Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

external image

Any Betat/Slotty Vegas reps on here?

Status
Not open for further replies.
EkJR said:
As above. Looking to speak about an old account.
Click to expand...
The dropdwon menu right above the forum where you posted (and right beside the word 'Forum') entitled - Staff and iGaming Reps is where you'll find..naturally...the iGaming Reps, including BETAT
 
TheSam469 said:
Simply means that real funds contribute to the wagering of the bonus. Bonus remained non sticky. In the past, the wagering was bonus only x 30, where only bonus funds contributed to wagering.
Click to expand...

Not and remain compliant with UKGC regs it doesn't. They could do that outside of the UK market, but within the UK as long as the user has only placed wagers with the deposited funds, they need to be able to withdraw the deposited funds and winnings at any time. An operator could choose to allow deposited funds to contribute to the wagering, but this would be a risky decision given the withdrawal rules enforced by the regulator and one I'm not aware of any operator actually taking.

This is just a different way of expressing a larger wagering requirement. Could as easily have been listed as 70xb (for a 100% bonus). It gets a little more complicated when messing with the percentages, but shouldn't impact which bets contribute to the wagering or when you can withdraw.

TP
 

"They could do that outside of the UK market, but within the UK as long as the user has only placed wagers with the deposited funds, they need to be able to withdraw the deposited funds and winnings at any time" - Not sure I understand, but when a bonus is non sticky, it normally means you can withdraw your winnings - as per UKGC regulation?
 
Dosen’t affect the withdrawing of your cash balance which you can do at any time. All casinos I know of since the change of bonus rules by UKGC your wagering only starts when you start to use your bonus. With betat/slotty wagering starts immediately which means you have the opportunity to convert your bonus to real funds even if you never go into bonus funds while still allowing you to cash out real funds at any time. Pretty decent actually but that’s just my opinion
 
The term "sticky" means a non-withdrawalbe bonus. It is a bonus that 'sticks' to your account and is removed by the operator when you withdraw (i.e. you can never withdraw it, even after completing the wagering requirements). This term has been in use for decades now and was a lot more common back when the Playtech platform operators were more common and preferred not to allow players to ever withdraw a bonus. It was an attempt to stop bonuses being used to gain an advantage over the house. It was unsuccessful and this type of bonus was still exploitable.

By the UKGC regs as long as you are only playing with your deposited funds you are free to withdraw your deposit and any winnings at any time. Effectively you are not subject to any bonus terms as long as you have not played with the bonus (including the wagering requirement, which is why play with your deposit does not normally contribute to the WR at operators using this bonus structure). The moment you place any wager with the bonus part of your balance (always stacked underneath the deposit), the whole balance becomes subject to bonus terms. As such you then have to complete the wagering requirement before you can withdraw anything. Once the wagering requirements are complete however, you are free to withdraw the entire balance including any bonus funds - the fact that you can withdraw the bonus funds (they're not deducted from your balance) classifies this bonus as a "cashable" bonus, albeit one that deviates slightly from the original format where all wagers contributed to the WR and your balance was locked from the moment you received the bonus.

On a side note this can make for a lot of additional complaints, especially with regard to max bet rules. While playing with your deposit the max bet rules should not apply. When you cross over to deposited funds it then does. Unless the player's watching carefully this is an easy pitfall. I do understand what the UK authorities were trying to achieve with this policy, but from a dispute mediation pov the bonus structure they've enforced is more complex and less intuitive for players to understand.

TP
 
mac72 said:
Dosen’t affect the withdrawing of your cash balance which you can do at any time. All casinos I know of since the change of bonus rules by UKGC your wagering only starts when you start to use your bonus. With betat/slotty wagering starts immediately which means you have the opportunity to convert your bonus to real funds even if you never go into bonus funds while still allowing you to cash out real funds at any time. Pretty decent actually but that’s just my opinion
Click to expand...

If they are specifically wagers from your deposit to contribute to the WR, they're the only operator I'm aware of doing this while using this structure. I'm not questioning you at all it's just an abnormality in the market. I would be interested to see how they then try to manage other bonus terms (like the max bet mentioned above) before the player has placed the first bonus wager (and thus engaged the bonus contract).

