Tons is confiscated by Europa casino and Tropez

[amandajm]

Why don't I just rogue the whole bunch and say the hell with it? For several reasons. One is the complexity of the different groups Playtech is dealing with. Some groups are worse than others, but by looking at the information that I have available to me, there seems to be only three or four casino groups that have some serious issues. I would rather focus on these casino groups and try to convince them on how players ought to be treated (indeed if they are being mistreated), instead of tossing the whole bunch into the rogue pit. This is a much more productive way to handle these issues. If the entire software provider is placed in the "evil" section - then many bridges will be burnt unnecessarily. Some of these bridges are needed to assist players that have problems.

As for boycotting? That is strictly an individual's choice, I won't have any part of it nor will I condone it. My job is to present information and to assist players in making their own choices. I can warn you when there are potential problems, and try to steer you - and casino operators - into the right direction. I know by experience that players will do whatever they want. Most are loyal to the bonus offerings, and that's about it. Talk of making some boycott is usually just that - talk. It's not a realistic option.

I would rather see that the good operators are given credit for doing a good job and not being penalized for the mismanagement of other casino properties that they have nothing to do with. This is how it should be done IMO and not so knee-jerkish and rash.

I think an all out on patronage and advertising for a rogue software group was in order under certain circumstances, aside a proven unfair game. I was under the impression you did too. I agreed with you not Cindy.

WORD FROM THE MEISTER

The GPWA
I'm no longer a member of the Gambling Portal Webmaster's Association. I quit the organization mainly because many of the active members have a different philosophy and attitude concerning the online casino industry that doesn't mix with mine too well.

What has really turned me off is this phenomena that is rampant in this industry called "affiliate greed", and it seems to be widespread in the GPWA.

I guess the catalyst for this was the uproar most everyone from the GPWA had over the scheduling of the Gator speaker at the Affiliate Conference that's scheduled (still) next month. The GPWA has been very vocal against the use of "scumware" (which I whole heartily support), but they all jumped on this bandwagon screaming "boycott-boycott!!" Fine and dandy, boycott the event.

But what really pisses me off, is that I suggested that these webmasters ought to boycott advertising for a software provider that condones unscrupulous and at times criminal activities – it was pooh-poohed. Hey, but when traffic and profits are threatened, they cry foul!

Cindy Carley - ex GPWA head honcho.
When he (casinomeister) came back 2-3 weeks ago to try to impose his RTG ban on us (gpwa), we didn't agree with that either. Now, I made it *very* clear to him that I agreed with 99% of his blacklisted RTG casinos, but I would never agree to a blanket ban of all RTG casinos as he was trying to get us to do - but that was only my opinion.

 

[The Dude]

A consumer watchdog site is meant to educate the public in a responsible manner. It was not, and will never be, here to advocate actions which damage honest and fair operations no matter what the cause.

Thanks Spear. My sentiments exactly.

It is a group because they share the same T&Cs and support staff who enforce them.

Negative. Sorry, but you're wrong here. Mainstreet group has their own support and banking.

I think an all out on patronage and advertising for a rogue software group was in order under certain circumstances, aside a proven unfair game. I was under the impression you did too.

That was about four years ago and under completely different circumstances. And as we age, we get wiser. I think most people would concur with this.

I agree with Spear, players should vote with their feet - it's a simple concept and a pretty easy thing to do.

 

[spearmaster]

Now how do I know that other groups (Main Street, Kiwi, Acropolis etc) aren't going to go down that route?

I can't speak for Main Street, but Kiwi and Acropolis are both backed by land-based casino operations of excellent standing in their respective locations, and the online business is but a small part of their income. They will certainly not risk their reputation in this manner.

Then again, operations like William Hill don't give a shit... but we could see that right from the start.

In any case - if you haven't learned to have a little faith in our judgement as to which casinos are safe and honest and which aren't - you'll never learn Casinomeister didn't get this popular by recommending rogue casinos, after all...

 

[amandajm]

One can change their mind Bryan. Not necissarily for the better over time in all cases. Maybe this change of mind of yours is for the better. As you note - time may tell.

Evil Software Providers
There are certain software providers that either have funky software that cheats, or they have a "hands off" approach to their licensees, allowing the casino to do whatever they please.

I think Caruso got his nuts busted for saying his minds eye tells him the Playtech resolution thing is nion hands off and maybe they should be booted untill they fix up, but he is resisting that notion for better or worse. Pretty much he agrees with you guys in this instance in real terms..

I frankly don't agree with any of you re Playtech.

Boycotts happen all over the world re many things. It is a moot, non arguement to aside those that believe a boycott can effect change for the better of all as irresponsible.

 

[caruso]

You don't justify innocent players over innocent casinos - both are innocent and do not deserve to be wrongly treated.

That's your priviledge. It's not mine.

Don't bother trying to play the "innocent" angle here - you know as well as I do that no innocent party should be injured, AND that there are better ways to deal with this than what you are proposing - throwing dynamite in a pond and hoping to collect all the fish is not productive.

People around me know me well enough to know I don't "play" anything, so I think I can safely leave that one unanswered in the interests of the general peace.

I don't see too many other proposals on the table right now. As I recall, way back when we were arguing about eCOGRA at WOL, Jetset - and possibly yourself - were on at me to offer "alternatives" to that which I was so critical of. Looks like the boot's on the other foot now.

I agree with Spear, players should vote with their feet - it's a simple concept and a pretty easy thing to do.

Then we all agree. The difference is who receives the vote.

 

[caruso]

From WOL, player played a "non-counting" game, which became "excluded" after he won.

It just ever stops.

