Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[zanzibar]

Like I said way back in post #179 in this topic, the issue of the rigged free play games has been public knowledge since 2009. So it was hardly the OP's actions that brought it out into the open, it was more the fact that people actually paid attention this time.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

Spielo knew about this after Stan James pulled one of the games earlier this year -

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

- and did nothing about it with all their other licensees.

Aside from that, the OP pretty obviously has inside knowledge of this. They just happened to have a mathematician friend who could analyse the data, just happened to know how many rounds to play to get a valid statistical sample, just happened to know how to analyse http traffic using firebug etc. So the comment from the GRA doesn't surprise me in the least, nor should it have any bearing on anything that has been discovered.

 

[Mousey]

Now... can we bring out the popcorn?? :eat:

I'm dazed and confused.... popcorn will help... well, at least it won't hurt anything....

 

[Balthazar]

I sure hope that they won't start focussing on the OP instead of the software. I personally don't give a rat's ass if OP had 500 fraudulent accounts or used this forum to get his/her losses back. This is an issue between OP, Betfred and CM.

When the games are cheating, however, it concerns everyone here.

 

[ThePOGG]

To be fair I don't think I would have contacted the casino or regulator, especially if I suspected the game was rigged I think a public forum was the best action to take, but thats just me.

If you're going to contact the casino/regulator in these situations you have to ensure you have ALL the evidence you need locked down and indisputable before you do. I've made that mistake before and had games change only to be told 'our word against yours'. In this instance the evidence did seem to be all there, but there's still a strong argument for dealing with it publically rather than behind closed doors. By doing this in the public forum it allows a lot of people to know that all players affect should be refunded and highlights a major issue with game testing, which dealt with
privately could have simple been put down as a 'one off' rather than investing the time and money to put proper testing in place.

And none of this changes the fact that 3 weeks into this both Betfred and Bet 365 are still running games that breach their license. Hardly the rapid response to a game integrity issue that we'd expect from top shelf shops. A few days to confirm the issues, but not 3 weeks still running the game. That's a major issue in my eyes.

All that said, there are questions to be answered regarding how the OP became aware of the flaw that could have substantial bearing on the case.

 

[dunover]

Hmmmmm....

I did ask a while back WHY someone spent 12k on a game they knew was rigged.......
I could only surmise a serious gambling problem and bad strategy to chase losses as a result.
I stand corrected it seems.

I did also think it odd the OP had a woman's name, when, without being unduly stereotypical, women tend to play more slots and bingo, and men tend towards the poker/cards/strategy side of things as well as slots.

The plot thickens.

PS. Apologies to CM about my 'as useful as a chocolate ****** comment - of course I meant 'teapot'

 

[Casinomeister]

Player Statement

Without knowing the precise details, to me it sounds like he did a much better service for the player community by making the issue public, as the issue of having compromised games is of public interest. So I am not sure why you say that the person should have dealt with the issue privately with the operator to get a refund. It wouldn't have helped other players who had possibly played these games as well.

I said that's what you can do - not what you should do. It was the OP that said that's what he should have done.

Here is the OP's farewell statement:

Firstly, I would like to apologize to all the members here, especially
Eliot Jacobson who spent a considerable amount of time investigating
these games. The truth is that I opened an account at Betfred on
behalf of my sister in an attempt to profit from bonuses on a 100% RTP
game. While I had her permission to do so, I accept that it was wrong.
I regret bringing the issue to light in this manner and accept that I
should instead have disclosed this directly to Betfred or the
regulator to get an explanation and a refund.


The regulator has explained to me that the discrepancy between the
games was due to human error in game updates, and not that the games
were 'rigged' and I fully understand and accept this explanation. I
now realise that my actions, though identifying an error, have
generated unwarranted criticism of Betfred, Spielo and Realistic Games
and caused a huge distraction for the regulator. I must stress that my
intention was only to get my money back and not to incite any
criticism towards these parties.


I would also like to clarify that I did not in any way profit from my
play at Betfred nor was I aware of any flaw in the game before I
started playing. The amount refunded was the exact amount of the
deposits so there are no winnings resulting from this.

My apologies for thinking he knew about the gaffed games. In his original email he stated, "I understand the discrepancy between the games was due to
human error in game updates...." I misread "understand" as "understood" - past tense - as in he knew beforehand. Sorry for that bit of misinformation.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It seems the GRA are trying to sweep this under the carpet. Human error in game updates my arse! This sounds like they are trying to pass off the "wrong help file was presented" as closure on this, implying that nothing was ever wrong with this version of the game when presented with the correct helpfile.

The only thing the OP did wrong was to have his own greedy interests placed before those of the community, seeming to be using this game gaffe as a means to take a no risk shot at winning. Winning = keeping quiet, losing = try to manipulate the casino to refund losses via blackmail.

