Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[Jufo]

What the OP did violated a number of serious rules both here and at the casino. That's what I read Bryan's ban and note to be about, not a moral judgement on the OP either way.

Whatever you may think of the OP's subsequent actions -- posting here, etc -- the point is that he crossed the line well before he posted and it would seem to me that that's what Bryan's decision addresses. IOW, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Good guys get punished too and they deserve to if they break the law. That's why it's called "the law" and not "harsh stuff we do to people we don't like".

It's funny that you bring up the word "law" when the act of 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, or attempting to claim multiple coupons at a grocery store where it says "only one coupon per customer".

So the fact that OP had made a relatively minor breach of opening a second account within his family got him banned. In order to display some kind of consistency that everyone is dealt with according to the same criteria, wouldn't the only appropriate action now be to throw Betfred and Bet365 into the rogue pit? Because certainly the breaches that the OP did were minor compared to Betfred's all GRA breaches and all the cheating that is still going on at the moment.

 

[Simmo!]

So the fact that OP had opened a second account within the family got him banned. In order to display some kind of consistency that each party is dealt with equally, wouldn't the only appropriate action now be to throw Betfred and Bet365 into the rogue pit? Because certainly the breaches that the OP did were minor compared to these GRA breaches and all on-going cheating that is still going on at the moment.

Here's how it strikes me:

You have two sides to every story, in this case the industry side and the player side. Gambling by nature is a "them and us" industry where one side needs to "beat" the other to win. Consequently you will invariably get a lot of players airing their grievances in any possible situation while the casinos will want to protect their corner. It's just the nature of the beast.

Sites like Casinomeister serve the purpose of sitting in the middle and (hopefully) getting to the bottom of a situation. That doesn't work if you throw one side to the Lions before the facts are known and guilt is proven because do that too often and one side will disappear for good which renders the process useless. In this case, up to now, it sounds like there is a serious issue that someone on the "industry" needs to address.

However at this stage, we do know for sure that the OP has admitted to Casinomeister he multi-accounted which is an automatic ban at Casinomeister, whether you are Jack the Lad, Mother Teresa or the Archangel Gabriel. That policy is there because multi-accounters and fraudulent players hurt honest players. You and me. Simple. And if they grafiti your house but leave you a bottle of champagne that's irrelevant.

On the case of the games, every day it seems there is a new development. When all those developments have surfaced and Casinomeister can make a decision based on the facts, then there will be a decision taken. Any other pre-emptive strike because "it looks that way" would be stupid, especially if something else surfaces and makes a mockery of that decision.

That's just common sense and it doesn't matter how many sticks you beat it with, or how many people call foul, or how many million pages of opinions you get, that's exactly what a site like this is here to do: get to the bottom of a situation as quickly as possible and make a decision, not best-guess an outcome like everyone else.

As an aside, did I see someone say the "rigged games" are still available? If so, the companies have said they will re-imburse losses so ffs, go play them 'cos you can't lose. You'll get your money back at worst

 

[jetset]

It is what it is. If I were to merely ban the member and not post a reason behind it, then the multitude of visitors would be wondering "WTF?"

I don't see it discrediting the thread. Sure, it discredits the OP, but not the thread. Regardless of the OP's confession and misrepresentation, the software and findings are still the same.

I think it's important to note what Bryan says here, and consequently I hope that he allows this thread to remain open in order that members can continue a legitimate discussion on a very, very suspicious affair that still leaves many questions unanswered by the regulator, the software distributor SpieloG2 and Betfred itself.

There are all sorts of relevant questions still outstanding regarding allegedly jimmied software; non-compliance with GRA regs and the regulator's attitude to these player-unfriendly developments; compensation for players on a software that appears to have been cheating for years; the veracity of expert assessments like those of Eliot Jacobsen, and why these were initially ignored by the companies and regulator involved; the extent of the distribution by Spielo of the affected games, and whether operators feel it incumbent on them to withdraw these; the disparity between the original Betfred statements via Aaron and the 'confessions' of the OP and many more. Could this really be the result of another 'update' SNAFU?

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!

