Bonus Abuser Blacklist (Microgaming)

[Mousey]

For those who may have missed it, this is from Max's warning post HERE

Unfortunately I've recently been alerted to more of the same:


Quote:

We contribute to and make use of a shared industry database of promotion abusers and fraudsters. Individuals known from this database will not be eligible for any promotional offers and the casino reserves the right to lock their account and refuse access to the casino.

Again, this appears to be a standard term among Microgaming casinos and they are in fact using this to deny players their winnings.

In a recent case a player had received two bonuses, had played fairly, met all the terms and requested a withdrawal. As a "standard procedure" the casino finance people ran the player's name through their "bonus abuse" blacklist. Turns out the player was listed and the casino then used this as their only reason for denying the player's winnings, all in accordance with their Terms & Conditions.

If this "bonus abuser" blacklist was being used to decline deposits that would be a lot more understandable. After all, they'd be filtering players based on their past bonus usage and that, of course, would be their full right. One might not like it but if they did it up front and universally then at least it would be fair.

As it is, using the blacklist solely to weed out prospective withdrawals, means the player is at full risk and the casino is simply using the system to pad the bottom line with monies from players who might be on the blacklist but lost their money instead of winning. I am yet to hear of a case where a player lost, the casino discovered they were on the blacklist and then refunded the player's deposits.

It's how they are using this blacklist that is the problem here. Either apply it to everyone at the time of deposit or get rid of it. Applying it only to winners is highly suspect.

OK... I'm pissed off now. I've had it!

Bonus 'abusers' equated with fraudsters is a crock of bull. The casinos know it, we know it, Casinomeister knows it -- especially when the player abides by the casinos WR and T&C. Pay the player, then casinos can cut them off from bonuses or lock them out. This after the fact crap is just that -- crap!

I'm still not happy with this 'blacklist' idea. Fraudsters, yes. Bonus 'abusers'? No! A player who plays by the casinos rules is not an abuser. And if a player is on that list... why do casinos give them bonuses??

Sorry for the outburst... I'm so mad I'm sputtering ....

 

[maxd]

Don't be sorry, this is serious stuff! And good on you for bringing it up!

I hope you don't mind that I've tweaked your original thread title a bit. I thought it important that people read this in context -- that is, knowing it's MGS casinos -- as opposed to a general "o-ooo-o! there's a blacklist out there somewhere!" kind of thing.

 

[pinsnpies]

Really feel as if all this bonus abuse accusations is getting out of hand. Think i'll just stick to sportsbook betting.

 

[Simmo!]

Are Microgaming themselves aware that this goes on? If not, they should be. As Max says, use it to prevent a bonus being awarded, but if it has been and the play is fair then tough. The player should be paid. If a casino chooses to entice with a bonus, they should be prepared for the problems this causes. It's not like it's an unknown quantity - everyone knows that bonuses are asking for trouble unless properly managed. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[The Dude]

Are Microgaming themselves aware that this goes on? If not, they should be. As Max says, use it to prevent a bonus being awarded, but if it has been and the play is fair then tough. The player should be paid. If a casino chooses to entice with a bonus, they should be prepared for the problems this causes. It's not like it's an unknown quantity - everyone knows that bonuses are asking for trouble unless properly managed. You can't have your cake and eat it.

I haven't given them a heads up on it...yet.

Here is the link to the actual page. I've never seen this before in an MGS powered casino. I'm a little surprised:

#18

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

We contribute to and make use of a shared industry database of promotion abusers and fraudsters. Individuals known from this database will not be eligible for any promotional offers and the casino reserves the right to lock their account and refuse access to the casino.

They lump fraudster and promotion "abuser" together in the same sentence. Looks like they slept through Online Casino Management 101. One excerpt here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/static/newsletter/2006/9february2006.html

Simply put, if the casino makes the offer - they need to be prepared to follow through with it. Advantage players are not fraudsters. And if the casino allows them to play, they are obligated to pay the player their winnings. Casino operators who have claimed that land based casinos in Vegas kick card counters to the curb (winnings confiscated) are in error. A couple of years ago the Nevada State court ruled that advantage players do not constitute fraud.

Database or not, if the player met the terms and conditions of the promotion, then they need to be paid. This is not rocket science. If a casino is allowed to use subjective and vague terms such as "abuse" then anarchy will ensue.

 

[The Dude]

Oops! Did I just identify the casino? Sorry

 

[maxd]

FWIW I've updated the Warning as follows:

I should mention that

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

(MGS, Kahnawake) is the site that precipitated this additional Warning and the only confirmed occurrence of the Terms in question ... but they wouldn't have a networked blacklist database if other MGS casinos weren't involved.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I found this out some time ago. The term has been around, but it is WELL hidden.

The Microgaming database is run by the big processor Proc-Cyber, and is one of their products "Risk Sentinel" offered to their clients. It tracks a single players entire behaviour across ALL merchants who channel their processing through Proc Cyber, which is pretty much every MG casino (for non US players). It appears to run like Experian, and players have a "credit file" kind of thing, but for their playing habilts. UNLIKE Experian though, Proc Cyber say that players have NO RIGHT to see the data held about them NOR the right to have it checked for accuracy if they believe their has been a mistake.

Proc Cyber, however, are based in the UK, which means that UK players at least CAN get hold of this "secret" data by serving notice to Proc Cyber under the Data Protection Act, which specifies a fee of no more than 10, and specifies a time limit for compliance.

Given that MG casinos have been caught RED HANDED by Max DELIBERATELY misusing this service to "pad the bottom line", rather than for refusing promotions in the first place - this must put MG well into the inshore waters of Rogue Island.

This makes it VERY LIKELY that the PLAYTECH variant does indeed exist, and that PLaytech (the company) has been LYING about it being a myth for the past couple of years.

IF these casinos were PROPERLY regulated in a PROPER country, this kind of thing would land them in court.

eCogra seems happy with this state of affairs, they have presided over this for quite a while, THEY ARE IMPLICATED - they must have known (it is, after all, their JOB to know), but decided this was quite OK.

