Announcement from the GRA concerning Hilo and ReelDeal games

Status
Not open for further replies.

mrmark21

Meister Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Location
australia
I'd never place a bet at any of the casinos involved in this issue as their silence dosent really instill a sense of confidence. Betfred used the possibility of reimbursing players as damage control. Then renegged. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Not even the GRA took responsibility. Can't say I'm surprised what does surprise me though is PB's obvious negative attitude towards players. He should learn not to bite the hand that feeds him.
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
No, the game was adaptive. The result was based on what the player bet on. If he bet on red then a black card would be more likely to appear. If he bet on black then a red card would be more likely to appear. This is the very definition of an adaptive game. It wasn't simply a weighted card deck but a rather card deck whose contents changed dynamically depending on where the player had bet on. Mr.Brear's statement that the game was not adaptive is false.
Sorry, but I disagree with this; it's not "adaptive", just different (fixed) odds on each outcome of a single game round.

An Adaptive game is one which monitors how good (or bad) a player is doing and them makes an adjustment to the odds of further rounds to ensure the RTP meets the operator's wishes.

I will probably get even more stick for this, but I actually can't see very much wrong with My Brear's latest statement and I urge everyone to go back and read it again very slowly and carefully.
The only issue I have with this whole fiasco is how exactly the game was presented in the casinos. Having never even seen it for myself, let alone played it, I have no idea how it was categorised; If it was listed among other true card games, then the GRA is definitely in the wrong. But if it was clearly categorised as a "slot" or "arcade game", then they do have a point. In this case the rules and paytable are VERY important, but again I have not seen those for myself, so it's impossible for me to make a conclusive judgement.

KK
 

Richas

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Location
UK
Sorry, but I disagree with this; it's not "adaptive", just different (fixed) odds on each outcome of a single game round.

An Adaptive game is one which monitors how good (or bad) a player is doing and them makes an adjustment to the odds of further rounds to ensure the RTP meets the operator's wishes.

I will probably get even more stick for this, but I actually can't see very much wrong with My Brear's latest statement and I urge everyone to go back and read it again very slowly and carefully.
The only issue I have with this whole fiasco is how exactly the game was presented in the casinos. Having never even seen it for myself, let alone played it, I have no idea how it was categorised; If it was listed among other true card games, then the GRA is definitely in the wrong. But if it was clearly categorised as a "slot" or "arcade game", then they do have a point. In this case the rules and paytable are VERY important, but again I have not seen those for myself, so it's impossible for me to make a conclusive judgement.

KK

I agree it is not adaptive as I understand it but it was deceptive. For NINE years the pay table was wrong and the play game paid at a different rate. It is a huge problem.

As for the last statement being OK, oh dear me no. I did it paragraph by paragraph but the totally unprofessional attack on the UKGC was new and not really highlighted by me. It was a terrible statement.

Phil Brears has taken unprofessional to a new level in regulatory terms not just with his partisan statements but his complete failure to deal with the way that players were deceived (cheated).
 

maphesto

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Location
Sweden
@ Richas and KasinoKing:

If the outcome of the game (red or black) was based on which color the player chose, surely the game must be adaptive.
 

Richas

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Location
UK
@ Richas and KasinoKing:

If the outcome of the game (red or black) was based on which color the player chose, surely the game must be adaptive.

Not as I term adaptive. Basically there is one table of odds, whatever you pick you get 96% RTP. adaptive is where the players outcomes are checked and the odds adjusted on their next bet. If you have a good run you get worse odds than 96%. Adaptive is a lot worse for game play than just having a fixed house edge.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Not as I term adaptive. Basically there is one table of odds, whatever you pick you get 96% RTP. adaptive is where the players outcomes are checked and the odds adjusted on their next bet. If you have a good run you get worse odds than 96%. Adaptive is a lot worse for game play than just having a fixed house edge.

Whether you call it adaptive or not, the issue is that the player placed a bet, and the fact of where that bet was placed influenced the result of that round. It would be like having a Blackjack game that altered the probability of the dealer matching his up card of 10 with an Ace depending on whether or not the player made the insurance bet.

What caused this was that the game being played was NOT the game being represented. Players saw a number wheel, using cards, and a betting table resembling a simplified variant of Roulette. If one bet Red on roulette, one would not expect the outcome to be weighted in favour of Black in order to meet the operator set RTP. Instead, one would expect the paytable to pay less than evens in order to provide the house edge. In Roulette, this is achieved by the "0" position, whilst still paying evens for a colour bet.

