Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given that the OP has been highlighted as a "Banned User - Player Fraud", and that there is now an "Editor's Note" attached to the top of the first post, I'd say that the suggestion of starting another thread, then "copying" the posts from this thread that are "data contributions" into this new thread, is of extreme importance.

Who does this, and/or who should do this are good questions. But I'd say that they should be answered pronto, such that the effort of creating this new thread can proceed.

Chris
 
Given that in a few months nearly all sites will be getting UK licences and coming from a poker background...........I would like to point out that using a bot in contravention of a sites Ts and Cs is cheating at gambling. This is an offence under Section 42 of the 2005 Gambling Act so (if you are in the UK or your poker bot plays against a UK based player/site) it is a criminal offence - punishable by up to 2 years in gaol and/or a level 5 fine.

It may be unlikely that you would be prosecuted but running a bot in the UK or against anyone in the UK is a criminal offence in the UK.

I read
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
, and they don't mention anything about bots. It states:

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a) the process by which gambling is conducted, or

(b) a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.

A bot does not count as deception or interference. Identity of the player also does not count as deception. The poker bot MAY count, since being a human versus other humans is part of the game structure, but even that would require analysis by a court.
 
Ok, thanks for the clarification. To clarify, when I posted previously:

[...] opening a second account under someone's name in your family with their consent is not an illegal act. Yes, it does break most casinos T&Cs, but it's not a crime. It's somewhere along the same lines as using a bot at a casino that prohibits bots [...]


I was specifically referring to simple automated tools to help you to do the wagering at the casino, in other words not anything that would give you advantage over playing manually.

In case you didn't know there are several cases of casino winnings being confiscated just for using an autoclicker to complete a wagering requirement of a bonus more easily and "to not wear out your fingers", the most recent case being Betfred (yes the same one) avoiding paying out a £30,000 win, because player's betting patterns indicated that an automation tool to assist in wagering was in use.

Ouch. Sorry for the derail - is their confiscation decision subject to any third party review or binding arbitration process (as it would be with a UKGC licence)?

PS I think a fraudulently named account is a pretty serious offence against the site and likely a criminal offence of some sort.
 
Ouch. Sorry for the derail - is their confiscation decision subject to any third party review or binding arbitration process (as it would be with a UKGC licence)?

PS I think a fraudulently named account is a pretty serious offence against the site and likely a criminal offence of some sort.

As near as I can tell, putting a fake name on a gambling account is not a violation of any laws, neither in the
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
nor the
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
. I'm focusing on the UK since Betfred's primary operations are in the UK.

The only crimes that I can find exist in
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
, but these crimes are on the part of the casino. In fact, nearly every casino with which we deal is in violation of these terms.

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

10.—(1) A casino must establish and verify the identity of—
(a)all customers to whom the casino makes facilities for gaming available—
(i)before entry to any premises where such facilities are provided; or
(ii)where the facilities are for remote gaming, before access is given to such facilities; or​
(b)if the specified conditions are met, all customers who, in the course of any period of 24 hours—
(i)purchase from, or exchange with, the casino chips with a total value of 2,000 euro or more;
(ii)pay the casino 2,000 or more for the use of gaming machines; or
(iii)pay to, or stake with, the casino 2,000 euro or more in connection with facilities for remote gaming.​
(2) The specified conditions are—
(a)the casino verifies the identity of each customer before or immediately after such purchase, exchange, payment or stake takes place, and
(b)the Gambling Commission is satisfied that the casino has appropriate procedures in place to monitor and record—
(i)the total value of chips purchased from or exchanged with the casino;
(ii)the total money paid for the use of gaming machines; or
(iii)the total money paid or staked in connection with facilities for remote gaming,​
by each customer.​

As far as the UK is concerned, asking for paperwork only after a customer wins is against the law. All casinos need to verify who you are before you enter or immediately after your purchase chips.

Obviously, with FOBTs and Fruities spreading over the UK like some sort of infection, these laws are loosely enforced at best, but again, if the player who represented themselves under false pretenses was not doing so for the sake of money laundering or some other direct fraud, they did not break the law. Betfred did break the law by not effectively confirming their identity before allowing them to play. But since the person whose name was used was aware of the situation and present, it could be argued that Betfred did effectively determine the identity of the player, and as such did not break the law. But Betfred will likely not want to admit this, since it eliminates even the slightest possibility that the player is legally in the wrong.

