Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[just play]

Well Nifty is entitled to his opinion, and we're entitled to disagree with him

My personal opinion is that for every cheating game that gets called out as has happened here, there must be several more that are never detected.

The game category that worries me most is slots, as slots are what I almost exclusively play online, and they are also the one category of game it's borderline impossible to ever prove cheating behaviour with.

ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE (I am not making any accusation here, but this is the kind of thing that crosses my mind in times like this) - The Mega Jackpot at NetEnt casinos, currently bigger than it ever has been and generating a huge amount of play on the Mega Fortune slot. The more it gets played, the more profit NetEnt makes and the more profit the casinos make.

What's to say someone at NetEnt HQ doesn't just say, 'Hey guys, we're making more money than we ever have done off this slot, the jackpot is bigger than it ever has been, and the money is just rolling in. Set the Mega Jackpot to be impossible to win for the time being, and let it go when it's over twenty million euros. We'll make a barrel load of cash in the meantime, and we'll have the publicity of paying out the biggest online jackpot ever when it's won'.

Tin foil hat brigade stuff? Most likely yes, but there's no way anyone can ever know for sure.

All I can say is that for me, personally, I feel safer keeping the money in my bank account at the moment. The thing that's most disconcerting about this current Finsoft/Spielo disaster zone is the response from two accredited casinos who are both basically saying that as long as the game sticks to its expected RTP there's no problem. The fact the games are deceptive and cheating by design seems to be entirely lost on them.

That's some scary shit right there.

(Plus of course, as Eliot has identified here, what Bet365 are saying the game's RTP is over a million spins doesn't stack up with what its T-RTP actually is from the given odds in the game. Incredible.)

This is what I tried to bring up earlier. Having things run through peoples heads are human nature. When something like this is brought to light, it's only natural to think along these lines. It is scary, and you are correct, no one can ever be 100% sure.

 

[Nifty29]

Well Nifty is entitled to his opinion, and we're entitled to disagree with him

My personal opinion is that for every cheating game that gets called out as has happened here, there must be several more that are never detected.

The game category that worries me most is slots, as slots are what I almost exclusively play online, and they are also the one category of game it's borderline impossible to ever prove cheating behaviour with.

ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE (I am not making any accusation here, but this is the kind of thing that crosses my mind in times like this) - The Mega Jackpot at NetEnt casinos, currently bigger than it ever has been and generating a huge amount of play on the Mega Fortune slot. The more it gets played, the more profit NetEnt makes and the more profit the casinos make.

What's to say someone at NetEnt HQ doesn't just say, 'Hey guys, we're making more money than we ever have done off this slot, the jackpot is bigger than it ever has been, and the money is just rolling in. Set the Mega Jackpot to be impossible to win for the time being, and let it go when it's over twenty million euros. We'll make a barrel load of cash in the meantime, and we'll have the publicity of paying out the biggest online jackpot ever when it's won'.

Tin foil hat brigade stuff? Most likely yes, but there's no way anyone can ever know for sure.

All I can say is that for me, personally, I feel safer keeping the money in my bank account at the moment. The thing that's most disconcerting about this current Finsoft/Spielo disaster zone is the response from two accredited casinos who are both basically saying that as long as the game sticks to its expected RTP there's no problem. The fact the games are deceptive and cheating by design seems to be entirely lost on them.

That's some scary shit right there.

(Plus of course, as Eliot has identified here, what Bet365 are saying the game's RTP is over a million spins doesn't stack up with what its T-RTP actually is from the given odds in the game. Incredible.)

I see what you're saying Chops, and I don't entirely disagree with it.

The difference is that we are talking about a specific game/s of a specific type from a specific supplier. The changes finsoft made were absolutely done to mislead/cheat, but IMO that's where the cheating stopped.

The operators like NB and betfred etc are not blame free....they offered these games without being sure they were OK, which IMO is poor quality control, as the impact in the eyes of the average Joe will be on the casino's brand, not finsoft. If casinos that run multi supplier platforms ran their own in-house checks, which they should be given this new tendency to offer games from here there and everywhere, this thread would not exist.

Personally, i would be questioning a game that was being offered at 100%, particularly one as "simple" looking as the ones in question. The only operator offering true 100% games I know of have a 10% fee on cashouts to cover their ass and make a profit. How anyone would expect the casino to make a profit with these games at true 100% odds, when things like comp.points and promos are added in, is quite beyond me. Still, that does not excuse the behaviour.

Basically, I don't think the operators themselves were out to deliberately fleece anyone.

When you consider the percentage of games available online that have been proven rigged, it is actually incredibly low in my experience and estimation. Hence my remark about this issue not necessarily meaning that a whole host of other games are rigged.

If you stick with the big brands and their own games, and games from trusted suppliers with a clean rep and track record, I just don't see any risk of hitting a rigged game. If my results, and those of many others here, are any indicator, then if the major suppliers games are rigged, they need to hire better crooks because they ain't doing a very good job.

 

[Seventh777]

Hello everyone,

I'm sorry for the delay. We have now completed our internal investigation and just as already concluded by many others - it was obvious that the game was not acting as it should have. We have reimbursed all losses on HiLo Gambler to all players since we launched the game, on all of our brands.

As I mentioned earlier we have of course removed HiLo Gambler. We have also taken the decision to remove all other games supplied by Finsoft. Those games should be removed early next week.

Rob

Did we expect anything less from Nordic and Ben's prodige / prodigy - Robin (kinda spooky as Robin is Batman's sidekick and known as the boy wonder, le jeune prodige = French for the boy wonder ).

 

[Balthazar]

the impact in the eyes of the average Joe will be on the casino's brand, not finsoft.

That's not entirely true as the average Joe will never know about it, and if he does he will blame Finsoft just like most people in this thread. You said yourself that the casinos are only guilty of "poor quality control".

If casinos that run multi supplier platforms ran their own in-house checks, which they should be given this new tendency to offer games from here there and everywhere, this thread would not exist.

No casino admitted that the game was cheating because it doesn't replicate the exact behaviour of a real deck of playing cards. So they don't care. If the help file showed the 96% RTP, it would have passed the in-house testing and this thread would still exist.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

If you stick with the big brands and their own games, and games from trusted suppliers with a clean rep and track record, I just don't see any risk of hitting a rigged game. If my results, and those of many others here, are any indicator, then if the major suppliers games are rigged, they need to hire better crooks because they ain't doing a very good job.

