Time to Rogue CDS as fake watchdog

brucake

Banned User - player fraud - flaming troll
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Location
Kintston-upon-Thames
I had made small mention of this prior but it is very much time to quit acting like this is a legitimate entity. They are clearly not a watchdog group or even interested in helping the player. They are there to trick players into THINKING that there is a watchdog but it is false beyond reason. "Victor", whom supposedly is the final word for this mess of a site is a foolish liar. The site doesn't properly work and they bloody well know it. They have been getting a free pass here, per se, for too long. They must be thrown into the rogue pit as they are not real and are not a watchdog, in fact, they are quite the opposite.

Victor takes months to respond, then when he does it is nonsensical and always in the casino's favor. My latest case in point was LOCK casino. I PaB'd and was accused by lock of being part of a dishonest group. That was false and agreed on but lock did not fix the situation regardless of the PaB. Then another affiliate from this forum attempted to contact them and they said that I was a fraudulent player but would not tell him why. Then I contacted Gambling Grumbles and they told that man "IF they tried to contact me to verify my documents and identity that I probably wouldn't even know what they were talking about" (insane). They also ignored Gamblng Grumbles inquiry as to what documents they would want in order to prove identity and such.
Apparently they offered up a blackjack bonus then claimed all the winners were part of a group that came in and played blackjack. It is ridiculous to say the least but that is another issue altogether.

During this entire time I had submitted a complaint to CDS but they were unresponsive and even forced me to open new complaints just to respond or add to the old complaint. How they can have software that doesn't work is also just ridiculous. This whole time, my PaB, the other affiliate here and gambling grumbles all agreed they were wrong. They all were told in some form or other that I was part of some ring or that I was fraudulent. What does Victor and CDS come back with months later?

Dear Mr. Robinson, After careful review of the evidence presented by the Operator, we have reached our final conclusion. The evidence does point to activity that is forbidden in the casino under their Terms and Conditions: 
h. If you are found cheating or if it is determined by Lock Casino that you have used a system or machine, be it an additional computer, additional software or otherwise used to circumvent the natural randomness of our systems. As such, we have decided to rule in favour of Lock Casino. We thank you for the opportunity you've given us to review this case. Sincerely, Victor CDS

Victor lookes so deeply into this situation that he didn't realize that I am a MRS. not MR. firstly.
So now, I went from a ring, to a fraud to a cheat. Victor apparently did not even look into this situation and just made up some random excuse. How the heck could I manipulate the randomness of an online casino? I would be filthy rich if I could!
Regardless, this is just the kind of nonsensical answer that I would expect from him. He has also spent over half of a year "investigating" how Cleopatras is not paying me with the only update being that they are not hearing back from the casino. They just aren't real and they have no way of making a casino act accordingly so they find something to side with the casino about. It is an embarrassment to the industry and to this site that they are not rogue. They should be and surely no player should be advised to waste their time and efforts contacting these clowns.
 

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Anything initiated by RTG is fake and that dates back to the Safebet era where false seals of approval were handed out to rogue casinos including the vegas strip casinos and windows casino (of tony friedman fame). Then there was Hastings and now CDS. Gambling Grumbles might just not be as forceful now than when under the care of Julie Sidwell (Gopd bless her) and gambling.com. To sum it up, I think you won and they didnt pay you by claiming you are a fraudster. In fact, I believe Lock wouldnt pay anyone so it's just a matter of finding an excuse. As long as the casino is unwilling to pay CDS will side with them. Dont waste your energy with them.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
If you are found cheating or if it is determined by Lock Casino that you have used a system or machine, be it an additional computer, additional software or otherwise used to circumvent the natural randomness of our systems.

So, CDS (on behalf of RTG) have just ADMITTED that it is possible to "circumvent the natural randomness of our systems", so therefore BELIEVE casinos who present playlogs showing that the "randomness has been manipulated", thus allowing the wins to be voided.

Safebet was rogued here under "fake watchdog site". Although CDS, unlike Safebet, actually have a complaints process, it seems set up to "rubber stamp" decisions made by casinos, rather than give a fair and independent route of appeal for the player.

Despite the weight of opinion from a number of respected mediators that the casino was wrong, it stuck to it's guns and decided it didn't have to "play fair" because being based in a country that offers no recourse to players other than CDS, it simply doesn't have to.

Lock have had problems even playing legitimate players, so it seems they CAN'T pay, rather than "won't pay" those players who they believe are out to win in the short term, rather than stick around for the long term and make money for the casino (they need all their available cash to keep the losing players coming back for more by NOT delaying payments on those occasions where they recover some losses and withdraw).

Simply playing Blackjack is NOT evidence of membership of a "group", but merely an indication that the player is out to WIN, rather than piss their money away playing those notoriously tight RTG slots. If casinos don't want this type of player, they should give only SLOTS bonuses out in order to send a clear message to players who chase down possible +EV table game bonuses that there is no point in playing there.

To offer Blackjack bonuses with the intent of not paying those who win "too cleverly" is rogue behaviour. If a Blackjack bonus is offered with a set of rules, players who manage to win despite them should get paid, and then be offered no more "easy" Blackjack bonuses.

In order to rogue CDS, there needs to be analysis of the complaints they have been asked to deal with, along with the outcomes. This will mean looking for evidence that the process is fair, rather than always being decided in favour of the casino.

eCogra finds for the player in around 40% of cases, so a similar figure should be found with CDS. If CDS for example, only find in favour of a player 2% of the time, it would be an indication that they are "fake".

I don't believe CDS are a "watchdog" site at all, but merely a subsidiary of RTG. They are some kind of "trade body" set up for operators, rather than players. They CANNOT be considered to reach their decisions in a "fair and independent manner" as we see with eCogra.

