Casinos and Responsible Gambling

De Beuker

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Location
Netherlands
Actually Nate, it doesn't work that way. You don't tell me what public posts I can chime in on, and which ones I can't. You posted something that came to mind, I responded with things that came to my mind. It's an even exchange. While it's all good fun to 'debate' with everyone who agrees with you, at which point is it actually a 'debate'? :what:

I'm quite capable of backing up anything I post, and take responsibility for. If you don't have thick enough skin to take responses that you might not agree with, then clearly the problem lies with you, not me.

I am assuming you either have a current gambling problem, or are recovering from one. That is based on irrational concepts you are inserting which, in effect, do nothing but try to control other people's worlds.

If none of this is true, and your life's mission is to save everyone from themselves, well... what can I tell you? I can just speak for myself. DON'T SAVE ME. I'm capable of wiping my own arse, thanks! :thumbsup:

- Keith

I'm sorry, but I found your post to be rather offensive and rude to be honest.
If you're capable of whiping your own ass, than do so, fine, I'm happy for you!

There was really no need to jump on Nate's back like that.
He just asked for opinions, trying to start a debate, which you succesfully killed. Happy now?
He never tried to control anybodys world, at least not my world, so I really wonder why you feel it that way?:confused:
As you can see in my previous post, I dont share his pov either, but why do you go all apeshit over it?

Dont take it all too serious man. Relax.;)
 

Da_Gambla

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Location
Los Angeles
I'm sorry, but I found your post to be rather offensive and rude to be honest.

Since the post was not any sort of a response towards you, I'm not sure if you found it offensive or rude really matters much. I'm sorry. It's a forum? If you would like, I can PM all of my posts to you before I submit them... not sure how else I can avoid accidentally offending you..

There was really no need to jump on Nate's back like that.
He just asked for opinions, trying to start a debate, which you succesfully killed. Happy now?

This thread was nowhere near a debate before I took issue with the slogan bologna. For all intents and purposes, it was a circle-jerk, and that's fine, responsible gaming is an issue that is probably much more common ground than polarizing. So the responsible gaming part was a discussion, not a debate, and I did not disturb the discussion portion, which amassed 30 posts before I took issue with 'misleading' slogans.

I am assuming you meant I killed the discussion, in which case I can say that I made one post about the advertising side of the issue, which then got some responses that drove more responses. We then had a debate about advertising. Were you not free to continue the discussion around a valid debate?

This is a forum centered around an adult activity, so I assume adults are the ones participating. I cannot see how the sentence 'I can wipe my own arse' can be considered offensive, as I have certainly seen much much worse here. Be that as it may, if you find my forum writings too crass, rude, or offensive, I'd be happy to retire from here, so as to not disturb you any longer. Or you can screen my posts as mentioned above. However you want to handle it. Let me know. Again, my apologies, please carry on the discussion.

- Keith
 

PlexRep

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Location
Malta
Hi Guys n Gals,

Grammar and advertising legalities aside I wanted to chime in here too.

@Nate – I liked your first post and it got me thinking. As operators we have limited weapons in our arsenal to help promote responsible gambling. We all have links to help sites such as GA on our pages as a start, but we can’t actually make people click them. Sure we can offer self exclusions, wagering/deposit limits, and we can close accounts permanently and block people suspected of being problem gamblers, but the fact remains that the onus eventually falls to the player just like Nifty said. It’s not like they can't just find another place to wager so the best thing we can do is encourage people to be more self aware and address any issues they have.

That’s really all about identifying and excluding problem gamblers though, and to me the crux of your post was behavior by casinos that actively encourages problem behavior. After I read it I composed a lengthy e-mail covering all the issues raised and sent it to Gamblers anon, Gamcare and Gambleaware asking for their input. 4 days later and still no replies from any of them. I guess they don’t like speaking to ‘the enemy’ :what:

From my own perspective, I feel that having the option to reverse a withdrawal that’s not yet processed is fine… people are entitled to change their minds after all.. but actively encouraging people to do so by deliberately stalling a withdrawal or rewarding the behavior with a bonus is not. Reopening closed accounts is fine. Re-opening closed accounts or allowing customers to create a new one when the reason for closing was a suspected gambling problem is not. Setting min and max bet amounts for games is fine.. adjusting them for specific players to make them have to bet more is not. Just my two cents as always.

At the end of the day we are running a business here, and obviously want to maximize revenue. We just need to tread a fine line and ensure we don’t overstep the mark or turn to the dark side. If GamCare, Gamaware or GA ever get back to me, I’ll share their thoughts on the subject too.
 

Nate

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
webmeister
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Location
Cyberspace
Hi Guys n Gals,

Grammar and advertising legalities aside I wanted to chime in here too.

@Nate – I liked your first post and it got me thinking. As operators we have limited weapons in our arsenal to help promote responsible gambling. We all have links to help sites such as GA on our pages as a start, but we can’t actually make people click them. Sure we can offer self exclusions, wagering/deposit limits, and we can close accounts permanently and block people suspected of being problem gamblers, but the fact remains that the onus eventually falls to the player just like Nifty said. It’s not like they can't just find another place to wager so the best thing we can do is encourage people to be more self aware and address any issues they have.

That’s really all about identifying and excluding problem gamblers though, and to me the crux of your post was behavior by casinos that actively encourages problem behavior. After I read it I composed a lengthy e-mail covering all the issues raised and sent it to Gamblers anon, Gamcare and Gambleaware asking for their input. 4 days later and still no replies from any of them. I guess they don’t like speaking to ‘the enemy’ :what:

From my own perspective, I feel that having the option to reverse a withdrawal that’s not yet processed is fine… people are entitled to change their minds after all.. but actively encouraging people to do so by deliberately stalling a withdrawal or rewarding the behavior with a bonus is not. Reopening closed accounts is fine. Re-opening closed accounts or allowing customers to create a new one when the reason for closing was a suspected gambling problem is not. Setting min and max bet amounts for games is fine.. adjusting them for specific players to make them have to bet more is not. Just my two cents as always.

