is this fraud?
- Thread starter gaydave
- Start date
It's pretty clear that 11 different players all signing up legally at a casino, from different computers/homes wouldn't be fraud. I suspect your question is hinting at something else or baiting. I'm kind of curious to see where this thread is about to go. :eat:
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
Well if you and your friends are actually 11 individuals, signing up from your own homes, and your own computers, I see no fraud, but 11 people, that happen to know each other signing up to a casino, and playing vp. However, if just 2 of you sign up from the same IP or computer (Mac addy) there might very well be a problem.
But the way you ask, and the fact that you find it needed to be asked, tells me, there is more to it, than you're telling, so ...pass the popcorn Cleve
But the way you ask, and the fact that you find it needed to be asked, tells me, there is more to it, than you're telling, so ...pass the popcorn Cleve
...pass the popcorn Cleve
/passes popcorn
I need some good food similes. I searched for a popcorn passing one but that's the best I could find
.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Location
- where the taxes are the highest
AWSDT7 GYIJP][;.|
As my father use to say "If you have to ask- Then something wrong". I'll take my popcorn with extra butter please!
As my father use to say "If you have to ask- Then something wrong". I'll take my popcorn with extra butter please!
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2011
- Location
- Netherlands
Sounds like a lot of fun though. Make it a competition: Who can cash out most
If so count me in
If so count me in
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Location
- where the taxes are the highest
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Maybe not fraud, but probably collusion. It all depends on the circumstances.
Why not play it safe and ask the casino beforehand?
Why not play it safe and ask the casino beforehand?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Location
- where the taxes are the highest
After you ask casino can you please post the live chat in here.... I'm dying to read it.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
11 new players signing up all at once, and all playing the same game, whether or not simultaneously, is going to get their attention. If there is evidence of shared computers, they will call this fraud. Even if each player uses their own PC, the casino will also stipulate that the play must be for "personal entertainment", and may consider this to be a "ring" of players colluding and sharing funds. Even though not fraud, it will contravene the terms and conditions for play in a "personal capacity".
If you try to "hide" this arrangement, and the casino figures it out, they will also consider that you "tried something on" with them. The best way is to be open about it, such as using any "refer a friend" promotion, or asking beforehand whether it is OK to open an account after having the casino recommended to you by your friend.
ONLY playing the SUB will also look suspicious, as it will look like collusion with the profits being shared. Normally, 11 signups will lead to different patterns, such as different gameplay, and some players coming back for more.
If you try to "hide" this arrangement, and the casino figures it out, they will also consider that you "tried something on" with them. The best way is to be open about it, such as using any "refer a friend" promotion, or asking beforehand whether it is OK to open an account after having the casino recommended to you by your friend.
ONLY playing the SUB will also look suspicious, as it will look like collusion with the profits being shared. Normally, 11 signups will lead to different patterns, such as different gameplay, and some players coming back for more.
Right, you all bring up good points. I am just looking for some definitions of fraud without stirring up a bunch of BS and arguements. I have no interest in an ugly thread and I am not involved in anything like this as I have not played online in a few months due to being American.
It was mentioned that the scenario I laid out could be collusion. How so? I can understand it if all were to only use a SUB then disappear with profits while playing the exact same way but if there are multiple deposits and everyone is playing without bonuses and such I just cannot see how anything is wrong. If you all paid with your own accounts (eco card/neteller/QT/moneybooker/payspark/cc/wire....etc) and use your own computer from your own home then how is anything collusion or fraud? That is what I don't understand but that has come up a few times (seemingly) here. If a casino claims fraud ring in this scenario then I am confused and would like to know how anyone can think it is fraud.
This is all assuming that the players can send in supporting documents and used their own PC from their own home and nothing is shared AND bonuses were not used exclusively on the deposits.
What is the fraud? What is the collusion? There cannot be a benefit to the players or an advantage to the players if this is the scenario. The casino is not getting cheated. Correct?
