Baptism by Fire - success Bet-at.eu - giving it a try

[Jufo]

And that's how it started in the industry, until a realisation by a group of players that "free 100% match" at 5x turnover (im oversimplifying) is a guaranteed profit, and then the group started picking one SUB by one, at one casino after another, not returning: not looking at it as an incentive to come and check out a place of entertainment for a long term enjoyment, but as a fairly easy way to make money.

At which point bonuses started ensuring they "eat themselves" by turnover values and simply added to game play duration by increasing a the number of rounds and with that of that hit after real money has been depleted. This is why until this day bonuses get turned to real money even at x30,40,50 and x60 requirements.

Yes, but I also think that the casino management may focus too much on the short-time loss spike that some promotion causes them due to the players who are after easy money, and they may not factor in those players who actually do keep coming back and become long-term (losing) customers, something which may take years to realize itself. It often looks like these regular players and their losses are taken for granted when it might be that they too originally became customers because of that offer.

I think there is some balance or equilirum point of tolerating APs to certain extent and dishing out +EV versus acquiring wanted long-term players. Too harsh bonus terms may drive the loyal players somewhere else and too lax terms mean that the casino will mainly attract APs and too few recreational players. The optimal point is likely somewhere in between. It looks to me that most casinos are too focused to beating every player individually and every time when in fact they only need to beat the whole player pool in aggregate.

 

[Igor82]

Yes, but I also think that the casino management may focus too much on the short-time loss spike that some promotion causes them due to the players who are after easy money, and they may not factor in those players who actually do keep coming back and become long-term (losing) customers, something which may take years to realize itself. It often looks like these regular players and their losses are taken for granted when it might be that they too originally became customers because of that offer.

I think there is some balance or equilirum point of tolerating APs to certain extent and dishing out +EV versus acquiring wanted long-term players. Too harsh bonus terms may drive the loyal players somewhere else and too lax terms mean that the casino will mainly attract APs and too few recreational players. The optimal point is likely somewhere in between. It looks to me that most casinos are too focused to beating every player individually and every time when in fact they only need to beat the whole player pool in aggregate.

We fixed it through dynamic segmentation - my system looks at a player from dozens of different angles and tailors the bonuses and T&C's offered (max bet, Wr, frequency) based on a combination of segments you could belong to. You in effect will not see the same site and same offers Chopley might as your play style will differ (table vs slot player as most basic example) and system will recognise that and adopt accordingly.

in fact we turn players loyal quite rapidly after they pass our own BoF of sorts and put up with max bet limitations on available SUB's. If you see the bonusing system i designed (read the thread or try it) its far more flexible than what's around:

1. no real money lock-in at any point
2. ability for player to change bonnie priorities in-game (multiple bonnies don't stack)
3. visibility toward WR and completion % in-game
4. ability to forfeit bonus directly without contacting CS...

While we tried to give everything we could in terms of rational flexibility, i need to retian some form of security measures to not be exposed to what was discussed few posts back. It's a fair trade-off IMHO.

 

[Balthazar]

When working together AS IF A SINGLE ENTITY (meaning 10 working as one, acting as one) on a game, with an aim (same deposit amount, same bet, same game) players manage to

Say that all 10 players deposit $100 and they all get the SUB

It would then be the exact same as:

-One player depositing $100 ten times and getting the SUB ten times.
-One player depositing $1000 one time and getting the SUB one time.

If the SUB is EV-, it's EV- in every single scenario here.

It's not an "opinion" like you said earlier, it's pure mathematics. Your chances of hitting bigger are kept in proportion with your chances of losing bigger. By your logic, the more you play a high variance slot, the greater your chance to make money. That's not true at all, in fact, it's the opposite.

Feel free to ask to the Wizard of Odds if you're still not sure.

 

[albrco123]

If you take the same 10 players from the previous examples and assume they all know each other and agree to deposit the same amount, play the same game/s at the same bet level, and split any winnings but this time assume they do not take any kind of Bonus, they just play with their own cash, are they still looking at a collusion ban?

also if the same 10 players do take a SUB and play in the same manner but all bust out (as many of us here seem to think would happen) would they still get the collusion ban?

just thinking out loud.

Al

 

[Balthazar]

Scenario A)
10 players, each one of them with a $100 bankroll. Total bankroll = $1000
They all play at $5/spin = starting at 200 stakes deep
One of them hits a 1000x = $5000 total cashout divided by 10 = $500 win per player

Scenario B)
1 player with a $100 bankroll
He plays at $0.50/spin = starting at 200 stakes deep
He hits a 1000x = $500 total = $500 win per player


Same chances to hit, same win.

Collusion for slot players makes a lot of sense.

 

[albrco123]

Scenario A)
10 players, each one of them with a $100 bankroll. Total bankroll = $1000
They all play at $5/spin = starting at 200 stakes deep
One of them hits a 1000x = $5000 total cashout divided by 10 = $500 win per player

Scenario B)
1 player with a $100 bankroll
He plays at $0.50/spin = starting at 200 stakes deep
He hits a 1000x = $500 total = $500 win per player


Same chances to hit, same win.

Collusion for slot players makes a lot of sense.

And of course in both Scenarios it is equally possible that the 1 player or the 10 players bust out and the Casino Wins

 

[Jasminebed]

I think what I am failing to grasp is how 10 colluding players differ any from 10 non-colluding players in what they win on 10 different SUBs?

Take a new and popular slot like playboy. I pop in $100, get $100. Play and get up a few bucks, greedy me keeps playing for a bigger hit and bust out. Bust out on the bonus too before meeting wagering.

There's bound to be 5, 10, 30 players that do just the same thing. One might try IM, and another is a die hard TSII fan.

Igor talks about big bets, but in another place talks of bets of $2 - $5 dollars. While it might be bigger than some bet, a $2 bet is not way out of line with a $200 bankroll.

I noticed some of the slots have disappeared from Bet-at.

I think we all agree that fraud is fraud, and no one should engage in it or tolerate it. Multi-accounting is a breach of terms, and reason to void winnings. If a player uses all their real details, ideally the casino should pick it up on registration, and if they are not their real details, it should be suspect.

 

[Nifty29]

I think what I am failing to grasp is how 10 colluding players differ any from 10 non-colluding players in what they win on 10 different SUBs?

Take a new and popular slot like playboy. I pop in $100, get $100. Play and get up a few bucks, greedy me keeps playing for a bigger hit and bust out. Bust out on the bonus too before meeting wagering.

There's bound to be 5, 10, 30 players that do just the same thing. One might try IM, and another is a die hard TSII fan.

Igor talks about big bets, but in another place talks of bets of $2 - $5 dollars. While it might be bigger than some bet, a $2 bet is not way out of line with a $200 bankroll.

I noticed some of the slots have disappeared from Bet-at.

I think we all agree that fraud is fraud, and no one should engage in it or tolerate it. Multi-accounting is a breach of terms, and reason to void winnings. If a player uses all their real details, ideally the casino should pick it up on registration, and if they are not their real details, it should be suspect.

AFAIK, if you put those 10 suspected colluders next to each to each other for comparison, and did the same with 10 randomly selected players who bet similarly on similar games, there will be certain "markers" that exist only in the first group. There are several of these markers, including the obvious, but I am not going to reveal any others as it would only help the fraudsters.

Collusion is not illegal...it is just against the terms of use. So, if you get caught doing it, regardless of whether one sees it as harmful or not, you're toast. I mean, I might not think that 40kph is a reasonable speed limit on my street....but I know that if I get pulled over doing the speed that I think is reasonable, then I will get fined. So, the lesson is, either drive at the speed limit or don't drive....and if you DO drive, be prepared to pay up.

