Casino Club closed account of 167'500 JACKPOT winner

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by thelawnet
I'm not sure what you mean by 'connected to a group of players'. Players do not come in groups.

Actually they do. Especially when it is a handful of players opening hundreds of accounts at once. This has happened at FL and Bellerock a number of times. I'm not saying this is the case here, but that is a typical m.o. of fraudsters. You're talking about normal activity. This is not normal.

Well yes, but that's not a group of players, it's one player with multiple accounts. Anyway, it would help if the casino would clarify what has happened.

I'm not entirely sure where the player is in all of this. Is he banned from this forum?

He appears to have had a large balance in his account before winning the jackpot. If he had a lot of accounts, I'm not sure why he would do this?

Also, regarding payment of this jackpot the casino is alleging 'non-allowed behaviour' allowed the player to run up his balance prior to winning the jackpot. What behaviour was this?

It's certainly arguable that if you win money 'illegitimately' that would be grounds to confiscate subsequent winnings from that money. There are rather a lot of things confusing this issue, but it seems to me that it should be concentrated on how the player ran up his 30k+ balance before winning this jackpot. What did he do that was not allowed?

Who knows? The player won't give them an address to send the legal docs to, and he won't contact the lawyers via email.

So in essence a standstill.

Very strange. Pity I don't speak German... It's an intriguing saga.

The player at least seems to be active on the German site now. It's certainly strange for him not to have done anything for four months.

 

[kmay87]

Just to chip in with a bit here.

Casino Club has long fascinated me, and since they tried to bust me for using a bot when in fact, I was using a strategy card, I've been amazed by the amount of claims and PABs against them.

I think the problem initiated around 18 months ago. Casino Club used to offer blackjack with a very small player edge. Combine that with the sometimes lucrative sign ups and reloads they offered, and you had hoards of people hitting them hard with bots. I personally know people who took 10s of s out of them within a matter of weeks.

Apparently, it took them a while to cotton on to this. Now, as other members have picked up on, they class bot use as fraud. In my opinion, that's a rather strong, and somewhat inappropriate, word to use. But aside of that, bot use is clearly against the terms and conditions of the casino, which all players had to accept when they signed up, so in essence it basically gives the casino the right to do whatever they want with the monies of a 'suspected' bot user. Is this a bad thing? Probably not. It sure discourages potential bot users from visiting the casino, helping to protect both it and its players. But on the contrary, it makes them seem like a rogue outfit.

Standard practice to date seems to be that casinos are returning players' deposits, voiding any winnings, and banning them from ever playing there again. I don't think anyone could call that unfair. But Casino Club have taken this to another level, being overly harsh on fair players, and the oh-so-familiar cry of 'fraud' or 'bot' usually follows almost agony in just trying to get someone to talk to you. You can see where they are coming from, but it could be interpreted that this is an attempt to recoup some of what was lost during the 'bot age'.

All this talk of suing and legal action has got rather confusing. Understandably, while legal proceedings are active, it would be rather silly, to say the least, for either the casino, or the player, to talk about this matter. However, as long drawn out as it might turn out to be, I'd say the vast majority of people would like to know the outcome, and what this will mean.

From what I've seen and read, communication is Casino Club's biggest problem. I don't think for one second that they are rogue, or anywhere near to becoming rogue - it's all well and good doing something, but if you don't explain why you did it, you could have a problem.

 

[Casino Club]

The return of the jackpot is clearly not contingent on repayment of earlier monies BY the player TO the casino (which is what casino club's case is about), but rather on whether there is any chance of this jackpot actually being paid to the player. That could only be determined by the casino agreeing to pay the player the jackpot, or by the player sueing the casino himself.

In other words, you don't sue somebody because you owe them money!

Dear All,
clearly Casino Club is not in a position to neither pay the player the JP win right now, nor return the JP money into the pool.

Should Casino Club refund this money into the JP pool and, at a later date a Court of Law decide that the player had won the JP, obvioussly Casino Club would not be expected to pay this money out of its own pocket.
What would all the participants to this thread say if we then took this money out of the pool again!?
And what if another player won this money in the meantime??

What if we paid the player and later find out that a Court of Law decides he won this money by infringing our T&C and therefore Casino Club should return the JP money into the pool.
What money would we return to the pool then??

Clearly this case is now pending its legal resolution and the money frozen until such time.

 

[kmay87]

Dear All,
clearly Casino Club is not in a position to neither pay the player the JP win right now, nor return the JP money into the pool.

Should Casino Club refund this money into the JP pool and, at a later date a Court of Law decide that the player had won the JP, obvioussly Casino Club would not be expected to pay this money out of its own pocket.
What would all the participants to this thread say if we then took this money out of the pool again!?
And what if another player won this money in the meantime??

What if we paid the player and later find out that a Court of Law decides he won this money by infringing our T&C and therefore Casino Club should return the JP money into the pool.
What money would we return to the pool then??

Clearly this case is now pending its legal resolution and the money frozen until such time.

I think you, as in Casino Club, only have yourselves to blame for this issue. Your unwillingness to explain to members of this, or any forum, has just led to further questions about the integrity of your casino.

I'm not suggesting you should rethink your business practice, perhaps just the customer service skills element. It seems most of the casino reps visit this site frequently, therefore perhaps merely by keeping us all informed, rather than in the dark, could seriously improve how you are currently viewed.

I can understand that it must be frustrating that many, many players are abusing your casino, some of which are then posting on here and other sites with bogus complaints. But that's where your CS can come in. We all know that Casino Club is being targeted with these claims, but I for one would sooner read a comment from the casino stating the player did x (it doesn't need to be descriptive if there are concerns with the release of personal/financial data) as that way we could at least put it to rest.

In this case, it does seem that whatever you do, someone is going to frown upon it. Has it been handled right from the beginning? Or does the lack of communication have something to do with it? Just going through the 50 odd replies in this thread brings up so many different instances of what actually 'happened'. I see comments of fraud, long-term abuse, the player is suing you, you are suing him (so are you counter-suing him or what?), allegations of bot use, he is part of a group of fraudsters, and so forth. It clearly can't be all of those, so I don't see actually what the player did. Unless that was posted on the German forum, which I don't speak/read.

If this is going through the courts, then no, this jackpot should not be given to the player, nor should it be returned to the jackpot pool. Provided that, upon the outcome of this case, one of those two instances occurs, then that is fair enough. But your latest post suggests you are suing the player because he won the jackpot. It's interesting how you intend to play this. My legal suspicions tell me that you audited the players' account upon the jackpot win, and found something in there which gives reason to believe he was a fraudulent player - whatever that may mean. However, my cynical side makes me think you knew this player was a fraud, but action was only taken when left with the situation where he had won a jackpot.

If this player was an 'established fraudulent player' as has been suggested in the forum, logic would assume you had audited/processed previous withdrawals, and therefore this would have come up before.

This case seems to be getting more confusing by the day.

 

[zenderady]

CC can you please tell us exactly on which grounds you are suing this player?

 

[elscrabinda]

Correct me if I'm wrong but there hasn't been any mention on this thread of the player taking CC to court, only the other way round. We don't know what CC are taking him to court for, and we don't know what they hope to receive from it. They certainly won't (if it is how I understand it) end up having to pay his win as a result of THEIR legal action. Is the player suing CC as well?

I hope CC takes on board the criticism of their poor communication here and keeps us informed about the progress of this. I'm glad that they gave an assurance that either the money will go to the player or will go back into the pot, I can assure them that I'll be keeping an eye on whether that happens!

 

[jetset]

CC can you please tell us exactly on which grounds you are suing this player?

This is a good point - if CC has reached the stage of serving papers, one presumes that the claim is now clearly defined and itemised; possibly already on public record in some court of law, civil or criminal?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Seriously - the slot in question should be withdrawn from the casino until this case is settled. Something worse could happen - another player could win the much reduced pool, and THEN the legal action might finish with the result that the jackpot win was null and void, meaning that this NEXT winner will then have a legal claim to both the reduced pool, AND the original voided jackpot that should have been immediately returned to the pool had legal proceeding not been started. This could lead to quite a mess, and the best way to prevent any further complications would be to withdraw this slot until a ruling is reached as to what should be done with the disputed jackpot. Since CC do not offer the system wide progressives, but their own, this process will only be as complex as changing the configuration of the CC casino to offer one fewer game.