TP
 
ThePOGG said:
If they are specifically wagers from your deposit to contribute to the WR, they're the only operator I'm aware of doing this while using this structure. I'm not questioning you at all it's just an abnormality in the market. I would be interested to see how they then try to manage other bonus terms (like the max bet mentioned above) before the player has placed the first bonus wager (and thus engaged the bonus contract).

TP
Click to expand...
I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand and actually fairer than anything else out there I’m aware of?? When your playing with real funds that’s it, your entitled to do as you please bet whatever size you want and withdraw at any time. When you go into bonus funds the normal rules apply and until you complete the wagering your bonus is locked. The slant being put on this appears to be that they have implemented something that is disadvantageous to the player, which I think is a misrepresentation as what they are actually letting you do is have a chance to convert your bonus funds to withdrawable cash should you never even touch those funds.Its a parachute bonus and an added edge rolled into one.
 
I would be interested to see how they then try to manage other bonus terms (like the max bet mentioned above) before the player has placed the first bonus wager (and thus engaged the bonus contract).

I haven’t even looked at the terms as I’m on my phone but if you haven’t placed “your first bonus wager” can’t see how it would matter what max bet you play with cash .
In a nutshell all I see different is they are allowing your real money wagering to contribute to your turnover for bonus conversion and everything else is the same as it is elsewhere. The wagering requirements have been upped a bit but are reflective of this as said previously if you’ve had a good run with your own cash you may well convert the bonus given to withdrawable cash as well which i do agree is an anomaly but a good one
 
mac72 said:
I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand and actually fairer than anything else out there I’m aware of?? When your playing with real funds that’s it, your entitled to do as you please bet whatever size you want and withdraw at any time. When you go into bonus funds the normal rules apply and until you complete the wagering your bonus is locked. The slant being put on this appears to be that they have implemented something that is disadvantageous to the player, which I think is a misrepresentation as what they are actually letting you do is have a chance to convert your bonus funds to withdrawable cash should you never even touch those funds.Its a parachute bonus and an added edge rolled into one.
Click to expand...

You are entirely entitled to your own opinion. What I was saying is that, dealing with player complaints, this comes up on a regular basis. Player starts playing without restrictions, doesn't realise they've crossed into playing with the bonus, and voila, instant bonus term violation. Where the rules apply from the start the player doesn't have to remember to keep an eye out for when the rules start to apply. Mathematically the system the UK have put in place is slightly better for the player (though not by that great a deal imo) if the player keeps an eye on this, but for anyone not paying attention it creates an easy pitfall for the player. Personally, I feel that not having this pitfall outweighs the marginal value gains on offer with the UK system.

TP
 
Last edited:
If a player engages a bonus with their deposit, then its up to them to keep an eye on the amount of bonus they receive on top of their deposit. IMO, if you're going to gamble, you need to be all there. If you deposit 20, and get 20 bonus, then you need to know that once you get to 20 left in your account the bonus rules apply.
 
ThePOGG said:
You are entirely entitled to your own opinion. What I was saying is that, dealing with player complaints, this comes up on a regular basis. Player starts playing without restrictions, doesn't realise they've crossed into playing with the bonus, and voila, instant bonus term violation. Where the rules apply from the start the player doesn't have to remember to keep an eye out for when the rules start to apply. Mathematically the system the UK have put in place is slightly better for the player (though not by that great a deal imo) if they player keeps an eye on this, but for anyone not paying attention it creates an easy pitfall for the player. Personally, I feel that not having this pitfall outweighs the marginal value gains on offer with the UK system.

TP
Click to expand...
Before on slotty/betat your bonus and wagering requirement to turn it into withdrawable cash only started when you started wagering bonus funds and all the other rules kicked in then too (max bet etc.) .This is the way every other UKGC licenced Casino I've played at works since they changed the rules re locking in your real cash when taking a bonus.