It was mentioned that the scenario I laid out could be collusion. How so? I can understand it if all were to only use a SUB then disappear with profits while playing the exact same way but if there are multiple deposits and everyone is playing without bonuses and such I just cannot see how anything is wrong. If you all paid with your own accounts (eco card/neteller/QT/moneybooker/payspark/cc/wire....etc) and use your own computer from your own home then how is anything collusion or fraud? That is what I don't understand but that has come up a few times (seemingly) here. If a casino claims fraud ring in this scenario then I am confused and would like to know how anyone can think it is fraud.
This is all assuming that the players can send in supporting documents and used their own PC from their own home and nothing is shared AND bonuses were not used exclusively on the deposits.
What is the fraud? What is the collusion? There cannot be a benefit to the players or an advantage to the players if this is the scenario. The casino is not getting cheated. Correct?
In that given scenario I would have to say the casino would be out right wrong. In my mind it is no different than a group of friends/family traveling to a land based casino to have a good time. If they are using their own computers, from their own home, with their own money, and not even taking a bonus then I can't see how or why this would present any problems. Unless the casino is being dishonest and trying to get out of paying a player.
Even sharing funds. How could that be a problem? If someone gives me 10 dollars because I'm short on funds, that doesn't change my odds of winning. Yes I will have a few more chances, as I wouldn't have been able to continue playing but nothing is wrong/illegal with that.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2006
- Location
- Edmonton Canada
I've wondered about that too - I understand that one table games or multiplayer games there's a benefit, but with slot games and VP if the games are truly random, then no matter who you're 'colluding' with, there shouldn't be any advantage.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
There are still online casinos out there that allow VP on a SUB?
Whether right or wrong, if the casino spots a dozen sign ups from the same general geographical area (even if not same house) through the same link (like a bonus hunting board) there might be problems if more than one of the players makes a withdrawal.
As the OP lays out the scenario, I see no fraud. But that doesn't mean suspicions wouldn't surface.
Best advice has been given already. Contact the casino. Even take advantage of any referal bonuses....
Whether right or wrong, if the casino spots a dozen sign ups from the same general geographical area (even if not same house) through the same link (like a bonus hunting board) there might be problems if more than one of the players makes a withdrawal.
As the OP lays out the scenario, I see no fraud. But that doesn't mean suspicions wouldn't surface.
Best advice has been given already. Contact the casino. Even take advantage of any referal bonuses....
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Location
- Ontario
If there's a VP progressive you and your friends are going to try to chase because it's currently EV+, you may very well find yourselves branded as a syndicate or in collusion. While this is not fraud in a criminal sense, it might just see you with a battle on your hands to claim winnings. Especially if your play is identical, or very strongly similar. If, for instance, you play a strategy to increase your chance of a Royal and deviate from what autohold suggests.
I'd go with an earlier suggestion to use the Refer-a-friend bonuses, that way they can't claim you were hiding your association with your friends. I'd wait until I had a win and a withdrawal first, then contact CS to tell them your friends now want to play.
I'd go with an earlier suggestion to use the Refer-a-friend bonuses, that way they can't claim you were hiding your association with your friends. I'd wait until I had a win and a withdrawal first, then contact CS to tell them your friends now want to play.
A bunch of friends signing up from the same area at the same time and playing similar games might not technically constitute fraud, but as people have rightly pointed out it would certainly get the casinos atention. At the very least, you should expect every player linked to need to provide docs and pass a full audit.
The best advice has already been given... clear it with the casino in question first.
The best advice has already been given... clear it with the casino in question first.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Casinos look for peer to peer passing of funds in eWallets such as Neteller and Moneybookers, and if this is found alongside advantage play, will consider this a "syndicate". eWallets freely share this information with casinos, it has come up in the past. No-one really knows at what level such transfers between friends constitutes a "syndicate", but winnings have been voided on the strength of a group of players taking bonuses and using P2P to move funds between them in an eWallet.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
Seriously ??
E-wallets let casinos in on peoples private transactions ?
What's the world comming to ?
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
I don't know exactly what is shared, but casinos that suspect players are acting as a syndicate can ask Neteller or Moneybookers whether they are making P2P exchanges between them, and the eWallet will at least confirm or deny this.
