The whole PAB system is broken in my opinion

[The Dude]

I choose a)

Sorry Brucake, I'm not going to explain it any further. I'm sure you know where I'm coming from

 

[chuchu59]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[chayton]

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?

 

[Nifty29]

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.

 

[felicie]

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.

 

[gaydave]

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.

 

[Nifty29]

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.

 

[chuchu59]

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.

 

[jetset]

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?

 

[Simmo!]

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.

 

[gaydave]

".......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.

 

[Nifty29]

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.....

 

[maxd]

... 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.

 

[Steve Russo]

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.

 

[maxd]

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.

 

[Steve Russo]

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.

 

[maxd]

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.

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.

 

[P.V.]

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.

 

[chuchu59]

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.

 

[Nifty29]

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.

 

[4 of a kind]

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.

 

[Nifty29]

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.

 

[luarod]

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.

 

[Przecinek]

Back in the bot days, it turned out that casinos like "Casino Club" handed over information to Max and CM like "he has been playing more than 300 hands per hour" or "he has been playing for more than 8 hours straight" - once they emerged for everyone to see, they were almost immediately falsified as a solid proof. Players can play even up to 800 hands per hour, and as to how long they can play ... well we all know

Why am I mentioning this: well casinos back then also didn't want to reveal too much in order not to help abusers and bot users avoid detection, it turned out though that their proof wasn't as solid as they though it is. We're not experts - just gamblers.

I hope that proof against fraud is much more solid. Somehow I will never trust what casinos say at face value - and considering their history, I don't think it's all that suprising.

 

[Nifty29]

Back in the bot days, it turned out that casinos like "Casino Club" handed over information to Max and CM like "he has been playing more than 300 hands per hour" or "he has been playing for more than 8 hours straight" - once they emerged for everyone to see, they were almost immediately falsified as a solid proof. Players can play even up to 800 hands per hour, and as to how long they can play ... well we all know

Why am I mentioning this: well casinos back then also didn't want to reveal too much in order not to help abusers and bot users avoid detection, it turned out though that their proof wasn't as solid as they though it is. We're not experts - just gamblers.

I hope that proof against fraud is much more solid. Somehow I will never trust what casinos say at face value - and considering their history, I don't think it's all that suprising.

Somehow I will never trust what players say at face value - and considering their history, I don't think it's all that suprising.

 

[gaydave]

Also, For the umpteenth time, why are do we keep saying "don't tell them anything or they will know how they got caught". For crying out loud, how about don't tell them HOW you suspect them but at least tell them what you suspect them of. "Fraud" aint cutting it.
For example, if a casino said " we think they are multi accounting" Then the player could provide any and all documents showing that they are real. The player can prove who they are but they cannot prove who they aren't. However, the casino can simply go to the next player and demand that they show proof. Until they find the actual fraud ring. BUT that isn't what happens with places like inetbet. They simply say "fraud" and the player has no recourse or way to prove their innocence. The casino does not have to say what they found that led them to believe there is fraud but they sure as hell need to say WHAT the accusation is.
I am asking PLEASE quit muddying the waters by repeatedly saying that the casino cannot reveal anything as far as proof. Players deserve the respect to know what they are accused of and the respect to show that the casino is wrong if that is actually a fact. If the casino is correct then fine but it can't be so subjective. Like if a mediator personally has met, likes and somewhat trusts an operator then that is no reason to take their word or proof as gospel. A mediator needs to hear both sides and treat it as a court of law, accepting proof from both sides.

 

[The Dude]

BUT that isn't what happens with places like inetbet. They simply say "fraud" and the player has no recourse or way to prove their innocence.

Okay - enough is enough.

1.11 - Please do not exploit this board to promote your own personal agenda. If the moderators (and members) feel that you are spamming the board with links or ad copy to your website, harassing members with agenda laden posts, or consistently ragging on a casino that did you wrong, etc., your account may be suspended.

You've tried my patience.

60 day suspension for continuously ragging on about player fraud at iNetBet.

 

[Steve Russo]

Also, For the umpteenth time, why are do we keep saying "don't tell them anything or they will know how they got caught". For crying out loud, how about don't tell them HOW you suspect them but at least tell them what you suspect them of. "Fraud" aint cutting it.

That is my view. GG has had at least two instances where the casino was positive that the player was fraudulent. In both cases, I do not doubt for a moment that the casino was sincere. However, once they provided the details of their accusations, and allowed me to report them, the players were able to come up with solid proof of their innocence.

In both cases, the casino agreed, apologized, and paid.

