Nicolas, the more I read on this post the less I trust what you are saying. There are so many issues that I am having with this. You asked me what was not logical.
Let's start by asking you what friend of mine was found to be breaking any rules? You have repeatedly talked as if I had a friend who was caught breaking your rules. That is not the case at all and I don't know where you are getting that notion. This thread says nothing of that.
I do have a friend whom I am hoping joins this forum that has been waiting on a withdrawal for over a month. I do not have a friend who you are accusing of breaking rules. Although it appears as though that may be your next step in attempting to not pay them.
If she has not broken any rules, we will pay her. Even if she has broken a rule or two and is a regular player, we will likely let it go. We would be insane to want to discourage regular play.
What seems totally wrong to me is that you are claiming these players were getting stalled and delayed because they were rule breakers. The only problem with that is that for one thing, you accused them of rules being broken that they could prove they did not. So you falsely accused them then. For another thing if you thought they were breakers of rules then you would NOT HAVE PAID THEM AT ALL. I do not believe that you thought they were rule breakers. Apparently you even gave them a small payment 2 days prior to coming up with this story. So until that point you obviously believed them to be legitimate players and you were delaying them and giving them partial payments. You were apparently doing this for months and months. Now if you believe them to be frauds then did you get their documents? You must have if you paid them. If this is not the truth then please spell it out for us. The posters who made those claims gave exact dates. It is not honest to claim they were not getting paid because of rules violations. You were simply slow paying them is what all the evidence points to.
Internally there was much debate over this case. Some people caught on to it, others were fooled. Over time however, it is easier to detect. Fraud isn't always easy to spot, and we don't want to harm innocent players. Could we have handled it better? Yes. But we are now certain of our stance, we have solid reasons for it.
Lets next move to your constant syndicate claim. The posters could be lying of course but you have not given any indication that they are in regards to their play and deposit history. They are claiming to have wagered many times at your casino. One of them is claiming to have played away winnings several times and even kept playing after wagering requirements at £300 per hand. This does NOT sound like the work of a gambling syndicate. This 50% of balance rule keeps coming up. Are you saying that they are abusive because your rules state to not bet more than 50% of their balance........ and they followed that rule? So they followed your rule and that is abusive?
Advantage players will always do and say things in a way to appear normal. If it is all as clear cut as they want it to be, then surely a mediation channel of their choice will side with them. The mediation channel will have access to all necessary records, and will be able to make an informed decision on the case. If the player is just trying to pressure us through public shame, then they will not choose to persue it.
Regarding the 50% rule, some of the syndicate players broke it. Others didn't. They all broke rules though.
I don't know what in my post would make you think I'm accusing them of not breaking our rules. I'm sorry if I wasn't as clear as I should have.
It is things like this that is making it hard to take your claims seriously. Along with the fact that my acquaintance has been delayed in her payment as well so I see it happening even as you say it is being fixed.
Can you please let me know of your aquaintance? Maybe there is more to it? I'll be glad to look into it.
Now with all of my doubts being said I do think that you are being good to stay in this thread. I do think you are good to offer to take PMs to help a player. I am sure everyone appreciates that. However, you should not be forced to constantly do this because your casino is not run properly. I am surprised that with your demeanor you would not be more happy working with an accredited casino or one a little more upstanding. It is extremely difficult not to like you. I just wish that you would be representing a reputable casino and not bet phoenix. That relationship is bringing you down.
Thanks for the kind words. I know we have had issues. I never dennied it. Whenever a true issue comes up, I'll be the first to accept it. But... I know the vision the owners had for this place, I know what the adversities this company has gone through; our CEO and one of our senior managers died, we have launched in a time where there has been more processor confiscations than any other time I know of, not to mention hardware issues, DDOS attacks, having to change a lot of our staff abruptly, etc. I'm confident that we have weathered the worst and are now approaching calmer waters.
The fact that we have done as well as we have given all the circumstances makes me feel kinda proud. I do know we can improve, and I'm sure we will. The owner and senior managers understand the importance of 24 hour payouts, quality service and competitive promotions.
