Corrupt Online Gaming

[4 of a kind]

I decided to finally get off my chest once and for all, and express my personal opinions on several topics.

I’ve only been an active member here for a year and nine months. Although, that may appear to be a short time for many members here; for me it was enough time to come to the following conclusions.

When I first joined here after the UIGEA was passed it was obvious to me at that time that things were changing for the worst with online gaming. I’ve joined and participated in several other gaming forums, but this site was always the predominate choice. I’m also certain it’s obvious to most that I’m now being viewed as a rebel. When I first joined I was optimistic and even impressed to learn about what I had no clue of. But after reading thousands of threads here and at other forums, I’ve concluded that it’s just not possible to run a players advocate site on the one hand and in the other collecting sponsorship funds from the same people their suppose to be protecting us from. I know someone has to pay the bills, but when it comes to online gaming it’s just not going to work. (for most) I know many of the same die hard casinomiester fans are going to respond to these comments, but I’m sorry to say, player advocates / casino payments is like trying to mix oil and water.

I’ve seen in to many cases biased, misleading, banning members, and in some cases blatantly corrupt behavior take place one to many times. We’ve all seen in just about every serious issue casino reps., advocates, affiliates, constantly refusing to enter threatening threads. Extremely serious issues and accusations never finding a conclusion, just eventually being swept under the carpet and fade away. Many experienced players like me trying to point out issues that may not be obvious to others in an effort to help, only to find themselves being attacked from the die hard faithful. (Always the same little group of fans) In many cases these same people actually trying to help others will eventually end up banned. If the casinos were challenged the same way experienced players trying to help were, maybe this cesspool business would have a chance to correct itself and become fun again.

The sad truth is that regardless what anyone person can prove, the casinos will never change without serious regulation. I’m familiar with an issue where a person’s life has been threatened if he came forward. Why should he be willing to take that chance? Even if he came forward it would only obviously have a serious impact for a short period of time, until they re-brand, re-sell, or whatever, which we already have seen many times already in the past.

Online gaming has become the new definition for corrupt, regardless what one may be foolish enough to believe.

[Westland Bowl]

It's hard to keep the online casinos honest when the cards are controlled by them. The online casinos can pass the randomness audits with flying colors but that doesn't mean anything if a betting strategy is used. Their RNGs analyzes how you play (it is naive to believe they don't) and it is pretty darn hard to win once it figures your strategy. Therefore, what's the point of playing online casinos anymore?

At this point, if the status quo continues in the online casino industry, I would not care if the US passes online gambling regulation as long as card drawing is hidden and in control of the online casino. I'd rather push for land casinos to open up in more states. I have yet to see cards moving around by themselves in a shoe in response to my blackjack strategy.

[nisosbar]

Can you be more specific? For example, is there a particular thread where you find that CM failed to do what, in your opinion, should have been done?

I mean, without specifics, it's difficult to understand what your point here is.

[StaceyLee]

I hear ya 4ofaKind and do acknowledge your bravery in holding a stand with the fact that you simply want a clear, precise answer to this issue. For you to put up your own money to try and uncover some truth shows how passionate and dedicated you are to this issue. As I roam the forum it does appear that a considerable amount of discussion is about the integrity of computer programming with RNG's.

And I too have my suspicions, how can one not, when there is no valid proof or guarantee that we are playing against lady luck alone. But then I become complacent for awhile, as chasing further seems as hopeless as finding that elusive needle in a haystack - especially as I personally do not have any comprehensive knowledge or lengthy experience in this industry.

I then also wonder about where the line is drawn - how grey is the middle between black and white - when it comes to the forum providing a support base for players, yet receiving it's bread and butter from the one's we seek a fair deal from. Survival, is I believe, the predominant force here and without the current arrangement, where would we have the opportunity to discuss the "politics" of on-line casinos. For CM to rely on players making contributions to provide an income for full-time commitment to advocating would not be a secure option. So I will always sit on the fence with this one as I have personally reaped many rewards for being provided the opportunity to become a member and gain valuable information outside of the current issue.

I then ask myself, if I was in a position where I was a consistent player and a consistent winner for a long time, (dreamer) and I was offered remuneration by a casino to advocate on their behalf - would I accept - knowing full well that those that I help lure in, run a huge risk of losing their bread and butter money. What gets in the way of this one is morality. And even though I consider myself to have high values and morals I would surely be tempted and possibly could even accept: after all I could then turn a blind eye to what happens to everyone else, because surely I am only doing the right thing by providing better survival for myself. The hard part that I would have to ignore is that to increase my nest I have to be draining someone else's.

