32Red disgrace - TotalGambler ad

sirius

Senior Member
I don't really know where to start with this but this is a big mistake by 32Red. It's probably easiest if I copy email correspondence I posted on my site many days ago now. I have waited close to a week for a response which hasn't been forthcoming. This is from a casino that is currently recommended and advertised on my site and is the third highest rated casino in the directory by reviews from players. I honestly don't know what to about them now other than dump them.

I'm awaiting a reply but this is explains it so far (best to read from the bottom up):

Hi,

The reason the roulette article was a bad idea was
that it was totally misleading. I'm still not sure
what to do about it.

The front cover of the publication has the headline
"ROULETTE - Discover the smarter way to play". Anyone
gambling should know roulette is just luck and not
think there is a way to guarantee you win in roulette
as the article suggests. This will probably create
problem gamblers, as one of the major reasons for
compulsive gambling is false beliefs about the games
.
There is no smarter way to play and you need no
understanding of the game to have a better chance of
winning than anyone else.

The first part of the article reads: "The wheel deal :
Reckon you can't consistently make money on roulette?
You're wrong. The odds can be tough, but with
discipline and a thorough understanding of the game,
you could at least win more than you lose."

There is another part saying 'Knowledge is power' and
states: "You must know the game. Most players have no
interest in where the numbers are on the wheel. They
should! Number position varies on the 37- and 38-
number wheels. You need to know that on the single-0
wheel, 27 is red and lies between 6 black and 13
black. On the 00 wheel, it lies next to 00. This
know-how can mean the difference between the
occasional win (the amateur) and the steady winners
(the pros)."

This information has no bearing on whether you win or
not in roulette!

There is another part that almost admits it's rubbish:
"When I'm betting against the wheel, if I wait for,
say, six red numbers in a row, then I'm closer to
hitting a black than if I bet on black striaght away,
although there's no mathematical logic in this."

The tips titled "Do and Dont's" are total rubbish too.

--- Kate Blackmore <kate@32red.com> wrote:

>
> We run a number of print ads in several
> gambling-theme publications. This one is part of
> series Total Gambler are running in association with
> 32Red, providing hints and tips for certain casino
> games. It was a joint idea from the Total Gambler
> editorial staff and our Marketing Department. We
> would hope to offer other adverts and articles in
> similar publications in the future.
>
> I am sorry to hear you were unhappy with the article
> - could you please let me know what you found
> disappointing?
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Kate Blackmore
> Marketing Executive
> 32Red Casino | 32Red Poker
> Casinomeister Best Casino 2003 & 2004

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed an advert/article by 32RED in Total
> Gambler magazine which was about roulette and how to
> win.
> Who's idea was this advert? I asked before because I
> wasn't very happy with it but you didn't respond.
> Are you going to do these type of adverts again?
>
>
 

johnsteed

Ueber Meister
Hmmm...

To Sirius,

I visited your site yesterday, and I must say, while another member wasn't so impressed (although I DO value unsaid players opinion ;) ), I thought that it's pretty good. I generally respect what you have to say.

I also noticed the MONSTER add by 32Red at your website. I also noticed the other thread where you recently brought-up Casinomeister's Accredited Casinos list as being too big (or too long, or whatever you said). Calling-out 2 of the most respected online casino icons (who are more substance than style in their respective fields) is NOT the way to catapult your website, if that is indeed what you're trying to do. Distancing yourself from an advertiser that's doing something unethical is great, but promoting it at another website seems a bit tacky. Don't pretty much ALL online casinos try to sell the image of the player ALWAYS winning?

IMPO, MANY advertisements are unethical and lousy (BoDog has THE worst in my mind). That being the case, you might as well call-out EVERY online casinos marketing team.

Then again, what will the marketing team start coming up for sales pitches?

Example:

Come to CasinoCasinoCasino.com!!

Guaranteed only 5% in losses over the long-run!!!

Start losing today!!!!!!!!
 

sirius

Senior Member
More info about TotalGambler Magazine

Total Gambler Magazine has a circulation of around half a million making it the largest gambling magazine in UK. It comes as a free supplement with various men's and lifestyle magazines from the same publisher (Dennis Publishing - which also publishes another gambling magazine called Inside Edge). A lot of the readers wouldn't expect a gambling magazine to be inside the magazine they bought but that is not the point (they can always throw it away as I know one person did who has lost a lot in the past gambling and wasn't pleased to see the magazine inside).