At the end of the day we are running a business here, and obviously want to maximize revenue. We just need to tread a fine line and ensure we don’t overstep the mark or turn to the dark side. If GamCare, Gamaware or GA ever get back to me, I’ll share their thoughts on the subject too.

Thank you for taking the time to review the thread and the constructive input. It is appreciated.

Nate
 

LinkinFart

Banned User : multi-account fraudster
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Location
Croatia
Debate over slogan has become irrelevant to this great thread. I started new one where we can finish this debate, hopefully. LINK
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
Keith, I appreciate responses, whether or not they are in agreement with me. When responses get personal, they are uncool.

I am assuming that you have a psychological disorder or are recovering from one. This is based on irrational jabs you are inserting which, in effect, do nothing but try and turn a sensible discussion into a war of words.

If none of this is true and your life's mission is to make assumptions, what can I tell You?

Seriously, you are welcome to discuss / debate or comment on anything. Don't make it personal.

Nate

So what would you call "I'm assuming you have a psychological problem "?

It's a bit rich to post something like that and then accuse others of being "personal" in the next breath . Incredibly hypocritical at best and actually quite childish in part - almost like you had to get one last jab in before you suggested it stop.

I'm not saying what Keith said was a great choice of words but responding in kind while berating him at the same time means you don't get to claim the moral high ground I'm afraid.

What's with this de facto splitting of threads? Shouldn't we be leaving this to the mods?
 

ksech

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Location
Here
Wow, there have been some great topics open for debate here, what happened? It's turned into a verbal bashing party of two and is now detracting from some seriously GREAT debate material. Nate and Da_Gambla both need to put the personal jabs aside (since you both have mentioned at different points, this is an ADULT community) and start ACTING like the adults you both proclaim to be, JMO.

Without opposing views, no debate would be successful. And if you can't go into a debate with an openmind, you may miss the opportunity to learn something new, JMO again.
 

Nate

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
webmeister
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Location
Cyberspace
Keith, I have tried to look at your posts more positively. It's obvious once again, that after I raise several points about several software providers, you jump right in and defend 3Dice. No problem - Even if you do not agree with what I say, just don't keep taking PERSONAL Jabs and making this thread into a name calling fest.

I posted something that came to mind and you go the route of trying to prove you have superior intellect or I just don't know what I'm saying. In all honesty, I do not want to argue or respond to your comments. The idea of the post was to spark a discussion, if you cannot do this without making personal assumptions of my intellect or whether i have a gambling problem, DON'T bother to reply to me.

I would like to continue this discussion with other members in a sensible way. Thanks!

Nate

So what would you call "I'm assuming you have a psychological problem "?

It's a bit rich to post something like that and then accuse others of being "personal" in the next breath . Incredibly hypocritical at best and actually quite childish in part - almost like you had to get one last jab in before you suggested it stop.

I'm not saying what Keith said was a great choice of words but responding in kind while berating him at the same time means you don't get to claim the moral high ground I'm afraid.

What's with this de facto splitting of threads? Shouldn't we be leaving this to the mods?

Ahh enter Nifty...Interestingly, you completely ignored my previous appeal to Keith to remain civil and stop being personal about it. I asked Keith in a sensible manner to refrain from being personal, he ignored it. It was a discussion, until he decided to chime in on a post and insinuate I have a gambling problem. If you have an opinion, do you really need to reinforce it by trying to insult the OP?

You're quite correct that I DO NOT take the moral high ground... My apologies Keith! Can we please move on now?

With regards to splitting of threads - Do you believe that you are in a position to be questioning other posters? Shouldn't we leave that to the MODS? If it is an issue, I'm sure that they will point it out.

Nate
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
Ahh enter Nifty...Interestingly, you completely ignored my previous appeal to Keith to remain civil and stop being personal about it. I asked Keith in a sensible manner to refrain from being personal, he ignored it. It was a discussion, until he decided to chime in on a post and insinuate I have a gambling problem. If you have an opinion, do you really need to reinforce it by trying to insult the OP?

You're quite correct that I DO NOT take the moral high ground... My apologies Keith! Can we please move on now?

With regards to splitting of threads - Do you believe that you are in a position to be questioning other posters? Shouldn't we leave that to the MODS? If it is an issue, I'm sure that they will point it out.

Nate

What's "ahh enter Nifty " supposed to mean?

It's hardly an invitation to consider your opinion in an objective manner is it? You could have left that part out and not looked like you were being a smartass.

Anyway, I said Keith could have worded things better - but if someone told me to leave a public discussion I would be fairly annoyed too.

I'm glad you apologized its always a mark of good character.
 

silcnlayc

Just one more spin pleez!
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Location
Left Hungary
Originally Posted by De Beuker
I'm sorry, but I found your post to be rather offensive and rude to be honest.


Da_Gambla Quote:
:Since the post was not any sort of a response towards you, I'm not sure if you found it offensive or rude really matters much. I'm sorry. It's a forum? If you would like, I can PM all of my posts to you before I submit them... not sure how else I can avoid accidentally offending you
Love the Snarkiness...inserted here ...

What's "ahh enter Nifty " supposed to mean?

ksech Wow, there have been some great topics open for debate here, what happened? It's turned into a verbal bashing party of two and is now detracting from some seriously GREAT debate material. Nate and Da_Gambla both need to put the personal jabs aside (since you both have mentioned at different points, this is an ADULT community) and start ACTING like the adults you both proclaim to be, JMO.

