Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[jetset]

The word is out....

This story is starting to appear on Google, albeit a little short on detail.

Here's just one site that is carrying the story:

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

I've been following this shocking thread with interest since the new year started and I am alarmed at the professional short-comings and apparently cavalier attitudes towards fairness and player safety it illustrates in terms of apparently disinterested regulators, questionable distributors and overly casual and perhaps even ignorant operators.

It seemed to be "pass the bomb" time at several points in reading the thread.

As so many others have commented the overall impression it leaves of the industry is far from a good one.

Kudos to Eliot for putting in the free hours in checking the OP's complaint, and the same to the OP for exposing this worrying issue in a disciplined manner backed by preliminary substantiation.

I believe the UKGC should at the very least be talking to Betfred as a major UK gambling company (regardless of where it is licensed) to indicate its disapproval and concerns for fair play. Likewise, I believe that the GRA should be showing far more enthusiasm and commitment in looking more deeply into this affair from the Betfred perspective as one of their licensees - their reputation is also at risk here imo.

I would also like to see some reaction from SpieloG2 et al - they belong to a major group in the industry which should be very worried about the way this affair is being addressed - merely brushing this under the carpet is not an option afaic.

I suspect that we will be seeing more public reports on this going forward, and that may trigger a more intensive professional approach and perhaps some legal action from Realistic Games, whose rep appears to have been impacted by the Spielo-Finsoft actions too.

 

[pokeraddict]

Definitely a big ty to Eliot. I also wrote a story about this so that it would be seen by poker players since Boss Media still has a decent sized network. I also intend on alerting the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Lottomatica is up for approval to receive an interactive gaming license in Nevada on January 24th. This clearly shows that they do not need to receive that license. OP is not paid and Lottomatica's subsidiary's are silent. To me that is not acceptable.

 

[jetset]

Good on you, PA - if the European regulators won't sort SpieloG2 out, maybe the Nevada regime, as real and serious regulators, will take them to task through their parent group's application.

This thread is heavy and disappointing reading, but at the same time it is encouraging that malfeasance has been exposed, and folks are trying hard to do something about it and want to see some action.

Thus far it appears to me that Nordicbet has been the most timeous and effective in dumping the offending software in its entirety - if more operators did that SpieloG2 would undoubtedly be exhibiting a little more public interest in communicating than has been the case thus far.

Betfred's statement really surprised me...I would have thought that a gambling company of its size, reputation and experience would be more knowledgeable and attuned to the basic concept of gambling fairness, and my perception is that its reaction has been rather tepid - less than dynamic and forceful.

I found the following posts particularly useful in getting to the nub of this shocking issue, along with Galewind's breakdown of the sort of professional thoroughness we should be expecting from software providers and distributors:

320
323
331
342
368

I believe we'll be seeing a lot more public coverage on this in the coming weeks, and that might serve as a useful wake-up call for regulatory bureaucrats, software providers and operators that players cannot be fooled all of the time, and that issues like this need immediate, focused and integrity-driven attention.

 

[P.V.]

This story is starting to appear on Google, albeit a little short on detail.

Here's just one site that is carrying the story:

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

Here's another jetset, not short on detail.

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

 

[pokeraddict]

Here's another jetset, not short on detail.

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

That is the article I wrote. It has been well received by the poker world. Maybe the tree will start shaking soon to get some response and refunds out.

 

[jetset]

Here's another jetset, not short on detail.

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

Damn - you beat me to that link by minutes PV

 

[P.V.]

Damn - you beat me to that link by minutes PV

 

[P.V.]

That is the article I wrote. It has been well received by the poker world. Maybe the tree will start shaking soon to get some response and refunds out.

Good article.

 

[threescatters]

Thanks to jetset and pokeraddict, both always excellent contributors.

 

[Balthazar]

Lottomatica Group is something huge, guys.

In 2010, Lottomatica Group had €2.3 billion in revenues and approximately 7,700 employees in approximately 60 countries.

Source:

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

Anecdote: Spielo is one of the two video lottery (AKA multi games video slots) providers for the government here. We can find their government licensed machines in about every bar/pub in the province, and they have been there for over 17 years raking billions of dollars (literally) for the state.

I can't imagine what kind of lawsuit the government would face if the card games (mainly video pokers and the "double" features) were proven rigged. Of course I'm not saying that they are, but one have to wonder...

It wouldn't be pretty, to say the least.

 

[ThePOGG]

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.

I've contacted both for comment. I've had a look and the selection of games from this provider that they offer are very small (BetVictor has 2 that i could see and Virgin 6), but you're unquestionably right that Dynamite Idea is now just another trading name for Spielo G2 and as such has to be included.

 

[The Dude]

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.

This is unacceptable. Adhering to their deadlines should have been a top priority for Betfred - considering the severity of this issue, and the high profile this has, I'm really disappointed with how they have been handling this.

 

[ThePOGG]

I've contacted both for comment. I've had a look and the selection of games from this provider that they offer are very small (BetVictor has 2 that i could see and Virgin 6), but you're unquestionably right that Dynamite Idea is now just another trading name for Spielo G2 and as such has to be included.

Sky Vegas appear to once again offer a small number of Dynamite Idea games (3) and i've contacted them.

I've had a look at Vernon's and they now only offer Playtech games and as such are on the CasinoCity list in error.

 

[ThePOGG]

This is unacceptable. Adhering to their deadlines should have been a top priority for Betfred - considering the severity of this issue, and the high profile this has, I'm really disappointed with how they have been handling this.

I'm in no way validating this as i think Betfred's behaviour from start to finish of this issue has been farcical, but the likely reason for the delay is the current GRA involvement. I'm not going to speculate on why this would slow down the return of funds to wronged players, but in my experience the second a governmental body gets involved in anything the whole process crawls to a halt.