 

[Balthazar]

AFAIK, if you put those 10 suspected colluders next to each to each other for comparison, and did the same with 10 randomly selected players who bet similarly on similar games, there will be certain "markers" that exist only in the first group. There are several of these markers, including the obvious, but I am not going to reveal any others as it would only help the fraudsters.

Still haven't read any valid reason why it should be against the rules, though. Personally I refuse to play at casinos that make up rules that I can't understand the reasons behind them. Collusion in live poker is one thing, but collusion on slot machines? Please.

I know you're a big fan of "rules are rules", but I'm an even bigger fan of "no dumb rule".

 

[dionysus]

but, unless youre planning on involving yourself in collusion, why really does it matter?

 

[Balthazar]

but, unless youre planning on involving yourself in collusion, why really does it matter?

Tells me that the casino doesn't care about posting illogical rules that don't benefit them (at least on paper) nor the players. This is a red flag for me and I'll pass.

 

[Jasminebed]

What matters can be an accusation of collusion. I do have real life friends that gamble online. The first person I knew that played online, I haven't seen in years. I have online friends that gamble online. Some I've met in person, some I hope to.

I received a birthday gift from an online friend via Moneybookers. I've sent a little something sometimes to people when my luck has been good. 3Dice has a gifting system that encourages just that within the software. Inetbet allows you to send a gift to a fellow player.

A lot of casinos offer refer-a-friend bonuses.

Sometimes we think we know people when we really don't. Communities are shocked when the church warden has his hand in the coffers, or the treasurer of the youth athletic club has been pilfering for years. I am sure those people had friends that did not know of their bad behaviour.

 

[dionysus]

sniffle....you got ya me Jas...secretly.....I watch reality TV..HAPPY NOW?

 

[Igor82]

Fair point, and I'll state it here that if you don't' agree with below and the safeguard suggestions on below I'll work to modify the terms to better represent the concerns. However, all ask is for you to work through it with me logically and openly:

Say that all 10 players deposit $100 and they all get the SUB

It would then be the exact same as:

-One player depositing $100 ten times and getting the SUB ten times.
-One player depositing $1000 one time and getting the SUB one time.

If the SUB is EV-, it's EV- in every single scenario here.

It's not an "opinion" like you said earlier, it's pure mathematics. Your chances of hitting bigger are kept in proportion with your chances of losing bigger. By your logic, the more you play a high variance slot, the greater your chance to make money. That's not true at all, in fact, it's the opposite.

Feel free to ask to the Wizard of Odds if you're still not sure.

Let's remove the game pay probability for a minute - although i see a profit on collusion syndicates 99/100 times, let's assume i'm looking at it wrong and it is not due to increased bankroll capacity. Let's isolate the bonus and it's terms and conditions:

Your example:

-One player depositing $100 ten times and getting the SUB ten times.
-One player depositing $1000 one time and getting the SUB one time.

Example 1

In example one, if SUB was 200% at x40, the 10 players will have received a total bankroll of 2000 with an aggregate WR of 80,000.

Player 1 places 24 bets of €25 without a single hit on loaded, and busts out, - generating WR of 600.
Player 2 places 24 bets of €25, in the process returns another 600 in winnings, places another 24 hands and busts out - generating WR of 1200.
Player 3 .... - generates WR of of 2400
Player 4 strikes a bit lucky but busts out before the required 8K WR - generates 7000 WR.
Player 5 generates 6,000 WR
Player 6 generates 2000 WR
Player 7 generates 3000 WR

Players 8,9 and 10 are still in the game and have hit a few decent x100, x200 rounds.

Player 8 balance is 1200 with 4K WR remaining.
Player 9 balance is 700 with 5k Remaining
Player 10 balance is 2200 with 1K remaining.

Now, together they came in and acted as single entity - same deposits, same subs, same bets, same game.

Their aggregate player balance is at this point €4,100. Their aggregate wagering requirement remaining is 10,000 euros.

Together, when they added all their bonuses and all their hands, players received a 2000 bonus, and at this point generated €23,2000 in volume toward WR, with another €10,00 remaining.

If cleared, they would have gotten a 2000 bonus with an aggregate WR of €33,200 making the bonus a measly x16 WR turnover instead of intended x40.

Example 2

One player comes and deposits 1000, gets 2000 bonnis at x40 requirement and a total WR of 80,000.

As he plays he gets EXACTLY the same result as those 10 individuals, the hands play out in EXACTLY the same way. He also generated €23,300 in total WR but has another €56,700 to go, unlike the €10,000 that remain in Example 1.

*******************************************

look at above, the game outcome was exactly the same but by working together, the players that bust out will have decreased the aggregate WR because proportionally to how early they bust out. That is becuase the WR is applied in segments rather than to a whole balance.

The only way for the casino to allow this is for a group of players to pre-register as a group, state is openly and they recieve merged bonus terms and conditions that state that any leftover WR from the individual 200 bonus applied, will carry over as the WR requirement of the group - to ensure initally imposed x40- is respected.

Do you agree with above being a fair term?

Still haven't read any valid reason why it should be against the rules, though. Personally I refuse to play at casinos that make up rules that I can't understand the reasons behind them. Collusion in live poker is one thing, but collusion on slot machines? Please.

I know you're a big fan of "rules are rules", but I'm an even bigger fan of "no dumb rule".

That's a valid point - and i agree. So aside from game performance, see above. Do you still think it's "exactly the same" either way?

Tells me that the casino doesn't care about posting illogical rules that don't benefit them (at least on paper) nor the players. This is a red flag for me and I'll pass.

Not the case - i'm exposing to this so if i cant come to an agreement with you here, and i cannot see reason in my approach - i can change my opinion, my practice and my operation policy accordingly.

But just as i need to "convince" you, i need to feel if I am changing, i am changing because reason dictates it and nothing else.

 

[Nifty29]

What matters can be an accusation of collusion. I do have real life friends that gamble online. The first person I knew that played online, I haven't seen in years. I have online friends that gamble online. Some I've met in person, some I hope to.

I received a birthday gift from an online friend via Moneybookers. I've sent a little something sometimes to people when my luck has been good. 3Dice has a gifting system that encourages just that within the software. Inetbet allows you to send a gift to a fellow player.

A lot of casinos offer refer-a-friend bonuses.

Sometimes we think we know people when we really don't. Communities are shocked when the church warden has his hand in the coffers, or the treasurer of the youth athletic club has been pilfering for years. I am sure those people had friends that did not know of their bad behaviour.

I understand, however we are talking about two different animals here.

The refer-a-friend system is a useful tool and actually saves the casino money on affiliate commissions....so they don't mind you referring your genuine friends.

Now, even if one of your friends turns out to be a fraudster, it doesn't automatically mean you are guilty of anything. The casino MIGHT have a look at who the referrer is, and perhaps have a look at yours and your other friend's accounts for the "markers" I mentioned earlier. If you are not colluding, it will be fairly apparent early on in the investigation, and the fraudster will be dealt with as an individual. You should never be afraid of referring a friend to a reputable operator, as it will not cast a bad light on you if they "turn bad".

The whole collusion thing throws up red flags upon closer scrutiny. Why do you think certain people over the years have wanted so badly to know how they got caught? Once the fraudster knows HOW they got caught, they will know how to avoid raising the related red flag next time.

As I said earlier, it becomes quite obvious when a group of players are working together vs a few players who are friends (e.g. referred friends etc). I know some of the red flags, but I am sure there are some that I do not, which is fine by me, as I don't NEED to know and never will. Anyone who desperately wants to know should be treated with immediate suspicion IMO.

 

[Igor82]

What matters can be an accusation of collusion. I do have real life friends that gamble online. The first person I knew that played online, I haven't seen in years. I have online friends that gamble online. Some I've met in person, some I hope to.