It is also possible for a casino to "chargeback" a withdrawal already paid if subsequent investigation by the casino reveals the play was deemed "abusive" in order to gain those winnings. One notable case was when Prime casino took back a withdrawal from a player some 2 weeks after having paid it because they decided upon review that it was "bonus abuse". They got a right bollocking from me (and others) on the forum at the time, and gave the money back. Since then, there have been further instances of casinos taking money back from players' eWallet accounts, but earlier in the year Betfair stunned everybody by taking back money already paid from a players' BANK account!!
It is clear that the eWallets are NOT independent, and will often do the bidding of operators (merchants) with no right on the part of players to challenge the decision to reverse a payment. In contrast, PLAYERS are told that a transaction made by an eWallet is "final", and cannot be reversed under any circumstances other than outright fraud, such as hacking Neteller accounts.
Can we just get clarification on some things? I think it would end a lot of bickering on threads.
I will ask this again. Can we get specific answers please?
1). If you are accused of fraud by a casino then how can you prove otherwise? You can prove your identity and residency. What else can be done?
2). If you are playing at a casino without a bonus and you are only playing single player games. Can this possibly be fraud? How in the world would you be at an advantage on the casino by pretending to be someone else then playing with your own money?
Furthermore, what right would a casino possibly have to suspect fraud or affiliation of a fraud group on players who are not seeking an advantage then keeping all of the players money including deposits and winnings?
These are questions that I really need answered as it is becoming extremely frustrating watching this happen to so many players with no recourse.
In my opinion, confiscating players money based on an unprovable fraud allegation when the players were not trying to use this alleged "fraud" to benefit from the casino must be stopped or we are getting deeper and deeper into an unplayable online environment in which the casinos have an open license to steal while still gaining affiliate backing and promotion.
I will ask this again. Can we get specific answers please?
1). If you are accused of fraud by a casino then how can you prove otherwise? You can prove your identity and residency. What else can be done?
2). If you are playing at a casino without a bonus and you are only playing single player games. Can this possibly be fraud? How in the world would you be at an advantage on the casino by pretending to be someone else then playing with your own money?
Furthermore, what right would a casino possibly have to suspect fraud or affiliation of a fraud group on players who are not seeking an advantage then keeping all of the players money including deposits and winnings?
These are questions that I really need answered as it is becoming extremely frustrating watching this happen to so many players with no recourse.
In my opinion, confiscating players money based on an unprovable fraud allegation when the players were not trying to use this alleged "fraud" to benefit from the casino must be stopped or we are getting deeper and deeper into an unplayable online environment in which the casinos have an open license to steal while still gaining affiliate backing and promotion.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
It can still be seen as "going equiped" by using false details and/or fake ID, even though no advantage is obvious. It is illegal to possess a fake ID, you don't have to get caught trying to use it before they can bring charges.
It may not be fraud, but a breach of terms, if 10 friends all signed up and played on fewer than 10 separate PCs at 10 separate addresses. If they play the exact same pattern, it will appear that they are members of a group being run by one person, and are playing by rote from a script they have been given, rather than for their own enjoyment. It doesn't matter what times they play, and from which PC. This can be a doubtful situation, since such "scripts" or "strategies" for playing a particular bonus are freely shared over the internet, and do not necessarily prove that the 10 players are part of a "ring".
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
As mentioned before, "fraud" deals with anything from multiple accounts to collusion with other players. Fraud can be anything that has to do with deceptive practice by the player (submitting bogus info, lying about anything, etc.). So it depends on what the circumstances are, to figure out what can be done.
Fraud is fraud. If you are using bogus personal info, shared money accounts, or whatever it is that the casino defines as fraud - it's fraud. Bonuses have nothing to do with it. Casinos have to answer to their auditors and a majority have to prove that their players are in fact real. There is no room for bullshit players.
Because it is their business, and they have every right to block out players that violate their terms. As far as I know in most instances, players' deposits are returned. But many have clauses in their terms and conditions that allow them to confiscated the funds from fraudulent players. Caveat Emptor.
Again I need to emphasize that what you are complaining about refers to only a handful of players. It's slightly less than a storm in a tea cup.
And from my own experience observing the fraud "phenomena", most operators won't bother with dealing with fraudsters since it's an incredible waste of man-hours. They would rather have their support serve their regular players than answering questions from fraudsters. That's why players who get caught out get the "speak to the hand" treatment.