The current situation allows less reputable casinos to set traps for players by pulling them in with big bonuses, and then pulling this central database stunt if the win, and as Max says, take the money when they lose, and maybe offer another bonus on top.

The first clause highlighted by Max is rather vague, it can be used to cover pretty much ANY style of play, and from some of the odd claims of "bonus abuse" that have cropped up recently, it seems there is something pretty murky going on even in the top end of the industry (Microgaming).

Maybe, CM accredited casinos should be BANNED from using the "bonus abuse database" at the time of withdrawal, and if they use it, the filter MUST be applied BEFORE a promotion is offered to a player.

A BIG part of the problem is caused by the SPAMMERS, often operating with the full knowledge of the casinos, who will allow it to go ahead because it is just so damn effective - however, it caused players to fall into traps, because the spammers deliberately set out to conceal things like terms and conditions through the use of fake casino landing pages that ONLY allow download & registration, where an incomplete set of rules is presented to the player.

If these revelations, and the discussions about them, drive some casinos to the wall TOUGH LUCK - you deserved it

 

[The Dude]

...If these revelations, and the discussions about them, drive some casinos to the wall TOUGH LUCK - you deserved it

But I wouldn't jump to conclusions quite yet.

I know that Proc Cyber runs players through a fraudster database. The database is not shared with the casino - only if a player pops up in the fraudster database will he be outed by Pro Cyber which notifies the casino. I remember a couple of incidents where fraudsters had been cleared by the casino for payouts, but got nailed by the cash processors - one was a Bellerock issue a couple of years ago that played out in the complaints section.

I seriously doubt that the casinos share a database of "bonus abusers". I have a feeling it's smoke being blown up the "abusers" butt in order to scare him off - or to confiscate winnings.

I'm guessing this will play out here as well.

Bear in mind, I don't believe this casino is an eCOGRA certified casino. So they aren't part of this equation.

 

[vinylweatherman]

But I wouldn't jump to conclusions quite yet.

I know that Proc Cyber runs players through a fraudster database. The database is not shared with the casino - only if a player pops up in the fraudster database will he be outed by Pro Cyber which notifies the casino. I remember a couple of incidents where fraudsters had been cleared by the casino for payouts, but got nailed by the cash processors - one was a Bellerock issue a couple of years ago that played out in the complaints section.

I seriously doubt that the casinos share a database of "bonus abusers". I have a feeling it's smoke being blown up the "abusers" butt in order to scare him off - or to confiscate winnings.

I'm guessing this will play out here as well.

Bear in mind, I don't believe this casino is an eCOGRA certified casino. So they aren't part of this equation.

Seems to me the same smoke is being blown up MAX's butt, which triggered his initial general warning.

This "makes use of a central database" term has been around for a while, and if this is simply smoke to be administered to someone's butt, perhaps the casino was unwise in administering it to Max's butt, as this has brought this issue up in the form of a general warning about Microgaming casinos.
Microgaming now have another PR problem on their hands, adding to the current ones. MG so far seem to think hiding under the duvet till it all blows over is the best policy.

The alternative to "tough luck" however, is there, simply be open, honest, and fair with dealings with ALL players, and salvage the broken bond of trust before it is too late.

Max, seems to have based the warning on a specific case, where definitive evidence of the central database being used to identify mere "bonus abusers" was found, the casino admitted it directly to Max it seems.

The description of "Risk Sentinel" I found showed it to be a product that went well beyond fraud detection, it was indeed able to track playing habits through patterns of deposits and withdrawals, and put together a web of associated assumptions based on these transactions. It could identify players who made only a single deposit at many new casinos, with little sign of repeat play. This could certainly be a flag for "potential bonus abuse", and could lead to a casino voiding winnings from a player's first deposit based on the past history of him hardly ever returning to play again at the same casino.

Incidentally, you can log on to Proccyber yourself and gather your OWN transaction history, and get a taste of the data they have available.

 

[RobWin]

I haven't given them a heads up on it...yet.

Here is the link to the actual page. I've never seen this before in an MGS powered casino. I'm a little surprised:
#18

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

We contribute to and make use of a shared industry database of promotion abusers and fraudsters. Individuals known from this database will not be eligible for any promotional offers and the casino reserves the right to lock their account and refuse access to the casino.

No need to give them a heads up on this since they all have been using this for many many moons !! Don't know why you are surprised by it though, it has been mentioned several times over the past 10 years as other players had found out about it when it was already too late and the MG casino in question simply held their deposit and confiscated their winnings...

At least now for the first time we have a Microgaming Casino "Golden Lounge" here that has actually admitted to using this "shared industry database" and have even actually admitted it in black & white where as long as I can remember no other MG Casino has ever come out and outright admitted to this...

Do any of you guys remember the MG casino called "Crazy Horse" that was a MG powered casino about 10 years ago...they later switched over to RTG or Playtech software one, can't remember exactly...well this was one of the first MG casinos that I played at a lot for quite a while and one day decided to make a cashout for around $200 IIRC after I had probably made 20 or so deposits totaling approx. $2K...

They hem hawed around with my withdrawal for about two or three weeks, never paying it and finally sent me an email back saying that I had came up on their central database of fraudulent players and bonus abusers list and my account had been flagged...and back then I had maybe only played at two or three MG casinos since they were still relatively new.
Well, I finally got in touch with Proc-Cyber and got the mess straightened out, it was someone else with the exact same name as me (what's the odds of that) and living in the same metropolitan area...remember there were not that many ISP's back 10 years ago, but during this fiasco Proc-Cyber had also said that themselves and the casinos all shared a database list of players that also included the players deposit/withdrawal listings and play styles and habits, meaning what types of games were normally played and how they were played....etc., etc.

So yes, this un-announced and cloaked database list has been around for quite some time now !!

 

[Shocked]

The description of "Risk Sentinel" I found showed it to be a product that went well beyond fraud detection, it was indeed able to track playing habits through patterns of deposits and withdrawals, and put together a web of associated assumptions based on these transactions. It could identify players who made only a single deposit at many new casinos, with little sign of repeat play. This could certainly be a flag for "potential bonus abuse", and could lead to a casino voiding winnings from a player's first deposit based on the past history of him hardly ever returning to play again at the same casino.

