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

[jetset]

O/T for a moment and harking back a page or two to the Betfred vs. Granny issue, the latest reports indicate that the bookie paid by cheque...but by mistake left it unsigned. The same error occurred on the cheque made out to granny's sister, which could be just a batch screw-up or something more sinister.

Hardly worth it for GBP 1000, and after all the PR damage caused by this incident you would think that Betfred's management would have been super-careful on the payments

 

[raj]

Apologies my maths was slightly wrong (I did it quickly on a calculator late at night , but it does remain the case that this promo had a HUGELY positive expected return for the determined and disciplined player. The actual odds and numbers involved do depend on the game played , number of decks, etc .

I still await with interest the outcome of the PAB, as this is one of the more interesting cases to appear on hear for some time.

Raj

 

[vinylweatherman]

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!

The Betfred rep says that the playlogs will back up their accusations of breaches of the terms, and hence justify voiding the winnings. It does give the impression that Betfred think he played an impossibly large number of hands in too short a time to hit this win. Everything else he did was not against the terms. Playing Pontoon - not an issue; multihand - not against the term; tiny stake - also not against the term. The only thing that IS against the terms is using a bot to achieve this.

What still puzzles me is that the Betfred rep thinks bot use is not something they can discuss openly, yet it is hardly a big secret, and is nothing like discussing the details of fraud cases. A simple "we have evidence of bot use" would have killed off much of the speculation as to what he could possibly have done, along with speculation that it was something pretty sinister because of the weird happenings with the pontoon game and website that followed the voiding of this hand. It also fails to explain the sudden banning of Canada, unless it is a large number of Canadian players that are showing evidence of using this bot, and better to ban the lot rather than seek to prove bot use in each case as they get this hand.

There are loads of Blackjack playing bots around, but I have not known of a Pontoon one. All are marketed as a means to grind WR on a +EV situation. It wouldn't be that hard to alter one to have a "stop on <hand>" feature added for doing this type of promotion.

 

[The Dude]

PAB closed

Just to keep everyone up to speed, I've decided to shit-can the PAB. Here's why:

I had selected a qualified neutral third party to review the player's game play. The player was instructed to contact the casino rep via email giving the casino explicit permission to send me and this qualified third party a copy of his game play. Yes, he was accused of using a bot, and this would have been a prime opportunity to prove his case against bot play.

One of his sessions was for 44 hrs 53 minutes with 57.6 rounds per minute. The casino reported a number of other sessions like these.

Instead of cooperating, he began to debate the terms and conditions of the casino trying to convince us that bot play was not disallowed for this particular session of game play. He also stated that reviewing the game logs would not be necessary since bot use can't be determined. Sorry, but that is bullshit in my opinion. Either you cooperate - or you don't.

My suggestion to the player is "shit or get off the can" - shut the hell up in the forums, get a lawyer, and seek justice via the GRA:

Gambling Division
Government of Gibraltar
Suite 771
Europort
Gibraltar

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

tel+350) 20074636
fax+350) 20072166

In essence, case closed in my opinion. If he truly wished to have been redeemed here, he blew his chance.

 

[raj]

Thanks Bryan,

I think we suspected bot use would be the reason, and the sessions you describe would kind of confirm that.

The puzzling thing is, for many of us, why did Betfred not just come out with this at the start, "suspected bot play", instead of all these silly removal of games, removal of countries, different excuses to player etc. Which only made the whole thing more suspicious.

Anyway glad it is now closed and we have some answers

Raj

 

[Nifty29]

Thanks Bryan,

I think we suspected bot use would be the reason, and the sessions you describe would kind of confirm that.

The puzzling thing is, for many of us, why did Betfred not just come out with this at the start, "suspected bot play", instead of all these silly removal of games, removal of countries, different excuses to player etc. Which only made the whole thing more suspicious.

Anyway glad it is now closed and we have some answers

Raj

It appears the removal of pontoon may have been unrelated, as there had been previous issues with this game apparently.

I also remember it being stated that there were several players doing exactly the same thing from the same area (same city in fact) which indicates a syndicate of sorts.