I received a birthday gift from an online friend via Moneybookers. I've sent a little something sometimes to people when my luck has been good. 3Dice has a gifting system that encourages just that within the software. Inetbet allows you to send a gift to a fellow player.

A lot of casinos offer refer-a-friend bonuses.

Sometimes we think we know people when we really don't. Communities are shocked when the church warden has his hand in the coffers, or the treasurer of the youth athletic club has been pilfering for years. I am sure those people had friends that did not know of their bad behaviour.

Jazzy, see above. It's not an accusation of collusion that is just given on anyone that "knowns" someone else - the players must meet very specific criteria. We all have on-line friends, technically everyone a member of this forum would be a colluder if that was the approach we took, but it isn't.

I understand it may worrying to hear it, but please see that that's really not the case at all - we don't pick players randomly and go "you there, you're done"

They have to have very specific behaviour patterns to even get on the radar and then we have to connect them in real life. It's not a light process.

 

[dionysus]

I'd wager as well, it isnt only igors casino that has issues with collusion - he just openly expresses it - who knows what goes on behind closed doors at the other casinos we think dont have 'illogical rules' - remember, no casino needs a reason to close a players account, and many dont come here to say why they did

 

[Nifty29]

Still haven't read any valid reason why it should be against the rules, though. Personally I refuse to play at casinos that make up rules that I can't understand the reasons behind them. Collusion in live poker is one thing, but collusion on slot machines? Please.

I know you're a big fan of "rules are rules", but I'm an even bigger fan of "no dumb rule".

You're right.

Actually, I am a fan of:

1. Rules are Rules

2. If one doesn't like the rules...play elsewhere

If a casino wants to set rules that I think are silly or pointless, then I choose not to play at that casino. Everyone has choices....some more than others of course....but the statement still holds true.

Look at it this way Balthazar.....if collusion did not exist, and it did not provide any kind of edge or cost against the casino, then why would so many operators go to such lengths to prohibit and detect it? Surely, if the odds were still in the casino's favour, then they would be creating a whole lot of work and cost to....stop themselves making a profit? It's a silly notion.

Investigating cheats and fraudsters takes a lot of time and money and resources, and it would be counter-productive to expend large portions of it on something that does not exist.

IMO, Igor can make whatever rules he wants. By the same token, I can think they suck and refuse to play there. Both of us are well within our rights.

Personally, I think some of the terms are confusing and some of them leave me scratching my head, especially where there are 2 % contribution tables....one for "bonuses" and one for "promotions". Now, I just don't know the difference between a bonus and a promotion....?? Makes more sense to have one % table for all non-real funds....but again, I'm not making the rules. Also, those areas of casino terms dealing with collusion etc don't ever affect me, so I don't worry about them. It appears that mainly APs are the ones who get their knickers in a knot over such things, and usually because they either get caught because they sailed too close to the wind, or they can't get the value they want out of a bonus.

 

[Balthazar]

Look at it this way Balthazar.....if collusion did not exist, and it did not provide any kind of edge or cost against the casino, then why would so many operators go to such lengths to prohibit and detect it? Surely, if the odds were still in the casino's favour, then they would be creating a whole lot of work and cost to....stop themselves making a profit? It's a silly notion.

Some casinos have rules against betting systems and bots and we all know that they still make money when people use these. Silly you say? Yes, I agree but they still exist and enforced against players (someone even lost a Jaguar if you remember...)

It appears that mainly APs are the ones who get their knickers in a knot over such things

Trust me I'm no AP I very rarely play with bonuses because I hate to deal with crap T&C's.

Igor has given what appears to be a good explanation now though, with the WR not being the same when there's a collusion. Now I've not looked at it closely yet, but that could be a valid reason.

 

[Igor82]

Igor has given what appears to be a good explanation now though, with the WR not being the same when there's a collusion. Now I've not looked at it closely yet, but that could be a valid reason.

:notworthy i appreciate the open-mindedness,

 

[Igor82]

Let the Adam case die down and i'll "paint" the WR difference and why the collusion term.

It's not fraud so i have no problem explaining the overview but in case he PABed i would be doing him an injustice, so let's wait for PAB closure.

 

[dionysus]

well, it wouldnt behoove igor or adam to comment since he seems to be looking at the pab process

I rather like Igor's straight up approach....im sure some casinos go 'doh, like magicians who have others share the trick - but sometimes its nice to see whats behind the curtain


edit: ah, igor posted as i was typing

 

[The Dude]

Adam's rant has been moved to here;
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/adam1976-vs-bet-at-eu.58023/

 

[Przecinek]

Jazzy, see above. It's not an accusation of collusion that is just given on anyone that "knowns" someone else - the players must meet very specific criteria. We all have on-line friends, technically everyone a member of this forum would be a colluder if that was the approach we took, but it isn't.

I understand it may worrying to hear it, but please see that that's really not the case at all - we don't pick players randomly and go "you there, you're done"

Yes this is also my concern. That this looks like a 'spirit of collusion' term. You mentioned that collusion in banned in brick&mortar casinos but card counting is a totally different ball game (as depicted in movie "21" ) and can't be compared with online casinos. Never seen this collusion term in any accredited casino.

Igor has given what appears to be a good explanation now though, with the WR not being the same when there's a collusion. Now I've not looked at it closely yet, but that could be a valid reason.

Call me thick, but I still don't see any difference between this and a player that does 10 different bonuses. But that is besides the point. I believe Igor that there are ways to get value from slots, I don't have to comprehend it. In this case Igor should change the terms (higher WR or something) and make them less exploitable instead of pursuing a vague 'spirit of collusion' path. This is no different than rogue casino telling you - since you've made 8 deposits and won on the last one, we are withholding your winnings as you are employing some kind of strategy.

 

[Nifty29]

Yes this is also my concern. That this looks like a 'spirit of collusion' term. You mentioned that collusion in banned in brick&mortar casinos but card counting is a totally different ball game (as depicted in movie "21" ) and can't be compared with online casinos. Never seen this collusion term in any accredited casino.



Call me thick, but I still don't see any difference between this and a player that does 10 different bonuses. But that is besides the point. I believe Igor that there are ways to get value from slots, I don't have to comprehend it. In this case Igor should change the terms (higher WR or something) and make them less exploitable instead of pursuing a vague 'spirit of collusion' path. This is no different than rogue casino telling you - since you've made 8 deposits and won on the last one, we are withholding your winnings as you are employing some kind of strategy.

What "spirit of collusion"?

No such thing, and doesn't make sense anyway. Its either collusion, or it is not....its like being pregnant, you can't be half-pregnant.

 

[Jufo]

Let's remove the game pay probability for a minute - although i see a profit on collusion syndicates 99/100 times, let's assume i'm looking at it wrong and it is not due to increased bankroll capacity. Let's isolate the bonus and it's terms and conditions:

Your example:

-One player depositing $100 ten times and getting the SUB ten times.
-One player depositing $1000 one time and getting the SUB one time.

You are partially right that doing 100% $100 bonus ten times in a row is not exactly the same as doing one 100% $1000 bonus. The difference is that doing ten $100 bonuses is better for the player in terms of variance and risk because you may get multiple smaller cashouts whereas with single $1000 bonus it is an all-or-nothing gamble.

However in terms of EV the above two (ten $100 bonuses vs. one $1000 bonus) are exactly the same IF you also multiply your bet size by ten when playing the $1000 bonus.

In order to prove this statement I made some computer simulations and here are the results:

For a single 100% $100 bonus I assumed the following parameters (35x WR):

Game: Loaded (25-lines)
Deposit: 100
Bonus: 100
Wagering requirement: 3500
Bet per Spin: 2 (ie. bet per line = 0.08)
Runs: 100000

This yields the following result:
Probability of bust: 72.62 %
Probability of Loss: 74.56 %
Probability of Gain: 25.44 %
Average Return: +32.79

So playing this slot with this bet size and wagering requirement, the player is expected to gain 32.79 units or about 33% of the bonus amount given. Note that the bet size is kept constant at $2 per spin all the way through.

