Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[Eliot Jacobson]

In my opinion, there should be three criteria satisfied for re-accreditation by casinos that ran this rogue software:

1. A third-party audit of all remaining casino software on their site with a public notice of certification, or replacement of the software with a certified brand.

2. Compensation to all affected parties that can be determined through an audit.

3. Full cooperation with investigations by the GRA and media.

In my opinion, it was premature for Bryan or others to reinstate these brands. At the very least, the first step is a full third-party audit of Finsoft/Spielo games.

 

[binary128]

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.

(Bold emphasis above is mine, because of what follows.)


I thought that I had made a post that spoke (at length as usual) to this issue. A little digging and I found it.

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

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

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

... by comparing the Monthly Certification documents of CFG, TST and eCOGRA [you can see that] the CFG document includes the extremely significant statement - "Audits were conducted on a subset of games using a variety of statistical tests for fairness."

This one sentence makes the world of difference, and represents the reason that I chose CFG over TST and eCOGRA back in early 2009.

In other words, just doing a financial RTP analysis is simply not enough for adequate player protection.


And then there was this post, in which I was addressing thePOGG's reticence about various "certification companies" because they were "paid for services" (and thus open to the potential for bias to the company that is writing the check).

Both of these are "paid for services", and thus suspect in your mind, and I am certain in the minds of many others. There is no doubt in my mind, so again trust me or not. To me, an iTech Labs RNG certificate and a monthly CFG audit are minimum requirements, baseline starting points. Published T-RTPs mean nothing to me without both of these certificates behind them.

And the beat goes on ....

Chris

[Edited to expand: Just doing a financial RTP analysis is simply not enough for adequate Player, Casino or Software provider protection.]

 

[manuels58]

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

I don't want to make this a kind of dialogue but, again, I have to call your attention that besides that the bold part has not been declared anywhere, we are not talking here of good intentions, sorry.

Since I don't know personally the people behind the names/casinos, and bearing in mind we are talking about my (our) money, I am sorry but I can't just believe in the good will of the involved companies, if they don't declare or state it by written.
That's how the real world functions.

And I'm sorry to say this, but imo everyone here should avoid to make declarations of preference and sympathy in regards to any of the entities involved in this situation until the conclusions of the investigation process. That may cause them, the casinos, to feel they have already done everything, and that's not true.
Eliot's last post was very explanatory and incisive about this (nothing more than what could be expected from someone who deals with exact proven facts for a living).
If the involved entities feel, or think that might take too long, so they just have to make it faster, for their own good.
Again, that's how real world functions.

Very important to say: "Until proven in reverse, everybody is not guilty".
But this does not mean that the public judgement is the one to prevail to any of the sides, not at all.

Although I might seem here like the "advocate of the Devil", that is not my intention and I just would very much like to have this matter closed and hopefully with all the casino operators free of guilt (that would really be very, very good for all of us, the players/customers).

 

[manuels58]

In my opinion, there should be three criteria satisfied for re-accreditation by casinos that ran this rogue software:

1. A third-party audit of all remaining casino software on their site with a public notice of certification, or replacement of the software with a certified brand.

2. Compensation to all affected parties that can be determined through an audit.

3. Full cooperation with investigations by the GRA and media.

In my opinion, it was premature for Bryan or others to reinstate these brands. At the very least, the first step is a full third-party audit of Finsoft/Spielo games.

Allow me to bow to your superior knowledge, Eliot.:notworthy (hope this is the right icon to show my admiration for you!)

 

[threescatters]

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.

Well personally I disagree, as does their licence.

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

Look at page 37 section 7 (paying attention to section 7.b)

This absolutely states it is betfreds responsibility to ensure fair games (and any other providers with a gibraltar licence, I have not checked who else uses them). They clearly did not pay one iota of notice towards this otherwise the games would all have been fair wouldn't they?