This legal case has the potential to drag CC into quite a mess, as legal cases such as this can drag on, especially if one party decides to be vindictive, and uses tactical ploys to keep the case from reaching a prompt resolution. If the player in question has a weak claim to the jackpot, and knows the case will eventually be found for CC, he is likely to make certain of "revenge" for being denied this crowning glory of his manipulation of the casino's rules that he seems to have managed to get away with for some while. Again it seems that a host of accounts here have been found to be fraudulent, so it does really look like that CC was uniquely vulnerable to something that caused them to be a target, whereas other Boss Media casinos have been spared the attentions of most of these attacks. Other Boss media casinos should take note, as this zero tolerance "purge" by CC could lead to the fraud and manipulative play shifting to them.

 

[EasyRhino]

You know, looking at it, I can imagine that the player in question was possibly using a bot, and possibly even playing on multiple accounts.

And you know what? if I was that player, even if I was doing all of that, I would probably want to sue the casino. The size of the jackpot makes it worth fighting for.

 

[tofu23]

You know, looking at it, I can imagine that the player in question was possibly using a bot, and possibly even playing on multiple accounts.

And you know what? if I was that player, even if I was doing all of that, I would probably want to sue the casino. The size of the jackpot makes it worth fighting for.

A Bot doesn't assist anyone at BJ play, let alone playing a progressive slot machine (as you and every other living and breathing soul is aware).

And this case isn't about multiple or fake identities. Casino Club can not sue a ghost (gnome). Having decided to sue the player they are implicitly conceding the bonafides of the individual involved.

If they did not believe the individual was correctly identified then the appropriate court documents would be properly labeled "aka ........ and/or aka........). By attempting to serve documents on the affected player casino Club have tied their flag to the mast. This is not about multiple identities.

..

 

[EasyRhino]

A Bot doesn't assist anyone at BJ play, let alone playing a progressive slot machine

Sure, but it would assist in playing a billion hands if the blackjack game offered a player advantage, and it would assist in autoplaying perfect video poker strategy if the VP game offered a positive EV chance at a big progressive jackpot. Of course this would only establish a motive to use a bot, not any evidence of actual use.

But again, regardless of how many of the casino's rules I had broken, I would still sue for the money. I'd go for a common law concept of "If you accept my wager, you had damn well pay me if I win," trumping everything else. I don't know if that's actually in the law books anywhere, but I'd give it a shot.

 

[soflat]

I do agree that the game should be removed. They need to sort out what will happen to the money if someone else hits the jackpot between now and the conclusion of the legal posturing.

The jackpot should be placed in escrow somewhere (like with CasinoMeister). The funds should not be in the hands of the casino while it is under dispute.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sure, but it would assist in playing a billion hands if the blackjack game offered a player advantage, and it would assist in autoplaying perfect video poker strategy if the VP game offered a positive EV chance at a big progressive jackpot. Of course this would only establish a motive to use a bot, not any evidence of actual use.

But again, regardless of how many of the casino's rules I had broken, I would still sue for the money. I'd go for a common law concept of "If you accept my wager, you had damn well pay me if I win," trumping everything else. I don't know if that's actually in the law books anywhere, but I'd give it a shot.

Their case seems to be that the player won the progressive using money won "unfairly" through other types of play. Since there WAS a BJ game that offered a player advantage, a scenario exists where a player could use a bot to generate a virtually inexhastable supply of credits with which to punt for the progressive. This is probably the mainstay of their case, not false ID etc. It seems that this player has won "thousands" by an "illegitimate playing method", and already has the money. This somehow only came to light when a deeper audit took place after the jackpot was won. This must involve a significant amount of money, since the casino has managed to hold on to the progressive, and I would expect that they would simply keep to their position and wait for the player to act, yet they have decided to sue the player for the retrospective return of funds. This makes it seem that they believe this player has illegitimately won a VERY large amount, perhaps more even than the disputed jackpot, and they are prepared to go to the risk and expense of a legal case. The player seems not to be all that interested in contesting the confiscation of the jackpot at present, although this may be a legal tactic since CC have initiated proceedings, and if CC lose the case, CC will end up liable for costs, as well as the disputed jackpot. If the player initiated proceedings, it would be THEY that risked losing not just the claim to the jackpot, but costs, as well as opening themselves up to a suit from CC if the case was decided on the basis that the player used an illicit means to win prior to getting the jackpot.

If CC wins, can they even enforce the judgement? There may well be a law that makes gambling debts unenforceable, there was here in the UK such a law until recently - it was repealed as part of the new gambling act of 2007, so that disputes could be taken before the courts.

CC now have their hands tied, they must be careful what they reveal about this case since it may prejudice their claim, yet this could lead to their reputation being tarnished BECAUSE they have "clammed up" over the issues.
IF CC post any comment, the player's lawyers may use such comment in the case, and it may strengthen the players case. Similarly, the player may well not be commenting on the advice of THEIR legal team, lest they admit something that strengthens the CASINO's case.

This could take some time to resolve, and this may still be a hot topic NEXT Christmas.

 

[EasyRhino]

If CC wins, can they even enforce the judgement? There may well be a law that makes gambling debts unenforceable, there was here in the UK such a law until recently - it was repealed as part of the new gambling act of 2007, so that disputes could be taken before the courts.

In the US, this is a state-by-state thing, so it could get very complicated between Malta and Germany.

 

[spearmaster]

Their case seems to be that the player won the progressive using money won "unfairly" through other types of play. Since there WAS a BJ game that offered a player advantage, a scenario exists where a player could use a bot to generate a virtually inexhastable supply of credits with which to punt for the progressive. This is probably the mainstay of their case, not false ID etc. It seems that this player has won "thousands" by an "illegitimate playing method", and already has the money. This somehow only came to light when a deeper audit took place after the jackpot was won. This must involve a significant amount of money, since the casino has managed to hold on to the progressive, and I would expect that they would simply keep to their position and wait for the player to act, yet they have decided to sue the player for the retrospective return of funds. This makes it seem that they believe this player has illegitimately won a VERY large amount, perhaps more even than the disputed jackpot, and they are prepared to go to the risk and expense of a legal case. The player seems not to be all that interested in contesting the confiscation of the jackpot at present, although this may be a legal tactic since CC have initiated proceedings, and if CC lose the case, CC will end up liable for costs, as well as the disputed jackpot. If the player initiated proceedings, it would be THEY that risked losing not just the claim to the jackpot, but costs, as well as opening themselves up to a suit from CC if the case was decided on the basis that the player used an illicit means to win prior to getting the jackpot.

If CC wins, can they even enforce the judgement? There may well be a law that makes gambling debts unenforceable, there was here in the UK such a law until recently - it was repealed as part of the new gambling act of 2007, so that disputes could be taken before the courts.

CC now have their hands tied, they must be careful what they reveal about this case since it may prejudice their claim, yet this could lead to their reputation being tarnished BECAUSE they have "clammed up" over the issues.
IF CC post any comment, the player's lawyers may use such comment in the case, and it may strengthen the players case. Similarly, the player may well not be commenting on the advice of THEIR legal team, lest they admit something that strengthens the CASINO's case.

This could take some time to resolve, and this may still be a hot topic NEXT Christmas.

On what basis do you make this claim?

Or did you mean to say "This could be a possible reason for..."

 

[Avatar73]

On what basis do you make this claim?

Or did you mean to say "This could be a possible reason for..."

This is probably the mainstay of their case,

This could be a possible reason for..



Basically the same thing! both imply speculation, leading to postulating a theory.

Vinyl was just putting forward a possible theory, im sure based on nothing [other than the previous in this thread]. and why not! free speech and all that

 

[tofu23]

On what basis do you make this claim?

Or did you mean to say "This could be a possible reason for..."

Come on Spear - you're ghosting this guy. And it is getting rather trite and tiresome.

I would appreciate more of your views on the Bot play perspective though.

..

 

[spearmaster]

This is probably the mainstay of their case,

This could be a possible reason for..

Basically the same thing! both imply speculation, leading to postulating a theory.

Vinyl was just putting forward a possible theory, im sure based on nothing [other than the previous in this thread]. and why not! free speech and all that

Not the same at all.

Could be a possible reason makes no assumptions.

"probably the mainstay" makes a very BIG assumption.

Sorry if I appear to be hard on vwm - but his selection of words needs to be a little less forceful. However, the same rules apply to everyone else - don't make any statements of fact, or assumptions thereof, unless you have reasonable evidence to support. It's just that I see this a lot more in his writing than anyone else's.