All said and done though, this is the world we live in and this is business. We are unfortunately not at liberty to go sit in a beautiful forest singing and eating strawberries all day. But as history shows, to make change and to be heard, enough people need to join the march for there is no doubt that rallies, strikes, protests, etc are a definite path to resolving issues.

So whether or not there is ever a resolution to this issue, I respect your dedication and commitment to trying and should your endeavours reach a point where voices need to be heard to help persuade the conglomerates to provide valid proof of their services, I will certainly put my pen to paper.

Cheers
StaceyLee

[jod5413]

Oh for Heaven's sake, 4oak. Get a life. To come here and do nothing but bad mouth this site with your ridiculous and ignorant comments is truly disgusting.

I’m also certain it’s obvious to most that I’m now being viewed as a rebel

Rebel? Ha ha ha, that's rich!

Maybe you are going through a mid life crisis and need to disrespect Casinomeister to prove you are still a force to be reckoned with?

I would assume if we are all messed up and this site is problematic for you, you will be ending your membership here? Maybe you and your good buddies (Robwin and/or Scuter and/or ??) can put together a truly "good and honest" forum for folks like you?

StaceyLee, you are a newbie and as such it is easy for some members here to steer you wrong. Please do your research here and elsewhere before you actually commit to one train of thought.

[jetset]

Jod tells it like it is, and in this instance I have to agree with her.

4oak has done nothing but whinge (not 'rebel' - whinge) here about the industry and the people in it, and how corrupt the whole thing is etc etc ad nauseum, apparently trying to either build a heroic maverick reputation for himself or discredit the webmaster and his staff here for reasons unknown to me.

Over and over and over again - always the same whiney and almost entirely negative comments and aspersions. There's just no balance to it, and that imo discredits or at the very least dilutes the content.

I happen to support his view that bona fide regulation could be an effective answer to many of the problems that exist. That is happening, albeit on a fragmented basis outside the USA, but that is politicians at work - often in self-interested, corrupt and wheeler dealing processes that frankly pay only lip service to the real protection of the player.

As a member here 4oak is entitled to express an opinion, however misguided, biased or ill-informed this might be in the opinion of other members, and he has done that. There will inevitably be those who support his view, and that is their right, too.

But again, imo this total condemnation of an industry in which there are many good operators, large companies of integrity and fair businessmen actually dilutes the credibility of his outraged rants. A little balance goes a long way, and I see little evidence of this in his posts....but that's my personal view.

The obvious question one asks oneself in viewing repetitive assaults of this nature is: "If the poster feels so strongly that everything about this industry is irredeemably corrupt and evil, why has he/she hung around it on the message board periphery for so long? Surely the sensible move for someone so utterly convinced of the criminally crooked and fraudulent nature would turn his or her back on it in sheer disgust, frustration and impotence?

But then, 4oak may feel that continual negative public railing and ranting can bring about the change desired? In the absence of other initiatives, some driven by the industry itself, that's arguable imv.

There are undeniably aspects of this industry that need to be rooted out and changed for the better, and this Casinomeister site has done way more than its fair share in doing this, and continues to do so. Players need to continue to expose wrongdoing in a factual and as far as possible well considered manner in order for this process to continue.

But to consign the entire industry to the rubbish tip is going too far....

[maxd]

I think Jetset has said what needs be said regarding the casino side of things. I'd like to say a few words about the portal side of things, Casinomeister in particular since CM was one of 4oak's targets.

Those of you that have been around the online gambling scene for a few years or more will probably be having a strong sense of deja vu after reading 4oak's post. Every once in a while some forum poster, usually someone known for being outspoken and at the center of more than their fair share of forum rows, will claim that sites like Casinomeister must be corrupt because that's their only option if they accept advertiser money. They reason that since the money flows from advertiser to website the favours must be flowing from website to advertiser. Every major online gaming portal in the history of the business has been thusly accused, usually every few months or so. And the accuser's message has remained uncannily consistent in that it's almost always the same thing being said, over and over again.

For those of you who may not have swallowed this line of reasoning without question I would suggest to you that you ask yourself one question: is the accuser's message based on anything factual or is it just them saying "I think there must be corruption therefor there is"? I respectfully suggest that the vast majority of the time it is the latter, the "it must be so" argument.

The problem is that's no argument at all. People used to say our world was flat because "it must be so". Or Earth was the center of the cosmos because "it must be so". Or some poor man or woman was a witch and must die because "it must be so".

What we're really talking about here is a failure to see further than one's own reasoning allows. It's basically saying "I can't imagine how such a thing is possible therefor it is not possible". It's a shortcoming on the observer's part being projected onto the thing observed.

The point in this case is that there are many reasons why advertisers advertise on sites where they do not in fact call the shots. The primary reason being that if there are enough eyes seeing the adverts then the advertiser's purpose is accomplished, regardless of what else the site says, does, or aspires to.