If I felt there wasn't good reason for changes to not have been faster, I would not be here. But if the vision is good, and these are just temporary issues, I'd have to be a rat to jump ship the second the storm comes.
And... I totally understand player's feeling. Each person has every right to weight the circumstances and choose whether the risk/reward we offer is something that is in their interest.
I understand those players who choose to stand on the sidelines right now. I'm not looking to win people over with a few short words, but to keep a track record of improving gambling companies long term in an honest, player-input based way.
And What exactly would either of you gentlemen like me to file a PAB about?
I am beginning to think that details are often overlooked by some when reading other people's posts on this forum.
You can also find some of my postings here if that helps
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/instant-payments.42548/
Sorry if I overlooked details.
Like you've just done here for instance? I said nothing about thinking there should be a PAB, I only said that there wasn't one.
We've handled cases here at Casinomeister related to this syndicate stuff and in the course of those investigations we've seen (some of) the evidence the casino has against these players. It is more than sufficient to support the syndicate accusations.
As I'm sure you know the casino is under no obligation to present this evidence here since (a) this is a public forum and the information they have isn't appropriate for public display and (b) to do so would very likely reveal more to the syndicate members than would be wise for the casino in terms of their fraud investigation procedures. And let's not forget that it's always the fraudsters who say they trust no one but they really want the casino to show their hand and tell them what they've got. Of course they want to know because they want to know how much the casino knows, and how they got caught. That stuff is private casino info and I'm sure you know that.
There was syndicate fraud from these guys in Philly, there probably still is, and who is or isn't part of that is a work in progress. Take it or leave it but there it is.
Thank you. To give players an idea of how relentless and bold syndicate members are, here is a post from a sports betting forum where they are talking about their activities:
Durito I know you work at a book or have morals or whatever but I work every angle sir. No one can win consistently at gambling you need every advantage you can get. Why would I not double and triple on bonuses. Why would I not have internet cards from Cricket - sprint - verizon. Why would I not use proxy IP addresses. Why would I not have scanned ID's of 10 people. It's all fair in warfare and anyone that can't understand that is a square.
I'll share the link to that post with Max. I'm not posting the link directly since I don't want to break forum rules.
Thanks for the reply Nicolas
.
I must say it does always raise alarm bells when I hear the 'syndicate' accusation. Like if they really were an online syndicate why on earth would they all register from Pennsylvania? That would be crazy!
It isn't always really a syndicate per say. most of the time it is just a ring leader with people he gets to use their ID in exchange for a cut. The less high tech ones recruit in the same area they live in. Hence, all the 'ids' and IPs are all within a 100 mile radios.
If it really was a syndicate they would a) be all over the USA/world, b) stagger their registrations and c) mix up their play.
There are smarter syndicates than this one, I admit. But we make it tough to fool us.
The reality of it is that this is most likely a group of young people probably at college and one of them has come up with a certain plan and passed it to his mates who joined in. Whether they did it as individuals or pooled winnings is anyone's guess and impossible to prove. They may be chancers/opportunists as much as a syndicate.
You are describing a different kind of activity than what just happened.
I guess a lot of it comes down to the method they used and was it a blatant cheat/software manipulation or something of that nature? I think it is the gameplay and methods used that would flag them as a syndicate rather than physical location.
One thing that worries me about all this is you say these players broke multiple rules but then you appear to contradict yourself saying to VWM that you have just drawn up a new set of rules!!!
We slightly changed our rules to make it even harder on these people. They broke the old rules, we aren't retro-actively applying rules, there has been no accusations of that even.
Why would you need to do that? It seems to imply the players had not broken the first set of rules and that it was the rules themselves that were at fault.
Our rules were not tough enough. We want to keep a balance between giving freedom to recreational players, and avoiding getting beat by advantage players/frauds.
How many players is it roughly and how much money are we talking about here? If it's under 10 players and like $20K then wouldn't it be better to pay up and close the accounts? I mean you guys have the US market all to yourselves you have this fantastic opportunity so I imagine you must be doing very well. In a viral marketing way it's also good publicity for you if the players do get away with a big play once in a while.
