vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
This is VERY bad, not only can Rival casinos have individually configured Blackjack games, but there appear to be NO SENSIBLE VALUE BOUNDS incorporated into the code to prevent "accidents" like this, where one value is misconfigured right off the bottom of the chart! I would expect Blackjack, except exitic variants, to vary narrowly between paying 2:1 and 6:5 for a Blackjack. Given this is billed as a "vegas rules" variant, players EXPECT that the paytable bounds would be CONSTRAINED by the limits allowed under Vegas rules.
What makes this even WORSE is that there is NO tie-in whatsoever between these configuration values, and the rules displayed to the player, meaning the games can be misrepresented, as is the case TWICE in this incident (rules say "double after split allowed", but configuration has this turned off, and the table displays "blackjacks paid 3:2", but they were erroneously configured to pay 1:1).
There is also the fact that this was taken on board as a VERY UNIMPORTANT ISSUE INDEED when raised with support, where it looks like the player was repeatedly fobbed off with empty promises so that they would just "go away, and stop bothering us with this trivia". They made numerous unkept promises to deal with the matter quickly, but required much pushing to even get them to investigate, and then when they found there really WAS a problem, hoped that simply correcting the ONE instance used as the example would be enough to make it go away.
They then tried to limit the damage by saying it only happened for 4 days, and only at their casino. This leaves a couple of questions.
1) WHY was this particular configuration value even TOUCHED in the first place, enabling the mistake to be made.
2) Their claim of "only 4 days" is now starting to look a little shaky, with another player claiming to have noticed and reported this problem on the 22nd of last month, and was then told it had been fixed.
3) Was the OP DELIBERATELY being bullied into going away and letting this issue be swept under the carpet - to the detriment of other players, or is the appalling level of service he received during that live chat NORMAL service
How can it take AN HOUR to proceed through such a short exchange.
In general, none of this should even be POSSIBLE, and it shows yet ANOTHER "Rival lie" has been slipped past us players. Now, we have to accept the general concept that casino specific game configurations are ANOTHER of the options available as part of the WL package. Further, this case seems to indicate a lack of "safety nets", because the parameter for Blackjack payout should NOT accept an attempt to set it to a mere 1:1, it should alert the configurator that an "invalid value" has been requested, which would have prevented this mistake from happening.
If they have so much leeway with the table games, it is reasonable to assume that configuration options also exist for the slot games, perhaps either in the form of RTG, a selection between a number of RTP options, or even the ability to just type in the desired RTP, with the game being adjusted to match. The worry nowis that the software lacks sensible bounds, which could enable Rival slots to be set to "stupidly" low RTP values, such as 80%, but where players could STILL be fobbed off with "you were just unlucky", and have no way to prove otherwise.
The last, and more personal, point is the coincidence between the OP trying to get this issue taken seriously, and being bonus banned at Vegas Regal after seeking help from their rep. To put this to rest, we need Vegas Regal to step up and inform the OP WHY the bonus ban came along now, rather than before this issue was raised. The OP could also give the rep formal permission to post the reason in this thread, needed since without it the rep could not reveal enough without breaching rules on releasing player's information without permission.
From the potted playing history from the OP, and the revelation that they are indeed the "whale" JHV, and generate considerable UNBONUSED action, I find it hard to believe that the bonus ban was the result of "bonus abuse", leaving this issue the only other factor in the public domain to explain things.
What makes this even WORSE is that there is NO tie-in whatsoever between these configuration values, and the rules displayed to the player, meaning the games can be misrepresented, as is the case TWICE in this incident (rules say "double after split allowed", but configuration has this turned off, and the table displays "blackjacks paid 3:2", but they were erroneously configured to pay 1:1).
There is also the fact that this was taken on board as a VERY UNIMPORTANT ISSUE INDEED when raised with support, where it looks like the player was repeatedly fobbed off with empty promises so that they would just "go away, and stop bothering us with this trivia". They made numerous unkept promises to deal with the matter quickly, but required much pushing to even get them to investigate, and then when they found there really WAS a problem, hoped that simply correcting the ONE instance used as the example would be enough to make it go away.
They then tried to limit the damage by saying it only happened for 4 days, and only at their casino. This leaves a couple of questions.
1) WHY was this particular configuration value even TOUCHED in the first place, enabling the mistake to be made.
2) Their claim of "only 4 days" is now starting to look a little shaky, with another player claiming to have noticed and reported this problem on the 22nd of last month, and was then told it had been fixed.
3) Was the OP DELIBERATELY being bullied into going away and letting this issue be swept under the carpet - to the detriment of other players, or is the appalling level of service he received during that live chat NORMAL service
How can it take AN HOUR to proceed through such a short exchange.
In general, none of this should even be POSSIBLE, and it shows yet ANOTHER "Rival lie" has been slipped past us players. Now, we have to accept the general concept that casino specific game configurations are ANOTHER of the options available as part of the WL package. Further, this case seems to indicate a lack of "safety nets", because the parameter for Blackjack payout should NOT accept an attempt to set it to a mere 1:1, it should alert the configurator that an "invalid value" has been requested, which would have prevented this mistake from happening.
If they have so much leeway with the table games, it is reasonable to assume that configuration options also exist for the slot games, perhaps either in the form of RTG, a selection between a number of RTP options, or even the ability to just type in the desired RTP, with the game being adjusted to match. The worry nowis that the software lacks sensible bounds, which could enable Rival slots to be set to "stupidly" low RTP values, such as 80%, but where players could STILL be fobbed off with "you were just unlucky", and have no way to prove otherwise.
The last, and more personal, point is the coincidence between the OP trying to get this issue taken seriously, and being bonus banned at Vegas Regal after seeking help from their rep. To put this to rest, we need Vegas Regal to step up and inform the OP WHY the bonus ban came along now, rather than before this issue was raised. The OP could also give the rep formal permission to post the reason in this thread, needed since without it the rep could not reveal enough without breaching rules on releasing player's information without permission.
From the potted playing history from the OP, and the revelation that they are indeed the "whale" JHV, and generate considerable UNBONUSED action, I find it hard to believe that the bonus ban was the result of "bonus abuse", leaving this issue the only other factor in the public domain to explain things.