Pinnacle/Galewind T's & C's

[TheLastCylon]

Binary, you've said that you read my most recent stuff, so you are aware that I started quite a lengthy thread on T&C's. Near the end of it, I produced a list of specific T&C's that I find particularly egregious. The list is as follows:

• Robot Exclusion
• “We don't like you” exclusion
• Cash-out exclusions
• Spirit of the casino
• Spirit of the bonus
• Pattern betting
• No responsibility clause

Some of these require a bit of explanation, and those are all available in my post. I understand that responding to these questions may require a bit of work, but I, and I'm sure many other CM members, would appreciate the perspective of a company head. Moreover, I argue that these are questions that every casino should be prepared to answer.

What is your company's official position on these conditions? And what differences are there between Pinnacle and Galewind?

 

[binary128]

OK, you've got a list, so lets take it an item at a time.

Give me a little bit to pull some content together on your first item, "Robot Exclusion", and I'll come back when I've got something that's worth posting.

Chris

 

[binary128]

I'd like to differentiate between "Robots" and what I'll call "Alternative Client Interfaces". (Don't worry - I'll explain that second one in another post.)

I view online Casino "Robots" as software programs that have been built to do one thing - you "plug them in" and they play the Casino game for you.

A Player might want to use a Robot because, for those games in which Player decisions are involved, they are programmed to execute "statistically perfect" game play. For these types of games, human error typically adds about 0.8% to 1.0% of Casino profit to the House Edge (HE). Robots remove this profit. Casinos therefore don't like Robots, and to deal with them include "No Robots Allowed" in their T&Cs.

(NOTE: Robots have no impact on any slots, Keno, any Roulettes, Baccarat, Craps, Sic Bo, or any of the multitude of other Casino games in which there are no Player decisions involved.)

Robots have historically been linked to "bonus abuse" ("bonus grinders", and like that). However, my memory of the 3 biggest hits suffered by Players as a result of a Casino applying the "No Robots Allowed" T&C (

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

, Heroes Casino, and (the oldie but goodie) RTG) had little or nothing to do with bonuses.


Invitation for Reader Input #1 - Can any other readers provide additional examples of Casinos that applied the "No Robots Allowed" T&C to withhold payment?


So, no big deal at this point. A Casino catches a Player using a Robot, and they confiscate their winnings, block their account, what have you.

BUT ...........

The trouble comes when the Casino needs to prove that the Player was actually using a Robot.

I haven't done any detailed historical investigation here.

However, in the examples that come to my mind - no proof was provided! The court was held in secret, and the Casino was Judge, Jury and Executioner! They literally just kept the Player's money. IMO, that is the very definition of rogue behavior.


Invitation for Reader Input #2 - Can any other readers provide additional examples of Casinos that applied the "No Robots Allowed" T&C to withhold payment, but provided proof to uphold their statements.


Let's proceed under the assumption that "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is actually required. What would that proof look like?

There are 2 "Player Performance Criteria" that could possibly be used (and have been referenced for use) to prove that the "Player" is a Robot:

1. Game play time that is both quicker and more uniform than "normal" (whatever "normal" is).

2. Statistically perfect game play over a large sample size.

All data for this proof resides in the game's play logs. The ONLY source for those logs is the Casino. The Casino needs to make those logs available in order to demonstrate proof.

Having done that, what are the criteria for "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"? What is the minimum sample size? 50? That's silly, 500? That's also silly. How about 5,000?

5,000 rounds, at 4 seconds per round average, is about 6 hours of play (depending on the software). IMO, and based partially on my personal experience, I would say that 5,000 games (6 hours) is the absolute minimum sample size. If "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is the criteria, I would increase that to 10,000 games.


Item #1 - Game Play Time

We now have 10,000 rounds of game play data ready for analysis. The question - to what do we compare any analysis results? Thin air? Speculation, conjecture, opinion? All of those certainly fail the "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" criteria.

I would say that we would need the same logs for at least 5 other Players who have demonstrated similar game counts, and game frequencies, as the suspect Player but who are not questioned by the Casino as using a Robot.

And finally, who does the analysis? The Casino? Certainly not. We need an independent testing lab to do the work. I know that Certified Fair Gambling (CFG) is available, and I'm sure there are several others.

So, the Casino needs to submit 10,000-round game play log samples for 6 Players to a testing lab, without identifying to the lab which of the 6 is the suspect Player.

In Galewind's Casino backend, it might take us an hour or two to find 5 other Players and create the log files. Again based on personal experience, I know that analysis of this type is not very difficult. I would be surprised if it took more than 2 hours for the lab to complete it and return the results to the Casino.

So, approximately 4 hours of work by the Casino and the Testing Lab, and we now have some decent data to work with.

But what do we do with this data? Say that we let the Testing Lab identify which of the 6 is the Robot user. What criteria would they use? What difference in Standard Deviation absolutely identifies the robot? There are no published criteria for this kind of stuff - you can't just look it up in Wikipedia. All of those involved are more or less making it up as they go along.

And then we would have to trust the Casino to confirm that the Testing Lab's identification is indeed their suspect Player. Hmm, hmm, hmm ...


Item #2 - Statistically Perfect Game Play

The Casino has declared that the games were played using a Robot, therefore those 10,000 games should demonstrate statistically perfect game play.

Who is going to spend the required time to look through 10,000 games, compare each of them to the required standard for "statistically perfect", and determine "yes" or "no"? The Casino? Certainly not. Again, some independent source would need to be found.

I'm not aware of any software program for doing this. Someone would have to do this 10,000 game comparison manually. Wow! Brain freeze would set in by sample 1,000. What is the error rate for doing this kind of manual comparison? My guess - really large.

There is even the problem of the "required standard" for comparison. I am aware of 3 different "Optimal strategies" for Blackjack alone.


So, in summary:

I have NEVER seen anything even closely resembling what I have outlined above provided as proof of a Player using a Robot.

IMO, I just don't think that it is possible. I mean, look at all of the variables, all of the complications, all of the unknowns, all of the guesswork that I've detailed above.


Invitation for Reader Input #3 - If anyone can find an instance where a Casino claimed "Robot Use" and the above level of proof was provided then I would be very interested in reading it.


Galewind/Pinnacle does not have a "No Robots Allowed" clause in their T&Cs. This has been true forever.

1. We don't care if the Player is using a Robot. (Are there robot Players at Pinnacle? I have no idea.)

2. Attempting to prove it "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is a waste of time and money.


Casinomeister says it - "... those operators that ban bots are either naive, unschooled in casino math, or are just inexperienced."

The Wizard of Odds says it, and I'm saying it - it's just silly.

Again IMO, any reputable Casino that has a "No Robots Allowed" clause in their T&Cs, just take the plunge and get it out of there.

Oh, and robots associated with DDOS attacks - those types of things are pretty well handled by governmental and or ISP regulations. Their inclusion in T&Cs is not required.

Chris

 

[dionysus]

Just my 2 cents, but I can think of an instance where a bot might impact play. If the casino is running tournaments allowing X time and X coins, someone who uses a bot to speed up play beyond what a regular player with a quick finger and good connection seems a rather unfair advantage it it grants them more spins than others.

 

[binary128]

Just my 2 cents, but I can think of an instance where a bot might impact play. If the casino is running tournaments allowing X time and X coins, someone who uses a bot to speed up play beyond what a regular player with a quick finger and good connection seems a rather unfair advantage it it grants them more spins than others.

Dionysus,

I agree that robots impact play. A quote from my post:

A Player might want to use a Robot because, for those games in which Player decisions are involved, they are programmed to execute "statistically perfect" game play. For these types of games, human error typically adds about 0.8% to 1.0% of Casino profit to the House Edge (HE). Robots remove this profit.

Robots impact play for regular games, for Tournament games, for all sorts of games.

So, yup, no doubt about it, robots impact play.

Chris

 

[maxd]

Thread title changed: less poetry, more to the point.

 

[P.V.]

Thread title changed: less poetry, more to the point.

Thanks Max...


You forgot, less searching, I've been all over following this stuff and multiple threads. Thanks!

 

[Jufo]

A Player might want to use a Robot because, for those games in which Player decisions are involved, they are programmed to execute "statistically perfect" game play. For these types of games, human error typically adds about 0.8% to 1.0% of Casino profit to the House Edge (HE). Robots remove this profit. Casinos therefore don't like Robots, and to deal with them include "No Robots Allowed" in their T&Cs.

The double standard here is that those same casinos also advocate "Responsible Gaming" and have banners everywhere: "Gamble responsibly". A bot does just that, it doesn't increase bets when it gets frustrated or make errors in haste. So if a casino was truly held accountable that they support responsible gambling they might have to allow bots as a part of it. Right now casinos can claim to support responsible gambling, yet their every policy might actually be contradicting it (for example "low-risk wagers not allowed with a bonus" etc.).