I ask those who question this to answer the following: If I were a prosecutor, and brought a charge of theft against you, would you be able to defend yourself if I told the court, "I know this to be true because the police told me the details, but I am not going to tell you because it would interfere with future investigations"?

This is not theoretical. In one of those two cases the person accused of fraud was being denied 29,535 GBP in winnings. That is an extremely serious penalty -- more than most fines in criminal cases.

 

[shumantic]

I no mean to be argumentative but why do all get suspended for being against inetbet but those that always post for inetbet also have agenda but ot suspended?

From an outside perspective there is not good happening at inetbet. It is not only being dismissed but people are punished for saying it. Then silenced and kicked out of forum. Why must they stay quiet about an obvious problem?

It is insane to be against giving an player accusation of what he did. Why so secret and covert? The need to not make the casino prove is wrong. If this is how is then prcess is very broken.

They need to be made to answer.
Also, these have not been issues that have been resolved at all.

 

[The Dude]

Gaydave has been derailing just about every thread in recent weeks with this iNetBet nonsense. He's not a forum newbie and knows about our rules when it comes to agenda laden posts. That's exploiting the board - it's not like he doesn't know what he's doing.

Again, yet another thread turned into iNetBet steals money.

 

[jetset]

I hope this isn't the case, but the last few threads almost feel to me like a concerted, and I might say at times very provocative, attempt to cause damage to both CM and iNetBet; the same accusations have been repeatedly brought up by posters who have frequently been warned about "agenda-laden posts," but appear unable to accept warnings to desist.

That said, I hope iNetBet is following these threads and the accusations that are being levelled against the management; if there is even a grain of truth in there, said management needs to take a long and careful look at itself and how its security system is operating.

On the disclosure of sensitive security information; as desirable as more transparency may be to some here, it's simply not going to happen, so dry your tears and get used to the idea. There's far too much at risk for any operator to start revealing sensitive business protection tactics and technology.

With the PAB system, both sides of the story are considered by Bryan and Max, which imo is a better approach than ignoring anything the casino says in confidence. And I repeat: this is not a court of law; it's a practical online system for the resolution of player complaints in a fair, fast and uncomplicated manner.

If a complainant does not trust or like the system or Casinomeister's way of mediating, then noone is forcing he or she to use it, and a solution closer to said player's heart should perhaps be sought elsewhere.

 

[Nifty29]

That is my view. GG has had at least two instances where the casino was positive that the player was fraudulent. In both cases, I do not doubt for a moment that the casino was sincere. However, once they provided the details of their accusations, and allowed me to report them, the players were able to come up with solid proof of their innocence.

In both cases, the casino agreed, apologized, and paid.

I ask those who question this to answer the following: If I were a prosecutor, and brought a charge of theft against you, would you be able to defend yourself if I told the court, "I know this to be true because the police told me the details, but I am not going to tell you because it would interfere with future investigations"?

This is not theoretical. In one of those two cases the person accused of fraud was being denied 29,535 GBP in winnings. That is an extremely serious penalty -- more than most fines in criminal cases.

So, you're saying that CM has it all wrong. Sorry, but it certainly appears that you are saying that if all the evidence isn't allowed to be published, then a fair decision cannot be reached....and since this is how the PAB process works, then you are saying that the process is not fair. I don't really know how else to read it, and I'm not exactly sure why you would actually post that here....it's almost like you're saying "See...ours is better...prove it isn't"...and I'm not Bryan, but if it was my site I would be a little offended.

The problem you're going to have Steve, is that a lot of operators will stop providing you with information and perhaps even opt out of your process altogether, because they are basically being blackmailed (for want of a better word) by being told to either allow everything to be published, or have the decision go against you regardless. The issue I have with that, besides it making little sense, is that it distorts reality i.e. you may KNOW a player is a fraudster, and you KNOW the operator has proof, but if they decline to allow you to publish it, you will rule against them and make them appear to be "ripping off innocent players" by making accusations without proof. You are knowingly ruling in the player's favor, even though you're aware they are or are most likely scammers. How on earth is that helping the industry?

As for the court scenario.....well it is irrelevant because the PAB process isn't a court, and there are certainly cases in courts where sensitive information regarding sources etc can be heard by the judge only in chambers anyway, so your example isn't necessarily applicable, and we aren't just talking about someone pinching a bag of oranges from the greengrocer here, it's much more complicated than that as you well know.

I notice that some members (or ex-members in some cases) are flocking to your site due to your policies of making decisions on published evidence only, and coming back here to say "see this player is innocent etc". Trust me, these people and their ilk are not the kind of people you want championing your service, as there is a very good chance that a fair number of them are fraudsters themselves and they are using the more "lax" (my opinion) rules at your site to try and discredit the operators who have outed them as such.