I think this is what it comes down to, and I said the same myself earlier in this thread with regards to much preferring 'trueblood' casinos.

I've never felt comfortable with casinos that just chuck software from any old place up on their site, and this thread has been illuminating insofar as you have Realistic developing the games, Finsoft taking those games as some sort of intermediary and making them cheat, and then major casino brands such as Betfred buying them in, without doing any sort of meaningful check whatsoever with regards to what they're attaching their brand name to.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but casinos absolutely MUST be far more invested in the quality of the software they're running than has been the case with the examples in this thread.

Still, I do have those choices available to me - so I'll proceed on that basis.

/deposit at Jackpot Party.......

 

[Nifty29]

That's not entirely true as the average Joe will never know about it, and if he does he will blame Finsoft just like most people in this thread. You said yourself that the casinos are only guilty of "poor quality control".



No casino admitted that the game was cheating because it doesn't replicate the exact behaviour of a real deck of playing cards. So they don't care. If the help file showed the 96% RTP, it would have passed the in-house testing and this thread would still exist.

I beg to differ on the second one.

If the displayed odds were 100%, and the help file was 96%, and the testing showed an RTP of around 96%, then, in a thorough testing regime, it would be picked up and corrected one way or the other.

There's no.point having testing if they're going to just look at the help file and say "yep let's load her up".

In the first comment, my point was that there will be an impact on the operator's brand. We can see it even in this thread, even though it is well known that the cheating was done by finsoft. As you say, there will be loads of people who don't know the full story, and might well only hear tidbits on the grapevine.....which might well cast aspersions/blame on the casinos themselves, or at the very least give players cause to reconsider their choice to play at those casinos.

 

[Balthazar]

If the displayed odds were 100%, and the help file was 96%, and the testing showed an RTP of around 96%, then, in a thorough testing regime, it would be picked up and corrected one way or the other.

Nifty the only way to test this game is to make sure that it's giving a 100% RTP. It's red or black: a coin toss. If the coin isn't rigged then it's a mandatory 100% RTP.

Since we've not heard any casino telling us that the problem was that the game didn't give a 100% RTP, it leads to believe that in-house testing wouldn't have changed anything. How can you fix a problem that you don't even acknowledge?

 

[manuels58]

I see what you're saying Chops, and I don't entirely disagree with it.

The difference is that we are talking about a specific game/s of a specific type from a specific supplier. The changes finsoft made were absolutely done to mislead/cheat, but IMO that's where the cheating stopped.

The operators like NB and betfred etc are not blame free....they offered these games without being sure they were OK, which IMO is poor quality control, as the impact in the eyes of the average Joe will be on the casino's brand, not finsoft. If casinos that run multi supplier platforms ran their own in-house checks, which they should be given this new tendency to offer games from here there and everywhere, this thread would not exist.

Personally, i would be questioning a game that was being offered at 100%, particularly one as "simple" looking as the ones in question. The only operator offering true 100% games I know of have a 10% fee on cashouts to cover their ass and make a profit. How anyone would expect the casino to make a profit with these games at true 100% odds, when things like comp.points and promos are added in, is quite beyond me. Still, that does not excuse the behaviour.

Basically, I don't think the operators themselves were out to deliberately fleece anyone.

When you consider the percentage of games available online that have been proven rigged, it is actually incredibly low in my experience and estimation. Hence my remark about this issue not necessarily meaning that a whole host of other games are rigged.

If you stick with the big brands and their own games, and games from trusted suppliers with a clean rep and track record, I just don't see any risk of hitting a rigged game. If my results, and those of many others here, are any indicator, then if the major suppliers games are rigged, they need to hire better crooks because they ain't doing a very good job.

-------------

Well, these "opinions" have much more importance than all this thread has been giving them.

At this point we might say we know 1) who is cheating and 2) who is putting the cheated products in the market.

In legal terms (a side of the problem not much discussed in this thread, maybe because it’s not exactly the sphere of action for this forum), the first one(s) are committing fraud, and the second one(s) are committing what might be considered an illegal act in business.

In fact, while at some point of the circuit the designers, or the producers, or the transformers (or all of them) of the product are committing a fraud, because they intentionally are designing/producing/transforming a rigged product to benefit of its usage (if, as it seems, the intention is proved, of course), the second ones, the operators/casinos, are committing an illegality, because they are putting the rigged product in the market, making it accessible to the consumer and thus, they are selling a product that doesn’t coincide with the characteristics they are promoting and divulging it has “publically”.

With this I just want to introduce the thought that although we may accept that the “cheating” stops where the intervention of the transformer (Finsoft) ended, we can’t simply say (nor should accept) that “… the operators are not blame free”.
The operators (the entities who put the products in the market available to the consumers) are, in legal terms, in any country or part of the civilized world, responsible for the products they sell (regardless of where they are licensed to practice a business activity, or if they can’t be supervised by a specific commission because it’s not its jurisdiction, or any other “business trick”).

Moreover and still in what concerns the operators, if their intervention is proved to be “not guilty” (meaning, not intentional), they might be able to resolve the situation by means of indemnities for damages; but if, on other hand, their intervention is proved to be intentional (hypothetically, they knew about the misconception of the product(s), for instance, and they accepted, or decided to sell it), they then will not only be committing an illegality, but will also being a part of the fraud action.

Personally, I don’t want to believe that the intervention of the operators have been intentional, given the good reputation of the involved casinos (something that called my attention since the very beginning of this thread and something that also took me to wonder about a few more things in this “wild” world of businesses, actually).

This said, I didn’t, and I don’t want to start anything with what I said above, just wanted to share my thought that the casinos have their own responsibility and they must, or at least they should assume it and try to clean their image/name, because they can’t afford to stay aside of this problem/situation by only giving weak explanations and indemnifying their customers (that’s what we, all players, are).

I am sorry for the (too) long post, but my personal and professional experience didn't allow me to stay by my own.

 

[just play]

Absolutely brilliant Manuels58.

:notworthy

-------------

Well, these "opinions" have much more importance than all this thread has been giving them.

At this point we might say we know 1) who is cheating and 2) who is putting the cheated products in the market.

In legal terms (a side of the problem not much discussed in this thread, maybe because it’s not exactly the sphere of action for this forum), the first one(s) are committing fraud, and the second one(s) are committing what might be considered an illegal act in business.

