Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[Jufo]

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".

It's funny that you bring up the word "law" when the act of opening a second account under someone's name in your family with their consent is not an illegal act. Yes, it does break most casinos T&Cs, but it's not a crime. It's somewhere along the same lines as using a bot at a casino that prohibits bots, or attempting to claim multiple coupons at a grocery store where it says "only one coupon per customer".

So the fact that OP had made a relatively minor breach of opening a second account within his family got him banned. In order to display some kind of consistency that everyone is dealt with according to the same criteria, wouldn't the only appropriate action now be to throw Betfred and Bet365 into the rogue pit? Because certainly the breaches that the OP did were minor compared to Betfred's all GRA breaches and all the cheating that is still going on at the moment.

 

[Simmo!]

So the fact that OP had opened a second account within the family got him banned. In order to display some kind of consistency that each party is dealt with equally, wouldn't the only appropriate action now be to throw Betfred and Bet365 into the rogue pit? Because certainly the breaches that the OP did were minor compared to these GRA breaches and all on-going cheating that is still going on at the moment.

Here's how it strikes me:

You have two sides to every story, in this case the industry side and the player side. Gambling by nature is a "them and us" industry where one side needs to "beat" the other to win. Consequently you will invariably get a lot of players airing their grievances in any possible situation while the casinos will want to protect their corner. It's just the nature of the beast.

Sites like Casinomeister serve the purpose of sitting in the middle and (hopefully) getting to the bottom of a situation. That doesn't work if you throw one side to the Lions before the facts are known and guilt is proven because do that too often and one side will disappear for good which renders the process useless. In this case, up to now, it sounds like there is a serious issue that someone on the "industry" needs to address.

However at this stage, we do know for sure that the OP has admitted to Casinomeister he multi-accounted which is an automatic ban at Casinomeister, whether you are Jack the Lad, Mother Teresa or the Archangel Gabriel. That policy is there because multi-accounters and fraudulent players hurt honest players. You and me. Simple. And if they grafiti your house but leave you a bottle of champagne that's irrelevant.

On the case of the games, every day it seems there is a new development. When all those developments have surfaced and Casinomeister can make a decision based on the facts, then there will be a decision taken. Any other pre-emptive strike because "it looks that way" would be stupid, especially if something else surfaces and makes a mockery of that decision.

That's just common sense and it doesn't matter how many sticks you beat it with, or how many people call foul, or how many million pages of opinions you get, that's exactly what a site like this is here to do: get to the bottom of a situation as quickly as possible and make a decision, not best-guess an outcome like everyone else.

As an aside, did I see someone say the "rigged games" are still available? If so, the companies have said they will re-imburse losses so ffs, go play them 'cos you can't lose. You'll get your money back at worst

 

[jetset]

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.

I think it's important to note what Bryan says here, and consequently I hope that he allows this thread to remain open in order that members can continue a legitimate discussion on a very, very suspicious affair that still leaves many questions unanswered by the regulator, the software distributor SpieloG2 and Betfred itself.

There are all sorts of relevant questions still outstanding regarding allegedly jimmied software; non-compliance with GRA regs and the regulator's attitude to these player-unfriendly developments; compensation for players on a software that appears to have been cheating for years; the veracity of expert assessments like those of Eliot Jacobsen, and why these were initially ignored by the companies and regulator involved; the extent of the distribution by Spielo of the affected games, and whether operators feel it incumbent on them to withdraw these; the disparity between the original Betfred statements via Aaron and the 'confessions' of the OP and many more. Could this really be the result of another 'update' SNAFU?

I am also disturbed by the wording of the OP's admissions, which is rather clumsily heavy-handed and does not seem natural or ring true to me; I would go so far as to opine that these look like words placed in his mouth, but then perhaps I am just being paranoid!

Long story short, I do not believe that discrediting the OP (if that was an agenda behind his confession - just what was his motivation?) necessarily destroys the credibility of the thread.

