ID checks, KYC and one-solution

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
Honestly, if term 12.4.3 applies to slot play (bets, not hands), I'd rather not risk playing. There's many casinos I haven't joined because I thought rules were too unclear or too restrictive.

Thanks for pointing that out Jazzy and i'll change that - yes, it does mean slots too. It does because it happens often that huge deposits take up the max bonus ofer we have on some affiliate site that claims they bring VIP's through their marketing offers, gets sussed out by a syndicate and before i know it i have 20-40 specific region players spinning 20-50e hands on a slot. The few of them that extract thir 10-20k wins drop the hand value to 1e-3e immediately.

If i didnt implement max bet which i have recently (after the terms were coined) that term would be the only thing that protects my casino from a 60k cashout and it was the only thing that kept us alive after a number of those hits. Again, we only learned how to phrase it after loosing our first 30k, then realising it's not an accident when repeating it with another 50 and could not for the life of us figure out how come it's always at the same time... so innocent on our part looking back at it :)

Now you may find that too risky to play with that term in place and i respect your decision - that said, there's another player here cashing out 4 figures that hasn't even been made aware of this 'breach'. his bets ranged between 1c and 3e. I would have to be working against my own business to enforce a terms obviously used to serve a purpose (be applied in apparent cases) onto a player whose bet size changes every few hands together with his game... AP's may have made us more rigorous, but to slip on a one-size-fits-all ruleset will damage us in the process as much as it will protect us and i think that's where the truly accredited shine here: their ability to recognise a situation, not apply the rule.

EDIT: Worth a mention that since bonuses don't tie in real money at all, so any rule I apply to bonus funds, seeing as it bears no effect on your deposited funds, is "fair game" in my eyes as long as i clearly explain it. So yes, you are free to bet 100% of your real money bankroll when playing real. In bonus terms i should change that to deposited bankroll but the reason i didnt was because i didnt want to alienate someone that increased his bankroll to a few thousand and now want s to be higher. I never though it inadvertently affects a losing player more (because i never indented to enforce it to such extreme detail) - it does need a rethink/reword so i'll get on that shortly.

Igor
 

incrediblestuff

SearchingForTheHolyGrail!
webmeister
CAG
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Location
Mostly the Netherlands
Firstly, let me thank Igor for taking time to read my lenghty post. From his response:



Unfortunately, I can't cut and paste from your terms, but Rule 12.4.3 states high value HANDs, and term 12.4.4. refers to games with a weighting of 30% or less, so I never considered that slot play might be subject to it. While I might feel comfortable betting $4 a spin on Megadeath (if I want to win $25 I pretty much need to), it would be suicidal to play Break da Bank again at $2.70 a spin.

There is a 20% of real money bankroll term too. I think such terms should be based on deposit amount, something clear that doesn't vary. If I deposit $20, then my bets are limited to $1.60. If I lose that first bet, I need to lower my bet accordingly? What about when I'm down to 17 cents? If you want to let that $20 depositor increase their bets as their bankroll increases, just change the term to 20% of initial bankroll or current balance, whichever is greater.

I thought if I was playing with my real money portion of my bankroll that I was free to do what I liked with it?

As a slot player, I hope EACH and EVERY bet that it will dramatically increase my bankroll. Currently slot bonuses limit bets while playing to 10 units of the chosen currency, at least towards completing wagering.

I also appreciate the fact that you've increased that limit from $8 to $10. I know I suggested an increase to you, because many games (including some of my favs) offer $9 bets but not $8, both 9 and 30 lines or 30cent bet ones.

Some of the games provided don't offer a lot of choices for bets. It's a big jump from $1.60 to $4 on megadeath for instance.

It's nice to feel you are listening, and that you can use discretion for rules violations.

But there are some very successful casinos that don't seem to go under with AP players without such easy to breach terms, or difficult to interpret.

Honestly, if term 12.4.3 applies to slot play (bets, not hands), I'd rather not risk playing. There's many casinos I haven't joined because I thought rules were too unclear or too restrictive.

Thanks for pointing that out Jazzy and i'll change that - yes, it does mean slots too. It does because it happens often that huge deposits take up the max bonus ofer we have on some affiliate site that claims they bring VIP's through their marketing offers, gets sussed out by a syndicate and before i know it i have 20-40 specific region players spinning 20-50e hands on a slot. The few of them that extract thir 10-20k wins drop the hand value to 1e-3e immediately.

