Bogus Complaint Betfred Casino Issue: player account suspended pending investigation.

[KasinoKing]

It's a Queen - but with a King's head. Either that or she's a proper minger.
I've been out with worse mind you.

... as long as you didn't marry her!

OK - got it now - I was only looking at the "Q", not the little pictures.
I don't know if that's how Playtech normally display it, but it does seem strange to me.

KK

 

[Seventh777]

It's a Queen - but with a King's head. Either that or she's a proper minger.
I've been out with worse mind you.

Lager goggles + 3 inches of make up can lead to frightening stuff on a Sunday morning, many a time i`ve woke up and looked at what`s lying next to me in bed, and thought "Fck, i`ve brought a doorman home )"

 

[Nifty29]

Lager goggles + 3 inches of make up can lead to frightening stuff on a Sunday morning, many a time i`ve woke up and looked at what`s lying next to me in bed, and thought "Fck, i`ve brought a doorman home )"

I've considered chewing my own arm off so I could get out of bed and leave without waking her......

 

[butterflyboogie]

Seventh & Nifty

Tsk...Tsk...Tsk. I wish I had the 3D naughty finger icon shaming you guys.

 

[naththo]

Betfred you gotta have to pay up

Okay I think it sounds like enough is enough don't you think? I think so!

Betfred I think it is a good idea if you wanna stay with accredited then you gotta do the right thing, please follow the PAB and pay up as it was already ordered via PAB as requested by Casinomeister moderator. I have read all through this and I find that the person who won deserved to get paid up as a conclusion to me overall. You have done pay up to the granny after dealing with IBAS previously. They give you warning each time you breach the accredited guideline. More the warning they take you off the accredited list and its going down the drain big time. Also my advice is stop playing with term and condition and stop changing too many times at once as it can cause a major chaos problem too!

But I would be surprised if I hear different story so soon.

 

[chuchu59]

Okay I think it sounds like enough is enough don't you think? I think so!

Betfred I think it is a good idea if you wanna stay with accredited then you gotta do the right thing, please follow the PAB and pay up as it was already ordered via PAB as requested by Casinomeister moderator. I have read all through this and I find that the person who won deserved to get paid up as a conclusion to me overall. You have done pay up to the granny after dealing with IBAS previously. They give you warning each time you breach the accredited guideline. More the warning they take you off the accredited list and its going down the drain big time. Also my advice is stop playing with term and condition and stop changing too many times at once as it can cause a major chaos problem too!

But I would be surprised if I hear different story so soon.

Now when did Max or Bryan rule on the side of the player? Solely based on the evidence shown in this thread I also opine that Betfred should pay up but we are not privy to some of the details so we are only making wild guesses.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Betfred made a counter claim that the player broke the rules in ways that they will not discuss on the forum. What has happened is that the PAB process has begun. There is still some way to go before a conclusion is reached. Betfred have somewhat dug a hole for themselves by indulging in the chicanery of removing the Pontoon game and pretending it never happened, rather than coming straight out with a clear statement that rules were broken that voided the play, and as a consequence, the prize. If it is not about the game the OP played, why remove it as part of the initial response to this issue, and then compound matters by banning the whole country of Canada just because ONE player there tried to con their way to a near £30K prize. The whole thing makes it look like Betfred are unsure of their position, and maybe even unsure that any rules were broken. Instead, they are reacting as though there is a technical issue with the game itself, and that it dealt a hand it was not meant to, or that the hand was the result of a malfunction.

Whilst the odds are 1 in 80,000, this does not mean that an individual player would have to play 80000 hands in order to hit, and it could be that by pure chance a whole bunch of players hit the prize winning hand long before the expected number of hands have been played. It is also possible that a player might play 800,000 hands and still not hit it. If a player complained the promotion was rigged just because he couldn't win a Jag after 10x the expected number of hands he would be told this is entirely possible, and not evidence of any malpractice.

It still looks to me like Betfred have belatedly realised that the odds are against them, and that they stand to give out a whole showroom of Jags, rather than the one or two they had budgeted for. They are dealing with this by continually tweaking the terms to pull the odds back in their favour, but do not want to lose face by ending the promo early, even though this is provided for in the terms.

 

[Balthazar]

Everything points out that Betfred is going to play the "he was using a Bot" card. It's going to be hard to prove but the sad part is even if they can't prove it, they can still use the claim to deny the payment to this player.

I must say that changing the terms after the promo started, adding a country to the banned list (which happens to be OP's country) and removing the game from the software doesn't look good at all.