At the end of the day Steve, and by your own admission, you are publishing decisions that are not based on all
the facts, as you do not take into account those that cannot be published, and I just cannot see how that is acceptable in any way.

It's nothing personal by the way, I don't know Steve or Graeme from a bar of soap...it's the questionable (my opinion) business decisions and a dispute resolution service that doesn't consider all the facts that motivate me to express my opinion.

 

[vinylweatherman]

That is my view. GG has had at least two instances where the casino was positive that the player was fraudulent. In both cases, I do not doubt for a moment that the casino was sincere. However, once they provided the details of their accusations, and allowed me to report them, the players were able to come up with solid proof of their innocence.

In both cases, the casino agreed, apologized, and paid.

I ask those who question this to answer the following: If I were a prosecutor, and brought a charge of theft against you, would you be able to defend yourself if I told the court, "I know this to be true because the police told me the details, but I am not going to tell you because it would interfere with future investigations"?

This is not theoretical. In one of those two cases the person accused of fraud was being denied 29,535 GBP in winnings. That is an extremely serious penalty -- more than most fines in criminal cases.

Cases like these only damage the industry, because the casino was clearly wrong, yet initially acted as though it had irrefutable proof. In both cases, mediation worked, because it got to the truth and justice was done.

The alternative to publishing the information is for a mediator to know what additional questions to ask the player in order to test the casino's evidence, yet not reveal so much as to allow the fraudsters to develop contermeasures to future detection.

In the PAB cases, it seems that during analysis Max does ask players to provide additional details, but does not necessarily say why. Operators seem to feel the PAB process gives them a fairer hearing because all evidence is considered, not just that in the public domain.

What this means is that the casinos that should REALLY be avoided are those that flatly refuse to allow ANY independent mediation of a dispute, as if this was the case with the two GG cases, there would be two players suffering a grave injustice.

Although revealing what frauds have actually done wrong can help them, it can also allow the majority to understand what is REALLY going on, and why there is such a problem with what is billed as random software, and a secure gaming environment.

Fraud is only going to be attempted where there is a means to profit from it, which is why it is so hard to accept that there can ever be a means to defraud single player against machine games without using the leverage provided by bonus money for mathematical advantage.

Even the much hated (by operators) bots offer no advantage to players. Bots only make the gameplay that much faster, but cannot improve the overall outcome over that of a skilled player using perfect strategy over a longer period of time.

Operators have themselves to blame for being afraid if things that really don't matter, or that even work in their favour, and lumping them all in to the catch-all "fraud" category, alongside the REAL fraud methods that can pretty much guarantee a profit for the fraudsters, and eventual bankruptcy for the operators.

The TV show "Rip Off Britain" deals with this from both sides, but is available online only to UK IP addresses, and even then for 7 days after transmission.

There may well be "unofficial" copies available elsewhere which a search on the title might reveal. The subject has also been covered by channel 4 in it's "Dispatches" series, some of which are on youtube more or less indefinitely, but blocked for non-UK viewers when on the official youtube channel. BBC "Panorama" also occasionally covers the inside story of fraud and it's detection.

So far though, online casinos have not been mentioned in a specific case study. It is mostly rogue traders defrauding customers, cheats who defraud the tax and welfare systems, and ID theft, use, and detection of fake documents.

 

[nothappy]

Nifty, you have an obvious agenda against gambling grumbles and an obvious agenda for inetbet. It is getting tiresome. Others get banned for the same purpose.

 

[The Dude]

Nifty, you have an obvious agenda against gambling grumbles and an obvious agenda for inetbet. It is getting tiresome. Others get banned for the same purpose.

Sorry, but I think Nifty is being quite straightforward and level headed in this case. I read his post and saw nothing wrong with it. You're baiting him. Knock it off.

 

[Mousey]

I have made an effort to schlog thru this thread. I have yet to find any tangible suggestions as to how to truly improve the PAB system here at Casionmeister -- OH, other than publicly post all evidence. Horsehockey. To reiterate what has already been posted. If you do not trust Maxd or Bryan to objectively plea your problem to the casino, then by all means, take it elsewhere.

One last thing, and I'll shut my mousey little piehole. This is my personal opinion, and no disrespect to owners/staff of Grumbles, but I'm tired of seeing Grumbles mentioned in many recent posts by Casinomeister slaggers. I don't give a flying rat's butt what does or doesn't happen at Grumbles. It has nothing to do with Casinomeister and how Bryan and Max and staff operate. Bet the web traffic at Grumbles has really picked up, huh? Free publicity whether good or bad....