All I see different is that your real cash wagering contributes to your ability to cash out your bonus funds, its not limiting how you play with "real cash" it's just an extra in my opinion. Any "pitfalls" for the player when playing with bonus funds at slotty/betat are exactly the same as they are elsewhere (indeed I've found them more lenient, not total confiscation of your entire balance lets say if you place an overbet)
 
mac72 said:
Before on slotty/betat your bonus and wagering requirement to turn it into withdrawable cash only started when you started wagering bonus funds and all the other rules kicked in then too (max bet etc.) .This is the way every other UKGC licenced Casino I've played at works since they changed the rules re locking in your real cash when taking a bonus.
Click to expand...

You are right - if this group are allowing the deposited funds to contribute to the WR then they are dealing with this bonus structure in a different way to the rest of the market. This offsets the increased WR somewhat.

TP
 
ThePOGG said:
If they are specifically wagers from your deposit to contribute to the WR, they're the only operator I'm aware of doing this while using this structure. I'm not questioning you at all it's just an abnormality in the market. I would be interested to see how they then try to manage other bonus terms (like the max bet mentioned above) before the player has placed the first bonus wager (and thus engaged the bonus contract).

TP
Click to expand...
Most, if not all the Skill-on-net sites work this way too. Real funds contribute to the wagering
 
When a casino wont reveal who they are owned by, they have something to hide that is obviously shady. Any legit casino I ask who they are owned by respond without an issue at all. Why? because there is nothing to hide. Just like when I was digging around pragmatic company because they were linked to some shady pasts. They even went as far to send me a pm with all their info where I could cross reference it and invited me to their offices and pay for it.
 
So, to answer the questions about wagering requirements - as for Bonus + Deposit terms, now real funds wagering contribute toward wagering requirement so it offsets the difference equally, while it didnt before. Bonus terms dont kick in until you are using the bonus. Bonus funds don't tie in real funds either, so you can withdraw your real balance whenever you like which is something BETAT Casino and Slotty Vegas have allowed from day one, even before it was forced through regulation. You only are using your bonus funds when you have no real funds in your account, so your real funds are always safe and wont be affected by terms. Its a second chance bonus, quite simply, as I know you are aware. I think our system is one of the fairest you will find, and we have a track record of NOT applying vague terms aimed at confusing. Nothing nefarious at play here.

Duncan, I read with interest your article and will be replying in due course.

Bryan, I dont know if I am missing something, but I still cannot understand why we are continued to be directly linked with "Vulkan 24 Club". It is my understanding through Duncan's chart(admittedly, a first to me) that the brand VulkanVegas.com, wasn't implicated in any wrongdoing except for the "crime" of having their brand at some point associated with the network of servers distributing fake games, while however not distributing any fake games itself. The link between Vulkanbet and VulkanVegas through the affiliate program V-Partners is not of particular interest to me, as it IS the program of Vulkanvegas, and WAS the program of Vulkanbet.

VulkanBet is a fully legal, MGA compliant brand which we bought - no fake games, plenty of genuine providers with commercially beneficial terms for us, german facing, with added product verticals, well priced and last but not least, licensed to use the official Vulkan chain's trademark which we are now fully licensed to use. We went by the book, so no, respectfully, we do not form part of the "online rogues who have hijacked the German outfit's name", to quote Duncan's description. VulkanVegas too appears to be compliant from what I gather, not that it is any of my business, but I'm yet to grasp why that brand is even of interest to us as we have certainly not displayed any interest in it or attempted to buy it. Our due diligence performed on Vulkanbet.com didnt raise anything to be concerned about, certainly not to the degree being shown by members here. Anyway, supporting documentation to provide further context will be released in due course.

Thanks,
Karl
 
Last edited:
Well, there is this too:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Why would anybody in their right mind have anything to do with this Vulkan group? You said the Vulkan group is clean now since they got rid of their cheating games. :what:

And from what I understood - Vulkan bought Betat and co., not the other way around. Why would anyone who is concerned about their reputation buy a casino group that is Russian/Ukraine focused and which has used pirated software. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Or is it that all of these Vulkan connected casinos have nothing to do with Vulkanbet.com - like you said earlier. Because you licensed their trademark??
 

