Unified Gaming Robot Claims


RIP Brian
This apparent Unified Gaming insistence on audits because players are allegedly using robot play has been going on for some months now and needs to be addressed.

Unified were quick to post damage control messages when their salesman "mistakenly misrepresented the functionality of the percent payout element of the software" recently so perhaps we should widely post a cogent argument on the robot play issue, together with their refusal to respond to emails and see if we can persuade them to break their reticence.

If they responded we could at the very least be sure that certain of their licencees are not just passing the buck on these "audits" to UG?

And has it been established (and if so on what grounds) that robot play is possible or illegal. Is it expressly prohibited?


Dormant account
Using a robot is espressly prohibited, but they use this as an excuse to not pay players.


Dormant account
Unified Gaming expressly prohibits robot play, but they do not define it or provide any criteria for how they prove it. As an excuse to not pay winners in any negative expectation game, it is nonsensical-- robot play simply increases the number of hands a player can wager, both in speed and duration. For the strategy games of video poker and blackjack, it can improve play, but it cannot turn around a negative expectation game into a positive expectation situation.

I believe the OPA should issue a statement that suspicion of robot play is not a valid excuse in dealying winnings from a negative expectation game and will not be accepted as one. Period.

It's as ridiculous as expecting us to support the excuse of "oh, our rigged software didn't perform correctly and extract enough money from this player."

So what if Unified Gaming posts on their site that robot play is prohibited--if they post that they won't pay if you win too much, the OPA wouldn't support them.


RIP Brian
Good post Mary. UG have shown that they can be coerced into making statements - look how quickly they reacted to that Prescription story on their RNG.

Perhaps if we start generating a little coverage on this robot play thing (perhaps we might even persuade Elizabeth to write something for The Prescription?) we could get them to define what robot play actually is. That would give us something to get our teeth into.

Does anyone know if there is such a thing as an accepted definition of robot play?

I mentioned UG and the robot play excuse in my webcast thing earlier this week.


Dormant account
My understanding of a robot is a program that will play automatically without input from the player. If I owned a casino, I would roll out the welcome mat for robots.


Dormant account
Ok, to consolidate some of my research on the robot play issue:

*A 'robot" is an application that plays casino software. It may play both faster and with more accuracy in decisions than a human player.

*Some Unified Gaming casinos do offer a blackjack game that has an 0.58% advantage to the player, with perfect play, hence they are vulnerable to robot play by sufficiently bankrolled players or groups.

*Robot play cannot overcome a game with a negative house advantage, and in fact would enhance the profitability of such a game to a casino. There is no advantage to be gained from robot play in sports betting

*Unified Gaming expressly prohibits robot play, but they do not define their criteria of what is evidence of robot play.

*Unified Gaming has used the claim of robot play against:

Players who won in a negative expectation situation;
Players who had been previously cleared of robot play and promised winnings;
Players already in the process of beng paid in instalments;
Players who inadvertantly opened multiple browser windows in response to Unified Gaming's own software bug that has not been fixed.

These are not acceptable situations in which to deny winnings based on allegations of robot play.

*It is also to be noted that players have no recourse whatsoever against these allegations.


Dormant account
I don't think the lockup problem is a UG bug, it's a Java problem. But UG must surely be aware of this problem and must have plenty of players who are logged in simultaneously because of it. Funny that I haven't heard of one instance of a player getting any losings back because of this.


Dormant account
"Players who inadvertantly opened multiple browser windows in response to Unified Gaming's own software bug that has not been fixed."

This is such a bogus excuse. Anyone who has played UG's software has had problems with lock-ups/software not loading properly etc.

The usual fix is to turn off your sound card when playing a UG site, but this may not always work and a new player probably wouldn't know about this.

And it's not like this problem hasn't been known for at least 8 to 10 months and probably longer.

Once again, players are penalized for the a casinos problems . . . shame, shame, shame.

I agree with Jetset; UG needs to come out of the shadows and tie up some loose ends. In my opinion, anyone who wins a fair amount of money at a UG site is automatically assumed to have done something shady, and is in real danger of never being paid their winnings.

Not good PR if you ask me.



Should all Unified Gaming casinos and sportsbooks be on the not recommended list?

I understand there have been some payment problems. I don't know how bad these are. The GameMaster says they've been slow payers to big winners on their progressive slots, but he believes they all get paid eventually.
I haven't heard of any tests concluding that their software is dishonest.