These two games were an absolute blatant total rip off. Betfred and others licenced by Gibraltar were ignoring the responsibility given to them by their licence terms. I cannot see how they can be put up to the same level as the likes of 32Red and Paddy Power and Pinnacle and other highly reputable and fair organisations, who DO take the issue of fair games seriously.

I definately feel they have been put back to accredited far too quickly (and I am glad to see other, far more reputable than me, posters saying the same thing). I also feel that given the terms of their licence, they are far more responsible for this scam than being able to pass the blame to the software provider.

 

[ThePOGG]

I don't want to make this a kind of dialogue but, again, I have to call your attention that besides that the bold part has not been declared anywhere, we are not talking here of good intentions, sorry.

They stated that all FinSoft Games would be removed by the end of this week - i'm not sure how much more of an assurance they can give? I see no reason to believe they won't do that and will react to that if it were to happen rather than assuming they won't.

1. A third-party audit of all remaining casino software on their site with a public notice of certification, or replacement of the software with a certified brand.

Eliot's above statement above i take to mean third-party auditing of the affected software - i.e. it's audited, replaced with different certified brands or removed entirely. My preference in this instance is actually more hard line - the complete removal of all games provided by FinSoft/Spielo G2. An audit of the software would not be enough to justify continued use of these games. Any casino using these games would have to agree to regular auditing of these games from this point on. FinSoft/Spielo G2 have forfeited their right to the benefit of the doubt.

And then there was this post, in which I was addressing thePOGG's reticence about various "certification companies" because they were "paid for services" (and thus open to the potential for bias to the company that is writing the check).

I will admit in this instance that my mind has been swayed regarding CFG - my main issue during that conversation was with the groups i was familiar with (TST/eCorga) that do limited or no testing beyond certifying RNGs.

 

[binary128]

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.

Katie91,

The post in which Betfred stated "Compensation payments will be issued within 7 working days" was, I see, posted on the afternoon/evening of January 7.

In my world Casinos operate 24/7, therefore 7 working days = 7 calendar days. Given that today is Jan 14, I would then have anticipated that you would have received your payment on or before today. However, Betfred may have meant to exclude the weekend from this time window, in which case you may receive your payment this coming Wednesday.

I must confess that I remain confused by this linked Betfred post. What I read is that they will only be providing you, and others, with compensation for your game play in the "Reel Deal" game, not the "HiLo Gambler" game, or indeed any other game. To be accurate, I consider myself to be an intelligent man, but I simply can't understand what is actually being said in the points numbered 1 through 4 in this Betfred post.

Good luck.

Chris

 

[P.V.]

The correct way is what Nevada is currently doing. The gambling commission has licensed a couple testing labs to test any games offered by all approved online poker sites.

Once the testing is done and the commission is satisfied with the labs report, then and only then can the operator offer that game.

It's always been of my opinion the first line of defense should be with the one issuing the gaming license. Then if it was found out later an operator intentionally changed something within the game to make it rigged of course actions would be taken against the operator by the licensed authority. Fines, removal of license etc..

If the software was found rigged, it would never be approved for the site.

I think the sites in question, if in fact they have pulled these games and are going to refund the players, that's a good thing. I don't see why any accredited casino would want to purposely tarnish their brand by offering cheating games.

Something I don't recall reading and maybe it was overlooked but is there proof that the cheating software company was making a commission from these sites on their games? If the suggested software provider wasn't making a commission isn't there a chance this was a mistake rather than intentional? I would suspect anyone building something that cheated would be profiting by doing so. Has this been confirmed yet or was it just a big mess up and not caught because the correct testing wasn't done?

So I don't see a problem with CM reinserting BetFred, Bet365 and Nordicbet to the accredited list since the software was pulled and players refunded.

I too think there's a lot of holes within the industry, many things need improved and better regulations enforced by the gambling commissions. Although I haven't been shown here that the three sites mentioned did this intentionally and honestly haven't been shown where the software provider profited by creating cheating software and that their actions were intentional and for profit.

