The BitchMeister Blog: it's New! Improved! Old-Fashioned!

[Tengil]

That person has repeated tried to turn this thread into a debate over their own personal issue with Rushmore. I believe that 1.11 items "harassing members with agenda laden posts" and "consistently ragging on a casino that did you wrong" apply in spades here.

Making others aware of your issue is one thing, being a pissy whiner is quite another.

Well to me its quite obvious that they have done quite much wrong.

As I said I can agree on the hijacking (rule 1.15) but that happens all the time at the forum.

 

[The Dude]

....As I said I can agree on the hijacking (rule 1.15) but that happens all the time at the forum.

It doesn't happen all the time in this forum unless you let it happen. That's why we have rules. When members disrespect the board and/or its membership, the rules are enforced. And when you break the rules you deal with the consequences. That's how life works.

Any further discussion on this can be dealt with in a separate thread. Thank you.

 

[WD2810]

Artico, seems like I can't PM you because of your ban. I met with the "Rushmore PI" in person and he said I can give his number to you so you can contact him. E-mail me: tiltfisk ( at ) tintti.net.

He had been asked by Rushmore to meet with me in person to further confirm my ID. Now that it's done, I guess it's up to Rushmore to finally make good on their debt.

 

[maxd]

I don't know when you had your meeting with the PI but keep in mind that he still needs to write and file his report and Rushmore needs to process it. They usually do these things in batches so there is a lag time between you seeing the PI and Rushmore having the results in front of them.

 

[maxd]

The latest update has been posted: Link Outdated / Removed

This week: Rushmore, Golden Lounge, Stryyke, Past PABs and, of course, The Numbers. Link Outdated / Removed. Enjoy!

 

[The Dude]

I've unbanned Artico's account so that he can be notified. Looks like things have been taken care of.

 

[WD2810]

Got e-mail from Rushmore. They said my account is verified now, but they will only send money via wire transfer. So I went to cashier to make the wire transfer request.

I also asked if they're going to compensate for the delay (pay interest) and they quickly replied that they are "unable to compensate for the wait".

Once I get my money (will let you know) I consider my PAB solved, but unless I get nothing more than a simple "sorry" from Rushmore for all this, I certainly cannot ever recommend playing there to anyone.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Got e-mail from Rushmore. They said my account is verified now, but they will only send money via wire transfer. So I went to cashier to make the wire transfer request.

I also asked if they're going to compensate for the delay (pay interest) and they quickly replied that they are "unable to compensate for the wait".

Once I get my money (will let you know) I consider my PAB solved, but unless I get nothing more than a simple "sorry" from Rushmore for all this, I certainly cannot ever recommend playing there to anyone.

This is not so, they are UNWILLING, not "unable" to make a goodwill gesture of compensation. This should be reconsidered, since you are INNOCENT, one of the "dolphins" accidentally caught up in this investigation, which was, after all, after a group of hard to track fraudsters using stolen ID.
Seems here that their investigation has found you innocent, but Rushmore are still not entirely happy, and are grudgingly paying you - insisting on wire transfer, but would rather you played elsewhere in future. Really, they should now be treating you like any other player NOT caught up in this, allowing you to withdraw with the usual options, and welcoming you back as a regular player.

Elsewhere, "goodwill compensation" is considered normal practise for innocent parties caught up in things such as this, and there is no reason why this industry is any different from the rest. Companies often look upon it as good PR, even though they will not admit any kind of liability, and will use the phrase "as a goodwill gesture".

 

[WD2810]

This is not so, they are UNWILLING, not "unable" to make a goodwill gesture of compensation. This should be reconsidered, since you are INNOCENT

--
Seems here that their investigation has found you innocent, but Rushmore are still not entirely happy, and are grudgingly paying you - insisting on wire transfer, but would rather you played elsewhere in future. Really, they should now be treating you like any other player NOT caught up in this, allowing you to withdraw with the usual options, and welcoming you back as a regular player.

Thanks for sticking up for me! The email did really say "unable" which is obviously not true. I agree with what you said, but there's not much I can do other than take my business elsewhere and recommend everyone else to do the same.

Reasoning for cancelling my previous Moneybookers withdrawals was: "We however need to send these via wire transfer to ensure that your name is on the bank account we are sending the funds". I don't really mind the wire much but I did take this as another showing of mistrust.

 

[maxd]

FWIW, Artico also reports having been contacted by the Rushmore peeps for payout.

 

[And]

Just a heads up, don't play at Rushmore & co if you have EVER used P2P transfers with neteller or moneybookers.

