RealTime Gaming and Caribbean 21

RTG_MMcMain · Feb 18, 2004

For the last several months RealTime Gaming has been involved in extensive analysis and testing of the Blackjack variant called Caribbean 21. As all of you know, this game was abruptly taken offline when casinos became concerned about the relative balance some players were able to achieve.

After close to 500 man hours of study RealTime Gaming has concluded that the game is statistically accurate. The game has a positive casino expectation, as do all games we produce. Like many new games there was an initial concern that something could have been missed. However, after analyzing every aspect of the game we have concluded unequivocally that this game is a fair expectation of a casino game for both the casino and the player (assuming that players understand that all games are ultimately balanced in favor of the casino).

Casinos have been advised to bring the game back online. Note that there is no software update associated with bringing the game back online. We have made no changes to the game play, rules, deck or payouts. This was a simple evaluation of the existing game.

It is likely that most, if not all, casinos will opt to bring the game back online with low betting limits. We are suggesting that casinos initially limit the betting to $5 per hand. This is due to the high variance of Caribbean 21, and will help casinos better to manage balance fluctuations due to random chance

I will answer questions related our findings. As is the policy of RealTime Gaming, I will not answer questions related to the rules of independent casinos or individual player issues.

I will be checking this board once a day for at least the next few days to respond to questions and concerns.

Michael McMain
Director of Engineering
RealTime Gaming

gamblinboi · Feb 18, 2004

looking forward to playing the game, as i missed out before it was yanked off. I prefer Pontoon (great game, btw :> ).

Just to be the first to say it, RTG has great software (only thing I would change is when you log into the casino and theres an update, it kicks you out and logs you in again. You might wanna change it so that it updates before you even log in, hence saving the trouble of having to type in your username and password twice). It's really too bad you allow scummy operations to run your software, because if you guys had the business sense like MG to only allow GOOD operators, you'd be #1.

Secondly, let's have some comments from you about this bot theory. The game is legit, so a bot would only be beneficial to the house. The game is secure, so there's no way the guy cheated. Thirdly, this BS about detecting a bot with mouse movements, also ludicrous - agreed? Of course you don't wanna divulge proprietary stuff as to how RTG software maintains security, but Hampton Casinos claims are prepostrous, correct?

You're going to be facing some tough questions here, Mr McMain. And if it is your policy not to answer about your licencees and this whole C21 mess, it begs the question - what exactly are you even doing here?

caps · Feb 18, 2004

The status of the game has no significance apart from the situation with the Pirate, and RTG knows this. It seems to me that this is an indirect but clear response to the Hampton matter.

I read this as an effort by RTG to distance itself from Hampton. The game is fine. Hampton has no finger to point at the game or at RTG. Because the game carries a high variance, though, Hampton acted stupidly (suicidally?) in letting the Pirate play in the way that he did (and with the bet limits, it will be suggested that others not be so irresponsible in the future). But RTG's point is that the game is fine -- therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that the use of a robot can only magnify and compound the house advantage. There are no weaknesses in the game for a robot to exploit.

This leaves only Hampton's no-robot rule, something about which RTG declines specific comment. But I actually do think they comment, albeit in subtext -- if the game is fine, then there can really be no defense for a rule that precludes a mechanism that, by promoting high turnover, accentuates the house advantage. That leaves Hampton seeking to shilly-shally out of a debt generated through play of a sound game, all in reliance upon a conceptually nonsensical rule -- and without having offered any technical evidence that the rule was even violated in the first place.

RTG_MMcMain · Feb 18, 2004

gamblinboi,

Software:

We are looking into ways to better support the patch situations. Currently, any patch made to the main lobby will require a restart of the application. In an upcoming release the application will allow the user the option of remembering the PlayerID, so that helps a little.

BOT Theory:

You are correct that robot play alone is not capable of turning a game into a positive expectation for a player. By robot player, I mean here one that interects directly with the client software.

That said, Casino owners decide what they do and do not want to allow. It is important that when someone decides to play at a casino they understand all of the Terms and Conditions they are expected to follow. For example, most of our licensees do accept and even encourage fair robot play.

