bellerock being akward over ID - locked accs and no payouts.

[TheBloke]

Bellerock never told me I had a shared computer ID issue did they? They accused me of supplying fake docs. The shared computer issue has only just come up on here. I have only just recently been told by you directly that I have a shared computer problem, all there was before was iunnuendo.

It's this bit that worries me, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I don't know if MarcHolmes is guilty, but I do think it's out of order for Belle Rock to set a hurdle (certified docs), then still refuse to pay when it is met. What was the point of asking for certified docs in the first place if they weren't going to pay anyway. Was it just to annoy him?

If there is clear evidence of fraud they should have closed all the linked accounts and that would be the end of it. And why was Vesuvio asked for docs? Surely his 'computer id' didn't match too? Obviously it didn't because he was paid.

So it sounds rather like a typical casino knee-jerk reaction: "we've got some fraudsters from the UK, so we'd better ask every bonus player in the UK to send certified docs just in case."

Maybe I'm exagerrating, but that's what it seems like. If they've been defrauded then obviously they have the right to withhold winnings, but the certified doc step seems to make no sense at all given that they just ignored the result of it.

 

[Casinomeister]

I don't know if MarcHolmes is guilty and I don't really care. But I do think it's out of order for Belle Rock to set a hurdle (certified docs), then still refuse to pay when it is met. What was the point of asking for certified docs in the first place if they weren't going to pay anyway. Was it just to annoy him?

They decided to ask for these when there were some discrepancies noted. Having them certified gave them the opportunity to speak to a third party. That's all I'm going to say about this right now. I don't believe it was done to simply annoy the player.

If there is clear evidence of fraud they should have closed all the linked accounts and that would be the end of it. And why was Vesuvio asked for docs? Surely his 'computer id' didn't match too? Obviously it didn't because he was paid.

They wanted to give the players the benefit of the doubt. Vesuvio simply was at the wrong place at the wrong time. He was cleared and received his payment.

So it sounds rather like a typical casino knee-jerk reaction: "we've got some fraudsters from the UK, so we'd better ask every bonus player in the UK to send certified docs just in case."

Maybe I'm exagerrating, but that's what it seems like. If they've been defrauded then obviously they have the right to withhold winnings, but the certified doc step seems to make no sense at all given that they just ignored the result of it.

It may seem like this, but when there are groups of players working together, it's important to identify the good from the bad. It's difficult at times. Now we find out that Marc opened all of his casino accounts at work on a shared computer.

I admit using a computer at work - what on earth is the problem with that?

Gaming Club T&Cs
We may impose any limits or conditions that we, in our sole discretion, deem fit on any persons who open or attempt to open Accounts at the Casino where such Accounts originate from environments where computers are, or the environment is shared.

Gaming Club T&Cs
If you open multiple accounts you will not be eligible for the Sign-Up Bonus on each account. The Sign-Up Bonus is only available once per Player and/or per environment where computers are shared and/or per e-mail address.

That's the problem. Did you read the terms and conditions carefully before you deposited? You are in a shared environment which negates your claim for winnings stemming from a bonus.

 

[soflat]

It's this bit that worries me, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I don't know if MarcHolmes is guilty, but I do think it's out of order for Belle Rock to set a hurdle (certified docs), then still refuse to pay when it is met. What was the point of asking for certified docs in the first place if they weren't going to pay anyway. Was it just to annoy him?

Exactly. Belle Rock should tell the players what they need to do to prove their innocence. They don't have reveal any secrets. But don't ask for something that is totally irrelevant like certified docs (which Belle Rock admitted is irrelevant).

If there is clear evidence of fraud they should have closed all the linked accounts and that would be the end of it. And why was Vesuvio asked for docs? Surely his 'computer id' didn't match too? Obviously it didn't because he was paid.

So it sounds rather like a typical casino knee-jerk reaction: "we've got some fraudsters from the UK, so we'd better ask every bonus player in the UK to send certified docs just in case."

That is why it is unsafe for legit players. You might have to supply private personal info to a third party if you want to get your cash out.

The simple solution is to not accept multiple players from the same machine or IP address. Oh but wait a minute, the casino would lose money if they rejected these players before they deposited. Belle Rock takes 24 hours to credit the initial match bonus, in that time their computers could check for any irregularities.

