Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[ThePOGG]

That's what i'm just trying to work out - BetVictor certainly offer Realistic slots games.

Edit - i've just done a few site: searches in google for matching url fragments at BetVictor from the backends that thelawnet just provided with no hits. I can't say that's conclusive, but it would seem to me to indicate that they're not using Finsoft.

 

[thelawnet]

Notable by their abscense are Nordic Bet and BetVictor - is it the case that these venues are getting their games directly from Realistic rather than through Finsoft?

out of curiosity, he mentioned betvictor; was that a client?

I am not quite sure of the relevance of betvictor here.

From what I can see Realistic Games have a core product, ReGal.

This is in use e.g. at Stan James

Outdated URL (Invalid)

It does not include the cheating hi-lo games in the OP.

From what I can see the cheating hi-lo games are only provided through the Finsoft platform.

With respect to betvictor, the game Triple Chance Hi-Lo was mentioned earlier as a cheating game at Nordic Bet in free play mode.

I checked this game at betvictor, and whereas at Nordic the free play request looks like this:

<funplayrequests signature="e19de98168da8fca659a8c5d3fd744a102b1d5e16aa528d02c9e636f25c7970f" site="NordicBet" mode="FUN" game="TRIPLECHANCEHILO"><funplayrequest id="0" excludenumbers="9,3,11" allowduplicates="true" count="3" rangehigh="13" rangelow="1" method="generaterandomnumbers" /></funplayrequests>

At betvictor the freeplay request is like this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE GameRequest SYSTEM "http://www.orbisuk.com/igf/dtd/GameRequest.dtd"><GameRequest><Header><GameId id="108" free_play="Yes" channel="I" /><Customer cookie="" is_guest="Yes" balance="999.95" /></Header><Play stake="0.05" sequence_no=""><HiLo action="High" action_index="0"><HiLoState game_state="8|8|8" game_status="B" bonuses_left="3" current_winnings="0.00" current_play="0" consecutive_wins="0" /></HiLo></Play></GameRequest>

As you can see betvictor are using the original Orbis game, whereas Nordic are using the reworked finsoft version.

So there isn't a case for betvictor to answer here as they are not using the cheating finsoft platform, although it would certainly be advisable to investigate the probity of the Realistic Games that they do offer.

Nordicbet OTOH use Finsoft - cheating - which I believe they have now pulled.

Incidentally I think it would be advisable for software providers to maintain a greater degree of oversight of the integrity of their games. In this case the integrity of Openbet games has been compromised by them providing the games to Finsoft. This would have been avoided if they had maintained the games on their own systems rather than allowing a third party to modify the logic of the game.

 

[ThePOGG]

I am not quite sure of the relevance of betvictor here.

The relevance was that we were trying to establish whether BetVictor were using the FinSoft platform or whether they'd aquired Realistic games through some other medium - something that you've successfully answered

 

[Betfred]

Hi all,

Apologies for the delay, but the analysis of significant amounts of data and liaising with multiple suppliers takes time. We have moved as quick as possible without jeopardising the accuracy of the results, which you will find below.

1. Realistic Games provided the assets and rights to the Reel Deal game but SPIELO G2 developed the game for their operators and in doing so changed a number of core features. As such, it is not right to identify Realistic Games as responsible for how the game performs.
2. On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.
3. The development of the game in this way resulted in SPELO G2 inadvertently running the fun version of the game on a fixed odds model and not a fixed price, and therefore it ran at a different RTP.
4. Finally, during the deployment of the game to Betfred the wrong help file was associated with the game and reported the wrong RTP.

Our initial offer of compensation in regard to the help file was made. However, having reviewed the analysis from SPEILO G2 and our own, we accept that Betfred Games has been running two versions of the same game for free and money play respectively and that is simply not acceptable. Based on that we will be refunding all losses on the game from when the game was introduced to Betfred, and will be removing other Realistic Games provided by SPIELO G2 to complete a review of their configuration, help files and RTP and until we’re confident in their accuracy. Compensation payments will be issued within 7 working days.

We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to our players and to thank the OP and the Casinomeister forum as a whole for bringing this to our attention. The integrity of our games and operation is of paramount importance to Betfred and value any feedback that strengthens or corrects our operation.

Finally, our logs and cooperation will remain open to authorised parties to further any part of this investigation.

Kind regards,

Aaron

 

[Mousey]

Hi all,

Apologies for the delay, but the analysis of significant amounts of data and liaising with multiple suppliers takes time. We have moved as quick as possible without jeopardising the accuracy of the results, which you will find below.

1. Realistic Games provided the assets and rights to the Reel Deal game but SPIELO G2 developed the game for their operators and in doing so changed a number of core features. As such, it is not right to identify Realistic Games as responsible for how the game performs.
2. On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.
3. The development of the game in this way resulted in SPELO G2 inadvertently running the fun version of the game on a fixed odds model and not a fixed price, and therefore it ran at a different RTP.
4. Finally, during the deployment of the game to Betfred the wrong help file was associated with the game and reported the wrong RTP.

