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

[Seventh777]

It does raise a potentially interesting variation on the situation though.

Let's say Alexander did use a bot, but the bot did not play outside human capability or in an obviously non-humanlike way. i.e. Let's say the logs could not prove bot use.

Are Betfred just saying the play was 'botlike' to get out of paying?

We've already established that this bonus is EV+ for a determined played who is prepared to play in an extremely committed fashion for many hours per day over several days, something that I'd imagine a lot of people would be prepared to do for a decent shot at thirty grand.

Let`s have a variation on your variation choppy, what if Betfred have similar security programmes in place to those used by online gaming companies, for the sole same reason of identifying illegal 3rd party software`s and logging the relative data they expose, should Betfred have to forward these logs to the general public and in doing so - Increasing the risk of not just them but several other casinos by exposing one of their anti hackers prevention tools?.

This would explain Betfred`s many reasons for refusing to pay, whilst safely keeping the legitimate reason out of the public eye.

In the nutshell - Their security personnel have been made aware of certain anomalies regarding this case and taken the appropriate action, those privy enough to have access to this information have acted accordingly, for the rest of us, we are left to theorise, offering our own hypothesis`s based on nothing more than conjecture.

Betfred know how damaging a case like this could be if it made arbitration, and by all accounts this is the only action left to the OP to take, which ofc he will, if what he says is 100% bona fide , anyone would, if they had been wrongly duped out of 30k, wouldn`t they?.

Game logs are not the only way to expose a bot.

Sometimes you have to lie, to protect the truth - "Does my bum look big in this?".

 

[AlexanderK]

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: The player's gameplay was analyzed by an independent third party, and it was determined that the player used a computer program to assist in his game play. In other words, he used a bot.

Oh goody, money via Moneybookers. Sorry pal, as I mentioned before, you need to hire an attorney and take this up with the GRA. Betfred is not some clip-shot joint operating on a shoestring budget in cyberland; it's a legitimate well-financed corporation that is required to comply with the rules of their licensing jurisdiction. I am sure the GRA will gladly review your gaming logs (of which I'm sure they have access). Please do not waste any more of my time. Thank you.

Thank you. I will definitely go to GRA, but before I do that, please give me one more shot and let me waste two more minutes of your time. I think I can easily prove that Betfred's statements are incorrect, even without having anybody look at my logs.

They said I played for 44 hours, 56 hands per minute. This translates into a total of 150,000 wager, even without doubles and splits. They also said they found several sessions like this. Even if "several" is just two, this means I wagered a total of 450,000 chasing the 777.

I am pretty sure I wagered less than than a half of that amount in my lifetime play, since joining the Casino. This can be verified by looking at my comp point balance. So all you need to do is log in as me and see it. I would gladly log in myself and post a screenshot, but the account is locked.

Can you do at least this? Thank you very much.

 

[AlexanderK]

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: The player's gameplay was analyzed by an independent third party, and it was determined that the player used a computer program to assist in his game play. In other words, he used a bot.

So, let me ask a simple question, to which you only have to answer "Yes" or "No":

At any time while playing at BetFred, did you use a bot to play for you?

KK

Please do not look for a black cat in a dark room. I am not a native English speaker, hence your impression.

NO, I HAVE NOT USED THE BOT.

 

[GOCC]

I have NEVER been a fan of Betfred.

While Bryan may say they are respected, I have proof of them changing a winning bet into a losing bet on my account.

 

[bpb]

Oh goody, money via Moneybookers.

So Moneybookers is a fraudulent e-wallet? I'm assuming that's what you're trying to convey.

 

[Jasminebed]

So Moneybookers is a fraudulent e-wallet? I'm assuming that's what you're trying to convey.

You know how sometimes casinos claim an account is "linked" with other accounts (usually denying a payment). One of the tricks used by fraudsters is moving money between accounts. If you are linked with a fraudster, you can end up branded as a fraudster or potential fraudster too.

Be cautious with person-to-person transfers. Probably best to stick to those people you know in real life.

 

[Slotster!]

Have to say, I'm curious about this.

Are those posted emails from BetFred genuine? If so, there's massive questions to be answered there. Almost as though they thought they could brush off the prize with the pontoon thing but when the player protested, they've had to come up with something more vague?