 

[mattsgame]

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.

Why are the operators not responsible for what product they offer their customers? I am not saying Betfred, Bet365 or any other operator that used these games are evil as most of them have been well known in the industry for a long time now, but how can they just pass on the buck without any consequences and there statements so far have been less that satisfactory.

I think this thread demonstrates that the industry is far from properly regulated, these guys should at the very least be fined!

It's a shame that it seems that only Katie is a member of this forum who has played these games so she is the only one who will let us know if and when she is refunded but the 1000's of other players wouldn't have a clue.

 

[Balthazar]

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

A statement that would acknowledge that the problem was a cheating card game, and that they will never tolerate any weighted card game in their casinos.

Unfortunately, none of them even came close to a statement along those lines. In fact, none of them convinced me that they won't accept similar weighted card games in the future (as long as they have the correct RTP's in the help files, that their RNG's run flawlessly and that the games behave the same in free play/real money).

Those were the only points addressed by the casinos (RTP, RNG, Free Play).

Cheating game? Nope. Not a single word about it so it wasn't a problem. Is it because it's very common and Finsoft didn't do anything extraordinary by introducing a weighted card game? I tend to believe it.

As a result, I can no longer trust any game of cards when I play online.

To me, that's pretty serious.

 

[DavidEC]

In my opinion, there should be three criteria satisfied for re-accreditation by casinos that ran this rogue software:

1. A third-party audit of all remaining casino software on their site with a public notice of certification, or replacement of the software with a certified brand.

2. Compensation to all affected parties that can be determined through an audit.

3. Full cooperation with investigations by the GRA and media.

In my opinion, it was premature for Bryan or others to reinstate these brands. At the very least, the first step is a full third-party audit of Finsoft/Spielo games.

I cannot/would not comment on the accreditation process, as I am too new here and may not have enough insight into the reasoning behind it.

I agree with Eliot here though. To quote Aliens "it's the only way to be sure". The cost of having these checks performed pales in comparison to what the negative impact would be if the media gets hold of a story that says that the games offered by these operators are rigged or that the games provided by their suppliers are rigged and they took no proactive action. The truth will stop being quite as important at that point, since there will be the opportunity for a sensationalist headline.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[GOCC]

Well for my 2 penneth the fact that the operators have been caught with a suspect game (I use the word suspect in the best sense for the casinos) is condition enough for them not to go back to the accreditation list though this isnt my call, only Bryans

It basically sends a signal that if you cheat, whether intentionally or ignorantly and defraud players of funds, then if you do get caught, just hold your hands up and refund what wasnt yours anyway and all will be forgiven.

When Elliot was brought in over the Jag promo, his word was god, his results and dedcutions were to be fully implemented as it was against the player. Now he is completely against the casino, his advice and expertise is not being ignored but put to the side

 

[maphesto]

@Casinomeister

You know it, we know it, affiliates know it and ALL casinos on the accredited list know it: A card game is a card 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.

I seriously doubt that most webmaster's like yourself only see this like a software issue. I am sure that many of them also see what many players do, casino operators who haven't taken the responsibility to either check their games fairness or RTP of games.

A casino on the accredited list responds with a strange answer where they seem to think it's fair with a strange RNG with a specific RTP instead of a RNG which gives every card an equal chance.

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.

This do show us that it has to do with the ethics of a casino operator, it seems like some operators think that a game is fair as soon as a specific RTP is reached.

 

[The Dude]

In my opinion, there should be three criteria satisfied for re-accreditation by casinos that ran this rogue software:

1. A third-party audit of all remaining casino software on their site with a public notice of certification, or replacement of the software with a certified brand.

2. Compensation to all affected parties that can be determined through an audit.

3. Full cooperation with investigations by the GRA and media.

In my opinion, it was premature for Bryan or others to reinstate these brands. At the very least, the first step is a full third-party audit of Finsoft/Spielo games.