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

 

[johnsteed]

Some thoughts on PlayTech...

***


While both software providers carry their fair share of dodgy casinos, I have a very hard time believing that RTG is ahead of PlayTech in regards as to which provider carries more legitimate (player friendly) casinos. One would have to think that BlackWidow is often regarded as the worst PlayTech casino out there, but for every (singular) (PT) BlackWidow, there's (a trifecta of casinos like) a Connect-to-Casino, a Destination Poker, and a Prism Casino (that rival it).


For what it's worth, I wish that PlayTech (as a whole) would do a better job reviewing and cleaning-up their ridiculous T&C's, speed up their payout process, and do a better job of resolving player issues. I happen to really like PlayTech software, and I've had tons more luck with PlayTech than any of the other software providers. Having played at literally every casino listed at both Casinomeister.com and BonusRating.com (a site whose ratings I take with a grain-of-salt), my most memorable and positive experiences have come at the hands of various PlayTech casinos.


Side note: Not sure if it means anything to anyone here, but I've yet to exceed the $2,000 (USD) barrier at any MG casino. And I've deposited a large chunk of coin into MG casinos over the years. My "guesstimation", is that I've surpassed that barrier probably about 60-70 times at various PlayTech casinos since I first started playing online a few years ago. :notworthy And for the record, I generally deposit anywhere from $20 (moreso with PlayTech) to $100 at a time. And amazingly, I was fortunate enough to have been paid when I did cash-out (although it would generally take 1-2 weeks). More recently though, I've noticed that their payout time-frames (some... certainly not a large portion of them) are similar to most MG casinos (and Bet365 is one of the fastest... overall... on the net).


Their are some great PlayTech casinos out there, that are just as good as the cream-of-the-crop that use Cryptologic and MG. I know some (if not MANY) who visit the forum may not believe that, and it's not difficult to understand why they may elect to avoid all PlayTech's like the plague. But there are. It's just a shame to PlayTech does carry a fair number of "dogs" that ruin it for everyone else (everyone else being the more player friendly PT casinos). So at the end of the day, for those who whip though threads like this one, they will (more than likely) always have serious doubts at depositing at said casino, even when the casino is as great as KIWI Casino. I happen to think that KIWI Casino is a Top-10 online casino. And as far as I'm concerned, the best of the PlayTech's would have to be considered some of the most underrated operations out there.


I think that if people want to boycott all of the casinos under a specific software provider's umbrella, that's their choice. I've avoided RTG's as a whole (in the past) for quite some time, based on their questionable fax-back form regulation, but moreso about what I've read from various posters (and webmasters) who contribute at this forum (amongst a few other forums). Yet, there are a (small) handful of solid RTG's (like a Sci-Fi) out there, so in some ways, it would be a mistake to avoid them all if I've had positive experiences there. I happen to think that while PlayTech and RTG need to address and continue to clean-up their ways (and filter-out the bad of course), not everything is always so perfect in the land of MG and Cryptologic casinos either.


While I certainly wouldn't endorse PlayTech as a whole, it would be an oversight by those detractors to paint all PlayTech's using the same color of pessimism.


Steed


***

 

[jetset]

I think there is already a very viable alternative on the table that is also fair, and it has been suggested here by most of those opposed to the indiscriminate nature of a boycott:

Deny the rogues your individual business and judge casino ownership groups on merit. Warn others about offending casinos.

It's easy to apply, requires no organisation, leaders or publicity and doesn't involve distasteful excuses for injuring the innocent like "for the greater good!"

Dirk, I would like to examine this comment: "The problem is we have had many good and reputable Playtech groups turn to rogue behaviour recently, so how do you know others wont follow? At Crypto and MG you know this isn't going to happen and even RTG to a lesser extent, but with Playtech you know it could easily and the software provider wouldn't care less."

Are we going to make judgements against good Playtech operations on the basis of what they might do in the future? Sorry, I don't see that as fair or reasonable, or justification for inflicting damage on some outfit that doesn't deserve it.

Changes in behaviour by specific casinos or casino groups is a good reason why the flexible and individual approach is more effective....an independent judgement call by an informed consumer.

The individual player decides where to place his or her business at any particular time, free of the influence or interference of others. And the information for that decision is, as it has always been, available on even-handed and responsible portals such as Casinomeister, and through reliable warning posts on the message boards.

I would like to ask a few practical questions about this proposal:

1) Who decides which entities to boycott now and in the future? Does past conduct "qualify" a group or software for boycotting? If there's a vote how is it organised and who qualifies to vote?

2) How many players on the message boards do you honestly think would support such a move having read all the arguments for and against? Do you consider this a large enough number to have a serious impact (Iris Toledano's reported comments to Caruso notwithstanding), given that there are those who will not like the taste of indiscriminate boycotts over their individual judgement in the matter of their personal business.

3) What do you do about those who will not join your boycott or break ranks for one reason or another? And how do you know who is or isn't supporting the boycott?

4) How do you assess the real impact of the boycott, when Playtech hopefully calls "Uncle"? Have you tried to make an educated assessment of how long that may take?

5) Have you considered the possibility that Playtech may single out for legal action those it feels are organising a boycott? This is a company that has shown by past conduct that it is prepared to use this intimidatory tactic.

6) How will you publicise your boycott and maintain wide levels of awareness over a possibly extended timeframe?

 

[Vesuvio]

3) What do you do about those who will not join your boycott or break ranks for one reason or another? And how do you know who is or isn't supporting the boycott?

