Roguish Tradition Casino and likely all Rival casinos are Rogue. All Evidence shown here.

incrediblestuff

SearchingForTheHolyGrail!
webmeister
CAG
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Location
Mostly the Netherlands
lol
i must say that that little joke of yours i quoted, to me was an indication of at least a healthy portion of intelligence/wit. but i did believe most of the "drunk play"
rascal!
anyhow, the evidence seems to be piling up rapidly, this is like a scoop!
and on your last post i can only say: respect.
because i would doubt if i had made the same choice, as that amount of money, to me would be very important.
not that i wouldnt bring it to the foreground: of course i would, but i would then think to myself, a few extra days will not hurt humanity more, then it will hurt me to not be paid.
(on the other hand i'm not even in the position to depsoit that much, so i probably would be looking at maybe a 100$ loss, and that would maybe incline me to make the same choice...)
but if i had won 7000$ with that, i'd certainly want to give it my all to make sure that i get that first.
we all have our priorities at certain times..

you get the pic ^^
i would still make sure that this was known, and i'm very glad you did, cause now i will save myself another 100, which i was planning to deposit @ the end of the month, (for which i thank you) and you might save 1000's of people 1000's of $ if this spreads!
:thumbsup:
 

SamD

Banned User
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Location
my home
I'm curious about one thing Sam...given the high stakes you play, why would you choose to play at any casino that has daily/weekly/monthly maximum withdrawal limits? Say you had won 100K or something...do you know how long it would have taken you to get paid? Again, just curious...as you mention playing at 32Red and 3Dice, cream of the crop, both of them. And neither with any kind of payout restrictions.

As an aside, I did PM Bryan, and he promised he will go over all this on Monday. Just got home after his trip to the Isle of Man, and is taking the weekend off. But I did stress how important I thought it was, and that it needs to be addressed. I also made him aware that you are JHV...not sure what will happen with that. I just want to see this get the attention it deserves.
To your question about where I play and why, obviously I display a lot stricter selection than in the past. I only really play seriously on recommended casinos where a multiple of people here or on some forum say they are safe. I play occasionally on 3Dice and 32Red and am occasionally given bonuses which I appreciate but my volume of play is such that I probably need *lots* of bonuses or I'm playing far too often [as opposed to just occasionally as I have been of late] without them. And I feel icky asking for a bonus for some reason, I dunno.

I actually have no problem with Vegas Regal's payout times, so long as they are honest and do - in fact - pay out. And I like the Slots there. They were my stalwart [for volume of my play] which is why Nicholas' decision to react in such an incomprehensible [to me] way just has me stunned. And very much depressed about yea...

------------

I think we all know how the other issue is going to play out. If anyone thinks I was life-banned repeatedly for the reasons proffered, well lolz I guess. The people who have the capacity to understand the obvious can work it out. The people who cannot won't, I guess.

At the end of the day, I am the 'problem' [such as it is]. I try and act within an ethical code of behaviour and if I see someone who blatantly does not subscribe to any such ethical code, I am liable to call them out on it. Bryan says this is "not respecting that all opinions are valid". And he is right in that I do not respect all opinions are valid. Some are about as invalid as things get. And well - the world [and the CM forum] - relies on people turning a blind eye to things, and I think inaction in that regard is very much a form of action - so Bryan will ban me because he has a job to do and that job relies on soapbox preachers like me to be silenced.

And I shall. And it's ok. I thought being listed in the Awards as Most Annoying Forum Member was a bit rich - accurate no doubt, I'm sure I was as annoying as forum members come - annoying to those who have jobs to do and I was getting in the way of their business. I respect that. But I can't turn a blind eye to it and pretend it's not happening when I see it. I wish I could....I'd be [for example] likely 7k richer purely today if I was able to.... FML
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
Toronto, Ontario - Canada
I get your point Sam, about making these issues public...and I agree 110%. In fairness to Freddy though...he is a stand up guy, and I don't doubt for one second that he did indeed just take them at their word, that the "glitch" (loose term, we'll use for now, lol), had been fixed. In addition, as KK stated earlier, Rival, since their inception...have been notorious for all kinds of glitches in their software, although none as serious as this. I'm sure Freddy just assumed this was another one of "those", and that they would fix it, or had already.

As to you being paid....I don't think they would dare to not pay you now. Do you know how deep that would bury them, now that you have made this public? I am sure you will get your money, just not sure when....as they are also notoriously slow. I do commend you for going public prior to being paid. Not sure I can say that everyone else would do the same.