Mouse Movements:

The software has no built-in ability to record mouse movements and report that type of activity in any way.

Cheating:

Part of our investigation was to be sure that the system was in no way comprimised. We found no evidence that a player of that game attempted to bypass the game client or hack into the system.

Tough questions:

Yes I expect tough questions and I will try and answer every question I get. However, in this thread I would like to stick to technical questions about the game and the software as it relates to the problem at hand.

In my post that started this thread I should have added "in this thread" to the final sentence. Answering some of the questions people have is not as easy as just posting what I think. I will, however, strive to get my answers to questions posted in a timely manner.

gamblinboi · Feb 18, 2004

Thank you, Mr. McMain.

This cinches it. Hampton's is full of sh*t, there is ABSOLUTELY NO doubt right now.

1) The player did NOT use a robot.
2) The player did NOT cheat.
3) The player won FAIR and SQUARE.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT now that the above facts are TRUE and CANNOT be disputed.

RTG_MMcMain said:
gamblinboi,

Software:

We are looking into ways to better support the patch situations. Currently, any patch made to the main lobby will require a restart of the application. In an upcoming release the application will allow the user the option of remembering the PlayerID, so that helps a little.

BOT Theory:

You are correct that robot play alone is not capable of turning a game into a positive expectation for a player. By robot player, I mean here one that interects directly with the client software.

That said, Casino owners decide what they do and do not want to allow. It is important that when someone decides to play at a casino they understand all of the Terms and Conditions they are expected to follow. For example, most of our licensees do accept and even encourage fair robot play.

Mouse Movements:

The software has no built-in ability to record mouse movements and report that type of activity in any way.

Cheating:

Part of our investigation was to be sure that the system was in no way comprimised. We found no evidence that a player of that game attempted to bypass the game client or hack into the system.

Tough questions:

Yes I expect tough questions and I will try and answer every question I get. However, in this thread I would like to stick to technical questions about the game and the software as it relates to the problem at hand.

In my post that started this thread I should have added "in this thread" to the final sentence. Answering some of the questions people have is not as easy as just posting what I think. I will, however, strive to get my answers to questions posted in a timely manner.

toofast4u · Feb 18, 2004

I am sure with this there will be lots of people trying thier luck at this game. Limiting the bets to $5 is kind of lame, you at least gotta give players a chance to win a little, I would say a $10k limit is extreme, but normal limits like $100 or $200 is reasonable. No one is going to play a game that they expect to lose, no one gambles with the intention of losing money, although casinos expect people to gamble with this intention :rolleyes:

cipher · Feb 18, 2004

RTG_MMcMain said:
For the last several months RealTime Gaming has been involved in extensive analysis and testing of the Blackjack variant called Caribbean 21. As all of you know, this game was abruptly taken offline when casinos became concerned about the relative balance some players were able to achieve.

After close to 500 man hours of study RealTime Gaming has concluded that the game is statistically accurate. The game has a positive casino expectation, as do all games we produce. Like many new games there was an initial concern that something could have been missed. However, after analyzing every aspect of the game we have concluded unequivocally that this game is a fair expectation of a casino game for both the casino and the player (assuming that players understand that all games are ultimately balanced in favor of the casino).

Casinos have been advised to bring the game back online. Note that there is no software update associated with bringing the game back online. We have made no changes to the game play, rules, deck or payouts. This was a simple evaluation of the existing game.

It is likely that most, if not all, casinos will opt to bring the game back online with low betting limits. We are suggesting that casinos initially limit the betting to $5 per hand. This is due to the high variance of Caribbean 21, and will help casinos better to manage balance fluctuations due to random chance

I will answer questions related our findings. As is the policy of RealTime Gaming, I will not answer questions related to the rules of independent casinos or individual player issues.

I will be checking this board once a day for at least the next few days to respond to questions and concerns.

Michael McMain
Director of Engineering
RealTime Gaming

Thank you Mr. McMain. Your continued presence and efforts geared towards providing myself and the other posters of the forum here with RTG's view of the facts, relative to the Caribbean 21 issue is very much appreciated. Welcome to the Forum.

