The whole PAB system is broken in my opinion

I choose a) :p

Sorry Brucake, I'm not going to explain it any further. I'm sure you know where I'm coming from :D
 
Many of the members in this forum will vouch for questions to have already been answered but for those who are infrequent visitors there are doubts in the mind. We know that we cant be too explicit about everything but some enquirers simply want to know more. I read the case about Alicek at GG and they seem to have a point in stating that just too little was divulged. Maybe its time we had a hard look at what constitutes fraud and the most that can be relayed to the player without compromising the need to keep the methods of detecting fraud under wraps. Otherwise, it will continue to sow seeds of distrust between casino and player.
 
Many of the members in this forum will vouch for questions to have already been answered but for those who are infrequent visitors there are doubts in the mind. We know that we cant be too explicit about everything but some enquirers simply want to know more. I read the case about Alicek at GG and they seem to have a point in stating that just too little was divulged. Maybe its time we had a hard look at what constitutes fraud and the most that can be relayed to the player without compromising the need to keep the methods of detecting fraud under wraps. Otherwise, it will continue to sow seeds of distrust between casino and player.
I understand totally where you are coming from. Perhaps when I get back, I'll come up with a laundry list of what constitutes fraud. In fact while I'm at the EIG, I'll hit up any operators that I run into and get their opinions as well.
 
Well there are two sides:

1. There have been issues in the past where honest players were *caught in a fraud ring net.
2. I've yet to see a player who got caught knowingly commiting fraud NOT continue to deny they did anything wrong - as loudly and as often as possible.

*As far as I'm aware, most of the innocents were cleared in time, right?
 
It's important to differentiate between the legal definition of fraud (cue Vinylweatherman QC) and the online casino definition of fraud.

When we talk about "fraud" in relation to online casinos, it doesn't necessarily mean a strictly criminal act has been committed, although this may sometimes be the case. It seems there are some who object to the term "fraud" when it relates to players trying to cheat/ripoff a casino, but it really is just a general term used to cover such things as multi-accounting to claim multiple bonuses, multiplayer table game collusion, ID fraud (misrepresentation of one's true indentity), use of bots, etc. The only reason I think it's used at all is for lack of another term that covers this kind of wide range in behaviours.

The way I see it, as long as the casino can provide solid evidence to an independent third party with integrity (e.g. CM PAB) that the player has committed a "fraudulent act", as per the definition above, then there is absolutely no need to publish it for all to see.

As Bryan and Max have alluded to, the only members who are really belly-aching about "seeing all the evidence" are the ones who have either been in trouble before, or who have a huge chip on their shoulder when it comes to certain online casinos. You might think that assessment is harsh, but one only has to go back over their posting history to see what's what.

The vast majority of the membership are happy to trust that Bryan and Max are fair-minded and even-handed, and that is because there has never been a situation where this hasn't been the case.....except of course for the fraudsters and their buddies, and the players who have yet to be caught, who will cry and gnash their teeth because their PAB has failed, and they are none the wiser about how they got caught.

One thing I know from experience. CM does not make decisions based on commercial interests, and does not allow any casino to be involved in the site that has displayed behaviour that does not meet with strict standards....which is more than I can say for Gambling Grumblers who are happy to take cash from the lowest of the low.

Integrity is everything in this industry, and CM has consistently proven that he has it in spades.
 
Moved the iNetBet conversation back to the original thread here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/inetbet-closes-my-account-you-be-the-judge.46045/

Back to the topic at hand. It would be nice to hear a response from NotHappy who is not happy with the PAB system and how it could be fixed.

But then, it is a free service, and like Max has illustrated - those who are unhappy with the PAB service are clearly in the minority. So in my opinion, it's far from broken. And if it's not broke, why fix it?

That's what I said, for the price you can't beat it! Period. thank you. :)
 
It's important to differentiate between the legal definition of fraud (cue Vinylweatherman QC) and the online casino definition of fraud.