It should stay open until the regulator has concluded its investigation and has made a transparent and full public report on the issue to bring proper closure.

I sense that we are not getting the whole story, or answers to the many outstanding questions here, and in allegations as serious as those being discussed, that is truly important for player trust in the bodies involved in this scandal.

Just to add by way of a post script: @ binary 128, VWM and thePogg and Richas - great posts at 475, 555, 582 and 585 that zero in on the real issues here - thanks .

 

[visaria]

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

Ok, so should I contact the rep (Aaron)? I tried Betfred CS but they just laughed at my suggestion that one of their games was rigged.

 

[ThePOGG]

Ok, so should I contact the rep (Aaron)? I tried Betfred CS but they just laughed at my suggestion that one of their games was rigged.

I can't say for sure that you are due a refund as it very much depends on the exact game you played, but i've got to be honest and say that if your report on Betfred's CS response is accurate i find that fairly shocking. They know that there are player due to be reimbursed for their losses due to games not working within specifications, but haven't briefed CS about the issue?

 

[binary128]

I found the GRA response (summarized for the forum by Bryan) ...

GRA Statement:

"... this case is under active investigation and this investigation has already revealed that the bona fides and actions of one or more parties involved in this thread, who cannot be named for legal reasons, are not who they claim to be, have put false information on the thread, appear to have operated account(s) well outside the terms and conditions, and have refused to assist or co-operate in the investigation. He goes on to say that while it does appear that there were errors in the relevant games' presentation, it is also apparent that there is much more to this case than at first appears, and any fair investigation has to take all relevant factors into account before reaching any conclusion ..."

... odd for a number of reasons, and posted my thoughts. (Sorry for the lengthy repeat.)

I looked up the definition of "bona fides" to ensure my understanding.

bona fides:

1.) A person's honesty and sincerity of intention.

2.) Documentary evidence showing a person's legitimacy; credentials.


Therefore, my thinking has "distilled" what the GRA has said through Bryan to the following:


The investigation has revealed:

1. One or more parties involved in this thread are not who they claim to be.

This strikes me as odd given that this is largely an anonymous forum. That is, no documentary credentials are involved or required.

2. One or more parties involved in this thread have put false information on the thread.

This also strikes me as odd, given that much of the interaction on this thread has been people disagreeing with each other.

3. One or more parties involved in this thread appear to have operated account(s) well outside the terms and conditions.

I do not have an accurate or worthwhile response to this.

4. One or more parties involved in this thread have refused to assist or co-operate in the investigation.

Well, I guess they know who they are.

5. It does appear that there were errors in the relevant games' presentation.

I find this a little confusing, because it describes fully 75% of the content of this thread as simply "errors in the relevant games' presentation".


I sincerely hope that no concludes that I am being facetious here. I think that what Bryan has posted is worthy of serious consideration.

Perhaps what I find the most confusing is that the core of this thread is founded on statistical data, which has been presented, confirmed, double-checked, etc. 100% is not 100%. 97.5% is not 96%. Play-for-Free is not Play-for-Real. And so forth.

Chris

I found the email 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.

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.

... also odd for a number of reasons, as follows:


1. "I regret bringing the issue to light in this manner ..."

Apparently you are one of the very few people posting in this thread who feels this way. This is especially true given the failure of a previous attempt documented in a

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

(as referenced by zanzibar), as well as the following quote from thePOGG:

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.

(IMO, thePOGG's point is that if something is wrong and you want it corrected then you will have a much easier time in achieving success by going somewhere other than the casino/regulator. I'm open to correction there.)


2. "... and accept that I should instead have disclosed this directly to Betfred or the regulator ..."

This is decidedly odd. It sounds like something someone would say after they got a "bright lights and rubber hose treatment". ("Why will you not sign zee papers? Because you have broken all of my fingers." - Cheech & Chong)


3. "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' ..."