 

[The Dude]

Thanks Mousey for putting a little perspective on this - nine pages and I haven't seen many suggestions either, especially from the OP, on how to fix something that is "broken".

Looks like another horse beaten to death.

 

[Steve Russo]

So, you're saying that CM has it all wrong. Sorry, but it certainly appears that you are saying that if all the evidence isn't allowed to be published, then a fair decision cannot be reached....and since this is how the PAB process works, then you are saying that the process is not fair.

Please do not put words in my mouth. As I noted in my earlier post, I obviously think that my way of working is better or else I would change it. At the same time, Max (and CM) think their system of working is better or else they would change it.

I have never said anything even approaching "CM has it all wrong". Not only did I not say it, I would not say it.

At the end of the day Steve, and by your own admission, you are publishing decisions that are not based on all the facts, as you do not take into account those that cannot be published, and I just cannot see how that is acceptable in any way.

No, I am publishing decisions that are not based on all the accusations. There is a big difference between "accusations" and "facts". I am certainly willing to report any accusation made by a casino against a player, but if the casino puts it "off the record" I simply disregard it as there is no way for the player to refute it.

Let's say that I were to write to CM and tell him that "Nifty29 met with me in Milan on Oct 15 and told me that if Gambling Grumbles did not pay him $10,000 he would attack us on various bulletin boards." Would that be a fact or an accusation? How would you react if CM were to ban you, based on this accusation, without ever telling you what I had accused you of because I put it "off the record"?

On the other hand, if you were told the specifications, you might be able to pull out your passport and prove that you were in Thailand for the entire month of October.

Generally, however, when a casino makes an untrue accusation it is not purposely telling a lie. It has simply come to the wrong conclusion. It can be very certain of what it is saying and still be wrong. This, however, can not be proven unless the player is given the details of the accusation and the possibility of disproving it.

Keep in mind that while the player might convince me with less than overwhelming evidence, the most he will get out of that is a report favoring him. That is not what a player wants. He wants his money. To get it, he has to prove his case to the casino's satisfaction and that is a much heavier burden. Yet, because we were able to present all the details of the accusations, players have, indeed, proven their innocence to casinos and received their money.

 

[Nifty29]

Please do not put words in my mouth. As I noted in my earlier post, I obviously think that my way of working is better or else I would change it. At the same time, Max (and CM) think their system of working is better or else they would change it.

I have never said anything even approaching "CM has it all wrong". Not only did I not say it, I would not say it.

Then why post those examples? Seems that it could only be to highlight what you perceive to be the PABs shortcomings....either that or just to promote your site. Either I find inappropriate given you are posting it here.​

No, I am publishing decisions that are not based on all the accusations. There is a big difference between "accusations" and "facts". I am certainly willing to report any accusation made by a casino against a player, but if the casino puts it "off the record" I simply disregard it as there is no way for the player to refute it.

Let's say that I were to write to CM and tell him that "Nifty29 met with me in Milan on Oct 15 and told me that if Gambling Grumbles did not pay him $10,000 he would attack us on various bulletin boards." Would that be a fact or an accusation? How would you react if CM were to ban you, based on this accusation, without ever telling you what I had accused you of because I put it "off the record"?

On the other hand, if you were told the specifications, you might be able to pull out your passport and prove that you were in Thailand for the entire month of October.

Generally, however, when a casino makes an untrue accusation it is not purposely telling a lie. It has simply come to the wrong conclusion. It can be very certain of what it is saying and still be wrong. This, however, can not be proven unless the player is given the details of the accusation and the possibility of disproving it.

Keep in mind that while the player might convince me with less than overwhelming evidence, the most he will get out of that is a report favoring him. That is not what a player wants. He wants his money. To get it, he has to prove his case to the casino's satisfaction and that is a much heavier burden. Yet, because we were able to present all the details of the accusations, players have, indeed, proven their innocence to casinos and received their money.

Well you're entitled to your opinion Steve. The evidence an operator provides is almost always written e.g. account data, play history, ip, etc, so I don't know what relevance your Milan scenario has.....but since you mentioned it, I believe what max would do is simply ask for proof of where I was at that time. He doesn't need to tell me why. It's not a good example of why you feel full public disclosure is the way forward.

Anyway back to the evidence thing.....

If a casino.shows you waterproof documentary evidence of fraud, but will not allow it to be published, you are saying that you would report in the player's favor even though you may even be convinced yourself? What about going back to the player yourself and asking pertinent questions, and compare the answers to what the casino showed you? It is ridiculous to say that the ONLY way to ascertain a players innocence is to give them all the evidence the casino has....that's what the fraudsters want....and you're serving it up.