Now if the player repeats this same offer ten times there is a probability of 1 - (1-0.2544)¹° = 94.7% to make a cashout at least once. In other words there is only a 5.3% chance to lose all of the 10 attempts in a row.

Okay, now for the $1000 bonus let's keep everything the same (35x WR) but because deposit and bonus are ten times larger, let's also multiply the bet size by ten, so the player has to make $20 spins on Loaded as opposed to $2 spins previously. So the parameteres for this simulation are:

Game: Loaded (25-lines)
Deposit: 1000
Bonus: 1000
Wagering requirement: 35000
Bet per Spin: 20 (ie. 0.8 per line)
Runs: 100000

This gives the following result:
Probability of bust: 72.53 %
Probability of Loss: 74.52 %
Probability of Gain: 25.47 %
Average Return: +335.76

As you can see, the results remain exactly the same as with a single $100 bonus expect everything is multiplied by ten. The EV of this $1000 bonus is +335.76 which is very close to 10 times the EV of a single $100 bonus (=32.79) so either offer (ten $100 bonuses or one $1000 bonus) yields precisely the same EV for the player. It is only the variance or risk that varies between the two. In the former you will get at least one cashout 94.7% probability and in the latter with only 25.47% probability.

 

[Balthazar]

As you can see, the results remained exactly the same as with a single $100 bonus expect key values were multiplied by ten. Note that the EV of this $1000 bonus is 481.34 which is very close to 10 times the EV of a single $100 bonus (=48.09) so either offer (ten $100 bonuses or one $1000 bonus) yields precisely the same EV for the player. It is only the variance or risk that varies between the two. In the former you will get at least one cashout 86.6% probability and in the latter with only 18.09% probability.

The reason why it's better to do 10x $100 than 1x $1000 is strictly because of the WR. If 9 players out of 10 bust out and 1 player hits big, the winner won't have to carry the rest of the (unplayed) WR coming from the other 9 players before being able to cash out.

 

[Jufo]

The reason why it's better to do 10x $100 than 1x $1000 is strictly because of the WR. If 9 players out of 10 bust out and 1 player hits big, the winner won't have to carry the rest of the (unplayed) WR coming from the other 9 players before being able to cash out.

Yes but it is still mathematically the same if you also play the $1000 bonus in a manner of busting quickly. You don't have to carry WR there either if you bust the $1000 bonus fast, just like you would do on a $100 bonus but with everything multiplied by ten -> Absolutely no difference in EV, just variance.

 

[hakapuku]

What "spirit of collusion"?

No such thing, and doesn't make sense anyway. Its either collusion, or it is not....its like being pregnant, you can't be half-pregnant.

It is a vague "spirit" term because there can be unlimited amount of cases where an innocent exchange of information can be called "collusion". Any conversation between friends can be defined as collusion and the money can be confiscated at the end. The same with all kind of coincedences. If you are unlucky to play the same slot at about the same time with somebody from your town - you may be connected to him by casino manager and both punished.

 

[Nifty29]

It is a vague "spirit" term because there can be unlimited amount of cases where an innocent exchange of information can be called "collusion". Any conversation between friends can be defined as collusion and the money can be confiscated at the end. The same with all kind of coincedences. If you are unlucky to play the same slot at about the same time with somebody from your town - you may be connected to him by casino manager and both punished.

Sorry, but you're way off....but then you know this.

Nobody is talking about 2 friends playing the same slot at the same time....what a load of nonsense. Collusion is not just about playing the same slot etc...but then you know this too. You're just trolling and banging on with your usual "casinos are evil" BS.

 

[Przecinek]

Collusion is not just about playing the same slot etc...but then you know this too.

Ok, so what is it about? Maybe we can get some light on this.

Also this friend meets friends example was brought by Igor himself in a post "Vinyl meets Weatherman" ( I know I'm nitpicking - but it's not pure BS as you claim, just something based on previous replies from Igor). This is something that really alerted me, before I wasn't really active in any of bet-at related threads.

 

[Nifty29]

Ok, so what is it about? Maybe we can get some light on this.

Also this friend meets friends example was brought by Igor himself in a post "Vinyl meets Weatherman" ( I know I'm nitpicking - but it's not pure BS as you claim, just something based on previous replies from Igor). This is something that really alerted me, before I wasn't really active in any of bet-at related threads.

You KNOW what it is about.

READ the thread/s and learn. I'm not going to be your personal summarizer

If you have an issue with something Igor said...then ask Igor. It's no good asking ME to clarify something HE said.

The amount of specific interest you have in this topic is unnerving.

 

[Igor82]

Ok, so what is it about? Maybe we can get some light on this.

Also this friend meets friends example was brought by Igor himself in a post "Vinyl meets Weatherman" ( I know I'm nitpicking - but it's not pure BS as you claim, just something based on previous replies from Igor). This is something that really alerted me, before I wasn't really active in any of bet-at related threads.

Prz - replied in the other thread on this EXACT issue and given you the actual reasons for collusion hours ago - are you stil on about this:

THe ful sentance went something "Weather meets Vinyl, his awesomest best friend and they do stuff together and love each other ... etc."

hardly an official casino statement material. I suggest you read the FULL post, then read the thread between Balthazar and me, Jasmine and me, YOU and me - read, try figure it out, PM me if you have a problem.

I need to reply to the PAB and then i'll close all 3 thread with the same quote i gave to balthazar so if anyone has an issue or wants to debunk why colludes are barred can.

Until then - please let me at least respond to your guesswork in a proper manner.

Igor

 

[maxd]

For those that want to know how things really work as opposed to some pre-conceived notion you have and favour then read and re-read the following:

col•lu•sion (kəˈlu ʒən), n. a conspiracy for fraudulent purposes

Think about it, that can mean anything from organized multi-accounting to shared fake documents to ... you name it. The key elements there are (a) someone is working with someone else and (b) it is for "fraudulent purposes".

AFAIC if case satisfies those two requirements -- with a strong emphasis on (b) -- then fine, it's collusion. Call it cheating or scamming or playing silly buggers or whatever you like, the point is that it's some person or persons working toward "some wrongful or improper purpose" insofar as their casino activity is concerned.

Our primary effort in most PAB cases is to determine if that is in fact what happened. In other words did the player knowingly do something "wrongful or improper" generally for the purposes of prising money out of the casino and has the casino provided sufficient proof of said activity? If the answers are "yes" and "yes" then the hammer falls and the bugger is toast. If the answers are anything else -- "maybe" and "yes", or "yes" and "maybe", or "maybe" and "sometime soon", or whatever -- then too bad for the casino, they don't have a case and we'll almost certainly side for the player. There are minor variations on the theme but hopefully you get the idea: conspiracy to defraud + proof = bad news for the fraudster.

My point is this: speculating that we are so thick as to think that two blokes having a pint and then going to play some blackjack online is a conspiracy to cheat is a monumental misunderstanding of what we do and how we do it. In fact it's so BS that it can only be intentional. If you look at the record and what we do disclose about cases and the number of people that we work with and the number of cases we've handled over the years then you'd have to be taking the piss to suggest that we are so blind and stupid that we can't tell the difference between casual friends and dedicated fraudsters. Truth be told we let a good percentage of the latter walk because we don't have the data -- yet -- to make a proper case against them and make it stick.

If you've done your homework and you like what we do then great, hopefully we can help you someday too. If you haven't done your homework or you have and still have reason to doubt us then that's fine too, we'll be of no use to you and happy trails to all. But pulling some bogus scenario out of your arse and pretending it's documented fact -- or has any bearing on reality -- is just being a troll: may you get what's coming to you before your cheap shots cause any more mischief.