In fact, while at some point of the circuit the designers, or the producers, or the transformers (or all of them) of the product are committing a fraud, because they intentionally are designing/producing/transforming a rigged product to benefit of its usage (if, as it seems, the intention is proved, of course), the second ones, the operators/casinos, are committing an illegality, because they are putting the rigged product in the market, making it accessible to the consumer and thus, they are selling a product that doesn’t coincide with the characteristics they are promoting and divulging it has “publically”.

With this I just want to introduce the thought that although we may accept that the “cheating” stops where the intervention of the transformer (Finsoft) ended, we can’t simply say (nor should accept) that “… the operators are not blame free”.
The operators (the entities who put the products in the market available to the consumers) are, in legal terms, in any country or part of the civilized world, responsible for the products they sell (regardless of where they are licensed to practice a business activity, or if they can’t be supervised by a specific commission because it’s not its jurisdiction, or any other “business trick”).

Moreover and still in what concerns the operators, if their intervention is proved to be “not guilty” (meaning, not intentional), they might be able to resolve the situation by means of indemnities for damages; but if, on other hand, their intervention is proved to be intentional (hypothetically, they knew about the misconception of the product(s), for instance, and they accepted, or decided to sell it), they then will not only be committing an illegality, but will also being a part of the fraud action.

Personally, I don’t want to believe that the intervention of the operators have been intentional, given the good reputation of the involved casinos (something that called my attention since the very beginning of this thread and something that also took me to wonder about a few more things in this “wild” world of businesses, actually).

This said, I didn’t, and I don’t want to start anything with what I said above, just wanted to share my thought that the casinos have their own responsibility and they must, or at least they should assume it and try to clean their image/name, because they can’t afford to stay aside of this problem/situation by only giving weak explanations and indemnifying their customers (that’s what we, all players, are).

I am sorry for the (too) long post, but my personal and professional experience didn't allow me to stay by my own.

 

[chayton]

Wow. I just finally read this thread from cover to cover and I just wanted to say thank you to the OP for bringing it to the attention of people who are capable of looking into it and doing something about it. And for those of you capable people who looked into it and did something about it - thank you for your time and expertise, and for looking out for players.

IMO NordicBet is a great example. If a company cares about its reputation in this industry, then pulling all games by that provider and reimbursing players who were affected is the only option. I'm not a math geek, but even I can see that the evidence that was discovered showed cheating, plain and simple. If it was built into that game, who's to say what other games were tinkered with.

to NordicBet for being the first to do the right thing.

 

[hakapuku]

So Finsoft made a rigged game and sold it to Betfred. Betfred was making money from this rigged game but knew nothing about it being rigged. Holy Simplicity!

P.S. Any thoughts about what could be Finsoft motives for doing that?

 

[manuels58]

So Finsoft made a rigged game and sold it to Betfred. Betfred was making money from this rigged game but knew nothing about it being rigged. Holy Simplicity!

P.S. Any thoughts about what could be Finsoft motives for doing that?

If you don't mind me asking, have you discovered that by yourself, or have you read it in this thread?

Besides, Betfred is not the sole casino involved in this situation, nor in this thread.

Maybe not so simple, in my point of view...

 

[chayton]

P.S. Any thoughts about what could be Finsoft motives for doing that?

I suppose it comes down to whether or not they got a cut of the profits that particular game made for the casinos. If they did, then any claims that it was a mistake or even incompetence would (IMO) be shadowed by their potential financial dividend. If they didn't get a cut of the profits...well then it was just incompetence.

What I'd like to know is if the casinos that are paying back players for losses on those games will be going after the game supplier to recoup some of those losses?

 

[Seventh777]

What I'd like to know is if the casinos that are paying back players for losses on those games will be going after the game supplier to recoup some of those losses?

Interesting aspect hun....

1). It's down to the casinos to do a thorough testing of the software they use.

2). Why should a casino have to test the integrity of specific software they use?.

3). If they do, then it raises the question - Why are you using software from a company that has failed tests regarding it's RTP?.

4). They were not aware of this until it was brought to their attention courtesy of a player.

Whatever way you look at it hun, it will always bounce back to......

1). It's down to the casinos to do a thorough testing of the software they use.

However, under certain circumstances there would be a genuine reason that casinos could claim recompense, for arguments sake a brand new slot released from the respective software they have a license to use, having somehow managed to slip through BETA testing with a hugely reduced RTP than it should have. I've personally never seen this happen bar the Sky Vegas Treasure Island slot fiasco that night, that by all means done the exact reverse and paid out many-folds over it's RTP.

 

[P.V.]

Interesting aspect hun....

1). It's down to the casinos to do a thorough testing of the software they use.

2). Why should a casino have to test the integrity of specific software they use?.

3). If they do, then it raises the question - Why are you using software from a company that has failed tests regarding it's RTP?.

4). They were not aware of this until it was brought to their attention courtesy of a player.

Whatever way you look at it hun, it will always bounce back to......

1). It's down to the casinos to do a thorough testing of the software they use.

However, under certain circumstances there would be a genuine reason that casinos could claim recompense, for arguments sake a brand new slot released from the respective software they have a license to use, having somehow managed to slip through BETA testing with a hugely reduced RTP than it should have. I've personally never seen this happen bar the Sky Vegas Treasure Island slot fiasco that night, that by all means done the exact reverse and paid out many-folds over it's RTP.

The gaming authority issuing the license should be checking the testing of these games too, before said casino can add them to their platform.

Actually companies such as the ones in question should require a license, just like the gaming site in order to offer their games to be offered within the licensed gaming authorities jurisdiction.

Just common sense IMO.

It shouldn't be you get a gaming license, now I can add any game I want without any kind of testing, or responsibility from the authority whom has issued the gambling license.

Then if an operator, or software provider changes something, severe fines and penalties should be in place from the licensed jurisdiction.

 

[chayton]

To be completely honest I know diddly about how software licensing actually works. I'm sure before any software company approaches any casino flogging their games they have to show some sort of RNG compliance or testing has been done.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but say for instance I own a company that makes and sells cars, and another company comes to me and says, "We've developed these awesome footwarming floormats and you can license and use them as a feature in your car sales." So I make the deal and within a week the floormats burn people's feet and I have to pay out a bunch of medical bills...I'm definitely going after the company I got the floormats from. Especially if that company claimed and showed evidence that those floomats were safe when I licensed them.

A bit silly example I know, but I'm tired.

