Are Bet365 cheating on their game(s)?

[thelawnet]

Do we know the advertised RTP?

The RTP is not advertised.

Would it make a difference if the actual payback was around 98%? Even if it was artificially produced? After all, you would still have a decent payback at the end of the day.

No. It's advertised as a card game, if I wanted to play some kinda funked up slot, I would. You might as well say to someone playing double-zero roulette for $100/spin that they'd get better odds on the high-limit slots. Sure they would, but they didn't sign up to play slots, they want to play roulette, and it should operate fairly, we shouldn't need to ask if each segment of the wheel is equally likely, if each card is equally likely, it's a part of the casino's implicit contract with the player, to play fairly.

All casino games have a house edge, we know that, but just because you voluntarily choose to play a game at which you are likely to lose money, doesn't give them the entitlement to cheat. They might as well just steal your whole deposit up front and say 'well you're going to lose in the long run anyway, this just saves time'.

 

[Nifty29]

The RTP is not advertised.



No. It's advertised as a card game, if I wanted to play some kinda funked up slot, I would. You might as well say to someone playing double-zero roulette for $100/spin that they'd get better odds on the high-limit slots. Sure they would, but they didn't sign up to play slots, they want to play roulette, and it should operate fairly, we shouldn't need to ask if each segment of the wheel is equally likely, if each card is equally likely, it's a part of the casino's implicit contract with the player, to play fairly.

All casino games have a house edge, we know that, but just because you voluntarily choose to play a game at which you are likely to lose money, doesn't give them the entitlement to cheat. They might as well just steal your whole deposit up front and say 'well you're going to lose in the long run anyway, this just saves time'.

I don't disagree that it is cheating, or at the very least deliberate misrepresentation.

I was just wondering about the end result that's all.

 

[rainmaker]

Really?

...Also, best I can see, this games is unique to Bet365, and it's done in their colours and is quite likely designed FOR them.

I think this game is offered in other casinos as well. You can for example find it at Digibet.

Games in general can often be customized with colors, logo on cards etc.

 

[Simmo!]

Really?

1) Ok it is, but that doesn't change the fact that they are responsible for offering it. If Walmart sell Chinese cancer-causing toys, or something like that, the responsibility is still with Walmart. This makes no difference at all. Also, best I can see, this games is unique to Bet365, and it's done in their colours and is quite likely designed FOR them.

Actually I was thinking of the TopGame analogy where their symbols were missing on reels. We (as in the collective here) laid the blame squarely with the software manufacturer and not each individual casino who licenced their game.

2) Meh. It doesn't matter how many cards are in the deck. There could be 6, 66, 196, it makes no difference to the fact that you cannot weight cards (not without cheating).

I'm not math-head and I do think the rules of the game should be clearer fwiw but my first assumption was that there were more than 6 cards (let's say 52 for example purposes) in the pack with maybe 10 x 9's, 8 x 10's, 6 x Jacks ... etc ... 1 Ace: then that would set the outcome "fairly" would it not? Arguably the "unfairly" bit is the fact the player isn't told this but then you could further this argument in that no online slot game manufacturer publishes the reel layouts - so does that mean there is just one of each symbol on a reel, because all we see is an animation of them spinning?

So my argument: if they say there is 6 cards in a pack then clearly it is "cheating". If they don't say how many cards there are in a pack or how they are divided then that is a lack of information that may or may not - depending on your perspective - be seen as misleading. But that takes us back to the "symbols on a reel argument".

 

[deucebag]

Hey

I think the game "three of a kind" is made by

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(part of the Lottomatica Group).

GTECH G2 is more commonly known as Boss Media. Looks like they've changed their name to GTECH G2.

 

[maphesto]

Actually I was thinking of the TopGame analogy where their symbols were missing on reels. We (as in the collective here) laid the blame squarely with the software manufacturer and not each individual casino who licenced their game.

