RTG's Caribbean 21 lie

[cipher]

When Hampton believed that this was a legitimate win Hampton attempted to impose an additional wagering requirement for the player to get paid. That is to say, minimum action *each week* for 6 1/2 years.

I'd call that "a problem". I'd call that a "change of terms".

At least that had a logical rationale-- Hampton wanted its money back. Why have a rule against robot play for negative expectation games? The casino would make *more* money...like Microgaming casinos.

Whether or not this player gets paid--and I hope that a mutually satisfactory solution can be reached--Hampton's credibility is taking a hit here.

Even with proof of robot play--which has not been demonstrated--Hampton will be known as "the place that won't pay big wins by using a stupid rule". After all, if a player uses a robot and loses, Hampton doesn't give the money back.

Interesting thought. What is Hampton's policy if a player uses a robot, loses, and notifies the casino with proof of using a robot?

Oh there's been more than a few terms changed here by Hampton Mary. I think you're going to be more than just a little surpised on this one. Have a good one.

Cipher

As far as reputation

 

[spearmaster]

Answer these questions:

1. Did he use a bot? If so, show us proof.
2. Did the bot just play or did it take advantage of a flaw? Show us proof.
3. Did you lie about mousemapping? If not, show us proof.

Right now your words have no weight, no value, no currency.

But actually, why do I even waste my time trading meaningless words with you? Much easier to expose Hampton as a bogus operation instead. Much easier to put heavy pressure on RTG to terminate your operation or accept liability for the losses which you incurred.

Would you like that on a silver platter?

 

[amandajm]

Ron @ Hampton casino : Let's be honest with each other because we're at
the point where there's no sense in lying anymore.

You admit to fibbing Mr Myers?

Look, I find it difficult to believe the guy won on the same game in so many RTG's. Makes me think something may be up.

The acid test is sit the guy in front of a pc of your choice Mr Myers and if he wins a bunch more money without a robot you pay..

 

[caruso]

I second G2B on that one entirely. No evidence of anything. The casino can only repeat ad infinitum this blatantly incorrectly and probably illegally elicited (in terms of entrapment) "confession" as justification for these actions. Much easier at this point to rogue them as the-casino-that-reneged-on-a-1.3 million-dollar-payment and put pressure on RTG to pull the license. Then maybe the matter can be pursued directly through RTG.

 

[The Dude]

Sting has published most of the 30 minute phone conversations here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[jetset]

This 911 transcript is indicative of the attitude of the Hampton casino manager and makes interesting reading.

It indicates to me that little headway is going to be made in getting these folks to explain their mouse-mapping statements, produce proof of any sort other than this questionable tape or even discuss this issue constructively.

As unlikely as these massive wins at several RTG casinos carrying this game are, there has been no acceptable proof to the contrary and fairness and honesty would dictate that is necessary if Hampton and for that matter RTG wants to emerge from this mess with any credibility.

And the points made by knowledgeable posters like DaveR and Spearmaster are worth emphasising.

BTW I wonder what RTG would say to Dave's second scenario regarding an inside job?

 

[gamblinboi]

hampton, hampton, we're waiting for replies......... so many valid points made by spearmaster and other players here, and then also my little story of what happened to me with your casino group, the complete and utter fabrication of BS to take a lousy $100 from me..

 

[sirius]

I think Hamptons have every right to ban robot play if they want (there are some good reasons for it) but they haven't demonstrated any evidence that pc21 used one. The casino group wasn't even very reputable before this (some bonus problems came to light when I looked into them a while ago).

The phone call was just a joke. The player even said he wrote the program in COBOL! I think both sides were recording the conversation to try and get some confession from the other.

 

[sirius]

Those transcripts on sports911.com aren't verbatim by any stretch of the imagination and are probably a bit misleading. I recognise a lot of the converstion from the recordings I have in the caribbean21 message thread on my site and the transcripts on sports911 missed whole sentences and words out.

 

[The Dude]

I just sent out today's newsletter. You can read the whole shebang here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/newsletters/

If you're not subscribed, you have no idea what you're missing.

Anyway, I've thrown together my thoughts about the current state of affairs concerning this issue, for those of you who care:


WORD FROM THE MEISTER
A $1.3 Million win NOT!
This industry never ceases to amaze me. If you haven't been following this story about a $1.3 million screw up, I'll give it to you in a nutshell. This player, we'll call him P21 for brevity's sake, won over a million dollars at Hamptons Casino playing Caribbean 21. In fact this player has been paid out about $60,000 dollars from several other RTG casinos and has about $70,000 sitting at Delano casino, but at the moment his Delano account is locked.

This is a lot of friggin' money.

Now the player has been accused of using software, or a "robot" to accentuate his play. This is strictly forbidden in Hampton Casino's terms and conditions. The worst thing is that this player, P21, has admitted it via a taped phone conversation. Who taped the conversation? The casino did without the player's knowledge, and the player did the same to the casino without the casino's knowledge.

Both the player and the casino have posted bits and pieces of this conversation in cyberland: P21 claiming he was hoodwinked into confessing, the casino claiming the confession is good enough. Both P21 and Hamptons casino have been thrown into a lion's den, our forum, where both positions have been turned upside down, dissected, ripped apart, sewn shut, kicked across the floor, and opened up again.

And it ain't nowhere near resolved. Question: how will this be resolved? There is no way in hell that players will let this one go. The amount of money involved is one thing, but where is the regulating entity? There is NOT one. Players of these casinos have no protection, no safety net to catch them when they fall -- and it goes both ways, the casino has no one to turn to, to prove their case. Hamptons Casino is "licensed" in Panama. Where is this "authority" that should be stepping in to solve or resolve this matter? And Hamptons casino should be kicking themselves in the fourth point of contact (an old paratrooper term), by having been licensed here. One would guess that at this stage, the casino would also approach their licensing agency to protect them against fraudulent claims, or to act as an official regulator; someone to give us an authoritative voice. But I believe the Panamanian licensing agency is about as worthless as the Costa Rican one. Prove me wrong please.