It's a timely reminder that even though the legitimacy of bot play may be debatable, and although many think it's actually in the casino's interests to allow it, if the use of bots is specifically banned then you have 2 choices......choose somewhere else to play that doesn't have such a rule, or go ahead and use one and hope you don't get caught. Unfortunately for him, the OP chose option 2.

Rules are rules, regardless of how stupid. I think the OP knew this, and figured it was worth the risk to pickup $30k. He lost. Tough cookies.

 

[threescatters]

Sounds pretty guilty of bot use to me from what casinomeister said, in which case fair enough by BetFred. Thanks for clearing this up casinomeister.

 

[Deanna]

I don't know a lot about using Bots, obviously it's a form of automatic gameplay so you don't have to sit at your computer. But...why would you be silly enough to have it run for 44 hours straight if you know you're doing something that could get the huge win you're chasing disqualified? It seems if you have some common sense you'd run the Bot program for different times, a few hours, stop an hour, even if you went 10 hours and stopped for an hour, etc. and so on. 44 hours straight? You're peeing in your Depends and have an I.V. full of Red Bull in your arm?

Not to be too offensive but that's just dumb thinking.

 

[jetset]

The trouble with this sort of complaint is that it soaks up everyone's time and resources, because this sort of complainant typically persists to the bitter end.

This thread runs to eleven pages and is a good example.

If a plaintiff is given the opportunity to resolve his/her problems through an independent third party and refuses to cooperate, you have to doubt their motives in the first place imo

 

[Black2999]

Wow, I was thinking of doing this promotion myself, but figured it was quite a long shot to hit the 3 sevens.
44 hours straight? Not impossible. I remember playing Championship Manager for well over a day solidly.
Were there any small (pee) breaks in any of the 44 hours? If not, I think it's safe to say he used this 'bot'

 

[chuchu59]

Since 'bot play' is the issue and the OP knew about it he did himself no favours by disguising it as 'pontoon -related'. It was a cheap shot to divert attention from the real issue.

Betfred is not free from blame either. Once it involved itself in this thread it should have stated that the issue was on suspected bot play and point out where the Ts and Cs state this. Whether a third party should be involved in scrutinising the logs should not prevent them from voicing this out unless they arent sure it was explicit that bot play was disallowed. No wonder Betfred gets more than its share of bad publicity. They dont know how to perform damage control.

 

[threescatters]

Wow, I was thinking of doing this promotion myself, but figured it was quite a long shot to hit the 3 sevens.
44 hours straight? Not impossible. I remember playing Championship Manager for well over a day solidly.
Were there any small (pee) breaks in any of the 44 hours? If not, I think it's safe to say he used this 'bot'

I tend to err on the side of players against casinos but in this case I think the refusal to provide logs coupled with the exact 57.6 rounds per minute stat that was repeated is very damming against the player and I am frustrated he wasted everyones time by lying in the OP that he did not use a bot.

 

[naththo]

Ah now that story make sense. It was the bot used and over 44 hours straight of playing poker. Naughty! That rule said NOT allowed. I hope he learnt a lesson. His winning is void and deposit may or may have not return as a penalty for using bot. I hope he gets a kick out of casino of Betfred and banned. Because there is no way if you were an op of casino you cannot trust someone who use bot to abuse the bonus by playing poker several hours straight without attending the game on the computer. (Also I think bot is a cheater too because it has integrated maths to work out if that card is good or no good so the bot auto fold or play on, so on etc) Thanks for clearing up by the way. Good work on Betfred for investigating so quick to find the problem well done.

 

[Jasminebed]

Well, given the OP's failure to cooperate, I think he did indeed use a bot. If the promo was only for a weekend and he'd played 44 hours straight, maybe. But not several times.

One thing that still bothers me is the complete ban of Canada as a result of the OP and his friends' dishonesty. Surely there were other Canadians playing that weren't suspected of bot use whose participation was terminated as a result? While there's no guarantee they would have won anything, they were kicked out of a very favourable promotion.