Cipher

thesmacker · Feb 18, 2004

Whoa, this is amazing. RTG collaborates everything that the players have been claiming through this whole POC21 debacle began.
1) Hamptons has no proof of mouse movements and has been full of shit this whole time.
2) Being that they have no proof of cheating they were in fact trying to coerce a confession from POC21 through bullying tactics.
3) The game play for POC21 was totally fair.

Hamptons where are you now???? Crawled back under your rock I assume. Why do I see in your future a major drop in business. Caught in your own web of lies. Why don't you pay this player and stop lying to everyone.
Cheers

caruso · Feb 18, 2004

Good grief. This is intended to turn this PR nightmare into a PR COUP. Screw the player but indirectly publicize his win by dedicating a thread to the game everyone knows was behind it. RTG win-win situation.

RTG, you are THE most crafty bastards I can imagine. You're beautiful.

And it'll work as well. Everyone's going to play C21 now. And Pirate will probably remain unpaid.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head and laughing. It's perfect.

cipher · Feb 18, 2004

caruso said:
Good grief. This is intended to turn this PR nightmare into a PR COUP. Screw the player but indirectly publicize his win by dedicating a thread to the game everyone knows was behind it. RTG win-win situation.

RTG, you are THE most crafty bastards I can imagine. You're beautiful.

And it'll work as well. Everyone's going to play C21 now. And Pirate will probably remain unpaid.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head and laughing. It's perfect.

You are absolutely dead on Caruso. and If anybody has a dime in HAMPTON or DELANO CASINO they would be well advised to get it out of there now.

To put it mildly, Hampton Casino and any of the other casinos involved in that group are taking on water and they're taking it on fast and it's clear that Realtime Gaming is more than willing and probably hoping they will sink to the bottom and fast.

CIPHER

hhcfreebie · Feb 18, 2004

Okay, now the software is fair, secure, and everything is fine and dandy.
The player won fair and square.
I'd like to ask:
(1) Why are all pirate's accounts with RTG casino still locked? All the fund should be released and ready for the pirate to withdraw or play.
(2) What are RTG going to do when their casino operators fail to pay up? Will RTG assume at least partial responsibility?
Since most of RTG casinos locate at some tiny country far far away, they can go under anytime and it would be hard to hunt them down. RTG on the other hand, locate in US and they are collecting royal from casino which make them partners of the casino they support. If a RTG casino go under, I bet pirate would have a strong case aganist RTG itself.
I hope everything will go smoothly. The casinos pay up, pirate get his money and boast his winning on forums, RTG got more business from other players etc etc. Unfortunately it seems neither RTG nor casinos would do the right thing now and this issue will drag on. Even if they can win the case (which I don't think so), their reputation will be forever damaged.
Make your choice, RTG. We are waiting.

spearmaster · Feb 18, 2004

I don't necessarily agree with Caruso and Cipher here.

I believe Mr. McMain did exactly the right thing - protect the interest of RTG by stating the facts, which in turn exposed Hampton and its representatives as liars.

However - and this may be beyond Mr. McMain's area but he can certainly get the message across - RTG must not allow Hampton to exercise any such ridiculous claim that a bot was used in order to get out of paying what now looks to be 100% legitimate winnings.

Should RTG not take action to ensure Hampton's compliance with the terms of the agreement to pay the player, as well as comply with the terms and conditions under which Hampton licensed the software, then RTG's validation of the game will do nothing to increase the trust that players have in RTG's software - because with dishonest operators in the game it matters not that the software is fair - or even an edge in favor of the player.

In short - I don't see any sudden increase in play at many RTG casinos until such time as this case is closed in a satisfactory manner - so please pass this message on to your colleagues Dan and Eddy and Tom and whomever you like and make sure that the appropriate action is taken to rescue what remains of RTG's reputation.

RTG_MMcMain · Feb 18, 2004

hhcfreebie said:
I'd like to ask:
(1) Why are all pirate's accounts with RTG casino still locked? All the fund should be released and ready for the pirate to withdraw or play.