If i didnt implement max bet which i have recently (after the terms were coined) that term would be the only thing that protects my casino from a 60k cashout and it was the only thing that kept us alive after a number of those hits. Again, we only learned how to phrase it after loosing our first 30k, then realising it's not an accident when repeating it with another 50 and could not for the life of us figure out how come it's always at the same time... so innocent on our part looking back at it :)

Now you may find that too risky to play with that term in place and i respect your decision - that said, there's another player here cashing out 4 figures that hasn't even been made aware of this 'breach'. his bets ranged between 1c and 3e. I would have to be working against my own business to enforce a terms obviously used to serve a purpose (be applied in apparent cases) onto a player whose bet size changes every few hands together with his game... AP's may have made us more rigorous, but to slip on a one-size-fits-all ruleset will damage us in the process as much as it will protect us and i think that's where the truly accredited shine here: their ability to recognise a situation, not apply the rule.

:thumbsup: useful Q's and A's!

On that note, i urge everyone that has an interest in the topic of bonus-implementation and abuse read this 49 page-long thread that was dug up by VWm a few posts back, it really is informative, and i myself had not read it yet: i am glad i did.

It's useful both for players and operators.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/captain-cooks-group-in-trouble.7596/
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The reason your comments were, quite rightly, labelled outlandish is because you were generalizing about all casinos I.e. you said "the industry".

Presenting a couple of specific issues means nothing....just that some specific operators said specific things.

You're happy to hold them up as firm evidence of "how the industry thinks", yet you give people like Igor no credit at all for the way THEY do things.

If you shifted your focus away from your need for others to think you're a genius, and got behind the positive things that are happening in the industry, your posts might become more readable, and certainly more reasonable.

I cannot list specific casinos unless using examples to illustrate. However, the "industry" is what it is, there is no authority to enforce moral and ethical standards, so ALL casinos are part of this mix. It is individual casinos that step forward and prove that they are not "like all the rest", however there are also casinos that having stepped forward and earned the trust of players, decide to "turn bad" and abuse that trust to the max. It is impossible to say that a particular casino is so trustworthy that they will never turn bad, as the Captain Cooks example demonstrates.

When you see good casinos turn bad, or casinos deliberately lying and scamming for profit, year in and year out, whilst the regulators largely sit back and let it happen, you start to distrust the entire industry, even fearing to enter what appear to be the truly outstanding casinos.

In all that long thread, Captain Cooks refused to say what they meant by "suspicious wagering", but the consensus seems to be that it was not underhand at all, just players sticking to the terms, but those terms not properly protecting the casino from making a steady loss.
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
I cannot list specific casinos unless using examples to illustrate. However, the "industry" is what it is, there is no authority to enforce moral and ethical standards, so ALL casinos are part of this mix. It is individual casinos that step forward and prove that they are not "like all the rest", however there are also casinos that having stepped forward and earned the trust of players, decide to "turn bad" and abuse that trust to the max. It is impossible to say that a particular casino is so trustworthy that they will never turn bad, as the Captain Cooks example demonstrates.

When you see good casinos turn bad, or casinos deliberately lying and scamming for profit, year in and year out, whilst the regulators largely sit back and let it happen, you start to distrust the entire industry, even fearing to enter what appear to be the truly outstanding casinos.

In all that long thread, Captain Cooks refused to say what they meant by "suspicious wagering", but the consensus seems to be that it was not underhand at all, just players sticking to the terms, but those terms not properly protecting the casino from making a steady loss.

32Red, Betsson are first two that come to mind that have had a very strict and fair way going about their business, built a powerful revenue model and did not falter in their player approach with their growth and years. You do forget that this entire topic is oriented around the rapid growth of defrauding on player level happening in this industry and you in your statements start from the premise these examples are just operators turning bad out of sheer greed and spite?

Fact of the matter is, no one just gets bored of making money. If they work well and service well, they continue to do so unless drastic shift in the operations happens.

Casinos, like any business - but more exposed to loss than others, make mistakes, overstep their marketing, under do their fraud and get burned out by PLAYERS just as often as they do by management. If i didn't have the shareholder backing i have (B&M operations) i would be one of those biting the dust myself. Beween a 185K 300 shields win thanks to my supplier offering game exposures worthy of Betsson, and a Danish and Netherlands Syndication that hit us and our infant T&C's in the first 6 months, i was over 400k down right from the starting line.

Thank god for the backing we've had because that's not something you survive normally at the start. And lest we forget that that 400k+ dent in my float operating budget was contributed in over 50% by FRAUDULENT COLLUDING SYNDICATE that maximised on dozens of bonuses while i sat there tumb up my bum :))) wondering how on earth are we so unlucky. We weren't unlucky - we were UNPREPARED to handle a type of player that finds a new infant casino that's trying to compete and get its name out with the big boys by offering bonuses and thinks they know it all. Did we pay? yeah we did, but my T&C's learned too.

And above is fine. It happens - but to label the 'industry' as good casinos turning bad and thivery incorporated - without offering a modicum of responsibility of WHY your KYC protocols in 2004 were next to non-existent vs DNA worthy checks in 2013, and not accepting that it IS syndication and our charge-back friend example that contributed to that - is to simply be blissfully one-sided to the issue.

