Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[dunover]

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 Outdated URL (Invalid)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.

OK, so you don't use supermarkets - you've proven my point which was, if you have a reasonable understanding of English, to say that a storefront offering products from many sources will inevitably include a problem product at some time. My view was that how they deal with the situations when they arise is what cements their reputations. Thanks for more examples.

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.

OK, you bring in Mugabe, an insane racist Marxist kleptocrat who has reduced his people to starvation, Rhodesia once being a massive exporter of foods grown by those nasty white farmers and imperialists whose efforts fed his people and earned much foreign currency to a basket-case economy so desperate for foreign currency that they will force people to grow crops for sale rather than feed themselves. They then tell buyers that they are 'helping' the country and that is how it is spun to us. We know where the cash goes.


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.

OK, you've said that already. You are obviously lucky enough to have a local fishmonger, garage, greengrocer, butcher etc. supplying local produce which you frequent instead of spending at supermarkets. Good on you.

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.

If you understood multinational finance, it'd be hard not to find a link or two. That is almost comedic. Would you believe it eh? Multinationals having links to banks, financiers and manufacturing!

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.
What relevance has that? I don't care if the software was provided by John Smith running a business from his bedroom in Tunbridge Wells. My point was, that Betfred responded fairly to the issues - do you think all casinos would have?

Your response was rather hysterical IMO.

 

[P.V.]

Let's be fair..

I'm getting kind of strung out on this thread, followed the entire thing.

My conclusion, opinion is..

I personally think Betfred stepped up to the plate and did the right thing, removed the game and paid the player. If there's others that need reimbursement I'm sure they will pay them back as they have stated.

Until all accredited sites prove testing of all games, only until then I see no reason for them to be off the accredited list.

I have no personal or business connection with this site but let's be fair this could happen to any OC site offering games online.

There's been nothing that's shown me malice on their part other than the game offered by the software provider wasn't fair.

I can understand their lack of response, honestly this could happen to all of your favorite OC's without the correct testing of games.

I'm sure many will disagree but I truly don't think Betfred's the root of this evil. I see it as a programming f-up for the most part. JMO..

I'd reinsert them to the accredited list as long as they stand behind paying all disputes from the games involved, what else can be asked asked at this point?

Again, JMO..

 

[ThePOGG]

I see it as a programming f-up for the most part. JMO..

I don't see Betfred as the route of this either, but neither is this "a programming f-up". There are plenty of ways to make a mistake when programming that causes unexpected results. The recent issue with WinADay Roulette is an example of what seems to be a programming f-up. It's not a f-up however when they add code in to exclude the last result, as was done with the free games - that's an piece of code that's added with the intended consequence of increasing the free game RTP. It's not a f-up when they intentionally alter the distribution of the cards so as to decrease the RTP over that which the player would experience when playing with real cards - again that's something intentional.

"a programming f-up" suggests unintended consequence whereas, in both these issues, the game functioned exactly as the developer intented, it's just that what they intended goes against the basic principals of fair electronic gaming and no reputable online casino should want to have anything to do with that.

 

[P.V.]

I'd be careful with saying anything is intentional whether you're right or wrong.

After 50 pages I've seen no proof of anything being done, again by malice.

 

[ThePOGG]

I'd be careful with saying anything is intentional whether you're right or wrong.

After 50 pages I've seen no proof of anything being done, again by malice.

There really is no way you can take a game that someone else provides, alter it by adding in code specifically intended to exclude the last result, and still claim you did not intend the end result. Nor when you program a game to take into account the bet that the player places and biases the results against them. The bet a player places should never affect the outcome of the round.

 

[P.V.]

I don't see Betfred as the route of this either

And if in fact you're correct then the casino acknowledges the problem, removes the game, bans the software provider and pays the players.

Betfed did this, offered payback, so who are you after?

You should be after more regulation, testing of online games in general!

 

[questa]

And if in fact you're correct then the casino acknowledges the problem, removes the game, bans the software provider and pays the players.

Betfed did this, offered payback, so who are you after?

You should be after more regulation, testing of online games in general!

They've paid one person, as far as I am aware, the OP. I can't see any evidence of anyone else being paid back. They've gone very quiet in fact, when they should be making every effort to refund all the money stolen by the rigged game they had on their site.

 

[ThePOGG]

bans the software provider

They haven't done that! That's the point. Betfred - amongst many others - continue to use this software provider, only having removed the real play affected games. As far as i'm aware they haven't even acknowledged the issue with the free play games.

 

[P.V.]

They've paid one person, as far as I am aware, the OP. I can't see any evidence of anyone else being paid back. They've gone very quiet in fact, when they should be making every effort to refund all the money stolen by the rigged game they had on their site.

Well there is a PAB system.

 

[P.V.]

They haven't done that! That's the point. Betfred - amongst many others - continue to use this software provider, only having removed the real play affected games. As far as i'm aware they haven't even acknowledged the issue with the free play games.

I honestly think you're making this a bigger issue than what it is, JMO.

Until I see more complaints other then the OP, well let's see how big this is.

Cheers, got to hit the hay!

Just back and forth Pogg, nothing personal..

 

[ThePOGG]

I honestly think you're making this a bigger issue than what it is, JMO.

Until I see more complaints other then the OP, well let's see how big this is.

Cheers, got to hit the hay!

Just back and forth Pogg, nothing personal..