Thank you VWM. I did lay out though that in the scenario there is no bonus being used for winnings. Also, in your answer what if a player can prove his ID? What if they can prove they don't share a PC? What if they can prove they don't share IP addresses? In short, what if they can show they are a real person on their own pc and playing without a bonus?
That is a great point. How can the player refute this? In your examples, what if a player is a VIP at their ewallet? (like Neteller or Moneybookers?)?
what if they can prove who they are and their address?
What if they ARE real people and can prove it? Furthermore, if they can show they are using their own funds?
There HAS TO BE parameters and limits on what a casino can do with players money. They cannot simply say "I think you are in a fraud ring even though you are real and your docs match up and you fund your own ewallets and are a vip there and even though you did not abuse bonuses or in any way get an advantage on the casino".
This is the source of so much angst recently. I won't name the casino but it can't be acceptable.
EDIT: My purpose of asking is not to badger but rather to get something in place so that the playing field is level. To establish guidelines per se.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
IMO you are never going to get a definitive answer covering every specific situation, mainly because it is a fluid situation where fraudsters are always coming up with something new. Hence, the terms have to be somewhat generalized and able to applied if the operator is hit with a ring of people from the same area etc. You know what I mean.
Terms covering situations where operators have the right to confiscate winnings when SOME kind of fraud is suspected exist at every online casino.
It is true that what one casino considers acceptable may be considered fraud elsewhere, which is fine as long as it is covered in their terms.
As Bryan said, we are talking about a tiny % of players who get "caught" by the casino anti-fraud processes, and I would venture to say the vast majority of these are players deliberately committing "fraud" in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage I.e an advantage that the average honest player doesn't have access to
Bottom line is that the honest, legitimate player need not concern themselves with what constitutes "fraud" anyway, because these players aren't trying to pull a fast one or exploit (along with their buddies) some kind of software glitch or "unclear" bonus terms....they just want to play. These people aren't interested in bonus hunting forums, and don't call their mates when they find some word missing from a bonus term which could leave the casino vulnerable. It's the people who are always looking to exploit that really like to make a noise about players being banned for these kind of activities....the average player doesn't care because they have nothing to fear from any terms relating to fraud.
I'm genuinely interested in why you are so adamant that this "fraud" be defined.
Terms covering situations where operators have the right to confiscate winnings when SOME kind of fraud is suspected exist at every online casino.
It is true that what one casino considers acceptable may be considered fraud elsewhere, which is fine as long as it is covered in their terms.
As Bryan said, we are talking about a tiny % of players who get "caught" by the casino anti-fraud processes, and I would venture to say the vast majority of these are players deliberately committing "fraud" in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage I.e an advantage that the average honest player doesn't have access to
Bottom line is that the honest, legitimate player need not concern themselves with what constitutes "fraud" anyway, because these players aren't trying to pull a fast one or exploit (along with their buddies) some kind of software glitch or "unclear" bonus terms....they just want to play. These people aren't interested in bonus hunting forums, and don't call their mates when they find some word missing from a bonus term which could leave the casino vulnerable. It's the people who are always looking to exploit that really like to make a noise about players being banned for these kind of activities....the average player doesn't care because they have nothing to fear from any terms relating to fraud.
I'm genuinely interested in why you are so adamant that this "fraud" be defined.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Location
- Finland
It can be fraud and should be quite easy to expose in most cases. There are ways to have an huge advantage without bonuses and some of those situations could be best described as collusion. You wouldnt need any false identity or similar just an "collective effort".
Nothappys(?) case with Mainstreet Group would give an hint to one of the possible methods. And Im not accusing Nothappy of anything, innocents will get caught in the mess once in a while.
100% sureness probably cant be achieved why keeping deposits is nothing more than theft (whatever they have it in their T&Cs or not), its not like the accused gets a fair trial. Charging a vig could be ok in some situations.
Plus some of the accusations of collusion, fraud or whatever term the casino uses are not that. But that is actually more often wrong when bonuses are involved.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
It actually does matter if confiscation of deposits is included in the casinos terms of use.
Remember, a player agrees to abide by all of these conditions when creating an account. The operator might say that if your name begins with "T" you can't win more than $50 on Thursdays and all excess winnings will be removed.....yes it is a stupid rule, but the player accepts it when they sign up.