You made some very valid points, and all can see that you indeed have much to say with a substantial level of factual research and quality to your statement. However i do think in that know-it-all process your focus got so twisted toward us "the enemy" you forgot its a place you choose to spend you free time, with people who try their very hardest to give you the service they feel you deserve and they can only hope they in fact meet your expectations.

THOSE are the people that service your every bet and pay your every withdrawal, that deserve your respect and a note in your statements when you rain on the industry as a whole.
 

Jasminebed

Game old gal
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Location
Ontario
If a player is breaching the term of dropping bets more than 50%, he needs to be made aware of a terms violation, especially if it applies to real money play, not bonus play.

Redbet not too long ago paid some winnings which violated their max bet policy, but the player was informed of breach and told "don't do it again".

I think when rules that can be used to void winnings are in place, you are at real risk that WILL happen.

50% drop is pretty draconian. I'm about 95% sure I violated this rule as it now stands my first time out, in fact probably more than once. At one point I made a bet which was all of my remaining real funds and part bonus, a bet which won and I had real cash again. I went back and re-read my post, and it was in fact on Megadeath at $4.00. I absolutely know all my remaining play that session was not at least $2 a spin.

And I wrote:

Anxious to get through it, I went to one of my favourites, Reel Thunder, and just about lost it all, with barely a line win or three scatters. Desperate (and tired after about 7 hours of gaming) I upped my bet to $4.50 when I was down to about $30, and made a few modest wins, just to keep me playing. With under $25 left, I hit a nice win of over $300, followed almost immediately with another of around $170, and then $94 to leave me a balance of over $550! What a comeback, only around 5% of wagering left.

Moonshine actually played reasonably quickly, and I met the wagering.

Now I'm not in any violation of 20% of deposit, a term clearly stated. It was my failure to understand that I could withdraw early that didn't leave me cashing out $250, not trying to "win" that $25 bonus I received. But $4.50 is close to it. Some slots without bonus rounds can be played at higher stakes without killing bankroll on occasion. $2 bets are not exactly grinding out a WR in most cases.

12.4.3 -- still refers to hands

I see you already made changes. 12.4.2 now refers to bets, but 12.4.3 still refers to hands.

I know there are a lot of slot players that will take the occasional big or bigger bet when up (or frankly, when down a lot), and revert to more modest stakes, or play different slots at different bet sizes.

So far you have gained my respect, and I feel you listen to players and don't intend to apply such rules on every available opportunity for the casual player.

But picture Igor winning EuroMillions lottery. He may no longer be with Bet-at. And who knows what principles someone new might bring to the casino?

I understand your need to protect from APs. I'm sure with some work your terms can reflect your intentions.

Just like a grocery store that offers a "loss leader", or a restaurant that offers a free coffee for a week or so no purchase necessary, you need to factor in those customers that will come for just the special, and not buy breakfast or other items as well.

I'd suggest that if you want to limit real money play against APs, that terms read "while a bonus is active" rather than as it stands now.

But I'd be so distressed if I had a big win on a $5 bet on a day my deposit was only $20, and kept on playing say IM at $1.50 a spin to find winnings confiscated.

"Big" "Substantial" and "High Value" are subject terms IMO.

Keep working at it please, I'm sure you will manage terms that reflect your intentions but still offer your casino the protection it needs.
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
Thanks for that :)

I really took your notes to heart and i :notworthy to the objectivity of most of what you say - and can and am actively working on making it even more isolated without being "caught out" if you will.

Please afford us some small liberty to make it a bit vague-ish to ensure very clever AP's dont take it as a guideline to not do this, but ehhhh "lets DO THAT - their specifications don't cover it..." It's still a far cry from the "At casinos discretion" terms you see far and wide to this day. That said, i am going to try and try again until i feel we've reached a point where its complete and safe to all.

Just a note on me moving on - I left very cushy jobs to START this operation and while I have my shareholders, someone is going to have to pry me with a crowbar out of this seat and make me abandon my shares and Director responsibilities. It's important to keep a note of that to understand where my over-zealous approach is stemming from. I did leave to make a difference with my business approach, from some pretty rich and pretty set in stone places that freely adopted less than appeasing customer approach but could afford it due to their sports product monopoly and sheer size. I hope that counts for

T&C's i haven't changed yet - I'm actually working on those today and few other things to deploy tomorrow :) I do feel i need to make some things shorter, remove some other things, and ensure bonus terms are crystal (even though i felt they were before coming on here, as one might).

As for 50% drop - it is NOT a 50% drop in bet. I was looking at a 5K payout and hour ago actually, its open on my other screen and bet went up from 1.50 to 7.20 and down to 2.50. We're paying him because the winning hand was 1.50 on 300 shields and as such his subsequent bet increases and their drops had nothing to do with the play type the terms are aimed to protect me against.

