[Resolved] Casino Club - robot or no bot?

[tofu23]

Tofu23 made a good point about "Responsible gambling". Almost all casinos encourage players to gamble responsibly, and bots are the prime example of responsible gambling. So isn't banning bots in fact saying: We don't actually want you to gamble responsibly, so that we get more.

Unless the legitimacy of the subject 'bot ban' T+Cs is put thru the wringer we will all be back here again next week with yet another expose on betting patterns - something akin to looking at tea leaves.

There seems to be an idea floating around that a Casino can simply add ANY kind of T+C irrespective of the regulations under which it operates. Granted, Casino Club operate under Malta LGA so are effectively unregulated. But in other cases, the very appearance of a 'bot banning' clause offends the Responsible Gambling code to which the online Casino must comply.

As Max remarked above - Casinos are looking to promote a greater level of player mistakes thru a 'bot ban'. This is a direct contravention of the Responsible Gambling code.

CM is enlisting the services of third parties to examine the play logs so that a qualified determination can be made with respect to alleged 'bot play'. Such an enforced situation is plainly ridiculous. Why engage third parties to read teal leaves - instead why not prohibit 'bot banning T+C'. That's the fairest solution, otherwise..........................see you all next week for another repeat of reading tea leaves.

 

[heffernan]

hello,

i play in cc since june/ july 2006. until today i paid in there several thousand euros. and never paid out anything.

the 11.11.08-11.12.08: one day before i start my not planned holiday.

days before i deposit 250 and also lost. like all times.

but look:

PaySafe 11.11.2008 16:35 Finished 70.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 11.07.2008 21:12 Finished 250.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 10/17/2008 20:28:35 Finished 20.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 10.10.2008 21:51 Finished 100.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 10.10.2008 21:51 Bank Declined 100.00 EUR
PaySafe 10.10.2008 19:41 Finished 100.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 09/19/2008 20:14:51 Finished 20.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 09.12.2008 19:37 Finished 50.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 09.12.2008 16:29 Finished 100.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 08/28/2008 20:59:23 Finished 60.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 08/28/2008 20:22:23 Finished 60.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 08/16/2008 00:22:46 Finished 20.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 08/15/2008 22:01:58 Finished 20.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 08.08.2008 22:52 Finished 50.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 08.08.2008 21:08 Finished 50.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 07/18/2008 20:35:35 Finished 20.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 07.11.2008 22:32 Finished 50.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 07.11.2008 19:29 Finished 40.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 07.09.2008 21:49 Finished 50.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 07.09.2008 20:22 Finished 50.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 07.09.2008 19:54 Finished 60.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 06/30/2008 17:39:17 Finished 20.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 06/30/2008 16:33:40 Finished 20.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 06/20/2008 21:23:29 Finished 20.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 06/16/2008 20:12:55 Finished 50.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 06/16/2008 17:59:02 Finished 60.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 05/26/2008 15:42:57 Finished 25.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 05.09.2008 21:06 Finished 60.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 05.09.2008 19:22 Finished 150.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 04.10.2008 20:00 Finished 20.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 04.10.2008 19:09 Finished 20.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 04.10.2008 17:36 Finished 50.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 04.10.2008 16:25 Finished 120.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 03.07.2008 20:52 Finished 100.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 03.07.2008 20:04 Finished 100.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 03.07.2008 18:25 Finished 100.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 03.07.2008 16:49 Finished 100.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 02/25/2008 17:03:14 Finished 50.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 02/15/2008 21:53:18 Finished 20.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 02.11.2008 20:33 Finished 50.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 02.11.2008 19:14 Finished 120.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 01.11.2008 15:37 Finished 120.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 01.11.2008 11:38 Finished 125.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation
PaySafe 07.09.2007 18:17 Finished 50.00 EUR Processed by Reconciliation

 

[vinylweatherman]

Unless the legitimacy of the subject 'bot ban' T+Cs is put thru the wringer we will all be back here again next week with yet another expose on betting patterns - something akin to looking at tea leaves.

