Main Street Group in the Reservation (was BBF)

[bsilva028]

but what i think its bad practice is "BIG LETTERS" with 20X
but in the small letters (T&C) 100x

 

[vinylweatherman]

but what i think its bad practice is "BIG LETTERS" with 20X
but in the small letters (T&C) 100x

This is a case where they should not be quoting a WR at all, let alone in big letters, and leaving the definition to the terms. They could of course send different emails to different players quoting the true WR.

The use of big letters to make a false claim is considered more misleading that simply sticking with the regular size print of the rest of the advertisement. If a claim is made clearly in big letters like this, the terms should not contain anything that makes that claim false. Try that in the UK and the ASA would find against the company. Pity they are pretty toothless, and all they can really do is ban the mailer in it's current form, a loophole that allowed Betfair off the hook over their notorious "Happy Hour" promo. Trading Standards have more clout, but little jurisdiction to act in the case of the internet.

We will have to wait till 2015 to see how the UK handles casinos from outside the EU that market to UK players via the internet. At best, they can create a blacklist that UK players can consult to see whether a casino they see an internet advertisement for is properly licensed to operate within the UK. Other countries seem to be telling ISPs to block certain domains that offer gambling services without the relevant license. This at least makes it hard to attract the casual players who will give up as soon as they find the domain has been blocked.

 

[Nifty29]

FWIW I submitted an issue to these guys almost a month ago. No response. Admittedly it was a rather general complaint -- player was hoping for better treatment from CS -- but still, a reply of some kind would have been in order. Issue details have been resent. <insert waiting lounge music here>

How did you go Max?

Is it worth filing a PAB to have them take another look at Wagering terms for non-US players?

Whilst I am not bothered too much with bonuses, I do like to be treated fairly in all regards and 100xWR on selected slots only is awful.

I will not play based on this alone.

 

[maxd]

A PM came in yesterday, basically said "looking into it".

 

[bsilva028]

any updates about if they passed or not?

 

[Mousey]

Nevermind... found the answer....

 

[The Dude]

They are still listed in the reservations section at the moment. They have a new rep on board who I will be conferring with in the next couple of days who I know pretty well. If there are any issues at all, I'm confident he can nip them in the bud - but we need to talk first.

What I'm seeing here is that there is an issue with an overly high wagering requirement for European players. And there have been times that support has been slow. Anything else specific would be great to know.

 

[vinylweatherman]

They are still listed in the reservations section at the moment. They have a new rep on board who I will be conferring with in the next couple of days who I know pretty well. If there are any issues at all, I'm confident he can nip them in the bud - but we need to talk first.

What I'm seeing here is that there is an issue with an overly high wagering requirement for European players. And there have been times that support has been slow. Anything else specific would be great to know.

The problem with this is that they don't get told this when being sent offers, and they get the standard US player terms if anything is written about wagering in said email. Non US players would consider this misleading advertising as the terms given apply to only ONE country, so can hardly be considered the "standard terms" given how much bigger the "rest of world" is than "the US".

If they pass on this basis, a note about the high WR for "everybody else" should be added to their listing, as it is very uncompetitive compared to what non-US players can get at other RTG casinos.

They could be a good offering, but strictly for US players, a terrible deal for the rest of us, one to be avoided.

 

[KasinoKing]

The problem with this is that they don't get told this when being sent offers, and they get the standard US player terms if anything is written about wagering in said email. Non US players would consider this misleading advertising as the terms given apply to only ONE country, so can hardly be considered the "standard terms" given how much bigger the "rest of world" is than "the US".

If they pass on this basis, a note about the high WR for "everybody else" should be added to their listing, as it is very uncompetitive compared to what non-US players can get at other RTG casinos.

They could be a good offering, but strictly for US players, a terrible deal for the rest of us, one to be avoided.

Just a minor correction; Canada is a separate country to America!
KK

 

[gloria460]

but what i think its bad practice is "BIG LETTERS" with 20X
but in the small letters (T&C) 100x

Where did you see 20x for USA players? The lowest I've seen is 30 and if you use mst gift card it's 40x. There bonuses are cashable and no max on winnings. I've learned not to use the bonuses that much as I blew threw 1300 in winnings to meet wr on a bonus. To me 30x or 100 makes no difference because most of the time you're going to bust out.

I don't know what it is about Greece that's causing the 100x wr and the size of the letters is not different in their bonus terms. They're not a bad group but do need to adjust their terms.

 

[Akrasia]

Not sure if this is the place to put this but after I went to the link from this thread to slotsplus my antivirus (avast) went berserk. Just thought I'd let you know.

 

[bsilva028]

Where did you see 20x for USA players? The lowest I've seen is 30 and if you use mst gift card it's 40x. There bonuses are cashable and no max on winnings. I've learned not to use the bonuses that much as I blew threw 1300 in winnings to meet wr on a bonus. To me 30x or 100 makes no difference because most of the time you're going to bust out.

