32Red disgrace - TotalGambler ad

[Slotmachine]

By the way, I've had a response to the 32Red ad from the expert who's studied gambling addiction and has written many research papers.

Wow, what an impressive analysis, obviously a great mind at work

Cheers,
SM

 

[Casinomeister]

Wow, what an impressive analysis, obviously a great mind at work

Then I will probably be ostracized out of the gaming industry for my recommendations to use hoodoo magic and mojo bags to intimidate your poker partners. Damn!

 

[tencardcharlie]

Then I will probably be ostracized out of the gaming industry for my recommendations to use hoodoo magic and mojo bags to intimidate your poker partners. Damn!

The sooner the better. You have to be stopped before you start the first rogue casino for kids 'Lego vegas casino' - offering them toys 'for wagering purposes only' to make them start playing and then ban them due to candy abuse...

 

[Agamemnon]

To make a long story long

First of all, I agree that too much has been made of this whole incident: An article was written, it was contentious, and so what? From what I gather it was written in the spirit of fun and had the insider tone that I just love when associated with gambling stories. Think taxi driver tales, think fishing trip stories.
To the contention that -shock, horror- 32Red is promoting a belief that you can beat the wheel well...

If for no other reason than that the various tips it promotes make sense -for what they are worth- only in a brick and mortar casino.
For example:
The advice that you should know the position of numbers on the roulette only makes sense if you believe in either the "croupier signature" or the " arc statistics" theory. Both are useless in an online casino.
(and could be said to be useless anyway).

This of course is not the only point raised. No. It's also that 32Red is in general associating with an article that breeds "problem players". Shouldn't everybody just toss the article -along with the writer presumably- in that hell reserved for people who place identical bets on red and black?!
Well,
Please keep in mind that one of the reasons people have fun when gambling is due to the ritualistic mystique of certain games. The pomp and symbolism, rhythm and even the language. The article in question reminds me of advice I found when I first gambled. I had already decided that I was going to enjoy gambling and I went out of my way to listen or read tales that provided cultural references rather than system advice (not wanting to look like an idiot around the table being the goal): I believe that the article is good in that respect, full of tips that make you believe you know what's happening around the table. At least you avoid the stomach pits associated with feeling out of place.
What about problem players? Won't they go out and try and make the system work?
I'm not sure there is much of a system. There's promoting some silly habits -that several of us have anyway around the table- and not much else. Also, the fact that you think you have some cultural knowledge allows you not to react stupidly and spend some serious cash-as some people really do- the first time around the table. You can lose a lot of cash in the first few minutes folks. Here we're told it's ok to go in with small bets.
Finally, it also reminds players time and again not to push past their endurance or -more to the point- their funds, which really is the greatest threat to a novice.

Come on all, the lady's virtue is still intact.

Oh, and the math sucks.
But really, you knew that about tha taxi driver's story anyway:
There's no way he got the girl AND a tip.



Final point: I don't play at 32Red. About 5 months ago they locked my acct as part of "routine something or another" and asked me to fax them a busload of documents. Or something I did. I forget. I didn't bother replying.
So I can't tell you personally if they're ok.
But everyone I respect in this industry -and some I don't but listen to anyway- says they are great AND as ethical as you can be and still make a living.
Wow.

 

[sirius]

Is a proper apology going to be forthcoming or at least an admission of wrongdoing from the magazine and 32Red instead of defending the article? Remember this is the largest circulating gambling magazine in the UK and hundreds of thousands would have read it.

I have emailed the expert again for his opinion about the possibility of problem gamblers the roulette article would cause and he told me this:

Any system that claims to allow people to beat the odds is potentially
dangerous.

There are so many such systems out there that this particular message
won't make things any worse, but its sad that a credible source published it.

Nigel

 

[slotchik]

Is a proper apology going to be forthcoming or at least an admission of wrongdoing from the magazine and 32Red instead of defending the article? Remember this is the largest circulating gambling magazine in the UK and hundreds of thousands would have read it.

I have emailed the expert again for his opinion about the possibility of problem gamblers the roulette article would cause and he told me this:

Sirius!! LET IT GO ALREADY!!!!! It was an article...for your reading pleasure!!! If you take EVERYTHING serious you read in mags, then Jessica Simpson is leaving her husband...for the 10th time..

come on now...this is getting old.

 

[elscrabinda]

It wasn't for Sirius' reading pleasure. He makes his money from encouraging people to gamble but seems to be more responsible than most in how he goes about it. Less reputable webmasters may take pleasure in the thought of all these new players joining their casinos and losing money following the bogus advice given here but Sirius appears to have a conscience.