Given that the CDS website has developed a "convenient fault" that prevents players from appealing the initial findings, and that despite being notified to them via Bryan has STILL not been fixed, it seems they consider dealing with player complaints an unwelcome intrusion into their working day, which is to operate a kind of "club" for operators. Had dealing with player complaints been their main function, they would have given TOP priority to fixing the website problem that prevented many players from conducting their complaints through the proper channels.

Another "club" aspect to CDS is that only SOME RTG casinos can even have complaints submitted against them. Others can opt out of CDS altogether, leaving players ONLY with the "Costa Rican gambling authorities" for protection:rolleyes: Casinos opting out of CDS are also going to ignore PABs and representations from other player representation bodies.
 

SlotMonster

Twitch Streamer - Affiliate
webmeister
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Location
Belarus
LOL, I saw "Viktor" and thought you are talking about me :D
 

greasemonkey

Banned User - flaming
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Location
USA
Yes, lets please out these fraudsters for what they really are!

I had submitted a claim against Cleopatras/Royal Sands and they didn't even bother making up some far fetched excuse for me. They simply said that they worked out a deal to return my deposit (winning deposits only of course). That was 6 months ago and I have not seen the money. It took almost a full year for them to "reach their conclusion"....which Victor did not care to mention what they found that I had done wrong. LOL. Actually, he didn't even say there was an accusation that I did anything wrong, just that he decided to opt on the casinos side and return my deposits which he conveniently has not done. Also, he openly lies about his software "glitch".

I had 2 other complaints with CDS. One has went unanswered for over a year after a few initial questions, then they would say they would close the case if I didn't respond (even though the site will not allow you to respond) then I would open a new case just to reply to the old case and it was a vicious cycle. They finally just stopped responding or doing anything about it. The 2nd they simply came back with stating that I broke the terms and thus would lose all bonus and deposit moneys. The funny part was that I didn't use a bonus. When I opened a new thread with them to dispute it they said that the case was closed and never responded again... they are pure BS.

There was a conversation about the silliness of CDS here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/cds.41931/

They truly are fake and should be rogued. Victor takes us all for idiots as he stalls and never helps the player. Obviously from the OP, he doesnt even keep the same theme or Lie going on behalf of the casino.

I think it makes THIS site look bad to not have them rogued.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Yes, lets please out these fraudsters for what they really are!

I had submitted a claim against Cleopatras/Royal Sands and they didn't even bother making up some far fetched excuse for me. They simply said that they worked out a deal to return my deposit (winning deposits only of course). That was 6 months ago and I have not seen the money. It took almost a full year for them to "reach their conclusion"....which Victor did not care to mention what they found that I had done wrong. LOL. Actually, he didn't even say there was an accusation that I did anything wrong, just that he decided to opt on the casinos side and return my deposits which he conveniently has not done. Also, he openly lies about his software "glitch".

I had 2 other complaints with CDS. One has went unanswered for over a year after a few initial questions, then they would say they would close the case if I didn't respond (even though the site will not allow you to respond) then I would open a new case just to reply to the old case and it was a vicious cycle. They finally just stopped responding or doing anything about it. The 2nd they simply came back with stating that I broke the terms and thus would lose all bonus and deposit moneys. The funny part was that I didn't use a bonus. When I opened a new thread with them to dispute it they said that the case was closed and never responded again... they are pure BS.

There was a conversation about the silliness of CDS here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/cds.41931/

They truly are fake and should be rogued. Victor takes us all for idiots as he stalls and never helps the player. Obviously from the OP, he doesnt even keep the same theme or Lie going on behalf of the casino.

I think it makes THIS site look bad to not have them rogued.

This would be enough to expose this as a fake watchdog site. Despite there being no accusation, let alone evidence, that you did anything wrong, the fact that the casino could decide not to pay, and CDS simply had to roll over and accept this, and try (and then fail) to "cut a deal" that merely saw the return of your deposit, shows that they are NOT a genuine mediation service. Even if they wanted to be, they have NO powers whatsoever to back up any decisions, so for an "easy life" they have a vested interest in backing the casino. They make the LGA look good:p

If the LGA can get TWO Casinomeister awards for regulatory incompetence, I think we should nominate CDS to ensure Malta have a real fight on their hands this year, rather than have them smugly retaining their award for the third year running:D

What we need now is a few "case studies" in order to get the hard evidence needed to back this assertion that CDS are deliberately "faking it" as did Safebet before them, or are merely incompetent. It DOES make a difference, it's two separate awards categories;)
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
AFAIC anyone who plays at royal sands, cleopatras etc deserves what they get.....especially when they've been around long enough to know.

CDS is a joke, we all know that, but to suggest that THIS site looks "bad" for NOT listing them as rogue is an even bigger joke.

Funny how most players never need CDS or complaint resolution services, and others seem to need them quite frequently. I wonder why?
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
The burden of empirical evidence we see here from time to time on CDS appears to me to suggest that this body has very serious shortcomings which reflect badly on its parent group (?) RTG.

That being the case, I'm surprised that the (safe) RTG sites representatives here have not joined the conversation or begun a dialogue with RTG to try and at the very least sort out some of the more obvious shortcomings of this so-called player service.

I doubt that CDS will come right by being named on the Casinomeister 2011 worst list, although that's a good start. A serious complaint by the better RTG-powered casino owners on the other hand may have a better chance of making RTG consider the present inefficiency and general uselessness of CDS.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The burden of empirical evidence we see here from time to time on CDS appears to me to suggest that this body has very serious shortcomings which reflect badly on its parent group (?) RTG.

