William Hill Casino banned me from all LIVE Games

[gagamel]

Hi folks
here is a funny story from WH. In the last two month i was a little bit lucky and won some Euros (about 6000) and paid all my wins out. I made all my wins with Blackjack and Baccarat, sometimes with the Live Dealers. Two weeks ago i wanted to play again, but for me there are no Live Dealers and my max. bet for online BJ and Baccarat is now Euro 30 . I asked the support why and got a mail back:

Dear Sascha,



We write further to your recent contact with our Customer Support Team regarding the fact that you are unable to access the Live Games specifically the Live Baccarat in our casino.



William Hill Casino Club reserves the right, through our terms and conditions, to accept or refuse the whole or part of any bet placed with ourselves. At times we may choose to restrict the game(s) which a customer may play, but this is within our right to do so. This practice is common throughout the gaming world and whilst we understand you may not be satisfied with this, it is our prerogative to do so.



We apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause you and value your on-going custom with William Hill Casino Club.



We appreciate your understanding regarding this matter. Should you have any other queries, please feel free to contact us.



Kind Regards,



Adriana Fernàndez-Ruis

Account Specialist


Well, I played for years WH, sometimes a winner, sometimes a looser. But after that I left. In my opinion it`s not a good way to handle with customers.

 

[mn001]

That is just stupid of them. They have the advantage and there is no way to beat the game for the player. Just use another casino. Many others use the same live casino and have same limits as they have.

 

[david92506]

PAB!

I would post a PAB because this behavior isn't acceptable from an accredited casino.

 

[Seventh777]

Firstly - This behaviour is/will be accepted as it is part and parcel of the T&C`s that we all accept upon registering.

Secondly - This does however show the mentality of those in charge at this brand, I can comfortably vouch for - that the average casino with managers that are mathematically apt, would have done the complete opposite in this case, and increased the maximum bet allowed.

 

[ThePOGG]

Clearly they think you were doing something to gain an advantage. They're most likely wrong - being fairly well versed in offline AP, Baccarat offers only extremely rare ops for the player to gain advantage and you'd need a huge betspread. Live blackjack could be counted with a very aggressive betspread to compensate for the very poor penetration, but while you would technically have an advantage if you did it right the extremely slow pace would would make your hourly EV so low as to be a waste of time.

Unless there's more to this story than meets the eye it's simply a case of a casino security team getting uncomfortable with the speed you've won at and deciding to ban you just in case. Don't think there's any grounds for a PAB - WH are well within their rights to decline players for whatever reason they like as long as it's not discrimitory and they don't seize any of your funds.

 

[Cristian]

Short version :


Dear Player :
Here at WH we love losing players ! Unfortunately sir , you are not one of them , so we can`t let you play the way you want to . Our games have a house edge but in your case it`s not doing it`s job , so we don`t think it`s fair . So we lowered your maximum stake , and banned you from playing our live casino . Stick with the software please , we are pretty sure that it will eat you alive so we can make a profit out of you , our beloved and valued player .
Should you have any other queries, please feel free to contact us.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I've seen this mentioned a few times now (not just at CM but elsewhere).

Why do players get banned from live games but NOT from the software games? The casino doesn't ban the player, it just bans him from playing one flavour of their games.

Theoretically they should be identical (random games with a house edge), why do casinos not treat them as such?

The cynic might conclude that there's something about the software versions of the games that's different from the live versions of the games.....

 

[ThePOGG]

The cynic might conclude that there's something about the software versions of the games that's different from the live versions of the games.....

There is a difference - it is possible to use advantage play techniques on live games that it is not possible to use on any game using a RNG. And there in lies the rub, there's a big difference between possible and worthwhile and many casino surveillance operatives don't understand the practicalities of real world advantage play in any form. This leads to excessively quick barrings of players that have done nothing more than be lucky.

I remember a few years ago i won a five figure sum off a Playtech casino on a fairly small sign up bonus. It was nothing more than a string of good luck, hitting a series of four figure wins in succession. I played way past the wagering requirement and every time i withdrew some of the money i'd win more. One day i went to play and found my account locked while CS informed me my account was 'pending investigation', the next day i could log in and i withdrew some of my funds. The next day i received an email informing me that my account was locked again. The next day my account was unlocked, then locked again, then closed - according to CS - then re-opened, then closed again, then re-opened but the substantial number of comp points i'd earned were seized. In the end the casino paid the full amount including comp points and i never played there again. The impression i was left with was that there were two departments arguing over how to handle my account. I had won a large amount and that'd scared one department that felt that despite there being no evidence to support the claim, i must be manipulating the game in some nefarious fashion and another department that just saw a player who got lucky and would potentially lose at least a portion of that balance back.