Betfred is thus in a Catch-22. If they admit that they failed to adequately identify the player, then Betfred broke the law. If they did adequately identify the player, then it is impossible for the player to have broken the law.
 
I read
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
, and they don't mention anything about bots. It states:

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a) the process by which gambling is conducted, or

(b) a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.

A bot does not count as deception or interference. Identity of the player also does not count as deception. The poker bot MAY count, since being a human versus other humans is part of the game structure, but even that would require analysis by a court.

This is the full quote

Cheating
(1)A person commits an offence if he—
(a)cheats at gambling, or
(b)does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person to cheat at gambling.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether a person who cheats—
(a)improves his chances of winning anything, or
(b)wins anything.

(3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a)the process by which gambling is conducted, or
(b)a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.


We do need a test case but running a poker bot is clearly an attempt to cheat. The bot is banned by the Ts and Cs and it interferes directly with the betting process/game vs another player.

"The generality of section 1" - cheating is the offence. Running automated gambling software that is specifically banned from the game in order to try and gain an unfair advantage is almost the very definition of cheating. There is deception, the game rules are broken and the outcome (betting patterns in poker effect the outcome) is altered or rather attempted to be altered. The whole process of the game is altered by the bot, the virtual game fundamentally altered.

Similarly collusion in online poker is an offence. It is against the rules, it effects the outcome and is done to achieve an unfair advantage.
 
As near as I can tell, putting a fake name on a gambling account is not a violation of any laws, neither in the
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
nor the
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
. I'm focusing on the UK since Betfred's primary operations are in the UK.

I was thinking of obtaining money by deception.

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


The deception element is pretending to be somebody who will get an introductory cash bonus, the offence kicks in when they get paid the bonus that they would not otherwise be offered.

Deception offences include situations where the defendant represents that counterfeited goods are genuine items, or misrepresents their identity (e.g., R v Barnard,[11] where the defendant represented that he was a student to an Oxford bookshop to qualify for their scheme of discounting books to students)

If obtaining a book discount by pretending to be a student is an offence then so to is pretending to be a new customer to get a cash bonus.
 
I want to apologise for derailing this overlong thread. This is an attempt to make the walkabout relevant.

The OP has posted a strange apology. The OP thought they had found a way to make money from a 100% RTP game. To do this they deceived the site to get a bonus. They then found themselves losing a fortune and got desperate. They crafted their post (and subsequent posts) with a very narrow goal - getting their deposited money back. They have achieved this goal but they also find themselves at risk of "rubber hoses" now that the site knows they created a false account, I suspect legal pressure/threats to get the abject apology for "false" criticisms of Finsoft, BetFred and the reguator. This legal threat is the rubber hose.

Now - cheating under the UK 2005 Gambling Act. This law can be criticised for being incredibly broad and undefined. It is. This act removed the obligation to show that someone made money by cheating, a huge change in terms of the evidential barrier. It has been used to convict cricket players for bowling no balls, croupiers for dropping a roulette ball on to a number, croupiers for paying out incorrectly, using dirty stacks and deliberately paying out "push" hands. Most bizarrely it convicted a bloke at a dog track for running the races two minutes early even though they could not charge anyone who actually won money by getting their bet on late knowing the result.

It is a hugely broad offence. It covers all sorts of things.

I am 100% certain that it is broad enough to cover a software firm supplying rigged and falsely advertised software that steals 4% of every bet (with false certification) and that it covers BetFred hosting that falsely advertised software for years. If you offer a bet at 100% and pay 96% that is cheating far more clearly than a no ball in a test match or starting a race by the time on your watch.
 
Last edited:
...
I am also disturbed by the wording of the OP's admissions, which is rather clumsily heavy-handed and does not seem natural or ring true to me; I would go so far as to opine that these look like words placed in his mouth, but then perhaps I am just being paranoid!
...