Tofu- no one forces you to read my posts. Tiresome as it may be, his only alternative is a vacation.

I have nothing to add about the bot issue, my opinions have been made clear on a number of occasions in the past.

 

[KasinoKing]

Sorry if I appear to be hard on vwm - but his selection of words needs to be a little less forceful. However, the same rules apply to everyone else - don't make any statements of fact, or assumptions thereof, unless you have reasonable evidence to support. It's just that I see this a lot more in his writing than anyone else's.

I have to agree here. I like & respect VWM as much as anyone else on this forum, but as I pointed out to him a little while ago his writings are becoming more & more Caruso-like.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with people posting their speculations & opinions - I welcome this valuable input to the forums. But when people start writing in a way which implies their statements are proven gospel, and not just their personal speculations & opinions, that's when problems can occur.
IMHO the probable reason MrC got banned from several forums was not so much what he said, as the way he said it.

This is just my 2c, not gospel!

 

[thelawnet]

Dear All,
clearly Casino Club is not in a position to neither pay the player the JP win right now, nor return the JP money into the pool.

Should Casino Club refund this money into the JP pool and, at a later date a Court of Law decide that the player had won the JP, obvioussly Casino Club would not be expected to pay this money out of its own pocket.
What would all the participants to this thread say if we then took this money out of the pool again!?
And what if another player won this money in the meantime??

What if we paid the player and later find out that a Court of Law decides he won this money by infringing our T&C and therefore Casino Club should return the JP money into the pool.
What money would we return to the pool then??

Clearly this case is now pending its legal resolution and the money frozen until such time.

Could you please inform us

(a) whether you have filed suit against this player in a court of law?
(b) if you have, given that this is a matter of public record, what is the nature of this charges?
(c) what the status of this legal action is, i.e. has it been allocated, has the player failed to respond and you have obtained judgement, etc.?

Thanks

 

[The Dude]

Could you please inform us

(a) whether you have filed suit against this player in a court of law?
(b) if you have, given that this is a matter of public record, what is the nature of this charges?
(c) what the status of this legal action is, i.e. has it been allocated, has the player failed to respond and you have obtained judgement, etc.?

Thanks

I don't think they ever got a real address from this guy.

 

[thelawnet]

I don't think they ever got a real address from this guy.

It doesn't appear he's too serious about getting this 200k back.

Given this state of affairs, at what point do they stop trying to sue a fake identity and pay the jackpot back?

 

[vinylweatherman]

I have to agree here. I like & respect VWM as much as anyone else on this forum, but as I pointed out to him a little while ago his writings are becoming more & more Caruso-like.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with people posting their speculations & opinions - I welcome this valuable input to the forums. But when people start writing in a way which implies their statements are proven gospel, and not just their personal speculations & opinions, that's when problems can occur.
IMHO the probable reason MrC got banned from several forums was not so much what he said, as the way he said it.

This is just my 2c, not gospel!

If I had meant to make my statements appear as proven gospel, I would write "most certainly". "Probably" is an expression of what I feel is the most probable explanation for something.

Forcefulness is a reflection of the feelings I get that the industry just isn't listening to players. I get the feeling that the industry are being "nastier" to players as time goes on, which is backward progress. If players are not "forceful", then the industry will feel they can carry on as they are, something they can do since most are only lightly regulated, and it has often been the case that the regulation is not really there to protect players, but something that is convenient for casinos so that they can market themselves as a business which is subject to government regulation.

I believe there is player fraud out there, and always has been, but it seems the industry are trying to convince us that there has been an explosion of this in recent times. I do not believe this at all. I believe that, overall, a certain percentage of the player base has been out to commit fraud based on what they feel is "easy money", but that this percentage has remained pretty constant. With a falling player base, I would have expected fewer cases of player fraud overall. It seems the opposite is taking place, a sharp increase in player fraud. I expect the majority of persons come into contact with online casinos through receiving the deluge of casino related spam - a small number of exceptions exist, such as the UK where online casinos get high exposure through TV programming sponsorship and poster advertising, not to mention advertising at sporting events.

My belief is that the reason for this sharp increase in player fraud is that online casinos are moving the goalposts, and in essence redefining "fraud".

Online casinos are also very secretive, except perhaps those who are listed companies, and in a vacuum of information there can only be speculation. In some cases, casinos seem to overreact to an issue, thus making a big deal out of something minor.

My speculation in this case is based on the actions of Casino Club, as I understand them from this thread. Firstly, a player wins a huge progressive, but before they are able to receive it, the casino discovers that the player has been acting fraudulently. Since the casino avoided handing over the huge sum, they surely have already won this case - the player has lost, and has to fight for the money if they want it. They did this by posting complaints in a forum, but was not prepared to back up their claim. I would have thought this would follow the usual course of the player never really fighting much beyond this, thus showing that he does not think he has that strong a case to put before a formal dispute resolution process.
I get the impression that Casino Club then launched it's own case against the player, thus ensuring this case would receive considerable publicity. Casino Club should have known, or should have been advised by it's legal team, of the potential negative effects such a case could cause. Despite this, Casino Club decided it was worth the go ahead anyway, placing them in the tricky position of having their hands tied in respect of certain matters till the case is resolved, exacerbated by the fact that any public statements they make, either intentionally or unintentionally, could prejudice the outcome of the case, which might take some considerable time to resolve.

Usually, when a casino confiscates a payout because they have found something wrong with an account, and it later emerges that the player had indeed done something wrong, the casino is content with being vindicated & having not paid out, and the player usually stops complaining (assuming they do not receive a forum ban for what they did).

Since I started playing, this is the first time I have heard of a casino taking a player to court, which leads me to belive this player has managed to take a very large sum of money without getting noticed, which again further surprises me since casinos seem so uptight about even the slightest bit of "advantage play".

It looks to me, and some others, that it was only when this progressive was won that Casino Club decided the player was comitting fraud. This should surely have emerged at the time of their first cash-in, and there must surely have been other warning signs, such as the player seeming to win excessive amounts over a prolonged number of hands/spins, or them taking advantage of promotions too often or too well. Other complainants have complained that they were identified as "frauds", either rightly or wrongly, at the time of first cashout.

If this case does ever go to court, then the full story should emerge. This has an additional danger for the casino, in that they may find they are required to produce material they consider sensitive, and it is possible that something may come out that questions in the eyes of players in general the integrity of the industry.

As a player, I am uncomfortable with the thought that I might be dragged to court by an online casino, however remote a possibility this might be. It is bad enough having a casino tell you that you have been "flagged", and having to get the issue resolved through the normal dispute resolution procedures.

I am pretty interested to hear a summary of what this player managed to "get over" on the casino to create the situation where even confiscating the final 167,000 payout was not enough, and triggered a court action to pursue an unspecified further chunk.

 

[sdaddy]

If this case does ever go to court, then the full story should emerge. This has an additional danger for the casino, in that they may find they are required to produce material they consider sensitive, and it is possible that something may come out that questions in the eyes of players in general the integrity of the industry.

As a player, I am uncomfortable with the thought that I might be dragged to court by an online casino, however remote a possibility this might be. It is bad enough having a casino tell you that you have been "flagged", and having to get the issue resolved through the normal dispute resolution procedures.

I am pretty interested to hear a summary of what this player managed to "get over" on the casino to create the situation where even confiscating the final 167,000 payout was not enough, and triggered a court action to pursue an unspecified further chunk.

Well, I think it's a good thing that a high-profile case such as this will be argued in a court of law. If it turns out that Casino Club's fraud charge against the player involves nothing more than "bonus abuse," then I'll be very interested to know how the courts handle that argument.

 

[spearmaster]

If I had meant to make my statements appear as proven gospel, I would write "most certainly". "Probably" is an expression of what I feel is the most probable explanation for something.

This is probably the mainstay of their case, not false ID etc.

Probably is a strong word to use in this context when you have nothing to back it up with. Probably is a word you can use when presenting some evidence, which you've not done.

I don't need to correct your English - you're obviously very well-spoken. But you are also clever in your choice of words - maybe I ought to hire you as my Adwords copywriter

In any case, the writing style you use often blurs the line between theory/opinion and fact - so I am trying to convince you that you need to choose your words a bit more carefully - and since then I've had no complaints.

It doesn't appear he's too serious about getting this 200k back.

Given this state of affairs, at what point do they stop trying to sue a fake identity and pay the jackpot back?