Our initial offer of compensation in regard to the help file was made. However, having reviewed the analysis from SPEILO G2 and our own, we accept that Betfred Games has been running two versions of the same game for free and money play respectively and that is simply not acceptable. Based on that we will be refunding all losses on the game from when the game was introduced to Betfred, and will be removing other Realistic Games provided by SPIELO G2 to complete a review of their configuration, help files and RTP and until we’re confident in their accuracy. Compensation payments will be issued within 7 working days.

We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to our players and to thank the OP and the Casinomeister forum as a whole for bringing this to our attention. The integrity of our games and operation is of paramount importance to Betfred and value any feedback that strengthens or corrects our operation.

Finally, our logs and cooperation will remain open to authorised parties to further any part of this investigation.

Kind regards,

Aaron

Thank you for posting and offering some clarifications as to who is responsible for the gaffed game(s). However, I must repeat .... it's not about the Help file.

 

[thelawnet]

I am not quite clear what you mean by fixed odds and fixed price, and am disturbed by your explanation. There should only be ONE mechanism whereby the return to player is adjusted, and that is by adjusting the odds offered. E.g., a game with a 1/2 chance of winning paying out 2 would have a RTP of 100%. By adjusting the odds to 1.95 you would reduce the RTP to 97.5%.

Obviously the player can see that and make a decision to play accordingly.

Since there is only one way of fairly adjusting the game, your explanation:

On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.
The development of the game in this way resulted in SPELO G2 inadvertently running the fun version of the game on a fixed odds model and not a fixed price, and therefore it ran at a different RTP.

is disturbing.

Randomness is not 'introduced' to a game, this is a alarming turn of phrase - randomness should be inherent in any game. The result of this of course is that any player - and casino - has the chance to win or lose. Of course if the odds are not generous then the player in the long run will certainly lose, but the whole of online gaming is predicated on the concept that players can win, and this from the outset is based on randomness.

I watched a bunch of billionaires and professional poker players playing for $10 million a piece recently. Clearly the billionaires were unlikely to win, because they had less skill than their opponents. Equally when we play at an online casino we know that the casino is more likely to win than we do.

However when people discover that there is something more going on than that, that the cards were sorted to ensure the pros won, that the casino game is not inherently random, that's when people get very angry.

It seems to me that you don't get this AT ALL, because you describe how an RTP 'was introduced' at 96%, but this can only be done by stacking the deck - so the game is DESIGNED with a cheating mechanism by the developers.

There simply cannot be two ways to adjust the RTP on these games.

There is ONE way - and that is by adjusting the odds.

Your 'fixed price' in more normal parlance is simply 'fixed', 'rigged', 'cheating'.

For a simple fixed odds game like this you adjust the payout if you want to make more money - simple. For blackjack you can change the rules, hit soft 21, more decks, no hole card - but for these arcade-type games changing the odds is the only way to do it, and help files are not the issue. If you can't afford an even money 100% RTP game - simple - don't pretend you offer one; you know very well that offering a payout of 2 on a 50/50 bet is much more attractive than a payout of 1.92 or whatever, so it's entirely unreasonable to induce players to play with apparently attractive odds on a 50/50 bet. I certainly wouldn't take 1.92 on a 50/50 bet.

And by the way issue is not specifically with Realistic Games but with the Finsoft (or Spielo G2 as you are calling them, but that is less specific as they are a larger firm) platform.

Other games, developed by Dynamite Idea and Orbis/Openbet are cheating in free play mode through the Finsoft platform.

In free play mode these games are designed by Finsoft to operate a much higher return, even a player advantage, than in real play mode.

Clearly it is unacceptable that these games are designed to demonstrate a higher-than-actual chance of winning, yet you are still offering them on your site with no offer of compensation.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

1. Finally, during the deployment of the game to Betfred the wrong help file was associated with the game and reported the wrong RTP.

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.

 

[ThePOGG]

Hi all,

Apologies for the delay, but the analysis of significant amounts of data and liaising with multiple suppliers takes time. We have moved as quick as possible without jeopardising the accuracy of the results, which you will find below.

1. Realistic Games provided the assets and rights to the Reel Deal game but SPIELO G2 developed the game for their operators and in doing so changed a number of core features. As such, it is not right to identify Realistic Games as responsible for how the game performs.
2. On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.
3. The development of the game in this way resulted in SPELO G2 inadvertently running the fun version of the game on a fixed odds model and not a fixed price, and therefore it ran at a different RTP.
4. Finally, during the deployment of the game to Betfred the wrong help file was associated with the game and reported the wrong RTP.

Our initial offer of compensation in regard to the help file was made. However, having reviewed the analysis from SPEILO G2 and our own, we accept that Betfred Games has been running two versions of the same game for free and money play respectively and that is simply not acceptable. Based on that we will be refunding all losses on the game from when the game was introduced to Betfred, and will be removing other Realistic Games provided by SPIELO G2 to complete a review of their configuration, help files and RTP and until we’re confident in their accuracy. Compensation payments will be issued within 7 working days.

We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to our players and to thank the OP and the Casinomeister forum as a whole for bringing this to our attention. The integrity of our games and operation is of paramount importance to Betfred and value any feedback that strengthens or corrects our operation.

Finally, our logs and cooperation will remain open to authorised parties to further any part of this investigation.