I don't agree with you at all on this - to my mind rigged software's about the worst offense a casino can commit - but i don't take it as anything personal

 

[P.V.]

I don't agree with you at all on this - to my mind rigged software's about the worst offense a casino can commit - but i don't take it as anything personal

Show me how Betfed is malice and intentionally rigged and we can chat later. Good night.

 

[ThePOGG]

Show me how Betfed is malice and intentionally rigged and we can chat later. Good night.

I'd have no issue with Betfred if they stopped using a software provider that's rigged games, but instead they've decided to keep the FinSoft platform. The software provider's integrity has been compromised to the point where no player should be asked to trust their games, but Betfred - and again i'll point out that it's not just them and i'm not singling them out here, everyone who continues to use FinSoft as a provider is equally guilty - has chosen to put it's business ties in front of player saftey.

Their checks and testing were inadequte to catching these games first time round and they've made no indication that they're improving these practices and as such the customer is as exposed as ever to a software provider who has already been involved in malpractice. One thing that should have been done right at the outset when they'd confirmed the issue with the games is removal of a provider that manipulated games in a deceptive way. That's the critical step that all of these casinos have faild to make.

 

[Richas]

Until all accredited sites prove testing of all games, only until then I see no reason for them to be off the accredited list.

I have no personal or business connection with this site but let's be fair this could happen to any OC site offering games online.

There's been nothing that's shown me malice on their part other than the game offered by the software provider wasn't fair.

I can understand their lack of response, honestly this could happen to all of your favorite OC's without the correct testing of games.

You may have sensibly skipped my long post on testing. BetFred are licenced by Gibraltar and so are obliged to test the software themselves or with a licenced 3rd party ATF before deploying the software, they are obliged to retest it every three months, they have an annual regression test to do and they have a duty to do a financial audit that reconciles the games advertised RTP with what it is delivering.

This game ran for years. BetFred have signed up to a licence that obliges them to kame these tests, which BTW are far from demanding on such a business and are little more than general good practice for a professional business.

All Gibraltar licenced casinos should be doing these tests and by saying they are licenced there they are telling their customers that they do. Part of the accredited status is that the casino is licenced - that condition does tend to suggest that they also need to comply with the licence terms. BetFred do have some culpability here and I suspect their silence at the moment is because they recognise the seriousness of the situation this case puts them in.

This (being sold dodgey software) should absolutely not happen to any site - they should test what they put up and they are legally obliged to do so.

 

[Jufo]

Well there is a PAB system.

So, you are saying that they should only refund the players who become aware that they were cheated and who submit a PAB. And that there is no need to refund all those (likely thousands of players) who played the game but remain unaware that the game didn't perform as advertised?

 

[jetset]

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.

The fact that operators are still making this software available to punters, when by now they must all be aware that it has some damning questions hanging over it is indeed a shocker; it suggests that perhaps only punitive measures imposed by the regulator would get their attention and result in some remedial action.

@ Richas - well said and worth repeating.

 

[ThePOGG]

I wanted further evidence of the issue with the free play games which haven't yet been removed, so i recorded a couple of videos.

In the first - found at

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

- i played in Aladdin's Treasure Real Play mode. I was looking to find out whether the same number could occur twice in a row. This should happen 1 in 20 spins if the numbers are evenly weighted*. I played just over 100 spin and in that time the same number came up concurrently 4 times. That's well within the expected range if the numbers are evenly weighted (we'd expect a little over 5).


In the second video i played in Aladdin's Treasurein Free Play mode (you can find the video at

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

). This time round i played 500 spins without a single number occuring twice in a row. Assuming that the distrubution should have been even the odds of this happening in a fair game would be (19/20)^500 = 7.27x10^-12 or 1 in 137,466,652,000.

To again quote the GRA license;

" 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,

(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."

Betfred are still in violation of their license by continuing to offer a game that is unquestionably cheating.


*There's actually a very strong argument to be made here which would say that if the numbers are not evenly weighted this game has the same issue as Reel Deal

 

[manuels58]

And if in fact you're correct then the casino acknowledges the problem, removes the game, bans the software provider and pays the players.

Betfed did this, offered payback, so who are you after?

You should be after more regulation, testing of online games in general!

Well, it seems that you're saying that an operator (casino or any other), may intentionally* sell a rigged product without worries, because when that operator is discovered to be cheating they only have to say "Ups! We won't sell that rigged product anymore and we will reimburse anyone's losses".
Does this give you confidence? Only if for you is ok to be reimbursed when you discover you have been cheated for sometime, intentionally.

Unfortunately, that is happening all the time all over the world, in any business, but that's why supervisions exist, and that's why law courts exist in the last resource.

In my point of view, we should all be after a more trustworthy market, in order of all of us to be confident of fair gambling when we put our money in a casino.

I look forward to knowing the results of the supervisors and jurisdictions interventions.

*) Since they made a decision of buying a specific version of the game (their statement), this is "intention"; they were aware of what they were choosing and, if they weren't, well that's incompetence and is not legally admissible either, because they had enough time to check the behaviour of the game, as I posted earlier.

 

[P.V.]

I totally agree that all games should be tested, many aren't and should be so that's not my point.

I also agree that everyone that lost money due to this game should be refunded, again not my point.

What I'm saying is that although they know the software is bad now doesn't mean they knew it when the game was in operation, I've seen no solid proof.

I doubt very seriously that they were offered a rigged game vs. a fair game and they went with the rigged one.