Good question. It doesn't look like they're ever going to find the guy, let alone be able to sue him - and I don't think the player is going to file suit to claim the jackpot either.

There should be some sort of standard set for cases like this - 90 or 180 days, for example - but I do think it's a bit strange to keep these funds out of the jackpot pool for so long.

 

[thelawnet]

Well, I think it's a good thing that a high-profile case such as this will be argued in a court of law. If it turns out that Casino Club's fraud charge against the player involves nothing more than "bonus abuse," then I'll be very interested to know how the courts handle that argument.

It won't be.

I'm actually surprised the casino are doing this.

My experience is that when it comes to legal actions, the usual behaviour of casinos is 'Come sue us in Costa Rica/Malta/Antigua if you want to'. In other words it's made impossibly complicated, expensive and risky for the average player to get proper legal redress.

 

[kmay87]

My experience is that when it comes to legal actions, the usual behaviour of casinos is 'Come sue us in Costa Rica/Malta/Antigua if you want to'. In other words it's made impossibly complicated, expensive and risky for the average player to get proper legal redress.

Spot on.

No average casino player is going to sue an outfit like this simply because it is so complicated to ascertain exactly what address to file legal papers on. You can probably guarantee that the address they use for correspondence is not their financial headquarters, and if you were to take legal action on an address which is invalid, it's going to be an expensive mistake, and quite simply not worth the risk. And as thelawnet stated, most of these casinos run from one of a few countries - although who knows whether this is just their servers - and personally, I have absolutely no knowledge of the legal system in places such as Costa Rica, meaning that unless by some stroke of good fortune, you happened to live there, the problem would come down to finding a local lawyer who was confident of handling this case, or flying out to there and trying to track someone down who can help.

And you can almost know for certain that no reps/lawyers of the casino in question would bother to turn up should you be successful in getting this to court. One man against a giant organisation rarely wins.

I would presume Casino Club would have taken this matter to the small claims court, if they have such a thing over there, obviously in an attempt to recoup 'illegitimate' wins by the player. This should prove interesting. The CC rep said, quite rightly, that if they return the money to the pool, someone wins that jackpot, and then the court decides the player should be paid, CC would have to pay it out of their own pocket, which isn't fair.

BIG flaw in that statement though. That tells me the player is counter-suing Casino Club for the jackpot win which was denied. Going upon the presumption that CC want previous withdrawals repaid, this is what the player is being sued for. But if the casino loses, that doesn't mean they are then legally required to pay this jackpot. They should of course, but most of the rogue casinos were given that status for non-payment to players, and nothing has been done about that. Hopefully, if this does proceed, in my opinion, irrespective of the decision, CC should pay this jackpot win if the player did nothing illegal to win it. Looking at both what the player provided, and what the casino has said, it doesn't appear that it was won due to anything dodgy, it was won fairly but further checks discovered something they don't like. If they refuse to pay because it's unfair on players who have not tried to cheat the casino - totally agree - but if they are withholding because the player cheated in the past (and of course now they want this back) - not right

I wonder if the growing concern now is that CC are going to consider not returning these funds due to the seemingly improbable chance of contacting the player. The jackpot is not Casino Clubs', it is a culmination of wagers from thousands of players who played the game. They won't be losing their own money if they do pay.

Perhaps to attempt to regain respect, Casino Club should look at donating this money to charity. I think a prominant story about them donating over 150,000 Euro to such a cause would cause a positive stir, as they really need something to boost their image now after ongoing sagas such as this.

But, as I said a while ago, their main problem is still communication. How long does it take to post on here, to at least acknowledge this debate, if they are not prepared to address it.

 

[thelawnet]

Perhaps to attempt to regain respect, Casino Club should look at donating this money to charity. I think a prominant story about them donating over 150,000 Euro to such a cause would cause a positive stir, as they really need something to boost their image now after ongoing sagas such as this.

Eh?

It's not their money to donate. It belongs to the players, Casino Club shouldn't get what amounts to a giant tax write-off by making such a donation

 

[kmay87]

True, but if the player who won it did nothing wrong, what reason other than their history do they have for refusing to pay it to him? I think it's quite clear that the player isn't going to get it.

 

[thelawnet]

Two interesting posts by 'realplayer' on the German forum:


Casino Club will be holding onto this jackpot money indefinitely. This is a never ending story. There is no legal action against me and not against CC. That is a lie of CC.
I am registered with CC under my correct address and my correct identity. They sent the security code (needed for payout) to this address and again and again the CC-magazine. Additionally they have my document of identification copy and the copy of a phone bill. They confirmed the receipt of the copies in August 2008. After the blockage of my account CC stopped all communication.
A further lie of CC is the following:
CC statement is the money is frozen. That is not true.
I have information of WebDollar: my CC account balance is 6 Euro and 94 Cent. That means, CC robbed 198750 euros of my account and not the money is frozen.

And in German, another post by the same player:

bei Casinomeister wurde das Thema im Januar noch diskutiert und es kam die berechtigte Frage auf "warum ist das Geld nicht wieder im Jackpot obwohl der Gewinn schon Monate her ist". CC behauptet, sie wollen erst das Ergebnis eines Gerichtsverfahrens abwarten. Nur gibt es kein Gerichtsverfahren und auch keine Klage.

My translation:

The subject of discussion at Casinomeister in January was why the money has not been returned to the jackpot after so many months. Casino Club claim that they are waiting for the results of a court case, but there is no court and no case.

Auch stimmt es nicht, da CC mich nicht erreichen kann. Den Anwalt von CC habe ich Anfang Januar angeschrieben, er htte sich also bei mir melden knnen aber das war nicht der Fall. Schwieriger ist es den CC zu erreichen. Nach Auskunft des CC Kundendienst geben sie keine Postanschrift heraus.
Es ist eine Lge von CC zu behaupten, sie htten mich verklagt genauso wenig wie ich CC verklagt habe.

It is also not true that Casino Club cannot reach me. I wrote to their lawyer at the start of January - he could therefore contact me, but has not done so. It is more difficult to reach Casino Club [than me] - Casino Club refuse to give me a correspondence address. It is a lie from CC to claim that they have sued me, as I have in fact sued them.

[Note: there are addresses here for the owners Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

In dem anwaltlichen Schreiben geht es um die Begrndung warum sie mir das Geld nicht zahlen, ist im typischen Stil der CC Sicherheitsabteilung geschrieben von dem ja schon einiges verffentlicht wurde.

The lawyer's letter describing why they will not pay is in the style of Casino Club's department, as discussed before [on forums]

Etwa 2 Monate vor meiner Kontosperrung soll ich an mehreren Tagen BlackJack gespielt haben, was durchaus sein kein. Ich soll aber nicht selbst gespielt haben, sondern einen bot (automatische Spielprogramm) verwendet haben. Dieser bot soll in der Lage sein die Spielergebnisse durch Berechnungen vorher zu sagen.
Also einen super-bot mit hellseherischen Fhigkeiten. Wie das funktionieren soll konnte man mir nicht sagen aber man wrde das an den gettigten Einstzen sehen.
Mit anderen Worten, CC unterstellt mir bzw. der bot-Software magische Fhigkeiten und ich sei damit in der Lage echte Zufallszahlen vorher zu sagen und damit einen finanziellen Vorteil zu erlangen.

[I think the following is Casino Club's claim, not the player's, but I'm not sure]
For about two months before I was banned I played blackjack on several days. Actually a bot was used. This bot can make calculations before play to predict the results of the hand. A clairvoyant bot in other words. The bot software has magical powers to read random numbers in advance and provide a financial advantage.

Hier noch ein original Zitat:
"Da die Gewinne aus den vorgenannten Aktionen fr weitere verschiedenartige Spiele genutzt wurden, wurden die gesamten Daten Ihres Spieler-Kontos, Ihr Nickname und Ihr Passwort gelscht. Ein Anspruch auf den ursprnglich ausgewiesenen Betrag auf Ihrem Spieler-Konto besteht nicht"
Zitat Ende

The original quote:
"As a result of these actions, your winnings on other games are void. Your account has been closed. You will not be paid your winnings."

Damit wird auch klar, der CasinoClub hatte nie die Absicht das Geld in den Jackpot zurck zu zahlen und hat es auch nicht eingefroren.

This shows Casino Club never intended to pay back the jackpot and it has not been frozen.