When we talk about "fraud" in relation to online casinos, it doesn't necessarily mean a strictly criminal act has been committed, although this may sometimes be the case. It seems there are some who object to the term "fraud" when it relates to players trying to cheat/ripoff a casino, but it really is just a general term used to cover such things as multi-accounting to claim multiple bonuses, multiplayer table game collusion, ID fraud (misrepresentation of one's true indentity), use of bots, etc. The only reason I think it's used at all is for lack of another term that covers this kind of wide range in behaviours.

I agree. That is what is frustrating members about the alicek complaint. It wasn't for multi bonuses, it wasn't multi tabling/multiplayer, it wasn't ID fraud. What was it then? Don't say HOW she was "caught" just state what the charges are so that we can drop the issue or give her a chance to at least defend against the charges. The general FRAUD call can't be right in this case on the info given. It is frustrating to be told to just trust someone when there is no need for blind trust. Just a specific charge would have ended this topic before it ever started.
 
I agree. That is what is frustrating members about the alicek complaint. It wasn't for multi bonuses, it wasn't multi tabling/multiplayer, it wasn't ID fraud. What was it then? Don't say HOW she was "caught" just state what the charges are so that we can drop the issue or give her a chance to at least defend against the charges. The general FRAUD call can't be right in this case on the info given. It is frustrating to be told to just trust someone when there is no need for blind trust. Just a specific charge would have ended this topic before it ever started.

".......on the info given....."

......TO YOU.

What makes YOU think that the casino or Max/CM should provide YOU with all the relevant evidence?

What YOU really want is a "trial by forum" where all the information is disclosed publically and a vote taken. Of course, it would also be a boon for those who are, or are planning to, cheat the casinos. It is this category of player who insists the most strongly that all should be revealed.

What is your angle GAYdave? Can you explain why it is those who have been in trouble previously, or who have been associated with such people, who are really the only people going off the deep end about it all? It just seems incredible that one would make so much noise about someone they don't know.....unless you do know them?

I'm even more surprised that someone who has expressed so little trust in, or respect for, the ideology of this site would bother even posting or even being a member. You should stick with Gumball Grumbles and their advertisers.....I'm sure they'll see you right.
 
The regular posters are not the only viewers of this forum. Most of us regulars trust Bryan and Max and their integrity is never in doubt. However, we must understand there are many, many players out there looking for info on online gaming and not being well acquainted with this place. They will be asking questions and wont simply be satisfied with the words'Have faith in Bryan' though this is what I believe in. The traffic to this site is huge and if it is to develop further we have to be more open-minded.

Meanwhile I paid the GG site a couple of visits. Maybe not the same one when Julie was in charge but it does seem player-friendly and sure to attract more newbies than this site I venture to say. Players will feel more at ease over there because they will not come accross hardened posters like myself. The grumbles seemed to be handled professionally and it seemed they were willing to hear both sides of the story. Not that I trust them but other players will if it seems they are willing to listen.
 
If GG does a good and honest job as is done here, then I say strength to their arm - there are probably plenty of players out there looking for help as well as manipulators trying to secure an advantage or apply pressure to particular operators.

I don't believe that site is serious competition for Casinomeister, which has a slew of other features that keep the traffic flowing in and a faithful following.

Given his frustration with CM, maybe Gaydave should spend some time over at GG to get the answers he so desperately appears to require?
 
I don't believe that site is serious competition for Casinomeister, which has a slew of other features that keep the traffic flowing in and a faithful following.

Nor should it be regarded as competition IMO. Both provide avenues for players to explore and the more honest, ethical and useful services players have at their disposal the better.
 
".......on the info given....."

......TO YOU.

What makes YOU think that the casino or Max/CM should provide YOU with all the relevant evidence?

What YOU really want is a "trial by forum" where all the information is disclosed publically and a vote taken. Of course, it would also be a boon for those who are, or are planning to, cheat the casinos. It is this category of player who insists the most strongly that all should be revealed.

What is your angle GAYdave? Can you explain why it is those who have been in trouble previously, or who have been associated with such people, who are really the only people going off the deep end about it all? It just seems incredible that one would make so much noise about someone they don't know.....unless you do know them?