I see from the terms that participation in publicity is one of the terms. I do hope Betfred comes back and updates the thread with the list of happy winners.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Well, given the OP's failure to cooperate, I think he did indeed use a bot. If the promo was only for a weekend and he'd played 44 hours straight, maybe. But not several times.

One thing that still bothers me is the complete ban of Canada as a result of the OP and his friends' dishonesty. Surely there were other Canadians playing that weren't suspected of bot use whose participation was terminated as a result? While there's no guarantee they would have won anything, they were kicked out of a very favourable promotion.

I see from the terms that participation in publicity is one of the terms. I do hope Betfred comes back and updates the thread with the list of happy winners.

Given how good this evidence was, surely Betfred should have simply banned his mates who used the same bot, not the whole country. I am sure a medical expert would consider 44 hours, no breaks, no mistakes, and a hand a second, as impossible for even the most dedicated human player.

He must have realised the game was up as soon as game logs were mentioned, so decided to stall the process by not giving Betfred the formal permission to show them to a third party.

Bot users are usually more subtle, realising that they may have to argue that the playlogs do not show anything that would be impossible for a human player. Whilst my nephew did the 33 hour PC session, there were breaks of a few minutes throughout, and of course mistakes made due to tiredness and loss of concentration.

Maybe he should have spent more money on a better bot, one that will make mistakes, take random breaks, etc.

 

[GOCC]

2 things and I am not sticking up for the player as his responses when challenged do heavilly suggest Bot play

1. On Playtech, even if you are logged in and not playing. Thats a session.
2. 57.6 plays per minute when playing 5 hand pontoon IS NOT excessive. If this was the average over 44 hours, then yes, it is.

 

[Betfred]

Hi all,

We’re delighted that we can draw a line under this and continue offering generous promotions for players. To that end we will be extending the Blackjack 7s promotion soon, and we’ll be giving Casinomeister players the first chance to go for it. I’ll be in touch with more details shortly.

Cheers,

Aaron

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi all,

We’re delighted that we can draw a line under this and continue offering generous promotions for players. To that end we will be extending the Blackjack 7s promotion soon, and we’ll be giving Casinomeister players the first chance to go for it. I’ll be in touch with more details shortly.

Cheers,

Aaron

Careful, the bot play here is not the only issue. It was still +EV for the less greedy player prepared to put the effort in themselves, and with the boost in publicity this case has given, you may have more participants than before. You should also realise that the bot players you didn't catch will be a bit more careful next time. It might also be worth having a minimum stake term else the obvious strategy of playing (without a bot of course) a 5 hand multiplay version at $1 per hand is still going to be used.

You could also limit the risk by having a first past the post system for awarding a finite number of the top prizes, rather than having anyone who gets it due the rough equivalent of a Jag.

 

[raj]

As far as promos go , this is a pretty bloody good one, I dare say a few here will have a crack at it if the terms are the same (without using bots of course )
Kudos for Betred for bringing it back (even knowing the risks), I think if they had been more open about what had happened from day one then that would have stopped a lot of speculation.
People generaally know the rules as far as bots are concerned and most here will side with the casino not the player if the casino is being fair and open .

Raj

 

[Betfred]

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

 

[Black2999]

So did the player play 44 hours non-stop with no breaks @ 56 hands a minute? What was the breakdown?

 

[KasinoKing]

2. 57.6 plays per minute when playing 5 hand pontoon IS NOT excessive. If this was the average over 44 hours, then yes, it is.

Sounds pretty excessive to me! That's just about 1 second per play.
I assume each "round" was 5 "plays" as he (the bot) was playing multi-hand - I can't imagine the casino software would be quick enough to play out 5 hands in 1 second...

KK

 

[GOCC]

was 57.6 hands per minute the average, peak or what? We dont know.

What im saying is, over say 3 minutes on 5 hands it isnt. But over 44.6728 hours it is.

 

[Nifty29]

was 57.6 hands per minute the average, peak or what? We dont know.

What im saying is, over say 3 minutes on 5 hands it isnt. But over 44.6728 hours it is.