Invitation for Reader Input #1 - Can any other readers provide additional examples of Casinos that applied the "No Robots Allowed" T&C to withhold payment?

I think one of the most interesting case is this:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/resolved-casino-club-robot-or-no-bot.27977/

In short: Player gambled 80 EUR to 8000 EUR in Blackjack by betting 1000 EUR hands at the end. The casino refused payment claiming that he was using a bot because he played at a rate of 500 hands per hour. Bryan and maxd agreed with the casino and banned the player from forum. However due to input from players that playing 500 hands per hour is nothing superhuman and other examination of logs pointed to plain regular gambling and no evidence of bot play whatsoever. In the end player was paid. This is a typical example of winnings confiscation for bot play where casino had zero evidence for it and even logical reasoning was against it.

Just my 2 cents, but I can think of an instance where a bot might impact play. If the casino is running tournaments allowing X time and X coins, someone who uses a bot to speed up play beyond what a regular player with a quick finger and good connection seems a rather unfair advantage it it grants them more spins than others.

True, I have used my own auto-clicker in slots tournaments as it spins faster than the built-in autoplay feature. Also those with faster computers have advantage over those with slower ones. There is an easy fix though: allocate enough playing time so that even the slowest player has enough time to use all of his/her coins within the tournament. I have brought this problem up with the parties running the tournaments but they don't seem to care whether everyone is on the same playing field or not.

 

[maxd]

This is a typical example of winnings confiscation for bot play where casino had zero evidence for it and even logical reasoning was against it.

I beg to differ. It was a case where the evidence available was misinterpreted, a failure in reasoning not a lack thereof.

 

[binary128]

@Jufo,

Re the link which you included: I didn't read it all. My immediate impression was the second post from Casinomeister. It was so over the top that I was left to wonder - what did I miss here? This certainly can't be the first page of the post. Bryan doesn't "floor it" at the stop sign.

I then continued to read most of the thread.

Well, whatever else your linked thread may be an example of, it certainly exemplifies:

1. How NOT to submit play logs.

2. How NOT to analyze play logs.

3. How NOT to prove Robot use.


There were two other things that I remembered after I submitted my first post.

Thing 1. A Player played 30,000 games of Video Poker (or something like that) over an extended period of time, and in the last 3,000 games he won a Royal Flush 4 times (or something like that). The Casino cried "Robot", and said that it was not possible to win 4 RFs in 3,000 games. It took awhile for the truth to emerge - he didn't win 4 RFs in 3,000 games, he won 4 RFs in 30,000 games.


Thing 2. If play time is a part of the analysis, I completely forgot to include internet delay (latency). Someone may have a send/receive latency of 60 milliseconds (ms), and someone else may have a send/receive latency of 250 ms.

Player A - 60 ms send + 20 ms server time + 60 ms receive + 100 ms human response time = about 250 ms. (That doesn't include any game animation display time, or like that.)

Player B - 250 ms send + 20 ms server time + 250 ms receive + 100 ms human response time = about 600 ms.

Assume that both players have equivalent PCs (same amount of animation display time). That means that Player A is experiencing game play response time at over twice the speed of Player B.

BOTTOM LINE:

I add both of these examples as further complications in what is an already complicated determination of "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".

Chris

 

[Westland Bowl]

Heroes Casino was already mentioned above and yes, they claimed I used a robot/bot to win over $34,000 (eventually nearly $40,000 after all said and done.) I only used pen and paper to track my play. I am certain I did not play over 300 games a hour and I certainly did not play perfect basic strategy. But as wot to happen at times in casinos, a person can get lucky. I tend to think I got a good betting strategy that I learned from a guy named Cipher and modified for my own use but I digress. Then Heroes management/owners said I used the Cipher software "robot" to play after talking with Cipher (whom I had bad issues with previously.) However, Bryan, Maxd and Certified Fair Gaming didn't see evidence of bot play and eventually Galewind casino software themselves paid me and pulled their software from Heroes Casino. Heroes went under a year later after not finding another casino software company that will take them.

But what bot can really put the casino at a disadvantage? Within the blackjack rules, the house advantage is built in even with perfect basic strategy being played by the player and faster play by the bot would get the "long run" to kick in and nullify any "luck" the player is having, bot or no bot.

 

[Westland Bowl]

.......So, in summary:

I have NEVER seen anything even closely resembling what I have outlined above provided as proof of a Player using a Robot.

IMO, I just don't think that it is possible. I mean, look at all of the variables, all of the complications, all of the unknowns, all of the guesswork that I've detailed above.

..........

Galewind/Pinnacle does not have a "No Robots Allowed" clause in their T&Cs. This has been true forever.

1. We don't care if the Player is using a Robot. (Are there robot Players at Pinnacle? I have no idea.)

2. Attempting to prove it "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is a waste of time and money.


Casinomeister says it - "... those operators that ban bots are either naive, unschooled in casino math, or are just inexperienced."

The Wizard of Odds says it, and I'm saying it - it's just silly.

Again IMO, any reputable Casino that has a "No Robots Allowed" clause in their T&Cs, just take the plunge and get it out of there.

Oh, and robots associated with DDOS attacks - those types of things are pretty well handled by governmental and or ISP regulations. Their inclusion in T&Cs is not required.

Chris

I'm puzzled as to why online casinos even mention bots but even most of the Casinomeister Accredited Casinos have this in their T and C's along with other doofus crap in it, such as pattern betting.

 

[Seventh777]

I'm puzzled as to why online casinos even mention bots but even most of the Casinomeister Accredited Casinos have this in their T and C's along with other doofus crap in it, such as pattern betting.

It boils down to what casinos construe to be bots, there was a case a few months ago (guy called Markus/Marcus IIRC) who used his own software to force the casino`s in making bets available that would otherwise not be there, and bots help in tournaments also, again there was a case involving one of the English Harbour group where using a bot gave a player the benefit of more coins/time per rebuy (upto twice as much as the none bot using player IIRC).

So the usage/banning of bots does hold water in certain circumstances.

 

[LaHutti]

It boils down to what casinos construe to be bots, there was a case a few months ago (guy called Markus/Marcus IIRC) who used his own software to force the casino`s in making bets available that would otherwise not be there, and bots help in tournaments also, again there was a case involving one of the English Harbour group where using a bot gave a player the benefit of more coins/time per rebuy (upto twice as much as the none bot using player IIRC).

So the usage/banning of bots does hold water in certain circumstances.

There is a huge difference between using a "bot" to place your wagers within the rules of the game (basicly just an auto clicker), and using a totally different client, as in the Marcus case. He had rewritten the whole client, to be able to place wagers, AND play games, that was not available in the original client.
That is not a "bot" IMO, but a guy who made a piece of software, with the purpose of cheating the casino.
The "bot" does excactly what any player could do, again, within the rules of the game.

 

[Seventh777]

There is a huge difference between using a "bot" to place your wagers within the rules of the game (basicly just an auto clicker), and using a totally different client, as in the Marcus case. He had rewritten the whole client, to be able to place wagers, AND play games, that was not available in the original client.
That is not a "bot" IMO, but a guy who made a piece of software, with the purpose of cheating the casino.
The "bot" does excactly what any player could do, again, within the rules of the game.

Yep agreed, but, a bot is often undertaken to be 3rd party software, this can cover many aspects from auto spinning to choosing which cards to hold, hit/twist/stick etcetera.

 

[binary128]

It boils down to what casinos construe to be bots, there was a case a few months ago (guy called Markus/Marcus IIRC) who used his own software to force the casino`s in making bets available that would otherwise not be there, and bots help in tournaments also, again there was a case involving one of the English Harbour group where using a bot gave a player the benefit of more coins/time per rebuy (upto twice as much as the none bot using player IIRC).

So the usage/banning of bots does hold water in certain circumstances.

Seventh777,

The case of the fellow who used his own software to make non-standard bets - I had hoped to talk about this under my label "Alternative Client Interfaces".

However, you reference a case where a Player was using a robot at English Harbour. Do you have any links for that case? I ask because I am curious as to how they proved that the Player was indeed using a Robot.

BTW - what does IIRC stand for?

Chris

 

[Seventh777]

Seventh777,

The case of the fellow who used his own software to make non-standard bets - I had hoped to talk about this under my label "Alternative Client Interfaces".

However, you reference a case where a Player was using a robot at English Harbour. Do you have any links for that case? I ask because I am curious as to how they proved that the Player was indeed using a Robot.