The 32red roulette article was not their first. The previous month it was about blackjack which was good enough (although there was an error in the cut-out-and-keep basic strategy chart which said to stand on 16 against a 9 or above!). The roulette article, however, was nothing short of a disgrace. It was the cover story of the whole magazine. They employed a sham author to help write the 3 page article and plug both 32Red and his stupid book (Roulette- Playing to Win by Brett Morton). 32Red is mentioned in the article a few times by the author and the 32Red name is on each of the pages at the top and bottom (as would be expected for an advertising feature). The fourth page next to the third page of the article is a conventional 32red roulette ad asking 'What's your lucky number?'

It was the cover story for Total Gambler Magazine which showed a picture of a roulette wheel and the phrase 'Roulette- Discover a smarter way to play'. The magazine itself has the slogan "Read it and win!" which probably encouraged more people to read the cover article than normal. I can't repeat enough how much of a sham the article is. I'm quite sure the author even knows it's total rubbish but wants to sell his book. He mentions certain mathematical facts in the article which shows he knows enough to not believe what he is writing.

The article starts with: "When I wrote my book, Roulette - Playing to Win, people asked whether I would be banned from casinos, as I was explaining how to beat them. I could see what they meant. If everyone started winning, then bailiffs rather than moguls would rule the Las Vegas Strip. But life isn't like that. Of the many people who have spoken to me or listened to me talking about Playing to Win, most will prefer to have fun at the roulette table and will lack the iron discipline needed to play well.."

The supposed tips in Dos and Don'ts are equally laughable. It mentions that there are more red odd numbers than black and more black even numbers than red and 'knowing this can influence your bets'. Another one is 'win more when you're winning than you lose when you're losing'. Towards the end of the article he says: "I guarantee that taking time to learn to play properly will bring rewards."

Anyone who knows about the game can see how stupid this article is. It is also very dangerous.
 

sirius

Senior Member
Yes I have the ads for 32red on my site but they will be taken down quite soon as I can't see what they can do to resolve it. I have been waiting a week for them to respond to what I wrote back to them although I didn't really expect them to do much about it now.

32Red is one of the top rated sites and is almost 8 out of 10 after 19 reviews by forum members. Their previous article on blackjack was good enough (apart from the mistake in the strategy table) and they told players they can expect around 99% return in the long which is probably less than they would actually get.

Gambling isn't about winning all the time it's about gambling. Your idea of losing in the long run isn't quite correct either as most players wouldn't get into the 'long run'. The roulette article was completely wrong and suggested there is a way with practise to beat the table. All players should know they can't guarantee to beat the game but they have a good chance of winning in the medium term. Even with roulette they would need many thousands of spins for the house edge to be significant (i.e. the casino could still be losing after many thousands of spins). The casino needs a large volume of players so that the actual return is guaranteed to be close enough to the theoretical return to ensure the casino a profit. Casinos don't make money as easily as you think. Some players will get lucky and even things out even though the vast majority lose.

The only reason most gamblers lose is that they aim to win too many times before they quit and only the lucky few manage to win. If the games paid out 100% it would still not make much difference to a player in the short term as it is still only 50% chance of doubling the bankroll and 10% chance of turning $100 into $1000. The few that are lucky cashout as winners. Casinos have players because it isn't difficult for players to win a modest amount and some are lucky and win a lot. When I mentioned erroneous beliefs by compulsive gamblers, non-gamblers also have erroneous beliefs which some say is a good thing. Namely, they think they can't win gambling.
 

johnsteed

Ueber Meister
sirius

Casinos don't make money as easily as you think. Some players will get lucky and even things out even though the vast majority lose.

I've never been under the assumption that casinos make money easily, though I do agree though that the vast majority of players lose. I also doubt that casinos come ahead in profit EACH month (minus those other casinos that stall and don't pay their winners).

I also think that a casino like 32Red, which is "likely" considered a big-player amongst all the online casinos out there, may not be as big as people think. I would assume that casinos such as 888.com, InterCasino, the Gaming Club (or better yet, other MG and RTG affiliates), and a host of others are likely much larger operations. I think out of all the casinos that I've deposited at (roughly 200), or that I've been reading about over the years, I find that 32Red have very high "ethical" standards WHILE trying to turn a profit. That's why casino's are in business, not to come up even, but to turn a profit.