If you read the terms closely I phrased them to my own detriment (of sorts) as they are as un-ambiguous as I could make them to the best of my capacity:

A user who wagers high value hands with the sole purpose of rapidly increasing bonus bankroll, then proceeds to drastically decrease their bet value(less than half) without having reasonably decreased their bankroll will be deemed to employing unnatural and advantageous betting patterns.

I honestly don't think i could specify it more than that. If you as a player fluctuate your bet, you aren't directly in breach, if your bets are low and your deposits low you also aren't in breach, if you bet high and remain betting high you aren't in breach, HOWEVER if you drastically drop your bet value without naturally decreasing your bankroll (as a normal player would) after you've started big (usually in conjunction to over 20% initiating bankroll term preceding it) - then you will pop up on radar. In fact the 20% term states we aren't going to necessarily anul your bet, but now we're watching you to see if you make any conjunction breaches.

I tried to classify it to a very specific play type. I may not have succeeded to the standard expected, but that's why we're here (BoF) and why we are listening.

Frankly the term itself is outdated. Since then we built the WR multiplier so this term definitely needs a rethink. I made sure i point it out however because while you say "draconian" i actually put in time and effort analysing different patterns and trying to formulate the terms to really isolate the AP's as much as possible without having my normal customers feeling too influenced. Something i apparently failed at.
Will fix tho... always willing :)
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Ever thought of going "undercover" and finding out what the APs are about to launch whilst they are still discussing it?

Even looking at the terms with the mindset of the AP might reveal a potential loophole, and then you can start looking for players who might have spotted it.
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
As for 50% drop - it is NOT a 50% drop in bet. I was looking at a 5K payout and hour ago actually, its open on my other screen and bet went up from 1.50 to 7.20 and down to 2.50. We're paying him because the winning hand was 1.50 on 300 shields and as such his subsequent bet increases and their drops had nothing to do with the play type the terms are aimed to protect me against.

If you read the terms closely I phrased them to my own detriment (of sorts) as they are as un-ambiguous as I could make them to the best of my capacity:

I honestly don't think i could specify it more than that. If you as a player fluctuate your bet, you aren't directly in breach, if your bets are low and your deposits low you also aren't in breach, if you bet high and remain betting high you aren't in breach, HOWEVER if you drastically drop your bet value without naturally decreasing your bankroll (as a normal player would) after you've started big (usually in conjunction to over 20% initiating bankroll term preceding it) - then you will pop up on radar. In fact the 20% term states we aren't going to necessarily anul your bet, but now we're watching you to see if you make any conjunction breaches.

I tried to classify it to a very specific play type. I may not have succeeded to the standard expected, but that's why we're here (BoF) and why we are listening.

Frankly the term itself is outdated. Since then we built the WR multiplier so this term definitely needs a rethink. I made sure i point it out however because while you say "draconian" i actually put in time and effort analysing different patterns and trying to formulate the terms to really isolate the AP's as much as possible without having my normal customers feeling too influenced. Something i apparently failed at.
Will fix tho... always willing :)
Instead of sweating too much about players raising and dropping bet sizes, just accept that some people will win. Spend your time and effort on catching the fraudsters. The real smart adavantage players will keep betting large, so you won't catch them by your method. If you want to have rules for bet sizes, implement them in the software so that players don't get tripped up.
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
Instead of sweating too much about players raising and dropping bet sizes, just accept that some people will win. Spend your time and effort on catching the fraudsters. The real smart adavantage players will keep betting large, so you won't catch them by your method. If you want to have rules for bet sizes, implement them in the software so that players don't get tripped up.

Frankly the term itself is outdated. Since then we built the WR multiplier so this term definitely needs a rethink.
We did :)
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Actually, a "normal player" WOULD lower their bet size after a big win, it's responsible gambling 101 - don't blow it, try to withdraw it. They may also be trying games they haven't tried before, so may bet much lower to see what the game is like.

More telling of an AP would be to drop the bet and then stick a slot on autospin and then bugger off to watch TV. You would see them clearly at the PC making the big bets, then the bets would decrease markedly followed by a very long session of autoplay on the same slot at the same stake, stopping very close to the minimum required WR.

Some software changes could disrupt this, such as having something happen to check whether or not the session is attended whilst in autospin, and if not, log it out. Not something that a mouse macro could cope with, but something like a challenge, such as having to read an instruction and follow it to avoid the session being terminated.
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
Ever thought of going "undercover" and finding out what the APs are about to launch whilst they are still discussing it?

Even looking at the terms with the mindset of the AP might reveal a potential loophole, and then you can start looking for players who might have spotted it.

For a while i lived on beatingbonuses - that's how i deduced the 3 main rules:

1. change of table to slot (aka massive table hands on low marging ames to boost bonus balance, followed by minimal bet grind to ensure RTP)
2. massive bet's on large deposits and highly volatile games (over 10-20% dep bankroll usually taken with multiple dep offers or 200% match) to hit a 3-500x + payout and increase bonus balance. That's usually done as a colluding syndicate tactic as it works as a guarantee with multiple bonnies across the group.
3. followed by last one: drastic drop in bet value to conserve as much of boni bankroll as possible.