 

[Igor82]

COLLUSION - OUR OFFICIAL STATEMENT

Ok, time to put a stop to a lot of speculation that has been going on here.

1. Collusion paragraphs are not exclusive our our casino. They are a real threat and with real evidence to prove why they should be barred from Casinos, which you can read below. I wont speak about other operators and their conditions as it is not my place to speak of competition, but if you do your research you will find enough places that state it.

2. As much as a multi-account can be traced, so can collusion. Your speculation that my evidence is circumstantial is just that - speculation. Evidence that is put forward to Byran, LGA, eCogra and other mediation services is anything BUT circumstantial and frankly, if i did disclose how - me knowing how we catch it and prove it can already think of half dozen ways to change the behaviour to damage our ability to do so, so last thing anyone should do ever is tell YOU how its caught and proven.

3. While your initial hunch is right that betting patterns and deposit values do trigger suspicions of collusion, you are starting to sound like we just pull the term out of our hat. Frankly i don't like exposing even pattern recognitions as they is clue enough to change, let alone how we actually catch it beyond reasonable doubt - and yes, it WILL stand in court 100%.

This 'speculation' and allusions that we pull colludes out of hat are just simply unfair. I have made more than enough posts last night to show my eagerness to discuss and LISTEN and state transparently and more than just a few players actually agreed and listened. So, if you want to discuss why and how it has an impact, and why we bar it and what we could do more than just bar it to meet players expectations better and be the leaders of transparency and proactive communication, with your help - I'm more than happy to do so; i'm all ears as they say. However, if you just want to accuse me of rogue without any substantiation, behaviour then we have nothing to speak about.

Now, bonus abuse and collusion -it's a copy paste of my initial explanation and Balthazars example:

It's worth nothing that 10 players get 10 times higher bankroll. There are other elements at play that aren't just connected to the possibility of game payout - it starts with those and ends with what choice of game at what bet.

When working together AS IF A SINGLE ENTITY (meaning 10 working as one, acting as one) on a game, with an aim (same deposit amount, same bet, same game) players manage to:

1. Receive the 10 times the maximum awardable "free" bankroll per player. Meaning if max was €200, €2000 was now assigned to group that thinks in sync, acts in unison.

If casino wanted to give up to 2000 per person, they would - however the chose not to, they opted to the personal limit as they thought was healthy for their business model. Finding a way to get 10 of the same offer, while emulating the behaviour of a single individual, is trying to exploit the system to bypass its limitations.

2. When you do get that 10x bankroll, it's not given with the same T&C conditions of a 2000 bonus. That bankroll isn't "locked-in" as a single WR amount to be unlocked at say 80,000 - it in fact get's unlocked in "segments" of 8,000 each so across your 10 spinning bankrolls (budgets), one does win big (irrelevant if the EV changed) now that one, or those few individuals will have a fraction of the WR they need to complete

IMPORANT:

If we are to talk fair, then the FAIR way would be to group the 10 "self registered, honest about their connection pre-signup" individuals and give them MERGED bonus T&C, by which:

If one of the individuals only meets 1000 WR out of stipulated 8,000, the remaining balance of 7,000 WR is carried over onto the rest of the group.

Now you can add or deny game volatility to that and increased bankroll potential, but fact remains:

Acting in unison as a single individual while benefiting from multiple instances of an offer reserved to be issued ONCE without registering your intentions is an exploit to a system where a single individual busting out before the WR is completed is effectively cutting the overall WR requirement of the group, as a single 2000 bonus would impose (80K)

Side note:

By decreasing the overall WR imposed to protect the bonus from +EV, a group can in fact change the expectancy from -EV to +EV : aka if 5 guys bust out after 1k wagered due to their enormous bets, the other 5 guys continuing to play the game at same bet value with same starting bankroll now have only 40K WR to complete on a total bonus of 2000, making that bonus X20B

If you read above you will notice that by colluding the members of the ring can influence initially intended bonus WR by simply busting out early. Refer to my IMPORTANT NOTICE above for an option of how to mitigate it.

**********************************

After above Balth answered with an example of two cases:

Case 1 - 10 players depositing 100 each.
Case 2 - 1 player depositing 1000.


Below is my reply to that case:

Fair point, and I'll state it here that if you don't' agree with below and the safeguard suggestions on below I'll work to modify the terms to better represent the concerns. However, all ask is for you to work through it with me logically and openly:



Let's remove the game pay probability for a minute - although i see a profit on collusion syndicates 99/100 times, let's assume i'm looking at it wrong and it is not due to increased bankroll capacity. Let's isolate the bonus and it's terms and conditions:

Your example:

-One player depositing $100 ten times and getting the SUB ten times.
-One player depositing $1000 one time and getting the SUB one time.

Example 1

In example one, if SUB was 200% at x40, the 10 players will have received a total bankroll of 2000 with an aggregate WR of 80,000.

Player 1 places 24 bets of €25 without a single hit on loaded, and busts out, - generating WR of 600.
Player 2 places 24 bets of €25, in the process returns another 600 in winnings, places another 24 hands and busts out - generating WR of 1200.
Player 3 .... - generates WR of of 2400
Player 4 strikes a bit lucky but busts out before the required 8K WR - generates 7000 WR.
Player 5 generates 6,000 WR
Player 6 generates 2000 WR
Player 7 generates 3000 WR

Players 8,9 and 10 are still in the game and have hit a few decent x100, x200 rounds.

Player 8 balance is 1200 with 4K WR remaining.
Player 9 balance is 700 with 5k Remaining
Player 10 balance is 2200 with 1K remaining.

Now, together they came in and acted as single entity - same deposits, same subs, same bets, same game.

Their aggregate player balance is at this point €4,100. Their aggregate wagering requirement remaining is 10,000 euros.

Together, when they added all their bonuses and all their hands, players received a 2000 bonus, and at this point generated €23,2000 in volume toward WR, with another €10,00 remaining.

If cleared, they would have gotten a 2000 bonus with an aggregate WR of €33,200 making the bonus a measly x16 WR turnover instead of intended x40.

Example 2

One player comes and deposits 1000, gets 2000 bonnis at x40 requirement and a total WR of 80,000.

As he plays he gets EXACTLY the same result as those 10 individuals, the hands play out in EXACTLY the same way. He also generated €23,300 in total WR but has another €56,700 to go, unlike the €10,000 that remain in Example 1.

*******************************************

look at above, the game outcome was exactly the same but by working together, the players that bust out will have decreased the aggregate WR because proportionally to how early they bust out. That is becuase the WR is applied in segments rather than to a whole balance.

The only way for the casino to allow this is for a group of players to pre-register as a group, state is openly and they recieve merged bonus terms and conditions that state that any leftover WR from the individual 200 bonus applied, will carry over as the WR requirement of the group - to ensure initally imposed x40- is respected.

Do you agree with above being a fair term?

ALSO:

The bonus rule and engine design is to USE REAL MONEY FIRST, by intersecting the total bonus of 2000 into 10 sections, players get to use bonus and real money simultaneously which would physically not be possible if a single player opted for a 2000 bonus.

If you read above you can see that collusion is a very real risk to a casino bonus,

1. It can multiply the maximum bonus awarded because the parties work and function as a single entity with larger acquired bankroll

2. Due to it's segmented awarding, the WR requirement on the total bonus awarded can be influenced by players losing rapidly

3. It becomes possible to start wagering bonus funds, while another player is still wagering real funds which would be physically impossible to do if a single player got a single bonus at 10 times the size.

4. It is indisputably possible to change EV expectancy by working as a team as a result of point 2.

Fact is we know it, we learned from it, we catch it, we can prove it in most cases and how we do it is a reservation that will remain with us (i speak for my casino) and should not be disseminated to the general audience to be argued or learned from.