On that note can any other affected player confirm that they have been contact about a refund? I'd be interested to see the email they're sending out.

 

[manuels58]

I'm in no way validating this as i think Betfred's behaviour from start to finish of this issue has been farcical, but the likely reason for the delay is the current GRA involvement. I'm not going to speculate on why this would slow down the return of funds to wronged players, but in my experience the second a governmental body gets involved in anything the whole process crawls to a halt.

On that note can any other affected player confirm that they have been contact about a refund? I'd be interested to see the email they're sending out.

Agree with your first opinion.
On a positive add, better taking a bit more time and get better and more precise conclusions than something vague and not conclusive.
Here, we have to give the authorities their time.

Regarding the 2nd part of your post, all I can say by experience is the problems start coming up when those who have the duty/obligation of keeping the damaged parts informed simply choose to stay silent. If nothing, at least they should inform that the process is delayed and apologize for that.
I doubt that anyone has received any explanation from Betfred.

 

[ThePOGG]

I've contacted both for comment. I've had a look and the selection of games from this provider that they offer are very small (BetVictor has 2 that i could see and Virgin 6), but you're unquestionably right that Dynamite Idea is now just another trading name for Spielo G2 and as such has to be included.

BetVictor have responded to this.

They received the Dynamite Idea games through OpenBet prior to the takeover of Dynamite Idea by Spielo G2. They host the code themselves and are still using the original code provided by OpenBet, so their games were never in any way touched by Spielo G2.

I also have to say once again how responsive and professional the BV team were in dealing with this issue.

 

[asianeyes]

That is the article I wrote. It has been well received by the poker world. Maybe the tree will start shaking soon to get some response and refunds out.

Here's Lottomatica's PDF Financial report for 2012. There quite a lot of comprehensive info pertaining to profits from Gtech/Spielo G2.

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

Also, here is the major stakeholder in Lottomatica: De Agostini: Marco Drago runs the company. Here's an interesting story about his early career (especially about the mention of Bain Capital). I can't help but to think Mr. Drago is already aware of this situation?

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

I'm sure his buddies in the U.S. Congress will/are be aware?

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

and here:

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

And here's some more misc info about lobbyists buddies as well. Boy, they sure have some friends

Super Pac's scare even me...

 

[questa]

Why are Betfred not refunding all losses incurred on this game? It seems obvious to me this is the only possible acceptable thing to do, players shouldn't have to apply for it, and a 6 month cut off point seems arbitrary, they should simply have their illegitimate losses refunded automatically and today, and I cannot understand how anyone could think otherwise. Regardless of who rigged the game, Fred took the money and Fred must accept resposibility and return that money, imo.

It seems to me like they are trying to hang on to some of their profit from this rigged game, and that is utterly wrong. Unless I've missed something?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Why are Betfred not refunding all losses incurred on this game? It seems obvious to me this is the only possible acceptable thing to do, players shouldn't have to apply for it, and a 6 month cut off point seems arbitrary, they should simply have their illegitimate losses refunded automatically and today, and I cannot understand how anyone could think otherwise. Regardless of who rigged the game, Fred took the money and Fred must accept resposibility and return that money, imo.

It seems to me like they are trying to hang on to some of their profit from this rigged game, and that is utterly wrong. Unless I've missed something?

Maybe this is bigger than they at first thought, and by refunding the OP as promised, it will set a precedent that could turn out to be too expensive for them to handle. It is likely that upper management have called a halt to the refunding of the few that have made this public so that they can quantify the extent of the cost of issuing refunds across the board. They may even be looking to see if they can somehow wriggle out of making any refunds by waiting to see what the GRA have to say about their liabilty to issue said refunds.

Having broken two promised deadlines for the OP, it seems they have "taken the 5th amendment" over the matter, as I have yet to see any explanation from the rep as to the current status of these refunds, yet the rep was initially keeping us updated on developments.

The OP contacted the rep, and just got a second promised deadline, which was broken. Now it seems the OP can't get anything out of them with regard to a timescale.

 

[katie91]

Editor's note: this player opened an account at this casino using another person's identity, and misrepresented himself to the community and those who were trying to assist him.

Just received this from Betfred earlier today:

Hi Katie,

Firstly, please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in responding to you and for any inconvenience caused.

I am pleased to inform you that we have now credited your account with a full refund for your play on Reel Deal and Hi/lo Gambler. The total amount credited is £12,672.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.

Should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

King regards,

Betfred Games Team

It's gone into my Betfred account so other players will need to login and check to see if they've received it. I've put in a withdrawal so provided this goes through OK then my issues with Betfred are resolved.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

It's good to see this issue is finally starting to gain some mainstream traction, and respect is due to all parties who have been involved in doing so, from the OP and Eliot's investigation, right through to everyone else who has put in their efforts to try and get to the truth.

I haven't had much to say about this for a few days now, but I have been watching the thread and other developments carefully, and whilst it's great to see folks taking the issue and running with it - overall I'm left very saddened and disappointed by what we've seen.

If I were to pick out a single aspect that bothers me most about this all, it's the attitude of Betfred and Bet365 that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with offering a crooked card game as long as the help file lists the right RTP. That's a staggering admission IMO.

I refuse to believe that these are the only two casinos who have this attitude, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I refuse to believe that these are the only two games that cheat like this, this is just the tip of another iceberg.

Moreover, the fact that Betfred were returned to the accredited list so quickly (before the OP had even had her funds returned!) leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. It demeans the casinos on the list who work hard to do the right thing by their players, that a casino with such a cavalier attitude towards the fundamental rules of fair play can be on there.