Incidentally, you can log on to Proccyber yourself and gather your OWN transaction history, and get a taste of the data they have available.

Wonderful, so there's the possibility that I could be stuck on a blacklist because..oh I don't know...perhaps I'm funny about putting money back into Go Wild with all the recent faff, despite the fact that I play at 2 other MGs most days?!?

 

[Rusty]

Yet another "conspiracy theory" that turns out to be fact?

I think things are beginning to unravel.

 

[aka23]

Here is the link to the actual page. I've never seen this before in an MGS powered casino. I'm a little surprised:

#18

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

We contribute to and make use of a shared industry database of promotion abusers and fraudsters. Individuals known from this database will not be eligible for any promotional offers and the casino reserves the right to lock their account and refuse access to the casino.

They appear in some of the T&Cs for both the Casino Rewards and the Vegas Partner groups. This isn't a new change. The 2006 T&C for Casino Classic is quoted in the thread at https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/important-info-about-casino-classic.11121/ and shows the term. However, this is the first I've heard about enforcing the term in the way Max described, which is concerning.

 

[Alexishot69]

hmm

Yet another "conspiracy theory" that turns out to be fact?

I think things are beginning to unravel.

i think your right this indeed could be the tip of the iceberg and wouldnt be in the least bit surprised if we hear more horrors in time about not only mgs but other software providers ..

 

[LaurieJim]

i think your right this indeed could be the tip of the iceberg and wouldnt be in the least bit surprised if we hear more horrors in time about not only mgs but other software providers ..

i so agree with that , i do believe this is going to become one more of the many major issues going on with mgs and before all is said and done it will somehow affect other software providers and in turn will affect all u.s online players, which so far has been the case for many.......................laurie

 

[chuchu59]

Yet another "conspiracy theory" that turns out to be fact?

I think things are beginning to unravel.

I am thinking just the opposite. This is actually fact that is branded as being a 'conspiracy theory' by the casinos and some naysayers.

 

[funky_seagull]

several accredited casinos on casinomeister refer to this central database in their terms and conditions:

XXXXXX audits cash-ins to determine if winnings are a result of promotion abuse. It is possible for promotion abuse to occur even though wagering is compliant with the standard terms and conditions and bonus system rules. If promotion abuse is identified, then XXXXX reserves the right at managements discretion to take the following action(s) against the abusive player:
A) may be banned from receiving or redeeming further promotions
B) may be banned from play in the casino
B) may have account terminated with immediate effect
C) Player information forwarded to a central database resulting in players being barred from receiving bonuses at any other casinos.
D) Cash-ins may be denied, reversed and/or considered void. In such cases, only original purchase amount may be allowed for withdrawal.
Please contact us should you require additional information about this condition.

 

[maxd]

I remember a couple of incidents where fraudsters had been cleared by the casino for payouts, but got nailed by the cash processors ....

That may well be the case here too. GLC did say that they were good with the withdrawal request and that it was the report from their "risk services supplier" which was "alarming" and triggered the withdrawal denial.

Max seems to have based the warning on a specific case ... the casino admitted it directly to Max it seems.

Yes, that's pretty much it, though they didn't "admit it" so much as offered it up outright as justification for denying the player's winnings.

several accredited casinos on casinomeister refer to this central database in their terms and conditions:....

It would be good to know whom you are quoting here. What casinos did you find are using these terms?
(I know I could hunt around to find it myself but ... there are other PABs to worry about and there's only so much time in a day.)

 

[spearmaster]

Given that MG casinos have been caught RED HANDED by Max DELIBERATELY misusing this service to "pad the bottom line", rather than for refusing promotions in the first place - this must put MG well into the inshore waters of Rogue Island.

This makes it VERY LIKELY that the PLAYTECH variant does indeed exist, and that PLaytech (the company) has been LYING about it being a myth for the past couple of years.

Sorry, but again you have made a generalization without any basis in fact.

While I appreciate your participation and your eagerness to be of assistance, I do find these unwarranted accusations very disturbing.

Hence, please be advised that any future accusations, implications, or insinuations of this sort will no longer be tolerated - will be deleted - and may result in a vacation.

Thanks for your attention.

 

[spearmaster]

Are Microgaming themselves aware that this goes on? If not, they should be. As Max says, use it to prevent a bonus being awarded, but if it has been and the play is fair then tough. The player should be paid. If a casino chooses to entice with a bonus, they should be prepared for the problems this causes. It's not like it's an unknown quantity - everyone knows that bonuses are asking for trouble unless properly managed. You can't have your cake and eat it.

FWIW, the correct avenue of challenge should be to eCOGRA, which is supposed to be providing player protection to its accredited members. MGS is really only a software provider and surely would refer you back to eCOGRA anyhow in this type of situation, since it's not the software at fault.

 

[Mousey]

I'm still wondering about the 'central' database. Who has it? A payment processor? It's got to be higher in the 'food chain' than that doesn't it? I mean we see processors come and go (some arrested , etc.) so it's got to be something closer to the casinos. Proc Cybr? But not all MGs use them, do they?

And why would this financial overlord want/need/bother with info as to 'bonus abusers' (which is related to style of play)? Fraud, is one thing... multiple accounts, deposit then charge back, sign up elsewhere with a fake name, etc. I understand casinos need to have some centralized source of info there.

But a bonus abuse blacklist? Was the blacklist originally set up for casinos to contribute and track names of those committing fraud, but then some (the casinos) began to add bonus 'abusers', too, since some casinos seem to think one is as bad as the other? Are both on the same list? Separate lists? Does a bonus abuse blacklist even exist? We're all well aware that just because a casino says something or plasters something on their website in their T&C doesn't mean it's true.*

Will we ever know the truth of it? And does anyone, other than us, even care (MG, ECogra, etc.) ?

********

*I forget the casinos that always said in their promo terms that the average player managed 40x wagers on their deposit, implying that 30x -- or whatever-- WR was really very cool and most players would win. Yeah right. VPL? CR? Can't remember....

 

[uungy]

Any casino who actually uses and implements this term and use it for a reason not to pay, should be thrown into the large blackhole of roguedem!