BTW - what does IIRC stand for?

Chris

It was a long time ago Chris, sorry I cannot be more helpful and it wasn`t English Harbour per se, but another casino from their group, IIRC = If I Remember Correctly , i`m pretty sure this case involved the guy being able to rebuy twice thus giving him more coins and ofc being able to bet bigger, than the other competitors in tournaments.

I will break down my opinion more as I know that the guy who created his own server was obviously a cheat, but, nonetheless, it, is still categorised as using 3rd party software, just like bots, so, are we to expect that casinos allow the use of 3rd party software until they get bitten and thus leading to a ban, or for safety sake just ban any usage of 3rd party software to begin with, albeit, in some cases using 3rd party software is blatant cheating, other cases it is relatively harmless, but as in many aspects of life it`s the border line cases that will and have done, caused problems.

We all know that any perfectly legit 3rd party software cannot change the outcome of any particular game, or forecast the outcome of another, but IMHO bots that speed up tournament spins and thus giving the user the upper-hand are one such borderline case I mentioned earlier.

Sorry I couldn`t be of more help regarding the E.H. group casino.

 

[Tirilej]

Edit: Sorry, I didn't understand as usual.

 

[binary128]

Seventh777,

Gotcha.

I think, in summary, you could say that my problem with the "No Robots Allowed" T&C Clause resides solely in my strongly held belief that it is not possible to prove it "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".

The detailed requirements for proof which I have listed above are based on standard scientific experimental criteria. They are rigorous, as are all requirements for proof in the scientific world.

Subjective criteria, guesstimates, inexperienced opinions - these have no place in scientific experiments. I also believe that they have no place in providing proof "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" concerning robots in Casinos.

We have all read repeatedly that "if it's in there, and you checked the checkbox, then you are bound to it" regarding Casino T&Cs. If this one (No Robots Allowed) is in there, then I, as a Player, knowing what I know, would be very uncomfortable playing under those conditions.

Please understand - I AM NOT saying that what I have described previously as proof is what must be done exactly as written. But it is not that far off the mark.

I graduated with a degree in Engineering, and spent the first 10 years of my professional career as a research scientist. I have some knowledge of the requirements for proof in that world. Since everything which we have discussed (time of play, perfection of play, etc.) is just numbers, then the two worlds are not all that dissimilar.

I can tell you - I am not prepared to go through what I have described above, including all of the work required to quantify what is currently unknown, and comparing every hand to every possible "optimal strategy" definition for the game, in order to prove it.

However, were I to do so, then I would have no problems at all in doing everything within public view. All data would be public, all assumptions and criteria would be public, all reports would be public, all conclusions would be public, and like that.

I can also provide the data - Pinnacle/Galewind does not have a "No Robots Allowed" clause in their T&Cs, this has been true for 8 years, the walls have not come tumbling down, and I have not lost a wink of sleep over the issue.

I'll close by repeating my previous Invitation for Reader Input #3 - If anyone can find an instance where a Casino claimed "Robot Use" and the above level of proof was provided then I would be very interested in reading it.

Chris

 

[Seventh777]

Seventh777,

Gotcha.

I think, in summary, you could say that my problem with the "No Robots Allowed" T&C Clause resides solely in my strongly held belief that it is not possible to prove it "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".

The detailed requirements for proof which I have listed above are based on standard scientific experimental criteria. They are rigorous, as are all requirements for proof in the scientific world.

Subjective criteria, guesstimates, inexperienced opinions - these have no place in scientific experiments. I also believe that they have no place in providing proof "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" concerning robots in Casinos.

We have all read repeatedly that "if it's in there, and you checked the checkbox, then you are bound to it" regarding Casino T&Cs. If this one (No Robots Allowed) is in there, then I, as a Player, knowing what I know, would be very uncomfortable playing under those conditions.

Please understand - I AM NOT saying that what I have described previously as proof is what must be done exactly as written. But it is not that far off the mark.

I graduated with a degree in Engineering, and spent the first 10 years of my professional career as a research scientist. I have some knowledge of the requirements for proof in that world. Since everything which we have discussed (time of play, perfection of play, etc.) is just numbers, then the two worlds are not all that dissimilar.

I can tell you - I am not prepared to go through what I have described above, including all of the work required to quantify what is currently unknown, and comparing every hand to every possible "optimal strategy" definition for the game, in order to prove it.

However, were I to do so, then I would have no problems at all in doing everything within public view. All data would be public, all assumptions and criteria would be public, all reports would be public, all conclusions would be public, and like that.

I can also provide the data - Pinnacle/Galewind does not have a "No Robots Allowed" clause in their T&Cs, this has been true for 8 years, the walls have not come tumbling down, and I have not lost a wink of sleep over the issue.

I'll close by repeating my previous Invitation for Reader Input #3 - If anyone can find an instance where a Casino claimed "Robot Use" and the above level of proof was provided then I would be very interested in reading it.

Chris

Slight derail but basically on topic, if for arguments sake that casinos themselves use security software to track possible bot use (similar to that used by many online gaming companies including one of if not the largest company out there - Blizzard, their software is named Sentry and is very efficient), would the respective casino`s be forthcoming in exposing their ways and means?, and in doing so could give script kiddies the upper-hand in locating and hacking into it.

I for one believe that MGS uses some form of security software, which has the usual knock on affect by windows when it thinks something dodgy is going on, by refusing to release the RAM after you have exited the casino and having to (in certain cases) use task manager to end processes, also this causes problems with your security suite which will sometimes block a freshly loaded game even though you have the casino as a trusted application, thus causing you to lose connection, I don`t think there are many MGS users out there that haven`t experienced some bizarre happenings whilst playing at MGS casinos.

Derail number two lol, I noticed you have studied engineering, was this structural by any chance? .

 

[binary128]

Seventh777,

You raise an excellent point - real time robot detection.

If this is true, then I would propose real time robot rejection. It could be something as simple as returning an error code to the Player (or in this case robot).

That is, Robot makes a Deal request in Blackjack, the server responds with a generic error code, and the Deal request goes unsatisfied.

As usual, there are complications. How confident is the Casino in the system's identification of a robot?

Using this real time capability as a reason "after the fact" means that the Casino is fine with robots as long as they are losing. When you win, they bring in their "secret" robot detector.

And finally - any Casino can make this claim, whether they are running real time robot detection or not.

And if all of the problems which you describe for MGS are indeed associated with their "robot detection system" (RAM lock, Process lock, Connection lost, etc.), well ... this system kind of sucks.

This point actually feeds into my "Alternative Client Interfaces" discussion, but I don't want to get into that discussion until this "No Robots Allowed" thing has come to some sort of a conclusion.

So, to repeat, if Galewind cared enough (which we don't) to run real time robot detection (which we aren't), then we would have real time robot rejection. Pretty simple, and still no T&C requirement.

And no, it wasn't structural, although I did amazingly well in my required Civil Engineering courses. It was Chemical Engineering, which is why I then went on to start my career as a Research Scientist.

Chris

Edit:

Invitation for Reader Input #4 - Has a Casino ever rejected a Player for using a robot when the Player has lost money?

 

[Seventh777]

Seventh777,

You raise an excellent point - real time robot detection.

If this is true, then I would propose real time robot rejection. It could be something as simple as returning an error code to the Player (or in this case robot).

That is, Robot makes a Deal request in Blackjack, the server responds with a generic error code, and the Deal request goes unsatisfied.

As usual, there are complications. How confident is the Casino in the system's identification of a robot?

Using this real time capability as a reason "after the fact" means that the Casino is fine with robots as long as they are losing. When you win, they bring in their "secret" robot detector.

And finally - any Casino can make this claim, whether they are running real time robot detection or not.

And if all of the problems which you describe for MGS are indeed associated with their "robot detection system" (RAM lock, Process lock, Connection lost, etc.), well ... this system kind of sucks.

This point actually feeds into my "Alternative Client Interfaces" discussion, but I don't want to get into that discussion until this "No Robots Allowed" thing has come to some sort of a conclusion.

So, to repeat, if Galewind cared enough (which we don't) to run real time robot detection (which we aren't), then we would have real time robot rejection. Pretty simple, and still no T&C requirement.

And no, it wasn't structural, although I did amazingly well in my required Civil Engineering courses. It was Chemical Engineering, which is why I then went on to start my career as a Research Scientist.

Chris

Edit:

Invitation for Reader Input #4 - Has a Casino ever rejected a Player for using a robot when the Player has lost money?

I do understand your staunch stance on this aspect Chris and your relative evidence etcetera (or lack of from a casino`s pov) puts forward a very solid case, it`s a pity that all responses to your questions have been from players (no disrespect intended) and none from respective casinos with these T&C`s in place.

