I'm truly shocked

sapit222

Ueber Meister
PABaccred
MM
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Location
Stockholm
Hah?? :eek:

Must have been some error there while typing in the Accredited section... :confused:
I thought Betfred got kicked out & not on the list anymore?

Some1 put it back & actually wrote that?? :mad:

The mather about the cheating games/casinos etc is still not solved as far as i know. Right?
 

xxshepxx

Senior Member
PABnononaccred
MM
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Location
United Kingdom
Betfred 'hosted the games'

Betfred did not rig the games themselves.

From what it says all parties involved were re-imbursed, so I would say kudos for dealing with the problem, and it just shows that any problems that may arise at betfred may be dealt with.
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
Betfred 'hosted the games'

Betfred did not rig the games themselves.

From what it says all parties involved were re-imbursed, so I would say kudos for dealing with the problem, and it just shows that any problems that may arise at betfred may be dealt with.

Betfred openly stated that they knowingly sold games that breached the terms of their licence.

Seriously, how basic does this need to be?

There is no such thing as a 'fixed price model' when it comes to a random card game.

Eliot Jacobson himself and many other knowledgeable posters have been crystal-clear on this issue, this was a cheating game implemented quite deliberately as such - it absolutely cannot be brushed aside as a 'help file issue'.
 

Balthazar

The Governor
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Location
Woodbury
The disgusting Finsoft description is not only a slap in the face to Eliot but to all the players here. The game is cheating (and that's a fact, no if's, no but's), and Bryan says it's no big deal and we should still play there and it's a help file issue (and that's also a fact).

Which interests are being protected here?
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
I was as outraged as the best of you when this issue came to light, and I am still very suspicious of many of the elements that have been revealed, and the lack of answers to several key questions.

However....

Bryan has not swept this issue under the carpet. He has clearly been in contact with the regulator, and I'm speculating that he has been told enough about the investigation so far to be aware that, in his words new information is developing which has the potential to alter perspectives and opinions in this matter.

The way I see it, he suspended the thread to halt speculation until the regulator had completed its investigation and published a transparent public report through which players can form a view based on facts and not surmise.

I would personally have liked the thread to continue, but this is Bryan's site; he has had the most contact with the regulator, and he is in a better position to make a judgement call on this.

I still do not believe that the OP's use of a false identity when opening the casino account negates the need for a thorough investigation, and perhaps the GRA appreciates that, hence its enquiries with the operator concerned and presumably witrh the OP.

The OP has confessed rather clumsily (and not very credibly imo) but his admissions throw suspicion on the veracity and accuracy of the statistical information he made available to Eliot for his tests, and that is just one facet of this matter that needs careful and further study.

For now, I'm going to watch for the regulator's report...it's bound to be extremely interesting.
 

aceking123

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Location
uk
I was as outraged as the best of you when this issue came to light, and I am still very suspicious of many of the elements that have been revealed, and the lack of answers to several key questions.

However....

Bryan has not swept this issue under the carpet. He has clearly been in contact with the regulator, and I'm speculating that he has been told enough about the investigation so far to be aware that, in his words new information is developing which has the potential to alter perspectives and opinions in this matter.

The way I see it, he suspended the thread to halt speculation until the regulator had completed its investigation and published a transparent public report through which players can form a view based on facts and not surmise.

I would personally have liked the thread to continue, but this is Bryan's site; he has had the most contact with the regulator, and he is in a better position to make a judgement call on this.

I still do not believe that the OP's use of a false identity when opening the casino account negates the need for a thorough investigation, and perhaps the GRA appreciates that, hence its enquiries with the operator concerned and presumably witrh the OP.

The OP has confessed rather clumsily (and not very credibly imo) but his admissions throw suspicion on the veracity and accuracy of the statistical information he made available to Eliot for his tests, and that is just one facet of this matter that needs careful and further study.