I agree and I go further saying that it seems like the OPs statement is kind of a compulsory one.
Imo the OP doesn't have any motivation to make that kind of statement, nor any other actually, unless there's something more behind this...

We must remember that the OP was reimbursed of losses (no profit) even having breached the T&C of the casino, something that was not of the knowledge of Betfred when of the reimbursement.
But the thing is that the OP didn't claim to be paid of winnings denied by the casino, the OP was paid because the game he/she played was rigged, when the OP was using a "good account".
The multiple account breach would never be discovered if the OP hadn't done his/her statement (why should him/her, the OP had the money with him/her already).

So, again, something's wrong in the realm of logic and common sense:confused:

And this feeling his even bigger when the OPs statement contradicts some of "her" posts about how long "she" had played the rigged game and the way "she" sustained "her" thoughts on why it was a rigged game ("she" mentioned two games actually).
If the OPs statement is really honest, those brother and sister showed to be quite clever and to have done their homework very well!
 
Me and several others have the exact same feeling about OPs confession letter - it looks entirely manifactured. Like Binary wrote: "Bright lights and rubber hose" come to mind :lolup: My (and several others) best guess is that Betfred threatened the OP with legal action for attempting to defraud them and in return for not do that and let him keep the money (which was his to begin with) he had to agree to make this confession and remain silent after that.

So the confession letter is probably just Betfred's cover-up attempt, which conveniently surfaced right at the same time when people discussed bringing this incident to the mass media, something that Betfred may be scared of. The fortunate thing is that since OP is no longer the key factor to this case as other's have since taken the investigation over, OP's confessions are of little relevance any longer.

Not sure if it's Betfred, or only Betfred behing it.
I'm even more skeptical about this.
 
We do need a test case but running a poker bot is clearly an attempt to cheat. The bot is banned by the Ts and Cs and it interferes directly with the betting process/game vs another player.

I completely disagree. A traditional bot does not interfere with the betting process at all, it only follows the rules of the betting process in an automated fashion. If we are talking about poker only, then that would be associated with deception, not interference, since the mechanics of poker assume another player. So that could be cheating. But even that would require a court case to determine.

"The generality of section 1" - cheating is the offence. Running automated gambling software that is specifically banned from the game in order to try and gain an unfair advantage is almost the very definition of cheating. There is deception, the game rules are broken and the outcome (betting patterns in poker effect the outcome) is altered or rather attempted to be altered. The whole process of the game is altered by the bot, the virtual game fundamentally altered.
I again disagree completely. Your second sentence is loaded with the term "unfair advantage," which assumes something that is unfair. We then need to define "unfair". For something to be unfair, one player must have access to something that other players do not. That still doesn't count as cheating, though. I might have an IQ of 4000 that makes me invincible at Poker. That's certainly unfair. So whether something is unfair or not is immaterial to a determination of cheating.

Cheating must be active. As such, it must be a circumvention of game mechanics. The process of the game must be interfered with. That is why the law specifically mentions this. That does not happen with a bot. That does not happen with false identity. That happens with hacking. We are not talking about hacking. The game rules are thus not broken.

Moreover, if we allow for the utter generality of "cheating" without definition, cheating is then defined as doing anything against the T&C's of a casino. This law would then give casinos unilateral ability to write laws, which is patently absurd. No court on Earth would accept that line of argument.

Your poker example is problematic. All behavior affects the outcome of poker. That's what poker is. And the whole point of poker is to alter or attempt to alter the outcome. Unless I can spy on my opponents cards, there is no clear-cut case of cheating here. And again, a bot changes nothing except the behavior of the player. The game is not fundamentally altered.

Similarly collusion in online poker is an offence. It is against the rules, it effects the outcome and is done to achieve an unfair advantage.
Poker collusion rules exist almost exclusively to prevent chip dumping, which is associated with money laundering.

Importantly, all of this has been quite the derail of the thread. The important point is that the player in question did not break the law.
 
So this is like a robber assuming a false identity, gains access and stumbles upon an illegal counterfeiting operation and calls the police.....

Counterfeiter: Your Honor, we request dismissal of this case against us because the robber is a fraudster!
Judge: Your request is denied! This case isn't about him, it's about YOU!

The ends don't justify the means.