I wonder if merely using Unified Gaming Software is a good reason to blackslist a casino. Are the problems applicable to all users of the software, or are there some good UG casinos and some bad ones? E.g. is this like RTG (some good and some bad casinos, but software/company doesn't seem to be corrupt) or GSS (corrupt company which provides software that enables cheating)?

I think listing "Unified Gaming Software" as a reason to be on the not recommended list brings the OPA's credibility into question. There must be a good reason for the statment, and it should be stated more clearly on the OPA's listing for the casino.

The OPA has the potential to be an increasingly powerful organization - one which could shut down casinos and companies with their decisions. This will particularly be true if sites refuse to accept ads from blacklisted casinos. Within my organization, a major casino portal, we're moving towards a model where we only accept ads from reputable casinos. BUT THE OPA MAKES THAT POSITION A HARD SELL IN A CASE LIKE THIS.

I'd like to see some discussion about whether the blacklisting of all UG casinos is justified, or whether it should be dealt with on a casino-by-casino basis. Also, do these warnings apply equally to their sportsbooks?


Dormant account
Hi Greg matey hows it going?

I think I will shout for Mary she will best update you on Unified Gaming as my memory is not what it should be for a 21 year old, but I do remember a massive ho ha about them a while ago

MARY MARY where are uuuuuuuuu


Dormant account
Unified Gaming sites are all blacklisted because in several cases, different sites have referred the OPA to Unifed Gaming's legal department in disputes concerning allegations of robot play as justification for not paying players, even in negative expectation games such as craps.

The legal department does not respond, or requests information, and then does not respond.

Unified Gaming has had many opportunities to *communicate* with the OPA and has chosen not to do so. Hence, the OPA cannot conduct meaningful mediation on behalf of our members.

Casinos that do not agree with this stance may wish to take it up with Unified Gaming. It is a shame that the company chooses to collude with some licensees to the detriment of its brand name.

There are so many casinos and manufacturers now who do not generate complaints, and when they do, encourage third party mediation that there's no need to put the burden of trust on players.


Dormant account
Greg, you might want to read up on the conduct of www.bringmeluck.com, a Unified Gaming site. Also be sure to check Julie Sidwell's Gambling Grumbles for Unified licensees.

Have I got a bone to pick with Unified? Yes, I do. Privately owned, they don't have to answer to anybody. If they want to stonewall mediators, they can, but they tick me off when they claim they haven't.

I appreciate Casino City's position, but all you have to do is email the Casino Meister, the Game Master, or The Wizard to find out they're not a communicative company. We will be changing the entry in our directory to more accurately reflect the ongoing problems we have had with them.


Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Unified Gaming is what gives this industry a bad name. This is undeniable. Their casinos have NEVER responded to any of the complaints that my visitors have filed against them. And when it came to my "experience" with bringmeluck.com, their silence was/is unexcusable.

Lest we forget, when I pegged bringmeluck.com for displaying unauthorized banners (OPA, IGC, IGC, Safebet, etc.) they scrambled to take them down and LIED stating that they were never posted. I had made screen shots of the "awards page" on how it looked before they took them down, catching them red-handed.

Well, they took their revenge against me and bombed me with porno spam. Unfortunately for them, their IP address was posted in some of the porno spam - busted again! (I still receive about 20 or so of these porno emails a day.)

I lodged a complaint against bringmeluck.com to UG. No response (what a surprise!). This company has NO scruples and they are completely irresponsible when it comes to monitoring their liscencees.

"I think listing "Unified Gaming Software" as a reason to be on the not recommended list brings the OPA's credibility into question. There must be a good reason for the statment, and it should be stated more clearly on the OPA's listing for the casino. "

No, no, no. It IS a valid reason. And if it isn't clear at the OPA then it should be. The entire email exchange I had with bring-me-luck is posted in this forum (In Casinomeister's Warnings). And my experience and screenshots are posted in the "rogue" section. All of this is free for anyone's perusal including UG's

Where was UG during all this?

Sticking their head in the sand hoping people will just forget and go away.



Thanks for the feedback.

I want the OPA to have as great an influence as possible... and this means that its word has to be trusted beyond the hardcore online gambling community. Its recommended and not recommended lists must defensible... and this is a matter of degree:
The case against a casino may seem black and white to informed, serious online gamblers... but gray to non-gamblers. I know this for a fact: I've seen it in my organization. When I argue that we shouldn't accept ads from a casino, I lose as often as I win (though we're moving in the right direction). I just lost one today. The reason given: there was only one documented complaint against the casino (they refused to pay a customer and gave one of the usual excuses). The point is: you need plenty of evidence and you need to present it clearly.