The point is that there doesn't always need to be any more justification for a casino to ban you other than a large win.

 

[Westland Bowl]

........The point is that there doesn't always need to be any more justification for a casino to ban you other than a large win.

When an online casino does this, ban a player just because he won big, it hurts the reputation of that casino. In the long run, the casino wins so what's for them to be afraid of? It looks as if they think the player has a winning betting system they fear. And to suggest the player to bet in the software version instead of the Live dealer version? That suggests they have more control over blackjack hand outcomes or the computer figures out the betting strategy and counters it. Not so random in my view.

 

[ThePOGG]

When an online casino does this, ban a player just because he won big, it hurts the reputation of that casino. In the long run, the casino wins so what's for them to be afraid of? It looks as if they think the player has a winning betting system they fear. And to suggest the player to bet in the software version instead of the Live dealer version? That suggests they have more control over blackjack hand outcomes or the computer figures out the betting strategy and counters it. Not so random in my view.

And how is that any different than banning a player from using progressive betting systems? (I've seen that in t&cs btw)

The point i was making isn't that casinos should ban players like this, it's that there are just as many people who believe in non-sensical gambling systems working for casinos as play at them. It's still a relatively common practice on b&m casino floors for a floor manager to switch dealers on a winning player to try and 'break their streak'. Does the person who deals the cards change the cards that are dealt?

As to Live vs RNG, if Playtech are cheating with their RNG games there's nowhere safe to play, but more importantly it's probably easier for them to cheat with their live games. Often the view you have of the shuffle is weak at best and a talented mechanic could easily manipulate the cards but more importantly on a regular bases new shoes are switched in, and even though they shuffle the new shoe before play as long as you know the shuffle proceedure beforehand it would be easy to arrange the shoe in such a way as to work out extremely negatively for the player. From intentionally leaving a pack of cards untouched to ensuring a higher than normal distribution of high cards are removed from play live games are by no means a safe haven for online players and would be the first place i'd send a player if i wanted them cheated.

 

[maxd]

The point is that there doesn't always need to be any more justification for a casino to ban you other than a large win.

I believe a more accurate and realistic statement would simply be "there doesn't need to be any justification for a casino to ban you". There's no need to muddy the waters with the "large win" stuff since it's much more far-reaching than that.

Most T&Cs say something like "we can ban you at any time without notice or explanation". They have this there to protect themselves and when you get right down to it all they are really saying is "we don't have to provide our services to anyone we don't wish to have as a customer". That's not unreasonable, assuming any outstanding balance issues are resolved prior to such action.

I'm not suggesting it is good Customer Service practice to do this. I'm only saying there is no reason a business should be compelled to provide services to a customer it does not want, assuming we're not talking about overt and blatant racism and even then the "right" or "wrong" of it would depend on the licensing jurisdiction.

I would post a PAB because this behavior isn't acceptable from an accredited casino.

I'd say a PAB is not really applicable, see above for details.

 

[vinylweatherman]

So, someone high up at WH thinks betting systems work.

Well, I don't play there, but I DO have a large barrel of snake oil for sale if anyone at Will Hill Online is interested - preferrential rates for operators, guaranteed to lubricate the odds in the casinos' favour

Their betting shops have the same mentality, and will ban punters merely for being incredibly lucky. It is no more logical an argument than the sore loser who protests that his ridiculous losing streak is down to the casino having manipulated the outcomes, rather than just being unlucky.

Since when was Will Hill accredited

This is just one example of the nonsense that seems to flow so easily from the Playtech stable, and why I no longer trust pretty much any Playtech operator to have the required level of knowledge and integrity to run a casino.

In most cases, it is the LIVE games that get most of the blame for cheating players, and this seems to be because humans are involved, and can be corrupted. Funnily enough, casinos say that the games cannot be manipulated by clever players because of the high levels of security and vetting of staff involved. Odd that this view suffers a 180 degree turn when it is the CASINO that keeps losing at the live games.