Without opposing views, no debate would be successful. And if you can't go into a debate with an openmind, you may miss the opportunity to learn something new, JMO again.
Excellent observation ksech , there is no debating when you get double teamed. Just as I almost choked on my coffee reading this from laughter...it is way too funny..It is like watching those wrestling matches on tv when they have the tag teams wrestling...one sneaks a jab here, the other sneaks in while the attention is on the other and follows through with the "sucker" punch...you two (Nifty and Da_Gambler) almost seem like the same person anymore. You do have it down pat now and I see you two are still at it...good job on the tag teaming..you guys have almost gotten it down to perfection..




.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
Love the Snarkiness...inserted here ...



Excellent observation ksech , there is no debating when you get double teamed. Just as I almost choked on my coffee reading this from laughter...it is way too funny..It is like watching those wrestling matches on tv when they have the tag teams wrestling...one sneaks a jab here, the other sneaks in while the attention is on the other and follows through with the "sucker" punch...you two (Nifty and Da_Gambler) almost seem like the same person anymore. You do have it down pat now and I see you two are still at it...good job on the tag teaming..you guys have almost gotten it down to perfection..




.

LOL.

What does "seem like the same person any more " mean?

I'm not going to play your games Silc. You will have to play in your sandbox alone.
 

Da_Gambla

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Location
Los Angeles
Sorry for not being around lately. 2 reasons. #1, I already apologized in this thread to a user who claimed they were offended by something I said, and I intended to leave this thread where it was. I made my point, and there wasn't much to be gained from continuing. I asked that your derailed discussion please go on. #2, my little boy came home early from school, and is currently running 103° F temp and is a very sick little dude. My attention and priority is there. I have him finally asleep, so I'll now respond to all this mess.

Debate over slogan has become irrelevant to this great thread. I started new one where we can finish this debate, hopefully. LINK

First of all, congrats on your promotion to CM board moderator! You'll get better as it settles in, but right off the bat, we have a problem:

>Debate over slogan has become irrelevant to this great thread.

Really? I almost fell out of my chair laughing this morning when I read that... are you a professional comedian? :notworthy If you're not intending to be funny, then I might point out, that slogan issue, as well as the exact slogan itself was brought up by the OP himself! It really couldn't BE MORE RELEVANT to this thread!

Another thing that has sprung to mind since you mentioned 3dice is their Slogan : "Be a Player, Be A Winner" .... misleading IMHO. [.. snip ..] Are there any Casino slogans that you may also be aware of that are misleading or not in the Spirit of Responsible Gambling?

Nate

That was post #26 in this thread, and my very first input was post #31. I never deviated from this slogan/advert issue through all of my subsequent replies, for which both Nate and yourself decided were worthy of your own rebuttals. But now you have decided, FOR ALL OF US participating in this thread, that the slogan/advert issues are now irrelevant? What a fine first act as a CM moderator that is! Very impartial, unbiased, and fair! :thumbsup:

Let me take this time to point out real quick... it's been roughly 17 hours since you 'split' the topic. It has had nearly 60 views. Zero replies. If that's not the epic fail post of the year (and yes, I know it's only February!), then someone is going to have to step up LARGE to beat it over the next 10 months! So, grats on that!

Oh, and in case you've been waiting with baited breath for me to respond to it, I won't be doing so. That discussion was created by the OP of this thread, IN this thread, and that discussion belongs here if it needs to continue at some point.

@Silc - I'm truly disappointed that you sat there waiting until everyone was all bloodied and worked up before you could sneak in with some sort of revenge post from the 3Dice thread last week. Kind of reminds me of a hyena that comes in with its tail between its legs to grab a few quick bites of the carcass, even though it did none of the work. Can't really be too satisfying, but I guess you have to work with what you're capable of. I left the debate portion of this, satisfied that I had made my points, and asked for the discussion to go on. What did you add to the discussion? Wait, let me scroll back and check...

ah, well... hmm... nothing. :rolleyes:

Well, what can I tell you, other than to simply warn you that if you aren't adding to the exact discussion portion as outlined by the new moderator, your post may in fact get split off to a new topic.

And Nifty? I did not know Nifty before the 3Dice thread. It's a pleasure to know him now. There aren't many who are capable of breaking away from the Casino Victim Posse sheep herd, and not only think for themselves, but voice those opinions in a public manner which might lead to them being trashed and bullied by the likes of your herd. Being advocates of fair play on BOTH sides of casino/player debates isn't an easy task. Since he and I do have the same views on a lot of these issues related to gambling overall, you can expect us to participate in the same threads.

Isn't that what you and the CVP do? :what: I fail to understand why it's ok for Nate and Fart to double-team someone, then you come in and tag up (note: wrestling reference!), but if Nifty and I show up in a thread together, it's a conspiracy. Well, the way I see it, you have numbers on us.. in a BIG way. I'm not sure what you're worried about?

Y'all have issues, that's for sure, but that makes sense since y'all are victims of all these nasty casinos. That's all good. I can't speak for Nifty (although I'm fairly sure how he would stand on this), but I can guarantee you that the CVP will not be silencing me anytime soon. If I have an opinion or another side of an issue to share, I will do so. It's the only guaranteed wager you'll ever see, so enjoy that.

Seeya all around, now... k? :D

Peace

- Keith
 

LinkinFart

Banned User : multi-account fraudster
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Location
Croatia
That moderator insinuation, well as funny it may be, truth is Nate that You gave Da_Gambla escape route which he gladly accepted. Btw, I hope Your kid gets better soon.

My intention was to make more space for constructive discussion and leave repetitive attempts to reason with someone, while at the same time this person is changing discussion "priorities" once the last one they proposed can no longer stand ground, in universe of its own. Posts were getting too long, specially my last one, and I thought that it would be best, because it seems that DaGambla was the only poster defending legality of the slogan, to split it. If You all think that was a mistake, I apologize and I`ll post it here and ask mod to remove the other.

So here we go, page long post, for those that will have guts to read it. It just couldnt get shorter, maybe by one or two quotes could have been left out but thats it. Oh and if you`re wandering why there is no responses, maybe because I was not the only one expecting to see response from Da_Gambla, just guessing here.
 