At this time, every single Top Game casino was connected to each other. Many of them used the phone number to Winward and they shared support and when you deposited it said Rich Casino on the receipt even if you deposited at Thebes or Rome. It was obviously no reason to blame any single casino when every sane person realized that Top Game "owned them all". If I remember correct I think that Black Diamond started their first Top Game session only a couple of weeks after the missing symbol "accident".

Bet365 are big and they have to check their games, it´s their responsibility. They have probably picked these games one by one and it would be interesting to know what info they have about this game. RTP 80%?

I'm not math-head and I do think the rules of the game should be clearer fwiw but my first assumption was that there were more than 6 cards (let's say 52 for example purposes) in the pack with maybe 10 x 9's, 8 x 10's, 6 x Jacks ... etc ... 1 Ace: then that would set the outcome "fairly" would it not? Arguably the "unfairly" bit is the fact the player isn't told this but then you could further this argument in that no online slot game manufacturer publishes the reel layouts - so does that mean there is just one of each symbol on a reel, because all we see is an animation of them spinning?

So my argument: if they say there is 6 cards in a pack then clearly it is "cheating". If they don't say how many cards there are in a pack or how they are divided then that is a lack of information that may or may not - depending on your perspective - be seen as misleading. But that takes us back to the "symbols on a reel argument".

NEVER compare card games with slot machines! It´s not seen as cheating if you have a twisted reel layout, but a weighted deck is definately cheating!

I know that you promote Bet365, they are a good casino. Still, this game is a cheating one.

 

[Nifty29]

At this time, every single Top Game casino was connected to each other. Many of them used the phone number to Winward and they shared support and when you deposited it said Rich Casino on the receipt even if you deposited at Thebes or Rome. It was obviously no reason to blame any single casino when every sane person realized that Top Game "owned them all". If I remember correct I think that Black Diamond started their first Top Game session only a couple of weeks after the missing symbol "accident".

Bet365 are big and they have to check their games, it´s their responsibility. They have probably picked these games one by one and it would be interesting to know what info they have about this game. RTP 80%?




NEVER compare card games with slot machines! It´s not seen as cheating if you have a twisted reel layout, but a weighted deck is definately cheating!

I know that you promote Bet365, they are a good casino. Still, this game is a cheating one.

Maphesto...surely you know that Rome and TopGame are not not at all related....Noah told us so. Are you meaning to say he was being economical with the truth? Maybe he WAS using the same IP as the TopGame rep but that only proves they were at the same computer. Nothing else. Geez give them a break! (I'm being sarcastic btw )

I don't think Simmo! was giving an opinion with any commercial bias whatsoever. It was probably a bit unnecessary to mention that he promotes them, given that we are a long way from determining any deliberate cheating on the part of Bet365. Just saying.

 

[maphesto]

It was probably a bit unnecessary to mention that he promotes them, given that we are a long way from determining any deliberate cheating on the part of Bet365. Just saying.

Maybe you are right! It wasn´t necessary, but I said they were good. Haven´t played Playtech for a while, but last time I did was at Bet365.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

Greetings,

I will look into this and see what I can find out.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Greetings,

I will look into this and see what I can find out.

Oh dear! I wouldn't want to be in their shoes right now

Surely the first step is to calculate the natural RTP from the rules given. The screenshot shows clearly that this is a multi-hand video poker game, albeit a rather unusual one. As such, every card present in the deck should have an equal probability of being drawn. This does not have to be stipulated in the rules, it is a fair assumption, just as we assume the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

Even for a slot with a "twisted" reel layout, each reel position has an equal chance of being on the "stop" after each spin.

The content of the deck is crucial. This is not a standard deck, and somewhere it's content should be specified. So far, it seems to be nothing more than a "short" deck, with all cards below a certain value removed. There are casino table games using such decks, and what is left is expected to be randomly dealt, and in the quantities expected from a "short" deck. If three such decks are combined to make the playing deck, it would STILL have equal quantities of each number, such as 12 Aces, 12 Kings, etc, 4 from each of the 3 decks used.


To pay 100x for AAA, it would have to pay far lower for 999 than the natural odds.