 

[EasyRhino]

[I think the following is Casino Club's claim, not the player's, but I'm not sure]
For about two months before I was banned I played blackjack on several days. Actually a bot was used. This bot can make calculations before play to predict the results of the hand. A clairvoyant bot in other words. The bot software has magical powers to read random numbers in advance and provide a financial advantage.

That part just sounds sarcastic.

If the player's story is even partly true, he really needs to sue.

 

[vinylweatherman]

That part just sounds sarcastic.

If the player's story is even partly true, he really needs to sue.

Maybe translation has muddled things up, and the alleged bot simply calculates "perfect strategy".

If CC start claiming the player really had such a "clairvoyant bot", they will do themselves untold damage, especially since the size of the disputed jackpot will ensure this remains a major issue till something is resolved.

The forum only has the word of the player concerned about their side, and we only have the official statements by the casino to balance against this.

The balance in webdollar may simply be down to the legal machinery used to freeze the disputed funds, perhaps by moving them into some kind of escrow account pending the outcome of legal actions, after which they are either paid, or returned to the jackpot pool.

If the player is sueing CC, then in time we will hear more, and it will become a matter for court records which may well become available to the public once the action is decided.

I would not be surprised if the mainstream media began to pick up on this, since it involves a confiscation of a large jackpot because of an unconnected, and unprovable, event the previous year.

 

[hzock2]

Etwa 2 Monate vor meiner Kontosperrung soll ich an mehreren Tagen BlackJack gespielt haben, was durchaus sein kein. Ich soll aber nicht selbst gespielt haben, sondern einen bot (automatische Spielprogramm) verwendet haben. Dieser bot soll in der Lage sein die Spielergebnisse durch Berechnungen vorher zu sagen.
Also einen super-bot mit hellseherischen Fhigkeiten. Wie das funktionieren soll konnte man mir nicht sagen aber man wrde das an den gettigten Einstzen sehen.
Mit anderen Worten, CC unterstellt mir bzw. der bot-Software magische Fhigkeiten und ich sei damit in der Lage echte Zufallszahlen vorher zu sagen und damit einen finanziellen Vorteil zu erlangen.

To stop any assumpties, this is my attempt to translate this part as close as possible to the text provieded:

About 2 months before my account was locked, I am said to have played BlackJack on several days, which is absolutely possible. However, I am said to not have played myself, but have used a bot. This bot is said to be able to predict game results by doing calculations [upfront]. So to say a 'super bot' with clairvoyant abilities. They were not able to tell me how this exactly works, but they were able to identify that regarding the placed wagers.
In other words, CC assume that I have (resp. the bot-software has) magical abilities and I am said to be capable to predict real random numbers and to gain a financial advantage [by applying these skills].

 

[kmay87]

That's a good translation hzock2.

But, if that is what Casino Club actually said, it is quite frankly unbelievably pathetic. So they are saying a bot has been created which is capable of predicting random results. Hmm. Let's think about this.

Either their software is not fair, because they fail to adhere to the shuffling which the blurb says occurs each xxx times, or this programme has compromised their software. If it's the latter, they should remove this game, along with all others until a full investigation has been carried out. They shouldn't be operating a game if it's possible to tamper with it. Therefore we can presume that's not the case. It's not improbable to create such a programme, but personally I can't see it. It would involve a huge group taking millions out of casinos, not one guy flatbetting on blackjack.

If their software isn't fair, then a card counting programme might have been responsible. Those are available, I know of a couple in existence. Therefore, if they stated words to that affect, fair enough. Yet using the term clairvoyant just defies belief. If the player used a card counting bot, it didn't make predictions or calculations, it used previous data to confirm what cards were due to appear. Hence, it knew what hand the dealer and player had, and what they would have. Therefore, it could place higher wagers when it knew the player would win, and likewise lower ones when the player would lose. But I've seen enough of the players' logs to know this isn't the case. There again, a player could quite easily write all the cards down and come to the same conclusions, although it would be more complex. Still, it's against the t and cs, so CC are within their rights.

What frustrates me more than anything here is that the blackjack bot is completely irrelevant to the issue in hand. They cannot refuse to pay the jackpot win due to past play - unless the win was on a bonus and that same play occured on both blackjack and video poker.

BUT, they are using that very reason. If they said the player used a video poker bot, it hardly gave him an unfair advantage but they could say the use of 3rd party software is against their terms and hence he won't be paid. They are saying he played blackjack with a bot, and this is a justifiable reason for refusing all wins.

It's disappointing that the forum is in German. Evidently, it is still being talked about and as translation programmes are not perfect, getting a good transcription isn't possible.

However, someone is lying here. Either the player, or the casino. The player says Casino Club have not contacted him, they are not suing him (after all, just why would they?) but the casino said a legal resolution was pending, thus why the jackpot money was in limbo. But it's not. They paid him, and then took it back. So they still have it.

I can't help but feel sorry for this 'Mike' guy. Deep down, I would love him to sue Casino Club and win. If he is completely legit, I be tempted to thrown in a defamation suit and really hit Casino Club where it hurts. Yet I know that the chances of him winning are virtually zero. One unknown guy against a huge company is destined to fail. Not that that would put me off. So I hope it doesn't him.

This story doesn't seem to have hit the news much. At least not here. I don't know all that much about Germany's press, but here in the UK, some of the tabloids would love a story like this. Perhaps this might improve the chance of a resolution here. My fear is that this is going to die away. The player won't get the money, and it won't be returned to the jackpot pool either. I'd like to see a statement from Casino Club. We are probably the only people wondering what's going to happen here. As far as all other players at the casino are concerned, the jackpot was won. It was posted on their newsletter that all members are emailed. I just wonder what they might say about this.

 

[vinylweatherman]

That's a good translation hzock2.

But, if that is what Casino Club actually said, it is quite frankly unbelievably pathetic. So they are saying a bot has been created which is capable of predicting random results. Hmm. Let's think about this.

Either their software is not fair, because they fail to adhere to the shuffling which the blurb says occurs each xxx times, or this programme has compromised their software. If it's the latter, they should remove this game, along with all others until a full investigation has been carried out. They shouldn't be operating a game if it's possible to tamper with it. Therefore we can presume that's not the case. It's not improbable to create such a programme, but personally I can't see it. It would involve a huge group taking millions out of casinos, not one guy flatbetting on blackjack.

If their software isn't fair, then a card counting programme might have been responsible. Those are available, I know of a couple in existence. Therefore, if they stated words to that affect, fair enough. Yet using the term clairvoyant just defies belief. If the player used a card counting bot, it didn't make predictions or calculations, it used previous data to confirm what cards were due to appear. Hence, it knew what hand the dealer and player had, and what they would have. Therefore, it could place higher wagers when it knew the player would win, and likewise lower ones when the player would lose. But I've seen enough of the players' logs to know this isn't the case. There again, a player could quite easily write all the cards down and come to the same conclusions, although it would be more complex. Still, it's against the t and cs, so CC are within their rights.

What frustrates me more than anything here is that the blackjack bot is completely irrelevant to the issue in hand. They cannot refuse to pay the jackpot win due to past play - unless the win was on a bonus and that same play occured on both blackjack and video poker.

BUT, they are using that very reason. If they said the player used a video poker bot, it hardly gave him an unfair advantage but they could say the use of 3rd party software is against their terms and hence he won't be paid. They are saying he played blackjack with a bot, and this is a justifiable reason for refusing all wins.

It's disappointing that the forum is in German. Evidently, it is still being talked about and as translation programmes are not perfect, getting a good transcription isn't possible.

However, someone is lying here. Either the player, or the casino. The player says Casino Club have not contacted him, they are not suing him (after all, just why would they?) but the casino said a legal resolution was pending, thus why the jackpot money was in limbo. But it's not. They paid him, and then took it back. So they still have it.

I can't help but feel sorry for this 'Mike' guy. Deep down, I would love him to sue Casino Club and win. If he is completely legit, I be tempted to thrown in a defamation suit and really hit Casino Club where it hurts. Yet I know that the chances of him winning are virtually zero. One unknown guy against a huge company is destined to fail. Not that that would put me off. So I hope it doesn't him.

This story doesn't seem to have hit the news much. At least not here. I don't know all that much about Germany's press, but here in the UK, some of the tabloids would love a story like this. Perhaps this might improve the chance of a resolution here. My fear is that this is going to die away. The player won't get the money, and it won't be returned to the jackpot pool either. I'd like to see a statement from Casino Club. We are probably the only people wondering what's going to happen here. As far as all other players at the casino are concerned, the jackpot was won. It was posted on their newsletter that all members are emailed. I just wonder what they might say about this.