Note that both 1 and 2 work with massive drop in bet value after huge portion of the bankroll being gambled initially which is why our terms are phrased as such.

Those are the general ones, then there are specific game ones like some slots that give out bonus rounds after few hundred spins (you can almost time them) that pay out bonus round value based on the player bet average the game ingested between one bound round and another, instead of random bonus rounds. Those we caught as we'd have players come in groups take a SUB, play it on large spins over a few hundred hands, dep real 20 (not take a second sub) place cents to a hand and hit few K round with real funds. We excluded those games from boni's eventually.

I hear what you write and i agree - but we had to make a decision so we did this one: segregate real and bonus. Digest that for me for a second and understand what that means to an average player not having to fear their deposit winnings being tied to some obscure rule because they had a bonus active even if they didn't use it.

Now, if bonus doesn't lock real money in, then it's fair play to put the rules we feel are suited when bonus money IS being used. If i don't invalidate your real money win irrelevant of your play style EVEN when boni is active (but bet is placed from real balance), then i retain the right to control the game play type when bets are placed from boni balance. Fair or no?

I see it as give and take. Since then, response has been positive on player level when they realise their deposits are free and unconditional even with increased bankroll potential, in return we expect that when player play with boni balance, to adhere to above conditions: if you start on 10 per hand chasing that payout, then aggregate hand average after that big win should be grater than 5 - aka sustain your bet reasonably. I dont impose that with your real money balance bet, even if you do have a boni - if you wnt to risk your wallet at 10 per hand, go for it and if you win, you can withdraw right away - there is no grind needed.

Given above - do you not think approach is fair on both ends to start with? yes there is room for improvement, and first step was designing a system that multiplies WR on SUB bonuses for large bets to manage strategy 2 (and partly strategy 1) and more is to come which is why i'm so open on here. Nothing is written in stone and learning curve is long for anyone.

i like some ideas - like after a number of same spins at the same spin rate (autoplay) float pops up to confirm you're still there - if spins continue being spun when a user should have had to close the float first before hitting spin again, we'd know its on autoplay.

Now with above said i am certain players will come forward and state they want the freedom to auto-play the games they want while they make their cup of tea without feeling they might be accused of breaching the terms.

There is always something someone will have a problem with :) That's the unfortunate truth - so the only real answer is to make it as close as possible with effort (system engineering for what you can control, T&C's are aren't overly general) and leave the rest to reasonable pragmatic approach on case by case basis for customers that system flags.

At least that's how it should be IMHO :)
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
For a while i lived on beatingbonuses - that's how i deduced the 3 main rules:

1. change of table to slot (aka massive table hands on low marging ames to boost bonus balance, followed by minimal bet grind to ensure RTP)
2. massive bet's on large deposits and highly volatile games (over 10-20% dep bankroll usually taken with multiple dep offers or 200% match) to hit a 3-500x + payout and increase bonus balance. That's usually done as a colluding syndicate tactic as it works as a guarantee with multiple bonnies across the group.
3. followed by last one: drastic drop in bet value to conserve as much of boni bankroll as possible.

Note that both 1 and 2 work with massive drop in bet value after huge portion of the bankroll being gambled initially which is why our terms are phrased as such.

Those are the general ones, then there are specific game ones like some slots that give out bonus rounds after few hundred spins (you can almost time them) that pay out bonus round value based on the player bet average the game ingested between one bound round and another, instead of random bonus rounds. Those we caught as we'd have players come in groups take a SUB, play it on large spins over a few hundred hands, dep real 20 (not take a second sub) place cents to a hand and hit few K round with real funds. We excluded those games from boni's eventually.

I hear what you write and i agree - but we had to make a decision so we did this one: segregate real and bonus. Digest that for me for a second and understand what that means to an average player not having to fear their deposit winnings being tied to some obscure rule because they had a bonus active even if they didn't use it.

Now, if bonus doesn't lock real money in, then it's fair play to put the rules we feel are suited when bonus money IS being used. If i don't invalidate your real money win irrelevant of your play style EVEN when boni is active (but bet is placed from real balance), then i retain the right to control the game play type when bets are placed from boni balance. Fair or no?

I see it as give and take. Since then, response has been positive on player level when they realise their deposits are free and unconditional even with increased bankroll potential, in return we expect that when player play with boni balance, to adhere to above conditions: if you start on 10 per hand chasing that payout, then aggregate hand average after that big win should be grater than 5 - aka sustain your bet reasonably. I dont impose that with your real money balance bet, even if you do have a boni - if you wnt to risk your wallet at 10 per hand, go for it and if you win, you can withdraw right away - there is no grind needed.

