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

[ThePOGG]

I've actually been contacted by another board member who's willing to chip in to get the pontoon logs reviewed - i'm not going to name them as they haven't named themselves - but as long as Elliot would be prepared to look at the logs and Betfred would be prepared to release them to him i really think this would be the best outcome for all interested parties. I also want to say thanks to that other member, it was good of them to step forward.

 

[chuchu59]

IMO Betfred should pay to have Pontoon logs reviewed though this would obviously lead to accusations of the review being biased. This would do the casino a world of good as doubts remain in many players' minds. If the outcome reveals that no bot play is likely involved Betfred needs to come up with a better reason if it still decides not to pay. Yep the OP is a liar on some issues but did he lie with regard to his play leading to the 777 hit. If it cannot be proved he did Betfred should think of a way to wriggle out of this. Of course if bot play is involved case closed and Betfred saves itself face.

 

[Jasminebed]

I've actually been contacted by another board member who's willing to chip in to get the pontoon logs reviewed - i'm not going to name them as they haven't named themselves - but as long as Elliot would be prepared to look at the logs and Betfred would be prepared to release them to him i really think this would be the best outcome for all interested parties. I also want to say thanks to that other member, it was good of them to step forward.

Oh, that member would be me, known CM basher and defender of fraudsters.

I have the utmost respect for Dr. J, and if he says the OP used a bot on Ocean Princess, I believe him.

I don't even know what my views are on awarding the player the Jag IF his pontoon play doesn't appear to have used a bot. If winnings from previous bot-assisted play enabled him to play the promotion, I'd be leaning towards not awarding it as "fruit of the poisonous tree" for sure.

 

[Playforfun]

Kudos

I like this outcome very much.

I fully understand the CM. His energy is limited, and he has done his part.


Such an independent test will clarify everything in the best of ways.

Moreover, whoever declines this choice is proving himself to be unreliable. (Whether the player or the casino)


I am hotly anticipating the results

 

[chuchu59]

Oh, that member would be me, known CM basher and defender of fraudsters.

I have the utmost respect for Dr. J, and if he says the OP used a bot on Ocean Princess, I believe him.

I don't even know what my views are on awarding the player the Jag IF his pontoon play doesn't appear to have used a bot. If winnings from previous bot-assisted play enabled him to play the promotion, I'd be leaning towards not awarding it as "fruit of the poisonous tree" for sure.

That's very generous of you Jazzy. Whatever the outcome, Betfred should show its sincerity by awarding a bonus to you roughly equivalent to your outlay as the outcome, whatever it is, only serves to help them.

 

[Jasminebed]

That's very generous of you Jazzy. Whatever the outcome, Betfred should show its sincerity by awarding a bonus to you roughly equivalent to your outlay as the outcome, whatever it is, only serves to help them.

I'm not a Betfred customer chuchu. But I am very curious. Why weren't pontoon logs (or even partial logs) submitted for analysis as well? I know I'm not the only member wanting to know, and I don't think ThePOGG should bear the whole cost of satisfying my curiousity.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

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.

Excellent post chuchu and you have pretty much exactly summed up my feelings about this.

The OP does certainly appear to have used a bot in the past, maybe he used a bot for the 777 promo and maybe he didn't.

Either way Betfred don't come out of this smelling of roses, I certainly won't be depositing and playing there.

I accept the OP appears to be a bit of a shady character and by all accounts Betfred do have justification not to pay him under their T&Cs, but their behaviour overall appears to be incompetent, reactionary, disproportionate and confused. None of these are qualities I look for in an online casino.

 

[everyday]

The last few posts do beg the question..

Why, when given the opportunity to have the logs audited by a third party free of charge, as EJ did, would one give him logs that are 2 months old to audit as opposed to the current Pontoon logs that are in contention?

I am having trouble understanding the reasoning behind that choice. I do realize that the old logs prove the OP uses a bot but had the Pontoon logs been supplied initially, this thread would have ended much earlier.

Common sense would dictate, to me at least, that the Pontoon logs related to this thread should have been given to EJ first and I don't understand why this was not the case. Hope someone can help clarify that for me.

Oops..Just noticed Jasminebed has the same concern..so I second that!

 

[ChopleyIOM]

The last few posts do beg the question..

Why, when given the opportunity to have the logs audited by a third party free of charge, as EJ did, would one give him logs that are 2 months old to audit as opposed to the current Pontoon logs that are in contention?

I am having trouble understanding the reasoning behind that choice. I do realize that the old logs prove the OP uses a bot but had the Pontoon logs been supplied initially, this thread would have ended much earlier.

Common sense would dictate, to me at least, that the Pontoon logs related to this thread should have been given to EJ first and I don't understand why this was not the case. Hope someone can help clarify that for me.

Well by all accounts they were hand-picked by the casino as they damned the player the most.....

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ccount-suspended-pending-investigation.52180/

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.

It seems to me that just about every man and his dog agrees that a far better starting point would have been, y'know, the logs for gameplay where the player's winnings had been voided and that which was the subject of the PAB, but there you go....

 

[GOCC]

I too will chip in to have the logs scrutinised.

No offence to EJ but is their an Independant party who ISNT a member of this board we can use?

