Reef Club/Just My Thoughts on the Situation


Dormant account
I guess I'll start this Category off HUH? LOL
Good Afternoon and Success with the new board!

This Reef Club problem seems a lot like some others complaints we've seen and may be blown somewhat out of proportion, IMO.

Not to start a SciFi issue, god knows we've all had enough of that to last a lifetime, however, the crux of these player complaints are essentially the same and I believe this the reason for they are taking such a strong stand on this. More a matter of principle than the dollars and cents involved.

The issue from what I see most of them saying, centers around the arbitrary changing of the rules after a sign up and deposit, not simply just paying off the players that filed a greivance.

My take on it is slightly different.
The question that has not been answered to my understanding and some others too, is the actual relationship between Con and Reef, Cassava and Random Logic. Are they for all practical purposes one in the same?

If so, the managers DID do a little side stepping on this issue when the problem came up. Frankly, this part bothers me a lot worse than any of the other stuff!
The managers did make it very clear that one had nothing to do with the other. Where one says he would never pull that clause out and use it, the other seems to be proud that he did.

I assume these fellows have a boss! LOL And the Boss certainly would not want the two clubs operating under the same terms differently! Once again, "Under the same terms differently" Sure, they can have different promos and shxt like that, but not differences in the fundamental interpretations of the rules that the owners have chosen to use for CON all these years. This area should be identically implemented by both casinos.

I have to believe that this is where the real problem that matters truly is. So what's the solution?

Settle up with two or three complaints, apologize, {sincerely would be nice}, and get it on the table Honestly and openly that these two casinos are full blood brothers! No big deal to fix this, IMO.

Now, How's that for an opener boys and girls! I know, won't be able log back in right! LOL


Dormant account
I agree.

Well, there's the OPA issue and then there's the "how bad is it?" issue.

OPA has some rules for the casinos, and "changing a promotion and holding players to a new standard" breaks one of them. So, if that really is the policy at Reef Club or CON, we'll have to deal with that.

The other is what you pointed out, CPA, the question of just who runs what? Again, the OPA has membership standards there, and again, Reef Club may or may not have met them.

After getting the Reef/CON Definitive Answers to these two questions will help in resolving the third issue--"how bad is it."

Here's a thought--what do you consider a reasonable time frame for getting such and answer?


Dormant account
Whenever there is a problem hanging out there, I think we all want to see it resolved, YESTERDAY! LOL

Needless to say, it can take a few days sometimes just to get to the right person for a myriad of reasons. Day off, time difference and legit just not available reasons too. So, once you've found that person and tuned him or her into what the problem is, you can't just say, you've got till High Noon Ombre or we're shootin the place up!

It's only fair to give that person a couple of days to talk to his people and in some cases, maybe even make a new policy to correct the problem at hand and to make sure it doesn't occur again. So right off the bat, your 4 or 5 days down the road. Put a weekend in there and or a holiday and you've got a week.

I think that should be more than enough time to handle most situations. most should be sooner and I imagine a few might take longer. But, Lucky 7 is a good number IMO.


RIP Brian
I would agree with that. No stampede, but clear answers to the justifiable question marks that now hang over this casino member.

For me the important question is whether an OPA casino member is indulging in the manifestly unfair practise of amending T&Cs and then retroactively applying them. The OPA needs to get to the bottom of that, and if necessary take action if the member will not see the error of its ways or the dishonesty of retroactive application.

I am also troubled by the "we can do whatever we want" sort of clause being used by a casino when no other acceptable reason for a disqualification of an amount due is present. I would not wish to see an OPA member casino pulling that sort of stunt either.

It goes without saying I think that any player prejudiced by such bad practise should receive redress.

The Greef / CON ownership issue has me totally puzzled and definitely needs conclusive confirmation because Greef's membership rests on it. I cannot understand why there are these conflicting statements from managers in the same group and the sooner the senior man makes a definitive statement on it the better.


While they didn't actually revoke bonuses from but a few players retroactively, the biggest uproar was probably due to their representative posting at WO in a very arrogant fashion basically saying they could do whatever they want because they have in their terms a line that states they can pretty much do anything they want. So basically that one snetence makes the rest of their terms meaningless.

Wahoo, First post includes a tremendously long run on sentence!


Dormant account

The casino has responded to our final questions which need addressing and now the advisors will decide whats best when everything is mapped out in front of them ie players version of events and casinos version of events.

For reference we received 2 disputes one was settled promptly the second is being addressed.


Dormant account
These clowns at Greef Club need to be booted off the OPA approved list once and for all. They need to pay ALL thier players, NOT JUST OPA members. What about the 33 players who got screwed out of thier bonus?

Can the OPA just look the other way?

The OPA needs to hold casinos to higher standard.
I am sick and tired of casino retroactively changing thier terms and conditions. If the OPA allows them to get away with this, than the OPA starts to lose credibility.

