32Red disgrace - TotalGambler ad

[sirius]

I don't really know where to start with this but this is a big mistake by 32Red. It's probably easiest if I copy email correspondence I posted on my site many days ago now. I have waited close to a week for a response which hasn't been forthcoming. This is from a casino that is currently recommended and advertised on my site and is the third highest rated casino in the directory by reviews from players. I honestly don't know what to about them now other than dump them.

I'm awaiting a reply but this is explains it so far (best to read from the bottom up):

Hi,

The reason the roulette article was a bad idea was
that it was totally misleading. I'm still not sure
what to do about it.

The front cover of the publication has the headline
"ROULETTE - Discover the smarter way to play". Anyone
gambling should know roulette is just luck and not
think there is a way to guarantee you win in roulette
as the article suggests. This will probably create
problem gamblers, as one of the major reasons for
compulsive gambling is false beliefs about the games.
There is no smarter way to play and you need no
understanding of the game to have a better chance of
winning than anyone else.

The first part of the article reads: "The wheel deal :
Reckon you can't consistently make money on roulette?
You're wrong. The odds can be tough, but with
discipline and a thorough understanding of the game,
you could at least win more than you lose."

There is another part saying 'Knowledge is power' and
states: "You must know the game. Most players have no
interest in where the numbers are on the wheel. They
should! Number position varies on the 37- and 38-
number wheels. You need to know that on the single-0
wheel, 27 is red and lies between 6 black and 13
black. On the 00 wheel, it lies next to 00. This
know-how can mean the difference between the
occasional win (the amateur) and the steady winners
(the pros)."

This information has no bearing on whether you win or
not in roulette!

There is another part that almost admits it's rubbish:
"When I'm betting against the wheel, if I wait for,
say, six red numbers in a row, then I'm closer to
hitting a black than if I bet on black striaght away,
although there's no mathematical logic in this."

The tips titled "Do and Dont's" are total rubbish too.

--- Kate Blackmore <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> We run a number of print ads in several
> gambling-theme publications. This one is part of
> series Total Gambler are running in association with
> 32Red, providing hints and tips for certain casino
> games. It was a joint idea from the Total Gambler
> editorial staff and our Marketing Department. We
> would hope to offer other adverts and articles in
> similar publications in the future.
>
> I am sorry to hear you were unhappy with the article
> - could you please let me know what you found
> disappointing?
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Kate Blackmore
> Marketing Executive
> 32Red Casino | 32Red Poker
> Casinomeister Best Casino 2003 & 2004
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed an advert/article by 32RED in Total
> Gambler magazine which was about roulette and how to
> win.
> Who's idea was this advert? I asked before because I
> wasn't very happy with it but you didn't respond.
> Are you going to do these type of adverts again?
>
>

 

[johnsteed]

Hmmm...

To Sirius,

I visited your site yesterday, and I must say, while another member wasn't so impressed (although I DO value unsaid players opinion ), I thought that it's pretty good. I generally respect what you have to say.

I also noticed the MONSTER add by 32Red at your website. I also noticed the other thread where you recently brought-up Casinomeister's Accredited Casinos list as being too big (or too long, or whatever you said). Calling-out 2 of the most respected online casino icons (who are more substance than style in their respective fields) is NOT the way to catapult your website, if that is indeed what you're trying to do. Distancing yourself from an advertiser that's doing something unethical is great, but promoting it at another website seems a bit tacky. Don't pretty much ALL online casinos try to sell the image of the player ALWAYS winning?

IMPO, MANY advertisements are unethical and lousy (BoDog has THE worst in my mind). That being the case, you might as well call-out EVERY online casinos marketing team.

Then again, what will the marketing team start coming up for sales pitches?

Example:

Come to CasinoCasinoCasino.com!!

Guaranteed only 5% in losses over the long-run!!!

Start losing today!!!!!!!!

 

[sirius]

More info about TotalGambler Magazine

Total Gambler Magazine has a circulation of around half a million making it the largest gambling magazine in UK. It comes as a free supplement with various men's and lifestyle magazines from the same publisher (Dennis Publishing - which also publishes another gambling magazine called Inside Edge). A lot of the readers wouldn't expect a gambling magazine to be inside the magazine they bought but that is not the point (they can always throw it away as I know one person did who has lost a lot in the past gambling and wasn't pleased to see the magazine inside).

The 32red roulette article was not their first. The previous month it was about blackjack which was good enough (although there was an error in the cut-out-and-keep basic strategy chart which said to stand on 16 against a 9 or above!). The roulette article, however, was nothing short of a disgrace. It was the cover story of the whole magazine. They employed a sham author to help write the 3 page article and plug both 32Red and his stupid book (Roulette- Playing to Win by Brett Morton). 32Red is mentioned in the article a few times by the author and the 32Red name is on each of the pages at the top and bottom (as would be expected for an advertising feature). The fourth page next to the third page of the article is a conventional 32red roulette ad asking 'What's your lucky number?'

It was the cover story for Total Gambler Magazine which showed a picture of a roulette wheel and the phrase 'Roulette- Discover a smarter way to play'. The magazine itself has the slogan "Read it and win!" which probably encouraged more people to read the cover article than normal. I can't repeat enough how much of a sham the article is. I'm quite sure the author even knows it's total rubbish but wants to sell his book. He mentions certain mathematical facts in the article which shows he knows enough to not believe what he is writing.

The article starts with: "When I wrote my book, Roulette - Playing to Win, people asked whether I would be banned from casinos, as I was explaining how to beat them. I could see what they meant. If everyone started winning, then bailiffs rather than moguls would rule the Las Vegas Strip. But life isn't like that. Of the many people who have spoken to me or listened to me talking about Playing to Win, most will prefer to have fun at the roulette table and will lack the iron discipline needed to play well.."

The supposed tips in Dos and Don'ts are equally laughable. It mentions that there are more red odd numbers than black and more black even numbers than red and 'knowing this can influence your bets'. Another one is 'win more when you're winning than you lose when you're losing'. Towards the end of the article he says: "I guarantee that taking time to learn to play properly will bring rewards."

Anyone who knows about the game can see how stupid this article is. It is also very dangerous.

 

[sirius]

Yes I have the ads for 32red on my site but they will be taken down quite soon as I can't see what they can do to resolve it. I have been waiting a week for them to respond to what I wrote back to them although I didn't really expect them to do much about it now.

32Red is one of the top rated sites and is almost 8 out of 10 after 19 reviews by forum members. Their previous article on blackjack was good enough (apart from the mistake in the strategy table) and they told players they can expect around 99% return in the long which is probably less than they would actually get.

Gambling isn't about winning all the time it's about gambling. Your idea of losing in the long run isn't quite correct either as most players wouldn't get into the 'long run'. The roulette article was completely wrong and suggested there is a way with practise to beat the table. All players should know they can't guarantee to beat the game but they have a good chance of winning in the medium term. Even with roulette they would need many thousands of spins for the house edge to be significant (i.e. the casino could still be losing after many thousands of spins). The casino needs a large volume of players so that the actual return is guaranteed to be close enough to the theoretical return to ensure the casino a profit. Casinos don't make money as easily as you think. Some players will get lucky and even things out even though the vast majority lose.

