- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
Betfred 'hosted the games'
Betfred did not rig the games themselves.
From what it says all parties involved were re-imbursed, so I would say kudos for dealing with the problem, and it just shows that any problems that may arise at betfred may be dealt with.
From what it says all parties involved were re-imbursed.
I was as outraged as the best of you when this issue came to light, and I am still very suspicious of many of the elements that have been revealed, and the lack of answers to several key questions.
However....
Bryan has not swept this issue under the carpet. He has clearly been in contact with the regulator, and I'm speculating that he has been told enough about the investigation so far to be aware that, in his words new information is developing which has the potential to alter perspectives and opinions in this matter.
The way I see it, he suspended the thread to halt speculation until the regulator had completed its investigation and published a transparent public report through which players can form a view based on facts and not surmise.
I would personally have liked the thread to continue, but this is Bryan's site; he has had the most contact with the regulator, and he is in a better position to make a judgement call on this.
I still do not believe that the OP's use of a false identity when opening the casino account negates the need for a thorough investigation, and perhaps the GRA appreciates that, hence its enquiries with the operator concerned and presumably witrh the OP.
The OP has confessed rather clumsily (and not very credibly imo) but his admissions throw suspicion on the veracity and accuracy of the statistical information he made available to Eliot for his tests, and that is just one facet of this matter that needs careful and further study.
For now, I'm going to watch for the regulator's report...it's bound to be extremely interesting.
I was as outraged as the best of you when this issue came to light, and I am still very suspicious of many of the elements that have been revealed, and the lack of answers to several key questions.
However....
Bryan has not swept this issue under the carpet. He has clearly been in contact with the regulator, and I'm speculating that he has been told enough about the investigation so far to be aware that, in his words new information is developing which has the potential to alter perspectives and opinions in this matter.
The way I see it, he suspended the thread to halt speculation until the regulator had completed its investigation and published a transparent public report through which players can form a view based on facts and not surmise.
I would personally have liked the thread to continue, but this is Bryan's site; he has had the most contact with the regulator, and he is in a better position to make a judgement call on this.
I still do not believe that the OP's use of a false identity when opening the casino account negates the need for a thorough investigation, and perhaps the GRA appreciates that, hence its enquiries with the operator concerned and presumably witrh the OP.
The OP has confessed rather clumsily (and not very credibly imo) but his admissions throw suspicion on the veracity and accuracy of the statistical information he made available to Eliot for his tests, and that is just one facet of this matter that needs careful and further study.
For now, I'm going to watch for the regulator's report...it's bound to be extremely interesting.
Goodbye Casinomeister, you're broken.
I can understand Chopley's frustration here. We see a casino with a fundamentally serious trust issue remaining on the accredited list. I can also surmise that there is more to this than meets the eye. Then again apart from this game issue, they pay out quick and behave in all other ways like a pretty good casino, from my past experiences there.
I think Chopley has a problem with them (at present) being given the benefit of the doubt, as in his eyes by their past statements he mentions, there is NO doubt about what they have been doing.
I am trying to stand back here and be neutral and play devil's advocate. Reading between the lines, Chopley seems to be cynical as to motives for those concerned. We have CM, IMO the most comprehensive player facility on the web and obviously funded and profiting from affiliate join-ups via its list of accredited sites. In return, we get the only free and genuinely easy and helpful service on the web to act as a mediator between ourselves and casinos, and CM have recovered funds for many players. This is why I join many of my sites knowing I'm getting CM a commission; in the event of a problem, I'm getting a facility to help me. Indeed players who haven't joined a site via CM have also come on here and been helped so we cannot accuse CM of exclusively helping those who've joined via the site.
IMO the bloke (and maybe others who've been less outspoken) need a reassurance that Betfred remaining one of the few accredited Playtech casinos is not in any way to do with revenue loss, and relies SOLELY on other considerations that we the members are not yet party to, but will be so in the future once the matter is concluded. I am aware that CM has already made a post inferring this, but there clearly remains a bad smell about the affair. I also get the feeling that if other games could be analysed like the Finsoft ones, we could find the issue is endemic. Who knows?
Yes we can all see choppy's pov, but, and it's a big but - Bryan himself has stated that this isn't finished yet, he is ofc privy to information that we are not. I would hardly think Bryan would jeopardize the reputation of this site and himself, by giving accreditation to a casino that has irrefutably used software knowing full well it was rigged.
Yes we can all see choppy's pov, but, and it's a big but - Bryan himself has stated that this isn't finished yet, he is ofc privy to information that we are not. I would hardly think Bryan would jeopardize the reputation of this site and himself, by giving accreditation to a casino that has irrefutably used software knowing full well it was rigged.
Yes, I think that's what Chopley is wondering. Why? Because (and I'm not personally expressing a view here but simply going by events that are openly on here and documented thus far) that is exactly the state of affairs at present. As it stands. Unless I'm missing something.
IMHO the Betfred and Finsoft descriptions in the accredited section should read "currently under investigation" (which is the truth) as opposed to giving the green light to players to play there and giving the impression that everything has been sorted out.
If I wasn't reading the forum, I'd not bat an eye at that thing. "Wrong help file? Who cares. Please take my money Betfred".
Jetset said:The OP has confessed rather clumsily (and not very credibly imo) but his admissions throw suspicion on the veracity and accuracy of the statistical information he made available to Eliot for his tests, and that is just one facet of this matter that needs careful and further study.
Yes we can all see choppy's pov, but, and it's a big but - Bryan himself has stated that this isn't finished yet, he is ofc privy to information that we are not. I would hardly think Bryan would jeopardize the reputation of this site and himself, by giving accreditation to a casino that has irrefutably used software knowing full well it was rigged.
It's been established by Betfred themselves that they knowingly incorporated a product where the true odds don't match implied odds, ie. they knowingly chose to use rigged game. In addition they confirmed that the game behaved exactly as the playlogs provided by the OP showed, so any chance that the OP's playlogs were inaccurate is also out of the picture.
So whatever this upcoming revelation that Casinomeister is about to make is, it cannot change these verified facts anymore - it's simply too late now.
Analysis has revealed that Reel Deal was indeed returning at 96%, despite being advertised at 100%. Finsoft’s review revealed that this was the result of an administrative error on the game’s deployment to Betfred, where the wrong help file was attached to the game.
While mistakes do happen, Betfred realise this is not acceptable. Neither Finsoft or Betfred would purposely mislead players, and will therefore actively compensate players on losses derived from the game over the last 6 months. The amounts should be in accounts by next Tuesday. Claims beyond 6 months will be accepted and honoured, too, but must be submitted individually.
It's been respect,blished by Betfred themselves that they knowingly incorporated a product where the true odds don't match implied odds, ie. they knowingly chose to use rigged game. In addition they confirmed that the game behaved exactly as the playlogs provided by the OP showed, so any chance that the OP's playlogs were not accurate is also out of the picture.
So the thing is that any new upcoming revelation that Casinomeister claims to have in his pocket cannot cannot change these known facts anymore - it's simply too late at now.