Fact is, unless you are 100% resolved to employ the strategies above, it should not even bother you. And you if you feel that this casino attitude, my attitude and our presence here is a sign of rogue behaviour, i would ask you to think if a "rogue" casino has anything to gain by airing any taboo topic in this format, and if you do consider us potentially rogue, then for your own peace of mind I wholeheartedly suggest you do not play at a place that provides you with discomfort.

Any honest rational retorts are welcome, however if you wish to state your case on the premise of how we COULD be rogue if we WANTED to be rogue, then i say from now: that is non argument. IF we wanted to be rogue last thing we would be doing is going under BoF and there are easier ways to "rogue out" than full exposure to an entire player audience to scrutinise and judge.

Thank you

Igor.

 

[Jufo]

If you read above you will notice that by colluding the members of the ring can influence initially intended bonus WR by simply busting out early. Refer to my IMPORTANT NOTICE above for an option of how to mitigate it.

I am repeating myself but the bolded part applies to any single player and is not actually related to collusion at all. I don't have a strong opinion about the collusion topic itself but my concern is that the arguments you use are not really valid.

**********************************

After above Balth answered with an example of two cases:

Case 1 - 10 players depositing 100 each.
Case 2 - 1 player depositing 1000.


Below is my reply to that case:

If you read above you can see that collusion is a very real risk to a casino bonus,

1. It can multiply the maximum bonus awarded because the parties work and function as a single entity with larger acquired bankroll

2. Due to it's segmented awarding, the WR requirement on the total bonus awarded can be influenced by players losing rapidly

3. It becomes possible to start wagering bonus funds, while another player is still wagering real funds which would be physically impossible to do if a single player got a single bonus at 10 times the size.

4. It is indisputably possible to change EV expectancy by working as a team as a result of point 2.

Sorry to say this but you are still wrong with the above (especially the bolded statements). Did you miss my post #626 where I proved both logically and via simulation that the EV is in fact the same in both cases? The segmentation of the bonus will only affect variance but not EV.

I think that your lack of mathematical knowledge of casino games and odds is slightly unsettling for a casino manager who should really be on top of these things.

 

[The Dude]

...I admit that your lack of mathematical knowledge of casino games and odds is slightly unsettling for a casino manager who should really be on top of these things.

And I guess you are the expert.

Infraction for being posting trollish and insulting comments. If you can't adhere to our policies of common courtesy and respect, then you're welcome to take it elsewhere. I won't tolerate it.

 

[Jufo]

And I guess you are the expert.

Actually, yes I happen to be.

If you are in doubt why don't we take Igor's statements to E.Jacobsson or Shackleford to confirm their validity.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The crux of the matter is that the boni in question are not actually -EV, even though they are under the traditional model of assuming infinitely small bets over infinite spins will meet WR with a loss equal to the house edge of the game.

It's clear that despite being listed as -EV at beatingbonuses, the Bet At SUB is actually +EV.

Mathematically, it makes no difference whether it's one player taking 10 SUBs or 10 players taking it once. SUBs are often slightly +EV when the body of players as a whole are taken into consideration. The assumption made by casinos is that most players don't know the maths, and thus there will be enough players of "imperfect strategy" to fund the payouts of the few that know the maths and manage to beat the bonus. The problem when the balance is disturbed by collusion leading to large groups who play "perfect strategy" is that the other players no longer lose enough to balance the offer, hence the casino loses overall to the body of players.

In theory, it would be possible to structure the SUB such that no amount of mathematical collusion could make it +EV, but the risk is that the average player wouldn't go near it as the WR would need to be so high that recreational players would have zero chance of ever winning with a bonus.

I suspect what makes Bet At particularly attractive is that after a big hit, players can cash out immediately and ditch the rest of the bonus and WR. This feature alone can shift the EV of a particular bonus played under "perfect strategy" to a value that is of significant interest to APs.

Another way would be to reduce the max bet limit to a value much lower than the current average of 20% to 30% of bonus credited. If this is a low enough value, it would make it harder for a group taking 10 SUBs to get the +EV they need as they would not be able to use high bets relative to their individual segments of the group's total investment.

 

[Igor82]

It's a bit discomforting to still having to repeat this but the bolded part applies to any single player and is not actually related to collusion at all. I don't have an opinion about the collusion topic itself but I do mind that you use false logical/mathematical arguments to justify your position.



Sorry to say but you are still wrong with the above (especially the bolded statements). Did you miss my post #626 where I proved that the EV is in fact the same in both cases? The segmentation of the bonus will only affect variance but not EV.

I could have missed it - let me read it.

mid-type edit:

*********************************

Affected EV is on the BONUS AGGREGATE and not individual bonus application as you would suggest. and as for my mathematical knowledge, I'm sorry you find me unsettling.

I understand your superficial reasoning which is valid: that if 9 bust out with no win, the odds of the 10th player clearing that bonus or not are individual to that 10th player and bear no relevance to the other 9, but as mathematician (i assume) you should look into all the variables in your equation, as your environments differ:

1. As the players aggregate spins and share profits, their combined spin count will be equal to 1 player depositing the same amount, however one player would never have opportunity to do that - although besides the point mathematically, it's not besides the point realistically.

2. Although both the 1 player and 10 players have the same spin opportunity and as such same probability. in the case of one player the spin count and volume is forced through to its completion.

If within the implied 1000 spins, if 7 batches of 100 sins arrive at loss, while 3 batches of 100 spins arrive at a profit - in case of a single player the losing segments will not influence the total forced WR as the WR is connected to the total bonus given and the 80K volume is forced regardless of the balance outcome. However in a case of 10 players the 7 batches that have bust out have also taken the wagering requirement of the total initial bonus that had initially provided the possibly of the same spin qunatity down.

As such case 1 gets 2000 free spins but is forced to wager 80.

Case 2 also gets 2000 free spins but with ever 200 spins the wagering goes down in direct proportion to how fast the 200 spins bust out.

The Expected Value on a case that has a constant that is bonus awarded (2000), a constant that is WR implied (x40) has a -EV of 160%

The Expected Value on a case which CHANGES WR from a constant to a variable (from 80k set to ... whatever) cannot sustain that the EV is -160% because the EV is relevant to WR and WR is not a contant any more.

Teacher eh? mmmmmkay.

********************************************


That said, reality is you cannot deny the following two facts:

1. when a player takes ONE bonus and busts out, that bonus is eradicated. It is then down to the casino to choose to give that player another bonus of the same value or not.

2. When a player chooses a bonus, they agree to the wagering requirement in proportion to the size of the bonus (AKA 80,000).

If the case 1 and the case two had EXACTLY the same hands, exactly the same result and exactly the same outcome over the exactly the same number of hands - the case 1 and the case 2 would be in DIFFERENT positions with DIFFERENT outcomes, with case 1 having 10k remaining requirement on the same balance and case 2 having 50K remaining requirement on the same balance.

If collusion had NO INFLUENCE on the bonus as you state than with exactly the same conditions, bet values, play outcomes, etc. (effectively the same section of spins applied on two scenarios), then by deduction the end result would also not be in any way different, aka: both cases would have wagered the same amount toward the WR imposed by the total bonus awarded.

3. the bonus has a rule and structure it abides by: real money first, when depleted bonus money is used. BY segregating awards that strucutre, the core nature of the bonus is chaged. Player behaviour changes the nature of the bonus.

Those are 3 very valid reasons why that term is present and why it needs to be present.

Let me argue your case for you:

What about 10 random players coming together at the same time playing the same game at same bets with same deposit. Aren't they 'benefiting' from the same system? Why is the first 10 any different from the other 10?