I would also like to add that I run a very outdated P.C., and even though it plays the games with np`s whatsoever I have noticed when playing at MGS, that for no reason at all my CPU usage will shoot upto 100% and in general, sounds like it would, if I were to be playing several different games at the same time, when this happens I get a window pop up telling me to turn off applications for better performance, this anomaly will happen several times during my play session whilst at the same time my CPU usage will drop back down to around the 30-40% mark.

Anyway`s Chris cheers for the deep insight into this aspect.

Roy.

P.S.

Pity you`re Engineering course didn`t follow the steps of your Civil Engineering courses .

 

[binary128]

Seventh777,

Just how old is that computer of yours? And is it running on 2-gerbil power or 3 gerbils?

I don't consider that I am on a "Mission from God" here. Yes, I am offering conclusions which some may consider controversial. But I'd guesstimate that 98% of my content is dry and dusty material drawn from my experience as a Scientist, a Programmer, and the President of a Corporation whose limited resources require constant "Is this effort worth it?" consideration.

Re your Post Script. Are you suggesting that the world needs more Civil Engineers, or that the world would be a better place if I were a Civil Engineer?

Chris

 

[Seventh777]

Seventh777,

Just how old is that computer of yours? And is it running on 2-gerbil power or 3 gerbils?

I don't consider that I am on a "Mission from God" here. Yes, I am offering conclusions which some may consider controversial. But I'd guesstimate that 98% of my content is dry and dusty material drawn from my experience as a Scientist, a Programmer, and the President of a Corporation whose limited resources require constant "Is this effort worth it?" consideration.

Re your Post Script. Are you suggesting that the world needs more Civil Engineers, or that the world would be a better place if I were a Civil Engineer?

Chris

I replied via PM Chris, to avert a huge derail lol .

 

[Jasminebed]

I can't recall a single thread where a losing player came here to complain of losing bets being returned because of robot play.

There are quite a number of instances, with both paid winners and current losers who come complaining of accounts being closed by the casino end for unspecified "security" reasons.

It's not beyond possibility that suspected bot activity was a factor in one or more.

 

[binary128]

I can't recall a single thread where a losing player came here to complain of losing bets being returned because of robot play.

There are quite a number of instances, with both paid winners and current losers who come complaining of accounts being closed by the casino end for unspecified "security" reasons.

It's not beyond possibility that suspected bot activity was a factor in one or more.

Jasminebed,

I'd agree that a Player's losing bets being returned because of a "No Robots Allowed" clause would ever result in a Casinomeister complaint. Actually, I would be amazed if something like that, losses being returned, has ever happened, or will ever happen, with a "No Robots Allowed" T&C.

I was wondering whether there was an instance of a Player who lost money and did not get that money back but was still blocked from the Casino as a Robot Player.

I was addressing my memory of the issue that it seems that only Players who win, and usually win big, are ever caught up in this "No Robots Allowed" clause. I was trying to discover whether my memory is wrong, or whether the examples in my memory are too limited.


Re "unspecified security reasons" - I completely agree that Robot use may indeed fall into that category.

Another reason of which I am aware is the Player's IP Address being on a "black list". These IP blacklists are commonly used for email spam filters, but I can see them being used for a variety of reasons, and Casino security would certainly be a logical one.

And then of course "unspecified security reasons" could be associated with some detail concerning their purchasing information/methods/what have you. Or maybe the Player is on one of those "fraudster lists" of which I have read so much.

Maybe someone with more experience in fraud management in Casino operations could jump in here with some data.

Still, even though "unspecified security reasons" covers a lot of ground, one of those reasons might indeed be suspected robot use.

Chris

 

[TheLastCylon]

Jufo, I can't thank you enough for that link.

In reading it, the point that literally leapt from the screen is that, in three and a half years, nothing has changed. Nothing!

The very same words that were said three and a half years ago are being said today.

Here is a term which, in its application, has been repeatedly associated with rogues, mistakes, incompetence, and player abuse. And yet, it is still here, present in the T&C's of most of Casinomeister's Top Picks!

We have apparently not only failed to learn from the past, it seems that we have decided to completely ignore it.

Any thread which has raised the issue ultimately begins its slide into the depths of thread oblivion and - poof - the thread, and the issue, are now gone.

Just as tufo23 predicted in this post...

“Unless the legitimacy of the subject 'bot ban' T+Cs is put thru the wringer we will all be back here again next week with yet another expose on betting patterns - something akin to looking at tea leaves.”

This thread has been running for seven days. There has been no real debate. Given the documented history of this issue I therefore take the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

There are four points upon which everyone: players, affiliates, operators, CM members, and programmers; has reached consensus:

#1 - Bots affect game play.

#2 - It is impossible to prove a bot's use.

#3 - Even though bots affect game play, it is within the bounds of the game.

#4 - The terms regarding robot-exclusion should be removed from all T&C's

Given all of the above, any casino that has a robot-exclusion in their T&C's has a potential tool of frightening dimensions. They can, without proof, void winnings. VinylWeatherman echoed the same sentiment those many years ago.

“Bot play is not allowed at most sites, but the worry is how they go about "proving" it. They DON'T actually detect a bot, but they look for signs that indicate there MIGHT be a bot in use, and seem to take this as proof absolute.”

I therefore propose that any Casino which raises their "No Robots Allowed" clause as a reason to withhold a player's winnings simply be added to the Rogue List immediately. One strike, you're out. Extreme? Perhaps, but apparently the only tool with enough force behind it to trigger actual change.

There is a question that remains, though, and I assume that it is not merely semantic: alternative clients. Binary, you mentioned these, and perhaps just forgot to continue with that thought. Just from the name one can guess what the term means. This seems like a step beyond mere bots, to me, and enters the realm of what may be more correctly referred to as hacking. Is this correct?

 

[jstrike]

I've been following this thread with some interest. We don't have an anti-bot policy and I don't know why a casino would even want an anti-bot policy, considering that more hands played (even perfectly) means less volatility and more money for the house. Our policy is that humans having fun comes first, in multiplayer games, and we're within our rights to ask bot players to cease and desist for any reason. But for the sake of argument, I've got a question for Chris about having to break down thousands of hands to check for perfect play, just to prove someone's using a bot:

If you know that someone's using an alternate client, isn't that enough to tell you that they're using a bot, without having to analyze any hands at all? I mean, how many alternate clients are out there that aren't bots? And who's going to take the time to write an alternate client and not include automatic play in it? I'm not saying it really matters, I'm just saying if you did have some stupid T&C that banned bots, all you'd really have to prove was that someone used an alternate client, case closed.

I mean look, I take the possibility of alternate clients showing up on my site as an almost absolute certainty if it ever takes off. If there's enough money to be won, someone's going to write a client to get at it, whether by finding and grinding out bonuses with a bot or probing to see if they can make our servers do something outside the rules of the game. I've already written bots for most of my own games, so I know what to expect. It's just inevitable - and I don't really care.

So I don't look at which client someone's using as being important. Instead, our TOS recognizes a few kinds of advantage play:
(a) Player finds something in a game, within the rules, that gives them a mathematical edge on the house. This is totally possible on my site because a lot of the games are relatively new & untested. That also includes card counting. This is considered absolutely fair and acceptable use. If I'm running games that are EV+ I'm doing it for a reason, and if I don't know I'm doing it, then I'm an idiot.
(b) Player finds a bug in a game that either hurts or helps them. We'll refund any losses and reverse any winnings that arise from a bug, but we'll pay the player a bounty for reporting it.
(c) Poker collusion, chip dumping. This is the only one that's grounds for freezing an account, and we don't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. We just have to prove it to our own satisfaction. IP patterns, seating patterns, time-of-day, impossible-to-know folds and raises, etc. Someone sees a turn 10% of the time usually, but 60% of the time against someone I already think is their confederate for a list of other reasons. I banned a group of 3 guys for this yesterday. I refunded them their deposits, which I think surprised even them.

As far as clients, it's either
(1) our client
(2) a client designed to look for bugs, which if it found any would fall under Advantage Play (b), or
(3) a client designed to play as a bot, which isn't advantage play at all and so doesn't matter.

Our TOS makes it a violation to decompile or try to recycle the client software, but the main reason for that is to protect intellectual property and legally state that we own the copyright to it, and no derivative works are allowed. That someone will do it anyway is inevitable, and it ain't worth wasting time worrying about the inevitable.

Here are the terms I wrote for my site, re: bots.