We are in the processing of lifting the bans associated with our fraud investigation.

hhcfreebie said:
(2) What are RTG going to do when their casino operators fail to pay up? Will RTG assume at least partial responsibility?

--snip--

RTG on the other hand, locate in US and they are collecting royal from casino which make them partners of the casino they support.

RealTime Gaming does take player payment seriously. Our license model is not royalty based so we don't profit in any way when players go unpaid. We feel that fraudulent behavior on the part of the casino or the player hurts our brand. We will continue to work on this (and all other) situation(s) to be sure all parties deal with each other fairly.

jetset · Feb 18, 2004

I agree with caps's post here - look carefully at the subtext in RTG's response - they have to my mind very wisely decided that they will not be a party to the sort of technical BS that Hampton has tried to hand the playing community, and they are to be commended for that.

Mike M, thanks for braving the lion's den and coming on here to answer general technical questions surrounding this sadass affair. Thus far you have acquitted yourself well.

Hampton - now would be a great time to start talking to the player.

I believe Cipher's word of warning to players regarding HAMPTON is probably both timely and very smart.

jetset · Feb 18, 2004

I guess hhcfreebie's comment on RTG standing behind it's failed casinos like Microgaming and Cryptologic does really falls outside Mike McMain's technical remit here, but it is nevertheless a valid observation that should be addressed by RTG of they're serious about this industry and their role in it.

Most RTG casinos carry the boilerplate blurb "legally licensed and fully insured" and have done for ages - the snag is that this claim is never explained...and it would seem to suggest that even players at failed RTG casinos are going to be looked after?

RTG is now big enough in the business to take a more active role in this regard.

I was also intrigued at the comment that RTG's business model is not based on royalty payments? So licensees are signed up on a one-time payment? Yet they claim easier pricing than the top competitors in their field? Interesting....

SFeagleAgain · Feb 18, 2004

RTG_MMcMain said:
RealTime Gaming does take player payment seriously. Our license model is not royalty based so we don't profit in any way when players go unpaid. We feel that fraudulent behavior on the part of the casino or the player hurts our brand. We will continue to work on this (and all other) situation(s) to be sure all parties deal with each other fairly.

I have to say a few things here. First of all, Mr. McMain, it IS your reputation on the line here, even more so than Hamptons and I will tell you why. Long after Hampton is gone and buried, which may be sooner rather than later which would be a shame for pirate, the RTG name will possibly still be around. Then it will be "Hampton who?" and "Remember that old RTG casino who stiffed that player out of the million+?" You see, Mr. McMain, it is not just Hampton on the line here, it is ALL RTG casinos. The gambling world is waiting to see where YOU and the rest of your management team at RTG take this and to see how seriously you consider the importance of a good reputation for online gambling. In this case, I don't see anything that has changed my mind as to the player winning fair and square. If this goes to court, and I hope it does, it will not just be Lewen and his band of merry henchmen going, it will be RTG and all your licensees. Judging from your first post here, Hampton can no longer claim software tampering and player abuse. I can guarantee you one thing, Mr. McMain. It will not hurt your brand, this type of negligence will DESTROY your brand. As long as ridiculous managment teams, such as the one at Hampton, are permitted to operate and hang the RTG shingle, this is as much your problem as theirs. I have never seen a more blatant case of "guilt by association".

caps · Feb 18, 2004

I'm not so sure that I would point the gun at RTG quite yet.

If I'm RTG, and I'm intent on pursuing a strategy of hanging the casino out to dry, I would commence matters with a calm and clear rejection of the innuendo, technical and otherwise, that the casino has been spreading around. And that seems to me to be precisely what RTG has done here. One senses that Hampton is now swinging from the longarm, and, based upon everything that folks have seen on these boards for the past few weeks, that's probably a mighty good thing.

I would wait for phase two before drawing any firm conclusions. Once the Hampton fellows have been interred, the question then becomes, how does RTG deal with the player? If the answer is, fairly and honestly, then RTG and its game come out of this with gold plating. A nightmare becomes (for RTG at least) the PR coup that the hamfists at Hampton never understood. On the other hand, if RTG, having killed the crooked casino, simply washes its hands of the matter (not our problem), then the credibility it perhaps has started to earn here ends up having a very short shelf life.

