wanted. How would you improve it without giving away information to fraudsters and potential fraudsters?

Example:
Adjudicator: "We banned you because you had 4 accounts from the same computer".
Fraudster: "You lie! (Note to self: Oops. Don't do that next time!)"

IMO it's just the nature of the beast. Like eCOGRA, LGA, Alderney complaints etc etc and every other reputable complaints procedure in the industry, decisions have to be made, the result is 50/50 (a generalisation there!) and the reasons can't be publically posted or it will exacerbate the situation. In an instance like this (because of fraudulent players making life harder for everyone I might add!) then unfortunately the only way is to prove your innocence.

As VWM says, it's all about trust. The whole industry is. You choose who you trust based on research.

So back to the question to the OP: what would you do to improve it?

 

[felicie]

I am one of those players that got screwed by a casino and was totally amazed when my PAB failed since it seemed so obvious to me that they were up to no good. Then I started thinking, Max and Bryan don't know me from Adam. Why should they believe me instead of the casino? It was a bitch writing all the little details in the correct order that they happened and then attaching things to back it up only to find in the end it was no different than the results I'd already gotten; my word against the casino's. It was probably the lst or 2nd time in my whole life that someone didn't take my word at face value on something quite important to me, and that was upsetting but then again, we weren't face to face so how could they. Oh hell now what was my point
Oh yes, that if you consider your out of pocket expense to Maxd for a PAB, he does pretty well I think in trying to resolve our difficulties. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose. That's life and, I might add, watching the casino crash and burn in the end wasn't too bad either.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I'd be interested in the OP's opinion on how to fix it. It's all well and good making a statement like this but without solutions and suggestions for improvements it just sounds like a player who didn't get the result falling the way he/she wanted. How would you improve it without giving away information to fraudsters and potential fraudsters?

Example:
Adjudicator: "We banned you because you had 4 accounts from the same computer".
Fraudster: "You lie! (Note to self: Oops. Don't do that next time!)"

IMO it's just the nature of the beast. Like eCOGRA, LGA, Alderney complaints etc etc and every other reputable complaints procedure in the industry, decisions have to be made, the result is 50/50 (a generalisation there!) and the reasons can't be publically posted or it will exacerbate the situation. In an instance like this (because of fraudulent players making life harder for everyone I might add!) then unfortunately the only way is to prove your innocence.

As VWM says, it's all about trust. The whole industry is. You choose who you trust based on research.

So back to the question to the OP: what would you do to improve it?

This is what is usually released in public, but what they DON'T release is HOW they managed to find out that the fraudster was using the same computer, as no doubt he would have taken some precautions that he thought would disguise the fact that all accounts came from the same computer, perhaps by reinstalling the OS between creating accounts. If he knew what he failed to do, he would make sure this was covered the next time, so he would reinstall the OS and deal with whatever else he found was retaining a footprint on his system that the casino was using to tell it was the same computer.

 

[gaydave]

This is what is usually released in public, but what they DON'T release is HOW they managed to find out that the fraudster was using the same computer, as no doubt he would have taken some precautions that he thought would disguise the fact that all accounts came from the same computer, perhaps by reinstalling the OS between creating accounts. If he knew what he failed to do, he would make sure this was covered the next time, so he would reinstall the OS and deal with whatever else he found was retaining a footprint on his system that the casino was using to tell it was the same computer.

but I don't think that even happens does it? I don't think you are even given THAT much info... just "your linked to a fraud ring" or " there is evidence suggesting you are fraud". They don't even say "4 accounts from same computer" that way you could either shut your trap if it is a true accusation or you could show your computer, give someone access to it to explore and look at things to prove it isn't correct.


Regarding the TRUST or DONT TRUST mantra... you are asking grown, thinking human beings to just blindly believe another with nothing substantiating it.
For example, in the alicek debacle, we can ACTUALLY SEE that the casino lied on some accounts. Some things they stated are just plain lies. However, we are expected to believe that they are telling the truth about alicek and her non-bonus winnings being fraudulent. C'mon! That makes no damn sense. They lied repeatedly. They ignored alicek's emails.... NOW we must blindly believe them. That is a pretty hard pill to swallow. Zero transparency is not good for the industry. Maybe you don't tell the person HOW you found what you did but how about telling them WHAT you found? and "fraud" aint good enough.
Do I trust Bryan and Max? As much as anyone else that I have never met. Do I trust the casino? Well not actually, they have a direct benefit of keeping alicek's money. Do I trust Gambling Grumbles? As much as anyone else also but at the least they are transparent and asked alice about what had happened, then published it.
So with what I personally have seen (obviously not the same as max/bryan) it is obvious that inetbet has lied and falsified things. It is obvious that they are keeping money from a player who won without a bonus. THUS, if the player can give legitimate documents proving her identity then the casino has no ground to keep her money. Fraud with no bonus? So she pretended she was someone else to gamble with her own money?
Do you see how silly it all sounds from what we can see? If she has documents and is of age then pay her. She won gambling. Fraud doesnt make sense here. That is what is so hard about the pab process. Fraud in what way? It is illogical to think a casino should profit the thousands the player deposited and the thousands they won also especially if no bonus is involved and documents can be sent. It is equally illogical to think a person would commit fraud just to gamble when they can do that without fraud tactics.

 

[The Dude]

@ Gaydave - there are a number of ways fraud is committed: Multiple accounts, collusion, etc. You are looking at this with tunnel vision.

How about offering suggestions instead of attacking iNetBet?

 

[Nifty29]

but I don't think that even happens does it? I don't think you are even given THAT much info... just "your linked to a fraud ring" or " there is evidence suggesting you are fraud". They don't even say "4 accounts from same computer" that way you could either shut your trap if it is a true accusation or you could show your computer, give someone access to it to explore and look at things to prove it isn't correct.