That's the problem. Did you read the terms and conditions carefully before you deposited? You are in a shared environment which negates your claim for winnings stemming from a bonus.

They shouldn't have given him the bonus in the first place then. Is it a deposit bonus or a no-deposit bonus?

 

[Vesuvio]

I'm still hoping Marc can clue us in on why his computer ID is the same as these other people who opened their accounts at roughly the same time from the same region - made the same deposits and played the same games.

I can't comment on the computer ID, but I think it's underestimated to what extent players will legitimately deposit exactly the same amounts and play precisely the same optimal games and strategy. Forums are often geographically based, so of course there are going to be large groups of people who would raise all these flags - they're just bonus hunters.

I think the real story here is that some casinos are trying to clamp down on advantage players who aren't breaking any of their terms and conditions. Rather than changing the terms they're adopting a scatter-gun approach. I don't think they're worried about the baby going the same way as the bath water - that's their aim - they want to discourage bonus hunters.

It's logical - after all there's no difference to the casino if one person plays in the name of a few people from his computer, or if those same people all play on their own computer (or let's say he's looking over their shoulder giving advice at the time). In the last two scenarios, however much the casinos would wish it was otherwise, there's no question of fraud (nevermind being able to prove it).

 

[marcholmes]

They decided to ask for these when there were some discrepancies noted. Having them certified gave them the opportunity to speak to a third party. That's all I'm going to say about this right now. I don't believe it was done to simply annoy the player.


They wanted to give the players the benefit of the doubt. Vesuvio simply was at the wrong place at the wrong time. He was cleared and received his payment.


It may seem like this, but when there are groups of players working together, it's important to identify the good from the bad. It's difficult at times. Now we find out that Marc opened all of his casino accounts at work on a shared computer.



Gaming Club T&Cs
We may impose any limits or conditions that we, in our sole discretion, deem fit on any persons who open or attempt to open Accounts at the Casino where such Accounts originate from environments where computers are, or the environment is shared.

Gaming Club T&Cs
If you open multiple accounts you will not be eligible for the Sign-Up Bonus on each account. The Sign-Up Bonus is only available once per Player and/or per environment where computers are shared and/or per e-mail address.

That's the problem. Did you read the terms and conditions carefully before you deposited? You are in a shared environment which negates your claim for winnings stemming from a bonus.

Obviously I didn't read them well enough.
Why did BR make me jump through bloody hoops? Surely bringing this to my attention earlier (since this is what it turns out the problem is) would've cut all this crap?
As I said earlier COMMUNICATION is a wonderful thing.
It doesn't explain why I still have not been paid back 300 of deposits though does it?
It does not excuse them for saying I provided false ID which I had to go to the expense of getting certified.

 

[Vesuvio]

Mainly true Vesuvio. However not entirely. Having your car clamped and having to pay a 'fine' to have it released might be one example.

I imagine I'm still free to appeal that fine in a court of law, though (I'm guessing that's why UK traffic wardens tend to photograph offending vehicles nowadays!).

I agree with you that there's no legal recourse if casinos decide to invoke their catch-all terms, but that's precisely why threads like this one are important. It's still possible to put enough pressure on casinos to make them uphold much higher standards than they could legally get away with.

As for comparing eCOGRA to the UK Crown Courts, I think you might be stretching a point a tiny little bit

 

[Casinomeister]

I can't comment on the computer ID, but I think it's underestimated to what extent players will legitimately deposit exactly the same amounts and play precisely the same optimal games and strategy. Forums are often geographically based, so of course there are going to be large groups of people who would raise all these flags - they're just bonus hunters.

Casinos understand this - and it's par for the course. That's why we have terms and conditions for bonus play.

BUT we are talking about fraud here - in a general sense. I've already mentioned that there were messed up documents and other things that are not kosher.

I think the real story here is that some casinos are trying to clamp down on advantage players who aren't breaking any of their terms and conditions. Rather than changing the terms they're adopting a scatter-gun approach. I don't think they're worried about the baby going the same way as the bath water - that's their aim - they want to discourage bonus hunters.

It's logical - after all there's no difference to the casino if one person plays in the name of a few people from his computer, or if those same people all play on their own computer (or let's say he's looking over their shoulder giving advice at the time). In the last two scenarios, however much the casinos would wish it was otherwise, there's no question of fraud (nevermind being able to prove it).