That being the case, I'm surprised that the (safe) RTG sites representatives here have not joined the conversation or begun a dialogue with RTG to try and at the very least sort out some of the more obvious shortcomings of this so-called player service.

I doubt that CDS will come right by being named on the Casinomeister 2011 worst list, although that's a good start. A serious complaint by the better RTG-powered casino owners on the other hand may have a better chance of making RTG consider the present inefficiency and general uselessness of CDS.

This is the main problem. They are NOT independent, and have clearly been set up with NO powers in order to allow the "whitewash" of RTG casinos' reputations who use CDS as a vehicle to legitimise their decisions. The reputable casinos have been quiet on the matter, but also seem to have "voted with their feet" by engaging with the PAB process here, and probably similar processes at other forums.

If CDS make a decision the casino doesn't like, there is nothing they can do to enforce it. Here at least, failure to take heed of a PAB resolution can lead to a casino being thrown in the pit, and whilst many may act like CM is so unimportant that they don't care, they suddenly DO care when they find Bryan has followed through and made a formal rogue announcement.

The pit isn't only there to bring operators to their senses, it is to warn players where NOT to play, hence those casinos that use CDS to get away with rogue actions are themselves in the pit. Roguing CDS under "fake watchdog" may not bring RTG to it's senses, but it will warn players that they are NOT as protected as the CDS seal leads them to believe, and that they should look for a casino that offers alternatives, such as being licensed where there is actually a gambling regulator that offers proper gambling licenses and gives players access to an INDEPENDENT mediation service, such as the PAB process here and similar services elsewhere in the online gambling community.

Malta's LGA have effectively been rogued through the awards process, and whilst it has done little to bring them to their senses so far, it has taught the player community that they cannot rely on the LGA if they have a problem. Kahnawake WERE eventually brought to their senses after years of being seen as a "fake watchdog/regulator" so dependent on the income from license fees that they dared not rule against one of it's licensees in favour of a player.
 

greasemonkey

Banned User - flaming
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Location
USA
AFAIC anyone who plays at royal sands, cleopatras etc deserves what they get.....especially when they've been around long enough to know.

CDS is a joke, we all know that, but to suggest that THIS site looks "bad" for NOT listing them as rogue is an even bigger joke.

Funny how most players never need CDS or complaint resolution services, and others seem to need them quite frequently. I wonder why?

Why would you even post something that you KNOW will offend?
You just lure people in to flame wars with off based, devoid of facts, comments like this. Of course, I am sure that you are aware of that already as it seems to be your purpose here. I wonder why that is?

Regardless, I will explain to you that perhaps I played at these sites PRIOR to joining casinomeister. Have you even thought of that prospect or considered it? Probably not as your posts to me are always quick to offend and slow to reason.
I care how this site looks for your information. Perhaps that is also why I think it looks bad to have content on this site that actually tells people to contact them. They are fake and a "joke" as you put it. Then if that is the case it DOES make this site look bad for recommending them. I am here in logicville. Come visit some time.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
You just lure people in to flame wars with off based, devoid of facts, comments like this. .... I am here in logicville. Come visit some time.

I was sure you had been warned to keep the sniping comments to yourself. If you have a problem with another forum member then either Report it or leave it be. These constant personal jabs are achieving nothing, but they are damaging the very forums you claim to care for. As I've said, Report them or not as you prefer, but cease and desist with the posts that basically say little more than "you suck, go away". This is your last warning, if we have to do this again I'll be handing out "vacation" time.

Funny how most players never need CDS or complaint resolution services, and others seem to need them quite frequently.

I can't speak for other complaint resolution offerings but I know with ours the vast majority of complaints are from first-timers, or at least first-time users of the service. There are a few people who've used the PAB service multiple times but they also tend to be active forum members so you've likely to see their PAB "badges" fairly often. That might be giving a mistaken impression of the frequency of their PAB activities. For the most part very, very few people abuse the service. Roughly speaking I'd say it's less than a handful.
 
Last edited:

daveboz

Banned User
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Location
Seattle
RTGF

RTGF is the true prefix with this gaming system. Learning more and more, about RTG. It's not about the wins, those come. It's what they do to you after a win.
 

4 of a kind

Repeated violations of forum rule 1.16 - troll
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Location
New York
This is the main problem. They are NOT independent, and have clearly been set up with NO powers in order to allow the "whitewash" of RTG casinos' reputations who use CDS as a vehicle to legitimise their decisions. The reputable casinos have been quiet on the matter, but also seem to have "voted with their feet" by engaging with the PAB process here, and probably similar processes at other forums.

If CDS make a decision the casino doesn't like, there is nothing they can do to enforce it. Here at least, failure to take heed of a PAB resolution can lead to a casino being thrown in the pit, and whilst many may act like CM is so unimportant that they don't care, they suddenly DO care when they find Bryan has followed through and made a formal rogue announcement.

The pit isn't only there to bring operators to their senses, it is to warn players where NOT to play, hence those casinos that use CDS to get away with rogue actions are themselves in the pit. Roguing CDS under "fake watchdog" may not bring RTG to it's senses, but it will warn players that they are NOT as protected as the CDS seal leads them to believe, and that they should look for a casino that offers alternatives, such as being licensed where there is actually a gambling regulator that offers proper gambling licenses and gives players access to an INDEPENDENT mediation service, such as the PAB process here and similar services elsewhere in the online gambling community.

Malta's LGA have effectively been rogued through the awards process, and whilst it has done little to bring them to their senses so far, it has taught the player community that they cannot rely on the LGA if they have a problem. Kahnawake WERE eventually brought to their senses after years of being seen as a "fake watchdog/regulator" so dependent on the income from license fees that they dared not rule against one of it's licensees in favour of a player.