 

[Nifty29]

Betfred made a counter claim that the player broke the rules in ways that they will not discuss on the forum. What has happened is that the PAB process has begun. There is still some way to go before a conclusion is reached. Betfred have somewhat dug a hole for themselves by indulging in the chicanery of removing the Pontoon game and pretending it never happened, rather than coming straight out with a clear statement that rules were broken that voided the play, and as a consequence, the prize. If it is not about the game the OP played, why remove it as part of the initial response to this issue, and then compound matters by banning the whole country of Canada just because ONE player there tried to con their way to a near £30K prize. The whole thing makes it look like Betfred are unsure of their position, and maybe even unsure that any rules were broken. Instead, they are reacting as though there is a technical issue with the game itself, and that it dealt a hand it was not meant to, or that the hand was the result of a malfunction.

Whilst the odds are 1 in 80,000, this does not mean that an individual player would have to play 80000 hands in order to hit, and it could be that by pure chance a whole bunch of players hit the prize winning hand long before the expected number of hands have been played. It is also possible that a player might play 800,000 hands and still not hit it. If a player complained the promotion was rigged just because he couldn't win a Jag after 10x the expected number of hands he would be told this is entirely possible, and not evidence of any malpractice.

It still looks to me like Betfred have belatedly realised that the odds are against them, and that they stand to give out a whole showroom of Jags, rather than the one or two they had budgeted for. They are dealing with this by continually tweaking the terms to pull the odds back in their favour, but do not want to lose face by ending the promo early, even though this is provided for in the terms.

As Chu said we only know HALF the story.

You're passing this off as some kind of informed opinion when you're actually making most of it up. No evidence was presented that the casino is "unsure" about anything.

The casino, along with Bryan,stated it had nothing to do with the game he played etc. The reason/s are obviously sensitive which should give you some idea. Just because they won't tell YOU doesn't mean they don't have legitimate reasons.

I don't know about you, but I'll take Bryan's assessment when he finishes it.

 

[chayton]

...and removing the game from the software doesn't look good at all.

Unless someone discovered there was an exploit in the game....?

Anyhow we're all just speculating, I for one will be watching with interest to see how this will turn out for the player.

 

[naththo]

I rather sit back to wait and see for now. I am not discussing this matter anymore because I might look like a feral or dumb and dumberer although I am trying to get them attention that it has to be done now, not later. Anyway no more talk in this topic from me until PAB is done and decision are properly made in later time. It would be interesting result at the end hopefully a good outcome for the sake of it though.

 

[vinylweatherman]

As Chu said we only know HALF the story.

You're passing this off as some kind of informed opinion when you're actually making most of it up. No evidence was presented that the casino is "unsure" about anything.

The casino, along with Bryan,stated it had nothing to do with the game he played etc. The reason/s are obviously sensitive which should give you some idea. Just because they won't tell YOU doesn't mean they don't have legitimate reasons.

I don't know about you, but I'll take Bryan's assessment when he finishes it.

It's the half we DO know that is already looking pretty damning. We don't need to rely on the word of the player to verify that they added Canada to the list of banned countries, or that they hurridley yanked Pontoon from the casino, carelessly leaving a few traces behind on the website. Whatever the OP did or didn't do, it clearly rattled Betfred into a "shoot first, ask questions later" reactions. Now they have "shot" by banning Canada and yanking the Pontoon game, they are now asking the questions.

It may only be sensitive because they don't want egg on their face, and still want to keep running the promo. It is a bit like MGS yanking all the Fruities, and then banning the whole of the UK, just because I have "done" a heap of them this year.

 

[raj]

I think it is wrong to speculate just yet, as VWM has said Betfreds actions do look very supicious and do little to make the reader beleive this is a clear cut case of player abuse or rule breaking.

The sooner Betfred go pubic with their side of the story the better for everyone to draw conclusions.

Regardless of the outcome, it is already clear that the promotion itself was poorly concieved and not thought through correctly. I am amazed it is still running, unless of course Betfred is happy to give away dozens of Jags to hardcore Blackjack players following basic strategy for minimum stakes.

I await the other side of the story.

Raj

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think it is wrong to speculate just yet, as VWM has said Betfreds actions do look very supicious and do little to make the reader beleive this is a clear cut case of player abuse or rule breaking.

The sooner Betfred go pubic with their side of the story the better for everyone to draw conclusions.

Regardless of the outcome, it is already clear that the promotion itself was poorly concieved and not thought through correctly. I am amazed it is still running, unless of course Betfred is happy to give away dozens of Jags to hardcore Blackjack players following basic strategy for minimum stakes.
I await the other side of the story.

Raj

This is most puzzling. A determined player could almost guarantee walking away with a Jag by playing with the minimum of rest breaks and only a couple of hours of sleep for the 20 odd days this is expected to run. They may wreck their health for the following couple of months, but they would have a Jag worth 30K, more than a year's pay for many.

What DOES need answering is why the rushed yanking of the pontoon game, and why the repeated (allegedly in some cases) on the fly changes to the terms.