Its all very well seasoned slotjunkies on here posting about how its harmless etc but when this magazine is targeted at 'fresh meat' it is anything but (distributed for free with other non-gambling magazines). You may think your 'hobby' is harmless enough to you but surely however accustomed you are to losing money you can still understand how problem gambling could be just that to some people- a problem. I dare say it is to many of the people on here but by pretending it is just a leisure activity and not a dangerous addiction they can justify it to themselves

Ed still refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing in this and therefore any rhetoric spouted about 'responsible gambling' is shot to pieces.

 

[caruso]

It wasn't for Sirius' reading pleasure. He makes his money from encouraging people to gamble but seems to be more responsible than most in how he goes about it. Less reputable webmasters may take pleasure in the thought of all these new players joining their casinos and losing money following the bogus advice given here but Sirius appears to have a conscience.

Absolutely. I've ragged on Sirius a fair bit in the recent past, but I've come to reformulate my overall opinion based on his recent performance in a handful of issues (for whatever that's worth, lol). This is highly responsible webmastering and Sirius deserves a packet of credit for it. I also believe, from a reasonably thorough investigation, that he's actually pulled 32Red from his site - something that's known as "putting your money where your mouth is". Clearly, this will cost him, and clearly, he's looking at the bigger picture.

Great work, Sirius.

Ed still refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing in this and therefore any rhetoric spouted about 'responsible gambling' is shot to pieces.

Yup, wouldn't have been too much of a stretch to admit a bit of a boo-boo and disassociate themselves from any further such involvement, would it? I thought the comment about the article "making some good points" (can't recall the exact wording) was in particularly poor taste.

 

[Agamemnon]

I beg your pardon

Its all very well seasoned slotjunkies on here posting about how its harmless etc .

"Seasoned slotjunkies" no less. And you are referring to your fellow commentators with such a colorful beautiful term.

This whole issue has been blown way out of proportion.
And that's my view.
Should you have a different view, please by all means express it and I can guarantee you that while I might disagree with you I'll refrain from characterising you personally.

I really hope this was just a slip of the keyboard elscrabinda due to perhaps feeling too strongly on the matter.

Let's at least try and be civil on this board.
Thank you.

 

[tim5ny]

What a bunch of friggin babies! This thread deserves to be locked and dropped into the Sea of forgetfulness forever. I'll bet Caruso couldn't wait for his 30 day suspension to expire so that he could jump on the bandwagon against 32Red as he always does no matter what the subject matter is. I look forward to your next suspension which will probably not take too long by your track record. I can't understand why some of you want to take shots at Ed Ware and 32Red when we all know that their track record is spotless. This outfit upholds a high standard that we wish all online casinos would follow. If 32Red were the only online casino, then I guarantee that the complaints section of this forum would not even exist for the most part except for the useless whiners who find fault in everything. I'm sorry that Ed and Pat have to be put through this kind of witch-hunt because I know that they're men of conscious and character, and I know that these kinds of accusations hurt them because they strive to be open,honest, and set apart from the rest of the bunch. What's next?.... are we going to perform an exorcism on Ryan Hartley or something like that? Let's just take everything everybody posts and find evil in it.. that sounds like fun! Count me in!

 

[Pinababy69]

I'm sorry that Ed and Pat have to be put through this kind of witch-hunt because I know that they're men of conscious and character, and I know that these kinds of accusations hurt them because they strive to be open,honest, and set apart from the rest of the bunch.

Amen Tim!!! They are different, and they do have a conscience and character, in abundance.

Blaming a magazine article for people gambling (newbies/fresh meat or not) is ludicrous. It is akin to pedophiles/rapists using pornography as an excuse, and teenagers using violence in video games as an excuse for committing crimes. If one is going to commit a crime, or become a serial killer or rapist....or gamble, it is because they are predisposed to do so, and not because they watched a tv show or read an article that put the idea in their head. People with an addictive personality need no encouragement to gamble, drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. It is a built-in response, with a trigger all it's own.

Just my one and a half cents worth. This is a ludicrous thread in my opinion, but who am I to say?

 

[elscrabinda]

"Seasoned slotjunkies" no less. And you are referring to your fellow commentators with such a colorful beautiful term.

Haha. If you find that offensive then you won't be taking part in the progressive competition run by members of this board hosted at ahem slotjunkies.info?