Given above - do you not think approach is fair on both ends to start with? yes there is room for improvement, and first step was designing a system that multiplies WR on SUB bonuses for large bets to manage strategy 2 (and partly strategy 1) and more is to come which is why i'm so open on here. Nothing is written in stone and learning curve is long for anyone.

i like some ideas - like after a number of same spins at the same spin rate (autoplay) float pops up to confirm you're still there - if spins continue being spun when a user should have had to close the float first before hitting spin again, we'd know its on autoplay.

Now with above said i am certain players will come forward and state they want the freedom to auto-play the games they want while they make their cup of tea without feeling they might be accused of breaching the terms.

There is always something someone will have a problem with :) That's the unfortunate truth - so the only real answer is to make it as close as possible with effort (system engineering for what you can control, T&C's are aren't overly general) and leave the rest to reasonable pragmatic approach on case by case basis for customers that system flags.

At least that's how it should be IMHO :)

Fairness and common sense 101 Igor.

I think more reps should spend time at beatingboners and actually learn something..."know thine enemy".
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
For a while i lived on beatingbonuses - that's how i deduced the 3 main rules:

1. change of table to slot (aka massive table hands on low marging ames to boost bonus balance, followed by minimal bet grind to ensure RTP)
2. massive bet's on large deposits and highly volatile games (over 10-20% dep bankroll usually taken with multiple dep offers or 200% match) to hit a 3-500x + payout and increase bonus balance. That's usually done as a colluding syndicate tactic as it works as a guarantee with multiple bonnies across the group.
3. followed by last one: drastic drop in bet value to conserve as much of boni bankroll as possible.

Note that both 1 and 2 work with massive drop in bet value after huge portion of the bankroll being gambled initially which is why our terms are phrased as such.

Those are the general ones, then there are specific game ones like some slots that give out bonus rounds after few hundred spins (you can almost time them) that pay out bonus round value based on the player bet average the game ingested between one bound round and another, instead of random bonus rounds. Those we caught as we'd have players come in groups take a SUB, play it on large spins over a few hundred hands, dep real 20 (not take a second sub) place cents to a hand and hit few K round with real funds. We excluded those games from boni's eventually.

I hear what you write and i agree - but we had to make a decision so we did this one: segregate real and bonus. Digest that for me for a second and understand what that means to an average player not having to fear their deposit winnings being tied to some obscure rule because they had a bonus active even if they didn't use it.

Now, if bonus doesn't lock real money in, then it's fair play to put the rules we feel are suited when bonus money IS being used. If i don't invalidate your real money win irrelevant of your play style EVEN when boni is active (but bet is placed from real balance), then i retain the right to control the game play type when bets are placed from boni balance. Fair or no?

I see it as give and take. Since then, response has been positive on player level when they realise their deposits are free and unconditional even with increased bankroll potential, in return we expect that when player play with boni balance, to adhere to above conditions: if you start on 10 per hand chasing that payout, then aggregate hand average after that big win should be grater than 5 - aka sustain your bet reasonably. I dont impose that with your real money balance bet, even if you do have a boni - if you wnt to risk your wallet at 10 per hand, go for it and if you win, you can withdraw right away - there is no grind needed.

Given above - do you not think approach is fair on both ends to start with? yes there is room for improvement, and first step was designing a system that multiplies WR on SUB bonuses for large bets to manage strategy 2 (and partly strategy 1) and more is to come which is why i'm so open on here. Nothing is written in stone and learning curve is long for anyone.

i like some ideas - like after a number of same spins at the same spin rate (autoplay) float pops up to confirm you're still there - if spins continue being spun when a user should have had to close the float first before hitting spin again, we'd know its on autoplay.

Now with above said i am certain players will come forward and state they want the freedom to auto-play the games they want while they make their cup of tea without feeling they might be accused of breaching the terms.

There is always something someone will have a problem with :) That's the unfortunate truth - so the only real answer is to make it as close as possible with effort (system engineering for what you can control, T&C's are aren't overly general) and leave the rest to reasonable pragmatic approach on case by case basis for customers that system flags.

At least that's how it should be IMHO :)

By having an automatic log off if unattended, you are not necessarily accusing a player of anything, rather protecting them against their unattended account being messed about with by another household member. The APs don't just go to make a cuppa, they do something else for several hours, even leaving it on overnight whilst they have a sleep. It should be possible to set a timer on the float so that players who just leave for a short while never get to see it, and you should make it clear to all players that this float exists, and that it needs to be closed. It's a balance between annoying the recreational player and disrupting the APs good night's sleep through having to awaken every xx minutes to click a mouse. The float should appear in different positions each time at random so as to avoid the use of a simple mouse macro by the APs.


there are specific game ones like some slots that give out bonus rounds after few hundred spins (you can almost time them) that pay out bonus round value based on the player bet average the game ingested between one bound round and another, instead of random bonus rounds.