A card counting program does not predict the result, it predicts PROBABILITIES that certain outcomes will occur. When the deck is rich in "10" cards, the game will be in the player's favour overall, and this is when bets should be increased. When the deck is rich in low cards, the dealer is favoured, so this is the time to ride things out with low bets. Such programs are ahead of mere "perfect strategy" bots, as they track previous hand data. They have to know when the deck is shuffled though, otherwise they can go spectacularly wrong.

If the argument is over a blackjack "bot", of whatever nature, HOW COME HIS ACCOUNT WASN'T LOCKED THERE & THEN? This, by far, is his strongest weapon in court. There is a strong possibility that the judge would reject the "bot" argument since the player was allowed to continue depositing, playing, AND LOSING for the two months following this, and up to the time of the Jackpot win. The Jackpot win would then be looked at as a separate incident in it's own right. In casino terms, a moment of time where the balance is zero marks each new "contract" between player and casino (this is the rule CASINOS often use themselves when describing how promotions work). IF the player did NOT use this "clairvoyant bot" between the zero balance and the jackpot win, he should win any court case, as the casino would not only have to prove bot use, but prove it took place in the disputed "contract".
The player could further strengthen his case by having had a successful cashout paid AFTER allegedly using the bot, and with no further evidence of bot use submitted between that cashout and the disputed jackpot. This would be pretty clear (although circumstantial) evidence of the casino CHOOSING who to pay, rather than sticking to the rules.
Such a case should attract the "no win, no fee" firms, unless these are banned in Germany. This would change the situation from one of small player vs big company to something more balanced. These "no win, no fee" firms know what they are doing, and have a HUGE incentive to win their cases, they don't get paid if they lose. If such a firm refuses a case, it is because they do not think it is strong enough to be worth the risk of losing and not getting paid. As well as the jackpot, the player could sue for further damages for defamation - he has been branded a cheat by the casino. To defend this, the casino would have the lesser burden of merely proving bot use at any time in the account whilst being against the rules; however, can they PROVE this to the level required in a civil case where THEY are seeking to confiscate a win that was most certainly NOT the direct result of bot use.

If this player really is being honest, then he HAS to be putting together a legal action, although perhaps hoping the casino will do what often happens in these cases, offer an "out of court" settlement but ban the player from the casino because "the business relationship has irretrievably broken down".
CC have one HELL of a lot to lose reputation wise should they indeed LOSE such a legal case, so they had better be sure they know what they are doing, and are sure their facts are right.

 

[kmay87]

I'm as curious as the player to see what bot was used, considering Casino Club themselves refused to divulge that information. To my knowledge, the only sort of bots available for blackjack are the standard perfect strategy ones, along with a few, virtually untested, ones which basically card count. They work perfectly if you can find a casino which doesn't shuffle the deck. The only information the programme needs is the amount of decks, and of course the amount of hands. So as long as this information is available, you can use it. I've seen a couple in action and they do actually work. I don't know that I'd agree with them calculating probabilities, because provided the deck is not shuffled, the programme keeps track of where the cards are in a deck, in much the same way a card counter in a B&M casino would, therefore it knows for a fact what cards will be dealt. But if the deck is shuffled, which virtually occurs everywhere, unless you can establish when this occurs (i.e. some do it after every hand, which would make using this kind of bot impossible) there's little point in using the system, as sooner or later the chain is going to break and you'd have to start afresh.

However, I'm sure the player can't have been using one of these. For a start, as these programmes go for many , I really can't fathom one single person using it. Moreso, the logs show the guy was flatbetting, so he can't have been using this system.

As vwm said, the player really does need to sue them. There must be someone who is prepared to take this on. If only I spoke German and my firm would allow me to tackle a case like this, I would jump at the chance. It's so clear cut. The player won a jackpot, they paid him, they advertised that they paid him, then presumably they found something in the records of this player which they didn't like, and so they took it back. It would be interesting to hear from Moneybookers as to what logic CC gave for requesting the money back. And that is the biggest mistake they made. If they really do believe this player was abusing their casino and won unfairly, had they left the money in his account, they could have him for fraud. But they can't, as they took it back. So whatever this player does, he's not going to be countersued unless they are looking at recouping what he may or may not have won when using a blackjack bot. In my opinion, I think they took the jackpot win back to compensate themselves, and they never counted on such a huge debate about it.

I notice their rep still visits here from time to time. Why not actually comment on this? Either the player is lying, or you are. It would be nice to know the truth.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I'm as curious as the player to see what bot was used, considering Casino Club themselves refused to divulge that information. To my knowledge, the only sort of bots available for blackjack are the standard perfect strategy ones, along with a few, virtually untested, ones which basically card count. They work perfectly if you can find a casino which doesn't shuffle the deck. The only information the programme needs is the amount of decks, and of course the amount of hands. So as long as this information is available, you can use it. I've seen a couple in action and they do actually work. I don't know that I'd agree with them calculating probabilities, because provided the deck is not shuffled, the programme keeps track of where the cards are in a deck, in much the same way a card counter in a B&M casino would, therefore it knows for a fact what cards will be dealt. But if the deck is shuffled, which virtually occurs everywhere, unless you can establish when this occurs (i.e. some do it after every hand, which would make using this kind of bot impossible) there's little point in using the system, as sooner or later the chain is going to break and you'd have to start afresh.

However, I'm sure the player can't have been using one of these. For a start, as these programmes go for many , I really can't fathom one single person using it. Moreso, the logs show the guy was flatbetting, so he can't have been using this system.

As vwm said, the player really does need to sue them. There must be someone who is prepared to take this on. If only I spoke German and my firm would allow me to tackle a case like this, I would jump at the chance. It's so clear cut. The player won a jackpot, they paid him, they advertised that they paid him, then presumably they found something in the records of this player which they didn't like, and so they took it back. It would be interesting to hear from Moneybookers as to what logic CC gave for requesting the money back. And that is the biggest mistake they made. If they really do believe this player was abusing their casino and won unfairly, had they left the money in his account, they could have him for fraud. But they can't, as they took it back. So whatever this player does, he's not going to be countersued unless they are looking at recouping what he may or may not have won when using a blackjack bot. In my opinion, I think they took the jackpot win back to compensate themselves, and they never counted on such a huge debate about it.

I notice their rep still visits here from time to time. Why not actually comment on this? Either the player is lying, or you are. It would be nice to know the truth.

You have fallen into the same trap the casino seems to have done. Even though there may be 6 decks at the start, and you know they are NOT shuffled, all you can know is the initial composition in terms of how many cards of each value remain in the shoe, you simply CANNOT know for a fact that, say, card 12 is an Ace, and card 23 is a King. It is all down to probabilities. Perfect strategy is the default, based on calculations that do not take into account any cards used in previous hands. Card Counting seeks to recalculate "perfect strategy" using what remains in the shoe. This allows for changes where decisions are marginal, but also allows for increases of stake where the shoe becomes heavily weighted because many low cards leave in the initial few hands. This compensates for the poor performance of those early hands, and the increased stake is what confers the overall advantage to the player.
Flat Betting for hours on end would indicate a simple basic strategy bot, one that would NOT give the player any advantage UNLESS it was used for clearing a +EV bonus. The casino should have noticed this at the time. This is a well worn strategy, bot or no bot, and such excessive Blackjack play and winning should have been caught for audit long before the jackpot incident. This can easily be used in court to demonstrate that it was probable that the casino knew this player was playing, and winning, through endless hours of Blackjack play, yet only acted once the player won a significant amount on a SLOT. This would demonstrate the act of choosing when to enforce a rule, and when to let it pass, and would further show such decisions to have been made to favour the casino, and NOT in the player's best interests. The player's best interests would have been served by banning him from the casino so that he could never have been in the situation of having won such a jackpot, only to have it confiscated.
If the money was already paid, and THEN confiscated from Moneybookers, then this makes the case even STRONGER for the player, and also puts Moneybookers in the frame, and they may be required to produce evidence as to the procedure behind this removal of funds already paid. Moneybookers will not be happy with this, as it undermines confidence in their brand, and if they are found to have acted inappropriately, they could have the regulators on their case. This would have been FAR worse if this were a UK player - worse for the casino that is. A UK player could complain directly to the IOM and/or FSA about the part Moneybookers played in this, and your firm could take this on

If the player does NOT sue, then the suspicion will be that he was, after all, a fraud, and has walked away from this huge sum knowing that his case stands no chance in court. If he is legit, he will at least make every effort to try the courts, and only stop if the COURT refuses to hear the case, or he cannot find a firm out there willing to take this on. Even if he has to agree to a 50/50 split to get a firm on board, this is still better than nothing.