If it is cheating by weighting certain cards, it is not even a "twisted" slot, it is a "rigged game", and should NOT be promoted as "random" as it is in the marketing copy from the software supplier. A game of this type is considered to be "cheating" unless the weighted nature of the results is made perfectly clear in the rules.

Bet365 didn't code the game, but they should have tested it before it was given the "good to go" for their customers.

 

[Simmo!]

NEVER compare card games with slot machines! It´s not seen as cheating if you have a twisted reel layout, but a weighted deck is definately cheating!

It's a fair point that Bet365 list this game under "Table Games" when it's obviously not. But it is also blatantly obvious that the odds of this game - if you assume it is a 6 card deck - would be so weighted in the players favour it would be ridiculous to even offer it.

If they say it has 6 cards in a deck then I'd agree with the description of it's cheating, although whether it's "deliberate cheating by Bet365" I choose to disagree. Semantics. And irrelevant anyway because I recommend them on my websites so I would say that wouldn't I But if they don't say a deck is 6 cards then I say it's "misleading".

Until we know all the answers, whether you say it's Bet365 or GTech, and whether you say it's misleading or cheating depends on how an individual wants to interpret it I guess.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It's a fair point that Bet365 list this game under "Table Games" when it's obviously not. But it is also blatantly obvious that the odds of this game - if you assume it is a 6 card deck - would be so weighted in the players favour it would be ridiculous to even offer it.

If they say it has 6 cards in a deck then I'd agree with the description of it's cheating, although whether it's "deliberate cheating by Bet365" I choose to disagree. Semantics. And irrelevant anyway because I recommend them on my websites so I would say that wouldn't I But if they don't say a deck is 6 cards then I say it's "misleading".

Until we know all the answers, whether you say it's Bet365 or GTech, and whether you say it's misleading or cheating depends on how an individual wants to interpret it I guess.

It's presented as a Video Poker machine, so I would expect it to behave like one, and work from a virtual deck of cards.

If a slot had a "deck" of 100 symbols for each reel, we would STILL expect each of those symbols to have an equal probability of being "dealt" in each spin; else it would be a "rigged slot".

What about the BLR Tech craps game? It was presented as a dice game, yet used weighting to hold it to an RTP much lower that would be expected under the rules or paytable. There was no debate, once proven to be "rigged", it was straight into the rogue pit for BLR, and also any casino that insisted on continuing to offer the game in it's "rigged" form.

Bet365 and "Boss Media (now renamed)" shouldn't think they are going to get off lightly if these claims are found to be true. At best, this will be a massive embarrassment for them, and they had better start offering their PR teams some overtime.

 

[Simmo!]

If a slot had a "deck" of 100 symbols for each reel, we would STILL expect each of those symbols to have an equal probability of being "dealt" in each spin; else it would be a "rigged slot".

I'm not suggesting otherwise. But I am suggesting there may be less of certain high paying symbols than of certain low paying symbols.

 

[zap987]

It's really down to how the game presents the results, if it had been slot reels, even if those reels had pictures of the cards, noone would have cared if the chances were different for the symbols but when it's presented in the way of cards it is a natural assumption that the cards have equal probability.

If we assume the game instead of cards used 6 sided dice, it would have been exactly the same game, wouldn't everyone think each number had the same chance?

 

[vinylweatherman]

I'm not suggesting otherwise. But I am suggesting there may be less of certain high paying symbols than of certain low paying symbols.

A reasonable assumption for a slot, but NOT for a card game. If I am playing a card game, I expect each deck to have 4 cards of each value, one for each suit. For 3 decks, this would be 12 cards per value, 3 for each suit. Where the 3 decks are shortened so as to only have the cards 9 and above, I STILL expect there to be 12 of each in a shoe made from 3 such decks, and that each deal from such a shoe would be "natural".

This game is not promoted as a slot, but as a "table" game, therefore it should behave like one, just as the BLR craps game was expected to behave like one.

 

[Simmo!]

