Yearly PAB summary

[chayton]

Two things - first, I find this interesting enough that everyone should look at it, but it's not very easy to find - the only way I've found to get to it is to click on PAB (on the main site) then click on the PAB FAQ link and then find the question "Is there an online record of blah blah" and click that and then finally there's the link to the page. Is there a more direct link that I'm just not seeing?

The other thing is that I like the way it's set up to show x amount of PABs per software, but I'm wondering if it would be difficult or even useful to show the number of PABs for individual casinos? In several threads I've read lately people have said things like "such-and-such casino has been getting a lot of complaints lately" and it would be nice to maybe be able to see for myself if they're complaining about trivial things like not getting a bonus, or real things like not getting paid. I know you can't put a lot of details about each case, but if it was something like xyz casino had 23 PABs and 18 of them were found to be fraudulent players, 2 were resolved for the player, etc....like it is now for software. Would that be way too much work?

Of course people may still be complaining about a casino without doing a PAB, but in my mind it would be a good benchmark.

[maxd]

You can get at the Archives from the front page of the site:

access PAB archives.png

As to the "per casino" suggestion there are a number of complicating issues that mean we'd probably have to give a lot of info in order to give a fair picture of "complaints per casino". That means more work and I can tell you from experience that the Mid-Year and End-Year summaries are plenty labour intensive as they are. It could be done but it would mean a serious up-tick in the work Bryan and I would have to put into it.

[jetset]

I think Chayton has a point, though Max - it would be useful to players if the number of complaints received by a casino, including the percentage resolved in favour of the player, were published.

[Simmo!]

Might be dangerous. For example, we all know a couple of casinos here have been hit with fraud rings this year and its natural for some of those fraudsters to PAB in the hope they can get away with it, thus inflating the numbers. Although you can make it obvious [X] were fraud PABS, it won't stop those with agendas from picking up on the fact that such-and-such a casino had [X] PABs against it and using that to further their agenda.

[chayton]

I can't believe that the link was right there - probably looked right at it a couple of times but it wasn't called what I expected it to be called so I didn't click it.

I figured that it would be a bit more work to do individual casinos, but I was hoping that on top of what you're already doing with the summaries all you'd have to do is add the casino name in there. I'm not sure how you keep track of the PABs you've done, if you use a database or if it's old school with separate folders and printouts etc. If it was database driven it would be kinda cool, once you've resolved (or thrown out) a PAB, you just enter the info and save it, then when it's time to do your monthly or yearly summary just sort it by casino or software or $ or however you want and it's done. Or possibly I don't know what I'm talking about.

It was just a thought.....

[maxd]

It was just a thought.....

Understood, no problem at all, and I fully understand why this would be of interest to players. As it happens Bryan and I had kicked this idea (or some variant thereof) around a couple years ago. But as I've said, it gets complicated real fast. Our call then was to set it aside for the time being.

[chayton]

On the monthly summaries there's enough info that if you read a little bit you can sort of see what's going on. Like for instance xyz casino had 3 PABs but 2 of them were frauds etc. So maybe that's good enough.

[DiamondGeezer]

Might be dangerous. For example, we all know a couple of casinos here have been hit with fraud rings this year and its natural for some of those fraudsters to PAB in the hope they can get away with it, thus inflating the numbers. Although you can make it obvious [X] were fraud PABS, it won't stop those with agendas from picking up on the fact that such-and-such a casino had [X] PABs against it and using that to further their agenda.

Yes I can see why you wouldn't want to do that.

As a player something I am interested in is not the PAB info so much, which can be quite hard to interpret at times due to the fraud element and the privacy angle, but some kind of feedback on the reputable members here who are getting paid. On a sports gambling site I use they have a thread titled 'withdrawal times' where people list the sportsbook, approx how much they were paid and the payment time. And every book has it's own subheader withing the thread. It is very useful because I can see for example that 'ComeOn' are paying in a very timely fashion to a variety of trustworthy posters. But someone visiting here will see very little information on 'ComeOn', just one guy's bonus complaint, thus painting a very different picture about the company. My concern is there are too many negative feedback loops here and people are starting to exploit that, as can be seen by the inetbet thread.

Can anything be done to improve the reporting process somehow? Take inetbet again - they are getting a handful of complaints but for all I know they may have 100K active players. There is never any information on the ratio of complaints to the player base. It really has become a guessing game of looking at the posters previous posts and trying to work out who is connected to whom and what their agenda might be. It was just the same with Bet Phoenix.

Yes PAB information does have some use, as does the bonus complaints header. But where is the good news? There are many good casinos out there but we are not hearing about it enough which is casuing a lot of negativity around here I think.

[maxd]

... they are getting a handful of complaints but for all I know they may have 100K active players. There is never any information on the ratio of complaints to the player base. It really has become a guessing game of looking at the posters previous posts and trying to work out who is connected to whom and what their agenda might be.

This is an excellent point and very much one of the reasons why "complaints per casino" is anything but straight-forward.

As it happens the two casinos that seem to get bashed frequently here at CM, those being CWC and iNetBet, are also casinos/groups with massive player bases, comparatively speaking. In terms of PABs per 1000 players their PAB rates are miniscule yet to read the forums you'd think there was an epidemic raging out there. Ain't so as far as we have seen.

As you say, one needs to look very closely at who is saying what to start to de-fog the real picture, and that is no small task. We have the advantage of having our fingers on both the flow of complaints and the inside info from the casinos. This gives us a clarity which your average CM reader is unlikely to be privy to. How to change that though? Again, no easy answers there.

[Casinomeister]

I can't believe that the link was right there - probably looked right at it a couple of times but it wasn't called what I expected it to be called so I didn't click it...

I bet there are a lot of things that members are unaware of at Casinomeister. Many hidden gems like the PAB stats etc.

I forgot to upload Max's recent Mid-year summary. It's here:
http://www.casinomeister.com/pitchab...mmary_2011.php

As for detailing numbers for each casino, it just may be a bit too much, and can be misconstrued (like it has already been mentioned). Perhaps a "ease of Process" rating system for the casinos based on a five star rating system. But then casinos that give us grief just end up on the "No can do" list.

Any suggestions on making the PAB reports more interesting/helpful are always appreciated.