The problem with a boycott, surely, is that the majority of knowledgeable casino players who might support it are bonus hunters - and therefore it would save the casinos in question money

 

[paul02085]

Boycott or no boycott, the main thing is for new players to know that before they deposit money into a Playtech casino (or RTG also for that matter), they should be warned that there is a good chance they could run into problems trying to get their money out. Especially if they took a bonus.

 

[jetset]

Paul, you have zero'd in on one of the major aspects of the crooked casino problem right there - these bad eggs can make profits as long as they can keep pulling in *new blood* newbie gamblers who have not yet learned to research and become members of sites like this to protect themselves.

If we could find more ways of reaching the newbie just before he or she ventures online, or as soon as possible thereafter we would be well on the road to creating real and very powerful consumer awareness and influence.

 

[caruso]

If we could find more ways of reaching the newbie just before he or she ventures online, or as soon as possible thereafter we would be well on the road to creating real and very powerful consumer awareness and influence.

There is plenty of "consumer awareness and influence" right here, as you intimated in your suggestion that Playtech will start to get litigious - which somewhat contradicts your suggestion that the "forum ten percent" really doesn't cut. On the one hand, warn people; on the other hand, bear in mind that Playtech will sue you if you tell the truth. Bit of a non-starter, wouldn't you say?

What happens if I post a bunch of threads along the lines of "Warning: do not play at Swiss Casino" - how long you figure they'll stand?

The way you get the message out, Jetset, is to warn people at WOL, Meister and so on, what's happening; to tell people that these Playtech casinos are stealing (yes, "stealing", spelt s-t-e-a-l-i-n-g, I'm so sorry if that offends anyone) players' money and that action, radical action, should be taken agains Playtech, in WHATEVER form, and encapsulated along the lines of: STAY AWAY FROM PLAYTECH CASINOS.

THEN Playtech might start to tow the line!

But of course, we know this isn't going to happen, becasuse we mustn't upset the handful of "honest" Playtech casinos, and we can't say "stealing" when they're stealing or call them "crooks" when they're "crooks", because we can't risk upsetting Playtech.

So we just talk about it like civilised people and let these uncivilised **oops, I nearly said "crooks" again, sorry chaps** get away with it.

Fine solution.

Playtech, Long May You Prosper.

Jetset, you've called me to task about providing other options given my disagreements with eCOGRA. So what are you options here? Given our extraordinary limitations - we apparently cannot boycott them or in fact say or do anything that might upset them - what are your options?

 

[thesmacker]

How I see it:

Good Casinos:

Sunny Group

Mapau
Casino fortune
Miami Beach
Gold Gate

Mainstreet

Las Vegas USA
Vegas Casino Online
Sun Palace
Twin Aces
slots.com
Diamond Deal

Kiwi Group

Kiwi
fast win

Gaming Pro

City Club
Race Track

Independent

Brandy
Action Online
Bet Casino
SIA
Mega Sport
tote sport
bet 365
bet fred

Bad Casinos:

Black Widow Group

Black Widow
Grand Banks
Sterling House

Casino Partners

Casino Tropez
Vegas Red
Europa
hammers
Del Rio

ICC

USA Casino
New York Casinos

Empire Online

Joyland
Club Dice
monaco gold
Carnival

IOG

Casino King
Magic Box
Swiss
50 stars
Casino Las Vegas

Prestige Gaming

diamond club
prestige
playgate

Golden Palace Group

Golden Palace
Aspinalls
Grand Online
Flamingo Club
24 kt gold

First Grand

african palace
indio

Bet Rev

Royal Dice
giant vegas

Not Sure:

La isle Casino
Maxima
dafa 888
******
sky kings
acropolis
Baraka
amber coast

To say the good out weighs the bad is to ignore the obvious. If the good casino operators were truly good they would put pressure on Playtech to weed out the problems.

 

[caruso]

Great list, wrong thread.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/playtech-the-nightmare-list.10836/

I also got some more information in my snail mail today, and was going to update that list anyway. I will juggle your post into it.

In fact, we are getting a bit general in a thread related to a specific issue.

 

[thesmacker]

Great list, wrong thread.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/playtech-the-nightmare-list.10836/

I also got some more information in my snail mail today, and was going to update that list anyway. I will juggle your post into it.

In fact, we are getting a bit general in a thread related to a specific issue.

I was just getting caught up in the first few pages of this thread and the Playtech roguing issue. I just wanted to bring to light that the majority of Playtech casino groups are rogue, and that an all out roguing is the only way to wake the minority "good" casinos into action.

Perhaps some of you have heard of a thing called Democracy, within that system often times the minority in such systems may have to suffer inorder to create the greatest amount of quality of life for the greatest number of people. If we look at this case in those terms I would say that in order to create the optimum scenario within the Playtech Casinos perhaps the minority will just have to suffer a little while for the good of the majority and deal with a Software Provider roguing.

 

[caruso]

Don't apologise, I'm totally hazy on groups. Your list was great.

 

[The Dude]

Okay, I'm putting my foot - next time it's the iron fist:

But of course, we know this isn't going to happen, becasuse we mustn't upset the handful of "honest" Playtech casinos, and we can't say "stealing" when they're stealing or call them "crooks" when they're "crooks", because we can't risk upsetting Playtech.

The next time I need to step in to tell people to mellow out, I'm locking this thread and giving whomever an extended holiday.

We've been through this before, rule 1.6 - read this carefully:

1.6 - No "Libelous" Posts. Do not make posts that could be considered libelous, defamatory, or posting merely to cause harm to another's business. Opinions are expected, but do not attack others with accusations of criminal activity unless this has been proven in a court of law.

Some of you need to think a bit more before you post. Thank you.