Regarding the TRUST or DONT TRUST mantra... you are asking grown, thinking human beings to just blindly believe another with nothing substantiating it.
For example, in the alicek debacle, we can ACTUALLY SEE that the casino lied on some accounts. Some things they stated are just plain lies. However, we are expected to believe that they are telling the truth about alicek and her non-bonus winnings being fraudulent. C'mon! That makes no damn sense. They lied repeatedly. They ignored alicek's emails.... NOW we must blindly believe them. That is a pretty hard pill to swallow. Zero transparency is not good for the industry. Maybe you don't tell the person HOW you found what you did but how about telling them WHAT you found? and "fraud" aint good enough.
Do I trust Bryan and Max? As much as anyone else that I have never met. Do I trust the casino? Well not actually, they have a direct benefit of keeping alicek's money. Do I trust Gambling Grumbles? As much as anyone else also but at the least they are transparent and asked alice about what had happened, then published it.
So with what I personally have seen (obviously not the same as max/bryan) it is obvious that inetbet has lied and falsified things. It is obvious that they are keeping money from a player who won without a bonus. THUS, if the player can give legitimate documents proving her identity then the casino has no ground to keep her money. Fraud with no bonus? So she pretended she was someone else to gamble with her own money?
Do you see how silly it all sounds from what we can see? If she has documents and is of age then pay her. She won gambling. Fraud doesnt make sense here. That is what is so hard about the pab process. Fraud in what way? It is illogical to think a casino should profit the thousands the player deposited and the thousands they won also especially if no bonus is involved and documents can be sent. It is equally illogical to think a person would commit fraud just to gamble when they can do that without fraud tactics.

OK, I will echo the question of several members in this thread Gaydave:

How would YOU do it better?

Let's hear your watertight solution to this grossly unfair process. Outline it in full and open it up to public scrutiny.

I must admit, it does appear that you consistently protesteth too much....is there a reason for that? You seem to take all of this very personally indeed.

IMO you are being incredibly disrespectful of Bryan and Max. I mean, you're happy to take the word of "alicek" who you don't know from a bar of soap (or do you..??) over a guy who has a track record of helping legitimate players get their legitimate winnings for over a decade......now that makes absolutely no sense.

It is equally illogical to think a person would commit fraud just to gamble when they can do that without fraud tactics

Are you being serious here? If so, you obviously don't pay a lot of attention to what goes on. I'm really surprised that you would say something so incredibly inaccurate.

Re:Inetbet

What exactly did they lie about? Do you think that Bryan and Max don't read this stuff? Do you really think they would just ignore it if they really thought the casino was pulling a fast one?

We come right back to the "T" word again.....TRUST.

Honestly, if you aren't satisfied with leaving judgement to Bryan and Max who have proven integrity and who possess all the facts, then why do you come here at all? Better still, why don't you start your own PAB service where your forum is fully informed about all the facts from the casino side i.e. logs and security etc and the forum members can vote on who is right? I'm sure casinos would be flocking to join.

It is very clear that you think CM is not independent, or at worst in cahoots with casino operators. I can't see what other angle you're shooting from.

What you fail to understand is that the CM PAB process is one that casinos are prepared to work with because it does not compromise their security processes and leave them wide open to even more fraud etc. The minute that confidentiality disappears, the operators will break contact and then the players are left with nothing. The PAB service cannot function without the casinos being on board.....so remember that when you outline your new proposals for a modified PAB service, which protects the fraudsters as well...I mean, fraudsters are people too right?

 

[chuchu59]

@ Gaydave - there are a number of ways fraud is committed: Multiple accounts, collusion, etc. You are looking at this with tunnel vision.

How about offering suggestions instead of attacking iNetBet?

Fraud is a common term used by casinos. The terms multiple accounts and collusion are also widely accepted as common fraud practices. However, this does not necessarily mean that fraud is actually committed. If say no bonuses or free chips were taken why should multiple accounts be counted as fraud? The fact that this is stated in the Ts and Cs only allows them to cancel the surplus accounts but if there are winnings they should be paid. Maybe its time we took a hard look as to what constitutes fraud. If I were seemingly connected to a fraud ring am I a fraudster and my winnings are illegitimate? Not necessarily so. In its present form fraud is loosely defined and weighs heavily in the favour of the casino leaving players with noroom to be given benefit of the doubt. I hope more will engage themselves in the discussion/debate on fraud so that things become more balanced.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

In other words, you don't trust Bryan and Max. I've tried to find another angle that you might be coming from, but I keep coming back to that one fact.


As for me being accused of fraud? It's been 14 years without incident for me. Funny how others just seem to have problems consistently. I guess I'm just lucky huh?

As far as I am concerned the 'other angle' in this story is the potential of casinos to lie and cheat to Bryan and Max and falsify evidence about player fraud when the reality is they have made some kind of promotional blunder that has resulted in the players winning far too much. Certainly this has happened at least twice in my recollection, once with an MG group and once with RTG (not Virtual). It's fair to say players did lose substantial amounts in both cases. These are two instances where tighter regulation and more scrutiny of casino behaviour would have produced far different conclusions since many players were aware of what had caused the losses in both situations. And ofcourse it had nothing whatsoever to do with fraud.

The problem is when these events happen Bryan and Max get a lot of blame from players when they have been cheated themselves. They get put in an impossible position. I think it's really unfair they should have to do all these PAB's.

Obviously player fraud is far bigger as a proportion but denial of legitimate winnings by casinos does go on too.

