Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[ThePOGG]

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

Unmarketable on my site I can't take responsibility for what other webmasters choose to do, i can only do the best with what i can control.

 

[deucebag]

....based on?

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

Based on the number of "mistakes" made in this case that all conveniently serve to trick players into playing the rigged game. Not only did they choose to use a rigged real money game, they used a misleading help file telling people that the RTP for certain bets was 100%, and they used a differently rigged "play money" game that paid out at a higher rate, which would mislead anyone who wanted to test the game fairness without risking their own funds.

I think it's more likely that this was intentional than not. The only argument I've seen to the contrary is that they would be too stupid to do this intentionally (which is a pretty bad argument IMO).

 

[Nifty29]

Based on the number of "mistakes" made in this case that all conveniently serve to trick players into playing the rigged game. Not only did they choose to use a rigged real money game, they used a misleading help file telling people that the RTP for certain bets was 100%, and they used a differently rigged "play money" game that paid out at a higher rate, which would mislead anyone who wanted to test the game fairness without risking their own funds.

I think it's more likely that this was intentional than not. The only argument I've seen to the contrary is that they would be too stupid to do this intentionally (which is a pretty bad argument IMO).

Well I think it's a fair conclusion.

I'm not 100% in agreement with it, but it's fair nonetheless....the statements made by betfred certainly did their position/reputation no favors.

 

[manuels58]

Can you please explain why you think this is unlikely?

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

I agree, in principle.

If you think about the casinos management, can anyone think (or even dream) that the involved casinos managers didn't ever noticed the unusual and abnormal results/payouts of the rigged games (please bear in mind that we are talking here of years of usage/playing)?
If they didn't, they were (are) incompetent and if I were in the shoes of the casinos owners I would be very worried on how their managers would discover a game paying out over the expected RTP (meaning a prejudice to the casinos owners).

My last assumption is just a way of saying that, as far as we are aware in this thread, I honestly don't know how extent is the group of those who were aware of this "deceit" (let's call it this way).

I also can't understand why there were so many of the posters thanking and congratulate Nordicbet (as an entity) for their decision of removing and reimbursing the players' losses, as if the problem was resolved in definitive and if it was enough for reinstating them back in the Accredited List, itself!
No investigation in order of knowing/clarifying if there was any involvement from anyone (person and/or entity) else?
(Sorry, I'm repeating myself)

On other hand, since both Betfred and Nordibet (by deduction) have accused Finsoft of being the guilty part, it is really very weird for me (I run businesses for thirty years now) that no one from that company comes in and (at least) tries to give an explanation, or an excuse for what happened (even if it was that "human error", or "inadvertence" (as per say "administrative error")?

In view of this behaviour from the several entities involved, and as others have said before, this only happens because the online gambling industry/business assume they can't be touched and so, why give it more rope?

All this really worries me and tells me that the fun I like to get from online gaming... is not exactly that anymore.
As far as this thread is spreading, the more I think I shall stay aside of online casinos

 

[manuels58]

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.

And do players have any responsibility on that? Of course they don't.
The incompetence of the casinos employees (from top down) are not players responsibility, instead we players have all rights to not comply with their wrong actions.

Side note: Please don't take me wrong POGG, my comment is generic. I consider you one of the most active and one that have most contributed to make this thread worth it

 

[manuels58]

Based on the number of "mistakes" made in this case that all conveniently serve to trick players into playing the rigged game. Not only did they choose to use a rigged real money game, they used a misleading help file telling people that the RTP for certain bets was 100%, and they used a differently rigged "play money" game that paid out at a higher rate, which would mislead anyone who wanted to test the game fairness without risking their own funds.

I think it's more likely that this was intentional than not. The only argument I've seen to the contrary is that they would be too stupid to do this intentionally (which is a pretty bad argument IMO).

At least that argument is not accepted in court, nor in business management, fortunately to all those who complain or make visible this kind of situations and possible schemes.

I then completely agree with you (and I have explained why in previous posts)

 

[ThePOGG]

And do players have any responsibility on that? Of course they don't.
The incompetence of the casinos employees (from top down) are not players responsibility, instead we players have all rights to not comply with their wrong actions.

I understand your point, but i'm not really sure how much more can be achieved.

If you want casinos blacklisted because they don't do thorough internal checks on all games provided, then you'd need to blacklist the entire industry. Next to none of them do this. If you want them blacklisted for not having a strong understanding of their games, once again that's the entire industry. It's the rare individual that i speak to that does have an understanding of game theory. That is an incompetence that pervades the entire industry. As it stands, i'll blacklist them for something that isn't uniform across the industry - making a wilful choice to associate with an organization that's been proven to cheat. All these would have the same ultimate affect on Betfred, it's the ramifications elsewhere that are different.

 

[manuels58]

I understand your point, but i'm not really sure how much more can be achieved.

If you want casinos blacklisted because they don't do thorough internal checks on all games provided, then you'd need to blacklist the entire industry. Next to none of them do this. If you want them blacklisted for not having a strong understanding of their games, once again that's the entire industry. It's the rare individual that i speak to that does have an understanding of game theory. That is an incompetence that pervades the entire industry. As it stands, i'll blacklist them for something that isn't uniform across the industry - making a wilful choice to associate with an organization that's been proven to cheat. All these would have the same ultimate affect on Betfred, it's the ramifications elsewhere that are different.

It wasn't that exactly my point. My point is more generic and pro-active.

The intention of many of the posts / posters in this thread is certainly to contribute to upgrade the regulation and supervision of online gambling industry, thus increasing players confidence on it. At least that's the way I see it.
Otherwise this thread wouldn't be worth it, right?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

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.

With all due respect Bryan (and I absolutely do respect you and what you have achieved with CM over the years, let me clear on that) - but 'squaring the players away' isn't the important thing here.

The important thing here is that we have accredited casinos stating upfront and with no apparent shame that they have no problem offering and profiting from card games that are rigged and cheating BY DESIGN. This point has been repeated time and time again in this thread by many different folks, (folks who are far smarter and better respected than me), they are breaching the terms of their licences and they are demonstrating an absolutely fundamental lack of understanding of fair play.

Betfred stated quite clearly that they bought in the 'fixed price model' (i.e. rigged, fraudulent and cheating) of the game quite deliberately, and all they're apologising for is uploading the wrong help file. Oh yes and having it play differently in free play mode too.....

If a player found himself in this sort of situation and tried the same excuse 'Oh sorry I used a bot by accident' - he'd be laughed out of CM and banned for good measure.

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..

There are only two possible explanations for what happened here.

1) Betfred are corrupt
2) Betfred are incompetent

Neither of which is a desirable quality for an accredited casino IMO.

Were they really running this game for YEARS and no one noticed it was making them a tidy sum of money despite its advertised 100% RTP? They either did it deliberately (corrupt, and there is evidence to point towards that with the help file and free play mode), or no one noticed for YEARS (incompetent).

Ignorance and 'sorry it was an accident' doesn't work if you crash into someone else whilst you're fiddling with your stereo in the car, why does it work for an accredited casino?

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.

I'm afraid I must vehemently disagree with you there Bryan.

This situation has not been addressed at all, let alone been 'properly addressed'. The OP has been bought off to make her go away, we have some vague promises that other players might get refunded if Betfred care to find them, (who's auditing that process, by the way?), and even then with a six month limitation.

The core issue of Betfred stating on this thread in plain English that they have no problem with a cheating card game that breaches the terms of their licensing jurisdiction has NOT been addressed.

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.

I agree that some people are certainly trying to do the right thing, but from where I'm sat that sure as hell ain't the casinos.

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.