Instead of restructuring themselves and rewarding players for their play etc, after getting a good beat by a player, they just bar them.

Virgin Casino did this a while back, and did a U turn on it, realising, by blocking players who believe they are "winners" they will never get their money back.

Dont casinos realise, you win some and lose alot? I may win a few hundred here, but then will go on later to lose that multiplied elsewhere if I am barred.

It just seems alot of these casino managers, have no idea what a B&M casino is, and have no idea what online casino consists of. Instead of rewarding winners, to entice them back, they bar them!

Throw 'em in the blackhole!

 

[LuckyPlayer]

no privacy and no pay

I fully agree with your statement: Any casino who actually uses and implements this term and use it for a reason not to pay, should be thrown into the large blackhole of roguedem!

so their privacy policy is BS, if they are sharing their database.

they keep changing their main promotion terms, they stopped my friend's cashout because you need to be a VIP to request a cashout! Never seen that anywhere. they sent him a $2,400 spam offer with no terms and their customer service if you are lucky to get through have no understanding or experience in gambling at all. Be aware and avoid!

 

[funky_seagull]

It would be good to know whom you are quoting here. What casinos did you find are using these terms?
(I know I could hunt around to find it myself but ... there are other PABs to worry about and there's only so much time in a day.)

Sorry wasn't sure if it was ok to post their names on the forum.

Will P.M info to you.

 

[funky_seagull]

But I wouldn't jump to conclusions quite yet.

I know that Proc Cyber runs players through a fraudster database. The database is not shared with the casino - only if a player pops up in the fraudster database will he be outed by Pro Cyber which notifies the casino. I remember a couple of incidents where fraudsters had been cleared by the casino for payouts, but got nailed by the cash processors - one was a Bellerock issue a couple of years ago that played out in the complaints section.

I seriously doubt that the casinos share a database of "bonus abusers". I have a feeling it's smoke being blown up the "abusers" butt in order to scare him off - or to confiscate winnings.

I'm guessing this will play out here as well.

Bear in mind, I don't believe this casino is an eCOGRA certified casino. So they aren't part of this equation.

An accredited casino which I won't name here, but have pm'd to Maxd states in their terms:

# We contribute to and make use of a shared industry database of promotion abusers and fraudsters. Individuals known from this database will not be eligible for any promotional offers and the casino reserves the right to lock their account and refuse access to the casino.
# Information on known promotion abusers may be forwarded to Proc-Cyber Services (PCS) and Borth Holdings Ltd, our e-cash partners and may result in such player being barred from receiving bonuses at any other casino using PCS

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sorry, but again you have made a generalization without any basis in fact.

While I appreciate your participation and your eagerness to be of assistance, I do find these unwarranted accusations very disturbing.

Hence, please be advised that any future accusations, implications, or insinuations of this sort will no longer be tolerated - will be deleted - and may result in a vacation.

Thanks for your attention.

I said "very likely".

Firsly, Playtech, the company do not seem to do anything about the large number of what would be considered as "rogue" casinos that run using the Playtech software. Micrgaming, the "gold standard" have long called allegations of this level of central information sharing as "a conspiracy theory". "conspiracy theory" juat became FACT when GLC told Max that a confiscation was solely down to a "bonus abuser" flag on a FRAUD database.

The Playtech position is still that the whole thing is a conspiracy theory, however this must have started somewhere, and if Playtech started to make better efforts to police it's licensees, showing zero tolerance of rogue behaviour, then players will be more likely to believe Playtech when they say something.

Given the rate this entire industry is flushing it's reputation down the toilet, none of this probably matters very much.

Sadly, it is hard to prove a negative, which is the big problem, Playtech cannot prove it has not got a "central whatever", so it is up to it's attackers to prove it has something that was earlier denied.

Strangely, CASINOS are ROUTINELY requiring us players to "prove a negative", so they should be prepared to be held to the same standards when THEY find themselves "flagged" by our "central gut feeling database".

 

[Rusty]

I am thinking just the opposite. This is actually fact that is branded as being a 'conspiracy theory' by the casinos and some naysayers.

We are in fact agreeing.
I was being sarcastic.

 

[maxd]

Sorry wasn't sure if it was ok to post their names on the forum.

I appreciate the caution but it's their Terms & Conditions so it's not exactly a secret.

FWIW this is the info I was sent, and yes, it all checks out:

Grand Mondial: In terms and conditions under Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) :

Grand Mondial audits cash-ins to determine if winnings are a result of promotion abuse. It is possible for promotion abuse to occur even though wagering is compliant with the standard terms and conditions and bonus system rules. If promotion abuse is identified, then Grand Mondial reserves the right at managements discretion to take the following action(s) against the abusive player:
A) may be banned from receiving or redeeming further promotions
B) may be banned from play in the casino
B) may have account terminated with immediate effect
C) Player information forwarded to a central database resulting in players being barred from receiving bonuses at any other casinos.
D) Cash-ins may be denied, reversed and/or considered void. In such cases, only original purchase amount may be allowed for withdrawal.

Red Flush, in Old / Expired Link:

We contribute to and make use of a shared industry database of promotion abusers and fraudsters. Individuals known from this database will not be eligible for any promotional offers and the casino reserves the right to lock their account and refuse access to the casino.

Maple Casino, in Old / Expired Link:

• We contribute to and make use of a shared industry database of promotion abusers and fraudsters. Individuals known from this database will not be eligible for any promotional offers and the casino reserves the right to lock their account and refuse access to the casino.
• Information on known promotion abusers may be forwarded to Proc-Cyber Services (PCS) and Borth Holdings Ltd, our e-cash partners and may result in such player being barred from receiving bonuses at any other casino using PCS.

I don't think the moral of this story is that these are bad casinos for having these player databases, or claiming to, it's just that players need to be aware of this and -- and this is a big "and" -- this information should be used to decline deposits, not deny winnings.

Assuming that the casino has accepted the player's deposit and given the bonus, the definition of "bonus abuser" is way, Way, WAY too subjective to define it as an offense that warrants withholding a player's winnings. Note that this has been Casinomeister's standing position on so-called "bonus abuse" for quite some time.