The only reason most gamblers lose is that they aim to win too many times before they quit and only the lucky few manage to win. If the games paid out 100% it would still not make much difference to a player in the short term as it is still only 50% chance of doubling the bankroll and 10% chance of turning $100 into $1000. The few that are lucky cashout as winners. Casinos have players because it isn't difficult for players to win a modest amount and some are lucky and win a lot. When I mentioned erroneous beliefs by compulsive gamblers, non-gamblers also have erroneous beliefs which some say is a good thing. Namely, they think they can't win gambling.

 

[johnsteed]

sirius

Casinos don't make money as easily as you think. Some players will get lucky and even things out even though the vast majority lose.

I've never been under the assumption that casinos make money easily, though I do agree though that the vast majority of players lose. I also doubt that casinos come ahead in profit EACH month (minus those other casinos that stall and don't pay their winners).

I also think that a casino like 32Red, which is "likely" considered a big-player amongst all the online casinos out there, may not be as big as people think. I would assume that casinos such as 888.com, InterCasino, the Gaming Club (or better yet, other MG and RTG affiliates), and a host of others are likely much larger operations. I think out of all the casinos that I've deposited at (roughly 200), or that I've been reading about over the years, I find that 32Red have very high "ethical" standards WHILE trying to turn a profit. That's why casino's are in business, not to come up even, but to turn a profit.

If you're going to pull your 32Red banner based on principal (because they are a "disgrace"), you might as well pull the majority (if not ALL) of your advertisement banners at the same time.

Footnote: My apologies concerning my comments towards BoDog's advertisement campaign. I don't like it, it's too "rah-rah" or "sexed-up" in my opinion. "Lousy" (in taste) yes, "unethical" no. As far as I know, it's a great RTG casino that pays it's players.

 

[casinoplayer658]

sirius

Casinos don't make money as easily as you think. Some players will get lucky and even things out even though the vast majority lose.

I've never been under the assumption that casinos make money easily, though I do agree though that the vast majority of players lose. I also doubt that casinos come ahead in profit EACH month (minus those other casinos that stall and don't pay their winners).

I also think that a casino like 32Red, which is "likely" considered a big-player amongst all the online casinos out there, may not be as big as people think. I would assume that casinos such as 888.com, InterCasino, the Gaming Club (or better yet, other MG and RTG affiliates), and a host of others are likely much larger operations. I think out of all the casinos that I've deposited at (roughly 200), or that I've been reading about over the years, I find that 32Red have very high "ethical" standards WHILE trying to turn a profit. That's why casino's are in business, not to come up even, but to turn a profit.

If you're going to pull your 32Red banner based on principal (because they are a "disgrace"), you might as well pull the majority (if not ALL) of your advertisement banners at the same time.

Footnote: My apologies concerning my comments towards BoDog's advertisement campaign. I don't like it, it's too "rah-rah" or "sexed-up" in my opinion. "Lousy" (in taste) yes, "unethical" no. As far as I know, it's a great RTG casino that pays it's players.

If you don't think it is easy for an online casino to make money you are an idiot.

 

[johnsteed]

casinoplayer658

If you don't think it is easy for an online casino to make money you are an idiot.

Well then, I guess I'm an "idiot".

To be clear, I do think that the BIG players (a small percentage of casinos) make EASY money. But, I don't think a person puts some money together, opens up a casino, sits back, and makes "easy" money. No. And the casinos at the top (the BIG players) HAD and HAVE to work relatively hard to have earned and to keep the EASY money coming in. I would also assume that with more clients, a good company that will stand the test-of-time will have to spread the wealth around a bit more. By this, that means expanding, taking some risks, more advertisement, more volume would mean more people working for the company/casino/affiliate. I'm sure the owners at the top of the online casino community are filthy-stinking rich, but it didn't just come to them either (IOW you have to spend money to make money IF you want to maintain a successful business in the long-run).

IF you think that a casino ownership simply makes money easily, and loads of money bags are dumped off by Brinks employees daily to their primary turn-key operations, then I guess by your definition or take on the English Language, you're a "GENIUS".

 

[jetset]

Sensible post, John Steed.

I've worked (and I mean really worked!!) in online casino management and there's no easy money. There is competition, risk, dishonesty and plain human error and foible that make necessary a constant vigilance and focus if the operation is to run properly. Almost every day brings a new set of hassles....just like any business.

 

[spearmaster]

While I obviously agree that there is no system that can beat roulette, and having read the snippets posted here I think that they defy common sense, I wouldn't go so far as to place the blame on 32Red.

It appears to me that this article is probably by the guy who wrote the book on beating roulette... and somehow I don't think that 32Red has any control over the editorial content of the magazine.

Knowing Ed, I'd imagine he'd be furious if he thought that 32Red was saying that roulette can be beaten. He has never been anything less than forthcoming and straightforward and I highly doubt his operation would stoop so low as to say roulette systems work.

 

[rudepete]

Good one John Steed

(although I DO value unsaid players opinion ),
I got a chuckle from that one. OH NO------------------ They know I am the unsaid player. yikes stripes
I always wanted to be an unknown comic, does it show???????

 

[sirius]

The email from Kate said was a joint thing with the 32Red Marketing Department and the editorial staff of the magazine. The marketing department should have checked more into it before doing the damage with this article. It puts credence into this author's book and is also likely to create compulsive gamblers to play at 32Red. Half a million copies or more were distributed.


I have found what looks like the same or very similar article (minus some parts) on the inside-edge website. 32Red is replaced by Intercasino in the article:
Link Removed (invalid URL)

Here is a synopsis for the sham book he wrote:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[sirius]

It looks almost a straight copy. They even mention on the inside edge site: "InterCasino.co.uk offers even-chance bets at a 50% loss only if 0 or 00 strike (the so-called Atlantic City rules). " and the Total Gambler magazine article has 32Red instead of Intercasino even though the game isn't actually available at 32Red (except for the european version with one zero).

 

[amandajm]

The roulette article is nonsensical, written to lure the lesser informed maybe?

Ed Ware will know better than the info in it. Would have pulled it if he saw it I hope and believe.

Of course Ed is ultimately responsible for his staff's actions. However, I am loathe to rogue a good enough casino operator simply because decent staff are hard to come by.

If such ads carry on, now it has been brought to the public eye in the right place, Ed and therefore 32red will be to blame because the article is indeed a wanton misrepresentation of the facts, or the inane babblings of a wolly. I lean towards the former.

Hopefully Ed will drop the campaign, or check each apparent fact presented by this author.

 

[JohnGalt]

This ad is indeed completely disgraceful, and I would like to hear what Ed Ware has to say about it. Certainly will and should hurt their image as a responsible casino. However, they still have excellent customer service and pay out promptly, so I would still recommend them to people. I guess you're attempting to punish them for this, admittedly slimy, thing they've done. But by doing so, aren't you also harming your site users by steering them away from a good casino to play at? Everyone over at 32red could be complete bastards, but as long as their #1 priority is good customer service, I would still play there.

 

[johnsteed]

The unmasking of Mr. "X"

JohnGalt

But by doing so, aren't you also harming your site users by steering them away from a good casino to play at? Everyone over at 32red could be complete bastards, but as long as their #1 priority is good customer service, I would still play there.

Great point!

