I'm truly shocked

[Seventh777]

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;




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.

Ah, pardon my ignorance, I thought the problem here was an actual hi-lo feature after a win, ooops .

 

[Jasminebed]

Rash, rude, or poorly worded, I was a little shocked too, so I'm glad Chopley brought this to light.

I feel the revision to under investigation is much more appropriate, and as always, Bryan is not afraid to take a second look at his actions. Many people are far too stubborn to do such.

The purchase of this game that contravenes the standards of physical objects behaving as physical objects do is either recklessly disregarding licencing standards, or a fundamental failure to understand these standards. Betfred was not the only casino to deploy the game in the original complaint, and it's come to light that other casinos did as well, so I think the original thread title change was warranted.

My mother used to say you don't throw out the baby with the bath water. But I'm pretty sure that Betfred was aware they had a game that didn't pay back 100%, even if no one understood why it was wrong even with the correct help file attached. It goes beyond there not being the correct number of cards in the deck to software that changes the outcome based on the player's decision rather than using a paytable (NOT a help file) to obtain the wanted house edge.

It's become difficult to find things in the original thread, but didn't Bet365 have a different paytable to achieve the wanted house edge, and not the modifications from SPIELO G2 that skewed results based on colour chosen?

Nordicbet simply pulled them all... but at some point they purchased them. Ignorance? Lack of quality control?

I don't expect Walmart or Costco to personally inspect each toaster they carry, but if it carries the Underwriter's Lab certification, I expect it to comply with it. If they custom order them to not meet those standards from Grand Fenwick* from a company certified by UL and carry them in contravention of Walmart or Costco's licencing laws, then I expect there to be penalties beyond replacing the toasters.
I don't think stopping them from selling all items is the correct penalty either, and I doubt I'd boycott them based on a single event personally.

And if it was a shoplifter that first had their house burnt down by a defective toaster, I'd hope it wasn't just swept under a rug and the toasters remained on sale.

*from The Mouse that Roared

 

[jetset]

The fact remains - and the regulator apparently can't understand or has difficulty taking this on board - that the game cheated and/or misled and was available to players for who knows how long. And the operator and/or the software provider SpieloG2 was apparently less than diligent in checking out the game in compliance with regulations before offering it to the public.

See thePOGG's succinct summary at Post 43 here if you are still doubtful or confused on this central point.

And to quote jasmineabed: "The purchase of this game that contravenes the standards of physical objects behaving as physical objects do is either recklessly disregarding licencing standards, or a fundamental failure to understand these standards...."

 

[dunover]

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.

Chopley is a knowledgeable player and has been for years. He's a straight-up bloke who says it as he sees it, and when you state his 'intention to discredit the site' I would suggest he would say that CM has discredited itself, which is why he reacted how he did. It's obvious that to him Betfreds own admissions, regardless of other facts and circumstances (some of which you have stated are presently unknown to us out here) supersede all other points here and that alone makes them disreputable and unfit for the accredited list. Yes, he's got on his high-horse a bit but I admire the guy for standing up for his beliefs knowing full well he risks losing his place here. I wouldn't call him immature; outraged maybe. OK, eloquently outraged.
It's a shame really - he obviously isn't a bloke who will be PM'ing you grovelling to get back on unmoderated, and you are clearly p*ssed with him.
Can't you sort it out chaps? I for one would like him to continue here, even if he is a Manc
I can see CM are caught between the devil and deep blue sea here (Betfred etc.) and the situation is delicate. Let's not have collateral casualties too.

 

[jetset]

Please, let's not have more derails taking away from the real thrust of this new thread, which is the question of a cheating game...not the pros and cons of a post made in anger.

 

[P.V.]

I'm a bit disconcerted that more player's haven't stepped up to these allegations.

No derail intended but a bit odd.