After 5 months waiting for my payout today I received this:

Your accounts have been investigated and the outcome of these investigations is that your accounts have been deemed to be fraudulent and your winnings are therefore null and void.

We have worked closely with third parties to ascertain which players are genuine and which are fraudulent and yours has come back as being connected to other players and as having transferred funds between Moneybookers and Neteller accounts

I have sent and received funds through moneybookers with a lot of people in the lifetime of my moneybookers account. So apparently, if anyone of them is deemed to be a fraudster by anyone casino, MY winnings will also be confiscated. So I am liable for everyone's actions I have ever transacted.

I wonder what CM will say here, this is beyond belief.

 

[maxd]

I wonder what CM will say here ....

I quote to you from the report we received from Rushmore today:

... he has multiple accounts on the same IPaddress ....

'Nuf said, case closed.

 

[maxd]

Just posted a quickie: Link Outdated / Removed.

Full details when I do tomorrow's weekly report.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Thanks for sticking up for me! The email did really say "unable" which is obviously not true. I agree with what you said, but there's not much I can do other than take my business elsewhere and recommend everyone else to do the same.

Reasoning for cancelling my previous Moneybookers withdrawals was: "We however need to send these via wire transfer to ensure that your name is on the bank account we are sending the funds". I don't really mind the wire much but I did take this as another showing of mistrust.

That's it then, they have taken three months, and just don't trust the outcome from their investigators. Surely your name is on your Moneybookers account also, couldn't they run a check there as they seem to have done quite thoroughly when "busting" the fraudulent player "and" who claimed it was doing P2P transfers that they objected to.

Do you perhaps log into Moneybookers through a different IP address than you use to register and play at the casino. This would certainly look odd to them, whatever their investigators reported back with.

In short, you got paid, but THEY DON'T TRUST YOU - so avoid Rushmore & sister casinos, else you may find they claim "new evidence has come to light" some time in the future, leading to this all over again.

This move of theirs is not going to stop fraud anyway, as if a fraudulent player was told they were getting a bank transfer, they would make sure they had an account ( or would set one up with their stolen ID), and get paid anyway. Stolen IDs are usually used to create bank accounts, and apply for credit cards, since this is probably even MORE lucrative than trying to defraud a casino online. Since it is so hard to get credit nowdays, even with your OWN ID, maybe this is why online casinos are being increasingly targeted by this kind of fraud, and surely it will only get worse, but innocent players can do little when they get caught up in it due to the regulatory nature of online casinos. If my ID is stolen and used to borrow money, I have RIGHTS under the law for redress, but if my ID is stolen, but it is ME that ends up being accused of being the "fake me", there is almost NOTHING I can do. I can not even investigate, since I am not even allowed to review the evidence, and pass it to the police and credit reference agencies, and begin the process of cleaning the mess up.

 

[WD2810]

Do you perhaps log into Moneybookers through a different IP address than you use to register and play at the casino. This would certainly look odd to them, whatever their investigators reported back with.

Usually I log on from home but I move around just as anyone else and sometimes use Moneybookers from other computers. I think this is how people commonly act. We also have internet banking here e.g. I can access my bank account from any computer with an internet connection, and my bank sees me using my account from different computers as just as common as me drawing cash from ATMs in different cities. At least as long as I'm not at more than one ATM at once.

I don't know how Rushmore can seriously doubt me anymore. They've got all the evidence in the world and nothing points at me being anyone else than who I say I am. IMO them not compensating me anyway is just poor business practise plain and simple. Also it's a kind of a theft. Based on penalty interest rate I calculated my net loss being around $100. (Bank of Finland:

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

)

 

[maxd]

Last week's report is up: Link Outdated / Removed.

Rushmore wrap-up + The Numbers.

 

[maxd]

A new report for the week of the 22nd has been posted: Link Outdated / Removed

NoIQ + Casino-for-me + The Numbers.

 

[Artico]

Rushmore paid, after 5 months of waiting! BTW I was never contacted by their private investigator.

You all know how I feel about Rushmore group so I dont have to repeat myself.

 

[Jasminebed]

Rushmore paid, after 5 months of waiting! BTW I was never contacted by their private investigator.

You all know how I feel about Rushmore group so I dont have to repeat myself.

Very glad to see you have your money at long last Artico.

 

[maxd]

Latest BitchMeister report is up: Link Outdated / Removed.

Rushmore saga ends + Week of the Rogues + Sky Kings Casino earns a Warning + The Numbers: read all about it Link Outdated / Removed.

 

[maxd]

New post on the BitchMeister Blog: Link Outdated / Removed.

