Baptism by Fire Chancehill giving it a go

[colinsunderland]

I can't agree with that. If each player is playing as an individual with only one account and no sharing of funds, then this isn't a syndicate. As mentioned previously, if simply telling someone about a good opportunity is considered a breach of terms, this entire community is a liability.

What would constitute a syndicate in the eyes of a casino, as I would have thought the sharing and acting on the information in a private group that you have to pay to be a member of was pretty close to a syndicate tbh/

I agree with colinsunderland here that wamphyri has came on here stating things that may not be true, How does he not know if the other people on the other said forum got a few people together ? and pulled in a syndicate?

He has already said he can grab screen shots which turns out to be false,

I actually find it extremely disrespectful that he joined up just to have a go at the casino when he has absolutely no proof and wasn't even affected himself, then starts crying when called out on his comments.
I'm sure the members of the other forum are fully aware of this thread, yet not a single one has joined to actually complain themselves. That is quite telling too in my view.

 

[redsfan]

People always throw the term "Fraud" around loosely and while sometimes it is, just because a player is more savvy than the casino, doesnt make them fraudsters.

Fake ID is Fraud. Stolen Identity is Fraud. Stolen Cards is Fraud.

Taking advantage of a casinos ignorance isnt.

Obviously, all my opinion.

 

[syrus2]

Hosts of books have been written on this so it's more than could be reasonably covered here, but the foundation of what I was saying is that any gambling game can be modelled mathematically, that's where RTP figures come from for slots games and Basic Strategy for Blackjack. If a player plays a consistent strategy then their results should fall within a pre-determined range but it take a large number of rounds of play to reach a point where you have a large enough sample size to be able to draw conclusions.

Most regular players won't gather a large enough sample size, don't play a consistent strategy and even if they did both of those wouldn't know what signs to look for to know if their results were abnormal. Smart players however play very consistent strategy (the mathematically optimal strategy for the game), more frequently generate significant sample sizes and know how to analyse their results (or who to take their results to) when things look off.

In the time I've been running ThePOGG I've seen 5 issues where I or others have confirmed that the software in question has not been performing fairly. In each of those cases the player/s that brought the issue to my (or general) attention was a player that engaged with online casinos for profit.

Most testing certificates are not nearly as comprehensive as operators would have players believe, they tend to confirm that an RNG functions fairly and miss out the part where the game program has to use the results fairly and the other part where the game results get sampled randomly and regularly. If you don't have smart players watching I wouldn't bet on software providers/operators doing the right thing by themselves. Look at what's happened in the financial services industry in the last two decades. Knowing that there are players out there that potentially can detect these sorts of issues and knowing how much damage non-fair software can cause to a software provider's reputation helps keep these companies from straying.

In t game of blackjack & Poker ,, sure . agreed.
frankly i did ask that question bcuz i wanted to know , what ur ulterior motive was with useing that word . Did'nt expect such a comprehensive reply (which I appreciate it extremely ).
Now i know what you meant by your comment, I'm gonna ( as soon as I get time ) start a new thread regarding this matter ( also to let u know why i'm not agree with sum of the points uave made ). bcuz if i get in to this here, it's gonna be a very long comment and I'm afraid of pushing this thread completely off the topic.
And of course , I'll invite you there and ask your opinion .
I do'nt know you , but I can clearly see you know a lot about gambling. I hope you'll have sum time than, to show up there ( Just in case i'm wrong, so i can learn sumthing new ).
Many thanks for your time dude an have a good night !!

 

[wamphyri]

and yet, despite numerous requests, you have yet to show a single screenshot of any live chat conversation backing up a single claim you make.
If you are going to make accusations, then at least have the balls to back up what you say.

Nowhere did I claim to have screen shots of chat logs, that is something you dreamed up all by yourself.

I did state I had screenshots which I was willing/able to provide by PM if anyone would like to see them (and duly were), the screenshots I was referring to were the posts made in the other forum by members who were recounting their live chat experiences.

I actually find it extremely disrespectful that he joined up just to have a go at the casino when he has absolutely no proof and wasn't even affected himself, then starts crying when called out on his comments.
I'm sure the members of the other forum are fully aware of this thread, yet not a single one has joined to actually complain themselves. That is quite telling too in my view.

The only tears I am crying are tears of laughter at your abject naivety, by all means keep on with your little crusade, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

..or you could take on board the absolute good sense posted by POGG in this thread.

 

[ThePOGG]

My issue is with that information being shared,organised and actioned upon very cynically on mass.They must have guessed that it would eventually be rumbled but proceeded anyway.

I get what you're saying and I actually sympathise. With absolute honesty I find these players far more frustrating than you. When a smart player brings me a complaint and they genuinely are right and haven't broken any rules I honestly love it. These are the types of complaints that are genuinely interesting. It separates the really good operators from the rest as the really good operators will ultimately do the right thing. But far more frequent is the 'half-smart' player. The player who knows the right betting strategy to apply but isn't finding enough good opportunities so start running multiple accounts, or repeatedly asking Live Support the same question in the hopes that one of the agents will make a mistake and contradict a term they don't like. These players waste a lot of my time - I'm sure Max is exactly the same - and make operators generally more hostile across this board.

I also understand why so many operators become really hostile to this type of player. As Rachel at Trada recently discussed, they are time consuming to deal with and over the sum of all their accounts actually cost operators a lot of money. When you get large rings of players coming through all with very similar profiles you can see multiple syndicates of 20 or more accounts. That's not a one off payout to a player smart enough to beat the system, that's paying a lot out to a group of accounts that are highly likely playing in tandem or being operated by one person. Then regular players end up caught up in the mess, getting investigated and it takes ages to detangle which players are real and which players aren't by which point the real players are really frustrated and will never play again.

