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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dont post,unbelievable

Hi!

Welcome to this great forum. I see it is your first post.

I just wanted to give you the link to Betfred's casino manager. As you may know, they are accredited here on Casinomeister. You should send him a private message.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/

You also have the opportunity to later do a pitch a bitch which is described here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/help/pab-rules/


I do not know whether you have a case or not, as I only read through your post very quickly. But I would advise you not to continue discussing your case openly in the forum at this point (in case you need to do a PAB later). But first, send the rep a private message and wait for his reply. He is very helpful.
mmmm,dont post.When I had a $5000 withdrawal denied as they wanted a card expired years earlier,I posted immediately.Thus,I got the dont post warning.I was paid in 12 hours and if I had not posted could have been 3 months.Also it alerts players to dodgy tactics.Why cant we post dodgy tactics instantly.Doesnt sit with me.
 
A very well-written post from the OP together with good reasoning and relevant screenshots. I cannot see how Betfred can wriggle out of this but then their reputation for the past 2 years has been less than stellar.

And they are accredited,this site will lose its accreditation with players if they keep backing up dodgy sites
 
Not as Savvy

I'm definately not as savvy as many of you are on the various casino terms, etc, however in my opinion Betfred's response was very vague to me. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, however I truly believe this player will be found in the right and Betfred will be asked to pay up. Just a gut feeling in this one. There are just too many coincidences that do not add up. We will see.
 
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.

As far as banning a whole country goes, as ruthless as it seems i`m with the casinos on this one, it`s basic logic, for arguments sake we will use Poland as an example - Not all Polish players are scammers, all scammers are Polish, ban Poland, problem cured.
 
A little clarity on my earlier post regarding scatters and the odds of hitting them, not that i`m one to question KK`s maths https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/5-scatter-5-wilds-screenshots.14243/ (sorry m8 just had to lol :p).

Anyhow here goes, I am not questioning any casinos integrity nor accusing them of weighting the reels, my whole point is that the average spin that drops in 3 scatters or more, or fails to land another when scatters have landed on reels 1 and 2 is unrealistic and has nothing to do with the odds of this happening, if each spin was purely random and not as is the case a predetermined outcome by the RNG then the odds of hitting 3 scatters after reels 1 and 2 had produced scatters would be around 7/2.

There are 3125 possible combinations of hitting 3 scatters on Cashapillar, divide this by the amount of possible outcomes of every combination will give you the calculus on which the RNG decides on the next spins outcome, which by my maths and iirc KK`s odds of 169-1 of hitting 3 scatters gives you a possible every spin combo of around 18.5 million spins.

I realise and fully understand what each slot is programmed to do to keep within it`s RTP, but, I know I speak for many when I mention the frustration of hitting two scatters early in a spin and not hitting the 3rd and thus not reflecting the true odds of this happening, this could be easily cured when the RNG selects the next spin outcome by the 2 scatters landing on reels 4 and 5 etcetera.

When you know roughly the odds of hitting that 3rd scatter when reels 1 and 2 have landed, yet, constantly miss it, it is beyond frustrating and annoying.

Hope that clears this up ;).

Off the booze mate.... :lolup: Wrong thread young Jedi.


On topic, looking forward to the PAB outcome, both sides of the story seem a tad bit interesting to me.
 
mmmm,dont post. When I had a $5000 withdrawal denied as they wanted a card expired years earlier, I posted immediately. Thus, I got the dont post warning. I was paid in 12 hours and if I had not posted could have been 3 months. Also it alerts players to dodgy tactics. Why cant we post dodgy tactics instantly. Doesnt sit with me.
Rainmaker advised the OP not to post any more because he was submitting a PAB - and posting about the issue while the PAB is still in process is forbidden in the PAB rules, that's all.

I almost wish everyone would stop posting and let this PAB run it's course - all this speculation and accusing is getting no-one anywhere.
My feeling is the player is in the right - but I'm happy to sit back & wait for CM/Max to make the final decision.

KK
 
Rainmaker advised the OP not to post any more because he was submitting a PAB - and posting about the issue while the PAB is still in process is forbidden in the PAB rules, that's all.