Kind regards,

Aaron

Hi Aaron,

thelawnet is absolutely correct regarding the real issues here. As the game in question used a standard device (a deck of cards) to adjust the true odds of the game away from the natural odds (i.e. to change the likelihood of drawing any card away from 1 in 52) is flat out cheating. In no regulated offline jurisdiction would a game like this be allowed on the casino floor.

And none of that answers any of the questions regarding the free play games that are offering a higher RTP than their real play equivalents, a practice that's long been considered the realm of rogue operators. At this stage FinSoft's reputation is damaged beyond repair.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

And none of that answers any of the questions regarding the free play games that are offering a higher RTP than their real play equivalents, a practice that's long been considered the realm of rogue operators. At this stage FinSoft's reputation is damaged beyond repair.

Not just FinSoft IMO, the response from Betfred basically appears to be saying that cheating card games are OK as long as you attach a help file with the correct RTP to it.

 

[deucebag]

Spielo G2, who are apparently responsible for rigging this game, are probably much more known under their former name, Boss Media.

The fact that they would rig a game like this makes all their games suspect.

 

[thelawnet]

Surely you must realize the magnitude of this breach.

I'm not sure that they do.

Time and again I see that casinos simply don't understand the basic principles of gambling. Not small companies either; sometimes these are the more competent ones, because they have set the business up from scratch - it's the large ones where perhaps some corporate type is in charge, running it like they would any other business, but without a basic understanding of the principles involved.

The result of this lack of expertise is instances like this one, but also others e.g. where companies refuse to pay out on bonus promotions that they failed to understand the implications of in advance.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

The result of this lack of expertise is instances like this one, but also others e.g. where companies refuse to pay out on bonus promotions that they failed to understand the implications of in advance.

What like this one you mean?

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ccount-suspended-pending-investigation.52180/

Yeah I know they managed not give the Jag away in the end, but that's a prime example of a casino having no understanding whatsoever of a promotion they kicked out of the door.

 

[incrediblestuff]

Not just FinSoft IMO, the response from Betfred basically appears to be saying that cheating card games are OK as long as you attach a help file with the correct RTP to it.

It was a bit of a shocker to read this whole thread...

Things like this are what made me sign up here, keeping track of everything is very important.
My 2 cents on the matter... i am pleased Nordic has pulled or is pulling the games, since i just started to promote them...
I assumed from the start, that they were not involved in some scheme.. i suppose the main benefactor of rigged games would in this case be Finsoft, since as i understood it they make a percentage off the games profit per client.
I do agree with most that Casinos should up their games testing and certifications.. but that is a long going issue...
I always say good casinos have nothing to gain with rigging to gain minimal percentages, seeing that they will never amount to the losses a potential breach of trust inevitably would make, as these things luckily almost always come to light.
I am speaking only for Nordic since this is a Casino i personally have dealt with and represent as affiliate for those very reasons.
That said, i also assume this goes for the other Casinos involved.

Now to the reason i just quoted Chopley: cheating games is never good.
But i think there is a difference between cheating, and fixed odds, weighted and arcades style games: these would only be cheating if indeed they were represented as random games.
So the "tag" or maybe even help file, or just the section in the Casino in which they are found, do definitely make an impact, and as such may change the whole meaning of some implications, which are easily mistaken for facts.

I myself always get a dent in my lust for gaming when i see threads like this, since as soon as i read the word cheat, even my favorite Casinos, ones i totally trust, suddenly seem less trustworthy.
That's how big of an impact that has.. now i'm still waiting till there is more absolute evidence this was not purely instigated by Finsoft, for their own profit.

Again, i refer to what i said above. a good signpost and time for ALL Casinos to re-check and triple-check their stamps and certifications, especially those Casinos that use several software-providers.

 

[Scooter7]

I'm not sure that they do.

Time and again I see that casinos simply don't understand the basic principles of gambling. Not small companies either; sometimes these are the more competent ones, because they have set the business up from scratch - it's the large ones where perhaps some corporate type is in charge, running it like they would any other business, but without a basic understanding of the principles involved.

The result of this lack of expertise is instances like this one, but also others e.g. where companies refuse to pay out on bonus promotions that they failed to understand the implications of in advance.

I think many people are failing to realize that these online entities are (for the most part) not run by casino gaming experts, but rather by marketing people.
They aren't at all likely to intentionally defraud players or do things that are strictly off-limits in a casino. They just don't understand when things that are acceptable for selling merchandise aren't sufficient when dealing with casino games.

These marketing-slanted show-runners are very likely, however, to be clueless and to bollocks things up even further when they make an attempt at damage control after a 'boo-boo'.
I've always maintained that casinos need to be as diligent as banks (are supposed to be) when dealing with their customers because, while they're selling entertainment as their main 'product', they're also selling trust in how they will protect the money (both their own and the players').

The statements from Betfred indicate a clear lack of understanding with regards to casino game presentation and damage control.

I'm not singling out Betfred here. Everyone who had a hand in signing off on the way this game works and was implemented is in the same boat.

 

[katie91]

Aaron, I just wanted to check that you are aware that my original complaint was about 2 games (Hi Lo Gambler and Reel Deal). Other posters have verified that HiLo Gambler behaves in the same way as Reel Deal with respect to Free / Real modes. As you have stated this is not acceptable to Betfred I assume that you will be investigating and will be providing refunds in the same way if this is proved to be the case?