If one feels they may be subject to confiscatation at some point, one should not create an account at such casinos. It's not mandatory to play at a particular casino.
As i said, these things don't matter to 99% of players because they are never in fear of being in such a situation, because they are honest legitimate players.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
This is why numerous appeals processes are available which LEGIT casinos are often more than happy to deal with. Even beyond this, there are legal options, as well as getting local media interested. Casinos have to make sure that the evidence has can stand up to scrutiny if such an appeal is launched by a player.
A good portion of appeals end up going the players' way, even if not the majority.
If a casino decides to misuse fraud as a means to deny genuine players their winnings, they end up suffering the long term consequences. Virtual Group decided long ago that they would use bogus excuses, including bogus accusations of collusion and fraud, to increase their profits by screwing over legitimate players, as well as the fraudsters. They have suffered such damage that every experienced player knows not to go anywhere near them, and anyone who tries to argue that this is a reputable group is given a hard time over it.
Betfair decided to invoke a vague "spirit of the bonus" condition in order to protect themselves from the consequences of their own incompetence. Whilst they saved money in the short term, they trashed their reputation in the process, and now they seem unable to halt a downward spiral that has caused loss of confidence among both players and investors, and every thing they touch now seems to turn to $**t, rather than gold.
Many players accused of fraud tend to back down when asked for substantive proof of their side of the story, whereas an innocent player would have much to gain.
Fraud is not necessarily confined to bonus play, and I expect many fraudsters are now exploring frauds that do NOT involve drawing attention to themselves through the obvious attacking of loopholes in the SUB.
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Location
- Finland
It doesnt matter in any civilized country. T&Cs are never waterproof especially not these kind of terms. Thats not even debatable.
Exaggerated those 99% are in other words losers who never try to play with optimal strategy to maximize return and mostly donk off their money at slots. Play with bonuses and play other games than slots (not even necessary) and you will run into problems sooner or later even if you stick with so called reputable casinos. And dolphins are caught in the tuna net every so often.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Well, we are debating it, so it is debatable.
If you are willing, you can test your "waterproof " theory. Just choose any casino from CM, claim a slots bonus, and play blackjack, then let us know how your arguments hold up when they confiscate your winnings. I'm guessing you wouldn't have a snowflakes chance of being paid. Remember, online casino terms may not be "waterproof" in the UK or wherever, but you won't have the chance to sue them anywhere like that, because you agree to have all litigation done in malta or wherever. If you don't like these kinds of terms, don't play at those casinos. (I'm sure VWM Q.C. will offer h wis own free legal advice here)
I also think you are insulting most of the membership here by calling them "donks" and "losers"...in fact i was very offended. I've been accused of being arrogant in my time, but I've never said anything like that.
Of course, these "losers" have little trouble, because they're not spending their days finding ways to exploit genuine offers designed for loyal players.....the people who do that are the ones responsible for the draconian terms that they spend the rest of their time complaining about.....ironic isn't it?
It's pretty simple really. If you break the rules you pay the price....if you can't abide by the rules don't play.
Personally, I'm sick of all the extra security checks and huge WRs and cashout restrictions, so when some fraudster gets caught, I don't lose a wink of sleep, and neither would most others. The ones that protest continually are often doing it as well and feel the need to defend their cohorts or try to find out how to avoid the same fate. I've got a great strategy for not getting caught - don't cheat.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Let's keep this flame free, Spiderlegz. Many players in this forum play for entertainment. They don't scrutinize each and every word of the T&Cs, play perfect strategy, and only make a deposit if a bonus is involved. Just because they are in a different place than you doesn't mean they are "donks" or "losers".
It's rare that dolphins get caught in the tuna net when it comes to fraud. There have been scores of fraud cases just in the past couple of years that have come through the PAB system - and maybe one or two dolphins. And I'm pretty sure they were cleared. So what is the issue?
I agree, VWM. In Inetbet's case, however, they are not made to go under any scrutiny it seems. That is incredibly frustrating to watch. They actually did lie on this forum and more than once. Nobody makes them answer for this or it is blown off as a minor detail. Well, the player wants to and is adamant about giving proof of any kind necessary but they are rebuffed and told too bad.