I agree - to an extent. The main point is that the offending software was removed, players are being compensated, and a full audit being conducted. No webmaster that I know of (except perhaps thepogg) removed these casinos from their recommendations btw.

Well for my 2 penneth the fact that the operators have been caught with a suspect game (I use the word suspect in the best sense for the casinos) is condition enough for them not to go back to the accreditation list though this isnt my call, only Bryans

It basically sends a signal that if you cheat, whether intentionally or ignorantly and defraud players of funds, then if you do get caught, just hold your hands up and refund what wasnt yours anyway and all will be forgiven.

One question - and this is open for everybody: Who believes that the casinos deliberately set out to cheat players? Do you honestly think that NordicBet, Betfred, and Bet365 willfully, with malice, cheated their players? Yes, or no?

Or is it a matter of these casinos not being aware that these games were flawed due to poor testing, oversights, or via slipshod regulations? By definition, that is not cheating.

I do not think that these casinos were deliberately cheating anyone. They are fully aware of what is expected and they have taken the appropriate actions to right what was wronged. This is why they have been reinstated.

 

[ThePOGG]

One question - and this is open for everybody: Who believes that the casinos deliberately set out to cheat players? Do you honestly think that NordicBet, Betfred, and Bet365 willfully, with malice, cheated their players? Yes, or no?

Or is it a matter of these casinos not being aware that these games were flawed due to poor testing, oversights, or via slipshod regulations? By definition, that is not cheating.

I do not think that these casinos were deliberately cheating anyone. They are fully aware of what is expected and they have taken the appropriate actions to right what was wronged. This is why they have been reinstated.

I agree, i don't think there's any solid proof that the casinos were intentionally cheating anyone although i would say that Betfred's last statement regarding this issue certainly made them seem complicit in it.

But these games were not an oversight, they were intentionally designed to operate the way they did. Somebody did intend to cheat and that somebody was FinSoft/Spielo G2. Why then is it ok for casinos to continue working with a group that set out to cheat?

Nordic Bet are the only party so far who have done the right thing.

 

[mattsgame]

I agree - to an extent. The main point is that the offending software was removed, players are being compensated, and a full audit being conducted. No webmaster that I know of (except perhaps thepogg) removed these casinos from their recommendations btw.



One question - and this is open for everybody: Who believes that the casinos deliberately set out to cheat players? Do you honestly think that NordicBet, Betfred, and Bet365 willfully, with malice, cheated their players? Yes, or no?

Or is it a matter of these casinos not being aware that these games were flawed due to poor testing, oversights, or via slipshod regulations? By definition, that is not cheating.

I do not think that these casinos were deliberately cheating anyone. They are fully aware of what is expected and they have taken the appropriate actions to right what was wronged. This is why they have been reinstated.

I do not believe they set out to cheat anybody deliberately IMPO but they must have some sort of responsibility to their players before the fact and not just after when its too little to late and then say ooops sorry and not our fault such and such gave us dodgy software

I know they have said that those who played the game/s will be refunded but who is over seeing this? and as for Betfred saying they will refund only 6 months worth of play is ludicrous or have they changed there tune on this?

 

[DavidEC]

One question - and this is open for everybody: Who believes that the casinos deliberately set out to cheat players? Do you honestly think that NordicBet, Betfred, and Bet365 willfully, with malice, cheated their players? Yes, or no?

Or is it a matter of these casinos not being aware that these games were flawed due to poor testing, oversights, or via slipshod regulations? By definition, that is not cheating.

I do not think that these casinos were deliberately cheating anyone. They are fully aware of what is expected and they have taken the appropriate actions to right what was wronged. This is why they have been reinstated.