The buck stops with the developer of the software/game and yes shame on the operator for not testing if it's their obligation per the authority.

It still doesn't prove malice, intentional cheating IMO but rather incompetence by trusting the supplier.

If the majority wants to think the casino did this on purpose, fine, I'm not sold that was the case.

It's a long thread so maybe you can point out to me again how they in fact knew the software was rigged but didn't care until this thread?

I've also never heard whether the software provider received a commission on player losses?

 

[binary128]

I wanted further evidence of the issue with the free play games which haven't yet been removed, so i recorded a couple of videos.

In the first - found at

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

- i played in Aladdin's Treasure Real Play mode. I was looking to find out whether the same number could occur twice in a row. This should happen 1 in 20 spins if the numbers are evenly weighted*. I played just over 100 spin and in that time the same number came up concurrently 4 times. That's well within the expected range if the numbers are evenly weighted (we'd expect a little over 5).


In the second video i played in Aladdin's Treasurein Free Play mode (you can find the video at

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

). This time round i played 500 spins without a single number occuring twice in a row. Assuming that the distrubution should have been even the odds of this happening in a fair game would be (19/20)^500 = 7.27x10^-12 or 1 in 137,466,652,000.

First of all, thanks thePOGG for doing this work.

I found myself getting very angry when I read your post.

I'm no angel, but if I were in the shoes of Betfred's casino management I would have been all over this shit like ugly on ape. All other work would have immediately ceased.

As you (thePOGG), and I, and a handful of other forum members know, doing this analysis ain't rocket surgery. It would have taken me a maximum of 2 days to get a complete analysis of each Play-for-Real version, and each Play-for-Free version of these games. The plug for all games would then have immediately been pulled, and the process of crediting the affected customers would have begun.

At that point, lawyers would have been brought in for council, trying to answer "Is this what we ordered, or is this what we got?" If this is NOT what we ordered, and what we got is clearly illegal in pretty much any gaming jurisdiction involved here, then law suits are put on the table.

Betfred, AND THE OTHER CASINOS INVOLVED HERE, provided these games to their customers. It doesn't matter whether they knew the games were "rigged" or not. That is just off-the-charts irrelevant at this point. If they didn't know before they certainly know now.

Do they consider their customers crap, just sheep, less than human? Don't they have even basic pride in their company, their business?

This thread started on Dec 27 2012. As I type this it is Jan 22 2013. Almost 1 month has passed, and your post that I have quoted above is then presented. Unbelievable, just un-freakin'-believable.

I find myself angrier now than when I started this post.

Chris

[Edited to add: As I mentioned in an earlier post, my logic for voting that Betfred be removed from the Accredited Casinos list was NOT based on whether they knew, or did not know, the full scope and ramifications of this mess beforehand. It was based on what I viewed as a history of incompetent management. What kind of a "Management Competence" scale can be used here that would allow this recent data from thePOGG to be included? I personally do not own a ruler that has "negative centimeters" on it.]

 

[ThePOGG]

It still doesn't prove malice, intentional cheating IMO but rather incompetence by trusting the supplier.

What else would you call it when a casino is specifically pointed to a game that is in breach of their license and a month later the game is still on their site functioning in exactly the same fashion?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

TBH it would be laughable if it weren't so deadly serious.

There's already a fair bit of anti-gambling sentiment in the UK off the back of FOBT (Fixed Odds Betting Terminals) that are destroying lives all over the place. I reckon the mainstream media would fancy a piece of this car crash action, especially since you have a familiar UK high street name using its Betfred branding for its casino but basing itself out of some tax exile jurisdiction where it can avoid UK taxes, and then duping UK players with crooked rigged card games.

It practically writes itself.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Hmmmm.

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

The allegations in the story were: "Last March he was taken to the Cheltenham festival – a trip worth £870 – as a guest of bookmaker Ladbrokes. He failed to mention this when he quizzed Richard Glynn, the chief executive of Ladbrokes, six months later during a select committee session. The parliamentarian has also been given an annual 'subscription' worth £4,680 from Peninsula Business Services, run by Peter Done – one of two brothers who founded BetFred, a bookmaker with 1,000 betting shops in Britain and which took over the Tote. Done remains a shareholder in BetFred's holding company."

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

£5bn gambled on Britain's poorest high streets: see the data

Stephen Timms, the Labour MP for East Ham, said it was a "real problem" in his constituency which the figures suggest see £183m gambled in betting shops on these machines. "This is money people don't have. We have three BetFred shops on the high street in East Ham. Do we need them?".

I think an email to their newsdesk is in order.

 

[Richas]

Hmmmm.

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

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

£5bn gambled on Britain's poorest high streets: see the data



I think an email to their newsdesk is in order.

Please no, not the methodist influenced anti gamblers at the Grauniad (and those anti gambling investigative journalists who keep on this subject when they are not getting Newsnight in the poop re false paedophile allegations.

This story requires some mathematical understanding or checking - that Guardian article with £5bn gambled in poorest communities deliberately confused total value of bets made with losses and falsely claimed to say how much was bet in each constituency. In reality they used average figures for the whole country using the gambling commission survey and the annual reports of some bookmakers to estimate the value of bets. multiple consituencies came up with the same exact figure bet because they had the same mix of bookmakers and they had taken national figures and averaged them.

Their assumption was that rarer machines in richer areas took the same level and value of bets as more common machines in poorer areas. This is of course a nonsense as anyone walking in can see the stakes being played and how wildly they vary. It was a truely awful article (and its the paper I read).