But to carry on in the same stupid theme, if the floormat people were getting a percentage of every car I sold, or if they were only getting a monthly licensing fee, why should I be the one holding the bag and paying all the burned people while they profited from their substandard product?

Not only that, but because my car company is a big name and nobody's heard of Toasty Tootsie Floormats, everybody now associates charred feet with my car company, and it's MY reputation that's going up in flames. Of course I'm also at fault for not running my own tests, but I'm pretty sure I could find at least 100 lawyers by tomorrow who would be willing to sue the floormat manufacturer on my behalf.

 

[Seventh777]

The gaming authority issuing the license should be checking the testing of these games too, before said casino can add them to their platform.

Actually companies such as the ones in question should require a license, just like the gaming site in order to offer their games to be offered within the licensed gaming authorities jurisdiction.

Just common sense IMO.

It shouldn't be you get a gaming license, now I can add any game I want without any kind of testing, or responsibility from the authority whom has issued the gambling license.

Then if an operator, or software provider changes something, severe fines and penalties should be in place from the licensed jurisdiction.

That was my sentiments entirely, and I mistakenly took it for granted until Nifty pointed out to me that this was / is not the case, which is why I posted my previous post mentioning casinos checking and not the actual provider of the gambling license they use. My reference to licenses in that post was regarding software ones and not gambling regulation associated ones .

 

[vinylweatherman]

It seems that everybody in the chain assumes someone else has done the thorough testing. It turns out that in some cases, NOONE has actually done it, EVERYONE has relied on the various certifications that different parts of the chain have accumulated along the way. It seems that if the RNG passes, it is assumed that any games running of this RNG will be fine, and won't need individual thorough tests.

The Treasure Island fiasco exposes the hypocracy in the industry, as when players claim a game has cheated them, they are called "sore losers", yet when a casino thinks a game has been too generous, they do NOT accept it as an unusual run of bad luck, but claim the game must be faulty, and so claim back anything won from it.

If casinos insist on voiding bets on a game that has paid out too much, then they have to accept that bets should also be voided when a game has been found to have paid too little. Betfred were the first to accept this consequence. It is now a case of finding out who else is involved, and if there are other games involved from this supplier.

 

[ChillBill]

The gaming authority issuing the license should be checking the testing of these games too, before said casino can add them to their platform.

Actually companies such as the ones in question should require a license, just like the gaming site in order to offer their games to be offered within the licensed gaming authorities jurisdiction.

Just common sense IMO.

It shouldn't be you get a gaming license, now I can add any game I want without any kind of testing, or responsibility from the authority whom has issued the gambling license.

Then if an operator, or software provider changes something, severe fines and penalties should be in place from the licensed jurisdiction.

Maybe naivety but I expected a reputable gaming commission would ensure these checks are mandatory. Here in Australia Aristocrat can't push out gaming machines to land based venues without each game first being scrutinized. It's a very tight checking process done on many levels.

If in online gaming the onus is on the licensee to conduct checking, it's a big eye opener for me.

Is this the general consensus and running operations among all interactive gaming commissions, or just this one?

 

[ThePOGG]

If in online gaming the onus is on the licensee to conduct checking, it's a big eye opener for me.

Is this the general consensus and running operations among all interactive gaming commissions, or just this one?

It's almost exclusively the online casino's responsibility to ensure their games are fair. That's what's lead to this entire mess - now that lots of casinos are starting to use a mish mash of different software providers, they're simply taking the software provider's word for it that the games are what they claim they are rather than testing them themselves. This isn't helped by licensing bodies allowing their seal to be used by the software providers but not enforcing the technical standards unless the game is being provided to a casino within their jurisdiction. That creates a false sense of security as the casino looking to buy a game (or more importantly the player looking to play a game) see the licensing seal and assumes that the software provider must be held to a certain standard.

 

[The Dude]

It's almost exclusively the online casino's responsibility to ensure their games are fair...

I think this whole episode has shown how most of us assume somebody is keeping things in order - and how there are holes in the system that can allow mistakes, oversights, and cheats to get through. It's alarming, that's for sure.

If it weren't for observant players, math heads, and keen analytical reasoning (that has been exemplified in this thread), most players would be walking blind. The upcoming ICE will be an informative one since these licensing jurisdictions, software providers, and casino representatives will all have a presence there. I'm looking forward to this since this issue has exposed a kink in the armor of the online gaming industry, and it needs to be fixed.

I've reinstated Betfred, Bet365, and NordicBet positions on the site. They've all done the right thing by removing the games and squaring away their players - I hope that these operators, and their brethren, will remain adamant on ensuring that the games they are presenting to their customers are fair and have been properly tested.

 

[me_and_ed]

My question is what repercussions/ sanctions/ penalties will Finsoft face? Is this enough to finish them off for good? There is no room in this industry for off coulour operators like this and I for one hope they get shuttered.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I've reinstated Betfred, Bet365, and NordicBet positions on the site. They've all done the right thing by removing the games and squaring away their players - I hope that these operators, and their brethren, will remain adamant on ensuring that the games they are presenting to their customers are fair and have been properly tested.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't both Betfred and Bet365 say they had no problem with the fundamental design of the games? i.e. They're cheating weighted card games.

Betfred's last post on the subject was this - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

To me, that says they just don't understand what's wrong here.

Yes they may have removed the games, but as Eliot said here - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

Just to clarify, you are saying that you intended to operate a game that gave the impression of being a fair selection of cards, when it was not. That is, it was your intention to violate the principle that virtual objects act the same as the physical objects they represent. You are saying that Spielo created a game where the virtual and physical objects acted differently, in viloation of UKGC and GRA guidelines.

You have now implicated Spielo in outright fraud, and said that you are complicit in it by not offering the right help file. That is, it appears you are saying that Betfred would have been satisfied offering these gaffed products, but for the wrong help file. In other words, Betfred is okay right now, today, with violating UKGC and GRA guidelines.

Once the trust is broken that physical and virtual objects should behave the same, Betfred has violated the essential foundation on which its business is built. The player will no doubt question every virtual object at Betfred, whether its cards, dice, a roulette wheel, etc. Surely you must realize the magnitude of this breach.

 

[katie91]

Just to keep you updated on my current situation with Betfred.

I haven't yet received my refund for Reel Deal (originally promised by last Tuesday but then extended by 7 working days). I've also had no confirmation regarding HiLo Gambler, which was removed last week and has been verified by other players here and also now by Nordic Bet to have the same problems as Reel Deal.