I almost wish everyone would stop posting and let this PAB run it's course - all this speculation and accusing is getting no-one anywhere.
My feeling is the player is in the right - but I'm happy to sit back & wait for CM/Max to make the final decision.

KK

I agree with you. I am a bit surprised to see so much speculation in this thread as especially veteran members should know very well that both the player and Betfred are not allowed to discuss this case on the forum while the PAB is ongoing.

I am also very much looking forward to see the result of this PAB. Very interesting case!
 
Rainmaker advised the OP not to post any more because he was submitting a PAB - and posting about the issue while the PAB is still in process is forbidden in the PAB rules, that's all.

I almost wish everyone would stop posting and let this PAB run it's course - all this speculation and accusing is getting no-one anywhere.
My feeling is the player is in the right - but I'm happy to sit back & wait for CM/Max to make the final decision.

KK

Well stop speculating then!! :D
 
As far as banning a whole country goes, as ruthless as it seems i`m with the casinos on this one, it`s basic logic, for arguments sake we will use Poland as an example - Not all Polish players are scammers, all scammers are Polish, ban Poland, problem cured.

Nothing against Poland, Italy or some of those East European countries that are always listed everywhere but it's the first (and hopefully the last) time that I see a casino "bonus banning" Canada. I don't know if OP is a scammer and is really using bots, but I sure as hell won't play in a casino that forbids Canadian players from getting bonuses.

There are consequences to banning countries and as far as I know, there are quite a few Canadian players on the internet. They also just banned the country where a large % of legit casinos are licensed (Kahnawake). Duh.
 
The Betfred rep has indeed clarified the general questions. They finally "woke up and smelled the coffee" on this, unfortunately, many players had risen earlier, drunk their coffee, and had gotten stuck in.


The "abuse" is not really against the rules, it's just that Betfred underestimated the tenacity of players to sit in front of their PC for hours on end playing Blackjack as fast as possible. If you have a teenager who is "hooked" on their gaming console, you will quickly realise just how LONG a human can spend on a single minded and repetitive activity. Teenagers are not even playing for 30K, just imagine what would happen if they were:eek:

The risk is obvious, pretty much EVERY determined player would be walking away with a Jag or 30K by the end of the month. It would be near impossible to pick out the superhuman determination from the lazy bot user.

This is one example where a Blackjack bot would afford a HUGE advantage to the player, making damn good odds become a certainty if the bot ran 24/7 for most of the month.

A better way to have run this would have been to place a limit on the number of Jags available, with them being given out on a first past the post basis. They could further have split this limit into weekly sections so that the promotion generated interest for much of the month, no matter how many hands were played.

The risk estimation could have been simple, based on the 1 in 80000 chance of receiving this hand. The expected number of Jags awarded would be around <total hands played>/80000

Is it any wonder that as soon as this promotion was launched it produced a deluge of participants and a swifter than anticipated exodus of Jags.
 
I don't think that they were planning to give away multiple cars. Someone probably didn't think about the possibility that some players would play Pontoon non-stop (only 0.5% house edge) multiple hands (5 hands per deal) at minimum bet. Kind of a loophole. They could have easily closed that loophole by forbidding multiple hands play and/or imposing a higher minimum bet.


Even regular Blackjack games would be a loophole on this basis. The house edge might be more, but the expected loss over 80000 hands would still be much less than the prize on offer. 0.5% house edge is pretty common for Blackjack. The best on offer at Microgaming is around 0.3% house edge with Autoplay allowed, and the Classic version, only available as a multi hand game with no Autoplay, has a house edge of a mere 0.15 - 0.2%

Without a specification, the minimum stake is what it is in the game, which is $1. They should never have missed this obvious piece of maths to start with. It is as though they thought the promotion would not alter how players played Blackjack, and that it would not draw hordes of players in who do not normally play the game.

Having to panic and clear up the mess afterwards creates bad PR and damages the brand, the complete opposite of what they probably intended by making a lucky few of their players owners of a premium car, which would produce some positive PR.