For Bryan to brush this aside as a 'software issue' shows a lack of understanding as to what players need from a casino and the software they run. We need to be able to TRUST the casinos we play at, we need to be able to TRUST that the software is fair. We all expect to lose in the long run because we're playing against a recognised and understood house edge, what we don't expect, and can not accept, is that those games are cheating us as well as taking the house edge.

Well for me, that trust is gone now, this whole episode has raised a multitude of questions, the vast majority of which have not been answered, and let's be honest, will not be answered.

I'm afraid the accredited list is 'broken' for me now too, I fail to see what it's supposed to stand for. Players are told they're SOL, or banned, or blacklisted, for their transgressions, even if accidental. There's a standard response to 'read the T&Cs' when a player screws up, their mistake, their fault, their loss.

But it seems that the same rules to not apply to the casinos, who could not be bothered to read and/or adhere to the T&Cs of their licensing jurisdictions, who offered up a bent game to players, raked in untold amounts of money, and are just carrying on as before as if nothing has happened.

Regulation failed, licensing failed, seals of probity were displayed that meant nothing, an accredited status that didn't protect the players - none of this stopped a bent and cheating game getting onto the books of several casinos, Bet365 themselves state that the game has reached a 96% RTP over one million plus games, so they've done alright out of it. (And they STILL haven't responded to Eliot's assertion that the game should have reached a 97.5% RTP, not 96%.)

Seriously, who really thinks that we know all there is to know about casinos who think it's OK to cheat and the cheating games they're running?

Not a chance. And the horrible truth is, we never will know it all, either.

There's only way I feel safe gambling online now, and that's not to do it at all.

It was fun while it lasted, sometimes.

 

[questa]

Just received this from Betfred earlier today:



It's gone into my Betfred account so other players will need to login and check to see if they've received it. I've put in a withdrawal so provided this goes through OK then my issues with Betfred are resolved.

That's good news

But I still think Fred should be actively refunding ALL customers as a matter of urgency, not just the one who noticed their crooked game.

 

[Jufo]

But I still think Fred should be actively refunding ALL customers as a matter of urgency, not just the one who noticed their crooked game.

I have my doubts whether they will do this in the end. I understood that the game has been online for years and the 100% promised RTP must have attracted a decent amount of action from players. It wouldn't surprise me if the total number of affected players is in thousands. It might not be an easy task to track all of them and credit them accordingly. The question is: will Betfred even make the effort to locate them all? If the average player has lost, say £10-£50 on this game, we might be looking at sums between 100k and million that need to be credited back to players. Therefore I am suspicous whether they are willing to voluntary credit back this amount of cash given that the majority of players will not be aware of their rights and don't know to contact them about reimbursement. We will also be solely relying to Betfred's statement about how much they reimbursed.

This problem also naturally applies to Nordicbet other involved operators.

 

[questa]

I have my doubts whether they will do this in the end. I understood that the game has been online for years and the 100% promised RTP must have attracted a decent amount of action from players. It wouldn't surprise me if the total number of affected players is in thousands. It might not be an easy task to track all of them and credit them accordingly. The question is: will Betfred even make the effort to locate them all? If the average player has lost, say £10-£50 on this game, we might be looking at sums between 100k and million that need to be credited back to players. Therefore I am suspicous whether they are willing to voluntary credit back this amount of cash given that the majority of players will not be aware of their rights and don't know to contact them about reimbursement. We will also be solely relying to Betfred's statement about how much they reimbursed.

This problem also naturally applies to Nordicbet other involved operators.

I cannot believe there it is even in question. Refunds should be a given

 

[dunover]

Just received this from Betfred earlier today:



It's gone into my Betfred account so other players will need to login and check to see if they've received it. I've put in a withdrawal so provided this goes through OK then my issues with Betfred are resolved.

Well done but that's a lot of money to (almost) have wasted before realizing you could never win any back. Thank-God I'm a lo-roller
Stick it in the bank. Buy a car. Anything but squander it again. You had a lucky escape this time. I sincerely hope that you're either wealthy or that gambling isn't an issue for you. All the best.

 

[asianeyes]

I have my doubts whether they will do this in the end. I understood that the game has been online for years and the 100% promised RTP must have attracted a decent amount of action from players. It wouldn't surprise me if the total number of affected players is in thousands. It might not be an easy task to track all of them and credit them accordingly. The question is: will Betfred even make the effort to locate them all? If the average player has lost, say £10-£50 on this game, we might be looking at sums between 100k and million that need to be credited back to players. Therefore I am suspicous whether they are willing to voluntary credit back this amount of cash given that the majority of players will not be aware of their rights and don't know to contact them about reimbursement. We will also be solely relying to Betfred's statement about how much they reimbursed.

This problem also naturally applies to Nordicbet other involved operators.

I think it could possibly equate to more like 100's of millions or even more. Again, refer to Lottomatica's Financial Statement just for the period of 7/6/12.

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

Go to pages 20 through 24 and the exact numbers are there for Spielo international amongst others. Keep in mind that the commas(,) represent mostly in the millions or more.

Costs to reputation...Priceless!

 

[binary128]

I haven't had much to say about this for a few days now, but I have been watching the thread and other developments carefully, and whilst it's great to see folks taking the issue and running with it - overall I'm left very saddened and disappointed by what we've seen.

I have made a few posts in this thread, but in doing so I felt, and continue to feel, a certain reluctance because of a nagging voice telling me that I'm sticking my nose into "someone else's business".

However, I don't think that this is true anymore. Galewind is involved. The industry is involved.