Give this to the same people and all you will get is an anti gambling piece not a piece about protecting players.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Give this to the same people and all you will get is an anti gambling piece not a piece about protecting players.

You could argue that fiascos like this really blur the line between 'anti-gambling' and 'protecting players' - to the point that they become one and the same thing.

As has already been noted, this has been running for nearly a month now, and Betfred are still serving up licence breaching games on their site.

You don't need 'mathematical understanding' to appreciate the con that has been perpetrated here, and besides which, the basics of the Guardian piece on FOBTs were sound, those things are a cancer on society, and they did the right thing in bringing it to public attention.

 

[jetset]

The wide-ranging UK coverage on FOBTs is the work of the “Campaign for Fairer Gambling”- an organisation I know very little about...but it has certainly generated a slew of anti-FOBT publicity over the last month or so that has managed to trigger the ire of MPs all over the country due to the breakdown by constituency of their stats (which as Richas comments were originally derived from UK Gambling Commission numbers.

But we digress - back on to this fascinating and sorry-ass tale of failed player protection....

 

[ThePOGG]

To ensure that my investigation isn't seen as targeting Betfred i've conducted the same test at Bet 365.

100 spins on real play - 4 double numbers -

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

350 spins on free play - no double numbers -

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

- odds of occurence 1 in 62,623,617.

Bet 365 are in violation of their GRA license.

 

[Richas]

You could argue that fiascos like this really blur the line between 'anti-gambling' and 'protecting players' - to the point that they become one and the same thing.

Could you? I think the exact opposite. An adult chose a 100% RTP game because it was EV neutral and was ripped off. For me it was a dull game only made reasonable by the 100% rtp.

My background is poker and a love of live (sociable) blackjack. I am probably -ev at one and certainly at the other but I enjoy it and as an adult it is my choice to spend my time and money that way. I demand fair games not guaranteed wins or even an expectation that I will win long term but the anti gambling piece would try to stop me playing and the pro player piece would support my demand for fair games. There is no blurred line.

As has already been noted, this has been running for nearly a month now, and Betfred are still serving up licence breaching games on their site.

You don't need 'mathematical understanding' to appreciate the con that has been perpetrated here

You really do. Most readers without a proper (mathematical) explanation will think - why is that mad person losing £12k by betting online moaning, not how dare that site steal £12k by lying about the odds

and besides which, the basics of the Guardian piece on FOBTs were sound, those things are a cancer on society, and they did the right thing in bringing it to public attention.

I'm not a FOBT fan or player but the piece was fundamentally unsound, there was a lie presented for each constituency and there was no balance - nobody arguing that adults should be free to bet if they want and that regulation is about making those bets fair.

A fundamentally sound FOBT piece would have included time playing, net cost, fairness of the game, measures to protect the vulnerable 1% but NAhHhhhhh, they went for a lie about betting volumes in constituencies and pretended to most that total amount bet was total lost.

 

[Pulver]

Has any of the UK guys in here thought about tipping of any of the newspapers?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Has any of the UK guys in here thought about tipping of any of the newspapers?

Already on it.

 

[P.V.]

What else would you call it when a casino is specifically pointed to a game that is in breach of their license and a month later the game is still on their site functioning in exactly the same fashion?

Last I heard they paid the player and either pulled the game, or was it that they had the wrong help file or something to that effect and it was corrected?

I guess I need to go back and do some reading because I thought they fixed the issue per one of their statements.

 

[jetset]

I would like to see some sign of life from Gibraltar, even if it is a simple public confirmation that an investigation is in progress into allegations of a breach of its regulations by Betfred and possible other Gibraltar-licensed operators.

Long silences from officialdom always make me suspicious that they're hoping a controversial issue will eventually die from boredom and disinterest on the part of the public.

Some mainstreet media exposure does tend to prod bureaucrats and politicians into more overt and immediate action, I have often found.

 

[Nifty29]

I would like to see some sign of life from Gibraltar, even if it is a simple public confirmation that an investigation is in progress into allegations of a breach of its regulations by Betfred and possible other Gibraltar-licensed operators.

Long silences from officialdom always make me suspicious that they're hoping a controversial issue will eventually die from boredom and disinterest on the part of the public.

Some mainstreet media exposure does tend to prod bureaucrats and politicians into more overt and immediate action, I have often found.

Maybe try a bomb hoax?

Seriously, it seems these official "quango troughs" need something lit underneath them.

I'm frankly disgusted that none of them have become involved even here, as I am also with certain operators who have become like church mice.

I'm almost thinking that if any operator who used these games wants to stay on the accred list they should issue a full statement explaining their reactions and actions and their plans moving forward, to the satisfaction of Bryan and the membership at large.

It's almost like they have been given legal advice to shut up completely. Maybe they have.

Is there anything you can do being a journo and all jetset?

 

[ThePOGG]

Last I heard they paid the player and either pulled the game, or was it that they had the wrong help file or something to that effect and it was corrected?

I guess I need to go back and do some reading because I thought they fixed the issue per one of their statements.

Betfred/Bet 365 have exactly the same problem and that's because they're ignoring the fact that there are two seperate forms of cheating going on here, both of them implemented by FinSoft.

Yes, in the problem with the play for real game the game has been removed and at least one player has been paid.