"Oh what a tangled web we weave..."
 
Regarding the calvinayre link... honestly, who are those people? They are not us. I think there is confusion on this vague term "Vulkan Group" to be honest... From what I've looked into, with concern to this Russian Vulkan fiasco, there's far more than one entity offering "Vulkan" themed casino brands. Not all of them offer, or are connected to distribution of fake games. The Malta based company we bought Vulkanbet.com from had only this one site registered to its name, and it comes with full rights to use the legitimate German facing Vulkan brand, not the hijacked russian garbage. The benefits of acquiring vulkanbet.com far outweighed the concerns for us as, as a package it offers huge benefits going into the german market. Negotiations have been ongoing for many months but certain NDAs have prevented us from divulging any information for the time being.
 
Last edited:
CM_BETAT said:
Regarding the calvinayre link... honestly, who are those people? They are not us. I think there is confusion on this vague term "Vulkan Group" to be honest... From what I've looked into, with concern to this Russian Vulkan fiasco, there's far more than one entity offering "Vulkan" themed casino brands. Not all of them offer, or are connected to distribution of fake games. The Malta based company we bought Vulkanbet.com from had only this one site registered to its name, and it comes with full rights to use the legitimate German facing Vulkan brand, not the hijacked russian garbage. The benefits of acquiring vulkanbet.com far outweighed the concerns for us as, as a package it offers huge benefits going into the german market. Negotiations have been ongoing for many months but certain NDAs have prevented us from divulging any information for the time being.
Click to expand...

But this deal with buying Vulcanbet must have been in progress since you were bought up then, since the rumours was out about Vulcan already back then, or how do you explain that?
 
Vulkanbet negotiations started soon after it was decided to go into Germany with a trustly no registration product many months ago, yes. People cant even agree on what/who Vulkan are, let alone when "rumors" and hearsay by god-knows-who start circulating. There is documentation to substantiate everything. To this day, in this very thread we are still being associated with "Vulkan24", who is not us. There are reportedly thousands of "Vulkan" brands circulating, across many different groups - not all of them rogue. The one we are associating with Max Entertainment is Vulkanbet.com, based in Malta, holding the rights to use the Vulkan(Germany) trademark.
 
Last edited:
What strikes me as strange in all of these allegations levied at this particular group is surely the game providers have more resources to investigate who they do business with than those here and on other forums who cast these aspersions?
I would find it incredible if they were doing business with people who were or where linked to those who were software pirates/crooks. As far as I can see Cmbetat have flatly denied all these allegations time and again , perhaps they withheld details of ownership but they’re entitled to just as Bryan and Duncan are entitled not to have them on their accredited lists for doing so but there seems a subtle difference in deciding not to promote a brand and actively seeking to discredit it
 
Last edited:
Our CEO has reached out to anyone who wants to review the ownership documentation to come to our offices. In fact, we welcome it. I certainly do not agree however, that we should be forcedly liberal in openly sharing NDA bound confidential information with regards to our dealings, divulging of which could potentially have negative commercial and legal repercussions, particularly with third parties who as we can read above in this thread and linked articles, openly are stating that they are sharing and discussing this information with no less than three other parties who are clearly misinformed, and evidently do not have our best interests in mind.

And yes Mac72, you are completely right. Due diligence performed on the company/brands and UBO was completed successfully with not a single objection from the MGA, UKGC, Netent, Microgaming, Play n Go, NYX, Yggdrasil, Trustly, Safecharge, Neteller, Skrill, Paysafe, EcoPays, etc - the list can go on and on. These regulators and companies have very, very stringent due diligence procedures and a very big reputation to maintain.
 
It would be great if that was true since that would mean all those rogue casino out there couldn't offer those games or payment options. Now we all know they both have those games and people can pay to play.
There are many platforms out there who are checked but that doesn't mean the casinos that use them are good. Some are good from the start but turn rogue. We never know so we need to be careful and make sure places are trustworthy.
 