I may have been posting here for less than a year but I've been reading the site for many years, call me a 'delurked lurker' perhaps

If the accredited list is not to 'punish' bad casinos and 'reward' good casinos, what is it actually for then? You may wish to use different terminology, but ultimately, isn't it about the good guys getting the recognition they deserve and the bad guys getting called out on it?

Betfred were off the accredited list for a very short period of time, before the OP had even been refunded, and we have had no statement from them for eleven days. Certainly the issue of them deliberately implementing a cheating card game has not been addressed.

What does their swift return to the accredited list say? What message does it send?

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.

Sorry Bryan I don't feel empowered at all. From my perspective every single safeguard that was supposed to be in place to stop this sort of thing happening has failed in a quite spectacular fashion.

Betfred got away with running this game for years, advertising it with a fake RTP, running a different version of it in free play, and then duping players with a rigged and adaptive version of the game in real play. It absolutely stinks, and to see their name on the accredited list alongside genuinely worthwhile casinos such as Redbet, 32Red and Jackpot Party is a very poor show.

Bet365 are no better, they got the help file right but they still have not addressed Eliot's maths stating that the game should have reached a 97.5% RTP over one million plus games, not 96% as Bet365 stated in this thread. (EDIT - Please note correction from ThePOGG below). Also, Bet365 have no problem with the basic nature of the game, that of it being both cheating and fraudulent and in breach of the code of their licensing jurisdiction.

Nordic Bet did the best I suppose, but I would still have to question what kind of casino would allow this kind of game onto their books in the first place - did they knowingly buy the 'fixed price model' of the game as well?

Please Bryan, which part of this fiasco is supposed to make me feel 'empowered'?

 

[ThePOGG]

Bet365 are no better, they got the help file right but they still have not addressed Eliot's maths stating that the game should have reached a 97.5% RTP over one million plus games, not 96% as Bet365 stated in this thread.

To be fair about this, Bet 365 stated that the RTP of Reel Deal was approaching 96% after one million rounds and my understanding is that the paytable of Reel Deal at Bet 365 would produce a 96% RTP. They haven't release the RTP of Hi Lo Gambler, but Eliot calculated that it should be approximately 97.5%.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

To be fair about this, Bet 365 stated that the RTP of Reel Deal was approaching 96% after one million rounds and my understanding is that the paytable of Reel Deal at Bet 365 would produce a 96% RTP. They haven't release the RTP of Hi Lo Gambler, but Eliot calculated that it should be approximately 97.5%.

Ahhh right my bad there, I'm keeping up with this thread as best I can but it can be hard during a busy working week

I would still say the RTP issue is very much secondary to the real elephant in the room though, which is 'casino says it's OK to present cheating, adaptive and licence breaking rigged card games to their customers as long as they make RTP'.

 

[thelawnet]

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.

The issue is that Finsoft RIGGED the card game to return 96%.

This is actually extremely serious, because the game appeared by its design to have zero edge, and obviously such a game in theory you can play indefinitely without any expected lost.

It wasn't that they offered two RTPs, it was, as explained by Betfred, that they offered two versions of the game, one honest one, where the advertised payout was changed to reduce the RTP, and one dishonest one, where the chance of winning was less than it should have been, which not only was not disclosed to the player, but has no place in an online casino at all.

Betfred CHOSE, by their own admission, to go for the dishonest game that appeared to be a completely game, but in fact was a rigged one.

 

[Mousey]

I receive a magazine for southen gamblers called Southern Gaming. On page 21 or 22 there is a full page ad for folks to join up to a gaming opinion/advisory group (I thought about joining after seeing ad in previous issue but never got around to it)... Anyway... at the bottom right of the page it says Spielo International. Is this the same group/company we're talking about in this thread??

The

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

, but I can't link directly to the page so here's a screenshot...

 

[manuels58]

The issue is that Finsoft RIGGED the card game to return 96%.

This is actually extremely serious, because the game appeared by its design to have zero edge, and obviously such a game in theory you can play indefinitely without any expected lost.

It wasn't that they offered two RTPs, it was, as explained by Betfred, that they offered two versions of the game, one honest one, where the advertised payout was changed to reduce the RTP, and one dishonest one, where the chance of winning was less than it should have been, which not only was not disclosed to the player, but has no place in an online casino at all.

Betfred CHOSE, by their own admission, to go for the dishonest game that appeared to be a completely game, but in fact was a rigged one.

It was because of this that I suggested members to not take premature decisions about who was guilty, and who wasn't.

Bear in mind that Betfred stated their version of the process and their choice, but Nordicbet didn't.

We may ask why was Nordicbet running the rigged version?
If we hypothetically assume they have also been put in face of a choice (the guys from Finsoft most probably have offered the two versions to more casinos, besides Betfred) and they chose the rigged version, are they different from Betfred?
What we know anyway is that Betfred gave us their statement on what they based their decision on (something that has played against them, actually), but Nordicbet didn't. Why?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

As per the end scene from 'Wargames', I've reached the conclusion that 'the only winning move is not to play'.

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

 

[Balthazar]

The issue is that Finsoft RIGGED the card game to return 96%

I know that, that's what I'm saying. People were talking about the need for casinos to test the games, which is irrelevant to what happened. I give the casinos the benefit of the doubt for using the wrong help file, but they knew what they were doing when they were running the rigged games. That was the point I was trying to make.


I think this thread has reached an impasse at this point. It looks like the casinos won't make any more statement and will stay accredited, Finsoft will keep making games and everything will go back to "normal". Virtually no consequences for everyone involved.

 

[manuels58]

I know that, that's what I'm saying. People were talking about the need for casinos to test the games, which is irrelevant to what happened. I give the casinos the benefit of the doubt for using the wrong help file, but they knew what they were doing when they were running the rigged games. That was the point I was trying to make.


I think this thread has reached an impasse at this point. It looks like the casinos won't make any more statement and will stay accredited, Finsoft will keep making games and everything will go back to "normal". Virtually no consequences for everyone involved.

Unfortunately and sadly, I must agree with you.

 

[sapit222]

As long as members/people in here & on other sites continue to write about this & similar "accidents" (cheats?) it will never go away!
Its only been a few weeks since it came to light about this. Surely there is more members in here & elsewhere that can investigate or post/write more on this site & other sites?

 

[manuels58]

As long as members/people in here & on other sites continue to write about this & similar "accidents" (cheats?) it will never go away!
Its only been a few weeks since it came to light about this. Surely there is more members in here & elsewhere that can investigate or post/write more on this site & other sites?

I can also agree with this (ref. to my post #458) but, quoting Balthazar again, virtually no consequences...

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Every single player has a very powerful weapon in their armoury.

They can stop playing.

 

[manuels58]

Every single player has a very powerful weapon in their armoury.

They can stop playing.

That's indeed a valid solution, but the long term one and the radical/final one, as well

 

[ThePOGG]

Virtually no consequences for everyone involved.

I think that may be jumping the gun slightly - we have both the GRA and the UKGC now investigating various license violations and i think we should follow that process through to the end before we start saying that there's been no consequences.

 

[Jufo]

As per the end scene from 'Wargames', I've reached the conclusion that 'the only winning move is not to play'.

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

Off-topic, but ah the nostalgia. Here is another version of this same message along with a good song:

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

 

[asianeyes]

As per the end scene from 'Wargames', I've reached the conclusion that 'the only winning move is not to play'.

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

B&m's are the best way to go for fairness. Look for "openshoe" Blackjack & roulette are safe to play. However, in light of the likes of Spielo G2, i would avoid all slots and any of the new dealerless electronic blackjack and roulette tables that "any" B&m's have. Everything electronic should be considered suspect.

Another big plus is you get paid straight away and no BS T & C's.