I understand that this thread has been moving quickly but I am worried that this has been lost as you have only mentioned Reel Deal so far in your investigations.

 

[ThePOGG]

Not just FinSoft IMO, the response from Betfred basically appears to be saying that cheating card games are OK as long as you attach a help file with the correct RTP to it.

I've got to agree with you on this. This is quickly spiralling into a case of gross incompetence - the very foundation principals of all electronic gaming are being flouted here and yet basic issues are being ignored. This isn't going to go away with discussion of Help files - that issue became redundant long before this. Knowingly offering a game where the electronic device does not mimic the real device is - without sugaring the medicine - cheating.

 

[ThePOGG]

Spielo G2, who are apparently responsible for rigging this game, are probably much more known under their former name, Boss Media.

The fact that they would rig a game like this makes all their games suspect.

Thank you for that - i knew i was familiar with the G2 brand.

 

[thelawnet]

Gtech who own G2 are huge. Multibillion dollar company. Now owned by Lottomatica.

 

[Jufo]

There has been a few times in the past when I have questioned the fairness of one or more games provided by the bigger, well-known operators (the last incident I had was with William Hill) and every time these operators replied to me along the lines of: "Do you really think we would risk our brand and reputation by cheating players in our games? As a big brand we would never go to such a low level." I always thought that there is a validity to this - that the bigger operators have so much to lose with their reputation that it's very unlikely to find a rigged game anywhere on their platform.

But reading Betfred's disturbing replies, it seems that they don't consider manipulating odds in a deceptive way as cheating per se and they don't consider this whole issue to be more than a minor mistake of a wrong help-file being attached. Therefore I don't think that I am going to buy the "We wouldn't cheat you as we would be risking so much" explanation anymore.
Obviously even the biggest operators don't care all that much whether the games they run are fair - apparently they consider the risk to their reputation negligible. This means that even the name of a well-known, big operator gives no assurance to player that it's safe to play there.

I can only hope that as a result of this thread there will be some consequences to the operators involved, so that every other operator reading this will see that incorporating compromised games really can have harmful consequences to their operation.

 

[The Dude]

Finsoft (Gtech G2/Spielo G2) have been proven direct responsibility for cheating. Realistic Games have not.

Thanks! Fixed.

And Bet365 has contacted me stating that they have addressed this internally and will be responding as soon as possible.

 

[Balthazar]

I wish the guilty casinos (all of them) would address the fact that the game was rigged regardless of the RTP stated in the help file and regardless of the different RTP in fun mode.

All I see in this thread is a casino that is ok with a rigged card game.

 

[ThePOGG]

Thanks! Fixed.

And Bet365 has contacted me stating that they have addressed this internally and will be responding as soon as possible.

I should have stated earlier that i've also been contacted by Stan James who are following this thread, have pulled the Hi/Lo game and are investigating.

Alongside this i've emailed the UKGC directly for comment. Given the response they've provide so far, the value of their seal on any online gambling operation is in real question at this stage.

 

[TheLastCylon]

There has been a few times in the past when I have questioned the fairness of one or more games provided by the bigger, well-known operators (the last incident I had was with William Hill) and every time these operators replied to me along the lines of: "Do you really think we would risk our brand and reputation by cheating players in our games? As a big brand we would never go to such a low level." I always thought that there is a validity to this - that the bigger operators have so much to lose with their reputation that it's very unlikely to find a rigged game anywhere on their platform.

But reading Betfred's disturbing replies, it seems that they don't consider manipulating odds in a deceptive way as cheating per se and they don't consider this whole issue to be more than a minor mistake of a wrong help-file being attached. Therefore I don't think that I am going to buy the "We wouldn't cheat you as we would be risking so much" explanation anymore.
Obviously even the biggest operators don't care all that much whether the games they run are fair - apparently they consider the risk to their reputation negligible. This means that even the name of a well-known, big operator gives no assurance to player that it's safe to play there.

I can only hope that as a result of this thread there will be some consequences to the operators involved, so that every other operator reading this will see that incorporating compromised games really can have harmful consequences to their operation.

Hit the nail on the head. I felt the same way. It made no sense to be crooked when a casino is essentially a money machine. Turn it on. Leave. Earn money.

I think the issue is that a casino can earn a bucket with a T-RTP of 98%. But if they lie and actually set the T-RTP to 96%, few people will notice, and they have doubled their profits. They are now earning two buckets.

I can only assume that this is so tempting, many more casinos than we likely wish to think are doing precisely that: rigging games. As such, if the promise of risk-free income isn't enough to stop casinos from crossing over to the dark side, consequences like this likely won't change many minds.

 

[mattsgame]

The HiLo Gambler game is still on the site? or was this only Real Deal?

I see this is finally not on the site anymore.

Spielo G2, who are apparently responsible for rigging this game, are probably much more known under their former name, Boss Media.

The fact that they would rig a game like this makes all their games suspect.

I was about to mention this, don't these guys run a lot of poker software etc?

 

[incrediblestuff]

I see this is finally not on the site anymore.



I was about to mention this, don't these guys run a lot of poker software etc?