If you're going to pull your 32Red banner based on principal (because they are a "disgrace"), you might as well pull the majority (if not ALL) of your advertisement banners at the same time.

Footnote: My apologies concerning my comments towards BoDog's advertisement campaign. I don't like it, it's too "rah-rah" or "sexed-up" in my opinion. "Lousy" (in taste) yes, "unethical" no. As far as I know, it's a great RTG casino that pays it's players.
 
Last edited:

casinoplayer658

Dormant account
johnsteed said:
sirius

Casinos don't make money as easily as you think. Some players will get lucky and even things out even though the vast majority lose.

I've never been under the assumption that casinos make money easily, though I do agree though that the vast majority of players lose. I also doubt that casinos come ahead in profit EACH month (minus those other casinos that stall and don't pay their winners).

I also think that a casino like 32Red, which is "likely" considered a big-player amongst all the online casinos out there, may not be as big as people think. I would assume that casinos such as 888.com, InterCasino, the Gaming Club (or better yet, other MG and RTG affiliates), and a host of others are likely much larger operations. I think out of all the casinos that I've deposited at (roughly 200), or that I've been reading about over the years, I find that 32Red have very high "ethical" standards WHILE trying to turn a profit. That's why casino's are in business, not to come up even, but to turn a profit.

If you're going to pull your 32Red banner based on principal (because they are a "disgrace"), you might as well pull the majority (if not ALL) of your advertisement banners at the same time.

Footnote: My apologies concerning my comments towards BoDog's advertisement campaign. I don't like it, it's too "rah-rah" or "sexed-up" in my opinion. "Lousy" (in taste) yes, "unethical" no. As far as I know, it's a great RTG casino that pays it's players.
If you don't think it is easy for an online casino to make money you are an idiot.
 

johnsteed

Ueber Meister
casinoplayer658

If you don't think it is easy for an online casino to make money you are an idiot.

Well then, I guess I'm an "idiot". :D

To be clear, I do think that the BIG players (a small percentage of casinos) make EASY money. But, I don't think a person puts some money together, opens up a casino, sits back, and makes "easy" money. No. And the casinos at the top (the BIG players) HAD and HAVE to work relatively hard to have earned and to keep the EASY money coming in. I would also assume that with more clients, a good company that will stand the test-of-time will have to spread the wealth around a bit more. By this, that means expanding, taking some risks, more advertisement, more volume would mean more people working for the company/casino/affiliate. I'm sure the owners at the top of the online casino community are filthy-stinking rich, but it didn't just come to them either (IOW you have to spend money to make money IF you want to maintain a successful business in the long-run).

IF you think that a casino ownership simply makes money easily, and loads of money bags are dumped off by Brinks employees daily to their primary turn-key operations, then I guess by your definition or take on the English Language, you're a "GENIUS". :)
 

jetset

RIP Brian
CAG
Sensible post, John Steed.

I've worked (and I mean really worked!!) in online casino management and there's no easy money. There is competition, risk, dishonesty and plain human error and foible that make necessary a constant vigilance and focus if the operation is to run properly. Almost every day brings a new set of hassles....just like any business.
 

spearmaster

RIP Ted
While I obviously agree that there is no system that can beat roulette, and having read the snippets posted here I think that they defy common sense, I wouldn't go so far as to place the blame on 32Red.

It appears to me that this article is probably by the guy who wrote the book on beating roulette... and somehow I don't think that 32Red has any control over the editorial content of the magazine.

Knowing Ed, I'd imagine he'd be furious if he thought that 32Red was saying that roulette can be beaten. He has never been anything less than forthcoming and straightforward and I highly doubt his operation would stoop so low as to say roulette systems work.
 

rudepete

Dormant account
Good one John Steed

(although I DO value unsaid players opinion ),
I got a chuckle from that one. OH NO------------------ They know I am the unsaid player. yikes stripes
I always wanted to be an unknown comic, does it show???????:lolup:
 

sirius

Senior Member
The email from Kate said was a joint thing with the 32Red Marketing Department and the editorial staff of the magazine. The marketing department should have checked more into it before doing the damage with this article. It puts credence into this author's book and is also likely to create compulsive gamblers to play at 32Red. Half a million copies or more were distributed.