Thanks

 

[ThePOGG]

I can think of a couple of people i know who have the relevant experience that might be prepared to do this for a fee, but given my impartiality has been called into question with regard to this issue on another board i might not be the best person to locate the 3rd party.

More than that though, i think we're all getting a little ahead of ourselves as none of the individuals involved in the initial investigation has shown any enthusiam for having the Pontoon logs reviews - whether the fee is paid or not.

 

[GOCC]

I can think of a couple of people i know who have the relevant experience that might be prepared to do this for a fee, but given my impartiality has been called into question with regard to this issue on another i might not be the best person to locate the 3rd party.

More than that though, i think we're all getting a little ahead of ourselves and none of the individuals involved in the initial investigation has shown any enthusiam for having the Pontoon logs reviews - whether the fee is paid or not.

Id give you a written guarantee the OP would be he cant say as such.

 

[SlotMonster]

Too bad we can't ask the OP if he wants to participate too - I mean to split the cost of audit.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

'It's their own damn fault?'......

Lest we forget the CM philosophy page, which contains this passage:

https://www.casinomeister.com/about-us/philosophy/

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

I'm still not sure we know everything there is to know about what's happened here. If this bonus is beatable by a bot, it's beatable by a human, there must be lots of folks out there willing to put in 12 hours or more a day for the prize of thirty grand. Even if they can only play half as fast as a bot, for half the time per day, chances are they'd beat this promotion inside of three or four weeks. Thirty grand isn't bad pay for a month's work.

It's right there on CM's own philosophy page, that quotation from Michael Shackleford wasn't chosen at random and/or by accident I assume. (Maybe a bot chose it? )

Betfred designed a shitty bonus, they got beat on it, it's their own damn fault, they looked to find themselves a way of avoiding paying out, and they did so, with slots logs going back months, and none of us have seen any logs whatsoever relating to the game on which the bonus was beaten on.

In my humble opinion, there's still something missing here.

 

[dpp00]

hi all

its looking pretty much like they know he used a bot on previous play but not so sure of the game in question /

after all you dont get done for we know you murdered someone we just can't prove it so lets do you anyway

 

[maxd]

Lest we forget the CM philosophy page, which contains this passage: ....

And so not the point. Terms were written forbidding bots (

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

):

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

Player used a bot. Result = player broke the Terms and is subject to the penalties cited. How much simpler could it get?

What you or I or anyone else thinks of bots or the Term in question is very much not the point. Acting as if it has anything to do with the case at hand is just stirring the stinky stuff for the sake of making a stink.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

And so not the point. Terms were written forbidding bots (

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

):


Player used a bot. Result = player broke the Terms and is subject to the penalties cited. How much simpler could it get?

What you or I or anyone else thinks of bots or the Term in question is very much not the point. Acting as if it has anything to do with the case at hand is just stirring the stinky stuff for the sake of making a stink.

I'm not arguing that point.

Yes the player broke the T&Cs, yes Betfred can legitimately deny him his winnings, and in that regard at least, it's case closed.

That doesn't change the fact that Bryan chose to add that passage to his philosophy page, and he also chose to include the quotation from Michael Shackleford that any casino which puts up a bonus or game and then gets beaten on that bonus or game by a bot, can simply consider it to be their own damn fault.

Let's remember here that a bot can't do anything that a human can't do in terms of beating the games, yes it can play faster and potentially hit optimal strategy more consistently, but ultimately bot play is simply a fast and efficient version of human play - it doesn't change the odds of the game.

Betfred designed a shitty bonus that was beatable by a determined human player, and it got beaten. It may have been beaten by a human, it may have been beaten by a bot, either way they didn't crunch the numbers and they didn't think it through. Jufo has apparently managed to apply more mathematical analysis to this bonus, in this thread, than anyone at Betfred could muster, because his numbers make it pretty clear that a very determined human being has a good chance of beating this bonus and walking away with the Jag - bots not required, only optional.

It's not a case of shit-stirring max, it's a case of balance. And this just looks like a whitewash.

 

[maxd]

It's not a case of shit-stirring max, it's a case of balance. And this just looks like a whitewash.

And the small matter -- not! -- of the flagrant Terms violation and lying about it to all and sundry? How is enforcing the Terms a "whitewash"? Honestly, does not compute, IMHO.

 

[Playforfun]

And the small matter -- not! -- of the flagrant Terms violation and lying about it to all and sundry? How is enforcing the Terms a "whitewash"? Honestly, does not compute, IMHO.

The term violation was in a long forgone session. a closed and paid one, I assume.

Strictly speaking, historical bot play are irrelevant at present.


Example: a player has played a year ago while placing a bet disallowed by a promo rule (say playing roulette etc.). He got paid. case closed.
TODAY, the player plays super fifteen promo. and the casino is defrosting the case of yesteryear. it is irrelevant.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

And the small matter -- not! -- of the flagrant Terms violation and lying about it to all and sundry? How is enforcing the Terms a "whitewash"? Honestly, does not compute, IMHO.

It's a technical violation though max, I'm not saying the OP isn't a dodgy character, and I'm not saying Betfred should pay him. Quite the opposite in fact, Betfred have a T&C that basically says they can refuse to pay any player, in perpetuity, who they suspect of having used a bot. (Note they go for 'suspect' in their T&Cs, they don't even feel the need to prove it.)