This guy is certainly hanging on in there if he's a fraudster - isn't it worth just checking the account out?

Mind you, and I'm not for one minute suggesting an organisation such as BetFred would do this, but what's to say a casino can't make a 'locked' account show whatever they like when it is 'unlocked' again?

I've clearly not seen the content of your prior discussions CM and this chap has obviously done something to rub you up the wrong way... but we're all curious here... Can you not just maybe take a peek?

 

[P.V.]

This seems pretty easy to verify. Look at the players logs and if in fact he's played for this period of time, nonstop, that many hands it's defiantly bot play. Also quoting the OP saying he didn't play that long.

I assume the logs would provide his user id, or account number along with the play logs, ending with the winning screen shot hand.

Actually just about anyone could verify this data, problem is the OP wouldn't release it.

 

[SlotMonster]

I would give the OP one more shot.

When I was a BigCasino Rep here, I also took part in history review when one of our players was suspected of bot use, and I can say without a doubt that any detail is important. So I think it will be useful to clarify few questions:

1) What does "round" means? Is this one hand or not? If the OP was playing 5 boxes - how many "rounds" he played? 5 or 1?
2) What does "session" means? Is this time between login/logout into/from the casino client or into/from the game table?

 

[Betfred]

I invite the player to contact the GRA, and all the implications that entails. I also caution him that his statements are borderline libellous.

Again, I would prefer not to make data/information public on the forum but the play we contend is automated is from another session; his account was in the process of being suspended. The earlier 44 hour+ session (one of three other extended sessions during a concentrated period of time), without any significant breaks, in our opinion is sufficiently suspicious (confirmed by Playtech) to question all future sessions. We tried to contact the player through email and by phone to discuss the above and our position, but the player failed to respond and PAB'd instead.

To be frank, the player has wasted an awful lot of people's time here. Completing a dossier of evidence takes days, and Bryan and Co equally have to then review it - plus correspond with the player and myself.

Betfred will no longer comment on this issue, unless via the respective legal/licensing representatives. The outcome of that will be posted here for public review.

Kind regards,

Aaron

 

[vinylweatherman]

We always wanted to give the Jag away - the idea of the campaign was for new and existing players to get more from playing their favourite games at Betfred. Let's hope someone lands it next time.

I didn't disclose more on the forums because I didn't want to prejudice the decision making process, nor ridicule a player's claim in public. We tried to do this on a 1:1 basis but unfortunately the player preferred this medium.

Some very interesting comments here references the T&Cs, btw, and we'll be trying to find a balance between generosity and parity when the promo is relaunched here.

Cheers,

Aaron

The terms said nothing about just one Jag, it seemed that EVERY player who hit this hand and won it outright would get a Jag or cash equivalent. The only way to restrict it to one Jag would be to end the promo as soon as it was won, and this would only irritate players who still expected to have a chance at another Jag until the closing date. To have one Jag, the terms would have to make it clear that it is a race to be the first player to hit the hand, and that only this first hit would win the Jag, with any further hits getting a lesser prize.

Of course, if John Prescott was taking part, ONE Jag would not be enough

 

[Betfred]

'The' Jag was in reference to this particular claim - we would have given away more than one Jaguar as per the terms and conditions. It was a very generous promotion. Okay, that was my final comment

 

[P.V.]

Again, I would prefer not to make data/information public on the forum but the play we contend is automated is from another session; his account was in the process of being suspended. The earlier 44 hour+ session (one of three other extended sessions during a concentrated period of time),

No one here would ask you to provide personal data online within the forum.

So the player now used a bot in previous sessions and while his account was about to be suspended he played without a bot and won a JAG?

 

[KasinoKing]

So the player now used a bot in previous sessions and while his account was about to be suspended he played without a bot and won a JAG?

This is exactly what I was thinking. The casino's story is changing so fast it's making my head spin!

So... if BetFred left the account open and IF the player did not use a bot while playing THIS promotion - does anyone think it was fair for them to confiscate his prize?
I don't.

Also - the e-mail and all the other pointers to the problem being wrong game played (Pontoon) just adds to the confusion.
I sincerely hope that the PAB process is allowed to run the full course, because right now I don't know what to believe.