For me the answer is a definite no, there was no malice, if only because it belies commercial sense to risk losing your customer base and credibility to earn some extra money on some of their games. However, they are responsible for the actions they take upon being notified of these kind of issues and for what processes are implemented post-incident to ensure that it could never happen again. These should then be communicated as much as is possible within the limitations they have to work within.

Taking the stance of "this was not our error, so we do not need to do anything more than address the immediate issue (in this case Reel Deal and Hi-Lo Gambler refunds and removal)" is not sufficient evidence of good intent in my opinion. It's like finding a hole in the bottom of your boat and sticking your finger in it to plug it, then reassuring everyone that the hole is fixed and there is no further cause for concern.

However I also think that communication has been an issue here. The internal political ramifications of any individual giving too much information or otherwise messing up the public communication means that, for all but the person who will be held accountable in each company, everyone would be loathe to provide anything or else risk their own neck. Often resulting in slow and terrible corporate responses that mean very little of substance.

I hope they all decide to step up and turn this into an opportunity to show that they really do consider fairness a priority.

 

[ThePOGG]

One question - and this is open for everybody: Who believes that the casinos deliberately set out to cheat players? Do you honestly think that NordicBet, Betfred, and Bet365 willfully, with malice, cheated their players? Yes, or no?

The real issue for you here seems to be intent. Did FinSoft/Spielo G2 do this intentionally?

We have two seperate issues. The first issue involves the Hi/Lo games. They took the games that Realistic provided and as Aaron at Betfred has told us, changed the way they behaved;

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.

Aaron also stated that

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.

When creating a fair game with cards, it would be impossible to develop two different versions without altering the paytables. Speilo G2 not only changed this game from the way it was originally designed to operate, but by creating two different versions of the game without altering the paytable created a rigged version. To me intent seems fairly clear in this instance - the game was altered by Speilo G2 with the specific intention of generating an RTP that would not be achievable if the cards behaved in a natural fashion.

The second issue involves the free play games and as it's been established that the same games when offered direct from the provider do not show the same inflated RTP that they do when provided through FinSoft. It's once again safe to conclude that FinSoft have again altered the games to create results that the manufacturer never intended and more importantly did so only on the free versions of these games. The fact that they're changing the way the games operate shows intent.

The only possible explanation for the above that isn't intentional cheating is that FinSoft/Spielo G2 did not understand that what they were doing would be considered cheating and if that is the case this shows an unbelievable ignorance of what constitutes a fair game. I'd also hasten to point out that this is a rather big company and experienced company in the gambling world, could they really have existed this long without encountering such basic principals?


As to the casinos involved, given the lack of internal quality control that exists across the industry right now it's easy to see how these games slipped through the net. It's not easy to see why a reputable venue would continue to work with a group that has shown intent to cheat.

 

[threescatters]

One question - and this is open for everybody: Who believes that the casinos deliberately set out to cheat players? Do you honestly think that NordicBet, Betfred, and Bet365 willfully, with malice, cheated their players? Yes, or no?

.

I do not believe these casinos set out with malice to cheat their players. To answer the open question, No.

If the answer to that question was yes then there would be no question that there could be no way back for these casinos. However I believe of course there is a way back for them and this can be repaired. Just not with what has gone on so far.

To compare it to something in a legal sense I believe this is similar to murder and manslaughter. The casinos did not set out with malice deliberately intending to cheat players. However their oversight and ignoring of their licence conditions and failure to implement even basic fairness testing (and failure to care about their players at all) has led to this same horrible situation (games cheating players). A complete lack of responsibility towards players.

If I was 32Red/PaddyPower/Pinnacle Casino then I would be pretty upset that these casinos who had the cheating games are listed as being as good as my casino. These casinos (and others like them) are the ones that care about the players and fairness.

My opinion here is I completely agree with Eliot Jacobsen in this post https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/ - if these 3 points are satisfied then I would consider the problem fixed and in the past.

 

[just play]

I agree - to an extent. The main point is that the offending software was removed, players are being compensated, and a full audit being conducted. No webmaster that I know of (except perhaps thepogg) removed these casinos from their recommendations btw.