That leaves the issue with the free games - which affects several other games that have NOT been removed. To quote Betfred/Bet 365's GRA license

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,
(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.

In the last two posts i made about the Aladdin's Treasure game i showed that these games return more to the player in free play mode than they do in real play mode.

These games are in clear violation of the GRA license, function differently where they are offered by FinSoft compared to other casinos offering them direct from the supplier and was clearly raised and addressed on the 5th of January by katie91 and thelawnet (https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/ - post #131/132 though there is some further discussion of this issue a few pages on), and has been discussed at length over the course of this thread. Neither of the above mentioned casinos has even acknowledged that this issue with their games exists and both continue to provide the games nearly 3 weeks down the line.

 

[dunover]

Could you? I think the exact opposite. An adult chose a 100% RTP game because it was EV neutral and was ripped off. For me it was a dull game only made reasonable by the 100% rtp.

My background is poker and a love of live (sociable) blackjack. I am probably -ev at one and certainly at the other but I enjoy it and as an adult it is my choice to spend my time and money that way. I demand fair games not guaranteed wins or even an expectation that I will win long term but the anti gambling piece would try to stop me playing and the pro player piece would support my demand for fair games. There is no blurred line.



You really do. Most readers without a proper (mathematical) explanation will think - why is that mad person losing £12k by betting online moaning, not how dare that site steal £12k by lying about the odds




I'm not a FOBT fan or player but the piece was fundamentally unsound, there was a lie presented for each constituency and there was no balance - nobody arguing that adults should be free to bet if they want and that regulation is about making those bets fair.

A fundamentally sound FOBT piece would have included time playing, net cost, fairness of the game, measures to protect the vulnerable 1% but NAhHhhhhh, they went for a lie about betting volumes in constituencies and pretended to most that total amount bet was total lost.

Yes, the press is usually disingenuous when it comes to stats, and although I detest the neo-Marxist Guradina it has simply followed on from a TV documentary pointing out the same thing - sucking money out of communities, cash from the vulnerable and destroying lives. Known as the 'crack cocaine' of gambling, these FOBTs (I've never played one BTW) are not random in true sense of an online slot, and you can see videos of players FORCING a number to come out 3 times consecutively by backing the other 35 almost impossible on a random wheel or system. They are that bad bookmakers have tried to apply for licences for shops solely offering FOBTs and not even any betting, due to the fast turnover and huge profits they generate. Bookmakers in my opinion, and actually were, places where you could wager on the outcome of physical events not controlled or influenced by the bookmaker. Not FOBT's. Not stupid speedball draws. Not slot machines. Today they have crossed the boundaries to become semi-licensed casinos, and the huge profits made are also heavily spent on lobbying MP's, hence the reluctance for action. In Ireland these were banned from bookies years ago. The bookmakers also heavily spend on TV sponsorship and advertising, hence you'll never see storylines of people addicted to online gambling nor FOBT's on commercial TV. An example being Corrie when the character Robbie was addicted, but all you ever saw was a trip to an anonymous building purporting to be a physical casino, or a punt on a horse in the bookies. He was portrayed as having built up debt but always having won a wad of cash at the vital moment to save the day.... Don't hold your breath for a story on commercial TV graphically showing hungry/neglected kids when parent(s) have spunked every penny in FOBT's or online slots or ignored them for hours when playing. Don't expect a storyline showing tired/irritable people at work because of gaming issues.
You are all getting the propaganda you pay for. Simples.
Yes, we all like to play or we wouldn't be here, and we like the freedom to choose. But you can't have freedom without responsibility.

 

[P.V.]

So did Betfred remove the game in question from the OP totally from their website, free play and real play or is it still there?

Simple yes or no question.

 

[ThePOGG]

So did Betfred remove the game in question from the OP totally from their website, free play and real play or is it still there?

Simple yes or no question.

Yes, but they still offer other games that are in violation of their license!

You're asking the wrong question and that's why you're getting the wrong answer.

You should be asking 'have Betfred removed all games that have been identified as in breach of their license?', and the answer to that is no.

 

[The Dude]

I would like to see some sign of life from Gibraltar, even if it is a simple public confirmation that an investigation is in progress into allegations of a breach of its regulations by Betfred and possible other Gibraltar-licensed operators.

Long silences from officialdom always make me suspicious that they're hoping a controversial issue will eventually die from boredom and disinterest on the part of the public.

Some mainstreet media exposure does tend to prod bureaucrats and politicians into more overt and immediate action, I have often found.

The GRA has already contacted me - there is an investigation going on, but they are not ready to come forward with this. I should have more on this later.

 

[P.V.]

You're asking the wrong question and that's why you're getting the wrong answer.
.

No Actually I'm not asking the wrong questions.

Believe me I've studied licensing jurisdictions and what's required and many OC's don't meet their requirements. Old news..

I've studied more than you think and not in just this area.

My position has always been that it appeared to me that Betfair took the right actions and corrected the player issue and removed the game in a timely faction.