Although not proven, my suspicion is that this "widespread abuse" takes the form of play "not within the spirit", rather than play that actually breaks the terms of the promo. It is likely that some players pushed this boundary too far, and fell foul of some actual terms and conditions, probably in the "general" section. The most obvious boundary push too far is to use a bot rather than spend endless hours playing in person.

The Pontoon game having a technical meltdown, which by coincidence happens to follow this disputed prize winning hand, does stretch the boundaries of belief somewhat. Surely such a fault would afflict ALL casinos offering the game, rather than just the one that got stung for a Jag on it.

The first move of the game "to a quieter part of the website" seems to be an attempt to hide it from those players looking for games to use for this promotion. The worry is that this would then have been used as a sneaky way to say that a triple 7 hand on Pontoon didn't then qualify because the game was not in the Blackjack section.

These moves make it pretty clear there WAS an unacceptable risk in having players play Pontoon for this promo, but rather than simply have it excluded along with the Switch and Surrender variants, there was this cloak and dagger exercise designed to hide the game away in a quiet corner so that those after the Jag would not be drawn to it. The determined player would of course have found it, no matter how quiet it's hiding place, and would have expected to be awarded the relevant prize for a triple 7 hand. Maybe the Canadian players WERE still managing to find Pontoon in it's quiet little corner, so the country had to be banned altogether as this presented the same unacceptable level of risk. Maybe the techncial problems that caused the game to freeze were caused not by Playtech, but by a cock-up in moving it to a different part of the website.

With the "Pontoon method" and the favourable odds being discussed far and wide on the internet, banning Canadians was no longer going to be enough. The rest of the community now knew that there were pretty good odds that in 7 days they too could have a Jag if they were prepared to play at least 10K to 20K hands per day. Not surprising that the promo had to be pulled with 5 days still to go.
 
The Betfred rep has indeed clarified the general questions. They finally "woke up and smelled the coffee" on this, unfortunately, many players had risen earlier, drunk their coffee, and had gotten stuck in.


The "abuse" is not really against the rules, it's just that Betfred underestimated the tenacity of players to sit in front of their PC for hours on end playing Blackjack as fast as possible. If you have a teenager who is "hooked" on their gaming console, you will quickly realise just how LONG a human can spend on a single minded and repetitive activity. Teenagers are not even playing for 30K, just imagine what would happen if they were:eek:

The risk is obvious, pretty much EVERY determined player would be walking away with a Jag or 30K by the end of the month. It would be near impossible to pick out the superhuman determination from the lazy bot user.

This is one example where a Blackjack bot would afford a HUGE advantage to the player, making damn good odds become a certainty if the bot ran 24/7 for most of the month.

A better way to have run this would have been to place a limit on the number of Jags available, with them being given out on a first past the post basis. They could further have split this limit into weekly sections so that the promotion generated interest for much of the month, no matter how many hands were played.

The risk estimation could have been simple, based on the 1 in 80000 chance of receiving this hand. The expected number of Jags awarded would be around <total hands played>/80000

Is it any wonder that as soon as this promotion was launched it produced a deluge of participants and a swifter than anticipated exodus of Jags.

Like KK and Rainmaker alluded to....

WE (including you)

DON'T

KNOW

THE

FACTS

All you're doing is coming up with 118 different scenarios and variations to cover as many situations as possible so that when the results are known you can say "I told ya so!! I knew it all along".

It's like reading Nostradamus sometimes......I reckon if I made 5,000 vague predictions of what the world will be like in 500 or 1000 years I would be kinda right on some of them too. :rolleyes:
 
Just for clarification, from my (average) maths , the odds of hitting 3 diamond 7's are about 1 in 150,000.

80,000 or so is typically the average of when the first diamond 7s set would appear.

It is quite possible it could take considerably more hands than this, but the odds were so heavily stacked in the players favour for this promo, that it hardly matters, ultimately by playing long enough you WOULD win :)
 
Just for clarification, from my (average) maths , the odds of hitting 3 diamond 7's are about 1 in 150,000.

80,000 or so is typically the average of when the first diamond 7s set would appear.