If this article was about almost any other casino, I doubt anyone would really care. I guess when your reputation is as sterling as 32Red's, there's somebody waiting to pick-you-apart and criticize the tiniest of things. While it may be a mistake, who would really want to stop going there (unless you're unlucky and ALWAYS losing)? They will still offer great customer service, they will ALWAYS pay the customer, and they will always try to improve and make the casino more player-friendly (my belief anyways). How are they making it better (or have made it better)? Posting their personal photos on their website (no guns and thugs there). Club Rouge (as I'm sure some are rolling there eyes... but if you're in, it's wonderful). How about incorporating players/webmasters ideas like the ongoing progressive tournament? These are all pluses. All great casino's slip-up from time-to-time, although I'm not convinced that 32Red truly did screw-up in this particular case. In any case, I'm sure they're on top of this one, and are likely NOT to make the same mistake twice.

rudepete

They know I am the unsaid player. yikes stripes
I always wanted to be an unknown comic, does it show???????

Hahaha... I wasn't sure if you were ready to go public yet.

While I dig the new costume (Santa), and while it IS the Christmas season (shopping-wise), I miss the bear already. To me, the bear makes the name rudepete authentic (I guess you'll be maintaining that "jolly" image though). I would say the same when KasinoKing used to be the fat-man in the tux, Spearmaster used to be the devil, or when Slotchik used to be Mrs. Jetson. I guess I have to accept change sometimes.

 

[tim5ny]

While I'm not a roulette player, anyone one with half a brain can understand that each spin of the wheel is totally independant and unrelated to the previous and forthcoming spins as opposed to BJ games where you have a certain number of value cards in the deck which allows the schooled player to determine what his/her odds are on what the next card is more likely to be. I've not read the article mentioned on roulette frankly because my input has more to do with the backlash that 32Red is receiving for an article that was written by an "expert" that may or may not have collaberated with the 32Red team on its content. I'm assuming that this person understands the game far better than the average player would, and I would also assume that through his experiences he would have learned a few things that might be helpful to pass on to fellow players. An "expert" ( I don't know how you can be an expert in a game of chance, but let's call him a player with alot of experience) knows where the numbers are located on the wheel in relation to each other, ans therefore might be able to give some advice on certain bet combinations that work well together to cover the wheel in a more balanced way so as to cut losses. This would be helpful for the beginner. Knowing the staff at 32Red, I'm certain that there is no deceit intended by them in asking this man to contribute an article in a publication based on a subject that he knows better than most people. Just as Patsy Kensit is used in promotions as a celebrity dealer or spokesperson, I'm sure the only intentions of 32Red were to promote their games by using a well known author who has published a book or two on the subject. I think you're on a witch hunt here, and you're assuming that there are underlying motives behind an article which was merely meant for entertainment and maybe some insight into how the game works. If you throw 32Red out as corrupt, then you may as well just close up shop and pursue another vocation because it is well known that they are a very respectable and trusted group.

 

[Slotmachine]

Disgrace?

Lynch me if you will, but I thought for the most part the article made sense. It suggested that you should stick to your budget, not play with more than you can afford to lose, not chase losses, and mentioned the risk that exists with credit cards, i.e. betting more than you can afford to. I don't see it as promoting gambling addiction - addicts are unlikely to be interested in this sort of disciplined gambling.

Apart from these, the strategy sounded OK to me, pretty much the same I employ in slots. Lower my bets when I'm losing and increase my bet size when I'm winning. It's not a winning strategy, but it makes your money last longer (compared to betting big all the time), and makes large wins possible (compared to low-rolling all the time).

Of course, the Roulette theory section was a load of bollocks as we all know. Even the author admits that there's no mathematical logic to it. The only scenario where following the wheel might theoretically work would be if there is indeed a spinner/wheel bias which I think is, while unlikely, entirely possible in B&M casinos. Hey, even supposedly unbreakable one-time crypto pads have been broken because of such bias - where human action influences chance and therefore the game ceases to be random and that's when patterns emerge and may become visible to the trained eye. And I'm saying theoretically.

But I think mountains are being made out of molehills here.

It says something about 32Red that the only complaints to emerge on this forum about them are that they've published a silly but harmless ad, and that some players have had unlucky streaks there.

But I see the ad is working, no?

Cheers,
Slotmachine

 

[sirius]

The problem with these sham articles if they are well enough written is that some people will not see through it, otherwise it probably wouldn't have got published in that magazine as the editor wouldn't have allowed it (strange as it may sound, this magazine is usually fine).

The inside-edge site also has the article but previously had an honest roulette article the year before (also named a 'masterclass'). To suggest knowing the wheel or practising his methods can make sure you win more than lose in the long run, is completely false as none of that makes a difference to whether you win or lose overall. Anyone can beat the odds for a long time but that is down to pure luck and is the reason why people gamble in the first place.

I take on board what some of you have said but this ad certainly did cause a lot of harm as it was widely read and is totally misleading and a complete recipe for compulsive gamblers and I suspect the author knows it is crap.

According to someone who emailed me some months ago who has done a LOT of research into problem gambling, Nigel Turner :

The main risk factors for gambling addiction appear to be:
1) impulsivity (including ADHD and related disorders)
2) negative moods (depression, anxiety, stressful life experiences)
3) early wins and big wins
4) erroneous beliefs about the nature or random chance.

The article is likely to cause you to win quite often as the author recommends aiming for a a small percentage each time. It also explains that with practise you can win more than you lose which is false. This makes half of the risk factors Nigel gave for compulsive gamblers already (for anyone believing the article).

His email also explains it in this way:

But "knowing the odds" does not protect a person from an addiction... It's more understanding the independence of random events. Pathological gamblers tend to know the odds of winning, but believe they can beat the odds.

I would like a response from 32Red on here.

 

[Ed Ware]

Response from 32Red

Dear All

Please excuse my late response to the point brought up by Sirius. Unfortunately I have been out of the office on business but have now reviewed the article, our correspondence with Sirius, and the thread here at Casinomeister.

I think the most important point to clear up first of all, is the independence of the content of the article in the Total Gambler magazine. The copy is written entirely by Mr Morton with the publishers dropping in our name at certain points in the story. As Sirius has already noted, where the article has featured elsewhere, the publishers have replaced our name with that of another operator. I think this confirms the origins of the content beyond question.

The next issue is whether the content of the piece itself is irresponsible. As Spearmaster correctly points out we are in the hands of the editor by associating our name with such an article. That said, we would only want to be associated with articles that are well written, balanced in their content and in no way misrepresent the facts of the subject matter in hand. Equally, 32Red subscribes to industry best practice in that we only wish to promote gambling in a responsible manner. To this extent we adhere to the advertising guidelines promoted by GamCare. These guidelines include not targeting under 18s, ensuring that the advert gives a balanced message of the chances of winning, players are not encouraged to chase any losses and that gambling is not promoted as a way of solving financial problems. Taken in isolation some of the text could be construed as unhelpful, but overall the article is balanced and features plenty of good advice. The article is littered with cautionary notes, for example:

Set modest win targets and tight loss limits
Fix a budget you can afford and stick to it
Dont carry cash you dont really want to risk
Dont top up your lost money with visits to cash points
Take a tip from the casinos: they dont lose.