I'm surprised since Bet365 is accredited here you're not endorsing the removal of them too.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yes, the press is usually disingenuous when it comes to stats, and although I detest the neo-Marxist Guradina it has simply followed on from a TV documentary pointing out the same thing - sucking money out of communities, cash from the vulnerable and destroying lives. Known as the 'crack cocaine' of gambling, these FOBTs (I've never played one BTW) are not random in true sense of an online slot, and you can see videos of players FORCING a number to come out 3 times consecutively by backing the other 35 almost impossible on a random wheel or system. They are that bad bookmakers have tried to apply for licences for shops solely offering FOBTs and not even any betting, due to the fast turnover and huge profits they generate. Bookmakers in my opinion, and actually were, places where you could wager on the outcome of physical events not controlled or influenced by the bookmaker. Not FOBT's. Not stupid speedball draws. Not slot machines. Today they have crossed the boundaries to become semi-licensed casinos, and the huge profits made are also heavily spent on lobbying MP's, hence the reluctance for action. In Ireland these were banned from bookies years ago. The bookmakers also heavily spend on TV sponsorship and advertising, hence you'll never see storylines of people addicted to online gambling nor FOBT's on commercial TV. An example being Corrie when the character Robbie was addicted, but all you ever saw was a trip to an anonymous building purporting to be a physical casino, or a punt on a horse in the bookies. He was portrayed as having built up debt but always having won a wad of cash at the vital moment to save the day.... Don't hold your breath for a story on commercial TV graphically showing hungry/neglected kids when parent(s) have spunked every penny in FOBT's or online slots or ignored them for hours when playing. Don't expect a storyline showing tired/irritable people at work because of gaming issues.
You are all getting the propaganda you pay for. Simples.
Yes, we all like to play or we wouldn't be here, and we like the freedom to choose. But you can't have freedom without responsibility.

THIS is the kind of thing that needs to be forced into the open, not just a youtube video that people might stumble upon. It might break the faith of those that regularly play FOBTs, who probably think that despite everything else, it's a fair game, and they can win.
Using a bit of clever "spin", players could be lead to interpret this quirk as proof that all FOBTs cheat, and they can NEVER win, unlike traditional sports betting where the outcome is out of the hands of the bookies, and they often get stung when popular selections all win at a major race meeting. This wont target betting in general, just the FOBTs.

The reason you see so many bookies in a small area is because they are "gaming the system". There is a player protection rule that limits each bookie to 4 FOBTs. They get around this by opening loads of smaller shops, each with it's own 4 FOBT allowance, rather than one big shop. Because FOBTs are rigged, they can guarantee a set long term profit, and cannot be caught out one week by a few lucky players. They shouldn't even need to cheat as roulette is a high house edge game. I suspect the cheating is to bring the RTP of the FOBTs down to 90% from the natural 95% seen on a fair roulette table.

There are players that claim to be able to beat FOBTs, and this is the danger of making these "compensated" games available. It is even worse with FOBTs, where banning a player could be seen as an admission of a lack of confidence of the fairness of their FOBTs.

Unfortunately, the long running battle between the "pro" players and the operators has been fought out of sight of the mainstream media. Many "pro" players do NOT want it to become general knowledge that there is money to be made, and so are wary of supplying main stream media with proof that some systems work. Operators too want it kept quiet, and when they ban someone, it is often for vague reasons, and they can hide behind the "right to refuse admission" rather than accuse the player of cheating.
It needs an undercover investigation by Panorama or Dispatches to expose this aspect, but first they need to recruit a "pro" player.

Some while ago, it seems Channel 4 were sniffing around the player forums looking for a pro player willing to take part in a documentary about beating the games, but there were no takers. The general chatter was that it would involve their systems being aired on national TV, and being rendered worthless overnight as everybody went out to give it a try. This was already happening with some systems where knowledge became too widespread.
I don't know of any attempts by UK mainstream media to produce a documentary about online gambling from the viewpoint of the "pro" player out to beat the system. This DID happen elsewhere, and is why the Danes are bonus banned from large numbers of casinos.

 

[ThePOGG]

No Actually I'm not asking the wrong questions.

Believe me I've studied licensing jurisdictions and what's required and many OC's don't meet their requirements. Old news..

I've studied more than you think and not in just this area.

My position has always been that it appeared to me that Betfair took the right actions and corrected the player issue and removed the game in a timely faction.

I'm surprised since Bet365 is accredited here you're not endorsing the removal of them too.

Actually i am. I've made no bones about disagreeing with CM on this issue. I've already blacklisted both companies and others on my own site. Offering cheating games is unacceptable. If they chose to stop working with a company that has been rigging games i'll reconsider that decision. Until that point they provide games from an untrustworthy party and transitively cannot be trusted themselves.

Earlier you were saying that i should be pushing for better regulation - allowing casinos to continue operating in breach of their license wouldn't achieve that.

There's a good reason that term was written into the GRA license and that's because rigging your free play games to pay out at a higher rate than your real play games is dishonest. And when you are alerted to a breach of license and choose to do nothing about it that's even more serious.

 

[ThePOGG]

While i could get no response what-so-ever from Paddy Power regarding this issue i've done a quick test of their free play Aladdin's Treasure game (you can find the vid at

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

. Unlike Betfred and Bet 365, their free play game turned up a double number in less that 10 spins, quicker than would be expected in a fair game, but well within the expected range.

 

[Nifty29]

THIS is the kind of thing that needs to be forced into the open, not just a youtube video that people might stumble upon. It might break the faith of those that regularly play FOBTs, who probably think that despite everything else, it's a fair game, and they can win.
Using a bit of clever "spin", players could be lead to interpret this quirk as proof that all FOBTs cheat, and they can NEVER win, unlike traditional sports betting where the outcome is out of the hands of the bookies, and they often get stung when popular selections all win at a major race meeting. This wont target betting in general, just the FOBTs.