However, where no rules have been broken (i.e. individual accounts operated by individuals) these players do a service for players everywhere (unintentionally) that helps separate the really good operators from those just pretending.

And back to your point about sharing information. Most supermarkets run promotions at a loss, the idea being to get customers through the door as they'll likely buy more than just the promotional offer. This is very similar to operators who risk the chance of player's knowing how to beat them with a bonus. If I see a really good offer at a local supermarket - could be on anything from a specific brand of crisps to a laptop in the modern supermarket - I take advantage of it then tell all my friends about it so they can claim it too, have I done something wrong? What if me and my friends then decide to each check one of the major supermarkets each weekend and let the others know what good offers are on, have we crossed the line of ethical acceptability then?

The difference between the supermarket example and the betting example is the amount of money it's possible to make. With supermarkets you likely only save money, or at best make a bit reselling under priced items on ebay. There's far greater potential to make money letting each other know about good betting opportunities. That however doesn't in itself make one ethical and the other not.

I find it surprising that information of this nature is being shared on a forum - traditionally advantage players have always been very secretive of the opportunities they find specifically because they don't want other players burning them out. That's exactly what's happened here. Rather than a small group milking this opportunity for a while, enough people have rushed in that it's quickly set alarm bells ringing and the whole angle's been shut down. The question is whether the forum owner made enough out of selling/posting the opportunity to offset the reduced chance of any other operators making the same mistake in the future (with the attention this is now receiving other operators will be aware of it and SMM will spring onto restricted lists everywhere before it's added to game selections)? That's an academic question through and doesn't change the facts on the grounds - a large number of accounts signing up in a very short time interval with other indicators of association.

I feel I've wandered from my point here.......

 

[spintee]

I actually find it extremely disrespectful that he joined up just to have a go at the casino when he has absolutely no proof and wasn't even affected himself, then starts crying when called out on his comments.
I'm sure the members of the other forum are fully aware of this thread, yet not a single one has joined to actually complain themselves. That is quite telling too in my view.

I thought the exact same thing, There probably all laughing behind he's back, The person in question may and just may be genuine and thought there was a loop hole, are loop holes legit when it comes to gambling? There certainly questionable and depends how you go about doing it,

And like I said he does not know if theses other forum members puled in a small syndicate for them selfs, At the minute all I hear is chines whispers and no actual proof,

I may belive the person or two that was cought out on it may of been playing alone and thought it was ok to done what they did but the others know certainly well what the score is,

 

[geordiecolin]

The only tears I am crying are tears of laughter at your abject naivety, by all means keep on with your little crusade, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

..or you could take on board the absolute good sense posted by POGG in this thread.

Don't neglect the fact that what POGG has said comes with a number of caveats and so far you and your mob have not met those tests.

 

[wamphyri]

To clarify a few points:

But far more frequent is the 'half-smart' player. The player who knows the right betting strategy to apply but isn't finding enough good opportunities so start running multiple accounts, or repeatedly asking Live Support the same question in the hopes that one of the agents will make a mistake and contradict a term they don't like. These players waste a lot of my time - I'm sure Max is exactly the same - and make operators generally more hostile across this board.

On the other forum in question there is a strictly enforced policy by the site operator of multiple accounting not being permitted to be discussed in any way. Such posts or threads are very quickly removed/locked by moderators (usually within minutes of them appearing) and repeat offenders banned.

Also in the sub-forum (Loophole thread) which discusses casino loopholes it is made very clear that members should not go on live chat in relation to attempting a loophole for any reason which again is pretty robustly enforced by forum members towards new members who may not be au fait with things.

I find it surprising that information of this nature is being shared on a forum - traditionally advantage players have always been very secretive of the opportunities they find specifically because they don't want other players burning them out. That's exactly what's happened here. Rather than a small group milking this opportunity for a while, enough people have rushed in that it's quickly set alarm bells ringing and the whole angle's been shut down. The question is whether the forum owner made enough out of selling/posting the opportunity to offset the reduced chance of any other operators making the same mistake in the future (with the attention this is now receiving other operators will be aware of it and SMM will spring onto restricted lists everywhere before it's added to game selections)?

The general subject matter of the site/forum in question is not casino loopholes but general advantage play from bookie/casino offers. The 'loophole thread' sub forum is tolerated by the site owners and effectively run by site members/subscribers as long as discussion stays within the boundaries of the overall site rules. Generally when a loophole is found it is accepted that the members who find it will do it themselves and when had their withdrawals confirmed and are finished with it will post details to the forum and leave it up to the members whether or not they want to 'do' it.

As happend with ChanceHill, after I saw the casino mentioned in this very thread I had a look, saw the post where Rafa said they were hosting Williams games so signed up, did the SMM loophole on my signup bonus, withdrew my profits. Then passed details onto a few friends and when they were done the details were posted on the forum for the others to try. On this occasion CH caught on very quickly but that has often not been the case.

Not all get shut down quickly though, for instance the SMM loophole on Netbet Casino ran for over six months before it was recently closed by the bookie. The casino were making the game unavailable to members who had current bonuses on their acount by removing it from their lists of available games during that time but neglected to consider that a bookmarked link made by a player who did not have an active bonus could be used to access the game at any time. In that time it was estimated that members cumulatively benefitted from it by well in excess of 6 figures due to the repeated 100% deposit reload offers up to £1000 at a time Netbet were regularly dishing out.

 

[geordiecolin]

I get what you're saying and I actually sympathise. With absolute honesty I find these players far more frustrating than you. When a smart player brings me a complaint and they genuinely are right and haven't broken any rules I honestly love it. These are the types of complaints that are genuinely interesting. It separates the really good operators from the rest as the really good operators will ultimately do the right thing. But far more frequent is the 'half-smart' player. The player who knows the right betting strategy to apply but isn't finding enough good opportunities so start running multiple accounts, or repeatedly asking Live Support the same question in the hopes that one of the agents will make a mistake and contradict a term they don't like. These players waste a lot of my time - I'm sure Max is exactly the same - and make operators generally more hostile across this board.

