Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[Simmo!]

...they are being considered on the same level of the faulty casinos.
The reinsertion of the involved casinos in the Accredited list is definitely premature and gives the idea that there is no punishment to those who prevaricate.

If by "faulty", you mean they provided faulty games, then that means they don't have the correct process in place to identify those games which are faulty.

If by "faulty" you mean the casino intentionally defrauds customers then you'd have a point. But I think it's generally accepted that they (the casinos themselves) aren't doing this intentionally.

So, if they are to be punished by being removed from accredited list, they are being punished for not having a procedure to ensure that the games they take from their distributors are rigged. By that measure, all the casinos on the accredited list should go and players will have to go back to playing without guidance.

Hello my name is Nick. I'm soley a Las Vegas casino guy. I don't gamble online and only belong to the Wizard Of Vegas forum, which I read constantly.

I was linked to this website from the wizard while reading about this subjest revolving around the allegations of cheating from several gambling websites.

I thought some here might be interested in what one of the members from the Wizard wrote about this subject. This member appears to be very knowledgeable about internet gambling. Although somewhat opinionated, he brings forth several good points and unanswered questions that I would personally want answered before I even would consider playing online.

Hope this helps.

Hi Nickolus

Welcome to CM. Shame about the circumstances. Just a quick note to say we don't generally allow links to posts on other forums unless they are of substantial significance but the user is of course normally welcome to join the discussion here. Might be tricky in this case

I agree that things like this only help to put people off online gambling - but is that a bad thing? Probably not. People that feel they aren't treated fairly online are right to stay away. In fact, they'd be silly not to. Vegas is waaay more fun anyway IMO

 

[manuels58]

If by "faulty", you mean they provided faulty games, then that means they don't have the correct process in place to identify those games which are faulty.

If by "faulty" you mean the casino intentionally defrauds customers then you'd have a point. But I think it's generally accepted that they (the casinos themselves) aren't doing this intentionally.

So, if they are to be punished by being removed from accredited list, they are being punished for not having a procedure to ensure that the games they take from their distributors are rigged. By that measure, all the casinos on the accredited list should go and players will have to go back to playing without guidance.

Appreciate your remarks, maybe “faulty” is not the right word.

Anyway, with "faulty" I intended to mean that the casinos committed a fault by non-fulfilment of a contract, that is to say their licence.

In regards to their intentionality in offering rigged games, I think this forum is not the right place to decide that, as I have already said.
I have already stated that I personally don’t believe those casinos had intentionally deceived their players; but the fact is they did it.
So, when you say: “But I think it's generally accepted that they (.) aren't doing this intentionally”, that is not more than a hunch, because your opinion is not proved (nor the opposite), right?

My point is quite simple: until I read that the investigation process delivered the conclusion that the casinos didn’t make the rigged games available with intentionality, I will not make up my mind in favour or against anybody (professional default).

The punishment for those casinos that have been caught committing the aforementioned fault, which is considered a breach in their licence requirements, because it’s their own responsibility to assure the fairness of all the games they offer (as some other posters have noted), is not the removal from the Casinomeister accredited list.
The way I understand it, the removal is being discussed on a level of credibility of the list itself, not on a legal level. So, the removal from the list is a punishment by the players/customers, which may be worst than the legal one, sometimes.
If all the accredited casinos on the CM list would go, if a testing condition was introduced on the standards… well, that you know better than myself

I just can say that the casinos involved in this thread were caught in fault and the others did not so, using the same reasoning I have used far now, until the others are caught in fault they are accredited.

 

[Simmo!]

My point is quite simple: until I read that the investigation process delivered the conclusion that the casinos didn’t make the rigged games available with intentionality, I will not make up my mind in favour or against anybody (professional default).

OK I get where you are coming from

I don't think there is an answer to this one: everyone will have their own opinion on who cheated who, whether it was intentional or not and who is responsible for what. I think as much of the actual facts is out there as we're ever likely to see myself. So it's down to the individual to decide whose advice they take.

My questionmarks are over Finsoft games: I won't knowingly be playing those until I am sure this has been addressed but I'm generally happy to trust the casinos involved to at least do the right thing if problems occur in the future.