The bottom line is, no matter how convincing the tape is (and it is if you have heard the entire 30 minutes - I have), the players need to be presented tangible evidence via a trusted third party who has expertise in this matter. Unfortunately, the casino waited too long to respond; the players' trust is a fragile one. And the damage has been done: Hamptons Casino will always be remembered by the players as the casino that didn't pay a dude $1.3 million because of a stupid rule.

And a stupid rule it is. Microgaming has "robots" built into their software, allowing players to go into autopilot, grab a beer or hot cup o' java while their computer plays away. Go Vortran, go!! But what the hell, that's no fun! I play because I like to play. I use good game play and strategy; I know what I'm doing. But I also go on hunches as well. After a certain number of crappy hands, I'll up the bet 5 or sometimes 10 fold, just so long as my bankroll can handle it. WHAM I hit it big, or I end up staring at .77 cents left in my account...that's why they call it gambling.

Casinos expect this, the erring human factor. Why do you think they serve you free drinks in Vegas? Someone's got to pay the lighting bills there. I spoke to Hampton Casino's manager Ron Lewin over the phone the other day, and he explained that this is one of the reasons they do not allow robot play. He wants to ensure that it's a human on the other end, someone enjoying the casino action, someone making judgement calls - playing on hunches, someone who is likely to error in the casino's favor. This is what they do in Vegas, this is what they do at Hamptons.

This is what the industry is all about.

Even so. It's still a stupid rule. Robots can be programed to play perfect strategy, but they can still lose. They don't "see" the cards on the other side of the table, they are only there as pseudo people. But it's the casino's prerogative to have this rule. And if you break the rules, all bets are off.

Anyway, here is my take on the whole situation:

The player did something that no one can figure out - it wasn't luck - something was manipulated - that's my gut feeling. No one has ever won this much money EVER on this game. As far as I know, P21 played this game exclusively over the past few months at RTG casinos. He is the only person making these sort of winnings.

Hampton's had the same gut feeling and called P21's bluff. P21 realized that he was caught, 'fessed up, and tried to cut a deal for $300,000. But he insisted that the casino would reveal how he was caught. The casino remained tight lipped.

Next: P21's significant other may have found out later that day and commenced to kick some serious butt -- P21's. P21 was convinced to change his story.

The next day, P21 claimed to be duped -- that he was tricked into confessing -- that there is no robot -- that he has been misunderstood and taken advantage of. He was merely playing the games. And so it goes.

DaveR, a long time respected member of our forum mentioned the following scenario in our message board:

This whole thing was an inside job. One of the programmers at RTG (perhaps the developer of Caribbean 21 himself) implemented a cheat mode into the game. This programmer may have revealed this cheat mode to his best friend (computer programming buddy P21), and a robot was developed by either of them. Plans were made to split the profits if the scam worked. $1.3 MILLION is nothing to laugh at

Wow. I wonder if this has been considered by those who have been investigating the case at RTG. If so, remember you heard it here first.

Tantalizing ain't it?

What an industry. Oh, what a mess.

 

[cipher]

I just sent out today's newsletter. You can read the whole shebang here:

"Wow. I wonder if this has been considered by those who have been investigating the case at RTG."

I won't be surprised to find that there's been absolutely no investigation whatsoever done at REAL TIME GAMING.

By the way Bryan, that was a very well prepared article and I agree that anyone who's not getting the newsletter is seriously missing out. Have a good one.

Cipher

 

[gamblinboi]

The phone call was just a joke. The player even said he wrote the program in COBOL! I think both sides were recording the conversation to try and get some confession from the other.

I laughed out loud when i heard that. Cobol. lol

 

[mary]

Hampton needs older programmers, from before The Mouse Age.

Many computer users--not just programmers--don't like using the mouse. It slows them down and is harder on their hands. Playing an online casino game for too long can also cause pain, for example, video poker.

Some casino software providers have keystrokes to playing functions. This is to the operator's benefit as it speeds up play, which makes the games more profitable, and allows players to play for longer sessions.

There is also software available that allows the user to record mouse movements and assign them to key combinations, they are called "macros". They are available for free on the Internet.

A player using macro software will be performing identical mouse movements, to the pixel, with every keystroke, so that is not proof of robot play.

As for winning at several casinos, that is not proof of cheating either. (Say what?) It depends on the math. Playing at several casinos is no different mathematically than playing at one casino. It's probably the same for all practical purposes too as many RTG casinos share a server and an rng.

According to the Wiz, "The house edge following the basic strategy above is 0.19%. The average final bet size is 1.8 units so the element of risk is 0.11%. The standard deviation is 1.62."

0.19% is a very small edge. Add in the loyalty club rebate some RTG casinos have, and it's even smaller.

The player says he played a progression of bets, from $500 to $10k a hand. $1.3 million is only 130 $10k bets. $1.3million as an amount sounds incredible, $10k also; but what if we were talking about a blackjack game of bets from $2.50 to $500 a hand getting up to $75k? On RTG software?

It has happened. More than once. It wasn't questioned at all. No bonuses.

So get rid of the hunches; I want to see some math here.

 

[The Dude]

P21 wanted me to say a couple of things in his behalf after my last post:

Hi Bryan, you forgot to mention tha no one has ever bet the way I did and no one has invested the money I did. Why don't you publish the figures for how much I lost/invested. It is fair to say that no one has invested the time money or effort that I have. Please paint the whole picture. Publish the deposits and losses. You know the virtual wins, 60,000,were never collected and I have collected 17,000 from Delano's... Nobody has ever done this because nobody else plays the way I do. Why is that so hard to see? There is no robot. Just the player in my head.

Also please add that I have been playing / studying c21 extensively for a year and a half not a couple of months.

 

[portia]

Hampton's "Robert Myers" said that M. Shakelford could not help in this situation, that mathematical analysis would not help.