For now, I'm going to watch for the regulator's report...it's bound to be extremely interesting.

dont you think just because the op used false info that this was done to try & put a spin on the cheating side of things .

doesnt realy matter wether the OP is or isnt , the questions are still unaswered & yet again were going to see a cheating company brushed under the carpet .

this doesnt look good for here as its a players fourm , its looking that the people who keep these casinos running by playing have no say in anything & its ok for casinos to play like FOBT machines without clearly displaying true correct 100% randomness in all games .
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
I was as outraged as the best of you when this issue came to light, and I am still very suspicious of many of the elements that have been revealed, and the lack of answers to several key questions.

However....

Bryan has not swept this issue under the carpet. He has clearly been in contact with the regulator, and I'm speculating that he has been told enough about the investigation so far to be aware that, in his words new information is developing which has the potential to alter perspectives and opinions in this matter.

The way I see it, he suspended the thread to halt speculation until the regulator had completed its investigation and published a transparent public report through which players can form a view based on facts and not surmise.

I would personally have liked the thread to continue, but this is Bryan's site; he has had the most contact with the regulator, and he is in a better position to make a judgement call on this.

I still do not believe that the OP's use of a false identity when opening the casino account negates the need for a thorough investigation, and perhaps the GRA appreciates that, hence its enquiries with the operator concerned and presumably witrh the OP.

The OP has confessed rather clumsily (and not very credibly imo) but his admissions throw suspicion on the veracity and accuracy of the statistical information he made available to Eliot for his tests, and that is just one facet of this matter that needs careful and further study.

For now, I'm going to watch for the regulator's report...it's bound to be extremely interesting.

In the words of the frustrated janitor in that episode of friends - 'Am I not saying this right?'

Betfred are on public record as stating - (accidentally IMO, they've gone very quiet since they dropped this clanger) - that they deliberately and knowingly bought in a cheating card game that breaches the term of their operating licence. That will not go away, that has not changed, and it has not been addressed.

For Bryan to add Betfred back onto the accredited list with that frankly alarming 'explanation' of what went wrong is genuinely offensive.
 

maxd

PAB (Complaints) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
Goodbye Casinomeister, you're broken.

Is there any particular reason you are being an ass today or is it a mood issue?

Criticism is one thing -- state your case like an adult and there'll be no problem -- but statements like "goodbye, you're broken" is just being a troll. If you can't behave responsibly then you force us to help you with that: adding you to the moderated users list until .. whenever.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
I can understand Chopley's frustration here. We see a casino with a fundamentally serious trust issue remaining on the accredited list. I can also surmise that there is more to this than meets the eye. Then again apart from this game issue, they pay out quick and behave in all other ways like a pretty good casino, from my past experiences there.
I think Chopley has a problem with them (at present) being given the benefit of the doubt, as in his eyes by their past statements he mentions, there is NO doubt about what they have been doing.
I am trying to stand back here and be neutral and play devil's advocate. Reading between the lines, Chopley seems to be cynical as to motives for those concerned. We have CM, IMO the most comprehensive player facility on the web and obviously funded and profiting from affiliate join-ups via its list of accredited sites. In return, we get the only free and genuinely easy and helpful service on the web to act as a mediator between ourselves and casinos, and CM have recovered funds for many players. This is why I join many of my sites knowing I'm getting CM a commission; in the event of a problem, I'm getting a facility to help me. Indeed players who haven't joined a site via CM have also come on here and been helped so we cannot accuse CM of exclusively helping those who've joined via the site.
IMO the bloke (and maybe others who've been less outspoken) need a reassurance that Betfred remaining one of the few accredited Playtech casinos is not in any way to do with revenue loss, and relies SOLELY on other considerations that we the members are not yet party to, but will be so in the future once the matter is concluded. I am aware that CM has already made a post inferring this, but there clearly remains a bad smell about the affair. I also get the feeling that if other games could be analysed like the Finsoft ones, we could find the issue is endemic. Who knows?
 