I also understand why so many operators become really hostile to this type of player. As Rachel at Trada recently discussed, they are time consuming to deal with and over the sum of all their accounts actually cost operators a lot of money. When you get large rings of players coming through all with very similar profiles you can see multiple syndicates of 20 or more accounts. That's not a one off payout to a player smart enough to beat the system, that's paying a lot out to a group of accounts that are highly likely playing in tandem or being operated by one person. Then regular players end up caught up in the mess, getting investigated and it takes ages to detangle which players are real and which players aren't by which point the real players are really frustrated and will never play again.

However, where no rules have been broken (i.e. individual accounts operated by individuals) these players do a service for players everywhere (unintentionally) that helps separate the really good operators from those just pretending.

And back to your point about sharing information. Most supermarkets run promotions at a loss, the idea being to get customers through the door as they'll likely buy more than just the promotional offer. This is very similar to operators who risk the chance of player's knowing how to beat them with a bonus. If I see a really good offer at a local supermarket - could be on anything from a specific brand of crisps to a laptop in the modern supermarket - I take advantage of it then tell all my friends about it so they can claim it too, have I done something wrong? What if me and my friends then decide to each check one of the major supermarkets each weekend and let the others know what good offers are on, have we crossed the line of ethical acceptability then?

The difference between the supermarket example and the betting example is the amount of money it's possible to make. With supermarkets you likely only save money, or at best make a bit reselling under priced items on ebay. There's far greater potential to make money letting each other know about good betting opportunities. That however doesn't in itself make one ethical and the other not.

I find it surprising that information of this nature is being shared on a forum - traditionally advantage players have always been very secretive of the opportunities they find specifically because they don't want other players burning them out. That's exactly what's happened here. Rather than a small group milking this opportunity for a while, enough people have rushed in that it's quickly set alarm bells ringing and the whole angle's been shut down. The question is whether the forum owner made enough out of selling/posting the opportunity to offset the reduced chance of any other operators making the same mistake in the future (with the attention this is now receiving other operators will be aware of it and SMM will spring onto restricted lists everywhere before it's added to game selections)? That's an academic question through and doesn't change the facts on the grounds - a large number of accounts signing up in a very short time interval with other indicators of association.

I feel I've wandered from my point here.......

I feel that you have made much broader points,which are very educational and welcome,more than addressing the facts of the case in point.

Your supermarket /online gambling simile are not quite the same a far as I see it as the casino has not specifically advertised the game/s targeted as a special deal but rather made a genuine error in its inclusion.
If an online store offers a computer at £10 as apposed to the intended £1000 it has the right within law to withdraw that offer and cancel any successful purchases. But this case goes further than that because it has been proven that this case is a paid up for organised scam that any fair minded arbitrator must be duty bound to protect casino's from out of fairness to the casino and punters in general.

 

[ThePOGG]

On the other forum in question there is a strictly enforced policy by the site operator of multiple accounting not being permitted to be discussed in any way. Such posts or threads are very quickly removed/locked by moderators (usually within minutes of them appearing) and repeat offenders banned.

Also in the sub-forum (Loophole thread) which discusses casino loopholes it is made very clear that members should not go on live chat in relation to attempting a loophole for any reason which again is pretty robustly enforced by forum members towards new members who may not be au fait with things.

Simply because a forum has rules against the discussion of such practices doesn't mean that the information you're publishing can't be applied by those engaging in those practices. BeatingBonuses was a perfect example of this. I have a huge amount of respect for the owner in terms of his knowledge of gambling, the tools he put together and in the way he managed his forum. He held similar rules about the discussion of anything that would contravene terms and conditions. That didn't stop a large population of multi-accounters gravitating towards that community. It's easy to learn the rule breaking stuff by yourself or elsewhere and still find this type of information resource invaluable. In this context and specifically with relation to this issue what's advantageous to do once is more advantage to do multiple times. Abiding by forum rules not to discuss certain topics doesn't automatically make the participants innocent.

I'm not saying at this point that anyone involved has been multi-accounting - I don't have the evidence necessary to support that. But people who run multiple accounts by definition need profitable opportunities for this to be worthwhile so gravitate towards communities that actively discuss and share profitable strategies. As such a legitimate part of any investigation into this issue naturally has to be the relationship between the accounts involved.

 

[1366613]

hi, in my personal case, i create an account here at chancehill, becouse they had endorphina slots. And my experience was great, I mean good people in chat support, they answer all what I asked, and the best to me the fast cashout without ANY PROBLEM. that mean very fun to play to me. I really dont like to wait days to take my money from a cashout. The bad point to me they took out the endorphina slots now, just some terms from the provider side. But I still play there and I like the new plataform

 

[ThePOGG]

I feel that you have made much broader points,which are very educational and welcome,more than addressing the facts of the case in point.

Your supermarket /online gambling simile are not quite the same a far as I see it as the casino has not specifically advertised the game/s targeted as a special deal but rather made a genuine error in its inclusion.
If an online store offers a computer at £10 as apposed to the intended £1000 it has the right within law to withdraw that offer and cancel any successful purchases. But this case goes further than that because it has been proven that this case is a paid up for organised scam that any fair minded arbitrator must be duty bound to protect casino's from out of fairness to the casino and punters in general.

There's a huge difference between a price typo of that magnitude and an operator failing to properly investigate the rules of the games they're offering then complaining when players use those very rules to their advantage. One is a trivial mistake that can (and does) happen to everyone. The other is a failure to complete due diligence. When a supermarket makes a pricing error and wrongly advertises a product at a reduced price, they still have to honour the advertised price when taken to the till.