A big chunk of todays market yes

 

[Przecinek]

Spielo G2, who are apparently responsible for rigging this game, are probably much more known under their former name, Boss Media.

The fact that they would rig a game like this makes all their games suspect.

Yes. Big names like Bwin and Casino Club used to use Boss Media/Spielo G2 Games software. I'm pretty sure their blackjack and roulette games were also running on "Fixed price" versions as BetFred had put it... I remember betting 2€ per BJ hand and loosing 300-400€ at CasinoClub... that was in 2008 and back then I just assumed it was bad luck. Now I know I was playing a "Fixed price" blackjack with 96% RPT or so... nothing out of ordinary according to BetFred.

 

[P.V.]

Hi all,

Apologies for the delay, but the analysis of significant amounts of data and liaising with multiple suppliers takes time. We have moved as quick as possible without jeopardising the accuracy of the results, which you will find below.

1. Realistic Games provided the assets and rights to the Reel Deal game but SPIELO G2 developed the game for their operators and in doing so changed a number of core features. As such, it is not right to identify Realistic Games as responsible for how the game performs.
   [*]On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.
2. The development of the game in this way resulted in SPELO G2 inadvertently running the fun version of the game on a fixed odds model and not a fixed price, and therefore it ran at a different RTP.
3. Finally, during the deployment of the game to Betfred the wrong help file was associated with the game and reported the wrong RTP.

Our initial offer of compensation in regard to the help file was made. However, having reviewed the analysis from SPEILO G2 and our own, we accept that Betfred Games has been running two versions of the same game for free and money play respectively and that is simply not acceptable. Based on that we will be refunding all losses on the game from when the game was introduced to Betfred, and will be removing other Realistic Games provided by SPIELO G2 to complete a review of their configuration, help files and RTP and until we’re confident in their accuracy. Compensation payments will be issued within 7 working days.

We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to our players and to thank the OP and the Casinomeister forum as a whole for bringing this to our attention. The integrity of our games and operation is of paramount importance to Betfred and value any feedback that strengthens or corrects our operation.

Finally, our logs and cooperation will remain open to authorised parties to further any part of this investigation.

Kind regards,

Aaron

Providing the certification would be helpful, please share from TST and GLI.

 

[ThePOGG]

Yes. Big names like Bwin and Casino Club used to use Boss Media/Spielo G2 Games software. I'm pretty sure their blackjack and roulette games were also running on "Fixed price" versions as BetFred had put it... I remember betting 2€ per BJ hand and loosing 300-400€ at CasinoClub... that was in 2008 and back then I just assumed it was bad luck. Now I know I was playing a "Fixed price" blackjack with 96% RPT or so... nothing out of ordinary according to BetFred.

At the moment the only venues i'm aware of that still use Boss Media software are

casino.net
sunsetcasino.com
heavencasino.com
casinoclub.com
casino-for-me.com (?)

BWin certainly used to use Boss for their download casino, but having just checked sometime in the last 18 months they must have shifted over to the standard Party Gaming platform.

 

[deucebag]

At the moment the only venues i'm aware of that still use Boss Media software are

casino.net
sunsetcasino.com
heavencasino.com
casinoclub.com
casino-for-me.com (?)

Casinocity lists 118 sites with Spielo G2 software. Most of these do not use their download client, but have individual games from Spielo G2.

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

 

[Pauline_BV]

Hey All,

Quick introduction i run the affiliate program over at Betvictor, its my first post on the forum but ive been an avid reader for some time now. Wish my first post could have been regarding something more pleasant!

As stated earlier in the thread it does appear to be only games used through Finsoft that have the issue. I would therefore like to make it clear that Betvictor does not take the Realistic games through the intermediary Finsoft but directly from Realistic themselves. We do not have a relationship with Finsoft.

Cheers

Pauline
Betvictor

 

[quber]

Providing the certification would be helpful, please share from TST and GLI.

Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.

All the BetFred statement says is that the RNG was certified, it doesn't mean that the way the results from the RNG were being used by the game were fair

 

[Slotster!]

I never enjoy reading things like this.

See, the thing is, when you play slots - you kind of accept in advance that you're there to get your shirt taken from your back, your pants trousers and shoes pawned and the rest of your worldly possessions openly handed over to the casino. It's the deal. Then, on the odd occasion, you might just hit something nice and at least have a bit of fun along the way.

The relationship between the casino customer and casino management is critical; the customer should understand what a house edge is and as a consequence should be aware they are more often than not there to lose money. That's the way it works and that's what makes gambling fun.

What we're apparently experiencing here however firmly falls into 'not fair' and, in my opinion, wholly unacceptable.

It's not 'fair' gambling (if there's such a thing!?) when you enter into a game with one expectation and the game (unfairly) delivers an entirely different result.

I'm glad that the right questions are being asked of the respective operators in relation to this, which will hopefully only further serve to ensure clarity and relative 'fairness' across the board; at the very least it reminds casino operators that people are watching.

It helps sometimes that I don't have the software understanding or technical knowledge to work out how this is achieved; it's plain and simple promising one overall return and then delivering another.

And that's cheating.