A reasonable assumption for a slot, but NOT for a card game. If I am playing a card game, I expect each deck to have 4 cards of each value, one for each suit. For 3 decks, this would be 12 cards per value, 3 for each suit. Where the 3 decks are shortened so as to only have the cards 9 and above, I STILL expect there to be 12 of each in a shoe made from 3 such decks, and that each deal from such a shoe would be "natural".

Yes, but we know already that this game only has 6 numbers in it so it's not a "normal" pack. We're getting OT really - we're agreed it shouldn't be in the Table Games section though as that implies it has normal decks even though, by design, it doesn't.

 

[thelawnet]

I found another game that doesn't play fair, although it's perhaps not so bad.

The game is 'Killer Ace' and the rules are here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

"Killer Ace allows the player to place single or multiple bets on the outcome of one drawn card from an infinite deck of standard playing cards.

Killer Ace offers a large selection of betting options including:

Select 'Odd/Even' to stake the turn of any even or odd card.
Choose Red/Black to anticipate the dealing of any red or black card.
Any single card number, irrespective of suit or colour.
Groups of numbers 2 through 7 or 8 through K.'

If you look at the game board, you can bet

Heart, Diamond, Even, Red, Black, Odd, Club, Spade, each card A-K, 2-7. or 8-K

The positions 2-K are all marked either 'Odd', or 'Even'. The Ace is not.

So it's implied that Ace is neither Odd nor Even.

Ok fair enough.

So I play, and I bet on black.

After a few hands I get an Ace of Clubs. It's a loser. Huh.

Obviously the Ace of Clubs is neither black, nor a club!

Nowhere does it state this in the rules, although tbh it's a stupid rule anyway. I can see that an Ace of Clubs is not odd, but it's obviously a Club, and they should pay for it.

How many more crappy, half-assed games pushed out without documentation do they have?

 

[Surasanji]

I object! Wait. Appeal! No.. Throw myself on the Mercy.....

Hey

I think the game "three of a kind" is made by

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(part of the Lottomatica Group).

Maybe

Wasn't a huge decision laid down recently (relatively) against the Lottomatica group by the Italian Government? At least... They're going to appeal about something like that.




I wonder what that is all about. :/ Sounds a little fishy. That's a lot of cash.

And that's just what I could find on their website!

 

[Fed up]

Basically 3 cards are dealt, each is either a 9, T, J, Q, K or A, and the object of the game is to get 3 cards the same, e.g., 3 9s. The cards are drawn from three separate decks of six cards, and having discarded a given card, it can be drawn again.

There is no strategy - after the deal, if two cards match, and the 3rd is different, the third is discarded and drawn again. If all three are the same, all 3 are held, and if all three are different, then no cards are held and all three cards drawn again.

The game pays only for 3 of a kinds, according to the following paytable:

9's - 3
10's - 5
j's - 8
q's - 10
k's - 25
a's - 100

Let's see if I understand this correctly. There are three decks of six (9,10,J,Q,K,A) cards. Let's take a single deck. The probability of drawing a 9 is 1/6. The probability of drawing an Ace is 1/6. The probability of drawing three 9s = probability of drawing three As. So, why is it 100 to 1 for three As?

Something is not right here.

 

[maphesto]

I found another game that doesn't play fair, although it's perhaps not so bad.

The game is 'Killer Ace' and the rules are here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

"Killer Ace allows the player to place single or multiple bets on the outcome of one drawn card from an infinite deck of standard playing cards.

Killer Ace offers a large selection of betting options including:

Select 'Odd/Even' to stake the turn of any even or odd card.
Choose Red/Black to anticipate the dealing of any red or black card.
Any single card number, irrespective of suit or colour.
Groups of numbers 2 through 7 or 8 through K.'

If you look at the game board, you can bet

Heart, Diamond, Even, Red, Black, Odd, Club, Spade, each card A-K, 2-7. or 8-K

The positions 2-K are all marked either 'Odd', or 'Even'. The Ace is not.

So it's implied that Ace is neither Odd nor Even.

Ok fair enough.

So I play, and I bet on black.

After a few hands I get an Ace of Clubs. It's a loser. Huh.

Obviously the Ace of Clubs is neither black, nor a club!