I also did some digging on the game itself yesterday, there are a large number of sites where this specific issue has been discussed already. So much so that when you start typing 'Super Monopoly Money' into Google it auto suggests 'Super Monopoly Money Loophole'. This is a widely known issue, not one I've encountered but clearly it's had a lot of coverage. This isn't a case of the operator meaning to include SMM in their restricted terms and forgetting or a technical issue not uploading the right terms that went unnoticed, this is a case of an operator simply not having checked up on the game, or possibly a software supplier who will be well aware of the issue by this point not disclosing that information to their clients. That really isn't anything similar to a typo.

More to the point though, as long as these players have not broken the rules the operator simply has to reset the wrongly zeroed wagering requirements and they've not been placed at any disadvantage. They may not like players that are capable of beating them but each of these individuals was entitled to claim a welcome bonus and was entitled to play this game as it wasn't restricted. They were also entitled to to make use of the game features as they were intended to behave. What they weren't entitled to do is bypass the bonus wagering requirements by using those game features, but that's an issue that's easily addressed by resetting the wagering.

But again I stress that's only the case if the accounts are actually being operated by individuals and not being run as additional accounts or part of a syndicate that share funds/proceeds.

 

[geordiecolin]

There's a huge difference between a price typo of that magnitude and an operator failing to properly investigate the rules of the games they're offering then complaining when players use those very rules to their advantage. One is a trivial mistake that can (and does) happen to everyone. The other is a failure to complete due diligence. When a supermarket makes a pricing error and wrongly advertises a product at a reduced price, they still have to honour the advertised price when taken to the till.

I also did some digging on the game itself yesterday, there are a large number of sites where this specific issue has been discussed already. So much so that when you start typing 'Super Monopoly Money' into Google it auto suggests 'Super Monopoly Money Loophole'. This is a widely known issue, not one I've encountered but clearly it's had a lot of coverage. This isn't a case of the operator meaning to include SMM in their restricted terms and forgetting or a technical issue not uploading the right terms that went unnoticed, this is a case of an operator simply not having checked up on the game, or possibly a software supplier who will be well aware of the issue by this point not disclosing that information to their clients. That really isn't anything similar to a typo.

More to the point though, as long as these players have not broken the rules the operator simply has to reset the wrongly zeroed wagering requirements and they've not been placed at any disadvantage. They may not like players that are capable of beating them but each of these individuals was entitled to claim a welcome bonus and was entitled to play this game as it wasn't restricted. They were also entitled to to make use of the game features as they were intended to behave. What they weren't entitled to do is bypass the bonus wagering requirements by using those game features, but that's an issue that's easily addressed by resetting the wagering.

But again I stress that's only the case if the accounts are actually being operated by individuals and not being run as additional accounts or part of a syndicate that share funds/proceeds.

I agree entirely with what you have been pointing out. I will repeat that it is the caveats from the "IF"s that are the contentious issues here

 

[ThePOGG]

But this case goes further than that because it has been proven that this case is a paid up for organised scam that any fair minded arbitrator must be duty bound to protect casino's from out of fairness to the casino and punters in general.

Whether you like what this forum does or not, participation in it is not against the rules of the casino. Simply being a member there cannot be the deciding factor. Having figured out* which forum this is, it also claims to have 10k members. Painting them all with the same brush would be unfair.

Also there's nothing unfair about this in terms of punters - no-one other than the players involved and the operator has anything at stake here. The removal of one game from a bonus does not significantly detract from the attractiveness of the bonus in general.

* EDIT - "figured out" makes it sound like this was some intellectual feat on my part. It wasn't. This was information communicated to me privately.

 

[ThePOGG]

I agree entirely with what you have been pointing out. I will repeat that it is the caveats from the "IF"s that are the contentious issues here

Ty - as I said before for me this case has a big '?' hanging over it due to certain factors related to that 'if'.

I've been making a distinct effort in all of this discussion to be impartial and not favour one side or the other without the proof coming out. The truth is that we're unlikely to know the truth of this without the players in question taking this issue down the road of official complaints to regulators/ADRs.

 

[interlog]

Whilst I can see the points that ThePOGG is making, the way I see it is that this is a closed forum not publicly available whose aim is to get one over on the casino. There is no difference between one person opening up 10 multiple accounts or 10 people opening up single accounts - the effect is the same.

To compare it to CM is wrong in my opinion too and an insult to this community. This particular loophole has been mentioned here a few times and rather than encourage readers to exploit it, it is actually discouraged to try this on. That is the difference between CM and this particular closed forum.

 

[colinsunderland]

Whether you like what this forum does or not, participation in it is not against the rules of the casino. Simply being a member there cannot be the deciding factor. Having figured out* which forum this is, it also claims to have 10k members. Painting them all with the same brush would be unfair.

I did mention earlier in the thread

'I would have thought the sharing and acting on the information in a private group that you have to pay to be a member of was pretty close to a syndicate tbh'

Now I don't know what a casino would class as a syndicate, but thats pretty close to the definition in dictionaries.

 

[ThePOGG]

I did mention earlier in the thread

'I would have thought the sharing and acting on the information in a private group that you have to pay to be a member of was pretty close to a syndicate tbh'

Now I don't know what a casino would class as a syndicate, but thats pretty close to the definition in dictionaries.

10k member syndicate? Really?

 

[interlog]

I did mention earlier in the thread

'I would have thought the sharing and acting on the information in a private group that you have to pay to be a member of was pretty close to a syndicate tbh'

Now I don't know what a casino would class as a syndicate, but thats pretty close to the definition in dictionaries.

It all about semantics. Technically speaking they are not doing anything wrong, but ethically speaking they are.