I am more inclined to trust the software than the live games, provided it is a brand that has undergone thorough testing, and has been around for a while, and not been involved in any "cheating" scandals.

The problem with Playtech is that this isn't a case of the OP simply going to an unrelated Playtech operator, as this restriction will have been added to their central database, and any Playtech operator that subcontracts some aspects of it's operation to Paragon International Customer Care is going to be "flagged" that the OP ought to have this restriction applied.

To determine if any Playtech casino uses this company, ask where players in general (not mentioning a country of origin) should send notarised documentation. Any that give you an address in the Philippines will be using Paragon International Customer Care.

 

[KasinoKing]

Since when was Will Hill accredited

I don't think they ever have been - unless it was way back before I found CasinoMeister, when they were using Crypto software and before they sold out to Cpays...

KK

 

[davidfordham]

davidfordham

Hi all,
seems to me that whoever says whatever, the casinos will get your money.
Those of us who possess average---or perhaps a little above---IQ, clearly see the player is being manipulated. So no matter what your selection might be (Roulette) you know it will not come up in your favour, sometimes being able to predict the outcome of the spin pretty accurately. In any case it will lose because 'SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE' is being manipulated as you play.
No one will ever convince me otherwise.
Rather than doing this in an underhanded way, why do the casinos not just tell the player he is too good and cannot play their casino any longer.
I rest my case.

 

[ThePOGG]

I believe a more accurate and realistic statement would simply be "there doesn't need to be any justification for a casino to ban you". There's no need to muddy the waters with the "large win" stuff since it's much more far-reaching than that.

Absolutely - as with any business, casinos should be able to refuse custom to whomever they wish. The point about the large win was simply made as this is often what initiates the enforcement of such rules. When you have a big win and a casino think that you are doing something to beat the odds, but they can't figure out what, that's the most common reason for them to enforce the 'we don't like your face' rule

 

[gagamel]

I don`t know a winning system for Baccarat. For me its a game of pure chance. Now I don`t play this game in WH. I now play 32red and won also in the last 6 weeks (Euro 4000). I withdraw the money, they paid out. And they didn`t banned me and I had the chance to lose my winnings and I did. That`s fair play. I`m sure that I would have lost a part of my winnings also in WH and that`s the reason why I don`t understand the decision.

 

[maxd]

The point about the large win was simply made as this is often what initiates the enforcement of such rules.

I understand that it may appear that that is true but from what I've seen working with player cases and casino Risk Assessment people it is usually more like this:

• play signs up, plays without a major win, casino pays no particular attention.
• player wins big -- maybe attempts to withdraw -- and the casino's Risk department kicks into action.
  [*]Risk department finds something they don't like, there may or may not be solid proof.
  [*]Risk department advises the casino to cut the player loose.
  [*]casino decides the player isn't worth the risk.
• the player's account is closed.

Note that all those middle steps are never seen by the player, all the player sees is the win then ... the end result.

My point being that to the player it seems as if the win was the reason. But of course it wasn't, it was something Risk found and didn't like and the rest followed because of that.

 

[Casinomeister]

Talk to any operator and they will agree that big winners are great; most will eventually play back their winnings at one point or another. And as long as that player is satisfied with the service provides - they will keep playing. It's quite simple. Max laid out a pretty good scenario on what probably happened. The casino felt that the player was a risk and cut him loose. I don't see any issue in that.

Hi all,
seems to me that whoever says whatever, the casinos will get your money.
Those of us who possess average---or perhaps a little above---IQ, clearly see the player is being manipulated. So no matter what your selection might be (Roulette) you know it will not come up in your favour, sometimes being able to predict the outcome of the spin pretty accurately. In any case it will lose because 'SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE' is being manipulated as you play.
No one will ever convince me otherwise.
Rather than doing this in an underhanded way, why do the casinos not just tell the player he is too good and cannot play their casino any longer.
I rest my case.

Well since the games are designed with the house edge, it is a hard cold fact that the longer you play the closer you will get to that actual RTP. The house wins - always. Unless the games are designed with a player edge - but that's a different story.

We all know that gambling is gambling - it's a game of chance, and you are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

Like the man says, "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away and know when to run."

 

[Casinomeister]

And for the record, WH has never been listed in the Accredited Section.

