I'm truly shocked

[Jufo]

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


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.

You are looking at the wrong post by Aaron. The key post is this one:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.

This fixed price version is the cheating version.

As I stated: Whatever information Bryan is privy to, there are several things already known that this new info is unable to change.

The OP also stopped being relevant to the case ages ago. Since then others have taken over.

 

[Richas]

We just have to wait until the GRA, BetFred and Finsoft make a statement or the GRA let CM give us some more info.

Until then we have to chill.

I want to be patient, I will be patient, I must be patient.

 

[Seventh777]

You are looking at the wrong post by Aaron. The key post is this one:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

On developing the game, SPEILO G2 developed two version: fixed odds and fixed price. The latter was in operation at Betfred. Fixed price meant that randomness could be introduced via a certified (GLI and TST approved) RNG and an RTP was introduced. In this case, at 96% RTP.

This fixed price version is the cheating version.

As I stated: Whatever information Bryan is privy to, there are several things already known that this new info is unable to change.

The OP also stopped being relevant to the case ages ago. Since then others have taken over.

Okay, I see the difference being that one was set at fixed odds the other was set at fixed price, this would have been explained in the help file but they had received the wrong help file, if they knew of the conflicting differences of fixed odds and fixed prices was explained in the help file they would have done nothing wrong, but, they did not know the incorrect help file was in place. Yes they admitted they knew of the difference between fixed odds and fixed prices, but, they wrongly believed their help file would explain this, which it would have, if it was the correct one.

Fixed price doubling up would never be used by anyone if it's RTP was set at 96%, the correct help file would have explained this.

 

[Jufo]

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?

I am not sure what you meant by "I'm sure he appreciates what you're implying". Perhaps you read to much into my post.

My point was simply that I don't need to have to have a clue what infromation CM has, because I know that whatever it is, it cannot retroactively change certain established facts.

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.

Ok, I guess you are right. So let's wait and see.

 

[Casinomeister]

I mentioned earlier that there is an investigation in process. I am not going to make any more decisions until the GRA has finished this. As I have stated earlier, it's much more than a "multi account" fraudster. And it's been implied that a criminal investigation is pending. Eliot's initial findings were - from what I have been told by the GRA - incomplete since he was given false information maliciously. I'm waiting for more info about that.

I'm not about to put this site in jeopardy to appease those few who want blood. I said it before, I'll say it again: I am awaiting the results of a proper investigation being conducted by the gaming commissioner. Coming in here and acting like an ass without asking me in private what is happening just goes to show some people have their own selfish agendas. I won't fall victim to bullies and assholes. If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Jufo]

Okay, I see the difference being that one was set at fixed odds the other was set at fixed price, this would have been explained in the help file but they had received the wrong help file, if they knew of the conflicting differences of fixed odds and fixed prices was explained in the help file they would have done nothing wrong, but, they did not know the incorrect help file was in place. Yes they admitted they knew of the difference between fixed odds and fixed prices, but, they wrongly believed their help file would explain this, which it would have, if it was the correct one.

And, you forgot to add that, that the "fixed price" also meant an automatically rigged game.

You are not supposed to have a rigged game even if the help-file says it's rigged.

 

[Seventh777]

And, you forgot to add that, that the "fixed price" also meant an automatically rigged game.

You are not supposed to have a rigged game even if the help-file says it's rigged.

I would have to see the help file regarding this, if that clearly states there is a house edge on doubling up, however stupid that is, it's not rigged as such.

Would a doubling up game documented with a house edge RTP be rigged? - No.

Would a doubling up game documented with an 100% RTP but in practice gave 96% be rigged - Yes.

 

[Jufo]

I would have to see the help file regarding this, if that clearly states there is a house edge on doubling up, however stupid that is, it's not rigged as such.

Would a doubling up game documented with a house edge RTP be rigged? - No.

Would a doubling up game documented with an 100% RTP but in practice gave 96% be rigged - Yes.

I, and the majority of others here, don't see it this way. If the game displays to use a 52 card deck with 26 reds and 26 blacks, it's simply not ok to increase the probability of black card coming up whenever the player has bet on red and vice versa. It's misleading and deceptive no matter how well it is explained in the help-file, because the majority of players will not read the help-file anyway. The GRA license requires the implied odds in card games to match real odds. But anyway all of this was beaten to death already in the main thread, so if you think that the game is fine as long as the help-file is accurate I guess you are entitled to think that away.