This is borderline weird. They "explained" to you? Did this explanation involve a full review of source code, audits of game play logs, statistical analysis of Theoretical RTPs, etc. for both the Play-for-Real and Play-for-Free products. Or did they just say - "The discrepancy between the games was due to human error in game updates."


4. "I now realise that my actions ... have generated unwarranted criticism of Betfred, Spielo and Realistic Games ..."

Again, more "bright lights and rubber hose treatment". Or maybe a thumbscrew?


5. "... and caused a huge distraction for the regulator."

The OP thinks that Gibraltar sees all of the broken GRA regulations, which have been clearly and unmistakably documented in this thread, as a distraction? Were these the OPs words, the GRA's words?


The whole email sounds like a confessional hearing?

Well, regardless of the severe weirdness (at which I'm a self-described Pro), I agree with the suggestion from Sk0t (and apparently supported by several others): "An article or thread summarizing the FACTS would really be helpfull imho."

The GPWA documented an almost complete failure - perhaps here there might be an almost complete success?

Chris

 

[daywalker]

I can't say for sure that you are due a refund as it very much depends on the exact game you played, but i've got to be honest and say that if your report on Betfred's CS response is accurate i find that fairly shocking. They know that there are player due to be reimbursed for their losses due to games not working within specifications, but haven't briefed CS about the issue?

You've got a lot to learn about casino CS departments if you honestly find this shocking. It's par for the course almost everywhere. They are generally clueless.

 

[Richas]

It's funny that you bring up the word "law" when the act of opening a second account under someone's name in your family with their consent is not an illegal act. Yes, it does break most casinos T&Cs, but it's not a crime. It's somewhere along the same lines as using a bot at a casino that prohibits bots, or attempting to claim multiple coupons at a grocery store where it says "only one coupon per customer".

Given that in a few months nearly all sites will be getting UK licences and coming from a poker background...........I would like to point out that using a bot in contravention of a sites Ts and Cs is cheating at gambling. This is an offence under Section 42 of the 2005 Gambling Act so (if you are in the UK or your poker bot plays against a UK based player/site) it is a criminal offence - punishable by up to 2 years in gaol and/or a level 5 fine.

It may be unlikely that you would be prosecuted but running a bot in the UK or against anyone in the UK is a criminal offence in the UK.

 

[Jufo]

Ok, so should I contact the rep (Aaron)? I tried Betfred CS but they just laughed at my suggestion that one of their games was rigged.

Actually you could be of big help with this case here and therefore my proposition at the moment is not to contact them at all, ie. don't tell them your username even if they ask for it. That's because they promised to reimburse all affected players and if you won't be reimbursed then we will have first-hand proof that they are lying about having reimbursed everyone. So your account would be like a "test account" to see whether they will keep their promise. But if the amount of money you lost is important to you and you don't want to wait for it, I understand if you prefer to contact Aaron. If it doesn't help you can (and should) make a PAB against Betfred.

 

[visaria]

Actually you could be of big help with this case here and therefore my proposition at the moment is not to contact them at all, ie. don't tell them your username even if they ask for it. That's because they promised to reimburse all affected players and if you won't be reimbursed then we will have first-hand proof that they are lying about having reimbursed everyone. So your account would be like a "test account" to see whether they will keep their promise. But if the amount of money you lost is important to you and you don't want to wait for it, I understand if you prefer to contact Aaron. If it doesn't help you can (and should) make a PAB against Betfred.

TBF, i don't think Betfred is going to look back at everyone's acct since it was opened and see if they played an alleged rigged game.

I'll contact Aaron and see what he says.

 

[ThePOGG]

You've got a lot to learn about casino CS departments if you honestly find this shocking. It's par for the course almost everywhere. They are generally clueless.

You may perhaps want to take my previous post as a 'shocked but not surprised'.

For information Virgin has just confirmed that as part of their take over by GameSys they'll be dropping all Dynamite Idea games on the 29th.

 

[ThePOGG]

TBF, i don't think Betfred is going to look back at everyone's acct since it was opened and see if they played an alleged rigged game.