Truthfully, the casinos first step (or RTG's) would have been to analyze the game logs to answer the question : How unlikely is this players win?

To answer that question would be childs play if we had the game logs. M Shakelford has provided the variance in the game, just need the number of bets at each bet size.

You can be certain that RTG (Michael Staw) has the answer. It would be the first thing to investigate. The SW probably already calculates it in real time to warn them if something has gone awry with their SW.

SINCE Hamptons has not provided the play logs to the player;

AND since they have not used as proof the statisitcal fact of how probable (or improbable) the players win has been;

AND since Hamptons "Robert Myers" is dismissive of the meaningfulness of statistical analysys in this case;

And since the casinos HAVE ALREADY made payments to the player when RTG would have already checked the likely hood of the win to reassure the casinos before paying;

That can lead folks to believe that the statistics show that the players win is
not all that unlikely and the casino (and RTG ) is aware of it.

 

[amandajm]

As for winning at several casinos, that is not proof of cheating either. (Say what?) It depends on the math. Playing at several casinos is no different mathematically than playing at one casino. It's probably the same for all practical purposes too as many RTG casinos share a server and an rng.

Yep - true - true. Forget sometimes, get caught up in the game.

They are not going to pay him based on the confession Mary. To be honest would you if you were Hamptons?

 

[jetset]

Good post, Portia.

Another point is Hampton's apparently abandoning their mouse-mapping claim - they have yet to respond to Spear's earlier suggestion that there is technological doubt on that.

These factors all smack of an almost sole reliance on a taped confession obtained under questionable circumstances from a guy they strongly suspect has found a unique way to screw them but cannot be proved to have done so.

 

[cipher]

Good post, Portia.

Another point is Hampton's apparently abandoning their mouse-mapping claim - they have yet to respond to Spear's earlier suggestion that there is technological doubt on that.

These factors all smack of an almost sole reliance on a taped confession obtained under questionable circumstances from a guy they strongly suspect has found a unique way to screw them but cannot be proved to have done so.

Hi Jet,

That mouse mapping number was doomed from the gate and they (HAMPTON) knew it from the gate.

CIPHER

 

[mary]

Based on the "confession"?

No. He could have "confessed" to try to get $300k now instead of waiting six years to get $1.3 million *maybe*.

If I ran the casino...well, I'd know the numbers on my games, or have them available, in terms of their edge, variance, hands per hour, basic strategy and the like. If a player requested a raise in maximum bet, I'd calculate what that could cost me. If I had a player's club program, I'd adjust it with respect to the low house edge games (like C21 at 0.19%)

I would play all of my games myself to get a feel for them.

If the player's win was within the realm of reasonable probability based on these measures, I'd pay up.

I wouldn't forbid robot play, because it makes my games more profitable by causing players to roll through their bankroll faster.

I'd use a cosmic ray rng so I wouldn't have to worry about it turning out to have a weak spot.

If a player won way off on the far end of the standard deviation chart, I'd be taking apart his play logs. I'd compare his plays to the basic strategy devised by my mathematician and see if there is any patterns with respect to bet size or deviating from the strategy. I'd check timing and mouse target locations; real robot programmers are on to that though. I'd hire a private investigator to check out the player and run various credit and background checks.

 

[Jblack]

Based on the "confession"?

No. He could have "confessed" to try to get $300k now instead of waiting six years to get $1.3 million *maybe*.

If I ran the casino...well, I'd know the numbers on my games, or have them available, in terms of their edge, variance, hands per hour, basic strategy and the like. If a player requested a raise in maximum bet, I'd calculate what that could cost me. If I had a player's club program, I'd adjust it with respect to the low house edge games (like C21 at 0.19%)

I would play all of my games myself to get a feel for them.

If the player's win was within the realm of reasonable probability based on these measures, I'd pay up.

I wouldn't forbid robot play, because it makes my games more profitable by causing players to roll through their bankroll faster.

I'd use a cosmic ray rng so I wouldn't have to worry about it turning out to have a weak spot.

If a player won way off on the far end of the standard deviation chart, I'd be taking apart his play logs. I'd compare his plays to the basic strategy devised by my mathematician and see if there is any patterns with respect to bet size or deviating from the strategy. I'd check timing and mouse target locations; real robot programmers are on to that though. I'd hire a private investigator to check out the player and run various credit and background checks.

After reading through several of your posts Mary. I honestly think you should run a casino.

 

[portia]

After reading through several of your posts Mary. I honestly think you should run a casino.

I disagree. And stop showing off Mary, the house already has enough of an edge without your helping them further.

 

[portia]

Believe RTG's M. Staw is pretty sharp with the gaming math. That is why i have difficulty with Hampton's position.

Following up earlier post :

If they did find the players history to be toooo improbable a result from a fair game (and if they did they have been strangely silent), the next thing they could do would be to go back to the player logs to see if the players uses a consistent strategy based on cards seen. Does he?

Does he follow the basic strategy of M Shackleford?

Does he use a consistent strategy which differs from the Wizards BS?
If so how much does his deviant play cost?
And how much more improbable does it make his play history?
Or is his strategy correct and the wizards wrong?
Is the wizards house edge and variance correct?

If on his big bets he does not use a consistent strategy wrt the seen cards, then is he a lucky guesser or does he have info on unexposed cards?

This ASSUMES that his play history was calculated to be improbable - which, if it were the case - then RTG/Hamptons would have said so to support their position instead of :

1) dismissing mathematical analysis as irrelevant to this case;

2) Categorically denying any possibility of further payment to the player and then lurring him with the offer of 6 figures for info on a "bot".

3) Hang there hat on that fanciful notion of keystroke analysis - casino owners sure think players are stupid don't they? (Actually they rely on it don't they).

Could RTG answer some of these questions concerning hard facts. Just the math please. You got the numbers. Enlighten us.

 

[mary]

Thank you for the kind words. Now, if certain elected officials in the US could just see the Keno numbers on the wall...