 

[Mousey]

Aaron, I just wanted to check that you are aware that my original complaint was about 2 games (Hi Lo Gambler and Reel Deal). Other posters have verified that HiLo Gambler behaves in the same way as Reel Deal with respect to Free / Real modes. As you have stated this is not acceptable to Betfred I assume that you will be investigating and will be providing refunds in the same way if this is proved to be the case?

I understand that this thread has been moving quickly but I am worried that this has been lost as you have only mentioned Reel Deal so far in your investigations.

Noting the OPs post... are all Spielo G2 games being removed from casinos, or only one or two games?

 

[mattsgame]

Hey All,

Quick introduction i run the affiliate program over at Betvictor, its my first post on the forum but ive been an avid reader for some time now. Wish my first post could have been regarding something more pleasant!

As stated earlier in the thread it does appear to be only games used through Finsoft that have the issue. I would therefore like to make it clear that Betvictor does not take the Realistic games through the intermediary Finsoft but directly from Realistic themselves. We do not have a relationship with Finsoft.

Cheers

Pauline
Betvictor

I have read most of the thread, but has anyone tested the games that are not through the 3rd party Finsoft? this might be a chance to at Betvictor?

Its great to see a thread like this, if Katie had not come forward and then the likes of Eliot, thelawnet and the whole cm community taking time to suss out things, I wonder how long something like this would carry on for.

We have a saying here in Aus usually reserved for use in political circles but I think its befitting for this thread and CM "Keeping the bastards honest" Keep up the good work people!!

 

[ThePOGG]

Ok, i've emailed a formal request for a public statement regarding the finding in this thread that concern both the un-natural behaviour of their real play card games and the issues with free play games returning at a higher rate that their real play equivalents to FinSoft, Spielo G2 and BossCasino.com (found via WhoIs checks on the first two sites). All emails used have been generic as they don't provide contact addresses on their sites, but so far i've not had any bounce back.

I've set a deadline for this statement of the end of Thursday the 10th of January as that will be 2 weeks after this issue was first brought to light.

Shortly after that i intend to publish a write-up on everything that's happened surrounding this issue, although this may be broken up into several articles covering different specific topics including looking at the way the regulatory authorities have handled (or not) this issue. Assuming no major new evidence comes to light between now and then (which may not be a sound assumption given the pace this situation has developed) the likely result will be the Blacklisting FinSoft/Spielo G2.

 

[maphesto]

Its great to see a thread like this, if Katie had not come forward and then the likes of Eliot, thelawnet and the whole cm community taking time to suss out things, I wonder how long something like this would carry on for.

Agree! Yet, only 9 members have thanked OP:s first post.

 

[The Dude]

UK Gambling Commission's response

Here is the UKGC's response to this issue:

...Firstly, and importantly for gambling software technical standards and testing requirements, we should differentiate between those operators that provide facilities for gambling directly to consumers (i.e. operate a website which takes deposits, verifies the age and identity of customers, accepts bets, pays out winnings, handles complaints etc) and those that provide services such as games to these customer facing operators.

Under the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act) online gambling is currently regulated on a point of supply basis. This means that a gambling company only requires an operating licence if they have certain key equipment located in Great Britain (for example the RNG, servers that store gambling transaction records, settle bets). See section 36(4) of the Act and the Commission’s advice note on remote gambling equipment.

In the case of gambling software developers, as stated in our email of 4 January, a licence is required if any of the licensable activities (manufacture, supply, install, adapt) take place in Britain. It would be an offence to carry out any of those activities without a licence. In the first instance a licence is required to be held in order to avoid an offence being committed.

As you may be aware, much of the online gambling by British citizens is carried out with operators licensed overseas. In fact, the Commission estimates that over 80% of British online gambling activity takes place outside Britain and is therefore not subject to the Act or the licence conditions and codes of practice attached to a Commission operating licence. This can result in confusion amongst consumers as websites can be operated in different jurisdictions and be subject to different requirements such as technical standards, complaints procedures and other matters.

On 3 December 2012 the government published draft legislation which is intended to amend the Act. The proposed new law would mean that remote gambling by consumers living in Britain is regulated on a point of consumption basis. Consequently, all operators selling into the British market, whether based here or abroad, would be required to hold a Commission licence to enable them to transact with British consumers and to advertise in Great Britain. Further information is available at

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

. One of the effects of the new law would be that because all online casinos transacting with British consumers would require a Commission licence, all games played by British consumers would, for the first time, have to comply with the Commission’s technical standards. As at present testing could be carried out by either the operator contracting with the customer or the gambling software licence holder. However, ultimate responsibility for ensuring a game was satisfactorily tested would still rest with the customer contracting operator i.e. the online casino operator.

In the scenario that you have raised the Commission has no legal or regulatory powers over the gambling provided from Gibraltar under a Gibraltese licence. If a game, manufactured by a Commission licensee, is made available for gambling on under a Gibraltar licence it must meet the requirements of that Gibraltar licence in terms of game fairness for consumers. Different jurisdictions have different regulatory requirements, and we believe it is unnecessary to require a game to be tested to the Commission’s technical standards if it is only ever offered under a non-Commission licence. Instead, the game should meet the technical standards in the jurisdiction where it is licensed.