LinkinFart

Banned User : multi-account fraudster
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Location
Croatia
repost

Thank You Da_Gambla for making me use notepad to write posts.

All quotes are from Da_Gambla posts in this thread:

They do not beat around the bush at all about what they are selling: WINNING! With slogans like "Who will be next?" or "Will YOU be next?", it's obviously all about playing on the human urge to gamble. Sometimes they even run 'infomercial' type programs that show a couple multi-million winners, and how it changed their lives.
Here You have provided an example what is allowed to advertise yourself. They can promote previous winners and how it changed their lives. This is coupled by "Will You be next" which is not the same as "You will be next". I`ve already explained a difference and why one is allowed and other not.

Nothing on their website mentions anything about losing anything. You're not the next loser, you're the next potential winner.
And here You seem to grasp the concept yet you still push the idea that its normal to advertise certainty of a win. Gambling advertisers are not obliged to promote losing but they cant advertise "sure win".

"Be a Player, Be A Winner" is misleading? I mean, how, exactly? It's a slogan! Dr. Pepper used to have a slogan "Be A Pepper!" What does that mean, exactly? Since I can't actually physically become a pepper, is this misleading?
I`m sure we could dig up few more slogans that wont be relevant to this discussion like Dr.Pepper. "Be a winner" is misleading for reasons I have clearly explained in two previous posts of mine.

How about the Lotto example slogans listed above, "Are You Next?"
Will You ever admit that there is a difference between the two?

Doesn't matter if you say yes or no, as it's just your opinion at that point, and obviously the government here is fine with it.
This is not about opinion of any individual, its called logic. As far the government is concerned, I tried, really did, for 3 or 4 hours yesterday to find US laws related to gambling advertising but was only able to find few specific laws about lottery advertising and tons of finds about online gambling advertising which talk about UIGEA and similar. Maybe I couldnt find those laws because I`m not too familiar how and where US federal laws get published so if someone has the link or more info about it please tell me, PM or post same to me. In this shitty country I live called Croatia, government has a site where I can easily search through all the laws from the day this "backward" country was created. They try to overwhelm you with the quantity instead of hiding it.

Why do casinos need to mention that you can lose?
No they dont have to mention you can lose.

I'm only going to have a problem if I see an advert that says "You Can't Lose!". Actually, forgive me, I'm not going to have a problem, I'm going to deposit, lose, and then sue them, because that is just truly a lie.
There You go again. I dont know if its on subconscious level that You can understand or that on conscious level You are just screwing around with me and nate. "You cant lose!" is the same as saying "You will win!".

Just out of curiosity, is this prohibition specific to gambling slogans, or all advertising? I'd be interested in understanding the exact law and how they distinguish between those that are allowed versus those that aren't.
Its not prohibition, its called false advertising. I dont think that restaurant slogan is totally "legal" but gambling attracts much more attention since you cant go bankrupt by having one bad meal. One bad gambling session can leave you bankrupt.

Also, I didnt see any "BadMealAnonymous.org" sites recently. Have You?

Using 'be' in an advert here is an invitation, not a guarantee you WILL become that. For example, a branch of our military for years had the slogan "Be all you can be". This is widely accepted as an invitation, not a guarantee. So when I see "Be a player, be a winner", I am programmed to interpret that as "choose our company".
Difference between "Be all you can be" and "Be a winner". Military slogan doesnt say, "Be a hero" or "Be a general" it doesnt even imply it in any way. You could become new Ghandi, even Teletubbie. They dont even use words like infantry or pilot. On the other hand "Be a winner" is quite specific in implying positive outcome, unless you are from some different dimension and those that lose are called winners. Thats direct and it falls under category "false advertising".

In the case of cigarettes and alcohol, they are selling cool, and they always have. Alcohol ads are ridiculous. They are selling cool and sex.
Exactly, but I didnt see a slogan "Drink Heineken, Be cool" and for the very same reason, addiction prevention. I have even better example of not saying but still presenting it, Axe. They are promoting in every commercial that women will go crazy after you just because you used Axe. Here is the link one such commercial and slogan is

So that being said, we all win some wagers, lose other wagers. It's usually a slow drain south, but in the meantime, RTP suggests that at least SOME of your wagers are being returned to play through again, if you choose. So, if you put $1 in a slot and win back 50 cents, YOU'RE A WINNER. That's a win, plain and simple.
Example You provided is not a winner. Explained it already, bet is a process which consists of bet amount/game/outcome and you cant separate this trio, although You would like to do just that.

Not the win you wanted, but did the statement "Be a winner" guarantee you a win above your wager, or a cumulative win above your deposit? No, of course it didn't.
Yes,it does imply exactly that. As I said before, if You dont see a term "Winner" describing a positive outcome, in this case profit, then You must be from different dimension and there are bunch of Multiverse scientists who would like to get their hands on You. You cant be a winner and a loser at the same time. If You end your session with a profit you`re a winner if You end your session with a loss then you`re a loser. If Your session is comprised of both wins and losses then again, you cant use the term winner because its not the only result you`ll be getting. And this is also to show that YOU were the one that entered 'exaggeration zone' first, so either stand ground and defend your point of view or admit that You were wrong but in any case dont run around when you feel cornered.

If you supply YOUR definition of winner, or the definition you just want to create, then you can make this slogan, or any slogan for that matter, misleading.
All jump in here although You were talking to Nate. As You could see from the links I provided in previous post its not my or Nate`s definition of a winner. It`s the only valid definition of a winner. Yes, there will always be small number of people who could find every slogan deceptive but just because they exist doesnt make their opinion valid. In this case, Winner is a person that won the money by gambling.