 

[kmay87]

I have to say, with your knowledge on this, having you as an expert witness would probably go a long way! My theory is that the player WAS using a bot when he played blackjack. It was probably just a standard perfect strategy one, and it doesn't explain how his balance got to 30k Euros. But somehow (unless he did actually deposit 30k) his balance reached that. Perhaps he then used another bot (I never played VP on Casino Club so I don't know whether the autohold is used) and played 25 Euro hands. He then hit the jackpot, in both senses of the word, and withdrew. Casino Club paid him, but later checks by their oh-so stringent security revealed this flat betting. From that they saw the player had done this many times in the past, and so retracted their payment to this player.

The player is quite obviously annoyed about this, and seeks to get this payment back. He is legit, with a real name, address, card details etc, BUT he thinks that because he used a bot, and the casino can prove it, he is in the wrong. This is true, but it depends on if the deposit was on a bonus or not. If it wasn't, it's hard to link the two together. The jackpot is not Casino Club's money, so whether they pay it or not doesn't affect them. Hence, where has it gone?

So, the player can't risk suing because in all likelihood, he will be found out, and even while we can see there shouldn't be a link, Casino Club can bring this across well enough to convince the court. However, if as vwm said, Germany has the no-win-no-fee arrangement, provided a firm can be found that's willing to represent him, it's a goer.

On the other hand, if the player has done nothing wrong, he can tackle this well. One case to retrieve the jackpot win, and another for defamation. The latter will be strong. Casino Club's rep on this very forum called him a cheat. They may have said similar elsewhere. Enough people read this forum for the players' reputation to have suffered severely. It would be even better if this affected him in the real world as well as the online one. He could get more that way.

But all the above is dependent on him not using a bot. If he admits this to a legal firm, they probably won't want to represent him. If he doesn't, when they find out it could invalidate the contract and the no-win-no-fee wouldn't apply. So severe financial implications could occur.

If I remember correct, I'm sure the company behind Casino Club is listed on the London Stock Exchange. So potentially, he could tackle them through the Serious Fraud Office (they usually aren't interested unless the value is of 1 million or more, but I reckon this is of big enough importance to attract their attention) and I could just jump at the chance to represent him But sadly, there's virtually no chance my firm would want this case. As a rule we don't deal in anything gambling related, we are mainly concerned with contract law especially those in the family and employment division. And my position in the company is far too low down the pecking order to be able to mount any challenge to this But never mind.....

Perhaps any native Germans in this forum could keep a check on the other forum. It will be interesting to see how this progresses. Evidently we aren't going to hear anything from the casino so it's up to the player. Either way, this is going to take a long time, and if the player does sue, it will be a long drawn out process. I just hope I am not alone in wanting a resolution one way or the other. Either the player is a fraud, and the money is returned to the pot (with interest, if it's being stored in one of Casino Clubs' accounts) or the player is paid, with an apology from the casino. A big one, at that.

 

[Rusty]

Eh up.
Less than surprised to see another "bot" issue on the forum and there will be more to come.
Agree with your posts VWM, as I usually do, but I think you are missing an angle CC may well take in court to prove the winnings are illegitimate.
If they can prove to the courts satisfaction that a bot was used initially to win and increase the players balance they could then argue that the jackpot was won with these funds and thus since the money used to make the wager was illegitimately won so was the money wagered to win the jackpot.
Of course this would mean that the player had not made a successful cashout since bot play and the jackpot was not won from a fresh deposit.
I dare say that is the angle they are pursuing already.

Anyway it is my belief that bot play can not be proved in a court of law by merely presenting playlogs.
At best from such evidence one could only consider there was the possibility of a bot being used.
There can be no conclusive evidence of bot play. There will always remain reasonable doubt.
The only exception to this would be if the game was not entirely random and results could be predicted or in other words the game was rigged and the offending algorithm had been hacked.

IF The player is genuine and IF Casino Clubs case rests entirely on proving previous bot play was used and IF I were a Solicitor I would take the case tomorrow on a no win no pay basis and earn myself a nice fee.

 

[paul02085]

Is the only issue here whether the player used a bot? If he did, how do they know? Is there a way to tell? If not i would sue the h.ll out of Casino Club.

Really sounds like they just dont want to pay the huge jackpot the guy won.

 

[kmay87]

Eh up.
Less than surprised to see another "bot" issue on the forum and there will be more to come.
Agree with your posts VWM, as I usually do, but I think you are missing an angle CC may well take in court to prove the winnings are illegitimate.
If they can prove to the courts satisfaction that a bot was used initially to win and increase the players balance they could then argue that the jackpot was won with these funds and thus since the money used to make the wager was illegitimately won so was the money wagered to win the jackpot.
Of course this would mean that the player had not made a successful cashout since bot play and the jackpot was not won from a fresh deposit.
I dare say that is the angle they are pursuing already.

Anyway it is my belief that bot play can not be proved in a court of law by merely presenting playlogs.
At best from such evidence one could only consider there was the possibility of a bot being used.
There can be no conclusive evidence of bot play. There will always remain reasonable doubt.
The only exception to this would be if the game was not entirely random and results could be predicted or in other words the game was rigged and the offending algorithm had been hacked.

IF The player is genuine and IF Casino Clubs case rests entirely on proving previous bot play was used and IF I were a Solicitor I would take the case tomorrow on a no win no pay basis and earn myself a nice fee.

Potentially yes, but bear in mind that the judge is highly unlikely to have any prior information as to what exactly a bot is, and what it does, so as you correctly said merely presenting play logs and saying 'look here, this guy played for x hours straight without a break, therefore he must be a bot' would fail because a defence could quite easily be 'allow me to play for x hours to prove that it is humanly possible'. That of course depends on just how long the session went on for.

However, my continuous problem with this saga is Casino Club can NOT rely on precedent for their reasoning for not paying. As was stated long ago, this money isn't theirs, so the only justifiable reason for not paying, or should I say, taking the money back, is because it's unfair on the other players. Do we really think that is the case?

Moreso than that, this is a major cockup on their behalf. They paid the player and later found something to be wrong. Here in the UK, if a bank pays you money you know isn't yours, whether it be in error or whatever, they are legally allowed to retrieve it. So if you spend it, ultimately you will still have to pay it back. My point here is that when Casino Club's bank paid the player, it WAS his money. He won it. Therefore, what reason did they give for requesting it back? It clearly wasn't made in error. Well actually, perhaps it was. But we aren't talking about the actual payment here, as that was no error - he won it, but it took this jackpot win before the casino realised what had allegedly gone on. Therefore, they made an error. A big one at that, but an error all the same. In most real life instances, the company has to live by that error, yet in this example somehow they were able to address it rather rapidly. If there is some arrangement between Casino Club and Moneybookers whereby funds can be taken in a snap, it really should have us all at least thinking about what these arrangements are, and potential ramifications they could have on all of us.

If my memory serves me right, Casino Club actually took the entire withdrawal away from Mike's Moneybookers account. Something like 30k more than the jackpot. Hence, they cannot just say they're refusing to pay the jackpot win because of past play, as the entire withdrawal was confiscated. There's now more to this than just the jackpot win. Meaning - they have also taken his deposit. If those comments were from Casino Club, they catagorically stated they will not be returning any monies, including his deposit. That's something that may come back to haunt them if this player does sue.

 

[kmay87]

Is the only issue here whether the player used a bot? If he did, how do they know? Is there a way to tell? If not i would sue the h.ll out of Casino Club.

Really sounds like they just dont want to pay the huge jackpot the guy won.

I think that is exactly it. We've heard so many conflicting stories that noone does know for certain.

It seems the player in question played blackjack using a bot. His playlogs suggest that, but it's open to interpretation. He then went on to win that VP jackpot.

Casino Club paid him. They then realised he might have been using a bot, and took the money back. For some reason, they also sued him. WHY is a good question. But apparently, he provided a false address so they can't contact him.

The player says there is no legal action from them. He has given the right details but their lawyer hasn't responded to him. He now wants to sue them.

Confused yet? I think we all are.