Again, if the player can provide any and all proof and docs and didn't use a bonus then keeping the players deposits and winnings is nothing short of theft.
It is not good enough that "some players get caught up wrongfully". They are still wrongfully caught up and should be given the opportunity to provide proof of identity or whatever else is necessary.
What is different about inetbet and Virtual? The answer is that the right person(s) actually gave a crap and looked into it. The same stuff is happening at virtual and there are apologists defending them because it didn't happen to them. Virtual had people look at them and call them what they are. inetbet has apologists.
If it cannot be clearly defined and there is no recourse for players then what are we doing? AliceK, Louse S. These people are being stolen from IN MY OPINION. They have proved their ID and claim they are not linked to other players. They are willing to submit to any test to prove it. inetbet just claims fraud and takes the money. unaccpetable. Can they not be made to at the least explain why they lied on this forum? Can they not be questioned? Even their response to shumantic was ridiculous. Never had to be explained. It was just accepted with no recourse or explanation.
nothappy. That guy was caught up from Australia in a USA supposed fraud ring. What is the issue??? What if you were nothappy and had a big win only to be stolen from? Then it would be a big issue and you would want a way to get your money.
That is paramount to saying "only a small % of people are beaten by police and most of them are criminals". So what is the big deal? None, unless you are one of the innocents that get beaten I guess.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
I think you ought to give it a rest. AliceK and Louse S. are part of a fraud ring. They are all connected, and not only at iNetBet. You keep hammering away - well, I know what you are doing, and I'm not giving the info you are looking for. Just get over it.
Nothappy was connected to the PA group through an affiliate he signed up with. She has a history of sending mostly fraudsters to these casinos - she's even been banned from this forum for being a troll and for multiple accounts. Some affiliate, eh? His play matched those who were multi-accounting. The casino was convinced that his ID docs had been doctored. But Max and I weren't. That's why he's still a member here.
Your agenda laden threads are tiring. Can this be the last one, or do we need to continue? we know you don't like iNetBet. We know you don't like it that we've banned your PA buddies.
Nothappy was connected to the PA group through an affiliate he signed up with. She has a history of sending mostly fraudsters to these casinos - she's even been banned from this forum for being a troll and for multiple accounts. Some affiliate, eh? His play matched those who were multi-accounting. The casino was convinced that his ID docs had been doctored. But Max and I weren't. That's why he's still a member here.
Your agenda laden threads are tiring. Can this be the last one, or do we need to continue? we know you don't like iNetBet. We know you don't like it that we've banned your PA buddies.
ok, I will not talk about inetbet then after this. how do you know louise s. is related to alicek? did louise S put in a pab along with her gambling grumbles complaint?
After that lets move on.
Regarding the Nothappy issue. What is your policy on that? If the casino says the docs were doctored and you don't believe that to be the case than can't Nothappy just get them notarized and sent? Wouldn't that end the whole issue? Also, what is your policy regarding not making a casino like that rogue? They basically blew you off it sounds like and Nothappy is still a member of the board then if he is a real player I am sure he would send more and further docs, correct? If the casino won't abide by that mediation then how are they not in the pit? I am Just asking, not demanding or trying to put you on the spot.
What was this affiliates username here at casinomeister please?
Also, not to be a pain but your post to me was a bit insinuating, baiting and insulting. You are now linking me to a fraud group? Really? And trying to discredit me openly on the forum? Please lets be better than that to each other moving forward as I am genuinely interested in this topic and have agreed to stop on inetbet since they are never going to have to answer anyways.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
She doesn't need to PAB. I'm sure she knows what I know. For her to PAB would be futile.
We just decided to agree on disagreeing. They were 120% convinced that he was a fraudster (their words) Max and I weren't. They "abided" by the mediation, and just because we didn't agree on something doesn't mean that they're rogue. This is Casinomeister not Blackmailmeister. Mind you, that issue went on for months.
That's a poker hand I'll keep close to my chest, thank you.