But in my estimation, it's still far too early to tell.

jyde · Feb 18, 2004

I will not answer questions related to the rules of independent casinos or individual player issues.

Even if those rules are used for the biggest robbery in onlinegambling history? I tend to agree with those who find it tacky you come here and announce the return of this game - knowing it got a lot of publicity because of the Pirates win and lots of players will give it a try. I hope everyone will remember that the biggest winner on this game and probably on the RTG software ever, got shafted.

As for this statement:

Our license model is not royalty based so we don't profit in any way when players go unpaid

Last time I checked the standard offer for new wannabe clients are $150K for the software and 20% royalty - and then you negotiate from there.

cipher · Feb 18, 2004

jyde said:
Even if those rules are used for the biggest robbery in onlinegambling history? I tend to agree with those who find it tacky you come here and announce the return of this game - knowing it got a lot of publicity because of the Pirates win and lots of players will give it a try. I hope everyone will remember that the biggest winner on this game and probably on the RTG software ever, got shafted.

As for this statement:
Last time I checked the standard offer for new wannabe clients are $150K for the software and 20% royalty - and then you negotiate from there.

Very solid point indeed.

aceinhole21 · Feb 18, 2004

"We analyzed the pattern on how the mouse was moved"

Robert Myers
Public Relations
Hampton Casino

"The software has no built-in ability to record mouse movements and report that type of activity in any way."

Michael McMain
Director of Engineering
RealTime Gaming

-------------------------

I respect McMain's professionalism here. ok now, I can't say one way or the other if Pirate used a robot, but obviously the casino is full of crap here. if they are full of crap about this, who knows what other stuff they would lie about. So I have to tip my scale in favor of Pirate's story at this point (even though saying what you did on the phone to them was quite stupid, true or not true). I also think Bryan was too harsh in originally calling Pirate a "fraudster" (but no disrespect to Bryan intended - he has a tougher job than most people probably realize.) The situation is obviously more complicated than initially thought, and it looks like there are other fraudsters in the midst...

jyde · Feb 18, 2004

spearmaster said:
I believe Mr. McMain did exactly the right thing - protect the interest of RTG by stating the facts, which in turn exposed Hampton and its representatives as liars.

But doesn't exposing one of their supposedly big licensees as liars indicate they gave up on them? It sounds like this couldn't be solved in private, so now they renounce them in public instead.

Besides from that I find it amusing that RTG now confirms everything we've been saying for the past month. McMain might as well have posted that Hampton are lying sacks of shit.

spearmaster · Feb 18, 2004

I don't think the purpose was to "expose a liar" - rather, to prevent falsehoods being spread with regards to RTG software.

That having been said, by protecting the interests of RTG, Mr. McMain by default rendered the claims of Hamptons false.

It doesn't necessarily indicate that they've given up on Hamptons - however, it is certain that the interests of RTG in protecting the integrity of its software certainly carry more weight than trying to shield a dubious operation or claim.

Unless Hamptons now come in and commit to properly resolving this issue within a certain period of time, they might as well shut down now because all they will see in the near future are withdrawal requests. So anyone thinking of putting money in there, don't.

And you are also right about the licensing structure - I find that claim at best dubious. And when I last checked... LOL... it was $75K and 20% royalty

But that was much longer ago than when you last checked...

portia · Feb 18, 2004

Welcome to Casinomeister Mr. McMain.

Appreciate RTG coming forward with some straight facts.

In recent past the play logs were sent out by RTG not the casino. Can you confirm that Pc21's play logs are available to him as he requested in the other thread on this forum?

Are you able to state what is the basis of the monthly payments liscensees pay to RTG now?

They used to be based on monthly casino win. Are they now based on number of active accounts, or % of Deposits or a flat monthly fee not connected to the action at the casino?

jetset · Feb 19, 2004

If I might add one more question just for clarification, please - during the exhaustive tests on the software did RTG personnel also check out Pirate's gaming logs? If so, did they similarly not suggest the use of a bot?