I'm afraid the accredited list is 'broken' for me now too, I fail to see what it's supposed to stand for. Players are told they're SOL, or banned, or blacklisted, for their transgressions, even if accidental. There's a standard response to 'read the T&Cs' when a player screws up, their mistake, their fault, their loss.

But it seems that the same rules to not apply to the casinos, who could not be bothered to read and/or adhere to the T&Cs of their licensing jurisdictions, who offered up a bent game to players, raked in untold amounts of money, and are just carrying on as before as if nothing has happened.

I found this amazingly on target, and a really excellent analogy.

Something that Bryan said earlier:

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 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.

#1. Given Betfred's recent handling of the "special Jaguar promotion" issue - stating that Pontoon isn't Blackjack, the extremes to which they went to remove Pontoon from their Casino, an "after the fact" removal of an entire country, Canada, from the "allowed Countries list", using old slot logs to prove robot use in a multi-hand Pontoon game, etc. (I think this one is an exemplar of "weird".)

#2. Given Betfred's deployment of a "rigged" game, and their statement that this was always their intent. (I think this one brings weird to a whole new level. It's like Ford saying that they had always intended a back end collision to result in the Pinto exploding. Some/most of you may be too young to get that analogy.)

#3. Given Betfred's complete lack of communication since their post of Jan 7 (a post about which I am already on record as saying - I have no idea what they are talking about).

In my opinion, I think that the first part of Bryan's quote above is asking the wrong question. In my opinion, I think the right question, at least as it applies to Betfred, should address the issue of basic competence.

Given this recent performance data, would you trust Betfred's Casino personnel to properly manage your bank account, your credit cards or other forms of payment, your bonus WR, your game play records? This question is not based on honesty and integrity - it is based on functional competence.

---

Post #78 in this thread was from the Betfred CM Representative. It contained:

The remaining items brought up in this thread are still under investigation by our suppliers; they are:

1. The suggestion that the game in question’s RTP is adaptive
2. The suggestion that the game performs differently in fun and real modes

I am not aware that Betfred has provided us with the answers to question 1 here. Did I miss it? Again, lack of follow through is a matter of basic competence.

---

In looking at the second part of Bryan's quote above, specifically "They are fully aware of what is expected and they have taken the appropriate actions to right what was wronged." - Bryan presented this as a statement of fact. If we turn that into a question (again limiting the scope to Betfred):

Who believes that Betfred is fully aware of what is expected and they have taken the appropriate actions to right what was wronged?

Again based on the lack of functional competence referenced above, my answer to that question - I simply can't believe that is true.

If the CM Accredited List is what I believe it to be, and does what I believe it was intended to do, then I would have to include my vote with those others who believe that at least Betfred should be pulled, and for quite some time.

Chris

 

[The Dude]

...

For Bryan to brush this aside as a 'software issue' shows a lack of understanding as to what players need from a casino and the software they run. We need to be able to TRUST the casinos we play at, we need to be able to TRUST that the software is fair. We all expect to lose in the long run because we're playing against a recognised and understood house edge, what we don't expect, and can not accept, is that those games are cheating us as well as taking the house edge.

Well for me, that trust is gone now, this whole episode has raised a multitude of questions, the vast majority of which have not been answered, and let's be honest, will not be answered...

I didn't brush anything aside, I removed these casinos as soon as it was affirmed that the software was screwed up. I knew that the players were being refunded their losses - I figured it would have been resolved quicker (as my last post indicates), but at the end of the day - what is important IMO is squaring the players away. This is happening.

No one here feels that these casinos deliberately tried to cheat anyone. Every casino uses casino software, and I really don't care how outstanding the software is - there will always be issues via bad programming or simple human error. This situation is more complicated because we have a screwed up game that has slipped by the operators as well as the licensors. I think this has surprised most everyone. In fact, this is unprecedented. A situation like this has never happened before with respectable companies like this..

I hope the source of your discouragement is not because I brought the casinos back on board. It was clear to me that the situation was being properly addressed. Betfred took longer than I expected, (again, please read my previous post) and they haven't been fully brought back on board yet. But this is a very dynamic environment and I take many things into consideration when dealing with these serious matters.

Most importantly - and this is the crux of the matter - people are listening and trying to do the right thing. And the bottom line is that this is what it's all about: raise an issue and get results. It's not a witch hunt or a casino bashing event - this is a problem that is being addressed and resolved.

And this is not about some accredited list or who is promoting whom. I do not use the Accredited list to punish or reward people - people who know me personally or who have been on this site for years are aware of this. The Accredited section has a very long history, those who are wise to it would understand.

The casinos operators are doing the right thing, and we have the ears and eyes of all operators involved and have been in contact with the licensing jurisdictions as well. Why be discouraged? I could understand this if nothing was happening - if we were getting "speak to the hand" responses and the proverbial brick wall. But this is not the case. In fact, these situations should give you a sense of empowerment if nothing else.

It's not over. The ICE is coming up and will be a fine opportunity to meet with some of these folk to find out what can be done to avoid situations like this in the future. And as I mentioned earlier, I'll be at the LAC and we can discuss this more over a beer (if you're there).

 

[The Dude]

@ Chris - some good points, but it's late. I'll be getting to this tomorrow.

 

[Mousey]

Just to butt in very briefly...

If this game (and maybe others??) by this software 'developer' is adaptive, whoever 'developed' (hacked ?) the original software to make it so should be run out of the online casino software business on a rail... tarred and feathered... put in stocks and chains... yadda yadda.

To me, as a player, making a game adaptive is the worst of the most horrible things I can think of to be done to what is passed off as a fair casino game. I would like to hear a definitive yes or no on this from someone. (Yes I have read this humongous thread, but there are so many twists and turns I may have missed definitive statement on that 'little' matter.)