Nifty it is good to hear your experiences of 14 years without incident. However peering into my crystal ball my guess is you most likely play at just a few places and probably don't take too many bonuses. Yes you claim to have 14 years experience but if you just play at a handful of places for small stakes I consider that much vess valuable experience than a player who has played a wide variety of casinos at both small and larger stakes. I mean no disrespect but if your casino experience is quite limited then your input to this discussion will be by the same token limited.

As for a solution I do have a couple of ideas. One is that the casinos could do a lot more by way of 'know your customer'. Most of us have Skype now and they could harness that in some way. I for one would not mind more detailed identification processes in the least. If banks and insurance companies can use credit reference agencies and do their due dilligence professionally why can't casinos make more effort?

Another one that would help is more setups like eCogra. The problem with eCogra is not that it is bad at it's job but that it is supposed to be a player advocate yet they never communicate with the player community. Why they don't even have a rep on here or a newsletter going out to players is beyond me. Very odd indeed. But I think that model could work and if MG and Playtech helped fund a credible advocacy service it would be a good step forward. It doesn't mean the PAB service here would end, just that some of the heat would get taken out of the whole thing.

Lastly the biggest problem with the PAB model is when the casino pulls out of the PAB process - usually when they have a massive problem (Betfair I'm talking to you). Recently Mansion have done the same. This is a bad flaw in the PAB model and again I don't see what Bryan and Max can do on their own. In both these cases if there had been a Playtech funded body with real powers they wouldn't be able to get away with this.

At the end of the day all this is going to cost money but I don't see why the software companies, affiliates and players can't all be charged to provide a beefed up dispute resolution service. Maybe players could pay a small levy when they join a casino. I know I would be happy to.

None of this is meant as a criticism of Bryan and Max btw who do run a great service. I just think it's time the industry grew up.

Believe in better!

 

[The Dude]

Nifty,

You asked a lot of questions. I will get to them as time permits. The first one I would easily address is the lies from inetbet.
They lied about multiple emails to chuchu
They lied about a bonus being involved with alicek
They lied about alicek having a cds claim
....one of them is lying about trouble cashing out at other casinos, I would venture to assume it is the casino once again as this could be verified.
She apparently told the truth about her pabs here. She apparently told the truth about the deposits and bonus as this is verifiable stuff. She is apparently open as to all the other casinos that she has played at RTG.

so all the sudden now THEY are telling the truth and SHE is lying? Not buying what their selling brother. Neither is gamble grumble, nor most open minded adults. That is not a dig at all for Bryan/Max. Just saying that it does not add up and I am not the type to blindly follow someones word, especially when fraud makes no sense here.

We will never find out either since alicek has been banned and cannot report this or respond. That is one thing I would fix about the pab process real quick.

Plus, what IS fraud definititon here for alicek? Did she use her own bank/cc/ewallet? did she provide substantial documents? Did she wrongfully use bonuses? Did she use them at all?
I must have tunnel vision like Chu does because I can't find a reason not to pay her the winnings or what could be fraudulent about it. She sure the hell couldn't be colluding with others at RTG as there is not multi player games.

Like I mentioned before, focus on giving sound advice to "fix" the PAB system or get out of this thread.

 

[maxd]

I thought a few statistics might help give this issue a bit of perspective.

As I see it the OP's basic premise is that because people are sometimes falsely accused of fraud and are banned from Casinomeister for it this is sufficient to call the process "broken". But what is "sometimes"?

I've been handling the PABs for nearly four years. In that time I've handled roughly 1300 PABs, about 80 of which resulted in the player being banned from CM for PAB fraud.

If we (outrageously) assume that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those was a case of false accusation then that means that roughly 7% of the PAB cases were bungled. So 93% of the PABs were not bungled and were in fact good calls or otherwise handled properly. I say that's a pretty reasonable track record as is, and hardly a "broken" process.

If we conservatively assume that maybe 25% of those 80-ish cases were bad calls then the rate of bungled cases drops to something like 2%. Still want to call it a "broken" process? I think not.

If we assume that it was maybe 10% of those 80-odd cases that was a bad call -- and I'm going to suggest that this is closer to reality -- then we're talking less than 1% of the cases handled in the last four years was a "fraudster" cock-up. That's a "broken" process? Attach Removed (Old not found)

I think maybe what the OP meant was the for him it was a "broken" process (he's had two PABs after all, both failed). But extrapolating from that to say that it's "broken" for everyone is a bit of a leap, no?

That US$1M+ we've recovered for players in the last four years, "broken"?
The hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of players who were booted from their casino accounts but were later allowed to return and play on because of a successful PAB, "broken"?
The real fraudsters that we helped the casinos sniff out and thus saved them buckets of money, close to as much as we've recovered for the players, "broken"?

No, not "broken". In fact if closely read the OP's original post I think you'll see that in spite of his "meant as constructive criticism" opener what he really wanted to do and did is take a big dump on a service that he personally wants to gripe about, regardless of how much damage that may do to the same service that has truly benefited a hell of a lot of people, including some casinos. Statements like "your 'findings' and I use that term loosely" and "there is a sort of 'gag order'" when in reality all we ever ask is that people not post on our forums about a PAB in progress, these are not "constructive criticism". What they are is thinly veiled contempt and that's what the OP's post really is: an attempt to discredit the Pitch-A-Bitch service as we currently know it, not to mention the shadow it tries to cast over Bryan and I as the PAB administrators.

Well sir, since the PAB process is so badly "broken" for you then I suggest you let it sully your days no more. By no means should you ever feel compelled to use the process again. Et voila!: less "broken" for you and we can carry on providing a pretty respectable service to those that want and appreciate it.