 

[me_and_ed]

OK I get where you are coming from

I don't think there is an answer to this one: everyone will have their own opinion on who cheated who, whether it was intentional or not and who is responsible for what. I think as much of the actual facts is out there as we're ever likely to see myself. So it's down to the individual to decide whose advice they take.

My questionmarks are over Finsoft games: I won't knowingly be playing those until I am sure this has been addressed but I'm generally happy to trust the casinos involved to at least do the right thing if problems occur in the future.

Its a bit shocking that these games could just "slip" under the casinos radar, that is where my question regarding accreditation comes from, one would think there would be rigorous testing procedures to safeguard these casinos for just this type of occurance.

 

[Simmo!]

Its a bit shocking that these games could just "slip" under the casinos radar, that is where my question regarding accreditation comes from, one would think there would be rigorous testing procedures to safeguard these casinos for just this type of occurance.

True. But I guess it's the same at every casino that licences games, not just these 3 or 4 involved here. Somewhere along the line the proper checks aren't being done, that's for sure.

 

[manuels58]

Its a bit shocking that these games could just "slip" under the casinos radar, that is where my question regarding accreditation comes from, one would think there would be rigorous testing procedures to safeguard these casinos for just this type of occurance.

I agree, and those tests must exist by requirement of the licences. That's why not existing, that will be a breach of the business activity contract.

But I don't agree with you when you say those test are due "... to safeguard these casinos...", at all.
Those tests must be performed to safeguard the players , and that must have been the only reason for the licence issuer to write it down on the licence requirements.
That requirement of tests is also a dissuasive measure to prevent the designers/producers of the software/games to make them rigged.

And at this point we have to ask ourselves why the Finsoft/Spielo G2 or other software/games designers/producers would try to sell rigged games to the casinos?
Is it because they know that the casinos simply won't test those games/software at all?
In my point of view, that would be a great weakness of the casinos and would put them in a position of trusting 100% and absolutely in their suppliers, besides the possibility of losing their business, if something like this thread is brought to the players's knowledge.

So, does anyone believe this is the position of the casinos, or there's something behind the smoke that must be clarified?

This is the point to not patronize with the casinos involved in this thread, even if all the other casinos (accredited, or not) don't perform those tests either (they might have been lucky all this time, or maybe they don't have rigged games, or something...).
In real business world, when someone is caught for having not paid taxes, all the other contributors are not accused of the same fault by sympathy; the others must also be caught in fault to be punished.

 

[mattsgame]

Just to play devils advocate here for a sec, maybe I was being a little harsh on the casinos albeit the statements.

I was thinking of this last night, what is the process software companies go through before releasing a new game? so for example if Microgaming went about as they do and release 3 new slots or card games and one of them is found a month later to be bugged/rigged/cheating.

I don't think people would be after 32Red's head or any other Microgaming casino for that matter as the software is usually automatically updated with the new games and the casino just has to un-hide these games to players on release date.

So when are games tested? what is the process?

Do/or should casinos have to test the games as well or do they have 100% faith in the provider?

 

[ThePOGG]

Just to play devils advocate here for a sec, maybe I was being a little harsh on the casinos albeit the statements.

I was thinking of this last night, what is the process software companies go through before releasing a new game? so for example if Microgaming went about as they do and release 3 new slots or card games and one of them is found a month later to be bugged/rigged/cheating.

I don't think people would be after 32Red's head or any other Microgaming casino for that matter as the software is usually automatically updated with the new games and the casino just has to un-hide these games to players on release date.

So when are games tested? what is the process?

Do/or should casinos have to test the games as well or do they have 100% faith in the provider?

It is assumed that the software provider is thoroughly testing the games before putting them on the market, whis is what makes game providers that function as a bolt on to other packages so risky. With a group like Playtech/Microgaming/Net Entertainment, many casinos run solely on their software. If they're found to rigging games whole casinos could potentially shut down as the market floods away from the group caught cheating. With bolt on packages, it's often hard for players to know who is offering what and as such it's less likely that the market are going to move so substantially away from their product.

