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

[Seventh777]

And here we have yet another great example of why today`s bonus T&C`s are what they are, we have people like the OP to blame for this .

A huge thanks to Eliot for his input on this, and whilst he is active in this thread and to those seeking answers, then take this matter up with Eliot if you have counter-arguments (good luck with that), i`m sure he will have the relevant answers .

 

[threescatters]

Great post Eliot, thanks for your input.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

One other point. Any online casino that runs Playtech's software should be informed that this bot exists. That way, if the casino offers a promotion that can be beaten by having some rare event occur during actual play, then the casino will be on alert for this bot. It may be that BetFred was the first victim of this particular bot, but I doubt that is the case. Much more likely is that this was an existing bot that was being modified for this particular use. My opinion, without any evidence to support it other than the IP issue, is that a syndicate is using this bot to target promotions and other advantage situations. The lone-wolf theory rarely applies in cases like this.

 

[Betfred]

One other point. Any online casino that runs Playtech's software should be informed that this bot exists. That way, if the casino offers a promotion that can be beaten by having some rare event occur during actual play, then the casino will be on alert for this bot. It may be that BetFred was the first victim of this particular bot, but I doubt that is the case. Much more likely is that this was an existing bot that was being modified for this particular use. My opinion, without any evidence to support it other than the IP issue, is that a syndicate is using this bot to target promotions and other advantage situations. The lone-wolf theory rarely applies in cases like this.

I would gladly do that, but how can they identify it? Is there a signature which they can trace? All I can do is pass on some IPs, usernames and locations.

Thanks!
Aaron

 

[GOCC]

I would gladly do that, but how can they identify it? Is there a signature which they can trace? All I can do is pass on some IPs, usernames and locations.

Thanks!
Aaron

PLEASE explain how you can pass on any player date. Surely that is in breach of the Data Protection Act. It is my no means Fraud so I cant see how you can.

 

[daywalker]

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

He could've done all that in free play.

 

[GOCC]

He could've done all that in free play.

Id personally like to know how a video poker or slots bot, whatever the game may be, can be tested on such a game and then just switched to play perfect stratergy pontoon. It just does not make sense.

 

[mn001]

I think you should disclose minimum info on a PAB like this. The player will just learn and have a better bot next time.

 

[Betfred]

PLEASE explain how you can pass on any player date. Surely that is in breach of the Data Protection Act. It is my no means Fraud so I cant see how you can.

I wouldn't pass on the player's details, but the log of his play which, after all, comes from the Playtech gaming servers. I would consult with our compliance officer beforehand, just to be sure too, but I didn't disclose more here during the PAB for that very reason, so we wouldn't make a start now.

Cheers,

Aaron

 

[Jufo]

I did not look at his play on Pontoon because I was not asked to do so.

Why do you think that is? Why would Betfred send you logs to analyse a game which is completely irrelevant to the dispute at hand? Casinomeister and Betfred have stated that Pontoon gameplay was identical to this slot session you analysed, yet no evidence has been produced. Why didn't they just send you the logs relevant to the issue at hand? The only possible explanation is that the Pontoon gameplay (which is the only relevant gameplay) didn't indicate a bot was used so Betfred resorted to using previous gameplay on slots as the "evidence".

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

Since you never even analysed the player's Pontoon logs that seems quite a bold statement coming from an independent mediator, and sounds like pure speculation. The dynamics of the particular slot game are completely different and a bot made for this game couldn't be used in any Blackjack type of game. It would require a completely different kind of bot to play Pontoon. The slot game Ocean Princess is known to be a decent choice to wager through a bonus wagering requirement so it's more likely that the bot was only developed to play through a bonus on this game doesn't relate to Pontoon wagering. In addition the slot wagering took place one month prior to the car promo and the OP couldn't have known about this car promo as it didn't exist yet. Therefore I think your speculation above is not based of facts.

So far I haven't seen any evidence in this thread that a bot was used to play Pontoon, and only this evidence is relevant to determine whether this player should be paid for the BJ promo or not.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Playtech probably know anyway, but tend to keep it quiet.

There are a few "off the shelf" bots capable of working with the major software brands already, and they are sold from various websites. Some are even "open source", which would mean that individual players with some knowledge of the coding language used would be able to customise them for specific situations.

Most are sold as packages, the more you pay, the more individual casinos you get specifically coded into the package. They are marketed as "grinders" designed to extract the value from bonuses, particularly the welcome bonuses, offered by casinos. They commonly target games such as Blackjack and Video Poker.

A decent bot with all the trimmings would be between $200 and $500, but the Jag being given away was worth over $30,000. If undetected, the bot would quickly pay for itself.

If playing as a syndicate, the OP and his mates may also have broken the licensing agreement for the bot (if purchased on a one user/PC license).

They are pretty hard to catch, as they can be used in a less greedy manner so as not to look obvious in an audit of the playlogs. In fact, the premium editions of "Casibot" have a function that mimics the human need to take regular and random breaks, and the time between hands can be varied during any one playing session to give a more human like appearance.

Relying on playlogs and things like IP tracking is not the best way to catch the bots, only the careless and/or greedy will be caught this way.