I'm not linking you to a fraud group. I just know you probably know these people. No big deal. Just behave in the forum, that's all.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Location
- Bexhill on sea, England
I myself used to think along the same lines until someone pointed it out to me about 2 years ago. No-one here is going to spell it out specifically (I hope) but there ARE ways for groups to de-fraud casinos even though each individual in that group appears as a totally independent & fully verified player. Bryan has already alluded to the method - let's just leave it at that.
I agree 100%!
If a casino said, for example, that the maximum withdrawal is $500 per week - players can decide up front if they want to play under those conditions, or chose a different casino. You are right; having a condition like that does not make a casino "rogue" - ultimately it is the player's right to chose.
KK
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Location
- Wollongong
This is great! So then if I send you verified, notarized documents then that will prove that they stole from me correct? Then would you do anything to get me paid my rightful money? I am very willing to do it and it would be proof that the casino is not always right. In fact, they could not be more wrong and here is a very logical way to PROVE it and not just guess about it.
Can we please do this?
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Sorry, you must have not read my post carefully enough. You were/are still connected to the fraud ring via collusion. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when it came to your ID docs; the rest is pretty suspicious. So sorry, I'll pass on this one.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Location
- Wollongong
Ahhhh.. I see. Here we go again then.
I am part of a fraud ring from the states because I used the same affiliate links? OH COME ON!!! That is absurd!
They say my docs are fake, you can see they are not and I am willing to prove it. But that is not the deal. Somehow I colluded with players on the other side of the planet playing blackjack single player at an online casino. HORSE POO. If anyone is reading this capable of thinking for themselves they will know it is horse poo. You said that mainstreet only had circumstantial evidence. I have real proof. But circumstantial evidence from a casino is good enough for you to agree that I should be robbed of over 6k and the casino should be able to keep it. Because they have circumstantial evidence (max words). Great.
I'm tired of watching casinos get a free pass here while players are left out to dry. Before you ban me also then just think about it for a moment.
I hope you are never in a position where you are guilty with no chance to prove innocence and no need to prove guilt against you. I really hope you don't have a mediator allowing it.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
It has already been determined that you suffered an injustice, so Bryan doesn't need any more convincing. Unfortunately, he has no power to make them pay up, so doing this would be futile.
Players have to decide for themselves whether they are willing to play at a casino where it is acceptable for innocent players to suffer an injustice purely in the interests of the casino maintaining a rigid approach of being unable to accept that they could possibly have made such a major mistake in examining their evidence. A better casino would at least pay up as a "goodwill gesture" in such a case, even though it would not be prepared to accept that it's own determination was wrong.
I am not at all happy that signing up through a particular affiliate who just happens to be sending lots of "bad traffic" to the casino justifies the assumption that EVERY player that has come their way is connected to each other, and to the fraud ring behind it all.
I would also expect this affiliate to no longer be in any position to have further "history" of sending ANY traffic to the casino, and to be on a blacklist for fraud against affiliate programs as the players would be blacklisted for being part of the player side of this fraud effort.
If players want to steer clear of inadvertent involvement just because they went through a rogue affiliate, they should go direct. They will then be judged on their own merits, and any connections would have to be determined from other criteria.
The argument over documents is inevitable given how casinos receive them, a scanned JPEG file, rather than sight of the document itself. Given how hard it can be to detect a fake document that you have in front of you, it is easy to see how much harder it is to detect a faked JPEG, or worse, a good JPEG of an expertly forged document.
As for:-
Although you don't see how, there clearly HAS to be one, else fraudsters would not go to the effort of doing it.
As for an innocent player, WHY would they fake their details, knowing that this can ONLY lead to trouble, yet could not possibly give them an advantage.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Mainstreet had convincing evidence that caused several members to lose their membership. You were included in that bunch, and there are enough coincidences to throw you into that pile as well. It goes way beyond merely being referred by an unscrupulous affiliate, there are a number of indicators that prompted the casino to shut down your account and remove your winnings. Get over it.
I'm not going to deal with it anymore because I chose not to. I've spent an incredible amount of time dealing with your issue and there is really no doubt in my mind that you colluded with the PA players. You broke the casinos terms - and that's it.
And by the way, I misspoke when I said they were 120% sure you were a fraudster - rereading the PAB file, they actually said 220%.
Similar threads
- Sticky