 

[Casinomeister]

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".

Noted - fixed.

 

[binary128]

Bryan,

There are many comments that I might make, and have made, about this whole mess. And there are several things about it on which you and I disagree, and I suspect will always disagree.

However ...

I'm not about to put this site in jeopardy to appease those few who want blood.

... I logged on to post only to say how much I agree with this statement. It is your site, it is your right, and I have a lance if you want to borrow it.

Chris

[Edited to add: Of course, Galewind is a small company, so it is a small lance. More like a pocket knife really.]

 

[Mouche12]

Is it just a few who want blood or do they just want the rigged games removed and any players who fell victim to these rigged games reimbursed?

Bryan,

There are many comments that I might make, and have made, about this whole mess. And there are several things about it on which you and I disagree, and I suspect will always disagree.

However ...



... I logged on to post only to say how much I agree with this statement. It is your site, it is your right, and I have a lance if you want to borrow it.

Chris

[Edited to add: Of course, Galewind is a small company, so it is a small lance. More like a pocket knife really.]

 

[dionysus]

Bryan,

There are many comments that I might make, and have made, about this whole mess. And there are several things about it on which you and I disagree, and I suspect will always disagree.

However ...



... I logged on to post only to say how much I agree with this statement. It is your site, it is your right, and I have a lance if you want to borrow it.

Chris

[Edited to add: Of course, Galewind is a small company, so it is a small lance. More like a pocket knife really.]

LOL, sorry, something instrinsically funny bout offering up your pocket lance(I'll be back in my corner)

 

[jetset]

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.

Good point, Jufo - thank you for pointing that out.

 

[ThePOGG]

I'm trying to stay quiet at the moment about this as i want to see what the GRA is going to say and i don't want to plug holes.

However - even if all of the OPs evidence is stricken from the record and we focus only on the issue with the real play games and ignore the license breaches with the free play games, there is a major issue.

The paytable that Betfred showed in their Reel Deal game, if the cards behaved as cards naturally would create a game with an RTP of 100%. This is very easily proven and i can show even those weak on their maths why this is the case. This was the RTP shown in the original help file. Betfred have unequivically stated that the help file was an error and their game operated at a 96% RTP. To achieve a 96% RTP the cards cannot have functioned as real cards would.

To quote the GRA license;

(5) A licence holder should not implement game designs or features that may reasonably be expected to mislead the customer about the likelihood of particular results occurring. This includes, but is not limited to the following:

(a) Where a game simulates a physical device the theoretical probabilities and visual representation of the device should correspond to the features and actions of the physical device (e.g. roulette wheel).

Regardless of what the OP may or may not have done, this game could not function at a 96% RTP without breaching the GRA license.

 

[Nifty29]

What does that old adage say?

Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see.

 

[PaaskeDenmark]

What does that old adage say?

Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see.

Correct Nifty29

Also can add Don't trust anyone else but yourself

Never trust anyone but yourself, because in the end that's all you're going to have: yourself

I am really starting to get fed up with this Gambling World. It seems like more and more affiliate programs now come out as crooks. Problems with this and this. And also problems with Casinos as well. Maybe it is all much better to setup some good rounds of poker with friends. At least there is no cheating in that is there....or is there hehe

 

[Seventh777]

I, and the majority of others here, don't see it this way. If the game displays to use a 52 card deck with 26 reds and 26 blacks, it's simply not ok to increase the probability of black card coming up whenever the player has bet on red and vice versa. It's misleading and deceptive no matter how well it is explained in the help-file, because the majority of players will not read the help-file anyway. The GRA license requires the implied odds in card games to match real odds. But anyway all of this was beaten to death already in the main thread, so if you think that the game is fine as long as the help-file is accurate I guess you are entitled to think that away.

I hear what you're saying, doubling up should be 100% RTP, if there was no help file whatsoever stating the doubling up on this game was a fixed price RTP at 96% and not as everyone expects 100% then yes a clear case of rigging, it's no different to poor T&C's regarding a bonus - as much as we disagree with them it's down to us to abide by them. In this instance there was incorrect information stating the game was 100%. Sloppy oversight from Betfred - yes, they were not the only ones using this game and tbh since it was brought to their attention they have done what the other casinos have.