Poker clients look at running processes, and look for signatures of known bot softwares and other aids deemed against the terms of play.

The best way forward might be to design the software to shut down when anything suspicious is detected running in the background, and alert the casino that they need to have a chat with the player about their recent session. This may well be enough to scare off most bot users from trying again. Only the determined will call the operators' bluff and continue using the bot.

The only other approach is to stop running promotions where an advantage can be gained by using a bot. This is already evident with the bonus WR terms we see now, which casual players often view as "impossible" to beat using a fair playing style.

Advantage Play is not fraud, nor is it cheating, but if a specific AP strategy is clearly banned in the terms, it gives the casino a remedy of voiding the play when the AP gets caught.

It is the screwups with internal communications that has caused Betfred the most pain in this, making a clear cut case of void due to bot play into one that looks like a casino hopping from one excuse to another to deny a payment without a specific reason available for doing so.

 

[GOCC]

Things just do not ring true.

1. EJ says he practised on the slot before perfecting it on Pontoon. How did he use a slots/vid poker bit to then play Pontoon. Its just ridiculous.

2. The PAB was over a promo, so why the need to send in logs from July. Its like a police man saying you were speeding and you saying I wasn't and him reply, yes, but we caught you last month so you must be.

3. Without Prejudice to 2, Why were the Pontoon logs not sent at all. Is it because no one could make head nor tail of them so were unsure what would come out of it?

4. If he COULD use the same bot (Id bet £1000s he couldn't) how did he know to perfect his play in July when the offer was only revealed in August.

5. Why perfect your bot on live play, you can use practice play.

I know im going against the grain here but everything just doesnt sit right with me.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Am I missing something?

Why on earth were the player's BJ logs not audited?

The issue at hand here, surely, is the Blackjack 7s Special promotion, and whether or not the player used a bot for the purposes of that promotion.

I appreciate 'limited/time resources' and as such we cannot expect folks such as Eliot to turn over huge periods of time to these matters, but that being the case, why have we been presented with a report relating to slot machine play some two months ago?

I can only assume that Betfred/Playtech have the player's logs going back for months, for anything and everything he'd played there - so one has to wonder why the audited play presented in the report is pertaining to a slots game and not the BJ game he played to beat the promotion.

Reading Eliot's report, the logs for his BJ play weren't even presented -

Full log files were provided for Alex’s play on the game Ocean Princess for the following periods:
 May 7, 2012 (23:48) to June 7, 2012 (14:08), 49251 lines.
 June 7, 2012 (12:44) to July 7, 2012 (11:59), 72066 lines.
 July 7, 2012 (16:15) to July 9, 2012 (13:08), 153091 lines.

Why were the logs for his BJ play not provided?

I'm sorry guys, but as others have already commented, something still doesn't add up. Especially since the 'bot training' was done on a completely different game and he could have just (a) done it in freeplay and (b) done it at a different casino.

In fact, assuming the Blackjack 7s Promotion is a relatively new addition to Betfred's promotions list, how was Alex supposed to be training a bot for it before it even existed?

 

[Jufo]

Why were the logs for his BJ play not provided?

I'm sorry guys, but as others have already commented, something still doesn't add up. Especially since the 'bot training' was done on a completely different game and he could have just (a) done it in freeplay and (b) done it a different casino.

In fact, assuming the Blackjack 7s Promotion is a relatively new addition to Betfred's promotions list, how was Alex supposed to be training a bot for it before it even existed?

Exactly it doesn't make any sense. It looks like an attempt to connect a previous activity to later activity but failing to provide the link between the two. What I am most shocked at are Elliot's comments linking the two, a speculation that seems to be full of plot holes.

 

[Nifty29]

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

The person was questioning my intelligence and being a smartarse. I responded in kind.

I'm sure if someone suggested "your struggling" you might take it as an insult, especially if that person obviously was themselves.

It is also appears GOCC has an agenda/grudge against betfred, as they seem to ignore any and all facts about the case. Apparently EJ and CM aren't reliable entities...I'd love too see anyone MORE reliable. The fact that they keep finding excuses for this lying, cheating fraudster is enough to make one wonder. I mean, even those who normally support the player side are sold on this being a solid case of the casino being in the right.

The communication side of things within betfred certainly needs work, and the casino has acknowledged this as an issue, apologized, and promised to fix it....that anyone thinks they should give away a jag to a fraudster because someone gave some incorrect information is obviously only typing with one hand. I'm not sure what else betfred can do besides send everyone flowers and spit polish their shoes

Maybe the OP could obtain some legal advice from Jack Daniel's high priced attorney brother. Email is [email protected]

 

[Nifty29]

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

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

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

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

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

Just FYI for those who are a little slow on the uptake.

EJ was asked to review and report on the slot logs (AFAIK) because:

1. It was the first example of the OP employing his bot in full swing on a game where secondary decisions are required,

2. Establishing and proving the initial use of the bot provides a framework which can be used to easily identify subsequent use of the bot,

3. The information gleaned from the slot review was used to prove that the bot was used in pontoon as the play was IDENTICAL (meaning the SAME).....