 

[funky_seagull]

Sorry didn't want to cause strife for above casinos as I've personally never had any trouble with them, so didn't want to name them. But you're right the info is publicly available anyway for anyone to dig up if they can be arsed... so wouldn't have mattered...


This term is odd, it appears in the terms and conditions of many casinos:


It is possible for promotion abuse to occur even though wagering is compliant with the standard terms and conditions and bonus system rules.

It is very vague and could be used as an excuse to not pay someone if they didn't like the way they played, even if the play was above board.

Quite a few casinos have this term...

 

[vinylweatherman]

On top of all this, what about the MISTAKES that occur on such databases. Casinos use them as proof ABSOLUTE, there is NO DISPUTE MECHANISM, player is told "database flagged you, you are guitly, or in denial of what you did".

I was once a victim of a MISTAKE, and it was CM membership that gave me the knowledge, and another party (the MG rep), who sorted out the issue, and told me it was caused because a NEW account had been opened with SIMILAR details to mine. Although it was sorted, it seems the fact that I WAS THERE FIRST, didn't make a difference, there was NO TRUST when it came to the results from the central database, I had to prove myself all over again, as though I had been put before the courts, but had a prize barrister up my sleeve who had the case dismissed.

Another posted that they too suffered issues because someone with the same name and living in the same CITY registered an account.
The scope for mistakes here is considerable, yet players are not allowed access to their records, since they have already been deemed guilty, and access just helps them do it better next time.

PKR (remember that) even refused the player access to playlogs and what rules were broken, and this was not fraud, simply bonus abuse.

The ordering and grammar used in these examples seems to put "promotional abuse" top of the agenda, with "fraud" being of secondary concern.

The Proc Cyber database to detect PROMOTION ABUSE has been around a while. There is no reason that Proc Cyber itself should worry about anything other than fraud, until you "follow the money". Proc Cyber have no use themselves for it, but can MAKE MORE MONEY by SELLING "Risk Sentinel" to casinos than by just being a proccessor for them. Casinos SAVE more than they PAY to have the product.
By using the "training" provided with Risk Sentinel, they learn how to ALWAYS regard those snared by it as guilty, and to "not be fooled by protestations of innocence". The training also advises to use non-communication as a means to stifle any appeal by the player (internally, that is). It then means the player has no recourse but to air the grievance elsewhere.

Take the cases where players claim they have received no reply from countless Emails, and all "we'll call you back" promises over the phone are ignored - then they get the "F U email" and merely a returned deposit. This is the training offered by Proc Cyber in dealing with these cases, and CS are merely "following orders".

THIS is why players bitch that they have struggled for MONTHS doing it "the right way", but as soon as they go public, or use PAB, everything is sorted out, and it turns into a blindingly simple problem, leaving us all scratching our heads with dispelief that it all took so long to sort out.

 

[zebedy]

i find these rules disturbing, over the years i have opened an account and took there welcome bonus at every nearly every casino under (casino rewards/belle rock/fortune lounge/jackpot factory ect ect so if im reading the rules correctly i am a bonus abuser , ok fair enough, i probably am ,
having deposited many thousands and lost at most of them, im just wondering if i had of won would i have been paid,
am i on there list ?????,
how would i find out ?????,
it seems the only way to find out if im on there list or database is to win somewhere and see if i get paid- hit and miss- maybe thats why they call it gambling
so if i am on there database they wouldnt pay me anyway, would i get my deposits back, i very much doubt it, i wouldnt even know , and couldnt even prove it

as max said

this information should be used to decline deposits, not deny winnings.

 

[spearmaster]

I said "very likely".

Irrelevant. Just because Mazda has ABS doesn't mean that Skoda do. Nor is it very likely either.

There's a big difference between "very likely" and "I wouldn't be surprised if..." - maybe it's just the way you tend to spin wild theories as practically a fact.

If you've got a fact, or a theory based on reasonable assumption, it's more than welcome. But your theory is based on another company entirely - and thus is not in the slightest way reasonable.

You have been told this before - yet you persist in making these assumptions which, at the very least, would be considered a long, long stretch.

Firsly, Playtech, the company do not seem to do anything about the large number of what would be considered as "rogue" casinos that run using the Playtech software. Micrgaming, the "gold standard" have long called allegations of this level of central information sharing as "a conspiracy theory". "conspiracy theory" juat became FACT when GLC told Max that a confiscation was solely down to a "bonus abuser" flag on a FRAUD database.

Oh ok. So because Joe Schmoe who complained on here was found to be a bonus abuser, all members here are bonus abusers?

Playtech is a software provider. Unfortunately, they are not a member of eCOGRA nor any other regulatory body other than the jurisdictions of the individual operators. A complaint should go to these jurisdictions - not to the software provider.

Microsoft is a software provider. If said software is used in ways it was not intended, do you go to Microsoft, or do you go to the constabulary?

Volkswagen is an automobile manufacturer. If their car is involved in an accident because it was not driven as intended (ie. over the speed limit), do you complain to VW?

Let's get this straight once and for all. Address your complaints to the right place and they deserve to be addressed. Complaints to Playtech, or to any software provider, should only be a last resort after NORMAL methods (ie. operator and jurisdiction) are exhausted.

As harsh as that sounds, that's the way most things work.

The Playtech position is still that the whole thing is a conspiracy theory, however this must have started somewhere, and if Playtech started to make better efforts to police it's licensees, showing zero tolerance of rogue behaviour, then players will be more likely to believe Playtech when they say something.

Playtech is not a police force. It is a software provider. Please see above. Furthermore, to the best of my recollection, it has never said that any "whole thing" is a conspiracy. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh, and btw, Playtech never says anything anyhow

Sadly, it is hard to prove a negative, which is the big problem, Playtech cannot prove it has not got a "central whatever", so it is up to it's attackers to prove it has something that was earlier denied.

Sheesh. Playtech is not under any obligation to prove it has this or that, and the same goes for any other software provider - with the SOLE exception that they must prove their software operates according to industry standards and only when reasonable doubt exists.