There seems to be an idea floating around that a Casino can simply add ANY kind of T+C irrespective of the regulations under which it operates. Granted, Casino Club operate under Malta LGA so are effectively unregulated. But in other cases, the very appearance of a 'bot banning' clause offends the Responsible Gambling code to which the online Casino must comply.

As Max remarked above - Casinos are looking to promote a greater level of player mistakes thru a 'bot ban'. This is a direct contravention of the Responsible Gambling code.
CM is enlisting the services of third parties to examine the play logs so that a qualified determination can be made with respect to alleged 'bot play'. Such an enforced situation is plainly ridiculous. Why engage third parties to read teal leaves - instead why not prohibit 'bot banning T+C'. That's the fairest solution, otherwise..........................see you all next week for another repeat of reading tea leaves.

I have to disagree, because this very thing has come up before, and fast play through a botlike interface has been ruled as NOT "responsible gambling", since the player can lose far more this way without being aware of it.
As a result, it was considered "responsible gambling" to restrict any autoplay interface to 3 seconds between plays, and to allow players to set limits. MGS have partially deviated from this by REMOVING the ability to set a stop loss in credits in their autoplay. This used to be available in the older slots, but all the options have been stripped away for newer releases beyond Thunderstruck. MGS Autoplay is, in effect, a bot.

 

[PattyD]

Hello,

I just wanted to say that I don't think its fair to ever take peoples winnings for playing too fast or without breaks. I'm sure casinomeister has further evidence but going just on hand histories alone is completely unfair. I like to play quickly does this mean I have to stop every once in a while in case I'm mistaken for a bot? Why can't the bot user stop the bot every 30 minutes? Hand histories don't prove anything.

Sure if someone uses a bot then take there winnings and even their deposit. I don't care. My point is more evidence is needed.
I know poker sites scan hard drives and do other things to detect bots. Maybe Boss should do this if bots are a problem.

 

[tofu23]

I have to disagree, because this very thing has come up before, and fast play through a botlike interface has been ruled as NOT "responsible gambling", since the player can lose far more this way without being aware of it.

I don't understand your argument vwm. If a player chooses to use his own bot, set at a speed of his choosing, what has that got to do with the casino?

The casino chooses what speed its gaming interface operates at. If speed was a 'responsible gaming' issue things would have been slowed down to a walk a long time ago.

Restricting 'bot play' begs the question why? And the 'why' has been previously addressed - to ensure player strategy mistakes go unfettered. The 'why' has nothing to do with protecting the integrity of the game - but everything to do with increasing the Casinos bottom line profits at a unwitting players expense. That offends the 'responsible gaming' code.

This problem isn't going away until such time the Casinos are obliged to comply with their obligations for fair play. Betting patterns are going to be examined with a forensic fervor all day long. It's all quite laughable.

The solution is simple. Play fair.

 

[cyprean]

FWIW this case just looks like the player got lucky and had a hot streak. Casino-Club doesn't seem to like big cash outs, they get reviewed and suddenly they found an excuse not to pay.

I maybe totally wrong but this is what this case looks like to me. I would not feel too confident about getting my money if I won anything big at Casino-Club after this incident. I hope they review the logs, realize their HUGE mistake and pay the player.

It just makes me sad that these kind of things happen. And the first time when this player tried to seek justice he got booted from forum. How many screwed players must be there that have had their winnings parted from them and give up in frustration?

 

[The Dude]

Update

Here is an update:

I've just gotten off the phone with Casino Club, and after further reviews on this case and close cooperation between me, Max, Casino Club and other third parties, Casino Club has decided to pay out in full the winnings of the player, and the funds should be in his account by the next business day - I would guess Monday.

Casino Club is still convinced that the gaming session under scrutiny involved usage of a bot, but they agreed that in this specific case, that I would have the final word.