To further explain this, one could consider an example of where a software developer based abroad supplied a game to an online casino licensed and regulated by the Commission. In that case, the software developer would require a gambling software licence from the Commission in order to legal supply a game into Britain (even if the development i.e. manufacture of the software took place abroad). That game would need to comply with the Commission’s technical standards in order to be offered to consumers by a Commission licensed online casino. The game may have already been tested for compliance against technical standards of the jurisdiction it was manufactured in but ultimately that is irrelevant – it is the Commission’s technical standards that it must comply with in order for it to be made available by a Commission licence holder. If the game does not meet the Commission’s technical standards, it cannot be offered by a Commission licensed online casino.

In his email, 'The Pogg' states “If this is the case, to all intents and purposed, for online players a UKGC seal would be of no inherent value what-so-ever as it offers the customer no regulator protection.” This is incorrect. A Gambling Commission licence offers regulatory protection to consumers gambling with Commission licensed operators. British consumers choosing to gamble in other jurisdictions are afforded the regulatory protections of those jurisdictions. The Commission published an

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

giving advice for consumers on some of the issues to look out for when gambling online, one of which is identifying the regulator for a website as just because a website is accessed from Britain does not mean it is regulated here.

I hope this clarifies the position and you now understand why the Commission cannot assist further in this matter.


Yours Sincerely

Licensing Officer
Gambling Commission
4th Floor Victoria Square House Victoria Square Birmingham
B2 4BP

 

[Tirilej]

I wonder if someone could take their reply and explain what it is saying in an easier way please?
I'm trying to understand it, but it's really hard and I would like to know their reasons.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I wonder if someone could take their reply and explain what it is saying in an easier way please?
I'm trying to understand it, but it's really hard and I would like to know their reasons.

'Nothing to do with us' - basically.

As Betfred are licensed in Gibraltar the UKGC has no jurisdiction over or particular interest in what casinos licensed there get up to, or the games they run.

They make it very clear that just because a player is accessing a casino from the UK, they are at the mercy of the regulations of the licensing jurisdiction itself.

They also state that this will be changing in the future as compliance will have to be at the 'point of consumption', i.e. even if the casino is licensed and/or based on the moon, it will still have to comply to the UKGC's technical standards.

 

[dougbet1]

'Nothing to do with us' - basically.

As Betfred are licensed in Gibraltar the UKGC has no jurisdiction over or particular interest in what casinos licensed there get up to, or the games they run.

They make it very clear that just because a player is accessing a casino from the UK, they are at the mercy of the regulations of the licensing jurisdiction itself.

They also state that this will be changing in the future as compliance will have to be at the 'point of consumption', i.e. even if the casino is licensed and/or based on the moon, it will still have to comply to the UKGC's technical standards.

It's ludicrous that their attitude is basically, because we don't have to we won't.

 

[sapit222]

Yeah, i didnt fully understand it either...

Sounded like they only have some sort of value inside of Britain (based in). Not abroad.

 

[dunover]

I wonder if someone could take their reply and explain what it is saying in an easier way please?
I'm trying to understand it, but it's really hard and I would like to know their reasons.

It means that the UKGC has only jurisdiction over casinos at the point-of-sale to UK gamblers, and is not responsible for games developed by a company that are approved or regulated by another licensing jurisdiction, i.e. Gibraltar of Kanawakee etc. even if these games are provided by casinos coming under UKGC jurisdiction.
To simplify further - the UKGC licenses the shop (casino) but (says) it has no power over what the shop sells if the goods were made OUTSIDE the UKGC jurisdiction.
In other words a complete handwash, and abrogation of responsibility.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

It's ludicrous that their attitude is basically, because we don't have to we won't.

Well as I read it they simply have no jurisdiction over Gibraltar and what it does or doesn't do with its casinos.

The legislation simply doesn't exist to allow them to do anything, but that will be changing in the future.

 

[dougbet1]

I think someone said a lot earlier in the thread but the UKGC is basically a 'jobs for the boys' organisation. Edit - That was @ Dunover's comment.

 

[ThePOGG]

Basically they are saying that if the company actually providing the games to the customer (point of sales) is licensed in the UK then their games have to meet the UKGC technical standards.

If a company is programming games in the UK they need a license, but if they are selling them only to companies that are licensed outside of the UK these games do not need to meet the UKGC technical standards.

As it stands i'm not aware of any online casino that is specifically licensed in the UK and as such as long as Finsoft/Spielo G2 are doing any of the game creation within the UK they have to have UK Gambling License and hence are allowed to display the seal, but as long as they only sell their products to companies licensed outside of the UK are free to ignore the technical standards of the UKGC. In other words, unless you are playing with a company that are directly licensed in the UK the game providers that the company use displaying the UKGC seal is no protection at all.

Given that the GRA deny any responsibility for game integrity this essentially means that they are free to both show the UKGC seal and do whatever the hell they want to the games behind the scenes.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Basically they are saying that if the company actually providing the games to the customer (point of sales) is licensed in the UK then their games have to meet the UKGC technical standards.

If a company is programming games in the UK they need a license, but if they are selling them only to companies that are licensed outside of the UK these games do not need to meet the UKGC technical standards.

As it stands i'm not aware of any online casino that is specifically licensed in the UK and as such as long as Finsoft/Spielo G2 are doing any of the game creation within the UK they have to have UK Gambling License and hence are allowed to display the seal, but as long as they only sell their products to companies licensed outside of the UK are free to ignore the technical standards of the UKGC.