I can't understand why some of you want to take shots at Ed Ware and 32Red when we all know that their track record is spotless

Ok Tim, we get it. 32red are nice to you. I'd be nice to you if I was a casino operator

Blaming a magazine article for people gambling (newbies/fresh meat or not) is ludicrous

No. Its not. Of course it influences what people do. Especially when they are told they can have a consistent edge over the house. Of course people have to take responsibility for their actions but preying on vulnerable people who in your words have a predisposition to gambling and an addictive personality is inexcusable

 

[Pinababy69]

Of course people have to take responsibility for their actions

That, in a nutshell, is my point. I never blame someone or something for anything foolish that I may do/have done, never. People are always looking for scapegoats, total BS. People need to grow up and act in a responsible, adult manner. And anyone who is gonna gamble their rent/mortgage money, or car payment, food money, whatever.......certainly will do that anyway without reading a magazine article. And if that is their predicament, then they need to contact the nearest chapter of Gamblers Anonymous (wonder if there's an ad for them in this magazine)?

Again, just my opinion. I may not agree with everyone else's, but I always respect your right to have one.

 

[Agamemnon]

Haha. If you find that offensive then you won't be taking part in the progressive competition run by members of this board hosted at ahem slotjunkies.info?

elscrabinda I'm perfectly serious here. If you look at my posts you'll see I have never started something with any other poster (besides the old Andruchi system post which should tell you that I do not approve of individuals trying to take advantage of players). You could have answered that you meant nothing with the term. That it was just a figure of speech.
Instead, you elect to state that: Some people at this board do describe themselves as "slotjunkies" .

I am not a litigious man, nor am I by habit argumentative -I hope so at least.
And yet I am drawn back to the essence of your sentence, I feel that there is an underlying wrongness and I ask you to look at it critically:

"Its all very well seasoned slotjunkies on here posting about how its harmless etc but when this magazine is targeted at 'fresh meat' it is anything but"

Can you not see that your tone is both dismissive (all very well, seasoned junkies) and arrogant (in that this class of players have nothing to say that is of use). People here who play slots can characterise themselves in any way they wish. They may ahem wordplay upon their habits. To then group them and use this tone is not, I believe, acceptable.


Are you saying you meant nothing with the term? If so please say so. I am willing to accept it meant nothing. I shall then put it to rest.
Your posts up to now have been interesting and unbiased. I have no reason to not believe you are a fine individual to which I wish nothing but the best of luck off and on casino tables.

I apologise to all other posters for taking this space but I believe that the casinomeister's forum is the best of it's kind and one of the things that has made it such is the fact that there exists courtesy among posters. Fiery yes, discourteous no. Perhaps you disagree with me, that is fine, I hope you do not doubt my sincerity.

Final point,
After I posted yesterday, I was contacted by Red32's Pat who went over my acct, solved the missing paperwork question -mostly my fault- and even provided 50$ to play with. All in a few hours. Kudos to them, outstanding reflexes and subsequent customer support, also a bit of disclosure on my end.

I suppose this would raise an ethical question with me but.. hey the 50$ lasted about 12 minutes.

so,

 

[tim5ny]

Ok Tim, we get it. 32red are nice to you. I'd be nice to you if I was a casino operator

Why would you be nice to me if you ran a casino?

 

[johnsteed]

The Neverending Story...

***


I'm surprised this thread still has life (because it has no teeth).

It's a shame though, that 32Red and its reputation has to be undercut to please a few people. It seems as though there are alterior motives at work here attacking 32Red, seeing how it's one of the most respected casinos out there (winning the Casinomeister's Best Casino Award for the past two years).

Why, out of the thousands of articles you can find anywhere (online, magazines, newspapers), does the article with 32Red garner the most attention? If it were any other casino attached to that article, would it have mattered? I can see the argument that BECAUSE 32Red is viewed as such an upright organization in this particular forum (and others), that they should (in your eyes) have done a better job marshaling where and what their name will be attached to (in this case, that particular article). To you, they acted irresponsible by being attached to an article which claims that through diligent approach and stategy, you can beat the game of roulette in the long run.

But anyone who knows Ed Ware or Pat Harrison, knows that they aren't in the business of duping the general public. I believe (true or not... I don't know) that 32Red has become an increasingly recommended and sought-after casino based on their high-standards, integrity, and by seemingly not going out and destroying the lives of their players through deceit.

elscrabinda

Ed still refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing in this and therefore any rhetoric spouted about 'responsible gambling' is shot to pieces.

Maybe I'm not correctly translating what Ed Ware previously said, but didn't he apologize?

And for those who weren't satisfied with Mr. Ware's recent rebuttal & apology, what could he possibly say that would appease you? Personally, I don't think it would matter, even if he did say precisely what you wanted to hear.


***

 

[elscrabinda]

Mr. Ware's recent rebuttal & apology

Apology is fine. Its the rebuttal bit that bothers me. A "sorry guys, we stuffed up" would have stopped this thread in its tracks pages ago. Instead we get buck-passing and a continued indefensible insistence that the article is balanced.