Bryan stated it was the average over 44 hours.

Not possible without a bot.

 

[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.

One of his sessions was for 44 hrs 53 minutes with 57.6 rounds per minute. The casino reported a number of other sessions like these.

This is the first time I see the concrete numbers backing the bot accusation. These numbers are complete nonsense. I never played for even a fraction of that. Like I said in the OP, "my play never went beyond the human capacity". And then I said further down the thread that my play resembled a workman's shift.

In fact this was the very reason I had doubts about going to independent investigator - I know that there was nothing evidently non-human in my play and yet I was told that their "assessment" found the bot play. So I suspected they are using some weird techniques. And that's when I started reading the T&C and arguing with Bryan.

Well, this is all irrelevant now. I totally agree my attitude did not look well and I apologize. Here is my suggestion. I post a bond of 1000 dollars via Moneybookers. The case is being reopened and my logs looked at. If a 44-hour 57 round per minute straight playing session is found, you keep the bond. If not, I get my prize.

 

[GOCC]

I will say this, I had a MASSIVE row with a Playtech company over something similar. The way that the craps play was being reported was completely incorrect. They were doing it one way for one report and another way for another report which heavily contradicted one another.

It took 3 manager levels and it wasnt until I took my laptop to the Cheltenham Festival to show them exactly what I meant, that they agreed. They were genuinely shocked in what I had shown them.

 

[chuchu59]

This is the first time I see the concrete numbers backing the bot accusation. These numbers are complete nonsense. I never played for even a fraction of that. Like I said in the OP, "my play never went beyond the human capacity". And then I said further down the thread that my play resembled a workman's shift.

In fact this was the very reason I had doubts about going to independent investigator - I know that there was nothing evidently non-human in my play and yet I was told that their "assessment" found the bot play. So I suspected they are using some weird techniques. And that's when I started reading the T&C and arguing with Bryan.

Well, this is all irrelevant now. I totally agree my attitude did not look well and I apologize. Here is my suggestion. I post a bond of 1000 dollars via Moneybookers. The case is being reopened and my logs looked at. If a 44-hour 57 round per minute straight playing session is found, you keep the bond. If not, I get my prize.

Why did you try to fool us by saying they denied your winnings because they did not regard pontoon as a variant of BJ? If they had told you they suspected 'bot play' you should have stated so in your opening post.In case you win the argument and there is insufficient proof of you using a bot the fact that you used the 'pontoon excuse places your integrity in doubt.

 

[LaHutti]

If you knew that your play newer went beyond the human capacity, then why on earth did'nt you let them send your gameplay to whoever they wanted to, to have it checked ?
The numbers don't mean a thing, in the fight between you and the casino, on a public forum. Both you and the casino can keep throwing numbers back and forth, and it won't change a thing..the numbers are only important, if checked by a third party. If the numbers the casino come up with are incorrect, then the third party works FOR you, not against you, and for 30K I would let them send MY gameplay to the moon and back, if I knew there was nothing to be found. After all they have to prove that you used a bot.
Instead YOU now turned the general support in favor of the casino, and it's now left to "who do we believe ?", and guessing....bad move mate, especially if you're right.

This is the first time I see the concrete numbers backing the bot accusation. These numbers are complete nonsense. I never played for even a fraction of that. Like I said in the OP, "my play never went beyond the human capacity". And then I said further down the thread that my play resembled a workman's shift.

In fact this was the very reason I had doubts about going to independent investigator - I know that there was nothing evidently non-human in my play and yet I was told that their "assessment" found the bot play. So I suspected they are using some weird techniques. And that's when I started reading the T&C and arguing with Bryan.

Well, this is all irrelevant now. I totally agree my attitude did not look well and I apologize. Here is my suggestion. I post a bond of 1000 dollars via Moneybookers. The case is being reopened and my logs looked at. If a 44-hour 57 round per minute straight playing session is found, you keep the bond. If not, I get my prize.

 

[Slotster!]

I love this. It's turning out like a John Grisham novel.