It's great when recreational, normal players win. We love it. When I see a good player win, I'm always happy since I know what the odds are of a good player coming back after a big win, and the odds of a good player coming back after a bad loss. Since it is random I can't control it, but I truly wish good players win.
Advantage players if they win, we aren't too happy about it, but we just take it as a lesson.
Fraud, we have to be tough up. We'd rather spend $1000's ensuring we don't have to pay them, than give in to a $100 fraud payment. Every dollar you give a fraud ensure's they have more power the next time they come round.
Please understand I am not for one moment condoning practises like cheating. I must admit your post does sound like you are certain that is the case. But then it worries me you introduced a rule change AFTER these guys won.
The rule change was a small one, it wasn't applied retro-actively, and the sole purpose is to make sure we can give good deals to good players, while not losing money to non-recreational players.
I am still not comfortable you have accused these players of fraud in public like this before the PAB/Hastings process has even happened. I think you should look carefully at your legal position as to all this or you could end up paying substantial damages to all these players if the accusations can't be proven.
You seem pretty angry about this and these players may well have cheated you but if you make these kind of public accusations you have got to be 100% right on it.
No, I don't have to be right. I have to have sufficient motive to take the stance I take.
Take a theoretical example:
If I find someone I don't know in my house, and who I didn't let in, I have REASON to believe they are in it to steal from me.
This person may then say that he was running from someone who was trying to kill him and just happened to jump in my back yard to ensure survival.
Now... if I accuse that person of breaking into my house to steal, I have a valid reason to do so. The courts will then determine if I was right in my accusation, or if I had an alternate motive to make my accusation (he is my wife's lover)
I want things to go to court since I have all the evidence I need to make this a closed case.
I have been swept up in some of this stuff. I have absolute certainty that the casinos are throwing a big blanket on a situation and including innocent players. Which ones are innocent? I don't know. I do know that I am yet I have been locked out of mainstreet and Lock and cleopatras and virtual.
I think the big thing that is being overlooked is that other than 3dice, most USA players are going to pick a RTG casino(s) and play them. I am pretty sure that I have played every RTG available to me. Well so do most other Online gamblers from America I'm sure. Would that mean we are all a syndicate? I'm also not young. I'm mid 40's in age. I did not get kicked out of BP casino. I wonder if I had won then maybe I would have. This all leaves a bad taste in my mouth because I know what it feels like to be wrongly accused. It has happened to me several times now and at least some are big enough to apologize for it.
Did you get funds witheld or just accounts shut down? The level of certanty a casino needs to witheld funds is way different than that which they need to just shut an account down.
I also must say that when I look at BP's T&C of their bonuses. I know how I would play it. I'm guessing a bunch of players would attack it similarly to give themselves a chance to win. If we all did would we be considered a syndicate?
No. It takes more than that.
I believe that if any player that is accused of this activity can supply all of the documentation that RTG demands (Picture ID, fax back form, bank stmt, ewallet screenshots, utility bill... etal) then how could they be fraudulent? It seems Cabrair32 cannot supply these documents. So then it is likely that he may be acting fraudulently. But what if a player accused of being a fraud actually can supply all of the documents to show that he is not a fraud? Playing style and having a "game plan" for beating a casino while following the rules is NOT FRAUDULENT by any stretch and to consider it so is ridiculous. Just like Bryans last "spirit of the bonus" video. Of course players want to win.
We have other verification methods that you may be forced to comply with. It isn't anything a normal player would have to worry about (and likely they don't even know is how that goes/that these alternat verification methods even exist)
Also, it bothers me that it is possible that if you are labled a fraud by a casino does that mean that if it ever happens again that the casino will likely be believed based on prior accusations?
Well what do you expect? I'm sorry for saying it that way, but I'm not sure what else to say. In any system, your prior activities are weighned in when considering your current activities.
If you have a history of declaring bankrupcy, should banks not take this into consideration when given you a loan? If you have a history of robbery, and are accused of it again, should the judge not take this into consideration?
Sure, it is unfair in a way. Maybe these people had changed their ways and will get innocently hurt based on their past activity. But wouldn't it be equally unfair to the other responsible lenders of the bank who will have to pay higher interest rates if the bank gives out high risk loans?
