Casinobar Review - Rogue

"Closed Casino: cheating software."

Closed Casino: cheating software

CM Rating
1/10
User Rating
No rating yet

Closed Casino: cheating software

Not Accepted
Not Responsive

Overview

First Impression

Last update 2 July 2002
Software provider: COA Software

On June 4th 2002, I received word that Michael Shackleford, “The Wizard of Odds” had accused Casinobar.com of cheating at Blackjack. This was big news. Casinobar.com has been online for some time now and uses software provided by COA World Entertainment Limited. After viewing his findings, which were documented here, I decided to report on this.

Understandably, the folks at Casinobar weren’t too happy about this. I immediately placed Casinobar and all of its related casinos in our Rogue Casino Section. COA’s lawyers contacted me and implied that some of my writings were too subjective and slanderous. I am sure that if any of you had reviewed what I wrote, you would have agreed that most of the statements I made were objective. And sure, there is a measurable amount of opinions and subjectivity in all journalistic writings and reporting, simply because these reports are made by people who use their experience and knowledge to give the writing some depth.

What followed was a ridiculous (oops, subjectivity) flurry of emails from the lawyers of Casinobar. Which have been posted below. Obviously, they just don’t get it. I reported a fact that the Wizard of Odds stated that their Blackjack game was cheating, simple as that. If Casinobar doesn’t like the fact that I stated what others had claimed, tough beans. The Wizard of Odds wasn’t the only one who checked out their game of blackjack; there were others: The Gamemaster came up with more or less the same results, the webmaster of Custom Strategy Cards delved into this matter as well as Dan Pronovost, the webmaster of Deep Net Technologies. Check out the results yourself.

Also, these lawyers didn’t bother to read my legal disclaimer (which is linked from every page) which states:

The operators of this website assume no responsibility for problems or losses experienced by those using Casinomeister’s information or services. Information provided by Casinomeister or any information posted in the forum or other places is to be used for entertainment purposes only.

AND

Any conclusions made as a result of this information are the sole liability of the reader. We accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from any use of any contents in this web site, we merely share our information and our opinions. We attempt to provide information as precise and complete as possible, and we cannot assume any responsibility, consequential or otherwise, for incorrectness or incompleteness of any kind of material posted here.

Now, Casinobar hired a mathematician to refute the Wiz’s findings. He stated that the Wiz’s reported results were “extremely unlikely under the hypothesis of a fair dealer” but went on to say that the game is now fair. This implies that perhaps there is a switch for a rigged game since Michael Shackleford and the other operatives all received basically the same results. And lastly, Michael Shackelford didn’t set out to prove how Casinobar was cheating, but just that they were cheating. Obviously, this was proven by him and the others.

The following is the correspondance between the Casinobar lawyers and me:

Reply-To: <gideon@shaylaw.co.il>
From: âãòåï ìåéè <gideon@shaylaw.co.il>
To: <dealer@casinomeister.com>
Cc: <service@casinobar.com>
Subject: COA World Entertaiment Limited
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:45:08 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: NormalDear Bryan,We act as the legal counsels of the above referred company, of which instructions were to forward you the enclosed document for your immediate response.Best regards,

Gideon Levit, Adv.

——————————————————————

Thursday, June 06, 2002

To the attention of:
Mr. Bryan Bailey
Casinomeister.com

By electronic mail
Without prejudice

Dear Sir,
Re: COA World Entertainment Limited

As the legal counsel of COA World Entertainment Limited (“COA”), we would like to draw your attention to the following:

1. COA is an online gaming operator having title to two main Internet sites, www.casinobar.com and www.cosinoonair.com (the “Sites”).

2. We are informed that you have published in www.CasinoMeister.com, Michael Shackleford’s report concerning his analysis of the blackjack game played in these Sites.

3. You have recklessly implied, without having examined the merits of Michael Shackleford’s analysis, that the software used in casinoonair.com cheats players at blackjack. Please note, that Michael Shackleford’s harsh assertion, namely that “Casino Bar is cheating at blackjack” is based on unfounded allegations and he further states that “Casino on Air now uses the same software as Casino Bar” and continues, “I have not played at Casino on Air since they left Starnet.”

4. The publication as it appears in your site, is slanderous in nature causing severe economic losses, whether actual or potential, to COA’s business and its goodwill.

5. Accordingly, on behalf of COA, we hereby demand that you immediately rescind publications in this regard and publish an appropriate apology with respect to your reckless implications as noted above, to be circulated via the same media that served your report.

6. Unless you notify us immediately that you will promptly comply with the foregoing demands, we will be forced to take appropriate action to protect COA’s valuable legal rights.