If we allow this type of group to ethically get away with it, we shouldn't be complaining if a casino does the same if they can. Period.

 

[ThePOGG]

Whilst I can see the points that ThePOGG is making, the way I see it is that this is a closed forum not publicly available whose aim is to get one over on the casino. There is no difference between one person opening up 10 multiple accounts or 10 people opening up single accounts - the effect is the same.

To compare it to CM is wrong in my opinion too and an insult to this community. This particular loophole has been mentioned here a few times and rather than encourage readers to exploit it, it is actually discouraged to try this on. That is the difference between CM and this particular closed forum.

That's only the difference between the topic of the forum. This particular forum is a sportbook focused site that looks to help people make money betting on sports. There's a subsection on casino play. That's pretty similar to the likes of moneysavingexpert, which has its own section on profiting from gambling online. Should the members of that site now be considered a syndicate? That the owners have chosen to make access to this community subscription based doesn't in of itself indicate wrong doing, simply that the forum contains profitable information, the owners understand the value of this and that they don't want to provide that resource free of charge.

This isn't some tiny sinister forum, it's a community 1/3 of the size of CM. That makes it one of the larger communities in the online gambling market.

As to the difference - there's every difference. 1 person opening 10 accounts is against the rules. 10 individuals opening an account each isn't.

Your defending casinos as if they're your friends. They're not and they don't have your best interests at heart. They're a business. They offer you games that are designed to favour them, play up the idea of players winning, then they offer you promotions to encourage you to play. That's not wrong, they couldn't exist if they didn't make money. But this is a business based on offering games of chance and skill. They set the rules of the game and the rules of the promotion. If a player is smart enough that they can find a way to gain a edge over a system that is set up to favour the operator in every way possible whilst remaining within the rules of the game that's not in itself unethical. The casino has not been hoodwinked here and player's aren't wrong for trying to win. When I choose to double down 11vs6 I'm doing so because I think it gives me the best chance of winning. It's an activity that's allowed within the structure of the game. These players use a feature within the game in the manner that the game designers intended it to be used. They haven't in any way altered how the game was intended to function (a key definition in any cheating at play case).

 

[mina1929]

Now, can we get back to saying how much we love Chance Hill because I do

 

[colinsunderland]

10k member syndicate? Really?

Were there 10000 people took part in this?
For me the fact they pay for the information makes it even closer to one.

Thats why I was asking what is a syndicate from a casino's viewpoint, rather than making a judgement myself on if it is one. Close to one doesn't mean it is one.

 

[ThePOGG]

Fair point, but I still can't see sharing information as a syndicate. And more significantly we risk extending the definition of syndicate - so now any two people who have a membership at that forum and play the same bonus can be considered a syndicate. They may not live in the same country or have ever interacted directly with each other, but now the label can be applied to them. Allowing operators the freedom to make that distinction is very obviously abusable in the extreme.

If 10 people have a conversation about how they pick their lottery numbers, when one of them wins they aren't considered a syndicate. When 10 people collectively buy lottery tickets together and subsequently split the proceeds then they are a syndicate. If the players are sharing money and risk then they are actively working together than this is a syndicate.

The reality in online gambling terms is that genuine syndicates are few and far between. What operators tend to mean by the term "syndicate" is "group of accounts that we believe are being run in conjunction and likely by people or a person other than the named account holder". Because it's normally not realistically possible to prove that one person is actively operating more than one account they include the word "syndicate" so that the "in conjunction" part is enough to show breach of terms.

 

[interlog]

That's only the difference between the topic of the forum. This particular forum is a sportbook focused site that looks to help people make money betting on sports. There's a subsection on casino play. That's pretty similar to the likes of moneysavingexpert, which has its own section on profiting from gambling online. Should the members of that site now be considered a syndicate? That the owners have chosen to make access to this community subscription based doesn't in of itself indicate wrong doing, simply that the forum contains profitable information, the owners understand the value of this and that they don't want to provide that resource free of charge.

This isn't some tiny sinister forum, it's a community 1/3 of the size of CM. That makes it one of the larger communities in the online gambling market.

As to the difference - there's every difference. 1 person opening 10 accounts is against the rules. 10 individuals opening an account each isn't.

Your defending casinos as if they're your friends. They're not and they don't have your best interests at heart. They're a business. They offer you games that are designed to favour them, play up the idea of players winning, then they offer you promotions to encourage you to play. That's not wrong, they couldn't exist if they didn't make money. But this is a business based on offering games of chance and skill. They set the rules of the game and the rules of the promotion. If a player is smart enough that they can find a way to gain a edge over a system that is set up to favour the operator in every way possible whilst remaining within the rules of the game that's not in itself unethical. The casino has not been hoodwinked here and player's aren't wrong for trying to win. When I choose to double down 11vs6 I'm doing so because I think it gives me the best chance of winning. It's an activity that's allowed within the structure of the game. These players use a feature within the game in the manner that the game designers intended it to be used. They haven't in any way altered how the game was intended to function (a key definition in any cheating at play case).

Let me make a comparison to explain where I am coming from.

I am talking parking PCN's here. I and others used to never pay them because I too find a loophole. Though I knew very well I couldn't park my car, I found a way to get off the parking ticket on a technicality (compare it to a casino not protecting themselves enough within their T's and C's). Understandably, Councils got pissed off with Adjudicators (compare these to the likes of yourself that intervene between players and casinos) sticking to the letter of the law (compare it to reading the T's and C's to the letter) rather than the spirit of it (compare it to what the T's and C's actually want to achieve) and it went to the High Court who ruled in favour of the Councils. The High Court basically said if it is clear that there is a parking restriction and the Council had a yellow line 1 cm smaller in width than regulations (the loophole) or if the parking ticket omitted a certain word (another loophole), it was still clear that no parking could happen and ruled that Adjudicators should rule that way in future.