Its threads like this and posts like above that should clearly expose how completely screwed up and the extreme high level of risks a player is taking when they decide to have what should be nothing more then some innocent fun gambling online.

We have all sorts of online casinos confirming their crooks given a license from someone, from somewhere to steal in one form or another from the players. (Just read through the rogue pits) You have software providers setting up phony watchdog sites that are nothing more then accomplices to the crimes. They may not have committed the actual crime but are the drivers in the get away vehicle. You then have actual regulatory commissions listed on the rogue list. I’m not even talking about the numerous crooked casino operators; this is just discussing the people that are supposed to be looking after the safety of the players. There may be some type of alleged regulations in place somewhere, but everyone knows not a single one has ever been enforced by any regulator. If anyone believes there are regulations being enforced somewhere, please direct me to where I could read about when an actual regulator specifically sited a regulation and enforced it. Please don’t include charity arbitrators like Bryan and Max.

Many want to believe that sites like Casinomeister that actually provide at least some form of legitimate service for protection are good enough to justify gambling online. That would be true for the select few that actually found and even know it exists, since these people have the opportunity to play at a casino that presently could be considered honest. But most here don’t seem to realize how big online gaming actually is. This is an industry that’s doing tens of billions of dollars of business every year.

Registered members here are around 17 thousand, with only 17 hundred being active. That number when compared to the millions and millions of people actually gaming online would be like finding a needle in a haystack.

Imagine the actual amount of money being stolen from players throughout the world. If you were to take the annual number that just Bryan and Max recover for registered members, then take the actual number of gamblers online throughout the world that have gotten screwed; could you even phantom what that number must be.

Online gaming pioneers obviously from early on that had the power to make certain the industry evolved into a creditable entity, obviously didn’t have those intentions in mind. Instead they let it evolve into what it presently is and it looks like they have no intentions or desires to make any changes.

I admit the USA is screwed up with its policies in more ways then one would want to even discuss. But eventually we do get it right, and once again the USA will eventually sooner or later (when all the right people are aligned) will show the rest of the world how even something as unimportant like online gaming should be done.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Its threads like this and posts like above that should clearly expose how completely screwed up and the extreme high level of risks a player is taking when they decide to have what should be nothing more then some innocent fun gambling online.

We have all sorts of online casinos confirming their crooks given a license from someone, from somewhere to steal in one form or another from the players. (Just read through the rogue pits) You have software providers setting up phony watchdog sites that are nothing more then accomplices to the crimes. They may not have committed the actual crime but are the drivers in the get away vehicle. You then have actual regulatory commissions listed on the rogue list. I’m not even talking about the numerous crooked casino operators; this is just discussing the people that are supposed to be looking after the safety of the players. There may be some type of alleged regulations in place somewhere, but everyone knows not a single one has ever been enforced by any regulator. If anyone believes there are regulations being enforced somewhere, please direct me to where I could read about when an actual regulator specifically sited a regulation and enforced it. Please don’t include charity arbitrators like Bryan and Max.

Many want to believe that sites like Casinomeister that actually provide at least some form of legitimate service for protection are good enough to justify gambling online. That would be true for the select few that actually found and even know it exists, since these people have the opportunity to play at a casino that presently could be considered honest. But most here don’t seem to realize how big online gaming actually is. This is an industry that’s doing tens of billions of dollars of business every year.

Registered members here are around 17 thousand, with only 17 hundred being active. That number when compared to the millions and millions of people actually gaming online would be like finding a needle in a haystack.

Imagine the actual amount of money being stolen from players throughout the world. If you were to take the annual number that just Bryan and Max recover for registered members, then take the actual number of gamblers online throughout the world that have gotten screwed; could you even phantom what that number must be.

Online gaming pioneers obviously from early on that had the power to make certain the industry evolved into a creditable entity, obviously didn’t have those intentions in mind. Instead they let it evolve into what it presently is and it looks like they have no intentions or desires to make any changes.

I admit the USA is screwed up with its policies in more ways then one would want to even discuss. But eventually we do get it right, and once again the USA will eventually sooner or later (when all the right people are aligned) will show the rest of the world how even something as unimportant like online gaming should be done.

The UK government seems to agree. They now accept that the policy of relying on other regulatory authorities to protect players was misguided, and are looking for ways to strengthen protection. It seems "black Friday" and the Full Tilt fiasco has finally made them "wake up & smell the coffee". Full Tilt was VERY big in the UK, and had heavy exposure on TV and other media. There are a large number of UK players asking "where was our protection?" because they assumed that if they were allowed to use UK TV and media to promote their poker, they had to be pretty solid and well regulated.

We still don't know what measures will be put in place, but the most likely one is an additional restriction on access to mainstream media, which may no longer be available to just any operator regulated in a whitelisted jurisdiction. I would expect that the UK would grant a secondary license that would allow the operator access to UK marketing media, and it would come with measures to guarantee that player funds are never at risk from an operator failure, or even from actions made by other authorities, such as the US.

I would also expect the UK government to lay down which countries an operator can operate in before being allowed media exposure here. This would most likely include countries like the US where operators are at high risk of having funds seized, possibly to the extent that they no longer have enough to cover players' balances. This was SUPPOSED to be the case anyway, and whitelisted jurisdictions were not supposed to give licenses to operators taking bets from the US. It seems Full Tilt got around this by getting a secondary license from the KGC, yet the player funds were intermingled, hence the seizure of US funds on the way to US players left them with insufficient funds to cover players' balances covered by their Alderney license.