I want to see if a progression was strictly followed. Were the deviations from Shackleford's Basic Strategy to get more money on the table, that is, increase bet size? What were the biggest bets? $40k? $60k? Did the game have a limit on how many times one could split/resplit/double down?

How "streaky" was the game in terms of results? Think of how Pai Gow differs from Blackjack in terms of the number of pushes. Every game has characteristics like that--how many times does the dealer win? How many ties? How many times the player wins? How many times the player wins on bonus hands?

This game had surrender and insurance as options. Were there hedging opportunities that offered more variance?

 

[jetset]

Just a refresher on Hampton's official statement. Points 2, 4, 5 (game logs?) 6 (technical proof?) and 8 (justification for those phone calls) are illuminating following the more in-depth studies of this intriguing issue by posters here in recent days:

Dear readers,

This message is from Hampton Casino and is addressed in general to the gaming community.

This pertains to the volumes of messages posted regarding our operation by "Pirateofc21" and the responses to them.

We post this to clear the air once and for all. Here's the facts and subsequently proof to back them up :

1> "Pirateofc21" signed up with our casino with the intention to defraud us using his "Robot software" the use of which is strictly forbidden at Hampton Casino as explained at our Terms and Conditions page

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

2> He misled us during the period of his play at our casino and got higher limits from the casino manager as that favored his robot's playing strategy

3> He ran his balance up to 1.3 Million Dollars and requested a withdrawal

4> We were at that time completely unaware of the illegal robot play in his account and began paying him his payout just like we have done with thousands of players over the past few years

5> We did however launch a detailed investigation into the play done in this account

6> Our software/technical experts detected robot play and determined that no human could have possibly been playing in that account

7> By that time we had already paid him $ 22500 in installments of $ 4000 a week as per our terms and conditions. We of course stopped these payments immediately.

8> We realized that it would be very hard to present the evidence at hand to the gaming community and prove his guilt and our innocence since the evidence was extremely technical hence we decided to engage in phone conversations with "Pirateofc21" for the purpose of making him admit his guilt and making this a lot easier on all of us

9> Ron Lewin (our casino manager) engaged in extensive conversations with him in which the player admitted to having this robot and even offered to sell it for $ 300,000.

The relevant part of those conversations can be listened to by clicking the link below. You will need Winamp or some other MP3 player to listen. If you do not have an MP3 player installed on your computer then you may download Winamp from

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(0.6 MB only)

The conversation itself is 5.59 MB and can be downloaded from :

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

This part of the conversation is unedited and is provided to you just like it happened.

I hope this will lay to rest any and all doubts about our honesty, integrity and intentions. We have always been more than fair to our players and I must say that I find it a bit hurtful that the community was so quick to indict a well established operation such as ours. At the same time, I would like to thank all those player that have supported us during this time.

We will leave the conversation up for a few days so all of you can download and listen as and how you please. I will also hang around for any questions.

Regards

Robert Myers
Public Relations
Hampton Casino

 

[jyde]

If Hamptons would tell us WHY robot play is illegal I'd be delighted. I don't know if Pirate used a robot or not, I honestly don't care, and I don't think Hampton should either.

Why don't other RTG's have terms like this? Is it because they don't make sense?
Does RTG officially support Hamptons crusade against robots?

 

[cipher]

Just a refresher on Hampton's official statement. Points 2, 4, 5 (game logs?) 6 (technical proof?) and 8 (justification for those phone calls) are illuminating following the more in-depth studies of this intriguing issue by posters here in recent days:

This is a direct quote from the 911 Trascript:

RON: "We spend a lot of money to make sure our players are for real."

Player: You got ripped off.

Addendum to transcript: After a careful analysis of the tape. The player can be heard saying "They gave you false information" as Ron was speaking above him.

I certainly hope Ron wasn't referring to his mouse mappers getting a lot of money?

Cipher

 

[SFeagleAgain]

FWIW, my take on this.....

First of all, I have to say that I have worked in the legal field for a long time. I think that if Hampton's legal counsel advised them to post this conversation, it's time to find new counsel. One of the best parts of the tape is the "pregnant" pause after Hampton's manager asked pirate if he wanted to sell the "program". If you listen to the inflection in pirate's voice and the hesitation between the asking of the question and the answer, it speaks volumes. And just for the record, Hampton's, he did not OFFER to sell "it", he was ASKED to sell "it" and you even suggested using "it" to scam other casinos. Any experienced litigator would tear this to shreds. It was apparent from pirate's answer that he didn't know what they were talking about and was just trying to milk them, so to speak. And as for the question about how many other programs he had developed....this guy is a programmer. And the "mousemapping" is just too incredibly stupid to even speak of. IMO, Hampton is desperate, pure and simple. Entrapment is against the law last time I checked and this tape is just that. And I do not care WHO you are, there is not legal counsel anywhere who is going to tell their client that coercion is the best way to handle this matter. And to even speak of paying someone to make a program to do to others as you believe has been done to you and then offer them a "partnership" is unthinkable. Even though pirate may have shot off his mouth and weakened his case, Hampton's has dug the hole and crawled in. Simple as that. As for your claim that you paid him $22,500.00 in installments of $4,000.00 per week, check your math or buy a calculator. Either will work.

Edited to add: How could raising a player's limits increase a bot's ability if he was already playing perfect strategy? Sounds like a desperate move by the casino hoping that pirate would hit a big losing streak. Hampton needs to look over their imbecilic statements before posting.