Or, look at it this way: do the people who advertise on billboards control the Highways Departments? There is revenue being generated so surely the Highways Department must be doing favours for the advertisers, or so the "it must be so" logic goes.

Of course we know that the billboard advertisers generally do not control the Highways Department and any suggestion that they do would normally be met with howls of derision. I suggest to the readers that the accusations against Casinomeister forwarded here are of the same calibre and deserve pretty much the same response.

[Nate]

The sad truth is that regardless what anyone person can prove, the casinos will never change without serious regulation. I’m familiar with an issue where a person’s life has been threatened if he came forward. Why should he be willing to take that chance? Even if he came forward it would only obviously have a serious impact for a short period of time, until they re-brand, re-sell, or whatever, which we already have seen many times already in the past.

Online gaming has become the new definition for corrupt, regardless what one may be foolish enough to believe.

It is seemingly evident that Online Casinos WILL NOT be regulated like their B&M counterparts. There is too much at stake for the software providers if jurisdictions based successful licence applications on software credibility and available capital. Just think of it? Don't you think that RTG or Rival would be running short of customers if licensing was STRICT? Don't you think that certain jurisdictions would stand to lose a ton of money in licence fees if they were more strict?

What still leaves a question mark in my head is how certain software’s and operators gain licences or are certified by third parties. If you look at the bigger picture, the CASINO provides the data for an audit to take place.

A B&M is audited on site by a third party and a regulator allowing ALL parties, FULL, Unrestricted access to all reports, data and software audit trails highlighting changes. An online Casino on the other hand, (Or at least what I’ve read on some of them) SUBMIT their data to a third party. The auditors / third party are not invited on site to have full unrestricted access to complete their audit. Audits are occurring from an office of a 3rd party in the USA and the Casino server is based in the Netherlands. How does that work? Is it easy for Casinos to manipulate data and forward it to a 3rd party? Can we believe that the integrity of the data was not manipulated? If the Casino says it was not.... it's hearsay as far as im concerned.

Are there regulatory requirements for Online Casinos when there are software changes / enhancements to software? I don't think so. Some online Casinos don't report anything to their licensing authority. The licence they receive from some of the jurisdictions basically boils down to 'You may operate an Online Casino'.

In a nutshell, regulation is thin and far from rooting out thieves. As I stated before, there is a bigger picture to regulation by governments. it's not only about keeping the money in the country, but about Job creation, Fairness, An authority to complain to (who is able to pull a licence) and integrity.

I have been playing for many years online and find it hard to believe that payouts are becoming a more distant hope than ever. Continuous Ludicrous runs of 'Bad Luck' on software is being labelled as 'Normal' or touted as Lady Luck not visiting you... BS if you ask me!

It is also evident that when DIRECT questions are posed to Reps or Casino managers, they are avoided or never answered directly....

The integrity of many casinos and sotware providers have been thoroughly soiled; BUT, they continue to operate and all is forgotten... It's a cut throat business and involves so much of money, some are willing to kill for it!


Nate

[ibutlercasino]

Well put,

From the casino side of things, I can say that regulation in the jurisdiction of the casino is not a pass with flying colors affair as said, I can speak for jurisdictions like Malta, Gibraltar, Alderney, Isle of Man which I know personally, there is a period of 6 months of vigorous testing by the gaming authority, let alone that the hardware RNG device has been certified to be random by the local Weights and Measures Authorities. You can read about these devices here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardwar...mber_generator. Now if as you say some casinos have biased their software in favor of the casino I find that unlikely as they are spot audited(unannounced) and risk losing their license which so much time and money has been invested into. Also why would they bother getting 3rd party certification. Initially I would reflect on my playing style, see if I am chasing winnings or playing against the odds, which is usually the case I have seen in my years in this industry. Regarding monitoring players, this is done not by the RNG but by agents and if they see someone stricken by bad luck in most cases they will issue a goodwill credit to the customer. I agree the more regulation there is the better, but at the same time we cannot deny that the licensed casinos are regulated already and more regulation will only mean higher costs for licensing in different jurisdictions which would eventually be worked into the payout percentages of the games(meaning that they would drop the payout to the lowest permissible by the authorities) something that would really make the conspiracy theorists start yelling corruption. Its a matter of cross government agreements just as with other forms of trade. For example cars must have specific standards from country to country, that doesn't mean they have to be built there or licensed there.

Just my (personal)two cents

[P.V.]

Or, look at it this way: do the people who advertise on billboards control the Highways Departments? There is revenue being generated so surely the Highways Department must be doing favours for the advertisers, or so the "it must be so" logic goes.

Never mind, read this quote wrong.