WHO makes the decision to remove a casino from this list? Is it just Mike Craig? Is it a player advisory board? If its the latter, who makes up this player advisory board and how can I join?

Also, I personally don't think Casino-On-Net should be OPA approved. I have evidence to suggest that just 2 years ago, Random-Logic or CON introduced FAKE PLAYERS (SHILLS) into its multiplayer games. Either these were casino employees or robot players. Shame, shame.
Also, I once lost 21+ CONSECUTIVELY on thier rigged bj. Well I now believe the bj there is reputable, but just because they are honest now, does not mean they were 2 years ago. I have stats that are show my results off by 4.6 SD's.

This industry is far more corrupt than even the OPA would like to admit.


Hell, CON even uses Spyware in their software, that alone should remove them from the recommended list.

About a year ago a player started losing quite a bit of money at CON. He decided to call it quits, when he informed CON of this they gave him a $300 bonus to reconsider his decision!


Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Hi all,

Just to throw in a couple of comments here. Mike Craig does not decide who is OPA approved/not approved; it's the advisory board that makes a vote and a final decision is made on that. Currently there are seven members of the advisory board. Dave, if you seriously want to be considered, just let me know. As it stands right now, the Reef Club is NOT OPA approved.

Spyware? Where? It's been a while since I downloaded anything from CON. I'd like to know what it is.



According to the site it is approved

I'm not sure about the software in the past or the spyware, I don't have enough info on that - but I do have a view on the current situation.

The OPA can't rule on a casino via hearsay and rumour, they must work with facts -and in this case that means complaints.

If the casino handles all complaints in a good manner then how can the OPA rule against them?

These 33 players need to file a complaint. I understand that all wronged players should be paid, but unless a complaint is placed how are the OPA supposed to get the facts.


"Spyware? Where? It's been a while since I downloaded anything from CON. I'd like to know what it is."

Ask Mike, I emailed it to him months ago. Or ask Spearmaster or, I've given them the details as well ( helped me figure out what exactly was going on)


I gather atleast one of the players decided to address his situation via the messageboard route rather than use the OPA to mediate.The "apparent" manager of Reef Club responded of his own free will with a few words of his own.Also the man from C.O.N appeared also.

Later the OPA approved Reef Club which was incidental to the messageboard post.

I think the question is not one of only the complaints but the nature/content of the "apparent" Reef Club Managers comments posted at WOL.

The advisory will i'm sure take the messageboard quotes into consideration along with the Casino's handling of the 2 complaints received.

Do the OPA have a policy regarding public posts made by the "apparent" manager of and how much weight they carry?


Dormant account
*Casino communicated that "thirty or so" affected players were all paid. If this is not so, OPA would much appreciate getting filed complaints from any players still owed.

*"Erik the Shark" is not a manager, but is staff. Yes, OPA certainly took his statements into account and asked casino about them.

*Reef Club got voted off the "Approved" list.

*Currently in dialog with CON about their T&C.

*OPA doesn't support the retroactive changing of terms of wagering. Crooked casinos can use it in a variety of ways to enhance their edge, such as retroactively denying deposits from certain countries or age groups!

I would very much like to know more about the "Spyware", please feel free to email me through this forum. OPA doesn't have a policy about "spyware", we'll have to discuss it. Some players aren't going to care.

I have no trouble believing that it exists and is used--these are computers, people!

Trivia note: Shufflemaster has acquired a maker of "spyware" and will be selling it in a package with their shufflers to land casinos. It helps the Eye to evaluate a blackjack player's play.


Mary, it is not spyware in the essence you're suggesting. Rather, it's their downloadable software that sends information to CON without the users knowledge or consent, and that is before one has signed up to become a member. I felt this was a breach of their Terms and Conditions.

The other sort of spyware youre referring to I would have no problem with as I would have to be a voluntary member of their Casino.


Dormant account
That is eeeeevil. Microsoft got into big trouble for that, and rightly so.

Yes, please send me information on that. I have some techies on my end that can look for that too and I'll get them on it.

Might be able to come up with a screening software or find a firewall software that picks it up. Do you use ZoneAlarm?


I ran a sniffer to determine exactly what was going on. Basically, if you download the CON software from an address in Denmark during the installation the software contacts an SMTP server as Cassava and sends two emails. The emails do not contain a lot of information, your IP address and some stats (checksums of files would be my guess). I still have the saved sniffer files around somewhere.


Dormant account
Hmmm...I could see an argument from their end that it's a way to check the integrity of their software for when you do get around to registering and playing. Depends which files they are looking at.

Or to double-check who's downloading by seeing if your computer's ip matches the ip given to the site in Denmark.

Any other arguments for the Devil's Advocate?


RIP Brian
In view of the white-hot player emotions on this Greef issue would it not be a good idea to post the results thus far as outlined above on the appropriate WOL thread?