 

[cipher]

First of all, I have to say that I have worked in the legal field for a long time. I think that if Hampton's legal counsel advised them to post this conversation, it's time to find new counsel. One of the best parts of the tape is the "pregnant" pause after Hampton's manager asked pirate if he wanted to sell the "program". If you listen to the inflection in pirate's voice and the hesitation between the asking of the question and the answer, it speaks volumes. And just for the record, Hampton's, he did not OFFER to sell "it", he was ASKED to sell "it" and you even suggested using "it" to scam other casinos. Any experienced litigator would tear this to shreds. It was apparent from pirate's answer that he didn't know what they were talking about and was just trying to milk them, so to speak. And the "mousemapping" is just too incredibly stupid to even speak of. IMO, Hampton is desperate, pure and simple. Entrapment is against the law last time I checked and this tape is just that. And I do not care WHO you are, there is not legal counsel anywhere who is going to tell their client that coercion is the best way to handle this matter. And to even speak of paying someone to make a program to do to others as you believe has been done to you and then offer them a "partnership" is unthinkable. Even though pirate may have shot off his mouth and weakened his case, Hampton's has dug the hole and crawled in. Simple as that.

Edited to add: How could raising a player's limits increase a bot's ability if he was already playing perfect strategy? Sounds like a desperate move by the casino hoping that pirate would hit a big losing streak. Hampton needs to look over their imbecilic statements before posting.

Well let me tell you, if you prepare a case for trial even half as well as you've prepared your first post on this forum I don't think I'd want to be on the other side. Welcome to the forum.

Cipher

 

[SFeagleAgain]

Criminal Solicitation

Definition of Solicitation. A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct that would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission.
Uncommunicated Solicitation. It is immaterial under Subsection (1) of this Section that the actor fails to communicate with the person he solicits to commit a crime if his conduct was designed to effect such communication.
Renunciation of Criminal Purpose. It is an affirmative defense that the actor, after soliciting another person to commit a crime, persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.

Criminal Conspiracy

Definition of Conspiracy. A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or
agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.
Scope of Conspiratorial Relationship. If a person guilty of conspiracy, as defined by Subsection (1) of this Section, knows that a person with whom he conspires to commit a crime has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same crime, he is guilty of conspiring with such other person or persons, whether or not he knows their identity, to commit such crime.
Conspiracy With Multiple Criminal Objectives. If a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as such multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship.

Thank you, Cipher. I appreciate your kind comments and the above is just the start of where an experienced litigator would commence, most likely. I suspect there would be some "ass-blistering" sidebars involved and also an ethics investigation for the legal counsel. Mind you, the tape would never be made public to a jury, however, it would most likely be heard in chambers, which would, of course, influence what a judge would, or would not, allow in trial. Being incredibly stupid is not a criminal act. Soliciting a crime is. And from what I heard on that tape, that is exactly what happened here. There was not even a feeble attempt to cover up the intentions. I am not a new poster, however it has been a while since my last post and I am a frequent lurker. Have a good day and thanks again for your kind words.

 

[caruso]

So: based on the evidence of the tape, Hampton appear to be guilty of Criminal Solicitation.

 

[islandmaan]

Let's try to agree on something

Can we at least agree on these two points:

1. A bot does not alter the chance to win or lose it just speeds up the play of the game (and possibly allows perfect play which is no crime).

2. If a bot was used anyways it should be easily enough to look at the logs and see how many hands were played over a period of time and see if a human being could possibly do it.

If it would be physically impossible to play the hands shown than that is proof of a bot. I get the feeling this proof is not available or it would of been put forward straight away.

Finally I would throw out the entire recorded conversation as it is sleazy and should not of taken place in the first place. If Hampton's truly has proof of a bot, which is against the rules, then they should refuse to pay, cancel the account and say have your lawyer call our lawyer event over.

Does anybody see any flaw in this position?

Brian

 

[SFeagleAgain]

Hi there caruso! First of all, only a judge or jury can determine what they are or are not guilty of. You have to listen to the tape and make your own determination. They are still assumed innocent until proven guilty. Although the tape is not admissible in court (except under what the court could determine as extenuating circumstances), I think it tells its own tale. It is WAY past sleazy. I do agree that a bot and a human could perform the same function, as would any thinking person. The only difference would be speed and consistency of play. But Hampton has not shown any evidence that this player has used a bot and indeed, the tape that they have made available to the public proves to ME that they have nothing that proves that he did use a bot. Otherwise, they would be posting records all over the net to prove it and would not feel the need to have management try and coerce a confession out of pirate.

 

[spearmaster]

Being incredibly stupid is not a criminal act. Soliciting a crime is.

LMAO - you nailed it That's about as concise a summary of this case as one can make...

 

[hhcfreebie]

I suspect there would be some "ass-blistering" sidebars involved and also an ethics investigation for the legal counsel. Mind you, the tape would never be made public to a jury, however, it would most likely be heard in chambers, which would, of course, influence what a judge would, or would not, allow in trial. Being incredibly stupid is not a criminal act. Soliciting a crime is. And from what I heard on that tape, that is exactly what happened here. There was not even a feeble attempt to cover up the intentions.

Well said.
I suggest we forget the tape even exist and start anew.
If the casino can present solid evidence of the bot, casino can refuse to pay based on their own terms. No matter how stupid this term is, the players agreed it when he signed up. If he is not happy then he can find a lawyer to fight for him.
However, if the casino cannot present any solid evidence, then they should pay up. Sadly I don't think they are willing, nor capable of doing the right thing. I guess the player might still need legal help to secure his winning.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[sirius]

I got a private message from Pc21 yesterday with the subject "TADAH" and the simple message "You got it." It wasn't a reply to anything I sent him and I'm not sure what he means.

 

[SFeagleAgain]

Since Hampton themselves put the recording on their website, forgetting it exists is no longer an option. They put their reputation and credibility on their website for all to see. This tape, if nothing else, is a statement of Hampton's professionalism (or lack thereof), their social conscience (or lack thereof), and their values and working ethic (or lack thereof). It was not a good move on their part to make the whole recording available for all to hear. Does "character witness" spring to mind? This is basically what they have presented.

