Eh, that's not a proven fact. It's probable on the evidence given, but for some reason, be it limited competence or something else, Betfred have not provided the evidence that could conclusively prove that to be true.
Betfred explained why they supplied the slot logs. Made sense to me, but they should have provided both IMO. Maybe EJ only had limited time? IDK. I'm sure they will be provided, since some members are stumping up the cash to confirm that Alex is a fraudster, for no gain whatsoever, other than confirming the obvious. Well yes, and that's why there's reason to think that perhaps the OP didn't use a bot for the Jag. I mean you might think you could cash out a £50 bonus with a bot, but it seems like wishful thinking that you'd get a car with no kind of checks at all.
You're giving the OP too much credit. Just because you're good at coding or building software, doesn't mean you're endowed with common sense. He obviously thought using a bot was worth the risk knowing it could be detected, so the idea that he might have done the same with his ID is not unreasonable at all.
Shaky ground there. If I travel on the train on Monday without a ticket then I've broken the law. If I then buy a ticket on Tuesday and the train doesn't arrive, the train company still has to take me home.
Of course. Don't see how it applies, except if you're convinced the OP did not use a bot to win the Jag.
Not really sure about this. If you're handing over a car you are going to meet the guy. I mean a driving licence would be a start. Saying he didn't past KYC seems a little dubious. It's clutching at straws. If you are really THAT concerned then you take the car and you go along with four cops and have him arrested for identity theft.
How do we know it is identity theft? Perhaps he has other accounts and he doesn't want to be linked with them? Betfred has not stated what the issue is, and casinos almost never do, for the obvious reason of not wanting to reveal their security measures. I'm sure Betfred could supply the reason/s to Bryan, and he could make a judgement on it, but since some people don't take what he says seriously then there is probably no point, because he is not going to post the evidence or go into detail either.
As it is, sorry I'm not convinced, if he was cashing out $500 to neteller then yeah maybe this could be a problem.
The law applies to casinos, you don't get to say 'you did x and y wrong, so that means you're not going to receive your contractual entitlement to z'. It's not as simple as that, that's just mob justice. There's no obvious legal basis for saying 'he used a bot in June so he doesn't get paid for something else in July', and the ID is a serious criminal issue not just a convenient justification for non-payment.
Nobody is talking about the Law. It is a PAB situation here. If the OP doesn't like the result, he can take it to court of course, where there may well be different standards. You are also still assuming that he did not use a bot to win the jag.
If you are a lawyer with relevant knowledge of the Laws of Gibraltar, then I will yield to your superior knowledge, and I am sure you can provide the relevant legal opinion upon which you rely.
The ID issue may well be a criminal one, but it does not prevent it from being grounds for termination of account and all associated winnings and prizes.
I'm not a legal expert, but I don't see anything in the bot clause or ID clauses in the terms and conditions that is illegal, unclear or unreasonable, which AFAIK is the only grounds upon which one can rely to have the rules invalidated.
Yes you tend to reel off the same arguments every time, nothing new, just different parties.
In some cases, yes I do. I also have an excellent strike rate.
The fact is however that Joe Fraudster our OP is just bytes on the CM server. Betfred however are a big, nay huge business, with thousands of employees and hundreds of shops. It's appropriate to judge them by much, much higher standards than random bonus hunters.
Fact is they have handled this very poorly, firstly thing was that the player should NEVER have had a big promo win denied with 'sorry, you didn't play a valid game' (unless that was true), they should have taken the time to verify matters properly, close his account + investigate, whatever, but not that. They made other kneejerk decisions that were inappropriate also.
I agree...as I have said many times the initial email is an incompetent act by ONE person who was not well enough informed to make any comment at all....hence the incompetence.
What are the other "kneejerk reactions"? The only one I can think of is removing the pontoon game, which has been proven to be having prior problems anyway, as attested by some other members here. Taking down the game didn't stop him hitting the 777, so I don't see how it could make any difference....and again, at no point has Betfred used or relied upon this information to deny the claim.
They made misleading statements, e.g., they refer to '44.3 hour session', when subsequent events have shown that this refers to the unrelated draw slot play. This was avoidable by being clear at all points what was being referred to. E.g., the player - correctly in my view - denied making a 44 hour session, had the casino said 'we found the player had made a 44 hour session on Ocean Princess' then he might well have said 'Yes I did do that, I used a bot on Ocean Princess, but I didn't use one for Pontoon'.
He stated categorically that he DID NOT EVER USE A BOT. It turns out he lied. What credibility would a statement like that have, given he has already lied?
But we didn't get the clarity and accuracy we have the right to expect from a firm in charge of millions of gamblers' funds. Instead we got confusing and incomplete statements issued piecemeal, across numerous pages, statements, which, rather than people getting excited about the money, are the cause of most of the 20+ pages you mention.
As in every other case, PAB or not, operators and CM staff do NOT release every piece of information they have, for reasons that should be obvious. To an extent, we rely on the assessment of Bryan and Max who have SEEN the information.
You have no more right to see every scrap of evidence than I do. We are not parties in the dispute. I don't know about you, but I'm happy to rely on the word of people I have known and trusted for many years, regardless of how they call it. I'm just as anti-rogue as I am anti-fraudster.....the former just isn't as exciting.
It's not unreasonable to say that Betfred did not intend this promotion to be won. It is not uncommon for marketing departments of casinos (Casino For Me, Betfair, Joyland, etc.) to misjudge promotions and make overly generous offers that they then do not pay out. In the view of most people this promotion is unreasonably generous. Their first reaction was to say 'close but no cigar', which does reinforce that impression.
Quite possibly they did not expect it to be won. Who cares? As long as LEGITIMATE claims were honored, then it is their problem if they lose $300,000k on it. It might be generous, but it is absolutely irrelevant to the issue, because AFAIK no other claims were made. It's why I said BF would have been better served if someone else, maybe a CM member, legitimately and genuinely won the prize and had it awarded....then almost all of the nonsense about "never having the jag" or "never intending to pay" would have drifted off to where it belongs....in the garbage.
Again, it's all very well for you to bleat on about the poor ickle casino and the nasty players not saying nice things about them, but the fact is the casinos only have themselves to blame for their own PR, which is consistently dreadful in these cases.
Bleat? I expected better from you TLN. I always thought you were about the topic.
Anyway, I agree that casinos must wear the results of poor promotions, provided the winners of said promotion do it within the rules.
As I said earlier, it would be far easier for BF to just pay the money and save the negative PR (however undeserved it may be). The amount is chicken feed to them. However, they are taking a stand against fraudsters and not allowing these individuals to ruin it for everyone else, which is what they inevitably do. Instead of paying up and never running any more generous promotions where the average punter has some chance to win a car, they are sending a message that fraud will not be tolerated....and, as they have stated, run more car promotions so that GENUINE players have a reasonable chance to win.
For the record, I have no problem with people saying nasty things about casinos, if they deserve it. I've done it many times. The fact that you have to bring that kind of thing up shows that it is not me who is clutching at straws.
Hell, we don't even know how many hands he played.