The bottom line is do not use bots - especially with Casino Club - or any site that prohibits the usage of bots in their terms and conditions. It is definitely not worth the hassle.

 

[Upset]

Good Job Casinomeister LAND. GOOD JOB!!!

 

[The Dude]

CM is enlisting the services of third parties to examine the play logs so that a qualified determination can be made with respect to alleged 'bot play'. Such an enforced situation is plainly ridiculous. Why engage third parties to read teal leaves - instead why not prohibit 'bot banning T+C'.

I don't dictate what the casinos state in their terms and conditions. That's something their lawyers are paid for. I am only concerned whether the terms and conditions are fair, and that the player and casino abides by them. I can always give advice, but it is up to the casino to decide whether or not my advice makes sense.

...It just makes me sad that these kind of things happen. And the first time when this player tried to seek justice he got booted from forum. How many screwed players must be there that have had their winnings parted from them and give up in frustration?

Anyone getting booted from the forum for fraudulent activity/bogus PABs has my email address and can always get back to me. There has only been about four or five cases like this in the last ten years where the player has asked me to check into it further and it turned out either I or the casino was wrong. 99% we're spot on - so it's not like there is a legion of jilted players out there.

 

[Simmo!]

Quite a case.

IMO the best that a Bot can achieve when a bonus isn't in play is optimum strategy. That still leaves a house edge, so a casino refusing to payout - even if Bot play is proved - is both wrong and unethical.

If Bot play is a worry when a bonus is in play, then casinos should change their T&C's to a) either remove BJ from the WR altogether or b) follow the Wagerworks model of awarding the bonus after WR is complete. It's not relevant in this case but the bottom line is, if you want to use the old "free money" to entice a player in, you have to expect to attract "advantage" players.

No sympathy either way for the casino from me.


---

As an aside, knowing what goes on behind the scenes, if it had been me I'd have banned the posters who attacked the integrity of CM and Max because they disagreed with their opinions without knowing all the facts. That sort of short-sighted narrow-mindedness really pisses me off. Be constructive or don't get involved. Why the need to put someone down publically? It's not an opportunity for a bloody popularity contest.

Experienced members know Bryan offers this service free and is as ethical as they come. He (and Max) put a lot of time and effort into PABs and he doesn't have to. He's probably the most ethical guy in this industry that I've met so far. A lot of players come in, do a PAB then go without even so much as a thanks. I see comments like the ones earlier in this post and wonder why he even bothers.

 

[cyprean]

GG Casinomeister!

This is great news and you have AGAIN done a big favour to the player community. Thanks for taking the time and helping out the player.

 

[KasinoKing]

Here is an update:

I've just gotten off the phone with Casino Club, and after further reviews on this case and close cooperation between me, Max, Casino Club and other third parties, Casino Club has decided to pay out in full the winnings of the player, and the funds should be in his account by the next business day - I would guess Monday.

Brilliant news!
Well done CM, Max & all others involved in investigating this case! :notworthy

As an aside, knowing what goes on behind the scenes, if it had been me I'd have banned the posters who attacked the integrity of CM and Max because they disagreed with their opinions without knowing all the facts. That sort of short-sighted narrow-mindedness really pisses me off. Be constructive or don't get involved. Why the need to put someone down publically? It's not an opportunity for a bloody popularity contest.

Experienced members know Bryan offers this service free and is as ethical as they come. He (and Max) put a lot of time and effort into PABs and he doesn't have to. He's probably the most ethical guy in this industry that I've met so far. A lot of players come in, do a PAB then go without even so much as a thanks. I see comments like the ones earlier in this post and wonder why he even bothers.

Brilliant post!

However I do have to say that to the outsider looking in, based solely on what was posted in this thread, there was no clear evidence of Bot play (quite the opposite in fact), and it did look initially like CM was going to agree with the casino. So it is understandable that some people got quite upset about this case.