 

[jetset]

Jeez, Caruso - you are truly the most frustrating poster. I sometimes wonder if you even read other people's posts before thrashing your keyboard.

There are alternatives - you simply have not considered these over your own extreme views. I included them in my post a page back if you had bothered to read it before seizing on the well known litigious nature of Playtech to explode once again.

And I posed legitimate questions that should be thought through before anything as contentious and divisive as a boycott is proposed. And talking about going off topic, eCOGRA has stuff-all to do with the issue of Playtech being boycotted.

My comment about warning and protecting newbies stands, and is completely valid. It builds on your "10 percent" scenario and in no way diminishes that - what is your source for that oft-repeated statistic btw?

I am the last person to doubt the power of this forum, or I would not still be a member after several years here, but spreading the warning and education net further is going to make player protection more effective, and that's the main objective is it not?

Perhaps you should contribute in a practical sense too by starting your own portal and newsletter and publishing warnings on a sustained basis. Or you could even champion a boycott and get a true and exclusive feel for how many would support it and how effective it would really be.

It is plain commonsense that educating substantially more new entry players to research at places like Casinomeister and WOL before gambling is going to:

(a) seriously cut down on rip-off opportunities at those (Playtech) casinos prone to bad practice and

(b) help bring those *bad practice* casinos into line in order to survive in a more player-knowledgeable climate.

You are assuming that everyone here supports the idea of a sustained and indiscriminate boycott against all Playtech online operations. I would hope and expect that this forum has more balance than that.

The Smacker, you posted: "Perhaps some of you have heard of a thing called Democracy, within that system often times the minority in such systems may have to suffer inorder to create the greatest amount of quality of life for the greatest number of people."

I don't believe this is about democracy, because how can it be democratic to punish the good with the bad?

The phrase "for the greater good" used to justify something as indiscriminate as a boycott will always give me pause for thought - that's the sort of philosophy that too many despots have used to justify outrageously undemocratic acts in history.

 

[caruso]

Of course I read your post. It regarded spreading the word about bad outfits.

Equally of course, per se this is a valid option, tried and tested - I should know that as well as anybody: Angelciti? Cirrus? In the circumstances, it's value may be limited. You say that Playtech is litigious; doesn't surprise me at all but FTR I had no idea - I've not heard of Playtech threatening legal action against anyone. Add to that Bryan's concerns about contentious language, and my guess is that all you will achieve is a somewhat watered-down version of what really needs saying. That is of course better than nothing, but I doubt it will achieve the desired result. I certainly doubt it will put much pressure on Playtech. I am entitled to "doubt", and I am entitled to be "wrong"; you are also so entitled.

The point about eCOGRA - which I thought was clear enough - was that, back then, you called me to task to offer solutions, and I am now doing the same - our roles are reversed. I am AWARE that calling stiff outfits to task is a solution, but I'll repeat that I think it's value is limited in the circumstances. If that is the ONLY solution, fair enough. But this may not be the case - there may be a better one, a more proactive one.

Forum ten percent? Isn't it generally accepted that forum readership is somewhere between ten and fifteen percent of the overall playing public? That's the figure Bryan has always quoted; ask him, not me.

As to your reaction to Thesmacker's comment: are we the "despots" and Playtech the "innocent"? If we were, I could support the anaolgy. As it is, you cannot compare fair-minded online gamblers considering radical ways to pull an irresponsible software provider into line with whatever "greater good" the Nazis, Stalin or whoever may have used as justification for their acts.

Repeat again: I am not saying that calling evil operators to task publically is ineffective per se; I am saying that it MAY be ineffective in the circumstances, and that it may not be the only solution. Remember that, albeit a long time ago and in different circumstances, it was the "boycott" line that Bryan proposed against RTG. Therefore, these things have been considered as effective means against bad software providers. Circumstances and time notwithstanding, this is a fact. Bryan considered himself to be in the right back then; I am not at all convinced that it would be wrong now. Let's face it: RTG have pulled their socks up somewhat.

 

[The Dude]

Remember that, albeit a long time ago and in different circumstances, it was the "boycott" line that Bryan proposed against RTG.

Okay, this is getting a bit whacked out of shape, and I think I need to clarify something because what I stated has been taken completely out of context.

This boycott statement was made on a private board at GPWA and this addressed my overwhelming concern and frustration over a crapload of serious player complaints coming from RTG casinos - one of these was Caruso's BTW. I suggested that webmasters should boycott promoting these casinos - it had nothing to do with players. This suggestion was out there for about fifteen minutes before it was shot down - and at that moment I reconsidered and agreed that it wasn't a good idea. So I stated that webmasters should not be promoting the casinos that were causing these problems - and left it at that. You know the rest of the story.

 

[spearmaster]

Isn't it generally accepted that forum readership is somewhere between ten and fifteen percent of the overall playing public? That's the figure Bryan has always quoted; ask him, not me.

As far as I know, he has never claimed this. We have always operated under the presumption that forum readership is no more than 1-1.5% of online gamblers.

 

[amandajm]

Okay, this is getting a bit whacked out of shape, and I think I need to clarify something because what I stated has been taken completely out of context.

This boycott statement was made on a private board at GPWA and this addressed my overwhelming concern and frustration over a crapload of serious player complaints coming from RTG casinos - one of these was Caruso's BTW. I suggested that webmasters should boycott promoting these casinos - it had nothing to do with players. This suggestion was out there for about fifteen minutes before it was shot down - and at that moment I reconsidered and agreed that it wasn't a good idea. So I stated that webmasters should not be promoting the casinos that were causing these problems - and left it at that. You know the rest of the story.

I never took you out of context on purpose.