By all accounts the OP did use a bot, for some reason, on the Ocean's Millions slot. Betfred have presented the logs for that, (the logs they chose!), the logs have been analysed, they can refuse to pay - I take no issue with that.

However, the fact still remains, and I must respectfully ask you to indulge me on this point, because Bryan's own philosophy is absolutely crystal clear on this. Bots don't change the odds of the games, they never have and they never will, and any bonus/game that is beatable by a bot is a result of the casino basically painting a 'KICK ME' sign on their ass, so what the hell is this promotion even doing existing in the first place?

Looking at this from the perspective of a player, what does this whole debacle appear as?

We have an apparently top-flight company - 'the fourth largest bookmaker in the UK - top-notch service - as 'Casinomeister's Picks' currently informs us, chucking a stupid bonus out of the door that's practically gagging to be attacked by bots - and when that bonus is beaten, we see an absolutely dreadful response from the casino, as is documented in this thread, and apparently explained away by 'Yeah we need to sort out our internal communication a bit, sorry guys'.

Forgive me if I 'Do A Nifty' on this one, but since he has no problem presenting his opinions as a list of irrefutable facts, I'll try the same trick, and see if I'm extended the same privilege.

There are two explanations for this promotion:

1) Betfred are incompetent
2) Betfred never had a Jag, never intended to give away a Jag, and were surprised when they were called upon to do so

Either answer doesn't sit right with me, yeah the OP may have been busted out for using a bot a few months ago, but this whole affair doesn't make Betfred look anything other than dreadful either - Casinomeister's Pick or not.

 

[GOCC]

And the small matter -- not! -- of the flagrant Terms violation and lying about it to all and sundry? How is enforcing the Terms a "whitewash"? Honestly, does not compute, IMHO.

Lieing. So when the Casino tells lies its a mis communication and will be looked into but when its the OP its a blatant Lie.

CM said the player committed fraud, something that I dont see, from what we have been told he has done.

We keep being told that the OP play on Pontoon was BOT play but have been shown no proof at all. I beleive that you may have been told by Betfred that its similar but as they have already said that they havent produced the logs, I dont know how you can make a definitive answer on that?

Plenty of people, including myself, have agreed to pay for the pontoon logs to be verified. I dont see how Bot play 3 weeks prior can make his play on pontoon null and void.

 

[Nifty29]

Lieing. So when the Casino tells lies its a mis communication and will be looked into but when its the OP its a blatant Lie.

CM said the player committed fraud, something that I dont see, from what we have been told he has done.

We keep being told that the OP play on Pontoon was BOT play but have been shown no proof at all. I beleive that you may have been told by Betfred that its similar but as they have already said that they havent produced the logs, I dont know how you can make a definitive answer on that?

Plenty of people, including myself, have agreed to pay for the pontoon logs to be verified. I dont see how Bot play 3 weeks prior can make his play on pontoon null and void.

You're clutching at straws, but there ain't no straws.

To tell a lie, one must KNOW the truth and deliberately state something different.

The betfred rep made an ASSUMPTION in his email, which it turns out was erroneous....and yes, it was a poor choice by the rep.

The betfred rep did NOT know the actual reason for denial of the prize, so he cannot possibly have LIED.

The OP DID use a bot, but categorically DENIED it in the forum. It was a deliberate LIE.

You know all of this anyway, but I thought I would point it out for anyone who doesn't.

I actually hope EJ does review the pontoon logs. Perhaps then we can stop giving this fraudster airtime.

As for "doing a nifty".....all I have done is reiterate the information supplied by those who have SEEN the evidence, seeing as the fraudster supporters conveniently ignore it and try to make the whole thing about something other than a fraudster being caught and having his play voided. In that vein, is there any reason that those who support AlexK are ignoring the fact that he DID NOT PASS the KYC checks? I.e. He couldn't prove his identity etc? I guess it is inconvenient when one wants to make it about betfred ripping an innocent player off, whilst CM and others stand by and watch (or are they part of it...??)

 

[chuchu59]

Too bad we can't ask the OP if he wants to participate too - I mean to split the cost of audit.

If the cost is borne by either the casino or the OP each side could well accuse the other of unfairness. Maybe its best that they jointly fork out the audit fees on a 50:50 basis. If both parties believe they have nothing to hide they should be very willing to do so.

 

[me_and_ed]

If the cost is borne by either the casino or the OP each side could well accuse the other of unfairness. Maybe its best that they jointly fork out the audit fees on a 50:50 basis. If both parties believe they have nothing to hide they should be very willing to do so.

I agree however it pretty much appears Betfred, Max and Bryan have closed the books on this one.

 

[chuchu59]

You're clutching at straws, but there ain't no straws.

To tell a lie, one must KNOW the truth and deliberately state something different.

The betfred rep made an ASSUMPTION in his email, which it turns out was erroneous....and yes, it was a poor choice by the rep.

The betfred rep did NOT know the actual reason for denial of the prize, so he cannot possibly have LIED.

The OP DID use a bot, but categorically DENIED it in the forum. It was a deliberate LIE.

You know all of this anyway, but I thought I would point it out for anyone who doesn't.

I actually hope EJ does review the pontoon logs. Perhaps then we can stop giving this fraudster airtime.