Brian will only accept your offer if you drop it in an unmarked black briefcase, 3PM ET, Central Park. Come alone.

 

[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.

Why did you try to fool us by saying they denied your winnings because they did not regard pontoon as a variant of BJ?

I did not fool you. Here is the email. I can forward it to Bryan with full headers and signatures if necessary.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Betfred
To: [..ME...]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 5:00:35 AM
Subject: Blackjack 7s prize

Hi Oleksandr,

Thanks for contacting Betfred to claim the Blackjack 7s top prize.

Unfortunately you haven’t been successful this time as the promotion is strictly a blackjack competition, and although Pontoon is blackjack-like it is not the same game.

For clear definitions of games please refer to the Casino help sections.

Kind regards

Stewart Huntley
Head of VIP
---------------

You can see it was on August the 17th. And then on August 21, after I argued that Pontoon is Blackjack they came up with the bot accusation. I can forward that email as well.

 

[Jasminebed]

I do recall a thread here with suspected bot play, where the casino's initial claims regarding session lengths and hands was not quite accurate, and after a PAB and review, it was concluded that such play was indeed possible, with many members supporting that lenghty sessions with short breaks were indeed possible. Doesn't take long to pee or go to the fridge, and that player did have breaks of many hours as well.

If the casino's claims are not accurate, a third party review will indeed show that.

Your refusal to allow Betfred to share your logs tarnishes our belief in your claims. Like LaHutti, I'd be clamouring for such an independent assessment, rather than refusing to participate.

Casinomeister is a well respected forum, and the third party won't just be some "yesman" that Betfred chooses, but someone impartial.

It's important to note that it is against terms to allow someone else to play your account, so doing "shifts" with a buddy or spouse is against terms as well, even if no bot was used.

 

[dougbet1]

Does Playtech record a 'session' as the length of time a game is left open? I've been known to leave a screen open and go to the loo, answer the phone etc.... and come back with the game still open but no hands played.

 

[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.

If you knew that your play newer went beyond the human capacity, then why on earth did'nt you let them send your gameplay to whoever they wanted to, to have it checked ?

I thought I explained. Nobody told me I was accused in playing for 44 hours. Had I heard a concrete accusation like this, I would indeed have my logs sent to the Moon. But all I was told - you are using a bot, period.

I played way less than 44 hours straight, yet a lot - for hours. Betfred said they assessed my play and they also said Playtech assessed it and the conclusion was that I used a bot. So I figured there was some guideline which said something like "a human cannot play more than 5 hours straight" which they used.

Then I was offered to have my logs sent it to yet another party. Nobody told me what party it was that and why they were considered credible. I was not even given the name of this party. So I figured that at best this will be someone using the same stupid guideline. And than that would be it - case closed, verified by three different parties.

 

[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.

Does Playtech record a 'session' as the length of time a game is left open?

That does not matter. Betfred said "44 hours 53 minutes, 57.6 hands per minute". Which tranlates into playing 155117 hands in less than 2 days. That was a bold lie. My volume was not even remotely close to that.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I thought I explained. Nobody told me I was accused in playing for 44 hours. Had I heard a concrete accusation like this, I would indeed have my logs sent to the Moon. But all I was told - you are using a bot, period.

I played way less than 44 hours straight, yet a lot - for hours. Betfred said they assessed my play and they also said Playtech assessed it and the conclusion was that I used a bot. So I figured there was some guideline which said something like "a human cannot play more than 5 hours straight" which they used.

Then I was offered to have my logs sent it to yet another party. Nobody told me what party it was that and why they were considered credible. I was not even given the name of this party. So I figured that at best this will be someone using the same stupid guideline. And than that would be it - case closed, verified by three different parties.

So let me get this right Alexander.

You came here specifically looking for help with a payment issue, availed yourself of the free PAB service that Casinomeister offers, and when Bryan himself asked you to authorise the release of your play logs you started arguing with him and calling the toss over the T&Cs because of what you assumed was going to happen?

The fact that Bryan himself asked you for your permission to release the logs to a third party is what makes the process credible, and is what makes that third party credible, because Bryan is credible and fair.