 

[Richas]

I know that, that's what I'm saying. People were talking about the need for casinos to test the games, which is irrelevant to what happened. I give the casinos the benefit of the doubt for using the wrong help file, but they knew what they were doing when they were running the rigged games. That was the point I was trying to make.


I think this thread has reached an impasse at this point. It looks like the casinos won't make any more statement and will stay accredited, Finsoft will keep making games and everything will go back to "normal". Virtually no consequences for everyone involved.

The need to test is absolutely central as to whether BetFred have broken the law in Gibraltar and it is one thing the GRA should be investigating.

Either the GRA the UKGC or both could yet impose serious sanctions on Finsoft and BetFred for this. They have committed breaches of their licence conditions AND broken the criminal law. They should face regulatory sanctions and be prosecuted both in Gib and the UK. As yet we don't know if this will happen but it should.

The rest of this post is long and dull about why the testing is central to the GRA complaint and breaking the law in Gibraltar so quit now if that stuff bores you...

The casinos are always keen to say that they have a certificate that their software has been tested. They make a big deal of this and BetFred even named the two firms that had supplied certificates for this software (It has to be one of seven approved test facilities -ATFs). Well they use this as a sort of job done stamp in terms of dealing with their customers. I suspect that they are half convinced themselves that this is all they need to do...it really isn't. There is a whole raft more they need to do but they are aware of this bit because certification is a specified requirement in the 2005 Gib Act:

(3) In accordance with the following provisions of this section, a licence
holder shall furnish to the Gambling Commissioner at such intervals as are
referred to in subsection (5), a certificate that the integrity of any computer
equipment used to facilitate the carrying on of the activities authorised
under the licence has been properly tested by a body approved by the
Minister in consultation with the Gambling Commissioner, the Licensing
Authority (if not the Minister) and after consultation with licence holders.
(4) A certificate furnished to the Gambling Commissioner for the purposes
of subsection (3) shall contain the following information−
(a) the name of the owner of the equipment;
(b) the name of any company or individual who carried out the
testing;
(c) a declaration that software forming any part of a random
number generator is fair and reliable; and
(d) such other information as the Gambling Commissioner may
from time to time in writing specify.

Now BetFred have said they had such certification. The trouble is though that their game as it performed for the OP fails that test. The Remote Technical and Operating Standards that they must follow under the act specify what the certification requires:

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

11.1 RNG and Game Randomness
(1) Licence holders should be able to demonstrate the fairness and randomness of all
games to the Gambling Commissioner without any undue delay.
(2) The output obtained through the use of the RNG in games shall be proven to:
(a) Be statistically independent.
(b) Be uniformly distributed over their range.
(c) Pass various recognised statistical tests intended to demonstrate a) and b) above
and the absence of patterns.
(d) Be unpredictable without knowledge of the algorithm, its implementation, and the
current seed value (all of which should be secure).
(e) be random and distributed in accordance with the rules and expected
probabilities of the game.

So we have to ask ourselves - how come they have a certificated game operating that fails the certification requirement? Now maybe the two independent ATFs who signed off this RNG don't like being approved testers and wish to exit the business or the software they certificated was not what was deployed on BetFred.

This is surprisingly likely given the Technical standards. this is what thy say about the certificates:

12.2 RNG testing
(1) Prior to the commercial use of a new RNG in the provision of remote gambling
facilities, a licence holder shall furnish the Commissioner with a certificate from an
ATF confirming that the output of the RNG passes recognised statistical randomness
tests confirming that it meets the randomness requirements in section 11.1(2).
(2) The Commissioner will also consider other forms of certifying the fairness and
randomness of RNGs used, such as source code testing, as long as the licence
holder and ATF can demonstrate that it meets the underlying objective that the
gambling is verifiably fair to the customer.
(3) Where appropriate, the Commissioner will recognise RNGs that are tested and
certified in accordance with the requirements of other jurisdictions that licence and
regulate remote gambling consistently with the Gibraltar regulatory model.
(4) Where appropriate, the Commissioner may also recognise prior ATF certification
undertaken on behalf of a software supplier.
(5) For the certification to remain valid there must be no changes to the RNG. Any
changes to the RNG previously certified, needs to be re certified before it is
reintroduced to the live environment.

I suspect number 4 is the problem here -The certificate Finsoft have put up for this software could have been knocking around from ages ago, it could refer to software pre their tweak, to software that is 100% RTP. They haven't just put in the wrong help file for this deployment - the certificate does not match the software deployed either!

(Pogg - BetFred should give you a copy of both the certificates - they are required to under section 11.4 b of the Technical standard).

Unfortunately for BetFred even though they have certificates they don't match the observed performance of the software. They have broken the law on the certification even if it was Finsoft's fault they have failed..... even on the explicit testing certificate that casinos like to talk about.

It gets worse though. There are a number of other testing requirements beyond mere certification that are in the technical standard and so enforced by the 2005 Gib Act. this is a big problem for BetFred as the game ran for years

12.4 Ongoing monitoring
(1) Further to ATF certification of the RNG and game engine prior to being used in the
provision of remote gambling, periodic reviews of the game engine‟s output should
also be undertaken as part of a licence holder‟s arrangements to ensure the ongoing fairness and integrity of its game engines:
(a) A licence holder may perform the following reviews in house on the condition
that:
(i) the in house monitoring methodology has been previously reviewed
and certified by a qualified third party approved by the Commissioner;
(ii) the licence holder has demonstrated to the Commissioner or
Licensing Authority that its practices and outcomes in product
development, change control and testing are reliable and meet
appropriate standards; or,
(iii) the game engine‟s outcome is certified annually to verify the results of
the licence holder‟s quarterly assessments.
(b) Where a game engine has a theoretical RTP (e.g. slot games) a licence
holder should employ reliable and audited means to perform quarterly RTP
analysis of the game engine‟s output.
(c) Where a game engine does not have a theoretical RTP (e.g. poker), a licence
holder should employ reliable and audited means to perform quarterly
statistical analysis of the game engine‟s output including its distribution to
certify that it is in accordance with the theoretical outcome probabilities of the
game engine.
(d) All such reports are to be made available to the Gambling Commissioner on
request.
2) Licence holders should complete a system-wide regression test at least annually.
3) The financial data log files should be reconciled to movements on the accounts to
ensure accuracy and completeness of data used in final result output-based payout percentage and RNG testing.

I know the above quote is long but go back and reread it............ You now know more about the testing requirements than roughly 99% of remote casino staff working for Gibraltar sites and it does not make pleasant reading for BetFred. They need to have documented annual regression tests of this game, quarterly RTP reports, maybe annual new ATF certificates and lastly they have to show that they regularly checked how much money this 100% RTP game was making for them - reconciled against how much it should be making for them!

If they claimed to have done this testing in house and so not need the annual ATF renewal it would be odd indeed if the GRA lets them do that again given their comprehensive failure.

There are other bits of the technical standard where BetFred and Finsoft have clearly failed to meet the standard all of which the GRA should be crawling all over. Here's an example:

12.6 Software development and maintenance
(1) A development methodology for software and applications should be defined,
documented and implemented.
(2) All documentation relating to software and application development should be
available and retained for the duration of its lifecycle.Change control procedures should be implemented in line with the change management policy and should cater for the following:
(a) Approval procedures for changes to software.
(b) A policy addressing emergency change procedures.
(c) Procedures for testing and migration of changes.
(d) Segregation of duties between the developers, quality assurance team, the
migration team and users.
(e) Procedures to ensure that technical and user documentation is updated as a
result of a change.
(f) Procedures to ensure that security control requirements are specified for new
information systems, or enhancements to existing information systems.
(4) The development and test environments ought to be isolated physically and logically
from the live operational systems.

The jury says.....FAIL.