I don't see what the need was to use his sister's ID.....that in itself tells me that he might not be just an average guy who felt the games were cheating, and set out to prove it. He is obviously someone that betfred knows....maybe an ex-employee with a grudge, or a player banned in the past for something (multi accounting perhaps). Otherwise, there would be no gain in going to the trouble of concealing your true identity from the casino.

The statement he made was almost certainly not his own words. I agree with others on that point. It almost makes me wonder if BF know his background, and suggested that they might reveal it unless he said what they wanted. Ive seen casino- induced "apologies" in the forum before, and this one is just the same.

If CM has the guys email, he should ask straight out why he didn't use his own account. I actually have a suspicion, but it implicates BF in a big way, so I don't want to share it until more information comes to light. I need one more piece of info, and I think I might know what happened here.

IMO the OP deserves a thankyou for bringing this situation to light. I also think they deserved the ban just like any other account fraudster.

Thanks again to those who are providing the tech and insider stuff in this thread. Keep it coming peeps.
 
I was thinking of obtaining money by deception.

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


The deception element is pretending to be somebody who will get an introductory cash bonus, the offence kicks in when they get paid the bonus that they would not otherwise be offered.

If obtaining a book discount by pretending to be a student is an offence then so to is pretending to be a new customer to get a cash bonus.
The casino would then need to assign an absolute monetary value to the bonus, which would be zero. The point of bonuses, at least as far as the casino is concerned, is to be lost. If something does not have value outside of its application, it doesn't have value. That is why coupons have "cash value 1/100¢" written on them.

I am 100% certain that it is broad enough to cover a software firm supplying rigged and falsely advertised software that steals 4% of every bet (with false certification) and that it covers BetFred hosting that falsely advertised software for years. If you offer a bet at 100% and pay 96% that is cheating far more clearly than a no ball in a test match or starting a race by the time on your watch.

An excellent point. We've been focusing on the laws as regards the player but not the casino. I agree. It is all but undeniable that the casino's (Betfred) actions fall under the fraud definition.
 
TheLastCylon - feel free to disagree with me, this thread may not be the place so please point me to a new thread if necessary.

it is not my fault that the UK government has drafted their gambling cheating laws so broadly that it is (almost) possible to claim that any breach of Ts and Cs is an offence. There does need to be an attempt to gain unfair advantage but that is it. Break the Ts and Cs and try to make money (even if you lose) is an offence. The law is hugely broad and relatively undefined via case law.

I offer no opinion on say blackjack bots playing perfect strategy against sites. Their lawyers may well win arguing that they offer the bet to people, who get tired and make mistakes and so the bot operator is cheating. IMHO that is legally arguable even before you get to deception and bonuses. Frankly I don't care.

Now poker bots I care about.

Cheating must be active. As such, it must be a circumvention of game mechanics. The process of the game must be interfered with. That is why the law specifically mentions this. That does not happen with a bot. That does not happen with false identity. That happens with hacking. We are not talking about hacking. The game rules are thus not broken.

No. The case law shows that cheating can be very passive - just being told by your captain to bowl a no ball or starting a dog race 2 mins early is an offence. The result does not need to be altered. The law says that just trying to cheat is an offence - the clause you refer to (3) specifically says that it does not limit that general offence in clause 1.

A poker bot fundamentally alters the game. You are betting against an automation not a person, they cannot tire, their programming never steps outside what it considers correct AND IT IS BANNED FROM THE GAME. It is cheating.

As for collusion and poker - stud games where knowledge of the cards dealt makes a huge difference is the No1 problem, cooperating in sit and go/MTT tournaments by raising and re-raising to force non colluders out comes second and chip dumping in tournaments to help players hit the top prizes comes a distant third. Chip dumping in cash games for money laundering is both uncommon and unrelated to cheating in games vs other players. It is not collusion in terms of the game.
 
CM - you've had more success getting the GRA to respond than me - can you confirm if they are still investigating or have we heard their last statement on this issue?
 
I would be astonished and shocked if the GRA made such a decision (not to continue pursuing the truth in this matter) because as this thread has so amply demonstrated, there are a myriad suspicious elements and unanswered questions around the central core of the scandal - cheating games.