 

[Nifty29]

As far as I am concerned the 'other angle' in this story is the potential of casinos to lie and cheat to Bryan and Max and falsify evidence about player fraud when the reality is they have made some kind of promotional blunder that has resulted in the players winning far too much. Certainly this has happened at least twice in my recollection, once with an MG group and once with RTG (not Virtual). It's fair to say players did lose substantial amounts in both cases. These are two instances where tighter regulation and more scrutiny of casino behaviour would have produced far different conclusions since many players were aware of what had caused the losses in both situations. And ofcourse it had nothing whatsoever to do with fraud.

The problem is when these events happen Bryan and Max get a lot of blame from players when they have been cheated themselves. They get put in an impossible position. I think it's really unfair they should have to do all these PAB's.

Obviously player fraud is far bigger as a proportion but denial of legitimate winnings by casinos does go on too.

Nifty it is good to hear your experiences of 14 years without incident. However peering into my crystal ball my guess is you most likely play at just a few places and probably don't take too many bonuses. Yes you claim to have 14 years experience but if you just play at a handful of places for small stakes I consider that much vess valuable experience than a player who has played a wide variety of casinos at both small and larger stakes. I mean no disrespect but if your casino experience is quite limited then your input to this discussion will be by the same token limited.

As for a solution I do have a couple of ideas. One is that the casinos could do a lot more by way of 'know your customer'. Most of us have Skype now and they could harness that in some way. I for one would not mind more detailed identification processes in the least. If banks and insurance companies can use credit reference agencies and do their due dilligence professionally why can't casinos make more effort?

Another one that would help is more setups like eCogra. The problem with eCogra is not that it is bad at it's job but that it is supposed to be a player advocate yet they never communicate with the player community. Why they don't even have a rep on here or a newsletter going out to players is beyond me. Very odd indeed. But I think that model could work and if MG and Playtech helped fund a credible advocacy service it would be a good step forward. It doesn't mean the PAB service here would end, just that some of the heat would get taken out of the whole thing.

Lastly the biggest problem with the PAB model is when the casino pulls out of the PAB process - usually when they have a massive problem (Betfair I'm talking to you). Recently Mansion have done the same. This is a bad flaw in the PAB model and again I don't see what Bryan and Max can do on their own. In both these cases if there had been a Playtech funded body with real powers they wouldn't be able to get away with this.

At the end of the day all this is going to cost money but I don't see why the software companies, affiliates and players can't all be charged to provide a beefed up dispute resolution service. Maybe players could pay a small levy when they join a casino. I know I would be happy to.

None of this is meant as a criticism of Bryan and Max btw who do run a great service. I just think it's time the industry grew up.

Believe in better!

How would you know how many casinos I have played and for what stakes? Certainly nowhere near enough to make outrageous claims like "my input is limited". What a joke.

The reason that I have never been accused of any wrongdoing at any casino in 14 years is that I haven't DONE anything WRONG. I used to take bonuses almost exclusively, and play at more casinos that you've had hot dinners. My play is different the past few years, but most of those years it was very widespread. I did NOT play each bonus to the cent, NOR did I play restricted games, NOR did I take a bonus that I didn't completely understand.....and I certainly did NOT create multiple accounts or otherwise abuse bonuses.....but hey, what do I know??.

What you just did was make a judgement without possessing ALL the facts (well in this case you had none), which is a fantastic example of what happens when members take up the cause of a fraudster who has been caught out VIA the PAB process. These people scream about not seeing the evidence, and that it means they must be innocent because the casino is afraid to release it to public scrutiny. Members make ill-considered statements or guesses/assumptions like you just did and bring the integrity of Bryan, Max and the process into question without proper basis, or only hearing one side of the story.

Your post has done much to highlight what the REAL problem with the PAB process....that is, that some members don't respect it and don't put any faith in their host here. If they are more inclined to believe blow-in Billy over something/someone with a decade long track record of helping legitimate players, then the question begs - why do they even come here at all??

 

[DiamondGeezer]

How would you know how many casinos I have played and for what stakes? Certainly nowhere near enough to make outrageous claims like "my input is limited". What a joke.

The reason that I have never been accused of any wrongdoing at any casino in 14 years is that I haven't DONE anything WRONG. I used to take bonuses almost exclusively, and play at more casinos that you've had hot dinners. My play is different the past few years, but most of those years it was very widespread. I did NOT play each bonus to the cent, NOR did I play restricted games, NOR did I take a bonus that I didn't completely understand.....and I certainly did NOT create multiple accounts or otherwise abuse bonuses.....but hey, what do I know??.

What you just did was make a judgement without possessing ALL the facts (well in this case you had none), which is a fantastic example of what happens when members take up the cause of a fraudster who has been caught out VIA the PAB process. These people scream about not seeing the evidence, and that it means they must be innocent because the casino is afraid to release it to public scrutiny. Members make ill-considered statements or guesses/assumptions like you just did and bring the integrity of Bryan, Max and the process into question without proper basis, or only hearing one side of the story.

Your post has done much to highlight what the REAL problem with the PAB process....that is, that some members don't respect it and don't put any faith in their host here. If they are more inclined to believe blow-in Billy over something/someone with a decade long track record of helping legitimate players, then the question begs - why do they even come here at all??

Nifty I thank you for your honesty. Yes I admit I was winding you up but I felt it was important to establish what your qualifications are as you are always so cagey about your position within this industry.

My position is very similar to yours in respect of in five years I haven't DONE anything WRONG. But here our paths differ. I've actually been accused THREE times and the total sum involved is over £10K so a lot of money (to me at least). All three times I won my PAB. One was WinUnited where I won and they paid. A second was Interwetten who refused to pay me claiming a 'software error' despite the fact they paid me a week earlier under the exact same conditions (Ed note - they never asked for the first payment back!). And the third was Betfair which I won by a walkover as they never showed up.