Seventh777

RIP Roy
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Location
Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
I can understand Chopley's frustration here. We see a casino with a fundamentally serious trust issue remaining on the accredited list. I can also surmise that there is more to this than meets the eye. Then again apart from this game issue, they pay out quick and behave in all other ways like a pretty good casino, from my past experiences there.
I think Chopley has a problem with them (at present) being given the benefit of the doubt, as in his eyes by their past statements he mentions, there is NO doubt about what they have been doing.
I am trying to stand back here and be neutral and play devil's advocate. Reading between the lines, Chopley seems to be cynical as to motives for those concerned. We have CM, IMO the most comprehensive player facility on the web and obviously funded and profiting from affiliate join-ups via its list of accredited sites. In return, we get the only free and genuinely easy and helpful service on the web to act as a mediator between ourselves and casinos, and CM have recovered funds for many players. This is why I join many of my sites knowing I'm getting CM a commission; in the event of a problem, I'm getting a facility to help me. Indeed players who haven't joined a site via CM have also come on here and been helped so we cannot accuse CM of exclusively helping those who've joined via the site.
IMO the bloke (and maybe others who've been less outspoken) need a reassurance that Betfred remaining one of the few accredited Playtech casinos is not in any way to do with revenue loss, and relies SOLELY on other considerations that we the members are not yet party to, but will be so in the future once the matter is concluded. I am aware that CM has already made a post inferring this, but there clearly remains a bad smell about the affair. I also get the feeling that if other games could be analysed like the Finsoft ones, we could find the issue is endemic. Who knows?

Yes we can all see choppy's pov, but, and it's a big but - Bryan himself has stated that this isn't finished yet, he is ofc privy to information that we are not. I would hardly think Bryan would jeopardize the reputation of this site and himself, by giving accreditation to a casino that has irrefutably used software knowing full well it was rigged.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Yes we can all see choppy's pov, but, and it's a big but - Bryan himself has stated that this isn't finished yet, he is ofc privy to information that we are not. I would hardly think Bryan would jeopardize the reputation of this site and himself, by giving accreditation to a casino that has irrefutably used software knowing full well it was rigged.

Yes, I think that's what Chopley is wondering. Why? Because (and I'm not personally expressing a view here but simply going by events that are openly on here and documented thus far) that is exactly the state of affairs at present. As it stands. Unless I'm missing something.
 

Balthazar

The Governor
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Location
Woodbury
Yes we can all see choppy's pov, but, and it's a big but - Bryan himself has stated that this isn't finished yet, he is ofc privy to information that we are not. I would hardly think Bryan would jeopardize the reputation of this site and himself, by giving accreditation to a casino that has irrefutably used software knowing full well it was rigged.

IMHO the Betfred and Finsoft descriptions in the accredited section should read "currently under investigation" (which is the truth) as opposed to giving the green light to players to play there and giving the impression that everything has been sorted out.

If I wasn't reading the forum, I'd not bat an eye at that thing. "Wrong help file? Who cares. Please take my money Betfred".
 

Seventh777

RIP Roy
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Location
Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
Yes, I think that's what Chopley is wondering. Why? Because (and I'm not personally expressing a view here but simply going by events that are openly on here and documented thus far) that is exactly the state of affairs at present. As it stands. Unless I'm missing something.

We're all wondering as to why Bryan has taken this stand, there are two sides to every story, but unfortunately, due to legislation restrictions we are prohibited from seeing the other side. I have seen Bryan remove accredited status from casino's way before arbitration has been made, as the relative evidence was there plainly to see - Betfair, Purple Lounge, GoWild, are three that spring to mind.

I have complete faith in him that he is taking the correct approach :).
 

Seventh777

RIP Roy
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Location
Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
IMHO the Betfred and Finsoft descriptions in the accredited section should read "currently under investigation" (which is the truth) as opposed to giving the green light to players to play there and giving the impression that everything has been sorted out.

If I wasn't reading the forum, I'd not bat an eye at that thing. "Wrong help file? Who cares. Please take my money Betfred".

I agree, there should be some type of warning.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Obviously Betfred value their accredited status on here and have been in communication with CM, and have given CM reason not to remove them as yet. It's this 'reason' which has us baffled I think. CM wouldn't take this risk without a good reason, I'm sure. We can speculate all day until we know, but as it stands we have a big-name outfit in the accredited section having by their own volition allowed bets on rigged games. The game essentially played as an AWP. I suspect that if more games were audited, slots and roulette/card games, we would find many more examples.
 