 

[maxd]

A belated Report: Link Outdated / Removed <--- click it!

Including Sky Kings update, WHG International/Trading VS Max Drayman, and The Numbers. Enjoy!

 

[jetset]

Good work Max - amazing how quickly a Warning can catch the eye of the suits!

I'm guessing you will be monitoring the complaints you hold on Will Hill "purchased assets" to confirm that WHO is sorting them out as promised. What sort of timeframe would you consider reasonable under the circumstances?

 

[maxd]

I'm guessing you will be monitoring the complaints you hold on Will Hill "purchased assets" to confirm that WHO is sorting them out as promised.

Absolutely! In fact once B returns and my forum time drops off a bit I'll go back through the archives and see what we've got and what could be resolvable now. Those will get bounced back to WHO for reevaluation.

What sort of timeframe would you consider reasonable under the circumstances?

Not sure I follow. If you mean "how far will you dig back" that depends on the issues: something that's for a $20 bonus a year ago isn't worth the effort, something that's for $5000 of unpaid winnings from a year ago is worth a second look IMO.

Or, if you're talking about "how long to allow them to resolve" that again depends on the issue. I give a normal PAB about a month before the red flags start going up, older ones longer for a variety of reasons. If a player has dropped out of the scene and isn't reachable that obviously slows things down a lot. It's a case-by-case thing.

Did I understand the question?

 

[jetset]

Yes....and thanks - I was referring to "how long to allow them to resolve"

 

[maxd]

Latest BitchMeister report just went up: Link Outdated / Removed

Quiet week for the PABs so pretty much just Then Numbers this time around.

 

[maxd]

Latest BitchMeister Report is up: Link Outdated / Removed.

Two weeks worth of PABs and a new Warning. Enjoy!

~Max

 

[maxd]

The Bitch is Back! : Link Outdated / Removed

Three weeks of fun, frolic, an' a lil'bit o' floggin' : 25 PABs processed and one new Warning (Full Tilt Poker - unresponsive to player submitted issues).

Enjoy!

 

[maxd]

Here the latest Bitchmeister update:
Link Outdated / Removed.

Includes: announcing our new "No Can Do" List, 3 new Casinomeister Warnings, and 'The Numbers'.

 

[Pinababy69]

Hey Max, I'm glad to see you listing the names for the resolved PAB's...I think that's important. As a player, I like to know if any of the places I play have had PAB's filed, and more importantly, if they resolved them satisfactorily. Good job.

 

[Tengil]

Max, as you are the main man handling the PABs I have always tought about one thing and decided to ask.
How many of them could have been resolved before escalating to PAB stage with proper communication? Hope you know what I mean.

I for example have had two problems with payouts which were dragging for some time before I could get hold of someone higher up. The issues were then promptly resolved. But if I hadnt got hold of the relevant persons I probably never would have got anywhere without contacting a third party.

 

[maxd]

Not totally sure I understand your question ... but let me take a couple stabs at answering it anyway:

PABs resolved without really trying

By this I mean that the player PABs and I bump them and/or the info to the person that the player could have and should have contacted themselves. For the most part this means sending the player off to talk to the appropriate folks on the I-Gaming Forum Reps list. I'd say this is less than 20% of the PABs I handle, probably closer to 10%.

PABs that are quickly resolved once I submit them to our contact(s) within the casino or casino group

I guess you could say it's unofficial or unlisted casino reps that we're talking about here, the folks who are happy to talk to Bryan or myself but don't want their names on the Reps list for whatever reason.

This probably describes 20-30% of the PABs I handle. These are simply cases of having the right eyes looking at the problem and them solving it without much further effort on our part.

I think this is probably the group you had in mind, folks that would solve the problem if they knew about it but we, and not the players, are the ones who put in front of them.

It's easy to think that these problems would be resolved if only the player knew to contact this person but I respectfully suggest that it's not at all that simple.

To make a long story short we act as the first line of defense for these folks, weeding out the bogus/incomplete/wacko issues so that the ones they have to look at are for real. We're basically garbage filters in these cases and that's not a trivial thing.

In all the businesses I've worked this function is important and pretty much essential in order to make efficient use of the decision maker's time. Without it they'd be swamped, frustrated and over-worked ... and would probably leave their position to go do something less aggravating. So us being their makes it tolerable for them to do what they do. Voila! Everyone benefits.

If I've completely misunderstood your question please feel free to set me right.

 

[Tengil]

Well it pretty much answered my question. Especially the "20-30%" group. I was in the end succesful to reach the right persons but it took time and patience.