So on PAB's I am 3/3 in terms of wins if not payment. Just to clarfiy at no time have I ever been accused of fraud or anything of that nature. Actually in all three cases there was a common agenda, I won and they weren't happy about that.

As for the PAB process - ofcourse I will always support and appreciate it. But really I would prefer a more independant body as I outlined above.

 

[The Dude]

So much for keeping this thread on track - NOT

I guess I need to play forum janitor and try and split this thread, that was split from another thread.

Seriously people - if you think that you might be creating a derail - please start a new thread, or make a quick disclaimer within your post, and end it with a comment that applies to the current topic.

Thank you.

 

[The Dude]

Moved the iNetBet conversation back to the original thread here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/inetbet-closes-my-account-you-be-the-judge.46045/

Back to the topic at hand. It would be nice to hear a response from NotHappy who is not happy with the PAB system and how it could be fixed.

But then, it is a free service, and like Max has illustrated - those who are unhappy with the PAB service are clearly in the minority. So in my opinion, it's far from broken. And if it's not broke, why fix it?

 

[SlotMonster]

I thought a few statistics might help give this issue a bit of perspective...

I miss our good ole "Award" feature! :notworthy
Awesome post, Max! And great job!

 

[maxd]

It would be nice to hear a response from NotHappy who is not happy with the PAB system and how it could be fixed.

Took a quick peek at his Profile, looks like he hasn't been around since his original post, at least not logged in. Sounds a lot like the hit-and-run I suspected it to be.

 

[jetset]

Regarding post #23, and the thought that software providers like Playtech might get involved in some sort of "independent" advocacy body; I would not think so judging by past history.

There is a school of thought vociferously presented by some affiliates and players that such a move can never be sufficiently 'independent'.

DiamondGeezer mentions eCOGRA, so think back to the heated arguments about that body's independence prior to it becoming the subject of a management buy-out that distanced it further from its three (software provider) original funders.

Despite a control structure that included a truly independent board of directors with impeccable credentials and reputations, it was repeatedly criticised as not being independent enough, and even biased toward one of the three founding - and competing - companies.

I suspect the same sort of reception would await any software provider taking the same path, which may be somewhat discouraging.

If players believe that Casinomeister's PAB system is similarly not to be trusted, or is not sufficiently 'independent', that doesn't leave much scope for players to get problems resolved in a practical and timeous fashion.

I'm pretty sure that getting most of the regulators around today to take an interest, let alone get involved and communicate with the player on a licensee issue may be somewhat more difficult of achievement than popping into CM, lodging a PAB and leaving it to Max to sort out at no charge. Or for that matter Gambling Grumbles, although since Julie left the scene I have not visited that site.

I would suggest that recent experience (think Betfair) bears that out. It's a pity, and it should be improved, but there it is.

On the subject of player advocacy, surely one of the tests of both the integrity of the PAB and any other process lies in the results achieved; if the whole thing was a sham I doubt that such player-friendly overall outcomes (around the 40 to 45 percent is my recollection from eCOGRA's regularly published stats) would be achieved....unless of course there are conspiracy theorists among us who think that, too, might be part of the deception

I think we have to be realistic and understand that despite the public statements and posturing, most regulators are more focused on the licensee than the player, or are burdened with bureaucracy that militates against the sort of effective, fair and fast resolution we all prefer to see.

For me, hoping for a dramatic improvement in the manner regulators in general take up player issues is still something of a pipe dream - in the event of a problem as we currently stand, I think I would prefer to go with a proven system like the PAB that I have seen to be consistently effective.

In this sort of conversation there will be disparate views, sometimes based on unhappy personal experience or other private agendas, and that can colour the argument. I am therefore glad that Max took the trouble to root out some relevant stats on which a more reasoned judgement of the PAB system can be based.

 

[gaydave]

I have a few suggestions. Not sure if all are practical but they are just suggestions.


One thing that I would do is have actual consequences for a casino that does not comply with your findings. If you think that evidence is just circumstantial and there is too much doubt to keep money but the casino decides it doesn't agree with you there should be a set consequence. Perhaps including them in a bad light in your next podcast, newsletter, mass PM, Forum Warning...etc. Also instant removal from the accredited list or an instant move from caution to rogue.

A big suggestion is to have a little transparency and also to satisfy questions that can be satisfied without breaching the security of the casino.
For example, inetbet was asked several times to prove their words with simple things. Nobody asked them to give up their security secrets but they were asked some basic things that they did not answer or were being false or lying about. Then the whole thread was locked thus silencing the questions, which were making inetbet out to be liars. Whatever the motivation of this was, what it did was cast an even further shadow on the situation. A bit more transparency is the biggest suggestion.

Another thing that I would do is change the policy of silencing the parties involved in the PaB. I realize that during the pab process there should be no talk of it on the board. That is fine. I would not just shut down the ability of the complainer to post about it after you have decided they are guilty. What purpose does it serve to silence them?

Another thing that I would do is speed up the process, especially for accredited casinos. If there is a pab out and you have not gotten a decent response for a few weeks/month/months then that doesnt seem right to me. These operations visit the board more often than that and I am sure they get the email/phone call or however you contact them. I think the process could be quicker but that is picking nits and I realize it. I am just trying to give constructive criticism as this is the purpose of the thread moving.

 

[nothappy]

Took a quick peek at his Profile, looks like he hasn't been around since his original post, at least not logged in. Sounds a lot like the hit-and-run I suspected it to be.

Wow. I was not aware that I needed to check in everyday, Max. I apologize. A hit and run? then they eye roll emoticon? Wow. I must really be tardy. My whole life and job thing gets in the way often and I'm sorry I didn't meet your time quota for checking back into your forum.


hehehehe...................Aaaaaaanyways, I made that post and really did not consider it from a "how to fix it" angle. I was more complaining and now I feel that I had better come up with something as it does make me look like an aimless complainer.