I know full well that casinos are not my friend and that they are businesses, but will defend them if I feel that they are right. I have criticised casinos too and will continue to do so if I feel that they are wrong.

And I remain with my stance that I will back up any casino that attempts to block those that particular group of people because at the end of the day, the likes of myself and others are going to suffer because of lack of bonuses, stricter T's and C's, more regulation and gawd knows what else. I rather beat the casino fairly and squarely (and I mentioned before) and beat the odds (which is possible) which gives me greater satisfaction than scamming a casino.

Each to their own I guess and that'll be my last word on this subject.

 

[ThePOGG]

Now, can we get back to saying how much we love Chance Hill because I do

Just to say, I do actually fundamentally like ChanceHill. To date what I've seen of them has always been positive. This is just an academically interesting conversation.

 

[colinsunderland]

Fair point, but I still can't see sharing information as a syndicate. And more significantly we risk extending the definition of syndicate - so now any two people who have a membership at that forum and play the same bonus can be considered a syndicate. They may not live in the same country or have ever interacted directly with each other, but now the label can be applied to them. Allowing operators the freedom to make that distinction is very obviously abusable in the extreme.

If 10 people have a conversation about how they pick their lottery numbers, when one of them wins they aren't considered a syndicate. When 10 people collectively buy lottery tickets together and subsequently split the proceeds then they are a syndicate. If the players are sharing money and risk then they are actively working together than this is a syndicate.

The reality in online gambling terms is that genuine syndicates are few and far between. What operators tend to mean by the term "syndicate" is "group of accounts that we believe are being run in conjunction and likely by people or a person other than the named account holder". Because it's normally not realistically possible to prove that one person is actively operating more than one account they include the word "syndicate" so that the "in conjunction" part is enough to show breach of terms.

I agree but trying to play devil's advocate was trying to work out what a casino's view would be.

From the start I have said, IF someone from Chance Hill told any of these players they would get the funds back as bonus funds with a 45x WR, then could withdraw if they met that requirement, and were not told 'as long as our investigation comes back and clears you', then any player who was told that directly and met the WR should be able to withdraw in my view. Makes no difference if they were a syndicate or not as by returning the winnings as bonus funds, and, as importantly, not telling them there might be further problems, is essentially clearing them of any wrongdoing at that point.

Doing what they have done makes it look like they are just trying anything not to pay.

The investigation was clearly flawed, as at least one other person has been caught up in this and branded a cheat by the casino, when in fact they weren't cheating at all.

Having said that, if what the rep said is true, then there must have been some organisation on the forum as apparently all customers signed up at roughly the same time, used same bet sizes etc.

If I posted 100 free spins at xx casino for new customers on this forum I doubt the first 100 people to take them would be from this forum alone, as people come on at different times, whereas in this case it seems to have been an organised attack at the same time or thereabouts.

Doesn't help when you get people joining on here and lying about what has actually been said and done as that just confuses matters.

 

[ThePOGG]

Having said that, if what the rep said is true, then there must have been some organisation on the forum as apparently all customers signed up at roughly the same time, used same bet sizes etc.

If I posted 100 free spins at xx casino for new customers on this forum I doubt the first 100 people to take them would be from this forum alone, as people come on at different times, whereas in this case it seems to have been an organised attack at the same time or thereabouts.

And this is a key point - the concurrent account numbers is significantly suspicious. When something gets posted on a forum you'd expect response to be staggered as different people get to their computers to see it and take advantage of it. That many that quickly is suggestive and as said that should be investigated further. Selection of bet sizes could also be indicative, but I'd want to look at the specifics of that before drawing conclusion. There are other factors that should be reviewed as well but I don't want to say too much about that in public.

 

[ThePOGG]

I am talking parking PCN's here. I and others used to never pay them because I too find a loophole. Though I knew very well I couldn't park my car, I found a way to get off the parking ticket on a technicality (compare it to a casino not protecting themselves enough within their T's and C's). Understandably, Councils got pissed off with Adjudicators (compare these to the likes of yourself that intervene between players and casinos) sticking to the letter of the law (compare it to reading the T's and C's to the letter) rather than the spirit of it (compare it to what the T's and C's actually want to achieve) and it went to the High Court who ruled in favour of the Councils. The High Court basically said if it is clear that there is a parking restriction and the Council had a yellow line 1 cm smaller in width than regulations (the loophole) or if the parking ticket omitted a certain word (another loophole), it was still clear that no parking could happen and ruled that Adjudicators should rule that way in future.

The difference between the cases is that one is a simple rule - no parking allowed - and the other is a complex contract. One in intrinsically easy to understand, whether or not the line is the right width I know I'm not allowed to park there, the other requires detailed rules to explain what is and is not allowed.

Allowing for the 'spirit' of that contract to become the enforceable aspect is a significant disadvantage for the consumer. This was common place a decade ago while casinos were still trying to work out the mathematics of bonuses, the result was that many heavy handed operators started arbitrarily deciding what was within and outwith the 'spirit' of their promotion and it was always the players that suffered for this as operators started deciding that winning was against the spirit of the contract.

 

[colinsunderland]

And this is a key point - the concurrent account numbers is significantly suspicious. When something gets posted on a forum you'd expect response to be staggered as different people get to their computers to see it and take advantage of it. That many that quickly is suggestive and as said that should be investigated further. Selection of bet sizes could also be indicative, but I'd want to look at the specifics of that before drawing conclusion. There are other factors that should be reviewed as well but I don't want to say too much about that in public.

exactly my thoughts

 

[interlog]

The difference between the cases is that one is a simple rule - no parking allowed - and the other is a complex contract. One in intrinsically easy to understand, whether or not the line is the right width I know I'm not allowed to park there, the other requires detailed rules to explain what is and is not allowed.