7.2. ‘Play for Free’ Games
(1) Play for free games for no prize are not gambling but should accurately reflect any
„real-money‟ version of the game, and should not be used to encourage those under
18 to use licensed gambling facilities.
(2) In particular, such games should not be designed to mislead the player about the
chances for success by, for example, using mappings that produce different
outcomes than the cash game. Licence holders should be able to demonstrate this
equivalence to the Gambling Commissioner upon request.

The Jury says - FAIL

It also turns out that in my last post I was wrong - software suppliers do need to be approved by the GRA, it isn't just that the GRA can ban them they do need to approve this sort of partnership.

13.4 Other joint ventures
(1) Whilst white label and platform partner arrangements are the most common forms
of joint ventures, any contractual arrangement to share the licence holder‟s
licensed facilities with a third party, such as those whereby a software supplier‟s
games are installed and executed or accessed from the licence holder‟s gaming
platform/infrastructure, amounts to a joint venture requiring authorisation by the
Licensing Authority.
(2) All „gambling software‟ suppliers should be approved by the Licensing Authority.
Whilst the breadth of „gambling software‟ is not being defined, the Gambling
Commissioner would regard any customer facing software used by a licence
holder on which customers could be expected to place significant trust when
making gambling decisions, or seeking gambling transaction information, to be
„gambling software‟, for which the supplier should be approved.
(3) Licence holders should contact the Licensing Authority for guidance on an
application for the approval of a joint venture. A description of the proposed
functionality and the supplier(s) involved should be provided at the outset.

What odds does anyone want to offer me that Finsoft and BetFred failed to get this relationship pre authorised?

This post is again far too long for what is such a simple case. Here is the principle that they broke again and again and again

Principle 7.b (Generic Code 13.1) – “Licence holders are required to use
equipment, software and services that are compliant with the Commissioner‟s
Technical Standards document and take responsibility for any failures in these
arrangements.”

The GRA really has no choice - it has to act and impose tough sanctions if it hopes to remain a credible regulator. BetFred and any others who have the same issue need to get their act together - fess up and do some pretty good disaster management PR work. This case is so blatant, so totally outside of the law and the regulations that

Virtually no consequences for everyone involved.

really means the death of regulated remote gambling, in Gibraltar at least. Other firms who did not do this should be telling the regulator to Act in order to protect their reputation as sites regulated by Gib.

Casinomeister - you have relationships with most of them - why not point this out to them?

Given the complete failure to do the ongoing testing, the software change control, the financial reconciliation and much much more how can it be that a site gets to go back to "approved"...they need root and branch change across multiple departments to get even close to meeting the regulatory standard. They must have ongoing failures in monitoring and control across the whole range of the games they supply or this "mistake" could not have happened for these games - the simplest game of the lot.

 

[Westland Bowl]

B&m's are the best way to go for fairness. Look for "openshoe" Blackjack & roulette are safe to play. However, in light of the likes of Spielo G2, i would avoid all slots and any of the new dealerless electronic blackjack and roulette tables that "any" B&m's have. Everything electronic should be considered suspect.

Another big plus is you get paid straight away and no BS T & C's.

After winning over $2,500 on the previous two trips, I was ahead an additional $350 after one hour of play on the ShuffleMaster iTable playing blackjack at Harrington Casino in Deleware. This is a blackjack table with touch-screens at each spot where you enter how much you want to bet. There is a live dealer dealing cards from the continuous shuffle machine that reads the cards and your card total appears on the screen. So this is a set up just like online casinos but with a real dealer dealing real cards. Then the sh*t happens, the cards start getting "stuck" in the machine- the card shuffle machine isn't letting the cards slide out easily for the dealer to draw. The same time, I was getting crappy hands while everyone else were getting good to decent hands. I started losing quite a few times to the point where the other players were commenting and shaking their heads at my "bad luck". With my profit down to $50, I take a meal break.

I come back and no change in my luck. But after a while, the dealer notices that the cards from the machine where coming out all bent, the cards were not laying flat in the discard tray. She calls the floor supervisor who also is puzzled. They never seen that before. But the pit boss told them to never mind that and continue the play. I didn't think anything of it at the time but after losing $600, fumed out of the casino and driving home, my mind started connecting the dots and I realized that the shuffle machine was likely fixing the cards, hence the reason why the cards were getting stuck and bent. Harrington never sent anymore promotions to me after that day.

So, yeah, if a casino does not use the Shufflemaster iTable but uses RFID chips, a chip reader under each blackjack table spot and a covered shuffle machine, they have all the makings of a fixed RTP type game. This is where I would want the shuffle machine manufacturers to provide a 2-deck (or more) mini-shoe in front of the machine so that we can see the cards are not fixed or manipulated when RFID chips are in use.

 

[Nifty29]

After winning over $2,500 on the previous two trips, I was ahead an additional $350 after one hour of play on the ShuffleMaster iTable playing blackjack at Harrington Casino in Deleware. This is a blackjack table with touch-screens at each spot where you enter how much you want to bet. There is a live dealer dealing cards from the continuous shuffle machine that reads the cards and your card total appears on the screen. So this is a set up just like online casinos but with a real dealer dealing real cards. Then the sh*t happens, the cards start getting "stuck" in the machine- the card shuffle machine isn't letting the cards slide out easily for the dealer to draw. The same time, I was getting crappy hands while everyone else were getting good to decent hands. I started losing quite a few times to the point where the other players were commenting and shaking their heads at my "bad luck". With my profit down to $50, I take a meal break.

I come back and no change in my luck. But after a while, the dealer notices that the cards from the machine where coming out all bent, the cards were not laying flat in the discard tray. She calls the floor supervisor who also is puzzled. They never seen that before. But the pit boss told them to never mind that and continue the play. I didn't think anything of it at the time but after losing $600, fumed out of the casino and driving home, my mind started connecting the dots and I realized that the shuffle machine was likely fixing the cards, hence the reason why the cards were getting stuck and bent. Harrington never sent anymore promotions to me after that day.

So, yeah, if a casino does not use the Shufflemaster iTable but uses RFID chips, a chip reader under each blackjack table spot and a covered shuffle machine, they have all the makings of a fixed RTP type game. This is where I would want the shuffle machine manufacturers to provide a 2-deck (or more) mini-shoe in front of the machine so that we can see the cards are not fixed or manipulated when RFID chips are in use.

How exactly would the shufflemaster machine fix the cards?

Why would the machine "rig" the cards to make YOU lose, and not everyone else, considering that you left and came back? Does it use face recognition software, or did you luck out and use the "lose" seat again.

You had one bad night on one game at one casino, and the live dealer/software is cheating?

Given your posts in the past, I can't believe you play anywhere, ever. You must be some kind of masochist.

Sorry for the derail....just wanted an explanation as to how it works and how it relates to this fiasco.

 

[asianeyes]

After winning over $2,500 on the previous two trips, I was ahead an additional $350 after one hour of play on the ShuffleMaster iTable playing blackjack at Harrington Casino in Deleware. This is a blackjack table with touch-screens at each spot where you enter how much you want to bet. There is a live dealer dealing cards from the continuous shuffle machine that reads the cards and your card total appears on the screen. So this is a set up just like online casinos but with a real dealer dealing real cards. Then the sh*t happens, the cards start getting "stuck" in the machine- the card shuffle machine isn't letting the cards slide out easily for the dealer to draw. The same time, I was getting crappy hands while everyone else were getting good to decent hands. I started losing quite a few times to the point where the other players were commenting and shaking their heads at my "bad luck". With my profit down to $50, I take a meal break.