The use of electronic or mechanical devices or "bots" to play our games automatically is not forbidden by the Casino. However, if use of bots by a player is detected and deemed to compromise the quality of living players' gaming experience, the Casino reserves the right to ask botters to discontinue use of their bots in some or all games. Player acknowledges that such a ruling shall be at the sole discretion of the Casino, and agrees that failure to discontinue use of a bot after a direct written request may result in action against the player up to and including confiscation of the bot's winnings from the time of the request forward, freezing of the player's account, and denial of future access. Sapphire has nothing against bot use in general, but we place greater value on human players' experience at our tables.

Any attempted modification to the Software or any other action taken by a player which results in mismatched, unauthenticated or suspicious data traffic to our servers, intentional or not, will result in the immediate freezing of the player's account, confiscation of funds, and possible blocking of the player's IP addresses, until such time as the Casino is satisfied that the suspect traffic was innocent.

Player agrees not to cheat or collude in any manner to influence the outcome of any game, whether by working with collaborators or hacking the Software. Players suspected of cheating or unfair practice, whether conducted by humans or bots, shall have their accounts suspended pending further investigation, and the Casino reserves the absolute right to confiscate all ill-gotten gains for redistribution to players who were cheated.

edit: One other way of definitely detecting a bot? Try to chat with them. If that doesn't work, throw a big error on their screen that says "check your chat window". If they just keep playing 20 hands a minute like nothing happened, it's a bot. What you actually do about that is another story, and like I said, usually it doesn't matter. If it's irritating people, though, it's outta there.

 

[binary128]

JStrike,

I don't have the time at the moment to properly address your post. (I spent all the time I've got available responding to Jufo's recent post in the Slot Statistics thread.)

And I don't like responding to a thread from the bottom up. However, your statement:

edit: One other way of definitely detecting a bot?

Is why I brought in the hand-by-hand analysis. If some previous method (typically some sort of time analysis - hands per minute, breaks per hour, total duration of play, etc., etc.) is not definitive (that is, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"), then the hand-by-hand analysis is the only remaining data which can be used.

You reference "alternative clients", but I haven't pulled together my thoughts on this to the point where I have something worth posting. I'm working on it though.

I really respect the system that you've documented and implemented. It is obvious that you gave a lot of thought in pulling your words together. And especially challenging given your multi-player environment. Your multi-player environment puts each of us into 2 separate ballparks.

One thing - and I'm thinking of other Casinos here. If I had a "No Robots Allowed" clause AND a "real time" robot detection system but didn't simply apply a "real time" robot rejection response, well, that's doing a whole lot more work than I'd want to do.

Chris

 

[GrandMaster]

Is why I brought in the hand-by-hand analysis. If some previous method (typically some sort of time analysis - hands per minute, breaks per hour, total duration of play, etc., etc.) is not definitive (that is, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"), then the hand-by-hand analysis is the only remaining data which can be used.

If I wrote a bot, I would include random delays, vary its speed, I would make it take a rest break at least once every couple of hours and make the occasional error.

 

[jstrike]

If I wrote a bot, I would include random delays, vary its speed, I would make it take a rest break at least once every couple of hours and make the occasional error.

Well I mean, that's why you can't prove anything by hand analysis. If you programmed it to say some variety of "gnar I'm so wasted" every 15 minutes, it'd fit right in. I'd probably buy it a drink.

At that point there's no difference between a boy a girl and a bot, so there's no reason for a casino to care. If it's sitting on a poker table with 2 of its brothers, trading flops and waiting to trap some innocent poker player, then we gotta worry.

 

[binary128]

Regarding "Robots" and "Alternative Client Interfaces": I went to the Casinomeister home page, followed the link to the first of the "Casinomeister's Picks" - SlotoCash - and went to their Ts&Cs page.

(I'm not kidding - I did no more searching than what I have documented above.)

On there I found the following. (NOTE - I added the highlighting.)

All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided by Sloto'Cash on our Web pages. Any Internet wagering through other means, including the use of a "robot" player, is strictly forbidden.

If you are found cheating or if it is determined by the Company that you have employed or made use of a system (including machines, computers, software or other automated systems) designed specifically to defeat the Casino

So, at SlotoCash anyway, there are "robots", and then there are "machines, computers, software or other automated systems" - that is, what I've termed "Alternative Client Interfaces".

I've read enough of the OP's "Meditations ..." thread to know that this is common. (I'm sure the OP could overwhelm us with quotes similar to those above, just from the "Top Picks" Casinos alone.)


In saying "Alternative Client Interfaces", I used a word - client - which I need to define. When I refer to "the client", I mean that part of the Casino application that is running on your computer. Whether you downloaded it, or it just loads into your browser, this is still what I'll refer to as "the client".

I discussed Robots at some length. One thing I didn't mention - Robots usually have either no, or very limited, user adjustment controls.

The user adjustment control Referenced Here appears to be limited to just speed of play. I've seen others where you can set it to take random breaks at random times of random durations, automatically stop at a defined length of play, even define the number of times to intentionally play sub-optimally (once every hundred hands, twice, etc.). (All of these are easily purchased on the internet, or through "connections" at forums, etc.)

But all of this is still pretty basic. And the bottom line is that the robot is still playing the game using the Casino's game play systems and rules.


What about a device that could insert itself between the server and the client. It would intercept and display to the Player the information coming from the server. It would allow the Player to send anything that they wanted back to the server.

In other words, not a Robot, but a Hacker tool. Truly an Alternative Client Interface.

Our games are deployed in Flash. It is very easy to "pop the hood" of the Flash client. In other words, it is very easy to create a Hacker tool for a Flash Casino. It is so easy, in fact, that I'll show some "under the hood" stuff to you right now.

---

For a Deal in Jacks or Better, the Flash sends to the server: 2001~2~1|5

This is for a $1 coin amount, 5 coins, for a $5 total bet.

The server returns to the Flash: &bank=123.45&cards=js|kc|5h|7d|qd&win_amount=0&win_name=0

(Which I don't think requires much in the way of explanation.)

The Player makes their hold choice, and the Flash sends to the server: 2001~3~d|h|d|d|h

(That is - hold the King and Queen.)

The server returns to the Flash: &bank=128.45&cards=4d|kc|2s|kh|qd&win_amount=5&win_name=8

The Player "won" $5 for the pair of Kings.

---

If you find yourself thinking "That's it!", well, you're right - that's it. This ain't rocket science.


So, a hacker tool allows the Player to send anything that they want into the Server. It could be a little thing, like sending in a bet amount of $7 for Keno when our game client only supports 0.25, 1, 5 and 10. Or it could be a big thing, like, oh, I don't know, think of a big thing.

The point is that unlike a Robot, which can do a limited number of things, a hacker tool can do absolutely anything that it wants.


Whenever our server sees something come in from the client that "doesn't make sense" or "breaks the rules", then a note is made of it in a particular log and an error code is returned to the Flash.

Because of this log, and 3 other completely different and separate logs that we have, we have a pretty good handle on "hack attempts". A few basic examples:

- A bet amount that is a negative number.

- A Keno game that has more than 10 pick numbers

- A Blackjack Split request when the Deal cards aren't "split-able".

Pinnacle's game server receives 10, or 100, or 1,000 of these kinds of "hack attempts" every day, every single day, and has so for almost 8 years.

Most of these come in to the "Play for Fun" Casino, because it is anonymous, and because no money is at stake. The logic - if a flaw in the server code can be found there, then boom, open a real account and exploit it.

The record is held by some unknown person (at a specific IP address) who executed almost 20,000 "hack attempts" over the course of 3 days. Every game in the Casino was included to one extent or another in this assault.

Up until about a year ago, what I didn't do was block the Player. They could keep the attack going. I did this because I had a great deal of faith in my server code.

But I also did it because people pay big money for this kind of stuff. I honestly don't remember how many hours were spent in executing 20,000 hacks into the server, plus all of the time taken to build the tool, plus all the time taken to translate all of our send and receive strings, but lets say 100 hours at $100 an hour. This guy saved me $10,000.

BTW, it was this 20,000-hack Player that finally pushed me to implement a "2 strikes and you're out" policy. That is, after 2 hacks I just block the session and let it time out.


So, Bottom Line:

Galewind/Pinnacle does not have a "No Robots Allowed" clause in their T&Cs.

1. We don't care if the Player is using a Robot.

2. Attempting to prove it "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is not possible.

Therefore, Galewind/Pinnacle will never "... cancel your account ... void any winnings and confiscate any balance in your Casino account ..." through the application of this clause. (That's also a quote from SlotoCash's Ts&Cs.)


Galewind/Pinnacle does not have a "No Alternative Client Interfaces Allowed" clause in their T&Cs.