His greed has undermined the exposure of a serious issue, and provided the casinos involved, along with the GRA, a way out.

The argument for presenting this in public for the greater good still stands. This has been known about since 2009, and prior to this month HAS been dealt with through normal channels, the casinos and the regulators. The result has been to sweep the issue under the carpet by reaching secret settlements with those involved, or even giving them BS explanations where they don't have damning evidence.

The fact is, this is STILL going on, and being demonstrated by parties independent of the OP.

Further, if BetFred knew nothing about this, and believed in good faith that the game was 100% RTP as stated in the helpfile, AND as clearly presented by the displayed odds, there would NEVER have been the possibilty to have play on this game count towards WR of a bonus. If anything, it would have been a prohibited game.
The most obvious conclusion therefore is that BetFred knew it was 96%, knew that there was a gaffe that enforced this 96% despite the natural odds presented by the game's paytable leading to it being 100%, and saw nothing wrong with having games with virtual elements that did not behave as the physical elements would. It is no different to using a weighted die in a virtual simulation of a dice game in order to set an RTP independently of the paytable presented to the player.
The statement from the GRA seems to show that they too have no problem with the use of a software gaffe that changes the natural odds of a draw from a set of values in order to set an RTP for a game. Worse still is the fact that this game is not simply weighted, but changes it's algorithm based on the players bet.

 

[Sk0t]

My personal view on this:

Minor issues:

• A wrong helpfile was implemented at a large casino.
• A player used his sisters id.
• A player wrongfully used the forum to get reimbursed for losses.

Major issues:

• Several large casinos apparently do not run any reasonable ammount of tests of the integrety of the software they provide.
• The various gaming regulatory organisations seems to provide less "player safety" than most players thought (due to technicalities such as point of sale, location of software provider, etc.)

Gigantic issues:

• At least one (two?) major casinos apprently (based on their response here) find it perfectly allright to run games that misrepresent "physical devices" in a way that is very likely to mislead the players.
• At least one (two?) major casinos apprently (based on their response here) find it perfectly allright to run games that adapt their results based on players bets.
• At least one major casinos ran at least one game where the "free play" gave significantly better results than the "real play" version [Edit: as mentioned by ThePogg below, this is actully ongoing!]

Thanks:

• Elliot Jacobson for spending time on the investigation for free
• Casinomeister for providing the forum that prought the issues forward
• the OP, despite his fradulent account, for bringing the issue out in the public.

Without any of the above I would not have been aware of the above issues!


Suggestions:
This thread:
As important as it is, it has become unreadable, with 50+pages of mostly chit-chat and more or less relevant discussions.
Is it possible to create a "moderated" thread, with only the OP posts, the casino and industry responses, Eliot Jacobsons findings, the regualtory organisations reply, Casinomeisters input and possible the facts on the companies and organisations involved (as done by the Pogg and maybe a few others) and where any new posts needs to be approved by a moderator?

Accredited list:
In light of the above issues, I personally think it would be fair to keep betfred out of the accredited sections, unless they:
a. state that they will perform adaquate testing in the future
b. state that they will never again run games where the free play and real play versions have different outcomes
c. will not again provide games that misrepresent physical devices in a possibly deceptive way.
I am not suggesting that this should apply to all casinos in the accreddited list, just the ones who have been found to be in direct breach of the above.

 

[GOCC]

Can I ask, isnt part of the qualification for being accredited that the free play software doesnt give differing results to the Real Play?

I ask because there used to be a required checklist to be accredited but I cant seem to find it on the site anymore.

Just if this is a requirement, Shouldnt 365 be off as they are still running the same free play formula?

 

[ThePOGG]

Gigantic issues:

• At least one major casinos ran at least one game where the "free play" gave significantly better results than the "real play" version

I've got to correct this - At least two major casinos (Betfred and Bet 365) are running (as in present tense) at least one game where the "free play" gives significantly better results than the "real play" version

The regulator has explained to me that the discrepancy between the
games was due to human error in game updates, and not that the games
were 'rigged' and I fully understand and accept this explanation.

I for one require a full explanation of how a "human error in game updates" resulted in a simple piece of code for selecting 1 number out of 12 turned into a piece of code that adapts the likelihood of the outcomes depending on the bet. Or how a "human error in game updates" resulted in a piece of code being added to free games to exclude the last result and improve the return to player.

For me - maybe this is a personal thing - a human error is a typo or a thoughtless mistake - i.e. i forgot to phone Mr Soandso back or i put the wrong box in the freezer and now the ice cream's all over the counter. The changes that were made to these games could not have been made accidentally. They required thought and code to be added specifically to achieve the results in question. Brushing this off as a human error is allowing FinSoft to deny culpability and right now there does not seem to be any justification to do that.