IF you felt the logs were incorrect/fake/whatever then the time to bring that up was when the logs had been analysed, and not to just second guess what you thought was going to happen. (I assume you'd have been given the opportunity to see the play logs as well, at some point.)

I'm not sure you have any recourse now Alexander, you had a PAB in progress, you refused to cooperate with a reasonable request from Bryan, which really was amazingly stupid - I suspect that may be game over for your thirty grand.

If I had thirty grand on the line and the webmaster of the website/forums I'd specifically joined to get help from made a reasonable request of me, I'd damn well agree to it.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

That does not matter. Betfred said "44 hours 53 minutes, 57.6 hands per minute". Which tranlates into playing 155117 hands in less than 2 days. That was a bold lie. My volume was not even remotely close to that.

This is the kind of situation where having your play logs reviewed by an independent third party would probably be a good idea, don't you think?

 

[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.

You came here specifically looking for help with a payment issue, availed yourself of the free PAB service that Casinomeister offers, and when Bryan himself asked you to authorise the release of your play logs you started arguing with him and calling the toss over the T&Cs because of what you assumed was going to happen?

Not exactly. I told Bryan I was more than happy to have all my player files forwarded to himself - to whom indeed I entrusted while making a PAB.

As for the third party, I casted doubts. I was not told who they are, what they do, what they handled in past. I was asked to email Aaron directly to give the authorization. I was not even told this was a party chosen by Bryan (only now I have read it in the forum).

So I started that stupid back-and-forth with Bryan, for which I apologized. And then I offered to risk my money to prove Betfred was in fact lying. What else can I do?

Originally Posted by AlexanderK
That does not matter. Betfred said "44 hours 53 minutes, 57.6 hands per minute". Which tranlates into playing 155117 hands in less than 2 days. That was a bold lie. My volume was not even remotely close to that.
---

This is the kind of situation where having your play logs reviewed by an independent third party would probably be a good idea, don't you think?

Exactly! So the moment I heard this "44 hour/ 57.6 hands" thing I said I was ready to have it assessed by anybody. Now I do not care about the assessor's qualification, as just about anyone can verify this was not true.

 

[Seventh777]

All I will add here regarding bots is this - A bot/macro/coded script, unless programmed otherwise, will have a deciding factor over a human, and that factor is identical timings between motions, it is impossible for a human to have a constant sequential chain of actions identical in timing (down to milliseconds) to that of which a bot can, and will obtain.

 

[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.

Let me ask a simple question. Everybody here, including myself, agree that 44 hour/ 57 hpm is way beyond human capacity. So who needs a third party investigator and why? All that needs to be done is open the file, check the total number of lines, check the time for the first line and for the last line, scroll through the middle lines to see that their timing is sequential.

Then if it checks - close the PAB, boot the player and tell the forum that CM was presented with the credible evidence. If it does not check - email the casino for clarification. That's it. No third parties, no certified assessments, no authorizations, nothing.

What am I missing?

 

[raj]

If I were you Alex I would be as flexable as possible and let any third party inspect the logs if I knew I had not used a bot, it will be fairly clear to an experienced 3rd party investigator if abot was used, Bryan is reliable and trusted and any 3rd party which he asked to become involved would be assigned with the sole purpose of uncovering the truth and reaching a resolution. Bryan has nothing to gain or lose by siding with the player or the operator and has offered a free impartial resolution service which you have turned down and not co-operated with fully.

There is £30k at stake here , so if you are confident and have nothing to hide you should allow a full investigation of play by Casinomiester. The worst that can happen is he finds against you, concludes bot play and you dont get paid, but at the moment you don't look like you are getting paid anyhow.

Raj

 

[butterflyboogie]

Bryan, I wish you would let this MSN send you the logs now that he realized it was your third party person. I have a "gut" feeling this guy is in the right. I'm not psychic, although I have been accused of it. I honestly don't have a good feeling about the betfred group on this....and I have no reason to, I've never dealt with them. If he is willing to stake his money for the "time", then why not? I hope you reconsider. It is so easy on the forum to assume the player is the culprit, however, would it be different if this scenario were from one of the "regular" posters? I don't think so (IMO).