Allowing for the 'spirit' of that contract to become the enforceable aspect is a significant disadvantage for the consumer. This was common place a decade ago while casinos were still trying to work out the mathematics of bonuses, the result was that many heavy handed operators started arbitrarily deciding what was within and outwith the 'spirit' of their promotion and it was always the players that suffered for this as operators started deciding that winning was against the spirit of the contract.

You're missing the point about loopholes and exploiting these. Both cases use this and both cases are not intended to be exploited

 

[ThePOGG]

You're missing the point about loopholes and exploiting these. Both cases use this and both cases are not intended to be exploited

I'm not actually - I pointed out why the principal from one doesn't easily apply to the other. And more significantly I pointed out how easily making rulings based on an interpretation of what "exploited" means or adding hidden definition of what was and was not "intended" can very easily be exploited in their own right. The precedent you set by basing a ruling on interpretation of intention rather than the letter of the rule is a very dangerous one.

 

[syrus2]

Reading through this thread give one the impression of a big difference between online casino and land casino's (although., according to sum members). Not saying thr aint any, btw.
I heve been visited at least 10 of biggest casinos arond the world (vegas/Grand Macao an..................). I've seen many times few players who agree to share the final profits and risks ,before they start playing (regardless of their individual final outcome an While each player using his own funds ) . As far as i know, a caino has no problems with that kind of mutual agreements between players. And from my point af view , (as long as they do'nt abuse the rules of the game ), those players can'nt be considerd as any kind of syndicate. If i start playing an end up with 200 euro's profit, except to me to decide what to do with it.
the way i see it, it's a smart way to increase your chances of winning and beat the system.

Btw, just a general coment , not backing up anyone here . Was a interesting thread to read.

 

[ternur]

This has evolved from the normal BBF thread into a rather interesting discussion.

Allowing for the 'spirit' of that contract to become the enforceable aspect is a significant disadvantage for the consumer. This was common place a decade ago while casinos were still trying to work out the mathematics of bonuses, the result was that many heavy handed operators started arbitrarily deciding what was within and outwith the 'spirit' of their promotion and it was always the players that suffered for this as operators started deciding that winning was against the spirit of the contract.

This is a good point. Signing up with a casino and agreeing with their T&C is an example of adhesion contract. Contra proferentem is, and should be, the starting point when any decisions or rulings are made based on an act of a player (consumer). Of course fraud voids contracts, but in the absence of such behaviour, a casino should adhere to the letter of the contract. And a player should have a reasonable expectation of them to do so.

[...]And more significantly I pointed out how easily making rulings based on an interpretation of what "exploited" means or adding hidden definition of what was and was not "intended" can very easily be exploited in their own right. The precedent you set by basing a ruling on interpretation of intention rather than the letter of the rule is a very dangerous one.

I totally agree with your last statement. In any (consumer) contract, ambiguities of contract terms are likely to be interpreted in favour of consumers. Poorly drafted contracts are a risk to any business, and in the gaming industry there are numerous examples of these.

The reputable casinos stay away from using above mentioned terms, and if they do, their dealing with the conflict (if any should arise) usually sets them apart from the more shady operators. To me, this is one of the key factors when I make a decision to play online.

 

[SlotGrinder]

So these people discover the loophole and

Post it on a forum with 1000s of members ?
All deposit the max £100 in a very short space of time
All play SMM at the same betsize until all their deposit+bonus funds have gone and then spin the wheel once WR is zeroed
All immediately request withdrawals , assumably without redepositing after their deposit+bonus funds was showing as zero only a couple of minutes before

Real shocker you got caught lol

Maybe try to be a bit more subtle about it next time...

 

[sokas]

£230 taken from my cash balance by Chance Hill.

They're rude and unhelpful on live chat.

Many other casinos choose to not let bonus funds be spent on SMM but Chance Hill choose not to do that. Some body made that decision and responsibility lies with that person or persons.

They can't retrospectively change their mind on whether or not customers could play with bonus funds on a particular game.

Am I right in saying that it's the Gambling Commission who I can go to for resolution?

 

[Harry_BKK]

£230 taken from my cash balance by Chance Hill.

They're rude and unhelpful on live chat.

Many other casinos choose to not let bonus funds be spent on SMM but Chance Hill choose not to do that. Some body made that decision and responsibility lies with that person or persons.

They can't retrospectively change their mind on whether or not customers could play with bonus funds on a particular game.

Am I right in saying that it's the Gambling Commission who I can go to for resolution?

The UK GC is not handling player complaints. Your next port of call would be IBAS or whichever ADR the casino has named in their T&C's.

You can also contact their rep here to try and have your case reviewed: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/

But if you are one of those who exploited the SMM loophole and got caught then keep it to yourself as it would be waste of time for everybody. Their T&C's state clearly:

Bonus abuse.

- Chance Hill management reserves the right to void any bonuses and/or winnings obtained by fraudulent behaviour.
- Delaying any game round in any game, including free spins features and bonus features, to a later time when you have no more wagering requirement and/or performing new deposit(s) while having free spins features or bonus features still available in a game is prohibited.

 

[sokas]

I'd question whether using a well known feature of the game is exploiting anything.

The £230 taken from my cash balances included my original £82 deposit. They gave me a £100 bonus with 40x wagering requirement and I ended up with £300 after completing that so I'll see what happens with me trying to withdraw that before doing anything else.

 

[spintee]

I'd question whether using a well known feature of the game is exploiting anything.

The £230 taken from my cash balances included my original £82 deposit. They gave me a £100 bonus with 40x wagering requirement and I ended up with £300 after completing that so I'll see what happens with me trying to withdraw that before doing anything else.