If you are deeply impacted by all of this rather benign advertising that casinos do, then I will have no other recourse than to assume you have a personal gambling problem.
Not only was this a mean thing to post imply about Nate but it also show how either biased or unaware of marketing influence You really are. Do a little research on marketing and propaganda, beginning with Sigmund Freud.

Look, whatever. I'm just happy you chaps aren't in charge of these rules. They may be bad now, but I'll accept them as is, versus the alternative you're proposing.
You can read again so I dont repost, yours and mine.

The problem you are facing is that, if you are going to accuse some company of a misleading slogan, the burden of proof that it is misleading becomes yours. You have thus far failed to do that. You have trotted out only the most rigid definitions of 'win' and 'winner', and just are conveniently believing no other usage of those terms exist.
You still cant grasp the definition of the terms "Win" and "Winner". I`ve explained them again above in case You forgot.

Your statement above agrees with my previous post: anything returned to the player, even if it does not equal or exceed his wager, is considered 'winnings'.
Sorry, I forgot to include definition of winnings in previous post, noun "Winnings"(
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
). And then You go on and add
The only beneficiary of 'winnings' can be the 'winner'.I stop there, and consider that if at any point you can be defined as a 'winner', then that satisfies the meaning.
Why do you stop there? More important, why do You begin Your "Winner determination thought process" at "Game" stage of the whole "Bet" process? Remember, bet/game/outcome is what is considered a BET?

Then You continue and PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, again BTW
You continue on and say, whilst someone is a winner at that point
I never said that. I hate to quote myself but here it is: "Once You place that $1.00 bet and You get WINNINGS of $0.50 the outcome of the bet was that You`re a LOSER.". You also add to already falsified quote YOUR definition of winner in brackets as it was mine or as it was something I agree with.

Lets continue with quoting
Are you saying that a net win or loss is calculated after EVERY wager?
and later you also write this one too
You are forcing ONE possible time period for the sake of argument, but it's just argument for argument's sake, and not fact.
NO! You were the one that put "Slot pull" example as proof which will satisfy the term winner in slogan. I`ve just used that very same example to show You how wrong You are.

Then You go on and try to put time limit on the term winner. Lets make this as specific it can be. Give simple answers to these questions (YES/NO, RIGHT/WRONG, AGREE/DISAGREE)

We are talking about gambling, right?
Winner is the person that has won something, right?
Win is the term describing the gain of some kind, in this case bet, right?
Bet can be losing or winning one, right?
Winning bet is the bet where player made profit, right?
Losing bet is the bet where player lost money, right?

FYI, my answer to all those question is "RIGHT". If you answer any of those questions differently please let me and others know which one is that.

We agree that a return on a wager is commonly referred to as 'winnings'
Yes, we could agree on that.

We should be in agreement that the only beneficiary to winnings would be the 'winner'.
No we couldnt. For the reasons explained not once before you again put this argument as valid, and this is not my point of view THAT IS THE FACT.

You have not made any burden of proof that a company's slogan "Be a winner" should be calculated on the exact point in time YOU want it to have, and since other variables will always exist, you will never do so.
YOU JUST MADE THAT "POINT IN TIME" ARGUMENT AND PLEASE DONT TRY TO INTRUDE IT. You tried to intrude "Slot pull" argument too and now when You are cornered with FACTS, you`re just trying to intrude "Point in time". Point in time has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MEANING OF TERM WINNER, just in determining success rate and clasification of individual results over certain period of time.

And what did we try to prove? Legality of the term Winner in 3Dice`s slogan. You defended the case this slogan was legal with the "Slot pull" hypothesis that it is valid to say winner because we all have winnings, which is not true. It`s really ridiculous that I had to explain what is the definition of the BET and yet You still fail to accept this and try to convince me and other people to accept YOUR skewed definition of a winner. Now, when I had to go down to BASIC level to prove a point, and You got cornered with FACTS we have this poor attempt by you to intrude irrelevant "POINT IN TIME" argument which, if You think for a second, will never change the meaning of the term winner.

I might have missed something its really long post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Da_Gambla

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Location
Los Angeles
Sorry Fart, couldn't be arsed to read a rage post... will answer these:

Give simple answers to these questions (YES/NO, RIGHT/WRONG, AGREE/DISAGREE)

We are talking about gambling, right? RIGHT
Winner is the person that has won something, right? RIGHT
Win is the term describing the gain of some kind, in this case bet, right? RIGHT - and 'some kind' includes any amount, doesn't need to match or exceed the wager.
Bet can be losing or winning one, right? WRONG - You can push. But further, a BET is just a BET. It has neither a win or a loss associated with it until there is an outcome for whatever your gamble was. I can buy a $10 Win on the #3 horse in the 6th race, and I have a BET. It doesn't do anything until the race was run and a winner established.
Winning bet is the bet where player made profit, right? WRONG - If we are to analyze each individual outcome of a bet, you can win back your wager (push) or win back less than your wager (a net loss), but you still won something. There is no rule that you have to have profited. It is also known as a 'partial win'.
Losing bet is the bet where player lost money, right? RIGHT - If they received no winnings, ie., lost the entire amount.

FYI, my answer to all those question is "RIGHT". If you answer any of those questions differently please let me and others know which one is that.

I have done so. This has established nothing profound, as these were the same ideas that I had posted earlier. You have already agreed to my argument here:

>I hate to quote myself but here it is: "Once You place that $1.00 bet and You get WINNINGS of $0.50 the outcome of the bet was that You`re a LOSER."

You call any return winnings, so do I. OUTCOME and WINNINGS are two separate things mate.

OUTCOME does not equal WINNINGS

OUTCOME equals WINNINGS minus WAGER

This is where you're hung up, and I just don't know how to educate you on the process you're skipping. Outcome is the net, and it can be equal to, or plus/minus your wager. You need the WINNINGS to calculate the outcome. Winnings will be zero or any positive integer, then you can do the math with that variable to calculate the outcome (your net).

There is nothing else to call winnings except winnings, even if it's a penny, because you won it.