One question - and this is open for everybody: Who believes that the casinos deliberately set out to cheat players? Do you honestly think that NordicBet, Betfred, and Bet365 willfully, with malice, cheated their players? Yes, or no?

Or is it a matter of these casinos not being aware that these games were flawed due to poor testing, oversights, or via slipshod regulations? By definition, that is not cheating.

I do not think that these casinos were deliberately cheating anyone. They are fully aware of what is expected and they have taken the appropriate actions to right what was wronged. This is why they have been reinstated.

This is coming from a laypersons point of view. This is how I see it.

You are the "cream of the crop" so to speak in the casino webmaster world. (please no disrespect to other webmasters) When something like this happens, I believe (I could be wrong) other webmasters look to you, to see what you will do.

Since joining here in January of 2006, I can honestly say I have never, not once, deposited at a casino that wasn't on your accredited list. Do you know why? Because I know for a fact that you/Max/Simmo will take care of me if something was to go wrong.

Your accredited list is highly regarded by players/casinos/webmasters. Why is that? Because you set such a high standard that they must abide by. If we bring in the casinos in question in this thread, what is that saying to the other casinos on your accredited list? This is just my opinion again, it's saying that they have followed your standards to a tee, and these few casinos in this thread has not.

Do I think the casinos in question deliberately set out to cheat players? No.

Do I think you reinstated them too soon? Yes. Why I answer yes is quite simple. You say "a full audit is being conducted". The audit isn't completed. You don't know what the outcome will be. What if it is found out that there are other games that are "gaffed"? In my opinion again, I think you should have waited for the outcome first before reinstating them.

No webmaster that I know of (except perhaps thepogg) removed these casinos from their recommendations btw.

This is quite strange to me. Especially if there was a webmaster in this thread thinking along the lines of the casinos in question were cheating. Again, it may come down to "they follow your lead", if Casinomeister isn't taking them off his accredited list, why should we. But I have no idea, being a layperson as I said.

They are fully aware of what is expected and they have taken the appropriate actions to right what was wronged.

Again, they haven't concluded their audit. They are taking appropriate actions, but they are not finished yet.

After all this is said and done, will I still trust you? Absolutely. Will I still play at your accredited list? Absolutely. In my opinion again, some people may think you "pulled the trigger" too soon in reinstating them, that's all anyone is trying to say I believe.

 

[me_and_ed]

I may be a skeptic but I find it very hard to believe that any of these casinos did not fully understand the product that they supported, they are businesses and need profit to stay in business, in my eyes game returns would have to be the most scrutinized part of acceptance before entering their portfolios.

 

[Simmo!]

I doubt anybody here believes that the casinos deliberately set out to defraud people with malice. If they're going to cheat then they'd just add or remove a symbol on a slot every few spins and no-one would ever know. They wouldn't do it on a 50/50 game where it's relatively speaking spotable. But there is clearly a "process" issue to be addressed.

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

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

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

 

[threescatters]

because no-one quite seems to know who is ultimately responsible for ensuring the game is fair. Everyone wants to pass the buck. .

You make good points Simmo. But to address this point, the gibraltar licence betfred operate under makes this VERY clear and it states the ultimate responsibility lies with betfred.

 

[manuels58]

To compare it to something in a legal sense I believe this is similar to murder and manslaughter. The casinos did not set out with malice deliberately intending to cheat players. However their oversight and ignoring of their licence conditions and failure to implement even basic fairness testing (and failure to care about their players at all) has led to this same horrible situation (games cheating players). A complete lack of responsibility towards players.
...
My opinion here is I completely agree with Eliot Jacobsen in this post https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/ - if these 3 points are satisfied then I would consider the problem fixed and in the past.

1) Not quite. The so called "blood crimes" cannot in law be compared to any other type of crimes (it's a very radical comparison), but yes, I can see and accept your reasoning.