 

[suchfun]

So they go out and buy games knowing full well there is cheat codes built in, but just happened to set it up wrong ??? Ya ok

 

[brutaldeluxe]

I don't understand why certain people are so keen to defend the casinos when if there was a bug that benefits the player
it'd be sorted in 0.00000001 seconds and anyone who took advantage of it would probably be labelled a fraudster.

It clearly states in the licence that the responsibility is with the casino to check the games are not rigged.
Just as it's the responsibility of players to read terms and conditions.
Why don't casinos have to read the terms and conditions of their licence or adhere to them ?

 

[pokeraddict]

The Nevada Gaming Control Board returned my email and said they have forwarded the link to this thread and my article to the investigations department. I hope it finds the way to the right people. At least it appears that OP has been paid now.

 

[jetset]

Brilliant! That's the sort of pressure that will filter down through the corporate structure and make Spielo sit up and pay attention to this crisis.

I'll bet they are getting calls from pissed off licensees of these games, too.

Yet still no communication?

It's a strange approach to a major issue imo.

I'm hoping to hear something from the Gibraltar regulator of Betfred that might show some of the concern for the safety and welfare of the player these regulators are always warbling on about.

@binary128 - excellent post imo. Although cheating with malice aforethought is obviously a very serious accusation, staff and management incompetence and ignorance of basic gambling law is also a major player turn-off, and that has to be addressed here too.

I'm sure that the operators involved here would like to be let off the hook because they're showing willing, allowing this issue to cool down, but there are very serious issues involved here and it is important imv for the matter to be thoroughly enquired into and the true facts published.

We have some action and a lot of talk thus far, but I would be happier knowing that everyone involved in this disgraceful/embarrassing (depending on your opinion) affair has been compelled to give their account of what happened, and firm conclusions reached that give players and the industry the truth - preferably by an reasonably independent third party like the Gibraltar regulator, providing they can be fired up.

Surely that is not too much to ask in a situation where there is a strong smell of deceitfulness and possibly cover up?

I think we also need to see some statements committing to making players whole again rather than verbal assurances - let's see some detail of the compensation planned.

 

[Nifty29]

IMO

1. Betfred should be removed from the Accred List. The refunds should have been calculated and issued within DAYS, not weeks. It shows they are not taking this matter seriously.

2. Casinos running ANY Finsoft games should be NOT eligible for accreditation. No exceptions. If they want to run games from these clowns, they are showing that player safety and trust is not important to them.

3. Casinos involved in providing these crooked games should NOT be allowed back into the Accred List until ALL affected players have been paid IN FULL i.e. NOT just the players who happen to have read this thread and take the initiative to email and ask for a refund. The refunds should go back as long as the game has been on their platform.

4. It should be a requirement of Accreditation here that casinos running multi-provider platforms must perform thorough in-house testing above and beyond any testing claimed to have been done by the supplier. Exceptions could be made for the major suppliers e.g. MGS who have a long history of fair and certified games.

5. The casinos involved were not deliberately offering a rigged game.....that being said, I would be very surprised if the people doing the monthly audits didn't notice it was odd that a 100% RTP game was paying out ~96% consistently, especially given the nature of the games involved. I'm sure if a 96% game was paying out 100%+ constantly, there would be an investigation.

6. It should further be established to what degree other entities connected to Finsoft were involved in this fiasco. When I say "involved", I mean whether they knew ANYTHING about the game being set to pay other than what it should pay. If any other entities WERE complicit, they should be blacklisted along with Finsoft and their games.


I've read all this thread, and I want to thank Eliot, the OP, thelawnet and others who have spent a lot of time providing the membership with all of this information.

I know the first reaction of some is to question the fairness of ALL games form all suppliers. When you consider the number of games out there, there is only a tiny percentage of them that have been proven to be rigged/misrepresented/etc, and in a largely unregulated industry such as online gaming, I would expect that to be the case (unfortunately). If this kind of thing occurred with MGS, RTG, Crypto, Playtech proprietary games, I would most definitely be deeply suspicious of all other software providers, but given the games concerned are from a smaller, less exposed provider, I can't say that I am totally surprised. It doesn't make it right though, of course.

I also think it is a good time to think about how we choose the games that we play. It appears you are safe (if history is any guide) playing MGS and the other big entities, but once you move into smaller niche providers with niche games and no real established reputation, there is a real chance that you may be shafted. Personally, I won't be even considering playing any games from any other providers than the big ones.

I urge Bryan to be impartial and unbending when it comes to dealing with this situation and not allow the Accredited List to be in any way "soiled", which would be a real blow and a slap in the face to other stellar casinos like 32Red etc.

 

[Balthazar]

I didn't brush anything aside

Bryan, not once in this thread you have addressed this:

If I were to pick out a single aspect that bothers me most about this all, it's the attitude of Betfred and Bet365 that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with offering a crooked card game as long as the help file lists the right RTP.

This is the most important point (by far!) in this drama, and neither the casinos nor yourself have addressed it, successfully leaving the players wondering if all card/roulette/Keno games are rigged. The fact that a major supplier made on purpose a rigged card game, and offered it to the casinos (who didn't seem upset by it) is the most shocking thing that I can think of related to the online gambling world. This isn't "human error", this is fraud. In the grand scheme of things, this is way worse than any player that got caught using a bot to play blackjack that you've encountered in your forum history.

 

[Richas]

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.

Hi, this is my first post. Pokeraddict's article led me to this thread.

My thing is poker with a sideline obsession with the regulation of online gambling. I want to help push the UKGC into acting. I also want to see how the Gib Reguator can make life miserable for Finsoft too. I don't want to contact UKGC myself as whoever they have already been responding to is better placed to lean on them.