Upon reading gaydaves post I have to agree on a few points. Certainly the gagging of all those in contrary viewpoints to inetbet is wrong IMHO. I would try to fix the practice of locking out those that would like to make posts after a pab for certain.
I must agree that in the particular inetbet saga that it looks really, really bad that the thread was locked. It was locked as inetbet was appearing to be caught in multiple falsehoods. What that does is make it even more difficult to blindly fall in line and believe the decisions made in this case. The reason is that inetbet is caught up in misrepresenting the facts on several fronts. This IS a big deal and nobody is "badgering" them. They were asked straight forward questions. They misrepresented, lied or whatever you like to address it as. If they are still doing this then it is a logical conclusion to think it happened when max was given information.

Look, I do have some sour grapes going back to my pab vs. mainstreet. They said that I was linked to a fraud ring from Pennsylvanya in the states. It is such a ludicrous and preposterous notion. I "lost" the pab even though I had some agreement as to the absurdity of the claim from max. I did use a bonus and played similar or same games as the fraudsters did but so would anyone else given a bonus that lists restricted games and terms and such. Apparently I also used the same email link sent to me as the frauds did. It was just outrageous the way I was treated and I could go on and on but it was broke for me and I am a tinge bitter over the fact that I was left out to dry.

I think one of the frustrations is expectations. I was told about this site and came here expecting Bryan to be the saviour and put these casinos in their place. I thought it would be a slamdunk and that he would be able to waive his wand and cure all the bad casino behaviour. After being here for a while I can see that I had too high of an expectation and that is some of the big problems that I can think of.
The expectations were high so the result was disappointing. If I had more realistic expectations upon joining then I would not have been so upset with the lack of making them pay me. That probably is the case with many.

I truly don't "feel" (I cannot know of course) but I don't "feel" like these complaints are looked far enough into. Upon reading more at gambling grumbles about inetbet there are posters who have shown screen shots of inetbet lying to steve russo. They have proof of it. why do we now take their word against alicek? I don't and I cant logically just accept that they are telling the truth about fraud when everyhting else from them has been lies. Similarly, I would NEVER believe mainstreet as I KNOW FOR A FACT that they are thieves and liars because they did it to me. That makes me distrust any and all casinos here as I know what they are capable of.

 

[chayton]

Certainly the gagging of all those in contrary viewpoints to inetbet is wrong IMHO.

That's a major generalization - every day there are a LOT of people who are members here who have contrary viewpoints to iNetBet, they're not gagged unless they become abusive about it.

 

[Jasminebed]

De Rail, boss, de rail

I've been on holidays, and the original thread is now closed.

Chuchu was harse in calling them liars IMO. When my daughter was small, I used to tell her there was a difference between lying and being mistaken. Stuff goes missing in cyberland. Unrelated to the industry, my flight Paris-Toronto was advanced yesterday. I've yet to receive notification, and supposedly it was sent on the 13th. Varying timeframes for different folks on my flight, including some like myself with no notification, but had checked the 24 hours before option. A few empty seats, perhaps those folks didn't get their emails.

A company like Inetbet that ONLY relies on email as a means of communication needs to offer an alternate IMO. Otherwise such problems will accrue.

I play Inetbet regularly. I could be happier with their support. But I feel a little like I do at a local diner where the wait staff is snarly, or at best short, the decor could use some improvement, but the food is timely and decent.

//end of derail//

Back to the OP's point, the PAB system is flawed. I've read quite a few where it was found in favour of the PABer, and the casino failed to respond/carry though on the payment. This sends Casinos to the Rogue Pit.,

In the absence of regulation, I think the PAB service offered by CM is stellar.

 

[jetset]

Jasmine beat me to the point that there are consequences for operators who screw around after a PAB negotiation, and in my time here most PABs appear to have been dealt with as quickly as circumstances permit. The efficacy of a CM 'investigation' and involvement is a subjective judgement, and sometimes the PAB job is made far more difficult by fraudsters chancing their arms and wasting Bryan and Max's time....ultimately to our collective detriment, I suggest.

Remember - this is a free service and Bryan and Max have other work to keep Casinomeister relevant, useful and interesting.

From some historical personal experience in player advocacy I can assure members that a complainant who keeps bad-mouthing an operator whilst his or her issue is in progress seriously prejudices the negotiation.

Clearly some folks believe it helps put pressure on the operator, but it's human nature to resent that sort of side-action and it is definitely counter-productive for the player's case and makes the mediator's job far more difficult.

Therefore, the sensible player keeps his or her counsel during the process - it really is in his or her interest. Once the issue has been decided, sour grapes or revenge would seem to be the main reason for continuing to bang on about it, perhaps under the disguise of "warning other players".

Or, the disgruntled PABer could simply go off and post at another site if for some special reason he or she found their thread locked here.

 

[all4greed]

For the powers that be -

Has there ever been charges against a casino by multiple people (not necessarily in a short time period) and finally someone realizes the casino people were lying all along and not those that initially reported it?

Just curious.

 

[maxd]

Has there ever been charges against a casino by multiple people (not necessarily in a short time period) and finally someone realizes the casino people were [at fault]

Yes, several times in fact. It's the weekend for me so I'm not going to spend it digging up the details for you just now but yes, it does happen. Clever fraudsters and sneaky casinos can both take some time to isolate and clearly identify, but they often to get nailed in the end.

... I was not aware that I needed to check in everyday, Max. I apologize. A hit and run? then they eye roll emoticon? Wow. I must really be tardy.