This article is advocating a disciplined approach which we believe would not be attractive to susceptible individuals. However, whilst I am disappointed that this thread is unfairly attacking our reputation as an operator of integrity, I have to say that as an industry we should encourage everyone to take steps to keep away from irresponsible activity. 32Red Plc is licensed by the Government of Gibraltar (British Overseas Territory) and publicly listed on the London Stock Exchange. We actively support GamCare and the team here have had the benefit of training delivered by their online gambling expert. I was proud of the feedback this expert in Responsible Gambling gave me having spent a couple of days with us listening to how we treat these sensitive issues, and helping us to improve still further. Pat Harrison, who many of you know, is the Chairman of our Responsible Gaming Committee (which is also made up by our Non Executive Directors). The function of this group is entirely to police our actions and plans in relation to our social responsibilities. In short, we take this subject extremely seriously.

Unfortunately Sirius was given incorrect information about our involvement in the article for which I apologise. We also failed to respond to a further email from him on this subject. Again, that is not good enough and not what Sirius and, Im sure, others expect from 32Red. Nevertheless we have sent Sirius a Private Message through this forum (on Friday of last week) with the facts which unfortunately havent been reflected in his subsequent post. I am guessing that he hasnt got to his inbox.

I would like to thank all those of you who have made the effort to make mention of our overall service and standing in the industry. Whilst some of the comments in this thread are painful (even if we do dispute them), it is extremely encouraging to everyone here in Gibraltar that our mission to be the best (if not necessarily the biggest) online casino and poker operator are not going unnoticed.

Kind regards

Ed Ware
CEO
32Red Plc

 

[thelawnet]

The next issue is whether the content of the piece itself is irresponsible. As Spearmaster correctly points out we are in the hands of the editor by associating our name with such an article. That said, we would only want to be associated with articles that are well written, balanced in their content and in no way misrepresent the facts of the subject matter in hand. Equally, 32Red subscribes to industry best practice in that we only wish to promote gambling in a responsible manner. To this extent we adhere to the advertising guidelines promoted by GamCare. These guidelines include not targeting under 18s, ensuring that the advert gives a balanced message of the chances of winning, players are not encouraged to chase any losses and that gambling is not promoted as a way of solving financial problems. Taken in isolation some of the text could be construed as unhelpful, but overall the article is balanced and features plenty of good advice. The article is littered with cautionary notes, for example:

Set modest win targets and tight loss limits
Fix a budget you can afford and stick to it
Dont carry cash you dont really want to risk
Dont top up your lost money with visits to cash points
Take a tip from the casinos: they dont lose.

This article is advocating a disciplined approach which we believe would not be attractive to susceptible individuals

I believe I already binned the magazine in question, and while I understand as a PR exercise you want to accentuate the positive, I can't really see why you spend so much time defending the article, when you have already said it was not your editorial.

The article's central premise was that you can beat the house at roulette, and you haven't really dissociated yourself from this untrue claim.

However, whilst I am disappointed that this thread is unfairly attacking our reputation as an operator of integrity, I have to say that as an industry we should encourage everyone to take steps to keep away from irresponsible activity.

So why not just say that the article was wrong, that you didn't read it before publication, and you apologise for any misinformation spread.

 

[amandajm]

Ed, the article is 1500+ words long.

The article is an apparent roulette masterclass which explains how with the right strategy you can win more than you lose and the guy says he wins every year.

"Sorry about all this people, it won't happen again" would have done for me, as you have always ran a tight ship. You have earned the benefit of the doubt over time. Now there is a feeling of doubt where there was belief in you.

 

[elscrabinda]

Whilst I agree with all said that 32red pays out quick, is generally pretty good etc, that response really has sunk them in my estimations.

It almost exactly follows the textbook response that we get from below average casinos day in day out on these boards and in our inboxes. I had put them above this but apparently not. The same shifting of blame, unnecessarily listing irrelevant positive points, apologising for a tiny issue whilst refusing to do so for the one in question, blaming the complainant. Not a satsifactory response.

 

[slotchik]

You people are being WAY to hard on Ed and 32Red.
Give the guy a break! It's an article in a magazine that is NOT published by 32Red.....
Let it go.....I can't see why it's such a big deal!!!

They pay their players BOTTOM LINE and treat them right.

Roulette is such a minor part of online gambling anyway....slots and blackjack are what brings people around. I'm so surprised that this is getting too much attention....when it's not even worth typing....
At least he came here and isn't hiding like most casino managers....

 

[elscrabinda]

It's an article in a magazine that is NOT published by 32Red.

Then don't allow your name to be put on the copy

They pay their players BOTTOM LINE and treat them right

Noone's disputing this (well I'm not at least). However it is not treating anyone 'right' to suggest that roulette is a game that can be beaten long term which directly or indirectly 32red have done

Roulette is such a minor part of online gambling anyway

I would strongly dispute this. I don't have the figures but I would think that roulette is the perfect entry level game that most customers play at casinos. It has no skill (despite what some people would have you believe) but has a certain glamour about it. The stories of problem gamblers you hear most often refer to people with a roulette as opposed to Blackjack addiction.

At least he came here and isn't hiding like most casino managers....

He has done what most casino managers do. Give a fobbing off response, sign off with kind regards and assume the issue is resolved when it hasn't in the slightest.

 

[johnsteed]

It's hard apologizing for something you have no control over...

elscrabinda

He has done what most casino managers do. Give a fobbing off response, sign off with kind regards and assume the issue is resolved when it hasn't in the slightest.

I'd have to say that I don't think MOST online casino managers would even bother to respond to a negative thread. He could have left it alone, since this thread seemed to have died AFTER the whole "trial" debacle this past weekend. He was called-out though, he did respond, and I would believe that he can't look 100% good for whatever he choses to say (fair or not). Who's to say that he believes the issue is resolved? What's he supposed to sign-off with, "Fuck the whole lot of you, go to hell, I hope you all lose ALL of your hard-earnings at Roulette, and I hope this slanted thread NEVER dies despite that it has no teeth and has VERY little to do with 32Red!!!"? Obviously his response to many would merely be seen as a formality, but he did apologize.

elscrabinda cont...

Noone's disputing this (well I'm not at least). However it is not treating anyone 'right' to suggest that roulette is a game that can be beaten long term which directly or indirectly 32red have done.....

Seems to me that it was originally inadvertently done, but who knows.

slotchik

Give the guy a break! It's an article in a magazine that is NOT published by 32Red..... Let it go.....I can't see why it's such a big deal!!!

Ditto...

Ed Ware

As Spearmaster correctly points out we are in the hands of the editor by associating our name with such an article. That said, we would only want to be associated with articles that are well written, balanced in their content and in no way misrepresent the facts of the subject matter in hand. Equally, 32Red subscribes to industry best practice in that we only wish to promote gambling in a responsible manner. To this extent we adhere to the advertising guidelines promoted by GamCare.

I think that perhaps he's not being totally clear, but from this paragraph, the gist of it is that (at least this is how I view this):

a) The editor has the final say... taken-out of context, truth or not the truth.
b) Ed Ware (to me) was saying that the article misrepresents the views held by 32Red.
c) 32Red is in business to make money, not stealing it from the players with lies and to ruin their lives, but staying within ethical parameters to do so.

IMHO, it's an article that likely wouldn't have seen the light IF 32Red's name wasn't attached to it.