KK

 

[incrediblestuff]

Also fun to note that i myself have had 44+ hours of consecutive gambling, just clicking and spinning like an idiot: i could be hired as a "real" bot ^^
Call me :1-800-GAMBLEDROID

 

[The Dude]

Since this thread is really on the verge of going nowhere - the PAB has been shit-canned, the OP has been instructed to use the GRA (which is fully capable in handling this dispute), and the casino has made it clear they are not going to discuss this any further in public, I am considering closing the thread.

Sure, sometimes it's cool to watch a train wreck - but in this case the train wreck can occur in private for all I care.

 

[Slotster!]

Sure, sometimes it's cool to watch a train wreck - but in this case the train wreck can occur in private for all I care.

Clearly you have the benefit of an inside track on this.

It is a particularly intriguing one though for all the reasons people have pointed out.

I can't recall an accredited casino flip flopping around in recent memory; there's so much ambiguity it just all sounds a bit... I dunno. Yeah, intriguing.

Totally respect your decision CM; it really isn't a case of watching a train wreck for me though - it is genuine interest in the practice and methods of an accredited casino and/or the outcome for a legitimate player or an out and out fraudster.

Without the input/management of you guys, it'll just fall into a hole and we'll never know.

 

[maxd]

... the PAB has been shit-canned ....

Just wanted to add that the PAB has been shit-canned because the OP has said "I don't want to cooperate with you on this". He didn't use those exact words but the end result of him not giving permission for us to involve a 3rd party analyst is exactly that, not cooperating. If the OP -- here or in any PAB -- doesn't cooperate with the process then the process is dead in the water and a waste of time, which is exactly were we are here.

 

[Slotster!]

Just wanted to add that the PAB has been shit-canned because the OP has said "I don't want to cooperate with you on this". He didn't use those exact words but the end result of him not giving permission for us to involve a 3rd party analyst is exactly that, not cooperating. If the OP -- here or in any PAB -- doesn't cooperate with the process then the process is dead in the water and a waste of time, which is exactly were we are here.

The guy has apologised, admitted he was out of order and given consent now... Is that not worth a crack?

Like I say, you guys have the inside track on this so completely trust your call either way - he does seem quite conciliatory now though. Appreciate it is sometimes difficult when we just have the public persona to go off and not private correspondence.

I'll shut up now and see what happens

 

[The Dude]

I have NEVER been a fan of Betfred.

While Bryan may say they are respected, I have proof of them changing a winning bet into a losing bet on my account.

I've moved your complaint to here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/betfred-complaint.52373/

So Moneybookers is a fraudulent e-wallet? I'm assuming that's what you're trying to convey.

No - I was conveying the fact that I am not motivated by the $1000

I agree that this issue is convoluted; there were a number of things happening in the background as this player was playing - to include a couple of misunderstandings from Betfred's support team.

Regardless, the casino has made itself clear that the player is free to pursue this via the proper channels - and they won't discuss it no more. If I was this player, I would have already initiated a complaint at the GRA...unless of course I had something to hide.

 

[P.V.]

The casino did change their position and posted that it was previous suspected bot play and not the winning hand session play.

It's become a double collusion between the OP and Operator IMO, should be investigated.

 

[BBKPoker]

Still, there's no rule he appears to have been broken by their terms, but note that Betfred specifically is requesting that his game logs be reviewed by a third party. This almost certainly indicates that Betfred thinks there is something suspicious about his playing pattern, and I'd wager dollars to donuts its that they think he was using a bot. What else could there be that is against their terms and conditions that they feel they can evidence through their game logs?

Guess I got this in one.

 

[The Dude]

PAB reopened: The player has 24 hours to contact Betfred requesting that his player files be forwarded to me and a third party.

Saying that. I'm closing the thread until we have determined what has transpired. Thanks for your understanding.

 

[The Dude]

Thread reopened

We requested Eliot Jacobson to review the log files to determine whether a bot was used.

The player had played slots and blackjack. Even though the player was demanding payment for his blackjack winnings, the casino suspected bot play on most if not all BJ and slot games. The logs analyzed were for Ocean Princess - the conclusion is that the player used a computer program to assist in the game play. The same behaviors appeared in his black jack play.

I've attached the report to this post.

 

[GOCC]

?
So that reports says he used a BOT on a slots game.