This may get a little long as I will quote a few laws and regulations but bare with me please especialy as I think they can be prosecuted and even face gaol despite what the UKGC said in their initial response..

Finsoft's role in this outrageous. They created/tweaked and marketed a crooked game that breaches the technical standards for Gibraltar licenced sites and would have breached the UK standards if they had applied.

Unfortunately as Poog has found the UKGC can do nothing regarding software sold to overseas sites even though it is used by UK based players using UK advertised sites that have other UK Gambling Commission Licences and bookmakers in every high street. Though Finsoft is UK based and UKGC licenced the UK technical standards do not apply.

Finsoft's UKGC licence means very little in terms of rules once the technical standards are removed. This is all that is required of them by the code of practice:

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

Fortunately they are so incompetent they even breach these pathetic minimum requirements. They are in breach of the UKGC Software Development Licence.

This is their website

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

It lists some products they supply and it says they have a UKGC Licence (in tiny grey print at the bottom, you may miss it) but it is in clear breach of their obligations under the Code of Practice which says:

“Licensees offering the supply of gaming machines or gambling software on websites
must:
a) display the following information on the first page of the website which offers
gaming machines or gambling software in reliance on the licence:
(i) a statement that they are licensed and regulated by the Gambling
Commission;
(ii) their licence number; and
(iii) a link to the Commission’s website;
b) display at least the information at (i) above on each page of the website which
offers gaming machines or gambling software in reliance on the licence.
c) where they offer on pages of, or by means of a link from, their website, the
supply of gaming machines or gambling software which are not provided in
reliance on their licence, clearly distinguish those products which are regulated by
the Commission from those which are not.”

They clearly breach it under sections ii), iii), b, and c.

Poog - section Ct to some extent addresses your concern that firms can get the UKGC licence endorsement and then not have to meet the technical standards. If they list their products they need to make clear which are covered by the licence. Finsoft don't so that is a breech.

Now the consequences of this breach. I'd love to have it be that they have broken the law under the 2005 Gambling Act which says

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

“Gambling software
(1) A person commits an offence if in the course of a business he manufactures,
supplies, installs or adapts gambling software unless he acts in accordance
with an operating licence.
(2) In this Act “gambling software”—
(a) means computer software for use in connection with remote gambling,
but
(b) does not include anything for use solely in connection with a gaming
machine.
(3) A person does not supply or install gambling software for the purposes of
subsection (1) by reason only of the facts that—
(a) he makes facilities for remote communication or non-remote
communication available to another person, and
(b) the facilities are used by the other person to supply or install gambling
software.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary
conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks,
(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(c) both.
(5) In the application of subsection (4) to Scotland the reference to 51 weeks shall
have effect as a reference to six months”

but the public interest to prosecute for a technical infraction is probably not there and despite having a licence they may not have actually supplied any software to a UK Licenced firm.and if so no offence has been committed despite acting outside the operating licence terms.

The breach is real though so the UKGC need to look at their options for enforcement:

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

“The Gambling Commission has a range of powers which we may exercise following a review including:
issuing a warning to a licence holder
attaching an additional condition to a licence
removing or amending a condition to a licence
suspending a licence at the outset, or following a review
revoking a licence
imposing a financial penalty following breach of a licence condition.”

Any reported breach goes to the UKGC review board, there is a breach to report and at the resulting hearing then the way that Finsoft have sold software to a Gib licenced site in breach of the Gib rules becomes relevant in deciding whether to revoke the licence entirely as they are not fit and proper persons to hold a licence, at the least they might get additional conditions imposed upon them.

Whoever has been chasing the UKGC should go back to them with the above.

Now we turn to giving Finsoft pain via the Gibraltar authorities. There is less fun to be had here. There is no software developers offence and no software developers licence. Instead the 2005 Gibraltar Act deals with software suppliers via this section of the Act:

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

“Software suppliers.
26.(1) On receipt of a request from the Gambling Commissioner asking for
information concerning software of a particular description, the holder of a
licence shall give the Commissioner in such form and manner as may be
specified in the request, information concerning any person who supplies to
the licence holder software of that description and of the specification of
any such software.
(2) If the Gambling Commissioner is not satisfied with the information
provided by a licence holder in pursuance of subsection (1), the
Commissioner may by notice in writing prohibit the licence holder from contracting, or continuing to carry on business, with a software supplier specified in the notice”

A complaint to the Gib authorities should ask them to investigate Finsoft by asking every licenced site what software thy have from them. They should be asked to use their powers to order all Gibraltar registered sites to not use Finsoft as they clearly failed to supply software compliant with the Gib technical standards.

You would think that this was long enough already but there is something else about the UKGC that I find hugely frustrating. They refuse to say what they think is cheating under the 2005 Gambling Act. Apparently that is for the courts to decide but they have a duty to collect information on cheating and to pursue prosecutions. They have even done this a few times but never for online poker or remote gambling. In part I think this is because they are so focussed on the stuff above - the licence holders operating conditions and technical standards. The cheating parts of the act are a general offence that can apply to anyone regardless of where they are licenced but the UKGC do not want to take responsibility for anyone licenced overseas. Unfortunately for them a UK firm cheating a UK customer commits an offence even if they have a licence overseas and the transaction went via Gib.

This is what the act says on cheating:

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

Cheating
(1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) cheats at gambling, or
(b) does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person
to cheat at gambling.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether a person who
cheats—
(a) improves his chances of winning anything, or
(b) wins anything.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may,
in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in
connection with—
(a) the process by which gambling is conducted, or(b) a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling
relates.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
two years, to a fine or to both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51
weeks, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

Now from this thread we have a quite simple criminal chain. Finsoft supplied software designed to take 4% off everyone but presented it as an even odds game in that same package. BetFred are also guilty. They set up a game said to be 100% RTP but really 96% and did it for YEARS. Just this one person working it out was ripped off for thousands. I struggle to see how interfering with what was a 100% RTP game to make it 96% but still presenting it as 100% can be anything else but clearly cheating under the act.