Yes, you were unreasonably tardy IMO. To drop a stink-bomb like you did in your initial post and then take a walk for the better part of the week is pretty shite behaviour if you ask me, hence my comment.

I would try to fix the practice of locking out those that would like to make posts after a pab for certain.

As previously stated up-thread, and I thought made perfectly clear, only PAB fraudsters get booted from the forums. See below for what I think of fraudster demands to use our forums for their purposes.

One thing that I would do is have actual consequences for a casino that does not comply with your findings. If you think that evidence is just circumstantial and there is too much doubt to keep money but the casino decides it doesn't agree with you there should be a set consequence.

There are. "Be Aware" notices are posted in the Warnings forums about casino practice(s) that we find objectionable and/or detrimental to the player but not quite rogue-able. Full Warnings are posted when the practice(s) is clearly intended to harm the player. And so forth. Much of what you suggest in this regard is already being done. Perhaps not as often as some people would like but we do have to be cautious about such things and so we are.

A big suggestion is to have a little transparency and also to satisfy questions that can be satisfied without breaching the security of the casino.

Again, already part of the process. This is fairly routine practice EXCEPT IN FRAUD CASES. As far as we are concerned fraudsters don't have rights and privileges and we're unlikely to be very sympathetic when they start wailing about have their toes tread upon. These guys are often professional liars and cheats, they damage the business as a whole for both players and casinos and they deserve every inconvenience we can dish out to them. We've already identified the fact that the number of false positives is well within tolerable limits so I don't see there's great cause to be concerned about how we currently handle them or their cases.

In other cases, where fraud is not an issue, the players often receive information about the data compiled against them. Not company secrets of course, but certainly enough for them to deal with their issues.

Another thing that I would do is change the policy of silencing the parties involved in the PaB. I realize that during the pab process there should be no talk of it on the board. That is fine. I would not just shut down the ability of the complainer to post about it after you have decided they are guilty. What purpose does it serve to silence them?

For fraudsters? Are you quite serious? And it is fraudsters that we're talking about here, they're the only PABers who get booted off the forums. A fraudster is a thief, a liar and a vandal insofar as the well-being of the online casino scene is concerned. And we're supposed to offer them a place to continue with their lies and (inevitable) pleas of innocence? I think not! If I could figure out to throw their entrails on the bonfire I would. No, more punitive action is called for in fraudster cases, not less.

Another thing that I would do is speed up the process, especially for accredited casinos. If there is a pab out and you have not gotten a decent response for a few weeks/month/months then that doesnt seem right to me.

For your average, non-Accred casino the PAB process typically runs on a one week cycle. We make three attempts after the initial PAB submission and then, assuming no response has been received, we call it a wrap and post a Warning. These cases are flagged as "Pending Rogue" for Bryan to review. In other words the typical end-to-end process for a truly AWOL, non-Accred casino is about four weeks at which point they typically end up on the short-list for the Rogue Pit. I suggest to you that this is not an unreasonably long time considering the consequences.

For an Accred casino we would expect to hear back from them within a day or so, most respond within hours if not immediately. In other words a typical Accred casino PAB is done and dusted within a week. Again, not an unreasonable length of time.

In all cases, Accred or otherwise, there are factors that will drag a case out: vacations, casino investigations, lack of response from the PABer, incomplete PAB information, us being away at conferences, etc etc etc. There are a myriad of reasons why a case might drag on, some of them being simple work overload at my end: if I'm doing monthly or semi-annual PAB reports, for example, then PABs often slide a bit since those consume a lot of time and effort and require my attention to be focused on the task at hand.

Some of these delaying factors are under our control and we try to minimize the impact on the on-going PABs. Other factors clearly are not under our control and, well, not to put too fine a point on it but they take as long as they take. If at some point the delays are unreasonable and groundless we pull the pin and either go the Warning route, or toss the case if it's a matter of PABer non-responsiveness, or take some other action we think appropriate to conclude the case. But if there are good reasons for things to drag on then they will drag on. No. that isn't ideal but given the nature of the task at hand I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect it to happen every now and again either.

So, it's an imperfect and complex process but generally speaking we do what we can to see things concluded in a timely manner. In almost all cases where a case drags on for an extended period there are very specific reasons for that, and that's almost always a case-by-case issue.

 

[greasemonkey]

Something that keeps popping up on these types of complaints is the term "FRAUD".

Perhaps a solid definition of "FRAUD" could be made.

As of now it appears fairly ambiguous. For those without the special knowledge of the industry it is hard to imagine fraud except in the following terms:

1) False ID, pretending to be another person to gain freebies from the casino or to play if you were kicked out or because you are not of age.

2) Opening multiple accounts in order to play with and abuse bonus offers of the casino(s).

3) Opening multiple accounts and playing as a team to set the odds in their favor. (think live casino games or poker)

4) Pretending to be from another country in order to capitalize on Exchange rates


That is what is hard to accept when these definitions aren't met. In the case of aliceK vs. inetbet, for example, AliceK sent in docs to gambling grumbles. If we assume that she did the same for inetbet then she is who she claims to be. So she is not masking her identity. She didn't use a bonus on her last 3 deposits nor were any of her winnings derived from bonus. So she was not tricking the casino out of bonus money. As far as I know, inetbet doesn't have live games so she was not coming in as a group to put the odds in her favor. Her docs would point out if she was of age and from an allowed country to play.

What then, is the definition of fraud here? If you are saying that it is fair for the casino to confiscate here +$3000 then she must have gained an unfair advantage over the casino in order to not pay her. It does not make sense the more I read the report on gambling grumbles and discuss it here. WHAT is the fraud? No bonus, true identity... Nothing fraudulent to be seen or even guessed at. That muddies the waters quite a bit since there is no logical fraud taking place yet that is the casino claim. Which the casino made a few false claims to further muddy the waters. That is where I agree with the call for greater transparency and also for not putting a silencer over the subjects by locking threads and disabling forum accounts.

