- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
I honestly can't believe what I'm seeing.
Goodbye Casinomeister, you're broken.
Goodbye Casinomeister, you're broken.
I'm truly shocked
- Thread starter ChopleyIOM
- Start date
-
- Tags
- betfred casino
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2012
- Location
- Stockholm
Hah?? 
Must have been some error there while typing in the Accredited section...
I thought Betfred got kicked out & not on the list anymore?
Some1 put it back & actually wrote that??
The mather about the cheating games/casinos etc is still not solved as far as i know. Right?
Must have been some error there while typing in the Accredited section...
I thought Betfred got kicked out & not on the list anymore?
Some1 put it back & actually wrote that??
The mather about the cheating games/casinos etc is still not solved as far as i know. Right?
- 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.
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.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
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'.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
We do all remember this bit, don't we?
Fill your boots at Betfred, the CM accredited casino!
Fill your boots at Betfred, the CM accredited casino!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Location
- north
Other than the OP in the locked thread, there is no evidence anyone has been reimbursed.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2012
- Location
- Stockholm
Im still waiting for more info about this mather (the closed tread about cheating casinos/software etc - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/),
from all parties involved.
Unless its been posted somewhere that i havent seen?
from all parties involved.
Unless its been posted somewhere that i havent seen?
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?
Which interests are being protected here?
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
Houston, we have a problem !
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.
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.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Location
- uk
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 .
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
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.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
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.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
I'm with Jetset on this and will not pass comment until the end. The way I see it is Bryan has offered Betfred bail and not remanded them in custody (innocent until proven guilty).
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
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?
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?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
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.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
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.
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".
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
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
.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
I agree, there should be some type of warning.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
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.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Location
- Finland
Jetset said:
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.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
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.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Location
- Finland
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.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
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.
Until then we have to chill.
I want to be patient, I will be patient, I must be patient.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
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.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Location
- Finland
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.
Ok, I guess you are right. So let's wait and see.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
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.
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.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Location
- Finland
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.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
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.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Location
- Finland
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.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Noted - fixed.
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
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.]
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.]
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
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?
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
LOL, sorry, something instrinsically funny bout offering up your pocket lance(I'll be back in my corner)
Good point, Jufo - thank you for pointing that out.
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;
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.
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;
GRA License said:
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
What does that old adage say?
Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see.
Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Location
- UnKnown
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
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
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;
GRA License said:
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.
That point is being overlooked by WAY too many people. It's not OK to cheat regardless of what's in the help file.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
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.
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....Also can add Don't trust anyone else but yourself
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
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:
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.
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:
- approach the offending person and say "Dude, I have extremely high regard for you but WTF?" or something along those lines.
- 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.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Location
- Wigan
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
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
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2012
- Location
- cyber space
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.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Location
- London
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.
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.
Similar threads