If not, then I would suggest that Pirate's request for his gaming logs from Hampton be granted direct by RTG (can't trust Hampton as a middleman)

The Dude · Feb 19, 2004

Hi RTG_MMcMain,

And welcome to the forum. I just want to take this opportunity to thank you for joining us since I hope that your presence will bring a number of things to lightwhich I see it already has.

Im looking forward to the answers of some of the questions that have been posted here. Again thanks for joining us.

jyde · Feb 19, 2004

I think I'm gonna throw up.

If the pirate isn't paid this game should never be put back online. It should only be remembered for being part of the biggest onlinescandal ever.

Can't believe they're using the pirate theme for advertising :eek:

The Dude · Feb 19, 2004

Actually, I think this is a sure sign that C21 will be paid.

Its re-release is the official seal of approval. Delanos Casino is now obligated (and liable) for C21's payment.

Correct me if I am wrong anybody.

On another note, I'm curious how affiliates of Phoenician will promote this:
"Try out the game that won a dude nearly $1,4 million dollars!!! Too bad his accounts are all locked up at all RTG casinos - and some of these casinos won't pay NO MATTER WHAT!!"
:axeman2:

All eyes turn to Delano...comments anyone?

The Dude · Feb 19, 2004

jyde said:
Can't believe they're using the pirate theme for advertising

Y'know. If "RTG's Caribbean 21" thread that was initially started - with the references to ports and all - had not been scrutinized for hacker-lingo, this would seem totally appropriate.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/rtgs-caribbean-21.3274/

This whole situation has been so unnecessary. It could have been a marketer's dream.

jyde · Feb 19, 2004

Actually, I think this is a sure sign that C21 will be paid.

I took it for granted that the only problem was Hampton? Afterall they were the only ones to make up the robotproblem. I thought it was a matter of hours before his other accounts were reopened - especially after McMains posts.

Edit: I just reread the old posts. Is he owed 1.2 million from Hampton and $100K from Delano?

The Dude · Feb 19, 2004

I believe Delanos Casino has been sitting on the fence watching all of this, perhaps secretly hoping that the game was flawed. Well it ain't, and the proof is the rerelease, and the statements by Michael McMain that it's good to go.

So it looks like Delanos Casino needs to do the right thing and make this player a happy customer. I'm just wondering how much time this will take to do so.

jyde · Feb 19, 2004

casinomeister said:
If "RTG's Caribbean 21" thread that was initially started - with the references to ports and all - had not been scrutinized for hacker-lingo, this would seem totally appropriate

So you're saying he should just have said "harbours" instead of ports and not referred to the "21" crewmembers?

The Dude · Feb 19, 2004

I think Delanos was hoping this could have been applied in this case:
Old / Expired Link

8h. If you are found cheating or if it is determined by Delano Casino that you have used a system or machine, be, it an additional computer, additional software or otherwise used to circumvent the natural randomness of our systems

But with the release of the game, the ball is now in Delano's court. They need to explain to the player why his account is locked, and what needs to be done to have it reopened. I am sure they are aware of this situation, and they will do this promptly.

caruso · Feb 19, 2004

What a sickening promotional stunt by Phonecian. Didn't I say the RTG appearance here was designed to turn a PR disaster into a coup? Didn't take long for the licensees to start falling in line, did it? I wonder how long this has been in the offing? Was it in the pipeline while Ron The Gangster was threatening to bury Pirate up to his neck in cement?

Let's watch now as the other licensees all start to "yo ho ho" the game up again on the back of RTG's all-time greatest ever attempt at a screw job.

jyde · Feb 19, 2004

casinomeister said:
8h. If you are found cheating or if it is determined by Delano Casino that you have used a system or machine, be, it an additional computer, additional software or otherwise used to circumvent the natural randomness of our systems

That's the anti-hacking clause. However "if you are found cheating" can probably be used in every scenario where a player wins :lolup:

The Dude · Feb 19, 2004

if you are found cheating...