Ergo, the OP used a bot in pontoon also.

EJ did not review the pontoon logs because he didn't NEED to. CM, Max and Playtech themselves (who have no financial stake in this matter) have ALL seen the pontoon logs, both in isolation AND in comparison with EJ's review of previous bot use by the OP, and their final assessment based on ALL of this information is that there is NO DOUBT that the OP used a bot to gain an advantage against casino rules to win a Jag.

Yes, EJ could have reviewed the pontoon logs as well, but who is going to pay for it? GOCC? The OP? If some of you are so convinced there is a huge conspiracy between EJ, CM, Playtech and betfred to deny a player a $30k prize (which you would have to), then put your money where your mouth is and stump up the cash. If you break the conspiracy wide open as a result, then maybe betfred will cover your outlay out of the player's winnings. At the very least, you would have proven that CM is just out for the money and will lie and deceive just to ensure someone he doesn't know misses out on a new car.

OK, who's first to open their wallet to correct this huge injustice that affects every member here at CM?


* I get the impression that EJ may have seen the pontoon logs but just not reviewed them in detail. Maybe he could clear that up?

 

[GOCC]

Sorry but when an Expert says he used a slot/video poker bot to home his skills then turned it onto a Blackjack game, I start to question if he is an expert IN THAT FIELD. His mathematics are without doubt, but that comment just does not make sense.

I am not the only one doubting the evidence.


Lets not forget, Betfred are not squeaky clean. If you say the OP used a BOT in the past, BF have a history of trying to welch on bets.

Barney Curleys plunge that he refused to pay out in Gibralter, was ruled he had too.
Not paying the Granny on her Grandson winning a medal.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

I get the impression that EJ may have seen the pontoon logs but just not reviewed them in detail. Maybe he could clear that up?

No. I never saw the pontoon logs. I did this audit as a favor to Bryan and was not paid (nor offered payment) by any party. I have no pony in this race.

 

[Jufo]

3. The information gleaned from the slot review was used to prove that the bot was used in pontoon as the play was IDENTICAL (meaning the SAME).....

Ergo, the OP used a bot in pontoon also.

Unfortunately, there is only Betfred's word on this and as Betfred is a party involved in the dispute it doesn't count as impartial evidence. Therefore only an impartial party can determine whether the gameplay in Pontoon was identical. The fact the EJ was never supplied with the logs, implies it wasn't.

EJ did not review the pontoon logs because he didn't NEED to.

You are saying that he didn't need to review the logs that are in fact the only truly relevant thing to this dispute?

* I get the impression that EJ may have seen the pontoon logs but just not reviewed them in detail. Maybe he could clear that up?

He already wrote in post #200 that he didn't:

I did not look at his play on Pontoon because I was not asked to do so.

 

[Jufo]

No. I never saw the pontoon logs. I did this audit as a favor to Bryan and was not paid (nor offered payment) by any party. I have no pony in this race.

Could you elaborate on what basis you, as an independent mediator, determined the evidence on bot used with slot wagering to indicate the same bot being used on subsequent Pontoon wagering 1½ months later without even seeing any logs? Your speculation of testing the bot first on a slot game first don't make sense for various reasons brought up in this thread.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Just FYI for those who are a little slow on the uptake.

EJ was asked to review and report on the slot logs (AFAIK) because:

1. It was the first example of the OP employing his bot in full swing on a game where secondary decisions are required,

2. Establishing and proving the initial use of the bot provides a framework which can be used to easily identify subsequent use of the bot,

3. The information gleaned from the slot review was used to prove that the bot was used in pontoon as the play was IDENTICAL (meaning the SAME).....

Ergo, the OP used a bot in pontoon also.

EJ did not review the pontoon logs because he didn't NEED to. CM, Max and Playtech themselves (who have no financial stake in this matter) have ALL seen the pontoon logs, both in isolation AND in comparison with EJ's review of previous bot use by the OP, and their final assessment based on ALL of this information is that there is NO DOUBT that the OP used a bot to gain an advantage against casino rules to win a Jag.

Yes, EJ could have reviewed the pontoon logs as well, but who is going to pay for it? GOCC? The OP? If some of you are so convinced there is a huge conspiracy between EJ, CM, Playtech and betfred to deny a player a $30k prize (which you would have to), then put your money where your mouth is and stump up the cash. If you break the conspiracy wide open as a result, then maybe betfred will cover your outlay out of the player's winnings. At the very least, you would have proven that CM is just out for the money and will lie and deceive just to ensure someone he doesn't know misses out on a new car.

OK, who's first to open their wallet to correct this huge injustice that affects every member here at CM?


* I get the impression that EJ may have seen the pontoon logs but just not reviewed them in detail. Maybe he could clear that up?

Blimey Nifty, you really are the master of adding 2 and 2 together to get 86345.

Stop seeing everything as so black and white, there really is a middle ground somewhere between 'THE PLAYER IS A FRAUDSTER!' and 'THERE IS A MASS CONSPIRACY BETWEEN CM, EJ, MAX AND PLAYTECH!'

All that's happening here is a few of us are asking some pertinent questions that are yet to be satisfactorily answered.