KK

 

[Jufo]

The last unanswered question is: Will Casino Club be removed from the accredited casino list? The mishandling of this issue on their part is not a minor matter.

 

[tofu23]

I don't dictate what the casinos state in their terms and conditions. That's something their lawyers are paid for. I am only concerned whether the terms and conditions are fair, and that the player and casino abides by them. I can always give advice, but it is up to the casino to decide whether or not my advice makes sense.

No worries - understood. I wasn't having a crack at you but the need to go out and get third party opinions makes a circus out of a cash-out process that ought to be relatively straight forward. Play, win, cash-out. This 'bot ban' hoopla is illegitimate.

But anyway - again you have come to the fore in getting dough out an otherwise recalcitrant. Congratulations are in order. I'm sure the OP will tip something you're way because i doubt he was ever going to get paid a zack otherwise.

 

[The Dude]

The last unanswered question is: Will Casino Club be removed from the accredited casino list? The mishandling of this issue on their part is not a minor matter.

No. Bot complaints are complex - that's something that everyone I'm sure will agree with after reading this thread thoroughly...if they dare.

It's also a learning experience for all. I'm sure CC - and other casinos not directly involved - are reviewing some of the more constructive player opinions in this thread.

 

[steinhaug]

This is great news, I am very happy for the player getting paid back! I know how it feels to deposit over and over again never getting a withdrawal, which is most likely why he went for a big win! After all, without any withdrawals any possible withdrawal should compensate all earlier deposits - this is atleast the way I think, I would also assume there are more casinos he didn't withdraw from - so this was his shot for glory! Who wouldn't take it!

I have never myself been denied any winnings, and I do not even want to try and think what I would do if such a thing happened! However I do find it sadening [horrible, frightening really], that the casinos can take our money without problems - and the day we win - it's agony and no sleep for us until we possible get the money!

Atleast we get a lot of action for the buck! First we get the excitement of the gambling itself, then we get the excitement trying to get our money back! Thats 2 for 1! LOL

Members looking at the data wrote the possible bot play was so human like that one could question if it was a bot at all. This I translate as, say I pull 1 kg of coffe and do a marathon like a machine where I end up winning, I might get confused for a bot? This is terrible, it's infact horrible!

Looking at the results I am glad I misread the logs so that this thread caught fire! I guess we have a happy camper now waiting for his money!

CasinoMeister has again shown it's positive effect for the players community - hands up for the team everyone! Great work!

 

[Simmo!]

However I do have to say that to the outsider looking in, based solely on what was posted in this thread, there was no clear evidence of Bot play (quite the opposite in fact), and it did look initially like CM was going to agree with the casino. So it is understandable that some people got quite upset about this case.

Agreed. But there are better ways to put forward your opinion than to openly attack someone. Attacking someone publically is the quickest way to alienate yourself. If you want to influence people then it's imperative to show some level of respect and provide constructive criticism when a "debate" is active.

"Always treat others how you wish to be treated yourself" - there's no better advice in the world IMO. Apart from "stop gambling with your mortgage money" of course

 

[Simmo!]

The last unanswered question is: Will Casino Club be removed from the accredited casino list? The mishandling of this issue on their part is not a minor matter.

Although clearly this has been a contentious issue and as previously stated I have no sympathy with the casino, I'd be inclined to say that this is an unnecesary move for two reasons:

Firstly, bearing in mind the confusion over the formatting of the logs, it's easy to see why many people may have thought it indicated Bot play originally.

Secondly, when Casinomeister came up with a final decision, they instantly went with it and paid the player.

I've played there for some time and never had any issues whatsoever. Payments are fast, games seem fair and service is good. Also, they have thousands of players and a case like this is a first so is it fair to judge their whole operation on one occasion when they made an incorrect decision, especially as they (eventually) admitted a mistake? Personally, I feel this thread alone is probably punishment enough.