Where the series of previous results is used to dynamically weight future outcomes, the game is considered to be "compensated", which it what some say defines the term "adaptive". The term "adaptive" can also reasonably describe a game that only used the current bet to "adapt" only the current outcome, which is why we have this debate over terminology.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I don't think its fair to pick on an episode like this and conclude that online gaming is a scam. Admittedly the disaster-zone that the GRA have turned out to be doesn't taint the whole barrel, but it does, as already noted, give huge amounts of ammunition to governments who are determined to tax and regulate online gaming at the point of consumption.

PB appears to have aimed a gun at his own jurisdiction's head and pulled the trigger with extreme prejudice.

Not much choice really, since he has already blown both feet off:rolleyes:

The UKGC must be elated that this episode has lead to this, and they would be pretty dumb to leave this out of their case that customers are not properly protected to minimum UK standards by many of the currently whitelisted licensing jurisdictions.

PB makes much of the fact that the UKGC took a similar 6 months to reach the "bleedin' obvious" conclusion over the dodgy FOBTs, and then demonstrates that the GRA can do an even better job of screwing up than the UKGC ever could.

Although PB says this is a minor error in a help file that "nobody reads", in the case of this particular game, because of it's underlying logic not seen by the player, it is a CRITICAL error in the ONLY piece of information that could convey to the player what the nature of the game is. This makes this "minor error" into a "major deception", something that could have been avoided by a basic precaution, proof reading information before releasing it into the wild.
 

Eliot Jacobson

Dormant account
Joined
May 9, 2006
Location
Santa Barbara
Phill Brear clearly had pressure on him from the other side. That is something he has not mentioned at all in his replies. When Brear used his extraordinary hyperbole, was he looking in the rear view mirror?

I ask that Brear address the question of whether he was threatened by legal action from a casino, a software supplier, or anyone else in the chain whose livelihood depended on his report and conclusions. A conflict of interests is apparent.

Mr. Brear, did Spielo threaten a lawsuit?

No matter which way Brear ruled, he and the GRA were likely going to be a victim. Brear had to choose his poison.
 

Balthazar

The Governor
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Location
Woodbury
Phill Brear clearly had pressure on him from the other side. That is something he has not mentioned at all in his replies. When Brear used his extraordinary hyperbole, was he looking in the rear view mirror?

I ask that Brear address the question of whether he was threatened by legal action from a casino, a software supplier, or anyone else in the chain whose livelihood depended on his report and conclusions. A conflict of interests is apparent.

Mr. Brear, did Spielo threaten a lawsuit?

No matter which way Brear ruled, he and the GRA were likely going to be a victim. Brear had to choose his poison.

But why would Spielo (or anyone from the "other side") sue the GRA? The GRA isn't responsible for the games?
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
But why would Spielo (or anyone from the "other side") sue the GRA? The GRA isn't responsible for the games?

Yes, why WOULD Spielo want to shoot their feet off as Mr Brear seems so keen to do:rolleyes:

It would expose as fact the impression that the GRA are under the control of the industry, and are not the independent regulatory and licensing authority they make themselves out to be. However, big business often seems unable to aim correctly, and the big online casino companies are not the first businesses to accidentally blow parts of their anatomy off when trying to aim at something else. Regulatory bodies can also be prone to having poor aim.
 

Richas

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Location
UK
@ Richas and KasinoKing:

If the outcome of the game (red or black) was based on which color the player chose, surely the game must be adaptive.

No, the table is - player choice X%

Adaptive is player (or all players of the game) has been doing well so we will reduce the player choice X%

Both might pay out 96% in the long term for all players but the adaptive game reduces the chance of a good run and reduces the likelihood of terrible runs thus keeping players in th game longer.
 

Richas

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Location
UK
Phill Brear clearly had pressure on him from the other side. That is something he has not mentioned at all in his replies. When Brear used his extraordinary hyperbole, was he looking in the rear view mirror?

I ask that Brear address the question of whether he was threatened by legal action from a casino, a software supplier, or anyone else in the chain whose livelihood depended on his report and conclusions. A conflict of interests is apparent.

Mr. Brear, did Spielo threaten a lawsuit?

No matter which way Brear ruled, he and the GRA were likely going to be a victim. Brear had to choose his poison.

The threat is caused by sites being able to choose their jurisdiction. They can choose where they want to be so the regulators compete to attract sites not protect players.

That is why the Gambling (Licencing and Advertising) Bill is a breakthrough change, a step change in regulatory power as any site operating to the UK consumer will need to comply with what the UKGC impose, if the sites don't like it their choice is to leave the market not to get a licence elsewhere from a more compliant site freindly regulator.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The threat is caused by sites being able to choose their jurisdiction. They can choose where they want to be so the regulators compete to attract sites not protect players.