The reason you see so many bookies in a small area is because they are "gaming the system". There is a player protection rule that limits each bookie to 4 FOBTs. They get around this by opening loads of smaller shops, each with it's own 4 FOBT allowance, rather than one big shop. Because FOBTs are rigged, they can guarantee a set long term profit, and cannot be caught out one week by a few lucky players. They shouldn't even need to cheat as roulette is a high house edge game. I suspect the cheating is to bring the RTP of the FOBTs down to 90% from the natural 95% seen on a fair roulette table.

There are players that claim to be able to beat FOBTs, and this is the danger of making these "compensated" games available. It is even worse with FOBTs, where banning a player could be seen as an admission of a lack of confidence of the fairness of their FOBTs.

Unfortunately, the long running battle between the "pro" players and the operators has been fought out of sight of the mainstream media. Many "pro" players do NOT want it to become general knowledge that there is money to be made, and so are wary of supplying main stream media with proof that some systems work. Operators too want it kept quiet, and when they ban someone, it is often for vague reasons, and they can hide behind the "right to refuse admission" rather than accuse the player of cheating.
It needs an undercover investigation by Panorama or Dispatches to expose this aspect, but first they need to recruit a "pro" player.

Some while ago, it seems Channel 4 were sniffing around the player forums looking for a pro player willing to take part in a documentary about beating the games, but there were no takers. The general chatter was that it would involve their systems being aired on national TV, and being rendered worthless overnight as everybody went out to give it a try. This was already happening with some systems where knowledge became too widespread.
I don't know of any attempts by UK mainstream media to produce a documentary about online gambling from the viewpoint of the "pro" player out to beat the system. This DID happen elsewhere, and is why the Danes are bonus banned from large numbers of casinos.

IIRC, the danish thing was about the general public being shown how to use bonuses to make money. It had nothing to do with rigged or compensated games, so I don't see how it is relevant. In fact, pretty nothing you said is relevant.

Just for the non- UK readers, could you explain FOBT please? Afaik its a betting terminal in a bookies shop but I'm happy to stand corrected.

There is nothing inherently wrong with compensated games, as long as they are billed as such. Online compensated games aren't the same as actual fruities, as you well know, as you can't know how long it has been since a jackpot etc.

 

[jetset]

Maybe try a bomb hoax?

Seriously, it seems these official "quango troughs" need something lit underneath them.

I'm frankly disgusted that none of them have become involved even here, as I am also with certain operators who have become like church mice.

I'm almost thinking that if any operator who used these games wants to stay on the accred list they should issue a full statement explaining their reactions and actions and their plans moving forward, to the satisfaction of Bryan and the membership at large.

It's almost like they have been given legal advice to shut up completely. Maybe they have.

Is there anything you can do being a journo and all jetset?

We've already carried one story on this back in the early stages of the scandal, but in the absence of notable new developments simply reprising a story with relatively minor embellishments is counter-productive and just bores the audience.

A regulator worth its salt would be all over this by now, because it appears to me that a prima facie case has been established by reputable experts like Eliot Jacobsen. That at least merits some serious and impartial attention, yet we have yet to see even an acknowledgement made publicly by the GRA that it is investigating breaches of its regulations allegedly committed by some of its licensees.

Instead we have these almost covert 'networking' style revelations and the promise of communication at some undefined point.

It really doesn't inspire confidence in the regulator when it conducts its business in this way - justice should be seen to be done, or at least seen to be in the process of being done in an open, professional and impartial manner.

The regulator has a tremendous responsibility and an obligation to the players it purports to protect, and a major part of that is holding its licensees responsible for what appear to be clear breaches of its regulations

Why not be transparent and communicative, giving confidence to players that they really are a priority with a regulator who not only licenses operators, but regulates them diligently as well?

Its both frustrating and deeply disappointing when regulators do not appear to come through on player issues - take Purple Lounge as a recent example of lots of hand waving and hot air from the LGA, but most unsatisfactory enforcement and a very apparent disregard for the player community.

 

[vinylweatherman]

IIRC, the danish thing was about the general public being shown how to use bonuses to make money. It had nothing to do with rigged or compensated games, so I don't see how it is relevant. In fact, pretty nothing you said is relevant.

Just for the non- UK readers, could you explain FOBT please? Afaik its a betting terminal in a bookies shop but I'm happy to stand corrected.

There is nothing inherently wrong with compensated games, as long as they are billed as such. Online compensated games aren't the same as actual fruities, as you well know, as you can't know how long it has been since a jackpot etc.

It was still a niche topic. I can't see the majority of the Danish public having bothered to interrupt their usual viewing just to watch this. The UK public have also been shown how to beat the businesses at their own game on TV, and REPEATEDLY. We don't see big business running scared, we see them realise that this is a niche problem that only a small minority of customers will be interested in. They make minor changes, but don't ditch entire schemes on the back of a TV show that shows how to beat it.

In fact, the issue about making money from bonuses has been given it's own section on the Martin Lewis website, which supports the Martin Lewis "money show" on ITV. Also featured are the various loopholes that can result in things like a plasma TV for 4pence from Tesco. Tesco has had it's long running Clubcard scheme attacked repeatedly by followers of the Martin Lewis forum, yet they have not ditched the scheme.

Instead of adapting, casinos just issued a wholesale ban on Danish players which they kept for YEARS after this TV program was aired. Many Danish players have no idea that this was the root cause of the problem because it was so long ago.