Neither value is correct. For 8 decks the odds for three consecutive 7D are:

8/416 * 7/415 * 6/414 = 1 / 212717

In addition this 21-point hand consisting of three diamond sevens also needs to win which is not a quaranteed fact in Pontoon. From the OPs screenshot you can see that if the dealer's last card was anything less than seven, the dealer would have made a five-card-trick and the player's hand would have lost. Imagine playing countless days to finally get that hand and then losing with it.

So we are talking about 240,000 hands on average to win the prize.

Now you can calculate that if you play this game (Pontoon or other BJ) at a rate, say, 500 hands per hour (taking short breaks), then it would take 480 hours to play 240k hands. If you would play 16 hours a day, it would take 30 days on average to get this hand. The promotion ran from 7th August till 25th August which is a bit less than 30 days. To me this almost screams to use a bot: the manual gameplay hours required in total (480 hours) is not a small number, requires quite a bit of determination, and the bot would also play faster and 24 hours a day. It's Betfred responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a bot has been used and rule out a determined player. If the evidence of bot use is not crystal clear, then the player should be paid due to lack of evidence against.

vinylweatherman said:
These moves make it pretty clear there WAS an unacceptable risk in having players play Pontoon for this promo, but rather than simply have it excluded along with the Switch and Surrender variants, there was this cloak and dagger exercise designed to hide the game away in a quiet corner so that those after the Jag would not be drawn to it. The determined player would of course have found it, no matter how quiet it's hiding place, and would have expected to be awarded the relevant prize for a triple 7 hand. Maybe the Canadian players WERE still managing to find Pontoon in it's quiet little corner, so the country had to be banned altogether as this presented the same unacceptable level of risk. Maybe the techncial problems that caused the game to freeze were caused not by Playtech, but by a cock-up in moving it to a different part of the website.

With the "Pontoon method" and the favourable odds being discussed far and wide on the internet, banning Canadians was no longer going to be enough. The rest of the community now knew that there were pretty good odds that in 7 days they too could have a Jag if they were prepared to play at least 10K to 20K hands per day. Not surprising that the promo had to be pulled with 5 days still to go.

Like Nifty29 said I think you are guessing way too much now. There have indeed been bugs with Playtech Blackjack games (including Pontoon) recently. The bug causes the game to crash and it is so bad that you need to completely restart your computer because trying to close the casino client via task manager doesn't work. I have heard people reporting that this has been going on for several months at every Playtech casino so this issue doesn't relate to this promotion at all. Therefore Betfred's explanation about a buggy Pontoon game actually seems plausible. However, my understanding is that this bug affects all Blackjack games and not just Pontoon, so why was Pontoon the only game removed? And no, this bug doesn't enhance player's odds, it just causes annoying crashes.

Also, I don't think that there is anything that "dangerous" about Pontoon why Betfred should have needed to exclude this game from the promotion. The regular Blackjack variation that was allowed for this promo has a house edge of only 0.1% higher than Pontoon, and with 6 decks the odds for triple diamond sevens drops from 1:210,000 to 1:250,000 - hardly a significant difference. So while Pontoon was perhaps the best game choice to play for this promotion, the difference to the next best game choice is not that large.
 
Last edited:
It's Betfred responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a bot has been used and rule out a determined player. If the evidence of bot use is not crystal clear, then the player should be paid due to lack of evidence against.

OP said that as soon as he's got the 7's, he stopped playing, took a screen shot and started chatting with support. Not saying that it's impossible to do that with a bot, but let's just say that it's unlikely.
 
OP said that as soon as he's got the 7's, he stopped playing, took a screen shot and started chatting with support. Not saying that it's impossible to do that with a bot, but let's just say that it's unlikely.

I'll agree it's unlikely, but if you are sitting in front of the PC watching as a bot plays, it might well be possible, especially if the bot can be programmed to stop in certain situations.

I'll wait for the PAB and the third party auditor before reaching any conclusions. But I must say that perfect play is well possible for a game you are familiar with.
 
I'll agree it's unlikely, but if you are sitting in front of the PC watching as a bot plays, it might well be possible, especially if the bot can be programmed to stop in certain situations.