I'm even more surprised that someone who has expressed so little trust in, or respect for, the ideology of this site would bother even posting or even being a member. You should stick with Gumball Grumbles and their advertisers.....I'm sure they'll see you right.

Without getting into a flaming war that you seem to be wanting I will simply say ONCE AGAIN for you that I don't want evidence. I don't want evidence. I have said it several times and so have others. Maybe it is a language barrier for you on this but nobody is asking for evidence.

OK, with me now? Nobody is asking for evidence. What is wanted is the accusation. What is the charge? "FRAUD" cannot be the charge. It is nonsense. She submitted documents, didn't use bonuses after the 1st deposit and could not have multitabled with others. "FRAUD" is thus impossible unless she was hacking the casino and stealing it somehow.

So instead of your constant mantra of "you are fraudsters and you just want to know the evidence to know how you were/will be caught" perhaps you should digest what is being written and understand that nobody has asked for that no matter how many times you say it. They just aren't. They ARE asking for a specific charge. (as you laid out previously: false ID, multiple accounts for bonus usage, multi tabling to skew the odds....et al).
I don't think she did anything wrong. Everything that I have read here and at Gambling Grumbles has proven my theory correct. A simple "she is fraud" is not good. If she used multiple bonuses then it should be "she opened several accounts and used the same bonus" or something. I am not interested in how she got caught. I would like to know WHAT she got caught doing. As far as I can see (and I am not the only one obviously) it seems as though she has done nothing wrong.
 
Without getting into a flaming war that you seem to be wanting I will simply say ONCE AGAIN for you that I don't want evidence. I don't want evidence. I have said it several times and so have others. Maybe it is a language barrier for you on this but nobody is asking for evidence.

OK, with me now? Nobody is asking for evidence. What is wanted is the accusation. What is the charge? "FRAUD" cannot be the charge. It is nonsense. She submitted documents, didn't use bonuses after the 1st deposit and could not have multitabled with others. "FRAUD" is thus impossible unless she was hacking the casino and stealing it somehow.

So instead of your constant mantra of "you are fraudsters and you just want to know the evidence to know how you were/will be caught" perhaps you should digest what is being written and understand that nobody has asked for that no matter how many times you say it. They just aren't. They ARE asking for a specific charge. (as you laid out previously: false ID, multiple accounts for bonus usage, multi tabling to skew the odds....et al).
I don't think she did anything wrong. Everything that I have read here and at Gambling Grumbles has proven my theory correct. A simple "she is fraud" is not good. If she used multiple bonuses then it should be "she opened several accounts and used the same bonus" or something. I am not interested in how she got caught. I would like to know WHAT she got caught doing. As far as I can see (and I am not the only one obviously) it seems as though she has done nothing wrong.

The one flaw in your theory......you don't have ALL the facts, therefore you are guessing.

Have you considered that stating the TYPE of fraud might give away the method used to detect it?

If you think CM has falsely accused someone of fraud, and refuses to reconsider, why are you even here? I would be out of here like a flash.

Talk about not having the courage of one's convictions.....
 
... As far as I can see (and I am not the only one obviously) it seems as though she has done nothing wrong.

If I'm not mistaken Bryan has said that he'll clarify "fraud" in general when he returns. As to deeper insight into AliceK's case I don't think you're going to get it because Bryan has also said he's shared all he's going to share on that matter.

I remind you that the PAB process is not a jury trial. We receive an issue, we look into it, we try to get the parties to resolve their differences and if that's not possible then we decide what we think based on what we have found. Our conclusions presume no more or less weight than the experience and reputations behind them. Beyond a general explanation of how the process works and who we would typically consult in pursuit of an issue we don't offer and won't provide detailed justifications of our process nor any particular case.

If that is insufficient for you then so be it but generally speaking your opinion or the opinion of others is not part of the PAB process. If you want to look into people's issues and make decisions based on your opinions then perhaps you should set up your own complaints processing service. Good luck with that. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
As the manager of Gambling Grumbles, I may not be completely impartial in this matter, but I am going to put in my two cents worth anyhow.

Is the whole PAB system broken?