As to the hypothetical regarding Microgaming, it very much depends on the situation. If an error was encountered that could be reasonably explained as an error then as long as the company and the involved casinos took the appropriate steps (pulling and fixing the game, reimbursing players) then all is well in good. If however it came to like that this was intentional cheating - i.e. Microgaming had intentionally set out with the goal of misleading players about their chances of success and increasing their profits above a fair level, then personally i would be blacklisting Microgaming as a software provider. As the casinos are not doing their own testing, in the current market they rely on the software provider to do that for them. Once a software provider has been shown to be untrustworthy, asking players to continue to trust venues that still use that software in the long run is asking them to put their faith back in a cheating provider. That's the sad thing about all of this, venues that continue to use FinSoft/Spielo G2 though they may be trustworthy in themselves and they may test the games they have right now, as time goes on they'll add new games from this provider and they'll assume again that the games are fair as that's just how the industry operates and the way things have played out, this situation won't change that. By transference players will once again have to trust the judgement of FinSoft/Spielo G2.

 

[Balthazar]

As the casinos are not doing their own testing, in the current market they rely on the software provider to do that for them.

It wasn't a testing issue, though. Finsoft deliberately made a card game with two different RTP's and offered it like this to the casinos. Casinos could choose one RTP or the other. Betfred picked the 96% one (or used the default version), but had the wrong help file and ran the 100% RTP version in free mode. Honest mistakes IMO.

Other than that, there's no reason to test anything, the game is working fine and as advertised.

 

[ThePOGG]

It wasn't a testing issue, though. Finsoft deliberately made a card game with a 100% RTP and a 96% RTP and offered it like this to the casinos. Casinos could choose one or the other. Betfred picked the 96% one, but had the wrong help file and ran the 100% RTP version in free mode.

There's no reason to test anything, everything is working fine.

Also, I don't believe for a second that Finsoft is the only game provider offering card games with different RTP's, just like they do with slots.

The result is ultimately the same, the venues are allowed to continue using FinSoft/Spielo G2 with no real consequences and any player unaware of this thread will assume they are safe to play these games because of the big venues offering them.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Its a bit shocking that these games could just "slip" under the casinos radar, that is where my question regarding accreditation comes from, one would think there would be rigorous testing procedures to safeguard these casinos for just this type of occurance.

We can't let casinos get off by pleading ignorance. Players who plead ignorance don't just "get off". The casinos made a fundamental mistake, in effect broke the moral terms and conditions that we should all abide by. Noone operating a casino can be ignorant of what is expected of them, so they failed in their duty of care in ensuring that nothing like this "slipped under the radar".

In reality, the casinos have NOT gotten off, despite being put back on the accredited list after promising to make amends, the damage to their reputation has been done, and will take some while to undo. It has also knocked back trust in the industry even further, and there could be worse to come because some will be actively looking again at games they had a feeling cheated them, but could not prove it.

The difference in this case is that the OP prepared a proper statistical argument before posting, and Eliot then backed it up. It also showed that in some cases, the number of events needed to arrive at a conclusion is doable for a single player with sufficient determination.

Others who feel they have unearthed another rigged game should try to gather enough data to back up their argument, and present it as part of their opening post. Simply ranting about the dealer winning 10 hands in a row proves the game is rigged undermines the claim, and ensures the poster is told that this is just bad luck, and proves nothing.

 

[Jufo]

If the notion of being accredited means the casinos are safe and run ethically then there is no reason not to re-instate them in my opinion. If however, the notion of accredited also means that the games are fair, it becomes a fuzzier picture. But also, if it does include game fairness then you simply couldn't have an accredited list (in the current climate) because no-one quite seems to know who is ultimately responsible for ensuring the game is fair. Everyone wants to pass the buck. And no accredited list means no guidance for players and open-season for the real rogues.

So IMO you either don't use the term "accredited" at all or you draw the line at whether the casino is one you consider acts ethically.

For me personally, it remains a process issue which needs addressing. But how that is achieved, I have no idea.