That is why the Gambling (Licencing and Advertising) Bill is a breakthrough change, a step change in regulatory power as any site operating to the UK consumer will need to comply with what the UKGC impose, if the sites don't like it their choice is to leave the market not to get a licence elsewhere from a more compliant site freindly regulator.

... or operate without the authority of the UKGC and just accept that they will not be able to advertise in any media governed by UK regulations. It is unlikely that the Virtual group will take the slightest bit of notice of this, and will continue to attract UK players among others via the usual channels, websites and spam.

What I WOULD expect is the big software providers like Microgaming and Playtech to shut down the UK market for any operator trying to run without the correct license. This could lead to the problems that Spanish players faced being suffered by UK players, namely the zero notice overnight locking of their accounts by the software provider, not the operator.
 

Eliot Jacobson

Dormant account
Joined
May 9, 2006
Location
Santa Barbara
Phill Brear sent me a personal e-mail addressing my most recent post in this thread. He gave me permission to reprint his e-mail saying:

Phill Brear said:
If you wish to make all of our correspondence public, then by all means do so, the confidentiality statement refers to mis-addressed or mis-directed emails, not correspondence of this nature.

Brear succinctly summarized the incident in his letter to me, saying:

Phill Brear said:
You called this one completely wrong, a short term maintenance error is not a ‘rigged’ game, we took the time to investigate the matter thoroughly and properly, you should have done the same.

Brear's e-mail to me contained the following threat:

Phill Brear said:
I have no wish to have a public slanging match on your role in this matter and your defective logic so I suggest you make a diplomatic and tactical retreat.

I have no wish for a public slanging match with Brear and will suspend contributing to this thread and topic. In truth, there is nothing more to add.

The thing about banging your head against a wall is that it feels so good when you finally stop.
 
Last edited:

just play

closed account
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Location
USA
Phill Brear sent me a personal e-mail addressing my most recent post in this thread. He gave me permission to reprint his e-mail saying:



In my post above, I asked Phill Brear about legal action against him directly or the GRA. His response to me contained the following threat:



I also have no wish for a public slanging match and will suspend contributing to this thread and topic. The thing about banging your head against a wall is that it feels so good when you finally stop.


What's he going to do? Have you swim with the fishes?


In my opinion, I don't think this is a big deal to gamblers (it is to me though) People are still playing at those casinos, CM still have them accredited, other casinos under the GRA are still operating and people have no problem depositing with them, so I guess you stopping or not stopping posting doesn't really matter anyway.
 

Richas

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Location
UK
... or operate without the authority of the UKGC and just accept that they will not be able to advertise in any media governed by UK regulations. It is unlikely that the Virtual group will take the slightest bit of notice of this, and will continue to attract UK players among others via the usual channels, websites and spam.

What I WOULD expect is the big software providers like Microgaming and Playtech to shut down the UK market for any operator trying to run without the correct license. This could lead to the problems that Spanish players faced being suffered by UK players, namely the zero notice overnight locking of their accounts by the software provider, not the operator.

If they serve UK customers they commit a criminal offence in the UK. The Gambling Commission already believes it has powers to impose blocks on money transfers an impose IP blocking if such a site did do as you think they would.

In truth they would be at a huge competitive disadvantage to the regulated sites and be pretty peripheral to the UK market anyway.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
So, pretty much any game where players suffer material loss can be dismissed as a "short term maintenance error", and it not considered important enough for a financial settlement that places both parties in the position they would have been in had the error not occurred.

If this is so, then Betfair should NOT be trying to recover their "insignificant loss" over their own "short term maintenance error" that lasted a mere few hours one weekend.

It is clearly one rule when an error favours the casino, and the opposite rule when an error favours the player.

Good, according to Mr Brear, if we profit from a "short term maintenance error" at a GRA casino, then we are under no obligation to give the money back due to it's "insignificance", however if they feel aggrieved, the casinos can boycott the players concerned.

Clearly, a mathematician and qualified statistician specialising in the maths of casino games cannot be considered knowledgeable enough in the field to give a valid account and opinion, yet someone with decision making power, but not much in the way of cutting edge academic skills to suit the sector in which they work, can overrule the logic of maths and statistics as "flawed logic".

If Mr Brear is so confident that he is right, and holds the moral high ground, why all the threats, whether veiled or not. It seems the idea behind them is to stifle debate and make this story "go away" with the passage of time so that the GRA can get back to business as usual, for the next couple of years anyway;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top