I don't know what it is about Greece that's causing the 100x wr and the size of the letters is not different in their bonus terms. They're not a bad group but do need to adjust their terms.

when i saw? in the spams that i received from them before i made the PAB to try make put my money there, and in that time i put
because like in the e-mail was the "LOW WR" in BIG LETTERS, i belived cause they was acredited

when tried to cash out, did not get paid, 1st it was rejected due to have more WR after all, didnt like it, however, i was able to complete the 1st 100 times of WR, tried to cashout again, they called me, they say it was aproved, in live chat they said no because it was another 100x WR (200X in total)
made a PAB, but like in that time i was stupid i did not save the conversation of the phone, so live chat won


bryan it would be excellent if you looked to the pab i´ve made again, and try to speak with that new rep about that

 

[KasinoKing]

bryan it would be excellent if you looked to the pab i´ve made again, and try to speak with that new rep about that

Bryan does not read ALL the posts made on the forum!
If you want him to look at something you need to send him a PM or "report" your own post.

KK

 

[pmutts]

For me, Chat Support has been excellent.

For whatever it's worth, I have chatted with several people in this group and feel like their service in comparison to many is definitely above average. They are friendly, helpful, and are able to communicate in writing clearly and concisely.

I have made perhaps six deposits in total at their sites over the past two or three years and I have never won nor do recall even having any nice hits. But this only mean that I cannot comment on how good the service is AFTER they get your money and it is my turn to get THEIRS.

I did make an my very first deposit at Old Havana about a week ago. No luck--but I'm the first to admit I am generally an aggressive bettor and it usually goes one way or the other pretty fast.

I'm considering that second deposit at Old Havana after completing this post. Hopefully I'll catch that win so I can report on how my WITHDRAWAL experience goes.

 

[bsilva028]

For whatever it's worth, I have chatted with several people in this group and feel like their service in comparison to many is definitely above average. They are friendly, helpful, and are able to communicate in writing clearly and concisely.

I have made perhaps six deposits in total at their sites over the past two or three years and I have never won nor do recall even having any nice hits. But this only mean that I cannot comment on how good the service is AFTER they get your money and it is my turn to get THEIRS.

I did make an my very first deposit at Old Havana about a week ago. No luck--but I'm the first to admit I am generally an aggressive bettor and it usually goes one way or the other pretty fast.

I'm considering that second deposit at Old Havana after completing this post. Hopefully I'll catch that win so I can report on how my WITHDRAWAL experience goes.

before i won the live chat was excelent too, after that, begun the big problems of their lying

 

[MisterBJ]

Their support needs improvement. MS is one of the few RTG that I deposit at

 

[j99352]

Non-random Blackjack

Two of these casinos, Slots Plus and Old Havana, came up as "non-random" for blackjack in my testing. In fact, they were so far off from the casinos that did test out for randomness that I shortened their testing sessions. Rather than just analyzing individual and conglomerate playing hand results, I test based on statistical games (the number of hands played per game varies widely), which "end" by either reaching a profit target or by losing a specified maximum bet. I then compare the average dollars won per "game" vs. the average dollars lost, which tells me what percentage of games I have to win to profit. In casinos that test out for randomness, these values are exceptionally close, even when using different software. In casinos that have been adjusted to play in the casino's favor, the results are glaringly obvious. I wouldn't recommend playing at this group's casinos.

 

[dionysus]

er...random actually means, you're NOT going to get consistent results - you may hit loads, lose whacks...that's kind of the point

 

[bpb]

Two of these casinos, Slots Plus and Old Havana, came up as "non-random" for blackjack in my testing. In fact, they were so far off from the casinos that did test out for randomness that I shortened their testing sessions. Rather than just analyzing individual and conglomerate playing hand results, I test based on statistical games (the number of hands played per game varies widely), which "end" by either reaching a profit target or by losing a specified maximum bet. I then compare the average dollars won per "game" vs. the average dollars lost, which tells me what percentage of games I have to win to profit. In casinos that test out for randomness, these values are exceptionally close, even when using different software. In casinos that have been adjusted to play in the casino's favor, the results are glaringly obvious. I wouldn't recommend playing at this group's casinos.

In your rambling you've offered zero evidence that they are dealing anything other than a fair game. The burden of proof is on you. I think you should back up your libelous claims, or else retract them.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Two of these casinos, Slots Plus and Old Havana, came up as "non-random" for blackjack in my testing. In fact, they were so far off from the casinos that did test out for randomness that I shortened their testing sessions. Rather than just analyzing individual and conglomerate playing hand results, I test based on statistical games (the number of hands played per game varies widely), which "end" by either reaching a profit target or by losing a specified maximum bet. I then compare the average dollars won per "game" vs. the average dollars lost, which tells me what percentage of games I have to win to profit. In casinos that test out for randomness, these values are exceptionally close, even when using different software. In casinos that have been adjusted to play in the casino's favor, the results are glaringly obvious. I wouldn't recommend playing at this group's casinos.