1) Why were the Pontoon logs not forwarded for auditing as opposed to the slots logs?
2) Why is EJ speculating on what he thinks may or may not be the case with regards to the player's intentions? Auditors work with numbers and facts, not suppositions.
3) How and/or why was the player using/developing a bot on a completely different game from that which he intended to beat?

And

4) How would that bot be of any use for a promotion that didn't even exist at the time he was allegedly using it? Is the guy just in the business of randomly developing bot software that may or not be of use for some hypothetical situation at some point in the future?

3. The information gleaned from the slot review was used to prove that the bot was used in pontoon as the play was IDENTICAL (meaning the SAME).....

No evidence has been provided of that whatsoever, indeed, EJ has now explicitly stated that he has not seen any pontoon logs.

I say again, we've still not seen the whole truth on this one.

 

[LaHutti]

Just FYI for those who are a little slow on the uptake.

EJ was asked to review and report on the slot logs (AFAIK) because:

1. It was the first example of the OP employing his bot in full swing on a game where secondary decisions are required,

2. Establishing and proving the initial use of the bot provides a framework which can be used to easily identify subsequent use of the bot,

3. The information gleaned from the slot review was used to prove that the bot was used in pontoon as the play was IDENTICAL (meaning the SAME).....

Ergo, the OP used a bot in pontoon also.

EJ did not review the pontoon logs because he didn't NEED to. CM, Max and Playtech themselves (who have no financial stake in this matter) have ALL seen the pontoon logs, both in isolation AND in comparison with EJ's review of previous bot use by the OP, and their final assessment based on ALL of this information is that there is NO DOUBT that the OP used a bot to gain an advantage against casino rules to win a Jag.

Yes, EJ could have reviewed the pontoon logs as well, but who is going to pay for it? GOCC? The OP? If some of you are so convinced there is a huge conspiracy between EJ, CM, Playtech and betfred to deny a player a $30k prize (which you would have to), then put your money where your mouth is and stump up the cash. If you break the conspiracy wide open as a result, then maybe betfred will cover your outlay out of the player's winnings. At the very least, you would have proven that CM is just out for the money and will lie and deceive just to ensure someone he doesn't know misses out on a new car.

OK, who's first to open their wallet to correct this huge injustice that affects every member here at CM?

* I get the impression that EJ may have seen the pontoon logs but just not reviewed them in detail. Maybe he could clear that up?

Noone would have needed to, had the casino provided the logs relevant to the PAB, instead of some logs from the past, regarding a completely different game, than the one he was playing during the promotion, and accused of "cheating" in.

 

[Nifty29]

Blimey Nifty, you really are the master of adding 2 and 2 together to get 86345.

Stop seeing everything as so black and white, there really is a middle ground somewhere between 'THE PLAYER IS A FRAUDSTER!' and 'THERE IS A MASS CONSPIRACY BETWEEN CM, EJ, MAX AND PLAYTECH!'

All that's happening here is a few of us are asking some pertinent questions that are yet to be satisfactorily answered.

1) Why were the Pontoon logs not forwarded for auditing as opposed to the slots logs?
2) Why is EJ speculating on what he thinks may or may not be the case with regards to the player's intentions? Auditors work with numbers and facts, not suppositions.
3) How and/or why was the player using/developing a bot on a completely different game from that which he intended to beat?

And

4) How would that bot be of any use for a promotion that didn't even exist at the time he was allegedly using it? Is the guy just in the business of randomly developing bot software that may or not be of use for some hypothetical situation at some point in the future?



No evidence has been provided of that whatsoever, indeed, EJ has now explicitly stated that he has not seen any pontoon logs.

I say again, we've still not seen the whole truth on this one.

What "whole truth"...???

The ONLY question to be resolved to put this issue to bed is "Did the player use a bot to gain an advantage in the jag promotion?". It has already been stated by at least THREE people that I trust implicitly that he DID.

To believe otherwise, you ARE stating:

1. Bryan is stupid or lying.

2. Max is stupid or lying.

3. EJ is stupid or lying,

4. Betfred are lying

5. Playtech are lying

6. The OP is totally innocent and truthful.

Why? You are refuting EVERYTHING they have said based on evidence that you HAVEN'T seen and they HAVE seen. If you have THAT little trust in CM, why would you even hang around here? It's mind-numbing.

The OP lied about not using a bot. Even if you ignore the pontoon part, he lied about using a bot on slots. So, he lied about that, but he's on the level about the pontoon. He would use a bot to play .25c spins on a low variance slot to gain almost nothing, but when it comes to a $30k bounty he decided not to use the bot, but rather to take his chances like everyone else. Yeah right, and I'm Martha Stewart. Why choose a slot where the bot needs to make secondary decisions? I mean, it wouldn't be because pontoon involves the very same thing would it? No, because it doesn't. Oh...hang on...yes it does....its just a coincidence though.