I don't think the game is fine, but, if the help file states this is the case - then no matter how much we disagree with it they have their asses covered.

 

[ThePOGG]

I hear what you're saying, doubling up should be 100% RTP, if there was no help file whatsoever stating the doubling up on this game was a fixed price RTP at 96% and not as everyone expects 100% then yes a clear case of rigging, it's no different to poor T&C's regarding a bonus - as much as we disagree with them it's down to us to abide by them. In this instance there was incorrect information stating the game was 100%. Sloppy oversight from Betfred - yes, they were not the only ones using this game and tbh since it was brought to their attention they have done what the other casinos have.

I don't think the game is fine, but, if the help file states this is the case - then no matter how much we disagree with it they have their asses covered.

Hey Seventh777 - i don't know where doubling up is coming into this. As far as i'm aware the game had no double up feature. It's the game itself that was operating at an RTP of 96% when the paytable would result in an RTP of 100%. Moreover the help file did not state anything about the cards being weighted and even if it had it wouldn't solve the issue. The term regarding physical devices is in place to ensure that casinos do not mislead players about the implied odds of an event. As the vast majority of players won't read the help file, the vast majority are going to be mislead by using cards that don't conform to the natural odds even if the small print says so. Common sense would lead most people to believe that if they've got a 2 there's 11 cards higher and 1 card lower (depending on whether the Ace is valued high or low).

Over and above this though, with any game that uses a predefined set of numbers/cards or whatever in a either or situation, to manipulate the odds away from those the paytable would naturally result in requires a game that changes the odds depending on what the player wagers on. For example if you've got a Red/Black scenario if you say Red is going to come out only 40% of the time - giving you a large advantage on Red - then Black must come out 60%. Any player that comes on to this game and consistently bets on Black is going to balance that out and have a massive edge over the house. The only way to get round this so as to increase the house edge - as was apparently done in this case - is to program the game so that the option the player bets on comes out 40% of the time. Again to quote the GRA license;

7.3. Compensated or adaptive games

(1) Games should not be “adaptive” or “compensated”, that is, the probability of any particular outcome occurring should be the same every time the game is played, except as provided for in the (fair) rules of the game.

To create a 96% RTP, the game had to adapt to the bet that the player placed and the probability of a particular outcome would have to change depending on what bet was placed.

 

[Balthazar]

Moreover the help file did not state anything about the cards being weighted and even if it had it wouldn't solve the issue.

That point is being overlooked by WAY too many people. It's not OK to cheat regardless of what's in the help file.

 

[Casinomeister]

I honestly can't believe what I'm seeing.

Goodbye Casinomeister, you're broken.

Just as a retort: it would have been appreciated to have contacted me asking why I did what I did, and suggest that Betfred's page be updated instead of coming in and acting like an ass. Adults communicate - you're obviously acting the opposite.

...Also can add Don't trust anyone else but yourself ...

But in this business, you are always giving certain people the benefit of the doubt. There are risks involved trusting others. I know this very well. People try to bullshit me on a daily basis - (mostly players btw). And in order be successful in any business, you have to know who you can trust. Casinomeister is far from broken - but it's a massive site with a myriad of ongoing projects: one person calling the shots, and one - maybe two repairmen.

Casinomeister has a 14 year history of making decisions based on whatever information that is at hand. In most cases we get it spot on right at first, sometimes it takes a little more time - but we get it right anyway. This one is taking more time. I'll be meeting up with some key persons next week and hope to be able to find out exactly what went wrong, and how to prevent something like this from ever happening again.

 

[maphesto]

I'll be meeting up with some key persons next week and hope to be able to find out exactly what went wrong, and how to prevent something like this from ever happening again.

You have one foot in the industry, and one on the player side. I understand your frustration, but be careful. The information in this case have already showed us that there was a faulty software, a rigged software. It was rigged by purpose. A card game...

You have already changed the thread title of the original thread, the word rigged is gone. You have to understand that both players and other webmasters would easily think that it had to do with the fact that accredited casinos was accused?

We (members here) have to trust you and your judgement, but in this case it's really hard to sit and wait since the evidence already is there whatever reason the original OP had.