1. Their use has not benefited the Player by 1 penny in profit

2. Their use has not cost the Casino 1 penny in loss.

3. The worst that could be said about them is that they clutter up the log I mentioned earlier. In other words, they're annoying.

Again, Galewind/Pinnacle will never "... cancel your account ... void any winnings and confiscate any balance in your Casino account ..." through the application of this clause.


Post Script:

In talking about hackers, I'm not talking about the "probe attempts" that affect every public IP address on the planet. That is, the web site receiving calls like:

GET /phpMyAdmin-2.5.5-rc1config/scripts/setup.php
GET /admin/sql/scripts/setup.php
GET /SQL/scripts/setup.php
GET /adminmysql/scripts/setup.php
GET /apache-default/phpmyadmin/scripts/setup.php
GET /backup/phpMyAdmin/scripts/setup.php
GET /bbs/data/scripts/setup.php
GET /blog/phpmyadmin/scripts/setup.php
GET /cpadmindb/scripts/setup.php
GET /cpanelmysql/scripts/setup.php
GET /database/scripts/setup.php
GET /forum/phpmyadmin/scripts/setup.php
GET /httpdocs/scripts/setup.php

These are hackers seeing if they can find a flaw in the web server security configuration. The hackers I'm talking about are trying to find flaws in the game security and control systems.

Chris

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Fascinating stuff Chris, thanks for taking the time to post it

 

[jstrike]

Great explanation of the client/server relationship, and how hackers will try to exploit it. One thing you left out - I haven't looked under the hood at what Galewind's client sends to the server, but I'm just guessing here - it must also be sending some kind of player ID number and a cookie, code or password (probably more than one) with each one of those messages, so the server knows who's sending this request and that they are who they say they are. I mean otherwise, a hacker could just send a player ID number and some random command, and at the very least cause some serious havoc. All these dangers have to be taken into account.

But in reality, a bot that uses the client's controls is probably not "clicking" on the buttons in the game. It's probably just sitting between the client and the server like a hacking tool, and sending strings of commands. The difference is that the strings of commands the bot sends make sense to the server and don't throw any red flags.

So maybe that's a good definition. Instead of distinguishing between "bots" and "alternate clients", we should just say: As long as the player's computer is sending commands that the client software would normally send, and that don't cause any red flags or damage, we don't care how she does it. I mean, a blind person could use an "alternate client" like a text reader to to put that data stream into Braille and then type back a string with what cards to hold - no problem there as long as what they send back makes sense to the server.

 

[binary128]

JStrike,

Yeah, I left out all of the security stuff. If a hacker makes a mistake here then they are blocked at the top layer of either the web service, the web server, or the application code.

But once the hacker has got these bits down - again, not tough - then it is play time and anything goes.

I think that with a robot you can't find it and even if you could you couldn't prove it. Therefore, threats for their use are just ... threatening.

With a hacker tool and my logs, they leave traces all over the place. (They leave traces in the Web Services log.)

I think that your final paragraph makes sense. If the Player would rather see strings in a text box than cards on a table, well, I wouldn't invite them to my next Halloween party.

Chris

 

[Jufo]

I thought I take a short break from "Slot Critiques" thread and dip in here with a couple of questions.

In other words, not a Robot, but a Hacker tool. Truly an Alternative Client Interface.

Our games are deployed in Flash. It is very easy to "pop the hood" of the Flash client. In other words, it is very easy to create a Hacker tool for a Flash Casino. It is so easy, in fact, that I'll show some "under the hood" stuff to you right now.

I see "hacking" and "hacker tool" mentioned here in context of custom casino client. But is it hacking though? I would intrepret hacking to mean that you actually get access to the server and manipulate something there, such as forcing the server to deal you a royal flush in video poker. But simply communicating the server with a custom client doesn't sound like hacking to me. The guy here at CM who found out a server glitch at Playtech to play casino games with "enhanced" rules by using a custom client was quite strict in saying that this was in no way hacking. So what is your opinion on this?

---

For a Deal in Jacks or Better, the Flash sends to the server: 2001~2~1|5

This is for a $1 coin amount, 5 coins, for a $5 total bet.

The server returns to the Flash: &bank=123.45&cards=js|kc|5h|7d|qd&win_amount=0&win_name=0

(Which I don't think requires much in the way of explanation.)

The Player makes their hold choice, and the Flash sends to the server: 2001~3~d|h|d|d|h

(That is - hold the King and Queen.)

The server returns to the Flash: &bank=128.45&cards=4d|kc|2s|kh|qd&win_amount=5&win_name=8

The Player "won" $5 for the pair of Kings.

With the above example I don't see how the player can use the information to his advantage. I guess your point was that he cannot. But would it possible that such server queries in some other software could, for example, contain information about the dealer's hole card in blackjack? The client would hide what the hole card is but could the information be obtained somehow by querying with the server?

 

[binary128]

Re: using the word "hacking" in the context of an "Alternative Client Interface".

You may be right in that it is not technically "hacking". I tried to address this in my Post Script.

This GET list is from hackers sending in file requests to a web server. If they don't get back an HTTP 404 "File Not Found" error code, or if they get back an HTTP 401 "Authorization Required" error code, then they will try and tunnel into that file to see if they can gain further levels of access. Maybe they can gain access to a MySQL database that is running there. Brute force attempts at getting an Admin-level account's password. Shit like that.

So, these hackers are trying to find an access flaw in the server security systems such that they can circumvent those systems and do whatever might be available to do on that server.

My Alternative Client Interface users are also trying to circumvent my game security and control logic. An obvious one is to send in a negative number for a bet amount. Since the bet amount is going to be removed from the Player's bank balance (that is, new bank = current bank - bet amount), a negative of a negative becomes a positive and they wind up with the system adding their bet to their bank.

I'll give you another example specific to the previous Video Poker game.

The Player plays a round and wins. The Double Down option becomes available. They start Double Down, and see the Dealer's card. Instead of sending in the expected 2001~5~h|h|d|h|h (they selected the 3rd card in the hand), they might send in 2001~5~d|d|d|d|d (they selected all 5 cards), or, I don't know, any combination they can think of.

Both of these (negative bet amount, double down cards) wind up getting rejected by the game servers with an err=3 response.

So, the users of the Alternative Client Interface to which I refer have no intention of actually playing the game. They are trying to find ways to circumvent the game rules and make money off any flaw in the control system.

If you can think of a different word than "hacker" I'd be happy to use it.



As to the second bit - yes, there is nothing there to be used by the player for their advantage. Regarding the BJ Dealer's hole card - in a universe of dark energy and dark matter, no good scientist can say that anything is impossible. All I can do is apply the "wink of sleep" criteria. Have I lost one in considering the possibility of this problem? No.

That's only a little bit facetious. But still, Galewind/Pinnacle does not have a "No Alternative Client Interfaces Allowed" clause in the T&Cs, we never have, and I don't worry about it in the least. That's probably the best answer that I can give you really.

Chris

 

[TheLastCylon]

Binary,

Thanks for the response. I'm still sort of parsing what you've said and trying to integrate it in with my greater system of information about online gaming and security.

What I take from this is that the client is not the game. The game operates entirely on the server and the client, more or less, simply displays the results of that game for customer consumption and interaction.

Assuming a secure server, the client can be whatever it damn well wants.

To me, it seems that this falls under the "it should be in the software" argument. The server should block voided calls, and instead of banning hackers, the casino should actually be actively letting the hackers work, monitoring their behavior, and closing any holes that open up.

Truly, it seems like a hacker (might as well use the term) is giving the casino a valuable service for free.

After those holes are closed, it doesn't matter what the wanna-be hacker is doing, because it can't function outside of the parameters of the game. As such, saying "we will ban alternative clients" sounds, again, like "we have no confidence in our software."

 

[binary128]

TheLastCylon,

This is essentially true - the client has a working copy of the game, but the Master copy of the game is running on the server.

And there is a precisely defined structure for the information that the Flash sends to the server. If this structure is not correct, or if it is inconsistent with the state of the Master copy of the game, then the call (from whatever) gets bounced.

By "inconsistent with the state of the Master copy" I mean that a Draw call must have a Deal hand on the server. Or a BJ Split call must have both a non-split and a "split-able" Deal hand on the server. And like that.

Yes, these "hack attempts" are detected immediately. As I mentioned, prior to about a year ago I didn't do anything else, just bounced the call. At first I did a lot of investigation for these calls. Did they find a flaw? Then I did less investigation, and less.

I let that 20,000-count assault go on, and I personally tracked that one. This one really was "... giving the casino a valuable service for free".

Ultimately nothing was found. It was at that point that I said "OK, I don't need this filling up my logs." and put in the "two strikes and you're out" system.