Alderney simply gave them back their license once they had paid the fees, yet they had still to pay PLAYERS. This means that Alderney have given the "green light" to them attempting to trade their way out of insolvency, something that is illegal under UK laws. Under UK law, a liquidator would wind up the company, and divide the assets among creditors. Part of the process would involve selling off parts of the business as "going concerns" to raise further money for creditors. Unlike the Alderney "fudge", this would have left Full Tilt's shareholders with NOTHING, whereas now they are able to extract some money from any new investors, which could end up in their pockets, whilst at the same time leaving some creditors not receiving full payment.

Players are now able to deposit & play (theoretically), yet the payment of player funds depends on a deal yet to be negotiated, and there is no guarantee that any new investors will be prepared to follow through and stump up extra cash for missing player funds.
 

ksech

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Location
Here
According to the list of RTG casinos from the main page...
Total number of RTG casinos listed - 87 (of which...)
Total number of Rogued (not rouged) casinos listed - 30
Total number of Proceed with care casinos - 14
Total number of Proceed with caution casinos - 16
Total number of Not recommended casinos- 2
Total number of Not yet reviewed casinos - 14
Total number of Accredited casinos listed - 11

For those who wish to know and don't wish to traverse to the Casinomeister homepage :D...
Rogued casinos include...
99 SlotMachines, Bet Royal Casino, Captain Jack Casino, Cats Eye Casino, Casino Peru, Cirrus Casino, Club Player Casino, Connecto Casino, Cool Cat Casino, Dreams casino, Goldstream Casino, Gold VIP Casino, Lucky 18, Lucky Palm Casino, Mighty Slots Casino, Palace of Chance Casino, Party City Casino, Pharoahs Casino, Planet 7 Casino, Plenty Jackpots Casino, Prism Casino, Real Vegas Online casino, Ringmaster casino, Royal Ace casino, Silver Oak casino, Silver Sands casino, Slotnuts . com, Slots of Vegas, VIP Lounge, Virtual casino

Proceed with Care
BetMax, Betineternet, Casino Titan, Cherry Red, Las vegas USA, Pure Vegas, Rushmore, Slot Fever, Slots Oasis, Slots Plus, Sun Palace, Vegas Casino Online Vegas Lucky, VIP . com

Proceed with Caution
Ace United Online casino, Atrium Casino, BetNet Club, Blast 21, Casino Sparkle, Free Spin, Gold Standard, Net Club, One Club, Orchid Club, Play United, QuebeCasino, QuickSilver, Spectra Games, Vegas Break, Wagerstreet

Not Recommended
Casino Extreme, Lock Casino

Not Yet Reviewed
Cleopatra's Palace, Lucky Club, Lucky Club Slots, LV Casino, Miami Bingo caino, Million Dollar Factory, Quicker Than vegas, Real Deal Casino, Riverboat Casino, Royal Sands, Slot Madness Casino, Vegas Strip casino, Wild Vegas, Win Palace

Accredited Casinos
Aladdins Gold, All Star Slots, BoDog, Club World, Grande Vegas, Intertops, iNetBet, Jackpot Capital, Lucky Red, Manhattan Slots Slotastic

It would seem that the few honest RTG casinos would want to protect their good names and reputations and would WANT CDS to make these less reputable casinos to start cleaning up their acts, JMO.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Scarey stats!

The proportion of 'iffy' operations there I think illustrates how much general reputational damage a disinterest in licensee monitoring by a software provider can cause.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Regarding post#14, I recall the Brit government discussing these 'white listing' changes before Black Friday blew up, and I think - my opinion only - it is likely that the pleas of Brit companies for more competitive protection, along with the need to generate more tax revenues through a secondary licencing regime are the more likely motivations, although it certainly is convenient to suddenly attribute the revision to a need for more player protection.

I have to say I was dismayed that Alderney did not take a tougher line on Full Tilt Poker. That farce of a hearing, and the perceived duplicity of giving FTP more time to find investors so players could get paid was disappointing, and does the AGCC reputation little good imo. Especially seeing as the 'negotiations' appeared to be concerned with the non or late payment of licence fees!

It is going to be interesting to see whether the participants again try to hold the next hearing (which must be prior to September 15) in camera...that sort of nonsense rarely breeds credibility in the public eye, I believe.

Meantime, the erratic but certainly imaginative FTP 'communications' program continues with another statement, this one released to Forbes:


NEW FULL TILT POKER STATEMENT

Moribund operator blames $42 million processor theft, US enforcement actions for predicament


The fragmented and at times seemingly uncoordinated Full Tilt Poker public communications system coughed out another statement Tuesday, this time to Forbes business magazine blaming a theft at e-cash processor level and US enforcement for its trials and tribulations.

The company does not appear to have a centrally organised and coherent communications strategy, with lawyers giving 'exclusive' interviews to selected publications, ad hoc statements to individual publications that say little, and occasionally largely informal forays on to the player internet message boards.

The end result remains the same - players are not being paid, employees are leaving and operations appear to be paralysed.

In the latest statement, issued to Forbes, the company tries to explain why it has not yet paid its players, blaming the Black Friday indictments against two of its top people along with U.S. government cash seizures over many years and a massive theft perpetrated by one of its payment processors - without giving details.

The company admits that it was unprepared for the Justice Department moves on Black Friday, candidly admitting: “As is obvious from the events that have transpired since April 15th, Full Tilt Poker was not prepared for the far-reaching US government enforcement effort of Black Friday. Full Tilt Poker never anticipated that the DoJ would proceed as it did by seizing our global domain name and shutting down the site worldwide.”

Forbes points out that Full Tilt Poker did reach an agreement in April with the Justice Department that was supposed to help facilitate the return of funds to players who had large cash balances with the company, but the company's inability to pay money back has infuriated its players and done little to enhance the brand's reputation.

In its statement Full Tilt notes that U.S. Justice Department actions over the last few years against online poker payment processors resulted in the U.S. government seizing $115 million of player funds located in U.S. banks.