As described, this is not scientifically valid.

You cannot stop collecting data and use the early results to decide that a longer set of results would prove a specific theorem statistically.

Random blackjack can produce a HUGE swing early on, yet longer term still end up being shown to be random on a statistical test.

One has to take a pretty large sample in Blackjack to prove that a game is cheating (in other words, is not random).

If anything, you should concentrate your efforts towards beating the games you believe are not random, as these games are the "cheaters", and if the cheat mechanism is non adaptive, a system should be able to beat them.

Surely, if RTG had a cheating Blackjack game, it would have been statistically busted long ago.

What we DO know about RTG is that the games can be reset to different RTPs by an operator, and with Blackjack, this is done by increasing the number of decks used, up to 255 I believe. The number of decks is not specified in the rules, but does affect both the RTP and behaviour of the game. The effect is greatest when fewest decks are used. 255 decks is effectively an "infinite shoe", and no card counting system could ever beat an "infinite shoe" setup.

Far better would be to look at single deck or two deck games with RTPs very close to 100%, such as Microgaming's Classic Blackjack. Here, a very small element of non randomness could yield a strategy that might beat the house, and card counting as the hand plays out may also gain a small extra edge.

If the casino also awards comps on such a game, this too could be treated as an additional contribution to RTP, maybe enough for a +EV system.

It was possible to get a +EV advantage for Classic Blackjack at the old Jackpot Factory VIP casino (it isn't now, you have missed the boat). The comps were a return of 0.2%, which was greater than the house edge for Classic Blackjack, and JF forgot to use a weighted earning system, instead using the 1 point per £10 wagered original MGS variant, which for VIPs in VIP Lounge was doubled, thus producing 0.2% return from comps, and more than 99.8% return from the Classic Blackjack game. This was very slightly +EV, but they also did wager challenges where the more you wagered, the more points you scored.

The bad news, it isn't worth it unless you use a bot, which is against the terms and conditions, and if caught, your RTP drops to 0%, although you will find your deposit thrown out after you as you are booted out of the door.

It also wouldn't work with a bonus, as the play would be more thoroughly audited, and they would spot the bot straight away (there is no Autoplay on Classic Blackjack, so claiming "it wasn't a bot, just autoplay" would not work.

 

[SlotsLover]

just what is your authority?

Who are you to be an authority on random testing? Are you a statistics professor? A PhD in probability?

As said above, this is quite libelous, so you need your facts straight and statistical tests backed up before making such a strong accusation of this group and the Main Street casinos.

Two of these casinos, Slots Plus and Old Havana, came up as "non-random" for blackjack in my testing. In fact, they were so far off from the casinos that did test out for randomness that I shortened their testing sessions. Rather than just analyzing individual and conglomerate playing hand results, I test based on statistical games (the number of hands played per game varies widely), which "end" by either reaching a profit target or by losing a specified maximum bet. I then compare the average dollars won per "game" vs. the average dollars lost, which tells me what percentage of games I have to win to profit. In casinos that test out for randomness, these values are exceptionally close, even when using different software. In casinos that have been adjusted to play in the casino's favor, the results are glaringly obvious. I wouldn't recommend playing at this group's casinos.

 

[mrmark21]

Good to see they are still in the reservation section. Rightly so considering the discriminatory stance they have taken against players outside the US and Canada. Then there are such issues as not including the correct WR requirements on emails they send to players from outside country's. I'd like to think that they would be made to stop this practice before they can pass Baptism by Fire.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Good to see they are still in the reservation section. Rightly so considering the discriminatory stance they have taken against players outside the US and Canada. Then there are such issues as not including the correct WR requirements on emails they send to players from outside country's. I'd like to think that they would be made to stop this practice before they can pass Baptism by Fire.

They should do, because this comes under advertising legislation. Where they send these emails to existing players, they have no excuse for not using non-US specific advertising so that customers are not mislead.

I very much doubt it will be a problem for UK players in a year or so as the new UK licensing rules kick in, and then even offering the CORRECT information to UK players would be an offence without the appropriate license, although there is little the UK authorities could do about it other than to operate a blacklist site informing players of casinos that are deemed to be illegally accepting UK bets.

Given that the UK government are after the 15% tax, they are bound to blacklist casinos without proper licenses no matter how reputable they may be.

 

[bsilva028]

Good to see they are still in the reservation section. Rightly so considering the discriminatory stance they have taken against players outside the US and Canada. Then there are such issues as not including the correct WR requirements on emails they send to players from outside country's. I'd like to think that they would be made to stop this practice before they can pass Baptism by Fire.

and they, applly the "Non US Rules" without let the player know
it happened with me
and then they increase the WR automaticly on live chat
it happened with me

 

[mrmark21]

and they, applly the "Non US Rules" without let the player know
it happened with me
and then they increase the WR automaticly on live chat
it happened with me

thats just wrong there's no excuse for that sort of unethical business practice. i'd be really concerned should casinomeister pass this group when there are obvious issues.