 

[PNEFOREVER2]

I was just thinking,if he knew Betfred could show these logs,why would he come back and continue to contest the issue?


Most people that come here and try it on usually disappear after being proven as liars.I'm not saying Betfred are liars or anything,but if I knew there was undeniable proof against me I certainly wouldn't post again.

 

[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.

If I were you Alex I would be as flexable as possible and let any third party inspect the logs if I knew I had not used a bot, it will be fairly clear to an experienced 3rd party investigator if abot was used, Bryan is reliable and trusted and any 3rd party which he asked to become involved would be assigned with the sole purpose of uncovering the truth and reaching a resolution. Bryan has nothing to gain or lose by siding with the player or the operator and has offered a free impartial resolution service which you have turned down and not co-operated with fully.

I totally agree. Yet, the information I highlighted in bold was not made clear to me.

There is £30k at stake here , so if you are confident and have nothing to hide you should allow a full investigation of play by Casinomiester. The worst that can happen is he finds against you, concludes bot play and you dont get paid, but at the moment you don't look like you are getting paid anyhow.

Like I said, in the light of all this information, I am now more than happy to share my logs with any investigator.
Also, in case it is too late for it, I offered to pay a bond and verify just one fact - I have not played anywhere near 44 hrs/ 57 hmp.

I might have been misunderstanding, uncooperative and even stupid. That is one thing. But regardless of that, are you and other players OK with with an accredited casino making bold misstatements on this forum?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well if Bryan is prepared to reopen the PAB I'd certainly be interested to see this one reach a conclusion.

The logs should show once and for all the truth of the matter, and it's never a bad thing to get to the truth in a situation like this.

 

[The Dude]

...Well, this is all irrelevant now. I totally agree my attitude did not look well and I apologize. Here is my suggestion. I post a bond of 1000 dollars via Moneybookers. The case is being reopened and my logs looked at. If a 44-hour 57 round per minute straight playing session is found, you keep the bond. If not, I get my prize.

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.

 

[KasinoKing]

What am I missing?

What you are missing, is making a statement about whether you actually used a bot or not.
I noticed in all your posts you have been very careful not to ever deny using one, for example:
(I added the bolding)

This is the first time I see the concrete numbers backing the bot accusation. These numbers are complete nonsense. I never played for even a fraction of that. Like I said in the OP, "my play never went beyond the human capacity". And then I said further down the thread that my play resembled a workman's shift.

In fact this was the very reason I had doubts about going to independent investigator - I know that there was nothing evidently non-human in my play and yet I was told that their "assessment" found the bot play. So I suspected they are using some weird techniques. And that's when I started reading the T&C and arguing with Bryan.

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

 

[threescatters]

Was just going to ask the same explicit question KK, definately noticed the careful wording as well.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Was just going to ask the same explicit question KK, definately noticed the careful wording as well.

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.

 

[Jasminebed]

KK, while you were posting I was going back and re-reading and re-reading OP's posts for that very point. Good call.

But I do tend to believe the email presented is genuine and that live chat denied the win.

If I was Betfred, I think I would pay this player his balance and lock the door on his way out.

 

[butterflyboogie]

Alex, if what you say is truthful and you did not use a bot then turn this over to an attorney. There is no way that I would let 30k slide by. Most attorneys here in the states, after looking over the records might even take the case on a contingency plan (e.g. percentage of your winnings). I do not agree with how Betfred handled this, I don't care what type of business with deep pockets it is. If the company believed that you used a bot, then it should have been stated in the first email rather than blaming it on the pontoon game. An email could have clearly said that the play time was being looked at by security due to unusual play methods. There was no reason to mention the pontoon game. This is why I believe there is something aberrant here. If you won this legitimately, then do not cease your persistence, although with the proper channels. However, the next time a free service (e.g. casinomeister) offers to help you, don't be asinine, give respect where respect is due.