 

[Richas]

The fact remains - and the regulator apparently can't understand or has difficulty taking this on board - that the game cheated and/or misled and was available to players for who knows how long. And the operator and/or the software provider SpieloG2 was apparently less than diligent in checking out the game in compliance with regulations before offering it to the public.

See thePOGG's succinct summary at Post 43 here if you are still doubtful or confused on this central point.

And to quote jasmineabed: "The purchase of this game that contravenes the standards of physical objects behaving as physical objects do is either recklessly disregarding licencing standards, or a fundamental failure to understand these standards...."

I am pretty certain that Pogg and CM have made it very clear to the GRA all of these issues and I am certain that they do understand them - lets be honest the rules are quite clear.

All we have been told is that the GRA is investigating. The regulator should not be giving a running commentary on the investigation, they need to complete it, then act, then tell the world what they have done. There is a potential for criminal charges here and under the 2005 Gib act the maximum is 3 months in gaol and a fine. It would be wrong for the GRA to give a running commentary.

BetFred and Finsoft as those being accused are of course free to comment but that would be remarkably dim. The only meaningful statement by BetFred just made things worse for them by conceding that the game was wrong and that the play game operated differently.They might also feel that they were premature in paying back someone using a false identity for unknown but clearly discreditable reasons. They may also be regretting the promise to pay all players if they issued the statement primarily for PR reasons and had not yet worked out how long the game had been running and how much it had taken.

I believe that the reason we are hearing nothing from BetFred and the GRA is precisely that they do get the seriousness of the accusations.

 

[thelawnet]

This thread is looking as dead as the other one.

The fact is that Betfred admitted that the game was rigged, that it was designed to payout 96%, even though the game paid 2. Since you could bet on either of two opposing actions, it's therefore a fact that whichever bet you bet on, the odds of that event happening would change. Call this quantum gambling, call it cheating, whatever, but it's sufficient to convict.

As for the player's actions, interesting as they are, they are not relevant to the fact of Betfred operating these games.

But it seems that we are not going to get any more than innuendo about how this one player could alter Betfred's open admission to cheating, at least not any time soon.

If no more information will be forthcoming, and it continues to be insisted that there is some undisclosed evidence regarding this player that could affect Betfred's relationship with all the other players, then I suggest providing some kind of timeframe as to when this will be disclosed, and just shut this thread till then, because it's quite grating to read a whole bunch of people saying 'Betfred admitted cheating', and then periodic posts saying 'Ah but you don't know what I know'.

 

[Scooter7]

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.

Welcome. As for the accredited section, I'd suggest taking a slightly different approach.
Instead of automatically trusting the accredited casinos, you're better off making sure you simply avoid the UN-accredited ones like the plague.

Even with CM's 'seal of approval', you're never 100% safe, but it's an excellent starting list that will very rarely steer you wrong.
If your best friend tells you that it's safe to walk down a dark alley, it probably is, but you should still keep your eyes open

 

[labeled]

Please, let's not have more derails taking away from the real thrust of this new thread, which is the question of a cheating game...not the pros and cons of a post made in anger.

Unfortunately I think that is the main thrust of the thread. An experienced player voiced an opinion that, yes, cast CM in a less than favorable light. Instead of taking that criticism for what it is worth - valid, if harsh, he's being slapped on the wrist for being rude, or trying to "bring down" CM.

But it's still listed on the accredited list with no mention of the "investigation" unless you click through to the full write-up. But if the average non-forum-reading player is skimming to make sure the site is a-ok and doesn't clickthru, they don't get that information. I agree with Chopley's op, and would go so far as to say that's still not right.

Additionally, that "warning" is shown as:

Finsoft/Spielo Games - there was an issue posted here concerning the fairness of some of the games that Betfred (amongst others) were hosting on their site: specifically “Reel Deal” and “HiLo Gambler”. It turned out the RTPs listed on the games' help files were not correct. The files were replaced and affected players were reimbursed. This is an ongoing investigation. Results will be posted here.