Now there is a new case where Betfred is involved, a case where they definately once again break rules. Even yours:

Must not use false, misleading or deceptive advertising. A game that truly "pays" better in free play compared to real money play is false and misleading.

However, having reviewed the analysis from SPEILO G2 and our own, we accept that Betfred Games has been running two versions of the same game for free and money play respectively and that is simply not acceptable. Based on that we will be refunding all losses on the game from when the game was introduced to Betfred, and will be removing other Realistic Games provided by SPIELO G2 to complete a review of their configuration, help files and RTP and until we’re confident in their accuracy. Compensation payments will be issued within 7 working days.

We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to our players and to thank the OP and the Casinomeister forum as a whole for bringing this to our attention.

Did they pay everyone within 7 working days?

Again Bryan, I understand your frustration. But my advice still is to be careful. You have seen posts from many of the older members here, not only the newer ones.

 

[maxd]

I guess I feel I need to say a few words about the Chopley thing.

Call me old-fashioned or hopelessly naive or whatever but when someone supposedly has "extremely high regard" for another person and that other person does something that shocks and/or disappoints it would seem to me there are (at least) two ways to respond:

1. approach the offending person and say "Dude, I have extremely high regard for you but WTF?" or something along those lines.
2. paint a billboard that says "He sucks and we should burn his house down!".

IMO Chopley took the latter approach here and AFAIC that says a lot about the regard he supposedly has for Bryan and Casinomeister, namely that it wasn't so "extremely high" after all.

Now it's easy in situations like this to say "oh, he was hurt and acted rashly" or somesuch. Yes, that can happen, especially from immature persons who have little or no control over their emotions. Children for example, or ill-behaved teenagers. Either way adults are held to a somewhat higher standard and since we're all adults here said standards apply. Besides, Chopley's attacks here were not rash and thoughtless, they were well-planned, carefully worded and the intention was clearly to discredit host and site.

If one's first reaction to hurt and disappointment is to lash out with the intent to do grevious harm then that says a lot about the person and their relationship to the one they feel the need to lash out at. Someone in that equation is acting from a place other than "extremely high regard": either the regard is not so high or they have deeper issues than the inability to weather a little shock and disappointment, or both.

 

[wigan rl]

It's pretty clear that something major is going on and all will come to light soon

In the past if a company is accused of something do they get removed from the accred list?

If so Betfred and others involved should be taken off untill it's finished

 

[rena35]

I am rather new here and i have come to finally realize the forums i downloaded casinos from and played at wasn't full of the information i find at Casinomeister. I have come to trust the accredited section and i really hope that this is resolved so that any casinos that are in question and found to be at fault can be removed from the section.

 

[SpinUk]

You have one foot in the industry, and one on the player side. I understand your frustration, but be careful. The information in this case have already showed us that there was a faulty software, a rigged software. It was rigged by purpose. A card game...

You have already changed the thread title of the original thread, the word rigged is gone. You have to understand that both players and other webmasters would easily think that it had to do with the fact that accredited casinos was accused?

We (members here) have to trust you and your judgement, but in this case it's really hard to sit and wait since the evidence already is there whatever reason the original OP had.

Now there is a new case where Betfred is involved, a case where they definately once again break rules. Even yours:

Must not use false, misleading or deceptive advertising. A game that truly "pays" better in free play compared to real money play is false and misleading.




Did they pay everyone within 7 working days?

Again Bryan, I understand your frustration. But my advice still is to be careful. You have seen posts from many of the older members here, not only the newer ones.

I have to say that I agree totally with this.

This is not a question of "wait and see" or "new information coming to light".

We already have an admission of guilt from BetFred that the game was indeed rigged. An admission straight from source. There really can be nothing further to add to this. Unfortunately ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law (the help file). But we do not even need that. Betfred have admitted the game was rigged.

Subsequent smokescreens of whether the player was genuine, and the damage limitation "confession" from the OP (which has done more harm than good for Bet Fred and CM in my opinion - someone is giving poor advice on this) is making this much more serious than it has to be, both to BetFred and Casinomesiter.com

I guess if I was was the owner of this site I would be now be taking stock of what exactly is at stake here, and what is to be gained ultimately for the site (and ultimately for Brian) by supporting certain parties or not. And I say that as a genuine supporter of Casinomeister.

Good luck.