One last note, 32Red for the record, has an upstanding reputation since it's adoption into the online gaming industry. You'd think that their standing would be enough to overlook this discord.

 

[sirius]

Nevertheless we have sent Sirius a Private Message through this forum (on Friday of last week) with the facts which unfortunately haven’t been reflected in his subsequent post. I am guessing that he hasn’t got to his inbox.

Something went wrong because I didn't receive a message from you. I think you should have had some warning if my inbox was full (which may have been the case).

I think the most important point to clear up first of all, is the independence of the content of the article in the Total Gambler magazine. The copy is written entirely by Mr Morton with the publishers dropping in our name at certain points in the story. As Sirius has already noted, where the article has featured elsewhere, the publishers have replaced our name with that of another operator. I think this confirms the origins of the content beyond question.

Do you dispute the fact that this was in collaboration with your Marketing Department? I don't understand how this was not. The article was presumably paid for and the pages all contain the 32Red logo and the URL www.32red.com/total at the top (the web page is telling players to play the roulette). The URL at the bottom of the article pages is www.32red.com/tips and this just goes to the homepage. The first pageof the article has a round emblem which says: 'This feature is in association with 32Red'.

Unfortunately Sirius was given incorrect information about our involvement in the article for which I apologise

You are saying that the Marketing Executive gave me the wrong information about the involvement of 32red but all she said was: "This one is part of (a) series Total Gambler are running in association with 32Red, providing hints and tips for certain casino games. It was a joint idea from Total Gambler editorial staff and our Marketing Department."

I don't understand how the little information she gave could be incorrect, as it seems obvious that you were in collaboration. It is also important that your Marketing Department follow the responsible gaming guidelines you mention so you obviously should be heavily involved in these things.

Regarding your points about the article being 'balanced', you are wrong and you should verify this with the expert from GamCare. I think the involvement of GamCare with your casino was an initiative from eCOGRA for the 'sealed' casinos, was it not? Bill Galston OBE is both a Director of eCOGRA and Chairman of the Board of Trustees for GamCare. I have emailed the appropriate person at GamCare before about a player who had complaints about William Hill Casino and didn't receive a response so I don't have great faith in them but any expert will see the obvious serious issues with the advert.

The book and article are a sham which you've regrettably associated yourself with. I think it would have caused a lot of harm. To lessen the damage you may have to email all your roulette players from the UK and tell them to disregard the advice in the article and maybe refund some losses. Have you noticed a great increase in roulette players recently at your casino?

 

[sirius]

The editor of the magazine shouldn't allow this author to write articles for it. I tried emailing the magazine some time ago about this but the email address given for the editor bounces because it doesn't seem to exist! That some people don't see the problems with the article just goes to show how dangerous it is. To try to make people believe that practise and knowledge of the wheel can make you win more than you lose is scandalous. The magazine itself includes a disclaimer about making every effort to ensure the 'accuracy of editorial and advertising material, no claims of loss as a result of any errors will be accepted by the publishers'.

My earlier point about the editor not having allowed it if he saw the problem, is probably shown by his intro to that issue of the magazine. He is talking about a player who won $72,000 in Vegas in a slot machine but the casino refused to pay because he was under 21. He goes on to state that: 'You will never find an article in Total Gambler about how to play slot machines because we don't approve of them'. .. 'The advantage to the house of most games is between 1% and 10%, depending on how well you play them. The house edge on a fruit machine is at least 25 percent'.. and.. 'In short, slot machines are a rubbish, fun-free gamble'. If he knew that slot machines paid much higher than that in Vegas and online (usually around 90% at least and nearer 96% in Microgaming) he probably wouldn't have said all that. In reality, payouts for slots are not too much different to Roulette.

 

[jetset]

I've been biting my tongue watching some of the nit-picking and attempts to crucify one of the more professional online casinos and its upfront CEO but now I have to post on this issue because imo it's being blown out of proportion.

In my view Sirius is right on the article, and was initially correct in drawing attention to it. However, he is now becoming way too inquisitorial when it was (to my eyes) clearly a lack of diligence on the part of the 32 Red marketing department in allowing the casino to be associated with it. I agree that the editor of Total Gambler should have been more on the ball with this, too.

But is this isolated issue on a page in a UK magazine really going to bring ruin and disaster to gamblers everywhere?

I wonder how many readers have written to the editor complaining about it?

We all make errors of judgement or mistakes from time to time, so what is it you really want from these guys other than a good grovel?

Would a Total Gambler insert saying that 32Red and Total Gambler both disassociate themselves from any suggestion that a roulette system could be effective placate you?

BTW, Sirius - I don't believe 32Red is a member of eCOGRA.

 

[The Dude]

I've been biting my tongue watching some of the nit-picking and attempts to crucify one of the more professional online casinos and its upfront CEO but now I have to post on this issue because imo it's being blown out of proportion.

In my view Sirius is right on the article, and was initially correct in drawing attention to it. However, he is now becoming way too inquisitorial when it was (to my eyes) clearly a lack of diligence on the part of the 32 Red marketing department in allowing the casino to be associated with it. I agree that the editor of Total Gambler should have been more on the ball with this, too...

Like Jetset, I've been holding back posting in this thread because I wanted to see the unfolding of the situation. There are some keen observances by a number of posters, and finally Ed's thoughtful posting. But I feel the same way as Jetset (and a number of others) that even though there may have been an oversight on the publication of this article, the wrath it is generating is a bit over the top.

He has done what most casino managers do. Give a fobbing off response, sign off with kind regards and assume the issue is resolved when it hasn't in the slightest.

BTW, Ed Ware is not the manager, but the CEO of 32Red. I didn't see this as a "fob off". And this issue has pretty much been explained, how is it not resolved? And for the CEO to be involved in discussions like this (which is very public by the way) speaks volumes IMO.

...Something went wrong because I didn't receive a message from you. I think you should have had some warning if my inbox was full (which may have been the case).

Please don't try to be coy and shift the blame. I told you several days ago via email that your inbox was full.

The book and article are a sham which you've regrettably associated yourself with...

Geeze, I'm going to hate to hear people's reactions when they read my article in Bluff Magazine (February) where I tout the use of mojobags and hoodoo magic to better your poker game.

 

[amandajm]

I could go write a piece touting something about how to play a game to beat the slots at 32red. Ed would not ever get to read it to be frank. It is unnaceptable to expect ED to look over every word written while promoting his firm.

If the marketing arm are in direct conjunction with me, that raised the stakes somewhat.

Which is why I thought if ED had seen the article before it was published, he would not have okayed it. Held in higher esteem than the usual ceo is why, this is a good thing, Ed has earned that place on the pedestal.

"Sorry guys, it won't happen again with this roulette writer, because I have asked for any more articles from this writer to be marked for my attention", would have been acceptable from Ed, others would have been laughed at.

I am not sure what to make of Ed's reply, hence my faith in the belief that he will instantly stomp on anything untoward involving his firms good name and standing has been gently shaken, yet not quite stirred.

If it is unacceptable to be unsure of what Ed was trying to really say, I would be interested to know why, because taken in isolation - (disregarding Ed's good standing) - the post comes across as quite a mixed bag.