You reported that Betfred had reported to you that he had played 44hrs and 53 minutes and played 57.6 rounds per minuted. What you didnt say, or did Betfred not tell you, was that this was on a slots game.

I cannot see in the report, where it says he used a Bot to play BlackjacK?

The term relating to bots is here
The use of automated “bot” programmes to play games is strictly forbidden at Betfred Casino. Betfred management reserves the right to void all bonus funds and associated winnings on accounts where it suspects a “bot” may have been used to wager.

Did the player use the BOT when he was playing with Bonus Funds or did he use a BOT for general play. If General Play, the terms do not forbid this. THEY MIGHT INTEND IT TOO, but it doesnt say that.

If he has used a BOT on slots but hasnt on this pontoon bonus, of which the report doesnt say he has, then why shouldnt he be paid?

In fact, the logs that the auditor report on are only Cover July from what I read but this was a

Blackjack 7s Special - All of August! promo?

 

[chuchu59]

Since the logs have been reviewed by an independent 3rd party and a credible one at that I guess we can safely conclude that the OP used a bot. However, unless the OP fabricated the email from Betfred the casino must explain why they denied winnings using the 'pontoon' excuse initially.

 

[The Dude]

Please read what I posted. His gameplay was identical in BJ.

 

[GOCC]

Please read what I posted. His gameplay was identical in BJ.

But why have a third party auditor of such high standing make a report for gameplay that has zero to do with the PAB? Just does not make sense 1 bit to me.

Like having a car crash, saying the brakes failed but taking it to the garage to have the exhaust fixes

 

[Nifty29]

?
So that reports says he used a BOT on a slots game.

You reported that Betfred had reported to you that he had played 44hrs and 53 minutes and played 57.6 rounds per minuted. What you didnt say, or did Betfred not tell you, was that this was on a slots game.

I cannot see in the report, where it says he used a Bot to play BlackjacK?

The term relating to bots is here
The use of automated “bot” programmes to play games is strictly forbidden at Betfred Casino. Betfred management reserves the right to void all bonus funds and associated winnings on accounts where it suspects a “bot” may have been used to wager.

Did the player use the BOT when he was playing with Bonus Funds or did he use a BOT for general play. If General Play, the terms do not forbid this. THEY MIGHT INTEND IT TOO, but it doesnt say that.

If he has used a BOT on slots but hasnt on this pontoon bonus, of which the report doesnt say he has, then why shouldnt he be paid?

In fact, the logs that the auditor report on are only Cover July from what I read but this was a

Blackjack 7s Special - All of August! promo?

The use of automated “bot” programmes to play games is strictly forbidden at Betfred Casino.

Seems pretty clear to me. It doesn't say "with a bonus"...it just says "to play games". So, you are incorrect i.e. bot play IS verboten under ANY circumstances.

Any terms about what happens to bonus funds etc is irrelevant, as it has already been expressly stated that bots are not allowed. You are reading that sentence in a different way to what it actually says.....it says "all bonus funds" (any bonus funds in the account) and "associated winnings" (any winnings associated with bot play not the bonus itself).

I think you may be allowing your own grudge against BetFred (which you have yet to submit a formal complaint about IIRC which is very odd indeed..proof of a bookie deliberately changing a winning bet is a very big issue) to cloud your logic.

At least now we know the OP was bullshitting us the whole time (which many suspected anyway). Tells you something about him.

 

[The Dude]

But why have a third party auditor of such high standing make a report for gameplay that has zero to do with the PAB? Just does not make sense 1 bit to me.

Like having a car crash, saying the brakes failed but taking it to the garage to have the exhaust fixes

It had everything to do with the PAB. You don't seem to get it. The player is a liar; his game play was identical.

Analyzing log files is time consuming and expensive. Dr. Jacobson was kind enough to take time out this weekend to analyze a substantial portion of this player's game play. Unless you'd like to pay Eliot to continue his review, go ahead and knock yourself out. Personally, I would consider it a waste of the man's precious time.

Betfred has done a thorough investigation, Playtech has reviewed all of this info as well. Max and I have looked at this player's info - and have even brought in an independent third party to analyze a portion of the logs. What more do you want? Disguise myself, fly out to Toronto and sneak into the player's apartment looking for "bots".

The guy is a fraudster - there really is no doubt about it.