How do we know that the OP didn't have some inside info/help? Perhaps an affiliate he knows, or someone at betfred? These promos aren't dreamed up the night before. It's not at all impossible for someone to know about a promo like this in advance.....in fact, the rep has told us one is going to be run here soon. Plenty of time to fine tune a bot in advance. I also know that a smart fraudster wouldn't test his bot full bore on the exact game he's going to play....he would be giving the casino advance warning, and also giving them prior activity to boost their case for bot play. Much better to test it on some benign slot game that would be less likely to draw attention.....but of course the OP didn't do that.

I know some members just see a conspiracy around every corner, but this one involves the credibility of our host and his staff, and that takes it to a whole new level.

I just hope when more evidence and information is provided to support his conclusions, and there will be IMO, that some of you unreservedly apologize for taking the word of some bozo fraudster over that of a man with more ethics and trustworthiness than almost any person I know online or off.

 

[GOCC]

What "whole truth"...???

The ONLY question to be resolved to put this issue to bed is "Did the player use a bot to gain an advantage in the jag promotion?". It has already been stated by at least THREE people that I trust implicitly that he DID.



3. EJ is stupid or lying,

Who are the 3 please?
EJ has already stated at least twice that he has not even seen the logs so I cannot believe that he is one of the three.

I just hope when more evidence and information is provided to support his conclusions, and there will be IMO, that some of you unreservedly apologize for taking the word of some bozo fraudster over that of a man with more ethics and trustworthiness than almost any person I know online or off.

Who is this you refer?

 

[Jufo]

To believe otherwise, you ARE stating:

6. The OP is totally innocent and truthful.

No one has claimed any such thing. The player is certainly no angel and the slot game play analyzed by EJ proves that. But everyone, even an advantage player, deserves a fair trial and I see this "trial" falling short with the logs supplied to EJ proving #1 and player being accused of #2 with credible evidence missing to support #2. "Beliefs" and "theories" and "speculation" don't suffice here.

The rest of your post is just speculation and conspiracy theories which you accuse others of.

 

[rpalmer83]

Although I don't agree that it would be fair to award the prize to the player because he used a bot to play if it's against the terms. This is typical BetFred behaviour that goes on ALL the time with regards to not wanting to pay out, from my own experiences in the past they certainly like to point guilty fingers at their customers when they win or 'gain' from a promotion before investigating properly and your guilty until proven innocent of any wrong doing with BetFred.

There are 2 threads on here from myself that I posted a couple of years back about this outfit, one of which was resolved to my satisfaction after a fortnight of arguing with them!!. They even paid a small amount of compensation but the other ended up in me telling them to close my account completely because I don't think it's acceptable attitude to make customers feel like criminals.

Reading through some of their actions throughout this farce they are not to be trusted:

Several wrong doings on BetFred's part went on here:

1. Live Chat telling the player that Pontoon was an allowed game for the promotion, then once the hand was hit telling the player it wasn't.

2. Removing Pontoon from the list of Blackjack games, and blaming Playtech for a fault....funny how the game is still in the Blackjack section and loads and plays at other Playtech Casinos???.

3. Changing promotional terms midway through, they are saying if a player has qualified before the change they will honour the promo but how do they notify players of any change?, I bet they don't email them to tell them there has been a change and expect the player(s) to keep checking the website throughout the promotion. NOT ACCEPTABLE!, once opted in or claimed the terms of the promotion should be binding and unchangable and if you've emailed customers to invite them into a promotion you should email them again to tell them when it's been altered or pulled.


These are ROGUE behaviours IMO and although they seem co-operative with Casinomeister when dealing with issues they are a dodgy outfit with regards to their promotions and will look for any excuse they can get away with to avoid paying out if you dare to take advantage and gain from anything offered. They love to cite 'bonus abuse' yet at the same time like to call themselves the 'bonus kings' (though they seem to be dropping that marketing slightly these days, and just as well!) it's false advertising.

 

[Nifty29]

No one has claimed any such thing. The player is certainly no angel and the slot game play analyzed by EJ proves that. But everyone, even an advantage player, deserves a fair trial and I see this "trial" falling short with the logs supplied to EJ proving #1 and player being accused of #2 with credible evidence missing to support #2. "Beliefs" and "theories" and "speculation" don't suffice here.

The rest of your post is just speculation and conspiracy theories which you accuse others of.

The speculation is......?

The conspiracy theory is......?

I'm surprised at you Jufo. Are you just completely ignoring that CM/Max/Playtech HAVE seen the pontoon logs and they are IDENTICAL I.e. they show the same patterns that are not humanly possible WITHOUT a bot as the slot logs do. Are you saying they are lying? I don't see any other option. It IS very much black or white.

Let's say that we (the membership) never see the pontoon logs for whatever reason (and this could happen). What then? You just say "Well I haven't seen them therefor they must not show bot play"? Does the word of your host and his staff mean nothing to you? I know GOCC has an agenda, but I would have thought you would have been given Bryan a bit more credit.

You and others can say it isn't about trust, but ir very much is. The whole PAB system depends on it to a large extent. I don't see people such as yourself questioning when a PAB is resolved in the player's favour....if Bryan says "pay the player" etc, those who "demand" to see all the evidence in cases like this one just accept his word based on the fact that HE has SEEN the evidence and they have not. However, when he rules against the player, suddenly his word isn't good enough. It's quite ridiculous.