I would really appreciate it if Aaron from Betfred could provide an update to players affected by these games. I was hoping we would get another update about their investigation last week.

 

[thelawnet]

I've reinstated Betfred, Bet365, and NordicBet positions on the site. They've all done the right thing by removing the games and squaring away their players - I hope that these operators, and their brethren, will remain adamant on ensuring that the games they are presenting to their customers are fair and have been properly tested.

Lol what?

Betfred's statement in response to this issue

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

states that the issue is running separate free and real money games.

That wasn't the case at all, and their response/level of understanding/cluefulness falls well short of the mark.

They don't appear to understand, or acknowledge, that the games were rigged. This is worrying for an accredited casino.

 

[ThePOGG]

I've reinstated Betfred, Bet365, and NordicBet positions on the site. They've all done the right thing by removing the games and squaring away their players - I hope that these operators, and their brethren, will remain adamant on ensuring that the games they are presenting to their customers are fair and have been properly tested.

I think that in cases other than Nordic Bet that may be a bit premature.

Nordic Bet have done the right thing; tested the game, confirmed the issue and then proceeded to disassociate themselves completely from a provider that has been shown to be intentionally cheating.

In Bet 365's case - as things stand right now - they tested the game, but as they were running the non-rigged version the results came back clear for them. Win for Bet 365? Not quite, they're still working with a games supplier that has now been shown to be intentionally cheating.

Betfred are a totally different issue. So far they've denied that there are any issues what-so-ever with the game beyond having the wrong help file (irrelevant). Alongside this they actively tried to justify the problems with the game by openly stating that the game was programmed to cheat. And they've made no moves to distance themselves from a supplier that has now been shown to be intentionally cheating.

I realise that FinSoft are a big group, but their integrity has now been completely compromised. Players shouldn't now be asked to trust venues that continue to provide games from a supplier who has now in multiple instances - remember there's still a huge issue with the free games they provide as well - put out both rigged, misleading and unfair games that would never be acceptable in any well regulated offline jurisdiction and in fact breaches many online regulators licenses (even if the regulators involved do not appear to be willing to enforce those licenses).

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well said POGG.

I amazed, saddened, and alarmed - to see that Betfred and Bet365 are back on the accredited list.

It discredits the entire list IMO.

Nordic Bet are the only casino here who have done anything approaching the right thing, although even they are clearly guilty of terrible quality control for ever letting these cheating, fraudulent games onto their books in the first place.

 

[Jufo]

So the precedent is that if you are caught cheating and stealing, then it's ok if you simply apologize and give back what you stole? It doesn't work quite like that in the real world.

 

[ThePOGG]

Nordic Bet are the only casino here who have done anything approaching the right thing, although even they are clearly guilty of terrible quality control for ever letting these cheating, fraudulent games onto their books in the first place.

There are really two issues here, cheating and testing.

The cheating issue is fairly clear cut. It's been established where the rig came from and intent has been shown.

The second issue is far more difficult to pin down. Have any casino affected by the rigged version of these games tested them adequately? Obviously not. Does any casino at all test the games they buy in adequately? Other than a few that are directly run by the same group that runs the software provider and perhaps the few operating with EJ's CFG seal, i doubt any of them do. I would hope and press for this issue to be a wakeup call to the industry regarding what is a very poorly thought out standard practice that sells their customers short and jeopardises every casino's reputation, but to take any sort of punitive action against casinos that don't currently test the games they buy in properly would be to all intents and purposes a blanket penalty against the entire industry and as such ineffective.

 

[Mousey]

What worries me is this... who at the casinos is 'buying' these games? In the B&M world, the game must pass muster with the gaming authority, and it must also be 'purchased' by someone at the casino (group). I really think it's best if the casino has someone 'in the know' about casino games, the regulations (i.e.: card games must behave as if REAL cards are used, etc.), and be able to examine the workings of a game and tell if it's hinky or not.

Frankly, I would think almost anyone in the industry (and players) who looked at a hi/lo red/black game and saw a 96% payout percentage would instinctively know it was rigged.

 

[manuels58]

But to carry on in the same stupid theme, if the floormat people were getting a percentage of every car I sold, or if they were only getting a monthly licensing fee, why should I be the one holding the bag and paying all the burned people while they profited from their substandard product?

Not only that, but because my car company is a big name and nobody's heard of Toasty Tootsie Floormats, everybody now associates charred feet with my car company, and it's MY reputation that's going up in flames. Of course I'm also at fault for not running my own tests, but I'm pretty sure I could find at least 100 lawyers by tomorrow who would be willing to sue the floormat manufacturer on my behalf.

There you go, that's the point right now in the online casinos players/customers side.

And that's why it was implicit on my previous post that far now there's no formal proves of the "non-guilt" of anybody.

In fact, until this moment none the casinos/operators, nor the software providers/designers/transformers companies, involved/nominated in this thread has turned public any initiative conducive to duly clarify whose guilty was this after all.

The explanation of “human error” is always a good "exit" to this kind of situations (I know it by personal experience), because “to make mistakes is human”…
But in legal terms, we also know that "Not knowing the Law is not an excuse/defence in court".

Although I didn’t want to involve myself too much in this matter (and I won’t do it much more), I have to go a bit further:

• Why haven’t any of the casinos nominated in this thread declared that they will demand their suppliers to come down to the field (the market) and make a statement of guilty, even though alleging it was caused by human error?
• Why have Betfred made a statement (what the explanation posted here is in formal terms) accusing their supplier Finsoft and, simultaneously excusing that same supplier of any intentional behaviour?
• And why haven’t Finsoft, and also Real Games (why not) made any declaration, or statement about all this?
• On the presupposed of the innocence of the nominated casinos, why hasn’t any of them declared they won’t buy/acquire products from Finsoft anymore? Shouldn’t those casinos have lost their confidence in that supplier?