 

[tim5ny]

Geeze, I'm going to hate to hear people's reactions when they read my article in Bluff Magazine (February) where I tout the use of mojobags and hoodoo magic to better your poker game.

lol!!! That's a good one Bryan.

I can't help but think that the thread starter is using this magazine article as a basis for lashing out at 32Red for reasons unknown to the rest of us for something he may have felt wronged for in the past. This is clearly a case of making a mountain out of a molehill, and it seems absurd to me that this webmaster would think of dropping one of his recommended casinos and advertisers for this reason only. The fact that Ed Ware and Pat Harrison are never far away when you need answers speaks volumes for 32Red as opposed to the mainstream casino operators who hide behind their customer support reps who never know what's going on anyway. Props to Ed Ware and Pat Harrison for remaining calm and retaining their dignity and professionalism through silly accusations such as this. I've seen where casino reps have lashed back and made total fools of themselves here, but you will never see that happen with these two guys. These men bring some class to a world that's full of slimy and underhanded criminals, and to see them crucified for something so trivial really burns my ass.

 

[Slotmachine]

I agree with that and said as much in my previous post. 32Red is a damn trustworthy and responsible casino. The business is littered with crooks, let's give the straight up operations the credit they're due. I mean, where are the real 32Red complaints? There are NONE. Too much attention being paid here to a non-issue. This is not the first time Sirius is way out of line in his postings - make that rants - on this forum.

Cheers,
SM

 

[silcnlayc]

Silly discussion IMHO also...I'm wondering just who believes EVERYTHING they read anyway?

Geez..Now for that magazine rack...I want to see just who the UFO"s are, that are arriving this week...

 

[Ed Ware]

Hi All

As ever, this forum is providing us with some food for thought. As a company, we focus very much on player needs and desires and I would be a fool not to take on board the views of the many players contributing to this thread. Bearing in mind what else is going on in the casino and poker public sector at the moment, I am pleased that it is this issue concerning 32Red and not some other things!

I hope the forum sees that we have never been a casino to ignore the views of players. Of course we don't enjoy being the target of criticism but it comes with the territory, so we can't complain. I hope everyone understands that I have to be careful with what I convey here, but suffice to say that we will not be involved in articles of this nature again for the foreseeable future. I stand by my view that overall it is balanced, but having re-read the piece several times, I respect the concern voiced by some members here over a small number of statements in the article which fall outside our preferred stance.

There have been some responses to points I made in an earlier post on this thread. I would prefer not to revisit the subjective issues but as far as what is fact is concerned I do need to clear up the following:

*Origins of the article
It is a fact that we had no hand in the development of the content. The author is Brett Morton and any idea that we were involved in its composition is totally misguided. I have apologised for the incorrect information given to Sirius in the first place, and readily do so again.

*GamCare training at 32Red
Jetset is right. I have had an operational relationship with this Charity for a number of years stretching back to before 32Red was even thought of. As 32Red is not an eCOGRA casino, our training sessions here have nothing whatsoever to do with that organization. You may be interested to know that we are also a member of the Remote Gambling Association (formerly ARGO) in the United Kingdom, and adhere to their codes of conduct which
Include Social Responsibility.

*Have we noticed a great increase in Roulette players recently?
Again my position means I cannot pass on what may amount to be trading information. Hopefully you can guess what the answer is though!!

On a lighter note, I literally laughed out loud when I read John Steeds tongue in cheek suggestion for my sign off. Thanks John for bringing a moment of humour to my day!

Now then, let me think

Best wishes

Ed Ware
CEO
32Red Plc

 

[spearmaster]

"Sorry guys, it won't happen again with this roulette writer, because I have asked for any more articles from this writer to be marked for my attention", would have been acceptable from Ed, others would have been laughed at."

This is still not realistic, because editorial control is the domain of the editor, or the owner of the magazine. Keep in mind that 32Red is an advertiser, and any advertiser asking for editorial control would be laughed at and quickly shown the door.

The editor of the magazine shouldn't allow this author to write articles for it.

I guess I can agree with this - but it appears to me that the editor is less concerned with accuracy and more concerned with increased circulation.

'You will never find an article in Total Gambler about how to play slot machines because we don't approve of them'

As I was saying, he is more concerned with circulation than accuracy. Whether or not he approves *should* be irrelevant since playing slots is also considered gambling, and in fact you *can* find an edge on a limited number of machines in land-based casinos, and you *can* be taught to recognize the signs of a fruity about to pay off, though of course I agree fruitys are not what I would want to recommend to players.

Without going into much detail, I have also heard strong evidence that the "Insider's Edge" awards handed out in January had a direct correlation to the amount of advertising spend with the magazine. Make of that what you will.

 

[amandajm]

32red have a good standing with me Spear, 1 of the small few. The only out and out casino on the blog. Maybe I am guilty of being unrealistic, but I would prefer the boss keep an eye out and only ask for the casino not to be associated in any way with the questionable, if possible. How to express that want without being a silly boy I can learn one day I hope.

The firm are good, they still are, never really were'nt. Thanks for the clarification on the fact 32red don't want to be associated with nonsense from any writer Ed, cheers.

 

[spearmaster]

32red have a good standing with me Spear, 1 of the small few. The only out and out casino on the blog. Maybe I am guilty of being unrealistic, but I would prefer the boss keep an eye out and only ask for the casino not to be associated in any way with the questionable, if possible. How to express that want without being a silly boy I can learn one day I hope.

The firm are good, they still are, never really were'nt. Thanks for the clarification on the fact 32red don't want to be associated with nonsense from any writer Ed, cheers.

Well, asking is realistic, I suppose. Requiring, on the other hand, might be a problem. I doubt 32Red wants to be associated with anything which does *not* promote responsible or realistic gambling "methods", but still sometimes shit happens, and I would bet (no pun intended) that Ed has already had a word with them.

 

[elscrabinda]

A better response and encouraging to see that 32red will apparently not be associating themselves with this type of nonsense again. Disappointing though that Ed still maintains that the article is balanced and that a "sorry guys, we stuffed up" is still not forthcoming.

 

[thelawnet]

Like Jetset, I've been holding back posting in this thread because I wanted to see the unfolding of the situation. There are some keen observances by a number of posters, and finally Ed's thoughtful posting. But I feel the same way as Jetset (and a number of others) that even though there may have been an oversight on the publication of this article, the wrath it is generating is a bit over the top.


BTW, Ed Ware is not the manager, but the CEO of 32Red. I didn't see this as a "fob off". And this issue has pretty much been explained, how is it not resolved?

I think people resent weasel answers from companies, rather than simply saying 'we are sorry, we condemn the article', you get 'the article had lots of useful hints, like when to stop'. It's honest and direct, and people appreciate that.

 

[sirius]

I've been biting my tongue watching some of the nit-picking and attempts to crucify one of the more professional online casinos and its upfront CEO but now I have to post on this issue because imo it's being blown out of proportion.

In my view Sirius is right on the article, and was initially correct in drawing attention to it. However, he is now becoming way too inquisitorial when it was (to my eyes) clearly a lack of diligence on the part of the 32 Red marketing department in allowing the casino to be associated with it. I agree that the editor of Total Gambler should have been more on the ball with this, too.

But is this isolated issue on a page in a UK magazine really going to bring ruin and disaster to gamblers everywhere?