As I said, you are saying that even though you are convinced a player is guilty you will report otherwise if the casino doesn't accept your terms (IMO akin to blackmail). How anyone can claim any kind of high ground with that attitude defies belief.

My prediction is that you will be inundated with fraudsters who know they can't lose either way, and that many good operators will refuse to deal with you due to your lack of respect for their security processes. Of course i could be wrong, but time will tell.

You're not entirely accurate about fraudsters only wanting their money....they also want as much leverage and support as they can muster to attempt to make it cheaper for the casino to pay up than continue to stand by their conclusions. Just look at the threads around here lately....don't just take my word for it. Again, you're playing right into their hands IMO.

 

[Simmo!]

Whatever happens I believe it is wrong to publish any information that may enlighten fraudsters or potential fraudsters with methods of perpetrating fraud or detection.

What Is also good is that both CM and GG offer a service to players with different approaches. It gives the player two different avenues to persue if they so wish. It might be an idea for the two sites to perhaps share some info on specific cases if they don't already?

 

[Steve Russo]

As I said, you are saying that even though you are convinced a player is guilty you will report otherwise if the casino doesn't accept your terms (IMO akin to blackmail). How anyone can claim any kind of high ground with that attitude defies belief.

There you go again -- putting words in my mouth.

I have never said that I will report otherwise if I am convinced a player is guilty.

What I said is that I will not take "off the record" information into consideration when reporting on a dispute. Such information never convinces me that a player is guilty. Likewise, unsupported allegations by a player never convince me that a casino is guilty.

I am not overly impressed by charges made by either side. Nor do screenshots provided by players or account records given to me by casinos make too much of an impression on me -- I have seen falsified examples of both.

Generally, what does convince me is one of three things:

1. The failure of a casino to even respond.

2. A statement (by either side) which is against that side's interest (and, believe it or not, that happens very often, albeit generally unintentionally).

3. The most common of all: an agreement by both sides on the facts, with only the interpretation of those facts being at dispute.

Today I wrote a report (it is not yet posted) which is an example of # 2 and, had I contacted the casino (which I did not) would be an example of # 3.

I received a complaint from a player who felt that he was unfairly being required to play a very high playthrough. It came down to £48,865 play in blackjack for a £39 bonus.

Do I think that is overly harsh? Yes, and I said so. Do I feel that the casino was at fault in this case? No -- because its website clearly states the bonus T&Cs. The player gave me the link to the T&Cs -- hence, it is an example of # 2 above.

This left me with nothing to ask the casino about, hence no reason to write to it. Still, if I had, it would simply have said the same thing as the player --that these are the terms of the bonus. This would make it a good example of # 3 above.

 

[LHofsdal]

The way I see it....

The way I see it, Gambling Grumbles and Casinomeister are here to help reach a solution to players complaints. Each has their own way of doing. Is it right, is it wrong? That is a matter of opinion. I personally have never had to use either of their services, (thankfully), but what I do see is this....

I see that both places are here to find out what went wrong and if there is a possible solution. Without either site/system where would players be that needed assistaance? Are they flawed? Perhaps, but I don't see the flaws as being big enough or major to make the system "broken" in anyway. GG and CM can only make decisions on the evidence provided to them, wether or not it is true is what the investigation process is all about. If one side does not want to provide any details or evidence that is their right, and then a SUGGESTION is made. This is not gospel folks, you either heed to the suggestion or not. That is your right.

As for revealing what type of fraud has occurred, it is usually revealed, like multi-accounts, signatures don't match up etc. But in no way should they reveal anything other than that, trust me when I say people are dishonest and will go to all extremes to lie, steal and cheat. I have said it before, I worked for a major retail for 21 years before I retired, and I have witnessed this first hand. It is no different here with online gaming.

Yes mistakes can be made, and owning up to those mistakes is vital to a reputation of an online casino. Having the trust of these casino is VITAL to both GG and CM. Without this trust, neither site would be worth squat, the casinos would not work with them and where would that leave all players in need of help?

Bottom line here, GG and CM are 2 separate sites, handle things in separate ways, but they are here for the same purpose, TO HELP PLAYERS IN NEED. In my book, how they do it is not my business, as long as they can help in anyway is all I care about. If it wasn't for these sites, just think of all the money that would have been lost to players and made by the casinos.

Instead of trying to find fault with these places, how about a pat on the back to say THANK YOU. After all they are doing it for free and taking time out of their day to help someone else.

I will be the first one to stand in line to pat these gentlemen on the back, because I sincerely THANK YOU for all the hard work you guys do to help us players.

Lori