2) Again, "not respecting their obligations and not accomplish with the requirements of their licences" is committing an illegality.
The casinos are 100% responsible for all the products/games they sell/make available to their customers and public in general. If they fail to do that (by not testing the games previous to offer them to play, for instance but not only), they must be hold responsible for that fault, if nothing more, to assure the players that there is a punishment system that helps preventing those alleged fraudulent and illegal behaviours.
If this doesn’t happen… how can any player trust this industry?

Let me call your attention to the following:
To remove the rigged games and to reimburse the players is nothing more than pay off the money lost by the players.
This means that the casinos are not losing any money, they are just paying off the money they have "collected" from the players without paying those players any interests; the casinos have actually "used" that money for some time (years?) without paying interests.
Real world doesn't function like this.

And something that should upset everyone and has already been mentioned here, is why the casinos that have stated to be reimbursing players are assuming it by themselves only.
If they really are innocent, they then should make public their intention to demand compensation from the entity that even those casinos have considered the faulty one.
In fact, the involved casinos have much more to lose beyond the simple indemnifications, they have their "name" to defend; this last reason should be a motive for them to go further, imo.

Finally, on top of this, those casinos see themselves excused by an accreditation system that put them back together with the other members of the accredited list who, right now, should feel very disappointed for not being recognized for their correct behaviour, instead they are being considered on the same level of the faulty casinos.
The reinstatement of the involved casinos in the Accredited list is definitely premature and gives the idea that there is no punishment to those who prevaricate.

At least, those casinos should be put in a kind of "purgatory list" (using a religious language like that used for the "baptism by fire") for a specific period, at least until the process gets to an end.
And this could be used to future situations where any casino, for some reason might incur in a fault that is subject to an investigation (being it internal to Casinomeister, or held by any other entity).

Serious/honest people and companies deserve respect and the "benefit of doubt" ("anyone is innocent until proven in reverse) when they are caught in incorrect behaviour, and they usually deserve a second chance (we live in a human world, full of mistakes and incorrect attitudes). However, they must be punished for their faults, as well, otherwise the other members of that world will lose the essential confidence to live in society.

Please consider this my humble suggestion to improve the Accreditation System, Casinomeister.

I am sorry if my language is too severe, or too cold, but that's the way things should be done until the investigations are terminated.
I also apologize if I somehow hurt someone's feelings, it was never my intention.

 

[Nickolus]

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

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

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

Hope this helps.

 

[Simmo!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps.

Hi Nickolus

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

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

 

[manuels58]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Simmo!]

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

OK I get where you are coming from

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

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

 

[me_and_ed]

OK I get where you are coming from

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

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

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

 

[Simmo!]

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

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

 

[manuels58]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mattsgame]

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

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

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

So when are games tested? what is the process?

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

 

[ThePOGG]

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

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

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

So when are games tested? what is the process?

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

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

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

 

[Balthazar]

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

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

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

 

[ThePOGG]

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

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

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

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

 

[vinylweatherman]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jufo]

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

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

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

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

 

[Jufo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pokeraddict]

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

 

[ThePOGG]

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

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

 

[manuels58]

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

 

[DavidEC]

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

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

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

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

Always just my 2 cents of course.

 

[Mozaik]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[deucebag]

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

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

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

 

[ThePOGG]

Just wanted to provide everyone with an update.

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

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

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

Coral
Virgin
Ladbrokes
BetVictor

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

 

[asianeyes]

Just wanted to provide everyone with an update.

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

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

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

Coral
Virgin
Ladbrokes
BetVictor

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

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

 

[katie91]

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

 

[Redbush54]

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

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

 

[manuels58]

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

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

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

 

[rainmaker]

Just wanted to provide everyone with an update.

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

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

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

Coral
Virgin
Ladbrokes
BetVictor

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe they can clarify.