Too vague. Me thinks statements like these will begin to disappear from RTG casino T&C pages.

gamblinboi · Feb 19, 2004

casinomeister said:
Too vague. Me thinks statements like these will begin to disappear from RTG casino T&C pages.

oh come on - there are some casinos that have terms that amount to the following:

"If you follow the terms and condititions to a T, meet the wagering requirements and then cashout with the bonus, you COULD have your winnings voided and only your deposit returned to you."

Compared to that, the "caught cheating" clause is mostly harmless.

Then you have other casinos, say World Wide Vegas, who don't care and just make up rules and so called proof as soon as you win in order to disqualify your winnings.

jetset · Feb 19, 2004

Opportunistic advertising...extremely distasteful given that this sadass affair drags on, imo but good taste and sensitivity has rarely been a strong point in this business.

I think Bryan has a very good point here - we're all focusing on whether Hampton will do the right thing, but there's something like $96K (or was it $70K - so much has happened?) frozen at Delano and the Pirate should now be paid. Maybe with interest, too!

If the game is back in play with a certifying note from RTG that there is no evidence of crooked or illicit play that should be all Delano need to settle with the player.

Delano still have their name intact, having not been dragged into the BS Hampton have been trying to pull, so they can still step back gracefully from this situation.

But the entire industry is now waiting to see what the Hampton people do - their old position of denying this win is untenable in my view.

portia · Feb 19, 2004

Delanos, surely will do the right thing here.

RTG_MMcMain · Feb 19, 2004

portia said:
In recent past the play logs were sent out by RTG not the casino. Can you confirm that Pc21's play logs are available to him as he requested in the other thread on this forum?

RealTime Gaming often assists casinos that need help collecting player log information. We collect and distribute player logs with the consent of the casino. Now that fraud has been ruled out we will begin working with all of this player's casinos to assist them in addressing his needs.

portia said:
Are you able to state what is the basis of the monthly payments liscensees pay to RTG now?

Other than what I have already stated, I cannot comment on this topic further.

spearmaster · Feb 19, 2004

Hmm.

Mr. McMain, given the fact that two people (one of them being myself) with a fair bit of knowledge about the industry have already disputed your claim that RTG does not receive royalties, surely it would be in your best interests to either explain further, correct your statement or dispute our claims?

RTG_MMcMain · Feb 19, 2004

jetset said:
If I might add one more question just for clarification, please - during the exhaustive tests on the software did RTG personnel also check out Pirate's gaming logs? If so, did they similarly not suggest the use of a bot?

If not, then I would suggest that Pirate's request for his gaming logs from Hampton be granted direct by RTG (can't trust Hampton as a middleman)

Part of every investigation of this type is to review the game logs. Reviewing that information was done to determine a number of things but the primary focus was to determine the overal balance of the game according to the style of play. We had to make sure there was nothing missed during the design of the game that presented a positive player expectation. We concluded our investigation by finding that the game held a casino advantage, hence my post here.

Our investigation was not conducted to determine if he did or didn't use, a BOT. Game log review could not definitively answer that question.

jyde · Feb 19, 2004

RTG_MMcMain said:
Our investigation was not conducted to determine if he did or didn't use, a BOT. Game log review could not definitively answer that question.

It's getting better and better. RTG didn't even LOOK for robotplay. Why would they?

Mr. McMain - in a situation like this, would the licensee or a third party have full access (all details) to the game logs?

spearmaster · Feb 19, 2004

I am more than a bit concerned that the issue of royalties is not being addressed. It seems to me that RTG is trying to avoid any responsibility for the debt incurred by one of its licensees.

I will report back if I find anything - but I am now a bit worried.

RTG_MMcMain · Feb 19, 2004

jyde said:
Mr. McMain - in a situation like this, would the licensee or a third party have full access (all details) to the game logs?

The licensee always has full access to the information related to the casino operation. Some of the database architecture is intentionally kept private (support would be a nightmare otherwise). That is why we often have to help casinos collect some of the information they are seeking.

jetset · Feb 19, 2004

"Now that fraud has been ruled out we will begin working with all of this player's casinos to assist them in addressing his needs."