I don't know. I'm on the fence regarding "hack attempts". Galewind/Pinnacle doesn't have any T&C here because we have no "Then" to the "If". That is, "If we find you using any machines, computers, software or other automated systems designed specifically to defeat the Casino, then we will do nothing."

Unlike Robots, where the issue is proving their use, the proof here should be pretty easy. However, as with some of the other things in your list - to whom is the proof provided? Are they savvy enough to translate what is provided as proof? Otherwise, it decays to "He said, She said" and ultimately the Player loses.

To be accurate, I'm just too damn lazy to deal with it. "Two strikes and you're out" combined with a session time-out of 10 minutes makes it a real pain in the ass, and the hacker just goes away.

Chris

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I have to say that I find this thread both fascinating and illuminating.

We have here some of the 'sacred cows' of online casinos being absolutely and comprehensively kicked into the gutter by Galewind software.

ROBOT PLAY - We don't care, we have confidence in our software, you'll just lose faster.

ALTERNATIVE CLIENT/HACKING - We don't care, we have confidence in our platform, you're actually of some interest to us until we stop you talking to our server.

As this thread develops the most remarkable thing about Pinnacle/Galewind is that they don't damn well need pages and pages of T&Cs 'cause they're confident that their operation runs a tight ship.

There's nothing at all to even say about bonus abuse or spirit of the casino because they don't do that. You deposit, you play, you win or you lose. If you win you can cash out, if you lose then try again next time.

Robot play has always been nothing more than a 'we want the right to steal your money' clause, any casino that feels the need to invoke that clause is either incompetent or rogue, or both.

All the evidence you need is right here in this thread.

 

[TheLastCylon]

This thread has been fantastic.

I feel very confident in saying that robot exclusion, in any form, is (to steal a phrase) bat-shit crazy. No proof possible, no conviction possible.

I will reiterate, since I think that it's an important point, any casino that exercises a robot exclusion rule should be auto-rogued. No trial. No jury. If they mention it, gone. Into the pit.

I will concede the alternative client issue. I don't like it, but it is not crazy. Its presence in the T&C's of a casino reveals a lack of confidence in their software, though, and why would I ever want to play at a casino that lacks confidence in their own product?

That said, I won't harp on about it.

I would like to continue this thread. I opened with a list of what I considered crazy terms and conditions, and my next one was "we don't like you" exclusions. Basically, the casino can boot you for whatever reason. I realized that I didn't really include many of these in my previous post, but the general feel of them is manifested in this one, from SlotoCash:

The Company reserves the right, in its unfettered discretion, to void any winnings and confiscate any balance in your Casino account

And this one from Platinum Play:

We may refuse to register you as a Player or elect to deregister and exclude you or suspend you as a Player from the Casino at any time if we deem that your participation at the Casino is, shall be or has been previously, in any way not for personal entertainment [i.e. professional], fraudulent, illegal or that your participation is or has been abusive, collusive or irregular in any way

These are obviously "catch-all" terms that basically say "we can do whatever we want." As such, if they don't like you, you're gone.

What's Pinnacle/Galewind's perspective on this?

 

[The Dude]

...I feel very confident in saying that robot exclusion, in any form, is (to steal a phrase) bat-shit crazy. No proof possible, no conviction possible.

I will reiterate, since I think that it's an important point, any casino that exercises a robot exclusion rule should be auto-rogued. No trial. No jury. If they mention it, gone. Into the pit...

Obviously you haven't come to realize that terms and conditions are in most cases dictated and written by legal staff, and the bigger the company, the more chefs in the kitchen. To consider auto-rogue for any robot rule is silly since 99% of players wouldn't even consider using one.

Players who have issues with casinos - especially ones in the accred section are on the whole relatively a very small percentage. We're talking 2-4% - in some cases 0% - .5%. You seem to be making an issue when there isn't one to make.

All casinos have a catchall phrase somewhere - in fact most businesses do whether you are selling shoes or offering a gambling experience. Casinomeister's forum has one as well: 1.18 - Don't be a PITA Members who just don't have a clue on what is socially acceptable, or are just too annoying will have their accounts closed. The administration and moderators of Casinomeister reserve the right to close accounts at our discretion. This may be a public forum that encourages freedom of expression, but it's still our house. Abuse it and lose it.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/help/forum-rules/

Does this term in our rules make me rogue?

The bottom line is that all businesses will do whatever it takes to protect themselves from unwanted behavior. The crux of the matter is how do they deal with honest legitimate complaints. How fair do they treat their customers?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

All casinos have a catchall phrase somewhere - in fact most businesses do whether you are selling shoes or offering a gambling experience. Casinomeister's forum has one as well: 1.18 - Don't be a PITA Members who just don't have a clue on what is socially acceptable, or are just too annoying will have their accounts closed. The administration and moderators of Casinomeister reserve the right to close accounts at our discretion. This may be a public forum that encourages freedom of expression, but it's still our house. Abuse it and lose it.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/help/forum-rules/

Does this term in our rules make me rogue?

Thing is though Bryan, you're not taking any money off us, there's no cash transaction involved.

Your site and forums are provided free of charge to the community and I think we all respect that, and we respect you, and you have earned that respect through your words and actions over the years.

It's a different dynamic when a player is depositing (sometimes large amounts!) of money at a casino, especially since the arcane rules and T&Cs are only ever wielded when the player comes to make a withdrawal, there's never a problem with depositing and playing.....

 

[Nifty29]

Thing is though Bryan, you're not taking any money off us, there's no cash transaction involved.

Your site and forums are provided free of charge to the community and I think we all respect that, and we respect you, and you have earned that respect through your words and actions over the years.

It's a different dynamic when a player is depositing (sometimes large amounts!) of money at a casino, especially since the arcane rules and T&Cs are only ever wielded when the player comes to make a withdrawal, there's never a problem with depositing and playing.....

The point is that pretty much nobody gives a stuff about bot play, because pretty much nobody ever even considers using one.

The only players wanting to use bots are those who think they're improving their chances or "getting one over" on the casino. In fact, they just help them to lose faster.

I can understand operators not allowing bot play. I don't think it is just about the largely baseless fear of losing money, but rather that they do not like the idea of having any kind of third party software being used with their own. A player could use some kind of alternative client, like someone here did recently, and claim it is a "bot".

Fact is that there are almost NO operators (except the software mentioned here) that allow bot play. How about going into a casino in Vegas and hooking up a device to the slot machine and see how long you last.

As Bryan said, it is so much a "non-issue" that it is almost funny. A couple of people beating the same drum over and over doesn't magically make it any more important. If you're so desperate to use a bot, which one must be to make such a song and dance about it, then run on over to the software mentioned in this thread (and several others) and bot your bankroll away until to your hearts content.

The members here taking aim at the CM accredited casinos have their own agenda which has little to do with bot play. It's about them being personally sleighted or "caught" by them in the past, and taking some kind of revenge/retribution.....at least, it is the only logical explanation for them continually picking out small and unimportant aspects of their policies/terms and trying to turn them into major events. If I felt this way about the accredited list here, the last thing I would do is come here and post all the time

In regards to the "catch all" clause which every casino I know lists as part of their terms.......it is there to protect the operators against any new kind of scam or fraud that pops up from time to time. The question is, how many accredited casinos actually invoke this term and how often? In my experience, the answer is pretty much NEVER. If anyone can find me some blatant examples to the contrary, then we can talk turkey. Until then, it is just another cloaked attack on accredited casinos by a person/people with an agenda and a serious chip on their shoulder.

I'll wait patiently for the requested examples and look forward to discussing them at length. I'm not clearing my calendar.

In my experience, those who make the most noise about casino terms and conditions are those who have had winnings confiscated etc in the past, or are finding it too difficult to "ply their trade". My advice to those people......tough tiddlies and get over it.

The average joes, which make up the VAST majority of players, have absolutely NOTHING to fear from terms such as those above, because they just deposit and play and win or lose i.e. they are not constantly looking for loopholes to take advantage of operators. The hilarious thing is that the same people who whine about terms and conditions are usually the very players that created the need for them in the first place. Quite a paradox, eh?

 

[Tirilej]

I think that these questions needs to be discussed, whatever reason there is behind doing it

Some of us havn't been here since the start, and we havn't seen the rules change for either the casinos or the players best interest.
I don't need an agenda to have an opinion, but I do need to see both sides of every story.

If the casinos rules aren't questioned we will never found out if there are better or more fair ones they could use.
I wish no casinos had the need of any T&C's at all. It should be buildt in to the software so no rules could be broken. It's a dreamthought I know, but I do need dreams

Edit: I also have a dream of not having to read a lot of sarcastic comments as soon as people don't agree with eachother, and maybe one day that will be true.