Nothing wrong using the game why it was allowed, As long as you spun the wheel before yo 0 out, Why would you not do that unless you was trying to get one over on the the bonus,

As H as pointed out, Delaying any game round in any game, including free spins features and bonus features, to a later time when you have no more wagering requirement and/or performing new deposit(s) while having free spins features or bonus features still available in a game is prohibited.

 

[colinsunderland]

I'd question whether using a well known feature of the game is exploiting anything.

So you didn't delay using a bonus in the game until after the bonus funds were used?

 

[geordiecolin]

So you didn't delay using a bonus in the game until after the bonus funds were used?

The poster that you are referring too seems to have misspelled their name slightly

 

[interlog]

No sympathy - they knew exactly what they were doing and got caught. Rather than take it in their stride they come and whinge about it.

Not only do they do that, they whinge about it in a topic that is intended to help CM whether they should or should not be accredited. They perhaps should have started a topic in the bonus complaints section.

 

[rafelito]

No sympathy - they knew exactly what they were doing and got caught. Rather than take it in their stride they come and whinge about it.

Not only do they do that, they whinge about it in a topic that is intended to help CM whether they should or should not be accredited. They perhaps should have started a topic in the bonus complaints section.

I really do not want to keep on discussing this.

But I have the certainty that they have been instructed to post here, in this specific thread in order to get their funds back.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I really do not want to keep un discussing this.

But I have the certainty that they have been instructed to post here, in this specific thread in order to get their funds back.

Stay firm Rafael, you certainly have the support from the largest part of the CM community

 

[geordiecolin]

Stay firm Rafael, you certainly have the support from the largest part of the CM community

That simply sums it up for me

 

[colinsunderland]

I really do not want to keep un discussing this.

But I have the certainty that they have been instructed to post here, in this specific thread in order to get their funds back.

Well the complete lack of proof from any of them and attitude when pressed for details shows how genuine they are in my view.

 

[rafelito]

Stay firm Rafael, you certainly have the support from the largest part of the CM community

Much appreciated

 

[wamphyri]

Doesn't help when you get people joining on here and lying about what has actually been said and done as that just confuses matters.

Really? Please do post your evidence of the lies you refer to?

I am of course assuming you are referring to something other than what I have already explained - Your totally incorrect assumption that I posted that I had live chat transcripts - which I did not (as backed up by reading my posts in this thread properly).

 

[colinsunderland]

Really? Please do post your evidence of the lies you refer to?

I am of course assuming you are referring to something other than what I have already explained - Your totally incorrect assumption that I posted that I had live chat transcripts - which I did not (as backed up by reading my posts in this thread properly).

Your first post gave examples of what had been said by live chat, this has been disputed by rafelito and when he said that, you didn't argue, therefore I think most people would think you lied.
You also implied there was more than one chat, whereas rafelito stated it was one live chat, again, no dispute from you, therefore assumption is it was a lie.
You said they increased the wagering from 35x to 45x, another lie.

At best you were just making things up without checking things as fact, but still managed to post them as if they were fact, in order to damage the reputation of the casino.

I can assure you it is not made up though the forum is a subscription only one & I am not sure if I am allowed to discuss other forums here. Feel free to PM me and am happy to message back with screengrabs of the for all you non-believers.

 

[wamphyri]

Your first post gave examples of what had been said by live chat, this has been disputed by rafelito and when he said that, you didn't argue, therefore I think most people would think you lied.
You also implied there was more than one chat, whereas rafelito stated it was one live chat, again, no dispute from you, therefore assumption is it was a lie.

My original post relayed messages verbatim posted in the thread on the other forum. I said I was happy to provide screenshots of such posts to anyone who messaged me (as I can not post screenshots here) and I subsequently did to those who asked for them.

That I was relaying third party information without seeing the live chat logs myself meant I obviously could not verify their content as 100% correct hence I did not argue with Rafa.

How exactly am I lying here?

You said they increased the wagering from 35x to 45x, another lie.

Nope, I followed this up with an explanation and apology which you have conveniently ignored.

At best you were just making things up without checking things as fact, but still managed to post them as if they were fact, in order to damage the reputation of the casino.

No, I merely relayed content from another forum. Your problem is that you seem to be taking this very personally for some odd reason and do not seem cable or have the intention of dealing with this issue objectively like everyone else posting in this thread seems to be able to do.

 

[colinsunderland]

My original post relayed messages verbatim posted in the thread on the other forum. I said I was happy to provide screenshots of such posts to anyone who messaged me (as I can not post screenshots here) and I subsequently did to those who asked for them.

That I was relaying third party information without seeing the live chat logs myself meant I obviously could not verify their content as 100% correct hence I did not argue with Rafa.

And you can point out where, in your first post, you point out that everything you wrote might actually be made up as you only have some posts on another forum as your evidence?

No, I merely relayed content from another forum. Your problem is that you seem to be taking this very personally for some odd reason and do not seem cable or have the intention of dealing with this issue objectively like everyone else posting in this thread seems to be able to do.

You do know I'm possibly the only person on the thread who has actually said if they were told by live chat they could withdraw if they met the wagering requirements, then they should be able to? I would say that is actually being quite fair to a bunch of players who were obviously trying to scam the casino. Personally I don't think the funds should have been returned to the bonus balance as they were obviously in breach of the T&C's but I think if they did then they should honour the agreements they made with players from that point on. Look at it this way

1. Player breaches terms
2. Casino decides what action to take, in this case allows player to withdraw if they meet new wagering requirements
3. Player complies with new terms
4. Casino then does something completely different and takes money anyway

4 should have been Casino pays player
I completely agree in those cases the players should be paid.

However what should have happened, but didn't so its irrelevant now

1. Player breaches terms
2 Casino confiscates fund and closes accounts

As for 'my problem', I don't have any problems thank you.