I think you may have missed a few;)

The problem has been created by the game developers not taking into account the bonus system used by almost all of their clients. Short of not producing such games, they could have programmed them to calculate the payout as part real and part bonus funds based on the amount of bonus balance that lead to the bonus being triggered.

An example is "Tribal Treasure". It does not use average bets, but the bet at which a free spin is added to the counter. When the counter reaches 10, you get the spins, but no account is taken of whether each one was won with a real money or bonus balance bet. A simple tweak would be to pay any spin triggered by a bonus balance bet as bonus balance winnings.

Tomb Raider II can also be "done" like this, but I don't see it excluded in your terms;)

As for the drastic drop in bet value, you could use your idea for controlling big bets above a set max by making bets that drop too far subject to a lower, even zero, weighting in terms of meeting WR. This would make it impossible to "grind" the WR on autoplay unless the AP sets it to run on fairly sizeable bets, which I doubt most are prepared to do.

Although I might bet larger from the off than some others here, I tend to raise my bets after a big hit, not drop them right down to the min. I have turned decent hits into awesome payouts through doing this, although I have sometimes given back something I really should have withdrawn:oops:
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
By having an automatic log off if unattended, you are not necessarily accusing a player of anything, rather protecting them against their unattended account being messed about with by another household member. The APs don't just go to make a cuppa, they do something else for several hours, even leaving it on overnight whilst they have a sleep. It should be possible to set a timer on the float so that players who just leave for a short while never get to see it, and you should make it clear to all players that this float exists, and that it needs to be closed. It's a balance between annoying the recreational player and disrupting the APs good night's sleep through having to awaken every xx minutes to click a mouse. The float should appear in different positions each time at random so as to avoid the use of a simple mouse macro by the APs.

It would alienate and annoy too may people to try and catch an auto-play few. Auto play in its own right doesn't imply AP - game pattern does.

I think you may have missed a few;)
Not surprised :)

The problem has been created by the game developers not taking into account the bonus system used by almost all of their clients.
Cant control the games - just the way i credit and lock in bonus transactions. I'll check out the games you speak of though.

As for the drastic drop in bet value, you could use your idea for controlling big bets above a set max by making bets that drop too far subject to a lower, even zero, weighting in terms of meeting WR. This would make it impossible to "grind" the WR on autoplay unless the AP sets it to run on fairly sizeable bets, which I doubt most are prepared to do.

I'l alienate more in the process. So if a guy drops from 3e to 70p - the bets stop counting? and a VIP betting 50e on a deposit of 5k then changes the game with a max bet of 6 (IR) then what? It's a complex sensitive very fragile middle ground where you need to LOOK at the transactions and deduce the case on case-by-case basis.

It's impossible to automatise - i will retain 0.1% of my customer base as system is inhuman, calculating and unforgiving even to the minute margin for error. I need to and did create and obvious deterrent: bet size cap and now T&C's are there to catch the rest and be applied on case by case basis which is why i hire human, thinking individuals. I don't feel safe adopting system forced changes across the board. Max bet is an easy one to understand - you don't cross the max bet or the WR increases. If the system starts taking bet drops into consideration the complication will be so confusing to the wide audience i feel it will be counter-productive.
 

Przecinek

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Location
Respect-land
I prefer bonuses that have no WR but disappear when you request a withdrawal. Just like Stargames that is also going trough baptism right now or 7red for that matter. Another option are cashbacks with no WR.

BTW: Have to agree max bet seems way more simple than percentages and then drops which means percentages derived from percetages. Many people might be: this is too complicated and also create an impression that casino is being too scrupulous in making sure that bonuses cannot give the player any advantage = impression that casino is not sufficiently funded or something (although to me, the only thing that matters is the number of complains rather than t&c).

Oh and one more thing, nothing uncommon in my case in dropping the bet size if I realize that I have already wagered 2000 and there's only 200 left to meet WR and I consider myself an average gambler.
 

hakapuku

Banned User - repeated violations of rule 1.14 (tr
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Location
UA
Ok Igor , I think I understand your intentions. Your casino is relatively new. When a new casino comes out today
with a bonus offering (and as you pointed before- you have no choice but to offer it)- then there come
all the AP's and fraudsters of the world to play with your bonus. They attack your bank accounts in thousands just as the ancient mongols
attacked their neighbours and you start to hate them. Now , if only you had an access to, let's say , Fortune lounge's database of fraudsters (which
is at least 15 years old and contains an information about millions of AP's and fraudsters) - that would let your business to survive all those attacks!
But what benefits will Fortune Lounge get from that "shared database" ? They know all the fraudsters you have on your list since those were
kids. So why will they need this cooperation ? And moreover, if you (or your shareholders) close your casino because of losses- they will be only
happier since you are their direct competitor.
 