I'm satisfied it won't happen again but I'm disappointed in the response from 32red which frankly could have come from any of the less prestigious casinos.

btw. I have read but have not responded to Agamemnon and tim5ny's questions as if I did it could cause offence. If you really want to know then ask me by PM

 

[johnsteed]

There's always hope...

***


elscrabinda

I'm satisfied it won't happen again but I'm disappointed in the response from 32red which frankly could have come from any of the less prestigious casinos.

Hi elscrabinda,

I respect what you said in this paragraph. Look, personally, I love 32Red (despite sucking there ). I don't want to throw any more complimentary adjectives into the mix, because there are a ton of them I can use for 32Red. And for me, I'm fine with Ed Ware's response, because to me, the initial article isn't that severe (although I'm not quickly overlooking what you, Sirius, and Caruso, are saying about the negative affects of that particular article).

But the part that you're satisfied that it won't happen again, and that you're disappointed in Mr. Ware's response (personally) gives a new slant on your argument (concerning you). To me, it says that you trust that 32Red is a very good operation with good management (and they'll tighten-up and learn from this), and that you simply just wish that Ed Ware would have come off better in his apology/rebuttal (and had accepted more of the blame). Although I don't necessarily feel that he's THAT MUCH in the wrong, and I'm content with what he wrote, you're not necessarily in the wrong for pointing-out that he COULD have apologized in a more (no-holds-barred) straight-forward manner.

To me, he can only say so much. He said what he needed to say...

I also thought about how casinos of far less stature would write-in to respond to the questions posed in this thread, and I honestly don't think MANY other casinos would have even bothered responding. Ed Ware, Pat Harrison, have historically (and in the "now") responded to queries posed at this forum. They don't hide, they say the right things (while not trying desperate to say the nice things) and they don't dance-around-issues. And concerning this thread, I don't believe they've changed their ways (that being Ed Ware's way).

At least you acknowledged that this type of a slip-up won't be coming from 32Red again.



***

 

[sirius]

I am getting back to this a bit late but the PM I was supposed to have received was actually not sent as a PM but as an email. I only found it some time later. The email was sent by the Head of Marketing and thankfully didn't try to defend it and say the article had any merit. This was a good thing after what was written here by Ed and the magazine. It really wasn't a balanced article but completely misleading and to make matters worse for 32Red it was also plugging a sham book by the author.

The email I received did make this statement I didn't really agree with and I replied that there is a difference between opinions and false information:

To put the ad and the article it was associated with into context, it appeared in a gambling magazine. The adult readers of the magazine will make up their own mind as to whether or not they think the content worthy to follow or try, whether the said content is about roulette, blackjack or Texas Hold 'Em (in the same vein maybe as someone trying a restaurant after reading a critique).

Unfortunately, it was not seen as any responsibility of 32Red. The email explained that the publishing of that particular article was decided by the magazine. 32Red should have verified the article and I still have to believe that 32 Red had some knowledge of the article before it was published and mistakenly let it happen but this was not admitted. The 32red.com/total URL (shown on the article pages) was associated to their roulette themed page for a reason so I'm sure they were at least aware it was about roulette.

I don't like that fact that they don't see they have any responsibilty for it even though they will be profiting from the misinformation in the article.

32RED believes that by simply stopping these sort of articles in the "foreseeable future", it has resolved the problem. I'm also not convinced it won't happen again if Ed and others don't understand the problem with the article. There are no major problems with the previous 32Red article I saw in magazine (about blackjack) and there was no reason to stop the articles if proper care was taken. In fact, the articles weren't actually stopped as I saw another one in the next magazine associated with 32Red about poker (I also noticed another article linked to Littlewoods Casino which was pretty stupid- mentioned earlier in this thread). It would be resolved if the magazine and Ed conceded that the article was not in fact 'balanced' and did something to rectify the mistake by informing readers and new players about it who may have signed up after reading the article.

By the way, there was no easy way to contact the magazine, since their editor's email address didn't work. I contacted the person who replied here at Casinomeister with what I tried sending to the editor previously but didn't receive a reply.

 

[spearmaster]

I must again disagree - advertisers almost never have any editorial discretion and it is a bit wishful to believe that Ed or anyone at 32Red is given any opportunity to read each article before it is published. And thus I also don't believe that they should be sharing any responsibility.

And as for our one-time visitor from the magazine, I don't believe he ever intended to come back to the forums again, thinking that this was yet another forum on the Net that does nothing but host complainers.

I won't hammer any more nails in - they're doing a good job by themselves.