Because this is real life the provability of 10 random players playing exactly the same game at exactly the same time from exactly the same deposits that came on exactly the same, bonuswithout deviating from bet or changing game, are the same as me hitting every jackpot and lottery known to man simultaneously.

and if it DID happen we would still need to PROVE they act and work with the same goal which is hard enough as it is.

 

[Jufo]

Another way would be to reduce the max bet limit to a value much lower than the current average of 20% to 30% of bonus credited. If this is a low enough value, it would make it harder for a group taking 10 SUBs to get the +EV they need as they would not be able to use high bets relative to their individual segments of the group's total investment.

There are many places where the max. bet is stated in terms of absolute number rather than % of bonus amount, like the fixed £6.25 max. bet value at 32Red. But even this is not really restricting because there are ways to increase variance even under such limitations. For example £6 spins on BDBA have the same variance as £12 spins on Loaded so just move to extremely high variance slot and maybe even reduce number of lines.
A simpler solution is just to accept that certain % of customers are there for the profit, and not offer a bonus if you cannot afford to.

 

[Jufo]

I could have missed it - let me read it.

mid-type edit:

That said, reality is you cannot deny the following two facts:

1. when a player takes ONE bonus and busts out, that bonus is eradicated. It is then down to the casino to choose to give that player another bonus of the same value or not.

2. When a player chooses a bonus, they agree to the wagering requirement in proportion to the size of the bonus (AKA 80,000).

Hi,
I tried to follow your post but I lost the plot.

To make my point simple: Suppose you have a 100% $100 casino bonus with 35xB WR and playing certain slot at certain bet size will yield an EV of +$25 for the player on average. (In post #626 I showed via simulation that flat $2 bets on Loaded will yield an EV of +$32.)

If you play through 10 such bonuses all in the same manner then the total EV across 10 bonuses is simply the EV of a single bonus times number of bonuses played ie. 10*$25 = $250.

If instead you play a single 100% $1000 bonus and you also multiply your bet size by ten then everything will remain exactly the same as in the case of single $100 bonus but every value will now be multiplied by ten. What was 1 units in the $100 bonus scenario now just becomes 10 units in the $1000 bonus scenario. Therefore the EV of this bonus will be 10*$25 = $250.

In both cases we get the same EV of $250 so the EV remains the same whether you play 10x$100 bonuses or one $1000 bonus. Therefore the segmentation will not have any effect on the EV itself.

The only valid argument I see against collusion is that you while you can afford to give $25 +EV to any one single player you cannot afford to give $250 +EV to ten different players in a short time period. But this exact scenario might also occur naturally if those 10 players were independent of each other and happened to play the same way, your expected loss would then be $250 regardless.

As a side note: my simulation showed that simply flat-betting $2 a spin on Loaded slot all the way through the wagering requirement will yield expected profit of $32 on a 100% $100 bonus with 35xB WR. So it doesn't even take an AP to have an edge over you, most of your players might have the mathematical edge even if they don't realize it.

 

[Igor82]

As a side note: my simulation showed that simply flat-betting $2 a spin on Loaded slot all the way through the wagering requirement will yield expected profit of $32 on a 100% $100 bonus with 35xB WR. So it doesn't even take an AP to have an edge over you, many of your players might have mathematical edge even if they don't realize it.

our sub is x60 - don't know where you got x35 from. Also when you state there is 33% gain, you forget player depletes their deposited amount in the process so its 33% cashback.

I don't see what you don't follow - but i'l try help you. Do this for me -cut out your CURRENT simulation trail like so:

1. Take your entire game trail (if you have it stored) that you completed with a single 1000 deposit + bonus

2. CUT that trail as follows:

a. take a bankroll of 200 and extract the volume it took you to deplete the bankroll based on first group of spins. Stop that that spin. What's the generated volume?
b. start again on the next batch of spins. what's the volume?
c. do this for 10 batches. For $200 bankroll batches that spins that generate over 3500, stop at 3500. (as that's where colluders have the opportunity to withdraw)

Extract and answer:

1. out of the 10 batches of 200 bankroll each. how many reached the 3500 volume before busting out?
2. For the bankrolls that bust-out - what was their generated volume?

Now add all those voumes together as a total sum?

Divide the total sum with 1000 bonus you awarded in total.

You just got your new MODIFIED WR.

That's what you missed. You cant take both cases at full wager value.

 

[Przecinek]

Thanks Igor & Max for replies I never suggested that Bet-At should be rogued - just that some of the statements regarding this term seemed like the so called 'FU clause' which is considered rogue. I don't think guys meeting for a pint would really be accused of collusion, but what about people that ie: decide to have a contest which one of us will win the most on that particular slot (seen in happen in brick&mortar casinos) etc. According to last post they would be accused of collusion. I understand that this is where the second part of the definition that Max quoted comes in play ('fraundlent intentions').

Just to summarize, I don't know what's going on from casinos perspective: all I saw was a ambiguous rule that has never been discussed before, nor mentioned in complaints, and decided to take part in discussion. Multiaccounter pretending to be 10 people is a clear cut case. 10 bonus hunters that decide to play at a particular casino is not. There's a parallel mathematical discussion taking place here, and it seems to show that instead of looking for collusions (which as Igor mentioned is not the most popular topic) it would be much wiser to examine bonuses as such and make sure they can't be exploited.

I'll leave it at that, again thanks for extensive replies. I guess only time will tell how this is going to work out for Bet-At

 

[AC7X]

This whole debate is beginning to make me uneasy. It's raged on all day whilst I've been out and I'd be here all night typing to try to catch up to all of the points being made.

Nifty's assertion that people wishing to discuss further the fine points of collusion rules should be treated with suspicion, and users being reprimanded for daring to speak out against a casino rep are unsettling and add weight to my comments in the other thread about CM having a potential vested interest in siding with the operators.

I think it's becoming obvious that the distinction I drew between collusion and multi-accounting (which was shouted down at the time) is a matter of confusion for other members as well. People feel vulnerable with so much cash at stake in casinos, and vague "collusion" rules (which exist at many casinos, not just Bet-At) are feared and misunderstood. I don't understand why some of the heavy hitters on this forum are trying to deny a discussion about it and tar those who wish to discuss it as being worthy of suspicion.

 

[Igor82]

This whole debate is beginning to make me uneasy. It's raged on all day whilst I've been out and I'd be here all night typing to try to catch up to all of the points being made.

Nifty's assertion that people wishing to discuss further the fine points of collusion rules should be treated with suspicion, and users being reprimanded for daring to speak out against a casino rep are unsettling and add weight to my comments in the other thread about CM having a potential vested interest in siding with the operators.

I think it's becoming obvious that the distinction I drew between collusion and multi-accounting (which was shouted down at the time) is a matter of confusion for other members as well. People feel vulnerable with so much cash at stake in casinos, and vague "collusion" rules (which exist at many casinos, not just Bet-At) are feared and misunderstood. I don't understand why some of the heavy hitters on this forum are trying to deny a discussion about it and tar those who wish to discuss it as being worthy of suspicion.

Because if I came out and told you how the evidence is generated and why it's not circumstantial, the change in behavior patterns would be so easy it would bring us back aeons in catching out actual cases.

How many collusion accusation cases have you heard to date? Almost none. Because fraudsters do it and they rarely bother PABing anything.

I'll stop my comments on this. I stated why it's abusive toward a bonus and why I can't announce why it's 100 provable. If that's not enough I sorry.

You either trust a place with your business on the basis of their overall approach and their history or you don't. Choice is a-plenty and you have freedom to enjoy it. So, enjoy it

 

[AC7X]

Because if I came out and told you how the evidence is generated and why it's not circumstantial, the change in behavior patterns would be so easy it would bring us back aeons in catching out actual cases.

Of course, and I don't blame you for not disclosing that evidence. I have agreed with this already a number of times (despite Nifty's adamance that I've been trying to pry this information out of you!). What I find unsettling is that members are being "hushed" for asking questions.