Those

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

were up last I looked. That's enough for me.

 

[The Dude]

As far as I know, he has never claimed this. We have always operated under the presumption that forum readership is no more than 1-1.5% of online gamblers.

I think I may have mentioned 7% or so. This is a basic guessimate since this has never been quantified - and if this would be attempted, how would it be done?

As administrator of this board, I am aware of its traffic and can do comparative analyzations with other popular boards - and I am aware of its readership as well.

That could be an interesting thread - and I'll leave it at that.

 

[Pinababy69]

I suggested that webmasters should boycott promoting these casinos - it had nothing to do with players.

CM, that shouldn't even have to be classified as a boycott, that is just common sense. One of my biggest beefs for a couple of years now has always been unscrupulous and uninformed webmasters who promote shady establishments just to try and get some quick signups and maybe make some quick cash. This does nothing but hurt everyone in the long run. The webmaster ruins his reputation (if he/she ever had one), the player gets screwed...and inevitably a forum such as this one or WinnerOnline ends up with a shitload of complaints re: free bonuses or signup bonuses at one of these clip joints. It all starts with the webmasters. I couldn't agree more.

 

[caruso]

Oh yes...

Perhaps you should contribute in a practical sense too by starting your own portal and newsletter and publishing warnings on a sustained basis. Or you could even champion a boycott and get a true and exclusive feel for how many would support it and how effective it would really be.

Work In Progress. Slow, because I am hopeless at anything net-related which isn't either gambling or opining.

When it ceases to be Work In Progress, you will be a welcome visitor.

 

[The Dude]

...I just wanted to bring to light that the majority of Playtech casino groups are rogue, and that an all out roguing is the only way to wake the minority "good" casinos into action...

I just noticed that thesmacker is an affiliate of both Golden Palace casino and Europa casino - two Playtech casinos that have been mentioned a number of times in this forum. What's up with that and the statement you made?

 

[scrollock]

I just noticed that thesmacker is an affiliate of both Golden Palace casino and Europa casino - two Playtech casinos that have been mentioned a number of times in this forum. What's up with that and the statement you made?

a troll ?

 

[jetset]

LMAO, Bryan - was The Smacker not also the guy/girl that the webmaster at Real-casinos busted here for plagiarising his site?

Whatever - Caruso, the news that you are about to launch your own (presumably player advocate?) site helps me to understand your positioning moves here and at WOL. Nevertheless, I wish you good luck, because if you fairly assist players with legitimate grievances and publicise venues best avoided it will make a more positive contribution than proposing general boycotts that hurt good and bad alike.

You have certainly built up the knowledge and experience necessary to succeed on sites like this.

However, I do not think I will be accepting your invitation to visit. Your volatility, tendency to abuse and penchant for jumping in at the extreme end of issues holds no appeal for me, although your style clearly has some support and you will no doubt develop a following of like-minded posters.

I am curious about one thing. Given your previous positions on webmasters and affiliates having conflicts of interest in player disputes, have you now come to accept that it is possible for industry people to handle player issues without bias or favour even if advertising for online casinos? And that would seem to beg the question - will your site be accepting advertising, presumably on a highly selective basis?

I think owning your own site and therefore being personally responsible for what goes on there will also be a refreshing experience for you, and may even serve as a calming influence. It will also provide you with the opportunity to put all the things you have opined on in the past into practice - ownership identity on the site, for example.

I can think of no better example for you to follow than Casinomeister, who has shown repeatedly that he is prepared to forego monetary reward in the interests of doing what is right and balanced.

 

[thesmacker]

Good job averting the issue guys!!. This forum more and more gets the feel of a Casino backed operation.

I remeber when players issues came before defending casinos at this site. Funny how things change as they get more popular. This will be my last post at this site now that it is increasingly becoming a site for web portal owners to defend casinos instead of looking after the rights of players.

BTW-If you didnt notice, I offer a way to bonus hunt those 2 aforementioned casinos and a sure fire way to get paid in doing so. Not exactly helping the casinos out. Unlike this site which promotes slot play and true gambling-a sure fire way to lose your life savings-bravo-your performing a real service for players!!

I have helped numerous players get their money from casinos trying to ROB and STEAL-I know you have here at this site on a larger scale as well, and for that I commend you.

However I notice now that ever player complaint is followed by some severe cynicism before it is truly addressed, and to me thats sad.

I also notice posters that are looking out for the players behalf passionately getting banned all the time when they make a statement that steps on a casinos toes (Caruso, Cipher, Bethug). Censorship is for extreme right wing politics, If you want read John S Mill "On Liberty" and find out how true liberty works in a democratic society. The voices of all must be heard, uncensored, in order to find truth.

Take Care all!!

 

[The Dude]

Good job averting the issue guys!!. This forum more and more gets the feel of a Casino backed operation.

I remeber when players issues came before defending casinos at this site. Funny how things change as they get more popular. This will be my last post at this site now that it is increasingly becoming a site for web portal owners to defend casinos instead of looking after the rights of players.

BTW-If you didnt notice, I offer a way to bonus hunt those 2 aforementioned casinos and a sure fire way to get paid in doing so. Not exactly helping the casinos out. Unlike this site which promotes slot play and true gambling-a sure fire way to lose your life savings-bravo-your performing a real service for players!!

I have helped numerous players get their money from casinos trying to ROB and STEAL-I know you have here at this site on a larger scale as well, and for that I commend you.

However I notice now that ever player complaint is followed by some severe cynicism before it is truly addressed, and to me thats sad.