Also, I don't think players should lose sight of the fact that a lot of players out there are out to - politely put - try and take advantage of a situation and Bot play is an issue that most casinos are very aware of, especially when a bonus is in play. Although the player in this instance appears perfectly legit, every player that tries to "get one over" damages the experience for the rest of us. "Proper" players should be as anxious as the casinos to ensure that fraudulent players are outed and ostracised.

 

[vinylweatherman]

While this case is over, it still has me worried.

Bot play is not allowed at most sites, but the worry is how they go about "proving" it. They DON'T actually detect a bot, but they look for signs that indicate there MIGHT be a bot in use, and seem to take this as proof absolute.

I now worry about such things as length of play without significant breaks, what is acceptable, and what is going to have the casino looking for bots.

I also feel quite offended that casinos look at my history and attribute to me a "playing style", and woe betide me if I read a book, see a forum/website, and try something completely different that just happens to give me a big win.

While the argument is there about whether or not bots give an advantage, CM is right that if the T & C clearly state "no bots", and the player uses one despite this, then tough - I am only concerned about non-bot users being falsly detected, and having a big struggle to clear their names.

Casinos need to incorporate proper bot detection software with their casinos, so that PROOF of a bot process, or at the very least software that seems to be interfacing with the casino instead of a human.

One worry though, what about players who are simply RECORDING their sessions for posterity (or analysis) using screen recording applications - these can easily be mistaken for a data feed INTO a bot, yet nothing in the T & C prohibits the "filming" of your gaming session.

Considering the zeal with which Casino Club have pursued this, there must be a BIG bot problem out there, which shows how much bot technology has advanced in the last couple of years OUTSIDE the field of poker bots.

As a side issue, casinos that vigorously pursue the bot exclusion when players are NOT using bonuses are feeding the fires of the "rigged software" debate - but having said that, it's FUN, and makes a nice change to gambling

 

[Jasminebed]

Another happy ending

Casinomeister, Maxd, CasinoClub and heffernan:

I am glad that this case was thoroughly reviewed, and that CasinoClub was open-minded enough and concerned enough about their reputation to reverse its original decision based on the opinions of CM.

Thank you to to heffernan for his cooperation in this investigation also. I truly hope you enjoy your big win!! I know you are new to this site, but there are a list of charities that CM supports at https://www.casinomeister.com/donate/. Or you may have a cause that is close to your own heart.

A huge thumbs up to all the players who took time to analyse data, post and express their valued opinions here.

 

[tofu23]

While this case is over, it still has me worried.

Bot play is not allowed at most sites, but the worry is how they go about "proving" it. They DON'T actually detect a bot, but they look for signs that indicate there MIGHT be a bot in use, and seem to take this as proof absolute.

They look into the tea leaves and one person sees a bot at play - another sees an inveterate gambler. And whilst Casino Club are paying up they still yet claim a 'bot' was at play whilst the rest of us see nothing of the sort.

And so tomorrow the 'bot ban' song and dance will go on - despite the established fact 'bot' play can in no way alter or tamper with the integrity of the game.

And for the record - it has been reported on other gaming forums that Casino Club have denied numerous otherwise legitimate player winnings on the basis of spurious 'bot playing' claims. This particular T+Cs is proving to be a cash pulling bonanza for them. And we know form the OPs case what sort of evidence they rely upon.

Lastly, Cryptologic have recently introduced a bj bot as standard fare to assist players in the enjoyment of games at Casinos such as Intercasino et al. Go figure that Casino Club.

 

[Jufo]

(Post Removed)

 

[Scooter7]

Lastly, Cryptologic have recently introduced a bj bot as standard fare to assist players in the enjoyment of games at Casinos such as Intercasino et al. Go figure that Casino Club.

MG has a pretty complex autoplay system and Crypto's new game has a similar one, plus an autobet feature. You can program bet patterns or 'if I win/if I lose' scenarios to change the next bet amount. There is one and only one reason to prohibit bot play. If a bonus abuser sets up large numbers of accounts and needs to clear more bonuses than he/she can personally play. Something that isn't worth enough dollars per hour to be of use suddenly is worth it when you automate and work on volume.