I come back and no change in my luck. But after a while, the dealer notices that the cards from the machine where coming out all bent, the cards were not laying flat in the discard tray. She calls the floor supervisor who also is puzzled. They never seen that before. But the pit boss told them to never mind that and continue the play. I didn't think anything of it at the time but after losing $600, fumed out of the casino and driving home, my mind started connecting the dots and I realized that the shuffle machine was likely fixing the cards, hence the reason why the cards were getting stuck and bent. Harrington never sent anymore promotions to me after that day.

So, yeah, if a casino does not use the Shufflemaster iTable but uses RFID chips, a chip reader under each blackjack table spot and a covered shuffle machine, they have all the makings of a fixed RTP type game. This is where I would want the shuffle machine manufacturers to provide a 2-deck (or more) mini-shoe in front of the machine so that we can see the cards are not fixed or manipulated when RFID chips are in use.

Before the "Mindplay" computer controlled BJ tables became available over here i was already informed in advance and i promised myself that if and when i encountered those tables i would stay clear. Thank goodness there are still openshoe tables here, but if that should ever change, i will give up for good. I trust nothing electronic as it's too easy to code a computer to do anything you want it to do

Here's a link from Arnold Snyder:

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

detailing the Mindplay computerized BJ tables. It's nearer to the end of the article where it gets interesting as to how these systems can be accessed by password with proper authority. Mindplay has full capability for card tracking and many other features.

Here's a message from Stanford Wong about Mindplay systems:

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

MindPlay Tables

MindPlay is a table that uses marked cards and knows the order of cards before they are dealt. An optical device is used to scan the cards and chips wagered by each player. By marking the cards and scanning the chips, casinos using this device can determine not only a player's average bet but also the player's skill level. The device also counts cards, and can be used to tell the dealer to shuffle whenever the count reaches a predetermined number, taking away any possible player advantage. Casinos that use MindPlay are able to squeeze players comp accounts, because they know exactly how much action you've put in play and for exactly how long you've played. This will dramatically curtail the ability of a pit boss to extend discretionary comps.

The easiest way to tell a MindPlay table is by the recessed "well" to the dealer's right. After shuffling or removing the cards from the shuffling machine, but before dealing, the dealer will insert the cards into this "well." Inside the "well" is a scanner that reads the marked cards, enabling the MindPlay device to know the exact order of the cards before they are dealt. A normal table does not have this recessed "well." In addition, you will see a black contraption that is used to hold the dealers first two cards. If you see such a table, do not play.




JUST SAY NO TO ANY AND ALL OF THESE RIPOFF GAMES, AND WARN OTHERS!
This information presented as a public service by BJ21.com, the leading source of blackjack information.

Anyways, sorry about the derail but think i it's important to express how easy it is to manipulate and pre programme computers and software.

One final comment: About a year ago i visited my fav B & M and lo and behold they had installed 4 Mindplay dealerless Bj tables. Completely automated with no dealer. It gave me the creeps and a very bad sense of foreboding. I more trust all aspects of the human element versus machine and will only play an open shoe with no RFID. Just like the good 'ol days. Too many horror stories about online and to be honest, online gives me the same sense of forbodeing as does those Mindplay machines.

 

[asianeyes]

How exactly would the shufflemaster machine fix the cards?

Why would the machine "rig" the cards to make YOU lose, and not everyone else, considering that you left and came back? Does it use face recognition software, or did you luck out and use the "lose" seat again.

You had one bad night on one game at one casino, and the live dealer/software is cheating?

Given your posts in the past, I can't believe you play anywhere, ever. You must be some kind of masochist.

Sorry for the derail....just wanted an explanation as to how it works and how it relates to this fiasco.

Here's one of the patents for Mindplay:

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

There's even one for: Intelligent baccarat shoe

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

Here's one in PDF:

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

There are others as well. On the patent links tables, scrolll down and choose any underlined item and open it and it will give exact detail of what it is capable of.

I relate this to this thread cos as stated it's too easy to write code and cheat using software programs!

 

[Westland Bowl]

How exactly would the shufflemaster machine fix the cards?

Why would the machine "rig" the cards to make YOU lose, and not everyone else, considering that you left and came back? Does it use face recognition software, or did you luck out and use the "lose" seat again.

You had one bad night on one game at one casino, and the live dealer/software is cheating?

Given your posts in the past, I can't believe you play anywhere, ever. You must be some kind of masochist.

Sorry for the derail....just wanted an explanation as to how it works and how it relates to this fiasco.

The Shufflemaster machine internally reads the card in order to show what cards you have on your screen at your spot at the blackjack table. When you sit at the table you provide your player card and this goes into the table's computer running that table. This computer provides player history statistics to the dealer though this isn't really useful info for the dealer but the computer "knows". It is the timing of the "stuck" cards and the cards being bent in which the dealer and floor supervisor never seen that before. It just had the play of a fixed RTP play.

I do a heck of a lot better in land casinos than in online casinos as I can see the cards as opposed to online casinos. There is less chances for cheating when the cards in an open shoe are in view.

 

[Nifty29]

The Shufflemaster machine internally reads the card in order to show what cards you have on your screen at your spot at the blackjack table. When you sit at the table you provide your player card and this goes into the table's computer running that table. This computer provides player history statistics to the dealer though this isn't really useful info for the dealer but the computer "knows". It is the timing of the "stuck" cards and the cards being bent in which the dealer and floor supervisor never seen that before. It just had the play of a fixed RTP play.

I do a heck of a lot better in land casinos than in online casinos as I can see the cards as opposed to online casinos. There is less chances for cheating when the cards in an open shoe are in view.

So, if the dealer and the pitboss has "never seen it before", then obviously someone had snuck in between hands and installed a software update to commence the cheating process. Otherwise, they would all have "seen it before" surely?

If the player stats are not useful to the dealer....why even mention it? So what if the computer "knows" what your play history is, if the information is useless as you say?

I still cannot believe that someone who has been around as long as you would make remarks like "it had the play of a fixed RTP" based on losing $600 in one night.

Sorry, but based on everything you have said, it looks like you just had a bad night. It happens you know, even with totally live and fair blackjack etc. Were the other players complaining that they seems to be winning too much (which they would have to be if your play was so biased)?

Anyway, again sorry for derail, back to the proven crooks....

 

[Westland Bowl]

So, if the dealer and the pitboss has "never seen it before", then obviously someone had snuck in between hands and installed a software update to commence the cheating process. Otherwise, they would all have "seen it before" surely?

If the player stats are not useful to the dealer....why even mention it? So what if the computer "knows" what your play history is, if the information is useless as you say?

I still cannot believe that someone who has been around as long as you would make remarks like "it had the play of a fixed RTP" based on losing $600 in one night.

Sorry, but based on everything you have said, it looks like you just had a bad night. It happens you know, even with totally live and fair blackjack etc. Were the other players complaining that they seems to be winning too much (which they would have to be if your play was so biased)?

Anyway, again sorry for derail, back to the proven crooks....

Sigh. I won't continue to debate this but I'll just say when it comes to computers and blackjack, online or in land casinos, funny crap goes on unlike shoe games, in my experience.

 

[Nifty29]

Here's one of the patents for Mindplay:

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

There's even one for: Intelligent baccarat shoe

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

Here's one in PDF:

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

There are others as well. On the patent links tables, scrolll down and choose any underlined item and open it and it will give exact detail of what it is capable of.

I relate this to this thread cos as stated it's too easy to write code and cheat using software programs!

Thanks for the links, but there's way too much stuff to wade through.

I've been over some of them, and found no "patented cheating" thus far. Could you please point out the relevant sections where I can find them?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sigh. I won't continue to debate this but I'll just say when it comes to computers and blackjack, online or in land casinos, funny crap goes on unlike shoe games, in my experience.