 

[caps]

With all due respect, SFeagle, of course the tape would be published to the jury, if the case were tried to a jury. In a civil action against Hampton in a US jurisdiction (with, say, the Pirate seeking recovery of amounts owed under contract or tort theories), Hampton or RTG would raise, as a defense, the contention that Pirate had violated their terms and conditions through the use of a robot. Hampton absolutely would rely upon the tape, and upon any other evidence they might have (if any). The question at trial would be whether the conversation on the tape, together with any other evidence offered at trial, suggests by a preponderance of the evidence (or, quantitatively, by more than a 50% probability) that the Pirate had used a robot. If Hampton were to make the tape an important part of its defense, it would have the right to publish the tape to the jury (might be a bad decision, but . . .). Assuming any hearsay objections could be overcome (though it seems to sound like an admission against interest of the Pirate), it almost certainly would be admissible in any trial, and quite probative of the central question -- did the Pirate use a robot? Folks have offered differing views on how a factfinder might come out on the question, and I really don't know -- I waffle. But the tape almost certainly be the centerpiece of any civil proceeding.

As for "entrapment," it's not "illegal," at least in most US jurisdictions. Entrapment is actually a criminal concept, and is in most instances raised by a criminal defendant who is seeking to establish that, but for the "entrapping" conduct of law authorities, he/she would not have engaged in the criminal conduct at issue (and should thus be acquitted). It rarely comes into formal play in a civil context -- though, in response to Hampton's use of the tape in a civil collection action, I can imagine that the Pirate would point out the supposed "entrapment" as a reason to dismiss the probative value of the recorded conversation. But the entrapment would go the evidentiary weight, or value, of the conversation -- it wouldn't represent an absolute of any kind in a civil context.

Now, the criminal authorities might well be interested in Hampton's side of the conversation, in that it does seem to represent a solicitation to join a criminal conspiracy to defraud other casinos. The conspiracy never actually took off, but the expression of an intent to form one certainly seems to be present.

 

[amandajm]

As my gut feeling has no relevancy I must say that Steph makes a whole lot of sense to me. The way she writes it even I understand. If I were a juror....

Mr Myers - fair is fair now, you need to get a deal sorted and soon. You just know this is not going away, no matter where you were brought up or how tough it was. 1.3 million overrides where you are from or what you usually do there.

 

[amandajm]

Caps - the player would win though would'nt he?. Thats important to me as the legalese is confusing when you make some sense against to be honest. Steph hit the nail on the head no?

 

[cipher]

With all due respect, SFeagle, of course the tape would be published to the jury, if the case were tried to a jury. In a civil action against Hampton in a US jurisdiction (with, say, the Pirate seeking recovery of amounts owed under contract or tort theories), Hampton or RTG would raise, as a defense, the contention that Pirate had violated their terms and conditions through the use of a robot. Hampton absolutely would rely upon the tape, and upon any other evidence they might have (if any). The question at trial would be whether the conversation on the tape, together with any other evidence offered at trial, suggests by a preponderance of the evidence (or, quantitatively, by more than a 50% probability) that the Pirate had used a robot. If Hampton were to make the tape an important part of its defense, it would have the right to publish the tape to the jury (might be a bad decision, but . . .). Assuming any hearsay objections could be overcome (though it seems to sound like an admission against interest of the Pirate), it almost certainly would be admissible in any trial, and quite probative of the central question -- did the Pirate use a robot? Folks have offered differing views on how a factfinder might come out on the question, and I really don't know -- I waffle. But the tape almost certainly be the centerpiece of any civil proceeding.

As for "entrapment," it's not "illegal," at least in most US jurisdictions. Entrapment is actually a criminal concept, and is in most instances raised by a criminal defendant who is seeking to establish that, but for the "entrapping" conduct of law authorities, he/she would not have engaged in the criminal conduct at issue (and should thus be acquitted). It rarely comes into formal play in a civil context -- though, in response to Hampton's use of the tape in a civil collection action, I can imagine that the Pirate would point out the supposed "entrapment" as a reason to dismiss the probative value of the recorded conversation. But the entrapment would go the evidentiary weight, or value, of the conversation -- it wouldn't represent an absolute of any kind in a civil context.

Now, the criminal authorities might well be interested in Hampton's side of the conversation, in that it does seem to represent a solicitation to join a criminal conspiracy to defraud other casinos. The conspiracy never actually took off, but the expression of an intent to form one certainly seems to be present.

CAPS, please your talking about a tape that's clearly a solicitation of conspiracy on the part of HAMPTON CASINO and you think that any court and I repeat any court here in the United States is going to allow that to be put before a civil jury? That's not going to happen here in the United States plain and simple. I don't know where your from but that will not happen in the United States.

Cipher

 

[mary]

Caps - the player would win though would'nt he?. Thats important to me as the legalese is confusing when you make some sense against to be honest. Steph hit the nail on the head no?

If it went to a jury, it's difficult to say. We all bring some kind of background knowledge to this, and you can see that opinions range from 100% obvious that Pirate is crook to 100% obvious Hampton should pay to 100% they've both made incriminating statements in phone calls and I don't know what should happen.

Members of a jury would not know very much about gambling online, robots, programming, game odds and the like; the phone calls sound like episodes from a radio drama about Vegas back in the days when the Mob ran it.

I know! Both parties should take it to Court TV and propose it as a reality show. Court shows are hot right now, casinos shows are hot right now, reality shows are hot right now. "Internet Court" "The Cases Too International, Too Cutting Edge For Courts to Handle"

 

[SFeagleAgain]

First off, caps, I appreciate your stance in this and understand a lot of your argument. However, entrapment is indeed illegal in most states. However, by legal definition, it does refer mostly to law enforcement. In a civil case, perponderance of the evidence in the basis that is applied. In a criminal case however, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is applied. When Hampton made that phone call, they put this in a whole new arena. Since it sounds as though you have read up on the issue, caps, you should also know that gambling debts do not fall under contract or "tort" law. IMO, this tape is far more damaging to Hampton than it is to pirate as they were trying to coerce or force a confession from him that a robot was used. Most of what was said was "suggested" to pirate and not offered of his free will. They even asked him how much he wanted for the program. Listen carefully to the pause after Hampton skirted the issue. I honestly believe after listening to it that pirate was dumbfounded and that is where the silence is so telling. The recording itself would actually not have much bearing on whether or not he used a robot because of Hampton's behavior. The player logs would be used instead for this. Why have they not surfaced proving his use of a robot? They would be the only true test of use of a robot or not. This would be a question that would be raised. The tape would be best used in a criminal trial for solicitation of a crime. That is where it is far more damaging and incriminating. This tape would have little bearing in a collection action. The problem for RTG lies in that they are located in the states. I cannot imagine RTG being too pleased with Hampton's actions thus far.