Wouldn't it be unfair that a thug that broke into my house gets away scott free because I didn't have enough evidence to prove his bad deed, even though he has a history of 10 convictions for burglary and I have a clean sheet?
Fact is, life ain't perfect, we have to find the best system we can with what we got.
Like I mentioned, American players are limited basically to RTG for the most part. AND ONLY RTG is using this fraud complaint or "syndicate" complaint to keep money.
bottom line should be that if a player has not broken a term. Not played a disallowed game and can provide all documentation asked to prove his/her Identity then there should not be any way to charge the player and keep his money. It should not matter if others have played the same way. If they can provide all the necessary proof that they are indeed who they claim and are of age then there should be no problem. Was it a syndicate at betfair when they kept everyone's money? NO, it was just obvious how to win on the terms provided. I imagine most players did the smart thing and won.
Listen, you keep hinting at things I can't reveal. I'm not going to say how we caught them, but I gave a few pieces of information that makes it 99.99% likely it is fraud. The other percentage of proof I can provide to Max or Brian... if the players choose to PAB instead of try to blackmail us through slander and try to scare innocent square players who can't even imagine how these guys operate. Basically, you are being used.
The very fact that you had the unfortunate incident of being falsely accused is the fault of Syndicates. To quote dominique, who I have a lot of respect for (this is from a totally different thread, though applies here):
Fraudulent player syndicates hurt everyone, but most of all they hurt other players.
Because of them innocent players get caught in the net when the necessary house cleaning takes place.
Because of them we have ridiculous wagering requirements.
Because of them we have T&Cs that take a lawyer to be understood, singling out this game, that game and the other and attaching special requirements to it.
Fraud syndicates need to be outed - for the player's sake if nothing else. It is unfortunate if the investigation gets messy, so now we need to sift through it and clean it up.
Pitch your PABs.
I'm sure if we didn't pay you greasemonkey, you would PAB instantly. Now think why haven't these players done that.
This is what concerns me.
What is it that makes a group of players a "syndicate" in the eyes of the casino?
This is a vague term, and seems to be applied when too many players WIN. What about all these "bonus beater" forums out there, where the webmasters and members collude by discussing a particular promotion, and the best way to profit from it - and then go along en-masse to do it. This seems to look like a "syndicate", yet all these players are doing is pooling INFORMATION, in other words, using the internet for it's intended purpose.
What about someone who produces and sells a "bonus beater's handbook" on eBay; are all players who buy and use it members of a syndicate run by the author of the book?
It seems that any player who has found some kind of "perfect strategy" on the internet, and employs it WITHOUT breaking any specific rules can STILL face the accusation of being in a syndicate because more than a given threshold of other players have also used this SAME "perfect strategy", perhaps having found it in the same way.
All of us here at CM "collude" to some extent, since promotions, and how to win at them, are often discussed.
It is all very well claiming that players DID break the rules, but if the rules are vague, whether they are broken is only a matter of opinion, rather than fact.
We have ways to distinguish this. And as max explained, and I'm sure you know, there are reasons we can't divolge what we do and how we do it to the general public.
Take the 50% rule. IF a player bets 49% to start with, gets ahead, and then switches to the smallest "grind" possible to make WR and preserve the profit, this may well be considered "abusive", but only in the sense of "in the spirit of". However advantageous and "abusive" the tactic, at the time it did NOT break the rules.
I'm sorry, but, why do you keep arguing about 'ifs' which were never mentioned? You keep bringing up 'spirit of the bonus rule', which ONLY you and a few posters who have no dog in this fight have brought up. The original complaints don't mention them, I don't mention them, I even made it clear on mutliple occations that players broke SPECIFIC rules. Not spirit of the bonus rules.
I mean, I could argue all day about how life would be if my grandmother was male and catholic she could be the pope, but that isn't the case. So why keep going over these imaginary situations? This just distracts from the REAL topics at hand being discussed.
Sorry for sounding harsh, but if you repeat something enoguh people will start to believe it is true.