Given that the GRA deny any responsibility for game integrity this essentially means that they are free to both show the UKGC seal and do whatever the hell they want to the games behind the scenes.

Does this come as a surprise to anyone though?

I've always assumed that when gambling online I basically have no protection of any description whatsoever from any UK body.

In this instance, for example, I wouldn't have even thought of lodging a complaint with the UKGC, after all, the entire shooting match is based out in Gibraltar!

Obviously casinos are based out of places such as Gibraltar and Malta primarily for taxation purposes (i.e. not paying very much of it), but doesn't common sense suggest that should something dreadful happen you're basically SOL?

 

[dunover]

I think someone said a lot earlier in the thread but the UKGC is basically a 'jobs for the boys' organisation. Edit - That was @ Dunover's comment.

Yes, I did say that and it is largely true, another publicly funded QANGO..

 

[threescatters]

I feel like the Isle Of Man is the ONLY decent licence to see when you are picking somewhere to gamble from.

That said, I have never seen anything bad about Gibraltar.

Malta - LOL (Never do anything)
KGC - LOL (Absolute Poker/Ultimate bet scandals and resulting coverups)
UK - LOL (Never do anything)
ALDERNY - LOL (FTP - enough said)

Like I said above tho, I feel safe at any IOM licenced joint.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Basically they are saying that if the company actually providing the games to the customer (point of sales) is licensed in the UK then their games have to meet the UKGC technical standards.

If a company is programming games in the UK they need a license, but if they are selling them only to companies that are licensed outside of the UK these games do not need to meet the UKGC technical standards.

As it stands i'm not aware of any online casino that is specifically licensed in the UK and as such as long as Finsoft/Spielo G2 are doing any of the game creation within the UK they have to have UK Gambling License and hence are allowed to display the seal, but as long as they only sell their products to companies licensed outside of the UK are free to ignore the technical standards of the UKGC. In other words, unless you are playing with a company that are directly licensed in the UK the game providers that the company use displaying the UKGC seal is no protection at all.

Given that the GRA deny any responsibility for game integrity this essentially means that they are free to both show the UKGC seal and do whatever the hell they want to the games behind the scenes.

Why? What purpose does this license serve? A UK software company needs a license to create games, yet the UKGC have absolutely no powers to control what this licensee does. It would be more honest to NOT require the software developer to have a license, and of course this would mean that they could not display any reassuring, but ultimately misleading, UKGC seals.

The UKGC says it is the customer facing operator that bears responsibilty for ensuring the games meet the required standards, so AGAIN the license held by a software developer serves no real purpose in terms of protecting the end user. A software developer based outside the UK does NOT need it's own license even if a UKGC licensed casino uses it's games, as it is the casino that needs the license, and has the responsibilty for ensuring the game meets the standards.

Under the current model, the UKGC licensing developers is a bureaucratic waste of effort and money, serving no useful purpose.

The new model may improve matters, so maybe that is the time to revisit this topic in relation to casinos that still offer such games to UK players once the new rules come into effect, as at this point the games WOULD have to meet the UKGC standards, no matter where the primary license was held.

It looks like the creation of the UKGC was ill thought out, and we have ended up with an organisation with virtually no powers to protect UK players, and almost no power to regulate. Even if they did strip a developer of the license, they would simply move offshore like the casinos, where it would more or less be "business as usual". They could even move the company registration offshore under a token maildrop office, and still do all the actual work in the UK with the same employees, but with no need for a UKGC development license.

A lack of foresight meant that the former government didn't think that operators would flock to the whitelisted jurisdiction with the lowest taxes, so launched the UKGC with an unrealistic 15% tax rate for operators licensed here, ensuring they could never compete with any licenced elsewhere, where they may only be paying 2%. The proposed new regime is what they should have done to start with. Players would have been better protected, and profits made from UK players would have been taxed in the UK.

 

[ThePOGG]

Why? What purpose does this license serve? A UK software company needs a license to create games, yet the UKGC have absolutely no powers to control what this licensee does. It would be more honest to NOT require the software developer to have a license, and of course this would mean that they could not display any reassuring, but ultimately misleading, UKGC seals.

I couldn't agree more - this policy devalues the seal.

The UKGC says it is the customer facing operator that bears responsibilty for ensuring the games meet the required standards, so AGAIN the license held by a software developer serves no real purpose in terms of protecting the end user. A software developer based outside the UK does NOT need it's own license even if a UKGC licensed casino uses it's games, as it is the casino that needs the license, and has the responsibilty for ensuring the game meets the standards.

Not quite - any casino carrying a UKGC license would be required to ensure that any games they offered met the technical standards of the UKGC license. So while the software developer may not carry a license a UK licensed casino would be forced to do the testing themselves. So as long as your casino carries a UKGC license (i.e. is registered in the UK) all the games have to meet their standards. Good luck finding one of those.

As i stated in my reply to the UKGC, these software developers are essentially receiving the credibility that a UKGC seal brings - i'm sure many of the more experienced players here and elsewhere may question that credibility, but to the average punter it is real - while not actually having to meet any of the technical standards that the license entails.