Thanks for answering that question Mike M - I'm taking that to mean that the player will at last be able to get hold of his logs now - it is my understanding that he has been unable to achieve this through Hampton despite site claims that this information is available on request, and it will likely be useful in an evidential sense should this case go to litigation.

Off at something of a tangent, I have to say that RTG management's evasive posture on this royalties question is troubling me, too...

spearmaster · Feb 19, 2004

Could this perhaps be why they are evasive? This was certainly the case when I checked... and this link is from around that time.

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

If RTG have suddenly stopped collecting royalties, I am certainly not aware of this fact.

jyde · Feb 19, 2004

Of course they collect royalties. I can't think of a serious softwareprovider that DON'T collect royalties. They don't make a living from selling software - the big bugs are in royalties.

LemmeSeeHere · Feb 19, 2004

spearmaster said:
Could this perhaps be why they are evasive? This was certainly the case when I checked... and this link is from around that time.

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

If RTG have suddenly stopped collecting royalties, I am certainly not aware of this fact.

Spearmaster,

The distinction is that casino operators do not license directly from RTG. They license from a mysterious 3rd party (based in Panama) called Montana. Montana receives all royalties from RTG operators.

Presumably, Montana pays RTG some sort of flat fee for the software.

spearmaster · Feb 19, 2004

LemmeSeeHere said:
Spearmaster,

The distinction is that casino operators do not license directly from RTG. They license from a mysterious 3rd party (based in Panama) called Montana. Montana receives all royalties from RTG operators.

Presumably, Montana pays RTG some sort of flat fee for the software.

Ah yes, true this may be, in part. But it really has little bearing on the outcome - for all intents and purposes we're talking about the same people. Also, it makes no sense for RTG to state on their own website that a monthly royalty must be paid in addition to licensing fees, and then say that the payments are negotiable depending on circumstances, if they were not the representatives of the mysterious Panamanian 3rd party known as Montana.

RTG was not only a software provider then - and they are still the ones attending conferences and closing deals - so the mysterious Montana is essentially nothing but a company controlled and operated by RTG. It wouldn't take much more digging to establish whether this is true or not - and I would highly suggest that no amount of obfuscation in future will hide the truth, so better to get it over with once and for all and let RTG/Montana deal with Hamptons to ensure that the issue is satisfactorily resolved.

And let's not talk about the "independent" watchdog formerly known as Safebet.

cipher · Feb 19, 2004

LemmeSeeHere said:
Spearmaster,

The distinction is that casino operators do not license directly from RTG. They license from a mysterious 3rd party (based in Panama) called Montana. Montana receives all royalties from RTG operators.

Presumably, Montana pays RTG some sort of flat fee for the software.

Alright LemmeSeeHere, I'll bite.

Do you mind if I ask, how is it that you've come across this knowledge incident to this previously unheard of "MONTANA" who is based in Panama? Would you care to divulge any additional information about "MONTANA" and the royalty arrangement that exists between Realtime Gaming and this person?

By the way welcome to the forum.

RealTime Gaming and Caribbean 21

Dormant account

Dormant account

Dormant account

Dormant account

Dormant account

Dormant account

Banned member - being a jerk

Most Annoying Forum Member of 2006

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

Banned member - being a jerk

Dormant account

RIP Ted

Dormant account

RIP Brian

RIP Brian

Dormant account

Dormant account

Dormant account

Banned member - being a jerk

Dormant account

Dormant account

RIP Ted

Dormant account

RIP Brian

The artist formally known as Casinomeister

Dormant account

The artist formally known as Casinomeister

The artist formally known as Casinomeister

Dormant account

The artist formally known as Casinomeister

Dormant account

The artist formally known as Casinomeister

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

Dormant account

The artist formally known as Casinomeister

Dormant account

RIP Brian

Dormant account

Dormant account

RIP Ted

Dormant account

Dormant account

RIP Ted

Dormant account

RIP Brian

RIP Ted

Dormant account

Dormant account

RIP Ted

Banned member - being a jerk

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Accredited Casinos