If these players are using their own ID at registration, and can supply all the necessary documentation to prove it, neither are they breaking THAT rule (the one about having to supply genuine details).
If they use their OWN money, and can demonstrate ownership of the source account, they are NOT breaking the rule of only playing with their own money.
Whilst it seems odd that a syndicate would play anything other than "perfect strategy", it is actually the case that they WOULD, as this provides "cover play" to disguise what they are doing, making it harder to detect. The same concept is used by magicians in order to divert attention to the mechanics of the trick they are doing (such as getting the audience to look up whilst they pull the extra card from their sleeve), so that the audience thinks it really is "magic".
What we lack is clear guidance of where the dividing line lies between a community of like minded players sharing information, and a syndicate.
You will not get this fine line, as that is trade secret. We trust a select host of 3rd party resolution centers where we will show our hand, and our secrets and the other party can show theirs, and the resolution center can then determine who is right.
If we did what you are asking, we would be destroyed by fraud. And it would only hurt normal players even more than syndicates are already hurting normal players who occationally get caught up in investigations.
It seems it hasn't been made perfectly clear here yet but the info on this "syndicate" was about organized fraud, not just the discovery of a wee group of pals having an innocent go at a casino bonus.
When "friends" collude to commit fraud and an organized assault on a casino or group of casinos then that "syndicate" very much is the concern of the casino, and us for that matter. One can always imagine scenarios of innocence but such efforts are misplaced here and in this case.
Thank you again.
So, the dividing line is where the players turn to misrepresentation in order to get more than they would otherwise be entitled to, such as using multiple accounts, and playing on accounts other than their own.
The dividing line is where they break our rules and we can prove it. How we prove it, is between us and the resolution center (be it which it may be)
Players who simply share information, but play on their own account, and with their own funds, have nothing to worry about?
In general yes, nothing to worry about. Of course, anyone can at any time be falsely accused of something. This applies to the online casino world as well as the physical real world.
What about players who BORROW money in order to make larger deposits, and thus utilise larger bonuses?
I strongly don't suggest it, but there is nothing in our rules againts this. Basically ead our rules, if you don't break them, you are fine.
I'm no fan of BetPhoenix as some of you will know, however what I am going to post really doesn't have anything to do with them except in a general way.
Someone explain to me how you can run a syndicate to cheat a casino and really expect to not be caught. You have to send in ID, money info., and lots of other personal stuff to play. All have to be in your name and be able to be verified. Can't use the same IP address so you can't be in the same house using a WiFi connection.
So what would be the point in trying to do this? I guess I am dense but I just don't get it.
To make money. They don't play as a hobby, but as profession. Look at my post above where I quote one of those players 'braging' about how smart they
Some years ago here in Texas, there were several gambling rooms busted by the police. The people were actually playing on a computer, looked like RTG or MG games to me. How would they be able to do this and not be called a syndicate? This was back before WiFi etc, when you had to use a landline for computer connection.
This just makes no sense to me.
I've had affiliates approach me asking if they can set something like this up with us. I always say no. Some casinos will say yes.
@ Everyone, if you have a hard time believing syndicates exist, here is a post that might enlighten you:
Durito I know you work at a book or have morals or whatever but I work every angle sir. No one can win consistently at gambling you need every advantage you can get. Why would I not double and triple on bonuses. Why would I not have internet cards from Cricket - sprint - verizon. Why would I not use proxy IP addresses. Why would I not have scanned ID's of 10 people. It's all fair in warfare and anyone that can't understand that is a square.
I'm not including the link of where this was posted because I don't want to break rules, but I'm sure there are those among you who can verify this was actually posted by a player on a forum.
Remember, every dollar they extract from us, is a dollar that we CAN'T give back to good players who deserve nice things (comps, free chips, bonuses, gifts, sweepstakes, etc)
@ brucake
I'll check your account now
@ Cabrair32
Sorry, but you are part of the syndicate. If you want any form of resolution, please PAB.
I think I covered it all.
Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Bet Phoenix Casino Affiliates Manager
When did I say ONLY PAB or CDS? This is the same as people mentioning 'spirit of the bonus' clause when it wasn't brought up to begin with.