But if a small group of people create a large number of bogus accounts, this is fraud. If you do this, you are wrong - no ifs ands or buts about it. You are a fraudster.

And just for a few moments, imagine a world without bonuses. What a wonderful world that would be.

If marc simply played without using a bonus (I do this all of the time) he wouldn't have the problems he's having now. And neither would a lot of you.

 

[Casinomeister]

Next thing, Furby is going to post that he's playing from a shared environment as well

Furby - where you at??

 

[vinylweatherman]

Unworkable!

This business about shared computers verges on the unworkable for many. Although there are clearly cases of shared PC's, such as in a works communal area, OK, so WHY IS WORK PHONE A COMPULSORY FIELD then!!!!! Surely we should NOT be playing from work, as there is a chance that the PC is shared. Since no one player can actually know whether an account has actually been opened previously (unless they know their way around the Windows registry), surely no player should play away from home. If this means a lot less turnover for the casino, tough, you made that rule, but rely on the fact that many players ignore it, or don't really understand it.
Even playing on your own PC is not safe, there are many reasons why the data that is being recorded by the casino might not be genuine for the player, and this revolves around how different ISP providers handle the loads. If ID is at question, this can be verified independently of ProcCyber as a double check. Surely the original owner of an ID will be the only one able to provide genuine documents, fraudsters will have made up an ID, based on facts on public record, but will have made mistakes along the way.
Without giving anything away, casinos need to provide a series of steps that a player must take to prove they are entitled under the terms to the benefits of an account. Where issues are beyond the knowledge of the player, the software should suspend the account on registration and further checks should be made. The information that players enter at registration can be cross checked immediately, including IP addresses. As soon as a duplicate IP is detected, the registration should abort and ask for CS intervention; who will be able to find out if they are going to allow the account, such as they might for husband and wife.
Where they are going to be confiscating funds, they need to be certain that the starting data is correct, and that they actually LISTEN to what players are saying in their defense - if they are fraudsters they may give something else away that might help the casinos in future.

As for marcholmes, although he may be gulity as sin, the communal room he describes sounds like one of those jobs where you need to be there at a moment's notice, but can spend hours with nothing to do, which is why a communal area with PC's is provided. Possibly the Fire Service, or similar rapid response job, or it could be a power plant, where staff need to be present "just in case", but normally have nothing to do. BelleRock and ProcCyber are showing how dangerous it can be to assume it is OK to use online casinos in such an environment. BelleRock have not mentioned whether it is the IP at time of REGISTRATION that is used, or whether it is where you play from.
Calls to pay because it is only "a small amount" are rejected because hundreds of small amounts add up!! Many scams work on the principle of "little and often" to rack up huge profits.

 

[Vesuvio]

But if a small group of people create a large number of bogus accounts, this is fraud. If you do this, you are wrong - no ifs ands or buts about it. You are a fraudster.

Yes, but if you trawl for those players by treating anyone who fits a bonus hunting pattern as a fraudster, you're going to have uproar, and your casino should rightly be dumped in the rogue section of every on-line watchdog. It's just not acceptable behaviour.

And just for a few moments, imagine a world without bonuses. What a wonderful world that would be.

It'd be a truly depressing world. As I wrote once before: Link Outdated / Removed

 

[Casinomeister]

If bonuses were abolished tomorrow half the casinos would close through lack of custom. The rest would cut back on their support staff, and we'd just be left with a few servers running in an empty room, making money for an overweight man sunbathing by a pool in Hawaii. Even Casinomeister would have to shut up shop and go back to teaching English, or waging war...

Ha ha ha. I missed that one.

 

[TheBloke]

They decided to ask for these when there were some discrepancies noted. Having them certified gave them the opportunity to speak to a third party. That's all I'm going to say about this right now. I don't believe it was done to simply annoy the player.

Ok, but then I'm still confused.

The point of their request was to get a trusted third party to confirm the docs. That was done, so why did they still not pay? Or to put it another way, if the non-payal was due to other discrepancies, why was the certification even asked for? Basically it sounds like they asked for certification knowing that, if provided, it would still make no difference. I don't understand the justification for that. If he's guilty, it's fine not to pay him - but don't make him jump through meaningless hoops as well. That's why I felt it might have been done out of spite, or in the hope that he would just go away.