The struggling company, which faces a $3 billion DoJ claim in a civil lawsuit on top of the criminal indictments of two executives, additionally claims it was the victim of a massive theft in which one of its key [unidentified] payment processors stole $42 million from the company.

Until April 15th, Full Tilt Poker had always covered these losses so that no player was ever affected,” the company statement asserted, adding that it experienced “unprecedented issues with some of its third-party processors that greatly contributed to its financial problems.”

Forbes notes that Full Tilt was taking major risks; according to a plea agreement entered into with the U.S. government by one indicted payment processor, Bradley Franzen, the online poker firm was dealing with a $60 million shortfall earlier in 2011 that was created by crediting player accounts despite not being able to debit funds from customers through financial transactions.

And exacerbating the problems, the Alderney Gambling Control Commission suspended Full Tilt’s main e-gambling licenses because of issues that arose as part of a special investigation - a situation still not resolved, with a second public hearing by the AGCC due before September 15 2011.

Full Tilt has been trying to find investors who could put some cash into the business (see previous InfoPowa reports). The latest statement now reveals that six investment groups, including hedge funds and operators of other Internet firms, have visited FTP's Dublin headquarters and that the company has hired an unnamed financial advisor to “assist us in our search for an infusion of cash as well as a new management team to restore the site and repay players.”

With its reputation badly damaged, overwhelming financial and legal troubles, and an apparent reluctance on the part of potential investors to risk capital in the company, the prospect for players being paid looks increasingly remote.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Regarding post#14, I recall the Brit government discussing these 'white listing' changes before Black Friday blew up, and I think - my opinion only - it is likely that the pleas of Brit companies for more competitive protection, along with the need to generate more tax revenues through a secondary licencing regime are the more likely motivations, although it certainly is convenient to suddenly attribute the revision to a need for more player protection.

I have to say I was dismayed that Alderney did not take a tougher line on Full Tilt Poker. That farce of a hearing, and the perceived duplicity of giving FTP more time to find investors so players could get paid was disappointing, and does the AGCC reputation little good imo. Especially seeing as the 'negotiations' appeared to be concerned with the non or late payment of licence fees!

It is going to be interesting to see whether the participants again try to hold the next hearing (which must be prior to September 15) in camera...that sort of nonsense rarely breeds credibility in the public eye, I believe.

Meantime, the erratic but certainly imaginative FTP 'communications' program continues with another statement, this one released to Forbes:


NEW FULL TILT POKER STATEMENT

Moribund operator blames $42 million processor theft, US enforcement actions for predicament


The fragmented and at times seemingly uncoordinated Full Tilt Poker public communications system coughed out another statement Tuesday, this time to Forbes business magazine blaming a theft at e-cash processor level and US enforcement for its trials and tribulations.

The company does not appear to have a centrally organised and coherent communications strategy, with lawyers giving 'exclusive' interviews to selected publications, ad hoc statements to individual publications that say little, and occasionally largely informal forays on to the player internet message boards.

The end result remains the same - players are not being paid, employees are leaving and operations appear to be paralysed.

In the latest statement, issued to Forbes, the company tries to explain why it has not yet paid its players, blaming the Black Friday indictments against two of its top people along with U.S. government cash seizures over many years and a massive theft perpetrated by one of its payment processors - without giving details.

The company admits that it was unprepared for the Justice Department moves on Black Friday, candidly admitting: “As is obvious from the events that have transpired since April 15th, Full Tilt Poker was not prepared for the far-reaching US government enforcement effort of Black Friday. Full Tilt Poker never anticipated that the DoJ would proceed as it did by seizing our global domain name and shutting down the site worldwide.”

Forbes points out that Full Tilt Poker did reach an agreement in April with the Justice Department that was supposed to help facilitate the return of funds to players who had large cash balances with the company, but the company's inability to pay money back has infuriated its players and done little to enhance the brand's reputation.

In its statement Full Tilt notes that U.S. Justice Department actions over the last few years against online poker payment processors resulted in the U.S. government seizing $115 million of player funds located in U.S. banks.

The struggling company, which faces a $3 billion DoJ claim in a civil lawsuit on top of the criminal indictments of two executives, additionally claims it was the victim of a massive theft in which one of its key [unidentified] payment processors stole $42 million from the company.

Until April 15th, Full Tilt Poker had always covered these losses so that no player was ever affected,” the company statement asserted, adding that it experienced “unprecedented issues with some of its third-party processors that greatly contributed to its financial problems.”

Forbes notes that Full Tilt was taking major risks; according to a plea agreement entered into with the U.S. government by one indicted payment processor, Bradley Franzen, the online poker firm was dealing with a $60 million shortfall earlier in 2011 that was created by crediting player accounts despite not being able to debit funds from customers through financial transactions.

And exacerbating the problems, the Alderney Gambling Control Commission suspended Full Tilt’s main e-gambling licenses because of issues that arose as part of a special investigation - a situation still not resolved, with a second public hearing by the AGCC due before September 15 2011.

Full Tilt has been trying to find investors who could put some cash into the business (see previous InfoPowa reports). The latest statement now reveals that six investment groups, including hedge funds and operators of other Internet firms, have visited FTP's Dublin headquarters and that the company has hired an unnamed financial advisor to “assist us in our search for an infusion of cash as well as a new management team to restore the site and repay players.”

With its reputation badly damaged, overwhelming financial and legal troubles, and an apparent reluctance on the part of potential investors to risk capital in the company, the prospect for players being paid looks increasingly remote.

The only credible option is for the original owners to sell everything for a token €1, take nothing for themselves, but stipulate that the buyer must take responsibilty for all outstanding player balances in return for the non-cash assets, and any residual cash that is still available.

