- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
I choose a)
Sorry Brucake, I'm not going to explain it any further. I'm sure you know where I'm coming from
Sorry Brucake, I'm not going to explain it any further. I'm sure you know where I'm coming from
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.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.
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?
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 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.
".......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.
... As far as I can see (and I am not the only one obviously) it seems as though she has done nothing wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.