As for "doing a nifty".....all I have done is reiterate the information supplied by those who have SEEN the evidence, seeing as the fraudster supporters conveniently ignore it and try to make the whole thing about something other than a fraudster being caught and having his play voided. In that vein, is there any reason that those who support AlexK are ignoring the fact that he DID NOT PASS the KYC checks? I.e. He couldn't prove his identity etc? I guess it is inconvenient when one wants to make it about betfred ripping an innocent player off, whilst CM and others stand by and watch (or are they part of it...??)

Nifty,

Would you please stop being so aggressive. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The OP lied in public and that is indisputable but I wouldnt believe Betfred's so-called ASSUMPTION by a long shot. You dont pay out based on an assumption. Oh come on. To say the Betfred rep couldnt possibly have lied is an assumption in itself as you are simply believing the casino's version ie the rep did not know the actual reason for denial of the prize.

Look , no one it seems, is sympathising with the OP but it does seem that something is amiss and we cannot simply take the casino's word for it. When people cast doubts you address them with valid reasoning and shouldnt pour scorn on them. 'Clutching at straws!'. Geeze, dont you have something constructive to say?

 

[Nifty29]

Nifty,

Would you please stop being so aggressive. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The OP lied in public and that is indisputable but I wouldnt believe Betfred's so-called ASSUMPTION by a long shot. You dont pay out based on an assumption. Oh come on. To say the Betfred rep couldnt possibly have lied is an assumption in itself as you are simply believing the casino's version ie the rep did not know the actual reason for denial of the prize.

Look , no one it seems, is sympathising with the OP but it does seem that something is amiss and we cannot simply take the casino's word for it. When people cast doubts you address them with valid reasoning and shouldnt pour scorn on them. 'Clutching at straws!'. Geeze, dont you have something constructive to say?

So the casino is lying now? Either you accept that the initial reason given in the email was in error due to an uninformed employee making an uneducated remark (as Bryan obviously does), or it was a deliberate lie. There is no option c). Do you really think Bryan just accepts everything an operator tells him? Well, since you don't accept what betfred says, and Bryan/Max do, then you obviously know something they, and the rest of us, do not, so how about sharing it with us?

Given that neither you nor I have access to all the evidence, at some point it has to come down to TRUST......in both the PAB service and those that run it. We all know that they don't always get it right 100% of the time, but I'll take their word over some blow-in or someone with alterior motives any day. How about you?

With regards to the initial email, that rep DID make an assumption.....in fact, he made TWO. The first was that pontoon is not blackjack, which is not correct, and the second was that this (erroneous) assumption was the assumed reason for denial of the prize. If you're wondering how the first assumption can be made, just check out earlier posts where many CM members also were confused. Incompetent? Yes. Deliberate LIE? Can't see it.

If you think my post breaches forum rules, report it. I'll take direction from the moderators, not you. Thankyou.

 

[Seventh777]

I think as a goodwill gesture BetFred should give me the Jaguar, as I have x3 7`s in my name and i`m a diamond geezer .

 

[GOCC]

Not clutching at straws at all.

In my opinion, and unless that's changed I am allowed that on an open forum, something stinks. I'm not going over old ground. My "Opinion" is also one supported by others on this forum as again, that's what forums are for, differing debate.

As said, Ill be happy to contribute to the cost of a "Independent" adjudication on his pontoon play. We have already been told on numerous occasions that it is Identical so I can see zero reason why no one would want to take up this offer. There is no down side. If it does, I would gracefully admit my error and move on, as would alot more respected posters on here.

Something else that is making me a tad uneasy. The OP. He only joined CM in August so was obviously looking for somewhere to complain. Is it not 1 iota unusual that he hasnt posted on ANY OTHER forum. And this for a £30k prize?

 

[maphesto]

Something else that is making me a tad uneasy. The OP. He only joined CM in August so was obviously looking for somewhere to complain. Is it not 1 iota unusual that he hasnt posted on ANY OTHER forum. And this for a £30k prize?

It's better to use only one place to complain at than running all over the net to complain at 50 places. He saw that they were accredited here, and
this thread is still alive. If this thread dies, he will probably try other places.

I really hope that The Pogg & CO are in success with their attempt to let EJ see the interesting figures and not just the previous slot play. I also hope that the figures show that he used a bot there as well, otherwise I don't know what to think. I don't like it when winnings are lost just because an earlier "crime/mistake/stupidness". I have never used a bot, never downloaded one, but if you google "casino bot download" there are a lot of them around.

I think I've read here on the forum that one member used a bot to click quicker in MGS tournaments, does that mean that that members future winnings is lost? I don't know what to think.

 

[The Dude]

It's like the Ever Ready bunny; it keeps on going, and going, and going, and going....

Okay, please give me the opportunity to repeat myself - some of you are clutching on to one element of the conversation yet dismissing the rest. The guy committed fraud - and he's probably laughing his ass off right now seeing how much he's got a few of you going. (you have noticed that he hasn't logged in since last week, right?).

It's a technical violation though max, I'm not saying the OP isn't a dodgy character, and I'm not saying Betfred should pay him. Quite the opposite in fact, Betfred have a T&C that basically says they can refuse to pay any player, in perpetuity, who they suspect of having used a bot. (Note they go for 'suspect' in their T&Cs, they don't even feel the need to prove it.).