Mary, in a criminal proceeding, Hampton would have a lot of explaining to do, plain and simple.

 

[caps]

Cipher-

I'm from the US, and there is absolutely no doubt but that if Hampton wanted to rely upon the tape as a defense in a civil action brought by Pirate, it would be made available to the jury (or to the Court, if the matter weren't tried to the jury). It might be a very stupid move -- the tape certainly does suggest an effort to solicit a potentially criminal conspiracy -- but that's not a reason for the Court to exclude its submission to the jury, if that's what Hampton felt it needed to establish its defense. It might come back to bite Hampton in the ass, but that's Hampton's call. I may be a punk, but I do know this stuff.

Amandajm-

Would the player win? As Mary says, who knows? It would be a function of how the factfinder (whether the jury or the judge) reacts to the facts. It's all pretty smelly, so one can imagine the factfinder, confronted with all of this, wishing a pox on everyone's house.

SFeagle-

I'm not sure I agree with you that entrapment is "illegal." It's a limited defense to certain types of criminal prosecution, but I tend not to think that it's a separate criminal offense, or that it's a tort that gives rise to independent civil liability. In a civil context (that is, Pirate suing Hampton to recover the money), the fact that the guy may have been hornswoggled into saying what he (apparently) said goes much more to the weight (or evidentiary significance) of the evidence. (And your observations about the "pregnant pause" and all that are precisely the sorts of things a factfinder would evaluate in thinking about what the tape really means.) But I can't quite see how it's "illegal" as entrapment (though I suppose there may be a stray jurisdiction out there where it's an independent evil). Granted, the remarks on tape may also represent a form of conspiracy, or solicitation, but that's something separate and apart from the entrapment, and would fall very clearly on the criminal side of things. A prosecutor may not be interested in it because nothing actually seems to have happened, but it presents an interesting set of predicate facts.

As for the existence of a civil cause of action against someone here (Pirate v. Somebody), while many jurisdictions obviously don't recognize the existence of an enforceable obligation arising from a gambling "contract," there are a number of other ways to skin a cat -- fraud, various types of civil conspiracy and other torts. I have no doubt that a creative plaintiff's lawyer, with access to all of the relevant facts, would be able to develop a variety of theories. That's not to say the plaintiff would win, but I bet the theories would get off the ground.

Finally, did I detect a stab (successful) at humor about all of this in Mary's post? Heaven forbid.

 

[cipher]

Cipher-

I'm from the US, and there is absolutely no doubt but that if Hampton wanted to rely upon the tape as a defense in a civil action brought by Pirate, it would be made available to the jury (or to the Court, if the matter weren't tried to the jury). It might be a very stupid move -- the tape certainly does suggest an effort to solicit a potentially criminal conspiracy -- but that's not a reason for the Court to exclude its submission to the jury, if that's what Hampton felt it needed to establish its defense. It might come back to bite Hampton in the ass, but that's Hampton's call. I may be a punk, but I do know this stuff.

I'm sorry CAPS, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion. But I totall disagree with your assessment.

"nothing actually seems to have happened"

Nothing short of this individual being out $1,300,000.00 plus. That's a lot of money CAPS.

 

[caps]

Yeah, well, OK. You can disagree, but I'm right as a matter of law. The tape of the conversation almost certainly would be admissible in a US legal proceeding (or at least the part of the conversations that both parties recorded), any way you slice it.

And if you read it right, my "nothing seems to have happened" statement was a reference to the fact that Hampton's apparent solicitation to engage in a conspiracy to bamboozle other casinos doesn't seem actually to have produced that conspiracy, as no effort was made to defraud other casinos. You miss the point.

I know $1.3M is in play. But maybe the player doesn't deserve it, because maybe he cheated.

 

[cipher]

Yeah, well, OK. You can disagree, but I'm right as a matter of law. The tape of the conversation almost certainly would be admissible in a US legal proceeding (or at least the part of the conversations that both parties recorded), any way you slice it.

And if you read it right, my "nothing seems to have happened" statement was a reference to the fact that Hampton's apparent solicitation to engage in a conspiracy to bamboozle other casinos doesn't seem actually to have produced that conspiracy, as no effort was made to defraud other casinos. You miss the point.

I know $1.3M is in play. But maybe the player doesn't deserve it, because maybe he cheated.

All right, now you're hedging!! with statements such as "The tape conversation almost certainly would be admissible in a U. S. legal proceeding" or...

at least the part of the conversation that both parties recorded. What kind of a consiglieri would you make, hedging like that?

 

[caps]

LOL -- a far better better one (punk though I may be) than I'm guessing will actually end up handling this squabble.

No lawyer worth his salt would ever guarantee anything about anything (though a lot of lawyers do, and a lot of gullible clients lap it up). The tape absolutely ought to be admissible. But some judges are dumb, or drunk, or lazy or result-oriented. You can account for the law, but not for the judge.

And my point about "at least the part of the conversation" doesn't relate to what you were talking about. You said that the tape would never go to a jury because it includes Hampton's apparent solicitation. That's wrong. My caveat relates to the fact that, in some US jurisdictions, it is illegal for one party to tape a telephone conversation without the other party's knowledge. In that instance, the taping party would not be able to use the unilaterally recorded tape to its advantage in litigation. But when both parties taped the conversation (or a part of the conversation), then both parties clearly intended for the conversation (or at least the jointly-taped portion) to be captured, so I would expect this prohibition not to apply.