I thought being listed in the Awards as Most Annoying Forum Member was a bit rich -
Just FTR, I didn't agree with you receiving that award at all, lol. I found you far from the most annoying..but then, there are many who say I'm annoying as hell. So maybe it's just that I can relate to you. :laugh:

In any event, let's keep the thread focused on the issue, and not on the forum, or anyone's opinions on how it's run. It's Bryan's site, and he can run it how he sees fit. Doesn't mean we will always agree...that's just life. But this Rival thing is too important to get sidetracked with stuff that isn't pertinent to the issue at hand.
 

SamD

Banned User
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Location
my home
I get your point Sam, about making these issues public...and I agree 110%. In fairness to Freddy though...he is a stand up guy, and I don't doubt for one second that he did indeed just take them at their word, that the "glitch" (loose term, we'll use for now, lol), had been fixed. In addition, as KK stated earlier, Rival, since their inception...have been notorious for all kinds of glitches in their software, although none as serious as this. I'm sure Freddy just assumed this was another one of "those", and that they would fix it, or had already.

As to you being paid....I don't think they would dare to not pay you now. Do you know how deep that would bury them, now that you have made this public? I am sure you will get your money, just not sure when....as they are also notoriously slow. I do commend you for going public prior to being paid. Not sure I can say that everyone else would do the same.

Just FTR, I didn't agree with you receiving that award at all, lol. I found you far from the most annoying..but then, there are many who say I'm annoying as hell. So maybe it's just that I can relate to you. :laugh:

In any event, let's keep the thread focused on the issue, and not on the forum, or anyone's opinions on how it's run. It's Bryan's site, and he can run it how he sees fit. Doesn't mean we will always agree...that's just life. But this Rival thing is too important to get sidetracked with stuff that isn't pertinent to the issue at hand.
Yes I don't mean to criticise Freddy, I just wanted to emphasise my personal opinion that ALL information about casinos who get even a bit out of line should be posted [in my opinion]. It's important to establish a record of behaviour like my 4 inch thick one at military academy :p - I wasn't 'bad' or anything, but if you looked at each little cheeky incident in a vacuum you'd be liable to laugh and brush it off - but when the CO is holding that huge manuscript in his hands, and about to discuss my last 'indiscretion' whether missing a parade or having an unauthorised guest on campus or w/e - boy, I knew I was screwed lolz. good times. Patterns of behaviour are very important - and Rival [if they are to survive this] really need to shape up like I was forced to...or they should be shown the door [as I was lucky to avoid at ADFA].

I hope you're right about Rival and getting paid. I'm still more just overwhelmingly sad about it all - and how it should have developed so completely differently - and how I gave them so so many chances to let it develop differently...and I just. cannot. explain. it. And I believe I have a fairly active imagination - and I'm stumped.

It is Bryan's site - and he's worked extremely hard on it for a decade - and I have always respected his right to ban or un-ban me as he saw fit. I may have ranted pages and drunk pages at him actually via email after the final ban [lolz] as I felt that was patently unfair...but this is the first time I've registered a 'dupe' account on this forum, and I did so only really because I wanted to be ready at any moment should it appear likely that Tradition were, in fact, rogue / in need of a good dressing down. I didn't actually realise it would get this bad. But I guess I should have seen it coming, I'm no longer a virgin to this industry - sigh.

As a sidepoint, my role-playing as the old retired drunk was just for a bit of fun killing time. If Tradition and Rival and Nicholas had behaved with dignity, perhaps I would have mentioned the glitch and that it had been addressed with said dignity and I would have shut the SamD account down after that.
 

nisosbar

Ueber Meister
PABnonaccred
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Location
Right here
As to issue number two, I always thought that the white label Rivals all ran off a central server? That if the payout on a certain slot was set at 96% at one of them...it would be identical at all of the other twenty odd of them?
This isn't the first time I've seen someone ask this question.

I have never seen a response from a Rival rep as to the truth or falseness of this notion.

Personally, I think it's false, since if Rival is simply providing 'software', not 'hardware', then Occam's Razor would suggest that each Rival runs off their own servers, with the exception perhaps of those which are 'sister' casinos.