I have found what looks like the same or very similar article (minus some parts) on the inside-edge website. 32Red is replaced by Intercasino in the article:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Here is a synopsis for the sham book he wrote:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

sirius

Senior Member
It looks almost a straight copy. They even mention on the inside edge site: "InterCasino.co.uk offers even-chance bets at a 50% loss only if 0 or 00 strike (the so-called Atlantic City rules). " and the Total Gambler magazine article has 32Red instead of Intercasino even though the game isn't actually available at 32Red (except for the european version with one zero).
 

amandajm

Experienced Member
The roulette article is nonsensical, written to lure the lesser informed maybe?

Ed Ware will know better than the info in it. Would have pulled it if he saw it I hope and believe.

Of course Ed is ultimately responsible for his staff's actions. However, I am loathe to rogue a good enough casino operator simply because decent staff are hard to come by.

If such ads carry on, now it has been brought to the public eye in the right place, Ed and therefore 32red will be to blame because the article is indeed a wanton misrepresentation of the facts, or the inane babblings of a wolly. I lean towards the former.

Hopefully Ed will drop the campaign, or check each apparent fact presented by this author.
 

JohnGalt

Dormant account
This ad is indeed completely disgraceful, and I would like to hear what Ed Ware has to say about it. Certainly will and should hurt their image as a responsible casino. However, they still have excellent customer service and pay out promptly, so I would still recommend them to people. I guess you're attempting to punish them for this, admittedly slimy, thing they've done. But by doing so, aren't you also harming your site users by steering them away from a good casino to play at? Everyone over at 32red could be complete bastards, but as long as their #1 priority is good customer service, I would still play there.
 

johnsteed

Ueber Meister
The unmasking of Mr. "X"

JohnGalt

But by doing so, aren't you also harming your site users by steering them away from a good casino to play at? Everyone over at 32red could be complete bastards, but as long as their #1 priority is good customer service, I would still play there.

Great point!

If this article was about almost any other casino, I doubt anyone would really care. I guess when your reputation is as sterling as 32Red's, there's somebody waiting to pick-you-apart and criticize the tiniest of things. While it may be a mistake, who would really want to stop going there (unless you're unlucky and ALWAYS losing)? They will still offer great customer service, they will ALWAYS pay the customer, and they will always try to improve and make the casino more player-friendly (my belief anyways). How are they making it better (or have made it better)? Posting their personal photos on their website (no guns and thugs there). Club Rouge (as I'm sure some are rolling there eyes... but if you're in, it's wonderful). How about incorporating players/webmasters ideas like the ongoing progressive tournament? These are all pluses. All great casino's slip-up from time-to-time, although I'm not convinced that 32Red truly did screw-up in this particular case. In any case, I'm sure they're on top of this one, and are likely NOT to make the same mistake twice.

rudepete

They know I am the unsaid player. yikes stripes
I always wanted to be an unknown comic, does it show???????


Hahaha... I wasn't sure if you were ready to go public yet. :D

While I dig the new costume (Santa), and while it IS the Christmas season (shopping-wise), I miss the bear already. To me, the bear makes the name rudepete authentic (I guess you'll be maintaining that "jolly" image though). I would say the same when KasinoKing used to be the fat-man in the tux, Spearmaster used to be the devil, or when Slotchik used to be Mrs. Jetson. I guess I have to accept change sometimes. :(
 
Last edited:

tim5ny

Quit Gambling
While I'm not a roulette player, anyone one with half a brain can understand that each spin of the wheel is totally independant and unrelated to the previous and forthcoming spins as opposed to BJ games where you have a certain number of value cards in the deck which allows the schooled player to determine what his/her odds are on what the next card is more likely to be. I've not read the article mentioned on roulette frankly because my input has more to do with the backlash that 32Red is receiving for an article that was written by an "expert" that may or may not have collaberated with the 32Red team on its content. I'm assuming that this person understands the game far better than the average player would, and I would also assume that through his experiences he would have learned a few things that might be helpful to pass on to fellow players. An "expert" ( I don't know how you can be an expert in a game of chance, but let's call him a player with alot of experience) knows where the numbers are located on the wheel in relation to each other, ans therefore might be able to give some advice on certain bet combinations that work well together to cover the wheel in a more balanced way so as to cut losses. This would be helpful for the beginner. Knowing the staff at 32Red, I'm certain that there is no deceit intended by them in asking this man to contribute an article in a publication based on a subject that he knows better than most people. Just as Patsy Kensit is used in promotions as a celebrity dealer or spokesperson, I'm sure the only intentions of 32Red were to promote their games by using a well known author who has published a book or two on the subject. I think you're on a witch hunt here, and you're assuming that there are underlying motives behind an article which was merely meant for entertainment and maybe some insight into how the game works. If you throw 32Red out as corrupt, then you may as well just close up shop and pursue another vocation because it is well known that they are a very respectable and trusted group.
 

Slotmachine

Dormant account
Disgrace?

Lynch me if you will, but I thought for the most part the article made sense. It suggested that you should stick to your budget, not play with more than you can afford to lose, not chase losses, and mentioned the risk that exists with credit cards, i.e. betting more than you can afford to. I don't see it as promoting gambling addiction - addicts are unlikely to be interested in this sort of disciplined gambling.

Apart from these, the strategy sounded OK to me, pretty much the same I employ in slots. Lower my bets when I'm losing and increase my bet size when I'm winning. It's not a winning strategy, but it makes your money last longer (compared to betting big all the time), and makes large wins possible (compared to low-rolling all the time).

Of course, the Roulette theory section was a load of bollocks as we all know. Even the author admits that there's no mathematical logic to it. The only scenario where following the wheel might theoretically work would be if there is indeed a spinner/wheel bias which I think is, while unlikely, entirely possible in B&M casinos. Hey, even supposedly unbreakable one-time crypto pads have been broken because of such bias - where human action influences chance and therefore the game ceases to be random and that's when patterns emerge and may become visible to the trained eye. And I'm saying theoretically.

But I think mountains are being made out of molehills here.

It says something about 32Red that the only complaints to emerge on this forum about them are that they've published a silly but harmless ad, and that some players have had unlucky streaks there.

But I see the ad is working, no? ;)

Cheers,
Slotmachine
 

sirius

Senior Member
The problem with these sham articles if they are well enough written is that some people will not see through it, otherwise it probably wouldn't have got published in that magazine as the editor wouldn't have allowed it (strange as it may sound, this magazine is usually fine).

The inside-edge site also has the article but previously had an honest roulette article the year before (also named a 'masterclass'). To suggest knowing the wheel or practising his methods can make sure you win more than lose in the long run, is completely false as none of that makes a difference to whether you win or lose overall. Anyone can beat the odds for a long time but that is down to pure luck and is the reason why people gamble in the first place.

I take on board what some of you have said but this ad certainly did cause a lot of harm as it was widely read and is totally misleading and a complete recipe for compulsive gamblers and I suspect the author knows it is crap.

According to someone who emailed me some months ago who has done a LOT of research into problem gambling, Nigel Turner :
The main risk factors for gambling addiction appear to be:
1) impulsivity (including ADHD and related disorders)
2) negative moods (depression, anxiety, stressful life experiences)
3) early wins and big wins
4) erroneous beliefs about the nature or random chance.
The article is likely to cause you to win quite often as the author recommends aiming for a a small percentage each time. It also explains that with practise you can win more than you lose which is false. This makes half of the risk factors Nigel gave for compulsive gamblers already (for anyone believing the article).

His email also explains it in this way:
But "knowing the odds" does not protect a person from an addiction... It's more understanding the independence of random events. Pathological gamblers tend to know the odds of winning, but believe they can beat the odds.

I would like a response from 32Red on here.
 
Last edited:

Ed Ware

Dormant account
Response from 32Red

Dear All

Please excuse my late response to the point brought up by Sirius. Unfortunately I have been out of the office on business but have now reviewed the article, our correspondence with Sirius, and the thread here at Casinomeister.

I think the most important point to clear up first of all, is the independence of the content of the article in the Total Gambler magazine. The copy is written entirely by Mr Morton with the publishers dropping in our name at certain points in the story. As Sirius has already noted, where the article has featured elsewhere, the publishers have replaced our name with that of another operator. I think this confirms the origins of the content beyond question.