I entirely disagree with the bolded parts in your statement. Betfred has clearly demonstrated to not operate ethically. Even until now they haven't admitted to anything wrong with how the game was implemented, only that the help-file was incorrect. Betfred rep's disturbing response showed that they were fine with a rigged game using a "fixed price model" as long as the help-file was correct. They have also failed to reimburse the OP in their promised time frame (7 days) and it is not certain whether they will be able to reimburse all of the affected players. Given the length of time this game has been available, the number of affected players is probably at least a five figure number. It's unlikely they are going to reimburse them all. And on top of all of this I understood that they still have games available where the free mode plays differently than real-mode which by itself is enough reason to blacklist them forever. So could you explain us Simmo! how on earth do you claim them to run ethically and thus deserve to be in the Accredited list?

 

[Jufo]

In reality, the casinos have NOT gotten off, despite being put back on the accredited list after promising to make amends, the damage to their reputation has been done, and will take some while to undo. It has also knocked back trust in the industry even further, and there could be worse to come because some will be actively looking again at games they had a feeling cheated them, but could not prove it.

Unfortunately with Betfred already being back on the accredited list, it looks like the consequences of running rigged games are generally non-existent. Other operators may actually look at this incident and think, "Wow, they got off the hook easily. Maybe we should lower the RTP of a few of our card games as well, because there really are no negative consequences of getting caught."

Is there any chance that this case could be covered in mass newspaper media in the UK? I am quite confident that this case would covered in the biggest newspaper in Finland if I gave them the details of the story to make an article. So could this be done in UK as well?

The difference in this case is that the OP prepared a proper statistical argument before posting, and Eliot then backed it up. It also showed that in some cases, the number of events needed to arrive at a conclusion is doable for a single player with sufficient determination.

If the standard deviation value of the game is low (say for example, 1) and if you play 10,000 hands then one percentage difference between the expected and actual RTP will equal one Standard deviation in terms of likelyhood. This means for example that a 5% difference in expected and actual RTP across 10000 hands is a 5 SD result which already has odds of 1 : 3.5 million against of the game being fair. So even in a game like Blackjack which has a standard deviation of ~1.1 (which is close to 1) it doesn't necessarily take more than 10,000 hands recorded perfectly to conclude the fairness of the game. However if the degree of the rigging is smaller than 5%, say for example that it is only 1%, then the number of hands needed will multiplicate by a factor of 5^2 = 25, so to prove a rigged game with just 1% RTP lower than expected, requires 25*10,000 = 250,000 hands, which a play data size not so easy to pull anymore.

Thus: The rigging level of 3% - 5% in a low variance game can be proved by a single determined player like the OP exactly did. To prove a rigging level below 3% will probaly require a shared database of results across many players. There has been discussion at beatingbonuses forums to implement such a database in the future.

Others who feel they have unearthed another rigged game should try to gather enough data to back up their argument, and present it as part of their opening post.

Yes but only if they can afford it. It will not be nice to bankrupt yourself in a futile attempt to prove a rigged game and failing short of getting enough hands to make the evidence conclusive.

So if you suspect that a blackjack game is cheating a few % at higher bet levels (say £50 per hand or higher) then before starting to collect evidence by playing it for 10,000 rounds you should be aware of the very high bankroll requirements to pull off that amount of gameplay.

In other words: Proving games rigged is often beyond player's financial means. This is exactly what the operators can be banking on.

 

[pokeraddict]

Lottomatica has received a recommendation for approval for an interactive gaming license in Nevada. The full hearing is next week. I think NGCB needs to know about this. Does anyone know the best way? I live in Las Vegas and wrote an article about this but I do not think that me going there with second hand info is best. It appears that this group has yet to comment, is that a fair assumption?

 

[ThePOGG]

There has been discussion at beatingbonuses forums to implement such a database in the future.

This is something i'm looking at, but after initial discussions it's going to be very costly to implement and as i would intend to offer the service free i need to get the site a little more flush before i can proceed.

 

[manuels58]

Unfortunately with Betfred already being back on the accredited list, it looks like the consequences of running rigged games are generally non-existent. Other operators may actually look at this incident and think, "Wow, they got off the hook easily. Maybe we should lower the RTP of a few of our card games as well, because there really are no negative consequences of getting caught."

Is there any chance that this case could be covered in mass newspaper media in the UK? I am quite confident that this case would covered in the biggest newspaper in Finland if I gave them the details of the story to make an article. So could this be done in UK as well?