Long story short, I do not believe that discrediting the OP (if that was an agenda behind his confession - just what was his motivation?) necessarily destroys the credibility of the thread.

It should stay open until the regulator has concluded its investigation and has made a transparent and full public report on the issue to bring proper closure.

I sense that we are not getting the whole story, or answers to the many outstanding questions here, and in allegations as serious as those being discussed, that is truly important for player trust in the bodies involved in this scandal.

Just to add by way of a post script: @ binary 128, VWM and thePogg and Richas - great posts at 475, 555, 582 and 585 that zero in on the real issues here - thanks .

 

[visaria]

If the game was exactly same back then and currently there is no reason to assume that it wasn't, then yes you are due compensation. In fact I believe Betfred promised to reimburse all affected players. If you haven't been reimbursed already, it shows they are not holding on to their promise. Straight to the rogue pit is my vote

Ok, so should I contact the rep (Aaron)? I tried Betfred CS but they just laughed at my suggestion that one of their games was rigged.

 

[ThePOGG]

Ok, so should I contact the rep (Aaron)? I tried Betfred CS but they just laughed at my suggestion that one of their games was rigged.

I can't say for sure that you are due a refund as it very much depends on the exact game you played, but i've got to be honest and say that if your report on Betfred's CS response is accurate i find that fairly shocking. They know that there are player due to be reimbursed for their losses due to games not working within specifications, but haven't briefed CS about the issue?

 

[binary128]

I found the GRA response (summarized for the forum by Bryan) ...

GRA Statement:

"... this case is under active investigation and this investigation has already revealed that the bona fides and actions of one or more parties involved in this thread, who cannot be named for legal reasons, are not who they claim to be, have put false information on the thread, appear to have operated account(s) well outside the terms and conditions, and have refused to assist or co-operate in the investigation. He goes on to say that while it does appear that there were errors in the relevant games' presentation, it is also apparent that there is much more to this case than at first appears, and any fair investigation has to take all relevant factors into account before reaching any conclusion ..."

... odd for a number of reasons, and posted my thoughts. (Sorry for the lengthy repeat.)

I looked up the definition of "bona fides" to ensure my understanding.

bona fides:

1.) A person's honesty and sincerity of intention.

2.) Documentary evidence showing a person's legitimacy; credentials.


Therefore, my thinking has "distilled" what the GRA has said through Bryan to the following:


The investigation has revealed:

1. One or more parties involved in this thread are not who they claim to be.

This strikes me as odd given that this is largely an anonymous forum. That is, no documentary credentials are involved or required.

2. One or more parties involved in this thread have put false information on the thread.

This also strikes me as odd, given that much of the interaction on this thread has been people disagreeing with each other.

3. One or more parties involved in this thread appear to have operated account(s) well outside the terms and conditions.

I do not have an accurate or worthwhile response to this.

4. One or more parties involved in this thread have refused to assist or co-operate in the investigation.

Well, I guess they know who they are.

5. It does appear that there were errors in the relevant games' presentation.

I find this a little confusing, because it describes fully 75% of the content of this thread as simply "errors in the relevant games' presentation".


I sincerely hope that no concludes that I am being facetious here. I think that what Bryan has posted is worthy of serious consideration.

Perhaps what I find the most confusing is that the core of this thread is founded on statistical data, which has been presented, confirmed, double-checked, etc. 100% is not 100%. 97.5% is not 96%. Play-for-Free is not Play-for-Real. And so forth.

Chris

I found the email from the OP ...

Firstly, I would like to apologize to all the members here, especially Eliot Jacobson who spent a considerable amount of time investigating these games. The truth is that I opened an account at Betfred on behalf of my sister in an attempt to profit from bonuses on a 100% RTP game. While I had her permission to do so, I accept that it was wrong. I regret bringing the issue to light in this manner and accept that I should instead have disclosed this directly to Betfred or the regulator to get an explanation and a refund.

The regulator has explained to me that the discrepancy between the games was due to human error in game updates, and not that the games were 'rigged' and I fully understand and accept this explanation. I now realise that my actions, though identifying an error, have generated unwarranted criticism of Betfred, Spielo and Realistic Games and caused a huge distraction for the regulator. I must stress that my intention was only to get my money back and not to incite any criticism towards these parties.