What now springs to my mind is an incident last year of the "third party casino client" an ex member was using to exploit weaknesses in how the server validates bets. It was being used on a blackjack switch variant on Viaden software when busted and outed on the forum. The game relied on both hands being played with the same stake, but this software circumvented client side enforcement of this rule, and delivered uneven bets to the server, which didn't double check. It made the game highly +EV by allowing a nominal $1 bet on the second hand which was then used to switch a card to the main hand (much higher stake) to render the game +EV.

It could be that a similar exploit was unearthed in Pontoon, where the server accepted bets that were not valid, and which made this promo even more favourable than it already was.

The member responsible for this software got banned from here, but that software could well have been made available to others.

Such a vulnerabilty could not be patched straight away, so a game considered vulnerable would be yanked, and the casino would not want to reveal that such an exploit even existed. The Playtech version of switch is already banned for this promo, so there would be no point playing it with or without this naughty piece of software.

If it is just a straight forward case of bot use, there would be no need to yank a game, nor ban an entire country.

 

[mn001]

I really hope we will get some quick answers here in the thread.

I'm so close to cancel all my plans for the rest of the month playing blackjack 24/7 for this promo. But this thread make me worried as I'm not a regular player with the casino.

 

[Betfred]

Hi all,

Some interesting opinions here, many of which I would draw on seeing the case brought forward by the player alone.

I determined that it would be better for both Betfred and the player if this could be dealt with fairly by Casinomeister off the public forum. I certainly didn't want this to descend into a series of finger pointing posts and it appears the player is of the same mind.

I'm currently seeking permission to allow a third party - one chosen by Casinomeister - to view the logs of the player's account, but this has been slowed by the Bank Holiday Weekend. Once/if given we will then seek the player's sign off to allow us to disclose his records to the recommended third party.

I hope we can quickly wrap this up soon.

Kind regards,

Aaron

 

[Zepher]

Hi all,

Some interesting opinions here, many of which I would draw on seeing the case brought forward by the player alone.

I determined that it would be better for both Betfred and the player if this could be dealt with fairly by Casinomeister off the public forum. I certainly didn't want this to descend into a series of finger pointing posts and it appears the player is of the same mind.

I'm currently seeking permission to allow a third party - one chosen by Casinomeister - to view the logs of the player's account, but this has been slowed by the Bank Holiday Weekend. Once/if given we will then seek the player's sign off to allow us to disclose his records to the recommended third party.

I hope we can quickly wrap this up soon.

Kind regards,

Aaron

Thanks for the response Aaron. We fully understand you not being able to disclose personal details etc, and ofcourse that is not what we want/expect, but surely you could at the very least explain the change of T's & C's/Removal Of Canada from promo/Removal of Pontoon from software, as these decisions do not make much sense. Hoping to see a positive conclusion to this soon, also hoping to see these questions answered eventually.

 

[Betfred]

Alright, a bit more clarity on the issue: this was not an isolated event from the country (in fact, the same city) in question. We moved to ban the country, not as a result of the prize claim but as the quickest way to limit our exposure to the risk from a collection of players. The country was never a reason given for our denial of the prize.

Pontoon was removed because of the above and that the game later became unserviceable on the website and still is - it can be found in the table games and cards section (check the launch code; it hasn't been tampered with). At least this was the situation as of the last time I played it from a permitted country (I'm in Spain currently) and the game would freeze on loading. As such we moved it to a quiet corner of the website. The issue is with Playtech as to why it's not working; we removed it from the software entirely because of uncertainty over the game and because it's either in all relevant sections or not at all. We chose the latter.

Blackjack Switch was added to the terms and conditions of the Blackjack7s promo because this was missed when the terms were uploaded to the website. Our bad, but no one was denied payment because of this.

The rest I would prefer not to discuss at the moment, as I really do want this adjudicated by Casinomeister and other third parties.

Finally, we have decided to end all Casino promotions in the Games Galore campaign. Although many players benefited from the promotion, it was fraught with abuse. However, let me stress ALL existing claims, and claims made prior to the close of the bonuses, will be reviewed and honoured where appropriate and as per the terms and conditions, including this one (but rests on the decision made by Casinomeister and the results of the third party analysis).

Kind regards,

Aaron

 

[chuchu59]

Hi all,

Some interesting opinions here, many of which I would draw on seeing the case brought forward by the player alone.

I determined that it would be better for both Betfred and the player if this could be dealt with fairly by Casinomeister off the public forum. I certainly didn't want this to descend into a series of finger pointing posts and it appears the player is of the same mind.I'm currently seeking permission to allow a third party - one chosen by Casinomeister - to view the logs of the player's account, but this has been slowed by the Bank Holiday Weekend. Once/if given we will then seek the player's sign off to allow us to disclose his records to the recommended third party.

I hope we can quickly wrap this up soon.