Having dealt with the UKGC on cheating and poker (collusion and bots) I am reluctant to start again with this case but I would advise that this specific criminal allegation will only muddy the earlier complaint on Finsoft breaching the Code of Practice. They can deal with that far more easily without this additional charge. If anyone wants to see Finsoft and BetFred face the criminal investigation they deserve then I'd advise reporting their Section 42 Cheating to the UKGC as a completely separate thing. The more who do it the more pressure there is on the UKGC to act on remote gambling cheating and you never know maybe issue some guidance as to what is cheating.

 

[threescatters]

If this kind of thing occurred with MGS, RTG, Crypto, Playtech proprietary games, I would most definitely be deeply suspicious of all other software providers, but given the games concerned are from a smaller, less exposed provider, I can't say that I am totally surprised. It doesn't make it right though, of course.

Your post is solid Nifty but you should read some of the posts in this thread carefully. Noteabley these ones

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

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

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

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

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

This is no small provider. Its the complete opposite - a massive entity who has been around a LONG time and supplied software to a lot of BIG clients in their time. They are applying for a nevada licence and supply to the goverment of Canada according to one of those posts. This is one of the big boys - which is making this unravel very worryingly IMO.

 

[ThePOGG]

there will always be issues via bad programming or simple human error.

The problem is that this wasn't bad programming (i.e. sloppy) or human error. The only way that this could be conceived to be human error is if you consider stealing or taking steriods to boost performance in competitive sport human error. Yes the reward/consequence balance is out of whack in the individual involved, but they still intended their actions. The codes that were in use could not happen accidentally or by error - they are far to specific. This isn't a typo, or a segment of code turning up where it shouldn't have, this was code added specifically to exclude the last result (free games) and disrupt the natural distribution of the cards (real games). While i agree it's unlikely that the casinos involved were aware of what was going on, it's unquestionable that FinSoft/Spielo G2 knew exactly what they were doing.

2. Casinos running ANY Finsoft games should be NOT eligible for accreditation. No exceptions. If they want to run games from these clowns, they are showing that player safety and trust is not important to them.

I could not agree more strongly with this statement and that's why i'm putting so much time and work into finding out exactly who is connected to FinSoft/Spielo G2/Dynamite Idea and what their relationship is. This is a software issue and that issue was that a software provider chose to cheat. By continuing to work with this group a casino is saying two things - 1) we don't have a problem with what you chose to do and 2) working with you is more important to us than the continued safty of both our players and our reputation.

In a case like this a strong stand needs to be made to tell those who were ultimately responsible that this behaviour will NOT be tollerated.

I would also like to point out that - as far as i can recall, when applying for a gambling license to operate a casino in Nevada, association with people of a criminal nature can be enough to get your license denied. Why is it ok for casinos to continue to do business with a group that have broken the most fundemental tennents of the player/casino relationship?

 

[Nifty29]

Your post is solid Nifty but you should read some of the posts in this thread carefully. Noteabley these ones

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

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

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

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

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

This is no small provider. Its the complete opposite - a massive entity who has been around a LONG time and supplied software to a lot of BIG clients in their time. They are applying for a nevada licence and supply to the goverment of Canada according to one of those posts. This is one of the big boys - which is making this unravel very worryingly IMO.

Thanks threescatters.

For some reason the urls all go to the same page...??

Anyway, my understanding is that Finsoft is a smaller subsidiary of Spielo which is a huge enti...which is why IMO there should be a thorough top-to-toe investigation to find out who knew what and who didn't.

Did I get that idea wrong in my head? If so, then I agree it is more worrisome. I still believe that MGS, RTG, Netent etc wouldn't have gaffed games amongst their own in-house selection.....they are big enough to know that it isn't worth it, and they just don't need to do it to make a bundle. Can you imagine if it came to light that Immortal Romance (as an e.g. only) was actually rigged and it was adaptive and actually had a TRTP of 75%? MGS as a brand would become a dirty word overnight, and their business would take a hit that many operators would not recover from at all. It's why I believe also that PT/Betfred/NB didn't know upfront that the games were cheating, and hence did not offer them deliberately to fleece their players. However, as I also said, it does not excuse the behaviour afterwards.I also think that their decisions regarding games from other sources moving forward needs to be taken into consideration when assessing their status at CM. If they don't implement their own testing regime, they should be automatically ineligible. After all, it's not like they can say "Oh well we don't need to we would never be sold s gaffed game" anymore, can they?

Personally, I have never liked the idea of casinos mixing games from different platforms as a rule. If it is Netent+MGS i.e. the big providers sharing stuff, I'm OK with it, but when they start throwing in a few games from here and a few games from there made by people nobody really knows, it is asking for stuff like this to happen IMO. The operators are actually giving up some control over their offerings by doing this, and I'm surprised, given what is at stake (player confidence for one), they are happy to do it. Again...it's asking for trouble to leave your brand in the hands of another party who doesn't have their best interests at heart.

 

[ThePOGG]

Whoever has been chasing the UKGC should go back to them with the above.

I'm going to try and take a look at this over the course of today.

EDIT - I've now emailed the UKGC regarding the breach of license. As far as the GRA goes, i've already asked that they review whether their licensees should be allowed to use FinSoft as a supplier as their games are in clear breach of the GRA license.

 

[threescatters]

Thanks threescatters.

For some reason the urls all go to the same page...??