 

[gamblinboi]

wow, way to swing this conversation way off into some legal meanderings consisting of "i'm not a laywer, but I THINK..." yada yada. GET BACK ON TOPIC FOLKS!

Hampton's won't give us any SOLID proof that the player cheated. They insist on this ridiculous tape which REGARDLESS of what it says, is BESIDES the point. IF they have proof that the player cheated, SHOW IT. PROVE IT. Don't give us nonsense tapes, GIVE US HARD FACTS and EVIDENCE. The tape has ONLY served to get everyone OFF of the fact that Hamptons refuses to provide any REAL proof.

For what it's worth, IMO this casino will not pay up. They cheated me out of a MEASLY $100 by making up various nonsense so as to void my winnings. They won't even answer my email about that (as sent to the HamptonCasino guy) here. Whatever this pirate guy did, got lucky or cheated (imo there's no proof of the latter been shown yet), he did it at the WRONG casino cuz Hamptons is full of it.

 

[STING]

Hi Folks,

This is my first post here.

First off, I would like to start by saying Ive know Ron of Hampton for a few years now and my own experience with him has always been positive. Hes always had a strong presence in Casino Times News when I was Managing Editor there and back when my site was hit by denial of service attacks in July of last year, Ron was very instrumental in helping me set up with another hosting company. Of course I have nothing but respect for many of the folks here. Ive known an admired people like Jetset and Spearmaster for many years now.

I have a tough time believing that Ron would deliberately screw anybody from a personal standpoint and at the same time I cant ignore the fact that there are intelligent players advocates suggesting his actions are completely intolerable. So essentially I am left questioning how weve ended up in this fine mess without taking away arguments from either side.

From where I stand, there is no denying both parties handled this matter dreadfully. I might be mistaken here, but it seems to me that the player knew of this websites existence (CasinoMeister) before making his phone confession and I know that Hampton (and Ron) certainly knew of this sites existence. Sites like Casinomeister are in place to handle these matters (granted this one is in a league all its own) before they get to the point where we are at now. Everything else, in my opinion, is secondary.

My question then becomes, Why did neither of these parties consider approaching Bryan Bailey or any one of a number of online casino advocates prior to mishandling this matter on their own?

As things stand now, the player will not be paid the $1.3 million as his confession is right on tape, and while I realize the possibility of intimidation leading to a false confession, there is simply no need to do so with folks like Bryan here for the players. Unless the player was not aware of this sites existence, there is no excuse as to why he would have made a false disclosure. He did so after an initial phone conversation. Instead of calling Ron back, he should have contacted Bryan. I get the impression (especially since the calls were taped by the player) that he was more focused on dragging Hamptons name through the mud through the enlisting of other forum members than he was using this site for its intended purpose that is RESOLVING THE MATTER BEFORE IT ESCALATES. Neither Bryan, Myself or anyone else for that matter can force Hampton Casino to pay the guy as their whole argument now hinges on the fact that he admits to using a robot, thus violating their published company policy, irrespective of how that confession was derived (I don't believe their is a dispute related to whether or not that specific policy appeared on the Hampton site at the time).

By the same token, the online casinos must do their best to avert this type of negative publicity. Questioning the authenticity of a $1.3 million dollar win is not your every day run of the mill dispute. Companies like Hampton do not need this type of a black eye. The top companies in this industry need to work closely with respected watchdog sites and consult with them regularly. The argument that Hampton Casino acted arrogantly here certainly holds water.

The point Im getting at is that sites such as Casino Meister need to be utilized more properly. From a players perspective, coming onto the forum and complaining AFTER a confession is made serves no purpose. Likewise, from the online casinos perspective, offering the stance that the player made a confession only after baiting him along during a half hour phone conversation serves no purpose either and is not likely to win over many supporters.

Sites like this need to be utilized from the onset immediately upon determination of a dispute.otherwise there will be no winners when all is said and done. If ever there was a case study on how NOT to handle an online gambling payout dispute, this would be IT.

Both the player and the casino made their own bed and now they have to lay in it.

 

[spearmaster]

Welcome, Sting

The alleged confession, first of all, proves nothing. Ron himself said "let's go hit some other casinos."

Is that a confession that he wants to commit a crime? Does that mean that he has already committed the crime?

Of course not. And the player's "confession" is said to be of a dubious nature because it was coerced, or entrapment, or whatever.

If I tell you I'm going to pay you a million dollars to write on your website that I know you were the person behind the DOS attacks, would you consider writing it? Obviously this is not the case (just an example) but if you then said Ok, I am the person behind the DOS attacks, is that a confession?

Surely not.

There are a number of complicated issues in this matter. Three parties - Hampton, the player and RTG - who have cleared the game of any faults or bugs. An alleged bot - which, if the game has no faults or bugs, simply brings the game closer to expectation in a faster manner - and since expectation means a house edge, then the HOUSE is generally the beneficiary of the use of a bot.

This "bot" play exception is simply ridiculous, even if it IS in the terms and conditions. If the casino were to say that I must be using IE6 and Windows 95 in order to claim winnings, would that be an acceptable condition?

Of course not.

What it comes down to is this. RTG has cleared the game - and therefore the winnings are legitimate unless Hampton or RTG can discover a true fault. If Hampton does not pay the winnings then RTG will be forced into a very difficult position.

I would suggest all three parties come to an amicable agreement for the sake of everyone as well as the industry in general. RTG in particular will not want to see its name used or referred to as a dubious entity in the online gambling world - particularly as its base is in the US. Hampton, if it chooses not to settle, might as well shut down now. And as for the player - frankly I think he has the least to lose even if it's a million bucks. But all indications are that his winnings are rightfully earned and unless proven otherwise, I think the ball is in Hampton's court.