Kind regards,

Aaron

Compared with many other players the OP wrote a well-structured post in a non-inflammatory way and posed questions for you to answer. You are proposing that the player logs be shown to a third party but what exactly is your point or rather what are accusing this player of in general terms. Only then will the logs be meaningful.

 

[Zepher]

Thanks again for the reply Aaron, and for shedding some further light on the matter. If there was some foul play at work here, then ofcourse you have the right to deny his claim. I can also understand the need to prevent further exposure in relation to this, but banning the entire country? Fair enough.. Still don't understand the removal of the game either. But still, thanks again for giving us some more info. Enjoy the rest of your weekend mate.

 

[Nifty29]

Compared with many other players the OP wrote a well-structured post in a non-inflammatory way and posed questions for you to answer. You are proposing that the player logs be shown to a third party but what exactly is your point or rather what are accusing this player of in general terms. Only then will the logs be meaningful.

Chu, you well know that there are plenty of scammers (not saying the OP is BTW) who are eloquent and calm when they post their complaint......it's part of their MO to make themselves more believable and help reel in the suckers.

I wonder is the OP lives in Markham....

 

[chuchu59]

Chu, you well know that there are plenty of scammers (not saying the OP is BTW) who are eloquent and calm when they post their complaint......it's part of their MO to make themselves more believable and help reel in the suckers.

I wonder is the OP lives in Markham....

That's why Betfred needs to come clean. The OP has won the hearts of many members here judging by the support shown in their posts. Betfgred is being far too secretive. Without disclosing personal details the casino can explain in general terms what the player is accused/suspected of. If, say its bot play then the logs will be seemingly meaningful. They simply shouldnt post that 'we have our side of the story' without even a hint of what's happening. Surely this industry needs more transparency.

 

[bpb]

Chu, you well know that there are plenty of scammers (not saying the OP is BTW) who are eloquent and calm when they post their complaint......it's part of their MO to make themselves more believable and help reel in the suckers.

Substitute "shills" for "scammers" and "praise" for "complaint" and I'll back your statement 100%.

 

[Nifty29]

Substitute "shills" for "scammers" and "praise" for "complaint" and I'll back your statement 100%.

I agree.

It's irrelevant to the discussion though, as nobody is being a shill.

 

[raj]

Alright, a bit more clarity on the issue: this was not an isolated event from the country (in fact, the same city) in question. We moved to ban the country, not as a result of the prize claim but as the quickest way to limit our exposure to the risk from a collection of players. The country was never a reason given for our denial of the prize.

Pontoon was removed because of the above and that the game later became unserviceable on the website and still is - it can be found in the table games and cards section (check the launch code; it hasn't been tampered with). At least this was the situation as of the last time I played it from a permitted country (I'm in Spain currently) and the game would freeze on loading. As such we moved it to a quiet corner of the website. The issue is with Playtech as to why it's not working; we removed it from the software entirely because of uncertainty over the game and because it's either in all relevant sections or not at all. We chose the latter.

Blackjack Switch was added to the terms and conditions of the Blackjack7s promo because this was missed when the terms were uploaded to the website. Our bad, but no one was denied payment because of this.

The rest I would prefer not to discuss at the moment, as I really do want this adjudicated by Casinomeister and other third parties.

Finally, we have decided to end all Casino promotions in the Games Galore campaign. Although many players benefited from the promotion, it was fraught with abuse. However, let me stress ALL existing claims, and claims made prior to the close of the bonuses, will be reviewed and honoured where appropriate and as per the terms and conditions, including this one (but rests on the decision made by Casinomeister and the results of the third party analysis).

Kind regards,

Aaron

Thanks Aaron, Hopefully with the OPs permission some more details will be released and we can see for ourselves why payment was denied.

When you talk about a risk of exposure from a collection of players in the same city, I would say it is quite possible that players may decide to share details of your generous promotion with each other quite legitimatley and discuss and agree strategies to try and make the most of such a promotion. This is not player colllusion in the accepted sense of the words, as blackjack is a single player game against the house. Forums, such as this one, promote bonuses and promotions and players often debate and seek advice from others in how to use them to thier full potential. If I find a bonus/promo so generous it is not to be missed and tell all my friends about it and the best strategy they should use , and they follow up and play , then as far as I can see , this is fine.

You say the promotion was fraught with abuse ? Want defines abuse of such a promotion. If someone plays within the rules written by Betfred, in a way which minimises their losses and optimizes their potential of winning a major prize, would this be considered abuse? Sensible and optimal play within the rules of the promotion does not constitiute abuse IMHO.

I beleive Betfred simply got their sums wrong when designing this promotion and a number of players and possibly friends spotted this and exploited to the full.

I am quite interested to see exactly what happens after the PAB and the outcome of all this.

Raj