Tirilej said:
It would be great if that was true since that would mean all those rogue casino out there couldn't offer those games or payment options. Now we all know they both have those games and people can pay to play.
There are many platforms out there who are checked but that doesn't mean the casinos that use them are good. Some are good from the start but turn rogue. We never know so we need to be careful and make sure places are trustworthy.
Click to expand...
When I play online I’m putting my trust in two things ,the casino brand I play with and the game provider brand , the two to me are equally important .
You make a very valid point but in the interests of fairness and balance (something I feel isn’t being given to betat/slotty) if they are to be branded “guilty by association “ then Duncan may as well write a piece “The netent/Quickspin/Btg xxxxxxxxx connection” I see no difference.
I accept the initial reservations and commentary on the possible “connection” as being well intentioned but I feel that after the many statements given by CMbetat unless there are further FACTS someone on that side of the argument is going to disclose it’s all just opinions wrongly (and unfortunately starting to seem maliciously)being presented as having some basis in fact.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
 
I couldn't agree more Tirilej - players should always be extremely diligent on where they play. We fully support this.

Unfortunately though I have to disagree with your assertion that what I said above is untrue. In the context of what is being implied, Netent would definitely not be allowing an outfit to use their games if said outfit was implicated in pirating their software. With all due respect, I do not know what your experience is in dealing with these entities from an operator's perspective, but please do not undermine the due diligence procedures of the likes of Netent, MGA and the UKGC. They are very rigorous, and rightly so.

On your comment regarding how some "are good but turn rogue", the due diligence checks were once again implemented due to new ownership as is required by law, so the statement doesn't apply in this case. We have done nothing "rogue" whatsoever, except respect someone's privacy. Once again, our CEO is happy to invite anyone to the office to view relevant paperwork, as he has continuously maintained.
 

Just a comment about Netent. There were casinos that were caught out using fake Netent games. They of course denied knowing about them being fake even though we all know that's not possible.
The fake games were removed and instead they were offered the real Netent games.
It's all a question about what we believe being correct and honest. We don't always have the same believes.
 
Tirilej said:
Just a comment about Netent. There were casinos that were caught out using fake Netent games. They of course denied knowing about them being fake even though we all know that's not possible.
The fake games were removed and instead they were offered the real Netent games.
It's all a question about what we believe being correct and honest. We don't always have the same believes.
Click to expand...
So netent should be rouged/blacklisted then as they knowingly did business with crooks even though they themselves did nothing untoward ? Do you then rouge/blacklist all casinos that offer netent?? THAT is the Pandora’s box opened by the “CONNECTION” piece Duncan wrote
 
CM_BETAT said:
Regarding the calvinayre link... honestly, who are those people? They are not us. I think there is confusion on this vague term "Vulkan Group" to be honest... From what I've looked into, with concern to this Russian Vulkan fiasco, there's far more than one entity offering "Vulkan" themed casino brands. Not all of them offer, or are connected to distribution of fake games. The Malta based company we bought Vulkanbet.com from had only this one site registered to its name, and it comes with full rights to use the legitimate German facing Vulkan brand, not the hijacked russian garbage. The benefits of acquiring vulkanbet.com far outweighed the concerns for us as, as a package it offers huge benefits going into the german market. Negotiations have been ongoing for many months but certain NDAs have prevented us from divulging any information for the time being.
Click to expand...

I've got a different take on this.

The reality here is that the brand you claim to have bought you claimed had no association what-so-ever with the Vulkan properties that had been identified as distributing fake games. That's demonstrably untrue. I've already shown that.