I also notice posters that are looking out for the players behalf passionately getting banned all the time when they make a statement that steps on a casinos toes (Caruso, Cipher, Bethug). Censorship is for extreme right wing politics, If you want read John S Mill "On Liberty" and find out how true liberty works in a democratic society. The voices of all must be heard, uncensored, in order to find truth.

Take Care all!!

Averting the issues. Hmmm. Man, you have a lot of gall.

For one thing, Cipher was banned after he lost his temper and became belligerent - do a search on the last few of his posts. Bethug was banned permanently for trying to sabotage the auction we had here for UNICEF's children's fund. Caruso's account was suspended when he wasn't paying attention to specific forum rules. This has nothing to do with censorship.

On the other hand, you were accused in public for ripping off another webmaster's site:
Link Outdated / Removed
which you never answered - which I guess you fixed by now.

Then you prance on in here - make some attempt to say how baaad Playtech casinos are, but you're promoting two of the ones that are causing a bit of angst?? Send a bonus hunter to Golden Palace? You might as well kick him in the teeth while you're at it. Where are your priorities, eh?

This is not an "us vs them" affair since portal owners and players roles are blurred. Both Caruso and Amandajm run their own portals or blogs, Spearmaster is more or less out of this realm. Jetset has nothing to do with portal ownership. And I deal with this place. So WTF?

 

[caruso]

I am still here - clinging on by the proverbial fingernails!

Jetset, some comments:

"Caruso, the news that you are about to launch your own (presumably player advocate?) site helps me to understand your positioning moves here and at WOL. Nevertheless, I wish you good luck"

I should point out that everything I have done recently which is perceived as "positioning", or otherwise politically...corrupt? - is consistent with everything I have ever done. At my first ICE, I buttonholed Playtech over the OCA "fair RNG" issue; at last year's ICE I buttonholed the iGGBA about Gambling Federation's membership; I have been a long-standing critic of eCOGRA (and stated at WOL that I really should have met up with them there and then, hence the suggestion that I DO so do, and the subsequent developments), and called them to task back then over the Lake Palace case, as I have with the current Bella Vegas one; all these events happened before I entertained any more serious thoughts about involvement with The Biz. I have ALWAYS asked tough questions.

Nothing I do, or will do, will in any way be inconsistent with anything I have already done. Neither of my ICE reports were for any purpose other than passing on useul information at the best venues - here and at WOL. If I were behaving at all differently, then my motives could be questioned; however, my behaviour remains consistent with what it has always been. "Positioning", or any other politically corrupt manouvering, no; my consistency absolutely testifies to this.

Of course, you may have meant "positioning" to mean something else, but it smacks to me of political manouvering, so I responded as such.

"I am curious about one thing. Given your previous positions on webmasters and affiliates having conflicts of interest in player disputes, have you now come to accept that it is possible for industry people to handle player issues without bias or favour even if advertising for online casinos? And that would seem to beg the question - will your site be accepting advertising, presumably on a highly selective basis?"

Conflict of interest is an insurmountable problem: in order to have influence you must have interests, because without the interests you will have no power - unless you are a powerful entity unto your self, as Casinomeister is after seven years in the job. The power is in those affy banners you can use to exert influence; without those, you have no power; with those, you have conflict of interest.

Question: you have a 50K media buy up: the casino steals a player's $50 bonus and $100 winnings and refunds his deposit; what do you do? If the casino just THREATENS to, then pays up, what do you do?

If you even have to CONTEMPLATE the answer, you are corrupt.

Any time money changes hands there is conflict of interests and potential for corruption. And of course it happens all the time in this business.

Whether or not I think others can mediate between their advertisers and players "without bias or favour", would I, personally? With the greatest difficulty, as I will always be on the players' side in spirit. That said, all the cases I've commented on at 'Meister or WOL I hope I've looked at fairly, and when I think the casino's right I say so. I do not differentiate between player cheats and casino cheats. Unfortunately, no industry suit will ever look at me as one of the boys, because I am in essence a player - and it is NOT possible to be both player and webmaster. Someone here has claimed this on a number of occasions, that it is possible to be both: it is not possible. In essence, you are one or the other, although you can clearly do both "jobs".

So, I hope that those adverts I do accept will allow me to remain free of corruption. The "selectivity" you mention will go a bit beyond simple repute, as the site I am working on is thematic and many "good" operations will simply not meet the criteria. In fact, pretty much stuff all qualify.

Thanks for the good wishes, anyway. Your invite will remain open - not that I have anything to invite you to right now, lol.

 

[amandajm]

Smacker. I see you want to watch the watchdog here.

I used to be fairly vehement that responsible webbers should not promote turd. It became unfair, for the webbers that had the balls to post got chastised, while the other 3 million got away scott free. In the end, I built my own blog and have my boycott there. You can't by rights call for a boycott until you make the first move a real one imo.

Don't take content without linking the source. Thereby referencing your point, in my case - however misguided apparently lol. Also ask for permission where appropriate.

Take as much care as you have about you to not get the site you are posting on of others, into a position where they can lose their site in a court of law. Do that with your own site and chattels.

Then you can watch the watchdog.

One day you'll get quoted as proof that the site can accept opposing views. Bryan has earned that right, for I read nion every word written and knows i'll publicise whatever I deem as important but incorrect, but has not barred me yet.

 

[spearmaster]

Unfortunately, no industry suit will ever look at me as one of the boys, because I am in essence a player - and it is NOT possible to be both player and webmaster.

I suppose you already knew I would react to this.

Meister is a player and a webmaster. I am a player and was a webmaster (well, still am, but not in quite the same sense).

You may think it is not possible to be both - but we have done both successfully. And strangely enough, Meister used to beat the hell out of my affiliate accounts to boot.