You should have refused to play again after your meal break because the machine was still faulty. There is no way they could have carried on using this faulty machine long term. They probably used it that visit because the other option was to close the table for the rest of the day/night, and this would cost them money.

Since you are already suspicious about anything not being quite right, you should have heeded the "gut feeling" and left.

The fact that they didn't send you further promotions makes them look bad, a careless business decision that provides a motive for them to have rigged the game, even if such rigging never took place, or cannot be proved.

Normally, a business would extend a customer a gesture of goodwill after something went wrong that lead to a poor experience. The fact that they did the complete opposite, a "badwill gesture", only makes things even MORE suspicious.

It would be very hard to rig a multi seat Blackjack game against a single player as the decisions of other players can influence the outcomes for any player that has been targetted. A targetted player could also mess things up by making "crazy" plays, leaving another player to suffer any rigged cards.

It is far easier to rig an online single player game, and although it happens, it is uncommon, and not always unnoticed.

 

[ThePOGG]

William Hill have just confirmed that they do not work with Spielo G2.

 

[ThePOGG]

It would be very hard to rig a multi seat Blackjack game against a single player as the decisions of other players can influence the outcomes for any player that has been targetted. A targetted player could also mess things up by making "crazy" plays, leaving another player to suffer any rigged cards.

Interestingly there have actually been cooler decks designed so that regardless of the number of players at the table and the decisions they make the house will still win the vast majority of hands. But it takes a very specific order to achieve this effect.

 

[Jufo]

It would be very hard to rig a multi seat Blackjack game against a single player as the decisions of other players can influence the outcomes for any player that has been targetted. A targetted player could also mess things up by making "crazy" plays, leaving another player to suffer any rigged cards.

I think the best way to rig multi seat BJ games would be to use a shortened deck that has a couple of Tens and Aces removed from it, as excess of big cards = good for player and excess of smalls cards = good for dealer. So in a suspicous casino I would request to see the whole shoe face-up at periodic intervals.

 

[asianeyes]

Thanks for the links, but there's way too much stuff to wade through.

I've been over some of them, and found no "patented cheating" thus far. Could you please point out the relevant sections where I can find them?

Unfortunately there is no patent that provides cheating code within all the material as that would be too easy to spot. However what the patents show is there is in fact Mindplay systems land based casinos are using that have an ability to track just about every possibility.

Now trusts amongst players and casinos is paramount. However, as this thread has shown, our trusts has been demolished due to Spielo G2/Finsoft. Now if Spielo is willing to write cheating code for distrubution to the WWW(internet) it makes me extremely concerned pertaining to all the land based B & M's they are supplying so many casinos across earth with their products.

I took a lot of time to go through Lottomatica's PDF's some of which consists of hundreds of pages so instead of everyone having to read too much i've notated 4 or 5 specific pages which lists in detail how many VLT's and all Gaming Machines in current operation.

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

Refer to pages 54, 55, 56 and 57.

After what they've been caught doing can they be trusted with their land based operations?

Why has no other casinos/gaming authorities contributed much to this nearly 50-page thread? Why the silence? What about Finsoft/Spielo G2 themselves? Why are we the ones having to contribute so much of our time when we have done nothing wrong? To me their silence speaks volums. If they think this is just going to go away...they're very, very wrong. I'm sure many of you know it's already spreading across the web and we've only just gotten started

There was an icident in Aussyland some years ago involving a now current President of Spielo G2 when he was a director of Tabcorp Holdings and will keep you updated on the results. My time is limited so please excuse any typos ect.

 

[asianeyes]

Unfortunately there is no patent that provides cheating code within all the material as that would be too easy to spot. However what the patents show is there is in fact Mindplay systems land based casinos are using that have an ability to track just about every possibility.

Now trusts amongst players and casinos is paramount. However, as this thread has shown, our trusts has been demolished due to Spielo G2/Finsoft. Now if Spielo is willing to write cheating code for distrubution to the WWW(internet) it makes me extremely concerned pertaining to all the land based B & M's they are supplying so many casinos across earth with their products.

I took a lot of time to go through Lottomatica's PDF's some of which consists of hundreds of pages so instead of everyone having to read too much i've notated 4 or 5 specific pages which lists in detail how many VLT's and all Gaming Machines in current operation.

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

Refer to pages 54, 55, 56 and 57.

After what they've been caught doing can they be trusted with their land based operations?

Why has no other casinos/gaming authorities contributed much to this nearly 50-page thread? Why the silence? What about Finsoft/Spielo G2 themselves? Why are we the ones having to contribute so much of our time when we have done nothing wrong? To me their silence speaks volums. If they think this is just going to go away...they're very, very wrong. I'm sure many of you know it's already spreading across the web and we've only just gotten started

There was an icident in Aussyland some years ago involving a now current President of Spielo G2 when he was a director of Tabcorp Holdings and will keep you updated on the results. My time is limited so please excuse any typos ect.

Walter Bugno is current President of Spielo G2:

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

From 2006 to 2009 he was chief executive officer of the casino division of Australia's Tabcorp Holdings Ltd.

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

Tabcorp Holdings Limited (Tabcorp) is an Australian wagering, gaming and Keno operator and one of the world’s largest publicly listed gambling companies. They carry a supporting media arm.

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

An investigation by news.com.au reporters Will Temple and David Higgins released on 22 August 2007 claims that Tabcorp had secret approval from the NSW government to loan money to "select high value wagering customers".

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

The news.com.au story is very distrubing. I searched hi and low to see if i could find any direct links to Walter Bungo with the Gov't scandel but i could not.
The "Key documents can be seen here and here" in the news article are no longer available. Nevertheless, after reading the article, it made me feel sick to my stomach! How low do casino operators need sink to so as to turn a profit...

 

[The Dude]

For the past couple of weeks, I've been focusing a number of things, to include the awards which are very time consuming. Just thought I'd mention this in case anyone is wondering I'm not chiming in daily here.

With all due respect Bryan (and I absolutely do respect you and what you have achieved with CM over the years, let me clear on that) - but 'squaring the players away' isn't the important thing here.

The important thing here is that we have accredited casinos stating upfront and with no apparent shame that they have no problem offering and profiting from card games that are rigged and cheating BY DESIGN. This point has been repeated time and time again in this thread by many different folks, (folks who are far smarter and better respected than me), they are breaching the terms of their licences and they are demonstrating an absolutely fundamental lack of understanding of fair play.

Betfred stated quite clearly that they bought in the 'fixed price model' (i.e. rigged, fraudulent and cheating) of the game quite deliberately, and all they're apologising for is uploading the wrong help file. Oh yes and having it play differently in free play mode too.....

If a player found himself in this sort of situation and tried the same excuse 'Oh sorry I used a bot by accident' - he'd be laughed out of CM and banned for good measure.


There are only two possible explanations for what happened here.

1) Betfred are corrupt
2) Betfred are incompetent

Neither of which is a desirable quality for an accredited casino IMO.

Were they really running this game for YEARS and no one noticed it was making them a tidy sum of money despite its advertised 100% RTP? They either did it deliberately (corrupt, and there is evidence to point towards that with the help file and free play mode), or no one noticed for YEARS (incompetent).

Ignorance and 'sorry it was an accident' doesn't work if you crash into someone else whilst you're fiddling with your stereo in the car, why does it work for an accredited casino?



I'm afraid I must vehemently disagree with you there Bryan.

This situation has not been addressed at all, let alone been 'properly addressed'. The OP has been bought off to make her go away, we have some vague promises that other players might get refunded if Betfred care to find them, (who's auditing that process, by the way?), and even then with a six month limitation.

The core issue of Betfred stating on this thread in plain English that they have no problem with a cheating card game that breaches the terms of their licensing jurisdiction has NOT been addressed.