I think this is a very important question, and I would like to get an answer, if a rep could do so in this thread.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
This is VERY bad, not only can Rival casinos have individually configured Blackjack games, but there appear to be NO SENSIBLE VALUE BOUNDS incorporated into the code to prevent "accidents" like this, where one value is misconfigured right off the bottom of the chart! I would expect Blackjack, except exitic variants, to vary narrowly between paying 2:1 and 6:5 for a Blackjack. Given this is billed as a "vegas rules" variant, players EXPECT that the paytable bounds would be CONSTRAINED by the limits allowed under Vegas rules.
What makes this even WORSE is that there is NO tie-in whatsoever between these configuration values, and the rules displayed to the player, meaning the games can be misrepresented, as is the case TWICE in this incident (rules say "double after split allowed", but configuration has this turned off, and the table displays "blackjacks paid 3:2", but they were erroneously configured to pay 1:1).

There is also the fact that this was taken on board as a VERY UNIMPORTANT ISSUE INDEED when raised with support, where it looks like the player was repeatedly fobbed off with empty promises so that they would just "go away, and stop bothering us with this trivia". They made numerous unkept promises to deal with the matter quickly, but required much pushing to even get them to investigate, and then when they found there really WAS a problem, hoped that simply correcting the ONE instance used as the example would be enough to make it go away.

They then tried to limit the damage by saying it only happened for 4 days, and only at their casino. This leaves a couple of questions.

1) WHY was this particular configuration value even TOUCHED in the first place, enabling the mistake to be made.

2) Their claim of "only 4 days" is now starting to look a little shaky, with another player claiming to have noticed and reported this problem on the 22nd of last month, and was then told it had been fixed.

3) Was the OP DELIBERATELY being bullied into going away and letting this issue be swept under the carpet - to the detriment of other players, or is the appalling level of service he received during that live chat NORMAL service:eek:
How can it take AN HOUR to proceed through such a short exchange.


In general, none of this should even be POSSIBLE, and it shows yet ANOTHER "Rival lie" has been slipped past us players. Now, we have to accept the general concept that casino specific game configurations are ANOTHER of the options available as part of the WL package. Further, this case seems to indicate a lack of "safety nets", because the parameter for Blackjack payout should NOT accept an attempt to set it to a mere 1:1, it should alert the configurator that an "invalid value" has been requested, which would have prevented this mistake from happening.

If they have so much leeway with the table games, it is reasonable to assume that configuration options also exist for the slot games, perhaps either in the form of RTG, a selection between a number of RTP options, or even the ability to just type in the desired RTP, with the game being adjusted to match. The worry nowis that the software lacks sensible bounds, which could enable Rival slots to be set to "stupidly" low RTP values, such as 80%, but where players could STILL be fobbed off with "you were just unlucky", and have no way to prove otherwise.


The last, and more personal, point is the coincidence between the OP trying to get this issue taken seriously, and being bonus banned at Vegas Regal after seeking help from their rep. To put this to rest, we need Vegas Regal to step up and inform the OP WHY the bonus ban came along now, rather than before this issue was raised. The OP could also give the rep formal permission to post the reason in this thread, needed since without it the rep could not reveal enough without breaching rules on releasing player's information without permission.

From the potted playing history from the OP, and the revelation that they are indeed the "whale" JHV, and generate considerable UNBONUSED action, I find it hard to believe that the bonus ban was the result of "bonus abuse", leaving this issue the only other factor in the public domain to explain things.
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
SamD, Rival are unfortunately notorious for their display glitches; what cards does the play history show for those 2 Blackjack hands?
Would be interesting to see if it matches what you saw on your screen - though of course that could not possibly be the problem with the "no double after split" issue.

KK
Display glitch,WTF:rolleyes:
 

bonustreak

Senior Member
webmeister
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Location
Home Office
Oh boy this is some serious jacked up stuff!! I hope that other Rival operators jump in here with a quickness to defend their brand or do whatever it takes because if this is happening with all Rivals I have no choice but to pull every single one off my sites, I cannot sit around and let players be cheated! This is just sick and I really hope it is just happening with Tradition who I am not all that happy with anyway and I don't promote because they have given me the wrong vibes from the start up, I just knew some shady owner was behind this operation and now this just proves it to me!

I have said before that Rival should not allow these white labels to adjust the slots and games to their own advantage! If you cannot afford to have a high varience game such as 'Scary Rich' in your casino and you need to lower the max bet to a buck then YOU SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN A LICENSE TO OPERATE A DAMN CASINO!