Definitely not, and, IMHO, that is a ridiculous overstatement.

Is PAB flawed?

Of course it is. So is Gambling Grumbles. For that matter, I can't think of any organization, person, or operation which is not in some way flawed. If you are seeking perfection, I suggest that you look for it in whatever deity you might worship because you will not find it on earth.

Which method of handling disputes is a better one -- Max's or GG's?

Clearly Max believes that his is better or he would change it. At the same time, I feel that GG's is better or I would change it.

There is one major difference in our approaches that I can see -- and both avenues have their advantages and disadvantages.

Casinos, saying they need to protect their security, are not willing to make many things public. They will show them both to Max and to me, but with the proviso that we not reveal them.

Max, after getting this information, takes it into consideration when making his decisions. I do not. I make it clear to each casino that while I will respect their request that something be off the record, I can not then allow that information to influence my report. Why? Because the player is not given the opportunity to refute (and, indeed, possibly disprove) this information.

The advantage in Max's approach is that he has more information he can use than I do. The advantage in my approach is that the information I do use is open to public scrutiny and not only can the player refute it but the reader can make his own decision as to its veracity.

I have pretty thick skin (I suspect that Max does too or else he would have given up a long time ago). I can take any criticism that is aimed at me. I will not, however, either join in any concerted attack on Max or CM -- nor do I feel that one is justified.
 
Thanks Steve, good post. I'd just like to clarify that it's not "Max's approach", it's the "Casinomeister approach": Bryan built the PAB system over a number of years, it is his creation.

Since I started managing the PAB's -- about four years ago now -- I've recommended a few tweaks which have since become part of the process but Bryan oversees the whole thing and is involved in many of the decisions. In particular we work together on the tough or tricky cases. Anything that might be construed as setting Casinomeister policy or precedent requires Bryan's approval before it is released to the parties involved.
 
Thanks Steve, good post. I'd just like to clarify that it's not "Max's approach", it's the "Casinomeister approach": Bryan built the PAB system over a number of years, it is his creation.

I stand corrected.

(Actually, I sit corrected as I can not stand and type at the same time.)

To tell the truth, Max, I am looking forward to the day that you are fired. That would be the same day that I am fired and the reason would be that all on line casinos have gotten their acts so straightened out that there would no longer be any real need for either of us.

Somehow, however, I suspect that day will never come.
 
To tell the truth, Max, I am looking forward to the day that you are fired. ... Somehow, however, I suspect that day will never come.

Never say "never", stranger things have happened. ;)
 
As the manager of Gambling Grumbles, I may not be completely impartial in this matter, but I am going to put in my two cents worth anyhow.

Is the whole PAB system broken?

Definitely not, and, IMHO, that is a ridiculous overstatement.

Is PAB flawed?

Of course it is. So is Gambling Grumbles. For that matter, I can't think of any organization, person, or operation which is not in some way flawed. If you are seeking perfection, I suggest that you look for it in whatever deity you might worship because you will not find it on earth.

Which method of handling disputes is a better one -- Max's or GG's?

Clearly Max believes that his is better or he would change it. At the same time, I feel that GG's is better or I would change it.

There is one major difference in our approaches that I can see -- and both avenues have their advantages and disadvantages.

Casinos, saying they need to protect their security, are not willing to make many things public. They will show them both to Max and to me, but with the proviso that we not reveal them.

Max, after getting this information, takes it into consideration when making his decisions. I do not. I make it clear to each casino that while I will respect their request that something be off the record, I can not then allow that information to influence my report. Why? Because the player is not given the opportunity to refute (and, indeed, possibly disprove) this information.

The advantage in Max's approach is that he has more information he can use than I do. The advantage in my approach is that the information I do use is open to public scrutiny and not only can the player refute it but the reader can make his own decision as to its veracity.

I have pretty thick skin (I suspect that Max does too or else he would have given up a long time ago). I can take any criticism that is aimed at me. I will not, however, either join in any concerted attack on Max or CM -- nor do I feel that one is justified.