 

[Betfred]

Firstly, a big thanks to Bryan and Elliot for their time on this.

Reference any lingering doubts: we've now determined the player used a bot (which he claimed not to do as well as denying having a 44 hour + session) and that the pattern continues on to the Pontoon session, but it's especially important to remember that his claim was not about meeting a WR or extracting money from the game, but was to hit a certain hand combination. To award this user the car would have been unfair to all other players playing to win and to win the promotion legitimately.

We're determined not to let a handful of abusers reduce the generosity or variation of our promotions and will be concentrating on making a winner and giving this car away! More details to follow.

Kind regards,

Aaron

 

[vinylweatherman]

?
So that reports says he used a BOT on a slots game.

You reported that Betfred had reported to you that he had played 44hrs and 53 minutes and played 57.6 rounds per minuted. What you didnt say, or did Betfred not tell you, was that this was on a slots game.

I cannot see in the report, where it says he used a Bot to play BlackjacK?

The term relating to bots is here
The use of automated “bot” programmes to play games is strictly forbidden at Betfred Casino. Betfred management reserves the right to void all bonus funds and associated winnings on accounts where it suspects a “bot” may have been used to wager.

Did the player use the BOT when he was playing with Bonus Funds or did he use a BOT for general play. If General Play, the terms do not forbid this. THEY MIGHT INTEND IT TOO, but it doesnt say that.

If he has used a BOT on slots but hasnt on this pontoon bonus, of which the report doesnt say he has, then why shouldnt he be paid?

In fact, the logs that the auditor report on are only Cover July from what I read but this was a

Blackjack 7s Special - All of August! promo?

It is more a "slot poker" than simple slot game. The player interacts through holding some reels to make a better outcome on a second spin. Oddly, there is an autoplay built in which he didn't use, and that would have cleared him of the charge

I presume Eliot means that the same statistical distribution of gaps was evident in the Blackjack play, hence a computer program was also used there. Gaps of a max of 40 seconds in almost 40 solid hours are less than is needed for even a "pee break", suggesting very strongly that a computer program was doing the play, but was occasionally interrupted to produce these longer gaps, probably nothing more than temporary slowdowns of the internet connection.

If all wagers are void due to using a bot, then all winnings are void, and this would not only include the game payout for that triple seven hand, but any additional award from a promotion too.

As well as using a bot, the OP lied to Max, Bryan, and the rest of us.

Although the bot wasn't used to cheat the game in any way, it breached one of the general terms of play, one that is present in nearly every casino, and very much so in any poker or skill game site.

The poker slot play looks like it was designed to grind through WR at minimal stake. This may have been down to clearing WR from a bonus, or making WR for another type of promotion.


Eliot's report also gives some insight into how bot play is detected, and how it is analysed to rule out the determined human player that has spent hours at the PC, but has had to take short breaks for basic needs.

 

[Betfred]

Hi Vinyl,

We're of the same opinion here. Just to clear a few things up, Ocean Princess doesn't have an autospin mode (because it involves holding reels. Not sure where the autospin idea came from ) and the player did have a WR to make when playing this game.

Cheers!

Aaron

 

[GOCC]

I think you may be allowing your own grudge against BetFred (which you have yet to submit a formal complaint about IIRC which is very odd indeed..proof of a bookie deliberately changing a winning bet is a very big issue) to cloud your logic.

At least now we know the OP was bullshitting us the whole time (which many suspected anyway). Tells you something about him.

Ill repeat myself because obviously your struggling

I NEVER MADE A COMPLAINT TO ANYONE and I was paid what I was due. The post Betfred Complaint was opened by CASINOMEISTER not me.

 

[GOCC]

Im dubstruck, it must be just me.

He is denied a 30k car because he used a BOT on Slots even though this is a Blackjack promo

He agrees to have his gameplay analyzed but its not the gameplay for his win, its for something a month earlier on a compltely different game.

Eliot, as far as I can tell because he never mentioned it in his report, has made NO reference at all to any blackjack play.

 

[naththo]

Yike at those investigation result! Thats a very serious fraudster he is! But its good to hear the result as we wanted to know whether what he was doing with the bot or so in casino. And this result have made a clearer picture for us to understand what was really happening. Unbelievable. I haven't seen this one before in my life through forum. I am sorry to see Betfred have had hard time with this and I guess this is over now which gives us sigh of relief. Hopefully won't happen again but I know it may somewhere who knows, really.