I agree that some people are certainly trying to do the right thing, but from where I'm sat that sure as hell ain't the casinos.



I may have been posting here for less than a year but I've been reading the site for many years, call me a 'delurked lurker' perhaps

If the accredited list is not to 'punish' bad casinos and 'reward' good casinos, what is it actually for then? You may wish to use different terminology, but ultimately, isn't it about the good guys getting the recognition they deserve and the bad guys getting called out on it?

Betfred were off the accredited list for a very short period of time, before the OP had even been refunded, and we have had no statement from them for eleven days. Certainly the issue of them deliberately implementing a cheating card game has not been addressed.

What does their swift return to the accredited list say? What message does it send?



Sorry Bryan I don't feel empowered at all. From my perspective every single safeguard that was supposed to be in place to stop this sort of thing happening has failed in a quite spectacular fashion.

Betfred got away with running this game for years, advertising it with a fake RTP, running a different version of it in free play, and then duping players with a rigged and adaptive version of the game in real play. It absolutely stinks, and to see their name on the accredited list alongside genuinely worthwhile casinos such as Redbet, 32Red and Jackpot Party is a very poor show.

Bet365 are no better, they got the help file right but they still have not addressed Eliot's maths stating that the game should have reached a 97.5% RTP over one million plus games, not 96% as Bet365 stated in this thread. (EDIT - Please note correction from ThePOGG below). Also, Bet365 have no problem with the basic nature of the game, that of it being both cheating and fraudulent and in breach of the code of their licensing jurisdiction.

Nordic Bet did the best I suppose, but I would still have to question what kind of casino would allow this kind of game onto their books in the first place - did they knowingly buy the 'fixed price model' of the game as well?

Please Bryan, which part of this fiasco is supposed to make me feel 'empowered'?

I'm not sure why you - and a number of others - are hammering away about Betfred being relisted, yet they are not. I have not had the time to fully commit to this thread, but yes I did bring them back temporarily, but removed them when it appeared that the player was not yet reimbursed - so yes, it was premature.

I hear what you are saying. But also remember that Betfred fully admitted their mistakes - stating that they should have checked this more thoroughly and Spielo G2 should have configured the game correctly it in the first place. They have also stated that the difference between fun and real play is totally unacceptable. They've apologized, offered compensation in full and removed the games. They are also waiting for a response from Speilo G2 explaining the game configuration and using the RTP that produced the house margin. They have told me that they launched the game in good faith with the game being certified from a third party.

I am not the casino's spokesperson. It's up for the casino to make the decision to enter this dialog and explain fully what had happened, and what protocols are being put into place to prevent this from happening again. If a casino sees a thread that becomes a one-sided argument, then I wouldn't expect to see them chiming in and becoming publicly involved. Most importantly, I wouldn't assume that if someone or some spokesperson is not contributing to this thread then nothing is happening. This is not a case of stone walling.

Another thing, IMO the onus of ensuring that all casino software is properly audited is on the jurisdiction. The accredited section at Casinomeister is not set up to audit casinos, nor is it to act as a jurisdiction. It lists a set of standards and operating procedures that "Accredited" casinos are to abide by. At the end of the day, it is a list of casinos that I trust - that I would play myself, and that I would send my best friend to.
Link Outdated / Removed

Since this thread has taken a number of directions - one of them being that the "Accredited List is broken", I'm starting a new thread where you can give suggestions on making it better/stronger. I am open to all ideas - I'll listen to anything. Please bear in mind to keep it realistic. Thanks!

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/improving-the-accredited-section.54957/

 

[binary128]

Bryan,

I agree with your subsequent removal of Betfred from your "Accredited Casinos" list.

I continue to maintain that the Casino, as the provider, has the "Top Level" responsibility to their customers. How they wish to deal with their suppliers is their business.

Re: "If a casino sees a thread that becomes a one-sided argument ..." I believe that it is a one-sided argument because Betfred is not posting anything, and hasn't for 2 weeks. That is, the thread is one-sided because only one side is in the room.

I'm reminded of that English Harbour fiasco, which, for reasons, I summarized here. From point of analysis to point of conclusion, the span was 2 days. However, I believe that the result of this issue was that English Harbour was added to the Rogue Pit for quite some time.

And you're right - this is not my web site, it is your web site.

Chris

 

[ThePOGG]

I've just had it confirmed by the Rank Interactive group (Grosvenor, Blue Sq and Mecca) that while they do offer Dynamite Idea games, like BetVictor, these games were aquired through the OpenBet platform prior to Spielo G2 buying over Dynamite Idea and the codes have not been changed since this point. As such Spielo G2 has no relationship to the Dynamite Idea games provided by Rank Interactive. I'd also add that the affiliate team at Grosvenor were very responsive and professional in dealing with this issue.

 

[dunover]

I'm not sure Betfred should be removed from the accredited list. They have listened to the complaint, removed the game, apologized and compensated players and communicated up to that point. The actions you'd expect from a creditable organization. As for them being quite taciturn in discussions with persons on this forum about the whys and wherefores, we must remember this is what it is - a public forum not an official body. From their point of view this is a delicate situation, and will inevitably make mainstream news eventually, and then for reporters to come back here and see they've said something in haste now which could prejudice them later would be a bad move for them. They are also not the only site to use this supplier. Betfair were removed for doing wrong by their players, I'd say Betfred did right. They still have a rep, still cashout fast and if you weren't a player of the rip-off software, you would never have an issue.
It's like saying Tescos should be blacklisted as a supermarket because one of the suppliers who has made their own-brand burgers fouled up and put traces of horsemeat in them. They removed the offending product, refunded buyers, apologized and started an investigation - what else can you reasonably expect them to do? Open every pack of burgers and DNA-test them? Dip-test every bottle of milk?
These sort of instances are inevitable with one storefront offering products from many sources. Suppliers are trusted to maintain the integrity of products/services. When they don't, they lose their business to the storefront and are pilloried publicly.
We must differentiate here between the failings of one product and the overall integrity and intent of the storefront selling it. In both examples above I see nothing to make me doubt the latter.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I'm not sure Betfred should be removed from the accredited list. They have listened to the complaint, removed the game, apologized and compensated players and communicated up to that point. The actions you'd expect from a creditable organization. As for them being quite taciturn in discussions with persons on this forum about the whys and wherefores, we must remember this is what it is - a public forum not an official body. From their point of view this is a delicate situation, and will inevitably make mainstream news eventually, and then for reporters to come back here and see they've said something in haste now which could prejudice them later would be a bad move for them. They are also not the only site to use this supplier. Betfair were removed for doing wrong by their players, I'd say Betfred did right. They still have a rep, still cashout fast and if you weren't a player of the rip-off software, you would never have an issue.
It's like saying Tescos should be blacklisted as a supermarket because one of the suppliers who has made their own-brand burgers fouled up and put traces of horsemeat in them. They removed the offending product, refunded buyers, apologized and started an investigation - what else can you reasonably expect them to do? Open every pack of burgers and DNA-test them? Dip-test every bottle of milk?
These sort of instances are inevitable with one storefront offering products from many sources. Suppliers are trusted to maintain the integrity of products/services. When they don't, they lose their business to the storefront and are pilloried publicly.
We must differentiate here between the failings of one product and the overall integrity and intent of the storefront selling it. In both examples above I see nothing to make me doubt the latter.

Eh?

Did you miss the bit where Betfred knowingly and deliberately bought in the 'fixed price' version of a card game? A game that breaches the term of their licence?

They bought a cheating, adaptive game on purpose, that's all there is to it.

As for Tesco, I think they're corporate evil incarnate, and I absolutely will not spend one single fucking penny in their stores.