If you don't trust what bryan tells you based on his reputation and his FULL access to the evidence, then why even post here?

I can guarantee that if Bryan said it was NOT a bot, none of you would be insisting that he turn over all the evidence so you can see for yourselves.

Anyway, I've said all I can and want to say. Bottom line is the OP is a liar and deliberately breached promotion and casino rules, and paid the appropriate penalty. Believe it or don't believe it......your choice. I just hope that if some of you ever have an issue where you need Bryan's help, that he pays you more respect than you're paying him right now, and that he stands up for YOU when you're the victim, like he has Betfred.

 

[Westland Bowl]

If this was a "Judge Judy" case, I am very sure she would be asking why August pontoon logs were not reviewed instead of play logs of an unrelated game from the prior two months as it was the August blackjack promo that is the focus of dispute. Review of play logs of the central issue at hand is the strongest support of actual bot play versus an implied accusation from an unrelated earlier play.

When I work on reviewing City's procurement cards transactions, if a cardholder double-dipped on his credit card and his travel reimbursement voucher in july, I can't make an accusation that his also double-dipped in August just because he did so a month earlier. That would not hold up in court.

However, in trying to see BetFred's point of view, perhaps by proving that a player used a bot (other than casino's auto-play feature) in the past means that player is forever banned from playing or winning anything at that casino in the future, even if it is retro-actively applied. The T&C could be interpreted that way (though I would have to read it again.)

 

[kc83]

The one thing I find strange about all this is " If Betfred had evidence of the OP using a BOT before" then why was he still allowed to play,surely his account should have been suspended????

 

[chuchu59]

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

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

Cheers,

Aaron[/Q

Saying this is not ideal is an understatement. This is pure roguish as you denied the win through an assumption and not because you actually found the reason. In other words you will pounce on every opportunity to deny winnings.

 

[Jufo]

I'm surprised at you Jufo. Are you just completely ignoring that CM/Max/Playtech HAVE seen the pontoon logs and they are IDENTICAL I.e. they show the same patterns that are not humanly possible WITHOUT a bot as the slot logs do. Are you saying they are lying? I don't see any other option. It IS very much black or white.

I seem to have missed the part where CM stated that he has personally went through the Pontoon logs. Please refer me to it.

I don't think that CM/Max have the qualification to assess the playlogs well enough to determine whether a bot was used. I am not disrespecting them in any way but it's not their field of expertise. It takes a professional specialized in this area (such as EJ) to make that determination. That's why the playlogs (although different ones) were sent to EJ in the first place. It's also not the first time CM/Max have made a wrong initial determination about a bot being used (later corrected in the thread by the player community) which proves that matters like this can only be assessed by trained professionals.

Let's say that we (the membership) never see the pontoon logs for whatever reason (and this could happen). What then? You just say "Well I haven't seen them therefor they must not show bot play"? Does the word of your host and his staff mean nothing to you? I know GOCC has an agenda, but I would have thought you would have been given Bryan a bit more credit.

Like I said I don't think he is qualified to assess it, not taking any credit off him.

 

[mattsgame]

Well this thread has taken a turn.

Th op had used a bot in the past as EJ has shown, but this does not mean he had used it on pontoon.

The logs are interesting, why did Betfred not hand over the pontoon logs? this seems strange to me personally and why on earth did they send out an explanation to the contrary and take such drastic measures e.g banning Canada, removing Pontoon etc.

In saying all this, Betfred would have the right to deny winnings using a bot regardless of where the bot was used, but the interesting part would be how long did Betfred let said player use the bot while making deposits and losing? or had the OP made previous withdrawals.

 

[Playforfun]

I cannot see how yesterday bot play invalidates today promo win.

In a way, it is like a player has played say a disallowed game two months ago for a bonus. got paid. and today the casino claims he is ineligible on a play form today.

 

[GOCC]

Let's say that we (the membership) never see the pontoon logs for whatever reason (and this could happen). What then? You just say "Well I haven't seen them therefor they must not show bot play"? Does the word of your host and his staff mean nothing to you? I know GOCC has an agenda, but I would have thought you would have been given Bryan a bit more credit.

I have an agenda?

No, I know how the company work having worked for them for 2 years (Admittedly in the past) but on that basis, with the OP using a BOT in the past, it seems its allowed.

So everyone who doesnt agree with you has an agenda or is wrong.

 

[ThePOGG]

Tell you what - if it will put this to bed i'd be happy to look at paying Elliot to take a look at the Pontoon logs. Out of my own pocket, despite the fact that my site doesn't pay the bills yet. If this is a possibility the involved parties should get in contact with prices.

 

[maxd]

So everyone who doesnt agree with you has an agenda or is wrong.

Let's nip that in the bud shall we? No one needs or wants a big diversion into Bickersville over who does or does not have an agenda.

Nifty, if you want to discuss this with GOCC then use a PM, or Report a post to us and explain (if you feel that is necessary). GOCC, if you want to find out more about Nifty's interesting ideas re: agendas you may or may not have then take it up with him via PM or Report his post(s) to us.