There are only so many rabbits you can pull out of thin air. I would suggest that you stick to those where you can make a strong case.

This opinion is my personal opinion, not of any other person or company, and for the record I have no current association with any software provider so please don't even think of going down that road.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Irrelevant. Just because Mazda has ABS doesn't mean that Skoda do. Nor is it very likely either.

There's a big difference between "very likely" and "I wouldn't be surprised if..." - maybe it's just the way you tend to spin wild theories as practically a fact.

If you've got a fact, or a theory based on reasonable assumption, it's more than welcome. But your theory is based on another company entirely - and thus is not in the slightest way reasonable.

You have been told this before - yet you persist in making these assumptions which, at the very least, would be considered a long, long stretch.



Oh ok. So because Joe Schmoe who complained on here was found to be a bonus abuser, all members here are bonus abusers?

Playtech is a software provider. Unfortunately, they are not a member of eCOGRA nor any other regulatory body other than the jurisdictions of the individual operators. A complaint should go to these jurisdictions - not to the software provider.

Microsoft is a software provider. If said software is used in ways it was not intended, do you go to Microsoft, or do you go to the constabulary?

Volkswagen is an automobile manufacturer. If their car is involved in an accident because it was not driven as intended (ie. over the speed limit), do you complain to VW?

Let's get this straight once and for all. Address your complaints to the right place and they deserve to be addressed. Complaints to Playtech, or to any software provider, should only be a last resort after NORMAL methods (ie. operator and jurisdiction) are exhausted.

As harsh as that sounds, that's the way most things work.



Playtech is not a police force. It is a software provider. Please see above. Furthermore, to the best of my recollection, it has never said that any "whole thing" is a conspiracy. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh, and btw, Playtech never says anything anyhow



Sheesh. Playtech is not under any obligation to prove it has this or that, and the same goes for any other software provider - with the SOLE exception that they must prove their software operates according to industry standards and only when reasonable doubt exists.

There are only so many rabbits you can pull out of thin air. I would suggest that you stick to those where you can make a strong case.

This opinion is my personal opinion, not of any other person or company, and for the record I have no current association with any software provider so please don't even think of going down that road.

Most Juristictions are a joke. Malta have proved that, and I thought they would deal with complaints quickly.

The software provider has a MORAL obligation though, to ensure that it's product is used in a responsible manner. Software providers that look the other way when their clients use their product to "rip off" retail users are going to be unpopular.

There is NO SUCH THING AS BONUS ABUSE, casinos are NOT in the business of "entertainment", they are in the business to make money. THEY make all the rules, and players have to accept them or go elsewhere. Having these secret rules where they can void winnings just because a player PLAYED TO WIN, rather than just allowed his balance to steadily decline to zero, is not going tobe acceptable to the player community, and if casinos that persist in behaving in this manner become unpopular, and this then reflects badly on the software provider, that is tough.

As harsh as this may sound to casinos and software providers, the way PLAYERS have been treated over the last year or so is what has brought this about. A inconvenient barrage of revelations, misconduct, and even lies, over the last month has done them no favours.

Casinos need to remember that it is supposed to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, and when THEY remember this, maybe the players will.

 

[spearmaster]

Most Juristictions are a joke. Malta have proved that, and I thought they would deal with complaints quickly.

While I tend to agree with you on that, it is still irrelevant. It is still the jurisdiction that you should be turning to before the software provider.

The software provider has a MORAL obligation though, to ensure that it's product is used in a responsible manner. Software providers that look the other way when their clients use their product to "rip off" retail users are going to be unpopular.

Software providers - both Microgaming and Playtech - have been known to step in where there is a clear problem such as blatant fraud or insolvency. It could thus be said that they are meeting any such moral obligation.

There is NO SUCH THING AS BONUS ABUSE, casinos are NOT in the business of "entertainment", they are in the business to make money. THEY make all the rules, and players have to accept them or go elsewhere. Having these secret rules where they can void winnings just because a player PLAYED TO WIN, rather than just allowed his balance to steadily decline to zero, is not going tobe acceptable to the player community, and if casinos that persist in behaving in this manner become unpopular, and this then reflects badly on the software provider, that is tough.

I've said this for many years. And I continue to agree, but all of this is irrelevant to any claim you make that the software provider is RESPONSIBLE.

I have actually spoken similar words at conferences and made it clear to operators that rogue operations will not be tolerated, and that software providers really need to find a way to control any damage which results from badly-managed operations.

For Microgaming, 888, Ongame, NetEnt, that is eCOGRA. For Playtech, there is currently nothing in place even after they have been to the table with eCOGRA a number of times.

So let's close this line of discussion - you made a statement which had no basis in fact, only wild supposition. You can turn and twist every which way you like, and while I might personally agree with your overall position, you cannot be allowed to make statements on the type of wild conjecture as in the past, regardless of who you are targeting.

To make it short: we're on the same side - but there is a line between fact and fiction and you (and I, and everyone else) need to make sure we do not cross this line.

 

[RobWin]

For Playtech, there is currently nothing in place even after they have been to the table with eCOGRA a number of times.

Why ?? What happened in the breakdown as far as getting on board with eCOGRA ??

 

[chuchu59]

Dont know about there being a central blacklist for Playtech but definitely some Playtech casinos shared a database and this was the same with RTG. I was once denied registering at a Playtech casino and when I asked support the reason given was they branded me a bonus abuser. I cant remember which one it was though. The funny thing was that, at that time I was still able to register and play at several other Playtechs. It was the same thing at RTG and the casino Powerbet made the same accusation. Lucky for me though as I didnt know they were rogue.

As for MG, I cannot recall any casino branding me for such behaviour so for me I never knew such a blacklist existed. In fact, I have never been denied any match bonuses on signing up.

 

[spearmaster]

Why ?? What happened in the breakdown as far as getting on board with eCOGRA ??

I wouldn't know - can only assume that they couldn't reach an agreement on something or other.

Dont know about there being a central blacklist for Playtech but definitely some Playtech casinos shared a database and this was the same with RTG.

I think it should be noted that if a casino comes from the same ownership group, they often share similar information - this would be no different than being banned from land-based casinos owned by the same group.