I'd go so far as to say from my understanding, that's certainly a kind interpretation. I'm going to go out on a limb and state that to the average player it reads as "their help files were wrong, they listed an incorrect RTP." Which is true, but not the full truth.

In the end & to be blunt, trying to shame Chopley for bringing this to other players attention just plain looks bad.

 

[dunover]

I agree with your sentiments here. What worries me, and possibly others, it that the action taken against Chopley discourages free expression of opinion here and posters may be reluctant to speak out for fear of jeopardizing their status on here. I agree with CM that he did seem to have woken up in a bad mood Sunday, but one aberration should not override the previous contributions he has made here.
Maybe they should lift his moderated status Sunday, so he's had a week to cool off. It'd be a shame to lose him.
Plus be aware he does live on the IOM where the sun appears once a year between 10am and Midday on August 1st. which does make the Manxes a bit gloomy

 

[Casinomeister]

I agree with your sentiments here. What worries me, and possibly others, it that the action taken against Chopley discourages free expression of opinion here and posters may be reluctant to speak out for fear of jeopardizing their status on here. I agree with CM that he did seem to have woken up in a bad mood Sunday, but one aberration should not override the previous contributions he has made here.
Maybe they should lift his moderated status Sunday, so he's had a week to cool off. It'd be a shame to lose him.
Plus be aware he does live on the IOM where the sun appears once a year between 10am and Midday on August 1st. which does make the Manxes a bit gloomy

There is no discouragement of expression here. But there are certain boundaries and forum etiquette/protocol that were crossed or violated. @ everyone: If you have criticisms then let's talk about it. A proper debate without abusive ad hominem would be a good start. I have expectations on how people should behave. I don't think Chopley would have appreciated me coming to his website while he was not online and have a go at him. I know Chopely is not a member of the webmeister group, but he is a webmaster. And we have policies for my webmaster brethren:

Webmasters and Affiliates
Webmasters need to remember that they are guests in this house; treat it well. We have a higher expectation of posting styles for webmasters than what we expect from players. If you've come here to gripe about a certain casino, that's fine, but please be mindful that a bit of tact can go a long way.

Harassing moderators, disrespecting i-Gaming representatives, beating up players, and exploiting this board is not only uncool, it will not be tolerated. Please understand that the forum is not a marketing tool, a source of traffic, or a place where one can grandstand an agenda. It is a community where we share and discuss topics that pertain to online gaming - and then some. If it appears that you are attempting to undermine or damage the Casinomeister brand via snarky remarks, flaming, or other antagonist behavior, you will be asked to leave. Just imagine me being a member of your forum and how you'd expect me to act.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum-faq/forum-policies/

That said. Chopley is not banned, and removing him from the moderated group is not an issue either once I return from finishing the awards. There is nearly no moderation of the forum at the moment since Max is just finishing his yearly report for PABs, I'm finishing the awards, Simmo! is out walking the dog, and Webzcas is babysitting. As soon as I am finished what I am doing, I'll be able to address many of the issues here and get more involved.

This whole Finsoft thing couldn't have happened at a worse time.

 

[labeled]

With all due respect, I'd recommend "unmoderating" him now. When you run a clean house, a little harsh criticism isn't the end of the world.

 

[dunover]

Understood and thanks for clarifying things.
Let's hope we see him soon then. He's probably trawling the pubs of Douglas in the rain looking for DOND's to 'force' as we speak

 

[manuels58]

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.

Well, although I might be tempted to agree with you in some extent, I'm sorry to say but imho you have made this thread more personal than the OP.

Yes, it's rather unpleasant for CM to have someone posting in their site in discordance with one of their decisions (certainly one of the most difficult lately and not in a good time… end of the year and all that stuff), and maybe, just maybe using a cold wording.
But that's what surely makes CM being one of the most respected and to be a site of great demand in the online gaming cloud: the possibility for players to have available a space to openly debate their problems and issues (in a respectful manner, of course) and to share their joys and bitterness’s on a fair and friendly ambient, together with the priceless support and professional knowledge of some of its devoted members.