The OP committed fraud so all deals are off the table. Even though the casino has offered to send me all playing logs, it doesn't make any difference to me. If you want to pursue this, feel free to do this on your own - but please don't ask me to provide any more resources.

However, the fact still remains, and I must respectfully ask you to indulge me on this point, because Bryan's own philosophy is absolutely crystal clear on this. Bots don't change the odds of the games, they never have and they never will, and any bonus/game that is beatable by a bot is a result of the casino basically painting a 'KICK ME' sign on their ass, so what the hell is this promotion even doing existing in the first place?.

Please read all the comments made by Eliot in this thread. He goes into more detail about how bots can give the edge in promos like this.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ccount-suspended-pending-investigation.52180/

...Plenty of people, including myself, have agreed to pay for the pontoon logs to be verified. I dont see how Bot play 3 weeks prior can make his play on pontoon null and void.

Then knock yourself out. PM me and I'll put you in contact with the player so he can contact the casino and have them forward his logs to you or whomever. Or better yet, convince him to take this up with the GRA. It seems that many people have over looked the fact that the GRA is readily available to deal with this. It's their job; make them earn their pay.

 

[daywalker]

As for "doing a nifty".....all I have done is reiterate the information supplied by those who have SEEN the evidence, seeing as the fraudster supporters conveniently ignore it and try to make the whole thing about something other than a fraudster being caught and having his play voided. In that vein, is there any reason that those who support AlexK are ignoring the fact that he DID NOT PASS the KYC checks? I.e. He couldn't prove his identity etc? I guess it is inconvenient when one wants to make it about betfred ripping an innocent player off, whilst CM and others stand by and watch (or are they part of it...??)

Oh yeah, this was the bit that no one mentioned until 20 odd pages of the thread had gone and it was suddenly dropped in. It's another reason people want to see more proof.

Personally I don't doubt he is guilty of wrong doing somewhere along the line but this has all been handled terribly.

 

[GOCC]

It's like the Ever Ready bunny; it keeps on going, and going, and going, and going....

Okay, please give me the opportunity to repeat myself - some of you are clutching on to one element of the conversation yet dismissing the rest. The guy committed fraud - and he's probably laughing his ass off right now seeing how much he's got a few of you going. (you have noticed that he hasn't logged in since last week, right?).

Can I ask then, what was the fraud?

Also, if youve banned him, which the red writing around his name indicates, can he log in?

 

[questa]

Sending slot logs but not the pontoon ones is certainly bizarre. It just makes no sense at all, which is why this thread rolls on and on.

Also, the suggestion that he was testing a pontoon bot on the slot is not correct, it is obvious he was grinding a wr on a high return slot.

Seems pretty clear he had a custom bot to grind out the bonus, and then made a new one for this pontoon promo. I'd be surprised if he didn't bot the pontoon, yet these logs have not been looked at. It's very strange.

And i agree that no one comes out of it looking good - certainly not the player, definately not Betfred, and Elliot also seems naive about both AP and bots in his conclusion regarding testing on a different game first.

What a mess!

 

[Betfred]

To reiterate: we simply started with those logs as they were most suspicious and the easiest to trace bot activity. By the time we started pulling the other logs after the weekend, Elliot had determined a bot had been used, and Casinomeister closed the PAB.

His use of a bot in the past, aside from being against our terms and conditions, undermines the legitimacy of any future sessions in our opinion (and CM's apparently). However, we can also point to logins to the download software during the Pontoon session in question, where the user was able to log out of the software and log back in within a second. No human can do this and is indicative of a device artificially creating a session, bypassing mouse actions, reaction time, and log out messages etc. No game rounds were taking place so there were no broken games (which would make logging in quicker), and as the user was not playing he therefore had no reason to immediately log back in again. This happened 8 times on the day in question over a span of many un-played hours. These then proceed extended sessions of Pontoon throughout the day, playing rapidly. All of which suggest the player was 'tuning' the bot to sustain and pick up dropped sessions before getting the bot to play.

With this combined picture, it would be interesting to know what conclusion the readers here would have drawn.

I'm happy to continue this investigation but it should now take place via the GRA, where the player must first confirm his identity, and the regulatory body can view every single log in order.

Kind regards,

Aaron

 

[ThePOGG]

I've been in contact with CM who's happy for me to contact the player involved. As long as Aaron would be happy to have Elliot review the Pontoon files i think this could be concluded quickly and with minimum fuss. If the posters here do not feel that Elliot is a suitable choice i'd be happy to take other suggestions, but they would have to have verifiable credentials. Personally i feel that while Elliot has made a few errors in that he made assertions regarding the development of bot programs that simple aren't the case, not knowing how bots are developed does not invalidate his assessment of whether the playing pattern was natural.

Also, if anyone here feels like contributing towards the payment for this task, i'd be happy to accept. I'll pay whatever fee is required up front, post the amount it cost and the donations that any posters make.

I hope this will be acceptable to everyone.

 

[The Dude]

Can I ask then, what was the fraud?

Also, if youve banned him, which the red writing around his name indicates, can he log in?

It's already been explained. Quit skipping over my posts and read them. Thank you.

He can read the thread as a "visitor", but he can't download the pdf attachment that covers Eliot's findings. But he's probably already done this with a bogus account.