 

[RobWin]

I wouldn't know - can only assume that they couldn't reach an agreement on something or other.



I think it should be noted that if a casino comes from the same ownership group, they often share similar information - this would be no different than being banned from land-based casinos owned by the same group.

I think most all the casinos in Vegas and AC share a central database with each other as far as card counters and such go. Probably several other locations too !

 

[spearmaster]

I think most all the casinos in Vegas and AC share a central database with each other as far as card counters and such go. Probably several other locations too !

Actually, I'm not so sure of this, unless they have similar ownership. I don't think it would be shared across ownership lines, unless for other reasons such as the Nevada Gaming Board's own blacklist - and that's not operator, that's jurisdiction.

Old / Expired Link

 

[RobWin]

Actually, I'm not so sure of this, unless they have similar ownership. I don't think it would be shared across ownership lines, unless for other reasons such as the Nevada Gaming Board's own blacklist - and that's not operator, that's jurisdiction.

Old / Expired Link

Yea, you may be right about the Gaming Board or a jurisdiction issue. I'm not exactly sure about that one either. My dad worked in security at Harrah's properties for years and then moved over to The Resorts property (different corporate ownership) and had mentioned to me before that they shared the same lists but that's really as far as my knowledge goes on that.

 

[funky_seagull]

Irrelevant. Just because Mazda has ABS doesn't mean that Skoda do. Nor is it very likely either.


Playtech is a software provider. Unfortunately, they are not a member of eCOGRA nor any other regulatory body other than the jurisdictions of the individual operators. A complaint should go to these jurisdictions - not to the software provider.

Microsoft is a software provider. If said software is used in ways it was not intended, do you go to Microsoft, or do you go to the constabulary?

Volkswagen is an automobile manufacturer. If their car is involved in an accident because it was not driven as intended (ie. over the speed limit), do you complain to VW?

Let's get this straight once and for all. Address your complaints to the right place and they deserve to be addressed. Complaints to Playtech, or to any software provider, should only be a last resort after NORMAL methods (ie. operator and jurisdiction) are exhausted.

As harsh as that sounds, that's the way most things work.



Playtech is not a police force. It is a software provider. Please see above. Furthermore, to the best of my recollection, it has never said that any "whole thing" is a conspiracy. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh, and btw, Playtech never says anything anyhow



Sheesh. Playtech is not under any obligation to prove it has this or that, and the same goes for any other software provider - with the SOLE exception that they must prove their software operates according to industry standards and only when reasonable doubt exists.

I disagree I think it should be part of their business to care. If they want to create gambling software then they have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so.

I avoid RTG casinos because they in my mind have become associated with dodgy casinos. Playtech should care about who they license their software to, and make damn well sure they aren't a dodgy outfit or do anything dodgy else pull the plug on the dodgy casino.

To me it just stinks of greed and wanting the money and not really caring whom is licensed as long as they pay the software provider lets them do what they like.

The problem for playtech is, like RTG if they don't do anything about dodgy casinos who use their software eventually players will be put off playing them as they will equate playtech with dodgy. Playtech would be better off getting a good reputation for themselves by being a software provider who cares about the way the casinos they license their software to behave.

This isn't about cars, this is about people risking their money on games of chance and trusting the software and casinos they place their bets with. If someone wants to make a living out of licensing gambling software, they need to be strict about whom they license to and not just think about the money.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Dont know about there being a central blacklist for Playtech but definitely some Playtech casinos shared a database and this was the same with RTG. I was once denied registering at a Playtech casino and when I asked support the reason given was they branded me a bonus abuser. I cant remember which one it was though. The funny thing was that, at that time I was still able to register and play at several other Playtechs. It was the same thing at RTG and the casino Powerbet made the same accusation. Lucky for me though as I didnt know they were rogue.

As for MG, I cannot recall any casino branding me for such behaviour so for me I never knew such a blacklist existed. In fact, I have never been denied any match bonuses on signing up.

While circumstantial, if there is no link between the casino who brands a player "bonus abuser" and other casinos they have played at, this is pretty much a "central" database, rather than an "in house" database. It is not necessary for EVERY casino to share the central database, as with Rival, there are a handful who have decided to get rid of the central database where it comes to flagging "promotional abuse", although presumably they will still use it for identifying fraud.

 

[spearmaster]

I disagree I think it should be part of their business to care. If they want to create gambling software then they have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so.

Yes, they might care from a personal or corporate standpoint - but no, it is still not their business to interfere, just as Microsoft doesn't tell you what to do with Windows or Office (though Microsoft's license actually allows them to do so).

One has to draw a line somewhere - I used to think software manufacturers should get involved too, but once I realized the distinction I understood. With Microgaming, at least you have eCOGRA to assist.

 

[sdaddy]

While circumstantial, if there is no link between the casino who brands a player "bonus abuser" and other casinos they have played at, this is pretty much a "central" database, rather than an "in house" database. It is not necessary for EVERY casino to share the central database, as with Rival, there are a handful who have decided to get rid of the central database where it comes to flagging "promotional abuse", although presumably they will still use it for identifying fraud.

The strongest evidence I'm aware of for this shared "central" database of bonus abusers among Playtech casinos comes from the T&C of one of it's licensees, Class 1 Casino:

The Casino reserves the right to bar any promotion abusers from receiving any further promotions at CLASS 1 CASINO, as well as the right to pass on any information regarding known abusers to Playtech. This will ensure that they will be barred from promotions at all Casinos utilizing the services of Playtech.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The strongest evidence I'm aware of for this shared "central" database of bonus abusers among Playtech casinos comes from the T&C of one of it's licensees, Class 1 Casino:

The Casino reserves the right to bar any promotion abusers from receiving any further promotions at CLASS 1 CASINO, as well as the right to pass on any information regarding known abusers to Playtech. This will ensure that they will be barred from promotions at all Casinos utilising the services of Playtech.

EXACTLY!

This clearly indicates that they pass such information "to Playtech", which indicates at the very least that Playtech has some kind of scheme in place to receive such information from it's licensees.
If one were instantly banned at an unrelated casino after playing at a Playtech casino with this kind of term, the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES is that said term describes the process by which the information has circulated.