7. Nothing contained herein will be deemed to constitute a waiver of any of COA’s rights or remedies, all of which are specifically reserved.

Very truly yours,
Abramovich, Yosef, Hakim

Gideon Levit, Adv.

——————————————————————-
My Response:

Dear Gideon,

I am a journalist merely reporting the news, thus I would be happy to publish any rebuttal that Casinobar.com wishes to be aired. I have simply reported on Michael Shackelford’s findings. I will be prepared to publish any rescinding comments, apologies, rebuttals, etc. from any parties, since I am in essence a conduit for the flow of this information.

Further, Michael Shackelford’s experience and reputation in this industry is unparalleled. If he claims that a software provider is cheating and publishes this statement, I as a consumer watchdog, am obligated to report these findings. If he rescinds his statement, the same thing goes. I report on these issues responsibly. Threatening legal action against those reporting the news is unwarranted and could easily backfire on your client.

Sincerely,

Bryan Bailey

—————————————————–
I then replied again:

Dear Gideon,

I have just reread my statements at Casinomeister and I am a bit puzzled. What exactly is slanderous? And if I am supposed to apologize, what should I be apologizing for? This is what is posted:

Warning: Casino Warning!! Casinobar has been accused of using rigged software by Michael Shackleford, the “Wizard of Odds”. You may read his full report here. This may also affect other casinos using this software C.O.A World Entertainment. Casinoonair.com uses this software as well. I will keep you informed as information is received.

This is published on http://casinomeister.com/vortran.html

Further posted at http://casinomeister.com/rogue.html#casinobar it states this:

Casinobar.com and Casinoonair.com use the same software that is provided by C.O.A World Entertainment Ltd. located in Cyprus. Unfortunately, it seems that this software cheats players at Black Jack. In June 2002, Michael Shackleford (the “Wizard of Odds”) put casinobar’s Black Jack game to the test and came up with some staggering results. He states: here is his statement.

Please give me some guidance, since I don’t see anything slanderous here.

Sincerely,

Bryan Bailey

———————————————————
They wrote back:
Dear Bryen,
Journalists’ work is appreciated as long as the information circulated is objective, not tendentious or otherwise biased. Journalists that use any given platform as a podium to express their opinions or otherwise abuse it by choosing, at their will, a logical structure to their report, even though it seems as if they are siting others, in order to induce public awareness, are probably walking on thin ice and may be, thereby, subject to legal actions.You have chosen to highlight, as a starting point in your report, published in http:www.casinomeister.com/rogue.html#casonobar, the fact that Casinobar.com and Casinoonair.com use the same software, thereby, placing the latter site at the same level as the first with respect to Michael Shackleford’s analysis, without even mentioning the fact that Mr. Shackleford never visited the site, as he himself stated, “I have not played at Casino on Air since they left Starnet”, which could have put things in proportion. By failing to do so, you have literally refrained from objectivity. So as truly stated, you are obligated to report findings, the question, however, remains, how such findings are being published?Accordingly, you are immediately required, to balance your report by incorporating the above fact with respect to Casinoonair.com and publish in your site our enclosed response to Mr. Shackleford report.Best regards,

Gideon Levit, Adv

————————————————————

And I replied with this:

Dear Gideon,

If the same group of casinos are using the same software, then most likely they are having the same results. Sure, I can post the same disclaimer that Michael Shackleford posted, but it is only fair to the players that they are aware that several casinos use this software. Most seasoned players already know this, and I am still puzzled why you would think that any disclaimer makes a difference to the fact that casinoonair uses the same software.

Sincerely,

Bryan Bailey

———————————–

And then I wrote again:

Dear Gideon,

I agree that my writing seemed to have placed casinobar and casinoonair on the same level, therefore I have modified the text and placed a disclaimer that Michael Shackleford did not play there. I will also be publishing a statement in tonight’s newsletter to reflect this.

Sincerely,

Bryan

————————————————
Here is my disclaimer and apology:

COA’s lawyers have contacted me and have implied that some of my writings were a bit too subjective and slanderous. Perhaps I made an insinuation that shouldn’t have been made and I apologize to all individuals involved or affected by this:

In fairness to COA, I should state that Michael Shackleford did NOT play at Casinoonair or any of the other casinos that use this same software. I hope that this clarifies the point that his findings only pertain to casinobar.com.

I also inquired about COA’s “request” for publishing their respons (sp) to Michael Shackleford’s report. It was unclear to me what exactly they wanted me to do. This is what they wrote:

Dear Bryen,

Please find our enclosed respons to Mr. Shackleford’s report, which we demand to be published in your site.