This is not clear to those reading those reports, and seems to be getting interpreted to mean the casino has no evidence to back up it's claims, rather than it fears placing the evidence in the public domain. In fact, the GG process is much closer to what would happen in a court of law. When fraud cases come to court in the UK, we get to see all the evidence, and even how it was gathered. Even those not involved directly get to see how the process works via TV documentaries, some of which are "fly on the wall" accounts from within the offices of a risk team as they gather their evidence and prepare a case to take to court. Watching these can give you a good idea as to how these frauds take place, and how they get detected.

It is likely that much of what online casinos are afraid to share has already been shown in some detail on these TV programs here in the UK.

A recent one went behind the scenes of the process used to determine whether a document is genuine or fake. Some of the fake documents featured were so good that there would have been ZERO chance of detection when a 300dpi JPEG limited to 1Mbyte was all they had to work with. ID and financial fraud has been covered well by such programs, however there has not been much about internet fraud where the fraud is trying to pass off 1 PC as several unconnected PCs in order to open multiple accounts at a website. This is actually a problem at sites that offer loss-leader discounts on a new customer's first ever order, as well as at online casinos. Sites offering free money for surveys and other "one per person" actions are also targetted by multi-accounters.

Casinos have run into problems because they have misused the term "fraud" to cover mere breaches of terms and conditions, and in some cases to cover perfectly legitimate, but "skilled" play that they feel makes the player "too good" for their liking. Such things ONLY become fraud once lies are told.
 
It is likely that much of what online casinos are afraid to share has already been shown in some detail on these TV programs here in the UK.

A recent one went behind the scenes of the process used to determine whether a document is genuine or fake. Some of the fake documents featured were so good that there would have been ZERO chance of detection when a 300dpi JPEG limited to 1Mbyte was all they had to work with. ID and financial fraud has been covered well by such programs, however there has not been much about internet fraud where the fraud is trying to pass off 1 PC as several unconnected PCs in order to open multiple accounts at a website.

Any links to the TV show VW, would like to watch.. TY.
 
As the manager of Gambling Grumbles, I may not be completely impartial in this matter, but I am going to put in my two cents worth anyhow.

Is the whole PAB system broken?

Definitely not, and, IMHO, that is a ridiculous overstatement.

Is PAB flawed?

Of course it is. So is Gambling Grumbles. For that matter, I can't think of any organization, person, or operation which is not in some way flawed. If you are seeking perfection, I suggest that you look for it in whatever deity you might worship because you will not find it on earth.

Which method of handling disputes is a better one -- Max's or GG's?

Clearly Max believes that his is better or he would change it. At the same time, I feel that GG's is better or I would change it.

There is one major difference in our approaches that I can see -- and both avenues have their advantages and disadvantages.

Casinos, saying they need to protect their security, are not willing to make many things public. They will show them both to Max and to me, but with the proviso that we not reveal them.

Max, after getting this information, takes it into consideration when making his decisions. I do not. I make it clear to each casino that while I will respect their request that something be off the record, I can not then allow that information to influence my report. Why? Because the player is not given the opportunity to refute (and, indeed, possibly disprove) this information.

The advantage in Max's approach is that he has more information he can use than I do. The advantage in my approach is that the information I do use is open to public scrutiny and not only can the player refute it but the reader can make his own decision as to its veracity.

I have pretty thick skin (I suspect that Max does too or else he would have given up a long time ago). I can take any criticism that is aimed at me. I will not, however, either join in any concerted attack on Max or CM -- nor do I feel that one is justified.


People should learn from Steve ie mutual respect even with vastly differing opinions or processes. Both systems have their own merits but in the end what does matter is that they are trying to mediate between the casino and the player for a satisfactory solution.
:thumbsup:
 
Thankyou Steve for coming over and explaining the difference between GG and PAB. It is very good information.

Personally, I find it impossible to accept a dispute resolution process that doesn't take into account all the facts, particularly when the conclusions are made public and hence have a real effect on what may be an honest and trustworthy operator...their only "fault" being an unwillingness to reveal the methods they use to detect fraud, due to the fact that it may assist future fraudsters in taking them to the cleaners.