 

[Nifty29]

I think that these questions needs to be discussed, whatever reason there is behind doing it

Some of us havn't been here since the start, and we havn't seen the rules change for either the casinos or the players best interest.
I don't need an agenda to have an opinion, but I do need to see both sides of every story.

If the casinos rules aren't questioned we will never found out if there are better or more fair ones they could use.
I wish no casinos had the need of any T&C's at all. It should be buildt in to the software so no rules could be broken. It's a dreamthought I know, but I do need dreams

FTR, I was not stating that you had an agenda at all.

I was stating that the whole bot argument is a non-issue as it affects almost nobody. Will you ever or have you ever used a bot program to play?

The other term is to ensure that the casino can pick and choose who they want as customers, and it is their right to do so. As long as any legitimate winnings are paid, then it is, again, a non-issue. The problem is, and the lack of actual examples of an accredited casino using an "FU" clause will show this, that every situation where confiscation has taken place actually involves a breach of a specific term....but the player involved usually makes it about something else. If you don't believe me, wait for the examples that cylon and chopley et al are going to post where accredited casinos have ripped players off using an "FU" clause. As I said, don't clear your calendar.

As for implementing all terms via the software, well I'm not sure every single term can be covered by this. Some providers are updating their software to allow better enforcement of terms, but in the end it is about being responsible and education oneself about what one is actually getting themselves into. The vast majority of term breaches are a result of players not being bothered to read the terms before they played, and I don't see why, when most others seem able to follow the rules, exceptions should be made for those that do not.

Could you provide some examples of current terms that are unfair, and how they could be made fair or better? Nothing wrong with questioning rules, but, as I said, some here have an agenda so it's not really other players they care about. Rules exist for a good reason, and that is to protect the casino against players who do everything possible to gain an unfair advantage. If some of these guys had their way, casinos would be offering 500% cashable bonuses with no playthough and a 100% cashback if you lose. Casinos are in the business of making money, and whilst bonuses are the order of the day, lots of rules will exist, and fair enough, since you're using the casino's money. If it is the bonuses you don't like, then don't use them....then there will be hardly any rules to follow.

P.S. Where are the sarcastic comments? Are you referring to Bryan's comment about whether he should be rogued....it was certainly sarcastic. Maybe you should report him? (now there is some sarcasm)

 

[ChopleyIOM]

As long as any legitimate winnings are paid, then it is, again, a non-issue. The problem is, and the lack of actual examples of an accredited casino using an "FU" clause will show this, that every situation where confiscation has taken place actually involves a breach of a specific term....but the player involved usually makes it about something else. If you don't believe me, wait for the examples that cylon and chopley et al are going to post where accredited casinos have ripped players off using an "FU" clause. As I said, don't clear your calendar.

TBH I don't think the onus is on us to demonstrate a casino using an FU clause, the fact they feel the need to have an FU clause in the first place says it all IMO.

Reserving the right to refuse a player access to a casino is one thing, having a term that states:

'The Company reserves the right, in its unfettered discretion, to void any winnings and confiscate any balance in your Casino account'

is a different kettle of fish entirely.

It's literally a licence to steal.

Could you provide some examples of current terms that are unfair, and how they could be made fair or better? Nothing wrong with questioning rules, but, as I said, some here have an agenda so it's not really other players they care about. Rules exist for a good reason, and that is to protect the casino against players who do everything possible to gain an unfair advantage.

How about the Red Flush term that states they reserve the right to void a players winnings if he uses the autoplay function built into the MG client?

 

[Tirilej]

FTR, I was not stating that you had an agenda at all.

I was stating that the whole bot argument is a non-issue as it affects almost nobody. Will you ever or have you ever used a bot program to play?

The other term is to ensure that the casino can pick and choose who they want as customers, and it is their right to do so. As long as any legitimate winnings are paid, then it is, again, a non-issue. The problem is, and the lack of actual examples of an accredited casino using an "FU" clause will show this, that every situation where confiscation has taken place actually involves a breach of a specific term....but the player involved usually makes it about something else. If you don't believe me, wait for the examples that cylon and chopley et al are going to post where accredited casinos have ripped players off using an "FU" clause. As I said, don't clear your calendar.

As for implementing all terms via the software, well I'm not sure every single term can be covered by this. Some providers are updating their software to allow better enforcement of terms, but in the end it is about being responsible and education oneself about what one is actually getting themselves into. The vast majority of term breaches are a result of players not being bothered to read the terms before they played, and I don't see why, when most others seem able to follow the rules, exceptions should be made for those that do not.

Could you provide some examples of current terms that are unfair, and how they could be made fair or better? Nothing wrong with questioning rules, but, as I said, some here have an agenda so it's not really other players they care about. Rules exist for a good reason, and that is to protect the casino against players who do everything possible to gain an unfair advantage. If some of these guys had their way, casinos would be offering 500% cashable bonuses with no playthough and a 100% cashback if you lose. Casinos are in the business of making money, and whilst bonuses are the order of the day, lots of rules will exist, and fair enough, since you're using the casino's money. If it is the bonuses you don't like, then don't use them....then there will be hardly any rules to follow.

P.S. Where are the sarcastic comments? Are you referring to Bryan's comment about whether he should be rogued....it was certainly sarcastic. Maybe you should report him? (now there is some sarcasm)

You just assumed that it was your post I replied to, and in a way you are of course right

I could just quote my earlier post once again as a reply but that would look stupid so I chose not too.
No need to questioning me. I share your opinions. I just think that this discussion is important no matter what motive is behind it. That stops me from thanking your post and I just wish I could do that. Maybe next time

 

[Nifty29]

TBH I don't think the onus is on us to demonstrate a casino using an FU clause, the fact they feel the need to have an FU clause in the first place says it all IMO.

Reserving the right to refuse a player access to a casino is one thing, having a term that states:

'The Company reserves the right, in its unfettered discretion, to void any winnings and confiscate any balance in your Casino account'

is a different kettle of fish entirely.

It's literally a licence to steal.



How about the Red Flush term that states they reserve the right to void a players winnings if he uses the autoplay function built into the MG client?

Actually the onus is on you and others. You are all saying that casinos who have clauses to protect themselves from unexpected and new forms of fraud should be rogued. You're missing the point of the term to begin with I.e. it is NOT to confiscate winnings from legitimate players. How do I know this? Well, because I've not seen it used by an accredited casino. Another point you're missing is that if an accredited casino WERE to invoke such a clause, Bryan would kick them to the curb. So, do you REALLY think they're going to risk their hard earned accreditation by confiscating one player's winnings for no reason?

It's totally a non-issue, because no legitimate player is going to be affected by it. The only players who might are scammers and fraudsters, who deserve it.

Do, why all the drum beating and agenda laden posts about something that no legitimate CM member will ever need to worry about? It's a total waste of time.

Pretty much every online casino, and every land casino in some form or another, has protective clauses.....so are they all rogue?? I notice some of the casinos you've been playing have it, do does that mean you don't even believe your own argument?? After all, if its so risky, why would you? See, if you refused to play anywhere that had any kind of cover all protective clause, then I might give your opinion some credibility, but since you don't have the courage of your own convictions, then I don't see why I should.

The red flush term is silly. Can you find some examples where it has been applied?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I notice some of the casinos you've been playing have it, do does that mean you don't even believe your own argument?? After all, if its so risky, why would you? See, if you refused to play anywhere that had any kind of cover all protective clause, then I might give your opinion some credibility, but since you don't have the courage of your own convictions, then I don't see why I should.

I play at casinos that have terms I don't agree with because:

a) I like to gamble

and

b) I can afford to lose the money if they steal it off me.

As such it's a calculated risk on top of a calculated risk. When I deposit money into a casino I immediately write it off, whether I lose it playing the games or lose it because the casino decides not to pay me for whatever reason.

(Case in point would be an RTG or a Playtech casino (honestly can't remember which) that decided they wanted a whole raft of documentation when I came to make a withdrawal, it wasn't a withdrawal for a huge amount and was certainly less than I'd deposited there. I wasn't prepared to send documentation of the nature they requested to some godforsaken identity theft haven so I just reversed the withdrawal and played it out, and never played with that group of casinos ever again. As far as I'm concerned the casino stole my withdrawal off me, so it falls into category (b) above, but that's OK, 'cause I'd written the cash off anyway.)

The red flush term is silly. Can you find some examples where it has been applied?

Since I am not privy to Red Flush's customer database and how they've interacted with all their customers past and present, no I can't.

Neither are you, and neither can you, for that matter.

The term is not just silly, it's rogue.