I would also like to clarify that I did not in any way profit from my play at Betfred nor was I aware of any flaw in the game before I started playing. The amount refunded was the exact amount of the deposits so there are no winnings resulting from this.

... also odd for a number of reasons, as follows:


1. "I regret bringing the issue to light in this manner ..."

Apparently you are one of the very few people posting in this thread who feels this way. This is especially true given the failure of a previous attempt documented in a

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

(as referenced by zanzibar), as well as the following quote from thePOGG:

If you're going to contact the casino/regulator in these situations you have to ensure you have ALL the evidence you need locked down and indisputable before you do. I've made that mistake before and had games change only to be told 'our word against yours'. In this instance the evidence did seem to be all there, but there's still a strong argument for dealing with it publically rather than behind closed doors.

(IMO, thePOGG's point is that if something is wrong and you want it corrected then you will have a much easier time in achieving success by going somewhere other than the casino/regulator. I'm open to correction there.)


2. "... and accept that I should instead have disclosed this directly to Betfred or the regulator ..."

This is decidedly odd. It sounds like something someone would say after they got a "bright lights and rubber hose treatment". ("Why will you not sign zee papers? Because you have broken all of my fingers." - Cheech & Chong)


3. "The regulator has explained to me that the discrepancy between the games was due to human error in game updates, and not that the games were 'rigged' ..."

This is borderline weird. They "explained" to you? Did this explanation involve a full review of source code, audits of game play logs, statistical analysis of Theoretical RTPs, etc. for both the Play-for-Real and Play-for-Free products. Or did they just say - "The discrepancy between the games was due to human error in game updates."


4. "I now realise that my actions ... have generated unwarranted criticism of Betfred, Spielo and Realistic Games ..."

Again, more "bright lights and rubber hose treatment". Or maybe a thumbscrew?


5. "... and caused a huge distraction for the regulator."

The OP thinks that Gibraltar sees all of the broken GRA regulations, which have been clearly and unmistakably documented in this thread, as a distraction? Were these the OPs words, the GRA's words?


The whole email sounds like a confessional hearing?

Well, regardless of the severe weirdness (at which I'm a self-described Pro), I agree with the suggestion from Sk0t (and apparently supported by several others): "An article or thread summarizing the FACTS would really be helpfull imho."

The GPWA documented an almost complete failure - perhaps here there might be an almost complete success?

Chris

 

[daywalker]

I can't say for sure that you are due a refund as it very much depends on the exact game you played, but i've got to be honest and say that if your report on Betfred's CS response is accurate i find that fairly shocking. They know that there are player due to be reimbursed for their losses due to games not working within specifications, but haven't briefed CS about the issue?

You've got a lot to learn about casino CS departments if you honestly find this shocking. It's par for the course almost everywhere. They are generally clueless.

 

[Richas]

It's funny that you bring up the word "law" when the act of 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, or attempting to claim multiple coupons at a grocery store where it says "only one coupon per customer".

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.

 

[Jufo]

Ok, so should I contact the rep (Aaron)? I tried Betfred CS but they just laughed at my suggestion that one of their games was rigged.

Actually you could be of big help with this case here and therefore my proposition at the moment is not to contact them at all, ie. don't tell them your username even if they ask for it. That's because they promised to reimburse all affected players and if you won't be reimbursed then we will have first-hand proof that they are lying about having reimbursed everyone. So your account would be like a "test account" to see whether they will keep their promise. But if the amount of money you lost is important to you and you don't want to wait for it, I understand if you prefer to contact Aaron. If it doesn't help you can (and should) make a PAB against Betfred.

 

[visaria]

Actually you could be of big help with this case here and therefore my proposition at the moment is not to contact them at all, ie. don't tell them your username even if they ask for it. That's because they promised to reimburse all affected players and if you won't be reimbursed then we will have first-hand proof that they are lying about having reimbursed everyone. So your account would be like a "test account" to see whether they will keep their promise. But if the amount of money you lost is important to you and you don't want to wait for it, I understand if you prefer to contact Aaron. If it doesn't help you can (and should) make a PAB against Betfred.