Now on paper I have little doubt that you're right. It's laughably simple to engage company structures to make businesses appear to be entirely independent of each other while they have the same Ultimate Beneficial Owner/s or share other commonalities. It is relatively common practice within the industry to run 'clean' properties to access the regulated markets and other properties owned by separate companies to target the less well regulated markets. Some of the very biggest names are doing this. Anyone who's worked within the industry for any length of time will be aware of this. In fact I'm sure a good number or the members here will be aware of associations between apparently clean UK licensed companies and some of the most questionable rogue outfits in the industry. So this structure wherein there is a single Vulkan brand I've managed to locate that doesn't appear to have distributed the fake games doesn't at all convince me that it was really independent of the rest of the properties which do. While I haven't checked in with the software providers to confirm every single property I've seen with the Vulkan brand, all the properties I've seen share significant artefacts that would strongly suggest that their games may not be genuine (other than your own VulkanBet of course). We're not talking about a single Vulkan property as you keep trying to make out, we're talking about dozens I've looked at using this branding. And the Calvin Ayre article suggests that there are thousands of sites connected to this operation. Given the proliferance of the Vulkan brand amongst those properties that have been identified as running fake games, it seems far from unreasonable to take a measured approach when looking at any operator sharing this branding.

Let's move on to the brand you claim to have bought. While this brand has maintained ownership by a clean company, an MGA license and genuine games, they did share an affiliate program very recently with a property that are hooked-up to a server distributing the fake games to the ID'd Vulkan properties. You've tried to represent VulkanBet as entirely disassociated with any party engaged in wrongdoing. Simply put, I don't believe this and I certainly do not think that the evidence I've presented supports that claim at all. You expect everyone to accept that despite VulkanBet having shared an affiliate program with a property that is clearly associated with the network distributed fake games, that VulkanBet did not share any common owners with V.Partners or VulkanVegas? Yes I am aware of a few affiliate programs that claim to be run entirely independently of their clients, but this structure is extremely uncommon and given the common branding across these products it stretches incredulity to ask that this be accepted as truth.

Seeing your ownership documentation was always a half-way house that at least showed a willingness to cooperate at your end but in truth, due to the trivial nature of structuring companies to appear unrelated, still required a significant degree of good faith from the person viewing the documents. It was never a magic bullet. It's obvious that you wouldn't build the company structure to undermine your claims that there is no association even if you never had any intention of showing them to anyone here. Why would you risk it? The entire purpose of running clean brands is to keep them disassociated from those that are engaged in questionable practices. By the end of this year I could have a company set up that's structure effectively masks my involvement in it and would appear legitimate to any regulator. From my position at least, given what would appear to be a very thin separation between your company and a property that can clearly be linked to the fake game distributors, I'm sorry to say that any good faith as long since evaporated.

The simple truth is that I agree with Bryan's statement above. If I was asked what I think has likely gone on here, my opinion would be that NRR Entertainment's rebrand to MaxEnt likely coincided with a change in UBOs and that the UBOs likely share some commonality with the very groups you are claiming you don't have any association with. In my opinion the people in charge of VulkanBet didn't do quite as good a job as they'd thought of keeping the property totally disassociated from their other properties.

Sadly, this is once again supported by the traffic we received early on to this article. I posted this article on Tuesday in our blog section. The interesting thing about our blog section is it receives very very little traffic. The only way for a user to find the blog on our site is to locate the link in the footer - we don't have it in the main nav bar or highlighted anywhere on the site. It's poor design on our part and something that we'll address in the near future. It also is very infrequently updated with anything that would be specifically attention grabbing (we have started posting some slot theme article there in preparation for a new homepage design, but these are relatively generic slots articles that are unlikely to be a massive draw - I certainly don't think users are waiting anxiously for the next article and our traffic to this section supports that view).

I specifically didn't let anyone know about the article at the point I posted it. I wanted to speak to Bryan first. The community this information was most relevant to is this one, Bryan had closed the last thread on this issue and I didn't want to disrespect Casinomeister as a whole by re-opening a discussion Bryan may not have wanted re-opened. Bryan's a busy guy, he as a lot to deal with, and it was the end of Tuesday. It took a couple of days for him to get to this.

Late on Wednesday, with still no coverage of the article anywhere, I started seeing traffic on that page specifically from Malta and there was a very high average time on page. Given the entire lack of coverage that this article had been given it seems a very good guess that someone working within the industry who is based in Malta had been keeping an eye on our blog. That's a little surprising to be honest, given the infrequency of this type of significant post, but not entirely out with the realms of plausibility. Then early on Thursday, again with no coverage of this article, I started to see traffic from the Ukraine turning up on that page and again spending a lot of time on it.


weird-traffic.jpg


No other page within our blog section was receiving anywhere near this type of attention and this is very very far from our natural traffic demographic. Maltese traffic and Ukrainian traffic. I'm sure I don't need to point out at this stage why that would be a remarkable coincidence in terms of traffic demographic to just so happened to have been keeping an eye on the blog section of our site.