 

[Nifty29]

Ill repeat myself because obviously your struggling

I NEVER MADE A COMPLAINT TO ANYONE and I was paid what I was due. The post Betfred Complaint was opened by CASINOMEISTER not me.

My struggling.....what? You didn't finish your sentence.

Unless you mean "you're struggling", in which case I disagree......and you were the one who brought your issue into the discussion, which you used to show betfred in a bad light, even though you said it was resolved. I would have thought that was a positive result.....but then, I'm struggling.

 

[Nifty29]

Please read what I posted. His gameplay was identical in BJ.

Im dubstruck, it must be just me.

He is denied a 30k car because he used a BOT on Slots even though this is a Blackjack promo

He agrees to have his gameplay analyzed but its not the gameplay for his win, its for something a month earlier on a compltely different game.

Eliot, as far as I can tell because he nev er mentioned it in his report, has made NO reference at all to any blackjack play.

FYI since you obviously missed it. You might be dubstruck.

I'm not sure how much clearer it can be made.

 

[Black2999]

Well he doesn't deserve to be paid if he had been using a bot in the past.
Not sure it's 'fraud' though, bit harsh.
I'm glad they are going to do the promo again though, might aswell play BJ with the Fred if I have a chance at a Jag.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi Vinyl,

We're of the same opinion here. Just to clear a few things up, Ocean Princess doesn't have an autospin mode (because it involves holding reels. Not sure where the autospin idea came from ) and the player did have a WR to make when playing this game.

Cheers!

Aaron

Eliot's report states that "autoplay was not used", so I concluded the function existed, but the OP chose to use his bot instead.

Im dubstruck, it must be just me.

He is denied a 30k car because he used a BOT on Slots even though this is a Blackjack promo

He agrees to have his gameplay analyzed but its not the gameplay for his win, its for something a month earlier on a compltely different game.

Eliot, as far as I can tell because he never mentioned it in his report, has made NO reference at all to any blackjack play.

Although Eliot didn't analyze the Blackjack play in such detail, he did say the same behaviours were observed, so there is evidence to support bot use during the promo, even if the OP was more careful to disguise it by breaking up the sessions.

Calling it a slot is probably misleading as it is more a Video Poker type game where the outcome can be influenced by strategy in the same way that strategy can influence the outcome of Blackjack and Video Poker. If the WR rules count it as a slot, it becomes a very good candidate for having a bot designed for it.

Since the OP lied about the earlier play, we can no longer believe any claim he makes about the play in the Jag promo. It also explains his hesitation in allowing his playlogs to be scrutinised by an independent third party, as he was unsure how well he had disguised his bot, and knew that if an independent look also said he used a bot, he would no longer be able to garner sympathy.

In the promo case, bot use is unfair on other players who played for the Jag, who were at a disadvantage in the number of hands they could play in a given time.

If a significant number of players were using this bot, it is even more unfair on those that don't. These bots are freely available on the internet, and Blackjack bots are the oldest of all as they came out in the early days when bonus WR could be done on Blackjack for a +EV outcome at virtually every casino. As it meant grinding out the value over many hours at minimum stakes, there was a ready market for the bot developers.

 

[threescatters]

So, let me ask a simple question, to which you only have to answer "Yes" or "No":

At any time while playing at BetFred, did you use a bot to play for you?

KK

KK asked this very specific question to which Alexander answered "No I have not used the bot" (i dont know how to multiquote so I have not quoted his reply, but its a few pages back in this thread.

KK's question was "At any time". Alexanders reply was an outright lie to this. I think the report presented is absolute proof of using a bot for slots play. So therefore AlexanderK's reply was just a complete lie. I cant really take him seriously after that.

All that being said, i find it extremely strange the logs for pontoon were not the ones analysed and I also find it extremely strange betfred cited pontoon as the reason for not paying. That wasnt from a random support person either, the email is signed by "Head of VIP".

Nevertheless, this guy lied to us and broke betfreds terms of service. His loss.