If the standard deviation value of the game is low (say for example, 1) and if you play 10,000 hands then one percentage difference between the expected and actual RTP will equal one Standard deviation in terms of likelyhood. This means for example that a 5% difference in expected and actual RTP across 10000 hands is a 5 SD result which already has odds of 1 : 3.5 million against of the game being fair. So even in a game like Blackjack which has a standard deviation of ~1.1 (which is close to 1) it doesn't necessarily take more than 10,000 hands recorded perfectly to conclude the fairness of the game. However if the degree of the rigging is smaller than 5%, say for example that it is only 1%, then the number of hands needed will multiplicate by a factor of 5^2 = 25, so to prove a rigged game with just 1% RTP lower than expected, requires 25*10,000 = 250,000 hands, which a play data size not so easy to pull anymore.

Thus: The rigging level of 3% - 5% in a low variance game can be proved by a single determined player like the OP exactly did. To prove a rigging level below 3% will probaly require a shared database of results across many players. There has been discussion at beatingbonuses forums to implement such a database in the future.



Yes but only if they can afford it. It will not be nice to bankrupt yourself in a futile attempt to prove a rigged game and failing short of getting enough hands to make the evidence conclusive.

So if you suspect that a blackjack game is cheating a few % at higher bet levels (say £50 per hand or higher) then before starting to collect evidence by playing it for 10,000 rounds you should be aware of the very high bankroll requirements to pull off that amount of gameplay.

In other words: Proving games rigged is often beyond player's financial means. This is exactly what the operators can be banking on.

Your post is impressively accurate and points out some of the issues that players should be wondering right now.
Thanks Jufo.

 

[DavidEC]

^ I can understand why it could be perceived in that way, however it should be considered that these companies are multi-national and multi-product. As such, the value simply isnt there for them to be incentivised to actively cheat their players. From my perspective at least, it is a procedural issue that needs to be addressed with many operators and the licensing commissions.

If I could ask for anything to come out of the investigations in this thread, it would be:

a) Players get refunded for any losses on the relevant games and the games fixed
b) the Licensing Commissions amend their regulatory requirements with clauses that ensure that such procedural failures do not occur again in their jurisdiction
c) the operators accept the appropriate level of responsibility for what has already happened and proactively act to ensure it cannot happen with any of their products again

If that were to happen, then I would consider the matter resolved and be happy that the end result is a fairer and better regulated industry.

Always just my 2 cents of course.

 

[Mozaik]

Thus: The rigging level of 3% - 5% in a low variance game can be proved by a single determined player like the OP exactly did. To prove a rigging level below 3% will probaly require a shared database of results across many players. There has been discussion at beatingbonuses forums to implement such a database in the future.



Yes but only if they can afford it. It will not be nice to bankrupt yourself in a futile attempt to prove a rigged game and failing short of getting enough hands to make the evidence conclusive.

So if you suspect that a blackjack game is cheating a few % at higher bet levels (say £50 per hand or higher) then before starting to collect evidence by playing it for 10,000 rounds you should be aware of the very high bankroll requirements to pull off that amount of gameplay.

In other words: Proving games rigged is often beyond player's financial means. This is exactly what the operators can be banking on.

Well said Jufo, I couldn't have said it any better!

There are several reasons why the average player can't conduct any serious investigation, even when their gutfeeling tells them something is wrong.

1) Like Jufo mentioned, who on earth can afford to play that many hands just to try to prove a single point? Most of us would not be able to do that, because we simply can't take the financial risk and we would go bankrupt sooner or later. Especially if you include experimenting with higher bets.

2) Second of all we must not forget that the majority of the recreational casino players do not have the mathemetical knowledge to analyze a huge database, let alone draw the right conclusions.

3) It would take a serious amount of time to go through every single hand, especially if you consider the way hands are presented to you. Most often they are only accesible for a limited time, Microgaming (past 20 days).

After reading this whole thread about this Finsoft fiasco it really worries me that there are still gaps to rig games. Despite the mentioned online casinos having seals of several regulating bodies and auditors, you would think all games would be honest and there is no room for cheating.