TBF, i don't think Betfred is going to look back at everyone's acct since it was opened and see if they played an alleged rigged game.

I'll contact Aaron and see what he says.

 

[ThePOGG]

You've got a lot to learn about casino CS departments if you honestly find this shocking. It's par for the course almost everywhere. They are generally clueless.

You may perhaps want to take my previous post as a 'shocked but not surprised'.

For information Virgin has just confirmed that as part of their take over by GameSys they'll be dropping all Dynamite Idea games on the 29th.

 

[ThePOGG]

TBF, i don't think Betfred is going to look back at everyone's acct since it was opened and see if they played an alleged rigged game.

Well that's exactly what they should be doing and it's exactly what an honest and reputable operator would do.


[NOTE] - i'm making no comment on whether Betfred are in fact doing this as i have no information beyond what has already been published in this thread.

 

[Jufo]

TBF, i don't think Betfred is going to look back at everyone's acct since it was opened and see if they played an alleged rigged game.

Actually that is what they promised they would do. The problem is that we will be relying just on their word about refunding all affected players, ie. there is no one monitoring that process. I agree that best chance for refund at the moment is to contact Aaron.

 

[visaria]

Actually, i do recall Ladbrokes refunding me or compensating me because there was something wrong with the behaviour of one of the games i played there. I didn't know anything about it.

 

[Jufo]

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 see, I stand corrected. But I was referring strictly to casino bots to wager larger volumes faster, not bots in poker where it affects other players. Casino game is always the same, bot or not. And does bot also apply to autoclickers? I commonly set up an autoclicker (a program called Autohotkey) to autoclick certain casino games. It doesn't have any logic, it just clicks, but can be considered a bot. So would the criminal offence apply to these cases as well? Quite unbelievable if it did.

 

[The Dude]

Since some folks felt I may have discredited the thread with brief editor's note, I've amended the statement in the OP's posts to the following:

Editor's note: this player opened an account at this casino using another person's identity, and misrepresented himself to the community and those who were trying to assist him. This does not negate the fact that there are serious issues with the software and how the regulatory commission and affected casinos are responding to this.

 

[Jufo]

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!

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 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.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

That 'confessfion' is one of the oddest things I've ever read, it's either falsified, or coerced, or both.

I'm surprised it didn't include the phrase 'It's a fair cop guv'nor, I've done wrong by you and no mistake!' just for the sake of completeness.

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.

I smell a whitewash on the horizon here, the original complainant has been bought off, we can already see the direction the 'explanation' is going to come from (human error + wrong help file), all the boxes get neatly ticked.

The OP has been branded as being guilty of 'player fraud' when he actually just breached the casino's T&Cs which they conveniently got to write for themself, and a damning editor's note has been added to discredit the thread from the start.

And we still have casinos running cheating, licence breaching games nearly a full month after the thread was started and the issue was brought to light. (Free play and real play behaving differently. And Betfred have never addressed the core issue of them buying in a 'fixed price model' for a card game in the first place.)

Make no mistake guys, this one's done, this one's toast.

EDIT - Bryan updated the editor's note whilst I was writing this post, the new one reads in a far more balanced manner so I retract that statement.

EDIT AGAIN - I do realise this post is pretty much just paraphrasing what others have already said, but I figured I'd add my thoughts anyway.

 

[visaria]

TBF, i don't think Betfred is going to look back at everyone's acct since it was opened and see if they played an alleged rigged game.

I'll contact Aaron and see what he says.

I have PM'd him, will report here any response.

 

[Simmo!]

And we still have casinos running cheating, licence breaching games nearly a full month after the thread was started and the issue was brought to light.

Seriously you should go hammer those then: they've stated they will refund losses on the games that cheat. You can't lose

 

[dunover]

I see obfuscation, smoke and mirrors here.
Firstly, I find it hard to believe a normal punter would wager 12k on a stupidly and obviously reactive game.
Then, this punter (if not seriously addicted or daft or both) has access to a numerical data analyst and proves the game is rigged.
Comes here, accesses the Betfred rep and duly gets refunded on 'her' (his) ridiculous stakes. A no-lose gamble if you like.
Then a dubious 'confession' whereby we a led to believe that another person has given 'kate' permission to spunk 12k on their credit card/switch card or WebWallet account.
Someone is getting leant on here, big time.
Mmmm.....