Anyway, my understanding is that Finsoft is a smaller subsidiary of Spielo which is a huge enti...which is why IMO there should be a thorough top-to-toe investigation to find out who knew what and who didn't.

Did I get that idea wrong in my head? If so, then I agree it is more worrisome. I still believe that MGS, RTG, Netent etc wouldn't have gaffed games amongst their own in-house selection.....they are big enough to know that it isn't worth it.

The links work and jump to the correct posts for me (internet explorer). Have to give them a little second to jump to the correct part though.

It doesnt matter what you call an entity within an entity or whatever. It's all the same company at the end of the day, and they are MASSIVE. If you cite those other companys as being "big enough to know that it isn't worth it" then that logic has not worked with this ex boss media group. They are big players.

For what its worth I completely agree MGS RTG Netent and other major providers provide a fair game. My initial response to anyone telling me online gambling is rigged is to laugh at the person claiming it. That is unless there is hard, solid evidence provided to support it - like in the OP here and in the AP/UB poker cheating scandals.

However this story unravelling now is looking much worse every passing day. It's a massive blackspot on the industry as a whole as people will start citing it and it will cause some players to turn off totally rather than to search out where they can be certain of a fair game.

 

[DavidEC]

Thanks threescatters.

For some reason the urls all go to the same page...??

I think this is what is causing it Nifty. If the number of posts shown setting has been changed, although it seems inconsistent in when it happens.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/bug-direct-linking-to-posts.54890/

 

[deucebag]

While i agree it's unlikely that the casinos involved were aware of what was going on, it's unquestionable that FinSoft/Spielo G2 knew exactly what they were doing.

Can you please explain why you think this is unlikely?

I think they knew what they did, and are as guilty as Spielo G2.

 

[Nifty29]

Can you please explain why you think this is unlikely?

I think they knew what they did, and are as guilty as Spielo G2.

....based on?

Nothing wrong with having that POV, but it's fairly empty if you have nothing to substantiate it.

 

[Balthazar]

....based on?

Can't answer for him but I can answer for myself.

Analysis has revealed that Reel Deal was indeed returning at 96%, despite being advertised at 100%. Finsoft’s review revealed that this was the result of an administrative error on the game’s deployment to Betfred, where the wrong help file was attached to the game.

While mistakes do happen, Betfred realise this is not acceptable. Neither Finsoft or Betfred would purposely mislead players, and will therefore actively compensate players on losses derived from the game over the last 6 months.

This reply from Betfred strongly suggests that the problem here is misleading the players (with the wrong help file) and not a rigged card game.

Here's another one that tells me that they have no problem with the rigged game:

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.

Would you bother mentioning the "certification" of your RNG IF you were outraged by the fact that a rigged version was made available?

 

[ThePOGG]

Can you please explain why you think this is unlikely?

I think they knew what they did, and are as guilty as Spielo G2.

Simple casino operations and the fact that the vast majority of people that work at online casino have only the vaguest understanding of how online games actually work. Most of the casino employees i speak to don't even understand the basics and use things like RNG certification to try and hide their ignorance behind. Very few casinos actually test games in house and even if they did, most of them would test for the wrong things in this instance. In fact - and Chris feel free to smack me if i'm wrong here - i don't think any test their free games at all.

I'd certainly say that ignorance is a weak defence in this instance and this highlights a major issue with the entire industry, but there's a huge difference between intentionally programming a game to cheat and not doing your background checks thoroughly enough.

The one exception to this to my mind is Betfred, but i'm not convinced they actually knew any more than any other casino, just that they got a report back from a partner company justifying it, trusted it and put their stamp on it. It was a stupid thing to do - if you don't understand the issue, hire someone independent who does, don't just spew out whatever the defending party tells you.

 

[Jufo]

Simple casino operations and the fact that the vast majority of people that work at online casino have only the vaguest understanding of how online games actually work. Most of the casino employees i speak to don't even understand the basics and use things like RNG certification to try and hide their ignorance behind. Very few casinos actually test games in house and even if they did, most of them would test for the wrong things in this instance. In fact - and Chris feel free to smack me if i'm wrong here - i don't think any test their free games at all.

Advantage players often report that Betfred is very quick to ban them when they make profit from Betfred's promos. So they seem to have at least the knowledge to quickly ban players that are unprofitable for them and distinguish them from lucky winners. Therefore I don't buy the "They don't really understand how their games work" argument and I think they are far more knowledgeable than what people have assumed in this thread. They knowingly chose to employ a "fixed price" model of the game and assumed no one would notice or care about the deception.

 

[ThePOGG]

Advantage players often report that Betfred is very quick to ban them when they make profit from Betfred's promos. So they seem to have at least the knowledge to quickly ban players that are unprofitable for them and distinguish them from lucky winners. Therefore I don't buy the "They don't really understand how their games work" argument and I think they are far more knowledgeable than what people have assumed in this thread. They knowingly chose to employ a "fixed price" model of the game and assumed no one would notice or care about the deception.

As far as my response goes Jufo, it's going to make little difference whether they knew or not, the fact that they are continuing their relationship with this provider - as are many others - is going to leave them unmarketable and to get out of that position they'd have to explain fully the statements they've already made and give a reasonable explanation for why they felt offering a game that was clearly in breach of their license was ok.

 

[dionysus]

As far as my response goes Jufo, it's going to make little difference whether they knew or not, the fact that they are continuing their relationship with this provider - as are many others - is going to leave them unmarketable and to get out of that position they'd have to explain fully the statements they've already made and give a reasonable explanation for why they felt offering a game that was clearly in breach of their license was ok.

sadly, if that were true, every rogue would have gone under, but thousands of players who don't read CM will still play there