The definition of 'human error' being used here would seem to cover just about anything a person does that they shouldn't have done. I shouldn't have taken that bottle of wine without paying for it - it's human error. I shouldn't have driven a car after all those drinks - it's human error. I shouldn't have declared a lower amount of earnings than i really made - it's human error. I shouldn't have added code to that game to make it behave in an unfair fashion - it's human error. None of that falls into my definition of 'human error'. They may all have been misjudgements, but there was still thought and intent behind each.

 

[Richas]

Well this is a comprehensive apology from the OP

Firstly, I would like to apologize to all the members here, especially
Eliot Jacobson who spent a considerable amount of time investigating
these games. The truth is that I opened an account at Betfred on
behalf of my sister in an attempt to profit from bonuses on a 100% RTP
game. While I had her permission to do so, I accept that it was wrong.
I regret bringing the issue to light in this manner and accept that I
should instead have disclosed this directly to Betfred or the
regulator to get an explanation and a refund.

There is acceptance of what the OP set out to do was wrong - use a false name to qualify for a bonus. For a real account clearing that bonus on any game the casino lets you seems perfectly legitimate behaviour and if the casino offers a bonus that makes the bonus +ev that is their lookout.

The OP saw the 100% RTP game that counted towards clearing the bonus and because of the falsely qualified for bonus played that game. The original motive meant that we had an unusual user of the game who was able to recognise that the game was not operating as advertised. Without that unusual user the game would have carried on being falsely advertised and the discrepancy with the play game version used to test the bonus plot scheme would have gone unnoticed too.

Like the burglar who breaks in and finds an old lady who has fallen and broken her hip and then calls the ambulance we should be grateful to the OP even if their initial motives were discreditable.

The regulator has explained to me that the discrepancy between the
games was due to human error in game updates, and not that the games
were 'rigged' and I fully understand and accept this explanation. I
now realise that my actions, though identifying an error, have
generated unwarranted criticism of Betfred, Spielo and Realistic Games
and caused a huge distraction for the regulator. I must stress that my
intention was only to get my money back and not to incite any
criticism towards these parties.

The regulator has a lot more explaining to do than this and BetFred, Spielo and Finsoft deserve a lot of criticism. Realistic Games seem to have done nothing wrong.

Independent analysis shows that the game breaks the regulators code not just because of a false RTP but also because of the false representation of cards to the play, the uneven distribution produced by the RNG but also the false play game version. It is 100% not a distraction to a regulator to have gross breaches of their code by someone they licence pointed out to them. Dealing with such is their entire purpose!

Spielo/Finsoft have supplied a game with a false RTP, that operates outside of the technical standards and uses a RNG that does not comply with the standards either. The certification supplied with the software must be false/wrong meaning that falsely certified software was installed which is a criminal offence in Gib under their 2005 Act.

They also fail to meet their UKGC licence conditions on their website, falsely representing this game as being UKGC sanctioned.

BetFred are still running a false play game. It is unclear if they have refunded all the other players losing money on this falsely advertised real game. They failed to spot that the game misrepresents the RTP before putting it on their site, they then failed to test the games as required by the GRA post installation. By falsely representing the game they have cheated UK residents - This is a criminal offence under the 2005 Gambling Act regardless of where they are licenced.

They deserve criticism.

It would be nice if we had statements not just from the OP but Finsoft, BetFred and the GRA.

As for this thread, it has got unwieldly but I dont think a moderated thread is the answer. How about if someone summarises what happened, when and what plus the current situation and we use that summary to start a fresh thread before closing this one with a final post linking to the new one.

 

[Sk0t]

I've got to correct this - At least two major casinos (Betfred and Bet 365) are running (as in present tense) at least one game where the "free play" gives significantly better results than the "real play" version

Thanks for pointing this out, I have tried following this thread, but missed that. This just shows that the thread has become useless for getting an overview of the actual issues.

An article or thread summarizing the FACTS would really be helpfull imho.

*snip*

As for this thread, it has got unwieldly but I dont think a moderated thread is the answer. How about if someone summarises what happened, when and what plus the current situation and we use that summary to start a fresh thread before closing this one with a final post linking to the new one.

I dont think that would solve it, then that new thread would be filled with chit-chat and become unreadable, and future significant updates would be missed.

 

[P.V.]

Like I've said before they admitted that the wrong help file was applied.

They also said they would pay back all parties hurt from this problem.

Seems fair to me but I've been a minority with my opinion throughout the thread.

Thanks for the update CM, investigation.


I'm sure if you were hurt by this contact the casino for a refund.