All good? Excellent! Catch ya later...

- Keith
 

LinkinFart

Banned User : multi-account fraudster
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Location
Croatia
I have to admire your patience LinkinFart :thumbsup:

Thats how MPRI training can influence life of a person. Its actually combination of patience and persistence, SF. :D

And now to Da_Gambla.
Sorry, missed the "Push" outcome this time from the equation, must be the long post issue or I must have focused on terms winner and loser too much and this is the result, but in any way sorry for not being thorough.

I am politely asking You to read entire post once You have the time. Its not a rage post, those quotes are examples where You in some instances grasp the idea what makes someone winner and only to ungrasp it few lines later. One of the examples is the quote where You said that You would deposit, lose the money and then sue the casino for not providing what they advertised. Please, give it a try.

OK, so breakdown of the Q&A:
I`m glad we can agree on the first three questions and to remove any doubt I myself agree with added explanation of the win, it can be any amount.

For 4th question, If I had used the phrase "BET is losing or winning one" your explanation would hold ground, lets ignore my "Push" lapse for the moment. Then following 2 questions are practically breakdown of this one, so no surprise that you dont agree, even though you wrote conditional RIGHT next to it. I didnt make clear enough or the meaning was lost in translation, english is not my first language, but I was talking about the outcomes, bet as process, not the bet amount itself, and since its the outcome of the bet (process) this includes profit/loss calculation, not only winnings. About "partial win", well we could go into another terminology debate is partial win a win or loss but to be honest we can do it later too, once we determine what makes someone a WINNER.

Then You go into WINNINGS/OUTCOME explanation like its something I didnt know, in fact go through my posts and you`ll see thats exactly what I was explaining to you, and finish with this sentence:
There is nothing else to call winnings except winnings, even if it's a penny, because you won it. All good? Excellent!
We would be "all good" if we debated what terms WINNINGS represented.

"IF" I recall correctly, we are debating the term WINNER in "Be A Player, Be A Winner" slogan, not "..., Be A Winnings"

Should I repeat or quote myself again, that is the question. Lets try repeat instead of quoting.

If you are to be called a WINNER you would have to make PROFIT. Everything else is not true, not logical, not mathematically correct. So, if You`re down at 3Dice, go sue them because thats what they promised You.
 
Last edited:

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
"Be a Player. Be a Winner"

Actually, it is a suggestion of what you could be....an invitation of sorts to achieve two possible aims.

If you sign up at 3Dice you can be a player.

If you can be a player, you can be a winner.

Simple logic.

If the slogan were "Be a player and you will Be a Winner" I would agree it is misleading.

As I said, it is an invitation to possibly become a player (if you sign up) and, similarly, become a winner (if you manage to win).

It also works in the reverse i.e. If you don't become a player at 3Dice you can't become a winner at 3Dice.

For the sake of clarity maybe "Become" is better then "Be" but it amounts to the same thing IMO.

Unfortunately, people who don't like something (in this case a casino) in the first place only look at such things in the most negative way.....but the fact that myself and others can come up with other 'definitions' of that slogan shows that how it is understood varies wildly.

If you seriously think that 3Dice is guaranteeing anyone a win in that slogan then by all means submit a complaint to Enzo and whichever licensing authority they are bound by, and even PAB. After all, this would be at the very least a serious breach of ethics and possibly even advertising regulations. Personally, when I see slogans that might be open to interpretation in that they might seem to 'make me a winner' or 'give me something free' I just think "Yeah right well if anyone swallows that and complains afterwards that they didn't win deserves to lose for being so ignorant".

So I guess I'm saying to anyone who fits the above description to "Put your money where your mouth is" - to do otherwise proves that it's just another 'anti-casino' whine-and-cheese festival where the actual (slogan) argument is actually secondary to the real purpose i.e. take yet another shot at an operator who has proven their integrity and fairness time and time again (and don't ask me - ask Bryan).

IMO if this slogan came from some Rival casino or 32Red or some other operation we wouldn't even be talking about it.

When it comes to the "rainy day" thing from 3dice. I believe that no casino shall allow gambling on credit. I understand that this may be a final comp if the player don`t do another deposit. But regardless, this practice is senseless. I have said this before in an earlier thread, and it is strange that a casino like 3dice have such a "gambling on credit"-practice.

I meant to say something about this earlier.

Where does it say a player has to use these rainy day funds?

Again, another example of where as adults we need to take responsibility for our own actions.

"Responsible Gambling" is not something a casino can control IMO....some people are looking in the wrong direction. Why bother excluding players or limiting deposits etc? An addict will just go find another casino. The only thing being achieved is that one casino is sending their profits to another and nothing is being achieved insofar as helping the addict to stop gambling.

Finally, I think, based on many arguments here, that we should ask Bryan to petition all software providers to change all games so that when you bet $1 and hit a combination that pays $.50c it no longer says "Well Done! You win 0.50 !!". It should immediately be changed to "Well Done! You lose 0.50!!". :rolleyes:

Think about that for a minute and you will realise how silly it is to take any advertising slogan literally.
 

Nate

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
webmeister
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Location
Cyberspace
Thanks for the comments:

Lets look at some definitions and put this into perspective. The post is obviously in relation to Gambling. Let’s define Gambling first:

gambling (plural gamblings) – Source: Wiktionary
An activity characterised by a balance between winning and losing that is governed by a mixture of skill and chance.

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Typically, the outcome of the wager is evident within a short period. – Source - Wikipedia

In the instance of Casinos, we now know that Gambling is wagering / betting of money on an uncertain event with the primary intent of Winning additional money….

Lets now define Winner:

winner – Source: Webster Dictionary
one who wins, or gains by success in competition, contest, or gaming

Since Gambling is to wager or bet with the intent of winning additional money or gaining, a wager of $1.00 with a return of $0.50 is a LOSS. Since a $0.50c loss cannot be classified as a gain....