Nowhere does it state this in the rules, although tbh it's a stupid rule anyway. I can see that an Ace of Clubs is not odd, but it's obviously a Club, and they should pay for it.

How many more crappy, half-assed games pushed out without documentation do they have?

I tested it in freeplay! Ace of Spades isn´t a black card!

I have read both the english and swedish rules and they do not mention that Aces don´t count towards black/red! Clearly, the Aces are the house edge. But they havent written this in the rules.

Choose Red/Black to anticipate the dealing of any red or black card, the rules say.

Cheating!!!

Think of a slot machine and you have 50 times bet on "any three sevens" and you don´t win when you have 777. This is the same. The player doesn´t have to play for a while to figure out these things.

 

[KasinoKing]

Let's see if I understand this correctly. There are three decks of six (9,10,J,Q,K,A) cards. Let's take a single deck. The probability of drawing a 9 is 1/6. The probability of drawing an Ace is 1/6. The probability of drawing three 9s = probability of drawing three As. So, why is it 100 to 1 for three As?

Something is not right here.

I think you need to read the whole thread.
We have already established that EVERYTHING is not right here!

KK

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think you need to read the whole thread.
We have already established that EVERYTHING is not right here!

KK

Why have 3 decks of 6 when ONE "short" deck would contain FOUR cards of each value, not just three. I am sure they meant three "short" decks, each with 6 VALUES of card, but with FOUR of such cards in each. This creates a single deck of 12 9s, 12 10s, 12 Jacks, and so on. What difference would this model make on the odds of each outcome?

The "Killer Ace" game seems more to do with badly written rules, rather than "cheating" software.

Maybe the WHOLE problem is down to poorly written rules, and so extremely badly written in the first case that it completely changes the mathematical model of the game so that when calculations are done on the rules as written, and then compared to the paytable and how the game playes, it clearly looks like it is "cheating".

Such poor oversight has lead to a FAR more serious allegation gaining credibilty, that of blatant cheating in the software, and now doubt has been cast on a second game, and no doubt the sleuths are looking at the rest, and will probably find a third example.

 

[thelawnet]

Why have 3 decks of 6 when ONE "short" deck would contain FOUR cards of each value, not just three. I am sure they meant three "short" decks, each with 6 VALUES of card, but with FOUR of such cards in each. This creates a single deck of 12 9s, 12 10s, 12 Jacks, and so on. What difference would this model make on the odds of each outcome?

The six denominations are each of only one suit.

To be clear, it doesn't matter AT ALL if you have 1 9, 12 9s, or any other number, providing that discards are shuffled back into the deck OR an infinite deck (or near enough to make no difference) is used.

You can configure the game so that the odds, and the payout, are different, but that won't change the fact that Aces should not be less likely than Nines in ANY table game.

The "Killer Ace" game seems more to do with badly written rules, rather than "cheating" software.

Well yes and no. If you put £100 on 'black', and then lose on a black Ace, then you've been cheated out of £100, because this fact wasn't disclosed to you.

Maybe the WHOLE problem is down to poorly written rules, and so extremely badly written in the first case that it completely changes the mathematical model of the game so that when calculations are done on the rules as written, and then compared to the paytable and how the game playes, it clearly looks like it is "cheating".

There is not really a plausible ruleset that will make the 3 of a kind game fair.

You could move it slots, or 'instant win', and change it so the suits are removed, and explain it properly in the rules, but I don't think the game as implemented could be made fair by a mere rulechange.

 

[Casinomeister]

From the casino:

As always we take the opinions of Casinomeister players very seriously and as such we have removed the Three of a Kind game as well as the Killer Aces game awaiting the results of a full and complete investigation as to the way in which these games are presented to customers.

We will in due course update the thread.

So looks like the ball is in motion to fully address this issue.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

I was in touch with Bet365. They quoted the TST certificate to me, which specifically addresses only the Playtech games. This game is not a Playtech game. I was given a stock "game fairness" response. I hope they will take my queries seriously and offer more cooperation in my investigation.

--Eliot