Sending slot logs but not the pontoon ones is certainly bizarre. It just makes no sense at all, which is why this thread rolls on and on.

It's already been explained. Please reread the thread. The reason this thread keeps going is that some people haven't read it properly and keep asking the same questions.

To reiterate: we simply started with those logs as they were most suspicious and the easiest to trace bot activity. By the time we started pulling the other logs after the weekend, Elliot had determined a bot had been used, and Casinomeister closed the PAB.

His use of a bot in the past, aside from being against our terms and conditions, undermines the legitimacy of any future sessions in our opinion (and CM's apparently). However, we can also point to logins to the download software during the Pontoon session in question, where the user was able to log out of the software and log back in within a second. No human can do this and is indicative of a device artificially creating a session, bypassing mouse actions, reaction time, and log out messages etc. No game rounds were taking place so there were no broken games (which would make logging in quicker), and as the user was not playing he therefore had no reason to immediately log back in again. This happened 8 times on the day in question over a span of many un-played hours. These then proceed extended sessions of Pontoon throughout the day, playing rapidly. All of which suggest the player was 'tuning' the bot to sustain and pick up dropped sessions before getting the bot to play.

With this combined picture, it would be interesting to know what conclusion the readers here would have drawn.

I'm happy to continue this investigation but it should now take place via the GRA, where the player must first confirm his identity, and the regulatory body can view every single log in order.

Kind regards,

Aaron

Thank you for this. I also agree that the next step is for the player to take this to the GRA. I seriously hope he does - actually it should have been the first course of action. But again, I've already explained that

 

[Nifty29]

I've been in contact with CM who's happy for me to contact the player involved. As long as Aaron would be happy to have Elliot review the Pontoon files i think this could be concluded quickly and with minimum fuss. If the posters here do not feel that Elliot is a suitable choice i'd be happy to take other suggestions, but they would have to have verifiable credentials. Personally i feel that while Elliot has made a few errors in that he made assertions regarding the development of bot programs that simple aren't the case, not knowing how bots are developed does not invalidate his assessment of whether the playing pattern was natural.

Also, if anyone here feels like contributing towards the payment for this task, i'd be happy to accept. I'll pay whatever fee is required up front, post the amount it cost and the donations that any posters make.

I hope this will be acceptable to everyone.

Why are people wasting their time and money on a guy who can't even prove his identity?

I get that some people can't accept what's staring them in the face.....it happens everywhere....but why go so far as to pay to support a fraudster? (Make no mistake....you are supporting this guy).

Any and all attempts to assist this guy should have been dropped as soon as it was made clear that he CANNOT supply identification documents to prove his bona fides. It doesn't matter if the logs are inconclusive in the end, because he won't be paid because he's a FRAUDSTER regardless.

What's the bet that if the OP was told that EJ etc would review his pontoon logs at HIS expense, there would be NO review. Of course he's going to agree if someone else is paying....its a free hit....the worst that can happen is that a few more people think he's dodgy. Hell, I'd do it, guilty or not.

As Bryan said, Alex must be laughing his head off.

 

[GOCC]

However, we can also point to logins to the download software during the Pontoon session in question, where the user was able to log out of the software and log back in within a second. No human can do this and is indicative of a device artificially creating a session, bypassing mouse actions, reaction time, and log out messages etc.
Kind regards,

Aaron

Oh dear Aaron.

Another example of not knowing how your own software works. If someone has 2 computers on the same IP address on the playtech platform, they can be logged on with one computer then log on using their other. This would register on the software as log out then log in, though this has never happened. Its a registration fault.

How do I know, because I had exactly the same with a Playtech casino, who after I explained this too them and they obviously verified this with Playtech, they duly appologiesed and paid me my winnings and prize from the promotion.


Casinomeister, I have read your posts AND AT NO TIME imo, have you explained any fraud. If its the BOT as everyone keeps going on about then I dont see how its fraud but alot of things arent making sense so Ill just add it to the list.

 

[chuchu59]

To reiterate: we simply started with those logs as they were most suspicious and the easiest to trace bot activity. By the time we started pulling the other logs after the weekend, Elliot had determined a bot had been used, and Casinomeister closed the PAB.

His use of a bot in the past, aside from being against our terms and conditions, undermines the legitimacy of any future sessions in our opinion (and CM's apparently). However, we can also point to logins to the download software during the Pontoon session in question, where the user was able to log out of the software and log back in within a second. No human can do this and is indicative of a device artificially creating a session, bypassing mouse actions, reaction time, and log out messages etc. No game rounds were taking place so there were no broken games (which would make logging in quicker), and as the user was not playing he therefore had no reason to immediately log back in again. This happened 8 times on the day in question over a span of many un-played hours. These then proceed extended sessions of Pontoon throughout the day, playing rapidly. All of which suggest the player was 'tuning' the bot to sustain and pick up dropped sessions before getting the bot to play.

With this combined picture, it would be interesting to know what conclusion the readers here would have drawn.

I'm happy to continue this investigation but it should now take place via the GRA, where the player must first confirm his identity, and the regulatory body can view every single log in order.

Kind regards,

Aaron

It would have made more sense if you had stated from the outset that you were trying to determine whether the OP is a fraudster who used a bot for advantage play instead of seemingly giving an impression that he got the winning hand in a session thru bot play. The way it was handled seemed like you chose a session at will, determined it was bot play and then make an inference that the pontoon session must also be bot-related leading to voiding of winnings.