 

[chuchu59]

Given that the OP used a bot to play I think that the OP should not be paid. Nevertheless, the email shown by the OP of his winnings originally being denied due to Pontoon not being a BJ variant remains unexplained by Betfred. I think the casino should come clean on this otherwise it is no different from a rogue casino.

 

[SlotMonster]

Given that the OP used a bot to play I think that the OP should not be paid. Nevertheless, the email shown by the OP of his winnings originally being denied due to Pontoon not being a BJ variant remains unexplained by Betfred. I think the casino should come clean on this otherwise it is no different from a rogue casino.

Very good question, chuchu. Would love to hear a reply from Betfred too.

 

[threescatters]

I agree also, he should not be paid but it doesnt excuse the way betfred handled the situation and I would like to hear an explanation for that also.

 

[Betfred]

This was a breakdown in communication internally, which was in the dossier presented to Casinomeister. The VIP manager sent the email posted in this thread just before the Casino team suspended his account due to our our analysis on the player's suspicious sessions, with the VIP manager assuming he was denied the prize because of game type. We quickly wanted to amend this and invited the player to contact us to discuss his sessions and why his account was suspended. We couldn't get through and he PAB.

This is not ideal, for sure. Inter department comms is an area we'll improve and, in this case, will happily hold our hands up and apologise for.

Cheers,

Aaron

 

[Seventh777]

So, this appears to be a case of foul play and BetFred still being liberal with their overall findings etc, which i`m going to put down to reasons I put forward in my earlier post, and those stressing for these reasons to be exposed should know better imho.

Like I previously stated - "Sometimes you have to lie, to protect the truth".

 

[daywalker]

My struggling.....what? You didn't finish your sentence.

Unless you mean "you're struggling", in which case I disagree......and you were the one who brought your issue into the discussion, which you used to show betfred in a bad light, even though you said it was resolved. I would have thought that was a positive result.....but then, I'm struggling.

FYI since you obviously missed it. You might be dubstruck.

I'm not sure how much clearer it can be made.

Come on, is there any need for picking up on English and grammar mistakes?
The guy is stating an opinion and it might not be one you agree with but there's no need to get all petty about it is there?

 

[CasinoBeacon]

What more do you want? Disguise myself, fly out to Toronto and sneak into the player's apartment looking for "bots".

You mean this isn't standard PAB process? I'm outraged.

 

[Landprofits]

This is not ideal, for sure. Inter department comms is an area we'll improve and, in this case, will happily hold our hands up and apologise for.



Aaron

Don't feel bad - all bookies are about the same level on that - sh1t

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

Now that my report has been submitted and posted, I finally read this thread. I purposely did not read this information so that I could stay unbiased in reaching my conclusions. I never spoke to BetFred or the player directly. Everything was handled through Bryan.

I would like to share my informal opinion, after having read this thread and understood this matter more fully.

In U.S. land based casinos there are often car giveaways. It is not at all unusual for advantage players (APs) to target these promotions by "stuffing the box" with entries. APs I have known like to brag about the cars they've won, it's like earning an Eagle Scout badge. I have heard rumours of this being done online, but I had never before encountered a case of this.

Here is a case where APs won a lot of cars that I wrote about in my blog:

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

Now that I know that Alex won a car, the matter becomes very clear. He built and tested his robot software on a low-level slot. He needed a slot with some secondary decision making feature to model what he would need for blackjack. By targeting a slot at a minimal bet level, he hoped to go unnoticed. This was simply the development stage for his software. His final test run was the slot play I analyzed.

I did not look at his play on Pontoon because I was not asked to do so. But I do believe he used his software to target Pontoon in the same fashion it played against the slot.The point of his project was always to try and beat these promotions by stuffing the box with his play. He knew it might not happen the first time, but if he could play very fast, continuously, for a long period of time and at a very low level, then at very little expense of his personal time and energy he knew he stood a better than average chance. Since these promotions are apparently ongoing, his intention was to continue using his bot in this way to win a car. He may have been a member of a larger team playing collectively using this bot software. My guess is that this is the case, since there have been some issued pinning down the IP address that this play originated. Lucky (or unlucky) for him, the first time out he won the car.

This incident points to the main reason that online casinos ban bots. It is not that bots can beat their games. They can't (if the software is built right). It is that a bot signals a secondary intention that may be more sociopathic. This case is a perfect example.