Last edited:

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
Ok Igor , I think I understand your intentions. Your casino is relatively new. When a new casino comes out today
with a bonus offering (and as you pointed before- you have no choice but to offer it)- then there come
all the AP's and fraudsters of the world to play with your bonus. They attack your bank accounts in thousands just as the ancient mongols
attacked their neighbours and you start to hate them. Now , if only you had an access to, let's say , Fortune lounge's database of fraudsters (which
is at least 15 years old and contains an information about millions of AP's and fraudsters) - that would let your business to survive all those attacks!
But what benefits will Fortune Lounge get from that "shared database" ? They know all the fraudsters you have on your list since those were
kids. So why will they need this cooperation ? And moreover, if you (or your shareholders) close your casino because of losses- they will be only
happier since you are their direct competitor.

Very valid point and yes - they don't need to help the competition. But they will fall behind it if the player demand becomes high enough.

It will always be hard to bring in the giants. They're set, they work ,they have to do something really drastic to destabilise that self-running engine they've created. Those are not the first people you bring in however, they may not benefit from my database alone, but they will benefit from easier ID access of customers, as well as dozen of databases and communal minds working together to share their experiences and learnings.

Fraudsters improve with time. This is a fact. Rules and safeguards of yesterday may not be the ones of tomorrow. Frequently are not if ID threads and topics are anything to go by. While a massive databse would be a bonus, it s a question if it falls under the criteria stipulated, how ancient those rules are and how were those customers classified.

one business operation is unique to the operating structure and policies of that business alone. This (in its ideal) is a transparent, mutually agreed, criteria driven conglomerate of suppliers you trust that, like on this forum players do, will challenge each other as much as they challenge the fraud/AP community. Bottom line and aim is to work together to make ID checks and welcome process easier and more secure ON REGISTRATION, not withdrawal, and we can only do that if we already know the fraud status of that customer before hand. We may not know their status for sure but we can with a fair certainty (for example) for hakapuku say that: ID1145, member of 3 operators in the group, opened one-check-id 17 months ago, no flags (points 0, say - hey, welcome dep limts, wd limits, scrutny and all are raised to a much safer level, because we feel safer that we 'kind of know you' even if we haven't transacted with you yet.

members of that ID community will benefit from more beneficial welcome process and they will feel respected and not scrutinised multiple times. With enough mid-tier operators that cover a sufficient market it could become 'the thing' - as in : "why are you bothering with all that scrutiny? - get one check and there's 15 accredited places to play at where you are sure to find what you are looking for"

now add time and 15 becomes 30-50-... it will become mainstream by players themselves who have simply be given a tool to have their quality recognised at registration by sheer duration of their membership. You awant to try that new casino with this new system that looks interesting? well they have one-check and you feel almost already a member, you just know they had to meet certain standards and that you wont have the level of scrutiny and limitations you would have otherwise.

The giants will come last because the players will eventually demand it. All you need is a tool you trust.
 

Igor82

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Location
Malta
Don't encourage him Igor.

I'm surprised you don't already know about these tricks, especially after being at bleatingboners. Its all "old hat"...there's nothing new here.

ROFL.. with all your battering the guy needs a bit of encouragement :p as for the tricks i do know quite a few, but no - haven't tried and tested every game 'trick' and every try. frankly, not enough hours in day to beat them at their own game. They are organised, smart and calculating and we need to beat each one of the 'systems' that they uncover and prove works before getting pummelled, while giving the better-than-the next experience for all the honest lot.

"At our discretion" is a miraculously lovely term which like fraudsters affected us, rogues affected you and abused it so we now suffer. If every casino you ever played at ustilised their discretion honestly, you;d never get bothered about it in the first place - so i guess the blame falls back on the operator lol.

Way to shoot my own foot after all this thread, but its sadly true :/
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
ROFL.. with all your battering the guy needs a bit of encouragement :p as for the tricks i do know quite a few, but no - haven't tried and tested every game 'trick' and every try. frankly, not enough hours in day to beat them at their own game. They are organised, smart and calculating and we need to beat each one of the 'systems' that they uncover and prove works before getting pummelled, while giving the better-than-the next experience for all the honest lot.

"At our discretion" is a miraculously lovely term which like fraudsters affected us, rogues affected you and abused it so we now suffer. If every casino you ever played at ustilised their discretion honestly, you;d never get bothered about it in the first place - so i guess the blame falls back on the operator lol.

Way to shoot my own foot after all this thread, but its sadly true :/

Have a look at Scrooge, and you will remember my early question as to why you banned slots like Double Magic and Fantastic 7's, yet didn't think you needed to ban Scrooge like other operators have done.

I suspect many tricks are not on Beatingbonuses, not even on the private forum (did you manage to crack this?).

Even the "old" tricks can catch out a new operator, even though the old guard have wised up to them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top