I'm alarmed that the regulator does not seem to be deeply concerned over this fundamental trust issue which is so important in the gambling industry and impacts those purporting to be there to ensure fair gaming...like the GRA.

This thread and others like it across the internet is clearly not going to be wished or bluffed away, and sooner or later this scandal will be picked up by the mainstream media. That makes it additionally important to all parties that the regulator is impartial and transparent, and that implies the public release of the results of its preferably independent investigation.

The widespread conclusion that the OPs 'confession' is highly suspect is just one more intriguing issue in what is developing into a major industry scandal that needs to be nailed down, with those responsible sanctioned and preferably punished.

It goes without saying that the integrity of the games in question is suspect on credible grounds imo, and that operators carrying these flawed games should be showing their commitment to fair gaming by suspending or removing them pending the outcome of the investigation.

The critical question of making players screwed by these games whole again is also still on the table and should be a serious concern for those operators who have continued to offer games they now know to be unfair...are you really willing to take the risk to reputation that such a course entails?

Finally, thanks to Cylon and Richas for taking their interesting debate on cheating in general off to another thread - it was interesting and to some extent relevant, but a distraction to a very important and more specific discussion here. That was considerate of you.
 
I am also disturbed by the wording of the OP's admissions, which is rather clumsily heavy-handed and does not seem natural or ring true to me; I would go so far as to opine that these look like words placed in his mouth

Perhaps the OP was paid off and 'suggestions' were made to him about legal action or suchlike if he didn't write a splendid confession, or put his name to one that had already been written.

There's definitely something that we don't know behind to that confession. Why would someone straight out confess to such thing in those words, knowing that they will get banned for doing so? What was the OP expecting?

It sounds like something that he'd only say to save his ass, even if it meant sacrificing his forum account and the credibility of his thread/discovery.
 
I might be way off track but the OP was refunded their losses correct which tells me the operator didn't know this person and wasn't aware of the ID fraud. Sister or whatever.

Even though the game didn't payout as advertised the OP knew this somehow, still could have won while playing the game. Since they didn't win, then it became a work in progress by pointing out how the odds weren't correct, rigged or whatever.

By pointing this out, the OP got their money back as I understand.

Seems like an intended game plan to me, I'm going to play a large amount of cash and if I win I'll collect a large payout but if I lose I'll point out what I know about this software and get refunded by going public.

I don't think the OP would have ever came clean if they didn't get a refund, not sure.

The OP found a human error, or software file error or whatever you want to call it and went for it.

Like I've said over and over there's no solid proof this was intentional by the software provider, or the OC and now it's panning out to be more fraud related and taking advantage of a programming malfunction.

I'll wait for the final results but it doesn't seem that complicated to figure out.
 
I've been speaking with Bet 365 - they are still insistent on keeping their FinSoft games and as such will remain blacklisted on my site, but they have removed the free to play version of Aladdin's Treasure so there's no longer a discrepency there.
 
Since this thread has grown into several issues - and I cannot effectively do my job as an administrator, I'm closing it.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the GRA is dealing with the software firm. There have also been reports that there is erroneous information in this thread that is causing many here to make misinformed assumptions - thus causing undo harm to a number of operators. It also appears that the OP is much more than a multi-account fraudster. New information and developments are presently evolving which members may need to take into account before drawing any conclusions. If and when I have further information on this, I'll let you know.

When the GRA completes its investigation, I will publish it here.
 
Just to give everyone an update: the GRA has mentioned to me tonight that they have asked further questions and sought additional information about this matter - so they may still be a way off from making any formal announcements.
 
Just another update as promised.

Max and I spoke with Aaron for about an hour on Tuesday during the ICE and pretty much cleared this up. This issue is very complex, and due to the complexities, it will take a while for a complete resolution.

Before Betfred can make any statements, they need to wait for the GRA to review and reply to any statements made by Finsoft. Once the GRA has determined whether or not the software is in compliance with their regulations then Betfred will be able to take further actions. Due diligence is required by everyone involved.

And the player accounts affected will be sorted out once they all have been audited. Simply put, it will all come out in the wash, but it will still take some time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top