As far as we know now, they took the money back and it's in limbo. The player doesn't have it, nor has it been returned to the jackpot pool. The casino says they can't return it until legal proceedings have been finalised, but the player says this hasn't occured.

Just what is going on is a mystery. And once again Casino Club's lack of communication does not help their cause.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Eh up.
Less than surprised to see another "bot" issue on the forum and there will be more to come.
Agree with your posts VWM, as I usually do, but I think you are missing an angle CC may well take in court to prove the winnings are illegitimate.
If they can prove to the courts satisfaction that a bot was used initially to win and increase the players balance they could then argue that the jackpot was won with these funds and thus since the money used to make the wager was illegitimately won so was the money wagered to win the jackpot.
Of course this would mean that the player had not made a successful cashout since bot play and the jackpot was not won from a fresh deposit.
I dare say that is the angle they are pursuing already.

Anyway it is my belief that bot play can not be proved in a court of law by merely presenting playlogs.
At best from such evidence one could only consider there was the possibility of a bot being used.
There can be no conclusive evidence of bot play. There will always remain reasonable doubt.
The only exception to this would be if the game was not entirely random and results could be predicted or in other words the game was rigged and the offending algorithm had been hacked.

IF The player is genuine and IF Casino Clubs case rests entirely on proving previous bot play was used and IF I were a Solicitor I would take the case tomorrow on a no win no pay basis and earn myself a nice fee.

I know for a fact that a bot exist for Casino Club, and up to 70+ others if you pay for the "premium" version. It is a flat betting basic strategy bot, used to extract the best outcome from +EV blackjack friendly boni. The same internet site also sells a Video Poker bot. Casinos usually use play history as "proof" of bot use, they cannot get real "smoking gun" proof.

The legalities could be complex if indeed the player DID use a bot. However, what has he actually done. he has "breached the terms of a consumer contract", he has NOT "committed fraud". Here in the UK, it is ILLEGAL for a company to apply a PENALTY for such a breach, this is covered by consumer contract laws, companies can ONLY charge for the costs they incur in pursuing and remedying the breach, plus any beneft that may have been gained by the breach.
Interpreting this for this case, the casino claims that 30K was a benefit obtained by the player through breaching the rules. Provided the player successfully withdrew this 30K, was not banned, and was allowed to deposit and play again (thus further risking their own funds), the casino has a worryingly leaky case for anything other than the return of the original 30K.
Worse for the casino, they didn't deny the withdrawal, they took it back out of his Moneybookers account without permission of the account holder. This is ONLY allowed under specific circumstances, and companies are NOT allowed to simply dip in to take back what is merely a disputed payment. In legal terms, a disputed payment stays where it is, until a legal action is concluded. By pre-empting the legal process by acting as though it has already won (taking back the money), CC has left itself open to being before a "hostile" court, the judge perhaps viewing this action as a circumvention of the courts juristiction. The court would be more sympathetic to the player as a result, and since these cases are resolved by balance of probability, the casino might come over as a high handed and bullying corporation pitted against a simple "man in the street".

CC may believe the player KNOWS he has no chance, and will NEVER go to court, but are hanging onto the jackpot just in case. The player should call their bluff, and serve papers. This would in all probability pave the way for an out of court settlement, where CC would not have to admit they acted wrongly, and the player at least gets a portion of the winnings, perhaps with the 30K + "costs" deducted. CC can then close the matter and repair the integrity of it's progressive jackpots.

To force the issue, another body could take action based on the question "who has the jackpot money, and are they entitled to keep it?"
Normally, where entrants have contributed to a prize pool and, for whatever reason, the prize is not awarded, the accumulated entry fees must be returned to the entrants.

A progressive is just a sequential lottery. Each spin or hand adds a stake to the pool, and grants the player a chance at winning it all. In this case, returning the jackpot to the pool is the only viable way CC can comply with this principle, and this seems to be what all the other players are arguing about, even if they accept the casino's view that the original winner cheated.

If this was over a more modest amount, this issue would be nowhere, but it is over a pretty big progressive win, and CC have to realise that simply by waiting this out, it will NOT go away until the missing funds are accounted for one way or the other. Other players could also worry that THEY may win a progressive, and have it confiscated without a proper right of appeal, and for whatever reason the casino sees fit. This would be quite a deterrent from playing the progressives there, and maybe even the whole casino.

While this bot is out there, and CC are only able to INFER that it was PROBABLY used, then INNOCENT players could still end up labeled as "bot cheats" with no way to fight back in order for CC to get rid of the guilty ones.
This is all completely unnecessary, as the bot gives no advantage to the player, and Microgaming casinos have one installed on nearly all their blackjack and VP games for players to freely use (even if the odd casino bans it's use when a bonus has been claimed).

 

[hzock2]

According to another forum the jackpot has been hit again (70000 Euro, 'rainer1323' ). This makes this issue even more interesting for the case, that the 167k jackpot winner would indeed have been a fraudster. Will the money then be returned to the current jackpot or is rainer1323 the legit winner of 70k+167k ?

 

[kmay87]

According to another forum the jackpot has been hit again (70000 Euro, 'rainer1323' ). This makes this issue even more interesting for the case, that the 167k jackpot winner would indeed have been a fraudster. Will the money then be returned to the current jackpot or is rainer1323 the legit winner of 70k+167k ?

I doubt 'rainer1323' would get it. That wouldn't really be fair for them to just give it to him. And of course, unless that player reads this forum, or the German one, he has no reason to suspect anything. Arguably, he would have won it should the player who did win it either didn't win, or it was instantly returned. But as it hasn't been, the fairest thing to do is just return it to the pool. That way, someone's going to get a nice treat.

Unless of course the 'fraudster' isn't a fraudster, and thus he should get it returned.

Perhaps I'm a cynic. In fact I know I am but I don't reckon it's ever going to materialise.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I doubt 'rainer1323' would get it. That wouldn't really be fair for them to just give it to him. And of course, unless that player reads this forum, or the German one, he has no reason to suspect anything. Arguably, he would have won it should the player who did win it either didn't win, or it was instantly returned. But as it hasn't been, the fairest thing to do is just return it to the pool. That way, someone's going to get a nice treat.

Unless of course the 'fraudster' isn't a fraudster, and thus he should get it returned.

Perhaps I'm a cynic. In fact I know I am but I don't reckon it's ever going to materialise.

All the same, this latest win opens a can of worms for CC. Had they not dithered, and returned the jackpot to the pool then rainer1323 would have received it. Now, if CC return it to the pool, it will be obvious, and rainer1323 may start digging, or be tipped off. If they cover it up by keeping it so many players never know what happened, the few that do will create such a stink that the issue WILL eventually have to be dealt with. CC may now have to offer rainer1323 a settlement to induce him to forfeit his potential rights to the 167K should the original player be found a "cheat" and lose the court case, or drop the case.

 

[kmay87]

All the same, this latest win opens a can of worms for CC. Had they not dithered, and returned the jackpot to the pool then rainer1323 would have received it. Now, if CC return it to the pool, it will be obvious, and rainer1323 may start digging, or be tipped off. If they cover it up by keeping it so many players never know what happened, the few that do will create such a stink that the issue WILL eventually have to be dealt with. CC may now have to offer rainer1323 a settlement to induce him to forfeit his potential rights to the 167K should the original player be found a "cheat" and lose the court case, or drop the case.

Amid all this confusion, one thing is for certain. This is going to be very interesting.....

 

[thelawnet]

According to another forum the jackpot has been hit again (70000 Euro, 'rainer1323' ). This makes this issue even more interesting for the case, that the 167k jackpot winner would indeed have been a fraudster. Will the money then be returned to the current jackpot or is rainer1323 the legit winner of 70k+167k ?

Of course rainier123 should not be paid the 167k. If the jackpot had been 167k it would attract considerably more play and somebody else might have won it.

He chose to play a game that offers a 70k jackpot, and he won it.

I was playing at William Hill a while back and due to a server error I was unable to login. About 2 hours later the 130k jackpot had been hit by somebody else. That was tough luck for me, but you can only win what's on offer.

BTW, I've asked the player to answer some questions about his behaviour. See here:

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

He has not responded to my post although he is active on that forum.

That doesn't speak well.

 

[kmay87]

There's a reply on that site suggesting the screenshots are faked

 

[thelawnet]

There's a reply on that site suggesting the screenshots are faked

Just someone being silly. Just compression artefacts. The screenshots are genuine, Casino Club acknowledge this player won the jackpot.