 

[maxd]

Latest update posted: Link Outdated / Removed

One new Warning (DollaroPoker) and 'The Numbers'.

If you've got comments or questions this is the place for them.

 

[jetset]

I'm unsure how many members check out Max's PAB reports, but they make very interesting reading, especially when you drill down into them a little further.

Max, I hadn't noticed that month-by-month list ending December 2008, and I explored it a little by drilling down into December 2008 - it was really useful, informative and interesting.

https://www.casinomeister.com/static/pitchabitch/index.php

and

https://www.casinomeister.com/static/pitchabitch/december2008.php

I hope your future archive plans include expanding that list to embrace Jan 2009 to date and then monthly going forward, because it is a valuable reference and resource.

Congrats on a job well done!

 

[maxd]

Hi Jet, thanks for the comments.

Bryan and I both know the value of these summaries and are working on them as I type this. It's totally my fault that we're behind on these.

First thing forthcoming is the full-year summary for 2008. I'm finishing up with the numbers for that now. Sneak preview: LOTS more fraud and PAB-a-Rogue in the second half of 2008!

Then I need to grind my way through 2009, month by month. Based on those we'll do Jan-June and July-Dec summaries.

 

[Westland Bowl]

I'm unsure how many members check out Max's PAB reports, but they make very interesting reading, especially when you drill down into them a little further......

Congrats on a job well done!

I always read Max's PAB reports and they are an important part of CM. I'm glad Max gives summaries of PABs since they can give heads up on upcoming problem casinos.

 

[maxd]

Everyone should know that suggestions on the PAB reports -- the Bitchmeister 'weeklies' -- are always welcome. I can't promise that I will incorporate every request but if it can be done without undue aggravation I'll give it a shot.

 

[The Dude]

Heads up that a full year's summary is here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/static/pitchabitch/full-year_summary_2008.php

 

[jetset]

Including the value of cases handled is a good idea imo. Gives a sense of perspective.

 

[maxd]

Just out of curiosity, are you referring to the total value of cases over the year?

If yes was it more than you expected? Less?

Like I said, just curious.

 

[chayton]

On the software list are the numbers just the 'resolved' PABs? I was a little shocked to see that MG was at the top of the software list for PABs and that it was double the amount of Playtech! But if it's just the resolved cases that makes sense.

 

[jetset]

Just out of curiosity, are you referring to the total value of cases over the year?

If yes was it more than you expected? Less?

Like I said, just curious.

Yes - and it was around what I would have guessed ie a relatively low average amount per complaint.

@Chayton - that number caught my eye as well and surprised me, as I have always thought that MGS operators on the whole would be less likely to generate complaints (or is it something to do with the amount of business MGS-powered casinos do in relation to operations powered by others?)

I would also have thought that the MGS number would be lower because a proportion of MG complaints would have gone to eCOGRA (those MGS-powered operators accredited by that organisation, which issues its own quarterly dispute stats.)

 

[maxd]

On the software list are the numbers just the 'resolved' PABs?

Those numbers include any legit case. In other words if the case wasn't incomplete or discarded and it was not player fraud (of whatever flavour) then it got counted as a legit case and was used to calculate the 'Software Provider Totals'.

I must say, I thought we had pretty much covered this by adding this note right on the table itself: "excludes cases that could not be processed or involved player fraud".

The end result of the way we do this is that if a player comes in, complains about this or that, and is found to be in violation of the T&Cs (for instance) then it gets included in the 'Software' numbers.

Of course we can get into endless debates (and have in the past) as to whether this is or isn't fair, does or does not shine the best light on this or that provider, etc etc. Some would argue "oh no! totally unfair" while others would say "hey, maybe it does indicate something meaningful". Yawn. We all know that statistics are what you make of them.

The bottom line is that the number is what it is, it tells you something -- but certainly nothing conclusive -- about the frequency of cases for a given provider. There it is. Basically take it or leave it as you like.

In other words the 'Software' numbers are just a rough indicator, nothing more. They cannot and should not be taken as an indictment or blessing of anyone for anything.

 

[RobWin]

Max, you do a very fine job of handling all the PAB Issues you are presented with IMO and the table below that you or Bryan or both have created is a good one also. I would like to see the line in BLUE added to it though since I think that info would also be relevant considering there is already a line item regarding the "Fraudster" player.