Unless of course you're saying that the 'trusted third party' he provided was in fact not trustworthy, or indeed not a third party? I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to try and fake a solicitor, but I guess he might have thought he could get away with it.

 

[GOCC]

I believe Granmaster touched on this earlier on but because of the rapid amount of responses it has got lost.

Proccyber/Risk Sentinel are Registered in the UK. As such, they are bound by the data protection act 1998. I would urge anyone who has been caught up in the, particularly marcholmes to do the following.

Write to
PROC CYBER SERVICES (UK) LIMITED
5-7 TANNER STREET
LONDON
SE1 3LE

Subject Access Request.

Tell them you want EVERYTHING they have on there computer records about you. This will be emails from CM, BR, notes the lot. Send a cheque in for 10 as this is THE MAXIMUM that they can charge yet it could be less.

Advise them that they have FORTY DAYS to reply, these are not working days. Advise if they do not respond, you will apply to the information commisioner for a court order for such. I will be happy to draft a letter if you PM.

This isnt jumping on Bryan but this seems to me to be all hypothetical. Vesuvio has been freed as he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe, maybe not but ever thought marcholmes was too.

It always surprises me when people say the joined at same time, played same type of play and deposited the same. The fact is there was possibly an email doing the rounds and that they all were led to the well of Belle Rock. Deposit X, get Y and play slots. Not exactly a fingerprint of guilt, more of a way that the casinos WANT you to play.

The chastisement of the players is just if they are fraudulent but the BS that BR have portrayed IE Certify Docs is disgracefull and I will spend by 5 a week elsewhere

 

[marcholmes]

Unless of course you're saying that the 'trusted third party' he provided was in fact not trustworthy, or indeed not a third party? I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to try and fake a solicitor, but I guess he might have thought he could get away with it.

Be careful here. Questioning my solicitors integrity is well wide of the mark, all details were provided to BR and can be checked with the UK law society.

I don't seem to be getting any response to my last set of Q's on the bottom of the last page either It's like talking to BR again

 

[Casinomeister]

Ok, but then I'm still confused.

The point of their request was to get a trusted third party to confirm the docs. That was done, so why did they still not pay? Or to put it another way, if the non-payal was due to other discrepancies, why was the certification even asked for? Basically it sounds like they asked for certification knowing that, if provided, it would still make no difference. I don't understand the justification for that. If he's guilty, it's fine not to pay him - but don't make him jump through meaningless hoops as well. That's why I felt it might have been done out of spite, or in the hope that he would just go away.

Unless of course you're saying that the 'trusted third party' he provided was in fact not trustworthy, or indeed not a third party? I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to try and fake a solicitor, but I guess he might have thought he could get away with it.

It could be that they requested these documents from all individuals involved when they became suspicious that something was up, and Marc was the only one who came through with the request. Maybe Marc should have these other individuals contact the same solicitor since they all work together.

I'm not saying why they decided to still not to go through with the payment after speaking with the solicitor. But there are a number of things they had taken into account. The computer IDs for one. Even though Marc proved he was a real person, it didn't mean he hadn't set up several accounts. Now if the other people all of a sudden pop up...well this could become interesting.

 

[marcholmes]

It could be that they requested these doucuments from all individuals involved when they became suspicious that something was up, and Marc was the only one who came through with the request. Maybe Marc should have these other individuals contact the same solicitor since they all work together.

I'm not saying why they decided to still not to go through with the payment after speaking with the solicitor. But there are a number of things they had taken into account. The computer IDs for one. Even though Marc proved he was a real person, it didn't mean he hadn't set up several accounts. Now if the other people all of a sudden pop up...well this could become interesting.

CM

Give me a list of names of the other people involved and I will confirm whether they work at my place or not - that's all I can do on that score.

The bottom line is I have not set up accounts for anyone else, stuff me, am I really going to go to all this hassle for a grand? If i've got hundreds of accs (as you implied this runs to earlier) I'm not going to miss a grand am I? As it is, this total of a grand+ is a big hole in my pocket, as is the total of 300 of deposits.

I really apprecaite the efforts you've put in here, I've been caught out by the t+c's, fair enough, my fault for not paying attention. That does nto make me a fraudster.