I wonder how many readers have written to the editor complaining about it?

We all make errors of judgement or mistakes from time to time, so what is it you really want from these guys other than a good grovel?

Would a Total Gambler insert saying that 32Red and Total Gambler both disassociate themselves from any suggestion that a roulette system could be effective placate you?

BTW, Sirius - I don't believe 32Red is a member of eCOGRA.

I have yet to contact the editor as their email address isn't working. I'm sure someone can point him to this thread so he can do something about it. I didn't suggest it was anything more than an oversight by 32Red but the consequences are serious in terms of the harm caused to players. The harm to 32Red was not even in my mind but surely someone is legally responsible too? They still have the power to resolve it properly in terms of warning the players about the mistake. The problem is the CEO still believes this article is balanced when it is definitely not (it is not a matter of subjective opinion either as Ed suggests in his last post- it is factual but not obvious to everyone to say that the author's book goes against the truth and any real expert will verify this).

I read that this magazine has the biggest circulation for a gambling mag in the UK with each issue having 600,000 copies some months ago. I don't know about the circulation now but I can only assume it has increased. It was a three page article and the cover story of the whole magazine. After the third page on the left hand side, there was a full page A4 roulette ad for 32Red on the right side (4th page of the article) with the phrase 'What's your lucky number?'. All the pages (including the 4th page A4 ad) have the link to www.32red.com/total which is a special landing web page all about roulette set up specifically for the article! The Marketing Department must have been heavily involved in it to set up this page. There was no doubt who the author of the article was and this was never in question (despite Ed pointing to this obvious fact in both his responses), just that 32Red was endorsing it by its association with it.

The people reading this magazine are not necessarily gamblers in the first place and most would not think this article was anything other than truthful. The potential for harm is enormous and something serious should be done to stop it. Jetset's suggestion about the insert or apology statement would be a start but many players would have joined through reading this article and they should be contacted too.

Can we forget the idea that I'm attacking a particular casino because it could have been any. It is ultimately the casino's responsibilty to check their ads are factually correct but they will be profiting in the short term (probably not in the long term) over these sort of sham articles.

I hope everyone understands that I have to be careful with what I convey here, but suffice to say that we will not be involved in articles of this nature again for the foreseeable future. I stand by my view that overall it is balanced, but having re-read the piece several times, I respect the concern voiced by some members here over a small number of statements in the article which fall outside our preferred stance.

I hope you soon revise your opinion about the article and get a view from an expert. There is no need to stop producing these tips articles if they are truthful.

 

[The Dude]

Just a quick admin note that Sirius' account has been suspended for 30 days for reasons that have nothing to do with this thread. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[RichDowney]

Reply from the Publisher of TOTAL Gambler

Dear All

My name is Richard Downey and I am the Publisher of TOTAL Gambler, InsideEdge and the rest of the Dennis Publishing gambling portfolio.

First up, apologies that I have taken almost a week to respond on this issue the simple reason is that this is not a site that I regularly monitor. Obviously that is something that will change.

I would like to clear up a few issues concerning the Roulette article that appeared in TOTAL Gambler

1) 32Red as a company and Ed Ware in particular did not see the article in advance nor did they in any way condone its content. The deal that we had with them was to sponsor our casino strategy articles. I have personally apologised to Ed about the publicity this piece has caused.

2) The majority of TOTAL Gambler editorial pieces are repurposed features that have originally appeared in InsideEdge. TOTAL Gambler is distributed free with Maxim every month and with the rest of our portfolio on a rotation basis. This means that the criticisms we received about people who are not specifically interested in gambling receiving the mag are valid. The accusation that we include certain editorial to increase our circulation is not.

3) The issue of roulette is a contentious one and I apologise if people think our article may contribute in any way to problem gambling or may influence those who may be vulnerable. I stand by the fact that Brett Morton has produced a feature that talks about the virtues of money management and patience in order to extract enjoyment and hopefully manage losses

4) TOTAL Gambler is a magazine that tries to introduce readers to online gambling with sites that are reputable and secure (32Red certainly fit the bill here) we encourage playing with virtual money wherever possible (as mentioned in the piece) As Publisher I was happy that the piece fulfilled all of these criteria as much as was possible. To those of you that disagree, I apologise.

5) It is interesting to point out that I have not received a single complaint from our readers about this piece. That is not meant to appease those of you who are offended by this but merely to try and get things into a bit of perspective

6) Finally, in response to Spearmaster who claimed that he had strong evidence that the InsideEdge awards are merely handed out to those who advertise the most. Our awards are the only awards in this whole industry that are reader voted. Every other awards are voted for by a panel. Our Online Casino, Online Poker Room and Sports Bookmaker Awards are reader voted. If anybody doesnt believe me I am happy to show them the results of last years vote (the voting for 2006 is now live at www.totalgambler.com/awards) I am genuinely interested in this strong evidence that Spearmaster has heard so I particularly look forward to hearing from him/her


Dennis Publishing is one of the largest independent magazine publishers in the UK and the US. We are not in the business of ripping off our customers and neither are 32Red

If anybody wants to contact me directly my address is [email protected]

 

[jetset]

Small correction here, Richard - Gambling Online Magazine claims that its awards are voted on by readers - this would therefore seem to contradict your claim to exclusivity in this area.

 

[RichDowney]

Sorry. My mistake. I meant to say that our Awards are the only ones that are reader voted and actually given out at a physical awards ceremony.

 

[The Dude]

Hi Richard,

Welcome to the forum. Your participation and clarifications are most appreciated. Thanks!

 

[spearmaster]

Welcome to the forums, Richard.

My post was based on "strong rumors" - not any factual evidence whatsoever. However, I did not follow up these rumors personally because I had no interest in doing so at the time - and thus I will not make any further comment on this issue but continue to stand by my statement.

Anyhow, more importantly - the issue of what appears to be some sort of advertorial for 32Red, of whom it should be obvious I have immense respect for.

Being a writer and columnist myself, I know the pitfalls and obstacles of writing content which is a bit "loose" with facts. And being a former business editor, I know what happens when I don't ensure that no loose chads are hanging

I don't think it is necessarily correct to link your article with "problem gambling" - I do, however, think it more accurate to say that Brett Morton's article was loose with the facts. Since I do not have the article, as I am not a subscriber to Inside Edge, I am going based on the information that was earlier posted.

The wheel deal : Reckon you can't consistently make money on roulette? You're wrong. The odds can be tough, but with discipline and a thorough understanding of the game, you could at least win more than you lose.

This claim is fallacious no matter how you look at it. First "you're wrong" is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Second, a thorough understanding of the game will not give you any extra advantage over the game - even a "perfect" understanding of the game will still put you at a 5%+ disadvantage.

Consistency is also not possible. You either have a good run, or you don't - consistency implies regularity, or even majority of the time - and thus unless you "quit" every time you get ahead by even a single unit, you cannot possibly win "consistently" because you have no control over the wheel, or the ball, or the croupier, and the house has an edge of 5%+.

You need to know that on the single-0 wheel, 27 is red and lies between 6 black and 13 black. On the 00 wheel, it lies next to 00. This know-how can mean the difference between the occasional win (the amateur) and the steady winners (the pros)."