Pitch-A-Bitch Summary: January though December 2008
Total Pitch-A-Bitch Cases Submitted 347
PAB Incomplete (complainant AWOL) 31
Duplicate and/or Supplementary PAB 22
No Can Do 8
Transferred to other services or agencies 5
? subtotal: unprocessable cases 66

Fraudsters: fraudulent claims, faked ID, etc 29
Discarded: complainant AWOL, uncooperative, violated PAB rules, etc 34
Casinos: Acted irrationally, predatory, wrongly accused player, etc. etc. etc. ie:5
Closed: groundless claims, both parties at fault, agree to disagree, etc 32
Unresolved: no progress, stale-dated 3
Warning issued, site Rogued/Pending Rogue 27
Cases against Rogue Pit casinos 25
? subtotal: resolution not possible or inappropriate 150

Case Resolved, Complainant paid 131
? Total value of Resolved cases: approx $450,000 (305,000)
____
____

 

[maxd]

Hey Rob, thanks for the suggestion. Quick question: how would your 'Casinos' stat differ from the 'Warning' stat?

As I'm hearing you the idea is "if the players get flagged for fraud then the casinos should get flagged for unreasonable actions toward the player", no?

IMHO if a casino behaves as you've noted -- and it's a solid case, not just a "they're being dicks today" thing -- then they get a Warning and quite possibly Rogued or 'Not Recommended'. Would this not cover it?

If I'm barking up the wrong tree please set me straight.

 

[chayton]

In other words the 'Software' numbers are just a rough indicator, nothing more. They cannot and should not be taken as an indictment or blessing of anyone for anything.

Actually I would take this as a good point for MG, that they are at least able to resolve such a high number of cases. Playtech for instance may have a larger amount of complaints about non-payment but the casinos won't work with you to resolve them or they're on the no-can-do list or whatever.

I must say, I thought we had pretty much covered this by adding this note right on the table itself: "excludes cases that could not be processed or involved player fraud".

yeah sorry I didn't see that til after I posted...

 

[RobWin]

Hey Rob, thanks for the suggestion. Quick question: how would your 'Casinos' stat differ from the 'Warning' stat?

As I'm hearing you the idea is "if the players get flagged for fraud then the casinos should get flagged for unreasonable actions toward the player", no?

Exactly Max, that was my thought there...Thanks for the quick reply too..

IMHO if a casino behaves as you've noted -- and it's a solid case, not just a "they're being dicks today" thing -- then they get a Warning and quite possibly Rogued or 'Not Recommended'. Would this not cover it?

That could be true depending on the level of irrational behavior displayed toward the player by the casino. I guess I was thinking that for the casino to be issued with a warning against them though, the issue would have to be more dire in effect than the casino just simply making "cock ups" and blatant irrationalities toward the player, say for example in regards to a bonus promotion or ID Verification...thus the reason for the extra category IMO.
____
____

 

[maxd]

Hmm, I see now where you're going with this. In other words the 'Casinos' stat basically would be for stuff like "they're being dicks today", yes?

If I'm reading you right I'd have to say that I'm not too comfortable with that. Mainly it's a 'public fairness' issue, by which I mean that I generally feel that something has to be pretty blatant and out-of-line in order to go so far as to flag it publicly. And this would apply equally to players and casinos.

For instance, for someone to get tossed into the fraudster category we pretty much need conclusive proof that they were systematically cheating the casino. Many registrations, clear and repeated T&C violations, repeated and/or prolonged bot use, etc. If it's just a mistake or suchlike then the case just gets closed with no punitive action against the player.

So more or less I'm thinking the same should apply to the casino. If they stomp on a player mistakenly or throw a hissy fit one day but are able to see the light the next I don't see that nailing anything to their front door is kosher either.

I guess another way to look at it is that I see the 'Fraudster' and 'Rogue' categories as a 'quantum' thing, meaning that the party involved has to clearly and deliberately be working at being a crook in order to cross the threshold. Then and only then is it fair to drag them out into public and brand them for it. There are fairly serious consequences once we take that step so it should never be done lightly.

All the one-off, whoopsy and 'my bad' cases should be shrugged off, IMHO, unless they are too severe to ignore. That leaves the 'good guy' door open in the hopes that the party involved will walk through it, or at least loiter with intent. There are more than enough folks out there who really are crooks, no need to press-gang people into that category.

 

[jetset]

Actually I would take this as a good point for MG, that they are at least able to resolve such a high number of cases. Playtech for instance may have a larger amount of complaints about non-payment but the casinos won't work with you to resolve them or they're on the no-can-do list or whatever.

Chayton, I think you made a very valid point there regarding the preparedness (or otherwise) of a provider/casino to assist in resolving player disputes through Casinomeister.

It was one that I did not consider, and clearly has a bearing on the stats presented.