GOCC, nice post and thanks for that, looks like a letter is going in the post I do like the data protection act At least they admit I am real after all

 

[Casinomeister]

I don't seem to be getting any response to my last set of Q's on the bottom of the last page either It's like talking to BR again

I'm trying to write a newsletter here - and it's 11:30 pm

Why did BR make me jump through bloody hoops? .

Because they probably wanted to make sure they were dealing with real people. You are sharing you computer with other individuals.

Surely bringing this to my attention earlier (since this is what it turns out the problem is) would've cut all this crap?.

I'm not Bellerock - but this may not be the only problem.

It doesn't explain why I still have not been paid back 300 of deposits though does it??

I'll remind them to get this to you.

It does not excuse them for saying I provided false ID which I had to go to the expense of getting certified.

I don't think they said they docs false.

Please note, I'm dealing with several issues here - shmoo's, Marcs, Furby's, and the three disappearing members. So I might be referring to things that are not associated with certain cases.

 

[Casinomeister]

CM

Give me a list of names of the other people involved and I will confirm whether they work at my place or not - that's all I can do on that score.

Sorry dude. I don't give out names. You'll have to take that up with Bellerock when he comes back tomorrow.

The bottom line is I have not set up accounts for anyone else, stuff me, am I really going to go to all this hassle for a grand? If i've got hundreds of accs (as you implied this runs to earlier) I'm not going to miss a grand am I? As it is, this total of a grand+ is a big hole in my pocket, as is the total of 300 of deposits..

I never implied you had hundreds of accounts.

I really apprecaite the efforts you've put in here, I've been caught out by the t+c's, fair enough, my fault for not paying attention. That does nto make me a fraudster...

Where do you work by the way? You can PM me that info if you like.

 

[marcholmes]

Sorry CM, didn't realise it was newsletter writing time, just you'd come back with other replies in the meantime etc.
I'll resume again in the morning

 

[Casinomeister]

Sorry CM, didn't realise it was newsletter writing time, just you'd come back with other replies in the meantime etc.
I'll resume again in the morning

Sure, but before you go - please PM me your work place. Thanks!

Also, have you accessed this site from work? I need to know that too. Thanks!

 

[Vesuvio]

Why do I feel as though I'm watching Columbo all of a sudden?

 

[GOCC]

Why do I feel as though I'm watching Columbo all of a sudden?

More like The Bill

 

[GrandMaster]

Why do I feel as though I'm watching Columbo all of a sudden?

Maybe because of this?

 

[Slotster!]

Why do I feel as though I'm watching Columbo all of a sudden?

Ah, listen... Just one more thing... About the photographs on the ID... See, my Wife, she's crazy about having her photo taken, and she says to me, she says - I don't see how those photo's can be used like that on the licence... and this got me thinking... My dog you see, the vet he goes, he takes photo's too - and he says this sure don't add up.. Probably nothing you understand... Sorry to bother you m'aam...

 

[mitch]

Its like drawing teeth sometimes when dealing with these issues.

Marcholmes why where you not upfront at the beginning that you were playing on a shared machine and that other people at your work had all decided to sign up at BR at around about the same time? You surely must have realised that this was a possible reason for the casinos suspicion. You only mention the fact when faced up with the issue of the same computer.

Or are you trying to say you that didn't know that these other people had signed up and had not discussed BR or internet gambling using bonuses with these people?

If that is the case you are therefore asking us to believe that, out of a very small sample of people, compared to the overall percentage of the population who are willing to sign up at any casino, a group of people all decided, completely independantly, to sign up at the same casino at the same time.They then deposit similar sums and play in a similar way and by using the works computer not their own. Hmmm!

When the casino asks for ID from this group, apparently, as far as we know, only one person responds and follows up.

If you were a bookmaker what odds would you lay on this happening by accident?

Any of you gamblers out there who work for a living as well and know the situation at the workplace like to place odds?

It's a pity you were not more forthcoming at the beginning because unfortunately a sign that investigators are taught to look for is whether people give lots of information and detail when talking about a situation. Innocent people tend to give lots of information and detail, often too much in fact. People with something to hide tend to say as little as possible and tend only to respond to questions.

Marcholmes you may be completely innocent but I am not surprised that the casino has raised the red flag here.

Mitch