The FOBT is a video kiosk that can host a number of games, usually casino favourites like Roulette. They are marketed as being the same as playing the game in a real casino, but they are not quite. The problem is that they "cheat" in order to ensure the bookies can make a consistent long term profit from them. The games featured are "fixed odds" like Roulette, but unlike real roulette, they can adapt to the bets being made. This is how they can be tricked into revealing that they cheat by betting to force them to show a completely non random sequence of results despite them being apparently random when played "normally".

Some players believe that the cheating mechanism in FOBTs can be manipulated in the players' favour, just like on many fruit machines.

There could have been an outcome worse for the operators, someone finding a means to trick the Finsoft games into paying out too much over the long term by using specific betting patterns.

I am also thinking that if the cheat instruction is transmitted from the players' PC via an XML request, surely someone can hack the client side and tamper with these XML instructions to change the cheat into one favouring the player, such as by excluding not duplicates, but one of the results that would cause the player to lose the bet.

 

[dunover]

IIRC, the danish thing was about the general public being shown how to use bonuses to make money. It had nothing to do with rigged or compensated games, so I don't see how it is relevant. In fact, pretty nothing you said is relevant.

Just for the non- UK readers, could you explain FOBT please? Afaik its a betting terminal in a bookies shop but I'm happy to stand corrected.

There is nothing inherently wrong with compensated games, as long as they are billed as such. Online compensated games aren't the same as actual fruities, as you well know, as you can't know how long it has been since a jackpot etc.

It is relevant in the sense of media exposure, and the FOBT's are advertised as 'random' which which they clearly aren't. The FOBT scandal makes this thread's original complaint look insignificant, whereas it isn't in our opinions, as we can see by the responses and huge interest. On this forum we are knowledgeable when it comes to online gaming, and we mustn't forget that to people outside i.e. the media we speak almost a foreign language, so inevitably they have to put total trust in what the subjects say or do, which puts them in a vulnerable position. If only there was a reporter who had the POGG's knowledge for example.....

 

[jetset]

This thread is getting plenty of exposure, which is a good thing if it can be kept on topic - well over 50,000 views as at this afternoon.

 

[ThePOGG]

It is relevant in the sense of media exposure, and the FOBT's are advertised as 'random' which which they clearly aren't. The FOBT scandal makes this thread's original complaint look insignificant, whereas it isn't in our opinions, as we can see by the responses and huge interest. On this forum we are knowledgeable when it comes to online gaming, and we mustn't forget that to people outside i.e. the media we speak almost a foreign language, so inevitably they have to put total trust in what the subjects say or do, which puts them in a vulnerable position. If only there was a reporter who had the POGG's knowledge for example.....

Thanks dunover - that's kind of the goal i'm trying to achieve when i publish articles on the site. I suspect however, that if i was to try and work in mainstream journalism i would spend many a hungry and penniless nights between commissions lol.

 

[dunover]

Thanks dunover - that's kind of the goal i'm trying to achieve when i publish articles on the site. I suspect however, that if i was to try and work in mainstream journalism i would spend many a hungry and penniless nights between commissions lol.

And you'd be telling the truth, which the mainstream media has issues with (usually).
Again, it's follow the money - how much revenue do newspapers and TV channels receive from gaming companies? A word in the right ear, and the article would never be aired or published. This is what we are up against.

The UKGC is about as useful as a <snip>, which brings me to their predecessor BACTA, another pointless toothless bunch of civil servants who failed to enforce any rules bar collection of licences for the government.
Old scandals there. Club machines known never to have paid a jackpot out in years due to MPU3 dodgy programming, whereby when you set the dip switches to certain %ages, certain features would be permanently blocked on certain percentages. I had a 150 jp clubmachine once, whereby if you set it to max 88% you could NEVER access the top 4 features on the ladder by gambling the number up. It was impossible. Similar on the £5 ones. I saw a chap once spend 200 trying to win a £5 jackpot on one set at 72% - avoiding all wins he got the gamble to £4 and was doing it every other spin, and yet it killed him each time regardless of the number. I tried telling him that the %age it was set on blocked the win (despite it being advertised on the glass) and he could play it for the rest of his life and not get the £5.
So, try explaining that to BACTA and they didn't have one person knowledgeable enough about machines to investigate these faults which made the machines essentially illegal. Like the UKGC they simply trusted the providers and programmers to do the right thing. We all know still to this day we have AWP's with EPPS (enhanced payout periods) which means effectively by taking a credit on the top features (eg DOND) or taking a credit for a repeat chance, the APS's basically offer a higher jackpot than allowed by law.
Whether the old BACTA or the UKGC you are simply faced with tax-collectors who have little or no knowledge about the minutiae of games, software or randomness. This thread proves it - again.

 

[Richas]

And you'd be telling the truth, which the mainstream media has issues with (usually).
Again, it's follow the money - how much revenue do newspapers and TV channels receive from gaming companies? A word in the right ear, and the article would never be aired or published. This is what we are up against.

True. Plus of course the Mail has its own bingo and slots site.

It makes me think, prompted by it coming in the post this morning, that the best place for this story is Private Eye. They will bother to explain the maths and will be happy to get into the regulatory detail. for them the gritty detail is the story and the huge software firm, BetFred and others plus GRA and UKGC are all worthy targets for criticism.

Then all the other papers will read it and do their usual terrible job.