They should not have had the funds for non-US players anywhere near a US jurisdiction, and should not have been using the funds of non-US players to credit the accounts of US players. There was no mention of a theft of $42 by a processor before, the whole thing was blamed on the DoJ seizure. Given the previous seizures and losses of player funds at places like EWX, they should have been well aware of what the DoJ were prepared to do, and at the very least should have completely ring fenced the US side so that no matter what the DoJ did, or dodgy processors stole, the non-US side would remain unaffected. Had they done this, they would still be operating the non-US side, and at least be able to put a payment plan to US players for closing out their accounts.

Many US players may well not be owed the money shown in their accounts given that some was credited without it being debited from their payment methods. Sorting out these figures may reduce the eventual liability, and may even influence investors into reconsidering the risks.

If this does not work out, Alderney will lose considerable respect among the player community, not least for getting THEIR money back in full whilst players ended up with nothing.

Whilst the UK government are quite interested in getting more tax from operators, they will also want to avoid it looking like they have been ineffective at protecting players despite the creation of the UK gambling commission and the granting of a legal status to "remote gambling" rather than leaving it a "grey area" as many other governments have done.

The operators will also worry that the high profile failure of a UK "household name" poker brand has left players completely unprotected despite their seemingly being licensed by one of the best jurisdictions available (Alderney) will have players running scared from the industry as a whole, and returning to "safer" brands that are wholly within the UK, possibly deserting the internet altogether.

They should also remember "peer pressure", as friends and families of online gamblers are likely to put pressure on players to "wake up & smell the coffee" and either quit altogether, or go back to "old fashioned" betting in land based venues.

I already get "peer pressure" to "give it up", even without any major scandals of players losing money emerging in the general public domain.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Interesting comment from Bwin.party digital co-CEO Jim Ryan earlier today at the press conference following the release of the H1-2011 results:

Asked by an analyst whether Bwin.party was interested in investing or acquiring Full Tilt, Ryan said it held no interest for them. “We are not looking at the business and have no plans to look at it,” said Ryan.

Following the merger, Bwin.party digital put the Ongame network on the market in June this year, and its focus will be on boosting Party Poker, WPT and Poker Room.

He subsequently went on to comment on negotiations with US partners with a view to his company getting into a legalised US online poker market, revealing that talks were at an advanced stage with several major potential American partners.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
If anyone believes there are regulations being enforced somewhere, please direct me to where I could read about when an actual regulator specifically sited a regulation and enforced it.

I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding what you're saying here but if you're saying there are no regulators enforcing their rules then you should take a closer look at Kahnawake over the last couple years. As it happens I can only speak about them because they're the only regulator that I work closely with but the bottom line is that since Jan 2010 they have very much been enforcing their regulations on their licensees. We've seen licenses suspended for regulation violations, licensees booted, etc.

Care to guess how many Kahnawake licensee cases we've had to handle in the last two years? Two, and one of those was simply a bump to them. FYI, both cases were resolved in favour of the player. And they have many, Many, MANY licensees so those two cases are an astoundingly small percentage of the whole. This is the first year that we've been gathering licencing stats on our PAB cases so at year's end we could give a rough picture of the rate of PABs per licensor weighted against their entire licensee list. I'd bet money that Kahnawake would be at the very lowest level, many times less than some of the other big names.

I know this doesn't sit well with your "no one is doing anything" thesis but Kahnawake, at least, deserves credit where credit is due. FWIW your "show me" criteria is basically unrealistic: no regulator is going to give you those details. We don't even give that kind of information. But you can read the
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
if you are so inclined. That's a level of insight that no other regulator is offering, AFAIK.
 

Tengil

Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2006
Location
Finland
The only credible option is for the original owners to sell everything for a token €1, take nothing for themselves, but stipulate that the buyer must take responsibilty for all outstanding player balances in return for the non-cash assets, and any residual cash that is still available.

They should not have had the funds for non-US players anywhere near a US jurisdiction, and should not have been using the funds of non-US players to credit the accounts of US players. There was no mention of a theft of $42 by a processor before, the whole thing was blamed on the DoJ seizure. Given the previous seizures and losses of player funds at places like EWX, they should have been well aware of what the DoJ were prepared to do, and at the very least should have completely ring fenced the US side so that no matter what the DoJ did, or dodgy processors stole, the non-US side would remain unaffected. Had they done this, they would still be operating the non-US side, and at least be able to put a payment plan to US players for closing out their accounts.

Many US players may well not be owed the money shown in their accounts given that some was credited without it being debited from their payment methods. Sorting out these figures may reduce the eventual liability, and may even influence investors into reconsidering the risks.

If this does not work out, Alderney will lose considerable respect among the player community, not least for getting THEIR money back in full whilst players ended up with nothing.

Whilst the UK government are quite interested in getting more tax from operators, they will also want to avoid it looking like they have been ineffective at protecting players despite the creation of the UK gambling commission and the granting of a legal status to "remote gambling" rather than leaving it a "grey area" as many other governments have done.

The operators will also worry that the high profile failure of a UK "household name" poker brand has left players completely unprotected despite their seemingly being licensed by one of the best jurisdictions available (Alderney) will have players running scared from the industry as a whole, and returning to "safer" brands that are wholly within the UK, possibly deserting the internet altogether.

They should also remember "peer pressure", as friends and families of online gamblers are likely to put pressure on players to "wake up & smell the coffee" and either quit altogether, or go back to "old fashioned" betting in land based venues.

I already get "peer pressure" to "give it up", even without any major scandals of players losing money emerging in the general public domain.

They are pretty much giving away the company as long as the new owners can inject cash equal to the player balances plus additional cash to operate it.