Derails into squabbling is uncool and unwelcome.

 

[threescatters]

Tell you what - if it will put this to bed i'd be happy to look at paying Elliot to take a look at the Pontoon logs. Out of my own pocket, despite the fact that my site doesn't pay the bills yet. If this is a possibility the involved parties should get in contact with prices.

That is a very generous offer, I for one thank you for making it.

 

[P.V.]

Thanks' E.J., CM for your time on this! Clearly the guy was using a bot during play at this site.

The T & C's do not allow bots, who does?

It doesn't matter how the OP won the car, he was caught using a bot.

Investigations on player logs will take place during big wins, cash/cars, or whatever.

This guy is SOL IMO.

Again I send out a big THANK YOU to E.J. for his time, pretty cool!

 

[Betfred]

Final comment, because this has eaten into my time enough. I submitted the July logs to Casinomeister and Elliot as a starting point and because they were the most conspicuous - pulling hundreds of hours of continuous play takes time. I never denied access to data and would have quite happily submitted every game round we have on the player.

By the end of the weekend Elliot determined those sessions were completed by a bot. This proved the player lied; he had used a bot in the past, lied about his session time on this thread and was in breach of our terms and conditions. Casinomeister ruled and we closed the case.

I've admitted to mistakes on our part, but this does not make the player any less of a liar, nor some/all his bets any less a product of a bot nor exempt from our terms and conditions.

I feel we have been as open and transparent as the Law allows and have let the PAB run it's course. In fact, we let it run twice.

Kind regards,

Aaron

 

[P.V.]

Final comment, because this has eaten into my time enough. I submitted the July logs to Casinomeister and Elliot as a starting point and because they were the most conspicuous - pulling hundreds of hours of continuous play takes time. I never denied access to data and would have quite happily submitted every game round we have on the player.

By the end of the weekend Elliot determined those sessions were completed by a bot. This proved the player lied; he had used a bot in the past, lied about his session time on this thread and was in breach of our terms and conditions. Casinomeister ruled and we closed the case.

I've admitted to mistakes on our part, but this does not make the player any less of a liar, nor some/all his bets any less a product of a bot nor exempt from our terms and conditions.

I feel we have been as open and transparent as the Law allows and have let the PAB run it's course. In fact, we let it run twice.

Kind regards,

Aaron

Very generous Aaron but once a bot, always a bot.

Maybe CM or Max will change this thread to Busted Bot Play or something like that.

BTW - Thanks to you for sharing..

 

[The Dude]

The problem with long threads like this is that people tend to latch on to one issue/item/thought and carry on about it while forgetting (or dismissing) major points that have been brought up earlier.

The bot play was only one point of why this player's account was closed. He also did not pass the casino's KYC requirements - I can't remember if this was mentioned in the thread or between our correspondence. But if we wanted to, we could have closed this "reopened" PAB on those grounds alone.

Lest we forget, this player lied to you, me and Max while attempting to blackmail the casino into paying. This is one of the initial reasons why I tossed the PAB in the first place. I knew he was lying to me - to you - and to Max.

But I reopened the PAB to give the liar just one more chance. Why? Beats me - I guess I was trying to be more than fair. Believe me, I had better things to do last week, but I was thinking that we could gain some insight on what had transpired and perhaps figure out where this player screwed up. I asked Eliot to assist (as it has been carefully pointed out - log files are not my soup de jour), he obliged - Betfred received the thumbs up from the player, and the log files were set to Eliot via me.

There are a number of members here that think that the BJ play should be the only thing placed on the table. I'm sorry to disappoint you but it's not. Everything a player does or says is taken into consideration when processing a complaint. He was accused of bot play - the casino sent files that proved their case. They could have sent the BJ files (which have already been reviewed and commented on by the casino), but they sent the player's slot logs. To me it doesn't make any difference at all - you commit fraud, lie, and cheat - you should be kicked to the curb. As I have mentioned numerous times in this thread, the player can go get a lawyer and contact the GRA. As for me, he should should not be given the time of day.

No one has claimed any such thing. The player is certainly no angel and the slot game play analyzed by EJ proves that. But everyone, even an advantage player, deserves a fair trial and I see this "trial" falling short with the logs supplied to EJ proving #1 and player being accused of #2 with credible evidence missing to support #2. "Beliefs" and "theories" and "speculation" don't suffice here.

Please remember that this is my house and not a "court of law". If I challenge someone to tell me the truth, and that person lies to me - that person will get the boot. If you want a court of law, there is the GRA. The player has all the time in the world to deal with them. Besides, this is not an advantage player - we are dealing with fraud. Huge difference.

If this was a "Judge Judy" case, I am very sure she would be asking why August pontoon logs were not reviewed instead of play logs of an unrelated game from the prior two months as it was the August blackjack promo that is the focus of dispute...

I disagree. She would have told the player to go take a long walk on a short pier. All of his play was analyzed - we (max and I) requested that a third party be allowed to analyze the logs as well. As mentioned before, this is time consuming and it was free. If Eliot had NOT found evidence of bot play, I would have asked for additional files. But since Eliot found evidence with the first batch - why go on?