 

[deucebag]

I think Betfred knew what they did, and I think a lot of people are being awfully naive here. There are just too many "mistakes" that fill in a greater picture which makes absolute sense. I think their plan was to make money from players who otherwise wouldn't play, players who only want to play zero house edge bets. All their "mistakes" served this purpose. Most likely this was not something decided at the highest level in a board meeting. I rather suspect it was decided by one person or a few people who wanted to improve the performance of the casino, to further their position in the company. Perhaps their pay is based on performance?

History has shown that big companies do unethical things, commit fraud and other crimes quite often. Libor anyone? Barclays Bank was given a huge fine for that one. How about Goldman Sachs? They must have paid billions in fines for various illegal activity. In the gambling world we've had a couple of major poker scandals. Theft and stupidity at a very high level. (But unfortunately, in the gambling world, no one gets fined for defrauding players.)

So to those of you who say that Betfred wouldn't do this because it would be stupid and because they're a big company: you need a reality check. History has shown time and again that big companies do stupid things, unethical things, and illegal things.

 

[ThePOGG]

Just wanted to provide everyone with an update.

I'm currently working through the list of providers using Spielo G2 software found at

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

The list is fairly inaccurate and i've had the following operators confirm that they do NOT work with Spielo G2 so far;

Coral
Virgin
Ladbrokes
BetVictor

I'm currently working through this list specifically looking at operators i already work with, as with them i usually have someone i can contact directly which makes the process much much easier. After that i'll look at operators i do not work with. I will be publishing several articles regarding these issues at the weeknd and altering the listings on my site to reflect the situation.

 

[asianeyes]

Just wanted to provide everyone with an update.

I'm currently working through the list of providers using Spielo G2 software found at

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

The list is fairly inaccurate and i've had the following operators confirm that they do NOT work with Spielo G2 so far;

Coral
Virgin
Ladbrokes
BetVictor

I'm currently working through this list specifically looking at operators i already work with, as with them i usually have someone i can contact directly which makes the process much much easier. After that i'll look at operators i do not work with. I will be publishing several articles regarding these issues at the weeknd and altering the listings on my site to reflect the situation.

According to Casino City online , 118 online casinos use their software. The SPIELO G2 web site indicates other entities using their products, including the Barona casino near San Diego.

 

[katie91]

No sign of any refund from Betfred today so that's the second deadline gone. I've sent Aaron a PM, hopefully he will respond otherwise I will need to take this up with the GRA.

 

[Redbush54]

No sign of any refund from Betfred today so that's the second deadline gone. I've sent Aaron a PM, hopefully he will respond otherwise I will need to take this up with the GRA.

IMO that's enough reason to leave them off the accredited list until this whole mess has been resolved and over.

 

[manuels58]

No sign of any refund from Betfred today so that's the second deadline gone. I've sent Aaron a PM, hopefully he will respond otherwise I will need to take this up with the GRA.

I regret to know about that, if someone else, you certainly deserve to be reimbursed of your losses after everything you've done to bring this issue into our knowledge and mostly, the way you did it.

This process seems to have started its approach to the real business world (as expected).
The first (?) non-fulfilment of promises is already there (unfortunately)... let's wait and see what will happen with other deadlines that will follow.

 

[rainmaker]

Just wanted to provide everyone with an update.

I'm currently working through the list of providers using Spielo G2 software found at

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

The list is fairly inaccurate and i've had the following operators confirm that they do NOT work with Spielo G2 so far;

Coral
Virgin
Ladbrokes
BetVictor

I'm currently working through this list specifically looking at operators i already work with, as with them i usually have someone i can contact directly which makes the process much much easier. After that i'll look at operators i do not work with. I will be publishing several articles regarding these issues at the weeknd and altering the listings on my site to reflect the situation.

I just took a quick look at BetVictor and Virgin. Both of them are for example offering Spin Win, which I thought was created by Dynamite Idea. Dynamite Idea was once purchased by Boss Media, now part of G2 to my knowledge.

At Virgin it says on the game "original game concept created by Dynamite Idea". So maybe it is a modified game only inspired by Dynamite Idea?

Over at BetVictor it says "Dynamite Idea" on the game.

If you go to www.dynamiteidea.com, then it will just re-direct you to spielog2.com

Maybe they can clarify.