There is no doubt here that cheating is going on with Tradition I urge everyone to pull them off your sites asap!
 

bb28

Meister Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Location
US
If you cannot afford to have a high varience game such as 'Scary Rich' in your casino and you need to lower the max bet to a buck then YOU SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN A LICENSE TO OPERATE A DAMN CASINO!

Just so I'm clear.......are you saying Tradition lowered the max bet on Scary to $1.00?
 

bonustreak

Senior Member
webmeister
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Location
Home Office
No not them but there is a thread here somewhere about the old "Gold Rock" doing this and it was admitted that Rival will allow operators to adjust the betting etc if they cannot afford large cash outs. They even removed the slot totally for a few months!
 

bb28

Meister Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Location
US
No not them but there is a thread here somewhere about the old "Gold Rock" doing this and it was admitted that Rival will allow operators to adjust the betting etc if they cannot afford large cash outs. They even removed the slot totally for a few months!
Oh OK........there is probably a thread from way back when when I had a bitch session about Gold Rock removing Scary. I was pissed to say the least and they lied about it, kept telling me it would be back in a week, then another week and then........well it wasn't. Liars!

Back to the original topic......sorry for the T/J.
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
THE BJ RIP-OFF

[post=299345]Ignored Multiple Times By The One's Who Should Not Have-Once Again On May 18,2009[/post]

If Bryan wants I can drop a bombshell but if a software malfunction justifies a house advantage of beyond what is supposed, then I won't waste my time.

Actually in context, the optimal malfunction for the house but have an expert confirm. All documented. John lies but his lie is just stupid and incomprehensible. 2 BJ experts have shots and paraphrasing one's comment, "very compelling", 6 month ordeal but I stopped playing for 2 to 3 months in that period.
Want more cause I and others have it?
 

De Beuker

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Location
Netherlands
This is some really serious sh*t ofcourse:eek2:, the fact that this error was known to be there for a month is just insane.:mad:
Cant wait for a Rival rep to comment on this.

Still I dont believe the slots can be altered this way.
If it would be so easy to cheat with the slots, than why do they bonusban half the world?
That makes no sense.
You should think they want to squeeze out as many deposits as possible, right?

One other thing, the error (?) was first spotted Feb. 22, and is now exposed here, on March 27.
In the mean time, has really nobody else spotted this?:confused:
I'm not at all an experienced blackjackplayer, I hardly ever play that game, but this underpaying error is pretty obvious, even for me.
Nobody here or on other forums who play BJ at Tradition?
 

gloria460

Meister Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Location
Florida
You know it's really bad that rival has to resort to these kinda things. Bonus bans for winning, bonuses with deposits that have a max cashout, high wr and sometimes impossible to complete and a max on it if you do complete, delayed payments and cs who do not have a clue.

I don't know why these casinos are still in business. Pantasia is even offering the max cashouts now. I don't think it's a money issue but a greed issue.

Pretty soon I'll be down to no casinos. RTG is gone, sloto is hanging on by a thread and MCG might pull the cord anytime now...boy am I having fun!

BTW Sam, I thought that drunk post was hilarious and thanks for bringing this to everybody's attention.
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
Someone please explain the house edge of Rival's BJ based on the following in March 2008!


From : NASHVEGAS
To : thisisvegas
Date : 2008-03-22 14:09
Title : Re: howdy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey John...just piddling.... I do think I found a serious bug though that reoccurs but not consistently>>>sometimes the split button will double down instead of split the cards and has now prolly happened 10 or so times but I just did not feel like complaining but you should look into why this occurs out of the blue as I am positive it happens but totally random and unpredictable)...good for you guys,bad for...be safe and well!,Garry


SIDENOTE:This rip-off/malfeasance which I had now discovered with John in late October 2008 precisely how and why it was occurring was finally addressed and corrected in late October 2008 by a Rival BJ update. (John initially did admit to the BJ malfeasance via a telephone conversation and PM iirc. I will confirm and prolly post.) I also PM'ed Bryan on the same night in late October 2008 as I knew from previous dealings with Rival that if Bryan did not see this Rival rip-off/malfeasance immediately (he had no Rival accounts so I did not go into detail), now that I knew how it was occurring, Rival would now immediately correct and then deny all. Guess what??? Rival did exactly as previously anticipated--->>>>corrected the malfeasance via a BJ update and of course denied the malfeasance. Thus, those that deserved compensation for doubing down on a pair of Aces:rolleyes::rolleyes::mad: could go eff themselves. Exactly what Rival did with one exception I assume as I was given hush (again "I assume") credits later that night/morning but I did not hush.(Search the forum as I "always double down on a pair of ACES", pair of Deuces so I can not resplit and possibly double down yet I see the not determinable and incorrect house advantage published everywhere.) Co-incidence that I would win Rival's largest Progressive to that date a few weeks later but not be paid as agreed ??
 

bonustreak

Senior Member
webmeister
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Location
Home Office
Ok I have made some calls today and do NOT ask me to disclose where I got this info because I will not.