Lets define Loss:

Loss - Source: Dictionary.Reference.com

the act or an instance of losing
the disadvantage or deprivation
detriment, disadvantage, or deprivation from failure to keep, have, or get

A Wager of $1.00 and a return of $0.50c is a failure to keep or gain and an actual loss of $0.50c

Lets define Actual Loss:

the identifiable and calculable monetary detriment that is suffered or will be suffered as a result of an act or event.

Nate
 

Nate

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
webmeister
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Location
Cyberspace
That’s really all about identifying and excluding problem gamblers though, and to me the crux of your post was behavior by casinos that actively encourages problem behavior.

"Be a Player. Be a Winner"



So I guess I'm saying to anyone who fits the above description to "Put your money where your mouth is" - to do otherwise proves that it's just another 'anti-casino' whine-and-cheese festival where the actual (slogan) argument is actually secondary to the real purpose i.e. take yet another shot at an operator who has proven their integrity and fairness time and time again (and don't ask me - ask Bryan).

Nobody said that 3dice is guaranteeing ANYONE a Win with the Slogan. It was pointed out that this Slogan would be illegal in some areas. Does that make it illegal for them to use it? NO...

Why is one instance out of ALL the software providers being singled out? If you feel that it is not the case with the Slogan, cool, nothing wrong with that. You could just argue that you are not in agreement...Why does this now have to be turned into an alternate agenda post?

PlexRep highlighted EXACTLY what the thread was aimed at...behaviour that actively encourages problem gambling.

First, the Personal Jabs... Now the personal Agenda... seriously guys, if you do not agree, then you do not agree. :thumbsup:
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
Thanks for the comments:

Lets look at some definitions and put this into perspective. The post is obviously in relation to Gambling. Let’s define Gambling first:

gambling (plural gamblings) – Source: Wiktionary
An activity characterised by a balance between winning and losing that is governed by a mixture of skill and chance.

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Typically, the outcome of the wager is evident within a short period. – Source - Wikipedia

In the instance of Casinos, we now know that Gambling is wagering / betting of money on an uncertain event with the primary intent of Winning additional money….

Lets now define Winner:

winner – Source: Webster Dictionary
one who wins, or gains by success in competition, contest, or gaming

Since Gambling is to wager or bet with the intent of winning additional money or gaining, a wager of $1.00 with a return of $0.50 is a LOSS. Since a $0.50c loss cannot be classified as a gain....

Lets define Loss:

Loss - Source: Dictionary.Reference.com

the act or an instance of losing
the disadvantage or deprivation
detriment, disadvantage, or deprivation from failure to keep, have, or get

A Wager of $1.00 and a return of $0.50c is a failure to keep or gain and an actual loss of $0.50c

Lets define Actual Loss:

the identifiable and calculable monetary detriment that is suffered or will be suffered as a result of an act or event.

Nate

Cool! You made perfect sense.

Time to fire off those emails/complaints to every software provider and file a PAB, to have all those 'winning' messages removed from games where the return is less than the wager. After all, it is misleading and predatory to convince poor defenceless gamblers that they have won then they have, in fact, lost. You will also have to insist casinos refrain from posting progressive winners as the player may well have spent more chasing the prize than it was worth hence they actually lost the difference between those two amounts - definitely misleading. You will also have to request that Bryan have strict rules in the screenshots thread to make sure members are actually ahead at the casino they post about - the thread is called 'Winner Screenshots' and it would be misleading to allow those who are overall losers to participate in such a thread. Otherwise you could ask that the thread is re-name 'Winner as a result of an individual wager Screenshots'.

Let us know the outcome. :)
 

LinkinFart

Banned User : multi-account fraudster
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Location
Croatia
I dont know about Nate but feel free to search through my posts about 3Dice and tell me how much hate did I spread about them. Just for the fact, I did happen to win jackpot on TS2 at 32Red recently and yet very shortly after that You can see me posting not so pleasant posts related to software issues, so I like to think that I am at least most of the time unbiased.

Now to terminology, again.

To avoid language confusion, when I say "definitive" I mean something that cannot evolve into something else. It is as is.

For the sake of clarity maybe "Become" is better then "Be" but it amounts to the same thing IMO

"Be" is direct and definitive.
Source:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

2 entries, both definitive.
1st entry:Main Entry: be
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: exist

2nd entry:Main Entry: be
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: happen

Now "Become" although it is bordering, I can see how it could pass as legit, it doesnt have definitive certainty in it.
Source:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

2 entries, both not definitive.
1st entry:
Main Entry: become
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: evolve into

2nd entry:
Main Entry: become
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: enhance

I hope this clarifies things to You Nifty and Da_Gambla what is the difference between "Be" and "Become". Also, Da_Gambla pointed out earlier that slogans are shortened versions of something bigger, I agree. They should be short, memorable and able to invoke itself from the memory in as much circumstances as possible where such invokation would produce benefit to the company, in this case think of benefit in more abstract way.

With its definitive meaning "Be" is assigning definitive meaning to the term "Winner" as well, on both conscious and subconscious level.

Now, regardless of this slogan being legal or not, 3Dice should drop this slogan because on subconscious level Players are expecting what they were promised, rather than accepting gambling as a game of chance, and the difference between "Become" and "Be" shows up in its fullness here with players being suggested, and some actually expecting, to be winners only on 3Dice, again on subconscious level, unless they have also seen another slogan or promo which did promote certainty of a being a winner. In case they did find another "certainty" promo and in case of negative outcome regardless where they lost the money, them being losers at 3Dice or that other casino, they will connect on subconscious level that experience to every instance of "certainty" promo they can remember.

I wouldnt be surprised if this could be the main reason for so many 3Dice related hate threads.

BTW, I checked everything but the slogan itself. WHERE CAN I FIND THAT SLOGAN, please linkIf it turns out that we were having a debate here over nothing, well lets say I wouldnt like that.