Jufo

Dormant Account
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Location
Finland
Jetset said:
The OP has confessed rather clumsily (and not very credibly imo) but his admissions throw suspicion on the veracity and accuracy of the statistical information he made available to Eliot for his tests, and that is just one facet of this matter that needs careful and further study.

Yes we can all see choppy's pov, but, and it's a big but - Bryan himself has stated that this isn't finished yet, he is ofc privy to information that we are not. I would hardly think Bryan would jeopardize the reputation of this site and himself, by giving accreditation to a casino that has irrefutably used software knowing full well it was rigged.

It's been established by Betfred themselves that they knowingly incorporated a product where the true odds don't match implied odds, ie. they knowingly chose to use rigged game. In addition they confirmed that the game behaved exactly as the playlogs provided by the OP showed, so any chance that the OP's playlogs were inaccurate is also out of the picture.
So whatever this upcoming revelation that Casinomeister is about to make is, it cannot change these verified facts anymore - it's simply too late now.
 

Seventh777

RIP Roy
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Location
Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
It's been established by Betfred themselves that they knowingly incorporated a product where the true odds don't match implied odds, ie. they knowingly chose to use rigged game. In addition they confirmed that the game behaved exactly as the playlogs provided by the OP showed, so any chance that the OP's playlogs were inaccurate is also out of the picture.
So whatever this upcoming revelation that Casinomeister is about to make is, it cannot change these verified facts anymore - it's simply too late now.

In relation to Betfred's (Aaron) response......

Analysis has revealed that Reel Deal was indeed returning at 96%, despite being advertised at 100%. Finsoft’s review revealed that this was the result of an administrative error on the game’s deployment to Betfred, where the wrong help file was attached to the game.

While mistakes do happen, Betfred realise this is not acceptable. Neither Finsoft or Betfred would purposely mislead players, and will therefore actively compensate players on losses derived from the game over the last 6 months. The amounts should be in accounts by next Tuesday. Claims beyond 6 months will be accepted and honoured, too, but must be submitted individually.

Source.........

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

They have clearly stated the wrong help file was attached to the game, how is this an admittance of guilt regarding they knew it was wrong yet carried on regardless?.

Also - It's interesting to note that the OP of this case has been banned due to fraud.

As I stated, Bryan is privy to info that we are not.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
It's been respect,blished by Betfred themselves that they knowingly incorporated a product where the true odds don't match implied odds, ie. they knowingly chose to use rigged game. In addition they confirmed that the game behaved exactly as the playlogs provided by the OP showed, so any chance that the OP's playlogs were not accurate is also out of the picture.
So the thing is that any new upcoming revelation that Casinomeister claims to have in his pocket cannot cannot change these known facts anymore - it's simply too late at now.

If you don't have a clue what information CM "claims" to have (I'm sure he appreciates what you're implying) in his pocket.....and you don't....how do you know what effect it will have on the issue as a whole?

CM closed the other thread to stop further speculation and casting of aspersions based on incomplete and possibly inaccurate information. Unfortunately, some people can't show the guy some basic respect and wait until he is able to share what he knows. I'm certain if it was going to have little or no bearing on the overall picture, he would not be calling "hold all tickets".

What "I'm just shocked"about is how quickly some people here will turn on Bryan when he doesn't do exactly what they want....these same people are happy to use the services he provides for their own benefit though, and no doubt will continue to do so in most cases. I have a long memory, and I know some current members that have made suggestions that Bryan is "on the take etc" in the past are still enjoying his free hospitality and benefits. Its almost like some are waiting for the day of the "big exposure" so they can say "Ha! Told ya he was dodgy". If any visitors to my house behaved like that, I would show them the door.

As I've said before, particularly regarding PAB cases where a complainant claims complete innocence by presenting a pack of lies and loses due to confidential information seen by max/Bryan, it comes down to TRUST, and even more so to RESPECT. If some think that CM is being fooled by the operators, and there are always some Jufo, then these people are inferring he is stupid and clueless.....and he is neither. So, you either trust what he says is true to the best of his knowledge, or you don't. Simple.

If one has neither trust nor respect, one wonders why one would even bother being here.....and I've seen a severe lack of both from some today, and it is thoroughly undeserved.
 
Top