Edit: just read Max's post after I posted this.

 

[Simmo!]

That's a major generalization - every day there are a LOT of people who are members here who have contrary viewpoints to iNetBet, they're not gagged unless they become abusive about it.

Excellently put. Most of the major issues here could be dealt with quickly and fairly but too many posters either deliberately or unknowingly post abusively/confrontationally or with a lack of respect. That in turn riles others and human nature automatically puts those who feel attacked on the defensive or less willing to co-operate.

This thread is a good example. As the OP states, it was partly motivated out of bittereness and as the PAB service is a free service, obviously those that provide the PAB service are going to be a tad annoyed. I'm not saying the topic shouldn't be discussed but just read the thread and you can see many posts which will upset other people either accidentally or deliberately.

On the Original Topic:

As with 90% of the world's problems, ineffective communication is either the root of the problem or makes a problem worse. But as Max and others state, you can't give out information that might make fraudsters more aware of how they get caught. It's not just the casino's problem either. Every legit player here is a suffering because of fraudsters - sounds like Nothappy has too but sometimes innocent parties will get caught in the net. IMO people shouldn't be attacking the processes put in place to deal with these selfish people, they should be attacking the fraudulent players themselves (metaphorically, obviously!).

 

[The Dude]

I hope that the readership here is starting to put things together. How certain posters seem to complain about the same issues.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. This goes for a few participants in this thread. Just food for thought for the weekend.

 

[chayton]

Just a quick look at the PAB summary for 2010 shows that in 2010, out of 276 cases, only 13 were flagged as fraudulent players, and 33 casinos were rogued or pending rogue. If Bryan is siding with the casinos over the players, he's not doing it right.

Total value of resolved cases 2010: $242K and change.
Total value of resolved cases 2009: $459,512
Total value of resolved cases 2008: $450K

That doesn't seem broken to me.

 

[Westland Bowl]

To me, it's simple. Just regulate the card drawing to third-party government agency to ensure truly random results. I like land casinos better because you can see the cards and those cards aren't moving around by themselves in the shoe in response to my betting strategy. I don't trust online casinos with hidden cards.

 

[chayton]

Greasemonkey had a question I'd like answered as well. It's the term "collusion" - I understand if you're playing multiplayer table games, but how does that relate to slot play?

Every time I log into a casino they have somewhere a link or banner that says "REFER your friends!" and so they want you to tell people you know. But then if someone you know signs up and you say, "I played such-and-such a game today and I was getting tons of features" and then they go play that same game and win, does that classify as collusion?

I remember awhile back, MG had just recently added that Pharaoh game (name escapes me sorry) where you get the three scarabs to get the feature and then you have to pick the correct sarcophagus to continue on. I saw on some forum somewhere that someone said there was a specific order that you could pick them to guarantee that you'd reach the end. Well I guess that people who were reading that forum were trying it and some people were complaining that their accounts got closed. This is just hearsay - I didn't know any of those people so I don't know if it was just talk.

I suppose if it was true, if there was a bug that someone found out about and exploited and told others how to do it, then I can understand collusion between slot players. But if there are no bugs and the games are truly random, I don't get it.

 

[brucake]

Greasemonkey had a question I'd like answered as well. It's the term "collusion" - I understand if you're playing multiplayer table games, but how does that relate to slot play?

Every time I log into a casino they have somewhere a link or banner that says "REFER your friends!" and so they want you to tell people you know. But then if someone you know signs up and you say, "I played such-and-such a game today and I was getting tons of features" and then they go play that same game and win, does that classify as collusion?

Why is the whole inetbet situation being A) unanswered and B) swept under the rug?

I have just read all of these posts and it is just unfathomable how much they are being protected by this site. It is MADDENING that they are being given the green light and all the pointed questions are ignored. What the???

Some pretty basic questions are going completely ignored. That is just odd. The inetbet thread was locked. Now people are asking about the alicek situation in particular and it is being ignored and brushed aside. Yes, the PAB is free but it is a big reason that people come here and bryan can charge casinos to advertise here. That being said, it certainly appears that there is some sort of collusion with inetbet as they were proved to be falsifying things that they had said and fraud is nonsensical in the alicek situation, she wasnt even using a bonus and she sent in docs verified by gambling grumbles. So we just ignore this? We also kick alicek out of the forum before she can post and lock the thread?
If alicek or any other person can be guilty just because it could possibly look like someone could/might/chance to be fraud with no proof then certainly we are free to say that inetbet and this site have a collusion. The evidence leans more towards that then alicek being fraud. By not answering the questions, brushing off the fact that they falsified information and minimizing that then locking the thread it sure makes one think that way.

All of these threads would be avoided if the questions were addressed directly and not sidestepped and hidden then left to have the members here forget about it.
Just answer the questions or say that you can't. Ignoring just makes it look worse.

 

[brucake]

I hope that the readership here is starting to put things together. How certain posters seem to complain about the same issues.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. This goes for a few participants in this thread. Just food for thought for the weekend.

instead of innuendos like this why not just answer all the questions being asked on the threads about some things that seem very suspicious? This does nothing more than bury the situation and make people frustrated with lack of answering.

 

[maxd]

Why is the whole inetbet situation being A) unanswered and B) swept under the rug?... Ignoring just makes it look worse.

Or it could just mean that (a) the questions have already been answered and (b) see (a).

Choosing not to debate this further may simply mean we have better things to do than respond to groundless accusations and PITA innuendos.

 

[LaHutti]

Wow!

 

[maxd]

Wow!

"Wow!" what? AFAICT the guy is talking BS.