EDIT:
Nobody said that 3dice is guaranteeing ANYONE a Win with the Slogan. It was pointed out that this Slogan would be illegal in some areas. Does that make it illegal for them to use it? NO...
I did and that is the reason why it would be illegal. Also, anyone feel free to put other slogan here. I have commented on this one only because it was presented.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Thanks for the comments:

Lets look at some definitions and put this into perspective. The post is obviously in relation to Gambling. Let’s define Gambling first:

gambling (plural gamblings) – Source: Wiktionary
An activity characterised by a balance between winning and losing that is governed by a mixture of skill and chance.

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Typically, the outcome of the wager is evident within a short period. – Source - Wikipedia

In the instance of Casinos, we now know that Gambling is wagering / betting of money on an uncertain event with the primary intent of Winning additional money….

Lets now define Winner:

winner – Source: Webster Dictionary
one who wins, or gains by success in competition, contest, or gaming

Since Gambling is to wager or bet with the intent of winning additional money or gaining, a wager of $1.00 with a return of $0.50 is a LOSS. Since a $0.50c loss cannot be classified as a gain....

Lets define Loss:

Loss - Source: Dictionary.Reference.com

the act or an instance of losing
the disadvantage or deprivation
detriment, disadvantage, or deprivation from failure to keep, have, or get

A Wager of $1.00 and a return of $0.50c is a failure to keep or gain and an actual loss of $0.50c

Lets define Actual Loss:

the identifiable and calculable monetary detriment that is suffered or will be suffered as a result of an act or event.

Nate

Well, ONLINE casinos seem to believe that the "primary purpose" of gambling is to "have fun whilst losing the lot", and treat any player who evidently prioritises winning money over "entertainment" as a "bonus abuser" or "advantage player", even a FRAUD in some cases, simply because they used a gambling strategy designed to maximise their chances of a winning outcome at the expense of "entertainment" through play.


It seems that ANY move that lessens the amount of money a casino makes, even those based on "responsible gambling", will have a few at least looking for a work around, rather than adhering to the concept of protecting vulnerable gamblers to the detriment of overall profit.

Some of the advertising is designed to trick players into believing they are being offered MUCH better odds than they really are, knowing that getting a players' FIRST deposit is the BIGGEST hurdle a casino has to overcome.

Look at all these "free play" offers with steadily higher amounts of "free money" with which to "win as much as you can" and then "keep your winnings" simply by making a small first deposit. It is only the "small print" that tells you that the casino's definition of the word "all" differs substantially from the DICTIONARY definition - but by then it's too late, player has been snared, and greatest hurdle overcome.

Loyal players are also "snared" players, which is why they NEVER see offers in the same league as those offered to NEW players, except of course when they STOP being loyal, and the casino doesn't see them for a while - suddenly they find offers in the SAME league as those for new players, in an effort to reattach the snare.

Where players have closed their accounts, the casino may have protected a vulnerable player, but they have sacrificed one of the mainstays of their profitabilty, a loose and undisciplined player. It is no wonder then that many casinos are willing to believe the player when they say their problem has been "sorted", and can they start playing again.

Whilst the software provides only limited tools to assist in the prevention of problem gambling, there are those casinos that WON'T use them (not CAN'T, but WON'T) because doing so reduces their profit potential.

We also have verification upon withdrawal, both cheaper to implement, but also ensures that only WINNERS have thorough checks done on them, and failing these checks means non-payment. The checks themselves are designed to exclude certain classes of person altogether, not from playing and LOSING, but from being able to pass the stringent verification AFTER THE FACT of them having their first winning session.
Many players have no idea that they are destined to fail these checks simply because of their personal circumstances (such as "can't drive", or "lives with parents - hence no bills"), and it is only when they DO win that they find out how impossible it is for THEM to get through the checks.
Some of the demands are getting so ridiculous that it is becoming clear that there is an element of DESIGN so that a significant minority of players can NEVER pass the checks, yet are of sufficient social standing to be able to DEPOSIT, and obviously pass the checks imposed by THEIR countries in order to secure methods of banking that enable them to deposit.

Take UKash as one sinister example. UKash is specifically designed for those who CANNOT muster up sufficient proof of ID to get themselves a "proper" banking account, yet want to make online payments. Surely those who have to resort to Ukash because of this have little or no chance of getting through CASINO document verification should they ever win, or of cashing any cheque sent out.

How do casinos handle this?

Well, many ACCEPT Ukash as a deposit method, and even if the player DOES get past document verification, the ONLY method of payment is a CHEQUE, even though they don't often have a bank account to put it in.

Players that avoid these problems by getting an eWallet style facility face discrimination against them from many casinos simply BECAUSE they are using such a convenient and flexible method that allows them to make deposits and receive their withdrawals separately from the main banking system, yet these SAME casinos do NOT discriminate against UKash, which is probably the EASIEST method by which to LAUNDER MONEY through a casino, because UKash is bought with cash, usually at the local "corner shop", and with no ID checks, and only a cursory check that the cash is genuine, not whether it is "dirty" or not.

If casinos claim that they have implemented something to "protect problem gamblers", they are probably lying much of the time, and protection is just a convenient excuse, or side effect, of something they have REALLY implemented to increase profits.
 

LinkinFart

Banned User : multi-account fraudster
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Location
Croatia
Look at all these "free play" offers with steadily higher amounts of "free money" with which to "win as much as you can" and then "keep your winnings" simply by making a small first deposit. It is only the "small print" that tells you that the casino's definition of the word "all" differs substantially from the DICTIONARY definition - but by then it's too late, player has been snared, and greatest hurdle overcome.
In this case all they need to do is point to "fine print" to make it legal. Not ethical but legal.

Also, I agree with what You said about them doing everything they can to lure you in or back and then kick you in behind when you win.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top