So, I really don't think CM gets depreciated or even disrespected with the OPs post and, besides and not least, like you said we are all adults and we all are certainly capable of doing our own judgement about everyone's posts. As the adagio says "Each one is responsible for one's own acts and shall be judged accordingly".

My opinion about this thread (main) theme is quite well known and I also am disappointed for seeing the involved casinos reinstated in the accredited list.
Just like any company listed on a Stock Exchange sees its transactions suspended if any kind of investigation is in course and until it’s finished, I’d rather prefer to see all the involved casinos in a stand-by situation for accreditation, being that situation completely informed on the proper place, so that the players might make up their minds by their own.

If there are some facts not yet unveiled because they may not be of the forum knowledge right now, then this thread should be closed and CM should inform that new threads on this subject are not allowed until the investigation is concluded, or until those facts may become of public knowledge.

 

[maxd]

... I really don't think CM gets depreciated or even disrespected with the OPs post ....

"Goodbye Casinomeister, you're broken". Explain how that is a constructive contribution to the discussion at hand.

Actually, don't bother: no amount of spin is going to make such a statement anything but the troll droppings it was when it came into this world.

Some people post in order to contribute to a discussion, others (sometimes) post to discredit and devalue the very site that hosts them. If you don't see Chopley's efforts here to be of the latter form then I guess you're just a better human being than I am, I simply can't muster that kind of wishful forgiveness.

 

[Balthazar]

Some people post in order to contribute to a discussion, others (sometimes) post to discredit and devalue the very site that hosts them. If you don't see Chopley's efforts here to be of the latter form then I guess you're just a better human being than I am, I simply can't muster that kind of wishful forgiveness.

Max I'd suggest to look at Chopley's history with CM before making such conclusion. He's the reason why I, and a bunch of other contributing members, are here. We're not just a bunch of trolls.

 

[rockycatt]

can we look at his [choply's] good contribution and weigh it against this plus he does present his films with a warning of his zeal [profane expletives ] for gaming
just a thought like who would have thought they'd free Barabbas

 

[Tirilej]

I don't get what everyone is so upset about.

Chopley isn't banned. He is still free to post now like before. The difference is that he needs to get his post approved first.
If he chose not to just because of that, then it's up to him.

You still like him, and I do too, but I didn't like what he said, or to be clear, the way he said it.

 

[Simmo!]

...I didn't like what he said, or to be clear, the way he said it.

That's the key here. We've banned or moderated a number of people down the years for exactly that reason. It's natural for them to feel affronted and upset and claim it's for what they said but heyho, there's no diplomatic way of banning someone

The bottom line is "we" all want to keep this site focused on providing a useful and pleasant place for people to come, share opinions and chew stuff over so any kind of de-constructive sidetracking, disrespect for the environment, sabre rattling or agenda-driven politics gets short shrift. And by "pleasant", I don't mean to suggest everything is all roses and chocolates - of course it's not.

So as much as Chopley has been (and I hope will continue to be) a good and useful contributor here at CM, I'd have done the same as CM if it was my house. I hate rudeness and if you're going to walk through my door, insult me and then expect tea and biscuits, think again. There is no excuse for not presenting your point in a respectful manner, even if you don't agree with someone and if you can't accept that here, then you're on the wrong forum.

To be honest, I don't really see what it achieves anyway. It might get you a few high-fives from some posters who share the same grievances but you'll probably lose some respect from others. I guess it depends who you empathise with but me personally, it's the ones that don't let emotions interfere and respect the opinions of the people they are interacting with. Those are the people I pay most attention to.

 

[mclee321]

I could never imagine anything remotely suspect with Bryan/Max'd, inconceivable after all I've seen and read over the years. Shoot me, but I'd trust them 100% of the time.

