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

[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Latest BitchMeister report just went up: Link Outdated / Removed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Latest BitchMeister Report is up: Link Outdated / Removed.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 : Link Outdated / Removed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Link Outdated / Removed.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.

 

[Casinomeister]

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.