You either trust a place with your business on the basis of their overall approach and their history or you don't. Choice is a-plenty and you have freedom to enjoy it. So, enjoy it

I'm actually on a break from gambling at the moment (which has given me much more free time to participate in forums - hurrah! ).

 

[sparkz]

So ummm... Who's for a beer?

Seen the collusion word so many times over the last few days that it doesnt look like a real word anymore.

Igor clearly has his head screwed on and relating to the other thread, collusion does seem a problem for casinos or time and money wouldnt be invested in stopping it.

In the other thread, the guy did a PAB and was banned for colluding/multi accounts. Clear cut evidence was put forward to both Max and CM which allowed them to see without any slight doubt that Bet-At were in the right with the actions taken.

How often will us normal, legit players be accused of "colluding"? I doubt we ever will because we play for the enjoyment and see casinos as a bit of fun where we could get lucky and have a nice win that we nearly have to call an ambulance to stop our heart popping out. If we were accused by mistake, then the truth will always come out.

Bottom line is casino's have their reasons for being on the alert. None of us would be happy if some "colluder" crime ring member had our details and were using them in their crimes. We would expect the casino to act asap.

What ever way we look at it, its simply a security measure that casinos implement to protect players as well as their businesses. To us 99% of us legit players it will never stop us enjoying a gambling experience with bet-at or other casino's online.

 

[dunover]

Fair point, and I'll state it here that if you don't' agree with below and the safeguard suggestions on below I'll work to modify the terms to better represent the concerns. However, all ask is for you to work through it with me logically and openly:



Let's remove the game pay probability for a minute - although i see a profit on collusion syndicates 99/100 times, let's assume i'm looking at it wrong and it is not due to increased bankroll capacity. Let's isolate the bonus and it's terms and conditions:

Your example:

-One player depositing $100 ten times and getting the SUB ten times.
-One player depositing $1000 one time and getting the SUB one time.

Example 1

In example one, if SUB was 200% at x40, the 10 players will have received a total bankroll of 2000 with an aggregate WR of 80,000.

Player 1 places 24 bets of €25 without a single hit on loaded, and busts out, - generating WR of 600.
Player 2 places 24 bets of €25, in the process returns another 600 in winnings, places another 24 hands and busts out - generating WR of 1200.
Player 3 .... - generates WR of of 2400
Player 4 strikes a bit lucky but busts out before the required 8K WR - generates 7000 WR.
Player 5 generates 6,000 WR
Player 6 generates 2000 WR
Player 7 generates 3000 WR

Players 8,9 and 10 are still in the game and have hit a few decent x100, x200 rounds.

Player 8 balance is 1200 with 4K WR remaining.
Player 9 balance is 700 with 5k Remaining
Player 10 balance is 2200 with 1K remaining.

Now, together they came in and acted as single entity - same deposits, same subs, same bets, same game.

Their aggregate player balance is at this point €4,100. Their aggregate wagering requirement remaining is 10,000 euros.

Together, when they added all their bonuses and all their hands, players received a 2000 bonus, and at this point generated €23,2000 in volume toward WR, with another €10,00 remaining.

If cleared, they would have gotten a 2000 bonus with an aggregate WR of €33,200 making the bonus a measly x16 WR turnover instead of intended x40.
Example 2

One player comes and deposits 1000, gets 2000 bonnis at x40 requirement and a total WR of 80,000.

As he plays he gets EXACTLY the same result as those 10 individuals, the hands play out in EXACTLY the same way. He also generated €23,300 in total WR but has another €56,700 to go, unlike the €10,000 that remain in Example 1.

*******************************************

look at above, the game outcome was exactly the same but by working together, the players that bust out will have decreased the aggregate WR because proportionally to how early they bust out. That is becuase the WR is applied in segments rather than to a whole balance.

The only way for the casino to allow this is for a group of players to pre-register as a group, state is openly and they recieve merged bonus terms and conditions that state that any leftover WR from the individual 200 bonus applied, will carry over as the WR requirement of the group - to ensure initally imposed x40- is respected.

Do you agree with above being a fair term?




That's a valid point - and i agree. So aside from game performance, see above. Do you still think it's "exactly the same" either way?



Not the case - i'm exposing to this so if i cant come to an agreement with you here, and i cannot see reason in my approach - i can change my opinion, my practice and my operation policy accordingly.

But just as i need to "convince" you, i need to feel if I am changing, i am changing because reason dictates it and nothing else.

Well your maths are a bit out there - your player 1 has deposited 100, received 200 SUB so has a play roll of 300. He plays 24x25 spins and doesn't get one hit - that's pretty incredible considering that's 600 worth of goes for a stake of 300!!!!!

Second example - you state the busting out players have used 23,200 of WR - they have in fact used 22,200 of WR!

In fact this activity is so convoluted and obscure that I find it surprising it's so high up on your list of precautions. It's based on assumptive maths and tries to make consistencies from random slots games.

Most importantly your example fails to demonstrate mathematically the outcome for the benefit of the colluders. In your example, the 3 remaining players at 95% RTP would clear WR at approximately these figures: (based on your figures for player 8,9,10.)

960.555.2145. Total 3660. So 2660 profit on their aggregate deposits in cash of 1k. The only thing is these 3 players have had exceptional runs to get your figures, and as we know and accept slots pay in peaks and troughs. ONLY PLAYER 10 CAN BE GUARANTEED to not bust out and achieve anywhere near the figures I just made from yours.

And the final massive flaw is that your model seems to assume the slot plays as if ONE player was playing it thus the first players were on troughs and therefore the last few players MUST hit peaks in the undulations around the 95% TRTP flatline.

Igor, you are in the business and I accept you know about what occurs more than we ever will. But frankly it's being projected in a way that just looks like a Swiss cheese.

 

[Jufo]

our sub is x60 - don't know where you got x35 from. Also when you state there is 33% gain, you forget player depletes their deposited amount in the process so its 33% cashback.

Ah, apologies. I saw a value of 35xB WR quoted in one of the posts so I mistakenly took it at a face value.

And no, the deposit amount is not depleted in the EV calculation but the 33% is on top of that.

I don't see what you don't follow - but i'l try help you. Do this for me -cut out your CURRENT simulation trail like so:

1. Take your entire game trail (if you have it stored) that you completed with a single 1000 deposit + bonus

2. CUT that trail as follows:

a. take a bankroll of 200 and extract the volume it took you to deplete the bankroll based on first group of spins. Stop that that spin. What's the generated volume?
b. start again on the next batch of spins. what's the volume?
c. do this for 10 batches. For $200 bankroll batches that spins that generate over 3500, stop at 3500. (as that's where colluders have the opportunity to withdraw)

Extract and answer:

1. out of the 10 batches of 200 bankroll each. how many reached the 3500 volume before busting out?
2. For the bankrolls that bust-out - what was their generated volume?

Now add all those voumes together as a total sum?

Divide the total sum with 1000 bonus you awarded in total.

You just got your new MODIFIED WR.

That's what you missed. You cant take both cases at full wager value.

Ok I see what you mean. I just did that for the previous example of 100% 35xB bonuses.

For each 100% $100 bonus and $2 spins on Loaded the average amount wagered is 1800 (based on 100,000 simulated runs). The player will make the playthrough 25.8% of time (average wagered 3500) and busts 74.2% of time (average wagered 1209) for a total average of 1800 wagered. Dividing this by the bonus amount yields an effective WR of 18xB.

For a single 100% $1000 bonus and $20 spins on Loaded the average amount wagered is 18000. Dividing this by the bonus amount of 1000 yields effective WR of 18xB.

Thus the effective WR and total volume wagered is the same with 10x$100 and 1x$1000 so they are also equal in EV.