 

[maxd]

I know I should probably just leave this alone at this point but this idea that because the player's bot play was on a previous session/game/whatever then it's no longer a Terms violation really gets on my pecks.

We keep being told that the OP play on Pontoon was BOT play but have been shown no proof at all. I beleive that you may have been told by Betfred that its similar but as they have already said that they havent produced the logs ....

Personally I don't give a fat rat's bollocks what game/session/whatever the bot play was on. Terms say "you use a bot and we'll confiscate your balance and give you the boot". What they don't say is "if we catch you at the time ...". In other words a Terms violation is a Terms violation whether you get caught at that particular moment or not. It makes no difference whether he used the bot at the time he won big or some time past when he won bugger all. Just because he didn't get caught at the time that he did it does not erase the fact that he did do it and is, from the point of doing it on, due for the pain that comes with having done so.

To me it seems like the idea here is that if I invite you over to my place and unbeknownst to me you drink all my tequila and poop on my lawn then I have no right to complain about it if I don't catch you red-handed, so to speak. I'd say that if I am reviewing the surveillance tapes one day and happen to see then what you've done I have every right to be pissed off at you regardless of how much time has elapsed between when you did it and when I discover that you did it. In other words the Terms of visiting my house are "don't drink all my Tequila" and "don't poop on my lawn", among other things. If at any time I discover that you have ignored my Terms and done it any way I will be seriously pissed off at you and I won't be inviting you back. If I can twist your arm to pay for the tequila and rub your nose in some poop on the lawn all the better, IMO.

I'm guessing that the real complaint here is that the casino probably won't discover the bot play, or other bad things you've done, until they review your account at the time you request a payout. Tough! As they say "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". If you get caught you're busted whether you did it today, yesterday or last year. Don't like those Terms? Then don't do the dirt. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

As to the crumbing about who lies when and what happens I'd say this: when casinos lie they get a Warning or a Pit listing or the like; when a forum member lies they get banned, probably permanently if it's a repeat offence; when a PABer lies the PAB gets tossed and the PABer will probably get booted from the site. If you're claiming that we're soft on casino management lies then I say "prove it". I reckon you'll have a lot tougher time doing so than you imagine. I'd also suggest you read over the old Warnings and Pit listings: casino lies do not sit well with us and we tend to make a point of outing it when we have proof to back such an action up.

 

[Slotster!]

Terms say "you use a bot and we'll confiscate your balance and give you the boot". What they don't say is "if we catch you at the time ...". In other words a Terms violation is a Terms violation whether you get caught at that particular moment or not. It makes no difference whether he used the bot at the time he won big or some time past when he won bugger all. Just because he didn't get caught at the time that he did it does not erase the fact that he did do it and is, from the point of doing it on, due for the pain that comes with having done so.

Yeah, this is pretty much it.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would be of the opinion Mr Bot-Tastic should get paid.

I think the bigger problem that has emerged is the ambiguity from Betfred. I feel sorry for the guy @ Betfred; he's obviously relaying some info that's not necessarily accurate or appropriate and been thrown to the lions as a consequence. Ultimately they've probably done the right thing by kicking BotMan to the kerb, but that point has kind of got lost in the other nonsense.

They could definitely have handled this a whole lot better, but the outcome for Canada's Mighty Bot-Master is always going to be exactly the same.

 

[Betfred]

Oh dear Aaron.

Another example of not knowing how your own software works. If someone has 2 computers on the same IP address on the playtech platform, they can be logged on with one computer then log on using their other. This would register on the software as log out then log in, though this has never happened. Its a registration fault.

How do I know, because I had exactly the same with a Playtech casino, who after I explained this too them and they obviously verified this with Playtech, they duly appologiesed and paid me my winnings and prize from the promotion.

Casinomeister, I have read your posts AND AT NO TIME imo, have you explained any fraud. If its the BOT as everyone keeps going on about then I dont see how its fraud but alot of things arent making sense so Ill just add it to the list.

GOCC, each version of the casino software comes with a unique serial number. If a player used those two computers to login one after the other then the sessions would display two different serial numbers. The sessions for this player did not display two different serial numbers, thus he was not doing this.

Cheers,

Aaron

 

[bentleycp]

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.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense.

Firstly, the two games are entirely different, not even in the same category, as such the gameplay CANNOT be identical.

Second, the Betfred rep said the slot logs were looked at first because they were more suspicious. Again if one set is more suspicious than the other, they CANNOT be identical.

 

[GOCC]

GOCC, each version of the casino software comes with a unique serial number. If a player used those two computers to login one after the other then the sessions would display two different serial numbers. The sessions for this player did not display two different serial numbers, thus he was not doing this.

Cheers,

Aaron

Its not unique though, all it is is a string in the Sub Registry so easily copied onto another machine

 

[bentleycp]

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

Hi Elliot,

I think most members are greatful for the work you have done on this case, however this section of your post and theory doesn't seem logical to me, and I was hoping you could clear up a few things.