Eliot Jacobson made a few comments very illustrative and at the same time very disturbing about all this through this thread, such as the following (allow me to reproduce some Eliot’s parts of some of his posts):

1. “This problem is much larger than Betfred. It implicates some of the largest and most well-respected online casinos there are. There is a lot of work to be done here.” (sic, on 4th January);
2. “I've done what I am willing to do here. This is much bigger than Realistic Games. It involves multiple parties at many levels and is still in the discovery phase. Betfred has been almost entirely non-cooperative. Every other party has been entirely non-cooperative. At this point, there is a growing list of major online casinos that should be considered as potential rogues. None have come forward to address this issue. The one casino caught in the crosshairs (Betfred) has at best directly implicated itself in this fraud. There is a software company that is definitely rogue. There is a software distributor that may be rogue. There is a governmental regulatory agency that is claiming no reponsibility in its oversight obligations. And so on.” (sic, on 6th January)
3. (About a statement from Betfred: “Finally, during the deployment of the game to Betfred the wrong help file was associated with the game and reported the wrong RTP.”)… “You have now implicated Spielo in outright fraud, and said that you are complicit in it by not offering the right help file. That is, it appears you are saying that Betfred would have been satisfied offering these gaffed products, but for the wrong help file. In other words, Betfred is okay right now, today, with violating UKGC and GRA guidelines. Once the trust is broken that physical and virtual objects should behave the same, Betfred has violated the essential foundation on which its business is built. The player will no doubt question every virtual object at Betfred, whether its cards, dice, a roulette wheel, etc. Surely you must realize the magnitude of this breach.” (sic, on 7th January)

Final thought…
Besides removing the rigged games (something that not happening would be considered the perpetration of an illegal action) and indemnifying the players by reimbursement of deposits (this is another dubious matter…), the allegedly involved casinos seem to me not very worried to the consequences of this process; they all have been withdrawn from the Accredited list here at CM and none of them has then declared the intention of trying to come back.
And now that Bryan has included them back again on that list of accreditation... what will they have to be fear about now?

 

[DavidEC]

There are really two issues here, cheating and testing.

The cheating issue is fairly clear cut. It's been established where the rig came from and intent has been shown.

The second issue is far more difficult to pin down. Have any casino affected by the rigged version of these games tested them adequately? Obviously not. Does any casino at all test the games they buy in adequately? Other than a few that are directly run by the same group that runs the software provider and perhaps the few operating with EJ's CFG seal, i doubt any of them do. I would hope and press for this issue to be a wakeup call to the industry regarding what is a very poorly thought out standard practice that sells their customers short and jeopardises every casino's reputation, but to take any sort of punitive action against casinos that don't currently test the games they buy in properly would be to all intents and purposes a blanket penalty against the entire industry and as such ineffective.

A bit wary of joining in what is clearly a hot topic, but wanted to ask why would Betfred use a middleman (Finsoft) if they can buy direct from Realistic? Where is the added value?

I must admit, pretty appalled there isnt part of the regulatory framework that ensures comprehensive fairness checks are performed immediately upon launch and any update to the games files.

I have knitted sweaters with less holes than the framework "protecting" us :/

 

[The Dude]

My question is what repercussions/ sanctions/ penalties will Finsoft face? Is this enough to finish them off for good? There is no room in this industry for off coulour operators like this and I for one hope they get shuttered.

No idea. I couldn't speculate on this one.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't both Betfred and Bet365 say they had no problem with the fundamental design of the games? i.e. They're cheating weighted card games.

Betfred's last post on the subject was this - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

To me, that says they just don't understand what's wrong here.

Yes they may have removed the games, but as Eliot said here - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

From what I understand, it's an issue with the software- not some corrupt casino operator - and perhaps some of the operators did not fully understand what Eliot stated earlier (the basic fundamentals of the game), but from what I can tell these three operators have done what was to be expected.

All three casinos have stepped forward - removed the game, and stated that they were reimbursing the affected players. What more do you want? How is tar and feathering an operator for a skewed game an appropriate response? Especially when the operator admits that yes, the game was not acceptable - made amends, and has stated that players affected would be reimbursed.

To say that this discredits the Accred section is off target - in fact that's a pretty cheap shot. With that logic I might as well remove any casino that is licensed in Gibraltar, Malta, and the UKGC since these folks are to blame just as well. Pressure should be put on the licensing jurisdictions and operators to ensure there are no "holes" open that can accommodate a cheating game.

Most webmasters like myself recognize that this is/was a software issue - not an issue that has to do with the ethics of the casino operator, or their treatment of players. Looks like a number of you feel differently about this.

 

[ThePOGG]

All three casinos have stepped forward - removed the game, and stated that they were reimbursing the affected players. What more do you want?

......

Most webmasters like myself recognize that this is/was a software issue - not an issue that has to do with the ethics of the casino operator, or their treatment of players. Looks like a number of you feel differently about this.

I'd agree that this is a software issue and a software provider that have deliberately set games to cheat. But if i catch a checkout cashier lifting from the till i don't then put them back in charge of cash - i fire their ass. FinSoft/Spielo G2 have behaved unethically and intent has been shown so to say that it's fine for casinos just to remove the games we know are affected and we'll assume all their other games are ok seems a very odd POV. If they've been caught intentionally cheating, advising player that they can trust their other games seems illogical.

 

[Scooter7]

From what I understand, it's an issue with the software- not some corrupt casino operator - and perhaps some of the operators did not fully understand what Eliot stated earlier (the basic fundamentals of the game), but from what I can tell these three operators have done what was to be expected.

I think the section I highlighted above is indicative of a separate, yet similarly disturbing issue-many of the operators are marketing-driven and don't know why certain actions are unethical.

I once had a play money session on a casino's roulette game where I couldn't miss a bet on their roulette table. I instantly knew that it had to be gaffed for play money. The only thing I couldn't be 100% certain of was whether it was an unscrupulous operator or an ignorant marketer that was responsible
Either way, I knew that I didn't want to spend real money on their product.

In the absence of any kind of 'angry fist of god' type of punitive measures from regulator(s) with teeth, backbone, balls, etc., nothing significant will change.
How many people at the software and/or casino level are as knowledgeable and as open as Chris from Galewind (binary128)?
Based on Chris' posts and the way Galewind operates, they're either the gold-standard or the biggest con-job ever (I'm on the gold-standard side, of course)

 

[chayton]

[*] On the presupposed of the innocence of the nominated casinos, why hasn’t any of them declared they won’t buy/acquire products from Finsoft anymore? Shouldn’t those casinos have lost their confidence in that supplier?

NordicBet did pull ALL games by this supplier. Plus, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes - both BetFred and Bet365 may both have people rigorously testing all the games from that supplier as we speak and may not be all that interested in airing what may turn out to be extremely dirty laundry in public.

I don't know, of course - but I'd like to think that the management of those casino aren't trusting enough to think that this kind of tweaking only affected one or two games.