 

[gagamel]

I understand that it may appear that that is true but from what I've seen working with player cases and casino Risk Assessment people it is usually more like this:

• play signs up, plays without a major win, casino pays no particular attention.
• player wins big -- maybe attempts to withdraw -- and the casino's Risk department kicks into action.
  [*]Risk department finds something they don't like, there may or may not be solid proof.
  [*]Risk department advises the casino to cut the player loose.
  [*]casino decides the player isn't worth the risk.
• the player's account is closed.

Note that all those middle steps are never seen by the player, all the player sees is the win then ... the end result.

My point being that to the player it seems as if the win was the reason. But of course it wasn't, it was something Risk found and didn't like and the rest followed because of that.

What do you mean with "RISK"?
I have a lot of routine with card games and I (mostly) know when it`s time to go. If this is a risk for a casino then I can`t believe it.
But maybe they think I`m Merlin and I have the power to change the rules of a game. If WH told me that as the reason for my ban I would have been proud and had a beer. But that`s not the reason. Since march I had a lot of wins and I took the wins consistent. sometimes two withdraws a day. They don`t want restraint players.

 

[Casinomeister]

Maybe you were flashing the live dealers

Seriously, only the casino knows. Max was making a general statement regarding the situation. It may not be the way you play, but the jurisdiction you are from, or perhaps you've been profiled and booted. As far as I know the WH rep hasn't communicated anything.

 

[ThePOGG]

My point being that to the player it seems as if the win was the reason. But of course it wasn't, it was something Risk found and didn't like and the rest followed because of that.

But as you said, the Risk department often don't know what they've actually found - suspicion is usually enough to action a barring and often casino risk departments simply don't have a deep enough understanding of game theory to actually establish whether the player is actually a risk or not, so they cut them loose simple to avoid the risk. Certainly it's not uncommon in b&m casinos to see a player backed off without the casino actually knowing with any real degree of confidence that they're involved in any sort of AP. Having won a notable amount for your betsize is often enough evidence for a risk department to cut a player loose.

I'm not questioning whether the casino have the right to bar anyone they like, simply whether they're consistent in making good decision from their business perspective. You may not as a player see all the steps involved, but that doesn't make the end decision any better informed. The flip side to this is that Risk departments - at least offline - often are both poorly paid for what their job actually involves, and inadequetly trained, so when they make the occasional mistake it's perfectly understandable. I have to assume that it's not all that different within the online casino Risk departments.

 

[ThePOGG]

As far as I know the WH rep hasn't communicated anything.

I would have thought it'd be a waste of your time if the WH rep was to get in contact? They're perfectly entitled to bar the player for whatever reason they like. And being that there are a host of good casinos out there to play at (several highly reputable ones that use exactly the same Live Dealer system), this should really just be laughed off. The player hasn't lost anything and as much as it may be inconvenient - or even a little pride damaging - it really shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Silencio]

Talk to any operator and they will agree that big winners are great; most will eventually play back their winnings at one point or another. And as long as that player is satisfied with the service provides - they will keep playing.....

So true, not sure about live dealer players though.. but all the other gambling types, hell yes..
And as a player, I wish they banned me after winning.. I would've been a rich man.

 

[vinylweatherman]

What is odd is that this was only a ban from live games, not the casino. If this were purely a risk issue, the player would have been booted completely. This is far more specific than there being something odd found, the risk department not having any proof, or even evidence to take things further, and playing safe and booting the player. The risk department clearly have something more solid to go on, and it is specific to the live games. It means the casino don't entirely trust the live games cannot be tampered with by a very clever player, but they see no risk in allowing the player to carry on playing against the RNG.

Perhaps there have been past instances of players being able to influence the live games, and they are booting players who have a profile that suggests they might have found a way to do it.

I do remember that oddity at 32Red that had them give a player the benefit of the doubt over a large live dealer bet, and then pull the game. I don't think they found out what had happened, but there was clearly uncertainty over whether something could have gone wrong.

The simplest worry could be that some players have managed to tap into the feed at source, and see the result before it manages to find it's way through the cyberhighway into the casino lobby. Not so far fetched if you remember that such things could be bounced from a satellite, so a direct feed would gain a second or more, possibly long enough to outsmart the live dealer software.

They would have no proof, but would be able to calculate whether this could have happened by using probability theory on the players' outcomes.

I think Playtech live dealer games come from studios in the Philippines, which is half way round the world from where they are consumed. If you believe Einstein, it could be done