It's also worth noting that this url is not ranking in Google even now (likely due to the poor site design I highlighted above), so these have been people who are coming straight to the site not searching and just so happening to find us:

google.jpg
 
Last edited:
Could I be wrong about all this? Yes, and that is why I haven't asserted anything as absolute fact. But I'm certainly not prepared to direct players to or fund this operation further based on the seemingly small likelihood that this has all just been one horrible unlikely coincidence after another, after another that have left an entirely innocent party looking bad.

The truth of the matter is that this is not an outcome I wanted. I personally liked many of the people involved. More importantly, before making the post I did last week I was well aware that the likely response from the operator would be to close our affiliate account, retaining the traffic that we had provided in good faith but refusing to honour any future payment on said historic traffic (they are legally entitled to take this action but I can't say I see programs doing this as acting in a particularly ethical manner). I was informed that that had happened before the end of the Saturday.

Over the years BringIt have been one of our most significant partners. While they are not our biggest player database they have received a large number of players from us and would fall within the top 5 (likely #2 if you do not amalgamate the figures for all the properties on a white label license to a single figure). Losing the revenue on the large number historic referrals made to this group is a significant blow to us. The actions taken are far from without direct consequence to us. But I will not allow our service to be associated with the parties that "Max Affiliates" now appear to be involved with. It would be doing a significant disservice to our users and consequentially bad for our reputation.

I do not like the outcome of all of this, but nor will I take the easy out of accepting the vagaries of "you can't prove it absolutely - the paperwork says there's no relationship" in face of all the evidence and common sense.

TP
 
CM_BETAT said:
Who are these casinos please? To say "oops we didn't know they were fake" is not rooted in reality and shows a clear lack of understanding of how these things work.
Click to expand...

It really does :rolleyes:

However on this particular topic that is the standard approach from NetEnt and I don't have any particular issue with it. We've worked directly with the legal team at NetEnt to help them identify operators distributing fake versions of their games in the past and have an ongoing dialogue with their team on this subject.

Some software providers within the market have taken a black ball approach to any party found distributing fake games. The result, the fake games continue to be offered. NetEnt look to rehabilitate operators by looking to engage legitimate games in place of the fake ones. The results are that there are less fake games on the market. Personally I don't like seeing these operators supported in any manner, but who am I to deny the clearly more effective strategy when it comes to trying to ensure that less players are exposed to these rip-offs.

In this manner NetEnt have never worked with the fake game operators themselves and as such there's no grounds to blacklist them. However the operators themselves have, and I've yet to see a single operator who's been caught offer to refund the losses from players who have engaged with these fake games, so they remain on the blacklist. Pretty straight forward..

TP
 
Last edited:
Duncan, of the "demographics" you are pointing to, I ask once again that you apply some context. Something you seem intent on not affording us.

Our office is in Malta, and this article was directed to me by one of our staff. Hence yes, criminally apparently of us, some of us opened the article you put in the public domain. That's the Malta quota accounted for.

Onwards, both our previous owner and new owner are Ukrainian. They were of course forwarded the links particularly considering you are insisting on associating them with some criminal bust up which they have nothing to do with. Are they criminals for viewing what you publicly posted incorrectly about them? Are they supposed to be okay with it? Should I let them know that in the future they should use a VPN as if they view one of your articles from home they may be incorrectly deemed criminals?

Does that pretty much account for the total of views which you are using to implicate us in something you are hoping for? Does it irrefutably connect your dots? This is exhausting and getting so petty.

Next, yes, your account was closed due to a personal decision by our Affiliate manager after you posted his personal linkedin profile and called him untrustworthy - which he is not. That is the only reason that happened, and was the case before you posted any article. He does not want to work with you after what you posted about him. You had no right to publicly attack him in the way you did, and he is within his right to not want to have anything to do with you.