The 42 million is the amount Daniel Tzvetkoff shorted them off, it has been quite widely reported before. They also say in their yesterdays statement that last 2 years a total of 115 million in US banks were seized. And the total deposit shortfall is said to be 128 millions.

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


Alderney doesnt require its licensees to segregate and/or protect the player balances in contrary to IOM who requires that Pokerstars have the player funds segregated and protected. Segregated in itself doesnt protect your (the player) funds if the company goes insolvent whereas protected does.
Alderney has already lost all the respect they had.


And about the UK Gambling Commission look what they offer to the player:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

So nothing would basically change.


And about Kahnawake. They maybe have gotten some goodwill lately but its the same jurisdiction that still allows Cereus (UB/AP) to operate even if its basically impossible to cash out.

And almost forgot, CDS is a joke altough not a funny one.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
And about Kahnawake. They maybe have gotten some goodwill lately ...
Two years and several hundred cases processed internally is basically 1/6th of the life of online gaming, not very "lately" IMO. I seriously doubt that the "new" Kahnawake is a snow-job and since they are producing real results what's the point in behaving like it is (a snow-job)? Improvement should be welcome, no?

... but its the same jurisdiction that still allows Cereus (UB/AP) to operate ....

The UB/AP situation is pretty unusual and you know it -- it was pretty much that watershed that saw Kahnawake turn the corner and retool, IMHO -- but if you've got a legit complaint, file it! UB/AP or something else, no matter. Run it through us or go directly to them, take your pick. I'd love to have a nice solid case with a Kahnawake licensee that I could put through the hoops, it's been a while. I get a kick out of seeing snotty casino operators suddenly making nice after the Kahnawake folks start showing their pointy teeth. Bring it on!
 
Last edited:

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
They are pretty much giving away the company as long as the new owners can inject cash equal to the player balances plus additional cash to operate it.

The 42 million is the amount Daniel Tzvetkoff shorted them off, it has been quite widely reported before. They also say in their yesterdays statement that last 2 years a total of 115 million in US banks were seized. And the total deposit shortfall is said to be 128 millions.

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


Alderney doesnt require its licensees to segregate and/or protect the player balances in contrary to IOM who requires that Pokerstars have the player funds segregated and protected. Segregated in itself doesnt protect your (the player) funds if the company goes insolvent whereas protected does.
Alderney has already lost all the respect they had.


And about the UK Gambling Commission look what they offer to the player:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

So nothing would basically change.


And about Kahnawake. They maybe have gotten some goodwill lately but its the same jurisdiction that still allows Cereus (UB/AP) to operate even if its basically impossible to cash out.

And almost forgot, CDS is a joke altough not a funny one.

Not alot, but they DO make this point:-

However, gambling contracts made since 1 September 2007 are legally enforceable under the Gambling Act 2005. If you think you have an actionable case against a licence holder you should seek independent legal advice. We do not give legal advice on this or any other area.

They are saying that they don't actually decide on a dispute, rather they ensure that proper procedures are in place. This includes the change in the law that opens the way for a dispute to be decided in a civil court. This means that players can threaten to go to court, and operators know that the courts will do more than order the voiding of bets and refund of stake, but will decide on the basis of consumer contract law as to whether the player won fairly, and should be paid.

This, unfortunately, relies on the operator being subject to a UK court, and although a court may rule in favour of a player, recovering the money from an offshore company would not be easy, and operators know it.

I would hope the UK commission would strengthen the rules such that any operator with access to the UK media for advertising would have to be subject to rulings made by the civil courts, and have a UK based office where recovery proceedings can be served, and bailiffs attend if necessary.
 

4 of a kind

Repeated violations of forum rule 1.16 - troll
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Location
New York
I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding what you're saying here but if you're saying there are no regulators enforcing their rules then you should take a closer look at Kahnawake over the last couple years. As it happens I can only speak about them because they're the only regulator that I work closely with but the bottom line is that since Jan 2010 they have very much been enforcing their regulations on their licensees. We've seen licenses suspended for regulation violations, licensees booted, etc.

Care to guess how many Kahnawake licensee cases we've had to handle in the last two years? Two, and one of those was simply a bump to them. FYI, both cases were resolved in favour of the player. And they have many, Many, MANY licensees so those two cases are an astoundingly small percentage of the whole. This is the first year that we've been gathering licencing stats on our PAB cases so at year's end we could give a rough picture of the rate of PABs per licensor weighted against their entire licensee list. I'd bet money that Kahnawake would be at the very lowest level, many times less than some of the other big names.

I know this doesn't sit well with your "no one is doing anything" thesis but Kahnawake, at least, deserves credit where credit is due. FWIW your "show me" criteria is basically unrealistic: no regulator is going to give you those details. We don't even give that kind of information. But you can read the
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
if you are so inclined. That's a level of insight that no other regulator is offering, AFAIK.


No doubt Max that the Kahnawake Gaming Commissions recent behavior is a breath of fresh air. Just by showing signs of concern should be welcomed with open arms. But let’s not forget that they have been around already for twelve years, and that they also still license casinos listed in the rogue pit.

It appears they didn’t wake up until the U/B and A/P scandal took place. Just like the UK now showing more interest in more serious regulations only has a result of the Full Tilt fiasco. These multimillion dollar scandals may be the match that lit the fuse for improvement.

Maybe after they get all this stuff aligned, they could then get to work on gaming software regulations along with regulator monitoring and regulator enforcement.

And yes they deserve credit where credit is due, and maybe now after all this time, things could start heading in the right direction.
 

ksech

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Location
Here
As the old adage goes... Better late than never...
Maybe now some of these roguish operations will start disappearing with stricter regulations/guidelines.
 
Top