I think what you may not understand is that it is not possible to be a "boy" WITHOUT being a player to begin with - for it is us "boys" that understand the mentality of the gambler because we too are gamblers.

Like it or not, believe it or not, your choice. But I dare say that, if anything, we are more player-oriented than business-oriented.

Spearmaster is more or less out of this realm.

Don't write me off just yet I'm just enjoying not having to do all the tedious stuff that I had to do for five years... but I'm also beginning to miss it. In the meantime, cleaning up after you lot over here is more than enough to keep me busy

 

[elscrabinda]

So do you have no involvement in got2bet anymore Spear?

I guess its unfair then to ask you to explain the promoting on that site of the Del Rio group and even Prestige and Playgate (who are in a whole different league of awfulness)

 

[jetset]

The Smacker says: "I remember when players' issues came before defending casinos at this site."

No - you're wrong there The Smacker - this site has always been about what is fair, reasonable and balanced for all . That is why it is so respected and successful.

Caruso - you took me around the houses a bit with that somewhat convoluted response (nice personal *commercial* in there too btw!), so I'll summarise, if I may:

1) You are going to start a website (or have already done so?)

2) It will be focused on player advocacy

3) You will be accepting (or have accepted?) advertising from reputable online casinos

4) You do not see any conflict of interest in yourself or others doing this

 

[scrollock]

anyway gettiong back onto the topic of these "honest" playtech being blameless, as i have already pointed out they are not totally blameless as they are supporting a morally corrupt organization (playtech) which in turn through its provision of software to rogue casinos is resulting in innocent players being out of pocket.

another thing i would like to point out regarding these "honest" playtech, is that from what i gather is that this playtech disputes is a relativly new thing, so is that the reason why these companies joined playtech in the first place? as at the time of joining there wasn't a playtech disputes, i.e. the fact the playtech wouldnt force them to pay up a player if they didnt want to, the attraction that helped in their decision to choose playetch ?

if it wasnt, it is certainly something they knew about when making the decison, also as it seems that the vast majority of these "honest" playtechs are UK based organizations, then they all know the importance of having an independent body to adjudicate on disputes, especially the bookmakers (bet365,betfred & tote) through their day to day involvment with IBAS.

taking this even further, is this the reason why playtech disputes is so hands off, i.e. when these companies joined playtech they were promised that there would be no outside involvment regarding player disputes, and that this is reason why playtech returns all disputes back to the casino.

i can imagine the negotiations now.

BET 365 "why should we choose your software ?"
PLAYTECH "we wont force to you pay any player you dont want to"

after playtech disputes was set up

BET365 "you promised us we wouldn't be forced to pay any player we didnt want to"
PLAYTECH "dont worry, the disputes board is for image sake after pressure from certain watchdogs, any complaints we recieve we will return back to you"

of course i cannot prove anything, however the notion that the "honest" playtech are blamess does need to be seriously questioned though.

should a boycott take place and any financial harm does come to some of these playtech, then i dont think they really have the right to scream "innocence" when they knowingly choose a software that didn't provide any player recourse, something pointed out above that no UK organization can deny the importance of when it comes to the provision of gambling facilities.

 

[spearmaster]

So do you have no involvement in got2bet anymore Spear?

I guess its unfair then to ask you to explain the promoting on that site of the Del Rio group and even Prestige and Playgate (who are in a whole different league of awfulness)

Spearmaster is a free man. I am no longer involved in Got2Bet, which is now 100% owned and operated by Gaming Corp. All advertising on the site is managed by them, and they receive 100% of the income.

I think you all know my past - if I didn't like and trust a casino, it wouldn't be allowed to advertise on Got2Bet (with rare exceptions through referral by someone else I knew, none of which caused any problems during their tenure on the site).

It was very tough to toe the line and turn away money (and yes, Caruso, I considered it many a time), but in the end Got2Bet and its reputation were more important to me than any advertising funds being dangled in front of me.

I sold Got2Bet because I needed a break, and only because I believed then, and still believe now, that Gaming Corp is a reputable operation. Yes, they do take on some advertisers that I wouldn't take on now. But that's entirely their right.

 

[Simmo!]

BET 365 "why should we choose your software ?"
PLAYTECH "we wont force to you pay any player you dont want to"

after playtech disputes was set up

BET365 "you promised us we wouldn't be forced to pay any player we didnt want to"
PLAYTECH "dont worry, the disputes board is for image sake after pressure from certain watchdogs, any complaints we recieve we will return back to you"

 

[caruso]

(nice personal *commercial* in there too btw!)

Jetset, you sly old dog you.

1) You are going to start a website (or have already done so?)

2) It will be focused on player advocacy

3) You will be accepting (or have accepted?) advertising from reputable online casinos

4) You do not see any conflict of interest in yourself or others doing this

I thought I was clear enough. Anyway:

1) Work In Progress. Not ready by a long way. You want a link? Ask Bryan. However, I ask that noone post it on the boards, for the reason just given. Want to make an issue of that? Go ahead, but respect my wishes nonetheless.

2) Not "focussed". In fact, that was never really the idea. However, I figure, given my inclinations, it would ultimately go that way.

3) Yes.

4) I thought I rammed that one home good and hard above! Yes, of course I foresee a conflict of interests. Please see all comments above.

Whatever the topic is we've got onto here, maybe it needs its own thread before we derail the Europa issue forever.

EDIT: I just saw Joeyl started a thread on this subject on the other board.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/corrupt-casino-watchdog-discussion.11135/

Maybe my exchange with Jetset here, and other relevant posts, are better served edited in there somehow, since all this has nothing to do with the player's Europa issue.