On the flip side, I've been reading Alex/Chopley's output on the web since the early noughties. Clearly, he wears his heart on his sleeve and has a very strong sense of Justice. He was responsible (along with another chap) for the campaign to raise awareness of the fixed/compensated nature of UK AWP's. The result being all slot machines in the public domain had to labeled with a warning. I imagine what he saw to start this thread simply triggered a non-negotiable action. How ever it was phrased (I've seen far worse here, to be honest), he was just trying to warn people.

Hope there will be no long lasting ill feelings!

 

[jetset]

That's the key here. We've banned or moderated a number of people down the years for exactly that reason. It's natural for them to feel affronted and upset and claim it's for what they said but heyho, there's no diplomatic way of banning someone

The bottom line is "we" all want to keep this site focused on providing a useful and pleasant place for people to come, share opinions and chew stuff over so any kind of de-constructive sidetracking, disrespect for the environment, sabre rattling or agenda-driven politics gets short shrift. And by "pleasant", I don't mean to suggest everything is all roses and chocolates - of course it's not.

So as much as Chopley has been (and I hope will continue to be) a good and useful contributor here at CM, I'd have done the same as CM if it was my house. I hate rudeness and if you're going to walk through my door, insult me and then expect tea and biscuits, think again. There is no excuse for not presenting your point in a respectful manner, even if you don't agree with someone and if you can't accept that here, then you're on the wrong forum.

To be honest, I don't really see what it achieves anyway. It might get you a few high-fives from some posters who share the same grievances but you'll probably lose some respect from others. I guess it depends who you empathise with but me personally, it's the ones that don't let emotions interfere and respect the opinions of the people they are interacting with. Those are the people I pay most attention to.

Absolutely spot-on imo - couldn't have said it better! Especially the second par of Simmo's post.

 

[maxd]

/more derail - apologies

How ever it was phrased ... he was just trying to warn people.

As a general comment -- not directed at you personally mclee -- I have to say that I have been hearing that kind of thing for years (a decade+ actually) and I still don't buy it.

People are, and should be, expected to behave in a civilised manner in person or on the forums. If someone walks into my home with a cricket bat and starts smashing everything up then they are a problem REGARDLESS of what sentiment brought them there in the first place. At that particular moment it doesn't matter how much they love their cats or how often they visit their Gran or any of that "he's actually a swell guy when he isn't trashing your place" BS. The point is he is trashing the place and that's just not acceptable no matter what warm spirit he holds in his heart.

Personally I believe action is character: people will do what they have in them to do. If Chops was a saint then he'd behave saintly. He did very much the opposite and that's the problem. Re-read those posts. They are not just "trying to warn people", they are trying to trash the site WHILE warning people. Two very different things IYAM.

That said HE IS ONLY BEING MODERATED. Meaning we approve his posts -- there has only been one by the way (here I believe) -- before they appear on the forums. The point being that if he posts shit we'll flush it but otherwise it'll pass and get posted as he intended. If that's putting fear in the heart of the faithful then I reckon they should probably tighten up their panties a bit. It's oh so easy to say things like that but a little reality check would go a long way toward turning that fear-mongering into something at least half-ways based on reality. IMHO.

 

[labeled]

redacted. No dog in this fight.

 

[thelawnet]

That said HE IS ONLY BEING MODERATED. Meaning we approve his posts -- there has only been one by the way (here I believe) -- before they appear on the forums. The point being that if he posts shit we'll flush it but otherwise it'll pass and get posted as he intended. If that's putting fear in the heart of the faithful then I reckon they should probably tighten up their panties a bit. It's oh so easy to say things like that but a little reality check would go a long way toward turning that fear-mongering into something at least half-ways based on reality. IMHO.

I would never post on a site that put me on moderation. It is humiliating, and I don't believe any person with an ounce of self-respect would post under such terms.

So I would say that it is a de facto ban, warranted or not.