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

 

[dadnazza666]

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.

 

[dadnazza666]

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

 

[butterflyboogie]

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.

 

[Seventh777]

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.

 

[Seventh777]

Oops, wrong thread dohhhhhhh.

 

[mattsgame]

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 ).

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.... Wrong thread young Jedi.


On topic, looking forward to the PAB outcome, both sides of the story seem a tad bit interesting to me.

 

[Seventh777]

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


On topic, looking forward to the PAB outcome, both sides of the story seem a tad bit interesting to me.

Aarrgh lol forgot I changed thread .

 

[KasinoKing]

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]

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!

 

[chayton]

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

Sorry to derail but since we should quit speculating, I thought I'd just make fun of Raj a little bit.

 

[Nifty29]

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!!

 

[Balthazar]

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.

 

[vinylweatherman]

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

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.

 

[Balthazar]

edit: everything has been said, let's wait for the PAB

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.

 

[Nifty29]

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

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.

 

[raj]

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

 

[Jufo]

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.

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.

 

[Balthazar]

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.

 

[Jasminebed]

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.

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.

 

[BBKPoker]

"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?

 

[Slotster!]

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

 

[threescatters]

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.

 

[GOCC]

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!