There are a couple of other orgs on the OPA's list that have made it a hard sell in this organization:
Gambling.com for taking Golden Palace ads. You'd have to blacklist The Wizard for that too, and I don't think you want to do that. The Wizard doesn't want to run their ads, but Webstorm Media owns 50% of his site, runs the business end, and The Wizard doesn't have much control over such things (to paraphrase his response to me when I asked him why he ran a Golden Palace ad recently).

Another one is the IGC. I'm not defending them... in both above cases I'm just saying that they cost the OPA credibility within my organization.



Dormant account
Those are good points. Well, we have to take it on a case by case basis, too. The Wizard has exposed crooked operations and continues to assist the OPA.

Your business partners and you will just have to keep dialog going. Many sites that treat gamblers badly also treat affiliates, advertisers, and business partners badly, and they will become self-evident in time.

The OPA and the IGC still work together--or at least, the OPA informs the IGC when casino operators misrepresent their status with the IGC. But we also want players to know that an IGC "Seal" does not guarantee adherence to their Code of Conduct or good treatment of players.

Cybercroupier Group is an IGC member. Tropika was a member of the IGC through several complaint cycles and was finally quietly not renewed after the OPA discovered that they had misrepresented their licensing status.

The IGC does not do investigations of their members; your people can ask them. Thus, many companies with principals with criminal convictions (Galaxiworld, Golden Palace, etc.) are under their umbrella. And these are not gambling convictions; securities fraud, telemarketing fraud, bank fraud.

Nor do they act to enforce their own code of conduct--again, please ask them.

As a lobbying organization, they do not believe that either activity is appropriate to them. They're quite open about it if asked.

Considering the different goals of the two organizations, perhaps your partners may want to reconsider the OPA's credibility.


RIP Brian
Greg, the issues you raise from the portal aspect are valid.

The presence of Gambling.com on the NOT RECOMMENDED list probably dates back to the superheated days of the infamous Golden Palace scandal when harsh words were exchanged with the owner, but it is true that the GG section of that operation does not hesitate to fearlessly single out baddies even when they are advertisers. It is also true as you point out that other respected sites are (ill-advisedly) advertising GP and it is therefore perhaps less than fair to single out gambling.com alone.

The IGC - well there were a lot of infuriated players around at the time of the GP dispute (and later Tropika too)and IGC unfortunately went into silent and apparently uncaring mode which did not sit well. However it has to be recognized that they are doing a difficult and specialized job in the lobbying area that will ultimately (we hope) benefit everyone in the industry.

Mary made one point which I would like to re-emphasize:

"Your business partners and you will just have to keep dialog going. Many sites that treat gamblers badly also treat affiliates, advertisers, and business partners badly, and they will become self-evident in time."

I hope that does not bite you, but if it does your partners may feel a little different about the "only one complaint" approach.

I don't believe the OPA can afford the luxury of such an approach - if a member (casino or player) has a beef the Association has to investigate it, and that is done very transparently as is evident from the progress of complaints on the OPA public board. I believe that the offenders are given every opportunity to defend themselves and redress the complaint/s. It is only after that process that the player cautionaries and NOT RECOMMENDED lists start.

My honest personal perception is that the OPA is gaining in credibility and will continue to do so - that's a good thing for all the members and for that matter for the industry too.


Dormant account
In general, the OPA doesn't put a site on the "Not Recommended" list for just one complaint, unless, in the course of discussing the complaint in question the site themselves do something against their position (not answering several emails is a good start...)

The OPA has expelled members on complaints from casinos; has ruled in favor of the casino in many complaints; and does not add a casino to the "Not Recommended" list based on pseudonymous message board postings alone.

We have to have a complaint filed by an OPA member in hand, so that there is player accountability in the process and a casino is not victimized by fraud.

If it looks like there are many complaints and we have OPA complaints in hand, we will also accept complaints from non-OPA members in negotiations for settlement; we will also mediate for OPA member casinos.

Casinos can also be put on the "Not Recommended" list if they lose jurisdictional licensing for violations; principals are found guilty of criminal offenses such as bank or telemarketing fraud; or we are presented with credible expert opinion that the software is not fair.

Again, the IGC does not make any attempt to enforce such standards upon their members.