 

[asianeyes]

I'm not sure Betfred should be removed from the accredited list. They have listened to the complaint, removed the game, apologized and compensated players and communicated up to that point. The actions you'd expect from a creditable organization. As for them being quite taciturn in discussions with persons on this forum about the whys and wherefores, we must remember this is what it is - a public forum not an official body. From their point of view this is a delicate situation, and will inevitably make mainstream news eventually, and then for reporters to come back here and see they've said something in haste now which could prejudice them later would be a bad move for them. They are also not the only site to use this supplier. Betfair were removed for doing wrong by their players, I'd say Betfred did right. They still have a rep, still cashout fast and if you weren't a player of the rip-off software, you would never have an issue.
It's like saying Tescos should be blacklisted as a supermarket because one of the suppliers who has made their own-brand burgers fouled up and put traces of horsemeat in them. They removed the offending product, refunded buyers, apologized and started an investigation - what else can you reasonably expect them to do? Open every pack of burgers and DNA-test them? Dip-test every bottle of milk?
These sort of instances are inevitable with one storefront offering products from many sources. Suppliers are trusted to maintain the integrity of products/services. When they don't, they lose their business to the storefront and are pilloried publicly.
We must differentiate here between the failings of one product and the overall integrity and intent of the storefront selling it. In both examples above I see nothing to make me doubt the latter.

OMG! Seriously...can you be seriously trying to compare Spielo G2's BS to supermakets such as Tesco...My god man how long have you been on earth?

Are you familiar with tesco to any degree cos Tesco is a very bad comparison to use. Honestly when i say that horse meat/pork/ and god knows what else is not even the tip of the iceberg for that multinational. Here's a few examples: Tesco recalls Chinese sweets over melamine fears

The chemical at the centre of the baby milk scandal in China has been found in sweets sold at some Tesco stores.

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

Dead Frogs Found In Bagged Spinach From U.K. Grocery Giant Tesco. Outdated URL (Invalid)

Formaldehyde contamination and Melamine contamination On September 24, 2008, the UK supermarket chain Tesco pulled all White Rabbit Creamy Candy from their shelves.

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

Dioxin Scandel: The dioxin-laden eggs were used by two firms to make own-brand products for Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Morrisons among others.

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

And of course lest we forget to add child labour to the list...Now Tesco are caught up in child labour row over suppliers who pay only 16p an hour.

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

My god man did you even know that Tesco was implicated in feeding/supplying the cutthroat regime of Charles Mugabe and his evil henchmen and removing the rest of the foods from Zimbabwe? Daily Mail: We're eating Zimbabwe's food... as its people starve.

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

I couldn't even begin to make a more comprehensive lists of so many foods Tesco and other multimationals conglomerates have on our shelves that are causing so many sicknesses. It would take me weeks to compile cos there's so much crap.

This is also what irks me about Spielo G2 cos they too are part of a multinational and i bet if someone were to backtrace their interlocking corporate board structure of the 147 multinationals corporations who control a vast percentage of earths resources, they will find linkages probably to companies such as arms industry, Agriculture, aroespace, automotive and in paticular, banking and private equity firms.

Spielo G2 is only a tiny fraction of Lottomattica. Lottomattica owns rights to thousands of gaming machines across earth. Their parent company is quite large. Here's a general scope: De Agostini, founded in 1901, is a family-owned private group active in 66 countries worldwide and in 4 business areas: Publishing, Media, Games and Services, Finance.

He runs the show:





Marco Drago

Chairman and President, De Agostini S.p.A.





Age 66

Total Calculated Compensation

This person is connected to 7 Board Members in 7 different organizations across 9 different industries.

See Board Relationships

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

De Agostini S.p.A. INSIDERS ON Board Members.

 

[Pinababy69]

I'm reminded of that English Harbour fiasco, which, for reasons, I summarized here. From point of analysis to point of conclusion, the span was 2 days. However, I believe that the result of this issue was that English Harbour was added to the Rogue Pit for quite some time.

Chris

I have tried as best I can to keep up with this thread, but have to admit that I have not read every single word written here. I did wonder if anyone was going to reference the English Harbour scandal, as IMO, it seems somewhat similar.

When I read posts like Chopley's, who states that he has pretty much lost all faith in the industry...I did want to ask him if he had ever read the English Harbour thread? This is definitely not the first time that something like this has happened. And again, in the EH situation....the burning question was...was the cheating software deliberate, or simply a by-product of bad coding? EH had stated that they were going to introduce a new game at some point, but that the code for that game had mistakenly been uploaded into a different game? I think it was something like that. Funny thing is...I don't remember them ever releasing this supposed new game that had caused all the problems.

So while trust in software fairness, licensing, testing, etc. is all of utmost importance...once again we are left to wonder if situations such as these are deliberate cheating, or just total incompetence. While neither inspires confidence....I could at some point forgive incompetence if steps were taken to ensure it never happened again. However, deliberate cheating should entail a permanent trip to the deepest parts of the rogue pit.

 

[Balthazar]

When I read posts like Chopley's, who states that he has pretty much lost all faith in the industry...I did want to ask him if he had ever read the English Harbour thread?

Even though I made the EH reference on the first page of this thread, I didn't know all the details at the time. There's a major difference between EH and what happened here. EH claimed to have a "corrupted file" and fixed it with "a software update". Whether it was true or not is impossible to prove, and most people believed them. They apologized, etc.

Here it appears that Betfred knowingly provided a rigged card game to their players, and the reason why they are refunding some of them is because they had the wrong help file attached to the game. They didn't admit that it was wrong to use a rigged card game, and didn't assure us that it was their only rigged game nor that they won't do it again in the future. It affects the whole industry because we, the players, aren't sure if rigged games are a common, accepted thing.

In other words, one major provider made a rigged game on purpose, and one major casino don't see the problem with offering the game. That's huge.

 

[jetset]

It certainly doesn't look good for Betfred or SpieloG2, and their silence only aggravates the problem.

However, I'll be surprised if either Betfred or SpieloG2 make any comments in the immediate future - with a Gibraltar investigation ongoing and the heat of this cheating scandal still way up I think they will keep their heads below the parapet regardless of the reputational damage every day is costing them. This is not the only message board discussing this shocking event, and it's the sort of story a newspaper like the Daily Mail would just love to carry, I'm sure.

The corporate world's knee jerk reaction in most cases to serious issues with legal implications like this is usually to clam up, cover up, obfuscate or simply deny, deny, deny...I don't think SpieloG2 will get away with any of those approaches...and I'm sure they're taking strain from their operator clients.

 

[jetset]

I would like to draw attention to Richas' excellent and detailed post on regulatory requirements, and the apparent failure of business entities in this scandal to observe them (if they had, would we even be having this discussion?)

Because his/her post goes into well-researched but extensive detail, it makes for heavy reading, but it does help one to better understand what is required of operators, software providers, and even third party testers in a bid to guard against exactly this sort of screw-up/scam (depending on your personal opinion).

With involved parties trying to play "pass the parcel" I found Richas post #475 to be a very useful contribution to this thread.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

 

[ThePOGG]

I don't think SpieloG2 will get away with any of those approaches...and I'm sure they're taking strain from their operator clients.

The problem as i see it is that i don't think Spielo G2 are feeling the strain. I may be wrong but so far only one operator has actually stopped offering their games (and as a note, that wasn't even the operator at the centre of this scandelous whirwind), every other operator who has been confirmed to be using the FinSoft platform has made it quite clear that they'd rather keep a few poor quality games from a platform that's been shown to have intentionally cheated than to save their reputation. I do understand that comparitively i run a small site and also that as an operator you cannot allow affiliates to engage in commercial hostage taking every time you do something they don't like, but as issues to prove that point with this is a very poorly chosen one.