I'll wait for the PAB and the third party auditor before reaching any conclusions. But I must say that perfect play is well possible for a game you are familiar with.

Easy, and given the need to trick the casino into believing a human is playing, an essential feature for any decent casino or poker bot. Proving use after the fact is the problem. Ideally, casino software should be fitted with the option (at the server end of course) to shut down whenever there is strong evidence of a bot. Intercasino has some shut down protocols already that kick in if too much is won too quickly at Blackjack, although this feature was unpopular with high rollers as it cut in after a mere 3 to 4 winning hands on the trot.
 
"In addition this 21-point hand consisting of three diamond sevens also needs to win which is not a quaranteed fact in Pontoon. From the OPs screenshot you can see that if the dealer's last card was anything less than seven, the dealer would have made a five-card-trick and the player's hand would have lost. Imagine playing countless days to finally get that hand and then losing with it."

You're not incorporating the significant amount of EV that is added by a mixed 777 paying 10:1 and a same suit non diamond 777 paying 100:1 which still makes this offer pretty +ev, especially if you are also accumulating standard playtech comp points, which at a rate of $1 per $1k wagered, reduces the already low edge of pontoon from .38% to .28%. There's certainly no way with the promotion offered by Betfred that it wasn't a +ev offer, or that this player wasn't specifically bonus hunting this offer, given he's betting maximum 5-handed with the minimum bet size.

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?
 
Competitions/Promotions such as this aside, I've got a question.

These so called 'bots' - I'm assuming are a piece of software that plays the blackjack for your or whatever. Now first off, I can't get my head round how that software would work (I.e - How it knows what you've been dealt and when to hold/fold/walk away/run etc etc ) - but assuming they exist...

What's the problem?

Surely the more hands dealt over a shorter period of time would mean the RTP would be even more appropriate and the casino would just make money more quickly?

Of course you could cut and run on a bonus or whatever if you hit something early doors - but over a period of time - surely the house edge is going to take your bots batteries out and shove them where the sun doesn't shine?

If it's just for wagering requirements etc, then again I don't really see the point because a real person could just do it as quickly.

Finally, and most importantly, I don't think I'd want to leave my casino balance in the hands of a Commodore 64 whilst I nip off down the pub or whatever. Anything could go wrong :eek2:
 
Competitions/Promotions such as this aside, I've got a question.

These so called 'bots' - I'm assuming are a piece of software that plays the blackjack for your or whatever. Now first off, I can't get my head round how that software would work (I.e - How it knows what you've been dealt and when to hold/fold/walk away/run etc etc ) - but assuming they exist...

What's the problem?

:

You are correct that a bot cant adjust the odds in the players favour and that the longer they play the more money they will lose like any normal gambler over time...However.....

In the case of this promo it would take a hugely sustained effort by any player to approach a number of hands played that would have given them a chance at the 30k. Jufo already said that its approx 250,000:1 to hit 3 diamond 7s (i know thats approx, I have not scrolled back to get the exact figre).

To play THAT number of hands in person in such a short period of time is probably possible but it would require the most gigantic effort by the player. A bot would take that part of the problem away. You could go out the house/go to sleep/do whatever and leave the bot grinding away at minimum bets trying to hit the jackpot for you. This would be unfair on betfred as the player themselves should be the one putting in the work if they want to claim the prize. A bot would give you a fantastic chance of hitting the jp with no real effort on your part. Usually for playing I would agree a bot doesnt make much difference but in this case it would be unfair against betfred. I therefore feel if this player used a bot it woud be a legitimate reason to void winnings.

However I feel the onus would be on betfred to prove this in this case, and the rest of the story (banning canada after the fact etc) looks very bad for them. I personally believe betfred to not be a good casino and have read many stories of them voiding winnings in the past. Take the grannys bet for example, they only paid on that because of the huge press coverage, if it was anyone else they would have laughed and kept the money. I am interested in seeing the outcome here.
 
Can I just point out that yes, whilst it is 213,000/1 THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the OP played 213,299 hands then got the hand. He could have quite genuinely played 2000 hands and got the 3 7D hand!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top