 

[Richas]

I see, I stand corrected. But I was referring strictly to casino bots to wager larger volumes faster, not bots in poker where it affects other players. Casino game is always the same, bot or not. And does bot also apply to autoclickers? I commonly set up an autoclicker (a program called Autohotkey) to autoclick certain casino games. It doesn't have any logic, it just clicks, but can be considered a bot. So would the criminal offence apply to these cases as well? Quite unbelievable if it did.

The intent has to be to cheat at gambling. An autokey does not do that. If Stephen Hawking uses software to play a casino game he is not cheating. You using software to mean you don't have to wear your finger out is the same.

If Stephen Hawking developed a poker bot making betting decisions and used it against others (when clearly outside the ts and cs) he would be attempting to cheat. Win or lose that is an offence.

If he uses software to let him make poker bets then there is no attempt to cheat, he may have inadvertently or deliberately broken a sites Ts and Cs to play a normal game but that is OK. Stars bans software that automatically triggers the time button if a hand will be folded because you have not acted yet, something that someone with motor neuron disease might well find was necessary to play, but breaking the ts and cs (even with some automation involved) is not an attempt to cheat at the game (gain an unfair advantage).

 

[Jufo]

The intent has to be to cheat at gambling. An autokey does not do that. If Stephen Hawking uses software to play a casino game he is not cheating. You using software to mean you don't have to wear your finger out is the same.

If Stephen Hawking developed a poker bot making betting decisions and used it against others (when clearly outside the ts and cs) he would be attempting to cheat. Win or lose that is an offence

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.

 

[manuels58]

Without knowing the precise details, to me it sounds like he did a much better service for the player community by making the issue public, as the issue of having compromised games is of public interest. So I am not sure why you say that the person should have dealt with the issue privately with the operator to get a refund. It wouldn't have helped other players who had possibly played these games as well.

To be fair I don't think I would have contacted the casino or regulator, especially if I suspected the game was rigged I think a public forum was the best action to take, but thats just me.

I agree you both about your right perspective of the thing, although I really don't think it was the OPs purpose or intention to make this public for the interest of the players

 

[manuels58]

Like I said way back in post #179 in this topic, the issue of the rigged free play games has been public knowledge since 2009. So it was hardly the OP's actions that brought it out into the open, it was more the fact that people actually paid attention this time.

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

Spielo knew about this after Stan James pulled one of the games earlier this year -

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

- and did nothing about it with all their other licensees.

Aside from that, the OP pretty obviously has inside knowledge of this. They just happened to have a mathematician friend who could analyse the data, just happened to know how many rounds to play to get a valid statistical sample, just happened to know how to analyse http traffic using firebug etc. So the comment from the GRA doesn't surprise me in the least, nor should it have any bearing on anything that has been discovered.

Well, in face of this info, I have to say that all the casinos that were still offering the rigged game(s) should most surely be knowledgeable of it and are all in the same position, because I don't believe they didn't know about what happened in 2009.
Something that worries me very much now.

 

[binary128]

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

 

[TheLastCylon]

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.

 

[Richas]

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.

 

[TheLastCylon]

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.

 

[Richas]

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.

 

[Richas]

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.

 

[Richas]

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.

 

[manuels58]

...
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

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!

 

[manuels58]

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 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.

 

[TheLastCylon]

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.

 

[Nifty29]

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.

 

[TheLastCylon]

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.

 

[Richas]

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.

 

[TheLastCylon]

TheLastCylon - feel free to disagree with me, this thread may not be the place so please point me to a new thread if necessary.

Excellent idea.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/the-definition-of-cheating.55038/

 

[ThePOGG]

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?

 

[jetset]

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.

 

[Balthazar]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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've emailed the commissioner this morning.

 

[P.V.]

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.

 

[ThePOGG]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.