 

[maphesto]

Like the burglar who breaks in and finds an old lady who has fallen and broken her hip and then calls the ambulance we should be grateful to the OP even if their initial motives were discreditable.

Agree totally! That's why I thanked "katie" early in "her" opening post. I have, and I know others have aswell, questioned OP in PM:s. I am sure that many members here waited with the "thank you-button" just because of the strange "brother/sister-speak". The most important thing is that this rigged game was discovered.

I'm sure if you were hurt by this contact the casino for a refund.

The casinos in question should contact every player who played this game for real money and give they refunds. NO player should have to contact the casino.
The casino should thank OP for this. I hope they do. IF this came up in the open later, they would have to refund even more money.

And as Nifty said:

Obviously the OP has done the wrong thing by opening a fraudulent account, and should be tarred and feathered accordingly.

 

[P.V.]

The casinos in question should contact every player who played this game for real money and give they refunds.

If they can I don't disagree.

If not contact the operator..

 

[Casinomeister]

Can I ask, isnt part of the qualification for being accredited that the free play software doesnt give differing results to the Real Play?

I ask because there used to be a required checklist to be accredited but I cant seem to find it on the site anymore...

The standards are located here:
Link Outdated / Removed (linked on every page of Casinomeister via Accredited Casinos)

You have a point, please submit your suggestion here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/improving-the-accredited-section.54957/

I agree that this thread needs to be summarized. Unfortunately it is not humanly possible for me to do it at the moment. If you would like to volunteer for this daunting task, please send me a PM.

 

[GOCC]

Thanks Bryan, looks like I was wrong and it wasnt in the accreditation requirements but I will suggest it as you ask.

Thanks

 

[Balthazar]

I said that's what you can do - not what you should do. It was the OP that said that's what he should have done.

Bryan,

I see that you have banned the OP and added an editor note to his post. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but now it discredits his whole thread.

 

[maxd]

... it discredits his whole thread.

What the OP did violated a number of serious rules both here and at the casino. That's what I read Bryan's ban and note to be about, not a moral judgement on the OP either way.

Whatever you may think of the OP's subsequent actions -- posting here, etc -- the point is that he crossed the line well before he posted and it would seem to me that that's what Bryan's decision addresses. IOW, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Good guys get punished too and they deserve to if they break the law. That's why it's called "the law" and not "harsh stuff we do to people we don't like".

 

[Casinomeister]

Bryan,

I see that you have banned the OP and added an editor note to his post. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but now it discredits his whole thread.

It is what it is. If I were to merely ban the member and not post a reason behind it, then the multitude of visitors would be wondering "WTF?"

I don't see it discrediting the thread. Sure, it discredits the OP, but not the thread. Regardless of the OP's confession and misrepresentation, the software and findings are still the same.

 

[Westland Bowl]

It is what it is. If I were to merely ban the member and not post a reason behind it, then the multitude of visitors would be wondering "WTF?"

I don't see it discrediting the thread. Sure, it discredits the OP, but not the thread. Regardless of the OP's confession and misrepresentation, the software and findings are still the same.

So this is like a robber assuming a false identity, gains access and stumbles upon an illegal counterfeiting operation and calls the police.....

Counterfeiter: Your Honor, we request dismissal of this case against us because the robber is a fraudster!
Judge: Your request is denied! This case isn't about him, it's about YOU!

 

[mimi26]

So this is like a robber assuming a false identity, gains access and stumbles upon an illegal counterfeiting operation and calls the police.....

Counterfeiter: Your Honor, we request dismissal of this case against us because the robber is a fraudster!
Judge: Your request is denied! This case isn't about him, it's about YOU!

Oh I love this........Just another point, the OP never profited from this at all, OK he was initially trying to make a profit fraudulently but this back fired on him big time, however he brought the issue into the public spectrum which I feel is a good thing

 

[sapit222]

Maybe change the banning reason/explanation a bit?
When i read the first post now it just looks like its all been made up by the OP (the casino cheating etc) ...

Its wrong to use some1 else identity to make an account at casinos of course.
It was the correct thing to make this tread though. so that the cheating & everything has come out in the open.

Im continuing to read this tread with interest & a big thank you to the OP & every1 who has posted helpfull information!

 

[visaria]

I played Hi Lo at Betfred about 4 years ago and i lost every hand i played. Am i due compensation?

 

[Jufo]

I played Hi Lo at Betfred about 4 years ago and i lost every hand i played. Am i due compensation?

If the game was exactly same back then and currently there is no reason to assume that it wasn't, then yes you are due compensation. In fact I believe Betfred promised to reimburse all affected players. If you haven't been reimbursed already, it shows they are not holding on to their promise. Straight to the rogue pit is my vote