Duncan, you can choose who you want to work with, and so can we. You mention above that you are fully aware of brands you work with who have their dark sides, yet for some reason we are under your microscope - doing all possible to uncover something, anything. I don't know why your moral compass shifts so easily, and others who are seemingly doing more "rogue" things than this 'guilty by association' charge are left unperturbed.

To touch quickly on your assertion regarding common branding of "Vulkan", even going as far as to suggest that we form part of this monstrous group that have hijacked the honest German landbased outfit of Vulkan, WE are the opposite side of that - we own the rights for the actual trademark and in fact have a number of standing cease and desist orders against many of these rogue operations you are pointing to!

It really has reached a point where I cannot be bothered anymore with these assertions, as I truly do not have the time to keep this up. I will not continue to engage in this publicly, particularly when there is so much said of such little substance. If there's anything you require, my skype remains open as it has been for the past 8 years.

Thanks,
Karl
 
Last edited:
I had no idea your previous owner was Ukrainian, but good to know the new one is.

So I guess even though the network of Vulkan casinos being caught in Ukraine and Russia before, you are absolutely sure that your new owner had nothing to do with them?
 

Yes there are potentially plausible explanations for any of these points individually - though it is nice to know that specifically was your team - but when all the different little pieces of information are taken into consideration as a whole the context changes. Interesting to know that both the former and current owners are Ukrainian.

You can look to disregard or undermine each point individually, but again and again the same ties come-up with regard to your group. That cannot, and should not be ignored by anyone looking to take a responsible approach to who they work with.

CM_BETAT said:
Next, yes, your account was closed due to a personal decision by our Affiliate manager after you posted his personal linkedin profile and called him untrustworthy - which he is not. That is the only reason that happened, and was the case before you posted any article. He does not want to work with you after what you posted about him. You had no right to publicly attack him in the way you did, and he is within his right to not want to have anything to do with you.
Click to expand...

Do you think making business decisions on personal affront is a professional approach? I'm not vying for the account to be re-opened. Our decision was a business decision based on the information that's come out and we had already accepted the loss prior to taking the action. Perhaps you want to consider that and how making business decisions based on an individual's hurt feelings ultimately reflect on the business as a whole.

And as it happens that's a gross mis-representation of what was posted, where the individuals name and photo was specifically edited out in respect for their privacy (even after the individual stated that didn't need to be the case) while simply pointing out the branding that was being used on the page to emphasize a legitimate point. I even went so far as to specifically state "I don't like identifying individuals in association with this type of thing (they are after all usually just employees doing what they're paid to do to earn a living) and the purpose of the above is to show the 'Max Entertainment' branding being used. As such I've removed the photo and name", so please, don't represent that I've made some damning public judgement on this individual's character. Yes I do feel let down by all of the people I've worked with on your team, but you are just people who are trying to make a living - you are not ultimately the ones who could be considered responsible for any of this.

CM_BETAT said:
Duncan, you can choose who you want to work with, and so can we. You mention above that you are fully aware of brands you work with who have their dark sides, yet for some reason we are under your microscope - doing all possible to uncover something, anything. I don't know why your moral compass shifts so easily, and others who are seemingly doing more "rogue" things than this 'guilty by association' charge.
Click to expand...

Actually I've not said anything of the sort. I'm aware of brands doing questionable things in the industry, but we do not work with them. If we find out that one of the brands we are working with is doing something questionable we end the relationship. That's somewhat the point of all of this.

TP
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Resolved BetMGM/LeoVegas “Account Review”
Replies
16
Views
2K
maverick99999
M
P
Duelz Casino refusing to pay me £4500
Replies
8
Views
771
johnxo
J
DreamRJ
Question Entain Group? MGM Resorts International? LeoVegas Group? All owned by Entain?
Replies
1
Views
238
dunover
dunover
W
Sky Vegas, winnings not credited
Replies
3
Views
283
mulven
mulven
C
Controversial I know!
Replies
15
Views
874
Cherries
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top