The next issue is whether the content of the piece itself is irresponsible. As Spearmaster correctly points out we are in the hands of the editor by associating our name with such an article. That said, we would only want to be associated with articles that are well written, balanced in their content and in no way misrepresent the facts of the subject matter in hand. Equally, 32Red subscribes to industry best practice in that we only wish to promote gambling in a responsible manner. To this extent we adhere to the advertising guidelines promoted by GamCare. These guidelines include not targeting under 18s, ensuring that the advert gives a balanced message of the chances of winning, players are not encouraged to chase any losses and that gambling is not promoted as a way of solving financial problems. Taken in isolation some of the text could be construed as unhelpful, but overall the article is balanced and features plenty of good advice. The article is littered with cautionary notes, for example:

Set modest win targets and tight loss limits
Fix a budget you can afford and stick to it
Dont carry cash you dont really want to risk
Dont top up your lost money with visits to cash points
Take a tip from the casinos: they dont lose.

This article is advocating a disciplined approach which we believe would not be attractive to susceptible individuals. However, whilst I am disappointed that this thread is unfairly attacking our reputation as an operator of integrity, I have to say that as an industry we should encourage everyone to take steps to keep away from irresponsible activity. 32Red Plc is licensed by the Government of Gibraltar (British Overseas Territory) and publicly listed on the London Stock Exchange. We actively support GamCare and the team here have had the benefit of training delivered by their online gambling expert. I was proud of the feedback this expert in Responsible Gambling gave me having spent a couple of days with us listening to how we treat these sensitive issues, and helping us to improve still further. Pat Harrison, who many of you know, is the Chairman of our Responsible Gaming Committee (which is also made up by our Non Executive Directors). The function of this group is entirely to police our actions and plans in relation to our social responsibilities. In short, we take this subject extremely seriously.

Unfortunately Sirius was given incorrect information about our involvement in the article for which I apologise. We also failed to respond to a further email from him on this subject. Again, that is not good enough and not what Sirius and, Im sure, others expect from 32Red. Nevertheless we have sent Sirius a Private Message through this forum (on Friday of last week) with the facts which unfortunately havent been reflected in his subsequent post. I am guessing that he hasnt got to his inbox.

I would like to thank all those of you who have made the effort to make mention of our overall service and standing in the industry. Whilst some of the comments in this thread are painful (even if we do dispute them), it is extremely encouraging to everyone here in Gibraltar that our mission to be the best (if not necessarily the biggest) online casino and poker operator are not going unnoticed.

Kind regards

Ed Ware
CEO
32Red Plc
 

thelawnet

Dormant account
Ed Ware said:
The next issue is whether the content of the piece itself is irresponsible. As Spearmaster correctly points out we are in the hands of the editor by associating our name with such an article. That said, we would only want to be associated with articles that are well written, balanced in their content and in no way misrepresent the facts of the subject matter in hand. Equally, 32Red subscribes to industry best practice in that we only wish to promote gambling in a responsible manner. To this extent we adhere to the advertising guidelines promoted by GamCare. These guidelines include not targeting under 18s, ensuring that the advert gives a balanced message of the chances of winning, players are not encouraged to chase any losses and that gambling is not promoted as a way of solving financial problems. Taken in isolation some of the text could be construed as unhelpful, but overall the article is balanced and features plenty of good advice. The article is littered with cautionary notes, for example:

Set modest win targets and tight loss limits
Fix a budget you can afford and stick to it
Dont carry cash you dont really want to risk
Dont top up your lost money with visits to cash points
Take a tip from the casinos: they dont lose.

This article is advocating a disciplined approach which we believe would not be attractive to susceptible individuals
I believe I already binned the magazine in question, and while I understand as a PR exercise you want to accentuate the positive, I can't really see why you spend so much time defending the article, when you have already said it was not your editorial.

The article's central premise was that you can beat the house at roulette, and you haven't really dissociated yourself from this untrue claim.

However, whilst I am disappointed that this thread is unfairly attacking our reputation as an operator of integrity, I have to say that as an industry we should encourage everyone to take steps to keep away from irresponsible activity.
So why not just say that the article was wrong, that you didn't read it before publication, and you apologise for any misinformation spread.
 
Top