 

[sapit222]

NordicBet did pull ALL games by this supplier. Plus, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes - both BetFred and Bet365 may both have people rigorously testing all the games from that supplier as we speak and may not be all that interested in airing what may turn out to be extremely dirty laundry in public.

I don't know, of course - but I'd like to think that the management of those casino aren't trusting enough to think that this kind of tweaking only affected one or two games.

This tread troubles me...

If the casinos have tested/are testing the games (all games?), i hope they will make atleast some of the results either public (in here at CM or on their sites?) or give all the propper information to some1 every1 trust who will understand & make some (all?) of it known in here!

 

[binary128]

I'm posting because I have "inside data". By that I do not mean "hidden data", or "secret data", just "inside data".

So, some data. (If some of this is a repeat, then sue me.)

Galewind Software started working with Certified Fair Gambling (CFG, Eliot Jacobson) in February 2009. He performed extensive statistical analysis of our game results, and has continued to do so each month since April 2009.

We obtained an RNG Certificate from CFG in early 2009. We then obtained an RNG Certificate from iTech Labs in June 2010 and again in October 2011 (because of their international accreditations).

We obtained our AGCC Core Services Associate Certificate in June of 2012. Doing this involved 2 different companies:

1. The SQS Group (sqs.com). They performed the analysis/critique/confirmation of all of our games and all of the help files, as well as the analysis/critique/confirmation of our "Administration & Control" systems. In doing this they referred to, and relied on, our iTech Labs RNG Certificate, as well as the 3+ years of statistical game analysis from CFG. (In other words, SQS did not analyze our RNG, and SQS did not do a 1-million game sample analysis of each and every one of our games.)

2. The AGCC (gamblingcontrol.org). A representative/employee of the AGCC flew to one of our offices. They verified that we exist, that I and two of the other developers that work out of that office know our ass from a hole in the ground concerning software, hardware and programming. (The AGCC representative was very experienced in software, as with me going back to Fortran on punch cards for IBM mainframes.) They reviewed corporate tax returns and other corporate documents going back to 2007. They reviewed my personal tax records going back to 2007, as well as the personal tax records of the 3 other Galewind employees that were at this meeting. They also performed "background checks" on our 6 "principals". (One of them, to our never-ending amusement, came back with a false positive for a drug bust in Northern New England.)


So, our company's history of certifications started from the bottom up - RNG certification --> Statistical Game Certification --> Company Certification. In total 4 different companies were involved.


Completion of data. The rest is just speculation and opinion.


If we didn't start from the bottom up, then I do not know what the AGCC audit would have looked like. They may have first required that we obtain an RNG Certificate, then submit large samples (either in one whack or obtained over many months) of each game for statistical analysis (to CFG, or iTech, or TST, or somebody like that). Only then would the AGCC/SQS audit have taken place.


In our case, Pinnacle Sports is a "sole source Casino" - Galewind Software. If this situation happened with Pinnacle, I suspect:

1. Pinnacle would pay all affected players.

2. Pinnacle would then send us the bill.

3. Pinnacle would then call us on the carpet. (There are a lot of very smart people at Pinnacle.) If the problem arose because we screwed up, we might be fired, we might not. If the problem arose because we were something less than ethical, we would be fired, and I suspect that we would also be sued by Pinnacle.


I agree that the first point of responsibility lies with the Casino. If the Casino does not do the "right thing" regarding the Players, then the responsibility falls to the licensing authority, which it seems to me should have the authority to shut the Casino down, and in relatively short order. (In our case, whether the AGCC would cascade down to SQS I don't know, but perhaps that may be true. However, I do not believe that the AGCC can defer or delegate the "top level" responsibility.)

If the Casino does do the "right thing" regarding the Players, then I expect that the scenario I've mapped out above concerning Pinnacle and Galewind would play out. However, I can't imagine that it would cascade from us down to either CFG or iTech Labs. The buck stops at Galewind - we have the ultimate responsibility.


Over the years Galewind has considered then turned down several licensees. One of the "problems" is that with Galewind you don't just get the Casino, you also get the "Galewind Ethos". (So, whether the potential licensee turned us down, or we turned them down, is a point of debate. Either way, the "Galewind Ethos" was an impediment.)

We've also turned down several other licensees because we were, hmm, "disappointed" in the skills/abilities/experience of the people with whom we were assigned to work.

Interestingly, (ironically?) we've also turned down a few because we did not see ourselves as being "just another horse in the stable".

I can say that this kind of shit rocks me down to the soles of my shoes. We're a small company, and we're going to get "lumped in" to that group of companies that seems to be the frequent source of this kind of crap.

Chris

 

[thelawnet]

A bit wary of joining in what is clearly a hot topic, but wanted to ask why would Betfred use a middleman (Finsoft) if they can buy direct from Realistic? Where is the added value?

They can't buy these games from Realistic. Realistic's own platform consists of about a dozen slots and three table games, but not I think these games, which are only supplied through Finsoft.

These games are sold by Realistic to Finsoft who then market their own offering which consists of about 100 arcade-type games from multiple suppliers to the casinos.

Clearly it's more attractive to buy a platform containing games from four or five suppliers as Finsoft did,r ather than deal with all the individual companies separately.

 

[ThePOGG]

NordicBet did pull ALL games by this supplier. Plus, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes - both BetFred and Bet365 may both have people rigorously testing all the games from that supplier as we speak and may not be all that interested in airing what may turn out to be extremely dirty laundry in public.

I don't know, of course - but I'd like to think that the management of those casino aren't trusting enough to think that this kind of tweaking only affected one or two games.

The problem is that while testing is all fine and well and may turn up no further issues right now, this provider has already shown a willingness to release games onto the market that breach the basic tenants of fair electronic gambling and any update in the future can repeat the same process. The necessary requirement would be complete testing of all of their games on a regular bases from this point on. And that's assuming that the mentioned casinos are testing all FinSoft games now, which to my mind is stretching the bounds of possibility. If they are doing this then they should be laying it out in the open to show their customers who's faith has rightfully been shaken the lengths they are going to to repair the damage.

 

[thelawnet]

I'm posting because I have "inside data". By that I do not mean "hidden data", or "secret data", just "inside data".

We obtained our AGCC Core Services Associate Certificate in June of 2012. Doing this involved 2 different companies:
<rest snipped>

I have dealt with the AGCC and they did not follow their own documented procedures.