Well that's exactly what they should be doing and it's exactly what an honest and reputable operator would do.


[NOTE] - i'm making no comment on whether Betfred are in fact doing this as i have no information beyond what has already been published in this thread.

 

[Jufo]

TBF, i don't think Betfred is going to look back at everyone's acct since it was opened and see if they played an alleged rigged game.

Actually that is what they promised they would do. The problem is that we will be relying just on their word about refunding all affected players, ie. there is no one monitoring that process. I agree that best chance for refund at the moment is to contact Aaron.

 

[visaria]

Actually, i do recall Ladbrokes refunding me or compensating me because there was something wrong with the behaviour of one of the games i played there. I didn't know anything about it.

 

[Jufo]

Given that in a few months nearly all sites will be getting UK licences and coming from a poker background...........I would like to point out that using a bot in contravention of a sites Ts and Cs is cheating at gambling. This is an offence under Section 42 of the 2005 Gambling Act so (if you are in the UK or your poker bot plays against a UK based player/site) it is a criminal offence - punishable by up to 2 years in gaol and/or a level 5 fine.

It may be unlikely that you would be prosecuted but running a bot in the UK or against anyone in the UK is a criminal offence in the UK.

I see, I stand corrected. But I was referring strictly to casino bots to wager larger volumes faster, not bots in poker where it affects other players. Casino game is always the same, bot or not. And does bot also apply to autoclickers? I commonly set up an autoclicker (a program called Autohotkey) to autoclick certain casino games. It doesn't have any logic, it just clicks, but can be considered a bot. So would the criminal offence apply to these cases as well? Quite unbelievable if it did.

 

[Casinomeister]

Since some folks felt I may have discredited the thread with brief editor's note, I've amended the statement in the OP's posts to the following:

Editor's note: this player opened an account at this casino using another person's identity, and misrepresented himself to the community and those who were trying to assist him. This does not negate the fact that there are serious issues with the software and how the regulatory commission and affected casinos are responding to this.

 

[Jufo]

I am also disturbed by the wording of the OP's admissions, which is rather clumsily heavy-handed and does not seem natural or ring true to me; I would go so far as to opine that these look like words placed in his mouth, but then perhaps I am just being paranoid!

Me and several others have the exact same feeling about OPs confession letter - it looks entirely manifactured. Like Binary wrote: "Bright lights and rubber hose" come to mind My (and several others) best guess is that Betfred threatened the OP with legal action for attempting to defraud them and in return for not do that and let him keep the money (which was his to begin with) he had to agree to make this confession and remain silent after that.

So the confession letter is probably just Betfred's cover-up attempt, which conveniently surfaced right at the same time when people discussed bringing this incident to the mass media, something that Betfred may be scared of. The fortunate thing is that since OP is no longer the key factor to this case as other's have since taken the investigation over, OP's confessions are of little relevance any longer.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

That 'confessfion' is one of the oddest things I've ever read, it's either falsified, or coerced, or both.

I'm surprised it didn't include the phrase 'It's a fair cop guv'nor, I've done wrong by you and no mistake!' just for the sake of completeness.

Perhaps the OP was paid off and 'suggestions' were made to him about legal action or suchlike if he didn't write a splendid confession, or put his name to one that had already been written.

I smell a whitewash on the horizon here, the original complainant has been bought off, we can already see the direction the 'explanation' is going to come from (human error + wrong help file), all the boxes get neatly ticked.

The OP has been branded as being guilty of 'player fraud' when he actually just breached the casino's T&Cs which they conveniently got to write for themself, and a damning editor's note has been added to discredit the thread from the start.

And we still have casinos running cheating, licence breaching games nearly a full month after the thread was started and the issue was brought to light. (Free play and real play behaving differently. And Betfred have never addressed the core issue of them buying in a 'fixed price model' for a card game in the first place.)

Make no mistake guys, this one's done, this one's toast.