1 - You state that the player was testing the bot on low level slots, however a bot can be roughly broken up into 3 sections: the GUI part, the decision making process, the program to tie it all together. If he was testing it on the slot game, in order to alter it to play pontoon he would have to make significant changes, such that the testing on the slots would become irrelevant. In fact I have never heard of a bot being tested on a different game altogether, the standard approach would be to test it on a play for free version of the game where of course no money is risked.

2 - The slot play started in May, yet the pontoon promotion was in August. As such it seems highly unlikely to me that he would be working on a prototype pontoon bot whilst playing slots, as he wouldn't be aware of the promotion launching in 3 months time.

 

[Betfred]

Its not unique though, all it is is a string in the Sub Registry so easily copied onto another machine

It is unique and isn't a simple change to make. That person would have to be pretty savvy and have motive. Changing it is also a breach of terms and conditions (4.1.3 of the general terms) and would suggest a user wants to cover something up.

In effect, you're confirming that the only way he could have conducted such a pattern of logging in is by breaching our T&Cs, probably with aim of doing something illicit. It's that or a bot. You choose.

Aaron

 

[bentleycp]

Okay, please give me the opportunity to repeat myself - some of you are clutching on to one element of the conversation yet dismissing the rest. The guy committed fraud - and he's probably laughing his ass off right now seeing how much he's got a few of you going. (you have noticed that he hasn't logged in since last week, right?).

I think just about everyone does grasp that, in fact I don't think anyone has said that they think the player is innocent. However, just because we believe the player is in the WRONG, doesn't lead automatically to Betfred being in the RIGHT. There are a number of points and questions which seem to have arisen from the actions:

1 - The use of Pontoon as the first reason not to pay. This was later put down to a miscommunication within Betfred. The problem with that is that suspicions are immediately raised. We have all been fobbed off with that excuse before, and hearing it from a casino is similar to a new member of this forum (ahem) making his first post about having winnings seized by a casino.

2 - The removal of Pontoon from the software. Again, a very strange occurence. I was late to this thread and don't even have an account at Betfred so cannot check if this happened, however I will believe the OP on this one. It's one thing lying about bot use where you have the chance to get away with it, slightly different saying a game has been removed which can be verified by all and sundry.

3 - The slot logs being sent before the pontoon logs. The reasoning for this is just bizarre, as many other members have said.

4 - The KYC check. Obviously being regulated by the GRA, Betfred must verify all players within 3 days of registration. However the account was closed at least 3 months after the first play (we don't know when the account was actually opened), therefore Betfred's KYC procedure must be lacking. Further, assuming that the KYC documents were revisited at a later date due to a suspicion about the players gameplay, these should have been the first aspect to be checked, and when found to be fake there would be no need for gamelogs to be checked, saving everyone a lot of time.

5 - Betfreds other behaviour. There was a link earlier in this thread about Betfred refusing to pay a Granny for an Olympics bet on her grandson (which I believe they have now paid). To me this does not show good character.

If just one of these factors had occured, then that could have easily been put down to a mistake, but I think a lot of members are seeing a bit more here than just a bunch of errors, and that is why these questions are being asked.

 

[Betfred]

I'm not sure if you wanted me to answer directly, or someone else, but I will try to fill in the gaps:

1. Yes, a mistake was made here. It was miscommunication, but we can present the call logs where we tried to contact the player to explain the situation. The phone number was disconnected.

2. The game didn't load in Flash and we were getting hit by a number of people that appeared to be using a bot; we put 2 and 2 together here and thought we were exposed and brought down the game across the board and contacted Playtech. The game is still unserviceable in Flash.

3. The slot logs were sent as the most suspicious as the thread boiled down to whether he lied about ever using a bot. He lost. The case was closed, but we offered to send as many logs as possible.

4. The payment method this user registered with meant we could verify age, based on that the GRA accept that ID checks outside the UK are then only required on withdrawals.

5. Ref the now infamous granny case - that was the offline division's decision and I can't speak on their behalf, but it is certainly not connected to this.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

Aaron

 

[bentleycp]

It is unique and isn't a simple change to make. That person would have to be pretty savvy and have motive.

It is simple, and to any advanced player quite an easy change. You may catch the odd amateur out, but relying on serial numbers and registry entries for fraud detection is defunct by quite a few years.

Changing it is also a breach of terms and conditions (4.1.3 of the general terms) and would suggest a user wants to cover something up.

In effect, you're confirming that the only way he could have conducted such a pattern of logging in is by breaching our T&Cs, probably with aim of doing something illicit. It's that or a bot. You choose.

I don't like this. If you are assured of the players guilt due to previous evidence, why would you feel the need to say this? Smacks of mudslinging to me.

 

[GOCC]

It is unique and isn't a simple change to make. That person would have to be pretty savvy and have motive. Changing it is also a breach of terms and conditions (4.1.3 of the general terms) and would suggest a user wants to cover something up.

In effect, you're confirming that the only way he could have conducted such a pattern of logging in is by breaching our T&Cs, probably with aim of doing something illicit. It's that or a bot. You choose.

Aaron

No it isnt. Its on HIS MACHINE. It isnt in your software, its in his registry. If you deleted the registry then started a new session of ANY playtech software, it would instigate a new registry key.

Not simple to change, just took me 4 seconds.

Next thing you will be denying peoples winnings because of them deleting cookies on their computers or deleteing iesnare thats forced on peoples computers.