 

[steinhaug]

"Always treat others how you wish to be treated yourself" - there's no better advice in the world IMO. Apart from "stop gambling with your mortgage money" of course

So true, indeed! However sometimes [not this one however] trying to throw an ironic punch to pull a smile can go awfully wrong, especially combining a thread with good wine and strong opinions,

That donation idea from Jasminebed was sure a good idea. But to be honest, if I were heffernan, instead I would buy a big cake for the CasinoMeister crew! They deserve it! A little token of appretiation for a happy ending! (I would also buy that cake around 27th january, since I'll be there aswell and can grab a piece of it, LOL).

I would have to agree with Simmo! that this thread is good punishment for the casino, and it will make them think twice [have proof?] before dropping a payout due to claimed bot play. I believe this thread have cost them quite abit more than the withdrawal in lost revenue.

Saying something many times doesn't make it come true, there has to be some facts involved. If not, we are up for endless arguments!

You are dumb! ... No I'm not? Yes you are!

Where do you go from there?

Or what about the Big-Nose scene in Life of Brian. Kinda hard for this guy claiming his nose wasn't that big really... Shut up big nose! An impossible argument.

 

[maxd]

They DON'T actually detect a bot, but they look for signs that indicate there MIGHT be a bot in use, and seem to take this as proof absolute.

As I'm sure you know tracing activity is used in everything from gambling to market trading, horse racing to credit card fraud. Whether we like it or not these traces of activity are exactly how many, many things are discovered in our digital society. Play records are not an inherently illegitimate form of data. As always it's how they are used and what one takes as "satisfactory indicators" that make the difference.

I'll give you a concrete example: a while back I handled a PAB where bot use was claimed and the proof given was a trace where the player was "playing" at about 500 hands [strike]per minute[/strike] per hour (sustained). The casino claimed that was sufficient proof that a bot was in use and I agreed with them 100%. Would anybody here claim otherwise? I seriously doubt it. And so, voila!, we have a case where the play records and the conclusions drawn from them were pretty much beyond question.

So yes, it some cases it's as close to "absolute proof" as needs be. In other cases, obviously not. In other words it's a matter of degree.

Frankly I've become convinced that I need bigger, better, stronger, faster tools to analyze these traces and probably a little schooling in how to interpret the results. In other words I want more insight into the traces, not less. Apparently that makes me unpopular with a portion of our audience, so be it. Activity traces are a valid source of data for fraud, or in this case 'bot, detection and I do support their use.

I now worry about such things as length of play without significant breaks, what is acceptable, and what is going to have the casino looking for bots.

No offense VWM but don't you see that you are taking the easy road here by saying "oh my god, what might they think?" as some kind of proof that they shouldn't be looking at your activity at all? Surely you see that's just being bombastic for the fun of it.

Casinos need to incorporate proper bot detection software with their casinos ...

You do realize that that implies an increased level of invasiveness into your computer don't you? If the casinos have to go to the source to prove their case then then the players are going to have to get comfy with opening up their systems to that level of prodding. And isn't it obvious that that opens up a whole other can of worms, as in serious opportunities for privacy violation? None of this comes for free, there's a price to pay whichever way it's done. Personally I'd rather have the casino looking at my play logs than at the contents of my hard drive. No question!

One worry though, what about players who are simply RECORDING their sessions for posterity ...

Again, aren't we going for the bombast button here just a little too quickly. Frankly if a casino presented that as "evidence" in a bot case I'd tell them to try a little harder. Just 'cause something _might_ happen doesn't make it the right thing to get up in arms over.

Considering the zeal with which Casino Club have pursued this, there must be a BIG bot problem out there ...

You've got that right! From what I'm seeing at the PAB end of things some of these casinos are virtually under attack from the bot users. I don't envy them their end of the business at all!