I have been told that yes each white label can set their own blackjack payouts. Tradition seems to be set at 1:1 payout instead of the regular 3:2. (They are likely the only Rival brand that picked this option) Furthermore after my calls the owners of Rival software were contacted and shown this thread and as a result it was determined that Tradition may have set the payout to 1.1 which was in their rights to do so BUT it was also determined that the felts did not match up so Rival went in and disabled the 1.1, changed it to the 3:2 at Tradition and set BJ to 3:2 at all rival brands

Also since this issue brought to light the point that rules should not ever conflict with the game felts ...now ALL operators must contact Rival to make changes to rules and Rival will first verify whether any graphical changes are necessary before they allow a change.

I personally think this title is a bit off "All Rivals Rogue", not all of the casinos are rogue but let me say Tradition will NEVER be on my sites they have proven to me over and over they do some pretty shady things!!
 
Last edited:

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
Ok I have made some calls today and do NOT ask me to disclose where I got this info because I will not.

I have been told that yes each white label can set their own blackjack payouts. Tradition seems to be set at 1:1 payout instead of the regular 3:2. (They are the ONLY Rival brand that picked this option) Furthermore after my calls the owners of Rival software were contacted and shown this thread and as a result it was determined that Tradition did set the payout to 1.1 which was in their rights to do so BUT it was also determined that the felts did not match up so Rival went in and disabled the 1.1, changed it to the 3:2
at Tradition.



Also since this issue brought to light the point that rules should not ever conflict with the game felts ...now ALL operators must contact Rival to make changes to rules and Rival will first verify whether any graphical changes are necessary before they allow a change.

I personally think this title is a bit off "All Rivals Rogue", not all of the casinos are rogue but let me say Tradition will NEVER be on my sites they have proven to me over and over they do some pretty shady things!!
So explain why Rival publishes only one H/A of .63,iirc, on its' single hand BJ. It all over affiliate sites like AKA's Beating Bonuses et al. More Rival horseshit.:lolup:Phuck at 1 to 1 add ~ 2.26% for a BJ H/A of ~2.90%. Ever read any Stanford Wong, Henry Tamburin et al on this subject. Makes Grand Prive look like choir boys;)
 
Last edited:

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
EDIT: Sam's/JHV's hand history pretty much rules out a display glitch. No question he was paid 1:1 on a genuine BJ.
Well no it doesn't actually - see below...

Looking for the hands now...sec...

----------

Goodness I can't believe how much I've played only during what I thought were tiny sessions at Tradition - many many many pages scrolling through but here is the first one hand I noticed [which was obscured by the instruction help box]:



Pretty freaking unbelievable that they would try to lie straight out knowing that this was sitting there available - I guess they assumed that I was a donk [not an unfair assumption at times considering my gambling] or perhaps they panicked and desperately gambled on my going "hmm ok guess I made a mistake" and played on - or something. Hell if I know - nothing about their actions since my first Live Chat really make any sense to me...including Nicolas' reaction to my worries about ethical casinos suffering unfairly purely by association.
That screenshot shows you getting a 21 on a Split Hand - that is not a BlackJack in any game I've played. 21 on a split should only pay 1:1 afaik. The games rules at tradition confirm this (now).
Could you not locate the histories of the two natural BlackJacks you posted screenshots of?

KK
Note: I tried to post this this-morning (10 or so hours ago - before Sam got banned) - but the forum went down! :eek2:
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
Well no it doesn't actually - see below...


That screenshot shows you getting a 21 on a Split Hand - that is not a BlackJack in any game I've played. 21 on a split should only pay 1:1 afaik. The games rules at tradition confirm this (now).
Could you not locate the histories of the two natural BlackJacks you posted screenshots of?

KK
Note: I tried to post this this-morning (10 or so hours ago - before Sam got banned) - but the forum went down! :eek2:
The bolded and underlined above is 100% correct, you can edit out the "afaik".:cool:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top