They are slightly better than Malta in terms of probity, but ultimately no player should confuse these 'regulators' for consumer protection bodies, they are not, and it is dangerous to assume that any given regulator will operate fairly.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

I am in no position to know the internal auditing that takes place at casinos like Betfred, Bet365, Nordic Bet and others. However, it seems clear that no internal auditing took place that compared actual RTPs to theoretical RTPs for these games. This is not a small problem. Third party auditing should be taking place that routinely checks casino games for biases and RTPs. These audits may not catch every issue, but at least they show a good faith effort by the casino.

I am not sure about the ongoing audits that eCogra and TST conduct for the clients who bear their seals. I hope their audits routinely check RTPs and conduct statistical tests. In visiting Betfred, Bet365 and Nordic Bet, I did not notice either of these seals or the seal of any other third-party auditing company. If their games are being audited by a third-party, the name of the auditing company should be publicly available.

My client list includes Galewind Software and Pinnacle Casino. Chris has is the most fierce advocate of game fairness I have had the pleasure to do business with. Unfortunately, I have also had clients who have asked me to audit games that I determined to be rogue during the audit. This has happened twice. In the first case, I was never paid. In the second case, the client asked for their deposit back for the audit after I refused to certify their software. In neither case was I able to disclose the client's name. But those companies that bear the CFG seal have routine deep audits. If I didn't trust their software, my seal wouldn't be there.

My opinion is that this case is still too early for conclusions to be reached about some of the named casinos. There is an ongoing investigation by the GRA and there is a news reporter who is investigating this issue and may publish an article soon. At the very least, these investigations should conclude before any reinstatement are made.

 

[binary128]

How many people at the software and/or casino level are as knowledgeable and as open as Chris from Galewind (binary128)? Based on Chris' posts and the way Galewind operates, they're either the gold-standard or the biggest con-job ever.

Agreed. (I swear to God, she said she was 18.)

(I'm on the gold-standard side, of course. )

Me too

Thanks Scooter7.

Chris

[Edited to add: Actually, I'm too old for that 18-year old crack. First of all, the experience would probably kill me. And secondly, 40-year olds look mighty good to me.]

 

[binary128]

I have dealt with the AGCC and they did not follow their own documented procedures.

They are slightly better than Malta in terms of probity, but ultimately no player should confuse these 'regulators' for consumer protection bodies, they are not, and it is dangerous to assume that any given regulator will operate fairly.

I have provided what data I have. I have no other personal data/experience with which to address your statements.

As I said (somewhere), the Full Tilt Poker fiasco is etched into the tablets of history. As I also said (somewhere), Pinnacle/Galewind has never had a complaint escalate beyond Pinnacle's Customer Service (assisted by Galewind and CFG).

You may be right. My personal experience allows me to speculate that you are wrong, but I put up front that this is speculation.

Chris

 

[Scooter7]

Agreed. (I swear to God, she said she was 18.)



Me too

Thanks Scooter7.

Chris

[Edited to add: Actually, I'm too old for that 18-year old crack. First of all, the experience would probably kill me. And secondly, 40-year olds look mighty good to me.]

I'm not old enough for an 18 year-old...still need to get married and divorced before I can get the sports car and the young girlfriend

I've been in a position where I was the moral compass of a casino in an emerging market. I regularly had to defend against business types that asked for things that, on the surface, may have seemed reasonable, but from a casino point of view were flat-out wrong. Short-term profits can't be maximized by using long-term techniques in the casino world, so you're obviously (to me) in it for the long haul with your callous disregard for a quick buck.

 

[manuels58]

NordicBet did pull ALL games by this supplier. Plus, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes - both BetFred and Bet365 may both have people rigorously testing all the games from that supplier as we speak and may not be all that interested in airing what may turn out to be extremely dirty laundry in public.

I don't know, of course - but I'd like to think that the management of those casino aren't trusting enough to think that this kind of tweaking only affected one or two games.

Removing the games that have been supplied by Finsoft is not a measure that assures the players fairness in the coming future.

Please note that the declaration from Nordicbet was:

Hello everyone,

I'm sorry for the delay. We have now completed our internal investigation and just as already concluded by many others - it was obvious that the game was not acting as it should have. We have reimbursed all losses on HiLo Gambler to all players since we launched the game, on all of our brands.

As I mentioned earlier we have of course removed HiLo Gambler. We have also taken the decision to remove all other games supplied by Finsoft. Those games should be removed early next week.

Rob

So, the correct business decision and the one that would give confidence to the players should have stated something like: "until the not intentional intervention and behaviour of Finsoft is proven, we (Nordicbet, in this case) will not acquire, nor will offer/make available any game from that supplier in our casino".
This kind of statement would be not only correct in a trading way, but also would clearly demonstrate the position of the aforementioned casino in what regards the non-participation in any part of the process, between the conception/design of the games and making them available to the public/players.
Of course this applies to all the involved casino operators.

This is what my experience taught me anyway and maybe I'm now being just too sceptical about all this.
But one thing I know, in a very competitive business as this online gambling industry seems to be, I'm feeling not very comfortable for the "lightness" of the declarations.

Sorry, but we are talking here about possible frauds and, if these will be proved, we will be talking about the consequent illegalities.

 

[manuels58]

I think that in cases other than Nordic Bet that may be a bit premature.

Nordic Bet have done the right thing; tested the game, confirmed the issue and then proceeded to disassociate themselves completely from a provider that has been shown to be intentionally cheating.

Maybe I've been a little distracted (the thread is constructively long and I might have skipped some pages), but could you please let me know where you saw that written, or from what statement, or declaration have you inferred that?

 

[manuels58]

Well said POGG.

I amazed, saddened, and alarmed - to see that Betfred and Bet365 are back on the accredited list.

It discredits the entire list IMO.

Nordic Bet are the only casino here who have done anything approaching the right thing, although even they are clearly guilty of terrible quality control for ever letting these cheating, fraudulent games onto their books in the first place.

I agree with that part

 

[ThePOGG]

You quoted it in your last message. I appreciate that the wording may not be strong enough for you, but it is for me. If i was to find that NB were again using FinSoft in the future then i would revoke that support, but for as long they do not offer any games from this provider i consider them to have taken the right action

 

[manuels58]

So the precedent is that if you are caught cheating and stealing, then it's ok if you simply apologize and give back what you stole? It doesn't work quite like that in the real world.

I couldn't say it better