Again, please reread some of the earlier comments made by me, Eliot, and Betfred. I honestly do not think that any more time needs to be wasted on this.

 

[threescatters]

To be fair as has already been stated this is not a court of law (but it was OP's choice of mediator)...

However the OP had already been asked in this thread had he used a bot at ANY time whilst playing at betfred, to which he answered NO.

This has been proven to be a lie and if you are caught lying in a court of law you would be torn apart, to me that is a key issue here (and I believe not presenting analysis of the pontoon logs is sketchy as well, but it is overrided by other things)

 

[The Dude]

To be fair as has already been stated this is not a court of law (but it was OP's choice of mediator)...

Actually, it was his choice of blackmail.

 

[Slotster!]

The one thing I find strange about all this is " If Betfred had evidence of the OP using a BOT before" then why was he still allowed to play,surely his account should have been suspended????

This seemed to get lost up there somewhere... Pretty valid point.

There was no major gain from the 'bot usage' as per EJ's findings, so I guess it wasn't an issue; - they only went digging when there was a 30K incentive to do so.

HOWEVER... They are perfectly entitled to, it's their rules - and this guy clearly broke them. It's not the biggest crime to commit in my opinion and I still don't really see the point - but it broke the rules and he got caught. Unlucky.

I'm still sat here wondering why someone wouldn't just use 'autoplay' - but there you go.

Thank you Casinomeister, Max, Elliot and everyone concerned for the time and effort to deliver the information; the world of online gaming is a pretty crazy place sometimes.

 

[Nifty29]

This seemed to get lost up there somewhere... Pretty valid point.

There was no major gain from the 'bot usage' as per EJ's findings, so I guess it wasn't an issue; - they only went digging when there was a 30K incentive to do so.

HOWEVER... They are perfectly entitled to, it's their rules - and this guy clearly broke them. It's not the biggest crime to commit in my opinion and I still don't really see the point - but it broke the rules and he got caught. Unlucky.

I'm still sat here wondering why someone wouldn't just use 'autoplay' - but there you go.

Thank you Casinomeister, Max, Elliot and everyone concerned for the time and effort to deliver the information; the world of online gaming is a pretty crazy place sometimes.

Just to clear this up......the casino was already investigating the player and was about to suspend the account when the OP hit the 777. The casino knew it was a precursor to something else it seems, as profit from the slot play was always going to be negligible and hence pointless for any other purpose but testing. The gain from the slot play was never an issue.

We also need to remember that the OP failed security/ID checks, which were enough to close the case as per what Bryan said. It's not a "crime"....its just a breach of urge agreement upon which the casino allows an account to operate, with the resulting penalty being account closure and voiding of winnings and prizes.

We also need to remember that fraudsters like this milking promos by "stuffing the barrel" are making it more difficult for operators to offer decent promotions, and more difficult for the average player when they make a genuine error.

Next time you have to wager a bonus 30+X, or find you don't get the freebies you used to, you can thank AlexK and his ilk.

 

[IanO]

I'm not sure why some people are still getting bent out of shape over this (albeit facinating) thread.

After all... even The Meister himself uses a bot!!

(Have none of you met Vortran? )

 

[naththo]

Again, please reread some of the earlier comments made by me, Eliot, and Betfred. I honestly do not think that any more time needs to be wasted on this.

I totally agreed! That evidence is plenty to prosecute him if he still go ahead with court but of course he will just lose the court very easily because of the lie. When in court must tell the truth at all time no lie is allowed.

 

[Slotster!]

Next time you have to wager a bonus 30+X, or find you don't get the freebies you used to, you can thank AlexK and his ilk.

I'd never play somewhere that would make me do that

Besides - I'm usually blasting through any WR or busting out completely without ever thinking about it or checking.

Gaming/Gambling/Slots/Poker whatever should be fun. Whenever you introduce any element of having to think about it, it feels far too much like work.

 

[chuchu59]

I honestly believe Betfred has won the battle and saved itself $30K but lost the war and tarnished much of its reputation. Who can be sure that Betfred will not come up with an unjustified excuse to deny winnings whilst searching for a more plausible excuse. If I deposit, get a bonus and win say $10K they will initially say 'sorry we cant pay you because you are from a restricted country' but then retract the statement by saying the manager made an error only to come up with another excuse ie bonus abuse due to an irregular pattern of play. They then produce a session 3 months old saying it bears resemblance to the current session as proof. The player has no recourse because he did display an irregular pattern of play in the past that amounted to bonus abuse.

All this is purely hypothetical but highly possible if the present issue is scrutinised.Whether we likie it or not Betfred has lost a lot of its admirers over this farce and they dug a hole for themselves by firstly coming up with a pseudo reason for denying winnings and then producing play logs of an irrelevant session for examination. The decision is theirs but there will be doubts as to the way they handled this issue.

 

[brutaldeluxe]

I'm not convinced the original poster is by any means innocent but in my eyes betfred aren't doing themselves any favours either.
Seemed to me like they decided they weren't paying the player and then went about looking for reasons why not.
Isn't it supposed to be the other way round ?