Regards,
Gideon Levit, Adv.

And a little perturbed, I answered them:

Dear Gideon,

For one thing, it’s Bryan. In fact, you can call me Mr. Bailey if my first name is too challenging for you to get straight. And another thing, your last email was truly one of the most unprofessional responses I have ever received. “Demand”? There is a certain level of business etiquette that has been clearly abandoned on your part. Please note that my last email merely requested for you to be more specific on what you wished to be published at Casinomeister. For you to “demand” anything from someone who has simply tried to have something clarified is unnecessary. You are clearly bullying me, and the whole world (at least the online gaming world) is watching. If you wish to better serve your client, I would suggest backing off on the sabre rattling vocabulary.

I’ll post the material on Monday.

Sincerely,

Bryan Bailey

Thursday, June 06, 2002

To the attention of :
Mr. Michael Shackleford

Dear Sir,
Re: COA World Entertainment Limited

As the legal counsel of COA World Entertainment Limited (“COA”), we would like to draw your attention to the following:

1. COA is an online gaming operator having title to two main Internet sites, www.casinobar.com and www.casinoonair.com (the “Sites”).

2. COA has been in the gaming industry for nearly 4 years and has over 150,000 loyal play-for-real players and over 2 million fun players. COA is a reputable company and is renown for its promotions and the amount of bonuses it offers to the players, in spite of the fact that it faces many bonus hustlers, fraudulent and charge-back punters. Indeed, as you have stated in your report, mentioned hereunder, “they have good software, a nice website and otherwise seem a good organization”.

3. We are informed that on June 3rd, 2002, you published a report in www.thewizardofodds.com, titled “Casino Bar Experiment”.

4. Your report is tendentious and is of a slanderous nature. We can hardly comprehend how you could possibly reach these incorrect and misleading conclusions.

5. It should be noted, that it would be impossible for you to have used COA’s software code as it is only known to three of its major partners and is stowed away in a safe depository. If indeed you have used a software code, such cannot be COA’s and in all circumstances it is not the code by which COA’s software is operated. If after all, you have been using COA’s code, it would constitute a felony and you may thereby face legal action for dishonestly appropriating COA’s property. It is reasonably expected, that one, who pretends to perform a diligent analysis, would at least verify that the code is that of COA’s software.

6. Your harsh assertion, namely that “Casino Bar is cheating at blackjack” is based on unfounded allegations and conclusions drawn recklessly by inducing your findings over an unreasonable short period of time. In addition, you have recklessly related your analysis with respect to Casino Bar to COA’s other site, casinoonair.com, stating, “Casino-on-Air now uses the same software as Casino Bar” and yet asserting “I have not played at Casino on Air since they left Starnet”.

7. We are advised that your report’s slanderous nature has caused COA severe economic losses, actual and potential, to its business and goodwill. COA insists that it DOES NOT tamper with its software codes.

8. Due to the severe and enormous damage caused by your unsubstantiated allegations, we instructed COA to accept the appointment of an independent third-party expert to ascertain your allegations of which results would be published on the net. It is to note, that COA’s willingness in this regard, only demonstrates its full assurance in the credibility of its software and in its integrity and fairness in the way it conducts its business. Any failure to cooperate with COA in this respect and/or rescinding the unsubstantiated assertions raised by you, would only indicate its unprofessional and tendentious nature, which is also being unlawfully abused by sites slandering COA’s business.

9. We are instructed, to exhaust all available legal measures in order to avoid the publication and distribution of unsubstantiated information of which consequences may result in the loss of tens of jobs, without even affording COA the opportunity to prove otherwise.

10. We are, therefore, advised to inform you to immediately publish an appropriate apology to be circulated via the same media that served your report.

11. Unless you notify us immediately that you will promptly comply with the foregoing demands, we will be forced to take appropriate action to protect COA’s valuable legal rights.

12. Nothing contained herein will be deemed to constitute a waiver of any of COA’s rights or remedies, all of which are specifically reserved.

Very truly yours,
Abramovich, Yosef, Hakim

Gideon Levit, Adv.

From here, please read COA’s math professor’s findings at the Wizard of Odds site here site. And no, the Wiz is not apologizing either.

General Information

Website
casinobar.com
Software
Casino Reps
Live Games
No
Loyalty program
No
Founded
Licensing Jurisdiction
Certified
No
No Deposit Bonus
No
Jackpots
Accredited
Publicly traded
No
Affiliate program
No
Mobile
No
Other products
Country restrictions:
United States
Phone contact
Contact info