If this is not the case, then Class 1 casino has landed Playtech in the proverbial by implying it is Playtech that receive the information, as opposed to another party that might be running some kind of "blacklist" system.
If this is damaging to them, Playtech should REQUIRE the REMOVAL of the phrase "to Playtech" in such licensee terms, so that Playtech are not represented as the operator of such a database.

It is terms like this in Playtech casinos that has me strongly of the opinion that Playtech (maybe through an arms-length subsidiary) do indeed operate a central database of "high risk players", and that not only fraud, but "promotion abuse" is being tracked.

This is exactly like the terms we are seeing in MGS casinos, and here there seems little dissent about whether there is an MGS central "promotion abuse" database.

 

[spearmaster]

I am pretty certain that Playtech is not in a position to receive such information. The fact that a "right" is reserved does not mean that such right actually exists.

That being said - I agree the casino should not be making such a representation and that perhaps Playtech themselves may want to look into it - so no harm sending an email to them through their website. And if they don't respond - you've done your bit.

 

[jetset]

I disagree I think it should be part of their business to care. If they want to create gambling software then they have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so.

I avoid RTG casinos because they in my mind have become associated with dodgy casinos. Playtech should care about who they license their software to, and make damn well sure they aren't a dodgy outfit or do anything dodgy else pull the plug on the dodgy casino.

To me it just stinks of greed and wanting the money and not really caring whom is licensed as long as they pay the software provider lets them do what they like.

The problem for playtech is, like RTG if they don't do anything about dodgy casinos who use their software eventually players will be put off playing them as they will equate playtech with dodgy. Playtech would be better off getting a good reputation for themselves by being a software provider who cares about the way the casinos they license their software to behave.

This isn't about cars, this is about people risking their money on games of chance and trusting the software and casinos they place their bets with. If someone wants to make a living out of licensing gambling software, they need to be strict about whom they license to and not just think about the money.

I'm afraid I have to support Funky Seagull here in opposition to the view expressed by my old mate Spear.

There may not be a formal legal obligation on the software provider (and the lawyers have probably insulated them as usual anyway) but for moral and practical reasons as outlined above by Funky there is a very real need for them to be aware of what their licensees are doing, and where necessary police (or if you prefer "guide") them to the path of righteousness!

Reputable, in-it-for-the-long-haul software providers know this and pay attention to offensive or dishonest licensee reports.

Others not so. We can all think of software providers we would rather avoid because the behaviour of their licensees is outrageous. Relying on new blood or not, reputation is a precious thing and only the short-sighted ignore this.

The bottom line is that bad customer perceptions are not good for overall business.

However, the preference may be for more behind-the-scenes activity by the software provider in these matters for obvious reasons.

I therefore suggest that notifications of bad behaviour by licensees should be sent to software providers and publicised widely as additional pressure when a player is being blown off.

It works more often than not.

 

[RobWin]

I'm afraid I have to support Funky Seagull here in opposition to the view expressed by my old mate Spear.

There may not be a formal legal obligation on the software provider (and the lawyers have probably insulated them as usual anyway) but for moral and practical reasons as outlined above by Funky there is a very real need for them to be aware of what their licensees are doing, and where necessary police (or if you prefer "guide") them to the path of righteousness!

Reputable, in-it-for-the-long-haul software providers know this and pay attention to offensive or dishonest licensee reports.

Others not so. We can all think of software providers we would rather avoid because the behaviour of their licensees is outrageous. Relying on new blood or not, reputation is a precious thing and only the short-sighted ignore this.

The bottom line is that bad customer perceptions are not good for overall business.

However, the preference may be for more behind-the-scenes activity by the software provider in these matters for obvious reasons.

I therefore suggest that notifications of bad behaviour by licensees should be sent to software providers and publicised widely as additional pressure when a player is being blown off.

It works more often than not.

Exactly, also the same way GM (General Motors) pays attention to offensive or dishonest GM car dealerships as I have had to actually go to GM in the past to get a problem resolved that the dealership continuously tried to blow me off on and would not address the problem...GM saw to it that the problem was fixed and resolved to my satisfaction, since they were the one's that were backing the dealership with THEIR PRODUCT.

 

[spearmaster]

I'm afraid I have to support Funky Seagull here in opposition to the view expressed by my old mate Spear.

There may not be a formal legal obligation on the software provider (and the lawyers have probably insulated them as usual anyway) but for moral and practical reasons as outlined above by Funky there is a very real need for them to be aware of what their licensees are doing, and where necessary police (or if you prefer "guide") them to the path of righteousness!

Reputable, in-it-for-the-long-haul software providers know this and pay attention to offensive or dishonest licensee reports.

Others not so. We can all think of software providers we would rather avoid because the behaviour of their licensees is outrageous. Relying on new blood or not, reputation is a precious thing and only the short-sighted ignore this.

The bottom line is that bad customer perceptions are not good for overall business.

However, the preference may be for more behind-the-scenes activity by the software provider in these matters for obvious reasons.

I therefore suggest that notifications of bad behaviour by licensees should be sent to software providers and publicised widely as additional pressure when a player is being blown off.

It works more often than not.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing

However, I should point out that I did say:

Software providers - both Microgaming and Playtech - have been known to step in where there is a clear problem such as blatant fraud or insolvency. It could thus be said that they are meeting any such moral obligation.

What some may consider "bad behaviour" may not appear the same way to others. I fully agree that ultimately there is some moral obligation - but there is still going to be the issue of exactly what is considered to have crossed the moral line.

I also agree that they need to care - particularly as I have a background in brand and crisis management - but again they still have to do so with limited resources, they can't be expected to monitor every casino all the time on any issue that comes up.

As I have pointed out before, Microsoft cannot be expected to monitor any and all usage of its software products, just as Volkswagen cannot be expected to do the same with its vehicles. The best they can do, barring any obvious or urgent issue, is release the best possible product they can.

So perhaps it's best to say that there IS agreement on moral responsibility - but NOT on exactly what constitutes a breach of morality.