EDIT - Bryan updated the editor's note whilst I was writing this post, the new one reads in a far more balanced manner so I retract that statement.

EDIT AGAIN - I do realise this post is pretty much just paraphrasing what others have already said, but I figured I'd add my thoughts anyway.

 

[visaria]

TBF, i don't think Betfred is going to look back at everyone's acct since it was opened and see if they played an alleged rigged game.

I'll contact Aaron and see what he says.

I have PM'd him, will report here any response.

 

[Simmo!]

And we still have casinos running cheating, licence breaching games nearly a full month after the thread was started and the issue was brought to light.

Seriously you should go hammer those then: they've stated they will refund losses on the games that cheat. You can't lose

 

[dunover]

I see obfuscation, smoke and mirrors here.
Firstly, I find it hard to believe a normal punter would wager 12k on a stupidly and obviously reactive game.
Then, this punter (if not seriously addicted or daft or both) has access to a numerical data analyst and proves the game is rigged.
Comes here, accesses the Betfred rep and duly gets refunded on 'her' (his) ridiculous stakes. A no-lose gamble if you like.
Then a dubious 'confession' whereby we a led to believe that another person has given 'kate' permission to spunk 12k on their credit card/switch card or WebWallet account.
Someone is getting leant on here, big time.
Mmmm.....

 

[Richas]

I see, I stand corrected. But I was referring strictly to casino bots to wager larger volumes faster, not bots in poker where it affects other players. Casino game is always the same, bot or not. And does bot also apply to autoclickers? I commonly set up an autoclicker (a program called Autohotkey) to autoclick certain casino games. It doesn't have any logic, it just clicks, but can be considered a bot. So would the criminal offence apply to these cases as well? Quite unbelievable if it did.

The intent has to be to cheat at gambling. An autokey does not do that. If Stephen Hawking uses software to play a casino game he is not cheating. You using software to mean you don't have to wear your finger out is the same.

If Stephen Hawking developed a poker bot making betting decisions and used it against others (when clearly outside the ts and cs) he would be attempting to cheat. Win or lose that is an offence.

If he uses software to let him make poker bets then there is no attempt to cheat, he may have inadvertently or deliberately broken a sites Ts and Cs to play a normal game but that is OK. Stars bans software that automatically triggers the time button if a hand will be folded because you have not acted yet, something that someone with motor neuron disease might well find was necessary to play, but breaking the ts and cs (even with some automation involved) is not an attempt to cheat at the game (gain an unfair advantage).

 

[Jufo]

The intent has to be to cheat at gambling. An autokey does not do that. If Stephen Hawking uses software to play a casino game he is not cheating. You using software to mean you don't have to wear your finger out is the same.

If Stephen Hawking developed a poker bot making betting decisions and used it against others (when clearly outside the ts and cs) he would be attempting to cheat. Win or lose that is an offence

Ok, thanks for the clarification. To clarify, when I posted previously:

[...] opening a second account under someone's name in your family with their consent is not an illegal act. Yes, it does break most casinos T&Cs, but it's not a crime. It's somewhere along the same lines as using a bot at a casino that prohibits bots [...]

I was specifically referring to simple automated tools to help you to do the wagering at the casino, in other words not anything that would give you advantage over playing manually.

In case you didn't know there are several cases of casino winnings being confiscated just for using an autoclicker to complete a wagering requirement of a bonus more easily and "to not wear out your fingers", the most recent case being Betfred (yes the same one) avoiding paying out a £30,000 win, because player's betting patterns indicated that an automation tool to assist in wagering was in use.

 

[manuels58]

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.

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.

I agree you both about your right perspective of the thing, although I really don't think it was the OPs purpose or intention to make this public for the interest of the players

 

[manuels58]

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.

Well, in face of this info, I have to say that all the casinos that were still offering the rigged game(s) should most surely be knowledgeable of it and are all in the same position, because I don't believe they didn't know about what happened in 2009.
Something that worries me very much now.