The reason the PAB process is well respected and widely accepted (except by the fraudsters) is that the vast majority of players believe and trust Max and Bryan that when they SAY they have seen evidence which proves wrongdoing, then they HAVE. I think this majority also understand the need for discretion when it comes to this evidence, and that without it there would be no PAB service and players would be many $,000's out of pocket.

Maybe I'm biased, but as an operator, I would also find it difficult to accept decisions made on only part of the evidence, and I would be wary of continuing to participate in such a process......and without the operators playing along, such a service will always be struggling to arrive at the correct decision, which in turn will affect their long term integrity with these operators and the majority of players.

Just my opinion, of course.
 
Usually in public legal cases like VM states, all the evidence and outcomes are publicly shared with anyone that wants to view them.

Wouldn't it make more sense for online gaming to publicly announce exactly what took place to confirm fraud, with the obvious result if being a fraudster to realize the casinos are on to that idea and to stop using it, since they couldn't get away with it any longer? By keeping facts hidden may stop the one fraudster in that one case, but all the others (fraudsters) not knowing that type of fraud is now detectable will keep trying it, with the risk of many others still thinking it's a good plan and getting away with it before being detected, when most would just through it out the window knowing the casinos are tuned it.
 
Usually in public legal cases like VM states, all the evidence and outcomes are publicly shared with anyone that wants to view them.

Wouldn't it make more sense for online gaming to publicly announce exactly what took place to confirm fraud, with the obvious result if being a fraudster to realize the casinos are on to that idea and to stop using it, since they couldn't get away with it any longer? By keeping facts hidden may stop the one fraudster in that one case, but all the others (fraudsters) not knowing that type of fraud is now detectable will keep trying it, with the risk of many others still thinking it's a good plan and getting away with it before being detected, when most would just through it out the window knowing the casinos are tuned it.

Actually, the minute an operator publicly states what the exact evidence of fraud is, it tips others off to the detection methods that they use. In turn, they will do what you say and give up that method.....I agree....but THEN they put all their efforts into finding new ways to scam. At least if these scumbags don't know exactly how they're being monitored and caught, they will have a hard time coming up with a way to get around it.

You may say "well the detection method doesn't have to be revealed", but if true transparency is to be had then it must be revealed as a matter of process, otherwise we may as well stay with the current situation. You see, the fraudsters already KNOW what they did...they just want to know HOW they got caught. Unfortunately, revealing exactly what evidence the operator has can reveal its methods, so it is understandable that they want to keep their cards close to their chest.

The only ones who scream about needing to see all the evidence are the ones who stand to benefit from such disclosure. Take a look through the fora over the years...it is always pretty much the same group of people waving their arms in the air.

Personally, if max or bryan tell me they have irrefutable evidence that a member is a fraudster, then I believe them. If someone doesn't believe them, then why be a part of the site? Do they make errors? Of course. Do they always accept the casinos evidence? No.....and that in itself should tell you that these guys didn't come down in the last shower and that they know there are bad apples on both sides. Hence, when they come to a decision I KNOW they have considered ALL the facts, and not just those that the operators have allowed them to publish.

The PAB is NOT a court and never has been, so discussions about what happens in court and legal opinions from members who aren't lawyers are irrelevant and just muddy the waters, and in fact play into the fraudsters hands.....THEY can't lose, because when they caught VIA the PAB service, they throw their arms in the air shouting "I'm innocent!! Prove I'm guilty!!", knowing full well that it will not be forthcoming, and stir up the usual suspects and try to garner support for their "cause", making them appear to be the victim and making the PAB service look like the bad guys. On the other hand, if the evidence is revealed, they get to hone their craft for their next victim....so as I said they CAN'T LOSE.

The only ones that "lose" are people like myself and the huge majority of others, who are subject to more and more restrictions when all we want to do is play and have fun and possibly win.
 
I agree with Nifty. If Casino say how they know someone is a fraudster it can help them figure out another way to cheat the system.

Maybe the PAB system has problems, but I don't think providing more information to possible fraudsters is a good solution.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top