This, as Sirius as pointed out, has no bearing on whether you win or not. When you bet a number, you have a 1-37 or 1-38 chance of winning, period - except under certain "en prison" rules. There is no "know-how" here - only "know-where".

When I'm betting against the wheel, if I wait for, say, six red numbers in a row, then I'm closer to hitting a black than if I bet on black striaght away, although there's no mathematical logic in this."

Brett, or Richard, if either or both of you can prove this, I will happily buy you dinner in January. If you cannot, either or both of you can buy me a drink - good odds, eh?

My apologies for not saying so earlier, personally I think Sirius was right on the ball here. I saw no need to comment further on this, rather choosing to focus on what I believed was an unfair attack on 32Red.

As the publisher of the magazine, I believe it is your job to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the content published in your magazine, or rather, to hire the executive editor to fulfill these duties.

In this particular case, it appears, both the writer and editor have not properly fulfilled their obligations to the reader, nor to you the publisher. I would thus kindly suggest you address the issue with them, and make amends to the reader and to 32Red.

 

[elscrabinda]

1. Only buy in for the smallest amounts. 5 or 10 will never get you written up on the inspectors' table control sheets.
2. Always wear dull clothing, eg. a beige jumper over a grey shirt, with borwn or grey slacks.
3. Wait till you find a decent game in progress, and watch to see whether the dealer is hot or cold.
4. Strategy and card counting to at least a basic level are required. bet small, increasing in a minor way.
5. Only play on a busy table. Once again, the last thing you want to do is stand out.
6. Cash out whenever 'the cage' is busy. Smaller wins won't get you noticed.
7. Set a time limit on your play - something innocuous like 10pm.
8. At the roulette table, only place five or so minimum-stake chips per spin. Try copying winning players or playing against losing ones.
9. If you're having no luck, pack up and go home. If you find yourself on a lucky streak, use 'the casino's money' to press home your advantage.
10. If you do have a losing session, move to a different dealer, at another table.

Nothing to do with 32red but some more pearls of wisdom from TG. Apologies if this quote is inaccurate as I've taken it from another board. Although its mostly laugh out loud ridiculous it does still add up to giving the impression that games with an in-built house edge can be beaten as long as you follow some strange superstitions which I still find to be horribly dangerous, especially in a magazine which Richard freely admits is targeted at customers new to the industry.

 

[spearmaster]

1. Only buy in for the smallest amounts. 5 or 10 will never get you written up on the inspectors' table control sheets.

???

Try playing for anything less than 25 at The Colony Club and watch how fast you get shown the door. Furthermore, in the US, you must show your club card if you want to earn comps... playing without them is even more silly than identifying yourself, especially for the low amounts mentioned.

2. Always wear dull clothing, eg. a beige jumper over a grey shirt, with borwn or grey slacks.

Bloody hilarious. Again, at the Colony Club, a jacket is required. And in the US, you might want to be wearing your Hawaii shirt in order to blend in... dull clothing would make you stick out...

3. Wait till you find a decent game in progress, and watch to see whether the dealer is hot or cold.

*snicker* And watch the reactions of the other people at the table when you try to butt into a "hot" game.

4. Strategy and card counting to at least a basic level are required. bet small, increasing in a minor way.

PLEASE. What beginner has any concept of card counting? It's hard enough to make people play basic strategy, let alone card count...

5. Only play on a busy table. Once again, the last thing you want to do is stand out.

Now I see why Elscrabinda and others are saying this is laughable. Whoever wrote this nonsense apparently has zero concept of gambling - if you ask me, the editor/publisher has been scammed.

Just as a note, I actually played in a low-end casino (Gala in Tottenham Court Road) where I was playing roulette and betting 1, 4, and 14 ONLY. By the fourth spin, my numbers had hit three times. By the sixth, four times. Everyone is crowding around the table to watch, the croupier is telling everybody "Don't bother with the other numbers, just bet 1, 4 and 14" and even the supervisor is smiling. By this time I had turned 50 quid into about 2,000 - and the casino employees were grinning from ear to ear, knowing that I was going to be one of the very few people to screw their bosses - on top of which they would receive a nice tip (even though you're not supposed to tip).

Talk about standing out - I was with 3-4 other people and we were loud as hell. And another aside - all of us were there as colleagues in the online gambling industry, so if anyone was going to stick out, it was us.

6. Cash out whenever 'the cage' is busy. Smaller wins won't get you noticed.

*snicker*

7. Set a time limit on your play - something innocuous like 10pm.

???

By time limit, you mean a curfew?

Anyone who goes to UK-based casinos knows that the busy time is between 8-12 pm. Anyone playing before that is more likely to be noticed - and anyone leaving early for no apparent reason at 10 pm will draw a lot more attention to himself.

8. At the roulette table, only place five or so minimum-stake chips per spin. Try copying winning players or playing against losing ones.

Talk about playing and looking like a n00bie...

9. If you're having no luck, pack up and go home. If you find yourself on a lucky streak, use 'the casino's money' to press home your advantage.

Probably the only sensible comment in this list. However, I would like to modify this to say "Use the casino's money to raise your stake - not your own". It should make no difference whether you are on a lucky streak or not - a streak of two wins could be just as good as a streak of ten wins... and the next event still has an equal chance of being a losing one...

10. If you do have a losing session, move to a different dealer, at another table.

Superstition. I move because I lose patience, not because there is any advantage in doing so. Unless you are able to count cards and determine that a deck is negative, or if you can really detect a croupier who is slick enough to always avoid your numbers, this tip is absolute nonsense.

Sorry - I don't know if this is the same writer, or a different one - but he/she is absolute rubbish.

 

[gfkostas]

???

Try playing for anything less than £25 at The Colony Club and watch how fast you get shown the door. Furthermore, in the US, you must show your club card if you want to earn comps... playing without them is even more silly than identifying yourself, especially for the low amounts mentioned.

Bloody hilarious. Again, at the Colony Club, a jacket is required. And in the US, you might want to be wearing your Hawaii shirt in order to blend in... dull clothing would make you stick out...

*snicker* And watch the reactions of the other people at the table when you try to butt into a "hot" game.

PLEASE. What beginner has any concept of card counting? It's hard enough to make people play basic strategy, let alone card count...

Well said dude

Although I find hard to believe that they would throw me out of the Colony club if I start playing £10 a hand.

How much I like that you cleaned GALA up .That was one heck of a roulette session

 

[sirius]

That article was in the latest edition of the magazine. This time the real author's name is not given but it is not the same one (it is given as a Total Gambler 'insider' known as Diamond Dealer). The article is again not very good but this time is promoting Littlewoods Casino!! It is called 'Secrets of successful casino players'.

By the way, I've had a response to the 32Red ad from the expert who's studied gambling addiction and has written many research papers. He hasn't commented about the likelihood of it causing gambling addiction yet but this is what he has said so far after reading the article:

Its pretty typical of the sort of nonesense that people try to sell --
systems to beat games of pure chance.

John Patrick has several horrible books that attempt to profit from
gullable readers who buy the system.

On the positive side it discourages incremental better while losing.

But is sells incremental betting while winning, which is not as serious
a problem, but can lead to problems if the player finds the system works
and then keeps trying it again and again even when it is no longer working.

The article also implies that following the streak can lead to wins --
which is utter nonsense.

The article is very careful about how it works its erroneous claims.

Nigel