 

[jetset]

It is good to see that your views on conflict of interest seem to have significantly moderated, Caruso, and I am sure that will work well in your new role as a webmaster.

Don't worry too much about the Playtech nature of this thread veering briefly off course - Bryan is all over these guys and is the most likely of all of us to get things moving. I'm sure he'll report back here or in some other form in due course.

 

[johnsteed]

***

TheSmacker

"I remember when players' issues came before defending casinos at this site."

Jetset

No - you're wrong there The Smacker - this site has always been about what is fair, reasonable and balanced for all . That is why it is so respected and successful.

I think you're quite right on that one Jetset. If you comb the internet for other sites similar to Casinomeister.com, you won't find another one which is so balanced. In fact, is it not the most successful site (and one of the few) that deals with players issues on an ongoing basis?


On the odd occasion (a slow Sunday), I'll go visit some of those other sites/message boards (that shall remain nameless), and there's one in particular that's all about foul language and trash-talking. It's a fun read, but they don't resolve anything there. Sure, in many ways, I think that the site is more biased towards the player, and it's become so negative that those who go there on a regular basis come across as being slightly jaded in their perspectives (self-serving biases and traps beat-out logic and a macro-level way of clearly observing the bigger picture at hand).


Personally, I find when people resort to becoming "extremists" to get their point across (think: Michael Moore), they can get tunnel-vision, and lose sight of what they were actually petitioning for in the first place. Having said that, I think that if this site were too partial towards players concerns (and always putting the casinos secondary), in the end, nothing would ever be accomplished. Having two ends of the spectrum (in not more than just two ends) becoming increasingly comfortable (these things take a long time) coming to this site in particular, IS a good thing. Believe me, I hold lots of resentment to a fair number of casinos and those software providers, but then again, this isn't my site.


Back to the point, if Casinomeister.com were some kind of underground guerrilla outfit trying to get things accomplished in the online gaming realm, it would never be tolerated and would go by the wayside. This site has risen to prominence (from what I've been reading), and is always gaining momentum to be in a better position to be dealing with all sides of the industry. I'm sure die-hard music fans can relate to this. If your favorite band was some esoteric alternative band (that only got airplay on college radio), and all of a sudden their music is circulating into the mainstream, are they selling-out from who they were originally? Generally, no. If anything, they probably (in time) will have greater access to make precisely the music they always wanted to make (despite what schema their original fans thrust onto them).


I'm merely a player, and have no designs on ever wanting to be a webmaster/player advocate, but from what conclusions I've drawn over the past year (of coming here), is that it's a real bitch (and impossible) keeping everyone happy 365 days out of the year.


Steed

***

 

[caruso]

This was similar to the VegasRed case, where there was discrepancy between the bonus page terms and the deeply hidden user end agreement. The VegasRed player was paid.

Any word from this player? Time to consign this one to the "Can't be arsed any more" slag heap?

 

[hithere7]

This is exactly the same.

Now they changed their terms, they put the sentence that you can't play the non allowed games in the promotion terms, when I played there it was only in the term of use therefore there was a discrepancy between the two terms, one only said you that it does not count which means you can play it.

As I said right now they changed and corrected it.

The bad new that NO I haven't gotten paid, the good news that the Casinomeister is taking care of it and I contact him every week for updates and right now there are no updates.

I hope he can make them pay it is really a lot of money.

When you check the promotion term you don't go to the Privacy Policy nor to the term of use, you go only to the promotion terms.

The rest is long and most of the not relevant to promotion so if you are at legal age and everything is ok you should collect your winnings once you win and leave the money on the table when you lose.

I expected them to pay me, not only I wagered enough for the promo I got but also I risked much more money in Video poker and no way the casino say it was abusive. I wagered much more than the required playthrough. I risked more to win more, they should pay and I believe that with enough complaints they will pay

Thank you Bryan and Caruso I will update you with any reply from them although they ignore my emails.

 

[hithere7]

There was a player who had the exact case as mine and I understand from Caruso this player was paid.

Not only he was paid the casino changed his way and put the termsin the promotion terms and not only at the terms of use so there is no more descrepancies between the two terms as it was when I played.

Here is the thread of the other guy who got paid, I sent the casino an email but they still refuse to pay me.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/problems-with-vegas-red-1700-confiscated.10802/


Bryan, is there a way to get the money from them as well
The only difference between me and him that they owe me not 3000 USD but more than 12,000 USD

 

[hithere7]

Bryan, are u familiar with the player mentioned above that was paid in full

He played also restricted games, they changed the promotion terms after his incidence but they never paid me.

When I played there the promotion terms contradicted the general terms.

 

[liquidsoap]

This is still going on, shesh casinos straighten up.
Hithere7 I really hope you get paid.

 

[hithere7]

I attached a part of the screenshot I have from Europa casino OLD TERMS when I played there.

As you can see it just mentioned that Videopoker does not count towards the wagering

If you go to the following link you can see the terms nowdays at the promotion page and you can see that Videopoker is not allowed to play at all.

Thelawnet had the same problem, they paid him and changed the terms, my case was before the Thelawnet case, I am happy for him but I was never paid.

Here is the link for the new terms

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

Bets placed on all versions of Baccarat, all versions of Roulette, all versions of Sic Bo, all Video Poker games, all versions of Blackjack, Blackjack Switch, Blackjack Surrender, Pontoon and Craps will not be counted toward wagering requirements. We reserve the right to withhold any amount in excess of the player’s original deposit from a player's withdrawal if the play bonus is wagered on the above mentioned games.